So, this sounds like a terrible idea, right? Right, I mean obviously. But what if I told you they've signed Chris Miller and Phil Lord, a.k.a. the Lego Movie guys, to direct?
Printable View
So, this sounds like a terrible idea, right? Right, I mean obviously. But what if I told you they've signed Chris Miller and Phil Lord, a.k.a. the Lego Movie guys, to direct?
I'd tell you to eat it.
Why does everyone think that just because these guys directed a pretty decent mass-marketing campaign disguised as a movie that they're going to make an awesome Han Solo flick? I'm not saying they can't, but...
And, no. Just like Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford is way too identified as Han for me to accept anyone else playing him. It worked with James Bond because the whole different actor/same role thing had already been done there several times while I was growing up, but...I've got a bad feeling about this.
Dumb.
Guaranteed Chris Pratt.
Because not only did they do that, they also did the 21 Jump Street Films, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and MOTHER FUCKING CLONE HIGHQuote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
I felt this way at first, but it's not all that different than Joaquin Phoenix playing the younger Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade. Obviously we don't know how this will turn out, but I don't think the lack of Harrison Ford will be an issue. I also hope this is the same movie as the rumored Boba Fett one, as obviously their paths crossed prior to ESB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Nah, man. That was just a flashback, not a trilogy. And I think it was the other Phoenix. Joaquin's scar doesn't look like it came from a whip.
River Phoenix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I hope it goes into detail about his marriage from the comic books
Oops, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
No. No no no no no no. Bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pirate Roberts
how about no more star wars?
Or just don't touch anything that connects to the current tv or movies? How about something new?
The Young Indy chronicles would be a better analogy than River Phoenix. When he was a teenager in WW1. The teen did a pretty good job. We won't talk about 4 year old Indy though.
Troy from Community is Lando. That's... weird.
I'm usually pretty okay with brands mining themselves but this seems rife for disaster. Han Solo should be exclusive to the main movies and that's it. Create a new character for Chris Pratt or Chris Pine or whoever they get to play Han. There's an opening in the rogue smuggler anti-hero role now—perfect time for a debut.
Look how well flushing out Boba Fett's past worked out.
Both the Fett's are unremarkable and die relatively ant-climactically. The trilogies just had too much going on for their own good I think.
That being said DJango Fett's encounter with Kenobi was pretty neat. Would be cool to explore that even some technology taxes the OP magical space wizards.
Boba Fett ain't dead! His survival of the Sarlaac Pit is canon now.
I would have liked to see another side story, like Rogue One. I don't need to see young Solo. I'd rather have another character fill in some gaps. Chris Pine as Dash Rendar or something like that (but Dash is no longer canon, sadly).
Yeah, but so does everything Miller and Lord do, and it always turns out amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Alden Ehrenreich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
The singing cowboy from that last Coen bros. movie.Quote:
Who?
Until I see Fett alive in the Star Wars cinematic universe after the events of him falling in to the pit he's as good as dead. The "he survived!" rabble rousing is nothing more than fanboys not knowing how/when to let go of something. It's clear the studio didn't realize how popular the character would be. There will be other cool character in future, no need to dwell on it. All it does is shackle creative people to old ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Yeah that would be cool. While the Empire vs. the Rebellion are the big event of this universe the setting is established enough that you can showcase other aspects. I'm looking forward to Rogue One. The one thing Star Wars does really well is visuals—the costumes, photography of space ships and overall designs of things are really well thought out. You get a lot of iconic moments from that. That's why I'd like to see other aspects—so see what things they can think up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I feel they really blew it with the Gungans in Phantom Menace. An underwater swamp species technology could have been so much cooler than a hampster-style set of tubes and air pockets.
Is that a rodent you put dirty clothes in?
I lost a lot of interest when they cut Miller and Lord loose, and the scuttlebutt from people who've supposedly seen work-in-progress cuts is that Alden Ehrenreich turned out to be no Harrison Ford to say the least. :\
That's impossible to recast. I hope we get an alright Space Movie out of this.
meh, who even cares anymore.
I like Donald Glover, so I'm ok with this just being a Lando movie.
I might watch this when it is available for streaming.
When people are flinging shit at Marvel movies it’s fun to point over to just how lifeless the two latest Star Wars, and how bad the DC movies were and remember Hollywood was never really that good. 80s Spielberg was the best thing we had in blockbuster movies.
This looks terrible.
Hollywood has its moments.
Original trilogy star wars was great
galaxy brain: it wasn't, you just have fond memories of youth.
Actually no it was great, and I will cut you if you continue down this path.
It was hokey as fuck from start to finish.
edit: I'm talking about the original Star Wars trilogy.
I'm more of an Alien dude, but that's been a rough time since 1997. Then again, so has Star Wars (what's up Special Edition garbage pile).
....sigh....pulls knife....
New Hope and Empire are objectively good. To say they aren't is to ignore just about everything like them that was out around the time. They brought a lot of positive elements together that everyone else wasn't doing a very good job with. Either the story was bad. Or the effects were bad. Or the budget low. Or something. NH and EMSB did just about everything they set out to do well. Jedi is a little iffy, as much as I love it. Its still ok, but by Jedi, George figured out he could sell toys and the movies suffered for that. Still fun though.
I won't say they are genius however, as they are good in spite of George, and not because of him. It was filmed well because either he didn't have the money for the fancy shit he wanted, or he was forced to actually position the camera correctly to hide puppet strings. With an infinite budget, he doesn't adhere to good filming or storytelling practices and just masturbates onto the screen.
EDIT: For anyone that doesn't think they are good, both as art or just enjoyable to watch, I challenge you to find something better or at least fits your own definition of "good" from 77 and 80. Bonus points if it is sci-fi.
Alien is still the only thing that comes to mind.
Flash Gordon
The Shining as a real answer.
And for 77 Pumping Iron.
Logan's Run. Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Superman. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. FUCKING ALIEN. Buck Rogers. Mad Max.
This is just off the top of my head, should I keep going?
Nah, you clearly don't have much of an argument.
River Phoenix was a much better Harrison Ford than the guy in this movie.
Alien is probably the only thing in that list that is safely better than a New hope or empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
And are you really trying to argue that the original trilogy wasn't good? Or just being contrary?
I still think 2001 holds up better visually than Star Wars after all these years.
2001 is too perfect looking. And it drags.
I’m saying it’s not good, yeah. Maybe it was good for its time, or whatever, but it isn’t that time and Star War isn’t shit without that nostalgia.
Some of those movies in your list are legit, but Buck Rogers really isn't helping your argument.
This conversation is dumb.
More importantly I just watched the trailer and can't bring myself to care at all.
This is fair. I’m just saying no studio has had the batting average of Marvel of 10 years of good movies (bland is the worst offense I can really muster for the not so good ones).Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
The 80s has a bunch of creative summer style flicks too. But I think I’m terms of modern blockbusters (90s on) there isn’t really a huge streak.
I don't have a huge problem with the blockbusters, any time one is super successful they seem to fund a bunch of the smaller movies I generally prefer. The big movies are just huge money nets, for the most part. Every lame ass 'creative executive' decision seems to be rooted in making some percentage of money.
I mean, Coca-Cola paid for and marketed Ghostbusters. Happy coincidence it ended up being a good movie. Sometimes things line up.
I understand. My comment was more a response to those I’ve heard stating how rote the Marvels movies are. I think there’s something remarkable about a 10 year plan actually coming together with the quality that these movies did.
Almost Harry Potter-ian.
lotr even
Nah.
I haven’t seen the Potters except for the first two. LOTR was good but only 3 movies? It also fell off the rails during The Hobbit.
LoTR is only 3 movies, the Hobbits are trash and should have been no more than 2 movies. The padding in those 3 movies is astounding.
