Star Wars Megathread Episode IV: A New Thread: UNTAGGED SPOILERS? 1 WEEK BAN - Film, Television and Music

Sony should sue Disney tbh for ripping off Spider-Man by killing uncle owen

[QUOTE=overwatch pvt;52522396]So far there's been nothing to make me say nuking the EU wasn't a good idea. Most of the good stuff is being brought back and the bad stories are either gone completely or changed drastically.[/QUOTE] Anyone who says Legends was better is full of shit. Most of it was AWFUL and Lucasfilms made no attempt to make it all connect or make it even SLIGHTLY consistent. Modern Star Wars is not only consistent and connected, it's really good most of the time outside of a few shitty books. I mean, in Legends, Vader finds out about Luke being his son thanks to a giant chicken man torturing the information out of somebody. Yeah. I'm glad legends is dead.

Would people have been more pissed, or less pissed if it was George Lucas who pulled the trigger on the EU and not Kathleen Kennedy? Because according to Pablo Hidalgo, the EU wipe was in the cards before George sold LucasFilm to Disney, it would have happened with his version of the Sequel Trilogy if it had gone ahead. I wonder if we will ever find out what Lucas' ideas for the ST were.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52523598]Would people have been more pissed, or less pissed if it was George Lucas who pulled the trigger on the EU and not Kathleen Kennedy? Because according to Pablo Hidalgo, the EU wipe was in the cards before George sold LucasFilm to Disney, it would have happened with his version of the Sequel Trilogy if it had gone ahead. I wonder if we will ever find out what Lucas' ideas for the ST were.[/QUOTE] I thought he wanted to cover the solo family stuff in the ST

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52523598]Would people have been more pissed, or less pissed if it was George Lucas who pulled the trigger on the EU and not Kathleen Kennedy? Because according to Pablo Hidalgo, the EU wipe was in the cards before George sold LucasFilm to Disney, it would have happened with his version of the Sequel Trilogy if it had gone ahead. I wonder if we will ever find out what Lucas' ideas for the ST were.[/QUOTE] Twin sister of Luke (who's not Leia) fighting the Emperor (who didn't die in RotJ). Atleast, that was the original idea before RotJ happened.

Lucas said I think around the release of TFA, or earlier? That they were not using any of his ideas, so he had something [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] Wookieepedia has some info on what some of the plans were [url]http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sequel_trilogy[/url] Apparently they started really early preliminary work on the ST in 2011 to help make LucasFilm more valuable to buyers

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52523598]Would people have been more pissed, or less pissed if it was George Lucas who pulled the trigger on the EU and not Kathleen Kennedy? Because according to Pablo Hidalgo, the EU wipe was in the cards before George sold LucasFilm to Disney, it would have happened with his version of the Sequel Trilogy if it had gone ahead. I wonder if we will ever find out what Lucas' ideas for the ST were.[/QUOTE] I think it's much better that it wasn't Lucas probably. We already know Lucas isn't very good with these things, and I think it's probably easier to swallow the canon wipe knowing that it was in new hands and that EU wasn't likely to be replaced by Lucas' patented bowel movements

Well I'm just talking about the general idea of making the EU non-canon.

Yeah but you were asking if people would be more upset if it was Lucas, I was answering that [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] I think they would be

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52523598]Would people have been more pissed, or less pissed if it was George Lucas who pulled the trigger on the EU and not Kathleen Kennedy? Because according to Pablo Hidalgo, the EU wipe was in the cards before George sold LucasFilm to Disney, it would have happened with his version of the Sequel Trilogy if it had gone ahead. I wonder if we will ever find out what Lucas' ideas for the ST were.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that he was writing his version of Episode 7 just to boost the value of his company before he sold it to Disney

Yes I said that already. But I think he was serious about it, as he was hesitant about handing over his ideas at first

Okay, seeing as to how I wasn't exactly granted the opportunity to expound upon my earlier sentiment, I was legitimately curious over what fueled your enthusiasm over the sequel trilogy. Yes, you're Star Wars fans, I know that--I am as well. However, the Star Wars label stamped on a product is not enough to warrant my investment, let alone any anticipation. For example, take Transformers; I consider myself to be a longtime fan of the Hasbro property, yet I haven't seen a single Michael Bay-directed film since [I]Revenge of the Fallen[/I], and I have no desire to watch another. Simply because it carries the Transformers name isn't enough to galvanize interest, and to be honest, quality as far as the fiction is concerned is few and far between. ([I]Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Animated[/I], IDW.) Beyond this point, I also have several reasons why I find myself apathetic to Disney's sequel trilogy. [B]1. [B]They're entirely tangential.[/B][/B] Calling these films "Episodes 7-9" is a bit of a misnomer; outside of the extant OT cast, there are zero common plot threads linking the George Lucas saga with these films. Anakin is dead; Palpatine is dead; the Galactic Empire is gone. The central political and philosophical themes that ran throughout the two trilogies saw both their geneses, and their natural conclusions--the message was made. Everything was neatly and decisively concluded with [I]Return of the Jedi[/I], and while it is true that Lucas envisioned a nine episode saga, he heavily truncated the timeline for this story and condensed the events to fit into only six by the time ROTJ went into production. [B]2. [B]They exist purely to perpetuate the brand, rather than serve the story.[/B][/B] These films do not exist because they need to exist. Disney is creating these films to stimulate consumer interest in their efforts to maintain a profitable brand, which in itself isn't intrinsically bad, although I wish these films weren't marketed as a continuation of a saga--a story--that ended. The sequel trilogy is a curiosity, a service to the fans sating their thirst for knowledge over the fates of these characters in a post-saga galaxy. (Which, by the way, was something we already had, so it isn't a particularly novel product.) It isn't a story that needs to be told, and doesn't form a cohesive arc in the same way the prequels served to enhance and complete the original trilogy. [B]3. The characters are retreads of mythological archetypes already touched upon in Star Wars.[/B] While this, again, isn't innately bad, it does fuel my significant lack of passion for them. Rey is a Mary Sue version of Luke/the hero's journey (as of TFA), Finn is a support character in the vein of Han Solo in ANH devoid of any of the charm or personality, Poe Dameron is Wedge Antilles, Han Solo takes the mentor role that Obi-Wan filled in ANH, Luke fills the Yoda role for TLJ, Leia is Mon Mothma, Kylo Ren is Vader, Hux is Tarkin/Piett/Jerjerrod, Snoke is Palpatine, etc. Even the starships are translated directly from the original trilogy, with only minor adjustments. While the characters aren't necessarily awful, I feel like I've become invested in similar characters previously, and there's no reason for me to transfer that investment over to this new generation. In other words, this is great for new and/or burgeoning fans, but leaves me with much to be desired. Forgive me for my sense of humor, as it wasn't my intent to troll earlier. "I like it because it's Star Wars" isn't enough of a justification for me in particular, I'm afraid.

Jesus fucking christ mate is your lunch comprised of finely ground pages from a thesaurus ? [quote]1. They're entirely tangential.[/quote] How is that a bad thing ? [quote]2. They exist purely to perpetuate the brand, rather than serve the story.[/quote] Who gives a shit ? That's been literally everything past ANH. Including ESB which is the better of the three originals. [quote]3. The characters are retreads of mythological archetypes already touched upon in Star Wars.[/quote] Okay aside from the obvious observation that everyone else and their mother has done about the film already, how the living [I]fuck[/I] are Han and Finn the same person ? How can you even draw this comparison when Han Solo is in the fucking film ? Also "all the ships and characters are the same, but they're still tangential and have nothing to do with the older series". Seriously mate ? Maybe if you took less time to look up fancy synonyms you'd be able to work up a better point.

[QUOTE=Lord Exor;52524717] Forgive me for my sense of humor, as it wasn't my intent to troll earlier. "I like it because it's Star Wars" isn't enough of a justification for me in particular, I'm afraid.[/QUOTE] Well unfortunately you're gonna have to accept it because most people don't want to pursue an English major just to be able to argue with you. People will like certain things more than you do and they really don't have any reason to tell you exactly why they like it. Especially if you come off as snobby as you do right now.

