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.

Out of curiosity, why do people think that removing parts from ships allows you to become intimate enough with them to fly? There tends to be mostly knowledge of where ship parts are supposed to be and what are good enough to be valuable.. But flying one?

Why would anyone think that flying a civilian aircraft would qualify you to fly a military spacecraft in combat?

It’s ludicrous and has been since 1977. But that’s okay. It’s space fantasy. All around.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do people think that removing parts from ships allows you to become intimate enough with them to fly? There tends to be mostly knowledge of where ship parts are supposed to be and what are good enough to be valuable.. But flying one?

It's true that being a scavenger doesn't mean you know how to fly ships (even though it could be practical), but it seems that flying ships in the Starwars univers is about as common as driving a car. Padme knew how to fly a spaceship very well and was a politician, the kind of people who barely drive anything ever in hteir lives. She also knew who to fight and fire a gun quite well for someone without any military background comming from a peaceful planet with a barebone security force. If you have magic power that allows you to know what to do and when, it seems trivial to become an ace pilot.

PS: the novelisation of the movies expend on it a little bit. Rey would have learned how to pilot by faffing off on a flight simulator she scavenged from an imperial ship and rebuilt in her spare time. Basically, she games on an old flight simulator in her free time. At least, that's what I could find on wookiepedia.

I always chuckle though at post-movie retconned fluff in comics, novels, etc. None of that matters to the movie-going public.

My main gripe with TLJ is that if you removed Star Wars from it, it would have been lambasted as an absolutely forgotteable movie with weak writing, garbage plot etc. However people are adamant to defend it because it's Star Wars. As if it should just get a pass because of the IP.

 Elbows wrote:
I always chuckle though at post-movie retconned fluff in comics, novels, etc. None of that matters to the movie-going public.

My main gripe with TLJ is that if you removed Star Wars from it, it would have been lambasted as an absolutely forgotteable movie with weak writing, garbage plot etc. However people are adamant to defend it because it's Star Wars. As if it should just get a pass because of the IP.

You could make that argument about all of the movies in the franchise. All you have to do is apply the same critical eye the others that you have TLJ.

The Star Wars movies are not high art, nor are they well written. And in many cases they are badly directed. What keeps them popular is they are the wish fulfillment of children, and that is how they are still viewed by many. A child's view. But just like your Parents who see them in a different light as you age. You see the flaws and the mistakes. The question is can you forgive them. Many here can not and do not want to. Which is unfortunate. Once you lose your childhood, it's hard to get it back.

That's pretentious gobbledegook. The original trilogy's story is simple, and has a lot of errors, but it's coherent and the pacing is pretty on point for the medium. And while the characters are tropey and cliche, it lets people grok them easily, and care about them as characters.

The triologies that followed have had none of those things, and don't make up for by excelling in other areas either, except possibly FX, though even that loses out by swapping the craftsmanship of model and film FX for fairly bland, forgettable CGI. The OT seriously broke new ground in effects and sound, doing things that no one had ever done before, and entire industries rose out of that (Skywalker sound was a mainstay of movies for decades afterwards). The CGI is the same endless high speed, low detail cludge that just fills space in modern films.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
You could make that argument about all of the movies in the franchise. All you have to do is apply the same critical eye the others that you have TLJ.

I don't think you can. ANH defined a genre and became a cultural icon on its own merits, not because of brand recognition. And whether or not it's a "great film" by the standards of art snobs it's still a competently executed adventure story that IMO holds up pretty well 40 years later. If it seems forgettable it's only because you're judging it from 2019, after an endless line of movies copying the things it created, instead of by the standards of 1977. But you can't say any of that about TLJ. It's an incoherent mess of a movie that can't figure out what it wants to be doing, and it commits the worst possible sin of an adventure story: being boring. The fact that anyone cared at all about it is 100% due to the Star Wars brand being attached to it, make it try to succeed on its own merits and it would have failed utterly.

I actually did this exercise with the Empire Strikes Back awhile ago. The dialogue in the hospital on Hoth is utter gak. Even granting your point about the era it was written, it's still utter gak dialogue. I had to stop after Hoth, before I ruined the whole movie for myself.

I'd given up on the whole Star Wars franchise a long time ago. The prequels were a boring waste of time. The only reason I saw Force Awakens in the theater was I got a free ticket and it was meh. The Last Jedi was the first SW film since Return of the Jedi i thought was worth a damn. So I feel I've judged it on it's own merits because my love of SW was long dead.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I actually did this exercise with the Empire Strikes Back awhile ago. The dialogue in the hospital on Hoth is utter gak. Even granting your point about the era it was written, it's still utter gak dialogue. I had to stop after Hoth, before I ruined the whole movie for myself.

The central plot of Empire Stikes Back, finding a new base of operation for the rebels is also left unresolved at the end of the movie and never mentioned again. It's not even adressed in the following one. Then again second movies in trilogies frequently have this problem.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do people think that removing parts from ships allows you to become intimate enough with them to fly? There tends to be mostly knowledge of where ship parts are supposed to be and what are good enough to be valuable.. But flying one?

OK. As I explained. We know Rey is a pilot. She said so, then proved so.

If you demand a full explanation on-screen, perhaps with a montage? Should we start we each character's actual birth? Because other than Luke and Leia, there's no reason to believe, by extension of your logic, that just because someone is an adult, that they were ever born.

The sequel trilogy barbarically culled out all of the old EU fanfiction, and then just replaced it with equally fanfiction-feeling movies, while not even touching the heights of some of the best parts of the EU. While I hope for this last movie, I assume we will see more of the same. There's really no reason, depressing as it is, to believe the third movie will suddenly turn a 180 and be the most awesome movie of the trilogy. It'll feel exactly like the Force Awakens.

Hell, it's even a return to Endor, for Pete's sake! Each movie is literally going to retread each of the OT movies in one shape or another. At least the Prequels didn't do that.

Is it a return to Endor though? That's still a massive assumption.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
You could make that argument about all of the movies in the franchise. All you have to do is apply the same critical eye the others that you have TLJ.

I don't think you can. ANH defined a genre and became a cultural icon on its own merits, not because of brand recognition. And whether or not it's a "great film" by the standards of art snobs it's still a competently executed adventure story that IMO holds up pretty well 40 years later. If it seems forgettable it's only because you're judging it from 2019, after an endless line of movies copying the things it created, instead of by the standards of 1977. But you can't say any of that about TLJ. It's an incoherent mess of a movie that can't figure out what it wants to be doing, and it commits the worst possible sin of an adventure story: being boring. The fact that anyone cared at all about it is 100% due to the Star Wars brand being attached to it, make it try to succeed on its own merits and it would have failed utterly.

This post is eight dimensions of RIGHT.

The flipside to that, is that established fans are seeing the new stuff as adults, and not the kids that first fell in love with the saga.

If you apply the same level of ridiculous forensic dissection to the originals, there are just as many daft bits. Yet we love them all the same.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I always chuckle though at post-movie retconned fluff in comics, novels, etc. None of that matters to the movie-going public.

My main gripe with TLJ is that if you removed Star Wars from it, it would have been lambasted as an absolutely forgotteable movie with weak writing, garbage plot etc. However people are adamant to defend it because it's Star Wars. As if it should just get a pass because of the IP.

You could make that argument about all of the movies in the franchise. All you have to do is apply the same critical eye the others that you have TLJ.

The Star Wars movies are not high art, nor are they well written. And in many cases they are badly directed. What keeps them popular is they are the wish fulfillment of children, and that is how they are still viewed by many. A child's view. But just like your Parents who see them in a different light as you age. You see the flaws and the mistakes. The question is can you forgive them. Many here can not and do not want to. Which is unfortunate. Once you lose your childhood, it's hard to get it back.

For me the first Star Wars trilogy were fun action adventure films and thats it. They did not change my life or make me care about the Skywalker dynasty or anything.

The Prequal trilogy was a poor attempt at recereating them with terrible plots, boring chracters and cringeworthy dialogue

The Force awakens was ok - its a not as much fun as the first three but quite enjoyable.

Then there is the steaming turd that is The last Jedi. Everything about it is badly done, poor writing, awful plot laughable pacing, stupid plot device after stupid plot device intersperssed by trips to a cassino world. It has no joy, no ideas and no plot - it appears to have been written by a five year old on a bad day and directed by the same.

All its defenders (mostly paid critics) claim it is sooo subversive - the only thing it actually subverted was the once bright idea that it could be an entertaining and /or intelligent film in any respect.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do people think that removing parts from ships allows you to become intimate enough with them to fly? There tends to be mostly knowledge of where ship parts are supposed to be and what are good enough to be valuable.. But flying one?

OK. As I explained. We know Rey is a pilot. She said so, then proved so.

If you demand a full explanation on-screen, perhaps with a montage? Should we start we each character's actual birth? Because other than Luke and Leia, there's no reason to believe, by extension of your logic, that just because someone is an adult, that they were ever born.

That's trying to pitch the ball to the outfield instead of to the batter. You can do better then this.

She said she could pilot, but nothing gives any indication she could. Yes, I would've been satisfied if we even got the barest hint of a descriptor that she might've taken a joyride in the Falcon when Unkor Plutt wasn't looking. That she might've flied some still semi-working ships home for money/food.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it a return to Endor though? That's still a massive assumption.

I do not think it is a "massive" assumption, but more of a "fair" assumption. There's really only 2 choices: Yavin or Endor, since we KNOW it's one of the Death Stars.
Considering the Palpatine laugh at the end of the trailer, it probably Endor.

But it might not be the "Forest Moon of Endor". But Endor itself, or another of its moons. While I believe Endor was established as a gas giant in supplemental material, I do not think that was ever said in Movie canon, so it very well could be re-established as a planet with human-compatible atmosphere and ground.
In any case, it doesn't "look" like the Forest moon of Endor, but then the affects of the Death Star debris and 30+ years could have altered the Moon, so...

-

epronovost wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I actually did this exercise with the Empire Strikes Back awhile ago. The dialogue in the hospital on Hoth is utter gak. Even granting your point about the era it was written, it's still utter gak dialogue. I had to stop after Hoth, before I ruined the whole movie for myself.

The central plot of Empire Stikes Back, finding a new base of operation for the rebels is also left unresolved at the end of the movie and never mentioned again. It's not even adressed in the following one. Then again second movies in trilogies frequently have this problem.

To be fair, I don't recall finding a new base being a central plot point of Empire, escape and survival is. The Empire was retaliating and it was up to the Heroes to survive, learn, grow, and endure, to face defeat and still persevere before the endgame, scouting out and establishing a new Rebel base was never their objective from what I remember. At the end of the movie the Rebellion is seen reorganizing in space (we didn't see Nebulon-B frigates around Hoth for example) and the subsequent ROTJ portrays the Rebellion forces almost exclusively space based except for the Endor landing party.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it a return to Endor though? That's still a massive assumption.

Ah yes. Imperium built massive fleet of death stars whose remains are scattered all around. Yep.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do people think that removing parts from ships allows you to become intimate enough with them to fly? There tends to be mostly knowledge of where ship parts are supposed to be and what are good enough to be valuable.. But flying one?

OK. As I explained. We know Rey is a pilot. She said so, then proved so.

If you demand a full explanation on-screen, perhaps with a montage? Should we start we each character's actual birth? Because other than Luke and Leia, there's no reason to believe, by extension of your logic, that just because someone is an adult, that they were ever born.

That's trying to pitch the ball to the outfield instead of to the batter. You can do better then this.

She said she could pilot, but nothing gives any indication she could. Yes, I would've been satisfied if we even got the barest hint of a descriptor that she might've taken a joyride in the Falcon when Unkor Plutt wasn't looking. That she might've flied some still semi-working ships home for money/food.

Do you also complain when someone in a modern setting drives a car without first showing them attending driving school?

Prior to the flying combat around a Deathstar, we never see Luke fly anything. Just a statement he can pilot a ship.

I also think it's more than fair to assume many people have piloting skills in the Star Wars universe. Far more proportionally to ours. So you really DON'T need proof to believe someone could be a good pilot.

-

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
You could make that argument about all of the movies in the franchise. All you have to do is apply the same critical eye the others that you have TLJ.

I don't think you can. ANH defined a genre and became a cultural icon on its own merits, not because of brand recognition. And whether or not it's a "great film" by the standards of art snobs it's still a competently executed adventure story that IMO holds up pretty well 40 years later. If it seems forgettable it's only because you're judging it from 2019, after an endless line of movies copying the things it created, instead of by the standards of 1977. But you can't say any of that about TLJ. It's an incoherent mess of a movie that can't figure out what it wants to be doing, and it commits the worst possible sin of an adventure story: being boring. The fact that anyone cared at all about it is 100% due to the Star Wars brand being attached to it, make it try to succeed on its own merits and it would have failed utterly.

This post is eight dimensions of RIGHT.

It's just nonsensical to criticise TLJ for not being not a Star Wars film. Its purpose is to build on and develop themes established in previous episodes of the series.

If it was a completely new SF film it wouldn't be anything to do with Star Wars, and it would have a completely different script and characters and all that sort of thing.

Thinking further on Rey being a pilot - there is some suggestion she had previous experience with at least the Falcon.

The Falcon belongs to Simon Pegg's character "Unkar Plutt" at the start of TFA and we do know that Rey was left in his care during the jedi-vision sequence. Rey knows that the Falcon hasn't flown in years and is familar with the interior working of the ship. We also know that Rey is on her own now...perhaps due to a falling out with Unkar Plutt or that he simply no longer had use for her. Perhaps Unkar felt Rey was more trouble than she was worth(due to her obsession becoming a problem?) and turned her loose, leaving her to fend for herself...

It is possible that Rey was part of his crew when he did fly the Falcon and Rey was a ship's hand. Maybe Unkar showed her the controls during trips so he could focus on managing the rest of the crew or whatever was more important at the time. She did seem comfortable in the role of co-pilot while Han was flying, and maybe that was her role on Unkar's crew - able to watch a real pilot in action? As we find her she was no longer in a position to fly the Falcon and turned to scavenging to survive, becoming familar with the interior workings of other ships such as the wreaked star destroyer, and an X-wing( she wore a rebel helmet in one scene ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it a return to Endor though? That's still a massive assumption.

Ah yes. Imperium built massive fleet of death stars whose remains are scattered all around. Yep.

The silver screen could not contain such awesomeness.

epronovost wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I actually did this exercise with the Empire Strikes Back awhile ago. The dialogue in the hospital on Hoth is utter gak. Even granting your point about the era it was written, it's still utter gak dialogue. I had to stop after Hoth, before I ruined the whole movie for myself.

The central plot of Empire Stikes Back, finding a new base of operation for the rebels is also left unresolved at the end of the movie and never mentioned again. It's not even adressed in the following one. Then again second movies in trilogies frequently have this problem.

The central plot of ESB is the same of the whole trilogy - following Luke Skywalker on his Hero's Journey. The rebellion against the empire is just the background on which the story is told.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamusDrake wrote:
Thinking further on Rey being a pilot - there is some suggestion she had previous experience with at least the Falcon.

The Falcon belongs to Simon Pegg's character "Unkar Plutt" at the start of TFA and we do know that Rey was left in his care during the jedi-vision sequence. Rey knows that the Falcon hasn't flown in years and is familar with the interior working of the ship. We also know that Rey is on her own now...perhaps due to a falling out with Unkar Plutt or that he simply no longer had use for her. Perhaps Unkar felt Rey was more trouble than she was worth(due to her obsession becoming a problem?) and turned her loose, leaving her to fend for herself...

It is possible that Rey was part of his crew when he did fly the Falcon and Rey was a ship's hand. Maybe Unkar showed her the controls during trips so he could focus on managing the rest of the crew or whatever was more important at the time. She did seem comfortable in the role of co-pilot while Han was flying, and maybe that was her role on Unkar's crew - able to watch a real pilot in action? As we find her she was no longer in a position to fly the Falcon and turned to scavenging to survive, becoming familar with the interior workings of other ships such as the wreaked star destroyer, and an X-wing( she wore a rebel helmet in one scene ).

Plausible. Adding "I know, I used to crew on it!" to her line saying "It's a piece of junk" would have explained that away and her being able to fly it is explained. It would have been a stretch for her to fly it like it was a starfighter instead of a piece of junk, but hey, The Force.

Still want to know where she got all her force training from for stuff like reading Kylo Ren's mind (Leia resisted mindprobes untrained, so there is that precedent), mindtricked a Stormtrooper, and became an expert lightsaber fighter.

And for that matter, why RJ was allowed to leave such AWFUL choreography in the Throne Room fight...

 Vulcan wrote:
The central plot of ESB is the same of the whole trilogy - following Luke Skywalker on his Hero's Journey. The rebellion against the empire is just the background on which the story is told.

The same could be said for any movies. They are just the story of the character and everything else is just the background on which the story is told. All stories are the story of a character growth or development.

epronovost wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The central plot of ESB is the same of the whole trilogy - following Luke Skywalker on his Hero's Journey. The rebellion against the empire is just the background on which the story is told.

The same could be said for any movies. They are just the story of the character and everything else is just the background on which the story is told. All stories are the story of a character growth or development.

Except for VII and VIII, in which no character growth or development occurred.

I disagree. I feel like Kylo and Rey both grew in 7 and 8. I get not liking things in 8 like the side quest and really anything to do with Finn and the starship chase. But the other half with Rey and kylo was still good and both showed development

On the ‘must be Endor’ thing.

Number of issues with that.

First, it could be one of the moons of Yavin.

Second? Those were massive explosions. Who knows where each piece of debris might finally have fallen foul of gravity? I’d need to review ROTJ again, but I’m fairly sure the main gun of the second Deathstar was pointing away from the Forest Moon? That would mean it was asploded out and away from it.

Third? Bits of the first Deathstar were used, post Endor, to assemble ‘New Yavin’. Could be part of that, and who knows where that might’ve ended up?

 Hulksmash wrote:
I disagree. I feel like Kylo and Rey both grew in 7 and 8. I get not liking things in 8 like the side quest and really anything to do with Finn and the starship chase. But the other half with Rey and kylo was still good and both showed development

Okay, that's a fair criticism of my statement.

But when your villain shows more character development than most of your heroes, your story has problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the ‘must be Endor’ thing.

Number of issues with that.

First, it could be one of the moons of Yavin.

Second? Those were massive explosions. Who knows where each piece of debris might finally have fallen foul of gravity? I’d need to review ROTJ again, but I’m fairly sure the main gun of the second Deathstar was pointing away from the Forest Moon? That would mean it was asploded out and away from it.

Third? Bits of the first Deathstar were used, post Endor, to assemble ‘New Yavin’. Could be part of that, and who knows where that might’ve ended up?

Sticking strictly to what's shown onscreen, the first Death Star was blown into lots of (relatively) tiny pieces. There certainly wasn't a big enough piece of the 'main gun' left to be recognizable.

On the other side, the last time we see the second Death Star, as the Millennium Falcon flies away, it's clear there are explosions gutting the insides... but the outer skin is still intact.

By that alone, it has to be Endor or one of it's moons... and the Forest Moon would have the greatest gravitational effect on the now-unpowered hulk.