'Solo' sputters in takeoff with $83.3 million at box office

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruciferi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Further to my comment on going too often to the well:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Ha, that’s the perfect way to put it.

Someone in an earlier post said Lando’s pansexuality ruined it for them. That’s what I was referencing. But yeah, Lando is totally into Lando.
 
After Force Awakens it was game over for me. We got a taste of the radical feminism in that one, and from what I’ve heard, it’s even worse in The Last Jedi. Forced politics ruins movies. And I didn’t want to see the degradation of Luke.

I might see the Kenobi movie, if they don’t mess it up as well. He’s my favorite character in the franchise.
 
Maybe I’m just ignorant and naive, but I didn’t notice anything about Lando’s sexuality, one way or another.
 
eh, some people arent happy unless they are outraged about SOMETHING 🙂
 
“Good not great” is how I felt. While I still think it doesn’t have much of a reason to exist, it was quite a bit better than I’d expected, and this is about what I’d expect from a solid Star Wars spinoff.

Some people I know seem to be pretty much inventing reasons to hate this movie-- and don’t get me wrong, I’m less than satisfied with the treatment of the franchise in general the last few years too, so I get it, to an extent-- and I think I was doing the same before it was released, but minus a few annoyances I found it mostly decent, inoffensive fun.
 
I haven’t seen the movie, but from what I hear, this is just talk about it after the fact. Just like when J.K. Rowling made the comment that she’d always thought of Dumbledore as gay. It’s not in the source material anywhere. So the comments don’t really make a difference.
 
I also attribute its artistic success to the director, Irvin Kershner.
 
I think also the use of digital special effects has made fantasy-type movies much more commonplace than they used to be in the old analog days by allowing studios to create stunning visuals without breaking the bank or defying the laws of physics. And the more commonplace they are the less magical they are, necessarily.
 
Last edited:
DaveBj said:
Went to the well a little too often, perhaps?

I might watch in when I can do so for free, and in a venue where I can have a pause button.

D
Click to expand...
Or click on another movie if it stinks this bad.
tomarin said:
I think also the use of digital special effects has made fantasy-type movies much more commonplace than they used to be in the old analog days by allowing studios to create stunning visuals without breaking the bank or defying the laws of physics. And the more commonplace they are the less magical they are, necessarily.
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of any of the new stuff for this reason. They’re too “clean” effects-wise - I’m not making much sense here, maybe, but I don’t know a better way to explain it. I liked the older ones, the original ones - they looked “earthy” and “gritty” and to me seemed more realistic and believable.
 
Last edited:
Very much in agreement. I’m a Doctor Who fan, and while I love the new show’s character emphasis and amusing dialogue, there is something a bit unsatisfying seeing hordes of Daleks that you know only exist on a green screen.
Yes, monsters made of bubble wrap are ludicrous, but there’s something tangible to them that actually makes it easier to commit to the peril in the story…
 
The first Star Wars movie introduced the never before seen “beat-up stuff” to science-fiction films. Everything used to be in pristine condition (unless damaged after a battle) but I certainly was surprised when I saw Luke’s Landspeeder, dents, missing paint and all. A very new concept - at the time.
 
edwest211 said:
Actual Dalek props existed.
Click to expand...
Um, yes? I never said they didn’t. I’m talking about the millions of spinning Dalek ships created for big CGI scenes in the new series, compared to the tens of solid angry pepperpots that actually trundled onscreen in the classic series. Unless you’re suggesting that the sequences with Dalek ships are actually props,in which case I’m a bit lost now…
 
tomarin said:
I think also the use of digital special effects has made fantasy-type movies much more commonplace than they used to be in the old analog days…
Click to expand...
I agree completely! I enjoy watching the older movies with my kids, and I’ve noticed two major differences between the movies in the 50’s and 60’s and today’s fare:
  1. Special effects trump story in today’s movies. I really enjoy the old movies that look like they are adapted from a play (focus on characters, scenery is mostly paint).
  2. I’ve noticed in older movies that a studio would take the same cast from movie to movie, but changed the theme in each. Today we have sequels that just get more ponderous as the numbers increase as they try to maintain continuity between movies. John Wayne movies used the same cast for many movies, but kept the story fresh, e.g. “The Quiet Man” and “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.”
 
MikeInVA said:
I agree completely! I enjoy watching the older movies with my kids, and I’ve noticed two major differences between the movies in the 50’s and 60’s and today’s fare:
  1. Special effects trump story in today’s movies. I really enjoy the old movies that look like they are adapted from a play (focus on characters, scenery is mostly paint).
  2. I’ve noticed in older movies that a studio would take the same cast from movie to movie, but changed the theme in each. Today we have sequels that just get more ponderous as the numbers increase as they try to maintain continuity between movies. John Wayne movies used the same cast for many movies, but kept the story fresh, e.g. “The Quiet Man” and “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.”
Click to expand...
That was usually because some directors had a favorite group of actors that they liked to use repeatedly, I believe this was called a ‘stock company’ and it hasn’t completely disappeared, there are some directors who are still known to employ the same group of actors, such as Wes Anderson. Incidentally, William Demarest who played Uncle Charlie on ‘My Three Sons’ was in the stock troupe of director Preston Sturges before he became a television actor.
 
Escabrosa said:
I might see the Kenobi movie, if they don’t mess it up as well. He’s my favorite character in the franchise.
Click to expand...
Remember that very often, box office results are affected by the perception of the previous movie in the series. For example, Home Alone 2 crushed it at the box office because everyone loved Home Alone 1, not because Home Alone 2 was good.

So, I think a big part of the disappointing sales is not a reaction against Solo, but a reaction against the Last Jedi, which many saw as terrible, including me. I would rather rewatch any of the prequel movies than the Last Jedi.
 
Last edited:
robertlnorman said:
Remember that very often, box office results are affected by the perception of the previous movie in the series. For example, Home Alone 2 crushed it at the box office because everyone loved Home Alone 1, not because Home Alone 2 was good.

So, I think a big part of the disappointing sales is not a reaction against Solo, but a reaction against the Last Jedi, which many saw as terrible, including me. I would rather rewatch any of the prequel movies than the Last Jedi.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see ‘The Last Jedi’, as a bit of a protest against ‘The Force Awakens’ which I found unbearably and inexcusably reductive of the older movies.
 
Last edited:
I think that made for better movies. Today’s sequels just seem to be drawn out. I liked how the cast of a Robin Hood movie became the cast for a three musketeers movie or a cowboy movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top