jedijim3002
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 12,535
- Reaction score
- 1,421
Looks like the main writing credit went to Jonathan Kasdan Lawrence’s son. Not sure how much daddy helped but it would seem his son is mostly responsible.
I love the OT as well, and agree that a film is a journey. However, Solo undermines the journey in completely disregarding Han's character arc. Much like TLJ, Solo has very littel regard for how the protagonist is portrayed chronologically in relation to the OT. Solo should have been portrayed as consistently selfish, without a hint of altruism. Instead, we get a film about how Solo is secretly altruistic, even in the face of absurd, on the nose advice to the contrary. Sure, he'll risk his life breaking the law, but in the end he'll throw everything away for the greater good, because he's a swell guy?
If you do that, it undermines his entire arc throughout the OT. Han should put himself before everyone else, except for Chewy perhaps. That's the only way the OT makes any sense. Meanwhile, you could easily build an entire film around how Han's only loyalty is toward a walking carpet. I'd care far more about that peculiarity, than how he got his last name, the dice on his dashboard, how he scored his pistol... The film was preoccupied with every mundane detail within Han's backstory, while completely disregarding everything within Han's character that made him popular in the first place.
It was a bad film. This figure is an easy pass, for me.
Looks like the main writing credit went to Jonathan Kasdan Lawrence’s son. Not sure how much daddy helped but it would seem his son is mostly responsible.
Ok...isn’t that the whole point? Isn’t that the essence of the character?
The OT Han did the same thing. He was always secretly altruistic whether he was aware of it or not. Thats the whole reason he always comes back to help out the rebellion in the OT. He came back to help out in ANH during the death star battle, he sticks around to find Luke on Hoth, he gives Chewie attitude because he feels a little guilty for wanting to leave Hoth. All of that despite being outwardly selfish. We don’t love the character because he’s selfish. We love him because despite his capacity to be selfish, he’s still a good guy.
Ok...isn’t that the whole point? Isn’t that the essence of the character?
The OT Han did the same thing. He was always secretly altruistic whether he was aware of it or not. Thats the whole reason he always comes back to help out the rebellion in the OT. He came back to help out in ANH during the death star battle, he sticks around to find Luke on Hoth, he gives Chewie attitude because he feels a little guilty for wanting to leave Hoth. All of that despite being outwardly selfish. We don’t love the character because he’s selfish. We love him because despite his capacity to be selfish, he’s still a good guy.
Respectfully, I disagree. Han definitely had a character arc from A New Hope to Empire. In A New Hope he was anti-social, dragging his feet through the entire film, until the very end because he grew to care for Luke. For instance, on the Death Star he couldn't care less about saving Leia, because there was nothing in it for him. Luke had to promise him (and Chewy) more wealth than he could imagine, so that he'd be motivated to care. He couldn't care less about the rebellion. In Empire, he consistently wanted to leave the rebellion because of the Bounty on his head. Even though he had feelings for Leia, again, he was ready to bail on her to save his skin. He doesn't become pro-social until Return of the Jedi, where he finally goes all in, to help the rebellion.
I'd argue, when his entire origin story begins with fallout from his decision to bail on the woman he loves, and ends with a willingness to shun material gain for some greater good (that arguably begins the entire rebellion?!) it doesn't make sense. Why would he continue bailing on the ones he loves? Why be a smuggler at all? Why not join the rebellion from the onset, if you're willing to forfeit enough money to live on for the rest of your life, because you support their cause? It makes absolutely no sense. If he cared that much about the rebellion, he'd join it instead of going back to a life of petty theft.
The entire point of having a character arc is to provide motivation for change. Instead, this film undermines the idea that Han has a character arc at all. Instead, it tries to convince us that Han was just a reluctant idealist the entire time. In my opinion, it not only makes for a less exciting film, but undermines the OT in denying the arc ever existed.
I admit, as a stand alone film it's much better than TLJ and TFA. I liked Rogue One much better. However, in relation to the OT I found the Solo movie annoying.
