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

Temptamperu

That was trash.

Inviere

On the hole it was an enjoyable adventure, & while the film in no way needed to be made, I feel Disney did a decent job of making a film that nobody asked for or wanted to see. The characters and acting were quite good I thought, the story was good, the film looked and sounded good, it was just, good. Not great, not rubbish, good.

That said, being an unneeded prequel, the stakes were very low story wise, and I felt the film was too long in run-time to keep people engaged for such low stakes. 20/30 mins could have been shaved off of it, to make it tighter overall, and doing so would have made a bit more of a positive difference.

I'm glad the film is out of the way, and glad it wasn't terrible, but we need to get back to making meaningful films in the franchise, if not original ones!

Looking for something to watch this week and the choices are slim with Deadpool 2 and Solo taking up most of the screens in the 3 cinemas in town, even the art house cinema which prides itself on not showing blockbusters is pimping the hell out of Solo arguing that it's such a landmark franchise that they need to show it. It's come down to Deadpool and Solo to go see and you know what, Solo for me is way out in the lead, everything I've seen of it bar Emilie Clarke has looked good and for someone who hated both The Last Jedi and The Force Snoozes it is these more standalone Star Wars films that I think can work far better. I also think that as I have no cares in relation to recasting of iconic roles, changing of plots to suit a stand alone film and so on that I enjoy things like Rogue One more than the actual audience it is aimed at.

pixelburp

Given the production issues, with its de-facto total reshoot via the 11th hour replacement of Ron Howard in the directors chair, it's a wonder the final film wasn't a hot mess; far from it, and purely from a technical standpoint Howard deserves genuine praise for delivering a structured, coherent feature. Outside of this context however, and frankly, Solo was a total dud. Arguably Disney's first failure in their Star Wars tenure for me. It had to have been expected: character prequels almost never work and while Rogue One was ostensibly a prequel too, it had the good sense of telling an adjacent story, rather than trying for some origin story.

Perfunctory and utterly, achingly redundant, while barely possessing any energy or charisma that can often sustain movies lacking in other basic rudiments; mostly thanks to Emilia Clarke mind you, continuing to show how out of her depth she is; Donald Glover and Phoebe Waller-Bridge pretty much saved the film with their combined charms. It also committed the cardinal sin of the 'how did they get here?' prequel, showing all the main touch-points of Han Solo's motifs nobody really asked for, at the expense of nearly all the orbiting characters who ever dared to suggest some wit or depth. Not that I could see most scenes that did contain any character: while I praised Howard for reworking the production as a success of professionalism, the actual cinematography was so horribly murky and dim, it made just watching the film a bit of a chore.

Inviere

pixelburp wrote: »

and while Rogue One was ostensibly a prequel too, it had the good sense of telling an adjacent story, rather than trying for some origin story.

Very much agree. Rogue One felt at least meaningfully connected to something that mattered. Solo, while as I said I considered purely 'good', felt flat in comparison; telling us a story that nobody asked for, wanted, or cared about. Rogue One kept me engaged in a plot that actually, mattered. Hopefully it's a lesson learned by Disney.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the production issues, with its de-facto total reshoot via the 11th hour replacement of Ron Howard in the directors chair, it's a wonder the final film wasn't a hot mess; far from it,

True, it's amazing that Ronnie "safe hands" managed to pull anything out of that fire at all. As a prjoect, it sounded like an absolute nightmare to be on.

pixelburp wrote: »

It also committed the cardinal sin of the 'how did they get here?' prequel, showing all the main touch-points of Han Solo's motifs nobody really asked for

I know that the burn from 'The Last Jedi' is still fresh in a lot of people's minds and they're "punishing" Disney for that and not going. But, I think the above is largely responsible for Solo's low box office at present. Simply put, I think a load of folk just reckoned that 'Solo' was going to be a check list of "Han stuff" and lost interest almost from the beginning. I think it did relatively ok, in that it wasn't entirely all about that. It could have been worse. Also, there are things in there that mess with "canon" :rolleyes: stuff that's already present in people's heads.

