Jump to content

Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.79.170.63 (talk) at 03:52, 31 July 2023 (→Budget more: Budget total more like $330.4 million). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll grab this one for review. I'm a big Star Wars fan and do a lot of work on these sorts of articles but actually haven't gotten involved with this one yet. I'll take some time to read through it and then come back here with some thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full review

Coverage and neutrality look pretty good but definitely a few things that I would like to see improved before promoting:

Lead and infobox

  • (or simply Solo) Is this necessary? Surely the reader doesn't need to be told that Solo is referring to Solo: A Star Wars Story. (I just checked Rogue One and I would say the same thing there).
On this front, it’s been known to be referred to either title. Same with Rogue One. I believe it’s there to make that distinction. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that Solo: A Star Wars Story and Solo are the same thing and shouldn't need to be stated like this in the lead. For another example, there are times in Raiders of the Lost Ark where that film is simply referred to as Raiders but the lead doesn't need to say "or simply Raiders" for that to make sense. The reader should be able to figure out that when you use Solo you actually mean Solo: A Star Wars Story. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you mention Chewbacca and Lando earlier in the lead I think it would make sense to note their actors as you do with Han, maybe like "Alden Ehrenreich stars as Han Solo alongside Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover (Calrissian), Thandie Newton, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), and Paul Bettany."
I changed it to simply state Ehrenreich stars in the title role, with the other main cast co-starring. Will this work? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions three different release dates. Even two seems like a stretch in terms of long-term notability, but I understand if you want to match the infobox and have the first premiere there as well as wide release. But two premieres feels like overkill to me.
Shaved the premieres off and just kept the main release. Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything particularly noteworthy about the RealD 3D, IMAX, and IMAX 3D releases of the film? If not then I think this should be left out of the lead and just discussed in the release section.
Removed it. Rusted AutoParts 01:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has several citations in it, and I can see that they are mostly associated to elements that have proven controversial over the years. Do you think any of these can be removed now? For instance, is anyone still questioning when the film is set or does that ref definitely need to be there? Also, the refs that are supposed to be supporting the film being a box-office failure should come after that info and not after the Oscars line.
 Done. The source for when the film is set was We Got This Covered, which I find to be a fairly weak source, so I removed it. Rusted AutoParts 01:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note beside John Williams in the infobox is unsourced, you should be able to copy some refs from the "Music" section.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 01:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot and cast

