[HOME] - [NEWS] - [MY CARTOONS] - [MY COMIC BOOK] - [MY MOVIES] - [MY PAPERS] - [HISTORICAL ESSAYS]

DISNEY IS FLOPPING ON SURE BETS: THE CASE OF SOLO

Somehow Disney managed to destroy the Solo movie. It has been a massive commerical flop. It's going cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. The film industry is a unique industry that you really have to work in to understand the business side of. Disney puts hundreds of millions into their films and they need to open big, they need to play long and they need to make money. One miss can destroy the profit from 10 successes.

The people running Disney don't understand how to make movies. Ever since they bought Star Wars from George Lucas they've been destroying Star Wars.

3 of Disney's star wars films have switched directors halfway through. That is a sign of a company that doesn't know how to put films together. Their marketing has always been week, Disney spends shitloads on marketing but they don't know what they're doing so the screw it up all the time.

I worked on Disney projects for 15 years including the Pixar stuff. Disney has also managed to destroy Pixar. They try to turn everything into sequels because they want to rely on the strenght of a brand like Toy Story or Star Wars, but they then make shitty films and the destroy the brands over time. They bought Pixar from Steve Jobs and then started making bad horrible movies years later. They are OK with what is in the pipeline but if they have to start from scratch and make a movie they always fail.

This Solo films is probably their biggest flop ever. And it's quite remarkable since Star Wars is basically a franchise you shouldn't lose with. Star Wars is the easiest thing to market in the world because it's already got a giant fan base. Everyone instantly knows its Star Wars as soon as you show a storm trooper. Dark Vader's voice alone can sell an entire movie franchise.

And yet with this Solo film, Disney created the first Star Wars commercial flop ever.



Recently Disney has been going into damage control because of all the bad press around their flop. They've been having fake people write lame excuses so the flop doesn't appear so horrible.

Deadline, which is a great webite for inside Hollywood information, had an article recently where they tried to use a Wall Street investor to explain away the flop. His analysis was so stupid, I'm going to rip it apart here. First of all, Wall Street people don't understand the movie industry - it isn't like any other industry. It's not like selling widgets or insurance.

This guy Doug Creutz, a Wall Street analyst at Cowen, issued a report to investors that reaffirmed his "market perform" rating on Disney shares. He then says the flop isn't a big deal. What this is really about is trying to reassure investors that Disney is OK after they keep bombing. They also released Wrinkle in Time recently which was another massive flop. So this investor is being brought out for a dog and pony show to explain why Disney isn't floundering, when it obviously is.

Creutz says "If the franchise was able to survive Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, we have a hard time believing Solo could have done that much damage." He apparently doesn't understand what the issue is really about. Disney only released Star Wars films every year at Chistmas, but now they are trying to release films 2 and then 3 and then ultimately 4 times a year. They want to make more and more money from Star Wars and releasing a film each year wasn't enough. They thought they could just make 4 times as much money if they just release a film every quarter.

This is the same plan that Disney applied with more success with the Marvel Universe. Marvel films are pretty horrible with some exceptions but Comic Superheros are so important to pop culture they have done well despite that. Though the Avengers made a lot of money it was a horrible movie and could have made twice as much money if Disney knew what they were doing.

The problem with Star Wars is that unlike Marvel, Star Wars doesn't have separate superheros that you can combine into a big film. With Marvel they started with the Characters and then brought them together into a massive movie with all the biggest superheros - of course that is going to make money. With Star Wars they don't have those characters so they couldn't do the same thing.

Instead they decided to create substories for the original characters like Solo. If they have films following just Han Solo they can combine him later with other Characters from the Star Wars universe. They call these Star Wars movies the original character movies. They are hoping that they can make enough of these other films that they can have 4 films a year. So Solo was actually very important to their business model.

The failure of Disney to launch Solo and the fact that they lost 100s of millions on the movie has doomed that entire strategy. They are going to abandon it which means they'll never be able to make 4 films a year and they won't get nearly as much money as they thought they would.

This goes directly to the strengh of Disney as a company. That is why it is an issue that Creutz should understand since he's supposedly a Wall Street guy who analyzes media companies. But the reality is that Creutz is just an illuminati stooge who is making excuses or illuminati Disney so their stolk doesn't talk.

These Star Wars films are supposed to be sure things. THEY ARE NEVER SUPPOSED TO LOSE MONEY. Losing money on a Star Wars film is something that Disney thought was impossible, and it should have been except they created a horrible film that people hate. They created the modern Star Wars Holiday Special.

The illuminati ultimatley wants to destroy Star Wars. They want to make it a bland boring world where evil is celebrated, where the dark side of hte force wins all the time (already the real Han Solo Harrison Ford has been killed off as well as Luke and Leia).

