Star Wars

[YellowCorvette]

It's not that we're trying to be haters on the haters. The opinions of those who disliked the movie are valid and if listened to (at least the rational ones like you Nom Carver) improvements could be made to make the next movie one even better. However not everyone who hates the movie are polite and unfortunately on the internet there is a strong contingent of haters that are so vocal and kinda nasty that it makes everyone who dislikes the movie look awful. These people will always exist so you're right we should not label and shove those with a dissenting opinion in with the extreme actual crazy people. That's certainly not fair to do.

Each of the trilogy has their own good things and bad thing, including TFA, OT and PT. It's not that I want to defend TFA and having a civil war between Star Wars fans, but what makes me sick with the trend of hating TFA is the fans (not all of them) are focusing too much on the bad things and totally ignore the good things in TFA. Even the Prequel trilogy also has some redeeming qualities on them (Althrough the prequel movies are terrible) like the soundtrack and world building.

[Artanis I]

To the people surprised that there are haters on the movie: that's what you get for building massive hype for a series reboot/refresh (whatever). People will have big expectations and vastly different hopes, so many people will be let down in a big way. The prequels copped so much flak, and some of it was deserved, but not as much as is dished out. Same for TFA. Same for The Clone Wars. In 30 years most people will be over either trilogy's failures. Just ignore the trolls - everyone is 15 at some point in their life... (some revisit that age many times or don't leave it)

To quote the 90s band Regurgitator (who were quoting a long time fan): "I like your old stuff better than your new stuff"

What I hated was where it almost fell off the cliff, i'm tired of that scene being in every action film.

Yes, everything has to stop on the edge of a cliff... so annoying.

[General Magma]

TFA for me was cool. The actors were good but I don't really like Adam Driver as Kylo Ren. My Mom who saw episode IV in the theaters when it came out, she said he doesn't even look like a Solo and I agree. The one thing that I thought was funny was that there were multiple people with small walkie talkies One of my favorite parts was of course the Jakku Millennium Falcon scene.

Actually, Adam Driver has enough resemblance to Harrison Ford to be acceptable, mixed with some of Leia's genes I'd say it works just fine.

The new Han Solo, however, doesn't look like... Han Solo. They're gonna need a lot of make-up to fix up that one.

Edited May 29, 2016 by General Magma

[CMP]

We got a really good, well-rounded Star Wars movie for the first time in over thirty years. I can live with that. If people are expecting something with the impact of the OT they are in for many movies worth of disappointment.

Edited May 29, 2016 by CallMePie

[PicnicBasketSam]

@xboxtravis7992: I know! FBTB's comment section can be quite irritating... I wrote something in rebuttal of some guy's ranting about "BvS is better than Marvel movies!" with logic and calm reasoning, and he got even more angry and defensive... sometimes I wonder if people actually dislike most Marvel films, or they're just trying to get attention.

[xboxtravis7992]

@xboxtravis7992: I know! FBTB's comment section can be quite irritating... I wrote something in rebuttal of some guy's ranting about "BvS is better than Marvel movies!" with logic and calm reasoning, and he got even more angry and defensive... sometimes I wonder if people actually dislike most Marvel films, or they're just trying to get attention.

Yeah I recognized your username sneak into those comments :) But yeah I'm convinced that guy was either a troll or a seriously narrow-minded fanboy. Like seriously, is there anything wrong with liking both movies? As much as I love the MCU, I'll admit that artistically the Dark Night triology is a far greater achievement. Of course I also think both films had different purposes, the MCU the more light hearted popcorn flick that is fun to watch over and over again, and the Dark Knight Trilogy being a metaphor to our modern society and our fears (primarily terrorism). Two very different films but I enjoyed both.

Same with the Star Wars-Star Trek debate. Yes I love Star Wars, but everynow and then I just need a dose of The Next Generation in my life. Two very different forms of sci-fi stories but I enjoy both. I know a lot of fanboys will argue for superiority of one franchise over another, but the point is moot in an argument of apples vs. oranges.

