ST The Development Of The Sequel Trilogy

Comparing Star Wars to the Avengers isn't quite apt. These franchises have distinct histories and fan bases, which influence their approaches to filmmaking. Star Wars, with its longer legacy, wasn't following the same strategy as Marvel when releasing new movies. Films like The Force Awakens, Rogue One, and Solo were largely independent narratives within the same universe. In contrast, Marvel's approach with the Avengers series was to create a tightly interconnected storyline. Each Marvel film served as a piece of a larger puzzle, advancing an overarching narrative. Star Wars opted for more standalone adventures, while Marvel built a cohesive cinematic universe. This difference reflects not only their divergent strategies but also the expectations of their respective fan communities.

 

Meh.

 

Tightly interconnected story… like the six Lucas films?

 

You're continuously not listening to people, ignoring the facts, and pushing a narrative that is not only illogical, but that isn't backed up by any evidence. Solo, as a film, wasn't hated... its Audience Appreciation Index was relatively positive. It therefore 'flopped' not because it wasn't liked by those that saw it, but because audiences in general didn't gravitate towards it. Maybe audiences didn't like Harrison being replaced as Han? Maybe its poor marketing (and the marketing was poor IMO) didn't give it the reach it could/should have had? Maybe it was because audiences were loosing interest in the ST (given the characters and situations didn't really have the oxygen post TFA) and there was some feeling of Star Wars fatigue? Maybe it was a combination of all these things? But the reality is that Solo wasn't a risk to the IP.
If the issue was the marketing, for example, they could just market the hell out of the next film (whatever film that would be). If the issue was about recasting younger actors in older parts... then simply don't do that again (although it never impacted Obi-Wan and Anakin being recast in the PT... so I don't particularly accept that reason).

The point is, there was nothing about Solo that DLF couldn't just do a bit of course correction on. The reason they shelved the live action cinematic schedule was because the issue was patently *systemic* to Disney's interpretation of/approach to Star Wars... and they knew it because they had access to all the data and metrics that matter, which shows a downwards trend.

Those underlying issues, to some degree, have followed over to live action TV... but to what extent they (DLF) have learnt their lesson, we'll see when the new films come out.

 

You can totally compare Star Wars to the Avengers.

 

You say im ignoring all these things and then state that Solo wasn't hated and that it was positive. But you fail you see that it doesn't matter if Solo was hated or loved, no one saw it. Thats the main issue. Who cares if some people liked it? You think that sent Disney any messages?

I tell you what would have happened had they cared about a positive reception of Solo. It would have got a sequel on Disney+. Because clearly people liked and supported it. It didn't happen. They clearly would have made Solo 2 had it been a hit. But after a few years of nothing they shifted away from him onto Lando. Which is probably only because of Donald Glover. And even then we are still waiting for that. And they are very much dependant on Donald Glover making it happen. Even making him the writer now. Will Han be involved? Who knows

How do you course correct? You say oh well Solo flopped lets move on to the next on the list... and that is.... Boba Fett. Lets course correct this next spin off so we can garantee this one won't flop. Even though we went in so sure Solo was going to be a hit and were very surprised when it wasn't. So whats the course correction here? That you need to fix the ST so people will then see a film about Boba Fett? That logic seems incredibly flawed.

The idea of a course correction is that if something is going in a bad direction you move it in a good direction. When you make a film and no one see's it, like Solo. Whats the course correction? That you just move on even though you have no idea why audiences didn't want to see your previous movie? Which yes id say everything that happened after showed a huge confusion over what happened with Solo. To the point they started saying they wouldn't recast again. they shifted away from using a well known characters, which was most of their spin offs planned and went for a new character that was boba fett but not boba fett.

The avengers is about superheroes. you then crossover superheroes with various different powers. Or with marvel you do multiverse versions.

Star Wars isn't that. And won't have that same appeal.

Maybe the Filoni movie will bring in all the newly created Jedi from new canon and Luke for a crossover. and they will all face the new threat... but i don't think that would have the same appeal. And also fans would probably complain about that too.

 

I'd say the appeal for both is broad and there's a huge cross section of people that like PG-13 action SF/F in general. Avengers has a lot of stuff at home in the SW universe from ships and quips to children trying to overcome the legacy of their space tyrant parents. Yes Avengers was built as a crossover from the start but the crossover appeal only works if mass audiences embrace the characters that are crossing over. Episode IX even attempted something of this by Palpatine somehow returning and the new and old heroes uniting for one massive battle against the real bad guy.

But anyway there's no rule where films can only be compared to others of a precise subgenre.

 

You can compare anything to anything. Go for it...

I agree. Yet, some comparisons are better than others.

Though I dig the prequel trilogy, it doesn't quite line up with the original trilogy in several ways. There are noticeable inconsistencies in character backgrounds, technology, and even how the Force is portrayed. While many fans enjoy the prequels, it's widely recognized that they introduce some significant plot holes and retcons when viewed alongside the original trilogy.

This loose connection between the trilogies might be explained by George Lucas's approach to storytelling. He's quoted as saying, "Continuity is for wimps," suggesting he prioritized telling his desired story over maintaining strict continuity with the original films.

The prequels' relationship to the original trilogy is a hot topic among fans. Some argue that these discrepancies add to the charm and discussion-worthy nature of the Star Wars universe, while others find them frustrating. Either way, the prequels undeniably expanded the Star Wars universe, even if they didn't always connect seamlessly with the original story.

In the end, we're left with a rich, if sometimes contradictory, fictional world. It might not all fit together perfectly, but it's certainly given us a vast galaxy of material to explore and debate.

 

Well there are parallels people made to Endgame with TROS. Its clear Endgame was the template for TROS in some ways. Palpatine is their thanos. But at the same time, you can try and follow a similar template as Endgame, but it doesnt mean it carries the same appeal as bringing together several dozen superheroes does. And even then they didnt really bring back old heroes for TROS. Sure you had voice cameos and loads of ships appearing like the portal scene from endgame. but thats not really going big with it as much as it is a nice surprise to hear them for a second.

It could be argued TROS was a lesser Endgame. But maybe that was all it ever could be in comparison to what they do with Marvel and the differences with something like Star Wars.

 

@ezekiel22x

The comparison between Star Wars and Avengers goes beyond just their narratives. While both franchises incorporate elements of Campbell's monomyth and archetypes, and share traits like snappy dialogue, their differences are fundamental. The origins, creative processes, historical contexts, and fan communities of these franchises are distinctly unique, making them difficult to compare directly.

 

Every project has a unique origin, creative process, and historical context lol. You aren’t saying anything to me. I’ll continue to find it incredibly easy to compare Star Wars and the Avengers.

 

Great, I am looking forward to it. Maybe you'll cause me to think of things in new ways and consider things I haven't previously...

 

There is nothing I fail to see... other than the insanity in thinking I can teach a dog how to use a calculator. That you don't get the point I was making *was* the point that you're still failing to acknowledge. If people didn't go and *see* Solo, then by virtue the issue is not the film itself but other external factors e.g. marketing... e.g. the discourse related directly to TLJ.

I'm not sure what your point is other than to kind of disprove your own argument??? If Disney believed the Solo film was at fault, then why on Earth would they entertain investing in a Lando film or TV show? Lando is a tertiary character. He's neither as interesting (IMO), known to wider audiences and he's also been recast as a younger character.

Who was "so sure Solo was going to be a hit"? I knew it would struggle to do well simply because the ST was going so badly... Disney had proven they couldn't manage the IP correctly... and I stated as such on these very boards at the time.

I don't know if you're being purposely obtuse, to the point of trolling, or you simply can't comprehend what's being put forward nor your own argument??? There was *no* course correction they could have taken to stop decline is the point. Course correction is only possible *IF* Solo were the reason Disney believed Star Wars was in trouble. That Solo WAS NOT the reason is why Disney did not try and course correct, but instead shelved the entire plan and pulled the plug on live-action Star Wars films. It was a systemic issue they (DLF) had with their approach and plan to SW... and that they could see the issue being reflected in ever decreasing profit margins... but they didn't know how to fix it... other than by stopping what they were doing in order to give themselves the time to reflect.

Then following that logic, Disney would have done NOTHING and kept making live action Star Wars films. If Solo was perceived as an 'outlier' by Disney, then there's absolutely no reason to change strategy. All that would have happened is that they wouldn't have green lit a Solo 2. You understand that right?

What nonsense. Your posts are just word salad. Why on Earth would The Avengers have more intrinsic appeal than a Star Wars film? The point is that Marvel continued to develop a new primary brand (The Avengers) within the IP (MCU) to the point that a badly received Thor film (or other) wouldn't damage audience interest in the primary brand (The Avengers films). Star Wars' 'primary brand' were the saga films themselves... and in this instance, the Sequel Trilogy... and the ST was so poorly conceived and badly written that anything and everything was eroding its financial position.

 

I will just say; for every inconsistency (to the OT) there is in the PT, there a several things that do match - sometimes precisely, sometimes new and asking us to revise our beliefs.

And the two trilogies represent different eras. So the parent’s generation is kind of formal and stilted. Whereas the kids generation are more casual and human. How much this was intentional is debatable, but it works for me.

 

Well yeah there are always factors as to why people don't see films. There are factors as to why people didn't see Indiana Jones 5. Even though we didn't have the excuse of a recast there. That was harrison ford in his iconic role. But anyway, the main factor is usually the lack of interest. If you have no interest you ain't seeing the film.

Well they apparently decided to go for him over Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo for a sequel Series. What does this tell you? You claim Lando is an uninteresting character. Well thats why we originally got a Han Solo movie. And there is probably a reason they have been reluctant to do Han Solo again after it.

I tell you what it tells me. They were shook by Solo flopping and there is a little part of them thats afraid to do it again. Lando was perhaps a stand out in Solo, which also helps because people seem to like Donald Glover. And Disney even giving him the keys to it suggests they want to keep him. So in 2020 they announced a TV Show. Still no mention of Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo. Its 2024 now, Obi Wan even when that got delayed for a bit managed to release 2 years ago. Although Obi Wan was generally a hyped show that fans were bugging Disney to make. So that probably helped. Still nothing on Lando.

Even now, after years of Disney still figuring out Star Wars, we are getting a Rey movie thats all marketed about Daisy Ridley coming back... Where is Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo? Im going to guess he will be in Lando but who knows.

A film about the popular character Han Solo, with heaps of nostalgia wrapped in a fun heist movie.

Yeah im sure they thought this film was going to suffer because TLJ upset some people

Yeah you say that, but explain what the course correction would have been if it was Solo that was the problem. Explain what they could have done?

Obviously remembering that the original plan was a film a year. With slowly thinking of building up to 2 a year around the time they released Solo. Because they were getting very over confident. And the other projects were going to be Obi Wan and Boba Fett. So what is the course correction? Just try again? If Solo didn't work, lets just throw in 200 mil and see if it happens again?

I never said its an outlier. My point is there is no course correction that can be made with Solo. The concept of Solo was packaged with the idea of more Spin offs to come. And when this one makes 400 mil... Im not sure they are going to be as fond to try again somehow.

Yeah and guess what, the Star Wars prequels were also ripped a part for years for being terrible. But no lets compare it to a Thor movie.

Marvel and Star Wars are very different. Even in terms of what fans will accept from one doesn't equal to another.

 

Certainly...the prequel trilogy challenged many fans' established beliefs and expectations about the Star Wars universe, causing significant controversy. However, the sequel trilogy also introduced its own set of changes and revisions to the lore. Ultimately, individual preferences for one trilogy's approach over the other are subjective and valid..depending on one's pov.

I concur. Both trilogies work for me in this regard.

 

Then you're admitting that the actual 'technical application' on display i.e. the quality of a film isn't necessarily reflective of a films financial success? To wit, there are external factors. Conversely, there's lot of bad films that make lots of money.

It tells us that DLF don't actually believe that recasting a character is an issue... Hmmm???

Of course they (DLF) were "shook by Solo flopping"... but whether they were 'shook' by it is immaterial... it's what caused it to flop is the question.

Was Lando a standout? Who told you that? If he was a 'standout', it's somewhat of a surprise then that his performance didn't have any positive impact on the film he 'stood out' in???

What's the point you're trying to make? That Donald's Lando has as much chance of making it on screen again as Alden's Han? If so, yes I'd agree.

For starters, I'll be amazed if we get a Rey movie... but all things are possible. Alden is clearly done as Han Solo... and I suspect, even if DLF wanted him back, he wouldn't accommodate (maybe for a cameo somewhere, sometime?). But the reality is that if they can't get a Han Solo film to be successful, then nothing Star Wars is a 'sure thing' right? And that's what DLF took from it.... that they'd done so badly with the ST that even fan favourites like Han Solo were being rejected by audiences post TLJ. Ouch... that's gotta hurt.

People whom were uninformed and couldn't see the wood for the trees thought Solo would be a success after TLJ. Even if Solo would have been 'better', it still would have suffered from the fallout.

This isn't difficult. They would have carried on making a slew of Star Wars films, but wouldn't have green lit a Solo 2... or alternatively, they would have made a Solo 2, but ensured some of the perceived issues were addressed e.g. better story, better marketing etc.

I don't need to "try again"??? I've already explained the approach to you... you just need to listen. If the problem is just Solo (as you believe), then there wouldn't have been any risk with a Kenobi or Vader or Boba Fett film... because, according to you, the problem with Solo was just that film... lolz...

Of course you didn't... as I'm not even sure you understand the concept in this situation...

No. That was my point (see my previous post). There isn't any course correction to be made with Solo as Solo isn't the course that needed to be corrected. It was DLF's entire approach to Star Wars that needed to be corrected.... hence the massive hand brake turn in cancelling all plans for live action films.

And that, by virtue, would not have any impact on their other films if they felt confident in their overall approach.

Try rising the level of the conversation/debate rather than debasing it with this constant need to throw in 'whataboutism'. I'll take that as a tacit sign you haven't a meaningful counter argument or counter view to put forward.

Not really? Elucidate...

 

This reads like a very childish dig. Almost like you’re saying "Rey is getting a new movie but Solo isn't, so there". They have to make a Rey movie at some point, they have no way of taking SW forward from the ST without her unless they did something completely new. Solo isn’t the future of SW and never was. Rey should be.

To me its very telling that they’ve waited so long to do it, letting the dust settle and giving it some space. Its also telling that they're doing Mando & Grogu first for the big screen. They need a hit with Mando & Grogu to get the films back on course and those 2 characters are huge, with so far a bigger legacy and more impact than the ST characters. Equally they need Rey to do well because the ST fallout has almost killed SW on the big screen and made the story hit a brick wall. Rey is the only thing that can take that era of the ST forward right now.

They would have been worried that the film could potentially suffer because of the previous movie, absolutely that would have been a concern because they would have been more than aware of the online 'backlash' to TLJ and the downward trend from TFA. These people don’t just bury their heads in the sand once a film is released. But they had to release it, they'd already committed to it. They would also have been concerned about being able to make money on Solo given how much it cost with all its reshoots. They also would have been worried about the willingness of the audience to accept someone other than Harrison Ford. That’s a huge chance to take. Genuinely I believe that IF it had been a success they would have looked to recast the big 3 for future films set with the OT timeline. I think it was a risky film to make, but I think they were testing the water.

Did they expect a sequel? Who knows, but it was certainly written in a way to leave it open to the future with the crime syndicates and Maul. Kasdan's son has, I believe, indicated that in interviews. But at that point didn’t they already have a bunch of projects already announced? Which would have put a Solo 2 down the pecking order anyway. I'm sure someone can refresh my memory on that.

I think you’re missing the point about comparing to SW to Marvel. I look at it as Disney as wanting to have an Star Wars IP similar to Marvel with a core of films that are supposed to be the big hitters…... like the ST and the Avengers movies. Then a bunch of smaller scale side films being released in the gaps…. Like Solo / Rogue One and the Thor or Ant Man films.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

That DLF haven't gone anywhere near doing ST 'spin offs' and sequels, till now, tells you everything you need to know. If the ST had resonated properly and if it hadn't have been hugely contentious, I'm sure there would have been a ton of stuff already e.g. films between films, TV shows set between films etc. etc. DLF have effectively avoided it like the plague. And I still believe, if it ever actually gets made, that the Rey film (unless it's incredibly good) will bomb spectacularly. I hasten to add, I don't want that to happen... I'd rather a good film with Rey in it than a bad one... but I just think there's a lot of bad will out there to the ST, and Star Wars generally, at the moment (primarily because of Disney's approach).

 

Im saying if people don't see a film its because they don't want to see the film. thats the main factor. there isn't a lot of technicality to it.

Well according to KK since then, they don't plan on recasting again.

But since they already recast certain characters, they are official now so if you are going to do stories with them, its gonna be the recasts you already made. Or just not use the younger versions of them again at all.

And they likely won't have that question. Even more so after TROS came out and didn't flop

Reviews were quite positive to Glover in the role.

Lando probably has more chance of making it to screen more than Han Solo does. The assumption for many is that Han will be involved. But they haven't used Alden's name at all so far. Unlike say using Hayden the moment they announced a Kenobi show.

Not by choice im sure.

That would most certainly be a concern yes. Solo created a sense of doubt. a sense of doubt that didn't exist previously.

That is more $650 mil box office thinking. That is we broke even thinking. Not $400 mil thinking. They lost around $100 mil.

There is just no way they were going to confidently move on to the next project with that uncertainty. In the end Disney+ was a safe net to put material on.

No the problem with Solo is that no one see it. They don't want to release movies that they can't guarantee that people will see.

The irony being of course is that TROS may have actually made Disney feel a little better about the franchise, because they made money on that movie

Well originally the plan was for the "A story wars story" to become a regular thing... I assume since Rogue one and Solo they have now scrapped the "A story wars story" title. Which would suggest Solo did have an impact. The TV shows haven't done anything like that with the titles. So maybe there was indeed a course correction. But not so much on the thing you think it might be.

When they are all under the "A story wars story" brand. Why not? again they clearly abandoned that after Solo

This whole debate was 'whataboutism' as Star Wars was being compared to Marvel remember and their movies.

No they don't have to make a Rey movie. they could use her in many different ways if they were so afraid of her status in the franchise due to the ST. But since her name is basically the pulling power here... go figure.

While with Solo, Alden's kinda been pushed to the side.

The budget was $300 mil. So yeah they had a bit of a climb. Doesn't mean $600 mil at the least wouldn't have been seen as profitable for Disney. And $600 wouldn't be seen as amazing for Star Wars. Adjusting to inflation. But barely $400 mil is embarrassing.

Well Disney likely looked at it as the character is popular because of his personality. And it being a younger version wouldn't ruin anything for Fords Han in the OT. But the moment you say oh but audiences only wanted ford... ok what the hell happened to indiana Jones 5 then?

Im sure they made it as a one off movie with the potential for more. They did leave it on a little bit of a open ending with the whole Maul cameo that we are still waiting to see continued.

What is smaller scale though for Star Wars? i wouldn't say Rogue One or Solo were small scale. They didn't even want to make a Obi Wan movie small scale. The difference is when Marvel do big, its basically a huge cross over. Star Wars doesn't really have that crossover appeal.

 

@Daxon101

I think the branding of films as "A Star Wars Story" was a misstep. It seemed adjacent to, or even less than. The movies should have just been called: Star Wars: Rogue One, and Star Wars: Solo. Lean into the brand. Have the proper SW fanfare/them and scroll at the beginning.

What? The audience doesn't know when/where/what the film is about on the timeline? Solution: The opening scroll can tell them.

 

You’re undermining your own argument… as if people don’t want to see a film, then it would clearly point to external factors… in this case TLJ.

But we already know that isn’t true because they made the Obi-Wan Kenobi show with recast Obi-Wan, Anakin, Owen, Leia and Beru… not to mention Lando. You understand that right?

That’s nonsense. Lucasfilm have already successfully recast… as per above. It’s proven to work in the other films and TV shows.

Of course they did. TROS made less money than TLJ. It’s why they cancelled the films. Keep up.

No more so than Alden right? Next…

Lando is no where near as popular a SW character as Han Solo. So if you believe Han Solo can’t carry a film…Lando most definitely can’t. However, unfettered by the negativity of sequel trilogy films, Star Wars may have won some goodwill back by the time they do something with Lando. That’s what Disney are counting on.

Clearly not by choice… but that wasn’t the point was it? You asked where Alden was now in terms of reprising the role of Han Solo… and I told you.

TLJ had just lost circa 50% of its audience… that’s the biggest drop off in any SW trilogy. If you can’t fathom that Disney would indeed have a ‘sense of doubt’ after TLJ, you’re either exceedingly naive or you’re being purposely dim.

What??? No big studio stops making profitable franchise films because of one single outlier. If you don’t understand that, I suggest you stop digging.

Wrong… on both counts. If Disney were confident in the performance of the ST then they would have continued to make SW films. You seem to forget that TROS was the last live action feature film… not Solo. So that fact tells you (well any rational person anyway) that the performance of TROS was the deciding factor. Also, Disney+ has proven not to be a ‘safe bet’, so that has just compounded the damage caused to the brand by the sequels.

Again you’re wrong… and with respect, your responses reflect a real lack of logic and joined up thinking on your part. People patently did see Solo…and it received fairly solid reviews… the problem was clearly that the cost of the film (its budget) exceeded audience interest. And given that Han Solo is an exceedingly popular SW character, and given that the film was actually received ok, all indicators point to the film failing financially because of external factors… namely the sequels.

If you believe for a second that the performance of TROS made Disney feel ‘better’, you should seriously stop typing…

The course correction was cancelling ALL their live action Star Wars films that were in development. You understand that right? That’s a significant hand brake turn on strategy.

Because Rogue One was a hit and pretty much everyone liked that right? So they wouldn’t just give up because of Solo… which indicates that Disney believed they were experiencing a systemic problem and couldn’t continue to make live action films after TROS with the same model. Even my 90 year old grandma understands that… and she’s been dead 5 years…

Jeez dude… you can’t even describe ‘whataboutism’ accurately. The ‘whataboutism’ you regularly employee is where you can’t, or don’t want to, respond to a point directly… so you go off at a tangent to fabricate an issue elsewhere, often completely unrelated, as an act of deflection. Comparing the approach of Marvel and Lucasfilm is not ‘whataboutism’… it’s a comparison of the differing models/approaches of making content, within similar popular franchises, that both sit under Disney. As such it’s entirely ‘apposite’.

Oh boy you’re setting yourself up to be disappointed. If there wasn’t an audience for The Acolyte, there certainly won’t be one for a Rey film… That Kennedy wants another film with Rey is just an exercise in ego… and I say that as someone who’d quite happily see Rey again in a new film (as long as it was significantly better than the ST)… but this film (if it ever gets released) will be torn apart.

 

No there ain't always extenal factors. sadly sometimes people just don't want to see a movie. Its not actually that unusual for films to struggle because no one is interested in seeing a particular movie.

Its no different from say the Alcolye getting low views. That has nothing to do with Ahsoka being bad, people just for some reason did not want to watch that show, and it didn't have strong viewing figures from the start.

Apart from Lando, the rest were not recast by Disney. If anything KK is basically saying she doesn't want to take the risk in creating new recasts.

Quote below.

Except they canceled the films they had planned after Solo. Those "a star wars story" films were shelved. After TROS they were still looking at potential movies. Rogue Squadron for example. they just were not the films they originally had planned. Meaning there was infact a change in direction. The Star Wars stories label were shelved.

Now as to why they haven't made these other movies. thats a different issue all together. Their tactic of hiring directors and then shelving their movies, might not help.

Again, it made a billion. if Disney could constantly make a billion with these movies they would.

Odd, i thought i did respond to the point directly.

Well they have a perfectly good reason to believe it will make money. Since the last movie starring Rey made a billion. thats usually a positive pattern they attract too

Yep and she has since changed her tune on that too. She now says they are bringing back scroll for all the movies they make.

 

Again, I’m not sure if you’re being purposely dim or just trying to troll… but I’ll explain again for the hard of hearing…. ‘Internal’ factors would be the film itself. External factors would be everything from bad marketing to the proceeding film putting people off. Given there’s no evidence to suggest internal factors (as the film was relatively well received), then it’s because of external factors.

The Acolyte had poor take up because it was receiving abysmal word of mouth. People actively tuned out Ahsoka’s viewership was largely positive… so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up? Why are you commenting on things that you seem to have absolutely no knowledge of? You’d actually fair better if you just listened to other people.

