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

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Good move but I still think this will be a very weak film, the very concept is flawed.

What is the concept? No plot details are out so you can't knock it yet. Lawrence Kasdan is on board from the start and apparently it's a great and funny script. My concept of this would be it will be a fun Star Wars adventure that doesn't have to try weave itself into the other movies like Rogue One did. I had a problem with them bringing back a young Han Solo at first but I'm happy with the casting of Alden Ehrenreich.

Tony EH wrote: »

I think he means the very concept of a young Han Solo.

Have to agree. The idea send shudders up my spine every time I think of it.

There's only one Han Solo and Ehrenreich isn't it.

Exactly! There is so much you can do with Star Wars but a young han solo concept is just stupid and I don't think it will work, think there's a young lando also :rolleyes:

The casting of yer wan from Game of Thrones just reaffirms what a turd I think this will be, I don't know what they were thinking she just cannot act.

As a concept I loved Rogue One and thought that story was a perfect one to weave into the star wars universe.

I've also begun watching Rebels and think it's brilliant, new characters within the star wars universe is what we need.

Tony EH wrote: »

Isn't there a young Lando cast for this already?

Yeah, Donald Glover. Potentially good casting.



From the casting I think this is shaping up to be a bit of a different Star Wars film. Glover, Harrison and Clarke all have decent modern pop-culture credentials. A departure from the usual cast of mostly, if not entirely, unknowns.

(not counting the likes of Samuel L. Jackson in the prequels because I'd just rather not be reminded).

I'm predicting something similar in tone to Firefly, or even Guardians of the Galaxy, which makes enough sense considering how much each of those borrowed from the archetype created (largely) by Han Solo in the first place.


They might really **** it up, but if they don't – it could be a lot of fun.

Any indication yet as to how far ahead of A New Hope this is set? Feels like the only reason there wouldn't be an ongoing series of Han Solo adventures is the kinda story deadline imposed by that film.

https://twitter.com/chrizmillr/status/826099940254502915/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

david75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/starwars/status/834085576777175040

I think I will just never see these two as Solo or Calrissian.

I still think this film is simply a really, really bad idea.

Wedwood wrote: »

I never thought it was possible to recast Kirk/Spock/McCoy, but they did so successfully. I'm open to them doing the same for Star Wars and there's the 30 years between ROTJ and TFA that a newly cast Luke/Han/Leia could chart new adventures/spinoffs.

There are, literally, millions of Trekkies that would disagree.

Frankly, if it's going to be a comedy, I'm even more out.

I can understand people's trepidation on doing a young Han Solo film. I had the same feeling initially in case they botched casting and crew but now I just think people are sounding like curmudgeons. Harrison is, and always will be Han Solo, but I'm very much looking forward to this.

Is there any word on how long before ANH this is set? Ehrenreich doesn't look that much younger than Ford did. I expected a "Young" Han film to be set when he was late teens early twenties, like around Luke's age in ANH, but Ehrenreich is in his late 20s and looks it. I was hoping to see him in the Imperial Naval Academy and that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it just me or do Disney seem a bit indecisive with their planning of movies?

They did The Force Awakens, which IMO was ok, not brilliant. They followed it with Rogue One which I loved, but as we know is set just prior to ANH. Now a Han Solo movie set presumably several years before ANH while at the same time filming the sequel to Force Awakens. They are jumping all over the timeline.

It's the Marvel approach. Timelines mean nothing. Endless reboots. No canon. No history.

Everything feels so "factory" about it.

Part of me thinks it Disney's way of retconning the Star Wars universe with their own series of prequels and edging out the disastrous Lucas' ones, until people sort of "forget" them or replace them in their own head canon. Which, in fairness, is easily (and IMHO necessarily) done.

Why does it have to be?

Sure, he can be sarcastic etc and the chemistry between him and Chewbacca is entertaining - however, if it's present here, it'll be largely unearned, assuming that the film is going to cover their meeting.

But, if we're going down the '21 Jump Street' route, I'll end up not giving a **** what happens to him in the film, cos the characters won't, as is the usual problem with light hearted films.

In the end, I suppose I'm just sick of that approach. The frivolity of 'Guardians of the Galaxy' was enough to make me not care that it was over. It ended up just being some meh ride, that I couldn't have cared less about when the credits rolled.

When a Star Wars film ends I want to feel that I've experienced something other than a simple passing of two hours where I didn't really give a damn what happened or where the story went. I've had that so far with all of them, except the prequels.

david75 wrote: »

Wow.
There's nothing but canon. Loads of it. And there definitely is a plan. Episode 8 is all but finished and is being scored and edited right now. It's finished. Production on Han has just begun. Comical to suggest Disney are being scatter brained and don't know what they're doing

That's not what I said.

