5 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

But it doesn't make sense for identifying who can participate in the higher mysteries of a religion. That was the issue switching to science from mysticism. If it had always been scientifically explained, then further exploring that would have been more accepted. Instead, it jumped tracks.

Why does it have to be science or mysticism? Why can't it be both? Scientific mysticism or mysticistic science? This I feel is the key fundamental hurdle to address, that it has to be one option or the other, not both? The key thing with Luke and Obi-wan in the OT is that the latter knew exactly what the potential of this young man was and had no reason to measure it in any state or form; Luke always had the potential to be a great man due to exactly who his daddy was, one of the greatest Knights of the Jedi Order. The reason that he didn't recruit him sooner is simple; he wanted to give Luke the one thing his father never had; a full childhood and to develop to adulthood before he thrust on him a near impossible task.

And even with all their knowledge of the force; they still were unable to interpret it completely. The chosen one foreshadowing stuff basically said that balance would be restored to the force; it never mentioned what it had to do to reach that state in the first place.

3 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

True. After all, there has to be some biological component as to why only certain people can actively use the Force, given that there's examples in canon both old and new of people simply not able to use the Force, even if one or both of their parents were talented Force users.

In fairy tales and myths, it was "blood of heroes" or "divine lineage" or similar phrasing that allowed the heroes of those tales to accomplish their great/miraculous feats; Greek/Roman mythology is replete with heroes that were heroes simply due to having a parent that was a god (not always Zeus, though his rampant inability to keep it in his pants did literally spawn a number of Greek heroes).

Star Wars just simply updated those notions to "biological organisms" that Qui-Gon himself said were merely a means of connecting to the Force, never once saying (as many incorrectly assume) that midichlorians were the direct source of the Force.

This really summarises my thoughts. While the force itself is wholly intangible; it's effects on the universe can very clearly be measured, either on instinct, the after effects it leaves after use (Choking a guy from miles away) or by testing it biologically for traced. Just because one knows these very basic things about the force doesn't mean that the Jedi understand it entirely as I mentioned just before.

4 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Some good points.

I'll admit to not being one of TPM's major supporters, as I felt back when it was released that it suffered from the fact that a major portion of the audience already know how things are going to play out, while the movie itself was setting up the board and providing the backdrop for the tale whose conclusion had already been told. Sadly, it was inevitable due to Lucas opting to start in the middle of the story rather than at the proper beginning. And as you said, the usage of slapstick for humor didn't help matters.

As for midichlorians, it's funny you say that you enjoy them, as I have a friend with a biology degree that gets all huffy and indignant when those words are mentioned, to the degree we have to tell them to chill out should the word come up in conversation. Personally, I see it as those just being the SW verse's equivalent of mitochondria, and ultimately just being a measuring stick (which may or may not be 100% accurate, as I could have sworn there's Legends material with members of the Jedi calling the whole thing into question) to determine if someone is "strong in the Force," with (presumably) a certain threshold at which the Jedi Order would consider the child to be a potential candidate for recruitment. It's an idea that certainly could have benefitted a lot more than Qui-Gon's "answers for children" explanation he gave to Anakin (who presumably had an elementary/primary school education at best and frankly didn't come across as being particularly intelligent, even for a child of that age) in the film. But, as the reaction was pretty much revulsion at even the notion that the Force might have a biological component, it never got explored and thus the idea never expanded upon.

Aye and it's a mighty fine pity that Luca's did that. While just stating an energy field might have did it in the 80's, a lack of content, especially in the new series of movies that spent a whole movie on setting up a New Hope and a second being equally vague and wavy doesn't really cut it for me as much anymore. Personally I'm not a fan of star wars as being a fanatic of anything is not something I want to be, it would cloud my judgment and turn gold to old and old to gold.

