12 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

Phil Lord & Christopher Miller haven't made a bad movie yet. From what I have read, they were fired because they didn't bow down to Kathleen Kennedy and her SJW agenda. But believe what you want. This movie cost double to produce and so far has ALOT of controversy surrounding it. In China its being called 'RANGER SOLO' b/c the Star Wars name is garbage thanks to the Last Jedi. LOL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Lord_and_Christopher_Miller

If Kathleen's vision was to not have Solo be a slapstick comedy like I read that the first version of the film was then I'm more than fine with that.

3 hours ago, Imperial Citizen said:

Imperial Falcon!

What spice r u smokin!?

Just now, BlodVargarna said:

What spice r u smokin!?

Is spice supposed to be smoked? I kinda always thought it was snorted or ingested.

27 minutes ago, mithril2098 said:

pretty much. and all of the new GCW stuff we've gotten so far has been niche gear that didn't have a role in any of the battles in the OT..

the TIE striker is an atmospheric fighter. no atmospheric fights in ANH, they could have appeared in ESB, but Vader's fleet lacking them (and the general lack of TIE's during the ground battle at hoth in general) means they didn't really fit into ESB, and a lot of the same logic applies to ROTJ (the Endor garrison could potentially have had some, but no rebel fighters came down to help due to the shield, and the ground battle was a swirling mess in a forest where the striker's couldn't be used for ground attack easily.) the AT-ACT is a cargo vehicle and not menat for battle, it not appearing in ANH, ESB, or ROTJ makes sense, since there was no role for it in those. the shoretroopers are specialized tropical fighters.. no call for them on tatooine, hoth, or endor. the occupier tank is the only one that could have easily shown up in the OT.. but it is easy to assume that the Tatooine garrison had some and they just never made the screen in mos eisley, while Vader just didn't bring them to hoth. Endor is just terrible terrain for tracked vehicles.

Rebels gave us more (alternate AT-AT's, the AT-DP, etc) but it also is set years before RO/ANH.

Occupier "tank" is also more of a cargo vehicle as well.

@new TIEs

How many Imperial crafts do we have in canon?

TIE Fighter and Interceptor for light fighters
TIE Defender and two Advanced variants for sorta-heavy long range fighters, none of them mass-produced, might as well not count them.
TIE Bomber for light bomber.
TIE Shuttle for light shuttle, plus a bunch of larger shuttles.
TIE Striker for atmospheric multirole.

Did I miss any?

That's less variety than US military, even nowadays.
F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, F-35 is just scratching the surface, and even most of those have multiple variants - and that's despite them being multirole by design, unlike most TIEs (TIE/ln or Interceptor can't really do much besides dogfighting).
There are specialized aircraft for electronic warfare, recon, counter-insurgency, SEAD, AWACS, anti-shipping, anti-submarine, bombers... in all sizes, props and jets, manned and unmanned, with Navy, Air Force and Marines having different tastes and needs.

There is A LOT of design space to be filled.

http://www.businessinsider.com/han-solo-directors-fired-reason-2017-6

"But according to what sources tell EW, the duo thought they were making a full-on comedy.
"They thought they were brought on to make a Phil and Chris movie," said a source. Or as EW writer Anthony Breznican put it: "Lucasfilm and producer Kennedy believed Lord and Miller were hired to add a comedic touch; Lord and Miller believed they were hired to make a comedy."
Lord and Miller allowed their actors, which includes comic Donald Glover playing Solo's friend Lando Calrissian, to improvise, sources told EW . In some cases the directing duo significantly changed parts of the story while shooting on set.
In the world of "Star Wars," this is a major no-no, going all the way back to when George Lucas oversaw the franchise. So when Kennedy and her team saw dailies and found actors improvising and scenes being shot not as they were planned on the page, the relationship began to sour.
EW learned that when reshoots were planned, Lord and Miller began to push back, believing they had found the right movie, and it deviated greatly from what screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan ("The Empire Strikes Back," "The Force Awakens") had penned.
Lord and Miller were told they were fired on Monday."

but apparently Ron Howard managed to retain a lot of the already done stuff . i get the feeling this is one of those films that was "saved in the edit".

To me, that looked like the Falcon was an Imperial ship originally. Not sure if it had weapons though. They could also be just pulling our leg with all of this - Rey never joined Kylo in TLJ despite what the trailers indicated, so it's possible Han doesn't actually sign up for the Empire. But either way, I'm looking forward to it! Plus, that Star Destroyer through the clouds... I'd pay $20 just to see that one scene on the big screen.

49 minutes ago, Phoenix5454 said:

From what I've heard and read the original directors made it a slap stick comedy which is why they got canned. Believe it or not, but Ron Howard may have saved this film from being a huge mistake.

Do you have any citations for this 'slap-slick' idea? Sounds like propaganda to me.

The reports that I have read claim 'creative differences' like here: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-how-the-han-solo-movie-directors-reporte/1100-6451196

IE, how the directors were actually doing their job and not the content of the movie.

21 minutes ago, mithril2098 said:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ han -solo-directors-fired-reason-2017-6

"But according to what sources tell EW, the duo thought they were making a full-on comedy.
"They thought they were brought on to make a Phil and Chris movie," said a source. Or as EW writer Anthony Breznican put it: "Lucasfilm and producer Kennedy believed Lord and Miller were hired to add a comedic touch; Lord and Miller believed they were hired to make a comedy."
Lord and Miller allowed their actors, which includes comic Donald Glover playing Solo's friend Lando Calrissian , to improvise, sources told EW . In some cases the directing duo significantly changed parts of the story while shooting on set.
In the world of "Star Wars," this is a major no-no, going all the way back to when George Lucas oversaw the franchise. So when Kennedy and her team saw dailies and found actors improvising and scenes being shot not as they were planned on the page, the relationship began to sour.
EW learned that when reshoots were planned, Lord and Miller began to push back, believing they had found the right movie, and it deviated greatly from what screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan ("The Empire Strikes Back," "The Force Awakens") had penned.
Lord and Miller were told they were fired on Monday."

but apparently Ron Howard managed to retain a lot of the already done stuff . i get the feeling this is one of those films that was "saved in the edit".

All of that is unsubstantiated. And in the source article

Quote

Other sources have come forward to clarify — although Lord and Miller were indeed going off-script to create new dialogue and action, there is disagreement over whether they were adding humor.

One person with knowledge of the dispute said they were clashing with Lucasfilm over changes to the script made spur-of-the-moment during filming. “But improvisation in this case does not always mean comedy,” the source said.

Which of course is also unsubstantiated.

Just now, Rexler Brath said:

All of that is unsubstantiated.

Proof?

Just now, SabineKey said:

Proof?

Quote

Here’s what we know now: Several sources close to the movie and others close to the directors tell EW

So the article does not include the sources. Therefore, its unsubstantiated claims.

3 minutes ago, eMeM said:

Occupier "tank" is also more of a cargo vehicle as well.

@new TIEs

How many Imperial crafts do we have in canon?

TIE Fighter and Interceptor for light fighters
TIE Defender and two Advanced variants for sorta-heavy long range fighters, none of them mass-produced, might as well not count them.
TIE Bomber for light bomber.
TIE Shuttle for light shuttle, plus a bunch of larger shuttles.
TIE Striker for atmospheric multirole.

Did I miss any?

That's less variety than US military, even nowadays.
F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, F-35 is just scratching the surface, and even most of those have multiple variants - and that's despite them being multirole by design, unlike most TIEs (TIE/ln or Interceptor can't really do much besides dogfighting).
There are specialized aircraft for electronic warfare, recon, counter-insurgency, SEAD, AWACS, anti-shipping, anti-submarine, bombers... in all sizes, props and jets, manned and unmanned, with Navy, Air Force and Marines having different tastes and needs.

There is A LOT of design space to be filled.

Electronic Warfare/sensors? this new TIE could be like the EA-6B prowler (or its replacement, the EA-18G Growler) fighter chassis, but optimized for electronic warfare with powerful sensors and jammers. the Star Destroyer launches them while moving through some kind of stormcloud/nebula thing, so i could see it being a sensory platform meant to help scan a wider area while the ISD's own sensors are degraded.

Holy crap Rexler's really on the warpath with this agenda.

Nobody hates Star Wars like Star Wars fans, for real!

Just now, Rexler Brath said:

So the article does not include the sources. Therefore, its unsubstantiated claims.

They are referring to an Entertainment Weekly article, who do not refer to their sources by name.

Do you know what article also does that? The one you linked to. Sounds like you rushed out to be right before checking your work.

14 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

Do you have any citations for this 'slap-slick' idea? Sounds like propaganda to me.

The reports that I have read claim 'creative differences' like here: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-how-the-han-solo-movie-directors-reporte/1100-6451196

IE, how the directors were actually doing their job and not the content of the movie.

someone is really mad that Phil Lord and Christopher Miller got canned from this project...

or does Kathleen Kennedy scare you?

or is it a seething hatred for Ron Howard?

Do you not like redheads? lol

Im not going to go compile a bunch of youtube, facebook and reddit articles / clips I've read / watched over the last month and a half to appease you.

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

They are referring to an Entertainment Weekly article, who do not refer to their sources by name.

Do you know what article also does that? The one you linked to. Sounds like you rushed out to be right before checking your work.

Perhaps learn to click on the sources in the links before trying to make a failed attempt at a rebuttal.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-han-solo-film-loses-its-directors-11-mon/1100-6451071/

Quote

The untitled Han Solo film will move forward with a directorial change.

“Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are talented filmmakers who have assembled an incredible cast and crew, but it’s become clear that we had different creative visions on this film, and we’ve decided to part ways. A new director will be announced soon,” said Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm.

“Unfortunately, our vision and process weren’t aligned with our partners on this project. We normally aren’t fans of the phrase ‘creative differences’ but for once this cliché is true. We are really proud of the amazing and world-class work of our cast and crew,” stated Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

Also, this link is pretty interesting as it quotes the directors: http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/lord-and-miller-on-being-kicked-off-the-han-solo-movie.html

I can’t wait for the full trailer. Looks like this’ll be good.

9 minutes ago, Phoenix5454 said:

someone is really mad that Phil Lord and Christopher Miller got canned from this project...

of does Kathleen Kennedy scare you?

or is it a seething hatred for Ron Howard?

Do you not like redheads? lol

Im not going to go compile a bunch of youtube, facebook and reddit articles / clips I've read / watched over the last month and a half to appease you.

Someone is really mad about a comment on the internet...

• Does Rexler Brath scare you?
• or is it your seething hatred for the Empire?
• Do you not like nerf herders? lol

Im not going to go compile a bunch of youtube, facebook and reddit articles / clips I've read / watched over the last month and a half to appease you.

...Then why should we do the same for you?

2 hours ago, weisguy119 said:

My problem is, the standalone movies take place just before A New Hope and have more varied ship design in them than TFA and TLJ which keep rehashing familiar TIE, X-wing and A-wing designs that are supposedly decades old. At least be consistent. Is there a wide open galaxy with all kinds of ship designs or are there just a few? Make up your mind, Disney.

Eh...this is hardly "just before A New Hope". Indeed, this should be the closest to the Clone Wars that we will probably see again - we're looking at least a decade prior to ANH, here, or close to it.

2 hours ago, Animewarsdude said:

Well we have to get used to it, the fact of the matter is that they are going to release new ships for the sake of new toys. What makes it sort of annoying is that in canon the Empire is very much uniform so I'm more willing to accept the Rebels being the ones with new toys seeing how they would grab anything they can. I'm fine with new rebel, scum, and civilian craft but it is odd seeing new Imperial ships. Of course I just accept this fact we will get new stuff, so hopefully they will re canonize old EU ships or bring in some more support craft for Imperial ships like the Raider.

That's sort of like complaining why there are F-14s in 'Top Gun', when the Navy uses F/A-18s and F-35s, now.

This is a period we haven't really seen before. Indeed, this should be the first Imperial Star Destroyer and regular TIE Fighter we've seen in the timeline, so...yeah, it would make sense that the earliest 'bomber' looks like a close derivative of it, vs the more-matured TIE Bomber design.

FWIW, my guess is that this is a TIE/gt - predecessor to the TIE Bomber. So we wouldn't see it in the later movies, because it's been replaced by a better design.

4 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

Perhaps learn to click on the sources in the links before trying to make a failed attempt at a rebuttal.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-han-solo-film-loses-its-directors-11-mon/1100-6451071/

Also, this link is pretty interesting as it quotes the directors: http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/lord-and-miller-on-being-kicked-off-the-han-solo-movie.html

You mean the link to the Hollywood Report article? Yeah, I checked it out, and found that some of their sources were not named.

You can actually do the same for the article Bussiness Insider put up, following a link in the article to the Entertainment Weekly article they were referriencing.

6 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

Someone is really mad about a comment on the internet...

• Does Rexler Brath scare you?
• or is it your seething hatred for the Empire?
• Do you not like nerf herders? lol

Im not going to go compile a bunch of youtube, facebook and reddit articles / clips I've read / watched over the last month and a half to appease you.

So am I talking to Phil Lord or Christopher Miller? Or are you taking turns replying...

LoL

The visuals are fantastic. I’m still hoping all the talking points are part of a massive misinformation campaign. The relationship between Han & Chewie. the ownership history of the Millenium Falcon. The Kessel Run. The mystery surrounding these things is part of their appeal. The premise of the film is the very same mistake Lucas made with the prequels.

I'm all for new old ships. I like varied design. I have several 3D printed EU TIE variants for my custom scenarios. But, eventually, they're going to have to jump through hoops to explain their existence and disappearance. If they keep making standalone movies in known timelines with new ship designs, they're either going to have to write the story to fit the new designs or I'm going to find myself asking why they used new design X when they already have old design Y for the same purpose. In the end, it's all to sell toys, which I'm good with. I can use some more OT era ship designs for my custom XWM scenarios.

1 minute ago, weisguy119 said:

I'm all for new old ships. I like varied design. I have several 3D printed EU TIE variants for my custom scenarios. But, eventually, they're going to have to jump through hoops to explain their existence and disappearance. If they keep making standalone movies in known timelines with new ship designs, they're either going to have to write the story to fit the new designs or I'm going to find myself asking why they used new design X when they already have old design Y for the same purpose. In the end, it's all to sell toys, which I'm good with. I can use some more OT ship designs for my custom XWM scenarios.

We only see one in the very short teaser so it could be a prototype TIE like the Inquisitors TIE and there's only one to a handful in existence. Just speculation of course.

Perhaps this new TIE variant is a trainer craft? A flight instructor sits in the off centre pod.