I saw Solo and I have opinions.

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,935
769
118
Just came back from having seen Solo, something hardly anyone else seems to have done, if the box office numbers are to be believed. And I'm kinda wondering, are people really already sick of Star Wars? It's been only about 3 years of the series being back, yet people still watch three of those fucking Marvel Studios movies a year. Am I missing something? I mean, at least Star Was has been fairly consistently good for the last few years.

Now, I somewhat get why Last Jedi made some people angry. I don't agree with them at all, but I'm sure they have their reasons. I'm not entirely sure why people are so unimpressed with Solo. It's not as ambitious as Last Jedi but neither does it share its weird tendency for self sabotage. Meaning, it's mostly devoid of, let's be honest here, completely misguided attempts at comic relief that made Last Jedi feel tonally inconsistent.

Now, there was one character that actually rubbed me the wrong way, which was a robot named L3 that travelled with Lando. See, this robot cared about the liberation of Droids in a way that was obviously meant to invoke a sort of civil rights activist. The movie consistently treated this as a joke. For one because I fehlt like this was a legitimite grievance. Droids are sentient and they are treated as slaves in that word so it's not like this was some made up nonissue that we, as the viewer, are meant to recognize as such. Overall it felt like the sort of joke meant to pander to the type of person that would use the term "Social Justice Warrior" unironically I thought it was a bit tonedeaf..

That little digression aside, otherwise it was... pretty dang good. It doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel as far as Star Wars movies go but it was thoroughly enjoyable. Seeing a younger, more idealistic Han Solo getting betrayed and double crossed by everyone he trusts until he is the cynical space cowboy from Episode 4 was pretty fun and Alden Ehrenreich, otherwise known as the singing cowboy from Hail, Caesar (Yes, I know you didn't see that one) does a pretty good job playing him. It's hard to replace a performance as iconic as that of Harrison Ford but Ehrenreich is actually quite believable. Same goes for Troy from Community as young Lando and that hot blonde with the dragons as Han's love interest with a dark secret.

You know, overall I really like this whole "A Star Wars Story" thing Disney is doing. The main series isn't gonna break free from that whole monomyth hero's journey routine anytime soon, the original trilogy played it straight, the prequel trilogy subverted it, the new trilogy... seems to be playing it straight again while trying to throw in a bunch of unexpected twist to keep viewers on their toes, but it's always there. Where characters like the Skywalkers, Rey, Princess Leia and Princess Padme are those big narrative archetypes it's in those spinoff movies where the Star Wars series gets to be a bit more human. Choosing to focus on the preterite rather than the elect, if you allow me to make this horrifically pretentious comparison, not only lends way to better developed characters but also to developing the world around them more, which Solo very much does. It has a lot of what nerds like to call worldbuilding, something that the main trilogy of neglects in favor of its narrative.

Still, the thematic leitmotifs of the Star Wars series resonate quite loudly throughout Solo. You got the son killing his father figure, love that ends in tragedy, the young man who dreams of flying... just filteres through something that's thematically a gangster movie and structurally, mostly, a western. It's where most of its typically Star Wars-ish pulp comes from, you've got a train robbery, a heist on a mine, two characters dueling each other as if they were a pair of cowboys at the OK Corral... the sort of stuff that will always prevent this series from being proper Science-Fiction.

Still though, what Solo shows and tells us about the Star Wars world is quite intriguing. It was fun to see a movie focus on the criminal underbelly of that universe with the Empire playing only a very minor role in it and the Jedi not playing a role at all in it.

Listen, I liked it, quite a lot actually, but then I seem to be the only person that actually enjoys all three "eras" of Star Wars, which, ironically, probably makes me not a true fan in the eyes of many. It told a new story focussing on a side of this world we haven't seen in a movie yet, featuring some familiar and some unfamiliar characters. There was some stupid stuff, one weird action sequence featuring a giant space octopus that seemed to come entirely out of nowhere and one cameo that struck me as weird and pointless but other than that it, in my opinion, really good. Watch it if you... well, I wanted to write "If you like Star Wars" but let's be honest here, a lot of people who claim to like Star Wars like bitching about it more than actually watching the movies.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Haven't seen it yet, going tomorrow since I have a free ticket from that theatre near me that expires before next weekend and there's literally nothing else I could watch that I haven't already (plus the ticket is allowed for IMAX), but I can explain why a lot of people didn't give Solo a chance. It's a combination of two things, the first being the absolutely horrible marketing/production. Everyone and their dog knew about the production troubles the movie had going on for it, shitcanning two directors everyone wanted to see for one no one cared about when the movie was almost done and redoing it for reasons unknown but generally assumed to be because of Kennedy not liking it (which if anything is an endorsement at this point). This is made worst by the fact an actor no one likes or wanted to see have the role was handed it (anyone who believes those 3000 auditions where anything but theatre is a fool), and it basically turned off the normie and fan audiences alike just from that.

Then there's the shadow of TLJ to deal with. I don't pretend to understand why someone would like it, but I know people will like anything. The problem is both fans and normies didn't like TLJ, those who did where a minority given both the significantly lower then expected sales, overwhelmingly negative word of mouth, and collapse in merchandise sales. The movie wasn't good, some people found enjoyment out of it but it wasn't good and didn't reach beyond the sum of its parts. It had been believed by many, myself included, that it may be a franchise killer, and Solo's flopping to the point it may loose Disney as much as 100 million is a testament to that fact. One only has to compare to Marvel, who make consistently 6-8/10 movies, yet do so right, allowing for blockbusters to succeed as close as two and a half months apart, with some theatres still having Black Panther while Infinity War was released.

Kennedy and the rest of LucasFilm's management have screwed the pouch and possibly killed a 4 billion dollar golden duck. I expect a purge at the company anytime between now and 6 months after 9 gets released.
 

EscapistAccount

New member
Aug 18, 2017
91
0
0
>See, this robot cared about the liberation of Droids in a way that was obviously meant to invoke a sort of civil rights activist. The movie consistently treated this as a joke.

I've not seen it yet but are you sure it's a joke rather than being an unintentionally ridiculous character who was supposed to be serious? I mean, they may simply have missed the point and the film's production is supposed to have been pretty troubled.
 

Ninjamedic

New member
Dec 8, 2009
2,569
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
And I'm kinda wondering, are people really already sick of Star Wars? It's been only about 3 years of the series being back, yet people still watch three of those fucking Marvel Studios movies a year. Am I missing something? I mean, at least Star Was has been fairly consistently good for the last few years.
As far as I'm concerned and for as much as they're made and sold as, I see Star Wars and Marvel now as one and the same: middle of the road entertainment designed to sell the next product in the assembly line that has little appeal to me and use identical story telling devices and writing styles. What find uninteresting and outright grating about the Marvel films is in full force in the Disney SW films.

And in the case of the new Star Wars flicks, none of them have what I found appealing about the original films and lack the blatant mistakes that make the Prequels at least interesting to talk about.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Ninjamedic said:
And in the case of the new Star Wars flicks, none of them have what I found appealing about the original films and lack the blatant mistakes that make the Prequels at least interesting to talk about.
This is a pretty damning condemnation when you really think about it. Funny to think about how one of the things that made the original Star Wars what it was was the fact it was a fun adventure movie in space in a time when things had reached a low not seen since the Great Depression, an intentional counter to that doom and gloom that wouldn't let up until the early 80s. We're going though the same thing now, yet they've intentionally made these movies more bleak to "reflect reality", when the whole fucking point was to be the opposite to reality in response to it.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,702
2,882
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Marvel movies aren't similar to each other. Star Wars always feels the same. I've been tired of Star Wars since the Special Edition came out during the turn of the millennia.

Compare jingoistic WW2 Cap to spy thriller Cap to ideology and definitions of freedom theme in Civil War. Shakespeare Thor to Norse Thor to intergalactic psychedelic. What changes in Star Wars? We still have a white bad guy to a bunch of mixed race rebels.

