Is George Lucas really that bad?

[S@tanicoaldo]

I just wacthed THX 1138 and it was a great movie! On the level of Stanley Kubrick, why people hate him so much?

I think he's a good director.

[Cikomyr]

This is a very good question.

I think the very vague consensus is that Lucas was at his best when challenged and working his ass off. Allowing people to challenge him on everything, and being willing to spit and shine something until it was as good as he could make it.

Compare to the behind the scene materials of the PT and other projects he made, where he seems a bit blasé, takes a relax attitude to everything and unwilling to take himself out of his comfort zone.

[An Enemy Spy]

Because he messed with a property that is home to one of the most toxic, reactionary, and bitter fandoms on the face of the planet.

[Rockphed]

George Lucas's problem is not that he is bad, it is that he doesn't understand what people like in his movies that they like. Hence making prequels to Star Wars that learned the wrong lessons therefrom. People enjoyed seeing the characters go to far-flung places, so he invented great new places for the characters to go to. Too bad he didn't really want to spend the budget, so they stood in green-screen studios. People enjoyed light-saber fights, so he put in more of them. (Actually, the fight between Qui-gon, Obi-wan, and Darth Maul was probably the best part of Phantom Menace). People loved Darth Vader as a villain so he included not 1, not 2, not even 3, but 4 red laser-sword wielding bad guys.

In the end, he included more of the things people said they liked, but at the cost of the background effects that made people like them in the first place.

[Scowling Dragon]

Hes a guy with a massive ego. But after seeing what happens without his input he does have that spark.

Despite failing on a general technical level in the prequels, his films still had a spark of desire to try new things that when inside a corporate boardoom would be shot down faster then you can say "won't lead to instant shareholder gratification"

[Mando Knight]

I think the very vague consensus is that Lucas was at his best when challenged and working his ass off. Allowing people to challenge him on everything, and being willing to spit and shine something until it was as good as he could make it.

Compare to the behind the scene materials of the PT and other projects he made, where he seems a bit blasé, takes a relax attitude to everything and unwilling to take himself out of his comfort zone.

Ironically, the story goes that he looked for someone to help him with those things in the prequels, but the people he wanted to give him that kind of input thought that he should do it on his own.

[Some Android]

The guy who made the film adaptation of Howard the Duck?:smallconfused: He did stuff other than that and Willow?

Oh wait, didn't he make some sort of film about graffiti in America or something?

[Ramza00]

I just wacthed THX 1138 and it was a great movie! On the level of Stanley Kubrick, why people hate him so much?

I think he's a good director.

I have not seen THX 1138 but my opinions of Lucas is he has talent, but he needs external people, to help channel that talent including telling him this is a good idea and this is a bad idea. Furthermore he needs external people to help him edit for when he tries to do the editing himself well bad things happen. (Lucas likes to keep adding scenes in edits but part of film is knowing what to remove and what to reorganize into a smaller story in order to be more intense for humans have limited attention but also we need attention markers to help guide attention.)

Aka this video explains how just subtle shifts that occurred with Star Wars IV: A New Hope made this movie into a good movie vs the train-wreck it almost was.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFMyMxMYDNk

It was 3 people Marcia Lucas (Woman, wife of Lucas at the time of Star Wars A New Hope) plus Richard Chew and Paul Hirsch who did the final edit of Star Wars A New Hope. But there are other people as well who gave feedback and help massage the product.

------

Now me saying Film is a collaborative act is not to take away George Lucas talent or his accomplishments. No I argue all humans are like this, there is an idea in psychology called The Zone of Proximal Development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Zone_of_proximal_development.svg/440px-Zone_of_proximal_development.svg.png

Well Film ever since almost always in reality is a collaborative enterprise, thus almost all films are things involving the 2nd circle and the most intermost circle.

Note ZPD happens often in storytelling involving a master and a student relationship. For example the Master Wheel in Zorro is not a Sword Fighting Technique but instead merely a Drawing of psychologist Lev Vygotsky's ZPD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxzQfROFbM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8HRf6pRVY

------

My point is Lucas needs a support system in order to thrive, but this is the case of all movies. For example John Williams soundtrack with the descending bass with Binary Sunset (The Tatooine two suns theme, also called The Force Theme) is specifically designed to make you feel sad for descending bass music does that to humans cognition and emotional affect because of biology, yet other parts of the music are transcendent so we understand that change happens and change can be beautiful. Thus we see Binary Sunset at other times in the movies for example we see it when Leia remembers her mother in ROTJ, when Vader kills Palpatine, and Vader Corpse is burnt on Endor. We also hear these same chords multiple times in the movies and one of my favorite parts is the Yoda Scene in The Last Jedi (aka it is a callback to the vader scene on endor and the power of transformation but also the fear of it.)

The first 5 minutes of this video explains why The Descending Bass makes us sad even if other parts of the music may make you happy or feel other emotions besides sadness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933tIGe0n24


But my point is Lucas did not make Star Wars music that is Williams and other people and thus Film is a collaborative act including the need for editors and the people who help nudge the director into making a better movie. Well Lucas has talent but he really needs external people to help him nudge to a final product including the power to say no this is stupid, bad, or does not have the right theme / texture we are trying to invoke.

[Rynjin]

SFDebris has a very good three (http://sfdebris.com/videos/special/herosjourney.php) part (http://sfdebris.com/videos/special/shadowsjourney.php) series (http://sfdebris.com/videos/special/hermitsjourney.php) delving into what went into the success and failures of Lucas' career.

TL:DW (Though you should, SFDebris' stuff is gold): Lucas is a perfectionist, and just can't stop tinkering with stuff even when said tinkering ruins the product in the eyes of others. He also has a tendency to misremember things and become convinced they are true facts, basing all future developments off of that. Among other things. Good director, flawed human, human flaws bleed into work later in life.

[Cheesegear]

George Lucas, got worse, the more money he made.

In the beginning, George did the best with what he had. No matter how perfectionist he may've been (and he is), he was always limited by budget and circumstance, but, he also wasn't in charge.
Once Lucas became the Producer of his own movies, no-one could tell him 'no'. As he made more and more money, the budgets he had control of was out of control, so he was able to tinker and tinker and tinker, until he gets to the point where he's fixing what isn't broken.

The Lucas who wrote/directed THX 1138, American Graffiti and the original Star Wars, isn't the same Lucas, as the guy who produced Red Tails, or did the SW Prequels.

Basically, there are two Lucases;
Pre-1990 - The guy writer/director who wrote the Indiana Jones films, and directed movies on a shoestring budget.
Post-1999 - The writer/director/producer who everyone hates, who makes movies for himself, rather than his audience.

As a Director, he's fine. As a Producer, he's out of control.

[factotum]

I think Lucas was always not that great, to be honest. When he was forced to listen to other people (because he didn't have the budget or the clout to ignore them) he produced some good movies. Once he got to the point he didn't have to take on board anyone else's input, the quality of his output declined dramatically. Even in the movies he made which *are* good, like THX 1138 and the first two Star Wars movies, you can see that he struggles with the emotional content of the scenes--the setting and the effects are amazing, the characters, not so much.

This, I think, is where the "Han shot first" thing came from. In the original release Han shooting first meant the character had a definite arc, going from a desperado who thought of little else than himself to the more out-going and generous character of later instalments, but Lucas didn't really understand that and decided that he couldn't have one of his "good guys" kill someone in cold blood--hence Greedo becoming the worst shot in the history of the universe.

[Bohandas]

This, I think, is where the "Han shot first" thing came from. In the original release Han shooting first meant the character had a definite arc, going from a desperado who thought of little else than himself to the more out-going and generous character of later instalments, but Lucas didn't really understand that and decided that he couldn't have one of his "good guys" kill someone in cold blood--hence Greedo becoming the worst shot in the history of the universe.

Plus there;s also the technical matter of how clumsily Greedo's shot was edited in; it breaks the flow of the scene.

[Cheesegear]

When he was forced to listen to other people (because he didn't have the budget or the clout to ignore them) he produced some good movies.

I don't think he's ever produced a good movie. I think he's directed a few good movies, when he had a Producer that wasn't himself.

Ever seen a movie Produced by and starring Vin Diesel? "It's my money, and I'm going to make myself look good."

[Bohandas]

I just wacthed THX 1138 and it was a great movie! On the level of Stanley Kubrick, why people hate him so much?

I think he's a good director.

He's much better than Stanley Kubrick. Lucas' movies actually make sense, and they don't drag tediously on and on and on. Lucas never puts the plot on hold for 15 minutes of kaleidoscopes

[Cikomyr]

Ironically, the story goes that he looked for someone to help him with those things in the prequels, but the people he wanted to give him that kind of input thought that he should do it on his own.

I can totally buy this is the story. But i have doubts about what it actually mean.

Because if these people knew they had to deal with an overbearing GL constantly micromanaging and setting terms on everything, most people would throw their hands in the air and say a variant on: "How about you make sure its your vision?"

[JoshL]

Ever seen a movie Produced by and starring Vin Diesel? "It's my money, and I'm going to make myself look good."

Hey, I LIKE the Riddick movies! And The Last Witch Hunter, for that matter.

As for Lucas, I like him best when he works on the story, but has at least one other person doing the screenplay (I love Willow, for example). That, I think, was the problem with the prequels. But I like star wars even when it's bad, so I still watch them every once in a while.

It's been ages since I've seen it, but I recall THX 1138 being a great movie

[Whispering Goat]

Lucas is not a good director, Lucas is a good idea man. He can come up with ideas for stuff all day long, a lot of them are actually really good, but a lot of them are also mediocre to downright bad. Now, when you put the idea man in charge of everything, with no one filtering through the ideas he's coming up with, they all make it into the final cut. This leaves you with a movie that has some good ideas, some mediocre ideas and some downright bad ideas. Movies that have a smattering of bad ideas in them don't work. It ruins the audiences suspension of disbelief, which still even exists in a movie about moving things with your mind and fighting with laser swords. When characters do and say things that aren't in tune with the internal consistency of your universe it stands out in a bad way to the audience. It would be like listening to a beautiful symphony but there's one guy playing the cowbell stage right who's making up his own beat as he goes along.

The overwhelming majority of Lucas' best work was done while collaborating with other good film makers.

[Bohandas]

I'd also like to point out that he had nothing to do with Rogue One and that was the worst prequel by a very wide margin. Way worse than the ones he wrote and directed.

I think the real take home message is "don't make Star Wars prequels", not "Lucas is washed up"

[Whispering Goat]

I'd also like to point out that he had nothing to do with Rogue One and that was the worst prequel by a very wide margin. Way worse than the ones he wrote and directed.

Yeah, well that's just like, your opinion, man. Rogue One was better received by audiences and critics alike than any of the main story prequels according to just about every site (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc.) You may not have liked Rogue One, and liked the three prequels more (I'm sure that I don't understand how or why) but that's not a widely held viewpoint.

[Bohandas]

Rogue One didn't even feel like a Star Wars movie. It was more like some unrelated science fantasy story that they stuck some Star Wars IP into at the last minute to cash in.

[Sapphire Guard]

No, he's not that bad. There's just a lot of memes about how bad he is that gained traction, many of which overlook things like the on location shooting in TPM or how much practical effects were used in the PT.

For instance, that 'Star Wars was saved in the edit' video carefully doesn't tell you that the original edit it's taking shots at is not the work of George Lucas, it's the work of a man named John Jympson, who Lucas fired because he didn't like the edit.

[Whispering Goat]

Rogue One didn't even feel like a Star Wars movie. It was more like some unrelated science fantasy story that they stuck some Star Wars IP into at the last minute to cash in.

While I'll admit the tone of the movie wasn't the same as the original trilogy the same can be said for the prequels. Silly slapstick humor with Jar Jar, boringly long senate gatherings, the main characters of the first movie being weird unfeeling robot monks? None of that hearkens back to the original trilogy. Other than tone I'm not sure how it was an unrelated science fantasy pic, considering the macguffin was the death star plans just like in episode 4. I'm not trying to defend Rogue One, I didn't particularly care for it either, but to say that the prequel movies were better is simply not true. You may have enjoyed them more but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's probably due to the fact that they came out when you were a kid and you have fond memories of them because of it. Rose colored glasses, nostalgia, and all that.

[Psyren]

He's not that bad, but he was at his best when working under constraints, with other creative people present to check his more negative impulses. There are some people that, when put in charge with a cadre of yes-men around them instead of people willing and able to challenge or contradict them, end up spiraling off into bad decision-land. That doesn't make them bad people, they just have to be conscious of that issue and make sure they have the right environment in which to succeed.

RLM covered the problems with Lucas' directorial style when he had free reign at length in their reviews, but the excerpt a few of the more resonant points - Lucas had an overreliance on very tight green-screen sets with lazy shot-reverse-shot conversations, not because that made for engaging exposition (it didn't) but because it was easy to film and direct. And the writing, on top of being atrocious in spots ("I hate sand") was just rushed due to his need to keep a vicegrip on creative control even when filming had already begun.

The smaller stuff, like his incessant tendency to meddle with the details of finished products (#HanShotFirst being one of the more famous examples) was annoying, but could have been forgiven without the cardinal sin of just making boring movies. Do you know how hard it is to make Samuel L. Jackson boring?

[Lord Joeltion]

To put it simply, George Lucas is a genius. He basically "discovered" a universe so rich and with so much potential that probably no other in film history has ever done before (or after).

But he isn't the Edgar Allan Poe kind of genius. He is the Stan Lee* kind of genius, with some streaks of Stephen King. Not all geniuses can do everything all right (like Poe), neither they can take a whole project by themselves (specially, huge projects, like cinematic franchises). Very much like S.Lee or S.King, he set the foundations for a universe(s?) that shaped cinema and culture like few other pieces of art ever did. That wasn't just "dumb luck", he deserves the title of Genius, even if the capital G is undeserved.

And like King in literature (or Kubric, who was mentioned), he also pioneered a lot of techniques and tools for cinematic narrative**. But like them, he isn't flawless. He isn't perfect. Not all geniuses and pioneers are perfect (nor they need to). Sometimes it is about mastering a single thing like no other ever did before. It's not just that he did it first either, saying that would be unfair to his talent. He is someone to look up to, if you ever want to work in cinema or any of the visual arts. Sure, he is not the best director, or the best writer, or the best not even a substandard producer. So what? He has already earned all the respect for the things he did well. And anyone saying there was someone better than G.L. at what he did best, wasn't paying attention to the screen. So, from that perspective, I think it's fair to recognise both his errors and epic wins for what they were. Most people who judge him negatively, usually compare aspects of him that are unrelated or that don't even weigh on the discussion about his artistic prowess.

*I know it's setting the bar low, but better that than to create a new debate. I'm not comparing King with Lee, I'm just trying to set a range wide enough for Lucas to fit without much dissent.
**He foretold Power Point presentations too!

tl;dr: Willow is perfection. Willow is love. And I yet need to find the novel

[Sapphire Guard]

I'm curious as to where the idea of Lucas being overbearing and surrounding himself with yes men comes from.

As far as I knew, he was known for being shy and quiet, and very collaborative (http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20151214-hes-more-than-just-a)

[Bohandas]

While I'll admit the tone of the movie wasn't the same as the original trilogy the same can be said for the prequels. Silly slapstick humor with Jar Jar, boringly long senate gatherings, the main characters of the first movie being weird unfeeling robot monks? None of that hearkens back to the original trilogy. Other than tone I'm not sure how it was an unrelated science fantasy pic, considering the macguffin was the death star plans just like in episode 4. I'm not trying to defend Rogue One, I didn't particularly care for it either, but to say that the prequel movies were better is simply not true. You may have enjoyed them more but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's probably due to the fact that they came out when you were a kid and you have fond memories of them because of it. Rose colored glasses, nostalgia, and all that.

It's not just the tone though. They also changed some details of how hyperdrive works and they retconned the first scene of A New Hope into hapoening immediately after the plans were stolen. Furthermore in A New Hope it was also vaguely implied that the plans were stolen through espionage; not the clumsy smash-and-grab depicted im Rogue One

[Bohandas]

And like King in literature (or Kubric, who was mentioned), he also pioneered a lot of techniques and tools for cinematic narrative**.

Kubrick pioneered effects, at the expense of narrative. 2001: A Space Odyssey would have been a lot tighter if there wasn't a scene with just 20 minutes of experimental effect shots with no action or advancement of the plot (and on a related note, why is it ok for Kubrick to do that but not for Michael Bay to do it?)

[Ramza00]

I'm curious as to where the idea of Lucas being overbearing and surrounding himself with yes men comes from.

As far as I knew, he was known for being shy and quiet, and very collaborative (http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20151214-hes-more-than-just-a)
Nope he is the shy difficult person who is so stubborn that when given power he gets to control things but when he does not get to control things he pouts, and when it is a collaborative nature he has to channel his pouts into actually doing things. Actually changing his ideas into reality and the reality has to work, aka the 3 parts of theory of mind which are cognition (thoughts and ideas), affective (feelings), conative (doing).

Lucas is an ideas person this is his greatest strength and his greatest weakness, it is his weakness for he has hyper-specialized in ideas to the point he feels uncomfortable in the doing aspect and the feeling aspect (he is good at feelings but he is not good at feelings when other people say they do not feel the same thing he does.)

[hamishspence]

It's not just the tone though. They also changed some details of how hyperdrive works and they retconned the first scene of A New Hope into hapoening immediately after the plans were stolen.

TCW had already made changes to hyperspace - that a ship can enter hyperspace from planetary atmosphere. TFA showed us a ship leaving hyperspace in atmosphere. Rogue One didn't do any retconning in that particular case - it followed the precedent other works had already set.

Furthermore in A New Hope it was also vaguely implied that the plans were stolen through espionage; not the clumsy smash-and-grab depicted im Rogue One

The opening crawl did say that Rebel ships had fought a battle against the Empire - with the implication that the battle was fought in order to obtain the plans.

[Friv]

It's not just the tone though. They also changed some details of how hyperdrive works and they retconned the first scene of A New Hope into hapoening immediately after the plans were stolen. Furthermore in A New Hope it was also vaguely implied that the plans were stolen through espionage; not the clumsy smash-and-grab depicted im Rogue One

I mean, if you're concerned about retcons, the entire prequel trilogy is basically a huge mass of them.


Anakin was a good friend. When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot a precocious ten-year old, but I was amazed how strongly the Force was with him the student of a guy who was really impressed by him. I took it upon myself to was strong-armed by said dying mentor into training him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda who also instructed him. I was wrong.

[Whispering Goat]

It's not just the tone though. They also changed some details of how hyperdrive works and they retconned the first scene of A New Hope into hapoening immediately after the plans were stolen. Furthermore in A New Hope it was also vaguely implied that the plans were stolen through espionage; not the clumsy smash-and-grab depicted im Rogue One

I assume you mean because they used their hyperdrive inside of a planets atmosphere? This wasn't canon that you cannot do it. It was mentioned in the Thrawn trilogy which is SW Legends and therefore not part of the canon. Also, we never saw what happened before the initial scene in A New Hope, so it can't be retconned. All they said about the Death Star plans being stolen, in the original trilogy was that "Many Bothan's died to bring us this information." That doesn't point one way or another to espionage but we don't see many Bothan's dying to bring the Rebellion that information. This doesn't mean that did not occur though. It may have happened off screen, just as it was still assumed to have happened, even though it was off screen, when it was initially mentioned in A New Hope.

If the fact that they didn't show many Bothan's dying makes Rogue One worse than the prequels I'd ask why Darth Vader never recognizes C3PO, considering he made him, after the prequel movies. Or how Obi Wan says he never remembers owning a droid, when he in fact did own a droid... the exact droid he's in the presence of when he says that actually, R2D2. R2 was his astromech when he traveled to Kamino and Geonosis. He was also present when R2 was given praise by Queen Amidala when he saved their lives (including Obi Wan) escaping from Naboo. These aren't really the reasons why the prequels are bad though, I'm just pointing out that if internal inconsistencies within the canon is what makes you dislike Rogue One you should equally dislike the prequels because they're present there too.

[Tvtyrant]

I think George Lucas at heart is a big nerd. The things he likes about movies are not the things that make movies great, but make SciFi fun.

So supposedly he originally meant to include 40 more minutes of Luke hanging out on Tatoine, developing the planet more. That would have ruined the film.

Naboo we see the same desire to explore and flesh out alien vistas, and then we do go hang out on desert world exploring for 40 minutes. And guess what, it breaks down the films tempo and ruins it.

[Sapphire Guard]

Eh... Obi Wan has been doing 'certain points of view' since ESB.

Bothans are DS2. When did Vader and C3PO share a scene?

[Kitten Champion]

I assume you mean because they used their hyperdrive inside of a planets atmosphere? This wasn't canon that you cannot do it. It was mentioned in the Thrawn trilogy which is SW Legends and therefore not part of the canon. Also, we never saw what happened before the initial scene in A New Hope, so it can't be retconned. All they said about the Death Star plans being stolen, in the original trilogy was that "Many Bothan's died to bring us this information." That doesn't point one way or another to espionage but we don't see many Bothan's dying to bring the Rebellion that information. This doesn't mean that did not occur though. It may have happened off screen, just as it was still assumed to have happened, even though it was off screen, when it was initially mentioned in A New Hope.

If the fact that they didn't show many Bothan's dying makes Rogue One worse than the prequels I'd ask why Darth Vader never recognizes C3PO, considering he made him, after the prequel movies. Or how Obi Wan says he never remembers owning a droid, when he in fact did own a droid... the exact droid he's in the presence of when he says that actually, R2D2. R2 was his astromech when he traveled to Kamino and Geonosis. He was also present when R2 was given praise by Queen Amidala when he saved their lives (including Obi Wan) escaping from Naboo. These aren't really the reasons why the prequels are bad though, I'm just pointing out that if internal inconsistencies within the canon is what makes you dislike Rogue One you should equally dislike the prequels because they're present there too.

I'm fairly sure Bothan deaths were part of the Death Star II intelligence gathering in Return of the Jedi, not the original in A New Hope.

[Peelee]

I assume you mean because they used their hyperdrive inside of a planets atmosphere? This wasn't canon that you cannot do it. It was mentioned in the Thrawn trilogy which is SW Legends and therefore not part of the canon. Also, we never saw what happened before the initial scene in A New Hope, so it can't be retconned. All they said about the Death Star plans being stolen, in the original trilogy was that "Many Bothan's died to bring us this information." That doesn't point one way or another to espionage but we don't see many Bothan's dying to bring the Rebellion that information. This doesn't mean that did not occur though. It may have happened off screen, just as it was still assumed to have happened, even though it was off screen, when it was initially mentioned in A New Hope.

If the fact that they didn't show many Bothan's dying makes Rogue One worse than the prequels I'd ask why Darth Vader never recognizes C3PO, considering he made him, after the prequel movies. Or how Obi Wan says he never remembers owning a droid, when he in fact did own a droid... the exact droid he's in the presence of when he says that actually, R2D2. R2 was his astromech when he traveled to Kamino and Geonosis. He was also present when R2 was given praise by Queen Amidala when he saved their lives (including Obi Wan) escaping from Naboo. These aren't really the reasons why the prequels are bad though, I'm just pointing out that if internal inconsistencies within the canon is what makes you dislike Rogue One you should equally dislike the prequels because they're present there too.

You forgot about how they basically retcon Captain Kirk entirely out of the series.

[Cristo Meyers]

When did Vader and C3PO share a scene?

It also seems to be a standard droid chassis: we see another 3PO model in ESB, just grey-colored. You could assume the gold-colored plating is unique, but there's not much reason to.

[factotum]

I'm fairly sure Bothan deaths were part of the Death Star II intelligence gathering in Return of the Jedi, not the original in A New Hope.

Yeah, that's correct. What the original Star Wars opening crawl says about it is:

"Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR"

Seems pretty similar to what happened in Rogue One to me? Of course, one can ask why Leia didn't transmit the plans to the Rebel leadership rather than having to physically carry them there* (and make a quick side-stop at Tattooine for no good reason to boot), but to be honest, the plot of the first movie doesn't really hold up well to that sort of scrutiny even if you ignore every other Star Wars movie. It just manages to be a fun enough romp that it doesn't matter, whereas the prequels (especially Phantom Menace) are so dull that the plot holes became like glaring neon signs.

* and yes, they have FTL communications in the Star Wars universe--otherwise, how would the news of the Millennium Falcon's escape from Mos Eisley reach the Death Star before the ship itself does?

[pendell]

The concept that hyperdrive could not take place in an atmosphere was discussed in the original novelization of Star Wars (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope_(novel)) by Alan Dean Foster. The book spelled out that you had to be at least six planetary diameters away from a planet in order to use hyperdrive.

While it wasn't spelled out in the films itself, the scene in which our heroes escape from Tatooine had Han warn Luke about it taking time to prepare for a hyperspace jump -- without precise calculations they could impact something and end the trip in a hurry.

If this were not so, the Death Star didn't need to give the rebels time to mount a defense; they could have simply executed their jump directly into Yavin 4's orbit, and blown it away.

Disney changed the rules. Not for the better, IMO , but I suppose they think it makes a better story.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

Yeah, that's correct. What the original Star Wars opening crawl says about it is:

"Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR"

Seems pretty similar to what happened in Rogue One to me? Of course, one can ask why Leia didn't transmit the plans to the Rebel leadership rather than having to physically carry them there* (and make a quick side-stop at Tattooine for no good reason to boot), but to be honest, the plot of the first movie doesn't really hold up well to that sort of scrutiny even if you ignore every other Star Wars movie. It just manages to be a fun enough romp that it doesn't matter, whereas the prequels (especially Phantom Menace) are so dull that the plot holes became like glaring neon signs.

* and yes, they have FTL communications in the Star Wars universe--otherwise, how would the news of the Millennium Falcon's escape from Mos Eisley reach the Death Star before the ship itself does?

The Empire controls the HoloNet.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Of course, one can ask why Leia didn't transmit the plans to the Rebel leadership rather than having to physically carry them there

It was a dark time. Most places don't have internet, what internet there is was dial up, and you can forget 56k because you're likely to only get 2k. Do you want to sit still in one place long enough to transmit a schematic that size through that pipe, hoping against hope that the Empire won't notice?

[Peelee]

It was a dark time. Most places don't have internet, what internet there is was dial up, and you can forget 56k because you're likely to only get 2k. Do you want to sit still in one place long enough to transmit a schematic that size through that pipe, hoping against hope that the Empire won't notice?

Lord Vader was looking for stolen datatapes, for cripes sake!

[Psyren]

Wasn't "we can't just e-mail the plans" a big plot point in Rogue One anyway?

[Thrudd]

The concept that hyperdrive could not take place in an atmosphere was discussed in the original novelization of Star Wars (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope_(novel)) by Alan Dean Foster. The book spelled out that you had to be at least six planetary diameters away from a planet in order to use hyperdrive.

While it wasn't spelled out in the films itself, the scene in which our heroes escape from Tatooine had Han warn Luke about it taking time to prepare for a hyperspace jump -- without precise calculations they could impact something and end the trip in a hurry.

If this were not so, the Death Star didn't need to give the rebels time to mount a defense; they could have simply executed their jump directly into Yavin 4's orbit, and blown it away.

Disney changed the rules. Not for the better, IMO , but I suppose they think it makes a better story.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Yeah. People keep making changes to the setting's rules for reasons of plot/narrative, ad hoc, without considering the impact they have on the coherence of the setting and the series as a whole. GL did it himself in the prequels. It's frustrating to me.

[Bohandas]

The opening crawl did say that Rebel ships had fought a battle against the Empire - with the implication that the battle was fought in order to obtain the plans.

I stand corrected. That said, from the action of Episode 4 it still seems more like the plans were handed off to Leia rather than that she was actually present at the battle. Also, the way the crawl is worded is equally consistent with a feint similar to LorR's Battle of the Black Gate

[Peelee]

I stand corrected. That said, from the action of Episode 4 it still seems more like the plans were handed off to her rather than that she was actually present at the battle.


Don't play games with me, Your Highness. You weren't on any mercy mission this time. Several transmissions were beamed to this ship by Rebel spies. I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you.

Rogue One: shields are taken down, plans are beamed to ship, mercy missions are typically not attacks on secret Imperial bases. Leia is still a senator, and is still claiming official immunity, which makes the situation murky. Vader does not like murky, and does what he wants anyway.

Not the most elegant way to stitch everything together, but the pieces still fit fine.

[Bohandas]

Rogue One: shields are taken down, plans are beamed to ship, mercy missions are typically not attacks on secret Imperial bases. Leia is still a senator, and is still claiming official immunity, which makes the situation murky. Vader does not like murky, and does what he wants anyway.

Not the most elegant way to stitch everything together, but the pieces still fit fine.

It technically fits, but the way Vader's dialog is worded and delivered makes it sound like the information was transmitted to her clandestinely (but not clandestinely enough.)

[Cikomyr]

It technically fits, but the way Vader's dialog is worded and delivered makes it sound like the information was transmitted to her clandestinely (but not clandestinely enough.)

You are inferring like crazy and using it as justification for disliking Rogue One.

If you disliked the movie, just say so and accept its a subjective taste. You dont have to make up pseudo Objective reasons that justifies your sentiment.

[Bohandas]

You are inferring like crazy and using it as justification for disliking Rogue One.

I just figured out the specific detail that makes it not work. Vader explicitly arrests Leia for because her ship received transmissions from rebel spies, not for the even more treasonous and far more politically expedient reason that her ship attacked an imperial military installation.

[Keltest]

I just figured out the specific detail that makes it not work. Vader explicitly arrests Leia for because her ship received transmissions from rebel spies, not for the even more treasonous and far more politically expedient reason that her ship attacked an imperial military installation.

Technically, it didn't. The Tantive IV was in the hanger of another, larger ship during the entire battle. While it was present, it was not actually participating in the fight.

[Devonix]

You are inferring like crazy and using it as justification for disliking Rogue One.

If you disliked the movie, just say so and accept its a subjective taste. You dont have to make up pseudo Objective reasons that justifies your sentiment.

I dislike it because it's a bad movie. The weird backflips it makes to try and tie into Episode IV don't help.
:smallwink:

[Reddish Mage]

You are inferring like crazy and using it as justification for disliking Rogue One.

If you disliked the movie, just say so and accept its a subjective taste. You dont have to make up pseudo Objective reasons that justifies your sentiment.

I think its an open subject whether or not Rogue One fits the narrative of Episode IV, and how well.

I don't see the movie as a complete rewrite, but I don't think some of implications and mannerisms in the dialogue aboard the Star Destroyer and Tantive IV seems perfectly in sync with the story of Rogue One.

Not as difficult of a fit as getting the Prequel Trilogy as the backstory of the Original Trilogy though, mind you. I'd say its relatively good at maintaining coherence for a Prequel.

[Jay R]

Getting back to the original question:

George Lucas became well known when he made an stunning, incredible, intoxicating, industry-changing film. It was nominated for over ten Oscars (including best film and best director), winning six. It changed movie-making forever. And it spawned a new and obsessive fandom.

Therefore he was held in grossly, absurdly, unfairly high esteem, and measured by a grossly, absurdly, unfairly high standard.

Then he made sequels. Some of them were good. A couple were even great. But the bar for George Lucas was a stunning, incredible, industry-changing film.

But they couldn't all match the grossly, absurdly, unfairly high standard by which he was judged. Therefore he also cannot meet the grossly, absurdly, unfairly, high standard by which he is being judged.


Here lies a toppled god.
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.
― Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah

[Bohandas]

Technically, it didn't. The Tantive IV was in the hanger of another, larger ship during the entire battle. While it was present, it was not actually participating in the fight.

From that viewpoint, technically it didn't receive the beamed transmissions either; the plans were explicitly brought over on a disk or tape

[Bohandas]

If the fact that they didn't show many Bothan's dying makes Rogue One worse than the prequels I'd ask why Darth Vader never recognizes C3PO, considering he made him, after the prequel movies. Or how Obi Wan says he never remembers owning a droid, when he in fact did own a droid... the exact droid he's in the presence of when he says that actually, R2D2. R2 was his astromech when he traveled to Kamino and Geonosis. He was also present when R2 was given praise by Queen Amidala when he saved their lives (including Obi Wan) escaping from Naboo. These aren't really the reasons why the prequels are bad though, I'm just pointing out that if internal inconsistencies within the canon is what makes you dislike Rogue One you should equally dislike the prequels because they're present there too.

To be fair Obi Wan also said that Luke's father was dead and that imperial stormtroopers were excellent marksmen. So even in the original trilogy it's extablished that maybe we shouldn't expect the things Obi Wan says to be totally accurate. Also he was in hiding and living under half of an assumed name, so possibly it makes sense for him to be giving inaccurate information about his background

[factotum]

The concept that hyperdrive could not take place in an atmosphere was discussed in the original novelization of Star Wars (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope_(novel)) by Alan Dean Foster. The book spelled out that you had to be at least six planetary diameters away from a planet in order to use hyperdrive.

I'm pretty sure that the Rebel fleet comes out of hyperspace in RotJ far closer to the moon of Endor than six planetary diameters, judging from how big it looks from the Millennium Falcon's viewport? It's also worth noting that Han never mentions any restriction on distance from the planet when explaining why the Falcon doesn't immediately jump into hyperspace when escaping Tattooine, he says that it's because of the hyperspace calculations the computer is doing.

[Kyberwulf]

I don't think, Obi Wan ever owned a droid. I don't even think Anakin owned R2-D2? I know it follows him around. I have been wondering where and when Anakin got R2 from Padme. As far as I know, R2-D2 was some rando Astromech droid on some ship, that somehow manage to tag along with them. I mean, I don't even think Padme "owned" R2-D2, since he was part of the repair droids owned by the Naboo Goverment. Seeing how as a "Queen", Padme only served for whatever Queens serve.

[hamishspence]

Padme giving Anakin R2 comes from the CW TV series (later relegated to Legends). However, after that, the ROTS novelization provided more detail (the scene is wordless in the cartoon - entirely gestures):


And there had come another day, two years later, a day that had meant nearly as much to him as the day they had wed: the day he had finally passed his trials.
The day he had become a Jedi Knight.
As soon as circumstances allowed he had slipped away, on his own now, no Master over his shoulder, no one to monitor his comings and his goings and so he could take himself to the vast Coruscant complex at 500 Republica where Naboo's senior Senator kept her spacious apartments.
And he had then, finally, two years late, a devotion-gift for her.
He had then one thing that he truly owned, that he had earned, that he was not required to renounce. One gift he could give her to celebrate their love.
The culmination of the Ceremony of Jedi Knighthood is the severing of the new Jedi Knight's Padawan braid. And it was this that he laid into Padme's trembling hand.
One long, thin braid of his glossy hair: such a little thing, of no value at all.
Such a little thing, that meant the galaxy to him.
And she had kissed him then, and laid her soft cheek against his jaw, and she had whispered in his ear that she had something for him as well.
Out from her closet had whirred R2-D2.
Of course Anakin knew him; he had known him for years— the little droid was a decorated war hero himself, having saved Padme's life back when she had been Queen of Naboo, not to mention helping the nine-year-old Anakin destroy the Trade Federation's Droid Control Ship, breaking the blockade and saving the planet. The Royal Engineers of Naboo's aftermarket wizardry made their modified R-units the most sought after in the galaxy; he'd tried to protest, but she had silenced him with a soft finger against his lips and a gentle smile and a whisper of "After all what does a politician need with an astromech?"
"But I'm a Jedi— "
"That's why I'm not giving him to you," she'd said with a smile. "I'm asking you to look after him. He's not really a gift. He's a friend."

[Devonix]

To be fair Obi Wan also said that Luke's father was dead and that imperial stormtroopers were excellent marksmen. So even in the original trilogy it's extablished that maybe we shouldn't expect the things Obi Wan says to be totally accurate. Also he was in hiding and living under half of an assumed name, so possibly it makes sense for him to be giving inaccurate information about his background

Except that in universe Storm troopers were excellent marksmen. And when he was saying that Luke's father was dead he was being 100 percent truthful. It's only sequels that turned him into a liar. A New Hope Obiwan is 100 percent honest in everything he says and does. So we have to take him at face value when he says he never owned a droid.

[hamishspence]

Even in the context of the prequels, Obi-Wan's statement is resolvable via

"Jedi don't own anything except their lightsabers - everything the Jedi use is communal property, to be returned to stores when the mission is over".

Thus, a droid can be Obi-Wan's co-pilot in battle in RoTS, without him owning that droid.

As for stormtroopers - some stormtroopers are super-accurate, some are not. And clone stormtroopers were much better than conscripts. Hence Obi-Wan can say "Only stormtroopers are this precise" without it being the case that "all stormtroopers are this precise".

[Devonix]

Even in the context of the prequels, Obi-Wan's statement is resolvable via

"Jedi don't own anything except their lightsabers - everything the Jedi use is communal property, to be returned to stores when the mission is over".

Thus, a droid can be Obi-Wan's co-pilot in battle in RoTS, without him owning that droid.

As for stormtroopers - some stormtroopers are super-accurate, some are not. And clone stormtroopers were much better than conscripts. Hence Obi-Wan can say "Only stormtroopers are this precise" without it being the case that "all stormtroopers are this precise".

Except clone troopers didn't exist at the time of the discussion. Unless you're simply discussing about how well the prequel retcons work with the film in which case. Yeah his wording doesn't quite fit now that Rebels had retconed the Stormtroopers as inneffectual by canon.

[hamishspence]

Except that in universe Storm troopers were excellent marksmen.



Even in the OT, there are moments of inaccuracy from troopers outside of the "trying to capture alive" rationale.

The simplest answer that uses the whole newcanon and not just the OT, and doesn't make Obi-Wan lie unneccessarily - is that the term "stormtrooper" was in use in the last days of the Republic and earliest days of the Empire.

And so, Obi-Wan is speaking from experience, about clone stormtroopers, when he makes his generalisation. After all, he has incentive to steer well clear of stormtroopers on Tatooine, to keep up his "hermit" facade - so he may not have experience of the later ones - only of the clone ones.

[Peelee]

Even in the OT, there are moments of inaccuracy from troopers outside of the "trying to capture alive" rationale.

The simplest answer that uses the whole newcanon and not just the OT, and doesn't make Obi-Wan lie unneccessarily - is that the term "stormtrooper" was in use in the last days of the Republic and earliest days of the Empire.

And so, Obi-Wan is speaking from experience, about clone stormtroopers, when he makes his generalisation. After all, he has incentive to steer well clear of stormtroopers on Tatooine, to keep up his "hermit" facade - so he may not have experience of the later ones - only of the clone ones.

Except he had immediate experience with current stormtroopers; he sees the precise shots on the sandcrawler, which gives further evidence that it was stormies.

Also, in OT I can only think of two instances of poor shooting - in docking Bay 84, and during the Bespin escape. All other times, they tend to do a very good job or miss intentionally.

[hamishspence]

Except he had immediate experience with current stormtroopers; he sees the precise shots on the sandcrawler, which gives further evidence that it was stormies.

The point I was trying to make was, since ROTS, Obi-Wan has spent the last 19 years hiding in the desert, on one of the most out-of-the-way planets in the galaxy.

Thus, he's applying his 19 years out of date knowledge.

In this particular case, he happens to be correct. This is more because those are Vader's personal stormtroopers off the Devastator, than because "all stormtroopers are awesome shots" though.

Obi-Wan is "Right for the Wrong Reasons" in short.

[Devonix]

The point I was trying to make was, since ROTS, Obi-Wan has spent the last 19 years hiding in the desert, on one of the most out-of-the-way planets in the galaxy.

Thus, he's applying his 19 years out of date knowledge.

In this particular case, he happens to be correct. This is more because those are Vader's personal stormtroopers off the Devastator, than because "all stormtroopers are awesome shots" though.

Obi-Wan is "Right for the Wrong Reasons" in short.

And now even that's being retconned since we're going to have a movie about Obi-wan going on adventures set after Revenge of the sith so he won't have been in hiding on a desert for 19 years.

How do we ever keep anything straight when the story never does.

[pendell]

With respect to the original topic, I would say that Lucas does best when he's working with others. Robert A Heinlein had the same problem. In the earliest part of his career, editors were prepared to be brutal with him , and his stories were quite good. But as he got a reputation as a genius people were less willing to criticize his decisions, and consequently a lot of really weird stuff made it into print that never would have made it from an unknown author.

I think the same thing happened to Lucas. His output started dipping when he got a reputation as a genius and he stopped getting the same degree of criticism that made his earlier works so much better.

Was he a genius? Oh yes! Thing is , even genius sometimes needs ordinary minds to give them feedback.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jay R]

And technically, aren't all other galaxies "far, far away"?

Yes, of course this a sarcastic comment. It's intended to put many of the complaints in this thread in perspective.

[Peelee]

The point I was trying to make was, since ROTS, Obi-Wan has spent the last 19 years hiding in the desert, on one of the most out-of-the-way planets in the galaxy.

Thus, he's applying his 19 years out of date knowledge.

In this particular case, he happens to be correct. This is more because those are Vader's personal stormtroopers off the Devastator, than because "all stormtroopers are awesome shots" though.

Obi-Wan is "Right for the Wrong Reasons" in short.
Point taken.

And now even that's being retconned since we're going to have a movie about Obi-wan going on adventures set after Revenge of the sith so he won't have been in hiding on a desert for 19 years.

How do we ever keep anything straight when the story never does.
I've griped about this before, but seriously... "Obi-Wan Kenobi? Obi-Wan.... now that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time. Oh, except for when I killed a former Sith Lord who hunted me down. You were probably like 13 at the time or so. Man I'm awesome."

[Reddish Mage]

The point I was trying to make was, since ROTS, Obi-Wan has spent the last 19 years hiding in the desert, on one of the most out-of-the-way planets in the galaxy.

Thus, he's applying his 19 years out of date knowledge.

In this particular case, he happens to be correct. This is more because those are Vader's personal stormtroopers off the Devastator, than because "all stormtroopers are awesome shots" though.

Obi-Wan is "Right for the Wrong Reasons" in short.

Sure this works. However, is it canon that stormtroopers are bad shots in new Disney canon?

I like the explanation that the Force is with our heroes, and that's why the stormtroopers miss.



And technically, aren't all other galaxies "far, far away"?[/COLOR]

No, most galaxies are merely "very far away." Actually, only fairytale-inspired Sci-Fi galaxies are "far, far away."

[hamishspence]

Sure this works. However, is it canon that stormtroopers are bad shots in new Disney canon?


Ones in Rebels certainly are. The novelizations of those early Rebels episodes, say that planetary garrison stormtroopers are significantly worse that the ones assigned to Star Destroyers.

[Cikomyr]

Ones in Rebels certainly are. The novelizations of those early Rebels episodes, say that planetary garrison stormtroopers are significantly worse that the ones assigned to Star Destroyers.

It would make senze that Planetary garrison suck..

Also make sense to not field the best troops in your Planetkilling weapon. Its not like you will need crack troops to protect the death star against ground invasion, or use the death star as an invading platform.

[Peelee]

Sure this works. However, is it canon that stormtroopers are bad shots in new Disney canon?

I like the explanation that the Force is with our heroes, and that's why the stormtroopers miss.

The Force kind of sucks as a shield, then, since they shoot Leia twice.

[The Glyphstone]

Leia put all her skill points into the 'Personal Spaceflight' force talent tree instead of the 'Plot Shield' talent tree. All the other Force-sensitive characters laughed at her.

[Tvtyrant]

Sure this works. However, is it canon that stormtroopers are bad shots in new Disney canon?

I like the explanation that the Force is with our heroes, and that's why the stormtroopers miss.




No, most galaxies are merely "very far away." Actually, only fairytale-inspired Sci-Fi galaxies are "far, far away."

I always preferred blasters being extremely destructive and inaccurate. Stormtrooper armor is built to stop everything but heavy blaster fire, so people armed with guns and crossbows aren't threatning. The stormtrooper blasters are particularly powerful and unwieldy, which is why they can slowly shoot through armored blastdoors.

[GloatingSwine]

With respect to the original topic, I would say that Lucas does best when he's working with others. Robert A Heinlein had the same problem. In the earliest part of his career, editors were prepared to be brutal with him , and his stories were quite good. But as he got a reputation as a genius people were less willing to criticize his decisions, and consequently a lot of really weird stuff made it into print that never would have made it from an unknown author.

I think the same thing happened to Lucas. His output started dipping when he got a reputation as a genius and he stopped getting the same degree of criticism that made his earlier works so much better.

Was he a genius? Oh yes! Thing is , even genius sometimes needs ordinary minds to give them feedback.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

This tends to be true of any author who gets too big to edit. Just about everyone needs their personal excesses and bugbears reined in because they don’t notice them themselves.

Lucas in particular was a good filmmaker but not a particularly good writer. Star Wars would’ve remained stronger with a good writer and editor backing him into the prequels.

[Peelee]

I always preferred blasters being extremely destructive and inaccurate. Stormtrooper armor is built to stop everything but heavy blaster fire, so people armed with guns and crossbows aren't threatning. The stormtrooper blasters are particularly powerful and unwieldy, which is why they can slowly shoot through armored blastdoors.

But they can't shoot through armored blast doors. Or else, when they closed the blast doors trying to stop Han and Chewie, they wouldn't have paniced about not being able to get through the blast doors themselves.

[Kish]

I just wacthed THX 1138 and it was a great movie! On the level of Stanley Kubrick, why people hate him so much?

I think he's a good director.
If you want an actual answer, this (https://sfdebris.com/videos/special/shadowsjourney.php) is worth watching.

If you just want to feel superior to people who hate the prequel movies and find something objectionable in him comparing changing his precious-sa art-sa to white slavers, on the other hand, have fun.

[Tvtyrant]

But they can't shoot through armored blast doors. Or else, when they closed the blast doors trying to stop Han and Chewie, they wouldn't have paniced about not being able to get through the blast doors themselves.

In that scene they acknowledge that the door is only going to slow them down, not hold them off indefinently.

As the Death Star is not an assault vehicle they likely don't have piles of explosives laying around.

[Peelee]

In that scene they acknowledge that the door is only going to slow them down, not hold them off indefinently.

As the Death Star is not an assault vehicle they likely don't have piles of explosives laying around.

....yes, because they have the controls for the blast door. I don't think anyone thought that was a "closed once, can never re-open" sort of deal.

Also, what piles of explosives? Your belief was they could shoot through blast doors, even though we never see them shoot through blast doors.

[factotum]

Stormtrooper armor is built to stop everything but heavy blaster fire, so people armed with guns and crossbows aren't threatning.

That'll be why a bunch of teddy bears armed with rocks and bows had no effect whatsoever against that armour in RotJ...OH WAIT.

[Psyren]

Leia put all her skill points into the 'Personal Spaceflight' force talent tree instead of the 'Plot Shield' talent tree. All the other Force-sensitive characters laughed at her.

Which is ironic because a shield is her special power in Star Wars Battlefront :smalltongue:

[Cikomyr]

That'll be why a bunch of teddy bears armed with rocks and bows had no effect whatsoever against that armour in RotJ...OH WAIT.

I loved Rogue One. It was a great movie in my opinion.

But oh man the one thing i hate is that SAND thrown in the face of a Stormtrooper would blind him.

I can accept that even a *stick* could knock out a stormtrooper. But SAND?! Standard goggles can protect you against those!!!

[Reddish Mage]

If you want an actual answer, this (https://sfdebris.com/videos/special/shadowsjourney.php) is worth watching.

I see the film goes over the making of the original trilogy with some scenes from the PT thrown in. It doesn't really tell us what we want to know in 2018, like how the Disney deal went down, or even what it was like to make the Prequel Trilogy.

[Sapphire Guard]

There's no fixed level of stormtrooper accuracy. Some of them are better than others. As you'd expect.

Armour doesn't have to be able to take direct hits to be worth something, it's for shrapnel and near misses.


If you want an actual answer, this is worth watching.

If you just want to feel superior to people who hate the prequel movies and find something objectionable in him comparing changing his precious-sa art-sa to white slavers, on the other hand, have fun.

Would you like to summarise or point out relevant parts?

Re hyperspace, I don't think it's explained in the films, but its consistent that you have to get distance from the place you left before you can make a jump, which in 1-6 means orbit at least IIRC.

I'm interested in where people are getting the conclusion that he's good when kept in check, is there particular BTS material that supports this?

[Wardog]

Because he messed with a property that is home to one of the most toxic, reactionary, and bitter fandoms on the face of the planet.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the Starwars fandom only seems to have become toxic, reactionary, and bitter in the last few years (and I suspect that this is more due to a current general cultural malaise, rather than being Starwars-specific).

I don't think it was like that at the time the Prequals came out (or other EU stuff that was released while Lucas was still in charge), and the criticisms aimed at the Prequals weren't "toxic" or "reactionary".

[InvisibleBison]

I've griped about this before, but seriously... "Obi-Wan Kenobi? Obi-Wan.... now that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time. Oh, except for when I killed a former Sith Lord who hunted me down. You were probably like 13 at the time or so. Man I'm awesome."

I think six years qualifies as "a long time".

[Sapphire Guard]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the Starwars fandom only seems to have become toxic, reactionary, and bitter in the last few years (and I suspect that this is more due to a current general cultural malaise, rather than being Starwars-specific).

I don't think it was like that at the time the Prequals came out (or other EU stuff that was released while Lucas was still in charge), and the criticisms aimed at the Prequals weren't "toxic" or "reactionary".


Jake Lloyd, Ahmed Best, and George Lucas got death threats and so forth, and I don't think people were as inclined to defend them at the time, although I'm open to correction on this and hope I'm wrong.

[Peelee]

I think six years qualifies as "a long time".

If you only look at the words and ignore the context, then yes, six years is a long time. But Kenobi is talking about his old life. Obi-Wan Kenobi disappeared before Luke was born, and Luke just shook his world by finding him. Except now Maul also did that relatively recently. It'd like Samwise Gangee going, "if I take one step farther, it will be the furthest from home I've ever been. Imean, to be fair, I came this far only a few months ago, so that's how I know the exact spot. And even that only broke the record from last year." It may be true, but it ignores and flat-out lessens the emotional impact of the original scene.

But yes, it technically is "a long time," if that really concerns you.

[Fyraltari]

And now even that's being retconned since we're going to have a movie about Obi-wan going on adventures set after Revenge of the sith so he won't have been in hiding on a desert for 19 years.

How do we ever keep anything straight when the story never does.
I know there's a third anthology film coming up in two years time but do you have any source confirming it's a Kenobi, film?
I am still holding hope it will be about Sidious.
(Provided they don't give him a sympathetic backstory or redeeming features or anything like that, Sidous works best as pure evil.)

And technically, aren't all other galaxies "far, far away"?

Yes, of course this a sarcastic comment. It's intended to put many of the complaints in this thread in perspective.
Arh, got me.


Even in the context of the prequels, Obi-Wan's statement is resolvable via

"Jedi don't own anything except their lightsabers - everything the Jedi use is communal property, to be returned to stores when the mission is over".

Thus, a droid can be Obi-Wan's co-pilot in battle in RoTS, without him owning that droid.
I like that the movies gave us one lie "Obi-Wan Kenobi is my master" and one truth "I don't remember ever owning a droid" and it was retconned into two half-truths "Kenobi wasn't mymaster but I served with him, and since I belong to the Jedi Order and that's basically just him at the moment I kind of belonged to him" and "I did not technically own any droid but I used some pretty frequently. Also I will pretend not to recognize these two because I don't want you asking questions. If you think that's bad, you should meet my old teacher Yoda, he'll try to die of old age rather than answer a direct question."


It would make senze that Planetary garrison suck..

Also make sense to not field the best troops in your Planetkilling weapon. Its not like you will need crack troops to protect the death star against ground invasion, or use the death star as an invading platform.
"They let us go ; that's the only explanation for the ease of our escape."


Leia put all her skill points into the 'Personal Spaceflight' force talent tree instead of the 'Plot Shield' talent tree. All the other Force-sensitive characters laughed at her.
I like you !:smallbiggrin:

[Fyraltari]

I think six years qualifies as "a long time".

"That's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Since, oh, when you were born".
That's definitely more than 6 years ago.

Then again I might have to check but I think they only call him "(Master) Kenobi" and not "Obi-Wan" in that episode.

[Aedilred]

I just wacthed THX 1138 and it was a great movie! On the level of Stanley Kubrick, why people hate him so much?

I think he's a good director.

I don't think he's a good director. He's directed six films, of which I admit I've only seen five, but in none of the five do I think the direction was much cop and in two of them it was positively dreadful.

Even if THX 1138 were a masterpiece, it would in my opinion remain an exception.

That is not to say that I think he is all bad. While I think the directing in Star Wars (IV) is pretty mediocre and I gather that what is good about it was largely down to aggressive editing by Marcia Lucas, there is something about the universe and the property and the film as a whole which is very special and as far as I can tell that is down to him. Indiana Jones is another great film series. He had a hand in Jurassic Park, Labyrinth and The Land Before Time. The guy has something.

But looking at his career as a whole I think he is someone who works best as a creative influence when part of a team. I also think that all the beloved properties which he's touched are fundamentally quite young, archetypal and straightforward in their scope, themes and target audience. There is nothing wrong with this but there is a definite sense that when he steps outside that and tries to tell more complex, ambiguous and adult stories he comes a cropper.

Even so, the level of hatred directed at the guy is completely unreasonable. Fans can be terrible.

[Mechalich]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the Starwars fandom only seems to have become toxic, reactionary, and bitter in the last few years (and I suspect that this is more due to a current general cultural malaise, rather than being Starwars-specific).

I don't think it was like that at the time the Prequals came out (or other EU stuff that was released while Lucas was still in charge), and the criticisms aimed at the Prequals weren't "toxic" or "reactionary".

When Disney purchased the franchise they made the deliberate choice to obliterate the canonicity of the entire EU - a franchise that had been developing for 35 years. A huge portion of the hardcore fans were angered by this (full disclosure, myself-included) and whether they ultimately forgave Disney or not, this move drastically reduced the charitable impulse felt among them towards the new material going forward, because everyone felt the ax take something in the EU that they cared about, ranging from huge things like Mara Jade and the entirety of SWTOR (still ongoing!) to little known things like Dawn of the Jedi.

This also meant that the biggest fans of the franchise were forever comparing new material to this alternative universe that had been ruled out. So TFA and TLJ get judged not only on their merits but in comparison to the (selectively edited, nostalgia-goggle induced) complements in the EU. So not only to does bitter old man Luke Skywalker in TLJ get compared to hypotheticals alternatives, he gets compared to the fully realized alternative that is Grand Master Luke Skywalker of the New Jedi Order. If you think that was the better version, and many fans do (again, self included) that amplifies the bitterness exponentially.

[Lethologica]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the Starwars fandom only seems to have become toxic, reactionary, and bitter in the last few years (and I suspect that this is more due to a current general cultural malaise, rather than being Starwars-specific).

I don't think it was like that at the time the Prequals came out (or other EU stuff that was released while Lucas was still in charge), and the criticisms aimed at the Prequals weren't "toxic" or "reactionary".
Any starting point for toxicity in Star Wars fandom that is after the RLM takedown of the prequels is incorrect.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I know there's a third anthology film coming up in two years time but do you have any source confirming it's a Kenobi, film?

You mean beyond the official statement that it's in pre-visualization?

[Mando Knight]

When Disney purchased the franchise they made the deliberate choice to obliterate the canonicity of the entire EU - a franchise that had been developing for 35 years.

Part of the problem is, they basically had no other choice--if they were going to use the Legends events 30 years after Endor, they would have been stuck with the Dark Nest Crisis (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Nest_Crisis), which would have been a straight-up terrible choice for the sequel trilogy. The Legacy of the Force (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Force) novel series (set five years later) is actually conceptually a lot closer to what people were probably hoping the sequels were (i.e. Jedi Master Luke Skywalker has resurrected the Jedi Order, but Leia and Han's son has fallen to the Dark Side and leads what is more-or-less a resurrected Empire), but even that would have to be drastically re-written in order to work on the silver screen due to its ties with the previous 25 years of post-RotJ novels. That they would have to deal with Karen Traviss again (at the very least by giving her a line in the credits and possibly royalties for collaborating on the novel series) was probably another issue since she was a fairly controversial writer due to her developing Mandalorians into her own little pet characters, and made a break with Lucasfilm when she couldn't accept that George wanted to go a different direction with them in The Clone Wars.

No matter what Lucasfilm would have done to adapt those stories for film, they would have still drawn a lot of ire from the fanbase, so instead they chose to just make an explicit clean break from the old canon in order to give the screenwriters more room to work the story.

[factotum]

"That's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Since, oh, when you were born".

I'm pretty sure the actual line is "Since, oh, *before* you were born". Which makes it even longer!

[snowblizz]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the Starwars fandom only seems to have become toxic, reactionary, and bitter in the last few years (and I suspect that this is more due to a current general cultural malaise, rather than being Starwars-specific).

I don't think it was like that at the time the Prequals came out (or other EU stuff that was released while Lucas was still in charge), and the criticisms aimed at the Prequals weren't "toxic" or "reactionary".

It was. There just was less Internet to whine on. It's actually more causally correct to say the bad prequel movies caused internet toxicity through the angry fans than that internet toxicity caused angry fans ti think movies were bad.:smallwink:

[deuterio12]

Yeah, that's correct. What the original Star Wars opening crawl says about it is:

"Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR"

Seems pretty similar to what happened in Rogue One to me?

Maybe the "steal secret plans", but the "won their first victory" bit becomes pretty farfetched considering that in Rogue 1 all the rebel spies died along a big chunk of the rebel forces, with Leia's vessel itself being a glorified escape ship trying to run away while the rebel fleet is decimated. If that's what the rebels count as victory, I don't want to imagine how their defeats looked like!:smalltongue:


Part of the problem is, they basically had no other choice--if they were going to use the Legends events 30 years after Endor, they would have been stuck with the Dark Nest Crisis (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Nest_Crisis), which would have been a straight-up terrible choice for the sequel trilogy. The Legacy of the Force (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Force) novel series (set five years later) is actually conceptually a lot closer to what people were probably hoping the sequels were (i.e. Jedi Master Luke Skywalker has resurrected the Jedi Order, but Leia and Han's son has fallen to the Dark Side and leads what is more-or-less a resurrected Empire), but even that would have to be drastically re-written in order to work on the silver screen due to its ties with the previous 25 years of post-RotJ novels. That they would have to deal with Karen Traviss again (at the very least by giving her a line in the credits and possibly royalties for collaborating on the novel series) was probably another issue since she was a fairly controversial writer due to her developing Mandalorians into her own little pet characters, and made a break with Lucasfilm when she couldn't accept that George wanted to go a different direction with them in The Clone Wars.

No matter what Lucasfilm would have done to adapt those stories for film, they would have still drawn a lot of ire from the fanbase, so instead they chose to just make an explicit clean break from the old canon in order to give the screenwriters more room to work the story.

Agreed, there was just too much EU material to be able to handle it in a sane way.

Plus they're bringing back the best pieces like admiral Thrawn.

[Androgeus]

I see the film goes over the making of the original trilogy with some scenes from the PT thrown in. It doesn't really tell us what we want to know in 2018, like how the Disney deal went down, or even what it was like to make the Prequel Trilogy.

The follow up is here (https://sfdebris.com/videos/special/hermitsjourney.php). Can't remember exactly what SFDebris covers in it, but I'm pretty sure the last part focuses on post-prequel times. (Rynjin actually post all 3 parts earlier.)

[factotum]

Maybe the "steal secret plans", but the "won their first victory" bit becomes pretty farfetched considering that in Rogue 1 all the rebel spies died along a big chunk of the rebel forces

If you consider getting the Death Star plans at all to be a victory then it still works, and let's be honest, they did destroy a major Imperial base--albeit with the assistance of said moon-sized battle station!

[Cikomyr]

If you consider getting the Death Star plans at all to be a victory then it still works, and let's be honest, they did destroy a major Imperial base--albeit with the assistance of said moon-sized battle station!

They also took out 2 ISD, which isnt chump change. The first time the Rebels actually took them out in open combat.

[Devonix]

They also took out 2 ISD, which isnt chump change. The first time the Rebels actually took them out in open combat.

Unless you ignore the Rebels series.

[hamishspence]

Unless you ignore the Rebels series.



Even in Rebels, the few Star Destroyers that have been destroyed by the Rebellion, have never been destroyed in "straight fights" - not bombing runs, not turbolaser attacks, etc.

Nearly always, it has been from the inside that the ship was destroyed. A lightsaber falling into an engine. A superweapon going off inside it.


Or, in one case, a Death Star Kyber Crystal exploding near it.

Hence the "open combat" proviso.


Purgills (space whales) seem to be more efficient though - doing massive damage to the hulls - though I don't think we've seen an ISD crash or explode due to purgill attack.

[Cikomyr]

Unless you ignore the Rebels series.

Which episode do Rebel ships defeat ISD in a straight fight?

[Devonix]

Which episode do Rebel ships defeat ISD in a straight fight?

What about the finale?

Yes Yes I know squids. But they had fought Star destroyers before and you know that there are other books and things with them being taken out. It's the problem that they're too iconic to not have them shown. And What really constitutes a " straight fight " anyway.

[factotum]

Even in Rebels, the few Star Destroyers that have been destroyed by the Rebellion, have never been destroyed in "straight fights" - not bombing runs, not turbolaser attacks, etc.

Well, they did take out an Interdictor by ramming it in season 3...OK, not quite an ISD, but it blew up nice all the same. :smallsmile:

[Devonix]

The main thing is that in order for rogue one to count as a first victory you have to ignore a bunch of stuff.

[Bohandas]

Or for it to mean something other than a straight combat victory. Something like a strategic intelligence victory.

[deuterio12]

The original text says the plans were a bonus spoil from winning the battle. But rogue 1 shows the rebel forces being completely routed, with only the plans to show for their effort. And Darth Vader is in hot pursuit right in there. Claiming victory feels really weird when the battle did not end and your enemy is right at your heels while you try to run for safety.

[Lethologica]

I'm pretty sure the actual line is "Since, oh, *before* you were born". Which makes it even longer!
Of course, that means the prequels screwed it up first, since Obi-Wan is called that after the twins are born.

[GrayDeath]

Leia put all her skill points into the 'Personal Spaceflight' force talent tree instead of the 'Plot Shield' talent tree. All the other Force-sensitive characters laughed at her.


Love this! Just perfectly caputeres an RPG Players take on that stupid scene ^^




Agreed, there was just too much EU material to be able to handle it in a sane way.

Plus they're bringing back the best pieces like admiral Thrawn.

Indeed.

However, a lot of the slightly pre to say 10 years past BoY EU Stuff was above average to great.
It got really bad with Young Jedi Knights and reailly wird with the Vong onwards....

[Keltest]

I'm pretty sure the actual line is "Since, oh, *before* you were born". Which makes it even longer!

The full line is "I haven't gone by the name Obi-wan since, oh, before you were born."

Which is correct, more or less. He makes no mention of when the last time he heard it was other than "a long time", which is also correct.

There is no error, you guys just remember wrong.

[Rogar Demonblud]

However, a lot of the slightly pre to say 10 years past BoY EU Stuff was above average to great.
It got really bad with Young Jedi Knights and really weird with the Vong onwards....

Frankly, after a while the only EU stuff I bothered with was Zahn, Stackpole, Allston and depending on mood Crispin's Han Solo Trilogy. It was enough to fill out our games without bogging down everything in canon vs fanon wars.

[hamishspence]

I tend to the view that the "downhill slide" for the post-ROTJ EU was after NJO - began with Denning's Dark Nest Trilogy and continued from there.

While there were plenty of entertaining moments - the era itself wasn't up to the same standard.

[Lethologica]

The full line is "I haven't gone by the name Obi-wan since, oh, before you were born."

Which is correct, more or less. He makes no mention of when the last time he heard it was other than "a long time", which is also correct.

There is no error, you guys just remember wrong.
Do you remember the part of RotS where Obi-Wan stopped going by that name before Luke was born? I don't. That's the most minor of errors, to be sure.

[Keltest]

Do you remember the part of RotS where Obi-Wan stopped going by that name before Luke was born? I don't. That's the most minor of errors, to be sure.

Its only an error if you parse his statement overly literally and ignore the context surrounding his interactions with Luke. Luke's birth was the event that precipitated his going to Tattoine and answering to Ben. He could have said "since you were born, almost exactly to the day." but that would be A: unnecessarily precise and B: raise a lot of awkward questions.

[Devonix]

It's a retcon we all know it's a retcon do we really have to jump through hoops to rationalize it. It's just like the whole shoots first thing. We may hate it. But until it's changed Han didn't shoot first. Because these movies have had themselves retconned since ESB and onwards.

[Peelee]

Its only an error if you parse his statement overly literally and ignore the context surrounding his interactions with Luke.

I agree. Which is why I've framed my problem with it* as he is suddenly being pulled back into his old life after leaving it behind almost two decades ago, except for fighting an full on former Sith lord just a few years prior. It shouldn't be nearly the shock that it's played as, given the new events.

*it, of course, being the fight with Maul on Tatooine to begin with.

[Keltest]

I agree. Which is why I've framed my problem with it* as he is suddenly being pulled back into his old life after leaving it behind almost two decades ago, except for fighting an full on former Sith lord just a few years prior. It shouldn't be nearly the shock that it's played as, given the new events.

*it, of course, being the fight with Maul on Tatooine to begin with.

I mean, he knew that day was going to come eventually. That's why he stayed to watch over Luke in the first place, instead of becoming a nomad, or joining the rebellion, or finding some rock to sit on like Yoda did, or any other number of things that didn't involve becoming a desert hermit. Darth Maul was maybe half an hour of excitement at most, followed by a lot of contemplation, reflection and nostalgia. It wasn't a particularly uprooting event compared to the Rebellion coming to him for help and Luke starting to need active mentoring.

[Peelee]

I mean, he knew that day was going to come eventually. That's why he stayed to watch over Luke in the first place, instead of becoming a nomad, or joining the rebellion, or finding some rock to sit on like Yoda did, or any other number of things that didn't involve becoming a desert hermit. Darth Maul was maybe half an hour of excitement at most, followed by a lot of contemplation, reflection and nostalgia. It wasn't a particularly uprooting event compared to the Rebellion coming to him for help and Luke starting to need active mentoring.

Neither of which he knew about when his world was shaken by hearing "Obi Wan." Knowing the day would come and being surprised when the day comes don't really mesh that well, especially if he was watching over Luke.

The series gave Kenobi a world-shaking moment, and then later undercut it severely. That's all I'm saying, and nothing that I've heard against it has been all that good a rebuttal.

[Rockphed]

Before the prequels ruined everything, I always figured Obi-wan Kenobi had staked out a chunk of Tatooine as his personal fief long before he met anyone by the name "sky-walker". 20 some years before one side or the other of the Clone Wars had come to him for help. Along the way he dragged local tramp pilot, Anakin Skywalker out of the rut he and his brother/friend Owen had been in and off on an idealistic crusade to restore peace and prosperity to the Galaxy. When it failed, he returned to his home in the desert (no, this makes no sense considering that Darth Vader supposedly knew where he came from, but I was 12).

Since the prequels, I have assumed that Obi-wan stayed on Tatooine because it was out of the way and it was as easy to hide on Tatooine as anywhere else.

[hamishspence]

Lucas gave Kenobi a world-shaking moment, and then later undercut it severely.

Lucas didn't invent the fight on Tatooine between Kenobi and Maul. That came in Rebels, after Lucas had sold the franchise.

[Peelee]

Lucas didn't invent the fight on Tatooine between Kenobi and Maul. That came in Rebels, after Lucas had sold the franchise.

My mistake. Thanks!

[hamishspence]

Rebels probably got the idea from the Infinities comic Old Wounds. Even if the details are different (no Owen in the fight. )

Lucas may have gotten the idea to bring back Maul in TCW from that very same comic. Maul's early TCW appearances match up very neatly, visually, to it.

[Peelee]

I should also say that as much as I whine about that fight, Rebels was overall a great watch. I'm very glad they made it.

[Devonix]

I should also say that as much as I whine about that fight, Rebels was overall a great watch. I'm very glad they made it.

I personally thought that rebels was a huge wasted opportunity and was dissapointed in the overall product.

[Peelee]

I personally thought that rebels was a huge wasted opportunity and was dissapointed in the overall product.

Imean, I can't see where your coming from. I think they could have done more with it, but I'm still happy with it. Even despite the Maul-Kenobi fight and everything involving the Darksaber.

[Devonix]

Imean, I can't see where your coming from. I think they could have done more with it, but I'm still happy with it. Even despite the Maul-Kenobi fight and everything involving the Darksaber.

Even though the Maul/Kenobi fight was another tacked on retcon at least it was a well done tacked on retcon

My biggest problem with Rebels is that they never knew what they were trying to be. Were they serious, were they silly. They never learned to balance comedy and drama properly.

I go back to something that was supposed to be serious and dramatic. The events following Kanan's death. They have Reb and Sabin fighting one of Tarkin's most dangerous assassins. And when they defeat him, instead of killing him... because apparently when you're fighting a guerilla war it's wrong to kill your opponents. They tie him up and spraypaint him like it's a frat prank. Then send him back to the enemy base.

[Keltest]

Even though the Maul/Kenobi fight was another tacked on retcon at least it was a well done tacked on retcon

My biggest problem with Rebels is that they never knew what they were trying to be. Were they serious, were they silly. They never learned to balance comedy and drama properly.

I go back to something that was supposed to be serious and dramatic. The events following Kanan's death. They have Reb and Sabin fighting one of Tarkin's most dangerous assassins. And when they defeat him, instead of killing him... because apparently when you're fighting a guerilla war it's wrong to kill your opponents. They tie him up and spraypaint him like it's a frat prank. Then send him back to the enemy base.

Remember that they need to fight a battle of public perception as much as just killing the enemy. Humiliating him in a public manner like that is another victory entirely on top of defeating him.

[Devonix]

Remember that they need to fight a battle of public perception as much as just killing the enemy. Humiliating him in a public manner like that is another victory entirely on top of defeating him.

It's not like they sent him back through town to instill courage in the people. They just sent him home. to go clean up for the next fight. That on top of making Stormtroopers into jokes that get their uniforms stolen in every single damn episode.

[factotum]

That on top of making Stormtroopers into jokes that get their uniforms stolen in every single damn episode.

Stormtroopers have been jokes since the aforementioned teddy bears armed with rocks and primitive bows defeated them in RotJ. If, as originally planned, they'd set that on Kashyyk and had them fighting Wookiees with bowcasters then it would have made a great deal more sense, but no, Lucas had to get his precious toy income.

I'm only about halfway through season 2 of Rebels, so I've maybe not run into the real dark stuff yet--seems good enough so far.

[Peelee]

Kashyyk

Kashyyyk. 3 Y's.:smalltongue: Look, you spelled Wookiee right, what else was I going do?

Anyway, even all that wasn't the worst of Rebels for me. If I could get through the Inquisitor helicopters, and still like the series as a whole, nothing could ruin it for me. Seriously, who the hell thought that was a good idea?

[Knaight]

Yeah. People keep making changes to the setting's rules for reasons of plot/narrative, ad hoc, without considering the impact they have on the coherence of the setting and the series as a whole. GL did it himself in the prequels. It's frustrating to me.

No. In Star Wars? You're telling me that Star Wars of all things runs on a poorly defined fairy tale setting, and isn't basically setting first hard science fiction? Impossible. That certainly could never happen, let alone be there from the beginning.

[Bohandas]

Stormtroopers have been jokes since the aforementioned teddy bears armed with rocks and primitive bows defeated them in RotJ.

Plus they've been having their uniforms stolen since A New Hope

[Jayngfet]

I think to get things back on track, you need to remember a lot of questionable animated decisions were George's idea. Filoni originally wanted a random background character. Then George wanted her as a regular character. Then as Anakins personal student. Then he said to put her in a tube top. Likewise it was George who wanted Maul back and basically forced it because of the movies getting a re release. Filoni also was clear that he didn't want to use Maul, hence why he made a knockoff Maul(and not the only one. There are literally about half a dozen Maul knockoffs. The most blatant being in the Kinect game where they literally made a palette swap into a new character.) only to be made to use the original. Maul was barely actually in Rebels besides the bits needed to clean up his arc and supporting characters.

If you need any more proof people other than Dave keep dragging Maul back from the grave he's apparently even in Solo. They will not let him die.

George has a weird obsession with skimpy clothed alien women and Darth Maul. Hence why his last project was him forcing a Darth Maul game where he somehow comes back to life for a fourth time to team up with a skimpy clothed alien woman and fight the jedi again.

Not to say he doesn't have great ideas or plenty of merits, but c'mon. Put credit where it's due.

[hamishspence]

If you need any more proof people other than Dave keep dragging Maul back from the grave he's apparently even in Solo. They will not let him die.


Solo begins 10 years before ANH. Not sure when it ends, but it would surprise me if it's less than 2 years before ANH. It might be more. That would fix the "does it contradict Rebels" issue.

[Devonix]

Plus they've been having their uniforms stolen since A New Hope

Storm troopers have been jokes in the same way Aquaman is a joke. Aka the joke is something that some of the audience thinks based on internet humor. In Universe they were always treated as serious.

Its another example like vin Rogue one where they make a movie or comment on a joke that exists in fandom but that in Universe doesn't matter or really exist.

Storm troopers in rebels are basically the goofy battle droids in clone wars and treated as such.

And in the movies they got their uniforms stolen one time. In a 75 episode series this is not something that should happen in the double digits.

[Peelee]

Off topic, but my favorite joke in Raiders of the Lost Ark us when Indy steals a random soldier's uniform, it's too small.

[Keltest]

Off topic, but my favorite joke in Raiders of the Lost Ark us when Indy steals a random soldier's uniform, it's too small.

Bonus points for it still convincing the german officer that finds him that he's a soldier, just, you know, a really really slovenly soldier.

[Fyraltari]

Imean, I can't see where your coming from. I think they could have done more with it, but I'm still happy with it. Even despite the Maul-Kenobi fight and everything involving the Darksaber.
As much as I was disapointed with Maul's involvment in Rebels I liked that fight: It was quick and decisive, the way unarmoured fights with super-killing flaming blades would be and the silent bulid up was great. It looked like it could come from the Seven Samuraï.
It only gets better once you realize Ben tricks Maul into using the same attack with which he killed Qui-Gon Jin.

But Really Maul was just a generic bad guy there to kill Qui-Gon and get killed by Kenobi in Phantom Menace and any attempt to give him more depth inevitably feel tackled on.

Hindsight is twenty-twenty and all but they really should have only given one Apprentice to Sidious before Vader.


And in the movies they got their uniforms stolen one time. In a 75 episode series this is not something that should happen in the double digits.

To be honest I don't think it happens that often, more that the Specters re-use the uniforms they stole a lot.
But I agree that the Troopers were very incompetent in that show and it got annoying fast.

[Jayngfet]

As much as I was disapointed with Maul's involvment in Rebels I liked that fight: It was quick and decisive, the way unarmoured fights with super-killing flaming blades would be and the silent bulid up was great. It looked like it could come from the Seven Samuraï.
It only gets better once you realize Ben tricks Maul into using the same attack with which he killed Qui-Gon Jin.

But Really Maul was just a generic bad guy there to kill Qui-Gon and get killed by Kenobi in Phantom Menace and any attempt to give him more depth inevitably feel tackled on.

Hindsight is twenty-twenty and all but they really should have only given one Apprentice to Sidious before Vader.


Maul should have been a cyborg in the prequels, but yes that duel went how it should have.

If you do much swordsmanship in real life most duels based on points of contact only last like thirty seconds. I've ended a fair few of them in two or three moves and been beaten just as quickly. In a scenario where one good hit is death, or "death", usually comes very quickly. If you look at olympic fencing it's essentially the same thing: Most duels are done in under ten seconds, and a majority of those under five.

[Bohandas]

As much as I was disapointed with Maul's involvment in Rebels I liked that fight: It was quick and decisive, the way unarmoured fights with super-killing flaming blades would be and the silent bulid up was great. It looked like it could come from the Seven Samuraï.
It only gets better once you realize Ben tricks Maul into using the same attack with which he killed Qui-Gon Jin.

But Really Maul was just a generic bad guy there to kill Qui-Gon and get killed by Kenobi in Phantom Menace and any attempt to give him more depth inevitably feel tackled on.

Yeah, he was more like Darth Nobody

[Lemmy]

Storm troopers have been jokes in the same way Aquaman is a joke. Aka the joke is something that some of the audience thinks based on internet humor. In Universe they were always treated as serious.

Its another example like vin Rogue one where they make a movie or comment on a joke that exists in fandom but that in Universe doesn't matter or really exist.

Storm troopers in rebels are basically the goofy battle droids in clone wars and treated as such.

And in the movies they got their uniforms stolen one time. In a 75 episode series this is not something that should happen in the double digits.
Yeah, one of the good points of the new SW movies* is that Storm Troopers are actually shown and treated as an actual threat. Which should have always been the case, but the previous movies and series were just really bad at portraying...

*I mean TFA and "Rogue 1". I haven't seen "Solo" (and won't) and I'm still trying to erase TLJ from my mind, so I don't remember much about it other than a few scenes.

[Peelee]

Yeah, one of the good points of the new SW movies* is that Storm Troopers are actually shown and treated as an actual threat. Which should have always been the case, but the previous movies and series were just really bad at portraying...
Not Star Wars. or Empire Strikes Back. In both, the stormtroopers are portrayed as a threat, and shown to actually be a threat. Return of the Jedi has the main characters a bit more emboldened, but the stormies are still very much portrayed as a threat.

[McStabbington]

Before the prequels ruined everything, I always figured Obi-wan Kenobi had staked out a chunk of Tatooine as his personal fief long before he met anyone by the name "sky-walker". 20 some years before one side or the other of the Clone Wars had come to him for help. Along the way he dragged local tramp pilot, Anakin Skywalker out of the rut he and his brother/friend Owen had been in and off on an idealistic crusade to restore peace and prosperity to the Galaxy. When it failed, he returned to his home in the desert (no, this makes no sense considering that Darth Vader supposedly knew where he came from, but I was 12).

Since the prequels, I have assumed that Obi-wan stayed on Tatooine because it was out of the way and it was as easy to hide on Tatooine as anywhere else.

That might actually be worth a thread of its own: before the prequels, how had you back-filled Obi-Wan's past?

I hadn't thought much about what he was doing on Tatooine, but I hadn't pegged him for being some grand poobah within the Jedi Order. I'd pegged him more as a Miles O'Brien type who was just a regular joe soldier who worked his way up in the ranks, and somewhere along the way multi-classed into enough levels of Jedi to make it to Jedi Knight.

High-level character? Sure, sure. Wise and sage? Sure, sure. But part of the reason he slipped through the cracks of Imperial bureaucracy and escaped the purge of the Jedi Order was simply because he wasn't regarded as important enough to really pay attention too, and he had a civilian guise as a random ex-soldier of the Clone Wars that he could slide into and use to escape into the Galactic Rim, where he could simply keep a low profile. He didn't need to really hide himself all that much, because as a humble and kind guy who was pretty unassuming, and who never used big flashy Force powers when something smaller and more subtle would do, he never attracted that much attention in the first place.

For me, that made a lot more sense of the character than the way they ended up writing him in the prequels, where he was one of the head honchos of the Jedi Order. It fits a great deal more with the character we see in the film, and it allows us to contrast him strongly with Yoda, who definitely put all his skill points on Force powers and becoming a guru.

[Darth Ultron]

The basic reason Lucas gets the ''bad'' rap, is that he simply is NOT a Star Wars fan. Sure he ''likes'' it...and even more likes the money it makes....but to him it is just a movie.

[Peelee]

The basic reason Lucas gets the ''bad'' rap, is that he simply is NOT a Star Wars fan. Sure he ''likes'' it...and even more likes the money it makes....but to him it is just a movie.

It's a good thing we have Darth Ultron to let us know who is a true scotsman fan or not.

[Darth Ultron]

It's a good thing we have Darth Ultron to let us know who is a true scotsman fan or not.

I'm here to help.

[Knaight]

Maul should have been a cyborg in the prequels, but yes that duel went how it should have.

If you do much swordsmanship in real life most duels based on points of contact only last like thirty seconds. I've ended a fair few of them in two or three moves and been beaten just as quickly. In a scenario where one good hit is death, or "death", usually comes very quickly. If you look at olympic fencing it's essentially the same thing: Most duels are done in under ten seconds, and a majority of those under five.

Olympic fencing is a really bad example here - the rules reward hitting first by a tiny margin in epee and saber, and in foil you can get away with all sorts of reckless attacks because of right of way rules, even if you also get stabbed.

As for how long duels take, it depends on the weapons. Hangar and military saber seem weirdly able to drag out to a minute or two, small sword and back sword seem to hover around that ten second mark, rapier and longsword routinely end up taking all of two to three seconds.

[Jayngfet]

Olympic fencing is a really bad example here - the rules reward hitting first by a tiny margin in epee and saber, and in foil you can get away with all sorts of reckless attacks because of right of way rules, even if you also get stabbed.

As for how long duels take, it depends on the weapons. Hangar and military saber seem weirdly able to drag out to a minute or two, small sword and back sword seem to hover around that ten second mark, rapier and longsword routinely end up taking all of two to three seconds.

Yes, but this is kind of the point though. A lightsaber is nearly always lethal when hitting center of mass. You only need to strike first by a thin margin and you win.

[AMFV]

Yes, but this is kind of the point though. A lightsaber is nearly always lethal when hitting center of mass. You only need to strike first by a thin margin and you win.

Right, but all the lightsaber fights we've seen are between individuals who have the ability to predict enemy attacks and enhanced reflex speed. Which would likely significantly change what would be effective in a fight and how long it would take.

[Peelee]

Yes, but this is kind of the point though. A lightsaber is nearly always lethal when hitting center of mass. You only need to strike first by a thin margin and you win.

If we're using lightsabers and you strike me a split second before I strike you, I don't think anyone wins. When a point ends the match, you just need to strike first. When you can still get sliced up despite hitting first, not getting hit at all becomes much more important.

[Jayngfet]

If we're using lightsabers and you strike me a split second before I strike you, I don't think anyone wins. When a point ends the match, you just need to strike first. When you can still get sliced up despite hitting first, not getting hit at all becomes much more important.

This is something rebels did underscore, in that there is no "tie" in lightsaber combat.

However, when you're an advanced combatant you also can literally see into the future and where hits will land. Unless you're exactly even with your opponent, which is rare, you can find your window to attack pretty solidly.

[Peelee]

This is something rebels did underscore, in that there is no "tie" in lightsaber combat.

However, when you're an advanced combatant you also can literally see into the future and where hits will land. Unless you're exactly even with your opponent, which is rare, you can find your window to attack pretty solidly.

Counterpoint: always in motion is the future.

You make a good point though.

[Lethologica]

This is something rebels did underscore, in that there is no "tie" in lightsaber combat.

However, when you're an advanced combatant you also can literally see into the future and where hits will land. Unless you're exactly even with your opponent, which is rare, you can find your window to attack pretty solidly.
Chess and Go are both games about seeing into the future, and players are rarely exactly even, but draws are quite common in chess and extremely rare in Go. There's nothing about those characteristics that determines a participant's ability to secure outright victory, let alone a quick victory.

[deuterio12]

This is something rebels did underscore, in that there is no "tie" in lightsaber combat.

However, when you're an advanced combatant you also can literally see into the future and where hits will land. Unless you're exactly even with your opponent, which is rare, you can find your window to attack pretty solidly.

Then why are they keep parrying each other all the time like it's going out of style? If you can predict your opponent's lightsaber path well enough to intercept it a dozen times in a row, why not just dodge and hit the much bigger target that is the other dude holding the lightsaber?

Although granted that's a common thing for any media sword fights. Gotta have all those shiny parries. At least Gundams carry shields to parry stuff along their beam sabers lightsabers.

[Seppl]

Then why are they keep parrying each other all the time like it's going out of style? If you can predict your opponent's lightsaber path well enough to intercept it a dozen times in a row, why not just dodge and hit the much bigger target that is the other dude holding the lightsaber?
Obviously, because there is no perfect solution that allows for this maneuver. After all, the other guy predicted those same moves and struck in a fashion that at best allowed for a block instead of a dodge-strike.

[factotum]

Then why are they keep parrying each other all the time like it's going out of style? If you can predict your opponent's lightsaber path well enough to intercept it a dozen times in a row, why not just dodge and hit the much bigger target that is the other dude holding the lightsaber?

Because he's not going to just stand still while you do that? He has the same ability to foresee the next strike as you do, so as soon as he realises you're just going to dodge and swipe, he'll do the same thing and you're back at step 1. It's also worth noting that all those hits that get parried aren't actually being aimed at the opponent's lightsaber--they're aimed at the opponent's body, it's just he manages to get his own saber in the way so he doesn't get hit?

[deuterio12]

Because he's not going to just stand still while you do that? He has the same ability to foresee the next strike as you do, so as soon as he realises you're just going to dodge and swipe, he'll do the same thing and you're back at step 1.

Why yes a proper sword duel should have a lot of feinting and going back and forth, probing your opponent's defenses while looking for that perfect opening. Not repeatedly hitting your opponent's stick with your own stick.



It's also worth noting that all those hits that get parried aren't actually being aimed at the opponent's lightsaber--they're aimed at the opponent's body, it's just he manages to get his own saber in the way so he doesn't get hit?

Yeah that's much easier said than done. Lightsaber=small. Body=big. If you can react to your opponent's move but can't hit the big target, then hitting the small target is even more hopeless. Expecting that you can get your own saber in the way is a pretty big risk. Just moving out of their reach is a much safer bet. That's why having your back against a wall/corner is a pretty bad situation in a duel, since your ability to dodge gets severely limited.

Properly parrying is hard. Even when it's just two actors working together. Your opponent's stick is moving and a tiny target. Doubly so when you don't even have handguards so a momentary slip and there go your fingers. Dodging is just insanely safer and easier.

And if you're skilled enough that you can perfectly hit your opponent's weapon a dozen times in a row? Then you are skilled enough to find an opening and hit the big fleshy body just a bit behind.

[-D-]

Have you guys considered that multiple disciplines goes into making a movie and Lucas is good at discipline A, but not good at discipline B? Since in earlier films he had help with B, his movies were excellent and when they didn't... You got prequel trilogy.

[Seppl]

Yeah that's much easier said than done. Lightsaber=small. Body=big. Which is exactly the reason why it is far easier to block with a quick swing of your own saber instead of trying to move your whole body out of the way.

PS: just to be clear: I also think the fight choreography in the prequels is ridiculous but for completely different reasons.

[Keltest]

Yeah that's much easier said than done. Lightsaber=small. Body=big. If you can react to your opponent's move but can't hit the big target, then hitting the small target is even more hopeless. Expecting that you can get your own saber in the way is a pretty big risk. Just moving out of their reach is a much safer bet. That's why having your back against a wall/corner is a pretty bad situation in a duel, since your ability to dodge gets severely limited.

Properly parrying is hard. Even when it's just two actors working together. Your opponent's stick is moving and a tiny target. Doubly so when you don't even have handguards so a momentary slip and there go your fingers. Dodging is just insanely safer and easier.

And if you're skilled enough that you can perfectly hit your opponent's weapon a dozen times in a row? Then you are skilled enough to find an opening and hit the big fleshy body just a bit behind.

Yeah, the lightsaber choreography of the prequels was pretty bad, but we cant really blame (just) Lucas for that. He is neither fencer nor special effects person, so somewhere along the lines somebody had to have gone and said "yes, this is fine, just flail at the stick with your own stick." instead of actually making it looks like they were fighting each other. The Darth Maul fight in particular was just embarrassing.

[Cikomyr]

I personally always saw a Lightsaber duel to be more a duel of will than a duel of skill. At least until the dumbass prequel.

A lightsaber duel between force users is first and foremost about seeing the future to predict your opponent actions, and trying to muddle your opponent's vision of the future so you can surprise him.

In fact, in a way, "proper" combat training would be a detriment, as it would actually build up a series of reflexes and muscle memories that would interfere in your surrender to the Force. A lightsaber battle is a form of purposeful meditation.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, the lightsaber choreography of the prequels was pretty bad, but we cant really blame (just) Lucas for that. He is neither fencer nor special effects person, so somewhere along the lines somebody had to have gone and said "yes, this is fine, just flail at the stick with your own stick." instead of actually making it looks like they were fighting each other. The Darth Maul fight in particular was just embarrassing.

Well it's mostly aesthetic, people who are trained in swordfighting or follow competition and such find it ridiculous sure but the target demographic is larger (and frankly younger) than that.

The flaming sticks look nicer than people just feinting at each other for minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQbmQ4FOyg

[Keltest]

Well it's mostly aesthetic, people who are trained in swordfighting or follow competition and such find it ridiculous sure but the target demographic is larger (and frankly younger) than that.

The flaming sticks look nicer than people just feinting at each other for minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQbmQ4FOyg

The thing is, even people who don't know much about fencing will and have noticed that, for example, a lot of the strikes are made against the other guy's lightsaber, not their body. Compared to the fighting in the OT, where you can clearly see the thought and intent behind the strikes, and its hard not to see the difference.

[Peelee]

"Prequels duels."

https://i.imgur.com/4thrz.gif

[Knaight]

Which is exactly the reason why it is far easier to block with a quick swing of your own saber instead of trying to move your whole body out of the way.

It really depends on the situation - there are strikes best blocked and strikes best dodged, and in competition fights (particularly those that don't have win conditions where you still get stabbed) you generally see a mix of both. That lightsaber duels can get extended and involve a lot of parrying really isn't a big issue, seeing as that can also apply to some real weapons.

This doesn't excuse other parts of the fight choreography.

[Fyraltari]

https://i.imgur.com/4thrz.gif

Ahem.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQbmQ4FOyg
Ahem.

[warty goblin]

Why on earth would I want fights between mystic precognatives with laser swords to be reasonable? Isn't this like getting bent out of shape because every single spaceship in Star Wars is a really terrible design for an actual spaceship? I mean I could certainly do both, but what does this get me? Bragging rights for having the nerdiest nitpick?

Personally, I've always thought Star Wars* is fine, but that's about it. I mean I like the movies ok, though Empire Strikes Back and Revenge of the Sith are the only two I'd rate as being actually good. The others are fine, but nothing I'd go out of my way for. The dialog and acting are generally pretty rough in all of 'em, but the aesthetics of both prequels and OT are quite good as various realizations of 1950s era planetary romance. Which is in particular the best thing about the OT is that it's about as close as we're ever going to get to a movie version of an Eric John Stark story. The best thing about the PT is that it's sort of a Buddhist-Lite version of a Greek tragedy, which is just so bloody weird and interesting I gotta give Lucas props for trying it, and coming as close to succeeding as I think he did.


*Talking about Lucas-controlled Star Wars here. The pros and cons of the Disney era movies are substantially different.

[Sapphire Guard]

A realistic swordfight is ten seconds or less. In strict choreography terms, you can deconstruct every lightsabre fight in the series and have problems with it. They're all unrealistic, it just depends on whether you choose to break it down or not.

Re that famous gif, it looks stupider because it's a gif. It's a choreography trick where they're mirroring each other as shorthand for 'they're evenly matched'. If you continue on a bit, they're winding up for a strike to power through the other's defenses, find they're evenly matched, then both try Force Push, and find they're evenly matched there as well.



This is something rebels did underscore, in that there is no "tie" in lightsaber combat.

There were a lot of inconclusive duels in Rebels, though?


Have you guys considered that multiple disciplines goes into making a movie and Lucas is good at discipline A, but not good at discipline B? Since in earlier films he had help with B, his movies were excellent and when they didn't... You got prequel trilogy.]

Yup, that has been considered. The question then becomes what is discipline B and why is Lucas being blamed for it rather than whoever was in charge of it?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Because general Lucas is placing himself in charge of B (as well as C and D).

[Kitten Champion]

Because general Lucas is placing himself in charge of B (as well as C and D).

Well, he didn't make the music for the prequels.

So no one can blame him for that.

[Sapphire Guard]

That's the thing, isn't it? Bad things get blamed on Lucas, good things get attributed to other people.

[Peelee]

A realistic swordfight is ten seconds or less. In strict choreography terms, you can deconstruct every lightsabre fight in the series and have problems with it. They're all unrealistic, it just depends on whether you choose to break it down or not.

Re that famous gif, it looks stupider because it's a gif. It's a choreography trick where they're mirroring each other as shorthand for 'they're evenly matched'. If you continue on a bit, they're winding up for a strike to power through the other's defenses, find they're evenly matched, then both try Force Push, and find they're evenly matched there as well.

A.) (And this isn't to you specifically, but everyone in general comparing lightsaber duels to sword fights) Swords hitting each other dulls the blade. Fencing has parries, but are a piercing, not slashing weapon. Lightsabers do not have negative repurcussion for blades striking each other repeatedly, and are both piercing and slashing. I don't know much about different styles of sword fighting, but id bet those charisteristics make it different than any other style of sword fighting. Not saying it should last as long as they do. But they're not directly comparable.

2.) The dual force push was equally terrible. Watching people put their hands up and strain is boring. It either shouldn't have happened, it other visual cues (Eddie's in the air, or background object being flung, it the like) should have been thrown in. As is, I thought that was hilariously bad when watching for the first time, and it never got better with rewatches.

[Seppl]

A realistic swordfight is ten seconds or less. In strict choreography terms, you can deconstruct every lightsabre fight in the series and have problems with it. They're all unrealistic, it just depends on whether you choose to break it down or not. The problem with these choreographies is less about realism but about believability. I think we all agree that most movie choreographies (regarding anything, not just swordfighting) are quite unrealistic but also much more enjoyable to watch than the real thing. The prequel fights overdid it, though. The audience can clearly see that many moves are there for movement sake, and the fighters are obviously not even trying to hit their opponent. It looks like a (very well done) dance recital, not like a (emotionally engaging) fight to the death.

[Reddish Mage]

Why on earth would I want fights between mystic precognatives with laser swords to be reasonable? Isn't this like getting bent out of shape because every single spaceship in Star Wars is a really terrible design for an actual spaceship? I mean I could certainly do both, but what does this get me? Bragging rights for having the nerdiest nitpick?

I would like to add that this is a universe where they have perfected droid tech but artificial limbs are lousy, computers are big, and the Death Star plans on tape storage media that looks like its from the 80's. How do they not have nanotechnology, fail to be able to regenerate limbs, and other basic ideas.

Not the least of which...how the heck do you build a Death Star let alone Starkiller base without replicating nanotechnology? It doesn't make a lick of sense. None of this matters. If you start picking apart movies for these "flaws" you're committing yourself to the claim that there isn't a decent movie across entire genres.

[Darth Credence]

A... (Eddie's in the air, or background object being flung, it the like) ...

Ah...is he. Is he.
Er, who is Eddy, then, exactly?

[Jasdoif]

A... (Eddie's in the air, or background object being flung, it the like) ...Ah...is he. Is he.
Er, who is Eddy, then, exactly?I believe that's Alabaman-Draconic for eddy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eddy).

[Rogar Demonblud]

AKA autocorrect strikes again.

[JoshL]

Ah...is he. Is he.
Er, who is Eddy, then, exactly?

Is that his sofa?

[Thrudd]

The problem with these choreographies is less about realism but about believability. I think we all agree that most movie choreographies (regarding anything, not just swordfighting) are quite unrealistic but also much more enjoyable to watch than the real thing. The prequel fights overdid it, though. The audience can clearly see that many moves are there for movement sake, and the fighters are obviously not even trying to hit their opponent. It looks like a (very well done) dance recital, not like a (emotionally engaging) fight to the death.

Ya. I've got to say, I wasn't really impressed with the big duel in Revenge of the Sith. The gif sequence particularly threw me out of it, it just looked silly. The whole "high ground" thing didn't make any sense - there was an elevation difference of a few feet at best, with a significant horizontal distance between the combatants to be crossed. For Jedi who seem to routinely flip through the air toward each other for no reason, fight while balancing on and leaping across flying platforms and falling towers, making flying attacks constantly, it doesn't seem like "the high ground" should confer any advantage. Certainly there was no reason to think that Anakin making such a maneuver would be a deadly mistake, since we've never seen it fail before - but this time Obi-Wan manages to sever the weapon arm and both legs in a single sudden stroke, because the script declared that for no reason detectable to the viewer Obi Wan now has a decisive tactical advantage.
The amount of choreography those guys memorized and performed was impressive, and their performance was skilled and convincing, but the actual choreography was less than inspiring and the story and writing were poorly thought out.

This isn't all on Lucas, obviously. He wasn't the action choreographer. But it isn't a question that those movies which Lucas had the greatest degree of control over turned out to be the worst of all the Star Wars movies. He's great at coming up with cool ideas, but not good at a number of the things required to turn those ideas into good movies.

[Lemmy]

The funniest thing about the whole "high ground" thing is... Didn't Darth Maul have a much more significant high ground advantage against Obi-Wan? How well did that go for him, again?

Maybe the truth is that Obi-Wan has a secret passive Force Power: Unlevel Ground Boost. Every time there is a gap in the height of the ccombatants' footing, Obi-Wan gets a power up like Superman on a sunny day... On Mercury! XD

[warty goblin]

Ya. I've got to say, I wasn't really impressed with the big duel in Revenge of the Sith. The gif sequence particularly threw me out of it, it just looked silly. The whole "high ground" thing didn't make any sense - there was an elevation difference of a few feet at best, with a significant horizontal distance between the combatants to be crossed. For Jedi who seem to routinely flip through the air toward each other for no reason, fight while balancing on and leaping across flying platforms and falling towers, making flying attacks constantly, it doesn't seem like "the high ground" should confer any advantage. Certainly there was no reason to think that Anakin making such a maneuver would be a deadly mistake, since we've never seen it fail before - but this time Obi-Wan manages to sever the weapon arm and both legs in a single sudden stroke, because the script declared that for no reason detectable to the viewer Obi Wan now has a decisive tactical advantage.
The amount of choreography those guys memorized and performed was impressive, and their performance was skilled and convincing, but the actual choreography was less than inspiring and the story and writing were poorly thought out.

This isn't all on Lucas, obviously. He wasn't the action choreographer. But it isn't a question that those movies which Lucas had the greatest degree of control over turned out to be the worst of all the Star Wars movies. He's great at coming up with cool ideas, but not good at a number of the things required to turn those ideas into good movies.

As the heretical prequel-lover that I am, I actually really like that fight. There's some goofy bits, but let's face it, damn near anything looks goofy turned into a gif.

The high ground thing isn't all that inexplicable either. For most of the fight, Obi-Wan's been on the defensive, basically wearing Anakin out. This actually shows up in the choreography pretty well, at the beginning Obi-Wan can't hold ground very well, by the end he can. He jumps off the floating platform because he wants to, not because he's forced to. And what Anakin tries to do is rather crazy, literally jump over Obi-Wan and somehow not get hit. So far as I can remember, nobody ever pulls a move like that. People jump around certainly, but they don't jump right over each other's heads. You can even read Obi-Wan's comment as basically a dare to goad the totally power mad Anakin into trying something that he can't do. I mean he had space to jump onto the rock in front of Obi-Wan, rather than trying to go over him. Which would be a weaker position, but also reduce the threat of losing 3/4 of his limbs in one go.

[Peelee]

I believe that's Alabamian-Draconic for eddy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eddy).

A noble dialect, indeed. Also

[Keltest]

As far as the high ground goes, im pretty sure that was just short hand for "You have to expose yourself to reach me and im sitting here waiting for you to do it." If he hadn't lightsabered him into chunks, he could have, for example, force pushed him into the lava. Or lifted some lava into his path, or any other number of lethal things. Point being, Anakin couldn't cross that distance safely.

[Cikomyr]

I really dont think whst brought the Prequels down were the silly coegraphy.

I dont even think they were a factor either way. It was quirky.

[Keltest]

I really dont think whst brought the Prequels down were the silly coegraphy.

I dont even think they were a factor either way. It was quirky.

It was silly. They weren't the single defining thing that made the prequels bad, but they were one of several contributing factors that sucked away the suspension of disbelief.

[Seppl]

I really dont think whst brought the Prequels down were the silly coegraphy.

I dont even think they were a factor either way. It was quirky.I would at least rank them in the top 5 things off what is generally wrong with the prequels. Though I would not put it all on the choreography itself but mostly on the resulting emotional hallowness of these scenes. The prevalent emotion and plot relevance in these duels is 'concentrating hard on the performance'. The duels in the original trilogy are much less refined but actually advance the plot and emotional development of the characters. With every swing they take you know why they do it and how they feel about it. The best example of those of probably the final fight in RotJ.

[Obscuraphile]

Two words: Laser Sword. But in all seriousness, my main issue with him is the same as my issue with Peter Jackson. They can't keep their damn hands off the final product. Always releasing a new cut and making changes. Han shot only!

[deuterio12]

I would at least rank them in the top 5 things off what is generally wrong with the prequels. Though I would not put it all on the choreography itself but mostly on the resulting emotional hallowness of these scenes. The prevalent emotion and plot relevance in these duels is 'concentrating hard on the performance'. The duels in the original trilogy are much less refined but actually advance the plot and emotional development of the characters. With every swing they take you know why they do it and how they feel about it. The best example of those of probably the final fight in RotJ.

Ah yes, that one was the really good stuff.

Darth Vader ends up cornerered, no room to dodge, the only thing he can do to defend himself is parry and loses his hand for the trouble.

[Lethologica]

For all the insubstantial showmanship of the prequel choreography, the OT was spotty too. The duel between Obi-Wan and Vader in ANH is a bit of a cringefest on rewatch, understandably so given the limitations of the actors and props they were working with. And never forget:

https://i.imgur.com/1FpaawI.gif

[deuterio12]

FORCE-KICK! Because nobody ever said you could only channel the force through your hands.:smallbiggrin:

[Rockphed]

For all the insubstantial showmanship of the prequel choreography, the OT was spotty too. The duel between Obi-Wan and Vader in ANH is a bit of a cringefest on rewatch, understandably so given the limitations of the actors and props they were working with. And never forget:

https://i.imgur.com/1FpaawI.gif

To be fair, the foot almost breaks the silhouette of the goon. (It is close enough that you only notice if you are doing a frame by frame analysis of the movie at least.) And historically breaking a silhouette has been enough to tell the audience that something connected. So, while it would probably have gotten re-shot with modern equipment so Mark Hamill's foot actually went behind the helmet, they wouldn't have been able to tell instantly that he fell an inch short. Also, the motion of the foot makes it look pretty close.

[Cikomyr]

It was silly. They weren't the single defining thing that made the prequels bad, but they were one of several contributing factors that sucked away the suspension of disbelief.

No.

What broke the prequel were unengaging stories, unengaging characters and unengaging dialogue. Add on top unengaging cinematography beside special effect. The blocking is off. The pacing is off.

Attack of the Clone has one of the most schizophrenic plot in existence. It has a main plotline that fizzles accidentally, an out-of-nowhere climax to a plotline nobody cared about in-movie.

Coegraphy and effects are superficial stuff that will never make.or break a movie. What matters will always be the strenght of your plot.

The Matrix Revolution had amazing coegraphy and special effect. Didnt made a bloody difference.

[Lord Joeltion]

What broke the sequel were unengaging stories, unengaging characters and unengaging dialogue. Add on top unengaging cinematography beside special effect. The blocking is off. The pacing is off.

Yes. :smalltongue: Sorry for the "fix"

What's funny about the Luke gif is that Boba appears just as the leg is on the apex, so you could technically edit the same frame so he gets propelled by Luke's Force Kick instead.

ETA: To be fair, Matrix Reloaded has more rewatch potential than the first one, so special effects and choreography do hold a certain value. Then again, I'm no big fan of Matrix at all.

[Peelee]

To be fair, Matrix Reloaded has more rewatch potential than the first one

If you have to rewatch a movie because you figure that it has to make sense and you just probably missed something, but it never really does and and just keeps being the same mess it seemed at first.... Imean, you're not wrong, but it seems wrong to call that "rewatch potential.":smalltongue:

[Cikomyr]

Yes. :smalltongue: Sorry for the "fix"

What's funny about the Luke gif is that Boba appears just as the leg is on the apex, so you could technically edit the same frame so he gets propelled by Luke's Force Kick instead.

ETA: To be fair, Matrix Reloaded has more rewatch potential than the first one, so special effects and choreography do hold a certain value. Then again, I'm no big fan of Matrix at all.

You may dislike the Sequel *story*, but the pacing, blocking and dialogue are parsecs ahead of the Prequels..

And the stories have a narrative focus that at least... Exist. Again, Attack of the Clone is the single worst storyline i have ever thought about.

What is the narrative focus of the story? What is the driving force of the events? The Separatists? No, they show up at 2/3rd of the film to be cartoon villains. The Clone Army? No, all characters dismiss its creation as a puzzling event, and they ask Obi-Wan to focus his effort on his investigation.

The narrative focus of The Clone War Attack of the Clone (edited) is on the assassination attempts on Padme. Discovering who the would-be-assassin is, and getting Padme to safety. Its what drives 100% of the plotlines until the end.

And then hey, Jango Fett drops out of the narrative, only to be summarily killed by a B-list character with 20 lines for the whole movie. And a new Villain who had not been previously established (only mentioned) suddenly turns out to be the Big Bad.

This movie is messed up. At least TFA had "This is like the Old Star Wars!" As a thematic. And TLJ had "This wont turn out like the Old Star Wars" as a thematic as well.

You may dislike these thematics, but at least they were focused in what they were telling.

[Thrudd]

As the heretical prequel-lover that I am, I actually really like that fight. There's some goofy bits, but let's face it, damn near anything looks goofy turned into a gif.

The high ground thing isn't all that inexplicable either. For most of the fight, Obi-Wan's been on the defensive, basically wearing Anakin out. This actually shows up in the choreography pretty well, at the beginning Obi-Wan can't hold ground very well, by the end he can. He jumps off the floating platform because he wants to, not because he's forced to. And what Anakin tries to do is rather crazy, literally jump over Obi-Wan and somehow not get hit. So far as I can remember, nobody ever pulls a move like that. People jump around certainly, but they don't jump right over each other's heads. You can even read Obi-Wan's comment as basically a dare to goad the totally power mad Anakin into trying something that he can't do. I mean he had space to jump onto the rock in front of Obi-Wan, rather than trying to go over him. Which would be a weaker position, but also reduce the threat of losing 3/4 of his limbs in one go.
Overall, I think the lightsaber work and action in general was the best part of the prequels. I don't think the whole Rots duel was garbage, just that the bad parts undermined the gravitas it needed to have (which incidentally was also undermined by significant portions of the film leading up to that point.)

I didn't think the gif sequence was silly because of the gif, that was a bit that immediately stood out to me on first viewing as a scene-ruiner. It's like someone saw what was making out to be an intense and ferocious duel and said "there needs to be more lightsaber spinning!". I'm guessing somebody who has watched or performed in too many XMA competitions. We're just missing series of ridiculous "kee ya's!"

On the flip move- Anakin does the exact same technique to open the duel, flying through the air upside down towards Obi Wan. At the end, the only difference is a small slope. I though it was stupid in the beginning, too- immediately undermining the seriousness of the scene for me.

[Lord Joeltion]

If you have to rewatch a movie because you figure that it has to make sense and you just probably missed something, but it never really does and and just keeps being the same mess it seemed at first.... Imean, you're not wrong, but it seems wrong to call that "rewatch potential.":smalltongue:

Nah. Rewatchs are for further enjoyment, never for further analysis. The latter is for nerds. If I wanted long dissertations on human nature I'd rather read a book than watching The Matrix again. And I happen to like Keanu Reeves, just not so much when every single actor is copying him. Whatever the case, the highway scene is too awesome for the movie.


You may dislike the Sequel *story*, but the pacing, blocking and dialogue are parsecs ahead of the Prequels

Just because something is "better" doesn't mean it is any more engaging. Besides relativity, I don't happen to set the bar on "the Prequels" (it's a tad higher). Both failed the mark equally for me, I just happen to feel more attached to Obi-Wan and the Emperor than to Finn and Snoke. It was a cheap shot anyway.


And the stories have a narrative focus that at least... Exist. Again, Attack of the Clone is the single worst storyline i have ever thought about.

Agreed on the part that the sequels do have more focus, and that AoC is one of the worst SW episodes. Doesn't improve the quality of the sequels though.


This movie is messed up. At least TFA had "This is like the Old Star Wars!" As a thematic. And TLJ had "This wont turn out like the Old Star Wars" as a thematic as well.

You may dislike these thematics, but at least they were focused in what they were telling.

At least the prequels (as a trilogy) gave me a reason to watch them to the end, they provided a different flavour of the same thing, not unlike the EU did before and after them. On the other hand, the sequels pretend to be nostalgic while being predictive/unoriginal (TFA), and pretend to be original while being predictive/inconsequential (TLJ). If there's anything in common between the prequels and the sequels is exactly that: both are comparatively bland*. Sure, the reasons and sins may be different. The new actors may be a little better on the performance (only on the average). The overall plot may seem more focused and less all over the place. That doesn't mean it's much improvement, at least for me.

*Sure, you may disagree. Then again, other people may disagree the prequels being as bland so...

Even if the meta-message could be engaging for some kind of public; on a vacuum, it sounds as meaningless as any other tautology: "This storyline is shaped like itself" / "This storyline is not shaped like itself". There is nothing that defines the sequels, they are not only related pieces of work but works that depend/rely on previous work in order to function. No, I don't mean the storyline, I mean the core idea behind them. It's all a huge meta-concept with little to no consequence within the universe it's supposed to be a continuation of. It's a preface of a story that instead of staging the following story it studies itself and its relationship with potential readers. All of which, in my personal opinion about what is worth watching and what is not, scores very very low on the trend.

But probably all this belongs to another thread

[Lemmy]

Story-wise and character-wise, I think TLJ might actually be worse than the prequels. Never before had I finished watching a SW movie and thought to myself "I really don't care about whatever comes next in this franchise anymore".

I skipped TLJ on theathers, and only watched it a couple weeks ago... And it made me decide to do the same for every other SW movie unless they get amazing reviews from critics and friends I trust.

[Peelee]

Nah. Rewatchs are for further enjoyment, never for further analysis. The latter is for nerds.

...You do realize where you are, right? If I ever see a funny line on here I want to tell my wife, I usually start off with, "check out what someone said on my nerd forum."

Story-wise and character-wise, I thinm TLJ might actually be worse than the prequels. Never before had I finished watching a SW movie and though to myself "I really don't care about whatever comes next in this franchise anymore".

Funnily enough, I care about what comes next, I just didn't care at all about what happened in TLJ.

[Cikomyr]

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: there is a difference between "something is well made" and "i enjoyed it".

One tries to be objective, the other is a purely subjective. I cannot make any argument that validates or invalidate liking the Prequels, or hating the Sequels. But you have to admit the quality of the craft -which may have no bearing on your actually enjoying the movies-.

The sequels are overall better cast, with a better plot* and better direction.

* And when I say "better plot, i mean on purely objective terms: better screenwriting, more narrative focus. "Liking it" doesnt come into play here.

There are objective qualities to assess in a movie, and a moviemaker's skill in creating these qualities is the point of this thread. Is George Lucas a bad filmmaker?

J. J. Abrams, in past 20 years, has been an order of magnitude superior to George Lucas when it comes to moviemaking.

[Jasdoif]

And the stories have a narrative focus that at least... Exist. Again, Attack of the Clone is the single worst storyline i have ever thought about.

What is the narrative focus of the story? What is the driving force of the events? The Separatists? No, they show up at 2/3rd of the film to be cartoon villains. The Clone Army? No, all characters dismiss its creation as a puzzling event, and they ask Obi-Wan to focus his effort on his investigation.

The narrative focus of The Clone War Attack of the Clone (edited) is on the assassination attempts on Padme. Discovering who the would-be-assassin is, and getting Padme to safety. Its what drives 100% of the plotlines until the end.

And then hey, Jango Fett drops out of the narrative, only to be summarily killed by a B-list character with 20 lines for the whole movie. And a new Villain who had not been previously established (only mentioned) suddenly turns out to be the Big Bad.I'm pretty sure the intended purpose of Attack of the Clones was to set up myriad character/setting elements for the Clone Wars, presumably an attempt to market the non-movie media to movie-goers. It would explain why it feels like a mashup of aborted introductory arcs rather than a self-contained story, as well the set of cameos by characters you'd never recognize if you only knew the movies.

[Peelee]

I'm pretty sure the intended purpose of Attack of the Clones was to set up myriad character/setting elements for the Clone Wars, presumably an attempt to market the non-movie media to movie-goers. It would explain why it feels like a mashup of aborted introductory arcs rather than a self-contained story, as well the set of cameos by characters you'd never recognize if you only knew the movies.

That's a good theory, but if Attack of the Clones was to set up elements for the Clone Wars series, what was the purpose of The Clone Wars (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_(film))?

[Keltest]

That's a good theory, but if Attack of the Clones was to set up elements for the Clone Wars series, what was the purpose of The Clone Wars (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_(film))?

To generate hype?

[Jasdoif]

That's a good theory, but if Attack of the Clones was to set up elements for the Clone Wars series, what was the purpose of The Clone Wars (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_(film))?I wasn't talking about the series specifically.... (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Clone_Wars_multimedia_project)

[Peelee]

To generate hype?
You clearly haven't seen the movie.:smalltongue:

I wasn't talking about the series specifically.... (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Clone_Wars_multimedia_project)
Point taken.

[Keltest]

You clearly haven't seen the movie.:smalltongue:

Hey now, I never said they were successful.

[Lethologica]

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: there is a difference between "something is well made" and "i enjoyed it".

One tries to be objective, the other is a purely subjective. I cannot make any argument that validates or invalidate liking the Prequels, or hating the Sequels. But you have to admit the quality of the craft -which may have no bearing on your actually enjoying the movies-.

The sequels are overall better cast, with a better plot* and better direction.

* And when I say "better plot, i mean on purely objective terms: better screenwriting, more narrative focus. "Liking it" doesnt come into play here.

There are objective qualities to assess in a movie, and a moviemaker's skill in creating these qualities is the point of this thread. Is George Lucas a bad filmmaker?

J. J. Abrams, in past 20 years, has been an order of magnitude superior to George Lucas when it comes to moviemaking.
I do think the sequels are better at telling the story. At the same time, I think the prequels had a better story to tell.

Also, you can't just put "screenwriting" as a "purely objective term" and not expect anyone to call you on it.

[Peelee]

Hey now, I never said they were successful.

True enough. Also, I now assume you have seen the movie, so you have my condolences.

[Jasdoif]

Hey now, I never said they were successful.Really? I thought it generated plenty of hype, that the movie and most of the first season failed to live up to.

[Cikomyr]

I'm pretty sure the intended purpose of Attack of the Clones was to set up myriad character/setting elements for the Clone Wars, presumably an attempt to market the non-movie media to movie-goers. It would explain why it feels like a mashup of aborted introductory arcs rather than a self-contained story, as well the set of cameos by characters you'd never recognize if you only knew the movies.

If it is true, its even more damning.

The point of making a film wasnt making a film. Its making a 2-hour excuse for more product.

I mean, even Transformers wasnt as cheap a sell off. They tried to make something good. "Trying to make a 2-hours commercial" is not an excuse for horrible filmmaking, or make an average movie "good". It wasnt an excuse for Transformers, it wasnt an excuse for Lego Movie, and certainly should never be an excuse for Star Wars.

All of these movies succeeded or failed on their own merit.

[Cikomyr]

I do think the sequels are better at telling the story. At the same time, I think the prequels had a better story to tell.

Thats a mother****ing good argument to make. I think the problem with the sequel is that they dont seem to have anything to tell. Their purpose is justify their own existence.


Also, you can't just put "screenwriting" as a "purely objective term" and not expect anyone to call you on it.

Hmm.. i dont know. I mean, analysis of story structure, pacing and beats.. that can be objective, no? Isnt that screenwriting?

[Lethologica]

Thats a mother****ing good argument to make. I think the problem with the sequel is that they dont seem to have anything to tell. Their purpose is justify their own existence.
I'm currently making my way through this article (http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/06/28/star-wars-the-force-alluded-to) on basically that subject. No further comments yet.


Hmm.. i dont know. I mean, analysis of story structure, pacing and beats.. that can be objective, no? Isnt that screenwriting?
Well, yes...and that makes screenwriting partly objective.

[Cikomyr]

I'm currently making my way through this article (http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/06/28/star-wars-the-force-alluded-to) on basically that subject. No further comments yet.

Yhea.. i think your argument makes me finally realize what is the actual fundamental problem of the sequels for many.

The Sequels are.. about Star Wars. They are not merely a Star Wars story like the OT, they are movies about the Stories told in Star Wars. Rey and Poe and Ben are all big fans of the OT, and they live their lives in accordance to their worldviews that was shaped by the OT.

Finn is.. the newcomer (?).

Its extremely navel-gazing., and its understandable why people either dont get it, or get it and can still hate it.

I do have hope for what comes after tho.


Well, yes...and that makes screenwriting partly objective.

As much as anything else in any kind of craft can be objective. Cinematography is subjective most of the time. Doesnt change that Battlefield Earth's cinematography was objectively incompetent.

[Lord Joeltion]

...You do realize where you are, right? If I ever see a funny line on here I want to tell my wife, I usually start off with, "check out what someone said on my nerd forum."

TBH, I literally spent a couple minutes deciding whether to put in in blue or not. I thought the latter served the joke better, but I stand corrected.


Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: there is a difference between "something is well made" and "i enjoyed it".

One tries to be objective, the other is a purely subjective. I cannot make any argument that validates or invalidate liking the Prequels, or hating the Sequels. But you have to admit the quality of the craft -which may have no bearing on your actually enjoying the movies-.

I need to admit nothing, because objectively, neither is truly better/superior than the other. And to further explain myself: I was trying to be as objective as possible. I do think the weaknesses and strengths of both trilogies are vastly different; different enough to allow people to disagree even on the "objective" value of the movies. Because, again, just because something a valued under objective parameters, said parameters aren't always agreed to have the same value on their own. That's why I said both were equally "bland"; because in one way or another both are equally flawed to leave a sense of "this one doesn't meet X criteria". "Objectively" speaking, neither is a good film on their own, and the best of each one is regular and enjoyable under the most optimistic study.


The sequels are overall better cast, with a better plot* and better direction.

* And when I say "better plot, i mean on purely objective terms: better screenwriting, more narrative focus. "Liking it" doesnt come into play here.

TBH, it's a way too general statement to truly consider it "objective". It's not that I disagree completely, it's just that both can easily turn worse than the other depending which variable we consider decisive in this argument.

Neither the prequels actor were that poorly chosen, nor the sequels have all that much to compete with any other "average action/sci-fi movie" on that aspect. So, no, I don't think "overall better cast" does apply here if we really want to be objective. I see no Ewan McGregor level of acting skills yet, and the best actors/performances in the sequels have the most inconsequential/inane roles from all the cast (Finn, Poe, Leia), which makes the delivery less successful. At least the stars in the prequels did had a reason to be casted for the role (Dooku, McGregor, Palpatine) and had a chance to show some of their skills. Of course Rey is a more believable character than Anakin, but that doesn't mean that much when her character has little to no agency in the story and Anakin is the reason the plot moves on. Point being, while Emilia Clarke Daisy Ridley can pull a more believable and humane performance, at the end of the day, Anakin is way more believable, relatable and interesting than meaningless Rey, whose all agency is "I wanna seek this old weird pilgrim guy because I was told to".

Even screenwritting proved sub-par, specially at awkwardly delivering those moments that were supposed to be meaningful for the plot (Han's death, Rey's "awakening"*, Finn's pointlessness**, the whole opening scene of TLJ, the whole stupid rebel plan). Again, I don't care which one people consider better. I'm saying better in some cases is still below standard. If the prequels/sequels are to be critiqued, then I expect any objective study to do the same with the sequels/prequels. Otherwise, it's just purposefully overlooking certain flaws and centring on those that favour their argument.

*I mean most of the scenes where she spontaneusly casts new abilities/has a vision of herself
**Every time the movie(s) try to prove why Finn is in the movie at all, it fails.


There are objective qualities to assess in a movie, and a moviemaker's skill in creating these qualities is the point of this thread. Is George Lucas a bad filmmaker?

J. J. Abrams, in past 20 years, has been an order of magnitude superior to George Lucas when it comes to moviemaking.

While I completely agree that TFA is a very good and nice homage to Star Wars (I truly enjoyed it while watching it, even if it left me somewhat disappointed) I completely and utterly disagree TFA is in any way or sense, a "good SW story" or "a story worth watching". That's not even mentioning that while Abrams is good at what he does, TFA is not his original idea alone, and we can't objectively tell the difference between those elements that were his agency and those that were Disney's. Honestly, I would use any other Abrams production to prove his superiority over Lucas, but not TFA.

TFA is well crafted when it comes to most superficial things, but it has many weak points, many relevant elements that were poorly delivered. And some of the good things don't even favour Abrams over Lucas, because Lucas had already done it some thirty years ago (which is fine, because homage). Whatever genius Abrams may have, I don't think it truly shows in TFA or any SW related work of his. Maybe he is like you said, but truth is, TFA on its own is not an order of magnitude above anything within Star Wars. It's certainly not "an order of magnitude" above the best of the prequels, that would be an absurd hyperbole. Most things (if not all) are better when compared with AoC, obviously; but it doesn't have much of a lead against the others. And let's not forget that just because a movie has other reasons to be than simply entertainment. The narrative is better constructed, yes, but the story that narrates is bleak most of the time. TFA is more embellished by its nostalgic aspects than it is for any cinematographic feature of its own.

Or at least, that is what my Not Fanboy Self told me last time I asked him. BTW, he ain't much of a fan of SW in general, other than the games, which are objectively awesome games. I, on the other hand, love anything with a droid/alien on it

[Peelee]

TBH, I literally spent a couple minutes deciding whether to put in in blue or not. I thought the latter served the joke better, but I stand corrected.

Nah. I think I've got a small reputation as being less able to read sarcasm online than most. Which is why I'm not at all shy about throwing out "I am not a smart man." Anyway, that was my bad.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the issue I had with both the prequels and the sequels is that the Star Wars universe isn't actually that compelling. What made the originals good was the characters, who each evolve across the course of the film. Leia becomes less sarcastic, Han goes from being a rogue to simply putting up the facade of one, Luke goes from a whiny kid to a mature adult, Darth Vader changes from the Emperor's inquisitor to a man willing to die to save his lost son, etc.

The trilogy is able to build up a small cast of characters, all of whom are fairly unlikable at first, into a group that the audience can like on a personal level.

Star Wars as a universe is actually pretty dull. The factions are fairly bland (rebel/empire/republic/separatists/order/resistance), and personal stakes are often replace midfilm with less compelling "save the universe" types. Luke's aunt and uncle dying and Ben dying are actually much bigger deals personally then the Death Star, as is Finn's relationship with the village massacre over Star Killer Base. The shift in focus to larger stakes actually takes away the power of many films, which is why Empire and Return ending with strictly personal duels worked so well.

[Peelee]

Star Wars as a universe is actually pretty dull.

It's really not, but the ancillary forms (books and games) make most use of it. Knights of the Old Republic, for instance, is one of my favorite games ever, if not my absolute favorite game, and is rated incredibly highly by most reputable major sources.

[Tvtyrant]

It's really not, but the ancillary forms (books and games) make most use of it. Knights of the Old Republic, for instance, is one of my favorite games ever, if not my absolute favorite game, and is rated incredibly highly by most reputable major sources.

I'm speaking particularly of the film universe, as those are actually about Lucas.

We get a three-peat of Rich Snidely Whiplash bad guys vs. Poor Plucky good guys, bad guys are made of generic mono-cultures (robots/helmeted troopers) vs diverse and unique good guys, and the narrative nuance of the Lord of the Rings.

Every time someone is a third faction/interest they are proved to be wrong for not joining up against the Separatists/Empire/Order, with the exception of the Rogue from TLJ where he betrays the group instead.

[Peelee]

I'm speaking particularly of the film universe, as those are actually about Lucas.

We get a three-peat of Rich Snidely Whiplash bad guys vs. Poor Plucky good guys, bad guys are made of generic mono-cultures (robots/helmeted troopers) vs diverse and unique good guys, and the narrative nuance of the Lord of the Rings.

Every time someone is a third faction/interest they are proved to be wrong for not joining up against the Separatists/Empire/Order, with the exception of the Rogue from TLJ where he betrays the group instead.

Those are all factions, which I do agree don't have all that much depth. The universe, though, is pretty awesome. It's a full galaxy, mostly but not entirely explored, with different alien species freely intermixing and an omni-present force that can be tapped into. It's big enough for places that are not here to the galactic community to still be new and wondrous to the people who live in that galaxy, whole still having unmapped regions completely alien to all. The current galactic community has a 25,000 year history. It's fertile grounds for virtually any story they want to tell.

That they tell stories with factions with few dimensions of hardly the setting's fault. Regardless, the universe itself is far from dull.

[Fyraltari]

It's really not, but the ancillary forms (books and games) make most use of it. Knights of the Old Republic, for instance, is one of my favorite games ever, if not my absolute favorite game, and is rated incredibly highly by most reputable major sources.

Tangentially, what do you think of the sequel The sith Lords? Between the force boud and most of Luke character TLJ borrows heavily from that one.

[Jasdoif]

Tangentially, what do you think of the sequel The sith Lords?It would have benefited tremendously from being completed before it was released.

[Fyraltari]

It would have benefited tremendously from being completed before it was released.

True enough.

[Peelee]

Tangentially, what do you think of the sequel The sith Lords? Between the force boud and most of Luke character TLJ borrows heavily from that one.

What Jasdoif said. Also, better gameplay but weaker story. They were trying so hard to be mysterious they forgot to actually tell us much of anything.

I still want KOTOR 3.

I did love the concept of the Outcast Exile, as well as her character arc. Also, Bao-Dur. Absolutely love me some Bao-Dur. Bounty Hunter whose name I forget was also pretty cool.

[Fyraltari]

What Jasdoif said. Also, better gameplay but weaker story. They were trying so hard to be mysterious they forgot to actually tell us much of anything.

I still want KOTOR 3.

I did love the concept of the Outcast, as well as her character arc. Also, Bao-Dur. Absolutely love me some Bao-Dur. Bounty Hunter whose name I forget was also pretty cool.

Well I guess they wanted to tell the story of how the Exile got over her Mandalorian War PTSD and "your choices will have unforeseen consequences" has the merit of not being an overdone theme. And I salute the effort to bring some more depth and analysis of the Force (that is also my main selling point for Rebels by the way) and to bring some nunce to the morality of the universe. But really the story was over the place, the whole Exchange/bounty plot is just dumb , half the Jedi Masters just make a 180 degree turn of opinion near the end, the Dark side path is hilariously unfinished and even the lead writer said at was too critical in hindsight.

That game confuses the hell out of me really, the more I think about it the less I know what I think of it. It's like I want to like it but I don't. Aaargh.

Well there is SWTOR, I am sure they are very respectful of the previous installment in general and the character of Revan in particular.
You mean the Exile, the Outcast would be Kyle Katarn I think.
Either Mira (the Mara Jade clone) or Hanharr (evil alternate universe Chewbacca).

[Devonix]

For a bit of correction from something earlier. Attack of the Clones was in no way designed to set things up for clonewars. Lucas never thinks ahead for stuff like that and had little to do with the series.

[Peelee]

Well I guess they wanted to tell the story of how the Exile got over her Mandalorian War PTSD and "your choices will have unforeseen consequences" has the merit of not being an overdone theme. And I salute the effort to bring some more depth and analysis of the Force (that is also my main selling point for Rebels by the way) and to bring some nunce to the morality of the universe. But really the story was over the place, the whole Exchange/bounty plot is just dumb , half the Jedi Masters just make a 180 degree turn of opinion near the end, the Dark side path is hilariously unfinished and even the lead writer said at was too critical in hindsight.

That game confuses the hell out of me really, the more I think about it the less I know what I think of it. It's like I want to like it but I don't. Aaargh.

Well there is SWTOR, I am sure they are very respectful of the previous installment in general and the character of Revan in particular.
You mean the Exile, the Outcast would be Kyle Katarn I think.
Either Mira (the Mara Jade clone) or Hanharr (evil alternate universe Chewbacca).

Yeah, I love what the story tried to be and just wish they'd done better. But, again, the gameplay was even better than the first. I also liked the whole revisiting Taris Telos and seeing the consequences of events in the first game.

Also, I know you already crossed it out, but I want ot address it. I do love SWTOR, but it's not KOTOR 3. I want my MTV KOTOR 3

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, I love what the story tried to be and just wish they'd done better. But, again, the gameplay was even better than the first. I also liked the whole revisiting Taris and seeing the consequences of events in the first game.
Telos*


Also, I know you already crossed it out, but I want ot address it. I do love SWTOR, but it's not KOTOR 3. I want my MTV KOTOR 3
Yeah, just like WoWis not Warcraft IV and Elder Scrolls Online is not Elder Scrolls VI...

[Jasdoif]

What Jasdoif said. Also, better gameplay but weaker story. They were trying so hard to be mysterious they forgot to actually tell us much of anything.How would we tell the difference between what they forget to tell us, and what they never had the chance to tell us? They were clearly trying hard to play up character interaction/influence, which I think shows most clearly with Visas; but with all the mystery/gaps it's really hard to follow the underlying plot as the game gets near the end.

(Also, the crafting with skill dependencies that only uses the active character's skill is just atrocious)

[Peelee]

Telos*

:smallredface:I clearly need to play the game again. I blame SWTOR for having Taris in it. Which was still awesome.

[Fyraltari]

How would we tell the difference between what they forget to tell us, and what they never had the chance to tell us? They were clearly trying hard to play up character interaction/influence, which I think shows most clearly with Visas; but with all the mystery/gaps it's really hard to follow the underlying plot as the game gets near the end.

(Also, the crafting with skill dependencies that only uses the active character's skill is just atrocious)
Yeah. Did you know the reason Bao-Dur just disappears in the endgame is because he was supposed to die at the Battle of Telos?


:smallredface:I clearly need to play the game again. I blame SWTOR for having Taris in it. Which was still awesome.
I replayed it last month. I thought I had the restauration mod installed but either I messed up its implementation (likely) or it was damaged when translateded (unlikely) but not only did I get no more story but whole bunch of bugs instead.

[Sapphire Guard]

To backtrack a bit, re prequel duels ('high ground' has already been covered, so I'll leave that be):


The problem with these choreographies is less about realism but about believability. I think we all agree that most movie choreographies (regarding anything, not just swordfighting) are quite unrealistic but also much more enjoyable to watch than the real thing. The prequel fights overdid it, though. The audience can clearly see that many moves are there for movement sake, and the fighters are obviously not even trying to hit their opponent. It looks like a (very well done) dance recital, not like a (emotionally engaging) fight to the death.

There's no automatic threshold of believability, it just comes down to the viewer and what they choose to roll with. For instance, I find the Rogue One Vader hallway very unbelievable, because it only works if Darth Vader is deliberately making a dramatic entrance for no reason, "I'm going to hold my breath and stand in this shadowy spot, deliberately breathe to let them know I'm here, then light my sabre, it will be AWESOME." But people just choose to believe in it because they like it.

Every lightsabre fight, including the PT, is full of character beats. I feel like the ST isn't as good at this, but it could be bias.


What is the narrative focus of the story? What is the driving force of the events? The Separatists? No, they show up at 2/3rd of the film to be cartoon villains. The Clone Army? No, all characters dismiss its creation as a puzzling event, and they ask Obi-Wan to focus his effort on his investigation.

The narrative focus of The Clone War Attack of the Clone (edited) is on the assassination attempts on Padme. Discovering who the would-be-assassin is, and getting Padme to safety. Its what drives 100% of the plotlines until the end.

The narrative focus of TFA is the plans to Luke. Then Starkiller base shows up in the third act and becomes the focus of the rest of the film.


One tries to be objective, the other is a purely subjective. I cannot make any argument that validates or invalidate liking the Prequels, or hating the Sequels. But you have to admit the quality of the craft -which may have no bearing on your actually enjoying the movies-.

The sequels are overall better cast, with a better plot* and better direction.

* And when I say "better plot, i mean on purely objective terms: better screenwriting, more narrative focus. "Liking it" doesnt come into play here.

There are objective qualities to assess in a movie, and a moviemaker's skill in creating these qualities is the point of this thread. Is George Lucas a bad filmmaker?



Would you like to expand on this?

[Bohandas]

Hmm.. i dont know. I mean, analysis of story structure, pacing and beats.. that can be objective, no? Isnt that screenwriting?

Ok, tangential question since we're talking about film pacing, would you agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey is objectively bad? That movie has a 20 minute stretch where literally nothing happens - no plot, no action, no dialog - pacing doesn't get much worse than that

[Peelee]

Ok, tangential question since we're talking about film pacing, would you agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey is objectively bad? That movie has a 20 minute stretch where literally nothing happens - no plot, no action, no dialog - pacing doesn't get much worse than that

I don't know about objectively bad, but I sure hated it.

[Fyraltari]

There's no automatic threshold of believability, it just comes down to the viewer and what they choose to roll with. For instance, I find the Rogue One Vader hallway very unbelievable, because it only works if Darth Vader is deliberately making a dramatic entrance for no reason, "I'm going to hold my breath and stand in this shadowy spot, deliberately breathe to let them know I'm here, then light my sabre, it will be AWESOME." But people just choose to believe in it because they like it.

I gree with your overall point but there is a very good reason (in a "not out-of-character" sense) for him to do that: he is playing with his food. The rush of power is what the Dark Side is all about, after all.

[warty goblin]

Whenever talking about objective standards, it is important to remember that there is a difference between being objectively held to a standard, and that standard being objective.

You can absolutely hold a script to a standard with a reasonable - though not complete - degree of objectivity. That in no way makes your standard objective. It's perfectly fair to say that the dialog in the prequels is weird, stilted and overly formal, while the sequel trilogy's writing is much more in keeping with modern 'naturalistic' standards. It's also probably fair to say that Revenge of the Sith is based on a moderately cohesive take on Buddhist philosophy, while the ST is more or less completely incoherent.

I happen to find the philosophical underpinnings of Revenge of the Sith more than compelling enough to make up for the stiff dialog, and the smoother dialog of the ST has, to date, not really made up for the giant nothingburger at its core. Other people apparently feel differently. These are entirely subjective judgements, even if they are built on a fairly objective assessment of the content of the films.

[Lord Joeltion]

Ok, tangential question since we're talking about film pacing, would you agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey is objectively bad? That movie has a 20 minute stretch where literally nothing happens - no plot, no action, no dialog - pacing doesn't get much worse than that

Take it with a pinch of salt, but for me, I think it's safe to call the practice of 20-min-long interludes in film making, detrimental to the work as a rule of thumb. But there's also the fact that not every movie needs/relies on maximum efficiency on their constituent elements at all times. Art is not about optimization after all (quite the contrary, I'd say).

I couldn't say I particularly love/hate that part of the movie, but I have the feeling it weirdly fits the style and the atmosphere. Probably because I dig instrumental music and big orchestra more than opera, so I easily accept silences and plateaus once in a while, at the right moment of course. There's also the fact that I think there's nothing conventional about the movie in the first place, so I can let the director get away with it, if he thinks he truly needed the scene to be that long, right there, just cause. I can't think of any other film I would let it pass in the same way. The movie always struck me as weird enough that anything less weird wouldn't fit. I'd never called it "objectively good", but I'd say it's effective and it works fine for me.

[Bohandas]

Just because something is "better" doesn't mean it is any more engaging. Besides relativity, I don't happen to set the bar on "the Prequels" (it's a tad higher). Both failed the mark equally for me, I just happen to feel more attached to Obi-Wan and the Emperor than to Finn and Snoke. It was a cheap shot anyway.

I dunno, snoke's distinctive appearance makes up for his lack of a personality, which is more than can be said for Emperor Palpatine. They're both one dimensional cartoon villains who are literally evil for the sake of evil, but snoke's appearance simultaneously distracts you from that and enhances it's effect. As a matter of fact the only major dark side users in the series with any motivation at all are Vader and Kylo Ren, and Vader's only motivation was that he was in too deep (at least after the difficult to follow and possibly nonsensical reason he got in in he first place collapsed)

EDIT:
Like literally evil for the sake of evil. They don't have an evil ideology, they're not after money and power as a route to hedonistic excess like Jabba, they're not even homicidal maniacs like Tarkin who just enjoy killing people, they're literally evil purely for the sake of evil

[Cikomyr]

Ok, tangential question since we're talking about film pacing, would you agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey is objectively bad? That movie has a 20 minute stretch where literally nothing happens - no plot, no action, no dialog - pacing doesn't get much worse than that

Thats a good question. I personally dislike 2001, but SFDebris makes a comparative argument of the same kinds of sequence between 2001 and Star Trek TMP. Basically long streches of non-dialogue.

His argument kind of make sense: 2001's long streches show lot of stuff. The story might not be progressed, but its constant worldbuilding regarding the process of "casual" space travel in the film verse. The steps required, the experience while being in it.

Compared to TMP, where you have just two people flying in a straight line, looking at the one ship for 5 minutes. Sometimes they look at each other.

So there may not be story in 2001's long streches, but there is purpose there. I still dislike it; but many people at the time liked the experience.

Nowaday, "experiencing casual space travel like you are there" is a mundane movie experience.

[Fyraltari]

I dunno, snoke's distinctive appearance makes up for his lack of a personality, which is more than can be said for Emperor Palpatine. They're both one dimensional cartoon villains who are literally evil for the sake of evil, but snoke's appearance simultaneously distracts you from that and enhances it's effect. As a matter of fact the only major dark side users in the series with any motivation at all are Vader and Kylo Ren, and Vader's only motivation was that he was in too deep (at least after the difficult to follow and possibly nonsensical reason he got in in he first place collapsed)

EDIT:
Like literally evil for the sake of evil. They don't have an evil ideology, they're not after money and power as a route to hedonistic excess like Jabba, they're not even homicidal maniacs like Tarkin who just enjoy killing people, they're literally evil purely for the sake of evil

The emperor had a dsitinctive appearance, its just that it has been copied so much that it looks blander.

And, if the EU (both of them) have anything to say while it's true that the core of the Sith is pure evil, they have a philosophy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk5mS0N7wAw) (sort of).
And I would say it's the emperor that's an homicidal maniac who likes to kill people while Tarkin is your regular fascist.

[Lord Joeltion]

I dunno, snoke's distinctive appearance makes up for his lack of a personality, which is more than can be said for Emperor Palpatine. They're both one dimensional cartoon villains who are literally evil for the sake of evil, but snoke's appearance simultaneously distracts you from that and enhances it's effect. As a matter of fact the only major dark side users in the series with any motivation at all are Vader and Kylo Ren, and Vader's only motivation was that he was in too deep (at least after the difficult to follow and possibly nonsensical reason he got in in he first place collapsed)

EDIT:
Like literally evil for the sake of evil. They don't have an evil ideology, they're not after money and power as a route to hedonistic excess like Jabba, they're not even homicidal maniacs like Tarkin who just enjoy killing people, they're literally evil purely for the sake of evil

I sincerely fail to notice anything distinctive about Snoke, really. I mean, sure, he likes dressing like Hugh Ferner from time to time, but that doesn't make him stand out particularly. Unlike most other sith iterations from the EU, the only way to differentiate him from the other villains is his very vanilla outlook, and the fact that he doesn't resemble anyone else. There is practically no Sith who doesn't have a peculiar look; yet Snoke seems like literally any one of them would look if you stripped them from those very qualities that made them stand out. His character couldn't be any more dull; while Palpatine's way of talking and mannerisms are memetic enough that you can find references of him practically everywhere. Even prequel!Palpatine is more interesting on screen than Snoke, whose motivations aren't even hinted in any film he appeared.

For prequel!Palpatine was a master manipulator, and one who liked playing chess on galactic scale gameboards. Even if he was poorly depicted or whatever (one may argue the concept is very ambitious from the start) he was interesting. Saying he isn't interesting/iconic is a weird thing to say anyway. If he isn't interesting, then what about Magneto, Dr. Doom, Lex Luthor or any major (supposedly "complex") villain from pop culture? Original Palpatine was a Big Final Boss, only with a twist for the time: the hero wasn't supposed to face him, never. Because he was so impossibly overpowered for him. Because even when his power was supreme, his most deadliest weapon was his tongue, his machinations. Can you say the same about any other villain from the genre, nevertheless from the time?

Meanwhile, Snoke is... a stepping stone for Kylo. He is the guy who the villain kills in one punch to show how terrifying the new villain is. Worse, he is given no motivation other than justify Kylo's storyline (basically, a questgiver NPC) no real reason to exist other than to justify Kylo's backstory. And that is sad, because then it means the Big Bad is neither Big, nor he had the chance to be really Bad. He is the real cardboard villain.

It's probably best we agree to disagree about Palpatine/Snoke.

And from my perspective, you are wrong about Sith or Palpatine. Vader's motivation was lust for power. According to the prequels, he wanted that power to save people; then he needed that power to get back/avoid losing all that he had before. But in the originals, his clear motivation is ultimate supremacy. Not unlike Palpatine. The general idea with the Sith is/was (both in OT, PT and EU) that power corrupts. But it's not having the power what does the trick, is the desire for more. It is greed. It is fear of losing that power. It is (oddly, the core idea of the PT) attachment to power, for power's sake. Jedi were technically not good, but rather "selfless"; and the Sith are the opposite of that. Both can do evil, both can do something positive in the end.

But what is Kylo/First Order about? Power? They already have it. They don't fear to lose it. They just want to use that power themselves, not unlike Tarkin did when he was given the Death Star. I see no meaningful message there, Kylo is just trying to make a point: That he can be a prick like his grandfather. He doesn't seem to want to change the galaxy or even rule it. Or rather, we are hinted he wants to in TLJ, but that isn't the focus of the film either. Kylo is shown as something who aspires for revenge/recognition; but it seems so misplaced (From who? Luke? His mom? His dead grampa?) that it isn't quite clear. Or at least, it escapes me for some reason.

I'm not sure what else you were asking from Sith in the films, but I find odd you compared them to Jabba and Tarkin specifically. If anything, they are more relatable, but their stories aren't even told in the films. But Anakin's and Palpatine's motivations were right there since the ESB.

[Tvtyrant]

[SPOILER=On Snoke] (From who? Luke? His mom? His dead grampa?) that it isn't quite clear. Or at least, it escapes me for some reason.


Bold mine. This brings up an interesting question: can Sith's see the force ghosts? Could Anavader appear in front of Ren and talk to him about his misplaced focus?

[Fyraltari]

For prequel!Palpatine was a master manipulator, and one who liked playing chess on galactic scale gameboards. Even if he was poorly depicted or whatever (one may argue the concept is very ambitious from the start) he was interesting. Saying he isn't interesting/iconic is a weird thing to say anyway. If he isn't interesting, then what about Magneto, Dr. Doom, Lex Luthor or any major (supposedly "complex") villain from pop culture? Original Palpatine was a Big Final Boss, only with a twist for the time: the hero wasn't supposed to face him, never. Because he was so impossibly overpowered for him. Because even when his power was supreme, his most deadliest weapon was his tongue, his machinations. Can you say the same about any other villain from the genre, nevertheless from the time?
I see your Darth Sidious and raise my Sauron*.



And from my perspective, you are wrong about Sith or Palpatine. Vader's motivation was lust for power. According to the prequels, he wanted that power to save people; then he needed that power to get back/avoid losing all that he had before. But in the originals, his clear motivation is ultimate supremacy. Not unlike Palpatine. The general idea with the Sith is/was (both in OT, PT and EU) that power corrupts. But it's not having the power what does the trick, is the desire for more. It is greed. It is fear of losing that power. It is (oddly, the core idea of the PT) attachment to power, for power's sake. Jedi were technically not good, but rather "selfless"; and the Sith are the opposite of that. Both can do evil, both can do something positive in the end.
Just a big yup.


But what is Kylo/First Order about? Power? They already have it. They don't fear to lose it. They just want to use that power themselves, not unlike Tarkin did when he was given the Death Star. I see no meaningful message there, Kylo is just trying to make a point: That he can be a prick like his grandfather. He doesn't seem to want to change the galaxy or even rule it. Or rather, we are hinted he wants to in TLJ, but that isn't the focus of the film either. Kylo is shown as something who aspires for revenge/recognition; but it seems so misplaced (From who? Luke? His mom? His dead grampa?) that it isn't quite clear. Or at least, it escapes me for some reason.
The First Order in general is about revenge and general refusal to admit to reality. In essence they are holocaust deniers/Nazi who fled to South America with an actual army.

Kylo is more complicated, he feels like he is supposed to have a glorious destiny of some kind to live up to his family history and latches on to the first cause someone gives him (ie Snoke). Because he is unsure of himself he seeks role-models (Vader mostly) and father figures Han and Leia, Luke and Snoke but feels betrayed or let down by them each time.
Over the course of TLJ, Snoke's mistreatment of him and his growing connection with Rey make realize that he doesn't need those figures and models or rather that he should overcome them hence his hostile takeover.


Basically the ones he wants recognition from is the universe/Rey to convince himself of his own worth.

So he wants to surpass the past, which is the right idea but rather than doing so by learning from it (as Yoda suggests) he decides to do so by "burning" it.


*Lord of the Ring Sauron, it's a different story in the Silmarillion.

EDIT:
Bold mine. This brings up an interesting question: can Sith's see the force ghosts? Could Anavader appear in front of Ren and talk to him about his misplaced focus?

Warningn headcannon:
Force Ghosts are not a physical manifestation but rather the ghost using a variation of the Jedi Mind Trick through the Force itself to make the living hallucinate them and can only be seen by the Force sensitive (notice how Luke seems to be the only one to notice the ghosts at the Ewok dance party and even Leia looks oblivious), however since to become a Force Ghost one must achieve perfect Balance (ie Light) within the Force Dark Siders such as the Sith who are as close as possible to be embodiments of Imbalance cannot see them.
Note however that in Rebels the Inquisitors (Darksiders in service to the Sith) are perfectly capable of seeing the Sentinel within the Jedi Temple on Lothal and the Sentinel is some sort of Ghost (thoughit is unclear if it is the same deal as the usual Force Ghosts), so make of that what you will.

[factotum]

Compared to TMP, where you have just two people flying in a straight line, looking at the one ship for 5 minutes. Sometimes they look at each other.


There was still a purpose to that sequence, though--it was there for the Trek fans, who'd waited more than a decade for a proper live action Trek to return, so this was the director saying to them, "Look how cool the new Enterprise is! Glory in every detail of it!". For anyone who *wasn't* a Trekker then it was a pointless waste of time, of course.

Incidentally, I don't believe that a movie which has an IMDB audience rating of 8.3/10 and an 89% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes can be called "objectively bad". 2001 is definitely *subjectively* bad for several people in this thread, but there are clearly a lot more people who like it than who dislike it, or it wouldn't have those sort of scores.

[Cikomyr]

There was still a purpose to that sequence, though--it was there for the Trek fans, who'd waited more than a decade for a proper live action Trek to return, so this was the director saying to them, "Look how cool the new Enterprise is! Glory in every detail of it!". For anyone who *wasn't* a Trekker then it was a pointless waste of time, of course.

I suppose you had to be there. But still, cutting this sequence to 30 seconds would have been enough. Think of Galaxy Quest's reveal and launch of the Protector. Make it Grandiose and slow-paced. But No need to drag this further than a minute.


Incidentally, I don't believe that a movie which has an IMDB audience rating of 8.3/10 and an 89% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes can be called "objectively bad". 2001 is definitely *subjectively* bad for several people in this thread, but there are clearly a lot more people who like it than who dislike it, or it wouldn't have those sort of scores.

Hence why 100% of my criticism of 2001 is purely subjective.

Btw, its totally okay to like an objectively bad film. Or hate an objectively good film.

[Sapphire Guard]

I gree with your overall point but there is a very good reason (in a "not out-of-character" sense) for him to do that: he is playing with his food. The rush of power is what the Dark Side is all about, after all.

I dunno, across A New Hope a fairly common thread is Vader being impatient for results, seems odd for him to deliberately delay finding the plans in order to make a dramatic entrance.

Re objectivity v subjectivity, words like 'engaging' are inherently subjective, because different things engage different people.

[Fyraltari]

I dunno, across A New Hope a fairly common thread is Vader being impatient for results, seems odd for him to deliberately delay finding the plans in order to make a dramatic entrance.

Well he is impatient in a New Hope because he was this close in Rogue One and let it slip by taking his time.

He never really looked impatient to me just generally angry but maybe that's just me.

[Rockphed]

I dunno, across A New Hope a fairly common thread is Vader being impatient for results, seems odd for him to deliberately delay finding the plans in order to make a dramatic entrance.

Re objectivity v subjectivity, words like 'engaging' are inherently subjective, because different things engage different people.

Vader isn't delaying to make a dramatic entrance. He just doesn't light his laser-sword-of-doom until he has something to kill with it. Khyber crystals don't last forever after all.

[deuterio12]

Vader isn't delaying to make a dramatic entrance. He just doesn't light his laser-sword-of-doom until he has something to kill with it. Khyber crystals don't last forever after all.

It's not like he killed a small mountain worth of jedis that he could've looted of their kyber crystals.

Or that he's second in command of a galaxy-wide empire and can just order whole armies to go find him some fresh khyber crystals. Or hire the best bounty hunters or anything. Clearly if his current lightsaber breaks down he has no way to replace it, no sir, Darth Vader must tighten his belt and make every space penny count.:smalltongue:

[Knaight]

It's not like he killed a small mountain worth of jedis that he could've looted of their kyber crystals.

Or that he's second in command of a galaxy-wide empire and can just order whole armies to go find him some fresh khyber crystals. Or hire the best bounty hunters or anything. Clearly if his current lightsaber breaks down he has no way to replace it, no sir, Darth Vader must tighten his belt and make every space penny count.:smalltongue:

On the other hand the best practice with lightsabers is to bring them out to fight with them or use them as a cutting tool, and not to do that the rest of the time. As an analogy - I don't care how much money you have and how easily you can get the necessary fuels, you don't just walk around with your welding torch on when going from weld spot to weld spot.