Of course I can't chine in on BvS because I haven't seen it... and that's because I tend to differ to the Rotten Tomatoes scoring for new films. I figure an aggregate of professional reviewer's scores is a good indicator of a movie's quality. And for that BvS lover on FBTB, if he wants to defend that film with his life, he should first address it's poor public reception. But I don't think it's a fight worth fighting though, no franchise is truly so important it's worth starting a huge flame war over. It's a movie, not a religion! :)

[YellowCorvette]

@xboxtravis7992: I know! FBTB's comment section can be quite irritating... I wrote something in rebuttal of some guy's ranting about "BvS is better than Marvel movies!" with logic and calm reasoning, and he got even more angry and defensive... sometimes I wonder if people actually dislike most Marvel films, or they're just trying to get attention.

Kinda agree. The site is really get much worse over time. First with their "mistaken a A-Wing pilot for a B-Wing pilot" thing, than arguing about TFA and BvS, then what's next? Massive abandon on fans who love The Force Awakens?

I afraid that the set reviews and Toy Fair coverage are now the only good thing about FBTB. Now I prefer EuroBricks, BZpower or Brickset for all of that.

[Forresto]

That's the thing. I am a massive trekkie and Star Wars fan. I told this to a co worker whose an uber nerd and she was astounded I could be both. I feel especially with how politics have gotten in the US, American culture has shifted away from it being cool to be able to be in the middle of two "extremes" and take or enjoy the good things from both. Marvel and DC films tend to be very different in tone and that's only a great thing for us fans! I don't want every superhero movie to be super gritty or dark or realistic but on the same token I don't want every superhero film to be cartoony either.

With SW that's why i'm super excited for Rogue One. We're finally going to get the gritty war film. Variety of films in a universe as expansively diverse as SW is almost certainly never a bad thing. Even if the anthology movies fail, which I doubt, i'm excited that at least Disney is trying different things that appeal to different parts of the fanbase. The parts of Rebels I despise are the cartoony obviously very disney parts but the more serious on par with Clone Wars parts I adore. It's still a kids show so it obviously is intended for a certain audience first with more adult themes added in. I think my dislike for the kiddy parts of the show would be dampened if we were getting more serious SW material showing the dark side (no pun intended) which we are which I think will allow me to enjoy rebels more. For example if the Empire gets stuff done in Rogue One I wouldn't mind if stormtroopers are kinda lame in rebels for instance.

[YellowCorvette]

What annoyed about the incompetence of the stormtroopers in Rebels is there's absolutely no reason for them to failing to hit the heroes. As a example In ANH, the stormtroopers fail to hit Luke, Han and Leia because they're ordered to no to hit them. It may seems like a lazy excuse, but at least the reason exists. I kinda tired to see action movies and TV shows where the henchmen always fail to hit the hero.

I mean that, it's sometimes nice to see the stormtroopers are able to actually hit and injure Ezra, Kanan or the others because this makes the audience care about the character and make them know that the war the rebels entering is not a game; Once you down, there's no second chance.

[CMP]

As a example In ANH, the stormtroopers fail to hit Luke, Han and Leia because they're ordered to no to hit them.

Since when?

[PicnicBasketSam]

Well, the stormies in TFA seem slightly better trained... they at least managed to hit Poe's X-Wing, and TR8R would likely have won that battle if not for Chewie.

[Japanbuilder]

Well it is a movie, a story-telling vehicle. Of course the protagonists would never get hit! Even if you add all sorts of in-universe reasons they still won't get hit. It would end the film too quickly.

It does get tiresome after a few movies to see the bad guys have so much epic fail on their aim but that is how that goes. Notice when it matters to the story heroes do die (all those Jedi shot after Order 66 was put into effect, Obi-Wan in ANH etc). Again vehicles to get the story going somewhere.

I do, however, hope we start seeing Stormtroopers worth the hype (trained since birth! hello!!!) in Episode VIII going forward. If Rogue 1 establishes Stormtroopers as being actually decent militarily then it will set a good tone for that in EPVIII as it will be fresh in people's heads. TR8R was a good start, he totally owned Finn and was about to spread Finn's head like butter all over Takodana until some do-gooder intervened. Give me more like that, specially since I love the new trilogy Stormtroopers.

[Forresto]

I think i've come to a realization of a big discrepancy in the current SW canon.

According to Wookiepedia the destruction of the Second Death Star came six months after Hoth. Then the Battle of Jakku occurs a year after Endor and is the end of the Empire. Yes there's the First Order but they are completely out of the picture at this point. To me this is the most unnecessary and unrealistic part of SW, and this is coming from a guy who will accept a laser defying space time to destroy planets on the other side of the universe.

How did the Empire fall so quickly and why did whoever in charge of the canon rush the end of the galactic civil war? Considering there is a good thirty years between Return and Awakens it's wholly unnecessary. Even with two such crushing defeats the size of the Empire should still several years to collapse in on itself even under splintered or poor leadership. Also how did the Alliance build a large enough fleet to topple the empire a year later when they suffered so many casualties at both Hoth and endor?

Jakku was a massive battle we know that. But hypothetically if even half the remaining Imperial Fleet was present and destroyed there would still be sizeable pockets of Imperials remaining. I guess my point is it's really annoying those in charge made the Empire fall apart a year later rather then seeing the Imperial collapse even five years after Endor as that would do nothing to hurt the canon as it is. They didn't leave themselves breathing room for explaining the course of events. To me it's unnecessary simplification.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Forresto

[CMP]

I think i've come to a realization of a big discrepancy in the current SW canon.

According to Wookiepedia the destruction of the Second Death Star came six months after Hoth. Then the Battle of Jakku occurs a year after Endor and is the end of the Empire. Yes there's the First Order but they are completely out of the picture at this point. To me this is the most unnecessary and unrealistic part of SW, and this is coming from a guy who will accept a laser defying space time to destroy planets on the other side of the universe.

How did the Empire fall so quickly and why did whoever in charge of the canon rush the end of the galactic civil war? Considering there is a good thirty years between Return and Awakens it's wholly unnecessary. Even with two such crushing defeats the size of the Empire should still several years to collapse in on itself even under splintered or poor leadership. Also how did the Alliance build a large enough fleet to topple the empire a year later when they suffered so many casualties at both Hoth and endor?

Jakku was a massive battle we know that. But hypothetically if even half the remaining Imperial Fleet was present and destroyed there would still be sizeable pockets of Imperials remaining. I guess my point is it's really annoying those in charge made the Empire fall apart a year later rather then seeing the Imperial collapse even five years after Endor as that would do nothing to hurt the canon as it is. They didn't leave themselves breathing room for explaining the course of events. To me it's unnecessary simplification.

I assume Endor and Jakku both involved big parts of the Imperial fleet, not to mention how resource-intensive the Second Death Star was. Plus without the Emperor and Vader keeping the rest of the admirals in line, I would guess there was a lot of in-fighting.

Plus if the First Order really did arise from the Empire, well, that's where the sizable pockets of Imperials went.

It looked like Endor more or less crippled the entire Empire and Jakku was just cleaning up the majority of what was left. Without any leadership or planet-killing superweapons on their side, how capable was the Empire fighting the Rebels, really?

[ChiefPie]

The Empire did have remnants after the fall of Jakku.

[xboxtravis7992]

Considering it took the Empire a good year to crumble after Palpatine died is an accomplishment actually. Look at how fast the Nazis fell after Hitler died in comparison.

[Venkefedo]

Lost Stars and Bloodline have gone into this... probably Aftermath, too (haven't read it yet). The defeat at Endor caused the Empire to panic. Lots of in-fighting happened early on, which weakened the military further, and the massive effort at Jakku did even more damage... following that, however, much of the Imperial fleet that was in the Outer Rim disappeared even further, hiding from the eyes of the galaxy, pooling resources and beginning to plot the eventual return of the Empire (which, it seems, morphs into the First Order at some point). There were still Imperial remnants within the Mid Rim & Core, but they were bound by treaty to their territory and, it would seem, were defanged over time.

That way, rather than three decades of constant war, you have a Galactic Republic that's become complacent and doesn't want to risk another galactic conflict just like the Clone Wars or the Galactic Civil War. You've got the successor to the Empire that'd been biding its time in far corners of the galaxy, able to amass resources to convert a world into a planet-killer, to develop more powerful ships, etc, and putting forth a legitimate claim to statehood or whatever while appearing to stay in line with the Galactic Concordance. Then you've got the Resistance, a very small group who recognize the threat of the First Order for what it is and want to be prepared for when they strike. The Republic mostly dismisses them as rabble-rousers, while the leaders of the First Order can use them as a convenient propaganda tool to play the victim & justify striking at the heart of the Republic, destabilizing much of the galaxy and opening the way to the First Order restoring the Empire.

