Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2018 15:00:56 GMT -5
With the sh!tstorm that Last Jedi kicked up among the fandom and Solo financially flopping on arrival it got me to thinking about how something similar is happening to the DCEU films (especially MOS, BVS, and JL).
BvS and TLJ were very controversial. We’ve been getting DC and Star Wars films for forty years and they've been linked from the beginning sharing everything from actors to behind the scenes talent. Both are trying to expand in the modern era but it seems like they are hitting stumbling blocks that neither have ever encountered before. The rise of things like social media have taken it to a new level of vitriol. There have always been criticism but I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many this unhappy with the direction of either franchise or this level of anger.
In both cases the films have made money (except for the lastest entries) but the fanbases are divided. Some have wanted the person steering the ship (Kennedy and Snyder) gone and for new leadership to take control.
With all that said I think this is a pretty fair comparison. Which franchise do you think has been more divisive among audiences in this current era?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 20:06:22 GMT -5
60% of the vitriol I've seen levied against new Star Wars has been because there are women or black leads, which is absolutely depressing that people find this to be a problem. 20% has been that the films don't meet what the fans expect to have happened based on their own imagination or desires, or what they've read in comic books or other stories. The last 10% seem to be able to critique the films - at least these complaints can be interesting to read.
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on May 31, 2018 20:09:54 GMT -5
60% of the vitriol I've seen levied against new Star Wars has been because there are women or black leads, which is absolutely depressing that people find this to be a problem. 20% has been that the films don't meet what the fans expect to have happened based on their own imagination or desires, or what they've read in comic books or other stories. The last 10% seem to be able to critique the films - at least these complaints can be interesting to read. Hey! What about the last last 10%?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 20:14:42 GMT -5
60% of the vitriol I've seen levied against new Star Wars has been because there are women or black leads, which is absolutely depressing that people find this to be a problem. 20% has been that the films don't meet what the fans expect to have happened based on their own imagination or desires, or what they've read in comic books or other stories. The last 10% seem to be able to critique the films - at least these complaints can be interesting to read. Hey! What about the last last 10%? It's too terrible to repeat here. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2018 20:52:35 GMT -5
With the sh!tstorm that Last Jedi kicked up among the fandom and Solo financially flopping on arrival it got me to thinking about how something similar is happening to the DCEU films (especially MOS, BVS, and JL). BvS and TLJ were very controversial. We’ve been getting DC and Star Wars films for forty years and they've been linked from the beginning sharing everything from actors to behind the scenes talent. Both are trying to expand in the modern era but it seems like they are hitting stumbling blocks that neither have ever encountered before. The rise of things like social media have taken it to a new level of vitriol. There have always been criticism but I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many this unhappy with the direction of either franchise or this level of anger. In both cases the films have made money (except for the lastest entries) but the fanbases are divided. Some have wanted the person steering the ship (Kennedy and Snyder) gone and for new leadership to take control. With all that said I think this is a pretty fair comparison. Which franchise do you think has been more divisive among audiences in this current era? Interesting question... But to me, with Batman- he's had more than one 'go' at the movies--- I was disappointed with the Burton Batman (I read an early draft that suggested the movie was going to be more serious than what we got & didn't have the Joker as the guy who killed Batman's parents)- but LOVED that the superhero movies got a 'charge' again with all the enthusiasm around it. (As the Reeve Superman series already was gone from the studios' memory it seemed by this point). At the same time, with the second iteration with Batman Begins and Dark Knight- I felt- 'okay, I'm satisfied'= we got two DEFINITIVE films for the Batman story and (to me) a definitive movie Batman actor in Bale.. Felt the same way with Raimi's first two Spiderman movies, as much as I like the new version- it's nice to have one that really 'captures' memories from my own experiences with the comics I read. With Star Wars- That's a whole different beast.... because it was all birthed and shepherded by one creator (for good and bad) for the longest time. I hated the sloppiness with SW:TFA- and at the time, thought that it was going to be the last time we'd see ANY of the original actors in the film. With SW: TLJ- I loved that it was better done with more style overall- and I respected that it really had its hands tied storewide by the first movie's storyline.... but tried to fight back as best it could- It was a great 'goodbye' to Luke, (though I want him to come back for the next film)- and wish that Ryan Johnson was able to to TFA rather than JJ- but, under the circumstances. I thought it was as good as it could be. But- SW to me is also the original characters and actors and the link to them. The spinoffs just aren't as interesting imo- at least, so far- so I think the SW fans are MORE judgemental on getting these things 'right' since there's only (probably) one chance to get the movie series right.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2018 21:15:54 GMT -5
