1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

Hey, maybe the actual AI doesn't like doing suicide runs either.

Not to mention, materiel is expensive, hyperdrives cost credits, especially ones big enough to move entire capital ships-worth of mass. So, evidently, does fuel. To borrow from another franchise entirely, rocks are not free, citizen http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Rocks_Are_Not_Free!

And just maybe, noone thought of it before. Or noone remembered the last time someone thought of it, because last time someone thought of it they wiped out themselves and the whole of the enemy fleet with no survivors, and it just turned out that that Imperial carrier group was lost with all hands and no explanation.

It takes minimal thought to find a reason why it's not been done before (or at least, noone remembers), and who knows what'll happen in future.

Whole lotta people don't seem willing to actually think about how cool this stuff is.

I have to say, I didn't include it in my list of things I didn't like because it was a pretty cool scene but I just can absolutely see why people are going to have a problem with it (probably for years down the line).

It's like the Time-Turner in Harry Potter. It's a pretty cool set piece for the story in that one book/film, but its existence means literally every major plot point afterwards there are going to be people asking...Sooo why don't they just use it to fix everything?

Because it got confiscated by the time police. Or it broke. Or they tried, and it didn't work so we never found out, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, I see the issue. But treating people like unfeeling robots is a huge issue in response. Why don't they just use capital ship hyper-rams all the time? Why don't the US just glass the middle east with nukes? Why didn't capital ships in WW2 just ram each other to death? Why don't x just suicide large amounts of valuable materiel? Because materiel and lives have value and aren't usually to be wasted even in critical engagements, or because doing so invites mutually assured destruction, or... etc.

And heck, maybe one or other sort of ordnance ARE hyperspace ram weapons. Put a tiny hyperdrive on a missile, shoot it, it hyper rams the enemy for damage. I dunno.

Maybe people can just make a mental leap from hating a thing to working out why a thing is cool in spite of their gripes.

They could have taken the exact same scene; the cruiser turning around and making a suicide run, and executed it with standard engines. You would have had a good 1 min montage of sad music (while the execution was about to take place), the cruiser making its runs, cannons firing, shields failing, pieces exploding, skeleton crew barely keeping it together, before finally colliding with Snoke's ship. Followed up explosions could have then caused some damage to the rest of the fleet (but no need to destroy multiple ships).

You get the exact same result story wise, except that you then do not have the problem of "why did people not suicide ships at hyperspace speeds to destroy enemy fleets". Simple, effective and perhaps even more emotionally gripping.

Yeah I totally agree about the loss of lives etc, no one thinks Kamikaze is a great way forward. As I said, the problem people are gonna fall back on is that we've seen droids be overridden by human control (Rebels) or that are programmed in a certain non-logical way (Evil R2 and 3p0, can't remember their actual names) and they're literally everywhere.

Again, for me it wasn't the biggest problem with the movie and it was pretty cool. I just don't think RJ did himself a favour by including it.

4 minutes ago, dotswarlock said:

They could have taken the exact same scene; the cruiser turning around and making a suicide run, and executed it with standard engines. You would have had a good 1 min montage of sad music (while the execution was about to take place), the cruiser making its runs, cannons firing, shields failing, pieces exploding, skeleton crew barely keeping it together, before finally colliding with Snoke's ship. Followed up explosions could have then caused some damage to the rest of the fleet (but no need to destroy multiple ships).

You get the exact same result story wise, except that you then do not have the problem of "why did people not suicide ships at hyperspace speeds to destroy enemy fleets". Simple, effective and perhaps even more emotionally gripping.

Then people would just say 'why did ships not suicide ram generally' or 'why didn't it get rekt well before it got there'?

People will find fault because they want to find fault, not because there's necessarily no answer to the fault that they find.

1 hour ago, debiler said:

I don't think that most people have a problem with the fact that Leia could actually do it, but with the way it was filmed. To me, it was so incredibly corny and unfitting...

As an opinion, there's really no arguing this. I'd just say I happen to think the scene was awesome, as far as the way it was filmed too.

54 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

To some extent Yoda does the same thing in Rebels, rather more recently.

But again, I don't believe this thing counts...even if it is Disney. Now maybe Disney does count it as lore...

...I haven't because it isn't in the movies. Which I believe always will stand alone.

3 minutes ago, KelRiever said:

But again, I don't believe this thing counts...even if it is Disney. Now maybe Disney does count it as lore...

...I haven't because it isn't in the movies. Which I believe always will stand alone.

Nope, according to Disney it's all canon now. Even the storyline from Battlefront 2.

4 minutes ago, KelRiever said:

But again, I don't believe this thing counts...even if it is Disney. Now maybe Disney does count it as lore...

...I haven't because it isn't in the movies. Which I believe always will stand alone.

Rebels is canon and the Ghost, General Syndulla and Chopper are in Rogue One.

here is a question... what if Dave Filoni wrote and directed this?

I think it would have been incredibly epic.

52 minutes ago, Thormind said:

There are interesting characters in the two movies: Poe, Han, Snoke, Luke, Phasma, Maz, etc. They all feel more intriguing than them.

Poe gets a lot of arc in this one. He fails sure, but he grows from it. He has been setup.
Han is dead. That is as boring as it gets.
Snoke? For real. He not only is not interesting as a concept, but he is litteraly boring in the movie as well. He is not an interesting character. You WISH he would be, but it is your own leap of logic that claims that he actually IS a interesting character. JJs Mystery Box in full action.

Luke is an interesting character and gets a full heroes journey arc in this movie. (BTW he does not die from meditating to much. If that is your conclusion of the scene, you need to watch movie again until you get it. Maybe they should have been more blunt about it and make him appear as force ghost right beside the broom kid, and not just as metaphorical starlite)

Phasma? What makes her interesting? The **** you projected into the bland slate that JJ presented you with in TFA or is there anything interesting about her character that is ACTUALLY shown in any of the movies? Projecting **** into characters, I know, is a great ability of star wars fans, making Boba Fett the most interesting man alive dead. It still not making them any competition to the actual protagonists of the movie, which are Poe, Finn, Rey and Rose. Kylo could be added as pseudo-protagonists because it almost seems like he is learning and changing, but we learn that this was all his plan along to kill Snoke, so he stays the antagonist for Rey.

Maz? I give you that, she seems interesting, she set her up that way in TFA and continue to keep her a mystery, which at the other hand is the most interesting thing about her. The mystery. Unlike Snoke she is an actual Mystery, because the other characters around her don't know **** about her either and are wondering about her too. Snoke at the other hand is just a guy we know nothing about, while the rest of the world seems to have a solid idea about him, just like with the emperor.

42 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Hey, maybe the actual AI doesn't like doing suicide runs either.

5 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

And they were by and large remote controlled, what's your point?

8 hours ago, Captain Pellaeon said:

But I can't help but feel that the majority of Star Wars fans simply can't be satisfied anymore.

I was incredibly satisfied with Rogue One, and also am very vested in Rebels. This movie missed.

6 hours ago, Cartchan said:

All these debates remind me of the debate for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Everybody was freaking out on the fridge scene but no one ever complained that Indy survived jumping out of a plane using an inflatable boat in Temple of Doom.

Well, I did. Temple of Doom is just as stupid as Crystal Skull. The only 2 movies are Raiders and Last Crusade; the other 2 are garbage.

3 hours ago, debiler said:

Let me see if I can find a more fitting analogy. I think one could say that he used the picture of TFA (which was painted over the original picture), cut it up and rearranged it quite a bit. He then painted over it. Also, he didn't use a rectangular canvas, but a rather unconventional shape, like a heptagon. And the glue he used to pin the old pieces to his canvas isn't very durable, so everything starts peeling off. In the end, it's still a beautiful picture, but it's also a mess. Oh yes, and somebody just came by and graffiti-sprayed a cartoon horse right in the middle of it.

Funny you should use an art analogy; I just did the same thing in a conversation with my wife last night. To me, TFA and RO worked very hard to bring another Impressionist painting to the Impressionism museum. Then Johnson shows up with his Cubist "step forward" and says "look, there's a Stormtrooper in it--totally badass Star Wars, right?"

2 hours ago, jocke01 said:

Then the last jedi comes along and does a complete turn shift. We don't get any reveals to who snoke is or how he started the first order. We get no information about how he turned Kylo or the knights of ren. We get no reveal to Rey's parents, they are either nobodies or kylo is lying. Luke is just and old grumpy guy that wants to die and does so. We start the movie with resistance on the brink and ends with the resistance on the brink. Instead of fun adventures we get this long stalemate with weird space rules. In the mean time our main characters Finn and Rey are doing, well pretty much pointless side stories.

In the end we got a 2.5 hour long movie that reversed pretty much everything JJ set up in the force awakens and now everything has to be explained and tied togheter in this last movie that we have no idea what kind of tone it is. I think this is the real problem. TFA wanted back to the original trilogy and TLJ wanted away from the orginals.

