Captured Joe said:
This is what bad anime does to people.
Solo: A Star Wars Story thread
- Thread starter Arvenski
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
This is what bad anime does to people.
Lumos said:
I disagree. The films need less attention, not more. There's never been a better time to make low budget films than the digital age, since marketing can be much cheaper, overhead costs for film equipment are tiny, and physical distribution is obsolete. There's no excuse for these billion dollar monsters Disney loves. They could fund French Connection several dozen times over, and it's a far more engaging action film than Episode 7.
The idea that you can improve the quality of a film by pumping more manpower and money into it is stupid, and it's contributed to some of the worst films of the last few decades. Modern cinema suffers from a total lack of restraint.
The idea that you can improve the quality of a film by pumping more manpower and money into it is stupid, and it's contributed to some of the worst films of the last few decades. Modern cinema suffers from a total lack of restraint.
I wasn't referring to throwing more money at each film; I was referring to putting more effort into quality control and making sure the right people get chosen for each job. I think having the last two Star Wars movies get mixed reviews has woken Disney up a bit, and I also think they're sick of the bull**** that's gone on during the production of some of these films. Rogue One needed extensive reshoots, presumably because the people working on it ****ed up their first attempt. I have yet to see The Last Jedi, but it seems like a lot of the criticism it's gotten has been blamed on Rian Johnson's directing. (And yet they still hired him to make a whole new trilogy. Wtf...) Solo's original directors got fired mid-production (sounds to me like there was serious drama going on there), and IIRC Alden Ehrenreich, the man they chose to be their lead actor, needed an acting coach. () They brought in Ron Howard to clean things up, and I'm sure he doesn't come cheap, but even he still wasn't able to save it completely. Though whether that was his fault or the original guys cocked it up so hard that he didn't have much left to work with, I don't know. My point is, maybe if they hire the right people from the start to work on these movies, and put more effort into making sure what those guys make is good (even if it means delaying a film now and then), these problems might not happen as much, and the movies might be better received.
) They brought in Ron Howard to clean things up, and I'm sure he doesn't come cheap, but even he still wasn't able to save it completely. Though whether that was his fault or the original guys cocked it up so hard that he didn't have much left to work with, I don't know. My point is, maybe if they hire the right people from the start to work on these movies, and put more effort into making sure what those guys make is good (even if it means delaying a film now and then), these problems might not happen as much, and the movies might be better received.
Arvenski said:
Disney is one of the largest corporations humanity has ever seen. They have more than enough resources to put the best directors to work on hundreds of films. But if their central leadership structure is incompetent and desperate to please shareholders by chasing market research trends, no film they make is going to be good.
Their "we want to focus on the bigger films" reads as "we don't want to take any risks at all". They are slaves to their shareholders, and even if producing smaller films is more artistically beneficial, brings less risks, and allows for more niche genres, a shareholder isn't going to be too confident with disney's side-projects after the failure of Hanz Złolo.
Arvenski said:
He's a good actor. They probably just wanted a different role from him than he was used to. Acting coaches midway through production are not unusual, and probably more a sign of poor casting than a bad actor. I reckon they hired Alden based on his looks rather than his role chemistry.
On one hand I see their rationale there, on the other hand as a member of the audience and not someone who's looking to squeeze an intellectual property for all it's worth, it's kind of a flawed comparison there. Without saying anything at all about the quality of Solo (I still haven't seen it), you can't really say that it was about one of the most "iconic" characters in the Star Wars universe; so much, if not all of Han Solo's character comes from Harrison Ford's performance. It's brazen on Disney's part to focus on a young Han Solo, hire a guy who isn't even the best impersonator of Harrison Ford and then expect the audiences to still come in droves because it's "Han Solo" and "Star Wars".
To cancel the Boba Fett movie on the basis of that same rationale is stupid. Boba Fett is literally nothing but a suit of armour - audience expectations for the character are so ridiculously minimal. Whether or not it was a good idea in the first place to base a whole movie around him is another story, but cancelling it based on Solo's performance just shows they still don't really know how to handle this IP by whoring it out to any director willing to take it on. They've gotten lucky with a really great spinoff (Rogue One), but if the past two movies have proven anything it's that they need to be more judicious about these projects.
To cancel the Boba Fett movie on the basis of that same rationale is stupid. Boba Fett is literally nothing but a suit of armour - audience expectations for the character are so ridiculously minimal. Whether or not it was a good idea in the first place to base a whole movie around him is another story, but cancelling it based on Solo's performance just shows they still don't really know how to handle this IP by whoring it out to any director willing to take it on. They've gotten lucky with a really great spinoff (Rogue One), but if the past two movies have proven anything it's that they need to be more judicious about these projects.
Disney's executive is so massive and beholden to so many shareholders that the decisions it makes are basically algorithmic. Like all big media companies it's looking for an easy formula it can sell to its investors.
It made more sense to make a Han Solo movie than it would've to make a Boba Fett movie. Han Solo is a fun character, even if most of that is down to Harrison Ford, and the morally-grey world of crooks and scoundrels and organized crime that he comes from is an interesting one, and one that ought to be explored in more details in the SW films IMO. Boba Fett, like you say, is just a suit of armor. What's there to work with from that? I know a lot of fans get excited about him, but honestly, I've never seen the appeal. Like you say, who knows if making a movie about him would've been a good idea. Maybe the could've fleshed out his character (or should I say, create his character) and made a decent movie, but going into it, the audiences wouldn't know what to expect except for what they'd seen in trailers.Vermillion_Hawk said:
