Report: The Star Wars Story Films Are Being Put On Hold

After the disappointing box office performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story, a new report says Lucasfilm has put all future Star Wars Story standalone movies on hold. That means, at least for now, no Boba Fett movie, no Obi-Wan movie, and no Solo spinoffs.

Sounds like we won't be seeing an Obi-Wan movie any time soon. Photo: Fox

We contacted Disney and Lucasfilm for comment but had not received a response at time of writing.

The news comes via Collider mere days after another report that a whopping nine Star Wars movies were in development and, well, that was probably true.

In addition to the Obi-Wan Kenobi and Boba Fett movies that were definitely in the works, there are the new film series' by Rian Johnson as well as David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

Those two series are still in development and, according to the report, are likely to lead the next phase of the Star Wars saga.

Which, again, is not to say Stephen Daldry or James Mangold will never make their Star Wars Stories. They just won't make them until Disney is ready to make another investment in them.

In the immediate future, J.J. Abrams Star Wars: Episode IX is still coming in December 2019. After that? Maybe Star Wars takes a year off or maybe Johnson's first movie comes out. (It's doubtful Benioff and Weiss' series could be out that soon considering they will be finishing Game of Thrones well into 2019).

But Star Wars isn't going away. Not by a long shot. The new Dave Filoni animated series Star Wars Resistance premieres later this year, and the Jon Favreau live-action show is getting closer and closer to becoming a real thing.

Basically, if this report is true, Star Wars is simply letting the past die, and killing it if they have to.

[Collider]


Comments

    Good, now just slowly put them on a "never-touch-again" shelf and let the series have the death it deserves, quick and painless.

      I love the Star Wars series. Solo was a clear step in the wrong direction, approaching a period of the films that is best read about rather than viewed, and turning the image of one of the series most beloved characters into a teen crush character. I would say continue making the movies, but at a slower rate. And never approach one of the characters at that sort of age again with the intention of making it a love story. Ever.

        To be fair I reckon original Han Solo was already a teen crush back in the late 70s and early 80s.

        I actually didn't mind the love story aspect in Solo, it works into his "New Hope" character where he's become a more cynical, world (galaxy) weary rogue.

        On a different note, I can't help but think back to Disney's decision to sack the original Solo director and go with Ron Howard. Makes me wonder how well the original version would have done.

    For the best. As much as I like Star Wars, Disney's annual releases were turning it into Assassin's Creed.

      Yep, having one after the next, after the next is just overkill. It can show that people get burnt out on franchises. I mean the Fast and Furious movies release every couple of years so fans have had a chance to just digest the last movie they saw, and then get excited for a new one when the trailer gets announced because the franchise has slipped in the back of their minds. There was 6 months seperating TLJ and Solo. I was thinking "they just released a star wars movie, why is there another one so soon".

      Its not the same with super hero movies though. The Marvel Franchise, tend to continue the story of other heroes so you get a break from seeing them, and in the same vein the movies all have different tones, like guardians having a lighter tone compared to the captain america movies. They're refreshing and less chance of getting burnt out

        I don't know why they didn't just release Solo in December like all the previous films have. Maybe they were experimenting to see if the market would accept Star Wars films released as close together as Marvel films.

        I think the only overlapping character between TLJ and Solo was Chewbacca, and Solo had quite a different tone to TLJ (which would have been even more pronounced if Lord and Miller hadn't been fired). So I suspect at least some people at Disney were hoping to turn it into a Marvel-style film franchise.

    For the best. The over-saturation will do long term damage to the Star Wars brand.

    TFA setup the reboot for failure IMO. I liked Rogue One though.

      Rouge one was reallllllllyyy good.

      Solo wasn't even that bad, just wasn't amazing

        I actually found Rogue One boring, maybe I walked in with higher expectations and wasn't meant. I mean I see how it fits into the whole timeline but it just didn't grab me.

          I felt like it was a good setup for another movie or two in that "era". I could see it continuing into SOLO2 and spinning off towards BOBA and OBIWAN. But it did feel a lot like an intro movie not it's own story.

          I also think it was just too hard for older fans to see a different actor playing Han. So they didn't fully embrace it. At least with Rogue One there was no major character being re-cast to lead the film. I suspect Obiwan wouldn't have that problem because people have become used to the idea of Macgregor playing Obiwan not Guinness. It also didn't hurt that Guinness was old during Star Wars so people never saw a young version of him, unlike Ford and Solo.

    I still think the biggest problem with Solo is that the premise wasn't really offering much that people really wanted. It's the same overall problem that the prequel series suffers. It focuses on filling out lore instead of creating a story people want to see. Rogue One, in comparison, works just as much as a stand alone story as it does as part of a bigger narrative.
    Han Solo is a bit of a meh character that was saved by Harrison Ford's acting talent. His arc in the original series works: A selfish scoundrel learns to both trust in and care for others. To see him as a lovable team player in a ragtag caper film isn't the Han Solo story my hear connects with. To cap it all off, Alden Ehrenreich may be a fine actor, but Harrison for he is not.

    *I haven't seen Solo, so my criticisms may be unfounded when wieghed up against the final film. This is my view from the marketing material, which has failed to get butts into seats.

      Ehrenreich does really well in the role, enjoyed his take on the character. A few pacing issues aside its a decent film, not amazing but definitely not the worst that has come out of Lucas Film.

        Yeah I would say the actors did well, especially Danny Glover who did 'Lando' I thought he portrayed him really well

          I think that was actually Donald Glover.

          Danny Glover is too old for this shit :P

      I think Ehrenreich would be perfect as a young Dennis Quaid, but he doesn't really nail young Harrison Ford for me.

    Is Solo anything like Star Wars Rogue One? Rogue One was awesome, way better than the prequel and sequel trilogy.

      Tonally it’s very different. Basically just a fun caper flick that gets less interesting the more serious it tries to be. There’s not much of that though. It was really quite good.

        I agree, I thought it was a fun flick, and I liked how it mostly divorced itself from the usual dark / light dichotomy of the star wars universe. Didn't mind his take on Han either. The love story was a little clichéd but at least it was kind of interesting the way it ended up.

    Releasing in only 5 months after TLJ and in the middle of Infinity War fever was just madness. I was enjoying the Xmas-ish release schedule, and I think that if they'd not spent so damned much on it, it would have wiped its nose.

    My wife who's not at all a Star Wars buff really liked it. I liked it too. Just could do with a full year between flicks. Marvel's the exception not the rule, and even they have to see that there'll need to be a chance to take stock after Avengers 4.

    WELL they were better than ep1-3, but I haven't seen SOLO yet, expecting a generic average sci-fi. Putting them on hold to spice up the screenplay and story a bit isn't a terrible idea.

    Man this sucks. Rogue One was amazing and Solo was actually a fun ride, not perfect, not great, but I had fun watching it. It only failed from what I saw was people who never saw it saying it was bad (caught like 2 people doing this, bad mouthing it without even giving it a try) or just Star Wars fatigue, mostly from fans disgruntled with TLJ. Add that with it being released within the same period as Infinity War and Deadpool and no wonder it performed poorly. And that's not mentioning the poor advertising.

    This sucks as the 'Star Wars Story' spin offs were creative and took paths they couldn't with the main film series. Rogue One opened the Rebel Alliance story up and Solo showed us the underbelly of the SW Universe. They were never perfect, but they were fun.

    Plus with the next film being a Kenobi film and a freaking James Mangold Boba Fett film after that, it's a shame Disney killed it before it could happen.

    Sure they could just be taking a break. But I won't hold my breath, especially if they are focusing on the new films by Rian and David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

      I wouldn't say killed, more like paused. They're not likely to completely cancel those movies. They'll just rethink the approach and make changes to make them better *koff*makemoremoney*koff*

      I do wish though, that they'd be a bit more hands off and let directors give the movies their own spin. If the movie fails through the directors poor vision then ok. Just don't make them fail because of studio interference.

        Hopefully paused. I am all for them taking their time to make the films better. If they don't cancel them, then 100% on board. I have felt they have been rushing them to meet the pre-set release dates (that even then they have failed all but Solo's).

        For Hands off, I feel, at least for the A Star Wars Movie, both times was not Disney being pushy, but Disney fixing something because they underestimated the director.
        Rogue One, the director sort of had a movie bigger than he could handle and a story he did not have a clear vision for (thus the different endings and tone). Disney allowed the final product to be his (which is why they allowed him to kill everyone, he was hesitant they would allow it but they did when asked), but on set, it sounded like things were rough. Especially when he was just recording stuff without thinking of a purpose.

        For Solo, they just hired the wrong directors for the wrong Star Wars film. The directors were used to a certain style and yet wee dealing with a Prequel that chronologically needed to fit in story wise and character wise to the rest of the Universe. Had it been a unknown character in an unknown part of the galaxy, sure, they would be fine. But they were fighting with writers and (iirc) the people that keep Canon and that was trouble. Not to mention the actors were uncomfortable with the improv directions they were given.

        If the movie fails through the directors poor vision then ok. Just don't make them fail because of studio interference.
        The thing is, Star Wars movies are HUGE investments, and if a director is causing trouble, thy need to step in. Rogue One, it sounded like the director asked for help. But for Solo, the crew were kinda fighting and they needed to step in.

          I don't disagree that they feel like they're rushing to meet scheduled dates. I actually feel like they're over-saturating the market too. They're getting to a point where they're competing with themselves. Avengers was still in cinemas when Solo was released. And although Disney don't own Deadpool (yet) it was in cinemas at the same time as well. They're cannibalizing their potential audience that way. A friend of mine saw all three movies in the same week and he's basically exhausted his movie going "allowance" for the next three months.

          I'm sorry but Rogue One ended perfectly. It was supposed to kill everyone, it was all about the heroic sacrifice made by people in order to get the Death Star plans. I don't think they "allowed him to kill everyone" it was (rightly) to be expected.

          Style doesn't mean something can't fit chronologically. Look at the Marvel movies. They are stylistically or tonally very different to one another. A great example is Thor Ragnarok, it's just vastly different to Black Panther or Infinity War yet it both holds up as a fun movie in it's own right and sits nicely in the overall story.

          That's why I feel like they should have let Lord and Miller do their thing. Unless they were diverging completely from canon (killing characters that needed to be alive for example) let them make the movie their way. I'd honestly love to see what their movie would have been. I don't have as much of a problem with the core movies being more tightly governed, but the spinoffs should have more freedom.

          I think that's actually another problem - Huge investments mean less creative freedom. Some of the best movies have been produced out of budgetary constraints. The first Deadpool's ending was supposedly meant to be a huge gun battle but they didn't have the money. And it's the reason they only had a couple Xmen not a big team. And it made the movie better for it.

          I feel like too many of these movies are focusing on creating massive visual spectacles (not that there's anything wrong with that) but at the expense of getting the story and characters right. Maybe instead of having every second character being a CGI puppet and so many of the props and backgrounds being artificial they could focus more on a better story. I don't need to see three hundred different weird aliens in the background of a shot where I'm supposed to be looking at the two main characters.

            I actually feel like they're over-saturating the market too. They're getting to a point where they're competing with themselves.

            Your not wrong, that line-up was ridiculous. However I think it was all bad timing and bad press. Disney knew Solo was going to tank as the demand was just no there and TLJ caused a huge rift between the audience (exact split is unknown, but Star Wars was tainted for a lot of people).
            The movie was finished and they already had a release date. They could have waited till Summer, but for some reason they didn't (I would assume Summer movies but I felt there were less this year then ever, even kid movies). End of the year had Mary Poppins, Bumblebee and Aquaman and the OG release date was May (weeks after May 4th) and was right after Infinity War (not great but no releases to compete besides Deadpool, an R rated movie, so less overlap then normal).

            Star Wars is sort of being over-saturated, but I feel it was just to early from the last film and they wanted it over and done with. Delaying it more would cost them also, as they had just hyped up marketing. However the usual December release dates always seemed to work fine. Almost no competition, a year apart and the difference between the normal movies and A Star Wars Story made them not feel the same each year.

            BUT, I will say, unless they CAN have a movie ready. They don't need to make them yearly.

            It was supposed to kill everyone, it was all about the heroic sacrifice made by people in order to get the Death Star plans. I don't think they "allowed him to kill everyone" it was (rightly) to be expected. Of course, but actual early scripts (and even shots possibly) had some if not most surviving. "
            “The original instinct was that they should all die,” screenwriter Gary Whitta tells EW. “It’s worth it. If you’re going to give your life for anything, give your life for this, to destroy a weapon that going to kill you all anyway. That’s what we always wanted to do. But we never explored it because we were afraid that Disney might not let us do it, that Disney might think it’s too dark for a Star Wars movie or for their brand.”

            So in the original treatment by John Knoll, and in the first script by Whitta, a few of the key heroes survived the final battle. But the creative team still wanted their noble sacrifice."

            Obviously it was changed, but it was something they had to check with Disney first (or Lucas Films)

            That's why I feel like they should have let Lord and Miller do their thing.

            I think you miss-understood me. Having those Directors make a Star Wars film in there style, 100% and I would love various styles of Star Wars films. I even am curious what the original Solo shots were like. The problem was, as you mentioned Unless they were diverging completely from canon. They fought with the writers, who had to keep to the Canon. Had it been any other random Star Wars characters, rules could have been bent. But it's a prequel of Han Solo and to the OG Trilogy and apparently they kept breaking that canon. And while I am fine with bending it, it sounded (from reports on set), like they were breaking them.

            Plus a lot of the actors were uncomfortable with how they directed iirc. They were forced to improvise then they weren't expecting it nor comfortable with it (or something like that, the whole shoot was a mess).

            But for a creative freedom in Star Wars, I feel we will get this with the GoT guys and the Rian Johnson films. No limits (unless they choose something with restrictions like Solo) and most likely no restraints, since the GoT guys were quite well known and I can feel Disney backing off any demands, especially after TLJ. For Rian's, who knows. Or who knows if both will still happen. But for creative freedom, Rian pretty much got that in TLJ, that was almost completely his own story (I have heard rumours the Canto Bight scenes were forced in by Disney, but that's another story).

            Solo was different, it was a set plot line with directors who were working with actors who weren't jelling and Lucas Films did not like the end product. Had they been able to write their own SW script or direct one with less restrictions in terms of Canon, I can feel that would have worked.

              I think the yearly release (or at least December release) might have helped Solo. Like you say people were het up over TLJ so another six months might have given that time to fade. And of course it would have given them time for more anticipation to build and more time to polish the film (if needed). I suspect though that would have had financial impacts, as in they were trying to get it out before the end of the financial year for tax reasons.

              While they could have let some of the Rogue One characters live, it would have opened questions. The main one being "where were they for Star Wars-Empire-RotJ"? I think also that having the characters die creates a stronger emotional response and harks back to some of the great war movies of the past.

              From what I read it was less about L&M breaking canon and more about style and as you say conflicts and other issues. But who knows. There was a lot of he said, she said reports that came out of it and I'm honestly not sure which ones to believe.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now