StarDestroyer.Net BBS

FaxModem1 wrote: 2018-11-26 12:10am Minor things, why did Luke make a map to his location and give it to people if he planned to die alone and forgotten?

But no one in Episode VII ever said that Luke made a map to his location, or gave it to anyone. This is probably the biggest made-up brainbug of the sequel trilogy - it has simply no basis in anything in the film. There's only some nonsense on Wookiepedia based on - something? - that says Luke gave part of the map to Lor San Tekka, but this flies in the face of the Poe Dameron comic which clearly indicates that Lor San Tekka was searching for the location of the temple right before TFA. But that's of no relevance to whether the films contradict each other.

More generally, its utterly baffling to me that people came away from watching Episode VII thinking that Luke hadn't done exactly what he was doing in Episode VIII. It's like Han's story about where Luke went and why just went completely over their heads or was simply totally ignored.

What are the Knights if Ren? Where are they? In VII, they helped destroy the temple, in VIII, Kylo/Ben acted alone.

That's not a contradiction, you just haven't seen them yet.

In VII, the Resistance fleet is stated as only a few fighters. In VIII, the fleet is at least three capital ships with bombers.(a positive change in difference)

This is never stated in Episode VII.

As to Ben's fate - I would be totally disgusted with Episode IX if it just kills Ben off, unredeemed. That's not Star Wars.

Vympel wrote: 2018-11-27 05:45pm As to Ben's fate - I would be totally disgusted with Episode IX if it just kills Ben off, unredeemed. That's not Star Wars.

Agreed. The whole story is about redemption and balancing the Force. Snoke has been playing with his mind for what -- 10yrs? Longer? And yet Kylo was still conflicted between Light and Dark. He needs to find his balance, has to have a 'come to the Light' moment.

I disagree. He had his 'come to the light' moment in TLJ, when Rey tried to bring him around. Unlike Vader, he wasn't driven to the Dark Side. He deliberately chose it.

Vympel wrote: 2018-11-27 05:45pm

FaxModem1 wrote: 2018-11-26 12:10am Minor things, why did Luke make a map to his location and give it to people if he planned to die alone and forgotten?

But no one in Episode VII ever said that Luke made a map to his location, or gave it to anyone. This is probably the biggest made-up brainbug of the sequel trilogy - it has simply no basis in anything in the film. There's only some nonsense on Wookiepedia based on - something? - that says Luke gave part of the map to Lor San Tekka, but this flies in the face of the Poe Dameron comic which clearly indicates that Lor San Tekka was searching for the location of the temple right before TFA. But that's of no relevance to whether the films contradict each other.

So, we're supposed to have read some comic to know what the hell the story behind the map is? Because without it, it's easy to assume that Luke left it, especially as R2 has a key piece and they're all waiting for R2 to wake up and show the last piece of the puzzle. The implication is that Luke, for whatever reason, left a map on how to find him. Otherwise, why does R2 contain the last piece of the puzzle? Why did Luke give it to R2? Just for shits and giggles?

More generally, its utterly baffling to me that people came away from watching Episode VII thinking that Luke hadn't done exactly what he was doing in Episode VIII. It's like Han's story about where Luke went and why just went completely over their heads or was simply totally ignored.

Probably because Han is supposed to be wrong about Luke's intentions, as it goes against his character. And shows how far Han has gone down since he's abandoned the Rebellion/Resistance and being a father? Or is character assassination of the original trio supposed to be the theme of the Original Trilogy?

What are the Knights if Ren? Where are they? In VII, they helped destroy the temple, in VIII, Kylo/Ben acted alone.

That's not a contradiction, you just haven't seen them yet.

Then it's as important as the New Republic, a minor plot detail that was needlessly forgotten and served no purpose.

Character assassination? What?

Gandalf wrote: 2018-11-27 08:13pm Character assassination? What?

Han has abandoned helping out the good guys, and has spent the last thirty years getting himself into trouble over and over. Whereas the core concept of Han was that he never abandoned his friends.

Luke has abandoned helping out others, and believes that dying out, alone and forgotten, is the best path for him. Apathy is better than giving a shit.

Leia, I don't know yet. We'll see what she does in IX. Aside from what I hear of the new-EU having her pretty much ensuring that the New Republic is so de-teethed that it can be taken out by a well armed terrorist group.

FaxModem1 wrote: 2018-11-27 08:49pmHan has abandoned helping out the good guys, and has spent the last thirty years getting himself into trouble over and over. Whereas the core concept of Han was that he never abandoned his friends.

I took it to be that Han was a scoundrel and when stuff got hard he went back to his scoundrel roots. People are like that.

Luke has abandoned helping out others, and believes that dying out, alone and forgotten, is the best path for him. Apathy is better than giving a shit.

He tried helping and inadvertently shit went way fucking downhill as he realised that the Jedi mythology he was chasing was really unfit for the task at hand. You can't fix a galaxy with youthful exuberance. Was he even qualified to teach people about Jediism?

For me, the Luke storyline in TLJ was some of the best stuff that has happened in the SW films.

Leia, I don't know yet. We'll see what she does in IX. Aside from what I hear of the new-EU having her pretty much ensuring that the New Republic is so de-teethed that it can be taken out by a well armed terrorist group.

A person who was born into a huge militarised superstate, and literally saw her planet explode because of said militarised superstate favours disarmament. Why is this "assassination"?

Because everyone knows pacifists are cowards and quislings, and good characters should all be TOUGH PRAGMATIC HARD MEN MAKING HARD CHOICES.

Batman wrote: 2018-11-27 06:09pm I disagree. He had his 'come to the light' moment in TLJ, when Rey tried to bring him around. Unlike Vader, he wasn't driven to the Dark Side. He deliberately chose it.

Um, to be fair, I don't recall anyone else holding Anakin's hand and swinging the sabre for him when he cut off Windu's hand. Sure, he was trying to make a deal with Palpatine to save his wife, but it was still his choice.

Kylo, meanwhile, was far further down the road to complete corruption, likely far more under the sway of the Dark Side, when Rey gave him a choice to walk away. It may be his choice, but it's no more so than Anakin's was.

Granted, Anakin as Vader chose to walk away after years of serving the Dark Side, and Kylo didn't. But Kylo's choice in TLJ does not parallel Anakin's fall in RotS. The moment that Kylo initially fell was far earlier, when he woke up and saw Luke standing over him with a sabre.

I think it's probably too late to redeem Kylo in a satisfying or plausible way (or at least it would be very difficult). But I don't see why he is any less deserving of it than Vader.

Personally, though, I don't think anyone has the connection to reach him that Luke did with Vader- Vader was all about family attachments, and Kylo... isn't. Han is dead, Luke is dead, Rey barely knows him and rightly walked away from him at the end of TLJ. If anyone could talk him down, it would be Leia, but she seems to have given up on him too at the end of TLJ. I just don't think there's anyone with the connection to Kylo to reach him- unless you go with a "Bad Boy saved by True Love" plot with Rey, which... ugg.

The Romulan Republic wrote: 2018-11-28 02:32am

Batman wrote: 2018-11-27 06:09pm I disagree. He had his 'come to the light' moment in TLJ, when Rey tried to bring him around. Unlike Vader, he wasn't driven to the Dark Side. He deliberately chose it.

Um, to be fair, I don't recall anyone else holding Anakin's hand and swinging the sabre for him when he cut off Windu's hand. Sure, he was trying to make a deal with Palpatine to save his wife, but it was still his choice.

Kylo, meanwhile, was far further down the road to complete corruption, likely far more under the sway of the Dark Side, when Rey gave him a choice to walk away. It may be his choice, but it's no more so than Anakin's was.

Granted, Anakin as Vader chose to walk away after years of serving the Dark Side, and Kylo didn't. But Kylo's choice in TLJ does not parallel Anakin's fall in RotS. The moment that Kylo initially fell was far earlier, when he woke up and saw Luke standing over him with a sabre.

I think it's probably too late to redeem Kylo in a satisfying or plausible way (or at least it would be very difficult). But I don't see why he is any less deserving of it than Vader.

Personally, though, I don't think anyone has the connection to reach him that Luke did with Vader- Vader was all about family attachments, and Kylo... isn't. Han is dead, Luke is dead, Rey barely knows him and rightly walked away from him at the end of TLJ. If anyone could talk him down, it would be Leia, but she seems to have given up on him too at the end of TLJ. I just don't think there's anyone with the connection to Kylo to reach him- unless you go with a "Bad Boy saved by True Love" plot with Rey, which... ugg.

Wasn't Kylo Ren's choice to pick the Dark Side essentially choice of a child picking what he thought was "cool" rather then a well thought and calculated choice made by an adult.

I could see Kylo Ren's redemption being him allowing to be captured by the heroes rather then fighting back. Essentially accepting he fucked up but not suddenly being all sunshine and rainbows.

Lord Revan wrote: 2018-11-28 02:41am

The Romulan Republic wrote: 2018-11-28 02:32am

Batman wrote: 2018-11-27 06:09pm I disagree. He had his 'come to the light' moment in TLJ, when Rey tried to bring him around. Unlike Vader, he wasn't driven to the Dark Side. He deliberately chose it.

Um, to be fair, I don't recall anyone else holding Anakin's hand and swinging the sabre for him when he cut off Windu's hand. Sure, he was trying to make a deal with Palpatine to save his wife, but it was still his choice.

Kylo, meanwhile, was far further down the road to complete corruption, likely far more under the sway of the Dark Side, when Rey gave him a choice to walk away. It may be his choice, but it's no more so than Anakin's was.

Granted, Anakin as Vader chose to walk away after years of serving the Dark Side, and Kylo didn't. But Kylo's choice in TLJ does not parallel Anakin's fall in RotS. The moment that Kylo initially fell was far earlier, when he woke up and saw Luke standing over him with a sabre.

I think it's probably too late to redeem Kylo in a satisfying or plausible way (or at least it would be very difficult). But I don't see why he is any less deserving of it than Vader.

Personally, though, I don't think anyone has the connection to reach him that Luke did with Vader- Vader was all about family attachments, and Kylo... isn't. Han is dead, Luke is dead, Rey barely knows him and rightly walked away from him at the end of TLJ. If anyone could talk him down, it would be Leia, but she seems to have given up on him too at the end of TLJ. I just don't think there's anyone with the connection to Kylo to reach him- unless you go with a "Bad Boy saved by True Love" plot with Rey, which... ugg.

Wasn't Kylo Ren's choice to pick the Dark Side essentially choice of a child picking what he thought was "cool" rather then a well thought and calculated choice made by an adult.

A young man feeling alienated from his family seeking belonging by idolizing his "cool" evil grandfather. At least, that was how it started. Then Luke got suspicious, got an itchy sabre finger, and that pushed him over the edge by causing him to lash out in anger, and likely confirming (in his mind) that his family was out to get him and that the Light Side was hypocritical and false.

I could see Kylo Ren's redemption being him allowing to be captured by the heroes rather then fighting back. Essentially accepting he fucked up but not suddenly being all sunshine and rainbows.

But what would motivate the change of heart? I don't see who could persuade him. Maybe if he found that his efforts to build something new were futile, that power was more of a burden than an opportunity, he might just become so disillusioned with everything that he'd say "fuck it"- but I'd see him as more likely to seek death than allow himself to be taken alive then (given the parallels between Kylo and school shooter types, I can definitely see him seeking to commit suicide in a way that takes as many people with him as possible, when all his plans fail).

FaxModem1 wrote: 2018-11-27 08:49pm

Gandalf wrote: 2018-11-27 08:13pm Character assassination? What?

Han has abandoned helping out the good guys, and has spent the last thirty years getting himself into trouble over and over. Whereas the core concept of Han was that he never abandoned his friends.

Note how quickly he jumps back into the fray in TFA, and how he risks everything (and ultimately dies) to try to save his son, and a woman he met a day or two before. I wouldn't say he "abandoned" anyone. But there was no open war between the NR and First Order prior to TFA for him to fight in, and working with Leia would have to be extremely awkward and painful for both of them after what happened to Ben. But when the opportunity arose for him to get back into the thick of things, he didn't take much convincing to take it.

Luke has abandoned helping out others, and believes that dying out, alone and forgotten, is the best path for him. Apathy is better than giving a shit.

It's not apathy- its despair. I'll admit as a Luke fan that I don't really like seeing him like that, but given the events of the ST's backstory, it's an understandable response. And I think there's an implicit self-doubt. It's not that Luke doesn't care- its that he doesn't trust himself to make the right choices any more.

Leia, I don't know yet. We'll see what she does in IX. Aside from what I hear of the new-EU having her pretty much ensuring that the New Republic is so de-teethed that it can be taken out by a well armed terrorist group.

Already discussed, though I will note that describing the First Order as a terrorist group is highly misleading. They don't fight like a typical terrorist group or insurgency. They don't rely on guerrilla tactics or hit and runs. They rely on WMD strikes followed up by conventional military force. They are armed like a major power. They fight like a major power. You can fault the NR for allowing such a power to grow in the first place, perhaps, but its not implausible that the galaxy would want peace after decades of war, and be too slow to rearm and go to war again even when necessary.

A better analogy would be North Korea, or maybe Russia. A relatively backwater power which invests heavily of what limited resources it has in its military, and therefore can punch above its weight class. But by no means an insurgent group.

The Romulan Republic wrote: 2018-11-28 02:50am

FaxModem1 wrote: 2018-11-27 08:49pm

Gandalf wrote: 2018-11-27 08:13pm Character assassination? What?

Han has abandoned helping out the good guys, and has spent the last thirty years getting himself into trouble over and over. Whereas the core concept of Han was that he never abandoned his friends.

Note how quickly he jumps back into the fray in TFA, and how he risks everything (and ultimately dies) to try to save his son, and a woman he met a day or two before. I wouldn't say he "abandoned" anyone. But there was no open war between the NR and First Order prior to TFA for him to fight in, and working with Leia would have to be extremely awkward and painful for both of them after what happened to Ben. But when the opportunity arose for him to get back into the thick of things, he didn't take much convincing to take it.

It's just sad to see Han as a washed up failure who leaves his family because it's too hard for him.

Luke has abandoned helping out others, and believes that dying out, alone and forgotten, is the best path for him. Apathy is better than giving a shit.

It's not apathy- its despair. I'll admit as a Luke fan that I don't really like seeing him like that, but given the events of the ST's backstory, it's an understandable response. And I think there's an implicit self-doubt. It's not that Luke doesn't care- its that he doesn't trust himself to make the right choices any more.

If that's what they're trying to convey, I don't think they did that well, since it came off more as bitterness and him being a grump than being broken. If they had shown something more like Picard's reaction in Family to the Borg, I could believe it. It's more bitterness in TLJ.

Leia, I don't know yet. We'll see what she does in IX. Aside from what I hear of the new-EU having her pretty much ensuring that the New Republic is so de-teethed that it can be taken out by a well armed terrorist group.

Already discussed, though I will note that describing the First Order as a terrorist group is highly misleading. They don't fight like a typical terrorist group or insurgency. They don't rely on guerrilla tactics or hit and runs. They rely on WMD strikes followed up by conventional military force. They are armed like a major power. They fight like a major power. You can fault the NR for allowing such a power to grow in the first place, perhaps, but its not implausible that the galaxy would want peace after decades of war, and be too slow to rearm and go to war again even when necessary.

A better analogy would be North Korea, or maybe Russia. A relatively backwater power which invests heavily of what limited resources it has in its military, and therefore can punch above its weight class. But by no means an insurgent group.

So, Homefront and the Red Dawn remake are the inspiration for the sequel trilogy's scenario? The ones that were construed as idiotic and unbelievable?

I wouldn't call it character assassination myself, but I can see why some people would. Particularly for Luke, since they have him go from ready to sacrifice himself to save his father who committed massive atrocities to ready to murder his nephew over vague premonitions about what he might do in the future without anything to show how he got from point A to point B. Spending some time to show how that happened, or providing more context to the almost attempted murder, could fix that if handled properly, though.

That said, the seeds for this fan discontent were probably planted as soon as it was decided that the sequels would basically tread the same ground as the original trilogy. If the new heroes are facing the same problems as the old ones, then it's easy to make the original accomplishments seem hollow, since in the end nothing really changed.

It's too bad they didn't go the route I suggested way back before even Episode VII came out, where the involvement of the old cast is basically RED in space, where they are old but still able to throw down. Chewbacca comes across okay, if seriously underused, and Han had moments of this when he wasn't being mopey, but Luke and Leia didn't have that same spark and mostly just felt sad and old. What makes it even more disappointing is that there really isn't any more opportunity to fix this, since Carrie Fisher is dead and Luke and Han were killed off.

I would think that the seeds of fan discontent were sown back when it was clear that they weren't going down the old EU path of things. A lot of fans were weirdly attached to that whole... mess.

Gandalf wrote: 2018-11-28 03:09pm I would think that the seeds of fan discontent were sown back when it was clear that they weren't going down the old EU path of things. A lot of fans were weirdly attached to that whole... mess.

Honestly, every new Star Wars film since the original, including Empire Strikes Back, has had a contingent of angry fans saying it ruined things. This is how nostalgia blinders works.

But yeah, starting off Disney management by purging the EU ensured a lot of anger and distrust of the new material right off the bat. That said, I think it was the right move to purge the EU and selectively reintroduce certain elements of it- it clear away a lot of old mistakes, and gave the new films the creative freedom they needed rather than being bound to stories only die-hard fans would be familiar with.

If the guy that played Luke in the original trilogy and was payed handsomely to appear in the new trilogy tells the director that "I fundamentally disagree with everything you decided about my character" then maybe it's a bit deeper than them crazy ass fans being angry with Disney because they discarded something called the "EU" which 99% of the movie going audience would think refers to the European Union.

As to where they'll go in Episode 9 on first thought I would say they'll just copy Episode 6 just as Episode 7 was a copy of Episode 4.
However they already used up the throne room scene from Episode 6 and Box Office decline seems severe enough to perhaps jolt them into coming up with an actual original story.

An actor disagrees with a director!? How is that a sign of anything?

Gandalf wrote:An actor disagrees with a director!? How is that a sign of anything?

It's a sign that the dissatisfaction with how Luke was portrayed goes all the way up to the guy who embodied the character over three movies and it's hardly contained to a small contingent of overreacting fans?

Kane Starkiller wrote: 2018-11-28 06:36pm

Gandalf wrote:An actor disagrees with a director!? How is that a sign of anything?

It's a sign that the dissatisfaction with how Luke was portrayed goes all the way up to the guy who embodied the character over three movies and it's hardly contained to a small contingent of overreacting fans?

Are you referring to the statement he's describing here?

"I’m sorry I lowered my guard and expressed my misgivings about it because that belongs in the process. That doesn’t belong to the public. And I made that statement before I saw the finished film… and I just think it’s a stunning film. It’s surprising, it’s challenging, it has humor, it’s probably the most complex Star Wars film since Empire, so… I had to put aside my feelings and try to realize the director’s vision the best I can."

So was all of the dissatisfaction to which you refer based on not understanding the film?

To which the whiners immediately responded with allegations that Disney forced him to retract it, because obviously they are so self-evidently correct that the only way anyone could disagree with their entitlement complex is because they were forced to by a sinister coverup.

Also, I can tell you from personal experience that there are always conflicts between actors and directors. Working in theatre, I have often disagreed with or questioned a director's choices. Sometimes you work it out. Sometimes actors just ignore the director and improv their own thing. A lot of the time, the actors have to suck it up and do what the director wants. Sometimes that leaves bad feelings. But I have often been dissatisfied with a decision made during rehearsals, and ended up liking the final product overall.

So Hamill's statements ring very true to me, going off my own experiences.

Gandalf wrote: 2018-11-28 03:09pm I would think that the seeds of fan discontent were sown back when it was clear that they weren't going down the old EU path of things. A lot of fans were weirdly attached to that whole... mess.

Yeah, but the EU is pretty niche by comparison. On reflection, though, I think the seeds were actually planted when Disney announced they were going to do a Star Wars movie every single year forever. That was the announcement that gave me the greatest sense of foreboding personally.

That said, the decision to have the sequels be as similar to the originals as they are didn't help, since if the new heroes have to face the same problems as the old ones it undermines what the old heroes accomplished. It may be more realistic that the same problems just came back with new names and bit them all in the ass, but it's not particularly uplifting in the way that movies about WWI tend to not be particularly uplifting.

The Romulan Republic wrote: 2018-11-29 01:12am To which the whiners immediately responded with allegations that Disney forced him to retract it, because obviously they are so self-evidently correct that the only way anyone could disagree with their entitlement complex is because they were forced to by a sinister coverup.

To be fair, that's hardly uncommon behavior for large entertainment studios in general and Disney in particular. They tend to come down pretty hard on anything that could be damaging to the brand, which generally includes statements from cast or crew that could, rightly or wrongly, be construed as criticism of the property during what is supposed to be a promotional interview.

I'm not at all saying the accusations are right, but the idea of a large corporation telling someone they hired to take back a critical-sounding statement they made in an interview is hardly on the level of Flat Eartherism or Anti-Vaxxing in terms of outlandish conspiracy theories.

The Romulan Republic wrote: 2018-11-29 01:12am To which the whiners immediately responded with allegations that Disney forced him to retract it, because obviously they are so self-evidently correct that the only way anyone could disagree with their entitlement complex is because they were forced to by a sinister coverup.

You must be half blind if that statement Gandalf provided doesn't look like total bullshit.

The Romulan Republic wrote: 2018-11-28 02:50am

FaxModem1 wrote: 2018-11-27 08:49pm
Leia, I don't know yet. We'll see what she does in IX. Aside from what I hear of the new-EU having her pretty much ensuring that the New Republic is so de-teethed that it can be taken out by a well armed terrorist group.

Already discussed, though I will note that describing the First Order as a terrorist group is highly misleading. They don't fight like a typical terrorist group or insurgency. They don't rely on guerrilla tactics or hit and runs. They rely on WMD strikes followed up by conventional military force. They are armed like a major power. They fight like a major power. You can fault the NR for allowing such a power to grow in the first place, perhaps, but its not implausible that the galaxy would want peace after decades of war, and be too slow to rearm and go to war again even when necessary.

A better analogy would be North Korea, or maybe Russia. A relatively backwater power which invests heavily of what limited resources it has in its military, and therefore can punch above its weight class. But by no means an insurgent group.

Who's side are you arguing? If the First Order is a military state, then it is even more ridiculous that the New Republic was completely disarmed. This isn't a matter of "hard decisions," it's common sense. Depose an authoritarian, militarist regime, and finish the fucking job before you recycle all of your guns, or hold on to the God damn guns.

Gandalf wrote:Are you referring to the statement he's describing here?

"I’m sorry I lowered my guard and expressed my misgivings about it because that belongs in the process. That doesn’t belong to the public. And I made that statement before I saw the finished film… and I just think it’s a stunning film. It’s surprising, it’s challenging, it has humor, it’s probably the most complex Star Wars film since Empire, so… I had to put aside my feelings and try to realize the director’s vision the best I can."

So was all of the dissatisfaction to which you refer based on not understanding the film?

Mark Hamill's initial airing of grievances carries weight because it is not in his interest to shit on the movie. This is why we can safely assume that he is being truthful when he says that he disagreed with everything Rian Johnson decided about his character.
Him praising the movie later is a clear conflict of interest and is something we always see actors do when describing the movie they star in. Therefore it doesn't carry nearly as much weight.

But let's assume that he is being perfectly truthful in that statement. He never states that he now suddenly totally agrees with the direction his character was taken in but that after he saw the movie he liked it. In other words he liked it despite the changes to Luke not because of it.
Which doesn't contradict my earlier point that more people than just hardcore EU fans think that what they did to Luke was bullshit.

Personally I don't see what Mark could've seen in the final product to truly change his mind. The casino animal chase? The yo mama joke? Seeing the end of the movie and realizing that after his character told Rey that "Force is not about moving rocks" Rey saves the day by literally moving rocks to free up the cave entrance? Yeah stunning, thrilling, much humor, challenging...