Trevorrow out as 9's director

[Starter Set]

the argument of whether or not it was even a legitimate concern in the first place notwithstanding--should be gone by now.

With Abrams on episode 9 you can be sure that concern is going to be a feeling quite commonly shared.

[Asdamine]

It is worth noting that TFA was made "safe," for lack of a better term, to help ease viewers back into the franchise with it's new start. With that established, what's there to assume that number nine will be the same?

There's plenty to assume, actually. Remember Star Trek Into Darkness aka Wrath of Khan 2.0? Even if the first JJ Trek was somehow forgivable, being a reboot and whatnot, there was no excuse for that narrative in Into Darkness.

Unless Last Jedi turns out to be a substantial departure from the previous Episodes and manages to out-gross Awakens' 2bn, you can bet Disney will revert back to the ol' tried-and-true with Abrams on EpIX, esp. now that they've played it safe (yet again) by getting him back in the first place.

[Sacred Knight]

With Abrams on episode 9 you can be sure that concern is going to be a feeling quite commonly shared.

I have no doubt it will be. I'm definitely aware with Abrams' track record with other franchises (Star Trek). So people being wary of it I can understand. But I find it far more likely that those higher up like Kathleen Kennedy will be pretty big on the idea of "let's not make it too much like Jedi". As again the concerns/logic that would go into being cool with lots of ANH allusions in the first film just aren't a factor anymore. Left to his own devices I would wonder if Abrams would go there, but he's definitely not left to his own devices here.

Look, that's not saying I think Episode IX is going to be some huge newly defining episode for the franchise. The franchise has its base themes and it'll follow them. I'm just talking of outright parallels like a second Starkiller Base protected by a new forest moon or some such.

[Starter Set]

For the record though, i wish nothing more than for Abrams to make a very good movie. It's just that right now i'm a bit...ah well, let's just get our fingers crossed.

[Sacred Knight]

That's cool, I understand where its coming from (not like I have to understand to make another's feelings valid of course).

[WebLurker]

There's plenty to assume, actually. Remember Star Trek Into Darkness aka Wrath of Khan 2.0? Even if the first JJ Trek was somehow forgivable, being a reboot and whatnot, there was no excuse for that narrative in Into Darkness.

Okay, yeah, Abrams' Star Trek movies are bad, no question there (I'm a Trekkie, so I do know a few things about the subject). However, there are a variety of factors involved in why they're bad (the script writers weren't very good, for one thing), but the key difference between Abrams Wars and Trek stuff is that with the latter, he was basically trying to make a Star Wars movie using the Star Trek franchise. The two are very different beasts, so it was a bad mesh. I think Abrams has a better handle on the Star Wars world and how to make that work. (Final point worth noting, with the Star Trek reboot, he was the primary creative voice in re-creating the Original Series, while for Star Wars, LucasFilm has much more involvement in their series.)

Unless Last Jedi turns out to be a substantial departure from the previous Episodes and manages to out-gross Awakens' 2bn, you can bet Disney will revert back to the ol' tried-and-true with Abrams on EpIX, esp. now that they've played it safe (yet again) by getting him back in the first place.

I'd argue that R1 proves that Star Wars is done playing things safe. Besides, by all accounts, TFA's being "safe" was a special circumstance for that specific movie, not the long-term game plan.

[Somecrazyaussie]

https://twitter.com/starwars/status/907611312255062028

JJ Abrams confirmed by the official Star Wars twitter account to return as writer/director of Episode IX.

Saw this coming as soon as he made those comments about wishing he could have directed The Last Jedi. So I am not surprised. Although I do worry about the script. Abrams direction is fine. I really want an experienced hand onboard to help the scripting duties. Really wish Kasdan will come back.

[ChrisIII]

There's plenty to assume, actually. Remember Star Trek Into Darkness aka Wrath of Khan 2.0? Even if the first JJ Trek was somehow forgivable, being a reboot and whatnot, there was no excuse for that narrative in Into Darkness.

Unless Last Jedi turns out to be a substantial departure from the previous Episodes and manages to out-gross Awakens' 2bn, you can bet Disney will revert back to the ol' tried-and-true with Abrams on EpIX, esp. now that they've played it safe (yet again) by getting him back in the first place.

Although the engine room scene is pretty much a carbon copy and Khan stealing a federation starship (and using it to heavily damage the Enterprise) towards the end of the movie is similar, there's not a lot that's too close plot wise...no Genesis device, no revenge,no Kirk's son, ship of trainees etc. If anything, it's a bit closer to to Khan's debut in Space Seed, with him initially hiding his true nature from the crew, although they suspect he's up to no good. Although it does use the overused Star Trek trope of "corrupt captain/admiral"....

[Za Waldo]

Whatever. I've heard the arguments for "remake/not a remake." I find the latter holds more water, esp. taking into account that the Star Wars movies have always parallel each other. You feel differently, okay. No skin off my nose.

It doesn't hold more water, not even kind of. It's a remake, you want to blind you're to this for whatever bizarre reason, that's your thing. Although like I've said, THE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT IT IS A REMAKE, it's that it's a shitty remake. The Empire Strikes back is also kind of a remake of the first half of Star Wars, but it does this well, so there isn't really a problem. It's also not sloppy about how it's doing thing, it doesn't take scenes from Star Wars, shuffle them around, and repeat them two or three times like the people writing different drafts weren't looking at what the person before them did.

Whatever. Movies are subjective.

And it's objective a worse structured filmed than the original.

ANH was a standalone movie that got two sequels to be turned into a trilogy. TFA is organically the first act of a trilogy.

That doesn't even kind of matter at all.

It explained what happened after ROTJ, and it wasn't the happy ending we thought it was, and history kind of repeated itself. Works as a pesudo-cap and a new beginning, esp. since there's now a new generation of heroes.

No it doesn't, it explains nothing. It explained nothing to the point that you, the person defending the film, saying it explained things, won't actually say why things are as they are in the movie. Because you don't know. Because the movie explains nothing of it's world that makes no sense.

I recall that the director summed up the movie's theme as being about the irresponsible use of technology (quoting Malcolm's lunchbox rant from the original movie).

One would not stop the other from being true.

Not the movie I saw.

Oh, this also makes sense then, you didn't see The Force Awakens. Ok, I get it now.

I'm not really sure I get this weird stance you're taking, it's ok if you like the movie and also notice that it copies scenes from the original movie, and that it's a structurally weaker film.

Okay, you don't like the movie, I love it. Not sure what else there is to be said.

You haven't really said anything. You're trying to defend stuff without building any kind of defense.

The story was about stealing the Death Star plans. ANH opens with the Rebels fleeing with the stolen plans. Not having one lead into the other raise a lot of questions.

Yes, the story is about the group of characters that steal the Death Star plans, and that story ends when they all die. The rest is just stupid fan service, it's so you the view can see a "cool" moment of a character you know from the original movies. It's so the movie can have this big Vader scene for no reason at all.

It would only raise the question of what happened in-between, which is literally a question that already existed before anyways. It's also not really a question that matters, it's a question that allows you the viewer to imagine something. Leading right into Star Wars the way it does also also raises questions, questions about why this l stupid thing you're seeing is happening..

Whatever.

This seems like a nice response to the truth.

I don't get the problem. While the title crawl is a little vague (it was made years prior), there's nothing factual in that contradicts R1. Why look for problems when none exist?

It's not vague at all. It pretty simply states a thing. You were the one saying the opening title crawl said a thing it doesn't say, not me. Who cares if it was made years before? It being a thing that came before should make this all easier. You watch the movie, you read the opening, then you see if anything about what's happening in that very moment feels weird if you're now going to say they came directly from that battle the opening movie talks about.

That change in perspective doesn't create any real problems. Leia's cover story was always a load of bull (they were fleeing the law and shooting at a Navy ship), and she and Vader knew it. R1 just shows exactly how much bull they both knew the story to be.

It creates a pretty big problem, and that problem is it shifts the whole movie away from what the whole movie was about onto different characters the movie isn't about.

We already knew the story was bullshit. Now it's so shockingly bullshit it doesn't even make sense. Before this movie there was some plausible deniability. She may have actually been on a diplomatic mission before, and using the clearance being a diplomat gives her to move a thing from one place to another. Now that isn't even a thing. She was just at the battle for whatever reason, and she's seen leaving the battle. Now her lie has went from something that could have had some truth to it to something so comically stupid I'm not sure why she even said the thing.

[Za Waldo]

It does show how the plans were sent to the Tantive IV, how it escaped Scarif, and the context of Vader and Leia's conversation when she's arrested.

So it's pointless and it made a scene in a movie from 1977 stupid in retrospect.

It connects the dots, showing us how we get to ANH. Had the movie ended after the leads died, it would leave the question of how the plans got to Leia unanswered.

These are not dots that need to be connected guy that was going on before about how people want **** spoon feed to them. The dots also happen to be stupid in this case, which isn't a thing you want to happen. No explanation at all for a thing that doesn't need an explanation because you're given enough information to create one yourself is better than a definitive stupid explanation that makes no sense. It's also at this point that I'll say if they wanted you to think she was coming right from the battle the opening crawl talks about they probably would have said that there in Star Wars. It likely would have also come up in dialogue, given that's kind of a big thing.

Evidently the old ideas were made fresh enough for me, unlike you.

You aren't even saying anything.

TFA has different narrative needs from ANH. If it needed its own cantina scene, that's not a problem.

It didn't need two of them.

Whatever.

Yeah, whatever, this is a great response.

Is that why so many are New York Times bestsellers.

Yes, it is.

Since they're fully canonical, they're relevant to the discussion. Ignoring them is along the lines of trying to divorce Star Trek: First Contact from the TV show episode it's a sequel to.

No, they aren't, because we're talking about a movie. We aren't talking about book the movie people probably don't give a **** about.

The movies don't give us the full picture.

Yeah, because it's a bad movie. It's not creating fun questions, it's creating stupid question about how why basics things are like they are. The movie also isn't really structured around these questions. The movie isn't a mystery, it just kind of throws questions out there and movie

A.) While it is used to show that Luke is in control of his skills, no where is it said that it's a hallmark of a master Jedi. B.) It doesn't have to be the very first lesson to be an elementary skill, and C.) we only see snippets of Yoda's training. None of that contradicts Rebels showing us that its something novices can learn or the TFA novelization confirming that Rey figured out how to do the trick by copying what happened when Kylo read her mind and she pushed back. Both sources are canonical, so the "facts" have been set and disprove the theory you presented there,

It's a scene showing you the viewer that this character can now do a thing Obi-Wan did in the first movie. It's meant to show use how far he's comes since the first movie. If this thing that's meant to show you how powerful he's grown also is later revealed in some shitty cartoon that it's one of the easiest things to do, then it kind of ruins the whole point of the scene.

Took three tries (and we never see her do it again, so it could be luck that she got it right; mastery is being able to repeat at will), and, as stated above, Luke first doing it three movies into his story is irrelevant to when other characters "should" do it and is inconsistent with how the mind trick works in canon as a whole.

I don't care if she

Telekinesis? Luke didn't learn that from Yoda, he self-taught himself (Heir to the Jedi). Proven in ESB, when he uses it on Hoth, before becoming Yoda's apprentice. Telekinesis has also been shown to be usable untrained (Rebels episode "Droids in Distress").

You're right, he didn't learn how to use it from used because the movie has a scene at the beginning where he tries for about a minute to move a Lightsaber. Mine you we've actually seen him training with a Jedi to do things already, but yeah, that isn't something he learns to do by working with Yoda. But it is something that takes him around a minute to do, and it is something Rey does having seemingly ever trained before. She's also so good at it she successfully does it why Kyle Ren is trying to do it, she pulls it right away from a trained Force user right to herself.

Strong willed people can resist mind tricks and the like. In ANH, Vader commented that Leia resisted mind-probing and, beyond commenting that it would take time to wear her down that way, didn't seem to surprised that someone he thought was a muggle could do that. Anakin suggested that Padme was too strong-willed to be mind-tricked in AOTC (although he may have been teasing her). In the Clone Wars show, we also see non-Force user Cad Bane offer signifiant resistance to being mind-tricked. So, Rey being able to resist has precedence and doesn't need to be connected to her using the Force. Also, she struggles to block Kylo for some time (he's able to read quite a few things before she starts successfully pushing back).

She doesn't just resist him, she turns the tables on him and gets in his head.

Movies man, movies. It doesn't matter what the other stuff does. Nobody cares.

As far as Kylo doing new things, his mind reading skills seem to be either mind tricks or mind probes, both of which have been established before (mind tricks are seen throughout the movies and Vader mind-probed Leia offscreen in ANH, as he tells Tarkin before the latter decided to use Alderaan to break her). His freezing the blaster bolt was probably applied telekinesis, which is a common Force talent.

His freezing blasted bolts is something I don't think has been shown before. If we're playing the game of this other Star Wars stuff does this or that too, it's a pretty impressive power.

First of all, Kylo was bleeding from the gut after being shot by Chewie's super bowcaster and in terrible shape (he visibly gets sloppier the longer the duels go on). Secondly, Kylo was trying to take her alive, Rey was not using such restraint. Thirdly, Rey was applying her experience with melee combat with staffs to use the saber (obvious by watching her moves in the film and confirmed in the junior novelization). Finally, her connecting with the Force was her turning point (it was showing her Kylo's strikes before they happened). A lot of special circumstances were in play here and she won by technicalities and a handicap.

First of all he's an evil magic space wizard that uses the power of hate, anger, and rage. He seems to be using his wound throughout that fight to make himself stronger.

Second of all, what's your point? He's a trained laser sword fighter in a fight with someone that's seemingly never used a laser sword and he's got the power to freeze people in place and throw things at them with his mind. Taking someone alive doesn't exactly mean taking them with all their limbs.

Third of all nothing about being able to fight with a staff weapon would help you use a sword well enough to take on someone trained with the weapon. Especially some weird laser sword with a weightless "blade" and every part of that "blade" basically being a cutting edge.

You're ignoring a lot of stated evidence and your only argument is mostly speculation. Based on the evidence, I still have to submit that Rey is not overpowered.

I'm ignoring the cartoons and the books because we're talking about the movies and the cartoons and the books don't matter at all. When the other stuff starts dictating what the movies do then I won't. I'd suggest when trying to make points about a movie doing something you just talk about the movie.

The First Order controls a region of space. Their planets need to exist somewhere. I'm not 100% sure what the map is like, but Starkiller Base can move from location to location and it also fires its beams through sub-hyperspace, so it has a pretty decent range across the Galaxy.

It doesn't look like it's firing through hyperspace, you can see the beam leave Starkiller Base, you see it travel further into space past Ren's ship, and you see it above the skies of Not-Yavin 4 Cantina Planet. Showing it going into hyperspace, POV shots of it in hyperspace, or It leaving hyperspace seems like a thing they should have shown.

Do they ever say in the movie that it moves, or show it moving? I don't really remember this being a thing

[Za Waldo]

I'm not sure I'd say the news that Abrams is taking over is disappointing, but it sure as **** ain't exciting. They should have just gotten Justin Lin, guy made the best of those Star Trek movies. I don't know, do something interesting and get Darren Aronofsky or something; guy might do it, he almost did a Wolverine movie not long ago, he was on board for Batman at one point, he was trying to get a Ronin movie off the ground, same with Lone Wolf and Cub. He might be able to do a lot of the things he wanted to do with those in a Star Wars movies.

[Carabas]

It didn't need two of them.

Okay...
What were they, and how exactly are we defining "cantina scene" here?

They should have just gotten Justin Lin, guy made the best of those Star Trek movies.

I'm not sure I disagree, but you do not get to make a Star Wars movie when your other big budget sci-fi franchise movie bombed.

[Za Waldo]

Okay...
What were they, and how exactly are we defining "cantina scene" here?

Already said what they were:

When they meet Han Sole is the first time The Force Awakens does the Cantina Scene. The second time is when they go to the bar that looks like the Cantina. The Force Awakens takes the meeting of Han Sole at the Cantina, and Han & Greedo and does the new characters meeting Han, and Han running into those two gangs. That's The Force Awakens first Cantina scene, it doesn't look like the Cantina scene from Star Wars, but the same stuff happens there. It also takes the trash compactor monster and blows that up into a whole action sequence that even people that liked the movie seemed to hate. This would basically be the Cantina Scene stuff mixed with them getting pulled in by the Death Star after leaving Tatooine...it's got less going on but whatever. That's also the second time they've done that Death Star bit too, as the first time is when Llewyn Davis and Attack the Block team up to escape Bigger Death Star, and it'll happen a third time as everyone goes back at the end of the movie to save Rey like they saved Leia in Star Wars.

Later we get the Cantina scene again when they go to a place that looks like the Cantina. Besides looking like the Cantina scene, they're basically there for the same reason they went to the Cantina in Star Wars; only insisted of looking for a pilot they're looking from someone with information. So Cantina scene, happens twice in The Force Awakens, and both times they lead into a version of the bit where characters run around the Death Star.

See how this movie is a mess? It feels like a script written by different people but none of them checked to see if someone already did their take on a scene from the original movie. You don't need two versions of the Cantina scene, you don't need three different takes on Han and Luke running around the Death Star.

Also weird about these two Cantina scenes is they're also both takes on Luke and Obi-Wan talking at Kenobi's house. Han is The Force Awakens Obi-Wan, his little thing about it all being true is his version of Obi-Wan telling Luke about fighting in the Clone Wars with his father. In the next Cantina scene we met some old alien lady who also services that role and has an old Lightsaber in a box just like Obi-Wan does. And both of these come after we're introduced to a character that seems like he's the Obi-Wan character at the start of the movie on Not-Tatooine. That one little Obi-Wan scene didn't need to happen across two longer different scenes, pick the one you like most and go with that.

I'd define them as both Cantina Scene as they're both doing the same things the Cantina Scene in the original movie does. The first one you could say is maybe less obvious about it, since it doesn't take place in a location that looks like the Cantina, but it's still doing the same thing. We and the characters are introduced to Han Solo, he's being chased by criminals for a bounty that's on his head. You could even draw other parallels that I didn't before. In the Cantina Scene Luke gets in trouble and Obi-Wan saves him by cutting someone's hand off, in The Force Awakens Attack the Block gets in trouble and Rey saves him by cutting the tentacle of a monster off with a door. And you know what, I don't particularly care for that whole tentacle monster expanded trash compactor monster sequences (what a fucking waste to get the guys from The Raid and then not doing anything with them, that's like some kind of fan disservice)...but it at least has the right idea (for the most part anyways) about how to take something from the original movie and rework it into something different. But then we get the Cantina scene all over again, and right after it just happened, and this time it actually looks like the Cantina Scene too. And it's hitting all the beats of the Cantina Scene too, so it's kind of like: What the **** movie? I mean, if it was me, and I wanted to show off a bunch of cool aliens or whatever, I'd of done that back on Jakku with some kind of huge alien bazaar; and not like that little marketplace you see in the movie, I'm talking some crazy packed bazaar full of shops and aliens, and weird alien food, and just all kinds of ****. Would have picked a different desert too, like a Namib-Naukluft National Park, so it at least looks a little different from the desert planet in Star Wars.

It's just such an odd thing to do. Whats the point of stopping the movie to repeat a thing you just did a take on? I can't figure it out. It feels like one of two things. Either the Han intro first Cantina scene is from the old draft and somehow two writers didn't pick up on it being that, or they wrote that scene and someone said "But where's the Cantina Scene?" and after explaining its there, but it looks different and it's not exactly the same as the original, that person said "Yeah, well do it will all the aliens this time". It's such a weird little pace killer, and The Force Awakens is weirdly full of these. The movie feels like a script that went through multiple drafts while nobody that did a new draft looked to see if someone had already done this or that scene from Star Wars, so you get this weird thing where you're watching the movie and your like: Oh, that's his movies version of that thing from the original movie, oh there's another version of it, what the **** they're doing it again? It reminds me of this bit in the Hot Fuzz commentary where Edgar Wright is talking about the movie Armageddon, (which went through a number of drafts, and had lots of people working on it...funnily enough JJ Abrams is one of the credited writers on it) and he's talking about how it doesn't feel like the people doing different drafts read through the whole script because while on the asteroid someone says "This place is like Dr. Seuss's worst nightmare" then moments later another character says "This is like a surrealistic nightmare". The Force Awakens has that, only instead of lines it's whole scenes.

[/quote]
I'm not sure I disagree, but you do not get to make a Star Wars movie when your other big budget sci-fi franchise movie bombed.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't blame him for that. He was following up the very badly received Star Trek Into Darkness, and his movie go trashed when the first trailer came out. Star Trek clearly shows Lin can do Space stuff, and some pretty fantastic looking space stuff at that. Keep in might he's also the guy that helmed The Fast & the Furious series into its transition into a fucking crazy mega successful action series. He can do action, he can do space stuff, he can do dog fights, he's another person that's also been trying to do a Lone Wolf and Cub movie so you know he wants to do some sword fighting action. Justin Lin might be just about the easiest pick for a Star Wars director that doesn't sound like some crazy out there choice at fight.

[Carabas]

Okay...
So you are very very very narrowly defining a Cantina scene as a scene where Han is shown to have a bad reputation in the underworld and/or a hero gets in trouble and another hero solves this by dismemberment.
Which are basically two entirely different kinds of scenes. Does Luke in the Wampa cave count as a cantina scene? Does like half of Logan?

And get this, the entirety of the rest of the planet defines "Cantina scene" as a scene set in a cantina or similar place, filled to the brim with dozens (or however many the budget will allow) bizarre looking aliens.

[WebLurker]

It doesn't hold more water, not even kind of. It's a remake, you want to blind you're to this for whatever bizarre reason, that's your thing.

"Remake." Noun. "A movie or piece of music that has been filmed or recorded again and rereleased" (according to the dictionary on my computer). Don't think so.

