Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Star Wars stories done?


68 replies to this topic

#51
Filthy Jawa

Filthy Jawa

    Bring back Mandard!

  • Member
  • 8,795 posts
See, I agree with Choc about not wanting a stunt disintegration just as a call-back to an OT line, but that would have actually been great.

If GL was capable of ever admitting he made a mistake, that would have been a fun way to do it.

#52
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 20,063 posts

I did see the movies. Not the numbered trilogy but the spin-offs. I even liked them.

Again, this thread is about reactions to the announcement, and I posted mine. Stop reading into it. It's really as simple as that.

It's not reading anything into anything. Its basic math.

Don't care = wouldn't bother to post about it regardless of what a thread was about.

Any 4 year old knows that.

You care. You just care to a lesser degree than ever before which you found surprising. Remember the whole thing about using absolutes being a Sith thing? LOL

Just to put it out there: I care about the fact that I don't care. I have no plans to ever watch Solo, doesn't mean that I plan on avoiding it, I'm just apathetic. I actually want discussion here to convince me that I should care.
  • Odine +1 this

#53
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,123 posts

Everyone knew Solo was not the best idea when they announced it. As someone said, a movie about the criminal underworld with a new main character but with Han, Lando, Fett, Jabba playing parts could work. A movie about Han Solo called "Solo"t is just too on the nose. We are talking about what lessons they should learn from Solo, well if the next standalone movie they are planning is a "Boba Fett" movie then they haven't learned those lessons. I mean let me guess he is going to disintegrate someone. 

"Everyone knew Solo was not the best idea when they announced it."

 

I think this is the defensive myth created by a faction of SW fans unwilling to admit that Solo was a disaster not because it was  a bad idea, but due to the wrongheaded handling of the story and characters.

 

The reason it was not the idea of a Solo film rests in two points filed under why; of all SW characters in the franchise, Han Solo is arguably the third most popular behind Vader at #2 and Luke at #1. This was the case in the 1977-83 years, and not much has been added to the franchise to alter that perception (yes, that means I'm taking the popularity of Fett and Maul into account), so of any character not named Skywalker to get a film of his own, it was going to be Han.

 

Next, the influence/aura of Harrison Ford as Solo is so culturally..smothering on the character (in a positive sense), that Lucasfilm could only dream that a "young Han Solo" movie would suck in some of that character/star energy and lead to a big hit. Just two reasons why a Solo film was going to be produced one way or another, so its not as if this was a film born of an attempt to exploit some fringe end of SW fandom (e.g., fans who wanted to see a "young Qui-gon" film). This was about one of the most important of all SW characters.

 

The endless reasons why Solo failed has been discussed ad nauseam, but it had nothing to do with the idea of a Solo film. That's just providing cover for the collective bad decisions that sent this SW train plummeting into the galactic ravine of failure.



#54
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,600 posts
The reason Solo didn't work is because Harrison Ford IS Han Solo. period. It doesn't matter what you say about role ownership and that any character should be able to be recast. Ordinarily I would agree. But this case is an exception. Harrison Ford IS Han Solo to the general public and I think that is reflected in the results. He owned that role in his complete professional apathy of it. His real world smirk of embarrassment that says "what the hell am I doing here, this is the hokeyist **** ever" that made its way into the film as a personality trait, cannot be replicated. Because it was real. Like much of ANH's success, his was also a total fluke. His character was already fleshed out, finished and absolutely perfect in its complete imperfection and real world goofiness. That's not me gushing, that's just how it is. To the majority of the world Harrison Ford IS Han solo.

Put another way, don't **** with something that is already perfect. Harrison Ford's Han Solo is untouchable.

That is why Solo was what it was.

its also the only Star Wars film I'm yet to see.

Edited by Odine, 24 June 2018 - 11:35 AM.

  • Filthy Jawa +1 this

#55
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,600 posts
To add to that last post... These problems don't exist for the likes of Vader or the Emperor. Their characters are solely themselves. Vader is the mask and the intimidating presence. The emperor is the sheer evil cackling laugh and shadowy manipulation. But their characters obviously aren't tied to a real world actor and his/her performance in the same way Han's is tied to Ford.

Obi Wan could be done again because already two actors have played him successfully.