Respectfully, I disagree. Han definitely had a character arc from A New Hope to Empire. In A New Hope he was anti-social, dragging his feet through the entire film, until the very end because he grew to care for Luke. For instance, on the Death Star he couldn't care less about saving Leia, because there was nothing in it for him. Luke had to promise him (and Chewy) more wealth than he could imagine, so that he'd be motivated to care. He couldn't care less about the rebellion. In Empire, he consistently wanted to leave the rebellion because of the Bounty on his head. Even though he had feelings for Leia, again, he was ready to bail on her to save his skin. He doesn't become pro-social until Return of the Jedi, where he finally goes all in, to help the rebellion.
I'd argue, when his entire origin story begins with fallout from his decision to bail on the woman he loves, and ends with a willingness to shun material gain for some greater good (that arguably begins the entire rebellion?!) it doesn't make sense. Why would he continue bailing on the ones he loves? Why be a smuggler at all? Why not join the rebellion from the onset, if you're willing to forfeit enough money to live on for the rest of your life, because you support their cause? It makes absolutely no sense. If he cared that much about the rebellion, he'd join it instead of going back to a life of petty theft.
The entire point of having a character arc is to provide motivation for change. Instead, this film undermines the idea that Han has a character arc at all. Instead, it tries to convince us that Han was just a reluctant idealist the entire time. In my opinion, it not only makes for a less exciting film, but undermines the OT in denying the arc ever existed.
I admit, as a stand alone film it's much better than TLJ and TFA. I liked Rogue One much better. However, in relation to the OT I found the Solo movie annoying.
Yes - this is the way Han was written and portrayed in the OT. Also, I think Lawrence Kasdan knows the character pretty well. I think he knows what drives this character and has accurately captured his essence in this film. I saw it tonight, and it exceeded my expectations. I loved it.
This film is still ten years before we meet him in the cantina in Mos Eisley.
Imagine how many adventures and potential let-downs a Star Wars character could have in that time.
It's nurture over nature. Solo shows he wasn't born completely cynical and self-centred. Which explains why he'll eventually do the right thing in ANH and beyond. At heart he's a good person, but circumstances buried that aspect.
At least he shot Beckett first!
Just got out. I can easily say I liked it more than TFA or TLJ, but not Rogue One. I definitely see Franken Berry’s point, but Astas point works too; you could go either way with Hans arc. Overall, was entertained, but not sure I need the figure. Go in with open mind, and you’ll at least be entertained for 2 hours.
Han Solo's character has always been that of the 'lovable rogue' kind.
He couldn't have been worse because he still had to be a hero in a film inspired by matinee serials that had been made specifically for children forty years earlier.
All Lucas did was take account of the changing times, add a little more darkness into the universe he was creating.
Jump forward another forty years and you're going to see some amendment on account of changing times. The changes in Solo are minimal when compared, say, with the Prequel or Sequel Trilogies.
I grew up with Star Wars almost from its beginning, and Solo feels the closest any of the post-1983 films have come to capturing the spirit and mood of the early novels.
If that's at odds with other viewers' experiences it doesn't change mine. And I wouldn't put too much energy into trying to change the perceptions of others. We all like what we like for different reasons.
Exactly !! The larger arc is to get to the OT Solo mindset. That was the whole point of "I have a good feeling about this" etc.
I enjoyed the film but not enough to want to buy the figure. I think the figure is spot on though.
That's not an arc, but a full circle. He goes from being a reluctant hero to a selfish anti-hero to a reluctant hero again? It's bad writing. Worse, we never actually see the cynical Han Solo in any way, shape or form. This film should have at least ended in cynicism, if there's an arc at all. Instead, the protagonist stayed the same throughout the entire film, learned nothing, and ended up pretty much where he began, through his own volition... Solo's decisions at the end made absolutely no sense. Without spoilers, he'd either commit to the thing he made sacrifices for, or he wouldn't have made the sacrifice.
I decided to preorder. I really hope they decide to do Lando and Qi’ra. Along with Chewy, they would make a nice set to display.
Enter your email address to join: