Trevorrow out as 9's director

[WebLurker]

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

As explained before, I don't think that it makes the ANH scene stupid (your case is that it took away any plausibility from Leia's alibi, while I think that even in the context of ANH, she had zero plausibility). As far as R1 being pointless, I don't think so. While the outcome may have been more or less known, the point was the journey, the stories of the new characters and what choices they made that paved the way to ANH and beyond.

These are not dots that need to be connected guy that was going on before about how people want shit 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.

So you don't like the extra info. I thought it made ANH better, since it made the story of the Death Star plans more concrete and less abstract. I also think you're blowing the whole "it makes no sense that they just got from the battle" thing way out of proportion.

It didn't need two of them.

You have such a broad definition of "cantina scene" that it defines everything and so nothing. (Basically, by your reasoning any intro scene to Han Solo -- which would be needed -- is a cantina scene.)

Yes, it is.

So, people don't care for Star Wars books and show that by buying the books? That makes no sense.

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 shit about.

We're talking about a Star Wars which includes both movies and books in regards to the full picture. Your like or dislike of them is not relevant to their relevancy in this discussion.

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

Well, we do know that some of those mysteries are going to be answered later in the trilogy, so it's hard to know at this stage which ones have answers coming and which ones don't.

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.

I don't think the mind trick is the only cue that Luke has progressed. I will concede that the "mind trick" is an easy skill is extrapolation on my part from what the canon has shown us, not a stated "fact", so I'm not as dogmatic on that point (esp. since the "how did Rey do it?" question has already been answered).

I don't care if she

I think something's missing here.

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.

An official reference work did confirm that the intent was that Rey did it untrained (Star Wars Made Easy: A Beginner's Guide). Whether that's the Force skill she's naturally in tune with (as established happens in Ahsoka) or not remains to be seen. As far as Kylo Ren, he had a very weak grip on it (Rey's Story junior novelization) and was struggling to pull it out of the ground (as we see in the movie, and confirmed in the junior novelization, which explains that the pain from his wounds was screwing up in concentration and hindering from using the Force in this way).

[WebLurker]

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

True. The novelization doesn't explain exactly how she did it. It just happens and she seems as surprised as we are. There is a note that Kylo his a "barrier" in her mind that he couldn't probe past and trying to with as strong a probe as he could was what was happening when Rey realized she was reading his mind. The junior novelization states that Kylo's personal fears left his mind very easy to read. It also states that she did reverse the mind probe on him, but doesn't go into detail. Th Rey's Story novelization suggests that Rey's resisting and pushing back on the probe was what fueled her being able to reverse it (maybe unconsciously calling on the Force?).

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

LucasFilm, the people in charge of such things, disagree with you.

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.

Fair enough. It was a guess of mine that that trick is "simply" an application of telekinesis. "Freezing blaster bolts" could well be its own thing.

First of all he's an evil magic space wizard that uses the power of hate, anger, and rage.

He's also not completely trained and his injuries seemed to be catching up with him the whole time. (As I recall, he gets sloppier and sloppier the longer the duels go on).

He seems to be using his wound throughout that fight to make himself stronger.

I'm not sure about that. It didn't seem to help much, if that was the intent. I do know for a fact that the junior novelization stated that his wounds were hindering, not helping him.

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...

But someone who knew melee combat.

...and he's got the power to freeze people in place and throw things at them with his mind.

As we saw with him trying to grab the saber, he was loosing control of his that specific skill; compare how much trouble he had pushing Rey into the tree compared to him grabbing the saber (the junior novelization did confirm that by the time he fought her, this skill was compromised).

Taking someone alive doesn't exactly mean taking them with all their limbs.

It looked like up till the point that she made the connection, he almost seemed to want to to surrender willingly ("You need a teacher").

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.

A.) If you watch, Rey's pretty clumsy with the saber when trying to use it like a staff (she's retreating a lot, too). B.) As stated befor, Kylo was very badly injured and nowhere near his best.

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.

That's not how the Force works.

When the other stuff starts dictating what the movies do then I won't.

