Han Solo Will Return

[Jack Napier]

Originally Posted by Gianakin_

Speak for yourself, please.

It's true. People want to see Han "I know" Solo. They don't want to see him mushy and gooey. Nerf herder!

And I'm sure she'll be fine, but I feel bad for Fisher, no matter how much weight she loses. Fanboys remember her fondly in that gold bikini.

[BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by Gianakin_

Only Ford was amazing as Indy in Crystal Skull. The acting was the least of that movie's problems.

He was good in the movie, but it was kind of depressing seeing the image of cool as an old man. It'd be like seeing an elderly James Bond. The biggest problem with Crystal Skull imo was the audience however. People talk about how bad it was but it really wasn't any worse than Temple of Doom, and the stupid campy moments have been around the whole franchize. Not to mention Shia and elderly marian were much less annoying than the blonde girl and Short Round. Short Round and Jar Jar Binks are in a toss up for most annoying racist supporting characters of all time. Being said there are certainly a good number of people concerned over elderly Han, I mean he's not "passing the torch" in the way many have speculated elderly Luke could so it has brought some mixed feelings.

[Jack Napier]

I think the only person on their A game in Crystal Skull was Harrison Ford. Spielberg, Lucas, Koepp, even John Williams, all kind of stumbling as filmmakers there.

I also feel Indy 4 had to be better than great for audiences to embrace it. It came off the heels of Last Crusade. At least with Episode VII, we've had the prequels to set our expectations.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by BenKenobi

He was good in the movie, but it was kind of depressing seeing the image of cool as an old man. It'd be like seeing an elderly James Bond. The biggest problem with Crystal Skull imo was the audience however. People talk about how bad it was but it really wasn't any worse than Temple of Doom, and the stupid campy moments have been around the whole franchize. Not to mention Shia and elderly marian were much less annoying than the blonde girl and Short Round. Short Round and Jar Jar Binks are in a toss up for most annoying racist supporting characters of all time. Being said there are certainly a good number of people concerned over elderly Han, I mean he's not "passing the torch" in the way many have speculated elderly Luke could so it has brought some mixed feelings.

I'm a huge Temple of Doom supporter and Crystal Skull by far is worst than that. And as an Asian-American, dude, Short Round was my hero as a kid, so I don't see how racism at all. Guess what? His moments with Indy were more heart felt and genuine than anything with Mutt and Indy. Plus Harrison Ford was in the best shape in his life in 'Doom'.

Regardless, I haven't met anyone who's liked 'Crystal Skull'. At least 'Doom' has its supporters. In fact, my cousin forgot that 'Skull' existed. Seriously.

My point:

Long live Temple of Doom. Burn, Crystal Skull burn.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

I think the only person on their A game in Crystal Skull was Harrison Ford. Spielberg, Lucas, Koepp, even John Williams, all kind of stumbling as filmmakers there.

I also feel Indy 4 had to be better than great for audiences to embrace it. It came off the heels of Last Crusade. At least with Episode VII, we've had the prequels to set our expectations.

I agree.

And Temple of Doom was okay. There are one or two parts worth remembering for me, other than that I always skip that one. That said it is more memorale than Crystal Skull. 1 & 3 are fantastic though. Feel like I am watching a serious and adult movie yet it's still fun. I don't know how Ebert could rate Doom higher than Last Crusade though. That baffles me.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

It's true. People want to see Han "I know" Solo. They don't want to see him mushy and gooey. Nerf herder!

And I'm sure she'll be fine, but I feel bad for Fisher, no matter how much weight she loses. Fanboys remember her fondly in that gold bikini.

I just hope JJ and Arndt won't write Han as a character who has to remind the audience he's old. I mean I think there are thematic ways to show his age (maybe he misses the old days; think of 'Wrath of Khan') rather then saying "I'm getting too old for this poo".

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

I agree.

And Temple of Doom was okay. There are one or two parts worth remembering for me, other than that I always skip that one. That said it is more memorale than Crystal Skull. 1 & 3 are fantastic though. Feel like I am watching a serious and adult movie yet it's still fun. I don't know how Ebert could rate Doom higher than Last Crusade though. That baffles me.

I like them all in general. Even if Temple isn't your cup of tea, I think there are visually iconic moments in the film. Like the heart scene, the bridge battle, and the mine cart chase. Of course, there's 'Prepare to meet Kali..in Hell'. And if you want to include the gross 'bug/snake' dinner scene, why not?

The only thing people talk about with 'Skull' are the worst scenes: Nuke the Fridge, and Shia with Monkeys. As campy as all of the movies are, I think 'Shia with Monkeys' really really pushed it. Awful scene.

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by Nerial

I just don't understand the love/devotion to these actors who aren't even that good. Harrison Ford is the best of them, but Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher aren't exactly winning Oscars, and there are so many better (and younger) actors out there who would be great in these parts and would do a better job than the original trio.

But they are the characters. Arnie isn't a good actor but he IS the T-800. There are some instances where the actor and the role are 100% connected.

So we really want the old cast back--for what? So we can see a version of characters we love in their 60's and 70's just so the actors can reprise the roles?

Yes. If the story calls for those characters to be there, then it is only logical to get the original actors.

They barely resemble the characters they played thirty years ago,

Something called life and ageing.

At best, we'll get a story where the original trio play the roles of spiritual guides to a younger group, instead of what we could have, which is a movie where Luke, Han and Leia come back as the main heroes.

We had 3 movies of that. SW should expand and evolve. You indirectly accuse people of nostalgia, but you're doing the same. Most of us are more than ready to move on from the characters, it's just that it would be nice if the last we see of them is via the actors who brought them to life in the 1st place.

Trekkies let go of Shatner for the 2009 Star Trek movie...why can't we let go of the original trio for a new Star Wars sequel?

Because there was time travel involved and they wanted to do a sort of reboot for the franchise. That made sense. This is going to be "only" a sequel, not a reboot/sequel/prequel like ST09. And even for that they got Nimoy for a role slightly bigger than a cameo.

[Octoberist]

Mark and Carrie did fine as Luke and Leia. With Luke there was enough warmth and nobility that made him interesting and not boring. Fisher made Leia a very strong female-type that we kinda lack even today.

I think their likeness as these characters, along with their iconography, are different from Star Trek because, let's face it, Star Wars is an anomaly.

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by Nerial

And Batman or any other iconic character would make a good example of my point, not just ST--it's not the actors that are fundamental to the universe, it's the characters.

Had you said James Bond, it would've made 0.01% more sense. The Bat-universe that started with Keaton and ended with Clooney was episodic. BF was a soft reboot/sequel, yes, but even then you have 3 different actors playing the same character in 4 movies. The TDK trilogy was a total reboot and a tied trilogy. Tell me that replacing Bale in TDKR wouldn't have been a mistake. Heck, people complained about Katie being replaced with Maggie.

But still, Bond. Bond is the epitome of an episodic franchise, even if some movies are interconnected (like Dr. No and FRWL, or the Craig trilogy). SW is one big, coherent (for the most part) universe and to replace the original actors for any reason other than death or unwillingness or disability to reprise their part is asinine, imo.

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

It's true. People want to see Han "I know" Solo. They don't want to see him mushy and gooey. Nerf herder!

Again, speak for yourself please. Whether you're an internet fan or a Disney exec in marketing, you shouldn't generalize. There are many people who want to see Han's arc continue and conclude.

And I'm sure she'll be fine, but I feel bad for Fisher, no matter how much weight she loses. Fanboys remember her fondly in that gold bikini.

Feel bad 'cause she had drug and drinking problems, not because a bunch of fanboys can no longer fap to her.

That doesn't necesserily go to you, but: Why do people act as if those actors will play 30-year-old characters? Everyone will play the versions of Luke, Han and Leia where they're older. Same goes for Arnold as Conan. If you don't want to see the characters at that age, that's fine, but don't act as if Disney announced that Ep7 will be set 5 years post-RotJ and Mark, Harrison and Carrie will play them.

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Regardless, I haven't met anyone who's liked 'Crystal Skull'.

Pst. And there are (many) others. Indy 4 isn't as "hated" as the PT.

[Octoberist]

Yeah, that's why I'm skeptical of a young Han spinoff because we all love Han because of Ford. It's his nuances and unique 'everyman' qualities that made him special, and I think most of his 'ruggedness' came from his background in carpentry/construction.

Look at Chris Pine. I like the guy but he lacks what Ford has because Pine looks too handsome that it's unsettling. That and he's only a few notch from being generic. Lukily he had very strong scenes in Star Trek that made me like him in the long run. Also: That's why people are drawn to Karl Urban as McCoy more; he's manly but relatable.

[Octoberist]

Remember this: When Jodie Foster didn't come back for 'Hannibal', it totally changed the dynamic of the film between Julianne Mooore and Hopkins. The history between the two felt false now.

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Yeah, that's why I'm skeptical of a young Han spinoff because we all love Han because of Ford. It's his nuances and unique 'everyman' qualities that made him special, and I think most of his 'ruggedness' came from his background in carpentry/construction.

Look at Chris Pine. I like the guy but he lacks what Ford has because Pine looks too handsome that it's unsettling. That and he's only a few notch from being generic. Lukily he had very strong scenes in Star Trek that made me like him in the long run. Also: That's why people are drawn to Karl Urban as McCoy more; he's manly but relatable.

I think that's the very reason Pine works as Kirk. He comes off as narcissistic, which was what Shatner (and his ego) did in ToS, which (let's face it) made Kirk the character he is.

Solo is a different beast altogether. He was always cocky and a daredevil, but (even in ESB) rarely sexually... radiant.

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Remember this: When Jodie Foster didn't come back for 'Hannibal', it totally changed the dynamic of the film between Julianne Mooore and Hopkins. The history between the two felt false now.

It's true. There are many who didn't feel Rachel's purpose and gravity in TDK (and I'm tlaking about her fans, not the character's detractors) because it wasn't Katie.

[Octoberist]

Yeah, Ford just made Han..Han. Any other actor with the same script would've create a whole different character. Ford's cockiness was wide ranged and it worked for Han; his two most subtle but cocky moments defined him as a character: Han shooting first, and 'I know'.

[Gianakin_]

And, won't you look at that, "I know" is the moment where the character becomes selfless and *gasp* mushy! Bad Han for loving a girl!

[Octoberist]

He was mushy in his own way. That's a defining moment.

[Gianakin_]

Yup.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

I like them all in general. Even if Temple isn't your cup of tea, I think there are visually iconic moments in the film. Like the heart scene, the bridge battle, and the mine cart chase. Of course, there's 'Prepare to meet Kali..in Hell'. And if you want to include the gross 'bug/snake' dinner scene, why not?

The only thing people talk about with 'Skull' are the worst scenes: Nuke the Fridge, and Shia with Monkeys. As campy as all of the movies are, I think 'Shia with Monkeys' really really pushed it. Awful scene.

That's exactly why I say there are definitely a few parts worth remembering for me about Temple of Doom, you just named most of them haha. Even tho it is somewaht just...saidstic. Just scenes of torture with no joy...kinda hard to watch, IMO. But I sure as **** didn't forget it lol!!

And I am right there with ya with Crystal Skull. And the ants. Yes, can't forget the ants. And those scenes weren't "bad" in the way like Temple, IMO, they were like "bad" in the way that "oh, this is silly". Temple was like "holy **** what the **** did I just watch?" for me, lol. I think Harrison was the only one who was "on" in Crystal Skull. There were some moments I enjoyed though like Indy in the diner and the fight there...for some reason (even though I detested Shia Labeouf's casting). Other than that I feel like Spielberg is trying his best to imitate himeslf, like "Is this what I'd have done in 1980? It's so tonally different from Raiders and Crusade, IMO. I feel like it's "goody" too. Raiders had a more serious adult tone to it, IMO. There was fear in it. Even Last Crusade maintains this.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Yeah, Ford just made Han..Han. Any other actor with the same script would've create a whole different character. Ford's cockiness was wide ranged and it worked for Han; his two most subtle but cocky moments defined him as a character: Han shooting first, and 'I know'.

[Jack Napier]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

I just hope JJ and Arndt won't write Han as a character who has to remind the audience he's old. I mean I think there are thematic ways to show his age (maybe he misses the old days; think of 'Wrath of Khan') rather then saying "I'm getting too old for this poo".

I think it's a natural fear everyone has when a beloved character comes back. Is it going to be an "I'm too old for this" scenario? Abrams won't let it happen.

[Jack Napier]

Originally Posted by Gianakin_

Again, speak for yourself please. Whether you're an internet fan or a Disney exec in marketing, you shouldn't generalize. There are many people who want to see Han's arc continue and conclude.



Feel bad 'cause she had drug and drinking problems, not because a bunch of fanboys can no longer fap to her.

That doesn't necesserily go to you, but: Why do people act as if those actors will play 30-year-old characters? Everyone will play the versions of Luke, Han and Leia where they're older. Same goes for Arnold as Conan. If you don't want to see the characters at that age, that's fine, but don't act as if Disney announced that Ep7 will be set 5 years post-RotJ and Mark, Harrison and Carrie will play them.

They want to see his arc continue as a cocky smuggler. I don't feel I'm generalizing when I say that is what makes him different from other heroes in the past 30 years. It's also why I'm against any sort of standalone film with a younger actor: no one does comes close to being as charismatic as Harrison Ford playing arrogant as Han Solo. Make him advance as a character, of course. But the less chivalrous he is, the more generic he becomes.

As for Carrie Fisher, I don't expect her to live up to the body she had when she was in her 20's. I feel bad that those expectations are being thrust upon her. Gravity, folks: it catches up to us all.

[Octoberist]

That's the thing about Han's portrayal in Return of the Jedi that was off-putting*; he was smushy. Then again, it could've been the writing. Lucas and Kasdan didn't know if he was going to come back so they were writing the script till the first day of shooting. Maybe that's why it doesn't feel as polished as 'Empire'. That, and Lucas had a LOT more input this time around than with 'Empire'.

Anyway: While he had a few funny lines and there, Han was sidelined. His arc was over with Jabba and now he's just with the Rebels. He didn't have a lot to do. Hell, he didn't fly the Falcon nor even ride any Speeder Bikes. But he was humped by an Ewok, that's for sure!

I just hope that JJ and Arndt sees that, and maybe work up the sly rogue magic Han had in the first two movies but keep him mature enough to be Leia's man and father. I think he'll be the toughest OT character to write for, because you don't want him to be the old grump (I'm on vacation!) nor do you want him to wink at the audience either (like a shell of his former self; think of Jack Sparrow in the Pirate sequels including 4 and forced Johnny's performance was)



*I like Return of the Jedi so I'm not bashing it. It's the weakest of the OT, but it has great moments despite it's unevenness. That, who can deny the cultural impact of Slave Leia and 'It's a Trap'.