Solo (young Han Solo film) spoilers from post 1493

david75 · 22-06-2017 12:44pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Umm...if I'm correct as to the reasons why L+M got the boot, then Kennedy and Kasdan are absolutely correct to halt things and sort it out.

But, the real question is why Lord and Miller were hired to do the film in the first place? It's not like they don't have a particular stamp on their previous work. What did they think they were going to bring to the table? Even I could see that they were completely wrong for any kind of Star Wars project, so why couldn't Disney execs? Did Kennedy just hope that she could simply force her way?

If were either of them, I'd feel pretty hard done by and certainly fight my corner.

It would be like hiring Terry Gilliam to direct Episode IX and complaining that the film was too like 'Brazil' or 'Time Bandits'.

Well that's been reported on already. They were taking far too many liberties with the script and improvising. One quote I read was 'they should have followed Edwards idea of doing one hour of improvisational filming a day. Rather than doing the whole thing improv'.

They basically were going off the map. All the time. You can do that with a Lego movie I s it works for great comedy. You can't do that in a Star Wars film with an established tone and structure. And you shouldn't do it either. Flying by the seat of the pants on a $200 million project belonging to the the biggest film franchise in the world. You won't be allowed do that all the time.

In those lights it's easy to see why KK had to call a halt to it. And she's right.

Mickeroo · 22-06-2017 1:05pm

I don't think it's a good thing. Gone are the days of being excited when an up and coming director gets a job on a big blockbuster property off the back of successful personal projects.

I'd much rather a director gets to put their own stamp on a film (and these stand alone star wars films were the perfect opportunity to do that). Obviously I didn't expect that this would actually happen with the Star Wars films, it's clear as day studios only hire directors like this as they won't have the clout to stand up to the studio and this isn't the only franchise it happens on and the issue here was the directors weren't happy with it.

Sad Professor · 22-06-2017 1:08pm

It should be pointed out that Kasdan is really a director at heart and has always had issues with how other directors interpret his work. He had big issues with the changes Kershner and Spielberg made to his scripts as well. Kershner and the actors practically re-wrote Empire on set. And Spielberg is always improvising. I remember a frank interview with Kasdan years ago in which he more or less said he didn't really like Raiders and complained about Spielberg's slap stick improvisations (the mirror scene, etc). Of course, these days he calls them both geniuses so he probably got over it, but my point is this isn't anything new from him. But I also think he's smart enough to know this himself, which I why I think the studio might be over-emphasising how involved he was in Lord and Miller's departure.

Tony EH · 22-06-2017 1:40pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'd much rather a director gets to put their own stamp on a film (and these stand alone star wars films were the perfect opportunity to do that).

It depends on the film or franchise they revolved around. Personally, I would have liked to have seen David Lynch's 'Return of the Jedi'. :pac:

Star Wars, though, has a particular look and feel about it. A kind of loose house style guide that you wander too far from at your peril.

Lord and Miller also have particular style, this modern kind of meta, tongue-in-cheek, nod and wink non film where nothing of consequence happens and there's no real drama to be found.

That doesn't belong anywhere near a Star Wars film.

Tony EH · 22-06-2017 1:44pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

It should be pointed out that Kasdan is really a director at heart and has always had issues with how other directors interpret his work. He had big issues with the changes Kershner and Spielberg made to his scripts as well. Kershner and the actors practically re-wrote Empire on set. And Spielberg is always improvising. I remember a frank interview with Kasdan years ago in which he more or less said he didn't really like Raiders and complained about Spielberg's slap stick improvisations (the mirror scene, etc). Of course, these days he calls them both geniuses so he probably got over it, but my point is this isn't anything new from him. But I also think he's smart enough to know this himself, which I why I think the studio might be over-emphasising how involved he was in Lord and Miller's departure.

There's no doubt in my mind that Kasdan is a bit Barton Fink, but I'd go with him more often than not. I still think his mark on Star Wars is a bit overestimated.

However, he's right about that mirror scene. It's stupid.

Sad Professor · 22-06-2017 1:57pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It depends on the film or franchise they revolved around. Personally, I would have liked to have seen David Lynch's 'Return of the Jedi'. :pac:

Star Wars, though, has a particular look and feel about it. A kind of loose house style guide that you wander too far from at your peril.

Lord and Miller also have particular style, this modern kind of meta, tongue-in-cheek, nod and wink non film where nothing of consequence happens and there's no real drama to be found.

That doesn't belong anywhere near a Star Wars film.

This is probably what Variety meant by "culture clash", which the generational gap between Kasdan/Kennedy and Lord/Miller would have only added to. Johnson and Abrams got along great with them, but they are a bit older and probably a bit fogeyish.

Tony EH · 22-06-2017 2:19pm

"Fogeyish" or not, Kennedy has to make good on the return of Disney's billions that they forked out to Lucas. That's the reason why 'The Force Awakens' was little more than a bland riff on the original 'Star Wars' and why she didn't want everybody dying on a beach, Normandy style, in 'Rogue One'.

Disney find risk abhorrent and there's too much riding on this just to let anybody do anything they want.

The thing is, just don't hire people like Lord and Miller. You pretty much know what you're going to get.

david75 · 22-06-2017 3:27pm

That was quick. How boring

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/star-wars-han-solo-movie-ron-howard-steps-direct-1015674

david75 · 22-06-2017 3:32pm

Though I reckon she had someone lined up before she fired them to make it a speedy handover and keep the ball rolling.

Tony EH · 22-06-2017 3:36pm

I'd say that was well sorted before today. They were probably on the blower to him last month.

fluke · 22-06-2017 4:05pm

david75 wrote: »

That was quick. How boring

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/star-wars-han-solo-movie-ron-howard-steps-direct-1015674

Happy Days

FunLover18 · 22-06-2017 4:14pm

Sad Professor wrote:

I still think Lord and Miller were digging their heels in big time. According to Variety, they felt they had "earned their stripes", an attitude which if true won't do their reputation any favours.

Sorry but this wording really bothers me and I know it's not yours Prof, but as you said it doesn't do them any service and makes it sound like they haven't actually "earned their stripes" when in truth they've directed three massively successful movies, both critically and financially, with the Lego movie and the two Jump Street films, which are also original and of a very high quality. Not to mention Cloudy which was also a success, albeit not on the same scale. I don't know what "stripes" they're supposed to have thought they earned but Disney and KK were clearly impressed or they wouldn't have been hired. This isn't a Josh Trank situation where he was plucked from relative obscurity for a big budget film and then threw his toys out of the pram when he didn't get his way, L&M are proven directors with a track record.

Sad Professor · 22-06-2017 4:37pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

Sorry but this wording really bothers me and I know it's not yours Prof, but as you said it doesn't do them any service and makes it sound like they haven't actually "earned their stripes" when in truth they've directed three massively successful movies, both critically and financially, with the Lego movie and the two Jump Street films, which are also original and of a very high quality. Not to mention Cloudy which was also a success, albeit not on the same scale. I don't know what "stripes" they're supposed to have thought they earned but Disney and KK were clearly impressed or they wouldn't have been hired. This isn't a Josh Trank situation where he was plucked from relative obscurity for a big budget film and then threw his toys out of the pram when he didn't get his way, L&M are proven directors with a track record.

I agree but the reality is that directors working at this level have to prove themselves every time. Look at Joss Whedon. The fact that he had made the first Avengers meant nothing, Marvel walked all over him. Now he's taking pay check jobs filling in for Zack Snyder presumedly to win brownie points with WB so they take it easy on him on Batgirl. Directors of these cinematic universe movies are hired hands, like tv directors. I also wouldn't overstate their prior success. The Lego Movie and 21 Jump Street were both based on preexisting properties. From a studio execs viewpoints, they would have made millions anyway.

