sinking belle posted:

Is there any in-setting explanation for why computers/displays/tech in general looks so much more advanced in the PT than it does in the OT? Like, some throwaway line in Rebels or something that says "yeah, ever since the empire came in, it's been really difficult to source spare parts for the fancy old stuff" or whatever?

The mention of the holographic UI on board the Finalizer reminded me, I thought they did well at balancing the shabby industrial aesthetic of the OT with the sorts of high-tech eye candy you'd expect from a sci-fi film made this decade:




Does a good job of convincing the viewer that it's actually been three decades since Jedi. Like, check it out, it looks like Good Star Wars but it's set a while later, so, obviously, people have access to kit that's a bit nicer these days. Also, maybe a stretch, but it being way less of a gap in apparent level of technological sophistication than that between the OT and the prequels emphasises just how badly the fall of the old republic hosed things up for everyone.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

FN exemplifies a major issue that I've noted:

Force Awakens does not function as a science fiction/fantasy film.

The basic premise behind the FN character is that he is inherently-good, but put under a 'magic spell' - depicted onscreen as this blue holographic-interface computer system thing. That's why, when the 'spell' is broken, he immediately transforms into a 'good person' whose only flaw is self-doubt.

(FN considers himself to be a coward 'deep inside', even though he does absolutely nothing cowardly in the film until forced to by Maz.)

But, in all the pages written about TFA, not even a single person has approached it as science fiction. And has anyone ever referred to Kylo or Snoke as 'wizards' or 'sorcerers'? Of course not.

FN may be fuckable, but people actively ignore Force Awakens' thesis that people are automatically good unless 'corrupted' in some way. And in this exact sense, TFA defines 'balancing the Force' as eliminating bad people to restore a state of Nature.

As a contrast, you have They Live - and the thesis there is extremely different. They Live says breaking free of ideology takes incredible effort. The glasses that let you see the ideological messages hurt.

"According to our common sense we think that ideology is something blurring, confusing our straight view. Ideology should be glasses which distort our view, and the critique of ideology should be the opposite - like, you take off the glasses so that you can finally see the way things really are. This precisely, and here the pessimism of the film, of They Live is well justified, this precisely is the ultimate illusion: ideology is not simply imposed on ourselves. Ideology is our spontaneous relationship to our social world - how we perceive each meaning and so on and so on. We in a way enjoy our ideology. To step out of ideology - it hurts. It's a painful experience. You must force yourself to do it."
_{-Zizek, my italics.}

What we see in TFA is merely FN's shift from one ideology to another, in a rather cynical way.

jivjov posted:

Of the village being force-worshippers? Novelization and visual dictionary.

Gonz posted:

I'm apathetic on the prequels, but I will absolutely watch them if I run across them on TV, which is almost never.

Because hey, it's Star Wars.

Mortanis posted:

God drat it SMG how many times do people have to tell you that you don't get to offer subjective feelings about what a movie is or isn't saying/addressing as objective fact?

Mortanis posted:

God drat it SMG how many times do people have to tell you that you don't get to offer subjective feelings about what a movie is or isn't saying/addressing as objective fact?

euphronius posted:

Uh ... You are replying to the wrong poster. Cnut is nothing like SMG.

PBS Newshour posted:

WHAT TOYS ARE YOU GIVING TO YOUR CHILDREN

THE BAR posted:

I still don't understand why Captain Phasma was used for nothing, and "killed" offscreen, even!

I mean, she's the most centered character on the poster!

sinking belle posted:

Is there any in-setting explanation for why computers/displays/tech in general looks so much more advanced in the PT than it does in the OT?

Neurolimal posted:

What makes Jar Jar's role in the army more selfless than any other Gunga soldier?

computer parts posted:

Also if you actually look at the technology, there is a sense of progression. The Starfighters in AOTC can't go into Hyperspace without an attached peripheral, while the X-Wings can do so all on their own, for example.

But to answer your question - it seems more advanced in the PT because it's shinier.

Jerkface posted:

Something that bugged me is that the naboo star fighter, which looks and feels to me like a short range fighter, has hyperspace capability as they fly in with the queens ship in aotc. Jedis got robbed man they ships worse than a naboo

Neurolimal posted:

She suffered from Boba Fett Syndrome; she was always a bit character, but the marketing team correctly predicted that people would love her costume.

Odds are that she'll have a more prominent role in the next episode.

computer parts posted:

Also if you actually look at the technology, there is a sense of progression. The Starfighters in AOTC can't go into Hyperspace without an attached peripheral, while the X-Wings can do so all on their own, for example.

But to answer your question - it seems more advanced in the PT because it's shinier.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Consider, for example, Beowulf. What does TFA express about fantastical creatures that Beowulf does not.

Serf posted:

In TFA they have that alien arch design from McQuarrie that gets destroyed by the Millennium Falcon on Jakku, which is a scene that I love. An iconic OT prop destroys something that looks like it belongs in the older era of the PT, which to me signals that there is no going back. The Republic is dead (which is mirrored later on when the Death Star blows up the New Republic) and all they can do is move forward. Flying through the ruined husks of old Star Destroyers is a nice way of showing how the OT is also behind us.

computer parts posted:

computer parts posted:

turtlecrunch posted:

e: I still have a really hard time imagining they would make Ren anything approaching a good guy or have him redeemed after he killed Han Solo though. He's just going to go his own way or whatever, probably end up with no one on his side.

Neurolimal posted:

One thing everyone can agree on: TFA needed 400% more dad jokes

Ammanas posted:

Harrison Fords delivery of basically every line is the only highlight

Ammanas posted:

Harrison Fords delivery of 'move, ball' is the only highlight in a turd movie

Toilet Mouth posted:

I don't think Kylo is so much going to be redeemed as much as we, and the protagonists are going to eventually learn that he has a good reason to have done most everything he's done. He killed Han Solo because within the framework of the franchise, Han Solo needs to die. In the same way, I think there's going to be an in-story reason that the Empire needs to be restored.

Kylo is Ozymandias from Watchmen, Finn is Nite Owl, Rey is Rorschach, Luke is Dr. Manhattan.

Cnut the Great posted:

everyone now seems to be on board

Captain Splendid posted:

The prequel trilogy has a bit of an Art Deco feel to it where a lot of things place style as high as or higher than substance.

Some trains looked like this in the '30s

Homework Explainer posted:

Toilet Mouth posted:

I don't think Kylo is so much going to be redeemed as much as we, and the protagonists are going to eventually learn that he has a good reason to have done most everything he's done. He killed Han Solo because within the framework of the franchise, Han Solo needs to die. In the same way, I think there's going to be an in-story reason that the Empire needs to be restored.

Kylo is Ozymandias from Watchmen, Finn is Nite Owl, Rey is Rorschach, Luke is Dr. Manhattan.