ST The New Definitely Not Improved Even More Horrible Than The Last Two Rumors Thread

The difference betwen PT and ST is that PT flaws are some badly written dialogues and some outdated CGI, and ST flaws are badly written characters and badly written plot.

And while i can see people brushing off few scenes with otdated CGI and badly written romance, i can hardly see people brushing off badly written characters, badly written plot and mishandled legacy of OT and SW concepts like The Force and stuff.

I see people saying now: "Oh, PT had cheesy moments and bad dialogues but the story was good and worldbuilding is amazing".
People wont suddenly start saying: "Oh, characters and plot in ST was **** but i appreciate the movie anyway".

Characters and story and lore are the most important and valuable for the audience things in literature. Thats what thought provoking and what engange people.

ST failed in all those fields.

 

There are plenty of retcons that we are seeing. The book series building the resistance back up since Rian decimated them and wanted to call them rebels they are now back to being the resistance. Kylo Rebuilds his helmet. Luke's Lightsaber is rebuilt instead of giving Rey her own. Palpatine being alive etc. So many retcons just in the trailer alone. Now they all may be really cool but they are still retcons.

 

These, at least, aren't retcons.

Not everyone who criticised the PT only had those criticisms though. A lot of those who appreciate the PT grew up with them.

 

They are essentially retcons because Rian got rid of them and now JJ wants those two items back so he is rebuilding them. The mask was destroyed to make Kylo different than Vader and the 'Skywalker' lightsaber was destroyed to show that anyone can be a Jedi. Now we may get some perfectly good story reasons for these items being brought back it doesn't change that one writer wanted them gone and the other wants them in their film so they are changing what happened or you can say just undoing it for story purposes.

 

Neither are retcons because they don't change continuity, especially the lightsaber since I'm not even sure that was RJ's intent.

 

What I can’t escape the feeling of is that ultimately we’ll be left with a first film (TFA) that feels more like an appetiser to the main course, a second film where ultimately the heroes are almost back where they started, which to me feels largely superfluous and weirdly like the final part of the trilogy at the same time, then the final film, which I have a feeling is going to be crammed to such an extent it feels like three films in one. It’ll be very interesting once the dust had settled to see all three films one after the other and see how well the story hangs together and flows, or doesn’t.

 

Yeah, at least as to the lightsaber, that seems just a garden variety story element. A "pro-con," if you will because the element continues to progress; no retroactive element inserted. The helmet seems a bit more muddled.

 

We're really going to call the "rebels/resistance" a differential?

"Rebels" is a pretty generic term. If there'd been some big pronouncement in TLJ about a "return of the Rebel Alliance, capital letters!" you might have a point, but there was nothing in TLJ indicating "The Resistance" was no longer the "proper" name they were going by. Especially given it's mere days after TFA.

Kylo rebuilding his helmet isn't a "retcon", provided they provide a logical internal reason for it. Seems from the leaks and interviews they're going to.

And wouldn't Rey salvaging parts of multiple other lightsiders' lightsabers to build her own pretty much be..."building her own"?

Palpatine being alive is only a "retcon" if you want to conveniently ignore all of the supplementary material going back to 2015. The movies also give no indication he definitely has to be dead, ST or OT alike, given Palpatine's level of power. You're seriously going to put out there that this guy can nigh-on see the future (Vader's turn seeming to be an exception), rumoredly create-****ing-life-through-Midichlorians, but teleporting somehow off the DSII is off-the-cards?

Given we don't have the full picture, that's an absolute possibility at this point.

 

No Palpatine's return is definitely a retcon.

 

And once again we have this conversation Aximili86 I have read just about all of the supplementary material since 2015 just about everything ST related and if you think Palpatine is foreshadowed clearly in that you are definitely doing some type of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew style research because it isn't their. Also with how the ST treats the EU if it's not on screen where like 99% of the fanbase sees it, it's pretty much meaningless.

