First full trailer has been released for the new Han Solo movie coming out on May 25th.
Set prior to the events of the original 1977 film, it explores the adventures of a young Han Solo and Chewbacca, including meeting Lando Calrissian. The film stars Alden Ehrenreich as Solo, alongside Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover, Thandie Newton, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Joonas Suotamo, and Paul Bettany.
Principal photography began in January 2017 at Pinewood Studios, under the direction of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. The pair left the project in June 2017 after reportedly being fired over "creative differences" with Lucasfilm, and Ron Howard took over directing duties.
They finally released the trailer...only 3 and a half months before release date. Let's hope the rumored chaos behind the scenes doesn't blatantly show in the final product.
I hope it is good. But if it bombs due to "creative differences", I hope it kills all desire for prequel movies and they start making original characters. Just give me a noir detective film on Coruscant or something.
Edit: So does he get the Falcon, become friend with Chewie and Lando and do the famous run all during the length of this film?
Trailer looks pretty cheesy, not very hyped. Also he seems to want to be a hero already while he's supposed to be a greedy, first shooting, scoundrel. I want a scoundrel movie. I feel like he only turned semi good guy after meeting Leia. At least he gets to charm the mother of dragons
All I want from this film is the Kessel Run though
Obi Wan hasn't even officially been announced or cast yet, though it has been rumored for a long time and Stephen Daldry is in early talks to direct it. But any trailers for it released so far would be fan trailers.
On February 06 2018 03:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Trailer looks pretty cheesy, not very hyped. Also he seems to want to be a hero already while he's supposed to be a greedy, first shooting, scoundrel. I want a scoundrel movie. I feel like he only turned semi good guy after meeting Leia. At least he gets to charm the mother of dragons
All I want from this film is the Kessel Run though
Yessss it would be awesome to finally see what exactly that is
On February 06 2018 11:04 xDaunt wrote: I kinda want to pretend that this movie doesn’t exist. This guy looks and sounds nothing like Han Solo.
It would be hard to find the same way looking Han. So get over it and let's hope it gonna be better then TLJ.
This guy looks close enough...
I'm on the same boat as Plansix, hopefully this shows that recycling original characters and stories from the previous films doesn't work and we finaly get something new.
This idea is particularly stupid because the best part of the Solo story in the orginal SW is his personal arc, turning from a rogue selfich A-hole to a hero. Either he's going to be a A-hole the whole movie (without the Ford charisma) or they are going to shoe-in the fact that he's been a hero the whole time...
I'm just sad that Ron Howard is involved. I wish he would stick to well written moveis instead of the Dan Brown shits or this.
Yeah.... I'm not buying that guy's Solo... idk, there's a lot of stuff in the trailer that rubs me the wrong way. I hope that "new" Falcon isn't the real falcon....I'd be disapointed because that kinda ruins the magic and charm of the original Falcon. It also wouldnt make sense that the Falcon went from THAT to the Falcon we know, all rusted in like, 5-10 years?
Also Han has never really expressed any need to be some amazing pilot previously that I'm aware of. His motivations seem way out of character. It makes his motivations seem way too similar to Luke's.
Also It's less impressive if the hotshot pilot" wins in the fancy new hotness than it is if he does it with old and busted ship.
Well, it depends how they do it. I won't mind if they make Han a true believer in the Empire when he signs up, then has a dose of reality, but becomes a cynic- a sort of, 'heroes get shot, I might as well get as much money as I can and always escape to live another day' sort of attitude. He is the archetypal rogue with a heart of gold, so it could make sense to begin with the ideal and noble Han and end with a pessimistic and mercenary Han.
However, after Last Jedi, I'm not too confident about coherent story arcs. We'll see.
It'll be interesting to see if all the spin-offs play around in the old universe. The new trilogy hasn't really set up a lot to play around with- the story focus is so tight, you have no idea what else is going on in the galaxy, they Battle of Jakku is only one year after Endor, so there's basically thirty years of truce... not exactly good story telling material, and they've re-established a bipolar universe, instead breaking off into multiple factions, which would increase the amount of storytelling options for any future spin-offs.
I'm on the same boat as Plansix, hopefully this shows that recycling original characters and stories from the previous films doesn't work and we finaly get something new.
This idea is particularly stupid because the best part of the Solo story in the orginal SW is his personal arc, turning from a rogue selfich A-hole to a hero. Either he's going to be a A-hole the whole movie (without the Ford charisma) or they are going to shoe-in the fact that he's been a hero the whole time...
I'm just sad that Ron Howard is involved. I wish he would stick to well written moveis instead of the Dan Brown shits or this.
That's the major problem with Star Wars if it doesn't have connection with the main story (The Jedi, The Empire, The Rebellion) and at least one of the characters. Then it isn't Star Wars. The video game world has been trying to out run the problem for almost 25 years and runs into the same dead end. Without a major character from the main story it is dead on arrival.
They are still making a lot of money but it's amazing how many production issues they've been having in the Star Wars films while Disney's other properties (Marvel, Pixar, Disney animation) are all on fire right now. It feels more like WB's DC universe sometimes.
I'm on the same boat as Plansix, hopefully this shows that recycling original characters and stories from the previous films doesn't work and we finaly get something new.
This idea is particularly stupid because the best part of the Solo story in the orginal SW is his personal arc, turning from a rogue selfich A-hole to a hero. Either he's going to be a A-hole the whole movie (without the Ford charisma) or they are going to shoe-in the fact that he's been a hero the whole time...
I'm just sad that Ron Howard is involved. I wish he would stick to well written moveis instead of the Dan Brown shits or this.
That's the major problem with Star Wars if it doesn't have connection with the main story (The Jedi, The Empire, The Rebellion) and at least one of the characters. Then it isn't Star Wars. The video game world has been trying to out run the problem for almost 25 years and runs into the same dead end. Without a major character from the main story it is dead on arrival.
The movie industry will have the same problem.
The best starwars video games that I played had no direct character connections really. (I'm thinking Knights of the Old Republic, Jedi Knight 2:Jedi Outcast, and the old original Tie Fighter that I installed off like 18 floppy disks)
I'm pretty sure its not inherently impossible to make a decent movie. But I doubt they will. Although I will watch this, Im sure it will be better than EP. 7&8. its impossible not to be.
I don't think I've ever heard of a movie I liked having reshoots. writings an issue but thats what the non episodic years are suppose to fix. Marvel gets around this by doing the very Disney thing of throwing money at the issue and keeping 6 maybe movies under some sort of production probably..
I kind of liked R1, but honestly it wasn't that great of a movie. It exceeded my dismal expectations (the trailers sucked), but it was just a throwaway of a movie to me. Something to watch once or twice then never again.
It's disappointing that that seems to be the bar by which this movie's filming/production process is being judged.
As long as these terrible movies make enough profit, there is no reason to get a good script/ good actors. I am really curious how many SW films they will release until saturation (< 400 mil or so)
One trilogy, once-a-year spinoffs, and a few thousand lines of toys. The chance of this series failing to be milkable for the next decade is close to zero.
The problem with this franchise is that every movie is still based on the original trilogy, which is a huge problem when they are releasing a new movie every year. Marvel releases 2-3 new movies a year and they don't have the same problem since almost every title has something different to offer. Of course, even as I say that, the SW films still have a much higher average gross per movie than Marvel does.
Marvel has the luxury that their "fun" approach that kind of spits in the face of continuity or good storytelling somehow works with the iteration of the characters as imagined at present. People expect little more than a dumb popcorn movie, so it's easy enough to make that work. Star Wars fans are much more unforgiving. It dilutes the brand, yes, but it makes great money and to be fair there are a few genuine gems here and there.
On April 12 2018 04:45 LegalLord wrote: Marvel has the luxury that their "fun" approach that kind of spits in the face of continuity or good storytelling somehow works with the iteration of the characters as imagined at present. People expect little more than a dumb popcorn movie, so it's easy enough to make that work. Star Wars fans are much more unforgiving. It dilutes the brand, yes, but it makes great money and to be fair there are a few genuine gems here and there.