Zontar said:
Haven't seen it yet, going tomorrow since I have a free ticket from that theatre near me that expires before next weekend and there's literally nothing else I could watch that I haven't already (plus the ticket is allowed for IMAX), but I can explain why a lot of people didn't give Solo a chance. It's a combination of two things, the first being the absolutely horrible marketing/production. Everyone and their dog knew about the production troubles the movie had going on for it, shitcanning two directors everyone wanted to see for one no one cared about when the movie was almost done and redoing it for reasons unknown but generally assumed to be because of Kennedy not liking it (which if anything is an endorsement at this point). This is made worst by the fact an actor no one likes or wanted to see have the role was handed it (anyone who believes those 3000 auditions where anything but theatre is a fool), and it basically turned off the normie and fan audiences alike just from that.

Then there's the shadow of TLJ to deal with. I don't pretend to understand why someone would like it, but I know people will like anything. The problem is both fans and normies didn't like TLJ, those who did where a minority given both the significantly lower then expected sales, overwhelmingly negative word of mouth, and collapse in merchandise sales. The movie wasn't good, some people found enjoyment out of it but it wasn't good and didn't reach beyond the sum of its parts. It had been believed by many, myself included, that it may be a franchise killer, and Solo's flopping to the point it may loose Disney as much as 100 million is a testament to that fact. One only has to compare to Marvel, who make consistently 6-8/10 movies, yet do so right, allowing for blockbusters to succeed as close as two and a half months apart, with some theatres still having Black Panther while Infinity War was released.

Kennedy and the rest of LucasFilm's management have screwed the pouch and possibly killed a 4 billion dollar golden duck. I expect a purge at the company anytime between now and 6 months after 9 gets released.
A massive amount of TLJ sales would have been lost from TFA as well. I had one friend see TLJ, as everyone else was scared off by TFA. I haven't seen TLJ, but I cannot imagine doing more of a disservice to Star Wars than TFA. (Cue complaining about TLJ. It doesn't matter to me. They lost me at "another Death Star.")


As to Keneally being fired. Maybe. I wouldn't put my money on it unless 9 really tanks. I think the brand has far too much pull for that.
 

EscapistAccount

New member
Aug 18, 2017
91
0
0
trunkage said:
They lost me at "another Death Star."
There's a bit at the start of the Last Jedi where some kind of star destroyer (it's like a beefier star destroyer but not a super) gets in a spot of bother trying to shoot down a fighter because, and I quote the film here, "That 'puny ship' is too small and
at close range. We need to scramble our fighters!"

That's where it lost me. Like, seriously guys, you know tiny two seaters with a beep-boop in the back are your fucking kryptonite, if your surface turrets can't shoot down one fucking X-Wing you need better fucking surface turrets! Now you're just looking silly, one mid-life refit on the star destroyers to replace 50% of the turbo lasers with small rapid traversal turrets and you're golden, star destroyers are already insanely overgunned for what you fight.

That is the precise moment I knew this would just be the same shit forever on a cyclical loop.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Oct 25, 2009
3,301
982
118
UK
Gender
He/Him
I went in without any expectations, and I left fairly underwhelmed.

The film wasn't bad - it didn't insult my senses, like most of DC's recent outings or The Last Jedi, but at the same time, it didn't really excite me, or interest me in any meaningful way.

The film just kind of... happened?

I think the crux of the problem is that I never felt like I was watching a Han Solo. Ehrenreich's performance - whilst not bad - never really convinced me that *this* was Han Solo, which unfortunately led to the film feeling like a super high budget fan film.

That, and that I just found the film's whole story to be a bit... pointless.
I suppose the biggest plot point that the film set up, was that Maul was back, and Qi'ra is working with him (and probably had been for a while). I'll be interested to see where that leads, but at the same time, unless you have watched the Clone Wars TV show, I can only assume that this was a confusing revelation for a lot of viewers, seeing as the last time they saw Maul, he has falling down a massive pit, with no legs, and was never mentioned again, outside of Episode 1.

Then, on the flip-side, the viewers who are familiar with the Rebels TV show, already know that Maul is later killed off for good, just before Episode IV - which gives that whole plot a disappointingly short time period to really play with.

At least they acknowledged the prequels, though.

Not to mention that Qi'ra is never seen, mentioned, or heard from during the OT, and Han doesn't seem to have any qualms with hooking up with Leia, so I cant imagine that anything crazy will ever really transpire, and I can only imagine that she will die at some point before Episode IV, too.

Everyone else who was introduced, was then promptly killed off too - looking like Rogue One all over again.

