Topic: Star Wars 9 (Read 42486 times)

Tova · « **Reply #100 on:** 18 Dec 2019, 13:42 »

Okay. /shrug

JoeCovenant · « **Reply #101 on:** 19 Dec 2019, 01:58 »

Oh...

Just saw a wee interview with Daisy at the London Premier last night...

Interviewer: "So what is it about Star wars thats made it last so long?"

Daisy: "...it's FUN..." (good, good) "And... and it's silly! And JJ does silly really well..."

(Chasm opens in the ground near my feet.)

Y'see, to ME "Silly" is Jar Jar. "Silly" is teddy bears beating imperial walkers. "Silly" is "Dirt-offa-ma-shoulder" Skywalker. "Silly" is "Holding for General Hugs" etc etc - "Silly" was what started the decline. (For me).

BUT... (Glimmer of hope)
IF Daisy means "Silly" as Finn drinking huge beastie water, or Finn falling over and activating the Holo Chess, or basically JJ's more understated humour - (Well.. except for "So who talks first?...") - then that's fine...

I'm STILL hopeful!

BenRG · « **Reply #102 on:** 19 Dec 2019, 02:58 »

FWIW, I think Daisy probably is categorising 'fun' and 'silly' together in the context of "you shouldn't take it too seriously". Given the undeserved blame that has been thrown at her and her colleagues for the decisions made by the producers, directors and script-writers, I can see why she'd say so.

I can't imagine any Star Wars fan worth their salt disagreeing. One of the great differences (at least in my experience of them) between Trekkers and Warsies is that you won't catch Warsies sitting in the theatre, wearing a head-light and perusing the Incredible Cross-Sections books to make sure that the set designs and scaling are 'according to canon'.

Star Wars aren't completely random popcorn flicks (at least not anymore - not since The Empire Strikes Back). However, beyond demanding that the iconography be treated with a modicum of respect, I don't think that most fans will throw a fit over a little technical retconning or "we're changing a bit of the deep lore or in-universe laws of physics because the story needs it". I hope that my brother and sister Warsies still remember the franchise's origin in George Lucas's desire to update the RKO Serial pictures of the 1930s-50s.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #103 on:** 19 Dec 2019, 10:05 »

If you're not interested in seeing the new Star War this weekend, may I interest you in something else

RedWolf4 · « **Reply #104 on:** 19 Dec 2019, 14:16 »

. . . . .

I. . .

I am intrigued, but like in the same way you're intrigued when you see one of those 'Seconds from Disaster' tv shows.

Tova · « **Reply #105 on:** 22 Dec 2019, 05:24 »

Seen it. Not quite ready to talk about it yet.

sitnspin · « **Reply #106 on:** 22 Dec 2019, 14:12 »

It was "meh, okay, I guess" but then that was my opinion about all of them, so... consistency.

BenRG · « **Reply #107 on:** 22 Dec 2019, 23:19 »

Well, in the end, there is only one figure that really matters with something about that and that's the sales.

They're... underwhelming, at least in Star Wars terms

No matter what your view on their objections, there is no doubt that the people who are upset at the direction that Abrams and Johnson have chosen for the Sequel Trilogy have made good on their threat to stay away.

Theta9 · « **Reply #108 on:** 23 Dec 2019, 13:09 »

Quote from: Blue Kitty on 19 Dec 2019, 10:05

If you're not interested in seeing the new Star War this weekend, may I interest you in something else

I actually want to see it, un-ironically, as a fan of the musical.

JoeCovenant · « **Reply #109 on:** 24 Dec 2019, 02:58 »

Well then...

I went to see TRoS...

(click to show/hide)

Gyrre · « **Reply #110 on:** 24 Dec 2019, 04:16 »

Quote from: JoeCovenant on 24 Dec 2019, 02:58

Well then...

I went to see TRoS...

(click to show/hide)
And...
I fucking adored it.

Are their plot holes.. of course - it's sci-fi - most of that genre DOES!)

