ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
Uncanny how alike they are. Getting someone physically similar is much better than what they did for Solo. If he's a decent actor, can pull off the voice, mannerisms and add something new to the character I'm all for it.
The Mandalorian (TV series)
- Thread starter smurf
- Start date
Strikerkc
Sr Member
Yea, I'm just officially ******* done with CGI de-aging for anything besides super short flash backs.
Episode 9 where they pull the blast shield up on luke and leia's training flashback for 3 seconds each with no dialoged, when one of those actors is a main character in the movie it's a flash back in? Sure, great, go nuts.
**** like at the end of mandalorian season 2? I'm out. simply not ok with it anymore. I've been kind of on the fence, but I'm done with it. lol. I don't care how good they ever get at it. I officially abstain from having an actor in their 60's, keep playing a 20 year old version of themselves. Luke is gonna show up in other Disney crap eventually, just cast a new freaking actor. At this point, it's just insulting to the new generation of actors, and insulting to the intelligence of the audience. Don't know if many folks will know it's luke? then add the words "I'm luke skywalker, jedi knight" or have Dune go "Luke Skywalker?" freaking something.
RRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Episode 9 where they pull the blast shield up on luke and leia's training flashback for 3 seconds each with no dialoged, when one of those actors is a main character in the movie it's a flash back in? Sure, great, go nuts.
**** like at the end of mandalorian season 2? I'm out. simply not ok with it anymore. I've been kind of on the fence, but I'm done with it. lol. I don't care how good they ever get at it. I officially abstain from having an actor in their 60's, keep playing a 20 year old version of themselves. Luke is gonna show up in other Disney crap eventually, just cast a new freaking actor. At this point, it's just insulting to the new generation of actors, and insulting to the intelligence of the audience. Don't know if many folks will know it's luke? then add the words "I'm luke skywalker, jedi knight" or have Dune go "Luke Skywalker?" freaking something.
RRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Better yet just stop shoehorning member berries into everything. Trust in your own original material enough to create characters fans will love because they are well developed instead of relying on the old ones to carry the emotional weight of the new shows/ movies. It's as if everyone involved in the writing of these stories is incapable of restraint and uses the familiarity of recognizable faces as a substitute for creating new characters who have any agency or depth in their own plot. The first season proved it's possible. It's the reason I even stuck with it because they took the risk, but since the illusion is broken I have no reason to bother with the show anymore.
Toadmeister
Sr Member
Settle down there, have a drink....
ghostryder
Legendary Member
ghostryder
Legendary Member
azheat
Master Member
I guess I'm in the minority, I have no problem with CG Luke, or any other character for that matter, if done right. I keep hearing the argument......"just recast him". But if technology exists to bring a character back in a more believable form, then great, let's do it. It just needs to be done right. If Sebastian Stan can do a young Mark Hamill the way Anthony Ingruber did a young Harrison Ford in Age of Adeline, then heck yeah I'm on board. The goal here, whether CGI or recast, is to believe you are watching the younger version, or a version, of a character you already know and love. This is one of the many reasons why Solo, for me, failed. At no point did I ever believe I was watching a young Han Solo. No, I am not asking for an impersonation or a full blown movie with a CG Harrison Ford, but I am asking for a connection outside of a simple gesture, wardrobe, prop, or piece of dialogue.
As for the argument "why go back to the well, do something new with new characters", they have! Some of the most compelling characters, at least for me, in the Star Wars universe are Cassian Andor, Jyn Erso, and The Mandalorian, all people who never existed until these movie/series were made.
The reason they go back to the well is because these characters have so much more story to tell, so many questions fans want answered. But more importantly, there is an allure for these characters and this franchise unlike any other, one that's kept it relevant for 43 years. And sometimes it's just because we want to see them again in maybe a way we have never seen them before. While I agree many fans aren't on board, I see more compelling responses for than against.
As for the argument "why go back to the well, do something new with new characters", they have! Some of the most compelling characters, at least for me, in the Star Wars universe are Cassian Andor, Jyn Erso, and The Mandalorian, all people who never existed until these movie/series were made.
The reason they go back to the well is because these characters have so much more story to tell, so many questions fans want answered. But more importantly, there is an allure for these characters and this franchise unlike any other, one that's kept it relevant for 43 years. And sometimes it's just because we want to see them again in maybe a way we have never seen them before. While I agree many fans aren't on board, I see more compelling responses for than against.
Last edited:
I think that well has run dry. I'm speaking for myself and I'm fully aware nothing I say or do is going to stop them from capitalizing on those characters. I'm in the minority of fans who would rather see Star Wars (at least with the legacy characters) end for good rather than being thrashed like a dead corpse just for the sake of squeezing more green milk from the space cow. You know why Solo tanked? Because it added nothing to the character that we didn't already know. They can do the same for every other known character from the OT and it will likely end the same way. Maybe it was a fun distraction for a few hours but ultimately said nothing new and gave us no new insight, ie it's filler with no substance.
I care too much about the integrity of the writing to want to see them do more insanely stupid things with characters that meant something to me because for the few things they've done right, you better believe they can and will mess them up even further. You can tell stories with the same cast for another 30 years but the reason they were special in the first place is long gone. Remember kids, all roads lead to Jake.
I care too much about the integrity of the writing to want to see them do more insanely stupid things with characters that meant something to me because for the few things they've done right, you better believe they can and will mess them up even further. You can tell stories with the same cast for another 30 years but the reason they were special in the first place is long gone. Remember kids, all roads lead to Jake.
Last edited:
cboath
Master Member
Solo tanked for a lot of reasons....hangover/hate from TLJ, lack of backing from the studio (refused to advertise for it until after TLJ was out of theaters and damn near on Bluray), the bad PR in the run up of it being a comedy and then firing the directors, etc, casting someone as Han that bore zero likeness to Han (i mean, pretty much everyone said, that guy's not Han), etc. If story was a reason, it was way way down on the list.
Yet if the story was truly great it would have transcended all those problems. Look at ANH. By all accounts it should have never seen the light of day.
Often some of the most successful movies have the odds stacked against them. Look at JAWS. I'm not suggesting Solo is the worst film, just that the factors you listed would have made little difference if the story was airtight.
Often some of the most successful movies have the odds stacked against them. Look at JAWS. I'm not suggesting Solo is the worst film, just that the factors you listed would have made little difference if the story was airtight.
Last edited:
Riceball
Master Member
While I enjoyed Solo overall, at the same time I felt that it was a story that really didn't need telling. A movie based on Han during his heyday as a smuggler, that might have been more interesting, esp. if they made more like how we saw him when he and Luke first met, the rough and tough smuggler. Make him a touch unlikeable and somewhat uncaring might have been a good move so that it really showed us more of how his character grew and evolved in the OT.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
The movie is a visual standard by which all new Star Wars should be judged. The cinematography, the production design, color grade, score, etc, perfect. Story is just…eh. Non-existent.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
I actually like the rogue one and solo very much. They were both fun stories but I enjoyed watching.
Darth Lars
Master Member
Sebastian Stan isn't really that young any more. He will be turning 39 this year.
The Mandalorian is set at 9 ABY.
• In-universe Luke's age would have been 19+9 = 28.
• Mark Hamill's real age counting from 1976 (ANH) + 9 would have been 34
• Mark Hamill's real age counting from 1982 (ROTJ) + 5 would have been 36
• Max Lloyd-Jones was 29, and is turning 30 in a couple of weeks
Toadmeister
Sr Member
He looks pretty good for 39. With makeup and lighting I’m not worried. Stans a good actor and can fill those shoes.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
It’s all the preservatives in our food.
Similar threads