Retcon isn't a dirty word and you seem to be offended by it. I can see what Finn McCool is saying about the lightsaber being more proactive and I can see what it will entirely depend on the film itself it could go either way.

The Mask after Rian straight up saying he didn't like it and Kylo smashing it now everything seems to be Disney going back to Kylo's Iconic look it's definitely a retcon story reasons or not they are undoing the change to Kylo's character and bringing the mask back since it just sold so much better. Hey it's their right to do it doesn't mean that it's not a retroactive change they are making even if they create a story reason for it. Retcon is not a dirty word and happens all the time in long term stories it all depends on how they are executed. Often they are done very poorly which is why they are looked at in a negative light in many cases

 

In 1983, Plapy was stone cold dead. That's the way he remained for a long, long time. Making him not-dead is a retcon. Now it could be reasonable if presented in a compelling way - the PT fleshed out his abilities and interests quite a bit. But it's a clear retcon.

 

If you enhance the bold for the general audience to the degree where they won Razzies and many people criticize that they function like non-professional fan movies you might find on youtube now that the expensive CG bells and whistles have aged and that they can’t get through them, don’t like imagining Hayden as Darth Vader, and only youtube the saber scenes, and you reduce the underlined primarily to a 60/40 assessment within the hardcore community almost exclusively in comparison to professional critics and the vast general audience members who don’t feel that same way on a large scale about all of the characters or the story so far then your assessment of the two trilogies would be closer in line to my experiences of assessment within society.

I love the PT, OT & ST so I find a lot of the criticisms fall flat for me. And we aren’t meant to have PT vs ST arguments here so I don’t want to do so. It never leads good places.

 

"Convenient" Conveniently? Hahahah. There's nothing convenient about reading through half a dozen books, comics, or whatever to pick up on this supposed bread trail you're talking about, going back to ...

wait for it....WOAH. 2015.

Man. That's certainly not a retcon there. Palpatine's been dead for 30 years, but some new books came out in 2015, so clearly he was never dead throughout the 80, 90s, and 00s.

You know. You can admit that Palpatine was dead, as far as the movies were always concerned, and they are just now changing things and ... STILL love the ST in everyway. You don't need to rewrite history. It's a retcon. So what. Does that really destroy the story for you? (Rhetorical)

 

Oh, he was? 100%? He was dead completely-non-nullified-ever-for-ever?

Curious.

 

If he were a retcon wouldn't be possible. The continuity previously was that he had died. Apparently that has been changed. Therefore retcon.

 

You mean the same way Anakin was dead and killed by Darth Vader? And that turned out to still be true but only from a certain point of view. I imagine it'll be the same for Palpatine.

 

Apparently nothing is ever a retcon. Maybe that wasn't the real Luke Skywalker in 4-8. Darth Maul sneaked into the Lars homestead one night when Luke was a baby and switched him with another baby. The real Luke Skywalker, who has been raised in the "beyond," will be back in episode 9 to assist Rey in defeating Palpatine. He is being played by Matt Smith.

 

He was in movie terms dead burned up in a reactor. I have no idea why the idea of retroactively changing something offends you so much that you start pointless arguments in the thread. It's a retcon plain and simple it could be a good one or it could be one that makes the movie absolutely terrible. Why is it such a problem that what they are doing is a retcon of the end of ROTJ

 

The emperor being alive is a retcon of what happened in ROTJ. Kylo fixing his broken mask is not a retcon.

The emperor was meant to be dead..but now they say "no actually let's say he wasnt!"

Kylo's mask was meant to be broken, shattered. And just like any broken thing it can be repaired.

Deviating from a previous director's idea of where things should go next is not retconning. Words do have meaning.

If Palpatine was a ghost in TROS instead then it wouldnt be a retcon anymore:
"Palpatine died but actually no hé didnt die" vs "Palpatine died and yes he did so now he's a ghost"

 

Yes, also a retcon.

 

Yes.

 

You should check out the Dark Horse Comics The Star Wars which is based off of GL's originial Star Wars Script Han Solo is a Lizard just saying. The idea's were fairly different then much more in line with the Buck Rogers style serial. It gives you a good idea as to how the evolution of the characters occured as they developed into their present form.

Edit: Whoops just meant to reply to JeanGray's post.

 

That IS exactly what they did! So that "Luke" didn't makes literally no sense since that is what Luke also did.

No, that misses the point being made. Luke refuses to kill an unarmed man that he has defeated. What Sidious wants of him is the mistake he was able to get both Anakin to make with Dooku and Mace with himself that Anakin witnessed. Luke was defending himself against Vader but then didn't want to fight his father but then he had to. Once he defeated him there was no need to kill him. It was over. The application that Luke is giving up fighting is nonsensical to the situation as has specifically been played out.

Sidious is "unarmed" as such so Luke trying to strike him down was wrong (Sidious already tempted him previously and he did strike, he wasn't going to do that again). Obi-Wan and Yoda want Sidious and Vader destroyed but with Luke as a Jedi doing it the Jedi way which has been established. Not in the Sith way which also has been established. Luke was waiting for his friends to destroy the Death Star. As he already said it's not about him "winning" in any way that is usual. The set-up is that Luke left his Rebel friends with the new Ewok friends who would take out the shield then the Alliance would destroy the Death Star with him onboard.

What the remaining Jedi Order want from him is to destroy Vader and the Emperor as a Jedi. As they think he is the Chosen One and the only real hope left to achieve this. The cycle you talk about is the cycle of wrong violence not non-violence.

That doesn't track at all as in ROTJ Luke doesn't not fight. That simply isn't the case. In ROTJ he fights completely and fully. As a Jedi. He becomes a true Jedi because he fights as a Jedi should. How TLJ is supposed to actually make sense or work with that is something that RJ would have to answer. The answers I've seen from him simply don't work with Lucas' movies.

Why is it that Luke's throwing down of the Lightsaber is interpreted as some non-violence and pacifism angle? That simply doesn't track with his actions for the entire movie or of his associates who he's working with. He knows that Vader and the Emperor have to be destroyed. His confrontation is to try to save his father, the good man. When he believes that is impossible he hates Vader and wants to kill him. Then he stops himself and accepts that the Vader side is also his father. Once he does that he is loving unconditionally as Jedi are supposed to.

Not attacking unarmed or defeated opponents is not pacifism or giving up fighting against them in the first place. The day was won in ROTJ because Anakin destroyed Sidious as a Jedi should. Sidious was attacking and killing Luke. Anakin sacrificed everything that he was as Vader, all that he was for decades was selflessly sacrificed to save another. In ROTS he was selfish and greedy for himself. In ROTJ he was sacrificing himself for another.

What possible story could there be in TROS to rival that?

From the only point of view that really matters in Star Wars though. Lucas himself. Besides that we know that Anakin became Vader anyway and that Obi-Wan simply wasn't telling him the truth.

I thought not. Even if it was that still would be meaningless for the movies as much as all that new canon "EU" material is irrelevant to the movies. That is the path they chose to go. Explain nothing in the movies then let the story group do fill-in material that reaches 1% of the audience here or another 1% there.

So the idea that they are going to do anything much different in TROS doesn't seem likely.

 

I think the difference is that by TESB the story was not over so even if this was a retcon it still could make sense because the story wasnt finished yet.

Palpatine being alive might be a big more difficultés because this reveal happens 35 Years after we watched him die and that was canon for a long time and clearly Lucas intention at the end if ROTJ.

 

Except with the ST, the story is also not over by that reasoning.

Also we don't know for sure if he never died or not. He could still have been dead but resurrected prior to TROS. And while Lucas' intentions were for Palpatine to die in ROTJ, it was also his intention to bring him back for his ST so the point stands.

Yes, I'm familiar with that comic. It was an interesting What If? but I'm very glad we got the Star Wars we got over that.