Oh, ok. I didn't realize it didn't use the entire star for a single shot. As for the planet destroyed, the First Order had been talking about destroying the Republic once and for all, so that planet, which looks A LOT like Coruscant, actually being Coruscant, which was the Republic's capital, simply made sense. I can't say for sure whether or not that planet actually was Coruscant: it was just my most logical explanation.
It looked kind of like Coruscant, except for the lack of major sky traffic and the mountains in the background.
Personally, I really liked the Force Awakens. The Starkiller base was pretty neat, although both more realistic and less realistic all at once, and Han's death was certainly a surprise.
What I find a little hard to believe is how somebody recovered Anakin/Luke's original lightsaber. Seriously, it fell into the same bottomless pit that Luke did. Luke managed to grab onto some antennae and call out for help using the force. How did the lightsaber survive?
The Starkiller base is also a little questionable. After all, it uses stars as it's power source. It used up one star to fire it's first shot to destroy Coruscant. How did they just happen to move the entire planet into a different star system to have access to another star?
Binary Star System?
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
It is explained that after the fall of the Empire, Grand Chancellor Mon Mothma became the leader of the new Republic and helped reinstate the Republic Galactic Senate, but to keep everybody happy, it was decided that every time the Senate met, it would be on a different member world.
The Hosnian System just happens to be where the Galactic Senate is meeting at the start of Episode VII:The Force Awakens.
(so it wasn't Coruscant that was destroyed even though it looked similar)
That's also why Supreme Commander Snoke told General Hux to destroy that particular system.
Neither the Force Awakens book nor the movie, says/shows that the Republic Fleet is also in the system, but Snoke seems to feel that it is and I guess we are supposed to assume that it was destroyed as well.
As a side note, in the years leading up to Episode VII, Leia had been pushing the Senate to send the new Republic Fleet to deal with The New Order in the Outer Rim Worlds, before it became a bigger problem. She was poo-pooed as a "War Monger" and they pretty much ignored her.
She was the one who sets up the Resistance Movement and Fleet to be somewhat prepared for the eventuality of The New Order attacking.
Though at the time, Starkiller Base wasn't known to exist, it turns out she was quite correct in worrying.
I guess what ever is left of the Republic Fleet will now be joining the Resistance Fleet.
Episode VIII is going to have a TRIBBLE-load of stuff to explain to the audience.
Most of which will probably again be in the books rather than on screen.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
As a side note, in the years leading up to Episode VII, Leia had been pushing the Senate to send the Republic Fleet to deal with The New Order before it became a bigger problem. She was poo-pooed as a "War Monger" and they pretty much ignored her.
She was the one who sets up the Resistance Movement to be somewhat prepared for the eventuality of The New Order attacking.
Though at the time, Starkiller Base wasn't known to exist, it turns out she was quite correct in worrying.
The question is why they allowed the New Order to exist at all. Once the Empire was defeated, why did they allow this group to simply keep all of their ships and weapons instead of disarm them? That would have been like at the end of WW2 telling the axis powers they can keep all of their armies and weapons but they have to promise to behave and stay in their borders from now on. Um, no.
As a side note, in the years leading up to Episode VII, Leia had been pushing the Senate to send the Republic Fleet to deal with The New Order before it became a bigger problem. She was poo-pooed as a "War Monger" and they pretty much ignored her.
She was the one who sets up the Resistance Movement to be somewhat prepared for the eventuality of The New Order attacking.
Though at the time, Starkiller Base wasn't known to exist, it turns out she was quite correct in worrying.
The question is why they allowed the New Order to exist at all. Once the Empire was defeated, why did they allow this group to simply keep all of their ships and weapons instead of disarm them? That would have been like at the end of WW2 telling the axis powers they can keep all of their armies and weapons but they have to promise to behave and stay in their borders from now on. Um, no.
The New Order didn't start out all at once with a Fleet and army, it slowly built up the resources and troops over the thirty years since RotJ in the Outer Rim Territories, where the Republic wasn't around to stop them.
(and built the Starkiller Base...)
It's also why it was such a really big deal when the Hosnian System was destroyed, that "Planet Gun", fired shots that travelled over half the length of the known Star Wars Galaxy in a matter of minutes.... from the Outer Rim toward the Galactic Center!
(even though the movie was a bit vague about that)
Snoke took advantage of the chaos after the death of the Emperor to gather together what he could find of the remaining Empire Forces and build on that to the point we see in TFA.
Leia spent several years trying to get the new Republic Senate to act on the scattered information she had about Snoke and his army, but they were tired of war and dismissed her as a rabble-rouser/war monger.
They refused to believe that anybody could RE-build the once mighty Empire Army/Fleet.
I wonder just how much of Snoke's army managed to get clear of the base before the planet exploded.
