Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Robin Bland

Star Wars: Han Solo Movie

134 posts in this topic

Thinking about this movie some more, and now I'm not sure it's such a great idea, because casting is going to be VERY hard.  Ford made the role iconic, and put his own unique stamp on the role.

Is there an actor out there that not only could LOOK like a young Ford, but act like him?

I guess the last time something like this was recast, it was Star Trek when they recast the original actors.  But there, JJ made it a point to change the timeline.  Shatner of course had a style that was unique and there would have been a fine line between an actor playing Kirk, and an actor imitating Shatner playing Kirk.

I don't know if Chris Pine would have been right for the role, if he were an actor trying to imitate Shatner's take.  So to avoid that issue, Abrams basically wiped the timeline, and Kirk's upbringing was different enough that another actor could assume the role without having to channel Shatner.

The interesting thing is that Star Trek Continues showed that it IS possible to have an actor play Kirk Prime other than Shatner, though I'm not advocating a movie racasting.

However, the point is that Star Wars can't take that route.  There is no time travel element in Star Wars.  I suppose nothing could stop them from introducing it, but there's no evidence they are going in that direction, which means that this movie will be the Han we know, and given how young Ford was in 1977, and that the actor cast will likely be around the same age, the story can't take place THAT much before A New Hope.

So that actor SHOULD be a LOT like Ford, because he IS the same character.  If he doesn't do Ford playing Solo, it will be hard to pass that off as Solo.

An interesting situation, which makes it tough to cast.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this movie some more, and now I'm not sure it's such a great idea, because casting is going to be VERY hard.  Ford made the role iconic, and put his own unique stamp on the role.

Is there an actor out there that not only could LOOK like a young Ford, but act like him?

I guess the last time something like this was recast, it was Star Trek when they recast the original actors.  But there, JJ made it a point to change the timeline.  Shatner of course had a style that was unique and there would have been a fine line between an actor playing Kirk, and an actor imitating Shatner playing Kirk.

I don't know if Chris Pine would have been right for the role, if he were an actor trying to imitate Shatner's take.  So to avoid that issue, Abrams basically wiped the timeline, and Kirk's upbringing was different enough that another actor could assume the role without having to channel Shatner.

The interesting thing is that Star Trek Continues showed that it IS possible to have an actor play Kirk Prime other than Shatner, though I'm not advocating a movie racasting.

However, the point is that Star Wars can't take that route.  There is no time travel element in Star Wars.  I suppose nothing could stop them from introducing it, but there's no evidence they are going in that direction, which means that this movie will be the Han we know, and given how young Ford was in 1977, and that the actor cast will likely be around the same age, the story can't take place THAT much before A New Hope.

So that actor SHOULD be a LOT like Ford, because he IS the same character.  If he doesn't do Ford playing Solo, it will be hard to pass that off as Solo.

An interesting situation, which makes it tough to cast.

 

Even with the altered timeline the ST09 cast were essentially playing the same characters; just arguably differing circumstances.   But genetically the same people (with the arguable exception of Chekov; whose new birth year, blonde hair and bright blue eyes brings into question whether or not he really IS Pavel Andreivich Chekov, genetically speaking...).  But different life circumstances or not; these ARE the same people.  

And I thought the casting of ST09 was some of the best (if not THE best) I've ever seen in a reboot.   Frankly, I am very glad that Pine didn't do a hammy Shatner impression; it would've sunk the whole movie.   Comedians have been doing Shatner for 30 years or so, and it's become a joke enough.   He was wise to sidestep that, and find other things about Kirk to bring to the forefront.  Most of the ST09 actors (with one or two exceptions) felt enough like their TOS counterparts that I had no trouble believing that these were those same characters; albeit with different lives under their belts.

After ST09, I'm officially of the opinion that NO ROLE is too iconic to be recast.   Not James Bond, not Captain Kirk, not Mr. Spock.   All it takes is care and an actor willing to walk that fine line between respectful and innovative.   

If the Star Wars folks bring half as much care to the casting of the Solo solo movie (hehe; see what I did there?) then it could really be something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also of note is that when we first met Solo (SW77) he was somewhat more limited emotionally; he was much more 'in control' than he allowed himself to be later on in the franchise (when he fell in love, and genuinely started to care about a cause for the first time in his life).   So I imagine that a new actor playing the less emotional, 'cooler' Solo won't be quite the same as playing say, the "Empire Strikes Back" or "Force Awakens" version.    This is Solo before he became the iconic character we all love; kind of like Daniel Craig's rougher, less-polished version of 007 we saw in "Casino Royale." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the altered timeline the ST09 cast were essentially playing the same characters; just arguably differing circumstances.   But genetically the same people (with the arguable exception of Chekov; whose new birth year, blonde hair and bright blue eyes brings into question whether or not he really IS Pavel Andreivich Chekov, genetically speaking...).  But different life circumstances or not; these ARE the same people.  

They are playing SIMILAR characters, not the same.  You're certainly right about Chekov.  For all we know, it's a first cousin or something.  But circumstances make people who they are too.  Think about your parents, and how important they were in your life.  Take one of them out of the equation at birth.  How different would you be?  Each parent taught me different things in different ways and shaped the person I became.  Replace that parent with a different person, or no one at all, and I am not the same person I am today.  Even the way I talk may be different because I'm forming my sounds from different people.  Sure, I'm genetically the same person, and my human nature may be very similar as well, but I could be different enough.  It makes sense that Pine's version is different than Shatner, though every now and then, Pine does sneak in a Shatner mannerism or two, which is good.

And I thought the casting of ST09 was some of the best (if not THE best) I've ever seen in a reboot.   Frankly, I am very glad that Pine didn't do a hammy Shatner impression; it would've sunk the whole movie.   Comedians have been doing Shatner for 30 years or so, and it's become a joke enough.   He was wise to sidestep that, and find other things about Kirk to bring to the forefront.  Most of the ST09 actors (with one or two exceptions) felt enough like their TOS counterparts that I had no trouble believing that these were those same characters; albeit with different lives under their belts.

 

Yes, but I think what made it possible FOR Pine to not HAVE to do that impression was the wiping of the prime timeline.  Change Kirk's upbringing, and you change Kirk enough that another actor can play him differently enough. 

After ST09, I'm officially of the opinion that NO ROLE is too iconic to be recast.   Not James Bond, not Captain Kirk, not Mr. Spock.   All it takes is care and an actor willing to walk that fine line between respectful and innovative.   

If the Star Wars folks bring half as much care to the casting of the Solo solo movie (hehe; see what I did there?) then it could really be something.

 

I've always felt that these characters can be recast.  But does Bond really sit in the same continuity?  Is Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan the same Bond that Sean Connery was?  Same world?  Same adventures?  Or is it a wiped continuity, featuring the same character, like the many incarnations of Batman or Superman?

 

I'm guessing the latter.

Star Trek essentially did the same thing.  It was more than a recast--it was a restart.

But HERE, in Star Wars, there is no reboot.  This is supposed to be Han--the Harrison Ford version.  We have to believe in this actor so much that we could picture Ford doing this role and this script.

Yes, this is Han before he became the character we know, but not so much before that he wouldn't be recognizable.  If they are smart writers, and I'm going to guess they are, then they wrote this script as if a 1977 Harrison Ford was playing the role, and wrote the character like that.  The key is finding an actor that can pull it off.

 

THAT is hard.

One good thing though--unlike Shatner--you don't have those comedians doing Ford impressions. 

What they need isn't a Chris Pine.  They need a Karl Urban.  Urban managed to make me feel that a young DeKelley was saying these lines.  He even looked like him.  He didn't overdo the impression either.  It just worked well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the 2009 movie, but for the most part they moght as well have been new characters for me. The only one that managed to truly capture the full spirit of the original was Karl Urban for me. That movie isn't even canon for me. Its more like Galaxy Quest.

 

So color me skeptical of this whole Han Solo venture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they need isn't a Chris Pine.  They need a Karl Urban.  Urban managed to make me feel that a young DeKelley was saying these lines.  He even looked like him.  He didn't overdo the impression either.  It just worked well. 

I don't think Urban looked that much like De Kelley (Urban is a bit more 'GQ'-looking, IMO; more model-handsome); certainly Pine and Quinto looked a lot more like their respective counterparts.   But Urban really nailed the cantankerousness and the affectations.   I could easily hear Kelley reading those very lines if he were alive and somehow 30 years old again.    Ditto with Quinto's Spock; that he could share a scene with Nimoy at the end of the movie is all the proof I needed that Spock was in good hands.  

