| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darklighter79
Captain
Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 529
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: TRoS The Visual Dictionary |
 |
|
| Whill wrote: | | Hundreds of 2.4km long star destroyers, all with the power to destroy planets. Each death star destroyer has a crew of almost 30,000. The Sith Eternal Cult also possesses thousands of starfighters. |
Hundreds? Do they know how big is the galaxy? How many star systems there are? Empire had at its height 25 000 ISD.
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: TRoS The Visual Dictionary |
|
|
| Darklighter79 wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Hundreds of 2.4km long star destroyers, all with the power to destroy planets. Each death star destroyer has a crew of almost 30,000. The Sith Eternal Cult also possesses thousands of starfighters. |
Hundreds? Do they know how big is the galaxy? How many star systems there are? Empire had at its height 25 000 ISD. |
Darklighter, remember that Sith Eternal took control of he First Order (renaming it the Final Order) in the film, so Palpatine gained control of all the First Order's star destroyers. The Sith death star destroyers only look like star destroyers but they do not serve the purpose of a star destroyer. They are death stars. So you seem to be saying the Sith don't have enough star destroyers to control the galaxy, when I thought it would be taken as the Sith have way too many death stars.
The Empire only needed one single Death Star to rule through fear. You destroy one single Core World to show the galaxy that no one is safe. Then no one rebels because if you do, you are risking bringing the Death Star to your planet to destroy not only the insurgents, but billions of innocent lives along with it. Fear of a Death Star keeps the galaxy in line because you never know where the Death Star is. It could pop out of hyperspace and appear in any system without warning.
The only reason the Rebels won is because the first Death Star was destroyed. The destruction of Alderaan showed Emperor's evil to the galaxy, and then the destruction of the Death Star gave the galaxy hope that a rebellion could succeed, now that they didn't have the Death Star. The galaxy didn't know about the second Death Star under construction, and it seems the Emperor only waited for the superweapon to be operational to lure the Alliance into his trap to destroy them. Palpatine only needed to destroy the Alliance, either convert or kill Luke, and complete the second Death Star to rule the galaxy through fear as he had planned to with the first Death Star.
A Death Star is incomparable power, but the Starkiller actually topped the threat level by being able to destroy entire star systems at once, and by being able to do it remotely from the Unknown Regions. Even more to fear. If it hadn't been destroyed, the First Order could have easily ruled the entire galaxy without a war with the New Republic.
The Sith Eternal Cult inexplicably topped the Starkiller. No, the fleet of death star destroyers can't fire remotely, but there are hundreds of Death Stars. How many do you need to control the galaxy? I think 1-5 would be enough. In TRoS Palpatine thought he needed to have hundreds of death stars patrolling the galaxy. It's overkill, don't you think?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Raven Redstar wrote: | | I finally managed to see Rise of Skywalker a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed it. I would have liked it better, I think if I'd seen it in theaters with my wife. |
Glad you enjoyed it. I understand why you may not have been able to see it with your wife, but has she seen it yet separately? Does she like Star Wars? If she hasn't seen it, will she eventually? Just curious if you are so inclined to answer. |
She likes Star Wars almost as much as I do. I've tried to convince her to stop off and watch it in theaters, but with as hectic as her class schedule is, she said she's fine waiting for it to come out for purchase. So, I have to wait until then to really talk the film over with her.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: TRoS The Visual Dictionary |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Darklighter79 wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Hundreds of 2.4km long star destroyers, all with the power to destroy planets. Each death star destroyer has a crew of almost 30,000. The Sith Eternal Cult also possesses thousands of starfighters. |
Hundreds? Do they know how big is the galaxy? How many star systems there are? Empire had at its height 25 000 ISD. |
Darklighter, remember that Sith Eternal took control of he First Order (renaming it the Final Order) in the film, so Palpatine gained control of all the First Order's star destroyers. The Sith death star destroyers only look like star destroyers but they do not serve the purpose of a star destroyer. They are death stars. So you seem to be saying the Sith don't have enough star destroyers to control the galaxy, when I thought it would be taken as the Sith have way too many death stars.
The Empire only needed one single Death Star to rule through fear. You destroy one single Core World to show the galaxy that no one is safe. Then no one rebels because if you do, you are risking bringing the Death Star to your planet to destroy not only the insurgents, but billions of innocent lives along with it. Fear of a Death Star keeps the galaxy in line because you never know where the Death Star is. It could pop out of hyperspace and appear in any system without warning.
