Infinity War Sony removes Silver and Black, Solo continues to fall, what this means for Marvel...

[SteveRogers41]

I'm not a believer in quote, end quote "superhero fatigue". Because the Christopher Reeve Superman movies came out in the late 70's, early 80's and are still loved. Michael Keaton's Batman came out in the early 90's and again, was embraced. So too was Nolan's Batman series. The public's fascination with superheroes seems to be something that is always in style, from one generation to the next. A universal appeal that is ageless and timeless, as it were.

And OBVIOUSLY the MCU is beyond successful. I mean as of today Infinity War is just a hair away from joining the 2 billion dollar club. Kevin Feige knows what he's doing.

But Solo proves not even the strongest franchises are infallible. And Sony, too, is obviously starting to show some concern about connected cinematic universes with the pulling of Silver and Black. Does this mean that I think the MCU is in trouble? No. Feige has earned the success of his franchise through sheer grit. The MCU is what it is because it EARNED it by making fantastic films. He built a juggernaut up from the ground, it was not handed to him. The MCU has a stellar reputation.

That said I do feel what is happening with the Star Wars franchise can teach all studios, even Marvel, a thing or two about what not to do, because, and I want to reiterate, even the mighty can misstep.

How they treated Luke Skywalker in the Last Jedi was a mistake. He's on iconic hero. He was loved by many. Were I Feige, if I'm planning on killing off any of the Big Three in Avengers 4 as a 'handing over of the baton' to the newer characters type situation I would tread VERY carefully in how I did it.

It seems no one wanted to see someone other than Harrison Ford play Han Solo. And I know there are some who want legacy characters to exist in the MCU and mantles to be passed, but I do not think there is an audience for it. When you're used to an actor/character filling a role and that role becomes iconic, it's just a bad idea all-around to mess around with that (unless you wait 20 years like the Star Trek franchise did... and even then the reboots haven't all been successful. In fact, Star Trek Beyond was considered a flop, which is a shame because in my opinion it was the best of the three).

The above two were what I felt were Solo's primary issues. I don't think the fact that Last Jedi and Solo being released so close to each other was the problem as Marvel releases three films a year and does just fine. I don't think Deadpool was a huge deal as competition because Solo can reach an audience that Deadpool cannot, the family audience. Deadpool, being R rated, is obviously something most parents wont take their kids to.

I also don't think those idiotic sexists and racists boycotts are contributing to the lack of sales as the people organizing those things would like to think because fandom is but a teeny, tiny percent of the general audience. They can 'boycott' because of the lead having girl bits all the want, and they're still only less than 1%.

So yeah, Solo's problem came down to: when a character is beloved, you have to treat that character right, and don't be the first film following a movie that treated a beloved character poorly AND when roles/characters/titles are iconic, just leave them be. Thoughts?

 

[Panacea]

Marvel isn't successful because it has a massive IP, it's successful because Feige had worked with Marvel for years before the MCU and had already learned what to do and what not to do. I don't Kathleen Kennedy's mismanagement of Star Wars says anything about what could happen to the MCU unless Feige is replaced with someone incompetent.

 

[Flash525]

I haven't seen Solo, can't say I'm overly bothered by it to be honest, but I suspect the reason for its trouble is less to do with anything other than making a film for the sake of making a film; Disney doesn't need to do these prequel/spinoff films, and I can't imagine there's a huge demand for them either. Where Star Wars is concerned, more people are interested in the Jedi & Sith than they are about mercenaries.

The MCU is vastly different, as it's been built up from the ground with a lengthy plan in mind. With exception of the upcoming Captain Marvel film, all the films in the MCU are sequels and continue a story. Solo just wasn't needed - neither was Rogue One (although it was entertaining enough, it didn't really add anything to the franchise - at least I didn't think so).

And yeah, killing off Luke like that (and having Yoda appear) was utterly stupid. A good story doesn't need to rely on old or returning characters, nor does it need to kill them off. That said, the MCU does need to kill off a few of their core heroes if it wants to move forward - I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion or whatever, but the roster is simply going to get too big if we don't let a few go, and quite honestly, there's only so much they can do with some of the characters now. Infinity War was different because of the large ensemble, but when it comes back to a core team, we're looking at a group between six and eight, and when you suddenly introduce Power Houses and/or Gods like Captain Marvel and Thor, the rest of the team are (seemingly) redundant if the big guys can deal with the threats themselves.

In any case, Star Wars could have done better, the MCU will continue to shine, though with the next phase I'm not expecting to see Stark, Rogers, Tasha, Clint or Banner. Thor I expect will still be around, though I figure more cosmic than Earthbound.

 

[Brutikus]

The MCU has had the advantage of a much more (literal) "ten year plan" approach to it and as mentioned above Kevin Fiege being someone who made sure he knew the brand very well before getting headlong into it.

The MCU story group coupled with the very well appointed directors (for the most part) has really shown how a franchise can be successfully navigated.

LFL under Kennedy does not have quite the same to be said for it.

I'd like to think that Disney thought through and workshopped what they wanted with the GFFA however there's been quite a missteps and it's showing.

I've seen SOLO and got to say I enjoyed it well enough,Rogue One also was good,TFA and TLJ has felt like going downhill towards a brick wall and each time the speed is picking up and you sense how painful the end is going to be each time you've exited from each movie.

Rian Johnson was touted as some amazing director who was going to re-invigorate the franchise after the "safe-ish hands" of JJ Abrams.

I liked TFA enough and could understand why the parallels to ANH being made yet felt it was still the Star Wars of the 80's with a fresh count of paint.

TLJ did not go where most fans wanted (I respectfully accept all views from all viewers/fans to like or dislike it) and so it's now sitting arguably on a less secure position.

Colin Trevorrow now sacked and JJ Abrams back hopefully will be a good thing,Carrie Fisher's tragic passing has put a challenge up of course given Carrie was slated to be a MUCH larger keystone for Episode IX.

The comparison for the two also is nuanced with the fact the two are very different universes.

One has a plethora of main heroes to use and integrate in with each other in smaller volume to all out crossover.

Star Wars though a galaxy wide verse does not have as many protagonists/antagonists set up already for it to draw on.

To all members reading this my comments do not mean I hate on SW or Kennedy cause she's a woman etc

I do see the two as entities that both have their own bespoke approach needed to get them across the line for Gold rather than one size fits all management approach.

 

[Flash525]

I've seen SOLO and got to say I enjoyed it well enough,Rogue One also was good,TFA and TLJ has felt like going downhill towards a brick wall and each time the speed is picking up and you sense how painful the end is going to be each time you've exited from each movie.

As stated above, I haven't seen Solo, though I did enjoy Rogue One because it was a self contained adventure story.

The differences between Rogue One, Solo, TFA and TLJ are that the two former are self contained stories that connect dots, whereas the latter two literally are following on from one and other so there's not really a start, middle and end as you'd expect from a normal film, yet they try to produce a start middle and end.

When you think of films like LotR, that's one long story that's cleverly split in three. This isn't the case with Star Wars; it's not one long story, it's three stories being wrote so they stick together, but they likewise suffer because of it.

In one sense, Star Wars is the Jedi & the Sith, but if Disney really want to keep their franchise fresh here, they're going to have to break away from that format and (maybe) focus on independent films and/or new characters that have little or no connection to current lore.

#opinion

 

[Brutikus]

As stated above, I haven't seen Solo, though I did enjoy Rogue One because it was a self contained adventure story.

The differences between Rogue One, Solo, TFA and TLJ are that the two former are self contained stories that connect dots, whereas the latter two literally are following on from one and other so there's not really a start, middle and end as you'd expect from a normal film, yet they try to produce a start middle and end.

In one sense, Star Wars is the Jedi & the Sith, but if Disney really want to keep their franchise fresh here, they're going to have to break away from that format and (maybe) focus on independent films and/or new characters that have little or no connection to current lore.

#opinion

Agreed totally on all points.

 

[Fallen]

[YT]Nu-D0EWTtjg[/YT]

Poor Mark Hamill, he deserves better.

 

[MbJ]

That seems like a stretch. Audiences didn't boycott Solo because they were outraged by the idea of an actor playing Harrison Ford; it was a movie that very few people were interested to begin with. Go back to when it was first announced, heck spend time on these very boards, and you'll see a bunch of people asking why exactly do we need a Han Solo origin story.

That the film itself was mediocre and coming off the divisive reception to The Last Jedi didn't help things either.

