Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Lost Highway
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1451 Post by Lost Highway » Sat May 26, 2018 4:00 am

Unless her acting improves, I can’t see Emilia Clarke lasting past when the next pretty young thing comes snapping at her heels. She is beautiful but she lacks the charisma of a true star. She may well be the Sarah Michelle Gellar of our day. I think that bad actors who successfully star in a TV series for years, find it hard to shed bad habits or improve. Both these actresses got a lot of praise for the interesting characters they play/ed rather than for their actual performances. Maybe she will prove me wrong. Sometimes actors initially cast for their looks do learn their craft along the way.

I think Diane Krüger successfully managed to work her way from bland eye candy to respected actress over the years. But she made good choices which challenged her, while Clarke stars in blockbusters and bland romances.

Not just saying this to knock her, but I’ve always been interested in looking at screen acting.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1452 Post by Kirkinson » Sat May 26, 2018 4:25 am

I actually think she's just fine in Solo, but her character is badly written and poorly utilized in the story. Most of the characters are — this is a movie very much just going through the motions. Some really lazy writing from Kasdan & son, very bland direction from Ron Howard, very little personality of any kind. Really shrinks the Star Wars universe, too, as all the locations are pretty anonymous and everything we've ever heard about Han Solo's past happens in the space of a few days. Bradford Young's dim, murky lighting seems rather at odds with the material, but he's the one person involved who seemed to be trying to do something a little different. John Powell's score is also an improvement over Michael Giacchino's attempt at Williams pastiche, but it's poorly mixed in the soundtrack. There are a handful of fleeting moments when the movie comes to life, and none of it is especially bad, I guess. It's just totally hollow and featureless.

There's an especially gratuitous piece of fan service toward the end that will probably baffle the overwhelming majority of the audience who has never consumed any Star Wars content other than the movies.
SpoilerShow
Darth Maul shows up in what is basically a Marvel post-credits scene edited into the movie — as a shadowy crime boss it seems inevitable that he'll be a major part of the forthcoming Boba Fett movie (and maybe the Kenobi one if that happens, though I don't know how they'd square that with the events of Rebels).

User avatar
All the Best People
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1453 Post by All the Best People » Sat May 26, 2018 12:09 pm

Perhaps it was the low expectations caused by all the backstage drama, but I found this a fun romp. I don't know if I buy into all the "cookie cutter" criticisms; the actual author of the film feels like Larry Kasdan, and here he's taken something of a film noir outline and crossed it with some Dr. Jonesian adventure, all including a good sense of humor. Basically, it's exactly the Star Wars movie one might expect from the writer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Body Heat, and Silverado. The cast and Bradford Young delivered. Powell's score was fine, but the best bits are the reprises of Williams' themes -- the one track that really goes for it in that regard is titled "Reminiscence Therapy", which ... okay. I found The Giacchino's Rogue One score far superior.

hanshotfirst1138
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1454 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Sat May 26, 2018 4:27 pm

Thinking of Donald E. Westlake's Parker novels, I can't help but think that the adventures of Boba Fett, amoral space heister would be really cool.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1455 Post by DarkImbecile » Sat May 26, 2018 6:36 pm

I had the big cameo at the end of Solo spoiled for me, and frankly, it’s one of those spoilers that makes me glad I was in no rush to see it - like a surprisingly large number of people, if the box office projections are on point. Apparently there’s some preexisting explanation for it outside of the films, but I have exactly zero interest in whatever absurd justification for this might exist.

hanshotfirst1138
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1456 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Sat May 26, 2018 7:35 pm

And I thought that Rouge One was boring. Solo is a connect-the-dots story that barely goes anywhere. There are so many double and triple-crosses that even if I could keep track them, I didn't care. It did almost nothing with the one interesting aspect-the space Western motif-and everything else was deathly dull, giant CGI monsters and action sequences cut without any sense of tempo or pacing. The big twist at the end makes me question the whole chronology. Love or loathe George Lucas, he did what was once stylistically new. This whole Disney-era feels either like it's simply repackaging old ideas like Abrams, or giving anonymous, unbelievably boring spin-offs like Solo and Rogue One. At least the prequels, for all their flaws, showed us new designs. This version of the franchise in desperate need of a Ralph McQuarrie. At least Tom Cruise let the directors of the Mission: Impossible movies bring their own flavor. This was dull as dishwater.
Kirkinson wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 4:25 am
I actually think she's just fine in Solo, but her character is badly written and poorly utilized in the story. Most of the characters are — this is a movie very much just going through the motions. Some really lazy writing from Kasdan & son, very bland direction from Ron Howard, very little personality of any kind. Really shrinks the Star Wars universe, too, as all the locations are pretty anonymous and everything we've ever heard about Han Solo's past happens in the space of a few days. Bradford Young's dim, murky lighting seems rather at odds with the material, but he's the one person involved who seemed to be trying to do something a little different. John Powell's score is also an improvement over Michael Giacchino's attempt at Williams pastiche, but it's poorly mixed in the soundtrack. There are a handful of fleeting moments when the movie comes to life, and none of it is especially bad, I guess. It's just totally hollow and featureless.

There's an especially gratuitous piece of fan service toward the end that will probably baffle the overwhelming majority of the audience who has never consumed any Star Wars content other than the movies.
SpoilerShow
Darth Maul shows up in what is basically a Marvel post-credits scene edited into the movie — as a shadowy crime boss it seems inevitable that he'll be a major part of the forthcoming Boba Fett movie (and maybe the Kenobi one if that happens, though I don't know how they'd square that with the events of Rebels).
This. A thousand times this. It wasn't terrible, it was just so dull and generic as to be difficult to care much about.

I’d be willing to suffer all of this if I could just get the original trilogy in HD, but even that seems impossible.

User avatar
furbicide
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1457 Post by furbicide » Sat May 26, 2018 8:33 pm

I found The Last Jedi insultingly dumb and boring, so I shudder to imagine how bad these non-tentpole movies are. And there are only another 3,526 of them to come (or, at least, however many it takes to totally bleed this La Grande Bouffe-worthy franchise dry and make even the most regressed Star Wars fan loathe the merest mention of the series).

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Posts: 5883
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1458 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat May 26, 2018 8:50 pm

hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Love or loathe George Lucas, he did what was once stylistically new. This whole Disney-era feels either like it's simply repackaging old ideas
Repackaging old ideas is all George Lucas did. Even when he attempted to make Star Wars appear profound, he had to admit to reusing something so time-worn that Joseph Cambell could call it a monomyth. And that's just Lucas' high-faluting version. He otherwise stole from samurai movies, Buck Rogers serials, and a whole galaxy of pulp novels. Star Wars has always been derivative, a repackaging of familiar ideas, deliberately so. We're just removed enough in time to forget that. It's some kind of irony that the same people who adore Star Wars and Indiana Jones are giving J.J. Abrams a hard time for mining the nostalgias.

hanshotfirst1138
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1459 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Sat May 26, 2018 9:56 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Love or loathe George Lucas, he did what was once stylistically new. This whole Disney-era feels either like it's simply repackaging old ideas
Repackaging old ideas is all George Lucas did. Even when he attempted to make Star Wars appear profound, he had to admit to reusing something so time-worn that Joseph Cambell could call it a monomyth. And that's just Lucas' high-faluting version. He otherwise stole from samurai movies, Buck Rogers serials, and a whole galaxy of pulp novels. Star Wars has always been derivative, a repackaging of familiar ideas, deliberately so. We're just removed enough in time to forget that. It's some kind of irony that the same people who adore Star Wars and Indiana Jones are giving J.J. Abrams a hard time for mining the nostalgias.
At least he repackaged it as something which looked different. Lucas may not have been a great storyteller, but he did what was once stylistically new and visually innovative. Virtually every blockbuster is a Lucas clone now, a photocopy of a photocopy. I freely admit to Lucas lack of original ideas, but as I said, he innovated in fields like VFX or action-adventure set pieces in ways no one did in the 70s and 80s, and opened up a whole new world of filmmaking that did things people hadn’t seen before, completely changing the whole film industry (for better or worse). Abrams does neither. Old ideas in fresh paint can’t beat the buzz of something which at least once, was new. We can of course debate how good the original Star Wars & Raiders movies were, but their technical innovations are pretty hard to argue. And to put it more bluntly, Abrams doesn’t do it anywhere near as well as his idols did.

User avatar
McCrutchy
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1460 Post by McCrutchy » Sat May 26, 2018 10:08 pm

Unfortunately, if Solo bombs, it really doesn't matter. There are myriad excuses for its failure, and in the end, while it might make Disney/Lucasfilm more cautious about mining the original trilogy films, it won't be enough to stop them greenlighting even other, similar Star Wars films, as evidenced by the news of the Boba Fett and Leia/Rebels films being announced/rumored. Personally, if this is what Disney and Lucasfilm have planned--and it makes sense, because if these come to fruition, then when you step back, the Disney Star Wars films would start to look a lot like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, just with a larger timeline--then I'm glad I quit while I was ahead.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1461 Post by cdnchris » Sat May 26, 2018 10:42 pm

Regarding the character revelation at the end since I doubt I will see this
SpoilerShow
how does Darth Maul survive? Is that ever explained anywhere?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28730
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1462 Post by domino harvey » Sat May 26, 2018 10:56 pm

SpoilerShow
Apparently he's revived in the Clone Wars animated series, which is now canon, so this is really more a callback to that-- but I've heard most viewers have just been confused at the chronology, so seems like yet another bad choice from the producers

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Posts: 5883
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1463 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat May 26, 2018 11:06 pm

What's innovative about Lucas' style? His action adventure set-pieces for example use classical film grammar. It's all pretty traditional. His images are indelible, that I will admit; but their construction and style isn't original. I'll admit his influence, but I think you're over-estimating his originality.

The assembly and construction of the modern blockbuster owes more to Michael Bay at this point than Lucas. Bay's careening, movement-oriented, montage action style is the de facto action style of the blockbuster. You can see it especially in the Marvel movies, all of which have the same action style. Bay has had more influence on the actual filmmaking style of modern-day blockbuster directors than about anyone.
hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Abrams doesn’t do it anywhere near as well as his idols did.
Lucas has never directed an action scene as exciting as any of the major set pieces in The Force Awakens, especially that one long take sequence half-way in. I'd be tempted to attribute that to different times, styles, available techniques, ect., but then there's Raiders, whose action scenes remain ten times as astonishing and thrilling as any blockbuster action scene created in the last ten years. Unlike Spielberg, Lucas just isn't much of an action director. He did fine, but the best action scene he ever directed was the anti-car chase in THX 1138, and that's precisely because it isn't traditionally exciting. And of course he proceeded to ruin it in the special edition.

User avatar
solaris72
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1464 Post by solaris72 » Sun May 27, 2018 9:19 am

Mr Sausage wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 11:06 pm
What's innovative about Lucas' style? His action adventure set-pieces for example use classical film grammar. It's all pretty traditional. His images are indelible, that I will admit; but their construction and style isn't original. I'll admit his influence, but I think you're over-estimating his originality.

The assembly and construction of the modern blockbuster owes more to Michael Bay at this point than Lucas. Bay's careening, movement-oriented, montage action style is the de facto action style of the blockbuster. You can see it especially in the Marvel movies, all of which have the same action style. Bay has had more influence on the actual filmmaking style of modern-day blockbuster directors than about anyone.
hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Abrams doesn’t do it anywhere near as well as his idols did.
Lucas has never directed an action scene as exciting as any of the major set pieces in The Force Awakens, especially that one long take sequence half-way in. I'd be tempted to attribute that to different times, styles, available techniques, ect., but then there's Raiders, whose action scenes remain ten times as astonishing and thrilling as any blockbuster action scene created in the last ten years. Unlike Spielberg, Lucas just isn't much of an action director. He did fine, but the best action scene he ever directed was the anti-car chase in THX 1138, and that's precisely because it isn't traditionally exciting. And of course he proceeded to ruin it in the special edition.
Agreeing with your general point, but rewatching the original Star Wars I found the climactic assault on the first Death Star to be as astonishing and exciting as anything in Raiders or Force Awakens. (Not really innovative, though.)

