Dryden Vos is confirmed as some kind of near-human alien. I also noticed he turned extremely pale mere moments after death, which I first chalked up to artistic licence or maybe something to do with his injuries/corrective surgery. But after learning he's an alien, I guess that has an impact.
Future War Cultist wrote: You don’t think Solo’s poor performance will stop future Story movies from being released?
If people were hesitant to see a movie about Han Solo, I'm not sure they will feel more excited to see a movie about Boba Fett. Take the number of people who can recognize the name Han Solo and divide it by maybe 15 or 20 and you will have the number of people who can recognize the name Boba Fett. I don't think featuring a more obscure character will do a nostalgia-driven franchise film any favors, at least under the current marketing paradigm (making a movie a vehicle for a particular character). I think we will see further Star Wars Story-type films, in the sense of non-trilogy one off movies, but I don't think they will be branded the same way. I guess, however, it really depends on how Episode IX does.
Kilkrazy wrote: They need to make those kind of almost human aliens more obviously alien.
Lord and Miller cast Michael Kenneth Williams to voice act (and maybe mocap) a CGI-realized alien character for this role, something that looked like a cat man. When Kennedy fired them, so much of the film (approx. 70%, rumored) had to be reshot and Williams's schedule prevented him from participating. Paul Bettany was cast to replace him. I imagine that at that point there probably wasn't enough money and/or time to do the CGI stuff. And that far into production, they needed a concept that could work very quickly on the set. I think this was a change for the better. Bettany played a very chilling, menacing character who worked well with Emilia Clarke's portrayal of the girl who "didn't get out." I doubt it would have felt as terrifying had it been some CGI cat man.
Rogue One did all right, which was about a bunch of no-names.
The problem with Boba Fett as a hero is that only fairly hard core fans know or care about him, and he's a villain too.
If Star Wars is to branch out, it has to get away from the nostalgia characters and do something new. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
That said, I would be happy to watch a Han Solo 2 film in which he and Chewbacca get involved in some kind of exciting caper with fast action and great visuals.
The no-names did not really matter for R1's marketing appeal. (Even the script did not care about them.) It was all about this well-known pulp icon the Death Star. And keep in mind the big moment from the R1 trailer was Darth Vader's wheezing sounds.
Solo 2 would be wonderful! But so many flavors of internet media pundits have declared it a failure and that stink is hard to shake. If it ever needed to be said, now is the time: this is why we can't have nice things.
I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.
The anti-hero is the boring, everyday person with no special qualities, the opposite of the hero.
The villain is the foil to the hero.
I was thinking in line of Comics, where Red Hood, Venom, Deadpool, The Punisher, sometimes Deathstroke are Anti-Heros.
The 90's Anti-Hero logic. Which Boba would fill the Deathstroke notion of the Anti-Hero in stories where he is the Protagonist and sometimes good guy. Or they just play him as The Man with No Name in the Fett movie, since thats who he was loosely based on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or he can just be a Villain Protagonist.
Manchu wrote: I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.
Manchu wrote: I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.
Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.
The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.
Kilkrazy wrote: Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.
It's an interesting point for this thread.
The mood of pop culture for so long has been against heroes in the traditional sense, perhaps because the notion tradition itself (as an empty signifier) has been under attack.
Han Solo is depicted in this movie as very close to a more classical hero: handsome, brave, kind, witty, sincere, and most importantly adventurous and wide-eyed.
I really like how the film does portrays his relative naivete as a strength rather than a weakness.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.
Kilkrazy is not wrong. The concept of anti-heroic as he's using it (which is the formal sense) references a more traditional version of heroic, which is not just about good intentions but also being extraordinary in some way. Nowadays, we use the word "hero" very loosely and generally without reference to some special, remarkable characteristic.
Manchu wrote: I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.
Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.
The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)
If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.
Manchu wrote: I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.
Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.
The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)
If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.
I see what you mean now, but I wasnt trying to label Fett the Villain as an Anti-Hero when he could be both depending on the story. Fett could be used as a Protagonist yet still be the Villain, Villain-Protagonist if you will, or an Anti-Hero. Red Hood has filled the roll of Villain and Anti-Hero at different times in the Comics (infact in his first appearance Under the Red Hood, he was one of the Villains), so why would that not be applicable to Fett.
Kilkrazy wrote: White men are the power elite. When they are harrassing the weaker members of society, it's the weaker members of society that I will side with.
Wealth has far more to do with being part of the power elite than skin color. I'm sure no member of any power elite no matter how pale I am.
Manchu wrote: I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.
Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.
The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)
If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.
I see what you mean now, but I wasnt trying to label Fett the Villain as an Anti-Hero when he could be both depending on the story. Fett could be used as a Protagonist yet still be the Villain, Villain-Protagonist if you will, or an Anti-Hero. Red Hood has filled the roll of Villain and Anti-Hero at different times in the Comics (infact in his first appearance Under the Red Hood, he was one of the Villains), so why would that not be applicable to Fett.
Can a Star Wars film work with a Villain as the chief protagonist?
Being a Villain or not depends entirely on ones own point of view.
I'd say that Boba was never really a true villain. He was clearly just portrayed as interested only in the credits associated with capturing Han. And he's not merely content with capturing Han and selling him to the Empire OR Jabba. He wants both bounties, and goes to a bit of trouble to ensure he does. He obviously got a sizable payout for tracking the Millennium Falcon to Bespin. Now many bounty hunters might have settled with that, because obviously asking for one of the prisoners you've already captured back so you can sell him to someone else while still getting paid for giving him to the first individual is a pretty ballsy request.
Its like a cowboy in Texas capturing a rustler and turning him over to the Texas Rangers and then, after collecting your reward, asking if you can have him back and take him over to Oklahoma because he's wanted there too.
Anti hero doesn't mean villain. It means what others have said.
Punisher is a Anti hero. Because he goes too far and uses extreme measures and mass violence to combat crime.
Deadpool also a good example of a atnihero. He has powers and skills that would put him on par with most of the marvel universe. But his willingness to kill for money makes him distinctly non heroic. It doesn't stop what little moral compass he has from making him the hero in his own books or siding with the heroes who generally frown upon him for his lower moral standards.
At least that is the common modern definition of the term.
Keep in mind that Dr Doom is a villain. But that doesn't mean we can't have a story in which he is the protagonist over coming his own challenges. Villain, Hero, Anti hero can be very different terms from protagonist antagonist in that any of them could be the protagonist/antagonist of whatever story we are talking about.
Thanos was for sure the villain of infinity war. He was also the protagonist. That was his movie and we watched his heroes journey.
What I really hope with a Fett movie is that they don't get Temuera Morrison back to play the role. It would be a huge marker that the prequels don't colour the thinking of new films (but as we saw Mon Mothma and Bail Organa in R1 played by their prequel actors I think it's sadly inevitable).
To be honest, after pondering it for a bit, I'm not fussed about Fett. He used to be a cool character, but the prequel backstory and the awful Karen Traviss stories kind of ruined him.
Kilkrazy wrote: You've got me thinking about Kenneth Williams as Dryden Voss.
While I absolutely think there's potential in a Boba Fett story, the side story movies really need to make a hard break from the main saga if they want to use them to build up a proper cinematic universe. If they don't, they run the risk of falling into the same pattern the EU books did, with the same people and places factoring into literally everything happening no matter how far-flung, and movie audiences will lose patience with that a lot faster than the die-hard readers.
I want to see them experiment with perspective characters, someone who is comfortable living in the empire until he sees something that shakes him to his core, or in format with like a miniseries covering the things the Azameens go through in X-wing Alliance. I'm even open to more prequel-era stories or stuff covering the formation of the First Order.
Edit: Oh, saw Solo a second time. Still liking it, but on second viewing I think my only real lasting complaint is that elements from the John Williams Star Wars theme intrude on the soundtrack really obnoxiously in some parts.
Manchu wrote: I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.
Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.
The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)
If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.
I see what you mean now, but I wasnt trying to label Fett the Villain as an Anti-Hero when he could be both depending on the story. Fett could be used as a Protagonist yet still be the Villain, Villain-Protagonist if you will, or an Anti-Hero. Red Hood has filled the roll of Villain and Anti-Hero at different times in the Comics (infact in his first appearance Under the Red Hood, he was one of the Villains), so why would that not be applicable to Fett.
Can a Star Wars film work with a Villain as the chief protagonist?
Why would one not work? Why would he have to still be a villain? Was he really a villain in Episode V and VI or just an antagonist? If he was actually a Villain, then the movie could be his path to going full villain, or be like The Unforgiven and tell the story of an Older Fett reluctantly coming back for another job before giving fully into his old ways. Or, if as a Bounty Hunter and Mercenary he was just an Antagonist and not a Villain, he could be portrayed as an Anti-Hero in his own film, much like The Man With No Name, from the Dollars Trilogy.
Personally, I dont think he ever was a villain, just an Antagonist.
Riquende wrote: What I really hope with a Fett movie is that they don't get Temuera Morrison back to play the role. It would be a huge marker that the prequels don't colour the thinking of new films (but as we saw Mon Mothma and Bail Organa in R1 played by their prequel actors I think it's sadly inevitable).
If the Fett movie is set at around the same time as Solo, Fett would be 22 as well (having been cloned in 32 BBY) so Temuera Morrison is to old to play that role now. If it's post RotJ it's possible. They need to stick with an actor of Māori descent for the part Taika Waititi's name is getting thrown around but again he's to old to play a Solo era Fett. There's even artwork floating around.
The way to make Fett or any other bounty hunters work as anti heroes is to put them up against an even bigger villian, Vader won't work as he and Fett seem to have at least a decent working relationship in Empire. Have them do something, unknown to them on behalf of Rebels, through a third party against the Empire. If it'spost RotJ I guess you could do some redemption story.
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?
I think the problem is that a lot of us went into solo, or skipped it entirely, due to trepidation from how badly we disliked TLJ. I have a feeling that TLJ is going to weigh heavily on most Star Wars fans’ opinions for the forseeable future.
If the Fett movie is set at around the same time as Solo, Fett would be 22 as well (having been cloned in 32 BBY) so Temuera Morrison is to old to play that role now.
Yes, I was thinking that the clones aged rapidly but forgot Boba was unaltered. My bad.
There are a host of Fett short stories where he plays a morally-ambiguous protagonist so it wouldn't be too difficult to do. Surely the most obvious "Star Wars Underworld Cinematic Universe" thing to do would be him cementing his place at the top of the bounty hunter food chain and being commissioned by a certain head of Crimson Dawn to take out a top Imperial Enforcer of the black-armoured variety (which leads to grudging mutual respect etc).
But I'm not enthused. As mentioned above the EU got tired when it was the same characters, all the time. The Rogue/Wraith squadron books were fairly universally liked. A series following a family like the Azzameens would be great, an independent family living on the fringe, maybe with an Imperial cousin etc for complications...
DaveC wrote:The way to make Fett or any other bounty hunters work as anti heroes is to put them up against an even bigger villian, Vader won't work as he and Fett seem to have at least a decent working relationship in Empire. Have them do something, unknown to them on behalf of Rebels, through a third party against the Empire.
Early proto-Rebellion group with significant elements from the old Confederacy conducting a devastating terror campaign and being led by a Clone War veteran played by Morrison. The regional Governor ropes in some bounty-hunters to resolve the issue and its a race against time to capture the leader dead or alive before Vader shows up and ends it with ruthless super-efficiency.
Concludes with Boba taking out Morrison with a thermal charge like what Jango used in space against Obi-Wan, and as a final coda, stands up to Vader swearing he's done the job even as he's being choked out. Is proven right when the insurgency collapses and earns some begrudging respect from Vader.
Is this the Han Solo thread or the Boba Fett thread?
To return to a relevant point, the reason IMO why a Star Wars film might not work with a Villain as the Hero is that he would be a Villain, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Villain.
Han Solo is a flawed Hero who falls into low ways through necessity, the foolishness of youth, and his bad upbringing, but he has a heart of gold. Part of our acceptance of this is due to our knowledge of his future role as a major force in the Resistance.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is this the Han Solo thread or the Boba Fett thread?
To return to a relevant point, the reason IMO why a Star Wars film might not work with a Villain as the Hero is that he would be a Villain, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Villain.
Han Solo is a flawed Hero who falls into low ways through necessity, the foolishness of youth, and his bad upbringing, but he has a heart of gold. Part of our acceptance of this is due to our knowledge of his future role as a major force in the Resistance.
But the point is that (to a large number of people) Fett is an antagonist, not a villain.
Han Solo is a flawed, arguably Anti-Hero type, that grows into being a more traditional Hero. Who ultimately because of events of his life sort of returns to being the Anti-Hero type.
I understand the argument that the meaning of art is defined by the viewer.
I have no idea how many people see Fett as a Villain or an antagonist or a villain with small V.
He appears in two films as a foil to the heroes. He's not a spear carrier. He's definitely a Bad Guy.
My view is that Star Wars isn't the kind of series which deals with subtle degrees of moral ambiguity, and therefore Boba Fett as a kind of hero won't play. He's got "history" or pre-figured history as has Han Solo.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then KK, because I think they can do it, and ultimately will do it, by having Fett go from Antagonist to Protagonist and being an Anti-Hero in his story.
I was going to say that if you’re going to make your villains aliens then they need to be either very nearly human (Maul, Dryden Vos) or really alien (Jabba). Because anything in the middle will be hard to take seriously. Case on point, this apparent idea for a cat person in the original draft of solo and nearly every villain from the prequels.
And Fett is a bounty hunter in the trilogy (doing what he does for money, not for loyalty). In the prequel he’s a small child who idolizes his father. In the Clone Wars cartoon he’s a boy out to avenge his father (in his eyes). Nowhere do we ACTUALLY have him as a true villain. SW canon has him as a misguided child who wants to fill his dad’s shoes, and he lets that love/vengeance guide his actions and turn him into the feared gun for hire he becomes. I don’t think it would be difficult at all to write him in a sympathetic/protagonistic role.
It'd be really easy- the first 10 minutes shows him passing on a bounty because of the effect it would have on the target's children, and/or disintegrating the employer for targeting children. It would tie nicely to his own background.
Rather on the nose, but keep in mind Han and Chewie were reasonable targets for a bounty, be it from the underworld or from totally legit planetary governments. And his only dialogue in the OT is about making sure Han is alive, and while that's self serving, he doesn't come across as a monster.
In the now Legends tale "No Disintegrations Please", Fett is hired to find the brother of an Imperial general who has welched gambling debts. Said brother goes into hiding deep in an Imperial garrison fully equipped with walkers, stormtroopers etc. Needless to say that Fett infiltrates and destroys the entire garrison, only for the quarry to flee in an escape pod. The reveal of the story is that it's being told by an old man to a group of kids, and that the old man is the quarry, and it ends with Fett finally having tracked him down again. Having picked up the bounty for his apparent death in the garrison, Fett lets the old man live.
I can't think of any appearance of Fett that paints him as outright villainous - perhaps Dark Empire where he is first seen resurrected and pretty much just wants to kill Han. Everything else either has him play the amoral cynical bounty hunter or ever assigns him some heroic qualities (Karen Traviss wrote him as giving up fighting to become a farmer I think before the Yuuzhan Vong war swept up Mandalore and he became leader of his people).
Regarding a Boba Fett movie and its possible connection to Solo:
Spoiler:
Qi'ra and/or Enfys Nest could be the main character of the next Star Wars Story Movie. Maul directs Qi'ra to eliminate the gang that stole Crimson Dawn's coaxium. Qi'ra hires Boba Fett to help her track down Enfys. If Qi'ra is the main character, then the story is about her wanting to turn away from her evil ways and being inspired by Enfys, especially her memory of Han heroically helping Enfys. In this scenario, Boba Fett is a supporting character - basically Qi'ra's reluctant sidekick. In that role, he gets to be hardbitten and cynical but has motivation to help out Qi'ra - but he could double cross her at the end, echoing Beckett's double cross of Han. If Enfys is the main character, then Boba Fett would be the antagonist. In that case, perhaps Qi'ra double crosses Fett to save Enfys? If Enfys is the main character, then the story is about her maturing from a wild freedom fighter to a more diplomatic inspiring leader, sort of modelling the development of the Rebellion.
Easy E wrote: I would love to see one centered around fighter pilots.... I don't know.... maybe somethign like Rogue Squadron?
I mean, how hard is it to make a fighter pilot genre movie and apply it to Star Wars? Answer.... not at all!
Lucasfilm already did Red Tails, so it's not impossible. On the other hand, it might feel like you're just stretching the plot of the last act of Star Wars out into an entire movie.
timetowaste85 wrote: And Fett is a bounty hunter in the trilogy (doing what he does for money, not for loyalty). In the prequel he’s a small child who idolizes his father. In the Clone Wars cartoon he’s a boy out to avenge his father (in his eyes). Nowhere do we ACTUALLY have him as a true villain. SW canon has him as a misguided child who wants to fill his dad’s shoes, and he lets that love/vengeance guide his actions and turn him into the feared gun for hire he becomes. I don’t think it would be difficult at all to write him in a sympathetic/protagonistic role.
YMMV, but the bounty hunters were all keyed as villainous by showing them as working for the Empire (YMMV, but at the age of 9 when I saw ESB, they were all definitely bad guys). Boba Fett is shown working for the Emperor's right-hand man and for a monstrous crime lord, and has to be chastised by a dark lord of the Sith for excessive violence. He displays no sense that he has any interest in his bounties beyond their value - "only doing it for the money" doesn't stop him being a villain. If bounty hunters as a whole had been introduced into the setting in a more neutral way - having some working for the Rebellion somehow - then I'd buy it, but Boba Fett in the films (and in Clone Wars to an extent) is definitely portrayed as villainous.
I'd buy a "start of darkness" - set before Star Wars, and have him try to reclaim his Mandalorian heritage, only to see Mandalore itself move away from that heritage into first a pacifist society and then an Imperial puppet dictatorship. Or a redemption story (have him survive the Saarlacc is easy - he's in fully enclosed armour and not long after he went in, Jabba's sail barge blew up a couple of metres away; just say the blast killed the Saarlac and he escaped. Only needs a two-minute prologue scene, not even any dialogue) set between RotJ and TFA.
As for new characters for new stories, I'd like to see these spinoff films point out areas where those stories could come from.
Definitely gonna argue against him being villainous in a lone Wars. He’s out solely for revenge against the man who killed his father. Regardless of reason, he’s a boy who wants to avenge the only family he had. If he was villainous, he’d feel nothing about anyone who got in the way, but he shows obvious guilt and sympathy for the clones. Yes, he fell in with a bad crowd to get things done. But in his eyes, his actions are done out of love. Obviously by the time he grows up and becomes a badass bounty hunter who has to be “toned down” by Vader, he’s in it for the money. But not in Clone Wars.
Getting revenge by destroying an entire Republic cruiser? That's several thousand people he left to die to target one man. Feeling guilty about it afterwards doesn't do anything to excuse that.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Getting revenge by destroying an entire Republic cruiser? That's several thousand people he left to die to target one man. Feeling guilty about it afterwards doesn't do anything to excuse that.
In war, while fighting on behalf of the Seperatists. If we're gonna start saying actions done in war makes one a villain, then I've got a few things to say about Luke, Wedge and Lando.
AndrewGPaul wrote: the bounty hunters were all keyed as villainous by showing them as working for the Empire
This is absolutely correct. SW is black and white. As Leia says in ANH, "If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive." Later on, it looks like Han is bailing on the Rebels Luke clearly judges him: " Well, take care of yourself, Han. I guess that's what you're best at." Han's redemption is the fact that he doesn't bail after all but rather saves Luke, setting him up for the crucial shot. This is the morality of SW, whether you agree with it or not. Boba Fett stands on the mercenary side of the line, which in SW morality is equivalent to being an Imperial.
timetowaste85 wrote: Definitely gonna argue against him being villainous in a lone Wars. He’s out solely for revenge against the man who killed his father. Regardless of reason, he’s a boy who wants to avenge the only family he had. If he was villainous, he’d feel nothing about anyone who got in the way, but he shows obvious guilt and sympathy for the clones. Yes, he fell in with a bad crowd to get things done. But in his eyes, his actions are done out of love. Obviously by the time he grows up and becomes a badass bounty hunter who has to be “toned down” by Vader, he’s in it for the money. But not in Clone Wars.
That's certainly one way to read it. The other is Vader is pointing out he wants living prisoners (and as we learn, he needs them or his trap won't work)
AndrewGPaul wrote: Getting revenge by destroying an entire Republic cruiser? That's several thousand people he left to die to target one man. Feeling guilty about it afterwards doesn't do anything to excuse that.
In war, while fighting on behalf of the Seperatists. If we're gonna start saying actions done in war makes one a villain, then I've got a few things to say about Luke, Wedge and Lando.
He didn't blow up that ship on behalf of the separatists - he did it as part of his own vendetta. He chose to seek revenge against one man, and as part of that decided that the lives of tens of thousands of people were less important than that.
Spinner wrote: I mean, once you take a job on something called a 'Death Star' that's specifically designed to commit atrocities...
To quote the roofer from Clerks who gives his input:
"A roofer listens to this <points to heart>, not his wallet."
To be fair, I don't think the Empire ever "officially" called it that. Galen calls it that because of his distain for it, as do the Rebels. Imperial officers and the Emperor himself likely only adopted the name "unofficially" after hearing it from those parties and use if either mockingly, or with arrogance because they know its true purpose.
But for joe schmoe "roofer" or enlisted Trooper, "death star" is very unlikely to have been in their job description when the agreed to work on the battle station.
The best characters are shades of grey. As we can see here, Fett's motivations have all sorts of interpretations which is what makes him interesting and 3-dimensional.
Still want a Rebel fighter pilot movie though......
Spinner wrote: I mean, once you take a job on something called a 'Death Star' that's specifically designed to commit atrocities...
To quote the roofer from Clerks who gives his input:
"A roofer listens to this <points to heart>, not his wallet."
To be fair, I don't think the Empire ever "officially" called it that. Galen calls it that because of his distain for it, as do the Rebels. Imperial officers and the Emperor himself likely only adopted the name "unofficially" after hearing it from those parties and use if either mockingly, or with arrogance because they know its true purpose.
But for joe schmoe "roofer" or enlisted Trooper, "death star" is very unlikely to have been in their job description when the agreed to work on the battle station.
-
That’s true. I actually don’t recall a single time an Imperial called the Death Star anything other than Battlestation.
Spinner wrote: I mean, once you take a job on something called a 'Death Star' that's specifically designed to commit atrocities...
To quote the roofer from Clerks who gives his input:
"A roofer listens to this <points to heart>, not his wallet."
To be fair, I don't think the Empire ever "officially" called it that. Galen calls it that because of his distain for it, as do the Rebels. Imperial officers and the Emperor himself likely only adopted the name "unofficially" after hearing it from those parties and use if either mockingly, or with arrogance because they know its true purpose.
But for joe schmoe "roofer" or enlisted Trooper, "death star" is very unlikely to have been in their job description when the agreed to work on the battle station.
-
Imperial officers do wargames as part of their training, of course, and there is an old wargaming tradition that a very large, powerful unit with a special vulnerability is called a "death star".
Spinner wrote: I mean, once you take a job on something called a 'Death Star' that's specifically designed to commit atrocities...
I dunno, would you serve on "USS Dictator" which has an armament which can lay waste coastal cities...?
Plenty of people have served on SSBN's, missile silos, nuclear bombers etc.
Planet destroying was a thing before Death Star, the battlestation simply made it much easier. It's like difference between using 500 B-29's to destroy a city, vs just one.
Spinner wrote: I mean, once you take a job on something called a 'Death Star' that's specifically designed to commit atrocities...
To quote the roofer from Clerks who gives his input:
"A roofer listens to this <points to heart>, not his wallet."
To be fair, I don't think the Empire ever "officially" called it that. Galen calls it that because of his distain for it, as do the Rebels. Imperial officers and the Emperor himself likely only adopted the name "unofficially" after hearing it from those parties and use if either mockingly, or with arrogance because they know its true purpose.
But for joe schmoe "roofer" or enlisted Trooper, "death star" is very unlikely to have been in their job description when the agreed to work on the battle station.
-
Imperial officers do wargames as part of their training, of course, and there is an old wargaming tradition that a very large, powerful unit with a special vulnerability is called a "death star".
In other words it was never more than a nickname.
Now you know that term only exists because of Star Wars.
There is a ton of counter rumor as well, mostly saying it isnt true at all “that she will be replaced by Kevin Feige” (despite that not being the claimed) or that she will not be tired but “who knows” if she may step down for “personal reasons.” I wonder if there will be articles if/when it happens blaming fan bullying.
Manchu wrote: There is a ton of counter rumor as well, mostly saying it isnt true at all “that she will be replaced by Kevin Feige” (despite that not being the claimed) or that she will not be tired but “who knows” if she may step down for “personal reasons.” I wonder if there will be articles if/when it happens blaming fan bullying.
that's a tough one, I'm sure she'd love to blame the fan, but as Disney is letting her stay on til sept, they might have a gag order on her, so to speak as a condition. If 9 is going to do big box office numbers they need to lay off with the fan slandering and focus on a great movie and harnessing good pr. It will be interesting to see if this is the end of the media running with stories based on rumors like Trans's, that would be a nice start, but will it be enough to make up a divided fandom and get all of us back into the theater? only time will tell.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only way I'm seeing the next main-sequence movie is if it's titled "Episode VIII - Ignore that Rian Johnson bullgack"
Vulcan wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only way I'm seeing the next main-sequence movie is if it's titled "Episode VIII - Ignore that Rian Johnson bullgack"
Opening crawl: Due to a space-time rift, the previous events never happened.
Vulcan wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only way I'm seeing the next main-sequence movie is if it's titled "Episode VIII - Ignore that Rian Johnson bullgack"
Well I won't be bothering with a trip to the cinema to see anything Star Wars related.
I, on the other hand, really can't wait for more Rian Johnson Star Wars!
your forgot the /sarcasm
you're going to be waiting a long time it seems, solo bombed so badly all movies except 9 are on indefinite hold. I doubt johson will get another chance at it.
Did you actually read the article? That's not what it says at all. It's two spinoffs that were never officially announced that are rumored to be on hold - all the other projects are full steam ahead, including the Johnson trilogy. Which yes, I am excited for! I think his style's a real breath of fresh air while remaining true to the universe, and I'm eager to see what he'll bring to the table when he can really cut loose.
I'll bet it's miles better than Lucas' Star Wars Goes to Whoville idea.
If there's a lesson to be learned from Solo's returns, it's probably "holy crap, why would you release your movie so it has to compete against Deadpool and friggin' Infinity War".
Spinner wrote: Did you actually read the article? That's not what it says at all. It's two spinoffs that were never officially announced that are rumored to be on hold - all the other projects are full steam ahead, including the Johnson trilogy. Which yes, I am excited for! I think his style's a real breath of fresh air while remaining true to the universe, and I'm eager to see what he'll bring to the table when he can really cut loose.
I'll bet it's miles better than Lucas' Star Wars Goes to Whoville idea.
If there's a lesson to be learned from Solo's returns, it's probably "holy crap, why would you release your movie so it has to compete against Deadpool and friggin' Infinity War".
Spinner wrote: Did you actually read the article? That's not what it says at all. It's two spinoffs that were never officially announced that are rumored to be on hold - all the other projects are full steam ahead, including the Johnson trilogy. Which yes, I am excited for! I think his style's a real breath of fresh air while remaining true to the universe, and I'm eager to see what he'll bring to the table when he can really cut loose.
I'll bet it's miles better than Lucas' Star Wars Goes to Whoville idea.
If there's a lesson to be learned from Solo's returns, it's probably "holy crap, why would you release your movie so it has to compete against Deadpool and friggin' Infinity War".
I, on the other hand, really can't wait for more Rian Johnson Star Wars!
your forgot the /sarcasm
you're going to be waiting a long time it seems, solo bombed so badly all movies except 9 are on indefinite hold. I doubt johson will get another chance at it.
Spinner wrote: Did you actually read the article? That's not what it says at all. It's two spinoffs that were never officially announced that are rumored to be on hold - all the other projects are full steam ahead, including the Johnson trilogy. Which yes, I am excited for! I think his style's a real breath of fresh air while remaining true to the universe, and I'm eager to see what he'll bring to the table when he can really cut loose.
I'll bet it's miles better than Lucas' Star Wars Goes to Whoville idea.
If there's a lesson to be learned from Solo's returns, it's probably "holy crap, why would you release your movie so it has to compete against Deadpool and friggin' Infinity War".
I, on the other hand, really can't wait for more Rian Johnson Star Wars!
your forgot the /sarcasm
you're going to be waiting a long time it seems, solo bombed so badly all movies except 9 are on indefinite hold. I doubt johson will get another chance at it.
is it? boba got scrapped and was in the progress of being made. the other 3 trilogies have had nothing done on them. so it all comes down to 9 and JJ, if it underperforms the other trilogies will be on shaky ground. if 9 bombs all future projects could be put on hold while the mouse cleans house, and waits for the fandom to settle down after the war between the fans RJ started. As RJ generated no momentum moving forward from 8 into 9, he might never see another star wars movie.
Well, yes, it is. Because you took an article about rumors about rumored movies, assumed an as-yet unfilmed movie will bomb, speculated that a director not working on that unfilmed movie will be pushed out of the franchise, and then decided that meant all films but the next movie are definitely on hold, despite that being the exact opposite of the last paragraph in the original article.
Spinner wrote: Well, yes, it is. Because you took an article about rumors about rumored movies, assumed an as-yet unfilmed movie will bomb, speculated that a director not working on that unfilmed movie will be pushed out of the franchise, and then decided that meant all films but the next movie are definitely on hold, despite that being the exact opposite of the last paragraph in the original article.
"Impossible to see, the future is."
I'm not assuming it will bomb, I was just postulating on what I could see happening if it does. If JJ scores the winning run, they'll probably continue down their chosen path. But if it doesn't and when the mouse looks at why, well someone is going to take the fall for it and RJ was in the middle of it.
Spinner wrote: Well, yes, it is. Because you took an article about rumors about rumored movies, assumed an as-yet unfilmed movie will bomb, speculated that a director not working on that unfilmed movie will be pushed out of the franchise, and then decided that meant all films but the next movie are definitely on hold, despite that being the exact opposite of the last paragraph in the original article.
"Impossible to see, the future is."
True, but TLJ only did as well as it did because so many went to see it going in blind - myself included - and we were VASTLY disappointed. I think you underestimate how many Star Wars fans out there became ex-Star Wars fans because of TLJ and the aftermath. Solo is just the beginning.
Speaking of which, I just got back from watching Solo.
Overall, pretty good. Not game-changing; not 'best yet; just pretty good. Solidly entertaining. A touch predicable in places even without knowing the spoilers, but fun. Lots of neat little shout-outs, including a semi-subtle one to Indiana Jones. Pacing was a slight issue at times, nothing major.
Small complaints only. Some parts of the film were awfully dark, almost like the film was underexposed. Had to have been a thematic choice, but it made a few parts harder to follow than they had to be. The use of the soundtrack occasionally seemed heavy-handed, especially when it harkened back to the original ANH and ESB soundtracks. Nothing critical or mood-breaking, though.
Solo was good. Alden Ehrenreich's no Harrison Ford, but he did well enough. It probably helps that he wasn't playing jaded older Han Solo a la ANH, but a younger and more optimistic one. Donald Glover did an excellent job as Lando, as has been said. Woody Harrelson played his part to a T. Emilia Clarke and Thandie Newton both showed how to play a strong female character that doesn't need to tear down the men around her to appear strong. L3... could have gotten really annoying, had she survived.
Yeah, I know the writer intended Lando and L3 to be 'involved'. Fortunately, it comes across in the movie as L3 pretending to be more human than she actually was. It wasn't all that dissimilar to inexperienced Han pretending to be 'bad' when he really wasn't. I do wonder if L3 wasn't a big joke the original directors were playing on Kennedy... which explains why they weren't allowed to finish the film.
At any rate, it was a solid film. It doesn't deserve the weak sales it's getting... but then, FLJ didn't deserve the sales IT got, so it's a wash for Disney. I'd much rather see more of these than more JJ/Rian nonsense.
Yeah, but sadly Disney is going to get the opposite message. TLJ got amazing sales due to inertia, which backlashed onto Solo, despite Solo being the superior movie. So we'll get more stuff like TLJ and less stuff like Solo.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, but sadly Disney is going to get the opposite message. TLJ got amazing sales due to inertia, which backlashed onto Solo, despite Solo being the superior movie. So we'll get more stuff like TLJ and less stuff like Solo.
So, was Solo suppose to be a re-telling of the Odyssey? I only saw it once, and I am only passingly familiar with the Odyssey.
Spoiler:
Here are some thoughts:
The Odyssey is about Odysseuess trying to return home to his wife after the Trojan War. Solo leaves Corellia and has all sorts of adventures as he tries to return to Qi'ra.
In his absence, Odysseusses wife is beset by suitors and needs to fall in with them in order to survive. The same happens to Qi'ra. Then, eventually at the end they are re-united.
The other big tell is that in the "amelstrom" is a ginat monster AND a gravity whirlpool. These are basically Charibondis(sp) and Scylla.
I would need to go back and refamiliarize myself with both works for more details, but am interested in your thoughts.
I think you underestimate how many Star Wars fans out there became ex-Star Wars fans because of TLJ and the aftermath. Solo is just the beginning.
There is also those who are not Star Wars fans who just felt it was a gak movie full stop, now they might well go - nah saw one of those films and it was dire.
Rian Johnson is now on my list of "never watch another one of his films"
I will watch Solo once its on Sky (or whichever it goes to first) as it sounds like it was ok.
Easy E wrote: So, was Solo suppose to be a re-telling of the Odyssey? I only saw it once, and I am only passingly familiar with the Odyssey.
Spoiler:
Here are some thoughts:
The Odyssey is about Odysseuess trying to return home to his wife after the Trojan War. Solo leaves Corellia and has all sorts of adventures as he tries to return to Qi'ra.
Easy E wrote: So, was Solo suppose to be a re-telling of the Odyssey? I only saw it once, and I am only passingly familiar with the Odyssey.
Spoiler:
Here are some thoughts:
The Odyssey is about Odysseuess trying to return home to his wife after the Trojan War. Solo leaves Corellia and has all sorts of adventures as he tries to return to Qi'ra.
In his absence, Odysseusses wife is beset by suitors and needs to fall in with them in order to survive. The same happens to Qi'ra. Then, eventually at the end they are re-united.
The other big tell is that in the "amelstrom" is a ginat monster AND a gravity whirlpool. These are basically Charibondis(sp) and Scylla.
I would need to go back and refamiliarize myself with both works for more details, but am interested in your thoughts.
Interesting, but I'm not sure the connection stands up more than that.
Spoiler:
What would be the equivalent of the Cyclops, Circe or the sirens? The maelstrom is probably referencing Scylla and Charybdis, but I'm not so sure of the story as a whole.
The Cyclops could be Paul Bettaney's character as he represents greed. However, I saw him more as the rival suitors.
Woody Harrelson is Circe as he tries to keep Han by turning him into a villain.
Sirens I can not place, but i am sure Enfys Nest can be placed into the archetypes of the Odyssey, I am just unsure how? Perhaps as Odysseus' son telemachus?
Granted, it would be a loose translation of the classic and more thematically based than actual interpretation
I don't think Solo is a re-telling of the Odyssey at all.
Most importantly, there is no analog to the Trojan War. But also the Odyssey is not about a man starting out in the world. It's about him coming home. It just has no substantive connection to the plot of Solo.
In the case of Solo, "home" is not a place but a person in the form of Qi'ra. That is why he wants to be a pilot, so he can get a ship and return to Corellia for her.
The "war" in the case of Solo is escaping the streets of Corellia.
Don;t have much to say about the starting vs. ending idea. I can see where that does not fit the thematic pattern.
I have a feeling the Odyssey was just one of the books they put in a blender to build the script for Solo. They addeda few others, set to frappe, and then repasted the contents together randomly. Next, some screenwriters and the various directors made a few tweaks and there you go.
I think you underestimate how many Star Wars fans out there became ex-Star Wars fans because of TLJ and the aftermath. Solo is just the beginning.
There is also those who are not Star Wars fans who just felt it was a gak movie full stop, now they might well go - nah saw one of those films and it was dire.
Rian Johnson is now on my list of "never watch another one of his films"
I will watch Solo once its on Sky (or whichever it goes to first) as it sounds like it was ok.
Same here. I’ll Redbox if, but that’s it. And Rian Johnson is on the list of “never watch any crap he’s involved in”, along with Ang Lee, Sacho Baren Cohen, Kanye West (ok, he’s just noise, not video, usually) and Melissa McCarthy. My list of intolerable people in showbiz is small, but he’s on it. Even Zak Snyder is better. And coming from me, that’s saying something.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, but sadly Disney is going to get the opposite message. TLJ got amazing sales due to inertia, which backlashed onto Solo, despite Solo being the superior movie. So we'll get more stuff like TLJ and less stuff like Solo.
In the short term you're certainly correct. But I'm fairly sure they'll get the message when IX tanks even worse than Solo did...
I think Solo owes a lot to film noir and pulp detective/adventure stories but little to Homeric epics. One of the things I really like about the film is how "small" it feels.
See, I think there's a 99% chance that that's true, but there's also the 1% chance that a group of people are so utterly delusional that they'll actually try. I hope it's the latter, because of the supreme possibility of "and hilarity ensued". And hopefully we'd get to watch it all unfold.
Graphite wrote: Hahahahah some bunch of maniacs are trying to get money to completely remake TLJ.
Just have a star cloth and slowly, ever so slowly move a couple of tiny ships across it for about an hour - then you have matched the visionary direction of Rian Johnson and his visually stunning space battle / tense chase......
Hey, hey! He also gave us an idiot admiral and saving/not saving horses instead kids! And pissed on the mystery left in place in TFA! He did so much more than give us a crappy space scene that could only entertain wet sand!
Another thing the movie hinted at was a vast array of Non-Imperial organizatiosn and groups working out int he galaxy, even beyond the criminal cartels. For example, Qi'ra cons the mine owner by claiming to be an admiral of a Guild fleet. Then there is the affiliation of the mine owners/slavers as well. They are clearly not Imperials, but mine one of the most important substances int he universe.
Also, did the events in Solo give the Imperials the excuse they needed to take direct control of the Hyperdrive fuel mining plant?
Just got back from watching solo. Loved it, damn shame it’s suffering because of the last Jedi. Really have enjoyed the Star Wars stories over the new trilogy.
Come on Disney pull your finger out, you can make some great stuff at times.
That's the most frustrating part about TLJ (and to a lesser extent TFA). Rogue One and Solo prove that Disney CAN make good Star Wars films... but all too often chooses NOT TO.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The cartel running the mines were featured in Rebels - they were one of the criminal organisation strongarmed by Maul.
They were featured in The clone wars first, when Maul was building them before his takeover of mandalore. He got the pykes, the black sun and a few other groups under his leadership. Then the empire took over and turfed him out.
I saw the movie and was pleasantly surprised, it was much better than I expected. Fewer plot holes than TLJ, very star warsy, I thought the lead actor was a lot better than I expected, and overall just quite an enjoyable time.
I understand why people did not go to see it, but I prefered it to Rogue One.
The movie was released at the wrong time. Too much competition coming in after Deadpool and Infinity War with possible franchise fatigue too. It should have stuck to an end of year release date. Plus, it’s probably paying the price for TLJ.
Solo's box office failure had nothing to do with the content or quality of the film. People didn't go to see it from the start. TLJ hurt this franchise so much worse than the "fans are never satisfied" countermarketing suggests.
There must be a fairly significant number of people (like me!) who want to go see it but haven't had the chance due to cinema going opportunities being reduced to a couple of times a year, which have already been used up?
The movie was released at the wrong time. Too much competition coming in after Deadpool and Infinity War with possible franchise fatigue too. It should have stuck to an end of year release date. Plus, it’s probably paying the price for TLJ.
And Jurassic World and Incredibles 2 coming a couple weeks later. So if people only have 2 or 3 movie tickets, they have a lot of other movies to pick from.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The cartel running the mines were featured in Rebels - they were one of the criminal organisation strongarmed by Maul.
They were featured in The clone wars first, when Maul was building them before his takeover of mandalore. He got the pykes, the black sun and a few other groups under his leadership. Then the empire took over and turfed him out.
Manchu wrote: Solo's box office failure had nothing to do with the content or quality of the film. People didn't go to see it from the start. TLJ hurt this franchise so much worse than the "fans are never satisfied" countermarketing suggests.
I understand how that opinion helps prop up your world view regarding TLJ, but *of course* the film itself had a lot to do with its box office performance. It was just a decent film about a backstory that general audiences weren't clamoring for, especially with a new actor in the role.
Sure, there were probably some who stayed away because they were *that* turned off by TLJ. But it's pretty obvious that general audiences simply thought it was something they could wait to see on Blu-Ray. The marketing probably didn't help in that regard. But having seen the film, I don't know that it had a compelling story to market. Some action? Certainly. Buckets of fan service and 'that's-how-he-got-X' moments? Sure. But the film was pretty thin after that.
Lucasfilm will learn some lessons from Solo and be better for it. Like that the Boba Fett film (if it still happens) needs to be more than an explanation of how he got this or that scratch on his armor, or why he prefers a rifle instead of dual pistols. Rogue One is a flawed film that fell short of what it should have been, but it was focused on telling a new story and clearly general audiences responded to it.
I quite like the setting of pre-ANH Empire for stories. Those were the things I really liked in this movie - showing snippets of life in Imperial space. So I will be disappointed if we get nothing more based in that time period due to Solo flopping, but not hideously so.
Both movies are OT spin offs following in the wake of mainline trilogy entries. Both of them were preceded by rumors of troubled productions, including extensive reshoots with different directors. R1 was a mess that benefited immensley from launching on the front end of Disney Star Wars, riding the good will coat tails of TFA. Solo is a much better product in terms of its script, performances, directing, and soundtrack BUT it follows TLJ, and very closely.
Manchu wrote: Both movies are OT spin offs following in the wake of mainline trilogy entries. Both of them were preceded by rumors of troubled productions, including extensive reshoots with different directors. R1 was a mess that benefited immensley from launching on the front end of Disney Star Wars, riding the good will coat tails of TFA. Solo is a much better product in terms of its script, performances, directing, and soundtrack BUT it follows TLJ, and very closely.
I disagree about it being a much better product. I think Solo was fun enough but pretty forgettable. Ehrenreich was fine, but just that IMO. And I thought the direction was very ordinary.
I will say that it wasn't the Justice League-style Frankenstein monster that I feared it'd be. Of course, it probably helped that Howard (apparently) simply reshot 80% of the film, as opposed to what Whedon had to do with JL - rewriting and reshooting 40% or whatever portion and then trying to sew it all together.
R1 is the frankenstein of Disney Star Wars. I mean, the movie comes to a full stop before pivoting completely away from its own events and characters to really hammer home that this happens right before ANH, which is to say THIS IS A STAR WARS MOVIE WE PROMISE! Look it's Princess Leia! I don't blame KK for losing confidence in Gareth Edwards, given how he could not get any life out of either Felicity Jones or Diego Luna. R1 is a good looking mediocre movie. By contrast, Solo is a good looking good movie. But R1 was bouyed by TFA while Solo was dragged down hard by TLJ.
That said, R1 is still heads and shoulders above TLJ. I'd rather have boring characters I don't like, such as Jyn Erso, being heroic than have characters I like, such as Poe and Finn, constantly undermined.
I get the feeling Solo's biggest problem is marketing, well lack of marketing, and timing.
People are still too fresh from TFA, and it just died against infinity war.
The marketing conundrum is a factor of moving the release date up to May. TLJ just came out in December. The first Solo teaser was played during the Super Bowl in early February, about 100 days before the film released. By contrast the first R1 teaser came out almost 250 days before it released. Obviously, Disney could not inject Solo marketing into its lead up to TLJ releasing. But then why insist on releasing Solo so soon after TLJ?
On a related note, Disney/Lucasfilm is already starting to tease Episode IX. Looks like they may have realized they screwed up the marketing on Solo and are jumping the shark in the other direction now.
A note in passing. I saw the link to the article, noted its presence, and kept on browsing. It was five minutes before I realized I had passed by a STAR WARS article because I had no interest in the subject.
My understanding is after the major costs associated with all the reshoots they knew what was coming and just wrote it off. They new solo would finacially bomb because its original budget nearly doubled. Thats why they didnt spend all the time and money promoting it. It would have just been a bunch of money they spent on something where they were already cutting their their losses.
Unfortunately we can only speculate. But 250M is gigantic budgetwise for an off movie. if ywe take the more "reasonable" 150M or even 200M it would not have been a loss . Traditionally movies like this need to make double their budget at the box office. Tough part of that is recouping costs of marketing so it's complicated and Lucasarts ain't gna spill the actual beans. yet.
Future War Cultist wrote: If the production costs hadn’t ballooned out of control, would it have been profitable?
Solo is the most expensive Star Wars movie to date and supposedly it just sort of broke even... maybe.
If the movie cost the original 150ish Mil it was supposed to have cost they would have spent more on marketing to support it and who knows how much more profitable it would have been. There is a direct correlation to marketing and theater profits. SW also traditionally does terrible in china where a lot of other franchises go to double their profits.
All the same, it doesn't make any sense to "let" a franchise film flop because it went over budget. This isn't just about one movie succeeding or failing but rather goes to the future of an entire brand.
I really cannot imagine Disney being OK with handing $80 million to Ron Howard to reshoot approx. 70% of the film just to say, sorry we're not going to spend money marketing this.
The problem wasn't lack of an advertising budget, it was lack of lead time on advertising. This is purely a matter of Solo releasing hard on the heels of TLJ. So, again, the real question is, why was it so important to Disney that Solo come out only five months after TLJ?
If they would have held it till Christmas and have some advanced screenings to generate positive buzz they might have been able to bring in way more people.
It's Labor Day weekend (a three-day weekend) in the States, traditionally the season opening for summer blockbusters. It's no mystery why Solo would release on that particular weekend, if it had already been decided to not release it around Christmas; rather, the mystery is, why not release at Christmas? Especially considering the previous SW had just been released plus another corporate family studio had a huge release right before (two huge releases, if we count Black Panther). I have read rumors that Disney demanded Lucasfilm have Solo ready for Labor Day, at whatever cost (hence the expensive reshoots). But why? I guess there could have been concern that a delay would look bad on the back of so much talk about the troubled production but that seems very week. Perhaps they (mistakenly) figured TLJ would actually propel Solo? That's a more plausible misreading, IMO. But again, it is hard to square stingy marketing with exorbitant spending on reshoots.
Audiences were aware of the film. I just don't think there just was a big demand for Han Solo's backstory, especially with a new and fairly unknown actor in a role so closely identified with another actor. It's not nearly as simple as moar advertising = moar buzz and interest. And the film wasn't good enough to earn raves and pick up steam through word-of-mouth.
There were lots of factors at work. Thinking about my kids and their (relative lack of) interest and (positive but muted) reaction to the film, I wonder how much interest there was among the younger audiences who bug parents to take them to see movies. It's not like the kids raised on TFA, TLJ, Clone Wars and Rebels have much attachment to the Han Solo character.
All the same, it doesn't make any sense to "let" a franchise film flop because it went over budget. This isn't just about one movie succeeding or failing but rather goes to the future of an entire brand.
I'd say that depends on the situation, though. WB *clearly* did that with Justice League. They could have delayed it and kept spending money to clean up all the rushed CGI and make more tweaks. It's quite literally impossible that the studio looked at that film and thought it represented their best -- or even a good -- effort. But they recognized that more time and money was just more lipstick on a pig, and released the thing so they could put it behind them ASAP.
Solo was different, but they might have known it wasn't going to hit the box office out of the park no matter what they did.
Yeah, I am also not convinced that Solo's problem was lack of marketing. I think people knew about the film and just did not bother to see it. But I don't think it's because there is any demographic that's been "raised on" TFA or TLJ or that Han Solo is not a compelling character. Indeed, this kind of film is well-suited to the kind of folks who like Clone Wars and Rebels. I think that TLJ put a deeper hurt on the franchise than studio execs understand and it needed (and still needs) more time to heal.
Justice League, and the whole WB/DC debacle, is really not comparable.
What's the holiday situation in China during that timeframe? Disney may be trying to maximize their profits there by pushing it as a regular summer blockbuster.
That said, we know they've wanted the summer slot for a while now, I seem to recall TLJ or Rogue One being originally planned for a summer release date too.
So it's entirely possible that Disney put their foot down to try to get this release schedule on track.
Or maybe they knew they were going to take a hit post TLJ and opted to release sooner so they could give people time to get over Star Wars fatigue?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, in the off-chance that someone here hasn't seen it. I think RLM offered a fair, even-handed review.
Manchu wrote: Rich Evans is the smartest guy on RLM.
When Jay says he didn't get any feelings from the movie, especially between Han and Qi'ra, I just kept in mind that he loved that bizarro worm sex scene from that one Best of the Worst episode.
Manchu wrote: Yeah, I am also not convinced that Solo's problem was lack of marketing. I think people knew about the film and just did not bother to see it. But I don't think it's because there is any demographic that's been "raised on" TFA or TLJ or that Han Solo is not a compelling character. Indeed, this kind of film is well-suited to the kind of folks who like Clone Wars and Rebels. I think that TLJ put a deeper hurt on the franchise than studio execs understand and it needed (and still needs) more time to heal.
Justice League, and the whole WB/DC debacle, is really not comparable.
Justice League was a most enjoyable Marvel style film - not a steaming pile of gak like TLJ
I imagine Execs will also be looking at the Blu-ray/ DVD market for TLJ and Solo - I paid for TLJ I certainly won't waste any more money on the DVD, however I will watch Solo on Sky and if tis good will buy the DVD.
Marvel style, but lacking in their recent quality by a lot. And if anything it's production is polar opposite to TLJ. Justice league suffered from lack of clear direction and focus at the top lvl. TLJ does not, if anyhting it suffers from a lack of such interference. Justice league has a by the numbers superhero get together macguffin plot. TLJ is anything but a committee mas marketing movie. No matter how flashy the visuals.
I haven't seen Solo yet. Mostly because I went to see Infinity war and I don't visit cinema's very often. So think Solo's biggest issues are franchise (sort of) fatigue, overcrowded slot and lack of marketing build up. In the build to TFA or TLj there was no escaping the building around the movie whereas with Solo absolutely non.
Manchu wrote: Yeah, I am also not convinced that Solo's problem was lack of marketing. I think people knew about the film and just did not bother to see it. But I don't think it's because there is any demographic that's been "raised on" TFA or TLJ or that Han Solo is not a compelling character. Indeed, this kind of film is well-suited to the kind of folks who like Clone Wars and Rebels. I think that TLJ put a deeper hurt on the franchise than studio execs understand and it needed (and still needs) more time to heal.
Justice League, and the whole WB/DC debacle, is really not comparable.
Among the diehard fans who post on internet forums, TLJ probably left a mark, but I just haven't heard that kind of negative reaction IRL from the casual fans who make up most of the movie-going audience. I know that fits the narrative you want, but one divisive film isn't going turn the masses off to the cultural juggernaut that is SW. If the the bad films that constitute the prequel trilogy didn't kill the franchise, TLJ definitely won't among casual fans that will be more turned off by bad filmmaking than divisiveness.
IMO, Rogue One outperformed Solo because general audiences simply found the concept more appealing -- a war film telling the story of events that lead directly into the first film. Solo was what it said it would be on the can -- a film about one particular character's backstory, and not greater events going on. While an iconic character, it's missing the iconic actor, and it's a character that young people haven't bonded with like us older, OT-centric folks. The story also isn't particularly revelatory or relevant to the current trilogy. It mostly gives us explanations for small character details that we knew about already. That's cool for the diehards, but for general audiences...meh?
You can dismiss this stuff, but when you add it all up, there are reasons to think there could be some box office softness. The film also had a very troubled production that went down to the wire, and it's important to consider that the studio likely wasn't sure exactly what they had on their hands until later in the process than normal. There was probably some fear about a JL scenario.
And when budgets hit $250 mil...good lord. You start thinking it needs to pull in a billion, and a billion dollars is a massive number, no matter how easy earlier SW and Marvel films made it look. These character one shot films should be $150 mil, tops. Completely understandable why they might have capped the marketing budget. But again, I don't think there were any issues about awareness of the movie or understanding of the concept. There were just fewer people interested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: Marvel style, but lacking in their recent quality by a lot. And if anything it's production is polar opposite to TLJ. Justice league suffered from lack of clear direction and focus at the top lvl. TLJ does not, if anyhting it suffers from a lack of such interference. Justice league has a by the numbers superhero get together macguffin plot. TLJ is anything but a committee mas marketing movie. No matter how flashy the visuals.
I would say that JL is the result of a lot of studio meddling...after they learned that people were turned off by the auteur filmmaker they had committed to and given full creative control. It was their blind faith in Snyder that put the studio in that spot, and there was really no way for them to win after the mistake had been made. Don't meddle and get savaged again like they did with BvS, or meddle and risk having it come out a mess?
Solo avoided the situation by taking the hit and making it a near complete do-over, instead of trying to fix and salvage and cobble together.
But it really doesn't make sense to pull the marketing, not to the extent that they did. Once you're in for as much as they were, you'd still want to do some pushing.
Or alternately wait to release the movie. They could have always sat on the film for 6 months.
This "diehard fan" counternarrative is totally bankrupt. None of my IRL family, friends, or acquaintances liked The Last Jedi and many (most?) of them don't care about Star Wars. Memorably, how much everyone hated TLJ was the icebreaker at a party I went to in January. I'm not saying nobody liked the film. In my experience, however, people are counting outright apathy as equivalent to liking the film and this is masking the real damage TLJ has done to the brand.
Solo made a big effort to reach out to people who closely follow the Star Wars brand, even to the point that its climactic reveal risked confusing people not as tuned in. If TLJ had united rather than divided opinion about the direction of Disney SW, this would have been a cause for celebration rather than an occasion to rethink the entire Lucasfilm strategy.
R1 is a very weak premise and I think it would have also bombed following TLJ. Leading up to Solo's release and immediately after, the media catchphrase was "the movie no one asked for" - something that applies much more to R1. R1 is worse film than Solo on every count but especially acting and writing. The one thing R1 has over Solo, and holy moly did Disney ever bank hard on this, was an excuse to trot out Darth Vader.
I completely agree that Disney overspent on Solo. I love the way the movie looks but nothing about the result justifies a $250 - $350 million price tag.
Grey Templar wrote: But it really doesn't make sense to pull the marketing, not to the extent that they did. Once you're in for as much as they were, you'd still want to do some pushing.
Or alternately wait to release the movie. They could have always sat on the film for 6 months.
Which of course, they could not have. But they could have believed it and self-fulfilled that prophecy.
The movie didn't actually suck. To the contrary, it is the best Disney SW film by far. But as we know, there is virtually no correlation between quality and box office performance above a certain budget.
This "diehard fan" counternarrative is totally bankrupt. None of my IRL family, friends, or acquaintances liked The Last Jedi and many (most?) of them don't care about Star Wars. Memorably, how much everyone hated TLJ was the icebreaker at a party I went to in January. I'm not saying nobody liked the film. In my experience, however, people are counting outright apathy as equivalent to liking the film and this is masking the real damage TLJ has done to the brand.
.
Agreed its wierd how people want to pretend that only "diehard fans" did not enjoy the Last Jedi.
I know a few people who quite liked it and one single person who loved it - the rest (VAST majority) thought it was gak or worse - for some it was only the second SW film they had seen.
Which of course, they could not have. But they could have believed it and self-fulfilled that prophecy.
The movie didn't actually suck. To the contrary, it is the best Disney SW film by far. But as we know, there is virtually no correlation between quality and box office performance above a certain budget.
Yes. It could have bombed in polling and test audiences, and it became better to limit the loss. Had the marketed it heavily they would have just lost a lot more.
I keep waiting for one person I know IRL to say they liked TLJ. I am careful not to pre-load conversations about movies, especially ones I don't like, because I like to hear (so far as possible) unvarnished opinions - it's very instructive. For example, a girl at another party was explaining why she liked the ending of R1 (something I hated) and gave a very compelling reason: she had no idea where the movie fit into the rest of the Star Wars movies until the very end.
Which of course, they could not have. But they could have believed it and self-fulfilled that prophecy.
The movie didn't actually suck. To the contrary, it is the best Disney SW film by far. But as we know, there is virtually no correlation between quality and box office performance above a certain budget.
When a company like Disney makes a movie like Solo they have cost to profit projections. They knew what kind of budget they wanted to spend on a side movie that ultimately added nothing. All the time since they announced solo was a thing they heard the people going cool and they also heard all the people going... what exactly is the point? What could this possibly add to the mythos of any value?
They knew if they spent x they could turn a profit of about y, which meant they had about z for marketing. When they had to reshoot 80% of it and Solo became the most expensive SW movie ever made there was no digging themselves out of their hole. All their projections said the movie would fail. But DVD/Blu Ray sales could help and it's better to have a good looking well made movie in the roster that bombed in theaters then a bad movie that is a blight. So they gave the special effects a full go and as it all ate into the marketing budget and beyond they released it to little to no fanfare because spending MORE on marketing wasn't going to suddenly make it profitable.
As explained above, this issue is not marketing dollars but rather marketing days, i.e., why the movie was released only five months after TLJ and even more closely following Black Panther and Infinity War. My sense is, there were bad comms up and down the corporate ladder, which in turn signifies trust issues.
Manchu wrote: I keep waiting for one person I know IRL to say they liked TLJ. I am careful not to pre-load conversations about movies, especially ones I don't like, because I like to hear (so far as possible) unvarnished opinions - it's very instructive. For example, a girl at another party was explaining why she liked the ending of R1 (something I hated) and gave a very compelling reason: she had no idea where the movie fit into the rest of the Star Wars movies until the very end.
Maybe we travel in different circles. Most of my friends and co-workers aren't big SW fans. I haven't talked to one person who's displayed anything close to the venom the movie receives online. The dislikes are more of the 'meh' variety than 'TLJ is a travesty and I'm going to outline why in great detail for you'. The biggest SW fan I know -- a guy who's gone in costume to premieres, etc. -- loves TLJ and thinks it was badly needed. *shrug*
And this idea that you have that Solo is a dramatically better movie than Rogue One isn't supported by critic reviews, Cinemascore, PostTrak, or the week-over-week box office 'legs' that you'd expect to see if audience word-of-mouth was great. You're entitled to your opinion, but there's nothing to suggest that it's an opinion most people would agree with.
Personally, I don't think it's a *bad* film, but it's nothing I'd tell people to rush out and see. It's probably more interesting to the diehards you don't think exist(?) than to general audiences.
Obviously an extended explanation of how bad TLJ was would be unusual IRL. I mean, unless you are talking about someone with very low self awareness, most people are not going to give you a detailed breakdown while you stand there. By contrast, a discussion forum is exactly the venue for that kind of, er, well, discussion.
I don't know what to make of your comment about professional critics. Professional critics raved over both R1 and TLJ. Frankly, they are demonstrably off base (even setting aside that it's a hopelessly compromised profession). Reading over these reviews, I don't see any discussion of fundamentals like characterization or plot coherence. Ron Howard's version of Solo, by contrast, demonstrates mastery over these fundamental points - points that are weak-to-absent in R1 and TLJ. We can go over this in extreme detail, if you like.
And I know there is a such thing as a diehard Star Wars fan. I was one, up to 1999. And when TFA came out, I felt that old spirit stir once more. But then we got R1, a vapid, miserable exercise in nonsense. If you can believe it, I actually was convinced TLJ would be a recovery for the franchise. Boy was I wrong!
TFA has major flaws. It tracks ANH to the point of absurdity - so closely, in fact, that Han Solo even has a line making fun of it. But TFA had only ONE job and that was to create a cast of new characters who were likable. And it succeeded in that. I could not wait to see more adventures with the new characters after watching TFA. In fact, I really could not wait, so I went to see TFA again in the theater and of course bought the movie on bluray. I think JJ totally whiffed on explaining what is going on in the setting but I figured, all in good time. What was important was, here are new characters that are great! Plus there were some genuinely exciting shots of space ships flying around (strangely absent from both R1 and TLJ). I give it a B+.
R1 is a great looking film. But the characters are wafer thin. Despite that, the script asks the characters to be very passionate. It's like asking someone to catch a baseball in a tissue. The plot meanders all over the place because none of the first two acts mean anything or are necessary to the premise. When the actual movie begins in the third act there is practically no tension because the Empire is colossally ineffective. Yes, the characters die one-by-one but this seems to be because there is nothing more for them to do. Before that moment when they become useless, they are (in two cases, literally) unkillable. Finally, the movie sort of admits none of this is interesting and it was all just an allusion to a much better movie made forty years earlier, with a hilariously over the top (basically pornographic) Vader scene and a hideously embarassing CGI Princess Leia. I give it a C-, which seems generous - but it was very pretty, after all, and I thought Director Krennic was a wonderful depiction of the Empire as callous, ruthless, but ultimately petty.
Manchu wrote: TFA has major flaws. It tracks ANH to the point of absurdity - so closely, in fact, that Han Solo even has a line making fun of it. But TFA had only ONE job and that was to create a cast of new characters who were likable. And it succeeded in that. I could not wait to see more adventures with the new characters after watching TFA. In fact, I really could not wait, so I went to see TFA again in the theater and of course bought the movie on bluray. I think JJ totally whiffed on explaining what is going on in the setting but I figured, all in good time. What was important was, here are new characters that are great! Plus there were some genuinely exciting shots of space ships flying around (strangely absent from both R1 and TLJ). I give it a B+.{/quote]
Of the new cast, I found one ok (the ST guy). The other two felt like bad knock offs of SW characters. More importantly:
The bad guys. Oh jeez they were terrible. They weren't even bad, just pathetic. EMO Anakin Not Vader. Lame Not Palpatine. Really Not DeathStar 3.
They were the epitomy of my problem with most kids comic book movies now. Its all about the "good guy." The BGs are almost an after thought.
R1 is a great looking film. But the characters are wafer thin. Despite that, the script asks the characters to be very passionate. It's like asking someone to catch a baseball in a tissue. The plot meanders all over the place because none of the first two acts mean anything or are necessary to the premise. When the actual movie begins in the third act there is practically no tension because the Empire is colossally ineffective. Yes, the characters die one-by-one but this seems to be because there is nothing more for them to do. Before that moment when they become useless, they are (in two cases, literally) unkillable. Finally, the movie sort of admits none of this is interesting and it was all just an allusion to a much better movie made forty years earlier, with a hilariously over the top (basically pornographic) Vader scene and a hideously embarassing CGI Princess Leia. I give it a C-, which seems generous - but it was very pretty, after all, and I thought Director Krennic was a wonderful depiction of the Empire as callous, ruthless, but ultimately petty.
R1 was a war movie with half decent bad guys again. Greatest ever? hardly. But fun menacing bad guys.
I have the same issue with so many of these genre movies having weak, afterthought villains. That's why I like Kylo Ren in TFA. He's not inspiring or anything but at least he is somewhat complex, in that he is a tryhard and wannabe. I also liked Hux as a lunatic/fanatic. Snoke is dumb. Even if it made no narrative sense, I enjoyed watching him die in TLJ. As for the good guys: I really enjoyed the dynamic between Finn and Poe at the beginning of the film, that felt so fun and fresh to me. I figured we would learn more about Rey in Episode VIII so I definitely gave TFA a pass there. But Daisy was so likeable, it was hard not to. The final fight in TFA is top drawer Star Wars, thanks to the characterization rather than effects or choreography or whatever.
I can't agree that anyone was menacing in R1, except for maybe Forest Whittaker as a crazy guy who tortures people for no reason (which he suddenly wasn't in his next scene). The Death Troopers look so cool but in the very first scene of the movie a civilian easily gets the drop on them. As usual, a bad script makes fun of itself: Krennic turns to the audience and asks "why aren't we doing anything?" as the Rebels assault the super secure Imperial base.
Manchu wrote: I keep waiting for one person I know IRL to say they liked TLJ. I am careful not to pre-load conversations about movies, especially ones I don't like, because I like to hear (so far as possible) unvarnished opinions - it's very instructive. For example, a girl at another party was explaining why she liked the ending of R1 (something I hated) and gave a very compelling reason: she had no idea where the movie fit into the rest of the Star Wars movies until the very end.
The only person I know who really liked TLJ is my 9 year old niece. I know a bunch of people who were 'meh' about it and several 30-40 year old guys who love SW who hated it.
Besides me*, the only people I know in real life who loved TLJ were either: 1) children, 2) smitten with porgs to the point of tears, 3) prequel apologists. I went to parties with two different groups of friends in January, and both times TLJ came up in conversation as a franchise killer. (The prequel apologists weren't at those parties.)
*I love TLJ as space opera spectacle. It's also bad Star Wars.
As for TFA, I liked Ren a lot, enjoyed the Jakku scenes and loved the actors' performances if not all their characters, but the negatives outweighed all of that and the direction, pacing, and JJ factor (mystery boxes, weak ending, no sense of scale or how characters interact to make scenes that drive the movie) completely ruined it for me. The prequels made me not a fan of Star Wars and TFA made me not a fan of Star Wars all over again...
...However, I loved R1. I tend to agree with the structural problems in the film, although I think a lot of the actors did great jobs making unlikeable characters more likeable. I tend to think R1, like ROTJ, is less than the sum of its parts but some of the good parts are so good they make the movie for me. It also felt like actual Star Wars, which was a nice change of pace.
Leaving the theater, I liked Solo almost as much as R1. I'll definitely buy it and rewatch it, and maybe my views on it will change. I would love to see more Star Wars movies in the Solo mold, and it saddens me that we may never get any more.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can we agree that
Well, I can agree that R1 "felt like" Star Wars, or rather, felt like it was set in the authentic Star Wars setting. And I love the scene where Krennic goes to see Darth Vader. Visually, it was so thematic. It had a touch of humor. It was a great character moment for Krennic, who is the only developed character in R1. Other than Ben Mendelsohn, I think the only other good performances were Mads Mikkelsen and Alan Tudyk. I didn't care that much about Mr. Tudyk's character but he sure made it work, as far as it possibly could. Felicity Jones was simply awful, like she hated the job. R1 is a movie I feel could have been a lot better, whereas TLJ just is what it is, a rotten mess from beginning to end with a couple of charming but totally inappropriate puppy love scenes between Rey and Kylo Ren.
Solo combined the exciting action and charming characters I liked from TFA with the gritty look of R1. Plus, like I said, at least in Ron Howard's version, Solo spends a lot of time on characterization and steady plot progression. I know critics have a hard time writing hot takes on conventional movies but yeah there is nothing wrong with getting the basics down very solidly so that when you have those pay off moments (Han shot first) they actually feel like pay offs.
Manchu wrote: Well, I can agree that R1 "felt like" Star Wars, or rather, felt like it was set in the authentic Star Wars setting. And I love the scene where Krennic goes to see Darth Vader. Visually, it was so thematic. It had a touch of humor. It was a great character moment for Krennic, who is the only developed character in R1. Other than Ben Mendelsohn, I think the only other good performances were Mads Mikkelsen and Alan Tudyk. I didn't care that much about Mr. Tudyk's character but he sure made it work, as far as it possibly could. Felicity Jones was simply awful, like she hated the job. R1 is a movie I feel could have been a lot better, whereas TLJ just is what it is, a rotten mess from beginning to end with a couple of charming but totally inappropriate puppy love scenes between Rey and Kylo Ren.
Solo combined the exciting action and charming characters I liked from TFA with the gritty look of R1. Plus, like I said, at least in Ron Howard's version, Solo spends a lot of time on characterization and steady plot progression. I know critics have a hard time writing hot takes on conventional movies but yeah there is nothing wrong with getting the basics down very solidly so that when you have those pay off moments (Han shot first) they actually feel like pay offs.
I've not heard many reviews dissing Solo, other than being light summer entertainment - which frankly what the SW movies always were and were designed to be. Personally I am looking forward to renting it.
But the competition has upped its game summer blockbuster wise from when SW was the massive big dog-and Disney had previously been wise in running them in December. Running a SW now against these other tentpoles just divides those tentpole dollars. Frankly I was way more interested in Deadpool and Incredibles.
I do wonder what was driving the push vs. running Solo in December or just when there were less tentpoles running. Are they planning on another SW movie in December? Maybe Disney is planning other tentpoles for December this year?
gorgon wrote: Most of my friends and co-workers aren't big SW fans. I haven't talked to one person who's displayed anything close to the venom the movie receives online. The dislikes are more of the 'meh' variety than 'TLJ is a travesty and I'm going to outline why in great detail for you'.
I'm curious. How many of those 'meh's do you think are going to show up for Episode 9 in the theater? It doesn't matter if a potential customer passionately hates a product or merely is disinterested, they're still not buying your product.
So, I think Rogue One and Solo may make an interesting contrast, in terms of being merely "OK" Movies.
Rogue one had a slow first half, and about two characters too many in the main ensemble. However, it also had some of the best star wars action with the battle of Scarif, and Darth Vader steals every scene he is in. So it has high highs, and low lows.
Solo, in contrast, is fairly evenly okay throughout. Nothing particularly bad, but no moment that makes me go "Wow".
The answer to the question "Why did this film come out in May?" might be that they were wanting to increase the frequency of Star Wars films; one big one at Christmas, and a "spinoff" in spring/summer. Apparently there's no appetite for that.
gorgon wrote: Most of my friends and co-workers aren't big SW fans. I haven't talked to one person who's displayed anything close to the venom the movie receives online. The dislikes are more of the 'meh' variety than 'TLJ is a travesty and I'm going to outline why in great detail for you'.
I'm curious. How many of those 'meh's do you think are going to show up for Episode 9 in the theater? It doesn't matter if a potential customer passionately hates a product or merely is disinterested, they're still not buying your product.
Answering that question is like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone who thought it was just okay will be back for Episode IX because it's Star Wars. A single divisive film can't sink that franchise, and even the 'hurt' fans still stomping their feet and holding their breaths will be right back on board when the first kicka** trailer for IX drops.
Solo failed for its own reasons, not because there was some kind of protest going on with general audiences. There may have been individuals doing exactly that, and that's their right. But identifying it as the primary reason is awfully delusional, IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Solo, in contrast, is fairly evenly okay throughout. Nothing particularly bad, but no moment that makes me go "Wow".
Right? It goes down easy enough, but it's nothing that will stick to your bones.
And when you have a movie that had a lot of 'meh' buzz and interest leading up to its release -- and then some 'meh' reviews and experiences after release -- it really isn't too hard to figure out why the box office was soft.
Loved Rogue 1 and still do. R1 and ANH are all I really need anymore in my Star Wars universe.
I hate the new trilogy and wont bother seeing part 3. Looks like they are bringing the original Lando back and why not? Everyone else is dead. I was going to guess they would kill him too, but probably for some PC reason they wont. or maybe to spare the fans of yet another death of one of their early heros.
I haven't seen Solo either and prob wont until its on TV or Netflix some day. I am doubtful I'll even get it on demand. I am just over Star Wars and what the people in power at Disney are doing, that its hard for me to accept that its just a movie. I never needed an early movie about Han, nor need one about Fett. I got enough of those characters to conclude what they were like anyway, or imagined it as a kid while playing with my toys. While I feel R1 fills in a hole in the over all story arch, Han and Fett are just cash grabs. Its like, 'we don't have any great ideas about new characters, so here are some movies about the characters we've killed off.' Not paying for that.
I love Star Wars for what it did for me as a kid, but its jumped the shark. And while kids might like it, I am sure they do not love it as much as my generation did when the first films came out. I am not sure people are going to care as much about Star Wars 10 years from now as they do today either.
KTG17 wrote: Loved Rogue 1 and still do. R1 and ANH are all I really need anymore in my Star Wars universe.
(snip)
I haven't seen Solo either and prob wont until its on TV or Netflix some day. I am doubtful I'll even get it on demand.
I wouldn't consider myself a huge Star Wars fan. I didn't see the original trilogy until I was around 27 or so, and didn't think they were amazing. I also thought Solo looked pretty meh and had zero intentions of seeing it. Han Solo wasn't even that cool of a character IMO.
I kept hearing people loved it, though, so eventually I caught a matinee, and you know what? It was pretty solid honestly.
I wouldn't consider myself a huge Star Wars fan. I didn't see the original trilogy until I was around 27 or so, and didn't think they were amazing.
I can completely understand this. Keep in mind I was a little kid when the originals came out, and there just wasn't anything like it. Especially regarding the toys. I think that gets overlooked as to why some adults are so attached to Star Wars. I spent far more time playing with the toys than watching the films, and made up my own stories with my heros, or made up new ones. Lots of great times battling around my bunk bed, backyard, at friends houses, trading or borrowing toys, etc. Its hard to capture that time to younger people because toys have largely been replaced by video games. Had there been no Star Wars toys, I don't doubt that Star Wars would still be a popular film, but I think its the toys that set if from the others at the time. It took the early years of GI Joe to knock Star Wars off the top spot in toy sales some 8 years later. And I really think that is the root at why older fans have been pissed about dissing Han and Luke in the new trilogy. There aren't just characters on a film screen, they are friends we played alongside with so to speak. So to have them treated like stage props to move the story of newer characters that are no where near as interesting, feels like betrayal. That is why I say I have all I need at this point. I don't need the history diluted anymore than it has become.
And its not just the current trilogy's fault. The Prequels are terrible too. We have a long history now where there are more Star Wars films that blow than are actually really awesome.
I also thought Solo looked pretty meh and had zero intentions of seeing it. Han Solo wasn't even that cool of a character IMO.
I kept hearing people loved it, though, so eventually I caught a matinee, and you know what? It was pretty solid honestly.
If you liked R1 you should consider Solo.
What if instead of Solo, they just made up a new character and the story ran alongside the new trilogy? Would it still have been a great story? I feel like the solo part would be interchangeable unless he has some definitive Solo moments...
He does have some definitive Solo moments, such as when he meets Chewie and wins the Falcon from Lando. If you replaced him with some other guy, the movie would still be solid, but the characters would seem like rip-offs of Han, Chewie and Lando.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: He does have some definitive Solo moments, such as when he meets Chewie and wins the Falcon from Lando. If you replaced him with some other guy, the movie would still be solid, but the characters would seem like rip-offs of Han, Chewie and Lando.
I guess it would be interesting if they had just made a new character in place of solo, and ran the story within the current trilogy, with the bad guys being the First Order as opposed to the Empire, not only would it help pave the path forward, but it would actually help cement the First Order as more than a pop-up, fragile group of bad guys. Certainly there is more going on in the universe than the First Order and a small band of rebels no one seems to care about. I think it would have helped the current timeline, which is something it badly needs.
Events going on around the time of the original trilogy are already well defined and considered classic at this point. Given the animosity for the current trilogy, I wonder if they will ever go back and tell any stories within this period once it closes. I bet they do not, which does hurt it. That is one thing that seems to hold this era back: it doesn't feel as expansive or epic as the previous ones. Adding more stories within this timeline would probably help that.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The sequel era is garbage and already unsalvageable. The best thing Disney could do is move to some other era and try to do it right this time.
I think this is a symptom of a greater problem at Disney. They have been having some problems making movies for a bit. They still make some interesting hits, but they have had problems.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: He does have some definitive Solo moments, such as when he meets Chewie and wins the Falcon from Lando. If you replaced him with some other guy, the movie would still be solid, but the characters would seem like rip-offs of Han, Chewie and Lando.
I dunno how that would work. To me, so much of the movie was 'and this was how Han...' that not much would be left if you take him out.
Anyone seen "Age of Adeline" ? It is a recent movie that has Harrison Ford in it and there is an actor that plays his character as a young man. That actor WAS a young Harrison Ford.
I wish they got him to be in Solo.
That's what I meant when I said they would feel like ripoffs. If the film was about smuggler Tandor Itchikan meeting his bestie, Crunchamunchka the Garthok, and out swindling the swindler, Blast Petticoat, people would find the characters derivative. This is not just a generic Star Wars movie with Han Solo and friends shoe-horned in, but a film built around the mythology of Han and Chewie and Lando.
Lucasfilm could have made a standalone adventure movie about the seedy underbelly of the Star Wars universe that did not star Han Solo. Lucasfilm could also have made a standalone war movie about early militant resistance to the Empire that wasn't about stealing the Death Star plans. But the key task of this first wave of Disney Star Wars films is to prove that Disney Star Wars is still "real" Star Wars. So the strategy was to tie all these new movies very closely to the Original Trilogy.
I think Solo was designed to help branch out into the larger universe, hence the surprise end cameo and reference to other characters and events that were not part of the Original Trilogy.
Solo's poor performance is bad news for the brand because Solo was a very good movie, very well made and beautifully populated in terms of set and costume design, and also just very lovely in terms of its balanced tone. I think we would have seen some very good follow up films if this one had done better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OH and shout out to Bob for those great knock off names.
Galef wrote: Anyone seen "Age of Adeline" ? It is a recent movie that has Harrison Ford in it and there is an actor that plays his character as a young man. That actor WAS a young Harrison Ford.
I wish they got him to be in Solo.
Yah, good call on that. Also a pretty good movie imo.
Galef wrote: Anyone seen "Age of Adeline" ? It is a recent movie that has Harrison Ford in it and there is an actor that plays his character as a young man. That actor WAS a young Harrison Ford.
I wish they got him to be in Solo.
Hey, I completely forgot about that guy. He did look a good deal like Ford and he pulled off many of his mannerisms.
Alden Ehrenreich did a good job in Solo, though, IMO.
Don't know if the Adeline guy could have pulled off Solo like Alden did.
Wonder if he was considered by the casting folks.
If only Solo could have had the awesome narration that Age of Adeline had "At that very instant, Lando hoped to retrieve the card from his sleeve that would win him not only the hand but the entire game.
What he couldn't have known was that his new human sabaac opponent had flim-flammed the flim-flammer.
Four hundred micro-joules was the exact amount of energy needed for..."
Still haven't gone to see the movie. Wait probably for 5€ DVD when it comes out. TLJ was so bad not feeling like spending much money on new star wars movies and one that's just some background of character. Trailers also don't leave me "must see" feeling.
I am starting to feel this way about movies in general. I used to love going to movies, but felt a lot of it could have been fine renting later. I started reserving movie time for only those movies worth seeing on IMAX or IMAX 3D, or superhero Blockbusters. So when I go I go all out. So me and my girl, $15 a ticket each, then another 20 or so on food and drink, and I am like, this better be good. Most of the time I am ok with the time I have, but there has to be some great visuals to make it worth seeing on that format. So this means I don't go and see dramas or comedies as I don't think they are worth that. I wait till they come out on demand for those.
But lately I am like, well, if I can wait for those, I can wait for the blockbusters too. I have an awesome set up at home with a huge TV and a great sound system. What my home doesn't have is the excitement of the audience, but I am also tired of hearing kids crying at 11pm shows or other disturbances, or missing scenes cause I have to take a piss, so I have come around to realizing that the best seat is probably in my family room.
I waited 2 years for Infinity War and thought I would be first in line but things got messed up with my group of friends and we had a terrible time trying to get everyone together it just didn't happen. At this point I've already seen all the leaked footage (well, I saw that before the film was released here), so I guess that has settled some of that excitement too. Guess I will just wait to see that on demand as well.
So it's not just Disney at fault, I guess my viewing habits and attitudes have changed. I guess maybe I am more critical of the films too, so when I do go, I want it to be worth it. If its not I can think of other things to spend that money on.
I can sympathize with that. Theaters don't do enough to help keep the experience positive. My wife and I stopped going to the cool theaters all the kids use and tend to watch movies at the boring old person theaters. The experience there is still great.
We also have completely opposite viewing habits. We watch movies at home very rarely, usually Star Wars or something our son will enjoy, and on a laptop because we still have our TV in a box in the closet from the last move six years ago. We go to the movies more often than we watch them at home.
In think a lot of this is a change in the generation and how we view movies. Growing up, going to the movies was a treat. You couldn't stream them, and waiting for them to rent seemed to take forever. There was not Redbox or Netflix.
But now, kids have youtube and online gaming. Leaving the house is treated as a choir (at least if you ask my kids).
I still enjoy going to the movies. That excitement is so much a part of my being that no matter how "inconvenient" the experience becomes, I still want the experience. I want to give that experience to my boys, because it meant so much to me as a boy.
I have to say, the biggest disappointment for me is the constant complaining I see on the internet. I actually liked TLJ when I saw it. Sure it wasn't what I "wanted", but stories can be like that and it's ok. I didn't actual accept that is was a "bad movie" until reading over and over online. Yeah, it's bad. But Ep IX can still fix it.
Maybe I am just too optimistic and "choose" to enjoy the movie experience. I "choose" to like TLJ. Because it IS Star Wars. Nothing can change that. It's cannon, you have to accept it. So I choose to like it, with all it's flaws and missed opportunities.
I almost let the criticism and hate for TLJ make me miss out on Solo. I am glad I did not. I saw it opening weekend. I enjoyed it. Maybe it's good, maybe I am just "choosing" to like it.
But for those on the fence, if you want to hate SW because you are recently disappointed, seeing Solo isn't likely to change your mind. If, however, you are willing to give it a chance, you might be pleasantly surprised.
Galef wrote: In think a lot of this is a change in the generation and how we view movies. Growing up, going to the movies was a treat. You couldn't stream them, and waiting for them to rent seemed to take forever. There was not Redbox or Netflix.
But now, kids have youtube and online gaming. Leaving the house is treated as a choir (at least if you ask my kids).
I still enjoy going to the movies. That excitement is so much a part of my being that no matter how "inconvenient" the experience becomes, I still want the experience. I want to give that experience to my boys, because it meant so much to me as a boy.
I have to say, the biggest disappointment for me is the constant complaining I see on the internet. I actually liked TLJ when I saw it. Sure it wasn't what I "wanted", but stories can be like that and it's ok. I didn't actual accept that is was a "bad movie" until reading over and over online. Yeah, it's bad. But Ep IX can still fix it.
Maybe I am just too optimistic and "choose" to enjoy the movie experience. I "choose" to like TLJ. Because it IS Star Wars. Nothing can change that. It's cannon, you have to accept it. So I choose to like it, with all it's flaws and missed opportunities.
I almost let the criticism and hate for TLJ make me miss out on Solo. I am glad I did not. I saw it opening weekend. I enjoyed it. Maybe it's good, maybe I am just "choosing" to like it.
But for those on the fence, if you want to hate SW because you are recently disappointed, seeing Solo isn't likely to change your mind. If, however, you are willing to give it a chance, you might be pleasantly surprised.
-
Excellent points.
We view movies as dates when we go out, so we also go the whole hog and I am using looking at about $100. So it better be awesome, else we watch it at home.
I am pretty confident you are not "choosing" to like Solo. Just looking at the structure and basic elements of the movie, all the necessary pieces are there - this can't be said about any other Disney SW movie. And while a movie can be competently assembled without being enjoyable, it really isn't the case with Solo. I went in 100% skeptical but the movie totally won me over.
Excellent points. We view movies as dates when we go out, so we also go the whole hog and I am using looking at about $100. So it better be awesome, else we watch it at home.
Yeah, that's a big difference. We have a local movie theatre in a run down mall here in Dallas, TX that shows movies for only $4 if the time is prior to 4pm and only $6 after. So for me, my wife and 2 boys, it's less than $30 (factoring in gas to drive there). So it isn't so much of an investment if the movie is crap.
The theatre is pretty clean too considering it's the only thing keeping this particular mall open (seriously parts of the mall are block off because everything else is closed) It doesn't have all the fancy extras that theatres have now, but that makes it more like when I was growing up. It's also not very well known, so it's only ever crowded on opening night
Manchu wrote: I am pretty confident you are not "choosing" to like Solo. Just looking at the structure and basic elements of the movie, all the necessary pieces are there - this can't be said about any other Disney SW movie. And while a movie can be competently assembled without being enjoyable, it really isn't the case with Solo. I went in 100% skeptical but the movie totally won me over.
Agreed. It is a very competently made and constructed film. In this day and age, that is a pretty high compliment since so many are not.
I enjoyed SOLO for what it was and really liked the lower stakes. Unlike TLJ or TFA, I felt it actually expanded the Star Wars universe a lot more.
If I could execute evey person talking or unable to close their mouth when eating or rustling something I would enjoy it more.
I don't mid goig with friends but would rather watch stuff at home.
You would hate my friend who buys an extra large bag of popcorn at every movie and methodically annihilates it throughout the first hour. If you can't tune it out, or if you accidentally think about it, it's nauseating.
If I could execute evey person talking or unable to close their mouth when eating or rustling something I would enjoy it more.
I don't mid goig with friends but would rather watch stuff at home.
You would hate my friend who buys an extra large bag of popcorn at every movie and methodically annihilates it throughout the first hour. If you can't tune it out, or if you accidentally think about it, it's nauseating.
That's one reason why I wait a few weeks to see a movie. For example, I haven't seen Incredibles 2 or Fallen Kingdom yet. I plan to see one or both next weekend. When I do, and to the theatre I go to, it is very likely we well be one of the only families there at all.
I've even seen movies as the only people in the theatre
If I could execute evey person talking or unable to close their mouth when eating or rustling something I would enjoy it more.
I don't mid goig with friends but would rather watch stuff at home.
You would hate my friend who buys an extra large bag of popcorn at every movie and methodically annihilates it throughout the first hour. If you can't tune it out, or if you accidentally think about it, it's nauseating.
Yep I would - I Really would.
We only go to Star Wars movies with him these days.
I'd go crazy. Iwent to see infinity war with my sister 2 weeks ago and we were with 7 people in the theatre. Nothing can destroy a movie as quickly as someone dissassembling it while your watching.
Re-reading, sorry my comment was off the discussion about KK was indeed in this thread. Tough I think it slightly inappropriate becaus it started to centers on TLJ's failings, not Solo's.
Earth127 wrote: Re-reading, sorry my comment was off the discussion about KK was indeed in this thread. Tough I think it slightly inappropriate becaus it started to centers on TLJ's failings, not Solo's.
Solo is one of her failures, so I thought it appropriate to put it here, while I liked it more than TLJ, a polished turd is still a turd.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hate watching stuff at home because of the constant stream of idiot questions and commentary from the two women in my life.
"Who's that bloke?"
"Why's he got a gun?"
"Why's he got a hat?"
"Isn't his hat stupid?"
"What's a Maltese Falcon anyway?"
Me: "Sigh..." "The film explains all these things, if you actually watch it! That's what it's for!"
At the cinema they have to shut up and actually watch the film.
OMG you too?!?!
My oldest son can be quite annoying in this regard. Although he actually pays attention, he does seem to know how to just sit in silence. He has to make comments or point out something he thinks is ridiculous. I blame the video games.
I donlt mind talking at hime as it cna be paused etc
Films at the cinema should be viewed in total silence, anyone talking or eating loudly, messing about with fething sweep wrappers etc should be thrown out.
When I went to see A Quiet Place of all movies, this old bastard was coughing and mumbling to himself for a good while until the topper when his phone went off and he answered it and just started having a conversation. It’s the only time I’ve ever had an argument with somebody in the cinema. At least we made them leave.
Back to Solo, do you think
Spoiler:
Maul activating his lightsaber
was a bit ott? Like Vader’s little quip about choking? I seen somebody mention this here before.
Future War Cultist wrote: When I went to see A Quiet Place of all movies, this old bastard was coughing and mumbling to himself for a good while until the topper when his phone went off and he answered it and just started having a conversation. It’s the only time I’ve ever had an argument with somebody in the cinema. At least we made them leave.
Back to Solo, do you think
Spoiler:
Maul activating his lightsaber
was a bit ott? Like Vader’s little quip about choking? I seen somebody mention this here before.
It did seem rather unnecessary, a little too fanservicey. Him throwing his hood back to reveal himself was good enough, especially since she didn't seem high enough the ranks to warrant a show of force on his part.
It may have been ott and "fan-servicey", but I don't think it's too out of character. Force users are few and far between in this time period and Maul wouldn't be above reminding an underling of what he is capable of.
Displaying his lightsaber is a very effective way to do this, and it refutes any doubts among casual movie goers (that didn't watch the Clone Wars) that this really is Maul.
Without the lightsaber, some viewers might think the character was just the same species as Maul, but not actually Maul, since Maul "died" in TPM.
I thought it was too much until i talked with someone who really likes the sw movies but never watched or read any of the shows/expanded materials and so never knew that was alive. He needed me to confirm the characters identity.
While we're on the topic of that character, one thing I picked up on with a second viewing was that Enfys mentioned the Crimson Dawn were acting 'in league with the Empire' when they committed the atrocities in her story. I wonder if that lends some more credence to the theory that
Spoiler:
ultimately, Maul is still answering to Palpatine in some capacity. The Emperor thus uses Vader to enforce the law and Maul to control/monitor those elements that exist outside it.
That also fits with the theme that comes up a few times in Solo that everyone answers to someone eventually.
Paradigm wrote: While we're on the topic of that character, one thing I picked up on with a second viewing was that Enfys mentioned the Crimson Dawn were acting 'in league with the Empire' when they committed the atrocities in her story. I wonder if that lends some more credence to the theory that
Spoiler:
ultimately, Maul is still answering to Palpatine in some capacity. The Emperor thus uses Vader to enforce the law and Maul to control/monitor those elements that exist outside it.
That also fits with the theme that comes up a few times in Solo that everyone answers to someone eventually.
I doubt Maul was willingly working with Sidious, after the events involving Mother Talzin, not to mention his later role in Rebels. I could see it more as profiteering and abusing the corruption present in the Imperial system, similar to how he used Prime Minister Almec as a figurehead when he took control of Mandalore.
Formosa wrote: Good news, looks like Kathleen Kennedy may be on the way out!
So happy about this, now maybe we can ditch the BS politics and get star wars back on track!
Maybe. First Disney has to find someone willing to take her place. Star Wars should be about the easiest franchise in the world to run for a massive profit. KK has fouled the nest so thoroughly no one in the industry wants to take the challenge of cleaning up after her.
Maybe I should apply for the job. I can't do any worse than she did....
Lance845 wrote: SW is a franchise that until disney aquired it had about 2.5 good movies out of 8 and a fan base that rages and hates harder than most.
Its one of the worst things to be in charge of and i would LOVE to watch you be in charge.
People say stuff like that all the time, but despite all the memeing the Prequels have an audience the same way the new films will - among the kids who saw them as their first experience of Star Wars. It's more accurate to say that SW had 6 popular films, though the first three were more popular than the latter, and a huge secondary base of storytelling in books, comics, videogames, and eventually TV that were broadly well regarded though also widely acknowledged as containing more than a few tales that were either rubbish or divisive.
As for the idea that SW fandom is uniquely toxic, that's as garbage as the idea that modern fandoms in general are toxic, or misogynist, or whatever other nonsense they've decided is the reason for a poor reception for their effort other than the apparently utterly impossible "they just made something lots of folk disliked because it wasn't very good or didn't meet their entirely-reasonable-in-context expectations".
I'd happily be in charge of Star Wars, because A: I'm capable of distinguishing disappointment expressed by someone with passion for something from "rage and hate", B; I'm capable of acknowledging that people can dislike something without being motivated by some deep underlying crypto-bigotry, and C; I have the two braincells necessary to grasp that just because the internet can amplify the voices of the tiny minority of genuinely obsessive nutballs or just outright bigoted trolls that always have and always will exist in any fandom for any thing, doesn't mean they're actually a valid measure by which to judge the whole of the fandom, and that I shouldn't use that tiny minority as an excuse to slander the wider fandom in a desperate attempt to protect my job if the decisions I make while in charge don't result in the expected financial return.
Paradigm wrote: While we're on the topic of that character, one thing I picked up on with a second viewing was that Enfys mentioned the Crimson Dawn were acting 'in league with the Empire' when they committed the atrocities in her story. I wonder if that lends some more credence to the theory that
Spoiler:
ultimately, Maul is still answering to Palpatine in some capacity. The Emperor thus uses Vader to enforce the law and Maul to control/monitor those elements that exist outside it.
That also fits with the theme that comes up a few times in Solo that everyone answers to someone eventually.
I doubt Maul was willingly working with Sidious, after the events involving Mother Talzin, not to mention his later role in Rebels. I could see it more as profiteering and abusing the corruption present in the Imperial system, similar to how he used Prime Minister Almec as a figurehead when he took control of Mandalore.
Spoiler:
Willingly? No, and by Rebels he'd clearly either decided to try and get out from under Palpy's thumb or been cast aside and managed to avoid the inevitable attempt to murder him, but IIRC after Sideous kills Savage and beats Maul at the end of the CW crime syndicate arc, he says "Don't worry, I'm not going to kill you. I have...other uses for you *evil badguy cackle*." - using what Maul had already achieved in order to exert influence over the galactic underworld seems like exactly the sort of thing Palpatine would do; he would never accept Maul back as a Sith, but he's shown willing to use other dark side Force-wielders as tools to further his own goals providing he's certain he can control them.
TBH that whole potential arc is the reason I'm annoyed that Kennedy's bumbling might have killed all the anthology films.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hate watching stuff at home because of the constant stream of idiot questions and commentary from the two women in my life.
"Who's that bloke?"
"Why's he got a gun?"
"Why's he got a hat?"
"Isn't his hat stupid?"
"What's a Maltese Falcon anyway?"
Me: "Sigh..." "The film explains all these things, if you actually watch it! That's what it's for!"
At the cinema they have to shut up and actually watch the film.
that's my wife as well, only she's worse because she should know better. she worked at a comic book store for years, didn't recognize captain marvels icon. she's a star wars fan, my son binged watched the clone wars for what seemed a year on Netflix, she didn't know Maul was alive and asked who the guy at the end of solo is. And to make it all the worse it's only towards the end where she'll ask me to basically recap the movie so I miss the wrapping up dialogs.
Lance845 wrote: SW is a franchise that until disney aquired it had about 2.5 good movies out of 8 and a fan base that rages and hates harder than most.
Its one of the worst things to be in charge of and i would LOVE to watch you be in charge.
People say stuff like that all the time, but despite all the memeing the Prequels have an audience the same way the new films will - among the kids who saw them as their first experience of Star Wars. It's more accurate to say that SW had 6 popular films, though the first three were more popular than the latter, and a huge secondary base of storytelling in books, comics, videogames, and eventually TV that were broadly well regarded though also widely acknowledged as containing more than a few tales that were either rubbish or divisive.
The prequels do hav an audience. And this new trilogy ALSO has an audience.
As for the idea that SW fandom is uniquely toxic, that's as garbage as the idea that modern fandoms in general are toxic, or misogynist, or whatever other nonsense they've decided is the reason for a poor reception for their effort other than the apparently utterly impossible "they just made something lots of folk disliked because it wasn't very good or didn't meet their entirely-reasonable-in-context expectations".
ALL fandoms are toxic. But I didn't see the Star Trek fandom write petitions when Into Darkness was a rehash of Wrath of Khan but worse and soulless.
I'd happily be in charge of Star Wars, because A: I'm capable of distinguishing disappointment expressed by someone with passion for something from "rage and hate", B; I'm capable of acknowledging that people can dislike something without being motivated by some deep underlying crypto-bigotry, and C; I have the two braincells necessary to grasp that just because the internet can amplify the voices of the tiny minority of genuinely obsessive nutballs or just outright bigoted trolls that always have and always will exist in any fandom for any thing, doesn't mean they're actually a valid measure by which to judge the whole of the fandom, and that I shouldn't use that tiny minority as an excuse to slander the wider fandom in a desperate attempt to protect my job if the decisions I make while in charge don't result in the expected financial return.
None of which qualifies you to have any idea what so ever what it means to run a multi billion dollar studio with thousands of employees organizing and building several movie, tv, and game projects projects at a time. I would ALSO love to see you thrown into the meat grinder of the thing you think your capable of and watch you flounder.
Lance845 wrote: SW is a franchise that until disney aquired it had about 2.5 good movies out of 8 and a fan base that rages and hates harder than most.
Its one of the worst things to be in charge of and i would LOVE to watch you be in charge.
People say stuff like that all the time, but despite all the memeing the Prequels have an audience the same way the new films will - among the kids who saw them as their first experience of Star Wars. It's more accurate to say that SW had 6 popular films, though the first three were more popular than the latter, and a huge secondary base of storytelling in books, comics, videogames, and eventually TV that were broadly well regarded though also widely acknowledged as containing more than a few tales that were either rubbish or divisive.
As for the idea that SW fandom is uniquely toxic, that's as garbage as the idea that modern fandoms in general are toxic, or misogynist, or whatever other nonsense they've decided is the reason for a poor reception for their effort other than the apparently utterly impossible "they just made something lots of folk disliked because it wasn't very good or didn't meet their entirely-reasonable-in-context expectations".
I'd happily be in charge of Star Wars, because A: I'm capable of distinguishing disappointment expressed by someone with passion for something from "rage and hate", B; I'm capable of acknowledging that people can dislike something without being motivated by some deep underlying crypto-bigotry, and C; I have the two braincells necessary to grasp that just because the internet can amplify the voices of the tiny minority of genuinely obsessive nutballs or just outright bigoted trolls that always have and always will exist in any fandom for any thing, doesn't mean they're actually a valid measure by which to judge the whole of the fandom, and that I shouldn't use that tiny minority as an excuse to slander the wider fandom in a desperate attempt to protect my job if the decisions I make while in charge don't result in the expected financial return.
Paradigm wrote: While we're on the topic of that character, one thing I picked up on with a second viewing was that Enfys mentioned the Crimson Dawn were acting 'in league with the Empire' when they committed the atrocities in her story. I wonder if that lends some more credence to the theory that
Spoiler:
ultimately, Maul is still answering to Palpatine in some capacity. The Emperor thus uses Vader to enforce the law and Maul to control/monitor those elements that exist outside it.
That also fits with the theme that comes up a few times in Solo that everyone answers to someone eventually.
I doubt Maul was willingly working with Sidious, after the events involving Mother Talzin, not to mention his later role in Rebels. I could see it more as profiteering and abusing the corruption present in the Imperial system, similar to how he used Prime Minister Almec as a figurehead when he took control of Mandalore.
Spoiler:
Willingly? No, and by Rebels he'd clearly either decided to try and get out from under Palpy's thumb or been cast aside and managed to avoid the inevitable attempt to murder him, but IIRC after Sideous kills Savage and beats Maul at the end of the CW crime syndicate arc, he says "Don't worry, I'm not going to kill you. I have...other uses for you *evil badguy cackle*." - using what Maul had already achieved in order to exert influence over the galactic underworld seems like exactly the sort of thing Palpatine would do; he would never accept Maul back as a Sith, but he's shown willing to use other dark side Force-wielders as tools to further his own goals providing he's certain he can control them.
TBH that whole potential arc is the reason I'm annoyed that Kennedy's bumbling might have killed all the anthology films.
They released a canon comic surrounding what happened to Maul after he was defeated by Sidious in TCW. He's basically used as bait to get Mother Talzin into the open and Sidious + friends succeed in doing so. Maul escapes, but with a tattered Shadow Collective, Sidious rules him out as any further threat and basically ignores him. The last that's really heard of him is his brief clash with Ahsoka on Mandalore. So I can't really see him being involved with Pappy the way you say he does.
Lance845 wrote: SW is a franchise that until disney aquired it had about 2.5 good movies out of 8 and a fan base that rages and hates harder than most.
Its one of the worst things to be in charge of and i would LOVE to watch you be in charge.
People say stuff like that all the time, but despite all the memeing the Prequels have an audience the same way the new films will - among the kids who saw them as their first experience of Star Wars. It's more accurate to say that SW had 6 popular films, though the first three were more popular than the latter, and a huge secondary base of storytelling in books, comics, videogames, and eventually TV that were broadly well regarded though also widely acknowledged as containing more than a few tales that were either rubbish or divisive.
The prequels do hav an audience. And this new trilogy ALSO has an audience.
I get that you're in a mood right now, but it always pays to read what folk write before replying. I mean crikey, me saying that exact thing isn't even part of a different sentence...
As for the idea that SW fandom is uniquely toxic, that's as garbage as the idea that modern fandoms in general are toxic, or misogynist, or whatever other nonsense they've decided is the reason for a poor reception for their effort other than the apparently utterly impossible "they just made something lots of folk disliked because it wasn't very good or didn't meet their entirely-reasonable-in-context expectations".
ALL fandoms are toxic. But I didn't see the Star Trek fandom write petitions when Into Darkness was a rehash of Wrath of Khan but worse and soulless.
Errr, no chief, all fandoms have an equivalent fractional tiny minority who're toxic, there's a difference. And if you think that part of the Star Trek fandom didn't go full HULK SMASH about JJTrek generally and Into 9/11 Conspiracy Lunacy With Your Host Brandypants Cucumberlump in particular, you weren't paying much attention.
I'd happily be in charge of Star Wars, because A: I'm capable of distinguishing disappointment expressed by someone with passion for something from "rage and hate", B; I'm capable of acknowledging that people can dislike something without being motivated by some deep underlying crypto-bigotry, and C; I have the two braincells necessary to grasp that just because the internet can amplify the voices of the tiny minority of genuinely obsessive nutballs or just outright bigoted trolls that always have and always will exist in any fandom for any thing, doesn't mean they're actually a valid measure by which to judge the whole of the fandom, and that I shouldn't use that tiny minority as an excuse to slander the wider fandom in a desperate attempt to protect my job if the decisions I make while in charge don't result in the expected financial return.
None of which qualifies you to have any idea what so ever what it means to run a multi billion dollar studio with thousands of employees organizing and building several movie, tv, and game projects projects at a time. I would ALSO love to see you thrown into the meat grinder of the thing you think your capable of and watch you flounder.
Wowza. You do understand that the actual work that bigtime executives do doesn't actually require some superhuman level of ability that mere mortals cannot hope to possess, right? And hey, if I floundered, at least I wouldn't be doing any worse than the folk running it at the moment
They released a canon comic surrounding what happened to Maul after he was defeated by Sidious in TCW. He's basically used as bait to get Mother Talzin into the open and Sidious + friends succeed in doing so. Maul escapes, but with a tattered Shadow Collective, Sidious rules him out as any further threat and basically ignores him. The last that's really heard of him is his brief clash with Ahsoka on Mandalore. So I can't really see him being involved with Pappy the way you say he does.
I didn't say he was anything, I speculated - I don't read the comics so as far as I knew Mandalore was the last appearance of Maul before now.
Ah the Toxic Trekkies, havent heard from them in a while, but they certainly do exist, and are much much louder than the Fem Wars fans, not has unbearable though.
Did you see the backlash against Disco yod?
People trying to claim SJW's took over trek, adding same sex romance etc. to it, like it wasnt doing that for the last 40+ years... I dislike the Righttards as much as the Lefttards these days haha
I didnt say it required super human work. I think it requires a particular set of skills and experience. Assuming you or any of the jack holes on the internet could simply walk in and do better is as laughable as me walking into boeing and taking over the design and construction of a new jet.
You have no idea what your doing.
And i didnt see any of the trekkies shouting racial and gender slander at everyone associated with the new startreks. SW is absolutely one of the worst.
Finally, anyone who cares so much about something that matters so little is toxic. Not just the loud minority who go ballistic. But all of them.
Lance845 wrote: I didnt say it required super human work. I think it requires a particular set of skills and experience. Assuming you or any of the jack holes on the internet could simply walk in and do better is as laughable as me walking into boeing and taking over the design and construction of a new jet.
You have no idea what your doing.
And i didnt see any of the trekkies shouting racial and gender slander at everyone associated with the new startreks. SW is absolutely one of the worst.
Finally, anyone who cares so much about something that matters so little is toxic. Not just the loud minority who go ballistic. But all of them.
because the media didn't invent stories about it every day since the movie was dreamt up. For the remade movies, It's hard to shout racial & gender slurs at the one and only black women who's been part of the crew since the beginning. Try recasting kirk as an Asian female and see what happens.
Fun fact, you can be a star wars fan and a star trek fan, liking one doesn't mean you have to hate all other shows. I'd bet a great many are fans of both, so if there is a "toxic fandom" it would span all genres including superheros like the marvel movies. Judging by the marvels successes and diverse cast, it's easy to see that any "toxic fans" are a insignificant minority. It's only when shows are catered to 3rd wave feminists and created solely with that purpose in mind that anyone who doesn't like it get labeled as 'toxic' and those movies are above all legitimate criticisms. Create a good movie like blackpanther, and it draws in the crowds, even though the fandom is supposedly racist.
While there will always be a tiny fraction of bigots and a-holes in every fandom, no one ever describes an entire fandom as toxic until after they have released a terrible movie/game/book. "Toxic fandom" is just a deflection of blame away from one's disappointing creation.
