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

The Godfather Part II isn't strictly a prequel, so I'm not sure if it counts as such... but if you want to do so, it's the exception not the norm.

Better Call Saul may be a great show, but I have developed such an aversion of late to this whole accursed 'how it all started' trend in storytelling that I simply have no interest in watching it... why can't Saul Goodman just be a fully-formed sleazebag lawyer, why does he (or any character for that matter) have to have some epic backstory worth exploring? And every time they (re-) introduce another character from Breaking Bad - as I've heard they're doing more frequently on that show - it just pushes me further away from ever giving it a chance... I want to enjoy the latter show on it's own terms and not have the baggage of knowing how these characters all entered the orbit of one another... they just did, that's life, it's not a story worth telling.

Just my own humble, fallible, and entirely subjective opinion, but the whole prequel trend makes me want to set new records in technicolor projectile vomiting... no wonder Daniel Day Lewis is retiring from the industry, I would too if I worked in it and could afford to retire, it's never been in such a dire state creatively... ugh!

 

I agree with that almost always (see new Trek prequel series), however...

...this is the exception that proves the rule. BCS most certainly has been a story worth telling and it's been every bit as good as BB (with a very different narrative emphasis).

 

Your prequel tolerance stance is robbing you of a terrific viewing experience with BCS. You may think you're adhering to some kind of discerning "no prequel code" by avoiding watching, but in this case you're just depriving yourself of excellence.

I urge you to relax your stance in the case of BCS. I - and many of us here - think you'll be very glad you did.

 

I like ewoks

 

Some interesting discussion here (off topic though it may be). I grew up with the original movies but don't have anywhere near the working knowledge that many do.

What frustrates me within the confines of wanting a 'real' 'original' Original Trilogy to buy and watch is being told what the point of it all is. Like, "it's Luke's story" or it's "the fall and redemption of Annikin" or whatever. Don't tinker with a movie 10,000 times to try to tell me what's important. Give me a movie and let me decide, between the 7 year old I was in 1978 and the 45 year old I am now, what it's about.

Any yeah, I said 1978 because I asked my Dad to confirm that he took me to see Star Wars in 1977. He said no, we didn't see it until 1978.

 

Don't feel bad about that. I don't think I saw it until 1979, when I was seven. I have a vivid recollection of my mom and aunt dropping me off to see it with my two older brothers and a girl up the street while they went to see something else. They weren't into sci-fi, so, being Brazilians, they wanted to watch the new James Bond movie which was shot in Rio de Janeiro. The joke was on them, though. That Bond movie was Moonraker!

 

Said no one ever.

I thought we were here to talk of how Lucas ran off the rails, sold his "Empire" to the "Evil Empire" and started churning out movies like there is no tomorrow.

There is NO way this 'Hand' Solo movie gets any of my money, unless Sidney Deane shows up and he and Billy Hoyle hustle some of Jabba's cronies.

 

I thought we were here to talk about the Han Solo movie!

 

Understood and acknowledged... here's a question; does my viewing, understanding, and ultimate enjoyment of Breaking Bad depend on learning new, vital, and necessary information from it's prequel series, in other words, is there plot and character points imparted in BCS that I NEED to know in order to get full understanding of Saul Goodman's role in the whole Heisenberg saga?

If the answer is no, it isn't a story that needed telling, and that was my point; there's a lot to be said for not filling in each and every blank in an ongoing narrative...

 

I like the Ewoks. That makes at least two of us.

 

Can't two worthwhile pieces of entertainment exist in the same narrative "universe"?

 

Of course they can, I never said otherwise... I'm not pulling the plug on BCS, it'll continue just fine and people will both watch and enjoy it regardless of what I think of the current prequel fad... free market, free choice... as God and nature intended.

I'd just rather see Vince Gilligan produce new and original material than stay on old ground already covered.

 

As Marshall Eriksen said on How I Met Your Mother: "I don't know why people are so cynical about Ewoks, the Rebellion would have failed without the Ewoks."

 

Even though BCS is still an ongoing series (hopefully!), I doubt that even when it's finished that there would be anything that one NEEDED to know to appreciate BB. But I think that question is beside the point because BCS was never about plugging plot holes in BB.

Well, no story ever needed to be told. It exists to be appreciated by whichever audience decides it to be worthwhile.

I'm sure he'll have no shortage of offers after he's done with BCS, and while BCS occupies the same universe, one can argue that the material is original and is presented in very different way - ie, it isn't a shameless rehash of a popular show.

Had it been just a rinse and repeat rehash, I would totally feel the way you do, lamenting that it didn't need to exist.

 

If you don't actually watch the show, I don't think it's fair for you to criticize it for what you think it is or isn't.

Yeah, what JRiems says.

In 1983, Lucas couldn't find (or afford) to find a hundred or more guys who were 7' tall to wear Wookie suits, plus I think they figured out it would add millions to the budget. He changed the script and created "small Wookies" who were basically the Ewoks, and they could afford to hire 30-40 little people and make enough costumes for the movie to work. As it was, Jedi was a very, very costly movie to make, particularly when you consider that Lucas funded it completely by himself (as well as financing all of ILM and Skywalker Sound).

NOW, 30 years later, it would certainly be possible to see the Wookie planet with thousands and thousands of Wookies through CG, and I totally expect to see that in the new Han Solo movie.

 

The name is even Wookie reversed.

wook-ee

ee-wok

 

Ewoks were badass. I mean they were going to cook Luke, Han and Chewy alive. No wonder they defeated the stormtroopers.

 

Wow...I can't believe I never noticed that before. That's embarrassing...

 

And, uh, note the row of helmets one of the Ewok musicians is playing during the finale...

 

Lucas already did this in Revenge of the Sith.

 

I'd like to see all the "newer" star wars series on MSTK 3000, that would rule!

 

Sure, in 2005 when he had 1200 CG artists working for him. I'm talking about 1982-1983, when Return of the Jedi was made. People forget that filmmaking was very different 35 years ago: shooting on film, using photochemical methods to meticulously composite layers of pictures on top of each other, endless doing and redoing the shots until they were perfect. It wasn't possible to create huge crowds of overlapping creatures, especially with a moving camera and live-action people. Eventually, once Weta Digital created Massive software (and other 3D character-simulation tools), it was definitely possible to make large groups of hundreds, even thousands of creatures -- as was done in Lord of the Rings:

Massive Software – Simulating Life

But in 1983, this was absolutely impossible and impractical on many levels.

 

Cool!

 

I know that it was impossible in 1982-1983. My comment was in reference to your statement that "NOW, 30 years later, it would certainly be possible to see the Wookie planet with thousands and thousands of Wookies through CG." I was just saying that not only is it possible 30 years later. It already happened 12 years ago, so there is a precedent for it. We've already seen what can be done, and the CG has only improved over the last 12 years.

 

The budget was somewhere between $32 - $42 million, depending on how you slice it. In comparison,the third Trek film cost $16 million, E.T. about $11 million, so there's no doubt Jedi was expensive, but it wasn't unprecedented. Superman had a $55 million budget, back in '78. Star Trek: The Motion Picture clocked in at a whopping $46 million in '79. Jedi looks stunning for its budget - nobody would have batted an eyebrow if it had cost $60 million, so pulling it in for probably under $40 million was quite an achievement. I think they could have pulled off the Wookies for another $5 million extra, and it probably would have been worth it. But Lucas was a bit financially stretched, so I'm not surprised he didn't want to dump more money into the film.

Still, if he had I think the film would have been better-received and have a much more solid reputation today than it does. I don't know if it would have held up as well as Empire, but I think it could have been as good as Star Wars...