Solo (young Han Solo film) spoilers from post 1493

Tom Mann Centuria · 29-09-2018 9:54pm

Watched it today, an easy watch, myself and the kids thought it was alright, they like their amusing droids in the Story films too don't they, but L3 was good, if short lived. Emilia Clarke was wooden, Paul Bettany underused and the story was a bit clunky but we still enjoyed it.

irishman86 · 21-10-2018 2:16am

Half way into it and glad to see its not as terrible as ive been told it was. like a 6/10
But god is that droid annoying. Why does every movie need to send a equal rights message anymore

pixelburp · 21-10-2018 11:09pm

What other movies have equal rights messages?

And in any case, L3-37 was played as a joke, the equal rights gags were pretty obviously mocking the characters over-zealous sincerity. It was a weird, mess of a character, one that perhaps strayed further into the original Miller/Lord version - but I'm fairly confident the audience were meant to laugh at, not with, her.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 23-10-2018 4:38pm

I absolutely HATE all these social justice message rubbish in my movies. Especially Star Wars. The droid in Solo isn’t as annoying as I thought it was going to be.

Goodshape · 23-10-2018 5:29pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

in my movies

I guess you shouldn't put that stuff into your scripts then.

Do you have a link to your IMDb or something? Would be interested to check your movies out.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 23-10-2018 6:12pm

Goodshape wrote: »

I guess you shouldn't put that stuff into your scripts then.

Do you have a link to your IMDb or something? Would be interested to check your movies out.

What an arseholey thing to say. For one just look at the most recent Star Wars movies. Littered with social justice inclusive gender pushing women are great and men are awful rubbish. That’s just one franchise. You don’t have to look very far to see this shíte in a tonne of new releases.

It’s fine though, the market always responds to this. I can guarantee you that the people at Disney have learned from these mistakes.

Goodshape · 23-10-2018 6:40pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

For one just look at the most recent Star Wars movies.

Whoa, those are yours?!? Kudos! I mean, they weren't as great as the old Star Wars movies but still, fair play. You must be minted.

:pac:

Seriously though, where's the "men are awful" thing in these films? Was it star of the entire film Han Solo? Chewbacca? Lando? Returning hero that saves the day Luke Skywalker? Old Han Solo? Ace star fighter cheeky-chap whatever he's called? Main villian Kylo Ren? His sidekick Hux? (Okay, I guess they were awful).

Still plenty of guys on screen. I think you'll be alright.

PhiloCypher · 23-10-2018 7:53pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

What an arseholey thing to say. For one just look at the most recent Star Wars movies. Littered with social justice inclusive gender pushing women are great and men are awful rubbish. That’s just one franchise. You don’t have to look very far to see this shíte in a tonne of new releases.

It’s fine though, the market always responds to this. I can guarantee you that the people at Disney have learned from these mistakes.

I think you're as obsessed if not more obsessed about social justice and gender issues then the people behind the franchise tbh. Otherwise you'd just critique the "actual" faults with the saga films instead of trotting out the same old cry baby bulls**t.

I'm sure in the 70's there would have been guys coming out of Star Wars fuming at how much lip Leia was giving her rescuers Han & Luke . But unlike now there was no public echo chambers like the internet to validate their backward attitudes. And despite their reservations about how uppity Leia was, the film was kinda great so those attitudes were never gonna gain traction anyway. These new films on the other hand are so bad(imo) and so devisive that there's nothing to distract or give anti social justice warriors like yourself pause before going in two footed because the women are too uppity or and the cast too diverse.

silverharp · 26-10-2018 10:07pm

it was like a passable pilot for a tv show.

Glebee · 25-12-2018 1:02am

Gave this a rewatch this evening thinking it might be better that what I thought of it after first viewing (6/10). Its grown on me a bit and no where as bad as I thought it was. Still only 7/10 at the most though.

PhiloCypher · 26-12-2018 12:21pm

Glebee wrote: »

Gave this a rewatch this evening thinking it might be better that what I thought of it after first viewing (6/10). Its grown on me a bit and no where as bad as I thought it was. Still only 7/10 at the most though.

The film will take the same basic arc as Rogue one in peoples estimations I reckon. I remember Rogue one getting a fairly rough ride initially, with people complaining about the characters being boring and it being too fan-servicey, now its rated as one of the better films in the franchise.

Drumpot · 26-12-2018 12:28pm

Glebee wrote: »

Gave this a rewatch this evening thinking it might be better that what I thought of it after first viewing (6/10). Its grown on me a bit and no where as bad as I thought it was. Still only 7/10 at the most though.

Star wars is like many franchises that are almost like a football club with fans getting passionately invested in the story. There are so many times when there is contradictory reasons given why the newer stuff is bad when you could accuse the older stuff of the same or worse..There has been so much hyperbolic over reactions to the movies , many people, including those who believe themselves to be critically assessing movies, have been way off in their summary’s.

This movie is enjoyable and I think 7 is a reasonable score. My children loved it, but watched it without any prejudice (Disney yadda yadda yadda).....

pixelburp · 26-12-2018 1:48pm

It wasn't a bad movie, and by all accounts Ron Howard performed miracles to make it seem like it wasn't a 70% reshoot, it just felt drastically more redundant than Rogue One. That felt like an interesting vignette and precursor to Episode IV, a side tale from the main event. Solo came off like an answer to questions nobody asked.

fryup · 26-12-2018 11:52pm

should it have been a xmas release?

seems strange no SW movie this xmas

Tony EH · 27-12-2018 2:08am

fryup wrote: »

should it have been a xmas release?

seems strange no SW movie this xmas

Star Wars at Christmas is a recent thing and every one of them has been released in May, except for TFA, TLJ and R1.

Its release date meant nothing.

People didn't go, because they didn't care to go. That doesn't necessarily mean that 'Solo' was a "bad" film, even if it was a crushingly mediocre one. It just meant that the prospect didn't enthuse people sufficiently to make a trip to the cinema for.

robinph · 27-12-2018 7:05am

Tony EH wrote: »

fryup wrote: »

should it have been a xmas release?

seems strange no SW movie this xmas

Star Wars at Christmas is a recent thing and every one of them has been released in May, except for TFA, TLJ and R1.

Its release date meant nothing.

People didn't go, because they didn't care to go. That doesn't necessarily mean that 'Solo' was a "bad" film, even if it was a crushingly mediocre one. It just meant that the prospect didn't enthuse people sufficiently to make a trip to the cinema for.

They threw away three years worth of marketing that had been telling us that Christmas meant new Star Wars movie though. Isn't the next one due a December release again as well?

Tony EH · 27-12-2018 11:45pm

It wouldn't have mattered a damn. People weren't going to go in May, December, July or whatever.

Almost the entire internet yawned when it was announced. It wasn't going to get much better from there.

TheIrishGrover · 28-12-2018 11:46am

I don't get all the hate for having women in the movie and didn't think it had all these feminist under/overtones that some are seeing. I think that's more to do with the viewer's preconceived notions rather than the movie makers. However...

I think Silverharp hit the nail on the head. It looked like a decent TV series pilot. I thought Glover was fantastic as Lando and the droid was pretty good but the whole film was redundant. It didn't give us any more insight into who Han was. Whole film was pretty forgettable. I can't even remember who the bad guy was. Without looking it up on IMDb I think it was Paul Beteny.

I enjoyed Rogue One but thought the characters were too serious and noble and dedicated to the cause. Thought there could have been more humour to it. But I enjoyed the film.

This, however, I found to a bore.It is the only star Wars movie that I didn't bother seeing in the cinema..... And I saw Ewoks: Caravan of Courage in the cinema when it came out. lol.

Sad Professor · 28-12-2018 12:03pm

The release date and bad publicity didn't help, but the film's main problem was its premise. Nobody wanted a young Han Solo film without Ford and the marketing did nothing to convince them otherwise. That and some mundane direction aside, it was a perfectly decent film whose reputation among younger viewers will only grow imo.

Drumpot · 28-12-2018 12:50pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

The release date and bad publicity didn't help, but the film's main problem was its premise. Nobody wanted a young Han Solo film without Ford and the marketing did nothing to convince them otherwise. That and some mundane direction aside, it was a perfectly decent film whose reputation among younger viewers will only grow imo.

I agree, my children really enjoyed it and the train scene is actually really cool.

The problem with franchises is that people want familiar not different. It’s funny when people say they want new ideas and whenever there are new things introduced people lose their sh*t and spin a narrative that justifys their dissatisfaction. There is a reason why some of the best movies made are only appreciated later on when the crazy over reaction echo chamber has moved onto something else to pan.

TerrorFirmer · 28-12-2018 1:20pm

There's no point trying to over-justify it. It just is what it is - an unremarkable run of the mill film. And it was received exactly that way, read the thread fully and most people came to that conclusion - not as bad as it might have been, but just as redundant as people expected it to be.

Compare it to Bumblebee - a film which drew an initial similar reaction, with many people, including myself, asking - is it needed? Who even asked for it? And particularly when there was major Transformer fatigue, after the last two stinkers Michael Bay pushed out into the market.

But the difference is Bumblebee actually turned out to be a great film and in fact, is probably the start of a resurgence for the franchise.

In comparison, Solo was just competent entertainment, added very little to Star Wars or the character of Han Solo, and generated very little interest in any follow-up either.

Tony EH · 28-12-2018 2:03pm

Drumpot wrote: »

I agree, my children really enjoyed it and the train scene is actually really cool.

Some people don't have kids, so they are free of that prism and can enjoy, or not, any film they see on their own level. Films don't deserve extra points, cos the kids liked it and 'Solo' was no different.

Drumpot wrote: »

The problem with franchises is that people want familiar not different.

I think it's fair to say that people want "different" in a "familiar" setting. 'Solo' didn't really deliver that, because it was always going to be an unnecessary checklist of Han stuff that everyone knew before hand and all delivered by a fake Solo into the bargain.

What the film should have been was the adventures of -> insert star wars sounding name here <- who gets caught up in the mob world that was hinted at in 'Return of the Jedi'.

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s funny when people say they want new ideas and whenever there are new things introduced people lose their sh*t and spin a narrative that justifys their dissatisfaction. There is a reason why some of the best movies made are only appreciated later on when the crazy over reaction echo chamber has moved onto something else to pan.

Those ideas also have to be good and none of them were good in the film.

There are some entertaining scenes and a couple of interesting designs (Mudtroopers on Mimban), but that's about it.

I think if the film were free of the shackles of Han Solo, it would have been freer to explore and be more creative than it was.

As it stands and as Pix said, it was a situation whereby the film comes off as answering questions nobody wanted answers to...

...and every one of those answers was a complete dud.

Dave_The_Sheep · 29-12-2018 5:59am

**** it, I really liked it. I think they went along the Rogue One route but it didn't quite work out. Tried to be grimly ballsy and it wasn't quite serious enough. Still really liked it. Clarke aside, the actors (male and female) were well cast, dialogue was decent, pacing had issues but I'll forgive it, set pieces were as good as could be expected. Enough references to satisfy an old Star Wars head, enough surprises/new **** to satisfy the same.

I don't judge Star Wars films on the same level as I would the Usual Suspects (my favourite film, even now) or Heat or anything else. They have a formula and a way to their films. The wonder counts for a lot if they can capture that.

Drumpot · 29-12-2018 11:04am

Tony EH wrote: »

Some people don't have kids, so they are free of that prism and can enjoy, or not, any film they see on their own level. Films don't deserve extra points, cos the kids liked it and 'Solo' was no different.

I wouldn't say people without children are are "free of that prism", more that they are not shackled by what they want from a SW movie. Like the way I enjoy Christmas more now because of my childrens excitement, I can enjoy SW (and other) movies more. Usually when it see them first (on my own), I am a bit disappointed, but when I see my children getting excited watching them I usually re-appraise how I value the movie. Effectively speaking, I don't think people can factor in that they have aged 30+ years since the originals when judging newer movies. The more recent movies are made primarily for my children, not you or me. If you cant or wont factor that in it effects how you enjoy the movie.

I think it's fair to say that people want "different" in a "familiar" setting. 'Solo' didn't really deliver that, because it was always going to be an unnecessary checklist of Han stuff that everyone knew before hand and all delivered by a fake Solo into the bargain.

What the film should have been was the adventures of -> insert star wars sounding name here <- who gets caught up in the mob world that was hinted at in 'Return of the Jedi'.

People have set themselves up for falls on these movies. Instead of re-adjusting expectations they have spent months/years complaining about movies they know will not be what they wanted and then spent ages afterwards saying "see this was crap". I don't understand it why you would have such rigid expectations/demands on a movie at the expense of being able to enjoy it.

I do agree though that if this movie was a random character from Star Wars ( a non Han Solo) it would of been received better and might of been more enjoyable. But on the flipside, I think that people who can watch it again, without that Han Solo prejudice can actually enjoy it for the objectively entertaining movie it actually is. Not a masterpiece but a fun ride if you allow yourself to follow it.

Those ideas also have to be good and none of them were good in the film.

There are some entertaining scenes and a couple of interesting designs (Mudtroopers on Mimban), but that's about it.

I think if the film were free of the shackles of Han Solo, it would have been freer to explore and be more creative than it was.

As it stands and as Pix said, it was a situation whereby the film comes off as answering questions nobody wanted answers to...

...and every one of those answers was a complete dud

Again, I agree to a degree. But the problem as I see it is your expectations because I have seen this "its answered questions nobody asked" on another franchise. Who cares if it answered questions that nobody asked ? Why is that important? If this is important to you and you know its going to be answered in a new movie, then you are already creating a negative bias towards the movie. Are you able to enjoy a movie on its own merits, even if it is in a franchise or larger universe ?

Tony EH · 29-12-2018 3:22pm

Drumpot wrote: »

I wouldn't say people without children are are "free of that prism", more that they are not shackled by what they want from a SW movie. Like the way I enjoy Christmas more now because of my childrens excitement, I can enjoy SW (and other) movies more. Usually when it see them first (on my own), I am a bit disappointed, but when I see my children getting excited watching them I usually re-appraise how I value the movie.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say some people are viewing these pictures through the prism of their kids.

Films don't deserve a "re-evaluation" upwards, just because it keeps the kids quiet for an hour.

Drumpot wrote: »

Effectively speaking, I don't think people can factor in that they have aged 30+ years since the originals when judging newer movies. The more recent movies are made primarily for my children, not you or me. If you cant or wont factor that in it effects how you enjoy the movie.

No Star Wars film has ever been made exclusively for children. They have always been made for everyone to enjoy, including kids.

But, criticisms - my own and others - aren't centred on whether the film is for kids or not. They factor in the very real flaws that are present within the film itself, regardless of who the target audience is (who it's thought to be). The very real flaws of 'Solo', which people have elaborated on here and elsewhere, are front and centre and it wouldn't make a difference, even if the film was made just for kids.

Drumpot wrote: »

People have set themselves up for falls on these movies. Instead of re-adjusting expectations they have spent months/years complaining about movies they know will not be what they wanted and then spent ages afterwards saying "see this was crap". I don't understand it why you would have such rigid expectations/demands on a movie at the expense of being able to enjoy it.

I don't think this is the case at really. Not for the vast majority of people who are critical of Disney's Star Wars. Most people just want to see an entertaining film. But, when the film has an abundance of flaws, like Diswars does and they've been expanded on quite eloquently and in depth, people's entertainment meter starts going downwards.

I'd say it takes more for fans of a given franchise to be critical of it, than it does for the flagwavers to constantly praise it, in spite of very obvious issues.

Some people have standards and if those standards aren't met, they'll be critical. Most of the time, those standards are simply a want to be entertained by a story that makes some sense, with characters they find somewhat compelling.

Drumpot wrote: »

I do agree though that if this movie was a random character from Star Wars ( a non Han Solo) it would of been received better and might of been more enjoyable. But on the flipside, I think that people who can watch it again, without that Han Solo prejudice can actually enjoy it for the objectively entertaining movie it actually is. Not a masterpiece but a fun ride if you allow yourself to follow it.

It's meh movie and completely unnecessary. This has been the overriding response to 'Solo', since it was released. In fact, that's been the response since the film was announced.

But, I think it gets an easier ride, because it wasn't 'The Last Jedi' level of awfulness. People give an easier time, because it's a bit of fluff that wasn't as bad as they heard, or think they heard. Because, nobody has ever said that it was "bad" over all. It's just dull, pedestrian and mediocre.

It'll end up being the bastard child of Star Wars. Neither here, nor there, but a real head scratcher as to why it was even made in the first place.

Drumpot wrote: »

Again, I agree to a degree. But the problem as I see it is your expectations because I have seen this "its answered questions nobody asked" on another franchise. Who cares if it answered questions that nobody asked ? Why is that important? If this is important to you and you know its going to be answered in a new movie, then you are already creating a negative bias towards the movie. Are you able to enjoy a movie on its own merits, even if it is in a franchise or larger universe ?

Well, the audience cares. Especially when it's about (probably) the most popular character in the entire franchise and especially when those answers are pretty poor.

You're talking about a franchise that has a "canon" and one which people adhere to, for better or worse. But that's not the audience's fault. That fault lies with the people making the product. They want their audience to be interested in the canon and when that canon gets replaced and re-jigged with poorer quality content, people are (rightly) going to react badly.

It's misplaced, to say the least, to blame the audience for the filmmakers bad decisions.

Kirby · 01-01-2019 8:20am

The movie is pretty poor, to be honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bQbYmLAZ_k

This guy gets it. The last 12 or so minutes basically hits the nail on the head.

Shred · 02-01-2019 11:48am

I saw this in the BFI IMAX in London in May and thought it was an absolute snorefest (I literally caught myself falling asleep a number of times - @ a 2pm showing!). There was literally nothing interesting about it I found and I had expected it to be funny but it didn't even have that. Also, I don't understand the praise Ehrenreich is getting for it; he's a decent actor, sure, but I never felt I was watching Han Solo other than how he looked tbh.
I started re-watching it about 3 weeks ago and found it was a little better than my first watch (the train scene is pretty good tbf), but I couldn't get any further than the first 50 minutes/1 hour or so as the youngster was bored...I might re-watch it in full...some day.

JohnCreedon81 · 19-01-2019 12:04pm

Kirby wrote: »

The movie is pretty poor, to be honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bQbYmLAZ_k

This guy gets it. The last 12 or so minutes basically hits the nail on the head.

Thanks for this, almost made the mistake of watching Solo tonight, so glad I watched that instead! What an abomination!

Slydice · 02-04-2020 5:06pm

no plans for a sequel at the moment:

https://twitter.com/JonKasdan/status/1244766714492891138

pixelburp · 02-04-2020 5:27pm

Lordy, was anyone seriously ever thinking there might be a sequel? I'd say Disney would like us to forget it was ever released...

Relikk · 02-04-2020 6:36pm

It was clearly set up for a possible sequel with regard to how it ended with Qi'ra and Maul, but that's beside the point as the movie was a financial flop so a sequel was never really on the cards.

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

Comments

Solo (young Han Solo film) spoilers from post 1493