Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story

Box Office

Wait, I'm confused. The film's budget was $275M and it's box office was $392.9M and yet, it was considered a box office bomb. I know I'm saying that because I haven't read the whole article, but regardless. Why is that? Christian AKA Rustbolt (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it explains this in the article. Because of advertising and marketing costs, as well as "Hollywood accounting", a movie generally has to make box office of 2.5 times its budget (which is estimated but not divulged by the studio) in order to turn a profit. Movie studios largely exist because of the movies with relatively small budgets that manage to make 10 or more times their budgets in box office ticket sales. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Solo:_A_Star_Wars_Story/Archive_2#Double_the_budget_to_break_even?!?.

You might be interested to read claims that Return of the Jedi never made a profit, it's messed up. -- 109.76.241.233 (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing discussion here. All the posted numbers indicate the gross was higher than the budget, which cannot be debated. What constitutes a “bomb” may or may not be ultimately relevant in the article without knowing the marketing costs. I’d argue these numbers don’t indicate a “bomb” to anyone but people who want to speculate about additional costs the movie had incurred that weren’t posted. If it’s speculative, I don’t know why we’d definitively say it “bombed.” It can have underperformed, it can have not met expectations (but an expectation should be cited). It can be claimed it was a “box office bomb,” but I think it should be indicated in the same area that the film did gross more than its budget. I think that’s a good compromise, which is why I made that edit. Louie Mantia (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to rephrase so that the text takes a more neutral point of view but there are three references all calling it a flop or similar synonyms. It is differently misleading to highlight that the gross exceeded the budget, that is far too simplistic considering other costs (P&A) and that approximately only half of the gross revenue actually goes back to the studio. As User:Doctorx0079 said above a film normally needs to gross at least double the budget before it is considered a success. Unless there is a source specifically using the term "bomb" I would avoid it and instead say that the film "under performed". This film was certainly not a financial success, the only question is the degree of failure. -- 109.77.192.135 (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ll reiterate that we don’t know the marketing budget of these films. All we know are published numbers. Any other speculation around it should be noted as such. While I too would suspect Disney was disappointed in the returns on this film, the writing in this article is/was definitively not neutral. And while it’s fine to remark that it is one of the most expensive films ever made, it was only 1 million dollars off in budget from The Force Awakens, and only 7 million dollars off from The Last Jedi. Neither of those pages remark about being one of the most expensive films ever made. The only reason I can imagine someone wrote that in this article (I suspect) is to draw unnecessary attention to it being another expensive franchise film, only that this one “bombed.” It seems to be explicitly stated here to draw a comparison that makes it look like some kind of tragic underperformance, when in reality it was just another case of high expectations from outside analysts met with a so-so result. That hardly feels like a neutral perspective. Comparatively, John Carter had a budget of 300 million and only took in 284. This was classified as one of the “biggest bombs,” and that feels justified. But in the biggest bombs list, you won’t find Solo, because it’s only really worthwhile to work with published numbers that you can definitively calculate minimum losses. You can’t do that with Solo. Louie Mantia (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

An IP user made an edit that I think is much better in its structure comparing the two figures we know. They made an uncited remark in the edit notes that the marketing budget was $200 million. I’ve seen it reported as $150 million. But I’ve also seen Bob Iger say Disney didn’t have to spend much on marketing Star Wars because it markets itself. I’m not saying they didn’t spend anything. I’m just saying we have no idea what it was. Anyway, I feel like the new language resolves this. Louie Mantia (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Budget more

Budgets are usually more complicated than they seem at first. Also Template:Infobox film warns not to cherry pick, which means that a new source is not an excuse to throw out the old sources. It is very important to read the details of what the source is saying or not saying. The Forbes article lists the budget as $275 million but then immediately qualifies that claim and admits that number is incomplete by saying "is expected to rise as it doesn’t include post-production." The budget was at least $275 million but very probably higher. (We haven't even gotten a reliable source of marketing costs yet either.) Please do not delete the budget range without first discussing and establishing consensus for those changes. -- 109.79.170.63 (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Another Forbes article puts the total production budget at $330.4 million (see bar chart graphic in article, figures not stated in article text). -- 109.79.170.63 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah apparently we use that for our new, agreed-upon source. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to literally the sequel trilogy articles doing the exact same thing, and agreed upon. All of us agreed that the Forbes article overrided any previous sources. If you wanna revert those budgets, do as you please; I will not touch Rogue One and Solo for now. You can talk to User:Betty Logan about it. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)