Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Solo Movie (Spoiler Alert)
- Thread starter JeffyTheQuik
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I loved it, along with Rogue One. Hopefully the Boba Fett movie still happens in light of Solo's weak showing at the box office.
My problem with the movie wasn't that it was released too soon after The Last Jedi (not something I care about), or that Harrison Ford was better at portraying Han Solo than Alden Ehrenreich (who did a great job in spite of that), or even that it's a movie about a risk-taker and yet the plot took few risks (Ron Howard). It's that the movie focused too much on the heist and too little on his actual backstory. Han Solo is an awesome character, and the movie doesn't answer enough questions about him.
Really, I like the idea of learning the original trilogy characters' past more than I do learning about Kylo Ren, Rey, and Finn. Those are three characters I'll continue to see because I like the universe they're in, but who I ultimately don't care much about compared to the originals.
My problem with the movie wasn't that it was released too soon after The Last Jedi (not something I care about), or that Harrison Ford was better at portraying Han Solo than Alden Ehrenreich (who did a great job in spite of that), or even that it's a movie about a risk-taker and yet the plot took few risks (Ron Howard). It's that the movie focused too much on the heist and too little on his actual backstory. Han Solo is an awesome character, and the movie doesn't answer enough questions about him.
Really, I like the idea of learning the original trilogy characters' past more than I do learning about Kylo Ren, Rey, and Finn. Those are three characters I'll continue to see because I like the universe they're in, but who I ultimately don't care much about compared to the originals.
Well I saw it and I have to say I'm disappointed. My expectations going into the movie were not high and yet I was disappointed, overall it was very predictable, plodding almost.
So from my perspective, meh, not great, barely good. When great movies end, I leave the theater wanting more, not so with Solo. I was happy to see the credits and I beat it out there.
Its not all bad, there definitely some good scenes, but overall I was unimpressed.
So from my perspective, meh, not great, barely good. When great movies end, I leave the theater wanting more, not so with Solo. I was happy to see the credits and I beat it out there.
Its not all bad, there definitely some good scenes, but overall I was unimpressed.
Rylo Ren shirtless in Last Jedi was pretty close to that.
Yeah, I agree, it's maybe a little fatigue but it's being amplified by a "who cares" sort of reaction. It's funny if you look at the Harry Potter movies, they started in the deep 900M, had a drop into 800M (one of the lowest Box Office returns was my favorite), then towards the end there was a sudden surge and you have the 2nd part of the final installment hitting ~$1.3B (a good $400M difference vs. the lowest BO take). So I think it's more of a momentum kind of thing, with Star Wars it's open ended but I think people still want clear story arcs with a beginning-middle-end, the goodwill starts running out.
Oh, just to clarify my "dud" comment, I meant in the context of BO performance, it has pretty decent reviews, and quite a few folks have posted very positive reviews.
Fully agree with that beginning-middle-end sentiments, and one of the nice things about the LoTR trilogy that was so well put together, and smashed apart by the Hobbit one.
When an author ends a story, it's a good thing, as it contributes to the 3 act play being complete. I had heard (when I was an 8 year old kid, from my Star Wars uberfan brother, who was 12 at the time) that Star Wars was going to be a 10 act play. However, if this is the case, the main story arcs should already be written, and maybe the details haven't been written, and gaps can be filled in.
However, when the author doesn't end the story (more of a problem when they're still alive), they tend to start adding to the lore and violate the story. There's even problems in the Harry Potter story, where Ms. Rowling had some stuff in books 1/2 that crossed the line Professor Quirrell shakes Harry's hand in the Leaky Cauldron, or makes reference to it in the later part of the story. It seems that she wrote the rest of the arc of the story for books 3-7, as they are a bit more tightly aligned to lore.)
Anyway, I liked the movie; my 10 year old autistic daughter liked it (the first Star Wars movie she hasn't bolted from, being overwhelmed with all of the action going on), and it's a fun 3 hour escape.
