Sign In

Solo: A Star Wars Story — Official Review and Opinions Thread — SPOILERS — Page 19

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

It’s all speculation, and I agree that IX’s numbers will be a better indicator. I think they’ll be worse than TLJ’s unless there are some clear indicators from Disney that they’re changing direction.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

Unless TLJ is what told them it was skippable, because Star Wars itself has become skippable.

It was already skippable the minute TPM was released. Disney made it relevant again.

Box office says different.

Clearly I wasn’t referring to the box office, but regardless, one poor showing and the franchise is dead. Ok.

Author
Time

If box office was any indicator of quality, Michael Bay wouldn’t get to keep making movies. 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

It’s all speculation, and I agree that IX’s numbers will be a better indicator. I think they’ll be worse than TLJ’s unless there are some clear indicators from Disney that they’re changing direction.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

Unless TLJ is what told them it was skippable, because Star Wars itself has become skippable.

It was already skippable the minute TPM was released. Disney made it relevant again.

Box office says different.

Clearly I wasn’t referring to the box office, but regardless, one poor showing and the franchise is dead. Ok.

Poor showing with regards to a SW film. I think it will do OK but certainly not hurt the brand imo.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

TLJ is still in the home entertainment charts. I still don’t see this big polarising divide. Meanwhile Solo probably bombed because nobody wanted a Solo movie and most people were still watching Avengers 3 or Deadpool, things that general audiences were actually craving. It’s a bad release time and they should have known better.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

It’s all speculation, and I agree that IX’s numbers will be a better indicator. I think they’ll be worse than TLJ’s unless there are some clear indicators from Disney that they’re changing direction.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

Unless TLJ is what told them it was skippable, because Star Wars itself has become skippable.

It was already skippable the minute TPM was released. Disney made it relevant again.

Box office says different.

Clearly I wasn’t referring to the box office, but regardless, one poor showing and the franchise is dead. Ok.

I was referring to the prequels’ box office. Sorry for not being clear. People still showed up in theaters for them despite the mediocre reviews, which tells us audiences found them relevant.

And I never said the franchise was dead because of Solo’s numbers. If TFA proved anything, it’s that Star Wars fans will come back in droves to give the franchise another chance. Solo’s numbers are a message to Disney; they can either rationalize the loss with a bunch of excuses like I’m seeing in this thread, or they can do some soul-searching and ask themselves why TLJ split the fanbase and Solo flopped soon after.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Mocata said:

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

TLJ is still in the home entertainment charts. I still don’t see this big polarising divide. Meanwhile Solo probably bombed because nobody wanted a Solo movie and most people were still watching Avengers 3 or Deadpool, things that general audiences were actually craving. It’s a bad release time and they should have known better.

There’s definitely an argument to be made that they never properly conveyed why people need to see a young Han movie.

This is probably a sign to that prequels in general are a dying concept. At least with the SW prequels there was the big question of “how did Anakin become Darth Vader?” No one really needed to see Han’s origin, and it was probably a mistake from the start to have such high expectations. If they had just accepted this as “lower tier” SW and gave it a lower tier budget there’d be no problem (of course the cost of reshoots is a whole other factor that I’m not sure was really done to improve box office).

The truth is though that despite people on the internet complaining for years that “no one asked for this,” actually a lot of people (myself included) were looking forward to a smaller scale SW film that focused on something other than large scale war. If this film (and other prequel films) were just designed and/or marketed as “adventures that just happen to take place before the other ones you’ve seen,” I don’t know if there’d be that much issue. To that end, I still think they should make a Solo sequel, but on a limited budget (sub $150mil). I actually wonder if they’d ever consider putting SW spin-offs on their streaming, rather than in theaters.

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

It’s all speculation, and I agree that IX’s numbers will be a better indicator. I think they’ll be worse than TLJ’s unless there are some clear indicators from Disney that they’re changing direction.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

Unless TLJ is what told them it was skippable, because Star Wars itself has become skippable.

It was already skippable the minute TPM was released. Disney made it relevant again.

Box office says different.

Clearly I wasn’t referring to the box office, but regardless, one poor showing and the franchise is dead. Ok.

