A Star Wars Story: A New (Disappointing) Hope
When Disney announced there'd be a new anthology-style series of films set in the Star Wars universe, separate from the main saga trilogies, there was a lot of excitement. Not only would there be more Star Wars films, but we'll finally get to explore other parts of the galaxy away from the Skywalker story. After all, this is a big galaxy and the Star Wars lore is filled to the brim with characters, planets, and stories we've never seen cinematically. There was hope that these anthology films would be different from the main saga films - different tones, styles, directors, etc. - and I was excited to see the different kinds of films we'd see from this new Disney-owned universe. Unfortunately, based on the two films in this anthology series - officially titled "A Star Wars Story" - it doesn't look like we'll be getting anything close to what I had hoped for.
The first film in the anthology was 'Rogue One', which featured a great premise and had a lot of promise. Set before 'A New Hope', we were told this would be a gritty war film; it would put the "war" in Star Wars. 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Black Hawk Down' were inspirations for the film. We would get a chance to see the rebellion at close glance, without the gloss of a usual Star Wars production. They hired Gareth Edwards, who did an amazing job at bringing 'Godzilla' back to the big screen, filling it with suspense and realism. There was a strong female lead (Felicity Jones), and a diverse supporting cast (Diego Luna, Donnie Yen, Riz Ahmed, Jiang Wen, Forest Whitaker).
When the marketing started rolling out, it was impressive! The trailer was really well-executed and it looked like a different Star Wars film. But then came the big announcement: Disney replaced Edwards during post-production and hired Tony Gilroy to pick up reshoots and completely re-do the ending. We'll never know if Edwards' version was better, or if Disney made the right call and steered the film away from a complete failure, but the end result left more to be desired.
I had fun watching it, and it was refreshing to see new characters unrelated to the Skywalkers, but there was a feeling it could've been so much more. It didn't feel gritty enough. It didn't feel enough like a war film. The characters were not memorable, save for the droid K-2SO. And there were way, way too many references to the main saga that had no purpose other than to act as fan service. But I will give credit to the film for finally giving me the Darth Vader I've always wanted to see in action. He's pretty terrifying when you see him slaughtering all the rebels.
This weekend, the second anthology film was finally released: 'Solo'. This film didn't have the unified enthusiasm that 'Rogue One' had going in. The biggest reason is because Han Solo is such a sacred character, no one needed to see how he became the person he was. We didn't need to see the infamous Kessel run, or how he got the Millennium Falcon, or how he met Chewie or Lando. The mystery is part of the fun of his character. But alas, we have to give the film the benefit of the doubt. And at first, that was easy to do!
When Disney hired Phil Lord and Christopher Miller as the film's co-directors, I was officially on board. These guys have a history of turning bad ideas into great, successful films, and they haven't lost my trust yet. 'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,' '21 Jump Street', and 'The Lego Movie' are all films that shouldn't have worked, but they were all so good. Their style is completely different from any of the previous directors in the entirety of Star Wars that I thought maybe, just maybe we'll finally get something different! But, like 'Rogue One', there was behind-the-scenes drama and the directing duo got fired three quarters of the way through filming. Apparently there were creative differences, and it didn't seem like the duo's improvisational style worked with what Disney and Lucasfilm wanted. Less than a week after this announcement, Ron Howard was hired to finish the film.
Now, Ron Howard ('Apollo 13', 'A Beautiful Mind') is a good director and all, but the film we got was pretty much what was expected of him, especially being hired so late in the game. 'Solo' wasn't the subversive, bold film that could've been if Lord and Miller had their way. What we got was a paint-by-numbers origin film that neither felt bold nor challenging. I'd never felt so bored watching a Star Wars film, honestly. And it's not even a bad film! It's a competently-made adventure flick and it's entertaining at times, but I just didn't care for any of the characters or the story. The cinematography was great (from Bradford Young, DP for 'Arrival'), the actors were solid (I'm always a fan of Donald Glover), but the action and plot didn't excite me. There were new characters I wish we'd gotten to see more of: Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, Vision from the 'Avengers' films) was intimidating at times, but it felt like we only got a hint of his ruthlessness. The great Michael K. Williams ('The Wire') originally portrayed this villain, but unfortunately got cut when he couldn't make the reshoots. We won't know if his interpretation would've been better, or if it was ultimately the script's fault that resulted in the so-so character. The film totally wastes Thandie Newton's character. And Donald Glover was great in the limited screen time he had. But hey, at least we have another scene-stealing, sassy droid - L3-37! A serviceable, yet unchallenging film and a standout droid? I'm starting to see a trend here.
'Solo' has the lowest critical rating out of all the new Star Wars films, and it's looking like it'll have an underwhelming box office debut as well. We won't know if this is due to a lack of enthusiasm about the film, the underwhelming story, or the unfortunate release date (this is the first of the new Star Wars films to be released in May, instead of December, meaning the film comes out less than 6 months after the last Star Wars film was released in theaters; also, this is a month packed with 'Avengers: Infinity War' and 'Deadpool 2'). But what we do know is that Disney is playing it safe.
Josh Trank ('Chronicle) was hired to direct the Boba Fett film years ago, but after the critical and box office bomb of his 'Fantastic Four' reboot (which, to be fair, was also plagued by production problems caused by studio interference, clashing with the director's vision), he was fired. It feels like there's some kind of curse plaguing these Star Wars anthology films causing the original directors' vision to clash with the Disney system.
Soon after the anthology series was announced, there were rumors there would be an Obi-Wan Kenobi film, or a Boba Fett film, or even a Han Solo film. Right off the bat, this was depressing news. We have this vast universe to explore, and yet you want to feature "new" stories based on old characters? From a business standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. Fans will clamor to see standalone films based on their favorite characters. But from an artistic viewpoint, it lacks challenge. As we've seen with 'The Last Jedi', Disney should follow Rian Johnson's direction and give fans what they need, not what they want. Here's hoping the next films will give us something actually new and exciting.
