قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Entertainment / & # 39; Star Wars & # 39; Debating Fans & # 39; Solo & # 39; End and launch of Enfy's Nest

& # 39; Star Wars & # 39; Debating Fans & # 39; Solo & # 39; End and launch of Enfy's Nest



[ThisStoryContainsSpoilsfor Solo: A Star Wars Story ]

The following is a spoiler-intensive conversation between two Star Wars fans-Turkish film journalist Ali Arikan and The Hollywood Reporter Contributor Simon Abrams – About Solo: A Star Wars Story A prequel that follows the title character (Alden Ehrenreich) during his training as a smuggler from Corellia. Abrams is a 30-year-old Millennial, and the other 38-year-old Gen X kind of one man – both whose perspectives on Star Wars was shaped by the era of movies they grew up with.

In the last film, Solo has his first encounters with Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the Millennium Falcon and also Clint Howard (woo, Clint Howard!). The movie was not as good as the box office, as the producers had projected, and so many come to defend the movie. Understandably, people also find Ron Howard's old-fashioned nice presence on Twitter refreshing, though it's not so clear what that has to do with the quality of the film. Anyway, spoilers ahead for solo including its demise, Enfy's Nest and a Surprising Cameo

Simon Abrams, Mario Van Peebles Enthusiast: Hello, Newman. Once again, it's time to make fun of Star Wars. Today's theme is Solo: A Star Wars Story a prequel / sidequel that I know you've enjoyed more than me. I think Star Wars was a much bigger part of your nerdy upbringing / identity than it was to me. It was of course huge for me, but even Star Trek: The Next Generation was not as big for me as Star Wars was for you. Not a knock, I just think you've invested more in these characters than me. Therefore, I would like to know more about your preference for this relatively low mission.

Oddly enough, I think we both do not think this movie is necessary. It's a question many of our colleagues are asking in the face of the film's disappointing admissions. What is the point? Why make a story about how Han Solo hit Chewbacca for the first time, ran the Kettle Run in under 1

2 Parsek and won the Millennium Falcon of Lando Calrissian in a game by Sabacc? Who needs such an overblown, tristram Shandy -large trip into the past, riddled with pointless allusions to Holochess and Hans's future dealings with Jabba the Hutt? Why fill in these gaps? They are not loden-bearing gaps, as I used to joke with you.

I think we can both agree that the movie is patched up. Director Ron Howard had the unenviable task of landing a strictly metaphorical plane that was already pretty confused. But there were so many times in the first half or more that I asked myself, "If these set pieces and relationships need to be included in the movie, why could not they be cut with better choreography, funnier quotes or just slower cuts?" Many The film's key relationships – especially anything vaguely romantic in nature – felt hurried and unconvincing. And most of the scenes before L3-37's death got on my nerves, pointing to events without ever spending enough time on these events to get me excited. Solo for me, feels like a checklist biography for a character I never needed to understand a detailed backstory. Oh, that's how he met Chewie! And he fought in a ditch, ok! Whoa, he had a girlfriend? Therefore, he is a loner, a rebel, etc.

What brings me back to the main topic of my howling today: Who cares? If you make that kind of story, and you can not devote the kind of patience and detail that is needed to make me lift my unbelief – why bother? (I know, because the filmmakers really need this demographics of Simon Abrams.) Paul Bettany's cellulite-like acne crater face is a perfect example: is that a scar? A tattoo? The markings on his neck indicate that it is a design. So why not make some Hot Wheels look red in the dark or black-hot designs in the dark? Or make it like a mood tattoo: It glows in all colors that mean anger, sadness and jealousy in the nuance. Or all these aliens! Generally, I prefer the creature designs in this movie to the last three live action stars War movies (oh, look, a Gremlin with a monocle, so crazy). But come on, what about the floating head and its singing accompaniment? That should have been great! Why was it just … good enough? The joke is not so good that I will laugh, no matter how it is told. Why do you say it when you can not find it?

I guess I do not know why you have to give a mushy, archetypal Wolf anti-hero – whose personality is described in his own damn name – a film-length biography. That's, I think, why some people really revered Rob Zombies, but unusual Halloween remakes or even J.J. Abrams & # 39; Star Trek Movies: They enter well-known territory, but pay special attention to the gaps in pop culture that many fans either do not want or need. Who has to see how Dr. Loomis talks to a young Michael Myers, or a young James T. Kirk passes the Kobayashi Maru test? Why are you telling these stories? I think Abrams (no relationship, mind) and Zombie gave interesting answers to these questions in their respective films, but they obviously had an unfair advantage over Howard and the gang because they had much more creative freedom.

So I'd like to hear why this one did more for you than The Last Jedi . I suppose that's because Solo was celebrating the events of the previous movies and had a lazier narrative than The Last Jedi which – if I do not misconstrue your opinion from our last conversation – they felt needlessly destructive, while also disgustingly constructed. Is that fair?

Ali Arikan, Plastic Cup Collector : Yes, I would say that's fair – and add, The Last Jedi was also stupid like rinse water. However, I would be careful not to put The Last Jedi against Solo as representing two opposing philosophical perspectives. Yes, the former puts it a bit thick and the latter is wonderfully reckless, but they are both essentially superfluous. Star Wars is the story of Luke and Anakin Skywalker. That's about it. One goes on a journey of fear, the other a journey of hope – their ways finally converge, and the Son redeems the Father, and all live happily ever after. In the words of Robert Anthony Plant CBE: "Yes, there are two ways you can pass by, but in the long run there is still time to change the way you are on it," and that's what Star Wars was all about these years. A recent return of the Jedi ewatch (by the way, the best of all Star Wars films) reinforced my assessment that Endor's celebration is when this story ends.

But that's the real world, and Disney wants to make as many movies as possible for the rest of our lives. Once you accept that pretty much every single Star Wars movie from now on will be pointless fan-fiction, then you begin to judge these films for pure merit rather than canonical testaments. In essence, I have made peace the fact that Star Wars is not for me anymore. Of course, it was a huge part of my nerdy upbringing, as you say, but then it was the early eighties and there just was not that much dork-friendly quality product that came from Hollywood. In essence, who should I discuss with people who are twenty or thirty years younger than me, enjoying all the different ways in which the saga was extended? Yes, the new canonically extended universe makes Star Wars much smaller than broadening its horizons. Yes, I think the Clone Wars and Rebels cartoons are nonsense. Yes, the sequel trilogy has been a complete disaster so far. But as someone who is close to the sun just before his fifth decade, I realize that this, um, property is no longer mine.

What a lengthy way to say is that I solo with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. If anything, the lack of action made it all much more enjoyable for me. This is a completely different Star Wars movie because nothing of galactic significance happens. No planets or death stars are blown up. These films always had a certain flow, but Solo makes it all redundant. This is the first formally different Star Wars movie since the first movie. It's just a small Heist / Adventure movie with slight nods to The Wild Bunch Johnny Guitar and Treasure Island . Sure, it hits certain beats we're expecting (like the way Han wins the hawk or how he and Chewie got to know each other), but all those moments have already become myths for us: whatever happened, our expectations would never be fulfill. [19659003] I think the most important success of the film is the way in which it not only pursues the approach of "The story of the rogue as a young man". You know, those embarrassing stories that tend to become Albert Einstein with things like "And this kid who did not pass his math lesson." I admit, it's clunky, as it rams as much of the solo story as possible (The Kettle Run, Wookiees ripping people's arms out of their sockets, Han shoots first, etc.), but it never works for them either Intro sequence in which he accepted all his tics and fears, not during an eventful afternoon. Instead, it shows Han at his core as a silly good guy with the best of intentions. The film proves that at the end of Return of the Jedi who voluntarily volunteers for a suicide mission on Endor, the Han was always driven by a love for his friends – who would really become his adoptive family. [19659003] Is it perfect? No. Sometimes it's a bit awkward, the Corellian sequences look like they've been filmed on an old Nokia phone, the subdued environments and aliens are part of the "more realistic" Disney era. And again, let's take care of Han's cube ("Do you remember that you could see her in certain shots of the original trilogy?" I take your word for that, luvvie). But that was a nightmare production and it's nothing short of a miracle that it's so enjoyable.

There's one thing about the movie that I absolutely hate and that's Darth Maul. It was fun to see him again, sure, but the implication that the Star Wars saga is now a cohesive canon is terribly deterrent, but Zen is trying to make me feel about this whole thing. Did you know, Maul called a brother, and I do not shit you, Savage Oppress? I guess he's also a canon. In the words of the former and future elect, yippee!

Did not you like the lower engagement this movie has to offer? Most of the time you enjoy something like that.

Abrams : I am grateful that you asked if I would prefer the "lower stakes" to the "smaller ones" because I think there is a difference. I've enjoyed solo 's lowest stakes, but I did not like most of the movie because the scale was as massive as a crowded burrito with too many free add-ons (yes, I did a story about that, why are you asking). I mean, you know that I love our fellow campaigner Bilge Ebiri in the Mediterranean, but I think he combines "low stakes" with "small scale" in this very important tweet that he definitely wants from me like a pair of bloody gloves. Anyway, the problem, as I see it, is that Solo 's creator made an allegedly character-driven robbery and extended his storyline to include 135 minutes of potentially exciting scenes – including Trench Warfare, a campi confab, a robbery, a droid – slave rebellion, a few card games, etc – and it felt like Walter Hill or some other old Hollywood guy with a lot more nuance and bangs could have got through humor in about 100 minutes. Ron Howard, as much as I love (some) of his films, has had no firm grip on a project that has grown exponentially but never developed to scale. Like a circus tent that is so big that it can hold more rubies, but is still surrounded by thin rubber, you get the idea.

"Small inserts" I wanted from this movie. Instead, I got lengthy checklist scenes that only served to establish Solo's emotional growth through superficial personal losses. Oh no, he was disconnected from the girlfriend we just met and with whom he does not seem to have much chemistry because there is a lack of scenes where they bite, joke, kiss or even watch each other! And you gods, Val – Thandie Newton 's suspicious, no – nonsense mercenary – blew herself up, devastating, though she has nothing to do with Beckett – Woody Harrelson' s unsentimental antihero mentor – and complains about how she does it does not trust solo on the above-mentioned fire-side confab.

But how about Lando and his fairweather droid lover / co-pilot L3-37 (Phoebe Waller Bridge), with their … no, wait, what about Dryden Vos (Bettany) and Qi & # 39 ; ra (Emilia Clarke)? …. no, no, Han and Chewie … you know what, none of these relationships was important to me. I never felt that the danger these characters faced was particularly receptive – the Cthulhu monster in Kettle Run is fine, and the train robbery has moments, but neither of them attracted me completely – and the jokes they crack it's just funny (Beckett's speech in the middle of the speech made me laugh), and the actors just do not seem to be in the same scene with each other.

And talking about plot actions! I remember talking about The Last Jedi that we both had minor problems with the plot concepts of this film (especially the Laura Dern / Oscar Isaac Sub-plot). But this movie? I was about to throw something on the screen when Enfy's Nest (Erin Kellyman), the leader of the Marauders, pointed out to Beckett that when they met for the second time, he would have known she was back. It seems as if Beckett had planned everything but this eventuality! Even Dryden Vos shows it too well: Beckett knows what the cost of failure is and knows the Marauder will take the shit out of his trap – so why did not he include the Marauders in his plans? Ever? In some way? Just a bit?

It's a Synekdoche, I'm telling you, if you want to commit yourself to a plan, but are not ready to adapt that plan, that there's room to improvise and improve the original idea – why?

In addition to slapping myself on the head with a rolled-up newspaper and asking me to get your lawn on (hm hm, you naughty old Lech), can you give me a backstory about the production many difficulties? I feel like you know this stuff a lot better than me, and I bet your weird Zen attitude about the movie comes from these so-called "lowered expectations" that you've been talking about.

Arikan : Well, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were hired to direct the film, and when their comedic, improvisational approach to Lawrence and Jon Kasdan's (the writers) vision occurred, and Lucasfilm fired the pair from. That was in June of last year, about five months after filming and eleven months before the film was scheduled to open. Ron Howard was quickly brought in as a replacement and is said to have shot most of the film. At least that's the official story, but even then, the implication of important backstage issues is obvious. Lucasfilm had a number of such difficulties: Rogue One was "rescued" by Tony Gilroy (who also shot a number of scenes including the new degree) in the editing room. Josh Trank's Boba Fett movie has been jettisoned until recently when he seems to be on schedule with James Mangold on the director's chair. Colin Trevorrow and his written partner Derek Connolly left Episode IX and were described by J.J. Abrams, who has apparently discarded her original design and rewritten a page. It was just very chaotic behind the scenes. Funnily enough, Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi seems to be the only one of these new films that sailed relatively smoothly until its release.

It seems that Star Wars is as precious as Disney and Lucasfilm guessing on every corner – the prequels are a disappointment in the pop culture zeitgeist (though they've made billions), and you go to produce those movies on egg shells. Therefore, there is a constant feeling of choosing the path of least resistance. Even The Last Jedi ends with a note that finds the rebels virtually at the same point as the first film. Disney and Lucasfilm seem to decide on comfortable, reassuring decisions. And while that crunches in the saga movies, this approach works wonderfully in solo because of the lower stakes. Yes, we have some Easter eggs here and there, but the story itself is completely different from the ones we saw before. In this regard, Solo is almost subversive: it feels like a fan-friendly, offering cash robbery, and although it's obviously a Star Wars movie, under the Mandalorian armor and the reference of Aurra Sing and Bossk. It's also a different kind of movie, but it's definitely a Star Wars movie.

I think the key point is that the Skywalker saga feels so intimate to Lucas (even if others have written the dialogue, directed, etc.) it's hard to accept another hand. George Lucas' Conflicts with his father, his attitude towards life and his filmmaking over the years, his recent growth as a father and the importance of his children, his identity as an industrial captain reconciling with his Marin Graphic artist-persona … All these things tell the Skywalker saga much more than Joseph Campbell or Akira Kurosawa. But that's just not the case with Han and Chewie. Sure, there are parts of Lucas in Han (the love for fast cars, his ambitious self-image as a cool kid, etc.), but he also seems to belong to Kasdan (and Leigh Brackett and Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand) he does it Lucas.

Maybe that has betrayed some people. I mean, the forces that did that did no favor when they released a new Star Wars movie five months after the last one and in the middle of a crowded setting. But maybe big parts of the Star Wars audience are fixated on mysticism, Jedi, Sith, clumsiness, etc., and maybe the masses are just not in a vicious thriller that does not have (much) of it? The children who grew up with the prequels and Clone Wars and Rebels have equated Star Wars with mystical gimmicks. And they just do not respond to this more secular story. Could that be the case for you?

Abrams : This is an interesting question (ie: I have not prepared an answer). I definitely agree that we've been getting away from Lucas' vision of Star Wars lately, but I do not think I liked Solo for that either. I did not really feel like Solo was a drastic departure from the previous Lucas films. His creators have also successfully conveyed their love for the 50s pop culture – Western, horror comics, adventure series – that I fell in love with, because Gen Xers loved it, and because I was a millennial, dig still in your huge pop culture dump.

Nevertheless, the idea of ​​ Solo is interesting as a relatively atheistic Star Wars story. I think Solo is more cynical than the other Star Wars movies because it constantly sells a pessimistic perspective – do not trust anyone, Han! – but then he jumps back to the secular translation of The Force by Lucas Star Wars: There is something bigger out there than you, and if it can not be God then it must be progressive political ideals. This is not a base target, especially given the supporters and poorly disguised prejudices of our current government.

But if the politics of rebellion is the pill, smuggling solo amid so much crappy peanut butter (Peter Pan, not Jif), then I'd rather drain that damn thing. There is a sentence that can not be made awkward when read out of context. Or even in context.

Look, I think you know what I mean, but I'll give you a stupid example anyway: I really hated the droid rebellion. Similar to our discovery of the good deeds of the Marauders, this pseudo-tragic slaughter felt hurried and unimportant. I mean, there was something like three scenes with the Marauders … but, phew, they are significant in the end! "Really?" The same goes for L3-37's political frenzy over the autonomy of her fellow droids: it felt like a joke whose punch line is the figure's murder (also tangent: did she have to be rescued in the end?) This ret-con is so stupid and useless.). It was also like the death of Rio Durant (Jon Favreau), a character whose death was announced by the oldest cliché in the book: The guy says, "Oh, wow, I know exactly what I'll do when I retire." then it bites minutes later. The Simpsons made fun of this trope, and this show is the gospel of pop culture! But no, the solo guys went ahead and anyway killed the four-armed, hairless Rocket Raccoon Lite. The same goes for L3's death: she believes in something, so she has to die to kindle a fire under the collective asses of our heroes.

This is annoying because they are quite open about how little the policy of L3-37 means to them: the premium that they put on the equality between the species would at least sound relatively noble if they were of a human nature Character would be supported. Instead, a robot is the most revolutionary character in the movie because wacky schmacky doo, solo is the film in which loyalties are tested and some self-serving antiheroes (eg: Lando) turn back and flee while others (eg: Hans Orzo, my mother's inimitable nickname for the character), stretches the neck for the right thing. While it could be argued that politics is not really the strength of a decades-long space opera franchise that began as a tribute to Buck Rogers and other raw sci-fi series, we're there. And if you go there and feel compelled to smuggle politics into your space, use a sacrificial robo lamb whose humanity is only found after its shrill sermon has made it a walking punch line – not to mention that Lando ( Apparently?) sex L3-37, but does not even seem to be embarrassed by his affection until her death – then I do not know, maybe do not bother? I feel like solo 's creators have been trying to have everything: this movie has small inserts (but with a big heart)! It's a western (with comic relief)! It is character-oriented (but has an instantly forgotten support of dozens)! And it's not about the end of the world / salvaging the galaxy (until the very end, if it's definitely about that)! Take a track and drive in!

