Rumor: Venom Could End Up In Spider-Man 3

Rumor: Venom Could End Up In Spider-Man 3

In a few weeks, Peter Parker (Tom Holland) will receive a much-needed European vacation in the planned sequel Spider-Man: Far From Home. And according to the most recent trailers, that sequel will delve into something mysterious for the MCU: the Multiverse.

When Marvel and Sony get around to eventually doing a third Spider-Man movie, however, one rumor now speculates that the buzzword will be something even more exciting to Spider-Man fans: Symbiotes.

The Twitter account for Roger Wardell broke some Avengers: Endgame rumors that turned out to be very accurate, so there’s a chance that the person’s “Insider Information” is accurate. For the time being, we will chalk this up as rumor, as there isn’t even a Spider-Man 3 for the MCU on the books at Sony, and the studio is focusing instead on getting Spider-Man: Far From Home off the ground.

But bringing Tom Hardy as Venom into the MCU makes a whole lot of sense, particularly because audiences responded far better than we would have anticipated to the character when he got his own movie in Venom. You wouldn’t want to have an MCU Venom as well as a Sony Venom. And the only time that we have been able to see our favorite wallcrawler sharing the screen with one of his most-popular villains was in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 3, which was a trainwreck of epic proportions.

At the same time, Sony might not be in a rush to lend their Venom over to the MCU, despite what the above Tweet suggests. The studio seems hard at work at their standalone “Spidey” universe k(that doesn’t have Spider-Man in it yet, mind you), with Morbius following up Venom, and plans for a Venom 2 that assumedly will develop Woody Harrelson as Carnage.

Venom made a lot of money for Sony, banking $855 million globally. Audiences will return for the sequel, out of curiosity. The better bet, for Sony at least, would be to lure Tom Holland from Marvel Studios back to Sony, where he can play alongside Hardy, Jared Leto and the stars being set up in the Sony Spidey universe.

But I can also understand why Marvel wants a heavy hitter like Venom in the MCU. It’s a difficult situation.

There are better villains who seem to be more important to Spider-Man than Venom who should get a shot at the MCU treatment. The Venom origin story has been truncated in the Sony universe, so far, so trying to bring him over to the MCU without properly addressing the alien symbiote suit might get confusing.

Personally, as a die-hard Spider-Man fan, I’d love to see the MCU get a proper crack at two classic Spidey villains before they even started thinking about Venom, and that’s both Norman Osborn and Otto Octavius. Osborn could become a Big Bad not just in the Spider-Man movies, but in the larger MCU, as Norman became a chief adversary for many major Marvel heroes over the years.

And the most recent Playstation Spider-Man game mapped out a fantastic way for the MCU to do Doc Ock on screen. Also, more than enough time has passed since Alfred Molina’s spectacular rendition of Doc Ock in Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, so we are ready to see a new version of the character.

For now, this is all a rumor. All we know for certain is that Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal) is joining Spider-Man’s corner of the MCU in July, and what happens after that is up in the air. Click here, then, for more details on all that we know about Upcoming Marvel Movies.

The Villain Avengers: Endgame Might Have Set Up For Phase 4

The Villain Avengers: Endgame Might Have Set Up For Phase 4

SPOILER WARNING: Marvel and Disney are all in on spoilers now, but I'd rather play it safe than sorry. Big spoilers for Avengers: Endgame to follow!

Avengers: Endgame was indeed the finale that we were all promised. The film closes the door on some pillars of the MCU, including Thanos, who's been the big bad of this whole franchise. With the Mad Titan seemingly gone for good, who else could possibly terrorize the Avengers for the foreseeable future? Well, I don't know about the final boss, but as far as Phase 4 is concerned, Endgame may have paved the road for a classic Avengers bad guy in the form of Kang the Conqueror.

As the millions of people worldwide who have seen Avengers: Endgame know, the entire second act of the film is devoted to time travel. In order to undo the Snap and bring back everyone who was lost, the Avengers take a trip through their history to find the Infinity Stones, bring them to the future and not completely break the laws of time and space in the process.

The time travel rules and implications in the blockbuster have been hotly debated since release. While time travel continues to be one of the most confusing elements of Avengers: Endgame, the mere appearance of time travel could signal that Kang is right around the corner.

The name Kang is likely to be unfamiliar to anyone who doesn't read the comics, but he's one of the more standout Avengers villains. Essentially, he is a warlord from the future who has mastered time travel technology and travels to different timelines in order to conquer them with his superior weaponry. He's basically taking a test with all the answers written on his hand.

Kang's time traveling antics have resulted in him crossing paths with the Avengers on more than one occasion. It usually boils down to Kang trying to manipulate the events of time in his favor, and the Avengers have to stop him. He's a master-level historian and strategist, and his futuristic technology is so advanced that even some of Earth's greatest minds can't fully comprehend it.

Kang has traveled through time so much that there are almost unlimited versions of himself, so he's practically impossible to truly kill. Sometimes these alternate versions have gone on to have their own identities and have been both allies and enemies of the Avengers, such as Kang's future self, Immortus, or his younger self, Nathaniel Richards.

As you probably gathered, time travel is Kang's thing, and we just had a major Marvel movie in which time travel was an integral element. So it's not beyond the realm of reason that all this messing around with space-time will bring in the Avengers villain whose one thing is that he time travels.

Like every movie that deals with timeline jumping, Avengers: Endgame makes sure to explain all the rules of its particular brand of time travel. Nothing you do in the past can affect your future, but if you make a big enough change, it'll cause an alternate reality to branch off. Maybe that alternate reality will be great, but it also has the potential to be dark -- especially if an Infinity Stone is taken off the board.

Captain America makes sure to put the Stones back in their rightful places at the end of the film, but that doesn't mean that the Avengers are off the hook. They made some serious screw-ups in the past that caused alternate timelines. For example, Loki escaped with the Tesseract in 2012, causing a pretty huge deviation. Additionally, 2014 Thanos and his army were killed, which means there's a timeline with no Thanos searching for the Infinity Stones.

Those are just two of the biggest examples we know of, but as Tony Stark says, when you mess with time, time tends to mess back. Maybe the Avengers' actions in the past have caught the attention of Kang, who has now set his sights on Earth.

It's not too hard to see the meddling in the timelines as a good entry point for Kang. Maybe in the MCU, Kang is more of a cosmic force policing time and looking to punish the Avengers for their actions. Or maybe messing with time has opened the door for Kang to do some conquering, and a new team of heroes must assemble to fix their mistakes. Thanks to Spider-Man: Far From Home, we know that there's a multiverse of options for Kang.

There are a few reasons why Kang being the villain of Phase 4 is significant. For starters, he technically debuted in a Fantastic Four comic. It was when he was posing as a pharaoh named Rama-Tut in ancient Egypt. He didn't start going by the name Kang until he showed up in an Avengers comic.

That made the issues of who owns his film rights a little complicated, but it doesn't matter anymore. Disney famously bought Fox, which means the studio can now use all the X-Men and Fantastic Four characters it wants. That means Kang is free to show up down the road.

Because Kang first showed up in a Fantastic Four comic, the villain might be a good way to bring the Fantastic Four into the fold. While we have zero clue how Marvel will incorporate its First Family into the MCU, one theory gaining steam involves the multiverse. Some people think the Fantastic Four will be from an alternate timeline, which could help connect them to Kang.

Also, Kang is a future descendant of Reed Richards, a.k.a. Mr. Fantastic, so that's an interesting angle.

Oh, and Kang has connections to the X-Men, too! When he was a pharaoh, he tried to manipulate a young Apocalypse to be his heir. This guy has his fingers in pretty much every pie.

Kang also has ties to a different superhero team that people expect to show up in the MCU very soon. The Young Avengers are a team of superhero teenagers who have styled themselves like their favorite Avengers. One of these kids is Iron Lad, who also happens to be Nathaniel Richards, a young version of Kang who is trying to escape his destiny as a conquering A-hole.

Having Kang in the mix could be a way to help set up the Young Avengers down the road. However, the MCU's version doesn't necessarily have to use Iron Lad or Nathaniel Richards at all.

Admittedly, Kang is not set up in the way past MCU villains have been. There's no post-credit tease, so the door is open for almost any villain to take charge in Phase 4. However, given that Avengers: Endgame dived into the deep end of time travel, it makes sense that Kang would be the next villain up to bat. Not only is he one of the bigger Avengers villains still left, but he has ties to multiple hero teams and could help set up more movies down the road. Having a time traveling villain could make things more confusing, but it would also be a hell of a lot of fun.

Andy Serkis Went Through Extensive Makeup For Long Shot, Despite Nobody Asking Him To

Andy Serkis Went Through Extensive Makeup For Long Shot, Despite Nobody Asking Him To

Since his breakout role as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Andy Serkis has established himself as one of the most brilliantly transformative actors in modern Hollywood. Obviously a big part of it is his dedication to and expertise in the world of performance capture, but even when it comes to his “live-action” parts he rarely appears as he does in everyday life.

All that being said, you wouldn’t necessarily expect him to bring that same kind of energy to a role in a comedy like Jonathan Levine’s Long Shot, and yet he did… with absolutely nobody actually telling him to do it.

I learned the full story about Andy Serkis’ serious commitment when I attended the Los Angeles press day for Long Shot late month and had the pleasure of sitting down with the director and stars. Having gotten word about Serkis’ special initiative in the making of the movie, I first brought up the actor’s work during my interview with Seth Rogen and Charlize Theron, and both of them expressed their genuine surprise about their co-stars’ transformation into the role of Australian media mogul Parker Wembley:

Seth Rogen: We offered him the role, and then he was like, 'Okay.' And then he started sending ideas for what he would look like. And we were like, 'What do you mean? I thought he kind of looked a lot like Andy Serkis.' But he was like, 'No, I got this whole thing.' And we were like, 'Whatever, man!'

Charlize Theron: It was impressive!

The same sentiment was echoed later by Jonathan Levine, who confirmed that nobody actually asked Andy Serkis to sit in the make-up chair for many hours each day so that he could fully embody his vision of the character. At the same time, though, the director ultimately came to the realization of what the actor was doing, and got to understand the importance of physicality in the parts that Serkis takes on. Said Levine,

Andy Serkis made choices that nobody asked him to make, and that sounds like a negative thing, but as a director, actually, that's one of the most beautiful gifts you can give a director. Because he really dove into the character, and he really wanted to make it his own. The biggest thing was that he decided to be in prosthetic makeup for six hours a day. But you start to realize that this is how Andy Serkis accesses characters. If you think about Andy Serkis' career, it's facial expressions; it's very primal stuff. And so that really helped him figure out this guy.

In Long Shot, Andy Serkis’ Parker Wembley is basically halfway between Rupert Murdoch and Richard Branson, and is quickly introduced to the story as an antagonist. He winds up purchasing the independent newspaper for which Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) works as a reporter, and because Flarsky disagrees with Wembley’s politics he decides to quit. This quickly establishes legitimate conflict, but his role becomes more substantial because of his interest in gaining influence over Secretary of State Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), who has ambitions to run for President of the United States.

Andy Serkis’ level of devotion to his craft should be obvious to this point, but what makes the whole thing even more jaw-dropping is the extra detail that Seth Rogen dropped during our conversation. After all, it’s one thing to be willing to sit in a make-up chair for six hours every day, but the choice becomes even more extreme when you learn that sometimes he would go through the entire process and then not shoot a single frame of footage:

Seth Rogen: It was ridiculous! And there were some days, because it was self-inflicted, there were some days - and this happens a lot of movies - where you think you're going to shoot a scene, and then you don't, and then you shoot it the next day or something like that. And he would go through like six hours of makeup or something like that, and then we would just be like, 'Oh, we're not to do it today.' And he's just like, 'All right!'

Charlize Theron: He was fine!

Seth Rogen: You're just like, 'Dude! Like, wow.' He's truly one of the nicest dudes in the world, which is weird cause he like exclusively plays evil people. [laughs]

This is pretty insane to think about, particularly when you consider that actors regularly complain about the process of going through extreme transformations – but perhaps it’s a bit like taking long car trips: if you go on them regularly enough, eventually you just kind of get numb to their monotony.

You'll obviously be able to see Andy Serkis' full performance in the film, but he can briefly be spotted a couple times in the trailers - the first being in the screenshot above, and a second time in the shot below:

Regardless of exactly how Andy Serkis was able to put himself through that painstaking process in the making of Long Shot, at the end of the day it was something for which Jonathan Levine expressed extreme admiration and appreciation. Said the director,

It was amazing for us, because for me it reminded me of Coming To America or Dick Tracy, you know - movies where you're like, 'Who is that guy?' and that part of it becomes part of the fun of the movie. So it was always came from a fun place, and it was always consistent with what we were going for tonally. What's great about Serkis is he's a director too, so he knew he wasn't like 'going rogue.' It was a collaborative decision, but it was one that I was just kind of like, 'Dude, you really want to be here six hours longer than you have to?' I love directing, but you know, as soon as that whistle blows, I'm out the door. [laughs]

You can watch Seth Rogen, Charlize Theron, and Jonathan Levine discuss their time working with Andy Serkis in the making of Long Shot by clicking play on the video below.

Also starring O’Shea Jackson Jr., Ravi Patel, June Diane Raphael, Alexander Skarsgard, and Bob Odenkirk, Long Shot is a romantic comedy that ultimately follows the relationship between the aforementioned Fred Flarsky and Charlotte Field, the latter having previously been the former’s babysitter. After losing his job, Flarsky winds up becoming a part of Field’s speechwriting team, and while he starts to learn how to not constantly get in his own way, she is also inspired to stand up for the ideals in which she believes. It’s one of the best comedies of the year so far, so be sure to look for it in a theater near you when it’s released this Friday.

Shazam!’s Director Got A Suit Made Of The Same Material As The Hero’s Costume

Shazam!’s Director Got A Suit Made Of The Same Material As The Hero’s Costume

If you’re going to be a superhero, you’ll need a cool costume, and Shazam, a.k.a. the crimefighter previously known as Captain Marvel, has one of the coolest costumes in the DC universe. Naturally a lot of time and energy was spent making the World’s Mightiest Mortal’s outfit look as impressive as possible for the Shazam! movie, and it turns out that the material used for that costume was also used to make a special Shazam suit for director David F. Sandberg. Check it out!

Normally when a superhero movie is done shooting, the costumes are put in storage, so it stood to reason that neither David F. Sandberg nor Zachary Levi would be able to take the Shazam outfit home with them. However, evidently that doesn’t prevent one from having an actual suit made from the costume’s same fabric from being commissioned, and Sandberg was given such threads by costume designer Leah Butler. She even went supplied Sandberg with a bow tie made from the same material as the cape. The ensemble might not be a great look when it comes to fighting bad guys, but the filmmaker definitely looks dapper in this Instagram picture.

Alas, David F. Sandberg won’t be wearing this special suit to the Shazam! premiere, and I don’t blame him. Although it looks good, I imagine it would be quite uncomfortable to wear for however many hours that event lasts. Still, it’ll probably hold a prestigious spot in Sandberg’s closet, and maybe he’ll put it on every now and then when recalling his time working on Shazam! Personally, I’d purchase a large glass display case and place the suit in there like it’s one of Batman’s costumes.

As for the main Shazam! costume, 10 of them were made and cost about $1 million each to make. David F. Sandberg explained a lot of work went into making the costume look just right, which required testing different shades, fabrics, lightning bolt shapes, etc, hence the hefty price tag. The end result is a Shazam costume that looks a lot like what the hero has worn in the comics and other media projects, although Zachary Levi confirmed that it’s not pleasant wearing the costume, mainly because it’s inconvenient when needing to use the bathroom.

Inspired by various eras of Shazam’s comic book history, the Shazam! movie chronicles Billy Batson’s origin story, as just like on the printed page, he meets the mysterious Wizard and is given the ability to transform into an adult superhero who has powers like super strength, electricity manipulation and hyper speed. However, Billy won’t have long to get the hang of these powers, as he’ll have to fight Dr. Thaddeus Sivana, who has obtained his own magical abilities.

Shazam! will work its magic in theaters on April 5, but be sure to read CinemaBlend’s review of the movie. Don’t forget to also look through our DC movies guide to learn what else the superhero franchise has coming up, as well as our 2019 release schedule to see what other movies are hitting the silver screen later this year.

Shazam! Box Office: The DC Hit Repeats And Bests All Newcomers

Shazam! Box Office: The DC Hit Repeats And Bests All Newcomers

This weekend saw a big number of wide releases hit theaters in a broad variety of genres... but none of them had the power to take down the latest entry from the DC Extended Universe. David F. Sandberg's Shazam! premiered last week with numbers that exceeded expectations, and this time around the film managed to stay at the number one spot courtesy of a modest drop and a general lack of interest in anything new. You can check out the full Top 10 below, and join me after for analysis!

Despite the fact that there were four new wide releases competing for attention, Warner Bros. felt enough confidence in Shazam! to add it to another 89 theaters nationwide this weekend, and things worked out well. It's now the fifth DC Extended Universe release to earn multiple box office crowns, and the second in a row to claim two straight top spots after Aquaman. The movie is now just a few days away from becoming the seventh nine-figure domestic release to come out so far in 2019, following in the footsteps of Captain Marvel, Us, How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World, Glass, and The Upside.

Shazam! is not exactly setting records, and it's on pace to become the lowest grossing film released from the franchise so far - but not every title needs to be a ridiculous home run, and with a more modest budget of $100 million it is definitely going to be ultimately considered a profitable success. Internationally, the blockbuster has made $221.2 million to date, and it's likely that it could maintain the number one spot until Avengers: Endgame hits at the end of the month. It's clear that audiences are enjoying it, and positive word of mouth could keep it afloat and slowly filling its coffers in the weeks to come.

While things are looking bright for the future of Shazam!, however, Hollywood on the whole cannot be happy with how things turned out for the rest of the slate. Whether it's because they're saving money for summer blockbuster season, or just didn't like what was offered this weekend, people just weren't big on buying tickets for showings on the big screen the last three days. Of the new releases, the biggest positive was Tina Gordon's Little, which started its run with $15.5 million and a "B+" from CinemaScore, but it fell way short of being able to compete with Zachary Levi's superhero. It's possible that it could continue to do modestly in the weeks ahead, eventually making its $20 million budget a bit smaller, but don't expect it to turn out as a sleeper hit.

It sadly only gets more depressing from here. Shazam! also saw some fellow comic book-inspired competition hit theaters this weekend, but Neil Marshall's Hellboy is shaping up to be a massive flop. Sure, nobody was ever expecting it to make Marvel or DC money, but Lionsgate must have been hoping for something a lot better than the results above. Making $12 million in the first frame for a $50 million movie is seriously bad news, and this isn't exactly a release that is going to get a boost from a positive wave of buzz. Not only have critics been absolutely brutal, but audiences don't seem to be digging it much either - with CinemaScore calculating a "C" grade for it. And in case you were wondering, the totals are far less than the numbers that Guillermo del Toro's two features put up in 2004 and 2008 respectively, when they made $23.2 and $35.5 million in their openings.

Moving down to eigth place, Jenny Gage's romantic drama After also didn't manage to sell many tickets despite the fact that it was released in more than 2,000 theaters nationwide. It's the second less-than-stellar opening we've seen for Aviron Pictures so far in 2019, as they also put out Steven Knight's Serenity this past January. The new release made about $2 million less than the Matthew McConaughey-Anne Hathaway thriller, but also didn't have anywhere close to the same kind of star power. This probably goes without saying, but you probably won't be hearing much about After in future installments of this box office column.

Finally we have the biggest bummer of them all: Chris Butler's Missing Link. Despite positive reviews, the latest release from Laika Studios completely failed to find an audience this past weekend, and as a result it was left barely clinging to a presence in the Top 10 this weekend. It's super sad given that Laika has been producing some of the most jaw-dropping animated features around for years now, but they just can't seem to get any attention from mainstream audiences. The numbers make it the weakest release we've seen so far from the studio, and as a result we could see some seriously sad developments unfold.

Coming up next week we have two new wide releases in store for Wednesady - specifically Roxann Dawson's Breakthrough and the Disneynature documentary Penguins - and Michael Chaves' The Curse Of La Llorona coming on Friday, so be sure to come back next Sunday to see how they shake up the Top 10.

Avengers: Endgame Made Chris Evans Choke Up Three Times

Avengers: Endgame Made Chris Evans Choke Up Three Times

In less than one month, Avengers: Endgame will be in theaters. Marvel is hyping this one up like crazy and fans have been readying themselves for a real emotional journey. It's highly likely that we will be saying goodbye to some favorite characters either because they walk off into the sunset or they die. Blood will be spilled and tears will be shed. Take it from Chris Evans, who has supposedly only seen the first hour of the Endgame, but also supposedly knows the entire script's story, and he "choked up" three times.

Avengers: Endgame is the culmination of the MCU's "Infinity Saga," a 22 film long journey that began a little over a decade. So little is known about this movie that fan theories have been popping up left and right to fill the information gap. Even the directors of Endgame, the Russo Bros., say that there are more spoilers in this film than last summer's Avengers: Infinity War, a movie which ended with half of the characters dying in a fit of cosmic genocide.

Speaking of that spoiler-heavy ending, I can distinctly remember the sniffles and soft sobs of my theater as the Avengers were snapped out of existence by Thanos. It was an extremely emotional experience and a real gut punch of ending. We've known that Endgame would likely have its fair share of heartbreak before the credits roll and Chris Evans may have confirmed that.

In an in-depth interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Chris Evans said that he had only seen the first hour of Endgame. However, whether addressing that footage or the entire three-hour script's story, he said Endgame left him on the verge of tears three separate times.

Chris Evans: [I]t's a good one. It's a real good one. I saw, like, the first hour of it.

So you watched it up to the point where Cap dies?

Chris Evans [joking]: Right, exactly. After I die by Tony's hand, I just said, You know what? I can't watch this.

And later, in the same interview...

Chris Evans: Man. This one's really good. I choked up like three times.

Because Cap dies?

Chris Evans: Right. It's hard. Seeing my own death. [He laughs] It's going to be a long movie, that's for sure. The first edit clocked in over three hours. My funeral's like an hour.

Of course, Chris Evans is just joking about having a funeral, but it's long been expected that Captain America will die in Endgame. It's been on of the most consistent theories that this will be his last rodeo, something that Evans has not really confirmed or denied.

As far as the crying goes, fans may want to bring some tissues with them. The film is reportedly over three hours long, which leaves plenty of room to tug at the heart strings multiple times. Only time will tell how it stacks up with the ending of Infinity War, but Endgame is sure to be a wild ride.

Avengers: Endgame is all set to be released on April 26. The film is tracking for an absolutely massive opening, so be sure to reserve your tickets (whenever it is that they go on sale). To learn more about the movie, here's what we know so far.

Ron Howard Calls Out 'Trolling' As One Reason For Solo's Disappointing Box Office

Ron Howard Calls Out 'Trolling' As One Reason For Solo's Disappointing Box Office

Now that a full year has passed since Solo: A Star Wars Story hit theaters, fill-in director Ron Howard is sharing his nuanced take of what went right and what went wrong.

He jumped into the mix late in the game, after the departure of directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. The box office for the May 2018 movie was huge for Ron Howard, but disappointing by Star Wars' standards, and he knows that. However, he came in eager to help the team, and had a blast in his short experience in the galaxy. A year later, there's even a big push for Solo to get a sequel.

Here's part of Ron Howard answer on whether a Christmas release for Solo would've given it $100 million more than its spring release.

I feel very good about the way it turned out. I love the way it played to audiences, which I witnessed and was a part of. So all of that I'm able to feel good about. Sure, I wish it would've done [better] and lived up to the box office and so forth, so that's disappointing. Why? Maybe it's the release. Maybe it's the idea that it's sort of too nostalgic, going back and revisiting an origin story for a beloved character may not be what the fans were looking for. It kind of seemed to me, looking at it, the opening -- which was big, not as big as the others, it was probably my biggest opening, personally, it was still disappointing to them -- I think those are the hardcore fans. It sort of tells you how many people are tagalongs who need to wait to see what people think and whether it's essential, if it's a zeitgeist movie or not, and whether it's just 'I love Star Wars and I want to see what's next.'

Ron Howard had more to say on that topic on the Happy Sad Confused podcast, but I like his take on core Star Wars fans vs. "tagalongs" -- or casuals -- who wait to see if a movie becomes a major watercooler topic before jumping in with their own time or money. Casual fans sometimes wait for strong reviews from critics (Solo's reviews were middle-of-the-road) but even more often they wait to see fan reactions. They want to hear the buzz, see the audience ratings, scores, and word-of-mouth. (Think Venom.)

When the audience scores for Solo looked lower than usual, and words like "underperformed" and "disappointing" started coming out about the ticket sales, casual/tagalong fans might've come away thinking it was a movie they could safely skip. (The problems behind-the-scenes probably left more than a few fans expecting disaster, making them more wary to spend time and money on the movie.)

Here's more from Ron Howard on that angle, and how "trolling" from fans who hadn't even seen Solo yet may have led the tagalong types to pass on seeing Solo in the theater. Howard knows the pushback against Solo came from several different directions, but also included some Star Wars fans who were upset with Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

So whatever millions [Solo] made worldwide, those were the core fans, but it didn't hit that zeitgeist point, for whatever reason. Timing, young Han Solo, pushback from the previous movie, which I kept hearing was maybe something. And some trolling, definitely some trolling. Some actual aggressive... It was pretty interesting. Not so much, a little bit the Twitter feed, yes, but it was especially noticeable prior to the release of the movie. Several of the algorithms, whether it was Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes, there was an inordinate push down on the 'want to see' and on the fan voting. And when you look at it, it's like 3, 4, 5 -- or whatever the rating is, I forget what the rating is on Rotten Tomatoes, whether it's a scale of 1-5 or 1-10 -- but pretty high, and then a series of 0s or .5s or 1s.

Yeah, Rotten Tomatoes has actually changed the audience score function now, wanting more proof that fans have actually seen the movies before they rate them. Non-fans could rate a movie "0" before it even came out, but that is changing now.

Ron Howard isn't too familiar with that online world, but he said some friends from Silicon Valley explained the algorithms to him and basically let him know Solo was being trolled by fans who were boycotting its existence, in addition to those who did actually watch the movie and just didn't like it. Howard praised young Han Solo star Alden Ehrenreich, who was put in the center of the fray, and noticed the backlash has turned more in favor of the movie a year later:

Under that circumstance, I didn't take it personally at all, but I felt badly. And I thought Alden didn't a really great job, an incredibly talented guy, and dedicated guy, and I had a blast with everybody. And look, a year later, it's kind of interesting, you wouldn't think you'd participate in a Star Wars project and have it be a cult movie, but I can already tell those who have affection for it are pretty adamant in their feelings, and that's nice.

Ron Howard already responded, briefly, to the Solo sequel campaign on Twitter. Is it likely to happen? Maybe. Probably not. The point seems more to show support for the movie, which was clobbered from all sides last year for disappointing the franchise. Now the quieter core fans are speaking up to say they liked Solo, thank you very much, and they would be happy to see the story continue.

Now Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker is in the hot seat, as the final movie in the Skywalker Saga, but also the next trilogy movie after Star Wars: The Last Jedi, which divided a fandom that has been debating the merits of every new Star Wars addition since the arrival of Ewoks. The Rise of Skywalker opens in theaters December 20.