A few words about…™ Solo: A Star Wars Story — in 4k UHD Blu-ray

Solo, directed by Ron Howard is a gorgeously mounted production, and a brilliant 4k UHD release, making wonderful use of Dolby Atmos and HDR. 4 Stars

Solo: A Star Wars Story, reminds me of any series of young teen or YA books that keep on coming, as there’s a perceived audience for them, but with evermore tired storylines, and little imagination.

Disney’s latest Star Wars project, Solo, directed by Ron Howard is a gorgeously mounted production, and a brilliant 4k UHD release, making wonderful use of Dolby Atmos and HDR.

Shot large format, and finished in 4k,.

Unfortunately, and this may just be me, I was able to slog through about 20 minutes, before I gave up, thinking “Why am I doing something akin to reading The Hardy Boys Meet the Mummy?

For those who are Star Wars fans, this may be your cup of tea, and you’ll be thrilled with the 4k disc, but for others, not so sure.

With apologies for being contrarian, but I found it just a little too cute.

Image – 5 (HDR 10)

Audio – 5 (Dolby Atmos)

Pass / Fail – Pass

RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

118 Comments

  1. I to will be purchasing this title on 4K blu-ray and felt it was better than the box office suggested. This movie is a loved it or hated it type of thing but I enjoyed it. About the time this movie hits store shelves my new Marantz SR-8012 should be arriving and I can not wait to see this movie and hear it through the new receiver. Sometime around March I will most likely revisit this movie after I upgrade my surrounds to Bowers & Wilkins and reconfigure the old surrounds for Atmos. Can not wait for the next Star Wars to come out!

  2. I'm of the mind that this would have been a blockbuster if released in theaters this December and not 5 months after the fan divisive Last Jedi. I'm picking this up on 4K and importing the 3D. Boo to Disney for not creating an all in one package for these like my Guardians 2 and Star Trek Beyond.

  3. Saw this at the Disney Springs AMC Dinner Theater . I actually rather liked it even if I did have to suspend my knowledge of what a younger Han Solo looked like (as I saw Harrison Ford in Star Wars (1977) and earlier in American Graffiti (1973)).

    Had planned to buy from DMC but missed the free shipping offer (distracted by Family Reunion as pic below shows). Still might go that route but now I have to replan purchase.

    UPDATE:Contacted DMC via live chat. They gave me free shipping and redid the order when I explained what happened with family reunion. Package includes:

    Solo, AStar Wars Story (2018, 4K)
    Freaky Friday (1976 & 2003)
    Lady And The Tramp (1955)

  4. brap

    I'm of the mind that this would have been a blockbuster if released in theaters this December and not 5 months after the fan divisive Last Jedi

    I don’t think it would have made a bit of difference. There just wasn’t any demand for a Solo film. Hence why the other proposed spin off films have been canceled or put on hold indefinitely thanks to Solo’s poor boxoffice performance.

  5. Kyrsten Brad

    Saw this at the Disney Springs AMC Dinner Theater . I actually rather liked it even if I did have to suspend my knowledge of what a younger Han Solo looked like (as I saw Harrison Ford in Star Wars (1977) and earlier in American Graffiti (1973)).

    Had planned to buy from DMC but missed the free shipping offer (distracted by Family Reunion as pic below shows). Still might go that route but now I have to replan purchase.

    Saw it there, too! Nice presentation in Dolby Cinema.

  6. brap

    I'm of the mind that this would have been a blockbuster if released in theaters this December and not 5 months after the fan divisive Last Jedi.

    Not only was it too close to another SW movie, it had a terrible release date. Memorial Day stopped being a good release date a decade or more ago.

  7. I thought it was pretty weak and it looked very dark in the theater…. even though the manager of the theater stated that there was plenty of light going to the screen. I do think for STAR WARS this is an example of going to the same well too many times. I am sure fans of the series will disagree, but maybe enough is enough after four decades.

  8. This was a intentionally dark film. I saw it in IMAX and Dolby Cinema, and the shadow detail was much more evident in the Dolby Cinema presentation. I'm guessing this will be a good test for 4K home systems.

  9. Due to the negative reviews, I didn't bother to go see SOLO in the theater. I will give iTunes $5.99 for a 4K rental but that will probably be the end of it. I fear that I'll regret about $3.99 of that rental price. 😮

    Mark

  10. Mark Booth

    Due to the negative reviews, I didn't bother to go see SOLO in the theater. I will give iTunes $5.99 for a 4K rental but that will probably be the end of it. I fear that I'll regret about $3.99 of that rental price. 😮

    Mark

    The majority of the reviews are positive. 71% at RT

    While I was disappointed and thought the film was unnecessary I would still recommend it to SW fans.

  11. Mark Booth

    Due to the negative reviews, I didn't bother to go see SOLO in the theater. I will give iTunes $5.99 for a 4K rental but that will probably be the end of it. I fear that I'll regret about $3.99 of that rental price. 😮

    Mark

    If you want to rent in 4K, it will have to be through Vudu. iTunes doesn’t carry Disney (or Disney owned) films in 4K.

  12. I liked it a lot and will be picking up the 4K disc for sure. Don't know why people are saying that nobody was asking for this, not to say that people WERE asking for it, but is there any movie people ARE asking for? I thought this was as good as any Marvel movie of the last decade, and probably even better than a lot of them.

  13. Mark-P

    If you want to rent in 4K, it will have to be through Vudu. iTunes doesn’t carry Disney (or Disney owned) films in 4K.

