ST What Does Poor Solo Box Office Mean For Episode 9?

My thoughts exactly. They would just be like the Legends books or other EU materials in that way. Something the general public doesn’t connect with as strongly but creations that can be profitable nevertheless if budgeted for accordingly.

Marvel knew Punisher was more small scale. A human with incredible killing skills. Solo’s “powers” for general audiences aren’t even at those levels of rarity in the world he inhabits. Marvel has an entire Netflix division for some of their smaller scale works. I don’t see why Lucasfilm couldn’t just set the expectations lower & aim for $400-450 million WW returns & plan for those returns by not spending $250 million dollars on the production and another $100 million on some widely criticized ads that didn’t sell the story well.

If you had 2 x $400 million dollar movies & maybe another breakthrough anthology that was better & maybe earned ljke $600 million and all 3 had lower budgets to ensure the margins are reasonable you still have 1.4 billion in revenue & new ad opportunities & merch to sell. There has to be a way to earn profit in a model like that.

 

My honest assessment. They're not sure named characters like Kenobi or Boba Fett will rake in the cash they want, and they might be worried about spreading themselves too thin this early in the game. Also, I think it's clear that Lucasfilm is looking to move beyond the era of the Skywalkers, which will free them up (creatively) in some potentially interesting ways. I mean Star Wars Rebels was a success story that focused on new characters even if it trod over a familiar time period. Same goes for Rogue One.

I will admit, I am kind of looking forward to moving past this time period....as it means I might get to see Thespians like Byron Mann, Winston Duke and Martha Higareda in leading roles in future trilogies.

 

Is it just pride and ego holding them back versus Marvel?

Movies like Bladerunner 2049, Star Trek Beyond, & Mad Max Fury Road all had less issues holding them back & more critical acclaim & none of them passed $400 million WW.

There’s only shame opposite the old expectations of Star Wars & the new ones set by Marvel but beyond those... studios everywhere would kill for an IP that on its worst days with all the hurdles Solo had... still gets close to $400 million. People are reading novels looking to purchase rights from authors specifically in the hopes of even getting close to $400 million with regularity. if you are releasing fan-focused, smaller scale non mainstream films that earn around $400 million with any degree of regularity then I don’t see why you still don’t aim to still do so. Spend less making them and you’re fine. Profit is profit & you have to be able to earn profit on that if you plan better.

Maybe they will aim to turn these projects into Netflix style movies for their upcoming streaming service instead?

 

I'm hoping that once IX is secure and they have a firm direction in place for what comes next (RJ/B&W) they'll be open to looking at more stand alone story movies. Smaller budget and smaller expectations, but they can still be successful and really add to the universe.

 

Fury Road had a ton of issues including massive reshoots and cost overruns.

 

Wasn't aware of that. I stand corrected.

 

I quite enjoyed this film :-D

 

It seems almost like a knee-jerk response, doesn't it? "An anthology film flopped, so let's not do any more anthology films". But then, "When in doubt, announce a new project" seems to have been Lucasfilm's motto for a while now, and we don't know the real status of any of them. I suspect some hadn't got very far at all, and were thus easy to drop.

 

That seems to be Lucasfilm's motto based on what exactly?
There doesn't seem to be anything that would support such an idea.

As far as I know, they haven't dropped any project they had announced either. There is a difference between random movie- or gossip-sites claiming that something is in development and the studio itself announcing that something is in development. The only movies they actually have announced since Disney bought Lucasfilm, have been TFA, Rogue One, TLJ, Solo and Episode IX, all of which either have been released or have a release-date set. Beyond those movies they had a never truly confirmed third spin-off, and the announced trilogy/series by Johnson respectively Benioff&Weiss, which still seem to move ahead. Anything beyond that was nothing but random speculation that come from other people, including the idea that Lucasfilm stopped development on all anthology films.

There is a reason why studios make announcements and why and how they set the date for such an announcement. Only they do announce things, no one else.

 

Based on the fact that they've announced a lot of projects, some seemingly at rather strategic moments. What have I said that merits being pounced on like this? People were speculating on why those films were being dropped rather than others, I put in my two cents on a possible reason, just as others were. Really hope this isn't going to be one of those things where one poster hectors another for three pages over an idle comment or a word choice or something. There's been far too much of that.

 

There's NO way to bank on a trilogy of an unknown property. Don't announce it. That's insane because suddenly the trilogy is expected and thus criticized. I'm not talking about the ST. I am talking about the Rian Johnson trilogy. IF the story is planned beforehand and it is something that people desperately want to see then maybe. Harry Potter was a guarantee because the books were SO popular. LOTR had to take some convincing. At this point, after IX is all said and done, there's no SW property left that people really really want to see. It's no longer based on something that people already know.

