Star Wars: Go home (M)Ando(r), the Zillo Beast Is Back (Again!)

[sifth]

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Like I said earlier, I think taking years-long breaks between movies is actually a good way to build hype, but all the canned projects are just a publicity disaster (and a disappointment for people who are fans of those directors). Overall, I’d say TV has been a success though. The only show that hasn’t brought in a big audience is Andor, which has already blossomed into this cult classic/critical darling. 

Solo looks like it’s heading towards cult classic territory. I’ve seen so many people say they’ve been shocked by how much they liked it. And a lot of that comes down to the writing: Lawrence Kasdan can still write, and he wrote an entertaining movie. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Lando show is basically Solo 2.  

That said, it looks like they took the wrong lesson from Solo flopping. They seem to think the problem was that someone other than Harrison Ford was playing Han, when in truth it had more to do with timing/poor marketing/backlash to TLJ. The actor gave a really good performance, in my opinion.

Actually I've read the ratings for Mando season 3 are down, by quite a lot. Not sure if it's true mind you, but it's what I've read.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

That said, it looks like they took the wrong lesson from Solo flopping. They seem to think the problem was that someone other than Harrison Ford was playing Han, when in truth it had more to do with timing/poor marketing/backlash to TLJ. The actor gave a really good performance, in my opinion.

The problem with Solo was that it was a badly-written movie that audiences hadn't really asked for with a miscast lead and a change of director.

Blaming the marketing won't wash. Marketing starts before a film is made, when you identify the target audience. No amount of ads will work if people aren't interested. Nor will blaming TLJ, particularly since Solo was such a contrast - it was exactly what the TLJ critics said they wanted in a SW film, creatively safe and nostalgic literally to a fault.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Nor will blaming TLJ, particularly since Solo was such a contrast - it was exactly what the TLJ critics said they wanted in a SW film, creatively safe and nostalgic literally to a fault.

Well thats a take.

Not sure all those people slagging off TLJ were complaining that it wasn't creatively safe enough or not nostalgic enough. That is a very different claim to the criticism that was actually levelled at TLJ. 
 

[sifth]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

it was exactly what the TLJ critics said they wanted in a SW film, creatively safe and nostalgic literally to a fault.

I never heard that before, nor do I believe it for a second. People weren't annoyed that the sequels were different, they were annoyed because they weren't good.

For example the Thrawn trilogy is very different from the OT and is near universally loved. Disney in all their "wisdom" hired a self proclaimed plagiarist, who thought he was the next Spielberg, to write and direct episode VII, a man who only cared about subversion first and story telling second to write/direct episode VIII and than brought that same plagiarist back for episode IX.

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

I never heard that before, nor do I believe it for a second. People weren't annoyed that the sequels were different, they were annoyed that they weren't good.

For example the Thrawn trilogy is very different from the OT and is near universally loved. Disney in all their "wisdom" hired a self proclaimed plagiarist, who thought he was the next Spielberg, to write and direct episode VII, a man who only cared about subversion first and story telling second to write/direct episode VIII and than brought that same plagiarist back for episode IX.

This is essentially my take.

I also believe that an adaption that essentially took the bones of the Thrawn trilogy and shifted it 30 years later would have been far more successful.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

I never heard that before, nor do I believe it for a second.

That's fine. It isn't any less true because of that, though.

But that aside, the idea that TLJ had any impact on the success of Solo seems like wishful thinking. There's simply no evidence to support it. Largely, films, even franchise films, succeed or fail on their own merits.

1 hour ago, sifth said:

For example the Thrawn trilogy is very different from the OT and is near universally loved.

No, it isn't.

It's near universally unknown. If every person who ever read the Thrawn trilogy went to see films based on them, the audience would be (relative to most SW audiences) tiny.

It may well be that the same things in Thrawn that appealed to the (relatively) hardcore fans would work for the sort of audience the 'main' SW trilogies have to attract. On the other hand, maybe they wouldn't.

[sifth]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's fine. It isn't any less true because of that, though.

But that aside, the idea that TLJ had any impact on the success of Solo seems like wishful thinking. There's simply no evidence to support it. Largely, films, even franchise films, succeed or fail on their own merits.

No, it isn't.

It's near universally unknown. If every person who ever read the Thrawn trilogy went to see films based on them, the audience would be (relative to most SW audiences) tiny.

It may well be that the same things in Thrawn that appealed to the (relatively) hardcore fans would work for the sort of audience the 'main' SW trilogies have to attract. On the other hand, maybe they wouldn't.

