Still begs the question as to why Satine (or anyone else, for that matter) would go to a desolate, far out of the way place like Jakku a few years after Endor? Per the canon timeline of when the Battle of Jakku took place, Rey's birth had to have been a few year after the battle. Not much reason for Satine to go there, and even less for Luke. Of course Rey might not have been born on Jakku, but then that would make her winding up abandoned there even more problematic.

Just now, ShadoWarrior said:

Still begs the question as to why Satine (or anyone else, for that matter) would go to a desolate, far out of the way place like Jakku a few years after Endor? Per the canon timeline of when the Battle of Jakku took place, Rey's birth had to have been a few year after the battle. Not much reason for Satine to go there, and even less for Luke. Of course Rey might not have been born on Jakku, but then that would make her winding up abandoned there even more problematic.

According to what the Wook says, the battle of Jakku took place in 5 ABY (After the Battle of Yavin), while Rey was born in 15 ABY.

That makes it more puzzling still. Why would anyone go to Jakku 10 years after the battle there? Unless they were following up on the trail of Rae Sloane...

Daisy has been quoted as saying it's pretty obvious who's family she is from from Force Awakens. Hence my belief about handing Luke the saber. why she was abandoned there, who knows. If Kenobi had a child it would have been delivered in secret and he probably didn't even know about it. See Jedi attachments.

I also harbored the theory that Sabine was secretly a Kenobi and the missing link but her parentage seems rather straight forward. Her mother does appear to have taken the dark saber back to Manadalore.

Edit: I am answering old posts that have been talked about already... stupid phone in my pocket!

On 4/14/2017 at 1:47 PM, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

I thought TFA was a decent starting point for a new trilogy, but based solely on the trailers I the The Last Jedi (TLJ?) looks better than TFA.

Is anyone going to talk about "... it's time for the Jedi to end." does it mean that Luke really thinks that, or is he just depressed after Kylo destroyed most of the new Jedi?

I know it's showing Luke when it says that, but it's a voice over. That's Kylo Ren's voice.

Just speaking of other announcements, Battlefront II will have a story mode (like the first should have had) following Imperial special forces, and it will apparently be canon. Thrawn already included them, but the trailer showed a Raider-class corvette, so those are canon.

I believe it's an amalgamation of voices, so they could be deceiving us by combining different lines from different characters on purpose, but I don't why they would be trying to push the balance of the force without a reason. If you look at the poster it pretty much smacks you in the face with Rey being grey.

I'm going to call it now Sabine is Obiwans daughter who later hooks up with Luke and has Rey. Rey is both a Kenobi and a Skywalker.

Who here is actually not very excited about the whole "The Jedi must end" feeling we get. I miss the days of Star Wars being black and white. All that greywashing is actually murder for curing of my depression. I want the good guys to triumph.

A "grey" forceusing order is bound to apathy or doing equally cruel as well as good things, which most of the time leads to a huxleyesque Utopia, where "everybody's happy now" because we kicked all conflict potential out.

30 minutes ago, TheMOELANDER said:

Who here is actually not very excited about the whole "The Jedi must end" feeling we get. I miss the days of Star Wars being black and white. All that greywashing is actually murder for curing of my depression. I want the good guys to triumph.

Trailers are usually misleading, but even so, I don't see anything indicating that the obvious good guys aren't the good guys, or that they won't ultimately triumph. Just remember - middle movie in a trilogy. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

We had different opinions on what the Jedi should be as far back as Return of the Jedi, with Luke going against the teachings of Yoda and Obi-Wan and succeeding where they had failed. Even in the original trilogy the good guys haven't been a united front.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Trailers are usually misleading, but even so, I don't see anything indicating that the obvious good guys aren't the good guys, or that they won't ultimately triumph. Just remember - middle movie in a trilogy. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

We had different opinions on what the Jedi should be as far back as Return of the Jedi, with Luke going against the teachings of Yoda and Obi-Wan and succeeding where they had failed. Even in the original trilogy the good guys haven't been a united front.