Overall, i'd probably give it a 5/10.

As for Star Wars fatigue... its interesting. Star Wars was, and still is, one of the biggest franchises in existence, yet the numbers for Solo were middling at best. Poor marketing? Behind the scenes drama affecting performance? Fallout from The Last Jedi? Who knows.

It is pretty weird though, seeing as - as you mention - the public will gladly watch 3 Marvel movies a year, yet this is the 4th Star Wars movie in almost 3 years, and numbers are dropping.

If I were to chalk it down to something, I would say poor reception to the franchise's new life. The Force Awakens was criticised pretty heavily for being too much like A New Hope; Rogue One received a lukewarm reception; and The Last Jedi was devisive to say the least. Not to mention that lore nuts had the entire EU ripped out, and if you like games, you are stuck with whatever EA decides to shit out.

Im interested to see where Star Wars ends up, but I think that you would be a bit naive if you thought that the Star Wars licence wouldn't be cranking out films until the franchise dies.
 

Myria

Sanity Challenged
Nov 15, 2009
124
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
It's been only about 3 years of the series being back, yet people still watch three of those fucking Marvel Studios movies a year. Am I missing something? I mean, at least Star Was has been fairly consistently good for the last few years.
Different strokes, I suppose, but to me the Marvel movies have been consistently entertaining, if lacking in depth, whilst the Star Wars movies have been... There.

Yeah... There. That's about the extent of it.

Mind, I've been wary of anything Star Wars since seeing the first Prequel. The new movies... Meh. TFA and TLJ were... Eh, there. The only protagonist that makes any impression is Rey, and it's not a good one. The others aren't given enough time to much matter or, worse, serve as unearned plot points. As for antagonists, I had minor, very, interest in hearing what was up with Snoke, but... Well, we know where that went. Or didn't go, as the case may be. As for Kylo, I just can't take emo-boy seriously -- saying he doesn't hold a candle to granddad would be the understatement of a long, long time ago.

As for Rogue One, I know a lot of people love it but I have no clue why. As with TFA and TLJ I wouldn't say it was bad by any stretch, but it was even more forgettable than either.

After the last three movies earned an extended yawn in my personal assessment, my Star Wars interest is down to "Maybe see it once it's out on disk some weekend when I'm bored".

Droids are sentient and they are treated as slaves in that word [...]
Isn't slavery of all kinds pretty common in the Star Wars universe?
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,530
3,053
118
Boy did I not care for that Social Justice Droid. Whether I was supposed to laugh at it or feel emotional, it missed its mark big time.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,244
7,023
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
EscapistAccount said:
trunkage said:
They lost me at "another Death Star."
There's a bit at the start of the Last Jedi where some kind of star destroyer (it's like a beefier star destroyer but not a super) gets in a spot of bother trying to shoot down a fighter because, and I quote the film here, "That 'puny ship' is too small and
at close range. We need to scramble our fighters!"

That's where it lost me. Like, seriously guys, you know tiny two seaters with a beep-boop in the back are your fucking kryptonite, if your surface turrets can't shoot down one fucking X-Wing you need better fucking surface turrets! Now you're just looking silly, one mid-life refit on the star destroyers to replace 50% of the turbo lasers with small rapid traversal turrets and you're golden, star destroyers are already insanely overgunned for what you fight.

That is the precise moment I knew this would just be the same shit forever on a cyclical loop.
Or, you know, install missile batteries on your cap ships with missiles designed to take out snub fighters. The SW Space Sim games(X-Wing/Tie Fighter) had this as a regular threat during missions where enemies would routinely fire missiles and torpedoes at your ass to shoot you down but the SW movies act like the outer space equivalent of SAMS don't exist.

Yes, I get that SW intentionally apes WW2 a lot but there's no reason to ignore the fact this is a viable option.

THen again, nobody realized that calling in airstrikes was an option until TFA, which doesn't even make sense in the context that anything military in SW begins and ends with WW2 films no hint of a military adviser to be seen.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Dalisclock said:
EscapistAccount said:
trunkage said:
They lost me at "another Death Star."
There's a bit at the start of the Last Jedi where some kind of star destroyer (it's like a beefier star destroyer but not a super) gets in a spot of bother trying to shoot down a fighter because, and I quote the film here, "That 'puny ship' is too small and
at close range. We need to scramble our fighters!"

