Solo: A Star Wars Story

[shockNwave]

Like when I went to see Rogue One, I've been blown away by Solo and am contemplating a second viewing.
I'm not going to try comparing Rogue One and Solo because they're such different creatures. So here are some points I'd like to make about this movie:

1. This is the third movie to not include reference to the Jedi and the Force. If my memory serves me correctly, the other two are Caravan of Courage (1984) and The Battle for Endor (1985) which are also spin-offs.

2. Qi'ra is a well rounded character (and credit to Emilia Clarke's acting) who is no damsel in distress but a tough chick with a tender side and reminds me of Leia but with treachery thrown in. Which explains why Han and Leia have such a bumpy courtship. Han doesn't want to be burnt again.

3. Oh dear. That L3-37 is the droid equivalent of Jar Jar Binks. Trying so hard to be funny and ends up coming across as annoying and weird. I was happy to see that machine get blown to pieces.

4. After seeing his turn as a villain in Firewall I knew Paul Bettany would deliver the goods once again as Dryden Vos.

5. Considering that Enfys Nest is the founder of what becomes the rebel alliance it would be interesting to see a movie that shows how Enfys turned her rag tag group into the threat to the empire we've all come to know. It would be more entertaining than a movie about Bobba Fett.

6. The scene inside the maelstrom involving the tentacled creature and the maw is a wonderful example of two action set pieces rolled into one and the highlight of the movie.

I'm not angry, it just saddens me to see how the property has been handled under Disney. I seriously don't get how Disney can get Marvel movies so right, while getting Star Wars movies so screwed up.

The work of Mr. Lucas is said to draw inspiration from Tolkien (even though Lucas denies it) and if you've seen the appendices and companion books of/connected to Tolkien you'll see there is a vast amount of rich detail covering languages, races, geography, genealogy, religions and history. Marvel comics are not as detailed in comparison and therefore easier to make into movies. I assume Disney just doesn't have the time for meticulous scholarly detail.

[bowspearer]

The work of Mr. Lucas is said to draw inspiration from Tolkien (even though Lucas denies it) and if you've seen the appendices and companion books of/connected to Tolkien you'll see there is a vast amount of rich detail covering languages, races, geography, genealogy, religions and history. Marvel comics are not as detailed in comparison and therefore easier to make into movies. I assume Disney just doesn't have the time for meticulous scholarly detail.

Which at the end of the day is a real problem - in fact it's financial suicide. Here's the thing. When a company forks out billions on a property, it's because they look at how profitable it is. Logically, when you're forking out that much on an investment, then you want to maximise your profits by using that property in the ways which made it work to begin with.

This strategy of trading on the name and cynically pandering to certain groups, might work in the short term, but it will always have a shelf life. And yes, that's exactly what they're doing is. George Lucas wasn't thinking "end racism" when he made Lando and making him a "black character" - he was simply a good character who happened to be of colour.

George Lucas certainly wasn't thinking "girl power" when he created Princess Leia - she's just a well written female leader. She isn't a Mar-Rey Sue either. Yet look at how memorable, profound, identifiable and powerful a character she is.

When you're shamelessly pandering to a group you go out of your way to make <token character with a label>. When you actually care about those groups and actually want to empower them, you just make them great characters, where <insert group label here> simply exists in the background, but doesn't define them.

And again, it seems that this movie is a casualty of that from what I just read on a Screen Rant article - as in of the time of typing this response. The original story of how Han met Chewie and the life debt should have been kept as is. It was the story of a brilliant Imperial officer who graduated top of his class and could possibly even have been a Grand Moff in his later years. Instead, he committed mutiny on his superiors to save Chewie from cruelty - the EU novelisation which adapted that bit of originally GWL canon - even had him intervening to save Chewie's life.

Everything about hating races deemed inferior, racial cruelty, Social Darwinism, racial enslavement, standing up to institutionalised power against bigotry, no matter the cost: it was all there.

Instead the story was trashed for some cheap escape plot and the need to "make the white jock face his own internal biases and check his human privilege".

It was needless, and it destroyed everything beautiful about the relationship between Han and Chewie and just how special that life debt was and what Han gave up to stand up for a "lesser slave race", when his every vested interest was to look the other way.

Not only did it make the same social commentary as it was, but it was a thing of beauty. It didn't need improving and it didn't need to be made flashier or more exciting. It should have simply been lifted from the original character backstory George wrote and put straight on the screen.

And this is the thing. The problem isn't diversity, it's how Disney is handling it. A person of colour, an LGBTIQ+ individual, those of us with disabilities, men and women - we're all more than just labels. Labels don't tell the entirety of a person's backstory, their character, their interests, their abilities or their future. In fact the very notion that it does, which is what diversity pandering does - despite its claims to the contrary - is a patronising form of homophobia, racism, ableism, sexism, misogyny, and so the list goes on.

If Disney actually cared about doing this franchise justice, they'd simply concentrate on a rich lore, good storytelling and compelling characters - where those labels were simply there in the background but didn't define the characters. That's how you empower minorities - not by slapping a big minority label on the character in some cheap patronising show of pandering, but by presenting amazing characters who are capable of amazing things - and who just happen to fit the label. The former boxes people into labels. The later sends those same minorities the powerful message that contrary to the bigotry they face, their labels don't define them and they can achieve anything they put their mind to. Just look at Static Shock as a great example of that in terms of characters.

And before someone tries to claim otherwise, as a disabled Australian who has faced abuse and discrimination because of it for most of their life, I absolutely have every right to say that and I do know what I'm talking about.

Lucas understood it, hence the idea of the every[hu]man. It's what made it so powerful and resonate so strongly with all of us. Until Disney gets that, they're never going to recapture the magic that was previously there and the hollow shell that remains is going to have a use-by date the moment the lustre fades.

It's a tragic shame really.

[shockNwave]

Today I came across the news that Solo has flopped at the box office and most heavily outside of America. I knew Solo was going to be fighting an uphill battle due to it's release date being not long after Deadpool 2 (most successful R-rated movie opening weekend) and of course the super epic Infinity War.

So what do Thor:Ragnarok, Black Panther, Infinity War and Deadpool 2 have in common? Innovation and outside the square thinking.
What do The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi and Solo have in common? A struggle to be innovative and outside the square.

As much as I like these three Star Wars movies, I cannot put them as equals to those aforementioned Marvel movies. So bowspearer, at least there's some positivity to be drawn from this.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Yeah I read that it opened worse than Justice League which is not a good sign. Costs blow outs from the reshoots put a higher figure on breaking even (est. $500 million).

People cite franchise fatigue which is doubtful given how well MCU performs. Certainly backlash from TLJ had an effect. There was naff all promotional efforts - trailers and merchandise came in late as well. TLJ had 8 months of ongoing promos.

[bowspearer]

As much as I like these three Star Wars movies, I cannot put them as equals to those aforementioned Marvel movies. So bowspearer, at least there's some positivity to be drawn from this.

I'm not so sure there is. Given how much everyone is citing "Star Wars Fatigue", I honestly think Disney will use it as a convenient out, rather than recognising that the real problem is that the glorified accountant they put at the helm of Lucasfilm is no doubt great at handling the financials, but when it comes to creative vision, she's clearly out of her depth (they really need someone like Dave Filoni in the role who does come from a creative background and rose to prominence because of it).

[griffin]

The session I was at on Sunday (just three days after its opening), there were only about 15 people in the theatre.
I was really surprised at the low turnout just days into its opening and on a weekend, because it was a lot less than I was expecting, despite not expecting too much from the movie (due to the odd choice of actor and it feeling more like a TV episode than an epic cinema movie).

[MEEEGGGAAATTTRRROOONNN!!!]

