Solo release thread (spoilers)

[KraytKing]

Heck, it's widely acknowledged to be best moment is Darth Vader arriving and killing a bunch of extras, which is as a matter of story and character totally irrelevant because all the characters we care about are already dead. This is in retrospect plainly bad writing papered over with - again - pretty effective action.

It's the best moment because of the character. It finally sets down how the Empire works, and why they get their ass kicked by a bunch of terrorists. The beginning of the scene is Vader exiting hyperspace and immediately destroying or disabling the entire Rebel fleet. The same fleet that had been in battle with two other Star Destroyers and come away no worse for wear. The point is, Darth Vader is decisive, and Imperial bureaucrat captains are not. This is exacerbated in the hallway scene; never before has Vader actually been scary. Worst he did in the OT was strangle a few guys.

It isn't about the characters at this point, which is the beauty of Rogue One. It accepted that its own characters could not possibly be important enough to beat the heroes of the OT, so it killed them to keep the continuity and legacy alive. The sequel trilogy didn't bother. I was afraid Solo would do the same, but it avoided that gruesome fate, at least a little. When I saw the trailer with the Maw Star Destroyer in it, I was worried that it would be a movie about Han fighting the Empire. Instead, it was about how he had a heart of gold ten years before his change of heart.

Edit: Fuck you, Seafort. Fuckin ninja'd me, and said what I said more coherently

[Captain Seafort]

The saga films are only constrained plot-wise in one direction. Before TFA, things were WIDE open. They could have started right after the Battle of Endor or wait X years. They could have started after the New Republic (or whatever entity fills the power vacuum left behind by the Empire) is established, or tell how that entity is established. The one-offs are pretty constrained in time and plot, comparatively. They didn't even HAVE to include any established characters, although that would have been a poor choice, IMHO.

All true, and none of it relevant to my point. They still have to be structured as a third of a completed story, which makes it far more difficult than a standalone which is done and dusted once the credits roll, regardless of the presence or absence of a sequel hook.

As for comparing the one-offs to each other, I think Rogue One was more constrained than Solo at what questions the respective movies set out to answer (Rogue One: how did the Death Star plans get into Leia's hands?; Solo: how did Han Solo become the awesome dude he is?). With Solo, there are only a few constraints within the "legit" canon (the movies) that it must work in, but ultimately it's pretty wide open how it achieves its goal: Han worked for Jabba and botched a job, Chewie somehow became incredibly devoted to Han, 12-parsec Kessel Run (and maybe not even this needs to be included, because you could argue Han boasted on behalf of the Falcon and not himself), and Han won the Falcon from Lando "fair and square" (That it was via Sabacc isn't even mentioned. Come to think of it, is Sabacc even mentioned in the movies at all?). Rogue One is telling a more specific story, and there are tighter plot points that must be included as to how that question is answered. ANH's opening crawl provides a few ("Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base", "Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans"), and Vader provides a couple more ("Where are those transmissions you intercepted?" and "Several transmissions were beamed to this ship by Rebel spies.").

That's precisely what I mean when I say Rogue One is less constrained - it only had to worry about keeping one or two plot points consistent with previously established, but pretty vague, canon. Solo had to worry about keeping the fundamental nature of, and relationships between, its main characters consistent with that which formed a central part of previously established canon.

[Elheru Aran]

Sabacc wasn't mentioned in the OT/PT, but it's always been popular in the old EU. Solo is IIRC the first that it's been mentioned on screen, though I'm sure it's gotten a mention in CW or Rebels. Specifically, "Idiot's Array" and "Full Sabacc" are referenced in the film, but it looked like they weren't going with the notion of the cards changing faces during play, just standard flat cards in a funny shape.

Pretty sure there's an online app or two for official Disney versions of "Sabacc" by now.

Anyway. I did enjoy all the references. This really was a movie for fans, more so I think than the general public to a large degree. That's probably some of what's hurting it-- you really get a lot more out of it if you can catch and enjoy all the references. Which, I'll grant, are a bit obscure sometimes. I mean... who out there has even heard of the Lando Calrissian Adventures lately?

