22 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

No matter how silly TROS seems to me, I can watch it. The CGI...

Edit: apparently, I'm bad at using spoiler tags. I was just trying to cut down on post length.

I keep hearing this bandied about with the prequels. You realize that any given prequel movie, including TROS, used more practical effects than the entire OT combined, right?

The B1 droids? The AAT from Phantom Menace? Models:

3 hours ago, Kirjath08 said:

You realize that any given prequel movie, including TROS, used more practical effects than the entire OT combined, right?

[/spoiler]

Podracing? Models (including the entire stadium)

Sure, some of the aliens like Jar-Jar used CGI. Most of the aliens did not. Here's a quick start thread from a very brief google search that provided the pictures I used: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-The-Phantom-Menace-used-more-practical-effects-than-all-the-other-Star-Wars-films

So yeah, the prequels have bad CGI. Most of what people assume to be the bad CGI are actually practical effects. The OT wasn't immune from this issue, using blue screen even back in their day:

The proof of the movie is in the watching.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

5 hours ago, Kirjath08 said:

You realize that any given prequel movie, including TROS, used more practical effects than the entire OT combined, right?

[/spoiler]

Podracing? Models (including the entire stadium)

Sure, some of the aliens like Jar-Jar used CGI. Most of the aliens did not. Here's a quick start thread from a very brief google search that provided the pictures I used: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-The-Phantom-Menace-used-more-practical-effects-than-all-the-other-Star-Wars-films

So yeah, the prequels have bad CGI. Most of what people assume to be the bad CGI are actually practical effects. The OT wasn't immune from this issue, using blue screen even back in their day:

The proof of the movie is in the watching.

With great CGI comes great responsibility lol. TPM does use some practical effects and surprisingly holds up in some areas like the pod race. On the other hand, the gungan battle looks bad once the fighting starts. AotC doubled down on all the bad CGI and really made that an ugly movie (RotS is a mixed bag like TPM). The added CGI in the OT looks really really bad and just makes all the practical effects look even better by comparison. And the worse part in the changes and PT is that a lot of bad CGI could have easily been practical effects! They have the models right there!

23 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

With great CGI comes great responsibility lol.

Anthony Daniels had some interesting insight into this with a couple anecdotes from his book. Basically, he said George would CGI things for no reason other than that it was possible. Like telling stagehands "Don't bother moving that prop, we can just fix it with CGI later". Reminds me of the old Onion article Area Man Consults Internet Whenever Possible from the late 90's, back when a lot of things would've gotten done faster and easier without stopping to boot up a computer first.

I still don't understand why anyone hated Rey. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with her that doesn't equally apply to the action genre in general. Of all the things to pick on from that deeply flawed movie, it is extremely suspicious to me, that so much scorn was heaped on her.

The biggest mistake of the first sequel, was making it a cliffhanger I think.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

I still don't understand why anyone hated Rey. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with her that doesn't equally apply to the action genre in general. Of all the things to pick on from that deeply flawed movie, it is extremely suspicious to me, that so much scorn was heaped on her.

I do think at least some of the hate (overall) was really just because she is a female. Some weird people just don't like female action heroes, period. I do have some complaints about her character, but it's just that, particularly in TFA, she is ridiculously good at literally everything with no reason given for a lot of it, which is just lazy/pandering writing to me.

5 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

particularly in TFA, she is ridiculously good at literally everything with no reason given for a lot of it, which is just lazy/pandering writing to me.

But no more so than most action movie protagonists. TFA establishes early on that is a competent melee combatant, and requires at least rudimentary flying (speeder bike) skills.

I mean when did we see that Luke was good at anything? When he got jumped by Sand People? When he got beat up in the cantina?

29 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

I do think at least some of the hate (overall) was really just because she is a female. Some weird people just don't like female action heroes, period. I do have some complaints about her character, but it's just that, particularly in TFA, she is ridiculously good at literally everything with no reason given for a lot of it, which is just lazy/pandering writing to me.

I mean, she was pretty crappy at flying the Falcon. She scraped it up really badly taking off and also in the star destroyer ruins. She ended up out maneuvering the TIEs but only becuase she was force sensitive (knowling the timing on her crazy handbrake maneuver instinctively).

