MovieChat Forums > christomacin > Replies
christomacin's Replies
Come one. Cut the reverse psychology bullshit. You post something hyperbolic like this: "Solo on the other hand is a movie ahead of its time and will be remembered in the next 100 years, Blade Runner is already on the verge of being forgotten." on a discussion board and then try and stifle dissent by playing stupid mind games. The fact that you even need to tear down Bladerunner to build up Solo is par for the course for Star Wars cultists. They did the same with the prequels (tearing down the originals to prop them up) and now people are doing it with the sequels and I'm freaking sick of it. Sounds like an entirely appropriate topic of discussion on a Star Wars movie board to me.
Stupid non-argument. Why not discuss it? It's a discussion board. Who licensed you to monopolize what gets discussed and how?
"Solo on the other hand is a movie ahead of its time and will be remembered in the next 100 years, Blade Runner is already on the verge of being forgotten."
Jesus H. You're really desperate to prop this movie up, aren't you? I didn't hate Solo, but it was an immensely forgetable film. Give it 5 or 10 years...we'll see, but I wouldn't hold your breathe.
"Also it’s not true that tinkering didn’t take place before Blade Runner became a cult classic."
Um...actually it is. I know, dude I WAS THERE! Believe what you want.
There was nothing like Bladerunner in 1982 when it was released. OK, you might argue 1979's Alien was a precursor, but then again it was made by the same director, wasn't it? The style was entirely different than the Star Trek and Star Wars films, and the like. Hmm...was anything influenced by Bladerunner? Let me see: Gattaca, The Fifth Element, Strange Days, Delicatessen, City of Lost Children, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Dark City, Minority Report, THE MATRIX (funny you should mention that) and on and on and on. The film's legacy is immense. As for special effects, ever heard of Douglas Trumball...you know, the guy who also did 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek: The Motion Picture? Nope, he wasn't influential at all (sigh). He lost out (unjustifiable in my opinion) to Carlo Rimbaldi's special effects work on E.T. , Rimbaldi was Trumball's only rival for that year's special effects Oscar anyway. The cinematography alone was immensely influential. Jordan Croneweth's style of lighting was imitated by countless films and music videos in the 80s and early 90s. As for the various cuts of the movie, each version of the film has it's own strengths and weaknesses. However, there is not a single version of the film that is isn't a masterpiece, and in any case, if the original cut was so "bad" then why did Scott allow it to be made available on all video releases of the film? Besides, the film was already a cult item long before Scott's tinkering, as the very long list of films and music videos it inspired (even before the Director's Cut) attest to. Seriously, just stop. Your ignorance is showing.
Disagree. Lando was one of the few things the movie got mostly right...although I didn't like his insinuated "relationship" with the robot.
Unless it's a broken military clock. Then it's only right once a day.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: This film is unremarkable on every level, and doesn't break any ground technically or artistically as Blade Runner did.
I started a thread on this already, but I'll post it here too. Watch this clip [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQpZdtspStY[/url] where Dan O'Herelihy's character Cochran explains the provenance of one of his androids, starting at around 1:50. "This was a rare piece. German. Made in Munich, 1785." Now, what region of Germany is Munich the capitol? Munich is the capitol of Bavaria. What famous underground movement was disbanded in Bavaria in 1785? The Bavarian Illuminati.
Maybe, but she can't afford to have another director fired or have to reshoot 80% of another film or it could happen a lot sooner.
Glover didn't bother me at all, although Jon Kasdan should have keep Lando's supposed love robots and "pansexuality" to himself. I thought Ehrenreich was bland but wasn't the total disaster that was predicted, either. I liked the four-armed monkey dude the most, and Emphys Nest the least. Oh, I didn't care for man-eating Chewie, either. What I didn't like most of all was the under-exposed orange-and-teal grunge look of the film which gave the film an overall drab and oppressive feel which didn't help the film at all.
I know, right. Three brief paragraphs is such a burden to read...wow.
I have no idea why people think I care whether they read my post or not. If someone can't be bothered to read my ideas and give me feedback then they're worthless to me.
I think even Leia was depicted as a loser and a chump in the sequel trilogy, the only difference being that Kathleen Kennedy seems totally oblivious to the fact Leia MUST be at least partly to blame for the events that transpired between the trilogies. If we accept the total collapse of the Republic, the rise of the First Order, and the turning of Leia's own son to the dark side as canon (which I don't), then logically as a top leader, general and mother of Kylo she MUST take a share of the blame along with Han and Luke. Yet, it is ONLY Han and Luke who must "redeem" themselves and throw their lives away...but not her, for some reason. If women and men are equal, then women should get equal praise when the succeed and equal blame when they fail.
And while were on the subject of Leia's incompetence, the fact is her plan in TLJ is nonsensical. How does this make sense?: (1) leading the entire remnants of the Republic/"Resistance" (whatever) on a wagon train in which they are being picked off like flies (2) to some distant salt planet with a few beat up old salt mining vehicles (I guess, I still don't know why they were kicking up the red dust) (3) in order to send out a distress call inviting everyone in the galaxy to immediately drop what they are doing and make a last stand on an obscure salt planet in order to protect literally two dozen people from being killed (4) and then act shocked and surprised when nobody shows up.
On the other hand, nothing anyone else in the "Resistance" does makes any sense either. Poe blows half the fleet on an empty phyrric victory against a dreadnaught which he says is a "fleet killer", and yet the First Order manages to easily wipe out nearly every single ship by the end of the movie anyway even without the dreadnaught. Then, Poe approves of a "plan" by Rose and Finn (with only less than a day of fuel left) to go off to some planet and find a "code breaker" (who for some reason Maz Kanata won't even divulge the name of), convince the code-breaker to join them, then race all the way back and inflitrate a Star Destroyer and um.. do something about some "tracker" or whatever... all in about a day. Huh? Why didn't Leia simply split the fleet up and send them in different directions (to some neutral planets, say), to regroup and organize a counter-attack, and then arrange to meet at some rendezvous point to make a stand somewhere that was actually strategically important?
I have a problem with L337, but it's not that she is a female (which she isn't, not matter what Jon Kasdan thinks) but how she is being presented. I blame the writer, though, not women in general. I'm not saying Kathleen Kennedy doesn't have some serious attitude problems with men that bleed over into the films, because she does. Still, I don't entirely accept your point about women, or that they somehow automatically "ruin" a Star Wars film by their very presence. I liked Jyn Erso, in Rogue One, and I mostly liked two of the three ACTUAL women in Solo. That's actually only one more women than Star Wars, which only had two women, Leia (major role) and Aunt Beru (minor role) . Are you saying adding one or two more women per film ruins them? Empty Nest (whatever) wasn't great casting, I'll grant you that, but it could just have easily been a scrawny dude under the helmet. Would that have been equally as problematic? See we have a problem here, if Star Wars is saying there is only one plucky and brave woman in the entire galaxy (Leia) that seems unbelievable because the population sample is simply too big for that to be true in any galaxy. It would also be unbelievable if there were no evil female characters in Star Wars, which we haven't really gotten so far in the movies, but we did somewhat in the Clone Wars show. All I can really think of as far as evil women are Zam Wessel the assassin from Attack of the Clones and Captain Phasma from TFA. Both barely have screen time. Zam Wessel is interesting enough but Phasma is made to be an incredibly weak character, but is that the fault of women in general or the male writers who created her? I get what people are saying about artificially inflated female representation. It was a huge mistake to show the Resistance being led almost exclusively by women in TLJ. For the most part, though, the problem seems more how specific characters are presented (especially Rey and Holdo) than the actual number of females per film.
There were only 3 lady characters in the whole show. L337 was a robot not a lady. You can't self-identify as a lady if you don't have the parts, right? They shouldn't have had L337 in the film at all for a bunch of reasons, but that's a whole other topic. If you liked Qi'ra, then the only problem you had was with Memphis Slim or whatever the hell her name was. You didn't mention Thandie Newton's character so does that mean you were OK with that? Thandie, Empty Nest, and L337 were only in it for 15 minutes total anyway. Even Qi'ra was off-screen for significant periods.
The cinematography was awful and looked all piss yellow and puke green and excessively dark to boot. They will probably color correct it for the Bluray release but I still don't like the look. They should have gotten cinematographer who worked on The Neon Demon. That had a fantastic look especially for a digitally shot film.
Yes, I do know mano means "hand" (as in "mano e mano") because I took Latin in High School (for some reason). That's actually my nickname for Gaius Trumpus Caeser: Manigula (Little Hands) after Caligula (Little Boots).
could be...not up on all the latest lingo.
special or non-special edition?
ROSE: Um...errr...I think I'll pass now.
FINN: If it will shut you up, then by all means do so.