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

nix

nix 04-01-2018, 15:37 wrote: »

tenners bets we will see the kessel run in 12 parsecs :pac:

Called it :pac:

I enjoyed it, wasnt a turd, wasnt amazing. I'd watch it again maybe, not anytime soon. I wished they put in more character development/camaraderie, instead of the non stop action sequences, it seemed the film rarely came up for air in that regard.

Id give it a 3 out of 5.

radonicus

I thought it had some good parts - the early battle scene where he meets Beckett for example - but overall it was boring. Even the kessel run, and the chase with the Tie fighters, was underwhelming.

Ehrenreich wasn't bad. At least they didn't persist with him speaking wookie.

I think Episode 9 will be the last Star Wars 'event' for me, after that they'll just be another release to catch whenever.

robinph

nix wrote: »

Called it :pac:

Wasn't that only after a bit of creative rounding down though. Didn't catch exactly what Chewie said but I think mmmhhhrhbggggeggewsssawqww may have meant 12.9 parsecs.

Theboinkmaster

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Pablo Hidalgo should be fired

Why? I thought he didn't have any creative input into the films...

homerun_homer

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Why? I thought he didn't have any creative input into the films...

He gave Rian the go ahead for Leia in space and (as cool as the scene looked) the Holdo Maneuvre. That's enough of an offence in my mind.

Theboinkmaster

homerun_homer wrote: »

He gave Rian the go ahead for Leia in space and (as cool as the scene looked) the Holdo Maneuvre. That's enough of an offence in my mind.

To be fair that's on Rian and the studio, not him.

restive

To 3D or not 3D?

nix

restive wrote: »

To 3D or not 3D?

Never 3D, tis but a silly gimmick

Unless you're going to something built for 3D like Avatar and actually going to a screen that can do the 3D justice.

Vladimir Poontang

Even on die-hard star wars fansites the discussion is all centred on Disney injecting SJW politics into the universe and their hostility and indeed contempt for the older fans (ie the original fans)

One more misstep and the whole thing is going to blow up in Disneys face.

You lose the die hards and there will be such a ****storm that it will spill over to the general audience.

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Please keep this thread about Solo, arguments about The Last Jedi have been covered ad nauseam on that film’s thread. Thanks.

Vladimir Poontang

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Even on die-hard star wars fansites the discussion is all centred on Disney injecting SJW politics into the universe and their hostility and indeed contempt for the older fans (ie the original fans)

One more misstep and the whole thing is going to blow up in Disneys face.

You lose the die hards and there will be such a ****storm that it will spill over to the general audience.

Agree, i'm from the 77 era myself, its like the studio and the executives are trying to please everyone, and this is happening with a lot of films and tv series imo.

Its like everything is been crammed in to make it socially acceptable but like you said the hardcore fans will just have enough and switch off i guess.

I think thats why its lost on me, or maybe i'm just not with it.

Vladimir Poontang

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Agree, i'm from the 77 era myself, its like the studio and the executives are trying to please everyone, and this is happening with a lot of films and tv series imo.

Its like everything is been crammed in to make it socially acceptable but like you said the hardcore fans will just have enough and switch off i guess.

I think thats why its lost on me, or maybe i'm just not with it.

I think they are going so out of their way to pander to the SJW crowd and "strong independent women" types that they've done so at the expense of focusing on strong storytelling and character building.

What they did to Hamill with Luke is their worst offence yet.

They haven't learned their lesson either...Solo is just the start of the backlash.

Hell they even botched Chewie's back story...

Conall Cernach

I've seen it twice now and although I liked it the first time I did think it improved a fair bit with a second viewing. I recently re-watched TLJ and thought it was worse after a second viewing. Sure Solo is not "great" great but it is still one of the better SW movies and can happily contend for the title of best since '83.

I have come to the conclusion that if the original trilogy could be likened to Star Trek TOS, TFA and TLJ are the newer re-booted Trek and then Solo and Rogue One are the equivalent of those couple of pretty decent Next Generation films.