Just saw Solo and I’ll say it was a worthy entry, with a few nods to Episodes 4 and 5, although this happened before episode 4 and RO. I’ll have to watch it again before locking down these feelings. 
Harrison Ford is hard to replace as a young Solo, in fact it can’t be done, and I was bothered a bit by the new actor’s portrayal, which did not seem in line with the Solo from E4, a little too exuberant, although it might be argued that E4 Solo benefited from some experience and maturity. The heist scene was excellent. No, there were no big battles, so maybe someone can tell me why it is panned if it has been panned. There is a strong possibility the franchise is eroded due to over exposure.
Harrison Ford is hard to replace as a young Solo, in fact it can’t be done, and I was bothered a bit by the new actor’s portrayal, which did not seem in line with the Solo from E4, a little too exuberant, although it might be argued that E4 Solo benefited from some experience and maturity. The heist scene was excellent. No, there were no big battles, so maybe someone can tell me why it is panned if it has been panned. There is a strong possibility the franchise is eroded due to over exposure.
My impression with the conversion of the Republic to the Empire that this movie is pre Episode 4 and RO. RO happened just prior to Episode 4You got the chronology wrong
In case you missed it, Darth Maul now had robotic legs! « Solo » happens sometime between Episode 3 and Rogue One (Which happens just before Episode IV).
He didn’t die in episode one, how he survived his « death » (cut in half, fell down a hole) was explained in the cartoon tv series.
We are saying the same thing, just differently, I’m saying it’s after Ep III and before RO, you’re saying it’s before RO and Ep. IV
Honestly, when typing about SW I often confuse E4 as E3, until I remember.We are saying the same thing, just differently, I’m saying it’s after Ep III and before RO, you’re saying it’s before RO and Ep. IV
[doublepost=1527726218][/doublepost]
I like Emilia Clark more as a the scruffy young woman then later as the more polished adult. Maybe because I had not yet recognized her.Emilia Clarke
movie was ok. anyways
The Watch podcast #261 (May 29th) has a really fascinating analysis of Solo, from the movie itself to some of the background gyrations of the production.
(Chris and Andy are generally terrific, if you like film and TV I'd highly recommend it, available on the podcast app and direct streaming on the web, it's onThe Ringer network).
(Chris and Andy are generally terrific, if you like film and TV I'd highly recommend it, available on the podcast app and direct streaming on the web, it's onThe Ringer network).
Thanks! I’m
Looking for podcasts to listen. I’ll beck this episode out tomorrow onto the commute.
The one thing I'd caution any listener about is they go into the topic assuming you're caught up on it, i.e., spoilers abound (ex: I haven't listened to the Avengers: Infinity War EP since I haven't seen the movie yet).
Going to give this a listen on my way home tonight!
I don't know if you listen to Fatman on Batman, but Marc Bernardin was spot on with what was missing from the film that I couldn't put my finger on.
I still liked the movie, but there was something that was missing and now I know what it was.
I do on occasion, but totally forgot about it since it was a sub - which I've done since you posted this
Also, The Incomparable (main podcast, it's also the main network name):
https://www.theincomparable.com/theincomparable/
#408, Sometimes You Need a Wookiee
Always pretty fun, they have John Siracusa on regularly who you might know from some Apple related podcasts (ATP, the old-and-now-over Hypercritical).
I do on occasion, but totally forgot about it since it was a sub - which I've done since you posted this
Also, The Incomparable (main podcast, it's also the main network name):
https://www.theincomparable.com/theincomparable/
#408, Sometimes You Need a Wookiee
Always pretty fun, they have John Siracusa on regularly who you might know from some Apple related podcasts (ATP, the old-and-now-over Hypercritical).
So many good podcasts now and so little time, unless of course you count the 1-2 hour home commute, in which case the more podcasts the better!
Thank you for the recommendations!
No problem, thank you for the reminder of the Kevin Smith show, heck, has there been a podcast discussion here in the OT area?
You're right there are so many, it's hard to wade in blindly (outside of the usual suspects, TED, NPR shows, some of the main Apple Tech shows like the Cultcast).
I think there was a thread a while ago, but I don't remember if it was on this site or one of the other sites I visit. TED is another good one...
I made the mistake of watching it opening night while suffering jetlag. Got about 15 minutes in before the comfy seat and dark room combination got the better of me. Woke up in time to see the finale, but missed everything in between. Just hope I didn’t snore.
I just saw it today and I can't recommend anyone paying to see it (i.e. wait till it hits Netflix).
I found the overall movie to be very boring with only two parts in the movie I would rate very good.
The soundtrack was pretty poor and the acting wasn't great with the exception of Woody Harrelson.
To me, it looked like Disney thought anything titled with Star Wars would make money so didn't put in too much of an effort.
I'll be skipping the next Solo movie.
Maybe, maybe not. More than likely, the anthology films will make up a new "MCU" style collection of films. They left too much unanswered with Maul and company for them to just permanently set it aside. Whether that means Solo 2 or an anthology film featuring Obi-Wan and Maul or something like that, I can't imagine them simply abandoning an interesting Qi'ra character without telling more of the story.
Well I am hooked on these two now. Finished the Solo review and they are both pretty spot on. One is a little more "hateful" of the flick, but what he had to say was something I was looking for.
I am listening to the Avengers episode now. So far I like them! Thanks again.
My thoughts on Solo?
As many will know I really didn't like TLJ. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I think TLJ damaged the franchise, and damaged it significantly.
I did like Solo, though.
The film is a little uneven at times, but given it's history, I'm okay with that.
Let me explain. The original version of the script was given to a couple of directors known for producing comedies (another directorial 'bad call' by Disney). When their work neared completion (pre special effects) it was shown to Disney execs and what they had produced (and Disney really should have seen this coming) was a comedy. Despite Disney's repeated failures with this franchise, even they realised this wasn't going to do well, so they looked around for a replacement director. A half-finished movie that has gone badly wrong is not an easy sell to any director - their name will go on the film at the end, and there's only so much you can do once principal shooting is complete.
I think Disney got incredibly lucky that Ron Howard was up for it. As I understand it, many scenes were re-shot and there was a serious overhaul of every aspect of the movie. For the avoidance of doubt, I think Ron Howard's done an excellent job.
I have only seen the movie once, but you can still tell it was originally meant to be a comedy. There are quite a lot of scenes where the actors were building towards punchlines, and developing comic set pieces, BUT, and it's an important but, the endings of those scenes have clearly been re shot, and they don't end in desperate attempts at humour.
Ron Howard has carried out a reversal of this film's likely future, brilliantly. It's a reversal worthy of the film's protagonist himself.
Those that have read deeply into the old 'Legends' novels will find that Solo's history has been re-written. Back in the 80's there was a trilogy of Han Solo novels by Brian Daley. I read them eagerly as a kid. None of the history of Han Solo in those novels has survived into this movie. The 'Corellian bloodstripe' (the red stripe up the side of Han's trousers was meant to indicate he had served with distinction in the Corellian navy) is gone. This history is all ignored. Corellia's history as a civillised, prosperous planet with a strong navy is gone too. It's now another planet in the category of Tatooine, or Jaaku - a hell-hole that no-one returns to (isn't this becoming a cliche for a Star Wars movie?).
So that's what the movie is not. What is it?
Solo is essentially a hybrid creation story/heist movie - it is essentially a Disney Star Wars imitation of what Marvel have done so well with each of their superhero movies.
Frankly, it's a lesser imitation of this film trope, but it's more than good enough for the current state of Star Wars movies.
Aiden Ehrenreich, as well all know going in, looks nothing like Harrison Ford as a young man, and this is a bit of a distraction at times. But he's got the personality and charisma to pull off Han Solo as a young scoundrel, just starting out.
