Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard, May 25, 2018) Movie • Page 10

Except for the two Guardians films; those are so clearly James Gunn films just from how they're shot and written all the way down to the editing and music. And also, from the look of it, Thor: Ragnarok. But other than that, absolutely.

To be fair, Ron Howard is a much better/more accomplished director than Peyton Reed, historically if not recently. Although you know I share your feelings on this overall haha

 

To be fair, Thor: Ragnarok is 100 percent based off Guardians success.

 

That's true, but Ron Howard has done franchise work and I'm not sure I'd call it significantly set apart from your average franchise thriller. The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons were unremarkable as a whole, aside from some shot composition here and a performance there. Ultimately yeah, I'm sure Howard has the potential to bring stuff in that can help make a functional film, but given the situation he's coming into, five months into shooting and on a leash from the studio, I'm not really willing to expect more than "competent" from Han Solo.

While I like his best films, though, (Frost/Nixon, Apollo 13 are what come to mind) Howard might be one of the more overrated directors out there when you take into account the entire body of work vs. reputation. Quite a few more misses than hits. Not that I'd hold Han Solo against him if it sucked or give him a lion's share of credit if it were great. I don't think he's being called in here to make a great movie, but to steer a big project where the majority of artistic work is already done towards an acceptable end point for the studio.

 

Never could have seen that

 

He wins since he did Bring It On!

 

You've enjoyed all of the movies they've done so far, correct? So, I guess we need to trust that they know what's best for the franchise right now until they prove us wrong.

 

I mean, there's only been two, and I think they both coulda been better (even for as much as I love TFA) and what I saw in RO worried me about what happens when they aim for the Marvel-ization of the franchise.

They proved themselves wrong with Marvel (and one could argue Pixar), so I'm pretty heightened to Disney's meddling and not trusting them. Heh, so I don't trust them based on Marvel alone.

 

My hope is that it's a different group of people working on these (I agree marvel was somewhat ruined, and feels simply like an algorithm created the movies). I'm still holding out hope that last Jedi is truly different than any other Star Wars film, I think that film will speak volumes to what we can expect from them in the future. Rogue one had to play it safe bc it was the first stand alone film, I agree this firing looks bad but I'm holding out until I see the final product to really worry.

 

I'm all in on the Last Jedi, but what it might say about the future of the franchise is tempered by diving into Colin Treverrow in Episode IX.

 

Worried it says the opposite given the third movie's director.

I'd argue it should be the kind of movie to take even more risks, because it's a stand alone film.

 

Yea, I can see that side of it. I think that it originally was going to and then.. reshoot. Still found the film very enjoyable though and found myself very connected to the characters at the end of the movie. (I know others felt differently). At the end of the day I do wish Disney would give these directors creative freedom bc the Star Wars name is going to put butts in the seats alone, so making changes to appease some formula isn't necessary. You could argue the same with marvel though.

 

I actually think Rogue One did take a good amount of risks (painting the rebellion as more grey, Krennic being more of a political opportunist villain as opposed to just evil for evil's sake, and killing all the main characters), they just didn't fully commit to the characters. Where it felt too "Marvely" (if that's what were calling it) were all the shoehorned in references to the original trilogy.

 

Are you not familiar with Taika Waititi's work?

 

Worst moment of rogue one is the zoom in on the blue milk... like why??? We know it's there!!!!!

 

No, not really.

 

You, my friend, are in for a fuckin treat. Check out Hunt for The Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows.

 

Both are on my list. I think I have Wilderpeople somewhere.

 

For me it was the prolonged cameo by the Mos Eisley Cantina guys.

 

One of the GOAT episodes, from arguably the best season.

 

I disagree with those being risks; essentially those first two are about having shades of grey, which is something everybody wants in their movies now. The modern audience generally doesn't accept characters/elements that are purely good. It only made sense to add those elements because I don't think most people would go for anything simpler than that. And as for everyone dying, that seemed kind of inevitable...

Then again I'm always skeptical whenever people say these big Disney properties are taking risks. Everyone said GotG was such a risk and I was just like, it's got the "Marvel" name attached to it, of course it's gonna make a ton of money haha

 

^ I can't see talk of risks in film without getting angry that women qualify as such in the minds of Hollywood idiots.

 

Not sure I agree with that. Flawed sure (being insecure, selfish, and hubris are the most common), but we never really see the "good guys" kill in cold blood in these bigger franchise/super hero movies. And so many of the villains in big popcorn flicks feel like they are there just there to be bad.

I do 100% agree with none of these movies being risks. I feel like a broken record saying it again in this thread, but yea, all of these are going to make a huge profit. They could go in any direction and people will go see it if you slap the Star Wars or Marvel logo on it.

 

That's a fair point about Cassian killing in cold blood, I'll concede that at least. I guess I'm just thinking about how everyone from Bond to Superman has to be dark and tortured now and that seems to be what audiences want to see (not factoring critical reaction to this at all, which I don't believe matters to general audiences.)

 

Yea, the darker character definitely is a trend that really took off with the Dark Knight, so I see what you're saying. It just seemed like a big departure for Star Wars since it's usually pretty black and white in terms of good and bad there (with the exception of Lando maybe, who was definitely pretty grey in Empire).