I was referring to the prequels’ box office. Sorry for not being clear. People still showed up in theaters for them despite the mediocre reviews, which tells us audiences found them relevant.

A lot of people hoped the next one would be better. It’s apples and oranges anyway, “Episodes” vs. spin-offs. The former implies required viewing.

And I never said the franchise was dead because of Solo’s numbers. If TFA proved anything, it’s that Star Wars fans will come back in droves to give the franchise another chance. Solo’s numbers are a message to Disney; they can either rationalize the loss with a bunch of excuses like I’m seeing in this thread, or they can do some soul-searching and ask themselves why TLJ split the fanbase and Solo flopped soon after.

It just seems silly to me to assume that if there’s a message about Solo it has to do with the quality of TLJ. Saying that the reason has more to do with the concept and placement of the film at hand (and not the reaction to a mostly unrelated film) is an excuse is ridiculous. It’s about paying attention to far more relevant factors.

I’m also not sure what you’re implying in regards to the “why” TLJ split the fanbase and what especially that’d have to do with Solo.

Author
Time

Jay said:

People still showed up in theaters for them despite the mediocre reviews, which tells us audiences found them relevant.

I’m not so sure we know what it tells us.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

It’s all speculation, and I agree that IX’s numbers will be a better indicator. I think they’ll be worse than TLJ’s unless there are some clear indicators from Disney that they’re changing direction.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

Unless TLJ is what told them it was skippable, because Star Wars itself has become skippable.

It was already skippable the minute TPM was released. Disney made it relevant again.

Box office says different.

Clearly I wasn’t referring to the box office, but regardless, one poor showing and the franchise is dead. Ok.

I was referring to the prequels’ box office. Sorry for not being clear. People still showed up in theaters for them despite the mediocre reviews, which tells us audiences found them relevant.

A lot of people hoped the next one would be better. It’s apples and oranges anyway, “Episodes” vs. spin-offs. The former implies required viewing.

And I never said the franchise was dead because of Solo’s numbers. If TFA proved anything, it’s that Star Wars fans will come back in droves to give the franchise another chance. Solo’s numbers are a message to Disney; they can either rationalize the loss with a bunch of excuses like I’m seeing in this thread, or they can do some soul-searching and ask themselves why TLJ split the fanbase and Solo flopped soon after.

It just seems silly to me to assume that if there’s a message about Solo it has to do with the quality of TLJ. Saying that the reason has more to do with the concept and placement of the film at hand (and not the reaction to a mostly unrelated film) is an excuse is ridiculous. It’s about paying attention to far more relevant factors.

I’m also not sure what you’re implying in regards to the “why” TLJ split the fanbase and what especially that’d have to do with Solo.

I’m not sure why everyone is placing so much weight on the idea that Solo’s lack of a number makes it this entirely different beast subject to its own rules. Bring up RO as a comparison, which did just fine, and the excuse becomes the time of year, even though Memorial Day weekend has been a haven for blockbusters for decades. Refute that idea and the poor turnout is because some unrelated comic book movies came out the week before and stole its thunder.

And why wouldn’t a dislike for TLJ translate into a lower likelihood of seeing Solo, especially if it’s somehow “less than” a numbered Star Wars film? I skipped RO in theaters because I wasn’t a fan of TFA. It’s a franchise, not a bunch of one-offs.

Seems to me you guys are drawing this firm line between Solo and everything else even though there’s no evidence this line exists, and then you brush aside RO’s relative success as a mere issue of release timing. RO was no more “necessary” than Solo and it was released at a time of year when people are busier than they are during Memorial Day weekend. I don’t think anyone, even Disney, expected Solo to succeed like a numbered film, but to fall so far short of RO’s numbers was a shocker.

I’m not saying fans’ dissatisfaction with TLJ explains Solo’s poor showing in its entirety; a loss that big involves many factors. But I’m not going to brush it aside as some anomaly either.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

People still showed up in theaters for them despite the mediocre reviews, which tells us audiences found them relevant.

I’m not so sure we know what it tells us.

