flamingkillamajig wrote: I'm rather curious about the obi wan story though. From what i saw it looked like they're going with 'the trials of jesus in the desert' sorta path which is actually kinda cool for what it is. I honestly wouldn't have thought you can make a story about a space wizard in the middle of nowhere interesting but maybe you can.
It would actually be easy if the story was about Obi-wan doing small "side missions" while keeping an eye on Luke from a distance. I mean, he has to go into town occasionally for food and supplies? Maybe there is some local trouble that Obi-wan doesn't initially want to get involves with, but being the good person he is, he cannot turn a blind eye for long.
You can do this as a old western style adventure flick.
Not going to spoil any details but I am glad I did not pay to see it. Nothing horrible, just... this is not Han Solo.
Still not sure what to say about it except that the story hinted at in the commercials was far better. The franchise would do well to make a sequel that picks up on that.
when people review the solo movie can you guys say if you liked or didn't, rouge 1 and TLJ, that way I can see who had similar tastes to me and help me decide if I should go see it.
It's been getting some bad fan reviews apparently. Looks like this is gonna be like TLJ all over again. How very disappointing. I wonder if i should even see this right away. My birthday is also in 4 days so i dunno if i should still see it for my birthday.
sirlynchmob wrote: when people review the solo movie can you guys say if you liked or didn't, rouge 1 and TLJ, that way I can see who had similar tastes to me and help me decide if I should go see it.
Torn up by fans, and sounding like TLJ? Then...pass. Han Solo can stay awesome for me, thanks. If I get another SW film as bad as TLJ right away...*shudder*!
timetowaste85 wrote: Torn up by fans, and sounding like TLJ? Then...pass. Han Solo can stay awesome for me, thanks. If I get another SW film as bad as TLJ right away...*shudder*!
I say give more time to let more reviews come out (fan reviews obviously) but i'm not keeping my hopes up.
sirlynchmob wrote: when people review the solo movie can you guys say if you liked or didn't, rouge 1 and TLJ, that way I can see who had similar tastes to me and help me decide if I should go see it.
Well I liked Solo, thought Rogue one was great and while TLJ has grown on me after multiple viewings its still IMO the weakest of the Disney films.
Solo wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen but it's not amazing. Lots of nice nods to the OT era and lots of EU names, places etc are mentioned (Imperial Academy on Carida anyone?).
timetowaste85 wrote: Torn up by fans, and sounding like TLJ? Then...pass. Han Solo can stay awesome for me, thanks. If I get another SW film as bad as TLJ right away...*shudder*!
I say give more time to let more reviews come out (fan reviews obviously) but i'm not keeping my hopes up.
My wife already requested if we can skip this. She enjoyed everything up until TLJ (including the prequels!). TLJ was so bad, she doesn’t even want to waste time on further SW material. I started reading reviews today, saw enough “mehs” that I have no problem honoring her wishes and waiting til Redbox/Netflix. This is shaping up to sound like Failt4stic. Three directors, choppy characters (like PB’s villainous role) and more? No. I won’t cause irreparable damage to my marriage by dragging her to that!
And to give an idea of her movie tastes...she’s looking forward to DP2 (has seen the first more times than I have), The Meg, Aquaman, Ant-Man 2 and Jurassic World. So she’s into the nerdy stuff with me. TLJ just left such a gakstain for us both that it’s off the radar for her. We had a movie board of what we wanted to see this year and when it came out...Solo was on it and got scratched off.
timetowaste85 wrote: Torn up by fans, and sounding like TLJ? Then...pass. Han Solo can stay awesome for me, thanks. If I get another SW film as bad as TLJ right away...*shudder*!
I say give more time to let more reviews come out (fan reviews obviously) but i'm not keeping my hopes up.
My wife already requested if we can skip this. She enjoyed everything up until TLJ (including the prequels!). TLJ was so bad, she doesn’t even want to waste time on further SW material. I started reading reviews today, saw enough “mehs” that I have no problem honoring her wishes and waiting til Redbox/Netflix. This is shaping up to sound like Failt4stic. Three directors, choppy characters (like PB’s villainous role) and more? No. I won’t cause irreparable damage to my marriage by dragging her to that!
And to give an idea of her movie tastes...she’s looking forward to DP2 (has seen the first more times than I have), The Meg, Aquaman, Ant-Man 2 and Jurassic World. So she’s into the nerdy stuff with me. TLJ just left such a gakstain for us both that it’s off the radar for her. We had a movie board of what we wanted to see this year and when it came out...Solo was on it and got scratched off.
3 directors for one movie?! Holy crap disney wtf?!
What's 'The Meg'? Don't know enough about aquaman to care. Heard ant-man was decent. Jurassic World omg that's awful stuff. The next Jurassic park movie looks so bad i refuse to see it.
I hated TLJ though. I remember when i first asked at my local GW and 2 people thought it was ok. I watched and was like 'wtf....' and then came back to talk about it to a different crowd in the same GW and probably every person hated it.
sirlynchmob wrote: when people review the solo movie can you guys say if you liked or didn't, rouge 1 and TLJ, that way I can see who had similar tastes to me and help me decide if I should go see it.
I feel like i'm gonna have to be the one to bite the bullet for people with a similar taste to me and just watch it. Since it's near my birthday i'll probably get tickets to go from someone anyway.
For what it's worth i actually enjoyed rogue one but TLJ was so terribly done.
timetowaste85 wrote: Torn up by fans, and sounding like TLJ? Then...pass. Han Solo can stay awesome for me, thanks. If I get another SW film as bad as TLJ right away...*shudder*!
I say give more time to let more reviews come out (fan reviews obviously) but i'm not keeping my hopes up.
One thing to bear in mind with fan reviews for Solo, as opposed to TLJ, is there's a much stronger contingent of "#NotMyHan" types, people who insist there is no Solo but Ford and the basic existence of the film is a travesty, but will still go and see it just to grumble over exactly how much of a travesty.
Everything I've seen so far indicates that its not blow-you-away spectacular, just a cool Star Wars space-western and the new guy has a wobbly start but begins doing a solid Han(not Ford, Han) quickly enough that it doesn't diminish the movie. Most of the folk who liked Rogue One I've spoken to seem to appreciate it, and the few folk I know who raved about TLJ are either aforementioned "#NotMyHan" types, or insisted it was boring and dumb and didn't do enough to shake things up, so my feelings as of now are pretty positive, looking forward to going to see it as soon as I can figure out where and when next week a local cinema is likely to be as empty as possible.
Saw it tonight. Give it a B+ or even A-. More my fatigue with SW than anything. The lead actor that I've been reading people bag on did a pretty decent job.
TLJ was the first SW movie that I've skipped seeing in theaters. Saw it later on rental at home and thought it was better in some ways than Force Awakened. Both were mediocre IMO.
Rogue One did not do anything for me, at all. It was a serviceable movie and that was about it. Tudyk was the only bright point for me watching that one.
I purposely only watched a single trailer for Solo and that was the first one released months back. I went in with average expectations and came out thinking I'd gotten my money's worth plus. Something I haven't done since ROTJ.
I liked The Last Jedi and Rogue 1 (I've never seen Rouge 1 ). I saw Solo last night, and I really enjoyed it. Not really "Ocean's 11 in SPAAACE!" - it's more action than that, without quite such a convoluted scheme. It started off with a car chase, and didn't really let up. I thought Han was portrayed well as someone who had no idea what he was getting in to - after all, he was a street urchin who's trying to mingle with the big guns - but brazened his way through. A few nods to the "legends" stories and to the Clone Wars series, but nothing that you couldn't just let wash over you if you weren't familiar. The Empire - and the rest of the wider mythology - is basically a cameo; I think this is probably easily understandable as a sci-fi heist movie on its own, even if you've never seen any other Star Wars films.
Alden Ehrenreich was no worse at being Han than Ewan MacGregor was at being Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Was planning to go see it but then got my email reminder for the Labyrinth showing at my local and maniac goblin king Bowie trumps all (although those trousers might be a lot to cope with) so Solo can wait wuuzza wuzz
AndrewGPaul wrote: Alden Ehrenreich was no worse at being Han than Ewan MacGregor was at being Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Considering Ewan McGregor as Obi-wan is by far one of the best parts of the prequels, that is high praise indeed. Although Ewan had 3 movies to get from Padawan to a recognizable Obi-wan, and still had an 18 year gap between him and Alec. All those factors allowed Ewan to make the character his own, which is why we NEED an Obi-wan movie.
Not quite my point, I'm afraid. I don't think Alden Ehrenreich is as good an actor as Ewan McGregor, but for all the people saying "he's no Harrison Ford", well, Ewan's no Alec Guinness - despite that odd accent he tries on. Still, you can see the things that made Han Han in episodes 4-7; he's a scoundrel and a criminal, but he's not a villain.
Sometimes you've got to remember this is all made up, after all.
Grotsnik, that's what I liked about it. It doesn't really bring much to the Skywalker saga (it does fill in Han's prior life, but there wasn't anything about Han I really wanted to know), but it just expands the setting.
Also, I want to see 2001 on the big screen. Now, please.
Neither Han nor Lando quote land properly. But, this does threaten to have at least one sequel.
You’ll need to see it to understand why I feel that to be the case. And whilst I’m ambivalent to it as a Star Wars film, I’m very much up for seeing any potential sequel.
Seriously. Not a great Star Wars film - but still worth the time and cost of watching it.
That's the fun of seeing characters in a younger state. We know them from their current growth as a character, but when they are younger, it makes sense for this growth and any characteristics associated with this growth to not be there. I think a lot of people will dislike this Han because he isn't the Han of the OT. Of course he isn't. That Han had grown before our eyes. We never got to know Han before the events of ANH changed his life. I am going into the movie expecting a totally different and potentially unlikable Han. Same for Lando
What I am also interested to see is the comparison of young Han with Kylo. It's fun to see parent/child characters at the same ages on screen to see how much of the parent is in the child.
Galef wrote: That's the fun of seeing characters in a younger state. We know them from their current growth as a character, but when they are younger, it makes sense for this growth and any characteristics associated with this growth to not be there.
I think a lot of people will dislike this Han because he isn't the Han of the OT. Of course he isn't. That Han had grown before our eyes. We never got to know Han before the events of ANH changed his life.
I am going into the movie expecting a totally different and potentially unlikable Han. Same for Lando
What I am also interested to see is the comparison of young Han with Kylo. It's fun to see parent/child characters at the same ages on screen to see how much of the parent is in the child.
-
A fair point.
A younger me was still me, in that the elements of who I am now were all there. But since then, it’d all been refined and purified and improved.
What Qi’Ra says toward the end of the film? And what Han said immediately before? That hits the nail on the head. You can be a bit of butthole, or indeed be a massive butthole, but still be a fundamentally good person.
Seriously folks. The film is worth the entry price. It’s far from perfect, but it is fun? As I said earlier, as a Star Wars film I’m ambivalent (barring some interesting points) - but it doesn’t suck. It’s a good film. It’s up and beyond the league of D.C. and Univeral’s Mummy reboot. You may not love it, but I feel you’ll enjoy it.
That may be faint praise,and perhaps it is. But it is what it is.
For a film that didn't really need to be made it's decent enough but nothing special. It's just too "safe" unfortunately I don't see Disney taking any real risks with Star Wars.
There's some good set pieces it's part heist movie, part western.
There's a few snippets of ideas I'd like to have seen explored more like the soldiers that aren't Storm Troopers fighting the Empire's wars.
Some of the stuff felt like a box ticking exercise because they have been mentioned before in other films. There's also some stuff that's done as nods to the other films but that's starting to wear thin now.
It's very much set up to be part of a greater narrative whether that's more Solo stories or interwoven with other characters stories.
There's a part that's going to confuse the hell out of people that haven't seen the Clone Wars or Rebels.
EDIT:
Spoiler:
oh and Han shot first! - I know that's one of those nods but it sort of corrects Lucas's own messing around with the OT
Enjoyable enough is a pretty good description for the film. It's okay. Fun. At least it's not littered with glaring holes and characters who don't make sense.
I think the only guy who really stands out though is Lando. I'd totally watch a movie with that actor in the lead. He needs to work on the more dramatic bits, but he has the debonair con-artist thing down!
Spoiler:
How the feth did Maul go from getting his ass handed to him on Mandalor, to running an inter-galactic criminal syndicate, to being some thin as bones bum on an abandoned planet? Are we going to get a movie to explain this guy's life story cause at this point I'll watch it just to fething know and so Disney can stop throwing him at me XD
I think we might see another film exploring Crimson Dawn.
Your spoiler is incorrect
Spoiler:
Beckett killed Sing, Lando was grateful as he owed her money
I think we'll definitely see more of the former Shadow Collective - Pyke Syndicate, Crimson Dawn, Black Sun and The Hutt Clan (Death Watch and the Nightbrothers should be pretty much gone at this stage) and it would fit into a greater narrative like a bounty hunters/Boba Fett film. If they do Black Sun I wonder if they'll officially bring back Prince Xizor in the Legends stories he and Vader had a good few run ins for the Emperors attention.
I saw the movie yesterday. I think I overall enjoyed it, perhaps because I went in with low expectations. It will not shape the new centuries of cinema to come but it's not bad. I think the whole Disney corporate hate story that has grown around the internet will take this movie's ratings lower than it actually deserves. A list of pros and cons below - CONTAINS SPOILERS.
And because someone asked: My order of preference: Rogue One > Solo > The Last Jedi.
Spoiler:
Pros:
The Han actor is in fact good. I expected him to flunk it from the trailers, but in fact he was not bad. He was able to give out the overconfident bs-talker character of Solo quite well. On the other hand, that's the only aspect of Solo he showed. I would prefer to also see a little bit of half witted, scruffy looking nerfherder or a couple of "excuuuuuuse me princess" self pride moments but we did not get those.
Woody Harrelson plays -as usually- great and gives us a great kind of dysfanctional-yet-important mentor figure for Han's character development. A kind of example to avoid and inspire at the same time. It was very scoundrel-y and I enjoyed it a lot. If I had such teachers, I would probably grow to be a scoundrel myself.
Great way to introduce the Han/Chewie meeting moment.
We get to see the Kessel run!
Cons:
We get to see the Kessel run. As in, a CGI created fog labyrinth where you have to choose between flying the Falcon through the fog or flying the Falcon in complete darkness save for a couple of moments of thunder lighting up the background. So in the end we did not really get to see the Kessel run, even if it happened.
The writing was meh. Leaving the theater I only really remember the moments where they connected with the canon movies (Angry droid complains "They don't even serve our kind here."
Robot revolution for freedom takes up too much attention, then ends completely abruptly with no consequence whatsoever. Here's 5 mins of robot revolution but don't worry, it will not be in the final exams.
The scenes were not connected at all. In the bar/casino where Han meets Lando, we see there is a singer singing, we see there is a cage for robot fights and we see there is a gambling table, but all these things could be in completely different buildings and it would be just as believable. We never saw this as one place, the camera never panned out to show the bigger picture. Same when the Falcon is in the Maelstorm. There's just the Falcon in a fog tunnel. No sense of scale or continuity or linking of the scenes. There could be video game loading screens between the Maelstorm and Kessel and it would make more sense.
Solo is very good and you are likely doing yourself a great disfavor if you don't go see it in theaters. It is much closer to Rogue One in quality than TFA/TLJ.
Important note, it is set about 10 years prior to the main events in Rogue One.
Quick rundown: The lead captures a young Han Solo extremely well. He doesn't sound exactly like him, but it's much better than what the trailers suggested. Donal Glover is Lando. I don't know how he did it. There are times when he sounds identical to Billy Dee Williams. Emilia Clarke actually acts, which may surprise people who saw her in Terminator. Her role suits her and does help the movie.
Saw it today. Thought it was a lot of fun. I think the non-Saga Disney SW films are doing just fine. Rogue 1 is still superior (to this and to the new Saga films), but this was a nice entry and told an interesting story with a number of pacing problems (too fast at the start, too slow at the end).
Good performances all round (well, passable from Clarke, but she doesn't have much range so what she did was enough), lots of great action, some genuine funny moments (unlike TLJ's Marvel quip humour), and quite gritty in some areas, showing parts of the SW universe we haven't seen much of (criminal organisations and slavery).
And, of course...
Spoiler:
There's the Maul of it all.
That scene alone makes Qi'ra one of the most interesting SW characters around, and makes me desperate to see more of her story and how it all ties in with Maul.
Manchu wrote: TBH there is no reason to trust any review of this film that appears before general release.
Why? Most reviews appear before general release.
Yodhrin wrote: One thing to bear in mind with fan reviews for Solo, as opposed to TLJ, is there's a much stronger contingent of "#NotMyHan" types, people who insist there is no Solo but Ford and the basic existence of the film is a travesty, but will still go and see it just to grumble over exactly how much of a travesty.
Which makes about as much sense as a #NotMyObiwan for the prequels IMO.
I saw the movie yesterday, I actually liked rogue 1 and hated TLJ as it is the worst star wars film made to date.
Solo surprised me, for all it's problems in development it was a decent action movie. I'd watch it again. But like all action movies, if we didn't already know the cast we'd have forgetton most of the names by now. the kessel run didn't seem anywhere near as impressive and only Han seemed impressed by it. No one else even took notice, so it's weird some random girl on some backwards desert planet would even know of if it decades later.
Do we still need spoiler tags?
Spoiler:
knowing maul spent time on mandalore and it's still canon, I'm thinking the fette movie and obi wan movies might be some sort of side trilogy with maul as the main bad guy. Looks like everyone is going to tat to meet a man about a job, I'm betting the man is fette, because he's the man
Just back from seeing it. Good, enjoyable movie that again opens up the wider Star Wars universe. And considering the problems it had in production I think they recovered it phenomenally. I still think Rogue One is the best Disney era one to date but this is a very close second.
Isn’t it interesting that they can make good Star Wars movies when the basic story has already been outlined for them? How did the alliance get the plans for the Death Star, how did Han start off etc. But ask them to carry the story forward and you get either derivative sameness or subvertive nonsense.
Need to say too,
Spoiler:
those ‘mud troopers’. Fantastic. Brilliant. So...Imperial Guard. These are the fabled ‘Imperial Army’ troopers we’ve often heard of but never seen right? The regular grunts to the stormtrooper elites yes?
Yes, we still need spoiler tags. For one, the thread has no spoiler warning, and for another, not all of us can get to see it opening weekend. I've got to wait until I can find a quiet daytime showing that the cinema hasn't earmarked for one of those awful "mother and baby" showings.
Yep. The film has only been out for four days in the UK. I think it's best to keep spoiler tags until the cinema run ends.
To go back to the discussion, it's reasonable to assume that since every pilot in the Galaxy knows the Kessel Run can't be done in under 20 parsecs, Han Solo would have done a ton of boasting between the time of Solo and SW4 about doing it in 12 parsecs, and his reputation might easily have spread to gak hole desert scavengers in another 20 years after that, especially if they were the kind of people who were interested in off-planet doings.
Sorry, I broke the swear filter again. I seem to be good at that.
I'd say that's standard with Disney now commit to at least 3 films whether they intend on using you or not.
If it under performs and early indications are are it is there might not be a direct sequel. But news is going around that the next film is a Boba Fett film directed by James Mangold.
All of the characters from Solo would fit right into that movie and looks like they are setting up at least a trilogy set in the criminal underworld of the Star Wars universe.
I could see Solo turning up in that in some capacity.
Spoiler:
After all, Aurra Sing and Bossk both got a shout out in Solo after all. Both were Bounty Hunters, so it follows Solo would end up in the same sort of circles?
We're bound to get Boba: A Star Wars story at some point, and maybe it'll tell us about how that rivalry started. I'd also bank on on him appearing in any movie about Lando. As for a third I really want them to follow up on that one bit towards the end, but that might just be wishful thinking.
Solo looks set to bomb at the box office. That’s depressing; a Star Wars movie losing money.
Disney’s has no one else to blame but themselves though. TLJ has created a big pit that they now need to dig themselves out of. They also released Solo at a bad time; too soon after Jedi and in competition with Infinity War and Deadpool 2. Most people can only get to the cinema so often, and this one coming out after War and Deadpool and on the negative hype of Jedi well, that’s an uphill fight.
DoG are already pronouncing it dead, because apparently making less than the previous film's US box office opening weekend and doing poorly in China are terminal failings. Except for TLJ, when it did that they were minor inconveniences that in no way reflected on the film which is good and pure and perfec'
I think it will be a wait & see affair regarding sequels. A lot of people who were annoyed by TLJ might well change their mind and go see Solo once the "it's a fun if slightly disposable space-western with some fanservice and a Star Wars-y feel" sentiment that seems to be the actual fan reaction(as opposed to reviewers, who are seemingly split between that reaction, and the same reaction but with "only" inserted in there because apparently Star Wars is now supposed to be the big political avant garde sci-fi franchise and anything that isn't a mythos-busting postmodernist affair is worthless) percolates out to lapsed fans and general "just want a fun movie" cinemagoers. Mostly though it will depend on how honest Lucasfilm and Kennedy will be with themselves. The only reason this is in any danger of not making its budget back is because 70% of the movie was reshot at *huge* cost, combined with them doing a piss-poor job of controlling the narrative around the reshoots(seriously, why on earth would they let months of "reliable rumours" about Ehrenreich's supposed utter inability to act circulate without doing some damage control, especially when by all accounts(and bearing in mind I've yet to see it) that's complete nonsense?). On top of that, the marketing for the film was all over the place, partly no doubt due to the reshoots making cutting early trailers difficult if they didn't want a repeat of Rogue One, but also because they didn't seem to know how to convey the tone of the film until like a month before it was released.
If Lucasfilm and Disney sit down and basically say hey, mea culpa, we screwed this one, based on the original budget(assuming this turns out to be the case) it would have made its money back - we might get another one. If there's a lot of arse-covering and responsibility-evasion, or if Disney decides a lower final tally over its run can't be fully explained by the combination of shonky marketing, bad rumour control, and TLJ-backlash, then aye that goose is cooked.
If anyone promised themselves to never see a Star Wars movie again after Episode VIII, do yourselves a favour and watch the Han Solo film.
While the new trilogy seems to end up to be less than the prequels, Solo is the best Star Wars movie ever made.
The story clicks (meaning it works - very well - apart from a ship owed to Lando by Han after a game of cards, but I might have missed something obvious), is unpredictable and entirely suitable for a Han Solo story. You get to see one of the great industrial, overpopulated core worlds of Star Wars come to life, the way you always wished for and always wanted to see beyond the backwater battlefields of the original trilogy (the prequels took a step in the right direction in this department). This movie is fun, it's roguishly charming, it's gritty and it's got action and a Russian roulette of double-crossing, backstabbing and guessing what is actually part of the plan, and what each character's game is. Oh, and aesthetically it's all crafted with attention to details and designs true to what has come before and expanding much upon it flawlessly.
One of the best movies ever made, in my book, along the likes of Jurassic Park and the Lotr trilogy. While the original Star Wars trilogy will remain a cinematic classic for all time (if technologically advanced human civilization, and files and physical copies of it survives the teeth of time), Solo: A Star Wars Story, is even more enjoyable, and better, than even the originals.
Burn me for a heretic now, and it's not just the pleasure of the new. Cheers!
Technically I think a movie only flops if it fails to take in less than it cost the studio. People might see TLJ as a flop, but it took in over a billion according to IMDB. I could really go for a flop like that in my life.
Forbes reporting a $148 million global box office for the opening weekend on a production budget of $250 - $300 million the marketing budget is usually the same again so another $250 to $300 million and the cinemas are potentially due $200 to $250 million as their cut of the ticket sales over the films cinema run. Long way to go to break even.
FANTASTIC! I loved it. I cared about all the characters. I thought the jokes were charming. I thought the action was exciting and I actually cared about it because the characters had, you know, personalities.
The scene on Mimban was straight out of 40k. Just amazing!
The fact that the movie is underperforming has more to do with declining interest in the brand post-TLJ and Disney's own lukewarm attitude to marketing the film than the quality of the film itself.
She was the first character we’ve met, canonically, that has personally chosen to not only abandon the Jedi order, but turn their back on the Sith, having initially, to some degree, embraced it.
She deserves a better death than a mere mangst triggering.
Imagine her meeting Luke, and explaining the BS and hypocrisy of both sides. She was, again only pure canonically, our first brush with shades of grey outside the two major philosophies.
And she was really, really cool. And incredibly compelling. She seriously deserved a better fate than a mangst trigger.
So was Felicity Jones. Don't read too much into it.
Force ghost. Calling it now.
HBMC does raise a fair point. But, there are differences.
Jyn Erso could reprise her role as a holo recording. That’s a ‘strike’ against the contract right there. And an easy pay packet - and we all like those.
Alden?
Spoiler:
Han doesn’t end up Han at the end of Solo. He’s yet to get himself up to his neck in it. So whilst Jyn can complete a contract with cameos, Alden has, potentially, a larger role to play.
FANTASTIC! I loved it. I cared about all the characters. I thought the jokes were charming. I thought the action was exciting and I actually cared about it because the characters had, you know, personalities.
The scene on Mimban was straight out of 40k. Just amazing!
The fact that the movie is underperforming has more to do with declining interest in the brand post-TLJ and Disney's own lukewarm attitude to marketing the film than the quality of the film itself.
Hmm i might like it then. Our interests aren't too far off. We both that TLJ was garbage.
Just saw solo and i gotta say that, while it wasn't a bad movie, it really felt too caught up in trying to hit all the background plot points for the already established history instead of creating its own story and events. With Rogue One it felt like the story connected to the established plots at the end of the movie while Solo was too tied down to the established to really dig into the potential that was there. The new characters made the movie interesting while trying to fill the shoes of established characters felt too predictable, too much like fan service, and at times a poor imitation. Don't get me wrong, the acting was very well done and the story was interesting but it left me wanting unattached to the other movies so we can get that feeling of wonder and excitement instead of knowing the ending so the journey loses that feeling of danger and the unknown.
Spoiler:
The "3 years later" transition to Han as an Imperial soldier was an amazing bit of cinema and reignited that excitement I had when people where saying that Rogue One was going to be a gritty Star Wars movie. What I would give to see a story taken from the perspective of an Imperial soldier fighting in the mud and trenches in a "bloody" war film. Something to explore the War in Star Wars without it being an idiotic farce like Attack of the Clones/Revenge of the Sith or the Heroes's Journey that is the original trilogy (and the unimaginative plot of the new trilogy). Sadly the plot kept getting sucked back into hitting the backstory bits of the original movies so we had to see the card games that won the Falcon and the "less than 12 parsecs Kessel Run" (Seriously George Lucas gakked up with that in the original movies so now writers are bending over backwards to make what George thought was a measure of time somehow mean that he got from points A to B in a shorter distance than anybody else). Kinda disappointed with the heel turn that the marauder group pulled and how they are actually noble bright Rebels instead of something a little bit more grey/dark in their morality.
Still overall I was not hating the movie by any means and the only real negative feelings I had for the film was in its wasted potential in becoming something great instead of being more or less chained to established events.
I believe it will be, and obi wan will finish off the "trilogy"
Very hopeful for this. Keep the "criminal underworld western" vibe. It would be cool to see a live action version of obi-wan and maul's final dual, but I doubt they'd do that.
Vankraken wrote: it really felt too caught up in trying to hit all the background plot points for the already established history instead of creating its own story and events
I don't get this criticism. You walked into a Star Wars film called SOLO. The inescapable nature of such a movie is that it will portray how the character we first met in ANH came to be that person in that place. Plus the Milennium Falcon is really the only "background point" that is at all important to the story. By contrast, for example, Han gets his blaster pistol because someone he's working with just tosses it to him so thathe is armed. No big deal.
I think there was a potential trap here of portraying young Han Solo as pretty much just ANH Han Solo and I am so glad they avoided this. The main theme of Solo is, can you afford to have friends in a dangerous world? Young Han, who is not as cynical as we find him in ANH, believes you can (or even MUST) but as the story unfolds it becomes increasingly doubtful. This is a great story context for the plot beat of Han and Chewie meeting and teaming up.
This film is a spectacular visual feast with a twisty turny plot of betrayal and disillusion, -- the only positive thing being the Han/Chewbacca team-up. -- AND does a great job of building a "creation myth" for the Han Solo we know from SW4.
Sadly it doesn't seem to be doing well at the cinema.
This film is a spectacular visual feast with a twisty turny plot of betrayal and disillusion, -- the only positive thing being the Han/Chewbacca team-up. -- AND does a great job of building a "creation myth" for the Han Solo we know from SW4.
Sadly it doesn't seem to be doing well at the cinema.
I've heard people say it's because of TLJ and honestly i can't blame them. I think the new trilogy has been sunk. As i said before the Star Wars stories may have promise though as they won't be sunk by one bad movie. A shame Solo must be suffering for TLJ. I have hope for the obi-wan story as well. I think i'll entirely skip episode 9 though.
This film is a spectacular visual feast with a twisty turny plot of betrayal and disillusion, -- the only positive thing being the Han/Chewbacca team-up. -- AND does a great job of building a "creation myth" for the Han Solo we know from SW4.
Sadly it doesn't seem to be doing well at the cinema.
I've heard people say it's because of TLJ and honestly i can't blame them. I think the new trilogy has been sunk. As i said before the Star Wars stories may have promise though as they won't be sunk by one bad movie. A shame Solo must be suffering for TLJ. I have hope for the obi-wan story as well. I think i'll entirely skip episode 9 though.
Deadpool 2 and infinity war didn't help either.
I'd say the lesson here is, if you tell your fans you don't need them and the movies aren't for them, they'll listen and stop going.
I thought it was a good counterpoint of how "you can't trust anyone" being told to him by everyone while he meets the one guy he will always absolutely be able to trust.
My wife and I just got back from the movie, and absolutely loved it. So glad I skipped TLJ so I wasn't carrying any baggage into this one. There are definitely 5 movies now that feel like 'Star Wars', between the Original Trilogy, Rogue One and Solo.
Yeah I agree. I said before, TLJ has created a big hole on the franchise that the other movies are going to have to climb out off. That, and Solo came out too soon after TLJ leading to franchise fatigue, and it came out after IW and Deadpool 2, so the odds were against it.
Mrs. Esterhouse wrote: I was on the fence on this one and leaning towards not seeing it. But after reading through this thread I’m definitely going to see it!
Do yourself a favor and do so. It's a fun movie, and if you liked the cinematography of Rogue One harkening back to the "feel" of the Original Trilogy, but wished there was more character chemistry, you'll like Solo. It's a pretty safe movie, but it's also fun and GOOD.
Mrs. Esterhouse wrote: I was on the fence on this one and leaning towards not seeing it. But after reading through this thread I’m definitely going to see it!
Do yourself a favor and do so. It's a fun movie, and if you liked the cinematography of Rogue One harkening back to the "feel" of the Original Trilogy, but wished there was more character chemistry, you'll like Solo. It's a pretty safe movie, but it's also fun and GOOD.
TBH there is no reason to trust any review of this film that appears before general release.
Why? Most reviews appear before general release.
I think thats the point - see The Last Jedi
Reviewers get to see films ahead of general release. It’s not that they always write reviews based on nothing.
Also in this film's case it's a funny argument to make - the person who did the Guardian's review of the film from the press showings was pretty positive and gave it a good score, while the person who did a review after the release date shat all over it for basically not being TLJ and gave it two stars.
Any disparity between pro-critic and audience or pro-critic and fanbase reaction is almost always adequately explained by the psychology of the type of people who become pro-critics(ie, "film buffs" who place a high value on process and technical details that most viewers can't even notice let alone name) and the realities of their job(viewing vast, vast numbers of films every year compared to punters) leading them to place excessive value on novelty and subversion. Some pro-critics are capable of recognising those tendencies in themselves and rising above them to provide reviews in the context of an average viewer, but not many, which is why it still baffles me why people pay any attention.
Like, I understood people relying on reviews to make snap judgements of what to see back when I was wee and the internet wasn't ubiquitous, all normal folk had was reviews in papers and magazines, but these days it's easy to find folk online with similar tastes to you and find out what they thought. Hell these days it's easier to do that than find a magazine or a newspaper to read a review in
Galef wrote: Very hopeful for this. Keep the "criminal underworld western" vibe. It would be cool to see a live action version of obi-wan and maul's final dual, but I doubt they'd do that.
I could 100% see them doing it, only it'd be a 6 minute flashy lightsaber fight, rather than the 3 second samurai duel that we got in Rebels.
This film is a spectacular visual feast with a twisty turny plot of betrayal and disillusion, -- the only positive thing being the Han/Chewbacca team-up. -- AND does a great job of building a "creation myth" for the Han Solo we know from SW4.
Sadly it doesn't seem to be doing well at the cinema.
I've heard people say it's because of TLJ and honestly i can't blame them. I think the new trilogy has been sunk. As i said before the Star Wars stories may have promise though as they won't be sunk by one bad movie. A shame Solo must be suffering for TLJ. I have hope for the obi-wan story as well. I think i'll entirely skip episode 9 though.
Deadpool 2 and infinity war didn't help either.
That's actually an interesting question. The backwash of the big spring blockbusters is a weird place to schedule a supposedly 'troubled' film. I mean, yeah, 'Show Dogs' is also running around the local theater- but it's a completely unrelated genre (and probably cost a lot less). But at least in the local theatre around these parts, Solo still has to compete directly with Deadpool in every time slot, and even with Infinity War in a couple slots.
By mid June a lot of the direct competition is gone until at least September- it probably would have done better facing off against Ant Man 2 (the first was better than I expected it to be, but it isn't the same kind of obvious box office draw) and Hotel Transylvania 3.
Manchu wrote: Yep Solo looks as good and at least IMO better than R1 but has the benefit of charismatic characters actually having a fun adventure.
I actually thought that was a good call for R1. Spies, assassins, saboteurs, and soldiers in a covert war generally aren't all that charismatic, and they're just moral enough to not have fun committing murder, no matter how great the cause they're murdering people for is.
Cons:
Droid.
