Page 3 of 8

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:25 pm
by Batgirl III
Just left the theater, it was an alright movie for the mostly part... But, holy hell, did the second to last and third to last scenes just plain piss me off. I was prepared to call this a solid 4 outta 5. But, noooo, they gotta go and ruin the whole thing in the last five minutes of runtime.

Can we post spoilers on this thread? It’s hard to complain about exactly what irked me without spoiling the ending.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:48 pm
by Ares
Feel free, I figure its been long enough to allow spoilers.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:49 am
by Batgirl III
Batgirl III wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:25 pm
Can we post spoilers on this thread? It’s hard to complain about exactly what irked me without spoiling the ending.
Ares wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:48 pm
Feel free, I figure its been long enough to allow spoilers.
Why the fuck is Darth Maul in this movie!?

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:34 pm
by Woodclaw
Batgirl III wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:49 am
Batgirl III wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:25 pm
Can we post spoilers on this thread? It’s hard to complain about exactly what irked me without spoiling the ending.
Ares wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:48 pm
Feel free, I figure its been long enough to allow spoilers.
Why the fuck is Darth Maul in this movie!?
Because Rebels, I surmise.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:34 pm
by Ares
It actually looks like they're sticking with the idea of the Clone Wars and REBELS cartoons being cannon for the new Star Wars films. The Clone Wars cartoon revealed that Darth Maul had survived and was now a cyborg from the waist down. In REBELS, Maul had fallen from grace and was alone, eventually dying at Obi-Wan's hands.

Solo seems to take place in a time between the end of the Clone Wars and before REBELS, where Maul was just sort of doing his own thing and apparently rose to power within a crime syndicate. He's even using the same style lightsaber he does in REBELS.

More practically, Maul was the most popular thing about The Phantom Menace, and many felt his potential was wasted, so it makes sense Clone Wars and REBELS brought him back, and that the movies would want to use him.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:11 pm
by Ken
So... How the f--- did Darth Maul survive being bisected through the gut AND the sudden stop at the bottom of the reactor chamber thing he fell down?

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:17 pm
by Ares
First off:

Stop that, both of you.

Secondly, this video explains most of it

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:05 pm
by Batgirl III
That addresses the narrative “how” and the commercial “why,” but it doesn’t explain the narritive “why.”

What purpose does Maul’s addition serve in the story of Solo as a film? Absolutely none.

What purpose does Maul’s addition to Solo serve the franchise as a whole? Absolutely none... except to render death absolutely meaningless. It no longer matters if you die in one of these films: sell enough merchandise and you get to come back for the sequel. The precedent was set with Boba Fett, but Maul finally brings it to the canonical films.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:27 pm
by Ken
I didn't really get the how either. Just "he used his hate to survive".

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:46 pm
by Ares
To clarify, the "Stop that, both of you" was with regards to the oversized red text. Like a few other message boards that's my default "Moderator Voice" color, and would prefer no one else use it.

Secondly, as for how Maul survived, the Dark Side of the Force feeds on negative emotions, granting power often at the cost of sanity and usually shaving years off of one's life. In several instances, a Dark Side user has been able to use negative emotions like anger or hate to prolong their lives when they should have died. Darth Vader, for instance, would have died when he took that little dip in the lava, but his hatred allowed the Dark Side of the Force to sustain him long enough for the Emperor to have cybernetics installed to replace his limbs, lungs, and other damaged/missing bits of anatomy. In a similar way, Maul's anger and hate kept him dying via going into shock, while the lightsaber injury cauterized his wounds so he didn't bleed out. So his anger and hate allowed the Dark Side to preserve his life long enough for him to jury rig some cybernetic replacements.

As to why he's in the movie, it's because during the Clone Wars series, Maul had established himself as a power in the Star Wars criminal underworld, and apparently created his own syndicate. Having Maul as the crime boss brings back someone the fans are familiar with who can logically be involved in the crime side of things. And hey, it's possible Han will never personally encounter Maul, since Han was skeptical about the Force to begin with. A direct encounter with someone like Maul would make that hard to dispute.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:29 pm
by Batgirl III
It would have been a perfectly enjoyable sci-fi heist flick, even with the lame twist that the evil pirate they’d been crossing paths with the whole time was shocking twist a cute girl who was really a freedom fighter...

But, no, it has to be tied directly to the gorram space-wizard plot. Everything in the entire Star Wars franchise must revolve around Luke’s Daddy Issues and/or Anakin’s Oedipal Complex. Everything.

Even if we set aside the cavernous plot hole of Maul being alive despite clearly having been killed on screen in his only other appearance, Maul’s presence calls into question almost every other part of the plot in Solo and other films...

The Train Job: Tobias Beckett and his crew were hired by Crimson Dawn to steal hyper-fuel from the Empire. Seems a straightforward bit of criminality... Except Beckett’s crew is working for a man who work’s for the Emperor. Directly. What’s the point in stealing hyper-fuel from the Empire in order to give it back to the Empire?

Val Beckett’s Death: Dying on camera doesn’t mean you’re dead. So when does Val come back? Maul got chopped in two and thrown down a bottomless pit into a reactor. Val just got set on fire and thrown into a deep canyon.

L3-37’s Death: Dying on camera doesn’t mean you’re dead. So when does L3 come back? She’s a droid, it certainly must be easier to repair her than sew Mail back together.

Snoke’s Death: Chopped in half and not even thrown down a bottomless pit!

Palpatine’s Death: Merely thrown down a bottomless pit. He wasn’t chopped in half. Hell, he still had both of his arms attached!

Padme’s Death: Have I made my point yet?


Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:03 pm
by Ares
Maul no longer works for the Emperor. He's considered a failed apprentice that the Emperor abandoned, and whom the Emperor has since tried to kill. Maul is effectively his own master at the moment.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:50 pm
by Ares
Batgirl III wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:29 pm
But, no, it has to be tied directly to the gorram space-wizard plot. Everything in the entire Star Wars franchise must revolve around Luke’s Daddy Issues and/or Anakin’s Oedipal Complex. Everything.
Yep. Just like half of the MCU films can be summed up as "Arrogant person learns some degree of humility and then beats up a bad guy". Or how most of the movies revolve around the Stark family, or Tony Stark's daddy/mommy issues. Except when it's about Thor, Loki, Starlord and Gammora's daddy/mommy issues. Or how those Infinity Gems are just everywhere and responsible for most of the events in the films.

It's almost like the statements you're making involve a lot of disingenuous double standards (some of which are demonstrably untrue) that come off as either hypocritical or very, very dumb.

:roll:

We get it BG. You don't like Star Wars. You don't like the Force, you don't like the Jedi, the Sith Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker. You dislike the setting for most of the things that make it popular. You dislike the setting for most of the reasons that set it apart from other sci-fi settings. You have beaten the dead horse with another dead horse until both horses are so maxi-extreme-super-dog-double dead that they spin back around and come back to life.

But hey. You do you, boo.

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:26 pm
by Jabroniville
Damn, I haven't seen you get like that since I compared Avengers: EMH's Pym to Jesus one too many times, Ares :).

Re: Solo: A Star Wars movie

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:32 pm
by Batgirl III
It’s not that I dislike those things, Ares. I dislike there overuse. I’m perfectly willing to call out the MCU when they recycle elements, too. But they’re not as egregious about it as Star Wars.