Are there bits where I went... "ooookayyy...?" Yes... (The "transporting" of things using the force)

But JJ did a pretty decent job of papering over the cracks of both TFA (which wasn't THAT bad) and TLJ, which was pretty bad) with some nice retconning, mostly involving Leia who was a proper Jedi! (Who knew!? But, in context, makes perfect sense!) )

So... yeah.... paid £13 at our new LUXE cinema... Like it so much I dropped another £15 for the SUPER deluxe version!)

HUGE kudos to JJ... He pulled it off...

Overall, it was better than I feared.

Just glad they foreshadowed /telegraphed that one thing even though both had plotholes.

It's a shame they didn't indicate Palpy back in SWtFA. That along with the unresolved shipping they set up are my major gripes. My major concern is that one of the littlemermaid eels or rogerrabbit weasels in legal* will try to trademark Carrie Fisher's likeness. I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

*People ask what happened to the classic Disney villain. They're still there, they just work in Disney's marketing and legal departments.

EDIT: typo fixes

LeeC · « **Reply #111 on:** 28 Dec 2019, 17:52 »

I just saw the movie. I need to digest it a bit, but my first impression is: Its okay. Not really bad and not really good. Its like they took Return of the Jedi and mixed it with The Last Jedi with some Indiana Jones sprinkled in.

Not good, not bad, just okay.

Wife on the other hand: hated the parts with Rey, liked the part with the Resistance.

Edit: Oh and I loved the short blink and you miss it

(click to show/hide)

cameo.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #112 on:** 28 Dec 2019, 18:16 »

I really enjoyed it, a lot more so than the people online that have been poo-pooing it

Gyrre · « **Reply #113 on:** 02 Jan 2020, 21:03 »

Quote from: Blue Kitty on 28 Dec 2019, 18:16

I really enjoyed it, a lot more so than the people online that have been poo-pooing it

While there are valid criticisms (reylo & the plotholes), it was still enjoyable.
Glad they did the one retcon, though it'd have been nice tohave that be the case from the beginning so the narrative across all three would be better.

Tova · « **Reply #114 on:** 05 Jan 2020, 03:05 »

Even though I enjoyed The Last Skywalker, I agree with these criticisms.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #115 on:** 24 Jan 2020, 08:06 »

So out of all the sequel trilogy I'd say Rise of Skywalker was the weakest, with Last Jedi being my first pick and Force Awakens at #2. But overall I'd put them way higher than the prequel trilogy and Solo. I'd even go so far to say that the Phantom Menace was better than Solo

Of course they are all Star Wars and I enjoyed watching them

Tova · « **Reply #116 on:** 24 Jan 2020, 22:41 »

As far as I am concerned, Luke's climactic scene is the greatest cinematic moment of any Star Wars film (yes, even greater than that moment).

JoeCovenant · « **Reply #117 on:** 27 Jan 2020, 05:01 »

Quote from: Tova on 24 Jan 2020, 22:41

...Luke's climactic scene...

Which one?

cybersmurf · « **Reply #118 on:** 06 Feb 2020, 14:22 »

Finally saw it the other day. Oh, muh, gawd, Disney! Blatantly throwing around clichés.
Got to agree with my brother, who said "You know who was on point? John Williams."

LeeC · « **Reply #119 on:** 05 May 2020, 10:05 »

I wasn't a fan of The Rise of Skywalker, but sometimes good things can come out of disasters, and sometimes from an unlikely place.

For example in the novelization of the film, they explain how Palpatine ends up in episode 9. He's a clone. Thats a bit easier to swallow than not having died. But the junior novelization explains (retcons) what rule of 2 actually is. Now I pulled this from an article so I have not read either novelizations, but I have to say I rather like this retcon.

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/star-wars-sith-lords-rule-of-two-retcon-rise-of-skywalker/

Basically the Jedi think the rule of 2 means there are only 2 Siths, ever, at any given time. But that's what the Sith wants them to think, they've cultivated that assumption. The rule of 2 in reality is the rule of only 2 Sith Lords (a master and an apprentice) to prevent infighting or else nothing gets done. They are to be the tip of the Sith iceberg, being the only thing seen by others outside of the Sith (which explains what the Jedi thinks it means). The rest of the sith are acolytes, agents, soldiers, cultists, etc. I liken it to Warhammer 40k's genestealer cults (in a hierarchical way, not biologically, that would be insane). With the Leader being the Patriarch (The Lord of the Sith) and his second in command the Magus or Primus (the sith apprentice fills both of these roles) with the rest of the cult is made up of worshipers, soldiers, newcomers and descendants of those that have been apart of the organization since its inception that infiltrate society and allow the leaders to pull the strings when needed. In the movie it explains why there are sith cultists and shock troops on that secret sith planet. It would also explain in Rebels where those Inquistors came from as well as how the Emperor could control everything (all the way down to Admiral Pryde in The Rise of Skywalker).

I like this retcon because it makes the Sith more devious and a larger threat than previously perceived, not to mention narratively flexible for future stories (even if we go back to old republic and old old republic). It also seems to be more believable on how Palpatine took over and held control of the galaxy and how his death, along with his apprentice, would cause such disorganization in the empire. At least until his clone was activated and he started orchestrating his return with the First and Last Orders. It doesn't excuse the movie(s) at all, but I like that this retcon opens some doors that felt shut/pandering from the movies.

JoeCovenant · « **Reply #120 on:** 06 May 2020, 05:52 »

I find it amazing that that even needs explained?
I never thought the rule of two meant there were only ever two sith - hell, even the JEDI worked on a rule of two...
I took Yoda's line "always two there are, a master and an apprentice" to be reflective of the situation they were in.. maul showed up, so they had to find out if he was the master or the apprentice - IE Oh, we've got a sith here... dammit where's the other one!"

In exactly the same way that the Jedi (on the whole) head out in twos - with a master and an apprentice.

As for Palpatine being a clone... isn't that explained in TRoS?
(Or was it only SNoke that he spoke about? BLu Ray arrives today - I'll have to check that out!)

However - the retconning material in TRoS could make for some very interesting mega cuts to make all three trilogy sequels into one decent movie!

BenRG · « **Reply #121 on:** 06 May 2020, 06:09 »

As I understand it, The Rule of Two is not a universal Sith rule, it is an understanding brought in by one Master at some point through the centuries after the Sith had nearly eradicated themselves with their fratricidal internecine squabbles. When you have a belief structure that states that the acquisition of supreme power through deception and force is your ultimate goal, it is unlikely that you will tolerate anyone of the same belief unless they are bound to you as a servant as an Apprentice is to their Master. To avoid self-destruction, the remaining Sith agreed that there should only be two of them at any one time.

However, Palpatine didn't follow anyone's rules except his own. The existence of the Inquisitorial Order proved that.

JoeCovenant · « **Reply #122 on:** 06 May 2020, 06:20 »

Quote from: BenRG on 06 May 2020, 06:09

As I understand it, The Rule of Two is not a universal Sith rule, it is an understanding brought in by one Master at some point through the centuries after the Sith had nearly eradicated themselves with their fratricidal internecine squabbles. When you have a belief structure that states that the acquisition of supreme power through deception and force is your ultimate goal, it is unlikely that you will tolerate anyone of the same belief unless they are bound to you as a servant as an Apprentice is to their Master. To avoid self-destruction, the remaining Sith agreed that there should only be two of them at any one time.

However, Palpatine didn't follow anyone's rules except his own. The existence of the Inquisitorial Order proved that.

Except that Maul and Dooku and Palpatine (to name but three) were all around at the same time.
(It could also be argued that Anakin was already Palpatine's 'apprentice' right from the off)

TBH... "the remaining Sith agreed there should only be two."...?
I don't know what that's supposed to mean?
Or are we looking at 'Sith' not being force users, and only allowing two of the sith (small S) *Cult* to achieve that?
That's not how the force works.

BenRG · « **Reply #123 on:** 06 May 2020, 06:41 »

This was all long before Palpatine's time, of course.

The history of the Sith, at least officially, really is complex as there have been many groups through the millennia of recorded galactic history that have used the name. However, in the terms we are interested in, the 'Sith Order' are a break-away group of Force adepts founded by a fallen Jedi known as Darth Bane. They are a relatively recent group, certainly more recent than Darth Revan's episode at the time of the Mandelorian Wars. This group exists in parallel with other Dark Jedi, such as Exar Kun who were not 'Sith'.

"Sith" is a misused term. It is not synonymous with Dark Side adepts. It rather explicitly refers to either the Force-using king/priests of the Korribanite Empire (about 100k years ago, close to the founding of the Old Republic in what I believe are now known as the 'Hyperspace Wars') or the disciples of Darth Bane through the millennia who were directly taught by a Master of the same creed. There have been entire Dark Side cults that have had nothing to do with the Sith (and, indeed, loathed Bane's followers with the absolute burning fury of a thousand suns), the Nightsisters of Dathomir being an excellent example.

Of course, it was easy for the remaining Sith to agree that there should only be two of their order at any one time when it was literally a 'last man standing' scenario. "I took a vote, I voted and found that I was 100% in agreement with my proposal. So it's enacted."

BenRG · « **Reply #124 on:** 06 May 2020, 07:08 »

I guess I feel bad about how under-utilised the character of Finn was. I would have liked for us to have had the concept of a 'good Stormtrooper' explored. He remains very much a Stormie in mindset ("I am a soldier and I am trained to fight; please don't confuse the issue with your religion, Rey") but he has a moral code and isn't just going to shoot at whoever the boss points him. That said, I'd have liked to see his skill progress during the trilogy, turning more and more into an elite trooper and a leader with time whilst still retaining this down-to-Earth soldierly mindset and encouraging Rey not to get confused with the whole 'Dark vs Light' issue. Sort of a Mandelorian-level commando without the cultish elements to Mando culture.

Maybe, in a confrontation with Kylo Ren. "I'm a soldier; my job is to protect civilisation from the monsters. Actually, that's you and your band of xenophobic misfits."

LeeC · « **Reply #125 on:** 06 May 2020, 08:45 »

Quote from: JoeCovenant on 06 May 2020, 05:52

I find it amazing that that even needs explained?
I never thought the rule of two meant there were only ever two sith - hell, even the JEDI worked on a rule of two...
I took Yoda's line "always two there are, a master and an apprentice" to be reflective of the situation they were in.. maul showed up, so they had to find out if he was the master or the apprentice - IE Oh, we've got a sith here... dammit where's the other one!"

In exactly the same way that the Jedi (on the whole) head out in twos - with a master and an apprentice.

I did too when I saw Phantom Menace, but since then with Clone Wars, books, comics, etc. they took it an applied it as if it was a hard "only 2" rule which always bugged me. This is why this "retcon" interests me so much because it make more sense than just having 2 dudes ever.

Quote from: BenRG on 06 May 2020, 06:09

However, Palpatine didn't follow anyone's rules except his own. The existence of the Inquisitorial Order proved that.

Yeah and this retcon makes it no longer a Palpatine making his own rules but part of Sith doctrine that there's only 2 Lords of the Sith. The Inquisition are not Lords of the Sith but acolytes/followers so Rule of 2 makes sense. After Maul died, Palpatine took in Dooku (who left the jedi order) until he died and then swayed Anakin over. Still only 2 Lords at any given time. However there are many Sith agents/acolytes around Palpatine or working for him then entire time. This is part of his/Sith's power. Having those underlings that help his/their main goals.

BenRG · « **Reply #126 on:** 08 May 2020, 03:23 »

The original Star Wars Episode IX: Duel of the Fates

I never heard of Colin Treverrow's original idea before today but I saw it in the video copied below and I think that it would have been excellent, even if it would have required a huge tap-dance to retcon chunks of The Last Jedi.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Star Wars 9 (Read 42486 times)