Star Wars’future, at least for the time being, appears to be on Disney+, the streaming service that is also home to Marvel Studios’ television outings. This format has allowed the franchise set in a galaxy far, far away to explore a more serialized form of storytelling, and one that doesn’t have the same scope or scale as some of the films. This has also allowed for more creative freedom in terms of the stories being told and, in particular, the characters that are focused on.
TheStar Warsfilms tend to have an expectation to, at the very least, focuses on the Skywalker family in the main saga, and for future theatrical outings to have a similar size and impact on canon as those nine movies. This is where Disney+ differs, as it has allowed Lucasfilm to center characters like the Mandalorian, Boba Fett, Ahsoka Tano, and more, all heroes that are important and play an integral role in theStar Warscanon but don’t have the impact that the likes of Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader do. Even Obi-Wan Kenobi, one of the main heroes of the first sixStar Warsfilms, was always next to Anakin or Luke, thus never having the attention solely on him.
RELATED:Star Wars: Cad Bane Fans Should Check Out This Spaghetti Western Icon
Now, this is about to change with next month’sObi-Wan Kenobias Ewan McGregor’s Jedi is in the spotlight by himself. Ultimately, although Obi-Wan and Vader are set for a rematch in this new series, its impact on canon isn’t expected to be sizable, which is still okay for most audiences who desire a well-told story over a galaxy-changing event on the streaming service. Given this, it’s reasonable to suggest thatSolo: A Star Wars Story, released in 2018, had the major disadvantage of coming out too soon, as it could have benefited greatly from being formatted as a show on the streaming service.
Solo: A Star Wars Storyis, to date,the only film in the franchise to lose money, and given the success of the Disney+ shows likeThe MandalorianandThe Book of Boba Fettso far, it might be the only title in a galaxy far, far away to not make a financial profit. The film failed to earn $400 million at the worldwide box office despite its Memorial Day weekend release date, and came in slightly under that milestone at around $350 million.
With a solid enough 69% on Rotten Tomatoes, it didn’t appear as if reviews or initial reactions hampered the film. Rather, audiences didn’t seem interested in going to a theater for such a project, especially as many were unconvinced by the film’s marketing campaign that somewhat hid star Alden Ehrenreich, despite the fact that his performance garnered almost universal appraise upon the release. Compare that with anotherStar Warsfilm,The Rise of Skywalker, which earned over $1 billion at the box office but has a rotten score on the film ratings website, and it’s clear that critic reviews aren’t always indicative of financial success, especially in the modern day, makingSolo’smonetary performance even more puzzling.
Ultimately, the financial side ofSolocan only be explained bya genuine lack of desire to seea Han Solo origin story as a film. Nowadays, box office experts tend to agree that it’s harder than ever to attract audiences to a movie theater, whether that be because of the content on offer, or the increasing ticket prices, or cost of food, or another problem entirely. This means that audiences didn’t deemSoloto be worth the effort of going to a movie theater, especially as there were other options like Avengers: Infinity War or Deadpool 2 on offer.
Marvel Studios seems to understand this as they have positioned central characters in all of their Disney+ series as heroes that are not the main focus in any of the movies, nor are they the biggest people in the ever-growing universe.WandaVisionarguably launched the two title charactersinto popularity with its unique nine episode season, for example, but going into this show it was clear that these are two heroes that wouldn’t be able to attract audiences to come to the theater.Hawkeyeis another great example of this, as it’s unclear of Jeremy Renner’s archer, typically the least popular of the original six Avengers, would succeed with a solo film. Instead, Marvel Studios turned to Disney+ to center these characters as they recognized that audiences could more easily be convinced to watch if they could do it from the comfort of their own home. This approach greatly helped push the franchise forward as movie theaters were closed due to COVID-19 and films were on pause, too.
Of course, Solo’s release in 2018 wasbefore the launch of Disney+, meaning that the title had virtually no where to go if it was to be adapted into a TV show. Therefore, it’s clear thatSolosuffered under its own production and release circumstances, as audiences would have been much more inclined to watch if they could do it on Disney+. Shows likeLoki, Hawkeye, and more are all on the streamer and feature title characters that, while somewhat popular (especially after release), aren’t anywhere close to the popularity of Han Solo, even if the hero is played by a different actor.
Creatively,Solowould have also benefited from this. The nature of a Han and Chewie story set before A New Hope lends itself to countless adventures as the two complete jobs for the likes of Jabba the Hutt and more (while also getting into some trouble themselves), and this is a format thatThe Mandalorianhas used excellently.The first season saw Din Djarincomplete jobs like the prison breakout in Chapter 6 as well as the attempted capture of Fennec Shand in the episode prior, and this serialization is whatSoloneeded rather than a bigger scale movie released only in theaters.
It’s unclear if there will ever be a follow-up toSolo: A Star Wars Story, but it seems that if there is a sequel, it will almost certainly be released on Disney+. This format might have been the way it should have been released all along.