In the end we get a mess of 2 VERY different ideas against eachother that are going to result in a mess in the last movie unless JJ does a miracle.

Yep.

54 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I dunno, how can anyone have another battle after revealing that flying your entire air fleet into your opponent's sea fleet whilst it's unprepared at anchor decimates their fleet?

Oh, because not everyone's willing to send pilots on suicide bombing runs, let alone waste rare and expensive ships doing it.

Or, they could use a Pit Droid.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

And they were by and large remote controlled, what's your point?

Everything in your sentence has been just wrong.

After the failure at Naboo, they get all their own droid brain. Besides, even in TPM the control ship had thousands of droid brains in action and merely connected them to the bodies, making the army significantly cheaper. But as this has been proven to be a critical flaw in the design, they went with a conventional design and each droid during the clone wars themselves is not remote controlled.

2 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Luke is an interesting character and gets a full heroes journey arc in this movie. (BTW he does not die from meditating to much. If that is your conclusion of the scene, you need to watch movie again until you get it. Maybe they should have been more blunt about it and make him appear as force ghost right beside the broom kid, and not just as metaphorical starlite)

Luke had a full heroes journey in Episodes IV-VI. What he should have got following that was a happily-ever-after, or at least some semblence of a life following the sacrifices he made in the Original Trilogy. What he got was abject failure, abandonment of his friends and family, self-imposed exile, the collapse of everything he fought for and then an ignominious death in an attempt to atone for his previous abject failure.

As pointed out elsewhere, Luke is the guy who surrendered himself to the Empire in Return of the Jedi because he believed there was good still in his father, and that he could bring him back. You know, Darth Vader, the guy that all but wiped out the Jedi, presided over the obliteration of entire planets and crushed the galaxy and esophagi of his rivals in equal measue, that father. This is the guy that then contemplates - even for the fraction of a second - murdering his apprentice, and not just any apprentice, his nephew, the son of his sister and his best friend, in cold blood because he thinks a dark side user might be whispering in his ear?

Yeah. No. It was pathetic, and I can understand why Mark Hamill was justifably appalled when he read the script.

This is no criticism of Mark. I thought his performance was absolutely outstanding in the movie, and he and Carrie, like Harrison Ford before them in the Force Awakens gave real heart and soul to what is otherwise essentially a heartless and soulless piece of cinematography.

4 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Luke had a full heroes journey in Episodes IV-VI. What he should have got following that was a happily-ever-after, or at least some semblence of a life following the sacrifices he made in the Original Trilogy. What he got was abject failure, abandonment of his friends and family, self-imposed exile, the collapse of everything he fought for and then an ignominious death in an attempt to atone for his previous abject failure.

As pointed out elsewhere, Luke is the guy who surrendered himself to the Empire in Return of the Jedi because he believed there was good still in his father, and that he could bring him back. You know, Darth Vader, the guy that all but wiped out the Jedi, presided over the obliteration of entire planets and crushed the galaxy and esophagi of his rivals in equal measure, that father. This is the guy that then contemplates - even for the fraction of a second - murdering …

… the man who could did become the next Darth Vader.

And don't you dare to lessen Return of the Jedi by implying that Luke was not tempted to kill his father in that throne room scene, don't you dare!

2 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

… the man who could did become the next Darth Vader.

And don't you dare to lessen Return of the Jedi by implying that Luke was not tempted to kill his father in that throne room scene, don't you dare!

Furthermore TLJ Luke is 30 years older than RotJ Luke. In 30 years, people change. A lot. The impulsive farmer boy is no more. the idealist son is no more.

29 minutes ago, KellenC said:

Nope, according to Disney it's all canon now. Even the storyline from Battlefront 2.

Fair enough. The only problem I'd say is Star Wars is first, and very foremost, a movie experience. Everything else comes after.

And people will only see the movies, so to treat other things as canon is fine from a continuity standpoint. But to expect all people to see it first is foolish on any studio's part.

Plus fans should not expect people to have read Legends and therefore call force projection something that's already been done. There's too much in the books and video games to ever expect that realistically.

By the way, I am not surprised and not disappointed in any way to find that extended universe fans dwell here on the x-wing boards. After all, to continue to enjoy x-wing as a fan, you are going to enjoy the extended universe. This is not for me, I don't much like anything FFG picks from the extended universe because to me it makes the game look terrible (I said to me!). And also not play like the movies. That's a conversation for like 20 other threads but my point here is if you are an extended universe fan, and expect all the lore to really line up and make sense, I see where you might come from. I also think that is too tall an order from a movie making perspective so I don't really think Disney should pursue that.

Or if they say they are, you know how it is...they're probably just stringing you along like any at all big company does. What they really care about, I believe, is only the continuity of the movie based on itself, and the rest...the rest is stuff they say to make people happy.

Again, I am a fan of the movies here, and mostly Disney's approach. But that fandom does not come with a blindfold.

OK so commenting here and other places has solidified something that's been gnawing at me since seeing this (this movie really does make me more angry the more I think about it). A lot of people seem to be defending TLJ because it acts as a deconstruction of the Heroes Journey, thereby flipping the script on Star Wars as a whole.

Luke saved the universe! But ends up a bitter failure.

Poe wants to actually do something to save people! Ha! FOOL!

Finn and Rose go through all of that stuff and free some horses! Then are directly responsible for killing hundreds of their own friends.

So, yeah the basic gist is that this shows that there is no such thing as a classical faultless hero and good guys/bad guys is outdated etc.

Basically touching on the edges of Nihilism but not fully committing.

OK, except the other major story arcs in this are Kylo Ren and Rey who disobey their respective authority figures and take down a bunch of bad guys then end up in better places for it. Rey is more powerful and, although she hasn't redeemed Kylo, she also isn't dead. Kylo on the other hand is now head of the FO and has literally killed his past.

So basically the 'normal' heroes get a moral which ends up being: You should of done what the authority figure told you without questioning!

While Rey and Kylo get: Well you special little darlings (force users) get to do whatever you like!

Even the kid at the end, who's this new hopeful symbol, is force sensitive.

So instead of getting across a 'There are no heroes' angle we instead get 'Normal people don't get to be heroes'. Which seems to run counter to this whole propped up narrative.

Final note: For those who say the 'no heroes' thing is more realistic....it's basically a Fantasy movie in space, it's meant to be unrealistic!

40 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

here is a question... what if Dave Filoni wrote and directed this?

I think it would have been incredibly epic.

What if Frank Miller directed this?

20 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I was incredibly satisfied with Rogue One, and also am very vested in Rebels. This movie missed.

Well, I did. Temple of Doom is just as stupid as Crystal Skull. The only 2 movies are Raiders and Last Crusade; the other 2 are garbage.

Funny you should use an art analogy; I just did the same thing in a conversation with my wife last night. To me, TFA and RO worked very hard to bring another Impressionist painting to the Impressionism museum. Then Johnson shows up with his Cubist "step forward" and says "look, there's a Stormtrooper in it--totally badass Star Wars, right?"

Yep.

Or, they could use a Pit Droid.

What makes you think a pit droid can fly a captial ship unaided? THey can barely fuel a podracer unaided.

20 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Everything in your sentence has been just wrong.

After the failure at Naboo, they get all their own droid brain. Besides, even in TPM the control ship had thousands of droid brains in action and merely connected them to the bodies, making the army significantly cheaper. But as this has been proven to be a critical flaw in the design, they went with a conventional design and each droid during the clone wars themselves is not remote controlled.

And the video you posted was from TPM so...

4 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

What makes you think a pit droid can fly a captial ship unaided? THey can barely fuel a podracer unaided.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/WAC-47

He was a pilot. And VA Holdo did it alone, too.

Not to mention you simply design suicide droids flying large chunks of metal with a hyperdrive.

Yeah, it was a glorious sacrifice and a great special effect, but it opens a whole can of BS about how the galaxy operates.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

And the video you posted was from TPM so...

I am pretty sure that one of the scenes is Geonosis ;-)
Not that it would make the point hard to get either way. You Sir, just don't want to.

25 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

… the man who could did become the next Darth Vader.

...only because "Sequel Luke" apparently felt it was a good idea to a: attempt to murder him in cold blood then b: abandon everyone when he failed. Ridiculous. Original Trilogy Luke would have stood by his pupils and family, and tried to protect them rather than run off to a random island to drink green walrus milk and die.

25 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

And don't you dare to lessen Return of the Jedi by implying that Luke was not tempted to kill his father in that throne room scene, don't you dare!

LOL. I'm not lessening anything, it's the sequels that are doing a very good job of that.

Sure, Luke was almost goaded - not tempted, goaded by the Emperor into turning to the Dark Side to defeat Vader in Return of the Jedi, but he didn't, did he? He refused, he stayed his hand, he utterly rejected the Dark Side, preferring to die than embrace it. In fact, that point only supports my argument, as having already faced down and denied the Dark Side in much more dire and desperate cirumstances, he should have been more than capable of helping a boy struggling with his own personal demons rather than considering striking him down as he slept.