[QUOTE=usaokay;52525017]Calm your nipple pancakes.[/QUOTE] You ease your inert mamary glands first and then I'll introspect on the possibility of a lullaby for my bosom.

Well, I certainly didn't expect so much hostility over a simple opinion. And I apologize, but none of the words I employed were particularly fancy. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;52525004]Jesus fucking christ mate is your lunch comprised of finely ground pages from a thesaurus ? How is that a bad thing ? Who gives a shit ? That's been literally everything past ANH. Including ESB which is the better of the three originals. Okay aside from the obvious observation that everyone else and their mother has done about the film already, how the living [I]fuck[/I] are Han and Finn the same person ? How can you even draw this comparison when Han Solo is in the fucking film ? Also "all the ships and characters are the same, but they're still tangential and have nothing to do with the older series". Seriously mate ? Maybe if you took less time to look up fancy synonyms you'd be able to work up a better point.[/QUOTE] ANH never finished the story, although I'll grant that it was framed in such a way that the ending of the film would have been satisfying enough should a sequel never exist. I never said Finn and Han were the same person, I said that Finn filled the role Han occupied in ANH as the supporting protagonist. I even made a point to differentiate the two by stating that Finn has none of the charisma that made Han a compelling character, and his only distinguishing trait is that he's a former stormtrooper, a fact that is honestly easy to forget given how little it seems to influence his personality. The ships? What? The sequels are tangential because they create a new plot arc that's divorced from the first two trilogies, yet bill themselves as a continuation (Episode 7). Look, all I said was that I wanted to know why people anticipate these films, and that I have my own rationale for not caring about them. I'm honestly sorry if that's somehow offensive to you, and I'm not trying to tell you what you should or shouldn't enjoy.

[QUOTE=Lord Exor;52526278] Look, all I said was that I wanted to know why people anticipate these films, and that I have my own rationale for not caring about them. I'm sorry if that's somehow offensive to you.[/QUOTE] We're not offended by the fact that you're not as invested in the Sequel Trilogy as some of us are. We're taking offense to the fact that you're coming off as condescending in your arguments which look like something that came from r/iamverysmart.

Except they aren't? This is high school-level reading comprehension at most, and you'll find posts like these in abundance on even the most popular of Star Wars fan sites, theforce.net.

Ok, I've visted theforce.net and rarely see posts like yours. Mostly less intelligent.

[QUOTE=Lord Exor;52526467]Except they aren't? This is high school-level reading comprehension at most, and you'll find posts like these in abundance on even the most popular of Star Wars fan sites, theforce.net.[/QUOTE] It's not your impressive lexicon that makes them r/iamverysmart submissions. It's the content of your posts. You're trying to dissect the movies and actually deflected arguments against them by basically saying they're not smart enough. But this has gone on for too long for this thread so I suggest we get back to actually talking Star Wars related subjects.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52526516]Ok, I've visted theforce.net and rarely see posts like yours. Mostly less intelligent.[/QUOTE] Well, to be fair, I rarely peruse the Jedi Council forums, but the few times I do, I typically see intelligent posts. Perhaps the issue is where you're looking? [QUOTE=Fancy Godgineer;52526519]It's not your impressive lexicon that makes them r/iamverysmart submissions. It's the content of your posts. You're trying to dissect the movies and actually deflected arguments against them by basically saying they're not smart enough. But this has gone on for too long for this thread so I suggest we get back to actually talking Star Wars related subjects.[/QUOTE] Wait, are you saying I'm accusing the sequel films of being unintelligent, or my opposition in this thread? I don't think I've done either, at least not intentionally. Dissect them? Perhaps, but works of art (yes, that includes films) are meant to be analyzed and thought about. I could have simply stated, "Well, Darth Sidious (my favorite character) isn't a presence in these movies, so that's why I'm disinterested in them." Thankfully, I'm not that shallow. That being said, I am slightly relieved that Lucas relinquished control over the franchise. His concepts for Palpatine's backstory, as told in the (hopefully scrapped forever) [I]Star Wars: Underworld[/I] TV series were legitimately frightening. Most of the allure of the Palpatine character is that he's an irredeemable, monstrous psychopath with unrivaled genius; having him be yet another "tragic" victim of spurned love undermines this appeal entirely. For too long has Hollywood attempted to inject its antagonists with pathos, and the fact that some people in real life are, in fact, congenital psychopaths seems to have been lost on them. Believe it or not, there are people "born evil," and James Luceno's [I]Darth Plaguies[/I] novel, despite some significant flaws in my opinion, managed to capture this aspect of Palpatine perfectly. In Legends, Palpatine was a nutcase out of the womb, and apparently, he knew of and desired to be Sith long before he even met Plagueis, despite feigning ignorance to the aforementioned Muun. When asked what his goal in life is at the age of 17, Palpatine responds simply with "power." Right on; not every villain is or needs to be sympathetic.

Why are you typing like that? You are talking about Star Wars on a video game forum, not talking to members of royalty. The formal talk is why some posters here think you are acting smug.

Well, according to Wookieepedia, he isn't wrong about that bit about Palpatine. [QUOTE]Kratos's character arc from the upcoming God of War game was inspired by the unproduced Underworld scripts. Former LucasArts developer Cory Barlog revealed he read scripts for episodes featuring Palpatine, where "They made the Emperor a sympathetic figure who was wronged by this [...] heartless woman. She's this hardcore gangster, and she just totally destroyed him as a person. I almost cried while reading this. This is the Emperor, the lightning out of the fingers Emperor. That's something magical."[/QUOTE] Source: [url]https://venturebeat.com/2016/06/15/that-cancelled-star-wars-live-action-show-inspired-the-new-god-of-war/[/url]

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52526721]Why are you typing like that? You are talking about Star Wars on a video game forum, not talking to members of royalty. The formal talk is why some posters here think you are acting smug.[/QUOTE] Because I'm discussing something at length and in detail, which informal conversational speech wouldn't convey properly.

[QUOTE=Lord Exor;52526864]Because I'm discussing something at length and in detail, which informal conversational speech wouldn't convey properly.[/QUOTE] Yeah it would. We do it all the time here.

[QUOTE=Lord Exor;52526864]Because I'm discussing something at length and in detail, which informal conversational speech wouldn't convey properly.[/QUOTE] Except it can. The stuff you write can be exhausting to read, especially since you fluff up your sentences with unnecessary verbs and the type. I love discussing star wars, but these formalities and hyperbole sentences are uneccesarily long and people aren't likely to read them. See how I was able to convey what i was saying in good detail without sounding like i was talking to all the world leaders in the same room? Anyways. When do you guys suspect a new trailer for episode 8?

[QUOTE=Lord Exor;52526864]Because I'm discussing something at length and in detail, which informal conversational speech wouldn't convey properly.[/QUOTE] You ever hear the phrase "Brevity is the soul of wit" ?

Yes I have, and I still don't believe I would have been able to properly explain, for example, my points about Palpatine in a sufficiently clear manner with only a few simple sentences. Saying "Lucas's ideas for Palpatine sucked because Palpatine is better being pure evil" wouldn't have properly expressed why that is, and how it's a problem. [QUOTE=Tuskin;52526871]Yeah it would. We do it all the time here.[/QUOTE] I'm relatively new to this thread, but from what I've seen, detailed conversation isn't generally had.

[QUOTE=Lord Exor;52526924]Yes I have, and I still don't believe I would have been able to properly explain, for example, my points about Palpatine in a sufficiently clear manner with only a few simple sentences. Saying "Lucas's ideas for Palpatine sucked because Palpatine is better being pure evil" wouldn't have properly expressed why that is, and how it's a problem. I'm relatively new to this thread, but from what I've seen, detailed conversation isn't generally had.[/QUOTE] It is detailed enough that we don't need a thesaurus.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of actually thumbing through a thesaurus when I approach my posts. It's a (OMG SCARY BIG WORD WATCH YOURSELVES) [I]platitudinous[/I] allegation, and one that was even made on this very forum six years ago. If you've heard me speak, you'd know that I talk this way as well. *sigh* If I'm going to be met with this sort of unnecessary animosity when posting here, I suppose I should get around to using my dormant TFN account. I'll leave if you want.