Lets talk all things Star Wars
Joek3rr
Master Member
So I have to disagree with you. And I think many sci-fi and fantasy writers would as well. Fantasy and the relative newcomer sci-fi is oft used as an.....analogue (I believe would be the proper term to use) of the world around us. Through fantasy and sci-fi we see the world as it was, as it is, and as it could be. And this is because the writer will impart how he or she sees the world, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously. Tolkien's experiences in WW I influenced the world of Middle-Earth and The Lord of the Rings. CS Lewis's Christian belief can be seen in the Chronicles of Narnia. And (in)famously Gene Roddenberry would be put a Chinese, a Russian, and a woman of African American dissent on the bridge of the Enterprise. George Lucas, in response to what he saw as rising authoritarianism made the Rebels the heroes of his story.
And the hero's journey. It may seem like a completely fictional construct. But even that holds its origin in the real world. For in its simplest purest form the hero's journey, is story of growing up. Going from childhood to adulthood. "But then this can be seen also in the simple initiation ritual, where a child has to give up his childhood and become an adult, has to die, you might say, to his infantile personality and psyche and come back as a self-responsible adult." - Joseph Campbell
Joek3rr
Master Member
’Star Wars’ Executive Discovered Goof That Went Unnoticed For Decades
It doesn’t matter how many times you watch "Star Wars," you’ll always discover something new.
uproxx.com
I got a kick out of this. He actually thinks it was a inside gag. Ha!
Btw How long has the prop community already known this?
Meanwhile, all I'm seeing in this news about KK is that her term as LFL President ends in 2021, which it was set to from the get-go, and she's named her successor. She's not getting fired, or forced out, it isn't happening for another two years, and it has nothing to do with the relative successes or failures of Star Wars since George retired. I hate clickbait so much...
Except that's not true either. My nephew is 15 and grew up with the OT, Prequels, and Clone Wars and still doesn't like the Sequels. I can see kids gravitating to the lightsabers and blasters, but there aren't any ships, except for maybe Kylo's TIE, that would get me excited as a kid. They're boring. Who wants a toy bomber that just got blown to pieces in the movie? Yes the same thing happened with the Y-Wings in Star Wars, but at least they looked cool doing it!
Also if that cartoon was true, people should like the Prequels as well. Like Jar Jar or not, kids loved him. Now whether they still like him as an adult, that's another conversation.
Joek3rr
Master Member
When i was a kid I loved airplanes (still do)like the B-17. If I was a kid I'd love those StarFortresses.
CT1138
Sr Member
I personally find it sad that people still don't recognize WWII bomber formations in a movie series that based their fighter tactics almost shot for shot against old WWII fighter plane footage.
That would be my granddad. Formation leader and deputy squadron commander, 510th out of Polebrook. Thirty-five missions and change, stayed on in the reserves after the war, retired right before Korea. I know most of his stories, backed up by a copy of his logbook. I don't talk about it much, and not at all online, but that scene in TLJ... I can't help but hear a hundred Wright Cyclone engines and mist up at the homage.
I instantly understood that this was a reference to WWII bomber ships just like the Falcon gun turret scene was a shot for shot remake of WWII aerial fighter plane gunner footage. Not understanding the reference isn't my issue with this sequence.
I simply wasn't emotionally invested in the characters at all to care what was happening. That started with Episode 7 so it's not entirely the failure of 8. That's why our heroes escaping the Death Star was far more exciting to me than the opening of The Last Jedi. One of the reasons I love A New Hope so much is that it spends almost the first hour of the movie establishing it's characters and world so that I am invested in the battles by the time we get to them.
Had J.J. better established this new era in the timeline by taking his time and filling the audience in on what had transpired between 6-7 I would have been more on board. That's not to say it had to take as long as A New Hope did, but if he'd given us more than mystery boxes I would have cared far more. Instead we are given breadcrumbs to go on and mysteries instead of real content.
But again, none of this really matters because we got what we got. This is just my take on it.
I simply wasn't emotionally invested in the characters at all to care what was happening. That started with Episode 7 so it's not entirely the failure of 8. That's why our heroes escaping the Death Star was far more exciting to me than the opening of The Last Jedi. One of the reasons I love A New Hope so much is that it spends almost the first hour of the movie establishing it's characters and world so that I am invested in the battles by the time we get to them.
Had J.J. better established this new era in the timeline by taking his time and filling the audience in on what had transpired between 6-7 I would have been more on board. That's not to say it had to take as long as A New Hope did, but if he'd given us more than mystery boxes I would have cared far more. Instead we are given breadcrumbs to go on and mysteries instead of real content.
But again, none of this really matters because we got what we got. This is just my take on it.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
So, two things. First, the notion that TLJ was a "failure." It wasn't. At least not by the standards that most film execs care about. TLJ made bank. Some fans didn't like it and complained on the internet? Meh. The studio doesn't really care. First, other people liked it aside from them, and second....TLJ made bank. Now, if Ep. IX (We can't really use "ROTS" for it, I guess...) tanks, THEN I think they'll reevaluate, but even then, Kennedy is on her way out in 2021 because her contract is expiring.
Second, the failure of Solo is absolutely on her, but not for the reasons people think. The "boycott" didn't hurt the film. An almost total lack of marketing in advance of its release hurt it. Not to mention the fact that it started its run already in the hole because they had to change directors and reshoot something like 70% of the film. Of all of the "failures" that people ascribe to Kennedy, picking Lord & Miller to do the Solo film is probably the biggest. I suspect she thought she was going to take a gamble and wind up with a "Russo Bros" style success, but...nope. Not everyone can transition from comedy to action/adventure. That decision alone cost Solo a LOT of money. It's possible that it also cost it its marketing budget, which cost it further money. And it's possible that it was hurt by two other factors: (A) the general sentiment among the public that they didn't necessarily need a new Star Wars film every year, and (B) the fact that people just weren't interested in the underlying concept.
I know when it was announced, the backstory on Han Solo's life sounded to me like an incredibly stupid idea, but I ended up loving the film for what it was and the vibe it had, and I'm bummed they won't be making any sequels.
Anyway, by and large, KK's run has been incredibly successful financially speaking. That a bunch of fans of the old stuff grumble about the new stuff isn't as big a concern to the higher-ups at Disney, as long as the films keep making bank. So, you really wanna send a message, boycott Ep. IX. Although bear in mind that if you do, you'll probably hurting the long-term prospects of the franchise for at least a few years, instead of just getting rid of one person who is already on their way out.
Star Wars has always been rooted in contemporary culture. That it also has timeless themes that survive unto the generations doesn't change the fact that it's still a product of its times. Ask yourself how likely it would be to see a character like Leia if the film had been made in 1957 instead of 1977. And at the time, people instantly read "Evil Empire" as referring to the Commies, not the Nazis (which never made any sense to me because HELLO, LOOK AT THE UNIFORMS...but I digress).
Oh yeah, overlapping fields of fire. I got it the instant I saw them on screen, and couldn't understand why they were performing so friggin' poorly other than "because plot." Especially with fighter cover, there should've been a couple that survived.
Can't disagree with this bit. JJ's insistence on starting in media res as well as NOT providing backstory on the galaxy was, in my view, just a mistake. But I think it was driven by the desire to bring back the old actors and have them be directly involved in the story...somehow.
Joek3rr
Master Member
Can you really put the poor marketing for Solo on Kathy's head though? Disney being the distributor wouldn't they have handled the marketing rather then Lucasfilm?
BipeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Ay, there's the rub.
Yup. My visceral, emotional reaction to that scene is in spite of it not because of it. If we'd had all those Starfortresses participating in the attack on Starkiller, with many being wiped out while heroically trying to penatrate the ocillator's armor, and it was the last survivors of the group that managed to take out the dreadnought and buy the Resistance time to escape, that would have been a noble sacrifice of people we'd come to know at least a little bit through the previous episode. But, as you say, that's neither here nor there. Can be sure, though, that in my rewrites I'm working to give that scene more impact than the superficial.
I don't know that's entirely it... L&M did the Lego movies, which I love -- but they are decidedly, um, not ot be taken seriously. The Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs ended up being surprisingly deep, but I'm still annoyed they have noting to do with the book that "inspired" them. 21 Jump Street flat pisses me off. The original series is still re-watchable, and was good drama. It so very much does not scream "buddy cop farce-fest". However. Then they went and did Into the Spider-Verse (Lord actually wrote the story, heavily adapted from the original Marve Comics series), which is fecking awesome. Nailed it. All I can think is they just struck the wrong tone for Star Wars or weren't able to get strong enough performances out of their actors (definitely the latter, IMO, regardless of other factors). Given the subject matter, who I would have loved to have seen do Solo (nothing against Ron Howard)? Peyton Reed. I love what he did with the Ant-Man movies.
Solo4114
Master Member
That's a fair point, and I'm not sure. But if they had budget limits, they might've figured "Let's just see if the brand alone can carry the day outside of maybe a few weeks' promotion." It certainly wasn't the blitz you saw for Ep. VII or VIII.
Joek3rr
Master Member
If I had been them I'd would have started flooding TV and the internet with teasers and trailers. Starting in January. Then I would have made character "spots" where the actors both new and old would talk about the character they are/had play(ed). It would have been a good way to get to adjust to new actors playing old characters. I think there was a lack of enthusiasm from many seeing Han Solo, but not Harrison's face.
Mara Jade's Father
Master Member
For the first time (as far as I know) we see something in the scene we have never seen before. Can you name it?
I probably know more about WW2 than a large portion of people here. B-17s didn't fly in a line either, they flew in a staggered box formation. The bombers in TLJ still suck. I don't care what they were referencing. They were doing the same thing with the Y-Wings in SW and the Y-Wings at least behaved realistically and didn't just sit there in get blown out of the sky. These things are just badly designed, I don't know why people keep trying so hard to defend these movies designs.
Joek3rr
Master Member
Actually they are pretty good design, as heavy strategic bombers go.
Firstly they have a detachable magazine for the bombs. This is my head canon, but I imagine if they remained in production different kinds of magazines would have been made to facilitate different payloads, like maybe proton torpedoes. The defensive armament consists of 3 laser cannon turrets with an additional 6 laser cannons. So quite a heavy armament.
The main problem with a heavy bomber is speed or rather the lack thereof, the lack of mobility, and the need to be above your target(if useing bombs). The bombers that we see in the film pretty much have the same strengths and weaknesses that any real world heavy strategic bomber has.
And also the bombers do fly in a box formation.
And about the Y-Wing. Useing the WW2 analogy, they would be considered a fighter/bomber. In the same vein as P-47s, Typhoons, Tempests, Mosquitos, P-38s. Fun fact: Most people think the Y-wings are slow due to their portrayal in games, however ILMs speed chart made for ROTJ shows that their speed is 100 MGLT, same as the X-Wing.
Joek3rr
Master Member
I'm stumped. What are we seeing?
Similar threads