That's where it lost me. Like, seriously guys, you know tiny two seaters with a beep-boop in the back are your fucking kryptonite, if your surface turrets can't shoot down one fucking X-Wing you need better fucking surface turrets! Now you're just looking silly, one mid-life refit on the star destroyers to replace 50% of the turbo lasers with small rapid traversal turrets and you're golden, star destroyers are already insanely overgunned for what you fight.

That is the precise moment I knew this would just be the same shit forever on a cyclical loop.
Or, you know, install missile batteries on your cap ships with missiles designed to take out snub fighters. The SW Space Sim games(X-Wing/Tie Fighter) had this as a regular threat during missions where enemies would routinely fire missiles and torpedoes at your ass to shoot you down but the SW movies act like the outer space equivalent of SAMS don't exist.

Yes, I get that SW intentionally apes WW2 a lot but there's no reason to ignore the fact this is a viable option.

THen again, nobody realized that calling in airstrikes was an option until TFA, which doesn't even make sense in the context that anything military in SW begins and ends with WW2 films no hint of a military adviser to be seen.
Bear in mind though- pretty much since day one Star Destroyers were supposed to be capable of orbital bombing- only we never see it in the movies. Closest we get is in Empire when they explain that the Rebels have a planetary shield put there specifically to prevent such a tactic.

The 'evading our turrets' thing really bugs me too- Considering it's explained pretty well in its first appearance in A New Hope, every engagement after that should have that sorted out. Even worse, it wasn't a problem for capital ships- in general their turrets were perfectly capable of targeting fighters. Then again, considering how unimportant fighters are viewed in ANH, it's a bit anachronistic to have them in the prequel trilogy in general. At least, fighters that successfully destroy larger ships. If the classic trilogy was WW2, the prequels should have been WW1 or the Spanish Civil War or something at best...
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,702
2,882
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
EscapistAccount said:
trunkage said:
They lost me at "another Death Star."
There's a bit at the start of the Last Jedi where some kind of star destroyer (it's like a beefier star destroyer but not a super) gets in a spot of bother trying to shoot down a fighter because, and I quote the film here, "That 'puny ship' is too small and
at close range. We need to scramble our fighters!"

That's where it lost me. Like, seriously guys, you know tiny two seaters with a beep-boop in the back are your fucking kryptonite, if your surface turrets can't shoot down one fucking X-Wing you need better fucking surface turrets! Now you're just looking silly, one mid-life refit on the star destroyers to replace 50% of the turbo lasers with small rapid traversal turrets and you're golden, star destroyers are already insanely overgunned for what you fight.

That is the precise moment I knew this would just be the same shit forever on a cyclical loop.
Still probably better than exhaust port that leads to your power source that a torpedo can shoot through. God, Star Wars is dumb.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
I liked it.

I think some folks are too damn caught up in Ford's portrayal.

Don't get me wrong, seeing him in The Force Awakes going 'We're Home' about make me white pee with joy, but...he's also like 80 now.

I like the idea of prequel movies.

I understood the need to turn all the pre-Disney stuff into 'Legends'.
-Basically, Star Wars: A Skywalkers Ruin Everything Story

So, yeah...I really have nothing else to add.

I do wish they hadn't fucked up Luke's backstory has much.
-I was hoping 'I, Jedi' would get some kind of live-action movie.

But I also understand that his nearly killing Ren was so damn Skywalker.
Doing stupid shit based on 'visions' is kind of, well, a family legacy. XD
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,935
769
118
EscapistAccount said:
>See, this robot cared about the liberation of Droids in a way that was obviously meant to invoke a sort of civil rights activist. The movie consistently treated this as a joke.

I've not seen it yet but are you sure it's a joke rather than being an unintentionally ridiculous character who was supposed to be serious? I mean, they may simply have missed the point and the film's production is supposed to have been pretty troubled.
Yes, definitely. I mean, Lando is literally rolling his eyes at her when she dryly says "equal rights" after he asks her if he can get her something, which in itself was a pretty contrived dialogue. The movie consistently frames her as if she was some sort of nagging housewife angry about her husband leaving the toilet seat up rather than a former slave wanting liberation for her people.

