Yeah, I noticed that too...he kept trying even after he was already dying and betrayed.
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.
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
Hehe, comparing chars to the EU is exactly why Disney tossed it. They had two choices, make movies out of books, which probably had licensing issues, or make movies with their own story.
they could have simply come up with completely fresh new characters (which some of them are, such as Finn) to avoid the comparison completely...
This is the part where I challenge you to come up with a definition for "completely fresh" that doesn't preclude them from using concepts like "Han Solo's son", yet still prevents fans from comparing the new character to the guy in the books.
What? You say that's unfair and undoable? Like duh... that's the reason I challenged you to do it. Any character who is the son of Han Solo will be compared to every other character who is the son of Han Solo. For no other reason but "son of Han Solo". Why? Because fans are jerks like that.
So the logical solution, to avoid comparison to a character, it to just use that character... Then there is no comparison of one to the other, just critique or appreciation for how said character is translated from novel to film... T
I enjoy the EU a lot, and this new movie doesn't change that at all. Having said that, if I had to choose between seeing a movie where I already know the story or a movie where I have no idea what is going to happen, I prefer the latter. It's more fun to be surprised, to me. As much as I enjoy the EU, I already know that story.
I totally understand that, but as I said, perhaps that should then involve a totally new character, who cannot be compared to existing ones who were eliminated just so they could come up with new characters (and then not do that)
In my opinion(key word), Kylo/Ben is a new character. Yes, he can be compared to various EU characters, but there are people who are going to compare anything, so that doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, or someone else, that is also fine. We are each entitled to our opinions, and neither is more right or wrong than the other. But no matter how they do it, someone is going to have a complaint or wish they had done it a different way. I actually have a few things I didn't like about the movie, although Kylo being Han's son wasn't one of them.
Yes, new in so much as 'different name', but the comparison to the EU characters is so strong, he is essentially just an amalgam of said characters, so not what I would want to call 'an original character', and if the plan was to jettison the EU so as to do 'something original', IMHO this does not qualify as original... For example, Poe could quite easily have been Han's son... Having a guy trying to track down his lost uncle sounds a reasonable plot... All JJ has done, is inverted the father/son dynamic between Vader and Luke (because apparently his work often features a dysfunctional father/son relationship) and from what I read, re-do A New Hope (which is also totally JJ's MO) And to do that to, not just a franchise, but one where the EU is what has essentially kept said franchise alive, is massively uncool. I think the most original thing I've seen so far about the Force Awakens, is a black storm trooper, and a droid resembling a beach ball (and a stupid lightsaber ) For someone going to rake in millions of dollars for a movie, I would expect much more effort to have been made...
Kylo Ren is obsessed with being as powerful as Darth Vader and from the film is committed to following that path of hate, anger and pain. Jacen Solo was still, ultimately, good. He was obsessed with bringing about peace and protecting his family (like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader). Ren has none of that motivation, and regardless of traits or actions, motivation is what makes a character. If Kirk had joined Starfleet to have a girlfriend on every planet, and not to explore the galaxy, it wouldn't have been Kirk, would it?
Hehe, comparing chars to the EU is exactly why Disney tossed it. They had two choices, make movies out of books, which probably had licensing issues, or make movies with their own story.
they could have simply come up with completely fresh new characters (which some of them are, such as Finn) to avoid the comparison completely...
This is the part where I challenge you to come up with a definition for "completely fresh" that doesn't preclude them from using concepts like "Han Solo's son", yet still prevents fans from comparing the new character to the guy in the books.
What? You say that's unfair and undoable? Like duh... that's the reason I challenged you to do it. Any character who is the son of Han Solo will be compared to every other character who is the son of Han Solo. For no other reason but "son of Han Solo". Why? Because fans are jerks like that.
So the logical solution, to avoid comparison to a character, it to just use that character... Then there is no comparison of one to the other, just critique or appreciation for how said character is translated from novel to film... T
I enjoy the EU a lot, and this new movie doesn't change that at all. Having said that, if I had to choose between seeing a movie where I already know the story or a movie where I have no idea what is going to happen, I prefer the latter. It's more fun to be surprised, to me. As much as I enjoy the EU, I already know that story.
I totally understand that, but as I said, perhaps that should then involve a totally new character, who cannot be compared to existing ones who were eliminated just so they could come up with new characters (and then not do that)
In my opinion(key word), Kylo/Ben is a new character. Yes, he can be compared to various EU characters, but there are people who are going to compare anything, so that doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, or someone else, that is also fine. We are each entitled to our opinions, and neither is more right or wrong than the other. But no matter how they do it, someone is going to have a complaint or wish they had done it a different way. I actually have a few things I didn't like about the movie, although Kylo being Han's son wasn't one of them.
Yes, new in so much as 'different name', but the comparison to the EU characters is so strong, he is essentially just an amalgam of said characters, so not what I would want to call 'an original character', and if the plan was to jettison the EU so as to do 'something original', IMHO this does not qualify as original... For example, Poe could quite easily have been Han's son... Having a guy trying to track down his lost uncle sounds a reasonable plot... All JJ has done, is inverted the father/son dynamic between Vader and Luke (because apparently his work often features a dysfunctional father/son relationship) and from what I read, re-do A New Hope (which is also totally JJ's MO) And to do that to, not just a franchise, but one where the EU is what has essentially kept said franchise alive, is massively uncool. I think the most original thing I've seen so far about the Force Awakens, is a black storm trooper, and a droid resembling a beach ball (and a stupid lightsaber ) For someone going to rake in millions of dollars for a movie, I would expect much more effort to have been made...
Kylo Ren is obsessed with being as powerful as Darth Vader and from the film is committed to following that path of hate, anger and pain. Jacen Solo was still, ultimately, good. He was obsessed with bringing about peace and protecting his family (like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader). Ren has none of that motivation, and regardless of traits or actions, motivation is what makes a character. If Kirk had joined Starfleet to have a girlfriend on every planet, and not to explore the galaxy, it wouldn't have been Kirk, would it?
Characters certainly have motivations, but I'd disagree that the motivations is what makes the character (ie one over another) The motivations of NuKirk were very different to those of ToSKirk, but they were both still Jim Kirk, rather than one being Jim Kirk, and other being, say, John Kirby. I can't talk too deeply on Kylo Ren's motivations, because i) I haven't seen the film (and don't intend to) and ii) they haven't been fully fleshed out and explored in Ep VII. They may be delved into in Ep VIII, or, they may go unresolved, depending on the writer (who didn't write Ep VII) One thing I'm sure I read in a JJ interview, is that he said that the story 'wasn't finished' (to allow for additional movies) What I can say, is that from what I've read of Ep VII, I can't see any reason why Kyp Durron, or Jacen Solo/Darth Caedus couldn't have been used in favor of Kylo Ren, certainly not when the nature of the characters is so fundamentally similar (ie in the Kirk's example) Even his very name is/can be constructed from the words KYp soLO durRon jacEN...
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
I agree with your logic, but I don't agree that the movie itself truly confirms the base is mobile. Finn does not specifically say that you only get 1 shot from an entire sun, so it is possible that the shot they used to destroy the previous planets was also from charging off that same sun. Again, I agree that the base *not* being mobile would be idiotic, but the movie itself does not really confirm either way.
