RUMOR Disney expects the Han Solo movie to bomb.

I think in terms of Star Wars money (billions) , it will most likely bomb. Someone has to be last after all.

The perfect storm here is the ridiculous (mostly) backlash against TLJ, followed by the troubled SOLO (Should I just call it "S"?) production.

Since TLJ was a 'bomb' only to be followed by S, then I fully expect it to make less. It won't make less than most films...it will have an audience....but it won't make RO numbers either. That's just the way of the world and a bit of Star Wars fatigue is expected in the fourth release. (Consider this: Star Wars fans complaining about TOO MUCH Star Wars......the mind reels....but you guys.....oy vey)

I'm cool with it. Ron Howard knows how to make a good film, LFL is behind it, I have high hopes.

 

Spoiler...Han dies

 

It's almost like some people want the new SW movies to fail.

 

So it's a bad movie? And Ron Howard enthusiastically steps into it and embraces how bad it is because - he wants to embrace a bomb and have his reputation as one Hollywood's better directors tarnished? Does that make sense to anyone?

EDIT: Language

 

The performance will do more for him "resembling" Han more than a still photo will. If he nails the mannerisms and the attitude, he will be absolutely fine.

 

If this turns out to be true (and usually I don't believe in rumors so it's a big IF) then I would really appreciate it if KK stepped down from her position as head of Lucasfilm. Under her control they burnt through 8 directors in 4 movies, 2 out of 4 movies underwent expensive reshoots and the saga movies do not connect as neatly as the previous trilogies did as they seem to lack a uniform vision. Making up things on the fly is okay for an indie production but any professional HR department with a 50% dropout quota would be fired.

 

Why would Disney spend so much money on a film that they wouldn't profit from? Haven't read previous post so apologies if this was already covered...

RH was offered to direct a prequel film from George, but didn't want to play in his world most likely if he failed, the backlash would be tremendous, so now as a favor to KK he did it and I think he would do the best job that he could, don't understand all this negativity of the SOLO film:

simply for the fact the actor chosen doesn't resemble Ford
or its not the actor you wanted?
Or the Solo legend should be left alone?

If filmmakers thought like some fans we would miss out on allot of creative films.
Filmmakers must take risk to advance the art.

Whether it be the story, CGI, VFX, etc,....

George has taken so much risk maybe thats why he is such a genius... prequels and all...

 

Sum do.

 

Well I certainly hope they realize that could cause SW to collapse if that happened.

 

Sum people just want 2 watch the world burn.

 

Whether KK has a feminist agenda or not she is the best person for the job. George was practically her mentor during her early career. I'd like to see a list of people some think would do a better job.

Dream jobs, regular jobs, all jobs are stressful. I've worked 12 years at my job and I do a rather good job, but at times it can become stressful, I have to deal with the upper echelons, my co-workers, and the job itself. I can imagine all the stress KK is under running LFM.

I mean come on, it looks easy but hey give it shot, or give someone else a go. Kevin Feige ( Feige has had few director issues as well) is doing a rather good job at Marvel; however, look at Fox and Warner Bro. (in terms of comic book related films), At Warner its like the blind leading the blind. We all make mistakes I don't think KK should be crucified for director troubles at least she handled it before we got an abysmal film. She has a good track record and I don't think she would release a bad film... its all hyperbole...

 

Haven’t they learned from the PT and TLJ when you flesh out an iconic character it will divide the fans. When you give a backstory of Darth Vader and give us a new arc of Luke Skywalker, some fans are going to love it and some will hate it. The same thing will happen with a young Han Solo.

That is why R1 is not as divisive because it’s all new characters thrown into the GFFA so they have the freedom to do what they want. That is why Episode 9 will not be as divisive because there are no more OT character arcs except for how the death of Leia is handled.

 

So true. Some people just love to complain. They think they sound brilliant when they pick something apart. Yet no matter how much they claim to hate it, they can't wait to come onto the forum to share their disdain over, and over, and over.... And they threaten to give up on SW, but the Solo whiners will be the same as the TLJ whiners, who were TFA whiners, and so on. These bitter pessimists really should spend some of their efforts on losing their virginity, then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to spend 10 hours a week complaining about the movie they hate that they saw 3 times in the first week, including the very first showing after they did the same last time

 

Actually, I think you are generalizing and you're way off base. Everyone I know who didn't like TLJ really loved TFA and liked R1. That was sort of the shock of TLJ, because everyone expected Disney to go 3 for 3 because they did a great job with TFA and R1.

Obviously you are going to get the whiners on the internet, as unfortunately it's a symptom of social media and there is nothing you can do about it. But everyone I know who didn't like TLJ didn't see it again in the theater (hence why its 241 million behind the pace of TFA). And that is odd because those same people atleast gave the PT a shot twice at the theater each time. There is something about this film that just rubbed people the wrong way as I know diehard fans (including myself) who always see SW movies multiple times, not go back for a second time.

 

For some reason, my gut feeling tells me that this will be the first Star Wars movie to become a box office success in China.

 

It definitely raises eyebrows regarding the following:

A: how involved she is at the creative level
B: how beholden she is to Disney.

If A, and she's approving scripts, pre-production talks with directors only to then go back on the initial agreements, then the buck stops with her. But on the other hand, if it's more B, and she's fine with the 'hardcore war film R1', and irreverent comedy Solo', only for Disney higher-ups to slam on the brakes and go, no no no we're Mickey Mouse and Giselle and Elsa and this won't do, then she's less at fault for the abrupt about-faces.

Regarding just that bolded part: she has 'a good track record' because of Spielberg.

If you go to her IMDB or wiki page you can first note how many of her projects involve him.

Then, more importantly, see how many of these list her as 'Executive Producer' which is code for 'only handled the business aspects of production and had absolutely nothing at all to do with any part of the creative process whatsoever'.



The rest of this post is not directed at Rogues1138, but more of an FYI regarding what exactly a film producer does for anyone who might be interested.



A film producer is different from a music producer, (especially from the modern incarnation of the 'music producer')

Generally, it's helpful to think of a film producer as a band manager: they take care of everything else so the band can concentrate on writing/performing. Obviously there are going to be people who can and do chime in with creative input. But the film producer's main job is as described earlier: handling the business aspect of the production - hiring caterers, dealing with union/guild issues, hiring creative/technical staff, keeping directors in check when inspiration strikes on set and they suddenly need $5 million, negotiating for film permits, dealing with insurance companies, dealing with lawyers, etc etc. All this stuff minute after minute day after day on a dynamic film production schedule. You can see how a really good producer probably isn't going to be a creative type.

Also, due to you being 'in charge of the money' you're often 'the bad guy'.

Now, the bigger a project gets, the harder it gets to maintain creative inertia while also getting all the business stuff right. Sometimes you really do need that $5 million extra, it'll make the scene. But it's virtually impossible for those two qualities - the creative ability to recognize that need, and the financial/people skills to get a hold of that $5 million - to exist in one person.

You've probably heard of these names: Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer; Mario Kassar/Andrew Vajna; Frank Marshall/Kathleen Kennedy; Bob/Harvey Weinstein (I know, I know - FYI the latter considered himself the 'creative' member of the team).

These powerhouse production duos arose because one person was the 'money' person and the other was the 'creative' person; one was good at keeping morale up, listening to the staff, while the other was the person who put their foot down and kept everyone in line; one was carrot, the other was stick. (Plus when you go into a negotiation, often it'll be you two vs someone else's one.) Obviously there will be overlap and role-reversal at times, but bottom line is you get sort of a good cop/bad cop or 'but Mom/Dad said I could' push-pull dynamic, with each counteracting the other as the production develops.

I'm not going to speculate whether KK was mainly the business type or the creative type in Marshall/Kennedy. That's sort of beside the point.

But to say "she's good at her job" is not taking into account that, per the first point, the overwhelming bulk of a film producer's job is the business aspect and has very little to do with hands-on creative guidance AKA they are not necessarily good creative types who know what they're doing regarding the actual storytelling aspect of the production.


Also, the reason Feige's doing such a good job with the MCU is that Feige is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE comic-book nerd.

So when creative talent - directors, writers etc. - talk to him about story decisions, they respect his input. There's no risk of them dismissing him as a corporate money manager type producer.

 

Anyone will print anything these days to get clicks.
I pity anyone who blindly believes things they read on the internet.

That said...Solo will probably not make more than $300m domestic / $550m WW.
So yes, it will probably be a "bomb", regardless of quality.

 

I expect it to fare as well as Rogue One did. There is no way that they expect it to fare as well as a saga film. None of that means that they think it will or that it actually will bomb.

 

Lots of valid points which I've brought up before as well.

Even if some people at Disney feel like Kennedy should be replaced, they would never do it now in the middle of so many projects. That would be seen as a huge scandal and would only hurt the brand.

If anything, my guess is that she will be replaced as head of Lucasfilm sometime after the release of Episode IX, in other words during the completion of the Sequel Trilogy. This way, they can make it seem as if Kennedy is stepping down willingly at "the top of her career", and she can validate this herself by saying something like "I was set out to make a sequel trilogy to Star Wars, and that work is now done. I have strengthened the Star Wars brand and made it accessible to more people than ever before. But all good things must come to an end, and to keep Star Wars fresh and exciting is more important than anything. That is why I've personally decided to step down as head of Lucasfilm."

 

The "article" which provided unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources also said that there would be a trailer within the next week. That was three weeks ago... I'm uncomfortable using this phrase but I think we can refer to this as fake news. I just feel ashamed that I contributed to this click-bait by reading it.