Tony EH

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

I think they are going so out of their way to pander to the SJW crowd and "strong independent women" types that they've done so at the expense of focusing on strong storytelling and character building.

The only agenda at Disney is a money agenda. Their politics is financial. But, this is why Diswars is failing to secure consistent positive support from its fanbase. They're shoehorning "identity politics" into their movies, because it's what they believe the "kids" want to see and it'll make them a ton of cash. All the while ignoring vocal warnings from longtime fans who see through the game and in fact, going out of their way to insult them on the likes of Twitter, which I find amazing for any business to engage in.

Let's be honest here, both Rey and Finn exist because one of female and one is black. That was the foundation of the new Star Wars cast. Their actual characters came a very distant second, which is why they feel so empty. FFS, Johnson didn't even know what to do with Finn, so he "created" Rose (another wretched "character") for him to talk to and sent him off to Las Vegas world in one of the most inane sideplots I've ever seen, just so he'd have something to do.

And everyone gets shortchanged here, including Daisy Ridley and John Boyega who try their best with what they've got to go on. I have no doubt both want out as soon as IX has wrapped and they've finished their promotional contract obligations.

Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen were cast because they were Chinese. Disney wants that lovely Renminbi and that's the only reason they're there. It has nothing to do with "diversity", no matter what Disney says. It's money. Their tactic failed beautifully, but at least Yen and Wen are good in their roles.

Disney need to wise up and fast though. They believed they had a "new" audience on their side and that the old crew could just away. Star Wars "wasn't for them anymore". Well, now they've seen just how fickle their new audience is. In general, people don't like being sold a pup and will eventually see through it.

The whole thrust of Diswars is wrong. It's based on wrong avenues and it ignores what longtime fans are looking for. Even their recent story announcements are being greeted with sighs and shrugs. It's carrying on down the wrong path of which 'Solo' is the first step. I think all of this is down to the fact that the heads of Diswars aren't actual fans of the franchise the have in their hands. They're money people, like Kathleen Kennedy, who is a good producer with a good track record.

But producing something and creating something is not the same thing.

Andrew Beef

I agree. What I want to see is (for example) a massive reveal that Luke has joined the Sith or that X is a Sith Lord.

The Sith/The Jedi/The Emperor/Darth Vader...that’s what really interests me.

Finn etc are just a pain in the arse.

I really liked Rogue One but mainly the parts showing the Empire, the Death Star, and Vader.

The scene where Vader kills the rebels is one of the best in any Star Wars movie past or present.

All of the above is what Solo misses; it’s makey uppy irrelevant sh1te.

ZV Yoda

I hated the idea of a Solo movie & hadn’t planned to bother with it. Didn’t do much online research, but was vaguely aware of the bad press. Hadn't seen any spoilers.

Just been to see it. I loved it. Best Star Wars movie since the OT. I hope Ron Howard signs up for more. Roll on Solo 2!!

ZV Yoda

Just been reading over some of the comments in this thread (first time reading this thread). I'm surprised that most people didn't like it.

I really enjoyed Solo. For me, it was a popcorn movie based in the SW universe, but one that works really as a standalone movie. The characters we all know & love behaved as expected. Unlike the sequels, it doesn't try to be clever just for the sake of it. It also felt less like an extended toy / merchandise advert than TLJ. It's the first movie since the OT that doesn't feel too long. It doesn't have any stupid side stories about trade federations or casinos.

The Solo/Lando relationship was exactly as I imagined it was going to be. But that's not a bad thing, because we already knew a fair bit about them, so they couldn't stray too far from the fact that they were both scoundrals / loveable rogues.

I liked the development of Qi'ra. When I saw the hologram character, it was a jaw dropping moment for me.

I thought it was really clever. I've always thought Darth Maul was the best prequel character & was woefully underused.

Yeah, roll on Solo 2.

restive

I was watching some discussions on YouTube last night. They were saying this could be the first star wars film to loose money.

Vladimir Poontang

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Just been reading over some of the comments in this thread (first time reading this thread). I'm surprised that most people didn't like it.

I really enjoyed Solo. For me, it was a popcorn movie based in the SW universe, but one that works really as a standalone movie. The characters we all know & love behaved as expected. Unlike the sequels, it doesn't try to be clever just for the sake of it. It also felt less like an extended toy / merchandise advert than TLJ. It's the first movie since the OT that doesn't feel too long. It doesn't have any stupid side stories about trade federations or casinos.

The Solo/Lando relationship was exactly as I imagined it was going to be. But that's not a bad thing, because we already knew a fair bit about them, so they couldn't stray too far from the fact that they were both scoundrals / loveable rogues.

I liked the development of Qi'ra. When I saw the hologram character, it was a jaw dropping moment for me.

I thought it was really clever. I've always thought Darth Maul was the best prequel character & was woefully underused.

Yeah, roll on Solo 2.

Not going to happen.

silverharp

restive wrote: »

I was watching some discussions on YouTube last night. They were saying this could be the first star wars film to loose money.

if they say they spent $400m including marketing then they at least need 800 to a billion to clear it, not going to happen based on returns so far. Running about 1/3 of Infinity Wars after a week

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=untitledhansolostarwarsanthologyfilm.htm

eviltimeban

500 million to break even is what I read.

constitutionus

Yeah production Fig I heard was 250m which is 500 m to break even and that's before advertising.

Howard having to do whole swathe from scratch is what inflated it so much.

Arne_Saknussem

eviltimeban wrote: »

500 million to break even is what I read.

Not a chance it breaks even at $500m, a very conservative estimate on total cost would be $350m which would mean pulling in close to $700m to break even.

But the figures above of needing to hit $800m are probably closer to the mark.

Ethereal Cereal

went to see this last night... wow... its been a while since I seen a movie this chauvinistic.

- Thandie Newton needlessly commits suicide toward the start of the movie near the start of the movie to progress the male driven plot.
- Was not mourned
- Emilia Clarke apologies to Han for what she had to do to survive after he abandoned her
- Lando rips the navigation chart database from L2's not long dead head
- Emilia Clarke does not take any part in navigation, piloting, driving etc but does go straight to the closet to try on capes after boarding the millennium falcon
- Emilia Clarke declares herself Paul Bettany's weakness
- Emilia Clarke immediately sides with Darth Maul

Beechwoodspark

Anyone know why the cinematography was so dark and unclear? Looked awful.

ZV Yoda

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

went to see this last night... wow... its been a while since I seen a movie this chauvinistic.

- Thandie Newton needlessly commits suicide toward the start of the movie near the start of the movie to progress the male driven plot.
- Was not mourned
- Emilia Clarke apologies to Han for what she had to do to survive after he abandoned her
- Lando rips the navigation chart database from L2's not long dead head
- Emilia Clarke does not take any part in navigation, piloting, driving etc but does go straight to the closet to try on capes after boarding the millennium falcon
- Emilia Clarke declares herself Paul Bettany's weakness
- Emilia Clarke immediately sides with Darth Maul

Ah jaysus, so you're saying

if a woman sacrifices herself for a man,

it's chauvanistic? In that case, what's your theory on Titanic?

<Spolier alert if you haven't seen Titanic>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MJxxmrWO6s

nix

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

went to see this last night... wow... its been a while since I seen a movie this chauvinistic.

- Thandie Newton needlessly commits suicide toward the start of the movie near the start of the movie to progress the male driven plot.
- Was not mourned
- Emilia Clarke apologies to Han for what she had to do to survive after he abandoned her
- Lando rips the navigation chart database from L2's not long dead head
- Emilia Clarke does not take any part in navigation, piloting, driving etc but does go straight to the closet to try on capes after boarding the millennium falcon
- Emilia Clarke declares herself Paul Bettany's weakness
- Emilia Clarke immediately sides with Darth Maul

Jesus, if thats the kinda stuff you pick up on when watching a movie like this, i feel sorry for you.

You may wanna include the things Emilia did do also if you dont wanna come off biased :rolleyes:

For instance,

kicking the crap out of alot of people, blowing up turrets with grenades, beating the crap out of and killing the main bloody villain.

- Thandie Newton needlessly commits suicide toward the start of the movie near the start of the movie to progress the male driven plot.
- Was not mourned

- Emilia Clarke immediately sides with Darth Maul

Ummm it appears you didnt absorb how the majority of the characters were in this movie, they are all wayward and out for themselves, if they see themselves with alot to gain, they will double cross. Solo himself, to an extent, they also didnt mourn the other crew member when he died :rolleyes:

Vladimir Poontang

That's the kind of crap right there that has ruined Star Wars

Who knew Kathleen Kennedy was a boardsie 🀣

PhiloCypher

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Anyone know why the cinematography was so dark and unclear? Looked awful.

Was crystal clear for me, you sure it wasn't the screen you saw it on ?

Or is this just yet another example of someone holding this film to a higher standard then they do the OT and expecting Deakinsesque cinematography in a 'Star Wars' film.

pixelburp

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Was crystal clear for me, you sure it wasn't the screen you saw it on ?

Or is this just yet another example of someone holding this film to a higher standard then they do the OT and expecting Deakinsesque cinematography in a 'Star Wars' film.

A lot of folks have complained about the cinematography being murky and dark - myself included. So either cinemas have been dropping the ball, or it was a choice of Howard & co. Personally I found Solo an indistinct mess.

BlitzKrieg

ZV Yoda wrote: »

I liked the development of Qi'ra. When I saw the hologram character, it was a jaw dropping moment for me.

I thought it was really clever. I've always thought Darth Maul was the best prequel character & was woefully underused.

Yeah, roll on Solo 2.

underused in the films, he's had a full character arc pretty much in the animation series (both Clone Wars and Rebels) which are both canon and genuinely has fully fleshed and fitting end to the character, which is why I'm surprised they'd consider teasing him as they wont have much room with the character plotwise

Tony EH

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

went to see this last night... wow... its been a while since I seen a movie this chauvinistic.

- Thandie Newton needlessly commits suicide toward the start of the movie near the start of the movie to progress the male driven plot.
- Was not mourned
- Emilia Clarke apologies to Han for what she had to do to survive after he abandoned her
- Lando rips the navigation chart database from L2's not long dead head
- Emilia Clarke does not take any part in navigation, piloting, driving etc but does go straight to the closet to try on capes after boarding the millennium falcon
- Emilia Clarke declares herself Paul Bettany's weakness
- Emilia Clarke immediately sides with Darth Maul

Absolutely none of that is chauvinism.

Tony EH

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Was crystal clear for me, you sure it wasn't the screen you saw it on ?

Or is this just yet another example of someone holding this film to a higher standard then they do the OT and expecting Deakinsesque cinematography in a 'Star Wars' film.

Yeh, I had no real problem with the cinematography. It was fine for my viewing.

The scenes on Mimban were gloomy, but that was the point? Mimban is a swampy, gaseous planet with a murky, cloudy, atmosphere. One of the worst assignments for Imperial troops. It's one of the only scenes in 'Solo' that stuck to Star Wars lore, apparently <- Not my info.

The Mimban scenes with their WWI vibe were the only ones that really engaged me and were all too short, unfortunately.

Maybe Ronnie wanted it shot dark, so we couldn't see how different Alden Ehrenreich is to Harrison Ford. :pac:

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, I had no real problem with the cinematography. It was fine for my viewing.

The scenes on Mimban were gloomy, but that was the point? Mimban is a swampy, gaseous planet with a murky, cloudy, atmosphere. One of the worst assignments for Imperial troops. It's one of the only scenes in 'Solo' that stuck to Star Wars lore, apparently <- Not my info.

The Mimban scenes with their WWI vibe were the only ones that really engaged me and were all too short, unfortunately.

