SOLO: A Spoiler Story (contains spoilers)

[dog-days]

Saw this film on Sunday. Found it at the same time both fun and entirely forgettable. The only things I think I'll really take from it are:

1) At times I thought I was watching a missing episode of Firefly and

2) A star destroyer silhouetted against an azure nebula is really pretty 

On the bright side, when I read Wert's review and it mentioned all the fan service and in-jokes, I thought it would be completely awful. Because although I am dorky enough to get a lot of the nods and winks, I hate it when films seem to be made just for the fans, and for a certain kind of fan (e.g. Rogue One).  But I didn't feel the tie-ins to other bits of the canon hurt the film that much except perhaps the Darth Maul one. 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 5/26/2018 at 11:54 AM, Werthead said:

They also had Ray Park provide the mocap for the character (I think he was otherwise all CGI). They didn't invite Peter Serafinowicz back, but they felt that Witwer (aka Crashdown from Battlestar Galactica) had earned the voice gig because of this work on the animated shows.

I still don’t believe anything should be able to survive being fully bisected like that.  Except for maybe earthworms.

[Werthead]

 

Quote

 

So...nothing that would really merit the "life debt" thing. 

 

I don't think the life debt thing is canon. It's never mentioned in the movies and I believe was only introduced in the Holiday Special (which isn't canon at all) and mentioned again in the Expanded Universe/Legends.

I kind of like the idea that Chewie hangs out with Han because, well, he wants to, rather than he feels indebted.

1 hour ago, Relic said:

The Disney/Fox acquisition, i mean. I'll never spend another penny on a Disney property again. Ive explained this in other threads, so i won't rehash.

It hasn't happened yet, and from the sound of it may not happen now, as Comcast have bid twice what Disney have. Disney can afford to outbid them, but it goes from "Disney can comfortably afford this" to "Disney can afford this but it'll hurt."

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

7 hours ago, Relic said:

I haven't seen this film because of boycotting Fox reasons (ill pirate it at some point),  but i want to say that i find all the bitching about SJW to be hilarious. It's amazing that these people have the nerve to call anyone else snowflakes. These angry virgins are triggered by the most inconsequential of things, and they never every stop crying. Pathetic. 

Yeah this. Totally this.  

I went to see the thing on opening day specifically because of those clowns.  When I saw what the price of a matinee ticket was, I nearly bought two.  I guess that makes me triggered.  So what. Fuck them.

As you mentioned, there's such a total lack of self awareness that they can't see the irony of calling other people "triggered".  The people who are ranting about a fictional fembot online.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why are people claiming a hundred million dollar weekend means Solo has “tanked”?

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why are people claiming a hundred million dollar weekend means Solo has “tanked”?

Disney's projection was 30-50% higher. So it's strongly underperforming the hopes of the studio at present. It's done 50% worse domestically and more than 50% worse internationally than Rogue One.

[Darth Richard II]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why are people claiming a hundred million dollar weekend means Solo has “tanked”?

People are spiteful and cruel.

[Rockroi]

So I know I am late to the party and I have no idea what people thought of Solo which I saw with my two daughters (12 and 7).  The 7-year old loved it; the 12-year old thought there was too much talking.

Here is what I liked:

Westerns... in ....  SPAAAAAACCCCCEEEEE!!!: I liked Solo because it combined two things I love: Star Wars and Westerns.  Solo had all the expansion of space but the feel but the grittiness of serial Western romp.  It had a train heist; gun fights; men and women sick of a war so they strike off in another direction; saloons, chase scenes. All of that was great. It DID feel a lot like an extended episode of Firefly and I think that was a good thing.  The setting was actually an integral part of the story and not just "What climate can THIS planet be?"  I think the way the movie handled the conflicts, the action and even the characters was all reminiscent of Westerns and the movie ended up in that mode.  But it also had spaceships, blasters, the Empire, etc and that all worked.  

