CINEMA

Solo: A Star Wars Story

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, June 11, 2018 05:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 689
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, May 9, 2018 12:25 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 18, 2018 2:23 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

Only 6 or 7 days to go.
Looks like my schedule will leave me available if there is a midnight showing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 20, 2018 8:31 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I don't care what anybody says. Clint Howard is a badass.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 23, 2018 12:19 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

Only 6 or 7 days to go.
Looks like my schedule will leave me available if there is a midnight showing.

In my area there are midnight showings on Thursday night, but only after 3-4 showings starting at 7.
No midnight showings on Wednesday night.
That just seems dumb.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2018 3:05 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


After seeing the movie, I totally agree. He IS badass.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't care what anybody says. Clint Howard is a badass.

Do Right, Be Right. :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2018 3:51 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Jewels.....speaking strictly as a movie goer, I'm reposting my response to Second's comments in another section, regarding the Solo boycott. Within my response, there is a non-spoilery review, of sorts.

It is as follows:


So basically Solo copied GoTG. Now there's a revelation, a unique and quantifiable expression of a pop culture phenomenon...namely Star Wars. A unique experience born out of a unremarkable period of the sci-fi domain. Lucas used old footage out of World War II air battles to simulate the battles he imagined that would occur in space. Hence, the "bomber squad" scene in the Last Jedi, a fete that defied gravitational logic.

Granted, Star Wars is forty years in the making, and/or telling, but my take on all of this is that Star Wars took the stories of Flash Gordon, Commando Cody, Forbidden Planet, When Worlds Collide, War of the Worlds, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, yes even Plan 9 from Outer Space; and brought it into the modern era of sci-fi film. Oh, let's not forget the incomparable 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yes Second, it may be true what you depict in your response, but I dare say that film history will note that without Star Wars...well, you know the rest. Guardians of the Galaxy followed the formula; they did not break the mold, but added to it. Bravo, I say.

Peter Quill is Han Solo, Groot is Chewbacca, etc. GoTG is an excellent sci-fi film full of fun and flights of fancy. There is no mistaking it's appeal. I'll take it a step further, that loveable scoundrel has existed since the early days of film, way back in the 30s. I give you, Charlie Chaplin. Yes, I'm going back that far, before talkies. And it has worked throughout the years; Errol Flynn as Robin Hood; Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man; Mel Ferrer as Cyrano. You get it, I'm sure. Derivative, perhaps. But saying that Solo is derivative of GoTG is like putting the cart before the horse. The only thing that's changed is the background of the story, the surroundings, but at it's core; the same old loveable wise-cracking chap moviegoers have fallen in love with since the days of the horse and cart is ever present.

As far as Solo goes. It is fun, it is lighthearted and thoroughly entertaining and serves the Star Wars story of the hero's journey by the beloved character of Han Solo. I would put it right up there with Rogue One. There is one character in Solo that puts me in mind of GoTG, as far as the wisecracking co-pilot is concerned. It also puts me in mind of a certain captain with tight pants, and a certain train robbery. By the way, just to keep things in perspective, there is a movie, in history, that depicts a group of train robbers...it is known as The Great Train Robbery, 1903. Hmmmm, The Train Job, Firefly, 2002. But, I digress.

I went in with an open mind, but expecting the worst; mainly from all the online vitriol and general overall "hate" of the Last Jedi. I did briefly give the "boycott" a thought, but then said to myself..."go see and judge for yourself."
Fuck it, I'm judging for myself...I liked this movie. Was it the greatest Star Wars movie of all time? No. Was it lighthearted fun and entertaining?...you betcha.
Was Alden Enrenreich Harrison Ford?, No. He was Han Solo as you would think him to be early on in his life. A scoundrel in the making, a young Han Solo. He served the character well, and therefore, served the story well. Thank you Ron Howard for doing a masterful job of not totally fucking with the characters we grew to love.
While I'm at it, thank you George Lucas for keeping him drawing inside the lines. Sometimes that works.

Solo had the grit and old feel of the original Star Wars movie. In other words, not perfectly shiny and new, not totally antiseptic like the prequels; and, most importantly, no Jar Jar Binks. This was a flashback to what made Star Wars, well...Star Wars. It started out slow, but picked up momentum and gathered speed, intrigue and the like as it went along. Yes, Glover was charming as Lando (with all his capes, which I found to be brilliant); but Emilia Clarke who nailed her role as the lovely Kira (Solo's love interest) deserves mention. Harrelson was his usual solid self, who totally immersed himself as Beckett. Thandie Newton as Val. Okay enough of that. Howard brought this movie home with his deft touch as director, and that is to be applauded.

