By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Solo Headed To Become A Flop? Yep, It Flopped.

 

How Much Will Solo Make WW?

Under $700M 56 60.87%
 
$700M-$800M 18 19.57%
 
$801M-$900M 12 13.04%
 
$901M-$1B 3 3.26%
 
Over $1B 3 3.26%
 
Total:92
Faelco said:
Chris Hu said:

Yeah, nope Disney had a lot of other bombs besides Solo and A Wrinkle in Time recently.  Like the Alamo, Mars Needs Moms, John Carter, The Lone Ranger and The Finest Hours just to name a few.  And none of those bombed because of SJW.  As I said before movies pretty much bomb because they are bad not due to some SJW backlash. 

The SJW crap did hurt A wrinkle in time, no doubt about that. 

 

I never heard about that before, and when it released in theaters I was looking for something to watch so I watched a trailer of it. My thoughts at the end of the trailer were something like "Some SJW black female teenager empowerment TV movie level garbage", and I never paid attention again to this crap. Even if critics said that it was awesome, I would consider it political agenda and never see it.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one. 

Everything is considered SJW these days



Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
Faelco said:

The SJW crap did hurt A wrinkle in time, no doubt about that. 

 

I never heard about that before, and when it released in theaters I was looking for something to watch so I watched a trailer of it. My thoughts at the end of the trailer were something like "Some SJW black female teenager empowerment TV movie level garbage", and I never paid attention again to this crap. Even if critics said that it was awesome, I would consider it political agenda and never see it.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one. 

Everything is considered SJW these days

When the entire point of the trailer is "Unpopular black female teenagers can be heroes too", yeah, it stinks of SJW. 

 

Using black and female characters has been done for years, never had an issue with that. But when the only focus of the marketing, the character and even the movie is "look look look, our character is black AND female, and she's a hero!", without any other valuable characteristic for the character, then yeah, it's just SJW.

 

Create good characters, with a solid background story, good personality, doing interesting things with smart dialogues (and focus your marketing on that), and nobody will care if they're white, black, female, green or hermaphrodite. Is it too hard to understand? 

Last edited by Faelco - on 23 June 2018

Faelco said:
VGPolyglot said:

Everything is considered SJW these days

When the entire point of the trailer is "Even unpopular black female teenager can be heroes", yeah, it stinks of SJW. 

 

Using black and female characters has been done for years, never had an issue with that. But when the only focus of the marketing, the character and even the movie is "look look look, our character is black AND female, and she's a hero!", without any other valuable characteristic for the character, then yeah, it's just SJW.

 

Create good characters, with a solid background story, good personality, doing interesting things with smart dialogues (and focus your marketing on that), and nobody will care if they're white, black, female, green or hermaphrodite. Is it too hard to understand? 

I'll straight up say it. Social Justice doesn't sell. Ever. There's a reason why Marvel Comics is doing terribly while Marvel Studios is doing great. One of them tries to sell social justice. The other one doesn't. It is obvious which one is which. Lucasfilm is now finding this out with Star Wars. Look at anything that social justice has touched and you'll see a decline in the quality of the product and a decline in the sales of the product. It always happens. It goes beyond entertainment. Look at college campuses where social justice gets out of control. Tuitions in the semesters that follow always drop. The Evergreen State College and the University of Missouri are just two examples of this.

 Marketing is another thing. If an advertisement tries to focus on social justice, most people will avoid that product like the plague. I'll give an example of marketing done right. Look at Storm from the X-Men comics. She made her debut in 1975. She became really popular. However, her popularity had nothing to do with the fact that she was a black female from Africa. She was popular because she was a mutant who could control weather. Fans knew there was so much potential there and they ate it up. If they had advertised her as just a black African lady, nobody would have cared about Storm because in a sci-fi/fantasy comic book series, those characteristics alone don't make anybody interesting. This was why Marvel was able to sell Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler and many other diverse X-Men characters. However, they can't sell their new characters today because they don't focus on what's supposed to make those characters unique. I think we're kind of seeing this in Star Wars, though it isn't nearly as bad as modern day Marvel Comics.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Jon-Erich said:
Faelco said:

When the entire point of the trailer is "Even unpopular black female teenager can be heroes", yeah, it stinks of SJW. 

