A question about Solo

[Hawki]

Shields don't stop missiles but do stop plasma blasts that arc parabolicly through space.

You mean missiles that are fired from inside the ship's shield?

But the plasma shouldn't arc, that's true.

Ships can continuously acclerate through space at such a rate that they can't catch each other, but other smaller ships can out accelerate them

Which has been true pretty much since forever in the series.

and then fly through those shields or hit through those shields with missiles or blaster rounds.

And? Ships fly through shields at least twice in the PT.

Ships just randomly line up behind each other in whatever formation they feel works without a single thought to fire-arcs, overlapping shields, or fields of fire while giving chase.

I'l take your word for it, but if we're picking apart tactics in a fictional setting with fictional technology, then we're kind of entering nitpicking territory here.

Autopilot doesn't exist and can't pilot a ship in a straight line so that people can evacuate it without cluing in the First Order that a ship is empty.

Um...sure?

X-Wings can fly between turbolaser turrets but TIE fighters can't, despite the fact that TIEs are traditionally more maneuverable due to a lack of shields.

Where's it stated about the shields?

Also, you referring to the dreadnought vs. the Raddus? Those are different ship classes with different layers of fire, coupled with the fact that Poe is an ace pilot.

Missile turrets are no longer a thing that can target X-Wings, despite the fact that one targeted a TIE fighter in TFA.

Don't remember any of that, so, sure.

Shields in the Sequel Trilogy no longer work in the same way they did in the Original Trilogy or Prequel Trilogy, and are actually less effective than either.

Where were the details of shields explained in any of the films beyond 'these things protect us from lasers.'?

The nostalgia: The action, the factions, the struggle, the way things feel familiar

Apart from the "action" (and only in the third act), all of those are more turn-offs to me.

Granted, but that is really no worse than the Clone Troopers in the terms of slavery, and we are meant to root for the Republic.

Difference being clones are created for a set purpose, children like Finn aren't. Also, the Republic wasn't the aggressor in the Clone Wars, while the First Order most certainly is.

And that is your prerogative, but the Canto Bight scene is completely unnecessary,

Disagree.

overly drawn out,

Agree.

and does nothing to further the story except give Rose a chance to speak out about how evil rich people are destroying the galaxy simply by making lots of money and spending it how they want

Disagree. Canto Bight's purpose is more to serve Finn's character development, or at the most, highlight how people can thrive in a setting that's dominated by war by playing both sides. It doesn't say anything about rich people being bad in of themselves.

My favorite nickname for her, but more based on the fact that she is obviously a political appointee with all the right connections

Where is that stated?

I checked Wookiepedia, couldn't find any mention of any political connection. And the movie doesn't imply any of that.

of how there is literally only one way to become rich in the entire fucking universe,

Doubt she says "fucking," but even that aside, that says more about the state the setting is in rather than any solid real-world analogy. Also, I'm pretty sure Rose also says "I grew up in places like this." So Rose is coming from a place of emotional baggage in seeing Canto Bight.

Also, again (this is a truncated version of what I originally wrote), I have to point out that Star Wars has dealt with political alagory before, most notably in RotS. So even if one argues that works of fiction should be devoid of any thematic depth and/or allagory to real-world issues/history (I don't agree with this at all, but the how's and why's are a potential thread in of themselves Star Wars did that long before TLJ supposedly did. And I say "supposedly," because Canto Bight serves far more as a catalyst for character development for Finn, and highlighting the moral grey areas of the setting. Any anti-capitalist/anti-arms trading messages are stuff you'd needed to squint to see, whereas in RoTS, its allagory/politics are interwoven into the overall plot structure. If Star Wars fans don't like any of what I just mentioned, they're kind of late to the party.

