Then again, I’d be nervous if any film I produced had a six-figure loss.
It’s not a loss though. It just didn’t meet projections. Maybe they needed to rethink their projections.
If they spent 500 million on it then that is a loss.
I don’t understand why so many people here are so eager to paint Solo as if it isn’t a box office failure. It’s not like any of you have a personal stake in it.
There are?
A box office failure is usually when a film doesn’t make it’s money back, yes? Well, we don’t know what the film cost, do we? (do we?) I don’t know where the ‘$500m’ figure comes from I see bandied around - a guess? (someone replicated the cost of Rogue One and added extra on for the re-shoots, maybe?)
Solo has certainly under-performed - in context it could be said it has flopped in comparison to the other recent releases - yet did anyone expect it get near the ST figures - or even R1? I imagine the big-wigs will be looking into it and trying to address it, should they feel the need?
Personally, I don’t care too much - it’s not like Disney is going to pull the plug on future Star Wars films after 1 under-performing film (despite many articles stating it would) after the 4 released so far - so we’ll still be very likely getting more SW content in the future (which is something I’d like to see).
It’s because marketing isn’t figured into the production budget and typically costs just as much. A film with a 275 million dollar budget making less than 400 million dollars globally is a flop. These aren’t just my standards for a flop, this is pretty widely accepted. Even if they did somehow make money on that, ~250 million dollars spent in order to get a 100 million dollar profit isn’t a good investment when you consider how much other less expensive movies make. And I never said they were pulling the plug on Star Wars, I just said that the corporate suits are probably pissed off or nervous, which they always are, so I don’t see why that’s a contested issue either.