Reviews Need To Stop Calling The Solo Movie 'Unnecessary'

One of the more common critiques of the various production issues Solo endured, some wondered why the studio was bothering to go through all this for a film nobody asked for.

When Solo held its world premiere earlier this month, many were curious to see what the reactions were. While the reviews are mostly positive (arguably better than one would expect given the behind-the-scenes drama), the consensus is that the spinoff plays it a bit safe and has no higher ambition than to be a fun heist movie in the Star Wars galaxy. A refrain that's popped up post-embargo is questioning Solo's necessity, though that's a rather curious complaint and paints viewers in a somewhat hypocritical light.

No Star Wars Movie Was Ever 'Needed'

The problem with using "this movie doesn't need to exist" in a review is that it's not a valid form of film criticism. Much like sports, music, and other forms of entertainment, movies are a luxury available for people to consume as they please. It's hard to argue that any film ever made is "needed." This isn't to say there aren't those that can take Black Panther in recent years), but the main objective of movies - particularly genre tentpoles like Star Wars - is to simply be escapism and thrill audiences with otherworldly stories.

This exact point was raised by two of the most successful (and industry-changing) franchises of the 21st century, the harsh reality Star Wars fans need to accept is that their favorite galaxy wasn't needed, either.

Rogue One expands upon a line from an opening text crawl, and audiences knew for 39 years how its story would end.

Since no movie is needed, the goal for any director is to make it a worthwhile experience for an audience. Star Wars has succeeded at that for four decades, and Solo looks to be the latest instance of that. While reviews for Ron Howard's prequel didn't die the way of Justice League, many are pointing to the lukewarm reviews as evidence this movie wasn't needed in the first place. However, issues with Solo seem to stem from something else.

Page 2: The Hypocrisy of Star Wars Fans

Alden Ehrenreich as Han and Joonas Suotamo as Chewbacca in Solo

The Hypocrisy of Star Wars Fans

Without question, the biggest hurdle Solo had to overcome was finding a younger actor to inhabit the role. Harrison Ford is so synonymous with the character it's difficult for viewers to separate the two. So, when Lucasfilm confirmed plans for Solo, several dismissed the project believing nobody could adequately fill Ford's shoes. While that mindset ignores the fact there have been six cinematic James Bonds and a plethora of big screen Batmen (among other parts that have been recast), the skepticism of the daunting search for a new Han is understandable... that is if Star Wars fans weren't advocating for other "young X" films.

Lucasfilm is now in the business of annual tentpole releases, and viewers have no shortage of ideas they'd like to see. In the wake of Sebastian Stan's uncanny resemblance to Mark Hamill, people would like to see the Winter Soldier bring life to Luke Skywalker (possibly training Finn Wolfhard's Ben Solo). Since Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and now Adam Driver are just as defined by their Star Wars characters as Ford, it begs the question why these are deemed acceptable, while Alden Ehrenreich's Han Solo isn't widely welcomed. It's true the Hail, Caesar! standout has won some people over following a solid marketing campaign, but there are just as many still giving him the side eye simply for not being Harrison Ford, doubting he could do the role justice.

Another issue viewers have had with Solo from its inception is the supposed low-hanging fruit it's set to cover, revealing how Han befriended Chewbacca and won the Millennium Falcon from Lando Calrissian. A criticism is that these are questions nobody wanted answered, which again, would be a fair comment if there wasn't a one about Lando, which has also been called for) couldn't make for a strong film, but we have to crack the story.

Solo lends itself very well to film. It combines buddy elements (Han and Chewie), coming-of-age (Han going from idealist to cynic), and crime/heist to coalesce into a fun summer blockbuster. This is probably why Lucasfilm saved it for the movies and used non-film canon mediums to fill in other gaps. Brown's Leia movie would most likely be Solo is going to enrich rewatches of the saga films.

If somebody takes issue with Solo's writing, directing, or performances and pens a negative review, they're more than entitled to that opinion. Part of what makes film great is the fact the medium is subjective, and the same product can impact everyone differently. However, naysayers need to do more than proclaim Solo has no reason to exist, because the same can be said about any movie - whether it's an acclaimed Best Picture winner or a goofy action flick. Solo shouldn't be viewed with this odd double-standard because circles of the community aren't willing to accept a new actor as Han. Like all films, the spinoff should be judged on its merits, and if its various elements make for a worthwhile experience, regardless if someone personally wanted it or not.