JACK PARKS: Rumors of ‘Solo’s’ demise far overstated

“Star Wars showing fatigue with Solo outing.” “Solo crashes at box office.” “Solo spells trouble for franchise.”

These are all headlines I have seen related to the newest entry into the “Star Wars” film canon, “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” “Star Wars” movies have typically been huge box office winners in recent memory and, while “Solo” was No. 1 at the box office, it made only $84 million.

By comparison, “The Force Awakens,” the first entry since Disney purchased the franchise, earned almost $1 billion in domestic gross alone, with more than $2 billion earned worldwide. “The Last Jedi,” despite its naysayers, earned a respectable $1.3 billion as well. Both opened to more than $200 million their first weekend and stayed at the top of the box office for a month.

“Rogue One” took in only $155 million its first weekend, but that was the first cinematic foray outside the main saga. A lower box office was acceptable because it was new ground. It also had a cast of characters that have no part in the rest of the story, while “Solo” features some of the most beloved characters in history and barely managed to rake in half the money.

If that’s all you look at, then sure, it looks like the movie is doing poorly and the galaxy far, far away might be running out of steam. The real numbers tell you a different story, though.

“Solo: A Star Wars Story” was released on Memorial Day weekend. Holiday weekends are typically not a good time to release movies, precisely because it’s a holiday. People are going to be traveling, seeing friends and family, having celebrations together, not watching movies.

A quick look at the weekend totals confirms that theaters pulled in $25 million less from 5/25-5/27 than they did just the weekend prior. In fact, for the past 10 years, the No. 1 movie on Memorial Day weekend took in only $67 million on average.

“Solo” managed to pull in $17 million more than the average, and in doing so earned twice as much at the box office than “Deadpool 2,” and practically five times more than “Avengers: Infinity War,” the second and third place films in those franchises, respectively.

Now that I think about it, let’s take a closer look at those movies that “Solo” is competing against. It’s not like “Solo” exists in a vacuum. Memorial Day weekend may be the traditional beginning of summer for most Americans, but the Hollywood blockbuster season is already in full swing.

Those second- and third-place movies for “Solo’s” opening weekend just happen to also be the second and third top-grossing domestic films so far for 2018, while “Avengers” is actually No. 1 worldwide. “Deadpool 2” is only in its second weekend and actually got knocked out of first place this week by “Solo.”

A large chunk of the $60 million those two films collected would have gone to “Solo” had they not been running simultaneously. One has to wonder why Disney chose to release the film in the summer instead of December like the other “Star Wars” movies.

Summer is actually the traditional time for “Star Wars” movies to be released. It’s been more than a decade since that was the case, though. It was the original “Star Wars” film that launched the summer blockbuster, after all, and all of the original and prequel films were released in the summertime.

There aren’t numbers readily available for opening weekends for the original trilogy, but the $84 million earned by “Solo” isn’t too far behind the $97 million (adjusted for inflation) by “The Phantom Menace,” highly anticipated as the first “Star Wars” film in 25 years. “Attack of the Clones” pulled in $111 million (again, adjusted for inflation), while “Revenge of the Sith” made $139 million.

Let’s consider now that the prequel films came three years apart, allowing time for anticipation and excitement to build. Even with that, the most money earned in opening weekend from “ROTS” falls well behind a film tangential to the main story, and almost $100 million behind the sequels, despite there being a new film every year now.

So it seems the question shouldn’t be “Why is ‘Solo’ not making much money?” as much as “Why are the other new ‘Star Wars’ movies making so much?”

It’s all about when the film is released. As I mentioned earlier, “Solo” was released during the blockbuster season, competing directly with some of the top-grossing films of the year, on a weekend that typically makes less money to begin with.

Whereas “The Force Awakens” opened in December against the fourth Alvin and the Chipmunks “film,” and “The Last Jedi’s” biggest competition was something called “Ferdinand.” For perspective, while “Solo” was competing against the biggest movies of the year, Alvin and Ferdinand were ranked in the lower 30s for their year and their total gross was what “Solo” pulled in its first three days.

“Solo” isn’t performing poorly at the box office. It’s doing as well as could be expected, considering the circumstances. Had it not been running with the biggest movies of the year at one of the slowest points of the summer season, it probably would’ve outperformed “Rogue One.”

So don’t let the numbers scare you. As it is, there are already enough people buying into the negative hype about the film coming from reported delays, reshoots, a change in director midway through production, and fans trashing the film before they knew anything about it simply because they didn’t understand “The Last Jedi.”

I have many nerd friends, as you may have guessed, and none of them has said anything negative about “Solo.” I also am a member of many groups on Facebook that are “Star Wars”-centric, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive from people who have actually watched it. But don’t just take my word for it.

Almost 50,000 users on IMDB have rated Solo a 7.2 out of 10, a very respectable rating. That same rating is also held by “The Patriot,” the live-action “Beauty and the Beast,” and classics like the original “Karate Kid,” Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Outsiders,” “Scream,” “Grease” and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High.”

If you’re looking for a more critical view, it’s got a 70 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes (certified fresh!), which puts it on the same level as “Something’s Gotta Give,” Tim Burton’s “Batman,” “The Dark Crystal” and “Child’s Play.”

Despite everything seemingly working against it, it’s just fine. The movie may not be academy award material. It may not have political themes, be philosophically deep or burdened by social commentary. But if you give it a chance, you’re pretty much guaranteed to have a great time.

Even Han Solo would like those odds.

Jack Parks is the creator and writer of the Talk nerdy to Me column.