Finally saw Solo, um...

BossAttack · Sep 18, 2018

QuantumZebra said:
I mean you say that but your avatar speaks volumes - unless its some super-inside joke that I am not aware of.

Right...

Maybe don't make ridiculous assumptions based on a person's avatar. But, if you need an explanation, there about three prominent niggas in total in the history of Star Wars. Lando Calrissian, FN-2187/Finn, and Mace Windu; if you want you can grudgingly include Saw Guerra. So as a black ass nigga myself, my pickings are slim when it comes to choosing an avatar of a Star Wars character with some melanin. And, I change my avatar around frequently enough. I was already rocking Donald Glover Lando during Solo season, after Solo was properly over, I then switched to Finn. And after asking the BCC (Black Culture Community) which Finn avatar looked best, everyone agreed that the current avatar looked best. So, here we are.

Any more questions?

RobotVM · Sep 18, 2018

I saw Solo in the theater and my expectations were very low. I was pleasantly surprised how good it was. It is my favorite of the Disney Star Wars movies with TFA coming in second. I really hope they make a follow-up with Ron Howard directing.

Vincent Alexander · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
Right...

Maybe don't make ridiculous assumptions based on a person's avatar. But, if you need an explanation, there about three prominent niggas in total in the history of Star Wars. Lando Calrissian, FN-2187/Finn, and Mace Windu; if you want you can grudgingly include Saw Guerra. So as a black ass nigga myself, my pickings are slim when it comes to choosing an avatar of a Star Wars character with some melanin. And, I change my avatar around frequently enough. I was already rocking Donald Glover Lando during Solo season, after Solo was properly over, I then switched to Finn. And after asking the BCC (Black Culture Community) which Finn avatar looked best, everyone agreed that the current avatar looked best. So, here we are.

Any more questions?

I love this post

Einchy · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
They know that Darth Vader is a bad guy and that's about it. I love their reactions by the way.

They gave TLJ a 9 and a 10, they the best.

AgentOtaku · Sep 18, 2018

SSJDio said:
Ron knows how to get me sweating with some of these shots though

3rd shot is legitimately one of my favorite in the entire franchise. Seriously.
Ron (and Young) shot the hell out of this movie

Deleted member 21339 · Sep 18, 2018

Einchy said:
They gave TLJ a 9 and a 10, they the best.

Yea they loooved it. Very interesting watching their reactions.

Aaron · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
They know that Darth Vader is a bad guy and that's about it. I love their reactions by the way.

"I think it's set in the future"

well

Kinggroin · Sep 18, 2018

Morrigan said:
My dude it's Darth Vader
The most iconic and well-known villain in cinematic history, point blank.
If your complaint is that someone could possibly watch R1 and not know who Vader is, I just... I...

Nah.

And further, THE reason they don't like the film. Despite knowing full well what's happening.

I do get the complaint of rag tag forgettables, but - this is more about the mission's significance than anything or anyone else. And it was cool to see how that less spoken of star wars story played out (almost didn't).

Captain Goodnight · Sep 18, 2018

Watched Solo this past weekend. I went in with an open mind.

The first 1/3 was pretty decent, though I never could see Alden as a young Han Solo ; he came off more like a poor man's Leonardo DiCaprio.

The movie got progressively worse for the final 2/3s ---- hard to say exactly when, but just so many things just tanked the movie in my eyes, from cringeworthy moments, hammy dialogue, extremely forced fan service/references, terrible sets (like that outdoor set on Kessel) etc.

The cardinal sin that the movie created, IMO, was the introduction and focus on an extremely serious love interest for Han for this movie. I'm sure plenty will disagree, but to this life-long Star Wars fan, this felt like a betrayal of Han's early pre-OT character and also something that, when made canon, cheapens the character development that Han is intended to make throughout the OT story arc, and cheapens the impact of Han and Leia's relationship and development in the OT.

There's no need for Han to have an obsessive love interest prior to the OT, and frankly it makes no sense. It goes completely against the character that we're introduced to in the cantina in Episode IV. Han is a loner and rogue, whose only serious interest is in getting ahead (e.g. money). How does it make sense that just a few years prior (even 5-10) that he would be this idealistic, star-struck guy obsessing over finding the true love that he was tragically separated from?

Saving Han's budding love interest for Leia and Leia alone accentuates the uniqueness and special nature of it. Of all the people in the galaxy, Leia was the one person to start to crack through to him regarding his selfish nature ("If money is all that you desire, then THAT's what you'll receive............"). She and Luke were the ones that got him to second guess his decision to just bail on the Yavin IV assault, pack up the money and run. He was ready to go on his merry way until they appealed to him with their vocal displeasure at his apparent ambivalence and selfishness. Everything else from that point on is self explanation, through ESB and ROTJ as Han's character develops and his unique love for Leia blindsides him and steers him on a new path.

The Solo movie took a dump on all of this. That aspect alone is what took the movie from B-grade (probably one step up from AOTC) to F-grade never-should-have-been-made.

A Solo movie would have worked with many of the concepts within this film ---- just take out the love interest and have it focus on Han going through the academy, dropping out, meeting/saving Chewie, Kessel run etc. Love interest was not necessary, and not only bogged down the film and cheapened Solo's character, but it clashed irreconcilably with the OT.

BossAttack · Sep 18, 2018

Captain Goodnight said:
Watched Solo this past weekend. I went in with an open mind.

The first 1/3 was pretty decent, though I never could see Alden as a young Han Solo ; he came off more like a poor man's Leonardo DiCaprio.

The movie got progressively worse for the final 2/3s ---- hard to say exactly when, but just so many things just tanked the movie in my eyes, from cringeworthy moments, hammy dialogue, extremely forced fan service/references, terrible sets (like that outdoor set on Kessel) etc.

The cardinal sin that the movie created, IMO, was the introduction and focus on an extremely serious love interest for Han for this movie. I'm sure plenty will disagree, but to this life-long Star Wars fan, this felt like a betrayal of Han's early pre-OT character and also something that, when made canon, cheapens the character development that Han is intended to make throughout the OT story arc, and cheapens the impact of Han and Leia's relationship and development in the OT.

There's no need for Han to have an obsessive love interest prior to the OT, and frankly it makes no sense. It goes completely against the character that we're introduced to in the cantina in Episode IV. Han is a loner and rogue, whose only serious interest is in getting ahead (e.g. money). How does it make sense that just a few years prior (even 5-10) that he would be this idealistic, star-struck guy obsessing over finding the true love that he was tragically separated from?

Saving Han's budding love interest for Leia and Leia alone accentuates the uniqueness and special nature of it. Of all the people in the galaxy, Leia was the one person to start to crack through to him regarding his selfish nature ("If money is all that you desire, then THAT's what you'll receive............"). She and Luke were the ones that got him to second guess his decision to just bail on the Yavin IV assault, pack up the money and run. He was ready to go on his merry way until they appealed to him with their vocal displeasure at his apparent ambivalence and selfishness. Everything else from that point on is self explanation, through ESB and ROTJ as Han's character develops and his unique love for Leia blindsides him and steers him on a new path.

The Solo movie took a dump on all of this. That aspect alone is what took the movie from B-grade (probably one step up from AOTC) to F-grade never-should-have-been-made.

A Solo movie would have worked with many of the concepts within this film ---- just take out the love interest and have it focus on Han going through the academy, dropping out, meeting/saving Chewie, Kessel run etc. Love interest was not necessary, and not only bogged down the film and cheapened Solo's character, but it clashed irreconcilably with the OT.

Disagree, the theory was to show how a young scruff of a kid became such a hardened, cynical outlaw. It makes total sense that Han would fall completely for a girl early in his life that ended up betraying him, hardening his character and closing his emotions off to everyone around him not covered in fur. I loved the movie, my only real complaint with Han's character is how he doesn't really grow into a hardened, disillusioned character at the end. It's almost as if they were saving that for a whole other movie.

At the end, he still gives the Coaxium to Enfys Nest, even when he had it all to himself and could have even taken half and lied that the other half was lost. He's still just a good guy, when he should've been distrustful and cynical about everyone and everything by the end.

Einchy said:
They gave TLJ a 9 and a 10, they the best.

JB1981 said:
Yea they loooved it. Very interesting watching their reactions.

They really liked Empire, that alone makes them good people.

Bor Gullet · Sep 18, 2018

Emilia Clarke was distractingly beautiful in this.

Lawd have mercy.

Bor Gullet · Sep 18, 2018

Cheebo said:
Solo is better than Rogue One. All 4 Disney era movies are much, much, much, much, better than all 3 prequels.

Surfinn · Sep 18, 2018

Bor Gullet said:
Emilia Clarke was distractingly beautiful in this.

Lawd have mercy.

Her costumes were great. I actually really love the one with the red cape.

And I thought she did a very solid job overall, she eventually really helped in selling their relationship, after a rushed/rocky start in the beginning, which was more a fault of the writing than her skills as an actor.

Captain Goodnight · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
Disagree, the theory was to show how a young scruff of a kid became such a hardened, cynical outlaw. It makes total sense that Han would fall completely for a girl early in his life that ended up betraying him, hardening his character and closing his emotions off to everyone around him not covered in fur. I loved the movie, my only real complaint with Han's character is how he doesn't really grow into a hardened, disillusioned character at the end. It's almost as if they were saving that for a whole other movie.

At the end, he still gives the Coaxium to Enfys Nest, even when he had it all to himself and could have even taken half and lied that the other half was lost. He's still just a good guy, when he should've been distrustful and cynical about everyone and everything by the end.

It doesn't make TOTAL sense. It's not the only or even best way that the character could have been driven to be a hardened character, closed off to emotions. Considering many other backstory options exist, there was no need to go with the love-interest-betrayal route and cheapen the future relationship that he has with Leia.

Your bolded part above is another reason why it doesn't work. Solo needed to function as a self-contained film, regardless of plans for future films in the series. One would need to watch Solo and "get it" in terms of Han's development from the beginning of Solo to the OT. You can't go leaving his crucial character development to another unmade film when you're doing an origin story. It needs to be self-contained and leave the view going --- YES, that is the back-story of Han Solo and how he came to be the man in Episode IV. Sequels can happen, but shouldn't be expected or guaranteed (as Disney has found out).

BossAttack · Sep 18, 2018

Captain Goodnight said:
It doesn't make TOTAL sense. It's not the only or even best way that the character could have been driven to be a hardened character, closed off to emotions. Considering many other backstory options exist, there was no need to go with the love-interest-betrayal route and cheapen the future relationship that he has with Leia.

Your bolded part above is another reason why it doesn't work. Solo needed to function as a self-contained film, regardless of plans for future films in the series. One would need to watch Solo and "get it" in terms of Han's development from the beginning of Solo to the OT. You can't go leaving his crucial character development to another unmade film when you're doing an origin story. It needs to be self-contained and leave the view going --- YES, that is the back-story of Han Solo and how he came to be the man in Episode IV. Sequels can happen, but shouldn't be expected or guaranteed (as Disney has found out).

It does though. How else would you portray Han becoming cynical and closed-off? You want a love-interest to humanize him and add some needed emotion to the film. You want a betrayal that really stings and leaves a lasting impact on him.

TheGummyBear · Sep 18, 2018

Morrigan said:
Weird, it's why I love it~

(thinkingemoji.gif)

You love Rogue One because of a roughly one minute long scene?

I know that there's been this push in post-prequel Star Wars to turn Vader into the force messiah with a power level exceeding 9,000. But Vader's not a memorable character because he goes super-Saiyan and lays waste to random mooks by the dozen. That kind of work is beneath Vader, he has an army of storm troopers at his command to do that stuff, like how he uses them in ANH. In fact, by using his faceless goons instead of cracking out the lightsaber and going to town again, as we see him fully capable of having done, it makes Vader look a bit dim. By using troopers to do a job that he proved he could do much more effectively, he allowed the Death Star plans to jettison in the escape pod. It's a scene that misses the point of Vader's character and weakens his presence in A New Hope. Which is why it's not just blatant fan service that ruins the tone of the ending, it's bad blatant fan service. I'm surprised that it worked on as many people as it did to be honest.

phazedplasma · Sep 18, 2018

Vader in Rogue One:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIepK6bpKuI

A terrible moment of fan service

Surfinn · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
It does though. How else would you portray Han becoming cynical and closed-off? You want a love-interest to humanize him and add some needed emotion to the film. You want a betrayal that really stings and leaves a lasting impact on him.

Sounds like they were setting up for multiple films. Though I agree, they really don't do a good job of showing how any of the events in the film really began to transform him from optimist to hardened cynic. There was a definite lack of emotional weight in that sense, though I think they're alluding to those changes with the ending of the film.

Captain Goodnight · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
It does though. How else would you portray Han becoming cynical and closed-off? You want a love-interest to humanize him and add some needed emotion to the film. You want a betrayal that really stings and leaves a lasting impact on him.

It could be as simple as a passing remark that he makes talking to a colleague at a serious time about being betrayed/orphaned as a kid.

Hell, his whole orphan backstory element that doesn't need to be actually shown is a clear and believable reason for his loner, selfish, out-for-himself, trust-no one, not interested in real love attitude.

No need to waste a good portion of the plot on a love interest betrayal and cheapen the future surprise true love plotline down the road.

Another variation, if you need to see it actually spelled out and be integrated into the plot is to have it just be his long-time mentor betraying him. Maybe the guy who takes him in at some point after discovering him as an orphan. Something like that. They sort of did that with Beckett, though Han's relationship with him wasn't that long, so even that felt rushed.

My point is that the love interest betrayal approach is not needed, is not the best, and IMO, is by far the worst way to illustrate why Han is the way he is at the start of the OT.

BossAttack · Sep 18, 2018

Surfinn said:
Sounds like they were setting up for multiple films. Though I agree, they really don't do a good job of showing how any of the events in the film really began to transform him from optimist to hardened cynic. There was a definite lack of emotional weight in that sense, though I think they're alluding to those changes with the ending of the film.

He needed to kill Q'ira by the end or be betrayed by her so bad it makes reunion impossible (such as putting a bounty on his head). Killing Beckett was a good start, but he never completely trusted Beckett. The end where Q'ira flies away is somewhat sad for him, but she specifically refuses to betray him and lies to Maul that Beckett was responsible for everything. It leaves the door open for a reunion as she isn't completely lost to him. Again, it's clear they were setting up future movies when they should've just made this film self-contained with the possibility for more.

Captain Goodnight said:
It could be as simple as a passing remark that he makes talking to a colleague at a serious time about being betrayed/orphaned as a kid.

Hell, his whole orphan backstory element that doesn't need to be actually shown is a clear and believable reason for his loner, selfish, out-for-himself, trust-no one, not interested in real love attitude.

No need to waste a good portion of the plot on a love interest betrayal and cheapen the future surprise true love plotline down the road.

Another variation, if you need to see it actually spelled out and be integrated into the plot is to have it just be his long-time mentor betraying him. Maybe the guy who takes him in at some point after discovering him as an orphan. Something like that. They sort of did that with Beckett, though Han's relationship with him wasn't that long, so even that felt rushed.

My point is that the love interest betrayal approach is not needed, is not the best, and IMO, is by far the worst way to illustrate why Han is the way he is at the start of the OT.

It sounds more like you wanted this movie to start with Han already disillusioned and as a full-blown outlaw as opposed to a movie about him becoming one.

phazedplasma · Sep 18, 2018

It explores han becoming this disillusioned outlaw by shaping it around all these moments in Hans life they have decided they have to hit. They saddle themselves with this fan service checklist and never try to do anything different.

The movie fails for this reason. It never feels cohesive or organic. I never believe Han's character development because its so rushed and forced.

Captain Goodnight · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
It sounds more like you wanted this movie to start with Han already disillusioned and as a full-blown outlaw as opposed to a movie about him becoming one.