Here's a question, could you see anyone else play Luke? I doubt anyone would be willing to see a recast set shortly after ROTJ or some other time that would exclude Mark Hamil from casting eligibility.

Edited by Odine, 24 June 2018 - 11:45 AM.


#56
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,476 posts

Sebastian Stan has the look of a young Luke, but people just wouldn't like it. They've recast Han and most people didn't like it. They recast Kirk and it was a hard one for people to accept, some still don't. It's not like Bond, Batman, or Dracula where recasting and rebooting is just an accepted part of the mythos.



#57
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,364 posts

 

Everyone knew Solo was not the best idea when they announced it. As someone said, a movie about the criminal underworld with a new main character but with Han, Lando, Fett, Jabba playing parts could work. A movie about Han Solo called "Solo"t is just too on the nose. We are talking about what lessons they should learn from Solo, well if the next standalone movie they are planning is a "Boba Fett" movie then they haven't learned those lessons. I mean let me guess he is going to disintegrate someone. 

"Everyone knew Solo was not the best idea when they announced it."

 

I think this is the defensive myth created by a faction of SW fans unwilling to admit that Solo was a disaster not because it was  a bad idea, but due to the wrongheaded handling of the story and characters.

 

The reason it was not the idea of a Solo film rests in two points filed under why; of all SW characters in the franchise, Han Solo is arguably the third most popular behind Vader at #2 and Luke at #1. This was the case in the 1977-83 years, and not much has been added to the franchise to alter that perception (yes, that means I'm taking the popularity of Fett and Maul into account), so of any character not named Skywalker to get a film of his own, it was going to be Han.

 

Next, the influence/aura of Harrison Ford as Solo is so culturally..smothering on the character (in a positive sense), that Lucasfilm could only dream that a "young Han Solo" movie would suck in some of that character/star energy and lead to a big hit. Just two reasons why a Solo film was going to be produced one way or another, so its not as if this was a film born of an attempt to exploit some fringe end of SW fandom (e.g., fans who wanted to see a "young Qui-gon" film). This was about one of the most important of all SW characters.

 

The endless reasons why Solo failed has been discussed ad nauseam, but it had nothing to do with the idea of a Solo film. That's just providing cover for the collective bad decisions that sent this SW train plummeting into the galactic ravine of failure.

 

Look at the reaction on this board from when the movie was announced, no one was excited for it. 


  • Odine +1 this

#58
captainbleh

captainbleh

    RIP Beau, he would have hated you

  • Member
  • 5,058 posts

I could see someone else playing Luke (or Leia), but I'm obviously in a minority.

 

I thought Enhenreich was fine in Solo, but that's probably because I was happy with a different take on the character in the first place. Any indifference I felt towards Solo as an idea was because of fears about it being just a huge fan service / nostalgia trip that would struggle to justify its existence instead of not-Harrison Ford. It is that to some extent, much more than I would have liked, but not entirely.

 

(I don't accept Pine as Kirk in the way that I accept Quinto, Urban, and Saldana as their characters, but that authenticity / whatever is a secondary thing for me so it doesn't really matter. He was good enough.)



#59
ShadowDog

ShadowDog

    Supra-Awesome Badass PIE Pimp

  • Member
  • 42,592 posts
I can only speak for myself, Justus, but I called this from jump street. I had zero interest in a Han Solo movie and knew it would bomb. And it did. Not conclusive proof that's WHY it bombed (I can't speak to the quality of the film but you could be right that was a factor) but it's what I believe the root cause was.

#60
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,364 posts

The fact that the movie did so poorly is not only because making Solo was a mistake in the first place. There are plenty of factors. The fact is though that a Han Solo origin movie was always destined to make less money than the other movies. Now it didn't have to do this poorly,but it was never going to make the amount Rogue One made no matter how good it was or well marketed it was. Could the movie have made 450-500 mil worldwide, sure. But the movie was never going to be a box office monster. Personally I know alot of people that this is the first Star Wars movie they didnt see in theaters, my guess is alot of other people are the same. That has nothing to do with the quality of the movie though, its not like it did great opening weekend and then fell off. The opening was light because interest was not there for a Solo movie. 



#61
Filthy Jawa

Filthy Jawa

    Bring back Mandard!

  • Member
  • 8,795 posts
I think I often agree with you Justus, but here I feel like you've got it dead wrong.

It is not a defensive myth that fandom didn't want the movie. Like Choc said, that was the majority opinion here before the movie for sure.
And as to your points:

1) Yes Han Solo is one of, in fact, I would say THE most popular character in SW, but that's not a reason to make this movie. That's a reason not to.
Han Solo's popularity is all about who he is in the OT. That charming mix of badass, overconfident goofball, and his growth from self-interested smuggler to selfless hero of The Rebellion. His entire story arc is told. There is nothing else to say about and little curiosity from most people about what he did before...and some would argue after too.

2) well, I don't get your second point at all. Like Odine said, Harrison Ford IS Han Solo. You can't really separate Han Solo from Harrison Ford. So why does it follow that anyone would think young Han would work as a film. I'm not getting your logic at all. That said, I actuallu thought AE did a pretty good job,

And in fact, I even disagree with your final paragraph. The idea of a Solo film was the ONLY thing that was wrong. The execution was okay, the performances were fine, none of it was great, but it was entertaining. The biggest problems come from the idea of wanting to make a film about Han Solo - without Harrison Ford - when no one needed to know anything more about Han Solo.
  • Kyrian +1 this

#62
Djo

Djo

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,488 posts

The reason Solo didn't work is because Harrison Ford IS Han Solo. period. It doesn't matter what you say about role ownership and that any character should be able to be recast. Ordinarily I would agree. But this case is an exception. Harrison Ford IS Han Solo to the general public and I think that is reflected in the results. He owned that role in his complete professional apathy of it. His real world smirk of embarrassment that says "what the hell am I doing here, this is the hokeyist **** ever" that made its way into the film as a personality trait, cannot be replicated. Because it was real. Like much of ANH's success, his was also a total fluke. His character was already fleshed out, finished and absolutely perfect in its complete imperfection and real world goofiness. That's not me gushing, that's just how it is. To the majority of the world Harrison Ford IS Han solo.

Put another way, don't **** with something that is already perfect. Harrison Ford's Han Solo is untouchable.

That is why Solo was what it was.

its also the only Star Wars film I'm yet to see.

I have dropped in a few times but couldn't bring myself to comment on Solo. I actually enjoyed it but it was the first Star Wars movie ever that I haven't immediately wanted a repeat viewing. Now this comment is the first analyses that I completely agree with. I think the same can be said for Mark/Luke and Carrie/Leia. The fact that they all reprised their roles in TFA was the main draw card and the fact that it was a great movie kept people coming back.

 

Coming here and seeing that long time fans haven't even seen it in the cinema is a shock! But it does go a long way to explaining why Solo performed so poorly at the BO. I do hope you guys go and see Episode IX in the cinema.


  • Odine +1 this

#63
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,364 posts

Read a report, no idea if it's at all true, not sure I believe it but it's interesting. It basically says the a potential Obi Wan movie would not be released to theaters but instead put right on the new Disney streaming service. It makes sense in that Disney is going to be entering a crowded marketplace in terms of streaming. Netflix is entrenched and then obviously you have other streaming services too. It would make sense for Disney to put an Obi Wan movie and possibly other "stand alone" movies onto this service. Its not a bad selling point to say "hey these are Star Wars movies that were going to be released to theaters but now they are on here!". 

 

If Disney gets these budgets more under control, they won't have to spend nearly as much on marketing this could make alot of sense. Disney could get a boost for their streaming service, hard core fans get somewhat more releases and then theatrical releases could be somewhat less frequent and keep the "event" feel of a Star Wars movie.

 

Again, not sure I believe it or even like it but it could work. 



#64
Lord Darth Hunter

Lord Darth Hunter

    Sith Lord of Crystal Lake

  • Member
  • 4,501 posts
It makes sense actually. Ford IS Solo. What's weird is that I've always seen him more as Indiana Jones. I figured, if you were going to recast one of Ford's famous roles, it'd be easier to do Han instead of Indy. The character of Han has the benefit of the SW universe to be propped up and be carried through a movie (i.e. having Chewbacca by his side, the Falcon and everything else that comes with that universe.) Rebooting Indy doesn't have that advantage. The character of Indiana Jones has to carry everything for the whole movie. Yet for years there's been talk of rebooting that series with a new actor. If it happens I predict it will do as well as Solo did, which is to say it will underperform for the same reasons. Robert Englund IS Freddy Krueger. Recast and reboot and it goes to the dumpster quick.
  • Odine +1 this

#65
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

 

 

"Everyone knew Solo was not the best idea when they announced it."

 

I think this is the defensive myth created by a faction of SW fans unwilling to admit that Solo was a disaster not because it was  a bad idea, but due to the wrongheaded handling of the story and characters.

Look at the reaction on this board from when the movie was announced, no one was excited for it. 

Yeah, we've got an archive of our reactions.  It was only six months after TFA and basically the consensus was "I'll give it a shot".  The buzz for this movie was poor from the moment it was announced.

 

Personally, I thought the movie was generally harmless, but nothing special.



#66
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,123 posts

I think I often agree with you Justus, but here I feel like you've got it dead wrong.

It is not a defensive myth that fandom didn't want the movie. Like Choc said, that was the majority opinion here before the movie for sure.
And as to your points:

1) Yes Han Solo is one of, in fact, I would say THE most popular character in SW, but that's not a reason to make this movie. That's a reason not to.
Han Solo's popularity is all about who he is in the OT. That charming mix of badass, overconfident goofball, and his growth from self-interested smuggler to selfless hero of The Rebellion. His entire story arc is told. There is nothing else to say about and little curiosity from most people about what he did before...and some would argue after too.

2) well, I don't get your second point at all. Like Odine said, Harrison Ford IS Han Solo. You can't really separate Han Solo from Harrison Ford. So why does it follow that anyone would think young Han would work as a film. I'm not getting your logic at all. That said, I actuallu thought AE did a pretty good job,

And in fact, I even disagree with your final paragraph. The idea of a Solo film was the ONLY thing that was wrong. The execution was okay, the performances were fine, none of it was great, but it was entertaining. The biggest problems come from the idea of wanting to make a film about Han Solo - without Harrison Ford - when no one needed to know anything more about Han Solo.

1) It for that reason that a spin-off would be made: Solo was banking on 40 years of Han Solo's popularity and Ford's long-lived celebrity status, and after the PT, it was open-for-business on "early years" stories, only this time, it was based on a character with a cultural power not in doubt as it was with most of the PT characters.

 

2) Because the idea is trading on Harrison Ford's performance as well, so Ehrenreich was supposed to tap into that, much like JJ-Trek wanted  Pine & Quinto to piggyback on the cultural icon status of Shatner/Kirk & Nimoy/Spock as junior ("early years") versions of their TOS characters. They were counting on audiences being so in love with Shatner & Nimoy that they would run to see younger actors attempt to fill those shoes / bring cherished characters alive. That's part of what fueled Solo.

 

Regarding your last point--

 

"The biggest problems come from the idea of wanting to make a film about Han Solo - without Harrison Ford - when no one needed to know anything more about Han Solo"

 

--the same was said of the PT--we already knew the outcome--the OT, so what more were we going to learn (of significance) about young Vader, Obi-Wan or Yoda? No matter what the PT was going to serve up, in the end, Luke's father becomes Vader / is defeated by Kenobi, Obi-Wan ends up on Tatooine, Yoda on Dagobah and the twins are born. That's the meat of it. To quote Yoda--

 

"Already know you that which you need."

 

...and audience did not need to know anything else, but it produced anyway, not only due to Lucas wanting to finish the Skywalker story, but he knew several characters were too popular not to visit. He was trading on the mystique and general fan interest of OT characters, believing their earlier years were worth exploring---like Solo



#67
Ryn

Ryn

    Moonshadow

  • Moderators
  • 28,559 posts
I'd like to see about that little maneuver at the Battle of Tanaab.

#68
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,476 posts
You would

#69
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Sebastian Stan has the look of a young Luke, but people just wouldn't like it. They've recast Han and most people didn't like it. They recast Kirk and it was a hard one for people to accept, some still don't. It's not like Bond, Batman, or Dracula where recasting and rebooting is just an accepted part of the mythos.

I totally bought Aidan Barton as Luke (and Leia).


  • Tank +1 this



Reply to this topic