Movies: Solo: A Star Wars Story, 25 May 2018 Release (Early reviews are in)

[Do Make Say Think]

I see we have entered the "now a lot of people think it sucks" phase of Rogue One. Same thing happened with Episode VII after all.

Both movies are fun rides and that's about it. TFA is more fun than RO but that is mostly because the pacing in RO is really off and that led to the characters being one-dimensional.

It is frustrating to see people go from one extreme to another on big blockbuster movies. After a while it seems all the analysts start to take over the narrative and what they point out as issues become gospel. A movie can have issues without being terrible.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I see we have entered the "now a lot of people think it sucks" phase of Rogue One. Same thing happened with Episode VII after all.

Both movies are fun rides and that's about it. TFA is more fun than RO but that is mostly because the pacing in RO is really off and that led to the characters being one-dimensional.

It is frustrating to see people go from one extreme to another on big blockbuster movies. After a while it seems all the analysts start to take over the narrative and what they point out as issues become gospel. A movie can have issues without being terrible.

Rogue One received a ton of backlash from people upon release. You can even check my comments immediately after it came out. I haven't exactly changed my mind on the movie even after subsequent watches.

 

[beowulf]

Rogue One received a ton of backlash from people upon release. You can even check my comments immediately after it came out. I haven't exactly changed my mind on the movie even after subsequent watches.

I really don't mind it. It's not a movie masterpiece but it's good and I like the ending, killing off all the heroes shows the sacrifice they were willing to endure to save the galaxy from evil.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

I see we have entered the "now a lot of people think it sucks" phase of Rogue One. Same thing happened with Episode VII after all.

Both movies are fun rides and that's about it. TFA is more fun than RO but that is mostly because the pacing in RO is really off and that led to the characters being one-dimensional.

It is frustrating to see people go from one extreme to another on big blockbuster movies. After a while it seems all the analysts start to take over the narrative and what they point out as issues become gospel. A movie can have issues without being terrible.

Check out my critism of Rogue one in the thread dedicated to the movie. It was full of common movie tropes and one dimensional characters. It was a horribly boring romp where the characters actions make no sense.

 

[Jussi]

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Ron Howard will take over: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...an-solo-movie-ron-howard-steps-direct-1015674

Edit: now confirmed by Kathleen Kennedy at the end of the article.

 

[Naych_PHX]

Well if Ron Howard is taking over...

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The creative clash, according to one insider, also came down to differences in understanding the character of Han Solo. “People need to understand that Han Solo is not a comedic personality. He’s sarcastic and selfish,†said that source.[/I]

I am on the producer's side on this. Han can be funny, but he isn't exactly comedic.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Nice avatar change!

Back by popular demand lol.

Both movies are fun rides and that's about it. .

Rouge One is boring.

Well if Ron Howard is taking over...

Ron Howard isn't...terrible, I guess.

Just the fact that they had to reshoot the film is a red flag. Just like Rogue One. Was The Last Jedi reshot?

 

[x Tame Impala]

Rogue One received a ton of backlash from people upon release. You can even check my comments immediately after it came out. I haven't exactly changed my mind on the movie even after subsequent watches.

Yeah same. It was an uninteresting background story with background characters that were themselves totally uninteresting. The only redeeming parts of the film were the gorgeous ending battle scene on the beach and Vader slaying the **** out of everyone.

 

[x Tame Impala]

This Han Solo movie is probably going to suck because Solo's whole appeal in the first movies was that he was an adventurous, ultra cool, scamp, that over the course of the trilogy changed into a caring person who devoted himself to something bigger than himself.

If this movie stays true to character (which it very well may not) there shouldn't be any character development whatsoever. His background story is almost entirely irrelevant.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the only deviation from the main trilogies I want to see is Darth Vader hunting down and killing Jedi. I don't care about Han, Bobba Fett, not even Obi Wan. I especially didn't care about a bunch of collateral damage background characters being given their own movie in Rogue One

 

[Osprey]

Ron Howard is a fantastic choice. I'm even a bit surprised that they got him, especially so late, but I guess that the fact that he hasn't had much box office success in recent years made it easier for him to accept.