 

Using black and female characters has been done for years, never had an issue with that. But when the only focus of the marketing, the character and even the movie is "look look look, our character is black AND female, and she's a hero!", without any other valuable characteristic for the character, then yeah, it's just SJW.

 

Create good characters, with a solid background story, good personality, doing interesting things with smart dialogues (and focus your marketing on that), and nobody will care if they're white, black, female, green or hermaphrodite. Is it too hard to understand? 

I'll straight up say it. Social Justice doesn't sell. Ever. There's a reason why Marvel Comics is doing terribly while Marvel Studios is doing great. One of them tries to sell social justice. The other one doesn't. It is obvious which one is which. Lucasfilm is now finding this out with Star Wars. Look at anything that social justice has touched and you'll see a decline in the quality of the product and a decline in the sales of the product. It always happens. It goes beyond entertainment. Look at college campuses where social justice gets out of control. Tuitions in the semesters that follow always drop. The Evergreen State College and the University of Missouri are just two examples of this.

 Marketing is another thing. If an advertisement tries to focus on social justice, most people will avoid that product like the plague. I'll give an example of marketing done right. Look at Storm from the X-Men comics. She made her debut in 1975. She became really popular. However, her popularity had nothing to do with the fact that she was a black female from Africa. She was popular because she was a mutant who could control weather. Fans knew there was so much potential there and they ate it up. If they had advertised her as just a black African lady, nobody would have cared about Storm because in a sci-fi/fantasy comic book series, those characteristics alone don't make anybody interesting. This was why Marvel was able to sell Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler and many other diverse X-Men characters. However, they can't sell their new characters today because they don't focus on what's supposed to make those characters unique. I think we're kind of seeing this in Star Wars, though it isn't nearly as bad as modern day Marvel Comics.

I just started Luke Cage season 2 (the first one wasn't very good, and talked only about "Good blacks versus bad blacks" already though...), and they manage to make it a race war in the first 5 minutes. 

 

The characters complained by saying that Luke is the "Bulletproof black man" (because Tony Stark is the Iron white man, right?), and that "those guys (white people) are going to copy us and come up with a bulletproof white man!". Just take "I'm black, yo" out of your superhero name and you won't have that issue...

 

They maybe saw that Black Panther was a huge success for racial reason, and will put a double dose of "Look, Luke is black, remember? Black, black, black! Who cares about the quality of the story when you have such a black lead?". Can feel a trainwreck for now, we'll see...

 

EDIT: Finished the first episode. That was just a mess, painful to watch at time. Story and dialogues are amateur-level. But they use n*gga as ponctuation and want to "keep Harlem black-black" ("not the wrong shade of black"), so some people will surely call it a masterpiece... 

Last edited by Faelco - on 23 June 2018

Chris Hu said:
Azuren said:

No, they failed one at making it and forgot they were making a movie the second time. I want an actual attempt by someone who is going to respect the source material.

Pretty much all movies based on books don't stick close to the source material.  On top of that most movies based on books are nowhere near as good as the actual book.  Also there only have been a handful of movies based on books that ended up being better then the actual book two that come to mind are The Godfather and The Shinnig  (1980) but both didn't stick very close to the source material. 

And this one abandoned central themes and resigned itself to bring a shameless example of butchering a story in favor of a message. And you seem to be here defending this affront to literature. Congratulations.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Chris Hu said:
Hyper_Upgrade said:

This is a classic example of Agency Theory 

You can usually tell by how many "committees" or "communities" they have within an organization. Many of these niche groups lose sight of the company's business direction (make money) and create their own goals that they as a group want to see implemented. Disney, Google, Target, etc are all very successful companies which means they can afford to have some decay within their organization without it killing their bottom line. They also get virtue points which allows them to attend private and lavish parties without any personal or financial risk. 

While slow at first, decay usually moves exponentially. Google is currently having trouble managing some of their ideological staff, and this has cost them lucrative business opportunities in the defense department. Starbucks shut down their own operations for half a day to please only a portion of their consumer base. In both cases it won't hurt them with share holders now, but slowly it kills them over time as these issues compound. 

For the time being Infinity Wars can make up for the losses from SW and a Wrinkle In time, but that will not always be the case. Unfortunately, most businesses don't see this problem until it is too late, and it is even more difficult to remove these entrenched groups once they have moved in. They will go out kicking and screaming, and leave the company to flip the bill. 

