Jump to content

Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,795 edits
m Dating comment by 137.82.108.34 - "→Home Video Sales: new section"
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story/Archive 2) (bot
Line 18: Line 18:
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age= |units= 30 days}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age= |units= 30 days}}

== 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. [[Special:Contributions/137.82.108.34|137.82.108.34]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/137.82.108.34|137.82.108.34]] ([[User talk:137.82.108.34|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 21:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==lead, losses, sources ==
==lead, losses, sources ==

Revision as of 05:27, 19 December 2018

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.

  • 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.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The line has now been removed. 87.227.218.167 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solo:_A_Star_Wars_Story&oldid=874429048"