It rather reminded me about Hermiones campaign for the liberation of house elves in Harry Potter which other characters always treated as something ridiculous but at least there it had the excuse that Hermione was a human applying human standards to a nonhuman species, plus, it did highlight that the wizard society is fairly backwards in a lot of ways.

Solo on the other hand acts as if a robot wanting freedom is something inherently humorous. Not to mention that it squanders a perfectly good plot point for a condescending joke about civil rights activism.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
EscapistAccount said:
There's a bit at the start of the Last Jedi where some kind of star destroyer (it's like a beefier star destroyer but not a super) gets in a spot of bother trying to shoot down a fighter because, and I quote the film here, "That 'puny ship' is too small and
at close range. We need to scramble our fighters!"

That's where it lost me. Like, seriously guys, you know tiny two seaters with a beep-boop in the back are your fucking kryptonite, if your surface turrets can't shoot down one fucking X-Wing you need better fucking surface turrets! Now you're just looking silly, one mid-life refit on the star destroyers to replace 50% of the turbo lasers with small rapid traversal turrets and you're golden, star destroyers are already insanely overgunned for what you fight.

That is the precise moment I knew this would just be the same shit forever on a cyclical loop.
Dalisclock said:
Or, you know, install missile batteries on your cap ships with missiles designed to take out snub fighters. The SW Space Sim games(X-Wing/Tie Fighter) had this as a regular threat during missions where enemies would routinely fire missiles and torpedoes at your ass to shoot you down but the SW movies act like the outer space equivalent of SAMS don't exist.

Yes, I get that SW intentionally apes WW2 a lot but there's no reason to ignore the fact this is a viable option.
Squilookle said:
The 'evading our turrets' thing really bugs me too- Considering it's explained pretty well in its first appearance in A New Hope, every engagement after that should have that sorted out. Even worse, it wasn't a problem for capital ships- in general their turrets were perfectly capable of targeting fighters. Then again, considering how unimportant fighters are viewed in ANH, it's a bit anachronistic to have them in the prequel trilogy in general. At least, fighters that successfully destroy larger ships. If the classic trilogy was WW2, the prequels should have been WW1 or the Spanish Civil War or something at best...
You all do realize that Capital Ships of all kinds in Star Wars in both continuities have always been terrible about taking out Fighters right? Each type of ship performs a specific role, Capital Ships focus all their firepower on each other and a CS' turrets are really bad at tracking Fighters, Bombers are slower ships with heavy payloads that try to get close and bomb the Capital and other large ships, and Fighters defend the bombers from the other Fighters and are nimble enough to easily avoid CS shots but don't carry much in the way of ordinance to attack Capital Ships. Even if Fighters have any CS level ordinance at all they're usually much too busy avoiding or trying to shoot down other fighters to actually use it most of the time. That's how space combat in Star Wars has always worked and any ship that tries to shore up the weaknesses of it's clase so it can handle everything always ends up being awful at everything instead. So, aside from the X-Wing and TIE fighter games like Dalisclock mentioned which was for the sake of gameplay it's always been that way and likely always will be.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,196
1,871
118
Country
Philippines
My family was pretty bored by it. And so was I to some extent.

I dunno, it rubbed me the wrong way when they announced it. They had just killed Han off and it felt like such a huge money grab to have a movie about a character whose arc had been definitively completed.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
EscapistAccount said:
There's a bit at the start of the Last Jedi where some kind of star destroyer (it's like a beefier star destroyer but not a super) gets in a spot of bother trying to shoot down a fighter because, and I quote the film here, "That 'puny ship' is too small and
at close range. We need to scramble our fighters!"

That's where it lost me. Like, seriously guys, you know tiny two seaters with a beep-boop in the back are your fucking kryptonite, if your surface turrets can't shoot down one fucking X-Wing you need better fucking surface turrets! Now you're just looking silly, one mid-life refit on the star destroyers to replace 50% of the turbo lasers with small rapid traversal turrets and you're golden, star destroyers are already insanely overgunned for what you fight.