I mean, personally TPM was a pretty boring film that could have been streamlined. We did not need to see the first hour to get the message he was trying to make and I personally would have been more invested if more energy was spent getting the kid and rescuing a whole planet from an incompliant republic. Just it makes a interesting documentary, I guess and at the very least they didn't need to do much world building going forward; aside from embellishment.

Here we go again:

There are a number of misconceptions people labor under that make them hate the idea of midichlorians, and I see these bandied about time and time again. They are:

1: Midichlorians are the Force: False. Nothing Qui-Gon says supports this. He says "without them life would not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force" and "They constantly speak to us, telling us the Will of the Force." Nothing of what he says to Anakin contradicts Ben and Yoda's explanations to Luke that "The Force is an energy field created by all living things."

2: Midichlorians create the Force: True with caveat. Midichlorians are living things, thus they create the Force just like all other living things. Midichlorians create the Force just as much as Space Slugs do.

3: Midichlorians demystify the Force: Your Mileage May Vary, but I don't think so. First of all, in the same breath Qui-Gon explains midichlorians he also talks about "the Will of the Force," which is not something the Force was presented as having in the original trilogy. The prequels also talk about prophecies, about the Force maneuvering people and events towards specific outcomes, making it overall more mysterious than less in my opinion.

4: Midichlorians reduce the Force to simple biology: False. The prequels also establish Jedi (with very limited exception) are forbidden from marrying and having families. Now, it's been claimed that Jedi aren't prohibited from having casual flings, but that's not likely to keep "Jedi genetics" in the general population, so the Jedi's monastic rules would result in Force-Sensitivity being bred out of the population in a few generations if it was purely genetic. The only explanation is that the Force chooses who will be Force-Sensitive, ignoring genetics. EU authors before the prequels really only had Vader, Luke, and Leia to draw on, so the default assumption was that Force-Sensitivity was genetic, like it was for the Skywalkers. Through the lens of the prequels, we now know that to be the exception, not the rule. And the Sequel Trilogy seems to be bearing that out, with the Force selecting Rey and the boy on Canto Bight as among the galaxy's new Force-Sensitives. But Force-Sensitivity was always portrayed as something you either had or you didn't from birth, you could never be a full-fledged Jedi if you weren't Force-Sensitive, no matter how much you wanted to be, how much you believed in it, or how hard you trained. This is the point that really bugs me when people like CinemaSins claim that in the OT, you were left with the feeling that if you just believed in the Force hard enough, you could be a Jedi too, when such was never implied anywhere in the OT. Obi-Wan and Yoda's whole exchange in The Empire Strikes Back about "That boy is our last hope" is founded on the idea that they just aren't going to be able to find, let alone train, another Force-Sensitive into a full Jedi in the time they have left. Even swapping over to Leia at this point is dicey (since Yoda dies in early in the very next film, he wouldn't have much time left to train her). As for the idea of midichlorian cocktails granting you Jedi powers. . . no. Just no. First of all, getting that kind of biological alteration to work is probably impossible, even for Star Wars technology, and second, even if you could make a midichlorian cocktail, if the Force doesn't want you to be Force-Sensitive it just won't talk to those additional midichlorians, and you're still stuck being an ordinary person.

2 hours ago, LordBritish said:

The chosen one foreshadowing stuff basically said that balance would be restored to the force; it never mentioned what it had to do to reach that state in the first place.

Wasn't it revealed that the whole chosen one and balance to the force bit referred to Mortis and not to what Anakin Vader did to the Jedi and Sith?

2 hours ago, ErikModi said:

Here we go again:

There are a number of misconceptions people labor under that make them hate the idea of midichlorians, and I see these bandied about time and time again. They are:

1: Midichlorians are the Force: False. Nothing Qui-Gon says supports this. He says "without them life would not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force" and "They constantly speak to us, telling us the Will of the Force." Nothing of what he says to Anakin contradicts Ben and Yoda's explanations to Luke that "The Force is an energy field created by all living things."