I still think Pine captured the Kirk 'essentials'; once he was in command of the ship near the end of the movie, he was very much James T. Kirk.    But the earlier stuff was more "Good Will Hunting" than James T. Kirk; if ST09 were sticking to the canon Kirk story?  His academy years would've had him as a studious bookworm; "a stack of books with legs" (that is how both Gary Mitchell and Finnegan seemed to imagine him, anyway; an overly serious cadet who rarely strayed beyond academics).    It would've been interesting (though not necessarily for ST09) to see Pine try to do that version of Kirk...

Again; the casting of ST09 was half of the movie IMO; and they really nailed it, for the most part.

I'm not overly worried about Han Solo; if Disney puts the kind of care into the casting that they did with TFA?   I think it'll work.    "Rogue One" will be an interesting test of how Disney handles the standalone SW movies... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Urban looked that much like De Kelley (Urban is a bit more 'GQ'-looking, IMO; more model-handsome); certainly Pine and Quinto looked a lot more like their respective counterparts.  

Between the build and the haircut, it was enough to capture the expression.  No, I'm not saying you would confuse the two if they were together, but it was just so well done.

But Urban really nailed the cantankerousness and the affectations.   I could easily hear Kelley reading those very lines if he were alive and somehow 30 years old again.    Ditto with Quinto's Spock; that he could share a scene with Nimoy at the end of the movie is all the proof I needed that Spock was in good hands.  

Actually, for me, I thought Urban's reading of the lines and dialogue was significantly better than Quinto as Spock.  I think Quinto was a very good choice.  But something about Urban--he really just nailed it.  You are right--I could hear Kelley reading the lines as a young man too.  But Quinto, while good, was no Nimoy.  I actually think those scenes with Nimoy really showed the difference.  Watching Nimoy was like seeing the master at work.  I've never seen anyone play a Vulcan anywhere close to as well, though Mark Lenard is the second best in my opinion.  I'm not saying Spock isn't in good hands--Quinto has my thumbs up.  I'm just saying he wasn't in Nimoy's league, while Urban channeled Kelley quite well.

 

I still think Pine captured the Kirk 'essentials'; once he was in command of the ship near the end of the movie, he was very much James T. Kirk.    But the earlier stuff was more "Good Will Hunting" than James T. Kirk; if ST09 were sticking to the canon Kirk story?  His academy years would've had him as a studious bookworm; "a stack of books with legs" (that is how both Gary Mitchell and Finnegan seemed to imagine him, anyway; an overly serious cadet who rarely strayed beyond academics).    It would've been interesting (though not necessarily for ST09) to see Pine try to do that version of Kirk...

I think Pine is a good actor, and a very good choice to play Kirk, but I don't think he's actually PLAYED Kirk yet because I don't think the writing has come close to getting the character right--yet.  And I would have LOVED to see Pine as that stack of book with legs version of Kirk.

I think Kirk was being a bit self deprecating though.  While I do see him as this uber serious student, a prodigy with a laser visioned goal of being a captain, he wouldn't have been socially awkward.  I do see him as a lady's man as well, capable of making friends.  Not a loner by any stretch, but someone who grew.

One interesting question, and holy cow we are off topic is this--would Kirk Prime have entered the academy early?  Or would he have started at the right age?  Though driven, hyper intelligent and with a natural ability to lead, I don't see Kirk entering the academy at a younger age. 

 

Again; the casting of ST09 was half of the movie IMO; and they really nailed it, for the most part.

It was vital.  I'm happy with Kirk, Spock, Sulu, and McCoy.  I'm indifferent with Uhura.  Scotty and Chekov I would replace tomorrow if I could.

Overall, I think they did a good job on that front.  It's not like Superman Returns, where pretty much the whole cast was not right.

 

I'm not overly worried about Han Solo; if Disney puts the kind of care into the casting that they did with TFA?   I think it'll work.    "Rogue One" will be an interesting test of how Disney handles the standalone SW movies... 

I'm definitely looking forward to Rogue One.  Though I think the Solo movie is a much bigger deal.  I think we will know once we see a trailer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quickly diving in - wasn't Karl Urban fantastic as McCoy? Of all the characters recast, he was my favorite too. He was different to DeForest Kelley but somehow seemed to be channeling him. Terrific, and when I've rewatched those movies, I've noticed that his performance comes to the fore more. There's a lot to like about his version of McCoy.

