SOLO: A Spoiler Story (contains spoilers)

[Darth Richard II]

I’m, he only directed the first. And they did throw out most of his stuff for empire. Vader being Lukes dad was developed durning filming.

7 minutes ago, unJon said:

This is a good point. Leia wasn’t even planned to be Luke’s sister, right?

Yeah Luke was supposed to turn to the dark side and his sister comes out of secret training on the other side of the galaxy. Solo was supposed to die in Empire, etc.

[HokieStone]

10 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

And after a recent rewatch of the Prequels... Like, I just cannot comprehend people who think TLJ is the worst Star Wars movie ever or that Kathleen Kennedy has "ruined" Star Wars.

 

2 hours ago, felice said:

The prequels are flawed in different ways from TLJ, so it depends what your priorities are. I haven't seen the prequels recently, and I've only seen TLJ once, but a prequel rewatch appeals more. Possibly the Clone Wars TV series building my attachment to the prequel characters is a factor.

 

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

The new films, OTOH, threw out all of the EU worldbuilding, substituted with stuff that was weirdly similar (a New Republic, a new empire-wannabe obssessed with superweapons arising out of the ashes, new Dark Force users, new Jedi, Leia and Han's son turning evil, Thrawn showing up albeit in a different time period) and the new stuff it's introduced has either been shit or massively derivative of what came before. A bigger Death Star! A Super Duper Star Destroyer! There's almost no worldbuilding in the new movies at all outside the tiny bubble surrounding the action. Like, what's going on on Coruscant? Why did the entire New Republic fleet consist of like 10 ships that got blown up at Hosnian Prime? What are the actual stakes of what's going on? None of this has been laid down even in the undetailed way the OT did which still made sense (the Empire controls most of the galaxy, the Death Star is to make people lose hope, the Rebels have the support of entire planets, but it's still chump change against Imperial resources).

Just a response to all of the above, starting with Caligula's comment - I for one put the sequels at about the same level as the prequels.  There are parts of the prequels that are much better than anything the sequels have done.  And I feel this way for many of the same reasons Felice and Werthead state.  First, as Felice says, they are flawed in different ways.  In my mind, the prequels have a compelling story - the fall of Anakin Skywalker, and the rise of the Emperor.  And the "core" of the story we see is good - how Palpatine manipulates things into a war...in which he's the leader of both sides!  But, the execution of the prequels was of course horrible.  From bad casting decisions (both Anakins) to awful secondary characters (Jar Jar) to a lack of a coherent villain (Darth Maul should not have been killed in TPM...and we see them clumsily trying to remedy that in the cartoons and now Solo).

The sequels have almost the opposite problem.  They have a very likeable cast, with no obvious duds in acting ability...but they have absolutely no worthwhile story.  TFA was of course a blatant rip off of Star Wars (sorry, I'm too old to call it ANH).  Throw in Wertheads comments about making everything a BIGGER version of what came before.  Bleh.  And while I like Daisy Ridley's performance, I'm in the camp that Rey is too good at everything.  She's like a Super Duper Luke.  Yes...it was pretty unrealistic that he could hop in an X-Wing fresh off the farm...but at least he was shown being clumsy with a lightsaber in Star Wars, and still struggling to use the Force 3 years later in ESB (barely being able to summon his lightsaber in the Wampa cave). 

And to Werthead's point about worldbuilding.  The original movies didn't need much backstory...you could just accept that there was evil Empire.  The prequels didn't need much backstory to them...you knew there was a peaceful republic...the interesting part was how it was all going to come crashing down.  The sequels on the other hand...they have 6 movies that came before them. Last we saw, the Empire was defeated.  Of course we're going to wonder how the "First Order" came about...and who Snoke is. 

But none of that is about Solo...which is the point of this thread.  I think it did somewhat show us what life was like in the Empire - the recruiting pitches, etc. - and give us some insight into the underworld aspects.  So it's filling in that "life in the Empire" aspect.  It doesn't need much setup, because we know the situation already.  Any more one-off stories set in this time period will benefit from the same thing...no need to give us a lot of backstory, we already know the general state of affairs.

[Darth Richard II]

Wait people don’t like Jar Jar?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

4 hours ago, felice said:

The prequels are flawed in different ways from TLJ, so it depends what your priorities are. I haven't seen the prequels recently, and I've only seen TLJ once, but a prequel rewatch appeals more. Possibly the Clone Wars TV series building my attachment to the prequel characters is a factor.

