|
GonSmithe posted:His snapchat story is loving hilarious. Dude is so pumped to be in Star Wars. Is there anywhere where those of us who don't have snapchat can see it?
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
I don't even really understand why the Zahn stuff is so highly regarded.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:I'm pretty sure I only saw that movie once when it came on TV but the "Star cruiser....crash!" scene has stuck with since. Burl Ives' involvement with various kids' movies is horrifying in retrospect.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Uh..do tell. He's alleged to have been a child molester. Hammerstein posted:Allow me to remind you: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mofference I will never forget these books, and I've never even read them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
So, people who have seen it, do they mention kyber crystals in this? Just a yes or no will suffice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Didn't the Revenge of the Sith Visual Dictionary label Palpatine's "kind smile that instills trust" or something like that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Wank posted:I thought this was really weird but don't quite get the connotation. The UN has nations in it that have queens and kings, and we only live on one planet. The Star Wars galaxy would never be able to abolish all royalty and nobility.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:That's a different Anakin though. Anakin is confused and not secure in his convictions. He lashes out because he's afraid, and then he's horrified by his own actions. His insecurity makes him selfish and his self-loathing makes him push others away. Through II he constantly talks about how he's not good enough, in III he won't shut up about how scared and frustrated he is. One continual theme (of his thoughts) is that he needs to be stronger, both to control the outside world that scares him and the self that disappoints him. He's snapped before, and then one day he again loses control and blows it so completely that there's no turning back. He only cries when he kills the Separatist leaders, actually, which I found to be a weird choice and I think Lucas should have put that scene after the youngling one and green-screened in the Jedi Temple background instead of the Mustafar background. Anyway, I think the internet has ruined The Force Awakens for me. It's proved impossible to avoid spoilers and opinions for it and I don't know when I'll get to see it, now I feel like I won't be able to make my own mind up about it and will be viewing it through eyes colored by what other people are saying about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
I think people overstate the degree to which Vader is ordered around by Tarkin. Even the script for ANH from 1976 refers to Vader as "The Emperor's right-hand man" while referring to Tarkin as Vader's "ally", so it doesn't seem like it was written with the intention of portraying Vader as simply a lackey, mentions of Tarkin "holding Vader's leash" aside.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Vader is absolutely portrayed as his lacky. When Vader chokes a guy he releases him when Tarkin demands him do so. He mocks Vader's religion to his face. When Vader wants to let the Falcon go Tarkin only reluctantly allows him to do it and warns him he's taking a risk. Tarkin is always portrayed as the leader in the situation. It's a relationship intentionally mirrored by Hux and Ren in the new film. The fact that Vader doesn't strangle Motti to death doesn't indicate that he's a flunky of Tarkin, Tarkin simply says that Vader is the only one left of the Jedi, and him warning Vader he's taking a risk is the same as someone trying to emphasize their neck is on the line if they let a friend borrow their wife's car or something. Tarkin is in command of the Death Star operation so I imagine Vader can't just do whatever he wants in the Death Star with zero consequences, but Tarkin still speaks to Vader more like a friend than a subordinate. If a friend of mine had his radio up really loudly and I said "Turn that down" and he did, does that mean that I am now his superior? And is expressing incredulity that anyone with Jedi training except Vader remains alive "mocking", really?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I like how Mr. Bibs solution is Darth fuckin' Maul because that was such a great character. Again, any deference to Tarkin(and there's honestly very little) is because Tarkin is the commander of the Death Star operation, and Vader is helping him out with it. Tarkin doesn't defer to Vader, you're right, but that doesn't mean Vader is a flunky. And I still haven't seen TFA so I don't care about Hux and Ren, but even if I did, the relationship between two distinct characters in a movie made almost forty years later by almost none of the same people has no real bearing on what the relationship between two characters in ANH is. I'm not arguing about Hux and Ren, I'm arguing that the notion that Vader wasn't a significant force in the Empire isn't borne out by the script for the first movie and the fact that Tarkin isn't subordinate him and he actually listens to Tarkin doesn't erase that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I'M JarJartacus!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
I still haven't really seen the movie yet, but the thing that bothered me leading up to the movie, which now seems to be confirmed, is that rather than continuing to be "cyclical" it sounds out-and-out regressive. Every single thing the characters in the OT fought for and most of their development as characters is gone, just so the new characters can be more important. It sounds like Luke failed to restore and reform the Jedi Order, Han went back to not having any people or a cause he cares about, Leia is cut off from all of her loved ones even though much of her arc was about letting herself have human feelings in spite of her commitment to the Rebellion, and the democracy they all fought to restore has been perfunctorily destroyed. There's a difference between things that rhyme like poetry and regressing everything so that the new characters they're pushing can be the ones who REALLY make a difference and so they can imitate the older movies. I'm surprised I haven't seen more people unhappy with this choice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
The guy's point with the "light side vs The Force" argument is that before the Dark Side was specifically a malignant corruption in the Force that was strengthened by those strong with the Dark Side in the Force doing their thing, suffering in the universe, etc. whereas a "yin/yang" version of the Force implies the Dark Side is just another facet of it, neither good nor bad, and "balance" simply implies they exist in equal measure. There is distinctly a difference between the Force in the first six movies and the duality of yin and yang. But it sounds like the bad guys may be the ones who are most concerned with a "balance" of light and dark, so maybe the battle between Force philosophies in Star Wars will be about how much of a role the Dark Side actually plays in the Force as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Point is that there are plenty of films and stories where men do amazing things with little buildup or explanation and no one gives a gently caress. Tony Stark is the most brilliant scientist on the planet and also an action hero because he's awesome. Commander Shepard singlehandedly saved the galaxy and brought the races of the world together because he's Commander Motherfucking Shepard. Liam Neeson can singlehandedly kill all of the brown people because he's a stone cold badass. Samuel L Jackson is Samuel L Jackson. Rey showed some abilities a bit earlier than Luke Skywalker did, burn the witch! I'm not arguing in favor of the "Rey is a Mary Sue" interpretation, but if you look at discussion about any nerd fiction, you will find arguments over the validity of a character's wins and abilities in a pretty gender-neutral way. Comic book fans obsessed with "feats", for instance, are typically obsessed regardless of gender. I think it's a really irritating way of thinking about fiction, but it's pretty universal. You'll always find fans who complain about a character's "feats" not making sense or the character surviving through "plot" rather than because they legitimately earned their win or their power. If Rey were a man, most of the people I've seen make complaints to this effect previously would still complain. Also, there's a difference between "This character is cool and badass because they have something in their backstory explaining why they're so smart/strong/skilled" and "This character gained new powers with greater ease than characters whose strength with the Force has already been explained and cemented in the fiction". Which, again, is not to say I think she's a Mary Sue, I'm just saying I don't think the comparison you're making is totally accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:The planetary locations in this movie were, for the most part, very derivative and boring. A lot of standing around in forests. We already went to the forest in Return of the Jedi. I could barely tell the difference between Takodana and D'Qar. In Star Wars terms, they're both just the Green Planet, which is a pretty big problem. What was your general opinion of the movie? Yours is one of the takes I was most interested in seeing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Oh. Well, I enjoyed it. I feel like I got my money's worth. That's the problem though: I feel like I paid for something and I got it. It's the same feeling I got with Jurassic World, which I also enjoyed when I saw it. But I'm kind of looking for more than that sort of thing when it comes to Star Wars. I feel you, though I'd be interested in seeing your criticisms eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:It's unfortunate that Disney completely disregarded Lucas' ideas for this. I liked TFA enough but it does feel like something made by committee. Not always a bad thing I guess, but has anyone said what Lucas had planned? I wonder if they really did or not. Michael Arndt was the guy Lucas brought in to write the treatment before Disney bought the company, and he's been quoted talking about things from the movie like he had a hand in them rather than his contributions being ignored by Kasdan and Abrams. Since he was Lucas' man initially and was brought on the project by Lucas, I wonder if the ideas are truly totally separate. I've also seen people characterizing Disney's Star Wars as not being about the Skywalker family the way Lucas has always envisioned the movies that are part of the "saga" as being(as opposed to the anthology-type movies, which are also similar to things Lucas himself considered making), but Kathleen Kennedy said recently that the non-anthology movies are part of the story of the Skywalker family, so clearly she wouldn't agree that the numbered Disney movies aren't about the Skywalkers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
I think if Rey has no connection to the Skywalkers her story in this movie doesn't make as much sense. Why would the Force be so aggressively trying to awaken her to her destiny if she's just some random person? Just being strong with the Force shouldn't be enough to prompt Obi-Wan to speak to her through the Force, Anakin's lightsaber to call out to her, and for her to dream about the First Jedi Temple frequently. There were tons of Jedi in the prequels but I don't think any of them would have the experience she had with zero training, save perhaps for Anakin. Even if she's not related to them, there's gotta be something special to her background, otherwise she'd have a last name and we'd know who her parents were and why she was left on Jakku already.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Poe's dialogue actually most resembles Princess Leia honestly. Poe's role in the movie is also similar to Leia's in the original in some ways. Not just because he's the one who gives the droid the thing that kicks off the plot, but also because he gets rescued by someone dressed as a storm trooper and then immediately takes charge in escaping, and isn't in a large portion of the movie despite being treated as one of the "main" characters in marketing. One might say he's Leia's protege the way Han took Rey and, to a lesser extent, Finn under his wing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Poe was also the one strapped to the chair facing that hovering torture droid (or whatever that thing is) Yep. Finn's similarity to Han is further pronounced, too, because he was brought up in a culture of violent outlaws but still manages to learn to care about other people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Something I found funny about the rathtar scene is the way Rey saves Finn vs how Luke beats the rancor in RotJ. I guess one Force power is precision door-closing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
nerdbot posted:Finn shows big similarities to R2D2 in that he gets way hosed up in the final battle and one of the last scenes is some guy saying they can fix him. Maybe if John Boyega lives long enough, in 2177 he'll film a scene where Finn and R2-D2 are recounting the saga to the Whills.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:When it was reveled that R2 was in low power mode, the genius woman next to me said aloud in a pleading tone "plug him in." lol this is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:Other highlights included: This lady sounds like someone I'd want to watch movies with, so long as I had seen the movie already and she hadn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
I was impressed with him for sure, and I didn't really have high expectations as I've never seen him in anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
There was a living Y-wing pilot or two who didn't get honored, either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
This is the kind of question Star Wars never concerns itself with, but I wonder if Jakku has any native species at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So Not all Hutts are necessarily vile gangsters, racist.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Now you're just reading what you want since JJ explicitly says he took a creative liberty by delaying the awakening until Rey. BECAUSE ITS LITERALLY MEANT TO BE READ SYMBOLICALLY, as stated by the mouth of the author himself. This is the first one to do flashbacks, though I'm glad it gave some pretense for it instead of just making them straight flashbacks. I like flashbacks in a lot of things, but after 6 movies of no traditional flashbacks it'd feel like cheating to include them now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:This nails it for me. More than the 7th episode in a trilogy, the Force Awakens was a reboot. Abrams was rewriting all the rules - about who the heroes can be, who will shape the future of the story, who shapes the destiny of the Galaxy. Luke can essentially be an old Ben Kenobi going forward. Leia is nothing more than a veteran general. Any character might die. Villains can be redeemed or not, connected or not. Large stretches of it did feel like a love letter, which is fine, but it also gives them permission to go anywhere they want and make a bunch more movies/shows completely divorced from the Skywalker story. I really hope Luke and Leia aren't made irrelevant. I want to see Luke and Leia have a significant role in the revival of the Jedi and the "restoration of peace and justice to the galaxy", the characters still deserve respect, and there can be setbacks without totally pissing on the story of the OT which ended on the idea that those two would play a significant role in the resurrection of the Jedi and restoring peace to the galaxy. Simply resetting the state of the Jedi and the Republic entirely so Luke can be Obi-Wan/Yoda and Leia can be Mon Mothma, while the new characters get to play out a do-over of the OT, would be a boring misuse of these characters, I think. That's why I hope they have something more interesting in mind than Luke simply training Rey and promptly dying, or the First Order completely taking over the galaxy and just becoming the Empire, part deux. Why couldn't Rey just be Luke's first successful apprentice, and she carries out her own unique destiny while he trains up a new class of Jedi, instead of Rey also taking the role of founder of the New Jedi Order? Why can't the Republic still exist, but just be in disarray because of the Senate and Fleet's destruction? Also, Kathleen Kennedy said the numbered "Saga" Star Wars movies would continue to be about the Skywalker family saga, so whatever the role of the twins is moving forward, it seems like they definitely don't intend to divorce the main films
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Ren also parallels Finn in that they're both people who have misgivings about what the First Order does, but whereas Finn outrights rejects it, Ren will go to any length to silence his misgivings. They're both soldiers with a conscience, but only one of them tries to kill his conscience.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
The only really Jesus-y thing about Anakin is something that tons of Messiah stories have anyway. But the reason one can safely say Anakin is corrupted by the Jedi is because he starts out as a kind kid who wants to help and then the Jedi are so bad at dealing with someone who hasn't been indoctrinated from birth, and act so mistrustful of him, that he decides the only way he can save his wife is if he joins the Sith. I mean, Yoda tells him to not even mourn her death, that may work fine for the average Joe Jedi, but it's really bad advice for someone who's struggling with attachment and feeling invalidated by the Jedi in general.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Xeremides posted:Honestly, I'd be happy if they threw in literally any other ship. I'm not even sure how much better B-wings are than Y-wings as, according to Wookieepedia, they ended up using upgrading Y-Wings on Endor because of how much B-wings cost, and the structural weaknesses inherent to their design. And somehow, at least one Y-wing pilot was able to down 3 Tie's, despite being the, I guess, Skyraider equivalent in VII. Also, heavy Y-Wing variants exist, and were used by Solo to reclaim Coruscant. I'd really like to have seen some more cruisers and capital ships. All we get is that one Star Destroyer, and unlike ANH we don't have it handwaved that Starkiller's defenses are too strong for larger ships to avoid getting torn apart by. Danger posted:The virgin birth, you mean? Virgin births show up all throughout mythology, though, so I don't think even that's really inherently "Christ-like."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Well, Hux did say they were going to destroy the Republic Fleet as well, so they probably did wipe it out. But you'd think the Resistance would have some ships besides two or three X-Wing squadrons and that transport Leia arrives on Takodana in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
homullus posted:It is "Star Wars Greatest Hits," an album that deletes some of its own tracks after you listen to it once. The twin destruction of both the Republic's and the First Order's planetary hearts gives them license to say that many things they might not want to bother with are gone. If they never want to bother with 527 different kinds of legacy TIE fighter or B-Wings or whatever, they can just say they all were destroyed. This, to me, is the biggest problem with what they're doing. I enjoyed the movie, but I really hope that they didn't kill off all the new Jedi, destroyed the Senate and Fleet, and had Luke go into hiding purely so they can make everything "new" again. I'd me much more interested in seeing a Republic in turmoil, but still an existing entity in need of leadership from people like Leia, and for Luke to get a second chance at training a new class of Jedi, rather than turning Luke and Leia into glorified extras and totally resetting what happened in the original trilogy so Luke can play at Yoda and Leia at Mon Mothma/General Dodonna while Rey, Poe, and Finn redo the journey of the original trilogy entirely. I was fine with how Han was utilized, but I don't think that's how every old character's journey should play out. The events of the original movies should play more of a role than material to remix into new scenes, and Luke and Leia should be able to keep the promise laid out by the originals instead of being totally replaced by the new cast.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
This article might be interesting for some people, Cnut and SMG in particular might like it.Waffles Inc. posted:Luckily for you with the new canon rules there will be plenty of in-between movies, games, comics and books. Yeah, but the stuff they've come out with so far is scarcely better than the old EU, from what I've seen of it. And I guess this may make me an irrational fan in some people's eyes, but I think these iconic, nearly forty-year-old characters deserve respect in the official film continuation of the originals. With Obi-Wan, Mon Mothma, and Yoda it was one thing, because those characters may have been former leaders of the old Republic but we knew them in the original trilogy's context first. But Luke and Leia are too indelibly the protagonists of Star Wars to have them totally shunted aside to make way for new blood. I'm not saying those characters should never face any challenges after RotJ, but there's a difference between facing challenges and setbacks, and totally trampling on what they developed into and fought for in the originals. The way things are "like poetry, they rhyme" only works if there are distinct differences between those two "lines". RotJ and RotS "rhyme" in many ways, but only to highlight the differences in a more pronounced way. If Luke had turned to the Dark Side and killed Vader at the end of RotJ, then RotS showing his father doing exactly the same thing to Dooku would hold no "rhyming" potency. Turning Luke into an Obi-Wan/Yoda mishmash, a failed Jedi whose student ruined everything and has given up on doing much of anything, lays waste to the concept of Luke learning from his forebears mistakes and being the first of a revamped, healthier Jedi Order. Similarly, if the New Republic has been totally destroyed(because we admittedly don't know for sure just how much it's been rendered moot by this movie) after being corrupt in precisely the same ways as the old one, then it renders much of the conflict of the original trilogy, and the large amount of setting up why the Republic failed in the prequels, virtually meaningless. Just a footnote that we can think about, briefly, when Finn's daughter watches the New New Republic get destroyed by a weapon that can take out 5 solar systems in Episode X. The cyclical nature of Star Wars only works because of the differences, and I think the next two movies have to introduce more divergences between Yoda/Obi-Wan, Mon Mothma/General Dodonna, the old Jedi Order, and the Old Republic, and Luke, Leia, the new Jedi Order, and the New Republic. If Luke and Leia are going to make mistakes, let the mistakes at least be new and not have everything these characters went through in the older movies be for naught.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The movie is about the interaction between the old and new generation, and how the results of the past have shaped the future that the new generation must deal with. Nothing is trampled on. Han and Leia's romance is realized with Kylo (who's actions are influenced by every one of the old generation), Luke stops the Empire and brings substantial peace to the galaxy, creating a new jedi council and living life in a way natural to -his- older generation. Han's entire arc in the film consists of trying to bury his past and accepting that he must face it. "Inoffensive mediocrity" is apparently actually doing something new with history as laid down by the OT instead of resetting the state of the Jedi and the Republic back to roughly how they were before the OT begins? I didn't even mention the prequels as anything other than a reference point for how Yoda and Obi-Wan were fleshed out later on. If you want to make a movie about "how the past shaped the future that the new generation must deal with", then actually engage with what goes on in the OT rather than saying "Luke and Leia totally failed and the galaxy is roughly the same as it was before the original movies began." Give these characters a chance to play out their own parts, respectful of what came before and unique to them, rather than shoehorning them into the roles characters had from the original trilogy so that the new trilogy can re-do moments from the old. Which is what they might do in the next two movies, I'm saying that The Force Awakens seemed too concerned with providing a rough facsimile of the state of the galaxy in A New Hope so TFA could resemble it. If Luke and Leia are killed off or made irrelevant in the next movie/s, after so much of their impact on the galaxy has already been, in essence, reset, then Disney is not really utilizing those characters, or the fact that these are supposed to be direct sequels to the original trilogy, to their full potential. Shageletic posted:The only problem TFA had with Luke and Leia was involving them too much in the movie. "Shunt" them the hell out of it I say. And its super hilarious you're citing the EU as something good. As someone who read like a dozen of that drek as a kid, they were absolute poo poo then and incredibly poo poo now. Fan service, nerdy pathologies, red headed ladies in skin tight suits ahoy, they were bad. I didn't say the EU was good at all, I said that the new books and comics, in many ways, don't seem any better. They haven't capitalized on the removal of all that dead weight enough, to the point that some authors are just re-"canon"izing dumb EU poo poo. And my whole point is, if they're going to use the originals as a foundation, they should actually confront that head on and do something new with the old characters rather than just making Luke serve the Obi-Wan/Yoda role and Leia serve the role of "various good guy leader characters" from the originals. But yes, if they aren't going to do anything interesting with the old characters from the movies that is respectful of them, then they should have just done a trilogy that takes place in the distant future, long after all the old characters are gone. This is all hypothetical, though, because it's possible they'll do more with Luke and Leia in the next two movies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:"My fanfiction was better." It's not a matter of wanting them do a specific plot so much as thinking that redoing the old plot at the expense of forward momentum for certain characters and concepts from the movies it's derivative of is a poor choice, and that these characters are iconic and beloved enough to deserve better when they go to the trouble of resurrecting them after over 30 years. If they do more with these characters and concepts in the next two movies, then of course my concerns are moot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Neil deGrasse Tyson tells me that in space there are no fifties diners
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 16:07
|
|