Jump to content

Star Wars: Critical Divide (This is the way)


Myrddin
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not sure Solo had a best part. Such an unwatchable movie. 

incorrect. its nowhere near as bad as Rise of Skywalker. In fact, its an enjoyable airplane movie. Might be the second best Disney Star Wars movie. Better than Mando Fight me. 

Edited by Relic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Relic said:

incorrect. its nowhere near as bad as Rise of Skywalker. In fact, its an enjoyable airplane movie. Might be the second best Disney Star Wars movie. Better than Mando Fight me. 

 

Honestly only three of the movies are actually good. Another group are fine. And then there are the ones grouped with Attack of the Clones and you don't want to be there (which Solo is, sorry bro). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Relic said:

incorrect. its nowhere near as bad as Rise of Skywalker. In fact, its an enjoyable airplane movie. Might be the second best Disney Star Wars movie. Better than Mando Fight me. 

Better than Mando S2-3 for sure. S1 was legitimately awesome, mainly because they didn’t feel the need to connect it to a greater expanded universe and needlessly shoehorn in other characters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Glover is great, and maybe that means this could be good, but we really don’t need more legacy characters on screen again. It doesn’t work and just makes everything worse.

Still holding my breath for a KOTOR adaptation. Is there any reason why KK doesn't dip into the huge EU legends reservoir of stories ? There are some gems like KOTOR in em amongst the muck, and it’s the same formula Marvel uses of adapting their comics. Yet KK doesn't even acknowledge its existence. Even Lucas used to borrow from it, like taking Coruscant and his initial plans for the ST would’ve used Darth Talon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Still holding my breath for a KOTOR adaptation. Is there any reason why KK doesn't dip into the huge EU legends reservoir of stories ?

Because they kind of suck and no one cares about them

7 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

There are some gems like KOTOR in em amongst the muck, and it’s the same formula Marvel uses of adapting their comics. Yet KK doesn't even acknowledge its existence. Even Lucas used to borrow from it, like taking Coruscant and his initial plans for the ST would’ve used Darth Talon. 

Yeah, which is why we've got things like Thrawn, the various criminal enterprises, a whole bunch of random races, a few rebels and terrorists and references to the very first Sith in the storylines. No references to the EU whatsoever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Because they kind of suck and no one cares about them

Yeah, which is why we've got things like Thrawn, the various criminal enterprises, a whole bunch of random races, a few rebels and terrorists and references to the very first Sith in the storylines. No references to the EU whatsoever!

Yes but those are interwoven into existing shows like Rebels. I mean more stuff like The Acolyte -although that’s not gonna be using legends EU but it’s step in the right direction of more original stories. I don’t think KOTOR sucks, there’s no reason not to adapt it as a feature film, plenty of people care about it and most moviegoers don’t know the plot so it’ll be fresh for them. I want more standalone EU originals or just original settings like Acolyte , not just characters and references utilised in existing shows set in the same timeline we’ve seen before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

I don’t think KOTOR sucks, there’s no reason not to adapt it as a feature film,

 

I somehow haven't managed to play KOTOR at any point down the years, but isn't it a sprawling, multi-option RPG where half the point is the appeal of player choice, and the other half is exploring a detailed setting on your own terms? Why would you want to take all of that away in making it a film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Why would you want to take all of that away in making it a film?

The third part of the RPG is a story. That's the part that some people think could be adapted. Kind of like the HBO hit sries The Last of Us.

As to the rest, who's taking it away? KotoR is still there to be played.

(Never played KotoR, no idea if the story is actually that good or not, but in any case, it's reductive to just say it's a game about a setting and player choice.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Werthead can attest to how awesome KOTOR would be as a movie :D the story is the closest you can get to taking the best parts of the OT and the PT. And yes, for the purposes of adaptation, they can honestly eliminate some side stories and characters to focus in on the leads and their story. As pointed out by Ran, TLOU can serve as a template.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

The third part of the RPG is a story. That's the part that some people think could be adapted

 

My point is that KotoR in particular is known for its moral choices, and how you can play either dark or light side, which influences the plot of the game. That was like the big selling point of it at the time. If you want to tell a story about the rise of the Sith or the defeat of the Sith it's easy, you can do it original or adapt one of the other old EU stories about that same subject (do a Darth Bane film, or whatever). Expand and adapt one of the Star Wars Visions stories, about 80% of which are on that subject. There's loads of material, or scope to develop new material because the universe is very open with loads of space to slide it in somewhere.

Adapting the one specific one where the whole point is that the player decides who wins seems weird, except to jump on the name. 

 

 

I haven't played Last of Us but it isn't an RPG right? Is there significant player choice there? From what I know of it is reputation lies in the story the game leads you through. It doesn't seem like a similar thing at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Honestly only three of the movies are actually good. Another group are fine. And then there are the ones grouped with Attack of the Clones and you don't want to be there (which Solo is, sorry bro). 

Hard disagree. While not a work of art i would 100% pick to watch Solo on a flight over any other Disney SW movie not named Rogue 1. As for the PT, well, i might watch one of those if forced, but only if my flight comes with a xanax, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Relic said:

Hard disagree. While not a work of art i would 100% pick to watch Solo on a flight over any other Disney SW movie not named Rogue 1. As for the PT, well, i might watch one of those if forced, but only if my flight comes with a xanax, 

You've put the bar on the ground and stepped over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You've put the bar on the ground and stepped over it. 

BWAHAHAHAHA! 

So here's why I liked Solo: for years, all I wanted was a grungy, ground-level Star Wars movie that *didn't* feature magical space wizards, and I finally got it. Rogue One was a terrific war movie, but Solo was a terrific grungy, heist movie. It's probably the only post-Disney buyout Star Wars movie that I've liked. 

Though I still think Anthony Ingruber should have been cast in the role, in the place of Alden Ehrenreich. The dude both looks and sounds like Ford, and even played a young Harrison Ford in The Age of Adaline!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solo is so so bad. I'm sorry. ( couple of okay things, but on the whole it's not good) - I'll watch it over Rise of Skywalker though

His arc in the movie makes no sense.

Would have loved to see Michael K Williams in a star wars movie though, it's a shame we didn't get that

Edited by Raja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Raja said:

Solo is so so bad. I'm sorry. ( couple of okay things, but on the whole it's not good) - I'll watch it over Rise of Skywalker though

His arc in the movie makes no sense.

Would have loved to see Michael K Williams in a star wars movie though, it's a shame we didn't get that

It's a movie that didn't need to exist, and Ron Howard made a sufficiently entertaining incidental movie whose existence was unnecessary. 

But I admire the amount of effort the two Johns put into the score - as in Williams and Powell. It's light, fluffy, and adds nothing, and doesn't have anything to say, but it sure is entertaining. (Like I sald elsewhere, I like really tacky things, including the Fast and Furious movies. I know when something is disposable pop, and F&F and Solo are both in that category.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IlyaP said:

, but it sure is entertaining. (Like I sald elsewhere, I like really tacky things, including the Fast and Furious movies. I know when something is disposable pop, and F&F and Solo are both in that category.)

It's entertaining in some places, but not enough for me to revisit it. I'm pretty forgiving of movies if they show me something I haven't seen or don't expect, but Howard didn't really do that at all with Solo. The train sequence is the only memorable thing but the final sequence is just not good at all.

Being completely forgettable to me is even more of an issue than a bad movie which swings for the fences, and to me Solo falls in the former category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed @Werthead's review of Solo, which alongside Matt Seitz's analysis, is one of the more charitable film reviews of a fun, if uneven and incidental film. 

It's interesting to note that interest in a sequel has started appearing in the last little while, as people reevaluate it. (#Solo2 trended some time ago on Twitter, which warmed my heart a little)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Raja said:

It's entertaining in some places, but not enough for me to revisit it. I'm pretty forgiving of movies if they show me something I haven't seen or don't expect, but Howard didn't really do that at all with Solo. The train sequence is the only memorable thing but the final sequence is just not good at all.

Being completely forgettable to me is even more of an issue than a bad movie which swings for the fences, and to me Solo falls in the former category.

Oh look, it's got a lot of issues, but it's sufficiently entertaining, and for once, it doesn't feature space wizards (I'm really, really tired of jedi, and just wanted non-force-y people on screen.)

Non-forcey. You heard it here first! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...