Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JustALittleOrkish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Yeah, I was thinking that maybe Vader would have been the one doing the kneeling, but the hood is making me very doubtful.

Wishful thinking, but maybe it's everyone's favorite Hand of the Emperor?

Yep, it is def Mara, or Jyn as she will now be called

I'd be extremely annoyed if Jyn ended up being force sensitive. This is their chance to do a film without force users.

Agreed. This would be the first film in the series not explicitly about the heroes of the universe, but about the mooks and I very much want to see that

I would be okay if Mara would be a separate person and not one of the "good" guys. Regular guys against a Sith Lord may be a bit much, but you still want Vader to make an appearance because he's Vader. But giving them someone like Mara, a force sensitive non-Jedi/Sith as the real enemy they could actually face during the majority of the movie would be more plausible.

The whole point of the backstory up to episode four was that Obi-wan and Yoda were the last remaining Jedi and they were in hiding. Vader had hunted down and killed all the rest. I really don't want to see that retconned.

I also don't care much about Han Solo's origin story. We don't need a detailed biography about each and every person in A New Hope. A New Hope began Han's path to redemption. How entertaining would a movie about his slide into ruin be? I feel that it would wind up diminishing the character or retconning the backstory somehow. Neither would be good.

I also hope they never give Abrams another movie. He makes them fun but he also seems to have no concept of how things actually work in someone else's sci-fi property.

I'd be very grateful if everything Timothy Zahn ever came up with was completely washed away forever.

TBH even then he WAS building off everything that the old RPG had built, too.

(The writer's bible the EU writers used WAS the same one that the RPG writers used).

Maybe so - but it doesn't really feel like it ... except maybe the cloning thing? I am more talking about gimmicky plot devices like force-negating ysalamiri and wish-fulfillment characters like Thrawn and Mara Jade ... this stuff put the EU on the wrong path. I think the Yuuzhan Vong are the in-universe manifestation of the build up of crappy writing that gradually deteriorated the wonder and beauty of the Star Wars franchise, invading the IP with the intent to destroy. Thus one of the worst elements of the EU is itself the symbol of how bad the EU had gotten. But it started with Zahn's tripe. Even as a kid, excitedly reading Heir to the Empire when it first came out, I could tell how off it was. I am not surprised that a trend that began with ysalamiri ended with Yuuzhan Vong.

By contrast, the Rogue One trailer looks like the genuine article.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You mean the event where Darth Vader put a tracking beacon on their ship (so they were meant to make it)? Which leigh had a huge hand in? (because unlike the latest batch of female heroines she was pretty tame).

"It was planned all along" is a fan theory that only works if you assume every single Stormtrooper was in on the plot, and was willing to enter firefights planning to deliberately miss and get shot and killed just to make it all happen. Which is beyond stupid, of course.

Instead we assume have to assume that the tracking beacon was a last minute improvisation, and before then the bad guys were losing all those fights just because they really sucked. Which is still quite silly of course, but perfectly in keeping with the pulp source material.

Which gets us back to my point, that you missed the first time around - there is no interest in Star Wars putting up plausible action heroes in plausible action scenes. That's not how pulp works. Accepting that a bunch of guys can walk around an enemy space station having the odd fight with a bunch of enemy guards who are routinely dispatched is just an accepted part of the genre. Seeing no problem with that silly fantasy, but then calling for realism when one of the characters involved is a woman is very strange, though.

If luke beat some storm troopers to death with a mace and had the physique of an 8 year old boy then yea I probably wouldnt have watched starwars.

You seem to be caught up entirely in the physicality of the heroes in question. Which is odd considering Star Wars has never had particularly physical leads, and even stranger because the events of the movies don't make more sense if the lead characters are a bit bigger and more muscular.

Anyway as I said, I don't particularly care, but I find it baffling why people are so shocked when the casting choices are criticized.

No-one is shocked when anything is Star Wars is criticised. Since 1979 just about the entire nerd population of Earth has been spending it's time either heaping praise on Star Wars or complaining about it. Believe, it's all been done before.

You're confusing 'shock' with a list showing how your argument is mistaken, or lacking context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
" I am your father..."

Nobody seen that coming, and anybody that tells you otherwise is a damn liar!

I knew about it before I ever saw the first movie. One of the sad bits about being surrounded by nerd friends is that you just take no board all this knowledge before you see anything. I knew about the Red Wedding, Tony Stark telling everyone he was Iron Man, pretty much all the good twists in nerd stuff before I got to see it.