2: Midichlorians create the Force: True with caveat. Midichlorians are living things, thus they create the Force just like all other living things. Midichlorians create the Force just as much as Space Slugs do.

3: Midichlorians demystify the Force: Your Mileage May Vary, but I don't think so. First of all, in the same breath Qui-Gon explains midichlorians he also talks about "the Will of the Force," which is not something the Force was presented as having in the original trilogy. The prequels also talk about prophecies, about the Force maneuvering people and events towards specific outcomes, making it overall more mysterious than less in my opinion.

4: Midichlorians reduce the Force to simple biology: False. The prequels also establish Jedi (with very limited exception) are forbidden from marrying and having families. Now, it's been claimed that Jedi aren't prohibited from having casual flings, but that's not likely to keep "Jedi genetics" in the general population, so the Jedi's monastic rules would result in Force-Sensitivity being bred out of the population in a few generations if it was purely genetic. The only explanation is that the Force chooses who will be Force-Sensitive, ignoring genetics. EU authors before the prequels really only had Vader, Luke, and Leia to draw on, so the default assumption was that Force-Sensitivity was genetic, like it was for the Skywalkers. Through the lens of the prequels, we now know that to be the exception, not the rule. And the Sequel Trilogy seems to be bearing that out, with the Force selecting Rey and the boy on Canto Bight as among the galaxy's new Force-Sensitives. But Force-Sensitivity was always portrayed as something you either had or you didn't from birth, you could never be a full-fledged Jedi if you weren't Force-Sensitive, no matter how much you wanted to be, how much you believed in it, or how hard you trained. This is the point that really bugs me when people like CinemaSins claim that in the OT, you were left with the feeling that if you just believed in the Force hard enough, you could be a Jedi too, when such was never implied anywhere in the OT. Obi-Wan and Yoda's whole exchange in The Empire Strikes Back about "That boy is our last hope" is founded on the idea that they just aren't going to be able to find, let alone train, another Force-Sensitive into a full Jedi in the time they have left. Even swapping over to Leia at this point is dicey (since Yoda dies in early in the very next film, he wouldn't have much time left to train her). As for the idea of midichlorian cocktails granting you Jedi powers. . . no. Just no. First of all, getting that kind of biological alteration to work is probably impossible, even for Star Wars technology, and second, even if you could make a midichlorian cocktail, if the Force doesn't want you to be Force-Sensitive it just won't talk to those additional midichlorians, and you're still stuck being an ordinary person.

Believe it or not, but some of us understand all this and still hate midichlorians.

3 minutes ago, korjik said:

Believe it or not, but some of us understand all this and still hate midichlorians.

Which is fine. Not every story and story aspect will appeal to every audience member. I just point out the most common complaints that get brought up over and over and over again every time this subject crops up that aren't strictly accurate.

Hating something for what it is I can respect. Hating something for what it isn't just bothers me.

45 minutes ago, ErikModi said:

Which is fine. Not every story and story aspect will appeal to every audience member. I just point out the most common complaints that get brought up over and over and over again every time this subject crops up that aren't strictly accurate.

Hating something for what it is I can respect. Hating something for what it isn't just bothers me.

What about overwhelming indifference for any reason? ?

5 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

What about overwhelming indifference for any reason? ?

"Apathy is death."

5 hours ago, ErikModi said:

"Apathy is death."

Then midichlorians killed me. ?

They’ve never really bugged me. They only cross my mind when they come up in conversations like this.

Nytwyng, I am with you. I've heard just about every argument against them and I still just don't get it. I don't have enough room in my already hate-filled heart for this.

In any case, I haven't read any of the recent material aside from Lost Stars, which I really liked. Any recommendations?

Ahsoka, Leia, Princess of Alderaan, Thrawn, and Thrawn: Alliances.

21 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Why does it have to be science or mysticism? Why can't it be both? Scientific mysticism or mysticistic science? This I feel is the key fundamental hurdle to address, that it has to be one option or the other, not both?

I am prone to thought exercises on this very topic, however it usually is grounded more in our reality than the fiction - yet I see the parallels and possible precursors to the idea of the Force in many different places, and framed the way it is, it helps me re-frame my thinking about animism and shamanism and my place in the universe. I think this topic strikes at the very root of what it means to be human for some folks, it's not surprising to me that we are contentious as fans in this regard.

On 8/29/2018 at 3:36 AM, AceSolo5 said:

Well it’s a relief they’ve not been officially pulled then.

Would be a **** of a waste in my humble opinion!

You don't spend four billion dollars on a thing and then put that thing on the shelf at the first stumble. They'll be back to making these movies until the end of time.

2 hours ago, Desslok said:

You don't spend four billion dollars on a thing and then put that thing on the shelf at the first stumble. They'll be back to making these movies until the end of time.

Well that should keep me happy then! I don’t mind the sequels but both Rogue One & Solo have been far stronger for me... I’d hoped to have seen Solo a second time at the cinema but real life got in the way so I can’t wait until it’s delivered this coming Monday ?

2 hours ago, Desslok said:

You don't spend four billion dollars on a thing and then put that thing on the shelf at the first stumble. They'll be back to making these movies until the end of time.

Sunk cost fallacy?

Given the rest of the franchise has been making Disney money hand-over-fist, with Solo the only "stumble" so far (and even that wasn't a total disaster in terms of box office receipts), there's no fallacy other than the willfully ignorant who simply want to bash Disney because the franchise has grown beyond them and encompasses a much broader audience.

At the end of the day, critical and fan acclaim are nice, but what Lucasfilm and Disney are really focused on is turning a profit. Which thus far, the Star Wars franchise has done quite well, given that it's no longer limited to a select portion of geek culture and as I said above now reaches out to a much broader audience.

So the only "suck cost fallacy" that's in play is that of the self-appointed gatekeepers who keep operating under the delusion that Star Wars is "just for them" and that anything created since the Disney purchase is worthless garbage simply because it was created under Kathleen Kennedy's stewardship of LFL as opposed to under GL's stewardship, all while discounting that there was a large amount of divisive content produced even back when GL owned the franchise. Star Wars Holiday Special anyone? Or the Yuuzhan Vong? Or pretty much anything written by Kevin J. Anderson?

7 hours ago, Desslok said:

You don't spend four billion dollars on a thing and then put that thing on the shelf at the first stumble. They'll be back to making these movies until the end of time.

Agreed. I don't get how a company simply choosing to pause/slow production/whatever acceptable descriptor makes ya happy, to do a little rethink on their strategy going forward with an IP gets morphed into they're dumping Star Wars.

7 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Agreed. I don't get how a company simply choosing to pause/slow production/whatever acceptable descriptor makes ya happy, to do a little rethink on their strategy going forward with an IP gets morphed into they're dumping Star Wars.

It could be a lot of wishful thinking on the part of those folks that hate the idea that Disney bought LFL and that the Star Wars franchise has moved in a direction they don't like. Many of whom are at a point where they'd be happy with zero new Star Wars material at all than admit that there's anything of merit to be found in the post-Lucas releases, be they films or books or other media.

Also could just be a lot of online hacks throwing up click-bait titles in the hopes of getting web hits, with any shred or pretense of journalistic integrity being jettisoned in the process.

My own thought is that the top execs wondered if they could apply the MCU formula to the Star Wars franchise and churn out two to four films a year. I think what happened is Solo made them realize that Star Wars films can't quite handle the degree of sheer diversity in terms of story types that the MCU films can, or at least they're not at that point yet. To be honest, I'd be good with about one Star Wars film a year, roughly around Christmas time.

