Sign In

Han - Solo Movie ** Spoilers ** — Page 3

Author
Time

Haarspalter said:

So far i have zero interest in any of these upcoming Anthology movies.

 Rogue One is looking to be amazing. They've assembled a rogues gallery of veterans of gritty war films. Gareth Edwards is gunning to put the WAR back in Star Wars.

Help back SPACE COMMAND!

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

I'm sure there's already a book about it.

 and somebody is probably crying because the book is no longer canon

Author
Time

One of the better things about the prequels is that they didn't ruin Han Solo.  Hopefully this movie doesn't do that. 

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

You see, because it is a lone film rather than part of a trilogy, DominicCobb was making a little play on words.

Yes, but it should be dash (—) in that case, not hyphen (-).

 You are half right but mostly wrong. It was never a hyphen (and I almost said as much but I'm not into grammar correcting like some people [you] so I didn't), it was always a dash. In case you're unaware, there are two types of dashes, em dash and en dash. Em dash is longer but has no spaces like en dash. In case you still can't figure it out, I used the en dash.

Well technically you used hyphen. You can compare below.

hyphen (-)
en dash (–)
em dash (—)
the symbol you typed (-)

But don't worry we forgive you.

This post has been edited.

真実

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Disney has released edgier fare for decades under other studio labels, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, etc. (Who Framed Roger Rabbit? has always been a Touchstone film, even though Roger has a presence in the theme parks.)  They don't have to put the Disney label on the Star Wars films any more than they do Marvel.

However: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/disney-bans-smoking-in-all-future-films-including-star-wars-and-marvel-comics-10107312.html

If Plagueis shows up in the ST, not only will I refuse to watch the movies, but I won't so much as watch the trailers, either. - DuracellEnergizer

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Oh come on! Nobody is going to want to smoke because of these guys...

 Although now that you bring my attention to it, that intoxicating beverage in Snaggletooth's paws looks mighty refreshing!

Author
Time

darklordoftech said:

SilverWook said:

Disney has released edgier fare for decades under other studio labels, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, etc. (Who Framed Roger Rabbit? has always been a Touchstone film, even though Roger has a presence in the theme parks.)  They don't have to put the Disney label on the Star Wars films any more than they do Marvel.

However: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/disney-bans-smoking-in-all-future-films-including-star-wars-and-marvel-comics-10107312.html

 Waaaaaah!  My stogie!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAH!

Author
Time

It will be fun to see where they can go with it! They can go in any direction! 

Author
Time

Tobar said:

Haarspalter said:

So far i have zero interest in any of these upcoming Anthology movies.

 Rogue One is looking to be amazing. They've assembled a rogues gallery of veterans of gritty war films. Gareth Edwards is gunning to put the WAR back in Star Wars.

 As opposed to censoring scenes of violence from episode 5 and adding teddy bears and censoring scenes of violence in six hmmmm.

Sounds ok but they could just put any missing scenes of violence back in the original films too or at least show us any missing violence that was cut or how things were altered to make them more tame. now that ratings are more relaxed surely. Namely storm troopers being shot and people generally getting shot by the imperials. They managed to keep all the dismemberment though in the OT which probably was the reason more people did not get shot or killed.

Let's face it how else would you execute Lobot other than blowing his computer brains out :)

The Han screams censored whilst being tortured... The storm troopers without a voice.

Empire in workprint would have been R or 15 without any shadow of doubt and that is without swearing and it's also part of the reason it was re-cut because when ever there are scenes battling storm troopers the timeline goes to hell and there was also a whole gun fight that was deleted. It crept through at PG only just with cuts and alterations.

This post has been edited.

Author
Time

Teddy bears or not, the attempt to cook people alive in ROTJ beats pretty much everything in ESB in sense of violence aspect.

真実

Author
Time

I'm not so sure the people getting squashed under the AT-AT foot would have been pretty gruesome as it's got shock factor.

This scene you alude to is a bit of a slow burner :)

The Bunker scene in ROTJ was obviously cut to keep the kill count down. Because Star Wars had less dismemberment it meant that more people got shot and was passed.

This post has been edited.

Author
Time

Anthony Ingruber, or I'm not interested in seeing the movie. For real.

Author
Time

Ronster said:

I'm not so sure the people getting squashed under the AT-AT foot would have been pretty gruesome as it's got shock factor.

Ask yourself whether you would rather be squashed by AT-AT foot or being cooked alive by teddy bears and you will find the answer which one is more sick.

真実

Author
Time

I don't care if they recast, and I don't care if it's not rated "R."  All I ask is that it not "explain" the origins of anything.  If they simply make a movie about that time Han and Chewie were tricked into smuggling slaves in the Corporate Sector that one time, with no other connections to anything that happened before or since, I would be perfectly happy. 

Author
Time

KilroyMcFadden said:

...All I ask is that it not "explain" the origins of anything.

 From the article in the OP:

The story focuses on how young Han Solo became the smuggler, thief, and scoundrel whom Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi first encountered in the cantina at Mos Eisley.

There goes that, I'm afraid.

Ray’s Lounge
Biggs in ANH edit idea
ROTJ opening edit idea

Author
Time

ray_afraid said:

KilroyMcFadden said:

...All I ask is that it not "explain" the origins of anything.

 From the article in the OP:

The story focuses on how young Han Solo became the smuggler, thief, and scoundrel whom Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi first encountered in the cantina at Mos Eisley.

There goes that, I'm ray_afraid.

 WFTFY

Team Olie

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

We are Team_Cohort, for we aren't quite as many, but we are still lots.

-Team_Cohort

Author
Time

KilroyMcFadden said:

I don't care if it's not rated "R."  All I ask is that it not "explain" the origins of anything.

 Neither do I, I just prefer a film with a timeline that stays intact and not censored. Sex, violence or bad language is not a good reason to cut a film.

A good reason for cutting something is if it's just really exposition or does not work or it is making the film drag. This more than ever before is what we are getting from hum drum spin offs and reboots basing whole films on mindless exposition with a few good special effects shots thrown in for kicks.

Rather than as you say giving us a good story that does not need to connect the dot's constantly, and be one big throw back homage schlock.

When will they ever learn?

This post has been edited.

Author
Time

It almost seems natural that Ingruber would get the nod.

But to me, he's like a robot.  Full disclosure I have no idea his quality as an actor in his own right.  

However, if he does get the nod, Id actually prefer he tone it down a bit.  It's almost a caricature how spot on he is.  It would be too distracting.

I have this same issue when watching actors portraying a historical person.  I just sit there and think, "he's doing a great impression...but its not him".  That would totally take me out of the film. 

There is a danger in hiring a guy who does a great impression.

To the top