StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Prometheus Unbound wrote:

ray245 wrote:Yeah, but when people are saying how JJ is a perfect fit for Star Wars, you ought to be prepared to defend your opinion. The fans are somewhat responsible for getting JJ into the director's chair, so they have to be responsible for TFA turns out to be disappointment.

I don't think anyone in this thread or the entire forum has said he is a "perfect fit". You're being hyperbolic about it.

He doesn't have to be a perfect fit for me to argue otherwise.

ray245 wrote:

Prometheus Unbound wrote:

ray245 wrote:Yeah, but when people are saying how JJ is a perfect fit for Star Wars, you ought to be prepared to defend your opinion. The fans are somewhat responsible for getting JJ into the director's chair, so they have to be responsible for TFA turns out to be disappointment.

I don't think anyone in this thread or the entire forum has said he is a "perfect fit". You're being hyperbolic about it.

He doesn't have to be a perfect fit for me to argue otherwise.

It does make you look rather Quixotic though.

And i say that also as someone not very interested in TFA.

Crazedwraith wrote:
It does make you look rather Quixotic though.

And i say that also as someone not very interested in TFA.

Fans' unrealistic expectation had played a role in how the prequels were received. It just annoys me to see people making the same kind of mistake again, especially if people are saying how TFA could not be worse than the prequels. I would rather have convince others to be wary about their expectations than to see fans posting in this forum asking how could things go so wrong.

If everyone enjoys TFA, I'll be happy for everyone. If a large number of people here is going to post about how they disliked TFA, then they should bear some of the blame for enabling it in the first place.

I see the production of TFA as an attempt to win back the fans who were disappointed with the prequels, by trying to make the movie as OT-like as possible.

Wow, what a world we live in when people are actually rooting for a movie to suck. lol.

If it sucks, then it sucks, but I'm not going into it expecting it. I'm not going into it thinking it's the next new sliced bread with a kung fu grip either. It's a movie and it's Star Wars, more than happy to spend $8 on a ticket. If it sucks, it's $8 bucks.

Knife wrote:Wow, what a world we live in when people are actually rooting for a movie to suck. lol.

If it sucks, then it sucks, but I'm not going into it expecting it. I'm not going into it thinking it's the next new sliced bread with a kung fu grip either. It's a movie and it's Star Wars, more than happy to spend $8 on a ticket. If it sucks, it's $8 bucks.

I don't actually want the movie to be bad. I am certainly hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but I know that might not be possible.

I am looking forward to Ep 8 more than 7, simply because I think Rian Johnson is a much more interesting director. However at the same time, I'll be annoyed if Rian is limited in terms of visual asthetic if JJ forces him to use X-Wings and stormtroopers.

JJ MIGHT have effectively made me less interested in all Star Wars stories set after TFA, which is certainly rather annoying for me.

If it doesn't have X-Wings and Stormtroopers, it's not really Star Wars. You don't like that, don't play in this particular sandbox.

That's ridiculous. It also sounds like a thinly veiled pretext to say that the Prequels aren't Star Wars.

My understanding and appreciation of Star Wars is not so narrow that a couple minor, largely cosmetic changes decide weather I will accept something as part of Star Wars.

You might as well say you just want the OT rehashed over and over again.

What defines Star Wars, to me, is as follows:

-Good vs. evil.
-A certain idealism.
-The conflict between good and evil, often embodied in the Light and Dark Sides of the Force.
-Grand spectacle.
-Conflict on an interstellar scale.
-New spins on classic archetypes.

Except the PT did have X-Wings and Stormtroppers.

ray245 wrote:I am looking forward to Ep 8 more than 7, simply because I think Rian Johnson is a much more interesting director. However at the same time, I'll be annoyed if Rian is limited in terms of visual asthetic if JJ forces him to use X-Wings and stormtroopers.

JJ MIGHT have effectively made me less interested in all Star Wars stories set after TFA, which is certainly rather annoying for me.

Abrams is forcing people to use X-wings and stormtroopers? Given the brand micromanagement seen in the MCU, I'd wager that the use of classic SW imagery may have come from above.

Batman wrote:Except the PT did have X-Wings and Stormtroppers.

Yes but they were considerably different. The Clonetroopers looked alot like Stormtrooper but were clearly their own design. The ARC-170s clearly inspired the X-Wingadingding but aren't the same. The differences between the OT and ST stormtroopers, TIES, Star Destroyers, X-Wings, the Resistance, and the First Order are minimal.

Its like the complaint people have had aboot Knights of the Old Republic compared to The Old Republic. Shit like the Sith Troopers and the Sith cruisers look similar to Stormtroopers and Star Destroyers, the Republic troops look kinda like Rebel troops, the Hammerhead cruisers look a bit like the Blockade Runner, and the Ebon Hawk has alot in common with the Aluminum Falcon. But while they all look similar they still are their own designs.

Compare that with shit from TOR where the Republic troops look nearly identical to Clonetroopers, the Sith IMPERIAL troopers are quite clearly wannabe Vaders, the Sith Empire uses the Galactic Empire insignia with no change, the BT-7 looks like a slightly modified B-Wing and so on.

There is no real effort put into those designs. They are slightly changed existing designs meant to cash in on the older designs without doing anything new. Just like TFA.

Thing is, it makes perfect sense for OT designs (or clear descendants) to show up in the new trilogy. We're talking, what, a thirty-year timespan here? We've been using F-18s for longer than that, and we live in an era with meaningful technological changes taking place every other month. Star Wars technology appears to have been pretty stagnant for millenia.

Batman wrote:Except the PT did have X-Wings and Stormtroppers.

Not exactly. It had similar things, but even then, they were introduced fairly late in the trilogy. The clones didn't show up until about half-way through, and the X-wing lookalikes didn't show up until the third part.

Edit: In any case, a work is not defined by the presence or absence of a particular military unit (unless its something like a World War II submarine movie, anyway). Not unless its remarkably shallow. Its defined by broader questions of style and themes.

Esquire wrote:Thing is, it makes perfect sense for OT designs (or clear descendants) to show up in the new trilogy. We're talking, what, a thirty-year timespan here? We've been using F-18s for longer than that, and we live in an era with meaningful technological changes taking place every other month. Star Wars technology appears to have been pretty stagnant for millenia.

We've been using the F-18 during a relatively peaceful time when the airframes aren't wearing out and certainly aren't being shot down. In the GFFA they have been having war for 30 years with a war so bad it nearly destroyed a galactic civilization. Older designs are going to be being replaced rapidly just from sheer wear and tear while never better designs are going to be what everyone is scrambling to get. I mean we saw that already in SW (unless the canon was fucked while I wasn't looking). The Rebellion started out with aging Y-Wings as their main stay fighter with the X-Wing being the new dog but only a few years later the Y-Wing was mostly replaced by newer designs like the B and A Wings. The Empire just had the standard TIE Fighter to toss at dudes but later has other designs like the Defender. The Republic designs like the ARC-170, V-Wing, and that Lambda shuttle looking fighter were replaced by newer designs like the TIE Fighter and X-Wing in less then 20 years.

Now maybe tech is so stagnant that tech isn't driving the changes but maybe knowledge lost through centuries of peace. The "Y to X to B & A" isn't tech progression but them getting fighters better built to fight. But even so I doubt the TIE Fighter that was being replaced by ROTJ and the X-Wing are the be all end all of superior fighters. I doubt they are much better then the fighter they replaced and I'm sure superior fighters can be made.

One can make arguments why the X-Wing and TIE should have been replaced or not been replaced in universe but the reason they are there is the main problem some like myself have with their inclusion, laziness and the unwillingness to do anything different from the holy Original Trilogy.

Joun_Lord wrote: We've been using the F-18 during a relatively peaceful time when the airframes aren't wearing out and certainly aren't being shot down. In the GFFA they have been having war for 30 years with a war so bad it nearly destroyed a galactic civilization. Older designs are going to be being replaced rapidly just from sheer wear and tear while never better designs are going to be what everyone is scrambling to get. I mean we saw that already in SW (unless the canon was fucked while I wasn't looking). The Rebellion started out with aging Y-Wings as their main stay fighter with the X-Wing being the new dog but only a few years later the Y-Wing was mostly replaced by newer designs like the B and A Wings. The Empire just had the standard TIE Fighter to toss at dudes but later has other designs like the Defender. The Republic designs like the ARC-170, V-Wing, and that Lambda shuttle looking fighter were replaced by newer designs like the TIE Fighter and X-Wing in less then 20 years.

TIE defenders were wankery created for video games. And no longer canon at that. Republic fighters were presumably replaced because of design tradeoffs that made them less effective. Not to mention that they were likely mostly worn out by the war.

I should point out that both the TIE fighters and X-wings we see in trailers are clearly not the original designs we saw from the OT. They are akin to the US Navy's Super Hornet, with some common parts but ultimately a different design. The general shapes of SW fighters are largely unchanged, but that is also true in reality. Even with massive changes, the difference between the Su-27 and PAK-FA aren't as visually distinctive as the performances differences are.

Now maybe tech is so stagnant that tech isn't driving the changes but maybe knowledge lost through centuries of peace. The "Y to X to B & A" isn't tech progression but them getting fighters better built to fight. But even so I doubt the TIE Fighter that was being replaced by ROTJ and the X-Wing are the be all end all of superior fighters. I doubt they are much better then the fighter they replaced and I'm sure superior fighters can be made.

Other than the EU, has anyone ever suggested that X and Y-wings were worse fighters than A or B-wings? Return of the Jedi certainly never gave this indication. Y-wings were even shown running down TIE interceptors. The slow Y-wing bomber was a myth created by the EU. I would suggest that the fact that B-wings were never really shown in ROTJ indicates that they died quickly in the face of enemy fighters(I realize the real reason was out of universe production factors).

As for TIE fighters, The First Order is likely operating on something of a budget and went with the design that was extremely common and easily maintained over the more complicated design of something that can compete with an X-wing directly.

One can make arguments why the X-Wing and TIE should have been replaced or not been replaced in universe but the reason they are there is the main problem some like myself have with their inclusion, laziness and the unwillingness to do anything different from the holy Original Trilogy.

I can understand that argument, but it does make sense for them to be present in this context. And not just one of nostalgia.

If you want to play that game, the actual reason we're getting X-Wings in the new trilogy is that most people want and will pay money for them. This is very much a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it;" including incredibly recognizable and popular items in the new trilogy provides a sense of continuity with the rest of the series, just like lightsabers are an unavoidable part of the setting. Any chance of having a significant difference from the OT went out the window when they cast the same actors. If you don't want to watch it, that's fine, but don't act like the whole rest of the planet shouldn't or won't.

As an aside, I dispute that X-Wings are obsolete as of ROTJ: there's lots of them flying around at Endor, just like there's lots of standard TIEs. At most, we're seeing new designs using the same technology for a niche purpose; at least, we're seeing designs that simply didn't come up in prior movies. When would TIE Bombers have come up in ANH, for example? Even if they are genuinely new incremental designs, that actually supports having them in the new movie since the situations are essentially the same.

EDIT: So basically what Adam Reynolds said.

Adam Reynolds wrote: TIE defenders were wankery created for video games. And no longer canon at that. Republic fighters were presumably replaced because of design tradeoffs that made them less effective. Not to mention that they were likely mostly worn out by the war.

My bad I was actually meaning the Interceptor but anyway, Republic fighters seemed to perform the same roles as later fighters. The V-Wing was the carrier carried spam fighter like the later TIE Fighter and the ARC-170 was a long range heavy attack fighter like the X-Wing was sometimes with the Actis class probably taking the rest of the X-Wings role of long range dog fighter. They were only in service less then 3 years (both were later designs in the old-EU and didn't seem to show up in the Clone Wars series until much later) so you can't really say they had worn out without asking why the TIEs and X-Wings didn't wear out in 30.

I should point out that both the TIE fighters and X-wings we see in trailers are clearly not the original designs we saw from the OT. They are akin to the US Navy's Super Hornet, with some common parts but ultimately a different design. The general shapes of SW fighters are largely unchanged, but that is also true in reality. Even with massive changes, the difference between the Su-27 and PAK-FA aren't as visually distinctive as the performances differences are.

They are barely changed designs. The TIE looks identical other then the paintjob and the X-Wing has different S-foils and that seems to be aboot it. That is a good point that they could be differently internally but why where the X-Wings and TIEs given upgrades while other fighters like the Clone Wars era fighters just replaced?

Other than the EU, has anyone ever suggested that X and Y-wings were worse fighters than A or B-wings? Return of the Jedi certainly never gave this indication. Y-wings were even shown running down TIE interceptors. The slow Y-wing bomber was a myth created by the EU. I would suggest that the fact that B-wings were never really shown in ROTJ indicates that they died quickly in the face of enemy fighters(I realize the real reason was out of universe production factors).

The A and B Wings were probably not superior to the X-Wing because they had different roles (whether those roles are still canon I dunno). The A-Wing was the light interceptor that was probably closest to a TIE Fighter while the B was supposed to be a heavy attack fighter more like the ARC-170. They were also newer (atleast they were) and they along with the X-Wing seemed to almost completely replace the Y-Wing by the time of Endor.

As for TIE fighters, The First Order is likely operating on something of a budget and went with the design that was extremely common and easily maintained over the more complicated design of something that can compete with an X-wing directly.

The First Order had enough money to buy their Stormtroopers new armor, buy their Navy new Star Destroyers, buy Captain Phasma fingers for her gloves and a cape, and buy or build the wannabe Death Star Starkiller Base. It seems strange that they could afford to buy everything new except the TIE Fighters. And they probably only bought all that new shit because the old shit was worn out or destroyed, the TIEs should also need replacing considering they too would experience just as heavy losses.

I can understand that argument, but it does make sense for them to be present in this context. And not just one of nostalgia.

It can make sense, yes, but their inclusion IS solely for nostalgia not for any in-universe reasons.

Esquire wrote:If you want to play that game, the actual reason we're getting X-Wings in the new trilogy is that most people want and will pay money for them. This is very much a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it;" including incredibly recognizable and popular items in the new trilogy provides a sense of continuity with the rest of the series, just like lightsabers are an unavoidable part of the setting. Any chance of having a significant difference from the OT went out the window when they cast the same actors. If you don't want to watch it, that's fine, but don't act like the whole rest of the planet shouldn't or won't.

As an aside, I dispute that X-Wings are obsolete as of ROTJ: there's lots of them flying around at Endor, just like there's lots of standard TIEs. At most, we're seeing new designs using the same technology for a niche purpose; at least, we're seeing designs that simply didn't come up in prior movies. When would TIE Bombers have come up in ANH, for example? Even if they are genuinely new incremental designs, that actually supports having them in the new movie since the situations are essentially the same.

EDIT: So basically what Adam Reynolds said.

I completely disagree. I think it's mostly down to the OT only hardcore fan base that have shaped people's perception with the advent of the Internet.

Kids have no problem liking the designs from the PT and have accepted them as part of Star Wars for a long time. If not there won't be a continued effort to produce so many prequel era mechanise if they aren't popular at all.


I think Disney and Abrams is catering too much to the fans who grew up with the OT as kids, and that is actually bad for people who enjoyed the prequels for expanding the Star Wars universe. I want to enjoy more Star Wars with an expanded scope.

I strongly oppose those that are effectively arguing for a rehash of the OT because it will cause the franchise to be stagnant in the long run like what was happening to Star Trek and the original Star Wars EU.

I oppose Abrams primarily because I think he will drastically limit the scope of storytelling in Star Wars for other writers and directors. Which is why I will not let anyone else tell me to shut up about voicing my thoughts about this issue.

Most fans would usually prefer things to be a rehash with updated graphics. It's why sport video games continue to sell like hotcakes even if they are all the same, it's why CoD continues to be popular. I think the Star Wars universe will fall into the exact same trap.

JJ is too much of an OT fan to be a good director for Star Wars.

ray245 wrote: JJ is too much of an OT fan to be a good director for Star Wars.

You don't know that.

My son is almost nine. I've learned, since, that the opinion of a nine year old boy is the only significant opinion needed to determine whether or not the movie will be good. It goes something like this: "The new Star Wars movie is gonna be awesome." "Why?" "'Cause it's Star Wars."

There. Disney now officially has netted a pre-order on a not-insignificant chunk of my money in the form of movie tickets and merchandise.

Gandalf wrote:

ray245 wrote:I am looking forward to Ep 8 more than 7, simply because I think Rian Johnson is a much more interesting director. However at the same time, I'll be annoyed if Rian is limited in terms of visual asthetic if JJ forces him to use X-Wings and stormtroopers.

JJ MIGHT have effectively made me less interested in all Star Wars stories set after TFA, which is certainly rather annoying for me.

Abrams is forcing people to use X-wings and stormtroopers? Given the brand micromanagement seen in the MCU, I'd wager that the use of classic SW imagery may have come from above.

Well, he is certainly a massive fan that played a role in trying to get Kasdan back on board, so there's already indication that he has some personal influence over the matter.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:

ray245 wrote: JJ is too much of an OT fan to be a good director for Star Wars.

You don't know that.

You are talking about a guy that felt a need to proof how big of an OT fan he is by trying to insert a dead Jar Jar.

Lagmonster wrote:My son is almost nine. I've learned, since, that the opinion of a nine year old boy is the only significant opinion needed to determine whether or not the movie will be good. It goes something like this: "The new Star Wars movie is gonna be awesome." "Why?" "'Cause it's Star Wars."

There. Disney now officially has netted a pre-order on a not-insignificant chunk of my money in the form of movie tickets and merchandise.

That's kinda my point. Kids are more open minded about Star Wars and new designs that you don't need to hark back to the OT to make a good Star Wars movie. Give kids a cool looking E-Wing and they will love it.

ray245 wrote:
I completely disagree. I think it's mostly down to the OT only hardcore fan base that have shaped people's perception with the advent of the Internet.

Oh phewy, if anything it is the now defunct EU that keeps influencing peoples ideas about it. In this very thread you can read about 'slow' Y wings and 'old' X wings, all of which are not in the movies and are ONLY things found in the old EU.

Kids have no problem liking the designs from the PT and have accepted them as part of Star Wars for a long time. If not there won't be a continued effort to produce so many prequel era mechanise if they aren't popular at all.

I have no problem with that, although it makes less sense to have PT designs in the new trilogy but no OT designs. We're looking at 50-60 year old designs as opposed to 30 years.

I think Disney and Abrams is catering too much to the fans who grew up with the OT as kids, and that is actually bad for people who enjoyed the prequels for expanding the Star Wars universe. I want to enjoy more Star Wars with an expanded scope.

If we made a war flick set in the modern day, you're not going to see WWII fighters in it, nor WWII submarines. You might see planes or ships that were in service in the 80's though.

I strongly oppose those that are effectively arguing for a rehash of the OT because it will cause the franchise to be stagnant in the long run like what was happening to Star Trek and the original Star Wars EU.

