StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Romulan Republic wrote:A lot of that is flat-out crap.
Spoiler

I dislike the idea of a long war with the Empire after Return of the Jedi. It contradicts the optimistic tone of the Original Trilogy's ending and its anti-climactic. But at least they've cut it down to a year instead of the interminable war it was in past times.

Spoiler

Borgholio wrote:

Though I have to say it is possible to overdo the we're doing this with real models, for example using an actual film camera seems somewhat stupid, even as a marketing trick.

When it was first revealed that they were going to use a large number of practical effects, I did the happy dance in my seat. Although it may not be entirely accurate, there is the perception by many people I know (myself included), that too much CGI was used in past movies. There are several scenes where a digital body was used with the actors face pasted on it, for example, and those tended to stand out like a sore thumb. Having a real, physical person in front of a film (or even a digital) camera just adds that extra touch of realism that you don't get even with the best CGI. The thing about going back to real models and using film is the filmmaker saying, "Yeah we hear your complaints, and we agree that it didn't look as good as it could have. We're going to do it right this time."

So while it might be partly considered a marketing gimmick...IMO it's for a good reason.

While they're at it, they should also mention as often as possible that the new movies (as opposed to the prequels) will be using real costumes. With all the Stoklassholes out there convinced the prequels were all CGI, they might also convince the neckbeards that all the actors performed in the buff and their costumes were added later by ILM.

I had to laugh out loud as the enraptured nerds and the Disney staff were mesmerized by a muppet that looked like a reject from Fraggle Rock. Who knew muppets and matte lines were what made Star Wars so great?

Pelranius wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:A lot of that is flat-out crap.
Spoiler

I dislike the idea of a long war with the Empire after Return of the Jedi. It contradicts the optimistic tone of the Original Trilogy's ending and its anti-climactic. But at least they've cut it down to a year instead of the interminable war it was in past times.

Spoiler

How's a one year war a long war?

Well, relatively long.

The end of Return of the Jedi gave the impression that the Empire folded very fast after Palpatine's death.

Still, its better than the unending slog the EU gave us.

A rumor I heard from E3 that I'd love for someone here to debunk, but I've heard from the grape vine that JJ Abrams made a statement during the press conference or an interview that he only considers the OT canon.

Anybody who slogged through all the press events and junk know if this is bullshit or not?

I'm hoping it is bull. I know the prequels get a bad rap with long time Star Wars fans but still were atleast enjoyed by millions. Many younger Star Wars fans who grew up with the Prequels seem to prefer them over the OT and alot of kids today are more familiar with the Prequel era thanks to the Clone Wars series. It seems dumb to disregard all those fans, many of which are adults now.

I remember some shit about Abrams talking about wanting to kill off Jar-Jar, which was bad enough considering many kids loved him even if I and most every Star Wars OT fan hated him, but I wouldn't think he'd be dumb enough to start massively raggin' on or just disregarding half of the existing series.

If he tried to contradict/decanonize the Prequels in his film, I hope Disney yanked his leash hard. Because flawed though the Prequels are, they are still a core part of Star Wars. My response to Abrams using his film to make the Prequels non-canon might very well be "Okay, I'm considering your film non-canon". I respect Abrams as a director, but I expect professionalism and integrity from a major filmmaker with a big budget. If I wanted fanboy with an ax to grind, I'd save ten dollars on a movie ticket and go to fanfiction.net.

Edit: You know, I really don't like it when one director uses his film to piss on another director's work. Its just crass.

And I don't give a damn what one director thinks about another director's work. I positively agree the Star Wars universe was a better place without the prequels. I do not care about all of this real world idiocy. I don't care if 15,000 cameramen, FX engineers and extras lose their jobs. The only consequences I care about are the in-universe ones. Disney already decided to lose 99% of the canon anyway, what's so special about them losing the prequels?

Well, for one thing, they kept The Clone Wars, which doesn't make much sense without the Prequels. For another thing, directors can have whatever opinions they want, but I don't want the films getting bogged down in the petty fan feuds you see online. Also, it leaves a huge part of the story untold if you lose the Prequels. And lastly, OT nostalgia may be a big thing with older viewers, but for a lot of younger viewers, not only will it not matter, but the Prequels are what introduced them to Star Wars.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Pelranius wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:A lot of that is flat-out crap.
Spoiler

I dislike the idea of a long war with the Empire after Return of the Jedi. It contradicts the optimistic tone of the Original Trilogy's ending and its anti-climactic. But at least they've cut it down to a year instead of the interminable war it was in past times.