Projecting a final domestic tally of about $200 million, Creutz notes that Solo‘s international gross is accounting for just 75% of its global cume, the lowest percentage on any franchise entry or spinoff to date. Given the hefty production and marketing costs, he concludes, the film "may well finish in the red." Even Creutz admits Solo flopped and will end up costing Disney millions (though he won't say how much.)

Creutz then blames the marketing campaign for the movies failure - which movie studios have been doing for decades to dodge more important issues like firing the director in the middle of the shoot (which they did on Solo). He writes that the film's struggle "has occasioned some concern that audiences may be suffering from ‘Star Wars' fatigue. We think this is probably not the case, and that Solo's biggest problem was an uncharacteristically (for Disney) poor marketing campaign."

The Solo marketing campaign was horrible but that's because the movie was horrible. I've worked in advertising movies for 15 years and I know that you can't just slap lip stick on an uglly pig and expect it to look beautiful. Marketing is never the problem with these films, it's the fact the film sucks and you can't make good marketing from horrible movies. The Wrinkle in Time marketing campaign sucked too but that was also because the movie was horrendous.



Creutz then argues that the marketing for Solo failed to persuasively sell Alden Ehrenreich as a young Han Solo, a character originated onscreen more than 40 years ago by Harrison Ford. By contrast, Creutz pointed to the first teaser for Rogue One, which came out 247 days before the movie. (But who's counting? Creutz, apparently.) "The first 35 seconds of the trailer almost exclusively focuses on Felicity Jones as the protagonist Jyn Erso, selling her as a new franchise hero," he writes. "The second half is dominated by the Imperial alert klaxon and Forest Whitaker's voice over, and practically screams ‘EPIC' at the viewer, before closing on another hero shot of Jones." The first teaser for Solo, he noted, came out just 108 days out from release. The teaser, by our count, only had about 10 seconds of screen time where Ehrenreich's face was clearly in the picture — not, in our opinion, nearly enough."

The really funny part about all this "analysis" is that all he is doing is quoting from some one else's analysis. When they market a movie they do a thing called testing which is like product testing. You have people watch a trailer and ask them if they'd see the movie. They then do things like count how many times Alden's face is in the trailer. They also ask whether people like Alden and whether they'd go see a movie with Alden in it.

Everything Creutz says here - that he is passing off as his own analysis - is ripped verbatim from a testing report. I know how they write those things because I've read a million of them, and this is exactly the language they use. It is completely obvious to me that he got ahold of the testing report and then is just quoting from him while he passes it off as his own analysis.

Disney is not supposed to give Wall Street bankers their testing results. It is supposed to be confidential information. I once had someone leak a testing result at one of the places I worked and the FBI came and interviewed people at the company about it. That's how serious an issue they treat it. And yet they obviously gave Creutz the testing report and asked him to use it to come up with some bullshit excuses about why Solo flopped.

Disney knew all of this stuff before the movie was even released. The point of the testing process is for Disney to modify their trailer to fix the problems the testing company finds. So obviously, they didn't know how to fix anything. They knew they had a bomb on their hands but they still couldn't fix it. They are also lieing about what they actually spent on both producing the movie and marketing it. Really the total cost was 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. So if they movie makes 200 million total - which is the projection - they are going to lose 1.3 BILLION DOLLARS on SOLO.

The other funny thing is that everyone in the trailer industry knows that testing reports are all bullshit. They are all made up with stupid analysis. I had one friend who was hired to be a testing and he told me that he faked all the results. He would show one or two people the movie trailer and then based on their results he would make up results for everyone else he was supposed to test.

Testing companies just point out obvious things like no one likes Alden as Solo. Everyone asks, where did Harrison Ford go? Why isn't he Harrison Ford? The testing company told Disney they need to make Alden more recognizable and put him in the trailer more. The problem is that once they put him in more they retest it and then find that the numbers all went down because no one likes Alden as Solo. So really, the movie was doomed as soon as they cast Alden.

The only reason Alden was cast is that he is a Satanist who murders children. Alden actually paid money to be cast in it. Disney thinks that Alden looks like Harrison Ford even though no one else does. The most important thing for an actor is really the voie, which is why Ewan McGregor did such an amazing job as Obi Wan Kenobi. Ewan had to do the same job Alden was supposed to do but Ewan nailed it and Alden can't act. Alden's voice is annoying and he is so bland he has no personality. Audiences don't like him because he was the totally wrong choice for the part. Lando was cast well with Donny Glover but the film isn't called Lando, it's called Solo and people want to see Han Solo not some idiot satanist who can't act pretending to be Han Solo.



3 out of 4 Disney Star Wars films have had their director fired half way through making the movie. That's another sign that they don't what they're doing. It's also part of the reason the films are becoming so expensive to make. When they fire a director half way through a movie they scrap all the other previous footage and start over again. Disney didn't like what they had so they brought Ron Howard in to take over. Ron Howard threw out the other footage and started again. So it costs them 1.5 times as much to make the whole movie. And then Ron Howard delivered a horrible movie which he usually does.