|
|
Post by rberman on Jul 15, 2018 16:46:40 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. Apparently they spent $200m to make the movie with Phil Lord and Christopher Miller directing. Then another $200m to remake much of it with Ron Howard directing. Tough to turn a profit with an investment like that. Maybe that's why they skimped on marketing? I didn't see anyone clamoring to go to Burger King to buy the commemorative glasses like we all did for Empire and Jedi... |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 15, 2018 18:27:41 GMT -5
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). Sure, I'm not necessarily agreeing that Ford has to be Han Solo, but I think that's what the current discussion is positing. I've never felt that Connery was necessarily the one true Bond either -- I've always been a Roger Moore man myself. But I'm not sure comparing James Bond to Han Solo is a like-for-like comparison because Bond appeared in books first. A fictional character in a book is a much more fluid thing because every reader will have their own idea of what that character looks and sounds like. Whereas Han Solo arrived fully formed on screen as played by Harrison Ford (yeah, I know the SW novelisation preceded the film by a few months, but you know what I mean). As I say, I don't really have a dog on this fight because, to me, using Ford in the new Solo film was always gonna be impossible, due to his advanced years. To my mind, there's simply no way to make an early Han Solo movie and have Harrison Ford involved. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 15, 2018 18:32:36 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 This is a valid point, but don't we all imagine Harrison Ford's voice and Ford's image in the role of Han Solo whenever we read SW books or comics? I know I do! When you hear someone else doing Han, such as Perry King in the SW radio play, for instance, it just feels wrong somehow. Or, at least, it does to me. But like I say, I don't see how you could've had Harrison Ford in the new Solo film. You have to cast a new actor because Ford is simply too old now. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 16, 2018 9:27:58 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 To be fair, the notion that only Ford can be Han Solo is my personal opinion. It's interesting that you bring up Bond, because I only like Connery in the role and only care about the Connery Bond films. This is a problem for me when an actor gives a great performance and or embodies a character to perfection in my eyes. Christopher Reeves as Superman is probably my biggest block: I can't accept anyone else in the role. He was just too good in my view. I think it's all about three big traits for me: acting ability, embodiment and likability. For my tastes, it's going to be virtually impossible to beat Ford as Solo. This is why I don't have a favorite live-action Batman since they've all failed to live up to my expectations so far. |
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 16, 2018 17:21:39 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 You're trying to suggest I'm a angry fanboy looking to justify hating the film (which is a lazy and defensive thing to resort to). Quite the opposite. I liked it. Also, you're suggesting it's negative fans that caused the film to flop. That's a common misconception these days. These huge summer movies are not made for just fans. They are made for the general audience. Solo didn't appeal to the general public enough. Why not? That's what I'm trying to determine. And I think a large reason is because it has an imitation Harrison Ford. Saying Han Solo works in other mediums, therefore is not tied to Ford's performance, is nonsensical, because those mediums don't have actors in. They don't have Ford, but they don't have another actor imitating Ford either - and the comics and books try to evoke Ford's performance, and the imagination does the rest. Anyway, no-one said Han Solo doesn't work in other mediums without Ford. What I'm saying is, the Solo movie suffered because it doesn't have Harrison Ford playing Han Solo, it has someone imitating him. You can talk about the multiple successful James Bond actors that came after Sean Connery all you like, but Connery was only Bond for five years before his first successor came along. In contrast, Ford has been the only Han Solo on screen for forty years. Huge difference. |
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 16, 2018 17:27:32 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 To be fair, the notion that only Ford can be Han Solo is my personal opinion. It's interesting that you bring up Bond, because I only like Connery in the role and only care about the Connery Bond films. This is a problem for me when an actor gives a great performance and or embodies a character to perfection in my eyes. Christopher Reeves as Superman is probably my biggest block: I can't accept anyone else in the role. He was just too good in my view. I think it's all about three big traits for me: acting ability, embodiment and likability. For my tastes, it's going to be virtually impossible to beat Ford as Solo. This is why I don't have a favorite live-action Batman since they've all failed to live up to my expectations so far. But Bond and Batman are different; every actor has played them a different way, usually in different continuities. Roger Moore wasn't trying to be Sean Connery; Daniel Craig was playing a younger Bond, not a younger Connery Bond. Batman Begins wasn't a prequel to 1989's Batman; Christian Bale wasn't trying to mimic Michael Keaton. With Solo, it's not a new take on Han Solo, it's a young actor, chosen for his likeness to Harrison Ford, trying to play a young Harrison Ford. By default, it's an imitation. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 16, 2018 19:43:37 GMT -5