In other news, Dave Filoni teased "there's a bit of truth in legends" on Facebook the other day, with a photo that seems to be a closeup of the SW logo on the binding of the hardcover edition of Heir to the Empire. Seems like a big tease that Grand Admiral Thrawn will be in Season 3 of Rebels (albeit maybe at a lower rank)... it's long been suspected he's the "fleet admiral" in Aftermath, and the publicity for Aftermath's sequel, Life Debt, has confirmed that the fleet admiral is, in fact, a Grand Admiral. So there's potential for a lot of Thrawn activity in the new canon very soon, and with Rebels at least there's the potential for a Thrawn Lego minifig!

[Artanis I]

For me, it is always about the force battle of jedi vs sith. The jedi returned, the sith were completely defeated. The empire was built on the dark side. I would've assumed that once their big scary supreme leader was gone that the minions would split and that would be that. Anyone vying to fill the power vacuum would be fighting against many other factions, and not have the backing of the sith.

In Return Of The King, once the ring is destroyed, Sauron's power disappears and he & his empire are suddenly nothing. I figured that with no one left wielding the dark side of the force, that the empire would immediately crumble - the dark side influence suddenly taken away from them.

If the force usage has so little to do with big things like this, then it's hardly Star Wars and more like Star Trek or some other galactic war story.

[the last chronicler]

I think what Artanis says works metaphorically too, if you rule only by power, then if you become powerless your rule becomes invalid. Whoever this Snoke man is is obviously key to the resurgence of power.

I'm reposting this comment from the LEGO topic since its more appropriate here, although I'll leave out the PT stuff since its too negative to come from a non-diehard fan perspective.

As a sequel, TFA advances the themes introduced by Darth Vader's reveal as Luke's father: that 'evil' (and good) is an internal human threat, not an external one. We see this in Kylo and Luke, and their personal pain. The heroes certainly aren't challenged as much as Empire or Sith, but that is because it's the first act of the trilogy, the characters (and the audience) need to know who they are (and what Star Wars is), before any of that can be challenged. That certainly makes it more than ANH v2, as the film really finds a way of turning the OT into backstory through theme without explaining every detail of the films.

Edited June 1, 2016 by the last chronicler

[Forresto]

I have a lot of problems though with the whole Good vs Evil thing. it immediately takes the character drama out of the story because suddenly everyone's actions are either good or bad and dictated towards furthering one side of the force's agenda. That's fine for personal character development but not for world building galactic stuff. Otherwise it becomes a matter of evil controls the galaxy then good then evil then good. Not very interesting stuff.

Besides the Emperor holding together the Empire by the power of the dark side does not make any sense. In ANH they finally dismantled the senate because they were switching to regional governors plus the Death Star was complete and operational. That means the Empire could only function as a whole through the bureaucracy of the senate as there were no other options. That means 18 years of needing the senate to maintain order. The difference between Sauron and the Emperor is that the armies and minions of Sauron were really just an extension of himself meanwhile the Emperor relied on people who were autonomous beings to get things done.

Look like it or not the PT made the empire a political entity and made SW in part a political drama. When you look at the rebellion in the OT there are a lot of politics going on as well. Honestly the grayness of politics is something this universe needed when so often it becomes a matter of black and white.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Forresto

[the last chronicler]

You're right. and The Empire wasn't ruled by a dark side Emperor in the original narrative before ESB and ROtJ. The enemy was the machination and controlling of humanity/life, then later the source of that machination became the dark side.

It isn't that the Emperor's power was controlling everything, it's that the Empire ruled through political power, and after the fall of the Second Death Star/Emperor there may have been others who wanted to maintain the Empire, but by the Jakku battle the realization was that that power was a lost cause. So no, he's not Sauron, I just agree the perceived power of the Empire was significant to growing immorality, although the original Stormtroopers felt like hired goons who didn't realize the larger extent of murder and destruction they were supporting, stuck in those faceless helmets.

Politics need to be an extension of real human issues, or else its just fantasy world-building, not grayness. Star Wars has always been about the actions of individuals in terms of understanding the larger picture, finding a way to their version of peace. So, I don't think everyone's actions are dictated, its more like the Force is an extension of the balance of life itself. That's why mindless clone and droid army's are bland, because in the films they're entirely dictated by one side's agenda and provide no moral conundrums.

Edited June 1, 2016 by the last chronicler

[-JD-]

-

Edited January 10, 2023 by -JD-

[Forresto]

@thelastchronicler

You put it very well, and your right politics for politics sake is not good. While it is not the aspect of SW I enjoy when it's overdone, I prefer it being more mystical like the White Walkers in Game of Thrones, I can respect that side of it completely.

@Jammiedodger

In regards to the Empire I completely agree. They should've lasted a while longer. In terms of the Vong you are absolutely correct. Actually what's interesting about the old EU is that you can actually look at Palpatine and not only see what he did as a power grab but an attempt to also save the human race.

So basically what happened, although you might already know this, is the Chiss were the first to encounter a Vong scout force. A young Thrawn in fact participated in one of the first battles against them. Then Thawn got involved with this whole Outbound Flight business and eventually Palpatine found out as well. Both Palpatine and Thrawn realized how grave a threat these "Outsiders" really were, which is partly why Palpatine attempted to cement Imperial rule on the galaxy. I think the belief was to pool all the galaxy's resources into a unified, Imperial, militarization in order to defeat the massive Yuzzan Vong invasion that was pretty imminent.

While the Empire is still horrible and Palpatine is evil, it puts an interesting twist on the whole EU including the motivations of Palpatine beyond just power lust.

[xboxtravis7992]

Understood a galaxy of resources might have helped the Empire last a long time after Palpatine fell, but I dunno I always imagined the Empire was a cult of personality focused on The Emperor. With Palpatine gone I don't see how the Empire could hold together.

But I do imagine there had to be Moffs somewhere rallying stormtroopers and trying to reastablish the Empire. I'm willing to bet a few small "imperial hold outs" still existed side by side with the First Order and Republic during the events of TFA.

Edited June 2, 2016 by xboxtravis7992

[the last chronicler]

My point is the Clones act as an endless mass, and the amount of time the Jedi spend looking quizzical doesn't really justify them using them as cannon fodder for a war, especially against droids that break if a butterfly lands on them. Palpatine even says the creation of life with the Force is unnatural, but for the amount of plot spent on clones in the film the Jedi don't question the morality of creating life for war at all. The army itself isn't treated as living people with motivation and empathy, they switch sides without question with that Order 66, and most of the time they aren't even played by real people.

Vong:

I think that sounds like a cool idea- but it defeats the idea of the Empire as an internal threat from the galaxy, grown from our own insecurities and short sightedness. It turns Star Wars into a battle against an evil 'race' of beings, instead of a battle with ourselves. It's the same problem I had even when I was young with RotJ when they passed the buck of Darth Vader's evil onto Palpatine.

It makes Palpatine more interesting if he has motivation, but he always felt like 'the more evil evil' devil that Luke and Anakin could bond over defeating, and the Vong just passes that buck over again.

TFA feels like the necessary counterpoint to the advantage Luke had in knowing that the light side still survived in in his father--the film shows that the dark side of the Force 'will be with you always' too: a constant battle within. What does Luke loose with the knowledge of his father? That he must be vigilant against evil, that anyone can turn, and that nothing is ideal.

EDIT: I reposted this later it's not relevant to the current discussion :

The Sequel Trilogy:

I also think people are dismissing hints that George Lucas's thematic intent for the third trilogy will be present in the ST. I found these three quotes when looking up Star Wars history for a project:

George Lucas thought the Sequel trilogy would be about "the necessity for moral choices and the wisdom needed to distinguish right from wrong".--Gary Kurtz, 1990's I think.

From The Force Awakens Novelization:

"First comes the day

Then comes the Night.

After the darkness

Shines through the light.

The difference, they Say,

Is only made right

By resolving the gray

Through refined Jedi

Sight.

~Journal of the Whills 7:477

"If the first trilogy is social and political and talks about how society evolves, Star Wars is more about personal growth and self realization, and the third deals with moral and philosophical problems. The sequel is about Jedi Knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned."--George Lucas, 1980's.

TFA establishes this premise perfectly, we've got Kylo Ren morally divided, a Republic in chaos without a government, and a Luke Skywalker who will need to make tough choices, with the weight of the good and evil of the Skywalker line--like his lightsaber--in his hands. We even have the First Jedi Temple, a perfect location to discuss "Jedi Knighthood," and pass on Star Wars to the next generation.

Edited June 3, 2016 by the last chronicler