Solo (young Han Solo film) spoilers from post 1493

pixelburp · 17-01-2018 08:59PM

Not that I'd take the word of a single tweet from a private junket, but ... "fan service". Errrgggh.

Now, done well, it's charming and fun. Done badly, it's positively masturbatory.

Falthyron · 17-01-2018 09:59PM

Can someone link me a 'preview' snapshot summary posted on Twitter of a franchise-based film where the person absolutely slated it? I don't think its possible. I honestly don't believe anyone has ever slammed a film for being bad if they were in a 'preview'/sneak-peek type setting and saw some of the film or all of it.

The Lego Movie and its song 'Everything is Awesome' epitomises American culture today. Sorry, lads, but not everything is, in fact, awesome.

david75 · 17-01-2018 10:15PM

As we are constantly reminded.things arent even allowed be good nowadays.

Sad Professor · 17-01-2018 10:21PM

Falthyron wrote: »

Can someone link me a 'preview' snapshot summary posted on Twitter of a franchise-based film where the person absolutely slated it? I don't think its possible. I honestly don't believe anyone has ever slammed a film for being bad if they were in a 'preview'/sneak-peek type setting and saw some of the film or all of it.

The Lego Movie and its song 'Everything is Awesome' epitomises American culture today. Sorry, lads, but not everything is, in fact, awesome.

A lot of nerd culture is also built around saying "everything sucks", both before and after a film is released, so I think it balances out.

Falthyron · 17-01-2018 11:16PM

david75 wrote: »

As we are constantly reminded.things arent even allowed be good nowadays.

Hyperbole isn't necessary, both in your comment and it is the point of my post.

Previews, sneak peeks, early viewing opinions should be disregarded. Nobody ever slates a bad film in previews. It's always positive. Even those trying to be somewhat objective lean towards positive by saying things like: "It's different, but it works! #omg"

Solo will be a wholly competent film, safe, but entirely unnecessary without any justification for its existence and devoid of substance. And, it won't break one billion at the box office. That's my prediction. Hopefully, this will become a resounding failure sending a clear message to Disney that there is no need for origin stories, recasting of iconic roles and that it's time to start being a little more ambitious.

david75 · 17-01-2018 11:17PM

Cynicism about absolutely everything is now the zeitgeist. It’s not just a feature of any nerd culture. Having to be rampantly toxic about everything all the time is so nauseating. I don’t know how they deal with it but it sure is boring to read everywhere all the time.

Falthyron · 17-01-2018 11:23PM

david75 wrote: »

Cynicism about absolutely everything is now the zeitgeist. It’s not just a feature of any nerd culture. Having to be rampantly toxic about everything all the time is so nauseating. I don’t know how they deal with it but it sure is boring to read everywhere all the time.

When marketing budgets are becoming more expensive than the cost of producing the film itself, it warrants a certain degree of skepticism. That's the age we will live in, unfortunately. If you see something over and over again and want to like it, need to like it to justify brand loyalty then that's basically a form of self-propagandising.

There was no need to make a film explaining where Han comes from. It isn't necessary to enjoy the Star Wars films. We didn't need it in the 1980s, or the the prequels, we certainly don't need it now. So, that in itself is enough of a reason to take a cynical approach as to why Disney chose to make this film. Not because it was necessary or interesting, but because it's an iconic character and safe money in the bank. An easy film to make to keep the masses in touch with the franchise while the 'real' films are being made.

david75 · 17-01-2018 11:35PM

Falthyron wrote: »

Hyperbole isn't necessary, both in your comment and it is the point of my post.

Previews, sneak peeks, early viewing opinions should be disregarded. Nobody ever slates a bad film in previews. It's always positive. Even those trying to be somewhat objective lean towards positive by saying things like: "It's different, but it works! #omg"

Solo will be a wholly competent film, safe, but entirely unnecessary without any justification for its existence and devoid of substance. And, it won't break one billion at the box office. That's my prediction. Hopefully, this will become a resounding failure sending a clear message to Disney that there is no need for origin stories, recasting of iconic roles and that it's time to start being a little more ambitious.

If you’re so sure about all that and stand by it you could teach Disney a lesson and just not go see it. If enough people like yourself who felt this way and are so certain it’s doomed and demand better, (although I don’t know what gives us the right to demand better) perhaps the best way to let them know is just not see it?hit them in the pocket.