Yes, but in Holdo's original plan she was intending to jump the ship one final time to some undisclosed location, run out of fuel, and die valiantly while the First Order tore her ship apart, unless they were smart enough to go "Hey, why did they just jump to hyperspace after driving right past this planet, I bet that someone went down there and is hiding out to either send a message or even escape in the ensuing chaos..." Her plan was half-assed at best, and the fact that DJ betrayed them probably had no bearing on why Holdo's plan failed at all, when viewed from the lens of "What would any reasonable human think happened if they were lead on a chase for dozens of hours to a point just past a planet, where suddenly the enemy flagship jumped to hyperspace?" And it wasn't like the First Order didn't have enough ships to leave some behind to investigate the planet at the same time the flagship followed her and commenced a boarding operation at the flagship's final destination.

Maybe, but I wouldn't find it hard to imagine the First Order falling for it. Even after all that, they'd eliminated every capital ship of the Resistance.

As for the theme of failure, the women are shown to be strong, clear headed, and thoughtful,

Except for Rey, Phasma, Rose, and Holdo.

while the men are brash, impulsive, and ruin everything for everyone else.

Except for Luke.

Holdo's plan was basically a success because the resistance still made good their escape, despite the glaring and terrible flaws in her stupid plan,

Holdo's failure is in lack of communication to those under her.

Leia and Holdo's plans came off without a hitch, despite the fact that they were obviously flawed as hell, except where the men screwed them over.

See above.

I don't disagree that the story pacing is slower in Rogue One, but the writing is still more character oriented than TFA and TLJ,

Rogue One is easily the least character-orientated of the Disney films. That I could barely tell you any of the characters' names, none of them undergo any kind of growth (or in the case of Jyn and Cassian, half-hearted, feeble growth), and it's focused far more on the group than the individual.

which take the established characters and dismiss literally all growth over the course of the original trilogy,

Disagree.

while the only two original characters who have any development at all are Hux (who got shit on during TLJ) and Kylo Ren, who obviously is the protagonist of the new trilogy because he is the only one with any back story.

Disagree. If we're looking at character growth both between and in the films, we can have:

*Han
*Luke
*Rey
*Finn
*Kylo Ren
*Hux (maybe)

We know all of these characters' backstories, and they all develop within the films, or in the case of Luke and Han, between films.

There is no explanation how the First Order has basically unlimited resources, with the ability to kidnap children and brainwash them,

Is this really a plot point? No-one questioned how the Rebellion got its funding in the OT.

But even that aside, we know the First Order operates in the fringes of the galaxy, and even casting aside the EU, we can tell they've been doing their thing for quite awhile, while the galaxy doesn't (or won't) acknowledge the threat they pose. That's enough time to build up forces and whatnot.

where the Knights of Ren came from or went,

The Knights of Ren? You mean that group that's mentioned once in TFA, and seen for only a few seconds on the screen?

While my personal guess is that they're former students of Luke, I'd never list the Knights as something that needs addressing. They're the equivalent of the Imperial Senate in A New Hope - something that's mentioned, but not dwelt on.

But even then, again, there's still one film left to feature them.

Where the First Order came from,

Even casting aside the EU, it's pretty obvious (if not outright stated) that the First Order are Empire remnants, or at least, people who follow the ideals of the Empire.

where they get their resources, how they could afford to build Starkiller base and their Star Destroyers, what happened to the Knights of Ren,

See earlier responses.

What happened to the Republic heroes and military,

all the Jedi stuff...[/quote]

Republic heroes? Did I miss something?

As for the Republic military, we can infer that a lot of it was stationed in the Hosnian system, and the Republic was already in the process of disarming (don't think this is stated in the film, mind you). We can also infer that there's still remnants, but can't/won't oppose the First Order. Now, I think it's quite conspicuous that the First Order can apparently immediately bounce back after the destruction of Starkiller Base, while the Republic is completely absent from TLJ, but given that the film leaves us with the notion that Luke's sacrifice will inspire people to fight against the First Order, I can guess the Republic remnants will be present in some form in Episode IX.

As for "Jedi stuff," what's missing? Luke established an academy, Kylo Ren destroys the temple, killing the students and taking a few with him. Afterwards, Luke goes into seclusion. There's no real gap here.

 

[Saelune]

Here is a video that summarizes many of my issues with the new Star Wars films without devolving into a sexist tirade of BS.




Yes, for those aware of the channel, often his videos are more for humor sake, but this was a lot more legit criticism than just jokes.


