dimejinky99 wrote:It was clunky but the reason I think is this is life under imperial control. Han lives in a control zone as we know so his and many others names are probably on a no fly list so he can’t reveal his true surname to the imperial officer.
dimejinky99 wrote:Right back at you. 202 posts most of them posting complaints about Star Wars.
Hell yeah. While you're on the side that the new movies and all the extra stuff is "great", I'm on the other side that is disappointed and upset that the standards seem to have been lowered. I'm not denying my negativity towards new Star Wars.
- The naming of "Solo". It would have been better left unsaid.
- Han starting the Rebellion with the coaxium. Just have them give them some. You don't have to explicitly state "to start the rebellion"
- Maul lighting his lightsaber. Completely unnecessary and undermines the character growth he's had since the Naboo encounter. Instead he's just the tattooed guy with cool lightsaber again.
- The end sabacc game. Just end the movie when Han steals the card. Why do you have to explain everything?!
- The naming of "Solo". It would have been better left unsaid.
- Han starting the Rebellion with the coaxium. Just have them give them some. You don't have to explicitly state "to start the rebellion"
- Maul lighting his lightsaber. Completely unnecessary and undermines the character growth he's had since the Naboo encounter. Instead he's just the tattooed guy with cool lightsaber again.
- The end sabacc game. Just end the movie when Han steals the card. Why do you have to explain everything?!
It's funny...I agree with your point in general but necessarily those examples.
Just goes to show how much of it there is in the movie.
But watching Empire again, that stuff has always been a part of Star Wars. It's a pretty on the nose franchise.
And I do really like the idea of Han trying to build a name and a persona that contradicts who he really is. The idea that he embraces the name that his oppressors give him as a sort of rebellion is an interesting concept. There is something there. It just didn't quite work.
Still, a minor grievance for me. Certainly not enough to ruin the movie. Star Wars has always done dumb shit like that.
- The naming of "Solo". It would have been better left unsaid.
- Han starting the Rebellion with the coaxium. Just have them give them some. You don't have to explicitly state "to start the rebellion"
- Maul lighting his lightsaber. Completely unnecessary and undermines the character growth he's had since the Naboo encounter. Instead he's just the tattooed guy with cool lightsaber again.
- The end sabacc game. Just end the movie when Han steals the card. Why do you have to explain everything?!
It's funny...I agree with your point in general but necessarily those examples.
Just goes to show how much of it there is in the movie.
But watching Empire again, that stuff has always been a part of Star Wars. It's a pretty on the nose franchise.
What stuff in Empire is similar to the on the nose stuff in Solo?
durdencommatyler wrote:And I do really like the idea of Han trying to build a name and a persona that contradicts who he really is. The idea that he embraces the name that his oppressors give him as a sort of rebellion is an interesting concept. There is something there. It just didn't quite work.
Still, a minor grievance for me. Certainly not enough to ruin the movie. Star Wars has always done dumb shit like that.
Im not sure if it really contradics who he is. Not at the time and not at the end, he basically went back to that life.
Han is probably the most back reference character in the entire saga as we look at it.
More than even the Obi wans or Vader’s.
Think about it.
So they make this film and had to pimp it out by making those references.
Say we get an Obi wan film. I can’t think of really anything like the amount of backstory references Han has. Cos we already have Obi wans early days and well detailed.
I dunno. The name thing is so clumsy. The rest I was fine with.
durdencommatyler wrote:And I do really like the idea of Han trying to build a name and a persona that contradicts who he really is. The idea that he embraces the name that his oppressors give him as a sort of rebellion is an interesting concept. There is something there. It just didn't quite work.
Still, a minor grievance for me. Certainly not enough to ruin the movie. Star Wars has always done dumb shit like that.
Im not sure if it really contradics who he is. Not at the time and not at the end, he basically went back to that life.
I like that about his ending.
Who Han is and who Han presents are different people. Qi'ra calls him in it in Solo and, for me, it redefines Ford's performance and makes Han Solo a much more interesting character.
Just watch the look on his face when Leia calls him a scoundrel in Empire. He loves it. It damn near arouses him.
- The naming of "Solo". It would have been better left unsaid.
- Han starting the Rebellion with the coaxium. Just have them give them some. You don't have to explicitly state "to start the rebellion"
- Maul lighting his lightsaber. Completely unnecessary and undermines the character growth he's had since the Naboo encounter. Instead he's just the tattooed guy with cool lightsaber again.
- The end sabacc game. Just end the movie when Han steals the card. Why do you have to explain everything?!
It's funny...I agree with your point in general but necessarily those examples.
Just goes to show how much of it there is in the movie.
But watching Empire again, that stuff has always been a part of Star Wars. It's a pretty on the nose franchise.
What stuff in Empire is similar to the on the nose stuff in Solo?
Not necessarily in the nose just really hokey humor and contrived moments.
I see people’s problems with referencing and being on the nose.
To be completely honest would you be ok if they made a film about han and didn’t do it?
Every reference in han fits and Is subtle when you compare it to beng smashed over the head with doctor evizan threatening Jyn and just about every other reference in rogue one.
They only two moments it was done right in that film was choppers blink and you miss it cameo and General Syndula over the tannoy.
Every other reference was painfully obvious. Hello R2 and 3P0.
Solos references are far deeper cuts relevant to the Character and expanded universe and they’re done with subtlety and care.
dimejinky99 wrote:I see people’s problems with referencing and being on the nose.
To be completely honest would you be ok if they made a film about han and didn’t do it?
Every reference in han fits and Is subtle when you compare it to beng smashed over the head with doctor evizan threatening Jyn and just about every other reference in rogue one.
They only two moments it was done right in that film was choppers blink and you miss it cameo and General Syndula over the tannoy.
Every other reference was painfully obvious. Hello R2 and 3P0.
Solos references are far deeper cuts relevant to the Character and expanded universe and they’re done with subtlety and care.
I would prefer if none of these movies had these moments. They intend them to be fan service, but they just insult our intelligence.