[Khaat]

I remember sabacc being described (as electronic re-configuring cards) in the novel Lando Calrissian and the Mindharp of Sharu, and it sounds like that was given a nod in Solo?

[Vympel]

Solo is a film about characters. The core of Rogue One was more a film about character types - showing the real rebellion, the hodge-podge of petty crooks, terrorists, Imperial deserters and professional insurrectionists who were responsible for the bulk of the fighting, and doing so without the idealism or glamour of Jedi and starfighter pilots.

I doubt very much that's what it intended to do. That's more of a rationalisation after the fact for its drawbacks.

With the obvious exception of Vader himself. If it had been any other character performing the exact same actions that scene would still have been pretty impressive, but it wouldn't have had the same impact as showing Vader truly being Vader for the first time since ESB - the impassive, relentless and unstoppable style that created such an aura around him both in-universe and out.

Vader's appearance in the film is barely above that of cameo. You don't care about Vader because anything the film did, you care about Vader because other, better films made you care about Vader and this movie is using that name recognition as a crutch. To wit:

It's the best moment because of the character.

Your movie has a writing problem if the best moment in it has absolutely nothing to do with anything the protagonists are experiencing. It's an admission of failure, and instead dangling a cool action scene with another, better character in front of you to distract you.

It finally sets down how the Empire works, and why they get their ass kicked by a bunch of terrorists. The beginning of the scene is Vader exiting hyperspace and immediately destroying or disabling the entire Rebel fleet. The same fleet that had been in battle with two other Star Destroyers and come away no worse for wear. The point is, Darth Vader is decisive, and Imperial bureaucrat captains are not. This is exacerbated in the hallway scene; never before has Vader actually been scary. Worst he did in the OT was strangle a few guys.

Yeah, nah. Vader is at his scariest in Empire Strikes Back, looming over all of our heroes in Cloud City.

It isn't about the characters at this point, which is the beauty of Rogue One. It accepted that its own characters could not possibly be important enough to beat the heroes of the OT, so it killed them to keep the continuity and legacy alive.

Rogue One's problems i.e. basically being a mess before the third act (e.g. BOR GULLET going nowhere at all) its best moments having nothing to do with the protagonists, an extremely weak final confrontation with the actual villain (Krennic) aren't alleviated simply because it had the good sense to kill off its protagonists.

For the avoidance of doubt- I like Rogue One. But it's a good movie. It's not anywhere approaching great. Solo isn't "great" IMO either - just good - but its a more cohesive film that is telling a good story, as opposed to being a 2 hour long build up to an action scene.

[bilateralrope]

Two side Star Wars films. Two heist movies. The rumor I've seen is that the next one will be about Boba Fett. Will that be a heist movie as well ?

Maul is a bit of a wtf character though, does his role as a gang leader tally with his Rebels thing? His appearance is wide open for a Solo II but I can't see how they can make that satisfying and keep his Rebels show down with Kenobi in continuity.

In Solo, Maul seems to be high up in a criminal organisation, likely their leader. In Rebels, Maul was on his own. So any future Maul movie is likely to be Maul's fall from Solo to being on his own Still, he was completely unnecessary for this movie. He could have been replaced by a faceless hologram with a faked voice without changing anything.

[Captain Seafort]

I doubt very much that's what it intended to do. That's more of a rationalisation after the fact for its drawbacks.

If that theme was unintentional then the producers must be the most outrageously lucky bunch in film making history, because it means they produced a consistent, complex and compelling depiction of the moral ambiguity inherent in a rebellion by accident.

Vader's appearance in the film is barely above that of cameo. You don't care about Vader because anything the film did, you care about Vader because other, better films made you care about Vader and this movie is using that name recognition as a crutch.

