19 minutes ago, ExpandingUniverse said:

If Disney make a touring 'SW: The musical' or 'SW on Ice' I'm outta this system for good...

For what it's worth, Elsa would make a better believable chief villain than Blastface, even when singing.

So far the only musical numbers in Star Wars movies were made under GL’s patronage.

9 minutes ago, Grimmerling said:

For what it's worth, Elsa would make a better believable chief villain than Blastface, even when singing.

I’m happy every day for not being cynical.

31 minutes ago, Desslok said:

The thing is - Eventually, Empire vs Rebels again and again and again will get dull, so I would love for Disney to do some batshit crazy Star Wars flicks. Straight out comedy? Assuming it was well done - **** yeah. A low budget spaghetti western-ish Boba Fett rolls in and f's up two warring clans by setting them against each other with Ennio Maccaroni doing the score? Absolutely. A heist movie like ******? Sure! So yeah, bring on a big, bold, brassy West Side Story-like musical.

That’s what I really liked about Phase 2 of the MCU: While ostensibly super-hero movies, each entry was a different sub-genre.

Iron Man 3 was an 80’s action movie (bordering on buddy cop movie).

Thor: The Dark World tried to be a modern fantasy movie.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a Cold War spy thriller.

Guardians of the Galaxy was a Star Wars-style space opera.

Avengers: Age of Ultron was the straightforward super-hero flick

And Ant-Man was a heist caper.

I’m still hoping that Solo will be something of heist caper, too.

3 hours ago, ExpandingUniverse said:

Disney has f***** the canon, the fanbase and what Lucas created. I was half expecting musical scenes like Do You Wanna Build A Deathstar or ForceAwakensupercalifragilisticexpialidocious....

Dunno about musical numbers but I bet we will see Reylo, Oh yah, I said it....lots more hugging, lots....

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

That’s what I really liked about Phase 2 of the MCU: While ostensibly super-hero movies, each entry was a different sub-genre.

Iron Man 3 was an 80’s action movie (bordering on buddy cop movie).

Thor: The Dark World tried to be a modern fantasy movie.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a Cold War spy thriller.

Guardians of the Galaxy was a Star Wars-style space opera.

Avengers: Age of Ultron was the straightforward super-hero flick

And Ant-Man was a heist caper.

I’m still hoping that Solo will be something of heist caper, too.

I'm pretty sure that is the idea with Star Wars too.

TFA: Traditional Star Wars flick heavily influenced by the original trilogy. Remind people what they like about Star Wars.

RO: More of a war movie. Let people know Skywalkers, direct episodes, and lightsabers aren't required, but still reference ANH enough to be safe. Also see if anyone notices you are calling a Prequel a Stand Alone (because prequels suck).

TLJ: Unlearn what you have learned. Ditch a lot of the tropes, lay groundwork for future films to be more open in themes and Characters. Do what the EU never did and let that one Character die.

Solo: Unknown, but considering the original directors were the 21 Jump Street guys, probably a reasonable bet this is styled as a buddy comedy heist flick. Probably a move to show you don't have to have every story be a serious one about defeating the Empire.

Here's looking forward to what happens when they decide to go R-rated action Comedy about a wisecracking masked bounty Hunter.

3 hours ago, Grimmerling said:

Unfortunately, anything released by His Royal Mouseness is ex cathedra canon and can, ipso facto, not break itself.

Aside from that, at my table anything from the OT is actionable per se for the players, all else is GM's Ukaz.

I'm pretty sure Larry Niven would disagree with you, seeing as he managed to break his Known Space series with Ringworld.

Plus, Jumping the Shark is a thing, so is Nuking the Fridge. Those are two tropes based on canon breaking itself

1 minute ago, korjik said:

I'm pretty sure Larry Niven would disagree with you, seeing as he managed to break his Known Space series with Ringworld.

Plus, Jumping the Shark is a thing, so is Nuking the Fridge. Those are two tropes based on canon breaking itself

Jumping the shark is about a lack of quality, not about contradictions or a lack of thinking things through.

If lightsabers can be flicked on and off like flashlights, why does anyone use them like swords?

Your describing an already explored aspect of lightsabers: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tràkata and it's featured here in this fight.

8 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Jumping the shark is about a lack of quality, not about contradictions or a lack of thinking things through.

The point is a canon which breaks itself, which is what jumping the shark does. It may do it by pluming the depths of bad, but it still is a break.

6 hours ago, korjik said:

The point is a canon which breaks itself, which is what jumping the shark does. It may do it by pluming the depths of bad, but it still is a break.

Nope.

6 hours ago, korjik said:

The point is a canon which breaks itself, which is what jumping the shark does. It may do it by pluming the depths of bad, but it still is a break.

That is not what jumping the shark means, and being bad doesn't mean something is inconsistent.

On 1/3/2018 at 10:12 PM, TheJrade said:

I am not going to broach the subject of whether or not Ep8 was a good movie here, but I am curious as to how everyone else's group is handling the aspects of the movie that blow a big hole through some of the narrative drama of the rest of the movies & cartoons of the canon (also not going to address Legends here). In particular:

If hyperspace can be used as a weapon, why would anyone invent Death Stars when a pineapple at light speed is more than enough to obliterate a planet?

If lightsabers can be flicked on and off like flashlights, why does anyone use them like swords?

Nothing here blows a hole in any "canon".
First: Nowhere in canon has there ever been a statement that says you can't use hyperspace as a weapon.

Second: It's pretty clear from the movie that 1: you have to be really effing close to your target when you activate the Hyperdrive to be able to ram it (meaning most such attacks could be stopped long before they reached that range), 2: it's suicide, so not very "effective" if you want to survive. 3: it requires quite a lot of mass, apparently, since she's using a pretty large capital ship and is still "merely" does an scalpel like strike on the main target instead of incinerating it. (so pineapple at light speed doesn't work) and finally, 4: Obliterating a planet would require something the size of snokes ship and it'd have to activate the hyperdrive at a distance that's inside the atmosphere and it would destroy not just the target, but also the "projectile", meaning it would hardly be cost effective, since you can't re-use the projectile.

Now, as for lightsabers, they've always been able to flick on and off like flashlights, and this has been a long standing question in the star wars community... "why not just turn off your saber when your opponent tries to parry and then turn it on again after you go through his parry to hit the body?".
Again, nowhere in canon has it been stated that you can't turn a lightsaber on and off again like a flashlight.

The only canon being violated here is your own personal head-canon.

21 hours ago, ExpandingUniverse said:

Do want to build a Deathstar, destroy planets afar... I can't be bothered to rewrite anymore of that gadomn film

If Disney make a touring 'SW: The musical' or 'SW on Ice' I'm outta this system for good... Alpha Centauri looks nice

Bye...

14 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

Nothing here blows a hole in any "canon".
First: Nowhere in canon has there ever been a statement that says you can't use hyperspace as a weapon.

Second: It's pretty clear from the movie that 1: you have to be really effing close to your target when you activate the Hyperdrive to be able to ram it (meaning most such attacks could be stopped long before they reached that range), 2: it's suicide, so not very "effective" if you want to survive. 3: it requires quite a lot of mass, apparently, since she's using a pretty large capital ship and is still "merely" does an scalpel like strike on the main target instead of incinerating it. (so pineapple at light speed doesn't work) and finally, 4: Obliterating a planet would require something the size of snokes ship and it'd have to activate the hyperdrive at a distance that's inside the atmosphere and it would destroy not just the target, but also the "projectile", meaning it would hardly be cost effective, since you can't re-use the projectile.

Not to take sides in this debate but you start with an assumption, that you must be close to do this, that is never made explicit either so I don’t believe we can assume it to be the case.

9 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

Not to take sides in this debate but you start with an assumption, that you must be close to do this, that is never made explicit either so I don’t believe we can assume it to be the case.

Otherwise you'd have ship explosions all over the place constantly from ships travelling at hyperspeed velocity.

Also, she turned around and (for quite a bit of time) closed distance to the enemy ships... why risk that if you didn't have to be close in the first place?

Hyperspace =/= lightspeed.

From the CANON section of Wookieepedia: "Hyperspace was an alternate dimension that could only be reached by traveling at or faster than the speed of light. Hyperdrives enabled starshipsto travel through hyperspace lanes across great distances, enabling travel and exploration throughout the galaxy."