Look, I actually think the new Star Wars are pretty terrible, but the diversity is actually the one good thing about them. Unfortunately, the sexists and racists are making it harder for real criticism to apply. I blame no one but the bigots here...and J.J. Abrams.

Yes, I saw that. It's a good video.

Thing is? It makes pretty much the exact same points as most of these supposed "sexists and racists", including those I've linked to in this very thread.

Really, if anyone can rise up to Becker's challenge and find him a video with wide support saying, to put it in Pablo "Brand Communications Manager" Hidalgo's so very artful words, that "Our continued and debilitating obsession with our childhood passions was caveman masculine until the dames ruined it"... I would very much like to watch him eat that picture on live stream.

See the thing is, the sexists blame the diversity. They blame women and black people being prominent as the cause.


Bigots can correctly point out that say, the economy is bad, but once they start blaming blacks and Jews, it does not validate them.

A bunch of people made a cut of one of the films without ANY female characters in it. Those people are sexist, no question.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Oh good lord, it's one of those threads already.

Anyway, on "Boycotts": if you aren't interested in seeing Solo because the movie doesn't look good for whatever reason, you aren't boycotting.

If you aren't going to see Solo because you want to punish somebody or something, you're boycotting.

If you want to punish somebody Disney affiliated, but weren't going to see Solo anyway, you aren't boycotting.

Like, I cannot boycott Chik-Fil-A. The closest one is 150 miles away and I'm not driving two-and-a-half hours for fast food of any kind.

 

[Tanis]

I liked The Last Jedi. I liked Rouge One. I liked The Force Awakens.

Boycotting Solo because 'OMG LIBERALS N' WOMAN' is really fucking stupid.

But, what else is an INCEL going to do?

 

[Trunkage]

F

EDIT: Because I just stumbled upon this... have a video. It does a pretty good job of explaining what has been going on with Star Wars and disgruntled fans, I thought.

Got around to watching this. My first comment is: his argument doesn't make sense in this context. A lot of people liked TLJ. So its impossible that, in this analogy, a restaurant could end up this bad. It would have been better if he was comparing dishes. Or they went vegetarian. He automatically assume TLJ is terrible for everyone and complains when "no one" else can see it. No one else cant see it because they do see it as good (or at least adequate.)

I've seen this guy before. I watched his Solo boycott episode. He, amongst a few others, is the reason I wrote this topic. If I remember correctly, he was complaining how Keanelly was putting too much SJW into Star Wars (paraphrasing obviously). Now, if you want to boycott - awesome. I didn't watch Hacksaw Ridge because I think Gibson is a twat. So I understand. But his goal is to send a message to Disney to change and I don't think there are enough people of his mindset to change the situation.

 

[Kyrian007]

Oh good lord, it's one of those threads already.

Anyway, on "Boycotts": if you aren't interested in seeing Solo because the movie doesn't look good for whatever reason, you aren't boycotting.

If you aren't going to see Solo because you want to punish somebody or something, you're boycotting.

If you want to punish somebody Disney affiliated, but weren't going to see Solo anyway, you aren't boycotting.

Like, I cannot boycott Chik-Fil-A. The closest one is 150 miles away and I'm not driving two-and-a-half hours for fast food of any kind.

So I'm not boycotting Chik-Fil-A? See I thought I was and just was just enjoying the side benefit of not having to eat disgustingly awful chicken.

 

[Hawki]

I didn't watch Hacksaw Ridge because I think Gibson is a twat.

Speaking completely honestly, I think Hacksaw Ridge is an excellent movie.

Just FYI and all that.

 

[Ogoid]

See the thing is, the sexists blame the diversity. They blame women and black people being prominent as the cause.


Bigots can correctly point out that say, the economy is bad, but once they start blaming blacks and Jews, it does not validate them.

A bunch of people made a cut of one of the films without ANY female characters in it. Those people are sexist, no question.

In fairness, I recall reading that that fan cut did include female characters, only not the ones the person (really, no reason to assume there was more than one) who made it disliked... which is not to defend it or say it was anything but a monumentally stupid thing to waste one's time on, mind you.

But I think the real question about it should rather be, why did we even hear about it in the first place?

I mean, think about it. Exactly what's supposed to be so actually newsworthy about a crappy fan edit of a film by some random internet crank, that several professional media outlets would give it the time of day?

 

[Natemans]

I'm hearing bits and pieces trickle in about Solo. An acquaintance has seen it, says it's not too bad. Only one of the Youtube people I follow has a review up, and his opinion was 'eh, it's alright'. Sounds like Danny Glover kills it as Lando.

That's probably the best seal of approval for me lol

 

[Ogoid]

For the same reason gamergate was paid attention to

Angry entitled fanboys make us all feel better about our lives because we aren't them

...But that toxicity, though, amirite?

 

[Saelune]

See the thing is, the sexists blame the diversity. They blame women and black people being prominent as the cause.


Bigots can correctly point out that say, the economy is bad, but once they start blaming blacks and Jews, it does not validate them.

A bunch of people made a cut of one of the films without ANY female characters in it. Those people are sexist, no question.

In fairness, I recall reading that that fan cut did include female characters, only not the ones the person (really, no reason to assume there was more than one) who made it disliked... which is not to defend it or say it was anything but a monumentally stupid thing to waste one's time on, mind you.

But I think the real question about it should rather be, why did we even hear about it in the first place?

I mean, think about it. Exactly what's supposed to be so actually newsworthy about a crappy fan edit of a film by some random internet crank, that several professional media outlets would give it the time of day?

In fairness of what? There is no in fairness here. The people who made that are sexist pieces of shit...in fairness.


In fairness why do we need to defend the sexists who are unjustified in their sexism?

 

[Ogoid]

Intolerance paradox.

In order to create a tolerant world, people must be intolerant to intolerance

Yes, it's done wonders for conversations on gaming and pop culture in general for the last couple of years, hasn't it?

In fairness of what?

Of the actual facts of the matter at hand; I'm sure we can agree that being as objective as possible about them is a good thing.

Otherwise, I don't believe I have "defended" anyone.

 

[Trunkage]

I didn't watch Hacksaw Ridge because I think Gibson is a twat.

Speaking completely honestly, I think Hacksaw Ridge is an excellent movie.

Just FYI and all that.

I heard. I'd probably watch it on Netflix if it came there, as I dont see myself paying for it specifically on that platform. I mean, I can't not pay for the shows and movies that I don't like on Netlifx

 

[Saelune]

Intolerance paradox.

In order to create a tolerant world, people must be intolerant to intolerance

Yes, it's done wonders for conversations on gaming and pop culture in general for the last couple of years, hasn't it?

In fairness of what?

Of the actual facts of the matter at hand; I'm sure we can agree that being as objective as possible about them is a good thing.

Otherwise, I don't believe I have "defended" anyone.

Why? They are objectively sexist.

 

[RobertEHouse]

So, some of you might be aware of the planned boycott of Solo. Some people are really unhappy with Keneally after Last Jedi. They dislike where Star Wars is going. Some dislike how women are put front and centre on the billboard. Etc.

My question is - why boycott Solo? It has male leads, supporting cast and villain. There's hardly a women in sight. Aren't they just going to punish a male lead, thus the feedback to Keneally would be "put more female leads in."

Boycotting does not work when a film is released international.

China is the biggest box office then India when released, so don't think Disney really cares who boycotts it in EU or US. So the film should be very solid release , even with the Chinese edit to remove any mention to Solo's personal sexual preference.

Why people want to boycott?

It could be the horrible way Disney likes to release gimmicks to get more people in seats over story. (first character to be this or that). It could also be the reason that Disney is releasing these films almost on a monthly basis and people do grow tired of franchise in general. Plus the cost of movie tickets have gone up in some places, so people find it cheaper to stream more.


Would this lead to more female leads?

Well , when they write films they are usually months if not years in advanced. So Solo might have been to pen before Last Jedi or even further than that.(misdirection is common) Solo might not directly lead to more females leads to pop up when its boycotted.That might be already been decided long prior to the release of this film.