On topic: I think this spin-off movie will stand or fall on who they cast as Han Solo. I think, like the furore that greeted the news that JJ Abrams was recasting the original Trek characters, this will be divisive. But that was probably the case when Sean Connery was succeeded as Bond by first George Lazenby and then Roger Moore. I really liked the guy that Vie suggested on page one of this thread, Anthony Ingruber, but he doesn't even seem to be on any lists anywhere. He seemed to have the insouciance of a young Ford, in clips and even when he was doing his little "Kessel Run" spiel on YouTube. I would've been happy to see him play a young Han Solo - as Sehlat remarked, he even has the voice. Maybe he pissed someone off and they didn't want him to audition, who knows? Quite honestly, everyone else in the running looks wrong to me - but to be fair, I've not seen the screen tests, so how would I know if they've managed to capture something of the character...? But that's partially the problem. Rogue One will stand or fall on its own merits, but there'll be a lot of antipathy about this one, simply because of the problems of casting. And it is a problem... Many will feel that someone as iconic as Harrison Ford simply can't be replaced, no matter how on the nose Kasdan is with the writing. 

By the same token, characters can be recast, even those as iconic as the original Trek characters - though I'm not sure I'll ever be 100% comfortable with that, even though I really enjoyed ST09. But that's probably something to do with my age and the place those original actors occupy in my heart. I may accept the new ones, but when I think of Spock, good as he was, I don't think of Zachary Quinto, I think of Leonard Nimoy. In the case of Han Solo, we now have an actor who is associated with the role over nearly five decades - so those will be tough shoes to fill. No matter how good the performer, much of what this film will be rests on how far the audience accepts him as Han Solo. The "new" Han Solo, that is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quickly diving in - wasn't Karl Urban fantastic as McCoy? Of all the characters recast, he was my favorite too. He was different to DeForest Kelley but somehow seemed to be channeling him. Terrific, and when I've rewatched those movies, I've noticed that his performance comes to the fore more. There's a lot to like about his version of McCoy.

On topic: I think this spin-off movie will stand or fall on who they cast as Han Solo. I think, like the furore that greeted the news that JJ Abrams was recasting the original Trek characters, this will be divisive. But that was probably the case when Sean Connery was succeeded as Bond by first George Lazenby and then Roger Moore. I really liked the guy that Vie suggested on page one of this thread, Anthony Ingruber, but he doesn't even seem to be on any lists anywhere. He seemed to have the insouciance of a young Ford, in clips and even when he was doing his little "Kessel Run" spiel on YouTube. I would've been happy to see him play a young Han Solo - as Sehlat remarked, he even has the voice. Maybe he pissed someone off and they didn't want him to audition, who knows? Quite honestly, everyone else in the running looks wrong to me - but to be fair, I've not seen the screen tests, so how would I know if they've managed to capture something of the character...? But that's partially the problem. Rogue One will stand or fall on its own merits, but there'll be a lot of antipathy about this one, simply because of the problems of casting. And it is a problem... Many will feel that someone as iconic as Harrison Ford simply can't be replaced, no matter how on the nose Kasdan is with the writing. 

By the same token, characters can be recast, even those as iconic as the original Trek characters - though I'm not sure I'll ever be 100% comfortable with that, even though I really enjoyed ST09. But that's probably something to do with my age and the place those original actors occupy in my heart. I may accept the new ones, but when I think of Spock, good as he was, I don't think of Zachary Quinto, I think of Leonard Nimoy. In the case of Han Solo, we now have an actor who is associated with the role over nearly five decades - so those will be tough shoes to fill. No matter how good the performer, much of what this film will be rests on how far the audience accepts him as Han Solo. The "new" Han Solo, that is. 

I agree that every age has their version of the character; even the best incarnations of certain roles (Connery's Bond, Ford's Solo, Nimoy's Spock, etc) are not necessarily beyond recasting IMO.    Now, will the new version automatically make an audience forget the original?  Unlikely.   But can they just do the role anyway?  Absolutely.  

I loved Quinto's Spock; but do I like his interpretation as much as Nimoy's?  No, I don't.  There was only one Leonard Nimoy; he created the role.   He gave it life from words on a page.  Quinto at least had a template to go by, so no matter how good he is (and I thought he "performed admirably" to use his own words), he can never the one who originated the role and made it something to BE emulated in the first place.

