Han Solo Spinoff

Amen Pastor! (see what I did there? Heh?)

I'll be the first one to admit it could be an unmitigated disaster, but we're a heckuva long way from seeing the first frame. Like I said in a previous post, I'd rather not stress myself out too much by roiling and stewing in how awful it could be (and yes, if poorly executed, it will absolutely be more awful than Jar Jar stepping on a poorly rendered digital Jabba the Hutt's tail to avoid getting shot first by Greedo). Instead, I'm choosing to hope for the best that the right people get involved and make a movie that even us die-hards can be excited about. Will I be surprised if it crashes like a star destroyer on Jakku? Not really, but will a well-made Han Solo movie make me a happy nerf herder? You can bet the Millenium Falcon it will. And all the Count Dooku disagrees (I've chalked up a few today thanks to this Han Solo spinoff) can't make me shake my sunny disposition

Once again, we're still waaaaaaay off from the flick, so, out of love for Star Wars and this wonderful community, I say we stockpile the vitriol for when we really need it--like if they decide to make a Ziro the Hutt spinoff. Who's with me?

Tell 'em Arnie!


Not working? How about a hound dog who's best friends with an orangutan?

 

I see your point to a point. All the sequels you listed were intended straight release to video. They never had a theater run. Hence probably less than 1/3 the budget and cheaper actors in the roles and yes they were shameless attempts to prolong the original content. But I think that the movies they are making now are getting their best efforts. Sure even best efforts might turn in poorly just look at the PT.

I am just willing to give it a shot and think it could be done well if done right.

 

Frankly, you are insulting. You just took away from a very well written explanation of why this project has some real challenges facing it because you insinuate that those of us who haven't put the OT on an altar and worshiped it as a religion aren't real fans and are deluded laserbrains.


Why?
If done right, this film could add greatly to the OT because you would have a new context when viewing it.

Because it would be a hoot to see Han and Chewie's relationship bloom.

What the heck is the Kessel run?

Lando and the Falcon?

The battle of Tanab?

Jabba?

The Corellian blood stripes on his pants?

The blaster?

Does Han have an actual past with Fett or did he just know him by reputation?

Was Han in the Navy? Did he serve his time and get out or was he a deserter?

What is the history with Greedo? "I've been looking forward to this for a long time, Solo."

What was Han flying before the Falcon?

How did he become such a great pilot?

 

So....already I've seen these names bandied about by "trendy" assh-, I mean, uhh... "fans" who can't wait for this movie...


View attachment 10951


View attachment 10952


View attachment 10953



Words cannot express how much I hate this idea.

 

Okay @Emperor Abrams, I sense some anger, so I'm going to extend an olive branch. I come in peace here 100 percent, so please indulge me for a moment in honor of these films we all obviously love. Whethet we like it or not, this Solo movie is happening. You or I can't really do anything about it. So, it's best that we accept it. That said, in order to form a more peaceful thread, I ask you, is there an actor out there you feel may do the character justice?

Once again, I just ask this question out of a sincere wish for harmony among fans-in-arms.

 

If you're insulted Han Solo might be recast then you have an ego problem, simple as that. The point of making a young Han movie isn't to show every little tidbit about Han's pre-ANH life, it's to show a story about young Han. Han Solo is a character that was PLAYED by Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford is an actor. The only place where Harrison Ford is leading a double life in a galaxy far far away is your head canon, which is wholly irrelevant. The new movie is a stand-alone, meaning it doesn't conflict with any of the other movies and it's not meant to fill in the backstory of ANH, which doesn't need to be done. It's existence might as well be irrelevant to the other movies.

 

Star Wars is fictional as well as it's characters and their feelings.

Irrelevant = bad. Stealing the plans to the death star is just as irrelevant. A young Han movie is to tell a young Han story. Tell me you didn't watch the prequels to see what Obi-Wan does in his off time. You did it because you wanted to see a prequel story, or at least another Star Wars story.

Just because the actors fleshed out the characters don't make them any less fictional or any less a character. Han Solo is still a character no matter how much of a spin Harrison Ford put on the original concept, nothing about Han Solo is biologically linked to Harrison Ford besides his appearance. It's still a character, that point is irrelevant. My remark was only meant to poke fun at the fact that you honestly seem to think Harrison Ford's chin or eyebrows are what make the character rather then the writing and performance. Performances and writing can be replicated when necessary, whether it be in Han Solo's mannerisms or attitude.

Nothing needs to be attached to the character just like there doesn't need to be an Episode 7. That point is moot. The film is ancillary, and I'm faithful will not affect who Han Solo is in the main movies or when he's played by a different actor.

 

There will always be fans who want origin movies of favourite characters and those who don' t want it. Some needs and enhancement and some something original. You can't change that. It ' s 50/50. Well, on this site maybe slihtly more people wants to see something new I guess, maybe a Kenobi movie. Speaking about Kenobi and recasting. It is a secondary character apparently 60-65 and we need his 25 version. There is enough time between those numbers to make it believable. Han Solo is a main character around 30 in ANH and we are talking about a guy in his 20s. I don' t believe we will see a teenager movie, so I assume this age. So having onscreen Han Solo 5-10 years younger can't be compared to the Obi-Wan situation. Plus The main trio is too known and iconic and there is big chance a lot of viewers wouldn't buy it. I get it, you want young Solo, I don't. We both are devoted SW fans. Yes, both, because not liking every single Star Wars news doesn' t make me lesser fan that you are. I wrote above that I' m happy for those who enjoy this movie with a different actor playing Han. I can sincerelly say I won' t. I firmly believe that Star Wars is not just few years period little place involving five and half characters we all know. A story of an unknown smuggler in the time of the Empire or something hundreds of years before E1 would be nice to see. Or, of course, bloody Ewan Kenobi movie

 

I expressed before in this thread that I don't want a Han movie, and I specifically don't want them to recast Han because I'm personally just not interested in it. I agree, I would much prefer a Kenobi movie. But that's what they've decided to do, and there'll be plenty available to properly critique when we the trailer or hear some details. I'm only debating his points because I don't agree with the idea that recasting Han Solo is some sort of blasphemy against God himself. Plus I've heard way more people in this thread talking about anyone who isn't immediately flipping blast at the news as not true fans, but sorry if I sounded preachy anyway.

 

Again...let's not be disingenuous, shall we? Obviously, I'm fully aware that Star Wars isn't sentient and has no feelings or emotions of its own....obviously when I say "insult" I mean disservice and disrespect the greatness that is Star Wars.

Well that's a story that will be told with characters/protagonists that we've never seen before, at least-- however, I think that's completely irrelevant and hate the idea of that as well-- it's not just irrelevant, it's also superfluous, along with a host of other things that ought not be associated with Star Wars. I hate pretty much all Star Wars spinoff ideas. I think they're an absolutely horrendous concept that should not be....plus, historically, they've pretty much all been bad.

I watched them because they were sold as Star Wars films....not lame one-shot spinoffs. They were episodic and supposed to be directly part of the original trilogy.

Again, I'm afraid you've missed the point, Harrison Ford did not merely "put his spin" on the character, the "character" BECAME him-- or rather, never was UNTIL him. Had anyone else been cast as Solo we would not have many of the iconic Solo moments and the story that we have today. It was not a fleshed out character on paper that anyone could have played and had the same result, popularity, resonance, etc, it was and IS something exclusive to Ford, as his personality, mannerisms, perspective, sense of humor, delivery, cadence, chemistry, approach, and yes, look, all supremely defined the character, because George Lucas allowed it to. Because Lucas saw Ford as the character, hence how he would give Hamill, Fisher, and Ford "little direction" when making the film; to him, however they wanted to do it was right because they were the characters.

On the contrary, I never thought it was merely Ford's chin and eyebrows and things that could be replicated on a wax statue that made the character Solo, but rather, Ford the man himself, everything about the guy. Solo in the script was a character that lent itself greatly to be defined by the actor who would play him, same with Luke and Leia, so the writing was really just a skeleton for the character(s), the heart, soul, flesh and blonde and otherwise entirety of the characters as we know them were never complete until Harrison Ford, Hamill, and Fisher completed them. It's like saying C3-PO is just some fussy butler-esque robot and it doesn't matter how he looks or sounds-- no, he HAS to be golden, he has to be mime like, and he HAS to sound like Anything Daniels and have his mannerisms. You cannot make a blue robot, cast Cuba Gooding Jr, and call him C3-PO and say it's the same thing because he's a fussy butler type robot, no, no....those characters on that page there were merely a 4rth of the way to the iconic characters they became later. They didn't become that until the living embodiments of them were cast in the roles, then the fussy butler-esque robot character became C3-PO, R2D2 went from a friendly small robot and into R2-D2 once he he became tangible and had cooes and beeping noises....you can't take the script and imagine your own version of it now and say it's the same thing when Star Wars is such of a symbiotic synthesis of a creation that's dependent on all of its parts to make it what it is in this context.

And no, it's not quite the same as Ewan Kenobi. Obi-Wan Kenobi I could at least understand casting a younger actor for, because the only time we really ever saw Kenobi in the original films was at the very very end of his career, and then post mortem. Han Solo, Luke, and Princess Leia we all saw in their primes and watched them grow and grew with them....and now we'll see them in their older years. Whatever came before isn't important, and with Han, Luke, and Leia being who they are, it's really a damn travesty to go back and try and pass some Star Wars Elvis impersonators off as the real characters just to cash in on their iconography and make a buck, on a story about an area of their lives that don't matter in any significant way.

There doesn't need to be an Episode 7, no, but they at least seem to be going about it the right way. Ford is still Solo, it will likely introduce their kids, etc. No, not much can be done to directly and immediately alter what is in the original trilogy short of going in there and destroying the films from within, however, what we know these characters are is most certainly effected. Suppose they make Han a rapist in the prequel spinoff "anthology" film....does that mean he raped anyone in the original trilogy? Nope, but it, along with the sure-to-be-lousy-actor who plays him, will forever be a blight on Han Solo as well as the collective consciousness of what Star Wars is. The worst thing about this Han Solo in blackface movie will be that it exists.

All of this begs the question, if people are all about recasting Han, Luke, and Leia, is there ANYTHING they're NOT okay with recasting/rebooting/retooling/retreading? I mean this is as high as it gets. Thank God that Zemeckis & CO are holding onto the rights to Back To The Future until death, because I'm sure that by now I'd have had to endure many Andrew Garfield, Michael B Jordan, and Ezra Miller for Marty McFly reboot threads, as well as a couple awful reboots by now-- all things we're likely to see before the BTTF trilogy's creators' bodies are even cold from passing.

 

I don't see how it disrespects Star Wars at all.

Whatever floats your boat. If you're really that opposed to spin-offs then that's you.

I don't think one-shot spinoffs are lame. Star Wars as a universe has a lot of potential to tell more tight and focused stories that rely a little less on epicness and a grand scale so that they can rely a little more on story. With rumors of Rogue One being compared to Saving Private Ryan I don't think it's totally out there. I think you just at least give Rogue One a chance, because I think it'll set the tone for the following anthology films. Spinoff films aren't something Star Wars has done before, I think we should be a little more open minded.

I understand your point exactly. Harrison Ford made the character, it wasn't what it was until he gave the performance he did, yadda yadda, and I agree with you. But just because GL let Harrison Ford do whatever he wanted because whatever Harrison Ford wanted to do was what the character wanted to do, that doesn't make Han Solo not a character. And any character can be played. The point is that we know who Han is, right? He's a scoundrel, who also values tight bonds based on trust like he does with Chewbacca, we know he's a little rough around the edges, he's a criminal, he has a sore spot for authority and people who are holier-than-thou with seemingly little regard for the common man, we know he's a quick shot with a blaster, he's boisterous and loud, he boasts, he has an appreciation for things that might be a bit ugly but do the job just fine, etc. etc. That's just off the top of my head, the guys at Disney have probably got this down to a science. If Harrison Ford was acting on set and all of a sudden stripped naked and started jacking off, then I'm pretty sure GL would be opposed to that. Han Solo is a character that GL knows, and he knows Harrison Ford knows him probably better than GL does because the character was practically created by Harrison Ford through a great performance and GL swapped his original concept for that because it was obviously better, and that's why Han Solo's general mannerisms and attitude was adjusted to fit Harrison Ford's performance. Note how at no point does Han Solo stop being a character.

See above post.

So it's not the problem that the movie is unnecessary, it's that you don't think it's up to snuff even though you know nothing about it other then it's about a recast young Han. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, I seriously doubt that you'll finish the movie thinking that Han from the OT is basically worse than he would be otherwise. If you're using Disney making him a rapist as an example then it does seem you're grasping at straws.

 

The only way I think I would ever be okay with something like a young Han, younger Luke, Leia, etc film, would be if they got a time machine and used young Harrison Ford, etc, for the part, OR, if George Lucas unveiled that new special breakthrough mega super CG technology he's been working on in which he's able to make a movie with whichever actors of his choosing, living or dead, by creating their identical likeness on screen verbatim perfectly, and he has them use that for Han, so that it's still Harrison Ford....but not. Those are my only conditions.

 

Well that's fine and that's your opinion. Like I said, this is definitely not what I would have preferred to see. But I do have faith it'll be at least good, especially given the directors specifically.

 

Congratulations...you're part of the problem.

I am.

Except that's what Star Wars is: a simple story in a grand epic adventure fashion. Hell, it's even stated in the very first trailer for it.

I think that sucks. Saving Private Ryan ? Star Wars.

There's been plenty of Star Wars spinoffs before. Star Wars to me is Luke, Han, Leia, and to a lesser extent, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, and Darth Vader. Anything else and it ceases to be that for me.

You left out one thing: he's also Harrison Ford. When they cast Star Wars, they didn't get a "Han Solo type", they got Han Solo.

Of course....that would be the flesh and blood breaking the skeleton, no longer in unison or parameter.

However, I'm liable to think Disney would allow him to do what he needed to do in an attempt to recreate his DNA....lol. And good for them...the world needs more Ford.

Note how at no point does that character cease to be Harrison Ford.

And superfluous. And dumb. And a soulless cash grab. And another blight on Star Wars.

And that it's a young Han movie with a recast Han. These ideas suck, or did you miss that?

No problem.

The fact of the matter is that Han's "spotty" past will have now been spelled out "officially" somewhere for sure, and, while nothing can ever truly take away what the original films are, this bullcrap gets to sit in the back of our minds now as "Oh yeah, they tried to do that story with Not-Han Solo" every time we watch the original films.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

I really hate this generation. Lol.