Am i going to see this film?

To be honest, i might stream it as i am starting to get burnt out with Star Wars.That is saying a lot as i am a huge fan, collecting original posters and film props.Quick release after release,as well as future T.V shows is just making it less appealing.It is losing that magic that kept me interested.

 

[Spade Lead]

Hearing some more about Solo...another reviewer liked it, said it hit all the right notes. I think that, at worst, Solo is going to be an adequate movie. Think I'll go see it.

You definitely should, it is a good movie with an interesting story and varies enough from the EU that it is predictable, but in fun ways, and it has enough variety to be fun.

To be honest, i might stream it as i am starting to get burnt out with Star Wars.That is saying a lot as i am a huge fan, collecting original posters and film props.Quick release after release,as well as future T.V shows is just making it less appealing.It is losing that magic that kept me interested.

I feel the same way. I enjoyed Episode 8 in theaters, but the whole point of the new movies for me is to make sure that Han abandoning the one woman who made him want to stick around and have a family makes sense in the universe. Other than that, I don't really expect Kylo Ren to survive the new trilogy, and since he is the obvious protagonist with the only back story and character development in the new trilogy, I am not sure where Star Wars could go from here for me...


I noticed that the Fan Event opening for Solo was much more subdued than the midnight showing of Episode 3, and I don't know if that is because people enjoyed it less or because it was the 4th Star Wars movie in less than 4 years, or just because it was in a different location than when I saw Episode 3...


Either way, the magic of getting new Star Wars is definitely worn off

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm hearing bits and pieces trickle in about Solo. An acquaintance has seen it, says it's not too bad. Only one of the Youtube people I follow has a review up, and his opinion was 'eh, it's alright'. Sounds like Danny Glover kills it as Lando.

That's probably the best seal of approval for me lol

I mean, Solo is basically a Lando prequel.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Oh good lord, it's one of those threads already.

Anyway, on "Boycotts": if you aren't interested in seeing Solo because the movie doesn't look good for whatever reason, you aren't boycotting.

If you aren't going to see Solo because you want to punish somebody or something, you're boycotting.

If you want to punish somebody Disney affiliated, but weren't going to see Solo anyway, you aren't boycotting.

Like, I cannot boycott Chik-Fil-A. The closest one is 150 miles away and I'm not driving two-and-a-half hours for fast food of any kind.

So I'm not boycotting Chik-Fil-A? See I thought I was and just was just enjoying the side benefit of not having to eat disgustingly awful chicken.

Basically, yeah. You aren't punishing somebody by withholding your business if they never had your business in the first place.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm hearing bits and pieces trickle in about Solo. An acquaintance has seen it, says it's not too bad. Only one of the Youtube people I follow has a review up, and his opinion was 'eh, it's alright'. Sounds like Danny Glover kills it as Lando.

That's probably the best seal of approval for me lol

I mean, Solo is basically a Lando prequel.

We got a way better Lando than a Solo, that's for sure.

 

[Kyrian007]

Oh good lord, it's one of those threads already.

Anyway, on "Boycotts": if you aren't interested in seeing Solo because the movie doesn't look good for whatever reason, you aren't boycotting.

If you aren't going to see Solo because you want to punish somebody or something, you're boycotting.

If you want to punish somebody Disney affiliated, but weren't going to see Solo anyway, you aren't boycotting.

Like, I cannot boycott Chik-Fil-A. The closest one is 150 miles away and I'm not driving two-and-a-half hours for fast food of any kind.

So I'm not boycotting Chik-Fil-A? See I thought I was and just was just enjoying the side benefit of not having to eat disgustingly awful chicken.

Basically, yeah. You aren't punishing somebody by withholding your business if they never had your business in the first place.

So, if they had decent tasting chicken, I could be boycotting them by refusing to go there... so the decision on whether or not I'm boycotting them is up to them, and not me? That doesn't sound right.

I guess that's assuming their disgusting chicken is a deliberately that bad, as opposed to just basic incompetence on their part.

This is still confusing to me. I'll just continue to feel smugly superior because of my "boycott," whether it really is or isn't.