Size Matters:  The story is also "small"; they are not trying to steal the Death Star's plans or destroy the Death Star or find the Death Star or... recreate the Death Star. Its just a simple, small Western ...in space. Fun, funny but its really "low stakes." Keeping this movie limited and focused was great; I never felt like I had to worry about "Wait, is this when they rescue X so that the Empire is destroyed etc?"  The movie was almost lifted from the burden of being a "Space Opera" and traded that all in for being light and fun.  And when the movie DID try to be "high stakes" it fails; its cringy.  Its definitely the first Star Wars movie to completely eschew the space opera feel of Star Wars (Rogue One was sort of like that, but ... Death Star hunting). So, yeah, there is a bit of "That-Didn't-Feel-Like-A-Star-Wars-Movie" going on, but I really mean that in a good way.

Great Characters:  Woody Harrelson and Donald Glover are both completely terrific, and we knew they would be. Beckett is the opportunistic teacher that everyone needs; Lando is the suave swashbuckler.  Great characters.  And I liked the radical droid L3-37 ; I like that she's a radical droid.  And maybe they were playing her sincere; maybe it was a tongue-and-cheek mockery of SJWs; either way it worked.  And surprisingly, Emilia Clark was good!  We an all admit that the gild has fallen off her Game-of-Thrones-Lilly; she's barely passable on the show now.  But here she does a great job with probably the most nuanced character in the movie.  She's hiding in plain sight the whole time, enough for the viewers to know what's up but never think its too out of left field.  

The Solo Transition:  But the strange part of the movie is Solo himself who has to balance that wise-cracking "scoundrel" with the "innocence" that this young man would have in a universe populated by people who know better. The movie, IMO, earns that transition of Solo being young buck to scoundrel.  I know people have said they did not like THIS Han Solo.  I disagree.  THIS Han Solo is THE Han Solo.  Remember, Solo is the guy who shoots Greedo FIRST but he is also the guy who comes back to save Luke.  He's both suave AND a bit of a goof.  To me, That Han cannot just be this grizzled asshole; he has to have a balance.  And here in Solo, the character is both a tough opportunist but also sort of a dreamer.  I loved how he LOVES the Falcon even before its his.  I love the way he looks out of the Falcon's cockpit with that "This is fucking great" look; how he says "I have a good feeling about this."  That's the way young people start.  Its only as the movie progresses and he sees how horrid things can get that he gets tempered down.  Han does through a LOT in this movie- escaping Corelia, losing Qi're, getting her back, watching the people from Becket's crew get killed; losing the fuel; seeing war etc that his transition is well earned.  I absolutely believe that the same kid who escaped Corelia at the start of the movie is the same person who wants the Falcon who is the same guy who kills Becket.  That was great.  

What I Did Not Like:

Go Big Or ... You Know What?  Just Go Home:  The attempt to get me to care about this "Resistance/Rebellion/Hillary Voters just ... no.  The movie tries to tie in this one, small well-contained story with the larger Star Wars universe and it FAILS!  I do not care about these plucky, young go-getters who hate the Evil Empire. Literally EVERY OTHER MOVIE is about them.  Make just one Star Wars movie about something else.  Why do you have to pollute a perfectly fine Western with this dumb rebellion?  

I'm Scarred So I Must Be the Villain:  The villain was never great and Star Wars, to me, is defined- almost literally - by the villains.  Darden or Darren or Dresden or Dreary Dan or Evil Vision was never a part of this movie.  He seemed like small potatoes; he acted like small potatoes and I never was afraid of him and thought he was dealt with in an uncreative, simplistic way- from beginning to end.  Big Miss.

Disjointed: The movie FELT like it was written by committee and that's because it was.  It felt less-and-less like a whole movie and more-and-more like a series of scenes that were not always transitioned well.  This is the train heist; this is the battle scene; this is the mining colony scene; this is the scene Lando leaves; this is the scene where the ... marauders ... reveal themselves, etc.  Not a lot of continuity that would make me love this movie.  

Better Left to A Better Imagination:  This is a nit-pick... but I don't need to know the HOW of every, single thing in Han Solo's life, and the movie tries to remove all the mystery from Han Solo.  Do I NEED to know when he did the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs?  Do I need to know how he got his name?  Do I need to know how he got his gun?  I sometimes think certain things are better left unsaid and if you have to fill a movie with that stuff, maybe you did not have a full movie to begin with? 

Mauled:  Fuck, just no.  I have so many problems with Darth Maul, but at the top is the way the franchise has tried- and absolutely failed - to make his resurrection seem realistic.  We saw him get chopped IN HALF by Obi Wan.  Then, as time wore on, Lucsasfilm realized that people LIKED Maul so they decided to bring him back ... just with robot legs.  That works, right?  Well, no it was terribly fucking stupid.  But then they bring him back to play a major role in Clone Wars... then in Rebels (where they kill him... probably?).  Now here he is again in Solo, trying to matter.  And he does not matter.  The way the whole franchise handled this character is lazy and this reveal is also lazy.  I know Star Wars wants to tie everything together but a better way is the think up better villains.  

 

Overall, this was a fun, funny and fast movie that tied the ethos of Star Wars into the American Wild West. And that all worked, even if it made this the least feeling Star Wars movie. Still worked.

GRADE: B/B+, does not knock any of the Original Trilogy or Rogue One out of the Top 4, but better than any of the other Prequels. Go see.

[Trebla]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why are people claiming a hundred million dollar weekend means Solo has “tanked”?

 

20 minutes ago, Ran said:

Disney's projection was 30-50% higher. So it's strongly underperforming the hopes of the studio at present. It's done 50% worse domestically and more than 50% worse internationally than Rogue One.

The price tag for the movie was also enormous, $250 million making it one of the most expensive movies of all time. The reason for the price tag was the issues with the first directors which required hiring Ron Howard to do massive re-shoots. When you add in the costs for marketing, the break-even number jumps up considerably. I recall reading that Justice League, which cost $300 million, needed to gross $750 million to turn a profit. It didn't.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why are people claiming a hundred million dollar weekend means Solo has “tanked”?

 

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

Disney's projection was 30-50% higher. So it's strongly underperforming the hopes of the studio at present.

There's a massive gulf between " not meeting projections" and "Flop" and "tanked" or whatever other verbiage people are using.

IMO, there is definite blockbuster fatigue. This film is playing opposite Infinity War and DP2, and we've already had Ready Player One (which really underperformed) and Black Panther (breakout hit) this year.  I know I'm missing a few.

Ready Player One baffles me. Massive buzz going into it and then nothing, I mean $580 million isn't nothing but I can't believe that movie made much profit.

Also interesting is the weekly drop for Infinity War according to Boxofficemojo.  As massive as that film is, at the rate its going it could be out of theaters in less than 10 weeks.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah anything you said there was nullified when you said Hillary voters.

[Darth Richard II]

It certainly did not tank here. Opened soft sure,but saying it tanked or bombed in the states is just incorrect. Now, overseas, it’s tankkng hard.

[Darth Richard II]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

I don't think the life debt thing is canon. It's never mentioned in the movies and I believe was only introduced in the Holiday Special (which isn't canon at all) and mentioned again in the Expanded Universe/Legends.

I kind of like the idea that Chewie hangs out with Han because, well, he wants to, rather than he feels indebted.

It hasn't happened yet, and from the sound of it may not happen now, as Comcast have bid twice what Disney have. Disney can afford to outbid them, but it goes from "Disney can comfortably afford this" to "Disney can afford this but it'll hurt."

The foxDisney thing changes hourly, I swear.

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Trebla said:

 

The price tag for the movie was also enormous, $250 million making it one of the most expensive movies of all time. The reason for the price tag was the issues with the first directors which required hiring Ron Howard to do massive re-shoots. When you add in the costs for marketing, the break-even number jumps up considerably. I recall reading that Justice League, which cost $300 million, needed to gross $750 million to turn a profit. It didn't.

 

Deadline has claimed the actual budget for SOLO is nearer to $300m, as well. Also worth recalling that Justice League had a superior opening weekend.

I'm sure that all told the film will turn a profit for Disney. But unless the box office picks up, I think it'll be considered a dissapointing return by them. They brought it on themselves, though.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

57 minutes ago, Trebla said:

 

The price tag for the movie was also enormous, $250 million making it one of the most expensive movies of all time. The reason for the price tag was the issues with the first directors which required hiring Ron Howard to do massive re-shoots. When you add in the costs for marketing, the break-even number jumps up considerably. I recall reading that Justice League, which cost $300 million, needed to gross $750 million to turn a profit. It didn't.

 

The Magic word: "merchandise".  They could have let people see The Force Awakens for free and it still would have made cubic dollars for Disney.  I suspect Solo will be no different.

Edit: Also, Solo is a far superior film to Justice League.  That should count for something.  

