SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY Lead Alden Ehrenreich Believes Box Office Coverage Of The Movie Was Misleading

SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY Lead Alden Ehrenreich Believes Box Office Coverage Of The Movie Was Misleading

Solo: A Star Wars Story was dubbed a flop by many box office pundits back in 2018, but star Alden Ehrenreich has now made a case for why that negative coverage wasn't necessarily accurate or fair...

By JoshWilding - Sep 19, 2020 04:09 AM EST
Filed Under: Star Wars
Source: Total Film

Solo: A Star Wars Story was plagued by behind the scenes issues, and the fact a new director was hired by Lucasfilm to essentially reshoot most of the movie only helped send costs through the roof. Ultimately, it made just shy of $400 million, not a bad result by any means, but one that saw the spinoff deemed a disappointment after previous Star Wars movies made over $1 billion.

While there's no getting around the fact that Solo underperformed (and that Disney made a loss), coverage of the movie at the time was undeniably negative, and it wasn't perhaps treated as fairly as similar blockbusters. That's something star Alden Ehrenreich pointed out in an interview with Total Film.

"[Solo] didn’t do as well as other Star Wars movies, but it still did well for a movie," he explained. "And so it was kind of this medium thing. But that’s not newsworthy. Even at high-level journalism, there’s an intense pressure, sometimes, it feels like, to [either] catastrophize or celebrate."

"And I think that’s really f***ing dangerous, especially when it pertains to the stuff that really matters, like the state of the world," Ehrenreich continued. "An article headline that says 'things are complicated, and there are good sides and bad sides' isn’t getting the emotional response. And I just think we really have to take a step back, and give a lot more thought to the way our emotions are being run by the stories we’re getting inundated with."

He makes a lot of valid points here, but Solo's performance did ultimately lead to Disney changing course with the Star Wars movies they had in development - which is why Obi-Wan Kenobi became a TV series - and the marketing campaign before its release was absolutely abysmal. 

What did you guys think of Solo: A Star Wars Story?

STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER's Long-Delayed Comic Book Adaptation Will Include Scenes Not In The Movie
Related:

STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER's Long-Delayed Comic Book Adaptation Will Include Scenes Not In The Movie

STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER Unused Posters Are Better Than The Movie; New Rumor Teases Rey's Future
Recommended For You:

STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER Unused Posters Are Better Than The Movie; New Rumor Teases Rey's Future

