Hunch

Aladdin is meant to be a 'wise cracking street urchin' like a lot of the characters in Guy Ritchie's films. They were also thinking of the Sherlock films.

Yeah, Aladdin has HUGE potential if done right. Easily BatB numbers, and it could spawn a franchise. It might actually be better for Disney to move it one or two years and entirely redo it, even if it costs $500m. It would be worth it for the potential sequels.

Yes I'm aware, the article was pointing out that at the start of the process, it was explicitly all-female. They most likely made the major story decisions then. Is it any wonder that Force Awakens and Rogue One had female leads, a first for the series, and they were planning to have Leia be the sole survivor of the original trio in the new films? Granted, I don't think any of those choices are bad ones from a creative/moral/whatever standpoint, it's more that it really does seem to be agenda-driven. Coupled with purple haired lady as an obvious analog for how women aren't taken seriously in the boardroom even by their underlings. Or maybe I'm just paranoid! Maybe the 'culture wars' or whatever are making me see things that aren't there. I'd love to just be able to sit back and enjoy Star Wars without thinking about any of this. But it must be because I'm a man.

The article clearly stated she made the story group all female. That meeting doesn't necessarily refer to the story meetings. Anyway, clearly I'm just a rambling "dude bro" (isn't practically everyone here a dude? why are you using your own gender as an insult?) and 'The Women Who Run Star Wars' in a franchise that has already unceremoniously killed off its two male leads is not worth questioning.

If Grindelwald flops/underperforms (I'm not convinced people care that much about Dumbledore) then yeah.

The 6 month gap is terrible for box office indeed and has only ever worked for Twilight, and only because that series had the most psychotically obsessed fans ever. But Rogue One had Vader. They made sure to feature him prominently in the marketing.

What is interesting is that this is the first of the new SW films with a man clearly in the lead role, and it's flopping compared to the other films. Obviously not because of that, but it doesn't seem to be helping. There's no segment of Star Wars fans that have been yearning to see a film headlined by a guy instead of a girl. So it really does seem that any theory that having female leads would hurt its appeal with boys or that it limited b.o. potential is bull. That's quite a paradigm shift from how the industry used to operate. A decade ago it was taken for granted that an action/adventure film with a female lead wouldn't do as well as one with a male lead.

Right? Star Wars is still alive. It just might not reach the heights of all consuming uber blockbuster OT/Phantom Menace/Sith (domestic)/2015-2017 levels again.

I think the problem is that the nostalgia is based on a few key characters (Darth Vader, Luke, Leia, Han played by Harrison Ford), and well, they're all gone in the story. R2, C3PO, Chewbecca, the Falcon, etc are just seasoning.

JL bombing killed and/or modified a lot of films in development though. Solo bombing (can we actually say that yet?) would certainly change how they go about, say, a Boba Fett or Yoda spin off.

I mean, they do matter when the film cost $400m after production and marketing and it needs to recoup that money.

Well until Lucas decided to ca$h out and sold the rights, there weren't going to be any more Star Wars films. Revenge of the Sith was it. Then Hollywood entered its all-franchises-all-the-time stage and here we are. But if they stop being profitable, of course they will stop making them. The average Star Wars movie costs about $200-$250m now and they need to make over $700m WW per film to justify that cost. If they dip below that on average, either the budget get slashed and the films are much more low key, or they shelve the series. I'm not saying it will happen, but nothing is impossible.

Star Wars is declining because they are just recycling old ideas and giving nothing new, whereas Marvel is constantly introducing audiences to new characters (yes I know they had their comics, but most people didn't know what a Black Panther or Doctor Strange were before the movies). Say what you want about the prequels but they had tons of exciting new stuff in them. They still feel like no other blockbusters. They're almost like old Greek dramas. And they made the old look new, like this scene: (more memorable and bad ass than anything in the new films, no tea no shade)

Really? I thought that was it. Although I haven't kept up with the discussion that much.

$40m? What kind of plot twist. Wouldn't be surprised if Disney siphons some Avengers gross towards Solo if it's really really close to $100m. It would look so much better for them to be able to report a $100m 3-day weekend.

Hobbit films had a $700m OS average. It's possible that no Star Wars film will ever get that high again.

I don't see a scenario in which Episode IX doesn't decrease from Last Jedi. What do they have that could bring in more people? The original trio are all gone.

Justice League OS > Solo WW?

A wisecracking, cheeky space smuggler/explorer has nothing to do with Han Solo?

I think Chris Pratt made the right call with Jurassic World and GotG though. No way a IJ reboot with him would be making nearly as much as the JW films. And with GotG he gets to inhabit his own character and doesn't have to be compared to anybody. He's definitely an asset in the industry though. There are few actors who are as magnetic on screen right now.

Oscar Isaac would have been great casting as Boba Fett. They really underused him as Poe.

I don't think they'll cancel anything...yet...but there's no way they see this is a blip. With a $250m+ budget and $180m (rumoured) marketing budget and a total WW gross that may not reach $500m, this has potential to lose LOTS of money. That's not a blip.

Is it possible Chris Pratt as Peter Quill somewhat diluted the appeal of Solo, at least for millennials and Gen Z kids? Pratt's portrayal is obviously based on Han Solo, but he does it so well and the Guardians films have been really popular that maybe audiences weren't interested in another character like that, especially when it's obviously a cash grab by recasting Ford with a younger actor. We also just saw the actual Han in Force Awakens less than 3 years ago. Also, Alden Eihneneichwhatever is nowhere near as good looking or charismatic as young Harrison Ford or present day Chris Pratt.

I wonder if this floppage will make them delay Episode IX and insert different elements into the story. Maybe a Palpatine comeback?