If this article isn't fake news, then it's pretty bad:

https://mumbrella.com.au/solo-a-mark...r-story-519700

After Scott Rhodie received a $77 ticket to watch Solo: A Star Wars Story three hours before anyone else in Australia, he was more than a little disappointed after he realised 400 of the 500-strong crowd were paid actors.

[Ralph Wiggum]

If this article isn't fake news, then it's pretty bad:

https://mumbrella.com.au/solo-a-mark...r-story-519700

Lol, who the hell would pay $77 for the "privilege" to watch a movie three hours earlier than the rest of Australia, along with some cheap merchandise. If true, no wonder it undersold.

[shockNwave]

I'm not so sure there is. Given how much everyone is citing "Star Wars Fatigue", I honestly think Disney will use it as a convenient out, rather than recognising that the real problem is that the glorified accountant they put at the helm of Lucasfilm is no doubt great at handling the financials, but when it comes to creative vision, she's clearly out of her depth (they really need someone like Dave Filoni in the role who does come from a creative background and rose to prominence because of it).

I take it this 'glorified accountant' you're referring to is Kathleen Kennedy. It remains to be seen if she succeeds in doing to Star Wars what the greedy executives at Atari did to Atari and the golden age of consoles. Which was to send them into a tail spin from which they never recovered.

BTW Did Mr. Lucas sell the Star Wars franchise because he nor anyone else would ever be able to restore it to it's former glory?

[bowspearer]

I take it this 'glorified accountant' you're referring to is Kathleen Kennedy. It remains to be seen if she succeeds in doing to Star Wars what the greedy executives at Atari did to Atari and the golden age of consoles. Which was to send them into a tail spin from which they never recovered.

Yes I am referring to Kathleen Kennedy. Her role has always been as an Executive Producer prior to this, so her role was to handle the finances. Considering I've heard others refer to her as "George Lucas' coffee lady", I think "Glorified Accountant" is on the incredibly tame end of things she could be called.

BTW Did Mr. Lucas sell the Star Wars franchise because he nor anyone else would ever be able to restore it to it's former glory?

I've heard people say he was sick and tired of the fan hate. Personally I think the prequel trilogy's problems fall into two categories if what I've heard is true. I forget where, but I recall hearing that the plan with Jar Jar was for him to be a dark foreshadowing of Yoda (which if you actually stop to imagine it playing out with an open mind, is actually pretty awesome and leads you to hating the character for the right reasons - because of how cruel, sadistic and nasty he actually winds up being), but in a moment of shortsighted stupidity, Dennis Muren talked him out of it.

The other thing is that while I think TPM would have worked better than it does if he'd stayed the course with the alleged Sith Jar Jar plot, he clearly forgot what worked with the OT. While George directed ANH, he gave the reigns over to others when the movies took on a different tone. I recently read that Irvin Kerschner would have jumped at the chance to direct one of the prequels and the one I think he should have directed, should have been AOTC and possibly even ROTS as well. I think that his directorial sensibilities would have probably done a better job of giving us the intensity Lucas wanted out of Christensen, but in a much more palatable way, which resonated with audiences more.

I actually don't think it's impossible for Star Wars to find new glory days. However if the PT and the current Disney era are lessons of what not to do, I think that there are a couple of key points which should be looked at.

Firstly, whoever does this needs to understand mythology and have such a profound understanding of it and the heroes journey that they can apply it to this vast sprawling universe. Anyone who challenges that and clearly can't see the forest for the trees, needs to be told to move to one side; they'll be proven wrong once it all hits the big screen anyway.

Secondly, make sure the director is the right fit. ESB was what it was because Lucas recognised that his style wouldn't work for it, but Kerschner's would. That's the key here, someone whose style fits and who can put their ego aside long enough to recognise their movie's place in the larger scheme of things (yes Rian Johnson, I'm looking at you).

If those things happened, I think there's no reason we couldn't see Star Wars heading back to it's former greatness.