Maybe Ronnie wanted it shot dark, so we couldn't see how different Alden Ehrenreich is to Harrison Ford. :pac:

Disagree, I think most if not all settings were horribly underlit. Corellia was as bad, and even in the opulent interiors of the mob boss's ship shots were super glooomy

ZV Yoda

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

underused in the films, he's had a full character arc pretty much in the animation series (both Clone Wars and Rebels) which are both canon and genuinely has fully fleshed and fitting end to the character, which is why I'm surprised they'd consider teasing him as they wont have much room with the character plotwise

Yeah, I was referring to the films. I've only seen bits & pieces of the animated stuff, so I'm not up to speed on that side of things (I have to draw the line somehwere when it comes to watching SW!)

I did find that some of the scenes were a bit dark / difficult to see what was going on.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Disagree, I think most if not all settings were horribly underlit. Corellia was as bad, and even in the opulent interiors of the mob boss's ship shots were super glooomy

Horses for courses Pix.

I had no real issues with it and think it's probably the least of its problems.

Funny though, if folk are complaining about the look of the film on a big screen, on the small one, it's going to look even worse.

Sad Professor

As many critics on Twitter have pointed out, it's very important to ensure you see this film in a cinema with good presentation. Projection quality can vary a lot between cinemas. Many don't/can't remove the 3D filter for 2D showings, resulting in visuals being flat and murky, which is especially noticeable in night scenes. Even in non-3D screens, under-lit projection is common as a cost-saving measure. The dark, shadowy cinematography of this film is probably better suited to indie films on the festival circuit where quality projection can be expected.

Beechwoodspark

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Was crystal clear for me, you sure it wasn't the screen you saw it on ?

Or is this just yet another example of someone holding this film to a higher standard then they do the OT and expecting Deakinsesque cinematography in a 'Star Wars' film.

Absolutely awfully dark in the Savoy. So much so it was verging on unwatchable. Extremely bad.

Two other people (friends of mine and cinephiles) who saw it in other cinemas (1 in Belfast and 1 in London) concurred it is extremely darkly lit - so much so it ruins the film.

Just bizarre such a huge film is presented like this-

Is it down to the various directors who worked on this?

tigger123

Sad Professor wrote: »

As many critics on Twitter have pointed out, it's very important to ensure you see this film in a cinema with good presentation. Projection quality can vary a lot between cinemas. Many don't/can't remove the 3D filter for 2D showings, resulting in visuals being flat and murky, which is especially noticeable in night scenes. Even in non-3D screens, under-lit projection is common as a cost-saving measure. The dark, shadowy cinematography of this film is probably better suited to indie films on the festival circuit where quality projection can be expected.

Saw it this evening in Imax and had no problem at all with the cinematography or lighting.

I went in with no expectations and really enjoyed Solo.

Loved the kid sat in front of me with his lightsaber too!

Oafley Jones

tigger123 wrote: »

Saw it this evening in Imax and had no problem at all with the cinematography or lighting.

I walked out of the BFI Odean IMAX owing to the lighting. It was a 3D showing and was horribly under lit. This is only the second time that I didn’t stay till the end of a movie. First time there and found it to be a really unimpressive set up... plus there was this weird stale smell permeating the place.

PhiloCypher

pixelburp wrote: »

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Was crystal clear for me, you sure it wasn't the screen you saw it on ?

Or is this just yet another example of someone holding this film to a higher standard then they do the OT and expecting Deakinsesque cinematography in a 'Star Wars' film.

A lot of folks have complained about the cinematography being murky and dark - myself included. So either cinemas have been dropping the ball, or it was a choice of Howard & co. Personally I found Solo an indistinct mess.

It was brightly lit where appropriate and murky where appropriate. It's all about context. Corellia is smoggy because its heavily industrialised. Criminals don't make deals in Malickian fields of swaying grass, they make deals in Dingey alleys or Dimly lit rooms. Battlefields are meant to be smoke filled.

Tony EH

Has Brad Young spoken up about his DP work? Although it may have been a post production issue?

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

Has Brad Young spoken up about his DP work? Although it may have been a post production issue?

I read an article in which he said he was initially reluctant to do the film as he thought they would force him to adapt his style, but they didn’t.

The problem isn’t with his work, it’s purely down to poor projection. His shadowy style of cinematography isn’t suited to 3D or underlit/filtered 2D, which is probably how most viewers will experience the film. Like most films, it will look better on Blu-ray.

Turtyturd

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

That's the kind of crap right there that has ruined Star Wars

Who knew Kathleen Kennedy was a boardsie 🀣

Your obsession with her seems fairly bizarre.

Vladimir Poontang

Turtyturd wrote: »

Your obsession with her seems fairly bizarre.

The buck stops with her. She has essentially taken over from Lucas.

DrWu

Saw it last night. It was good fun and it wasn't a BAD movie. I just fail to see what it adds to the SW universe. The Han/Chewie bromance didn't come across as well as it could have, the pacing was all over the place and the Kessel run was a damp squib. That said, when the characters were allowed to interact there were some good moments and Ehrenreich did a good job.

Overall I have no idea where the franchise is going and why we are being handed these random spin-off movies. Just wish they could have been more imaginative and started TFA with a better plan. Recycled characters, designs, plots etc. Whatever you say about TLJ at least Johnson tried to break out of what fans seem to be demanding - a James Bond-esque series of cloned movies and plots with mandatory space battles, lightsabre duels, chosen one storylines etc...

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

I read an article in which he said he was initially reluctant to do the film as he thought they would force him to adapt his style, but they didn’t.

The problem isn’t with his work, it’s purely down to poor projection. His shadowy style of cinematography isn’t suited to 3D or underlit/filtered 2D, which is probably how most viewers will experience the film. Like most films, it will look better on Blu-ray.

I had been meaning to make this point while arguing that Solo was too dark; the BluRay will definitely shed some light (har har) on the truth of the situation, but honestly given the sheer number of complaints about the darkened picture, coupled with how Disney were at pains to dictate terms to various cinemas during the Last Jedi run, I'm surprised that this is even an issue.

Beechwoodspark

I truly am amazed they released such a huge big budget blockbuster type film with the obvious lighting/cinematography flaws.

Maybe I was unlucky with the showing yesterday in the Savoy but it was truly awful. You could hardly see the main characters faces at times. I thought maybe I had attended the 3D screening in error but nope, just extremely darkly lit cinematography.

And that’s on top of a fairly poor plot and script and passé cliched characters.

Sad Professor

pixelburp wrote: »

I had been meaning to make this point while arguing that Solo was too dark; the BluRay will definitely shed some light (har har) on the truth of the situation, but honestly given the sheer number of complaints about the darkened picture, coupled with how Disney were at pains to dictate terms to various cinemas during the Last Jedi run, I'm surprised that this is even an issue.

Dictating how long films play for and in how many screens is one thing, ensuring quality presentation is another. The studios have minimum standards but they are pretty low. If a dim image is acceptable for a 3D film then it's acceptable for a 2D film too. Dim projection is not a new problem though.

People who have seen the film twice in different theatres have confirmed that it's a projection problem:

https://twitter.com/BilgeEbiri/status/1000900181687259136

https://twitter.com/BBW_BFF/status/1002347538765131776

https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1001342476500848640

From the IndieWire article:

Greg Sherman, head projectionist for the Film Society of Lincoln Center, hasn’t seen “Solo” — but he also dismissed the idea that the problem is cinematographers working with low light. Sherman said one of the great joys of seeing movies in theaters is seeing the work of great cinematographers pushing the boundaries of working with unorthodox lighting standards.

“The texture in the black, the movements you see in the shadow when shot correctly, is incredibly beautiful, but it is so often lost when the image is compressed for streaming,” said Sherman. “Go to a chain movie theater, you also lose depth in texture, the gradations in the shadow.”

He added that the issue stemmed from digital projection issues. “The problem is digital cinema brought automation, and there’s no longer a trained technician checking that a film is projected correctly,” he said. “These machines drift, bulbs dim, and they need constant adjustments. You can save a lot of money, but the problem is if we aren’t showing movies the way they are meant to be seen we are giving people yet another reason not to come to the movie theater.”