R1 used material from The Clone Wars and Rebels (the Rebels team was even asked to help create background dialogue). The R1 team also helped with the Catalyst prequel novel. The Bloodline novel incorporated specific elements at the request of Rian Johnson to seed stuff for The Last Jedi. That's a pretty rare level in integration in a multimedia franchise and practically unheard of in franchises where the tie-ins don't count.

I'd suggest when trying to make points about a movie doing something you just talk about the movie.

You can't play poker with only half a deck. Since the tie-ins are part of canon, it's a fair move. "Screaming about it won't help."

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.

The tech specs were described in the novelization. To be fair, Alan Dean Foster completely reimagined how the weapon worked, to the point that many details outright contradict the movie. So, since the novelization is canon, but obviously the movie is "correct" when there's a contradiction between the two, it's a little hazy what parts of the novel in this regard "count" and which ones don't (my assumption is that anything that doesn't contradict onscreen is fair game). I think reality is that the filmmakers made what they they thought would look good onscreen and an explanation was created after the fact. At least, so far as I know, all the info about how the beam traveled has only been in books and statements from people involved with the movie or LucasFilm.

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

I believe that it was LucasFilm Story Group member Pablo Hidalgo answering a fan question on Twitter where we learned this (I don't recall if any other sources have established this as well). The movie doesn't address it one way or another, but since the weapon drains suns, you would need to move it to be able to use it more than once.

[Carabas]

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

It consumed suns as ammunition. So either it could move or it was a weapon designed to be only used one time.

[Za Waldo]

It consumed suns as ammunition. So either it could move or it was a weapon designed to be only used one time.

Or it was badly thought out. Or the one sun will power the weapon basically indefinitely. Or they have to send stuff out to draw power from other stars. Or it's just a cool sounding name.

[Za Waldo]

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.

No, I'm defining the scene by the things that happen in the scene, which isn't really a narrow definition of it.

If you're taking the thing that happen in the Cantina, and you're setting it in a different location, you're still fuckin' doing the Cantina scene. And this is followed up by them doing the Cantina Scene again in a location that actually just looks like the Cantina.

If the next movie did a scene where Rey is walking around some city and is attack by some gang, and she later wakes up tied to something, and she uses her force power to grab something to free herself...they've done the Wamp scene. It doesn't even matter that it's not an ice cave and she wasn't taken by a Wamp, because it's still doing the scene. If she escapes their hideout and must do something to be shielded from the elements it's even more like it.

[WebLurker]

No, I'm defining the scene by the things that happen in the scene, which isn't really a narrow definition of it.

If you're taking the thing that happen in the Cantina, and you're setting it in a different location, you're still fuckin' doing the Cantina scene. And this is followed up by them doing the Cantina Scene again in a location that actually just looks like the Cantina.

If the next movie did a scene where Rey is walking around some city and is attack by some gang, and she later wakes up tied to something, and she uses her force power to grab something to free herself...they've done the Wamp scene. It doesn't even matter that it's not an ice cave and she wasn't taken by a Wamp, because it's still doing the scene. If she escapes their hideout and must do something to be shielded from the elements it's even more like it.

I have to agree with Carabas here; you have such a narrow definition of what comprises a "cantina scene" (or "Wampa scene" or whatever) that anything could apply.

[Za Waldo]

Dammit. Double post

[Za Waldo]

"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.

Oh, so it's a remake. Thanks for clearing that up.

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?

You're really hung up on this aspect for some reason despite me saying the problem is not simply that it is a remake. The problem is it's a bad one, and since it's a bad version of a good movie it's basically pointless since the good movie is right over there.

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.

I know about it, because the movie throws the same scenes from the original movie at you over and over again.

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.

The thing is a movie needs to be its own thing. The Force Awakens also wasn't really designed to be seen alongside two other movies, they probably didn't even know what those two other movies would even be when they were writing or filming the thing.

And forgive me if I have doubts anything that wasn't answered had no answer when the creator of Lost is behind the movie.

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.

You did not answer any movie related question with anything from the movie. You did say some things from books or whatever.

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?

