How Was Solo?? No Spoilers Please

[E2ME2]

Originally Posted by TexasChick

That's so funny because Rogue One is probably mine and DH's favorite Star Wars movie. I never thought about the fact that this may be due to the fact that it is very different from the Star Wars genre in general.

Originally Posted by brp

I thought so as well. It was of a quality and originally with the original 3 films. Far better than i, ii and iii to be sure.

Very different formula, and such a nice setup for iv.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Goofygrl

I also rank Rogue One up very close to the top for favorite Star Wars Movies. I think the Star Wars movies encompass a lot within their stories but that they were at their basis "War Movies" if you're going to use that classification for Rogue One. They almost all had wars starting or going on.

Solo - I felt it was too contrived and all of these snippets carrying backwards from the original movies. Like we were only going to like it if it used the same stuff as older Han. Contrived and just playing off of the originals - especially IV. I didn't walk out detesting it like I did VII but there was too much that didn't correlate for me.

I am with you all!

R1 was a GREAT stand alone film.

SOLO - not good, even when propped up by the SW Franchise.
Sorry, but SOLO was as bad, maybe worse, than SWI,II,III.
Actually, it was worse than SWIII - at least in III the set-up for DV, at the end was interesting! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!

[brp]

Originally Posted by Goofygrl

Escape from L.A. is campy. The original two movies had some cheesy lines and comedic moments (a lot of war films have their comedy relief or it's otherwise too much) but were not campy to me. Return of the Jedi started the turn outside of what was established in IV and V. Sorry you did not like Rogue One. I think it's been the best of the new movies by far and recaptured the feel of the originals. We obviously have seen that there's different views about Star Wars.

I also didn't find them campy. Certainly the poorish acting of Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer were factors, but it was still a neat idea and fun set of films. And there was Harrison Ford.

Originally Posted by E2ME2

R1 was a GREAT stand alone film.

And I just don't consider it a standalone film. It was the setup for iv so, to me, it was very much a prt of mainstream Star Wars, even if the characters were not.

Cheers.

[helenabear]

Originally Posted by TexasChick

R1 was definitely darker to the point that we haven’t let the kids see it. I don’t want to give any spoilers, but we felt it was too heavy for our kids. Maybe DH and I are dark. ��

I agree totally much darker. Totally different feel.

Originally Posted by brp

I also didn't find them campy. Certainly the poorish acting of Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer were factors, but it was still a neat idea and fun set of films. And there was Harrison Ford.



And I just don't consider it a standalone film. It was the setup for iv so, to me, it was very much a prt of mainstream Star Wars, even if the characters were not.

Cheers.

To me campy is badly done in a funny way. SW really had that. Definitely fun. Seeing the sequels made me realize how much Harrison Ford made the movies for me. Carrie Fisher as a girl was a role model in a way, but the acting was meh.

R1 was definitely important to the story. Not a standalone to me either. Just because I didn't love the style, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the story. I can say the same of the prequels too.

[erikthewise]

Originally Posted by brp

I also didn't find them campy. Certainly the poorish acting of Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer were factors, but it was still a neat idea and fun set of films. And there was Harrison Ford.



And I just don't consider it a standalone film. It was the setup for iv so, to me, it was very much a prt of mainstream Star Wars, even if the characters were not.

Cheers.

Please forgive, but it's a matter of respect .

Bobby Fischer
Carrie Fisher

[brp]

Originally Posted by helenabear

Carrie Fischer as a girl was a role model in a way, but the acting was meh.

Good point. I'd say that Princess Leia was a strong role model for girls and young women in a time when it wasn't common at all. And Fisher pulled it off well enough to get the message across, even with uneven acting.

Originally Posted by erikthewise

Please forgive, but it's a matter of respect .

Bobby Fischer
Carrie Fisher

No apology necessary. Spot on comment. I should have checked before posting and done it correctly.

Cheers.

[helenabear]

Originally Posted by brp

Good point. I'd say that Princess Leia was a strong role model for girls and young women in a time when it wasn't common at all. And Fisher pulled it off well enough to get the message across, even with uneven acting.



No apology necessary. Spot on comment. I should have checked before posting and done it correctly.

Cheers.

Eh I just edited mine as you were quoting me. I must have clicked the wrong spelling option myself too. But yes, Carrie pulled her strong role model off perfectly. Even when she was chained, she fought. Really an integral part of my childhood. It's why I forgive VIII more than some. It was herstory not history (intentional play on words)

[brp]

Originally Posted by helenabear

But yes, Carrie pulled her strong role model off perfectly.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on how well she pulled it off. The message was still good, even if the way she did ot was forced and less-than-believable in terms of the acting. But, yes, the message got out and inspired.

Cheers.

[helenabear]

Originally Posted by brp

We'll just have to agree to disagree on how well she pulled it off. The message was still good, even if the way she did ot was forced and less-than-believable in terms of the acting. But, yes, the message got out and inspired.

Cheers.

Meaning, the strength was there. As a kid I didn't care about acting as much. But she was believable as strong. You didn't see her as a meek person playing a strong person. Acting sucked in a lot, but the strength was believable to me. Her softer moments actually were not as well done. But this is from someone who grew up watching her. I was just over a year old when I saw the first movie (and yes, I remembered seeing it as a kid a few years later again, though I do not now). So keep that in mind....

[brp]

Originally Posted by helenabear

Meaning, the strength was there. As a kid I didn't care about acting as much. But she was believable as strong. You didn't see her as a meek person playing a strong person. Acting sucked in a lot, but the strength was believable to me. Her softer moments actually were not as well done. But this is from someone who grew up watching her. I was just over a year old when I saw the first movie (and yes, I remembered seeing it as a kid a few years later again, though I do not now). So keep that in mind....

Got it. I was 17 on a first date for iv

Cheers.

[E2ME2]

Originally Posted by brp

I also didn't find them campy. Certainly the poorish acting of Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer were factors, but it was still a neat idea and fun set of films. And there was Harrison Ford.



And I just don't consider it a standalone film. It was the setup for iv so, to me, it was very much a prt of mainstream Star Wars, even if the characters were not.

Cheers.

I understand the "link" to ep.IV, and I was trying to say that it was a good enough movie on its own merit, that I would have enjoyed it even if I had not seen I through IV