To be fair, the notion that only Ford can be Han Solo is my personal opinion. It's interesting that you bring up Bond, because I only like Connery in the role and only care about the Connery Bond films. This is a problem for me when an actor gives a great performance and or embodies a character to perfection in my eyes. Christopher Reeves as Superman is probably my biggest block: I can't accept anyone else in the role. He was just too good in my view. I think it's all about three big traits for me: acting ability, embodiment and likability. For my tastes, it's going to be virtually impossible to beat Ford as Solo. This is why I don't have a favorite live-action Batman since they've all failed to live up to my expectations so far. But Bond and Batman are different; every actor has played them a different way, usually in different continuities. Roger Moore wasn't trying to be Sean Connery; Daniel Craig was playing a younger Bond, not a younger Connery Bond. Batman Begins wasn't a prequel to 1989's Batman; Christian Bale wasn't trying to mimic Michael Keaton. With Solo, it's not a new take on Han Solo, it's a young actor, chosen for his likeness to Harrison Ford, trying to play a young Harrison Ford. By default, it's an imitation. It's a young actor playing a young Han Solo, not a young Harrison Ford...there's a definite difference between the two as one is an actor and the other is a fictional character that an actor plaid. It's no different than someone doing a young Robin Hood story or a young Sherlock Holmes, other actors have been those characters, and defined them in the minds of many but that wouldn't make movies about the character's youth imitations. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 17, 2018 0:46:02 GMT -5
It's a young actor playing a young Han Solo, not a young Harrison Ford...there's a definite difference between the two as one is an actor and the other is a fictional character that an actor plaid. On paper, maybe, but come on...I haven't even seen the film, but it's still obvious to me that Alden Ehrenreich was cast due to the fact that he looks a bit like a young Harrison Ford. I mean, based on what we've heard about the film's troubled production and the studio's concern over Ehrenreich, he sure as hell wasn't picked for his versatile acting skills! But regardless of how Ehrenreich looks physically, it's clear from the trailers and TV spots that he's definitely, definitely imitating Ford's performance as Han Solo in the way he speaks and acts. No question there. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jul 17, 2018 7:04:44 GMT -5
It's a young actor playing a young Han Solo, not a young Harrison Ford...there's a definite difference between the two as one is an actor and the other is a fictional character that an actor plaid. On paper, maybe, but come on...I haven't even seen the film, but it's still obvious to me that Alden Ehrenreich was cast due to the fact that he looks a bit like a young Harrison Ford. I mean, based on what we've heard about the film's troubled production and the studio's concern over Ehrenreich, he sure as hell wasn't picked for his versatile acting skills! But regardless of how Ehrenreich looks physically, it's clear from the trailers and TV spots that he's definitely, definitely imitating Ford's performance as Han Solo in the way he speaks and acts. No question there. Which is not a problem in and of itself; that's one skill you look for in a good actor tackling an established character, whether historical or fictional; it's considered a great way to win an Oscar, even. Ewen MacGregor does a great job acting like young Alec Guiness in the Star Wars prequels. Kate Blanchett made a very believable young Katherine Hepburn in "The Aviator." Gary Oldman imitates Winston Churchill in "Darkest Hour." So the more important question is whether the actor imitates the established person believably yet unobtrusively. |
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 28, 2018 8:34:35 GMT -5
On paper, maybe, but come on...I haven't even seen the film, but it's still obvious to me that Alden Ehrenreich was cast due to the fact that he looks a bit like a young Harrison Ford. I mean, based on what we've heard about the film's troubled production and the studio's concern over Ehrenreich, he sure as hell wasn't picked for his versatile acting skills! But regardless of how Ehrenreich looks physically, it's clear from the trailers and TV spots that he's definitely, definitely imitating Ford's performance as Han Solo in the way he speaks and acts. No question there. Which is not a problem in and of itself; that's one skill you look for in a good actor tackling an established character, whether historical or fictional; it's considered a great way to win an Oscar, even. Ewen MacGregor does a great job acting like young Alec Guiness in the Star Wars prequels. Kate Blanchett made a very believable young Katherine Hepburn in "The Aviator." Gary Oldman imitates Winston Churchill in "Darkest Hour." So the more important question is whether the actor imitates the established person believably yet unobtrusively. Those are different cases. The main draw of Churchill was to see a great actor play a real person. And we got that. Kate Blanchett as Hepburn was not the draw of The Aviator, she was just part of the story. Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan was just part of the overall story of the Star Wars prequels. However, a movie called Solo which doesn't feature Harrison Ford, even though he played Han Solo only two and a bit years previously, and instead features someone imitating him...clearly doesn't have the main draw of the character. Do a poll of the general public; do you prefer Harrison Ford as Han Solo or someone else? I think the results would be pretty obvious. But the Solo movie doesn't have that. So there's a problem so massive it's a wonder why they made the movie in the first place - but not a wonder why it flopped. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jul 28, 2018 9:28:16 GMT -5
Which is not a problem in and of itself; that's one skill you look for in a good actor tackling an established character, whether historical or fictional; it's considered a great way to win an Oscar, even. Ewen MacGregor does a great job acting like young Alec Guiness in the Star Wars prequels. Kate Blanchett made a very believable young Katherine Hepburn in "The Aviator." Gary Oldman imitates Winston Churchill in "Darkest Hour." So the more important question is whether the actor imitates the established person believably yet unobtrusively. Those are different cases. The main draw of Churchill was to see a great actor play a real person. And we got that. Kate Blanchett as Hepburn was not the draw of The Aviator, she was just part of the story. Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan was just part of the overall story of the Star Wars prequels. However, a movie called Solo which doesn't feature Harrison Ford, even though he played Han Solo only two and a bit years previously, and instead features someone imitating him...clearly doesn't have the main draw of the character. Do a poll of the general public; do you prefer Harrison Ford as Han Solo or someone else? I think the results would be pretty obvious. But the Solo movie doesn't have that. So there's a problem so massive it's a wonder why they made the movie in the first place - but not a wonder why it flopped. Sure, who wouldn't want more (good) Star Wars movies with Harrison Ford as Han Solo? To be more specific, who wouldn't want more Star Wars movies with young Harrison Ford as Han Solo? But that's not an option. Given a choice between "No new good Star Wars movies with Han Solo" and "New good Star Wars movies with someone else playing Han Solo," most people would probably choose Option B. (I haven't seen Solo and won't try to defend either the film or actor.) If the overall Solo film had been good, I suspect people would not have minded if the Solo peformance was an imitation. I mean, look at Firefly. Nathan Fillion is doing his best Han Solo imitation, and fans love it. (The show flopped due to the network screwing with it, but that's another issue.) |
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 28, 2018 12:18:40 GMT -5
Sure, who wouldn't want more (good) Star Wars movies with Harrison Ford as Han Solo? To be more specific, who wouldn't want more Star Wars movies with young Harrison Ford as Han Solo? But that's not an option. Given a choice between "No new good Star Wars movies with Han Solo" and "New good Star Wars movies with someone else playing Han Solo," most people would probably choose Option B. But they didn't, did they? Solo was good (I have seen it), and it was a flop. |
|
|
|
Post by rom on Aug 28, 2018 12:39:43 GMT -5
Even though I'm a huge SW fan, I still haven't seen Solo yet - it's the only SW film I haven't seen theatrically. I am waiting for the Blu-ray in September; I typically wait to see most films on home video these days, since I don't like going to the theater anymore.
Obviously no actor out there will be able to fit Harrison Ford's shoes in the role - it's an impossibility. However, in order to make a film about a young Han Solo you will need a younger actor in the role. The only other option would have been to CGI a younger Ford's face over another actor's face (the young Princess Leia at the end of Rouge one was a CGI, at least the face was) - but, I don't see that working that well for an entire film...maybe for a couple of scenes, but that's it.
Re: the actor they chose to portray a young Han Solo - I think the casting was decent. I think the eye color was off (I don't think Ford has blue eyes), but other than that this guy wasn't a bad choice.
Will reserve complete judgement until after I see the film, of course...
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 28, 2018 13:01:41 GMT -5
The best Han Solo reboot was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 1. Disney stole their own thunder with that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Aug 29, 2018 7:45:34 GMT -5
What does it say about Solo and Star Wars fans supporting the franchise/brand when a giant shark movie named Meg has just surpassed it in making money in a little over 3 weeks? Solo is the better movie in the long run and was released at the wrong time and with too much negative publicity and not enough general good will towards it to succeed properly. Shows how the internet and instantaneous news reports of every little detail can make or break a movie before it ever comes out and even afterwards.
|
|
