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.

 trexmeyer wrote:

What part of that indicates that I personally consider "Boba Fett" my lord and savior? At no point have I expressed my opinion on the quality of the character.

For starters, your recurring need to post things like this:

 trexmeyer wrote:

3) Fans loved Mandalorians more than possibly any faction in Star Wars other than the Jedi/Sith

Especially in the absence of any evidence to support your cultish claims.

Sterling191 wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

What part of that indicates that I personally consider "Boba Fett" my lord and savior? At no point have I expressed my opinion on the quality of the character.

For starters, your recurring need to post things like this:

 trexmeyer wrote:

3) Fans loved Mandalorians more than possibly any faction in Star Wars other than the Jedi/Sith

Especially in the absence of any evidence to support your cultish claims.

Boba Fett listed as #3 on Rolling Stones 50 Best Star Wars characters
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/50-best-star-wars-characters-of-all-time-145533/darth-vader-2-216605/

Empire lists him at #79 on their Greatest Movie Characters list
https://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=79

I dunno, maybe the fact that The Mandalorian (you know, the show this thread is about?) is a huge critical success.

 trexmeyer wrote:

I dunno, maybe the fact that The Mandalorian (you know, the show this thread is about?) is a huge critical success.

A show that has nothing to do with Fett. Yet somehow the success of the show is evidence of Fett's amazingness?

That's incredible logic right there.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Boba Fett listed as #3 on Rolling Stones 50 Best Star Wars characters
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/50-best-star-wars-characters-of-all-time-145533/darth-vader-2-216605/

Empire lists him at #79 on their Greatest Movie Characters list
https://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=79

None of which is evidence of fandom liking him. But please, continue to equate two editorial teams to the entirely of the Star Wars fanbase. It really makes the case about how un-invested and non-cultish you're being in a character whose sole purpose is to die to a blind idiot with a stick.

How about we try disagreeing about how cool a particular imaginary space mercenary is without the snark, guys?

Dial it down, or I'll have to start pruning the thread.

Guys chill out. If it wasn't for the Fett character you'd have no Mandalorian, clone origin (take it or leave it), antagonists in Kotor, or a bunch of stories about Mandos in Dark Horse comics, inclusing some really cool Old Republic stuff when Dark Horse gave Star Wars an awesomely gritty and dark past.

 LunarSol wrote:
Fett's a cool character.

Fett is a massively overrated character.

Both of these are true, IMO.

Indeed. Fett is cool because his brief presence in the story is impactful. Darth Vader singles him out for his notorious methods. He outsmarts Han Solo when no one else could. After Vader threatens “pray I don’t alter the deal any farther” we see the same Vader promise Fett “we will compensate you”, which tells you all kinds of stuff about Fett’s standing in the universe. In ESB, Fett is undeniably cool.

Then, in the same movie that gave us Ewoks and schlemiel Han Solo, Fett dies the slapstick death, punctuated with a sand-anus burp. Fett is undeniably lame.

Like Han Solo, Fett should have remained offscreen forever in the post-ROTJ Star Wars universe.

Except the rule in cinema is show don't tell. I don't want people to TELL me Fett is cool. I want to see Fett be cool. And we never see that.

We see him stand around. Say about 7 words in 2 movies. Shoot like 4 feet over Lukes head (what a crack shot!), fly directly into the side of a ship the first time we see him use his jet pack, and then fall directly into a giant monster butt hole in the sand.

He's useless. He looks great. Agreed. But he's nothing and he does nothing.

I’m not a Fett fanboy. I want him to stay dead. I would have preferred he only appeared in ESB, did the one thing, and then disappeared into legend. RotJ began the tradition of embarrassing Fett Fanservice, and every appearance since then has “rhymed like poetry”.

But I can understand why Fett fanboys exist.

Sterling191 wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

I dunno, maybe the fact that The Mandalorian (you know, the show this thread is about?) is a huge critical success.

A show that has nothing to do with Fett. Yet somehow the success of the show is evidence of Fett's amazingness?

That's incredible logic right there.

.

you realize until the prequals came out basicly ALL we knew, about the Mandalorians is that "Boba Fett wore the armor of a Mandalorian supercommando, a group that had fought the Jedi in the clone wars"
that was literally ALL we knew about them. people where intreasted in Mandalorians because, for whatever reason (frankly I never got it myself) the fanbase loves him. It's absolutely 100% accurate to say that without Boba Fett we would not have seen the Mandalorian.

Look you don't have to get it, as I said I'm a giant SW fan and I'm not sure I do. (I also find it doubtful that Mandalorians are more popular then the rebels and empire so the "third most favorite faction" I call.. doubtful) but yeah, Mandalorians are quite popular among the fanbase, due to early fascination with Boba Fett


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Except the rule in cinema is show don't tell. I don't want people to TELL me Fett is cool. I want to see Fett be cool. And we never see that.

honestly thats why I'm optimistic about him being in the Mandalorian. rememebr Filoni's the same guy who managed to turn Anakin Skywalker from "whiny kid" to "OMG his fall was actually tragic" with Clone Wars

BrianDavion wrote:
It's absolutely 100% accurate to say that without Boba Fett we would not have seen the Mandalorian.

No, it isnt. You're trying to cause a Grandfather paradox and it's just bs. Because you can make the exact same one using say, Alec Guinness while still being just as "accurate", and just as wrong..

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Except the rule in cinema is show don't tell. I don't want people to TELL me Fett is cool. I want to see Fett be cool. And we never see that.

honestly thats why I'm optimistic about him being in the Mandalorian. rememebr Filoni's the same guy who managed to turn Anakin Skywalker from "whiny kid" to "OMG his fall was actually tragic" with Clone Wars

There are 2 things I have to say about this.

1) I don't want someone to come along 40 years after the fact and make a character who is a incompetent goof try to live up to fan hype after the fact. Especially when it requires them to survive a death scene for some reason.

2) No. Anakins fall wasn't tragic. Because we still saw it in the movies and it was about nothing. If you want Anakins fall to be tragic then you need to do what Yoda said in Ep 1. This is how it works.

First, Don't "kill" maul in episode 1. Maul should have survived and escaped. Yoda says the whole he has much fear. Fear leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to the dark side.

Then Episode 2 isn't just about the fear in the galaxy that leads to the clone army and war, but also about how over the years Maul has always reappeared and escaped. He is a terror weapon. He strikes down people close to Anakin and obi over and over again. And they don't just tell us about it. Show it to us. Qui Gon was the first of several to be hunted by Maul. Instead of making Sam Jackson the most boring person in SW on screen why not establish a good relationship between him and Obi and Anakin. Have him really take them under his wing or whatever. Only to have Maul reappear to kill him in front of them. Not have random sand people, but Maul, kill Anakin's mother. Have Maul kill Jar Jar (Yes!).

Then in episode 3 Maul comes after Padme, and thats the tipping point. Obi Wan, despite the loss and what Maul is and does, becomes a better Jedi and lets go of his emotions while Anakin falls farther and farther into fear and anger and hate. Anakin kills Maul in episode 3 before turning on Obi Wan now fully Dark "You let him kill them and you never cared! He was going to kill her! The Jedi are WEAK! I will protect them. I will protect everyone! To do that I will become strong!" Anakin's fall is orchestrated in a way that actually makes sense with Palpatine either having his apprentice be the best ever or Anakin striking him down and being a better apprentice.

You can't fix the massive mistakes of the prequels without more or less ignoring the actual events of the movies and instead just taking them as broad stroke events.


And no mater what they do in the Mandolorian, Boba Fett still shot like 5 feet over Lukes head, flew directly into the side of a ship, and fell into the sarlac like a idiot. Nothing they do for him in the show will take away the crap he has been in the movies.

Lance....

Dude.....

Clone Wars. It pretty much does that!

I'd actually agree with Lance.

Clone Wars was a long and hard sell for me, and I ended up liking it in spite of the fact that we were constantly encouraged to identify with the struggles and heroics of an overgrown whiny man child angry that no one would fondle his balls as much as he wished they would. The series makes the plot of Ep. III worse in my eyes honestly, because it makes the Jedi seem too dumb to live. Obi-Wan and others saw Anakin's instability and lust for violence multiple times in the Clone Wars series and it was always just "well isn't that just quirky and misunderstood *winks at the camera*". It was bad. No one responded to Anakin in the way a living thinking person would actually respond except maybe Ahsoka, who had the excuse that she was a lot like Anakin and saw him in quieter moments in ways other Jedi didn't. Everyone else just ended up looking like more the fool each passing outburst and their reactions were inauthentic in my eyes.

Clone Wars was at its best when Anakin wasn't even around. The Jar-Jar episodes were more fun than the ones about Anakin and his childish inability to just let things go.