That said, I listened to a podcast review of the movie and some of the hosts were actually at the premier with the cast and crew. They were talking about this very subject on the way out, and one of the writers of the movie said the base was supposed to be mobile. But again, what is said outside of the movie and what the movie makes clear are not the same thing.
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
The Galaxy Gun fired hyperspace-capable projectiles that could destroy anything from a small city to a planet anywhere in the galaxy. And, contrary to my previous post, Wookieepedia says that it was equipped with a hyperdrive of its own. Only class 6.0, but still a hyperdrive.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Hehe, comparing chars to the EU is exactly why Disney tossed it. They had two choices, make movies out of books, which probably had licensing issues, or make movies with their own story.
they could have simply come up with completely fresh new characters (which some of them are, such as Finn) to avoid the comparison completely...
This is the part where I challenge you to come up with a definition for "completely fresh" that doesn't preclude them from using concepts like "Han Solo's son", yet still prevents fans from comparing the new character to the guy in the books.
What? You say that's unfair and undoable? Like duh... that's the reason I challenged you to do it. Any character who is the son of Han Solo will be compared to every other character who is the son of Han Solo. For no other reason but "son of Han Solo". Why? Because fans are jerks like that.
So the logical solution, to avoid comparison to a character, it to just use that character... Then there is no comparison of one to the other, just critique or appreciation for how said character is translated from novel to film... T
I enjoy the EU a lot, and this new movie doesn't change that at all. Having said that, if I had to choose between seeing a movie where I already know the story or a movie where I have no idea what is going to happen, I prefer the latter. It's more fun to be surprised, to me. As much as I enjoy the EU, I already know that story.
I totally understand that, but as I said, perhaps that should then involve a totally new character, who cannot be compared to existing ones who were eliminated just so they could come up with new characters (and then not do that)
In my opinion(key word), Kylo/Ben is a new character. Yes, he can be compared to various EU characters, but there are people who are going to compare anything, so that doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, or someone else, that is also fine. We are each entitled to our opinions, and neither is more right or wrong than the other. But no matter how they do it, someone is going to have a complaint or wish they had done it a different way. I actually have a few things I didn't like about the movie, although Kylo being Han's son wasn't one of them.
Yes, new in so much as 'different name', but the comparison to the EU characters is so strong, he is essentially just an amalgam of said characters, so not what I would want to call 'an original character', and if the plan was to jettison the EU so as to do 'something original', IMHO this does not qualify as original... For example, Poe could quite easily have been Han's son... Having a guy trying to track down his lost uncle sounds a reasonable plot... All JJ has done, is inverted the father/son dynamic between Vader and Luke (because apparently his work often features a dysfunctional father/son relationship) and from what I read, re-do A New Hope (which is also totally JJ's MO) And to do that to, not just a franchise, but one where the EU is what has essentially kept said franchise alive, is massively uncool. I think the most original thing I've seen so far about the Force Awakens, is a black storm trooper, and a droid resembling a beach ball (and a stupid lightsaber ) For someone going to rake in millions of dollars for a movie, I would expect much more effort to have been made...
Kylo Ren is obsessed with being as powerful as Darth Vader and from the film is committed to following that path of hate, anger and pain. Jacen Solo was still, ultimately, good. He was obsessed with bringing about peace and protecting his family (like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader). Ren has none of that motivation, and regardless of traits or actions, motivation is what makes a character. If Kirk had joined Starfleet to have a girlfriend on every planet, and not to explore the galaxy, it wouldn't have been Kirk, would it?
Characters certainly have motivations, but I'd disagree that the motivations is what makes the character (ie one over another) The motivations of NuKirk were very different to those of ToSKirk, but they were both still Jim Kirk, rather than one being Jim Kirk, and other being, say, John Kirby. I can't talk too deeply on Kylo Ren's motivations, because i) I haven't seen the film (and don't intend to) and ii) they haven't been fully fleshed out and explored in Ep VII. They may be delved into in Ep VIII, or, they may go unresolved, depending on the writer (who didn't write Ep VII) One thing I'm sure I read in a JJ interview, is that he said that the story 'wasn't finished' (to allow for additional movies) What I can say, is that from what I've read of Ep VII, I can't see any reason why Kyp Durron, or Jacen Solo/Darth Caedus couldn't have been used in favor of Kylo Ren, certainly not when the nature of the characters is so fundamentally similar (ie in the Kirk's example) Even his very name is/can be constructed from the words KYp soLO durRon jacEN...
Firstly, I wasn't comparing NuKirk and OldKirk. While their personalities are different, their motivations appear to be similar. Kylo Ren/Ben Solo and Jacen Solo not only have different motivations, but different personalities and different goals! Comparing the two is like comparing Picard and Shinzon - there are some similarities, but they are completely different people.
Also, you can't compare Kylo Ren fairly if you haven't actually witnessed his character in any way other than the trailers. I can look at the comparison of Kylo and Jacen because I've seen Kylo Ren's character and his actions and I've studied Jacen Solo's character and history in depth. If I didn't know anything about Jacen other than that he was Han and Leia's son and turned to the dark side, it wouldn't be remotely fair of me to compare him to Darth Vader, would it?
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
The Galaxy Gun fired hyperspace-capable projectiles that could destroy anything from a small city to a planet anywhere in the galaxy. And, contrary to my previous post, Wookieepedia says that it was equipped with a hyperdrive of its own. Only class 6.0, but still a hyperdrive.
That's my point. The Galaxy Gun can threaten any target indefinitely, either by moving to another location or by simply pointing itself at another planet.
(In fact, given that most systems in the Star Wars Universe seem to have only one major inhabited planet (other than Corellia, but the multiple planets in that were mentioned in the old EU), I honestly have to question the strategic benefits of destroying an entire system as opposed to a single planet, but that's another argument.)
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
I agree with your logic, but I don't agree that the movie itself truly confirms the base is mobile. Finn does not specifically say that you only get 1 shot from an entire sun, so it is possible that the shot they used to destroy the previous planets was also from charging off that same sun. Again, I agree that the base *not* being mobile would be idiotic, but the movie itself does not really confirm either way.
That said, I listened to a podcast review of the movie and some of the hosts were actually at the premier with the cast and crew. They were talking about this very subject on the way out, and one of the writers of the movie said the base was supposed to be mobile. But again, what is said outside of the movie and what the movie makes clear are not the same thing.
True, but it certainly seemed to be implied when Poe said it would charge from a sun until the sun was depleted and then be ready to fire. I don't remember Finn jumping into the conversation until he pointed to the power regulation system.
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
I agree with your logic, but I don't agree that the movie itself truly confirms the base is mobile. Finn does not specifically say that you only get 1 shot from an entire sun, so it is possible that the shot they used to destroy the previous planets was also from charging off that same sun. Again, I agree that the base *not* being mobile would be idiotic, but the movie itself does not really confirm either way.