Partially. He could have become disillusioned fast with some more in-depth Imperial Academy backstory.

The movie didn't need to shoehorn in a love story into his backstory to explain why he doesn't trust anyone. Frankly, it didn't even need to show how he was disillusioned. Anything in his life could be attributed to that, as simple as him being abandoned and a loner as a child. The movie didn't need to tie that aspect of his character development into the story. They limited themselves significantly by doing so.

BossAttack · Sep 18, 2018

Captain Goodnight said:
Partially. He could have become disillusioned fast with some more in-depth Imperial Academy backstory.

The movie didn't need to shoehorn in a love story into his backstory to explain why he doesn't trust anyone. Frankly, it didn't even need to show how he was disillusioned. Anything in his life could be attributed to that, as simple as him being abandoned and a loner as a child. The movie didn't need to tie that aspect of his character development into the story. They limited themselves significantly by doing so.

Without the story being about him becoming disillusioned then the film would have no arc or character development. You'd have a pre-ANH Han Solo already a cynical outlaw, going on some wacky adventure where he learns nothing and stays the same disillusioned cynic we meet at the start of ANH. That would be boring. We need to see the character grow, otherwise what's the point?

Morrigan · Sep 18, 2018

TheGummyBear said:
You love Rogue One because of a roughly one minute long scene?

It made me go from liking the movie to loving it, yes. It's one of the best scenes in the franchise.

Captain Goodnight · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
Without the story being about him becoming disillusioned then the film would have no arc or character development. You'd have a pre-ANH Han Solo already a cynical outlaw, going on some wacky adventure where he learns nothing and stays the same disillusioned cynic we meet at the start of ANH. That would be boring. We need to see the character grow, otherwise what's the point?

Why does Solo need huge character development in the movie? People don't go through their lives with one big character development after another --- sometimes there are long stretches where many interesting things occur when minimal character changes or development occurs.

There were an infinite # of storylines for a Han Solo prequel movie that would have been fascinating to see. Just show some interesting moments during his time in the academy, meeting/saving Chewie, an interesting heist (maybe Kessel Run, if you really want to cram it in), Lando meeting as one scene for him to win the Falcon, not a full-on adventure with him etc. What they gave us in Solo hit many of these moments but did so in a muddled way. Throwing in the overarching love story on top of that just muddled it up even more. You're telling me that without the love story there to explain to you how he became a disillusioned rogue, you wouldn't like a movie that showed you his adventures before the OT in the Imperial Academy, finding Chewie, doing the Kessel Run, winning the Falcon in a game of Sabbacc etc.?

John William's theme for Han is called "The Adventures of Han" --- the man gets it. The movie merely needed to be about some of Han's adventures before the OT. That in and of itself makes for a hell of a fun movie --- just like the Indiana Jones movies. They didn't need to involve a significant, deep, emotionally attached love interest. ***That wasn't Han Solo before he met Leia!!!!*** It makes his character arc throughout the saga much more interesting to have him be a James Bond / Indiana Jones type of shallow, superficial fling guy in his time prior to the OT.

Look at Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as a prequel. Just a brilliant way to subtely show how Indiana Jones progressed from an in-it-for-the-fortune-and-glory grave digger to someone with a higher spiritual understanding, compassion for cultures, belief that relic have greater purpose than money etc. The progression was done so subtlely, was completely believable, and didn't get in the way of the rest of the story --- it just tied together very well, cohesively, and did so as a standalone adventure, without betraying or diminishing the character developments that occurred with him down the road in Raiders.

EarlGreyHot · Sep 18, 2018

Terrible movie, nothing in there I liked, zero tension, filled with pointless fanservice and boring action. Didn't feel like Star Wars at all.

Han Solo never needed an origin story.

RocknRola · Sep 18, 2018

Saw it recently (last Monday). What a bore. Uninteresting in all levels for me. I guess it was nice seeing how Han got the Falcon and

proper acknowledgment that Maul is indeed alive (will they go anywhere with that? Maul the new big bad for Ep.9 and future films?)

but otherwise a solid meh from.

BossAttack · Sep 18, 2018

Captain Goodnight said:
Why does Solo need huge character development in the movie? People don't go through their lives with one big character development after another --- sometimes there are long stretches where many interesting things occur when minimal character changes or development occurs.

There were an infinite # of storylines for a Han Solo prequel movie that would have been fascinating to see. Just show some interesting moments during his time in the academy, meeting/saving Chewie, an interesting heist (maybe Kessel Run, if you really want to cram it in), Lando meeting as one scene for him to win the Falcon, not a full-on adventure with him etc. What they gave us in Solo hit many of these moments but did so in a muddled way. Throwing in the overarching love story on top of that just muddled it up even more. You're telling me that without the love story there to explain to you how he became a disillusioned rogue, you wouldn't like a movie that showed you his adventures before the OT in the Imperial Academy, finding Chewie, doing the Kessel Run, winning the Falcon in a game of Sabbacc etc.?

John William's theme for Han is called "The Adventures of Han" --- the man gets it. The movie merely needed to be about some of Han's adventures before the OT. That in and of itself makes for a hell of a fun movie --- just like the Indiana Jones movies. They didn't need to involve a significant, deep, emotionally attached love interest. ***That wasn't Han Solo before he met Leia!!!!*** It makes his character arc throughout the saga much more interesting to have him be a James Bond / Indiana Jones type of shallow, superficial fling guy in his time prior to the OT.

Look at Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as a prequel. Just a brilliant way to subtely show how Indiana Jones progressed from an in-it-for-the-fortune-and-glory grave digger to someone with a higher spiritual understanding, compassion for cultures, belief that relic have greater purpose than money etc. The progression was done so subtlely, was completely believable, and didn't get in the way of the rest of the story --- it just tied together very well, cohesively, and did so as a standalone adventure, without betraying or diminishing the character developments that occurred with him down the road in Raiders.

A) Real life is different from the movies/

B) STAR WARS is about the characters.

Star Wars is not Indiana Jones, shit neither was the MCU until Infinity War. And, by that I mean that Indiana Jones is a paper-thin character that has basically nothing going on outside of his jacket, hat, and whip. They're purely just adventure serials. On the other hand, Star Wars has always been about the characters. It's about exploring these characters, who they are, what makes them tick, and how they grow. Even shit-tier Rogue One understood this. And, the prequels attempted to portray such character examination. So, to have a meaningless Star Wars romp without any character exploration or themes would be weird. Again, even if you hate TLJ you can't argue it doesn't attempt to explore its characters and espouse certain themes. Thus, to just have a Solo movie where a static Han Solo engages in wacky, space adventures would be a departure for the series. It has to mean something, he has to grow in some way.

Captain Goodnight · Sep 18, 2018

BossAttack said:
A) Real life is different from the movies/

B) STAR WARS is about the characters.

Star Wars is not Indiana Jones, shit neither was the MCU until Infinity War. And, by that I mean that Indiana Jones is a paper-thin character that has basically nothing going on outside of his jacket, hat, and whip. They're purely just adventure serials. On the other hand, Star Wars has always been about the characters. It's about exploring these characters, who they are, what makes them tick, and how they grow. Even shit-tier Rogue One understood this. And, the prequels attempted to portray such character examination. So, to have a meaningless Star Wars romp without any character exploration or themes would be weird. Again, even if you hate TLJ you can't argue it doesn't attempt to explore its characters and espouse certain themes. Thus, to just have a Solo movie where a static Han Solo engages in wacky, space adventures would be a departure for the series. It has to mean something, he has to grow in some way.

Great, see Temple of Doom on how to do a prequel with subtle but meaningful character growth.

And it was Harrison Ford himself that couldn't stand Han Solo because he was so paper-thin of a character, at least in Episode IV. The man was paper-thin emotionally until Leia dragged it out of him.

sphagnum · Sep 18, 2018

RocknRola said:
Saw it recently (last Monday). What a bore. Uninteresting in all levels for me. I guess it was nice seeing how Han got the Falcon and

proper acknowledgment that Maul is indeed alive (will they go anywhere with that? Maul the new big bad for Ep.9 and future films?)

but otherwise a solid meh from.

Darth Maul's story was continued and completed in The Clone Wars and Rebels, which are canon. Solo takes place inbetween them.

RocknRola · Sep 18, 2018

sphagnum said:
Darth Maul's story was continued and completed in The Clone Wars and Rebels, which are canon. Solo takes place inbetween them.

Huh. Had no idea tbh.

Deleted member 17402 · Sep 18, 2018

How is "this movie wasn't needed" considered valid criticism for some of you? There's no merit had there. It has nothing to do with the quality of the movie which is actually fun and engaging. Whether you wanted to learn more about Solo is a personal issue, and if you didn't, that fact shouldn't have bearing on the actual quality of this movie, nor is it in any way a slight against it.

BossAttack · Sep 18, 2018

Captain Goodnight said:
Great, see Temple of Doom on how to do a prequel with subtle but meaningful character growth.

And it was Harrison Ford himself that couldn't stand Han Solo because he was so paper-thin of a character, at least in Episode IV. The man was paper-thin emotionally until Leia dragged it out of him.

First, while I like Temple of Doom, most people will trash you for holing it up as a good example of anything.

Second, I never believed Ford's whining about Han Solo because A) Han only became really paper-thin in ROTJ and B) he followed up with Indiana Jones. I really just think that Harrison Ford made it big after ANH and didn't feel like playing a side character when he felt he should be leading movies, hence why I he loves Indiana Jones, a completely paper-thin character. He would've totally been down for a solo Solo movie back in the day.

chubigans · Sep 18, 2018

Captain Shivers said:
The very next post:

Resetera.gif.

Edit: Just saw it.
It was fine.
It was just a movie.

How is your opinion any less or more valid than mine or SolicitorPirate? I always thought that "resetera.gif" thing was dumb, as if this is the only place with differentiating opinions.

Bruceleeroy · Sep 19, 2018

TI92 said:
That was really good? Like I was shocked at how much I enjoyed it? Do we know how much was Ron Howard and how much was Lord & Miller?

Fuck, I want a solo 2!

Anyways what did you guys think?

OP I just felt the exact same way.
I'm shocked how good the new guy is as Han he is just perfect.
Second favorite Star Wars movie of the new ones following Rogue One.

TI92 · Sep 19, 2018

Still think it was pretty dang good. Surprisingly good

GiantEnemyCrab · Sep 19, 2018

I haven't seen the movie but I like reading the reactions here.

People wrote that the Imperial March is played in-Universe in this movie? Is that true?

Deleted member 27246 · Sep 19, 2018

GiantEnemyCrab said:
People wrote that the Imperial March is played in-Universe in this movie? Is that true?

Yeah in some recruitment ad/video

Deleted member 5666 · Sep 19, 2018

GiantEnemyCrab said:
I haven't seen the movie but I like reading the reactions here.

People wrote that the Imperial March is played in-Universe in this movie? Is that true?

Yeah, it's existed in universe for nearly 40 years though and appeared in other media such as the radio dramas and Star Wars Rebels.

Deleted member 2809 · Sep 19, 2018

TheFallenSaboteur said:
How is "this movie wasn't needed" considered valid criticism for some of you? There's no merit had there. It has nothing to do with the quality of the movie which is actually fun and engaging. Whether you wanted to learn more about Solo is a personal issue, and if you didn't, that fact shouldn't have bearing on the actual quality of this movie, nor is it in any way a slight against it.

No movie is ever needed, I just ignore this whack ass rhetoric

Spacejaws · Sep 19, 2018

Thread has gone on for awhile someone has posted 'Kylo Ren Review's Solo' right?

Pretty much my complete opinion. Its a so-so to enjoyable romp which has some very blatant flaws. I rate it above ATotC and RotS and below everything else. Hopefully if they decide to do more side stories they will cherry pick them a little better. Out of all the possibilities this was probably one of the worst options that sounded really good in a boardroom full of out of touch Disney exec's.

Surfinn · Sep 19, 2018

GiantEnemyCrab said:
I haven't seen the movie but I like reading the reactions here.

People wrote that the Imperial March is played in-Universe in this movie? Is that true?

Yeah I wasn't a fan of this. Very bizarre decision, stuck out to be right away. Should have been wholly original and.. maybe sounded a little similar but I just don't get the point of using JW music in universe, very immersion breaking for me.

sphagnum · Sep 19, 2018

The Imperial March has been canon in-universe since Rebels.

Deleted member 21339 · Sep 19, 2018

Surfinn said:
Yeah I wasn't a fan of this. Very bizarre decision, stuck out to be right away. Should have been wholly original and.. maybe sounded a little similar but I just don't get the point of using JW music in universe, very immersion breaking for me.

Agreed. Didn't care for it either. Too meta

TheGummyBear · Sep 19, 2018

sphagnum said:
Darth Maul's story was continued and completed in The Clone Wars and Rebels, which are canon. Solo takes place inbetween them.

Yeah, if Solo had been a massive success on the same level of Disney's other Star Wars movies then there's no way the animated canon was going to survive in its current form. Not Rebels at any rate, because Disney would not sign off on teasing a recognisable villain in a major motion picture and expect wider audiences to go wade through the cartoons to get a conclusion.

While animated canon is probably safe for now, I think Solo's willingness to just bring back Maul with no context for audiences who didn't watch the cartoons should be taken as a sign that Disney is willing to jettison anything that isn't one of the major movies into a supernova, if they even care about canon as a concept. Star Wars could easily go the way of Marvel, with the comics, cartoons and videogames becoming a multi-verse thing. Which makes far more sense to me anyway, given that canon is only a buzzword used to sell product as vital story components in piecemeal fashion.

Surfinn · Sep 19, 2018

sphagnum said:
The Imperial March has been canon in-universe since Rebels.

Yeah, that doesn't make it any better.

Deleted member 5666 · Sep 19, 2018

The Imperial March was "canon" in the old EU going back to 1980 thanks to the Radio Dramas, heh.

Deleted member 9135 · Sep 19, 2018

I had fun with this movie and i especially loved Enfys Nest character. Sorta reminded me of Leia in Bounty outfit. Don't know much about her but she had an allure.

Anyway, for me, I look at this film in two ways: if i look through the lens of the character, Han, and were to judge the film using that lens, I would hate this. For one , I could not reconcile how a risk-tolerant character like Han would be in a safe movie such as this.

If i look at this movie through the lens of a western in space serial, i love it.

So, because i opt not to suffer over a movie , I choose the latter.

Rand a. Thor · Sep 21, 2018

Its the best Star Wars movie since Empire. As in, Star Wars proper has evolved into something else, and that is completely fine. However, like the Force, we need balance. This new breed of Stars Wars is here to stay, however the old blood also needs to survive alongside it. If we lose it, then the balance would be lost, and I don't want that at all. Solo managed to be star wars in the best way possible, and I am thankful it exists. The set pieces, the humor, the story and that allusion of something grander, larger than life on the horizon is what made star wars become a phenomenon. Its what makes new Star Wars work, putting the grandiose into the forefront, but having that in the background also works too. Like I don't need a Solo 2 with him somehow on Dathomir following Qi'ra. I do want a Maul movie that follows up though, if this makes sense. And I do want another one shot old school star wars that helps set up the bigger stuff. We need more movies like this, and the internet is stupid for lambasting it.

Deleted member 9035 · Sep 23, 2018

Finally saw it. I think I enjoyed it more than any other Disney SW film.

It had a lot of what I felt was missing from those films, namely interesting characters - human, alien and droid.
Also loved the visual design - costumes, ships/vehicles, locations etc. much more than the other films.
Acting was good in my opinion.

There were still throwbacks and puns I could have gone without but overall a good film and a very good star wars film.

Finally saw Solo, um...

I’m seeing double here!

Self-requested ban

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Spear of the Metal Church

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

User requested account closure

Vertigo Gaming Inc.

Alt account

User requested account closure

user requested account closure

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer

user requested account closure