JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

Postby Captain Seafort » 2016-03-25 05:40pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:Actually, if you know much about Star Wars, you can figure out pretty easily what probably happened at Jakku. An Imperial fleet was destroyed, and the only likely opponent who could have dealt them a blow on that scale would be the post-Endor rebellion.


Not necessarily - all it says is that there was a battle over the planet. A big one, given the presence of a Super Star Destroyer. It doesn't say anything about who won or who lost, and it doesn't need to. All it needs to do is to show that the ships and vehicles that once ruled a galaxy have been reduced to worthless junk.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

Prometheus Unbound
Jedi Master
Posts: 1034
Joined: 2007-09-28 06:46am

Re: JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

Postby Prometheus Unbound » 2016-03-26 05:37pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:Actually, if you know much about Star Wars, you can figure out pretty easily what probably happened at Jakku. An Imperial fleet was destroyed, and the only likely opponent who could have dealt them a blow on that scale would be the post-Endor rebellion.


Not necessarily - all it says is that there was a battle over the planet. A big one, given the presence of a Super Star Destroyer. It doesn't say anything about who won or who lost, and it doesn't need to. All it needs to do is to show that the ships and vehicles that once ruled a galaxy have been reduced to worthless junk.

^

or variations on that theme, yes.


I know Trek is bad for it (which is why I haven't picked up a Trek novel or EU thing since 1996/7) but I understand the star wars EU historically has been what I'd describe as "mental". Every frame from the OT has a back story. Every piece of equipment, every character including Bridge Officer #22 that we see for 1.3 seconds in RotJ etc - all of them have stupid long back stories and novels written about them.

I think some people used to that level of detail (I call it autism and borderline insanity - and a lack of imagination) and now they see a crashed ship and maybe can't comprehend it. IT MUST HAVE AN EXPLANATION. WHAT WAS THE SHIP NAME? WAS THE ATAT REY WAS SLEEPING IN FROM THAT SSD? WHAT FLEET WAS IT FROM? WHEN WAS IT COMMISSIONED?


I say: Who. Fucking. Cares.
NecronLord wrote:
Also, shorten your signature a couple of lines please.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11802
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2016-04-06 05:55am

Hey, nice of you to use autistic as an insult and lump it together with insanity and lack of imagination.

Fuck off.

User avatar
Baffalo
Jedi Knight
Posts: 805
Joined: 2009-04-18 10:53pm
Location: NWA
Contact:

Re: JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

Postby Baffalo » 2016-04-10 06:19pm

First off, Promethius, go fuck yourself for that autistic comment.

Second, I'm not going to sit there waiting for a blu-Ray copy so I can zoom in looking for the serial number, unit designation, or whether the uniform on TRZ-9417 fit properly or if he should report to the tailor for a new uniform. I love the story, not the bureaucracy of things. Yes, the universe feels real, and that's because the artistic talent behind it was amazing.

Adam Savage posted a video showing him with an astronaut equipment case, all shiny and new, that he'd built. Then he started deliberately beating it, scratching it, staining it, and in less than 10 minutes made it look like it had a story to tell. Of all the times it fell off a truck or got used as a coffee table while someone waited to move again. These little things add to the feel, but that doesn't mean it all has to be explained. I don't need to know what it's serial number is and where it was manufactured to think, "Damn, that thing has seen some serious abuse."
"I subsist on 3 things: Sugar, Caffeine, and Hatred." -Baffalo late at night and hungry

"Why are you worried about the water pressure? You're near the ocean, you've got plenty of water!" -Architect to our team

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14949
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

Postby Batman » 2016-04-10 06:34pm

While the autism comment was out of line I can see where he's coming from-the old EU did provide a ridiculous amount of backstory for the most trivial details ('Tales of the Mos Eisley Cantina', anyone?) so there probably is some small subset of fans who want that amount of background for everything. You, me and 99+% of the viewers are fine with 'there was a battle and the side with the Star Destroyers (presumably the Empire) lost some of them' but I can see why he thinks there are fans who aren't satisfied with that.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 28628
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

Postby MKSheppard » 2016-05-18 09:01pm

Broomstick wrote:I think the point was that not everyone is involved in the extended universe and there should be some consideration for the people shelling out buck to see the movie who aren't from the hardcore "buy everything" fanbase.


[walter white] You're goddamn right. [/walter white]

There should at least be some background about semi major elements such as why the fuck is so much crap on a shitty out of the way planet like tattooine Jakku.

If you want the super deep detail, sure, go EU for that. But the basics should be in the film.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2138
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: JJ Abrams good/bad for Trek, what about Star Wars?

Postby Adam Reynolds » 2016-05-19 02:33pm

MKSheppard wrote:There should at least be some background about semi major elements such as why the fuck is so much crap on a shitty out of the way planet like tattooine Jakku.

If you want the super deep detail, sure, go EU for that. But the basics should be in the film.

Not to mention the question of who in the hell the First Order is and what their motivations are. There was virtually no mention of anything political in the film. What was really missing is a scene equivalent to the Imperial briefing sequence from ANH in which we gained a sense of appreciation for how the conflict regarding the Death Star mattered to the wider galaxy.

An additional underlying structural problem with TFA was that the initial conflict over the map had nothing to do with Starkiller Base. While it was loosely similar to the Death Star plans in ANH, that story had the advantage that the fight over the Death Star and the plans were related. Here, the addition of Starkiller Base does nothing to add to the more important story of the hunt for Luke. It was as if they knew they needed a final battle and just went with it.

They could have done this better by having the finale revolve around both rescuing Rey and finding the part of the map held by the First Order. Instead of having R2 save the day with a case of Deus ex machina, each piece could have been a third of the map that reveals it through an overlay rather than the puzzle piece that we got. We could also have gotten something truly different for the ending(at least for films) a pure fighter attack against a star destroyer that was both giving the Falcon an opening and buying time for them once they were aboard. Unlike the Death Star, its guns were intended to shoot at fighters. To make matters worse, they can't actually destroy it until after the heroes get off.

Ultimately The Force Awakens was good in nearly all of the ways the prequels were bad and bad in nearly all of the ways the prequels were good.

This is also yet another case of why the mystery box needs to die a horrible death. It didn't work for Star Trek Into Darkness, it largely ruined Tomorrowland, and now it hurt Star Wars.


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests