Solo: A Star Wars Story (Post-release)

What did you think of Solo: A Star Wars Story?


  • Total voters
    278
When you say, "within reason", you mean there are films that *should* be apologized for liking. Such as, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. And, The Last Jedi.

Right??

The Wook


@The Wook ... knowing your absolute disdain for that particular Bay film ... Yeah , o.k. :lol!

I was also speaking about general things in life though . My ‘ borrowed ‘ go to motto - do unto others , as you would be done by ... and hopefully the rest will work itself out .


:cheersGed
 
One thing I learned from Solo is that fuel enough to support an entire fleet can be carried in a few cases that a Wookie can carry, so why did Finn and Rose not simply fly off for more fuel in Last Jedi instead of that stupid Canto Bites-its-ass scene for a stupid codebreaker?

Well, obviously the Resistance didn't even have that much left after everything leading up to and in TFA... ;)
 
One thing I learned from Solo is that fuel enough to support an entire fleet can be carried in a few cases that a Wookie can carry, so why did Finn and Rose not simply fly off for more fuel in Last Jedi instead of that stupid Canto Bites-its-ass scene for a stupid codebreaker?

Clearly they created a fuel crisis in the galaxy by dumping it all into the Falcon to outrun the squid-thing during the Kessel Run. It's just yet another way Han is integral to the entire Star Wars universe... :lol
 
How about canceling Rian Johnson’s new trilogy? I still can’t believe the hate Solo is getting...
 

Attachments

  • F6E5B1E9-ADD3-4675-A425-B5F4757899EB.jpeg
    F6E5B1E9-ADD3-4675-A425-B5F4757899EB.jpeg
    140 KB · Views: 150
I think its funny, in a few places now I've seen this allusion (for lack of a better term) that not getting a solo film is some sort of punishment to fans... Disney looses here, not the fans.

I find it funnier that they spent $4 billion on a franchise without a clue what to do with it.

I didn't see solo, but it wasn't a boycott thing, I just lost the will to see new Star Wars after TLJ. A Kenobi movie likely would have got my money. But no sweat if they don't make it. They are out of touch with fans, and aren't clever enough create new one to replace them.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
 
They are out of touch with fans

Correction: They are out of touch with SOME fans.

I loved The Last Jedi, but I hated Solo. Do I think Disney is out of touch with me as a fan for this? No. I just think they made bad choices with Solo. Lucas made bad choices with the prequels. It happens.

My lineage goes back to waiting in line to see Star Wars in the theaters before it was called A New Hope. Does that make me a better fan? No. Still just a fan, no bigger or less a fan than someone for whom Force Awakens, or even Solo was their intro.

I will argue against claims of lazy writing in The Last Jedi that I don't believe are and support why I liked the film, but I'm not going to tell anyone else to like the film. I will argue in favor of lazy writing in Solo and support why I disliked it, but again, I'm not going to tell anyone else to dislike it.

Likewise, I wish people who hated TLJ would stop acting like they speak for all Star Wars fans. I don't mean to call you out specifically, jhazard. But the fact is that within these threads there seems to be this tone perpetuated by people who disliked TLJ that all fans share that opinion and are now at odds with Disney. It just isn't so.
 
Last edited:
Correction: They are out of touch with SOME fans.

I loved The Last Jedi, but I hated Solo. Do I think Disney is out of touch with me as a fan for this? No. I just think they made bad choices with Solo. Lucas made bad choices with the prequels. It happens.

My lineage goes back to waiting in line to see Star Wars in the theaters before it was called A New Hope. Does that make me a better fan? No. Still just a fan, no bigger or less a fan than someone for whom Force Awakens, or even Solo was their intro.

I will argue against claims of lazy writing in The Last Jedi that I don't believe are and support why I liked the film, but I'm not going to tell anyone else to like the film. I will argue in favor of lazy writing in Solo and support why I disliked it, but again, I'm not going to tell anyone else to dislike it.

Likewise, I wish people who hated TLJ would stop acting like they speak for all Star Wars fans. I don't mean to call you out specifically, jhazard. But the fact is that within these threads there seems to be this tone perpetuated by people who disliked TLJ that all fans share that opinion and are now at odds with Disney. It just isn't so.


Agree with most of this . Though I’d amend the last paragraph’s sentence of ‘ this tone perpetuated by people who disliked TLJ that all fans share that opinion ‘ to perhaps , ‘ this tone perpetuated by people who disliked TLJ , only half of all fans share that opinion ‘ ... etc

Afterall Johnson’s clearly stipulated he ‘ enjoys ‘ making films that purposely seek to divide an audience’s response - equally .


:cheersGed
 
Last edited:
Agree with most of this . Though I’d amend the last paragraph’s sentence of ‘ this tone perpetuated by people who disliked TLJ that all fans share that opinion ‘ to perhaps , ‘ this tone perpetuated by people who disliked TLJ , only half of all fans share that opinion ‘ ... etc

I'm not certain even half is right. However, I wrote my statement how I meant it. Whatever the real numbers are of the split, there seems to be a rather vocal community of TLJ haters who assume that because they hate it so profoundly, that ALL fans are on their side. They seem to pretend that the large number of people who liked the film just don't exist.
 
Correction: They are out of touch with SOME fans.

Correction: they are out of touch with a significant number of fans. ($80 million worth?).

(I make no claims on who is or is not a fan. I stood in the same lines as you. Love TLJ all you like - I couldn't come to terms with rians vision, I tried three times, not sure how that makes me a hater - no, you didn't call me one, but it seems like either you like it, or you're grouped in with misogynists, phobes, or haters. Can't I just not like it?

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
 
Yeah I'm definitely one of those fans suffering from a TLJ hangover! But it's funny how your opinions of films can change over time. I don't think the two 'camps' are that static. For example watching this new trilogy has made me re-assess the prequels a bit.

I think a lot (some?) of us were expecting a lot more from Disney after they spent so much $$ on buying it. Disney can and have made some great films...so......?
 
Well, after the abomination that was TLJ and K.K., R.J. and J.Js name calling to those who did not like TLJ I waited till it hit my local discount theater to see Solo... I should have waited till Netflix. It had a few very brief moments where it could have been ok but the bad screen play, really chitty character arcs and yes, the smack in your face SJW robot. My wife was about to walk out when LZ3Q; or whatever it was called, was introduced...

I'd rather see an entire movie with Jar Jar being the lead... ripped me right out of the film for the remainder.. I had hopes for Becketts girlfriend (the one from West World) but she was wasted as a character. Yeah it has loads of nods to the Han and Lando books of old but what a mess. We really needed to learn Hans entire history in one film? This was worse then a fan film and I have worked on a few. It shocks me that Kasdin wrote this, it really does. I have been a Star Wars fan since I was eight in 1977. I saw the original in the theater over 150 times between 77 and 80. It really pains me to see the film's that prompted me to do make up and effects for film, die a mear shadow of what they were.

At least I have my old copies of the Thrawn, Solo, Lando trilogy as well as all the other fun books.

Sent from the 8th dimension
 
Yeah, I had a discussion with some friends about that. Not everyone who hasn't seen Solo is boycotting it. Some just aren't interested in what they tried to do with this movie. I wasn't interested in it, and despite the negative criticisms, I still went and saw it. I respect that others liked it, hell, I know people who really liked The Phantom Menace. I'm not going to troll them and say they're not true fans because I disagree. Solo just wasn't for me, so I'll move on.

It's actually a bit sad though, I've purchased every Star Wars movie released, I even bought The Last Jedi even though I didn't like it. I won't be buying Solo. Not because I am boycotting it, I just have no desire to see it again because, to me, it felt devoid of Star Wars. With the exception of a few scenes, it just didn't feel like Star Wars. I felt like I was watching a rip-off of Star Wars, like a generic space pirate movie.

I gave it a chance, twice, and it didn't do anything the second time around. In fact when I first saw it I left the theater just blah, the second time I was actually irritated.

But my friends and I were talking about this and one in particular brought up the AE argument. He knows based on our previous conversations that I just didn't see Solo in this kid. It didn't bother him at all. So I turned the tables and brought up his favorite movie, Rocky, and I asked him how he would feel if they tried to do the same thing with that character. He said, "would never work, Stallone was young when he did that movie and no one would ever buy anyone else as Rocky, especially with how many times he played that character. Rocky is too iconic".

As you can tell, my friend isn't the brightest, and at I times even wonder why I still talk to him. It might be because he sucks at poker but he still buys in at $20.00 a game. :)

I think he understood my position as soon as the last word in that sentence above left his mouth. It's all subjective though, I get for some people it doesn't and never will matter, it just depends on how you feel about the character.

I get no joy in seeing a SW movie fail, it's part of my life and I want all the movies to succeed in taking me back to that galaxy far, far away. But I do hope Disney learns at least something from this experience.
 
Last edited:
I think he understood my position as soon as the last word in that sentence above left his mouth. It's all subjective though, I get for some people it doesn't and never will matter, it just depends on how you feel about the character.

I think it also comes down to whether or not the writers have anything interesting to say about the character(s).

The Star Trek characters are, many would argue, just as iconic as Han Solo (or Rocky, per your example). So why wasn't there nearly the split reactions for the Star Trek reboot with entirely new actors playing the roles (granted, Into Darkness got a lot of flack, but I feel a lot of that was due to JJ outright lying to fans prior to release)? Maybe it's because, for the most part, something different was done with them. With the exception the Kobyashi Maru test (the weakest sequence of the film by far), we saw the characters behaving more or less how we expect them to behave, but in situations we haven't already heard about or seen before. They certainly stacked the deck in their favor by creating an "alternate timeline," which gave them a lot of leeway to do new things, but still the writing was, for the most part, focused on telling a new story and doing new things with the characters (e.g, how would Spock react to the most emotional thing ever?).

The first mistake Solo made was in deciding to frame the entire story around things we already know about Han Solo.

The second mistake was not making those familiar elements very interesting or unexpected.

For me, it wasn't that I didn't see the character in the actor. I didn't really see the character at all in the writing. They had nothing really to say about him. They even robbed Solo of his identity by making his name a totally arbitrary concoction by an Imperial officers... and nothing about Han Solo should be arbitrary.
 
I think it also comes down to whether or not the writers have anything interesting to say about the character(s).

The Star Trek characters are, many would argue, just as iconic as Han Solo (or Rocky, per your example). So why wasn't there nearly the split reactions for the Star Trek reboot with entirely new actors playing the roles (granted, Into Darkness got a lot of flack, but I feel a lot of that was due to JJ outright lying to fans prior to release)? Maybe it's because, for the most part, something different was done with them. With the exception the Kobyashi Maru test (the weakest sequence of the film by far), we saw the characters behaving more or less how we expect them to behave, but in situations we haven't already heard about or seen before. They certainly stacked the deck in their favor by creating an "alternate timeline," which gave them a lot of leeway to do new things, but still the writing was, for the most part, focused on telling a new story and doing new things with the characters (e.g, how would Spock react to the most emotional thing ever?).

The first mistake Solo made was in deciding to frame the entire story around things we already know about Han Solo.

The second mistake was not making those familiar elements very interesting or unexpected.

For me, it wasn't that I didn't see the character in the actor. I didn't really see the character at all in the writing. They had nothing really to say about him. They even robbed Solo of his identity by making his name a totally arbitrary concoction by an Imperial officers... and nothing about Han Solo should be arbitrary.

I agree with what your saying. And I've mentioned that point before about Star Trek. As much as ST fans were peeved at what they did, the whole "alternate timeline" gave them the ability to go in a different direction while still allowing themselves to keep some of the characteristics of the original characters alive. I'm not a ST fan, but I do think I was able to watch those movies because I understood the characters I was seeing were not supposed to be the "same" as the ones in the original show / movie. They essentially created a new / different reality, which does change things. I think that's why you didn't see the same split reactions (although I know many ST fans who have disowned those new movies with the same disdain as some SW fans have done with SOLO).

And I get that the Solo in this movie is not supposed to be the "same" Solo we've come to love in ANH. There are events in his life pre-OT that made him who he was at that time, I get it. But there has to be something there that connects AE Solo to Ford's, and it just wasn't there, IMO. True, part of that was the writing, but I believe it's much deeper than that. I certainly do not blame my disappointment with this film solely on AE, for any of you who think I'm on the AE hate train.

I'm trying to think of an iconic, established character in cinema where they were successful in introducing a younger version, outside of a short role. I think the most successful, for me, is Zachary Quinto's Spock. And I'll go so far as to say I don't think he was successful based on writing. When I watched him, I genuinely believed I was watching a younger Spock. And I attribute that to his uncanny likeness and mannerisms. He looked, acted, and spoke like the Spock we new but was able to bring something else to the character.

I'm trying to think of others, they've tried with the Jack Ryan character but that doesn't really count. I mean that character was portrayed by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, Chris Pine, and now John Krasinski. So it's all over the place. I'm drawing a blank right now.

I personally think that if they tried to do an origins for Rocky, and the actor didn't kind of resemble, or act, or sound like the Rocky we know, might be hard to sell to fans. Don't get me wrong, has to be a good story and supporting cast as well.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to think of an iconic, established character in cinema where they were successful in introducing a younger version, outside of a short role. I think the most successful, for me, is Zachary Quinto's Spock.

James Bond constantly reinvents itself with new actors. Casino Royale literally went back to the start with Bond's first mission.

To be fair, these films never really show us a significantly younger version of Bond. However, it's an example of where different actors can embody a role with their own personalities and still be accepted as that character.

To a certain extent, even though aimed at a much younger audience, the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles did a fairly decent job of giving us a younger version of the character. There are still a lot of fans of Sean Patrick Flanery's portrayal as a young adult Indy.
 
James Bond constantly reinvents itself with new actors. Casino Royale literally went back to the start with Bond's first mission.

To be fair, these films never really show us a significantly younger version of Bond. However, it's an example of where different actors can embody a role with their own personalities and still be accepted as that character.

To a certain extent, even though aimed at a much younger audience, the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles did a fairly decent job of giving us a younger version of the character. There are still a lot of fans of Sean Patrick Flanery's portrayal as a young adult Indy.

Yeah, but the Bond franchise is different, Bond was never uniquely any one actor's character except maybe for Sean Connery, but he embodied him first, at a time when I think the industry was much different. We accept that now only because that's what we've come to know for that character, new faces.

I've never seen the Indy chronicles, but if I'm not mistaken, doesn't that portray him much younger, like in his late teens? Probably easier to swallow given Ford was almost 40 when Raiders was filmed. So there is room to tell a story that might be believable because we never knew an Indy that young. I think that guy was mid twenties when they filmed that show, but I always thought he was supposed to be playing a much younger Indy.

EDIT - Just checked the plot for Young Indy and they list him as being age 16 - 21.
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 4 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top