Anyhow, you make a fair point. Add in Luke and Leia as brother and sister, and a couple of others and you get some unexpected moments in the movies. That was across 6 hours of movies, so I think my point remains that these movies are about watching it play out, not discovering what’s about to happen.

I really got no sense of Mara Jade at all from Jyn in the teaser. Nor indeed, any feeling that she could be Force Sensitive.

Maybe Ninja Dude's Force Sensitive, that wouldn't surprise me too much but if he was, then he'd be so in the sort of "partly trained Padawan" way.

I don't think it will be Vader kneeling, mostly because the idea of Vader in a hood just seems really daft to me. I'm more imagining it will be a first on-screen portrayal of an "Rebels" style Inquisitor.

I imagine they'll spend most of the film running away from him.

In any case, yeah, still going with my idea for the film in that 'spoiler' tag I made earlier.

 Swastakowey wrote:

"Improved fighting ability". Life is not a video game mate. If she was truly "trained" she would not look the way she does.

This should be the minimum standard of any action hero female at least barring aliens maybe.



Even people who fight by hoping their opponent doesn't balance well (like in some martial arts etc) still need to maintain their physical strength. You can't really excuse this stuff without a lot of hand waving like being a jedi or super being etc.

That's silly as "a minimum". I can find any number of photos of Ronda Rousey, Gina Carano, Miesha Tate, et al where they look just as "girly" as Felicity Jones. For that matter, why don't people bitch this way when this guy at this age is presented as an upstoppable action hero:




And while I enjoyed the JK series, I'm glad that they're using the inspiration of those characters at most - using their actual names will come with too much baggage of the "if Kyle Katarn is in it, then XYX needs to be part of the continuity as well." That way lies only madness. And IG-88's consciousness uploaded to the Death Star's CPU moments before it gets exploded.

I give it the benefit of the doubt and watch it in theaters, but GOD was that "I rebel" line cringy. But, in all seriousness is it just me or is anyone really getting tired of the Death Star/Starkiller Base routine with almost every movie.

Well - again - the Death Star motif was undoubtedly tired in Force Awakens (and RotJ IMO) where it was evoked to little effect BUT this movie gets a pass because it's not about "yet another" Death Star - it's about THE Death Star.

I also liked the "I rebel" line because it concisely illustrates an interesting theme: the leaders of the Alliance may be 'establishment' figures but in order to fight their war against the Empire, they will need the help of shady characters.

 Manchu wrote:
Well - again - the Death Star motif was undoubtedly tired in Force Awakens (and RotJ IMO) where it was evoked to little effect BUT this movie gets a pass because it's not about "yet another" Death Star - it's about THE Death Star.

I also liked the "I rebel" line because it concisely illustrates an interesting theme: the leaders of the Alliance may be 'establishment' figures but in order to fight their war against the Empire, they will need the help of shady characters.

Good point about the establishment.

Years ago, I read a Michael Moorcock article about why he didn't like Star Wars, and one of the reasons cited was that he didn't feel there was that much difference between the 'good' authority of the rebels, and the 'bad' authority of the Empire, that and the depressing spectacle of a true rebel (Han Solo) accepting a medal at the end of a New Hope.

 Azazelx wrote:
That's silly as "a minimum". I can find any number of photos of Ronda Rousey, Gina Carano, Miesha Tate, et al where they look just as "girly" as Felicity Jones.

You just named three women who would get their faces caved in fighting men of comparable physique and training.

For that matter, why don't people bitch this way when this guy at this age is presented as an upstoppable action hero:

Because of Die Hard, of course. Each movie became successively less convincing, but the first is a masterpiece, and ol' John gets a pass for as long as he wants with that.

A sixty year-old in-shape man is a bit of a different kettle of fish than a 5'4" 115 pound waif when it comes to who's gonna beat up the average male, though, anyway,

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
the depressing spectacle of a true rebel (Han Solo) accepting a medal at the end of a New Hope

Quite an interesting insight!

Look at it this way - the movement at its core is very conservative: we're talking about the Alliance to Restore the Republic. This is about a commitment to how things used to be done "before the dark times." From the Empire's perspective, these people are just criminals. So at what point did they become rebels instead? Given the script of ANH, it was before the Battle of Yavin. Also, at what point do they start calling themselves rebels? Is Mon Mothma comfortable with that label? Maybe this is something the younger generation, people who were born under the shadow of the Empire, can relate to - for them, the Republic is not even a memory, after all. I am thinking that this would be the "Princess Leia" generation. These young rebels care less about restoring the Republic (which everyone can admit is a flawed system) than they do about tearing down the Empire. They are probably more radical than conservative figures like Mon Mothma would prefer.

It's a passionate but short-sighted perspective - look what happens to Leia: she cannot accept Mon Mothma's demilitarization and strikes off to form a paramilitary vigilante/terrorist organization whose very existence undermines the authority of the Republic. The Resistance exists to continue the revolutionary struggle against the Empire, which the New Order claims to embody - but which of course actually already exists somewhere else, in the Core and at peace with the Republic. The fight we see in Force Awakens is partly a consequence of the the tensions within the Rebellion itself, from its outset, the tension between the dispossessed Senators who believe in democracy and the newly empowered rebels who oppose authority.

The New Order is the result of a similar tension in the nature of the Empire - the Empire that made peace with the New Republic is the vestige of the Clone Wars-era Old Republic, a militarized and authoritarian government but an actual government all the same. This was always fundamentally at odds with the Sith-cult aspect of the Empire at its core, the way the Emperor seemed to envision the galaxy and everything in it as nothing more than a resource in his mad quest for immortality. This is the nutso aspect of the Empire, the part that doesn't care about governing systems so much as building crazy weapons to extort them. It's actually the Resistance itself that lends the New Order what little political legitimacy it has (by undermining the Republic).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Well - again - the Death Star motif was undoubtedly tired in Force Awakens (and RotJ IMO) where it was evoked to little effect BUT this movie gets a pass because it's not about "yet another" Death Star - it's about THE Death Star.

I also liked the "I rebel" line because it concisely illustrates an interesting theme: the leaders of the Alliance may be 'establishment' figures but in order to fight their war against the Empire, they will need the help of shady characters.

Good point about the establishment.

Years ago, I read a Michael Moorcock article about why he didn't like Star Wars, and one of the reasons cited was that he didn't feel there was that much difference between the 'good' authority of the rebels, and the 'bad' authority of the Empire, that and the depressing spectacle of a true rebel (Han Solo) accepting a medal at the end of a New Hope.

I don't really see Han as a "true rebel" at all. He is more like a scoundrel. A rebel usually has a cause or a fight they are trying to win. Han is looking out for his and his own, that is about it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Well - again - the Death Star motif was undoubtedly tired in Force Awakens (and RotJ IMO) where it was evoked to little effect BUT this movie gets a pass because it's not about "yet another" Death Star - it's about THE Death Star.

I also liked the "I rebel" line because it concisely illustrates an interesting theme: the leaders of the Alliance may be 'establishment' figures but in order to fight their war against the Empire, they will need the help of shady characters.

Good point about the establishment.

Years ago, I read a Michael Moorcock article about why he didn't like Star Wars, and one of the reasons cited was that he didn't feel there was that much difference between the 'good' authority of the rebels, and the 'bad' authority of the Empire, that and the depressing spectacle of a true rebel (Han Solo) accepting a medal at the end of a New Hope.

I don't really see Han as a "true rebel" at all. He is more like a scoundrel. A rebel usually has a cause or a fight they are trying to win. Han is looking out for his and his own, that is about it.

Also, that medal is made of gold. Han isn't going to turn down a lump of free gold

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Well - again - the Death Star motif was undoubtedly tired in Force Awakens (and RotJ IMO) where it was evoked to little effect BUT this movie gets a pass because it's not about "yet another" Death Star - it's about THE Death Star.

I also liked the "I rebel" line because it concisely illustrates an interesting theme: the leaders of the Alliance may be 'establishment' figures but in order to fight their war against the Empire, they will need the help of shady characters.

Good point about the establishment.

Years ago, I read a Michael Moorcock article about why he didn't like Star Wars, and one of the reasons cited was that he didn't feel there was that much difference between the 'good' authority of the rebels, and the 'bad' authority of the Empire, that and the depressing spectacle of a true rebel (Han Solo) accepting a medal at the end of a New Hope.

I don't really see Han as a "true rebel" at all. He is more like a scoundrel. A rebel usually has a cause or a fight they are trying to win. Han is looking out for his and his own, that is about it.

