Han Solo Anthology Film - "Solo: A Star Wars Story"*

Oh, I really, really hated Phantom Menace. But I think the core of the movie is where it all starts. I totally agree, all that other stuff is bad. I could even forgive the title, because all the titles are supposed to recall the old 1940s movie serials.

There's an interesting documentary out there, The People vs. George Lucas, and there's a great sequence from 1999 where a group of hardcore Star Wars fans go down to see Phantom Menace and they're initially really jazzed and excited about it. The first new Star Wars film in 16 years! The documentary shows them coming out of the theater 3 hours later kind of in shock, and they say, "jesus... was that really as bad as we thought? We must be wrong. Let's go back and see it again." There's a cut to 3 hours later, and they're coming out of the theater again, still in shock, saying, "yep, that was truly a terrible, terrible film."

 

The best review of The Phantom Menace (not safe for work):

 

That's a minor problem. It's not so much the kid (although I agree he's truly awful), it's what they do with him that really sucks.

One of the greatest lines in film history. It's too bad Ford has been phoning it in now for decades in his performances. There was a time (thanks to films like Witness and Blade Runner, in addition to Star Wars and the Indiana Jones films of course) when he looked to be another screen legend in the making.

Too much importance or not enough? He doesn't even show up until over half an hour into the film, and mostly has random, videogame-like sht happen to him.

Yeah, to sell more stupid toys!

Lucas is a hack. It's a miracle the first film turned out as well as it did, probably mostly thanks to his wife the editor and a whole group of people around him who told him "No" a lot. Empire is the best of the lot, and you'll notice he outsourced almost everything important - the script (to an actual science fiction novelist, Leigh Brackett, and a great screenwriter, Lawrence Kasdan), and the direction (Irv Kershner) - and focused almost entirely on design and merchandising. The more deeply-involved he is with a film on his own, the worse it gets.

 

Reminds me of the one episode of The Simpsons in which they spoofed The Phantom Menace with Cosmic Wars: The Gathering Shadow. Prior going into the movie, they were all pumped up for it and as it played out (all political/trade negotiations,) they had dumbfounded looks on their faces, while complaining, being bored or falling asleep. Coming out of the theatre after it was over, saying it sucked. Comic Book Guy said "Worst Cosmic Wars ever!" Then he went on to say he was going to "only see it 3 more times...today." LOL. Later in the episode, Bart and Lisa write a letter to the George Lucas-type character and go visit his "Cosmic Wars" Ranch.

 

I don't think that's completely fair or true. Lucas himself is a very smart, thoughtful man, and I think a lot of what he does is far more complex and reasoned that most people perceive. American Graffiti in particular is a very interesting film with a lot of depth and nuance, and a lot of that came from Lucas' own life experience. The mythology and depth in the Star Wars universe is a lot bigger when you start really examining it (despite the plot and character flaws).

What I will agree is that Lucas was better off working with a lot of other people whom he treated as equals, particularly with writers and directors and producers. Once the late 1990s hit and people weren't rewriting his films as extensively, I think the films really suffered. I do completely agree that the people around George are extremely afraid of saying "no." (I certainly never told him no.) I don't think he's a bad guy at all, but I do think money changes people, particularly when you've been a billionaire for several decades.

I always say: if Lucas had only made American Graffiti and Star Wars, and then founded Pixar and Industrial Light & Magic and started the core concepts of digital video editing (with EditDroid) and digital audio editing & mixing (with SoundDroid and Pro Tools), he would've been one of the most important people in film who ever lived. But he did a lot more than that with his life. Read the book Droidmaker: George Lucas & The Digital Revolution:

https://www.amazon.com/Droidmaker-George-Lucas-Digital-Revolution/dp/0937404675

 

Interestingly, if you read the original rough draft of Episode I - when it was still tentatively titled The Beginning - Anakin Skywalker is a 12-year-old boy, and a more mature and thoughtful one than what ended up onscreen... in fact, if that script (with obvious revisions) had ended up in cinemas, it would have been an altogether better film. The story is essentially the same, but it hasn't been overcooked to mush as yet, things made sense as to why they were happening or why people acted the way the did, and it's little details that make it better overall... like Obi-Wan Kenobi who both discovers and insists on training Anakin (against advice), Qui-Gon Jinn not appearing in the story until Coruscant and being highly skeptical of Anakin, the Queen and Padme being two separate people throughout, Jar Jar being a more intelligent character, no toilet humor etc. If Lucas had brought in someone like Frank Darabont to polish that draft, hired Joe Johnston to direct, and took more of an 'executive producer' role like he did on Empire and (to a lesser extent) on Jedi, The Phantom Menace would NOT have been a trainwreck, of that I'm very sure...

The Gungans could have worked if handled better, and the prequel trilogy should have begun with the separatist movement already started (and let that be the background to the Naboo blockade and not frickin' space taxes of all things!!!), but I go against the majority consensus and say it was right to kill Darth Maul because, as good as a character as he was, his death made Palpatine notice and start grooming Anakin to ultimately replace him as apprentice... that's a pretty important plot point of the entire six-film saga.

All that being said, the Star Wars prequels, ultimately like all prequels (even the better ones, we're looking at YOU, Better Call Saul... haven't watched it, never will), were and are redundant, regressive, and simply not needed... I've yet to see or read a single prequel that justified it's existence.

 

Never liked that movie. Only watched it because people kept saying how good it was, but I never found it interesting or entertaining.

 

I could've sworn I clicked on the "Han Solo Anthology Thread".

 

To each his own. I'm a fan because it feels genuine, and it makes me wonder where the guy went who made it.

 

I think he is certainly one of the most important people in the history of filmmaking because of the way he revolutionized the industry, and I think having a conversation with him about movies would be fascinating.

I agree that he has too many yes men around him, and that has been his downfall as an actual filmmaker. You and I have brought up The Secret History of Star Wars many times on this forum, and a point that book makes very well is that Lucas creates his best work with strong collaborators. Star Wars and Empire were the work of many talented hands balanced perfectly against each other. With Jedi, and Lucas taking back more control, you begin to see a drop in quality. So there's that old lesson about ego and hubris.

The reality, as viewers, is that one doesn't outweigh the other. He changed movies forever, and he's also made some very bad movies. Life is complicated.

 

I look forward to watching it once it gets released. Should be interesting if done right.

 

Stupid question (that may have been answered already), but does anyone know if Harrison Ford was consulted on this film...even a little bit?

 

There's a publicity photo of Ford eating lunch with the young actor playing Han in the film.

 

You can be smart, thoughtful, and still be a hack.

Overthought and overcomplex, yeah. I'm sure lots of "reasoning" went into The Phantom Menace. It shows.

He ain't Kubrick. Or David Lynch. He needed to think less and focus on the fundamentals more.

Mileage, and it also reveals his greatest weakness - he's only particularly effective when he sticks to his own turf. I found it kind of interesting and it had not so much depth but truthfulness. I think he did a great job evoking a certain time and generation of middle America, that kind of midwestern ethos, that most of the rest of Hollywood hadn't really gotten yet. I grew up in metropolitan Arizona, where a very similar culture was dominant - a generation after Lucas - but I could recognize the authenticity of American Graffiti and that really powered the film and its insights.

Luke Skywalker could have come from the central valley of California. Lucas essentially based Star Wars around a space version of his younger self and the folks he knew, and it worked great. But when he strayed from that in The Phantom Menace...

I think the "mythology" of Star Wars was ridiculously overblown in hindsight, by Lucas and his fanboys. It's part of what ruined the series - too much up its own butt in its cheezeball mythos, and not enough effective storytelling. Which was probably the sin Lucasfilm thinks the Young Han Solo directors committed - they were probably focused on making an entertaining movie, and treated the Star Wars mythos with the disdain it deserves.

 

Yes to all of this. As much as Secret History is kind of a positive fanboy book, they don't shy away from the legitimate complaints and very accurate critiques of the things that don't work in Star Wars, particularly the massive changes George did over the years to the originals, and then the awful prequels that (with few exceptions) most people did not like. And the book goes into tremendous detail about the lapses in story and character logic that plague the films.

I've often said that Lucas' main brilliance was in having a clear vision of what he wanted the end result to be in terms of the look, the feel, the pacing, and the sound -- all largely post decisions. I think his skills are far greater as an overseeing producer than they were as a screenwriter or director. Compare Empire to everything that followed, and you wonder what the hell happened. He's still a brilliant man, but I feel sorry for him in some ways -- as sorry as you can be for somebody who has $10 billion and changed the modern world.

 

We'll never know, but it's well-known that Lucas tried to get a half-dozen people interested in directing and writing the film for him, and (according to George) they all turned him down for reasons of scheduling. Even Spielberg reportedly turned it down, and he had worked with Lucas several times before. Secret History makes the case that quite a few of George's Hollywood friends kind of sensed that they would only be a "hired gun" on a film like this, and that it wouldn't be as much of a friendly partnership as Lucas had had during the 1970s and 1980s.

I do totally agree that the casting on Phantom Menace and cutting the age of the kid from 12 to 8 was a massive mistake. My take is that there wouldn't be much you could do from a directing or editing point of view to solve that problem.

You ever see Godfather II? That's somewhat of a prequel, and provides a lot of background on who Vito Corleone was and how he became what he ultimately would be.

I couldn't disagree more with you on Better Call Saul -- that's a show that has gotten better and better as time went on, to the point where it's a huge Shakespearean tragedy. It's a terrific story with compelling characters, it goes in directions you'd never expect, and it's thoroughly entertaining... and yet still fits into that Breaking Bad mythos. I think it works fine as a standalone for people who never even heard of Walter White, and it also works for people who knows the ultimate fate of Jimmy McGill.

 

I think Lucas is every bit as cynical as I am. When we were in high school we all traipsed off to see Return Of The Jedi, and I was the only one of my posse who really liked the film (mostly because I thought the idea of redeeming Vader instead of just killing him was admirable, especially in the go-go '80s - it was also non-obvious). Of the Ewoks, my friend Robyn probably put it best - she thought they were "obviously" inserted into the film in a cynical attempt to sell toys to kiddies.

Nobody disagreed.

Decades later, she wryly observed that idiot Jar Jar's name was, "something a 3-year-old would have no trouble saying at the toy store." Again, she nailed it, and wasn't half as cynical as the guy who cooked up this stuff was.

And now, that's exactly what's happened post-Lucas with the Han Solo movie. "Directed by Lucasfilm..."

 

After being hugely impressed with A Rogue One, I’m interested in what this Hans Solo film will be like. I’m quite looking forward to The Last Jedi in December.

 

Naw. I sat in a room with him for 14 weeks (just two days each week), and he didn't strike me as a cynical guy at all. I think in one sense he was weary at having to revisit something he did decades ago. Lucas and producer Rick McCallum did admit they were exasperated at having to deal with what they felt was constant criticism from fans, to the point where Lucas had resigned himself to "just making the films to satisfy himself," and just hoping that eventually the audience would enjoy it as well. Lucas has also said many times that (as one example) he didn't include the Ewoks as a toy opportunity, but rather that they were supposed to be Wookies, until it was determined they'd never be able to show 1000 Wookies on a planet at one time... at least with 1980s technology. (When I mentioned the toy thing to McCallum, he shrugged and said for every 100 merchandising requests Lucasfilm got, they turned down about 95 of them as being too cheap and sleazy, so in their minds, they were the opposite of cynical or opportunistic.)

As far as Star Wars goes, some audiences thought that the film was about Luke Skywalker, and I think it took awhile for people to realize it was really about the rise, fall, and redemption of his father Anakin. Now, how that affects the last three movies... that's a good question. It's interesting to me that Lucas has never praised or criticized the current Star Wars films beyond either saying, "I haven't seen them" or "they aren't the movies I would have made." I don't think there's a non-disparagement agreement at work; I think that Lucas is enough a gentleman just to keep his mouth shut and basically say, "it's not my thing but good luck to them."

Lucas struck me as a bright guy with a good sense of humor, but he's also very quietly determined to get exactly what he wants with as few compromises as possible. What I only found out years later was the influence of stuff like Campbell's The Hero Has a Thousand Faces, though I was aware of the homages to the Kurosawa films and so on. The Secret History of Star Wars -- which you should read if you haven't already -- reveals a lot of interesting coincidences and similarities to other films, and also shows Lucas' struggle to avoid making the films cliched and predictable. (In particular, he rejected Vader as being Luke's father for some time until it was kind of inevitable and unavoidable.) It's a very complicated story, but I think the Secret History book shines a light on all the previous script versions and the evolution of the story.

Same here. I was disappointed with Rogue One but didn't think it was terrible, just not great. Still worth seeing once.

 

It's an excuse that I don't buy in the least. The original concept for the Ewoks was that they'd be vicious little maniacs and look much more threatening, which I'd have been fine with. But they mutated into cute little teddy bears along the way, and just screamed "merchandising".

Now, they weren't cheap and sleazy, and nobody was claiming that. They were a lot more calculating and classy than that.

To some degree George Lucas was to filmmaking what Steve Jobs was to the computer industry. Only Jobs had sense enough not to try to write the OS or design the chips himself.

 

Interesting feedback about Lucas, BTW. Matches up with what I know from the spouse of a Lucasfilm executive I used to work with...

 

Why? They'd be guys in suits, like the Ewoks were.

 

I heard somewhere that it would be much more difficult to find as many 7 foot tall people to play the parts as they would have needed.

I believe the real reason that Lucas went with the Ewoks is that the Wookies were considered too technologically advanced. Lucas wanted to do an allegory of the Vietnam War in which a technologically advanced empire is defeated by a far less technologically advanced species on their own home turf.

 

They could have signed up a bunch of basketball teams!