Bond, James Bond.
I still have trouble believing Disney paid $4B for Star Wars, then produced a trilogy with no plan and different people behind each installment.
The new shit doesn't matter. They'll make their money back selling some loser his fiftieth version of a Luke doll.
Also, Last Jedi did $1.3 billion at the box office alone. I imagine their take from that plus home sales is going to clear $500 million at least. Same with Force Awakens. Add in all the licensing from those movies and they've probably made 1/3-1/2 of their investment back just on those two movies alone. Shit, I forgot about Rogue One. That probably added a hundred mil or so to the pot.
They're like the Acclaim of movies. The content doesn't matter, just the name on the box. Regardless of how fans react, they still show up and throw their money down.
edit: Toy sales were down last year, but they still did $700 million in sales. $4 billion kinda seems like a deal.
Yes, that's absolutely right. George Lucas did his best to kill the brand with the Special Editions and the Prequels, and it's still evergreen. It just seems like they'd have a plan with those costs.
When there aren't even enough snappy Solo lines to fill a two minute trailer...
All the writing is like, "Are you ready now to go into outer space, Chewbacca?"
Don't forget the Disney attraction too, storm troopers marching through the kingdom yo.
SOLO: So there it is: The Millennium Falcon™.
CHEWBACCA: GWOOOG!
SOLO: I agree, Chewbacca. It is a good spaceship.
Lol, Han us getting the mickey, Donald, chipdale treatment.
Chewby, plz.
So 3 good movies before it fell off the rails.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
I don't think the Bond franchise made it more than 3 films without needing a recast or the quality dropping significantly. The current Bond w Daniel Craig was hot and cold (1 and 3 were good, 2 was meh, and 4 was just straight up awful).Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
I'd give the original trilogy their due because of the time they were released—but there's no denying the 90s trilogy tanked a lot of the investment people had in the series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunlap
I think Harry Potter is the closest thing (8 decent to great movies in a row) to Marvel's 18 film batting streak. The worst was almost certainly Age of Ultron, but its biggest criticism was that it simply didn't carry the larger story forward. Even movies I thought I disliked, like the original Thor, held up well. The original Thor somehow got better with age. With Avenger Infinity War looming I think I'm just realizing the magnitude of these movies, and contrasting that with how seemingly typical it is for Hollywood to be unable to string together even a good trilogy, let alone marathon universe franchise like this.
I guess I wish Star Wars had this kind of depth of catalogue to it. I thought The Force Awakens and Rogue One were good (though I didn't like Rogue One, I felt it was pretty objectively a well made movie). I'm disappointed we can't have deeper universes in film, I guess. Even DC can't get their shit sorted out. I'm interested to see where the Star Wars movie directly after the conclusion of this trilogy takes the franchise.
Yeah. If you look solely at EBITDA (which is often how these deals are initially evaluated) it's a great deal. Like... Disney could have made their 4 billion investment back in 3 years with this deal. I'm surprised it went for $4b and not $5-8b. I think the quality and frequency of releases is going to start diminishing the "special attraction" luster of brand a bitQuote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Connery’s fourth Bond was Thunderball. Adjusted for inflation it’s the second highest grossing Bond film.
I like how it's going unquestioned that all the marvel movies are good or of the same quality just because Josh and drew have said so.
Iron man 2 and 3 aren't that great. The hulk movies, aren't that great. Thor 1 isn't that great. Captain America is objectively bad. The second half of Logan is bad. Half of the xmen movies are bad.
What even is this bonged out shIt I'm reading?
But worst of all, even at its best, this stuff is all mostly garbage or action porn. They're as forgettable as that set of tuts in the third row of a boo Google search.
They're just eye candy, and no one should be proud of them being the main course for movie going for almost a decade.
What do Logan or X-Men have to do with Disney's MCU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
If we aren't counting them, what are you padding out that "18 streak" with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
2 Hulk
3 Iron man
3 captain america
3 thor
2 guardians
1 black panther
2 avengers
1 antman
...plus infinity war = 18 I believe.
I'll chime in. Most of the ones I've seen were mediocre. The exceptions have been original Avengers and original Guardians. But I've not seen all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
That said, Avengers 2 was bad enough to break any supposed string.
You can't really convince someone they have bad taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
But to let you not feel alone, I haven't really watched any of them outside the first wave, and I shut off Avengers a half-hour in. I've got ear-cleaning videos to spend my time on.
Thats not a streak though. 25 to 50% of them aren't very good even when judged by the low standards we judge action movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
I don't think anyone here has been more skeptical of these movies than I. I've been saying for years they are great firework shows and mediocre films.
Iron Man remains the best of them because it took a property that NO ONE cared about and made it cool (owing entirely to RDj). But even that had its problems.
edit: it is a streak to Drew.
I have, I just don't think I've been vocal about it here. Mainly it's my friends asking me to go see some superhero movie with them and then hating it. Iron Man 2 was pretty damned bad to the point where I wanted to leave - but I didn't drive to the theater. But they all suffer from the "incredible danger with no consequences" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
That's true.Quote:
Iron Man remains the best of them because it took a property that NO ONE cared about and made it cool (owing entirely to RDj).
Anyway, I can't get excited about this young Han Solo thing but I'll probably see it... perhaps not in the theaters. My wife, on the other hand, openly hates it.
Me: "Don't you want to see Han win the Falcon from Lando?"
Her: "NO. I know it happened and that's good enough for me!" (strangling me at the same time)
Doesn't she want to see how the Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs, though?
y'all have the weirdest foreplayQuote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunlap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Fe's criticism seems solely focused on hating action blockbuster movies as a general rule. Okay, sure, if you fundamentally hate action movies then you are incapable of realizing any value in these movies. IMO that isn't a fair criticism. It makes you a poor judge of them, because you're judging them on a set of criteria they've pretty clearly told you they aren't pursuing. Are you asking for a slow burn, arthouse series with slow burn payoffs? Because for a series of continuing superhero movies that sounds pretty awful. Sin City, maybe? Fans who read comics and these characters enjoy them because of those traits, not in spite of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
I'd also challenge the notion these movies are dumb or poorly made. They contain some of the most highly creative set pieces in any blockbusters that have come out save for maybe Mad Max: Fury Road. GoTG, Ant-Man, Dr. Strange all contain unusual creative directions unique and appropriate to their characters. The characters also evolve—Thor changes significantly from Thor 1 to Thor: Ragnarok. They have just enough depth to them. Age of Ultron is the only movie in the franchise that didn't deliver any real advances (except the introduction of new characters).
The MCU movies haven't yet made a huge misstep that imploded the franchise. That's what I find most remarkable—they actually executed a plan over 18 movies with the same characters that culminated in a final end point. I actually think that's how these comic continuum universes are best presented. I look no further than X-Men and DC and see how quickly the wheels come off their ambitions to appreciate what I've had the last 10 years.
I brought it up in this thread about Han Solo because the preview for this movie looks bad. Star Wars has only been back for 4 years and the bloom is starting to come off the rose. TFA was fun. Rogue One had terrible character development, and ruined most of its action sequences with unsatisfying deus ex-style saves, The Last Jedi was a terrible mess of high minded philosophy that didn't want to get its hands dirty in pragmatism (and when it did, we got the warp-jump battering ram), and Han Solo looks like a low substance cash-in. I want to know what to expect out of these movies. Maybe having them so close together has exposed their shortcomings too blatantly.
I feel that there is definitely a glut of Star Wars on the market right now. It's a big galaxy and it could tell a whole lot of stories and frankly I'm capable of consuming quite a lot of it but it's no longer the "event" that it used to be, and is in danger of turning into something most people flat out don't care about. They can say some of the movies are "side story" and some of them are "main event" but they all say Star Wars in the title and releasing them so close together does nothing but diminish the franchise.