Well, I wouldn't say it's subtext, it just seems to be the text of the movie. It's not really beating around the bush with it, there is a character in the movie that wears a old Jurassic Park shirt and talks about how the original park was the real shit and how the new park isn't the same. This would be a movie where the two iconic dinosaurs from the original movie, which ends that movie in a fight to the death, team up to fight the new movies made by comment corporate sponsored dinosaur, and they're helped by the movies big new real dinosaurs in killing the movies totally made up one.

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).

Well, this is funny, because I've only said it multiple times, but I don't find that to be an inherently bad thing.

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.

You having? We're talking about the movies, you start talking about a cartoon or something. The movie is what matters.

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?

No, because it doesn't have anything to do with the dead characters, which is what the movie is about. It's more like an addendum about the movies MacGuffin. It also serves no purpose other than to get a fan service action scene in with Vader, Vader being a totally inconsequential character to the actual movie. It doesn't even serve to you what happened to the MacGuffin, because we already knew what happened to it, because Star Wars is a thing.

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.

No, it's bad because it's totally stupid, pointless, and doesn't really work with the preexisting film it's trying to connect itself directly into.

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

Something about WebLurker being wrong? Admittedly it seemed like a pretty weird scene for years, now it makes total sense.

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.

No it wasn't. You literally posted what the title crawl said to show that it did in fact say the battle in Rogue One did happen moments before the opening of Star Wars. Seemed like a pretty weird thing to do to me since in reading the very thing you posted it's very clear it in fact does not say it happened moments ago.

I said:

You'd think the opening title crawl that talks about the Rebels first win would mention it happened just moments ago.

You said:

They did. From the title crawl of ANH: "Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet." It fits like a glove.

Why?

I've already said why

You lost me. Why does it shift the focus?

Why or how? The why would be for Vader fan service, to show people characters they know from Star Wars. How it shifts focus is following different characters the movie isn't about at all. I'm going to let you in on a secret, Rogue One is about that girl the movie follows around and the titular Rogue One group. Vader isn't Jyn Erso. Vader isn't even important to the events of the movie. The movie also isn't structured in such a way that following the thing they're sending out after the deaths of the Rogue One crew makes any sense.

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.

No shit they already knew. Hey, here's a question: Does it make any sense at all that anyone would sound like they couldn't prove it if they saw her leave a Rebal battleship that was at the scene of the battle, and they followed her directly from that battle?

[Za Waldo]

I have to agree with Carabas here; you have such a narrow definition of what comprises a "cantina scene" (or "Wampa scene" or whatever) that anything could apply.

How is a scene doing the exact same thing but in a different location a "narrow definition"?

[Za Waldo]

As explained before, I don't think that it makes the ANH scene stupid (your case is that it took away any plausibility from Leia's alibi, while I think that even in the context of ANH, she had zero plausibility). As far as R1 being pointless, I don't think so. While the outcome may have been more or less known, the point was the journey, the stories of the new characters and what choices they made that paved the way to ANH and beyond.

Yeah, but you're wrong, because it does make it stupid. My case isn't that it took away from the plausibility of her alibi, it's that nothing about the scene makes any sense at all when she knows they watched her leave the battle, and they know she just left the battle, and when that opening is her fleeing the battle. Before you could imagine that whatever happened before was somewhat vague, now she is fleeing the scene of the crime. You could also imagine it happened just as stupidly as Rogue One before, but now it's nailed down the stupid as the definitive thing that happened.

So you don't like the extra info. I thought it made ANH better, since it made the story of the Death Star plans more concrete and less abstract. I also think you're blowing the whole "it makes no sense that they just got from the battle" thing way out of proportion.

Well it doesn't. Nothing about it adds anything, in fact it takes away from Star Wars by adding stupid shit into the equation that was never there before.

You have such a broad definition of "cantina scene" that it defines everything and so nothing. (Basically, by your reasoning any intro scene to Han Solo -- which would be needed -- is a cantina scene.)

It's not even kind of broad, it's actually pretty specific, because it's take very specific thing Star Wars does in that scene. A broad definition of the Cantina Scene would be saying any scene where lots of aliens are shown off on screen is a Cantina Scene.

No, by my reasoning it wouldn't be any intro scene to Han Solo. My reason is pretty specific things that happen in the Cantina in Star Wars, they wouldn't even need to be intros to Han Solo, (the second one isn't Han Solo) it just happen to be with Han Solo the first time.

So, people don't care for Star Wars books and show that by buying the books? That makes no sense.

In general, nobody gives a fuck about those things. Do some people read or watch them? Yes. Is it a small enough group of people to say nobody really cares? Yes.

We're talking about a Star Wars which includes both movies and books in regards to the full picture. Your like or dislike of them is not relevant to their relevancy in this discussion.

No, we're talking about Star Wars, which is a movie series with tie-in stuff that doesn't actually matter to the movies at all. You want to talk about the movies, talk about the movie. I don't give a shit that some crappy cartoon that doesn't matter at all said this or that thing about whatever.

Well, we do know that some of those mysteries are going to be answered later in the trilogy, so it's hard to know at this stage which ones have answers coming and which ones don't.

They aren't mysteries, they're just simple unanswered questions, or more likely things that weren't thought of while writing. The movie doesn't play like these are big mysteries, they don't feel like things I'm meant to want answers to, it mostly just feels like bad writing.

I don't think the mind trick is the only cue that Luke has progressed. I will concede that the "mind trick" is an easy skill is extrapolation on my part from what the canon has shown us, not a stated "fact", so I'm not as dogmatic on that point (esp. since the "how did Rey do it?" question has already been answered).

It's kind of the only cue, you don't really need more than one. It shows you Luke doing a thing Obi-Wan did in the first movie, your brain goes "oh, he's doing the thing that old Jedi Master did in the first movie" it's done its job, it moves on.

An official reference work did confirm that the intent was that Rey did it untrained (Star Wars Made Easy: A Beginner's Guide). Whether that's the Force skill she's naturally in tune with (as established happens in Ahsoka) or not remains to be seen. As far as Kylo Ren, he had a very weak grip on it (Rey's Story junior novelization) and was struggling to pull it out of the ground (as we see in the movie, and confirmed in the junior novelization, which explains that the pain from his wounds was screwing up in concentration and hindering from using the Force in this way).

Movie. We are talking about a movie. The other stuff does not matter. This is pretty simple, when you find yourself trying to explain the shortfalls of the movie with something that isn't the movie, just stop, because we're talking about the movie.

The funny thing about that Star Wars Made Easy A Beginner's Guide is it sounds like it kind of throws a wrench in the "mystery" of Rey. It also doesn't really tell you anything. Oh, the original intent was this, but maybe it won't be that later, we don't know, we haven't really made up our minds on that one.

[Za Waldo]

LucasFilm, the people in charge of such things, disagree with you.

Yeah, ok, sure, we'll see. I'll believe it when they release a movies that beholden to things that happened in some random comic or whatever that nobody reads. Until then I'd just take it as a marketing gimmick to get nerds really into canon to buy more Star Wars because it's all equally "meaningfully" or whatever.


[/quote]
Fair enough. It was a guess of mine that that trick is "simply" an application of telekinesis. "Freezing blaster bolts" could well be its own thing.

He's also not completely trained and his injuries seemed to be catching up with him the whole time. (As I recall, he gets sloppier and sloppier the longer the duels go on).[/quote]
While not fully trained, he is trained well enough to do things with the Forace we've never seen before. He also seemingly beat Luke Skywalker, his former master that he turned on.

I'm not sure about that. It didn't seem to help much, if that was the intent. I do know for a fact that the junior novelization stated that his wounds were hindering, not helping him.

It seemed to help a lot, given he wasn't dead, and instead still on his feet and able to fight.

But someone who knew melee combat.

Someone that knows a different style of totally unrelated melee combat

As we saw with him trying to grab the saber, he was loosing control of his that specific skill; compare how much trouble he had pushing Rey into the tree compared to him grabbing the saber (the junior novelization did confirm that by the time he fought her, this skill was compromised).

It looked like up till the point that she made the connection, he almost seemed to want to to surrender willingly ("You need a teacher").

But in lieu of that? He's trying to get her, and he's trying to do it whichever way he can.


[/quote]
A.) If you watch, Rey's pretty clumsy with the saber when trying to use it like a staff (she's retreating a lot, too). [/quote]
Not so clumsy she can't fight a person trained in using a Lightsaber.

B.) As stated befor, Kylo was very badly injured and nowhere near his best.

Yes, the magic space wizard that draws power from negative thing was shot and shown hitting himself where he was shot throughout the fight.

That's not how the Force works.

No, it does work by the cartoons, books, and comics not mattering. When they start to matter they can't use the Force anymore.

R1 used material from The Clone Wars and Rebels (the Rebels team was even asked to help create background dialogue). The R1 team also helped with the Catalyst prequel novel. The Bloodline novel incorporated specific elements at the request of Rian Johnson to seed stuff for The Last Jedi. That's a pretty rare level in integration in a multimedia franchise and practically unheard of in franchises where the tie-ins don't count.

By using material do you mean Saw Gerrera? Yeah, it seems like they used the name of a character from The Clone Wars. It also seems like The Clone Wars Saw Gerrera is a totally different character, kind of like Rogue One developed its own totally original character without any thought of The Clone Wars, and then someone gave them the name of a character that was already around to use. By the time he shows up in Rebels they aren't knew all about Rogue One, it's a movie tie-in thing. And that tie-in thing is something stuff does all the time. Many a movie tie-in comic book and video game have done the same things.

You can't play poker with only half a deck. Since the tie-ins are part of canon, it's a fair move. "Screaming about it won't help."

The movie is the full deck. You want to play poker, stop pulling out Pokémon and Uno cards.

[quote]
The tech specs were described in the novelization. To be fair, Alan Dean Foster completely reimagined how the weapon worked, to the point that many details outright contradict the movie. So, since the novelization is canon, but obviously the movie is "correct" when there's a contradiction between the two, it's a little hazy what parts of the novel in this regard "count" and which ones don't (my assumption is that anything that doesn't contradict onscreen is fair game). I think reality is that the filmmakers made what they they thought would look good onscreen and an explanation was created after the fact. At least, so far as I know, all the info about how the beam traveled has only been in books and statements from people involved with the movie or LucasFilm.
[quote]
Oh wow, the other stuff doesn't match up with the movies? You don't say.

I believe that it was LucasFilm Story Group member Pablo Hidalgo answering a fan question on Twitter where we learned this (I don't recall if any other sources have established this as well). The movie doesn't address it one way or another, but since the weapon drains suns, you would need to move it to be able to use it more than once.

So, it doesn't matter, because it's not in the movie. I wonder what level of canon tweets were under the old system?

[Carabas]

How is a scene doing the exact same thing but in a different location a "narrow definition"?

Because what you are refering to should be called an amputation scene, or a bounty hunter scene.

A cantina scene requires a cantina or similar location filled with as much bizarre looking aliens or similar as the budget will allow. What it does not need is specific story beats.

The scene where Obi-Wan slices off Ponda Baba'sarm is part of a cantina scene, because of the locationwhere it happens, not because of what happens in that scene.

This is a cantina scene:



And this is not even in the same universe as a cantina scene:

[SuperiorIronman]

I don't feel like responding to specific posts about this ("Force Awakens/Rogue One versus ANH" seriously needs its own thread by now) but I'll try to hit this best I can.

Inconsistencies in novelizations
The reason for this is that it's likely working off of an earlier script, this sort of inconsistency does indeed happen. It could also be that the book got a miscommunication and the editors missed it. Star Wars like all franchises is not seamless. The resolution to conflicting information is to go by the movies wherever a conflict exists, but if the novel is canon then whatever works is canonical. It could also be the difference in mediums as well as what works in a movie might not work in a book and thus things change. Similarly to how something from a TV show might not appear exactly in a game, comic, or movie.

[WebLurker]

Oh, so it's a remake. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, different story, different movie. A similar story does not a remake make.

You're really hung up on this aspect for some reason despite me saying the problem is not simply that it is a remake. The problem is it's a bad one, and since it's a bad version of a good movie it's basically pointless since the good movie is right over there.

You keep bringing it up. As for it being bad, all you have to say about it is that "it copied the old movie and made it suck." As far as it being pointless, it kicks off a new story, introduces new characters, and is a lot of fun. Reason enough for me. (Mileage will vary.)

I know about it, because the movie throws the same scenes from the original movie at you over and over again.

Surely you jest.

The thing is a movie needs to be its own thing.

There was this thing called Lord of the Rings, so no, it doesn't, not when it's a series.

The Force Awakens also wasn't really designed to be seen alongside two other movies...

What part of "sequel trilogy" is beyond your comprehension?

...they probably didn't even know what those two other movies would even be when they were writing or filming the thing.

As I recall, JJ Abrams has gone on record that there was a full outline they were working off, including where everything will go. Even if not, the rest of the movies could be made to fit with TFA to form a complete whole.

And forgive me if I have doubts anything that wasn't answered had no answer when the creator of Lost is behind the movie.

Funny fact, Abrams started Lost and had virtually no involvement after that.

You did not answer any movie related question with anything from the movie. You did say some things from books or whatever.

Which is a legitimate source of information. Anyways,the origins of the First Order, what the Resistance is to the Republic, to name a couple, were in the movie and I did say as much.

Well, I wouldn't say it's subtext, it just seems to be the text of the movie. It's not really beating around the bush with it, there is a character in the movie that wears a old Jurassic Park shirt and talks about how the original park was the real shit and how the new park isn't the same. This would be a movie where the two iconic dinosaurs from the original movie, which ends that movie in a fight to the death, team up to fight the new movies made by comment corporate sponsored dinosaur, and they're helped by the movies big new real dinosaurs in killing the movies totally made up one.

What's with the obsession with this idea?

Well, this is funny, because I've only said it multiple times, but I don't find that to be an inherently bad thing.

Okay then.

You having? We're talking about the movies, you start talking about a cartoon or something. The movie is what matters.

The movie is one piece of the puzzle. You can take it alone, but it's part of something bigger. Anyways, the cartoons are canonical, so they are relevant to the discussion.

No, because it doesn't have anything to do with the dead characters, which is what the movie is about. It's more like an addendum about the movies MacGuffin. It also serves no purpose other than to get a fan service action scene in with Vader, Vader being a totally inconsequential character to the actual movie. It doesn't even serve to you what happened to the MacGuffin, because we already knew what happened to it, because Star Wars is a thing.

Since the point of those scenes where the Death Star plans (the plot that everything else tied into), I have to disagree on all accounts.

No, it's bad because it's totally stupid, pointless, and doesn't really work with the preexisting film it's trying to connect itself directly into.

In your opinion. Having seen the movies, I can't say that the nuts and bolts of it all fit that opinion.

Something about WebLurker being wrong? Admittedly it seemed like a pretty weird scene for years, now it makes total sense.

Insulting another user won't prove your point.

No it wasn't. You literally posted what the title crawl said to show that it did in fact say the battle in Rogue One did happen moments before the opening of Star Wars. Seemed like a pretty weird thing to do to me since in reading the very thing you posted it's very clear it in fact does not say it happened moments ago.

I said:

You'd think the opening title crawl that talks about the Rebels first win would mention it happened just moments ago.

You said:

They did. From the title crawl of ANH: "Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet." It fits like a glove.

Okay, my mistake, I was thinking about the Scarif mission, not the escape scene. Funny thing though, the title crawl doesn't say anything in regards to the timetable between the original theft and Vader capturing Leia, so there's nothing to contradict. (Also, within the franchise, it was always assumed that Leia got the plans pretty shortly after, if not directly at the site of, the theft and that her cover was blown. So, R1 isn't really doing anything that new.)

Why or how? The why would be for Vader fan service, to show people characters they know from Star Wars. How it shifts focus is following different characters the movie isn't about at all. I'm going to let you in on a secret, Rogue One is about that girl the movie follows around and the titular Rogue One group. Vader isn't Jyn Erso. Vader isn't even important to the events of the movie. The movie also isn't structured in such a way that following the thing they're sending out after the deaths of the Rogue One crew makes any sense.

Vader wasn't the point of those scenes, the plans were (which was a main plot thread of the movie). Your obsession with this epilogue capping off the story is weird. It connects to the main story and sets up the next movie in the series.

No shit they already knew. Hey, here's a question: Does it make any sense at all that anyone would sound like they couldn't prove it if they saw her leave a Rebal battleship that was at the scene of the battle, and they followed her directly from that battle?

I'm finding the wording of the question a little confusing. However, since the Imperials knew that Leia was a Rebel from the beginning of the movie, I don't see how it's a problem that they were chasing her from the battle.

[WebLurker]

Yeah, but you're wrong, because it does make it stupid. My case isn't that it took away from the plausibility of her alibi, it's that nothing about the scene makes any sense at all when she knows they watched her leave the battle, and they know she just left the battle, and when that opening is her fleeing the battle. Before you could imagine that whatever happened before was somewhat vague, now she is fleeing the scene of the crime. You could also imagine it happened just as stupidly as Rogue One before, but now it's nailed down the stupid as the definitive thing that happened.

Not really. The Imperials knew she was a Rebel back in '77. R1 chances nothing about that. Your problem seems to be that "if they chased her from a warzone, they would've brought that up in '77." That not a mistake, given that the movie establishes zero information about what happened prior and R1 does fit. (Weird thing is, you're missing the one real discrepancy between the two movies while calling foul on things that aren't mistakes.)

Well it doesn't. Nothing about it adds anything, in fact it takes away from Star Wars by adding stupid shit into the equation that was never there before.

You have yet to offer a really explanation why I should believe you on this, esp. when the movies themselves tell a different story.

It's not even kind of broad, it's actually pretty specific, because it's take very specific thing Star Wars does in that scene. A broad definition of the Cantina Scene would be saying any scene where lots of aliens are shown off on screen is a Cantina Scene.
No, by my reasoning it wouldn't be any intro scene to Han Solo. My reason is pretty specific things that happen in the Cantina in Star Wars, they wouldn't even need to be intros to Han Solo, (the second one isn't Han Solo) it just happen to be with Han Solo the first time.

That is what your argument basically comes down to.

In general, nobody gives a fuck about those things. Do some people read or watch them? Yes. Is it a small enough group of people to say nobody really cares? Yes.

I never said that they were mainstream, but they are there and are successful.

No, we're talking about Star Wars, which is a movie series with tie-in stuff that doesn't actually matter to the movies at all. You want to talk about the movies, talk about the movie. I don't give a shit that some crappy cartoon that doesn't matter at all said this or that thing about whatever.

Your like or dislike of something has no bearing on the validity or relevance of the material in question. The Powers That Be have said that the tie-ins are part of the story, we do not have they authority to disagree with that (unless we want to get into headcanon). Since the tie-ins are canonical alongside the movies, they are relevant to the discussion and cannot be discounted. So, you're wrong that they don't matter. Period. End of discussion. Moving on.

They aren't mysteries, they're just simple unanswered questions, or more likely things that weren't thought of while writing. The movie doesn't play like these are big mysteries, they don't feel like things I'm meant to want answers to, it mostly just feels like bad writing.

We'll see when the rest of the movies come out, I guess.

It's kind of the only cue, you don't really need more than one. It shows you Luke doing a thing Obi-Wan did in the first movie, your brain goes "oh, he's doing the thing that old Jedi Master did in the first movie" it's done its job, it moves on.

Whatever. I think this rabbit hole is loosing its usefulness. Besides, even if Luke found it a challenge, that doesn't mean that Rey would have the same problems with that specific skill (like how some people are gifted at math, others do okay at it, and the rest of us are very bad at it).

Movie. We are talking about a movie. The other stuff does not matter. This is pretty simple, when you find yourself trying to explain the shortfalls of the movie with something that isn't the movie, just stop, because we're talking about the movie.

if-you-want-59c3ed.jpg

The funny thing about that Star Wars Made Easy A Beginner's Guide is it sounds like it kind of throws a wrench in the "mystery" of Rey. It also doesn't really tell you anything. Oh, the original intent was this, but maybe it won't be that later, we don't know, we haven't really made up our minds on that one.

The book is more about what's already been made (geared to people who've never seen it before), not what's to come.