[Werthead]

Quote

Why are people claiming a hundred million dollar weekend means Solo has “tanked”?

What the others have said. On top of that, Solo has a problem in that it doesn't have a clear run to pick up the slack: The Incredibles 2 and Jurassic World 2 are in theatres in a couple of weeks and that will likely finish the movie off. Between all of that, Solo will be lucky to reach $700 million worldwide, which is what it needs to make a worthwhile profit and probably guarantee a sequel. At this rate it may struggle to reach $500 million and break even.

The plus point is that Disney probably launched the film in an unflattering timeslot deliberately, so they can assess how a non-main Star Wars movie can do in that slot. They know now that it's probably for the best to keep future releases to December. They'll also likely know now to keep the budget down on the non-Saga films as well. I also suspect the movie will pick up a lot in media and streaming sales, especially because the word of mouth has been generally positive.

 

Quote

Also interesting is the weekly drop for Infinity War according to Boxofficemojo.  As massive as that film is, at the rate its going it could be out of theaters in less than 10 weeks.

 

Infinity War will cross $2 billion in the next day or so, only the fourth movie in history to do so, and it'll likely overtake The Force Awakens a few days after that. Titanic is also in reach, but Avatar isn't. So Infinity War could very well end up as the second-highest grossing movie of all time. I think its perfectly fine.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Infinity War will cross $2 billion in the next day or so, only the fourth movie in history to do so, and it'll likely overtake The Force Awakens a few days after that. Titanic is also in reach, but Avatar isn't. So Infinity War could very well end up as the second-highest grossing movie of all time. I think its perfectly fine.

Yeah, no question. As I said, "Massive". It's the quick burn that I find interesting.  

[Rockroi]

A friend of mine explained to me what he thinks of Solo and its opening:

Imagine, if you can, that your 43-year old self could talk to your 8-year old self about Star Wars.  I am 43 now and I was 8 when Jedi opened.  What would that discussion be like?  What would you talk about.  I imagine it would go something like this:   

43-Year Old Me: You just wait! I know you barely remember Star Wars and you love Empire and now that you saw Jedi you think that's it; the movies are over.  BUT JUST WAIT!  IN 15 years they will release prequels and then... after a bit they will release a new Star Wars movie EVERY YEAR! !! You will see FOUR Star Wars movies in just over three years!  And I just saw one for Han Solo!  It explains how he meets Chewbacca and gets the Falcon; it has chase scenes and action and drama and its fun and its funny!  ITs all about smugglers and fighting and its great!  Chewbacca is in it; Lando and new characters!  You will love this movie!

8 Year Old Me may say many things to that.  But you know what the 8-year old me will almost certainly NOT say?  "Okay, but how did Solo perform in the International Market?"  

[Aemon Stark]

Better yet, "How did Solo perform in the Chinese market?"

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

55 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

A friend of mine explained to me what he thinks of Solo and its opening:

Imagine, if you can, that your 43-year old self could talk to your 8-year old self about Star Wars.  I am 43 now and I was 8 when Jedi opened.  What would that discussion be like?  What would you talk about.  I imagine it would go something like this:   

43-Year Old Me: You just wait! I know you barely remember Star Wars and you love Empire and now that you saw Jedi you think that's it; the movies are over.  BUT JUST WAIT!  IN 15 years they will release prequels and then... after a bit they will release a new Star Wars movie EVERY YEAR! !! You will see FOUR Star Wars movies in just over three years!  And I just saw one for Han Solo!  It explains how he meets Chewbacca and gets the Falcon; it has chase scenes and action and drama and its fun and its funny!  ITs all about smugglers and fighting and its great!  Chewbacca is in it; Lando and new characters!  You will love this movie!

8 Year Old Me may say many things to that.  But you know what the 8-year old me will almost certainly NOT say?  "Okay, but how did Solo perform in the International Market?"  

Tell the 8 year old Solo won't get a sequel because it didn't make enough money.  He might care about that.

As I mentioned earlier, box office talk can get really tedious and stupid, but it does become relevant if you are a fan and you want to see the story continue.  Low viewership is the reason we only got 2 seasons of ROME and not the originally planned 5 seasons.  It's the reason The Wire ended when it did and why Warner Brothers released a mediocre Justice League with their "course correction."