Guess you're right. I have nothing against softening the ideals of the good guys (the Jedi) but I am highly averse on morally ambigous stuff like the true neutral alignment if you prefer D&D terms.

With the Force, we aren't necessarily talking about Evil and Good, The Dark represent the harsh emotions, aggression, sometimes destruction impulse. The light represents positive emotions, serenity, sometimes creativity. The Jedi Order at the time of the Clones Wars was an extreme of itself; order to point of stagnating, unwilling to accept change, to ignore emotions and often withdrawing from the world at large. just like the Sith are an extreme of the Dark Side.

Now, what does it look like when you accept BOTH Light and Dark without letting either dominating your decisions? That is the essence of the Force. Light can not exist without Dark, Dark can not exist without Light. There can't be destruction without creation, there can't be creation without destruction.

That's what it mean to me, even the True Neutral in D&D is interpreted incorrectly by many GMs and players alike.

49 minutes ago, Alexhurlbut said:

With the Force, we aren't necessarily talking about Evil and Good, The Dark represent the harsh emotions, aggression, sometimes destruction impulse. The light represents positive emotions, serenity, sometimes creativity. The Jedi Order at the time of the Clones Wars was an extreme of itself; order to point of stagnating, unwilling to accept change, to ignore emotions and often withdrawing from the world at large. just like the Sith are an extreme of the Dark Side.

Now, what does it look like when you accept BOTH Light and Dark without letting either dominating your decisions? That is the essence of the Force. Light can not exist without Dark, Dark can not exist without Light. There can't be destruction without creation, there can't be creation without destruction.

That's what it mean to me, even the True Neutral in D&D is interpreted incorrectly by many GMs and players alike.

To quite Han Solo, "That's not how the Force works."

Or at least that's not how it's been portrayed in canonical sources up until the most recent season of Rebels. In canon, there had never been a Dark Side and a Light Side; it was never labeled such. There had only been "the Dark Side of the Force... and the Light." The Light was the purest expression of the Force, not one side of a double-sided coin. The Dark Side, however, was the perversion of the Force by sentient emotions - the user trying to control the Force as opposed to striving to be one with it.

The Force was never meant to be Yin and Yang, and while I'm loving the new movies and Rebels, I'm disappointed that they've taken this route.

I had rather gotten the impression that Lucas and Disney's attitude would be a doubling-down on a stark good/evil divide - both in terms of the Rebels vs Empire (hello space Nazis, uh, I mean Helghast First Order!), and in terms of the dark side of the Force being unambiguously evil rather than emotional/passionate.
And from my perspective, that is depressing. Not necessarily because of changes from what these things were before, but just because I think it results in less interesting storytelling, especially in RPGs.

Disney storytelling has always been very much good/evil, with no ambiguity. It stems from their traditional focus on stories aimed at children. Star Wars Rebels made a half-arsed attempt at something in the "middle" with Bendu, but mucked that up badly. OTOH, we do see less "morally upright" Rebel characters in Rogue One. All of whom die heroically (except for Saw, who just dies). Rogue One even makes a point of having Cassian say that he's done things that he regrets in the service of the Rebellion. But I strongly suspect that's the only example of less-than-pure-good characters that we'll see out of Disney. I get the impression that Disney considers as canon only Force users at the polar extremes of good/evil. Even the scene in TFA where Ben Solo/Kylo Ren is having his "crisis of conscience" was pretty much telegraphed as to which way it would go. Did anyone in the audience really expect that Han would leave that catwalk alive? The story would have been much more interesting if Kylo had stayed dark, yet let his father live. But that wouldn't fit the canon of pure good / pure evil (and Ford's decades-long desire to have his character killed off).

2 hours ago, kaisergav said:

I had rather gotten the impression that Lucas and Disney's attitude would be a doubling-down on a stark good/evil divide - both in terms of the Rebels vs Empire (hello space Nazis, uh, I mean Helghast First Order!), and in terms of the dark side of the Force being unambiguously evil rather than emotional/passionate.
And from my perspective, that is depressing. Not necessarily because of changes from what these things were before, but just because I think it results in less interesting storytelling, especially in RPGs.

I argue that it's the Sith's actions that made it evil, not the Dark Side for merely existing. Young Obi-Wan was filled with anger, yet did not fall to it completely.

So, apparently the information about them reusing footage of Carrie Fisher for Episode IX was confusion on part of her family, and Kathleen Kennedy has confirmed that she Fisher won't be appearing on the film.

On 4/14/2017 at 11:29 AM, ShadoWarrior said:

He likely did (I didn't pay attention to the credits). Which explains why the movie sucked. JJ also has a tendency towards shallow bad guys with cliched behavior patterns.

Yeah, I was being hyperbolic. I remember thumbing through the TFA Unbelievable Cross-sections and being alarmed at the multi-page screenshots that padded the book out. The number of new ships in this trailer alone make me excited for potentially many more in The Last Jedi.

Number of new ships? Not so many. We see (in order): a new airspeeder type flying over what looks like salt flats while leaving red rooster tails, and a new Rebel corvette model engaged in a really cool battle. That's it. Two new types. Period. The first TFA teaser had Rey on her landspeeder, the interior of the First Order assault shuttle as the ramp dropped, and the newer model X-wing. Though TFA's ships in that first teaser were less exciting than what we see so far for TLJ, I'll grant. But mainly because we see those two new TLJ vehicles in pretty cool excerpts, especially the space battle. I do hope that the TLJ maintains (or improves on) the count of new ships. TFA had 8 new ships in total, 5 of which were completely new designs (rather than updated models of TIEs and X-wings). If TLJ holds to the same pattern, then we've got at least 3 more new designs we've yet to see.

1 minute ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Number of new ships? Not so many. We see (in order): a new airspeeder type flying over what looks like salt flats while leaving red rooster tails, and a new Rebel corvette model engaged in a really cool battle. That's it. Two new types. Period. The first TFA teaser had Rey on her landspeeder, the interior of the First Order assault shuttle as the ramp dropped, and the newer model X-wing. Though TFA's ships in that first teaser were less exciting than what we see so far for TLJ, I'll grant. But mainly because we see those two new TLJ vehicles in pretty cool excerpts, especially the space battle. I do hope that the TLJ maintains (or improves on) the count of new ships. TFA had 8 new ships in total, 5 of which were completely new designs (rather than updated models of TIEs and X-wings). If TLJ holds to the same pattern, then we've got at least 3 more new designs we've yet to see.

There are what looks like a new kind of A-wing, and some kind of walker vehicle in the shot with the speeders. Depends on what you consider new, as those walkers may be those freeze-frame walkers shown in TFA during the speech scene.

A newer version of an old fighter, be it an X-wing, A-wing, standard TIE, or what-have-you, isn't all that exciting to me. The new corvettes, though, kind of make up for rehashes of older designs. Rogue One was exciting, because it was just crammed with new designs. I seriously doubt that TLJ will match that. Much as I might like for it to, I'm not holding out much expectation. Perhaps it's best to go in with low expectations and then be pleasantly surprised. TFA was seriously disappointing as far as new craft designs. Not much original thinking to be seen, beyond BB-8. Certainly nowhere near what we saw in R1.

I'd like to see the inclusion of some of the ship designs from the The Art of The Force Awakens. There were some sweet concepts in there, especially TIEs and capital ships.

Speaking of the art book, there were a lot of really neat concepts that never got used. Jakku was envisioned as a very wet planet, Han Solo was designed with a beard and a long coat at different points, and there were a variety of vehicle designs in the book.

But we ended up with Tatooine Jakku, and Han was given an outfit very similar to what he worn in ANH. I'm actually surprised that Leia wasn't wearing something white and had her hair up in buns for the movie.

It would have been nice to see him in that coat.....