I think the series manages to sell the tragedy of Anakin to people who were already willing to believe it. To anyone who thought the whole thing was a child's vision of tragedy, it was just more playground crap from a guy who really should have been seen as dangerous and unstable from the get go. It's actually kind of bizarre Anakin wasn't given the rank of master in Ep. III, given how much everyone else in Clone Wars seemed ready and willing to think fondly of him. The series did nothing to build the distrust between Anakin and the Council except for Ahsoka's treason trial, which just made the council's distrust of him feel all the more hollow and out of the blue cause Anakin jumped through hoops to be the only one looking into what really happened.

I've watched clone wars. It -sort of- does that. I like the new characters like Ashoka, but they muddy the water on Anakin. It's all muddy water on Anakin.

The prequels and Clone Wars series is all so round about because they have to dodge around all the pitfalls of the movies to try and build something that fits. The 6 hours of the movies is more then enough time to tell that story. If only it wasn't a discombobulated mess.

All of Star Wars is a storytelling mess. ESB mostly ties in well with a New Hope despite retconning the Anakin/Vader relationship. ROTJ really dials up The Empire being morons and introduces us to Palpatine's inability to stop blasting lightning into himself. The second Death Star also set the precedent of 'bad guys love superweapons' which led to the EU introducing several dozen...

The PT seems like its set in an entirely different universe. The only consistency is that everyone is a moron for the sake of plot. Oh, and somehow a million or so clones is a sufficient army for a galactic war. At least the EU Imperial Fleet of 1000~ Star Destroyers gets the scale right.

Star Wars has some stunning aesthetics and decent themes, but in terms of storytelling it's flat out bad.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd actually agree with Lance.

Clone Wars was a long and hard sell for me, and I ended up liking it in spite of the fact that we were constantly encouraged to identify with the struggles and heroics of an overgrown whiny man child angry that no one would fondle his balls as much as he wished they would. The series makes the plot of Ep. III worse in my eyes honestly, because it makes the Jedi seem too dumb to live. Obi-Wan and others saw Anakin's instability and lust for violence multiple times in the Clone Wars series and it was always just "well isn't that just quirky and misunderstood *winks at the camera*". It was bad. No one responded to Anakin in the way a living thinking person would actually respond except maybe Ahsoka, who had the excuse that she was a lot like Anakin and saw him in quieter moments in ways other Jedi didn't. Everyone else just ended up looking like more the fool each passing outburst and their reactions were inauthentic in my eyes.

Clone Wars was at its best when Anakin wasn't even around. The Jar-Jar episodes were more fun than the ones about Anakin and his childish inability to just let things go.

I think the series manages to sell the tragedy of Anakin to people who were already willing to believe it. To anyone who thought the whole thing was a child's vision of tragedy, it was just more playground crap from a guy who really should have been seen as dangerous and unstable from the get go. It's actually kind of bizarre Anakin wasn't given the rank of master in Ep. III, given how much everyone else in Clone Wars seemed ready and willing to think fondly of him. The series did nothing to build the distrust between Anakin and the Council except for Ahsoka's treason trial, which just made the council's distrust of him feel all the more hollow and out of the blue cause Anakin jumped through hoops to be the only one looking into what really happened.

Same. Clone Wars did nothing for Anakin.
It actually filled out the _war_ and stories about other characters, but everything about Annie was willful blindness. Even having Force Demigods randomly show up and explicitly give Obi-won the elevator summary of Episode III wasn't enough.

I'd give Ahsoka a pass just because she's a kid, his student and both of those are significant handicaps when it comes to judging someone accurately, and she does get to see real emotion out of him from time to time.
But everyone else is just a blithering moron willing to ignore what's blatantly happening in front of them.

It pains me to admit it but you’re right. As amazing as it is, Star Wars is a bit of a mess story telling wise.

I am excited for this golden age thing they are doing just because it's going to an age when nobody is connected to anything and we can have a whole new set of stories that don't have to replicate the old crap or build towards it.

Likewise, I wish they would jump forward like 500-800 years. I don't want any character that is connected to any other character from the past. Tell new stories in the new now.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am excited for this golden age thing they are doing just because it's going to an age when nobody is connected to anything and we can have a whole new set of stories that don't have to replicate the old crap or build towards it.

As long as it doesn't devolve into the same old stuff like KotoR did. Same old Republic vs Empire in not-Tie-Fighters and not-Star Destroyers vs not-A-wings and etc, smugglers in YT-not-the-Millenium Falcon, honest!

I won't be terribly surprised if they tread old ground with new faces. Oh look, its Hoth and Tattoinne and etc with new (old) sets! And this is the story about how Wampas were originally transported to Hoth in the first place, because that 'desperately' needs to be explained to the audience.

I’d love a story set thousands of years in the past, with things ‘different’ to show that. Ships that have to prepare to launch. Bullet weapons as opposed to blasters. More ‘metals’ as opposed to plastics. The creation of the Jedi etc.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’d love a story set thousands of years in the past, with things ‘different’ to show that. Ships that have to prepare to launch. Bullet weapons as opposed to blasters. More ‘metals’ as opposed to plastics. The creation of the Jedi etc.

You mean even more thousands of years in the past? Because 4000 or so is the time period of the KotoR setting. And thanks to comics, games and EU stuff, there's even more 'Sith Empires' to challenge the Galactic Republic before AND after that.

The Star Wars time line is seriously messed up and filled with lots of repetition and a complete lack of technological progress.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Sith_Empire/Legends

Basically all dates are Before the Battle of Yavin (BBY) or, basically, the original film.
The simplified timeline:

28000 BBY the actual Sith Species forms a Sith empire and does Sithy things. It doesn't interact with the Republic that may or may not exist.
various things happen that don't really matter

Around 7000 BBY the 'Sith Empire' is restored after a civil war, and about a hundred years later runs into Dark Jedi, and ground is laid for future conflicts, but basically the Empire and Republic don't interact until 5000 BBY

At 5000 BBY, we have the first real war- the Great Hyperspace War, between Republic and Empire
At 4000 BBY, Exar Kun has the Great Sith War
3976 is KotoR 1, Revan and Malak and their mini-Sith Empire after the Mandalorian Wars
3653 is the Great Galactic War (Knights of the Old Republic MMO)
2000 has the 'New Sith Empire'
1000 has the short lived 'Brotherhood of Darkness,' standard story of fallen jedi becoming 'sith'
19 is the Galactic Empire as we know it from the films.

To give some frame of reference, when it comes to the Sith Civilization, their 'pre-industrial age' is about 30,000 BBY. And they're defeating a galactic empire a mere 2000 years later and co-opting their tech. They 'regress' to a more primitive state around 14000 BBY, but quickly get over that and are out into space again, but fall to the 'superior technology' of Dark Jedi around 7000.

Everything from about 5000 on (and definitely 4000 onwards) is basically Sith Empire not-Star Destroyers and not-Tie Fighters fighting various Republic ships in the exact same kind of battles.

The technology not changing isn't a problem for me. Starwars isn't sci fi. It's fantasy in space. Essentially they are all elves who, despite living for thousands of years individually, are still using swords and bows.

You can go 10k years in the past or 10k years in the future and everything will still be the same way. WWI dog fighting in space with the same blasters, the same shields, and the same light sabers. It might get a different style in different ages but it all functions the same.

 Lance845 wrote:
The technology not changing isn't a problem for me. Starwars isn't sci fi. It's fantasy in space.

That's understandable, particularly in regards to just the movies.

But the other media, particularly the games, shows and novels are dealing with 'breakthroughs' and 'advancements' all over the place. New super weapons, new shields, new fuels, new engines, whatever.

The most movie relevant thing I can think of is the B-wing, which was developed between V and VI and is basically a god tier fighter. Its just a background model in Jedi, but when Rebels does its episode on it, it is portrayed as a must-have literal game-changer.
Yet jump back to the sequels and everyone is back to Xwings vs Tie Fighters (bar specialist ships like the Bombers from Planet Stupid), with basically a few aesthetic tweaks.

And a huge chunk of Rebels was devoted to the crew wetting themselves over the new Tie Fighter model, and how much difference it would make against the Rebellion. And then the insta-kill weapon platform against Mandalorian armor. Tech advancement meant a lot in that show.

Voss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The technology not changing isn't a problem for me. Starwars isn't sci fi. It's fantasy in space.

That's understandable, particularly in regards to just the movies.

But the other media, particularly the games, shows and novels are dealing with 'breakthroughs' and 'advancements' all over the place. New super weapons, new shields, new fuels, new engines, whatever.

Yeah but those "break throughs" are often either rediscoveries of things that already existed thousands of years ago or are just new ways of doing the same thing they were already doing on a bigger scale. The Death Star is nowhere near the first planet killing weapon in star wars. And Star Killer is just a bigger Death Star.

The most movie relevant thing I can think of is the B-wing, which was developed between V and VI and is basically a god tier fighter. Its just a background model in Jedi, but when Rebels does its episode on it, it is portrayed as a must-have literal game-changer.
Yet jump back to the sequels and everyone is back to Xwings vs Tie Fighters (bar specialist ships like the Bombers from Planet Stupid), with basically a few aesthetic tweaks.

And a huge chunk of Rebels was devoted to the crew wetting themselves over the new Tie Fighter model, and how much difference it would make against the Rebellion. And then the insta-kill weapon platform against Mandalorian armor. Tech advancement meant a lot in that show.

Ive only seen bits of rebels. But again, how much of anything the Empire did was actually new when stacked up against things like KOTOR? It's not like Ties are actually the fastest single man fighters that have ever been built. They are just the fastest the empire was mass producing. (Interceptors I assume?) Droids are arguably the most advanced tech in the entire galaxy and they haven't changed at all in the entire history of the universe we have seen. If you take IG-88s story from tales of the bounty hunters as canon you COULD argue that it/they are the single most advanced AI except that it's actually nothing new. Just a new way to do something that became outlawed because it produces IG-88s and other sources make an argument that IG-88 is just a modified source code of HK-47.


And all of that is besides the fact that we are talking about samurai wizards fighting against an evil wizard emperor whos black knight kidnapped a princess.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’d love a story set thousands of years in the past, with things ‘different’ to show that. Ships that have to prepare to launch. Bullet weapons as opposed to blasters. More ‘metals’ as opposed to plastics. The creation of the Jedi etc.

At least in the RPGs there are 'normal' firearms. But given some of the odd properties of blasters and how the few slugthrowers that exist in the setting preform, which is to say poorly, I suspect that the Star Wars universe actually doesn't have smokeless powder and instead is stuck on black powder. Either because it hasn't been discovered or its not possible to create because of some unknown reason.

I think that Firearms as they exist in the real world never existed at all in Star Wars. Instead, someone developed the plasma throwers which are called blasters, which fire subsonic bolts of plasma, after presumably many thousands of years with black powder firearms. Which would explain why slugthrowers, despite having a few substantial benefits over blasters, are extremely rare.

Black powder firearms get dirty very quickly, which fouls moving parts. Meaning it is very difficult to have any type of self-loading firearm which uses black powder cartridges, the small mechanical components build up grime and eventually need to be cleaned much more quickly than smokeless powder does. This is the main reason we didn't need self-loading repeating firearms become common till smokeless powder was invented. They did exist prior, but they weren't as practical.

I think Star Wars got stuck on this level of development till blasters got invented. A weapon which can be fired much more rapidly, even though it suffers in projectile velocity and overall range. Because if Star Wars had ever developed smokeless powder, blasters would be pretty bad compared to self-loading firearms using smokeless powder. You would still see them, but it would be a much more tilted mixture.

Just look at any of the combats we see in the movies or shows. If either side in those conflicts had real world firearms they would utterly wreck the side with blasters, just in the accuracy department alone. Blasters clearly have terrible accuracy and effective range compared to real firearms. So the only explanation is that nobody in Star Wars ever invented the thing that makes real guns work so well, smokeless powder.

The accuracy aspect of blasters is inconsistent. HK from KotOR has a line about delivering headshots from several kilometers away. IIRC it was exponentially more than the current sniper record.

Star Wars originated as an homage to Flash Gordon and other lite Sci-Fi serials. It runs on the rule of cool. A very general issue with storytelling across the board is ignoring common sense for the sake of the plot, even if it means breaking in universe rules. A good example of this is the wide beam setting of a phaser basically never used in Star Trek. https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/38526/why-is-the-wide-beam-phaser-setting-not-used-very-often Or even advanced space faring races engaging in CQC at all.

Which is why it's all fantasy in space. There is no logic or science in anything in star wars. Without the science it's not sci fi. It's just fiction. Toss in the magic and it's just fantasy.

Logic doesn't dictate whether or not something is fantasy and not all science fiction contains logical behavior by the characters.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Logic doesn't dictate whether or not something is fantasy and not all science fiction contains logical behavior by the characters.

I am not talking about logical behavior of the characters. Xwings, Ties, A wings, The Falcon, they all have engines that point direct out the back of them. But they are all capable of VTOL. How? There is nothing on the bottom of any of them that would allow them to lift off.

Science Fiction requires Science. Science has to work logically within the context of the world. Nothing in SW works logically.

The "Droid Smith" could see data in C3PO and access it by going at the back of his head with a blow torch.

If a lightsaber can burn through solid metal by heating and melting it why are Jedis hands not having the flesh melt from their bones?

Because it's not science. It's fantasy. Nothing in it works by logic or reasoning. It works because it's magic. The X-wing might as well be a fire mare. A lightsaber might as well be the glaive.

Starships all have repulsor units built in for landing and take off etc.