Solo: The Media's Stupid Spin And Remediation Advice (An Editorial)

We all know why "Solo: A Star Wars Story" flopped, with a box-office total that's catastrophically more abysmal than thought. The mainstream media may not wish to admit it, offering "Star Wars" fatigue as the reason (i.e., one film simply coming too soon on the heels of another to garner interest), but the truth is, "Solo" failed because many chose to sidestep it after "Last Jedi" soiled the intergalactic dream. 

Lucasfilm and nurturing Disney didn't help matters, either, by allowing Jonathan Kasdan; Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson (remember when he called Mark Hamill a "mofo"?); and even once-could-do-no-wrong J.J. Abrams to scold fans, labeling them something they're not.

With that said, "Star Wars'" traditional base isn't adverse to diversity--never has been, never will be. Its members are, however, adverse to any form of prejudice, particularly reverse discrimination, whether regarding gender (males) or mystical notions. ("Last Jedi'"s dreadful destruction of a sacred temple by a respected puppet couldn't help but upset.) That the new handlers of George Lucas' creation have chosen this wayward, abrasive and unapologetic course is what baffles and offends so many. 

Diversity in storytelling can, in fact, be administered in a number of ways. Gene Roddenberry; George A. Romero; Ray Bradbury; Rod Serling; and Glen A. Larson have handled it via a variety of voices. The various producers of "The Walking Dead"; "Planet of the Apes"; "Alien Nation"; "X-Men" and the recent "Bright" offer such in a way that gains acceptance even from people of opposing, political views. But you know what? Lucas dealt the diversity card, too, and all through a throwback style that rode on pure fun and never once did he bash a soul. He did weave some embellishing philosophy into his fun, but fun was the primary goal and mission attained, provided I might add, by host of eclectic characters.

Male bashing, therefore, was never part of "Star Wars", any more than female bashing. Contrary to what SJWs claim, the "Star Wars" wheel wasn't broken prior to "Last Jedi" (or for that matter, "Force Awakens"), even in light of the prequel trilogy stumbling here and there. A radical purging of the saga's good-vs-evil themes needn't have occurred through this unsystematic process. "Star Wars'" purpose was pure, clear and effective--and embraced unconditionally from the start. 

In all fairness, "Solo" isn't way off base in its reflection of this. Even with the conspicuous recasting of Alden Ehrenreich and Donald Glover in iconic roles, "Solo" is superior (more open-minded) than "Last Jedi" in its presentation of the old ways. If not for the dreadful "Episode VIII", the smuggler's pre-story may have struck lightning at the box office. However, many fans feared that if they had supported it, there was a strong chance that Lucasfilm would continue its "Last Jedi" vibe, not only into "Episode IX", but the possible "Solo II". (For the record, "Solo" does have a SJW smattering about it, but it's nowhere near as bad as many feared. The film slips by avoiding a rough edge: something that its anthology companion, "Rogue One", at least keeps.)

Again, "Solo" dropped the ball because the peasants chose to chastise the ruling class, and truly, that's all. (Keep in mind, "Infinity War" hit theaters only a few weeks after "Black Panther", and "Deadpool 2" a few weeks after "Infinity War": each a blockbuster and with the same adventurous pledge as "Star Wars". People flock to this sort of stuff, unless they've been betrayed.) Anyway, most of the peasants will eventually see "Solo" (and probably find it bland, but on the whole, okay), but whether good or bad, the core fans had staunch reason to postpone their allegiance, though I suppose their boycotting was also an ironic (and shrewd) way of acknowledging the film (ha, ha). 

Because of the fans' stance, Lucasfilm and Disney must get their houses in order. That requires an acceptance of the truth and a change of command, perhaps even getting good, old George back into the chair, if only in a consultant capacity. Maybe having him team with the "Infinity War" group would be an ideal way to go. 

At the same time, it's understandable to keep the franchise fresh and growing with new characters and circumstances, but they must project the original "Star Wars" spin: that means sticking to the white hat/black hat, chapter-play format.

To help with this, why not cast Scott Eastwood as a protagonist? (Heck, he'd make a nifty Flash Gordon, come to think of it.) And before you snowflakes condemn the idea of casting another guy in a lead, one could just as well recruit a tough-as-nails lady to pull in the reins: an Ellen Ripley or Michonne type, if you please. She could be flawed, but strong, wise and easy to applaud, instead of some flavorless wannabe or hardheaded nag. 

New characters can also express diverse dispositions and tendencies, without fear of screwing with the saga's canon. They don't even have to be human. They only need to emote some degree of depth and get audiences to care about them, just like folks did with Lucas' ensemble in '77. But when it comes to villainy, keep it standard, vicious and long lasting: Enough of this hit-and-miss, guest-starring silliness.

Even if the bigwigs won't admit it, there's much riding on how Lucasfilm now proceeds and how Disney reacts to its satellite's plans. It'll be interesting to see what develops in the upcoming months and what manipulative or honorable scraps on "Episode IX" and the Boba Fett film are shared. Thanks to "Solo'"s misfortune, there's again hope that things might turn around. If not, the franchise is destined to enter a long and unceremonious hiatus by decade's end; and oh, what an unforgivable disgrace that would be the present producers.