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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the Han Solo movie was one of the worst ideas in a franchise riddled with bad ideas.

But then, I think Disney believes wrongly that the potential of the franchise is in the OT characters and their descendants rather than in the OT's setting and themes.

Disney probably bought star wars just for the han solo movie. It's their go to movie idea. Orphan turned hero, and we'll get to see the parents die in some horrific fashion. I have a $20 that says fette will kill the parents.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
People also wanted to know what Anakin was like before he became Darth Vader...

And yeah, it is an inherently terrible idea to map out the backstory for the mysterious, cynical scoundrel who only looks out for number one (and Chewy, I guess). Either it has to explain how he became so cynical and knowledgeable in the underworldwhile also naturally leading to his big arc in the OT (a subjective thing that will leave some fans unsatisfied),or it will be a total waste of time about a character who ends the movie unchanged from its beginning, or it will break continuity with the character. Han is an iconic character and Disney is the company that thinks JJ should come back for another go. There's nowhere to go but down.

On the other hand, the (1978) Han Solo novels were some of the most enjoyable parts of the EU, so I don't think the concept is inherently doomed.

Normally I would say it might be interesting.. But given that it's been having alot of issues, delays, director and even writer turnovers, and that there's actually reports that the main character required an acting coach every step of the way..

I'm not actually expecting it to do well.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.

And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?

One of my biggest concerns with a Han Solo movie is just how much character Harrison Ford brought to the role. I think there's a lot of characters in Star Wars that could be recast with little ill effect, even the major players, Han Solo is not one of them.

Though I'm willing to be proven wrong, maybe they can cast and write a role that does justice to Harrison Ford's portrayal of the character.

There's a lot of articles recently that are basically saying Disney are essentially writing off the Han Solo film as a failure, due to essentially Justice League levels of troubled production.


So, like I mentioned a couple of days ago, I've been watching The Force Awakens again in spare moments, after having seen TLJ the day it came out.

And yeah, near the end of TFA and I really do have to say, I far, far, far prefer it. I was wanting to sort of test my feelings by watching the film.

- Is it a case of 'they changed it now it sucks?'
- Is it me hating the new cast over the old one and me railing against the changing times like so many people on the internet like to claim?


I've not quite finished the film again yet (now at the final Kylo/Rey fight).

And the thing is, my feelings are pretty consistent. Aside from seeing my childhood hero getting stabbed in the heart, which, objectively, it's a great moment and not one I should whine about. Anyhow...

I genuinely like The Force Awakens. Finn and Poe are as charismatic as all hell. Kylo is different, but good all the same.

Truth is, I don't feel that Rey is the best actress around but broadly speaking, she's perfectly fine and the way she's hunting for and latches onto Han as a father figure is a good, interesting aspect to her character.


The weaknesses of the film are them overly mimicking certain original trilogy things, - but that's something The Last Jedi is just as a guilty of (more so, I'd say).


So yeah, overall, I really do feel it is the fault of The Last Jedi that I don't like it. Some reasons are, "this is dumb and stupid" (Casino planet detour), other things are a more personal, "this is completely not the direction I want to see from star wars and this personally makes me disappointed that they're going this way and I am now significantly less invested in the universe as a result."

 Peregrine wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
People also wanted to know what Anakin was like before he became Darth Vader...

And yeah, it is an inherently terrible idea to map out the backstory for the mysterious, cynical scoundrel who only looks out for number one (and Chewy, I guess). Either it has to explain how he became so cynical and knowledgeable in the underworldwhile also naturally leading to his big arc in the OT (a subjective thing that will leave some fans unsatisfied),or it will be a total waste of time about a character who ends the movie unchanged from its beginning, or it will break continuity with the character. Han is an iconic character and Disney is the company that thinks JJ should come back for another go. There's nowhere to go but down.

On the other hand, the (1978) Han Solo novels were some of the most enjoyable parts of the EU, so I don't think the concept is inherently doomed.

They were fun, but they don't really fit in the franchise now, and the story likely wouldn't justify the $150m budget. They want something that will make you laugh, make you cry, that's better than Cats.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.

And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?

For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.

I really loved the more recent Han Solo trilogy, although it's no longer valid with Rogue One filling the same plotline. Still awesome, though

Do we have a credible source that characters were made just for diversities sake or is this just petulant internet whinging?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.

And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?

For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.

Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!

Why does the command structure (by this I assume you mean the most senior members) being women hurt believability? Would it hurt the believability if it were entirely men?

Yes, it is somewhat 'relative', but:

'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Had Largest First to Second Weekend Box Office Dollar Drop in History

http://comicbook.com/starwars/2017/12/24/star-wars-the-last-jedi-week-to-week-box-office-drop/

Lots of films would probably be "OK" with the 1 week take here too.

But interestingly enough, there are 'disgruntled fans' in this very thread who have already seen TLJ twice!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.

And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?

For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.

Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!

That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why does the command structure (by this I assume you mean the most senior members) being women hurt believability? Would it hurt the believability if it were entirely men?

It would probably not stick out like a sore thumb if they were all men but it would also be unbelievable. In an equal setting wouldn't you expect to have some diversity?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.

And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?

For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.

Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!

That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!

Exactly why they needed a Rose, and hopefully more time for the alien Rebel guy, Benicio Del Lando, Leia's mini me bridge officer, and some of the Imperials. (Canady, we had too little time.).

Just not the "you can't park here" guy.

 Alpharius wrote:
Yes, it is somewhat 'relative', but:

'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Had Largest First to Second Weekend Box Office Dollar Drop in History

http://comicbook.com/starwars/2017/12/24/star-wars-the-last-jedi-week-to-week-box-office-drop/

Lots of films would probably be "OK" with the 1 week take here too.

But interestingly enough, there are 'disgruntled fans' in this very thread who have already seen TLJ twice!

they might have seen it twice, but did they ever pay at the box office to see it?

A great movie would have people going back to the theater a second time, a bad one like this one would probably be watched from a pirate site for the second viewing, maybe even the first.

Objection!

Assuming facts not in evidence!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.

And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?

For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.

Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!

That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!

Exactly why they needed a Rose, and hopefully more time for the alien Rebel guy, Benicio Del Lando, Leia's mini me bridge officer, and some of the Imperials. (Canady, we had too little time.).

Just not the "you can't park here" guy.

We didn't need rose at all though, she's the nobody character that made things much worse for the resistance with a meaningless side plot.

You just don't have to try that hard when your film breaks the box office in 2 days before anyone has even hear any reviews about it. Made their money back in 2 days.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Yes, it is somewhat 'relative', but:

'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Had Largest First to Second Weekend Box Office Dollar Drop in History

http://comicbook.com/starwars/2017/12/24/star-wars-the-last-jedi-week-to-week-box-office-drop/

Lots of films would probably be "OK" with the 1 week take here too.

But interestingly enough, there are 'disgruntled fans' in this very thread who have already seen TLJ twice!

Both the guys I went to see it with hated it the first time and saw it again when family came in town for Christmas. They still hated it a second time. One hated it more because he really wanted not to hate it and was hoping he missed something that could make it great.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.

And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?

For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.

Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!

That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!

Exactly why they needed a Rose, and hopefully more time for the alien Rebel guy, Benicio Del Lando, Leia's mini me bridge officer, and some of the Imperials. (Canady, we had too little time.).

Just not the "you can't park here" guy.

We didn't need rose at all though, she's the nobody character that made things much worse for the resistance with a meaningless side plot.

You're being unfair here. Every character made things worse for the resistance.* Rose at least gave us the perspective of the actual nobodies the FO was grinding under foot. And really, a nobody like Rose trying to sneak onto Snoke's ship and disable the macguffin to save her friends is far more heroic in terms of personal bravery than anything Poe did. I get that you don't like her character or the actress, but that doesn't mean she didn't play an important part in the film...well, as much as anyone who isn't Luke, Rey or Ren.




*Except for BB-8, the real hero of the resistance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Star Wars is not about Box Office. It was never about Box Office. The only reason BO is important is because it predicts the fortunes of the massive merchandising empire. Right now, the prediction is looking more dire than expected.

The whole Rose side plot was just annoying in the way it came down to a silly lack of communication. Holdo knows how to deal with heroic and insubordinate commanders/captains.... tell them nothing and act like an incompetent leader so they're forced to do something reckless which feths up your escape plan

I mean, it's not terribly unbelievable that something like that might happen, I just hate it when huge plot points rest on nothing more than a lack of communication. It's a gripe of mine that started after watching too many episodes of Supernatural

If one chooses to forget that they are watching a Star Wars film and chooses to look for realism then the female leadership is a bit off putting but if one remembers this actually is a Star Wars film it makes sense. It plays on dichotomy in pretty much all instances using metaphor and the like to explore good/bad, light/dark, masculine/feminine, hegemony/diversity, ect. The Empire and the First Order are toxically masculine organizations with lots of funding and so one whereas the rebellion/Resistance have feminine leadership and are scrappy underdogs. It is a yin/yang thing.

Doesn't mean that Laura Dern's character wasn't gak or that she was well written, because she wasn't.

 Ahtman wrote:
toxically masculine

Aaaand we eventually reached this point
(which is a fallacy anyway because if you really watched the movie you would have seen plenty of women in the FO forces)

 Ahtman wrote:
If one chooses to forget that they are watching a Star Wars film and chooses to look for realism then the female leadership is a bit off putting but if one remembers this actually is a Star Wars film it makes sense. It plays on dichotomy in pretty much all instances using metaphor and the like to explore good/bad, light/dark, masculine/feminine, hegemony/diversity, ect. The Empire and the First Order are toxically masculine organizations with lots of funding and so one whereas the rebellion/Resistance have feminine leadership and are scrappy underdogs. It is a yin/yang thing.

Doesn't mean that Laura Dern's character wasn't gak or that she was well written, because she wasn't.

You know why this is a load of crap, because if you completely switched the genders/races whatever.... it would still be a crap film, sex and race has nothing to do with it, bad script, acting, characters etc.

Not some pseudo intellectual SJW breakdown of the film designed to belittle people who didn't like it (not saying that's you btw), like ghostbusters before it these fools are now trying to say this is the reason why people didn't like it.

I'm more surprised by the lack of aliens amongst the new resistance compared to the old rebellion, seems like they dropped off alot of them.

I'm rooting for the First Order tbh.

godardc wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
toxically masculine

Aaaand we eventually reached this point
(which is a fallacy anyway because if you really watched the movie you would have seen plenty of women in the FO forces)

If you don't know what something is it is perfectly fine to say "I don't understand this" instead of showing that you don't understand something.

Formosa wrote:it would still be a crap film, sex and race has nothing to do with it, bad script, acting, characters etc.

Indeed, which makes all the odd asides seem even more petty and foolish. The problem at the core isn't diveristy, or lack thereof, or some other peccadillo but overall inconsistency and poor writing.

 godardc wrote:
How in SW IV, the heroes succeed by having luck ?

Episode 4 opens with a scene in which C3P0 and R2D2 walk across a corridor literally through the middle of an ongoing firefight without getting so much as a scratch. Despite being (somehow) separated, C3P0 accidentally stumbles upon R2D2 getting his secret mission from Leia, and then they escape in an escape pod which is not shot down because the Star Destroyer crew assume that it is empty.

That pretty much sets the tone for the movie. The entire series is built on luck. Although (aside from Han) they call it the will of the Force.

How about the fact that the space battle happens to be over the planet where Luke Skywalker lives?

Anyhow, the power of coincidence isn't really one of TLJ's weaknesses.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


We didn't need rose at all though, she's the nobody character that made things much worse for the resistance with a meaningless side plot.

You're being unfair here. Every character made things worse for the resistance.* Rose at least gave us the perspective of the actual nobodies the FO was grinding under foot. And really, a nobody like Rose trying to sneak onto Snoke's ship and disable the macguffin to save her friends is far more heroic in terms of personal bravery than anything Poe did. I get that you don't like her character or the actress, but that doesn't mean she didn't play an important part in the film...well, as much as anyone who isn't Luke, Rey or Ren.

*Except for BB-8, the real hero of the resistance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Star Wars is not about Box Office. It was never about Box Office. The only reason BO is important is because it predicts the fortunes of the massive merchandising empire. Right now, the prediction is looking more dire than expected.

Your imagination is running away with you. Just because I find the role meaningless does not equate to me hating the actress. I'm sure the actress did the best she could with the crap she was given, anyone in that roll would have come across as meaningless and a waste of run time on the movie. The whole casino scene just came across as they needed something for finn to do in the movie, I don't hate finn or the actor either, but horrible writing and a horrid script did nothing for either character to the point they might as well not have been in the movie at all.