Spoiler

How's a one year war a long war?

Well, relatively long.

The end of Return of the Jedi gave the impression that the Empire folded very fast after Palpatine's death.

Still, its better than the unending slog the EU gave us.

Spoiler In short:

The Clone Wars have been with us since before ANH was ANH. Why would losing the PT change that? And I don't see why the PT is required to understand TCW (which did an infinitely better job at presenting the Clone Wars than the PT did).

Rogue 9 wrote:Spoiler

The EU gave us the Coruscant police and stormtroopers descending on the celebrating crowd seen at the end of Return of the Jedi quite some time ago, which they seem to be keeping - and it makes perfect sense. Why would the entire governing machinery of the Empire simply grind to a halt in a day?

In short:

Having the Spoiler is basically saying fuck you to the end of Return of the Jedi and restoring the status quo. Its annoying to say the least.

Now, granted, I wouldn't expect everything to be over overnight. I imagine that their would be Imperial bases and loyalist strongholds that would hold out for quite a while. And I imagine the Rebellion couldn't quickly take control of the entire galaxy given they were on the run and presumably a small group not long before. But with massive popular opposition, the Emperor gone with no clear successor, and the Rebellion having a huge moral boost/propaganda victory from winning at Endor, I can see the Imperial government crumbling rather fast.

What would follow would probably be a divided, chaotic galaxy- Imperial forces in hiding or engaging in terrorism against their enemies and worlds joining the Rebels or simply going their own way. Many different factions.

Batman wrote:The Clone Wars have been with us since before ANH was ANH.

I meant the show.

Why would losing the PT change that? And I don't see why the PT is required to understand TCW (which did an infinitely better job at presenting the Clone Wars than the PT did).

Well, a lot of the backstory for The Clone Wars came from the Prequels.

The Romulan Republic wrote:] is basically saying fuck you to the end of Return of the Jedi and restoring the status quo. Its annoying to say the least.

You mean the edited ending of the movie? Because the name Coruscant didn't even exist when the movie actually came out in theaters. Why should an edited ending be any more sacred then the original which leaves the entire issue open ended?

That's a good point, but the celebration on Coruscant is still in the films and in any case, the OT's end has a very optimistic feel.

One year? One year?

But, the Rebellion started with the Petition of 5,000, didn't it? And that was twenty years before A New Hope! And the Rebels series has them fighting Imperials five years before A New Hope, or doesn't that count?

Or are they saying the movies all take place in just one year? But, it took almost twenty years to build the first Death Star, if the end of Revenge of the Sith is any indication, so how did they build the second, bigger Death Star so fast? Or did they start construction on the second Death Star about the same time as the first? But, why is it only half constructed? And since the second Death Star would have eliminated the fatal flaw in the first (Remember that exhaust port? The one that led right to the main reactor?) it's clear that construction on the second Death Star was started after A New Hope! So how could they just slap it together in less than a year? I'm no engineer, but it seems to me they'd want to do safety checks and testing during their construction of the reactor, if only to be sure it didn't blow up the first time they pulled the trigger! And it seems to me that would take a bit longer than a year, even if the second Death Star was only half constructed!

Sorry if I'm ranting, it's just that this one year war makes no sense to me.

Chris Parr wrote:One year? One year?

But, the Rebellion started with the Petition of 5,000, didn't it? And that was twenty years before A New Hope! And the Rebels series has them fighting Imperials five years before A New Hope, or doesn't that count?

Or are they saying the movies all take place in just one year? But, it took almost twenty years to build the first Death Star, if the end of Revenge of the Sith is any indication, so how did they build the second, bigger Death Star so fast? Or did they start construction on the second Death Star about the same time as the first? But, why is it only half constructed? And since the second Death Star would have eliminated the fatal flaw in the first (Remember that exhaust port? The one that led right to the main reactor?) it's clear that construction on the second Death Star was started after A New Hope! So how could they just slap it together in less than a year? I'm no engineer, but it seems to me they'd want to do safety checks and testing during their construction of the reactor, if only to be sure it didn't blow up the first time they pulled the trigger! And it seems to me that would take a bit longer than a year, even if the second Death Star was only half constructed!

Sorry if I'm ranting, it's just that this one year war makes no sense to me.

I believe the one year thing, if its what I'm thinking of, refers to one year after Endor. Not that the entire Rebellion took place in one year, which would be obviously disproved by Luke's age alone unless they really are removing the Prequels from canon.

All right.

Though is the Petition of 5,000 canon now?

The Romulan Republic wrote:Though is the Petition of 5,000 canon now?

I guess you mean "Petition of 2,000"? I think it has been canon all along (unless the canon status of the deleted scenes have changed, the only non-canon deleted scene was the Grievous scene from ROTS).

The Romulan Republic wrote:Edit: You know, I really don't like it when one director uses his film to piss on another director's work. Its just crass.

You know that's exactly what Lucas did? What with firing Kershner, Kurtz, making Leia Luke's sister, killing the previously established plans to have Emperor's duel in Episode 9, and adding Ewoks instead of Wookies to forest moon?

Joun_Lord wrote:A rumor I heard from E3 that I'd love for someone here to debunk, but I've heard from the grape vine that JJ Abrams made a statement during the press conference or an interview that he only considers the OT canon.

I'd be in favour of going to earlier interpretation of Clone Wars - as this terrible conflict where Clone Masters were against the Republic (cloning ban doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise) and Jedi Masters were really powerful, mysterious and larger than life figures, like in Zahn trilogy. What we got instead, thinly veiled minimalist Iraq allegory and jumping squirrels with ADHD was such crap I just shook my head in disgust. There were flashes of what Clone Wars really could be in RotS (such as massive space battle or Yoda fighting Palpatine in senate using solely the Force) but it was too little, too late, and still constrained by utter lack of imagination.

Hell, I'd be in favour to make PT non canon solely to give EU hating elitists (ones that never read one bit of it and just going on their asspull knowledge of it) a taste of their own medicine: "Muh prequels have badly written characters, no character growth, shit dialogues, plot holes and use CGI to paper over dozens of glaring holes? Boo! Your nyeh-EU is no canon, lalala, can't hear you!"

Irbis wrote:You know that's exactly what Lucas did? What with firing Kershner, Kurtz, making Leia Luke's sister, killing the previously established plans to have Emperor's duel in Episode 9, and adding Ewoks instead of Wookies to forest moon?

I don't know the details of that. But at least Lucas has a claim to being the one who gets final say over Star wars by virtue of having created it. Also, as far as I recall, nothing he did prior to a couple of scenes in the Prequels contradicted something that appeared on screen. And none of this is anywhere near the same as disregarding an entire trilogy. And anyway, just because Lucas did it doesn't make it okay for someone else to do it.

I'd be in favour of going to earlier interpretation of Clone Wars - as this terrible conflict where Clone Masters were against the Republic (cloning ban doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise) and Jedi Masters were really powerful, mysterious and larger than life figures, like in Zahn trilogy.

Zahn's books weren't that great you know. While it would have been nice of Lucas not to contradict them, at the end of the day I'm inclined to consider the Prequels (minus Phantom Menace at least) more important. To me, the EU, even the best of the EU, is secondary to the films.

What we got instead, thinly veiled minimalist Iraq allegory

How in God's name were the Prequels more minimalist than Zahn's work? 200 Dreadnoughts, anyone?

Yeah, there's the tiny clone army thing, but to be fair, the Prequels referred to units, which could be anywhere from one man to thousands.

This, of course, has all been gone over on this site before.

And what made the Prequels an Iraq War analogy? The closest thing I can think of is the idea of people giving up democracy for the sake of security (which is very broadly relevant) and Anakin's with me or against me line to Obi-wan, which do come across as possible jabs at Bush and the War on Terror but not Iraq specifically.

and jumping squirrels with ADHD

Jumping squirrels?

was such crap I just shook my head in disgust. There were flashes of what Clone Wars really could be in RotS (such as massive space battle or Yoda fighting Palpatine in senate using solely the Force) but it was too little, too late, and still constrained by utter lack of imagination.

You know, bigger fight scenes do not a good film make.

Hell, I'd be in favour to make PT non canon solely to give EU hating elitists (ones that never read one bit of it and just going on their asspull knowledge of it) a taste of their own medicine: "Muh prequels have badly written characters, no character growth, shit dialogues, plot holes and use CGI to paper over dozens of glaring holes? Boo! Your nyeh-EU is no canon, lalala, can't hear you!"

So pointless spite then?

Edit: I'll admit I loved the Yoda vs. Palpatine fight in the Senate, if only for the imagery of Palpatine throwing the Senate pods at Yoda. Think of the symbolism- he's literally tearing democracy apart and throwing the pieces at his enemy.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I don't know the details of that. But at least Lucas has a claim to being the one who gets final say over Star wars by virtue of having created it.

No. He really did not. It was a team effort. New Hope was cut by Marcia Lucas (who won Academy Award for her job on that), Kurtz curbed a lot of dumb and helped refine characters, writer was responsible for polishing dialogues, etc. It was once Lucas got into "I did it, therefore I am infallible" mindset and fired them the quality went down. He really shouldn't get much of the credit - best SW movie, Empire, was made virtually without any input from George, it was brainchild of Kershner & Kurtz.

Also, as far as I recall, nothing he did prior to a couple of scenes in the Prequels contradicted something that appeared on screen.

Really? How about the scene where Yoda and Kenobi talk on Luke? Kenobi: "The boy was our last hope". Yoda: "No. There is another". It was contradicted twice, first by ass pull Leia was that hope (and seeing both were in same danger then, Yoda wouldn't talk like the other child was safe) then in Prequels by Kenobi being the one who hid the kids, making his ignorance on existence of Leia doubly stupid.

Zahn's books weren't that great you know.

They might not been the best, but they got character handling and development far better than everything Lucas did and were in tune with what the Prequels were supposed to be. I guess I just miss image of Yoda really showing his 900 years, wisdom, and skill in the force, instead of pointlessly twirling around like hyperactive squirrel.

It's the Force that defines Jedi, not his weapon. Lucas instead went with sword being everything that makes Jedi, when masters really shouldn't even need it. Remember Vader deflecting blasters with bare hand? Palpatine not even having lightsaber in RotJ?

How in God's name were the Prequels more minimalist than Zahn's work? 200 Dreadnoughts, anyone?

200 dreadnoughts that let him achieve local force concentrations overwhelming what Rebels had in the sector or freeing his Star Destroyers from less important places. If you read the books, Thrawn really doesn't use them that much.

And how it is more minimalist? 3 million clones, anyone? Mount Tantiss churned out more clones in a year than Camino did in 15, and that was supposed to be small, easily hidden facility.

Yeah, there's the tiny clone army thing, but to be fair, the Prequels referred to units, which could be anywhere from one man to thousands.

I supported that argument but seeing the licence holders with support of Lucas seemed to pick 3 million in the end as referring to clones, and never told Travissty to shut up, it looks like minimalism won.

And what made the Prequels an Iraq War analogy? The closest thing I can think of is the idea of people giving up democracy for the sake of security (which is very broadly relevant) and Anakin's with me or against me line to Obi-wan, which do come across as possible jabs at Bush and the War on Terror but not Iraq specifically.

Really? War starting on Geonosis (desert planet), with Separatists having hidden WDMs (Death Star), Senate enacting Patriot Act special powers, Republic turning from free state into obsessive spying regime backed by military-industrial complex... You may argue about specific points on that but Lucas already did that once before (and admitted to it) with the whole Evil Empire thing having lots of parallels to Vietnam War and Soviet Union in TOT, so it's not like it's hard to see it.

You know, bigger fight scenes do not a good film make.

And you said something about minimalism?

So pointless spite then?

*shrug* I'd call it Karma

Edit: I'll admit I loved the Yoda vs. Palpatine fight in the Senate, if only for the imagery of Palpatine throwing the Senate pods at Yoda. Think of the symbolism- he's literally tearing democracy apart and throwing the pieces at his enemy.

Yeah, that's why it was one of grace saving scenes. Too bad it was so lonely...

