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.

Why? Because he's Yoda, one of the series' most iconic characters. He was 900 years old and saw all kinds of stuff. A young less wise Yoda has endless opportunities for adventure.

He is iconic because of his age and his wisdom. Look at what the prequels did for anakin. You want that done to yoda?

You dont need all the details of every characters life. And in fact getting them could make things worse. Look at young indiana jone adventures. Did that really make indiana jones better? Nope. Luke had 20 years on a planet full of scum and villany and tusken raiders. Surely even owen and maru got up to some gak in their younger days. Wanna see those stories? I enjoyed solo and rogue one. But both movies were basically pointless with endings we already knew because we already saw what happened after.

Again, stop going back. Whats next. Thats the only bit that could possibly be really worth telling.

 Lance845 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Stop going backwards. All the most interesting bits are what happens next.

Or go way backwards.

I'd watch Young Yoda, or even a stories about the Republic at the height of it's prosperity 500 or so years BBY.

Why? We already saw yoda jumping about. It was ridiculous. Surely yoda rising up through the ranks, being a teacher, being a diplomat, sitting around and meditating during long years of relative peace,... That CANT be the most interesting bits. Especially when we already know how his story ends.

And yet Titanic was one of the biggest movies in recent history, despite everyone knowing how THAT story ended. Not to mention SW Episodes 1-3, and we all knew where that story ended.

You just have to accept that just because you have no interest in seeing what a young Yoda, or a young Lando, or a young Han Solo did doesn't mean that nobody wants to see it.

 Lance845 wrote:
He is iconic because of his age and his wisdom. Look at what the prequels did for anakin. You want that done to yoda?

No, but it's a little silly to pretend that everyone is as incompetent a story teller as Lucas and would fail just as badly.

You dont need all the details of every characters life.

I didn't ask for them. There thousands of years in the history of the Star Wars universe even after the Disney wipe. There's gonna be neat stuff to explore back there.

Again, stop going back.

Going back sometimes is fun. Lighten up a little.

Thats the only bit that could possibly be really worth telling.

Maybe some of us just have interest in seeing things that don't interest you? It's not a zero sum game. There's room in the franchise for a lot of stuff.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
He is iconic because of his age and his wisdom. Look at what the prequels did for anakin. You want that done to yoda?

No, but it's a little silly to pretend that everyone is as incompetent a story teller as Lucas and would fail just as badly.

To be fair, after what Disney did to finish the Luke/Leia/Han story one has to wonder if they're the right people to do much of anything in the SWU.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Stop going backwards. All the most interesting bits are what happens next.

Or go way backwards.

I'd watch Young Yoda, or even a stories about the Republic at the height of it's prosperity 500 or so years BBY.

Why? We already saw yoda jumping about. It was ridiculous. Surely yoda rising up through the ranks, being a teacher, being a diplomat, sitting around and meditating during long years of relative peace,... That CANT be the most interesting bits. Especially when we already know how his story ends.

And yet Titanic was one of the biggest movies in recent history, despite everyone knowing how THAT story ended. Not to mention SW Episodes 1-3, and we all knew where that story ended.

We are not talking about seeing the very interesting story of the titanic. We are talking about seeing a titanic prequel about what the boat captain did in his 20s. SW 1-3 did SW no favors. I remember many people talking about how they ruined darth vader.

You just have to accept that just because you have no interest in seeing what a young Yoda, or a young Lando, or a young Han Solo did doesn't mean that nobody wants to see it.

I accept that other people have opinions different from my own.

 Vulcan wrote:
To be fair, after what Disney did to finish the Luke/Leia/Han story one has to wonder if they're the right people to do much of anything in the SWU.

I honestly don't mind the fates of Luke/Leia/Han. I think Han's was oddly fitting in a way, completely the journey of his character begun in ANH. Luke... I think Luke was a good idea handled poorly. A disheartened man who never managed to achieve the "tomorrow" he hoped for, especially as the hero of the previous trilogy is powerful storytelling, but TLJ I think had too many hurdles in it's way to make great use of it. Leia well... Carrie left us before she got to finish the role imo. I'd rather they simply retired here and just moved on myself.