 

4 hours ago, red snow said:

I agree, the prequels have different problems to that seen in TLJ besides both having drawn out CGI races/animals running around. The jokes in the prequels were bad while the jokes in TLJ were bad and felt contemporary/leftovers from GOTG.

I think Wert's article on his website brought up a valid point with the Disney films being the first films where it feels like there's no plan - especially in comparison to the Marvel films. Those involved in TFA and TLJ openly admit there was never any plan for what would happen in the sequel and it clearly shows in the film. It's hard to trust a franchise when that's what happens - especially a trilogy. I'm sure Marvel didn't have "infinity war" planned from Iron Man 2 onwards but they had a rough road plan that could accomodate changes without complete overhauls.

That said, it doesn't alone explain why people would shun a film that isn't intending to be a trilogy. But maybe there's just a general lack of trust? Maybe the next film featuring the new solo will undo all the potentially undoable things?

I had a chance to watch ATTACK OF THE CLONES: the anti-cheese edit before it disappeared from YouTube.  That just might be my favorite Star Wars film.  I'm inclined to think the problem with those films wasn't the usual criticisms, it was the editorial choices they made.  Some guy on his own picks from what's there, incorporates some deleted material and adds a few tweaks and comes up with a much better film.

The other anti-cheese edits don't work quite as well but they do improve certain things.  For instance, Jar Jar Binks gets a baritone alien voice and sub titles instead of the shrill, annoying, quasi-rasta weirdness he got in the actual film.  That alone is a massive improvement.

Maybe at that stage in his career, Lucas just needed to surround himself with more people who could say "no".

Lucas deserves credit though: As a creative producer and overall story guy, he's brilliant.  I don't know if he knows how to draw but he knows how to hire Ralph McQuarry and that's probably better anyway.  I think he's also quite good at directing action sequences. 

The again, he also did Direct THX-1138, which I love. He directed American Graffiti which I haven't seen but I think is held in some regard, and he directed a little film called "The Star Wars" that generated a bit of buzz.  Maybe he was just passed it by the time the prequels were done.

[Darth Richard II]

Actually there is a persistent rumor that a 4 hour cut of Episide 1 exists and is actually pretty good, I know the original voice for Maul says he recorded like over an hour of dialogue, so you’re editing comment makes sense,

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Actually there is a persistent rumor that a 4 hour cut of Episide 1 exists and is actually pretty good, I know the original voice for Maul says he recorded like over an hour of dialogue, so you’re editing comment makes sense,

Jake Loyd (Phantom Menace Orphan Annie) claimed there was a 6 hour cut in a interview. and the Genereal Geivous voice actor has seen it.  It wouldn't surprise me if such a thing was made.  I'd be surprised if it was actually a complete movie with a score and all the VFX done.

Shifting gears slightly, that space monster in SOLO, was that a Purgill?  If it is, that's one easter egg everyone seems to be missing.  Granted, it appearance is slightly different from the Rebels series.

[Astromech]

Finally had time for a viewing and I had the entire theatre to myself. It was glorious!

I enjoyed the film, but also don't expect any reinventions of the wheel when it comes to Star Wars film. I was entertained and perfectly content with that entertainment.

Ehrenreich(sp?) was fine as Han as was Glover as Lando.

Decent story with the highlight being the  Kessel Run.

The twists weren't surprising, which was a bit disappointing. But the Maul reveal was neat.

The score was a bit underwhelming.

I enjoyed the easter eggs but was disappointed Bossk wasn't in it, after he was mentioned.

 

[felice]

12 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The new characters we know are disposable, because they're, well, never seen again.

They haven't been seen again yet. They could still play important roles in future films (well, the ones who weren't killed off, anyway).

[Corvinus85]

5 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Shifting gears slightly, that space monster in SOLO, was that a Purgill?  If it is, that's one easter egg everyone seems to be missing.  Granted, it appearance is slightly different from the Rebels series.

I wondered that, too, but it's another kind of creature, though similar. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Summa-verminoth

[Fez]

12 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Sorry for the triple post my phone is acting up, but regarding Marvel, there was actually no concrete plan in place til phase 2. They didn’t even have any plans to include Thanos til Whedon threw in that end credit scene.