The scene where Han meets Chewie, is a bit of a cinematic cliche, but I enjoyed it, and I think it works. Their coming together as a duo is not forced, and works well. In my view, their friendship develops naturally and credibly. The essence of the characters we see in the Original Trilogy is there, and it is completely convincing that these two would still be together many years later, to end up in the Mos Eisley Cantina looking for an easy money job taking an old man, a farm boy and two droids on a passenger trip (with no questions asked).
As you'd expect from a contemporary Star Wars movie, Emilia Clarke is not just there as eye candy. She has an important role, and is no push over. I'll accept that there are a couple of moments, when she comes across weakly (as there are in Game of Thrones), but that's her acting style, and I don't think it detracts from the movie at all.
The Kessell Run is explained in this movie (Kessell isn't quite as described in the Han Solo trilogy of novels, either). I liked the explanation in this movie, though. The Kessell Run couldn't be a race, as the Millennium Falcon is a freighter, not a racing ship. The Kessell Run turns out to be a course through a difficult area of space along the only viable route to the planet Kessell. I think it works as a concept, and it was done well in the movie.
I liked Danny Glover's Lando, too. Lando Calrissian is a complicated man. He is a scoundrel, but he yearns for respectability, and isn't phased by the responsibility that that brings (he does his best for the people of Cloud City in ESB in very difficult circumstances). One of the comedy gags that was clearly part of the original script was that Lando was meant to be super-successful at the start of the movie, and yet when the Solo team actually get to the Falcon, it's been 'clamped'. They've reshot that scene so it isn't a punchline any more. You do notice what was meant to have been a laughter moment, but they've straightened it out. As I say above, the film is uneven in places, but given the project Ron Howard took on, I really do think he's done well.
Woody Harrelson is a mentor figure. His initial encounter with Solo is a little weak in an action movie context (barely acceptable in a comedy), but after that weak moment, he works quite well. I think Woody Harrelson is a v talented actor (Natural Born Killers, Hunger Games, as well as Cheers - he was convincing in all of them). I think that if Ron Howard had been in charge earlier, more could have been done with this movie through this character, but apart from those weak opening scenes, he's always captivating. You can see why Solo looks up to him, and is prepared to follow his lead.
I've tried to avoid spoilers in sharing my thoughts on this movie, as I know many will read it before they see the movie.
I liked this movie. I think it's a worthy addition to the Star Wars franchise. It's not Rogue One, and it's not the original trilogy either, but it's certainly fun, entertaining, true to the Star Wars universe and on a par with or better than the prequels.
So why the poor showing at the Box Office?
1) If you don't know the background, its 'uneven' qualities will trouble you and cause you to disengage with the story and the characters. No movie should need extra information for it to be understood / appreciated.
2) As I said at the top of this post, I think TLJ damaged the franchise. TLJ did well because no-one wanted the movie spoiled before they saw it. A lot of people saw it, disliked it, and then didn't say anything for a while for fear of spoiling it for others. That negative experience does feed in to subsequent films viewing figures however. This is a perennial problem with movie franchises. It's often after a superficial success that the franchise dies.
3) Solo suffered by comparison with Marvel's Infinity War. Infinity War was a good movie. And the comparison's are stark. Both movies are part of a large franchise (also owned by Disney) but the people in charge of the Marvel franchise are clearly placing a higher premium on good writing and directors, than those in charge of the Star Wars franchise. If Ron Howard had had this movie from the beginning I'm sure it would have been a much better movie.
I can only hope that Disney can learn that lesson. The next stand alone movie is supposed to be 'Kenobi'. It may not surprise you, given my forum name, that I liked that character. I was dreading a movie about him, after TLJ. But I have a new hope for that movie now.
On a separate note, there is an interesting precedent in the Marvel Universe movies for dealing with movies that don't assist the franchise overall. Hulk in 2003 (with Eric Bana) was replaced by Incredible Hulk in 2008 (with Edward Norton) - both Universal studios movies, it was a complete reboot. Thereafter we have the Ruffalo version of Hulk in Avengers Assemble. There have also been a succession of Spidermen. Reboots can work. In my view, Star Wars didn't need a reboot when TFA came out, but it does now.
As many will know I really didn't like TLJ. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I think TLJ damaged the franchise, and damaged it significantly.
I did like Solo, though.
The film is a little uneven at times, but given it's history, I'm okay with that.
Let me explain. The original version of the script was given to a couple of directors known for producing comedies (another directorial 'bad call' by Disney). When their work neared completion (pre special effects) it was shown to Disney execs and what they had produced (and Disney really should have seen this coming) was a comedy. Despite Disney's repeated failures with this franchise, even they realised this wasn't going to do well, so they looked around for a replacement director. A half-finished movie that has gone badly wrong is not an easy sell to any director - their name will go on the film at the end, and there's only so much you can do once principal shooting is complete.
I think Disney got incredibly lucky that Ron Howard was up for it. As I understand it, many scenes were re-shot and there was a serious overhaul of every aspect of the movie. For the avoidance of doubt, I think Ron Howard's done an excellent job.
I have only seen the movie once, but you can still tell it was originally meant to be a comedy. There are quite a lot of scenes where the actors were building towards punchlines, and developing comic set pieces, BUT, and it's an important but, the endings of those scenes have clearly been re shot, and they don't end in desperate attempts at humour.
Ron Howard has carried out a reversal of this film's likely future, brilliantly. It's a reversal worthy of the film's protagonist himself.
Those that have read deeply into the old 'Legends' novels will find that Solo's history has been re-written. Back in the 80's there was a trilogy of Han Solo novels by Brian Daley. I read them eagerly as a kid. None of the history of Han Solo in those novels has survived into this movie. The 'Corellian bloodstripe' (the red stripe up the side of Han's trousers was meant to indicate he had served with distinction in the Corellian navy) is gone. This history is all ignored. Corellia's history as a civillised, prosperous planet with a strong navy is gone too. It's now another planet in the category of Tatooine, or Jaaku - a hell-hole that no-one returns to (isn't this becoming a cliche for a Star Wars movie?).
So that's what the movie is not. What is it?
Solo is essentially a hybrid creation story/heist movie - it is essentially a Disney Star Wars imitation of what Marvel have done so well with each of their superhero movies.
Frankly, it's a lesser imitation of this film trope, but it's more than good enough for the current state of Star Wars movies.
Aiden Ehrenreich, as well all know going in, looks nothing like Harrison Ford as a young man, and this is a bit of a distraction at times. But he's got the personality and charisma to pull off Han Solo as a young scoundrel, just starting out.
The scene where Han meets Chewie, is a bit of a cinematic cliche, but I enjoyed it, and I think it works. Their coming together as a duo is not forced, and works well. In my view, their friendship develops naturally and credibly. The essence of the characters we see in the Original Trilogy is there, and it is completely convincing that these two would still be together many years later, to end up in the Mos Eisley Cantina looking for an easy money job taking an old man, a farm boy and two droids on a passenger trip (with no questions asked).
As you'd expect from a contemporary Star Wars movie, Emilia Clarke is not just there as eye candy. She has an important role, and is no push over. I'll accept that there are a couple of moments, when she comes across weakly (as there are in Game of Thrones), but that's her acting style, and I don't think it detracts from the movie at all.
The Kessell Run is explained in this movie (Kessell isn't quite as described in the Han Solo trilogy of novels, either). I liked the explanation in this movie, though. The Kessell Run couldn't be a race, as the Millennium Falcon is a freighter, not a racing ship. The Kessell Run turns out to be a course through a difficult area of space along the only viable route to the planet Kessell. I think it works as a concept, and it was done well in the movie.
I liked Danny Glover's Lando, too. Lando Calrissian is a complicated man. He is a scoundrel, but he yearns for respectability, and isn't phased by the responsibility that that brings (he does his best for the people of Cloud City in ESB in very difficult circumstances). One of the comedy gags that was clearly part of the original script was that Lando was meant to be super-successful at the start of the movie, and yet when the Solo team actually get to the Falcon, it's been 'clamped'. They've reshot that scene so it isn't a punchline any more. You do notice what was meant to have been a laughter moment, but they've straightened it out. As I say above, the film is uneven in places, but given the project Ron Howard took on, I really do think he's done well.
Woody Harrelson is a mentor figure. His initial encounter with Solo is a little weak in an action movie context (barely acceptable in a comedy), but after that weak moment, he works quite well. I think Woody Harrelson is a v talented actor (Natural Born Killers, Hunger Games, as well as Cheers - he was convincing in all of them). I think that if Ron Howard had been in charge earlier, more could have been done with this movie through this character, but apart from those weak opening scenes, he's always captivating. You can see why Solo looks up to him, and is prepared to follow his lead.
I've tried to avoid spoilers in sharing my thoughts on this movie, as I know many will read it before they see the movie.
I liked this movie. I think it's a worthy addition to the Star Wars franchise. It's not Rogue One, and it's not the original trilogy either, but it's certainly fun, entertaining, true to the Star Wars universe and on a par with or better than the prequels.
So why the poor showing at the Box Office?
1) If you don't know the background, its 'uneven' qualities will trouble you and cause you to disengage with the story and the characters. No movie should need extra information for it to be understood / appreciated.
2) As I said at the top of this post, I think TLJ damaged the franchise. TLJ did well because no-one wanted the movie spoiled before they saw it. A lot of people saw it, disliked it, and then didn't say anything for a while for fear of spoiling it for others. That negative experience does feed in to subsequent films viewing figures however. This is a perennial problem with movie franchises. It's often after a superficial success that the franchise dies.
3) Solo suffered by comparison with Marvel's Infinity War. Infinity War was a good movie. And the comparison's are stark. Both movies are part of a large franchise (also owned by Disney) but the people in charge of the Marvel franchise are clearly placing a higher premium on good writing and directors, than those in charge of the Star Wars franchise. If Ron Howard had had this movie from the beginning I'm sure it would have been a much better movie.
I can only hope that Disney can learn that lesson. The next stand alone movie is supposed to be 'Kenobi'. It may not surprise you, given my forum name, that I liked that character. I was dreading a movie about him, after TLJ. But I have a new hope for that movie now.
On a separate note, there is an interesting precedent in the Marvel Universe movies for dealing with movies that don't assist the franchise overall. Hulk in 2003 (with Eric Bana) was replaced by Incredible Hulk in 2008 (with Edward Norton) - both Universal studios movies, it was a complete reboot. Thereafter we have the Ruffalo version of Hulk in Avengers Assemble. There have also been a succession of Spidermen. Reboots can work. In my view, Star Wars didn't need a reboot when TFA came out, but it does now.
After the first the first Spiderman reboot, I gave up on that franchise and stayed pleased with the first two movies.
What a great write up! I had no idea that Solo almost became a Guardian of the Galaxy styled movie, but I see exactly what you mean about it’s uneven qualities. I like the humor aspects for GotG, but not for SW. I only recently realized Marvel was also owned by Disney. And I think as very well known, is my disgust for Episodes 7 and 8. Who are these people? They had the opportunity to go down in history as saviors, but decided on a stupid money grab instead.
I plan on watching Solo again when it streams to decide if it is worthy for my library. I never read the Solo books, but it appears based on your description, that some rich source material, (before Disney flushed the Cannon) was overlooked or ignored. The wheels turn in Hollywood and creativity and excellence rarely prevail in most of their endeavors.