It tells us people were willing to get off their couches and pay for a ticket, which is more than they were willing to do for Solo.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t buy the “protest” argument at all (seems a little tin foil hat to me). If hardcore fans didn’t like TLJ, they probably know that Solo has nothing to do with it. IX’s performance will be a better indicator of the true response to VIII. I think the “boycott Soylo” group is a pretty minor demo, especially considering most of those people probably saw it anyway.

It’s all speculation, and I agree that IX’s numbers will be a better indicator. I think they’ll be worse than TLJ’s unless there are some clear indicators from Disney that they’re changing direction.

As always with SW, the fact of the matter is most of the audience is made up of casual fans at best. For them I think the main reason is that they still see Star Wars as one single franchise, whereas something like Marvel is a combination of different franchises (which is to say nothing of the fact that Solo’s performance is roughly on par with most Marvel origin movies). I do think the five month gap probably hurt it, as people aren’t used to so much SW at once, and checked out when they felt this one was skippable.

Unless TLJ is what told them it was skippable, because Star Wars itself has become skippable.

It was already skippable the minute TPM was released. Disney made it relevant again.

Box office says different.

Clearly I wasn’t referring to the box office, but regardless, one poor showing and the franchise is dead. Ok.

I was referring to the prequels’ box office. Sorry for not being clear. People still showed up in theaters for them despite the mediocre reviews, which tells us audiences found them relevant.

A lot of people hoped the next one would be better. It’s apples and oranges anyway, “Episodes” vs. spin-offs. The former implies required viewing.

And I never said the franchise was dead because of Solo’s numbers. If TFA proved anything, it’s that Star Wars fans will come back in droves to give the franchise another chance. Solo’s numbers are a message to Disney; they can either rationalize the loss with a bunch of excuses like I’m seeing in this thread, or they can do some soul-searching and ask themselves why TLJ split the fanbase and Solo flopped soon after.

It just seems silly to me to assume that if there’s a message about Solo it has to do with the quality of TLJ. Saying that the reason has more to do with the concept and placement of the film at hand (and not the reaction to a mostly unrelated film) is an excuse is ridiculous. It’s about paying attention to far more relevant factors.

I’m also not sure what you’re implying in regards to the “why” TLJ split the fanbase and what especially that’d have to do with Solo.

I’m not sure why everyone is placing so much weight on the idea that Solo’s lack of a number makes it this entirely different beast subject to its own rules. Bring up RO as a comparison, which did just fine, and the excuse becomes the time of year, even though Memorial Day weekend has been a haven for blockbusters for decades. Refute that idea and the poor turnout is because some unrelated comic book movies came out the week before and stole its thunder.

And why wouldn’t a dislike for TLJ translate into a lower likelihood of seeing Solo, especially if it’s somehow “less than” a numbered Star Wars film? I skipped RO in theaters because I wasn’t a fan of TFA. It’s a franchise, not a bunch of one-offs.

Seems to me you guys are drawing this firm line between Solo and everything else even though there’s no evidence this line exists, and then you brush aside RO’s relative success as a mere issue of release timing. RO was no more “necessary” than Solo and it was released at a time of year when people are busier than they are during Memorial Day weekend. I don’t think anyone, even Disney, expected Solo to succeed like a numbered film, but to fall so far short of RO’s numbers was a shocker.

I’m not saying fans’ dissatisfaction with TLJ explains Solo’s poor showing in its entirety; a loss that big involves many factors. But I’m not going to brush it aside as some anomaly either.

At the end of your post you say it’s the subject of many factors, yet the rest of your post seems to dismiss everything save “people hate Disney SW now” as merely an excuse. There’s no one magic bullet theory that explains all of this. I personally believe all those things you mention are factors. I just happen to think that “some people hated TLJ” is further down the list than things that are far more relevant. BvS by most accounts was one massive, steaming pile of shit, but people still turned out for Wonder Woman.

And I think there a lot of obvious reasons why RO did better. I think first of all people are forgetting that RO’s box office was something of a surprise - it exceeded expectations due to a handful of things… being only the second SW movie in a decade, having the novelty of the first spin-off/non-episode film, and a killer marketing campaign that sold the film as a true event, all in addition to the December release date which was far less competitive (and a buzz at the time that made it the “movie of the moment,” for whatever reason). All that plus I think generally most people considered it to be a better film than Solo (something I disagree with), which is on top of possibly the biggest factor of all - that Solo is a Han Solo movie starring someone other than Harrison Ford, which is a tough sell considering how integral to the character he was (whereas RO was all new characters without that baggage). As I’ve stated before in this thread, I don’t think putting Solo out in December would’ve helped a whole lot (how much, who knows).