Sounds like the co-directors wanted to turn Han Solo into Starlord, whereas the writer wanted to preserve more of the original Harrison Ford feel.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...y-han-solo-movie-directors-were-fired-1015474

In that case, I'm extremely happy that they were fired. That's the last thing that we needed: a Han Solo movie (or trilogy) that was a copy of Guardians of the Galaxy. I fully trust Ron Howard, since he's from the original trilogy's era and an old-school director, to try to make Han and the film as much like the originals as he can. I wasn't looking forward to it before, since my fear was that it would just be like 'Guardians', but I'm definitely intrigued now. I don't expect Howard's past level of magic, since he's stepping in late and has little creative control, but at least Kasdan's vision will be respected.

 

[Blender]

I see we have entered the "now a lot of people think it sucks" phase of Rogue One. Same thing happened with Episode VII after all.

Both movies are fun rides and that's about it. TFA is more fun than RO but that is mostly because the pacing in RO is really off and that led to the characters being one-dimensional.

It is frustrating to see people go from one extreme to another on big blockbuster movies. After a while it seems all the analysts start to take over the narrative and what they point out as issues become gospel. A movie can have issues without being terrible.

Speak for yourself. I've had the same opinion of both from when I saw them.

 

[Osprey]

This Han Solo movie is probably going to suck because Solo's whole appeal in the first movies was that he was an adventurous, ultra cool, scamp, that over the course of the trilogy changed into a caring person who devoted himself to something bigger than himself.

If this movie stays true to character (which it very well may not) there shouldn't be any character development whatsoever. His background story is almost entirely irrelevant.

I think that you're overstating his character development a bit. He didn't stop becoming an "adventurous, ultra cool scamp." He just traded in a bit of selfishness for selflessness. We saw early in The Force Awakens that he was largely back to his old (pre-A New Hope) ways, so he's a guy who didn't permanently transform in the original trilogy. I think that he's more complex than "was selfish, is now selfless" and that he's really a guy who skirts the line, feeling most comfortable just on this side of selfish, but can be pulled over to the other side of the line for a time by persuasive enough characters and causes (but remove those things, like having his relationship with Leah fall apart and no more Empire to fight, and he slides back into his former, selfish ways).

I can see them maintaining that sort of balance in the prequel trilogy. They can duplicate the original trilogy and have him be selfish and get pulled into selflessness by new (or, shall we say, old) characters and causes. They may, instead, try the reverse and make him an idealistic, selfless young guy who gets a harsh lesson in reality and learns to count on nobody but himself. That might be kind of dark, but could just be the middle chapter, so that the first film is "idealism," the second film is "tragedy and darkness" and the third film is "redemption." Either way, whether it's A to B again, B to A or A to B to C (something halfway between A and B), I think that there's room for character development that is in keeping with how we view the Solo character.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I thought his regression in FA was because he lost his son to evil, couldn't be with his wife anymore because of the pain, and went back to the only thing he knew how to do

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Speak for yourself. I've had the same opinion of both from when I saw them.

Sure plenty of people thought the movie was merely ok at release.

I wasn't singling anyone out here. Just commenting on a trend I believe is forming. That it may be "correct" or not is irrelevant.

 

[MadDevil]

The thing that sucks is that it's always going to have that "I wonder what the film was originally" question hovering over it.

Although to be honest I never thought it was a good idea to do a Han Solo movie anyway. As much as I love the character, sometimes you don't need to know their backstory. Vader was this big badass in the OT, then in the PT we see him as a whiny emo kid. Boba Fett, looked like a badass in TESB. Then we find out he's a clone of some guy who wasn't even a Mandalorian (although that part came out of TCW series). Sometimes less is more.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Ron Howard is great, didnt realize that the original people were from 21 jump street, wtf is that about

 

[Baby Punisher]

Ron Howard is huge. It should be ok.

 

[Supermassive]

I wonder if the original trilogy and most 80s sci-fi/fantasy movies are legendary in retrospect (to my generation, anyway) because we as kids didn't feel the need to call attention to ourselves as such masterful movie critics, or the need to ***** and moan about the things that weren't a perfect fit. We just enjoyed the ride and talked non-stop about what we loved.

The Force Awakens and Rogue One were faithful to the Star Wars mythos. Sounds like the changes to Han Solo are for the better as well.

 

[HanSolo]

I wonder if the original trilogy and most 80s sci-fi/fantasy movies are legendary in retrospect (to my generation, anyway) because we as kids didn't feel the need to call attention to ourselves as such masterful movie critics, or the need to ***** and moan about the things that weren't a perfect fit. We just enjoyed the ride and talked non-stop about what we loved.

The Force Awakens and Rogue One were faithful to the Star Wars mythos. Sounds like the changes to Han Solo are for the better as well.

I definitely think that's part of it.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

the AC Crespin books are better than almost any movie could possibly be anyway, they'll always be the backstory of Han for me

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

The thing that sucks is that it's always going to have that "I wonder what the film was originally" question hovering over it.

Although to be honest I never thought it was a good idea to do a Han Solo movie anyway. As much as I love the character, sometimes you don't need to know their backstory. Vader was this big badass in the OT, then in the PT we see him as a whiny emo kid. Boba Fett, looked like a badass in TESB. Then we find out he's a clone of some guy who wasn't even a Mandalorian (although that part came out of TCW series). Sometimes less is more.

While I'll never say that a film shouldn't or should not have been made, I do think it will require something rather special for me to overcome the concept. The Han Solo from A New Hope was played by an actor who was in his mid 30s. Since then, he's been in three other movies and we got to see a pretty complete character arc in the process. Doing a younger version of the character that wasn't that old to begin with.....feels kind of unnecessary. No matter what the final product shows for this and future Han Solo films, the fact that Han Solo is a selfish, suave criminal at the start of Episode IV makes me wonder if they should have just explored a similar story with a new lead, a la Rogue One. Hard for me to care too much about the main character when I already know where he's heading in the not too distant future.

 

[MadDevil]

I feel sorry for Ehrenreich in all of this. As if he didn't have enough pressure on him playing Han Solo, now there's all this drama.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I wonder if the original trilogy and most 80s sci-fi/fantasy movies are legendary in retrospect (to my generation, anyway) because we as kids didn't feel the need to call attention to ourselves as such masterful movie critics, or the need to ***** and moan about the things that weren't a perfect fit. We just enjoyed the ride and talked non-stop about what we loved.

The Force Awakens and Rogue One were faithful to the Star Wars mythos. Sounds like the changes to Han Solo are for the better as well.

The Original Trilogy was more than just a mythos, and just because you put a movie with lightSabres and star destroyers and stormtroopers in it does not a "faithful" spinoff/sequal/prequel make. The Han Solo trilogy will have characters we are familiar with and will likely put them in locations we can recognize, but how faithful of a backstory will it be?

ANH and ESB are rightfully called great movies back then, and would have been called great movies today. As far as movies being "legendary" now, have you heard of Mad Max: Fury Road? That came out in 2015 and despite the "mean" critics was universally praised.

Saying "Just enjoy the ride" comes off as "I don't want to think critically about a movie that has Star Wars in it."

 

[All-Star]

I think that you're overstating his character development a bit. He didn't stop becoming an "adventurous, ultra cool scamp." He just traded in a bit of selfishness for selflessness. We saw early in The Force Awakens that he was largely back to his old (pre-A New Hope) ways, so he's a guy who didn't permanently transform in the original trilogy. I think that he's more complex than "was selfish, is now selfless" and that he's really a guy who skirts the line, feeling most comfortable just on this side of selfish, but can be pulled over to the other side of the line for a time by persuasive enough characters and causes (but remove those things, like having his relationship with Leah fall apart and no more Empire to fight, and he slides back into his former, selfish ways).

I can see them maintaining that sort of balance in the prequel trilogy. They can duplicate the original trilogy and have him be selfish and get pulled into selflessness by new (or, shall we say, old) characters and causes. They may, instead, try the reverse and make him an idealistic, selfless young guy who gets a harsh lesson in reality and learns to count on nobody but himself. That might be kind of dark, but could just be the middle chapter, so that the first film is "idealism," the second film is "tragedy and darkness" and the third film is "redemption." Either way, whether it's A to B again, B to A or A to B to C (something halfway between A and B), I think that there's room for character development that is in keeping with how we view the Solo character.

The way I saw it, Han never gave 2 ***** about the rebellion and its goals (Lucas made a mistake in RotJ, so I've always chosen to disreguard his behaviour in that one. General my ass...). All he cared about were the people he cared about. He'd never admit it, but he'd go through hell and back for them. That is the Han that should be portrayed in these movies...

In D&D terms, Han was Chaotic Good...