Solo Solo box-office discussion

To say that I've been grown up with the PT, I'm definitely too old for, but the prequels were the first I saw from Star Wars movies. And of course SOLO was a MUST SEE for me, because for me as a fan every Star Wars movie deserves at least to make a first-hand impression on me, before giving in to certain negative social influencing wherever.

I was also curious about how Ron Howard will handle that time gap between the PT and the OT, while SOLO is right in the middle of time between those two, which elements of both trilogies he would be up for to use.

 

I'm from where Mad Max was flippin made and was a kid in the 80s, and we watched Star Wars over and over and never watched Mad Max once.

 

Sure, but you are talking FANS. Im sure most fans watched Solo, but what about average joes? SW has more fans but Solo didnt catch attention of general public. Mad Max of course has less fans but Charlize Therone, many awards and buzz around that film was enough to make Mad Mad and Solo equal in BO.
(PS. Mad Max II was the first film I watched on some lousy 10th copy VHS in my neighbour house and it was fantastic I discovered Home Video )

 

First, Fury Road was released in May, most award shows like the Oscars were several months later.
So awards buzz did little to nothing for the BO.

Second, there are few actors that can give films huge BO just by their presence.
Tom Cruise perhaps, but even he could not save the Mummy.
Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy are well known actors sure but them alone won't give 100 M$ at the BO.
Atomic Blonde made just over 50 M$ domestic and Charlize was in that.
Ghost in the Shell had Scarlett Johansson and that made just about 40 M$ domestic.

And Solo had a much bigger fan base yes but if it didn't catch the eye of regular moviegoers then Fury Road, given it's much smaller fan base, had to have gotten a lot more from that group.
So it isn't really doing Solo a lot of favors by saying that it made as much as another film, which was rated R, had a far smaller fan base and far less name recognition.
Because then the conclusion would then be that Fury Road made it's money largely due to quality of the film itself while Solo had to rely more on it being part of SW.

So again, the comparison seems odd to me.

A better comparison would be X-Men First Class, that I have mentioned.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

I agree that BP was probably too far out to have really damaged Solo, but not sharing theaters doesn't automatically mean there isn't direct competition. Most families don't go to the theater very often. So even if two movies are released a month or two apart, they're competing for what will likely be a lone trip to the theater for any given family.

 

Solo's international cume went down a couple of thousand bucks and the domestic rose a little bit. It's still at $379.790 million, didn't crack $380. It should get it today. $400 million is a very far stretch and Japan only reported $4.5 million. Talk about an ouch!

 

Managed to stay above $1m for the weekend. AM&TW looks like it may be having a similar run with a $75.8m opening.

 

The difference is that Ant - Man and the Wasp absolutely crushed overseas with 80 million or so and that doesn't include a lot of Major markets due to the World Cup so I would expect it to do even better potentially oversee next weekend. It's already at $160 WW and will easily Top the first Ant Man's total and the budget is probably in the $150 range so it's going to come out a winner fairly easily. Where as Solo got dragged down by it's bloated budget and the fact that not many people cared to go see it!

 

Ant-Man 2 will do fine/flat/small increase with the original Ant-Man and higher overseas numbers than domestic like last time. Given its budget, it will be profitable in its box office run for Marvel Studios unlike Solo has reportedly been for Lucasfilm.


(click to enlarge)

Ant-Man and the Wasp (Jul. 2018)
First Weekend: $75,812,205 (Ant-Man 2015 First Weekend +32.48%)

By sequel multipliers ($75,812,205 * x = domestic total):
* 2.28 = $172.9M
* 2.35 = $178.2M
* 2.40 = $181.9M
* 2.41 = $182.7M
* 2.44 = $185.0M
* 2.49 (average) = $188.8M
* 2.57 = $194.8M
* 2.62 = $198.6M
* 2.66 = $201.7M
* 2.73 = $207.0M

On the high end, Deadline thinks it will be 2.75...which is .26 above the average, and .4 below the first entry's multiplier and would be the highest MCU sequel multiplier to date. Their weekend projection before Disney's estimate yesterday morning was overestimated by about $7M.