User avatar
Lost Highway
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1465 Post by Lost Highway » Sun May 27, 2018 12:20 pm

The Force Awakens has been criticized for being too close to Star Wars/A New Hope. I think that’s a strength, it retools the first Star Wars movie into a superior film. I think the characters are more engaging, the performances of the young leads are an improvement and I find the film better directed. The Last Jedi is the new trilogy‘s The Empire Strikes Back and while that always was the only original Star Wars movie I genuinely liked, I think The Last Jedi is an even better movie. It genuinely takes risks. As a life long Star Wars agnostic I’m now more on board with Star Wars than I ever was. I also think visually the new films are beautiful. They take the aesthetic of the original movies to another level. The light saber duel in the forest in TFA and the throne room in TLJ are gorgeous.

That only goes for the trilogy. I haven’t seen Solo yet but Rogue One is among the most boring blockbusters I’ve seen in a long time. I‘ve watched it twice and second time round was even worse.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1466 Post by Kirkinson » Sun May 27, 2018 1:48 pm

Brief explanation of the cameo for anyone who doesn't want to have to dig through lengthy Wookieepedia articles (this contains spoilers for Solo and both animated shows):
SpoilerShow
In the Clone Wars series, Maul is shown having survived his fall and bisection, vaguely explained by saying his rage and hate made him powerful enough to keep himself alive. He is found by his brother after 10 years, raving mad in the sewers with a set of robotic spider legs. His brother takes him back to his home planet where he gets a new pair of robotic legs (which can also be seen in his Solo cameo). Over time he becomes a crime lord, but this makes him influential enough that Palpatine considers him a threat and comes after him, killing Maul's brother and most of his associates and driving him into hiding. He later returns for a short arc in Rebels where he tries to take on one of that show's characters as an apprentice but is finally killed for real by Obi-Wan Kenobi. Solo takes place some time in between the two animated series (Clone Wars takes place in between episodes 2 and 3, Rebels takes place a few years before A New Hope) and suggests he is still a crime lord, but is keeping a much lower profile this time.
I think the cameo is kind of silly just because it has almost nothing to do with Solo's story, but I also think that if Lucasfilm is determined to keep telling stories about pre-established characters that take place in between the first two trilogies, and they want to maintain that all their supplemental material is canon, then they would have to start acknowledging events from the animated series in the movies at some point. It's not like Marvel where the TV shows only concern minor characters — both of the animated series feature major events happening to major characters that have a significant impact on the timeline. The fact that Simon Kinberg, who worked on Rebels, is writing the Boba Fett movie, seems like an indication that they're going to try to tie these things together further in the future. I would not be surprised if this is actually the reason it's taking them so long to mount an Obi-Wan movie, as they are really painted into a narrative corner with that character.

That said, it probably was a bad idea to drop this cameo in with zero explanation for people who didn't already know it was a possibility. It would surely have been a better idea to wait for a story that would give them space to include a few lines of dialogue for the general audience to get their bearings.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1467 Post by cdnchris » Sun May 27, 2018 2:20 pm

SpoilerShow
That all sounds really stupid.
But thank you for explaining that to me! I just don't have the time (or will really) to go through all of that.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1468 Post by Kirkinson » Sun May 27, 2018 3:10 pm

SpoilerShow
Much of it is. I didn't even mention that his brother's name is Savage Opress or that second set of robotic legs was conjured into existence by his Dark Side sorceress mother! Clone Wars fluctuated wildly in quality, so I've only seen a highly curated selection of episodes. I do think his arc on Rebels was better, but I would never recommend it to anyone who wasn't already curious about it.

User avatar
thirtyframesasecond
Posts: 1018
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1469 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Sun May 27, 2018 5:43 pm

Never quite understood why anyone thought Lord and Miller would be able to direct a Star Wars movie. These movies need a steady hand, a Ron Howard, much as Lucas's original sequels hired workmanlike guys with no personal vision. Going the way of the Marvel franchise and getting a film out every year does nothing to make me want to watch them, and as much as I like Donald Glover's work, if Solo comparatively flops, then perhaps someone might work out that churning out films in this "will this do?" way is getting tedious.

User avatar
zedz
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1470 Post by zedz » Sun May 27, 2018 5:52 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:50 pm
hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Love or loathe George Lucas, he did what was once stylistically new. This whole Disney-era feels either like it's simply repackaging old ideas
Repackaging old ideas is all George Lucas did. Even when he attempted to make Star Wars appear profound, he had to admit to reusing something so time-worn that Joseph Cambell could call it a monomyth. And that's just Lucas' high-faluting version. He otherwise stole from samurai movies, Buck Rogers serials, and a whole galaxy of pulp novels. Star Wars has always been derivative, a repackaging of familiar ideas, deliberately so. We're just removed enough in time to forget that. It's some kind of irony that the same people who adore Star Wars and Indiana Jones are giving J.J. Abrams a hard time for mining the nostalgias.
I've noted this several times before, but Lucas wasn't even creative enough to steal from multiple sources. 90% of the characters and mythos of the original Star Wars films were stolen directly from Jack Kirby's Fourth World comics from a few years earlier in the 1970s. It's shockingly transparent:

Mark Moonrider = Luke Skywalker
Beautiful Dreamer = Princess Leia
Serifan (the space cowboy) = Han Solo
Big Bear = Chewbacca
Vykin the Black = Lando Calrissian (eventually - Lucas wasn't bold enough to have a black character in the first film)

Darkseid (pronounced "dark side") = Darth Vader
The Source (universal spiritual energy that can be used for good or ill) = The Force
Apokalips (artificial planet where Darkseid is based) = the Death Star

And the big twist where Darth Vader's arch-nemesis (who uses the Source for good) turns out to be his estranged son? That's from the comics as well.

All that hifalutin Joseph Campbell nonsense was invented by Lucas after the fact to provide special pleading for his plagiarism of the most ripped-off artist of the 20th century. Poor Jack Kirby's intellectual property is literally worth billions of dollars today.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Posts: 7348
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1471 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sun May 27, 2018 8:00 pm

Lots of imagery (and ideas) in Star Wars was "borrowed" from Alexander Nevsky -- and as far as I can find out, Lucas has never mentioned this as a source (while crediting Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, which strikes me as far less of an influence).

User avatar
solaris72
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1472 Post by solaris72 » Sun May 27, 2018 11:30 pm

zedz wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 5:52 pm
I've noted this several times before, but Lucas wasn't even creative enough to steal from multiple sources. 90% of the characters and mythos of the original Star Wars films were stolen directly from Jack Kirby's Fourth World comics from a few years earlier in the 1970s. It's shockingly transparent:

Mark Moonrider = Luke Skywalker
Beautiful Dreamer = Princess Leia
Serifan (the space cowboy) = Han Solo
Big Bear = Chewbacca
Vykin the Black = Lando Calrissian (eventually - Lucas wasn't bold enough to have a black character in the first film)

Darkseid (pronounced "dark side") = Darth Vader
The Source (universal spiritual energy that can be used for good or ill) = The Force
Apokalips (artificial planet where Darkseid is based) = the Death Star

And the big twist where Darth Vader's arch-nemesis (who uses the Source for good) turns out to be his estranged son? That's from the comics as well.

All that hifalutin Joseph Campbell nonsense was invented by Lucas after the fact to provide special pleading for his plagiarism of the most ripped-off artist of the 20th century. Poor Jack Kirby's intellectual property is literally worth billions of dollars today.
Calling Kirby "the most ripped-off artist of the 20th century" and saying that his work is the source for "90% of the characters and mythos of the original Star Wars films" is an exaggeration to say the least. I see, for example, very little in common between 'Mark Moonrider' and Luke Skywalker (named Starkiller up until a few months into principal photography); the name "Skywalker" comes from Chippewa legend. And the Death Star is not where Darth Vader was based, and Leia was not (unlike "Beautiful Dreamer") able to create 3D illusions from images in others' minds, nor was she nonverbal. As with a lot of popular narratives a wide net was cast. (Alien, for another instance, also had a very wide range of identifiable influences.) Identifiable influences on Star Wars certainly include Dune, Metropolis, westerns (not just the very obvious Ford influence but also B-westerns, e.g. Tusken raiders = Tuscon Raiders), Eisenstein (as Michael Kerpan notes), golden age science fiction writers e.g. Edmond Hamilton, WWII movies, and of course Kurosawa. And certainly Joseph Campbell, multiple contemporaries of Lucas have attested to this. (And calling Joseph Campbell "hifalutin" is absurd in and of itself.) And further, one would be remiss in not identifying both Luke and Han as, in part, being characters extrapolated out of the milieu of Lucas' own American Graffiti.

User avatar
Shrew
Posts: 674
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:22 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1473 Post by Shrew » Sun May 27, 2018 11:51 pm

I enjoyed Solo more than I expected, that it is to say, more than Rogue One. Both films show the seams of their Frankenstein construction, but Solo hangs together better. Perhaps that’s because Rogue One’s central flaw was a script rushed into production two drafts ahead of schedule, meaning the third act feels built on set. Whereas Solo feels like a solid outline of a script weighed down by pedestrian direction, cheaper production values (likely mainly due to reshoots), and some really eye-rolling attempts to work in “classic” Star Wars lines of dialogue.

There’s two better films in here. One is the Han and Lando hang-out film Lord and Miller were probably aiming for. But it's really hard to see why they were hired when Kasdan wrote the bones of a film noir (the femme fatale, the cynicism, the double crosses, the postwar crime mileu, the surprisingly high body count). Which you know, actually makes perfect sense as the origin story of a jaded loner with an idealist streak. It also helps explain Bradford Young’s monochrome palettes. Some of these noir ambitions survive the lighter tone, but they're all undone by the ending.
SpoilerShow
There must have been some version of this where Han’s plan failed. Getting double-crossed out of the cargo by Qi’ra would have been a standard noir ending, justified Han’s later cynicism, and Qi’ra’s final actions would make a lot more sense if she was leaving with something (rather than just acting out of… fear of the syndicate?). But as it plays, there’s a reluctance to let Han fuck up, and the ending we have feels like the film trying to have its cake (Han learns not to trust anyone) and eat it too (Han trusts the rebels! But he doesn’t join them now because… everything’s gone great for him?) The resolution with Becket is surprising, but Becket and Han’s relationship never established the emotional father figure bond it aimed for, perhaps because they so rarely share the screen (again reshoots). Becket’s only really interesting in relation to his original crew, who I really wished had been around for the whole show.
All this really hurts Clarke, who isn’t bad, but has the impossible job of playing girl next door, femme fatale, crime lord’s sexpot, and supreme strategist all at once. In other words, she’s a female cipher who’s whatever the plot needs at any moment, and that requires a far more powerful presence than Clarke to pull off cohesively.

As mentioned above, this is easily the cheapest looking Star Wars, as the usual top-notch production design is missing, particularly in the sets and locations. There are a few early flashes of Corellia as steampunk hell that look interesting, but most everything else is anonymous. And compared to the other new films, it relies far more on CGI than practical effects. The costume department and creature design still do okay though.

User avatar
zedz
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1474 Post by zedz » Sun May 27, 2018 11:59 pm

solaris72 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 11:30 pm
I see, for example, very little in common between 'Mark Moonrider' and Luke Skywalker
Seriously? You think there's no similarity between Moon+Rider and Star+Walker? The character is ripped off from Orion, but that name, and the general make-up of the core band of heroes in the movie and the Forever People is like a smoking gun. This is why it doesn't pay to argue with fanboys, I guess. I'll bow out and leave you to your circle jerk.
(And calling Joseph Campbell "hifalutin" is absurd in and of itself.)
Read more carefully: I'm referring to Lucas putting an academic gloss on his 'low' culture thievery.

User avatar
reaky
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1475 Post by reaky » Mon May 28, 2018 5:07 am

You haven’t mentioned Lucas’ biggest swipe from Kirby. In all but colour palate, Darth Vader is Dr Doom.

Post Reply