 

[spider-neil]

Solo performed poorly for a number of reasons;

1. Star Wars is no longer special when you are bringing out a Star Wars movie every year.
2. The Last Jedi was at best divisive and Solo may have paid the price like JL paid the price for BvS.
3. General audiences may have felt this wasn't a story big enough for the big screen and with an already packed summer and rising cinema costs felt this could be watched at home.
4. People may be sick of this TINY universe. 40 years and we're STILL focused on the '77 Star Wars timeline. It's a big universe out there and you can literally make any story in the that universe and we are watching the same characters over and over again. Zzzzz...

 

[warhorse78]

I'm not a believer in quote, end quote "superhero fatigue". Because the Christopher Reeve Superman movies came out in the late 70's, early 80's and are still loved. Michael Keaton's Batman came out in the early 90's and again, was embraced. So too was Nolan's Batman series. The public's fascination with superheroes seems to be something that is always in style, from one generation to the next. A universal appeal that is ageless and timeless, as it were.

And OBVIOUSLY the MCU is beyond successful. I mean as of today Infinity War is just a hair away from joining the 2 billion dollar club. Kevin Feige knows what he's doing.

But Solo proves not even the strongest franchises are infallible. And Sony, too, is obviously starting to show some concern about connected cinematic universes with the pulling of Silver and Black. Does this mean that I think the MCU is in trouble? No. Feige has earned the success of his franchise through sheer grit. The MCU is what it is because it EARNED it by making fantastic films. He built a juggernaut up from the ground, it was not handed to him. The MCU has a stellar reputation.

That said I do feel what is happening with the Star Wars franchise can teach all studios, even Marvel, a thing or two about what not to do, because, and I want to reiterate, even the mighty can misstep.

How they treated Luke Skywalker in the Last Jedi was a mistake. He's on iconic hero. He was loved by many. Were I Feige, if I'm planning on killing off any of the Big Three in Avengers 4 as a 'handing over of the baton' to the newer characters type situation I would tread VERY carefully in how I did it.

It seems no one wanted to see someone other than Harrison Ford play Han Solo. And I know there are some who want legacy characters to exist in the MCU and mantles to be passed, but I do not think there is an audience for it. When you're used to an actor/character filling a role and that role becomes iconic, it's just a bad idea all-around to mess around with that (unless you wait 20 years like the Star Trek franchise did... and even then the reboots haven't all been successful. In fact, Star Trek Beyond was considered a flop, which is a shame because in my opinion it was the best of the three).

The above two were what I felt were Solo's primary issues. I don't think the fact that Last Jedi and Solo being released so close to each other was the problem as Marvel releases three films a year and does just fine. I don't think Deadpool was a huge deal as competition because Solo can reach an audience that Deadpool cannot, the family audience. Deadpool, being R rated, is obviously something most parents wont take their kids to.

I also don't think those idiotic sexists and racists boycotts are contributing to the lack of sales as the people organizing those things would like to think because fandom is but a teeny, tiny percent of the general audience. They can 'boycott' because of the lead having girl bits all the want, and they're still only less than 1%.

So yeah, Solo's problem came down to: when a character is beloved, you have to treat that character right, and don't be the first film following a movie that treated a beloved character poorly AND when roles/characters/titles are iconic, just leave them be. Thoughts?

I'm going with the backlash to how Luke Skywalker was handled ended up hurting Solo. And, I am already feeling resentment towards Captain Marvel since Feige went on record saying she is going to be the most powerful Avenger, and it makes me anxious that they plan on trashing the old characters we grew to love to make the new ones seem better. We already got a sense of it with Shuri's snide comment to Banner about how much smarter she is than he is.

 

[MbJ]

We already got a sense of it with Shuri's snide comment to Banner about how much smarter she is than he is.

As we all know, a Marvel movie has never had a snide, snarky joke made at another character's expense.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm going with the backlash to how Luke Skywalker was handled ended up hurting Solo. And, I am already feeling resentment towards Captain Marvel since Feige went on record saying she is going to be the most powerful Avenger, and it makes me anxious that they plan on trashing the old characters we grew to love to make the new ones seem better. We already got a sense of it with Shuri's snide comment to Banner about how much smarter she is than he is.

Isn't Captain Marvel essentially their Superman? What's wrong if she is more powerful than all other heroes? And how do you know they are going to trash existing heroes to showcase her powers? If you are already feeling resentment about a movie that is only now shooting due to your misinterpretation of a very straightforward interview, I don't think the problem is them.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

If superhero fatigue is real I truly believe Marvel studios is above it at this point.

 

[legendkillin]

Not all people that are into Marvel are into Star Wars.

I for one love MCU but have never been interested in Star Wars. I think the audiences vary some so the superhero fatigue talk is pointless. People also watch what they think will be good, MCU movies have built connection and trust the people making the movies actually love the source material. I trust them every time I go watch the movies.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I love Star Wars. And Empire. And Return of the Jedi.

Since then, I'm not so sure. Force Awakens and Rogue One were okay. Haven't seen Solo yet. If you ask me, 10 movies in the Star Wars universe is struggling just as much as the Fox X-Men universe.

Meanwhile, the MCU is 20 movies in and comparatively just killin it. So its not really even a contest at the moment.

 

[SteveRogers41]

Solo performed poorly for a number of reasons;

1. Star Wars is no longer special when you are bringing out a Star Wars movie every year.
2. The Last Jedi was at best divisive and Solo may have paid the price like JL paid the price for BvS.
3. General audiences may have felt this wasn't a story big enough for the big screen and with an already packed summer and rising cinema costs felt this could be watched at home.
4. People may be sick of this TINY universe. 40 years and we're STILL focused on the '77 Star Wars timeline. It's a big universe out there and you can literally make any story in the that universe and we are watching the same characters over and over again. Zzzzz...

I'm replaying to your message as sort of a reply to all because it addresses all the points:

1) Marvel brings three movies every year. They haven't had one lose them money yet. I mean, technically Black Panther and Infinity War had less than three months between them and both films made over a billion dollars. Thor Ragnarok and Black Panther had a little over three months and still both movies did well and earned Disney a nifty return.
2) One of the reasons Last Jedi was divisive was the treatment of Luke Skywalker. It wasn't the only reason, but it contributed.
3) Rogue One did REALLY well, and it, like Solo, was a filler and not part of the continuing story. It wasn't an episode, but still raked in the dough.
4) Yeah, I totally agree with this one. They definitely need to expand that universe.

Look, I'm not saying they can't 'pass the torch', what I'm saying is they need to be VERY particular in how they do it because do it the wrong way and it can and will break the franchise. These characters are beloved, they are household names, people buy t-shirts and action figures and get pictures with costumed versions at Disneyland. The attachment is there, that's not something you can severe lightly. Studios make their money developing parasocial relationships between audience and character. It's important that the audience care, because that's what keeps the audience invested, keeps them buying. Each character is a brand. Now if you later want to kill this character off to make room for new ones you have issues, and what issue is this? The very monster you created, i.e. an invested audience.

The past two years of comics also reflected this. They replaced Captain America. They replaced Hulk. They replaced Iron Man. They replaced Thor and what happened? Sales tanked. Now Marvel's misstep in that was that they blamed the tanking sales on diversity. It wasn't diversity. Comics should be diverse - Marvel's whole tagline is the 'world outside your window' and the comics need to reflect that. And Miles Morales and Kamala Khan are both great sellers, and even though Miles is a Spider-Man legacy character and Kamala is a Captain Marvel legacy character, the audience warmly embraced them. Yet neither of those characters outright replaced their predecessors. Peter and Carol were still around. There was room for both. But when you take Steve, Tony, Bruce and Thor out of the picture all at once, that equaled total rebellion. No one was going for it. To be fair Jane Foster as Thor did sell pretty well at first, but she came first before they decided to do all the others. It was the influx of replacements that turned readers off (that and too many events).

And while the comics are but a tiny sample size of a movie audience, it still reflects a pattern. A pattern exhibited again with divisiveness over Last Jedi. A pattern reflected in X-Files when it was on and how the ratings tanked when they replaced Mulder with Doggett. I mean, there's a lot of evidence supporting my argument here just by looking at any franchise in the history of ever and why that franchise started to decline.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Couldn't tell you why Solo is underperforming.

Han Solo is a major pop-culture icon. I'm surprised to hear there is apparently a lot of people who didn't want to see a Solo movie. As a concept, it makes no less sense than BW.