Star Wars has proven it can recast. Kennedy blamed recasting, whilst being interviewed as part of the Obi-Wan Kenobi show launch PR (oh the irony lost on some people) because blaming the audiences ability to accept another actor was far easier than admitting that Disney’s strategy had failed.

That’s because TROS was already in production and was the 3rd instalment in a trilogy. Seriously, stop it.

Word salad. Please try being a bit more coherent with your responses. Again please…

I honestly think this kind of conversation is beyond you. You simply just don’t seem to understand how these things work. Disney saw less profit with each film… indeed the ST was a less profitable exercise than the PT.

No. You use ‘whataboutsism’ as a way of deflecting questions or criticisms you can’t respond to, whereas comparing the model of MCU and Lucasfilm is entirely appropriate to the conversation about the ‘approach’ different studios take with similar IPs.

Hmmm… not really. Iger has stipulated that Lucasfilm need to make new films… and Lucasfilm are kind of just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks… A Rey film is the least likely option to do well because the ST is so poorly regarded… and that’s why they have now decided to lead with the Mando film… which of course wasn’t the original plan… but the Rey film just doesn’t seem to be working out does it. Strange then if Kennedy believes it will make a billion without issue??? Lucasfilm has demonstrated an absolute abject approach to strategy since Disney took over… and bringing back Rey is just another misstep and will, more than likely, result in another sub par film… all the issues they are having with the script and ‘creative differences’ with writers should be a clear red flag that not all is well with this film.

 

Why would it make them feel better? It made less money than TLJ and got poor reviews. If they 'felt better' why didn’t they carry on making films?

Of course Solos box office had an impact. As much as the reception to TLJ did. As much as TLJ's drop in box office did. As much as the drop in box office for TROS did. As much as the negative reviews for TROS did. It’s a cumulative effect starting from TLJ.

But everything stopped. FWIW the new Mando film and the Rey film are both standalone films. They are anthology / a Star Wars story in all but name that for some reason you seem so hung up on.

You were the one that misunderstood the comparison between the Marvel model of releasing films and potentially what Disney was trying to do with SW. You can’t grasp that concept. No one was saying a Thor film is the same as SW, we were talking about release strategies of the core films and then the satellite films around that core to keep the stories ticking over.

I really have no idea what this statement means other than the fact you agree with me that given how TROS ended that Rey was meant to represent the future of SW going forward, unless they do something totally brand new of course set after TROS.

How can he have been pushed aside when there was never a plan to do a Solo 2.

Please read what I said, you’re just looking to be argumentative and contrary all the time for the sake of it. I never said audiences only wanted Ford. I said that going into this film it would be a concern as to whether the new guy would be accepted following in the footsteps of Harrison Ford. Are you disagreeing that recasting Han Solo wouldn’t be a concern? It’s the most obvious elephant in the room, the thing that fans were certainly talking about and I'm 100% convinced that would have been the first hurdle that Disney would have thought of too. Which is why I think it was a risky movie to make. Indiana Jones has nothing to do with that.

I'll repeat yet again that you’re missing the point of a comparison between SW and Marvel and their release strategies that I think SW was trying to mimic.

But the pattern of the ST wasn't positive in terms of its drops in numbers, its reviews and the ultimate decision to stop the making of films after them.

That’s not correct. They announced projects that have all been forgotten about, cancelled or shelved indefinitely. Off the top of my head the Rian Johnson trilogy. The Kevin Fiege movie. The Taika Waitit film. The Benioff and Weiss trilogy…… as well Rogue Squadron.

If you want to be picky they cancelled the films after TLJ. Solo was already in production and TROS had to be made to complete the ST.

Overall I get the feeling that you are just being contrary because you either don’t understand the points anyone is making, you like the ST so much or you’re just trolling. I can’t make my mind up which. But let me be clear about something. You are constantly making little jibes about Alden, about Solo, about the 'SW story' title. Personally I don’t hold these films in such high regard. I'm not dying on the hill that Solo is the best SW film ever made. So don’t think I'm coming at this from the point of view that Solo is sacred, because its not. So if you don't understand anything else just understand that. Its not a Solo v TLJ tit for tat that you seem to think.