This is all speculation of course. We don't know what happened with Lord & Miller. Maybe they tried to give the studio what they wanted but it still wasn't good enough. It's just a very unusual situation.

thegreengoblin · 22-06-2017 5:26pm

david75 wrote: »

Welll let's also look at L&M's statement which basically seems amicable enough and says 'creative differences' so it's not like they're gonna go to war with LFL / Disney over it.

It will be interesting to see how it's credited and where their cut of the cheese for the work they did both in credit and monetary return goes.

I'd say there's a compensation package written into the fine print when they signed on 'in case of' clause kinda thing.

I suppose it has to be amicable really. You can be sure Disney would have insisted on an agreement that no one starts moaning or bitching, certainly until well after the film is released. They have a product to market and no one is going to get in the way of that, whatever their grievances are. The last thing Disney want is a black cloud hanging over a Star Wars film.

What a mess though. You have to laugh at Ron Howard taking over. From such a big gamble with Lord and Miller to the safest pair of hands they could get!

david75 · 22-06-2017 6:44pm

More details...

"Apparently, the split was a subtle one that became magnified over time: Lucasfilm and producer Kennedy believed Lord and Miller were hired to add a comedic touch; Lord and Miller believed they were hired to make a comedy."

That's a helluva miscommunication. I mean Han is one of the funniest members of the OT but funny one liners is one thing. They seemed to be making it into an all out comedy. That is another thing altogether

http://ew.com/movies/2017/06/22/ron-howard-takes-over-directing-duties-on-han-solo-film/

david75 · 22-06-2017 7:06pm

I believe all of that

Tony EH · 22-06-2017 7:08pm

Thank christ they're gone. That would have been bloody awful. Wrong movie, wrong people.

Hopefully, Ronnie can salvage something out of it, but I reckon this is the first Star Wars film that I won't be bothering to watch in a cinema, if I bother watching it at all.

Sad Professor · 22-06-2017 7:24pm

david75 wrote: »

More details...

"Apparently, the split was a subtle one that became magnified over time: Lucasfilm and producer Kennedy believed Lord and Miller were hired to add a comedic touch; Lord and Miller believed they were hired to make a comedy."

That's a helluva miscommunication. I mean Han is one of the funniest members of the OT but funny one liners is one thing. They seemed to be making it into an all out comedy. That is another thing altogether

http://ew.com/movies/2017/06/22/ron-howard-takes-over-directing-duties-on-han-solo-film/

If that article is true, it seems I was right about them digging their heels in and the inevitably of reshoots emboldening Disney/Kennedy to take drastic action.

Reshoots were always possible (they are factored into almost every major film these days, and each new Star Wars project has undergone them), but as Lord and Miller dug in, refusing to compromise on what they saw as best for the film, the partnership went from strained to fractured. If they wouldn’t do the scenes as Lucasfilm and Kennedy wanted them now, why would they do them that way during reshoots?
[...]
They became immovable objects. If the filmmakers were refusing to make the movie Lucasfilm expected, why continue?

I feel bad them for them both. They were obviously doing what they were good at and what they assumed they had been hired to do. What sort of weird hybrid of theirs and Howard's sensibilities are we going to end up with now?

Falthyron · 22-06-2017 7:46pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

What sort of weird hybrid of theirs and Howard's sensibilities are we going to end up with now?

Tony EH · 22-06-2017 8:59pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

They were obviously doing what they were good at and what they assumed they had been hired to do.

How could anybody who's even remotely familiar with the series think that a comedy was what Star Wars fans would want to see?

Expecially one that features the most loved character in the entire franchise?

A Star Wars comedy would have killed everything stone dead. It would have been a fat disaster for Disney. I can see the interweb outrage as I type!

What an incredible lack of communication there must have been between each person involved here. It's quite astonishing really.