---

(Also, I'm new to the forum so hello everyone)

 

 

Yeah, nope Disney had a lot of other bombs besides Solo and A Wrinkle in Time recently.  Like the Alamo, Mars Needs Moms, John Carter, The Lone Ranger and The Finest Hours just to name a few.  And none of those bombed because of SJW.  As I said before movies pretty much bomb because they are bad not due to some SJW backlash. 

Don't see the point you're trying to make with this post. Yes, movies can be just plain bad without SJW messaging. However, when it is so obvious that the focus of the film is to push SJW messaging, you can't conveniently ignore that fact to try and claim that the messaging isn't what made it bad.

Chris Hu said: 
thismeintiel said: 

You would think that Disney would have learned from not only Ghostbusters and/or TLJ.  First of all, SJWs are obviously not a large group.  They are just the loudest, so it seems they are larger than they really are.  So, trying to pander to them is not a financially sound path.  Especially when at the same time you are constantly bashing any real fans of the series that had legit criticisms, labeling them bigots, man-babies, misogynists. 

It's the same thing that happened to Target.  Instead of just remaining silent and handling things on a case by case basis, they tried to appeal to SJWs by publicly announcing anyone could use whatever bathroom they wished to at their stores.  Instead of support from the masses that they expected, they saw their sales and stock drop and had to close a few stores.  Pandering to those groups just never works out.

Wow.  I just looked into that book/film, since I wasn't familar with it.  It looks like is will be losing Disney the same amount that Solo is.  Of course, the media is touting that its the first time a black female has directed a film that cost this much and crossed $100M at the DBO.  So...great, a black woman can make an expensive flop, too. (slow clap)  Always identity politics over success for these people. 

Also, they took a religious book and removed every reference of religion in it for the film.  Instead replacing a tale of basically good vs evil, and making it more about diversity and feminism.  Hmm, wonder why it flopped.  And there's a scene in the book where one of the women turns into a white horse, but in the film they turn her into some plant creature?  Is that supposed to be Vegan messaging, too?  Boy, what a mess.

But  all religions basically are based on myth and legends that involve a battle between good and evil so they really didn't remove the religious references from the movie.  Also there are a ton of movies that aren't considered religious that have numerous religious references.  For example a lot of Martin Scorsese's movies have a lot of religious references.

And I'msure that's the same stretch in logic Disney tried using. Sorry, religion doesn't work that way. They aren't interchangeable and you can't try to make it a general good VS evil story. You can't take a Christian novel and adapt it, taking out all of the Christian references, and expect fans of the book to be fine with it. 



Azuren said:
Chris Hu said:

Pretty much all movies based on books don't stick close to the source material.  On top of that most movies based on books are nowhere near as good as the actual book.  Also there only have been a handful of movies based on books that ended up being better then the actual book two that come to mind are The Godfather and The Shinnig  (1980) but both didn't stick very close to the source material. 

And this one abandoned central themes and resigned itself to bring a shameless example of butchering a story in favor of a message. And you seem to be here defending this affront to literature. Congratulations.

Like I said before if you don't like it watch the 2003 version.  I'm not interested in either versions or the book.



I guess it dosent matter what these short results say. People will still argue that injecting social justice into things is not a good thing. I guess one more flop in the series is necessary. Not just that, the taboo of not being able to be critical of these movies is fading. I assume that by episode IX the critics wont hold back.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Weekend estimates are in and Solo is now at $202.18M for the DBO. This is 59.4% lower than RO at the same point in time. If this holds, Solo will make $216.06M for its final DBO take. If the FBO percentage holds, it will make $377.73M WW. This is $678.33M less than what RO made.



spurgeonryan said:
Over 200 million is a flop? How much did this trash make overseas?

Man Donald Glover....I hate everything he is in now. Especially the last Spiderman. Liked the movie, but he brought it down.

It supposedly had a 250-300 million dollar budget. For a film to be considered a success, it needs to make back about double its budget (a lot of expenses aren't listed in the actual budget of the film. I may be wrong, but I think advertising is separate) So, unless it makes it to 500-600 million worldwide, it won't break even. To be a success, it'll have to make more, so the studio can actually turn a profit.