That is the precise moment I knew this would just be the same shit forever on a cyclical loop.
Dalisclock said:
Or, you know, install missile batteries on your cap ships with missiles designed to take out snub fighters. The SW Space Sim games(X-Wing/Tie Fighter) had this as a regular threat during missions where enemies would routinely fire missiles and torpedoes at your ass to shoot you down but the SW movies act like the outer space equivalent of SAMS don't exist.

Yes, I get that SW intentionally apes WW2 a lot but there's no reason to ignore the fact this is a viable option.
Squilookle said:
The 'evading our turrets' thing really bugs me too- Considering it's explained pretty well in its first appearance in A New Hope, every engagement after that should have that sorted out. Even worse, it wasn't a problem for capital ships- in general their turrets were perfectly capable of targeting fighters. Then again, considering how unimportant fighters are viewed in ANH, it's a bit anachronistic to have them in the prequel trilogy in general. At least, fighters that successfully destroy larger ships. If the classic trilogy was WW2, the prequels should have been WW1 or the Spanish Civil War or something at best...
You all do realize that Capital Ships of all kinds in Star Wars in both continuities have always been terrible about taking out Fighters right? Each type of ship performs a specific role, Capital Ships focus all their firepower on each other and a CS' turrets are really bad at tracking Fighters, Bombers are slower ships with heavy payloads that try to get close and bomb the Capital and other large ships, and Fighters defend the bombers from the other Fighters and are nimble enough to easily avoid CS shots but don't carry much in the way of ordinance to attack Capital Ships. Even if Fighters have any CS level ordinance at all they're usually much too busy avoiding or trying to shoot down other fighters to actually use it most of the time. That's how space combat in Star Wars has always worked and any ship that tries to shore up the weaknesses of it's clase so it can handle everything always ends up being awful at everything instead. So, aside from the X-Wing and TIE fighter games like Dalisclock mentioned which was for the sake of gameplay it's always been that way and likely always will be.
Problem with that is basically like the British throwing their hands up at the start of the Battle of the Atlantic and saying "Oh our ships currently have no way to combat German submarines! It's always been this way and always will be!"


[sub]"Curse you, submarines, which we will never defeat so there's no point in trying!"[/sub]​

The simple fact is that technology marches on. Especially quickly during times of war. The original trilogy showed this is a gradual updating of tech over the 3 movies. The prequels then crapped all over that by jumping 30 years back and nothing has changed- all the same tech still there. Don't even get me started on KOTOR. The Last Jedi at least went to the effort of people showing surprise at being tracked through Hyperspace. Clearly that was brand new technology.

Considering that both the original trilogy and the X-Wing series were pretty much the only times you saw a somewhat realistic technology progression, and in both we saw Star Destroyers were actually perfectly capable of wrecking small, fast ships, anything that doesn't live up to that is just pathetic in comparison.

By the way, the X-Wing itself is an all-rounder, and an excellent one at that. So there goes your other theory.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
PsychedelicDiamond said:
And I'm kinda wondering, are people really already sick of Star Wars? It's been only about 3 years of the series being back, yet people still watch three of those fucking Marvel Studios movies a year. Am I missing something? I mean, at least Star Was has been fairly consistently good for the last few years.
I've got no idea.

I could understand people getting Star Wars fatigue from one film per year, but like em or hate em, all four recent Star Wars films have been different in some way. In contrast, almost every MCU film feels the same, and there's three of these fuckers released per year.

See, this robot cared about the liberation of Droids in a way that was obviously meant to invoke a sort of civil rights activist. The movie consistently treated this as a joke. For one because I fehlt like this was a legitimite grievance. Droids are sentient and they are treated as slaves in that word so it's not like this was some made up nonissue that we, as the viewer, are meant to recognize as such. Overall it felt like the sort of joke meant to pander to the type of person that would use the term "Social Justice Warrior" unironically I thought it was a bit tonedeaf..
I'm mixed on L3 - I think the idea of droid rights in Star Wars is interesting, but the film doesn't do anything with it. It references the idea, but doesn't go further than that, so it makes L3 feel less like a character and more like a gimmick.

Zontar said:
[We're going though the same thing now, yet they've intentionally made these movies more bleak to "reflect reality", when the whole fucking point was to be the opposite to reality in response to it.
How the heck have any of the Star Wars films reflected reality?