Your movie has a writing problem if the best moment in it has absolutely nothing to do with anything the protagonists are experiencing. It's an admission of failure, and instead dangling a cool action scene with another, better character in front of you to distract you.

Vader's presence in the scene progresses logically from the plot, develops his character, and improves the overall film. The fact that he isn't directly opposing the main characters, wasn't created for the film, and isn't the most prominent villain in the plot, does not change this. It was the actions of the central characters that brought Vader and the cannon fodder to that point, and your argument smacks of saying that Vader shouldn't be used purely because he wasn't created and developed by this film. This is stupid - this is Star Wars, which means that you have one of the greatest villains in cinema history available to use. Anyone who fails to use such an asset, provided his appearance is consistent with his established nature and develops logically from the plot, purely to avoid using a character who doesn't originate in the film, is daft.

Rogue One's problems i.e. basically being a mess before the third act (e.g. BOR GULLET going nowhere at all) its best moments having nothing to do with the protagonists, an extremely weak final confrontation with the actual villain (Krennic) aren't alleviated simply because it had the good sense to kill off its protagonists.

I fail to see the characteristics you define as "as mess". Bor Gullet, for example, shows what sort of individual Saw Gurrera is - by virtue of his being willing to use such a creature, it is shown that he at best considers any means justified to achieve his ends, and at worst is no better than the Empire he opposes.

For the avoidance of doubt- I like Rogue One. But it's a good movie. It's not anywhere approaching great. Solo isn't "great" IMO either - just good - but its a more cohesive film that is telling a good story, as opposed to being a 2 hour long build up to an action scene.

I agree regarding the good/great distinction, but if you think Rogue One is just a 2 hour long build up to an action scene, then I suggest you go and watch it again, and pay a bit more attention this time.

[Vympel]

If that theme was unintentional then the producers must be the most outrageously lucky bunch in film making history, because it means they produced a consistent, complex and compelling depiction of the moral ambiguity inherent in a rebellion by accident.

The only immoral act to be found in the whole film on the part of the Rebellion I can recall is Cassian shooting the informant. By the end of the film he's completely gone over to Jyn Erso's side, refusing to assassinate her father even though he was ordered to do so.

Vader's presence in the scene progresses logically from the plot, develops his character, and improves the overall film. The fact that he isn't directly opposing the main characters, wasn't created for the film, and isn't the most prominent villain in the plot, does not change this. It was the actions of the central characters that brought Vader and the cannon fodder to that point, and your argument smacks of saying that Vader shouldn't be used purely because he wasn't created and developed by this film. This is stupid - this is Star Wars, which means that you have one of the greatest villains in cinema history available to use. Anyone who fails to use such an asset, provided his appearance is consistent with his established nature and develops logically from the plot, purely to avoid using a character who doesn't originate in the film, is daft.

What did we learn about Darth Vader's character in this movie we didn't already know from the original trilogy?

Also, I never said Vader shouldn't be used because he wasn't created and developed by the film. Rather, I think the movie doesn't earn its moment. He has no relationship to the actual protagonists, no interactions with them, and no effect on anything they do. The movie could've easily ended with the transmissions being beamed to the Tantive IV (as they were said to have done in ANH, mind).

(Let's not get into the movie's desire for the Vader scene needlessly complicating A New Hope by turning ANH's "several transmissions were beamed to this ship by Rebel spies" into "several transmissions were beamed to another ship by Rebel spies and your ship was hiding inside that ship and I actually saw the disk containing those transmissions being run into your ship")

I fail to see the characteristics you define as "as mess". Bor Gullet, for example, shows what sort of individual Saw Gurrera is - by virtue of his being willing to use such a creature, it is shown that he at best considers any means justified to achieve his ends, and at worst is no better than the Empire he opposes.

Bor Gullet is meant to make Bodhi go mad, but doesn't, and the plot point is dropped and never revisited. The real mess is Eadu - at Jedha, Jyn i told everything she needs to know by way of her father's message, and then for reasons which are unclear argues that they should go to Eadu and grab her father so he can tell the Rebellion what he has already told Jyn. It's apparent from the plot why this needs to happen (i.e. so Cassian's mission can continue and so Jyn can meet her dad) but its clunky as hell. Then because they're in a rush they slam Cassian's assassination mission and Jyn's meeting together by having Galen come out in the open on the landing platform - in a rainstorm, at night!

I agree regarding the good/great distinction, but if you think Rogue One is just a 2 hour long build up to an action scene, then I suggest you go and watch it again, and pay a bit more attention this time.

I'm overstating it and there's still stuff to like earlier in the movie (I saw this like 4 times in the cinema!), but I just wish it was a more cohesive whole.

[KraytKing]

You can't treat Rogue One like a standalone film. It wasn't. If the movie was a buildup for an action scene, they did it wrong. It should have been a build up to ANH, which it was. The point isn't to create longlasting characters and new plotlines to muck up the old universe, it's to clarify what already happened, such as why the Death Star has a hole leading straight to its one fucking weak point. Darth Vader was proven to be a total fucking badass, for those members of the audience with little history with Star Wars.

Anyway, you are right about Vader being scary before Rogue One. I was overstating.

[Gandalf]

How was Vader "proven to be a badass" in Rogue One?

He spends his time making shitty puns, menacing bureaucrats, and then kills a bunch of redshirts at the end. I must have missed something.

[KraytKing]

Agree to disagree, then.

[The Romulan Republic]

To me, the Vader scene at the end wasn't good because it showed Vader killing redshirts, and "bad ass" is not the term I would use.

That scene was amazing because it made the final outcome of the crucial conflict, not only that the whole film had been building up to, but that had been the basis of the very first Star Wars film, hinge on the sacrifice of those "redshirts". It simultaneously made the deaths of ordinary, no name, rank-and-file soldiers both horrifying and meaningful, which films of this sort very rarely pull off.

So far as it affects Vader's portrayal, it showed him for the first time in a Star Wars film from the point of view, not of someone who's more or less a peer of his, or someone in a position of power, but from the perspective of ordinary Rebel soldiers. And why he was so terrifying to the people of the galaxy.

I mean, yeah, I'm sure some audience members/internet tough guys got off on watching Vader butcher redshirts. But that's not what made the scene good.

Edit: To be clear on how high a regard I hold this scene, if I were to list the top five scenes in the Star Wars films (and keeping in mind that I still have to see Solo), it would probably be:

1. Luke refusing to turn/Vader's redemption in Return of the Jedi.
2. "I am your father." in Empire Strikes Back.
3. Jyn's death/the Vader scene in Rogue One.
4. Luke's last stand in The Last Jedi.
5. Rey pulling Luke's saber to her with the Force in The Force Awakens (though there are other contenders for the fifth spot).

[Avrjoe]

In Solo, Maul seems to be high up in a criminal organisation, likely their leader. In Rebels, Maul was on his own. So any future Maul movie is likely to be Maul's fall from Solo to being on his own Still, he was completely unnecessary for this movie. He could have been replaced by a faceless hologram with a faked voice without changing anything.

Only if this movie is taken alone rather than as part of a larger work. In a larger work this is setting up a point relevant to another movie, book, game or what have you.

Solo takes us down for a closer look at the criminal underworld. Rogue one took us for a closer look at the rebellion itself. A Boba Fett movie might take us closer in to the world of bounty hunters. These sort of snapshots of things we had glimpsed in the trilogy, but never focused on for long, was a big part of what made the old EU good.

DIsney of course wants to tell these stories as movies rather than novels. While more expensive to produce and a greater risk the rewards are also greater.

[bilateralrope]

Another thought: Those droids fighting each other in that cage was very unimpressive. Has nobody on the production team watched Battlebots ?

[MKSheppard]

The fall not killing Palpatine only enforces the point that it's nothing like Maul's situation, unless we are to assume that a Dark Side user falling down a shaft will always be Force Disintegrated™.

I always assumed that what happened was Palpatine hit something large enough to either kill him or incapacitate him enough that he was no longer able to hold back the dark side force energies within.

[SolarpunkFan]

I saw it yesterday.

Helluva fun movie with good humor and some genuinely touching moments.

Also since it pissed off a futurology blog I used to visit because it was "too SJW", I might just have to go see it again. My parents haven't seen it so I'll go with them.

[eMeM]

I saw it yesterday.

Helluva fun movie with good humor and some genuinely touching moments.

Also since it pissed off a futurology blog I used to visit because it was "too SJW", I might just have to go see it again. My parents haven't seen it so I'll go with them.

The queen of SJW tweeted that this movie is weak because it makes fun of SJWs.

It's impressive to offend both sides of the always offended spectrum at the same time.

[Esquire]

Haven't seen it yet (and, obviously, don't care even a little about spoilers) - what's the controversy this time around?

[Dass.Kapital]

Haven't seen it yet (and, obviously, don't care even a little about spoilers) - what's the controversy this time around?

Well.. the l33t robot seems to be coping a lot of flak. *Shrug* Jus' sayin'.

[tezunegari]

Haven't seen it yet (and, obviously, don't care even a little about spoilers) - what's the controversy this time around?

L3-37 - A droid with female personality and an implied sexual interest in Lando that is fighting for droid rights and starts a droid/salve rebellion during a heist... she dies shortly after and is turned into the falcons nav-computer.
Some assume she's a parody of the more vocal extremist-feminists.

And a surprise cameo by Darth Maul... well, half of him at least.

[Patroklos]

So it looks like Solo is going down as the most unsuccessful SW film in history, the only one not to turn a profit despite being the most expensive one yet.

So what is the likely fallout? What are the lessons to learn from this? Does this prompt change creatively in the Disney SW assembly line or do they continue to stamp out iterations in direct contempt for their audience?

Will this finally rid us of Kennedy?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think the major problem at the box office isn't anything to do with the film but the timing. It came out in a very crowded slot, right after Infinity War and Deadpool 2, and only a couple of weeks before Fallen Kingdom, all of which are (or are expected to be) big films. Combine that with TLJ being released only six months ago and its no wonder that it hasn't done as well as hoped. Too many big popular films out at the same time, the recent other SW film that was big, but had somewhat mixed reviews...yeah.

They probably should have waited until late summer or December like they did with TFA, TLJ and Rogue One.

[Gandalf]

Agree to disagree, then.

Out of curiosity, do you consider Anakin taking out the Younglings in ROTS badass too?

[Patroklos]

I think the major problem at the box office isn't anything to do with the film but the timing. It came out in a very crowded slot, right after Infinity War and Deadpool 2, and only a couple of weeks before Fallen Kingdom, all of which are (or are expected to be) big films. Combine that with TLJ being released only six months ago and its no wonder that it hasn't done as well as hoped. Too many big popular films out at the same time, the recent other SW film that was big, but had somewhat mixed reviews...yeah.

They probably should have waited until late summer or December like they did with TFA, TLJ and Rogue One.

Noted, but I am unsympathetic to those excuses. Infinity Wars was released over a month before Solo, there is zero reason to think that is impacting the movie. The only actual competition is Dead Pool (even then not competing for opening weekends) which is a big competing draw but hardly one that would justify Solo losing money. Blunting its profitability yes, but to make it not even return production costs through the second weekend?

As far as timing, Marvel lays that reasoning to waste as well. There was less than a month between the stand alone Black Panther and the main franchise entry Infinity Wars. Both are record successes. within the same time window as Solo and TLJ, they also release Thor: Ragnorok which was also a commercial success. That's three (four with Dead Pool if we expand the window just another month) Marval movies inside the same window, all successes, and all following a franchise with far more recent entries.

[Gandalf]

For me, the big thing was "Why watch a standalone Han Solo film?"

Rogue One sucked, so why would another fanservice standalone be good?