    Yep, forgot about that. Well, I'll have to watch it in HD then. I haven't given VUDU my credit card and I don't plan to.

    Mark

  14. TravisR

    Not only was it too close to another SW movie, it had a terrible release date. Memorial Day stopped being a good release date a decade or more ago.

    Memorial Day is not a bad release date if you have a movie people want to see. Case in point : It opened to $123 million last Sept 7, a date that was previously a dumping ground for films.

  15. Rob W

    Memorial Day is not a bad release date if you have a movie people want to see. Case in point : It opened to $123 million last Sept 7, a date that was previously a dumping ground for films.

    People are now more interested in going to barbecues than going to the movies on Memorial Day. If Solo had opened a week earlier or later, it would have done much better. They could open a Marvel movie or It, etc. on Memorial Day and they'd all have done far worse than they did on a different date. When was the last time there was a movie that was a BIG hit that was released on a Memorial Day weekend?

  16. TravisR

    People are now more interested in going to barbecues than going to the movies on Memorial Day. If Solo had opened a week earlier or later, it would have done much better. They could open a Marvel movie or It, etc. on Memorial Day and they'd all have done far worse than they did on a different date. When was the last time there was a movie that was a BIG hit that was released on a Memorial Day weekend?

    Presumably people had barbecues back when the first six Star Wars films were released over Memorial Day weekend to great success.

    Now that the studios have moved up summer, first to early May and now late April, the Memorial Day releases are now the second-tier releases or smaller counter-programming titles.

  17. I for one am willing to believe that the Memorial Day weekend is just not a good time anymore, at least in the US. We will never know if Solo could have fared at a better time, but I think keeping Star Wars in December would have been the best bet.

    As for it's huge drop off after it's first weekend, don't most movies have big drop offs these days? And a movie that appears to have "bombed" will for sure be dropping off faster. Wikipedia says it made just over $100 million over the four day weekend, and the only reason that is considered a bomb is because of it's gigantic budget. If a Saw movie, with it's measly $10 million budget opened at half of that it would have been considered a hit. Yet that would be doing literally half the business of Solo. I think it's unfair, as far as potential word-of-mouth business, that a film like Solo is doomed by the media outlets who use the negative aspect of it's budgetary losses to declare it a bomb, when another film can literally make less and be declared a hit.

  18. Mark Booth

    Due to the negative reviews, I didn't bother to go see SOLO in the theater. I will give iTunes $5.99 for a 4K rental but that will probably be the end of it. I fear that I'll regret about $3.99 of that rental price. 😮

    Mark

    I have some Amazon digital credits that I plan to use for a free rental. I didn't see it in the theater, either, and doubt I will be buying the 4K disc in the future. Di$ney's pricing pretty much assures this.

  19. Regardless of quality being subjective, there are plenty of good movies that get good reviews but don't make money, plenty of bad films that get horrible reviews but make a ton of money, plenty of bad films that get horrible reviews and rightfully bomb, etc. There seems to be a randomness at play, and studios seem to try to crack the code and put a film where they think it'll make the most money, and while Solo would never open as big as TFA or the recent Infinity War, a different release date very well could've made a difference.

    As it is, Solo seems to be a movie that got just-okay reviews with some better reviews thrown in, made a good amount of money, but is only considered a failure based on it's huge budget.

  20. Tommy R

    If a Saw movie, with it's measly $10 million budget opened at half of that it would have been considered a hit. Yet that would be doing literally half the business of Solo. I think it's unfair, as far as potential word-of-mouth business, that a film like Solo is doomed by the media outlets who use the negative aspect of it's budgetary losses to declare it a bomb, when another film can literally make less and be declared a hit.

    A box office bomb is, by definition, a film that loses money during its theatrical run. So, yes, if Saw made $100m on a $10m budget then, even after taking the advertising and cinemas’ cut, it made a healthy profit and isn’t a bomb.

    Solo had an insane budget of $275m (apparently) and yet only recouped $393m. It needed about $7-800m to break even, so that’s a bomb in anybodiy’s book.

    There’s nothing unfair about it. It’s a fact.

    As for why it bombed, I’m sure there are various reasons, but I’d imagine a big one is because a lot of fans and general viewers were disappointed by The Last Jedi. You can’t get your money back for a film you dislike, but you can ignore the next instalment in the franchise.

  21. Ross Gowland

    A box office bomb is, by definition, a film that loses money during its theatrical run.

    I suppose if that really is it's exact definition, along with other terms like "dud" and such, but I've always took those negative connotations as that people didn't go and see the movie and the audience just wasn't there. But the audience WAS there if it made $100+ in its first 4 days.

  22. Tino

    If a film is good and people want to see it, it doesn’t matter when it opens.

    I agree, but only to a point.

    There are certain times when it is less convenient to go to the movies than other times. That’s usually more on an individual level but there are probably a handful of dates where that’s true of the entire culture.

    With movies now opening huge and then disappearing almost immediately after that opening, “wait til next week” is frequently not an option for many people.

    I think Solo’s underperformance is a mix of several factors, and I think timing is one of them. Had the movie come out at a time of year where it could have played longer and faced less competition, I think it would be a somewhat different story now. Critically speaking, the film was well-reviewed. In terms of audience reaction, it had a positive CinemaScore from people who did actually see it.

    But the movie didn’t have any built in urgency, storywise, for why people had to see it right away. (Compare that to The Last Jedi, which promised to begin immediately at a cliffhanger that the audience waited two years for a resolution on.) There were a ton of popular movies still in wide release meeting or exceeding box office expectations on the day Solo came out. And it came out on a weekend where people have been less inclined to go out to the movies in more recent years regardless of what the movie is.

    It all added up to a situation where the studio felt the film should be a cultural event, but where the film itself didn’t really check off any of the boxes that a film needs to in order to be a cultural event in 2018.

    For this film to have had a better box office result, I think it needed either a change of release date or a change of content. The release date is easier to fix. I think the only way content-wise to give it urgency would be to tie it into the mysteries of the new trilogy, and the story just didn’t fit into that world in any kind of way. But if there was a way to make seeing “Solo” essential to the story the sequel trilogy is telling, that could have driven attendance too.

    When a movie grosses as much as TFA, TLJ and R1 did, it’s about it being more than just a good or popular movie. It means that a whole series of events has to line up perfectly. It has to be well received by critics and fans, yes, but it also has to come out at a time when it can crossover to a wider audience that doesn’t have that same loyalty to the franchise.

    TFA had an unbeatable combination – the first live action SW movie in a decade, and the first SW movie in over thirty years to look forward instead of backwards, opening at a time when the majority of people were about to have family time and holiday vacations coming up.

    TLJ didn’t have all of that pent up history, but it did have the advantage of following a movie seen by a zillion people that left the audience wondering what would happen next. TLJ’s opening weekend was cemented by TFA’s opening two years early.

    R1 took what are possibly the two most iconic features in all of Star Wars – the Death Star and Darth Vader – things so recognizable that even the most casual observer would understand what was being sold. And it had that same great December opening slot, along with scarcity – everyone knew it wouldn’t answer any of the TFA questions, but it had been a year since TFA came out and would still be another year before TLJ.

    By comparison, Solo had a bad release date that was never going to allow it to have a cultural moment on release date alone, and a story that didn’t address in any meaningful way the areas of interest to most modern Star Wars viewers, which is, what happens next to Rey, Poe and Finn. It also came out too close to TLJ, which makes a difference to the kind of casual fans you need to pick up to have the kind of cultural moment that all previous SW films had.

    I think if Solo came out in December as the other Disney SW films did, the numbers on it would have been a lot closer to R1.

  23. I agree with Tino. If Solo had been something that people wanted to see and it was good, it would have done better business no matter when it opened. It's Star Wars, with Han Solo and Chewbacca. And if it was a good film, word of mouth would have given it legs and it would have performed much better than it did beyond opening weekend.

    The TLJ uber-hater fanboys are a drop in the box office bucket and I don't think either they or the reported turmoil surrounding the production had any major impact on Solo's numbers. Most of the general public is blissfully unaware of such things. I just don't think that people really wanted to see a movie about Han Solo without Harrison Ford in it. It's that simple as far as I'm concerned. Disney miscalculated.

  24. To a certain extent I agree with that too.

    I think no matter what, Solo was going to be the lowest grossing SW film. But I think it did worse than it could have due to marketing and release date choices by Disney which doubled down on their miscalculation of demand.

  25. dpippel

    How does that theory explain Solo's 65% drop off the weekend after Memorial Day?

    By the next weekend, the entire conversation about the movie was "Solo is a bomb" and that gets people into theaters about as much as saying that watching it will give you crabs. 🙂

  26. Rob W

    Presumably people had barbecues back when the first six Star Wars films were released over Memorial Day weekend to great success.

    That was then and this is now.

    Now that the studios have moved up summer, first to early May and now late April, the Memorial Day releases are now the second-tier releases or smaller counter-programming titles.

    Exactly. They don't put their biggest movies out on Memorial Day any more because things have changed. And now after Solo, the few studios that didn't already know it have finally gotten the message that Memorial Day is deader than disco and there won't be a BIG movie released on that date for years and years.

  27. Mark Booth

    Personally, I think the lack of widespread audience interest in SOLO had a little bit to do with the fact that

    Spoiler

    Some fans got pissed about that and not going to see SOLO was payback.

    I don’t think I agree with that. I wouldn’t be surprised if a small number of people avoided it for that reason, but I don’t think it made a measurable difference in the grosses.

    I think it mattered more that it wasn’t connected to the sequel trilogy storyline that the mass audience is currently invested in. If “Solo” had been structured in a way with Harrison Ford playing Han in bookend sequences, perhaps telling Rey how he got his start, and with his story of his younger self on a caper yielding vital information that would have been useful to resolving the conflict in the sequel trilogy, then it becomes essential viewing.

    Instead, it was a throwaway story that added little to our understanding of Han and added nothing to our understanding of the sequel trilogy characters or story.

    There was some pent up demand for a Death Star/Darth Vader story because the sequel trilogy hadn’t really addressed either. But any pent up demand for a new Han Solo adventure was met by TFA, so the urgency wasn’t there for the audience.

    I would be willing to bet that when all is said and done, thanks to home video/streaming/cable, Solo will end up being seen by about as many people that saw Rogue One. They just didn’t feel the need to pay top dollar to see it on a weekend when they had other plans.

  28. TravisR

    By the next weekend, the entire conversation about the movie was "Solo is a bomb" and that gets people into theaters about as much as saying that watching it will give you crabs. 🙂

    Which means it wasn't getting good word of mouth because it wasn't reaching a large audience. Chicken and egg. I'll throw It out there again, which opened on the no-man's land weekend of September 8 and went on to do almost 3/4 of a billion dollars worldwide.

  29. dpippel

    Which means it wasn't getting good word of mouth because it wasn't reaching a large audience. Chicken and egg.

    I know this is probably splitting hairs, but I think it was two different things.

