Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

---

Only 6 or 7 days to go.
Looks like my schedule will leave me available if there is a midnight showing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't care what anybody says. Clint Howard is a badass.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

---

Only 6 or 7 days to go.
Looks like my schedule will leave me available if there is a midnight showing.

---

In my area there are midnight showings on Thursday night, but only after 3-4 showings starting at 7.
No midnight showings on Wednesday night.
That just seems dumb.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Jewels.....speaking strictly as a movie goer, I'm reposting my response to Second's comments in another section, regarding the Solo boycott. Within my response, there is a non-spoilery review, of sorts.

It is as follows:


So basically Solo copied GoTG. Now there's a revelation, a unique and quantifiable expression of a pop culture phenomenon...namely Star Wars. A unique experience born out of a unremarkable period of the sci-fi domain. Lucas used old footage out of World War II air battles to simulate the battles he imagined that would occur in space. Hence, the "bomber squad" scene in the Last Jedi, a fete that defied gravitational logic.

Granted, Star Wars is forty years in the making, and/or telling, but my take on all of this is that Star Wars took the stories of Flash Gordon, Commando Cody, Forbidden Planet, When Worlds Collide, War of the Worlds, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, yes even Plan 9 from Outer Space; and brought it into the modern era of sci-fi film. Oh, let's not forget the incomparable 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yes Second, it may be true what you depict in your response, but I dare say that film history will note that without Star Wars...well, you know the rest. Guardians of the Galaxy followed the formula; they did not break the mold, but added to it. Bravo, I say.

Peter Quill is Han Solo, Groot is Chewbacca, etc. GoTG is an excellent sci-fi film full of fun and flights of fancy. There is no mistaking it's appeal. I'll take it a step further, that loveable scoundrel has existed since the early days of film, way back in the 30s. I give you, Charlie Chaplin. Yes, I'm going back that far, before talkies. And it has worked throughout the years; Errol Flynn as Robin Hood; Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man; Mel Ferrer as Cyrano. You get it, I'm sure. Derivative, perhaps. But saying that Solo is derivative of GoTG is like putting the cart before the horse. The only thing that's changed is the background of the story, the surroundings, but at it's core; the same old loveable wise-cracking chap moviegoers have fallen in love with since the days of the horse and cart is ever present.

As far as Solo goes. It is fun, it is lighthearted and thoroughly entertaining and serves the Star Wars story of the hero's journey by the beloved character of Han Solo. I would put it right up there with Rogue One. There is one character in Solo that puts me in mind of GoTG, as far as the wisecracking co-pilot is concerned. It also puts me in mind of a certain captain with tight pants, and a certain train robbery. By the way, just to keep things in perspective, there is a movie, in history, that depicts a group of train robbers...it is known as The Great Train Robbery, 1903. Hmmmm, The Train Job, Firefly, 2002. But, I digress.

I went in with an open mind, but expecting the worst; mainly from all the online vitriol and general overall "hate" of the Last Jedi. I did briefly give the "boycott" a thought, but then said to myself..."go see and judge for yourself."
Fuck it, I'm judging for myself...I liked this movie. Was it the greatest Star Wars movie of all time? No. Was it lighthearted fun and entertaining?...you betcha.
Was Alden Enrenreich Harrison Ford?, No. He was Han Solo as you would think him to be early on in his life. A scoundrel in the making, a young Han Solo. He served the character well, and therefore, served the story well. Thank you Ron Howard for doing a masterful job of not totally fucking with the characters we grew to love.
While I'm at it, thank you George Lucas for keeping him drawing inside the lines. Sometimes that works.

Solo had the grit and old feel of the original Star Wars movie. In other words, not perfectly shiny and new, not totally antiseptic like the prequels; and, most importantly, no Jar Jar Binks. This was a flashback to what made Star Wars, well...Star Wars. It started out slow, but picked up momentum and gathered speed, intrigue and the like as it went along. Yes, Glover was charming as Lando (with all his capes, which I found to be brilliant); but Emilia Clarke who nailed her role as the lovely Kira (Solo's love interest) deserves mention. Harrelson was his usual solid self, who totally immersed himself as Beckett. Thandie Newton as Val. Okay enough of that. Howard brought this movie home with his deft touch as director, and that is to be applauded.

Speaking of applause. The theater where I saw this yesterday was only about 3/4s full, but as the movie ended, and the Star Wars theme played in the background of the credit scroll, there were a smattering of applause throughout. It was as if the audience was saying "thank you Opie, thank you."

Go and judge for yourself. You will enjoy, whether or not you're a Star Wars fan.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not out until the 25th officially, but I just noticed that the cast included Clint Howard. I wonder if that casting predated Ron becoming Director.

Saw a brief clip, looked like Thandie is playing a badass.
Other that Han, I really like the cast. Woody I didn't need, but that's a small sacrifice.


I had forgotten Episode IV was released 25 May 1977 and Episode VI was released 25 May 1983.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I did read this review of yours, but I don't plan to read others until after I see Solo, likely on Tuesday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm that way too. I don't read or watch any reviews, especially spoilery ones opening week. Also, I try not to spoil it for anyone. Now I'm off to view a couple of You Tube comments and reviews. I'm curious to see what they're going to say.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Fuck it, I'm judging for myself...I liked this movie. Was it the greatest Star Wars movie of all time? No. Was it lighthearted fun and entertaining?...you betcha.
Was Alden Enrenreich Harrison Ford?, No. He was Han Solo as you would think him to be early on in his life. A scoundrel in the making, a young Han Solo. He served the character well, and therefore, served the story well. Thank you Ron Howard for doing a masterful job of not totally fucking with the characters we grew to love.
While I'm at it, thank you George Lucas for keeping him drawing inside the lines. Sometimes that works.

Solo had the grit and old feel of the original Star Wars movie. In other words, not perfectly shiny and new, not totally antiseptic like the prequels; and, most importantly, no Jar Jar Binks. This was a flashback to what made Star Wars, well...Star Wars. It started out slow, but picked up momentum and gathered speed, intrigue and the like as it went along. Yes, Glover was charming as Lando (with all his capes, which I found to be brilliant); but Emilia Clarke who nailed her role as the lovely Kira (Solo's love interest) deserves mention. Harrelson was his usual solid self, who totally immersed himself as Beckett. Thandie Newton as Val. Okay enough of that. Howard brought this movie home with his deft touch as director, and that is to be applauded.

---

Quote:

---

Have you not seen Deadpool?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I did read this review of yours, but I don't plan to read others until after I see Solo, likely on Tuesday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm that way too. I don't read or watch any reviews, especially spoilery ones opening week. Also, I try not to spoil it for anyone. Now I'm off to view a couple of You Tube comments and reviews. I'm curious to see what they're going to say.

SGG

---

Your review said it was non-spoiler, and I didn't run into any potential spoiler or objectionable tendency as I progressed through it.
So far I haven't heard people jabbering about how the film incessantly copies other derivative film parodies of prior installments of the franchise. Thank Howard for not being that juvenile and insipid.

Have you not seen Deadpool?

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Story_Box
_Office_Doesnt_Tell_The_Whole_Story_180880.asp

Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I love the trolling that happened regarding Lando's character.

I'd been hearing a lot about how they turned him into a pansexual in Solo. You had web articles giving high praise for this, as well as those demonizing the creators of the movie for putting something like that in a family movie. People on both sides going crazy about the issue.

Then what seems to be a pretty small amount of people so far went to see the movie and there was no evidence of this at all.

That's probably the most entertainment that Star Wars has brought me since 1983.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I love the trolling that happened regarding Lando's character.

I'd been hearing a lot about how they turned him into a pansexual in Solo. You had web articles giving high praise for this, as well as those demonizing the creators of the movie for putting something like that in a family movie. People on both sides going crazy about the issue.

Then what seems to be a pretty small amount of people so far went to see the movie and there was no evidence of this at all.

That's probably the most entertainment that Star Wars has brought me since 1983.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

2 things. They might have been talking about his relationship with his droid Pilot. Or that stuff may have been discarded by Howard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Story_Box
_Office_Doesnt_Tell_The_Whole_Story_180880.asp

Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

---

I don't think it is Spoiler that there is a 3 year span in this film.
At the end of the 3 years, Chewbacca is 190 years old, at least. Based upon the comments about the Rebellion and it's Genesis, I had thought it closer to ANH/R1. But I think you said it is from 11 years to 8 years before, making Han about 29 when he meets Luke & Leia.
What is BBY?
So then this starts 7 years after Episode III, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/story/fron
t/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Sto
ry_Box_Office_Doesnt_Tell_Th
e_Whole_Story_180880.asp

Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

---

I don't think it is Spoiler that there is a 3 year span in this film.
At the end of the 3 years, Chewbacca is 190 years old, at least. Based upon the comments about the Rebellion and it's Genesis, I had thought it closer to ANH/R1. But I think you said it is from 11 years to 8 years before, making Han about 29 when he meets Luke & Leia.
What is BBY?
So then this starts 7 years after Episode III, right?

---

I just skimmed a few articles and I don't think there's solid consensus about what exact year the movie takes place, but everyone agrees that it's roughly a decade prior to A New Hope.

With the 3 year jump indicated, it could be 14/11, or 13/10, or even 12/9. But

BBY = Before Battle of Yavin, so Rogue One and A New Hope are technically "zero," I guess. My understanding (again, from the articles I just skimmed) is that the timeline looks like this:

Phantom Menace -32 BBY
Attack of the Clones -22 BBY
Revenge of the Sith -19 BBY
Solo (intro) approx -14/-13 BBY
Solo (main story) approx - 11/10 BBY
Rebels (animated series) begins -5 BBY
Rogue One 0 BBY
A New Hope 0 BBY (establishes Battle of Yavin and new timeline)

Thus, Chewie may not LITERALLY be 190 in Solo or 200 in ANH, but he's close enough. If you've 202, does it really matter? :)

As for Han, his actual age has never been established, but he's about a decade older than Luke and Leia, who would be 19 during ANH, so let's call him 29 (a commonly accepted number, despite Ford being much older than that). That would make Solo roughly 19 during the main storyline and 16 during the intro. That seems to jibe storywise, even if Alden Ehrenreich (like Ford before him) is older than the character.

Given that we see the Empire actively recruiting teenagers a few years later in the Rebels animated series, Solo signing up at 16 would not be a surprise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Solo: A Star Wars Story has been on several Must-See Lists this year, and I feel it may be the first or best to fulfill hopes and expectations, in quite a while. I liked Wind River but it was a surprise for me, I didn't really see it coming. I had known Rogue One was coming, but I didn't know what it was about, what context or connection to the Star Wars quiltwork. Solo was a character I was familiar with, and I am glad Ron Howard has added this to his resume. Makes me wish he would have accepted the other Star Wars film that he was asked to do years ago.

This could well be the best overall film of the year.

I can't list everything right now, but some thoughts of similarities: Let's Do Crime! From The Train Job. Some vibe of James Bond, with the story and scene of spy entering the villian's lair, which also resembles Trash - and I never noticed that about the Bellerophon visit until watching this film, and later this scene development reminded me of The Ball in Shindig, with 3 BDHs bumping into each other. And I wondered - is this what was trying to happen with that lame Casino gambit in TLJ?
Galaxy Quest had dragging mines, Star Trek II's climax, Star Wars V, Gran Torino, Pilot Serenity opening scenes, Starship Troopers, Top Gun flight tricks, plus the James Bond card games I was all reminded of.
I have not seen Thor 3

Select to view spoiler:

---

where Thor and Hulk meet in the arena.

---

Apparently Wookie Speak does not have a word for

Select to view spoiler:

---

reinforcements

---

I heard that Howard shot more than 80% of the shots. I suspect one that was left from the twits was Falcon landing on Severin.

I did notice some grainy or fuzzy lensework, and maybe poor lighting or contrast on numerous shots. This seemed a departure from the Lucas works, which had crisp color, contrast, focus, lighting whether indoors or desert locales. Howard's work has also maintained crisp cinematography in each film I can recall. I think all of Firefly had better resolution and clarity than some scenes in Solo.

The story seemed quite the symphony of coinciding needs and talents, altering the balance from one shot to the next.

Does anybody know of the time frame here, or did I miss it? SWIV was 18 years after SWIII. So how far between there did this span take place?
Did we already know how old Chewbacca was?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Solo: A Star Wars Story has been on several Must-See Lists this year, and I feel it may be the first or best to fulfill hopes and expectations, in quite a while. I liked Wind River but it was a surprise for me, I didn't really see it coming. I had known Rogue One was coming, but I didn't know what it was about, what context or connection to the Star Wars quiltwork. Solo was a character I was familiar with, and I am glad Ron Howard has added this to his resume. Makes me wish he would have accepted the other Star Wars film that he was asked to do years ago.

This could well be the best overall film of the year.

I can't list everything right now, but some thoughts of similarities: Let's Do Crime! From The Train Job. Some vibe of James Bond, with the story and scene of spy entering the villian's lair, which also resembles Trash - and I never noticed that about the Bellerophon visit until watching this film, and later this scene development reminded me of The Ball in Shindig, with 3 BDHs bumping into each other. And I wondered - is this what was trying to happen with that lame Casino gambit in TLJ?
Galaxy Quest had dragging mines, Star Trek II's climax, Star Wars V, Gran Torino, Pilot Serenity opening scenes, Starship Troopers, Top Gun flight tricks, plus the James Bond card games I was all reminded of.
I have not seen Thor 3

Select to view spoiler:

---

where Thor and Hulk meet in the arena.

---

Apparently Wookie Speak does not have a word for

Select to view spoiler:

---

reinforcements

---

I heard that Howard shot more than 80% of the shots. I suspect one that was left from the twits was Falcon landing on Savareen.

I did notice some grainy or fuzzy lensework, and maybe poor lighting or contrast on numerous shots. This seemed a departure from the Lucas works, which had crisp color, contrast, focus, lighting whether indoors or desert locales. Howard's work has also maintained crisp cinematography in each film I can recall. I think all of Firefly had better resolution and clarity than some scenes in Solo.

The story seemed quite the symphony of coinciding needs and talents, altering the balance from one shot to the next.

Does anybody know of the time frame here, or did I miss it? SWIV was 18 years after SWIII. So how far between there did this span take place?
Did we already know how old Chewbacca was?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Solo: A Star Wars Story has been on several Must-See Lists this year, and I feel it may be the first or best to fulfill hopes and expectations, in quite a while. I liked Wind River but it was a surprise for me, I didn't really see it coming. I had known Rogue One was coming, but I didn't know what it was about, what context or connection to the Star Wars quiltwork. Solo was a character I was familiar with, and I am glad Ron Howard has added this to his resume. Makes me wish he would have accepted the other Star Wars film that he was asked to do years ago.

This could well be the best overall film of the year.

I can't list everything right now, but some thoughts of similarities: Let's Do Crime! From The Train Job. Some vibe of James Bond, with the story and scene of spy entering the villian's lair, which also resembles Trash - and I never noticed that about the Bellerophon visit until watching this film, and later this scene development reminded me of The Ball in Shindig, with 3 BDHs bumping into each other. And I wondered - is this what was trying to happen with that lame Casino gambit in TLJ?
Galaxy Quest had dragging mines, Star Trek II's climax, Star Wars V, Gran Torino, Pilot Serenity opening scenes, Starship Troopers, Top Gun flight tricks, plus the James Bond card games I was all reminded of.
I have not seen Thor 3

Select to view spoiler:

---

where Thor and Hulk meet in the arena.

---

Apparently Wookie Speak does not have a word for

Select to view spoiler:

---

reinforcements

---

I heard that Howard shot more than 80% of the shots. I suspect one that was left from the twits was Falcon landing on Savareen.

I did notice some grainy or fuzzy lensework, and maybe poor lighting or contrast on numerous shots. This seemed a departure from the Lucas works, which had crisp color, contrast, focus, lighting whether indoors or desert locales. Howard's work has also maintained crisp cinematography in each film I can recall. I think all of Firefly had better resolution and clarity than some scenes in Solo.

The story seemed quite the symphony of coinciding needs and talents, altering the balance from one shot to the next.

Does anybody know of the time frame here, or did I miss it? SWIV was 18 years after SWIII. So how far between there did this span take place?
Did we already know how old Chewbacca was?

---

I was also reminded of Edge of Tomorrow, when a liar explains an honest person: take him away, and don't believe anything he says, it's all lies.
And Objects in Space, when River embodies Serenity.
The Landing in Armageddon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
I believe Chewie's age as a 200-year-old Wookiee was noted in the script or novelization for A New Hope. In any event, I'm 99% sure we've from expanded materials that he's about 200 since the era of the original trilogy.

I thought the timing for this movie was 10 years BBY, but I just read an article that said it's about 11 BBY, not that the one year makes a big difference... In context, though, that places us 6 years prior to the Rebels animated series, for those who care about that.

One thing that I found awesome were the references to the old Lando Calrissian trilogy. The first two books, The Mindharp of Sharu and The Flamewinds of Oseon, were directly referenced. There was probably a reference to the Starcave of ThonBoka that I missed.

Similarly, there were a few visual references to the old Han Solo trilogy (Brian Daley, not A.C. Crispin), with at least two homages to the third book in Dryden's collection (I would never have picked up on the second one without having flipped through the visual dictionary).

Theforce.net has an interesting article today about why the BO take for SOLO isn't the full - or even main - story from Disney's perspective. The article posits that this movie is basically a sounding to see how audiences will respond to certain things, and although it will have impact on some of their long-term plans, those long-term plans will move forward nonetheless:

http://www.theforce.net/stor
y/front/Why_The_Solo_A_Star_Wars_Sto
ry_Box_Office_Do
esnt_Tell_The_Whole_Story_180880.asp

Perhaps worth noting, too: The first Thor movie had a worldwide take of 450 million and is considered one of the worst Marvel movies. The most recent Thor movie has made almost double that, and is considered among the best... and Solo is certainly a better movie than either of the first two Thors.

I think the positive word of month the movie has been receiving from those who've seen it will factor into things. I've spoken to probably a dozen people who've seen it so far, and the reactions have ranged from "I enjoyed it" to "I loved it." Sure, tickets tell a different story, but that's something I can't say about about Eps 7 and 8.

---

I don't think it is Spoiler that there is a 3 year span in this film.
At the end of the 3 years, Chewbacca is 190 years old, at least. Based upon the comments about the Rebellion and it's Genesis, I had thought it closer to ANH/R1. But I think you said it is from 11 years to 8 years before, making Han about 29 when he meets Luke & Leia.
What is BBY?
So then this starts 7 years after Episode III, right?

---

I just skimmed a few articles and I don't think there's solid consensus about what exact year the movie takes place, but everyone agrees that it's roughly a decade prior to A New Hope.

With the 3 year jump indicated, it could be 14/11, or 13/10, or even 12/9. But

BBY = Before Battle of Yavin, so Rogue One and A New Hope are technically "zero," I guess. My understanding (again, from the articles I just skimmed) is that the timeline looks like this:

Phantom Menace -32 BBY
Attack of the Clones -22 BBY
Revenge of the Sith -19 BBY
Solo (intro) approx -14/-13 BBY
Solo (main story) approx - 11/10 BBY
Rebels (animated series) begins -5 BBY
Rogue One 0 BBY
A New Hope 0 BBY (establishes Battle of Yavin and new timeline)

Thus, Chewie may not LITERALLY be 190 in Solo or 200 in ANH, but he's close enough. If you've 202, does it really matter? :)

As for Han, his actual age has never been established, but he's about a decade older than Luke and Leia, who would be 19 during ANH, so let's call him 29 (a commonly accepted number, despite Ford being much older than that). That would make Solo roughly 19 during the main storyline and 16 during the intro. That seems to jibe storywise, even if Alden Ehrenreich (like Ford before him) is older than the character.

Given that we see the Empire actively recruiting teenagers a few years later in the Rebels animated series, Solo signing up at 16 would not be a surprise.

---

Quote:

---

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.

---

Hey Jewels,

I think that they were going for a 70s type vibe in regards to the
cinematography, but, as I understand it, they had projection problems in many theaters.

http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

This may be the reason why it got lousy reviews as well.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.

---

Hey Jewels,

I think that they were going for a 70s type vibe in regards to the
cinematography, but, as I understand it, they had projection problems in many theaters.

http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

This may be the reason why it got lousy reviews as well.


SGG

---

Any word on how these will translate to DVD?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I'm not sure about the DVD graphics, but I will keep you posted if I hear anything.

By the way, the theater I saw this in had a very good screen and the
cinematography was excellent. Wide screen, excellent graphics although
some scenes were a bit on the dark side. I don't know if that was due to a filtering process.

P.S. I found out that the DVD release date is September 2018 in both
digital HD and Blu Ray. I didn't get much more than that.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

I saw where Gwek mentioned that Rogue One was a better film than Solo, but is just more dark, so not as fun.
This helps me reconcile my viewpoint conflicts. Although I cannot really downgrade R1 for the required underlying sacrifice, I can understand that for some it is insurmountable.
In this way I agree Solo is more fun. I just wish the cinematography was up to par. I really don't understand the purpose of intentionally creating a substandard work - with a practically unlimited budget. The more I watch it, the more irritated I am by these technicalities, even with decent story and SFX.

---

Hey Jewels,

I think that they were going for a 70s type vibe in regards to the
cinematography, but, as I understand it, they had projection problems in many theaters.

http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

This may be the reason why it got lousy reviews as well.


SGG

---

Any word on how these will translate to DVD?

---

---