Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story/Archive 2

Backlash
"The film was greatly affected by The Last Jedi backlash with fans boycotting Solo to voice their dislike of The Last Jedi.[102]"

I do not find this clearly stated anywhere in the source cited. And, that source is a crappy tabloid-style article on what appears to be a clickbait site whose headline editors have only the feeblest grasp of English grammar, usage, and (especially) capitalization conventions; even if the source did say what this claims it says, it's hardly a high-quality secondary source of the sort Wikipedia ought to be relying on. 50.72.9.214 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Inremoved it. Load of tabloid speculation bull$h!t that doesn't need to be in this article. oknazevad (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed several more unreliable opinion pieces and unverifiable statements; the section I removed had links to, among other things, tabloid rumors, an opinion blog from Medium, and sourcing from unreliable sources like Twitter likes and Grace Randolph, who isn't reliable at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Double the budget to break even?!?
Is there any source for the assertion that the movie has to make double the budget in box office to break even? Is that just some rule of thumb? Did it just get plucked out of the air? Is there any source for that statement at all?? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, scan through or search the article. $500 million is mentioned twice and was cited on the 2nd (now both mentions). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see the reference now. However, the reference just throws that number out there without any mention of how they got it. I'm having a hard time finding a reference that explains how you get a number like that. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article does not explain the doubling at all; this seems to be due to a 50-50 split of profits between the studio and movie theaters. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's widely accepted most movies have to earn twice their cost to break even and way more to actually turn a profit. But this is obviously dependant on how much the studio spent on promoting the film. In Solo's case (as well as most Disney/Star Wars/Franchise movies), it was obviously a lot; for some other movies, the distributors might get by with less. This is why a movie like Batman v Superman can earn 800 million on a 300 million budget and will still be considered as having "under performed". --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I just found a lot of info about it here: https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-blockbusters/ Basically, the twice-the-cost rule generally works, most of the time. The BFI has had a significant role in promoting this rule of thumb. -- Doctorx0079 (talk)

This place is getting worse and worse for facts and I will eventually stop bothering to check this encyclopedia for anything. I'm seeing online that the movie cost 275 million to make, and they spent an addition 150 million on marketing. Can some one verify this and then correct the article, because it looks really dumb that all over the internet sites are saying this movie will lose money while this article says the made back 129%. 50.70.236.24 (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can make back 129% and still lose money. You got that right. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The current reference is the ScreenRant article authored by Chris Agar. He may be guessing correctly based upon customary production, marketing, and distribution accounting that is "known" in motion picture production circles. However, it is not a great reference for the assertion, as it not more than a guess. Based upon the rough figure the studio is giving + Box Office Mojo reports, it could lose money. It seems we will have to wait for the final summary from Disney. Group29 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Budget
Per Deadline Hollywood, the budget is "well north of $300M". Why are we still using $250M as budget and not $250-300M. I just did that and my edit was reverted. --137.59.193.81 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I commented above, it wasn't properly explained why your edit was reverted. I think precedent means the article should list both (even though I'd prefer to list only the most likely figure).
 * You might also need to make sure the figures aren't including other costs besides the production budget, like costs of prints and advertising or other marketing costs.
 * If I were you I'd start by expanding the article text to explain that others put the budget costs even higher than what Disney officially acknowledge. (Nevermind, already done) -- 109.79.135.219 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m normally a supporter of putting budget ranges (like on Tomb Raider or Jumanji) but here, Deadline is only source I see giving a figure above $250 million. And even they don’t list an actual number, just “above $300 million” which doesn’t seem concrete enough to warrant listing in infobox. I made a note a few days ago in the top of the Box office section, but unless multiple sources begin to list it or Deadline gives a more exact number in a future write up I think using the $250 million estimation is the best bet. TropicAces (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Deadline is THE leading trade when it comes to box office info, surely that counts for something instead of needing more sources for 300m number. --137.59.193.133 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that the Infobox is as specific as possible but that the article text expands further and explains that there are other conflicting sources. I think this article balances the available information well. The information is not being excluded and is in the article body, but also it is not being given undue weight by including it in the infobox. If more information becomes available later we'll see. Not that it matters, as part of a larger franchise this film brings in all kinds of other (difficult to measure) revenue beyond the raw box office figures. -- 109.76.133.22 (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only is Deadline not the leading trade, it isn't even considered as a credible source on trade information. It is a blog site. Nothing more. It has no real editorial oversight or in house fact checking. Most of its articles are clickbait without substance. 68.33.74.191 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deadline is arguably the leading trade. And it's more than a blog.  It's owned by Penske, who also publish Variety. They have multiple editors (who worked for NY Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter and others) and there is oversight. Foodles42 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

But my point/concern is they say “above $300 million” and don’t give an exact number, so putting the range up to $300 million in the infobox would be disingenuous since it’s (apparently) more than that. I think it’s picking at straws. Like how some sources have Avatar costing upwards of $450 million, but since most everyone else has it at $237 million that’s what it’s decided at. TropicAces (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces
 * A potential source of error is that the highest estimates might include costs for things other than production (such as distribution). Anywikiuser (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When are we supposed to use a range and when it is it acceptable to delete the old budget figure and replace it with another budget figure? -- 109.77.199.166 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Besides being widely said by people knowledgeable in the industry, it's a reasonable assumption - because the actual cost to the studio isn't total costs - like advertising, and Disney doesn't get the full price of ticket sales - obviously - the chains have to make their money off it too. I also suspect some of the studios are now turning to services like moviepass to prop up ticket sales initially to garner interest and make it look better then it is - like other media industries have been doing in promotion - but that costs.

Anyway, we are all interested in the real costs of the film to see how bad it sucked. And Disney studios is going to be just as eager to not give it likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.179.151 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in the real costs of the film to see how unlikely it is for a sequel to come out, since I liked it. :) -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Stats Rule Against "Poor Commercial Performance"
The fact that it may not meet production costs doesn't account for ticket sales. It topped the box office for two weekends and has earned over 200 million. The people who buy tickets to see rule over media hype.2601:447:4101:41F9:C0A6:EF53:8346:F11D (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "commercial" indicates profit/loss ratio, not if it generated any revenue at all. In commercial terms the performance was poor.Gold333 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The film would lose Disney "tens of millions of dollars" article statement
Statements like this should be really taken with a grain of salt. The movie will continue to make money long after it leaves the theaters - via home media releases (Blu-ray/DVD and digital sales), as well as via iTunes rentals, Netflix rights, later on TV rights, but also via a wide range of related merchandise products (Solo-related Star Wars toys, figures, books, comics, video games, costumes, etc.). When we take all of these additional sources of revenue combined with the global box office, it is only a matter of time when - and not if - Solo will break even. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While true that it will likely move out of the red and into the black at some point, blockbusters are not made to simply break even or turn small profits; they're expected to take in a large haul. Investors want a considerable return on their investment, and they don't want to wait years to see small profit gains. Box office performance is a good gauge on how quickly those profits can be realized, and they can also impact future decisions surrounding franchises. A good example is Terminator Genisys. It broke even at the box office and even turned a small profit. The studio had a small window of time to decide whether or not to make another sequel before the rights to the franchise reverted back to Cameron. You can read all about it at the article, but the skinny is that the studio decided it wasn't worth the investment following an extensive market research analysis. At the end of the day, studios don't bank on breaking even at the box office, and they sure as hell don't want to lose money in that segment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything that your wrote, but my point is that article statements like "estimated losses of up to $80 million" (with citations from the media) are very misleading here. The only possible conclusion is that Disney will lose tens of millions of dollars, but that is simply not true. A statement like that is purely based on the box office performance, but the end of the box office run is hardly where the financial story ends for a movie like this. The estimate is completely ignoring Solo's current and future home media revenues, merchandising takings and (yet-to-come) residuals of all kinds. This is a Star Wars movie, and these movies are a great example of The Long Tail model. For example, there are at the moment of writing some 120 different Solo-related products available just on the official Star Wars website (with things like expanded novelization, expanded comic book adaptation, more high end figures and ships coming out this fall, etc.). Even The Woodstock Festival, which ended up $1.4m in red back in 1969 (circa $9.7m in today's dollars) eventually broke even and went into black on the residuals (this happened in 1980, after 11 years). There is simply no way Solo won't eventually crawl back up into black despite what happened at the box office (and certainly much faster than Woodstock). Media treatment of Solo reminds me of the Waterworld scenario, where the myth of 'the largest ever financial loss' continues to be propagated even now despite the fact that the movie eventually broke even and even turned a small profit (and all of it without the countless side products that each Star Wars movie generates). It is very clear that Solo is a box office disappointment, but Disney will not lose a cent here. The real casualties are Solo 2 and 3, and Lando's solo movie after that, which now will not be made.137.82.108.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

lead, losses, sources
The lead contains currently the following line:
 * The film is the first in the Star Wars franchise to bomb at the box office, grossing only $392.9 million worldwide against a production budget of $275 million, with estimated losses of up to $80 million.

This seems rather problematic for number of reasons. --Kmhkmh (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To the average or "naive" reader this might confusing as 80 doesn't equal 392.9-275. Of course that equating is misleading as ticket sales differ from ticket profit and there is an advertisement budget to consider and other stuff. However the sentence imho at least should hint at such reason to provide readers with a better understanding. The Box office section ultimately remedies that, but imho the lead should at least provide at hint as well.
 * None of 3 sources given for that line actually confirms the figure but they don't contain the figure at all or worse different figures. Assuming the figures are nevertheless correct and properly sourced by the sources in the Box office, then the line in the lead should either use no sources (the lead summarizing the sourced main article doesn't need sources of its own) or use the sources from the Box office section that actually confirm its content.
 * The lead and the Box office section contain a different budget than the info box.
 * I concur. The line has now been removed. 87.227.218.167 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * By Star Wars standards it definitely failed, and I believe there was a source that indicated how much the film would have to make to break even for all the production issues they did have.Mcelite (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Home Video Sales
Should home video sales also be included in the financial total in the article? The numbers are starting to come in, and as of 11 November 2018 the movie made $40,292,471 in domestic US Blu-ray/DVD sales. That comes on top of the global box office cited there as $393,167,512. 137.82.108.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Star Wars 6.5" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Star Wars 6.5. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 22:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)