Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

[RD1973]

Free Codes:

PYCFTUL4R4Q
3VTAZ968569

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by SpaceMind

I thought the people complaining about how low the audio is were being a little oversensitive. However, after throwing the disc in last night, the audio level is SO MUCH LOWER than I would anticipate as low. Everyone will need to remember to turn their volume down after watching so they don't destroy their speakers when they watch their next movie.

Yep, and just think if Disney has no intervention by the feds even more properties by fox will get crap audio as well!

[scraptor]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Most conventional theaters weren't displaying it properly to begin with.

I've heard that excuse a lot, but after this home video release it's pretty obvious that the murky contrast was intentional on the part of Bradford Young. I don't know why Ron Howard agreed to it but it is an incredible nuisance in an otherwise very good movie.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by scraptor

I've heard that excuse a lot, but after this home video release it's pretty obvious that the murky contrast was intentional on the part of Bradford Young. I don't know why Ron Howard agreed to it but it is an incredible nuisance in an otherwise very good movie.

The look of the movie is fine, if you’re watching it on a subpar theater screen it’ll obviously look darker and murkier than its supposed to. I’ve seen it in Dolby Cinema and now several times on BD and even on my iPad; never once did I ever have any trouble seeing things in the movie.

[Vandal Savage]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

The look of the movie is fine, if you’re watching it on a subpar theater screen it’ll obviously look darker and murkier than its supposed to. I’ve seen it in Dolby Cinema and now several times on BD and even on my iPad; never once did I ever have any trouble seeing things in the movie.

I saw it on IMAX, so I would assume it was projected at the proper brightness.

But the blu-ray does look better to me.

One factor, I think, might be the size of the screen. Our home screens are smaller and take up less of our field of vision, and our eyes don’t wander around so much as they do on a 20 foot tall screen, especially in the darker and monochromatic scenes.

[ROSS.T.G.]

I can see how folks with poor contrast displays will find this murky. I actually enjoyed the UHD.

[scraptor]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I can see how folks with poor contrast displays will find this murky. I actually enjoyed the UHD.

I saw it at a modern theater that had received so many complaints about it being so dark that they checked all their equipment, recalibrated it, put in a new bulb, etc etc... and it came out exactly the same.

I waited for the blu-ray release... still no improvement.

It's one of the most poorly-lit movies I've ever seen. In so many scenes it is a struggle to read the characters' expressions.

Among many other critics, Stephanie Zacharek of Time made note of it:

the first two-thirds of the picture look dim and murky, as if it had been shot through a scrim of dust motes. Since these movies are so dependent on digital enhancement, it’s hard to know whom to blame for that: Cinematographer Bradford Young has shot some gorgeous-looking movies, like the somewhat naturalistic space-visitor picture Arrival. Maybe the whole thing is just an elaborate public-service announcement for glaucoma testing.

And this review makes similar notes in his 4K QLED home theater viewing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#3788af126670

Either all of us have had crappy projections and bad screens, or the murk was an intentional choice by the filmmakers that really hampered an otherwise beautiful-looking movie.

[Martoto]

I think this film looks fine.

A film where the photography makes it hard or impossible to make out or distinguish objects and details within the frame which are required in order to follow the story or for emotion and information to be conveyed - that's one where I'd be happy to call "murky".

But Solo is certainly not that movie. At least it's not for me watching it at home.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by scraptor

I saw it at a modern theater that had received so many complaints about it being so dark that they checked all their equipment, recalibrated it, put in a new bulb, etc etc... and it came out exactly the same.

I waited for the blu-ray release... still no improvement.

It's one of the most poorly-lit movies I've ever seen. In so many scenes it is a struggle to read the characters' expressions.

Among many other critics, Stephanie Zacharek of Time made note of it:



And this review makes similar notes in his 4K QLED home theater viewing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#3788af126670

Either all of us have had crappy projections and bad screens, or the murk was an intentional choice by the filmmakers that really hampered an otherwise beautiful-looking movie.

I just didn’t see it that way. Sure I found it darker but never struggled to see details. I watched in my light controlled room.

[StingingVelvet]

It's a dark movie but I never had an issue seeing what I was supposed to see. I think people either exaggerate or have poor vision. And I was watching the UHD, which is supposedly darker (and more accurate to the theater look) than the BD.

[HarcourtMudd]

Originally Posted by SpaceMind

I thought the people complaining about how low the audio is were being a little oversensitive. However, after throwing the disc in last night, the audio level is SO MUCH LOWER than I would anticipate as low. Everyone will need to remember to turn their volume down after watching so they don't destroy their speakers when they watch their next movie.

The problem is, it is not just the volume level (as you say, that can be fixed). As with all of Disney's home sound mixes anymore, the dynamic range has been majorly borked with, and that cannot be fixed anywhere other than in the mastering stage...

[s2mikey]

Posted this over in the 3D thread since that’s the version I have. Just a review.

Felt pretty much by the numbers to me. It was clear they were making sure to nail the wink-wink moments that the fans expected to see. Some people and places were mentioned that surely triggered a "hey, I remember that from so and so Star Wars movie". They of course had to do this and some of it was cool. But, I didn’t make the movie overall any better.

I don’t feel we know anymore about Han than we did before though. He was just.... a guy on the edge of society trying to make his way and go rescue Kira. Sort of. I dunno. I never bought into their relationship and there wasn’t much of a sense of urgency. The Chewbacca hookup, while nostalgic and fun didn’t resonate that much ether. Why? I dunno, I always felt that Chewbacca was extremely devoted to Han and expected more from those scenes as to why. I get that Han somewhat rescued Chewie from that dungeon but...I dunno.... wasn’t enough there. But, it’s was still cool seeing them together.

Lando was great and probably stole the show. I DID feel like I was watching a young Lando here. Props to Glover and the writing team for this character. Alden was OK as Han but I didn’t get that "this is a young Han Solo" feeling completely. Most of the other characters were throw away or just didn’t matter. Woody Harrelson was OK in his role but we didn’t learn much about him so it was hard to care. The twists or plot reveals were either telegraphed or didn’t hit very hard. I enjoyed the sabbac games and the acquisition of the Falcon. Probably the best parts of the film.

The action scenes were solid but did get tiresome after a while. Not enough was at stake and this is where better character development would help a lot. We know Han lives and so does Chewie. The train heist scenes we well done and cool, I’ll give them that. Some of the rest were just.... well....standard action scenes. Nothing memorable.

I’ll probably give this a second watch as I always do with new films but it’s borderline whether I’ll watch it when we watch the entire SW saga. It really isn’t necessary since Han gets a full arc in the films as it is. And there isn’t anything in Solo that really means much to any of the other films. It’s all just paying homage to the fans, really. I understand that Rogue One isn’t "necessary" either but that movie feels more intertwined with the SW films and matters more to me. RO has a much stronger story behind it, IMO. So, one more viewing but it may get sold. We shall see.

[Show spoiler]The Darth Maul thing was just stupid. I’m growing weary of characters being dead....but then they aren’t dead and just show up at some convenient time. No need for it. Face it, they(George)screwed up killing Maul in the phantom menace. I get it, I wanted him to be the main villain through the whole prequel series too. But you don’t have him magically appear in Solo because he *somehow* survived being sliced in HALF. That’s such nonsense and hokey. If thenforce is that powerful then no Jedi would ever die and we should see mace windu returning soon....right? And Kenobi, and every other Jedi that’s ever "died". It’s lame.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by HarcourtMudd

The problem is, it is not just the volume level (as you say, that can be fixed). As with all of Disney's home sound mixes anymore, the dynamic range has been majorly borked with, and that cannot be fixed anywhere other than in the mastering stage...

