23 minutes ago, Yaccarus said:

I always imagined that it just just an effect that makes the movies more enjoyable to watch, not one that actually occurs from an in-universe standpoint. (Or, technically, they’re doing the sound as if there are microphones placed on every ship.)

But, they made it clear in Solo that that’s not the case: Somebody said “What’s that sound?” with regards to the storm. Granted, that could be the exception rather than the rule caused by the unusually high amount of air needed to cause a storm, but it still felt like it broke physics unnecessarily.

While they were in a ship. It doesn't break physics. If any energy impacts a hull that will create vibrations which will be heard inside a ship potentially. Plus in Solo, The Maelstrom is clearly not a vacuum, lots of stellar phenomena has gas clouds surrounding them, particularly high gravity ones.

47 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

While they were in a ship. It doesn't break physics. If any energy impacts a hull that will create vibrations which will be heard inside a ship potentially. Plus in Solo, The Maelstrom is clearly not a vacuum, lots of stellar phenomena has gas clouds surrounding them, particularly high gravity ones.

Stellar gas phenomena are pretty good vacuum actually. Gas in space cold enough to not disperse and dense enough to not be ultra high vacuum would gravitationally collapse pretty quick.

Then again, Kessel could be in the debris cloud of a recently shredded gas giant or brown dwarf. hmmmmm....

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Rian Johnson didn't get fired? Wow.

He made a quite profitable movie that his bosses enjoyed as did - despite what a loud segment would have you believe - a sizable portion of the audience.

Why would that be grounds for termination?

23 minutes ago, korjik said:

Stellar gas phenomena are pretty good vacuum actually. Gas in space cold enough to not disperse and dense enough to not be ultra high vacuum would gravitationally collapse pretty quick.

Then again, Kessel could be in the debris cloud of a recently shredded gas giant or brown dwarf. hmmmmm....

As wise men once said...

“If you’re wondering how he eats and breathes

And other science facts

(la la la)

Repeat to yourself, ‘It’s just a show,

I should really just relax.’”

40 minutes ago, korjik said:

Stellar gas phenomena are pretty good vacuum actually. Gas in space cold enough to not disperse and dense enough to not be ultra high vacuum would gravitationally collapse pretty quick.

Then again, Kessel could be in the debris cloud of a recently shredded gas giant or brown dwarf. hmmmmm....

Excuse me sir. It seems you've gotten your science fact in my space fantasy.?

16 minutes ago, warchild1x said:

Excuse me sir. It seems you've gotten your science fact in my space fantasy.?

Sorry. The madness took hold for a moment

11 hours ago, AceSolo5 said:

So, finally got round to watching Solo again after having it burning a hole in my TV stand since it arrived on Monday and....

I thought it was okay, for popcorn. What bored me to tears was the "fan service". I don't care where the dice came from, or his blaster or...any of that trivial physical shyte. I wanted a character arc, not a checklist. In fact, this pretty much sums up the movie for me:

Edit: and yeah, I wanted more of Val...

Solo's just plain fun. Hit all the right western notes, too. Hope to be showing it this weekend to a friend who missed it in the theater.

I can critique a lot of Disney's stylistic choices that run through the first three films — in particular, all the wink-wink stuff that wasn't necessary after TFA — but Nu Lucasfilm has gone out of its way to try to capture the old magic.

6 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

To be honest, I would love to see a Lando movie featuring Donald Glover, as he freaking nailed it in every scene, having that mix of swagger and suaveness that is Lando Calrissian.

It all felt like imitation to me, not like a character. I'm not sure I buy younger Han as the same character as older Han, but at least there's a character there.

I had a great time with it. I thought that the Kessel Run was nonsense but everything else was a blast. A light, fun western heist movie that added texture to the universe in a way I found pleasing. It didn't blow me away like RO but I don't necessarily want that from every movie. This was comfortable and enjoyable.

I'd actually forgotten that Rian Johnson had gotten his own trilogy. I can't say I'm keen on the idea personally but I've sort of hived off the sequel trilogy narrative in my head as a seperate thing so I'm sure i can do the same with those if they're disappointing to me. I've enjoyed them in themselves but for some reason I kinda consider them to be akin to fanfic. Probably this mental partitioning is easier since it's already been done with Legends and Canon and when I play swrpg I tend to just pick and choose what I want anyway?