You might have read the part where i said all fandom is toxic. Pointing out how other fandoms have been toxic doesnt make sw fandom any less toxic. They are all toxic and they are all toxic to exactly the extent in which they have been toxic. Its not a competition, and you dont become "less bad" because those guys over there were also bad that time.
Its not a "made up" story that sw fans made a "fan" version of the movie that cut out almost every scene that featured a not white or female character. It wasnt a "made up" report that a characters profile was filled with racial slurs and the acctresses social media was attacked similarly.
Lance845 wrote: I didnt say it required super human work. I think it requires a particular set of skills and experience. Assuming you or any of the jack holes on the internet could simply walk in and do better is as laughable as me walking into boeing and taking over the design and construction of a new jet.
You have no idea what your doing.
And i didnt see any of the trekkies shouting racial and gender slander at everyone associated with the new startreks. SW is absolutely one of the worst.
Finally, anyone who cares so much about something that matters so little is toxic. Not just the loud minority who go ballistic. But all of them.
really?
then you didnt look hard enough, see context is important, trek is a good place for these stupid social politics that are infesting the media these days, its the perfect place for it and i dont mind seeing it in Trek, as trek has always been that way, but star wars, nope, keep that crap out of my sci fantasy series, it doesnt belong, thankfully the star wars fans seem to be with me on this.
Lance845 wrote: You might have read the part where i said all fandom is toxic. Pointing out how other fandoms have been toxic doesnt make sw fandom any less toxic. They are all toxic and they are all toxic to exactly the extent in which they have been toxic. Its not a competition, and you dont become "less bad" because those guys over there were also bad that time.
Its not a "made up" story that sw fans made a "fan" version of the movie that cut out almost every scene that featured a not white or female character. It wasnt a "made up" report that a characters profile was filled with racial slurs and the acctresses social media was attacked similarly.
So you're saying you're a toxic fan.
The tran story was made up, it's weird how she never stated why she left. We just heard from one toxic person who made up why she left, and a lot of toxic people took it as fact. Where is KK hiding tran and not allowing her have a interview to discuss what happened? did KK kill tran? #freetran #wherestran #findtico
Lance845 wrote: I didnt say it required super human work. I think it requires a particular set of skills and experience. Assuming you or any of the jack holes on the internet could simply walk in and do better is as laughable as me walking into boeing and taking over the design and construction of a new jet.
You have no idea what your doing.
And i didnt see any of the trekkies shouting racial and gender slander at everyone associated with the new startreks. SW is absolutely one of the worst.
Finally, anyone who cares so much about something that matters so little is toxic. Not just the loud minority who go ballistic. But all of them.
I actually prefer people to be toxic about things that matter so little. They generally vent their toxin there, and can remain rational for things that DO matter.
You are right about the skills and experience part. But I come cheap compared to most studio executives; there'll be plenty of budget left to pay for an experienced assistant to handle such things. What I bring is long experience in not taking garbage from subordinates, especially from subordinates who are not performing their job up to spec.
Not to mention the ability to spot an incoherent and flawed plotline on the first read through...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Its not a "made up" story that sw fans made a "fan" version of the movie that cut out almost every scene that featured a not white or female character. It wasnt a "made up" report that a characters profile was filled with racial slurs and the acctresses social media was attacked similarly.
Ah, this little piece of trash.
That cut was posted on a facebook page with forty members. So unless you're going to claim Star Wars only has forty fans...
In the real world, we Star Wars fans also tend to like things like The Matrix (strong female character in the part of Trinity), Alien/s (strong female character in the part of Ellen Ripley), Wonder Woman (need I say more?) and Black Panther (which not only feature FOUR strong female characters, they're all black too!). And we objected when Major Kusinagi of Ghost in the Shell was played by a white actress.
Not to mention protesting Finn being written not as a strong character, but as a token comic relief black guy NO different from the role of Harry Block (played by Orlando Jones) in the 2001 movie Evolution.
But yeah, aside from that we're all such terrible racist sexist bigots...
1) i am not a fan. I like some things. I dont give enough of a gak about any media to write letters or get emotional about it.
2) saying some people have been sexist and racist is not the same thing as saying everyone is sexist and racist. I didnt say everyone who is a fan of sw were those things. I said those people exist and they did these things in the name of their fandom. The only thing that could possibly associate you, personally, with those people is you and your actions. If your getting all defensive because people are pointing out that those people did gakky things then what exactly are you getting defensive about?
If you’re not a fan, why have you posted so often in so many TLJ threads?
You also haven't proven that fandom is toxic at all. You've proven that you are toxic to a large number of people based on a negative stereotype you apply to a class based on the actions of a few members within that class. Is there a word for someone who holds negative views about large groups of people and justifies those views by pointing to the possibly-exaggerated actions of a tiny subset?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If you’re not a fan, why have you posted so often in so many TLJ threads?
You also haven't proven that fandom is toxic at all. You've proven that you are toxic to a large number of people based on a negative stereotype you apply to a class based on the actions of a few members within that class. Is there a word for someone who holds negative views about large groups of people and justifies those views by pointing to the possibly-exaggerated actions of a tiny subset?
Well first, this isn't a TLJ thread. This is a Solo thread. Second, I participate in any discussion I feel like i will have fun participating in. Nothing more. Nothing less. Third, i will be in less SW threads when there are less SW threads. But hey, if a new one is going to get started every fuckin week and I feel like I will have fun I will keep being there.
Its not about the subset or the class. I've said it before, fandom, fanatic, fan. All the same root word. To give so much of a gak that watching a movie you don't like makes you "ill" as I have seen people on this forum claim. If there is anything I am remotely close to being a member of a fandom for its Aliens and Predators. But I don't wish ill on Joss Wheddon or Paul W.S. Anderson for Alien Resurrection or the terrible job they did with AVP. Bad movies. The good movies still exist. I will go watch the good ones without slandering the fox executives who were responsible for those movies being made.
I enjoyed SOLO for what it was and really liked the lower stakes. Unlike TLJ or TFA, I felt it actually expanded the Star Wars universe a lot more.
Yeah, this is the strong point of the R1 and Solo compared to TFA and TLJ. Latter two were rehash of the rehash with almost no original themes or scenery because they could not take any risks, better repeat what has been shown to work so everybody is pleased at least a bit. TFA particularly is committee work at its worst. With R1 and Solo, they had more leeway.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: While there will always be a tiny fraction of bigots and a-holes in every fandom, no one ever describes an entire fandom as toxic until after they have released a terrible movie/game/book. "Toxic fandom" is just a deflection of blame away from one's disappointing creation.
No doubt there has been some toxic feedback from fans regarding this series, but for Kennedy and JJ to insult the fanbase back was quite shocking to me. I didn't agree with a lof of what they did, and felt some things were forced down my throat, and if I didn't like it, it meant I hated women or minorities, which is BS. I feel like in order to raise one group of their fans, they stepped on the throat of another, and that other, I hate to say it, is what made Star Wars as big as it is. They have a job because of that group. And this tells you something about pissing off your fan base. A lot of companies have made the mistake and done that very thing and had a hard time recovering.
Take for example NASCAR. NASCAR's roots are in the south. I've gone to some dozen races over the years. When NASCAR went from Winston to NEXTELL, and they expanded out of the south and into the north and west, they faced some issues with corporate sponsors over the Confederate flags showing up on TV. Now, 15 years ago, I would see rebel flags at just about every tailgate on race day. If you are not from the South, I imagine this is where you start thinking that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol and shouldn't be flown anywhere. However, in the South, white southerners DO NOT wave the flag to show they hate minorities. It's just a symbol of the South. Yes, its controversial, but its been that way for a long time. Southern Pride and all that. No white southerner shows up at a NASCAR event waving the rebel flag to show he hates black people. But I imagine people in other parts of the country probably don't get that.
However, pressure from corporate sponsors was so great that NASCAR actually asked their fans not to wave that flag at race events.
Now, before you say big deal, I want you to think about that for a moment. You have fans who are the primary reason the sport exists, being asked by the management of the sport to not display the symbol that they identify themselves with. Meanwhile, ticket prices are going up, the races are moving out of smaller tracks in the south and moving to other parts of the country. Do you think there is going to be some resentment? Of course there is.
And NASCAR today is having huge issues with filling the stands. Just watch a race on TV. TV revenue is still pretty good, but actual attendance is way down. Fans not only have not committed to going to races in the west and north, but more importantly they have dropped off in the south too. And there are several reasons no doubt (rule changes, drivers, cost), but smacking the identity of your own hardcore fans is certainly one of them. NASCAR was a southern sport and had some of the most loyal fans of all North American sports, and NASCAR seemed to forget that, or gamble they could move on without them. Turns out that was a big mistake.
So in the case of Kennedy and JJ, by alienating hardcore Star Wars fans is a terrible idea too. Its not just about ticket sales, but merchandise as well. Are casual fans (besides kids) buying the action figures? Or are the hardcore fans? If you think you can just sub one group for another and keep on trucking you'll be paying for it in the long run. There is nothing wrong with being more inclusive, but know your audience. And certainly make sure you understand them. And don't alienate them.
And I read that in the near future there will be more female super heros in the MCU than male ones. I cringed when I heard that. I know someone will shout 'sexist' here, but are women lining up in droves to see these movies and buy the figures? No. But it just seems forced that this shift is happening. Now I know up till this point the MCU has been really male driven, as it should be, as all these previous characters started out as male. Certainly we can use more female characters of all types, not just the ones that are strong, never make mistakes, and never lose a fight, but I am not sure you are going to get the same number of ticket buyers for some of these other movies in the long run. It just seems that in order to give in to PC and be more inclusive, you have to hold down one group to raise another, and existing fans aren't oblivious to this. They are going to pick up on it when it happens and that's when the groaning starts. I really hope the MCU doesn't piss off fans, because I love it. But if it starts getting predictable in that the Avengers of 2025 will be one where each member is of a different race and gender, transgender, and the strongest is a female minority for example while the weakest is a comical white male for the sake of being more PC, while all the bad guys are white males, you will satisfy one group and annoy another. Whether this is right or not doesn't matter. The fan base will become toxic.
And I don't think the fact that you are introducing different genders or races is the real problem, its the manner of which it is done. And I think this is where Star Wars blew it, and why no one went to see Solo.
Controversial post on my part I know its going to get some slack, but I stand by it.
Unfortunately Marvel/ superhero movies is where you're Nascar example falls flat.
Black panther is one of the most succesfull marvel movies to date. That audience wants diversity. Was/is it such a stretch to believe the star wars crowd wants something similiar?
YMMV but the biggest problem my sister used to have with marvel merch was the lack of female avengers merch. She wanted black widow merch , and they didn't sell it.
Earth127 wrote: Unfortunately Marvel/ superhero movies is where you're Nascar example falls flat.
Black panther is one of the most succesfull marvel movies to date. That audience wants diversity. Was/is it such a stretch to believe the star wars crowd wants something similiar?
YMMV but the biggest problem my sister used to have with marvel merch was the lack of female avengers merch. She wanted black widow merch , and they didn't sell it.
You aren't following my examples. I am not saying you cannot have diversity. I am saying if you alienate your core fans, even for the sake of diversity, you suffer the same problems as NASCAR and Star Wars.
Of course, time will tell once the MCU goes down that PC road and how well they do it.
Earth127 wrote: Unfortunately Marvel/ superhero movies is where you're Nascar example falls flat.
Black panther is one of the most succesfull marvel movies to date. That audience wants diversity. Was/is it such a stretch to believe the star wars crowd wants something similiar?
YMMV but the biggest problem my sister used to have with marvel merch was the lack of female avengers merch. She wanted black widow merch , and they didn't sell it.
Total Hogswash. people are not so vapid and shallow that they would only go a see a movie because they are "represented" in it, the audience does not care about diversity, they care about good movies, black panther was a good movie first and a "black" movie last, it was also not even ground breaking, Spawn and Blade beat them to it by a long margin and Blade 2 is a much better film by comparison.
people do not give two gaks about the colour of the lead, hollywood pretends to care, the Social justice movement pretends to care and so do the 3rd wave fems, thankfully Fem wars failed and now they can get politics out of Star Wars and put it in Star Trek where it belongs.
Earth127 wrote: Unfortunately Marvel/ superhero movies is where you're Nascar example falls flat.
Black panther is one of the most succesfull marvel movies to date. That audience wants diversity. Was/is it such a stretch to believe the star wars crowd wants something similiar?
YMMV but the biggest problem my sister used to have with marvel merch was the lack of female avengers merch. She wanted black widow merch , and they didn't sell it.
You aren't following my examples. I am not saying you cannot have diversity. I am saying if you alienate your core fans, even for the sake of diversity, you suffer the same problems as NASCAR and Star Wars.
Of course, time will tell once the MCU goes down that PC road and how well they do it.
it wont go down that route, Star Wars has shown clearly that SJW politics in movies doesnt sell, they wont take the risk with the Marvel golden goose... well not again at any rate, the comics were ruined by the SJW's with a few exceptions like Mile Morales (who is quite a good character), they wont make the same mistake twice.
Earth127 wrote: Unfortunately Marvel/ superhero movies is where you're Nascar example falls flat.
Black panther is one of the most succesfull marvel movies to date. That audience wants diversity. Was/is it such a stretch to believe the star wars crowd wants something similiar?
YMMV but the biggest problem my sister used to have with marvel merch was the lack of female avengers merch. She wanted black widow merch , and they didn't sell it.
Total Hogswash. people are not so vapid and shallow that they would only go a see a movie because they are "represented" in it, the audience does not care about diversity, they care about good movies, black panther was a good movie first and a "black" movie last, it was also not even ground breaking, Spawn and Blade beat them to it by a long margin and Blade 2 is a much better film by comparison.
people do not give two gaks about the colour of the lead, hollywood pretends to care, the Social justice movement pretends to care and so do the 3rd wave fems, thankfully Fem wars failed and now they can get politics out of Star Wars and put it in Star Trek where it belongs.
Uhh, no. They might not care as much as Hollywood and critics, but yes, they do care. I think it might be more of a tribal thing really, but so long as there is a justifiable reason for a character, race and all, I am fine with it. Where I have a problem is making a character who was historically one race and gender into another for PC reasons. Not that these actors or actresses aren't good or shouldn't be cast to play a part, I just think that's an example of forcing diversity. Just make a new character. If we're supposed to be color blind, then surely we could have made the lead of Black Panther a white female... but that would end up being white-washing, which is a big no-no. But if you have a minority cast to play what was a white character, its diversity. And there lies part of the problem.
But I will say people do care about care representation and seeing certain versions of themselves on screen.
I agree, which is why all the women super heroes appearing in the MCU are basically the same person. Black Widow, the WASP, Okoye. . . all the same really. Too soon for women heros to be comedic or have flaws (well, except for being stubborn and too strong). Eventually they will branch out and come up with some comedic characters, or ones that have issues, but for now they are just following a template.
And even if we get to a point where we have a female hero go through a story arc where she has something like PSTD like in Iron Man 3, and is saved at the end by a guy (as Tony was saved by Pepper), eyes will roll that another female in a movie having to be rescued by a male. So it will be a long time before Marvel goes down that road.
The whole thing is so predictable and amusing really.
Earth127 wrote: Don't get me wrong, you're movie has to be good no matter what. But not alienating part of your audience is a blade that cuts a great many ways.
But I will say people do care about care representation and seeing certain versions of themselves on screen.
What I do think they'll take away is divisive doesn't seem to work. But that's for a TLJ topic.
hmmm nope, I have never seen a half welsh half singaporian on screen and guess what, still love my Marvel films, I watch a lot of You tube videos too and one of my favourites (world class bull !"£$ers) is almost universally black as hosts, funny bunch, and they constantly push back at that assumption and rip on it.
The problem with these last few films I think you have hit the nail on the head, they HAVE alienated a part of their audience, the wrong part, KK and Co tried to push away the core to appeal to the wrong people, it has backfired and sadly that mean Episode 9 may end up failing, the public backlash that we were told is just "internet sexist trolls" is real and it turns out it wasnt trolls.
But I will say people do care about care representation and seeing certain versions of themselves on screen.
I agree, which is why all the women super heroes appearing in the MCU are basically the same person. Black Widow, the WASP, Okoye. . . all the same really. Too soon for women heros to be comedic or have flaws (well, except for being stubborn and too strong). Eventually they will branch out and come up with some comedic characters, or ones that have issues, but for now they are just following a template.
And even if we get to a point where we have a female hero go through a story arc where she has something like PSTD like in Iron Man 3, and is saved at the end by a guy (as Tony was saved by Pepper), eyes will roll that another female in a movie having to be rescued by a male. So it will be a long time before Marvel goes down that road.
The whole thing is so predictable and amusing really.
I don't think scarlett witch and black widdow are the same person. I don't think Shuri is the same. I don't think any of them are like Wasp (who had some real big anger issues) and I doubt any of them will be like Capt Marvel. And none of them had the drinking and running that Valkyrie did.
I don't think scarlett witch and black widdow are the same person. I don't think Shuri is the same. I don't think any of them are like Wasp (who had some real big anger issues) and I doubt any of them will be like Capt Marvel.
Of all of those, Shuri is probably the most unique. Okay Mantis too I guess she is a hero now as well. But the others just seem like clichés of one another. Their demeanor, attitudes, never really get beat up, etc, they are all safe templates. I think they also cater to what they think society wants to see too, which I think makes their stories boring and predictable. Maybe that will change with Captain Marvel, but I honestly think she'll just be another cut from that template.
I hope I am wrong, but then, if I say it will be awesome if Captain Marvel gets nailed in the face by Thanos like he nailed Tony, does that say something dark about violence against women? It feels like it. I think these things Marvel has to tip-toe around too. Which also means I don't feel the stakes are as great with them because you seem to be limited as to what you can do to them because society isn't really ready for some of it. So they are kind of playing it safe for now.
I am saying we can all watch a male hero flat out get the crap beat out of him, but can we watch a women hero get the crap beat out of her? I am not so sure. We haven't seen it yet. So that is what I mean. We always know the violence will only go to a certain point.
I can see what you are saying and to an extent I agree. The villians should be doing horrible stuff to everyone equally. To be fair, Thanos threw Gamora off a cliff.
I was agreeing with some points earlier, but now things have gone so completely off base that, well, yeah... I'm not even in the same solar system anymore.
Although, I'd have to say, there is the whole thing of the fact that the entire Dr Strange movie is almost a remake of Iron Man 1.
KTG17 wrote: I am saying we can all watch a male hero flat out get the crap beat out of him, but can we watch a women hero get the crap beat out of her? I am not so sure. We haven't seen it yet. So that is what I mean. We always know the violence will only go to a certain point.
Death of superman has Wonder Woman have the ever living crap beat out of her by doomsday, I know it’s not the same.
Also black widow has had the snot beaten out of her several times, ok not to the extent that captain America and iron man had at the end of civil war, so you may have a point.
Is it just a case of we don’t see the same effects? Cuts, bruises etc. ?
KTG17 wrote: I am saying we can all watch a male hero flat out get the crap beat out of him, but can we watch a women hero get the crap beat out of her? I am not so sure. We haven't seen it yet. So that is what I mean. We always know the violence will only go to a certain point.
Laura was brutally beaten in 'Logan', including being speared in very graphic fashion...
KTG17 wrote: I am saying we can all watch a male hero flat out get the crap beat out of him, but can we watch a women hero get the crap beat out of her? I am not so sure. We haven't seen it yet. So that is what I mean. We always know the violence will only go to a certain point.
Have you seen Atomic Blonde? Seriously she gets the crap beaten out of her and does the same to her opponents. It is brutal but brilliant.
it wont go down that route, Star Wars has shown clearly that SJW politics in movies doesnt sell
Not particularly. They've been happy to let bigoted idiots cast themselves as villains in proclaiming that a bad story is the fault of SJ politics, and spin the narrative so that any negative response is because of said idiot fans, but they didn't have any trouble selling the film and racking up money.
Despite terrible writing/pacing that had everything to do with Rian Johnson as writer/director and not much else.
Solo got hit with a combination of pre-release media coverage yammering on about how 'troubled' the film was, how bad the lead supposedly was, directors, etc, and viewers got really tired of SW controversies so just didn't bother to show up. None of it had much to do with any sort of politics, except possibility of not wanting to associate themselves with Star Wars, because those fans made every effort to display themselves are crazy, intolerable nutjobs. And the Disney folks were more than happy to let them take the blame.
1) i am not a fan. I like some things. I dont give enough of a gak about any media to write letters or get emotional about it.
2) saying some people have been sexist and racist is not the same thing as saying everyone is sexist and racist. I didnt say everyone who is a fan of sw were those things. I said those people exist and they did these things in the name of their fandom. The only thing that could possibly associate you, personally, with those people is you and your actions. If your getting all defensive because people are pointing out that those people did gakky things then what exactly are you getting defensive about?
Because every time this gets trotted out it's to imply that anyone who doesn't love TLJ is a racist sexist bigot because there's no other possible justification for not loving TLJ.
This despite hundreds of hours of videos and millions of words of text, 99.9% of which says NOTHING about Rey, Captain Phasma, and Admiral Holdo being women or Finn being black as bad things.
In short, just bringing it up yourself is saying that not liking TLJ is the trait of a racist, sexist bigot and I VERY MUCH TAKE OFFENSE AT THAT.
it wont go down that route, Star Wars has shown clearly that SJW politics in movies doesnt sell
Not particularly. They've been happy to let bigoted idiots cast themselves as villains in proclaiming that a bad story is the fault of SJ politics, and spin the narrative so that any negative response is because of said idiot fans, but they didn't have any trouble selling the film and racking up money.
Despite terrible writing/pacing that had everything to do with Rian Johnson as writer/director and not much else.
Solo got hit with a combination of pre-release media coverage yammering on about how 'troubled' the film was, how bad the lead supposedly was, directors, etc, and viewers got really tired of SW controversies so just didn't bother to show up. None of it had much to do with any sort of politics, except possibility of not wanting to associate themselves with Star Wars, because those fans made every effort to display themselves are crazy, intolerable nutjobs. And the Disney folks were more than happy to let them take the blame.
I have the feeling that Episode IX will tell the tale once and for all.
1) i am not a fan. I like some things. I dont give enough of a gak about any media to write letters or get emotional about it.
2) saying some people have been sexist and racist is not the same thing as saying everyone is sexist and racist. I didnt say everyone who is a fan of sw were those things. I said those people exist and they did these things in the name of their fandom. The only thing that could possibly associate you, personally, with those people is you and your actions. If your getting all defensive because people are pointing out that those people did gakky things then what exactly are you getting defensive about?
Because every time this gets trotted out it's to imply that anyone who doesn't love TLJ is a racist sexist bigot because there's no other possible justification for not loving TLJ.
This despite hundreds of hours of videos and millions of words of text, 99.9% of which says NOTHING about Rey, Captain Phasma, and Admiral Holdo being women or Finn being black as bad things.
In short, just bringing it up yourself is saying that not liking TLJ is the trait of a racist, sexist bigot and I VERY MUCH TAKE OFFENSE AT THAT.
This makes no sense. He's clearly making a statement one way and not the other. There's no 'every time' at work here, and there's no reason to take offense unless he's hitting too close to home.
FWIW, I finally rewatched TLJ the other night and I like it more than ever. Some of the issues I had with it the first time didn't seem as pronounced as I thought. Canto Bight didn't drag like I remembered, for example. And (back on topic) the rewatch also made Solo look worse to me. It underlined how little Solo had to offer beyond paint-by-numbers storytelling and direction, and a heaping helping of fan service. But clearly that formula is more satisfying for some fans.
Furiosa gets the everloving crap beat out of her in Fury Road. Lots of females get beat up when they are antagonists, too. Though in that role we are not supposed to feel sympathy for them, which makes it different.
1) i am not a fan. I like some things. I dont give enough of a gak about any media to write letters or get emotional about it.
2) saying some people have been sexist and racist is not the same thing as saying everyone is sexist and racist. I didnt say everyone who is a fan of sw were those things. I said those people exist and they did these things in the name of their fandom. The only thing that could possibly associate you, personally, with those people is you and your actions. If your getting all defensive because people are pointing out that those people did gakky things then what exactly are you getting defensive about?
Because every time this gets trotted out it's to imply that anyone who doesn't love TLJ is a racist sexist bigot because there's no other possible justification for not loving TLJ.
This despite hundreds of hours of videos and millions of words of text, 99.9% of which says NOTHING about Rey, Captain Phasma, and Admiral Holdo being women or Finn being black as bad things.
In short, just bringing it up yourself is saying that not liking TLJ is the trait of a racist, sexist bigot and I VERY MUCH TAKE OFFENSE AT THAT.
What a complete load of gak.
I am not in control of how you interpret the meaning behind the words i write. I am only in control of what i actually write. If you want to take a statement about some indivuals and take it to IMPLY that i am talking about all individuals then thats on you. But you lost all credibility to any argument on the subject when you refuse to function based on the factual statement as opposed to your wrong asumptions about the further meaning of the statement. This makes me think that your most likely upset about nothing. Since clearly there is evidence that you get offended by things that were not said and dont exist.
This is how crazy people view the world. Enjoy the hell you have made for yourself.
Gorgon, I genuinely don't understand your criticism of Solo. It seems like you are saying it's a bad thing that the heroes were likeable and effective, as opposed to TLJ where the heroes are frustrated and miserable and they consistently fail/are underminded by ancillary characters seemingly invented just to serve as obstacles for them. Are you saying the former is too conventional (and therefore boring) whereas the latter is unexpeced/subverted and therefore creative?
What I feel Solo got right, by Mad Doc Grotsnik, Aged 38 and 2 months.
1. It showed a range of moralities in the Star Wars Underworld. Not everyone is treacherous. Not everyone is completely amoral. Some have little worry shafting person A, but show serious loyalty to persons B and C.
2. Yet another tantalising glimpse of life under the Imperial Heel. We saw this first in Rogue One, and it’s kind of continued here. This all helps flesh out the background in a really quite visceral way (I’m particularly impressed we don’t know who Han’s unit was actually fighting!)
3. More new planets. One of my main bugbears with the Prequel trilogy is the reuse of Tattooine. Galaxy is a honking big place. Show us that.
4. Actual moral quandaries for our would-be hero. Sure it’s not exactly ‘kill the child, save the mother vs kill the mother save the child’, but it’s still a way to show growth and development.
5. The Imperial Recruitment. I’ve no military experience, and I’m not from a military family. But the just ‘walk up, sign up’ thing helped illustrate how The Empire recruits. Also, definite shades of a similar scene in Starship Troopers I felt
6. It helped re-canonise stuff, such as Wookiees being used as slave labour.
7. Oh, that’s why restraining bolts exist! Possibly the most contentious scene, but I loved it. I also feel it helps solidify the place of most Droids in the Galaxy as a slave labour force. This is easy to lose sight of, given how well the main Droids are treated in the wider canon.
Oh, yeah, restraining bolts have pretty much always been straightjackets for droids. Or slave-collars, if you will. The Jawas used them on 3PO and R2 in ep4 to prevent them running away. It was only AFTER Luke removed R2s one that the little rubbish bin COULD wander off to complete its "mission".
Droids do most of the drudge work in the SW universe. Slave organics do the other stuff that droids are too valuable to lose doing.
AegisGrimm wrote: Furiosa gets the everloving crap beat out of her in Fury Road. Lots of females get beat up when they are antagonists, too. Though in that role we are not supposed to feel sympathy for them, which makes it different.
And there have been movies where women got raped. I am not talking about films in a general sense. I mean the superhero genre geared for all ages. Even in an era of feminism and equality, there has been structure in place to shield female super heros from the kind of violence the men go through. They certainly inflict it, but they don't really receive it. Its one thing to watch two guys beat each other into a bloody mess because that is far more acceptable in our society, but to have a man do it to a women on film with kids watching? That probably hits a nerve.
We may get there at some point who knows, and I worry that sends a terrible message. If you front a man like a man... well, can't be shocked if you are treated like one.
1) i am not a fan. I like some things. I dont give enough of a gak about any media to write letters or get emotional about it.
2) saying some people have been sexist and racist is not the same thing as saying everyone is sexist and racist. I didnt say everyone who is a fan of sw were those things. I said those people exist and they did these things in the name of their fandom. The only thing that could possibly associate you, personally, with those people is you and your actions. If your getting all defensive because people are pointing out that those people did gakky things then what exactly are you getting defensive about?
Because every time this gets trotted out it's to imply that anyone who doesn't love TLJ is a racist sexist bigot because there's no other possible justification for not loving TLJ.
This despite hundreds of hours of videos and millions of words of text, 99.9% of which says NOTHING about Rey, Captain Phasma, and Admiral Holdo being women or Finn being black as bad things.
In short, just bringing it up yourself is saying that not liking TLJ is the trait of a racist, sexist bigot and I VERY MUCH TAKE OFFENSE AT THAT.
This makes no sense. He's clearly making a statement one way and not the other. There's no 'every time' at work here, and there's no reason to take offense unless he's hitting too close to home.
FWIW, I finally rewatched TLJ the other night and I like it more than ever. Some of the issues I had with it the first time didn't seem as pronounced as I thought. Canto Bight didn't drag like I remembered, for example. And (back on topic) the rewatch also made Solo look worse to me. It underlined how little Solo had to offer beyond paint-by-numbers storytelling and direction, and a heaping helping of fan service. But clearly that formula is more satisfying for some fans.
You watched it what three times? Clearly many (me for example) did not watch it at all.
KTG17 wrote: I am saying we can all watch a male hero flat out get the crap beat out of him, but can we watch a women hero get the crap beat out of her? I am not so sure. We haven't seen it yet. So that is what I mean. We always know the violence will only go to a certain point.
Have you seen Atomic Blonde? Seriously she gets the crap beaten out of her and does the same to her opponents. It is brutal but brilliant.
Ehhh - I'm not so sure it's brilliant. Watching people take hits from someone twice their size and keep fighting is just dumb. Not saying this stuff doesn't happen with male characters to - just saying it is not brilliant in ether case. I agree though - people have no problem watching girls get beat up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On to Solo.
I enjoyed this film. Not quite as much as R1 but it was still pretty good. The guy that played Solo did a good job - don't understand the negative attention he is getting. The films poor showing had nothing to do with his performance IMO.
Loved the Chewy - Solo meeting. Starts dark - then ends with some comic relief (this is how you should use comedy in starwars) Wish they spent a little more time developing Solo during his time in the Imperial Navy. In any case - I think we all know the reason this movie did poorly at the box office. TLJ caused that. Though my opening night showing was sold out.
KTG17 wrote: I am saying we can all watch a male hero flat out get the crap beat out of him, but can we watch a women hero get the crap beat out of her? I am not so sure. We haven't seen it yet. So that is what I mean. We always know the violence will only go to a certain point.
Have you seen Atomic Blonde? Seriously she gets the crap beaten out of her and does the same to her opponents. It is brutal but brilliant.
Ehhh - I'm not so sure it's brilliant. Watching people take hits from someone twice their size and keep fighting is just dumb. Not saying this stuff doesn't happen with male characters to - just saying it is not brilliant in ether case. I agree though - people have no problem watching girls get beat up.
I really meant the whole film was brilliant but I understand what you mean about the size - although CT is quite a big woman. Male characters are much much worse eg although I found John Wyck 1 and 2 amusing fun it was so over the top it made video games look realistic.
I did like that in Atomic Blonde both the fighters ran out of energy and could hardly hit each other after a relatively short period which was quire realistic
Girls kicking ass and having their ass kicked is fairly normal these days - watch any action film/tv show with a female lead.
FWIW, I finally rewatched TLJ the other night and I like it more than ever.
No way going to sit through that that piss poor gak again - the tedium of the space chase alone would send me to sleep.
Xenomancers wrote: I think we all know the reason this movie did poorly at the box office. TLJ caused that. Though my opening night showing was sold out.
"We" all know it, but my fear is that Disney doesn't see it this way. Looking only at numbers, TLJ did "well" and Solo lost money. As a company, Disney is likely to continue doing things like TLJ and full stop on project like Solo, which is a shame
Xenomancers wrote: I think we all know the reason this movie did poorly at the box office. TLJ caused that. Though my opening night showing was sold out.
"We" all know it, but my fear is that Disney doesn't see it this way. Looking only at numbers, TLJ did "well" and Solo lost money. As a company, Disney is likely to continue doing things like TLJ and full stop on project like Solo, which is a shame
-
:(. Yeah. I fully agree. Disney seems to be very disconnected with it's fan base. When Episode lX comes out - does poorly even after a huge add campaign - I think they might start to get the message. Though part of me really doubts lX will do as poorly as Solo. It's just the nature of being the final episode - I think a lot of people who hated TLJ will still see it.
Xenomancers wrote: I think we all know the reason this movie did poorly at the box office. TLJ caused that. Though my opening night showing was sold out.
"We" all know it, but my fear is that Disney doesn't see it this way. Looking only at numbers, TLJ did "well" and Solo lost money. As a company, Disney is likely to continue doing things like TLJ and full stop on project like Solo, which is a shame
-
I still say they will also look at DVD /download sales. Its still an important market? I certainly won't be buying a LTJ DVD.
Manchu wrote: Gorgon, I genuinely don't understand your criticism of Solo. It seems like you are saying it's a bad thing that the heroes were likeable and effective, as opposed to TLJ where the heroes are frustrated and miserable and they consistently fail/are underminded by ancillary characters seemingly invented just to serve as obstacles for them. Are you saying the former is too conventional (and therefore boring) whereas the latter is unexpeced/subverted and therefore creative?
Setting aside your highly opinionated characterizations of the heroes, it's not that Solo is conventional and therefore boring. Solo is boring to me because it's a very ordinary movie that only ever strives to be adequate and check boxes. It seems more interested in displaying events and explaining details than in being a thoughtful Han Solo character study. It's a parade of 'How Han Got/Did/Met X'. The end result for me is a forgettable film, like many of the Marvel movies. There are Marvel films like Black Panther and Winter Soldier that manage to be conventional AND interesting.
Maybe Solo tastes good to those folks craving SW comfort food and fully engaged in SW minutae. Solo was certainly about fan service, but in a much narrower way than TFA was. Comfort food is a legit thing, but there's also such a thing as interesting comfort food, and in this case I feel like Solo drifted into pandering territory. While the end cameo is brief, it's very telling about the mindset behind the film. The only play that would have been more fan-servicey is Boba Fett. But I guess having a lightsaber fire up checked that extra box on the 'must have' list?
Regarding Disney and the fanbase, I think what TLJ and Solo revealed is that it's going to be very hard to please everyone when you have a fanbase that large and heterogeneous. In each case, there were audience segments who weren't buying what the film was selling. This 'TLJ hangover' myth is a ridiculous misread of the box office results. Occam's Razor applies here -- general audiences weren't interested in Solo because they weren't interested in a 'how Han Solo got his X' film.
This 'TLJ hangover' myth is a ridiculous misread of the box office results. Occam's Razor applies here -- general audiences weren't interested in Solo because they weren't interested in a 'how Han Solo got his X' film.
Then you haven't been following the revolt/boycott going on regarding Kennedy and JJ online. That did have an effect. Han might be THE most popular character after Darth Vader, and this movie should have gotten a bigger turnout than it got. The fact that it didn't tells me that the backlash against JJ, Rian, and Kennedy is alive and well.
Regarding Disney and the fanbase, I think what TLJ and Solo revealed is that it's going to be very hard to please everyone when you have a fanbase that large and heterogeneous. In each case, there were audience segments who weren't buying what the film was selling. This 'TLJ hangover' myth is a ridiculous misread of the box office results. Occam's Razor applies here -- general audiences weren't interested in Solo because they weren't interested in a 'how Han Solo got his X' film.
I agree. I went to see solo because I have Movie Pass. A service that lets me see 1 movie every day for 10.00 a month. It cost me nothing to see solo. I will literally go watch anything at this point. I enjoyed Solo, but all the way up to Solos releases I was saying "What is the point of this movie? It's not going to add anything to the universe. It's just going to be "How Han got X."" And it mostly was. General Audiences didn't know it was coming because it didn't get promoted well. It came right off the back of Infinity War and right before Deadpool.
Not being promoted and being released in the middle of 2 other major releases with no breathing room coupled with it's inflated budget has significantly more to do with how poorly Solo did then any TLJ back lash.
You should all keep in mind that the vast majority of the movie going populace has no idea who Kathleen Kennedy is, no idea what she said about who, no idea who got bullied or not, and no idea what kind of things were being said about TLJ online. Most people don't care. They just go watch movies for fun.
This 'TLJ hangover' myth is a ridiculous misread of the box office results. Occam's Razor applies here -- general audiences weren't interested in Solo because they weren't interested in a 'how Han Solo got his X' film.
Then you haven't been following the revolt/boycott going on regarding Kennedy and JJ online. That did have an effect. Han might be THE most popular character after Darth Vader, and this movie should have gotten a bigger turnout than it got. The fact that it didn't tells me that the backlash against JJ, Rian, and Kennedy is alive and well.
See above. The "backlash" is a drop in the bucket. This right here is another toxic element of fandom. Assuming you're more valuable then you are. Each person in that boycott is worth exactly 1 ticket. Are there over a million of you boycotting? How many of you "boycotting" are teenagers who don't even pay for the toilet paper to wipe their own ass? If they are not paying for the ticket guess what value they have?
You should all keep in mind that the vast majority of the movie going populace has no idea who Kathleen Kennedy is, no idea what she said about who, no idea who got bullied or not, and no idea what kind of things were being said about TLJ online. Most people don't care. They just go watch movies for fun.
Exactly right - I have no real idea who she is - I blame the Director as its his film.
I go to have fun at the movies - I had zero fun watching the gakfest that was TLJ.
Lance845 wrote: See above. The "backlash" is a drop in the bucket. This right here is another toxic element of fandom. Assuming you're more valuable then you are. Each person in that boycott is worth exactly 1 ticket. Are there over a million of you boycotting? How many of you "boycotting" are teenagers who don't even pay for the toilet paper to wipe their own ass? If they are not paying for the ticket guess what value they have?
Wait, so you are trying to convince me this very movie that did terrible at the box office, in an environment where a lot of people are pissed off at Disney over Star Wars, doesn't have enough people in the boycott to make a difference? Let me check those ticket sale numbers again...
All I have to vote with is my "1 ticket". But you get enough people annoyed and they aren't going to buy those one tickets. Even if they don't know anything about the 'boycott', they are obviously not as excited about Star Wars as they were in recent years. Star Wars has quite a large fan base made up of different age groups ranging from loving the current Star Wars movies to hating them. The ticket sales is the definitive stat to gauge the pulse of the fan base. Not enough people went to see this movie, that's the fact. We can speculate as to why all day but to say that pissed off fans are not the reason then you are in your own fantasy world.
This 'TLJ hangover' myth is a ridiculous misread of the box office results. Occam's Razor applies here -- general audiences weren't interested in Solo because they weren't interested in a 'how Han Solo got his X' film.
Then you haven't been following the revolt/boycott going on regarding Kennedy and JJ online. That did have an effect. Han might be THE most popular character after Darth Vader, and this movie should have gotten a bigger turnout than it got. The fact that it didn't tells me that the backlash against JJ, Rian, and Kennedy is alive and well.
Sure the boycott was a thing, but I think you give them way to much credit here. the movie bombed world wide, star wars was never that big a deal in china and as they never had the original trilogy released there, so solo means nothing to them. Sure the boycott could have effected American sales, but I doubt the call was heard anywhere else.
It wasn't just the fans calling for a boycott though, the conservatives boycotted it because they said lando was pan. You can see their point though, read the definition for pansexual, then ask why it's in a kids movie. in short being pan means lando is also attracted to children as well as robots. I can't see that a big selling point outside the US.
With so many other great movies out, there was really no need to see solo as we basically knew everything that was going to happen and they're still trying to shoehorn in parsecs making any sort of sense. I ran a marathon in 30 steps, I crossed the line to start, then turned around and crossed it again to finish. SO your ships not fast, you just took a shortcut.
As for 9, it can wait til Netflix if ever. TLJ did nothing to build up to the conclusion so there's really no desire to see it end. It's like building a house of cards in 7, then they all fall down in 8, so does anyone want to start over again to rebuild the house for 9? we'll see, but I doubt it.
Lance845 wrote: See above. The "backlash" is a drop in the bucket. This right here is another toxic element of fandom. Assuming you're more valuable then you are. Each person in that boycott is worth exactly 1 ticket. Are there over a million of you boycotting? How many of you "boycotting" are teenagers who don't even pay for the toilet paper to wipe their own ass? If they are not paying for the ticket guess what value they have?
Wait, so you are trying to convince me this very movie that did terrible at the box office, in an environment where a lot of people are pissed off at Disney over Star Wars, doesn't have enough people in the boycott to make a difference? Let me check those ticket sale numbers again...
All I have to vote with is my "1 ticket". But you get enough people annoyed and they aren't going to buy those one tickets. Even if they don't know anything about the 'boycott', they are obviously not as excited about Star Wars as they were in recent years. Star Wars has quite a large fan base made up of different age groups ranging from loving the current Star Wars movies to hating them. The ticket sales is the definitive stat to gauge the pulse of the fan base. Not enough people went to see this movie, that's the fact. We can speculate as to why all day but to say that pissed off fans are not the reason then you are in your own fantasy world.
It's all relative. So far, 'Solo' has grossed about same than each of the Paramounts' new Trek series, which were considered successful films by most standards (even though actual quality may vary). Big difference is that 'Solo' cost about 2 times as much to film than those new ST films.
IMO, what we are seeing is result of the scifi glut. Backlash against Phantom Menace was enormous (far bigger than anything against TFA or TLJ), yet that didn't stop next two films being financial successes as well. Difference was that Disney released FOUR Star Wars movies in same time Lucasfilm released one.
You should all keep in mind that the vast majority of the movie going populace has no idea who Kathleen Kennedy is, no idea what she said about who, no idea who got bullied or not, and no idea what kind of things were being said about TLJ online. Most people don't care. They just go watch movies for fun.
Exactly right - I have no real idea who she is - I blame the Director as its his film.
I go to have fun at the movies - I had zero fun watching the gakfest that was TLJ.
You're allowed to dislike TLJ, just like you're allowed to like Thor 2.
When things get unhinged is when people start cooking up conspiracy theories and odd narratives to explain differences of opinion and position their own opinion in a certain way. This is, I suppose, related to human beings increasingly losing the ability to have regular conversations with give-and-take. Instead, we fire our opinions at one another like weapons, attempting to defeat 'opponents' and win...I dunno, something or other.
Personally, I don't think the analysis of these SW movies needs to be very complicated. Some people didn't like TLJ because there were divisive elements in it. I liked TLJ, but I can understand that. Similarly, audiences didn't show up for Solo because they were lukewarm about the concept, didn't see it as 'important', and were uninterested in a Han Solo movie that doesn't star Harrison Ford. These are also understandable points. No '-isms' of any kind are required. (Although that also doesn't mean that those individuals don't exist.)
KTG17 wrote: Han might be THE most popular character after Darth Vader...
Yes, when Han is played by Harrison Ford.
Darth Vader might be the most popular, but conversely Anakin is nowhere near the top of the list of popular Star Wars characters. The actor has a huge impact on our enjoyment of characters, because without the actor you have no character.
You should all keep in mind that the vast majority of the movie going populace has no idea who Kathleen Kennedy is, no idea what she said about who, no idea who got bullied or not, and no idea what kind of things were being said about TLJ online. Most people don't care. They just go watch movies for fun.
Exactly right - I have no real idea who she is - I blame the Director as its his film.
I go to have fun at the movies - I had zero fun watching the gakfest that was TLJ.
You're allowed to dislike TLJ, just like you're allowed to like Thor 2.
When things get unhinged is when people start cooking up conspiracy theories and odd narratives to explain differences of opinion and position their own opinion in a certain way. This is, I suppose, related to human beings increasingly losing the ability to have regular conversations with give-and-take. Instead, we fire our opinions at one another like weapons, attempting to defeat 'opponents' and win...I dunno, something or other.
Personally, I don't think the analysis of these SW movies needs to be very complicated. Some people didn't like TLJ because there were divisive elements in it. I liked TLJ, but I can understand that. Similarly, audiences didn't show up for Solo because they were lukewarm about the concept, didn't see it as 'important', and were uninterested in a Han Solo movie that doesn't star Harrison Ford. These are also understandable points. No '-isms' of any kind are required. (Although that also doesn't mean that those individuals don't exist.)
Equally your allowed to like TLJ as you allowed to dislike Thor 2
Summing up Solo as "How Han Got [X]" misses the mark so widely that I really suspect it is nothing more than a dig.
In fact, the theme of Solo is very clear. I often ask myself, after I watch a movie, what was that movie about? Solo is NOT about how Han got his name or his blaster or the Milennium Falcon or even about how he became friends with Chewbacca, even despite that these things happen during the course of the film. Rather, Solo is about whether a fundamentally decent guy can afford to keep being decent in a really scummy world. Inevitably, the movie would have to feature the famous elements mentioned above BUT these reference points were woven into the theme of the picture. Even the cheesiest moment, when an Imperial recruitment officer assigns Han the surname "Solo," serves to punctuate that our protagonist begins his arc on his own. We then see a very careful and deliberate examination of various relationships: between Beckett and his gang, between Beckett and Val, Lando and L3-37, Han and Chewie, Han and Beckett, and most importantly between Han and Qi'ra.
The campfire scene, for example, deftly characterizes Beckett and his gang members, so that we will care about them when they are eventually in danger (PAY ATTENTION GARETH EDWARDS, RIAN JOHNSON), but also takes the time to set up the main theme of Han's story: there is some back and forth about being alone, being in a gang, and being in love. The train heist set piece shows us Beckett losing his buddy Rio (whose last words to young Han are that it's no good dying alone), and his girlfriend Val. During the next big action set piece, we see Lando lose his buddy L3. (By the way, both moments are underlined by the same tragic theme in the soundtrack.) These are the stakes you run as scum. Can you really afford to care about someone? Is any of it worthwhile if you don't? All of this leads up to the tension between Han and Qi'ra, his unwillingness or inability to see that, as Beckett advises him, "it doesn't work with her" - but also her own longing for some lost version of herself.
Rather than just being a movie about how Han met Chewie or Lando or about how Han got the Falcon, Solo takes these elements, which are already obligatory for this product's premise, and figures out how to incorporate them into a story about being a good guy in a bad world. For example, Chewie was tempted to split from Han when he met up with his enslaved clanmates on Kessel - but he changes his mind after seeing Han launch himself into crossfire to help Lando bring back L3. Han barely knew and did not really like Lando at this point. The scene is about Han seeing Lando trying to save his friend and responding to that impulse. That's what Chewie recognizes and values in Han. Or take the Falcon, which is used in the movie to illustrate the more complicated relationship between Han and Lando. For Lando, the ship represents accomplishment and luxury - the fruits of a successful criminal career. But for Han, it's always been about being escaping life in the gutter. When Han sees the Falcon for the first time, he's seeing freedom.
This stuff is not my interpretation of the film or some attempt to rehabilitate it. Everything above is explained by the movie itself because the movie is competently made. It's accessible. It's engaging. It's entertaining. And it is objectively NOT just a movie about "How Han Got [X]."
Earth127 wrote: Apparantly SW can't capture the Marvel magic.
Well, not every MCU movie was a huge hit, Hulk was pretty much a flop and first Captain America had very modest gross too.
Artistically, Iron Man 2 & 3 were total turds and destroyed the goodwill towards the character created by first movie.
Earth127 wrote: Apparantly SW can't capture the Marvel magic.
Well, not every MCU movie was a huge hit, Hulk was pretty much a flop and first Captain America had very modest gross too.
Artistically, Iron Man 2 & 3 were total turds and destroyed the goodwill towards the character created by first movie.
Hulk was very patchy movie, Cap A was dull and not great IMO
In the same way as I feel Both Iron Man fims were better than them - not as good as first but enjoyable - large part due to the charimsa between RDJ and GP on screen - somehting missing between the two leads in Hulk. Mid tier Marvel films on a par with watchable films such as Guardians.
However neither Hulk or Cap A were so unrelentingly bad I would not waste money on a follow-up film. TLJ did.
Wow, worldwide Rampage as made about $50 million more than solo so far.
In the same way as I feel Both Iron Man fims were better than them - not as good as first but enjoyable - large part due to the charimsa between RDJ and GP on screen - somehting missing between the two leads in Hulk. Mid tier Marvel films on a par with watchable films such as Guardians.
Iron Man 2 & 3 were flat out awful only marginally rescued by the charismatic leads. Story-wise they were simply repeats of the first movie (Iron Man creates his own villain - 3 times in a row!) with no interesting villains (weren't we supposed to be CHEERING for the Russian guy who matched Stark with shoestring budget??) and spamming of the Iron Man suits destroyed the uniqueness of the suit. Hey, why doesn't Tony just give everyone Iron Man suits??
I mean seriously, Iron Man dual wielding Iron Man suits to defeat somebody who has copycatted Iron Man suit gets old real fast.
IMO, what we are seeing is result of the scifi glut. Backlash against Phantom Menace was enormous (far bigger than anything against TFA or TLJ), yet that didn't stop next two films being financial successes as well. Difference was that Disney released FOUR Star Wars movies in same time Lucasfilm released one.
Your post got me thinking. I’m not convinced that proximity to TLJ was a major issue for Solo. It’s Star Wars, the Mack Daddy of franchises. However, we live in an age of Dr Strange and Black Panther feature films. It’s probably fair to say that just getting a Han Solo movie doesn’t impress audiences like it might have years ago. And when the concept for the movie doesn’t impress either...people today aren’t going to show up just because. Again, they didn’t have the star power and familiarity of the original actor to lean on either.
Maybe we can also consider the troubled production as a symptom instead of a cause. Did Lucasfilm and Disney want a Solo film to exist more than they knew what they wanted from or in a Solo film? WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place? Plenty of directors are chameleons...but I wouldn’t say that about those two.
And was that the best Han Solo story they could come up with? Or were they already thinking ‘new franchise’ as the ending suggests?
So maybe the simple lesson here for LF going forward is that they need to make Boba Fett and Kenobi films that people want to see, rather than making films with those characters and expecting people to see it because it’s Boba and Obi-Wan.
In the same way as I feel Both Iron Man fims were better than them - not as good as first but enjoyable - large part due to the charimsa between RDJ and GP on screen - somehting missing between the two leads in Hulk. Mid tier Marvel films on a par with watchable films such as Guardians.
Iron Man 2 & 3 were flat out awful only marginally rescued by the charismatic leads. Story-wise they were simply repeats of the first movie (Iron Man creates his own villain - 3 times in a row!) with no interesting villains (weren't we supposed to be CHEERING for the Russian guy who matched Stark with shoestring budget??) and spamming of the Iron Man suits destroyed the uniqueness of the suit. Hey, why doesn't Tony just give everyone Iron Man suits??
I mean seriously, Iron Man dual wielding Iron Man suits to defeat somebody who has copycatted Iron Man suit gets old real fast.
To you not to me - I enjoyed them. As you said charasmatic leads, good action etc but then Tony Stark is my fav Marvel Character (never having read the comics). However I also loved the first two Thor movies and thought Ragnarok was good but not not brilliant.
Lance845 wrote: See above. The "backlash" is a drop in the bucket. This right here is another toxic element of fandom. Assuming you're more valuable then you are. Each person in that boycott is worth exactly 1 ticket. Are there over a million of you boycotting? How many of you "boycotting" are teenagers who don't even pay for the toilet paper to wipe their own ass? If they are not paying for the ticket guess what value they have?
What, you watch a movie once? You never buy a DVD of a movie you saw in the theater and really enjoyed? You never buy other stuff marketed for the movie?
When a movie's REALLY good, people see it... then take their friends and go see it again... and sometimes over and over. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an infamous example; people going to see it week after week for years at a time.
When Star Wars came out, some people saw it twenty times in the theater. Seeing it a half-dozen times was not all that rare. That's why it was in theaters on and off for over a year back in 1977. Granted, this was before VHS, much less streaming video. But rewatching a good movie in the theater still happens. My friends and I went to the Matrix three times as a group above and beyond individual trips.
I've got a pretty extensive DVD collection too.
And it's those fans that drive the real moneymaker, merchandise. A casual viewer might buy a SW birthday card. It's the fans that buy the legos, the action figures, the model starships, etc., etc., etc. Pissing off those fans cuts VERY heavily into the merchandise sales.
So no, a fan is NOT worth just one movie ticket. They can be worth two, three, five, or more... in addition to Disney's share of DVD sales and merchandising.
In the modern age most people will only go see a movie once. We live in an age where the average family will only go to the cinemas about 3 times a year. Hell, the only film I've seen twice in the cinemas recently was TLJ, once with my family when it first came out and then again in its final weeks with my friends who hadn't seen it yet just because we were looking for something to do.
We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?
Lance845 wrote: See above. The "backlash" is a drop in the bucket. This right here is another toxic element of fandom. Assuming you're more valuable then you are. Each person in that boycott is worth exactly 1 ticket. Are there over a million of you boycotting? How many of you "boycotting" are teenagers who don't even pay for the toilet paper to wipe their own ass? If they are not paying for the ticket guess what value they have?
What, you watch a movie once? You never buy a DVD of a movie you saw in the theater and really enjoyed? You never buy other stuff marketed for the movie?
When a movie's REALLY good, people see it... then take their friends and go see it again... and sometimes over and over. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an infamous example; people going to see it week after week for years at a time.
When Star Wars came out, some people saw it twenty times in the theater. Seeing it a half-dozen times was not all that rare. That's why it was in theaters on and off for over a year back in 1977. Granted, this was before VHS, much less streaming video. But rewatching a good movie in the theater still happens. My friends and I went to the Matrix three times as a group above and beyond individual trips.
I've got a pretty extensive DVD collection too.
And it's those fans that drive the real moneymaker, merchandise. A casual viewer might buy a SW birthday card. It's the fans that buy the legos, the action figures, the model starships, etc., etc., etc. Pissing off those fans cuts VERY heavily into the merchandise sales.
So no, a fan is NOT worth just one movie ticket. They can be worth two, three, five, or more... in addition to Disney's share of DVD sales and merchandising.
Again, you are over valuing yourself while also missing the point.
First the point was ticket sales. Merch and dvd sales dont exist yet. So are you just on here screaming about how solo has bombed in all categories because of a fan boycott when 2/3rds of the categories dont really exist yet?
Second fans dont drive merch sales. Kids drive merch sales. Parents buy their kids gak their kids like. Not gak they like. If you think the 25-35 yr old demographic is single handedly holding up hasbro and lego then your even more delusional about your fan value then i thought.
3rd the average movie goer sees 1-2 movies a month or less and goes with small groups of friends or family. There IS value in word of mouth but if you think the reletively small number of SW fans who are ranting and raving are doing anything to sway the general populace besides making yourselves look like lunatics for giving so much of a gak about a movie then you're also out of your mind.
Basically no movies become rocky horror. Sw never has been and never will be. Thats a straw man example. Its unrelated. Sw doesnt have the cult experience of going to see it that rocky horror does. I own exactly 0 sw movies. Because 123 suck and 456 are not available in their original format. 789 are not out in a box set yet for obvious reasons. Il pick those up when it inevitably comes out.
The "fans" have an impact. You are a factor. One of many. But not the biggest. Not even 50%. Not even 25%. MAYBE 10% in extreme cases... But likely much less. Especially something as big as sw. You rabid fans are so small a % of the people who watch.
Manchu wrote: Gorgon, I genuinely don't understand your criticism of Solo. It seems like you are saying it's a bad thing that the heroes were likeable and effective, as opposed to TLJ where the heroes are frustrated and miserable and they consistently fail/are underminded by ancillary characters seemingly invented just to serve as obstacles for them. Are you saying the former is too conventional (and therefore boring) whereas the latter is unexpeced/subverted and therefore creative?
Setting aside your highly opinionated characterizations of the heroes, it's not that Solo is conventional and therefore boring. Solo is boring to me because it's a very ordinary movie that only ever strives to be adequate and check boxes. It seems more interested in displaying events and explaining details than in being a thoughtful Han Solo character study. It's a parade of 'How Han Got/Did/Met X'. The end result for me is a forgettable film, like many of the Marvel movies. There are Marvel films like Black Panther and Winter Soldier that manage to be conventional AND interesting.
And TLJ is checkbox of scenes of V and VI to go through to the level that when I went to see TLJ it didn't actually offer me anythig I hadn't seen already. Like over 20 years ago...
Matt.Kingsley wrote: We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?
Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.
That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.
Vulcan wrote: I take it you're not a Kelsey Grammar fan then. I thought the movie was amusing, if completely unrealistic.
No, I am a fan, especially of his role in Pentagon Wars. I just haven't seen or thought about Down Periscope since I was in high school or early college. I enjoyed that film as much as I enjoyed Pauly Shore's In the Army or Cabin Boy at that age, and suspect I should never revisit those movies at my current age.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?
Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.
That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?
Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.
That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.
Red Dwarf is on Netflix, at least here in the uk.
It USED to be in the USA but hasn't been for awhile.
Gunna have to buy me some Red Dwarf one of these days.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?
Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.
That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.
Or we use a free alternative streaming site with a good pop up blocker and anti virus program You know, like how almost everyone watches game of thrones. or the lost episodes of doctor who, or supertroopers 2, which everyone should go see in the theaters because it was really awesome and you should see it instead of solo. whew tied that back into solo. solo just can't compete against any of the movies it's up against.
Manchu wrote: Summing up Solo as "How Han Got [X]" misses the mark so widely that I really suspect it is nothing more than a dig.
In fact, the theme of Solo is very clear. I often ask myself, after I watch a movie, what was that movie about? Solo is NOT about how Han got his name or his blaster or the Milennium Falcon or even about how he became friends with Chewbacca, even despite that these things happen during the course of the film. Rather, Solo is about whether a fundamentally decent guy can afford to keep being decent in a really scummy world. Inevitably, the movie would have to feature the famous elements mentioned above BUT these reference points were woven into the theme of the picture. Even the cheesiest moment, when an Imperial recruitment officer assigns Han the surname "Solo," serves to punctuate that our protagonist begins his arc on his own. We then see a very careful and deliberate examination of various relationships: between Beckett and his gang, between Beckett and Val, Lando and L3-37, Han and Chewie, Han and Beckett, and most importantly between Han and Qi'ra.
The campfire scene, for example, deftly characterizes Beckett and his gang members, so that we will care about them when they are eventually in danger (PAY ATTENTION GARETH EDWARDS, RIAN JOHNSON), but also takes the time to set up the main theme of Han's story: there is some back and forth about being alone, being in a gang, and being in love. The train heist set piece shows us Beckett losing his buddy Rio (whose last words to young Han are that it's no good dying alone), and his girlfriend Val. During the next big action set piece, we see Lando lose his buddy L3. (By the way, both moments are underlined by the same tragic theme in the soundtrack.) These are the stakes you run as scum. Can you really afford to care about someone? Is any of it worthwhile if you don't? All of this leads up to the tension between Han and Qi'ra, his unwillingness or inability to see that, as Beckett advises him, "it doesn't work with her" - but also her own longing for some lost version of herself.
Rather than just being a movie about how Han met Chewie or Lando or about how Han got the Falcon, Solo takes these elements, which are already obligatory for this product's premise, and figures out how to incorporate them into a story about being a good guy in a bad world. For example, Chewie was tempted to split from Han when he met up with his enslaved clanmates on Kessel - but he changes his mind after seeing Han launch himself into crossfire to help Lando bring back L3. Han barely knew and did not really like Lando at this point. The scene is about Han seeing Lando trying to save his friend and responding to that impulse. That's what Chewie recognizes and values in Han. Or take the Falcon, which is used in the movie to illustrate the more complicated relationship between Han and Lando. For Lando, the ship represents accomplishment and luxury - the fruits of a successful criminal career. But for Han, it's always been about being escaping life in the gutter. When Han sees the Falcon for the first time, he's seeing freedom.
This stuff is not my interpretation of the film or some attempt to rehabilitate it. Everything above is explained by the movie itself because the movie is competently made. It's accessible. It's engaging. It's entertaining. And it is objectively NOT just a movie about "How Han Got [X]."
This is a very good summary of the themes of the movie. They were consistent, made-sense, and helped define the universe the film was set in. That IS what a competently made film does.
That is also why so many films are no longer competent. They suffer from scope creep and try to do too much and end up incoherent. Ron Howard is a true profressionalc raftsman, not an auteur. You can see the craftsmanship in Solo.
gorgon wrote: WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?
A great question, for Kathleen Kennedy to answer.
I don't think she deserves *TOO* much scorn, especially if you really liked Solo. At least she took decisive action before it was too late in order to right the ship. Had she fretted but hesitated like WB did with Snyder and JL, the end result probably would have been JL-like.
Vulcan wrote: I take it you're not a Kelsey Grammar fan then. I thought the movie was amusing, if completely unrealistic.
No, I am a fan, especially of his role in Pentagon Wars. I just haven't seen or thought about Down Periscope since I was in high school or early college. I enjoyed that film as much as I enjoyed Pauly Shore's In the Army or Cabin Boy at that age, and suspect I should never revisit those movies at my current age.
Cabin Boy!
Another personal fave: "Purple lightning...that's always a good sign."
At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.
I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.
I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.
Good thing that's what no one with any sense is saying.
Had she fretted but hesitated like WB did with Snyder and JL, the end result probably would have been JL-like.
Ah you mean a good fun film emulating the brilliant success of the Marvel films without pretending to be "visionary" or other ill used descriptors....
No, a stitched-together Frankenstein monster that shows all the seams from three scripts and two directors, with rushed, unfinished effects to boot. Solo looks like the work of one director, and hasn't become a punchline and perpetual meme generator like JL did.
JL has its crowdpleasing elements, but it isn't genuinely a *good* film. I'm a DC fanboy and even I can see that clearly. The studio should have fired Snyder when they wanted to, instead of holding their noses and hoping for the best. It's like stock investing -- if knowing what you know now, you wouldn't buy a given stock...then why do you still own it? Kathleen Kennedy (getting this back on topic) at least made the right call with replacing Lord & Miller after her initial, baffling decision to hire them. I'm obviously not a Solo fanboy, but I can see that clearly too.
I enjoyed Solo, and I really enjoyed JL but yeah, I definitely think this is a completely fair point. Even though I liked it, JL is most definitely at least 2 films stitched together, trying to find a middle ground between two VASTLY different styles. - It's probably the best of a bad situation, but it's still a bad situation.
Solo, which I repeat, I enjoyed, did manage to avoid getting into that bad situation. Either via throwing money (and, probably more importantly, time), or being caught much sooner, avoiding the issue.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.
I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.
Way to not follow what I was saying. Liking things isn't toxic. Liking things that don't matter so much that you become so emotionally attached that you "Feel ill" when it's a "bad" one. is toxic. Liking it so much that when you don't like this newest one you attack the people involved in it's creation is toxic.
On the other hand, it might feel like you're just stretching the plot of the last act of Star Wars out into an entire movie.