I'm addressing this point to Manchu as well.

When I say rebel, I don't mean that Solo is part of the rebel alliance, rather it's the literal meaning of the word.

Solo is a smuggler, a criminal, a man living on the edge. What does he care for authority?

Moorcock compares Solo to Robin Hood. Both are supposed to be at odds with authority, and yet, both end up submitting to authority. Solo takes the medal, and Robin Hood (at the end of the film) ends up kneeling down before the king.

If Solo had been a 'true' rebel. he would have grabbed the medal, kidnapped Princess Leia, punched Skywalker for being an annoying git, and then escaped on the Falcon before anybody could say it's a trap!

I agree with the idea that Han Solo is a 'real rebel' compared to his compatriots in ANH. Leia is for better or worse just another politician on this or that side of the aisle. The preqs show us (well, really they just clarify for us) that the same is true of Obi-Wan. And Luke is totally swept up in the political ambitions of those two. By contrast, Solo is not a creature of any political system and even disavows the law generally. He's not 'rebelling' against anything in terms of suburbanite "principles" - he's a guy on the (space) street trying to survive. The narrative of the movie is, he catches a glimpse at something that is more important than surviving - something for which, he intuits, he might even give his life. Typically iconoclastic, Moorcock - who had himself been a kid on the (Parisian) streets trying to make it as a writer - obviously did not buy into this program. When you think about Force Awakens, it seems like Han Solo himself also did not ultimately buy into it.

- - - - -

Moorcock, or your summary of his position at least, is just wrong about Robin Hood, who stands up for "true" authority, not against authority generally. Note that Han Solo (whatever would later be written about him in gak-tastic EU material) was not a dispossessed noble but a marginalized guy on the lamb. (He wasn't a "hipster" looking to "fight the system.") Robin Hood is a lot more like Leia, to be honest.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree with the idea that Han Solo is a 'real rebel' compared to his compatriots in ANH. Leia is for better or worse just another politician on this or that side of the aisle. The preqs show us (well, really they just clarify for us) that the same is true of Obi-Wan. And Luke is totally swept up in the political ambitions of those two. By contrast, Solo is not a creature of any political system and even disavows the law generally. He's not 'rebelling' against anything in terms of suburbanite "principals" - he's a guy on the (space) street trying to survive. The narrative of the movie is, he catches a glimpse at something that is more important than surviving - something for which, he intuits, he might even give his life. Typically iconoclastic, Moorcock - who had himself been a kid on the (Parisian) streets trying to make it as a writer - obviously did not buy into this program. When you think about Force Awakens, it seems like Han Solo himself also did not ultimately buy into it.

- - - - -

Moorcock, or your summary of his position at least, is just wrong about Robin Hood, who stands up for "true" authority, not against authority generally. Note that Han Solo (whatever would later be written about him in gak-tastic EU material) was not a dispossessed noble but a marginalized guy on the lamb. (He wasn't a "hipster" looking to "fight the system.") Robin Hood is a lot more like Leia, to be honest.

Good points. It's one of the many things about Star Wars that gets my goat sometimes. I'd be lying if I said I hadn't enjoyed the Star Wars films and games over the years, but I don't love Star Wars the same way that some people do, becuase Star wars contains fundamental flaws.

Yes, people are right when they say it's only a film, it's only harmless entertainment, but when you're dealing with something that has a massive impact on Western culture, you need to engage some critical thinking.

and to my mind, these are the flaws that inhibit Star Wars:

1) Balance to the force. What they really mean is the light side has to win. If there was balance, Jedi and Sith would be drawing from light and dark as they saw fit, with grey force users in the middle to balance things up. But by focusing on one side, and equating the light side with the forces of 'good' they add morality to a power that is essentially devoid of morals.

The Jedi order themselves are a problem. They're supposed to be 'good' but they also represent law and order, and we all know that authority is not always a good thing.

Similary, why does every Sith have to be evil? You could have an anarchist Sith that uses his power to rob the rich and give to the poor.

Anybody who knows Moorcock's novels with their themes of Law, Chaos, order etc etc or D & D will kn ow what I'm talking about. I hope!


2) Corrupted Romanticism.

When I say Romanticism, I don't mean romantic novels! Rather, it's something we're all familar with: rebels, or outlaws, or guerillas fighting injustice or hopeless odds to win their freedom. Think Michael Eddington in Star trek when he joins the marquis, becuase he's a romantic, and he likes the drama of the good fight against hopeless odds.

Star Wars fails in this regard. Yes, they fight the authority of the Empire, but only to replace it with their own authority.

Returning to Solo, they best thing they could have done was have him save the day, then watch as he disappers into deep space, never to be seen again, whispers and rumours of his name emerging from time to time, whenever a bank raid went down or a heist or something.

Then would have been proper romanticism. Instead, he was neutered!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What they really mean is the light side has to win.

Let me just put Lucas's gloss aside here, because really who cares - maybe nobody in the movies actually knows what "bring balance to the Force" actually means. I think this is probably a major theme of the current trilogy with "The Force Awakens" title itself being a major clue.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yes, they fight the authority of the Empire, but only to replace it with their own authority.

But authority is not evil in itself. Authority is not really bad or good at all. It is either legitimate or not. In Star Wars, legitimate authority comes from consensus. Illegitimate authority comes from violence. This is why the Death Star is the ultimate symbol of tyranny.

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What they really mean is the light side has to win.

Let me just put Lucas's gloss aside here, because really who cares - maybe nobody in the movies actually knows what "bring balance to the Force" actually means. I think this is probably a major theme of the current trilogy with "The Force Awakens" title itself being a major clue.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yes, they fight the authority of the Empire, but only to replace it with their own authority.

But authority is not evil in itself. Authority is not really bad or good at all. It is either legitimate or not. In Star Wars, legitimate authority comes from consensus. Illegitimate authority comes from violence. This is why the Death Star is the ultimate symbol of tyranny.

Two quick points before I call it a night:

1) Are you seriously suggesting that George Lucas didn't know what he was doing most of the time?

2) I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Palpatine got voted in at the end of Revenge of the Sith, and therefore, his authority is legit.

Palpatine committed galactic-wide election fraud. He then disbanded the Senate in favor of a weapon whose very conception constitutes a crime against humanity. Not sure how his reign can be considered legitimate by any sane person.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If Solo had been a 'true' rebel. he would have grabbed the medal, kidnapped Princess Leia, punched Skywalker for being an annoying git, and then escaped on the Falcon before anybody could say it's a trap!

That just sounds like a one-dimensional lunatic.
His arc was that he had obviously bought in to something. I think we get to decide wether that was the Rebellion, or individual relationships.
TFA obviously shows us that he had ultimately done just what you describe, disappear into space. We don't really know if that's from his own failures or that what he had bought in to turned out to not be what he thought it was.
I'm not sure how 'always acting the same regardless of stimulus or circumstances' would make him a better character or create a better story.

If we're looking for personal flaws that destroyed up Han and Leia's marriage, we don't need to place the blame entirely on him. After all, Leia is the one who cannot let go of her past as a guerrilla leader.

 plastictrees wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If Solo had been a 'true' rebel. he would have grabbed the medal, kidnapped Princess Leia, punched Skywalker for being an annoying git, and then escaped on the Falcon before anybody could say it's a trap!

That just sounds like a one-dimensional lunatic.

Sounds like a D&D Chaotic Neutral character...

 Swastakowey wrote:
I wonder why Luke doesn't wear shoe laces?

“Do or do knot. There is no tie.”
Yoda.

 Manchu wrote:
Palpatine committed galactic-wide election fraud. He then disbanded the Senate in favor of a weapon whose very conception constitutes a crime against humanity. Not sure how his reign can be considered legitimate by any sane person.

What election fraud? Everyone voted for him and cheered his reign. He's their President Lincoln, he takes office and the galaxy splits, so what can any leader do but go to war to preserve their republics.

LOL - he engineered the war! And commanded both sides. And one of the main themes of the prequels is corruption in the Senate.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Palpatine committed galactic-wide election fraud. He then disbanded the Senate in favor of a weapon whose very conception constitutes a crime against humanity. Not sure how his reign can be considered legitimate by any sane person.

What election fraud? Everyone voted for him and cheered his reign. He's their President Lincoln, he takes office and the galaxy splits, so what can any leader do but go to war to preserve their republics.

Convinces person to enact a vote of no confidence, gets voted in, convinces another person to grant him emergency powers, immediately removes all democracy.

Not the most legitimate of reigns, lets be honest