Disney Star Wars General Discussion

[ArGarBarGar]

I would think that projecting yourself across the galaxy (something that was indicated to be so difficult that it would have killed anyone else before it could even work) to save the main characters is a bit more impressive than lifting up a bunch of boulders.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Not to mention the First Order ships couldn't catch up to the "lighter and faster" Resistance ships despite them being in zero gravity. I guess Rian Johnson never realized Darth Vader caught up to Princess Leia at the very beginning of Episode IV.

If you're not going to utilize real world physics, that's fine, but at least have set rules to which your world has to abide by. Rules appeared to come and go, and contradict other 'set' rules at random. Some rules just made 0 sense what so ever. For example, the FO being unable to catch up to the resistance ships? Ok sure, w/e, but why not skip ahead of them using your hyper drive. Or why do the resistance ships not use smaller ships with Hyper drives to escape? It's shown they can still utilize the smaller ones when a bunch of characters randomly go off on a side quest for half the movie.

The sequels were not well thought out. I think the proof is in the pudding on this one, given that the world building was so atrocious. Disney saw money and got super greedy.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

If you're not going to utilize real world physics, that's fine, but at least have set rules to which your world has to abide by. Rules appeared to come and go, and contradict other 'set' rules at random. Some rules just made 0 sense what so ever. For example, the FO being unable to catch up to the resistance ships? Ok sure, w/e, but why not skip ahead of them using your hyper drive. Or why do the resistance ships not use smaller ships with Hyper drives to escape? It's shown they can still utilize the smaller ones when a bunch of characters randomly go off on a side quest for half the movie.

The sequels were not well thought out. I think the proof is in the pudding on this one, given that the world building was so atrocious. Disney saw money and got super greedy.

Just curious, but why is the "unable to catch up" thing contradictory to prior rules? Nobody had a problem with the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I would think that projecting yourself across the galaxy (something that was indicated to be so difficult that it would have killed anyone else before it could even work) to save the main characters is a bit more impressive than lifting up a bunch of boulders.

It was a little lame if you were hoping to see a lightsaber duel between Kylo and Luke. Especially since the series was pretty light as a whole on cool light saber battles.

 

[Hivemind]

Not to mention the First Order ships couldn't catch up to the "lighter and faster" Resistance ships despite them being in zero gravity. I guess Rian Johnson never realized Darth Vader caught up to Princess Leia at the very beginning of Episode IV.

Gravity has nothing to do with it. The mass of an object still impacts its inertia, even in the zero gravity of space. While the top speed will not be governed by its mass, its acceleration (including any changes in direction of that acceleration) will be governed by its mass and the force exerted by its propulsion system. Remember F=ma, in which mass is a term (and gravity/weight are not). In order for a more massive ship to match the acceleration and nimble maneuvering of the smaller ship, the force exerted by its engines must grow by the same proportion.

Just here to give physics lessons, not argue about the quality of these movies.

(There's also the fact that the Tantive IV, which had just escaped Scarif, was damaged and being held in the tractor beam of Vader's Star Destroyer at the beginning of Episode IV).

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Just curious, but why is the "unable to catch up" thing contradictory to prior rules? Nobody had a problem with the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy.

How many capital ships did they have? At least a dozen, or slightly less. Each one of those ships probably contains a hundred or so fighters. There is no way, at those ranges, that a fighter can't go in and harass the enemy and then RTB. Rinse, dry, repeat until the resistance ship is dead. Of course, none of this is necessary if any of those ships just hyper space in front of the fleet.

 

[Hivemind]

How many capital ships did they have? At least a dozen, or slightly less. Each one of those ships probably contains a hundred or so fighters. There is no way, at those ranges, that a fighter can't go in and harass the enemy and then RTB. Rinse, dry, repeat until the resistance ship is dead. Of course, none of this is necessary if any of those ships just hyper space in front of the fleet.

Imperial (and presumably First Order) fighters have long been established to be short-ranged craft. The Resistance ships were not only outside of fighter range, but even outside of the range of the bulk of the capital ships' weapons. The dangers of the "just hyper space in front of their fleet" are shown by the "Holdo maneuver" later in the same movie (and Han Solo's lines before "jump to lightspeed" all the way back in ANH).

But none of this really matters. Tactics and strategy in movies are often contrived. The whole point is to serve the plot. This is hardly the first offense in film history, or even Star Wars history, of limitation and tactical decisions being made to create drama. Why do the shields on Hoth protect from space bombardment and spaceships but not from walkers? Shield generators are shown at being able to stop physical craft in both RTJ and Rogue One. Why are Imperial walkers robust enough to survive repeated blaster fire, but flimsy enough to be crushed by a couple logs swung from trees? It's all just plot convenience. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the movie.

There are plenty of actual reasons to dislike Episode 8, stop spending mental energy to invent silly ones.

 

[Cas]

Imperial (and presumably First Order) fighters have long been established to be short-ranged craft. The Resistance ships were not only outside of fighter range, but even outside of the range of the bulk of the capital ships' weapons. The dangers of the "just hyper space in front of their fleet" are shown by the "Holdo maneuver" later in the same movie (and Han Solo's lines before "jump to lightspeed" all the way back in ANH).

But none of this really matters. Tactics and strategy in movies are often contrived. The whole point is to serve the plot. This is hardly the first offense in film history, or even Star Wars history, of limitation and tactical decisions being made to create drama. Why do the shields on Hoth protect from space bombardment and spaceships but not from walkers? Shield generators are shown at being able to stop physical craft in both RTJ and Rogue One. Why are Imperial walkers robust enough to survive repeated blaster fire, but flimsy enough to be crushed by a couple logs swung from trees? It's all just plot convenience. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the movie.

There are plenty of actual reasons to dislike Episode 8, stop spending mental energy to invent silly ones.

I also think there is a certain arrogance to "just hang out and wait for the opponent to run out of fuel, they're doomed, why waste resources" that we're supposed to see.

Frankly, that is also very believable - why risk any losses and the unlikely but nevertheless possible catastrophe, when you can just wait for what should be inevitable? Hux is not that intelligent (and he certainly doesn't envision a suicide attack), but apart from that he is largely correct. Armies and navies have done this all throughout history - countless sieges, numerous fleets in being or blockades, and so on.

Of course, to that you must consider that this is a movie, and screenwriters are never experts at strategy (and they must prioritize plot anyway). Star Wars has never been a model of internal consistency anyway, dating all the way back to "I am your father." They're popcorn flicks.

 

[Osprey]

I would think that projecting yourself across the galaxy (something that was indicated to be so difficult that it would have killed anyone else before it could even work) to save the main characters is a bit more impressive than lifting up a bunch of boulders.

That demonstrates the problem. If you give a trainee a power that was previously impressive for a Jedi Master, then you sort of have to give a master something even more impressive... and if you ever give the young Jedi that ability, you'd have to give a master something even more overpowered. It's a slippery slope that might be justified only if you care nothing about consistency. Luke was able to lift only one football-sized rock at a time after his initial training, yet Rey was able to lift hundreds of much larger boulders after hers. That inconsistency is not excused by simply giving Luke an even stronger superpower.

Besides the consistency issue, I personally don't like the idea of Jedi being made stronger and more "space wizard"-like. In the beginning, they were more akin to Samurai--highly skilled swordsmen with a moral code--but with just enough magical ability to be formidable and intimidating in a world filled with blasters, ships and weapons of mass destruction. Now, they're more like Gandalf and Harry Potter in space. Luke's dying stand even seems like a rip off of Gandalf's "You shall not pass" moment, sacrificing himself so that his friends could escape. I, personally, don't want Jedi to be such powerful space wizards, and I think that the success of The Mandalorian shows that you don't even need Jedi for it to be Star Wars.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

That demonstrates the problem. If you give a trainee a power that was previously impressive for a Jedi Master, then you sort of have to give a master something even more impressive... and if you ever give the young Jedi that ability, you'd have to give a master something even more overpowered. It's a slippery slope that might be justified only if you care nothing about consistency. Luke was able to lift only one football-sized rock at a time after his initial training, yet Rey was able to lift hundreds of much larger boulders after hers. That inconsistency is not excused by simply giving Luke an even stronger superpower.

Besides the consistency issue, I personally don't like the idea of Jedi being made stronger and more "space wizard"-like. In the beginning, they were more akin to Samurai--highly skilled swordsmen with a moral code--but with just enough magical ability to be formidable and intimidating in a world filled with blasters, ships and weapons of mass destruction. Now, they're more like Gandalf and Harry Potter in space. Luke's dying stand even seems like a rip off of Gandalf's "You shall not pass" moment, sacrificing himself so that his friends could escape. I, personally, don't want Jedi to be such space wizards who make using the Force look easy... and I think that The Mandalorian proves that you don't need that for it to be Star Wars.

Seriously?

 

[Osprey]

Seriously?

Yes, I see several similarities. You don't?

 

[RandV]

Finished watching Visions/Anime Star Wars. Since the discussion has gone back to the trilogies, I just thought I'd point out that with a sample size of 9 different Star Wars takes from an outside party I don't think there's a single ounce of influence from the ST to be found here. Would be tricky writing up a scoreboard because it can be pretty vague but I see some OT, Mandalorian (small village side quests thing), and the most influential seems to be the PT. But for what it's worth not a drop from the ST.

 

[Jussi]

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/book-of-boba-fett-premiere-date-disney-plus-1235076965/

Carano ain't coming back, Rangers Of The New York Republic is still in plans:

The streamer also has a limited series centered on Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) in the works along with two other Mandalorian spinoffs, Ahsoka and Rangers of the New Republic.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yes, I see several similarities. You don't?

Seeing similarities between different scenes is a far cry from calling it a “rip off “ of a scene. Tropes are very common in storytelling, and the “hero sacrifices themselves to save their friends” trope isn’t limited to Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

 

[Osprey]

Seeing similarities between different scenes is a far cry from calling it a “rip off “ of a scene. Tropes are very common in storytelling, and the “hero sacrifices themselves to save their friends” trope isn’t limited to Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

"Old master wizard stands between the enemy boss and his vulnerable friends to buy time for the latter to escape, sacrificing himself in the process" seems pretty specific to LotR. If it's not, then I would suspect that whatever else used it also got it from LotR. Of course, using a trope or being inspired by another movie/novel isn't necessarily a bad thing, but such strong similarities to a major scene in what's been called the greatest literary work of the 20th century and the greatest film trilogy of the 21st just seems lazy and uninspired to me.

I don't have a high opinion of Johnson's writing ability to begin with. Consider, for instance, that three of the most dramatic moments in his entry make use of that general "hero makes sacrifice to save his/her friends" trope: Holdo crashing the ship, Finn attempting to take out the cannon and, finally, Luke's stand. He doesn't seem to be the most creative writer, so, when the final example shows several more similarities to a major scene in perhaps the one trilogy as influential as Star Wars, I have trouble buying it as a coincidence or excusing it as common.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

"what's been called the greatest literary work of the 20th century and the greatest film trilogy of the 21st

Ahahahahah! The length you'd go to in order to be right! Amazing stuff, highly quotable.

As for the link you make between the two films, that's what I used to call (in a past life) an interference - a link that belongs to the reader and not to the text. The fact that you identify yourself two other "hero sacrifices" in the same film kind of waters down the strong link you try to make in the first place.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

"Old master wizard stands between the enemy boss and his vulnerable friends to buy time for the latter to escape, sacrificing himself in the process" seems pretty specific to LotR. If it's not, then I would suspect that whatever else used it also got it from LotR. Of course, using a trope or being inspired by another movie/novel isn't necessarily a bad thing, but such strong similarities to a major scene in what's been called the greatest literary work of the 20th century and the greatest film trilogy of the 21st just seems lazy and uninspired to me.

I don't have a high opinion of Johnson's writing ability to begin with. Consider, for instance, that three of the most dramatic moments in his entry make use of that general "hero makes sacrifice to save his/her friends" trope: Holdo crashing the ship, Finn attempting to take out the cannon and, finally, Luke's stand. He doesn't seem to be the most creative writer, so, when the final example shows several more similarities to a major scene in perhaps the one trilogy as influential as Star Wars, I have trouble buying it as a coincidence or excusing it as common.

You are essentially describing tropes and motifs and arguing that their existence in TLJ is a bad thing.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Ahahahahah! The length you'd go to in order to be right! Amazing stuff, highly quotable.

As for the link you make between the two films, that's what I used to call (in a past life) an interference - a link that belongs to the reader and not to the text. The fact that you identify yourself two other "hero sacrifices" in the same film kind of waters down the strong link you try to make in the first place.

The word I believe you are looking for is “inference”. Not sure if a typo or preseason hockey is on the mind.

 

[Osprey]

Ahahahahah! The length you'd go to in order to be right! Amazing stuff, highly quotable.

I meant literary fiction. My mistake, but couldn't you have guessed that or are you just unaware of the fact that it's often been called that?

As for the link you make between the two films, that's what I used to call (in a past life) an interference - a link that belongs to the reader and not to the text. The fact that you identify yourself two other "hero sacrifices" in the same film kind of waters down the strong link you try to make in the first place.

I think that you mean "inference," which is a conclusion that may be right or wrong and is common in critique, including your own film reviews. In fact, this is an example of intertextuality, a term that you're fond of.

 

[Osprey]

You are essentially describing tropes and motifs and arguing that their existence in TLJ is a bad thing.

No, I was arguing that using the same trope three times is a bad thing. I said that using a trope (once) isn't necessarily bad.

 

[Garo]

I think it's interesting than when you see Luke's sacrifice, the main parallel you think of is Gandalf and not Obi-Wan. Luke's arc in TLJ is purposefully mirroring that one

 

[ArGarBarGar]

No, I was arguing that using the same trope three times is a bad thing. I said that using a trope (once) isn't necessarily bad.

I also brought up motifs. Recurring elements in a story is a common thing, and the concept of sacrifice isn’t even limited to the three examples you brought up. Not to mention you argued that because it was used multiple times means it is more likely he ripped off a specific scene from a specific movie, which I find to be a huge leap in logic.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The word I believe you are looking for is “inference”. Not sure if a typo or preseason hockey is on the mind.

I think that you mean "inference," which is a conclusion that may be right or wrong and is common in critique, including your own film reviews. In fact, this is an example of intertextuality, a term that you're fond of.

I did not mean inference, and inference is not intertextuality. What I meant is interference - a theoretical concept proposed by Michel Serres, applied to intertextuality, in which the reader perceives and applies a non-concrete link between two texts. I love the association of this process to inferring though, since the reader in most cases is not aware of the interference and reads it as concrete relation (as Osprey did with the two films).

 

[Osprey]

I think it's interesting than when you see Luke's sacrifice, the main parallel you think of is Gandalf and not Obi-Wan. Luke's arc in TLJ is purposefully mirroring that one

I agree that Johnson was inspired by that, but there are differences. Obi-Wan stumbled upon Vader in the corridor, which happened to be adjacent to the docking bay, and started dueling with him before Luke and company even entered the bay. He wasn't stalling so that his friends could escape. In fact, when he saw Luke, he stopped fighting and allowed Vader to kill him, which then turned all of the Imperial attention to Luke and company, almost ruining their escape. Also, luring five Stormtroopers away from the Falcon wasn't really life or death stakes or the climax of the movie. I'm sure that Johnson was inspired by Obi-Wan's sacrifice, but the scene plays out in circumstance and importance more like Gandalf's, IMO.

 

[Osprey]

I also brought up motifs. Recurring elements in a story is a common thing, and the concept of sacrifice isn’t even limited to the three examples you brought up. Not to mention you argued that because it was used multiple times means it is more likely he ripped off a specific scene from a specific movie, which I find to be a huge leap in logic.

Sacrifice is the motif, while "hero sacrifices himself to save his friends in a blaze of glory" is the trope. The fact that it demonstrates the motif doesn't excuse using it three times, though, IMO. Motifs are best when they're represented in various forms and degrees. For example, imagine a story in which a character spends his free day helping out at a shelter, passes on a job to stay near his girlfriend and throws himself in front of a car to save a child. Each involves a recurring element, sacrifice, but it's excusable and even praiseworthy because each adds to the understanding of that element by showing a different form of it. On the other hand, having the most dramatic and costly example of sacrifice occur multiple times doesn't add any understanding. It's just repeating it, and, to briefly address your second point, when the writing is lazy like that and one scene seems awfully similar to a famous one in another movie, I'm less inclined to give that writer the benefit of the doubt.