Chewbacca eats people?

That's just downright odd and dare I say it, flat out wrong.

Taytoland

They need to get rid of Kathleen Kennedy. Ruining the franchise with her politics and bad casting and general producing frankly. I could easily have done a better job myself on last jedi and having not seen this movie yet, a Star wars movie should not be struggling to make even. They need to make at least 500 million on this movie just to break even!

Arne_Saknussem

Taytoland wrote: »

They need to get rid of Kathleen Kennedy. Ruining the franchise with her politics and bad casting and general producing frankly. I could easily have done a better job myself on last jedi and having not seen this movie yet, a Star wars movie should not be struggling to make even. They need to make at least 500 million on this movie just to break even!

They need to make more.

Reports are that the production costs were north of $250m, but that figure doesn't include money spent on promotion.

Taytoland

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

They need to get rid of Kathleen Kennedy. Ruining the franchise with her politics and bad casting and general producing frankly. I could easily have done a better job myself on last jedi and having not seen this movie yet, a Star wars movie should not be struggling to make even. They need to make at least 500 million on this movie just to break even!

They need to make more.

Reports are that the production costs were north of $250m, but that figure doesn't include money spent on promotion.

Well it's bombing over this weekend and stands a chance of not making a profit which is a disaster for a Star Wars film. They need to hold meetings and take Kennedy away from the creative aspect. She is ruining it.

endacl

Saw Solo last night. Fell asleep. Perhaps I missed the middle chunk that would have made it non-shyte, but I suspect not.

T’was shyte.

ricero

Great fun. Really enjoyed it more than the last jedi. the two spin-off films have been great.

branie2

I saw it on Friday, and I thought it was very good

Theboinkmaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking for something to watch this week and the choices are slim with Deadpool 2 and Solo taking up most of the screens in the 3 cinemas in town, even the art house cinema which prides itself on not showing blockbusters is pimping the hell out of Solo arguing that it's such a landmark franchise that they need to show it. It's come down to Deadpool and Solo to go see and you know what, Solo for me is way out in the lead, everything I've seen of it bar Emilie Clarke has looked good and for someone who hated both The Last Jedi and The Force Snoozes it is these more standalone Star Wars films that I think can work far better. I also think that as I have no cares in relation to recasting of iconic roles, changing of plots to suit a stand alone film and so on that I enjoy things like Rogue One more than the actual audience it is aimed at.

Deadpool 2 is far superior to solo

Theboinkmaster

Theboinkmaster wrote:

Deadpool 2 is far superior to solo

In your opinion. Deadpool remains one of the most overrated films of the decade so I've little interest in part 2

Vladimir Poontang

Kathleen Kennedy has destroyed the entire franchise. Rian Johnson helped too by not having a clue.

And now the latest turd has Chewbacca's backstory including a totally stupid element.

They haven't a clue and fundamentally have no understanding of the characters or universe.

Pero_Bueno

Pansexual ?


yeah .... bye bye Star Wars universe.

Why do HollyWood have to ram this identity politics bull**** down our throats ??

Pero_Bueno

Pero_Bueno wrote:

Why do HollyWood have to ram this identity politics bull**** down our throats ??

They really don't, the fact that it is only stated during press junkets shows just how little Hollywood cares about any of it.

PhiloCypher

Saw this today . Was unsure about the film until they got off Corellia, but once they did I thought it got better and better. Honestly baffled by the bad reviews. Enjoyed it far more then either Force Awakens or Last Jedi.

Will go into greater depth in future posts

I'd give it a 8/10

Theboinkmaster

Deleted User wrote: »

In your opinion. Deadpool remains one of the most overrated films of the decade so I've little interest in part 2

Deadpool 2 has an imdb score of 8.2/rotten tomatoes score of 82%.

Solo is 7.2 on imdb and 70% on RT.

So it's not just my opinion it's the general consensus

Theboinkmaster

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Deadpool 2 has an imdb score of 8.2/rotten tomatoes score of 82%.