Sad Professor · 22-06-2017 9:53pm

Tony EH wrote: »

How could anybody who's even remotely familiar with the series think that a comedy was what Star Wars fans would want to see?

Expecially one that features the most loved character in the entire franchise?

A Star Wars comedy would have killed everything stone dead. It would have been a fat disaster for Disney. I can see the interweb outrage as I type!

What an incredible lack of communication there must have been between each person involved here. It's quite astonishing really.

I don't think it was a simple as they thought they were making a comedy. They obviously committed to making what believed would be a Star Wars movie, but it didn't match the studio's idea of Star Wars. According to that EW piece, it mainly came down to a few key scenes that Kennedy/Kasdan strongly felt were all wrong. Howard is hardly going to reshoot the whole movie.

But strange as may seem, miscommunication of this sort are probably the main source of director/studio conflict in Hollywood. Directors are always coming back with a with a movie that studios insist was not the movie they said they were going to make. I remember Fincher talking years ago about the importance of being absolutely crystal clear about what film he is making, so that the studio is under no illusions about what they are going to get.

johnny_ultimate · 22-06-2017 9:55pm

Tony EH wrote: »

How could anybody who's even remotely familiar with the series think that a comedy was what Star Wars fans would want to see?

I'm genuinely baffled with the concept that there should be a 'one size fits all' tone or approach to Star Wars films. I absolutely believe a comedy can co-exist in this basically infinite universe they've created. I believe there can be thrillers, romances, horror, epics, character studies, gangster films... whatever really. All these elements are already in the mix, I have no problem with them isolating one and focusing on it. There probably can't be experimental arthouse fare, but one can dream

The mainline Star Wars films should probably stick to the broad 'Star Wars tone'. But these side films are an immense opportunity to do something different, and based on Rogue One and the reports of Han Solo these directors aren't being given permission to do that. The first anthology film explicitly attempted to separate itself from the core movies from dropping some of the traditional motifs like an opening crawl. Now if only they'd go the full way and make films that have the capacity to genuinely surprise and subvert expectations, I struggle to see how anyone would object to that. With Disney at the helm, though, and the increasing evidence of Grand Studio Overlords, I think these films will be doomed to be rather uninspiring.

Wedwood · 22-06-2017 9:58pm

So much for the promise of taking Star Wars in new directions. You can't really blame the studio, Rogue One shows people want darker/grittier.

As Yoda might say - "different something we want, so long as the same it looks"

FunLover18 · 22-06-2017 10:53pm

Tony EH wrote:

How could anybody who's even remotely familiar with the series think that a comedy was what Star Wars fans would want to see?

I think when you're two directors who have made some of the best comedies in the last ten years, it fair to assume you're being hired for your comedy chops.

Tony EH wrote:

A Star Wars comedy would have killed everything stone dead. It would have been a fat disaster for Disney. I can see the interweb outrage as I type!

Personally, Star Wars is set in a galaxy, an entire galaxy, and I think it's fair that some of the stories that occur within that Galaxy reflect that. By that, I mean fall into different genres. It's one of the reasons I love the Marvel movies, yeh at the the end of the day they're all superhero movies but touch on different kind of stories like the sound thriller in TWS and comedy in Ant-Man, but it's also set on Earth the audience has something to relate to, pop culture references etc, these are extraordinary stories happening in a world we can relate to. The Star Wars universe has no such depth, take for instance the scene in the Last Jedi where the people at the party are watching the laser come towards them, I have no idea who those people are, what they might be celebrating, etc.

Basically Eddie Izzard's Death Star canteen sketch highlights my problem with the SW universe; the death star must have a canteen in the same way that the empire has accountants running its books but these perfectly ordinary things seem so ridiculous in this world. If L&M could have made a small scale heist-comedy that didn't have any real impact on a grander scheme but that gave some sense that these movies are set in a world I can believe in - I would've loved that.

