Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hopefully after this one and JJ abrams closing of the trilogy they will take a step back and rethink what they're doing with Star Wars. I don't think it's in the right hands, the fact that lord and miller were even allowed to start working on a SW movie in the first place doesn't bode well.

It sounds like RH managed to cobble together a competent/okay adventure of a movie. But it's not like he had the time or resources to make it much more than that.

I haven't been to the theaters since Annihilation came out so I could probably...possibly motivate myself to see this one.

Also, if movie studios are bribing critics there would be a lot more rich critics.

It's insane to think they would bother to pay anyone.

Disney doesn't bribe critics. But they have been caught trying to strongarm papers that give them negative coverage.

Disney is more stick, less carrot.

 ingtaer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh for heavens sake.

Other than 'a film I didn't enjoy got good reviews' there's not a shred of evidence that Disney are bribing critics.

Please, just stop with such baseless nonsense.

Presuming that was directed at me, well my thoughts are that critics are paid for their job. They get advanced viewings based upon their reviews. if they say this was gak they wont get asked back, so they skirt the edges or don't rock the boat in order to have the ability to review films in the future. It is pretty obvious and basic business. I am not going to discount the film but would like to know the credentials of the people reviewing the film. if they are unbiased, established fans I am more likely to trust their opinion. As you MDG referred to to people who didn't like TLJ as edgelords for not liking the film, regardless of why they didn't like it, your opinion carries no weight at all.

On the other hand, Mark Kermode's bad reviews of the Pirates of the Caribbean films are legendary, and he still managed to review all the Marvel and Star Wars movies since then, so I don't think Disney are being vindictive like that.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh for heavens sake.

Other than 'a film I didn't enjoy got good reviews' there's not a shred of evidence that Disney are bribing critics.

Please, just stop with such baseless nonsense.

ya it's hard to make a case for bribing critics when they only gave the film a 70% on RT as opposed to the 91% TLJ got. If even the critics are starting to say how bad this movie is, it might end up being the first start wars movie I don't see in a theater.

You and I have very different definitions of "bad". 70% says "good not great" to me, not "bad", and after I apply my standard "critics are jaded cynics who place too much importance on form and novelty" filter, I expect Solo to satisfy on a similar level to Rogue One, for me anyway.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh for heavens sake.

Other than 'a film I didn't enjoy got good reviews' there's not a shred of evidence that Disney are bribing critics.

Please, just stop with such baseless nonsense.

Presuming that was directed at me, well my thoughts are that critics are paid for their job. They get advanced viewings based upon their reviews. if they say this was gak they wont get asked back, so they skirt the edges or don't rock the boat in order to have the ability to review films in the future. It is pretty obvious and basic business. I am not going to discount the film but would like to know the credentials of the people reviewing the film. if they are unbiased, established fans I am more likely to trust their opinion. As you MDG referred to to people who didn't like TLJ as edgelords for not liking the film, regardless of why they didn't like it, your opinion carries no weight at all.

On the other hand, Mark Kermode's bad reviews of the Pirates of the Caribbean films are legendary, and he still managed to review all the Marvel and Star Wars movies since then, so I don't think Disney are being vindictive like that.

Also, why in the hell would you trust a review from FANS over anyone else? Fans are the most biased people in the world. They either suck it's dick because they like everything about their fandom or they get super pissy because it's not what thy thought it should have been. Rare is the fan who can objectively rate the things they enjoy.

I don't trust review scores, no matter who they're from. I read / listen to the review and make my mind up based on the arguments in the review and also based on how I agree with the reviewer.

Surprisingly my daughter has asked if we can go as a family to see Solo. My wife also likes the idea.

Neither can be described as hardcore SW fans. Nor am I, really, though I like the films well enough and have seen all of III to VII in the cinema as God intended.

 Yodhrin wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh for heavens sake.

Other than 'a film I didn't enjoy got good reviews' there's not a shred of evidence that Disney are bribing critics.

Please, just stop with such baseless nonsense.

ya it's hard to make a case for bribing critics when they only gave the film a 70% on RT as opposed to the 91% TLJ got. If even the critics are starting to say how bad this movie is, it might end up being the first start wars movie I don't see in a theater.

You and I have very different definitions of "bad". 70% says "good not great" to me, not "bad", and after I apply my standard "critics are jaded cynics who place too much importance on form and novelty" filter, I expect Solo to satisfy on a similar level to Rogue One, for me anyway.