Granted, Marvel Studios needed some time to build up to where they are now, a step that a lot of studios are overlooking in their rush to build their own cinematic universes with decidedly mixed results. And even Marvel Studios had their stumbles, such as Ed Norton's Hulk and the second Thor movie before they hit the "can apparently do no wrong" stage where they're currently at. Only time will tell if the drama involving James Gunn's departure from Guardians of the Galaxy 3 will result in that movie being the one to derail the train, or if all the buzz for the upcoming Captain Marvel movie winds up setting a bar too high for it to clear.

4 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Agreed. I don't get how a company simply choosing to pause/slow production/whatever acceptable descriptor makes ya happy, to do a little rethink on their strategy going forward with an IP gets morphed into they're dumping Star Wars.

It's especially bizarre because when the fanbase heard Disney was going to be releasing at least 1 Star Wars movie a year and probably more they screamed bloody murder. Now that they are slowing them down, the fanbase is screaming bloody murder.

The most unpleasable fanbase in the universe, Star Wars has. Or much more likely simply Star Wars simply has the loudest vocal minority of blind haters that are looking for any possible excuse they can find to hate on Disney having Star Wars whether they genuinely hate it or not. People are even starting to say they forgive the PREQUELS just because George Lucas was making them when before the one thing the fanbase could agree on was that the Prequels sucked and that George Lucas was a hack.

4 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

It could be a lot of wishful thinking on the part of those folks that hate the idea that Disney bought LFL and that the Star Wars franchise has moved in a direction they don't like. Many of whom are at a point where they'd be happy with zero new Star Wars material at all than admit that there's anything of merit to be found in the post-Lucas releases, be they films or books or other media.

Also could just be a lot of online hacks throwing up click-bait titles in the hopes of getting web hits, with any shred or pretense of journalistic integrity being jettisoned in the process.

My own thought is that the top execs wondered if they could apply the MCU formula to the Star Wars franchise and churn out two to four films a year. I think what happened is Solo made them realize that Star Wars films can't quite handle the degree of sheer diversity in terms of story types that the MCU films can, or at least they're not at that point yet. To be honest, I'd be good with about one Star Wars film a year, roughly around Christmas time.

Granted, Marvel Studios needed some time to build up to where they are now, a step that a lot of studios are overlooking in their rush to build their own cinematic universes with decidedly mixed results. And even Marvel Studios had their stumbles, such as Ed Norton's Hulk and the second Thor movie before they hit the "can apparently do no wrong" stage where they're currently at.

The execs probably figured that since Star Wars already had a very large pre-existing fanbase and several movies and other products under it's belt as it is, there was no need to build up like the MCU had to. The thing they didn't count on was said pre-existing fanbase being so massive that even if only 1% were extremely toxic it's still a substantial enough number to make it look like practically everybody hated what Disney is doing. This is unlike with Marvel comics which until the movies didn't really have that big of a fanbase, minuscule in comparison to Star Wars, liked the exposure their hobby was getting as a result, and the Marvel movies were true to the characters, as much as could be expected anyway.

As usual, execs fail to take things on a case by case basis. Though in this case I blame the fanbase much much more than the execs for this.

4 minutes ago, immortalfrieza said:

It's especially bizarre because when the fanbase heard Disney was going to be releasing at least 1 Star Wars movie a year and probably more they screamed bloody murder. Now that they are slowing them down, the fanbase is screaming bloody murder.

The most unpleasable fanbase in the universe, Star Wars has. Or much more likely simply Star Wars simply has the loudest vocal minority of blind haters that are looking for any possible excuse they can find to hate on Disney having Star Wars whether they genuinely hate it or not. People are even starting to say they forgive the PREQUELS just because George Lucas was making them when before the one thing the fanbase could agree on was that the Prequels sucked and that George Lucas was a hack.

The execs probably figured that since Star Wars already had a very large pre-existing fanbase and several movies and other products under it's belt as it is, there was no need to build up like the MCU had to. The thing they didn't count on was said pre-existing fanbase being so massive that even if only 1% were extremely toxic it's still a substantial enough number to make it look like practically everybody hated what Disney is doing. This is unlike with Marvel comics which until the movies didn't really have that big of a fanbase, minuscule in comparison to Star Wars, liked the exposure their hobby was getting as a result, and the Marvel movies were true to the characters, as much as could be expected anyway.

As usual, execs fail to take things on a case by case basis. Though in this case I blame the fanbase much much more than the execs for this.

I freely admit I disliked 8, but I'm not disavowing Star Wars. It amazes me that everyone wouldn't be happy they're doing a little 'plus delta' time to polish the product.

This is more to the original topic, but here's my two cents:

I believe that the reason the roleplaying games and games like KOTOR have done/aged so well is because of one simple principle: player engagement.

This ties in a little bit to the movies as well, but I'll just focus on the games at the moment. Roleplaying games were made in order to fill the storytelling gap between films, books, and comics with something the players could create that was unique to them (There are many Human Fighters, but this one is mine!). So with Edge of the Empire, Age of Rebellion, and Force and Destiny, it lets us fans inject our own characters into the world we love (There are many Human Smuggler-Rogues, but- oh you get the point!). This gives the plots a sense of urgency, because we actually feel a level of investment in the world not present in games like Battlefront. For EA, player engagement was "100% mindless action and beautiful set pieces, but minimal story and reason" and the only real reason you had to press the respawn button was because the other team might win. And what did we really lose if the other team won? Time? Pride? Energy? A chance at a lootbox? Nah, it really doesn't matter.

The idea of the player/audience helping to dictate where things go provides the level of investment that make a lot of games great. I feel like I am genuinely contributing to the plot in KOTOR and EotE, and that makes me keep coming back. This alone can get people to ignore a lot of issues. Personally, I felt like the interface of KOTOR was like being strangled by an Excel spreadsheet while some polygons kick me, and yet that didn't stop me from playing and beating the game. Likewise, I feel like the systems in Star Wars Roleplay can be a little convoluted and difficult to interpret, yet my friends and I have racked up loads of hours playing it late into the night (or early morning...).

That's what so many major games now-a-days lack, so that's why I think this game has been holding strong and growing while the Triple-A titles burn. Roleplay is more work on the player's part, but the pay-off is a world that you can call your own whether you're the GM or a player.

That's my two cents. Resume Force-Banter.

22 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I freely admit I disliked 8, but I'm not disavowing Star Wars. It amazes me that everyone wouldn't be happy they're doing a little 'plus delta' time to polish the product.

Like I said, Star Wars has the most unpleasable fanbase in existence. Disney does one thing, everybody (in this context, "everybody" means the loudest) screams bloody murder. Disney gives them exactly what everybody claimed they wanted, everybody screams bloody murder, Disney just can't win.

11 minutes ago, immortalfrieza said:

Like I said, Star Wars has the most unpleasable fanbase in existence. Disney does one thing, everybody (in this context, "everybody" means the loudest) screams bloody murder. Disney gives them exactly what everybody claimed they wanted, everybody screams bloody murder, Disney just can't win.

Oh I disagree there. Disney absolutely can do better. They rushed content and it showed. I think they agree which is why things have slowed up. 9 is an example of it, instead of moving forward and having to do extensive rewrites and reshoots during production as occurred in R1 and Solo, they flat out fired the 1st director on 9. I'm confident they understand the IP hasn't been managed well by the actions on 9. I'm also confident changes are afoot.

2 hours ago, immortalfrieza said:

Like I said, Star Wars has the most unpleasable fanbase in existence.

For a minute I read that as "most unpleasant" and thought of a few other groups, but you said "most unpleasable" and I think you might be right there.

15 minutes ago, themensch said:

For a minute I read that as "most unpleasant" and thought of a few other groups, but you said "most unpleasable" and I think you might be right there.

It's an understandable mistake, the Star Wars fanbase is pretty unpleasant too. My posts are already drifting away far enough from the OT as it is or I'd love to go into what fanbases you think are more unpleasant.