The closest I've seen them get (supposedly) is Ep. 3, and while Lucas has claimed that it was an inditement on the Iraq War, it always struck me as being more of a parallel to the end of the Roman Republic and birth of the Roman Empire. Apart from that, the only reflection of reality we've seen are the confirmation that casinos exist in this universe, as does arms dealing. Um, yay?

trunkage said:
Marvel movies aren't similar to each other. Star Wars always feels the same. I've been tired of Star Wars since the Special Edition came out during the turn of the millennia.
There's massive tonal differences between the OT and PT. If the argument that TFA is too similar to A New Hope, sure, but compare the tone of Rogue One and Solo to TFA/TLJ. Different tone, different aesthetic, etc. In contrast, pretty much every Marvel film follows the same formula.

Compare jingoistic WW2 Cap to spy thriller Cap to ideology and definitions of freedom theme in Civil War. Shakespeare Thor to Norse Thor to intergalactic psychedelic.
Okay, where to start with this...

-Cap America 1 isn't jingoistic. At the very best, it's nationalistic. And while I grant you that it doesn't have quite the same feel as recent MCU films, its own tone is so wildly inconsistent, I can't really say Cap 1 has any real 'essence' given how all over the place its tone is.

-Haven't seen Cap 2, but let's look at Cap 3, which is basically another MCU formula film - light action, no consequence,* wisecracks galore, forced shoe-horning in of characters to promote upcoming movies, etc. I'll grant you that Civil War is better than Cap 1 (even if both films are pretty medicore in my eyes, like most MCU films), but "ideology and definitions of freedom?" Hardly. At the very most, Civil War alludes to the concept of oversight vs. personal accountability, and it's a contrivance for it to come up at all (since it rests entirely on Sokovia, and in-universe obfiscation). Civil War is primarily an action film, and it's demonstrated most of all in its airport scene. Civil War has nothing to say on contemporary society because its situation (a bunch of superheroes falling out over government oversight) is so far removed from any real-world parallel.

*When I say "no consequence," while the film has consequence in the context of its own narrative (Avengers are split, fight at the end), its consequence is academic by the timeframe of Infinity War, and as we don't really see these characters in any meaningful form between Civil War and Infinity War, any long-term consequences are academic.

-No idea how the first Thor could be called Shakesperean. Closest it is to Shakespeare is the fact that Kenneth Brannagh is directing, and as someone who's seen him in actual Shakespare films (Henry V, Othello), Thor ain't in the ballpark. The majority of Thor's plot comes from the "fish out of water" formula. Otherwise, it takes inspiration from Norse mythology, which is something Shakespeare never dealt with. Closest he got to supernatural/mythological material was in The Tempest.

-Moving on to Ragnarok (which is in the territory of MCU films I like), while it's a different tone from Thor 1 (and I assume Thor 2, haven't seen it), it's different from those films only by virtue of being like every other MCU film. It's basically a Guardians of the Galaxy film with Thor characters in it. Plus, the entire film is rendered null by Infinity War (thematic whiplash in regards to Thor included), so that's another reason I've got to hate that godforsaken film.

What changes in Star Wars?
Again, compare the PT to the OT, consider Last Jedi's deconstruction of the setting, consider how different in tone, setting, and aesthetic Solo and Rogue are to the episodic films.

Main difference between Star Wars and the MCU right now is that every MCU film feels the same, while every Star Wars film of the modern era feels different (bar TFA, which feels like A New Hope).
 

EscapistAccount

New member
Aug 18, 2017
91
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
You all do realize that Capital Ships of all kinds in Star Wars in both continuities have always been terrible about taking out Fighters right?
Yes and it makes absolutely no sense beyond wanting the evil ships to be constantly vulnerable to the plucky underdog. Time marches on, technology improves, the TIE fighter gets a substantial refit so why have they not introduced point defence on their stations and capital ships after:

The big trade federation ship
The Death Star
The other Death Star
Starkiller base
The times a fighter smashes into the bridge of the Executor and one-shots it

Seriously they want to be WW2 in space but even WW2 ships have always had point defence, it's ridiculous that they'd never refit for it or have AEGIS star-cruisers to protect the big ships at the very least.