Tony EH · 22-06-2017 11:58pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't think it was a simple as they thought they were making a comedy. They obviously committed to making what believed would be a Star Wars movie, but it didn't match the studio's idea of Star Wars. According to that EW piece, it mainly came down to a few key scenes that Kennedy/Kasdan strongly felt were all wrong. Howard is hardly going to reshoot the whole movie.

But strange as may seem, miscommunication of this sort are probably the main source of director/studio conflict in Hollywood. Directors are always coming back with a with a movie that studios insist was not the movie they said they were going to make. I remember Fincher talking years ago about the importance of being absolutely crystal clear about what film he is making, so that the studio is under no illusions about what they are going to get.

Yeh, I'd throw into the mix the pitch that Lord and Miller gave before their selection too. Perhaps they neglected to mention a few things here and there, or maybe Dis were like "Yeh cool, whatever..."

4 months later -> "wait, what?" :eek:

xper · 23-06-2017 12:09am

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think when you're two directors who have made some of the best comedies in the last ten years, it fair to assume you're being hired for your comedy chops.

Personally, Star Wars is set in a galaxy, an entire galaxy, and I think it's fair that some of the stories that occur within that Galaxy reflect that. By that, I mean fall into different genres. It's one of the reasons I love the Marvel movies, yeh at the the end of the day they're all superhero movies but touch on different kind of stories like the sound thriller in TWS and comedy in Ant-Man, but it's also set on Earth the audience has something to relate to, pop culture references etc, these are extraordinary stories happening in a world we can relate to. The Star Wars universe has no such depth, take for instance the scene in the Last Jedi where the people at the party are watching the laser come towards them, I have no idea who those people are, what they might be celebrating, etc.

Basically Eddie Izzard's Death Star canteen sketch highlights my problem with the SW universe; the death star must have a canteen in the same way that the empire has accountants running its books but these perfectly ordinary things seem so ridiculous in this world. If L&M could have made a small scale heist-comedy that didn't have any real impact on a grander scheme but that gave some sense that these movies are set in a world I can believe in - I would've loved that.

I dunno, garbage disposal have gotten fair coverage. Luke's a farmer. Han's a smuggler. Bars, junk yards, sports, games, politics, markets, ... it all kicked off as an disagreement over taxes, for feck's sake. One thing Lucas was brilliant at was world building - depicting a fully functioning complex society without getting bogged down in explaining how everything works. It is at once totally alien and easily comprehensible, setting the stage on which the central saga plays out. I don't see where you are coming from at all on that count.

Yes, we could have 'pure' heist films and romantic comedies and such that happen to be set in the SW universe too and I'd like to see some of that. However, I would prefer that the anthology films that are being interspersed among the final saga episodes compliment those films rather than clash in style/theme, just to keep the positive momentum up. Experimentation can come later, Disney/Lucasfilm isn't going away anytime soon.

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 12:11am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm genuinely baffled with the concept that there should be a 'one size fits all' tone or approach to Star Wars films. I absolutely believe a comedy can co-exist in this basically infinite universe they've created.

I don't. It would be like the sequel to 'Jaws' being 'Monty Python and the Flying Shark'.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The mainline Star Wars films should probably stick to the broad 'Star Wars tone'. But these side films are an immense opportunity to do something different, and based on Rogue One and the reports of Han Solo these directors aren't being given permission to do that.

I'm not sure that the situation with 'Rogue One' parallels this at all. In fact, Edwards has said that he was very surprised at how much Disney were actually willing to let him away with. We'll probably never really know, but as far as I can tell, it was the "war documentary" feel that Disney objected to and everyone dying on the beach at the end. In the end I don't believe that Edward's vision would have been that different to the picture we got.

That's fairly tame in comparison to the "get lost" vibe that this mess has gotten to.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The first anthology film explicitly attempted to separate itself from the core movies from dropping some of the traditional motifs like an opening crawl.

I still don't understand the reasoning behind that. But it doesn't bother me any more TBH.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Now if only they'd go the full way and make films that have the capacity to genuinely surprise and subvert expectations, I struggle to see how anyone would object to that.

In many ways. 'Rogue One' did "genuinely surprise and subvert expectations". It was a LOT more serious and gritty than anything else we've seen in a GFFA, while still being recognisably Star Wars. I was extremely surprised and very pleased as were the people I went with, some of whom care feck for Star Wars.

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 12:20am

FunLover18 wrote: »

Basically Eddie Izzard's Death Star canteen sketch highlights my problem with the SW universe; the death star must have a canteen in the same way that the empire has accountants running its books but these perfectly ordinary things seem so ridiculous in this world.

As far as I know the Death Stars did have mess halls and areas for staff to relax, we just didn't see them in the film, because why would we?

I'd have now issue whatsoever with seeing a bunch of troopers kicking back in the mess after a days drill.

The problem, however, is when the scene goes full tilt into Izzard's sketch. That's fine for an Eddie Izzard piss take. But, it's an absolute NO for a Star Wars film.

It would laughable...for all the wrong reasons.

Sad Professor · 23-06-2017 12:35am

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, I'd throw into the mix the pitch that Lord and Miller gave before their selection too. Perhaps they neglected to mention a few things here and there, or maybe Dis were like "Yeh cool, whatever..."

4 months later -> "wait, what?" :eek:

Hehe, well they were apparently doing a lot of improvisation.

Earlier I suggested that maybe Disney was overcompensating for Rogue One's seriousness by hiring two guys known for making fun movies, but thinking about it now the timelines don't match up. Lord and Miller were announced in July 2015 before Rogue One even started shooting. Even TFA hadn't come out at that point, so that was very early days when they were hired. It's possible that post-TFA Disney's own idea of what these movies should be like had evolved and no longer fit with what Miller & Lord had pitched them.

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 12:41am

Sad Professor wrote: »

Hehe, well they were apparently doing a lot of improvisation.

Earlier I suggested that maybe Disney was overcompensating for Rogue One's seriousness by hiring two guys known for making fun movies, but thinking about it now the timelines don't match up. Lord and Miller were announced in July 2015 before Rogue One even started shooting. Even TFA hadn't come out at that point, so that was very early days when they were hired. It's possible that post-TFA Disney's own idea of what these movies should be like had evolved and no longer fit with what Miller & Lord had pitched them.

I'm wondering if Disney actually know what the hell they're looking for out of these films.

tigger123 · 23-06-2017 7:49am

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm wondering if Disney actually know what the hell they're looking for out of these films.

They've already made two excellent films so far, so I'm fairly optimistic about this and Episode VIII.

DvB · 23-06-2017 8:45am

Tony EH wrote: »

Thank christ they're gone. That would have been bloody awful. Wrong movie, wrong people.

Hopefully, Ronnie can salvage something out of it, but I reckon this is the first Star Wars film that I won't be bothering to watch in a cinema, if I bother watching it at all.

Was only thinking that myself, have v.little interest in this & if someone had of told me a few years back that i'd have no interest in a SW movie I'd have laughed them off... I just don't get why this is being made TBH.

Roar · 23-06-2017 9:00am

I think Ron Howard is far and away the best choice, I think he'll make a splash. It could yet be happy days.

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 9:48am

tigger123 wrote: »

They've already made two excellent films so far, so I'm fairly optimistic about this and Episode VIII.

For me it's been one ok one (TFA) and one excellent one (R1).

However, the fundamental problem with this film is it's a Han Solo film without Han Solo (or even Lando for that matter) and I'm probably never going to get with that.

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 9:53am

DvB wrote: »

Was only thinking that myself, have v.little interest in this & if someone had of told me a few years back that i'd have no interest in a SW movie I'd have laughed them off... I just don't get why this is being made TBH.

It's a cash in on the most beloved character in Star Wars.