All of which is to say, when a movie disappoints, usually the biggest reason is the movie itself.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I never asked for the prequels either! I wanted more movies with Luke and the gang.

In any case any movie is skippable these days. I see people on other boards say they’ll wait for the video all the time. With the incredible shrinking theatrical window it’s not that long a wait anymore. If you don’t crave the big screen/group experience, which can be lacking in many theater chains with poor projection/sound issues and not cracking down on numbskulls who can’t put the phone down for five minutes without breaking into a cold sweat, it’s easy.

There also was no spoiler pressure with this, (seeing the movie before someone gave the whole story away) even though I accidentally saw the Maul spoiler elsewhere days before I saw the movie.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I think the bad numbers are a combination of bad timing (right on the heels of two big summer blockbusters), bad marketing (shorter period than other SW movies and a trailer that didn’t play up how well the star did in the part), the director controversy, and then a lot of little things. It has good reviews and the people who didn’t like TLJ know this is by a different production team so I don’t think it was protest. I doubt that had anything to do with it. The other aspects seem more likely. If they had moved it out 6 weeks it would have done better. If they’d nailed the trailer it would have done better. They didn’t really have enough time to hype it up properly, to build the expectation. And part of it might just be that while many of us die-hard fans wanted a Solo movie, that the general public didn’t. I don’t think you can read anything into the numbers about Star Wars fandom. I think 9 will do very well at the box office. Probably one reason they went with Abrams again. I just hope he is not the one who came up with the ending. If he did it will suck.

Author
Time

Ryan-SWI said:

I think the cinematography just isn’t great.

Still much better then the prequels

Working on many edits, may take many years to complete…

Also known as Mr. Liquid Jungle.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

There’s definitely an argument to be made that they never properly conveyed why people need to see a young Han movie.

Yeah there’s just no real hook. With the main series people are obsessed. With Rogue One people hadn’t ever seen a spin-off (of this kind) before and wanted more OG trilogy stuff. Add to this the production trouble news, the casting of some guy they’re selling as young Harrison Ford. Throw in a release window where it’s competing with a climactic Marvel movie that people are clamouring over and a sequel to Deadpool that many still feel is a fresh idea or whatever and it spells bad news. Personally I don’t think there was enough marketing but I guess they spent so much already it just had to be over and done with.

Author
Time

I know there are many reasons for Solo’s underwhelming performance at the box office. I’m sure for many it’s a result of the backlash against TLJ or whatever, but for me it’s because of Rogue One.

For all its flaws, The Last Jedi was a film that added depth to (most of) its characters. You can love or hate what Rian Johnson did with Luke Skywalker, but he added to the character, gave him conflict and gave the audience a look into his thought and emotions.

Rogue One turned me off to the entire notion of these new spinoff movies. I found it to be a shallow film with uninteresting characters that was all plot and no story. And from what I’ve read, the Han Solo movie doesn’t appear to add anything substantive to his character except for answering questions of the most superficial and asinine variety. This is my biggest problem with Star Wars today is that fan service and safe decisions by Lucasfilm are undermining these spinoff movies by making them predictable and inoffensive.

We’ll never know what the Lord and Miller version of Solo would have been like, but at the very least it would have been an interesting diversion from the stock action movies that bore me so much. Nothing could turn me off quicker to Star Wars than a cavalcade of safe, mediocre movies based on already established characters. But I’m probably in the minority.

Author
Time

darthrush said:

I would have rather seen Lord and Miller’s version.

Me too. Though I think Howard did an impressive job with the time allotted, and I don’t think (had I not known) I would have ever guessed this film was the product of multiple directors.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well I am now eating crow. Based on the troubled production reports, the trailers, and the basic concept, I fully expected this movie to be awful, and predicted months ago it would bomb spectacularly (by Star Wars standards) both at the box office and critically. Sadly I was kind of right on that point, but I could not have been more wrong about the movie itself being awful. Granted I went in with rock bottom expectations, so maybe that affected my perceptions when it crossed that extremely low threshold, but on the other hand I was prejudiced against the film from the start and amazingly, it was good enough to overcome that prejudice.