Irbis wrote: I'd be in favour of going to earlier interpretation of Clone Wars - as this terrible conflict where Clone Masters were against the Republic (cloning ban doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise) and Jedi Masters were really powerful, mysterious and larger than life figures, like in Zahn trilogy. What we got instead, thinly veiled minimalist Iraq allegory and jumping squirrels with ADHD was such crap I just shook my head in disgust. There were flashes of what Clone Wars really could be in RotS (such as massive space battle or Yoda fighting Palpatine in senate using solely the Force) but it was too little, too late, and still constrained by utter lack of imagination.

Is that really the idea that you had, or is that a brain bug caused by the Zahn novels?

Hell, I'd be in favour to make PT non canon solely to give EU hating elitists (ones that never read one bit of it and just going on their asspull knowledge of it) a taste of their own medicine: "Muh prequels have badly written characters, no character growth, shit dialogues, plot holes and use CGI to paper over dozens of glaring holes? Boo! Your nyeh-EU is no canon, lalala, can't hear you!"

The EU as an overall component of the Star Wars mythos is worthless. Some of the stories are entertaining, some even have interesting ideas, but in terms of adding to the mythology it is generally terrible.

And any criticism you make about the prequels can be made worse about the EU. Lousy romance: meet Callista.

Irbis wrote:No. He really did not. It was a team effort. New Hope was cut by Marcia Lucas (who won Academy Award for her job on that), Kurtz curbed a lot of dumb and helped refine characters, writer was responsible for polishing dialogues, etc. It was once Lucas got into "I did it, therefore I am infallible" mindset and fired them the quality went down. He really shouldn't get much of the credit - best SW movie, Empire, was made virtually without any input from George, it was brainchild of Kershner & Kurtz.

While Lucas obviously had imput from others, and I would agree that the prequels could have been better, saying that he deserved none of the credit for ESB is taking things too far.

Irbis wrote:Really? How about the scene where Yoda and Kenobi talk on Luke? Kenobi: "The boy was our last hope". Yoda: "No. There is another". It was contradicted twice, first by ass pull Leia was that hope (and seeing both were in same danger then, Yoda wouldn't talk like the other child was safe) then in Prequels by Kenobi being the one who hid the kids, making his ignorance on existence of Leia doubly stupid.

How is that a contradiction? You explained it in your own comments. Obi-Wan was worried as he knew Leia was also in danger. Yoda realized that Leia would likely escape as long as Luke distracted Vader.

Irbis wrote:They might not been the best, but they got character handling and development far better than everything Lucas did and were in tune with what the Prequels were supposed to be. I guess I just miss image of Yoda really showing his 900 years, wisdom, and skill in the force, instead of pointlessly twirling around like hyperactive squirrel.

It's the Force that defines Jedi, not his weapon. Lucas instead went with sword being everything that makes Jedi, when masters really shouldn't even need it. Remember Vader deflecting blasters with bare hand? Palpatine not even having lightsaber in RotJ?

Didn't you say you liked the scenes in ROTS with Yoda vs Palpatine? Did you notice that very little of that fight featured lightsabers? And that Yoda lost partially because he kept trying to use his lightsaber.

Irbis wrote:200 dreadnoughts that let him achieve local force concentrations overwhelming what Rebels had in the sector or freeing his Star Destroyers from less important places. If you read the books, Thrawn really doesn't use them that much.

But they were still a major plot point in the books. And the characters talked about it as if they were a major threat. Why would the New Republic be concerned about their capture otherwise?

And how it is more minimalist? 3 million clones, anyone? Mount Tantiss churned out more clones in a year than Camino did in 15, and that was supposed to be small, easily hidden facility.

3 millions clones were not from the prequel films, but from the EU. And Lucas had nothing to do with it. And now that is just as non-canon as Zahn's works.

Irbis wrote:Really? War starting on Geonosis (desert planet), with Separatists having hidden WDMs (Death Star), Senate enacting Patriot Act special powers, Republic turning from free state into obsessive spying regime backed by military-industrial complex... You may argue about specific points on that but Lucas already did that once before (and admitted to it) with the whole Evil Empire thing having lots of parallels to Vietnam War and Soviet Union in TOT, so it's not like it's hard to see it.

Attack of the Clones aired in the summer of 2002 and was presumably written and filmed even earlier. There is no way it was written to coincide with the invasion of Iraq that occurred a year later. And where was the obsessive spying in ROTS? I recall the Jedi being the ones doing that against the Sith who were in power. That is the exact opposite of NSA style espionage.

Frankly this makes just as much sense as the argument each character in the main study group in the TV series Community represents the seven deadly sins and that the community college of Greendale is purgatory*. Just because an idea fits when you try and apply it doesn't mean it was written this way.

* This possibility was mentioned in an episode in which a psychologist was trying to convince the main characters that they were collectively insane. Though he never mentioned the idea that the characters fit the seven deadly sins. In case you are wondering it was Jeff as pride(obvious), Annie as greed(in the sense of ambition), Shirley as wrath(often of a passive aggressive sort), Pierce as envy(also obvious), Troy as sloth(he even has a pillow as the only thing in his backpack), Abed as gluttony(overindulgence in fiction), and Britta as lust(both her sexual habits and her lust for drugs and alcohol fits).

Irbis wrote:He really shouldn't get much of the credit - best SW movie, Empire, was made virtually without any input from George, it was brainchild of Kershner & Kurtz.

Rubbish! Though Kershner's and Kasdan's contributions can't be understated, George Lucas wrote several drafts and Kasdan's script (as well as the movie) contained passages that were virtually unchanged from Lucas's script. George Lucas had a ton of input in the form of the story conferences and during shooting. He also directed a few of the live-action scenes as well, to my understanding, as the special effects scenes (as Kershner wasn't interested in those).

The Romulan Republic wrote:If he tried to contradict/decanonize the Prequels in his film, I hope Disney yanked his leash hard. Because flawed though the Prequels are, they are still a core part of Star Wars. My response to Abrams using his film to make the Prequels non-canon might very well be "Okay, I'm considering your film non-canon". I respect Abrams as a director, but I expect professionalism and integrity from a major filmmaker with a big budget. If I wanted fanboy with an ax to grind, I'd save ten dollars on a movie ticket and go to fanfiction.net.

Edit: You know, I really don't like it when one director uses his film to piss on another director's work. Its just crass.

Man, people will just run with anything if it's posted on the Internet, even if the person posting it is asking whether it's a rumor or not.

Here's a tip: let's wait and see if Abrams even said this - and if he did, what was the full context of such a statement - before we start vilifying the guy, eh?

Irbis wrote:Really? War starting on Geonosis (desert planet), with Separatists having hidden WDMs (Death Star)

Adamskywalker007 already covered it, but this bears repeating: Episode II came out in 2002, and was being filmed back in 2001. I fail to see how plot points in this movie could be related to the Iraq War, when it's quite likely these elements were already written in and planned for (if not filmed) before 9/11 even happened, or at least shortly thereafter.

Unless George Lucas really is such an extraordinarily visionary filmmaker that he was able to predict the future. In which case who are we mere mortals to judge his work?

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, principle filming was completed in 2000, a full year before 9/11, much less the lead up to Iraq in what... Late 2002, early 2003? Damn, George Lucas is quite the visionary fortune teller. Maybe we should check his blood for midichlorians?

RogueIce wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:If he tried to contradict/decanonize the Prequels in his film, I hope Disney yanked his leash hard. Because flawed though the Prequels are, they are still a core part of Star Wars. My response to Abrams using his film to make the Prequels non-canon might very well be "Okay, I'm considering your film non-canon". I respect Abrams as a director, but I expect professionalism and integrity from a major filmmaker with a big budget. If I wanted fanboy with an ax to grind, I'd save ten dollars on a movie ticket and go to fanfiction.net.

Edit: You know, I really don't like it when one director uses his film to piss on another director's work. Its just crass.

Man, people will just run with anything if it's posted on the Internet, even if the person posting it is asking whether it's a rumor or not.

Here's a tip: let's wait and see if Abrams even said this - and if he did, what was the full context of such a statement - before we start vilifying the guy, eh?

I fully understand that this may or may not be true. My response can be taken as a hypothetical. If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry, but I find your response needlessly condescending.

Like I said, I actually think that, aside from this whole question, Abrams is, by and large, a good director.