I expect more from superheros movie, and yes i can't stand at most of marvel film
As long as people keep paying for shit movies, they'll keep making shit movies. If you've paid money for a movie you hate, you're just as responsible for the next crappy iteration.
On April 12 2018 04:45 LegalLord wrote: Marvel has the luxury that their "fun" approach that kind of spits in the face of continuity or good storytelling somehow works with the iteration of the characters as imagined at present. People expect little more than a dumb popcorn movie, so it's easy enough to make that work. Star Wars fans are much more unforgiving. It dilutes the brand, yes, but it makes great money and to be fair there are a few genuine gems here and there.
I disagree. People who compare fanbases are never as smart as they think they are. The mistake George Lucas made with episodes 1-3 is catering too much to the fans who built up so much head canon that they would be disappointed with anything but a faithful adaptation to their head canon. The fanservice is the biggest thing getting in the way of good storytelling.
The Marvel approach works because they craft good movies without worrying about giving a big middle finger to the people who don't like their approach. They don't have the baggage of trying to please every fan of the earlier films. Each series targets a slightly different audience who may or may not like the other series they have. It doesn't matter as long as each film has a big enough target audience of its own.
The reason for the failure of the prequels is and promises to continue to be widely debated for years to come. Although I can’t say I agree with the idea that “head canon compliance” is my idea of why it went wrong. I have heard plenty of slightly better premises for the movies that would have led to better results while being even more compliant with existing canon. My personal most significant gripe was simply how poorly the characters built into the universe were actually represented and executed. The world-building and “Star Wars feel” of all three were actually very good.
Regarding the “Marvel approach” it works because they can make throwaway movies and no one will give a dang because people see them as one-off popcorn movies. Out of the many movies they have actually made, the only ones I’d ever even consider watching more than once are Avengers 1 and Captain America Winter Soldier. The rest were very throwaway, great for a movie you see once and never again.
I can say from my end that “fuck previous movie canon, I’m doing my own shit” is definitely not a strength of the movies. I know some people don’t care and watch them anyways, and that’s kind of what I’m getting at in that they can be pretty bad movies in the grand scheme of things but still work because they’re so throwaway. You can’t really do that with Star Wars main trilogies.
These spin-offs are quite more akin to Marvel-style throwaways. You know ahead of time which characters you have seen before and which ones are guaranteed not to matter. It’s a movie that gets to be whatever it wants to be, knowing nothing that happens will be of too much consequence for the larger story. I’m not too enthusiastic about that approach, though.
On April 12 2018 04:45 LegalLord wrote: Marvel has the luxury that their "fun" approach that kind of spits in the face of continuity or good storytelling somehow works with the iteration of the characters as imagined at present. People expect little more than a dumb popcorn movie, so it's easy enough to make that work. Star Wars fans are much more unforgiving. It dilutes the brand, yes, but it makes great money and to be fair there are a few genuine gems here and there.
I disagree. People who compare fanbases are never as smart as they think they are. The mistake George Lucas made with episodes 1-3 is catering too much to the fans who built up so much head canon that they would be disappointed with anything but a faithful adaptation to their head canon. The fanservice is the biggest thing getting in the way of good storytelling.
The Marvel approach works because they craft good movies without worrying about giving a big middle finger to the people who don't like their approach. They don't have the baggage of trying to please every fan of the earlier films. Each series targets a slightly different audience who may or may not like the other series they have. It doesn't matter as long as each film has a big enough target audience of its own.
I wouldn’t say that Marvel has that going for them. The big thing with Marvel is that fans of comics have long suffered through terrible adaptations of those super heroes, so there was a lot of forgiveness early on. And when Marvel wanted to do weird things, they tapped into the weirdest shit in their roster, like Guardians of the Galaxy. Star Wars has not gone full Rocket Raccoon level of risk yet, but they should as soon as possible. Because that was the power of comics, that they had a broad slate of titles with different tones. Anyone who had read Thor knows that comic not serious at all.
The DreamTM: is to have a catalog of movies and stories so large that people can take or leave what they want. They could make a movie about a noir style detective on Coruscant that is just about a murder. Or a group of young force users trying to defend a tiny colony from slavers. Or one about a family Mandalorian monster hunters. They could just make wild shit and people wouldn’t feel like their identity is caught up in it. So we need to get the Empire/Rebel conflict so some point of stability where it is present, but does not dominate the entire galaxy. Once that happens, we can have unlimited fun Star Wars stories that are not caught up with the next Death Star/Starkiller/System Cracker narrative.
Hey, has anyone gone in and seen this movie yet? After Ep 8 I'm really loathe to watch another Star Wars movie blindly and the reviews I've seen suggest that this movie leaves much to be desired. Anyone have their own two cents on it?
It turned out to be a surprisingly solid 8/10 for me, especially considering how unwanted this movie was and the production troubles it had. The pacing did slow awkwardly in places, Alden's acting isn't phenomenal but it does eventually become serviceable, and some of the more interesting characters become kinda throwaway, but the action sequences were excitingly fun, especially the starship chase through you-know-what.
They did go overboard stuffing all those origin stories in one film, but I still loved the reference to the more obscure parts of the canon, be it seemingly throwaway lines from the films to even nods from old obscure books and games. There's also a big cameo that is very rewarding for anyone who followed The Clone Wars and Rebels cartoons, though it'll leave the casual movie-goer very confused. I loved these references and the gratuitous world-building, and it brought the movie up to the 8/10 from what could be a 7/10.
It was a pretty big Meh for me. Donald glover wasn't given the freedom to carry the movie and the guy who played solo wasn't a leading man caliber actor. He wasn't bad but he doesn't have the voice or the ruggedness to play a rouge.
Not enough forshadowing or building up the twist at the end leads to a pretty meandering ending without much suspense or tension.
Darth mall turning into a crime boss with his robot legs from the clone wars cartoon. That was a great idea but wasn't executed well. the ending would have been better if it was a seige type battle with the wookies were everyone dies while the survivors get away with the rebellion getting started with the ship fuel. Intrigue thats predictable is really lame.
Solo getting his name from not having a family almost made me walk out. If it was any further in I would have. Jesus what a fucking shit fest of a story decision.
Finally what a god damm disgrace that they stick l3 into the falcon and Lando is willing to bet with it again. Makes the whole sub plot about them caring for each other a shitty joke.
As with the last jedi star wars has the greatest movie makers in the business yet gets let down constantly by shit teir writing.
On May 26 2018 09:10 Sermokala wrote: It was a pretty big Meh for me. Donald glover wasn't given the freedom to carry the movie and the guy who played solo wasn't a leading man caliber actor. He wasn't bad but he doesn't have the voice or the ruggedness to play a rouge.
Not enough forshadowing or building up the twist at the end leads to a pretty meandering ending without much suspense or tension.
Darth mall turning into a crime boss with his robot legs from the clone wars cartoon. That was a great idea but wasn't executed well. the ending would have been better if it was a seige type battle with the wookies were everyone dies while the survivors get away with the rebellion getting started with the ship fuel. Intrigue thats predictable is really lame.
Solo getting his name from not having a family almost made me walk out. If it was any further in I would have. Jesus what a fucking shit fest of a story decision.
Finally what a god damm disgrace that they stick l3 into the falcon and Lando is willing to bet with it again. Makes the whole sub plot about them caring for each other a shitty joke.
As with the last jedi star wars has the greatest movie makers in the business yet gets let down constantly by shit teir writing.
The script is weak, but the overall arc of the story felt coherent (unlike TFA and TLJ).
Solid 7 or 7.5 out of 10 for me. Strong disagree on Solo/his actor. Han is not a seasoned veteran in this film. He's a naive street rat trying to break free. He doesn't need to carry the film as a lead because it's an ensemble. Donald/Lando did ok and I was glad to see that their relationship was much more tenuous than we are led to believe by episode 5/6. The script lets Lando and L3 down a bit. L3 veers into Jar Jar levels of being laughed at rather than being laughed with.
A seige battle with wookies? No thanks. Totally does not fit the more small scale of the movie. The ending was probably the best part - the heist scenes take some extra layers of suspension of disbelief
My only complaint about the origin of the name Solo was that someone else came up with it...should have been Han to say it.
The Last Jedi was like... 2/10. This is no where near that.
On May 26 2018 09:10 Sermokala wrote: It was a pretty big Meh for me. Donald glover wasn't given the freedom to carry the movie and the guy who played solo wasn't a leading man caliber actor. He wasn't bad but he doesn't have the voice or the ruggedness to play a rouge.
Not enough forshadowing or building up the twist at the end leads to a pretty meandering ending without much suspense or tension.
Darth mall turning into a crime boss with his robot legs from the clone wars cartoon. That was a great idea but wasn't executed well. the ending would have been better if it was a seige type battle with the wookies were everyone dies while the survivors get away with the rebellion getting started with the ship fuel. Intrigue thats predictable is really lame.
Solo getting his name from not having a family almost made me walk out. If it was any further in I would have. Jesus what a fucking shit fest of a story decision.
Finally what a god damm disgrace that they stick l3 into the falcon and Lando is willing to bet with it again. Makes the whole sub plot about them caring for each other a shitty joke.
As with the last jedi star wars has the greatest movie makers in the business yet gets let down constantly by shit teir writing.
The script is weak, but the overall arc of the story felt coherent (unlike TFA and TLJ).
Solid 7 or 7.5 out of 10 for me. Strong disagree on Solo/his actor. Han is not a seasoned veteran in this film. He's a naive street rat trying to break free. He doesn't need to carry the film as a lead because it's an ensemble. Donald/Lando did ok and I was glad to see that their relationship was much more tenuous than we are led to believe by episode 5/6. The script lets Lando and L3 down a bit. L3 veers into Jar Jar levels of being laughed at rather than being laughed with.
A seige battle with wookies? No thanks. Totally does not fit the more small scale of the movie. The ending was probably the best part - the heist scenes take some extra layers of suspension of disbelief
My only complaint about the origin of the name Solo was that someone else came up with it...should have been Han to say it.
The Last Jedi was like... 2/10. This is no where near that.
I mean we have the prequels to judge it against truely henious movies. I don't think TLJ is worse then them but its very clearly right behind them.
Basic things about the movie are rotten. Editing is probably only surpassed by Kingdom of heaven in truely terrible decisions. Its really long and yet lacks content as a movie. It spits on established cannon (even within the "hard cannon") with such distaste you suspect that Rain johnson just hates star wars as a whole. Turning Luke into a coward who refuses to take responsibility for his actions was shocking but everything to do with the island neither builds up to anything nor really delivers on anything. The basic premise of "what happened to luke training kylo" was solved in a short montage in TFA yet now we need to waste the end of lukes story rehasing and re explaining what we learned in TFA. Nothing important happens on the island basically that couldn't have been done just as well in 5 minutes. The casino plot is basically 30 more minutes of filler that leads no where and doesn't add anything to a movie that really shows its length.
But I mean even after everything the ending scenes are at least acceptable. the "salt" scene was embarrassing, the lack of a real fight between kylo and luke is a bizarre decision and rays final Ascension to mary sue god hood was bad but its at least acceptable for a movie unlike what we ever got in the prequels.
My problem with Solo is that there never really is a big moment in the movie. The "heist" scenes never tell the audience what the plan is really ahead of time so we can never get Oceans style twists, rather we get predictable "oh that person betrayed the other person just like the movie told me they would eariler" moments. I say a final siege would be good because it would add something exciting for the movie to do instead of constant talking parts being the only source of story development.
TLJ is worse than all three prequels. For all their problems the ones in TLJ are so much more severe that I can't really forgive the direction they took with it or the collective stupidity of all the bad decisions they made. There are more stupid moments, the "cool" scenes are outdone by their Ep 1/2/3 equivalents, the character assassination is unprecedented, and the plot is much worse (in that this was actually a strength of the prequels but a weakness of TLJ).
I know it's common to say "worse than prequels" as a form of exaggeration as to how disappointing something was, but I think it's absolutely justified here.
On May 28 2018 03:16 LegalLord wrote: TLJ is worse than all three prequels. For all their problems the ones in TLJ are so much more severe that I can't really forgive the direction they took with it or the collective stupidity of all the bad decisions they made. There are more stupid moments, the "cool" scenes are outdone by their Ep 1/2/3 equivalents, the character assassination is unprecedented, and the plot is much worse (in that this was actually a strength of the prequels but a weakness of TLJ).
I know it's common to say "worse than prequels" as a form of exaggeration as to how disappointing something was, but I think it's absolutely justified here.
I got to disagree. The prequels were worse by a factor that the first broke the force fundamentally and got worse from there. The Mary popins scene and the force projection scenes may have been unforgivable gotcha moments but they weren't mitoclorians giving the star wars universe an vaguely Aryan race type aspect to it. The only good part in the first one was the fight scene where no one talked. the rest of the prequels was a dirge of shot reverse shot of people sitting and talking, walking and talking, or standing and talking. Either that or painfully obvious green screen scenes. None of the characters has a real backstory to them. TLJ for its character assassination had mark hamil in it and kylo ren was at the least intriguing. The throne room fight scene ,while horribly damaging to the rest of the movie, was worlds better then the weirdly constant of light sabers in the prequels. Del toro is given no time but is at least a good character that no one in the prequels is.
The plots of the prequels is not a strength. The first fundamentally makes no sense (trade federation blockading trade and invading a planet?) the second has more red flags then a bull fight and the third, from the where did they actually land the thing on a planet city to a third act that would make a marvel movie executive say "gee isn't that a little predictable?"
I mean that whole last fight scene between anikin and obi wan leaves such a black mark on all of cinema. All that manpower all those hours spent by true professionals and what do you get? A forgettable sequence that you really don't care about. Three movies and 5 years have been spent leading to this and you don't care about it. Its truely the worst thing to happen to cinema.
Well until justice league but thats a whole nother can of worms.
Midiclorians were a rather short-sighted, silly attempt to render a mystical force as a scientific phenomenon. Besides violating the unspoken fact that Star Wars' appeal is rooted in fantasy tropes and archetypes, it was just an unappealing explanation that didn't address any questions. However, it didn't effect the movies in any meaningful way besides explaining why Luke possessed such potency with the Force. The Jedi certainly didn't use it to circumvent their embrace of celibacy, and nothing about it was mentioned on the Sith side.
Also it's a bit hypocritical bemoaning midiclorians when TLJ made space warfare null and void with that hyperspace sequence.
On May 28 2018 09:47 Sermokala wrote: The first fundamentally makes no sense (trade federation blockading trade and invading a planet?) the second has more red flags then a bull fight and the third, from the where did they actually land the thing on a planet city to a third act that would make a marvel movie executive say "gee isn't that a little predictable?"
Merchant organizations leveraging their wealth into military power is a common theme in history. The East India Company exercised control over large parts of India with their private armies, not to mention ran unofficial wars against competition. Perhaps it's a misplaced plot in Star Wars, given the original trilogy was all heroic fantasy, but the notion is hardly inexplicable.
I don't know how one can reasonably argue Episodes 1-3 had a worse plot, considering they actually had an overarching plot that was botched in execution. TLJ is a loose collection of skits with vague themes connecting them, and these only make sense via reference to the older movies. It had far better overall acting (Lucas' direction tended to lead to stiff acting, and any success could be accredited to the actors themselves) but that's not equivalent to more interesting characters. In abstract Palpatine, Dooku, Jango Fett, and a half dozen other characters are all more interesting in how they could have been developed. Shit Grevious had more potential and he's basically a robot ninja.
