[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c15 = "" innerhtml = "
"Solo: a story of Star Wars"Photo of Jonathan Olley – © 2018 – Lucasfilm Ltd.
The Hollywood Reporter I just posted an interview with Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger this morning. His thoughts on James Gunn's shooting are many ("I have not guessed their decision"), the idea that X-Men join the MCU ("There should not be two wonders") and the new streaming wars. It's all worth reading, but part of what stands out is frank recognition Star wars movie every year is too much Star wars movies. As expected four months ago when Solo: A story of Star Wars underestimated, the relative failure of the unsolicited Star wars The story would be the thing that rocked Disney enough to stop this craziness "once a year, come hell or water".
As such, yes, Solo may have "saved" Star wars by dying from a grim box-office death ($ 214 million worldwide and $ 393 million worldwide on a $ 275 million budget). Now that the movie is available on Digital HD (from last Friday) and Blu, 4K Blu, DVD, and VOD at a rental price starting on Tuesday, I imagine you'll see a lot of people catching up in the comfort of their own home. And I imagine we will see a lot of "Hey, this movie is pretty good!" But the problem with Solo: A story of Star Wars It's not that the movie was bad, just that it was not an absolute must-see event, especially abroad.
There is an occasional tendency to see big films, even big films that have got initially positive reviews, to be treated as an artistic failure after being less successful at the box office. The media has tagged Peter Jackson King Kong as flop after only "only" $ 66 million in its first five days in December 2005. Not only did this designation hold up after the 189-minute adventure, but it earned $ 219 million and $ 550 million in the world. movie was discussed in terms of being a bad movie despite the very positive reviews that have welcomed its release. Same the tastes of Superman Returns, ghost hunters and Batman Returns. It is a cultural amnesia that immediately places an underperformance of a major film on its alleged quality.
I just liked Solo: A story of Star Wars, and I hated Superman Returnsbut the initial wave of criticism until the release of the two images was relatively positive. That they both underperformed at about the same scale (Superman Returns earned $ 203 million nationally and $ 391 million globally in 2006 on a $ 270 million budget), which does not necessarily cancel the initial approval. Those who saw Solo before its release especially appreciated. Those who bought a ticket for Solo last summer more or less appreciated. The problem was that it was too expensive and not enough to attract people to the theater, especially when it would be available in high quality formats from the comfort of the home, just four months after its release.
Solo: A story of Star Wars did not bombard (in relation to budget and expectations) because of Star wars Fatigue, although doing less Star wars movies (which are mostly episodes of mythology / event films) are a smart game. He did not bomb because of the bad marketing because everyone knew he was going to arrive and was aware of its contents from the first day. He did not bomb because it was "bad" because the criticisms and word of mouth drew a relatively positive picture before publication. It is certain that it is true The last Jediboycott or negative reaction. This is a dangerous argument, marking the failure of Solo at The last Jedi and Thief A, which accuses successful movies starring women and / or minorities for the failure of the heroic film of a white man.
It underperformed because people thought it was best to wait until the end of the show. His greatest artistic strength was his greatest financial weakness. The image directed by Ron Howard played the role of a robbery in the style of the 1970s, referring to the genres of films that inspired Star wars instead of referencing Star wars himself Despite the budget and the brand, he was an unpretentious studio programmer, designed not to be an event film but rather a specific story about a specific character who was in this universe vast and popular. But at the time of the movies, people were not interested in a prequel to Han Solo, especially to an unknown character, and even to Star wars label could not be part of an event movie Avengers: Infinity War, Deadpool 2 and Indestructible 2.
I'm curious to see how Solo performs in his post-theatrical life. To be honest, if the film had made the usual 33/67 split between the domestic and foreign markets, a volume of $ 214 million and $ 650 million would have been (as Justice League, another film with an inflated budget in September) simply a disappointment over the cost and not a real disaster. Twas overseas disinterest that killed the beast. Since Solo will play well as a casual rental Saturday, I expect it to have a long life. But do not pretend that he was "underestimated" (those who liked him), snubbed by criticism (critics were solid) or victim of poor marketing (not shooting at the messenger). Solo stumbled because general audiences made an informed decision to wait for the DVD.
">
"Solo: a story of Star Wars"Photo of Jonathan Olley – © 2018 – Lucasfilm Ltd.
The Hollywood Reporter I just posted an interview with Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger this morning. His thoughts on James Gunn's shooting are many ("I have not guessed their decision"), the idea that X-Men join the MCU ("There should not be two wonders") and the new streaming wars. It's all worth reading, but part of what stands out is frank recognition Star wars movie every year is too much Star wars movies. As expected four months ago when Solo: A story of Star Wars underestimated, the relative failure of the unsolicited Star wars The story would be the thing that rocked Disney enough to stop this craziness "once a year, come hell or water".
As such, yes, Solo may have "saved" Star wars by dying from a grim box-office death ($ 214 million worldwide and $ 393 million worldwide on a $ 275 million budget). Now that the movie is available on Digital HD (from last Friday) and Blu, 4K Blu, DVD, and VOD at a rental price starting on Tuesday, I imagine you'll see a lot of people catching up in the comfort of their own home. And I imagine we will see a lot of "Hey, this movie is pretty good!" But the problem with Solo: A story of Star Wars It's not that the movie was bad, just that it was not an absolute must-see event, especially abroad.
There is an occasional tendency to see big films, even big films that have got initially positive reviews, to be treated as an artistic failure after being less successful at the box office. The media has tagged Peter Jackson King Kong as flop after only "only" $ 66 million in its first five days in December 2005. Not only did this designation hold up after the 189-minute adventure, but it earned $ 219 million and $ 550 million in the world. movie was discussed in terms of being a bad movie despite the very positive reviews that have welcomed its release. Same the tastes of Superman Returns, ghost hunters and Batman Returns. It is a cultural amnesia that immediately places an underperformance of a major film on its alleged quality.
I just liked Solo: A story of Star Wars, and I hated Superman Returnsbut the initial wave of criticism until the release of the two images was relatively positive. That they both underperformed at about the same scale (Superman Returns earned $ 203 million nationally and $ 391 million globally in 2006 on a $ 270 million budget), which does not necessarily cancel the initial approval. Those who saw Solo before its release especially appreciated. Those who bought a ticket for Solo last summer more or less appreciated. The problem was that it was too expensive and not enough to attract people to the theater, especially when it would be available in high quality formats from the comfort of the home, just four months after its release.
Solo: A story of Star Wars did not bombard (in relation to budget and expectations) because of Star wars Fatigue, although doing less Star wars movies (which are mostly episodes of mythology / event films) are a smart game. He did not bomb because of the bad marketing because everyone knew he was going to arrive and was aware of its contents from the first day. He did not bomb because it was "bad" because the criticisms and word of mouth drew a relatively positive picture before publication. It is certain that it is true The last Jediboycott or negative reaction. This is a dangerous argument, marking the failure of Solo at The last Jedi and Thief A, which accuses successful movies starring women and / or minorities for the failure of the heroic film of a white man.
It underperformed because people thought it was best to wait until the end of the show. His greatest artistic strength was his greatest financial weakness. The image directed by Ron Howard played the role of a robbery in the style of the 1970s, referring to the genres of films that inspired Star wars instead of referencing Star wars himself Despite the budget and the brand, he was an unpretentious studio programmer, designed not to be an event film but rather a specific story about a specific character who was in this universe vast and popular. But at the time of the movies, people were not interested in a prequel to Han Solo, especially to an unknown character, and even to Star wars label could not be part of an event movie Avengers: Infinity War, Deadpool 2 and Indestructible 2.
I'm curious to see how Solo performs in his post-theatrical life. To be honest, if the film had made the usual 33/67 split between the domestic and foreign markets, a volume of $ 214 million and $ 650 million would have been (as Justice League, another film with an inflated budget in September) simply a disappointment over the cost and not a real disaster. Twas overseas disinterest that killed the beast. Since Solo will play well as a casual rental Saturday, I expect it to have a long life. But do not pretend that he was "underestimated" (those who liked him), snubbed by criticism (critics were solid) or victim of poor marketing (not shooting at the messenger). Solo stumbled because general audiences made an informed decision to wait for the DVD.