Solo is 7.2 on imdb and 70% on RT.

So it's not just my opinion it's the general consensus

You mean that general consensus that had Solo with a very low rating even before people actually saw the film. The day that IMDB ratings become the barometer by which we judge films is the day when cinema will die. IMDB ratings are about as useful as condom full of holes given how sad fanboys routinely down vote films for no real reason other than it angers them.

Andrew Beef

I love Star Wars, but I did not enjoy this movie at all. It all seems so contrived and pointless; for me it felt like it never got going. And in a universe that’s given us Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Darth Maul and Count Dooku, the Paul Bettany fella is like something out of a Carry On movie. A missed opportunity.

Theboinkmaster

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean that general consensus that had Solo with a very low rating even before people actually saw the film. The day that IMDB ratings become the barometer by which we judge films is the day when cinema will die. IMDB ratings are about as useful as condom full of holes given how sad fanboys routinely down vote films for no real reason other than it angers them.

To be fair it supports my point that in general Deadpool 2 is much better received and enjoyed by audiences than Solo - just browsing this film forum supports that also.

Theboinkmaster

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

To be fair it supports my point that in general Deadpool 2 is much better received and enjoyed by audiences than Solo - just browsing this film forum supports that also.

Solo was destined to be hated, half the people on here were hating on it 6 months ago.

pixelburp

If we're going to go down that rabbit hole of insinuation, then it's arguable that even if people had low expectations for Solo - they were only going to get bumped upwards by the chance of being pleasantly surprised. Happens all the time, every year: a dark horse film that surpasses low expectations. Conversely, how often has a 'bigger & more expensive' sequel undermined the goodwill from the first, or just failed to match the sky-high hype? It's all swings and roundabouts stuff.

Solo always seemed redundant to me, I don't take back any 'hating' I posted about it, but there was potential, there's ALWAYS a chance. In the end it was spectacularly average.

Theboinkmaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Solo was destined to be hated, half the people on here were hating on it 6 months ago.

Yeah but like me I think a lot of us were hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

It's not a bad movie TBH, just MEH.

Grab All Association

Lucas milked it dry but Disney has really

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

True, it's amazing that Ronnie "safe hands" managed to pull anything out of that fire at all. As a prjoect, it sounded like an absolute nightmare to be on.

I think in a world of 'auteurs' of the Synder or Bay mould, Ron Howard gets damned with faint praise for being a the consummate professional who delivers pretty solid work without fanfare. His own lack of signature flourish - or even having any kind of outspoken personality, the guy seems like a decent skin - is arguably held against him, whereas I'd watch a dozen films by Howard sooner than another from Zack Synder.

Tony EH wrote: »

I know that the burn from 'The Last Jedi' is still fresh in a lot of people's minds and they're "punishing" Disney for that and not going. But, I think the above is largely responsible for Solo's low box office at present. Simply put, I think a load of folk just reckoned that 'Solo' was going to be a check list of "Han stuff" and lost interest almost from the beginning. I think it did relatively ok, in that it wasn't entirely all about that. It could have been worse. Also, there are things in there that mess with "canon" :rolleyes: stuff that's already present in people's heads.

Chewbacca eats people?

That's just downright odd and dare I say it, flat out wrong.

Oh, absolutely; I just don't buy the narrative about Last Jedi being a driver towards the apparent underperformance of Solo. Like most experiences in life, the internet vastly over-inflates and over-emphasises controversies and voices, and finding angry Star Wars fans on the internet is as easy as shooting womprats in a T16.

Show me a character prequel that succeeded over the original film, either commercially or critically, and I'll find 10 more that demonstrate it as the exception proving the rule. Yet it's a consistent business decision that continues to tank at the box office across decades of cinema. I feel Disney just made a classic studio mistake here, and didn't factor in the general apathy towards a Han Solo prequel. Maybe if the reviews had been coming in wildly complimentary that might have bumped more casual traffic to wander into the multiplexes, but I never really believed there was an appetite for the answer to a question nobody really asked.