The only reason the Rebels won is because the first Death Star was destroyed. The destruction of Alderaan showed Emperor's evil to the galaxy, and then the destruction of the Death Star gave the galaxy hope that a rebellion could succeed, now that they didn't have the Death Star. The galaxy didn't know about the second Death Star under construction, and it seems the Emperor only waited for the superweapon to be operational to lure the Alliance into his trap to destroy them. Palpatine only needed to destroy the Alliance, either convert or kill Luke, and complete the second Death Star to rule the galaxy through fear as he had planned to with the first Death Star.
A Death Star is incomparable power, but the Starkiller actually topped the threat level by being able to destroy entire star systems at once, and by being able to do it remotely from the Unknown Regions. Even more to fear. If it hadn't been destroyed, the First Order could have easily ruled the entire galaxy without a war with the New Republic.
The Sith Eternal Cult inexplicably topped the Starkiller. No, the fleet of death star destroyers can't fire remotely, but there are hundreds of Death Stars. How many do you need to control the galaxy? I think 1-5 would be enough. In TRoS Palpatine thought he needed to have hundreds of death stars patrolling the galaxy. It's overkill, don't you think? |
I wonder if JJ delved into this for that idea:
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Conqueror_(superlaser) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TauntaunScout
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 970
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | But TRoS did hit a $1 billion gross which means a lot of people love it. |
That doesn't mean much to me. A lot of people love The Bachelor and such too.
I just want to know, what would be a bridge too far? What would it actually take to reject a SW film? Would the heroes have to arrive on Earth and meddle with ancient Egyptians? Or time travel to destroy Palpatine as a child? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, a movie full of Earth profanity would ruin a Star Wars movie for me.
For example: my wife and I are watching Star Trek Picard, the 2nd episode, one of the active members of Star Fleet drops an F-bomb during an argument. It's lazy writing, and not appropriate for the genre.
The thing is, is that as much as the stories might not be as mind blowing-great as the OT, the ST still has a Star Wars feel to them. It's not something that can be quantified. Yes, there has been some sloppy story telling, like distance playing a factor into armor and shield effectiveness (never been an issue until now, not sure how I feel about it), hundreds of super lasers mounted on Star Destroyers, the low speed chase, hyperspace skipping in planetary atmosphere, a few more I'm sure. But, honestly, I've seen more outrageous stuff sitting in as a player in a D6 Star Wars game. I've seen talk on this forum about doing crossovers with dozens of other Science Fiction settings over the years and nobody bats an eye.
I'm pretty sure I've said this before: the biggest problem is that people are looking for a feeling that they remember having as children well after the world has destroyed their child-like wonder. What they seek doesn't exist because they aren't the same person they were when they saw Star Wars in 1977. I've enjoyed what Disney has put out for Star Wars, I hope they continue to do their shows and movies, because I love the Star Wars universe and I would like to keep getting to enjoy stories set in it.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darklighter79
Captain
Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: TRoS The Visual Dictionary |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Darklighter79 wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Hundreds of 2.4km long star destroyers, all with the power to destroy planets. Each death star destroyer has a crew of almost 30,000. The Sith Eternal Cult also possesses thousands of starfighters. |
Hundreds? Do they know how big is the galaxy? How many star systems there are? Empire had at its height 25 000 ISD. |
Darklighter, remember that Sith Eternal took control of he First Order (renaming it the Final Order) in the film, so Palpatine gained control of all the First Order's star destroyers. The Sith death star destroyers only look like star destroyers but they do not serve the purpose of a star destroyer. They are death stars. So you seem to be saying the Sith don't have enough star destroyers to control the galaxy, when I thought it would be taken as the Sith have way too many death stars.
The Empire only needed one single Death Star to rule through fear. You destroy one single Core World to show the galaxy that no one is safe. Then no one rebels because if you do, you are risking bringing the Death Star to your planet to destroy not only the insurgents, but billions of innocent lives along with it. Fear of a Death Star keeps the galaxy in line because you never know where the Death Star is. It could pop out of hyperspace and appear in any system without warning.
The only reason the Rebels won is because the first Death Star was destroyed. The destruction of Alderaan showed Emperor's evil to the galaxy, and then the destruction of the Death Star gave the galaxy hope that a rebellion could succeed, now that they didn't have the Death Star. The galaxy didn't know about the second Death Star under construction, and it seems the Emperor only waited for the superweapon to be operational to lure the Alliance into his trap to destroy them. Palpatine only needed to destroy the Alliance, either convert or kill Luke, and complete the second Death Star to rule the galaxy through fear as he had planned to with the first Death Star.
A Death Star is incomparable power, but the Starkiller actually topped the threat level by being able to destroy entire star systems at once, and by being able to do it remotely from the Unknown Regions. Even more to fear. If it hadn't been destroyed, the First Order could have easily ruled the entire galaxy without a war with the New Republic.
The Sith Eternal Cult inexplicably topped the Starkiller. No, the fleet of death star destroyers can't fire remotely, but there are hundreds of Death Stars. How many do you need to control the galaxy? I think 1-5 would be enough. In TRoS Palpatine thought he needed to have hundreds of death stars patrolling the galaxy. It's overkill, don't you think? |
With 14.000 ships (+those that took First Order all around the galaxy) vs hundreds, Sith fleet would be on the constant run. Especially if those who had their planets destroyed went radicial like Saw Gerrera. With no home / nothing to loose they would fearless against Sith. Perfect candidates for Holdo Maneuver. And Sith would felt it...the fear of lost.
Like Leia said "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: TRoS The Visual Dictionary |
|
|
| Darklighter79 wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Darklighter79 wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Hundreds of 2.4km long star destroyers, all with the power to destroy planets. Each death star destroyer has a crew of almost 30,000. The Sith Eternal Cult also possesses thousands of starfighters. |
Hundreds? Do they know how big is the galaxy? How many star systems there are? Empire had at its height 25 000 ISD. |
Darklighter, remember that Sith Eternal took control of he First Order (renaming it the Final Order) in the film, so Palpatine gained control of all the First Order's star destroyers. The Sith death star destroyers only look like star destroyers but they do not serve the purpose of a star destroyer. They are death stars. So you seem to be saying the Sith don't have enough star destroyers to control the galaxy, when I thought it would be taken as the Sith have way too many death stars.
The Empire only needed one single Death Star to rule through fear. You destroy one single Core World to show the galaxy that no one is safe. Then no one rebels because if you do, you are risking bringing the Death Star to your planet to destroy not only the insurgents, but billions of innocent lives along with it. Fear of a Death Star keeps the galaxy in line because you never know where the Death Star is. It could pop out of hyperspace and appear in any system without warning.
The only reason the Rebels won is because the first Death Star was destroyed. The destruction of Alderaan showed Emperor's evil to the galaxy, and then the destruction of the Death Star gave the galaxy hope that a rebellion could succeed, now that they didn't have the Death Star. The galaxy didn't know about the second Death Star under construction, and it seems the Emperor only waited for the superweapon to be operational to lure the Alliance into his trap to destroy them. Palpatine only needed to destroy the Alliance, either convert or kill Luke, and complete the second Death Star to rule the galaxy through fear as he had planned to with the first Death Star.
A Death Star is incomparable power, but the Starkiller actually topped the threat level by being able to destroy entire star systems at once, and by being able to do it remotely from the Unknown Regions. Even more to fear. If it hadn't been destroyed, the First Order could have easily ruled the entire galaxy without a war with the New Republic.
The Sith Eternal Cult inexplicably topped the Starkiller. No, the fleet of death star destroyers can't fire remotely, but there are hundreds of Death Stars. How many do you need to control the galaxy? I think 1-5 would be enough. In TRoS Palpatine thought he needed to have hundreds of death stars patrolling the galaxy. It's overkill, don't you think? |
With 14.000 ships (+those that took First Order all around the galaxy) vs hundreds, Sith fleet would be on the constant run. Especially if those who had their planets destroyed went radicial like Saw Gerrera. With no home / nothing to loose they would fearless against Sith. Perfect candidates for Holdo Maneuver. And Sith would felt it...the fear of lost.
Like Leia said "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" |
You're forgetting Tarkin's key response. Here's the full quote:
| Quote: | Princess Leia Organa: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Grand Moff Tarkin: Not after we demonstrate the power of this battle station... |
You seem to be arguing that Palpatine having hundreds of death stars is still not enough to control the galaxy without thousands of additional Imperial star destroyers, like the Empire was said to have in publishing. (The 25,000 figure of Imp SDs is not stated in films anywhere, and I think that is overkill too.) IMO, the view that hundreds of death stars not being enough is even more absurd than what I was pointing out, the absurdity that in canon hundreds of death stars even exist. Maybe Palpatine magically conjured up 1 million non-death-star destroyers and they are still down in the ocean of Exegol waiting to be risen.
Tarkin is not omniscient and I am not saying every utterance of his should automatically be accepted as gospel truth, but the above Tarkin quote being true provides the maximum dramatic effect for the story. I have to believe that the Empire's complete uncontested domination of the galaxy was on the line when Luke makes the shot to destroy the Death Star. Luke Skywalker (with help from Galen Erson, Ghost Obi-Wan, the Force, and Han) literally saved the galaxy from the oppression of living in fear of the single ultimate weapon. Sure, the Emperor still needed some star destroyers too, but the Death Star was the clincher. Maybe the Empire would have eventually produced a few more Death Stars to have some backups, but hundreds? The mere existence of hundreds of death stars and what's worse, them mostly being destroyed in TRoS, belittles and diminishes Luke's accomplishment.
So that is my view, which is largely driven by film drama. I do acknowledge that within the world of TRoS, you're totally correct. Hundreds of death stars were no match for the Resistance-Allied Fleet. Hundreds of death stars were defeated in a short air battle. However, I was initially only taking about TRoS. You brought a comparison to Palpatine's Galactic Empire into it. For my SWU, I refuse to accept any premise of TRoS that's an affront to my appreciation of prior films, especially ANH. If you feel the Final Order needed more death stars than they already had, then we should just agree to disagree because this would just be a pointless fanboy debate.
In my wildest dreams I never thought I would ever say this, but I actually have bigger issues with Episode IX than even the existence of hundreds of death stars.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just reread this whole thread. cheshire, thanks for the humor along the way. And thanks to everyone for chiming in, both positive and negative.
| griff wrote: | | Just got back from the theater, and I really liked it for the most part. The hyperdrive skipping into planet's atmospheres I could have done without. |
| cheshire wrote: | | I can live with that. I had a really good time at the theater with my family. We've been watching all the Star Wars Saga films in the weeks preceeding the release of Rise of the Skywalker. I enjoyed the film, and I'm going to go see it again with my brother-in-law next week. The film isn't high art, I never expected it to be evocative of the wonder I experienced with the OT, but knowing that going in, I enjoyed the movie. |
| Sutehp wrote: | | TROS did feel like a sufficiently epic ending to the Skywalker Saga. Yes, had the ST story been planned out ahead of time, TROS could have been even more awesome than it was. But I still thoroughly enjoyed myself while watching this movie, despite its flaws. The ending of the saga could have been better, but it was still a worthy and great end. And the themes of the movie (only your choices, not your bloodline, define who you are; your family of choice matters more than the family you were born to) are ones that I found heartwarming and especially appropriate for Star Wars and the ST in particular. |
| TauntaunScout wrote: | | Saw it. I didn't hate it... I still liked this one more than TFA... I don't want to come off as too negative, I had a lot of fun watching it just now. It had a lot of fun stuff going on in it. |
| Sutehp wrote: | | TRoS is a good film, at least in that it does entertain for the requisite 2 and a half hours it runs. |
| Urban Spaceman wrote: | | I have a feeling this one is something I might appreciate more on it's own merits (and it does have them) later on. |
| MrNexx wrote: | | I generally liked it. |
| Grimace wrote: | | I can enjoy the new movies for the good parts, and cringe at the not-so-good parts, but I don't hate the movies simply because of Disney... I didn't like everything about this last installment of the Skywalker saga, but I did enjoy much of the movie. I didn't have a problem with the Emperor returning. I didn't have a problem with Star Destroyers that could destroy planets. I didn't have a problem with battling atop of Star Destroyers that were "rising out of the atmosphere" of a gigantic planet. I didn't have a problem with the Rey/Ben dyad (or whatever they are calling it) and the swapping of lightsabers through the force. I thought it was actually quite clever and cool... I can view it as a single movie without having to instantly group it with ALL of the others. I realize other cannot. I was sad when all of the original heroes were "gone" (some much more permanently than others...Rest in Peace Carrie Fisher) and while I have very different opinions on the new characters, I can say definitely I "enjoyed" the sequel trilogy, overall more than I enjoyed the prequel trilogy, but nowhere close the enjoyment I got from the original trilogy. |
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | I finally managed to see Rise of Skywalker a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed it... I've enjoyed what Disney has put out for Star Wars, I hope they continue to do their shows and movies, because I love the Star Wars universe and I would like to keep getting to enjoy stories set in it. |
I just wanted to specifically summarize the general positivity about TRoS here (sometimes qualified positivity, but still). The overall responses expressed on the Pit have been a lot more positive than I feared they would be.
Grimace, I trust you will believe me that I do not hate any Disney product simply because it is Disney. I love Rogue One and Solo. And I do enjoy TFA in a way similar to how some of you describe that you enjoy TRoS. So from a single film appreciation respect, I would say that Disney is 3 out of 5. That is far from from categorical hatred. Some fans have categorical hatreds, such as hating all George Lucas SW after 1983, or hating the entire Star Wars franchise after 1998, or hating only the Special Editions and PT. Some people on the internet are negative people and don't want to like anything. Some people get some perverse pleasure out of hating on things. Not me. My lack of love for TRoS is not for lack of trying or wanting.
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | The thing is, is that as much as the stories might not be as mind blowing-great as the OT, the ST still has a Star Wars feel to them. It's not something that can be quantified. Yes, there has been some sloppy story telling, like distance playing a factor into armor and shield effectiveness (never been an issue until now, not sure how I feel about it), hundreds of super lasers mounted on Star Destroyers, the low speed chase, hyperspace skipping in planetary atmosphere, a few more I'm sure. But, honestly, I've seen more outrageous stuff sitting in as a player in a D6 Star Wars game. I've seen talk on this forum about doing crossovers with dozens of other Science Fiction settings over the years and nobody bats an eye. |
When I was newer SW GM in my youth, I definitely did some stuff which is a lot more outrageous than the films, like a little dark-side-animated zombies of prior dead characters and a time-travel adventure (but similar things have been done in the EU). I don't do that stuff anymore. For the past couple decades, I've done some things that are a bit more outrageous than the CT and PT (and still do), but I don't feel I've done anything as outrageous as a lot of the crazy stuff in TRoS. You must have played in some wild games! I wouldn't say nobody bats an eye about the crossovers. I'm not a fan of most of them and have definitely batted an eye or two, but I usually haven't commented if I didn't have anything to add to the discussion.
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | I'm pretty sure I've said this before: the biggest problem is that people are looking for a feeling that they remember having as children well after the world has destroyed their child-like wonder. What they seek doesn't exist because they aren't the same person they were when they saw Star Wars in 1977. |
This reminds me so much of me a few years ago. Reading this evokes various emotions in me. I feel you are at least right about some people. Nostalgia is a powerful factor and people don't always even recognize how they are holding Star Wars from their adulthood to an impossible standard. But I like to think that I am still in touch with my inner child. I feel I probably am a lot more in touch than your average middle aged Star Wars fan. I don't ever expect to appreciate any Star Wars as much as my childlike wonder appreciated ANH on my first viewing. And I acknowledge that I don't appreciate it now in exactly the same way I did back then.
I find that I feel anger at reading this because it could be interpreted as a suggestion that any inability to enjoy TRoS is just due to an inability to access our inner child or recognize we are not kids anymore. My knee-jerk reaction is I don't feel it is my fault that I don't like TRoS. I didn't hold my reaction to TLJ against Solo. I was hopeful I would like TRoS a lot more than TLJ.
I find that I also feel sadness at considering the thought that my lack of overall appreciation of TLJ and TRoS means that somehow I have lost some connection to my childhood.
| Grimace wrote: | | Whill, I am interested to read your "full analysis" of the movie... I'm still interested to see which parts you DID like. |
Well, it will be the good, the bad, and the ugly. I hope that you will read it all, not just the good. I have been working on this for a month now and it is still not done. I would like people to really see where I am coming from about this movie, even if they don't agree. I feel I have a lot points that explain my views on it. I am not just some negative whiner on the internet. I really wanted to enjoy these last two Rey movies a lot more than I did.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TauntaunScout
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 970
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the thing about the "inner child" argument for me personally. It doesn't account for why I didn't like the EU novels as a teen (I was the perfect age for those), or why I like R1 and The Mandalorian so much. It also doesn't account for the original cross-generational appeal of the original trilogy. This is important and really gets lost in modern assessments. A very common story from older fans is that their parents and grandparents also loved the SW movies in the 70's and 80's. I know parents loved SW so much that they probably sorta kinda foisted the interest onto us. I remember things like my dad being excited to play the new SW arcade game (which we kids were way too young for).
On reflection I now rank TRoS below TFA. I haven't re-watched it and I don't expect I ever will (until my kids eventually make me re-watch everything), although I have watched TFA again on tv.
There's also this weird idea that Star Wars fans have "hate" for something they think is a bad movie. On their surface, most action movies are just plain poor workmanship, which is why the don't catch on and turn into an ongoing franchise unto themselves. Just like most stuff sold in Dollar General is kinda junky and won't last long. That's not hate, it just is how I rate the products. When a SW film comes out and it's poor quality, people act like there's something wrong with me if I don't give it a free pass.
I loved Aliens, Terminator, Predator, and Jurrasic Park. Those franchises, like Star Wars, fell off a cliff in terms of quality. If it was just my fault for not being a kid, guess what? I wouldn't have loved Mad Max: Fury Road. As far as I'm concerned, only R1 has picked up the gauntlet which that movie threw down at the action genre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darklighter79
Captain
Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:44 am Post subject: Re: TRoS The Visual Dictionary |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
| Quote: | Princess Leia Organa: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Grand Moff Tarkin: Not after we demonstrate the power of this battle station... |
|
Tarkin thought he was right, but how did it end after all? Each of the superweapons created by Empire failed to achieve final control solution let alone be invurneable. Was Rebel Alliance weakened after Alderaan? No. Was Rebel Alliance weakened in the next 3 yrs? No. Did they manage to get the fleet powerful enough to beat Imperials armada at the Endor. Yes. Did Courscant feel to rise and ovethrow Imperial HQ there? Naturally. Other planets? Naturally.
Vader was much more close to the truth about DS: "Its power to create problems has certainly been confirmed"
What logic was behind Disney to propose such solution?
Still, it would be interesting to see "almost" complete control like in THX 1138 (we know how it ends...)
By the way:
Lucas in "Mythology of Star Wars" said:
(Excerpt from “The Phantom Menace”)
| Quote: | | GEORGE LUCAS: We were using a kind of technology which had to be completely worked out. How do these bubbles exist under there? Where do they come from? What do they use for energy? The whole culture has to be designed. What do they believe in? How do they operate? What are the economics of the culture. Most of it doesn’t appear in the movie, but you have to have thought it through, otherwise there’s — something always rings very untrue or phony about what it is that’s going on. And one of the things I struggle for is to create a kind of immaculate realism in a totally unreal and fantasy world. It’s a science that I can make up. But once I make up a rule, then I have to live with it. |
I miss that in the lastest movies.
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
Grimace, I trust you will believe me that I do not hate any Disney product simply because it is Disney. I love Rogue One and Solo (with the caveat that the leader of Crimson Dawn was a clone named Mauul who only thinks he was the real deceased Maul). And I do enjoy TFA in a way similar to how some of you describe that you enjoy TRoS. So from a single film appreciation respect, I would say that Disney is 3 out of 5. That is far from from categorical hatred. Some fans have categorical hatreds, such as hating all George Lucas SW after 1983, or hating the entire Star Wars franchise after 1998, or hating only the Special Editions and PT. Some people on the internet are negative people and don't want to like anything. Some people get some perverse pleasure out of hating on things. Not me. My lack of love for TRoS is not for lack of trying or wanting.
(snipped quote)
When I was newer SW GM in my youth, I definitely did some stuff which is a lot more outrageous than the films, like a little dark-side-animated zombies of prior dead characters and a time-travel adventure (but similar things have been done in the EU). I don't do that stuff anymore. For the past couple decades, I've done some things that are a bit more outrageous than the CT and PT (and still do), but I don't feel I've done anything as outrageous as a lot of the crazy stuff in TRoS. You must have played in some wild games! I wouldn't say nobody bats an eye about the crossovers. I'm not a fan of most of them and have definitely batted an eye or two, but I usually haven't commented if I didn't have anything to add to the discussion.
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | I'm pretty sure I've said this before: the biggest problem is that people are looking for a feeling that they remember having as children well after the world has destroyed their child-like wonder. What they seek doesn't exist because they aren't the same person they were when they saw Star Wars in 1977. |
This reminds me so much of me a few years ago. Reading this evokes various emotions in me. I feel you are at least right about some people. Nostalgia is a powerful factor and people don't always even recognize how they are holding Star Wars from their adulthood to an impossible standard. But I like to think that I am still in touch with my inner child. I feel I probably am a lot more in touch than your average middle aged Star Wars fan. I don't ever expect to appreciate any Star Wars as much as my childlike wonder appreciated ANH on my first viewing. And I acknowledge that I don't appreciate it now in exactly the same way I did back then.
I find that I feel anger at reading this because it could be interpreted as a suggestion that any inability to enjoy TRoS is just due to an inability to access our inner child or recognize we are not kids anymore. My knee-jerk reaction is I don't feel it is my fault that I don't like TRoS. I didn't hold my reaction to TLJ against Solo. I was hopeful I would like TRoS a lot more than TLJ.
I find that I also feel sadness at considering the thought that my lack of overall appreciation of TLJ and TRoS means that somehow I have lost some connection to my childhood.
| Grimace wrote: | | Whill, I am interested to read your "full analysis" of the movie... I'm still interested to see which parts you DID like. |
Well, it will be the good, the bad, and the ugly. I hope that you will read it all, not just the good. I have been working on this for a month now and it is still not done. I would like people to really see where I am coming from about this movie, even if they don't agree. I feel I have a lot points that explain my views on it. I am not just some negative whiner on the internet. I really wanted to enjoy these last two Rey movies a lot more than I did. |
I have to think that a great many "fans" of Star Wars are fans of what Star Wars is in their mind...the mind of yesteryear, the mind of amazement. Their new, more cynical mind now looks for all of the "wrong" in Star Wars, and complain about it over and over. Some even make a point of going to discussion boards or posting on videos on Youtube, just to tell everyone how "terrible" all of the Disney Star Wars movies are.
Do I think you are like that? No. But I do see that from others on this very discussion board. Some have an automatic dislike for anything Star Wars that comes out now, and will do their best to make sure everyone reads about it over and over again.
I hope, and expect, your reasoning to be more than simply "It's Disney" for why you don't like something about the movie. I'm absolutely positive that you will dislike things that I found enjoyable. We can definitely have different opinions on things. But at the same time, when the top dog of a discussion board doesn't like some of the new movies, it really dissuades people from wanting to put any momentum towards striking up conversations about something that is known to elicit anger and/or negative comments from people. Imagine if the same was done back in the days of the Holonet...if Moridin or Armage expressed a dislike for the prequels and actively talked about how the trilogy was no good. Do you think people would have continued to create ideas about the prequels on a discussion board where the admins didn't like the movies and thought the trilogy was bad?
Sure, there are board members who will voice negative opinions about the movies. That happens everywhere. It happened on the Holonet with people not liking the prequels.
Look, I didn't like about 1/2 of The Last Jedi, but it was due to pointless off-shoots and bad pacing and poor directing choices. I didn't feel it "killed my childhood" (as some online have claimed) because they killed off Luke Skywalker. But I don't dislike the movie as a whole. I thought it did great work at explaining Luke's fall and redemption.
For The Rise of Skywalker, I didn't like some directing choices they made, the hyperspace skipping as presented, but I did like a lot of things I have heard many other people complaining about.
So I can await your views on the movie, but I hope that it will pull all of the negativity out of you and leave you more appreciate of Star Wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TauntaunScout
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 970
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: |
I have to think that a great many "fans" of Star Wars are fans of what Star Wars is in their mind...the mind of yesteryear, the mind of amazement. Their new, more cynical mind now looks for all of the "wrong" in Star Wars, and complain about it over and over. Some even make a point of going to discussion boards or posting on videos on Youtube, just to tell everyone how "terrible" all of the Disney Star Wars movies are.
|
Maybe if they wanted me to approach it with childlike wonder, they shouldn't have made it too scary for me to take my children to. Also Poe shouldn't have said "@$$". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TauntaunScout wrote: | | There's also this weird idea that Star Wars fans have "hate" for something they think is a bad movie. On their surface, most action movies are just plain poor workmanship, which is why the don't catch on and turn into an ongoing franchise unto themselves. Just like most stuff sold in Dollar General is kinda junky and won't last long. That's not hate, it just is how I rate the products. When a SW film comes out and it's poor quality, people act like there's something wrong with me if I don't give it a free pass. |
Well, it's not so weird when they actually use the word "hate" which is done a lot. There are a lot of mean fans that get downright irate about the fact that they don't like whatever the latest Star Wars is.
Although I get what you are saying and some fans that enjoy the latest SW can prejudice fans with less drastic negative reactions and unfairly lump them in with the haters. TLJ has an overall meh reaction from me, far from hatred. To me, TRoS is both more positive and more negative than TLJ (a lot more negative), but I still do not hate it.
| TauntaunScout wrote: | | Here's the thing about the "inner child" argument for me personally. It doesn't account for why I didn't like the EU novels as a teen (I was the perfect age for those), or why I like R1 and The Mandalorian so much. It also doesn't account for the original cross-generational appeal of the original trilogy. This is important and really gets lost in modern assessments. A very common story from older fans is that their parents and grandparents also loved the SW movies in the 70's and 80's. I know parents loved SW so much that they probably sorta kinda foisted the interest onto us. I remember things like my dad being excited to play the new SW arcade game (which we kids were way too young for). |
Right on. My dad I was in his 30s when he first saw the original Star Wars and loved it. He is in his 70s now and still says it is one of his favorite movies of all time. I was born before the "Ewok Line" and I still enjoyed Ewoks in 1983. I like them more now than I did then. Even more telling is the fact that I enjoyed Jar Jar as an adult, and I still enjoy Jar Jar in my late 40s. So yeah, I really don't want to hear that I am not in touch with my inner child.
| TauntaunScout wrote: | | Maybe if they wanted me to approach it with childlike wonder, they shouldn't have made it too scary for me to take my children to. Also Poe shouldn't have said "@$$". |
I find that I am not bothered by the PG-13 standard Star Wars has had since 2005. But I am finding that as I get older, I have less and less interest in Rated R movies. PG-13 is perfect for me. I agree that it wasn't really necessary to have either one of those things in TRoS, but PG is still parental guidance so each parent has to judge what is ok for their kids and hold off on some films until the right age. I watched TFA and RO before letting my son see them and gave him a couple warnings before I took him to see them. It worked fine. At age 10, the only thing he still doesn't like is melty-Anakin Vader in RotS. He looks away but he still loves the rest of the film. I would never wish that to be edited out of the film just to be more kid-friendly. Amputation-Anakin is Hayden Christensen's best performance in Star Wars, and with the sad, hauntingly beautiful scoring for the scenes, I just think it is absolutely vital to see that pain and suffering for Vader's character.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:54 pm Post subject: TLJ |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | | I didn't like about 1/2 of The Last Jedi... I didn't feel it "killed my childhood" (as some online have claimed) because they killed off Luke Skywalker. |
I actively make fun of adults who lament the ruin of their childhood due to anything Star Wars. I'm generally a super nice guy, but that is one of my flaws.
| Grimace wrote: | | I didn't like about 1/2 of The Last Jedi, but... I don't dislike the movie as a whole. I thought it did great work at explaining Luke's fall and redemption. |
I agree. I also don't see Finn's character arc as a pointless side mission - Finn went from wanting to run away from the First Order to being willing to give his life for the Resistance cause. The casino planet mission was absolutely vital to Finn's character arc. Seeing Luke as cynical was a hard left turn for me, but of course the only reason that happened is because they chose to repeat the premise of a Jedi student turning to the Dark Side and destroying the order, as Anakin had already done before. Luke's redemption and death was a fitting end for Luke. I wish the movie had a lightsaber battle, and I feel Luke's death would have worked better in the final film (only possible if they had planned out a trilogy), but I do not have a lot of issues that others did with TLJ, despite it being my personal least favorite film. Check out my 'thoughts and reactions' thread for TLJ.
All my issues with TLJ are small in comparison to my issues with TRoS...
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