Disney movies are now borderline unwatchable to me. Without decent audio I'm just completely disengaged. Not necessarily "loud" audio - just solid, believable, realistic audio.

Is there nothing us mere consumers can do about it?! This is where The Digital Bits should throw it's clout around, surely?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Is there nothing us mere consumers can do about it?! This is where The Digital Bits should throw it's clout around, surely?

It's a purposeful decision on their part to lower the dynamic range, reportedly after getting many consumer complaints about "loud" movies. Only way to change their mind I would guess is if they get more complaints about flat audio than they ever did about dynamic audio. Even then the wheels on the corporate bus move slowly.

I do think they're trying to find a compromise. The Avengers UHDs and Solo are much better with the audio than Black Panther and Ultron's BD were.

[BluVinyl]

I never saw it in the theater, blind bought the BD on a Amazon UK preorder and thought the picture looked fine. Enjoyed the movie a lot on its own terms, but I didn't think it really added anything to the SW story. So you got to see how Hans started and first met Chewie, but you don't see the years of them bonding to how in sync they are by New Hope, which I don't think one movie could have done. Although I really like Rogue One and thought it added to the saga, I am skeptical I will feel the same about any of the extra stories planned.

[slaizer2000]

Interesting watch. Use of AI to digitally insert a young harrison ford's face in place of the actors face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANXu...ature=youtu.be

[imsounoriginal]

All that does is emphasize how well-cast Alden was.

[Tim Glover]

Just rented Solo from Redbox (BD) and Holy Crap the first scene nearly blew my sub. I had it normal level. I mean WOW. So turned it down and after that it was fine.

Anyone else experience this?

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Re-posting from the Movie thread on this board:

Saw Solo on Blu-ray a couple of days ago. This was my first time seeing the film. Wow. This movie was incredible! Screw the bad reviews. This is not only one of the best films I've ever seen, but has become my third favorite SW film ever (behind ESB & Rouge One). This definitely brought to mind the OT films/era. I will definitely want to see this again soon to fully appreciate this; like all the SW films, I'm sure my appreciation will grow with each subsequent viewing.

Here is my review. Note that there are SPOILERS below:

-The casting was fine. I wasn't expecting the actor who played the young Han Solo to be able to fill Harrison Ford's shoes, and he didn't - but, let's be honest, no one can. However, he was solid in the role, and convincingly portrayed someone who had a hard life growing up on the streets of Corellia, been through a lot (fighting as an Imperial), was somewhat cynical - but was still a good person at his core. I liked the fact that the actor didn't try to "mimic" Ford, which would have just felt artificial.

-I also felt the casting of a young Lando Calrissian was solid as well.

-The "relationship" between Lando & L3-37 was...slightly amusing in a way & poignant in another. It was interesting that L3 mentioned that Lando "liked" her, but she didn't want to get involved because it wouldn't work out - LOL. I also may have been reading too much into this, but there did still appear to be "something" between them; what that was exactly wasn't really clear (nor would I want to know anyway - LOL). It could have just been that Lando had become emotionally dependent on her due to their close proximity on the ship & re: their working together; she had also probably saved his life at some point(s) in the past, etc. In any case, as with the robots in the OT, they really humanized "her" to a great extent so that when she was destroyed, you really felt like a person had "died". Well-done.

-From start to finish, the movie kept my interest, and never dragged.

-Moloch was a bizarre looking alien, and had a small - but significant - role in the beginning; I didn't think he was a throw-away character like some were making him out to be. He also seemed to speak a form of Huttese, which was a homage to the OT.

-The centipede/slug gangster creature Lady Proxima was one of the most grotesque, disgusting SW aliens in any of the films - and I say this as a compliment. Well-done!

-Rio Durant was another great character; liked the 4 arms, which may have been awkward-looking but due to the great CGI was smoothly done here.