Cliche story and utterly predictable
.
Really? I loved L3. She reminded me of HK but with a different set of crazy.
As for a cliche and predictable story? It's a SW movie and a heist movie, so it's kinda right there on the tin.
I was worried that L3 would be a mouthpiece for IRL politics, like Rose Tico or Admiral Holdo. But as it turns out, her obsession with "droid rights" is played as joke along the lines of C-3P0's excessive chattiness. The character is supposed to be annoying. The other characters in the movie find her neurotic ranting annoying, just as the OT characters found Threepio's incessent prisiness annoying. L3 was elevated beyond comic relief, however, because Lando considered her to be a true friend rather than a pet or some other form of property. This was effective because the overall theme of the movie is about the value of friendship in a dangerous world of crime and betrayal.
Liked the tie-ins to the current continuity. Pyke Syndicates, Hutt cartels and the remains of the shadow collective and the reveal of "who" was in charge wasn't that big a shock to me - and even puts it into a certain window during the timeline (confirmed by chewie's age:190, which means it's approx 10 years before ANH - since chewie was 200 in that one).
Sure, it doesn't have the grandeur, but I'm thankful for that. A movie without skywalker's brats is a good change.
Saw it tonight. Wasn't interested in the trailer pretty much at all but the positive word of mouth swayed me.
I liked it OK. It wasn't great to me, but it had some great parts, and some really good characters. Lots of weird aliens and visual flair. I didn't think the guy playing Han was amazing but he really didn't need to be. Woody Harrelson was really good, I thought. I also did like the droid but not sure how I felt about how that storyline resolved.
I also wasn't expecting the who was in charge thing. I have no knowledge of what happened outside of the main movies. I'll do some reading tonight.
This film is a spectacular visual feast with a twisty turny plot of betrayal and disillusion, -- the only positive thing being the Han/Chewbacca team-up. -- AND does a great job of building a "creation myth" for the Han Solo we know from SW4.
Sadly it doesn't seem to be doing well at the cinema.
In the beginning of the film, Han and Kira are racing away from a life of poverty and servitude through the grimy streets of an industrial labyrinth. The camera pans up toward the heavy clouds bearing down on the pitiless conurbation and we see a skeletal Star Destroyer under construction ominously hung in the troubled skies, like Damocles's sword.
In this shot, Howard connects the terrible conditions of the life these poor kids are trying to escape to the oppressive might of the corrupt Empire that presides over a galaxy of inequity.
Is just me or is L3 almost a cheeky acknowledgement of the accusations of obsession with social justice that's been leveled at Star Wars of late? It's a bit like Terrace & Philip from South Park; Stone and Parker were accused of making a crudely animated show that was nothing but fart jokes. And their response was to say "let us show you what a badly animated show that's all fart jokes would really look like". Solo seems to be joking around with it and that's quite funny really.
Any disparity between pro-critic and audience or pro-critic and fanbase reaction is almost always adequately explained by the psychology of the type of people who become pro-critics(ie, "film buffs" who place a high value on process and technical details that most viewers can't even notice let alone name) and the realities of their job(viewing vast, vast numbers of films every year compared to punters) leading them to place excessive value on novelty and subversion. Some pro-critics are capable of recognising those tendencies in themselves and rising above them to provide reviews in the context of an average viewer, but not many, which is why it still baffles me why people pay any attention.
Also, most reviews will be reviewing the film, not the franchise. For example, I think Solo is a much better standalone sci-fi heist film than a Star Wars film. Same with Infinity War - your opinion on that really depends on whether you're a follower of the other Marvel films. I've seen reviews that are basically "It's OK, but if you liked the other films, you'll probably love this one".
Future War Cultist wrote: Is just me or is L3 almost a cheeky acknowledgement of the accusations of obsession with social justice that's been leveled at Star Wars of late? It's a bit like Terrace & Philip from South Park; Stone and Parker were accused of making a crudely animated show that was nothing but fart jokes. And their response was to say "let us show you what a badly animated show that's all fart jokes would really look like". Solo seems to be joking around with it and that's quite funny really.
Funny as in you actually think that's a joke they intended and which lands, or funny as in haha, they actually think "we're marginally less ridiculous than an intentional self-parody, checkmate Star Wars nerds" is a deflection of the more measured criticisms of that aspect of TLJ that actually works?
Future War Cultist wrote: Is just me or is L3 almost a cheeky acknowledgement of the accusations of obsession with social justice that's been leveled at Star Wars of late? It's a bit like Terrace & Philip from South Park; Stone and Parker were accused of making a crudely animated show that was nothing but fart jokes. And their response was to say "let us show you what a badly animated show that's all fart jokes would really look like". Solo seems to be joking around with it and that's quite funny really.
Funny as in you actually think that's a joke they intended and which lands, or funny as in haha, they actually think "we're marginally less ridiculous than an intentional self-parody, checkmate Star Wars nerds" is a deflection of the more measured criticisms of that aspect of TLJ that actually works?
The former, considering who was directing it at first.
Future War Cultist wrote: Is just me or is L3 almost a cheeky acknowledgement of the accusations of obsession with social justice that's been leveled at Star Wars of late? It's a bit like Terrace & Philip from South Park; Stone and Parker were accused of making a crudely animated show that was nothing but fart jokes. And their response was to say "let us show you what a badly animated show that's all fart jokes would really look like". Solo seems to be joking around with it and that's quite funny really.
Here's a funny take on L3, she was actually put in as a mockery of Kennedy.
I saw L3 as in part being a shot at the stereotypes of SJW's. The character's pursuit for equality and freedom is treated as a joke because the character's approach is so hatchet faced it's laughable. I see that as distinct from taking a shot at anyone with progressive ideas since SJW is an insult thrown around by people with hatchet faced ideas about progressivism who love ranting in youtube videos t conspiracy theories about how the progressive agenda is out to get them and the whole thing is just laughable. Such a narrow perspective would never last as anything more than a hack effort
Spoiler:
which is what L3s little rebellion ends up being.
EDIT: At the same time, the character is also typical of the shallow efforts of progressivism as a marketing gimmick. A poorly thought out attempt to validate a position by placing it in a position of prominence without remotely thinking through the implications of that position within the broader context of whatever the marketing team is trying to sell. The same thing happened in Black Panther imo, where the film was billed and presented as this progressive effort but ultimately came off to me as being mostly a placebo for non-Black fans who want to join in on feeling progressive without actually doing anything progressive. Which would imo be the real flaw of progressivism in media. Not that it's cancerous or out to get anyone, but that it's just a placebo masquerading as actual progress.
Manchu wrote: In the beginning of the film, Han and Kira are racing away from a life of poverty and servitude through the grimy streets of an industrial labyrinth. The camera pans up toward the heavy clouds bearing down on the pitiless conurbation and we see a skeletal Star Destroyer under construction ominously hung in the troubled skies, like Damocles's sword.
In this shot, Howard connects the terrible conditions of the life these poor kids are trying to escape to the oppressive might of the corrupt Empire that presides over a galaxy of inequity.
Anything but a visual feast?
My gripe is with...
Spoiler:
...the kessel run itself. 30 mins through cgi fog and utter darkness. they could do sooooo much better than that.
And I did not really liked how Corellia was portrayed. not bad, but not anything to write home about either.
Future War Cultist wrote: Is just me or is L3 almost a cheeky acknowledgement of the accusations of obsession with social justice that's been leveled at Star Wars of late? It's a bit like Terrace & Philip from South Park; Stone and Parker were accused of making a crudely animated show that was nothing but fart jokes. And their response was to say "let us show you what a badly animated show that's all fart jokes would really look like". Solo seems to be joking around with it and that's quite funny really.
Here's a funny take on L3, she was actually put in as a mockery of Kennedy.
OK so I just got back from seeing the film. Unfortunately, I had a gak time and was thoroughly, forcefully reminded why I fething hate cinemas and wish they would just hurry up and be killed off by the internet already.
First, it turns out that just before I showed up for the start of the film, one of the minimum wage dippy schoolkids they have running the place accidentally triggered the fire alarm, meaning every screen shut down automatically and couldn't be restarted for fifteen minutes, so we got to sit in the cinema staring at a blank screen. Then when they finally got everything going, not only are the amount of adverts even more ludicrous than I remember them being, their glitchy-ass digital projector system ran through the pre-trailer advert sequence twice over.
So now we're nearly 40 goddamn minutes after the intended start time, and the film at last begins. Unfortunately the projector system was *still* fethed, since the image brightness on the picture was fething awful, to the point that big stretches of the film were just vague dark blurs, and on top of that the volume on the audio kept spiking really high to the point where the various big "hey, 'member Star Wars?" musical stings were often distorted.
I am not even slightly exaggerating when I say that I've watched shonky Russian cam torrents of equivalent quality to this pish. And just as the cherry on top, the guy three rows down was a honking fething buffoon with a laugh like a bandsaw, so in the rare moments my ears weren't ringing from the gakky blaring volume, every even slightly humorous remark or look in the film treated everyone to a sound like a fething trained seal baying for fish.
The film itself is, I think, pretty good, but I can't make a fair judgement because of how utter garbage the experience was.
Also, on L3:
Spoiler:
She actually wasn't in there as much as I was expecting based on comments from reviewers, and actually when you think about it her wee subplot is actually pretty fething dark - she gets a bunch of folk killed in the escape, gets blasted to bits, and then is condemned to spend all eternity as a disembodied program stuck in the Falcon's computer systems serving its owner.
Saw it yesterday, double-featured it with Deadpool 2, and came out of it enjoying Solo more.
I found Ehrenreich to be a perfectly serviceable young Han Solo, I was worried he'd growl through the whole movie but now and again he makes the role his own, Glover stole every scene he was in except the ones L3 stole from him. Emilia Clarke was also fine, not really outstanding but her character was a bit more complicated than the others and it would have been very rough if she'd dropped the ball like I thought she would.
Relative Rogue One, it lacks that big indulgent set piece battle but makes up for it with better performances and dialogue overall. It's a more 'chasey' movie that does a good job conveying the types of lives people in the Star Wars underworld live without being a big expo-dump on how said underworld actually works.
And I loved L3 from the moment they introduced her trying to talk those droids into turning on their masters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, did anybody else think they saw a Spaceballs reference?
The presence of hyper fuel rather raises the question of why didn’t Finn and Rose try to get some? I get it’s expensive, and may even have been abandoned as a fuel source due to its rarity, but I’d like to see that covered off somewhere.
The Resistance animated series strikes me as a good place to cover it?
LOL MDG that is a good point. Although I think it cuts moreso against the notion of a (pardon the paradoxical phrasing) "static chase sequence" as the central frame of a film than as a heist flick mcguffin.
In Rebels, we see a couple of refuelling runs, and those involved far larger containers than we see in Solo, suggesting that despite its potency, it was ultimate abandoned.
Certainly I can see The Empire making it as difficult to access as possible. And it may have been in high demand for Project Stardust and the Super Star Destroyer project?
It definitely serves that function, by being a clear ticking clock (when it's turning red) and also a pretty glowing crystal, which is the easiest way to suggest hey this is really valuable.
Coaxium was originally harvested from the tissue and organs of the Purrgil (the space whales from Rebels) although it can be synthetically created but not nearly as effectively as whaling, it's quite possible that that events in Rebels led to it not being a viable fuel source afterwards - or they could be making this up on the fly
Speaking of McGuffins apparently each of the McGuffins from the 4 Indiana Jones film can be found in Vos's collection.
Yodhrin wrote: big stretches of the film were just vague dark blurs]
Yeah, it was like that, don't think there was anything up with the projector.
You know, I also thought there was something off with the projector at my theater (not an unheard of issue there). During the scenes in the snow, the brightest color was literally "dark grey" and there were tons of scenes that were so dark it was hard to even recognize people. Was it really like that for other people, too?
Yeah the movie was pretty murky looking at time. Right from the beginning, the shots in Lady Proxima's lair are not only saturated in blue but the contrast is also very high. Contrast remains an issue throughout.
Lady Proximas lair in the beginning was the only dark or oversaturated part of the movie in my theatre, and I assumed the blue cavelike saturation was the entire point, considering what happens. Technical theatre problems arent exactly the fault of the movie.
AegisGrimm wrote: Lady Proximas lair in the beginning was the only dark or oversaturated part of the movie in my theatre, and I assumed the blue cavelike saturation was the entire point, considering what happens. Technical theatre problems arent exactly the fault of the movie.
Totally agree with the latter but after reading what was posted I was wondering if it actually was a technical issue. It definitely didn't see quite as dark in the back half; the worst parts for that were the the scenes leading up to, including and subsequent to the Proxima cave. Other parts were dark but in that grey area where it could be a technical issue or it could be a directorial choice.
I somehow forgot to mention this but donglover was amazing. As someone else said, he really did steal every scene he was in. Forget Solo, now I want to see Lando.
Future War Cultist wrote: Is just me or is L3 almost a cheeky acknowledgement of the accusations of obsession with social justice that's been leveled at Star Wars of late? It's a bit like Terrace & Philip from South Park; Stone and Parker were accused of making a crudely animated show that was nothing but fart jokes. And their response was to say "let us show you what a badly animated show that's all fart jokes would really look like". Solo seems to be joking around with it and that's quite funny really.
Which makes me wonder if making L3 a joke like that is why the original directors were fired, and what the movie looked like before it was redone.
The presence of hyper fuel rather raises the question of why didn’t Finn and Rose try to get some? I get it’s expensive, and may even have been abandoned as a fuel source due to its rarity, but I’d like to see that covered off somewhere.
The Resistance animated series strikes me as a good place to cover it?
You mean this movie makes TLJ look even worse? I honestly didn't think that was possible!
LordofHats wrote: I saw L3 as in part being a shot at the stereotypes of SJW's. The character's pursuit for equality and freedom is treated as a joke because the character's approach is so hatchet faced it's laughable. I see that as distinct from taking a shot at anyone with progressive ideas since SJW is an insult thrown around by people with hatchet faced ideas about progressivism who love ranting in youtube videos t conspiracy theories about how the progressive agenda is out to get them and the whole thing is just laughable. Such a narrow perspective would never last as anything more than a hack effort
Spoiler:
which is what L3s little rebellion ends up being.
EDIT: At the same time, the character is also typical of the shallow efforts of progressivism as a marketing gimmick. A poorly thought out attempt to validate a position by placing it in a position of prominence without remotely thinking through the implications of that position within the broader context of whatever the marketing team is trying to sell. The same thing happened in Black Panther imo, where the film was billed and presented as this progressive effort but ultimately came off to me as being mostly a placebo for non-Black fans who want to join in on feeling progressive without actually doing anything progressive. Which would imo be the real flaw of progressivism in media. Not that it's cancerous or out to get anyone, but that it's just a placebo masquerading as actual progress.
So you're pointing out movies and similar just suck at showing your actual ideas or basically have a crappy grasp of it. So then our complaints against them at least are sort of legitimate.
Far as conspiracy theories go i'd say your group has some big ones too. If you want i could say in a pm to you. I don't want to get the topic shut down.
So you're pointing out movies and similar just suck at showing your actual ideas or basically have a crappy grasp of it. So then our complaints against them at least are sort of legitimate.
Depends on how your mean by "our" and "you." I think most people suck at expressing any idea, and generally have really crappy grasps of social issues regardless of which side of the line they fall on. It's easy to applaud a fictional character and say "we need more of that" and people have been doing such for decades. People are lazy. They like easy.
So you're pointing out movies and similar just suck at showing your actual ideas or basically have a crappy grasp of it. So then our complaints against them at least are sort of legitimate.
Depends on how your mean by "our" and "you." I think most people suck at expressing any idea, and generally have really crappy grasps of social issues regardless of which side of the line they fall on. It's easy to applaud a fictional character and say "we need more of that" and people have been doing such for decades. People are lazy. They like easy.
In this case i mean the 2 political groups (i'll just say PC and anti-PC here) when saying 'you' and 'our'.
I'm still a bit bummed none of the star wars movies (haven't seen Solo yet) haven't really had much in the way of female or villains of other color. I suppose maybe that random hacker in the rose and finn sub-plot, the useless chrome girl baddie and maybe one anonymous baddie in TLJ.
DaveC wrote: Coaxium was originally harvested from the tissue and organs of the Purrgil (the space whales from Rebels) although it can be synthetically created but not nearly as effectively as whaling, it's quite possible that that events in Rebels led to it not being a viable fuel source afterwards - or they could be making this up on the fly
Speaking of McGuffins apparently each of the McGuffins from the 4 Indiana Jones film can be found in Vos's collection.
Not quite.
The crystal skull is actually a throwback to an old Han Solo novel (as shown on the cover art for it, too).
I did like Donald Glover's references to places and things from the old Lando novels as well. Sharu, Oseon and Thonboka.
Yodhrin wrote: big stretches of the film were just vague dark blurs]
Yeah, it was like that, don't think there was anything up with the projector.
There really was, the difference between the trailers on my PC monitor and the faded, dim image on the projector was massive. Even the "bright" scenes were washed out and harder to see than they should have been.
So you're pointing out movies and similar just suck at showing your actual ideas or basically have a crappy grasp of it. So then our complaints against them at least are sort of legitimate.
Depends on how your mean by "our" and "you." I think most people suck at expressing any idea, and generally have really crappy grasps of social issues regardless of which side of the line they fall on. It's easy to applaud a fictional character and say "we need more of that" and people have been doing such for decades. People are lazy. They like easy.
In this case i mean the 2 political groups (i'll just say PC and anti-PC here) when saying 'you' and 'our'.
I'm still a bit bummed none of the star wars movies (haven't seen Solo yet) haven't really had much in the way of female or villains of other color. I suppose maybe that random hacker in the rose and finn sub-plot, the useless chrome girl baddie and maybe one anonymous baddie in TLJ.
Anyway i'd go on but my internet's about to die.
Nah Phasma has been a big disappointment as a character imo. I had big hopes for a kick ass girl Boba but she’s such a pushover in both films she appears in. Sure Boba is maybe a bit overblown but idk he has a much better air of awesome around him.
Well, I don’t get the hate this film is receiving. It was a good movie, maybe not a great movie, but it is a good one. It feels like Star Wars, it’s added some additional depth. I give it an 85%.
I had no problem with the screen brightness where I saw it. Maybe some parts were dark, but never so dark it made it at all hard to tell what was going on or even make me think it was too dark at all. I saw it in 2d, did you see it in 3d? That tends to dim the brightness, so maybe it’s just an issue of 3d making a dim movie dark?
AduroT wrote: I had no problem with the screen brightness where I saw it. Maybe some parts were dark, but never so dark it made it at all hard to tell what was going on or even make me think it was too dark at all. I saw it in 2d, did you see it in 3d? That tends to dim the brightness, so maybe it’s just an issue of 3d making a dim movie dark?
Nope, 2D showing, I think 3D is a headache-causing gimmick. I think it really was just a case of their projector system being fethed after the fire alarm problem.
It really was like watching a trashy cam torrent without the tinny sound and dodgy viewing angle.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, I don’t get the hate this film is receiving. It was a good movie, maybe not a great movie, but it is a good one. It feels like Star Wars, it’s added some additional depth. I give it an 85%.
Well see there's your trouble chief - you wanted to see a fun Star Wars movie, and saw a fun Star Wars movie. But, post-TLJ, the postmodernist crowd have now claimed Star Wars as theirs, so the fact Solo isn't a scathing subtext-heavy indictment of toxic masculinity with a side order of gleeful tearing-down of the basic "scoundrel with a heart of gold" archetype makes it worthless.
Speaking as someone who loves TLJ, I also loved Solo. Both very different films to be sure, but I think they complement each other nicely; TLJ challenges a lot of the traditional Star Wars tone and narrative while Solo revels in it, and there's ample room for both really. I don't see that it ever has to be one or the other, more Star Wars and different Star Wars is typically a good thing.
Non-spoilery, I really enjoyed the cast throughout Solo. Beckett's first team that are as close as we'll get to a Firefly reboot, and the ensemble throughout the rest of the movie were all entertaining. Glover as Lando was certainly a scene-stealer and L3 manages to tread the fine line between irritating and genuinely funny rather well. The villains of the piece were also good, Bettany especially who really worked well with the material he was given.
I also liked the sheer amount of Star Wars-ness that was going on. Little things like the background references, the new planets, the wider context with the Empire, along with some aspects we genuinely haven't seen before like the 'three years later' sequence and planets that before have only got a mention, like Kessel and Corellia. Aesthetically, everything landed and felt authentic, and the tone was likewise very classically Star Wars.
As for Han himself, I think Alden did a fine job. It was his own spin on the role certainly, but there were definitely lines where you could see the later incarnation breaking through, and for a prequel set 10 years before the Han we first meet, I think that's enough. Certainly, he wasn't the incoherent disaster that so much pre-release internet hyperbole was suggesting.
Spoiler:
On to spoilers then...
I think the pacing was pretty spot on to be honest. There was a danger that this was going to be Kessel Run: The Movie, but having that third act pull a reversal with Enfys Nest, then again with Beckett (though that was more predictable and heavily foreshadowed) made sure it was more than that. I don't think the double-crossings ever got into silly territory, everyone reverted to type so it felt natural.
I think Qi'ra's betrayal will do a lot to harden Han going forward, in this his Good Guy is showing a lot more than it does until the end of ANH but that betrayal by someone so integral to his whole persona ought to bring that side of him out more. Likewise, having to shoot his own father figure (in a scene that managed to be far more than just a 'Han shot first' joke) will make him a little tougher.
Like Rogue One though, everything is overshadowed by a last-minute Sith Lord... Holy crap. I did not expect to ever see Maul on the big screen in live action again, and even then, never expected to hear Witwer's fantastic take on the voice work in that format...Throughout the whole film, I was trying to figure out who Drydan was answering to after someone mentioned it when they first meet him, but all I could come up with was Jabba or (less likely) Vader... So a reveal that Maul is not only still kicking around, still running his syndicate and hasn't ended up as a crazy old man on Malachor yet, is just tantalising in its potential... More on that in a minute...
I think they got the reference balance right. There were plenty of in-jokes and subtle nods, including some fairly obscure ones (Aura Sing? Teris Kasi? Not things I expected to see mentioned!) but even stuff like The Imperial March playing over the recruitment ad was a neat touch, as was the nod to Rogue One about how breaking in to the Scarif vault was impossible. Likewise, the odd bit of reused/repurposed Han dialogue was fine by me, especially the 'I hate you'/'I know' exchange.
I mentioned the '3 years later' segment above, I really think that was fantastic. The Empire in that kind of battle is something we've never seen before and that I'd happily see used as the premise for an entire film. The stark contrast between the traditional clean Stormtroopers on patrol and these poor gits ankle deep in the mud, the white armour turned brown, their gear patched and misshapen, it was a very unique spectacle and I'll take more of that any time.
Back to Maul though, I wonder if he's going to be the thing tying a few upcoming films together. If they're going for some kind of Solo/Lando/Fett trilogy he'd be a suitable overall antagonist and they could fill in the big gap in his timeline between Son of Dathomir/the end of The Clone Wars and him bumming around on Malachor 18 years later.
Hell, it's ludicrous amounts of fanservice, but an assassination attempt on Maul could be the perfect premise for that Fett movie that's rumoured, and could even tie in with the 'big job on Tatooine' that came up in Solo. If you want to sell tickets, Jabba the Hutt sending Boba Fett and Han Solo (and some other mercs... let's see Bossk or IG-88 back) to take on Maul is one hell of a pitch.... What Star Wars fan wouldn't be on board with two of the fan-favourite characters who never got enough screen time being set against each other?
Anyhow, all in all a fantastic film. As far as I'm concerned, Disney are 4/4 so far and I eagerly await the announcement of whatever follow-up to Solo we end up getting, whether that's Solo 2 (2olo? ) or Lando or Fett or something completely different.
Grey Templar, you see, Solo is the Ultramarines of the Star Wars movies, where everyone wants to be in the 'cool' group that is hating it for nitpicky reasons. Solo was just as enjoyable as Rogue One, moreso in some ways.
Donald Glover played a fine Lando but I think Alden's performance is seriously being slept on by critics. I had zero faith in him playing Han but I think he did as good a job as anyone minus Harrison himself could do. I'd go a step further and say that he played a better Han then Harrison did in TFA lol. His mannerisms and the intonations of his voice were spot-on imo. I could totally hear Han Solo in the way he spoke and gestured- albeit perhaps a Han Solo who was still young and earnest.
Overall I liked it. More then I thought I would. At the same time though... I would say that only the first quarter stood out to me as exceptional.
Spoiler:
The Correlia escape, the warzone and the first heist all felt really great, but around the space-cthulu scene the plot began to feel thin. Pretty much everything that took place on the beach felt off to me. The sympathetic gang/Rebellion tie-in in particular really rubbed the wrong way. I hate the tropes involved, I hate the heavy-handed wink-wink nudge-nudge of "noooo I would NEVER join the rebellion haha" and I hate how small things like this make the setting feel. We had an entire film AND an entire TV series dedicated to the formation of the rebellion. While the film overall (like 99%) did a great job of feeling small in scope and avoiding getting caught in the overall galactic politics I was disappointed that they ended up dropping the ball at the very end for the sake of a feel-good ending. It reeked of test audience meddling/rewrites.
The movie gave me faith in Disney's spin-off films, though I don't want to see another Han Solo film. I don't want to see a Yoda or Obi-Wan movie either. TFA/TLJ/Solo all showed that Disney is really playing with fire when they try to go heavy on expanding already well-established characters- and for quite a few people Solo is the only film where they really got away with it. A Boba Fett film seems like it'd be okay if they could avoid trying too hard to tie it in to ESB and Han in particular, but overall I'd prefer if their spin-offs focused on OC Donut Steel characters instead of burning good will on the iconic pre-existing ones.
I want to echo what BlaxicanX said about Alden’s performance. He nailed it, and made it his own. The fact that he didn’t just ape Ford and instead played a more naive and optimistic version of Solo was the right thing to do. As for Donald Glover, he was brilliant for the exact opposite reason Alden was. He was so much like Billy Dean Williams in his performance it was scary!
Maul didn't show up without reason. Especially given those who haven't seen Clone Wars or Rebels were left scratching their heads.
Now, this could herald a loose grouping of stories with intersection.
But it could also be a backdoor intro to the forthcoming Live Action Series. And don't forget who Maul's right-hand gal is portrayed by....and that a certain long term role for said actress is about to become defunct.
There's a lot they can pick up and run with from Solo, and it'd be criminal for them to not pick up those threads.
I believe the live action series is set to be post-RotJ, which kind of throws a spanner in the works there.
Spoiler:
As much as I'd totally be up for a series following Maul and his criminal empire, and it'd open up so many new stories and possibilities (it's implied in Rebels he has some history with Ashoka that we don't know about yet) but it contradicts with the one piece of info we have about the live action show.
Maul didn't show up without reason. Especially given those who haven't seen Clone Wars or Rebels were left scratching their heads.
Now, this could herald a loose grouping of stories with intersection.
But it could also be a backdoor intro to the forthcoming Live Action Series. And don't forget who Maul's right-hand gal is portrayed by....and that a certain long term role for said actress is about to become defunct.
There's a lot they can pick up and run with from Solo, and it'd be criminal for them to not pick up those threads.
Spoiler:
The live action series is already confirmed as taking place post-Endor, so Qi'ra would require a much older actress if that character was making an appearance, plus Maul would be long dead. I think it's more likely that the theory around Maul being a potential antagonistic link between the Solo and any eventual sequels or between Solo and the Fett & Lando Stories films is more likely than anything else.
Yep both the live action series and the animated Resistance are set between RotJ and TFA.
Rebels spoiler
Spoiler:
I think Ezra and Thrawn will reappear during this period they conveniently put them on ice during the period of the original trilogy much like Ahsoka doesn’t break canon as she never actually became a Jedi and we know she and Sabine are look for Ezra during this period. Thrawn could be part of the initial First Order
I did not like TLJ and I enjoyed Solo. It wasn't perfect and it didn't need to be made, but at least it was fun and adventurous.
Solo and Rogue One rank higher for me than both TFA and TLJ. We'll see if they can right the ship with IX, but I already don't consider the prequels as legitimate SW movies, so I'm fine with relegating the sequel trilogy to the trash chute as well if that is the case.
Manchu wrote: Wel Nah Aphasia does sound like a SW character TBH
Fan Fiction OC name chosen
Now she just needs pink hair, a can't get her down attitude, and an improbably skill set that includes marksmanship, piloting, confections, and at least twenty different languages she has no reason to know!
Nah Phasma has been a big disappointment as a character imo. I had big hopes for a kick ass girl Boba but she’s such a pushover in both films she appears in. Sure Boba is maybe a bit overblown but idk he has a much better air of awesome around him.
I've definitely got to agree with you here. Phasma in TFA really reminded me at the end of Humperdiinck's captain of the guard in the Princess Bride only didn't need someone to ask a Wookie or Andre the Giant to tear her arms off to fork over what they needed. Sure, they gave her some menace in TLJ, but it's kinda hard to recover a reputation as a badass from "Oh you mean this key".
Grey Templar wrote: Well, I don’t get the hate this film is receiving. It was a good movie, maybe not a great movie, but it is a good one. It feels like Star Wars, it’s added some additional depth. I give it an 85%.
I honestly more and more think Disney just doesn't know how to write jedi without being OP and/or emo (but then i think the old and now defunct EU sucked at that too). Perhaps that doesn't help. If that's the case i am unsure what the obi-wan flick will do since he's a jedi. It is a separate story so it won't have issues like TLJ or any of that mess of a trilogy to go through. Perhaps the main story is just on a really hard to depict time. The bad guys regain power somehow in a big, big way. In the other stories they get more events to work with and they can say where or with who they wish to add depth and story to.
bbb wrote: I did not like TLJ and I enjoyed Solo. It wasn't perfect and it didn't need to be made, but at least it was fun and adventurous.
Solo and Rogue One rank higher for me than both TFA and TLJ. We'll see if they can right the ship with IX, but I already don't consider the prequels as legitimate SW movies, so I'm fine with relegating the sequel trilogy to the trash chute as well if that is the case.
As long as phasma goes along for the trash chute ride....oh wait .
Just came back from the movie. I'm not sure what the spoiler policy is here, so I'll just spoiler all my thoughts to be safe.
Spoiler:
I quite enjoyed the movie overall. It felt like Star Wars through and through. I had set my expectations pretty low from the trailers and was surprised at how misleading the trailers were, particularly the 'putting together a crew' line. The whole thing felt organic and wasn't a forced 'assembling a crew for a gangster' movie I was expecting.
The acting was solid. I'll need a second viewing to really make some better impressions, but Alden really grew on me as Han by the end of the movie. I think the turning point for me was when he was defending the Falcon on Kessel as they made their fighting retreat. His stance and movement were perfect Han. Glover was awesome as Lando. I came in with high hopes and left fully satisfied with his performance.
All the references to later movies and shows were well done, even the little things like how Lando pronounces his name.
My chief complaint is how dark large parts of the movie were. Very DC-esque, which I can't say I'm fond of.
I don't think I liked it as much as Rogue One, but maybe another watch will change my mind. Either way, a well done movie that brought me into the universe for a pleasant adventure with some fun characters.
DaveC wrote: Yep both the live action series and the animated Resistance are set between RotJ and TFA.
Rebels spoiler
Spoiler:
I think Ezra and Thrawn will reappear during this period they conveniently put them on ice during the period of the original trilogy much like Ahsoka doesn’t break canon as she never actually became a Jedi and we know she and Sabine are look for Ezra during this period. Thrawn could be part of the initial First Order
For such a long time my point of view on this sort of thing was "Yeah, as if. That'll never happen. The TV shows don't influence or interact with the movies at all. The shows take their orders from the movies, not the other way around! Just like Marvel!".
Spoiler:
Then Maul happened
... and suddenly I'm not so sure. That could all happen.
I'm fairly certain that Solo doesn't deserve what's getting dumped on it by the fans. But the fans have decided to send Disney a message the only way they seem to respect - by hitting them in the wallet.
I think it's going to be difficult for it to be really profitable because of it's troubled production. Its the most expensive SW movie to date, mostly because they re-shot 70ish% of the film. It would have been WAY more profitable if that wasn't the case.
Kilkrazy wrote: I didn't notice the fans have dumped on it. Certainly some of the most vocal Dakka-based critics of TLJ loved Han Solo.
It's scored better on Rotten Tomatoes than TLJ (though worse with professional critics, which is a point in its favour.)
It's a better film than TLJ but this is not actually an achievement. In fact I would go further and say that Solo is a good film (and also the first time I enjoyed Emilia Clarke acting) but unfortunately it will be crucified at the altar of sending a message to Lucasfilm. Likes and ratings don't give revenue to the movies, ticket sales do. People who don't mind the corporate hate story will go and see the movie and rate it high, but a movie that costs 300m to make needs more people to get its money back, and the internet of 2018 does not give second chances. Opening weekends are crazy important for the movies, and Solo fell really short for a SW title. Also I think the profit plan for long term of the Solo movie is weak. Long term profit for movies is usually merch and if I look at it, I can't see any action figure made for the Solo movie that I would prefer over any other SW action figure really.
An interesting perspective which discusses the state of the entire franchise and what Disney need to do next.
And yet, as per, it glosses over most of the issues some people have with TLJ, reducing it to the nice & easy "fans didn't like Old Man Luke", and presents one of if not the biggest of them as a virtue.
So, I'd say, the very first thing Disney(and columnists seeking to opine on the matter) need to do if they're going to "right the ship" is actually listen to people's issues instead of trying to put them into neat and easy little boxes that can be dismissed as irrelevances. I've said this before, but it bears repeating - the only reason so many people nitpick TLJ so hard is because the core of the film is so flawed, for them, that every other flaw and minor dislike is magnified. If they don't understand why the core was considered so flawed by so many, and keep focusing on the nitpicks, they aren't going to fix anything.
The fact is, a lot of people don't want their expectations dashed, the fiction's tropes subverted, its sacred cows butchered gleefully on camera. They don't want something they like turned into something else, they want more of the thing they like.
What's utterly baffling is Disney seemed to grasp all of that and appeared to have devised a release model to please everybody, and then they somehow managed to get things completely back-asswards such that the main saga trilogy that people were walking into expecting a traditional, well inside the comfort zone Star Wars film has ended up the home of the postmodernist trope-subverting franchise takedown, while the off-year Stories brand where they could safely go as fully batgak mental as they liked without upsetting anyone has ended up putting out the two solid, fan-friendly films of the Disney era.
Frankly I think the first and main thing they need to do if they're going to get things right going forward is to get rid of Kathleen Kennedy, who just seems like a total weather vane with no real direction to give the franchise. TFA gets criticism for being a bit too safe and nostalgic, so she gives TLJ to the human embodiment of the opposite of those things. First she gives Solo to Lord & Miller, and when that doesn't go well she swings completely the other way and brings in Mr Safe Hands himself Ron Howard. What Disney needs is a Feige for Lucasfilm, someone who's both well versed in the industry and the source material, who can pick directors and writers who're appropriate for a project first time, and who can make them understand that they're involved in Star Wars to do a job and serve the brand not use it as a vehicle to signal-boost their otherwise decidedly non-blockbuster fare.
But I'm both. I've seen Solo and I say it's brilliant and well worth seeing. I've also seen TLJ, and I say it's gak and has killed the main trilogy stone dead. One attitude does not interfere with the other.
Vulcan wrote: I'm fairly certain that Solo doesn't deserve what's getting dumped on it by the fans. But the fans have decided to send Disney a message the only way they seem to respect - by hitting them in the wallet.
I'm sure the fans love to take credit for solo bombing at the box office, but I doubt they really had any signigicant impact on that.
China is a huge market, and they don't seem to care at all about the franchise, that's where the first major blow came in at. They never saw the OT when it first was released, so China is more representative of the casual viewers and the casual viewers of the world were given 3 big named movies in 3 weeks. most of them just decided on seeing the infinity war over star wars.
I'm sure Disney expected this to some degree, they own both franchises so it's odd they'd have two major titles competeting against each other, unless they never saw solo as blockbuster potential. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if star wars came out first, or they waited a few months between the releases.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true and Disney won't want to repeat that mistake if it can be avoided.
That said, Disney doesn't need one individual film to make a profit. They need the whole SW franchise overall to be profitable.
I think the real barometer will be episode 9. It will really show if people really boycott SW or if Solo was just a spinoff movie and simply did not attract many people.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true and Disney won't want to repeat that mistake if it can be avoided.
That said, Disney doesn't need one individual film to make a profit. They need the whole SW franchise overall to be profitable.
I think the real barometer will be episode 9. It will really show if people really boycott SW or if Solo was just a spinoff movie and simply did not attract many people.
Yes, that is true.
I'm still on the fence about episode 9 myself. I don't know if it's going to be worth paying money to see.
I saw it this morning at the IMAX in Waterloo, and despite being the biggest screen in the UK it was mostly empty. But I enjoyed the film more than either TFA or TLJ.
Maybe it’s been answered elsewhere, but was the ‘I thought we were in trouble for a second, but it’s fine, we’re fine’ line in the trailer cut from the film? I found it memorable from the trailer and it seemed absent in the film.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I saw it this morning at the IMAX in Waterloo, and despite being the biggest screen in the UK it was mostly empty. But I enjoyed the film more than either TFA or TLJ.
Maybe it’s been answered elsewhere, but was the ‘I thought we were in trouble for a second, but it’s fine, we’re fine’ line in the trailer cut from the film? I found it memorable from the trailer and it seemed absent in the film.
it was in there, I noticed it as he said it, I forget exactly where he said it.
Manchu wrote: It's amazing to watch certain pundits pretend TLJ is the way foreard when TLJ is one of the reasons Solo took such a hit on it's opening weekend.
What is really sad is that Disney won't see it that way. They will think the problem was Solo, so they will change their approach AWAY from Solo, essentially doubling down on the things that made TLJ poor in the eyes of so many. So by so many "fans" protesting SW by not going out to see Solo, they actually will be making things worse
From the POV of the people boycotting Solo, it cannot be a good movie because Kathleen Kennedy is still in charge. But I am not talking about the small number of people actually boycotting the movie. I am talking about the large number of people who saw TLJ and now have SW fatigue and just don't care anymore.
Maybe the world's headspace only has room for a couple of blockbusters every year, especially when they are big SF action films.
It's like when I was in the video game business. There were "superfans" who bought at least one game a month, but the long term average was two games per console per year, indicating that most users actually had one game at Christmas and one more on their birthday.
Manchu wrote: But there are multiple MCU movies per year, ya know?
And there aren't people feeling the fatigue there? I didn't see Black Panther, Infinity War, or even Deadpool 2 after the last Thor movie, which I really enjoyed. Most of the other MCU movies I've seen lately were via one streaming service or another. The first Pirates of the Caribbean was good, saw 2 & 3 streaming, ignored 4, and didn't even know about 5 until I saw it on sale at a grocery store. I hated TFA so I only saw Rogue One on Netflix. It convinced me to give TLJ a try despite really bad feelings going in and found it worth the matinee ticket. I actually paid full price for Solo and enjoyed it more than TLJ. I will skip 9 since JJ is back and at this point I rank his storytelling gimmicks to be a slight step above M. Night's, but even still I think done with SW for a while unless the choice is that or a SyFy original. Look how long it took before anyone thought a sequel trilogy would be a profitable idea after the prequels.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe the world's headspace only has room for a couple of blockbusters every year, especially when they are big SF action films.
It's like when I was in the video game business. There were "superfans" who bought at least one game a month, but the long term average was two games per console per year, indicating that most users actually had one game at Christmas and one more on their birthday.
Didn't see any problem with various MCU blockbusters, doubt there will be a problem with Jurasic World.
Star Wars was damaged by TLJ, reamins to be seen how badly.
I've never watched any of the Marvel films. In fact, I didn't actually understand what MCU meant until the context of later posts revealed it. But that's not film fatigue so much as the fact that I dislike superheroes in general.
My daughter went to see Deadpool 2 with her school friends, but isn't it a kind of post-modernist subversive spoof superhero flick? (I haven't seen either 1 or 2.)
The character of Deadpool himself is a self-aware, fourth-wall-wrecking-ball meta-narrative device. This originated on the pages of comic books but has been carried over to the films.
Speaking of which, I am wondering how LucasFilm will approach the Boba Fett film. Will it really be a film about Boba Fett, as in he is the protagonist, or will it be about some bounty hunters trying to collect a bounty on our protagonist(s) and Boba Fett is the lead antagonist in that scenario?
If Solo is the first part of a series of loosely connected films, I could see the next installment being about Boba Fett trying to hunt down Enfys Nest.
It's hard to imagine Boba Fett being the main character unless it's a piece about him being a kid post-Geonosis.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Has anyone else noticed there has been no marketing for Solo since last Friday?
There was so little marketing before release and now there is no attempt at a second weekend boost?
I feel like Disney decided to cut their losses on this film months ago and the box office is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On a brighter note, I have been listening to the score all week and it is killer. I really like the Marauders theme heard at the beginning of this track:
Manchu wrote: Black Panther and Infinity War both did a helluva lot better than Solo.
Sure, but we're not living in an age were people are willing to shell out money multiple times a month to see movies in the theater anymore. With Infinity War coming out a month ago and almost directly competing against another blockbuster movie, Deadpool, is not exactly the release time any other blockbuster wants to be in these days. Coupled with the fact that people were expecting a bad movie, including many people here, because of all the crap going on behind the scenes. I only saw it because I read so many people here saying that they were expecting a bad movie, due to things like director changes and acting coaches, but ended up really enjoying.
Manchu wrote: The character of Deadpool himself is a self-aware, fourth-wall-wrecking-ball meta-narrative device. This originated on the pages of comic books but has been carried over to the films.
Speaking of which, I am wondering how LucasFilm will approach the Boba Fett film.
Totally thought you were gonna suggest the Boba Fett film be a 4th-wall breaking romp in the style of Deadpool. Now I can't get eh image out of my head
Manchu wrote: I mean, the fact remains that people pay to see multiple MCU movies per year regardless of theoretical super hero movie fatigue.
Are you now saying people only want to see one movie per month and the movie for May was Infinity War?
No, I'm saying that people are probably likely to go even less than once a month. If I go to a movie and pay for two tickets and no drinks or popcorn, it'll cost around 25$ US. Not terrible, but I can also wait a few months and rent it on line for a fraction. Ad kids and/or concessions, and that price goes up dramatically. Online or whatever rental you choose is still going to be the same price. Sure the theaters are worth it once and a while, maybe even twice in a short span, but three times in the span of a month? Especially when one of those movies is looking dubious? Do you think a MCU movie with similar set issues to Solo, casting doubts on how good it will be, will perform well against Avatar 2 and a new Fast and the Furious movie (both with good press backing them) in the same timeframe setup?
Is that a "standard" showing? I paid $8.75 to see the standard 2D matinee Solo. I just bought a ticket to see it again tomorrow for $18.65 - this time, Friday night, IMAX 3D. For reference, a new release bluray costs about $30 in the States (generally $20 for a DVD). You can rent new movies to stream on Amazon for $6.
This is all just FYI stuff. None of it really eats into the fact that a ton of people who just saw Black Panther also went to see Infinity War.
I use movie pass. 9.99 a month usd. I can see 1 movie every day included in the price point. No 3d (good i hate 3d) with no black out dates. I watch ALOT of movies.
Black Panther is the first MCU movie with a black super heroe lead and Infinity War is something that has been building since at least Captain America 1, which you saw even if you didn't see all the movies. I'm not surprised that they got a lot of people out to see them in a short period of time. I suppose a good indicator of fatigue might be how well it performs. Also the Justice League belly flop might be an indicator of super heroe fatigue as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: My daughter went to see Deadpool 2 with her school friends, but isn't it a kind of post-modernist subversive spoof superhero flick? (I haven't seen either 1 or 2.)
Deadpool is... complicated. Answering, "yes" and "no" to that is completely accurate. Basically, Deadpool is ridiculously easy to screw up and to turn it into something like 'The Mystery Men' sort of thing. But due to, I can only call it the sheer skill and talent, they've avoided it.
The best sort of 'nutshell' I can give you is the song for Deadpool 2.
So yeah, that's completely barking mad, ridiculous. It has Celine Dion, the singer of the most famous love ballad in cinema, telling a comic book character to beat it.
Yet it's also completely genuine and serious as a song that does have direct relevance to the film.
And the movies do much the same thing. Considering all the X-Men movies that have been out for the past 18 years, it still has some of the best interpretations of various characters (EG Colossus) that is most consistent with what is loved about their comic versions. So, at the same time the film is making fun of 'Superhero landings' or what have you, they're also saying. "Hey, isn't this fun? Let's enjoy our love for comics and heroes together."
Contrasting with TLJ's message of, "let the past die, kill it if you have to."
So Deadpool is sort of a double subversion.
More on topic, I think there's a lot of issues relating to Solo not doing well and I don't think you can really easily determine which is a deciding factor, or whether some had any statistical significance at all.
Infinity War and Deadpool ate up a lot of peoples cinema-going time in the same month.
Reshoot and bad press problems due to troubled production (see also Justice League)
TLJ dislike / boycotting.
Science Fiction fatigue.
It's only been 5 months since the last Star Wars film.
Prequel fatigue.
Heck, I've not seen it yet because I was on holiday last week.
People didn't go see Solo for 3 reasons:
1) TLJ was incredibly divisive and there are a lot of people who won't go see Solo because of that
2) No one asked for a Solo film
3) The trailers for Solo were extremely unimpressive
Post Avengers MCU, starting from the lowest:
Ant-Man 519m: Didn't get rave reviews and no one really cared about him to begin with
Thor: The Dark World 644m: About a 200m increase over Thor despite being incredibly boring and getting mediocre reviews
Dr. Strange 677m: 2nd best debut (best was GotG) at the time despite lukewarm, albeit positive reviews
The Winter Soldier 714m: Surprisingly low considering how good it was, but understandable to a degree as The First Avenger was mediocre and this was the first sequel to be clearly better than the intro film
GotG 773m: IMO, benefited greatly from TWS's strong showing and renewed faith in Marvel
Thor: Ragnarok 854m: Another 200m jump for Thor. I don't think anyone can complain about this take.
GotG 2 863m: Almost a 100m jump, again can anyone complain?
Spider-man: Homecoming 880m: At the time this was the best debut film. Benefited greatly from his appearance in Civil War. Somehow overcame superhero fatigue as this was the 3rd iteration of Spider-man in 10? years.
CA: Civil War 1.15b: Kind of low if you look at it as an Avengers film. Great for the third film in a character arc.
Iron Man 3 1.21b: Dreadful film IMO and it was certainly divisive. This likely drove down the box office of Phase 2.
Black Panther 1.34b: Best debut as of yet. Definitely benefited from his appearance in Civil War. Also the fact he was the first black superhero in a film not called Blade.
Age of Ultron 1.4b: Mediocre film that didn't stand up to its predecessor. Likely had a negative impact on pre Civil War phase 3 films. AKA Ant-Man...
Infinity War 1.9b+: With this film's success I can see Captain Marvel cracking 1bil and Ant-Man and the Wasp breaking 750-800mil.
Iron Man 3 benefited greatly from post Avengers hype, but was a disappointing movie that hurt the box office of Dark World and The Winter Soldier. IM3+DW fresh rating on RT averages out to 73, the second lowest 2 movie stretch by Marvel. Worst is Incredible Hulk (67) followed by Iron Man 2 (73) in phase 1. Despite being good TWS paid for its predecessor's shortcomings.
TWS and GotG produced the highest 2 movie rating at the time (89+91) and IMO this hyped up Age of Ultron enough that it survived subpar reviews by critics and fans alike. Age of Ultron's mediocrity hurt Ant-Man and Civil War. Civil War is 6th in the MCU WW gross and Domestic gross despite being arguably a top 3 film in the MCU. It did however pave the way for phase 3 to be a massive success.
For those wondering why solo bombed, apparently it was because, I won't say her name, didn't like it. who'd have thought the feminists who had been catered to in the last 3 movies would object to having a white male as a lead. Disney just really couldn't win with this movie.
I'm not sure if she actually believes this or just knows how to keep her name in the conversation.
As far as L3 goes
Spoiler:
She could be either sincere or a mockery.
My take is that she is an OTT sincere version and the, rather dark, joke is that no one takes her seriously. a la the way modern feminism is largely treated.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never watched any of the Marvel films. In fact, I didn't actually understand what MCU meant until the context of later posts revealed it. But that's not film fatigue so much as the fact that I dislike superheroes in general.
My daughter went to see Deadpool 2 with her school friends, but isn't it a kind of post-modernist subversive spoof superhero flick? (I haven't seen either 1 or 2.)
Since the comic was a post-modernist subversive spoof superhero comic, that means they did it right and gave the fans what they were expecting.
Turning TLJ into a post-modernist subversive movie full of fools instead of a swashbuckling space fantasy is what hurt it.
If by "modern feminism" you mean the views of people like Anita Sarkeesian, I think you are right to say it isn't taken seriously. But I don't think making L3 a parody for folks like Ms. Sarkeesian is a dark joke. People with severe, doctrinaire ideological views who insist on continuously ranting about them are embarassing and irritating. Even to their friends.
Wow, that Ethan guy is certainly up himself, as a British friend of mine would say. He managed to get me to look into Feminist Frequence reviews of Star Wars to look at the opposing view point was. I'm not finished yet but generally I find nothing extreme about them. Anita's views actually kind of moderate.
Rogue One she characterized as being good for having a female lead but was ultimately surrounded by a bunch of guys who were more interesting. Even then the conflict overshadowed the characters and they under utilized Forest Witticker. I'd say that's kind of a fair assessment.
TFA she liked while she watched it but kind of fell apart when you looked at it later. Mostly the relationships seemed tied together by string like Finn and Rei's friendship and Han as a father figure to Rei. The strongest criticism I saw was actually that Finn was so ready to kill guys who were in the exact same child soldier conditioning he was in. I get they were trying to kill him, I agree that touching him not pointing towards many of the Stormtroopers being actual victims is kind of a loss. Then again I think TFA was a loss anyways.
TLJ review is on an hour long record radio show so I haven't finished it all yet and I need to sleep soon. It was Anita and two others. They seemed to like it about as much as TFA but still remained critical of it. For instance one did not like how they didn't use the time to really develop character relationships like ESB did. Anita was actually critical of Holdo as she stated that a few seconds of convo would have saved a lot of needless running around and you are intentionally setup not to like her for most of her screen time. They all seemed to think Finn/Rose was shoehorned into the story.
Some other things I learned was that she wasn't a SW fan who'd grown up with them as a kid, like I did. She only first saw them in her twenties and had no real attachment to them. This is kind of important to my only real sticking point in her tweets. I agree with most of it, though I believe TFA is the worst, I honestly believe that L3 was not an attack on feminism or activism but a quirky droid that is a popular element to SW who is designed as a great counterpart to Lando. Had it been any other character besides Lando, it wouldn't have worked. Since I am a fan of many forms of SW media that is how I take it. I can easily see why someone who isn't can take it that way though. I actually liked Solo, but I don't really go into it for the acting or dialogue. The latter of which Ford and Guinness had famously pointed things to say about it
Overall I didn't find anything extreme so far. She brought up how SW was pretty much dominated by white men in the beginning and that the increased diversity. She actually started the Rogue One video with a clip of Carl Sagan on the Tonight Show talking about that. My friends and I would often make critical jokes about Lando being the only black person in the galaxy or about how few women there were. I enjoy SW, but I can still be critical of it.
It is extreme to criticize a movie for having the main character work out the plot to save the day when the alleged problem with this is that he's a man whereas the ancillary character she thinks should have saved the day is a woman.
I was far more interested in Solo before Lord and Miller were fired. Ron Howard is a fine director, and was put into a very difficult position, but the original directors had a more appealing vision for the movie.
The visibility of “Solo” was dependent on the projection standards at individual theaters, and many of them weren’t up to par.
At the heart of this controversy is a disconnect between lax projection standards and a very specific creative agenda — namely, the work of “Solo” cinematographer Bradford Young, who is known for experimenting with low-light cinematography.
“The problem is digital cinema brought automation, and there’s no longer a trained technician checking that a film is projected correctly,” he said. “These machines drift, bulbs dim, and they need constant adjustments. You can save a lot of money, but the problem is if we aren’t showing movies the way they are meant to be seen we are giving people yet another reason not to come to the movie theater.”
Ctaylor wrote: I was far more interested in Solo before Lord and Miller were fired. Ron Howard is a fine director, and was put into a very difficult position, but the original directors had a more appealing vision for the movie.
Was their vision leaked? Not having a pop, genuinely interested to know if I can read a script or something.
I can’t speak for anywhere else in the world, but in the U.K. the cinema is well expensive.
Pretty sure I paid around £16 to see Solo in 2D.
Now, I do alright. And I wanted, I could go see films every week.
Except.....except, a new release DVD I can pick up for £10. Blu-ray, typically £15.
So unless I’m seriously intent on seeing it on the big screen, base economics kind of point out it’s cheaper to wait for the DVD.
And no, I don’t pirate. I have strong feelings in that direction, which I shan’t burden others with.
Seems it's a bit cheaper here in the states. Movie watching has become a lot better though when they started assigning seats when you buy the ticket so you don't have to show up early to get a good seat. Plus threatres have pretty much addopted the standard that seats should be large recliners. I love the movies these days. So comfortable I've actaully fallen asleep in a movie.
Is that a "standard" showing? I paid $8.75 to see the standard 2D matinee Solo. I just bought a ticket to see it again tomorrow for $18.65 - this time, Friday night, IMAX 3D. For reference, a new release bluray costs about $30 in the States (generally $20 for a DVD). You can rent new movies to stream on Amazon for $6.
This is all just FYI stuff. None of it really eats into the fact that a ton of people who just saw Black Panther also went to see Infinity War.
Yep that’s a standard showing, not including snacks or anything, London can be even worse depending where you go.
For me it was £16 x 4, me my sister, niece and Mum, then shacks, nearly hit £100, that’s rare though as usually I just go with the Mrs, she refused to go and see it though because she is a maga Star Wars fan and hated TLJ.
Manchu wrote: It is extreme to criticize a movie for having the main character work out the plot to save the day when the alleged problem with this is that he's a man whereas the ancillary character she thinks should have saved the day is a woman.
Or maybe she just felt that the idea that Han Solo having a major part in helping the fledgling Rebellion, something other people have criticized on this thread, was rather much? That's how I took her tweet and thought it was a non-issue until you brought it up. It actually took me a moment to figure out what you were referring to because of it. The whole "he's a good guy, not a bad guy" dialog made me cringe when it was brought into focus, almost like that time where he let Greedo shoot first especially when
Spoiler:
you have Han, with his blaster trained on Becket and Becket obviously gaging on whether or not he was good enough to quick draw and beat Han, obviously surprise him by shooting him while he was making that decision. Not they both drew on each other and Han was faster, like you might see in a lot of movies. No, Han clearly shot an unarmed Becket because he was thinking about going for his blaster in a seen that was clearly meant to state "Han shot first".
. Are you sure your not just projecting more onto this "cuz Saarkisan hates men"? She doesn't say anything about Qi'ra, which would probably be the easiest female role in the movie to nitpick if you go in specifically to do so.
Having watched several of her videos now, I find nothing really extreme about her views as she's basically trying to get people to do the critical thinking a Soc 101 class would do. If anything, I'd say she isn't an extremist but a feminism for beginners guide. For me the videos were kind of dull as I took Soc 101 years ago and still try to make use of that critical thinking I was taught. I found videos whose titles were more extreme in the related videos of my YouTube feed like "Women are ruining Star Wars" (which is funny because I thought most people claimed George Lucas already did that with the prequels).
I took a critical look at what Anita was saying about SW. Can you claim the same thing or are you just going off other sources like the video above? I have an atheist friend who debates with people of faith. Do you know what the first thing he does to prepare is? He reads their holy book because it's the best way to attack were they're coming from. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't started believing in "magical sky men" due to exposure. The video above is a terrible attack an her position as all it is a bunch of stupid mockery. Her name sounding like a SW character has about as much relevance as the fact he sounds like he's trying to get off the entire time, it means nothing. Next thing you know people will start making a thing about the color of Holdo's hair.
Ctaylor wrote: I was far more interested in Solo before Lord and Miller were fired. Ron Howard is a fine director, and was put into a very difficult position, but the original directors had a more appealing vision for the movie.
Was their vision leaked? Not having a pop, genuinely interested to know if I can read a script or something.
An article I read said that they were really trying to take it in a very comedic direction. I don't know how truthful it was but they sited that the guys previous successes were all comedies apparently.
You go on and on about actually reading what she said ... but you apparently didn't. Here is the relevant tweet (spoiler tags because it contains spoilers):
Spoiler:
They try and be surprising by making Enfys Nest, the leader of the pirates a young woman of colour (played by Erin Kellyman who I definitely want to see more of!) but she doesn't really do anything. Han is the one who comes up with and executes the plan to help fund the rebellion
First off, Ms. Sarkeesian is wrong about the plot of the movie:
Spoiler:
Enfys Nest prevents Beckett's gang, which includes Han and Chewie, from successfully robbing the train. She fights and defeats Beckett in that scene. While it's true that Han comes up with the plan at the end of the movie, Enfys Nest ambushing Dryden Voss's goons is the only reason the plan works.
OK setting aside how Ms. Sarkeesian misstates what happens in the movie in order to criticize it on racist and sexist grounds, we can move on to her ideological criticism: a character played by a mixed race woman should have saved the day, but instead a character played by a white man does, regardless that he is the main character and also happens to be the title character.
I don't know how Ms. Sarkeesian could nitpick Qi'ra. Qi'ra is portrayed as a sleek, hypercomptent badass. There is even a line where she says she may not know everything but she knows more than Han - and we have every reason to believe her. IMO Qi'ra suffers from the trend in pop culture right now of women being absolutely effective all of the time. Fortunately, the character is saved from being outright boring by
Spoiler:
having a conscience and understanding that she is a bad person who has done terrible things and probably doesn't deserve to be happy with Han Solo if she is even capable of happiness anymore.
I'm also really, really glad that she
Spoiler:
didn't either die betraying Han, like forcing him to kill her, or die saving Han.
Qi'ra could have easily been another boring "she's a woman so of course she is a badass" character or another boring "she only exists to guve depth to the male lead" character, but she is neither.
@Kilkrazy
The rumor is that Lord and Miller were making a comedy movie out of Solo. Obviously, Disney cannot produce products making an overt mockery of the core of the franchise. But let's imagine a SW movie that has nothing to do with the characters or events of the hallowed OT. OK, well, that is pretty hard to imagine Disney doing. So, too, and for the same reasons, it's hard to imagine a SW movie that is pure comedy. Humor is and has always been an important part of SW movies. But I think adventure is the most important ingredient.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if so I’m glad they got canned. Solo as a comedy wouldn’t have worked well, it needed to be grittier.
My understanding is somebody had leaked that they were actually trying to make it another Guardians of the Galaxy with Solo being a member of the crew.
The issue I can see is SW has never really been a comedy in that SW has never really had jokes. It has funny situations. There are comedic moments. But actual out and out gags don't fit.
And while they COULD, a Solo movie is probably not the place to shift the tone to that. If you want the general feel of the film to reflect the title character then a Solo movie should be scum and villainy with a hidden heart of gold. And I think the movie we got nailed that.
I’ve been telling everyone who hasn’t seen it that it’s good and worth watching. I’d say that the main issue is apathy. Nobody who isn’t a massive Star Wars geek seems interested.
How a can we help Solo along? It’s unjusitifablg struggling, in a way that genuinely reminds me of Dredd.
Both are excellent films. Both didn’t do the business they deserved.
Go see it again, if you think it merits rewatching.
That was what made Star Wars such a phenomenon. People went to see it multiple times. Five, ten, even twenty times during it's run in the theaters... which both boosted sales and prolonged the theater run.
I can’t speak for anywhere else in the world, but in the U.K. the cinema is well expensive.
Pretty sure I paid around £16 to see Solo in 2D.
I get well fleeced in London, those prices are pretty normal. I saw Infinity War regular 2D and it was £13, I saw Solo on 3D Imax and it was £22 because I paid an extra bit to have the nice seats in the middle, also it was a vast screen. A £2 upgrade on a £20 seat seemed worth it at that point.
When I saw Fury at my folk’s place tickets were £2.50 each, let that sink in. I could take out the whole family for the cost of a single ticket in London.
How a can we help Solo along? It’s unjusitifablg struggling, in a way that genuinely reminds me of Dredd.
Both are excellent films. Both didn’t do the business they deserved.
buy all the empty seats in every theater in the world for a day.
buy 10 million copies of the dvd and mail them to random people across the world.
on a smaller scale, contact the nearest orphanage and send them to see the movie., should be good for a lot of karma as well.
The movie going bust could actually be good for future movies, they might actually spend more time and making a good story with better characters and not just slap star wars on every reject script they've had lying around and putting star wars names in it.
The trouble is, Solo is a good movie. It is the best of the new Star Wars movies from Disney. It is better than any of the sequels. It is a better film than RotJ, although because RotJ is the finale of the OT that is basically an irrelevant comparison. But Solo is taking a beating, among other reasons, because a lot of good will dissipated with TLJ.
Saw it again tonight and it definitely improves on a second viewing. Something very significant I totally missed the first time:
Spoiler:
On Kessel, Chewie and Han split up because Chewie goes off to help some fellow wookies. While everyone is escaping, L3 goes down and Lando rushes to help her. Lando then gets shot and Han charges out fo save both Lando and L3. The piece I missed was a shot of Chewie watching Han run out to save Lando. This is followed by Chewie deciding not to go with the other wookies but rather stick with Han.
A small but extremely significant moment that redounds to the larger theme of the picture.
Yes, although we know Han and Chewie and Lando will come out alright by the end, there is plenty of danger, as not just lives are on the line. Although lives are certainly on the line throughout.
Spoiler:
No less than four "good guy" characters die and every death felt very emotional, all in different ways. This is because (1) even small parts had skillful characterization and (2) the deaths were tied to the theme of the movie. Val dies to give Beckett a chance at pulling off the job, and thus preventing Voss from murdering him. Despite Beckett's cynical worldview, Val really loved him. When Jon Favreau's character Rio dies, his last words are about the regret he has about dying alone - significant words for young Han. L3's death shows how Lando truly valued her as a friend, despite acting like she was an annoyance and embarassment. And Beckett's death is the capstone, showing how a mercenary lifestyle could only end in tragedy.
Contrast with R1, where character after character dies and I just shrugged.
Manchu wrote: Black Panther and Infinity War both did a helluva lot better than Solo.
Sure, but we're not living in an age were people are willing to shell out money multiple times a month to see movies in the theater anymore. With Infinity War coming out a month ago and almost directly competing against another blockbuster movie, Deadpool, is not exactly the release time any other blockbuster wants to be in these days. Coupled with the fact that people were expecting a bad movie, including many people here, because of all the crap going on behind the scenes. I only saw it because I read so many people here saying that they were expecting a bad movie, due to things like director changes and acting coaches, but ended up really enjoying.
This is why, despite all the really really problematic and anti-consumer aspects to it, I kinda hope Disney really throws their weight around with their upcoming streaming service and finally puts an end to films getting an exclusive run in theatres. Maybe then we can stop pretending that the only metric in whether a film is successful or not is box office take in a system where huge chunks of that take don't get anywhere near the people who made the film, or even the people who funded the film.
The visibility of “Solo” was dependent on the projection standards at individual theaters, and many of them weren’t up to par.
At the heart of this controversy is a disconnect between lax projection standards and a very specific creative agenda — namely, the work of “Solo” cinematographer Bradford Young, who is known for experimenting with low-light cinematography.
“The problem is digital cinema brought automation, and there’s no longer a trained technician checking that a film is projected correctly,” he said. “These machines drift, bulbs dim, and they need constant adjustments. You can save a lot of money, but the problem is if we aren’t showing movies the way they are meant to be seen we are giving people yet another reason not to come to the movie theater.”
Hah, I knew it. Add another reason why going to the cinema is rubbish compared to home viewing.
Skaorn wrote: -snip- If anything, I'd say she isn't an extremist but a feminism for beginners guide. -snip-
This is actually, I think, at the root of the issue many people have with her work - she's doing pop feminism at an introductory level, with the sometimes simplistic criticisms that go with that, but for a period a while ago her work was being presented as much more than that, as authoritative. Unfortunately, even though that moment has long passed, some folk can't let it go and engage with her material on its own merits rather than in the context of a fraught debate being fuelled by tone-deaf clickbait hacks and trolls several years ago.
From what I've seen, most of her criticisms are inoffensive, many are simplistic, and she gives a few more weight than they really deserve, but she's hardly the raging vagina-monster coming to destroy all geekdom that the Red Pill brigade present her as.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think a comedy has to be a mockery, but perhaps that's a cultural thing.
It can be very hard to get humour right, of course, especially with a very wide audience.
I think the problem is when someone says "Star Wars comedy", what fans hear is "Jar Jar Binks".
You could absolutely get away with a Star Wars movie with a more comedic tone but it can't be slapstick, or the kind of self aware GotG style, it would have to be more wry and still grounded in a fundamentally Star Wars adventure narrative.
How a can we help Solo along? It’s unjusitifablg struggling, in a way that genuinely reminds me of Dredd.
Both are excellent films. Both didn’t do the business they deserved.
Not sure TBH. I've paid to see it myself even though it was a garbage experience(and one I'm not willing to repeat even though I would quite like to see it again). I've talked it up to folk I know who I thought might be persuaded to go see it. There's not really much more any of us can do - like someone mentioned, Disney seem to have just dropped the film, and the media is full of the "Solo a box office failure" and "Solo safe and boring not like awesome subversive TLJ" stories.
Manchu wrote: Yes, although we know Han and Chewie and Lando will come out alright by the end, there is plenty of danger, as not just lives are on the line. Although lives are certainly on the line throughout.
Spoiler:
No less than four "good guy" characters die and every death felt very emotional, all in different ways. This is because (1) even small parts had skillful characterization and (2) the deaths were tied to the theme of the movie. Val dies to give Beckett a chance at pulling off the job, and thus preventing Voss from murdering him. Despite Beckett's cynical worldview, Val really loved him. When Jon Favreau's character Rio dies, his last words are about the regret he has about dying alone - significant words for young Han. L3's death shows how Lando truly valued her as a friend, despite acting like she was an annoyance and embarassment. And Beckett's death is the capstone, showing how a mercenary lifestyle could only end in tragedy.
Contrast with R1, where character after character dies and I just shrugged.
about L3
Spoiler:
it's hard say if he valued L3 has a friend, or he really needed the maps so they could get out of kessel. L3 was needed to get them into kessel, so he needed L3it to get them out. or he just wanted anyone to capture the droid because of whats in her memory banks about him. Lando cares more about lando than anything else, it's why he skipped out at the end before he got paid for the job when he saw things were going to get bad
If it was just the data, he wouldn't have been cradling her body after she died.
Spoiler:
The robot's dying meant he'd die on kessel as well, that's why he ran for the droid and wanted it to live. Luckily the maps survived and I'm pretty sure lando never gave the robot a second thought after that.
I think Lando clearly had genuine attachment to L3 beyond her database, not to the extent of ‘loving’ her, that was clearly played through the relevant scenes to be mistaken on L3’s part. But I think the scene where she dies was also done in such a way to explicitly show he valued her as a friend. That he takes off in the Falcon at the end, well he’s pretty pissed off that his ship has been trashed and he’s facing almost certainly being killed by either of the groups turning up to fight over the loot.
He certainly got colder towards droids in the next 13 years or so - but the humans who act with any warmth towards droids in general were a rather small set.
"Having problems with your droid?" - when he sees 3po blasted into lots of bits in ESB - for example.
Yes, Lando definitely thought of L3 as a real friend. That's very clear in the movie. He tries to be cool and detached, talking about how he would have her memory wiped but for her navigational database but it's just an act.
Manchu wrote: The trouble is, Solo is a good movie. It is the best of the new Star Wars movies from Disney. It is better than any of the sequels. It is a better film than RotJ, although because RotJ is the finale of the OT that is basically an irrelevant comparison. But Solo is taking a beating, among other reasons, because a lot of good will dissipated with TLJ.
I agree, and it's frustrating to see the fandom cheating themselves out of a good movie. Good job sticking it to the man, geeks!
Just saw it. I liked it almost as much as Rogue One. It might be because Solo is stronger in the middle and starts to fizzle a bit near the end, where Rogue One putzes around quite a bit and then finishes strong. Either way, Solo felt like a Star Wars movie, with at least two scenes of perfect Star Wars...ness. ...ocity? Will definitely buy on DVD.
Also,
Spoiler:
That poor, peace-loving Colo Claw Fish never made it to Orion. )
Manchu wrote: The trouble is, Solo is a good movie. It is the best of the new Star Wars movies from Disney. It is better than any of the sequels. It is a better film than RotJ, although because RotJ is the finale of the OT that is basically an irrelevant comparison. But Solo is taking a beating, among other reasons, because a lot of good will dissipated with TLJ.
I agree, and it's frustrating to see the fandom cheating themselves out of a good movie. Good job sticking it to the man, geeks!
I'm fairly sure the fandom are the only ones who went to see it. minus a few thousand who didn't want to see it because they didn't want to be told what horrible people they are if they didn't like it.
people forget the large Christian right who also boycotted the movie because Lando was pan. How many other cultures found that offensive? They probably should have kept that part quiet until after the movies release.
then the lack of advertising, it didn't start getting promoted until 1 month before release. The timing of the release was also bad, given the choice between marvel movies and star wars, people are choosing the marvel movies still. I hear Deadpool is shaping up to beat solo this weekend.
Yes there's a large star wars fan base, but that doesn't add up to how poorly received the movie was world wide, it just seems like it was doomed to fail from the start.
Manchu wrote: The trouble is, Solo is a good movie. It is the best of the new Star Wars movies from Disney. It is better than any of the sequels. It is a better film than RotJ, although because RotJ is the finale of the OT that is basically an irrelevant comparison. But Solo is taking a beating, among other reasons, because a lot of good will dissipated with TLJ.
I agree, and it's frustrating to see the fandom cheating themselves out of a good movie. Good job sticking it to the man, geeks!
Its not like there are not plenty of other things to watch - I'll watch it when its on sky.
I get why people are saying that solo didn’t deserve this kind of response, thing is, Disney does deserve it, the whole Star Wars cinematic universe needs a hard looking at and a change at the top, Kathleen Kennedy I believe her name is, while the films are making money they will not do this though, the whole team behind these films need the sack, the Star Wars franchise has been damaged by its mishandling and sadly Solo is a victim of this.
I'd rate it at the same level of Phantom Menace. It was a fun movie, it introduced the old and new, and it set up future plots/story foundations.
I still thought the writing/casting/script wasn't nearly as good as Rogue One but I've only seen Solo in a crowded /talking city theater once. I've seen Rogue One about 5 times, and three times at a cinema
So, I bought some of the Die Cast toys for my nephew's birthday (and some more for my son), and there was a ship that I don't recall seeing in the film. It was some kind of thin cruiser with three satellite dishes. Was it cut, or did I miss it?
I saw Solo with my two kids this week ( for the princely sum of £13.50 - gotta love old fashioned seaside cinematic) we all loved it but bearing in mind it was the middle of half-term hols there can’t of been more that 10-15% in for a matinee showing; Sherlock Gnomes was chock full judging bumpy the crowd that poured out at the same time.
Still we (me + 9yo + 6yo) loved it. My daughter rates it as her favourite SW film so far, high praise indeed.
Some scenes toward the end dragged a bit and the Dragon Queen just appearing out of nowhere granted a but but that’s a really minor complaint.
Solo is being crapped on unfairly. I would have much preferred to have Rogue One and Solo be the first two movies in the new Star Wars Generation, compared to what we got instead. I'm
Saw Solo today and it sure was better than I expected. Particularly early part of the movie is strong (with nice 'For the Emperor, Imperial Guard!' scene thrown in...). After Lando comes in it dips a bit but ending is decent again. I think it is better than Rogue 1, which suffered from boring characters and forced plotline. Plot was nice even though for cynical viewer there were few surprises. I liked that unlike other prequels, they did not try to tie the plotline directly to start of A New Hope.
The movie featured lots of lore and background references. Some fan service though not as much as some other SW movies.
So the problems were really that there were too many characters. 'Solo' is really unfitting name for it. Should have been called 'Group'. L3 particularly should have been cut out. I felt Lando was made bit too cartoonish.
Also the leads had no chemistry WHATSOEVER. It was almost painful to watch them act like they had something between them.
Anyway, they hinted for sequel and I would go to watch.
£11.30 in Luton to see it in 2D. I think it's cheaper midweek and if you have a loyalty card.
The food/drink is the absolute con though. "2 items for just £7.50" like that's a reasonable price to pay, luckily I can make it 2 hours without requiring food with adequate preparation, like eating just before going in.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, I bought some of the Die Cast toys for my nephew's birthday (and some more for my son), and there was a ship that I don't recall seeing in the film. It was some kind of thin cruiser with three satellite dishes. Was it cut, or did I miss it?
It must have been cut. It was supposed to be the "Arrestor Cruiser", based on one of the earliest McQuarrie concepts for the Star Destroyer.
Formosa wrote: I get why people are saying that solo didn’t deserve this kind of response, thing is, Disney does deserve it, the whole Star Wars cinematic universe needs a hard looking at and a change at the top, Kathleen Kennedy I believe her name is, while the films are making money they will not do this though, the whole team behind these films need the sack, the Star Wars franchise has been damaged by its mishandling and sadly Solo is a victim of this.
Yes it's going to be really hard for Disney to get me to pay to see another SW film. Better movies are out there.
Just saw the movie today. I really enjoyed it. The story was good if not great, and there were some references to various things from the books and stuff that really tickled my inner nerd.
I don't think it's money putting people off the film.
It cost me £37.50 including "ticketing fee". That's £12 for an adult ticket in a small (but very nice) regional cinema -- the Regal in Henley-on-Thames.
I don't think that's an excessive price considering going out for a pizza at Zizzi will cost as much.
OTOH I don't think it's adverse pre-publicity. I don't follow Hollywood news and stuff, and I never heard that the film had a troubled development history until I read it on DakkaDakka. Knowing such wouldn't put me off anyway. It's the final result I'm going to see, not the early scripts or rushes or whatever.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's money putting people off the film.
It cost me £37.50 including "ticketing fee". That's £12 for an adult ticket in a small (but very nice) regional cinema -- the Regal in Henley-on-Thames.
I don't think that's an excessive price considering going out for a pizza at Zizzi will cost as much.
OTOH I don't think it's adverse pre-publicity. I don't follow Hollywood news and stuff, and I never heard that the film had a troubled development history until I read it on DakkaDakka. Knowing such wouldn't put me off anyway. It's the final result I'm going to see, not the early scripts or rushes or whatever.
This would be a classic example of what the kiddies call "privilege"
Seriously though, "it's cheaper than eating out at a nice pizza joint" is a weird counterpoint, given that if someone finds going to the cinema too expensive they're not likely to be regularly eating out either.
And while price might be less of an issue in isolation, put it in the context of a family who can afford to see a film a few times a year, in a period of releases that also includes Infinity War and Sherlock Gnomes, as well as reviews pushing the idea Solo is "safe and boring" because they're being written from the perspective of reviewers for whom the best(or even only good) Star Wars film is TLJ, which also often mention the production woes even if someone hadn't previously been aware.
On top of that, you have the #NotMyHan crowd, the "we have to punish Disney for TLJ" crowd, and the "TLJ has reduced my interest in Star Wars, I'll catch it on Netflix maybe" crowd. As well as Disney's almost invisible loss-cutting excuse for a marketing campaign.
Given all of those givens, it's hardly a surprise it's struggling.
Apparently, the Arrestor is briefly in the film (Imperial Navy advert), but a larger scene was indeed cut.
As for cost - it's not off-putting for one film every now and again. But with Infinity War, Deadpool 2 and Solo all opening within weeks of each other?
I am surprised people are finding tickets so expensive. In the two cinemas I use (the Vue in Norwich and Salford, depending on whether I'm at uni or home) all the standard tickets are never more than £4.99 whether that's opening day or 5 weeks into a run, a blockbuster or a smaller release... I don't know how widespread that pricing model is, but it might be worth looking to find a Vue cinema near you if you want cheaper tickets. Certainly they end up cheaper than Odeon 9/10 times.
I don't think it's necessarily a major problem if Solo doesn't make ludicrous money like TFA or R1, it definitely feels like it was one made for the fans and to satisfy that audience (perhaps in response to TLJ's unexpected reception) rather than crush the box office. Though I am still somewhat surprised by the timing of the release, I can't think what's coming out at Christmas this year that would deter Disney from releasing Solo in the standard December slot... I imagine they initially planned to capitalise on a surge post-TLJ, which probably backfired too late for them to do much about it, but even then, coming out within a month of IW and directly up against Deadpool and Jurassic World seems like an odd move... it's a good time to be a viewer, probably not so much to be the ones releasing all these blockbusters in direct competition...
Paradigm wrote: I am surprised people are finding tickets so expensive. In the two cinemas I use (the Vue in Norwich and Salford, depending on whether I'm at uni or home) all the standard tickets are never more than £4.99 whether that's opening day or 5 weeks into a run, a blockbuster or a smaller release... I don't know how widespread that pricing model is, but it might be worth looking to find a Vue cinema near you if you want cheaper tickets. Certainly they end up cheaper than Odeon 9/10 times.
Do not do that, it was a Vue I went to and could barely see the film. On the rare occasion in future I bother to go to a film again, I'll pay an extra couple of quid to go to the local independent cinema that still has an actual projectionist on the premises rather than loading up a whole week's worth of films on a digital projector and ignoring it.
I don't think it's necessarily a major problem if Solo doesn't make ludicrous money like TFA or R1, it definitely feels like it was one made for the fans and to satisfy that audience (perhaps in response to TLJ's unexpected reception) rather than crush the box office. Though I am still somewhat surprised by the timing of the release, I can't think what's coming out at Christmas this year that would deter Disney from releasing Solo in the standard December slot... I imagine they initially planned to capitalise on a surge post-TLJ, which probably backfired too late for them to do much about it, but even then, coming out within a month of IW and directly up against Deadpool and Jurassic World seems like an odd move... it's a good time to be a viewer, probably not so much to be the ones releasing all these blockbusters in direct competition...
I doubt very much Solo is a reaction to TLJ's fan reception, they were already well into Howard's version of the movie by the time it came out. More likely it's a happy coincidence born of Lord & Miller's outlandish rubbish prompting Kennedy to do what she always does and lurch in the other direction completely, so we got a "traditional" movie because Howard's not some flashy pretentious auteur. And the reason it was so early in the year is so Disney can start testing the waters to see if people will be up for two Star Wars films in short order - they want this to be a second MCU, and that means 2 or 3 films a year, every year. If nothing else, the one good thing that could come out of Solo underperforming is it might make them reconsider that nonsense.
There are three multiplex cinemas within 30 to 50 minutes drive of me, and I'm lucky to have The Regal in five minutes walk. The saving of time and petrol makes up for the possibly lower ticket prices in the big chains.
I went and saw it at a Matinee at my Daughter's request.
After watching it, I am left wondering why the new Trilogy is so bad? Clearly, fun adventures with lower stakes make better Star Wars stories than the big set-piece arcs do now. Sad!
Easy E wrote: I went and saw it at a Matinee at my Daughter's request.
After watching it, I am left wondering why the new Trilogy is so bad? Clearly, fun adventures with lower stakes make better Star Wars stories than the big set-piece arcs do now. Sad!
Some people liked the new stuff - I hated it.
Fun adventures with occasional dark moments sounds much better than the gak fest that was TLJ
Easy E wrote: I went and saw it at a Matinee at my Daughter's request.
After watching it, I am left wondering why the new Trilogy is so bad? Clearly, fun adventures with lower stakes make better Star Wars stories than the big set-piece arcs do now. Sad!
That's the thing though - the stakes in Star Wars were never really high. They were presented as being momentous, certainly, but after the first act of the first film deep down everyone watching knew how things were going to end, broadly speaking, because Star Wars is the Monomyth, the Hero's Journey, a fictional structure most of us begin encountering regularly before we can even properly read on our own. There was never any real danger that Luke would turn out to be a crappy pilot, or Han would get randomly gunned-down fighting mooks on the Death Star, or that the Empire would destroy the Rebel base on Yavin IV, or that in the end the Emperor would be victorious - as soon as Luke sets off on his adventure, we know how the story will end because it's a story we've all heard or read or seen a hundred times or more before we hit our teens. What makes the OT good and memorable isn't that it's this huge high-stakes seat-edger where you don't know what's going to happen next or if your favourite character might get snuffed in any given moment of action. What makes it good and memorable are the excellent worldbuilding and aesthetic of the setting's "used future", the fusion of variant tropes from the broadly "western"(ie, European, fundamentally Greco-Roman) and "eastern"(chiefly Japanese, in this case) versions of the Monomyth, the way the structure was molded into a trilogy of films resulting in essentially a much-extended "Abyss" phase covering almost the whole middle movie, and the overall execution(casting, acting, composition, prop design etc).
Sure, watching Solo we know Han, Chewie, and Lando aren't going to die, and the presentation of the stakes is more personal than momentous, but they're not actually any lower than the OT because we knew then the main characters as-presented weren't going to die or lose, because it was established quickly that wasn't the kind of story they were telling, and so we could settle in and let them play with our expectations while safely assuming they wouldn't be actively subverted.
The issue with the newer trilogy is that they did the first movie as an almost forceful statement of intent that this was going to be Original Trilogy 2.0 - This Time It's Reasonably Diverse, and then released a second film that was so falling over itself to pish all over that declaration and go for maximum-subversion that it riddled itself with plotholes and logic gaps. That doesn't make it "bad" per se, evidently people who like subversive fiction or who were bored with Star Wars as-was liked TLJ, it just makes their execution stupid and flawed - Solo lets you know roughly what to expect and delivers on those expectations, like the OT, while the ST set up one set of expectations, and then purposefully undercut almost every single one of them.
IMO, that's why besides the "#NotMyHan" brigade and the tiny minority of actual bigots who think Han having actual feelings for a woman make him "Han Soylo", people who liked the OT and disliked TLJ seem to end up liking Solo, and the reverse.
Just FYI stakes is mostly an in-narrative concept. ANH is high stakes because it involves a civil war and planets blowing up. Solo is low stakes because it involves a couple of robberies.
I really enjoyed Solo as low stakes Star Wars: an exciting adventure with likeable characters where the fate of the galaxy was not at stake.
I finally saw "Solo" tonight and liked it. No deconstructive rubbish, it was fun and enjoyable. Hans actor wasn't as bad as the rumours say - I'd be fine with seeing more of him. Lando was great and there was heaps of tie-ins to both the old stories and to Rebels.
Thumbs up, if you've been on the fence about it, go see it.
The mud troopers were one of my favourite bits of the movie. Great to see the imperial army actually make an appearance.
Did some of those ATSTs look different? Like they had bigger guns or something? And a couple of background questions; where do stormtroopers fit in the imperial military? And are snow troopers stormtroopers or regular army? It’s probably the former but I kind of wish it was the latter.
As I understand it, the Stormtrooper Corps is an independent branch of the Imperial Army. It is a legacy of the clone trooper legions - i.e., a force bred to loyalty to Palpatine directly rather than to the institution of the Empire. Tellingly, the Stormtrooper Corps was banned by the peace treaty signed by the New Republic and the Empire after the Battle of Jakku.
"Snowtroopers" are actually stormtroopers wearing cold weather gear and I guess they may have additional cold weather training. Swamp Troopers ("mudtroopers"), however, are not stormtroopers. With their goggles and rebreathers, they look a bit like stormtroopers. But the helmet is a giveaway (compare to the one worn by General Veers in ESB.)
Future War Cultist wrote:The mud troopers were one of my favourite bits of the movie. Great to see the imperial army actually make an appearance.
Did some of those ATSTs look different? Like they had bigger guns or something? And a couple of background questions; where do stormtroopers fit in the imperial military? And are snow troopers stormtroopers or regular army? It’s probably the former but I kind of wish it was the latter.
Manchu wrote:As I understand it, the Stormtrooper Corps is an independent branch of the Imperial Army. It is a legacy of the clone trooper legions - i.e., a force bred to loyalty to Palpatine directly rather than to the institution of the Empire. Tellingly, the Stormtrooper Corps was banned by the peace treaty signed by the New Republic and the Empire after the Battle of Jakku.
According to the wiki, Imperial Army Regular Units were gradually phased out infavor of Stormtroopers. Could help explain the drop in quility, as rather than being made up of people volunteering to be the best and putting effort into it, they just became standard line troopers.
We never saw a stormtrooper commander until TFA, with Captain Phasma. In the OT, stormtroopers were commanded by Imperial Army officers (whereas, clone troopers had clone officers in the PT). It stands to reason that the Imperial Army was not solely an officer corps by the time of ESB. The lack of enlisted Imperial Army personnel at Hoth could be explained by the fact that Vader had been given overall command of the the taskforce assigned to hunt down the Rebellion. Vader had a special relationship to the Stormtrooper Corps, given his leadership of the 101st during the Clone Wars. Also Vader's own position outside of the regular military chain of command is well-mirrored by the emphatically political nature of the Stormtrooper Corps.
Ah ok. It makes sense to made up of stormtroopers it’s a special task force dedicated to hunting the rebels and its lead by Vader. Like a Lord Inquistor leading Scions or even the relevant specialists (grey knights, death watch etc).
I suppose too that it makes sense that we never saw the regular army in the OT because with the exception of Hoth, there were never any big pitched battles so to speak. Even the battle on Endor was relatively small.
Yeah the OT battles were more like COIN operations than wars of conquest.
I gotta believe somebody working on SOLO was a 40k fan. That was scene seemed halfway inspired by the idea of compliance during the Great Crusade and the other half inspired by Imperial Guard.
Manchu wrote: Yeah the OT battles were more like COIN operations than wars of conquest.
I gotta believe somebody working on SOLO was a 40k fan. That was scene seemed halfway inspired by the idea of compliance during the Great Crusade and the other half inspired by Imperial Guard.
Manchu wrote: We never saw a stormtrooper commander until TFA, with Captain Phasma. In the OT, stormtroopers were commanded by Imperial Army officers (whereas, clone troopers had clone officers in the PT). It stands to reason that the Imperial Army was not solely an officer corps by the time of ESB. The lack of enlisted Imperial Army personnel at Hoth could be explained by the fact that Vader had been given overall command of the the taskforce assigned to hunt down the Rebellion. Vader had a special relationship to the Stormtrooper Corps, given his leadership of the 101st during the Clone Wars. Also Vader's own position outside of the regular military chain of command is well-mirrored by the emphatically political nature of the Stormtrooper Corps.
I could have sworn that the Black Uniformed Officer on the Tantive IV was a Stormtrooper Commander.
Also, we do know some non-Stormtrooper Imperial Army units survived into the nuCanon GCW-era Empire, as the blurb for the GAVw Occupier tank mentions "mechanised infantry" units in addition to Stormtrooper forces.
Also sidenote - while the wiki has yet to catch up and so far as I know they've not actually been given a new Proper Capitalised Designation yet, "snowtroopers" seem to be more general "hostile environment troopers" now, as they get deployed to places like post-Death Star blast Jedha in the nuCanon comics.
And yeah, the specific conflicts depicted on-screen in the OT leave loads of room for new stuff to be inserted because of their scope or location - Scarif was a commando raid followed by hastily deployed marines so no heavy land stuff for the Rebels, Tatooine was a rapid pursuit and Vader used what he had on hand, Hoth had specific environmental conditions that limited both sides, and Endor was an infiltration mission(thus it still making sense to use the Imperial shuttle even if the Rebels had U-Wings) and an outright space superiority battle(thus making infantry support gunships like U-Wings useless so they wouldn't have been deployed).
EDIT: Oh jeebus, don't try getting into the whole Imperial ranks and uniforms thing, you will go completely mad. I've found a fan system that makes some vague amount of sense and I'll be sticking with it, canon be damned, until the people running the franchise put some effort into sorting it all out.
Kilkrazy wrote: Does this thread have to turn into another "I h8 TLJ" slag-fest?
Can't people look at Han Solo on its own merits?
probably, it also seems that everything turns into a fans are bigots slag fest.
Like Yodhrin's opinion
that's why besides the "#NotMyHan" brigade and the tiny minority of actual bigots who think Han having actual feelings for a woman make him "Han Soylo", people who liked the OT and disliked TLJ seem to end up liking Solo, and the reverse.
Because you just can't discuss a movie without assuming the worst about people who don't like the movie.
look at the Rose leaving twitter thread. She never states why she left but everyone runs with the bigot angle. Instead of the more likely answer of she temporarrily disabled her account to prevent herself from spoiling 9. We knew she hadn't been signed last month, but the script should be "done" now, and it's far more likely that her leaving twitter is evidence that she finally signed onto the project and has a part now so had to sign a non disclosure agreement.
The only merits of solo was they went with the lowest common denominator and didn't do anything devisive or insane. Like pulling a highlander, and killing solo and just the guy who killed him pick up his name like it's a title. So it ended up being a enjoyable movie, yet not a must see blockbuster movie, more of a wait til netflix movie. I'm left wonder though, will they do something based on the end of the movie or is it a scene will becoming meaningless like most of the setups from TFA.
Kilkrazy wrote: Does this thread have to turn into another "I h8 TLJ" slag-fest?
Can't people look at Han Solo on its own merits?
probably, it also seems that everything turns into a fans are bigots slag fest.
Like Yodhrin's opinion
that's why besides the "#NotMyHan" brigade and the tiny minority of actual bigots who think Han having actual feelings for a woman make him "Han Soylo", people who liked the OT and disliked TLJ seem to end up liking Solo, and the reverse.
Because you just can't discuss a movie without assuming the worst about people who don't like the movie.
look at the Rose leaving twitter thread. She never states why she left but everyone runs with the bigot angle. Instead of the more likely answer of she temporarrily disabled her account to prevent herself from spoiling 9. ... ...
Kilkrazy wrote: Does this thread have to turn into another "I h8 TLJ" slag-fest?
Can't people look at Han Solo on its own merits?
probably, it also seems that everything turns into a fans are bigots slag fest.
Like Yodhrin's opinion
that's why besides the "#NotMyHan" brigade and the tiny minority of actual bigots who think Han having actual feelings for a woman make him "Han Soylo", people who liked the OT and disliked TLJ seem to end up liking Solo, and the reverse.
Because you just can't discuss a movie without assuming the worst about people who don't like the movie.
look at the Rose leaving twitter thread. She never states why she left but everyone runs with the bigot angle. Instead of the more likely answer of she temporarrily disabled her account to prevent herself from spoiling 9. ... ...
Kilkrazy wrote: Does this thread have to turn into another "I h8 TLJ" slag-fest?
Can't people look at Han Solo on its own merits?
probably, it also seems that everything turns into a fans are bigots slag fest.
Like Yodhrin's opinion
that's why besides the "#NotMyHan" brigade and the tiny minority of actual bigots who think Han having actual feelings for a woman make him "Han Soylo", people who liked the OT and disliked TLJ seem to end up liking Solo, and the reverse.
Because you just can't discuss a movie without assuming the worst about people who don't like the movie.
look at the Rose leaving twitter thread. She never states why she left but everyone runs with the bigot angle. Instead of the more likely answer of she temporarrily disabled her account to prevent herself from spoiling 9. ... ...
Don't you believe there are any bigots on the internet?
There are plenty; but I don't necessarily believe the claims of random people on social media, such as the guy who told the world his mate was personally behind the low audience RT scores for TLJ.
Kilkrazy wrote: Does this thread have to turn into another "I h8 TLJ" slag-fest?
Can't people look at Han Solo on its own merits?
probably, it also seems that everything turns into a fans are bigots slag fest.
Like Yodhrin's opinion
that's why besides the "#NotMyHan" brigade and the tiny minority of actual bigots who think Han having actual feelings for a woman make him "Han Soylo", people who liked the OT and disliked TLJ seem to end up liking Solo, and the reverse.
Because you just can't discuss a movie without assuming the worst about people who don't like the movie.
look at the Rose leaving twitter thread. She never states why she left but everyone runs with the bigot angle. Instead of the more likely answer of she temporarrily disabled her account to prevent herself from spoiling 9. ... ...
ya and isis claims credit for any explosion, that doesn't mean it's true or in any way factual. What does Tran say about it?
Don't you believe there are any bigots on the internet?
Sure there are, lots of them, but that doesn't explain why Tran left, and if that was the reason, there would have been a dozen interviews with her by now saying how horrible those star wars fans are.
I can say, because there are bigots on the internet, I created the universe qed. then why people deny my claim I just ask, Don't you believe there are any bigots on the internet?
again the question that matters is "what reason did tran state for leaving?" anything else is just speculation and heresay. She could just as easily as quit because to many people were complimenting her and saying what a great person and role model she is.
I said it, there are trolls on the internet, it must be true she left because people were to nice to her.
Neither do I, but we have many evidences of female media personalities being attacked online by sexist shitbags, thus it seems compeltely feasible that Kelly Tran deleted her accounts because of this.
Note that she didn't temporarily disable her accounts, she deleted everything. That belies the idea that she simply didn't want to accidentally reveal details of episode 9.
Lastly, if ISIS claim responsibility for something they didn't do, it doesn't mean they've never done anything.
Kilkrazy wrote: Neither do I, but we have many evidences of female media personalities being attacked online by sexist shitbags, thus it seems compeltely feasible that Kelly Tran deleted her accounts because of this.
Note that she didn't temporarily disable her accounts, she deleted everything. That belies the idea that she simply didn't want to accidentally reveal details of episode 9.
Lastly, if ISIS claim responsibility for something they didn't do, it doesn't mean they've never done anything.
So you only care about the females that are harassed? I'd hate to see what people wrote about the kids who played king goeffry or malfoid, or even adults like gabrial or even Eugene (walking dead) harassment of actors for the roles they play is bad mmmkay.
when you temp disable your account it removes all your pictures, just like what tran did. arkoms razor points to a NDA over harassment, or even a publicity stunt by Disney isn't that far of a stretch either to stop people talking about how badly solo bombed and back to how bad star wars fans are.
Yet for just this one girl, who launched a thousand rumors because some random person tweeted it, it must be and can only be harassment. Despite her saying nothing of the sort.
Kilkrazy wrote: Neither do I, but we have many evidences of female media personalities being attacked online by sexist shitbags, thus it seems compeltely feasible that Kelly Tran deleted her accounts because of this.
Note that she didn't temporarily disable her accounts, she deleted everything. That belies the idea that she simply didn't want to accidentally reveal details of episode 9.
Lastly, if ISIS claim responsibility for something they didn't do, it doesn't mean they've never done anything.
So you only care about the females that are harassed? I'd hate to see what people wrote about the kids who played king goeffry or malfoid, or even adults like gabrial or even Eugene (walking dead) harassment of actors for the roles they play is bad mmmkay.
Tom Felton did not get harassed online, except by squealing fangirls trying to ship his character with Harry, Snape, Dumbledore etc.. Jack Gleeson also did not receive harassment for his portrayal of Joffrey.
I'd posit that the reason for the latter is due to the kind of people who organise and perpetrate harassment campaigns against people would actually identify with Joffrey's character.
This kind of harassment is, the vast majority of the time, directed at women.
Kilkrazy wrote: Neither do I, but we have many evidences of female media personalities being attacked online by sexist shitbags, thus it seems compeltely feasible that Kelly Tran deleted her accounts because of this.
Note that she didn't temporarily disable her accounts, she deleted everything. That belies the idea that she simply didn't want to accidentally reveal details of episode 9.
Lastly, if ISIS claim responsibility for something they didn't do, it doesn't mean they've never done anything.
So you only care about the females that are harassed? I'd hate to see what people wrote about the kids who played king goeffry or malfoid, or even adults like gabrial or even Eugene (walking dead) harassment of actors for the roles they play is bad mmmkay.
Tom Felton did not get harassed online, except by squealing fangirls trying to ship his character with Harry, Snape, Dumbledore etc.. Jack Gleeson also did not receive harassment for his portrayal of Joffrey.
I'd posit that the reason for the latter is due to the kind of people who organise and perpetrate harassment campaigns against people would actually identify with Joffrey's character.
This kind of harassment is, the vast majority of the time, directed at women.
the only harassment campaign I've seen is from the producers, amplified by the media and directed at it's fans. That's a harassment campaign.
I'm still waiting to hear from tran, it's amazing how many people are willing to speak for her without even knowing what she wants said.
I'm glad we got this cleared up though, it's agreed then I created the universe, moving on.
so who thinks han could be rays dad? han find out qira is preggers, goes to eisly for a drink, then skips town with ben & luke.
Yes, there was a thread on this and I locked it because (1) it was essenatially a continuation of the locked TLJ thread and (2) it was a purely speculative non-story about a celebrity receiving some negative attention.
It is certainly off-topic in this thread, about the Solo movie.
Easy E wrote: I felt the big reveal at the end was th eworst form of Franchise tie-in nonsense that was superflous and pointless.
I assumed it was setting up a loose anthology connection, like maybe Boba Fett will be working for/against Crimson Dawn in the next (if it's still happening) Star Wars Story film.
Also, it sounds like their are many crime syndicates out there. Does that mean Black Sun is still a thing? A counter to Crimson Dawn?
Black Sun definitely exists in the new canon. Darth Maul cajoled them into joining his crime zaibatsu during the Clone Wars. Black Sun also appears in the X-Wing minis game.
Also sidenote - while the wiki has yet to catch up and so far as I know they've not actually been given a new Proper Capitalised Designation yet, "snowtroopers" seem to be more general "hostile environment troopers" now, as they get deployed to places like post-Death Star blast Jedha in the nuCanon comics.
So Snow Troopers are becoming the Clone Marines then?
Easy E wrote: I felt the big reveal at the end was th eworst form of Franchise tie-in nonsense that was superflous and pointless.
I assumed it was setting up a loose anthology connection, like maybe Boba Fett will be working for/against Crimson Dawn in the next (if it's still happening) Star Wars Story film.
Also, it sounds like their are many crime syndicates out there. Does that mean Black Sun is still a thing? A counter to Crimson Dawn?
Black Sun definitely exists in the new canon. Darth Maul cajoled them into joining his crime zaibatsu during the Clone Wars. Black Sun also appears in the X-Wing minis game.
Kilkrazy wrote: Does this thread have to turn into another "I h8 TLJ" slag-fest?
Can't people look at Han Solo on its own merits?
probably, it also seems that everything turns into a fans are bigots slag fest.
Like Yodhrin's opinion
that's why besides the "#NotMyHan" brigade and the tiny minority of actual bigots who think Han having actual feelings for a woman make him "Han Soylo", people who liked the OT and disliked TLJ seem to end up liking Solo, and the reverse.
Because you just can't discuss a movie without assuming the worst about people who don't like the movie.
look at the Rose leaving twitter thread. She never states why she left but everyone runs with the bigot angle. Instead of the more likely answer of she temporarrily disabled her account to prevent herself from spoiling 9. We knew she hadn't been signed last month, but the script should be "done" now, and it's far more likely that her leaving twitter is evidence that she finally signed onto the project and has a part now so had to sign a non disclosure agreement.
The only merits of solo was they went with the lowest common denominator and didn't do anything devisive or insane. Like pulling a highlander, and killing solo and just the guy who killed him pick up his name like it's a title. So it ended up being a enjoyable movie, yet not a must see blockbuster movie, more of a wait til netflix movie. I'm left wonder though, will they do something based on the end of the movie or is it a scene will becoming meaningless like most of the setups from TFA.
I mean, OK, but you seem to have taken completely the opposite point from what I was actually saying there. That's why I specifically used "tiny minority of actual bigots" and "tend to", a formulation of words that leaves plenty of room for non-bigots who aren't motivated entirely by the "Ford is the only Han" sentiment to just not like Solo for whatever other reason, it's merely that from what I've seen they're a minority and when OT fans who disliked TLJ give Solo a shot the large majority seem to enjoy it. Conversely, people who liked TLJ tend(perhaps emphasis will help...) to find Solo less appealing because it's a straightforward, no-nonsense, space-fantasy adventure movie like Star Wars was back in the day and they want something else from the property now.
EDIT: Nevermind. Lets just say I don't like deriding whole groups based on one ludicrously broad category, Killkrazy, and leave it at that.
Vos is definitely some kind of alien. If you notice his skin color changes with his emotions.
Spoiler:
As he starts to get really angry the "scars" and then other skin starts to get really red. It's only when hes calm and measured that he looks "normal" and when he dies he goes completely white.
). I saw Solo last night, and I really enjoyed it. Not really "Ocean's 11 in SPAAACE!" - it's more action than that, without quite such a convoluted scheme. It started off with a car chase, and didn't really let up. I thought Han was portrayed well as someone who had no idea what he was getting in to - after all, he was a street urchin who's trying to mingle with the big guns - but brazened his way through. A few nods to the "legends" stories and to the Clone Wars series, but nothing that you couldn't just let wash over you if you weren't familiar. The Empire - and the rest of the wider mythology - is basically a cameo; I think this is probably easily understandable as a sci-fi heist movie on its own, even if you've never seen any other Star Wars films.
.
)
