9 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking anything in your screeds seriously after you complained about how the backseats in the first order TIEs ruined Star Wars. You might have cogent point or two in your rantings somewhere, but unless you start putting a little effort into expressing them clearly, I'm not going to bother digging through your posts after them, given how likely it would be that the search turned out futile.

Also, while I don't like to comment on other people's spelling, particularly when it's not their first language, unless you're exacting vengeance on the english language for past slights, please consider using a spellchecker or using google translate.

Where did i say the first order TIEs ruined Star Wars ? It was an example of bad use of old designs. They just could have changed the way it looked and it wouldnt have mattered.

And calling other peoples post a rant just becouse you dont agree doesnt actually make youre agruement more valuable.

I will check my original post and look at what spelling mistakes i might have made, but advising anyone to use google translator well not going to comment that.

1 minute ago, Waxfire1 said:

Where did i say the first order ruined Star Wars ? It was an example of bad use of old designs. They just could have changed the way it looked and it wouldnt have mattered.

Nor does it matter that the First Order - you know, the organization that fancies itself the successor to the Empire - uses Imperial imagery and iconography as a means of trying to bolster their legitimacy.

But, yeah...having a variant 30 years later that seats a pilot and *gasp* a gunner? Totally unforgivable, and obviously one of the most heinous cinematic decisions in film history.

17 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking anything in your screeds seriously after you complained about how the backseats in the first order TIEs ruined Star Wars. You might have cogent point or two in your rantings somewhere, but unless you start putting a little effort into expressing them clearly, I'm not going to bother digging through your posts after them, given how likely it would be that the search turned out futile.

Also, while I don't like to comment on other people's spelling, particularly when it's not their first language, unless you're exacting vengeance on the english language for past slights, please consider using a spellchecker or using google translate.

O noez! There's a TIE fighter that *shudder* seats a pilot and gunner!! Surely these are the end times!!!

If we needed proof that there's a part of the audience actively looking for reasons to be unhappy....

12 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Yah, So if it was 'forseen' why is Solo taking a potentially quarter of a billion+ dollar flick in the marble bag? They didn't forsee ****, they made bad decisions.

Just saying that I think it is and was reasonable to expect a drop of some degree.

12 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Just saying that I think it is and was reasonable to expect a drop of some degree.

An average of 40%? So if your next 401k statement said you've had a 40% drop in value the last 3 years that would be reasonable? Bet not.

Their own estimate for TLJ was $1.5 billion and I have no doubt that was low ball, so they could say when it was the hoped $1.8 billion "gosh we sooooo exceeded our expectations." Except, derp! It was $200 million short.

11 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Nor does it matter that the First Order - you know, the organization that fancies itself the successor to the Empire - uses Imperial imagery and iconography as a means of trying to bolster their legitimacy.

But, yeah...having a variant 30 years later that seats a pilot and *gasp* a gunner? Totally unforgivable, and obviously one of the most heinous cinematic decisions in film history.

7 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

O noez! There's a TIE fighter that *shudder* seats a pilot and gunner!! Surely these are the end times!!!

If we needed proof that there's a part of the audience actively looking for reasons to be unhappy....

That was just an example on unnecessary changes and it was an example of many.

Its just ridiculous how you cherry-pick lonly examples out of context and exaggerate them just to justify any bad story, while at the same time you are not explaining why the background of the characters or changes are actually good.

Please feel free to explain why you think the characters and especially their backstories in solo and episode 7-8 are good.

So far you have not given us any arguement at all - just its good - you dont understand - you just rant.

5 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

An average of 40%? So if your next 401k statement said you've had a 40% drop in value the last 3 years that would be reasonable? Bet not.

Their own estimate for TLJ was $1.5 billion and I have no doubt that was low ball, so they could say when it was the hoped $1.8 billion "gosh we sooooo exceeded our expectations." Except, derp! It was $200 million short.

OK, I'm clearly not clearly communicating what I'm trying to say, and my attempts to clarify aren't any more successful. Forget I said anything.

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

OK, I'm clearly not clearly communicating what I'm trying to say, and my attempts to clarify aren't any more successful. Forget I said anything.

Done.

1 minute ago, Waxfire1 said:

That was just an example on unnecessary changes and it was an example of many.

Its just ridiculous how you cherry-pick lonly examples out of context and exaggerate them just to justify any bad story, while at the same time you are not explaining why the background of the characters or changes are actually good.

Please feel free to explain why you think the characters and especially their backstories in solo and episode 7-8 are good.

So far you have not given us any arguement at all - just its good - you dont understand - you just rant.

Strictly speaking, any changes in design in an ongoing series are "unnecessary" by your apparent definition? Why introduce a TIE interceptor when there's already a TIE, for example? Heck, why have a TIE and a TIE advanced in the same movie?