I feel similarly about Harrison Ford as Han Solo; Ford casts a daunting shadow, and a new Han Solo will only be a successor, not an originator.   But, like Quinto's Spock, I'm totally OK with that.  It's a chance to have a new Han Solo story after the character's death, so I'm still intrigued.   

The new Solo actor (whoever it is) should be mindful of what has been done in the role, but he also has to add a bit of himself to it as well.  People (and iconic  characters) are multifaceted; and sometimes it takes more than one actor to illustrate that.   I'd argue that Craig's Bond is better at playing a Bond who is at the ragged edge; whereas Connery was better at showing him at the height of his career.   Yes, Connery's Bond is the more iconic (just as Ford's Solo will be) but a new actor can bring those different facets to life in surprising (and unseen) ways. 

A younger Han Solo might have traits that we don't see as much of in the older version of the character.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Though I still hold that the first actor to play Falstaff in 1597, that guy who had him down as John Oldcastle, was the best one. Everyone else that came after? Terrible. Did you see that Anthony Sher guy's Falstaff? Clueless.  As for that Orson Welles character... ridiculous. Alfred Molina was even worse than those two.

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Though I still hold that the first actor to play Falstaff in 1597, that guy who had him down as John Oldcastle, was the best one. Everyone else that came after? Terrible. Did you see that Anthony Sher guy's Falstaff? Clueless.  As for that Orson Welles character... ridiculous. Alfred Molina was even worse than those two.

Personally, I'm all about Richard Burbage's Hamlet; you know, the 1601 original.   I mean, who the hell's this Branagh guy, anyway? :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quickly diving in - wasn't Karl Urban fantastic as McCoy? Of all the characters recast, he was my favorite too. He was different to DeForest Kelley but somehow seemed to be channeling him. Terrific, and when I've rewatched those movies, I've noticed that his performance comes to the fore more. There's a lot to like about his version of McCoy.

He stole the movie because as we have all pointed out, it was like watching DeKelley play the part.  He did it without overdoing it.  I think Chris Doohan does Scotty in a similar fashion.  He truly channels his father's warmth and mannerisms and doesn't come off like someone doing the classic "Scotty is freaking out" impression.

On topic: I think this spin-off movie will stand or fall on who they cast as Han Solo. I think, like the furore that greeted the news that JJ Abrams was recasting the original Trek characters, this will be divisive.

No matter who they choose, the actor is going to commit the crime of not being a young Harrison Ford.  However, at least from my perspective, I'm guessing this will be an actor that I've never heard of or seen, which means it will be hard for me to say, "this guy is all wrong."  For THAT to happen, he would have to be physically completely different.  So I won't truly be able to judge the choice until I see the trailer.

 

I think James Bond is a little different because Connery only did it for 9 years.  There were enough entries to matter and make him iconic, but 9 years is nothing compared to 43 years like with TOS, or about 40 years with Han. 

Also, I think it's safe to say that Roger Moore's Bond or Pierce Brosnan's Bond is not the exact same universe as Connery's Bond.  Even where they had actors recur, like Q, Bond kept physically changing and staying the same age.  It couldn't possibly be the same man in 2016 as in 1962 (unless of course the NAME James Bond itself is a code name).  So I pretty much see each version of James Bond as a reboot.

When you DON'T do a reboot, you have to get an actor to come as close to Ford's performance and style as possible.

But that actor can't come off as doing a bad impression.

 

Not easy.

 

Not impossible.  Again, see Karl Urban.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quickly diving in - wasn't Karl Urban fantastic as McCoy? Of all the characters recast, he was my favorite too. He was different to DeForest Kelley but somehow seemed to be channeling him. Terrific, and when I've rewatched those movies, I've noticed that his performance comes to the fore more. There's a lot to like about his version of McCoy.

He stole the movie because as we have all pointed out, it was like watching DeKelley play the part.  He did it without overdoing it.  I think Chris Doohan does Scotty in a similar fashion.  He truly channels his father's warmth and mannerisms and doesn't come off like someone doing the classic "Scotty is freaking out" impression.

On topic: I think this spin-off movie will stand or fall on who they cast as Han Solo. I think, like the furore that greeted the news that JJ Abrams was recasting the original Trek characters, this will be divisive.

No matter who they choose, the actor is going to commit the crime of not being a young Harrison Ford.  However, at least from my perspective, I'm guessing this will be an actor that I've never heard of or seen, which means it will be hard for me to say, "this guy is all wrong."  For THAT to happen, he would have to be physically completely different.  So I won't truly be able to judge the choice until I see the trailer.