I should have added in this bit: 'Average Rating: 6.4/10'

when it comes to ratings it's rare to see anyone rate any movie under a 5, so for me the scale is really just 5-10, and with it being this low the critics are saying it's as bad as the phantom menace. In my day a graded 70% is a D-, if it drops to 69% it will be a F. For a "blockbuster" movie that follows infinity war, and Deadpool 2, that's bad, really bad.

I liked rogue one, I didn't like firefly, and solo seems more like a firefly episode than a star wars movie. In fact the plot of solo is the plot of a firefly episode. It's a space western, so let's rob a train. A space train? no, just a regular train on some random planet. it's been done before, and it's never been done well. As firefly was bad enough to die after it's only season, I just can't see solo being good. That said though, I have this urge to see it, because it says 'star wars' and 'solo' but I just won't pay that kind of money to risk not being entertained, then insulted by the people who made the movie for not liking it. so unless this movie gets glowing reviews from the fans, I'm just going to have to pass on this one and wait for it to show up on netflix.

The ratigs of Solo I have seen in the UK have been 7-8.

However I agree with the idea that SW TLJ is intended to be a blockbuster, and Solo is more of a side story.

At the very least, Solo should provide some background material to mull over when the plot isn't moving. As bad as the prequels were, there was always something in the background that expanded the lore or scale of the setting, even if it was kind of silly. TFA and TLJ both seem to take place in tiny little bubbles separate from the greater setting that starve the imagination.

Yes, the Prequels gave us Clone Troopers for which I am grateful.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I really enjoyed the implications of industrial cloning, as well as the ginormous droid factories churning out trillions of droids nonstop.

My wife is exited and says she hopes Solo is more Rogue One than TFA. I wholeheartedly hope so.

Going to go see it on Thursday after work. I’m excited, but not excited, if that makes sense?

Hoping we get a different tone to Rogue One and the sequels, if only because variety is the spice of life, and what Star Wars is gonna need with a film coming out every year.

Looks like someone managed to winkle a bit more detail out of Ron Howard as to why he was brought in to right the ship; Lord and Miller were apparently basically trying to turn the Kasdan script into "Guardians of the Galaxy, vol. Star Wars". Howard has apparently decided to "evoke the spirit of the original trilogy"(and, one assumes, stick closer to the script) in his radical reshooting.

Given which, I am *extremely* glad they got rid of Lord and Miller. Kennedy, though, really does seem to have no idea what she's doing when it comes to picking directors and curating a huge multi-film franchise like this, given they've had to come in and rework two out of the four films she's overseen and a third has proved extremely contentious and divisive(and not in an "any press is good press" kinda way). And what makes it weird is it's not like she's incapable of picking decent directors with some basic understanding of what it is they're being asked to work on, but only it seems as replacements for her first choices.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I should have added in this bit: 'Average Rating: 6.4/10'

when it comes to ratings it's rare to see anyone rate any movie under a 5, so for me the scale is really just 5-10, and with it being this low the critics are saying it's as bad as the phantom menace. In my day a graded 70% is a D-, if it drops to 69% it will be a F. For a "blockbuster" movie that follows infinity war, and Deadpool 2, that's bad, really bad.

Those are some really interesting gyrations there to get to the conclusion you want to see.

Is it bad though?

This is the first Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi (because I was 3) that I’ve nof booked for a midnight viewing. A chunk of the decision there is limited holiday, and its released on a Wednesday (well. Thursday really), which eats into limited holiday allowance.

The other is I’m not quite as enthused as I was for the previous 6 films - but I’m still seeing it on the day of release.

Why am I not as enthused? Put simply, the origin of Han Solo just doesn’t intrigue me as much as delving into the main saga in ever more detail - or how the Death Star plans we’re yoinked in the first place (because that’s an important canonical tale)

This is the third disposable Star Wars story - the third film that’s unlikely to contain nuggets of FanBoy information. The other two are the Straight To TV Ewok movies - films I still enjoy to this day.

It’s not a reflection of any particular fear of the film’s ultimate quality - just that for the first time in a long time (technically 35 years, properly 19 years) that there’s a Star Wars film in the offing that I genuinely feel I don’t need to see to better appreciate the wider narrative.

Like Rogue One, it’s had a troubled birth. And like Rogue One, I’m open to the chance it may become my very favourite of all the films (seriously. That space battle. What a difference a proper budget, piloted by enthusiastic nerds makes!).

But I’m also open to the equal chance I’ll see it and feel ‘well, that was a waste of time’, precisely because I’m not expecting it to add to the wider narrative.

If it does, it does. If it doesn’t, I just hope the film is enjoyable enough as a stand alone adventure.

I mean, the whole point of these anthology movies is supposed to be that they're not tied as heavily into the main saga narrative.