He may not have much of a Fleet left either.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
It is explained that after the fall of the Empire, Grand Chancellor Mon Mothma became the leader of the new Republic and helped reinstate the Republic Galactic Senate, but to keep everybody happy, it was decided that every time the Senate met, it would be on a different member world.
The Hosnian System just happens to be where the Galactic Senate is meeting at the start of Episode VII:The Force Awakens.
(so it wasn't Coruscant that was destroyed even though it looked similar)
That's also why Supreme Commander Snoke told General Hux to destroy that particular system.
Neither the Force Awakens book nor the movie, says/shows that the Republic Fleet is also in the system, but Snoke seems to feel that it is and I guess we are supposed to assume that it was destroyed as well.
As a side note, in the years leading up to Episode VII, Leia had been pushing the Senate to send the new Republic Fleet to deal with The New Order in the Outer Rim Worlds, before it became a bigger problem. She was poo-pooed as a "War Monger" and they pretty much ignored her.
She was the one who sets up the Resistance Movement and Fleet to be somewhat prepared for the eventuality of The New Order attacking.
Though at the time, Starkiller Base wasn't known to exist, it turns out she was quite correct in worrying.
I guess what ever is left of the Republic Fleet will now be joining the Resistance Fleet.
Episode VIII is going to have a TRIBBLE-load of stuff to explain to the audience.
Most of which will probably again be in the books rather than on screen.
Licensed literature which explains the plotholes the unseen material?!?! You sure can tell JJ did this film, he's handled it just like 09 and Into Darkness... He even let a dying fan see it before release!
Episode VIII is going to have a TRIBBLE-load of stuff to explain to the audience.
Most of which will probably again be in the books rather than on screen.
I'm not really sure they could put it all on screen if they wanted to. Maybe an extra-long director's cut of the movie....... but not the theatrical release.
Just look at LotR... they tried... but half the backstory is missing there too.
LOTR is apples and oranges. When you turn a huge book into a movie, it goes without saying that you can't get "everything" in. But you when are the one with full creative control and a brand new story, you can't blame anyone else for plot holes.
LOTR is apples to oranges. When you turn a huge book into a movie, it goes without saying that you can't get "everything" in. But you when are the one with full creative control and a brand new story, you can't blame anyone else for plot holes.
WHY is LotR a huge book though?
Well actually it was a lot smaller in the first draft. It got rewritten by Tolkien several times over the years to fill in plot holes and elaborate on the back story. So yes, it isn't a fair comparison, but that's the entire point of choosing it. Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Not directly, but people kept talking about things that they felt needed to be "better explained".
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Not directly, but people kept talking about things that they felt needed to be "better explained".
So, because someone may want a specific plot point "better explained", that equates to wanting "the same scale of backstory" as LOTR? Right. I'm glad I finally see how much you are exaggerating in your thought process, because now I know any disagreement we have is not due to a misunderstanding or simple disagreement of opinion. You are creating a strawman so you can give the reply you want, rather than replying to what was actually said.
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Not directly, but people kept talking about things that they felt needed to be "better explained".
So, because someone may want a specific plot point "better explained", that equates to wanting "the same scale of backstory" as LOTR?
Only one? Yeah.. no. People have said that about everything from how the new superweapon was funded and why the New Republic act the way they do to why Kylo idolizes Vader...
Right. I'm glad I finally see how much you are exaggerating in your thought process, because now I know any disagreement we have is not due to a misunderstanding or simple disagreement of opinion. You are creating a strawman so you can give the reply you want, rather than replying to what was actually said.
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Not directly, but people kept talking about things that they felt needed to be "better explained".
So, because someone may want a specific plot point "better explained", that equates to wanting "the same scale of backstory" as LOTR?
Only one? Yeah.. no. People have said that about everything from how the new superweapon was funded and why the New Republic act the way they do to why Kylo idolizes Vader...
Right. I'm glad I finally see how much you are exaggerating in your thought process, because now I know any disagreement we have is not due to a misunderstanding or simple disagreement of opinion. You are creating a strawman so you can give the reply you want, rather than replying to what was actually said.
I could easily say the same to you.
From strawman to "I know you are but what am I???". Thanks for the laugh.
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Not directly, but people kept talking about things that they felt needed to be "better explained".
So, because someone may want a specific plot point "better explained", that equates to wanting "the same scale of backstory" as LOTR?
Only one? Yeah.. no. People have said that about everything from how the new superweapon was funded and why the New Republic act the way they do to why Kylo idolizes Vader...
Right. I'm glad I finally see how much you are exaggerating in your thought process, because now I know any disagreement we have is not due to a misunderstanding or simple disagreement of opinion. You are creating a strawman so you can give the reply you want, rather than replying to what was actually said.
I could easily say the same to you.
From strawman to "I know you are but what am I???". Thanks for the laugh.
And you completely ignored anything that didn't feed into your mockery of the entire discussion....
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Not directly, but people kept talking about things that they felt needed to be "better explained".
So, because someone may want a specific plot point "better explained", that equates to wanting "the same scale of backstory" as LOTR?
Only one? Yeah.. no. People have said that about everything from how the new superweapon was funded and why the New Republic act the way they do to why Kylo idolizes Vader...
Right. I'm glad I finally see how much you are exaggerating in your thought process, because now I know any disagreement we have is not due to a misunderstanding or simple disagreement of opinion. You are creating a strawman so you can give the reply you want, rather than replying to what was actually said.
I could easily say the same to you.
From strawman to "I know you are but what am I???". Thanks for the laugh.
And you completely ignored anything that didn't feed into your mockery of the entire discussion....
Hey look, you're doing that strawman thing again. Or, prove me wrong. Which post(s) was I mocking "the entire discussion"? Go ahead and post those links.
Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
Not directly, but people kept talking about things that they felt needed to be "better explained".
The thing is, TFA does have significant backstory: Episodes I-VI... The points people seem to be requesting clarification for, such as the confusion over Finn thinking Poe was killed in the crash, are things which wouldn't be helped by backstory, because they're simply plotholes... Other things such as the beginnings of the First Order and there being another Rebellion/Resistance, sure, people want to know why after the over-throwing of Palpatine things wound up essentially no better. However, that is stuff which may be explained in future movies, and doesn't necessarily need to be explained via backstory. It would appear that there's a book out which does give said backstory, I just hope that the material within is honored in Episode VIII, or it will just be another 'TRIBBLE you' to fans who buy the merch in good-faith... As for LOTR, as above, it's a bit of an apples and oranges in so much as, as you say, Tolkien re-wrote and revised it several times, but equally, I would suggest that the movies (which I admit, I haven't seen) would contain enough material that, while they may not give as much backstory as the novels, they're at least internally consistent to themselves. I'd also use Dune, and Battlefield Earth as examples of the same thing... Both contain massive amounts of information, in novels spanning decades. Trying to condense that into a movie, there are going to be things which have to be cut for time. However, the end movie, should still be internally consistent to itself and not rely on the viewer having read original books to understand what's happening in the movie...
I think if the movie hadn't felt like a reboot back to the Episode IV status quo people wouldn't feel as confused.
As fans we are being asked to jump from RotJ where the heroes won and now fast forward thirty years to them being in the same position they were when everything started. It is bound to cause confusion when the movies dialogue tells us that the heroes won the war, but what we see on screen shows them in pretty much the same state they were during the "bad old days". It is just the case of "show don't tell" being poorly handled, I personally never felt like this was a world where the rebellion had won the war even though they kept saying it was.
[quote="lordrezeon;12816091"]It is just the case of "show don't tell" being poorly handled, I personally never [i]felt[/i] like this was a world where the rebellion had won the war even though they kept saying it was.[/quote]
I agree. Swapping out Vader for the new guy in a mask and Palpatine for the new guy on the throne, it is almost like ROTJ never happened.
I enjoyed the movie. It definitely pulled quite a lot of inspiration from all three movies of the original trilogy, so I can see how it could feel like a rehash of the originals. I really liked the lightsaber fight scenes, they felt much more realistic and less choreographed than the other movies, especially the prequels. The characters all seem largely untrained in lightsaber combat, and that brought a degree of savagery to the fights that all the other movies never really captured.
Han's death was kind of interesting. On the one hand, it seems like he should go out in a blaze of glory, but on the other hand, it was a very personal scene, and (for me at least) it carried a great deal of emotion. The action seemed quite appropriate for Ren, considering his near-worship of Darth Vader. I'm looking forward to how they develop his character, but I think it's most likely he's going to follow Vader's path pretty much to a T (scarred in lightsaber duel, wears mask, turns back on/kills father figure, etc.).
IMHO, the acting was by far and away the best acting the movies have seen so far. I also happen to be a fan of JJ's cinematographic style, so I absolutely loved the visuals. I really enjoyed seeing the fighters get some atmospheric combat.
And of course, my biggest takeaway from the film was, "the Force is OP, plz nerf."
8/10, hungry for more.
I had a feeling you and I would see it largely alike...this is fairly similar to how I felt about it. It felt both visually AND in other ways more like 4 through 6 than 1 through 3, in a lot of good ways. My overall impression is that getting George Lucas' hands off the franchise was a good move. Abrams has got this. While I did like parts of the Trek movies, I say that with a lot more confidence than I did the Trek franchise.
I agree about Abrams' visual style here too: he really did well with avoiding the things that dragged down the prequels, and his greater reliance on practical effects was a very, very good move. One of the visuals that was the most effective to me, that genuinely elicited an emotional reaction just on sight, was what he did with the Millennium Falcon. That was honestly painful to see, much the way it was to see an old home I lived in when I was little 20 years later when the renters in between had not taken care of the place and it had fallen apart and just seemed so small, dirty, and antiquated. But I feel like Abrams was going for something like that, to make us feel sad about what had happened to the ship, and especially what had happened to Han emotionally. And he got that from me...did he ever.
Regarding Kylo Ren and the death of Han Solo...the scene was effective for me as well. While I suspected a trap, I actually was going back and forth wondering whether it was really going to happen, and even wondering if Han was going to do something with that light saber at one point.
One other point you make about the savagery of the fighting: that was true of ALL of the fight scenes. More than any Star Wars movie before it, we really see how horrible the atrocities that are possible in that universe ARE. Not to say blowing up Alderaan wasn't shocking, or the slaughter in the Jedi Temple, or (worst) the burning of Anakin Skywalker, weren't horrifying (Revenge of the Sith was the one instance where we got something that was not distant and "clean" for the viewer), but in this case I felt like the whole thing really drove home the point that this was NOT a sanitary conflict and that what Kylo Ren was doing was horrific. Finn's perspective--the awakening of his conscience--really drew the audience's attention to that without beating people over the head with it (the only place we got near that point was briefly, during the "Hitler speech"). I was genuinely horrified by Kylo Ren's actions on Jakku in the opening scenes, same when we see the wreckage he and his troops leave in their wake on Takodana, and my goodness when the Starkiller fired, that was bordering on nightmare material and for me it actually hit me harder than the destruction of Alderaan by a lot. Yes, it's poignant when you see the references to a "million voices cried out at once," but that establishing shot we get on the planet being hit makes it very, very clear that this is NOT a mere statistic. The tragedy is not so distant for us. This is an honest to God horror.
While it was quite formulaic in a lot of ways, and I agree that it did hit a lot of the same points as prior episodes, overall this movie WORKED for me. I also think that in some ways we got a nod to the EU as well, with Kylo Ren as Darth Caedus, and quite possibly Supreme Leader Snoke as Vergere. It MIGHT even be possible to think of this as a "dark timeline" compared to the old EU/Legends timeline, much as the JJVerse in Trek presents us a "dark timeline."
The one thing I am still unsure of is Luke and why he fled. We know he felt responsible for what happened, and we did see a lot of hope that he could be found, which makes one wonder why Luke turned his back on everything (even though it is stated he's gone off to find the First Jedi Temple...Ossus?...that's what he has done in effect).
But the more I think about it, the more I think I know what happened. This could all be proven wrong with the next two installments, but this is the best I can put together so far.
One thing people have wondered about is why the New Republic and the Resistance seem separate (although we know that it was used against the Republic capital because they enabled the Resistance). I am beginning to wonder if the reason the two groups held each other at arms' length, while nominally working for the same goal--to get rid of the First Order--was a disagreement over who and what was at fault for the First Order and what an appropriate solution was.
I think it is quite possible that after Luke's attempt to resurrect the Jedi Order backfired, the Republic said to HELL with the Force, that they would no longer try to solve problems that way, and that secretly they are hoping they can get rid of the First Order in a way that not only ends the Sith but also ends the Jedi and leads to a new order where none of that exists anymore (almost like the Age of Men in Lord of the Rings). On the other hand, the Resistance wants to fight fire with fire and is willing to continue with the attempt to resurrect the Jedi Order. These are people who were part of Luke's inner circle the first time around, and who continue to have faith in him. They may not be outright criminalized by the Republic--and tolerated because they DO manage to score some serious hits against the First Order--but I do have this feeling that Luke himself might well have earned a price on his head from the Republic as well as the First Order.
So it might not just be Luke's own guilt working here...but that he is actually a persona non grata in large portions of the Republic as a representative of an old philosophy and power that they would like to see die wholesale, not just eliminating the Sith.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
One thing people have wondered about is why the New Republic and the Resistance seem separate (although we know that it was used against the Republic capital because they enabled the Resistance). I am beginning to wonder if the reason the two groups held each other at arms' length, while nominally working for the same goal--to get rid of the First Order--was a disagreement over who and what was at fault for the First Order and what an appropriate solution was.
Hmm.... that or a matter of priorities. The New Republic seemed to think the Hutts were more important.
I think it is quite possible that after Luke's attempt to resurrect the Jedi Order backfired, the Republic said to HELL with the Force, that they would no longer try to solve problems that way, and that secretly they are hoping they can get rid of the First Order in a way that not only ends the Sith but also ends the Jedi and leads to a new order where none of that exists anymore (almost like the Age of Men in Lord of the Rings). On the other hand, the Resistance wants to fight fire with fire and is willing to continue with the attempt to resurrect the Jedi Order. These are people who were part of Luke's inner circle the first time around, and who continue to have faith in him. They may not be outright criminalized by the Republic--and tolerated because they DO manage to score some serious hits against the First Order--but I do have this feeling that Luke himself might well have earned a price on his head from the Republic as well as the First Order.
So it might not just be Luke's own guilt working here...but that he is actually a persona non grata in large portions of the Republic as a representative of an old philosophy and power that they would like to see die wholesale, not just eliminating the Sith.
Interesting idea, but.... While I could see people trying that, it's doomed to failure. Force-sensitives are a lot like Mutants. Training in the use of their powers makes their powers more controllable and useful... but it is not the source of their powers. Maybe if you developed tech to find and destroy Midi-chlorians?(not sure it's possible actually)
Actually.... to continue the LOTR analogy.... The Age of Men was when many of the magic users left Middle Earth and went off to do their own thing elsewhere. Which would be kinda like the Jedi leaving the explored part of the galaxy and going to live in deep space somewhere.... But the comparison breaks down when you consider that, like Mutants, Force-sensitives are not a separate race. If all of them died or left, new ones would be born. The Clone wars showed several groups other than Sith and Jedi that used the Force. The Dagoyans used the Force passively and not in combat. Then there was the Nightsisters who were Dark side users, but ended up killed by the Sith.
It seems to me that a small group of untrained Force users could come up with their own techniques without training. It would be less potent, but still at least somewhat effective.
Actually I completely agree on the futility of attempting to eradicate the use of the Force, especially if we presume that it can occur with what IRL we would call de novo mutation.
Note that I suggested it might be the idea the New Republic had...but I did not suggest it was the right idea or that it would actually work. Sometimes, politicians do incredibly dumb things, and we already know from the Prequels that that principle is very true for the galaxy far, far away.
So, while I think they may be trying to accomplish the end of Force use and create an "Age of Men"...I don't think they'd actually be able to do it. The Resistance, in contrast, gets that and as I said above, intends to fight Force with Force.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Actually I completely agree on the futility of attempting to eradicate the use of the Force, especially if we presume that it can occur with what IRL we would call de novo mutation.
Note that I suggested it might be the idea the New Republic had...but I did not suggest it was the right idea or that it would actually work. Sometimes, politicians do incredibly dumb things, and we already know from the Prequels that that principle is very true for the galaxy far, far away.
So, while I think they may be trying to accomplish the end of Force use and create an "Age of Men"...I don't think they'd actually be able to do it. The Resistance, in contrast, gets that and as I said above, intends to fight Force with Force.
I have to wonder just how much of the New Republic senate feels like that. There aren't many Jedi or Sith. It seems as if most of the people in the galaxy don't really know too much about the Force.
Anyways, I think the Midi-chlorian idea was actually good in one way, but still silly. It seems like an attempt at explaining why almost all organic races can use the Force. We have Humans, whatever Yoda was(seriously, Lucas imposed an edict on the EU to never explore his race's backstory), Kiffar, Chalactans, Mirial, Ishi Tib, Mikkian, Iktotchi, Twi'lek, Thisspiasian, Quermian, Lannik, Besalisk, Iridonian Zabrak, Kel Dor, Neti, Cerean, Nikto, Roonan, Tholothian, Nautolan, Ongree, Rodian, Togruta, and several unnamed races.... Hmm... no Hutts.... yet. Maybe as a Darksider? A Hutt would totally revel in the power of wielding the Force.
So yeah... it does kinda make sense to come up with an explanation that crosses species boundaries.
It's precisely that line and the way that the Force is treated as a legend in the original movies and The Force Awakens, that really made me wonder. When you consider how little time has really passed between The Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope (even The Force Awakens), it really makes one wonder how the knowledge of the Force got suppressed THAT quickly when there are clearly enough people around who would've remembered the way things used to be. That was no mere forgetting...that was an ideology, and one that I can't imagine even a lot of the people populating the New Republic, shaking off so easily. Wanting freedom didn't necessarily mean wanting the Force back in their lives...after all, as the Trek universe shows, there are legitimate reasons to fear the idea of a class of people who are inherently supermen, as a threat to freedom. Of course, the difference in Star Wars is that it appears to be a fact of nature as opposed to a chosen course of action like with the Augments--which IMO is the reason why if the Republic does try to approach it as though it were the Trekiverse and they could actually stop the use of the Force, nothing but trouble will come from that (and perhaps IS coming from it).
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Actually I completely agree on the futility of attempting to eradicate the use of the Force, especially if we presume that it can occur with what IRL we would call de novo mutation.
Note that I suggested it might be the idea the New Republic had...but I did not suggest it was the right idea or that it would actually work. Sometimes, politicians do incredibly dumb things, and we already know from the Prequels that that principle is very true for the galaxy far, far away.
So, while I think they may be trying to accomplish the end of Force use and create an "Age of Men"...I don't think they'd actually be able to do it. The Resistance, in contrast, gets that and as I said above, intends to fight Force with Force.
I have to wonder just how much of the New Republic senate feels like that. There aren't many Jedi or Sith. It seems as if most of the people in the galaxy don't really know too much about the Force.
Anyways, I think the Midi-chlorian idea was actually good in one way, but still silly. It seems like an attempt at explaining why almost all organic races can use the Force. We have Humans, whatever Yoda was(seriously, Lucas imposed an edict on the EU to never explore his race's backstory), Kiffar, Chalactans, Mirial, Ishi Tib, Mikkian, Iktotchi, Twi'lek, Thisspiasian, Quermian, Lannik, Besalisk, Iridonian Zabrak, Kel Dor, Neti, Cerean, Nikto, Roonan, Tholothian, Nautolan, Ongree, Rodian, Togruta, and several unnamed races.... Hmm... no Hutts.... yet. Maybe as a Darksider? A Hutt would totally revel in the power of wielding the Force.
So yeah... it does kinda make sense to come up with an explanation that crosses species boundaries.
Actually, there was a Hutt Jedi. I vaguely remember something about Sarlaccs and the Force, too...
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Actually I completely agree on the futility of attempting to eradicate the use of the Force, especially if we presume that it can occur with what IRL we would call de novo mutation.
Note that I suggested it might be the idea the New Republic had...but I did not suggest it was the right idea or that it would actually work. Sometimes, politicians do incredibly dumb things, and we already know from the Prequels that that principle is very true for the galaxy far, far away.
So, while I think they may be trying to accomplish the end of Force use and create an "Age of Men"...I don't think they'd actually be able to do it. The Resistance, in contrast, gets that and as I said above, intends to fight Force with Force.
I have to wonder just how much of the New Republic senate feels like that. There aren't many Jedi or Sith. It seems as if most of the people in the galaxy don't really know too much about the Force.
Anyways, I think the Midi-chlorian idea was actually good in one way, but still silly. It seems like an attempt at explaining why almost all organic races can use the Force. We have Humans, whatever Yoda was(seriously, Lucas imposed an edict on the EU to never explore his race's backstory), Kiffar, Chalactans, Mirial, Ishi Tib, Mikkian, Iktotchi, Twi'lek, Thisspiasian, Quermian, Lannik, Besalisk, Iridonian Zabrak, Kel Dor, Neti, Cerean, Nikto, Roonan, Tholothian, Nautolan, Ongree, Rodian, Togruta, and several unnamed races.... Hmm... no Hutts.... yet. Maybe as a Darksider? A Hutt would totally revel in the power of wielding the Force.
So yeah... it does kinda make sense to come up with an explanation that crosses species boundaries.
Actually, there was a Hutt Jedi. I vaguely remember something about Sarlaccs and the Force, too...
Link plz? I actually checked the list of Hutts on the wiki. Hmm... maybe the Hutt category too? I did see a Hutt who collected Jedi stuff, but he lacked the ability to use the Force. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Hutts Ah, I guess what I saw earlier was a short list of notable Hutts.
Comments
It looked kind of like Coruscant, except for the lack of major sky traffic and the mountains in the background.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Binary Star System?
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
It is explained that after the fall of the Empire, Grand Chancellor Mon Mothma became the leader of the new Republic and helped reinstate the Republic Galactic Senate, but to keep everybody happy, it was decided that every time the Senate met, it would be on a different member world.
The Hosnian System just happens to be where the Galactic Senate is meeting at the start of Episode VII:The Force Awakens.
(so it wasn't Coruscant that was destroyed even though it looked similar)
That's also why Supreme Commander Snoke told General Hux to destroy that particular system.
Neither the Force Awakens book nor the movie, says/shows that the Republic Fleet is also in the system, but Snoke seems to feel that it is and I guess we are supposed to assume that it was destroyed as well.
As a side note, in the years leading up to Episode VII, Leia had been pushing the Senate to send the new Republic Fleet to deal with The New Order in the Outer Rim Worlds, before it became a bigger problem. She was poo-pooed as a "War Monger" and they pretty much ignored her.
She was the one who sets up the Resistance Movement and Fleet to be somewhat prepared for the eventuality of The New Order attacking.
Though at the time, Starkiller Base wasn't known to exist, it turns out she was quite correct in worrying.
I guess what ever is left of the Republic Fleet will now be joining the Resistance Fleet.
Episode VIII is going to have a TRIBBLE-load of stuff to explain to the audience.
Most of which will probably again be in the books rather than on screen.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The question is why they allowed the New Order to exist at all. Once the Empire was defeated, why did they allow this group to simply keep all of their ships and weapons instead of disarm them? That would have been like at the end of WW2 telling the axis powers they can keep all of their armies and weapons but they have to promise to behave and stay in their borders from now on. Um, no.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The New Order didn't start out all at once with a Fleet and army, it slowly built up the resources and troops over the thirty years since RotJ in the Outer Rim Territories, where the Republic wasn't around to stop them.
(and built the Starkiller Base...)
It's also why it was such a really big deal when the Hosnian System was destroyed, that "Planet Gun", fired shots that travelled over half the length of the known Star Wars Galaxy in a matter of minutes.... from the Outer Rim toward the Galactic Center!
(even though the movie was a bit vague about that)
Snoke took advantage of the chaos after the death of the Emperor to gather together what he could find of the remaining Empire Forces and build on that to the point we see in TFA.
Leia spent several years trying to get the new Republic Senate to act on the scattered information she had about Snoke and his army, but they were tired of war and dismissed her as a rabble-rouser/war monger.
They refused to believe that anybody could RE-build the once mighty Empire Army/Fleet.
I wonder just how much of Snoke's army managed to get clear of the base before the planet exploded.
He may not have much of a Fleet left either.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
My character Tsin'xing
Also, Merry Christmas and may the Force be with you! LLAP.
Just look at LotR... they tried... but half the backstory is missing there too.
My character Tsin'xing
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Well actually it was a lot smaller in the first draft. It got rewritten by Tolkien several times over the years to fill in plot holes and elaborate on the back story. So yes, it isn't a fair comparison, but that's the entire point of choosing it. Middle Earth has one of the most complex back stories ever written, and even it is incomplete. Expecting a movie to have that scale of backstory is silly for the same reason expecting them to actually put the entire LotR book on screen is silly.
My character Tsin'xing
Did anyone in this thread ever suggest TFA should have the same scale of backstory as LOTR? If so, which post? If not, WTH are you talking about?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
So, because someone may want a specific plot point "better explained", that equates to wanting "the same scale of backstory" as LOTR? Right. I'm glad I finally see how much you are exaggerating in your thought process, because now I know any disagreement we have is not due to a misunderstanding or simple disagreement of opinion. You are creating a strawman so you can give the reply you want, rather than replying to what was actually said.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
From strawman to "I know you are but what am I???". Thanks for the laugh.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
Hey look, you're doing that strawman thing again. Or, prove me wrong. Which post(s) was I mocking "the entire discussion"? Go ahead and post those links.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
As fans we are being asked to jump from RotJ where the heroes won and now fast forward thirty years to them being in the same position they were when everything started. It is bound to cause confusion when the movies dialogue tells us that the heroes won the war, but what we see on screen shows them in pretty much the same state they were during the "bad old days". It is just the case of "show don't tell" being poorly handled, I personally never felt like this was a world where the rebellion had won the war even though they kept saying it was.
I agree. Swapping out Vader for the new guy in a mask and Palpatine for the new guy on the throne, it is almost like ROTJ never happened.
PS: I just saw the movie for the 3rd time
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I had a feeling you and I would see it largely alike...this is fairly similar to how I felt about it. It felt both visually AND in other ways more like 4 through 6 than 1 through 3, in a lot of good ways. My overall impression is that getting George Lucas' hands off the franchise was a good move. Abrams has got this. While I did like parts of the Trek movies, I say that with a lot more confidence than I did the Trek franchise.
I agree about Abrams' visual style here too: he really did well with avoiding the things that dragged down the prequels, and his greater reliance on practical effects was a very, very good move. One of the visuals that was the most effective to me, that genuinely elicited an emotional reaction just on sight, was what he did with the Millennium Falcon. That was honestly painful to see, much the way it was to see an old home I lived in when I was little 20 years later when the renters in between had not taken care of the place and it had fallen apart and just seemed so small, dirty, and antiquated. But I feel like Abrams was going for something like that, to make us feel sad about what had happened to the ship, and especially what had happened to Han emotionally. And he got that from me...did he ever.
Regarding Kylo Ren and the death of Han Solo...the scene was effective for me as well. While I suspected a trap, I actually was going back and forth wondering whether it was really going to happen, and even wondering if Han was going to do something with that light saber at one point.
One other point you make about the savagery of the fighting: that was true of ALL of the fight scenes. More than any Star Wars movie before it, we really see how horrible the atrocities that are possible in that universe ARE. Not to say blowing up Alderaan wasn't shocking, or the slaughter in the Jedi Temple, or (worst) the burning of Anakin Skywalker, weren't horrifying (Revenge of the Sith was the one instance where we got something that was not distant and "clean" for the viewer), but in this case I felt like the whole thing really drove home the point that this was NOT a sanitary conflict and that what Kylo Ren was doing was horrific. Finn's perspective--the awakening of his conscience--really drew the audience's attention to that without beating people over the head with it (the only place we got near that point was briefly, during the "Hitler speech"). I was genuinely horrified by Kylo Ren's actions on Jakku in the opening scenes, same when we see the wreckage he and his troops leave in their wake on Takodana, and my goodness when the Starkiller fired, that was bordering on nightmare material and for me it actually hit me harder than the destruction of Alderaan by a lot. Yes, it's poignant when you see the references to a "million voices cried out at once," but that establishing shot we get on the planet being hit makes it very, very clear that this is NOT a mere statistic. The tragedy is not so distant for us. This is an honest to God horror.
While it was quite formulaic in a lot of ways, and I agree that it did hit a lot of the same points as prior episodes, overall this movie WORKED for me. I also think that in some ways we got a nod to the EU as well, with Kylo Ren as Darth Caedus, and quite possibly Supreme Leader Snoke as Vergere. It MIGHT even be possible to think of this as a "dark timeline" compared to the old EU/Legends timeline, much as the JJVerse in Trek presents us a "dark timeline."
The one thing I am still unsure of is Luke and why he fled. We know he felt responsible for what happened, and we did see a lot of hope that he could be found, which makes one wonder why Luke turned his back on everything (even though it is stated he's gone off to find the First Jedi Temple...Ossus?...that's what he has done in effect).
But the more I think about it, the more I think I know what happened. This could all be proven wrong with the next two installments, but this is the best I can put together so far.
One thing people have wondered about is why the New Republic and the Resistance seem separate (although we know that it was used against the Republic capital because they enabled the Resistance). I am beginning to wonder if the reason the two groups held each other at arms' length, while nominally working for the same goal--to get rid of the First Order--was a disagreement over who and what was at fault for the First Order and what an appropriate solution was.
I think it is quite possible that after Luke's attempt to resurrect the Jedi Order backfired, the Republic said to HELL with the Force, that they would no longer try to solve problems that way, and that secretly they are hoping they can get rid of the First Order in a way that not only ends the Sith but also ends the Jedi and leads to a new order where none of that exists anymore (almost like the Age of Men in Lord of the Rings). On the other hand, the Resistance wants to fight fire with fire and is willing to continue with the attempt to resurrect the Jedi Order. These are people who were part of Luke's inner circle the first time around, and who continue to have faith in him. They may not be outright criminalized by the Republic--and tolerated because they DO manage to score some serious hits against the First Order--but I do have this feeling that Luke himself might well have earned a price on his head from the Republic as well as the First Order.
So it might not just be Luke's own guilt working here...but that he is actually a persona non grata in large portions of the Republic as a representative of an old philosophy and power that they would like to see die wholesale, not just eliminating the Sith.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Actually.... to continue the LOTR analogy.... The Age of Men was when many of the magic users left Middle Earth and went off to do their own thing elsewhere. Which would be kinda like the Jedi leaving the explored part of the galaxy and going to live in deep space somewhere.... But the comparison breaks down when you consider that, like Mutants, Force-sensitives are not a separate race. If all of them died or left, new ones would be born. The Clone wars showed several groups other than Sith and Jedi that used the Force. The Dagoyans used the Force passively and not in combat. Then there was the Nightsisters who were Dark side users, but ended up killed by the Sith.
It seems to me that a small group of untrained Force users could come up with their own techniques without training. It would be less potent, but still at least somewhat effective.
My character Tsin'xing
Note that I suggested it might be the idea the New Republic had...but I did not suggest it was the right idea or that it would actually work. Sometimes, politicians do incredibly dumb things, and we already know from the Prequels that that principle is very true for the galaxy far, far away.
So, while I think they may be trying to accomplish the end of Force use and create an "Age of Men"...I don't think they'd actually be able to do it. The Resistance, in contrast, gets that and as I said above, intends to fight Force with Force.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
"Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways"
I have to wonder just how much of the New Republic senate feels like that. There aren't many Jedi or Sith. It seems as if most of the people in the galaxy don't really know too much about the Force.
Anyways, I think the Midi-chlorian idea was actually good in one way, but still silly. It seems like an attempt at explaining why almost all organic races can use the Force. We have Humans, whatever Yoda was(seriously, Lucas imposed an edict on the EU to never explore his race's backstory), Kiffar, Chalactans, Mirial, Ishi Tib, Mikkian, Iktotchi, Twi'lek, Thisspiasian, Quermian, Lannik, Besalisk, Iridonian Zabrak, Kel Dor, Neti, Cerean, Nikto, Roonan, Tholothian, Nautolan, Ongree, Rodian, Togruta, and several unnamed races.... Hmm... no Hutts.... yet. Maybe as a Darksider?
So yeah... it does kinda make sense to come up with an explanation that crosses species boundaries.
My character Tsin'xing
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Actually, there was a Hutt Jedi. I vaguely remember something about Sarlaccs and the Force, too...
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
My character Tsin'xing