ST JJ Abrams Legacy so far and TFA

Fascinating.

 

Be a little more condescending please.

 

Just for fun, let's take a look at your last five posts before this exchange. This might explain why I may not have actually been fascinated by your post.

You're a relentless troll and an incessant basher. Plain and simple.

 

Oh yes. Such a wide variety of troll posts, those. I guess anyone you disagree with is a troll.

 

My apologies, I was replying to your insistence that this was something that was exclusive to TFA and which did not appear in the OT—you did not specify ANH in your initial post/comment.


With regard to TESB, I did not mention Han—I only specified Luke and Vader. And whilst you can claim that "the case for what that means is fuzzier", I would challenge that, as it is very clear to me, regarding both Luke and Vader's lack of understanding of who they potentially are inside.


I would go as far as saying that it is actually more nuanced, given the fact that at the midpoint in the film they are both 'unmasked', hinting at their vulnerabilities.



-JR



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Pablo's own twitter account says on it, "Do not cite tweets as canon"

There is nothing in the movie, the novel or any officially published canon material that indicates the planet has an engine and can just fly around the galaxy. Nothing.

That's the problem with JJ's legacy, for mine. The lack of thought and lack of common-sense, and general laziness of the story-writing is what will be the true legacy of the film. SKB is the poster boy for that lack of thought. Anyway, it seems we can't discuss the legacy, and also be critical at the same time, for some strange reason so I best be outta here.

 

And nothing in the official material says that it can't relocate either - it isn't included in the film because it isn't particularly relevant to how SKB functions in TFA itself, and the material so far released reflects this. At the point at which SK Base may need to "relocate", it's destroyed. The rest is just your own unfounded assumption. However I think you've already had your say on this, so yeah, might be best to move on.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm aware that Pablo's Twitter account says "don't cite as canon", but nevertheless, the idea that SK base can move comes from one of the lead voices of the Lucasfilm story group, whose job involves creating and maintaining said new canon. So it's not insignificant.

 

You should really apologize for that quote... Really it was a huge offensive word to say

 

Exactly my feelings and said perfectly in less words that i could hope to achieve. It was a fantastic movie that reignited what was great about Star Wars when it was released in '77 and chief among many great components was how well it introduced the new characters.

 

Do not remember any explanation of how the Death Star in ANH traveled either.

 

Wait, are we trying to cite science as a reason it won't be remembered? As if ANY of the previous SW are completely without science issues.

 

It's another universe. Go crazy!

 

I think you need a hug.

 

Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Ron Howard, Clint Eastwood, George Lucas, Ridley Scott, Robert Zemeckis, Chris Columbus, Peter Jackson and several others all seemed to think that their success was gauged by public reception. Citing TFA's public reception is quite valid of the job done. Sure it was Star Wars. But the wild success it had at the boxoffice far exceeds just we rabid Star Wars fans.

 

Using actual facts to counter the TFA Naysayers, Dagobah? To paraphrase Han Solo, "That's not how discussions here work!!!"

 

The reason Pablo's Twitter says not to use tweets as canon is, I suspect, not because he wants anything he states about the galaxy during the ST to be disregarded, but because he knows that until things are crystallised on screen, they can be rewritten. These aren't actual messages from another galaxy, there are writers involved who may want to rework something.

So his tweets such as the one about Starkiller base are intended to illuminate, but without forcing writers into a corner or giving fans legitimate complaints if their explanation is later superseded.

So if Pablo says SKB can move, for example, then to all intents and purposes, when discussing Star Wars we can say "well, the official line on that is that it does", but what we can't say is "yes, in canon it moves from X to Y, by utilising N method"

 

I will also add that whilst no one should merely point to either TFA's critical or BO success/popularity as a means of shutting down debate, or indeed a particular argument, it is worth pointing out that it has excelled in every criteria by which we popularly gauge both "quality" and "success".

So critical score, BO reception and audience reception has been high/very high. Really the only other thing you might want to mention in this regard is maybe awards, and in particular winning an Oscar, but even then it had more nominations than any other Star Wars film excepting ANH. And genre films tend not to win Oscars so much, certainly not the "big 5".

It was also nominated for a Screenwriter's Choice Award.

And if you look at critical reception alone, it's up there with (and in some cases exceeds) genre films like Spiderman, Spiderman 2 (Raimi ones) The Dark Knight, The Fellowship of the Ring, Creed more recently, etc. Among SW films it's pretty much up there with ANH and ESB.

And, although films can often have a "backlash" (certainly big films), or some reassessment among critics after the fact, I think it's fair to say that none of the films mentioned above have had what we could call a critical turnaround. Not even close. If there really is a critical turnaround with TFA, (which are not always easy to gauge) as far as I can tell, it'll be the first film of its type (I.e genre film at that level of praise) ever to suffer one.

And finally the "Michael Bay" movies of the world may have varying degrees of success with both BO and audience reception, but they're pretty much vilified critically speaking.

 

This is completely valid, and I fully support this. I personally did not include critical acclaim because I also specifically left out Bay. I left out Nolan, so the waters were not muddied (though some would argue that Nolan should be included since he also has had critical acclaim).

 

Yeah my mentioning of Michael Bay and Bay type movies was in reference to previous comments by other posters who have attempted to draw parallels in quality between TFA and Bay movies. Somewhat unsuccessfully.

 

You didn't need it for two very good reasons:


1. You saw it moving in the film
2. It did not need to swallow a sun to power up its guns, thereby facilitating a requirement to move systems every time it did so



-JR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We know the SK consumes a sun every time it fires. It doesn't take much thought to realize it would have to move from system to system to recharge the weapon.

 

Do we? I'm not sure that's adequately portrayed in the film.

 

We see a star being drained until it actually stops emitting any light. Not sure what more you need.