Also I think a lot of people forget that the OT trilogy had no real set plan. They were just a lot better at fudging it back then. Lucas original outline for Jedi looks like crazy fanfic if you look at it now.

Yep. Also, considering just how many Marvel movies get released each year and make tons of money, I don't think "fatigue" is the reason Solo did poorly.

I'd put the blame almost entirely on bad marketing and the fact that it's a prequel origin story, which a lot of people don't like no matter how good it might be. There's a reason Marvel gave all their heroes an origin story (either as a separate movie or an extended scene in someone else's movie) before they became regular members of the Avengers.

[Caligula_K3]

13 hours ago, HokieStone said:

 

 

Just a response to all of the above, starting with Caligula's comment - I for one put the sequels at about the same level as the prequels.  There are parts of the prequels that are much better than anything the sequels have done.  And I feel this way for many of the same reasons Felice and Werthead state.  First, as Felice says, they are flawed in different ways.  In my mind, the prequels have a compelling story - the fall of Anakin Skywalker, and the rise of the Emperor.  And the "core" of the story we see is good - how Palpatine manipulates things into a war...in which he's the leader of both sides!  But, the execution of the prequels was of course horrible.  From bad casting decisions (both Anakins) to awful secondary characters (Jar Jar) to a lack of a coherent villain (Darth Maul should not have been killed in TPM...and we see them clumsily trying to remedy that in the cartoons and now Solo).

 

Eh, I'm not so sure I can agree with this. Sure, the overall story sounds compelling- but when Anakin's trip to the dark side is accomplished the way it is, with some sandpeople slaughter, the Padme dream, killing Mace Windu and then transitioning to killing lots of children, is it really an interesting story? It isn't to me, and I don't blame the acting for this; there's no characters for the actors to latch onto, despite Ewan MacGregor's best efforts. I also don't think everything in the prequel trilogy is terrible. Qui Gon Jinn is a pretty good character, some of the action scenes are good and fun, especially the Duel of the Fates, and there is a well done sequence or two, like Order 66. But I don't think any story in the prequels is as compelling as the relationship between Kylo Ren and Han in The Force Awakens, or the Rey/Luke/Kylo plotline in The Last Jedi. Kylo Ren for me is everything Anakin should have been in the prequels. 

Canto Blight is the only part of the new trilogy that approaches the badness of the prequels, to my mind, but at least we get Del Toro's codebreaker after that.

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, felice said:

They haven't been seen again yet. They could still play important roles in future films (well, the ones who weren't killed off, anyway).

They could, but we know that they're not particularly important in the grand scheme of things because they don't show up in the main story at all. They might be important in Solo, but as Han never mentions any of them in the main series it really isn't going to be that big a deal. 

Rogue One dealt with this by simply obliterating everyone, which made it a bummer but also made sure there was real impact. It's hard to say that Maul, Qi'ra or anyone else will have that much impact, and it's even harder to say that Lando will even appear again since we've gotten the main beats that we know about. 

[Werthead]

 

Quote

 

Minor quibble, wasn’t Travis’ stuff thrown out long after the prequels filmed?

 

 

Yes, because of how The Clone Wars unfolded in Season 3 or 4 (IIRC), when they filled in Mandalore and it was totally different from Traviss' fanfic-level, Jedi-defeating ubermensch. Traviss was given the opportunity to adjust her books to match the TV depiction and she told them to feck off.

[Slurktan]

So Aurulnauts put up their Kylo Ren review of it:
 

Gold as always.

[Argonath Diver]

Just saw it. Give it a solid B minus. Didn't piss me off the way so much of Last Jedi did, but had so many faults of its own. 

As many have said (and others disagreed somewhat with), I just hated the main actor as Han. I also didn't like Glover nearly as much as everyone else, though I thought he was fine. L3's dirty jokes were great fun. Warwick Davis, little mentions like Bossk and Sabacc all had me smiling, but the Maul thing was stupid. I suppose I knew that Maul was a character in the cartoons, but I've never seen them, so in the theater I was a bit confused - I guess he tied off his guts and everyone just let him go be a crime lord while Palpatine did his thing? Ok.

I did enjoy several of the action scenes and a lot of the vibe of it, as long as I blurred over Ehrenreich's voice and look.

I now just really wish I'd seen what Lord and Miller had planned. I was a Star Wars nerd before I was a nerd for anything else, so I suppose I'm just a bit bummed that Disney have so completely disillusioned me from it entirely.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

6 hours ago, Slurktan said:

So Aurulnauts put up their Kylo Ren review of it:
 

Gold as always.

Always. Han Snow.

I just noticed.  Han Solo is clearly a bit of a braggard.  In the film he brags that he just made the Kessel run in twelve parsecs. Chewie quietly objects to which Han replies "Not if you round down, buddy", implying that he is inappropriatly rounding down.

In "A New Hope", the actual line is "It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs".

The tale grows in the telling.  Him and his twelve point six parsecs.

[Corvinus85]

12 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

Just saw it. Give it a solid B minus. Didn't piss me off the way so much of Last Jedi did, but had so many faults of its own. 

As many have said (and others disagreed somewhat with), I just hated the main actor as Han. I also didn't like Glover nearly as much as everyone else, though I thought he was fine. L3's dirty jokes were great fun. Warwick Davis, little mentions like Bossk and Sabacc all had me smiling, but the Maul thing was stupid. I suppose I knew that Maul was a character in the cartoons, but I've never seen them, so in the theater I was a bit confused - I guess he tied off his guts and everyone just let him go be a crime lord while Palpatine did his thing? Ok.

Not really. Yes, he became a crime lord by taking advantage of the confusion of the Clone Wars when the Jedi were busy. He then overreached himself by orchestrating a coup on Mandalore and pretty much putting himself in charge. That's when Palpatine realized he was still alive and went after him. Palpatine beat the shit out of him, but decided he still had some purpose for him. Unfortunately the show got cancelled, and we didn't get to see the conclusion of that. There are some comics that complete that arc, but I'm not sure whether or not they're canon.

[Macklunkey]

Just seen it. 

Have to say that I really enjoyed it! It was just a fun romp.

Alden Ehrenreich was absolutely fine as Han imo and his performance/impersonation didn't take me out of the experience at all. 

[Spaßvogel]

Solo was fun, only slightly pretentious in parts, and was well cast and tightly plotted.  It didn't shit on established characters and had a good balance of humor and thrills. 

It's actually a little sad that the movie to be hit by the opening weekend fan boycott was this one.  Once the opening weekend numbers sag and the word gets out that the movie is flopping, it always seems to snowball.  It's a shame, it's a fine movie, maybe fluffier than Rogue One, but Harrison Ford's coaching of the lead seems to have helped. 

Emilia Clarke was as bland as I expected.  I wasn't horribly surprised by the Maul appearance.  I remembered that he had become a crime lord in the clone wars cartoon.  I wonder if they will re-hash his appearances in Rebels with the inevitable Obi Wan movie at all. 

[red snow]

It was fun, disposable entertainment. I thought Paul Bettany was great and would have liked a lot more of him. Chewie had some good moments. I don't feel like I was ever convinced I was watching a young Han Solo but the character was otherwise likeable. Glover did an impressive vocal impersonation but I don't feel the character had much to do and I certainly wasn't left wanting a spin off film about him. Harrelson was good as harrelson too.

The droid was good but I always have a problem with the droids that are sentient and want freedom in that such an admission makes the entire non-silican races of star wars pretty evil. Whichever side they are on they use droids as slaves and disregard them as living things.

The film didn't take any chances though and whether it was entertaining or not it is an entirely skippable film which in a busy month of releases probably factors in on people's decisions regarding which films to watch/not watch.

The film is probably doomed to later recognition/success when watched on Netflix/streaming which is probably when a lot of people will decide to watch it. In many ways it could have been an excellent pilot for a tv show if enough of the initial crew had survived and we got to see them have mutiple adventures. Time will tell.

I'm not sure there are enough fans that could boycott the film enough to ensure the film performed as badly as it has - I think there's just a general lack of interest. Although I was expecting word of mouth to stem the expected drop off.

As for Disney losing money I don't buy it. They are only losing profit. Before the film started there were at least 3 tie in ads with the film shamelessly being used to promote cars, phones etc. I'm sure these kind of things help offset the advertising of the film. Then there's the aforementioned merchandise. There's no way the film should have cost 250 million to make either. No idea how much the new director and reshoots cost but I can't see why it should have cost more than Blade runner 2049 or The Last Jedi. Clearly getting in new directors and reshoots cost a lot as rogue one was even more expensive.