Actually, the lack of consistency with props and back ground things like ships and vessels was one of the weakness for me in the PT. In the OT you always had the Falcon, X Wings, and Star Destroyers. In the PT each movie had new ships. Cool ship porn sure, but no consistency. The fighter ships they used were different in each movie, the cap ships were different. Hell, Padme had a new ship every single movie. Now by RotS, they worked in proto OT ships which worked to transition to the OT. It made a lineage I guess.

Now, I guess if you think having links and visual connections to the OT is rehashing and going to make it stagnant, I can't help it. For me, and I would assume most people, just see it as continuing the universe we are interested in seeing. Now what would make it stagnant for me is if the exact themes, scenes, and plot are rehashed (kind of like the EU) over and over in the movies.

I oppose Abrams primarily because I think he will drastically limit the scope of storytelling in Star Wars for other writers and directors. Which is why I will not let anyone else tell me to shut up about voicing my thoughts about this issue.

LOL, you haven't shut up about since they announced Abrams as the director.

Most fans would usually prefer things to be a rehash with updated graphics. It's why sport video games continue to sell like hotcakes even if they are all the same, it's why CoD continues to be popular. I think the Star Wars universe will fall into the exact same trap.

I'm sure most people will differ to some degree on what makes the Star Wars universe Starwarie, but I'm also pretty sure the world building and background of Good guys with lightsabers fighting big evil Empire with armored shocktroopers and black dark knights with red lightsabers along with large fleets of space ships and little fighters ala WWII in space would cover a lot of fans. And considering the popularity and notoriety of the franchise, when I say fan, I'm pretty much saying most people in most first world countries and a healthy chunk elsewhere, not just some small group of basement dwelling nerds.

JJ is too much of an OT fan to be a good director for Star Wars.

I don't know how you can say that without seeing or knowing more about the movie first, like I said, you seem to be actively hoping the movie will suck so it will confirm your opinion.

ray245 wrote: You are talking about a guy that felt a need to proof how big of an OT fan he is by trying to insert a dead Jar Jar.

Err.. yeah.

Which shows he's in tune with at least 99% of the viewing public. I'm ok with that.

ray245 wrote: Well, he is certainly a massive fan that played a role in trying to get Kasdan back on board, so there's already indication that he has some personal influence over the matter.

He is the director, I would assume he had a lot of say in it, but I'm unsure why this is a bad thing. Kasdan has been involved in SW for ever and would be a good resource for anyone making another SW movie.

You are talking about a guy that felt a need to proof how big of an OT fan he is by trying to insert a dead Jar Jar.

This point makes no sense. How is inserting a PT character proof of being too big of an OT fan?

That's kinda my point. Kids are more open minded about Star Wars and new designs that you don't need to hark back to the OT to make a good Star Wars movie. Give kids a cool looking E-Wing and they will love it.

Ah, so this is the real point then I take it. You're not mad about X wings and storm troopers, you're mad there will be no E wings and Admiral Daala's from the EU. We're OT fanboys because the part of Star Wars you like, the EU, is now dead. So now it appears you're on a crusade to hate on the movie with OT stuff in it because there is no prominent EU stuff. Get over it.

Knife wrote:

ray245 wrote:You are talking about a guy that felt a need to proof how big of an OT fan he is by trying to insert a dead Jar Jar.

This point makes no sense. How is inserting a PT character proof of being too big of an OT fan?

I think it's meant to symbolically "killing" the PT by using Jar jar as an avatar or just thinking all OT fans must want to see Jar Jar killed preferbly as horribly as possible.

Lord Revan wrote:

Knife wrote:

ray245 wrote:You are talking about a guy that felt a need to proof how big of an OT fan he is by trying to insert a dead Jar Jar.

This point makes no sense. How is inserting a PT character proof of being too big of an OT fan?

I think it's meant to symbolically "killing" the PT by using Jar jar as an avatar or just thinking all OT fans must want to see Jar Jar killed preferbly as horribly as possible.

Ah, OK. Meh.