Batman-Online.com

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4y56AnaUg

It looks more interesting than any of the other supposed Star Wars movies coming out lately, I'll give it that.

I'm looking forward to it.

I much prefer the self-contained Rogue One to anything we've yet seen from the present JJ Abrams trilogy (i.e. The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi), so hopefully Solo will be in the same vein of the former rather than the latter.

But with Infinity Wars and Ready Player One, there are so many big blockbuster films to look forward to over the next few months.

And that's before I even consider the two I'm most excited about this year: Ant-Man and the Wasp, featuring Michelle Pfeiffer returning to the comic-book movie genre, and Aquaman, which has a great pedigree behind it (including The Conjuring's James Wan, Willem Dafoe, Nicole Kidman, and Dolph Lundgren!)

I'm afraid I'm still burned out on Kathleen Kennedy's Star Wars after The Last Jedi. I've seen every Star Wars theatrical release and rerelease issued in my life time on the big screen, including The Clone Wars (2008) animated film and the 3D re-release of The Phantom Menace. But the way I'm feeling right now, I think Solo might be the first Star Wars film I skip in theatres. Perhaps I'll feel differently nearer the release date, but right now I just can't muster any enthusiasm.

I went to see this today. Here are some thoughts I've quickly thrown together.

First off, I should mention I was opposed to the concept of a Solo prequel when it was first announced and I'm not enthusiastic about Kathleen Kennedy's plans to produce further spinoff films starring other supporting characters (Lando, Boba Fett, Yoda, etc). The only film I think might have some potential is the Kenobi spinoff, but even then I'd rather they left old Ben in peace. I love these characters, but I love them within the context of their roles in the main saga. They're pieces in a mosaic. Remove them from their proper narrative context and you're left with diminished tesserae lacking in the splendour of the larger composition.

I was especially unenthusiastic about Solo because I was averse to the idea of anyone besides Ford playing the title character. I used to enjoy The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, but I never really bought into Sean Patrick Flanery as the same character from the movies. So I wasn't keen on seeing Han get the same treatment. Confounding my lack of enthusiasm was the fact The Last Jedi had almost killed my interest in the franchise entirely. Disney over saturating the market also didn't help. George Lucas released six Star Wars movies across the span of twenty-eight years, while Disney has belted out four in the span of two and a half years. If this film had been released at Christmas, allowing me more time to recover from the disappointment of Episode VIII, then I might have been more enthusiastic about its release. But as things stand, no one seems to care about Solo. Even the young bloke who sold me the ticket at the theatre said he had no interest in seeing it. The screening I attended was maybe half full, and most of the attendees were adults. There were a small number of kids, including one little boy with a Chewbacca teddy, but it mostly seems to be playing to an older crowd.

Anyway, despite my misgivings I decided to give Solo a chance. I've seen every other Star Wars theatrical release and rerelease (in my lifetime) on the big screen, and I didn't want to break that tradition now. I always try to give any movie a fair shot so I can have an informed opinion, and that's especially true when it comes to a franchise as dear to me as Star Wars. So what's my verdict? Honestly, I ended up enjoying Solo a lot more than I thought I would. Perhaps it's because I had such low expectations to begin with, but it was better than I was expecting. I still object to the film on a conceptual level – it didn't need to be made, and it doesn't add anything important to the mythology. But it succeeds at what it sets out to accomplish. You could argue that it's aiming low in the first place, but I'd say it hits most of its targets dead centre. It's a weak concept, but is executed surprisingly well.

I didn't pay too much attention to the behind-the-scenes troubles that plagued its production, but I'm aware the movie was almost entirely reshot by Ron Howard after the original directors departed from the project. Usually when a director is replaced midway through filming, the end product suffers from a disjointed tone arising from the conflict in creative visions (e.g. Justice League). But that's not the case with Solo. I couldn't tell which scenes were shot by Howard and which by his predecessors. The whole thing feels pleasingly cohesive. It helps that Howard is the most technically proficient director to helm a Star Wars movie since Kirshner, and he does an admirable job salvaging what should have been an absolute train wreck of a movie. Apparently some viewers have complained that the picture quality is too dark in certain scenes, but I can't say I noticed that myself. I actually liked the look of the film. The production design has that classic Star Wars aesthetic and there are some excellent practical creature effects. I particularly like the special effects on Lady Proxima.


We don't see practical creature effects like these very often nowadays, so they're a real treat when we get them. It was also nice to see Warwick Davis appearing in another Lucasfilm production directed by Ron Howard. If the rumours are to be believed, then they may be teaming up again to make the long-awaited Willow sequel.

One of my biggest problems with the recent Star Wars films has been their failure when it comes to world building. Surprisingly, this is one area where I felt Solo outperformed Episodes VII and VIII. Yes, the film features characters we've already seen before. But where I was expecting to see Jabba the Hutt, Greedo and Boba Fett, the movie instead delivers new characters and organisations such as Tobias Beckett, Enfys Nest and the Crimson Dawn. The character designs are generally creative. Rio Durant reminded me of Deadeye Duck from the old Bucky O'Hare cartoon.


The story takes the characters to a number of grim, industrialised locations not shown in the earlier films. These environments emphasise a seedier side of the Star Wars universe than fans are typically accustomed to seeing. I really liked the way Corellia was presented. I'd visited that planet in videogames before now, but the way it was depicted in Solo differed from any earlier portrayals I'd seen. The movie mercifully sidesteps around the Galactic Civil War to instead focus on the criminal underworld; an area of the Star Wars mythology that the films, for the most part, have so far only skimmed over. This felt more worthwhile than if they'd simply retreaded the Empire vs. Rebels or Jedi vs. Sith conflicts (which is essentially what they're doing with the main saga films). By focusing on an area of the Star Wars universe that has previously been underexposed, Solo is able to extract an impressive degree of originality from its seemingly unoriginal premise. Han's character arc also adheres to the classic hero's journey far more effectively than Rey's does in Episodes VII and VIII. One sequence where the monomythic influence is most strongly evidenced is the scene where the Falcon journeys through a maelstrom; a set piece that is strongly redolent of Odysseus' encounter with Scylla and Charybdis in Homer's Odyssey.

Moving on to some of the negatives, I though the film was slightly too long. It's crammed full of fan service, with shout outs to everything from Aurra Sing to the Playstation game Masters of Teräs Käsi. Thankfully most of the fan service is verbal, but there were one or two references that had me rolling my eyes. The film also employs the same strategy as the other recent Star Wars flicks where they feed the audience something familiar every ten minutes or so to elicit a pang of nostalgia. "Ah, so that's how Han got his surname/got the dice/met Chewie/got his blaster/met Lando/won the Falcon/performed the Kessel Run/gained Chewie as his co-pilot, etc." These references might give you a pleasant sensation the first time you watch the film, but I can't imagine they'll have the same impact on repeated viewings. Speaking of fan service, I'd like to revisit a prediction I made in another thread almost exactly one year ago.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 12:19Then there'll be a scene in the movie where Han is caught dead in the sights of a villain. He freezes. There's the sound of a blaster. Han flinches. Then the villain drops dead. Standing behind the villain is a good guy (either a tough female character or a cynical mentor), who says something like, "Next time, shoot first."

I was so close on this one. The whole plot point about Beckett SPOILERS betraying Han was painfully predictable. The moment I heard Woody's line about not trusting anyone in the trailer, I knew this was going to play out like the Indy-Donovan dynamic from The Last Crusade. END SPOILERS And that's exactly what happened. So there were no surprises there. Regarding the plot twist about the head of the Crimson Dawn organisation, I actually liked that one. Apropos of my earlier remark about not wanting to see characters from the main saga dragged into spinoffs, this may seem like a contradiction. SPOILERS But in the case of Darth Maul, I'd argue he never received a proper story arc in Episode 1 to begin with. Most fans agree he was short-changed by Lucas, so his reintroduction in Solo creates an opportunity to finally get the character right and develop him the way he ought to have been developed in the Prequel Trilogy. I found Maul far more menacing and intriguing during his one scene in Solo than he was in the whole of Episode 1. I like the idea of him building his own underworld empire to mirror the one created by Sidious and Vader, and I was pleased to see Ray Park's name on the end credits. I'm not up to date with the Rebels TV show, so I don't know how well Maul's role in Solo fits in with the established canon. But if Lucasfilm insist on making more of these spinoff films, then this is one story arc I wouldn't mind seeing continued. END SPOILERS

My favourite character in the movie was Chewie, and he seemed to be the one the audience I saw it with responded to most positively. I absolutely hated L3. She is the most loathsome character to infest the Star Wars universe since Jar Jar Binks and I couldn't help smiling when SPOILERS she got killed. Good riddance. END SPOILERS Whoever thought an angry, obnoxious 'woke' SJW droid was a good idea should be kept as far away from future Star Wars films as possible. I also didn't buy into the relationship between L3 and Lando. It might have worked if they'd played it purely for laughs, with the droid mistakenly thinking her master has a crush on her. But the script tries to derive genuine drama from the relationship, and it just didn't work for me.

Alden Ehrenreich was fine as Han. He doesn't look that much like Ford, but he's not so physically different that it's a major distraction. He did a decent job capturing some of Han's mannerisms from the earlier movies and overall he was acceptable in the role. He was fighting a losing battle from the moment he was cast, but he does as good a job following in Ford's footsteps as any young actor could be expected to do under the circumstances. Bettany also delivers a satisfying performance as the villain. He wasn't the most interesting character in the movie, but he was suitably menacing when the plot needed him to be. I thought the knife-vs.-blaster showdown at the end was a little silly, but I appreciate the fact they avoided constructing the finale around yet another big battle scene or lightsaber duel. Concerning the score, I was disappointed that Williams' Han Solo theme wasn't featured more prominently. It says on the end credits that it was used in the film, but I don't remember hearing it.

A part of me wonders if this movie might have benefitted from having an original character in the lead role. What if you had the exact same story, but with Ehrenreich playing someone other than Han? What if the main spaceship wasn't the Millennium Falcon and if Chewie and Lando were replaced with different characters? What if the movie was called Underworld: A Star Wars Story instead of Solo? Would it have been better received?

There are many more things to be said about Solo, but I'll leave it there for now. If you think the film looks pointless and have no interest in seeing it, then go with your instincts. You won't be missing anything important. But if you're an old school fan who's on the fence about seeing it, then you might enjoy Solo more than you'd expect. I know I did. If nothing else, I thought it was a lot better than The Last Jedi. And considering the hostility towards its premise, not to mention its troubled production, I'd say that's something of a triumph. I give it a marginal thumbs up.

A few more observations.

Solo is one of only three Star Wars movies in which the main antagonists are not some variation of the Empire/First Order; the other two being The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. Obviously the Empire does feature in the movie – that's inevitable considering when this takes place in the timeline – but they're not the main antagonists. The Crimson Dawn crime syndicate is. And Crimson Dawn is the first fully original villainous faction to be introduced in a Star Wars movie since the Prequel Trilogy.

Solo is also one of only three live action Star Wars films not to feature a Death Star or Death Star cannon (I'm not counting the holographic Death Star schematics in Episode II).

Has anyone else seen it yet?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  4 Jun  2018, 22:53Solo is also one of only three live action Star Wars films not to feature a Death Star or Death Star cannon (I'm not counting the holographic Death Star schematics in Episode II).

Not so. The clone troopers sat in those little gun turrets on the attack helicopters during the Battle of Geonosis. Lucas said they were intended to foreshadow the Death Star.

That tends to get forgotten about because Lucas, like, showed the Death Star in the very next scene, which kinda sorta defeats the whole point of the visual foreshadowing from earlier. So hmm.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  4 Jun  2018, 22:53
Has anyone else seen it yet?

Nah.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  5 Jun  2018, 21:19
Not so. The clone troopers sat in those little gun turrets on the attack helicopters during the Battle of Geonosis. Lucas said they were intended to foreshadow the Death Star.

Oh, George... Dear sweet misguided George...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  5 Jun  2018, 21:19

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  4 Jun  2018, 22:53
Has anyone else seen it yet?

Nah.

My thoughts too.

I couldn't really care less about most movies these days. The studios have annoying agendas that I don't want a bar of, and the content itself is just blah. The magic is gone. The enthusiasm is gone. Studios have gone to the well too many times and it's now bone dry. Solo did a belly flop into that drought stricken well recently too, which was good. I like the concept of Star Wars, but to quote Poe, we are the spark that will light the fire that will burn Harveywood down. They ain't fooling me with Mickey Ears on Darth Vader's helmet anymore. My mouse trap is set.

Gonna keep preaching? Okay, that's cool. We're gonna keep cutting off your circulation. Which in turn means they slap out more and more remakes, reboots and gumboots to try and compensate for lower box-office hauls...which perpetuates their agony.

If they say they're sorry and want a reprieve, they won't be getting one. We have long memories and we won't be taking the foot off the throat. No forgiveness and no prisoners. What's done is done. I see that Ocean's 8 is getting average reviews. It's all women. Where's the funkin' diversity? Talk about having an A-GENDER.

Solo apparently has Lando as a pansexual. Huh? What an absolutely unnecessary gimmick, and revisionist. The robot talks about fighting for rights. Ugh. I want to watch a movie without virtue signalling polluting everything.

And back to comic book movies. Get this folks. DC has TWO...yes, TWO Joker movies in the pipeline. One with Leto and another with some other random sod who hasn't been cast yet. This is MORE unnecessary overkill of comic properties AND a confusion of the brand. They need to get a damn grip on reality and not of their bongs.

Movie studios are like the Good Ol' Boys from The Blues Brothers – a great movie we're not going to see these days. These studios have their gumboots gorilla glued to the accelerator, cruising to disaster. They can't slow down and are destined to crash. McDonald's is going to keep pumping out their product. We're going to keep wolfing it down if we keep entering the drive through. Send a message by doing nothing. Stay home.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  7 Jun  2018, 07:37

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  5 Jun  2018, 21:19

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  4 Jun  2018, 22:53
Has anyone else seen it yet?

Nah.

My thoughts too.

I couldn't really care less about most movies these days. The studios have annoying agendas that I don't want a bar of, and the content itself is just blah. The magic is gone. The enthusiasm is gone. Studios have gone to the well too many times and it's now bone dry. Solo did a belly flop into that drought stricken well recently too, which was good. I like the concept of Star Wars, but to quote Poe, we are the spark that will light the fire that will burn Harveywood down. They ain't fooling me with Mickey Ears on Darth Vader's helmet anymore. My mouse trap is set.

Gonna keep preaching? Okay, that's cool. We're gonna keep cutting off your circulation. Which in turn means they slap out more and more remakes, reboots and gumboots to try and compensate for lower box-office hauls...which perpetuates their agony.

If they say they're sorry and want a reprieve, they won't be getting one. We have long memories and we won't be taking the foot off the throat. No forgiveness and no prisoners. What's done is done. I see that Ocean's 8 is getting average reviews. It's all women. Where's the funkin' diversity? Talk about having an A-GENDER.

Solo apparently has Lando as a pansexual. Huh? What an absolutely unnecessary gimmick, and revisionist. The robot talks about fighting for rights. Ugh. I want to watch a movie without virtue signalling polluting everything.

And back to comic book movies. Get this folks. DC has TWO...yes, TWO Joker movies in the pipeline. One with Leto and another with some other random sod who hasn't been cast yet. This is MORE unnecessary overkill of comic properties AND a confusion of the brand. They need to get a damn grip on reality and not of their bongs.

Movie studios are like the Good Ol' Boys from The Blues Brothers – a great movie we're not going to see these days. These studios have their gumboots gorilla glued to the accelerator, cruising to disaster. They can't slow down and are destined to crash. McDonald's is going to keep pumping out their product. We're going to keep wolfing it down if we keep entering the drive through. Send a message by doing nothing. Stay home.

Back in my more naive days, I thought Harveywood (and all big companies, really) weren't necessarily pushing an agenda so much as simply trying to appeal to potential customers however they can.

Obviously something like scales fell from my eyes. They had to. I don't think Harveywood even denies it anymore with silly libertarian arguments like "We're just trying to market to everybody, that's all".

Nope. Their preference is clear.

When I really think about it, Star Wars is a series consisting of three good movies and a neverending conveyor belt of everything from the truly crappy to the merely mediocre. Three good movies and everything else is an also-ran.

I have no in-grained loyalty to Star Wars anymore. But I will poison that well every chance I get. Scorched earth, burnt oil fields, salted ground, whatever metaphor you want to use, I'm perfectly content to deny Evil Empires like Disney my money. It's not about proving a point anymore either.

It's about pure, undiluted spite. Only this and nothing more.

From hell's heart I stab at thee.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  7 Jun  2018, 23:38
Back in my more naive days, I thought Harveywood (and all big companies, really) weren't necessarily pushing an agenda so much as simply trying to appeal to potential customers however they can.

Obviously something like scales fell from my eyes. They had to. I don't think Harveywood even denies it anymore with silly libertarian arguments like "We're just trying to market to everybody, that's all".

Nope. Their preference is clear.

When I really think about it, Star Wars is a series consisting of three good movies and a neverending conveyor belt of everything from the truly crappy to the merely mediocre. Three good movies and everything else is an also-ran.

I have no in-grained loyalty to Star Wars anymore. But I will poison that well every chance I get. Scorched earth, burnt oil fields, salted ground, whatever metaphor you want to use, I'm perfectly content to deny Evil Empires like Disney my money. It's not about proving a point anymore either.

It's about pure, undiluted spite. Only this and nothing more.

From hell's heart I stab at thee.

Yeah.

Miller's TDK Returns is full of social commentary but it's handled in a smart way that basically anyone can relate to, even if it's just on a base level. Ineffective and out of touch politicians? Nobody likes them, whatever party you're aligned with. Rampant crime? Again, nobody with a brain likes that. The interesting thing about TDK Returns is that Wolper and his guests are also correct in their statements (Batman inspiring crazies, etc), even though Batman's presence is ultimately a good thing, and a necessary thing. I like that balance.

The subtlety is gone. Or we know how these writers think and feel. TLJ had some curious references. The whole 'resistance' moniker, for example, and Holdo saying "We are the spark that will light the fire that will restore the Republic." I bet the writers got a thrill out of that, hiding behind SW lore while doing so.

The problem I have with movies these days is that the intention is to broadcast what is 'socially acceptable' and reinforce what isn't - according to them. Rubbing people the wrong way isn't smart business and never will be. That's why I'm enjoying videogames, where this stuff is largely downplayed, and the focus is on the gameplay. To have something pure is a rare thing these days, and when it's found, it's a beautiful thing. In terms of the DCEU, I can only really point to the watering down of Joker and Harley's relationship. That's about all I can think of.

WB needs to ensure Aquaman is as good as WW, and then perhaps we can move forward with some purpose.

I don't disagree with anything that's been said here. I've seen numerous articles over the past two weeks speculating why Solo has flopped so spectacularly, and not one of them has mentioned the political factor. Yet look at the comment section on almost any box office report and you'll see countless posts from disillusioned fans citing Cultural Marxism as one of their main reasons for avoiding it. The public is sick and tired of having politics shoehorned into previously apolitical IPs. When you politicise family entertainment, you immediately alienate 50% of your potential audience. Most parents don't want to have to explain to their 9-year-old son or daughter what pansexuality is (it's barely even hinted at in the film, but the screenwriters and media made sure to draw attention to it). Condescending comments like this from the writers don't help.


I don't have a problem with someone using a property they themselves have created to make a political statement. But I do object to people appropriating a pre-existing IP as a platform for propaganda. Diversity is fine when it's organic and natural, but when it's implemented in a heavy-handed manner that's intended to impose guilt on one particular demographic (e.g. the First Order consisting almost entirely of white males) then it becomes tribalistic, and that breeds resentment. Ghostbusters 2016 demonstrated what happens when studios wage war against their core fan base. Unfortunately Kathleen Kennedy's remarks about not needing to cater to the male Star Wars fans prove the lesson was not taken to heart. And now Lucasfilm is paying the price for their hubris. In an age when even a Star Wars movie can flop, no franchise is invincible.

At any rate, I still maintain Solo is a decent movie. Just a completely unnecessary one. When Lucasfilm first announced they were making new saga and spinoff films, I was most intrigued by the saga movies and most wary of the spinoffs. But now I find Rogue One and Solo, while by no means masterpieces, are Disney's two most enjoyable contributions to the canon. Meanwhile the new trilogy is shaping up to be a flaming dumpster fire. Still, there may be some good news on the horizon.

Quote'Kathleen Kennedy May Be Leaving Lucasfilm and Star Wars'

https://movieweb.com/kathleen-kennedy-leaving-lucasfilm-star-wars/


Of course the big question now is can Star Wars bounce back from this? I'm not sure. The mood at present feels very different from when the Prequel Trilogy was released. As colors says, Star Wars was basically one amazing trilogy made over thirty-five years ago. There have been some wonderful peripherals since then, like Timothy Zahn's Grand Admiral Thrawn Trilogy, or the Knights of the Old Republic games. But the other movies outside of the Original Trilogy have never come close to matching its brilliance (but I still enjoy Episode III, Rogue One and Solo). Presently Lucasfilm has over a dozen more Star Wars films in the pipeline.

If I were in charge, I'd cancel all but two of them. A few years back, Disney announced they were making three new saga films and three spinoffs. I'd honour that pledge by finishing Episode IX and making one more spinoff – probably an Underworld movie where Obi-Wan takes on Crimson Dawn – then lay the series to rest. I understand that Disney wants to continue making money off this brand, but they can do that through TV shows, videogames and comics. The film series has had its day. Perhaps someone talented will come along in the future with a worthwhile concept for revisiting the universe on the big screen. But for now, Star Wars needs to take a break.

Of course if Lucasfilm and Disney are really serious about winning back the fans, they could always release the unaltered theatrical cuts of the OT on Blu-ray. Just a thought.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  7 Jun  2018, 07:37And back to comic book movies. Get this folks. DC has TWO...yes, TWO Joker movies in the pipeline. One with Leto and another with some other random sod who hasn't been cast yet. This is MORE unnecessary overkill of comic properties AND a confusion of the brand. They need to get a damn grip on reality and not of their bongs.

At this stage, it almost feels as though Warner Bros is trolling us with all these announcements. They've supposedly got more DC films in production right now than Marvel Studios has released in its entire ten year history. How about announcing a small number of films – maybe five or six to begin with – get those released, and then announce the next lot. It's really not rocket science. Just release Aquaman, Wonder Woman 2 and The Real Captain Marvel (aka Shazam), then give us Man of Steel II (ideally featuring Brainiac), Matt Reeves' The Batman and a standalone Flash movie that isn't based on Flashpoint. I'd be on board with a simple release schedule like that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  7 Jun  2018, 23:38From hell's heart I stab at thee.

Now that is a great sci-fi film. Yes, I've read Moby Dick – I know the origins of the quote. But since this is a thread about a science fiction movie, it seems more appropriate to equate the line with old iron pecs himself.


You've only got to compare The Wrath of Khan with Into Darkness to see everything that's wrong with modern Hollywood. The 1982 film was the smallest budgeted of all the Star Trek movies, but it had a great script, strong characters, excellent performances, and an unforgettable score. It also delved into serious themes of life, creation, ageing and the inevitability of death. The 2013 movie had none of those things. It was just another flashy over-budgeted remake made by people who obviously didn't understand why the original was so brilliant to begin with.

Modern western cinema may be thriving economically, but most of it is morally and artistically impoverished. There are too many tribute bands and not enough Mozarts.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Jun  2018, 22:13not one of them has mentioned the political factor.

They dare not. Only a fool can say the cultural Marxism has nothing to do with it. But since these reporters know which side their bread gets buttered on, it's not worth saying in public that the politics ruin everything.

So the only logical thing to do is call the dissidents Nazis.

Never in my life have I seen the public so alienated from mainstream media (news, entertainment and everything else) as right now.

Now, I'd cut Lucasfilm a TINY bit of slack in that Star Wars has typically depended upon a certain type of aesthetic. The Empire in the original trilogy were implicitly space fascists. The EU went a step further by presenting the Empire as slightly more extreme. It's all subtextual and it's very limited. But it's there if you look for it in the original trilogy.

Obviously we're way past that now but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Jun  2018, 22:13At any rate, I still maintain Solo is a decent movie. Just a completely unnecessary one.

That's what I've heard from just about everybody, actually.

Disney seems to have planned for every Star Wars movie to be a $1.5 billion-earner on average. And that's just foolhardy. The saga films (episodes 7-9) might be able to do that but the spinoffs... well, that was always less likely. Rogue One is the exception which I think will ultimately prove the rule.

The spinoffs are more niche-oriented and therefore won't attract as big an audience. Disney should've budgeted accordingly. If they had, Solo's likely $400 million worldwide box office could've been a homerun rather than an even bigger disappointment than Justice League.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Jun  2018, 22:13Of course the big question now is can Star Wars bounce back from this?

Some big-brains out there are convinced it's not possible. Me, I think it can be done but it'll require doing stuff that Disney doesn't seem prepared to do at present, whether Kennedy is in charge or not. A couple of more years of this and no, I don't think it'll be possible anymore.

It's funny to think that Lucas disappointed the fans on a creative level with the prequels while Disney is actively insulting and antagonizing them. The sentiment these days is almost nostalgia for the good old days, back when their biggest problem with Star Wars was Jar Jar.

Firing Kennedy (if it even happens) is damage control at this point. The big theory is that if she gets canned, Filoni is the guy most likely to take over. Even assuming that's true and even assuming he doesn't have the same obnoxious SJW views (or is at least capable of keeping them out of the creative decisions), a lot of BS is still baked into the cake with Star Wars for right now. Undoing some of that stuff in future productions may not even be possible at this point.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Jun  2018, 22:13Modern western cinema may be thriving economically, but most of it is morally and artistically impoverished. There are too many tribute bands and not enough Mozarts.

True. And we all know why that is and who is responsible. But naming the guilty parties publicly is no way to win friends and influence people.

At this point, what we need is an alternative to Hollywood. A filmmaking community which springs up somewhere else may be easier to deal with and more willing to take creative risks on new ideas.

Frankly, it's kind of surprising that an anti-Hollywood hasn't already come into existence.

It's probably for the best. Frankly, if these spinoff movies have to be made, it's probably smartest to do them on a relatively low $100'ish million budget and try spacing them apart from the saga films a bit more.

Everybody was predicting the public would burn out on the franchise... but (A) I don't think anybody expected it this soon and (B) the political thing, as said above, probably isn't helping.

The most important thing Disney needs to do right now is cancel Rian Johnson's new trilogy. The big selling point behind any trilogy's third instalment is the fact that it's the conclusion, the final chapter. But with Episode IX we know we're getting another three films straight afterwards. And after that, yet another trilogy from the writers of Game of Thrones. What's the hook for Episode IX if we know there are at least six more movies following hot on its trail?

They need to cancel all of these and put Star Wars on hiatus after Episode IX. Make it clear that the door is still open to more films in the future, and that maybe they'll revisit the concept five or ten years from now. But for the time being, let Star Wars and Indiana Jones rest in peace (permanently, in the case of Indiana Jones). Meanwhile they can focus their efforts on other Lucasfilm properties such as Labyrinth or Willow. Or better yet, create some new IPs altogether. They can still develop comics, games and TV shows based on the Star Wars brand – just let the cinematic side of the franchise take a break.

If they don't, Episode IX will be the lowest grossing entry in the Sequel Trilogy. It won't flop as hard as Solo, but it'll underperform and damage the brand value even further. If Lucasfilm want to avoid this, they need to start correcting course now. Otherwise Episode IX could end up grossing less than half of what Episode VII accumulated globally.

I just saw Solo, finally.

I really enjoyed it.  Much better than The Last Jedi (natch) and The Force Awakens, and maybe even my third or fourth favourite Star Wars film ever, after The Empire Strikes Back, A New Hope, and (possibly) Rogue One.

It's that good, and it's a shape that it flopped seeing as it sets up a possible follow-up, particularly with respect to Kira (Emilia Clarke's character) and her relationship to Crimson Dawn.

So, following Solo, this is how I'd rank the official Star Wars movies right now:

1.  Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
2.  Episode IV: A New Hope
3.  Rogue One
4.  Solo: A Star Wars Story
5.  Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
6.  Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
7.  Episode VII: The Force Awakens
8.  Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
9.  Episode II: Attack of the Clones
10.Episode I: The Phantom Menace

I go back and forth over which I like best out of Episodes IV and V. Empire is slicker and better directed than A New Hope and has fewer obvious technical flaws. But I love how fresh, optimistic and self-contained ANH is. Right now, according to purely subjective criteria, I think I'd rank the series as follows.

1.   Episode IV: A New Hope
2.   Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
3.   Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
4.   Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
5.   Episode I: The Phantom Menace (I mostly rank it this high for nostalgic reasons)
6.   Rogue One/Solo (tie)
7.   Episode VII: The Force Awakens
8.   Episode II/Episode VIII (tie)

If I was ranking them based on objective quality, Episodes VII and VIII would be a bit higher and Episode I would be lower.