So... alternate dimension means you'd have to impact that enemy ship (or planet) while accelerating to lightspeed (or hyperspeed), and not after you've entered hyperspace, because then you're in a different dimension.

EDIT: And before anyone suggests it, there must be practical reasons as to why ships can't just cruise around at .9999 of light speed and thus slamming into things that way... it seems that most ships in Star Wars travel at much slower speeds and use the hyperspace engines to make a short acceleration to beyond lightspeed and entering hyperspace.

32 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

Otherwise you'd have ship explosions all over the place constantly from ships travelling at hyperspeed velocity.

Also, she turned around and (for quite a bit of time) closed distance to the enemy ships... why risk that if you didn't have to be close in the first place?

Hyperspace =/= lightspeed.

From the CANON section of Wookieepedia: "Hyperspace was an alternate dimension that could only be reached by traveling at or faster than the speed of light. Hyperdrives enabled starshipsto travel through hyperspace lanes across great distances, enabling travel and exploration throughout the galaxy."

So... alternate dimension means you'd have to impact that enemy ship (or planet) while accelerating to lightspeed (or hyperspeed), and not after you've entered hyperspace, because then you're in a different dimension.

EDIT: And before anyone suggests it, there must be practical reasons as to why ships can't just cruise around at .9999 of light speed and thus slamming into things that way... it seems that most ships in Star Wars travel at much slower speeds and use the hyperspace engines to make a short acceleration to beyond lightspeed and entering hyperspace.

That still is an assumption. The movie is never explicit on it. If what you said were true you would just use the exit vector to slam into the target to achieve the same result.

We can’t make assumptions. The principle is never explained and so we are left with no clear understanding.

6 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

That still is an assumption. The movie is never explicit on it. If what you said were true you would just use the exit vector to slam into the target to achieve the same result.

We can’t make assumptions. The principle is never explained and so we are left with no clear understanding.

No, there's reasonable conclusions drawn from logical reasoning, and then there's just assumptions pulled out of the ***.

If ships were able to collide with things while travelling at hyperspace speed, then those collisions would be happening all the time in the universe. It would be pure chaos and mayhem on larger worlds like Coruscant.

Therefore, the conclusion is that while travelling at hyperspace speed, ships don't collide with other ships because they're not actually physically there. (Something further explained in non-movie books, but a reasonable assumption none the less).

Some things you can conclude without having to see it happen in the movies.
For example, we never see anyone taking a dump in the movies, but it's a reasonable assumption that humans in the movies still poop.

Furthermore, there would be no reason what so ever for her to close distance between her ship and their ships (increasing the risk of them shooting her into smithereens before she gets there) if she didn't have to be close to do that damage.
She would just have to turn around and immediately activate the hyperdrive, which she doesn't.

Like I said, there's a difference between making a reasonable assumption based on in-movie actions and already established facts, and just pulling an assumption from your *** (like "I can use a pineapple to destroy a planet")

EDIT: And it really isn't an assumption since the mechanics of hyperspace flight are explained in detail in canonic material outside of the movies, meaning we don't have to assume anything.

2 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

No, there's reasonable conclusions drawn from logical reasoning, and then there's just assumptions pulled out of the ***.

If ships were able to collide with things while travelling at hyperspace speed, then those collisions would be happening all the time in the universe. It would be pure chaos and mayhem on larger worlds like Coruscant.

Therefore, the conclusion is that while travelling at hyperspace speed, ships don't collide with other ships because they're not actually physically there. (Something further explained in non-movie books, but a reasonable assumption none the less).

Some things you can conclude without having to see it happen in the movies.
For example, we never see anyone taking a dump in the movies, but it's a reasonable assumption that humans in the movies still poop.

Furthermore, there would be no reason what so ever for her to close distance between her ship and their ships (increasing the risk of them shooting her into smithereens before she gets there) if she didn't have to be close to do that damage.
She would just have to turn around and immediately activate the hyperdrive, which she doesn't.

Like I said, there's a difference between making a reasonable assumption based on in-movie actions and already established facts, and just pulling an assumption from your *** (like "I can use a pineapple to destroy a planet")

EDIT: And it really isn't an assumption since the mechanics of hyperspace flight are explained in detail in canonic material outside of the movies, meaning we don't have to assume anything.