You’re under no obligation to go and you’ll probably be happier for not seeing a film so certain to disappoint in the first place.

I’m not excited about it much either but I’ll go see it and give it a chance. If I dont like it that’ll be that. I’m not into railing against a film or a coporation on an Internet forum just because they’re not doing what I think they should do.

Best way to send a signal to them is not support them if you don’t believe in what they’re doing. Money talks.

david75 · 18-01-2018 01:17AM

Falthyron wrote: »

Not because it was necessary or interesting, but because it's an iconic character and safe money in the bank. An easy film to make to keep the masses in touch with the franchise while the 'real' films are being made.

I don’t know where you’re hanging out but neither the production of and the very idea itself of making a film about a beloved character but as young Han Solo with an actor who isn’t Harrison ford is hardly safe. Fandom is for the most part dead set against this film and joe public to date, is completely unaware it’s comibg.
It’s hardly safe, in fact it’s a massive risk for the franchise.

I’m betting it’s going to be a massive summer hit with joe public and make a boat load of money, potentially leading to the rumoured Han trilogy and star wars fans will hate it even if it’s a brilliant fun summer film cos that’s what Star Wars ‘fans’ do now.

pixelburp · 18-01-2018 09:30AM

david75 wrote: »

Cynicism about absolutely everything is now the zeitgeist. It’s not just a feature of any nerd culture. Having to be rampantly toxic about everything all the time is so nauseating. I don’t know how they deal with it but it sure is boring to read everywhere all the time.

Rampant hype is no less toxic you know, so the door swings both ways Dave if you're going to cry out at that people aren't being passively excited enough for a franchise that you probably hold the title on this forum as 'Biggest Fan'. Sure by that metric, everyone is a cynic compared to you

But even a fan should be able to acknowledge that these private junkets - be they for press or otherwise - are by and large horsesh*t marketing exercises. They're supposed to drive up hype, regardless of whether the final product deserves it or not. Hell I'm sure the 'fan' events for Suicide Squad left attendees gushing in 140 characters or less about how amazing that eventual trainwreck was. Even the Emoji Movie probably drummed up a raving Tweet or two...

Some outlets have famously eroded their credibility precisely because they let themselves be swept up with the promise of some swag and a private 6 minute screening (Empire, AintItCool etc). It happens in all fields of niche journalism, be it for Film, TV, Video Games, Automobiles, gadgets, and usually the result of NOT being suitably gushing is to be blackballed from future access. Again, some outlets or writers have found themselves utterly frozen out from (for instance) Games companies because they wouldn't attend the bribery sessions and print enough puff pieces.

Pointing all this out, and being aware that this is how the game is played, isn't cynicism. It really just reality.

Personally, I don't want second-hand Tweets from ... wait, Emilia Clarke?? ... OK, about how awesome being pampered by Disney was, I want a trailer, some stills - some semblance of actual output that we can judge for ourselves

Saruhashi · 18-01-2018 10:17AM

This would probably be a lot easier on everyone if Disney just came out and said "listen were are only making these movies because they bring in loads of money".

I am not sure it's even possible to make a good Han Solo movie. Han's story works pretty well when it is contained withing the 3 original movies.

It feels to me like taking filler that never existed in the first place and then turning it into an entire movie.

Even if I ask myself what would be a perfect Han Solo movie for me anything I come up with feels like it changes the character and the universe in ways that are not necessary at best and not good at worst.

Look at Harrison Ford in the originals and ask yourself if you want to see an entire movie about this character BUT he's played by a different actor and it's set in a different time AND probably the tone of the film will be completely different too.

It's a bad idea. In my opinion. I am skeptical because it feels like a bad idea.

There are plenty of Star Wars comics, novels and video games out there that have new characters and new takes on the Star Wars Universe but I feel like if these end up being pretty bad (and some of them are quite good) it's OK because they don't really "touch" the main movies.

This is like WAY too much of gamble for me and the gains are not significant enough when weighed against the potential losses.