The prequels are earnest to the point of schmaltz and incompetence doomed whatever potential existed in them. But at least they had potential and a vision of its universe as a legitimate universe, full of history and alien races and weird things befitting the central conceit. TLJ is a slickly directed movie with poor editing, nonsensical plot points, bad spats of humor, dissonant tone issues and a fundamental lack of interest in its source material. Lots of moments in the prequel trilogy are more embarrassing in retrospect (especially the lurid space opera crap), but at least you could tell Lucas had ambition to tell a story.
But what I mean is that Midiclorians effectively means that there are people who are genetically superior to being force users and those that are genetically inferior to being force users. I can understand that it was intended as a slight explanation to why skywalkers are op at the force but it has DEEPLY disturbing connotations to the properties core. This is on top of the cloning facilities also promoting the same ideology of having a singular genetic line being declared superior for the role of a foot solider.
Not to mention the prequels make jedi into General/preists leading to the subconscious image of genetically chosen generals leading genetically chosen soldiers being the good guys.
I get the East indian company example but its a bizzare escalation that no one doesn't just call their bluff. This is a universe that has decided that military might and wars are a thing to be banned and not to be pursued. Suddenly the trade interests protesting taxation decide to create a military from scratch and no one has any idea what to do about it for the time between one and two. Its a jarring concept that creates a core of political talky bits that the prequels continue on and on. Why doesn't Padmea, the one coming from the planet who got invaded and could really use a federation defense force, see the obvious and shown reason to support the federation defense force?
In TLJ the actors are better but the sets are better as they're more often then not real sets with people and not much CGI in them. Grevious had potential but that potential will go nowhere if hes strictly a CGI creation that other actors have to imagine him being instead of interacting with in any way.
I will admit that the prequels do show that Lucas had the ambition and love for the content that is critical for a quality movie that TLJ severely lacks. I'll give TFA a break every day of the week for being the movie it needed to be but TLJ was the most golden opportunity Disney will ever have and they've ruined it.
On May 28 2018 03:16 LegalLord wrote: TLJ is worse than all three prequels. For all their problems the ones in TLJ are so much more severe that I can't really forgive the direction they took with it or the collective stupidity of all the bad decisions they made. There are more stupid moments, the "cool" scenes are outdone by their Ep 1/2/3 equivalents, the character assassination is unprecedented, and the plot is much worse (in that this was actually a strength of the prequels but a weakness of TLJ).
I know it's common to say "worse than prequels" as a form of exaggeration as to how disappointing something was, but I think it's absolutely justified here.
Is Solo actually worth watching? Background on how I've judge the most recent films: TFA - was passably Star Wars, not on the level of the first 6 films but it was good enough. Rogue One - a change in atmosphere was a bit out of my taste but left the theater loving this film. (Battle of Scariff!!!) TLJ - felt more like a Star Wars parody than an actual Star Wars film. It was more fun than TFA (lol).
On May 28 2018 11:32 Sermokala wrote: But what I mean is that Midiclorians effectively means that there are people who are genetically superior to being force users and those that are genetically inferior to being force users. I can understand that it was intended as a slight explanation to why skywalkers are op at the force but it has DEEPLY disturbing connotations to the properties core. This is on top of the cloning facilities also promoting the same ideology of having a singular genetic line being declared superior for the role of a foot solider.
Midiclorians were basically the janky version of hereditary powers via bloodline, which was a common notion in the genres Lucas was inspired by (medieval Japanese stories and 40's-50's pulp sci-fi). Lucas skirted around the issue by never explaining how midiclorian counts could be manipulated in the first place. Theoretically, anyone could be born with a high count since the mechanics - besides clear allusions to passing it down to future generations - was never spoken of. The movies afterwards quietly swept it under the rag without incident.
That was the entire point of the Kamino commission using a bounty hunter as a genetic template. The clone army was supposed to be composed of soldiers highly amenable to killing while skipping the standard training protocols that would rationalize and unleash such aggression (it would take too damn long under the timeline originally requested). It was a Sith-controlled operation after all. By the time Fett got involved, Dooku had taken over from Sifo-Dyas.
On May 28 2018 11:32 Sermokala wrote: Not to mention the prequels make jedi into General/priests leading to the subconscious image of genetically chosen generals leading genetically chosen soldiers being the good guys.
The latter role was directly inspired by Buddhism's impact on Japanese history. However, the Jedi stayed out of galactic politics and military scuffles until the Clone Wars. That was supposed to be the tragic aspect of the second movie. The suspect setup of the Jedi Order was deliberately set up in the first.
On May 28 2018 11:32 Sermokala wrote: I get the East indian company example but its a bizzare escalation that no one doesn't just call their bluff. This is a universe that has decided that military might and wars are a thing to be banned and not to be pursued. Suddenly the trade interests protesting taxation decide to create a military from scratch and no one has any idea what to do about it for the time between one and two. Its a jarring concept that creates a core of political talky bits that the prequels continue on and on. Why doesn't Padmea, the one coming from the planet who got invaded and could really use a federation defense force, see the obvious and shown reason to support the federation defense force?
They never created a military from scratch. They already had one. Remember, it was a trade conglomerate so powerful that it literally had representatives in the Senate. And they had already wielded it to intimidate other planets to sign exclusive contracts.
Precisely. It was a dumb concept for what the prequels were expected to be and nobody wanted to snooze through reams of political jargon.
The Federation had infiltrated the Senate and become a persuasive lobbying force. Which was why the Senate was waffling so hard they could guest-star in an Eggos commercial. Besides that, Palpatine convinced her to throw out a Vote of No Confidence since he engineered the whole shebang to get himself installed as Chancellor.
On May 28 2018 11:32 Sermokala wrote: In TLJ the actors are better but the sets are better as they're more often then not real sets with people and not much CGI in them. Grevious had potential but that potential will go nowhere if hes strictly a CGI creation that other actors have to imagine him being instead of interacting with in any way.
I will admit that the prequels do show that Lucas had the ambition and love for the content that is critical for a quality movie that TLJ severely lacks. I'll give TFA a break every day of the week for being the movie it needed to be but TLJ was the most golden opportunity Disney will ever have and they've ruined it.
Lucas was never going to seriously use his backstory for character development, regardless of what technology he used to portray Grievous. That was left up to other properties like the Clone Wars cartoon.
I think Disney was too confident that it could slowly detach itself from the hardcore fans while retaining its appeal to mass audiences. TLJ should've been the true cash cow of the franchise once TFA established sufficient hype.
TLJ was the most offending excuse for a Star Wars movie ever. All the Jar Jar moments combined plus ninja-Yoda in episode 2 plus Obi-Wan and Anakin landing a friggin star destroyer on Coruscant by themselves pale in comparison to the utter disappointment that TLJ was. Even the midichlorian concept at least served SOMETHING in the greater scheme of the universe. And in TLJ:
We get a bunch of incompetent men with complete disregard for discipline on both sides, who somehow get away with it.
We get a bunch of incompetent women bitch-slapping the incompetent men on the side of the good guys. Then they call one of them (arguably the most useless one) "cute".
The most revered military (naval) leader of the Alliance dies almost anonymously. I cannot recall (so for all intents and purposes he's been made anonymous - I was looking for him) a scene where we actually get to SEE Ackbar and we just hear about him dying.
Leia floating through space and bringing herself back to the ship.
Chewbacca refusing to eat meat.
The casino sideplot that basically led nowhere and wasted precious viewer time - and you NEVER want to waste the viewer's time. It served the sole purpose of bringing up animal cruelty and the 1%.
Del Toro was the only saving grace to the movie. It was literally somewhere between 1,5 and 2/10.