Her profession as a starship scavenger gave plenty of justification for her tech smarts throughout the film.

Contrast that with Luke who is a moisture farmer with a speeder that he uses to harrass the local wildlife (bullseyeing wamp rats and such) basically a space redneck. He gets shoved into the cockpit of a military starfighter with no space combat experience and ends up not only surviving the battle of Yavin but being instrumental to the alliance victory. Luke is more of a "Mary Sue" than Rey. ****, he's named after the writer of the film.

The space opera genre is filled with plucky improbable everyman heroes who prevail against impossible odds. We are used to seeing men in that role (John Carter of mars, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers etc.). I do think there is an element of sexism against Rey for being a female version of that tradition.

I do think that from a storytelling perspective it was not good to have Rey beat Kylo on Starkiller base. It undermined Kylo as a threatening villain in his first movie, and it violated the established lore around how difficult it is to wield a lightsaber effectively.

1 hour ago, Lochlan said:

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I still don't understand why anyone hated Rey. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with her that doesn't equally apply to the action genre in general. Of all the things to pick on from that deeply flawed movie, it is extremely suspicious to me, that so much scorn was heaped on her.

I do think at least some of the hate (overall) was really just because she is a female. Some weird people just don't like female action heroes, period. I do have some complaints about her character, but it's just that, particularly in TFA, she is ridiculously good at literally everything with no reason given for a lot of it, which is just lazy/pandering writing to me.

In Rey's defense she lived on a brutal world that showed why fighting, piloting, and mechanics were a matter of life and death. If anything the biggest issue I had with her was that she knew Shyriiwook lol. They could have easily made Unkar Plutt a wookie or just one in the background a lot!!!!! But nooooooooo

................. OH FFS!!! The like/dislike bar killed me a bit inside. This is why we can't have nice things people!!

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I do think that from a storytelling perspective it was not good to have Rey beat Kylo on Starkiller base. It undermined Kylo as a threatening villain in his first movie, and it violated the established lore around how difficult it is to wield a lightsaber effectively.

It is funny that I agree that story wise it should have been been different, but man do love how they handle that scene and all the set up to allow her to win. The power of the bowcaster, Finn getting that lucky hit in because Kylo was trolling him, and then finally Kylo being so distressed that he killed his dad (think that they could have implied it more in the movie.... guess they do in TLJ) that he can't even force pull the saber the first attempt. Great scene, fun fight, and it really screwed up Kylo as intimidating if a person did not see the movie 4 times in theaters lol.

I mean I just watched “Battleground: Los Angeles” and it seems fine to me. That was a good “blow stuff up” movie. So it’s not like I am too hard to please.

Don’t get me wrong it’s got some weirdness to it. Chiefly the aliens trying to steal our water. Neither hydrogen nor oxygen are particularly rare elements in the universe. Given the technology level they’re shown to have they should be able to just make their own water.

But it was still a good film. Imagine mashing up the typical 1960’s alien invasion movie with the typical 1960’s WWII movie. Then apply the best potential of modern special effects, with lots of dust and mud like a modern war movie.

2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I mean I just watched “Battleground: Los Angeles” and it seems fine to me. That was a good “blow stuff up” movie. So it’s not like I am too hard to please.

Don’t get me wrong it’s got some weirdness to it. Chiefly the aliens trying to steal our water. Either hydrogen or oxygen are particularly rare elements in the universe. Given the technology level they’re shown to have they should be able to just make their own water.

But it was still a good film. Imagine mashing up the typical 1960’s alien invasion movie with the typical 1960’s WWII movie. Then apply the best potential of modern special effects, with lots of dust and mud like a modern war movie.

The best part of that movie was when they nuked L.A.

Jumping back to the later CGI alterations of the OT for a minute. I always found if funny that George Lucas kept altering them, despite his testimony before Congress regarding altering classic movies...

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/500941/time-george-lucas-warned-congress-about-dangers-altering-classic-movies

From his perspective, I'm guessing they were his movies to change as he wanted, not "classic films."

30 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Jumping back to the later CGI alterations of the OT for a minute. I always found if funny that George Lucas kept altering them, despite his testimony before Congress regarding altering classic movies...

Yeah it's hard to quantify the amount of respect I've lost for him, and grown-ups in general.

14 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I mean, she was pretty crappy at flying the Falcon. She scraped it up really badly taking off and also in the star destroyer ruins. She ended up out maneuvering the TIEs but only becuase she was force sensitive (knowling the timing on her crazy handbrake maneuver instinctively).

Her profession as a starship scavenger gave plenty of justification for her tech smarts throughout the film.

Contrast that with Luke who is a moisture farmer with a speeder that he uses to harrass the local wildlife (bullseyeing wamp rats and such) basically a space redneck. He gets shoved into the cockpit of a military starfighter with no space combat experience and ends up not only surviving the battle of Yavin but being instrumental to the alliance victory. Luke is more of a "Mary Sue" than Rey. ****, he's named after the writer of the film.

The space opera genre is filled with plucky improbable everyman heroes who prevail against impossible odds. We are used to seeing men in that role (John Carter of mars, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers etc.). I do think there is an element of sexism against Rey for being a female version of that tradition.

I do think that from a storytelling perspective it was not good to have Rey beat Kylo on Starkiller base. It undermined Kylo as a threatening villain in his first movie, and it violated the established lore around how difficult it is to wield a lightsaber effectively.

You'll have to forgive me but this is an entire crock of the mucky stuff. Luke is a force prodigy who spent years flying an actual craft, and you're dismissing the T-16 as "a speeder" when what it is by modern standards is a fighter jet, and one that shares a control schema with the X-Wing as well. Luke gets shoved into the cockpit of a military starfighter and manages to survive the Battle of Yavin by the skin of his teeth - he almost cooks himself when strafing, he gets his **** pulled out of the fire by Wedge(twice), his old buddy gets killed protecting him, and he only survives to make the fateful final shot because Han swoops in to save the day at the last moment. Further, the way in which he's "instrumental to the alliance victory" is his use of the Force , not his piloting skill.

"Luke is more of a mary sue than Rey" is disingenuous, revisionist nonsense.

As to the standard issue defences of Rey, as per they rely on mischaracterising and distorting the criticisms to make deflecting them easier. The criticism of Rey is not that she's a perfect pilot, it's that nothing we're shown during the film indicates she has any piloting experience at all , and as such the idea that she can just jump from riding a speederbike to doing loop-de-loops in a sophisticated spacecraft - and doing so solo in a craft designed to be flown with a copilot no less - is ridiculous. Which it is. Now, people will inevitably point to the supplementary prose that pushes the idea she taught herself how to fly using a flight simulator; putting aside the issues with that idea and just accepting the conclusion for the sake of argument, putting screen-relevant character information in supplementary prose that 99% of the audience are never going to know exists, let alone actually read, is awful storytelling, and using it as a club to beat cinemagoers who quite rightly formed their opinions of the characters based on what they saw in the cinema just swings us right back around to disingenuous territory. When someone watches ANH, the audience are told Luke is a competent pilot on three occasions before he gets anywhere near actually flying something, which doesn't even happen until the final act of the movie. That (and the actual reality of Luke's experience during the Battle of Yavin) is why audiences are prepared to accept Luke as a decent pilot, but often take issue with Rey in this regard, not sexism.

The criticism of Rey's technical still is not that she has technical skill as you imply, it's that she's presented as having more technical skill with a specific ship than the person who owned that ship for decades and carried out extensive custom modifications to it, despite there being no on screen indication that she'd ever even seen a YT-1300 - let alone the highly customised Millennium Falcon - before the Jakku escape sequence. And logically there's little reason she would have, given the wreckage on Jakku that supports the scavver community there is of a battle between the Empire and New Republic, ie between military vessels, and having the Falcon be there at all is already a huge contrivance nevermind there being more YTs - civilian freighters - lying about.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of Rey as a character, but the execution of Rey on-screen, the version of that character that most audiences saw, is pretty Sue-ish. As to the backlash against the character generally, I'd say that it was only as strong as it was exactly because some people are determined to see a sexist boogeyman behind every criticism of a poorly executed character that happens to be female. The initial wave of reactions didn't seem to me to have any higher a proportion of actual-sexism than any other such scenario(ie, not actually all that much at all, proportionally speaking), but the vitriol certainly did ramp up after the response to that reaction by Lucasfilm's marketing team and the Blue Check Brigade was to label any and all criticism of Rey as being the work of vile sexist knuckledragging neckbearded incel misogytrogs and so entirely invalid.

It's almost as if people don't appreciate it when those who can't address their actual points instead drag up a relative handful of disagreeable people who came to a superficially similar conclusion for entirely different reasons, and charge them with guilt by association, safely dismissed out of hand...

1 hour ago, Yodhrin said:

It's almost as if people don't appreciate it when those who can't address their actual points instead drag up a relative handful of disagreeable people who came to a superficially similar conclusion for entirely different reasons, and charge them with guilt by association, safely dismissed out of hand...

To be fair, I said that there was an element of sexism. I didnt say that anyone who didn't like Rey was a toxic incel. I myself dont really think they did a good job of her story, which is a shame because Daisy Ridley is a fine actor and could have done a lot with better material.

As far as Luke being a good pilot goes. As I can recall, he describes himself as not a bad pilot to Han in the cantina. Is Luke a reliable narrator in this instance as a brash youth trying to prove himself to what he sees as a swindler trying to rip them off? The other time I can recall off hand is Biggs describing him as the best bush pilot in the outer rim, which once again is based on Bigg's limited perspective (the Galaxy is a big place after all) and the fact that hes trying to assure his commander that Luke can fly with them. Luke having experience in a T-16 skyhopper is irrelevant becuase it wasnt shown in the movie but only in supplemental fiction (by your own standards).

2 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

As far as Luke being a good pilot goes. As I can recall, he describes himself as not a bad pilot to Han in the cantina. Is Luke a reliable narrator in this instance as a brash youth trying to prove himself to what he sees as a swindler trying to rip them off? The other time I can recall off hand is Biggs describing him as the best bush pilot in the outer rim, which once again is based on Bigg's limited perspective (the Galaxy is a big place after all) and the fact that hes trying to assure his commander that Luke can fly with them. Luke having experience in a T-16 skyhopper is irrelevant becuase it wasnt shown in the movie but only in supplemental fiction (by your own standards).

Obi-Wan also says that he's a good pilot while they are in his hut. And Luke explicitly mentions his T-16 experience during the Death Star briefing. Also, when he says, "Just like Beggar's Canyon back home," it serves to show that Luke has experience doing something similar to the Trench Run.

22 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

Obi-Wan also says that he's a good pilot while they are in his hut. And Luke explicitly mentions his T-16 experience during the Death Star briefing. Also, when he says, "Just like Beggar's Canyon back home," it serves to show that Luke has experience doing something similar to the Trench Run.

Ah, fair points. I forgot those.

Sorry. I still see the use of another Death Star and another emperor and another cantina and looking up to see planets blow up as individually way bigger issues (and there’s 4 of them) than figuring out why a protagonist in a space opera can fly space ships.

Also in the sequels there are no tauntauns.

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

The other time I can recall off hand is Biggs describing him as the best bush pilot in the outer rim, which once again is based on Bigg's limited perspective (the Galaxy is a big place after all) and the fact that hes trying to assure his commander that Luke can fly with them.

On the other hand, Bigg's is a fully trained fighter pilot, who knows what is required to fly a T-65B X-wing. Since he and Luke knew each other very well growing up, and is willing to vouch for Lukes ability to fly an X-wing, that's actually pretty compelling evidence that Luke really is a skilled pilot.

Slightly related, what reasons are we given for John McClane's extreme competence with weapons of all kinds, general detective skills, and overall bad ***ery? That he's a detective from NY? Given almost every other cop shown in the film is barely competent, that doesn't seem like enough of a reason. Why is Kevin McCallister able to build such effective booby traps? These are the examples I can come up with off hand that I have never heard complaints about characterization. I've seen plenty of male led action films with no on screen explanation given, and no outcry.

I will say Han and Chewie aren't the best measuring sticks to use for technical ability. We already know Han and Chewie aren't great mechanics, things keep breaking in the OT, and they need Lando's mechanics to fix the hyperdrive, which they do in significantly less time than it Chewie had prior to the Battle of Hoth.

So the mechanical skill at least could possibly be justified with what we are shown, at least as much as "as a cop John McClane knows all about every type of firearm, and guerilla tactics," "as a kid Kevin is innately good at making complicated traps," or "a nine year old boy can build a droid and competition winning drag racer because he works in a junk shop." We are told Anakin works in a scrap shop, and that is supposed to explain his technical abilities. Plus somehow racing prepared him to be a skilled pilot. I don't recall as many complaints about Anakin as there were/are about Rey though, but I may just been less aware. If "strength in the Force" is the explanation for Anakin's skills, then the same should hold true for Rey, given her ancestry that is revealed in the last film.

For superhero movies, unless you read the comics, you won't necessarily understand how Peter Parker is able to make web shooters (and tweak Tony Stark's hardware), or why Hawkeye is such a good shot/fighter. Is this *good* storytelling? Not particularly. But it is frequently accepted without much complaint from fans.

My friend's kid is obsessed with traps. They were always "setting [really lame ineffective] traps" by tying a rope to a chair or something. Then they saw Home Alone and got really good at endangering the family. The movie had to be banned in their house.

The thing that got me was that they picked Luke for the X-wing yet they had dozen of pilots just stuck there. Their one and only shot to save the galaxy and they give one of their few ships left to a farmboy who has never even flown in combat before lol.

PT did undermine the OT in a big way. Making Anakin some sort of messiah, and by virtue of that Luke was the son of a messiah, rather than the son of a renowned warrior.

Disney are not going to remake the movies. They were mostly critically acclaimed commercial smash hits. Some man babies can't accept that. They could concievably put in time travel or alternative universes and all that, but that sort of stuff just makes things messy. Besides, they also invested a lot of effort into maintaining one continuity. Retconning everything year in year out puts me off a lot of franchises personally. If you don't like the movies just ignore them and move on. I didn't like 9, but it's done now. We took my brothers kids and they loved it which is really all that matters.

7 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

The thing that got me was that they picked Luke for the X-wing yet they had dozen of pilots just stuck there. Their one and only shot to save the galaxy and they give one of their few ships left to a farmboy who has never even flown in combat before lol.

Could you imagine being a combat veterans who got passed over for the farm boy who just walked onto the base? Unless they had wounded pilots, I figured you'd want people with proven track records... Barring of course, someone saying "hey, this farm boy was trained by a Jedi in using the force." Leaving out the part that the training was all of four days of course.

With the new canon, the other question is why didn't they have any A-Wings? Sure, they may not be able to fire torpedos, by they could have served as a fighter screen.

Apparently some supplemental material has Luke flying in a simulator as a tryout, but believing Leia used her power to get him in the cockpit makes as much sense, and could be supported by the film alone.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Could you imagine being a combat veterans who got passed over for the farm boy who just walked onto the base? Unless they had wounded pilots, I figured you'd want people with proven track records...

Just one more reason Rogue One was awesome.

1 hour ago, Alan Noir said:

Disney are not going to remake the movies. They were mostly critically acclaimed commercial smash hits. Some man babies can't accept that.

I waited 30 years for another movie about Luke. I still want one. I'm not a man baby I'm a man child. You can't take babies to a PG movie!

If "all that mattered" was the kids liking it, then it wouldn't be spawning tabletop wargames, among other things. My kids like anything on a glowing screen but the news.

I don't think they'll retcon a new trilogy. But I do feel like they stole my ticket money by not having any new movies starring mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker. It's just going to remain this unfinished thing in American art, I guess. The whole premise that Han & Leia's child was the villain I sorta find silly, the repetitiveness was not great, they coulda gone in a productive useful direction that would get it rewatched but instead they went with the spaceship version of Rooster Cogburn (1975). For the life of me, I still don't understand the success of Titanic (1997) so the critics and box office don't mean much to me when I am assessing a film. I try to remain impartial as far as that goes.