Disney meets Bethesda meets HBO? New Star Wars movie

TheGreatCornholio said:
They could use something inspired by EU and fill in the rest, it would have been better than rehashing episode 4 IMO
Click to expand...

Then you would also have a segment of the fanbase mad that the movie didn't adhere to certain parts of the EU. We'll just have to disagree because I think getting rid of the EU was a wise move on their part, as much as I love so much of the material from those sources. A lot of the EU wouldn't work with the cast being so old now. I'm not a huge fan of recasting a young Han Solo either. They should stick to new characters or ones rarely used.
 
TorontRayne said:
Then you would also have a segment of the fanbase mad that the movie didn't adhere to certain parts of the EU. We'll just have to disagree because I think getting rid of the EU was a wise move on their part, as much as I love so much of the material from those sources. A lot of the EU wouldn't work with the cast being so old now. I'm not a huge fan of recasting a young Han Solo either. They should stick to new characters or ones rarely used.
Click to expand...

Good points and Im not really advocating the use of EU im just saying if they were going to lift material from another source they should have done something besides remaking episode 4
 
I fully understand why Disney decided to declare the EU non canon in order to open up room for the Star Wars creative team as there was simply to much 'junk' or 'filler' among the few gems, and even on those people are divided on what is good and what is bad.

But as other people have pointed out, TFA felt more like a reset of the setting than a true continuation of the universe we last saw in Return of the Jedi. And in my own opinion that is first mistake of many the writers of this movie made.
They could have made a story that would have been both attractive for the new fans without it requiring them to see the previous six movies, and still also appealing to the old fans with a few winks to the old movies that feel sort of rewarding for those who paid attention. Sort of a new chapter for both old and new fans.

Instead this movie felt more in tune with what Hollywood in general has been doing these days, reboots or reimaginings of old stories/movie plots, but made so that they fit with the current zeitgeist.
It is not a trend I am in favor of, imagine if we remade every piece of creativity over again every five or ten years, not just movie, but also comics, books, paintings, and so on, instead of trying to create new things that embody today's thinking or culture.

I think it discourages people to be creative in order to come up with new ideas. Why something new when you can make something old 'new' again?
 
There's a phrase that is popular amongst sports accountants and lawyers, and that is "cost certainty". It involves putting measures in place so that no matter how much you have the potential to make, you limit your expenses to be a percentage of that profit going forward, thus always ensuring that you come out ahead.

Conceptually, that's difficult to do in Hollywood, but the easiest way to ensure cost certainty is to target built in demographics. Sequels, and remakes, don't need to make a new audience; they have an existing audience thanks to the original works. If they make a product that capitalizes on the existing franchise while modernizing the production values and cliches to fit the modern metaframework you have the potential for extremely high return on investment. And, unfortunately, that is all that matters. Critical reception and fan satisfaction means nothing as long as box office records are being broken.

Reboots work so unfortunately they are here to stay. Star Trek, Star Wars, even Fallout is a testament to that. Even though I think Wasteland 2 is a vastly deeper and more satisfying experience than Fallout 3, Fallout 3 dwarfed it in sales. It is a sad fact that we live in an era where the lowest common denominator is the largest economic demographic.
 
IMissLark said:
There's a phrase that is popular amongst sports accountants and lawyers, and that is "cost certainty". It involves putting measures in place so that no matter how much you have the potential to make, you limit your expenses to be a percentage of that profit going forward, thus always ensuring that you come out ahead.

Conceptually, that's difficult to do in Hollywood, but the easiest way to ensure cost certainty is to target built in demographics. Sequels, and remakes, don't need to make a new audience; they have an existing audience thanks to the original works. If they make a product that capitalizes on the existing franchise while modernizing the production values and cliches to fit the modern metaframework you have the potential for extremely high return on investment. And, unfortunately, that is all that matters. Critical reception and fan satisfaction means nothing as long as box office records are being broken.

Reboots work so unfortunately they are here to stay. Star Trek, Star Wars, even Fallout is a testament to that. Even though I think Wasteland 2 is a vastly deeper and more satisfying experience than Fallout 3, Fallout 3 dwarfed it in sales. It is a sad fact that we live in an era where the lowest common denominator is the largest economic demographic.
Click to expand...


Here here! It's posts like this that defuse my elitist rage from having to post in threads like this.

There is a bottom line in all these type of discussions. Critical analysis of the work at hand is irrelevant, just follow the money and the market. That's all the information you will ever need.
 
Oh and to get things back on topic:

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is 100 times better than this shitty thread.
 
Lets play a drinking game.

Take a shot every-time we're not talking about Fallout being turned into an action filled dramatic movie. First one to die of alcohol poisoning gets a free funeral on me.

:drunk:

TorontRayne said:
Oh and to get things back on topic:

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is 100 times better than this shitty thread.
Click to expand...
Watched it Christmas day around 23:00; was not impressed with it as much as I thought I would be. But compared to Fallout 4's main plot it was ten fold better. I'm honestly disappointed it was not released in episodes for customer entertainment. At least then the writers could have been able to force a better story.
 
Walpknut said:
Edit: Back to the topic, wouldn't Star Killer's laser beams take months to reach the planets they wanted to destroy? Also what propouse does destroying planets serve? they are literary destroying resources they supposedly wanted to retake.... The Nazi imagery of the First Order now has all the subtelty of a bag of cats on a whood chipper.
Click to expand...
Guess gassing planets would have been too on the nose.
 
It would be on the nose but would be more piratical than waiting for planet-eating-sun-lasers to take their few light years to hit their target. Hm, wonder if they installed warp drive on those lasers. Probably used a flux capacitor.
 
V0ight said:
How is a mod being nice when he merges my thread with something that has nothing to do with the content of the thread? This thread has nothing to do with Darth Vader. I'm thinking the mod immediately saw "star wars" and automatically just merged it because 'who gives a fuck, I can'.
Click to expand...
It was the first Star Wars related thread I could find. Yeah, it's not a perfect match, but hey, it's better than an individual new thread with no content but a single video. The point of keeping stuff like that together this way is to avoid cluttering up the forum too much. It just makes the subfora unnecessarily annoying to navigate if they're suddenly made up of dozens upon dozens of individual threads with no real purpose. If you'd like a "General Youtube Discussion" thread you're certainly free to open one.
As for the other forum rules, Walpknut pointed out the stickied thread about them.
 
Edit: Back to the topic, wouldn't Star Killer's laser beams take months to reach the planets they wanted to destroy? Also what propouse does destroying planets serve? they are literary destroying resources they supposedly wanted to retake.... The Nazi imagery of the First Order now has all the subtelty of a bag of cats on a whood chipper.
Click to expand...

Not an excuse but the in-universe explanation is probably that the blasts move through hyperspace which opens the questions how any outside observer can see it then as hyperspace is an alternative dimension.
Even if the blasts would emerge from hyperspace again (how would these do that, it is not as if destructive energy is equipped with a hyperdrive) there is still the limitation of lightspeed that comes into play when you look at it from another star system (it would take years for the light to travel).

I think this thing would make much more sense if it just destroyed the entire Republic fleet, leaving the Republic defenseless for an invasion. But as the Nazi analogue goes; destroy planets >>>> evil!



Disney has always been rather blunt on the symbolism stuff.

Edit; in the new books the Republic is also written as pretty stupid. Right after having fought the Empire at some major battle that forced the Empire to sign some peace treaty, the Republic decided to do a massive disarming policy, to show the galaxy that it rules through diplomacy and not fear.
Normally I could see that might give a positive idealistic appearance, but when there is still a government/organization out there, driven by military conquest and expansion and is quite fascist in nature, it comes over as rather stupid. (especially when the Empire still has a lot of Star Destroyers and a large army)
It makes this Republic look like a bunch of brain dead hippies, the Republic in the old EU was at least smart enough to maintain a fleet, not so necessarily to force its power but to be able to protect its members from the Empire and other military forces outside the Republic (such as the Mandalorians) who would seek to lay claim to its territory.
 
Last edited:
I find that the whole planet destroying policy made a modicum of sense. It's the good old 'rule-by-fear' method, in which the threat of utter destruction ensures relative loyalty and stability. Oh, and if they invaded the Republic normally, the Republic might start rearming and be able to prepare resistance movements in their capital cities, etc. Destroying the Republic in one blow creates an instant empty space of power, allowing the First Order enter, whose only current enemy is the resistance.
 
The rule-by-fear policy was set up after the Empire already had control of a lot of the known galaxy but not the resources/manpower to establish garrisons or position Star Destroyers in every inhabited system.
The Death Star's main purpose was to embody the power of the Empire and ultimate tool of punishment if a planet openly rebelled (of course it was sold under the guise of protecting the Empire and its citizens from alien threats from outside)

Deploying such a weapon now while many systems are still independent or organized under the Republic (just the capital got destroyed not the entire Republic) will only make these organize even more or come together to form a united front against the First Order.
And how powerful Starkiller Base might be, it can not be present everywhere at once, or take on perhaps dozens of fleets made up of capital ships and their fighter/bomber squadrons.
At best it would be a tool of last resort or to be used to destroy the capitals of various civilizations/cultures but that will only create even more resistance against the First Order.

So all and all, the First Order would have been much better if they had used those resources to build themselves a massive star fleet, and outfit a very large army (clone armies were mentioned) which they can use to overtake and control the systems they wish to control.

A regular Star Destroyer is still a very powerful piece of hardware, capable of destroying an average inhabited world's surface, but leaving it intact for re colonization or mining, and it can be used for much more goals/purposes.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
The rule-by-fear policy was set up after the Empire already had control of a lot of the known galaxy but not the resources/manpower to establish garrisons or position Star Destroyers in every inhabited system.
The Death Star's main purpose was to embody the power of the Empire and ultimate tool of punishment if a planet openly rebelled (of course it was sold under the guise of protecting the Empire and its citizens from alien threats from outside)

Deploying such a weapon now while many systems are still independent or organized under the Republic (just the capital got destroyed not the entire Republic) will only make these organize even more or come together to form a united front against the First Order.
And how powerful Starkiller Base might be, it can not be present everywhere at once, or take on perhaps dozens of fleets made up of capital ships and their fighter/bomber squadrons.
At best it would be a tool of last resort or to be used to destroy the capitals of various civilizations/cultures but that will only create even more resistance against the First Order.

So all and all, the First Order would have been much better if they had used those resources to build themselves a massive star fleet, and outfit a very large army (clone armies were mentioned) which they can use to overtake and control the systems they wish to control.

A regular Star Destroyer is still a very powerful piece of hardware, capable of destroying an average inhabited world's surface, but leaving it intact for re colonization or mining, and it can be used for much more goals/purposes.
Click to expand...

Some good points, but how can a planet organize a strong defense if it has no planet to center the defense on and if the threat of planet destruction lies in the air. Do you think the common population would accept open resistance if the response is utter destruction?
 
Dr Fallout said:
Some good points, but how can a planet organize a strong defense if it has no planet to center the defense on and if the threat of planet destruction lies in the air. Do you think the common population would accept open resistance if the response is utter destruction?
Click to expand...

True but the Star Wars universe has already shown that it is possible to organize a resistance without a centralized command structure that can be targeted and destroyed, making it it difficult or impossible to destroy the opposition.
The entire chain of command could be spread throughout space, on board command ships, space stations and so on as could manufacturing plants (factory ships), allowing these to be constantly mobile.

There would probably still be bases on planets such as recruitment and training centers (you can't avoid those) but those are only the end points of the command structure.
Decapitate them and new ones will pop up somewhere else, especially when such an attack also comes with punishing actions against the local population.

The First Order could continue to destroy planets, especially those who support resistance/the republic, but outside terrorizing civilians it would not get them anywhere. They are not destroying crucial installations such as command centers and shipyards and so on, the means to organize and wage resistance.

What the First Order would need is the means to detect any number of vessels or installations in space and a way to rapidly destroy these once a possible Republic military build up is detected.
If they can control space they are in a much better position to attack and control worlds.

Back in Star Wars IV Leia already commented to Grand Moff Tarkin that the more the Empire sought to control the galaxy through fear and oppression the more worlds would slip through their fingers. They simply can not be everywhere at once or monitor distant systems and sectors in real time.

Had for example the destruction of the current Republic capital been followed up by a massive conventional invasion (using shock and awe) the First Order would have done much more damage to the Republic's ability to recover and organize a military counter strike.

Perhaps not an apt comparison but it would be like Nazi Germany managing to cross the Atlantic undetected and bombing New York City of Washington DC, expecting that would break the United States' effort to wage war and strike back.
Instead it would only piss the US even more off and double their efforts to get back at Nazi Germany, all the Nazis would do is make it even more personal for the United States.
 
I've been watching Star Wars: Rebels since its beginning, and I'm highly enjoying it. It's definitely something that old fans will appreciate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top