Board 8 > Star Wars spinoffs apparently put on hold

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://m.ign.com/articles/2018/06/20/star-wars-spinoffs-are-reportedly-put-on-hold

Theyre just focusing on episode 9 and ignoring the Boba Fett movie. Presumably because of Solos disappointing returns.
---

Theyre continuing with the next Rian trilogy though
---

Can we put Star Wars on hold? I don't think I want it anymore.
---

That's upsetting considering Solo was the first good Star Wars movie in 35 years
---

I'd be more interested in a Boba Fett movie than Episode 9 at this point but oh well
---

I think Solo's problem wasn't the movie, it was the timing. They're causing Star Wars fatigue with all of these releases, so it's a good business decision to focus on concluding the trilogy well. The Last Jedi was fantastic, so hopefully they can end it on an even brighter note.
---

Can we please just get 3.5 with Haydyn as Vader?
---

Can we at least get a Lando movie?
---

BOO, there would have been nothing wrong with the Obi-Wan movie. They just need to get back to not releasing more than one per year.


---

i dont know why they didnt continue with the yearly release of trilogy-side move-trilogy.

Releasing Solo so soon(Particularly with all the negative press they let out about it) basically doomed the movie.

But Solo definitely poisoned the waters for future Star Wars spinoffs, so this is not particularly surprising.
---

My assumption is that they saw how well Marvel does with such a quick release schedule and figured... Hey, Star Wars is even bigger, right?

The problem is Marvel doesn't do spin-offs. Every movie connects, so people are more likely to not want to miss them. A spin-off that has nothing to do with the next mainline movie is much more skippable, and it came out around movies people chose to see over it.
---

Yeah, I saw this coming, sadly.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

The problem is Marvel doesn't do spin-offs. Every movie connects, so people are more likely to not want to miss them. A spin-off that has nothing to do with the next mainline movie is much more skippable, and it came out around movies people chose to see over it.

Not sure this is the whole reason.

I mean Ant-Man is so irrelevant to the overarching plot.

I guess if Ant-Man 2 tanks we'll see if that's matters a lot.
---

I think with Marvel its also that its a proven brand with no atrocious movies and that people have a limited amount of patience for cinematic universes in general anyway.
---

Ant-Man 2 is going to be pretty relevant to IW2 though.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

The problem is Marvel doesn't do spin-offs. Every movie connects, so people are more likely to not want to miss them. A spin-off that has nothing to do with the next mainline movie is much more skippable, and it came out around movies people chose to see over it.

Not sure this is the whole reason.

I mean Ant-Man is so irrelevant to the overarching plot.

I guess if Ant-Man 2 tanks we'll see if that's matters a lot.

Not really. Ant-Man himself shows up in the Avengers movies and his powers/what he can do/the characters from that movie have relevance to the overarching plot of the franchise.
---

I mean we act like Solo bombed but it's still one of the highest grossing films of all time. It just cost like $500 million to make. Just decrease the budgets for the spin offs and they'll do fine.
---

Basically what I mean is that there isn't a movie in the Marvel franchise so far that absolutely cannot impact the plot/cause ripples in other movies, so people keep seeing them to not miss anything.

The Star Wars spin-offs have so far been events that have already happened in the past and have no bearing on anything happening in the future
---

Ant-Man was a minor part of Civil War

That's the only appearance he's made in any movie that wasn't Ant-Man.

I saw Civil War before it and it didn't matter even a little. I guess you could say for the first movie no one knew he was irrelevant but I think at this point no one expects him to matter so yeah I think it'll be a good test.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

The problem is Marvel doesn't do spin-offs. Every movie connects, so people are more likely to not want to miss them. A spin-off that has nothing to do with the next mainline movie is much more skippable, and it came out around movies people chose to see over it.

Connection helps, but the Marvel movies all manage different tones and genres. You get a vastly different experience seeing say Guardians of the Galaxy vs Captain America.

Rogue One did a good job of seeming "different" to the trilogies but I think "Solo" doesn't sit far enough away for people to see it as something different enough for them to care about(They know how the story ends and such)
---

Star Wars went full SJW and the writers have admitted as much. There is no coming back for Star Wars. Its done.
---

Also I'm currently in the pretty large group of people that hasn't seen Solo.

There just isn't much of a pressing need to see what happened to a young Han Solo and its been surrounded by more interesting, probably better movies.
---

Lopen posted...

Ant-Man was a minor part of Civil War

That's the only appearance he's made in any movie that wasn't Ant-Man.

I saw Civil War before it and it didn't matter even a little. I guess you could say for the first movie no one knew he was irrelevant but I think at this point no one expects him to matter so yeah I think it'll be a good test.

You really think people are going to go "Oh Ant-Man is relevant I can skip that" when its timeline is going to mesh into Infinity War/2? Really?

Comparing this to Solo is very strange
---

I mean Star Wars has always had a huge expanded universe that most of the fanbase ignores
---

Also, I think it's dishonest a bit to say none of Ant-Man mattered for Civil War.

It sets up how he has any contact with the Avengers whatsoever/why Falcon knows of him, and it makes the Giant Man reveal notable because of the fact that he spends the entire movie only being able to go small.
---

Also people have somehow turned on Star Wars as an outlet to express racism/sexism despite the real problems with The Last Jedi having nothing to do with those two issues(Bad storytelling is bad storytelling, race and gender has literally nothing to do with that).

So as Ulti has kindly informed us here, people are generally pretty terrible.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

You really think people are going to go "Oh Ant-Man is relevant I can skip that" when its timeline is going to mesh into Infinity War/2? Really?

I mean I don't think people are going to skip Ant-Man

I just think if people were mostly seeing it because of keeping up with the continuity they definitely could.
---

I think Ant-Man 2 is going to see a major uptick in revenue because it's the first MCU movie after IW. Same thing happened with the first MCU movie after the first Avengers.
---

I don't think Ant-Man 2 will be very skippable

I mean I guess you could argue Ant-Man 1 was if you're going to argue "I'm okay with characters just showing up and being treated as if they're already fully established and introduction/backstory doesn't matter." But then you could argue that for pretty much every solo movie

But IW1 made a point to go "Oh Scott's not here because house arrest," and the AM2 previews are going "Hey look Scott's on house arrest," so the timelines are obviously going to line up in some way/there's pretty much no way he's not going to be in IW2, so there's a very good chance he becomes relevant for it

EDIT: Regardless, there's a pretty big difference just in the fact alone that Ant-Man 2 CAN be relevant, whereas Solo couldn't.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I mean we act like Solo bombed but it's still one of the highest grossing films of all time. It just cost like $500 million to make. Just decrease the budgets for the spin offs and they'll do fine.

Um, no.

This post is not even in the same ballpark as the truth.

As of now the movie has grossed 343 million. Worldwide. This is a disaster at half the budget.
---

Most of the other origin story movies flesh out macguffins and/or are about characters that are very significant to the plot of other movies rather than just a dude who's one part of a 12 man fight scene and in the movie for like 10 minutes tops.

I would say Hulk is 100% skippable. Probably the Iron Man sequels. Thor 2 was ultimately irrelevant. Ant-Man would probably be #5 on the list of skippable movies just ahead of Spider-Man, and I imagine most people are going to think it's more skippable than they thought the first one was because sequels generally are in the franchise.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I mean we act like Solo bombed but it's still one of the highest grossing films of all time. It just cost like $500 million to make. Just decrease the budgets for the spin offs and they'll do fine.

No it's not.

It hasn't even made $400 million worldwide.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

My assumption is that they saw how well Marvel does with such a quick release schedule and figured... Hey, Star Wars is even bigger, right?

The problem is Marvel doesn't do spin-offs. Every movie connects, so people are more likely to not want to miss them. A spin-off that has nothing to do with the next mainline movie is much more skippable, and it came out around movies people chose to see over it.

this actually isn't the reason Marvel works. People not wanting to "skip" movies is not what makes the movies successful, and thinking that way belies a fundamental misunderstanding of its success. the connecting thing is awesome, but the reason it works because it's a bunch of different standalone franchises that happen to connect.

Any individual franchise in the MCU could be released by themselves and be a solid movie with a good take. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant Man, Spider Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther.... being in the MCU undoubtedly helps them, but the reason the whole thing works at all is because they are all solid movies with their own themes and styles. Then they come together and make awesome super movies like the Avengers, Civil War, and Infinity War

But the thing is that the fanbases from these films are not all the same. Not everybody who sees Thor is gonna see Captain America. Not everybody that sees Guardians of the Galaxy is gonna see Doctor Strange. There are LOTS of fans of just individual franchises that show up to the team up movies. That's why the team up movies have such higher takes than the individual ones. A fan of Thor will go see the Avengers, but that doesn't mean he's gonna see The Winter Soldier.

Honestly, only nerds or people who get passionate about the movies make sure to watch every movie. That's why guys like Lopen don't understand the success of Black Panther. To him, person who is savvy about the MCU, it's just another story. But to millions of people who don't watch this shit, it's a really cool story about an alternate ancestry for them - it's a home. Every MCU franchise, or even movie within a franchise, does something unique or interesting to draw in people. Ant Man is a heist movie. Winter Soldier is a spy thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy is a space comedy. These all draw in different crowds.

Some people will be like Han and say "okay, this shit is all good, I better go back and just watch it all", but for the most part, lots of fans have only seen bits and pieces of the MCU, and this drives at the important part: It's important that things *SHOULD* be skippable.

If someone has seen the Guardians movies and the Iron Man movies and thinks "well, there's a lot of people I don't know in Infinity War... I guess I shouldn't go see it", that's a failure for the movie. Instead, the movies are made so you can just watch them all individually and enjoy them. People who have seen everything else appreciate them MORE, but it's not a requirement. It doesn't matter if you saw Ant Man before Civil War. He's just a guy that shows up and is pretty funny. Everyone gets it. Just because he has his own movie doesn't mean you have to see it. He literally doesn't matter.

To make it a requirement would kill the box office take. If Star Wars tried to take that approach it would only make them worse off.
---

Personally, I've always thought the idea of them rushing out the gate to release stand alone movies was really greedy and shortsighted. I like the idea of stand alone movies, but they rushed to do it and both standalone movies were rife with production issues because of it, without even talking about the quality of the movies. It's apparent to everyone that these were attempts to milk the franchise and not genuine attempts at coming up with a worthwhile story. I think they shoulda focused a little more on making the main trilogy the best it could be and then think about what would make great spinoff stories. The kind that are cool that they are in this universe, but are interesting enough on their own to justify their own place in the franchise.

Honestly, I do think Solo has some worthwhile elements to its concept... it's the fact that it's titled Solo to milk the idea of Han Solo and was rushed out is what's hindered it.
---

And yeah as for gross - small indie films that were made for $5-15 million would love to make what Solo is making but it would be disappointing for any tentpole movie.
---

CoolCly posted...

That's why guys like Lopen don't understand the success of Black Panther. To him, person who is savvy about the MCU, it's just another story. But to millions of people who don't watch this shit, it's a really cool story about an alternate ancestry for them - it's a home. Every MCU franchise, or even movie within a franchise, does something unique or interesting to draw in people. Ant Man is a heist movie. Winter Soldier is a spy thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy is a space comedy. These all draw in different crowds.

I think you are severely underestimating the overlap between people who saw Black Panther and people who saw him in Civil War first.
---

I mean I'm not saying Marvel is a "You HAVE to see this or else"

I'm just saying they all connect and that makes people want to see most of them. Like, if Avengers didn't exist and these movies didn't connect in any way, I don't think they'd be nearly as successful as they are. The fact that it's a giant connected universe makes people more interested in seeing movies in the franchise that they probably wouldn't have otherwise. There hasn't been a single Marvel movie that you could point at before it came out and go "This won't be relevant to any of the others."

Solo doesn't have that. It's strictly "Do you like Han Solo? Cool. If not? Eh."
---

CoolCly posted...

If someone has seen the Guardians movies and the Iron Man movies and thinks "well, there's a lot of people I don't know in Infinity War... I guess I shouldn't go see it", that's a failure for the movie. Instead, the movies are made so you can just watch them all individually and enjoy them. People who have seen everything else appreciate them MORE, but it's not a requirement. It doesn't matter if you saw Ant Man before Civil War. He's just a guy that shows up and is pretty funny. Everyone gets it. Just because he has his own movie doesn't mean you have to see it. He literally doesn't matter.

Not needing to have seen all the movies is actually something very subtle but actually done very well in Infinity War. Most of the characters have introductions and background information seamlessly woven into the narrative and dialogue. People who havent seen some of the movies will almost immediately know what most of these characters are about. But at the same time, the dialogue isn't hammered in or forced to the point that someone that has seen all the movies might not even realize an introduction just happened(Star Lord and Thor aren't debating backstories just to be funny, it served a narrative purpose).
---

Lopen posted...

CoolCly posted...

That's why guys like Lopen don't understand the success of Black Panther. To him, person who is savvy about the MCU, it's just another story. But to millions of people who don't watch this shit, it's a really cool story about an alternate ancestry for them - it's a home. Every MCU franchise, or even movie within a franchise, does something unique or interesting to draw in people. Ant Man is a heist movie. Winter Soldier is a spy thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy is a space comedy. These all draw in different crowds.

I think you are severely underestimating the overlap between people who saw Black Panther and people who saw him in Civil War first.

Ehhhhh... I couldn't give you accurate numbers in that regard, but I personally know about a dozen people who didn't watch CW but loved Black Panther.

It was really disappointing because I felt like I could talk to co-workers and family about something I was interested in, only to find out they hadn't watched any other MCU movies beside BP.
---

Lopen posted...

I think you are severely underestimating the overlap between people who saw Black Panther and people who saw him in Civil War first.

Civil War was very little to do with the success of Black Panther. It was a great introduction for him to the franchise but you are very detached from what happened with that movie if you think that.

I was meaning to engage you but never got around to it in that one Avengers topic where you kept saying stuff like "i'd like to think this movie earned it's box office on it's story telling rather than sjw pandering but i guess not" whenever any body mentioned the significance of it as a black cast which is a really disingenuous argument. It's basically congratulating yourself for being smarter than the movie while not attempting to understand why this movie struck a chord with so many people. It's not successful just because it has a black cast, or because BP was in Civil War. It's about what the themes in the story meant to people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkV12qtvAJg" data-time="

Watch this discussion and maybe you will glean some insight

It actually comes back to why the MCU is successful - some movies mean a lot more to certain people than others, and for good reason. Black Panther is basically the perfect example of it.
---

I really don't care too much about anecdotes in this case. I mean the facts are just there-- Civil War grossed far too much for that to be a typical story. There are a lot more people that are "savvy about the MCU" than you'd think from that post. I'm not saying everyone who has seen Black Panther has seen every MCU movie, but I'd imagine most have seen at least the bigger hits.

Like, Black Panther is a hero with very little name value on his own. Of all the movies to say that about that may be one of the worst. If anything, Civil War introducing this awesome character that people weren't very familiar with and wanted to see more of probably drove a lot more people to see it than would have if he wasn't introduced in the movie or was a character with more brand value like Spider-Man. (where everyone and their mother already knows the origin story)
---

Black Panther was closer to doubling Civil War in domestic gross than not, so I'd say there's logic to the argument
---

Not really. Netflix exists. Blurays exist. DVDs exist.
---

But no other movie after Civil War saw that kind of turnout, or even close to it. Black Panther is definitely an outlier.
---

Speaking of disingenuous arguments...
---

How is that disingenuous?

Thor Ragnarok was able to advertise explaining where Hulk and Thor were during their absence from Civil War.
GotG2 was coming off of GotG1 being a huge hit

Both of those were doubled or close to it by Black Panther

You're arguing it's more sound to believe that one cool fight scene from Civil War outweighed the other two enough to have Black Panther trounce them by THAT much, and it had nothing to do with any of the stuff Cly is saying?
---

Lopen posted...

Speaking of disingenuous arguments...

What's disingenuous? Your argument is that since Civil War was an above average movie take (which yes, CW isn't a typical story, it's basically an Avengers movie and got an Avengers bump),it must be responsible for BP being better than an average movie too. Except BP made way more money than CW did.

Using the CW gross to claim it affect BP's gross doesn't make sense. That would only make sense if BP was a bit higher than say, Antman by giving a bit of a publicity boost. Then you could say debuting in CW gave it a bump. BP being higher than CW implies it's successful for a reason other than CW.
---

Black Panther benefitted from a very soft box office release schedule at the time. It had no competition on really any big demographic.

No competition and good word of mouth are a great recipe for success.
---

Lots of disingenuous things:

1. Spider-Man is an established character, and not 1/10 as relevant as Black Panther in Civil War
2. Hulk and Thor are not in Civil War, nor are the Guardians of the Galaxy, so how are they relevant
3. Avengers Infinity War, the most directly relevant movie from Civil War, is going to come very close to Black Panther's domestic gross. (And exceed it worldwide but I digress)

Chalking Black Panther's role in Civil War up to "one cool fight scene" is heavily downplaying the relevance of the character there.

I'm not saying Cly's post is not relevant, just that saying it's more relevant than Civil War to the movie's success is rather ridiculous. It'll be some time before we see any other hero this might apply to as Black Panther was an outlier in the way he was introduced and we already missed our opportunity with Hawkeye/Black Widow I think, but if say Dr Strange had come out after Infinity War I would expect it to exceed its current gross by a good amount, as he's a very similar kind of character as far as mainstream recognition goes with a very similar amount of prominence in Infinity War (compared to Black Panther in Civil War)
---

Apparently the discussion moved past this but I wanted to say that Marvel movies do well with their release schedule because each one offers something different

Star Wars movies are all just kind of Star Wars