Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Conversely:Galvatron wrote:The difference is that the EU never made it to the silver screen. Far more people saw the OT and the PT than read any of the EU. I sincerely doubt there's going to be a significant percentage of the audience who are eagerly anticipating an appearance by "Grand Admiral Who?"
Other that a handful of lines from Obi-Wan, who was lying at least part of the time, what clues did you have as far as the PT? All we knew was that there were apparently Clone Wars and that Obi-Wan and Anakin had fought in them. Anything beyond that is supposition. Ideas that we shouldn't have had droids in the Clone Wars or that the Empire was around for longer than shown by the PT are mostly just supposition by fans.Galvatron wrote:Okay, so what are you basing all these ST preconceptions on? I based my PT preconceptions on what we were shown and told in the OT, not the EU. What clues did you glean from the OT that gave you an idea of what to expect in the ST?
In terms of the history of the Clone Wars what else was there? That is what I was referring to.Galvatron wrote:It sounds like you're just talking about ANH. I'm including TESB and ROTJ when I refer to the OT.
I think the entire trilogy as a whole gave us far more information about what came before than what to expect in the future. In fact, the ending of ROTJ:SE made the Empire's defeat at Endor seem like it was intended (by George Lucas) to be THE END. Hell, he even went on to contradict his own earlier statements and say that Star Wars was always meant to be a six-episode saga about the Tragedy of Darth Vader and that it was over and done with because there was no more story to tell.
The PT as a whole is what I've been referring to. The fall of the Anakin Skywalker and the Jedi; the rise of Darth Vader and the Empire. Clues from the entire OT gave us the basic framework of what the PT would cover and it was certainly more than just a single reference to the Clone Wars in ANH. That's what I based my preconceptions on.Adamskywalker007 wrote:In terms of the history of the Clone Wars what else was there? That is what I was referring to.
And that's why I'm going into the ST without the same preconceptions that I did with the PT. They're not giving us three new anticlimactic episodes about the New Republic mopping up the remnants of the Empire. No, this new trilogy is about something that was never foreshadowed in the OT.Adamskywalker007 wrote:I agree that the end of ROTJ appeared to be the end of the Empire. The First Order from the new trailers isn't really the traditional Empire.
The end of the Empire doesn't mean the end of the series. There is no reason that, without a fully fledged Jedi Order to keep them in line, Dark Side practitioners would not be a threat. This doesn't necessarily mean fully fledged Sith.Boeing 757 wrote:True, but Disney wants to make money, so the series will go on !!
I was specifically thinking about the idea that a lot of people had about the Cloners being the bad guys in the Clone Wars. I'm not really sure where it came from in the films. I'm pretty sure the source is Timothy Zahn.Galvatron wrote:The PT as a whole. The fall of the Anakin Skwalker and the Jedi; the rise of Darth Vader and the Empire. Clues from the entire OT gave us the basic framework of what the PT would cover and it was certainly more than just a single reference to the Clone Wars in ANH. That's what I based my preconceptions on.
Except Star Wars was never meant to be a story that reflect real life. It's at its heart a fairly tale for children, about how good would triumph over evil and the heroes could live happily ever after. It's never meant to be a dark tragedy about a world where peace could never be achieved because the studios wanted to make more money.Adamskywalker007 wrote:The end of the Empire doesn't mean the end of the series. There is no reason that, without a fully fledged Jedi Order to keep them in line, Dark Side practitioners would not be a threat. This doesn't necessarily mean fully fledged Sith.Boeing 757 wrote:True, but Disney wants to make money, so the series will go on !!
The second problem is that in the 30 years after ROTJ, if the galaxy is sufficiently chaotic, it could produce a degree of nostalgia for the Empire. Much the same way it is often commented that Iraq was better off under Sadam Hussein.
Then Disney would simply not have my money. I haven't spend any money on any Star Wars merchandise in ages and I doubt I would spend any additional money on new Star Wars merchandise any time soon. I'll probably rent a Star Wars blu-ray from a friend if I really want to watch the new movies.Boeing 757 wrote:True, but Disney wants to make money, so the series will go on !!
But thematically that would be weak. I want the heroes to be able to find peace after a hard-fought struggle. If I want to read more stories about a world filled with perpetual war after the fall of a dictator, I only need to turn towards the Middle East.Boeing 757 wrote:Frankly, it seems rather odd if not outright unbelievable that an entire galaxy-spanning empire could totally disintegrate so quickly in thirty years or however many this film takes place, even if one does take into account that the head of state that everything hinged upon was slayed. Let's face it, despite the Empire not being in existence for too long, its infrastructure was already strongly rooted thanks to the Galactic Republic which had preceded it. Every large state in the history of Earth which fell apart on Earth existed in some smaller form of itself after its breakup, aside from cases where an outside aggressor fully eradicated it. It should be more presentable that the First Order is some kind of splinter group of the old Empire...indeed, it would be cool if we got to see not only a New Republic but also other Imperial splinter groups in this new trilogy.
I don't mind the real war starting after the Battle of Endor, as long as it remains a major turning point which allowed the rebellion to win over the Empire. If all you had is a scenario where the Rebels essentially got caught in a stalemate, or lost after Endor, then it feels pointless to cheer for the Rebels in ROTJ.Anacronian wrote:In truth wouldn't the real war only start after Return of the Jedi?*
wasn't the battle of Endor the first time the rebel alliance engaged in full-scale warfare with the Empire before that the rebels seems to have been restricted to hit and fade attacks?
My guess is that after the victory of Endor and the support that came with it was the point where the Rebels showed themselves as a real threat - and also around that time where the rebel alliance changed name to the resistance since the scope and nature of what they were doing had changed.
*I have not read much of the EU so I don't really know if the EU tell of more and bigger battles with the Empire before Endor.
Oh for God's sake.Boeing 757 wrote:Frankly, it seems rather odd if not outright unbelievable that an entire galaxy-spanning empire could totally disintegrate so quickly in thirty years or however many this film takes place, even if one does take into account that the head of state that everything hinged upon was slayed. Let's face it, despite the Empire not being in existence for too long, its infrastructure was already strongly rooted thanks to the Galactic Republic which had preceded it. Every large state in the history of Earth which fell apart on Earth existed in some smaller form of itself after its breakup, aside from cases where an outside aggressor fully eradicated it. It should be more presentable that the First Order is some kind of splinter group of the old Empire...indeed, it would be cool if we got to see not only a New Republic but also other Imperial splinter groups in this new trilogy.
IMO, the disintegration started after the Battle of Yavin. As General Tagge implied, the Empire's "strongly rooted infrastructure" was dependent upon the Imperial Senate's bureaucracy. Without it or the Death Star to prop up the regional governors, I have no trouble imagining that the Empire toppled like a house of cards. The destruction of the second Death Star and the death of the Emperor himself was simply the final nail in its coffin.Boeing 757 wrote:Frankly, it seems rather odd if not outright unbelievable that an entire galaxy-spanning empire could totally disintegrate so quickly in thirty years or however many this film takes place, even if one does take into account that the head of state that everything hinged upon was slayed. Let's face it, despite the Empire not being in existence for too long, its infrastructure was already strongly rooted thanks to the Galactic Republic which had preceded it. Every large state in the history of Earth which fell apart on Earth existed in some smaller form of itself after its breakup, aside from cases where an outside aggressor fully eradicated it. It should be more presentable that the First Order is some kind of splinter group of the old Empire...indeed, it would be cool if we got to see not only a New Republic but also other Imperial splinter groups in this new trilogy.
Who says this is a full intergalactic war on the scale of the Clone Wars? What makes the First Order dangerous is that they are involved with Dark Side Force users and thus are a long term threat. There is also the problem that it appears that there aren't any proper Jedi to stop them.ray245 wrote:Except Star Wars was never meant to be a story that reflect real life. It's at its heart a fairly tale for children, about how good would triumph over evil and the heroes could live happily ever after. It's never meant to be a dark tragedy about a world where peace could never be achieved because the studios wanted to make more money.
Lucas could easily chose to film sequels to the OT in the late 90s and early 2000s. Instead he chose to avoid doing that and give us a story set in a time where we do know was rife with war and suffering. Hell, he even went as far as to depict a Galaxy that had been able to achieve peace for a 1000 years!
Having a sequel trilogy that depicts another massive war for our heroes undermined the core message that Star Wars was about, which to me is the idea that long-lasting peace could be achieved. I think trying to make a sequel about ANOTHER intergalactic war undermines Lucas's philosophy about the nature of Star Wars.
Why would there be Imperial holdouts? Are people going to be evil just for the sake of being evil?Boeing 757 wrote:Frankly, it seems rather odd if not outright unbelievable that an entire galaxy-spanning empire could totally disintegrate so quickly in thirty years or however many this film takes place, even if one does take into account that the head of state that everything hinged upon was slayed. Let's face it, despite the Empire not being in existence for too long, its infrastructure was already strongly rooted thanks to the Galactic Republic which had preceded it. Every large state in the history of Earth which fell apart on Earth existed in some smaller form of itself after its breakup, aside from cases where an outside aggressor fully eradicated it. It should be more presentable that the First Order is some kind of splinter group of the old Empire...indeed, it would be cool if we got to see not only a New Republic but also other Imperial splinter groups in this new trilogy.
If you mean Yavin, you are correct. The problem you aren't recognizing is that all insurgencies rest on the support of the people rather than military strength. The Rebel Alliance doesn't have to destroy the entire Imperial military. The simply have to do enough damage to gain significant public support. As the Imperial officer indicated to Darth Vader in ANH, this was happening within the Imperial Senate at the beginning of the OT.Anacronian wrote:In truth wouldn't the real war only start after Return of the Jedi?*
wasn't the battle of Endor the first time the rebel alliance engaged in full-scale warfare with the Empire before that the rebels seems to have been restricted to hit and fade attacks?
My guess is that after the victory of Endor and the support that came with it was the point where the Rebels showed themselves as a real threat - and also around that time where the rebel alliance changed name to the resistance since the scope and nature of what they were doing had changed.
*I have not read much of the EU so I don't really know if the EU tell of more and bigger battles with the Empire before Endor.
This actually seems the most likely scenario after the fall of the Empire. Including the part where military officers star selling off their equipment to the highest bidder. It would explain where the First Order gets their resources. At least to start.The Romulan Republic wrote:Sure, its big, but hyperdrive means that bad news, and hostile fleets, travel fast.
And their is precedent for a mighty empire collapsing rather quickly. The fall of the Soviet Union comes to mind, even though the details are very different, of course.
I could see certain regional governors holding out in the early days, if they had sufficiently powerful and more importantly loyal fleets and armies*, but the idea that the Empire itself would last more than a year or two beyond ROTJ seems odd. This actually is something the new continuity seems to be following.Galvatron wrote:IMO, the disintegration started after the Battle of Yavin. As General Tagge implied, the Empire's "strongly rooted infrastructure" was dependent upon the Imperial Senate's bureaucracy. Without it or the Death Star to prop up the regional governors, I have no trouble imagining that the Empire toppled like a house of cards. The destruction of the second Death Star and the death of the Emperor himself was simply the final nail in its coffin.
Except we have Star Wars material indicating the exact opposite, telling us that the Rebels never truly won the war as they were immediately hit by idiotic leadership ruining their war effort.Adamskywalker007 wrote:Who says this is a full intergalactic war on the scale of the Clone Wars? What makes the First Order dangerous is that they are involved with Dark Side Force users and thus are a long term threat. There is also the problem that it appears that there aren't any proper Jedi to stop them.ray245 wrote:Except Star Wars was never meant to be a story that reflect real life. It's at its heart a fairly tale for children, about how good would triumph over evil and the heroes could live happily ever after. It's never meant to be a dark tragedy about a world where peace could never be achieved because the studios wanted to make more money.
Lucas could easily chose to film sequels to the OT in the late 90s and early 2000s. Instead he chose to avoid doing that and give us a story set in a time where we do know was rife with war and suffering. Hell, he even went as far as to depict a Galaxy that had been able to achieve peace for a 1000 years!
Having a sequel trilogy that depicts another massive war for our heroes undermined the core message that Star Wars was about, which to me is the idea that long-lasting peace could be achieved. I think trying to make a sequel about ANOTHER intergalactic war undermines Lucas's philosophy about the nature of Star Wars.
The fact that there hadn't been an intergalactic war as of AOTC doesn't mean that there weren't smaller ones. Sio Bibble stated that there hadn't been a full scale war since the formation of the Republic. This was after the Naboo crisis. Presumably a conflict on that scale wasn't unprecedented or even surprising.
Frankly you seem to be looking at these movies from the perspective that you don't want them to be good just to be correct.
I agree with most of your post until I read the above. They were useless against character shields, I'll grant you, but they were deadly against their rebel counterparts at the Battle of Yavin. Also, an argument can be made that they were ordered to allow the Falcon to escape Cloud City so the Executor could recapture them all in space.Adamskywalker007 wrote:From what we see, despite their appearance, the Imperial military really isn't very competent.
These two things don't make much sense to me.Adamskywalker007 wrote:
There was almost a sense of desperation in TESB with the Empire needing a victory. It is akin to the position that the US was in under Bush in 2002. Going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan wasn't enough of an opportunity to show strength in the region. So he targeted Iraq as an "easy" target that no one in the region liked. Similarly the Empire attempted to destroy the Rebel Alliance as an opportunity to show the strength of the Empire. Obviously in both cases it largely failed. In the case of Iraq the US was unprepared for the sectarian violence*. The Rebel Alliance lost fairly heavily at Hoth, but they were still able to get the majority of their key personnel and much of their heavy equipment offworld.
Going to ROTJ, the fact that the Emperor used such a high risk plan against the Rebel Alliance indicates that he couldn't wait for the Death Star to go online before dealing with them. This indicates a great deal of political turmoil within the Empire.
That was with every possible advantage in their favor. And even then, apart from Darth Vader and his wingmen, all of the TIE fighters over Yavin were swept aside. Like at Endor, Imperial fighters caused casualties but they never stopped the Rebel fighters from achieving their objectives. On the run on the exhaust port itself, all of the Rebel fighters lost were because of Vader.Galvatron wrote:I agree with most of your post until I read the above. They were useless against character shields, I'll grant you, but they were deadly against their rebel counterparts at the Battle of Yavin. Also, an argument can be made that they were ordered to allow the Falcon to escape Cloud City so the Executor could recapture them all in space.Adamskywalker007 wrote:From what we see, despite their appearance, the Imperial military really isn't very competent.
I was mostly talking about the fighter combat. Throughout the battle Rebel fighters were largely free to do whatever they wanted. While they took causalities even during the run on the Death Star, Imperial fighters could never stop them from attacking whatever target they wanted to.Furthemore, the Imperial fleet at the Battle of Endor was ordered by the Emperor to merely prevent the Alliance fleet from escaping. We have no reason to assume that Piett suddenly decided that the tide of the battle was turning and disobeyed the Emperor before his own ship was destroyed. The surviving Imperial fleet at Endor may have actually retreated or surrendered without ever really putting up a decent fight.
That indeed was the focus of both Vader and the Emperor. And they were correct in the sense that he was the most direct threat. Only a Jedi would have a chance against them in personal combat. And I would argue that only a Jedi would be capable of catching them off guard due to their foresight abilities. The problem is that both of them ironically made the same mistake as the Jedi at the rise of the Empire. The Jedi failed to truly realize the fact that Palpatine had amassed such political power. Similarly Palpatine failed to recognize both the military prowess of the Rebel Alliance, with an uncanny ability to pull off clever tactical victories, and the fact that there were deeper underlying poltical problems in the galaxy.SCRawl wrote:These two things don't make much sense to me.
In the first case, TESB was really just about Vader trying to find Luke. Ostensibly he was trying to bring him in to help his boss, but of course Vader had his own ambitions. The rebels were just the eggs in the plot omelette.
As for the Emperor being unable to "wait for the Death Star to go online before dealing with them", well, no, that was the entire point. Had the Death Star been fully operational it would not have been vulnerable to attack, and therefore not a viable lure for the rebels and (more importantly) Luke. The rebels, again, were not particularly significant to Palpatine's long-term planning, though it was convenient to be able to squish them while they were present.
Adamskywalker007 wrote:That was with every possible advantage in their favor. And even then, apart from Darth Vader and his wingmen, all of the TIE fighters over Yavin were swept aside. Like at Endor, Imperial fighters caused casualties but they never stopped the Rebel fighters from achieving their objectives. On the run on the exhaust port itself, all of the Rebel fighters lost were because of Vader.Galvatron wrote:I agree with most of your post until I read the above. They were useless against character shields, I'll grant you, but they were deadly against their rebel counterparts at the Battle of Yavin. Also, an argument can be made that they were ordered to allow the Falcon to escape Cloud City so the Executor could recapture them all in space.Adamskywalker007 wrote:From what we see, despite their appearance, the Imperial military really isn't very competent.
It is true that in the cases of the Death Star and Cloud City, it is likely that stormtroopers were ordered to let the Rebels escape. But at several points in those sequences, we see stormtroopers pointlessly expose themselves to return fire. Assuming that they were ordered to let the Rebels escape, that is incredibly foolish. As I said, they show discipline rather than skill.
Even the case of stormtrooper competence, the opening to ANH, shows a lack of tactical creativity. A modern SWAT team would never have made an entry in that fashion. They charge blindly through a choke point. They should have thrown in flash bang grenades before entering. While it could be argued that their initial breaching charge served this purpose, Rebel guards seem to have largely recovered by the point that stormtroopers appear.I was mostly talking about the fighter combat. Throughout the battle Rebel fighters were largely free to do whatever they wanted. While they took causalities even during the run on the Death Star, Imperial fighters could never stop them from attacking whatever target they wanted to.Furthemore, the Imperial fleet at the Battle of Endor was ordered by the Emperor to merely prevent the Alliance fleet from escaping. We have no reason to assume that Piett suddenly decided that the tide of the battle was turning and disobeyed the Emperor before his own ship was destroyed. The surviving Imperial fleet at Endor may have actually retreated or surrendered without ever really putting up a decent fight.
In the case of capital ship combat, by the end, when Executor was destroyed, the Empire no longer appeared by be holding back, they increasingly appeared to be getting desperate. It didn't help them. By that point the Rebel Alliance had gained and maintained the initiative.
Even the Death Star gunners showed an astonishing lack of priority targeting. They never fired at Home One, even though it was the largest and most powerful of the Mon Cal Cruisers participating in the battle. Even after being given the order to fire at will, they do not target the most logical priority targets
That indeed was the focus of both Vader and the Emperor. And they were correct in the sense that he was the most direct threat. Only a Jedi would have a chance against them in personal combat. And I would argue that only a Jedi would be capable of catching them off guard due to their foresight abilities. The problem is that both of them ironically made the same mistake as the Jedi at the rise of the Empire. The Jedi failed to truly realize the fact that Palpatine had amassed such political power. Similarly Palpatine failed to recognize both the military prowess of the Rebel Alliance, with an uncanny ability to pull off clever tactical victories, and the fact that there were deeper underlying poltical problems in the galaxy.SCRawl wrote:These two things don't make much sense to me.
In the first case, TESB was really just about Vader trying to find Luke. Ostensibly he was trying to bring him in to help his boss, but of course Vader had his own ambitions. The rebels were just the eggs in the plot omelette.
As for the Emperor being unable to "wait for the Death Star to go online before dealing with them", well, no, that was the entire point. Had the Death Star been fully operational it would not have been vulnerable to attack, and therefore not a viable lure for the rebels and (more importantly) Luke. The rebels, again, were not particularly significant to Palpatine's long-term planning, though it was convenient to be able to squish them while they were present.
As Tagge and Leia both point out in ANH, without the Imperial Senate, the Imperial bureacracy cannot hold onto the galaxy as a whole. Without a Death Star, there is no way that the Empire would have the strength to challenge shielded planets, if enough decide to rebel. The Imperial fleet cannot possibly lay siege to all of them, especially considering that said crews just might be laying siege to their own worlds. The Death Star, with its relatively much smaller crew requirements, would by comparison be somewhat easy to crew with absolute loyalists.