 

I think James Bond is a little different because Connery only did it for 9 years.  There were enough entries to matter and make him iconic, but 9 years is nothing compared to 43 years like with TOS, or about 40 years with Han. 

Also, I think it's safe to say that Roger Moore's Bond or Pierce Brosnan's Bond is not the exact same universe as Connery's Bond.  Even where they had actors recur, like Q, Bond kept physically changing and staying the same age.  It couldn't possibly be the same man in 2016 as in 1962 (unless of course the NAME James Bond itself is a code name).  So I pretty much see each version of James Bond as a reboot.

When you DON'T do a reboot, you have to get an actor to come as close to Ford's performance and style as possible.

But that actor can't come off as doing a bad impression.

 

Not easy.

 

Not impossible.  Again, see Karl Urban.

 

 

 

Yeah, Urban nailed in in so many ways. Quinto and Pine were both good giving respectful performances that were both similar enough and sufficiently different from the originals for me to feel these were new versions of those characters, but Urban just had something extra. Like DeForest Kelley, I would characterize it as charm. I still don't like Pegg's Scotty, for reasons we've spoken about before. Chekhov also, and I think Uhura is okay. In all cases, I've seen the actors in other roles and liked them and believed in the characters they've created, so I tend to think it's just the extreme difficulty of selling "their" version of the Star Trek character. 

I never thought too deeply about why Bond changes his appearance, but yeah, the general fan lore holds that it's a code name - although that doesn't explain why the Roger Moore Bond visited the grave of the Lazenby Bond's wife in For Your Eyes Only, or why only the Craig Bond seems to have the backstory of the character from the books. I guess if you wanted to get exacting about it, you could say similar events happened to both men in their respective Bondiverses.  But c'est la vie, as a certain friend of ours might have it. I think your reboot rule is broadly true. I'm intrigued by what Eon will do when they come to recast Craig (but that's speculative talk for the Bond thread). 

Without the reboot rule, yeah, we have some young buck being put in the position where he has to tread a very fine line of both recreating Ford's mannerisms as Solo and yet bringing his own special something to the role. Not impossible (yes indeed, see Mr Urban as McCoy) but more of an exceptional case when it's then widely agreed to be successful. Catching lightning in a bottle twice, as it were. 

 

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand Pegg's Scotty, though he was better in STID than ST09.  Just bad casting.  I feel similar about Yelchin, but the role is so much smaller it doesn't stand out as much.  Saldana is a good actress, and very attractive, but she just doesn't have that elegance that Nichols has.  Nichols just oozed class and elegance.  Could you imagine Nichols doing that scene where she has a public spat with Spock on duty?  I can't.

 

Regarding Bond--it's just simple to call it a reboot every time there's a new Bond.  Like there are different incarnations of Batman.  The Nolan trilogy wasn't bound by the Burton films.  Man of Steel wasn't anything like the Donner films.  They take place on different Earths.  But with Bond--it's just a different continuity. 

 

You're right--they have to catch lightning in a bottle.  They don't just have to cast Han--they have to cast Ford as Han because this is not a reboot.

The audience has to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand Pegg's Scotty, though he was better in STID than ST09.  Just bad casting.  I feel similar about Yelchin, but the role is so much smaller it doesn't stand out as much.  Saldana is a good actress, and very attractive, but she just doesn't have that elegance that Nichols has.  Nichols just oozed class and elegance.  Could you imagine Nichols doing that scene where she has a public spat with Spock on duty?  I can't.

 

Regarding Bond--it's just simple to call it a reboot every time there's a new Bond.  Like there are different incarnations of Batman.  The Nolan trilogy wasn't bound by the Burton films.  Man of Steel wasn't anything like the Donner films.  They take place on different Earths.  But with Bond--it's just a different continuity. 

 

You're right--they have to catch lightning in a bottle.  They don't just have to cast Han--they have to cast Ford as Han because this is not a reboot.

The audience has to believe.

For me, this is where an actor doing his own thing would help me overcome my disbelief;  if I'm watching an actor do a Harrison Ford impression, I won't buy it.   Same as if I saw Pine just doing a cheap Shatner impression.  