* 2.75 = $208.5M

 

Yeah, we all know.

 

Ant-Man 2 could lose money hypothetically speaking and Disney would not even really worry about it thanks to the $2.4 billion it made with BP + Infinity War. Ant-Man 2 is off to a good start btw. Over $75 million in it's opening weekend despite being the third Marvel feature this year which again the first two did just insane business.

 

Ant-Man 2's 76M opening is pretty weak (less than Thor 2!) and falls well below Solo, but it underlines some of the same issues.
1) It wasn't a movie the audience was clamoring for.
2) It had a relatively short marketing window, though not nearly as short as Solo.
3) It's a non-essential, low-stakes story that isn't "must-see" for the overall story arc.
4) It suffered from overcrowding. Audiences just spent a lot of money on Incredibles 2 (another light superhero flick) and Jurassic World 2.

 

You can't look at it based on Thor 2 you need to look on it as an Ant - Man Sequel and and as a sequel to the original movie it's doing just fine and was expected to perform better than the original and not do $100 million plus on it's opening weekend. The movie will actually tie directly into Infinity War that I would not be surprised if it has better legs than many films as people find out about how it ends and realize why the story is fun and it's importance to Avengers 4.

Solo on the other hand did not perform better than it's preceding movies and in fact performed worse which is why the two aren't comparable really they as Ant Man is still its own series with its own flavor while being part of the overall MCU. If Solo had been more successful as a franchise starter overall we would be discussing it like the other Marvel movies where as right now Solo seems more like a DCEU movie that makes a studio rethink it's current strategy.

 

What does this mean?

 

Solo didn't have any preceding movies -- it was the first in its (attempted) mini-franchise. If you're comparing Solo to TLJ or Rogue One, then you should compare Ant-Man 2 to Infinity War or Black Panther, in which case AM2 massively failed. It didn't of course, but that's the logic you're using here.

Also, despite bombing at the box office, Solo had its own flavor and if they released another one with a proper marketing window, it would probably do better just because of familiarity and the positive fan response (as opposed to the divisive TLJ).

 

I think it's absolutely fair to put R1 and Solo in the same series. "A Star Wars Story", anyone?

 

"A Star Wars Story" is a branding title, not a series indicator. Solo and R1 are less connected than any two MCU standalones.

 

Exactly, just because they both share the “ASWS” tag line doesn’t mean they will perform equally. They both told different stories in different times of the Dark Times. AM&TW is following two massive Marvel films and with everyone clamoring how Marvel is now better than SWl should AM be doing better too? This movie is tying in to the overall Marvel universe and is probably essential for the next Avengers.

 

Just a $142,000 Monday yesterday. The movie is running low now. It lost a lot of theaters on Friday.

 

Yeah, Solo just got pulled from my local theater.

 

Disney has a lot of movies out at once: Black Panther (52), Avengers 3 (506), Solo (778), Incredibles 2 (4113), and Ant-Man 2 (4206). Only so much to go around for those and everything else that's out.

 

It's fair to compare any of the new SW movies to each other. They're all within the same budgetary range(uber-expensive), marketed to the same audience, etc. Solo is not a "small film" while TLJ is a "big film" as some here are seeming to suggest.

The Solo and Rogue One comparison is completely apt, as they are part of a planned series of Anthology films titled "A Star Wars Story." When people put these on their shelves, the Anthology films will go together. When Solo is released on blu-ray, and other anthology films eventually released, they'll be released as box sets together.

 

Ant Man and The Wasp didnt cost in the region of 300 million to make and is on course to make a decent profit

Solo is the complete opposite.

 

Yeah, we all know.

I'm so excited for this post-Solo world we're living in. A world where we can no longer speak honestly and openly about the box office performance of any other movie in existence, because no matter what, the response is always that Solo bombed...as if somehow relevant to the commentary on the other movies.

 

We can but this is the Solo Box office discussion thread and the thread was already shut down once for going off topic.