60% of the vitriol I've seen levied against new Star Wars has been because there are women or black leads, which is absolutely depressing that people find this to be a problem. 20% has been that the films don't meet what the fans expect to have happened based on their own imagination or desires, or what they've read in comic books or other stories. The last 10% seem to be able to critique the films - at least these complaints can be interesting to read. Sooo...are you saying Disney’s Star Wars has been more divisive? I’m not sure. As far as the more offensive stuff out there I’m not happy with everything Kathleen Kennedy has done and I do think there are some valid complaints against her but some people who are part of a vocal minority of the audience see some “SJW” boogeyman around every corner and filter everything through that lens wether there’s something there or not. If they start every discussion off with that mindset first I tend not to take those people seriously.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2018 21:17:47 GMT -5
With the sh!tstorm that Last Jedi kicked up among the fandom and Solo financially flopping on arrival it got me to thinking about how something similar is happening to the DCEU films (especially MOS, BVS, and JL). BvS and TLJ were very controversial. We’ve been getting DC and Star Wars films for forty years and they've been linked from the beginning sharing everything from actors to behind the scenes talent. Both are trying to expand in the modern era but it seems like they are hitting stumbling blocks that neither have ever encountered before. The rise of things like social media have taken it to a new level of vitriol. There have always been criticism but I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many this unhappy with the direction of either franchise or this level of anger. In both cases the films have made money (except for the lastest entries) but the fanbases are divided. Some have wanted the person steering the ship (Kennedy and Snyder) gone and for new leadership to take control. With all that said I think this is a pretty fair comparison. Which franchise do you think has been more divisive among audiences in this current era? Interesting question... But to me, with Batman- he's had more than one 'go' at the movies--- I was disappointed with the Burton Batman (I read an early draft that suggested the movie was going to be more serious than what we got & didn't have the Joker as the guy who killed Batman's parents)- but LOVED that the superhero movies got a 'charge' again with all the enthusiasm around it. (As the Reeve Superman series already was gone from the studios' memory it seemed by this point). At the same time, with the second iteration with Batman Begins and Dark Knight- I felt- 'okay, I'm satisfied'= we got two DEFINITIVE films for the Batman story and (to me) a definitive movie Batman actor in Bale.. Felt the same way with Raimi's first two Spiderman movies, as much as I like the new version- it's nice to have one that really 'captures' memories from my own experiences with the comics I read. With Star Wars- That's a whole different beast.... because it was all birthed and shepherded by one creator (for good and bad) for the longest time. I hated the sloppiness with SW:TFA- and at the time, thought that it was going to be the last time we'd see ANY of the original actors in the film. With SW: TLJ- I loved that it was better done with more style overall- and I respected that it really had its hands tied storewide by the first movie's storyline.... but tried to fight back as best it could- It was a great 'goodbye' to Luke, (though I want him to come back for the next film)- and wish that Ryan Johnson was able to to TFA rather than JJ- but, under the circumstances. I thought it was as good as it could be. But- SW to me is also the original characters and actors and the link to them. The spinoffs just aren't as interesting imo- at least, so far- so I think the SW fans are MORE judgemental on getting these things 'right' since there's only (probably) one chance to get the movie series right. So you’re saying Star Wars?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 21:49:36 GMT -5
60% of the vitriol I've seen levied against new Star Wars has been because there are women or black leads, which is absolutely depressing that people find this to be a problem. 20% has been that the films don't meet what the fans expect to have happened based on their own imagination or desires, or what they've read in comic books or other stories. The last 10% seem to be able to critique the films - at least these complaints can be interesting to read. Sooo...are you saying Disney’s Star Wars has been more divisive? I’m not sure. As far as the more offensive stuff out there I’m not happy with everything Kathleen Kennedy has done and I do think there are some valid complaints against her but some people who are part of a vocal minority of the audience see some “SJW” boogeyman around every corner and filter everything through that lens wether there’s something there or not. If they start every discussion off with that mindset first I tend not to take those people seriously. "Sooo...are you saying Disney’s Star Wars has been more divisive? I’m not sure." - in intent, or as a result? The critics sure have been kinder to Star Wars, and the fan reactions vary wildly. It seems most people hate the DCEU, fans and critics, so I can't make the argument in good faith that it's more divisive. Like at worst, someone calls Zack Snyder a hack while someone else praises his talent. With Star Wars, you touched upon the "SJW" thing. Maybe they're a vocal minority, but it sure doesn't take much to run into someone holding an opinion like that. That sort of thing cuts deeper more than any "Jonathan Kent wouldn't say that to Clark!" moments.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on May 31, 2018 21:59:36 GMT -5
This forum survived Star Wars debates, but MoS killed it off.
So I believe DC is more divisive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 22:07:01 GMT -5
This forum survived Star Wars debates, but MoS killed it off. So I believe DC is more divisive. Yeah, but wouldn't that be expected on a Superman board?
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on May 31, 2018 22:26:30 GMT -5
This forum survived Star Wars debates, but MoS killed it off. So I believe DC is more divisive. Because of people who hated MOS solely because they would ONLY accept Christopher Reeve as Superman. They were "Reeve Only" people if you like.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2018 7:45:57 GMT -5
This forum survived Star Wars debates, but MoS killed it off. So I believe DC is more divisive. That was before Disney Star Wars even existed though. The Star Wars prequel debates would be comparable to the Superman returns and smallville debates imo. I think we’d be having then same kind of discussions over Disney SW as happened with mos. remember despite the prequels sucking imo there were some defenders.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2018 8:02:21 GMT -5
Sooo...are you saying Disney’s Star Wars has been more divisive? I’m not sure. As far as the more offensive stuff out there I’m not happy with everything Kathleen Kennedy has done and I do think there are some valid complaints against her but some people who are part of a vocal minority of the audience see some “SJW” boogeyman around every corner and filter everything through that lens wether there’s something there or not. If they start every discussion off with that mindset first I tend not to take those people seriously. "Sooo...are you saying Disney’s Star Wars has been more divisive? I’m not sure." - in intent, or as a result? The critics sure have been kinder to Star Wars, and the fan reactions vary wildly. It seems most people hate the DCEU, fans and critics, so I can't make the argument in good faith that it's more divisive. Like at worst, someone calls Zack Snyder a hack while someone else praises his talent. With Star Wars, you touched upon the "SJW" thing. Maybe they're a vocal minority, but it sure doesn't take much to run into someone holding an opinion like that. That sort of thing cuts deeper more than any "Jonathan Kent wouldn't say that to Clark!" moments. I’m really not sure myself. The new Star Wars films have made far more money so general audiences have returned over and over except for Solo. The dceu made decent money but not what sw made. You have the anti Kennedy fans who seem to be pretty angry but you also have anti Snyder fans that seem to be pretty angry as well as the more die hard Snyder fans who attack anyone who they perceive as a threat or who attacks Snyder’s films. That includes Disney for whatever reason (the anti black panther boycot from the alt right groups that didn’t go anywhere). You’ve got legitimate criticisms from all sides but you’ve also got this vein of alt right fandom in the dceu and sw which just muddies the waters. Another difference is Star Wars is continuing on from the past. The dceu was a whole new fresh start. But in each case that drives some of the disappointment and anger. One was changing what people knew and loved. The other was a wholesale replacement not just some transition. Some view one as worse while others see the other one as worse. Why is Luke so different vs this isn’t Christopher Reeve. As much displeasure as there was against Snyder I think the pile on on Kennedy by a portion of the Star Wars fandom has been worse. I think the Star Wars films have had the bigger behind the scenes problems too. Ayer lost control of his film and Snyder was removed from justice league but star was had major reshoots on rogue one and solo while Trevorow, Trank, Lord and Miller were all fired and Gareth Edwards ended up just like David Ayer and that’s just fueled the anti Star Wars sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2018 12:10:19 GMT -5
Interesting question... But to me, with Batman- he's had more than one 'go' at the movies--- I was disappointed with the Burton Batman (I read an early draft that suggested the movie was going to be more serious than what we got & didn't have the Joker as the guy who killed Batman's parents)- but LOVED that the superhero movies got a 'charge' again with all the enthusiasm around it. (As the Reeve Superman series already was gone from the studios' memory it seemed by this point). At the same time, with the second iteration with Batman Begins and Dark Knight- I felt- 'okay, I'm satisfied'= we got two DEFINITIVE films for the Batman story and (to me) a definitive movie Batman actor in Bale.. Felt the same way with Raimi's first two Spiderman movies, as much as I like the new version- it's nice to have one that really 'captures' memories from my own experiences with the comics I read. With Star Wars- That's a whole different beast.... because it was all birthed and shepherded by one creator (for good and bad) for the longest time. I hated the sloppiness with SW:TFA- and at the time, thought that it was going to be the last time we'd see ANY of the original actors in the film. With SW: TLJ- I loved that it was better done with more style overall- and I respected that it really had its hands tied storewide by the first movie's storyline.... but tried to fight back as best it could- It was a great 'goodbye' to Luke, (though I want him to come back for the next film)- and wish that Ryan Johnson was able to to TFA rather than JJ- but, under the circumstances. I thought it was as good as it could be. But- SW to me is also the original characters and actors and the link to them. The spinoffs just aren't as interesting imo- at least, so far- so I think the SW fans are MORE judgemental on getting these things 'right' since there's only (probably) one chance to get the movie series right. So you’re saying Star Wars? I think those who follow Star Wars are far less forgiving, because there's no guarantee (or probability) of a reboot. With the DCEU: Their characters have already been rebooted a couple of times. My assumption is that they would be more forgiving because what's been built is more 'temporary'- but with the board self-destructing over MOS, who knows? I know I'm more forgiving on DCEU because it'll be rebooted, less so on SW..... which is probably paralyzed in box office fear right now.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2018 13:51:43 GMT -5
So you’re saying Star Wars? I think those who follow Star Wars are far less forgiving, because there's no guarantee (or probability) of a reboot. With the DCEU: Their characters have already been rebooted a couple of times. My assumption is that they would be more forgiving because what's been built is more 'temporary'- but with the board self-destructing over MOS, who knows? I know I'm more forgiving on DCEU because it'll be rebooted, less so on SW..... which is probably paralyzed in box office fear right now. I think the die hard Star Wars fans are more rabid because while the causual audience sees the movies it takes someone really into it to follow everything else like the EU so it’s a real commitment. Especially in the dark ages when there were no movies and only the EU so they take it more seriously. With DC I don’t think you need to be into everything to be a die hard fan because there’s so much on screen stuff and it’s never gone away. With so many different shows and movies and continuities I think that fandom is more fractured even if there isn’t always as much heated angry infighting. You’ve never had to read comics to fill in the blanks for a movie or series while with Star Wars since the eu and the current non screen stuff is also cannon you could read it if you wanted to. Star Wars fans also seem to do repeat viewings more. That’s why those movies made so much compared to almost anything else. DC will reboot eventually but it’s going to be years before we see a full reboot because WB feel they are too far in a rebooting would put them more behind. They want that Marvel money now. Not ten years from now. I see your point though that anything anyone doesn’t like will be ignored in a new continuity Star Wars won’t reboot any time soon if ever. Never say never but I don’t see it happening for decades if it does. The OT is too iconic. So that means anything from the Disney era may be ignored but it won’t be non cannon. What Star Wars will do if things get really bad is change the creative direction. DC is doing that too but the previous films are still (sadly for me) in continuity. For me that means the dceu will always be tainted until we get a full on reboot.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2018 14:25:10 GMT -5
I think those who follow Star Wars are far less forgiving, because there's no guarantee (or probability) of a reboot. With the DCEU: Their characters have already been rebooted a couple of times. My assumption is that they would be more forgiving because what's been built is more 'temporary'- but with the board self-destructing over MOS, who knows? I know I'm more forgiving on DCEU because it'll be rebooted, less so on SW..... which is probably paralyzed in box office fear right now. I think the die hard Star Wars fans are more rabid because while the causual audience sees the movies it takes someone really into it to follow everything else like the EU so it’s a real commitment. Especially in the dark ages when there were no movies and only the EU so they take it more seriously. With DC I don’t think you need to be into everything to be a die hard fan because there’s so much on screen stuff and it’s never gone away. With so many different shows and movies and continuities I think that fandom is more fractured even if there isn’t always as much heated angry infighting. You’ve never had to read comics to fill in the blanks for a movie or series while with Star Wars since the eu and the current non screen stuff is also cannon you could read it if you wanted to. Star Wars fans also seem to do repeat viewings more. That’s why those movies made so much compared to almost anything else. DC will reboot eventually but it’s going to be years before we see a full reboot because WB feel they are too far in a rebooting would put them more behind. They want that Marvel money now. Not ten years from now. I see your point though that anything anyone doesn’t like will be ignored in a new continuity Star Wars won’t reboot any time soon if ever. Never say never but I don’t see it happening for decades if it does. The OT is too iconic. So that means anything from the Disney era may be ignored but it won’t be non cannon. What Star Wars will do if things get really bad is change the creative direction. DC is doing that too but the previous films are still (sadly for me) in continuity. For me that means the dceu will always be tainted until we get a full on reboot. You hit it on the nose about Star Wars fans and investment from what’s available versus not. Not having films pumped out every year definitely helped the Star Wars movies feel like big events. With Solo disappointing Disney has their first ‘real’ sw box office disappointment... and it’s not a bad film.... they have to wondering about the supply/demand factor. But I wonder if they had it come a few months after Force Awakens might have helped - as the character just died and was fresh in people’s minds. In any case would love to hear the discussions at Disney trying to figure it all out....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2018 15:42:53 GMT -5
That’s another thing SW has to contend with more than DC. DC can more easily get away with recasting wether the previous actor worked or not and wether it’s the same continuity or a reboot. With Star Wars it’s a lot harder to recast unless it’s a much younger version of a character like Obi Wan.
Even though Alden was playing a younger Han he wasn’t like...20 or 30 years younger was he? It wasn’t like the gap between Phoenix as Indy and Ford as Indy when they made Last Crusade. It’s pretth hard to follow Harrison Ford in one of his most popular roles. A lot of fans are going to be hesitant about things like that. DC could recast Affleck tomorrow and the dust will settle pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2018 22:33:10 GMT -5
That’s another thing SW has to contend with more than DC. DC can more easily get away with recasting wether the previous actor worked or not and wether it’s the same continuity or a reboot. With Star Wars it’s a lot harder to recast unless it’s a much younger version of a character like Obi Wan. Even though Alden was playing a younger Han he wasn’t like...20 or 30 years younger was he? It wasn’t like the gap between Phoenix as Indy and Ford as Indy when they made Last Crusade. It’s pretth hard to follow Harrison Ford in one of his most popular roles. A lot of fans are going to be hesitant about things like that. DC could recast Affleck tomorrow and the dust will settle pretty quickly. Aiden seems like the 'Luke Skywalker' version of Han.... He was okay I thought in the film as Han when he was seemingly supposed to be... in his early 20's? I thought Emilia Clarke was a little old to also be playing in her early 20's, but I think if the movie had more laughs, then a lot would be more forgiven. Instead, it was mediocre with some very good parts and a lot of 'meh' parts where they followed the plot, and the lead wasn't all that charismatic to carry the slower parts. But- yeah, casting a younger Harrison Ford was like trying to cast another Chris Reeve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 10:09:58 GMT -5
That’s another thing SW has to contend with more than DC. DC can more easily get away with recasting wether the previous actor worked or not and wether it’s the same continuity or a reboot. With Star Wars it’s a lot harder to recast unless it’s a much younger version of a character like Obi Wan. Even though Alden was playing a younger Han he wasn’t like...20 or 30 years younger was he? It wasn’t like the gap between Phoenix as Indy and Ford as Indy when they made Last Crusade. It’s pretth hard to follow Harrison Ford in one of his most popular roles. A lot of fans are going to be hesitant about things like that. DC could recast Affleck tomorrow and the dust will settle pretty quickly. Aiden seems like the 'Luke Skywalker' version of Han.... He was okay I thought in the film as Han when he was seemingly supposed to be... in his early 20's? I thought Emilia Clarke was a little old to also be playing in her early 20's, but I think if the movie had more laughs, then a lot would be more forgiven. Instead, it was mediocre with some very good parts and a lot of 'meh' parts where they followed the plot, and the lead wasn't all that charismatic to carry the slower parts. But- yeah, casting a younger Harrison Ford was like trying to cast another Chris Reeve. They did it for The Last Crusade. River Phoenix was fine.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2018 10:40:03 GMT -5
Aiden seems like the 'Luke Skywalker' version of Han.... He was okay I thought in the film as Han when he was seemingly supposed to be... in his early 20's? I thought Emilia Clarke was a little old to also be playing in her early 20's, but I think if the movie had more laughs, then a lot would be more forgiven. Instead, it was mediocre with some very good parts and a lot of 'meh' parts where they followed the plot, and the lead wasn't all that charismatic to carry the slower parts. But- yeah, casting a younger Harrison Ford was like trying to cast another Chris Reeve. They did it for The Last Crusade. River Phoenix was fine. But... that's a LOT younger. Having said what I did- I usually try not to criticize if I don't have a better alternative. Metallo shared a link to a guy who DID look like a young Harrison Ford, but I don't know if he would have been a good actor overall. Honestly can't think of any young actor who would fit the bill. Someone recommended the guy who was in Game of Thrones/ Nashville- Michael Huissman - but I don't know...he does bear a stronger resemblance if you ask me- but he's not in his 20's. I might have jumped forward and had Timothy Olyphant from "Justified" but he's at this point too old to play a 20-something Han.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 4, 2018 8:53:32 GMT -5
Aiden seems like the 'Luke Skywalker' version of Han.... He was okay I thought in the film as Han when he was seemingly supposed to be... in his early 20's? I thought Emilia Clarke was a little old to also be playing in her early 20's, but I think if the movie had more laughs, then a lot would be more forgiven. Instead, it was mediocre with some very good parts and a lot of 'meh' parts where they followed the plot, and the lead wasn't all that charismatic to carry the slower parts. But- yeah, casting a younger Harrison Ford was like trying to cast another Chris Reeve. They did it for The Last Crusade. River Phoenix was fine. A few points. One like cam said young Indy was a lot younger than younger Han in Solo so people could accept more differences in personality. He was playing a teenage Indy while ford was playing Indy in his late 30s. At least a 20 year gap Phoenix was a good actor at his age and even before last crusade I’d argue he’d been more impressive than Alden is now. Phoenix had WORKED with Ford before playing his son so he got a chance to get to know him up close and personal a lot more than Alden did. Also since he played his son he’d already been cast because he bore some resemblance to him. River didn’t have to carry the whole film just a few short scenes. Alden did have to carry the whole film. Less scrutiny and less to do. They should have learned from Ewan McGregors casting as young Obi Wan. Imo it worked out better than this.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 4, 2018 8:56:02 GMT -5
They did it for The Last Crusade. River Phoenix was fine. But... that's a LOT younger. Having said what I did- I usually try not to criticize if I don't have a better alternative. Metallo shared a link to a guy who DID look like a young Harrison Ford, but I don't know if he would have been a good actor overall. Honestly can't think of any young actor who would fit the bill. Someone recommended the guy who was in Game of Thrones/ Nashville- Michael Huissman - but I don't know...he does bear a stronger resemblance if you ask me- but he's not in his 20's. I might have jumped forward and had Timothy Olyphant from "Justified" but he's at this point too old to play a 20-something Han. Actually that was ATP that posted that. It was a good impression but my fear with that guy was I wanted a good actor and not just a good mimic. For instances like this it usually has to be a lesser known or someone who is really really good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 20:15:10 GMT -5
Phoenix was a good actor at his age and even before last crusade I’d argue he’d been more impressive than Alden is now. I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but this is really the important part.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 5, 2018 8:25:59 GMT -5
Of course it is but to be fair in this situation any good actor would have been screwed. There were so many problems to contend with even ones beyond the film itself. You can have the best actor in the world giving a great performance but if the system around him fails he can’t save the movie. I thought Mark Strong was great as Sinestro in Green Lantern but he couldn’t save it. Even with leads we’ve see movies where the lead gave their all but it was meaningless in the end.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 7, 2018 1:15:27 GMT -5
Of course it is but to be fair in this situation any good actor would have been screwed. There were so many problems to contend with even ones beyond the film itself. You can have the best actor in the world giving a great performance but if the system around him fails he can’t save the movie. I thought Mark Strong was great as Sinestro in Green Lantern but he couldn’t save it. Even with leads we’ve see movies where the lead gave their all but it was meaningless in the end. In thinking more on 'Solo'--- it really ISN'T 'bad'.... but in a time that has built upon the original Star Wars and (arguably) has surpassed it in some ways- "Solo' to me is similar to 'John Carter' and 'Rocketeer'--- a solid enough movie, but just not that special or exceptional as a movie experience at this point. With everything all weighed out, having a dynamic lead could have balanced out some of the 'eh' material with their presence- but, I still feel that the movie as a whole felt more like a superficial setup for part two. At least with Last Jedi, significant things happened that concluded the storyline for a lot of characters. (Well, by killing them off, but still...)
|
|