-I liked seeing the bustling streets of Corellia & the landspeeder chase; the train battle/sequence (it was cool how the Imperial Troops had magnetized boots so they could stand on the train without falling off, etc.); the Sabacc game(s), etc.

-Enfys Nest was a great character with a fantastic speeder; very creative costume design/mask. And, it was nice that she finally took off her mask - which humanized the character to a great extent.

-I liked how the chess holograms from ANH made their way into Solo as well; also, I think there were at least a couple that hadn't been in ANH - nice.

-The "reveal" of the leader of Crimson Dawn was interesting. I was not expecting to see Darth Maul, since he should be dead (given that he was bisected in Episode 1). However, IIRC the character came back to life at some point in the comics, so I guess that's where they took that from. In any case, great to see the character again.

-The plethora of new creatures, droids, and cool uniformed characters were fascinating - this was especially pronounced re: the crowds surrounding the two Sabaac game scenes, but they were also interspersed in many other sequences throughout the film. The Ape-like Wookie?! that Chewie briefly befriended was especially cool looking. I was also extremely impressed by the new tech, including the AT-DP, the briefly seen Imperial Trooper Patrol Bike w/Trooper, Han Solo's blue Landspeeder, etc.

-Nice to see Chewie & Han meeting for the first time; I remember reading "The Wookie Storybook" years ago, which had 1-2 pages discussing Han freeing Chewie from the Imperials - and that's how they met. I know they modified the original story somewhat for the film, but it was the same idea.

-It was clever that Han anticipated Tobias Beckett's double-crossing him, and acted accordingly.

-I liked how the Sabacc game came full circle at the end. I.e., when Han & Lando first played Sabacc, Lando cheated (by literally having a card up his sleeve) and won, when Han should have won. However, at the end, when Han confronted Lando on that jungle planet (for abandoning them) & noticed the "hidden" card, he surreptitiously took it away, so Lando couldn't use it to cheat at the end...which resulted in Han winning the Falcon

Side-note about Sabacc: Years ago, I remember reading an SW Expanded Universe book (possibly the Han Solo/Brian Daley novel(s) Sourcebook by West End Games) which mentioned that the reason Sabacc is so difficult to play & win is that the cards have digital images imprinted on them, and the image is constantly changing - so, though you may think you have a winning card, the image may change a second later & you won't anymore; i.e., the only image that meant anything was the one that was imprinted on the card once you revealed the cards at the end, by putting them down on the table. However, they obviously discarded this "EU" version of Sabacc because it would have been to complicated to depict on screen & opted instead to have this be a more traditional card game - which was the best approach to take.

In closing, instead of this just being a by-the-numbers fill-in "origin" movie about Han Solo's youth/beginnings, this was an amazing, visually stunning film with interesting characters/aliens/robots, solid characterization, fantastic tech, and incredibly well-done action scenes. In fact, I would even say this is a stand-alone film that can be seen & enjoyed without even being familiar with the other SW films.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by scraptor

I saw it at a modern theater that had received so many complaints about it being so dark that they checked all their equipment, recalibrated it, put in a new bulb, etc etc... and it came out exactly the same.

I waited for the blu-ray release... still no improvement.

It's one of the most poorly-lit movies I've ever seen. In so many scenes it is a struggle to read the characters' expressions.

something has got to be wrong, I never had any problem reading expressions of any of the characters, that was trivial at IMAX, Dolby and top tier regular and easy at my other screenings (I could imagine it maybe be an issue had they shown it on a couple of the poor screens at my local theater where they have a poor contrast, dim bulb projector in use though perhaps. I saw Blade Runner 2049 3D on one of those and it was hard to see half the film. On other screens, there was never any issue.).

Either all of us have had crappy projections and bad screens, or the murk was an intentional choice by the filmmakers that really hampered an otherwise beautiful-looking movie.

it seemed more atmospherically beautiful to me than murk
it was murky at times, but it should never look hard to read character's expressions