|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 1:06:54 GMT -5
I agree with MRP, while it would have been fun to have Ford in the movie, that wouldn't have been a draw. I think it's a fact that everyone who was interested in the movie pretty much new what was going to happen... we're past the time when people flock in droves to an origin story because they are sci fi (or Superhero) starved. You can just toss out a movie from a successful property and roll in the money.. the bar has been raised.. it has to be a GOOD movie now. Though it might have been fun if they mimicked the structure of the episode of Young Indiana Jones that Ford appeared in, with a framing sequence by Old Indy played by Ford and the adventure of Young Indy played by Sean Patrick Flannery who was the series regular. I don't think it would have made any difference box office-wise, but it would have been a fun bit to watch. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 5, 2018 6:13:16 GMT -5
I agree with MRP, while it would have been fun to have Ford in the movie, that wouldn't have been a draw. I think it's a fact that everyone who was interested in the movie pretty much new what was going to happen... we're past the time when people flock in droves to an origin story because they are sci fi (or Superhero) starved. You can just toss out a movie from a successful property and roll in the money.. the bar has been raised.. it has to be a GOOD movie now. The SW owners waited too long to make these type of spin off movies for the original characters. A Han Solo movie in the late 80's would have done great. Ford stopped being a draw after the the Jack Ryan movies in the middle 90's. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 13:35:29 GMT -5
I agree with MRP, while it would have been fun to have Ford in the movie, that wouldn't have been a draw. I think it's a fact that everyone who was interested in the movie pretty much new what was going to happen... we're past the time when people flock in droves to an origin story because they are sci fi (or Superhero) starved. You can just toss out a movie from a successful property and roll in the money.. the bar has been raised.. it has to be a GOOD movie now. The SW owners waited too long to make these type of spin off movies for the original characters. A Han Solo movie in the late 80's would have done great. Ford stopped being a draw after the the Jack Ryan movies in the middle 90's. Star Wars was mostly a dead property in the late 80s and early 90s. Pretty much no new material was being created for it until 1991 when Dark Horse released the Dark Empire comic and Timothy Zahn's Heir to Empire hit. Those two proved to be commercial successes and opened the door for more new Star Wars product (the birth of what folks called the Expanded Universe). But during that period after the excitement for RotJ ebbed, when Marvel let the Star Wars license lapse, and the launch of those 2 projects, the only new Star Wars material getting done was for the tabletop rpg which was for a really niche audience. In terms of mass audiences and pop culture, Star Wars was mostly invisible except for a few hardcore fans. They toys were off the shelf, no novels or comics were being done, no cartoons, nada. Dark Horse took a risk and picked up the license, and the Zahn books got green-lit. They reawakened interest in Star Wars. Within a few years the flood of Star Wars material started, the new toy line was launched, USA network got the rights to the original trilogy movies and started marketing the hell out of them, running them all weekend on Thanksgiving weekend a few years in a row, and the Special Editions were done to cash in on the growing popularity which also led to the announcement of the prequel trilogy.It's with the re-release of the movies as the Special Editions in the theatres that Star Wars came into its own as the media giant franchise that it is now with legitimacy in the mass pop culture and not something only fringe geeks and nerds liked. Most likely a spin-off in the late 80s (or anytime after the excitement for RotJ ebbed and before the release of the Special Editions) would have bombed harder than folks think they did now, as Star Wars hadn't yet transitioned into something beyond a 70s fad/nerd thing and become legitimate for the mass audience as it did in the 90s. -M |
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 6, 2018 17:27:16 GMT -5