I said your assumption was that you could only hit them while sufficiently close. If we assume your other thoughts hold true, then that would mean you actually have TWO options, when building to join hyperspace and when exiting, as the exit velocity would also offer a window of .999 light speed.

Again though, we can’t assume that these are the truth no matter how “logical” it may appear.

1 hour ago, OddballE8 said:

Bye...

Oh my G**! ... all the time I was home..(they) finally really did it! YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! D*** you! G**, D*** you all to he**!

10 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

I said your assumption was that you could only hit them while sufficiently close. If we assume your other thoughts hold true, then that would mean you actually have TWO options, when building to join hyperspace and when exiting, as the exit velocity would also offer a window of .999 light speed.

Again though, we can’t assume that these are the truth no matter how “logical” it may appear.

Well, like I said, if it wasn't specifically during the distance it takes to accelerate to hyperspace, these collisions would happen constantly since people are flying around at hyperspace speeds all the time.
Furthermore, canon specifically states that they are in another dimension when travelling through hyperspace, thus making that impossible anyway.

So it must be during that acceleration.

And again, there is NO other reason for Holdo to turn around and then close distance to the enemy fleet, at great risk of failing to do what she plans to do, unless she actually HAS to be that close in the first place.

It's an assumption, yes, but it's as reasonable one as the assumption that humans in star wars have to poop. Or that ships have fuel (which seems like an assumption that's lost on some).

You seem to be under the assumption that if it's not explicitly explained in the movies, then we know absolutely nothing about it what so ever.

22 hours ago, Desslok said:

The thing is - Eventually, Empire vs Rebels again and again and again will get dull, so I would love for Disney to do some batshit crazy Star Wars flicks. Straight out comedy? Assuming it was well done - **** yeah. A low budget spaghetti western-ish Boba Fett rolls in and f's up two warring clans by setting them against each other with Ennio Maccaroni doing the score? Absolutely. A heist movie like ******? Sure! So yeah, bring on a big, bold, brassy West Side Story-like musical.

I agree. When I fancy something a little different to a SW movie I just chuck a spaghetti western in the DVD. Why don't FFG just throw all the SWRPG written adventures on the Disney Script Writer's Desk and say: Here ya go, make a trilogy out of these?

....The Merchant of Nal Hutta anyone?

1 minute ago, ExpandingUniverse said:

I agree. When I fancy something a little different to a SW movie I just chuck a spaghetti western in the DVD. Why don't FFG just throw all the SWRPG written adventures on the Disney Script Writer's Desk and say: Here ya go, make a trilogy out of these?

....The Merchant of Nal Hutta anyone?

Here's my view on it:

Disney are pretty business savvy.

They're gonna go the Marvel route with these movies.
They're gonna put out the main three with a central theme for now, and intersect those with anthology movies that they use to try out different approaches (R1 was a war movie, Solo will most likely be a comedy/buddy movie, and the third one will be something different).
But once they get settled in the process, they'll venture into more "risky" approaches, just like they're currently doing with Marvel movies.
Guardians was a big step away from the standard superhero movie format. (and ant man to a lesser extent before that)
Thor Ragnarok was a complete redesign of Thor as a character, and also strayed from the superhero format a bit. I mean, they didn't even save Asgard in the end!

I think the really good Star Wars movies, will come in 3-5 years.
That's when Disney will let go of the reigns a bit and let the directors and writers do their thing.

7 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

the third one will be something different

"A Tusken Raided My Heart: An Obi-Wan Story"

2 hours ago, Khazadune said:

That still is an assumption.

Sure. And it is as well only an assumption that it breaks canon either. So what are we discussing here?

Besides, the other dimension part and being save from collisions seems to be untrue, because purgil cross into hyperlanes and cause collisions. That is canon.
Hypermatter is super dangerous on top, so spreading it over an planet ... let's say by colliding with it's mass shadow with a cruiser will kill most life on a planet, it's orbit and near space around it just fine. That is also canon.

Which makes TLJ not breaking canon, but actually using long established facts from canon and just using it.