8 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

It all felt like imitation to me, not like a character. I'm not sure I buy younger Han as the same character as older Han, but at least there's a character there.

Oh man, I can't agree - I thought Glover was incredible. However, I know where you're coming from. I recall the 1st Star Trek reboot everyone raving about Karl Urban who did what I thought was just a funny impression of Bones. Meanwhile, I felt like Chris Pine was amazing, inhabiting the Shatner Kirk so naturally in the subtle physical movements but didn't get anywhere near the recognition.

I guess to me, the difference between Urban and Glover is that I really felt like, while Glover did defnitely do a few things that felt like an impression, so much of his physical performance felt so natural and the voice just oozed out of him.

I have zero interest in RJs efforts, but the GoT guys do intrigue me. The rumored focus on Madalore post RotJ by Favereau might be good. Solo dipped it's toes into the underworld which is a good thing, I'm hoping Disney isn't gun shy about using that part of society more going forward.

4 hours ago, Yaccarus said:

I always imagined that it just just an effect that makes the movies more enjoyable to watch, not one that actually occurs from an in-universe standpoint. (Or, technically, they’re doing the sound as if there are microphones placed on every ship.)

But, they made it clear in Solo that that’s not the case: Somebody said “What’s that sound?” with regards to the storm. Granted, that could be the exception rather than the rule caused by the unusually high amount of air needed to cause a storm, but it still felt like it broke physics unnecessarily.

3 hours ago, 2P51 said:

While they were in a ship. It doesn't break physics. If any energy impacts a hull that will create vibrations which will be heard inside a ship potentially. Plus in Solo, The Maelstrom is clearly not a vacuum, lots of stellar phenomena has gas clouds surrounding them, particularly high gravity ones.

I agree. canonically the Maelstom is supposed to be very, very dense (possibly too dense, but that's another argument all together). And, as such, it stands to reason that sound would propagate through the gas.

It was okay.

As a stand alone film it moved along fairly breezily and had a few fun bits. The train heist was a stand out.

I am pleased we got to be immersed in a largely overlooked aspect of the universe.

However as a part of the Star Wars saga as a whole it felt a bit of a jarring note. The cinematography was a little too murky and washed out to really fit. On one hand that could push the style and genre trappings of the series but could be a step too far. It also details Han's arc across the saga as well by making him too idealistic early on. There were a few flashes of his ruthless scoundrel such as the sabacc matches but we could have done with more of that.

The way of the movie treats all its female characters sits uncomfortably with me. There's a lot of tired tropes being deployed there that could have been avoided.

2 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I have zero interest in RJs efforts, but the GoT guys do intrigue me. The rumored focus on Madalore post RotJ by Favereau might be good. Solo dipped it's toes into the underworld which is a good thing, I'm hoping Disney isn't gun shy about using that part of society more going forward.

I'm kind of the opposite. I feel like Johnson could home in on an overlooked corner, perhaps something more noir or spiritual. By comparison D&D strike me as a bit more clumsy and shown off most of their tricks. They may surprise me however. I'm sure we'll get plenty of material to mine out of any options.

6 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Their mistake, aside from rushing the films and not massaging the scripts more, is making anything, or anyone, we've already seen and/or had covered in material.

You don't do an Obi Wan movie. You do a movie with entirely new characters and motivations, and then you have Obi Wan help them out of a jam on Tatooine. You don't do a Boba Fett movie, you do a movie with new heroes and Boba Fett is leading a group of antagonist bounty hunters in one cool shoot out with the new heroes.

I hope Disney gets its act together.

Absolutely 100% spot on there 2P51...

There’s too much scope in the Star Wars universe to just use the characters from previous films as the focus... Give me original, well thought out characters in a Star Wars setting & I’ll pay for it every time! Rogue one is one of my favourite Star Wars films to date & barring the cameos from Tarkin, Vader & Leia we’d seen none of the main characters before!

3 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I have zero interest in RJs efforts

Same here, in fact I'm kinda hoping that Disney subverts his expectations.

6 hours ago, Yaccarus said:

but it still felt like it broke physics unnecessarily.

The physics in Star Wars have always been cinematic based, or narrative based more than actually having any relation to true physics.

Just finished watching it less than a minute ago.

Definitely could have done without the SJW droid. L3 or whatever it was. Every time that thing spoke I wanted to wash my brain with napalm.

Other than that, it was enjoyable. I probably would have paid to watch it, but maybe not movie theater prices. I really doubt that it will join the trilogy, Clone Wars, Rebels, and Rogue One in my DVD collection though.

I liked that it showed us other parts of the galaxy. I *really* liked that there wasn't a Jedi under every rock, and there was a total lack of Skywalkers. The Star Wars galaxy has a LOT of stories that could be told. Putting Maul in was maybe a bit forced, but since I've come to actually really like the character after watching The Clone Wars and Rebels, it didn't bother me.

Rented it last night and really enjoyed it. Thought the beginning was a bit slow, and the ultimate actions of one of the main characters a bit predictable, but overall, thought it was ace. Especially liked Lando and Chewbacca.

On 9/28/2018 at 5:08 PM, 2P51 said:

Their mistake, aside from rushing the films and not massaging the scripts more, is making anything, or anyone, we've already seen and/or had covered in material.

You don't do an Obi Wan movie. You do a movie with entirely new characters and motivations, and then you have Obi Wan help them out of a jam on Tatooine. You don't do a Boba Fett movie, you do a movie with new heroes and Boba Fett is leading a group of antagonist bounty hunters in one cool shoot out with the new heroes.

I hope Disney gets its act together.

That wouldn't work currently, as there's too much of a risk to do a movie like that, unless it's part of a new trilogy (which we're getting).

The stand alone movies have great potential to be exactly what many of us wish for, but we'll have to give Disney a couple more years (and movies) to feel that they've got the franchise pegged down before they start letting go of the reigns and allow movies which have none of the "main" characters in them.

It's kind of like how they started out the Marvel movies with a very strict formula, but then they let more "wacky" and "independent" movies in like Thor: Ragnarok and Ant Man (even though that one was reigned in, in the end).
Hopefully it won't take as long with Star Wars, though.

(But you know that the average Star Wars movie-goer won't want a movie with none of the characters they know and love. There'll be complaints up the wazoo if they do that, unless the movie turns out to be a frikkin' masterpiece. But that's hardly likely with Disneys heavy involvement.)

52 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

That wouldn't work currently, as there's too much of a risk to do a movie like that, unless it's part of a new trilogy (which we're getting).

The stand alone movies have great potential to be exactly what many of us wish for, but we'll have to give Disney a couple more years (and movies) to feel that they've got the franchise pegged down before they start letting go of the reigns and allow movies which have none of the "main" characters in them.

It's kind of like how they started out the Marvel movies with a very strict formula, but then they let more "wacky" and "independent" movies in like Thor: Ragnarok and Ant Man (even though that one was reigned in, in the end).
Hopefully it won't take as long with Star Wars, though.

(But you know that the average Star Wars movie-goer won't want a movie with none of the characters they know and love. There'll be complaints up the wazoo if they do that, unless the movie turns out to be a frikkin' masterpiece. But that's hardly likely with Disneys heavy involvement.)

As opposed to doing movies with known characters that comes up a quarter billion in the red?........?

3 hours ago, OddballE8 said:

It's kind of like how they started out the Marvel movies with a very strict formula, but then they let more "wacky" and "independent" movies in like Thor: Ragnarok and Ant Man (even though that one was reigned in, in the end).
Hopefully it won't take as long with Star Wars, though.

Disney didn't do anything with the Marvel movies at the outset. Disney purchased Marvel a year after the first MCU release. The first five did follow a bit of a formula, leading to Avengers as the sixth. But starting with Phase 2, the seventh movie and five years in, the "wacky" and "independent" already started. Phase 2 started the practice of telling different genre stories that happened to have super-heroes in them. (Iron Man 3 was an 80's buddy cop movie with Iron Man and War Machine in it; Thor: The Dark World was a fantasy movie with SF elements; Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a Cold War espionage thriller; Guardians of the Galaxy was space opera; Avengers: Age of Ultron was the big, bombastic super-hero movie; and, Ant-Man was a heist caper.) That's pretty much carried on.

Now, depending on whether or not we want to - as most do with Marvel - differentiate between Disney and Lucasfilm, we're almost at that same point, time-wise, since the full-on relaunch of the franchise that the MCU felt safe to experiment. But, they've already been doing a bit of that experimenting with the anthology movies - Rogue One a war movie, Solo a western/heist movie. I'm interested to see what, if anything, the Johnson and Weiss/Benioff trilogies do to experiment like that. (It's probably safe to say that a lot of people are expecting the Weiss/Benioff trilogy to have a feel similar to Game of Thrones. We've already got one major GoT cast member, too, in Emilia Clarke, and in the round-table discussion in the Solo bonus features, she said that Kit Harrington desperately wants to do Star Wars.)

Time will tell.

17 hours ago, 2P51 said:

As opposed to doing movies with known characters that comes up a quarter billion in the red?........?

Yes. Because, honestly, the producers at Disney most likely will just say "whew, can you imagine how much more poorly that movie would have sold without an iconic character attached to it"?

And you can't prove that it wouldn't, so it's a moot point.

H-E-Double Hockeysticks, even Red Letter Media (who are extremely critical of Star Wars and Disney) say that it makes sense for them to focus on known characters right now.

14 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Disney didn't do anything with the Marvel movies at the outset. Disney purchased Marvel a year after the first MCU release. The first five did follow a bit of a formula, leading to Avengers as the sixth. But starting with Phase 2, the seventh movie and five years in, the "wacky" and "independent" already started. Phase 2 started the practice of telling different genre stories that happened to have super-heroes in them. (Iron Man 3 was an 80's buddy cop movie with Iron Man and War Machine in it; Thor: The Dark World was a fantasy movie with SF elements; Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a Cold War espionage thriller; Guardians of the Galaxy was space opera; Avengers: Age of Ultron was the big, bombastic super-hero movie; and, Ant-Man was a heist caper.) That's pretty much carried on.

Now, depending on whether or not we want to - as most do with Marvel - differentiate between Disney and Lucasfilm, we're almost at that same point, time-wise, since the full-on relaunch of the franchise that the MCU felt safe to experiment. But, they've already been doing a bit of that experimenting with the anthology movies - Rogue One a war movie, Solo a western/heist movie. I'm interested to see what, if anything, the Johnson and Weiss/Benioff trilogies do to experiment like that. (It's probably safe to say that a lot of people are expecting the Weiss/Benioff trilogy to have a feel similar to Game of Thrones. We've already got one major GoT cast member, too, in Emilia Clarke, and in the round-table discussion in the Solo bonus features, she said that Kit Harrington desperately wants to do Star Wars.)

Time will tell.

You make some good points, but I'd like to point out that while Phase 2 started to add the more "wacky" parts, they were still highly controlled by the producers at Disney.

It wasn't really until Guardians of the Galaxy (or possibly Winter Soldier) that we see them letting go of their grip a bit to let the directors work their magic.

I'm hoping that this will happen in Star Wars as well, but considering how they brought in a second director to make Rogue One "more light hearted" and how they completely booted and basically reshot Solo (which I think was a smart move, TBH, what I've sen from the Lord & Miller bits was not inspiring much hope) I'd say that they definitively have not let go of their grip yet.

Yes, they're doing it a bit differently this time, since the anthology movies are seemingly being used as testbeds for different formats (war movie, heist movie, etc) and the main trilogy is being pushed as the "real" star wars experience, but I still don't feel that they're confident enough to let go of the reigns enough for great things to happen.

But I'm hoping that they will with the next few projects.

(And it certainly looks like it considering who they've picked to direct future movies and TV-shows)

I beg to differ, I think a 9 figure loss when they just made a movie with known characters is a whole $hit ton of proof....

38 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

You make some good points, but I'd like to point out that while Phase 2 started to add the more "wacky" parts, they were still highly controlled by the producers at Disney.

It wasn't really until Guardians of the Galaxy (or possibly Winter Soldier) that we see them letting go of their grip a bit to let the directors work their magic.

I dunno...Iron Man 3 - the first Phase 2 movie - screamed, “Lookit me! I’m a Shane Black movie!” from beginning to end, up to and including his controversial spin on the Mandarin. The one bit of interference that I’ve heard of is vetoing Maya Hansen as the primary Big Bad (like she was in the Extremis comics arc) because “boys won’t buy an action figure of a female villain.” ?

But, views on when Marvel Studios first felt that breathing room aside, we’re pretty much on the same page.

It’s weird. There are those who say one Star Wars movie a year is too much, but don’t blink at two or three MCU movies a year. (When hearing that July’s Ant-Man and the Wasp was the last MCU movie of 2018 - after getting Black Panther, Infinity War, and Ant-Man all within six months - my wife said it felt like we were getting shorted this year.)