I agree that smaller budgets and smaller expectations for standalone films is a MUCH better idea that having a trilogy planned when the first film in that trilogy could very well be an absolute disaster. Then LF and Disney looks REALLY stupid in having a trilogy planned. With the infectious SW fans, they will attack it like vultures and the other two films will have no chance to see the light of day-ESPECIALLY when Rian Johnson has apparently angered many die-hard fans.

The business model has to change.

 

Yeah, I think Solo's box office will hurt Ep. IX, though it won't be the biggest negative going against it. The biggest three in my view are fan disappointment with TLJ, Star Wars shrinking interest in developing markets, and killing off Luke in TLJ. Just giving us the sense that IX would be Luke's last stand would have been a big draw for the film. Killing him off 1 film early probably cost Ep IX $200-$300 million internationally right off the bat. Star Wars, at its core, is a story about the fall of a father and a son who redeems him. With the death of Luke, that story is essentially over, even if he appears as ghost.

Here's how I think Solo's poor performance will hurt Ep. IX.

Movies, sports events, TV shows get some of their audience from a "must-see" effect. The "must-see" effect simply arises from the fact that we are social creatures and the sense that everybody else is going to see something. We want to be part of the conversation and we don't want to be left out, so we go make sure to see whatever it is everyone else is going to see for that reason.

A poor performing Star Wars film diminishes the "must-see" value of the brand. People realize that by skipping Solo, they didn't miss out on any significant cultural moment. That could then lead them have the feeling that the same will be true about Ep. IX. In addition, there are other franchises that are gaining in "must-see" value in comparison with Star Wars -- most significantly, Marvel. The biggest "must-see" film next year will most likely be Infinity War 2, not Ep. 9. There are a number of films with built in "must-see" value in 2019: Infinity War, Toy Story 4, Bond 25, The Lion King, Frozen 2, It: 2, etc. The Super Bowl or the World Cup are special, in part, because they have no equals. If there were 10 sporting events that have the must-see value of the Super Bowl, then it's likely that the Super Bowl's audience would diminish. Star Wars is no longer the Super Bowl. The rise of other franchises and Solo's mediocre performance makes it just one of the larger fish in the sea.

The other way that I believe Solo may not have helped Star Wars is that I'm not sure it's helped repair the rift in the fandom. Unhappy Star Wars make up a small minority of the overall audience, but they have an outsized voice. They're the type of consumers known in marketing as influencers. Fans talks about the films more, and other people who have less invested in SW are more likely to be influenced by their opinions and have their opinions changed by them. (See the history slowly evolving public response to the PT in the 10 years after its release for an example.) When a new Star Wars film is released, the happy big-time fans are more likely to encourage less enthusiastic friends to see it -- such as in a group activity. And unhappy big-time fans are more likely to discourage their friends from seeing it in those situations. TLJ certainly led to a divisive fan response, and I'm not sure that Solo did much to repair the damage, though I don't think the film made the divide any worse either. However, it certainly showed some big-time fans, who in the past never would've missed a SW film, that they could skip a SW film and "survive" just fine. Not a good lesson for a disgruntled fan to learn just before the release of the last film in a trilogy.


I also agree with the point made by many posters above. It makes more sense to cancel the RJ and GoT SW trilogies rather than the anthology films. Solo doing poorly hurt the brand some, but imagine the humiliation for Star Wars and the damage to brand if the 1st in a trilogy failed, and they then had to scrap its sequels. That would place Star Wars on par with the DCEU or the Divergent series or Universal's Dark Universe, not good company.


One further thought in this overly long post. It's possible that Rey / Kylo could be used to link to a trilogy set in the past. In TFA and TLJ, Rey's dialogue gave hints that she somehow already knew of Ach-to. If Rey is the reincarnation of the 1st Jedi, then the ending of Ep. 9 could link to a KOTOR trilogy. Instead of reusing the ideas of killing/redeeming Kylo, Ep. 9 could even give us something different and essentially transport Rey's and Kylo's souls back to their KOTOR beginnings, thus giving Rey a noble sacrifice by making the choose to leave behind her friends for the greater good and setting up a new trilogy.

 

I approve of the thread title change.

As long as IX gets marketed as much as TFA and TLJ it should be fine. No changes are necessary imo.

Solo was a good movie that suffered from a lack of promotion.

 

They should market it as a generation's final journey, like that one movie.

 

You mean that Trek movie that flopped.

How about just when you though it was safe to go back into space?

Or this time it's war a social justice war.

 

"What Does Poor Solo Box Office Mean For Episode 9?"

straight to netflix

 

Ambitious projects like Rian and D&D are the only way SW is ever going to be a massive hit again, and the only way it will be a long term success.. The people have spoken regarding rehashes of the OT- they aren't going wild about them any more. Yes, it is a gamble to make a huge new trilogy, but you aren't going to get anywhere without some kind of risk- you have to build the SW brand, unless you plan to make SW a franchise where you permanently make one small budget back story movie a year about OT situations with old characters. I don't see long term success there (or maybe even short term success at this point). Not that you can't include those intermittently, but you are not doing a lot for the long term future of the franchise that way. SW is about epic movies with big budgets and special effects/technology innovation, and that should always be a part of what it is.