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
JonAwesome
JonAwesome - 9/19/2020, 4:06 AM
I thought it was a fun movie, but ultimately we really didn’t need to know how Han Solo became Han!
FinnishDude
FinnishDude - 9/19/2020, 7:25 AM
@JonAwesome - But we did need to know how someone can have a weird surname like "Solo" in an Universe where people usually have completely normal names like "Binks", "Skywalker", "Frik", "Tyranus" and "Jettster"
WakandanQueen
WakandanQueen - 9/19/2020, 4:13 AM
But didn't the film cost like $300 million or something just to produce? It definitely flopped. Sure, it is one of the highest-grossing flops, but a flop nevertheless...
patgreyc
patgreyc - 9/19/2020, 4:06 PM
@WakandanQueen - It also didn’t help that Alden was miscast, the movie was kind of boring and it wasn’t a film that everyone was clamoring for.
InfinitePunches
InfinitePunches - 9/19/2020, 4:35 AM
We really don't know how much Solo cost to make. Lord and Miller were apparently just about finished when Lucasfilm started over with Ron Howard. So there's a full length improv comedy Star Wars movie that's just sitting on a shelf somewhere.
InfinitePunches
InfinitePunches - 9/19/2020, 4:38 AM
That being said, if there's anyone interested in joining a high stakes heist into Skywalker Ranch vis a vis the 2009 film "Fanboys," please hit me up.
Moriakum
Moriakum - 9/19/2020, 4:42 AM
@InfinitePunches - The reported production budget was of at least 275 million.
SoulReaver
SoulReaver - 9/19/2020, 4:42 AM
@InfinitePunches - I’m in
Gmoney84
Gmoney84 - 9/19/2020, 4:37 AM
Well, he’s not wrong.
Moriakum
Moriakum - 9/19/2020, 4:44 AM
A Star Wars movie that only makes 392 million on a 300 million budget is a huge flop. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
kitheka
kitheka - 9/19/2020, 4:48 AM
Depends with the production costs + marketing. If the total budget > 200m then it lost money hence flop.
Moriakum
Moriakum - 9/19/2020, 4:58 AM
@kitheka - The production budget was of at least 275 million. So, with the marketing budget added, the total budget was close to 400 million.
kitheka
kitheka - 9/19/2020, 5:09 AM
@Moriakum - blimey
Origame
Origame - 9/19/2020, 5:24 AM
@kitheka - the rule of thumb is that you double the budget and that covers the cost of marketing. Assuming a budget of 200m (which we know is actually lower than the 275m the movie actually cost) at 400m the movie would've just barely made back the money it lost. They would've still made 0 profit. In order for 400m to be successful the budget would've needed to be less than 100m, which this obviously wasnt.
Kyos
Kyos - 9/19/2020, 4:49 AM
The media covered this flop as a flop, just so that now Ehrenreich could talk about it to distract everyone from the investigation into the Justice League reshoots.
Moriakum
Moriakum - 9/19/2020, 5:00 AM
@Kyos -
TheUnworthyThor
TheUnworthyThor - 9/19/2020, 5:35 AM
Well the coverage was wrong as in everything gets blended together. Solo did not flop in the United States. It made more money than Venom did in the US. And that movie was a huge success. It made almost as much as Mission Impossible Fallout in the US and that movie was a huge success. The US numbers weren’t as good as we expect for a Star Wars movie but it did not flop in US, it did plenty good. But it absolutely fell flat on it’s face internationally. Complete flop. Absurdly flopped. Now there are reasons for this but it did. Big time. Add to that it’s hugely inflated budget because of being filmed twice and you get the stinkorama it is.
dragon316
dragon316 - 9/19/2020, 5:38 AM
I like movie I had fun watching it not every Star Wars character needs have origin movie it’s villains that have better origin than compared to hero’s if there is going to be more origins make it on villains not heroes villains are more mysterious than alliance and Jedi
gordonh7
gordonh7 - 9/19/2020, 6:39 AM
In some way yes and no. Financially for the studio it was a flop. The film cost $300 million to make and only made $393.2 million at the box office. For the studio to make a profit the film usually has to take 2-3 times its total budget. As percentage of takings are also taken by others such as the cinemas promoters and so forth. Usually the studio and its partners takes about 60% of cinema ticket prices for the first 2 weeks on the film then it goes down to 40% after that. If they agree to cinemas doing advance screenings it is usually on the condition the studio and its partners taking about 80-90% of the ticket price on advance screenings. The distributor usually gets about 10% of the ticket price. Promoters get a smaller percentage. The studio gets the rest. With some studios like Disney, Warner Brothers, Lionsgate and Paramount they distribute their own films, so they they only pay the promoter of the film. But even then if a studio makes a profit on the film they usually have to pay cast members and crew a share of the profits. Some of the cast and crew have it in their contracts they take a percentage of the ticket sales. Christopher Nolan for instance had it in his contract with TENET. Tom Cruise and Robert Downey JR have it in all their films. So financially it was a flop. But in the sense that it made close to $400 million at the box office then yes. Most Star Trek films if they take $400 million at the box office are considered a success. Same with a lot of films. But this is done because they are done on smaller budgets and so their fore take less money to be a financial success.
LameLuka
LameLuka - 9/19/2020, 7:09 AM
I wouldn't call it misleading at all when a movie that didn't even hit 400 milion with a production budget around 300 milion (thanks to reshoots) and not counting the marketing budget. It was a giant flop, deal with it
1 2
View Recorder