Although like I've said, THE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT IT IS A REMAKE, it's that it's a shitty remake. The Empire Strikes back is also kind of a remake of the first half of Star Wars, but it does this well, so there isn't really a problem. It's also not sloppy about how it's doing thing, it doesn't take scenes from Star Wars, shuffle them around, and repeat them two or three times like the people writing different drafts weren't looking at what the person before them did.

And I say it's a good movie and that the copying certain aspects or having the movies rhyme is nothing that the franchise hasn't done before. So there are, huh?

And it's objective a worse structured filmed than the original.

I don't know about that. We get introduced to the leads a lot quicker and their establishing character moments are fairly well done (we understand what motivates them from their first scenes, give or take a few minutes). Character motivations seem a lot more tied to the plot than the original.

That doesn't even kind of matter at all.

The thing is, when ANH came out, that was it. It was the full story. Granted, there were hopes to make more and thankfully it panned out, but the movie was designed to exist in a vacuum. TFA was designed to be seen alongside two other movies that haven't come out yet.

No it doesn't, it explains nothing. It explained nothing to the point that you, the person defending the film, saying it explained things, won't actually say why things are as they are in the movie. Because you don't know. Because the movie explains nothing of it's world that makes no sense.

Funny, I did give specific answers from the movie proper (e.g. quotes and whatnot). I do agree that there are some unanswered questions (whether that be because they'll be answered in parts two or three, they're not as important as we think, or were miscalculations on the filmmakers' part). I'd be more than happy to answer any points based on what i know.

One would not stop the other from being true.

J.R.R. Tolkien once said something very interesting:

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

I guess that I think that JW's "blockbuster commentary" is a case of "applicability," while you're saying that it's "allegory." Have the filmmakers said anything about if any "commentary" the movie has on blockbusters was on purpose or a lucky accident?

I'm not really sure I get this weird stance you're taking, it's ok if you like the movie and also notice that it copies scenes from the original movie, and that it's a structurally weaker film.

Huh? I though you were the one who found the borrowing and copying annoying. As far as it being structurally weaker, I frankly thought that they were comparable (with TFA doing more character development).

You haven't really said anything. You're trying to defend stuff without building any kind of defense.

Yeah? I've been citing some pretty specific sources here. Which ones ones were vague? I'm willing to try and write a better explanation.

Yes, the story is about the group of characters that steal the Death Star plans, and that story ends when they all die. The rest is just stupid fan service, it's so you the view can see a "cool" moment of a character you know from the original movies. It's so the movie can have this big Vader scene for no reason at all.

So would it be fair to say that the escape of the ship and Vader's rampage are an epilogue of sorts to the main story?

It would only raise the question of what happened in-between, which is literally a question that already existed before anyways. It's also not really a question that matters, it's a question that allows you the viewer to imagine something. Leading right into Star Wars the way it does also also raises questions, questions about why this l stupid thing you're seeing is happening..

So, basically it's bad because you didn't want that piece of the puzzle filled in? I don't think I'm really understanding why you're so bugged by the movies leading one into the other here.

This seems like a nice response to the truth.

You do remember what Kenobi said about truths and points of view, right?

It's not vague at all. It pretty simply states a thing. You were the one saying the opening title crawl said a thing it doesn't say, not me.

No, my point was that the title crawl gives the rough framework that R1 followed and there's no inconsistencies between the written word and the fleshed out version we saw in R1.

Who cares if it was made years before? It being a thing that came before should make this all easier. You watch the movie, you read the opening, then you see if anything about what's happening in that very moment feels weird if you're now going to say they came directly from that battle the opening movie talks about.

Why?

It creates a pretty big problem, and that problem is it shifts the whole movie away from what the whole movie was about onto different characters the movie isn't about.

You lost me. Why does it shift the focus?

We already knew the story was bullshit. Now it's so shockingly bullshit it doesn't even make sense. Before this movie there was some plausible deniability. She may have actually been on a diplomatic mission before, and using the clearance being a diplomat gives her to move a thing from one place to another. Now that isn't even a thing. She was just at the battle for whatever reason, and she's seen leaving the battle. Now her lie has went from something that could have had some truth to it to something so comically stupid I'm not sure why she even said the thing.

No offense, but once her ship was taking potshots at Vader, I don't see how anything she could've said would've had any truth to it, much less convince anyone that it was a misunderstanding (bear in mind, Vader's dialogue makes it sound like they knew she was a Rebel but couldn't prove it until now). I think she was posturing in the first place since she had nothing to loose, so I don't really see how R1 showing that her crap story was more crap than we originally thought changes that much.