    A smaller than expected number of people saw the film, and of those, most liked it and had positive things to say.

    A larger than expected number of people chose not to see the film, and then cited that choice as evidence that the film wasn’t actually good.

    The story became that people didn’t go the first weekend, and that story drowned out word of mouth from people who did go.

  30. That's logical Josh, but I agree it's probably splitting hairs a bit. Also, be aware that I'm arguing my points from the position of someone who didn't think this film needed to be made in the first place. Then I saw it, was pretty much bored with it, and didn't care for Ehrenreich at all. The experience only cemented my initial thoughts. I'll give it another chance, but I thought that Rogue One was far more enjoyable and "Star Warsy" than Solo, even though it shared similar production troubles.

  31. dpippel

    I'll throw It out there again, which opened on the no-man's land weekend of September 8 and went on to do almost 3/4 of a billion dollars worldwide.

    I didn't mention it before but I don't see how It is even remotely comparable to Solo's situation. Yes, It was a huge hit on a normally dead weekend but it's like It came out on a weekend like Memorial Day or even Labor Day where a movie is competing for an audience that has more to do than watch a movie that will be on Netflix in well under a year.

  32. Sorry Travis, I just don't buy the supposition that people have better things to do on Memorial Day weekend that go to a Star Wars movie. It seems like a perfect time to me. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

  33. dpippel

    Sorry Travis, I just don't buy the supposition that people have better things to do on Memorial Day weekend that go to a movie.

    Then, with all of the summer blockbuster hopefuls that come out at a nearly week to week basis, why have those movies all not opened on Memorial Day for years now? It's because studios know that they'll be leaving literally tens of millions of dollars on the table if they open then. Disney thought that Star Wars was untouchable & could overcome anything and if it had worked, they'd have probably seriously considered sticking to Memorial Day releases for SW movies but as it stands, they learned an incredibly expensive lesson that won't be repeated.

    EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Solo would have been as big of a hit as the rest of the SW movies if it had opened in, say, December. It was always going to be the lowest grossing (adjusting for inflation) of the entire series.

  34. Josh Steinberg

    If “Solo” had been structured in a way with Harrison Ford playing Han in bookend sequences, perhaps telling Rey how he got his start, and with his story of his younger self on a caper yielding vital information that would have been useful to resolving the conflict in the sequel trilogy, then it becomes essential viewing.

    The YOUNG INDIANA JONES approach, eh? Damn, that's brilliant, Josh! I haven't seen SOLO yet (the first time in my life I haven't seen a Star Wars film immediately upon release), but if they'd taken that approach I would've raced out to see it. After the devastating blow of watching my childhood hero die in THE FORCE AWAKENS, seeing Harrison Ford as Han again would've made SOLO a must-see.

  35. Maybe the negative and apathetic reactions were because SWs fans are not the easy marks the studio thought they were and didn’t want to bother with a different illustration of a character already perfectly etched in their minds for 41 years now.

  36. I have a stack of movies in 3D from Britain and North America (Black Panther, Avengers IW, Jurassic Park FC) that I haven’t had a chance to watch yet. I enjoyed Solo immensely in the theatre. It will be the first one I watch when it arrives next month!

  37. Mark Mayes

    Maybe the negative and apathetic reactions were because SWs fans are not the easy marks the studio thought they were and didn't want to bother with a different illustration of a character already perfectly etched in their minds for 41 years now.

    Possibly, or perhaps more accurately, the "fans" are so tied to what they knew from 40 years ago that anything that doesn't fit that narrow little view of SW is automatically deemed to be "not good enough" without watching it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the current SW and Trek movies are not my preferred versions of those universes. I will cling onto the old guard as long as I can in both cases…but I also have to recognize the original actors can't stay in these roles forever. They have to get different versions with different actors.

    Alden wasn't good enough to be a new version of Han Solo. Okay, so let the creatives create new characters for the fans to fall in love with…oops, can't do that either. Because Rey and Finn and Poe and Holdo, et al., aren't good enough, either. What does that leave? The never-ending galaxy-spanning story of literally one family (the Skywalker's) and three people (Han, Luke and Leia) for all time?

    Harrison Ford, outside of a flashback, will never play Han Solo again. Carrie Fisher, outside of Episode IX, will never play Leia again. Mark Hamill, you guessed it, will never play Luke Skywalker again. It stinks, absolutely, but fandom has become so incredibly…narrow…they don't want to let anyone else into the tent when that's exactly what should be happening: opening the tent doors to the young kids now to get them into the story, remembering the old guard and blazing a new trail. Some segments of the fan community just won't let that happen.

  38. According to some non-film related boards. some people did not go see Solo because of TLJ. They hated it so much that they wanted to stick it in Disney's eye.

    they didn't care who was in it, what it was about it was all about TLJ and "FU" to Disney. That is the impression I get from people who didn't see it or did not like TLJ.

  39. This has been cited a few times as a reason, but it seems if TLJ was hated that much, it would not have grossed $1.3 billion worldwide. Once word of mouth started to spread about the film, it would have cratered.

    I don't understand why everyone would have gone to see TLJ anyway, then taken their revenge on the next film?

  40. Malcolm R

    This has been cited a few times as a reason, but it seems if TLJ was hated that much, it would not have grossed $1.3 billion worldwide. Once word of mouth started to spread about the film, it would have cratered.

    I don't understand why everyone would have gone to see TLJ anyway, then taken their revenge on the next film?

    "Only" $620 million domestic. Down from The Force Awakens at $936 million. Something is at foot there. Same basic running time, same basic release date. The only real differences are TFA was a massive kiss to the long-time fans and TLJ wasn't…and the wait between new movies was much longer for TFA.

  41. Jason_V

    "Only" $620 million domestic. Down from The Force Awakens at $936 million. Something is at foot there. Same basic running time, same basic release date. The only real differences are TFA was a massive kiss to the long-time fans and TLJ wasn't…and the wait between new movies was much longer for TFA.

    By virtue of being the first new Star Wars movie in a decade, The Force Awakens was a one time phenomenon and the second movie in a trilogy rarely makes as much as the first or the last. Adjusting for inflation, Star Wars (A New Hope) grossed 1.3 billion and The Empire Strikes Back $700 million. That's much worse than the drop off between TFA and TLJ.

  42. TravisR

    By virtue of being the first new Star Wars movie in a decade, The Force Awakens was a one time phenomenon and the second movie in a trilogy rarely makes as much as the first or the last. Adjusting for inflation, Star Wars (A New Hope) grossed 1.3 billion and The Empire Strikes Back $700 million. That's much worse than the drop off between TFA and TLJ.

    And TFJ much the 8th highest grossing Domestic Movie Box (unadjusted) ever. It's not like it was a flop, but pretty much like Ep 1 easily passed 2 and 3, 7 is likely going to do better than the 2nd and 3rd parts of the Trilogy

    Unadjusted Domestic Box
    Epi 5 had a 33% falloff compared to 4
    Epi 2 had a 31% falloff compared to 1
    Epi 8 had a 33% falloff compared to 7

    Epi 3 and 6 ended up almost exactly splitting the difference

    Interestingly —
    Avengers 1 was 28% greater than 2,
    Jurassic World 35% greater than Fallen Kingdom
    Jurassic Park 35% greater than Lost World
    Raiders was 20% greater than Temple and Last Crusade split the difference.
    Shockingly — Godfather II had a 67% falloff compared to the Original

    Harry Potter had more of a built in audience but 1 was 17% above 2/30% above 3 and outgrossed (in the US) every movie until the HP8 (adjusted HP1 still was above 8)

    The Lord of the Rings seem to one of the few that buck the trend where FOTR<TTT<ROTK
    Actually Toy Story Trilogy did the same even when inflation adjusted

    The Box Office doesn't necessarily follow the quality of the Movie and the Box of the conclusion of the trillogy tends to slot between the other 2 regardless of the perceived quality ranking of the 3 movies. It will be interesting to see in Ep9 follows the trend, but 750-800M box might be reaching though not impossible at all unless it's just awful. It seems unlikely that it's going to out-gross Ep 7 no matter how good it is.

  43. TFA was a phenomenon that any follow-up would pale in comparison against. I remember all the talk at my work the week of TFA coming out. EVERYONE was talking about it. Two years later during the week of TLJ's release pretty much nobody cared. I was trying to start convos with the same people who seemed excited for TFA and all I got a few apathetic "I suppose I'll see it at some point" and a few "Oh jeez, they're STILL making those Star Wars movies? When is it going to end?!?!"

  44. TravisR

    By virtue of being the first new Star Wars movie in a decade, The Force Awakens was a one time phenomenon and the second movie in a trilogy rarely makes as much as the first or the last. Adjusting for inflation, Star Wars (A New Hope) grossed 1.3 billion and The Empire Strikes Back $700 million. That's much worse than the drop off between TFA and TLJ.

    I'm not debating that point, but there has been such a massive backlash from "fans" regarding "their" properties that is coming into play. Healthy box office or not, that is a thing in the pop culture world. We saw it back in 2009 with the new Star Trek and recently with Discovery. We see it every time a new Bond actor is introduced, I'm sure the Dr. Who world saw it with the announcement of a female doctor. We saw it with the female Ghostbusters and Man of Steel…we could go on.

    So the hate is likely overblown (the whole a few bad apples thing), but the idea stands. These "fans" have gone after actors and the director of TLJ and tried to organize a movement to tank the audience reviews for Black Panther. That didn't work, obviously, if you look at the BO and reception to that movie. They moved their focus to something else: Solo, a very easy target because of all the behind the scenes problems. What they did was cut off their nose to spite their face. If Disney stops making SW movies, the "fans" can cry "we want SW." It Disney continues, they cry "this isn't SW." If Lucas comes back, they say "he sucks." If he doesn't, they say "bring back Lucas." Disney is in a literal no win scenario here.

    Was Solo genius? No. Was it the harbinger of the apocalypse some people are saying? No. It's a movie. It's certainly a fair bit more entertaining that Episode I-III and pretty much the second half of VI.

  45. I think the real problem seems to be that people do not have enough to do in life. How about being happy that life is so good for you that you have the time to obsess about something so trivial as a movie on HTF?!

  46. Jason_V

    Was Solo genius? No. Was it the harbinger of the apocalypse some people are saying? No. It's a movie. It's certainly a fair bit more entertaining that Episode I-III and pretty much the second half of VI.

    The more I think about it the more I feel Solo is the weakest of all the Star Wars films.

  47. Alden Ehrenreich is a fine actor. But we don't need another Han. I still think new characters can be intriguing and work…Personally, I'd like to see new characters played by young, vital American actors like the original trio. But some film characters were done right and no one wants even a talented knock off. Tom Hanks is Forrest Gump and Vivien Leigh is Scarlett O'Hara. The public can be fooled only if it wants to be, and in such cases, no one wants to be. It's superfluous.

  48. Mark Mayes

    Alden Ehrenreich is a fine actor. But we don't need another Han. I still think new characters can be intriguing and work…Personally, I'd like to see new characters played by young, vital American actors like the original trio. But some film characters were done right and no one wants even a talented knock off. Tom Hanks is Forrest Gump and Vivien Leigh is Scarlett O'Hara. The public can be fooled only if it wants to be, and in such cases, no one wants to be. It's superfluous.

    Yeah, it's really aggravating that George Lucas didn't think to hire Harrison Ford in 1970 to make a prequel for a movie that Lucas hadn't even made yet. I hate it when that happens.

    🙄

    Mark

  49. Mark Mayes

    Alden Ehrenreich is a fine actor. But we don't need another Han. I still think new characters can be intriguing and work…Personally, I'd like to see new characters played by young, vital American actors like the original trio. But some film characters were done right and no one wants even a talented knock off. Tom Hanks is Forrest Gump and Vivien Leigh is Scarlett O'Hara. The public can be fooled only if it wants to be, and in such cases, no one wants to be. It's superfluous.

    Every new iteration of a character brings something new to them. And to think only one interpretation of the character is right is foolish.

    At some point in the near future, this version of Han will be the one people will see first and then go back to Harrison Ford. Are you going to be okay when they say the same back to you…Ford is corny and a knock off and Ehrenreich is the real Solo?

  50. Keith Cobby

    Further dilution of the franchise (dislike that word). Too many movies with disappointing actors and scripts – just like Marvel and DC.

    This. At least this is what this super-casual Star Wars fan sees.

    The main eight existing films I understand. But all the other stuff is confusing to me. Clone Wars, Rogue One, LEGO, Rebels and now Solo. I know that most serious SW fans would embrace all the quality material they could get. And I also understand that the determination of what counts as "quality" is completely subjective. So, let the discussions continue. I'm just here to report that, for me, there's too much of this sideways-universe material out there that amounts to nothing but clutter and creates confusion.

    When I need to clear my head and get things straightened out, I just pull out my copy of The Holiday Special and all is right in my world.

  51. I saw Solo in spite of my disgust with Last Jedi.

    Trying to avoid spoilers, I see the movie as 2 short setup stories before the main story (which starts about where Lando is introduced).

    In the 2 setup stories, the movie just assumed I cared about all the characters without first giving me reason to do so. I felt totally disconnected from what I was watching. Fortunately, the main story was a major improvement.

    Unfortunately, by the end of the movie they left Solo so squeaky clean, I couldn't buy him as being the future Episode IV Han. A main character even says he is a hero (spoon feeding this to us, in case we were to stupid to figure that out on our own).

    The movie also implies he is pining for a woman he is head over heels in love with, the whole time he was pursuing Leia in the later films

    If this movie had just been a tale of Han and Chewie having smuggler adventures instead of an origin story it could have been a lot better.

  52. I did not see this movie for the simple reason that it was a pointless movie to make (IMO, of course). I suppose I'll see it when it streams, but I had no interest in going to the theaters to see it and will be the first "Star Wars" movie I do not own.

  53. Gary Seven

    I did not see this movie for the simple reason that it was a pointless movie to make (IMO, of course). I suppose I'll see it when it streams, but I had no interest in going to the theaters to see it and will be the first "Star Wars" movie I do not own.

    Yeah, just like EVERY popcorn space adventure flick is a pointless waste of time. 🙄

    Mark

  54. Tino

    Easy Mark. You too were just recently knocking Solo before seeing the film. 😉

    Actually, I wasn't. I was expressing reservation about buying it due to the reviews regarding the quality of the film. That's not the same thing as saying the film never should have been made in the first place (the comment I responded to). I gave the film a chance (and always intended to) regardless of my reservations. That's very different than saying I won't see it because it shouldn't have been made.

    Mark

  55. Two divergent points:

    1. Profits: the grosses for any film must be seen in terms of the costs of production and distribution. Disney seems to believe that they can spend any amount of money on one of its CGI action movies. This belief allowed them to run the budget up in the first place, and then double-down on it by refilming over 70% of the film after the director was replaced. This is hardly the kind of economic film making that Roger Corman used to make many genre masterpieces. Hollywood needs to economize.

    2. CGI: I am really tired to CGI action movies. I believe they are totally distorting the industry, in particular theatrical exhibition. Films today have to make it in the first 10 days of release or else they are forgotten.

    I now see mostly indie, foreign, and classics films. I saw two wonderful Bette Davis films last weekend from the 30s, The Little Foxes and Cabin in the Cotton. Beautiful new 35mm prints shown at the great Stanford Theater.

  56. Mark Booth

    Yeah, just like EVERY popcorn space adventure flick is a pointless waste of time. 🙄
    Mark

    It was pointless to me because:

    1. If I want to see a young Han Solo, I can watch the original three movies.
    2. The main plot points have already been known in regards to Han's back story. I don't need to see it spelled out for me.
    3. It doesn't really add anything to the overall narrative.

  57. Mark Booth

    It's a popcorn flick and a VERY enjoyable one at that. Your loss.

    Mark

    I for one don't feel any source of loss due to not enjoying this movie. I tried watching it twice and upon the second viewing I found ti to be a murky bore.

  58. Mark Booth

    It's a popcorn flick and a VERY enjoyable one at that. Your loss.

    Mark

    I for one don't feel any source of loss due to not enjoying this movie. I tried watching it twice and upon the second viewing I found ti to be a murky bore.

  59. JQuintana

    I for one don't feel any source of loss due to not enjoying this movie. I tried watching it twice and upon the second viewing I found ti to be a murky bore.

    dpippel

    I didn't care for Solo at all either. Opinions are like, well… 😉

    At least you guys actually watched it.

    Mark

  60. Mark Booth

    Yeah, it's really aggravating that George Lucas didn't think to hire Harrison Ford in 1970 to make a prequel for a movie that Lucas hadn't even made yet. I hate it when that happens.

    🙄

    Mark

    No soap. He wouldn't have read young enough even then for an audience to relate.:roll:

  61. Jason_V

    Every new iteration of a character brings something new to them. And to think only one interpretation of the character is right is foolish.

    At some point in the near future, this version of Han will be the one people will see first and then go back to Harrison Ford. Are you going to be okay when they say the same back to you…Ford is corny and a knock off and Ehrenreich is the real Solo?

    "Right" can be a terrible performance, but it creates a character that becomes iconic–like Dunaway as Crawford. An audience, collectively or individually, can recognize a valid "Hamlet," but having a firm idea of how it should be played (for whatever reason-an actor who made it live in their imagination, maybe) is not "foolish."

    I have no stake in the success of this picture, I like SW and am looking forward to owning this on blu (winging its way from Germany as we speak, I hope.) My speculation was based on what I have heard from big fans and my interest in why studios do what they do. If these films are important to carry on the name of "Star Wars," fine–if not, fine. We got some good stuff out of it.

  62. TJPC

    How long do your BBQs last!?

    well that kind of depends on which state you are in, and what is being cooked, got friends from North Carolina that do a whole hog in the ground, and the cooking time alone is a day, so that is better for a three day weekend blow out, i just don't think the rest of the world understands the United States regional fascination with BBQ, NC Pulled Pork, KC Ribs, Chicago Rib Tips, Texas Mesquite Smoked Brisket, FL Gator Tail, all unique, all different, all wonderful,

  63. Mark Mayes

    "Right" can be a terrible performance, but it creates a character that becomes iconic–like Dunaway as Crawford. An audience, collectively or individually, can recognize a valid "Hamlet," and be unenthused at the idea or the poor guy acting his heart out. An audience having a firm idea of how something should be played (for whatever reason-an actor who made it live in their imagination, maybe) is not "foolish."

    Sure it is…and here's why. Once that one actor is the only person who can "accurately" portray a character in a person's mind, you are closed off to new possibilities. If Ford is the only true Solo, then anyone else is any medium is an imposter and you discount that production. That could be a prequel, like Solo. It could be an audio play, like was done "back in the day." It could be a video game voice, a character meet and greet at a theme park or anything else.

    We all have our favorite versions of a character. I won't argue that because that's obvious. But saying our preferred version is the only "right" one is foolish. The only person who has any right to say which version is "right" is the creator of the character, whether that's George Lucas in this case or Shakespeare or Gene Roddenberry for Trek or Stan Lee for many Marvel characters.

    When The Force Awakens came out, I was very much against the movie. Saw it opening night, got the soundtracks and the BD and everything…but I still had a lot of problems with it. Then I realized something which turned my entire world around: this new SW is not and never will be "my" SW. "My" SW is rooted back in the OT. But does that mean I can't enjoy and appreciate anything that comes out now? No…and depriving myself of seeing the new movies only hurts me, no one else. And I don't like to be hurt. So I go into each new movie understanding that universe has changed and I can enjoy the movies on their own merits. I have to do the same with Trek and the live action versions of classic Disney movies. I have my preferred version, but by no means is that the only one which is valid.

  64. Britton

    Will this be hitting Netflix like all the other Disney produced Star Wars movies? If so, I’ll wait for that.

    Don’t think so. I believe Black Panther is the last Disney film to be shown on Netflix.

  65. Gary Seven

    Disney movies are available through the end of the year, so it may make it still. Disney want to start its own streaming service next year. Everyone want a piece of that streaming pie.

    It looks like Captain Marvel will be the first Marvel film exclusively streamed by Disney's new service.

  66. dpippel

    It looks like Captain Marvel will be the first Marvel film exclusively streamed by Disney's new service.

    Are you saying that other Disney/Marvel films won't be available to stream on iTunes and Vudu if you already have them in your digital library?

  67. I think the idea is that the only streaming subscription service they’ll be on will be Disney’s upcoming app – so you’ll no longer find them on subscription services like Netflix.

    I expect streaming purchases at digital retailers like iTunes and Vudu will be unaffected.

    Completely different markets and products.

    It’s like the modern equivalent of a movie studio starting their own premium cable channel and then not licensing their movies out for competitors like HBO any longer.

  68. Josh Steinberg

    I think the idea is that the only streaming subscription service they’ll be on will be Disney’s upcoming app – so you’ll no longer find them on subscription services like Netflix.

    I expect streaming purchases at digital retailers like iTunes and Vudu will be unaffected.

    Completely different markets and products.

    It’s like the modern equivalent of a movie studio starting their own premium cable channel and then not licensing their movies out for competitors like HBO any longer.

    Got it, Netflix and Hulu are different than iTunes and Vudu with different business models.

  69. Robert Crawford

    Got it, Netflix and Hulu are different than iTunes and Vudu with different business models.

    Like the others have said Robert, the Disney thing will only affect streaming services, not digital purchases. Could you imagine the uproar if it were otherwise? There would be mobs with pitchforks and torches looking for Iger's head. 🙂

  70. Not to mention, why would Disney shut off that revenue stream? They’ll be more than happy to accept your $20 for a purchase or $5 for a single viewing rental from iTunes/Vudu.

    I’m guessing they’ve done the math and believe that they can entice more subscribers to their future subscription service and get more money from those subscribers than they’re currently getting from one-time payments from Netflix.

  71. Well, I broke down, picked up the 4K UHD yesterday, and watched it with my wife last night. I liked it better the second time, but my reasons for not liking it remain. I do, however, think that this is one of the worst looking UHD titles I've seen. The black levels are terrible for most of the film, instead being an elevated brownish tone. In the space scenes starfields are gray, not black. It is NOT my setup, which is calibrated and looks stunning on other titles. Tried it in both my Oppo UDP-203 and Panasonic DP-UB820 with the same result. Just an ugly transfer. Pretty disappointed.

  72. Jason_V

    Possibly, or perhaps more accurately, the "fans" are so tied to what they knew from 40 years ago that anything that doesn't fit that narrow little view of SW is automatically deemed to be "not good enough" without watching it.

    I've always thought of the SW universe as a "narrow little" universe, and I think it was designed that way. Maybe that's why the Disney films all seem like re-hashes. I still haven't seen Solo. It's the first SW film I've never seen.

    Star Wars films to me now seem like watching a tribute-band of your favorite rock group. So, most of the members of the original band are dead…that still doesn't make me want to see the tribute band. :unsure:

    I'll see Solo one day, I guess. The real reason I didn't go to see it is because TLJ soured me on new SW films.

  73. MielR

    I've always thought of the SW universe as a "narrow little" universe, and I think it was designed that way. Maybe that's why the Disney films all seem like re-hashes. I still haven't seen Solo. It's the first SW film I've never seen.

    Star Wars films to me now seem like watching a tribute-band of your favorite rock group. So, most of the members of the original band are dead…that still doesn't make me want to see the tribute band. :unsure:

    I get it, but if we take a big step back, all we were ever following was the Skywalker story. Anakin to Luke and Leia. There is an entire universe of other stories that can be told which have nothing to do with the Skywalker's, logically speaking.

    Anything, really, is a little slice of a larger universe. Just because we don't see it or it doesn't tie into what we are seeing is immaterial.

  74. Jason_V

    There is an entire universe of other stories that can be told which have nothing to do with the Skywalker's, logically speaking.

    I know, and I guess I'm just not interested in that. I was never interested in the EU during the 80s and 90s either.

    All I was ever interested in fit into 3 movies quite nicely. Seeing the band get back together (sort of) in TFA was nice, but to me, the wheels came off in TLJ.

  75. Robert Harris

    Solo: A Star Wars Story, reminds me of any series of young teen or YA books that keep on coming, as there's a perceived audience for them, but with evermore tired storylines, and little imagination.

    I watched this last weekend and this is how I felt.

    In fact, I'm about done with Disney Star Wars. It's very disappointing that haven't been able to do more with this franchise. Maybe Lucas in his later creative years wasn't too bad after all?

  76. MielR

    I know, and I guess I'm just not interested in that. I was never interested in the EU during the 80s and 90s either.

    All I was ever interested in fit into 3 movies quite nicely. Seeing the band get back together (sort of) in TFA was nice, but to me, the wheels came off in TLJ.

    Fair. I'll be happy to watch anything labeled Star Wars and enjoy it through the lens of "this is not Episode IV-VI and I need to understand that." Otherwise, I will forever be disappointed.

  77. Dave H

    In fact, I'm about done with Disney Star Wars. It's very disappointing that haven't been able to do more with this franchise. Maybe Lucas in his later creative years wasn't too bad after all?

    Compared to the prequels or Indy 4, I think Solo is a masterpiece.

  78. Dave H

    Even over Revenge of the Sith?

    In my book, definitely. I never understood the love Sith got on it's initial release. It's my 2nd least favorite SW movie overall, and only marginally better than Clones, my least favorite. (Yes, I realize that counts as admitting that Phantom Menace is my favorite of the prequels, I don't care )

  79. Finally watched it. I enjoyed it quite a bit. No, it's not a full-scale epic STAR WARS movie, nor was it intended to be. It's what I would call Star Wars-lite, just a fun caper to augment the SW universe. I now understand why people think the image is too dark. The first half of the movie is intentionally murky for atmospheric reasons, which I totally understand. My issue was with the 3D conversion. Stereo D must have been really rushed or something because the 3D was so anemic with barely any noticeable depth, that I found myself distracted trying to see depth that wasn't there. So I did the unthinkable, at 45 minutes in I popped out the 3D disc and put in the 2D one to resume the movie. It was pointless to watch it in 3D when there was no immersion and it felt like a flat movie anyway.

  80. Mark-P

    Finally watched it. I enjoyed it quite a bit. No, it's not a full-scale epic STAR WARS movie, nor was it intended to be. It's what I would call Star Wars-lite, just a fun caper to augment the SW universe. I now understand why people think the image is too dark. The first half of the movie is intentionally murky for atmospheric reasons, which I totally understand. My issue was with the 3D conversion. Stereo D must have been really rushed or something because the 3D was so anemic with barely any noticeable depth, that I found myself distracted trying to see depth that wasn't there. So I did the unthinkable, at 45 minutes in I popped out the 3D disc and put in the 2D one to resume the movie. It was pointless to watch it in 3D when there was no immersion and it felt like a flat movie anyway.

    On my LG 3D OLED ,I thought the film looked fine in 3D with plenty of depth. Especially in the train heist sequence. I was pleasantly surprised with the 3D actually.

    Ymmv as you can see. 😀

Leave a Reply