Really the issue with the new films I think is that they

1) lack a cohesive direction tonally. TFA is a straightforward adventure flick. Classic Star Wars more or less, but then TLJ tried to be clever. I think regardless of whether you liked it or not we have plenty of indication that TLJ damaged the Star Wars brand a little bit and for me I pin the blame on the kind of movie it tried to be. The mainline trilogy is not the place to create a genre deconstruction, especially not one with no follow through and a plot littered with so many odd bits. Part of this is that the way the MCU is made was employed imo, but is the wrong method for creating a good trilogy that flows together. They needed one creative hand directing that project, not bring in Abrams to make one movie, then bring in a completely different kind of director to make another.

2) the setting of the new trilogy is... bland. Really really bland. The First Order and the Resistance and the fight between them lacks the same compelling flair of the Rebellion and the Empire and I'm just not really sure what's missing. It's not as good, and the universe they inhabit feels rather empty.

I'm not some whiner who's going to say Star Wars will never be good again, but I think Disney definitely needs to get a handle on the product and build it in a more concise manner if they want it to function like the MCU and churn out hit after hit. Right now their efforts seem to be suffering whip lash as the audience itself debates how much faith it has.

It goes in part with how nothing anyone did was ever going to be able to live up to fan expectations. It just wasn't a realistic goal.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Stop going backwards. All the most interesting bits are what happens next.

Or go way backwards.

I'd watch Young Yoda, or even a stories about the Republic at the height of it's prosperity 500 or so years BBY.

Why? We already saw yoda jumping about. It was ridiculous. Surely yoda rising up through the ranks, being a teacher, being a diplomat, sitting around and meditating during long years of relative peace,... That CANT be the most interesting bits. Especially when we already know how his story ends.

And yet Titanic was one of the biggest movies in recent history, despite everyone knowing how THAT story ended. Not to mention SW Episodes 1-3, and we all knew where that story ended.

We are not talking about seeing the very interesting story of the titanic. We are talking about seeing a titanic prequel about what the boat captain did in his 20s. SW 1-3 did SW no favors. I remember many people talking about how they ruined darth vader.

You just have to accept that just because you have no interest in seeing what a young Yoda, or a young Lando, or a young Han Solo did doesn't mean that nobody wants to see it.

I accept that other people have opinions different from my own.

And yet here you are saying that such things that you are not interested in should not be done... even if others are interested. In short, you're telling us that what we might like to see is wrong.

 Lance845 wrote:

We are not talking about seeing the very interesting story of the titanic. We are talking about seeing a titanic prequel about what the boat captain did in his 20s.

And...?

If the boat captain did noteworthy stuff in his 20's, that would potentially be a good movie. The fact that we know he eventually dies doesn't really change that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
. Look at what the prequels did for anakin. You want that done to yoda?

What the prequels did to Anakin wasn't an unavoidable side-effect of being prequels, just a side-effect of Lucas doing what he wanted rather than letting better storytellers do the job.


Hell, Anakin's story arc isn't even really that bad, other than the unnecessary silliness of the immaculate conception and Padme dying just because reasons... it's just eclipsed by terrible acting and worse direction. A better director would have done a better job of showing Anakin as a likeable character who slowly turns dark instead of as a whiny git who likes girls more than sand.

Look at young indiana jone adventures. Did that really make indiana jones better?

That's the wrong question.

The real question is 'Was it entertaining for its target audience?'

Luke had 20 years on a planet full of scum and villany and tusken raiders. Surely even owen and maru got up to some gak in their younger days. Wanna see those stories?

Is that a trick question? Yes, of course I want to see those stories.

I enjoyed solo and rogue one. But both movies were basically pointless with endings we already knew because we already saw what happened after.

So is it equally pointless to watch a movie more than once?

The point of a story isn't to find out how it ends. If that's all you want, why watch the movie in the first place? Just wait until it's released and google the ending. The point of a story is the part in between the beginning and the end.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Stop going backwards. All the most interesting bits are what happens next.

Or go way backwards.

I'd watch Young Yoda, or even a stories about the Republic at the height of it's prosperity 500 or so years BBY.

Why? We already saw yoda jumping about. It was ridiculous. Surely yoda rising up through the ranks, being a teacher, being a diplomat, sitting around and meditating during long years of relative peace,... That CANT be the most interesting bits. Especially when we already know how his story ends.

And yet Titanic was one of the biggest movies in recent history, despite everyone knowing how THAT story ended. Not to mention SW Episodes 1-3, and we all knew where that story ended.

We are not talking about seeing the very interesting story of the titanic. We are talking about seeing a titanic prequel about what the boat captain did in his 20s. SW 1-3 did SW no favors. I remember many people talking about how they ruined darth vader.

You just have to accept that just because you have no interest in seeing what a young Yoda, or a young Lando, or a young Han Solo did doesn't mean that nobody wants to see it.

I accept that other people have opinions different from my own.

And yet here you are saying that such things that you are not interested in should not be done... even if others are interested. In short, you're telling us that what we might like to see is wrong.

Hey Vulcan, it's called having a discussion. And while you sit here defending your and others rights to have opinions other than my own you seem to want to tell me I am not allowed to have my opinion. I never said the word "wrong". In fact, the first thing I said to Hats was "Why?". So why not back the feth off or contribute to the conversation without telling ME that I am wrong for having my own opinions? That seem fair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

So is it equally pointless to watch a movie more than once?

The point of a story isn't to find out how it ends. If that's all you want, why watch the movie in the first place? Just wait until it's released and google the ending. The point of a story is the part in between the beginning and the end.

Its not that we already know how it ends. It's that the story looses a lot of it's weight when we already know where the character ends up. Any physical danger they end up in is superfluous and looses it's excitement. Han could not possibly suffer any major injury at any point in Solo because we know Solo has all his bits in 4-7. Ship can't get hurt THAT bad. Why? Because we've seen it latter. Was it really exciting to see him win it from Lando in the end or was it more just checking boxes to reach the status quo we know exists?

Luke loosing his hand in 5 is big and exciting. That whole fight is exciting because there are stakes we don't know when we first see it. If we saw 7/8 first and his robot hand then 4-6 would just be waiting for him to loose it. Just like 1-3 was just everyone waiting for vader to roll in lava. By the time the fight in 3 happens we all know EXACTLY how it ends because we already knew vader. All the excitement of that battle is drained from it for exactly that reason.

So lets go watch a yoda movie. Lets see him get into light saber fights where we know not once will he be touched by a light saber blade because his body is fully in tact years later. It's great. Best story telling we could get. Rogue One is better then solo because it involves characters whos fates we don't know so their actions and the consequences of those actions are all unknowns that could go anywhere. We know only that the deathstar plans get recovered. But nothing about the fates of the cast.

It's an important distinction that changes a lot about the viewing of the movie and the tension of a scene.

 LordofHats wrote:

2) the setting of the new trilogy is... bland. Really really bland. The First Order and the Resistance and the fight between them lacks the same compelling flair of the Rebellion and the Empire and I'm just not really sure what's missing. It's not as good, and the universe they inhabit feels rather empty.

Stakes, and personal attachment.
The main characters suffer losses in the original trilogy (or even just the first movie), people they know, family, an entire world. Even the enemy leader makes it personal (torture) or is made personal- betrayal and murder (even if that turns out to be a 'Point of View' lie). The stakes are obvious, and rebels struggling against an evil Empire has easy and obvious parallels that a 20th century audience can twig to, and is acting in a way that's consistent with a fairly straightforward but identifiable goal (evil empire consolidates power- never said it was complex, which honestly was also part of the draw. Simple motivations are good for this type of story, which is where the prequels stumbled right out of the gate).
Han is pretty much explicitly taught that magic is friendship, and a cause, a moral purpose, is more important than money. [Somehow he unlearns all that in time for the new trilogy- no wonder he lost his home and place in the universe]

The characters in the new films... have no attachments. It isn't personal for them because they have no one, they just want to escape, to go away and be left alone. There is a government that should be fighting but isn't for unexplained reasons (which turn out to be completely daft in the secondary material), and the bad side is has infinite minions, infinite resources and multiple superweapons, yet somehow is only opposed by a few dozen people, most of whom are non-entities with no motivation at all (we aren't really introduced to them in any fashion). Then idiot director caps it off with some bizarre 'both sides are equally bad' exposition that makes no sense, because genocide != no genocide. Believing the 2nd film's moral narrative is valid requires insanity. And it's fairly tone deaf to an audience which is probably tired of horrible things and wants a heroic epic where good triumphs over evil. Something to aspire to after the banality of the work day and the horrors on display for the evening news ratings.