As for the main saga, it depends what's meant by that. I see it as the story of the Skywalkers and their legacy, and frankly for me nine films is more than enough of that(they could have stopped at the original three, really). The broader Rise of the Empire-through-Galactic Civil War time period, however, that I could stand to watch stories in pretty much indefinitely, which is why I'm actually quite looking forward to Solo.

Then again, I always consider the setting itself to be the "main character" of a big thing like Star Wars, so providing they hit the right tone, set them in the right eras(RotE/GCW and Tales of the Jedi/KotOR, essentially, though more Clone Wars material could be interesting if done right, and you never know Ep9 onwards might redeem the Sequel era), and don't put out total gak stories I'll keep watching until they stop making them.

Basically, I want from a Star Wars megafranchise exactly what I'm getting at present from the MCU - plenty of "pretty good" films in a setting I like with occasional standouts, and as little self-regarding po-faced deconstructionist gloomy-doom as possible.

Main Saga - Episodes I - IX.

Literally everything else (animated series, Rogue One, Solo, books, games) isn’t main saga.

 gorgon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I should have added in this bit: 'Average Rating: 6.4/10'

when it comes to ratings it's rare to see anyone rate any movie under a 5, so for me the scale is really just 5-10, and with it being this low the critics are saying it's as bad as the phantom menace. In my day a graded 70% is a D-, if it drops to 69% it will be a F. For a "blockbuster" movie that follows infinity war, and Deadpool 2, that's bad, really bad.

Those are some really interesting gyrations there to get to the conclusion you want to see.

It's not actually. This is a long observed effect in ratings sometimes called the 4 Point Zone due to the tendency of anything that isn't truly awful to fall somewhere between 6-9. Game Informer, a video game magazine, actually openly acknowledges its existence in their rating guide.

There is no conceivable way that it is as bad as TPM or AOTC. Not based on the leaks I've read.

What if "twelve parsecs" relates to the shortest path through the space squid's digestive tract?

We've all heard the Sarlacc burp in ROTJ; now prepare to top that experience!

 trexmeyer wrote:
There is no conceivable way that it is as bad as TPM or AOTC.

"Hold my bottle of green alien milk."

Seeing this tonight @ 7pm ish. I'm hoping for a solid 7/10 (for the record I would give R1 an 8, TFA a 5 or maybe 6 and TLJ a 2).

The main issue I think is whether Ehrenreich (sp?) can do an acceptable Han. One way the Trek reboots were ruined for me by Chris Pine's tediously smug Kirk (which is a shame as Quinto was spot on and Urban was a strong effort). He doesn't need to nail an impression, he doesn't need to reinvent the character, he just needs to not be a jarring presence that takes me out of the film continuously as my brain keeps telling me "that's not Han".

Just got back from seeing Solo. In spite of my initial misgivings about the whole project I really enjoyed the film. Its a solid adventure set in the SW universe with a lot of fun blink and you will miss them call outs to some old lore. I'd actually be up for a sequel

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Just got back from seeing Solo. In spite of my initial misgivings about the whole project I really enjoyed the film. Its a solid adventure set in the SW universe with a lot of fun blink and you will miss them call outs to some old lore. I'd actually be up for a sequel

Most important question for this movie: Does Boba Fett have a cameo?

-

 Galef wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Just got back from seeing Solo. In spite of my initial misgivings about the whole project I really enjoyed the film. Its a solid adventure set in the SW universe with a lot of fun blink and you will miss them call outs to some old lore. I'd actually be up for a sequel

Most important question for this movie: Does Boba Fett have a cameo?

-

There are quick references to planets and people(and one old PlayStation game ) from the EU but no Boba Fett. The closest thing is a suit of Mandalorian armour on a display rack in the background of a scene.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Just got back from seeing Solo. In spite of my initial misgivings about the whole project I really enjoyed the film. Its a solid adventure set in the SW universe with a lot of fun blink and you will miss them call outs to some old lore. I'd actually be up for a sequel

I'm actually one of the people willing to give the Star Wars stories a chance. After 'Rogue One' i think they can make decent movies as long as they don't have to deal with mary sue jedi and ripping off the old franchise. The new trilogy is still going to be garbage. I'm rather curious about the obi wan story though. From what i saw it looked like they're going with 'the trials of jesus in the desert' sorta path which is actually kinda cool for what it is. I honestly wouldn't have thought you can make a story about a space wizard in the middle of nowhere interesting but maybe you can.

This is only one review though so when i go to the theaters myself i will have a good idea.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
one of the people willing to give the Star Wars stories a chance

One of a many millions, surely?