McAvoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:25 am
This isn't Marvel. Can't sell a Trek mini series on a time frame that is 30 years ago all based on Trek Lore. You would have to heavily rely on the existing fans to make it even remotely successful.
Clearly that's the thinking the suits have. I disagree, but as long as they all seem to think so, we're stuck with prequels that look hundreds of years later than the previously-latest point in the show (and that includes time travel).
Imagine if they'd done that with Solo. "Fans will complain about everything!" is a tired refrain. Never mind how successful Mad Men and other period shows have been.
Solo didn't really work though did it?
Also let's be honest, Star Wars asthetics are all over the place. There isn't a linear technology progression going on. And the designs from the Original Trilogy stands up to time just fine, so they had no reason to 'update' Star Destroyers or Tie Fighters or even the Falcon.
The settings of the original trilogy are naturally dilapidated because of sci-fi production standards of the 70's-80's period while the prequel trilogy was the most aspirational film world design to date. In a weird way it fits Luca's inverse theme framing.
I have to say though that it stands out in Trek if only for its inexplicability among other things. They gave a fully realized plot for the human aesthetic of the original Klingons, but Sisco, Obrien, and Dax don't notice the pale colors around the Enterprise in Trials and Tribbleations.
It really doesn't bother me considering they retconned Cochrane's age pretty blatantly. Another one of those weird aesthetic inverses.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:44 am
Solo didn't really work though did it?
That's a non-sequitur. Also, I disagree. It was the most coherent (though not without flaws) of the side story films. The main cause of its failure was being released shortly after the heavily divisive TLJ. This is the same fate that befell the demonstrably-improved Star Trek Beyond after the widespread disappointment of Into Darkness.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:44 am
Solo didn't really work though did it?
That's a non-sequitur. Also, I disagree. It was the most coherent (though not without flaws) of the side story films. The main cause of its failure was being released shortly after the heavily divisive TLJ. This is the same fate that befell the demonstrably-improved Star Trek Beyond after the widespread disappointment of Into Darkness.
Plus I think a lot of people whej they watch Han solo movie it because of Harrison Ford performance.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:44 am
Solo didn't really work though did it?
That's a non-sequitur. Also, I disagree. It was the most coherent (though not without flaws) of the side story films. The main cause of its failure was being released shortly after the heavily divisive TLJ. This is the same fate that befell the demonstrably-improved Star Trek Beyond after the widespread disappointment of Into Darkness.
Plus I think a lot of people whej they watch Han solo movie it because of Harrison Ford performance.
I really wish they'd gotten Anthony Ingruber. Alden Ehrenreich was the weakest performance in the film. Not terrible, but still the weakest.
(Ignoring L3-37, who was, I assume, intentionally a parody... at least I really hope so, and even then that was almost entirely down to the writing and not the voice performance)
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:44 am
Solo didn't really work though did it?
That's a non-sequitur. Also, I disagree. It was the most coherent (though not without flaws) of the side story films. The main cause of its failure was being released shortly after the heavily divisive TLJ. This is the same fate that befell the demonstrably-improved Star Trek Beyond after the widespread disappointment of Into Darkness.
Plus I think a lot of people whej they watch Han solo movie it because of Harrison Ford performance.
I really wish they'd gotten Anthony Ingruber. Alden Ehrenreich was the weakest performance in the film. Not terrible, but still the weakest.
(Ignoring L3-37, who was, I assume, intentionally a parody... at least I really hope so, and even then that was almost entirely down to the writing and not the voice performance)
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:44 am
Solo didn't really work though did it?
That's a non-sequitur. Also, I disagree. It was the most coherent (though not without flaws) of the side story films. The main cause of its failure was being released shortly after the heavily divisive TLJ. This is the same fate that befell the demonstrably-improved Star Trek Beyond after the widespread disappointment of Into Darkness.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:25 am
This isn't Marvel. Can't sell a Trek mini series on a time frame that is 30 years ago all based on Trek Lore. You would have to heavily rely on the existing fans to make it even remotely successful.
Clearly that's the thinking the suits have. I disagree, but as long as they all seem to think so, we're stuck with prequels that look hundreds of years later than the previously-latest point in the show (and that includes time travel).
Imagine if they'd done that with Solo. "Fans will complain about everything!" is a tired refrain. Never mind how successful Mad Men and other period shows have been.
Solo didn't really work though did it?
Also let's be honest, Star Wars asthetics are all over the place. There isn't a linear technology progression going on. And the designs from the Original Trilogy stands up to time just fine, so they had no reason to 'update' Star Destroyers or Tie Fighters or even the Falcon.
Given that Mad Men is supposed to be a nuanced period piece, I think they mean that the producers should have made Solo more rustic in set piece.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:25 am
This isn't Marvel. Can't sell a Trek mini series on a time frame that is 30 years ago all based on Trek Lore. You would have to heavily rely on the existing fans to make it even remotely successful.
Clearly that's the thinking the suits have. I disagree, but as long as they all seem to think so, we're stuck with prequels that look hundreds of years later than the previously-latest point in the show (and that includes time travel).
Imagine if they'd done that with Solo. "Fans will complain about everything!" is a tired refrain. Never mind how successful Mad Men and other period shows have been.
Solo didn't really work though did it?
Also let's be honest, Star Wars asthetics are all over the place. There isn't a linear technology progression going on. And the designs from the Original Trilogy stands up to time just fine, so they had no reason to 'update' Star Destroyers or Tie Fighters or even the Falcon.
Given that Mad Men is supposed to be a nuanced period piece, I think they mean that the producers should have made Solo more rustic in set piece.
Still don't understand. Solo is between the Prequels and the Original Trilogy. But it's also Star Wars with a big galaxy sized environment to make any asthetic design or theme choices.
It's not like making a movie set in the 50's where we have a extremely well known look and feel for the time period.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:25 am
This isn't Marvel. Can't sell a Trek mini series on a time frame that is 30 years ago all based on Trek Lore. You would have to heavily rely on the existing fans to make it even remotely successful.
Clearly that's the thinking the suits have. I disagree, but as long as they all seem to think so, we're stuck with prequels that look hundreds of years later than the previously-latest point in the show (and that includes time travel).
Imagine if they'd done that with Solo. "Fans will complain about everything!" is a tired refrain. Never mind how successful Mad Men and other period shows have been.
Solo didn't really work though did it?
Also let's be honest, Star Wars asthetics are all over the place. There isn't a linear technology progression going on. And the designs from the Original Trilogy stands up to time just fine, so they had no reason to 'update' Star Destroyers or Tie Fighters or even the Falcon.
Given that Mad Men is supposed to be a nuanced period piece, I think they mean that the producers should have made Solo more rustic in set piece.
Still don't understand. Solo is between the Prequels and the Original Trilogy. But it's also Star Wars with a big galaxy sized environment to make any asthetic design or theme choices.
It's not like making a movie set in the 50's where we have a extremely well known look and feel for the time period.
I'd have to agree in the sentiment that Solo is a bit of this and a bit of that as far as rustic attributes in one particular part of the galaxy leading to lavish but not with the cgi glam that Lucas touched his pieces with.
Even with the snowy mountain train scene and Woody Harrelson making a welcome appearance, It doesn't make for a very memorable sequence of set pieces. Possibly due to cinematography, lighting, or post production etc. The framing of the scenes feels like the aesthetic they were able to run with in Rogue One lost its Terrance Mallick photography.