Speaking of applause. The theater where I saw this yesterday was only about 3/4s full, but as the movie ended, and the Star Wars theme played in the background of the credit scroll, there were a smattering of applause throughout. It was as if the audience was saying "thank you Opie, thank you."

Go and judge for yourself. You will enjoy, whether or not you're a Star Wars fan.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2018 4:00 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Jewels,

I also found this article online a few minutes ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/solo-star-wars-story-great-show-
terrible-film-ncna877711


Don't solely go by the headline, read it, it's very telling. Okay, I admit, I like it because she mostly agrees with me. So sue me.....lol. But it's a good article.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

Only 6 or 7 days to go.
Looks like my schedule will leave me available if there is a midnight showing.

In my area there are midnight showings on Thursday night, but only after 3-4 showings starting at 7.
No midnight showings on Wednesday night.
That just seems dumb.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2018 7:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Jewels.....speaking strictly as a movie goer, I'm reposting my response to Second's comments in another section, regarding the Solo boycott. Within my response, there is a non-spoilery review, of sorts.

It is as follows:


So basically Solo copied GoTG. Now there's a revelation, a unique and quantifiable expression of a pop culture phenomenon...namely Star Wars. A unique experience born out of a unremarkable period of the sci-fi domain. Lucas used old footage out of World War II air battles to simulate the battles he imagined that would occur in space. Hence, the "bomber squad" scene in the Last Jedi, a fete that defied gravitational logic.

Granted, Star Wars is forty years in the making, and/or telling, but my take on all of this is that Star Wars took the stories of Flash Gordon, Commando Cody, Forbidden Planet, When Worlds Collide, War of the Worlds, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, yes even Plan 9 from Outer Space; and brought it into the modern era of sci-fi film. Oh, let's not forget the incomparable 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yes Second, it may be true what you depict in your response, but I dare say that film history will note that without Star Wars...well, you know the rest. Guardians of the Galaxy followed the formula; they did not break the mold, but added to it. Bravo, I say.

Peter Quill is Han Solo, Groot is Chewbacca, etc. GoTG is an excellent sci-fi film full of fun and flights of fancy. There is no mistaking it's appeal. I'll take it a step further, that loveable scoundrel has existed since the early days of film, way back in the 30s. I give you, Charlie Chaplin. Yes, I'm going back that far, before talkies. And it has worked throughout the years; Errol Flynn as Robin Hood; Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man; Mel Ferrer as Cyrano. You get it, I'm sure. Derivative, perhaps. But saying that Solo is derivative of GoTG is like putting the cart before the horse. The only thing that's changed is the background of the story, the surroundings, but at it's core; the same old loveable wise-cracking chap moviegoers have fallen in love with since the days of the horse and cart is ever present.

As far as Solo goes. It is fun, it is lighthearted and thoroughly entertaining and serves the Star Wars story of the hero's journey by the beloved character of Han Solo. I would put it right up there with Rogue One. There is one character in Solo that puts me in mind of GoTG, as far as the wisecracking co-pilot is concerned. It also puts me in mind of a certain captain with tight pants, and a certain train robbery. By the way, just to keep things in perspective, there is a movie, in history, that depicts a group of train robbers...it is known as The Great Train Robbery, 1903. Hmmmm, The Train Job, Firefly, 2002. But, I digress.

I went in with an open mind, but expecting the worst; mainly from all the online vitriol and general overall "hate" of the Last Jedi. I did briefly give the "boycott" a thought, but then said to myself..."go see and judge for yourself."
Fuck it, I'm judging for myself...I liked this movie. Was it the greatest Star Wars movie of all time? No. Was it lighthearted fun and entertaining?...you betcha.
Was Alden Enrenreich Harrison Ford?, No. He was Han Solo as you would think him to be early on in his life. A scoundrel in the making, a young Han Solo. He served the character well, and therefore, served the story well. Thank you Ron Howard for doing a masterful job of not totally fucking with the characters we grew to love.
While I'm at it, thank you George Lucas for keeping him drawing inside the lines. Sometimes that works.

Solo had the grit and old feel of the original Star Wars movie. In other words, not perfectly shiny and new, not totally antiseptic like the prequels; and, most importantly, no Jar Jar Binks. This was a flashback to what made Star Wars, well...Star Wars. It started out slow, but picked up momentum and gathered speed, intrigue and the like as it went along. Yes, Glover was charming as Lando (with all his capes, which I found to be brilliant); but Emilia Clarke who nailed her role as the lovely Kira (Solo's love interest) deserves mention. Harrelson was his usual solid self, who totally immersed himself as Beckett. Thandie Newton as Val. Okay enough of that. Howard brought this movie home with his deft touch as director, and that is to be applauded.