Don’t recall ever saying TLJ had any impact on Solo. You’re literally making stuff up again, like you usually do. I was saying why a large number of people don’t like the sequel films and nothing more. 
 

Also my “near universally loved” comment only applied to those who read the books, that’s just common sense. I brought up those books as an example of how even when doing something different, you still need to craft a good story.

[The Bard of Banefort]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

The problem with Solo was that it was a badly-written movie that audiences hadn't really asked for with a miscast lead and a change of director.

Blaming the marketing won't wash. Marketing starts before a film is made, when you identify the target audience. No amount of ads will work if people aren't interested. Nor will blaming TLJ, particularly since Solo was such a contrast - it was exactly what the TLJ critics said they wanted in a SW film, creatively safe and nostalgic literally to a fault.

Well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that then. I thought it was both well-written and well-casted. Even Emilia was good, and I normally find her acting particularly subpar. 

From what I recall, a lot of people didn’t even realize Solo was out because the marketing for it was so sparse. And judging by the hysteria over TLJ, I have a very hard time believing that it didn’t affect Solo’s box office performance, although I suppose there’s no way to prove that. 

[Heartofice]

I don't really believe TLJ had any real effect on the Solo movie's performance. I think most of the negative discourse around the movie was happening online, well away from most people who would watch these movies. 

I think Solo didn't do well because it was an unwanted movie that tried to fill in blanks in a character who didn't need filling in. I also don't think you can separate out Han from Harrison Ford, they are simply too interlinked. My enjoyment of Han Solo is at least 80% because Ford's performance is so perfect. Same with Indy. 

This was a studio's attempt to boilerplate a character and imagine they can simply lift and shift the name and add a new actor and audiences would come just the same. That is clearly not true. They misread the room and misjudged how much power is in a character's name. 

Then the fact that it was getting mediocre reviews and little word of mouth and there was just so little buzz about it really didn't help. Rogue One overperformed but I suspect it was a movie that took the franchise seriously and was a 'good movie' set in the SW universe. It being good is more of a driver than any connection to ANH. I don't think many people were dying to see the story of how the Death Star plans were captured before the movie was announced, but it being good really helped it.

TLJ might well have had an effect on Rise of Skywalker, as I think there was friction in the audience as to whether they give enough of a shit to carry on that story, but I don't think it hurt the other properties in the franchise especially. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

I don’t know, guys. There was a lot of hate for Rogue One when it first came out too (saying it was a brainless action movie with boring characters). I think it’s just the nature of this franchise to have a love/hate relationship with everything.

[The Bard of Banefort]

12 hours ago, sifth said:

Actually I've read the ratings for Mando season 3 are down, by quite a lot. Not sure if it's true mind you, but it's what I've read.

That may well be true, but the first two seasons, at the very least, were huge successes. I think The Mandalorian’s problem is that it’s become too repetitive. Then need a new plot line. 

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think Solo didn't do well because it was an unwanted movie that tried to fill in blanks in a character who didn't need filling in. I also don't think you can separate out Han from Harrison Ford, they are simply too interlinked. 

Hey it's one of those rare threads we agree in. I really don't think it's any more complex than what you've said here. The idea of the movie just didn't have a baked in huge audience highly motivated to see it, and that was reflected in it's box office performance.

On 3/7/2023 at 4:14 AM, Myrddin said:

I can't wait for Bo Katan to meet the Armorer. "Dude. You guys are some extremist wackos. Who told you you can't take your helmet off? Who lied to you so hard that you're brainwashing a whole generation of our people?"

Yeah so much for this idea (which I wanted). Apparently the weird helmet cult is good actually, because the Jedi weren't enough as terrible role models lol.

I was really bothered by the first couple episode and parts of the second. What Mando actually did on the planet seemed to invalidate the "get a droid" quest from the first episode - send the droid in to check the air, have it disappear inside a minute and then just go ahead and follow to check it out on your own without the air quality info anyway. Also what the hell is going on with the weird crab robot operating thing, it just have been 15 years since it last got to catch anything but it's still just sitting there waiting to catch a Mando and... Drain some juice? from them.

The rest since that I was able to enjoy despite the dumb shit that happens, other than the "yay helmet cult" and potentially sympathy for the fascist scientist who had been conducting unethical genetic research

[mormont]

5 hours ago, sifth said:

Don’t recall ever saying TLJ had any impact on Solo. You’re literally making stuff up again, like you usually do.

Read back a few posts please:

18 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

That said, it looks like they took the wrong lesson from Solo flopping. They seem to think the problem was that someone other than Harrison Ford was playing Han, when in truth it had more to do with timing/poor marketing/backlash to TLJ.

I wasn't saying you'd said it. I was responding to this post by BoB. No, you didn't say it, but it was part of the conversation you entered into.

The personal comment was gratuitous and rude, and really, I'm just going to peace out if that's the level we're operating on.

[Denvek]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

That's fine. It isn't any less true because of that, though.

But that aside, the idea that TLJ had any impact on the success of Solo seems like wishful thinking. There's simply no evidence to support it. Largely, films, even franchise films, succeed or fail on their own merits.

No, it isn't.

It's near universally unknown. If every person who ever read the Thrawn trilogy went to see films based on them, the audience would be (relative to most SW audiences) tiny.

It may well be that the same things in Thrawn that appealed to the (relatively) hardcore fans would work for the sort of audience the 'main' SW trilogies have to attract. On the other hand, maybe they wouldn't.

Adding to this, I feel like a trilogy where the main protagonists literally never meet the main antagonist wouldn't work well on film.

Spoiler

Also, the climax relies on the smartest man in the galaxy not knowing that Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker, which worked in the books at the time, but film audiences today would not believe he doesn't know that.

 

[Raja]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

The problem with Solo was that it was a badly-written movie that audiences hadn't really asked for with a miscast lead and a change of director.

Correct. Kasdan didn't write a good movie, unfortunately. And he's not solely to blame as movies are a collective endevour with producers & directors, and I doubt issues with Lord & Miller and changing directors helped at all. I don't think the concept of Solo, i.e. seeing a previous version of Han Solo is bad per se, but it needs someone to *really* know what they are doing, and that wasn't the case.

Rogue One worked because they got Tony Gilroy on, as opposed to someone like Ron Howard - that being said I do not lay the blame of this on Howard at all.

It's amazing Rogue One is even half decent/ good/ pick whatever you think of the film when you read about the development of that movie.

The problem with Solo was that it was badly written and the direction was uninspiring, not 'marketing' or 'TLJ backlash', statements like those feel like clutching at straws a little.

Though one regret I will always have with Solo is that Paul Bettany's character was actually played by Michael K. Williams ( Omar from the wire), but was then changed to Bettany during re-shoots and I wish we could have seen that instead.

[mormont]

The dirty secret that we fans need to acknowledge is, every Star Wars movie is a hot mess in its own way. Troubled productions, creative problems, plot holes, ideas that weren't thought through, directorial difficulties, studio interference, they all have at least some of these issues. It's amazing that we have any decent movies at all.

[Raja]

I love a mess, to be fair.

TLJ's special features had a 'Director and Jedi' behind the scenes documentary that I thought was excellent and well worth checking out even if you're not a fan of the film ( personally think TLJ is brilliant, especially the stuff with Luke, except for casino stuff)

 

[dbunting]

6 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don’t know, guys. There was a lot of hate for Rogue One when it first came out too (saying it was a brainless action movie with boring characters). I think it’s just the nature of this franchise to have a love/hate relationship with everything.

I don't know about this. Everyone I know who saw it said it was better than anything since Empire.  For me it's my third favorite, ANH (mostly because it came first), Empire and then Rogue One. I don't know anyone IRL who saw it and didn't like it.  

The reason I didn't like the prequels, aimed to much at kids. The last trilogy, well it was a rehash of the original trilogy with even worse acting.  What I want is an entirely new group of heroes and villains somewhere new. I don't want R2 or BB or anything like them again. Give me a different style of droid if we have to have some. 

[Slurktan]

5 hours ago, Raja said:

I love a mess, to be fair.

TLJ's special features had a 'Director and Jedi' behind the scenes documentary that I thought was excellent and well worth checking out even if you're not a fan of the film ( personally think TLJ is brilliant, especially the stuff with Luke, except for casino stuff)

 

I like the stuff with Luke, could have used more, like I dont know the whole movie of it.  Instead we got a really slow and bad version of a much better battlestar galactica episode; and the evils of space dog racing.  Oh and the best scene filmed for the movie was cut so they could feature toys and blue milk and more of the above mentioned space dogs.

[Rhom]

5 hours ago, Slurktan said:

Oh and the best scene filmed for the movie was cut so they could feature toys and blue milk and more of the above mentioned space dogs.

?