My point is that there's no timeline structure. It's flip flopping all over the place. The very fact that we're getting a Han Solo film when Ford is too old to play the character in a story that takes place before he even stepped into the shoes of Solo just smacks of not of flip flop. It just shouldn't be done, especially when there are millions of Star Wars stories to be told.

In any case, I think Disney want to get rid of the trilogy concept of Star Wars and just focus on their own "stories" and thus allow them all the one shot pictures til we're all blue in the face, sick of Star Wars or we're dead.

Also, on canon...my point is is that it's meaningless if it's not going to be adhered to. Disney jettisoning 30+ years of canon shows that they just want their own playground. This has a good effect to in that it got rid of the 90% of canon bullshit that stank up Star Wars for years. But it also means the nothing really means anything either. I've never liked this king of comic book approach where the entire past of a character or series can be just destroyed in a Year Zero and we all start again. That's just bollocks. Why should anyone care about any stories if they can all be eliminated? Marvel and DC are more guilty than Disney, let me be clear on that. But it's also clear that Disney are going for a Marvel Cinematic Universe approach to their Star Wars IP as well and I don't really want to see Star Wars go down that route. They've handled it ok so far, with one alright film and one great one. But this Han Solo film and the much mooted Boba Fett one just sends shivers up my spine.

david75 wrote: »

Tony you sound really jaded If I may say. It's not high minded art. It's Star Wars. Fast paced action adventure with loveable characters on the surface is all it has to be. And a whole word of back story and canon if you want to dive in. I'll agree with you if this turns out to be awful?
I was hard on rogue one is it wasn't 'my kind of Star wars' but I can't deny it was a really great movie that looked gorgeous and added to the story. If it failed it was in the lie that it was a standalone when clearly you needed to at least now a little about Star Wars for it to work. It'll be the same here.

I am jaded. I've been around since the beginning and I've been burnt as well as elated. I know what Star Wars is and what it can be. I also know the depths it can sink to. I also know that most modern cinema is entirely meh and the Marvel approach is insipid, souless and tasteless. I don't want to see Star Wars go that way.

Also, there's a lot more to the original films than just "Fast paced action adventure with loveable characters" and Star Wars doesn't just have to be that. There's plenty of drama and weight going on if one wants to go beneath the mere surface. That's what made the original films so compelling and what makes them so today.

Agree with 'Rogue One' in that it was never really a standalone in the truest sense. Especially when it leads directly into the 1977 film. I think the "standalone" thing was to indicate that Disney wasn't making another trilogy of films, but it was just bad marketing IMO. However, this is wholly indicative of the scattershot approach that denartha was talking about. Loads of people thought that 'Rogue One' was a continuation of 'The Force Awakens' or thought that it was going to be Bothans stealing plans for Death Star II. It looks to people who aren't clued in that Disney are just making any old thing at any old point, regardless of the story the told before. This kind of "what's going on" is going to raise its head when you have sequels, prequels and episode X.5 or whatever.

david75 wrote: »

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with this being a buddy cop action / western kinda flick. Han Solo is a wise ass. His background is sighing and shady underworld. Star Wars would die if these films just were stuck in one genre doing one thing like all the comic book movies seem to do. They're trying to branch out. Give em a chance to see if they can do it.

Yes, Solo is a sarky character and part of a great on screen duo. But, if the film is merely a series of comic one liners and frivolous set pieces, people aren't going to care. In the original trilogy, Solo was a dangerous and dodgy individual. Cynical, lawless and murderous, but happened to get involved in a good deed, through no fault of his own and ended up with a redemption of sorts*. In 'The Empire Strikes Back' he arguably has one of the most dramatic scenes in the entire series. His story has weight. There's a drama to his arc.

That to me is Star Wars.

If this thing is going where I think it's going, there'll be no umph to anything that happens. It'll be wisecracks gallore, the characters won't care what happens to them and subsequently, neither will I.



*Which makes his return to smuggling in 'The Force Awakens' seem even more stupid and makes Abrams decision to return him to that occupation suspicious. It's like hey, this is what Han Solo was in the original film right!!!

Wedwood wrote: »

The first line spoken in TFA is 'this will begin to make things right', a subltle but direct message from the studio to the fans in response to fans concerns regarding Disney taking the helm. So far they've lived up to that promise, so they deserve the benefit of the doubt for the Han Solo movie.

I can't believe Disney would go to so much trouble to get Star Wars back on track to then just throw it all away with an ill-conceived Han Solo origin movie. Rather, if this movie works, it throws open the possibility of also recasting Luke and Leia etc for new movies set over the 30 years between ROTJ and TFA. You could have Thrawn trilogy movies etc.

Ugh....*shudder*.