TLJ to blame?

[Spot261]

There's been a lot of discussion recently about the reasons behind the disappointing Box Office performance of Solo, much of it very politically flavoured.

As we've all seen, many people within the fan community have blamed the liberal politics they perceive in the preceding three films which all had female leads. The theory is that despite the success of those films this led to the eventual loss of interest in the franchise generally and manifesting in the failure of a film with a male lead.

The Last Jedi in particular has been held up in some quarters as being the main culprit, but crucially the people making these claims do so under the banner of speaking "for the fans".

So here's what I'm looking to get a feel for in here, does this position really reflect the consensus of the fanbase or are these people in a minority?

Do you feel TLJ is to blame for Solo's failure?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Do you feel TLJ is to blame for Solo's failure?

No. Solo failed on its own terms.

So here's what I'm looking to get a feel for in here, does this position really reflect the consensus of the fanbase or are these people in a minority?

I believe these people, those who look at the Disney SW films and perceive an agenda to diminish manhood, are a minority of the fanbase. I think the idea that Disney is a party to such an agenda is absurd.

 

[Kibbin]

Personally I think Solo failed due to being an origin story that nobody asked for, recasting the OT most iconic actor in a part they are most well known for and a general low quality across the board that gives the feeling of franchise fatigue while other properties can put out more a year and still feel fresh.

 

[MacLeod]

I don't see what gender the lead has to do with it, as Kibbin mentioned recasting one of the most iconic characters likely didn't help. In some respects I would much rather they get away established characters and the time period around The Rise and Fall of the Empire and explore the universe more go back a 1000 years before the events of episode I or something.

 

[Kibbin]

I don't see what gender the lead has to do with it, as Kibbin mentioned recasting one of the most iconic characters likely didn't help. In some respects I would much rather they get away established characters and the time period around The Rise and Fall of the Empire and explore the universe more go back a 1000 years before the events of episode I or something.

I don't think you need to jump in time as the galaxy is a pretty big place. Just don't tie it back into the main story like you said. Tell me a good story that's not trying to tie into something, set something up or flesh something out and exists solely to be a good action adventure movie. If it lands well then you can worry about tying it in or carrying it on for a whole new trilogy. Go a firely esque root and have a band of smugglers trying to make ends meet. Or Indy/ Doctor alpha and have someone hunting down artifacts from the old republic/ the Jedi/sith wars.

 

[Gepard]

I think its possible that audience dissatisfaction with/anger towards TLJ reduced Solo's box office to some degree, but I also think the bulk of it was because nobody frigging wanted a Han Solo standalone movie to begin with. There was anti-buzz from the moment it was announced. Plus the release date being a mere five months after the previous movie didn't help.

What I hope Disney takes away from this is to not just assume there's an audience who will show up for anything with the Star Wars branding slapped on it, and instead to take the time to think up ideas that are actually interesting and to maybe, just maybe, slow it down a bit so a Star Wars movie release continues to feel special.

 

[USS Firefly]

I don't know, I didn't go to Solo because his backstory never interestEd me.
And because TLJ my friends didn't want to go, so we didn't talk about it really.

 

[Trekkin]

I had a friend who was a massive fan of TLJ and TFA, but couldn’t remember the latest movies name when we were spitballing what to do with our Saturday.

So I’m gonna put down a chip on ‘Not great promotion, and an utter lack of buzz.’

 

[BillJ]

I'd blame Rogue One. People flocked to it and realized it was nothing but fanwank that had nothing to do with the current trilogy. Ticket buyers knew there was no pressing story reason to see Solo.

 

[DigificWriter]

Did we really need yet another misguided thread that proclaims "doom and gloom" for Solo in particular or Star Wars in general?

No, we did not.

Also, Solo WILL recoup its money in the long run, regardless of its BO performance, as per a couple of people who have close "insider" ties to people within Lucasfilm and are therefore in a position to know and understand the mindset of the company when it comes to the property and their response to Solo not performing to the level they believed that it was going to.

Star Wars is a franchise that has never depended on box office returns for its survival, and the people proclaiming doom and gloom for the property are just objectively wrong.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Star Wars is a franchise that has never depended on box office returns for its survival

I can't say that I agree with that, especially when thinking about the years 1977-1980 inclusive.

 

[BillJ]

Star Wars is a franchise that has never depended on box office returns for its survival...

What do you think drives all that merchandising? The popularity of the movies.

If the movies become less-and-less popular, those licenses become less valuable.

 

[EnderAKH]

Look, my wife and I love all the new movies, Rogue One and The Last Jedi included. We also liked the trailers for Solo. We still almost skipped it in the theater because:

• It came on the heels of a blockbuster heavy 6 months: TLJ followed by Black Panther followed by Avengers Infinity War. We were a little movied out.
• It was a side story, so not as critical to see as the trilogy movies.

Ultimately, we saw it in theaters and loved it, but I get why even Star Wars fans may have skipped it.

 

[Tuskin38]

It was released too close to Infinity War.

 

[EnderAKH]

It was released too close to Infinity War.

Which hampered people's desire to see it generally because Infinity War was SO BIG with such a heavy ending, but also hampered Disney's marketing because they put their focus on Infinity War and didn't start marketing Solo heavily until a few weeks before it came out, which is contrary to how they normally market the Star Wars movies (which would generously be called carpet bombing).

 

[Campe]

I voted Solo was to blame but really that’s a simplistic answer. There are a lot of factors that probably played into the perceived failure of Solo. These include:

1. Poor marketing
2. Crowded release period
3. Behind the scenes drama
4. Release date too close to previous installment
5. General fan disinterest in film
6. Recasting of an iconic part
7. Movie was a side story from main franchise
8. General franchise fatigue
9. Vocal minority showing TLJ backlash (but this is a small one for sure)

 

[fireproof78]

Short answer: Solo was to blame, with that blame falling squarely on Disney, Bob Iger and Lawrence Kasdan.

 

[Tuskin38]

Short answer: Solo was to blame, with that blame falling squarely on Disney, Bob Iger and Lawrence Kasdan.

I don't see how it's Lawrence's fault.

 

[The Wormhole]

Yes, damn it, it's all TLJ's fault! Rian Johnson has utterly destroyed the Star Wars franchise irrevocably! Also, Kathleen Kennedy turning the franchise into girls movies that push a liberal SJW agenda meant that Solo, a movie about a white guy like the good old days had no hope of lasting in a market that doesn't appreciate white guys.

Okay, we got the nonsense out of the way. Really, they should have held off releasing the film until December and used some extra time to refine the script. That's all folks.

 

[mos6507]

Star Wars is a franchise that has never depended on box office returns for its survival

Huh? In what universe does a film franchise not depend on box office returns?