 

I think a lot of people here love the idea of a RJ trilogy set far in the future.
For me a trilogy in the future (RJ or not) is a horror. It would for sure have references to the time between IX and this trilogy and it would take out a lot of thrill from the story telling of any story between IX and this trilogy. In addition with RJ being in charge, I do not know if this is the right approach at the moment to get fans back.

 

The listed budget of ST:Beyond is 185 M$.
If that is correct and using the usual 2X the budget thing, then this film did not break even at the BO.
And from what I've seen, the poor performance seems to have put future Trek films in doubt.
There is some talk and we did get the ST Discovery series but no more films as yet.

SF films tend to be expensive to make.
Films like Ex Machina or Arrival cost much less but also tend to make much less.

And speaking of ST:Beyond.
The drop from the previous film is 30% domestic and 26% WW.
The drop of Solo is much bigger.
Something like 60% domestic from R1 and over 65% WW.

And for SW, like it or not, but SW has been the BO champ almost every year a SW was released, so when a SW film does less than good, it gets more attention.
Saying in advance that these films will be smaller in scale and have less of a budget, that could get people to skip them in cinema. Because SW tends to have a lot of spectacle, lots of great effects that you had to see in the cinema.
Cutting back on that to save money could turn people off.

Just some thoughts.
Old Stoneface

 

That not only is half-baked speculation, it runs contradictory to what Rian has said about his trilogy. He has made it clear that his stories will not be connected to the saga- we may not even have any kind of reference point to judge when his movies happen time wise as related to the saga.

We have no idea what D&D or Rian will have in terms of content, so I don't think we should be getting all gloomy and worked up about it. Also, it is not a situation of trying to "get the fans back," they need to make a movie that the GA will go to on droves like the first 3. Being too concerned about the fans led to the box office failure of Solo; that's what you get making fan films.

There are actually 2 Trek movies in the works (one is official), and talk of Tarrantino directing the second, wouldn't that be a kick!?!? Also, new show in the works.

Trek will always be like the Rolling Stones to Star Wars being the Beatles, but it will not die. They will always make them.​

 

The Solo Box office was a watershed moment. These movies are just not be unstoppable forces they once were. Those days are done. And that’s fine. You cannot be the top franchise forever. The focus should be more on making quality films. The money will still be there-even if it’s not record breaking.

 

Has any Trek film actually been green-light?
I have heard talk and things being in development but in my experience, the step to a film actually getting made is often a long one.

There will be a second season of ST Discovery.
A series that a lot of Trek fans seem to hate.
I rather like it.

That Star Trek and Star Wars has a strong IP and new content will get made, sure.
But there can be bumps in the road.
Trek has had that more than once.
After ST V, there was a fear that the film had killed the franchise.
ST Nemesis and Enterprise did kill the franchise for a time.

Star Wars is in a far stronger position and so far what might happen is some films being moved back or put on hold.
But more films will come.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Paramount announced that they were developing 2 new Trek movies at once at Cinemacon. Some interesting discussions around those movies.

Star Trek has definitely had the good, the bad and the ugly in their movies, but somehow always manages to be made again.

I think ST: Discovery is quite good also. Looking forward to the second season.

 

Might as well post since I'm here and have thoughts.

I really like STD, too. It's my favorite trek series. I'm not really a huge trekkie. I have a weird relationship with it where I've sampled all of the shows, but have yet to see any one all the way through.

I got close with Enterprise, but lost interest once the temporal cold war was over. With Discovery I love it so much because it's everything I always wished a trek show could be. I even liked the groundhog day eppy and I usually hate those. So if Discovery keeps up the quality it might become the first trek show I stick with to the end. *crossing everything*

As for Solo, haven't seen it because I live an hour away from a cinema and I don't drive, so I generally only make it there once a year at Christmas, as part of our annual Christmas movie family tradition. Dad wanted nothing to do with the Last Jedi so Mom and I went by ourselves. I hope she wants to see 9, too. If not there's a chance we might have moved again so it will be easier for me to get to the cinema if no one else is interested.

If I lived closer I would have gone to see Solo even though I hate that they recast Han because the Qira spoiler interested me. Plus the Lando being pansexual offscreen. But I had no interest before those spoilers.

I'm not worried about it not being a huge box office success. They've got lots of chances for new properties to do better and if their next offerings don't do better, then star wars will go into the disney vault and come back out again when my imaginary children have my imaginary grandchildren, and it will all be new and exciting again.

I was listening to the Thrawn Trilogy audibook last night and thinking how much better that was than anything new that's come out since Disney took over.

If they could just give us one decent new villain they wouldn't have to worry about the box office ever again. *Here's hoping*