That said, I listened to a podcast review of the movie and some of the hosts were actually at the premier with the cast and crew. They were talking about this very subject on the way out, and one of the writers of the movie said the base was supposed to be mobile. But again, what is said outside of the movie and what the movie makes clear are not the same thing.
True, but it certainly seemed to be implied when Poe said it would charge from a sun until the sun was depleted and then be ready to fire. I don't remember Finn jumping into the conversation until he pointed to the power regulation system.
I admit I don't remember every line of dialog. However, here is a valid question: how does Poe know how the base works at all? That't not even where he was held captive, and he went straight from the detention chamber to escaping; he didn't steal any records or even look over anything.
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
I agree with your logic, but I don't agree that the movie itself truly confirms the base is mobile. Finn does not specifically say that you only get 1 shot from an entire sun, so it is possible that the shot they used to destroy the previous planets was also from charging off that same sun. Again, I agree that the base *not* being mobile would be idiotic, but the movie itself does not really confirm either way.
That said, I listened to a podcast review of the movie and some of the hosts were actually at the premier with the cast and crew. They were talking about this very subject on the way out, and one of the writers of the movie said the base was supposed to be mobile. But again, what is said outside of the movie and what the movie makes clear are not the same thing.
True, but it certainly seemed to be implied when Poe said it would charge from a sun until the sun was depleted and then be ready to fire. I don't remember Finn jumping into the conversation until he pointed to the power regulation system.
I admit I don't remember every line of dialog. However, here is a valid question: how does Poe know how the base works at all? That't not even where he was held captive, and he went straight from the detention chamber to escaping; he didn't steal any records or even look over anything.
A good question: maybe he looked over the plans the Resistance apparently had and ascertained from that? It might not even have been Poe, but that Resistance Admiral who was also at the briefing (I don't remember every line of dialog either).
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
The Galaxy Gun fired hyperspace-capable projectiles that could destroy anything from a small city to a planet anywhere in the galaxy. And, contrary to my previous post, Wookieepedia says that it was equipped with a hyperdrive of its own. Only class 6.0, but still a hyperdrive.
That's my point. The Galaxy Gun can threaten any target indefinitely, either by moving to another location or by simply pointing itself at another planet.
(In fact, given that most systems in the Star Wars Universe seem to have only one major inhabited planet (other than Corellia, but the multiple planets in that were mentioned in the old EU), I honestly have to question the strategic benefits of destroying an entire system as opposed to a single planet, but that's another argument.)
Well, a full system is a full power blast. Much like the second Death Star, Starkiller can fire at much less power if the target is smaller. The wiki article actually claims it can be focused precisely enough to only blow up a city.
Also, the wiki mentions that the actual reason the planet it was built into was destroyed was due to containment failure of the material it had drained from the sun being released. It charges by draining from the star, and stores that drained energy/matter inside itself.... I don't think it can store an entire star inside itself....
Also, I kinda think it doesn't really "blow up" solar systems, but when fired at a star can cause a highly destructive nova event that creates a shockwave that devastates the system. Which will demolish ships and stuff and kill a LOT of people.
I grew up in the 80's and 90's, and love the Original Trilogy, I must've watched them hundreds of times in my very early teens.
I was pretty much Star Wars obsessed, and went on to read the first 30 or 40 Expanded Universe novels (Approved by Lucas).
So one could say, I was a super fan. Its a time in my life I'll fondly remember.
Then sometime in 95' (or 96') to my great delight, news came that Prequels were indeed on their way, and set to be released in 99'.
The wait was long, and the hype was huge. I devoured even more EU material.
Finally the day had arrived, I was ready, packed with all the knowledge of the Star Wars Universe, and a great hunger to see the series anew.
What happened next, was one of the most unfortunate occurrences in life, when one of your passions finally comes to an end.
The movie was awful in my mind, and was incongruent with a lot of what I had read in the EU.
Simply put, it did not feel like Star Wars to me.
I was confused and lost, eventually turning away from what I had so loved.
The remaining 2 episodes of the Prequels, did little to rekindle my love of Star Wars.
I went so far as to exclude them from what I called Star Wars. While still loving the Originals, I turned away from the Universe at that point.
Many years have past, and I'm a grown man now.
Seemingly out of the blue, Lucas sells his IP to Disney in a blockbuster deal.
The rumours emerge, and a hype campaign like we've never seen is assaulted on the public.
There will be another Star Wars: The Force Awakens...
Something "awakened" in me at that point. I was ready to forgive.
Shortly after the reboot was announced we also heard that the EU was being relegated to "Legends" status.
So for someone like myself, who'd read many of them, I felt slightly betrayed.
But, I was willing to admit, it might work out for the best. (Even though it annoyed me they would do that to a fan base, by telling them, "No, none of this ever happened" even though the EU was approved by Lucas as Canon - but that's another conversation for another thread).
I was still pretty excited.
It was a New Hope for the franchise, and it was one more chance to recapture some of the old fan base who'd left.
After seeing it tonight, I can say, I genuinely love the new protagonist characters, Finn and Rey.
They will carry the series for the next generation.
There was more then its fair share of fanfare, and nods to the Originals, and even some to the Prequels, which for the most part were done tastefully, if a bit over the top at times.
The atmosphere and scenery really did feel like (Original) Star Wars for the most part.
Though, slightly new, for a new generation.
Abrams even went so far as to add in a Cantina scene that featured plenty of Puppet prop aliens, as seen in the original cantina.
While also mixing in some newer CGI animations.
I think that was a very nice nod to the Original trilogy. And the magic those puppet had on the screen.
While the castings seem to be more millennial oriented (like you would see in the Hunger Games/Twilight), it wasn't as "Twilighty" as it could've been. Thankfully, the younger cast don't go to far down that path.
Though, I would've preferred a darker, less hipster feel to some of the characters.
Excluding Finn and Rey of course, they were truly amazing.
The story itself is fairly predicable, and feels somewhat rushed. There's just so much happening in such a short time, and such large plot holes, that it would be impossible to do it justice in it's fairly short screen time.
With the next 2 films they should be able fill the very large plot gaps and question marks, but they've got a lot of ground to cover yet. So it's quite possible they may not stuff it all in without rushing things along.
The pace of plot is dizzying, and is enough to make a Wookie's head spin. Hopping from planet to ship to planet, in a seemingly non-stop action sequence. Barely taking the time to enjoy itself.
At times it seems as if they are trying to keep the audience from getting bored.
Coming to the conclusion of the film, I was thinking this had been a fairly solid offering.
And then I saw what I didn't ever need to see....The death of Han Solo.
At this very moment, I'm still in shock.
{I'm upset in the way they wrote him out, I'm upset the end for Solo is uninspiring, and flat. I'm upset the scene itself, elicits almost no emotion, other then "Huge Mistake JJ"}
I'm upset that his death was so uninspiring that I felt almost nothing, other then confusion.
In the end, there are 2 sides of the coin to Star Wars The Force Awakens. A light side and a dark side.
There was good and bad. And the end result comes out Grey.
And while much better then the Prequels IMO, I still say long live the originals.
If you're an old Star Wars fan like myself, you might just feel that this series is better left to a new generation.
That's who it's certainly aimed at. The death of Han only cements that, effectively splitting the link to the past, so a new story can continue.
One which I may watch and follow along, but will never appreciate like my first true love, the Originals.
May the Force be with you.
Not really, he went out in compassion. He tried to turn his son back to the Light Side of the Force, although he failed, he felt the good deep within him, he wanted his son back, Ren may have believed he couldn't change, but he'll think twice soon enough. THAT is the inspirational part I think went with the death of Solo.
The funny thing with Han Solo was that he thought his son was completely lost to the Dark Side. It was only after meeting Leia again that he was willing to give it a try. And he did. When he called his son out on the catwalk, Han didn't even have his DL-44 drawn just to be safe. He approached with the intent to bring him back home. Heading out onto a catwalk with no means to escape, facing a son long gone to the Dark Side, who happens to wield the Force and a lightsaber without your own weapon drawn took courage, determination to bring a loved one back. It didn't work, but just as Kylo Ren crossed that line in killing Han, I do agree in thinking Han's attempt will work out in the end.
Starkiller (original concept by Lucas was Anakin Starkiller) Sounds like a rehash of Kyp Durron's Sun Crusher... Whoops, there's another Kyp reference...
The Sun Crusher was mobile. This is more like an upscaled (planet, rather than space station) Galaxy Gun.
I agree with most of the rest, with one caveat:
Lightsabers were always plasma weapons. Plasma contained in a forcefield, but plasma nonetheless. While I have no sources to go from (not checking Wookieepedia right now), it may be that the inferior craftsmanship of Ren's saber necessitated the vents.
Even the Death Star was mobile... I was just meaning in terms of naming of SuperWeapon, it reads as similar...
Sure, the Death Star was mobile. The Galaxy Gun, and Starkiller Base, were not.
Actually, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
I agree with your logic, but I don't agree that the movie itself truly confirms the base is mobile. Finn does not specifically say that you only get 1 shot from an entire sun, so it is possible that the shot they used to destroy the previous planets was also from charging off that same sun. Again, I agree that the base *not* being mobile would be idiotic, but the movie itself does not really confirm either way.
That said, I listened to a podcast review of the movie and some of the hosts were actually at the premier with the cast and crew. They were talking about this very subject on the way out, and one of the writers of the movie said the base was supposed to be mobile. But again, what is said outside of the movie and what the movie makes clear are not the same thing.
True, but it certainly seemed to be implied when Poe said it would charge from a sun until the sun was depleted and then be ready to fire. I don't remember Finn jumping into the conversation until he pointed to the power regulation system.
I admit I don't remember every line of dialog. However, here is a valid question: how does Poe know how the base works at all? That't not even where he was held captive, and he went straight from the detention chamber to escaping; he didn't steal any records or even look over anything.
A good question: maybe he looked over the plans the Resistance apparently had and ascertained from that? It might not even have been Poe, but that Resistance Admiral who was also at the briefing (I don't remember every line of dialog either).
Did you guys catch that line with Adm Ackbar going on again about "shields of that magnitude?"
No, you said: "motivaton is what makes a character". I disagree(d) with that assertion, and used the different interpretations of Kirk as examples of that... Even if a character's motivations are different, they are still the same character.
Comparing the two is like comparing Picard and Shinzon - there are some similarities, but they are completely different people.
A more accurate analogy would be to compare the Picard in Yesterday's Enterprise, with the Picard seen in (almost)every other TNG episode... YE Picard had different motivations and priorities (ie being at war) but he was still Jean-Luc Picard... The Lt.jg Picard seen in Tapestry, again, very different motivations and priorities and a very different station in life, but still Jean-Luc Picard...
The motivations between Jacen/Kyp and Kylo may be different, but it's pretty clear that they are so close as to being the same character, as makes no difference... As above, if they wanted to create a wholly new character so as not to be constrained by said character's EU continuity, they could have done so, but they didn't, they just ripped the concepts and hoped (or likely didn't care) that anyone would notice :-\
While their personalities are different, their motivations appear to be similar.
I disagree... ToS Kirk was motivated by the desire to 'do a good job'. NuKirk was (initially)motivated by nothing more than 'wanting to show them', and to get his own way [for his own aggrandisement]. The differences in motivations are massive, but they are still (in name at least) the same character...
Kylo Ren/Ben Solo and Jacen Solo not only have different motivations, but different personalities and different goals! Comparing the two is like comparing Picard and Shinzon - there are some similarities, but they are completely different people.
and Kyp Durron... Yes, those things may be different (as with the Kirks) but they are still, as I said above, essentially, the same character. (or at least, one based so strongly off the others, it might as well have been...)
Also, you can't compare Kylo Ren fairly if you haven't actually witnessed his character in any way other than the trailers. I can look at the comparison of Kylo and Jacen because I've seen Kylo Ren's character and his actions and I've studied Jacen Solo's character and history in depth.
I would respectfully disagree for the following reason: Trailers exist to create interest in a show/film in the audience. They do so by representing the characters and scenarios within, in such a way as to create interest... What was seen of Kylo Ren in the trailers, gave no clue as to his origins. What has been written about the film, however, makes very clear (to myself, at least) that JJ and Kasdan, intentionally or otherwise, re-finished the characters of Jacen and Kyp into Kylo. The character of Kylo is so close to them that the similarities have to be intentional. I would say that they could be coincidental, but as I suggested upthread, Poe could just have easily been Han's long-lost son looking for his long-lost uncle. That could have worked just as easily. So that Kylo is as he is, is intentional, and I refuse to believe that (if not JJ, at least) Kasdan was unaware of the character of Jacen when writing.
If I didn't know anything about Jacen other than that he was Han and Leia's son and turned to the dark side, it wouldn't be remotely fair of me to compare him to Darth Vader, would it?
Why not? Desire for and acquisition of Force Powers, Skywalker-lineage, going to the Dark Side, written as an antagonist (maybe even a relatable antagonist?) I'd say there's reasonable grounds for comparison... It's a bit of a false-point though, because the comparison is not being drawn between Jacen and Vader, but between Jacen(and Kyp) and Kylo... A different example... The Banshee in the GTA series... Rockstar would never deny that it was heavily based on the Dodge Viper... Or that Sprunk is not based upon Sprite...
Because there are very big differences between them, such as: Jacen was engulfed by a need to protect his lover and bring peace to the Galaxy - Anaki/Vader was engulfed by guilt and manipulated by Sidious. Jacen was still a good person, simply corrupted by the Dark Side. When Anakin fell to the Dark Side, he only came out to save Luke (and even then only because Luke had just managed to get through to him). Of course, I only know this about Jacen because I spent the better part of an afternoon researching him on wookiepedia months ago (I had a lot of free time on my hands).
Similarly, Kylo Ren shares none of those traits with either Jacen or Vader. Ren is obsessed with power, with proving he's as powerful as his grandfather, and with setting himself apart from his family - in other words, Daddy issues. Ren is mentally unstable, while Jacen was morally corrupt, but was still sane*. Ren is a TRIBBLE, Jacen was not. Ren is sadistic, Jacen (for the most part) was not. Ren has embraced the Dark Side, Jacen was merely corrupted by it over time. All of this can only be seen by watching the film or reading the accompanying literature, not by watching the trailers. The comparison between Vader and Jacen is actually fairer because they had similar traits (both were obsessed with their families, both were corrupted by the dark side over time, etc. Jacen was put down before he could fully embrace it). Kylo has nothing in common with Jacen aside from being the son of Han and Leia and being a villain. He's not even claiming to be a Sith like Jacen did! Kylo is part of a different order according to the novelisation and mentions by Snoke in the film (the 'Knights of Ren').
*In that he had the ability to be disappointed without destroying half the ship's electronics supply.
You need at least two of the following between characters for them to be identical: motivation, mental traits, history. In that, Jacen and Kylo have almost nothing in common in all three categories.
Because there are very big differences between them, such as: Jacen was engulfed by a need to protect his lover and bring peace to the Galaxy - Anaki/Vader was engulfed by guilt and manipulated by Sidious.
Anakin/Vader was manipulated by Sidious by a need to protect his wife...
Similarly, Kylo Ren shares none of those traits with either Jacen or Vader. Ren is obsessed with power, with proving he's as powerful as his grandfather, and with setting himself apart from his family - in other words, Daddy issues. Ren is mentally unstable, while Jacen was morally corrupt, but was still sane*. Ren is a TRIBBLE, Jacen was not. Ren is sadistic, Jacen (for the most part) was not. Ren has embraced the Dark Side, Jacen was merely corrupted by it over time. All of this can only be seen by watching the film or reading the accompanying literature, not by watching the trailers. The comparison between Vader and Jacen is actually fairer because they had similar traits (both were obsessed with their families, both were corrupted by the dark side over time, etc. Jacen was put down before he could fully embrace it). Kylo has nothing in common with Jacen aside from being the son of Han and Leia and being a villain. He's not even claiming to be a Sith like Jacen did! Kylo is part of a different order according to the novelisation and mentions by Snoke in the film (the 'Knights of Ren').
*In that he had the ability to be disappointed without destroying half the ship's electronics supply.
Jacen = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Kyp = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Kylo = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Jacen = Han Solo's son
Kylo = Han Solo's son
As observed above KYp soLO durRon jacEN... Only circumstantial, I know, but IMHO too fittingly close to be discounted/ignorable as an impossibility for JJ and/or Kasdan to have considered, and I would argue too fitting to be pure coincidence...
You need at least two of the following between characters for them to be identical: motivation, mental traits, history. In that, Jacen and Kylo have almost nothing in common in all three categories.
I highly doubt Lt.jg Picard was ever assimilated by the Borg (or ever did any of the things which PicardPrime did after getting knifed by the Nausicaan) but he was still Jean-Luc Picard...
Because there are very big differences between them, such as: Jacen was engulfed by a need to protect his lover and bring peace to the Galaxy - Anaki/Vader was engulfed by guilt and manipulated by Sidious.
Anakin/Vader was manipulated by Sidious by a need to protect his wife...
Similarly, Kylo Ren shares none of those traits with either Jacen or Vader. Ren is obsessed with power, with proving he's as powerful as his grandfather, and with setting himself apart from his family - in other words, Daddy issues. Ren is mentally unstable, while Jacen was morally corrupt, but was still sane*. Ren is a TRIBBLE, Jacen was not. Ren is sadistic, Jacen (for the most part) was not. Ren has embraced the Dark Side, Jacen was merely corrupted by it over time. All of this can only be seen by watching the film or reading the accompanying literature, not by watching the trailers. The comparison between Vader and Jacen is actually fairer because they had similar traits (both were obsessed with their families, both were corrupted by the dark side over time, etc. Jacen was put down before he could fully embrace it). Kylo has nothing in common with Jacen aside from being the son of Han and Leia and being a villain. He's not even claiming to be a Sith like Jacen did! Kylo is part of a different order according to the novelisation and mentions by Snoke in the film (the 'Knights of Ren').
*In that he had the ability to be disappointed without destroying half the ship's electronics supply.
Jacen = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Kyp = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Kylo = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Jacen = Han Solo's son
Kylo = Han Solo's son
As observed above KYp soLO durRon jacEN... Only circumstantial, I know, but IMHO too fittingly close to be discounted/ignorable as an impossibility for JJ and/or Kasdan to have considered, and I would argue too fitting to be pure coincidence...
You need at least two of the following between characters for them to be identical: motivation, mental traits, history. In that, Jacen and Kylo have almost nothing in common in all three categories.
I highly doubt Lt.jg Picard was ever assimilated by the Borg (or ever did any of the things which PicardPrime did after getting knifed by the Nausicaan) but he was still Jean-Luc Picard...
1) My point being no one exploited Jacen's affection for his lover - it corrupted him by itself.
2) Was he though? Even Picard himself said that he did not recognise Lt. J. G. Picard. We are shaped very much by our history and motivations. Fictional characters follow the same rule. Having small, basic things in common does not make two people the same person. If, by some random chance, Jacen and Kylo were to meet, Jacen would be severely disturbed by Kylo's mental instability and obsession with Vader, while Kylo would be disgusted by Jacen's affection and good intentions.
Both Kylo Ren and Rey were untrained--and while Ren had the advantage in training (he had more than Rey), he was extremely undisciplined. So, I did not expect great things out of them combat-wise.
For me, the Starkiller scenes really came off differently...I actually found the firing sequence genuinely horrifying in an immediate, visceral way that was never achieved with the destruction of Alderaan.
YES. In retrospect, the Alderaan destruction scene has some emotional dissonance. The emotion it evokes is mainly "poor Leia, she just lost a planet." For me, it doesn't portray the true horror of what just happened; it was merely an act of theatrical, mustache-twirling villainy by a theatrical, mustache-twirling Tarkin. But in TFA, you watch the population's last moments; you see the energy beam looming in the sky, you see the terror in the eyes of the watching people, you hear the hatred in Hux's voice. The emotional impact is far, far stronger.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
2) Was he though? Even Picard himself said that he did not recognise Lt. J. G. Picard. We are shaped very much by our history and motivations. Fictional characters follow the same rule. Having small, basic things in common does not make two people the same person. If, by some random chance, Jacen and Kylo were to meet, Jacen would be severely disturbed by Kylo's mental instability and obsession with Vader, while Kylo would be disgusted by Jacen's affection and good intentions.
He may not have recognised the life that Lt.jg Picard had come to live, but he was still (a version of) Jean-Luc Picard, and addressed by name by several others... I agree absolutely that history and motivation shape us (and characters) but they are not enough to define someone. NuKirk was still Jim Kirk despite all the differences in his life from PrimeKirk. MirrorBashir had not been resequenced or lived anywhere near the same life as PrimeBashir, but he was still Julian Bashir...
Having small, basic things in common does not make two people the same person. If, by some random chance, Jacen and Kylo were to meet, Jacen would be severely disturbed by Kylo's mental instability and obsession with Vader, while Kylo would be disgusted by Jacen's affection and good intentions.
These are not just 'small basic things' though, but essentially character templates which have been transposed and reinterpreted... Just as PrimeKirk was appalled by what he learned of MirrorKirk... Both men were still Jim Kirk... Kylo Ren is, at the very least, an 'interpretive embodiment' of the characters Jacen Solo and Kyp Durron. As mentioned upthread, Deacon Frost was portrayed very differently in the Blade movie, as to how he was portrayed in the comics. Still 'Deacon Frost'...
I wouldn't even care, were it not for the deliberate dumping of the EU prior to the release. If the movie had presented Darth Caedus, or Jacen Solo, it would simply have been a case of "Okay, that's where the movie is going with the character..." But by doing what has been done, it's just a slap in the face to the EU which kept the franchise alive, and the fans who continued to support it between movies...
Even his very name is/can be constructed from the words KYp soLO durRon jacEN...
Ok now you're trying too hard.
Trying? That was not exactly a difficult little word-game, and pretty indisputable... it does spell out, in sequence, 'Kylo Ren', and not even jumbling all the letters and creating something uttely random. It is literally, fragments of the originals being used to create something else... As has been an accusation against TFA in every 'less than positive' review I have read of it, and personified in a scene where Rey is scavenging in a junk-yard... Given the above-noted similarities between the characters, I'd say it is further (albeit circumstantial) evidence of JJ and Kasdan's intent, not 'trying too hard' at all...
I'm really starting to wonder if maybe they'll explore WHAT the Dark Side IS.
Sidious seemed to believe that there is only one Force and that the Jedi simply were only using part of it. He also saw it as an unthinking aspect of nature.
Yoda on the other hand saw it as something distinctly separate and inherently evil.
Which is actually true? Perhaps what Obi-wan said about how things could be true from a certain perspective was true of this?
We know that use of the Light and Dark sides taps into the emotional state of the wielder. Perhaps the separation is in the separation of the mental states of wielders?
Using the Dark Side effectively means dwelling on negative emotions. perhaps it is this mental state that corrupts?
Both Kylo Ren and Rey were untrained--and while Ren had the advantage in training (he had more than Rey), he was extremely undisciplined. So, I did not expect great things out of them combat-wise.
For me, the Starkiller scenes really came off differently...I actually found the firing sequence genuinely horrifying in an immediate, visceral way that was never achieved with the destruction of Alderaan.
YES. In retrospect, the Alderaan destruction scene has some emotional dissonance. The emotion it evokes is mainly "poor Leia, she just lost a planet." For me, it doesn't portray the true horror of what just happened; it was merely an act of theatrical, mustache-twirling villainy by a theatrical, mustache-twirling Tarkin. But in TFA, you watch the population's last moments; you see the energy beam looming in the sky, you see the terror in the eyes of the watching people, you hear the hatred in Hux's voice. The emotional impact is far, far stronger.
In a weird way, the POV you get with Alderaan is the Empire's POV: several billion is a statistic. We do see how it hurts Obi-Wan, but it still seems like a statistic. With TFA...it's all too easy to picture the impossible happening to oneself.
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.
I'm really starting to wonder if maybe they'll explore WHAT the Dark Side IS.
Sidious seemed to believe that there is only one Force and that the Jedi simply were only using part of it. He also saw it as an unthinking aspect of nature.
Yoda on the other hand saw it as something distinctly separate and inherently evil.
Which is actually true? Perhaps what Obi-wan said about how things could be true from a certain perspective was true of this?
We know that use of the Light and Dark sides taps into the emotional state of the wielder. Perhaps the separation is in the separation of the mental states of wielders?
Using the Dark Side effectively means dwelling on negative emotions. perhaps it is this mental state that corrupts?
Probably not in the movies, I think they need to keep those as binary and unambiguous as possible to maintain the tone of the saga, but in other series, such as Clone Wars (and I'm sure I've heard rumous about spin off series') they have shown characters such as Asajj Ventress and Quinlan Vos, who are more multi-faceted and who can't be quickly labeled as merely 'good' and 'evil'...
I think the intent of the Force-user is part of it as well. Obi-Wan was undoubtably 'angry' with Darth Maul after he stuck Qui-Gon, but he chanelled it into vanquishing a dangerous foe, rather than say, Vader's sadism in Force-choking Imperials (making them see what it's like to not be able to breathe...) for the lulz...
I'm really starting to wonder if maybe they'll explore WHAT the Dark Side IS.
Sidious seemed to believe that there is only one Force and that the Jedi simply were only using part of it. He also saw it as an unthinking aspect of nature.
Yoda on the other hand saw it as something distinctly separate and inherently evil.
Which is actually true? Perhaps what Obi-wan said about how things could be true from a certain perspective was true of this?
We know that use of the Light and Dark sides taps into the emotional state of the wielder. Perhaps the separation is in the separation of the mental states of wielders?
Using the Dark Side effectively means dwelling on negative emotions. perhaps it is this mental state that corrupts?
Probably not in the movies, I think they need to keep those as binary and unambiguous as possible to maintain the tone of the saga, but in other series, such as Clone Wars (and I'm sure I've heard rumous about spin off series') they have shown characters such as Asajj Ventress and Quinlan Vos, who are more multi-faceted and who can't be quickly labeled as merely 'good' and 'evil'...
I think the intent of the Force-user is part of it as well. Obi-Wan was undoubtably 'angry' with Darth Maul after he stuck Qui-Gon, but he chanelled it into vanquishing a dangerous foe, rather than say, Vader's sadism in Force-choking Imperials (making them see what it's like to not be able to breathe...) for the lulz...
Quite true, and that was a core aspect of the order that Ventress was part of. They channeled their rage in constructive directions. It required considerable mental focus, but not in the same manner as which Yoda could sense ships in orbit. But Ventress wasn't really "good", she helped the Jedi because the Sith were trying to eradicate her order.... it turns out Darth Maul was the son of a member of her order.
I'm really starting to wonder if maybe they'll explore WHAT the Dark Side IS.
Sidious seemed to believe that there is only one Force and that the Jedi simply were only using part of it. He also saw it as an unthinking aspect of nature.
Yoda on the other hand saw it as something distinctly separate and inherently evil.
Which is actually true? Perhaps what Obi-wan said about how things could be true from a certain perspective was true of this?
We know that use of the Light and Dark sides taps into the emotional state of the wielder. Perhaps the separation is in the separation of the mental states of wielders?
Using the Dark Side effectively means dwelling on negative emotions. perhaps it is this mental state that corrupts?
Probably not in the movies, I think they need to keep those as binary and unambiguous as possible to maintain the tone of the saga, but in other series, such as Clone Wars (and I'm sure I've heard rumous about spin off series') they have shown characters such as Asajj Ventress and Quinlan Vos, who are more multi-faceted and who can't be quickly labeled as merely 'good' and 'evil'...
I think the intent of the Force-user is part of it as well. Obi-Wan was undoubtably 'angry' with Darth Maul after he stuck Qui-Gon, but he chanelled it into vanquishing a dangerous foe, rather than say, Vader's sadism in Force-choking Imperials (making them see what it's like to not be able to breathe...) for the lulz...
Quite true, and that was a core aspect of the order that Ventress was part of. They channeled their rage in constructive directions. It required considerable mental focus, but not in the same manner as which Yoda could sense ships in orbit. But Ventress wasn't really "good", she helped the Jedi because the Sith were trying to eradicate her order.... it turns out Darth Maul was the son of a member of her order.
Oh for sure, she was certainly more dark than not, but she wasn't the same kind of Pure Evil as Palpatine, and her past makes her path understandable and somewhat sympathetic. A Star Wars movie, sadly, doesn't have the scope (or the target audience) to explore that kind of complexity in a character...
One thing that is particularly interesting is that the Dark Side can be used to heal people. It's how Maul and Anakin survived what would have been mortal injuries to most people.
One thing that is particularly interesting is that the Dark Side can be used to heal people. It's how Maul and Anakin survived what would have been mortal injuries to most people.
Absolutely so. I'm reminded of the Nicholas Linnear series of novels by Eric Lustbader, which eventually wound up (devolved, to tell the truth, although I do enjoy them) with Nicholas having somewhat Jedi-like powers such as able to manipulate the incoming energy of an explosion around himself and his friend so they wouldn't be blown up, or manipulating the biochemistry in others and himself to counteract poisons etc. These powers were derived from a similarly 'split art'. His initial training in the light side, had been 'spiked' with elements of the dark side by his mentor, in the hopes that they would overwhelm his subconscious and drive him mad. Eventually, it was revealed that the art was 'in balance' within him, and he was able to call on those 'dark side' powers when necessary, in situations as you illustrated, where light side abilities wouldn't've been sufficient. I would say that the Force is very much like that, and it is the emotional weaknesses of the Dark Side adepts, which overcome them, rather than the Dark Side of the Force itself, and it is then plot, which makes the Dark Side seem responsible, or 'unquestionably evil'...
Comments
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, the film tells us that it must have been. Remember, by the climax of the film, it has already fired once (at the Republic Capital). During the planning for the attack on Starkiller Base, Poe mentions that it charges by drawing all the energy from a star (all of it). Since it already fired once, it must have already engulfed one star. Now, granted, it could have been built in binary star system (supported by the fact the base was light the first time it fired), but that then leaves the problem that it can only fire at two targets! The Death Star was an actual threat because it could position itself to threaten any target - ditto the Galaxy Gun. If you can only fire it twice, and do so, your weapon is no longer a threat and no one has a reason to fear you. Thus, it has to move (even if very slowly).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Kylo Ren is obsessed with being as powerful as Darth Vader and from the film is committed to following that path of hate, anger and pain. Jacen Solo was still, ultimately, good. He was obsessed with bringing about peace and protecting his family (like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader). Ren has none of that motivation, and regardless of traits or actions, motivation is what makes a character. If Kirk had joined Starfleet to have a girlfriend on every planet, and not to explore the galaxy, it wouldn't have been Kirk, would it?
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I agree with your logic, but I don't agree that the movie itself truly confirms the base is mobile. Finn does not specifically say that you only get 1 shot from an entire sun, so it is possible that the shot they used to destroy the previous planets was also from charging off that same sun. Again, I agree that the base *not* being mobile would be idiotic, but the movie itself does not really confirm either way.
That said, I listened to a podcast review of the movie and some of the hosts were actually at the premier with the cast and crew. They were talking about this very subject on the way out, and one of the writers of the movie said the base was supposed to be mobile. But again, what is said outside of the movie and what the movie makes clear are not the same thing.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The Galaxy Gun fired hyperspace-capable projectiles that could destroy anything from a small city to a planet anywhere in the galaxy. And, contrary to my previous post, Wookieepedia says that it was equipped with a hyperdrive of its own. Only class 6.0, but still a hyperdrive.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Firstly, I wasn't comparing NuKirk and OldKirk. While their personalities are different, their motivations appear to be similar. Kylo Ren/Ben Solo and Jacen Solo not only have different motivations, but different personalities and different goals! Comparing the two is like comparing Picard and Shinzon - there are some similarities, but they are completely different people.
Also, you can't compare Kylo Ren fairly if you haven't actually witnessed his character in any way other than the trailers. I can look at the comparison of Kylo and Jacen because I've seen Kylo Ren's character and his actions and I've studied Jacen Solo's character and history in depth. If I didn't know anything about Jacen other than that he was Han and Leia's son and turned to the dark side, it wouldn't be remotely fair of me to compare him to Darth Vader, would it?
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
That's my point. The Galaxy Gun can threaten any target indefinitely, either by moving to another location or by simply pointing itself at another planet.
(In fact, given that most systems in the Star Wars Universe seem to have only one major inhabited planet (other than Corellia, but the multiple planets in that were mentioned in the old EU), I honestly have to question the strategic benefits of destroying an entire system as opposed to a single planet, but that's another argument.)
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
True, but it certainly seemed to be implied when Poe said it would charge from a sun until the sun was depleted and then be ready to fire. I don't remember Finn jumping into the conversation until he pointed to the power regulation system.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I admit I don't remember every line of dialog. However, here is a valid question: how does Poe know how the base works at all? That't not even where he was held captive, and he went straight from the detention chamber to escaping; he didn't steal any records or even look over anything.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
A good question: maybe he looked over the plans the Resistance apparently had and ascertained from that? It might not even have been Poe, but that Resistance Admiral who was also at the briefing (I don't remember every line of dialog either).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Also, the wiki mentions that the actual reason the planet it was built into was destroyed was due to containment failure of the material it had drained from the sun being released. It charges by draining from the star, and stores that drained energy/matter inside itself.... I don't think it can store an entire star inside itself....
Also, I kinda think it doesn't really "blow up" solar systems, but when fired at a star can cause a highly destructive nova event that creates a shockwave that devastates the system. Which will demolish ships and stuff and kill a LOT of people.
My character Tsin'xing
The funny thing with Han Solo was that he thought his son was completely lost to the Dark Side. It was only after meeting Leia again that he was willing to give it a try. And he did. When he called his son out on the catwalk, Han didn't even have his DL-44 drawn just to be safe. He approached with the intent to bring him back home. Heading out onto a catwalk with no means to escape, facing a son long gone to the Dark Side, who happens to wield the Force and a lightsaber without your own weapon drawn took courage, determination to bring a loved one back. It didn't work, but just as Kylo Ren crossed that line in killing Han, I do agree in thinking Han's attempt will work out in the end.
Did you guys catch that line with Adm Ackbar going on again about "shields of that magnitude?"
A more accurate analogy would be to compare the Picard in Yesterday's Enterprise, with the Picard seen in (almost)every other TNG episode... YE Picard had different motivations and priorities (ie being at war) but he was still Jean-Luc Picard... The Lt.jg Picard seen in Tapestry, again, very different motivations and priorities and a very different station in life, but still Jean-Luc Picard...
The motivations between Jacen/Kyp and Kylo may be different, but it's pretty clear that they are so close as to being the same character, as makes no difference... As above, if they wanted to create a wholly new character so as not to be constrained by said character's EU continuity, they could have done so, but they didn't, they just ripped the concepts and hoped (or likely didn't care) that anyone would notice :-\
I disagree... ToS Kirk was motivated by the desire to 'do a good job'. NuKirk was (initially)motivated by nothing more than 'wanting to show them', and to get his own way [for his own aggrandisement]. The differences in motivations are massive, but they are still (in name at least) the same character...
and Kyp Durron... Yes, those things may be different (as with the Kirks) but they are still, as I said above, essentially, the same character. (or at least, one based so strongly off the others, it might as well have been...)
I would respectfully disagree for the following reason: Trailers exist to create interest in a show/film in the audience. They do so by representing the characters and scenarios within, in such a way as to create interest... What was seen of Kylo Ren in the trailers, gave no clue as to his origins. What has been written about the film, however, makes very clear (to myself, at least) that JJ and Kasdan, intentionally or otherwise, re-finished the characters of Jacen and Kyp into Kylo. The character of Kylo is so close to them that the similarities have to be intentional. I would say that they could be coincidental, but as I suggested upthread, Poe could just have easily been Han's long-lost son looking for his long-lost uncle. That could have worked just as easily. So that Kylo is as he is, is intentional, and I refuse to believe that (if not JJ, at least) Kasdan was unaware of the character of Jacen when writing.
Why not? Desire for and acquisition of Force Powers, Skywalker-lineage, going to the Dark Side, written as an antagonist (maybe even a relatable antagonist?) I'd say there's reasonable grounds for comparison... It's a bit of a false-point though, because the comparison is not being drawn between Jacen and Vader, but between Jacen(and Kyp) and Kylo... A different example... The Banshee in the GTA series... Rockstar would never deny that it was heavily based on the Dodge Viper... Or that Sprunk is not based upon Sprite...
Because there are very big differences between them, such as: Jacen was engulfed by a need to protect his lover and bring peace to the Galaxy - Anaki/Vader was engulfed by guilt and manipulated by Sidious. Jacen was still a good person, simply corrupted by the Dark Side. When Anakin fell to the Dark Side, he only came out to save Luke (and even then only because Luke had just managed to get through to him). Of course, I only know this about Jacen because I spent the better part of an afternoon researching him on wookiepedia months ago (I had a lot of free time on my hands).
Similarly, Kylo Ren shares none of those traits with either Jacen or Vader. Ren is obsessed with power, with proving he's as powerful as his grandfather, and with setting himself apart from his family - in other words, Daddy issues. Ren is mentally unstable, while Jacen was morally corrupt, but was still sane*. Ren is a TRIBBLE, Jacen was not. Ren is sadistic, Jacen (for the most part) was not. Ren has embraced the Dark Side, Jacen was merely corrupted by it over time. All of this can only be seen by watching the film or reading the accompanying literature, not by watching the trailers. The comparison between Vader and Jacen is actually fairer because they had similar traits (both were obsessed with their families, both were corrupted by the dark side over time, etc. Jacen was put down before he could fully embrace it). Kylo has nothing in common with Jacen aside from being the son of Han and Leia and being a villain. He's not even claiming to be a Sith like Jacen did! Kylo is part of a different order according to the novelisation and mentions by Snoke in the film (the 'Knights of Ren').
*In that he had the ability to be disappointed without destroying half the ship's electronics supply.
You need at least two of the following between characters for them to be identical: motivation, mental traits, history. In that, Jacen and Kylo have almost nothing in common in all three categories.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Jacen = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Kyp = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Kylo = One of Luke's students who goes to the Dark Side
Jacen = Han Solo's son
Kylo = Han Solo's son
As observed above KYp soLO durRon jacEN... Only circumstantial, I know, but IMHO too fittingly close to be discounted/ignorable as an impossibility for JJ and/or Kasdan to have considered, and I would argue too fitting to be pure coincidence...
I highly doubt Lt.jg Picard was ever assimilated by the Borg (or ever did any of the things which PicardPrime did after getting knifed by the Nausicaan) but he was still Jean-Luc Picard...
1) My point being no one exploited Jacen's affection for his lover - it corrupted him by itself.
2) Was he though? Even Picard himself said that he did not recognise Lt. J. G. Picard. We are shaped very much by our history and motivations. Fictional characters follow the same rule. Having small, basic things in common does not make two people the same person. If, by some random chance, Jacen and Kylo were to meet, Jacen would be severely disturbed by Kylo's mental instability and obsession with Vader, while Kylo would be disgusted by Jacen's affection and good intentions.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
YES. In retrospect, the Alderaan destruction scene has some emotional dissonance. The emotion it evokes is mainly "poor Leia, she just lost a planet." For me, it doesn't portray the true horror of what just happened; it was merely an act of theatrical, mustache-twirling villainy by a theatrical, mustache-twirling Tarkin. But in TFA, you watch the population's last moments; you see the energy beam looming in the sky, you see the terror in the eyes of the watching people, you hear the hatred in Hux's voice. The emotional impact is far, far stronger.
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.
Ok now you're trying too hard.
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.
He may not have recognised the life that Lt.jg Picard had come to live, but he was still (a version of) Jean-Luc Picard, and addressed by name by several others... I agree absolutely that history and motivation shape us (and characters) but they are not enough to define someone. NuKirk was still Jim Kirk despite all the differences in his life from PrimeKirk. MirrorBashir had not been resequenced or lived anywhere near the same life as PrimeBashir, but he was still Julian Bashir...
These are not just 'small basic things' though, but essentially character templates which have been transposed and reinterpreted... Just as PrimeKirk was appalled by what he learned of MirrorKirk... Both men were still Jim Kirk... Kylo Ren is, at the very least, an 'interpretive embodiment' of the characters Jacen Solo and Kyp Durron. As mentioned upthread, Deacon Frost was portrayed very differently in the Blade movie, as to how he was portrayed in the comics. Still 'Deacon Frost'...
I wouldn't even care, were it not for the deliberate dumping of the EU prior to the release. If the movie had presented Darth Caedus, or Jacen Solo, it would simply have been a case of "Okay, that's where the movie is going with the character..." But by doing what has been done, it's just a slap in the face to the EU which kept the franchise alive, and the fans who continued to support it between movies...
Sidious seemed to believe that there is only one Force and that the Jedi simply were only using part of it. He also saw it as an unthinking aspect of nature.
Yoda on the other hand saw it as something distinctly separate and inherently evil.
Which is actually true? Perhaps what Obi-wan said about how things could be true from a certain perspective was true of this?
We know that use of the Light and Dark sides taps into the emotional state of the wielder. Perhaps the separation is in the separation of the mental states of wielders?
Using the Dark Side effectively means dwelling on negative emotions. perhaps it is this mental state that corrupts?
My character Tsin'xing
In a weird way, the POV you get with Alderaan is the Empire's POV: several billion is a statistic. We do see how it hurts Obi-Wan, but it still seems like a statistic. With TFA...it's all too easy to picture the impossible happening to oneself.
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.
I think the intent of the Force-user is part of it as well. Obi-Wan was undoubtably 'angry' with Darth Maul after he stuck Qui-Gon, but he chanelled it into vanquishing a dangerous foe, rather than say, Vader's sadism in Force-choking Imperials (making them see what it's like to not be able to breathe...) for the lulz...
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing