ST The Cave-A Domain Of Evil It Is. In, The haters Must Go (The Official haters' Sanctuary)

Ubraniff Zalkaz wrote

Which episode had a stormtrooper defect and become a protagonist?

While not in the feature films, the Clone Wars Episode "The Deserter" from January 2010 featured a clonetrooper that had deserted and become a farmer on a distant planet.

Thus, this wasn't exactly a "fresh" idea but witnessing how many great ideas The Clone Wars featured it surely would have helped TFA to take some other inspirations, too, from TCW, IMHO.

And another thing:

How is TFA remotely compatible with the prophecy of Anakin Skywalker being the Chosen One to bring balance to the Force?

I'd say other than being a mere technicality my overall impression was that the act would be of benefit for every being in the galaxy.

To have yet another conflict that costs billions of lives (destruction of Hosnian Prime in TFA) rather suggests that this prophecy was null and void.

Just to experience a peaceful period of 30 years (between OT and ST) probably wasn't the intention of a prophecy made during a period of stability of several thousands of years during the Old Republic.

 

Apologies, it was a question that hadn't been answered, yet.

 

I don't understand the moderation. Completely normal posts are now forbidden just because other posters *might* feel compelled to respond. Really?

 

First post. been a lurker for a while now. Used to post on the Star Wars forums during the PT.

I have such a big rant to give, but will keep it breif initially. My biggest annoyance is that I hate TFA. The PT for me weren't crash hot, and I admit I barely watch them; but they had redeeming features - my avatar being one

This movie I don't see the redeeming features. I thought Abrams woud do a good job as I didn't mind Star Trek 1 - yeah light on, but fairly entertaining and the characters weren't trashed. TFA was just horrible. The first 2/3rds of the movie I was willing to forgive some terrible holes in the movie, but when Rey went Jedi Master and Starkiller base was Death Star Mk III ...... sigh....

Poe - I will risk my life to find Luke, protect my droid, be tortured and risk my life to get back to Jakku - but now I have crash landed on Jakku I will
a) leave the bloke who helped me to die (great bloke); and
b) go home and forget about my mission.

What kind of "daring pilot " just gives up? And If I hear one more time he is the best pilot in the galaxy......

Phasma - if she appears in ep 8 or 9 and is not sliced into pieces.....High Treason anyone? And someone so high up in the commnad structure is so willing to commit treason with such little persuasion. Again destroyed the character.

Kylo Ren- WHY DID YOU TAKE OFF YOUR MASK! Masks are to hide something. For him - it is his insecurity. Really.....Pu-leease. He needed a massive scar that Luke inflicted upon him to wear it. And depth of character - whiny emo is depth?

Rey - far out, when she did the mind trick I laughed beacuse I was trying to love it. Then the force saber pull - then beating a Jedi of sorts (albeit an emo). Rey v Ren is DEAD! Nowhere to go. MAking her super Jedi made me hate TFA

Hans death scene was sooo lame. The lack of hand rails is all that saves it as I can laugh.

And as for Leia hugging Rey and not Chewie...... WTF! Watch Chewie in ROTJ when Han was just frozen. Now he's dead and it's meh whatever - I killed a few stormtrooopers.

Ok enough for now. I really really wanted to like it, or some of it (like the PT). Instead I hated it as it trashed so much of the first 6 movies.

Oh and Hosnian Prime- it was pointless and further highlighted the most abysmal lack of story telling - wow flash bang zoom. 2seconds later.... wow flash bang zoom....

 

I agree.The Mod is going a bit overboard with his/her job description.As long as no names are mentioned i dont see anything wrong with discussing what is wrong with TFA or what we think of certain PEOPLE who made the film or who enjoyed the film.That is what the forum is for.If those who enjoyed the film are not supposed to be posting here, fine, but we cant be responsible for those who MAY do that.

So anyway, this movie sucks right?

 

Fair enough. I was just responding to the assertion from Darth PJ that demilitarization was an unrealistic course of action for the Republic/ Mon Mothma, which I think is an inaccurate assessment if you're comparing the political dynamics of the GFFA with those here on Earth (and the closest analog is most certainly the inter-war period in the 20th century, NOT the Cold War). Whether or not it was the best route story-wise is an open debate. Though I personally believe that "appeasement" drama is good drama, and something a broad population can understand, given lingering memories of WWII.

But again, I do wish Abrams had elaborated on this a bit more in the film itself. It is interesting politics that didn't have to be "boring." This is where I think prequel-phobia was indeed a factor.

 

Hi! I hope you won't mind this post. I agree with you that this is off-topic, but I also think that quite a few of us were taken aback by the comment made to lt. Hija about his/her post. I know that I didn't see anything wrong with it. This is a discussion board and lt. hija's post didn't seem to break any rules. So maybe a little more clarification for all of us would be helpful? Only one person gets the benefit of the response with a PM. It does seem as though this thread has a rather " tight leash" sometimes. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but a little explanation of what is and isn't allowed would be helpful. Thanks!

 

My mistake, I guess.

The first part in my post on top was a straight answer, the second part however just a totally new idea that had come to my mind.

Next time I'll make an extra post, because "and another thing" was directed at the general audience here, most assuredly not at Ubraniff.

 

LMFAO, yeah those Emo Siths would be more powerful-- if they weren't crying all the time!

 

Who are you trying to kid??? It's NOT "analogous to the period between the Great War and World War II". If it is, it's an asinine one. The British didn't demilitarise and become pacifists. After the world economic slump in the 1920s, military development was halted. This move left Britain with an outdated military infrastructure... but they were certainly not pacifists, nor did they demilitarise as a point of principle... And I'll make the obvious point that when the Nazi's did threaten British interests, Britain was able to intervene, MILITARILY. This attempt to defend each and every facet of the film is flawed... primarily because it's a very spurrious defence based on NOTHING that's actually in the film, but instead, is based on half-baked attempts to make analogous comparisons.

 

Nothing wrong with the concept of having the galaxy be at peace, nor with the notion (as the galaxy isn't at war) that the New Republic may be spending less on its military infrastructure... but I think that's a world away from the suggestion that the New Republic were politically pacifist, or willing to demilitarise to the point where they would not have a defence policy. The truth is more likely that Abrams was just looking to reinstate the OT dynamic... and the path of least resistance was to simply take the Republic out of the equation... which of course is what he did.

Mods: apologies for DP...

 

The New Republic didn't become "pacifist." They simply scaled down their military strength significantly, and seemed to have a primarily defensive fleet. This isn't EXACTLY what Britain did in the inter-war years, but there is a similar dynamic at play. The difference is that Britain was not led by a revolutionary government that recently came to power by toppling a previously autocratic, continent-wide regime. Had that been the case, a revolutionary British leader that came to power could conceivably have made (and kept) a promise to decentralize and demilitarize, as a means of demonstrating commitment to revolutionary ideals. That's a dynamic with hundreds of historical parallels.

So, there are echoes of various historical dynamics at play in the GFFA at this time. And from the perspective of the history of international security since the mid-1600s, I find the decision made by Mon Mothma to be very realistic. I'm not kidding anyone. This is my discipline.

The problem, IMO, is that most of this is explained in ancillary material, not the film. I really wish JJ had given us more of this to chew on, as even a lot of casual fans I know were confused about the Resistance, the Republic and the First Order. Can't wait for the fanedit that inserts the deleted scenes into the film.

 

Agreed. "For over a thousand generations the Jedi knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic..."

Compared to that, somewhat less than 30 years of peace is a mere blip that might merit a footnote.

 

The thing is, when you are so eager to defend the film, you lose track of what was being questioned/criticised in your eagerness to contest the point. My initial response was to a statement from another poster who wrote "The new republic was basically demilitarized after the battle of Jakku". That the New Republic, in a time of peace, may have less hardware than it did when it was at war is not in dispute. However, "scaling back" is not the same as demilitarisation... and of course the "demilitarised" comment was to counter my question as to why the New Republic wouldn't simply asset strip the defeated Empire... which of course they would have logically done. Remember the Rebellion wasn't a sovereign nation defending its borders, it was a political/military organisation that overthrew its own rulers/oppressors, and seized its assets and freed its territories (we assume). Hence why the analogy with events after WWI is an incredibly superficial and misplaced one (IMO). They would have been better looking at the socio/political conditions post the French or Russian revolution, and building on that I.e. regimes of change that become worse than the regimes they overthrew. That would have been far, far more interesting in my opinion e.g. Luke Skywalker finds himself serving the New Empire etc.

 

I agree with you that we can't point to the inter-war period as the only analog/ influence on the political dynamics at play in the GFFA. I at least count four or five different historical analogs mixed together, mostly from the European subcontinent.

However, I personally was talking about a specific element of the galactic political situation that is similar to the period between WWI and WWII, and it's an important one. That has to do with the aftermath of the Imperial-Rebel civil war, not the nature of the conflict. In the aftermath, you have a New Republic sign a treaty with a relatively weak, rump "Imperial remnant entity" that is allowed to keep control over a tiny fraction of the GFFA, followed by complacency in the New Republic elite about future threats from the losers of the civil war, followed by the military resurgence of an essentially neo-Imperial faction, the First Order, who seems to have been either appeased or ignored by the New Republic. In this context, "the Resistance" is essentially the equivalent of Churchill's early warnings to Chamberlain about Hitler's intentions and strength. It's not an analog of a political entity during that time period. Rather, it's the paramilitary equivalent of Churchill's words. Basically, imagine Churchill striking off on his own with some covert fighters to nip at Germany's industrial heels in the Ruhr valley.

Again, we're not talking about one-to-one analogs here. We are talking about a mishmash of influences, and echoes of past history. And in this case, I think the ROTJ aftermath situation is a realistic one (and similar to the inter-war period), while the actions of Mon Mothma are also realistic (and similar to the actions of past revolutionary governments).

There's no use, to be honest, in saying: "Well, the post-WWI comparison is superficial." It isn't. It's just that it's only one important component of the political dynamics post-ROTJ. It's not an exclusive one.

And my initial point was that nations don't generally behave one way or another. How nations act in foreign affairs depends very much on both internal political circumstances (particularly in democracies), and the external security environment. And that's how I see the New Republic's actions. You have internal politics driving Mothma's decision to de-militarize, and the external security environment driving the perception that the neo-Imperials are not a threat, which reinforces the internal pressure to de-militarize. Those are two pressures running together, which raises the likelihood of a political entity like the New Republic deciding to de-militarize.

And even though I agree that JJ was generally "resetting" the political picture for the purposes of what he felt was the most compelling underdog vs. overdog story, I think the ancillary material has generally done a good job of painting a realistic picture.

But again, I think JJ missed an opportunity here. TFA could have had much more political depth than it did, and I wish he'd trusted that material (which I know was shot and then cut very late in the process). I just hope we'll get to see it in three weeks' time when TFA is made available on iTunes.

 

You are looking at paint spilt on a canvas and seeing the answer to life the universe and everything. I've already pointed out how the analogy with events after WWI is inaccurate, unless you are looking at it at a wholly superficial and unsophisticated level... Where is the reference/analogy with the rise of nationalism in Germany, a crippled economy, the effects of reparation, the growth of Italian fascism in the 20's, aggressive Japanese militarism (all these factors were contributing factors to WWII)? And of course not forgetting that you are only suggesting the analogous connection within ancillary material I.e. not in the film itself. I think that's a very weak defence of very weak writing within the film.

 

That is 100% correct. JJ did miss an opportunity - to deliver a movie with a story with any depth whatsoever. The complete and utter lack of any understanding of the politcal climate in the movie meant there was no relative understanding to state of play. We were jsut told the FO were bad and scary and shown they slaughter settlements. Tells us nothing of their standing in the galaxy or their conflict with the New Republic. t was just awful story telling, the likes of which that are equal to Amazing Spiderman II.

As for your WWI ref - I do get what you are trying to say. There is not a strong correlation, but there is one nonentheless. And the FO being Nazis suggest maybe that is where Jar Jar was headed - albeit spectacularly poorly.

 

And does anyone else here feel that Kylo Ren is such a loser now that he simply must die quickly and bring in a new baddie?

I see pictures and posters and t-shirts and.... all with Kylo Ren. Everytime I see them I just cringe at how lame and weak he is. Can anyone help me in working out a movie with the main antagonist being such a wimp and so useless?

Given he is essentially the Face of the FO (or am I wrong there again becasue Jar Jar has NFI how to tll a story), how can he be so weak and conflicted? Vader sent chills down the spine of others. This guy tortures you then gives you a hall pass to escape. I mean 2 good guys escape in a couple of days. Sorry heading off track with all the other stupid fails of this movie.

 

Again, it's not a one-to-one analogy. There are simply close similarities in the broad strokes of the geopolitical dynamics in the GFFA, to the broad strokes of the geopolitical dynamics in Europe during the inter-war period. But these broad strokes are structural, rather than superficial, and so they are important.

That is, there's a victorious political entity (the New Republic) that reduces a previous major threat (the loser of a previous conflict) to rump status (the FO/ Imperial remnant), the political class of that victorious political entity (the New Republic) grows to perceive that rump state (the FO/ Imperial remnant) as non-threatening (which reinforces internal pressure to de-militarize - which is very similar to call for disarmament, which were prevalent in Wilson's day), and the rump state (the FO/ Imperial remnant) takes advantage of that dynamic by re-arming, and striking a pre-emptive blow against previously victorious political entity (the New Republic).

Again, these are broad strokes. And in the international relations/ security studies discipline, there is a different between "superficial" political conditions, and broad stroke, yet "structural" conditions. And in this case, there are structural similarities between the inter-war period in Europe, and the GFFA after ROTJ.

However, you seem to be applying a double standard here. Initially, you asserted that the New Republic's de-militarization action was an example of how nations DO NOT act in Cold War situation. In that context, you were drawing a very broad, superficial (and IMO, inaccurate) comparison between the galactic geopolitical situation after ROTJ in the GFFA, and the global geopolitical situation during the Cold War. And yet now, you are insisting that the inter-war historical analog be absolutely precise, and include all the local, national and regional details of the inter-war period, otherwise it's completely irrelevant. This is a little baffling, to be honest.

The point is, again, that we have a mishmash of historical dynamics at play here. The two major, structural ones involve the galactic geostrategic situation after the Battle of Jakku, which is similar to the inter-war period, and the internal politics under Mon Mothma's leadership, which are similar to both the actions of previous "revolutionary governments," as well as similar to the actions of the Wilsonians (and their acolytes) after the Great War (and, ultimately, Chamberlain in Britain), which aspired to disarmament, yet built no structures to punish violators of that ideal (i.e. the League of Nations was Toothless). And so, the New Republic political class acquiesces to disarmament, and insists on the Imperial remnant remaining disarmed, yet does nothing to prepare for the possibility of the Imperial remnant violating the peace.

In short, we got a version of Versailles after the Battle of Jakku, and a version of the Leageue of Nations (the Galactic Concordance, etc). Then people got complacent in their idealistic fervor after bringing down the Empire, and the First Order took advantage of that complacency.

This is an important structural similarity between the GFFA and the inter-war period, and it's impossible to ignore.

But once again, this is simply not at all clear in TFA itself. That's my main problem, and that's why I'm here talking about it in this thread.

 

I agree 100%. Kylo is nothing more than a cool looking costume. It would be wise to kill him early in episode 8 and replace him with Benicio Del Toro.