  • The plot summary is well over the 700 word limit suggested by WP:FILMPLOT, and there are a few instances of it getting quite specific about scenes that could be taken out to be more general.
 Done, word count right smack on 700. I removed a small subplot about Chewbacca and other Wookiees, didn’t consider it too important to the plot. Rusted AutoParts 02:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the cast section should make note of how L3 becomes part of the Falcon and what that means for when C-3PO talks to the ship in the original film. A quick google search of "l3 falcon" brought up a few decent sources that you could use for this.
Could your recommend a specific way to word it? Rusted AutoParts 02:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at sources like this one which could be used for something along these lines:
Phoebe Waller-Bridge as L3-37: Lando's droid companion and navigator. When the character dies in the film her consciousness and data are uploaded to the Millenium Falcon which serves as a retcon of the previous Star Wars films including The Empire Strikes Back in which the starship was described as having "the most peculiar dialect". Screenwriter Jonathan Kasdan explained that this was done to give "the Falcon a personality that is fused with this amazing character played by Phoebe [which] I think does actually enrich the other movies".
Feel free to do with that how you wish, just something that stuck out to me as missing from the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in verbatim if that’s okay. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • one written by Kasdan Can we clarify which Kasdan here?
 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 2017, filming moved to Tre Cime di Lavaredo and Monte Piana in the Dolomites in Veneto, Italy, to the Fassa Dolomites in Trentino, Italy, and to the Canary Islands. I think this sentence can be rewritten to be a bit clearer. Perhaps something along the lines of: "In May 2017, filming took place in Italy, with locations including ... Filming also took place in the Canary Islands that month."
 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and to the Canary Islands. Lucasfilm replaced editor Chris Dickens with Pietro Scalia. All of this is unsourced in the body, but a source supporting this is included in the infobox for Scalia. Also, the context in which that source explains Scalia replacing Dickens indicates that it had to do with Lucasfilm's general displeasure of the initial directors and their direction for the film. Maybe the Scalia info can be worked in with the next paragraph or expanded in its current paragraph with more details.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that the Kasdan mentioned throughout the "Filming" section is Lawrence, but can we clarify that in the first instance for the section?
I’ve added the clarifying Lawrence throughout the section. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe Johnston and Kasdan were also considered, though Directors Guild of America rules state that a replacement for a director may not be someone already involved in the production. Can this be adjusted to not imply that Johnston was already working on the film? It is my understanding that the second clause is only referencing Kasdan since he was writing the film, but the current wording is a little unclear on that.
I added a line that makes the DGA portion refer to Kasdan specifically. Rusted AutoParts 16:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howard used rear-projection visual effects for ... this sentence could be expanded to better explain the technique that was used and how (the cited source has more details). I also wonder if it would be worth having some sort of "Post-production and visual effects" subsection since the next two paragraphs don't really fit in the "Filming" section and there is surely a lot more information about visual effects out there for a Star Wars film. Any extra editing information you could find would also fit there, and maybe discussion of the film's design of the Falcon since it starts out quite different from previous films.
I restored the separate visual effects section and added in some details about how they achieved the effect of the mountain explosion. For the specific Falcon information you suggested I’m not finding a good source for that. Rusted AutoParts 18:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is looking good. I found this source that seems like it has quite a bit of good info in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took the source and added in the information about the 60 different designs, as well as a bit about the addition of an escape pod and it's connection to the lead designer. Rusted AutoParts 04:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

  • (later renamed A New Hope to distinguish the film from the series) This explanation seems out of place and irrelevant in this article.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any follow-up to the plagiarism allegations that could be added to the "Marketing" subsection?
From what I could find there didn’t seem to be any further mentions of the allegation after Disney announced their investigation. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more details on the comic book adaptation, such as who the writer and artist were?
 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last two paragraphs of the "Critical response" section can be combined since the first is just one sentence.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a source is needed for the Saturn Awards.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 16:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • Using the copyvio tool, there are a few "Violation Possible" results coming back. It would be good to get them down to "Violation Unlikely" by rewriting some of the information used from them.
I'm using the Earwig tool. The highest percentage violation was of the Popmatters review. I elected to remove the review as the critic isn't of note. The others are below 40% and I feel looking at them they are put as well as can be to make the point of what is being written. Could be wrong though, will wait on your verdict. Rusted AutoParts 20:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all looking fine to me now. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are looking good, but I would like to see all online sources have archives (most do but there are a few that don't) to ensure they can always be accessed in the future. Also, there are some inconsistencies with linking to websites (i.e. The Hollywood Reporter is only linked in a few citations, but we can't know which refs readers will want to access it from so it should be linked from the all if possible).
Has WebCite changed? I can't seem to find where to do the archiving. Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using Internet Archive recently, I think WebCite may not be running at the moment. I think there is also a bot that can be used but I don't know anything else about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All sources have been archived. Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was an English reference used for the information cited to the ladige.it site, or just google translate? If the former then that article could be included in the citation as support.
I'm a little lost on this point. Could you explain it a bit more? Rusted AutoParts 20:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that if another source with an English translation was used to help source the info from that site then it could be added in the citation, but it's not a big deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I included an English source in regards to Italy filming alongside the in Italian source. Does this work? Rusted AutoParts 04:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images all look fine, but I feel like there may be too many of them crammed into the "Production" section. I think the images of Williams and Bettany could definitely go, the character just doesn't seem to justify that much attention and the situation is already explained fine in prose. The image of Clarke is also iffy to me, especially when the article only mentions her in the cast and casting sections. The images of Ehrenreich, Lord and Miller, Howard, Glover, and Cannes all make sense and work for me.
I’d like to keep the Williams/Bettany one. It makes a point of noting that the villain character was different than the final product. IE Williams leaving the film and Bettany replacing him. It’s probably the second biggest alteration to the film I feel benefits from the image of the two different actors. As for Clarke it was just to highlight her casting in the role to add some additional images to the page. If I had the editing abilities I would’ve made a picture collage of the main cast for the cast section then include an image of Harrison Ford or something in Casting to describe the casting process needing to match a young Ford or something. Rusted AutoParts 01:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it just feels to me like there are a lot of images in a short space in the article, and it could benefit from having a bit of breathing room and just focusing on having less images that are all most applicable to the page. My problem with the Clarke one is that according to the article there is not much of note to say about her, but we have a big image of her to try make her more important. And with the Williams/Bettany one, I could understand if there was an image of what Williams was going to look like with the intended CGI but at the moment it is just two pictures of actors, one that is not in the movie and one that is also not that significant in the article like Clarke. I definitely think the picture of Clarke should go, and it is more of a strong recommendation that the pictures of Williams and Bettany be taken out as well. Especially now that the image of the Slow Mo Guys has been added. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Clarke image. As for the double image, unless it's a dealbreaker for GA, I would still prefer to retain it. Like I said earlier, the recasting was a major alteration to the original plan for the film. I would consider looking for concept art of Williams' planned character if there is one online to use. But the Bettany image does visually reflect the change in casting as well. Rusted AutoParts 04:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

A few points listed above to work on. Let me know once you have worked through everything or if you have any questions or concerns. I will come back and have another look at the article once you are done. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knocked a chunk of these out tonight, will do some more tomorrow hopefully. Rusted AutoParts 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstom.97: got a few queries above in regards to some stuff. Rusted AutoParts 00:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far, I have added some replies above. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Critical response section feels a little short to me, and only gives a very broad overview, I think more coverage is needed. The section includes a picture saying Glover was praised but no specific references to that effect.
For example: The Atlantic "The script, by Lawrence Kasdan and his son Jonathan, is capable but unremarkable, as is Howard’s direction. But the cast...consistently elevates the material."; The Telegraph "the latest entry enriches the galaxy with thrilling new texture and detail" [1] (review includes praise for costumes, praise for director of photography is Bradford Young; more specific praise for the cast, Vanity Fair "Clarke, too, shines as a woman who’s made sacrifices Han cannot imagine."; The A.V. Club "Glover manages the tricky task of both paying homage to role originator Billy Dee Williams while adding his own spin to the character. Like Ehrenreich, his version goes comic without tipping into outright spoofery." It really feels like the section is only starting to scratch the surface.
Also some editors have weird reactions to anything other than Critics being included in the critical response section, I'd like the Other responses/Industry response/Star Wars response to have its own subsection (and because otherwise it makes the Critical response section seem longer than it really is).
Before expanding the section further, I'd like to make sure that there is at least some agreement that more detail would be better, and that this GA is not misinterpreted as a reason to not keep improving the article. -- 109.79.94.23 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I totally agree with all this, but I would support adding more mention of GLover to the critical response section @Rusted AutoParts. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Adamstom.97 I believe I’ve tackled everything you brought up. Rusted AutoParts 22:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking a lot better now. I am happy with the changes made and think the current state is a good compromise. Thank you for working with me on this Rusted AutoParts and congratulations! Passed - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, Adam. Rusted AutoParts 23:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding a bit more about Glover. I think that review from The Atlantic is worth including too because it succinctly critiques the script and the direction, and I might add it myself soon. With hindsight perhaps highlighting Clark might be undue, compared to Glover who was consistently praised. -- 109.78.221.22 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solo:_A_Star_Wars_Story&oldid=1167995746"