-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5740920]Okay, every negative review I read gave that as one of the reasons. But whatever.
My point would be recasting Ford for Indy would have the same bad, major impact on the Box Office.[/QUOTE]
I don't think recasting would doom it at the box office - but if it sadly did, then at least thankfully passing on the fedora and following some new character from now on would have just as disastrous an effect. I don't think anybody is interested in following someone else "taking up the mantle" or whatever.
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5740858]So why did people not go to it in numbers of other SW movies? Why did it flop?[/QUOTE]
So far as I can tell, it's because it went way over budget, so, even thought it seemed to sell tickets, they couldn't break even because of how deep in the red they were. It went way over budget because of an extremely troubled production. To be fair, you wouldn't guess from watching it that it was crudely chainsawed apart and duct-taped back together, but, on the other hand, it's as generic a sci-fi/action movie as you could find (really good cast in a weaksauce movie that isn't "bad," but never rises above "okay").
All things considered, I think [I]Solo[/I] is easily the worst of the Disney [I]Star Wars[/I] movies (it's certainly the only one that never really justifies its existence and seems like a story that the tie-ins would've been better suited to telling), so I'm not surprised that it's reputation is so low, but, seeing how the problem didn't seem to be getting butts into seats (as noted, it is fun and there is a place for cotton candy entertainment), I'm not sure why it flopped, if the budget problems aren't the only story.
-
Disney just over exposed Star Wars in films. They saw what they had with Marvel film universe and wanted the same exact type situation. They wanted a film or 2 each year with really , no thoughts on what made the 2-3 Marvel films work a year. How they were built and lead into different characters etc. Star Wars didn't have that same situation.
By a lot of accounts Solo was an ok film and many have praised it as a story. Its just as mentioned the troubled production and them having to bring in Ron Howard to salvage the film. At one point they had spent $50+ million before removing the prior director and getting Howard. So the film suffered from it.
-
[QUOTE=SUPERECWFAN1;5730503]Fresh off really over exposing Star Wars and ruining it for a lot of fans ; Disney's next plan is to ruin Indiana Jones next.
According to rumors Indy will pass the bullwhip and fedora to...his female assistant. As Disney hopes to create their version of Tomb Raider.
Its the most idiot move. When we folks go see Indiana Jones...we wanna see Indy. We don't go to watch Lara Croft. And the same holds true for us who watch and play Tomb Raider games/movies.
We wanna see Lara Croft. Same with Uncharted.
But it appears Disney doesn't understand it. They can recast Indy and give us a classic Indy vs Nazis film in 30s or 40s.
The 4th film really wasn't good. I'm not a fan of how it went. But...the franchise clearly ended with #4. So yeah ...not gonna watch.[/QUOTE]
Three things of note here;
1) Rumours. Presumably from one of those sites/YouTube channels that are always talking about SJW's and how "woke" things are when something casts someone that isn't a straight, white male.
2) Ruined? Crystal Skull. Nuff said.
3) On a personal note, I'd be all over this (in the highly unlikely event there's a grain of truth in it). Though I consider myself pretty liberal, in all honesty, my reasons for being pro-female casting are probably more shallow/superficial ones. Ultimately, I'd just always rather see a woman in a kick-ass action role than a bloke.
-
[QUOTE=Vworp Vworp;5741157]Three things of note here;
1) Rumours. Presumably from one of those sites/YouTube channels that are always talking about SJW's and how "woke" things are when something casts someone that isn't a straight, white male.
2) Ruined? Crystal Skull. Nuff said.
3) On a personal note, I'd be all over this (in the highly unlikely event there's a grain of truth in it). Though I consider myself pretty liberal, in all honesty, my reasons for being pro-female casting are probably more shallow/superficial ones. Ultimately, I'd just always rather see a woman in a kick-ass action role than a bloke.[/QUOTE]
- 1) CBR picked up the story and is running with it. The Daily Mail covered it 1st.
- 2) Yes its a terrible movie with bad decisions as we saw. It really should have closed the book on Ford's version of Indiana Jones and recast happen to tell classic stories.
- 3) Today Daniel Craiq has came out and said that he wants women to have just as good as roles as what James Bond is without having to change the male character. In a sense I get what Craiq means here. There should be strong written action roles for women and we have seen that with Hunger Games , Salt and latest film where Michael Keaton plays a villain and a female assassin is out to kill him.
Bond has changed so much a woman can work with it. You can make it work there as Bond itself has changed to fit the eras he's went through the last 6 decades. Here its Indiana Jones , he's a guy who hunts for sacred objects in the 1930's to 1950's , kicks Nazi ass and has these death defying moments at times. Trying to change the basics here is what hurt the last film as Indy got too far from the golden era.
Now ere going further from it , being way older past his prime and doing a legacy torch passing (that a majority will likely say f-ck this) . And I speak as someone who didn't want Indy's son or anyone to get some mantle here.
-
[QUOTE=SUPERECWFAN1;5741222]- 3) Today Daniel Craiq has came out and said that he wants women to have just as good as roles as what James Bond is without having to change the male character. In a sense I get what Craiq means here. There should be strong written action roles for women and we have seen that with Hunger Games , Salt and latest film where Michael Keaton plays a villain and a female assassin is out to kill him. [/QUOTE]
Pretty sure they won't, but I'd love it if they go the route of having the new 007 be as much an unreconstructed, drunk, rapey psychopath in fine clothes as Bond.
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5740920]Okay, every negative review I read gave that as one of the reasons. But whatever.
My point would be recasting Ford for Indy would have the same bad, major impact on the Box Office.[/QUOTE]
negative reviews harped on it sure...but they were harping on everything so not a great barometer for the general audience.
-
[QUOTE=Vworp Vworp;5741157]1) Rumours. Presumably from one of those sites/YouTube channels that are always talking about SJW's and how "woke" things are when something casts someone that isn't a straight, white male.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SUPERECWFAN1;5741222]The Daily Mail covered it 1st.[/QUOTE]
I rest my case.
-
Mangold has basically said "Don't believe the clickbait" on twitter.
-
But it's on the internet, twitter no less...how can it not be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p
-
[QUOTE=ed2962;5736155]Kennedy was involved in the original Indiana Jones movies back in the 80's as an associate producer ( and as a producer of dozens of other movies over the years that made money). It's fine to not like the new Star Wars films for whichever reason, but people need to stop acting like she's some Johnny Come Lately who forced her way into Lucasfilms cuz SJW agenda or whatever...[/QUOTE]
KK did not have authority over the movie back then, yes? Does she have authority now?
-
[QUOTE=SUPERECWFAN1;5741083] ...
By a lot of accounts Solo was an ok film and many have praised it as a story. Its just as mentioned the troubled production and them having to bring in Ron Howard to salvage the film. At one point they had spent $50+ million before removing the prior director and getting Howard. So the film suffered from it.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, [B][I]who[/I][/B] removed the 2 prior directors before Ron Howard was brought in to salvage the film? Name escapes me for some reason.
-
[QUOTE=GOLGO 13;5743008]I'm sorry, [B][I]who[/I][/B] removed the 2 prior directors before Ron Howard was brought in to salvage the film? Name escapes me for some reason.[/QUOTE]
The producers above them is my guess. In reading they didn't agree with the comedy/action vibe with film and wanted a more ...action film deal. So the 2 were pushed off. But I'd say it was people under Kennedy who saw the work started and didn't agree with it.
-
Hollywood is almost nothing but soulless remakes and reboots now. I'd rather Indiana Jones just not get any more movies and actual new ideas get made. We're not getting a true new Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Ghostbusters etc. because the imagination either just isn't there anymore it won't be cultivated.
But if it's made, a woman starring as the lead is not going to inherently ruin anything. it could still be bad, but not for [I]that[/I] reason. And if it's bad or becomes popular in its own right, it won't erase the originals anyway, so the internet doesn't need to freak out too much (but we know it will).
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5730665]This. I don't understand this either. It's like all the people wanting the heroes in comic books to age out and get legacies to replace them - I'm not interested in the next generation of Batman and Superman, I just want Bruce and Clark to keep on trucking as those guys should I live to see my 100th birthday, and that's still well over 6 decades away (I'm 34).[/QUOTE]
Eh. It's a subjective thing. Sure, I want Bruce and Clark, but on the other hand, I want Barry and Hal (not the Golden Age guys). Frankly, I've come to like Kamala as Ms. Marvel more than Carol (but I love that Carol is Capt.). Sometimes, legacies are good.