It goes in part with how nothing anyone did was ever going to be able to live up to fan expectations. It just wasn't a realistic goal.

I don't really agree with that. It just needed to be more than a paint by numbers copy or a absurdist deconstruction. They just needed to be a new star wars tale, with somewhat campy sci-fi action. People have been telling reasonable star wars stories in novels, comics, cartoons, RPGs and even fanfics for decades. That the new trilogy couldn't do that, or even match any of that body of work, was just sad.

-----

@Lance-
There are ways to damage a character that don't involve lopping off a limb. And many, many other ways to give the character stakes.
This is particularly true in a setting where taking a limb off is a trivial thing, 20 minutes later, Luke is in a bed with a brand new hand the functions and even reacts like his old one. It becomes symbolically important later, if briefly, but the hand itself is nothing with the medical tech available.

Lack of physical danger and major injury is a weird criteria. In 99% of Hollywood movies, every physical danger is entirely superfluous to the main characters of any story. If they get beat down, they'll get back up again, and only in rare occasions is it something permanent. Outlook and mental dangers are far more compelling.

The battle in three was dull because it was a half-hour of green screen nonsense with no weight to it. The details of the confrontation between Vader and Obi-wan should have mattered, but were passed over for jumping on 2-d platforms like a frikkin' Mario game. Bawl baby Anakin decides the Jedi are evil because they wouldn't give him the power he wanted. Boo-hoo. The characters were trivialized and the action was actively stupid (toxic and thermal shock would have dropped them a minute or two into the absurd extended sequence regardless of magic force fields). That's why it was a bad fight.

How they got there is far more important than how it ended. Unfortunately the prequels skipped those bits- Remember all those bits in #2 where they talked about saving each other and having adventures? Yeah. 2 should have been about that, not sitting on couches or riding in elevators.

There are a lot of things wrong with the prequels. I agree that a lot of the choreography and green screen work was total nonsense. But it was also a situation where we KNEW that not only was Obi going to get out unharmed and physically fine, but also ultimately mentally well rounded and doing fine.

Lukes hand getting fixed right after doesn't change the impact of the severed limb in the moment of the battle. When I watch Alien I know that Ash isn't going to shove that magazine down Ripley's throat and kill her because her crew shows up to save her. But the first time you see the movie before anyone shows up and even as the scuffle is going on shes in real danger there. Especially because it's a horror movie and it's not yet clear that shes actually the main character. But If we all watched Aliens first and then went back and watched Alien after we would all KNOW that Ripley could not possibly be killed in that moment. For that matter it would have sucked all the suspense from Kane and his face hugger/chest burster too. Shes gunna ultimately come out fine. It takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of those scenes if you go in with that knowledge

You can't look at the prequels and not admit that they ruin certain conceits of 4-6.

If you get a kid whos never seen SW and you watch them 1-6 in 5 when vader reveals that he is Lukes father the only person who doesn't know that is Luke. You, the audience, loose all the impact of that moment.

The same thing goes for the reveal that Yoda is Yoda on Dagoba. His whole goofy sham of testing Luke is ruined if you already know hes Yoda because you saw 1-3.

The same happens AGAIN with the reveal of Jaba being a giant horrible slug monster. You hear about him for 2 movies before he is finally revealed in 6.

But it's not just the conceits ruined in 4-6. 1-3 are devoid of these moments too. It's not a shocking reveal that Palpatine has been the Sith lord all along. We already KNEW that. As many misteps that the prequels have, they had to fight uphill (and ultimately failed) to have ANY of the big moments 4,5,6 had simply because everyone watching them already knew most of what those movies had to reveal. And what we didn't know just really didn't actually matter to the over all plot of the series.

Physical danger is only a single and most obvious example of what I was talking about. It's not like Han was going to suffer major psychological damage and end up a muttering wreck either. Yoda isn't going to go through anything that he doesn't ultimately come out of it being a super chill incredibly wise master of the force.


You can do prequels. You could even go so far back in SW history to tell an interesting story that can't possibly be related to any character that currently exists. Cool. That could be anything and the stakes could be anything. But exploring the history of people who we have already seen is a great big "Why?".

A good example I would say is the Fantastic Beasts movie. It's a all new character in a time predating all the other characters. Anything could happen and so it's all interesting. The closer they get to this Grindlewald and Dumbledore gak though the closer they get to a plot we already know before they have shown us anything. Dumbledore is going to ultimately be the guy who brings Grindlewald down and hes going to send him off to Azkaban. Because we already know that. It's in the other Harry Potter movies. Dumbledore isn't in any real danger and Grindlewald no matter what will sit in a cell with Dementors. Great.

You're still saying the exact same thing, just with more words. If you honestly can't see the appeal of having backstory fleshed out, that's fine, It doesn't mean those stories aren't worth making, just that they're not for you.

 Lance845 wrote:
Stop going backwards. All the most interesting bits are what happens next.

To you maybe, a fair few of us haven't seen anything yet to excite us about "what happens next", but still find plenty of joy in the eras we're already familiar with and know are good.

 insaniak wrote:
A better director would have done a better job of showing Anakin as a likeable character who slowly turns dark instead of as a whiny git who likes girls more than sand.

See; The Clone Wars TV show, which despite being a cartoon primarily for kids with the initially-horrifying addition of a plucky kid sidekick, managed to tell Anakin's story in a far more compelling and satisfying way and even turned the plucky sidekick into one of the best characters in Star Wars. But by LanceLogic they should never have made that - good job Filoni & Co operate on just your regular old fashioned normal logic.

As to the Cassian show - it could be great. I will say, I'm a bit wary of this kind of story without a K-2SO type character to provide a bit of occasional light comedy, so hopefully either K2's recruitment comes early in the show's run(even if that requires a wee retcon - I think they covered K2's recruitment in a comic or something but I don't know what the timeframe on that is in the setting relative to this show) or they have an alternative in mind, just watching Cassian be the pre-hopey-changey badman spy won't be as compelling as R1 I don't think.

I think the TV series expanding is the way to go.

Already, we've had Clone Wars and Rebels. Both of which I'd say did more for the wider universe than Rogue One and Solo (both of which I thoroughly enjoyed). There's also Resistance - but I've not been able to watch that yet, so shan't offer comment when I've no information!

In short, you can tell grander stories with them, because you've got more time.

As for Cassian? I'd love to see Forest Whittaker reprise Saw Gerrera yet again. Show us different aspects of The Rebellion. Rogue One showed us them getting their poop together at long last, and becoming more united. But we didn't spend quite enough time with Saw's merry band for my tastes. To use another rubbish analogy? Rogue One's depiction was looking at the menu. His star turns in Rebels? The starter. Now I want the main course. And dessert if there's room.

The TV shows also give them narrative playtime. Throw some stuff out there. See what sticks. That can then lead to a movie or two if there's sufficient demand.

Initially when I saw this, my immediate thought was 'why?' Not for any concerns about whether they go forward or backward, I'm all for further exploring characters and settings we already know and there's plenty of new stories to tell with them, but because for most of R1 Cassian was about as bland as cardboard. He was the Human Fighter of the party full of Monks, Assassins, Barbarians, to use an RPG analogy, and his arc was basically covered over the one scene where he decides not to shoot Galen Erso.

But thinking about it a bit more, a series could do a lot to remedy that. The most interesting thing he does in R1 comes right at the start when he kills an informant in cold blood to save his own skin and the intel he's gathered. It doesn't really come up in the film again, but winding the clock back a year or two would really help shed some light on exactly how he came to be that calculating and remorseless in a way few other good guys in Star Wars are. Desperation after months of fighting a losing battle? Fanaticism like Saw's rebels? Losing so many friends and allies life becomes cheap? There's definitely stuff to dig into there.

Naw see, Clone Wars was good. But not for the Anakin bits. (though they did show his fall better) The show REALLY got good when Ashoka grew to take more of a center stage and/or they started telling other characters stories like Rex and the other clones.

What made the Clone Wars tv series so good wasn't the focus on so many people we already knew but how many new people they introduced. Even when they bought back people like Maul it was moving his story forward in a way that could have ended up anywhere. Can you think of any REALLY great episodes of clone wars that were focused on Anakin or Obiwan but didn't push some other character with an unknown fate forward? Howmmany middling or forgettable Clone Wars episodes were there in that first season or 2 that was more focused on them?

And Rebels, again, wasn't about anyone we had seen before. When Vader or the Emperor showed up rarely it could mean ANYTHING for the protagonists. When Ashoka showed up it moved her story forward.

So now we've gone from "it's just bad" to "it's bad if it's not well executed". So, pretty much the same as everything then

And again, you state your opinion as if it's a universal fact - outside of the wonky Mortis arc I enjoyed all the Obi Wan and Anakin-centric stories to at least a reasonable degree, and I don't think it's fair to isolate more ensemble episodes as if they're distinct from the overall story of those characters - take away the ensemble episodes and the arcs for the "lead" characters are less satisfying, but if you strip away the more focused episodes then the ensemble tales would be less interesting as well since they would either be trying to cram development for the main characters in there which would limit the time for secondaries, or they would just act as if the development from the focused episodes had happened "off screen" and their motivations often wouldn't make sense based on their previous appearances. You don't get the satisfying interplay between Anakin, Ahsoka, and Tarkin without first establishing Anakin, then the relationship between Anakin and Ahsoka.

 Lance845 wrote:
There are a lot of things wrong with the prequels. I agree that a lot of the choreography and green screen work was total nonsense. But it was also a situation where we KNEW that not only was Obi going to get out unharmed and physically fine, but also ultimately mentally well rounded and doing fine.

Lukes hand getting fixed right after doesn't change the impact of the severed limb in the moment of the battle. When I watch Alien I know that Ash isn't going to shove that magazine down Ripley's throat and kill her because her crew shows up to save her. But the first time you see the movie before anyone shows up and even as the scuffle is going on shes in real danger there. Especially because it's a horror movie and it's not yet clear that shes actually the main character. But If we all watched Aliens first and then went back and watched Alien after we would all KNOW that Ripley could not possibly be killed in that moment. For that matter it would have sucked all the suspense from Kane and his face hugger/chest burster too. Shes gunna ultimately come out fine. It takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of those scenes if you go in with that knowledge

You can't look at the prequels and not admit that they ruin certain conceits of 4-6.

If you get a kid whos never seen SW and you watch them 1-6 in 5 when vader reveals that he is Lukes father the only person who doesn't know that is Luke. You, the audience, loose all the impact of that moment.

The same thing goes for the reveal that Yoda is Yoda on Dagoba. His whole goofy sham of testing Luke is ruined if you already know hes Yoda because you saw 1-3.

The same happens AGAIN with the reveal of Jaba being a giant horrible slug monster. You hear about him for 2 movies before he is finally revealed in 6.

But it's not just the conceits ruined in 4-6. 1-3 are devoid of these moments too. It's not a shocking reveal that Palpatine has been the Sith lord all along. We already KNEW that. As many misteps that the prequels have, they had to fight uphill (and ultimately failed) to have ANY of the big moments 4,5,6 had simply because everyone watching them already knew most of what those movies had to reveal. And what we didn't know just really didn't actually matter to the over all plot of the series.

Physical danger is only a single and most obvious example of what I was talking about. It's not like Han was going to suffer major psychological damage and end up a muttering wreck either. Yoda isn't going to go through anything that he doesn't ultimately come out of it being a super chill incredibly wise master of the force.

Of course, those movies earning hundreds of millions of dollars in ticket sales EACH undermines your message. Clearly lots of people DID want to see the stories you think were so unneeded.

Oh yeah and TLJ making a billion means it must have been several magnitudes better and more desirable. Also clearly nobody wanted to see solo.

And tranformers movies. Pure cinematic gold while bladerunner and its sequel must be pure trash.

Lets not make a false equivalency where box office performance denotes anything like quality or a desire for what was actually in the movie.

I'd second what Voss said, and add that we also saw the organizations display character.

Much like Kylo, the First Order spends a lot of time telling you it's evil, then blows up a capital system and fleet. Before that, they attack an armed Resistance base camp and interrogate some dudes.

The Resistance... is looking for Luke (for no good reason), and pretty much spends the whole movie seeking that map, and attacking the super weapon after it's revealed and fired. Sadly, they don't seem very proactive about it.

Contrast that with the Empire. They attack a diplomatic vessel, kill its inhabitants and fake a senator's death. Kill an entire tribe of scavengers just for touching a robot they're after(because you know the Jawas sold them the location of where they sold and found R2 immediately). Then they killed and burned, hopefully in that order, an old farmer and his wife. That's the first 30 minutes, on a sparsely populated dirtball. When they do start blowing up planets they don't do it because there's a fleet there- they do it because its their prisoners home, and it might make them feel bad enough to talk. They consistently come across as callous, and inescapable.

The Rebels are mostly in the background. We know they fight against the Empire, but in the first film they couldn't care less about Han and Luke. Leia's important primarily because of her political position, past contributions and the plans for the Death Star that the Rebels stole before they ever fired the thing.

If the Resistance wasn't there, the First Order would make a cool speech, and build huge, cool spaceships and star bases. If the First Order wasn't there, the Resistance would... train X-Wing pilots?

 Lance845 wrote:
Oh yeah and TLJ making a billion means it must have been several magnitudes better and more desirable. Also clearly nobody wanted to see solo.

And tranformers movies. Pure cinematic gold while bladerunner and its sequel must be pure trash.

Lets not make a false equivalency where box office performance denotes anything like quality or a desire for what was actually in the movie.

Except Transformers 2+ continued to make huge boatloads of cash. A new movie franchise making a lot for the first while being trash fits your point, multiple subsequent movies continuing to do so suggests that it has found its audience and its large, irrespective of whether you may or may not believe them to be good.

Again, all circling back to the point that just because you don't think it's needed doesn't mean jack in the larger scheme.

Disney needs to cut their ties to the Original Trilogy, although the majority of their material being set during the Galactic Civil War shows they know that the setting of the current trilogy is crap, and they are only making money off the inertia of the Original Trilogy.

Make a series or trilogy set during the Old Republic/Sith war. Have absolutely no ties to the OT characters, and make good characters who don't need to ride their coattails to be any good, set in an awesome action packed setting, not a lazy retread of the OT. Awesome stuff like the Bioware trailers, and make it go in new directions.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Disney needs to cut their ties to the Original Trilogy,

Agree. Either go so far back that anything that happens in it just has no impact on anyone or anything that we have already seen or jump so far forward that everyone we have seen so far is dead and maybe remembered in legends but likely just forgotten. Get away from what we have already seen though.

 Lance845 wrote:
Oh yeah and TLJ making a billion means it must have been several magnitudes better and more desirable. Also clearly nobody wanted to see solo.

And tranformers movies. Pure cinematic gold while bladerunner and its sequel must be pure trash.

Lets not make a false equivalency where box office performance denotes anything like quality or a desire for what was actually in the movie.

And let's not make a false equivalency where what you want to see is what everyone wants to see.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Oh yeah and TLJ making a billion means it must have been several magnitudes better and more desirable. Also clearly nobody wanted to see solo.

And tranformers movies. Pure cinematic gold while bladerunner and its sequel must be pure trash.

Lets not make a false equivalency where box office performance denotes anything like quality or a desire for what was actually in the movie.

And let's not make a false equivalency where what you want to see is what everyone wants to see.

I never said that.

I have avoided answering you every time you make this ridiculous accusation because it's an incredibly stupid thing to assume anyone is saying if they don't FLAT OUT say it. Do you REALLY need to me to say at the end of every post "These things are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason."?

Are you so butt hurt that I don't begin and end every post with "IMO... ,but thats just my opinion" that you can't piece together the fact that I am talking in a thread with others about a subjective mater that the point of view I am speaking from is my own?

You not agreeing with me is fine. Nobody has to agree with anybody. But try to have an actual conversation instead of picking battles about really dumb petty gak that nobody actually said. Cool? Thanks. Maybe Il just add it to my sig for you so that you can move on.

Actually Lance, the problem is exactly that you don't discuss things as if you're putting forward an opinion. You don't proffer a view, you make statements in language that doesn't even remotely suggest room for disagreement, and when someone uses that style it actually is pretty reasonable to drop an "IMO" in there now and again, otherwise they come off as dismissive. I catch myself doing the same thing sometimes.

Anyway, topic wise, I have to say I really don't get where this "they have to get away from the OT" thing comes from. It's a popular era with a great aesthetic and pretty much universal and timeless themes, and there's a whole galaxy over a period of several decades if you fudge the line a little and dip into the Rise of the Empire stuff as well(and why wouldn't you) to explore. I'd be happy to see them do some work in the KotOR era, or do some future stuff that's vaguely interesting and original, but I don't think it's necessary for the license to flourish.

Except that when others do discuss with me i answer them. Not with "no. You are wrong." But with debate and supporting arguments for my opinion. I dont actually care if anyone agrees or disagrees. I enjoy the back and forth when the back and forth has substance.

When its vulcans petty bs its not worth answering. When its hats saying he wants to see young yoda i say "why?". Yeah, im blunt. But i never once told hats or anyone else they were wrong for wanting to see millions of dollars put into a story that, imo (rolls eyes), is going to end up shallow and lacking the punch and drama the good entries in the franchise are known for because thats what happens when you go backwards to explore things that just dont really matter and whos outcomes have already been explored indirectly.

You can WANT it all you want. Good on ya. They might even make it. They have before. But the amount of times its been done in any kind of satisfying way is marginal at best. Good luck! I still think the best move is to jump forward and leave everything we have seen so far behind. And if you must go back, to go back so far that the rest of it might as well not exist. Would be happy to have someone convince me it could be good otherwise. Convince me. Or dont. It doesnt actually matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Anyway, topic wise, I have to say I really don't get where this "they have to get away from the OT" thing comes from. It's a popular era with a great aesthetic and pretty much universal and timeless themes, and there's a whole galaxy over a period of several decades if you fudge the line a little and dip into the Rise of the Empire stuff as well(and why wouldn't you) to explore. I'd be happy to see them do some work in the KotOR era, or do some future stuff that's vaguely interesting and original, but I don't think it's necessary for the license to flourish.

I listen to a DnD podcast (Dnd is for Nerds) and they have a side podcast called "Hey DnD it's me, Adam" where the DM basically talks about stuff in the games or the game in general. All kinds of stuff. In DnDifN they will make new characters and jump to other parts of the world and tell new stories pretty regularly. Each story is maybe 6-10 hours? They answer questions in HDnDIMA. One of the questions was "Can we get some more stories about x or y character. I really like them. I would love to know what they did after z story." and Adam and the players of those characters went on to explain that when we saw that story that was basically a snap shot of one of the most interesting things in their life. It doesn't really matter what they did after. Merry, Pippen, Sam, and Frodo don't go out and do more big adventures after LotRs. They get married and have kids and live their lives. x character never really liked all the traveling around. They wandered away from all the things they grew to hate and settled down somewhere. Their big story was told.

In the SW Galaxy during the OT the only story that really matters is the one we saw. Other people were running around doing things during the War of the Ring but none of them are ending the war. It's less that theres no interesting stories happening in and around the galaxy at that time and more that those stories will only ever be second or third string to the story we already saw and at best will exist in the shadow of the heroes we already had. Getting away from the OT is a chance to tell the most interesting stories in a new era where the big and exciting and thrilling things that make the space opera/epic good in the first place can flourish again. Otherwise it's a continual downward spiral of diminishing returns.

Teeny update.

Taika Waititi and Carl Weathers both apparently up for roles in the show.

Whether one-offs, cameos, permanent or recurring, who knows!

Taika watiti does that a lot. Hes always fun. Was Korg in Thor the 3rd Thor.