Next up is Bobby Fett...the Kenobi...then Luke...then........

Besides the Kenobi one, they are all terrible, terrible ideas.

McGregor can get away with a much younger Ben Kenobi. But having someone play somebody from the original 'Star Wars' who's just a few years younger is stupid when we all know what they looked like and how they acted. It'll never sit comfortably.

It's even more annoying when there's literally a whole universe to play with.

DvB · 23-06-2017 10:11am

Tony EH wrote: »

It's a cash in on the most beloved character in Star Wars.

Next up is Bobby Fett...the Kenobi...then Luke...then........

Besides the Kenobi one, they are all terrible, terrible ideas.

It's even more annoying when there's literally a whole universe to play with.

Agree 100%... theres so much potential, and in all honesty whatever film they make will still rake in an absolute fortune, this just seems lazy IMO.

It is what it is I suppose.

david75 · 23-06-2017 10:19am

The last Jedi is gonna be amazing.

If you watch Rian Johnson at the TLJ panel at Star Wars celebration before they dropped the trailer, hes giddy with the excitement of it. He knows he's got an amazing film in the bag and can't wait to show it.

Treverow? Whole other story.

david75 · 23-06-2017 10:32am

Wow. Really sounds like we dodged a bullet here. (I can't link it just open the image)

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 10:35am

Good god. :eek:

What's that snippet from David?

pixelburp · 23-06-2017 10:42am

david75 wrote: »

Wow. Really sounds like we dodged a bullet here. (I can't link it just open the image)

What's the source?

david75 · 23-06-2017 11:02am

It's in here
https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2017/06/what-our-sources-are-saying-about-the-star-wars-han-solo-shakeup.html

tigger123 · 23-06-2017 11:04am

Tony EH wrote: »

It's a cash in on the most beloved character in Star Wars.

Next up is Bobby Fett...the Kenobi...then Luke...then........

Besides the Kenobi one, they are all terrible, terrible ideas.

McGregor can get away with a much younger Ben Kenobi. But having someone play somebody from the original 'Star Wars' who's just a few years younger is stupid when we all know what they looked like and how they acted. It'll never sit comfortably.

It's even more annoying when there's literally a whole universe to play with.

I honestly think you, and some other Star Wars fans, are going in to this movie expecting to hate it. You should at least approach it with an open mind, ya never know, ya might enjoy it!

The other side of this is that Disney and Kennedy saw a film being made that didn't fit tonally with the rest of the universe and took corrective action. I'm failing to see what the issue with this is. This is a good thing.

Thirdly, the franchise shouldn't have to stand still because some fans say so. Just because you are a fan of something, doesn't mean you own it.

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 11:13am

tigger123 wrote: »

I honestly think you, and some other Star Wars fans, are going in to this movie expecting to hate it. You should at least approach it with an open mind, ya never know, ya might enjoy it!

There are basic fundamental issues about this film that are impossible to ignore, the main one being it's a Han Solo film without Han Solo and that it's (so far) shot as a knockabout comedy. Howard may yet salvage something from this mess, but the fact is is that that it should never have been made in the first place.

I'm all for "open minds" etc and will make a final judgement if I bother seeing it. However, nothing I have seen so far gives me anything to be even remotely positive about.

tigger123 wrote: »

The other side of this is that Disney and Kennedy saw a film being made that didn't fit tonally with the rest of the universe and took corrective action. I'm failing to see what the issue with this is. This is a good thing.

I've already said that I am fully on board with both Kennedy and Kasdan's attempts to right the ship. But, I reckon that the ship was already fatally holed before it left the harbour.

tigger123 wrote: »

Thirdly, the franchise shouldn't have to stand still because some fans say so. Just because you are a fan of something, doesn't mean you own it.

Nobody has said this.

SnakePlissken · 23-06-2017 11:25am

Tony EH wrote: »

DvB wrote: »

It's even more annoying when there's literally a whole universe to play with.

That there's a universe at play is wholly irrelevant for those who only want movies in an identical tone and genre as the original trilogy.

I find it baffling to be honest, I've always loved Stars Wars but I've never once taken it too seriously, why some disbelieve a comedy set in the Star Wars galaxy or a horror, or crime thriller could work is incredibly close minded.

homerun_homer · 23-06-2017 11:36am

A comedy can totally work in the Star Wars universe, however this project may not be the one to make an out and out comedy of. I believe it should be a fun adventure film and wouldn't need to be anywhere near as dark a tone as say Rogue One, but the potential for this to go OTT could totally ruin it and potential sequels for prequel Han Solo adventures is too much a risk for Disney.

It's disappointing this didn't work out for the directors, and I look forward to hearing the whole background over time as to why this really didn't work. However I will trust in Kathleen Kennedy and Kasdan for now given their track records and their loyalty to the francise. No doubt it's all about money but at least they are wanting to provide TLC to the fans and good movies over any old rubbish.

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 11:39am

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I find it baffling to be honest, I've always loved Stars Wars but I've never once taken it too seriously, why some disbelieve a comedy set in the Star Wars galaxy or a horror, or crime thriller could work is incredibly close minded.

Hey, if you want to see Han Solo turned into Ace Ventura in space, go for it.

david75 · 23-06-2017 11:44am

Han is great for a funny one liner. A comedy film with Han at the enter of it? Totally alien to the character. And it seems Erinreich felt the same way too.

SnakePlissken · 23-06-2017 11:53am

Tony EH wrote: »

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I find it baffling to be honest, I've always loved Stars Wars but I've never once taken it too seriously, why some disbelieve a comedy set in the Star Wars galaxy or a horror, or crime thriller could work is incredibly close minded.

Hey, if you want to see Han Solo turned into Ace Ventura in space, go for it.

I doubt very much that the directors were aiming for Ace Ventura style slapstick, I'd imagine the tone they had set was more in keeping with the levity of Guardians of the Galaxy which could absolutely work.

My fear now is this movie will fall into the same trap as Rogue One in mistaking drab characters without any depth as being mature and gritty... yes the last twenty minutes were up there with the best of Star Wars but Christ, did we really need to be subjected to such an uninteresting and plodding narrative before we got there?

Tony EH · 23-06-2017 12:01pm

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I doubt very much that the directors were aiming for Ace Ventura style slapstick, I'd imagine the tone they had set was more in keeping with the levity of Guardians of the Galaxy which could absolutely work.

My fear now is this movie will fall into the same trap as Rogue One in mistaking drab characters without any depth as being mature and gritty... yes the last twenty minutes were up there with the best of Star Wars but Christ, did we really need to be subjected to such an uninteresting and plodding narrative before we got there?

Personally, given the choice between 'Guardians of the Galaxy' and 'Rogue One', the latter will win every single time.

I found the former twee and didn't give a shit what happened and can't even recall much it now. Whereas I found the latter film compelling, exciting and liked the drama surrounding the characters right up to their sad deaths. There's a sense of gravity in 'Rogue One'. You feel that what the characters are doing in the story is important and allows more buy in.

SnakePlissken · 23-06-2017 12:25pm

Horses for courses , I watched Rogue One on three separate occasions now and for me it just hasn't clicked. How an adult could find the deaths of these "characters" sad is puzzling, they were 2 dimensional caricatures whose only purpose was to spout clunky exposition in an effort to further a completely redundant plot. We already knew the death star plans were stolen by the rebels, in an entire galaxy of possibilities why invest in a story whose outcome we all already know?

But of course all this is just my opinion, I'm not arrogant enough to claim those who enjoyed rogue one as wrong, the movie just didn't work for me.

Solo (young Han Solo film) spoilers from post 1493

Comments

"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens

"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens

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

Comments

"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens

"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens

Solo (young Han Solo film) spoilers from post 1493