OK, now that I'm out of your Christmas Card list, do you think, Solo is a much-speculated cash register by now, uh, Failure will lead to major changes for the upcoming Star Wars sites? Is that even a word? And did you like the performance of the cast? What do you want to talk about, you have the word.

Arikan : I enjoyed the performances – everyone does a great job. I mean, these movies are not known to scale the spans, so anyone with this restriction will do a good job. Despite what some people say, I found Donald Glover a little too hard as Lando, sometimes for mimicry. He is good, but he does not surround his figure the way Alden Ehrenreich hugs Han Solo. It's his movie

Oh, and the fact that Han is a villain with a heart of gold is consistent with his characterization in the original trilogy, boychik (if anything, it's wrong)). He did terrible things to survive, but he's an antihero, just as these movies can allow you to have one. In this movie, we see Han taking on a crew that is at the end of their careers. It is not just Rio who talks about it – both Val and Beckett mention that they will do one last job and retire. Of course, this will not happen for two reasons: First, in such films, one last job will always be the death of the people making statements. And secondly, it acts as a contrast to what Han later shows in his life – when he becomes a selfless hero for a cause much larger than he. He's surrounded by selfish assholes in this movie – with the exception of Chewie. Do you know what, Lando.

I understand that you were angry with L3-37 and how it was used in the movie, but it's clear from the beginning that it has a special relationship with Lando. I think this movie works much better in the tank-rebellion scenes than hinting at colonialism, exploitation, and resource politics, as The Last Jedi and its confused intergalactic Monte Carlo sequence. Of course, this is a Star Wars movie and it's silly to expect it to go all the way to Battle of Algiers but the Droid and Wookiee uprising works well within the confines of film history.

I do not quite agree that it's just a narrative shorthand that causes some chaos to get the action rolling. Chewie returns for the emaciated and enslaved Wookies; Han can not leave Chewie behind, and Lando refuses to let L3-37 die on the battlefield. And that's all, because L3-37 puts her money where she should sum up, starts a rebellion if she gets the chance, and finally gets martyred for the cause. And even in death it is useful as its databases are transferred to the falcon. The film does not bludgeon you with a few verses from The International, and its politics are not subtle or subtle, but this sequence is entirely in the service of the characters. In addition, droid as a second (or third) creature is an interesting aspect for the future.

But what will this future mean now that solo is a disappointment at the box office? Solo Solo ends for a sequel or two, but it is doubtful that Lucasfilm will be interested in telling this story. I feel like we're not going to see a lot of original Star Wars stories – except maybe for an Obi Wan movie between the two trilogies. David Benioff and D.B. Weiss is working on a trilogy and Rian Johnson will write and conduct his own trio films in the Star Wars universe. A new cartoon has been announced (Barf) and Jon Favreau will oversee a live action Star Wars TV show. All this, of course, will come after Abrams Episode IX scheduled for Christmas 2019.

Das ist eine Menge, goshdarnit, Inhalt. Und das scheint das Hauptproblem von Star Wars zu sein. Es fühlt sich einfach nicht mehr besonders an. Zwischen den Filmen waren drei Jahre vergangen, und zwischen den Trilogien gab es eine Lücke von sechzehn Jahren. Star Wars wurde zur Legende. Bis zu diesem Wochenende bestand das Risiko, nur ein weiterer Blockbuster zu werden, und es tut mir leid, dass das jetzt eine Tatsache ist. Ich wünschte, Disney würde nach Episode IX einen Schritt zurücktreten. Ein paar Jahre Introspektion könnten diesem Franchise sehr viel Gutes bringen. Und dann vielleicht die nächste Phase mit einem neuen Film, aber einem alten Namen. Ja, bringen Sie George Lucas zurück, um einen dieser Filme zu leiten. Ich bin mir sicher, dass er solche Absichten nicht hat, aber verrückte Dinge sind passiert. Schließlich waren wir erst vor ein paar Jahren überzeugt, dass wir den allerletzten Star Wars-Film gesehen haben.

Solo: Eine Star Wars-Geschichte


Source link