In retrospect, it is odd that you'd make a Han Solo film without Harrison Ford. Everything great about the character comes from Ford's performance. I am sure people said the same thing about Bond and Connery, but that seemed to work out. I love Ford as Solo (and Indy) but the new kid did okay in the role and aside from TFA Ford himself hasn't been much of a box office draw in over a decade. His films have only done fair to middling at best (including Blade Runner 2049 which was supposedly highly anticipated and critically acclaimed) in recent years, so I don't think the box office receipts would have been much different if ford had been in the role simply on his draw alone. -M That's not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that Solo should have had 70-something Harrison Ford in it. I'm saying, it's weird that they'd make it at all, given that he's now too old to do it. You mention Connery and Bond, but the successful Bonds since Connery have all played the role in their own manner. None of them have tried to actually mimic Sean Connery - or play a young Sean Connery. That's what Alden Ehrenreich is doing in Solo - he's playing a young Harrison Ford. And that could never be as good as the real thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 22:52:21 GMT -5
I am sure people said the same thing about Bond and Connery, but that seemed to work out. I love Ford as Solo (and Indy) but the new kid did okay in the role and aside from TFA Ford himself hasn't been much of a box office draw in over a decade. His films have only done fair to middling at best (including Blade Runner 2049 which was supposedly highly anticipated and critically acclaimed) in recent years, so I don't think the box office receipts would have been much different if ford had been in the role simply on his draw alone. -M That's not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that Solo should have had 70-something Harrison Ford in it. I'm saying, it's weird that they'd make it at all, given that he's now too old to do it. You mention Connery and Bond, but the successful Bonds since Connery have all played the role in their own manner. None of them have tried to actually mimic Sean Connery - or play a young Sean Connery. That's what Alden Ehrenreich is doing in Solo - he's playing a young Harrison Ford. And that could never be as good as the real thing. Sean Patrick Flannery did it to good effect in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I like every bit as much as the first 3 Indy movies (and so much more than the fourth Indy movie), so it is possible, and Ehrenreich did a fine job in the Solo movie. I don't think any of the issues causing the low box office performance of Solo have to do with the movie itself, but with preconceived perceptions of the movie based on issues in production and pouting fans who dislike the direction the franchise for whatever way it is moving that they don't want it to. I think it is a matter of the film's box office being a victim of circumstances rather than a reflection of the final film itself. But I think I have gotten old when a movie makes over $300 million and is considered a flop. I can remember when it was a big deal for a movie to break the $100 million mark and that made it a mega-hit. Now the threshold is a $1 billion for that. -M |
|
|
|
Post by String on Jul 11, 2018 16:45:38 GMT -5
A few weeks ago, I considered going to see it but was surprised to learn that my local movie theater wasn't playing it anymore. Maybe they played it for a month, I'm not sure but it doesn't feel like it (being summer and all and being a SW film). And before you ask, no, it's not a small town theater with only two, three screens. It's capable of showing between 8-10 films so there was possible room for it on the lower marquees as more summer films premiered.
Either way, oh well. The first Star Wars film that I never saw on the big screen.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 11, 2018 18:10:36 GMT -5
Either way, oh well. The first Star Wars film that I never saw on the big screen. Yeah, same for me. Which is kinda sad, but I was so disappointed with The Last Jedi that I just wasn't prepared to through another £13 or £14 away on a movie that would, in all likelihood be sub-standard SW fare. Actually, the word of mouth about Solo from my friends in real life and on Facebook was quite encouraging. I'll definitely catch it when it's on TV, but it is sort of a shame that it broke my streak of viewing SW movies at the cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 13, 2018 11:02:49 GMT -5
I've only seen Rogue One (I liked it well enough) and Force Awakens so far, but Star Wars seems to be suffering from the same problems that Star Trek has: a reluctance to move forward. This is doubly sad for Star Trek because moving forward used to be what the franchise was all about. After Voyager, that was all thrown out.
The prequels failed to live up to the originals, and being so closely tied with the original trilogy, left a bitter taste in the mouth of many fans. The new films want to present the illusion of progression, but when Force Awakens is a shameless adaptation of A New Hope (that's what it was) and the great triumph at the end of Return of the Jedi is all but nullified by the presence of "Empire Light" also known as The New Order, I can't help but feel that Star Wars is spinning its wheels.
I would have much preferred the new films to have taken place a hundred or a thousand years in the future, with Luke, Han and Leia being legendary characters. I also have zero interest in a Han Solo movie not featuring a young Harrison Ford. I feel that some actors present such a powerful presence over a character they're intrinsically linked for all time. I mean, there is a reason all artists depict Solo in the likeness of Ford. Like Solo rest, create something new, and move forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 14, 2018 6:47:14 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that Solo should have had 70-something Harrison Ford in it. I'm saying, it's weird that they'd make it at all, given that he's now too old to do it. You mention Connery and Bond, but the successful Bonds since Connery have all played the role in their own manner. None of them have tried to actually mimic Sean Connery - or play a young Sean Connery. That's what Alden Ehrenreich is doing in Solo - he's playing a young Harrison Ford. And that could never be as good as the real thing. Sean Patrick Flannery did it to good effect in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I like every bit as much as the first 3 Indy movies (and so much more than the fourth Indy movie), so it is possible, and Ehrenreich did a fine job in the Solo movie. I don't think any of the issues causing the low box office performance of Solo have to do with the movie itself, but with preconceived perceptions of the movie based on issues in production and pouting fans who dislike the direction the franchise for whatever way it is moving that they don't want it to. I think it is a matter of the film's box office being a victim of circumstances rather than a reflection of the final film itself. But I think I have gotten old when a movie makes over $300 million and is considered a flop. I can remember when it was a big deal for a movie to break the $100 million mark and that made it a mega-hit. Now the threshold is a $1 billion for that. -M Sure, Sean Patrick Flannery and River Pheonix and others did a good job as young versions of Harrison Ford characters. But Harrison Ford is one of the most successful, popular, and charismatic movie stars of all time. SO much of Indy and Han Solo are based on his screen persona. Solo is a Han Solo movie NOT starring Harrison Ford. By definition, it can only be an imitation. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 14, 2018 9:29:56 GMT -5
If the studio considers it a flop, either they had unrealistic expectation, or just spent too much in production. The tally atm is 211m domestic and 383m worldwide.. which is comparable to Antman (181m domestic, 519m world) and Doctor Strange (232m domestic 677m world)... clearly it's lagging internationally, but it could still get there.
Granted, it's the lowest Star Wars film box office wise by a wide margin, but it's an origin story that no one was clamoring for... I think it's just a case of not knowing what the audience wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 14:19:53 GMT -5
Sean Patrick Flannery did it to good effect in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I like every bit as much as the first 3 Indy movies (and so much more than the fourth Indy movie), so it is possible, and Ehrenreich did a fine job in the Solo movie. I don't think any of the issues causing the low box office performance of Solo have to do with the movie itself, but with preconceived perceptions of the movie based on issues in production and pouting fans who dislike the direction the franchise for whatever way it is moving that they don't want it to. I think it is a matter of the film's box office being a victim of circumstances rather than a reflection of the final film itself. But I think I have gotten old when a movie makes over $300 million and is considered a flop. I can remember when it was a big deal for a movie to break the $100 million mark and that made it a mega-hit. Now the threshold is a $1 billion for that. -M Sure, Sean Patrick Flannery and River Pheonix and others did a good job as young versions of Harrison Ford characters. But Harrison Ford is one of the most successful, popular, and charismatic movie stars of all time. SO much of Indy and Han Solo are based on his screen persona. Solo is a Han Solo movie NOT starring Harrison Ford. By definition, it can only be an imitation. Harrison Ford hasn't been a box office draw in nearly two decades. The only big movies he has had since the turn of the century are movies that were part of already successful franchises and succeed because of brand recognition not the draw of Harrison Ford, and even some of those (Indy 4, Blade Runner 2049) were box office disappointments. The presence or lack thereof of Harrison Ford had less to do with this movie's box office than the unrealistic expectations of fans spoiled with entitlement issues, many of whom suffer from Zaphod Beeblebrox syndrome believing they and their desires are the center of the universe and everyone should cater to them. -M |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 15, 2018 3:32:18 GMT -5
Sure, Sean Patrick Flannery and River Pheonix and others did a good job as young versions of Harrison Ford characters. But Harrison Ford is one of the most successful, popular, and charismatic movie stars of all time. SO much of Indy and Han Solo are based on his screen persona. Solo is a Han Solo movie NOT starring Harrison Ford. By definition, it can only be an imitation. Harrison Ford hasn't been a box office draw in nearly two decades. The only big movies he has had since the turn of the century are movies that were part of already successful franchises and succeed because of brand recognition not the draw of Harrison Ford, and even some of those (Indy 4, Blade Runner 2049) were box office disappointments. The presence or lack thereof of Harrison Ford had less to do with this movie's box office than the unrealistic expectations of fans spoiled with entitlement issues, many of whom suffer from Zaphod Beeblebrox syndrome believing they and their desires are the center of the universe and everyone should cater to them. -M I don't want to speak for aquagoat, but I think you're missing the point. You're correct about Harrison Ford's ability to be a box office draw nowadays, but that's beside the point. Clearly Ford couldn't have been in this movie anyway because it's chronicling Han Solo's early years and he's much too old to play a young Han Solo now -- although a movie with a CGI de-aged Ford, a la Kurt Russell in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, might've been interesting, although prohibitively expensive to do a whole film like that, I'm sure. But anyway, due to Ford's age, having had him star in Solo is sort of a moot point. It was never a realistic option. Still, the point being made is that Ford is so indelibly linked to the character of Han Solo that they are kinda sorta one and the same. Expressing that opinion is not having "Zaphod Beeblebrox syndrome" or bring an overly entitled fanboy -- neither of which are particularly nice things to accuse your fellow posters of being BTW, so let's have less of that, please -- it's just expressing a perfectly valid opinion. Whether you agree with that opinion or not, Ford's drawing power at the box office seems to me to be a different argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 15, 2018 11:01:15 GMT -5
Harrison Ford hasn't been a box office draw in nearly two decades. The only big movies he has had since the turn of the century are movies that were part of already successful franchises and succeed because of brand recognition not the draw of Harrison Ford, and even some of those (Indy 4, Blade Runner 2049) were box office disappointments. The presence or lack thereof of Harrison Ford had less to do with this movie's box office than the unrealistic expectations of fans spoiled with entitlement issues, many of whom suffer from Zaphod Beeblebrox syndrome believing they and their desires are the center of the universe and everyone should cater to them. -M I don't want to speak for aquagoat, but I think you're missing the point. You're correct about Harrison Ford's ability to be a box office draw nowadays, but that's beside the point. Clearly Ford couldn't have been in this movie anyway because it's chronicling Han Solo's early years and he's much too old to play a young Han Solo now -- although a movie with a CGI de-aged Ford, a la Kurt Russell in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, might've been interesting, although prohibitively expensive to do a whole film like that, I'm sure. But anyway, due to Ford's age, having had him star in Solo is sort of a moot point. It was never a realistic option. Still, the point being made is that Ford is so indelibly linked to the character of Han Solo that they are kinda sorta one and the same. Expressing that opinion is not having "Zaphod Beeblebrox syndrome" or bring an overly entitled fanboy -- neither of which are particularly nice things to accuse your fellow posters of being BTW, so let's have less of that, please -- it's just expressing a perfectly valid opinion. Whether you agree with that opinion or not, Ford's drawing power at the box office seems to me to be a different argument. You can make that argument as an individual, but I'm not sure that in the wider context that Harrison Ford is so indelibly Han Solo that film-goers at large can't accept someone else as him. To me that smacks a bit of Sean Connery being the One True Bond (something I've seen some crotchety old farts posit). It's been 35 years since Ford did anything substantial with the character (I barely remember what Han Solo did in The Force Awakens but that could just be me not being that wowed by the movie). I say this as far more of a Harrison Ford fan (Indy, Blade Runner, etc.) than a Star Wars fan (a series I'm only marginally interested in). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 13:23:20 GMT -5
If Ford is so indelibly linked to the character as you say, then the character could not work in any other medium because ford is not involved. The Han Solo novels, Star wars comics featuring the character, etc. would have failed miserably because it was han Solo without Harrison ford involved. Solo is a character that Ford has played, but the character existed before Ford, exists beyond Ford and will exist long after Ford. Saying Solo can't work because Ford isn't involved smacks of rationalization to justify other reasons for not liking the movie, especially if you are a fan of the character in other mediums where Ford has nothing to do with it.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 15:38:28 GMT -5
... but it's an origin story that no one was clamoring for... I think it's just a case of not knowing what the audience wants. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Hopefully a bit more thought goes in to the next Star Wars 'anthology' film.
|
|