Solo: A Star Wars Story was pretty good. It felt coherent; Solo himself wasn't very convincing and his lines were somewhere between facepalm bad and decent. Lando was another matter entirely, he felt so real and organic. Beckett was a gem. Qi'Ra was cool also, although her lines were a bit hollow too. But the whole atmosphere was very real, a 60/40 western/film noir movie in the Star Wars universe (the same way Rogue one was a D-Day/Vietnam war movie that happened in the SW universe), fairly convincing and touching most of the basic stories around Han from the Lucas canon. + Show Spoiler +
I would've loved to see Han actually being an Imperial pilot, he used to be an officer and he got in trouble for his big mouth, but I don't think he ever was an insolent kid without any sense of duty.
Possily 7.5/10 and that .5 is because of Glover and Harrelson.
I thought TLJ was mostly bad, and Rogue One was mostly entertaining. This was OK... Not bad, but not much memorable either that would have me excited to watch it again.
I thought it was alright. I don't if there was permanent damage done for me from TLJ because I thought this one was a decent movie, but not an event. Now it's more, another day, another Star Wars film, which wasn't what I was feeling, coming out of Rogue One and before.
The dots they needed to connect: Lando background, 12 parsecs, winning the Falcon, meeting Chewie etc, were competently done, but perfunctory. The film lacks some pizazz in that it is so self-contained, that it hardly expands out the mythology of Star Wars beyond adding two new gangster syndicates. Again, it's serviceable, but not overly aw inspiring. And then, I think it lacks pathos- Beckett's wife dies, but this is promptly forgotten. John Wick shows more introspection for Wick's dog, then Beckett for his wife. (Of course the John Wick film cheated by killing the dog.)
But more importantly, because we never really understand why Qi'ra made a Face-Heel turn, the tragedy of that loss is muted because it is hard to mourn what we do not understand. Again, competently told with as many double and triple crossing as could rival Pirates 3, but somehow lacking heart, if that makes any sense.
But I liked it, and I certainly didn't hate it, which is more than I can say for TLJ.
Generally agree regarding Solo. The actor and his performance didn't really remind me much of Han, but Lando was pretty great and combined with Chewbacca and the Falcon it was serviceable, if fairly predictable.
The most compelling thing in the movie for me was the throw away reappearance of Darth Maul at the end. I know he is alive in Clone Wars/Rebels lore, but still kind of surprised they decided to bring him back in a film that almost demands featuring him in a sequel to have a pay off.
Solo is a decent movie, I liked it. It feels more like TFA (safe choices) than say TLJ (trying something new).
For what it's worth, I really liked TLJ. You're free to disagree I suppose, and well if you really TRULY think that the misplaced romance in TLJ is worse than "i don't like sand", then alright. I just hope that before you reached that conclusion you took a long step back and questioned whether you really think TLJ is that bad, or whether you are just jumping on to the hate train.
The prequels romance may have been more cringe-inducing than even the Finn/Rose one but even that in mind they were far better movies. I did go back and revisit them to support making such a claim and each of the three is easily better than TLJ.
Just went and watched Solo. This is kind of a really hard one to give a rating for, because there's a 5/10 first half to the movie, and then a much better, 8/10 second half. The first half suffered from highly derivative scenes that looked as if they were copy-pasted from other movies, e.g. + Show Spoiler +
the Chewbacca pit was a pretty bad copy-paste of the Rancor and didn't impress in the slightest
. The real turning point of the movie that I consider to be the "halfway point" in my viewing is + Show Spoiler +
after they land after escaping from Kessel, which corresponds to both when all the mediocre characters are all dead and when the terrible and wholly unbelievable "daring escape" scenes are no longer present
at which point the quality of the movie went WAY up. In particular I really liked one brief moment in the movie, + Show Spoiler +
when instead of waiting to see what Beckett would do when cornered, Han just shoots him
. The writing also seemed to be much improved at that point, as if a more competent director/writer suddenly took over right in the middle.
Overall, I left satisfied, especially since the last half was enjoyable. Worth a watch if you like Star Wars.
On June 01 2018 00:36 LegalLord wrote: The prequels romance may have been more cringe-inducing than even the Finn/Rose one but even that in mind they were far better movies. I did go back and revisit them to support making such a claim and each of the three is easily better than TLJ.
I'm curious really. Why?
If you can agree that the romance is more cringe worthy, then I think you might also get behind the idea that the dialogue and lines from the prequels are also worse than TLJ.
I don't think it's also very controversial to say that TLJ was a better looking movie as well.
Which leaves, I suppose, the plot and characters? For the prequels to be far better at.
(I'd understand if this is something you've discussed before and it's too tiresome to revisit, so feel free to give this a pass if so)
On June 01 2018 00:36 LegalLord wrote: The prequels romance may have been more cringe-inducing than even the Finn/Rose one but even that in mind they were far better movies. I did go back and revisit them to support making such a claim and each of the three is easily better than TLJ.
I'm curious really. Why?
If you can agree that the romance is more cringe worthy, then I think you might also get behind the idea that the dialogue and lines from the prequels are also worse than TLJ.
No. Because while the romance in TLJ was less bad than the one in the prequels, the romance of TLJ was in fact the least cringeworthy of the bad dialogue - whereas the "I hate sand" hoopla was easily the worst of the prequel series. Indeed, the Finn/Rose romance barely bothered me, because it was really trading one questionable setup (Finn/Rey) for another, which was no better but also hardly worse. Beyond that, my only complain about dialogue and lines from the prequels is one-off stupidities like "nooooo" and "from my point of view the Jedi are evil." Most of the other things people complain about from the prequels have none of these lines.
TLJ, on the other hand, takes it to a new level. The Poe/Hux exchange, the entire saga with how Poe's decisions, all of which looked perfectly reasonable and logical in the context of the events that transpired, were somehow bad because he didn't trust some fairly shady leadership, the entire convoluted logic for why Rose stopped Finn from protecting the fortress. Some of Luke's dialogue was interesting, but was a bit hit and miss (also the best seemed to be highly inspired by Kung Fu Panda). Benicio Del Toro's dude was mostly good. Phasma was not. The prequels, all three as a whole in fact, give me less to complain about in this regard.
On June 01 2018 10:55 levelping wrote: I don't think it's also very controversial to say that TLJ was a better looking movie as well.
Nah. Visually the prequels were phenomenal and TLJ seemed more gimmicky than anything. I loved all of the droid designs in the prequels and they made very nice looking weaponry and decent cityscapes (Naboo, admittedly, looked a little too CGI). By comparison the weapons look quite gimmicky in TLJ and the worlds fairly nondescript. This is one field in which the prequels beat even the OT, so they blow TLJ out of the water here as well.
On June 01 2018 10:55 levelping wrote: Which leaves, I suppose, the plot and characters? For the prequels to be far better at.
Plot, yes. The prequels had a very good plot. Botched by mediocre execution, but the overall story is very good.
Characters? Well they both were pretty dry. Kid Anakin is IMO the worst of the bunch, a small and not very convincing Mary Sue of a wonderchild. Jar Jar is #2, a kind of pointless fart joke character that doesn't really inspire the kind of sentiment they were going with. The rest are largely fine; Palpatine is played very well, Maul is pretty cool, Obi-Wan is very well done. Their development can be fairly bland, but there's a pretty interesting bunch to work with that was well-developed in the other works in the series. TLJ adds mostly just Rose and Del Toro - Rose is kind of meh, Del Toro is alright - while performing a hardcore character assassination on just about everyone from TFA. I'd say prequels win here again.
On June 01 2018 10:55 levelping wrote: (I'd understand if this is something you've discussed before and it's too tiresome to revisit, so feel free to give this a pass if so)
1-2 pages back we talked about the same. I think there's a lot of good points there as well.
While the prequels didn't exactly come together and "work" as well as hoped, the truth is that they're still far better than what TLJ gave us. That movie was honestly a disgrace to the franchise, one that murders an excellent start as provided by Abrams. At this point it honestly deserves its place at the very bottom of all main episodes released to date.
I actually liked it and so did my gf who is not too nerdy. Our expectations were kinda low tho. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes star wars movies in general.
In my oppinion Han Solo > TFA=TLJ > Rogue One.
This Han is just more likeable than any of the other main characters for me, and some of the secondaries are also good. Story is nothing too special, which is expected.
Ok movie worked for me because it did the one thing i wanted it to do. Give me Chewbacca back story and make the film just as much about him as Han, which it does.
Chewwie is a great character, watching that film and then watching TFA after would get me many emotional now haha!
Good film though, better than TLJ and TFA but that isn't really hard is it
Not sure if i should credit this to Ron Howard or the original directors as they did most of the work right? If they didn't then well done Ron Howard, good film.
On May 29 2018 07:53 Vindicare605 wrote: Been actively boycotting this movie because of TLJ but I've been hearing some promising things about it.
On June 01 2018 00:36 LegalLord wrote: The prequels romance may have been more cringe-inducing than even the Finn/Rose one but even that in mind they were far better movies. I did go back and revisit them to support making such a claim and each of the three is easily better than TLJ.
I wish i hadn't see Solo. it was so predictable, the actor weren't convincing. solo at the end of the film is the solo that we have 20y later in episode IV, this is so dumb.
On June 01 2018 00:36 LegalLord wrote: The prequels romance may have been more cringe-inducing than even the Finn/Rose one but even that in mind they were far better movies. I did go back and revisit them to support making such a claim and each of the three is easily better than TLJ.
I'm curious really. Why?
If you can agree that the romance is more cringe worthy, then I think you might also get behind the idea that the dialogue and lines from the prequels are also worse than TLJ.
No. Because while the romance in TLJ was less bad than the one in the prequels, the romance of TLJ was in fact the least cringeworthy of the bad dialogue - whereas the "I hate sand" hoopla was easily the worst of the prequel series. Indeed, the Finn/Rose romance barely bothered me, because it was really trading one questionable setup (Finn/Rey) for another, which was no better but also hardly worse. Beyond that, my only complain about dialogue and lines from the prequels is one-off stupidities like "nooooo" and "from my point of view the Jedi are evil." Most of the other things people complain about from the prequels have none of these lines.
TLJ, on the other hand, takes it to a new level. The Poe/Hux exchange, the entire saga with how Poe's decisions, all of which looked perfectly reasonable and logical in the context of the events that transpired, were somehow bad because he didn't trust some fairly shady leadership, the entire convoluted logic for why Rose stopped Finn from protecting the fortress. Some of Luke's dialogue was interesting, but was a bit hit and miss (also the best seemed to be highly inspired by Kung Fu Panda). Benicio Del Toro's dude was mostly good. Phasma was not. The prequels, all three as a whole in fact, give me less to complain about in this regard.
On June 01 2018 10:55 levelping wrote: I don't think it's also very controversial to say that TLJ was a better looking movie as well.
Nah. Visually the prequels were phenomenal and TLJ seemed more gimmicky than anything. I loved all of the droid designs in the prequels and they made very nice looking weaponry and decent cityscapes (Naboo, admittedly, looked a little too CGI). By comparison the weapons look quite gimmicky in TLJ and the worlds fairly nondescript. This is one field in which the prequels beat even the OT, so they blow TLJ out of the water here as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erFcYsC6JaY
Characters? Well they both were pretty dry. Kid Anakin is IMO the worst of the bunch, a small and not very convincing Mary Sue of a wonderchild. Jar Jar is #2, a kind of pointless fart joke character that doesn't really inspire the kind of sentiment they were going with. The rest are largely fine; Palpatine is played very well, Maul is pretty cool, Obi-Wan is very well done. Their development can be fairly bland, but there's a pretty interesting bunch to work with that was well-developed in the other works in the series. TLJ adds mostly just Rose and Del Toro - Rose is kind of meh, Del Toro is alright - while performing a hardcore character assassination on just about everyone from TFA. I'd say prequels win here again.
On June 01 2018 10:55 levelping wrote: (I'd understand if this is something you've discussed before and it's too tiresome to revisit, so feel free to give this a pass if so)
1-2 pages back we talked about the same. I think there's a lot of good points there as well.
While the prequels didn't exactly come together and "work" as well as hoped, the truth is that they're still far better than what TLJ gave us. That movie was honestly a disgrace to the franchise, one that murders an excellent start as provided by Abrams. At this point it honestly deserves its place at the very bottom of all main episodes released to date.
I agree that the prequels had their strong points and that overall plot, world building and visuals blow OT as well as TLJ+TFA out of the water. I also agree that TLJ throws the curveball way too often to be taken seriously, but it has a lot of cool scenes and most character arcs are decently written, things I definitely can't say about episode 2 f.e.. In fact the only nice thing I can say about episode 2 is that some planets are very CGI but nicely designed.
The characters aren't even comparable, Hayden Christiansen's Anakin in AotC is the lead and terrible on multiple levels (he gets better in ep3), there is loads of plot induced stupidity (the entire jedi council) and the script is comparably bland to that of TLJ. Hux is the Jar Jar of the sequels, but he's still far less annoying. And while I understand that TLJ-Luke is drastically different to Luke in the OT, I think his arc is fine after his starting point is both decently written as well as decently acted. Poe's arc isn't about following leaders, but about acting less rash and over-commit less, progress he shows later when he cancels the attack on the ram. I agree that the Casino-arc is pretty meh and feels a bit out of place, but it is still more enjoyable to watch and way shorter than the entire romance in episode 2.
I just realized Solo, had it been a smashing success, would have had sequels hence the reason Darth Maul was shown. They want to make Star Wars aka Marvel.
So that movie is taken place before Episode 1 then? Even though we don't meet Han Solo until episode 4? Yet i thought the ending of Han saying lets go to Tattoine is where he met Luke? So i thought that was meaning the film was made after episode 3. Hmm xD
You are off, there was no empire before episode 1. Solo happened ~ 10 years prior to episode 4 according to the director. Maul's current state requires watching Star Wars Clone Wars and Rebels, but you can get the summary here.
It's possible he could be a player in either the upcoming Obi Won movie or Boba Fett movie rather than a Solo sequel.
So Darth Maul didn't "die" from Episode 1 then? Jesus im a bit fucked there. He wasn't "mechanical" maul though during that movie, i remember the mechanical one from the anime/cartoon actually. Hmmm, then again we didn't see his bottom half, but for that to happen he would need to be robotic from waist down.
Yeah he’s a substantial icon in the expanded universe. Guess Lucas realized they missed a chance to further develop a popular character and retconned him back in the tv show.
On June 07 2018 23:51 Pandemona wrote: So Darth Maul didn't "die" from Episode 1 then? Jesus im a bit fucked there. He wasn't "mechanical" maul though during that movie, i remember the mechanical one from the anime/cartoon actually. Hmmm, then again we didn't see his bottom half, but for that to happen he would need to be robotic from waist down.
I'm just in denial about that part of the EU, Maul living is really stupid. I don't get why writers don't do sequels when they want to utilize a dead character. Especially since Clone Wars has a good format to do a story that plays earlier anyways.
On June 07 2018 23:51 Pandemona wrote: So Darth Maul didn't "die" from Episode 1 then? Jesus im a bit fucked there. He wasn't "mechanical" maul though during that movie, i remember the mechanical one from the anime/cartoon actually. Hmmm, then again we didn't see his bottom half, but for that to happen he would need to be robotic from waist down.
I'm just in denial about that part of the EU, Maul living is really stupid. I don't get why writers don't do sequels when they want to utilize a dead character. Especially since Clone Wars has a good format to do a story that plays earlier anyways.
Yeah. Darth Maul was underutilized as a villain, but I always ignored the part where they brought back Darth Maul because I thought it was stupid. I wasn't overly excited to see that Mech Maul made it into movie canon.
Well when i saw Solo i first thought a)I mismembered the death of Maul b)Its not Maul but his brother or smth c)They made a mistake. It didnt occure to me that it all can be ok. I always underestimate the amount of retardness people can live with, especially in comics/short stories.
My dumbass had to think for like 2 minutes before I pieced together how Darth Maul is in there, I was like wait Darth Maul oh thats possible Han Solo was younger then I was like wait but there are Stormtroopers and Empire so it is after the Trade Federation and then my friend told me some shit about mechanical Darth Maul. I also thought it was a bit cringy that they had to show off his double lightsaber.
Either way overall I feel like this is the weakest uut of all the Star Wars movies ive seen, I don't think for me it has to do that much with lightsabers but I did miss the Empire quite a bit imo. I think the most fun parts were with Chewie and the Millenium Falcon. Then again I am in the minority that actually liked TLJ so yeah
Chewie storyline was best part for me as well, would have watched an entire movie on him with subtitles tbf lol. Their relationship together was good that it got explained a bit as well, i would have prefered even more in depth version but still nice.
Makes you feel even sadder now when you know what happens in TFA
On June 08 2018 21:35 Kipsate wrote: My dumbass had to think for like 2 minutes before I pieced together how Darth Maul is in there, I was like wait Darth Maul oh thats possible Han Solo was younger then I was like wait but there are Stormtroopers and Empire so it is after the Trade Federation and then my friend told me some shit about mechanical Darth Maul. I also thought it was a bit cringy that they had to show off his double lightsaber.
Either way overall I feel like this is the weakest uut of all the Star Wars movies ive seen, I don't think for me it has to do that much with lightsabers but I did miss the Empire quite a bit imo. I think the most fun parts were with Chewie and the Millenium Falcon. Then again I am in the minority that actually liked TLJ so yeah
I don’t consider this to be a Star Wars “movie” per se - more of a special that was in theaters - but there are definitely worse ones. The Holiday Special and Clone Wars come to mind. These movies don’t exactly matter one way or the other though.
Just saw it, I like it. It's a solid action movie, maybe a bit to many plot, I would have been even better a bit more crisp. I think they could have cut a lot of the romance stuff and focus more on the scavenger vs Solo crew actions so the ending would have been more rewarding, but overall the actions scene are very good, Woody Harisson is great so is Donald Glover and I thought whoever played Han was also solid. I'm not particularly affected by the SW timeline stuff or if the character are true or not to the original trilogy, it was a solid stand alone film and it's enough for me.
My only big problem was Emilia Clark character who was not working for me, I think it was a mix of bad casting (she played part of her character like a 14 years old who has her first crush) and bad writing. She was suppose to be the bad guy right hand girl send on the mission to supervise it, but the writer clearly had no place for her on the ships so she doesn't really do anything particularly interesting; she play Lando role in the mines, try capes and do girly talk with a robot. It also make her final decision to take command of the underground empire kind of strange since her character seems both super honest and ratter a backbencher, instead of a leader. I feel like if they just cut her from the falcon, had a scene between her and Han before they left and kept the rest of her story, she would have felt a lot more like an actual survivor turning against her boss at the right opportunity and playing the mastermind/ manipulator, just trying to "stay in the game". I wonder if they change her story in the many rewrite they did for the movie
Also I'm just pretending that guy at the end never existed and hope we never get a sequel.
but the writer clearly had no place for her on the ships so she doesn't really do anything particularly interesting
Well, yeah. There's also the part where the only reason Han Solo can steal from the cartel on Kessel is because they are unaffiliated with Mech-Maul's Cartel... but then they go ahead and bring along Bettany's lieutenant as a liason. Who exactly were they fooling if she was at all seen?
I think maybe its more that I am dissapointed in a way, its not bad but I think the Star Wars Universe beyond anything has a very rich world and it just felt very underutilized or something? It didn't feel like Star Wars for some reason, maybe it is the lack of lightsabers or the Empire.
On June 10 2018 00:55 LegalLord wrote: It hasn’t “felt like Star Wars” since the prequels. Getting that general feel right seems to be a talent unique to Lucas himself.
Not true. TFA and R1 felt very star warsy. TLJ did too at times. In particular the first 10 minutes or so, and the whole thing on Canton Brent (despite that also being the most pointless side story ever). And of course, lightsaber fights with the red guards. Solo just somehow didn't. I don't know what they got wrong. It was an entertaining movie. Just not very star warsy.
TFA felt a bit too self-aware for Star Wars. Rogue One felt like a war movie in a SW setting. Doesn’t make either bad but they were definitely a stylistic departure from what came before. Of course, “feels X” is more than a bit subjective.
Perhaps the factor that makes it feel off is that it’s sort of as if it’s three separate fragments of a movie awkwardly stitched together, without too clear a sense of style to it? That definitely exists here.
R1 was super Star Warsy imo, the Empire, the fight against all odds, granted it was a bit "darker", the scene where the Rebel Alliance fleet hyperspace jumps in and the Xwings crash on the shield felt 110% Star Wars. TFA felt a lot like Star Wars because of the jokes, the references and well half a copy of a New Hope.
Compared to that Solo just failed that, no Empire or barely, no "Star Wars humor" (I know this is a bit odd). Again the only scenes that felt like that were Chewie scenes and Millenium Falcon.
This is why Disney trying to make Star Wars like Marvel was doomed to failure. Marvel is different worlds, characters etc. Star Wars is too narrow and trapped in a corner called The rebellion. And when potential directors tried to re-imagine or wanted to started new story lines Kennedy fired them.
Not telling original stories is their main problem. There is only so much they can call back to those three original movies before people get tired of it. And people might have been tired of it right before the TFA, but were willing to do it one more time. Bring me a noir detective story on Coruscant and I’m listening.
Also, Solo without Ford was what doomed that movie. He is that entire character. And because he is to old and grumpy to play the part, that movie was never going to hit.
They released a merely ok movie after a genuinely terrible one. Did they expect the franchise’s reputation to just give them great results at the box office while failing to make good movies?
More financially troublesome, I hear toy sales are far below expectations recently.
TLJ made Black Panther money and was critical well received. The youtube nerd outrage machine is still trying to cash in on it(which is sort of pathetic at this point), but they don’t drive the decisions of Disney. So if that movie was bad and a failure, I want to fail in the exact same way.
And from all report, the three Rian Johnson movies are still in production. And the other set of unnamed movies. They just shut down the prequel style movies that would be like Solo and Rogue One. Which is a good move, IMO.
The disparity between the critical and popular response to TLJ is a head-scratcher, yes. The money made is not; most of the big cash on a widely anticipated movie like that is made before people even get a chance to decide if it is good enough to watch or not. It shows itself more in the follow-ups, and it’s likely that Ep 9 will have a significant viewership decline as well.
The spinoffs are getting somewhat tiresome, true, but that wouldn’t make a difference if there wasn’t a perception that there was more money to be made off of poorly conceived projects.
Star Wars fans harassed Jake Lloyd for years because of his acting in the first film, so it does not surprise me that the anger outlasted the critical reception.. Most people like a star wars film and then move on with their lives. These super fans keep the outrage alive to the point where it isn’t even fun to discuss the movie. TLJ was popular and well liked, but not by people willing to engage with that super angry fan base.
I liked Rogue One. It didn't feel like a Star Wars film. Neither did TFA. I also saw TLJ on an airplane but had to turn it off after 20 minutes or so because it was that bad. None of these films feel like actual Star Wars films, instead they feel like fan fiction with some similar elements to the Star Wars universe.
I think it might be because the Star Wars universe has been completely over-saturated with movies, books, TV shows, and video games that all established this expansive world with rich history, past empires, great wars, major characters... and Disney chose to ignore all of it and focus on the most boring part of all of Star Wars: the original movies. They're just running in circles around death stars, desert planets, and the skywalker family. If it were up to me, I would have set the new movies during... say, the Mandelorian wars. Or the Bane trilogy.
There is so much rich story potential with Star Wars but Disney just had to tear the original cast out of their retirement homes and dump them onto the screen for short term profits.
The spooky thing about TLJ for Disney was that it had about the same opening (like 10% lower) as TFA and then had like 2/3 of the total box office take (link for box office results). From my limited understanding of reading those particular tea leaves that kind of tail dropoff is a not really what you want for a long-running brand.
It looks like they are banking pretty hard on Star Wars fatigue being the reason for Solo struggling by putting stuff on hold. I still have no idea why they released it in the middle of the summer after three consecutive years of December releases, but better minds than mine I suppose...
What they wish to describe as "Star Wars fatigue" is more properly described as "Star Wars suckage." The badness of the film(s), rather than any general feeling that there are too many of them, is to blame. I'd happily watch a Star Wars film every year if they made good products (I still largely do), and I'd be more involved with the franchise if there were a good reason to. That is lacking.
Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, the fact that you're using the political messages in these movies as an argument to like or dislike the movie and the fact that Hollywood is exploiting this, is exactly what's wrong with the movies in the first place, especially true for SW movies. The post isn't addressed at anyone in particular, I'm just generalizing.
On June 22 2018 05:12 FreakyDroid wrote: Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, the fact that you're using that as an argument to like or dislike the movie and the fact that Hollywood is exploiting this, is exactly what's wrong with the movies in the first place, especially true for SW movies. The post isn't addressed at anyone in particular, I'm just generalizing.
What does the word "that" (bolded) refer to?
Edit: I would have asked "who are you responding to?" but you've said not addressing anyone in particular, hence my confusion
On June 22 2018 05:12 FreakyDroid wrote: Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, the fact that you're using that as an argument to like or dislike the movie and the fact that Hollywood is exploiting this, is exactly what's wrong with the movies in the first place, especially true for SW movies. The post isn't addressed at anyone in particular, I'm just generalizing.
What does the word "that" (bolded) refer to?
Edit: I would have asked "who are you responding to?" but you've said not addressing anyone in particular
Yeah sorry that didnt make a whole lot of sense I guess. Perhaps now its clearer?
What I'm saying is that there's too much politics in movies nowadays and its used to attack people. Im more of a left leaning person and even though I refuse to be labeled a lefty simply because I see left and right as labels that prevent people from having meaningful conversations, I still dislike the new SW movies. Yet Im constantly bombarded by lefty media/people that I should like it because of the political messages its trying to send. Well fuck that, not everything is or should be about politics.
Ah, much clearer. Yeah, I've seen a lot of people complain about political messages in the latest Star Wars films, though maybe less so in this thread. I didn't like any of them (except Rogue 1, Rogue 1 was great).
On June 22 2018 05:12 FreakyDroid wrote: Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, the fact that you're using that as an argument to like or dislike the movie and the fact that Hollywood is exploiting this, is exactly what's wrong with the movies in the first place, especially true for SW movies. The post isn't addressed at anyone in particular, I'm just generalizing.
What does the word "that" (bolded) refer to?
Edit: I would have asked "who are you responding to?" but you've said not addressing anyone in particular
Yeah sorry that didnt make a whole lot of sense I guess. Perhaps now its clearer?
What I'm saying is that there's too much politics in movies nowadays and its used to attack people. Im more of a left leaning person and even though I refuse to be labeled a lefty simply because I see left and right as labels that prevent people from having meaningful conversations, I still dislike the new SW movies. Yet Im constantly bombarded by lefty media/people that I should like it because of the political messages its trying to send. Well fuck that, not everything is or should be about politics.
I somewhat agree. No movie can completely be free of political agenda and even the OT took a strong point against totalitarianism, centralism and partly justified violence for a good cause. Ofc especially the latter goes basically for every action flic though. That being said I am one of those ppl who think that the way humans treat livestock tells a lot about how human humans are and even I thought that the animal protection message in TLJ was needlessly heavy handed, simplistic and lecturing. I don't mind if a movie explores concepts and thought TLJ did some things right with their "everything is grey" logic in some areas of the movie, but whenever they left the grey and took position they did so with the subtlety of a Rhino in full charge.
I don’t know, nothing about Star Wars has been subtle. The villains name is Dark Father, who is a space wizard who works with the space Nazis. TLJ was heavy handed at parts, but it wasn’t crazy out of line for a series that has magical force that divides light and dark.
On June 22 2018 05:12 FreakyDroid wrote: Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, the fact that you're using that as an argument to like or dislike the movie and the fact that Hollywood is exploiting this, is exactly what's wrong with the movies in the first place, especially true for SW movies. The post isn't addressed at anyone in particular, I'm just generalizing.
What does the word "that" (bolded) refer to?
Edit: I would have asked "who are you responding to?" but you've said not addressing anyone in particular
Yeah sorry that didnt make a whole lot of sense I guess. Perhaps now its clearer?
What I'm saying is that there's too much politics in movies nowadays and its used to attack people. Im more of a left leaning person and even though I refuse to be labeled a lefty simply because I see left and right as labels that prevent people from having meaningful conversations, I still dislike the new SW movies. Yet Im constantly bombarded by lefty media/people that I should like it because of the political messages its trying to send. Well fuck that, not everything is or should be about politics.
I somewhat agree. No movie can completely be free of political agenda and even the OT took a strong point against totalitarianism, centralism and partly justified violence for a good cause. Ofc especially the latter goes basically for every action flic though. That being said I am one of those ppl who think that the way humans treat livestock tells a lot about how human humans are and even I thought that the animal protection message in TLJ was needlessly heavy handed, simplistic and lecturing. I don't mind if a movie explores concepts and thought TLJ did some things right with their "everything is grey" logic in some areas of the movie, but whenever they left the grey and took position they did so with the subtlety of a Rhino in full charge.
Kind of I guess. I personally dont mind these messages when they dont overshadow the story, even if they are not subtle. However the new SW movies, as LegalLord says, dont stand on their own as cinematic work. So when they are criticized as such, there's bound to be a political divide. And its not just SW, its pretty much every movie nowadays. Its ridiculous and its mostly because few idiots on both sides of the political spectrum are too busy using any form of art nowadays to fight over their political bullshit ideas.
I enjoyed Solo. I expected cheesy and I got cheesy and I was fine paying 6 bucks for it. I seriously think if original star wars was made today the internet would be just as up in arms about how bad it was as they are now with the new movies.
It's not like there aren't movies that the internet doesn't enjoy, as a whole... The original Star Wars were quite good and would get a very positive reception.
On June 22 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote: It was fucking great, I don't know what you are talking about.+ Show Spoiler +
I totally know what you are talking about, i exist on the internet, dont @ me
. Never had I ever thought I won't know where the next movie would go.
i didn't like it. Solo wasn't very good.
Here is a good explanation WHY these new Star Wars movies are not very good.
TL;DR : i want a self contained movie i can just watch from end to end and know what is going on while having a satisfactory conclusion to a primary plot point.
Any how, it looks like Kathleen Kennedy is taking the bullet for this mess. Publicly, she hasn't said a word in 6+ months and now we have this...
i say Kennedy is gone. Of course, they'll dress it up to make it sound like something other than she got fired. Kinda like when Hirshberg left ATVI after Skylanders went from making 1+ billion a year to making nothing. Or like when Jay Wilson "moved to another project" when Diablo3 was mediocre and got revamped and put in a great spot by Josh Mosqueira. Jay Wilson got fired as director of D3 due to incompetence. end of story. Any how, I think Kennedy is gone.
the guy at the end of this lucasfilm video can't do the biz end of things though... they'll prolly hire someone else to do that stuff. on the creative side.... he'll be the Rob Pardo of the Star Wars franchise i suspect.