There is a digital streaming network that Disney is working on that will have a live action TV series, and there will at some point be another animated show since Rebels just ended its run, Rian Johnson has been given the go ahead to create another trilogy of movies that takes place in a different time period from the current one, and then the Game of Thrones dudes have been hired to do something which might be that live action TV series but it could also be something else. Frankly right now this policy of releasing so much of it reminds me other nothing more than what Activision did to Guitar Hero. Release a shit load of product in a short period of time and then wonder why people weren't buying plastic guitars anymore. And then blaming anyone but themselves.
I stopped reading here. This is nonsense. No one on TNL hates action movies or blockbusters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Man I miss UCB.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
UCB is so good.
Went and saw it.
It's ok. Not a trash fire by any means, so I guess Ron Howard did his job and delivered something competent. Never really bought into youngin as Han but he didn't do anything to make me cringe. Basically the movie didn't need to happen. It's a collection of "oh and this is how that becomes a thing". I feel like there was hopes of turning it into a series of movies based on Young Han, and since youngin is signed for three movies I suppose that's true. But I don't think that's going to happen based on how few people were in the theater.
I also guess it's no surprise but Donald Glover knocks it out of the park. There are even points where I almost believe he's matching the voice perfectly.
Seeing Darth Maul on screen with robot legs was nice, as it affirms everything that happened in the two animated series is taken seriously. And they got the actor to reprise his appearance. Though they got the voice actor from the show for his lines for some reason.
Oooh, also remember that game Masters of Teras Kasi? That wretched wretched fighting game that made zero sense? It gets a reference, and I think I liked that more than most of the rest of the movie.
Solo was just incredibly fun. Enjoyed it all the way through. Easily in my top 5 favorite Star Wars movies.
I’ve heard the same review from many. A Star Wars that hasn’t forgotten thrilling heroics is kinda the point.
I'm all game for seeing two more young solo movies. Bonus points if the third movie ends with him going to meet and old man and farm boy at a seedy bar in Mos Eisley.
The movie didn’t make as much as the other recent Star Wars films. Like I said in the MCU thread: the bloom’s coming off the rose with this franchise. I blame both the frequency of releases and the really shitty writing of Last Jedi (it used its intersectional narrative to smother the spirit of the franchise, ironically robbing its diverse cast of the fun of partaking in these movies in the first place—without really replacing it). There’s only so many times you can leave a theatre feeling let down, confused or uninspired after watching these films before people will start giving up.
Let’s see how episode 9 does though. There were good moments in each of the last films so not all is lost.
I feel like saying in your favorite top five star wars films is saying much. I'd say it was in my top five and I feel like it was quite meh. I mean hell, top five means original trilogy then a bunch of the new stuff which has pretty much entirely been made up of varying degrees of meh.
I’ll concede The Last Jedi was far from being a great Star Wars movie, but I still enjoyed it. Solo was far and above meh however.
No it really wasn't. It kind of wanted to be a heist movie but the heist wasn't that central of focus. It's pure popcorn, entertaining but no underlying quality to it, in fact the more I think about it afterwards the more I dislike it. The worst parts were the shoehorned in reminders that it was a star wars film. Did you ever wonder why Han is Han Solo? No? Well too fucking bad because we're going to tell you anyway. Did you ever wonder why the dice were hanging in the millenium falcon? No? Well too fucking bad because we're going to make sure you know all about that now too.
Donald Glover was fucking great though.
I'm assuming he means it sits in fifth spot, right between Rogue One and Ewoks: Battle for Endor.
Rogue One was a better movie than this, and I really didn't like Rogue One either.
I loved Rogue One and thought this was better. From start to finish I had a great time. I guess this movie didn’t need to be made, but I am sure as hell glad it was.