I think anyone who cares about Star Wars would see that? They are putting an iconic character on the line and the best gain we could see is that a few extra details are added to the character and Disney makes a boat load of money. The only downside is that they could potentially ruin an iconic character... so... I have a bad feeling about this.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 10:38AM

david75 wrote: »

Good news but who even likes that. Spoiler alert

https://twitter.com/yeahclarke/status/953660320039493632

"fan-service movie" is not good news.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 10:54AM

david75 wrote: »

I don’t know where you’re hanging out but neither the production of and the very idea itself of making a film about a beloved character but as young Han Solo with an actor who isn’t Harrison ford is hardly safe. Fandom is for the most part dead set against this film and joe public to date, is completely unaware it’s comibg.
It’s hardly safe, in fact it’s a massive risk for the franchise.

It's "safe" in as much that it doesn't have to be written from scratch and people will go to see it, even if it's just merely to check it out.

It'll make money.

So, yes, it's "safe".

It's not "safe" from a fans perspective, as what's probably going to happen here is that everything Solo has said in 'Star Wars', The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' will be condensed down into 2 hours and that has the potential to really piss off the fan base hugely, as it'll significantly reduce a beloved character.

Nobody wanted this film. Nobody was asking for it and as F said above, it "isn't necessary".

I agree with you in that if people want to send a message, they shouldn't go. But, unfortunately, people do go to these films and often end up making excuses for them afterwards.

I, myself, have decided that I am not going to see this in a cinema, unless the audience reviews are very positive. That'll persuade me and I'll gladly eat my hat if it is indeed good.

I was meh about 'Rogue One' and that turned out to be great. But, it's looking more and more like an exception, given my reaction to 'The Force Awakens' and 'The Last Jedi'.

I've no real faith in fake Han and Hip Hop Lando. But, if it's good, it's good. I just don't see, knowing what I know now, how it can be a complete success though.

Falthyron · 18-01-2018 11:57AM

Tony EH wrote: »

It's "safe" in as much that it doesn't have to be written from scratch and people will go to see it, even if it's just merely to check it out.

It'll make money.

So, yes, it's "safe".

It's not "safe" from a fans perspective, as what's probably going to happen here is that everything Solo has said in 'Star Wars', The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' will be condensed down into 2 hours and that has the potential to really piss off the fan base hugely, as it'll significantly reduce a beloved character.

Nobody wanted this film. Nobody was asking for it and as F said above, it "isn't necessary".

I agree with you in that if people want to send a message, they shouldn't go. But, unfortunately, people do go to these films and often end up making excuses for them afterwards.

I, myself, have decided that I am not going to see this in a cinema, unless the audience reviews are very positive. That'll persuade me and I'll gladly eat my hat if it is indeed good.

I was meh about 'Rogue One' and that turned out to be great. But, it's looking more and more like an exception, given my reaction to 'The Force Awakens' and 'The Last Jedi'.

I've no real faith in fake Han and Hip Hop Lando. But, if it's good, it's good. I just don't see, knowing what I know now, how it can be a complete success though.

Just to add, its also quite possibly the case that Disney no longer care about existing Star Wars fans. They have a new and different target audience so they will cater to them instead. 'Let the past die, kill it if you have to', etc.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 12:41PM

Falthyron wrote: »

Just to add, its also quite possibly the case that Disney no longer care about existing Star Wars fans. They have a new and different target audience so they will cater to them instead. 'Let the past die, kill it if you have to', etc.

Oh yeh. I don't think they give a shit about the "old folks" at all. It's my contention that the trio of stars from the original films where shoehorned into the sequels to largely ensure the older bums on seats.

david75 · 18-01-2018 01:57PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Rampant hype is no less toxic you know, so the door swings both ways Dave if you're going to cry out at that people aren't being passively excited enough for a franchise that you probably hold the title on this forum as 'Biggest Fan'. Sure by that metric, everyone is a cynic compared to you

But even a fan should be able to acknowledge that these private junkets - be they for press or otherwise - are by and large horsesh*t marketing exercises. They're supposed to drive up hype, regardless of whether the final product deserves it or not. Hell I'm sure the 'fan' events for Suicide Squad left attendees gushing in 140 characters or less about how amazing that eventual trainwreck was. Even the Emoji Movie probably drummed up a raving Tweet or two...

Some outlets have famously eroded their credibility precisely because they let themselves be swept up with the promise of some swag and a private 6 minute screening (Empire, AintItCool etc). It happens in all fields of niche journalism, be it for Film, TV, Video Games, Automobiles, gadgets, and usually the result of NOT being suitably gushing is to be blackballed from future access. Again, some outlets or writers have found themselves utterly frozen out from (for instance) Games companies because they wouldn't attend the bribery sessions and print enough puff pieces.

Pointing all this out, and being aware that this is how the game is played, isn't cynicism. It really just reality.

Personally, I don't want second-hand Tweets from ... wait, Emilia Clarke?? ... OK, about how awesome being pampered by Disney was, I want a trailer, some stills - some semblance of actual output that we can judge for ourselves

Hans my favourite character. Natural cynicism is my hardwired first stop view in anything believe it or not:).
Might possibly be a trailer tomorrow or this weekend.

david75 · 18-01-2018 02:01PM

Saruhashi wrote: »

This would probably be a lot easier on everyone if Disney just came out and said "listen were are only making these movies because they bring in loads of money".

I am not sure it's even possible to make a good Han Solo movie. Han's story works pretty well when it is contained withing the 3 original movies.

It feels to me like taking filler that never existed in the first place and then turning it into an entire movie.

Even if I ask myself what would be a perfect Han Solo movie for me anything I come up with feels like it changes the character and the universe in ways that are not necessary at best and not good at worst.

Look at Harrison Ford in the originals and ask yourself if you want to see an entire movie about this character BUT he's played by a different actor and it's set in a different time AND probably the tone of the film will be completely different too.

It's a bad idea. In my opinion. I am skeptical because it feels like a bad idea.

There are plenty of Star Wars comics, novels and video games out there that have new characters and new takes on the Star Wars Universe but I feel like if these end up being pretty bad (and some of them are quite good) it's OK because they don't really "touch" the main movies.

This is like WAY too much of gamble for me and the gains are not significant enough when weighed against the potential losses.

I think anyone who cares about Star Wars would see that? They are putting an iconic character on the line and the best gain we could see is that a few extra details are added to the character and Disney makes a boat load of money. The only downside is that they could potentially ruin an iconic character... so... I have a bad feeling about this.

It’s a gamble for sure. But fact remains we know nothing about Hans story. / backstory. Do we need to? Probably not? But he’s loved enough that people are interested. Is it risky? Massively. This one more than any other is most likely to blow up in their faces. I’d say it’s going to be their Gauge on whether more standalones happen. I’m not worried about it. It won’t ‘ruin the character’ for me if the film is crap. As best it’ll enhance him if it’s good. Both are possible are they not?

david75 · 18-01-2018 02:10PM

HIp hop Lando

love it Tony

Is he not a really good actor though? The critics seem to know more about him and like him a lot more than anything I’ve heard about fake han? Who has what, one previous role in a bad comedy?
Glover seems to have some chops. I remember watching Atlanta and thinking he was genuine.

faceman · 18-01-2018 02:57PM

“I wonder how Han met Chewie?”....

...said no fucking human being ever.

I sense this film will be the Star Wars equivalent of Prometheus.

Falthyron · 18-01-2018 03:16PM

faceman wrote: »

“I wonder how Han met Chewie?”....

...said no fucking human being ever.

I sense this film will be the Star Wars equivalent of Prometheus.

I'm waiting for them to announce 'On the Homestead'. A family friendly TV show like The Cosby Show featuring Luke as a child, Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen. It follows the life of a very young Luke and what it was like growing up on Tatooine. All the gang will be there, Biggs, Wedge, and more of Luke's friends as they go on many adventures and get up to all sorts of trouble on the dusty two-sun planet. Cameos from Old Ben, Jabba, fan-favourite Sebulba, and, of course, those loveable Jawas.

Coming Holiday Season 2019.

Even this isn't too cynical to dismiss. :pac:

david75 · 18-01-2018 05:58PM

It’s interesting so many seem to be against the idea of this film even happening yet when we look over at Kenobi, the vast majority of the fan base wants that one to happen.

Falthyron · 18-01-2018 06:11PM

david75 wrote: »

It’s interesting so many seem to be against the idea of this film even happening yet when we look over at Kenobi, the vast majority of the fan base wants that one to happen.

There are a number of reasons for this, though I dispute your claim that 'the vast majority' want a Kenobi film. I think it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

Firstly, Ewan McGregor would be playing Kenobi. An accomplished actor who is regarded as the one saving grace in the prequel trilogy. Where as Han Solo will be played by a relative nobody trying to assume a role that has been seared into Star Wars fans' memories by Harrison Ford - much like Indiana Jones, there is only one Han Solo.

Secondly, there is a lot more potential with a Kenobi film than a Solo film. Whoever writes Kenobi could make it a very philosophical film (that is my hope!) about the nature of the Force, the ideas of balance, good vs. evil, and potentially the idea of a 'grey Jedi'. Furthermore, the entire story can be far removed from the prequels or OT. It won't need to feature characters we are already familiar with and re-cast them. Perhaps Neeson can come back as Qui-Gon, and certainly Oz as Yoda, but that would be about it. So, it can avoid 'fan-service'.

Thirdly, Solo is already mired in controversy. Not just because of Ron Howard being brought on board, but also because the questions about Solo's origins have already been explained in the Extended Universe, which has now been disregarded. There is no need to have a re-hashed story about Solo, played by someone who isn't Solo, featuring actors playing characters who don't need to be in the film in the first place.

Finally, 'origin' films are boring. Much of Solo's charisma and success as a character stems from not knowing why he does the things he does. The mystery plays with the audience's mind and allows us to come up with our own answers and stories about what he got up to as a younger man. 'Solo' will feature things that help to explain much of that magic to us. There will be a scene involving the dice in the Falcon, there will be a reference to the Kessel Run and why his running of it is so important to him and impressive, it will tell us why Han and Chewie became friends, his references to 'princess' and 'kid', his aversion to anything relating to the Force, etc. etc. While a Kenobi film will avoid the idea of 'origins' because we already know his 'origins' (thanks, Prequels) so the story Obi-Wan Kenobi will have in his own film will be completely new, unheard of, and (hopefully) ambitious, risky, different.

david75 · 18-01-2018 06:22PM

Yeah I wonder about that. I’d love a deeper more introspective film for Obi wan but doubt it’s what we’ll get. And I haven’t seen anyone anywhere opposing a Kenobi film. Whereas the solo film has an entire movement against it.

In a way the prequels are his story as much as Anakins. He’s the axle and our entry point to those films as he’s the main character we know. Anakin is central to the story of TPM as a device but has nothing to do with the story itself. Obi wan not just cos he’s the redeeming feature of the trilogy as he’s played so well but he’s our POV on what’s happening to Anakin. Who we can’t have empathy for past a certain point in the trilogy.
Can only hope McGregor comes back to do it. I’d say his sick to his stomach being asked about it. Does he really want a lifetime of being asked about it if he does come back? I don’t envy him.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 07:57PM

david75 wrote: »

It’s a gamble for sure. But fact remains we know nothing about Hans story. / backstory.

Well, we did.

IIRC correctly in the Biran Daley books, which George readilly accepted as canon, Solo was an Imperial pilot who became disillusioned with his Empire service after seeing the Empire employ slavers to treat wookies like shite and send them off to mine spice (herion).

He "resigns" his commision and saves Chewbacca, who then owes him a "life debt".

While both are on the run from the Empire, they get involved smuggling for crime lords, including smuggling spice.

They become the criminals we meet in 'Star Wars'. Living how they can, by necessity and wanted by both the Empire and the Hutts.

Disney have chucked all that in the bin and will make up their own twee comedy adventure.

That's why I hate the crappy writing for Han Solo in 'The Force Awakens', where he's reduced back down to the status of a criminal, even though the galaxy is ruled by a Republic he helped set up.

It's just dumb and unconvincing.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 08:01PM

david75 wrote: »

HIp hop Lando love it Tony

Is he not a really good actor though? The critics seem to know more about him and like him a lot more than anything I’ve heard about fake han? Who has what, one previous role in a bad comedy?
Glover seems to have some chops. I remember watching Atlanta and thinking he was genuine.

Can't say I know too much about the lad. "Good" actor, i don't know. I've only seen him in a couple of things and he didn't stand out for me.

But, that poster that's floating around. On it, he looks like some lame ass R+B star, or one of those mickey mouse "rappers". The type with no balls that Ice Cube or Chuck D would hate.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 08:04PM

Falthyron wrote: »

I'm waiting for them to announce 'On the Homestead'. A family friendly TV show like The Cosby Show featuring Luke as a child, Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen. It follows the life of a very young Luke and what it was like growing up on Tatooine. All the gang will be there, Biggs, Wedge, and more of Luke's friends as they go on many adventures and get up to all sorts of trouble on the dusty two-sun planet. Cameos from Old Ben, Jabba, fan-favourite Sebulba, and, of course, those loveable Jawas.

Coming Holiday Season 2019.

Even this isn't too cynical to dismiss. :pac:

:pac:

Uncle Owen should be an Alf Garnet/Archie Bunker type.

Constantly giving out about the Sand People.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 08:09PM

david75 wrote: »

It’s interesting so many seem to be against the idea of this film even happening yet when we look over at Kenobi, the vast majority of the fan base wants that one to happen.

Because that could work, if it's written well.

McGreggor has already played a young Kenobi, with the years separating him from Guinness that allows it to work.

The majority of this Solo thing takes place in the same 5 to 10 years as the original 'Star Wars'.

That's just going to be ugh, no matter how good/bad the story will be. Han Solo exits 'Solo' as Ehrenreich and enters 'Star Wars' as Ford.

That's just awful.

david75 · 18-01-2018 08:13PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, we did.

IIRC correctly in the Biran Daley books, which George readilly accepted as canon, Solo was an Imperial pilot who became disillusioned with his Empire service after seeing the Empire employ slavers to treat wookies like shite and send them off to mine spice (herion).

He "resigns" his commision and saves Chewbacca, who then owes him a "life debt".

While both are on the run from the Empire, they get involved smuggling for crime lords, including smuggling spice.

They become the criminals we meet in 'Star Wars'. Living how they can, by necessity and wanted by both the Empire and the Hutts.

Disney have chucked all that in the bin and will make up their own twee comedy adventure.

That's why I hate the crappy writing for Han Solo in 'The Force Awakens', where he's reduced back down to the status of a criminal, even though the galaxy is ruled by a Republic he helped set up.

It's just dumb and unconvincing.

I wouldn’t say they’ve chucked it in the bin. That book description sounds great and also contains almost all the elements of what this films going to be about as far as we know so far. We don’t know it’s a twee comedy adventure yet at all.

thegreengoblin · 18-01-2018 08:59PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, we did.

IIRC correctly in the Biran Daley books, which George readilly accepted as canon, Solo was an Imperial pilot who became disillusioned with his Empire service after seeing the Empire employ slavers to treat wookies like shite and send them off to mine spice (herion).

He "resigns" his commision and saves Chewbacca, who then owes him a "life debt".

While both are on the run from the Empire, they get involved smuggling for crime lords, including smuggling spice.

They become the criminals we meet in 'Star Wars'. Living how they can, by necessity and wanted by both the Empire and the Hutts.

Disney have chucked all that in the bin and will make up their own twee comedy adventure.

That's why I hate the crappy writing for Han Solo in 'The Force Awakens', where he's reduced back down to the status of a criminal, even though the galaxy is ruled by a Republic he helped set up.

It's just dumb and unconvincing.

Not sure if you're getting confused with the Rebel Dawn trilogy by AC Crispin. The Brian Daley books from 1979/80 were basically 'further adventures of' although they were set before A New Hope and outside of the Empire's territory so as not to contradict any future films. Crispin's books were the actual EU origin story (although they did incorporate the Daley stories into them) and I would imagine 'Solo' will take some of its cue from these. I found them really enjoyable too.

I'm fairly ambivalent about this film, having been fairly excited about it originally. It's the first of the new films that I'm not absolutely stoked about even though it's about my favourite SW character. Hopefully the trailer will whet the appetite more.

Tony EH · 18-01-2018 09:13PM

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Not sure if you're getting confused with the Rebel Dawn trilogy by AC Crispin. The Brian Daley books from 1979/80 were basically 'further adventures of' although they were set before A New Hope and outside of the Empire's territory so as not to contradict any future films. Crispin's books were the actual EU origin story (although they did incorporate the Daley stories into them) and I would imagine 'Solo' will take some of its cue from these. I found them really enjoyable too.

I'm fairly ambivalent about this film, having been fairly excited about it originally. It's the first of the new films that I'm not absolutely stoked about even though it's about my favourite SW character. Hopefully the trailer will whet the appetite more.

Hey, maybe you're right. It's been, literally, decades since I read the Han Solo books.

But the Han Solo is an Imperial pilot thing has stuck in my head, because I thought it was a good idea.

Solo (young Han Solo film) *spoilers from post 1493*

Comments

Solo (young Han Solo film) spoilers from post 1493