I'd have an easier time accepting a new Han Solo not just if his looks/voice are in the ballpark, but more importantly if he brings the character to life in a new and interesting way.   Show me a facet of a younger Han Solo; maybe he was a bit of a coward in his youth (which would also explain his reluctance to rescue Princess Leia aboard the Death Star).  Maybe he wasn't always the cool-as-ice mercenary we see in SW77.

If the actor just did Solo only as we saw him in SW77?  It could rob the character of being more multifaceted (and layered); and thus a lost opportunity both for the actor to play something different, and for the audience to see something new about Han Solo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand Pegg's Scotty, though he was better in STID than ST09.  Just bad casting.  I feel similar about Yelchin, but the role is so much smaller it doesn't stand out as much.  Saldana is a good actress, and very attractive, but she just doesn't have that elegance that Nichols has.  Nichols just oozed class and elegance.  Could you imagine Nichols doing that scene where she has a public spat with Spock on duty?  I can't.

 

Regarding Bond--it's just simple to call it a reboot every time there's a new Bond.  Like there are different incarnations of Batman.  The Nolan trilogy wasn't bound by the Burton films.  Man of Steel wasn't anything like the Donner films.  They take place on different Earths.  But with Bond--it's just a different continuity. 

 

You're right--they have to catch lightning in a bottle.  They don't just have to cast Han--they have to cast Ford as Han because this is not a reboot.

The audience has to believe.

For me, this is where an actor doing his own thing would help me overcome my disbelief;  if I'm watching an actor do a Harrison Ford impression, I won't buy it.   Same as if I saw Pine just doing a cheap Shatner impression.  

I'd have an easier time accepting a new Han Solo not just if his looks/voice are in the ballpark, but more importantly if he brings the character to life in a new and interesting way.   Show me a facet of a younger Han Solo; maybe he was a bit of a coward in his youth (which would also explain his reluctance to rescue Princess Leia aboard the Death Star).  Maybe he wasn't always the cool-as-ice mercenary we see in SW77.

If the actor just did Solo only as we saw him in SW77?  It could rob the character of being more multifaceted (and layered); and thus a lost opportunity both for the actor to play something different, and for the audience to see something new about Han Solo...

What if they have Harrison Ford as an older Solo reprising his role, remembering events from his youth? Harrison Ford as older Han Solo "narrating" the adventures of his younger self (played by a different, younger actor, of course)? And, in-universe, before his demise in TFA, obviously. I bet that would go a good distance to assuaging fans buying a new guy in the role, in the same way that having Leonard Nimoy's elder Spock interacting with Zachary Qunito's young Spock helped sell that idea in ST09. You get the "blessing" of the original actor, which seems to lend the whole idea a genuine, behind-the-secens baton-pass and it goes some way of making things less difficult for the new actor.

I bet Harry would do it! Would this appeal to you guys? I know I'd be happy to see him back in that capacity, even if it amounts to a glorified cameo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Young Indiana Jones" flashback...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand Pegg's Scotty, though he was better in STID than ST09.  Just bad casting.  I feel similar about Yelchin, but the role is so much smaller it doesn't stand out as much.  Saldana is a good actress, and very attractive, but she just doesn't have that elegance that Nichols has.  Nichols just oozed class and elegance.  Could you imagine Nichols doing that scene where she has a public spat with Spock on duty?  I can't.

 

Regarding Bond--it's just simple to call it a reboot every time there's a new Bond.  Like there are different incarnations of Batman.  The Nolan trilogy wasn't bound by the Burton films.  Man of Steel wasn't anything like the Donner films.  They take place on different Earths.  But with Bond--it's just a different continuity. 

 

You're right--they have to catch lightning in a bottle.  They don't just have to cast Han--they have to cast Ford as Han because this is not a reboot.

The audience has to believe.

For me, this is where an actor doing his own thing would help me overcome my disbelief;  if I'm watching an actor do a Harrison Ford impression, I won't buy it.   Same as if I saw Pine just doing a cheap Shatner impression.  

I'd have an easier time accepting a new Han Solo not just if his looks/voice are in the ballpark, but more importantly if he brings the character to life in a new and interesting way.   Show me a facet of a younger Han Solo; maybe he was a bit of a coward in his youth (which would also explain his reluctance to rescue Princess Leia aboard the Death Star).  Maybe he wasn't always the cool-as-ice mercenary we see in SW77.

If the actor just did Solo only as we saw him in SW77?  It could rob the character of being more multifaceted (and layered); and thus a lost opportunity both for the actor to play something different, and for the audience to see something new about Han Solo...

What if they have Harrison Ford as an older Solo reprising his role, remembering events from his youth? Harrison Ford as older Han Solo "narrating" the adventures of his younger self (played by a different, younger actor, of course)? And, in-universe, before his demise in TFA, obviously. I bet that would go a good distance to assuaging fans buying a new guy in the role, in the same way that having Leonard Nimoy's elder Spock interacting with Zachary Qunito's young Spock helped sell that idea in ST09. You get the "blessing" of the original actor, which seems to lend the whole idea a genuine, behind-the-secens baton-pass and it goes some way of making things less difficult for the new actor.

I bet Harry would do it! Would this appeal to you guys? I know I'd be happy to see him back in that capacity, even if it amounts to a glorified cameo.

I'd love it! 

"Young Indiana Jones" flashback...

One of the joys of ST09 for me was seeing older Spock having a part in the story of some kind; and actually interacting with his younger self.   But since the SW universe doesn't allow for time travel (yet?) this would be, for me, a perfectly acceptable alternative.   And like Sim just said, kind of similar to what was done in the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" (a show I wasn't all that crazy about, but it had moments; some of the best being the older Indy episodes.  One of which had a bearded Ford-Indy Jones playing jazz in a '50s night club, I believe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say the true template is not Pine or Quinto--it's Karl Urban.

I think that actor has to channel the young Ford, but he can't APPEAR to be channeling the young Ford.  Karl Urban was absolutely perfect.  Our vision of Han is Ford, and if we get a performance that allows us to picture young Ford reading those lines and giving that performance, from both the tone of his voice to the facial smirks and smiles, it'll be amazing.

 

The key of course is not appearing like you're trying to be Ford being Han.  You're just being Han, who is a lot like Ford.

I'm sure it can be done if they find the right actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say the true template is not Pine or Quinto--it's Karl Urban.

I think that actor has to channel the young Ford, but he can't APPEAR to be channeling the young Ford.  Karl Urban was absolutely perfect.  Our vision of Han is Ford, and if we get a performance that allows us to picture young Ford reading those lines and giving that performance, from both the tone of his voice to the facial smirks and smiles, it'll be amazing.

 

The key of course is not appearing like you're trying to be Ford being Han.  You're just being Han, who is a lot like Ford.

No, I would say TFA version of Han seems more like the grumpy Ford we know today; but Han as we saw in SW77 was much cooler, more mercenary.   He could kill you and still tip the barkeep afterward.   TFA Solo (building on the character development we saw in "Empire" and "Jedi") was a lot warmer.   Even when he discovered the two refugees who'd stolen his ship, the worst he would've done to them is stick them in an escape pod with provisions.   Old Han might've considered killing them on the spot, or even turning them (and BB-8) in for a reward.   

I don't think earlier Han Solo, the one that a new actor will be playing, is much like Harrison Ford at all; certainly not the Ford that is portrayed in the media today.   Whoever plays younger Han shouldn't try to just emulate Harrison Ford; he should look at the character's more cold-blooded past and ask himself, 'what made this man this way?'   And what is under that shell that will (eventually) be drawn out?   And (for me) the biggest question of all:  how did he and Chewie become best friends?  Why would such a man ALLOW himself such a close friendship, when he is so seemingly distrustful of others?

And you say Urban is the true template (of ST09); and I agree Urban was a terrific McCoy, but there were times he lapsed into impersonation.   I thought Quinto's (and arguably Pine's) performance(s) had more discipline about them; esp. Quinto, who really conveyed Spock's inner anguish and turmoil brilliantly.  He had the hardest job of all three.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I am mentioning Ford in this case, I am referring to 1977 Ford, not the TFA Ford.  I totally agree the character warmed up and developed a lot.

There is something important here for the script.  You can't make Han TOO much of a bad person.  The core of that man had to be good.  There had to be lines he wouldn't cross.  They can't make him irredeemable.  Imagine if they did something ridiculously stupid, like having Han kill a bunch of kids.  How could we possibly like the character after that?  Something like that would ruin even the Ford movies because Han would be a monster and his redemption would be unacceptable.  I doubt any writer would do anything so dumb though.

Han has to walk the line, but still be on the right side of it.  Even when he shot first, I would still argue self defense.  He was cornered and in a position where he felt his life was in danger. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0