Of course, that point of view isn't particularly interesting or exciting enough for column inches - not as much as 'OMG audiences punishing Disney for Last Jedi!!!11!', so doubtless we'll see more of that POV :rolleyes:

Arne_Saknussem

I think the Last Jedi has a lot to do with Solo tanking, to suggest it's not is silly imo.

pixelburp

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

I think the Last Jedi has a lot to do with Solo tanking, to suggest it's not is silly imo.

It's all speculation, but the silliest thing to do would be to lay all of Solo's troubles at the feet of Last Jedi. Fair enough, there's a factor in there somewhere whereby some fans stayed away, but nor can one ignore the reality of what Solo is as a concept in broad, Hollywood terms: it had been met with scepticism from the first moment it was announced (this very thread started this time 2 years ago), has coloured a lot of reviews, and most of that was because it was a character prequel.

Prequels. Just. Don't. Work. "Before they were famous" prequels doubly so - Star Wars was never likely to be an exception to this rule, no matter how 'controversial' Last Jedi is supposed to be, or how large a behemoth the franchise is. I can't speculate as to why Hollywood executives continue this narrative cliché, despite evidence down the years that audiences aren't interested in this sorts of story.

Arne_Saknussem

pixelburp wrote: »

It's all speculation, but the silliest thing to do would be to lay all of Solo's troubles at the feet of Last Jedi. Fair enough, there's a factor in there somewhere whereby some fans stayed away, but nor can one ignore the reality of what Solo is as a concept in broad, Hollywood terms: it had been met with scepticism from the first moment it was announced (this very thread started this time 2 years ago), has coloured a lot of reviews, and most of that was because it was a character prequel.

Prequels. Just. Don't. Work. "Before they were famous" prequels doubly so - Star Wars was never likely to be an exception to this rule, no matter how 'controversial' Last Jedi is supposed to be, or how large a behemoth the franchise is. I can't speculate as to why Hollywood executives continue this narrative cliché, despite evidence down the years that audiences aren't interested in this sorts of story.

i'm not laying all it's problems down to the Last Jedi, the production troubles are well documented. But even purely from a anecdotal point of view almost everyone in my social circles went to the last 3 films drawn in by the old cast returning.

They accepted TFA as a safe beat for beat reboot after the disappointing prequels, most though RO was a flawed buy decent entry. I know 1 person who's been to see Solo and they all say TLJ was the reason for killing their enthusiasm.

A lot of people have been turned off by it, not just angry people on the internet. If TLJ was universally loved, there's no way Solo would be in danger of losing a lot of money for Disney.

pixelburp

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

i'm not laying all it's problems down to the Last Jedi, the production troubles are well documented. But even purely from a anecdotal point of view almost everyone in my social circles went to the last 3 films drawn in by the old cast returning.

They accepted TFA as a safe beat for beat reboot after the disappointing prequels, most though RO was a flawed buy decent entry. I know 1 person who's been to see Solo and they all say TLJ was the reason for killing their enthusiasm.

A lot of people have been turned off by it, not just angry people on the internet. If TLJ was universally loved, there's no way Solo would be in danger of losing a lot of money for Disney.

Yeah but if we're playing a game of anecdotes, all of my own social circle generally enjoyed Last Jedi (many remarking that they didn't 'get' the hate from fans), while have had - at best - a cautious view of Solo, knowing that these kind of character prequels rarely work. Many just out & out had no interest for a Solo prequel.

*shrug*

I totally accept Last Jedi likely coloured some folks' opinions, but that doesn't & shouldn't smother Solo's success in as broad & immediate a context as possible. From the get-go people had a cynicism towards the project as a specific narrative concept, that's arguably undeniable - this thread literally catalogues that cynicism, predating Last Jedi. A Han Solo prequel? Who honestly cared en masse? I think if Last Jedi is allowed to drive the narrative, it basically allows Disney to continue pushing these "before they were famous" films.

IMO, Rogue One always had a much better chance of success because, as I said before, it could exist as an adjacent story to the structure and content of the main Episodes, telling its own (albeit related) adventure with with its voice, approach & cast. Now, how successful the end product was, is up to the viewer but I think if the whole 'Star Wars Story' franchise is to continue, more 'Rogue Ones' and fewer 'Solo's are preferable.

conorhal

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

I think the Last Jedi has a lot to do with Solo tanking, to suggest it's not is silly imo.

Moreso then the awfulness of the film, I think that the astonishing act of attacking the fan base (with real vitriol) for critisizing the failures of the film(s) are to blame.


I've never seen a film maker or studio come out and attack a fan base in the manner that Lucasfilm/Johnson etc has. You just don't do that to the customer and expect repeat business.

Nobody liked the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull much, but I can never imagine Spielberg coming out and sneering at the fan base for not liking it, calling them everything from irrelevant to man-babies to taring all critics of the film as racist and then outright dismissing even legitimate critisism.

People can pretend that the slump is down to 'other factors', but fan backlash against the dismissive, arrogant and outright hostile reaction from the producers and creators of the new films does form a big part of it. I think it's no stretch to say that lucasfim is now literally at war with many fans of the franchise, pretending otherwise, or that fact has no impact, is delusional.

Arne_Saknussem

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah but if we're playing a game of anecdotes, all of my own social circle generally enjoyed Last Jedi (many remarking that they didn't 'get' the hate from fans), while have had - at best - a cautious view of Solo, knowing that these kind of character prequels rarely work. Many just out & out had no interest for a Solo prequel.

*shrug*

I totally accept Last Jedi likely coloured some folks' opinions, but that doesn't & shouldn't smother Solo's success in as broad & immediate a context as possible. From the get-go people had a cynicism towards the project as a specific narrative concept, that's arguably undeniable - this thread literally catalogues that cynicism, predating Last Jedi. A Han Solo prequel? Who honestly cared en masse? I think if Last Jedi is allowed to drive the narrative, it basically allows Disney to continue pushing these "before they were famous" films.

IMO, Rogue One always had a much better chance of success because, as I said before, it could exist as an adjacent story to the structure and content of the main Episodes, telling its own (albeit related) adventure with with its voice, approach & cast. Now, how successful the end product was, is up to the viewer but I think if the whole 'Star Wars Story' franchise is to continue, more 'Rogue Ones' and fewer 'Solo's are preferable.

Yep i don't disagree with any of that, but i don't buy the 'Star Wars fatigue' stuff that's been thrown around. I agree that skepticism of the Solo project played it's part, without doubt.

I said in TLJ thread that Solo would tank and that was based on what you've outlined combined with the TLJ effect.

A lot of people who would have gone multiple times are staying away.

Vladimir Poontang

Kathleen Kennedy has royally ****ed the franchise.

Poor decision after poor decision after poor decision

She's incompetent and should be fired.

Arne_Saknussem

conorhal wrote: »

Moreso then the awfulness of the film, I think that the astonishing act of attacking the fan base (with real vitriol) for critisizing the failures of the film(s) are to blame.

Definitely poured fuel on the fire. i see Pablo Hidalgo wiped this twitter account clean a few days ago, i wonder if was told to tone it down.

Primary reason for me is still how God-awful The Last Jedi was though.

Andrew Beef

Solo’s struggles have nothing to do with The Last Jedi in my view.

They’re based on the fact that it’s too tangental a story; to put it bluntly, not enough people give a flying f..k about where Han Solo came from. The idea that you can take one or two lines from a big movie and make another big movie is preposterous. Rogue One worked because it had big stuff relative to the overall Star Wars arc going on in it (we see the Death Star, Darth Vader, Grand Moff Tarkin, Princess Leia, etc. Solo is a nothing movie with nothing villains and no real meaningful overall Star Wars stuff taking place. Any Boba Fett movie will be the same, unless simultaneously we’re seeing Darth Vader hunting down Jedi.

pixelburp

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Yep i don't disagree with any of that, but i don't buy the 'Star Wars fatigue' stuff that's been thrown around. I agree that skepticism of the Solo project played it's part, without doubt.

I said in TLJ thread that Solo would tank and that was based on what you've outlined combined with the TLJ effect.

A lot of people who would have gone multiple times are staying away.

Right, so really we're just quibbling over degrees of influence my only insistence would be that the ennui / apathy over Solo long, lonnnnnng predates Last Jedi. Perhaps even as far back as the original SW prequels and their shameless fanservice inclusions such as Chewbacca & Boba Fett; I recall the same kind of cynicism and shoulder shrugging. Such is that apathy, that IMO it shouldn't be lost when the dust settles & the autopsies begin about why Solo failed. At the end of the day, people just don't like or want prequels. That's the bedrock.

There's no question Last Jedi was a divisive film to say the least, but at the same time it shouldn't be allowed consume all points of discussion over the relative merits or failures of each new Star Wars release. Like, if Last Jedi comes up during the Jon Favreau TV show, then I think it truly is an unhealthy obsession!

I do agree that Disney-Lucasfilm have been making some poor decisions of late, but not so much that they can't be clawed back or can be considered insurmountable. Ain't no way we're at the DC levels of incompetence.

PhiloCypher

Baffled by how poorly this has been received in here. Don't think there's any winning with such an established fanbase as this. If they go against expectation like in Last Jedi people are pissed. If they hit familiar expected beats, its derivative crap. Was Solo a greatest hits package ? yes , and I'm totally fine with that. Fan service has become such a dirty word and so miss applied to everything that it seems if you reference any aspect of the larger mythology even when its a critical component of the narrative and not overt name dropping its considered "fan service". I think the more cynical thing to do would have been to spread all those moments over 3 Solo movies. That would have smacked of the sort of chicken counting we've hated in other attempted franchise reboots where they just assumed they would get to the good stuff in the final two films of the proposed trilogy. Whether or not people thought the world needed a Solo movie I guarantee the same ones hating on it now would have been spitting bullets had it not featured Chewbacca and the Millenium Falcon. As things stand with the way they left it there's no need for a direct sequel. They can just move on or pick up some of the threads in the Boba Fett or Lando movies.

Arne_Saknussem

pixelburp wrote: »

Right, so really we're just quibbling over degrees of influence

Yeah, more or less.

Like i said if TLJ had been universally loved & the fallout hadn't happened then i think Solo would have gotten close enough to Rogue One numbers, even allowing for the fact that a big percentage of the fans were never asking for a Solo standalone.

Theboinkmaster

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Baffled by how poorly this has been received in here.

It's just a very average film, nothing baffling about that.

Drumpot

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

It's just a very average film, nothing baffling about that.

That's exactly how I felt about it. Very much average.



Wonder if this would work if they made a Kenobi movie next. I wouldn't be totally averse to watching him fight

Maul to the death

on the big screen.

That said, after the poor showing of Solo they might start to explore alternative parts of the universe.

peteeeed

i enjoyed it , very light in deep meaning compared to others but then its a smugglers story , lando was really good , han was good, the falcon scenes were great . how han and chewbacca met was a bit cheesy but on the whole it was an entertaining watch and i will see it again

Falthyron

Will be hard for the 'Its Star Wars. Anything Star Wars and more of it should be welcomed and cherished!" crowd to start defending LucasFilm.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44283427

As for the 'Well, of course it wouldn't do as well as The Last Jedi' argument, money is money and Disney expects targets to be met, particularly when they revised their expectations accordingly and it still hasn't hit that target. No doubt the next off-shoot project will involve grabbing twenty teenagers, dragging them into a room and making them a 'focus group' so they can dilute their interests into another safe, unambitious money-maker. As I argued in my 'review', they should be doing the opposite; new worlds, new characters, new timelines, new conflicts. Inject some risk into the franchise and sever anything to do with the main films.

As for Kennedy's head rolling, it won't happen. She can always blame it on the troubled production which was caused by Lord and Miller (as she would argue). They need a win and fast. They should announce a bold director like Nolan do some sort of First World War-type film set during the Mandalorian Wars.

Inviere

Falthyron wrote: »

As I argued in my 'review', they should be doing the opposite; new worlds, new characters, new timelines, new conflicts. Inject some risk into the franchise and sever anything to do with the main films.

I tend to agree, and ultimately, I hope to see it happen with Johnson's trilogy. There are some off-shoots I'd like to see. Kenobi is one, because a) I think there's potential there with the events seen towards the end of Solo, and b) McGregor was one of the only good things about the prequels...I'd love to see him get the role he deserves. That said, any offshoots set in the well established timeline need to be very creative, and not just the 'cool' characters like Solo, Fett, et al. A Boba Fett film is, I fear, a possibility. Like Solo, I've no real desire to see it because I never really got the mass appeal of Fett. Cool suit, fine, but otherwise there's nothing really there for me.

They should announce a bold director like Nolan do some sort of First World War-type film set during the Mandalorian Wars.

I think the only way forward, is to go back to the Old Republic, and tell us something brand new...something so removed from the events of I-IX, that they have real creative freedom. Loads of Jedi stuff, loads of Force mythology, loads of dark versus light....I'd lap that up! I fear I'm in a minority by saying I'm a bit jaded with all the actual 'wars' in Star Wars

Mitch Connor

I liked it. Fun and entertaining.

Not a masterpiece but I enjoyed my time in the cinema watching it and HYPED to see a part of the story continued on.

conorhal

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Definitely poured fuel on the fire. i see Pablo Hidalgo wiped this twitter account clean a few days ago, i wonder if was told to tone it down.

Primary reason for me is still how God-awful The Last Jedi was though.

Pablo Hidalgo started autistically screeching after Ethan Van Scriver made a T-**** out of his 'Soylo: A Soy-wars Story' meme and he was instantly smacked down and deleted his posts.

Van Scriver's Youtube channel is hilarious especially his quest to redeem Rose Tico by creating a cult surrounding the character, his fans are actually called the Ticopaths and he has a perchant for playing sultry Fabio music and making Lando figures make out with droids, funny stuff.

AMKC

So I finally got to see this today and I loved it. It's funny it has everything that was needed to be in it there like how they all meet and the other parts like how he got his name and the part we all really wanted to see. The one thing Han always brags about.

I will definitely be going to see it again. it's a 9 out of 10 for me.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the production issues, with its de-facto total reshoot via the 11th hour replacement of Ron Howard in the directors chair, it's a wonder the final film wasn't a hot mess; far from it, and purely from a technical standpoint Howard deserves genuine praise for delivering a structured, coherent feature. Outside of this context however, and frankly, Solo was a total dud. Arguably Disney's first failure in their Star Wars tenure for me. It had to have been expected: character prequels almost never work and while Rogue One was ostensibly a prequel too, it had the good sense of telling an adjacent story, rather than trying for some origin story.

Perfunctory and utterly, achingly redundant, while barely possessing any energy or charisma that can often sustain movies lacking in other basic rudiments; mostly thanks to Emilia Clarke mind you, continuing to show how out of her depth she is; Donald Glover and Phoebe Waller-Bridge pretty much saved the film with their combined charms. It also committed the cardinal sin of the 'how did they get here?' prequel, showing all the main touch-points of Han Solo's motifs nobody really asked for, at the expense of nearly all the orbiting characters who ever dared to suggest some wit or depth. Not that I could see most scenes that did contain any character: while I praised Howard for reworking the production as a success of professionalism, the actual cinematography was so horribly murky and dim, it made just watching the film a bit of a chore.

I loved it was laughing for most of it. Found it to be really good best sci-fi film I have seen in the cinema in a while. Since Star Trek Beyond actually.

Tony EH wrote: »

True, it's amazing that Ronnie "safe hands" managed to pull anything out of that fire at all. As a prjoect, it sounded like an absolute nightmare to be on.

I know that the burn from 'The Last Jedi' is still fresh in a lot of people's minds and they're "punishing" Disney for that and not going. But, I think the above is largely responsible for Solo's low box office at present. Simply put, I think a load of folk just reckoned that 'Solo' was going to be a check list of "Han stuff" and lost interest almost from the beginning. I think it did relatively ok, in that it wasn't entirely all about that. It could have been worse. Also, there are things in there that mess with "canon" :rolleyes: stuff that's already present in people's heads.

Chewbacca eats people?

That's just downright odd and dare I say it, flat out wrong.

Chewbacca eats people?

They never said he done that but then if you are trapped and are not being giving anything you would be surprised what people or animals will do to survive it's their only means of it.

ricero wrote: »

Great fun. Really enjoyed it more than the last jedi. the two spin-off films have been great.

I agree they have both been excellent.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Deadpool 2 is far superior to solo

I disagree. it's there other way around for me. Deadpool 2 was a big disappointment not even many funny scenes in it. The first film was much better.

Deleted User wrote: »

In your opinion. Deadpool remains one of the most overrated films of the decade so I've little interest in part 2

I disagree I loved the first one but if you did not then you more than likely will not like the second one as it is not as good as the first one.

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Saw this today . Was unsure about the film until they got off Corellia, but once they did I thought it got better and better. Honestly baffled by the bad reviews. Enjoyed it far more then either Force Awakens or Last Jedi.

Will go into greater depth in future posts

I'd give it a 8/10

I loved all of it from start to finish. Maybe the end seemed a little rushed would have like a bit more there but otherwise excellent and very funny film.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Deadpool 2 has an imdb score of 8.2/rotten tomatoes score of 82%.

Solo is 7.2 on imdb and 70% on RT.

So it's not just my opinion it's the general consensus

I would not believe any of them scores.

peteeeed wrote: »

i enjoyed it , very light in deep meaning compared to others but then its a smugglers story , lando was really good , han was good, the falcon scenes were great . how han and chewbacca met was a bit cheesy but on the whole it was an entertaining watch and i will see it again

I liked how they met.

Same here most definitely worth another watch or two.

dosebier

Saw it there today, thought it was average enough and a bit too long for me. Maybe it would have benefited from 30 mins being shaved off to keep the pace up. Was interesting to see Hans background alright but I just left the cinema with a "Meh". only 5 people in cinema so almost a private screening though

Tony EH

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Baffled by how poorly this has been received in here. Don't think there's any winning with such an established fanbase as this. If they go against expectation like in Last Jedi people are pissed. If they hit familiar expected beats, its derivative crap.

It's not a simple either/or though Philo. You can "go against expectation" in a good way. 'The Last Jedi' didn't do that at all. It just shat all over everything that came before it, including it's own trilogy kickstarter.

If I was Disney CEO, I'd sit up and start listening now and, frankly - I think this has actually happened with Hildago - I sanction anyone who starts blanketly calling fans of the product "sexists", "racists", "misogynists", etc and lend an ear to what's being said by them instead. I'm not talking about the "Star Wars is for SJW cucks now..." crowd. I'm talking about the people, who've listed - in clear detail - what they've found bad about the Diswars films so far. Becasue they're the folk who've been putting the shillings in the Star Wars piggy bank for decades.

All of this "let the past die" angle has been seen as an attack, for want of a better word, on the old fans who've been knocking around since 1977 and it's not what Disney should be doing. That core group is where your money is. They're the people that "know everything" about your story, so they fill in your blanks and get your references. They're the people who bring their sons and daughters to your films and keep the interest alive. They're the people who buy the toys (cos it's sure as shit ain't the "kids" these days) and that's the biggest revenue maker. They're also the people who buy the novels and other spinoffs.

Letting their "past die" is the wrong way to go about things, because I'd wager that the newbie audience that's coming on board now, won't give a damn about Star Wars in ten years time. They'll have replaced it with something else and the only thing Disney will have killed is the franchise they so desperately wanted.