Speaking of applause. The theater where I saw this yesterday was only about 3/4s full, but as the movie ended, and the Star Wars theme played in the background of the credit scroll, there were a smattering of applause throughout. It was as if the audience was saying "thank you Opie, thank you."

Go and judge for yourself. You will enjoy, whether or not you're a Star Wars fan.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.


I did read this review of yours, but I don't plan to read others until after I see Solo, likely on Tuesday.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2018 2:31 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I did read this review of yours, but I don't plan to read others until after I see Solo, likely on Tuesday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm that way too. I don't read or watch any reviews, especially spoilery ones opening week. Also, I try not to spoil it for anyone. Now I'm off to view a couple of You Tube comments and reviews. I'm curious to see what they're going to say.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2018 3:16 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I did read this review of yours, but I don't plan to read others until after I see Solo, likely on Tuesday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm that way too. I don't read or watch any reviews, especially spoilery ones opening week. Also, I try not to spoil it for anyone. Now I'm off to view a couple of You Tube comments and reviews. I'm curious to see what they're going to say.

SGG

Your review said it was non-spoiler, and I didn't run into any potential spoiler or objectionable tendency as I progressed through it.
So far I haven't heard people jabbering about how the film incessantly copies other derivative film parodies of prior installments of the franchise. Thank Howard for not being that juvenile and insipid.

Have you not seen Deadpool?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2018 4:33 PM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Fuck it, I'm judging for myself...I liked this movie. Was it the greatest Star Wars movie of all time? No. Was it lighthearted fun and entertaining?...you betcha.
Was Alden Enrenreich Harrison Ford?, No. He was Han Solo as you would think him to be early on in his life. A scoundrel in the making, a young Han Solo. He served the character well, and therefore, served the story well. Thank you Ron Howard for doing a masterful job of not totally fucking with the characters we grew to love.
While I'm at it, thank you George Lucas for keeping him drawing inside the lines. Sometimes that works.

Solo had the grit and old feel of the original Star Wars movie. In other words, not perfectly shiny and new, not totally antiseptic like the prequels; and, most importantly, no Jar Jar Binks. This was a flashback to what made Star Wars, well...Star Wars. It started out slow, but picked up momentum and gathered speed, intrigue and the like as it went along. Yes, Glover was charming as Lando (with all his capes, which I found to be brilliant); but Emilia Clarke who nailed her role as the lovely Kira (Solo's love interest) deserves mention. Harrelson was his usual solid self, who totally immersed himself as Beckett. Thandie Newton as Val. Okay enough of that. Howard brought this movie home with his deft touch as director, and that is to be applauded.




I'll agree with most of what you said, if not as emphatically. As much as I like Woody, I didn't like him or his slimy hairpiece in the role (which WAS mostly a rip-off of The Train Job). I get there's a lack of decent character actors, but do they have to stick him in there all the time? It felt more like Hunger Games again than Star Wars.

Alden reminds me of Dennis Quaid. He worked hard on the body language and he's likable enough, but he's still a generic Solo. Glover was great, and the thing with L3-37 was interesting enough, but I wasn't feeling it....And you wouldn't with only a handful of scenes to set it up.

It's not enough to not like the movie over, though. Good way to kill a couple hours, and aside from the distinct need to go find a flashlight for half the movie, we enjoyed it. Hubby is a little tweaked over the messing with cannon on Darth Maul and the Red Dawn/Black Sun/Enfys Nest stuff, but most people won't know enough backstory to care.

We give it an A-. It is entertaining enough. Not sure I'd want to watch it several times, but I could stand to see it again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:58 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I get the feeling Jewels, that there's been a lot of vitriol in regards to this movie, mainly (IMHO) because of backlash from The Last Jedi. So I feel, that much of the rumors is propaganda to keep Solo from making any real money at the box office.

Much of the success of a movie lives and dies in the hands of the movie-going public, and it's even moreso with Star Wars. These fuckers, Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson, have caused much grief by giving the fans the middle finger with The Last Jedi. I'm not saying that Solo is this great piece of art, I'm just saying that it was a fun movie with some flaws (but nothing deeply major). The more I think of it, the more I can understand the fans concern. The script did have problems, that's why Howard turned up the action and the charm (according to that NBC article).

I believe it was a mess, but Disney and company didn't want to rewrite the entire script or reshoot the whole movie, plus they desperately wanted that all-important May 25th release. So, in comes Howard. After seeing it Friday, that's why I say Bravo for Howard. Under his skilled hand he almost pulls a rabbit from the hat. Ooo, so close!

I liked the movie and will go again at some point. So, is Kathleen Kennedy a hack? Yes, based upon this mess with TLJ and Solo, she is a total loser as a producer of the Star Wars. Disney should replace her because she's totally fucked this up, and because she doesn't know her ass from her elbow when it comes to this franchise. Plus, she's such an arrogant bitch with the fans.
She claims that she's out to get new fans, but at this rate, she's out to lose the most passionate of all movie-goers.....the Star Wars fans. It is due to them that the franchise exists at all. The Force Awakens, with all it's flaws, made billions. What the fuck is wrong with this lady? Disney better figure this out fast or they will lose billions.

As far as Solo copying anyone. Please remember Star Wars started it all back in 1977. Peter Quill is Han Solo, not the other way around.

Quote:

Have you not seen Deadpool?


No, I haven't seen it yet. Most likely this weekend though.


SGG



Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I did read this review of yours, but I don't plan to read others until after I see Solo, likely on Tuesday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm that way too. I don't read or watch any reviews, especially spoilery ones opening week. Also, I try not to spoil it for anyone. Now I'm off to view a couple of You Tube comments and reviews. I'm curious to see what they're going to say.

SGG

Your review said it was non-spoiler, and I didn't run into any potential spoiler or objectionable tendency as I progressed through it.
So far I haven't heard people jabbering about how the film incessantly copies other derivative film parodies of prior installments of the franchise. Thank Howard for not being that juvenile and insipid.

Have you not seen Deadpool?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2018 7:45 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Solo: A Star Wars Story has been on several Must-See Lists this year, and I feel it may be the first or best to fulfill hopes and expectations, in quite a while. I liked Wind River but it was a surprise for me, I didn't really see it coming. I had known Rogue One was coming, but I didn't know what it was about, what context or connection to the Star Wars quiltwork. Solo was a character I was familiar with, and I am glad Ron Howard has added this to his resume. Makes me wish he would have accepted the other Star Wars film that he was asked to do years ago.

This could well be the best overall film of the year.

I can't list everything right now, but some thoughts of similarities: Let's Do Crime! From The Train Job. Some vibe of James Bond, with the story and scene of spy entering the villian's lair, which also resembles Trash - and I never noticed that about the Bellerophon visit until watching this film, and later this scene development reminded me of The Ball in Shindig, with 3 BDHs bumping into each other. And I wondered - is this what was trying to happen with that lame Casino gambit in TLJ?
Galaxy Quest had dragging mines, Star Trek II's climax, Star Wars V, Gran Torino, Pilot Serenity opening scenes, Starship Troopers, Top Gun flight tricks, plus the James Bond card games I was all reminded of.
I have not seen Thor 3

Select to view spoiler:


where Thor and Hulk meet in the arena.



Apparently Wookie Speak does not have a word for

Select to view spoiler:


reinforcements



I heard that Howard shot more than 80% of the shots. I suspect one that was left from the twits was Falcon landing on Savareen.

I did notice some grainy or fuzzy lensework, and maybe poor lighting or contrast on numerous shots. This seemed a departure from the Lucas works, which had crisp color, contrast, focus, lighting whether indoors or desert locales. Howard's work has also maintained crisp cinematography in each film I can recall. I think all of Firefly had better resolution and clarity than some scenes in Solo.

The story seemed quite the symphony of coinciding needs and talents, altering the balance from one shot to the next.

Does anybody know of the time frame here, or did I miss it? SWIV was 18 years after SWIII. So how far between there did this span take place?
Did we already know how old Chewbacca was?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2018 10:33 AM

GWEK


I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Story_Box
_Office_Doesnt_Tell_The_Whole_Story_180880.asp


Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2018 4:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Story_Box
_Office_Doesnt_Tell_The_Whole_Story_180880.asp


Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

I don't think it is Spoiler that there is a 3 year span in this film.
At the end of the 3 years, Chewbacca is 190 years old, at least. Based upon the comments about the Rebellion and it's Genesis, I had thought it closer to ANH/R1. But I think you said it is from 11 years to 8 years before, making Han about 29 when he meets Luke & Leia.
What is BBY?
So then this starts 7 years after Episode III, right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:47 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I love the trolling that happened regarding Lando's character.

I'd been hearing a lot about how they turned him into a pansexual in Solo. You had web articles giving high praise for this, as well as those demonizing the creators of the movie for putting something like that in a family movie. People on both sides going crazy about the issue.

Then what seems to be a pretty small amount of people so far went to see the movie and there was no evidence of this at all.

That's probably the most entertainment that Star Wars has brought me since 1983.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:42 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I love the trolling that happened regarding Lando's character.

I'd been hearing a lot about how they turned him into a pansexual in Solo. You had web articles giving high praise for this, as well as those demonizing the creators of the movie for putting something like that in a family movie. People on both sides going crazy about the issue.

Then what seems to be a pretty small amount of people so far went to see the movie and there was no evidence of this at all.

That's probably the most entertainment that Star Wars has brought me since 1983.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

2 things. They might have been talking about his relationship with his droid Pilot. Or that stuff may have been discarded by Howard.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2018 7:55 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2018 10:16 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I love the trolling that happened regarding Lando's character.

I'd been hearing a lot about how they turned him into a pansexual in Solo. You had web articles giving high praise for this, as well as those demonizing the creators of the movie for putting something like that in a family movie. People on both sides going crazy about the issue.

Then what seems to be a pretty small amount of people so far went to see the movie and there was no evidence of this at all.

That's probably the most entertainment that Star Wars has brought me since 1983.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

2 things. They might have been talking about his relationship with his droid Pilot. Or that stuff may have been discarded by Howard.



I think there's the stuff with L3, definitely, but also Lando chatting up various alien folks. There's also that moment where L3 calls Lando on flirting with Han. Personally, it didn't seem to be real flirting to me, but L3 knows Lando better than I do, so who knows what she's seen before?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2018 10:49 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Story_Box
_Office_Doesnt_Tell_The_Whole_Story_180880.asp


Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

I don't think it is Spoiler that there is a 3 year span in this film.
At the end of the 3 years, Chewbacca is 190 years old, at least. Based upon the comments about the Rebellion and it's Genesis, I had thought it closer to ANH/R1. But I think you said it is from 11 years to 8 years before, making Han about 29 when he meets Luke & Leia.
What is BBY?
So then this starts 7 years after Episode III, right?



I just skimmed a few articles and I don't think there's solid consensus about what exact year the movie takes place, but everyone agrees that it's roughly a decade prior to A New Hope.

With the 3 year jump indicated, it could be 14/11, or 13/10, or even 12/9. But

BBY = Before Battle of Yavin, so Rogue One and A New Hope are technically "zero," I guess. My understanding (again, from the articles I just skimmed) is that the timeline looks like this:

Phantom Menace -32 BBY
Attack of the Clones -22 BBY
Revenge of the Sith -19 BBY
Solo (intro) approx -14/-13 BBY
Solo (main story) approx - 11/10 BBY
Rebels (animated series) begins -5 BBY
Rogue One 0 BBY
A New Hope 0 BBY (establishes Battle of Yavin and new timeline)

Thus, Chewie may not LITERALLY be 190 in Solo or 200 in ANH, but he's close enough. If you've 202, does it really matter? :)

As for Han, his actual age has never been established, but he's about a decade older than Luke and Leia, who would be 19 during ANH, so let's call him 29 (a commonly accepted number, despite Ford being much older than that). That would make Solo roughly 19 during the main storyline and 16 during the intro. That seems to jibe storywise, even if Alden Ehrenreich (like Ford before him) is older than the character.

Given that we see the Empire actively recruiting teenagers a few years later in the Rebels animated series, Solo signing up at 16 would not be a surprise.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2018 12:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/story/fron
t/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Sto
ry_Box_Office_Doesnt_Tell_Th
e_Whole_Story_180880.asp

Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

I don't think it is Spoiler that there is a 3 year span in this film.
At the end of the 3 years, Chewbacca is 190 years old, at least. Based upon the comments about the Rebellion and it's Genesis, I had thought it closer to ANH/R1. But I think you said it is from 11 years to 8 years before, making Han about 29 when he meets Luke & Leia.
What is BBY?
So then this starts 7 years after Episode III, right?



I just skimmed a few articles and I don't think there's solid consensus about what exact year the movie takes place, but everyone agrees that it's roughly a decade prior to A New Hope.

With the 3 year jump indicated, it could be 14/11, or 13/10, or even 12/9. But

BBY = Before Battle of Yavin, so Rogue One and A New Hope are technically "zero," I guess. My understanding (again, from the articles I just skimmed) is that the timeline looks like this:

Phantom Menace -32 BBY
Attack of the Clones -22 BBY
Revenge of the Sith -19 BBY
Solo (intro) approx -14/-13 BBY
Solo (main story) approx - 11/10 BBY
Rebels (animated series) begins -5 BBY
Rogue One 0 BBY
A New Hope 0 BBY (establishes Battle of Yavin and new timeline)

Thus, Chewie may not LITERALLY be 190 in Solo or 200 in ANH, but he's close enough. If you've 202, does it really matter? :)

As for Han, his actual age has never been established, but he's about a decade older than Luke and Leia, who would be 19 during ANH, so let's call him 29 (a commonly accepted number, despite Ford being much older than that). That would make Solo roughly 19 during the main storyline and 16 during the intro. That seems to jibe storywise, even if Alden Ehrenreich (like Ford before him) is older than the character.

Given that we see the Empire actively recruiting teenagers a few years later in the Rebels animated series, Solo signing up at 16 would not be a surprise.

I thought Luke and Uncle Owen had argued, over the fact that Luke had turned 18.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2018 3:04 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Solo: A Star Wars Story has been on several Must-See Lists this year, and I feel it may be the first or best to fulfill hopes and expectations, in quite a while. I liked Wind River but it was a surprise for me, I didn't really see it coming. I had known Rogue One was coming, but I didn't know what it was about, what context or connection to the Star Wars quiltwork. Solo was a character I was familiar with, and I am glad Ron Howard has added this to his resume. Makes me wish he would have accepted the other Star Wars film that he was asked to do years ago.

This could well be the best overall film of the year.

I can't list everything right now, but some thoughts of similarities: Let's Do Crime! From The Train Job. Some vibe of James Bond, with the story and scene of spy entering the villian's lair, which also resembles Trash - and I never noticed that about the Bellerophon visit until watching this film, and later this scene development reminded me of The Ball in Shindig, with 3 BDHs bumping into each other. And I wondered - is this what was trying to happen with that lame Casino gambit in TLJ?
Galaxy Quest had dragging mines, Star Trek II's climax, Star Wars V, Gran Torino, Pilot Serenity opening scenes, Starship Troopers, Top Gun flight tricks, plus the James Bond card games I was all reminded of.
I have not seen Thor 3

Select to view spoiler:


where Thor and Hulk meet in the arena.



Apparently Wookie Speak does not have a word for

Select to view spoiler:


reinforcements



I heard that Howard shot more than 80% of the shots. I suspect one that was left from the twits was Falcon landing on Severin.

I did notice some grainy or fuzzy lensework, and maybe poor lighting or contrast on numerous shots. This seemed a departure from the Lucas works, which had crisp color, contrast, focus, lighting whether indoors or desert locales. Howard's work has also maintained crisp cinematography in each film I can recall. I think all of Firefly had better resolution and clarity than some scenes in Solo.

The story seemed quite the symphony of coinciding needs and talents, altering the balance from one shot to the next.

Does anybody know of the time frame here, or did I miss it? SWIV was 18 years after SWIII. So how far between there did this span take place?
Did we already know how old Chewbacca was?

I thought there was more that I planned to say. Can't believe it's not coming to me. Probably need to watch again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Solo: A Star Wars Story has been on several Must-See Lists this year, and I feel it may be the first or best to fulfill hopes and expectations, in quite a while. I liked Wind River but it was a surprise for me, I didn't really see it coming. I had known Rogue One was coming, but I didn't know what it was about, what context or connection to the Star Wars quiltwork. Solo was a character I was familiar with, and I am glad Ron Howard has added this to his resume. Makes me wish he would have accepted the other Star Wars film that he was asked to do years ago.

This could well be the best overall film of the year.

I can't list everything right now, but some thoughts of similarities: Let's Do Crime! From The Train Job. Some vibe of James Bond, with the story and scene of spy entering the villian's lair, which also resembles Trash - and I never noticed that about the Bellerophon visit until watching this film, and later this scene development reminded me of The Ball in Shindig, with 3 BDHs bumping into each other. And I wondered - is this what was trying to happen with that lame Casino gambit in TLJ?
Galaxy Quest had dragging mines, Star Trek II's climax, Star Wars V, Gran Torino, Pilot Serenity opening scenes, Starship Troopers, Top Gun flight tricks, plus the James Bond card games I was all reminded of.
I have not seen Thor 3

Select to view spoiler:


where Thor and Hulk meet in the arena.



Apparently Wookie Speak does not have a word for

Select to view spoiler:


reinforcements



I heard that Howard shot more than 80% of the shots. I suspect one that was left from the twits was Falcon landing on Savareen.

I did notice some grainy or fuzzy lensework, and maybe poor lighting or contrast on numerous shots. This seemed a departure from the Lucas works, which had crisp color, contrast, focus, lighting whether indoors or desert locales. Howard's work has also maintained crisp cinematography in each film I can recall. I think all of Firefly had better resolution and clarity than some scenes in Solo.

The story seemed quite the symphony of coinciding needs and talents, altering the balance from one shot to the next.

Does anybody know of the time frame here, or did I miss it? SWIV was 18 years after SWIII. So how far between there did this span take place?
Did we already know how old Chewbacca was?

I was also reminded of Edge of Tomorrow, when a liar explains an honest person: take him away, and don't believe anything he says, it's all lies.
And Objects in Space, when River embodies Serenity.
The Landing in Armageddon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2018 11:30 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Solo: A Star Wars Story has been on several Must-See Lists this year, and I feel it may be the first or best to fulfill hopes and expectations, in quite a while. I liked Wind River but it was a surprise for me, I didn't really see it coming. I had known Rogue One was coming, but I didn't know what it was about, what context or connection to the Star Wars quiltwork. Solo was a character I was familiar with, and I am glad Ron Howard has added this to his resume. Makes me wish he would have accepted the other Star Wars film that he was asked to do years ago.

This could well be the best overall film of the year.

I can't list everything right now, but some thoughts of similarities: Let's Do Crime! From The Train Job. Some vibe of James Bond, with the story and scene of spy entering the villian's lair, which also resembles Trash - and I never noticed that about the Bellerophon visit until watching this film, and later this scene development reminded me of The Ball in Shindig, with 3 BDHs bumping into each other. And I wondered - is this what was trying to happen with that lame Casino gambit in TLJ?
Galaxy Quest had dragging mines, Star Trek II's climax, Star Wars V, Gran Torino, Pilot Serenity opening scenes, Starship Troopers, Top Gun flight tricks, plus the James Bond card games I was all reminded of.
I have not seen Thor 3

Select to view spoiler:


where Thor and Hulk meet in the arena.



Apparently Wookie Speak does not have a word for

Select to view spoiler:


reinforcements



I heard that Howard shot more than 80% of the shots. I suspect one that was left from the twits was Falcon landing on Savareen.

I did notice some grainy or fuzzy lensework, and maybe poor lighting or contrast on numerous shots. This seemed a departure from the Lucas works, which had crisp color, contrast, focus, lighting whether indoors or desert locales. Howard's work has also maintained crisp cinematography in each film I can recall. I think all of Firefly had better resolution and clarity than some scenes in Solo.

The story seemed quite the symphony of coinciding needs and talents, altering the balance from one shot to the next.

Does anybody know of the time frame here, or did I miss it? SWIV was 18 years after SWIII. So how far between there did this span take place?
Did we already know how old Chewbacca was?

I was also reminded of Edge of Tomorrow, when a liar explains an honest person: take him away, and don't believe anything he says, it's all lies.
And Objects in Space, when River embodies Serenity.
The Landing in Armageddon.

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 10, 2018 4:10 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/stor
y/front/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Sto
ry_Box_Office_Do
esnt_Tell_The_Whole_Story_180880.asp

Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

I don't think it is Spoiler that there is a 3 year span in this film.
At the end of the 3 years, Chewbacca is 190 years old, at least. Based upon the comments about the Rebellion and it's Genesis, I had thought it closer to ANH/R1. But I think you said it is from 11 years to 8 years before, making Han about 29 when he meets Luke & Leia.
What is BBY?
So then this starts 7 years after Episode III, right?



I just skimmed a few articles and I don't think there's solid consensus about what exact year the movie takes place, but everyone agrees that it's roughly a decade prior to A New Hope.

With the 3 year jump indicated, it could be 14/11, or 13/10, or even 12/9. But

BBY = Before Battle of Yavin, so Rogue One and A New Hope are technically "zero," I guess. My understanding (again, from the articles I just skimmed) is that the timeline looks like this:

Phantom Menace -32 BBY
Attack of the Clones -22 BBY
Revenge of the Sith -19 BBY
Solo (intro) approx -14/-13 BBY
Solo (main story) approx - 11/10 BBY
Rebels (animated series) begins -5 BBY
Rogue One 0 BBY
A New Hope 0 BBY (establishes Battle of Yavin and new timeline)

Thus, Chewie may not LITERALLY be 190 in Solo or 200 in ANH, but he's close enough. If you've 202, does it really matter? :)

As for Han, his actual age has never been established, but he's about a decade older than Luke and Leia, who would be 19 during ANH, so let's call him 29 (a commonly accepted number, despite Ford being much older than that). That would make Solo roughly 19 during the main storyline and 16 during the intro. That seems to jibe storywise, even if Alden Ehrenreich (like Ford before him) is older than the character.

Given that we see the Empire actively recruiting teenagers a few years later in the Rebels animated series, Solo signing up at 16 would not be a surprise.

Since we're chatting the time span SWIII - SWIV, I don't recall ever hearing explanation of Uncle Owen.
In ANH Vader is supposed to be what, about 38 years old? Owen looks older than that. Anakin was a virgin birth, right? And had no siblings in SWI, right? So Owen would need to be 32 or younger in ANH in order to be a sibling of Anakin.
So is Owen a completely fabricated relation of Luke, with no actual relation at all?


BTW I noticed the ANH script describes Chewbacca as 200 years old. And it's unlikely Chewie would say 190 if he were 187. So those support the 10 year model.


Fisher was born in 1956, Hamill in 1951, Ford in 1942. If filming was in 1974, they were 18 & 23 year old twins, and Han was 32.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 10, 2018 7:10 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.



Hey Jewels,

I think that they were going for a 70s type vibe in regards to the
cinematography, but, as I understand it, they had projection problems in many theaters.

http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

This may be the reason why it got lousy reviews as well.


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 10, 2018 6:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.



Hey Jewels,

I think that they were going for a 70s type vibe in regards to the
cinematography, but, as I understand it, they had projection problems in many theaters.

http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

This may be the reason why it got lousy reviews as well.


SGG


Any word on how these will translate to DVD?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2018 2:09 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I'm not sure about the DVD graphics, but I will keep you posted if I hear anything.

By the way, the theater I saw this in had a very good screen and the
cinematography was excellent. Wide screen, excellent graphics although
some scenes were a bit on the dark side. I don't know if that was due to a filtering process.

P.S. I found out that the DVD release date is September 2018 in both
digital HD and Blu Ray. I didn't get much more than that.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.



Hey Jewels,

I think that they were going for a 70s type vibe in regards to the
cinematography, but, as I understand it, they had projection problems in many theaters.

http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

This may be the reason why it got lousy reviews as well.


SGG


Any word on how these will translate to DVD?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2018 5:31 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I'm not sure about the DVD graphics, but I will keep you posted if I hear anything.

By the way, the theater I saw this in had a very good screen and the
cinematography was excellent. Wide screen, excellent graphics although
some scenes were a bit on the dark side. I don't know if that was due to a filtering process.

P.S. I found out that the DVD release date is September 2018 in both
digital HD and Blu Ray. I didn't get much more than that.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.



Hey Jewels,

I think that they were going for a 70s type vibe in regards to the
cinematography, but, as I understand it, they had projection problems in many theaters.

http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

This may be the reason why it got lousy reviews as well.


SGG


Any word on how these will translate to DVD?


I've seen it on more then 2 different screens.
You didn't find the first yacht scenes, at the party, to be unfocused or hazy? Now that I recall, the final scenes on the yacht seemed much better focused or filtered.

I could understand if the first chase scenes were watery, to give contrast aluding to a separate time period, but then everything in the now time should be clear.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Uncharted (2018) starring Nathan Fillion
Tue, August 14, 2018 07:16 - 5 posts
What Are Your Must-See Films For 2018?
Tue, August 14, 2018 06:43 - 123 posts
Untapped potential
Sun, August 5, 2018 02:07 - 26 posts
Mission Impossible - Fallout
Mon, July 30, 2018 02:55 - 1 posts
Equalizer 2
Mon, July 30, 2018 02:47 - 1 posts
Star Wars: Rogue One
Thu, July 26, 2018 06:25 - 55 posts
Your Favorite Classic Movies - 60s, 70s, 80s & 90s
Mon, July 16, 2018 13:24 - 21 posts
Best Films of the past 10 years
Sun, July 15, 2018 07:56 - 71 posts
The funniest NSFW documentary ever made
Thu, July 12, 2018 23:06 - 6 posts
Submergence
Mon, July 9, 2018 08:38 - 1 posts
Sicario 2
Thu, July 5, 2018 04:14 - 1 posts
Top Gun: Maverick
Thu, July 5, 2018 03:01 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL