9 hours ago, BoxerlessBossk said:

Reports of this series' timeline have been greatly exaggerated.
Dan Casey, who broke this story, now says he actually originally misquoted Favreau.

It's set 7 years after Yavin.
So, a year or 3 after Endor instead of 7.

3 years post Endor would make season 2 or 3 5 years after RotJ, just in time for a certain somebody to wage a campaign..... Thrawn's return confirmed?

15 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I love this shot!

1 hour ago, sf1raptor said:

I love this shot!

Also the music...

On 5/11/2018 at 7:16 AM, drail14me said:

Sounds interesting. I wish it had starting 1 day after the Battle of Endor though.

Read Aftermath series.

19 minutes ago, Wes Janson said:

Read Aftermath series.

I have. Would still rather have the series immediately follow Endor. I’m not really interested in Disney’s Resistance or First Order.

15 minutes ago, drail14me said:

I have. Would still rather have the series immediately follow Endor. I’m not really interested in Disney’s Resistance or First Order.

Up to 5 years after Endor the resistance or first order shouldn't appear.

Edit: my bad that's 5 ABY but not so long after Endor.. anyway Jaku was only the beginning, I don't see the empire remant becoming FO from one day to another. And the resistance should appear waaaay later, right?

Well the entire story focus will switch to bridging this gap i time, so want it or not, First Order and Resistance are about to grow.

On 5/11/2018 at 11:23 PM, Commander Kaine said:

You are right, the movies are practically jibberish without that context

Not everything unexplained is a plothole.

I totally agree. That is exactly the point I was making.

I just find all the double standards amongst star wars fans more than a little entertaining.

TFA is terrible because they didn't explain the rise of the First Order, but ANH is a classic despite not bothering to explain the rise of the Empire.

Apparently all you need to do is insert a single throwaway line and then you're golden.

If Poe had said "remember the wars which allowed the First Order to rise up, that was pretty crazy, huh?" Then apparently nobody would have anything to complain about.

Because as far as I can tell, that is the only difference as far as the back story goes. One movie sort of barely mentions something without context and the other doesn't even do that.

So I guess barely mentioning it would've made TFA better. Or maybe many Star Wars fans are ridiculous and impossible to please.

Shrug. Who knows?

Tread lightly folks.

Off topic comments, primarily about the Last Jedi and politics, led to the death of the recent big Solo thread.

28 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Tread lightly folks.

Off topic comments, primarily about the Last Jedi and politics, led to the death of the recent big Solo thread.

The Mouse is watching...

On 5/12/2018 at 10:42 PM, Sekac said:

I totally agree. That is exactly the point I was making.

I just find all the double standards amongst star wars fans more than a little entertaining.

TFA is terrible because they didn't explain the rise of the First Order, but ANH is a classic despite not bothering to explain the rise of the Empire.

There's a difference between a brand new movie and a new trilogy in an existing universe. In ANH, it's creating the universe. You come into th emovie where the empire and the rebellion are established facts of what the universe looks like. You don't need the same kind of history for where they came from. Same for palpatine (for people who compare snoke's lack of backstory to palp). he's the big bad in chrage of the empire. That's all you need to know for the OT. The ST is coming into an established universe where the empire was defeated 30 years ago and the only 2 darksiders we knew both died. Now we have a new movie where there's an entire First Order with a new superweapon and seeminly massive flet with no explaination, the rebellion turned into the New Republic (not that it's ever really covered in the movie) and basically immediately disbanded it's military, then refuses to see the FO as a threat. And snoke came out of nowhere as a new dark side user in control of the FO.

If TFA was a new series that wasn't part of the star wars univers,e I wouldn't care about where the FO came from.

23 minutes ago, Scopes said:

The Mouse is watching...

Or just moderators who want to avoid politics getting thrown around.

25 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Or just moderators who want to avoid politics getting thrown around.

Or they just got tired of us whiney man-boys barking at each other and forgetting why this forum is here (to help sell a game).

15 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:

Or they just got tired of us whiney man-boys barking at each other and forgetting why this forum is here (to help sell a game).

That too.

1 hour ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Or just moderators who want to avoid politics getting thrown around.

I have no idea of what you are talking about...

(looks at the Solo - First Reviews thread)

2 hours ago, VanderLegion said:

There's a difference between a brand new movie and a new trilogy in an existing universe. In ANH, it's creating the universe. You come into th emovie where the empire and the rebellion are established facts of what the universe looks like. You don't need the same kind of history for where they came from. Same for palpatine (for people who compare snoke's lack of backstory to palp). he's the big bad in chrage of the empire. That's all you need to know for the OT. The ST is coming into an established universe where the empire was defeated 30 years ago and the only 2 darksiders we knew both died. Now we have a new movie where there's an entire First Order with a new superweapon and seeminly massive flet with no explaination, the rebellion turned into the New Republic (not that it's ever really covered in the movie) and basically immediately disbanded it's military, then refuses to see the FO as a threat. And snoke came out of nowhere as a new dark side user in control of the FO.

If TFA was a new series that wasn't part of the star wars univers,e I wouldn't care about where the FO came from.

You can be interested in Snoke and the FO and want answers there. But the fact that they didn't answer your questions where and when you wanted them to doesn't make a difference in terms of whether or not it's a bad movie.

2 minutes ago, Sekac said:

You can be interested in Snoke and the FO and want answers there. But the fact that they didn't answer your questions where and when you wanted them to doesn't make a difference in terms of whether or not it's a bad movie.

I don't think it was a bad movie. I quite enjoyed both TFA and TLJ. That doesn't mean they couldn't both have been vastly BETTER movies than they were.

Oh my god, stop! Just stay on topic for once!

4 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Oh my god, stop! Just stay on topic for once!

On 5/12/2018 at 11:17 AM, Norsehound said:

It's dumb that a starfighter can destroy an entire solar system with one shot. It also happens to be impervious to every weapon known to man, and can ram its way through Imperial Star Destroyers.

But it isn't when you've a built a moon-sized supercannon in secret, so it does one thing, and consumes entire stars to do that thing. It's also not going anywhere really fast. That's a massive amount of effort to load and fire the weapon, over the incidental button-push of a neon-bright Mary Sue starfighter.

Uhm actually it were the torpedoes which were able to destroy a star. And just that. You couldn aim it at everything. It was an space magic powered weapon (like starkiller base) which destabilized stars through a chain reaction and caused them to go nova. The Empire tested the torpedoes on the DS1 prototype (just a reactor and superlaser) and it wasn't massive enough. Also only a hand full of these torpedoes were build. So no, the SC wasn't able to fly around and oneshot everything. Theoretically every ship could have used these torpedoes.
Regarding its indestructible armour: Yup the superstructure of the SC was nearly impenetrable. But not the engines, the weapons, the comm system. Literally every starfighter could mission kill the SC in a 1 on 1 fight by shooting a protorp in its face and ***.

I don't like the Suncrusher but the repeated "it's dumb because it is so powerfull and can oneshot star systems!!!!!1111" kinda gets annoying

8 minutes ago, RogueLeader42 said:

Uhm actually it were the torpedoes which were able to destroy a star. And just that. You couldn aim it at everything. It was an space magic powered weapon (like starkiller base) which destabilized stars through a chain reaction and caused them to go nova. The Empire tested the torpedoes on the DS1 prototype (just a reactor and superlaser) and it wasn't massive enough. Also only a hand full of these torpedoes were build. So no, the SC wasn't able to fly around and oneshot everything. Theoretically every ship could have used these torpedoes.

This much is true

8 minutes ago, RogueLeader42 said:

Regarding its indestructible armour: Yup the superstructure of the SC was nearly impenetrable. But not the engines, the weapons, the comm system. Literally every starfighter could mission kill the SC in a 1 on 1 fight by shooting a protorp in its face and ***.

Weapons yes, engines seemed to be less vulnerable, given that it was dropped into the heart of Yavin and the engines still worked just fine. Plus all thet imes it was shot and plowed through star destroyers and the like. It only lost it's weapons.

For the record, seeing his previous work, I trust Jon Favreau to do his best to make a good show, taking both canon and fan expectations into account.

2 hours ago, VanderLegion said:

I don't think it was a bad movie. I quite enjoyed both TFA and TLJ. That doesn't mean they couldn't both have been vastly BETTER movies than they were.

Fair enough. My entry point in the conversation was when one forum user theorized that this new show was an attempt to "fix" TFA by covering all the stuff they didn't bother to in the movie. A theory that is delusional almost to the point of narcissism.

(Paraphrasing the point of view) "On the surface, it may appear that Disney is looking to capitalize on the critical and commercial success of TFA, but that's not what it is. No, what's really going on is Disney is admitting that I, and the rest of the vocal very small minority, were right, TFA is bad. Now they're spending a whole bunch of money to produce a show that'll somehow retroactively fix TFA by explaining things to me that I wanted explained to me in that movie. Maybe then they'll be able to bump that dismal 92% on rotten tomatoes to a respectable 95%."

Or something like that...

27 minutes ago, RogueLeader42 said:

Uhm actually it were the torpedoes which were able to destroy a star. And just that. You couldn aim it at everything. It was an space magic powered weapon (like starkiller base) which destabilized stars through a chain reaction and caused them to go nova. The Empire tested the torpedoes on the DS1 prototype (just a reactor and superlaser) and it wasn't massive enough. Also only a hand full of these torpedoes were build. So no, the SC wasn't able to fly around and oneshot everything. Theoretically every ship could have used these torpedoes.
Regarding its indestructible armour: Yup the superstructure of the SC was nearly impenetrable. But not the engines, the weapons, the comm system. Literally every starfighter could mission kill the SC in a 1 on 1 fight by shooting a protorp in its face and ***.

I don't like the Suncrusher but the repeated "it's dumb because it is so powerfull and can oneshot star systems!!!!!1111" kinda gets annoying

No, I don't think you can just nitpick your way out of this one. The Suncrusher is the only ship that uses these torpedoes (likely the only one that can arm and launch them) so they might as well be synonymous with the space vehicle. We never hear about this weapon again either, so it's inseparable from the starfighter, which means Suncrusher = Oneshot solar system. It also never runs out of ammunition in the lore its featured.

About the only drawback to this setup is that it cannot easily, strategically, wipe out individual things. Even the Death Star has more flexibility out of a single reactor ignition to act as super artillery.

Engines, Weapons, Comms... are these things destroyed or damaged as the Suncrusher rams the Hydra? or any other time in the lore? Have these systems been disabled as a major plot point when fighting the Sun Crusher? If not, then they might as well be as indestructible as the rest of the ship.

As far as I'm aware no starfighter ever challenged the Sun Crusher, and if they had, they never disabled it. So why use that as a point of strength when you can also assume the starfighter is impervious to those things too?


Now, Death Star, Starkiller et all... they do less and require more. One's suspension of disbelief is not as easily unsettled when annihilating plants requires a gun nearly as big as a planet in turn. The Suncrusher was supposed to be impressive because it did more with less, but in the end it was so overcompensating in a universe full of superweapons that it stands as a remark of excess in the expanded universe. Nobody is sad to see it go, here we are ridiculing it! But nobody had a problem with the Death Star, and I don't understand why people have a problem with Starkiller when it's slightly scaled up from the DS, built out of a planet, and only elliminates one planet and its moons.

Since Starkiller isn't mobile either I'd wonder if after exhausting the sun it orbited, Starkiller would be unable to fire again, meaning the weapon had only two shots total.

Oh for the love of f!@k the sun crusher no longer exists. It is legends. It's probably a story that makes kids not want to be Jedi because they don't want to destroy sun's. Not canon, it's a cautionary tale.