Well, I went to Solo at the theater because I like Han Solo best of the SW characters. I liked it and wish they'd do more.
Caught TLJ on video. I liked it too, just not intrigued enough by the franchise to pony up for theater tickets.
CBS Trek's DEFENDERS?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Caught TLJ on video. I liked it too, just not intrigued enough by the franchise to pony up for theater tickets.
I saw it at the theater as well. Mostly liked it. Thought it was a nice telling of his origin story, but really didn't feel like I knew anything "new" about the Star Wars universe afterward. It also didn't feel important in the context of the overall story.
Nope.
TLJ was controversial, but it was by no means universally hated. Even if you think it contributed, one controversial outing shouldn't even be capable of so thoroughly undermining the strongest franchise in cinema by itself. And anyone who considered themselves a Star Wars fan and liked TFA and R1 yet hated TLJ should've likely been *more* interested in Solo, not less, because it was in many ways marketed as completely and totally different from TLJ.
Anyone who chose not to see Solo because TLJ disappointed them most likely were already on the fence about modern SW in the first place - ie, they didn't like TFA or R1, either, at least not enough to make them want to see if Solo might be like either of those films.
The far more likely explanation is that people who are fans of Star Wars just aren't automatically huge fans of Han Solo, and especially not of Han Solo played by some random guy they've never heard of, taking smuggling jobs with no involvement from Luke, Leia or any other major character (except for Chewbacca). Add in the fact that Star Wars' massive box offices are typically driven up by the event nature of the films (and Solo coming less than six months after TLJ and having almost no significant marketing campaign had zero event nature about it whatsoever), and the fact that WoM was lukewarm overall, and the fact that Rogue One proved the side movies are really side movies and not actually woven together with the other films (which means all the people who went to see Rogue One thinking it was 'the next Star Wars film' period now knew better and had less incentive to go see Solo unless they were actually interested in the premise itself).
There are tons of obvious, logical reasons why Solo bombed. TLJ may have contributed to that in some small part. I personally doubt it, but there's no real way to prove that either way. But the idea that TLJ was directly and wholly responsible for Solo's performance is laughably ridiculous.
Personally I think the side stories have just picked tales that would work fine as a book or video game but not as a full blown multi-million dollar picture. I think there is a reason that under George Han's tale was told in a novel trilogy and the Death Star plans were stolen by some bloke in level one of a PC game and remember this is the guy who greenlight a holiday special, two ewok movies, some cartoons and pushed for the pilot of another cartoon to be in theatres. If he didn't think these stories were worth a multi-million dollar, live action movie then maybe they're not worth a multi million dollar, live action movie. Not to say that he's a voice you should always listen to when it comes to story telling.
To get slightly back on track; as someone else said the Marvel netflix shows were designed to lead into each other and I think if they did that with Trek it could work. Sisko, Janeway and Picard teaming up is fine because they are all around at the same time and are big enough to warrant being called in on the same crisis. If Pike gets his own show out of this then there is no reason not to have them cross over CSI style every so often and that goes for any future shows they bring out. As for Picard I would personally be okay with them bringing him into this but maybe without time travel. Maybe the answer he is looking for is in the past and he has to read up on Captain Pike for answers to whatever diplomatic crisis he is facing now. He is into history after all, though I think his tastes run a bit older, so as long as he isn't beaming back to the bridge of the Discovery I think that could work.
People don't like being pushed a product. MCU was pushing out too many movies as well and it seems like they've throttle back just a little bit. I don't think there's one franchise fatigue, i think it may be just a general ennui across the board. After the kind of multiple fandom feast that we've all been treated to, sometimes its ok to take a break from the table.
Star Trek coming in at the end of this with their own offerings could be problematic if they overdo it, but watching habits are very different now. CBS could pull it off, bu they have to have good writers and make certain they're not letting a flawed product out the door. I've heard more than once people involved in the B&B years say of some episode "Well.. we had like 120 shows that decade, some of them weren't going to be winners!"
That's not really good enough. You can say that when you're prepping salads at Subway. When you're priviledged to be at the very top, writing, directing, producing for one of the most beloved sci fi franchises, the one that gets kids thinking about being engineers and astronomers, the one that keeps people optomistic in an increasingly shitty world, everyone has the right to expect you to get it right. Conversely, fans will almost never universally agree that the showmakers DO get it right, but that's life. They just need to make GOOD star trek, then they can make just about as much as they want.
Star Trek coming in at the end of this with their own offerings could be problematic if they overdo it, but watching habits are very different now. CBS could pull it off, bu they have to have good writers and make certain they're not letting a flawed product out the door. I've heard more than once people involved in the B&B years say of some episode "Well.. we had like 120 shows that decade, some of them weren't going to be winners!"
That's not really good enough. You can say that when you're prepping salads at Subway. When you're priviledged to be at the very top, writing, directing, producing for one of the most beloved sci fi franchises, the one that gets kids thinking about being engineers and astronomers, the one that keeps people optomistic in an increasingly shitty world, everyone has the right to expect you to get it right. Conversely, fans will almost never universally agree that the showmakers DO get it right, but that's life. They just need to make GOOD star trek, then they can make just about as much as they want.
The problem is that Marvel is doing movies and netflix they're not trying to support their own streaming service. Heck, even when they switch to Disney they will be in there with Star Wars and other general Disney stuff to make the package attractive. Right now Trek is trying to compete against all that and or all of netflix by itself. They have to go big and they have to go big, fast.
Solo tanked because nobody cared and the movie was average at best. Their young Han Solo felt like a watered-down version of Peter Quill.
Han is a character you know will be murdered by his son after years of quiet desperation and losing the love of his life. TFA took away all investment in his character. It’s like going to a Death of a Salesman Prequel to know Willie Loman better. Who cares?
^I think Rogue One is one of the most entertaining films in the Star Wars franchise. In fact, I think its biggest problem was leaning too heavily into the franchise with pointless Tarkin and Vader stuff that only distracted from the actual stars of the movie. The idea that the premise just isn't good enough to make a movie about makes no sense. They did make a movie about it and it was pretty good. Even people who weren't pleased with it usually seem to put other SW films at the bottom of the heap quality wise. I haven't seen Solo yet, so I don't know if that story was worth a big budget or not.
I think any lingering disappointment about these side films has more to do with the expectations that people have of the Star wars franchise. Take away the star wars branding, and a film about a young smuggling involved in shady deals or a strike team stealing important military plans wouldn't raise a single eyebrow, but because it's Star Wars, people act like every story needs to be worlds-spanning, universe shattering and filled with dogfights and Jedi. If the SW franchise is ever going to be anything more than a few (in many ways repetitive) films combined with various smaller anciliary story that most of the audience never sees, it will eventually have to break out of these expectations and make 'book stories' work on the big screen as well, and I think it's a good idea that they at least tried here, though the execution may be debatable.
That, interestingly, leads back to the main subject here, since expectations are the biggest issue facing these new trek shows and the way CBS seems to desire handling that issue, in many ways similar to the Rogue One/Solo vs TFA/TLJ approach of trying to do different things at the same time, is probably the biggest issue with this idea of big overarching crossovers. Having DSC and a new Picard show and an animated comedy and maybe something about Khan all at the same time is great diversity, and if enough of it lands, a great way to force audiences to let go of 'all Trek must be the same'- but how the heck do you make all that crossover at once?
I think any lingering disappointment about these side films has more to do with the expectations that people have of the Star wars franchise. Take away the star wars branding, and a film about a young smuggling involved in shady deals or a strike team stealing important military plans wouldn't raise a single eyebrow, but because it's Star Wars, people act like every story needs to be worlds-spanning, universe shattering and filled with dogfights and Jedi. If the SW franchise is ever going to be anything more than a few (in many ways repetitive) films combined with various smaller anciliary story that most of the audience never sees, it will eventually have to break out of these expectations and make 'book stories' work on the big screen as well, and I think it's a good idea that they at least tried here, though the execution may be debatable.
That, interestingly, leads back to the main subject here, since expectations are the biggest issue facing these new trek shows and the way CBS seems to desire handling that issue, in many ways similar to the Rogue One/Solo vs TFA/TLJ approach of trying to do different things at the same time, is probably the biggest issue with this idea of big overarching crossovers. Having DSC and a new Picard show and an animated comedy and maybe something about Khan all at the same time is great diversity, and if enough of it lands, a great way to force audiences to let go of 'all Trek must be the same'- but how the heck do you make all that crossover at once?
Kirk's death in Generations wasn't exactly great, but people flocked to see the young version in Star Trek '09.
Solo had some nice bits in it, but as a whole? Meh. That is why nobody came to see.
Wouldn't mind seeing crossovers. Picard show is a good opportunity for a wide range of TNG-DS9-VOY characters to appear. The mini episodes could have several. Time travel and connections between alternate universes allows all the shows and timelines to interact.
Something similar to what happened to Worf could happen to Kirk, allowing Chris Pines Kirk to encounter the Prine universe or Shatner to appear in the Prime 24th Century from a 24th Century timeline where he killed Soren and survived.
A Daniels type character to bring them together. Or Q or whoever you want. It wouldn't be hard to do it. .
Something similar to what happened to Worf could happen to Kirk, allowing Chris Pines Kirk to encounter the Prine universe or Shatner to appear in the Prime 24th Century from a 24th Century timeline where he killed Soren and survived.
A Daniels type character to bring them together. Or Q or whoever you want. It wouldn't be hard to do it. .