Few reasons why:

  1. It wasn’t pure fan service. I fully expected shoehorned-in Bobba Fett, Jabba, Greedo, etc. to dominate the film. But there was none of that. Sure, there were a few little winks at the audience, callback lines, etc. But for the most part it was subtle and it actually worked. It was nothing like the “you’ll be dead” guy scene in Rogue One or any of that shit.

  2. It wasn’t too much of an “origin story” movie. Yes, there were a few moments – like how he got the name “Solo” – that went way too far and were kind of cringeworthy. But for the most part it didn’t overexplain everything about Han’s backstory to death like the prequels did with their characters. And moments like his meeting Chewbacca and Lando were shockingly well-done.

  3. Alden Ehrenreich somehow managed to pull off what I thought was impossible: He convinced me that he was Han Solo. And I never in a million years expected any actor but Harrison Ford would be able to do that, least of all Ehrenreich after the things I heard about his problems pulling off the role.

  4. It didn’t feel like a stitched-together patchwork film, which again is shocking to me due to the development problems and the change in directors. Looking at other films that did this, i.e. Justice League and Suicide Squad, there is no comparison. I never would have guessed this film was the work of multiple directors if I didn’t already know. It was seamlessly cohesive.

  5. Most importantly, the movie was a low-key, low-stakes, mostly lighthearted (but not excessively so) story that felt like it fit in naturally with the world of Star Wars. Contrast this to Rogue One, which tried to be uber-epic and super-serious at all times, and the comparison is night and day. It’s just a simple story about one man’s struggle, not to save the universe, but to survive. We get to see the neglected side of Star Wars – the underworld hinted at in the originals in scenes like the cantina but never fully explored before. We get to see how a normal person lives in the Star Wars galaxy for once. And we get to do it through the eyes of relatable characters we already like, plus a couple others played by good actors who are actually memorable. Again, contrast to Rogue One and it’s no contest at all.

Hell, there is no mention of the Force/Jedi/Sith at all and a lightsaber doesn’t even go off until the very end. Which was the only thing I strongly disliked in the entire film. I really, really hate the concept of bringing Darth Maul back outside of the cartoon. And regardless, this was an obvious set-up for a Marvel-like follow-up (probably with Obi-Wan), so it felt out of place and kept the film from truly standing alone. But it was such a brief, minor moment that I can’t fault the movie too much for it. Certainly can’t fault Ron Howard because it was obviously studio meddling.

Anyway, I just worry that Disney is going to take the relatively lackluster box office response as a sign not to make more movies like this rather than the real problem: It was just a poorly timed release. Strong competition from Avengers and Deadpool, and the last Star Wars movie was just a few months ago. Of course it’s not going to pull TFA numbers. But Disney has a history of misinterpreting problems with films falling short at the box office – i.e. blaming 2D animation for the underperformance of “The Princess and the Frog,” even though it was released at the same time as AVATAR. I hope they don’t do it again, and let these anthology films remain small-scale, self-contained stories. If they do they’ll have officially gone from my least favorite to most favorite parts of Disney Star Wars.

Author
Time

I wonder if will get the Lord and Miller Cut, Kind of like Superman II Donner Cut.

Working on many edits, may take many years to complete…

Also known as Mr. Liquid Jungle.

Author
Time

They have a brand to maintain, it can’t be watered down with talk of multiple visions.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

They have a brand to maintain, it can’t be watered down with talk of multiple visions.

Considering they’ve managed to destroy their PR of the brand in 2 and a half years a Director’s Cut would probably be the least damaging thing they’ve done in a while.

That being said we’ll get a Jar Jar Binks spin off before that happens.

Also the film has barely crossed 300 million worldwide, am I still being premature in calling it a box office flop or?..

Author
Time

That’s tons more money than Hotel Artemis will ever make. And if you haven’t heard of it, that’s exactly why it bombed. 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?