Meanwhile, I'm not the one trying to "justify" anything. You've gone on at length justifying your own cherry-picking of elements out of context to declare the death-knell of Star Wars.

"Explain why I think the characters and especially their backstories are good?" Not that I really have to explain anything to you, but...sure, I'll play. (Not that I expect it to make a difference.) With Rey, I can appreciate her sense of longing for more...a sense of belonging, a sense of worth. In that respect, she's not unlike Luke when we first met him (by design, of course...I don't think anyone would deny that). Then watching as she's thrust into a situation that she doesn't want at first, but the Force has other ideas. First insisting that getting involved is up to someone else - Han should take BB-8 to the Resistance, she should reject the Force's call, Luke should be the rallying point for the galaxy...and failing that, maybe Kylo Ren can be turned back to be that figure...anyone but her. But still, the Force has other plans for her. Ultimately realizing, yes...this is what she's supposed to do. Just as she couldn't rely on anyone else for her day-to-day survival on Jakku, she has to be the one to step up. If we're being honest, we know as much about her (apparently all-important, according to you) backstory as we knew about Luke's or Han's or Leia's back in '77 and '80.

There's an example. I don't have any intention of spending all evening jumping through the hoops of detailing my views of all of the characters when we both know it won't change your mind, because you're bound and determined to be unhappy with the movies. And, hey...if you don't enjoy them, that's fair. We're not all going to enjoy exactly the same things. But going on and on about alleged "flaws" ranging from new characters being given as much (or little) fleshing out over the course of one or two movies as their predecessors, or a franchise that has continuously introduced new hardware since the beginning introducing new hardware is disingenuous.

48 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

An average of 40%? So if your next 401k statement said you've had a 40% drop in value the last 3 years that would be reasonable? Bet not.

Their own estimate for TLJ was $1.5 billion and I have no doubt that was low ball, so they could say when it was the hoped $1.8 billion "gosh we sooooo exceeded our expectations." Except, derp! It was $200 million short.

Our countries obsession with movie box office returns is really strange unless you own stock in the studios. Movies should be about their entertainment value, plot, acting and wow factor, etc.

Disney isn’t going under with some underperforming movies, and Star Wars isn’t going away anytime soon.

4 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Our countries obsession with movie box office returns is really strange unless you own stock in the studios. Movies should be about their entertainment value, plot, acting and wow factor, etc.

Disney isn’t going under with some underperforming movies, and Star Wars isn’t going away anytime soon.

Are you kidding me? 9 figure budget movies don't get made because of anything other than money. Disney didn't hand GL $3 billion in cash and a $billion in stock options for wow factor.

5 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Are you kidding me? 9 figure budget movies don't get made because of anything other than money. Disney didn't hand GL $3 billion in cash and a $billion in stock options for wow factor.

No I’m not as a fan it’s not important to me, I liked Star Wars when it was just Timothy Zahn books.

4 minutes ago, Eoen said:

No I’m not as a fan it’s not important to me, I liked Star Wars when it was just Timothy Zahn books.

Do you have a 401k?

26 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Do you have a 401k?

No after living through the dot com bomb and then having my business go under during the housing crisis, the only interest I have in wall street is to see them get a swift trial, followed by a firing squad.

30 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Strictly speaking, any changes in design in an ongoing series are "unnecessary" by your apparent definition? Why introduce a TIE interceptor when there's already a TIE, for example? Heck, why have a TIE and a TIE advanced in the same movie?

Meanwhile, I'm not the one trying to "justify" anything. You've gone on at length justifying your own cherry-picking of elements out of context to declare the death-knell of Star Wars.

"Explain why I think the characters and especially their backstories are good?" Not that I really have to explain anything to you, but...sure, I'll play. (Not that I expect it to make a difference.) With Rey, I can appreciate her sense of longing for more...a sense of belonging, a sense of worth. In that respect, she's not unlike Luke when we first met him (by design, of course...I don't think anyone would deny that). Then watching as she's thrust into a situation that she doesn't want at first, but the Force has other ideas. First insisting that getting involved is up to someone else - Han should take BB-8 to the Resistance, she should reject the Force's call, Luke should be the rallying point for the galaxy...and failing that, maybe Kylo Ren can be turned back to be that figure...anyone but her. But still, the Force has other plans for her. Ultimately realizing, yes...this is what she's supposed to do. Just as she couldn't rely on anyone else for her day-to-day survival on Jakku, she has to be the one to step up. If we're being honest, we know as much about her (apparently all-important, according to you) backstory as we knew about Luke's or Han's or Leia's back in '77 and '80.

There's an example. I don't have any intention of spending all evening jumping through the hoops of detailing my views of all of the characters when we both know it won't change your mind, because you're bound and determined to be unhappy with the movies. And, hey...if you don't enjoy them, that's fair. We're not all going to enjoy exactly the same things. But going on and on about alleged "flaws" ranging from new characters being given as much (or little) fleshing out over the course of one or two movies as their predecessors, or a franchise that has continuously introduced new hardware since the beginning introducing new hardware is disingenuous.

The TIE and the TIE Advanced both have their role inside the Imperial ( First Order) military. There is the standard TIE fighter, the TIE Interceptor and the TIE Advanced with even more firepower but being more expensive.

The new First Order TIE fighters which look just like the old ones and dont even have new abilities, do not have any other role than the 2 character escaping in one. They get destroyed just as fast but need 2 Pilots.

A good example on how to introduce new technology is the new TIE/rb which is introduced in Solo - why ? - becouse it has not been introduced just to make a scene happen. It is a reinforced heavy fighter - which places him between the Interceptor and the Advanced. See thats the difference between a good introduction of new tech and a crappy one.

And i also didnt declare the death-knell of Star Wars. You really seem to have a problem with staying inbetween. There isnt just its the best and the worst. I didnt regret watching any of the movies. But i know i wont be watching episode 8 as often as i might watch rogue one. I am able to enjoy a movie and despite that criticize elements of the same movie.

No, we know way more about Han's or Luke's or Leia's background then we do about any of the new characters and in adition their background actually makes sense.

Luke:

When Star Wars was released in the 77s, we learned that Luke was a farmer on a desert planet whos father was a great pilot and he himself had learned how to fly and wanted to join the rebellion but his stepfather didnt let him out of fear he would turn out like his father.

During a New Hope and up to Return of the Jedi we saw how little Luke trained and was educated in the ways of the Jedi.

His background explains how he knows how to fly and how to use the force and use a lightsaber.

Han:

In New Hope we learn that Solo is a smuggler who had to drop a spike cargo and as a result he owns a debt to a crime lord.

His background explains how he knows how to fly his ship.

Leia:

In New Hope we learn that the is one of the leaders of the rebellion both in the military and in their diplomacy.

Rey:

While i agree with our description of hew motivations throught the movies we still havent gotten any explanation on the how.

She was a girl left behind by her parent on a hostile planet. How did she learn to fly a ship, how did she learn how to repair a ship ? Not to mention that she learned to use the force and a lightsaber withing what 30 minutes of that movie. Oh and he was also able to win a fight against a Sith who was trained for years..

Snoke: He came and went away without anyone knowing who he was - but we needed a replacement for Palpatine.

There are a few Examples of good against bad backgrounds.

It won't change your mind, because you're bound and determined to be happy with the movies. And, hey...if you enjoy them, that's fair. We're not all going to enjoy exactly the same things. But going on and on with finding excuses for bad charakter backgrounds, unnecessary changes to technology just to tell a bad copied story is just getting tiresome and doesnt help the franchise as a whole.

Why dont we just wait for Episode 9 where we can see how the struggle of emotions between Vader following the darkside and his love towards Luke will turn out. Wait what damnit?!? I ment Kylo and Ren.

I wonder will C1439EU4 finaly admit his love towards Rey and help her defeat Kylo - what a nice idea both rolling towards a sunset holding "hands" on a desertplanet.

59 minutes ago, Eoen said:

No I’m not as a fan it’s not important to me, I liked Star Wars when it was just Timothy Zahn books.

well +1 on that

2 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

well +1 on that

Big surprise there.

We'll all rant one way or the other...but I add that Lucas gave us IMO, one of THE BEST settings for an rpg... It's massive, move over Tolkien with your Mirkwood massive forest and pointy eared races (sorry Spock.. Star Trek ain't bad either but I prefer SW...)

I actually found the third book of the Dark Nest trilogy in the loft along with Survivor's Quest... I've just started the Joiner King.. I'm only, what? 12 years late picking it up

EDIT: Is it any good?

5 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

The new First Order TIE fighters which look just like the old ones and dont even have new abilities, do not have any other role than the 2 character escaping in one.

Now you're just trolling. There's a rear gun on it, which is a pretty significant evolution compared to the interceptor, which basically is "goes a little faster, looks a little meaner".

6 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

The TIE and the TIE Advanced both have their role inside the Imperial ( First Order) military. There is the standard TIE fighter, the TIE Interceptor and the TIE Advanced with even more firepower but being more expensive.

The new First Order TIE fighters which look just like the old ones and dont even have new abilities, do not have any other role than the 2 character escaping in one. They get destroyed just as fast but need 2 Pilots.

A good example on how to introduce new technology is the new TIE/rb which is introduced in Solo - why ? - becouse it has not been introduced just to make a scene happen. It is a reinforced heavy fighter - which places him between the Interceptor and the Advanced. See thats the difference between a good introduction of new tech and a crappy one.

Let me see if I have this straight: A piece of new technology just showing up in a movie that you (more or less) like = "a good example of how to introduce new technology;" a piece of new technology just showing up in a movie that you're bound and determined to hate, and want to scream and shout about = not so much.

You keep going on and on about what we know "from the movies" making all the difference. So, you've already defeated yourself. What do we know about a difference between the TIE and TIE advanced from the movies? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The real reason there were two different models in the movie? So Vader's could be identified on sight. On the flip side, their different roles and capabilities were expanded in the ancillary media, which means if you accept that external information for those models, we should expect you to accept similar information for the later models. And that ancillary information points out that the First Order TIE model that we've seen the interior of has a dedicated gunner to take advantage of its variable firing arc. Now...what, exactly, does Solo (the movie itself) tell us is different about its variant? Nothing. We have to, once again, go to external media.

Now, as someone who can get impassioned and end up generating walls o' text myself, I'm going to choose to not go into point-by-point response and add to the detritus in the thread any more than necessary, because the rest of your post follows the same concept: the movies you like and the movies you don't like doing the same sorts of things, and providing the same sorts of information levels, with you lauding one example, and insisting that the other is horrible, awful, sub-par, and terribly damaging to Star Wars. And, you're bound and determined to continue disliking them no matter what. (It's probably fair to say we all have movies or tv shows like that.)

As I said before, if you don't like them, that's fair. No one is saying that you have to. But your reasoning, going so far as to complain about minutia of in-story technology variants, is disingenuous.

Have a great weekend.

Most ironically about all this is that we are getting some clear stuff about the TIE/FO. It got the gunner seat, we can see it in use, we get even iirc info about it having shields, which is a major change over TIE/LNs.

15 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Most ironically about all this is that we are getting some clear stuff about the TIE/FO. It got the gunner seat, we can see it in use, we get even iirc info about it having shields, which is a major change over TIE/LNs.

He's built himself some nice circular reasoning, though. "If it's different, why does it look the same? The horror!"

I saw the movie Friday night. I didn't read any spoilers before the movie, but I heard a lot of bad press for the film, and that wasn't good or not doing well in the sale numbers.

Personally? I liked. I felt much more comfortable than TLJ. Not better than Rogue one, IMHO.

Minor comments and random thoughts?

We saw Corellia and Coronet city (which I imagine were nicer, but even Coruscant has an ugly side). We saw Kessel, in line with Star Wars Rebels.

We have a new McGuffin that is precious for hyperspace travels. In the beginning, I felt it was a bit off to have super expensive hyperdrive fuel if travel is so frequent, but the previous post explaining that was part of the Hyperdrive and is required for construction made a lot of sense to me. In my headcanon, it will be the equivalent of Lithium for electric cars: Expensive, rare, and required for the construction. Capital ships and freighter might require every 6 months or a year. A small freighter might need every 10 years.

I also feel that this movie could be much better if they used spice instead of this highly explosive compound. The fact that a bunch of young rebels needs it might be easily explained by the use of spice for medical supplies. However, I imagine that Disney didn't like one of the beloved characters being a drug smuggler. It's understandable.

The Pykes were a bit off too: Apparently, the Kessel atmosphere is toxic to them.

Things I didn't like?

The Sabbac cards. I expected something more technobabble, like the description in the books.

Darth Maul: It was unnecessary, especially the lightsaber part. Also, it looks fake. The bright side? Is good to have Sam Witwer.

My two credits

Edit: In episode I, the Hyperdrive was damaged and cost almost the same as the ship, doesn't it?

28 minutes ago, Rithuan said:

Edit: In episode I, the Hyperdrive was damaged and cost almost the same as the ship, doesn't it?

Do remember that Qui-Gon was trying to by the replacement parts needed from an unscrupulous junk dealer, with Watto being exactly the sort of being that would jack up the price. That, and I don't believe he ever said an exact price, but instead balked at Qui-Gon only having Republic credits to pay with, which on Tatooine were close to worthless at that point in time; it's akin to going into a store in Canada and then trying to pay for goods using Mexican pesos.

As for the ship's cost, fairly certain the price tag is in the hundreds of thousands of credits at the very least if purchased brand new.

Watto's dialogue--

Quote

T-14 hyperdrive generator? You're in luck. I'm the only one hereabouts who has one. But, uh, you might as well buy a new ship. It would be cheaper I think, huh?

It's after that that he asks about a form of payment.

Sounds like one of those situations where, because of repair cost, it might be more beneficial in the long run to trade out vehicles, based on the current value of the vehicle in question. (I'd imagine that most of Watto's customers weren't looking for parts for a well-maintained ship owned by a planetary government...most were probably running vehicles held together with the Star Wars equivalent of duct tape.)