StarDestroyer.Net BBS

RogueIce wrote: ↑2017-11-15 09:25pm I'm hoping it's a lot of nothing just because I don't want movie details in freaking video games where we'd have to play it to find them.

But this appears to be the Disney model: spread the story over various aspects of merchandising. "We didn't explain it in the movie you paid $15 to see? Buy this $20 book over here for that bit. And this $50 game over here for this thing. And these $30 toys for the explanation of that."

At least Lucas just sold you toys that might fit the in-story universe, even if they never were.

You see that too good I'm beginning to think I was the only one

RE: The Rey theory from battlefront Spoiler

Still, its in an official product, so they presumably had to get approval to put it there.

But it could just as easily be a deliberate red-herring to throw people off the actual revelation.

Khaat wrote: ↑2017-11-16 10:40am

RogueIce wrote: ↑2017-11-15 09:25pm I'm hoping it's a lot of nothing just because I don't want movie details in freaking video games where we'd have to play it to find them.

But this appears to be the Disney model: spread the story over various aspects of merchandising. "We didn't explain it in the movie you paid $15 to see? Buy this $20 book over here for that bit. And this $50 game over here for this thing. And these $30 toys for the explanation of that."

Err... what? When? What part of TFA or Rogue One only makes sense by buying something else?

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-11-17 03:38pm Still, its in an official product, so they presumably had to get approval to put it there.

But it could just as easily be a deliberate red-herring to throw people off the actual revelation.

I don't think it's even a red herring, people just heard that two characters have an unamed daughter and assume it must be Rey. I doubt EA had to get authorization to have the protagonists of their game have a daughter.

If anything, it could be foreshadowing for a DLC mission pack where you play as Iden's daughter fighting against the First Order.

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2017-11-17 03:45pm Err... what? When? What part of TFA or Rogue One only makes sense by buying something else?

Everything seen on screen (or not) is the responsibility of the director. When you have to buy a children's book to learn why Rey can understand wookie (since they didn't just have one stomping around in the background of the [sarcasm]bustling metropolis[/sarcasm] that was Niima Outpost), or that she learned to fly with a salvaged flight-training console (that was conspicuously absent from the slow dolly shot through her residence, yet featured in a "locations" book), you have two choices: a) the director/screenwriter is half-assing it, or b) the missing details will be for sale somewhere else in a [sarcasm again]grand marketing scheme[/sarcasm].

Luke said he was a pilot several times (and played with a model skyhopper while 3PO gave his data-dump - with the full-sized skyhopper on the set behind them!) before he ever set foot in an X-wing, and did well enough to not die in a fiery crash in the DS raid. [A deleted scene even has his buddy vouch for him to their flight leader, comparing the skyhoppers they had flown favorably to the X-wings.]

In comparison, Rey seems to have trouble with lift-off (the part she should know, if she's been doing any flying, since that's what you learn first), before flying through the wrecked SSD, a feat comparable to the SDII raid flying by Lando (older, experienced pilot) and Wedge (presumed hotshot pilot of the Rebellion, since he's still around two films after the first.)

Khaat wrote: ↑2017-11-17 08:00pm

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2017-11-17 03:45pm Err... what? When? What part of TFA or Rogue One only makes sense by buying something else?

Everything seen on screen (or not) is the responsibility of the director. When you have to buy a children's book to learn why Rey can understand wookie (since they didn't just have one stomping around in the background of the [sarcasm]bustling metropolis[/sarcasm] that was Niima Outpost), or that she learned to fly with a salvaged flight-training console (that was conspicuously absent from the slow dolly shot through her residence, yet featured in a "locations" book), you have two choices: a) the director/screenwriter is half-assing it, or b) the missing details will be for sale somewhere else in a [sarcasm again]grand marketing scheme[/sarcasm].

Luke said he was a pilot several times (and played with a model skyhopper while 3PO gave his data-dump - with the full-sized skyhopper on the set behind them!) before he ever set foot in an X-wing, and did well enough to not die in a fiery crash in the DS raid. [A deleted scene even has his buddy vouch for him to their flight leader, comparing the skyhoppers they had flown favorably to the X-wings.]

In comparison, Rey seems to have trouble with lift-off (the part she should know, if she's been doing any flying, since that's what you learn first), before flying through the wrecked SSD, a feat comparable to the SDII raid flying by Lando (older, experienced pilot) and Wedge (presumed hotshot pilot of the Rebellion, since he's still around two films after the first.)

Oh, not this shit again.

Why is it some huge mystery/plot-hole that Rey can speak Wookie? Its not that hard to figure that, in a settlement of many species, she might have met and associated with Wookies, and found it useful to be able to converse with them.

Do you also need an elaborate explanation of how she learned to walk, or feed herself? I don't need the film to hold my hand for every little thing.

Also: Rey managed the take-off well-enough (seeing as she, you know, took off, and didn't crash), and its a bit absurd for you to whine about how she's too good at everything, and then turn around and whine about her not being instantly perfect at something as proof of the same fucking point. Moreover, piloting a civilian aircraft is in no way comparable to piloting an X-wing, though you will no doubt pretend that it is because you hold Luke and Rey to different standards of evidence.

I get that it offends you that Rey is good at things, but this is just silly nitpicking.

Also: Luke doesn't get points for shit that's in a deleted scene, if Rey doesn't get points for stuff that's in canon books/games/etc. See above reg. different standards of evidence.

Edit: I think that the linguistic thing is possibly another veiled KotOR shout-out. While people focus a lot on the parallels between TFA and the OT, there are some major KotOR parallels as well (Starkiller Base and the Starforge, the map search, etc). Rey somewhat resembles a female Revan in a number of respects (mysterious background, amnesia, gains new skills very rapidly, etc.). A natural talent with language would fit with a deliberate Revan parallel.

Revan's language skills were explicitly a force power too.

Also do we know Rey screwed up the lift off with Falcon due to lack of skill and not simply due to the infamously temperamental Falcon having problems at the worst possible moment. After all the Falcon not working properly at worst possible moment is nothing new.

So a "KOTR shoutout" proves my point: we are asked to reference something other than the movies (a game) for justification. Odd, since Lucas managed to set up and sell Star Wars with just one film, crap on the set (for a reason), dialog, and some cutting edge (for the time) SFX.

Khaat wrote: ↑2017-11-17 08:00pm

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2017-11-17 03:45pm Err... what? When? What part of TFA or Rogue One only makes sense by buying something else?

Everything seen on screen (or not) is the responsibility of the director. When you have to buy a children's book to learn why Rey can understand wookie (since they didn't just have one stomping around in the background of the [sarcasm]bustling metropolis[/sarcasm] that was Niima Outpost), or that she learned to fly with a salvaged flight-training console (that was conspicuously absent from the slow dolly shot through her residence, yet featured in a "locations" book), you have two choices: a) the director/screenwriter is half-assing it, or b) the missing details will be for sale somewhere else in a [sarcasm again]grand marketing scheme[/sarcasm].

Luke said he was a pilot several times (and played with a model skyhopper while 3PO gave his data-dump - with the full-sized skyhopper on the set behind them!) before he ever set foot in an X-wing, and did well enough to not die in a fiery crash in the DS raid. [A deleted scene even has his buddy vouch for him to their flight leader, comparing the skyhoppers they had flown favorably to the X-wings.]

In comparison, Rey seems to have trouble with lift-off (the part she should know, if she's been doing any flying, since that's what you learn first), before flying through the wrecked SSD, a feat comparable to the SDII raid flying by Lando (older, experienced pilot) and Wedge (presumed hotshot pilot of the Rebellion, since he's still around two films after the first.)

Except this is a film by JJ Abrams. So we know the answer here is A) he half-assed it. The protagonist being a mary sue/gary stu because he doesn't establish and constrain their knowledge, the massive gains in abilities at convenience to set up a desired visual piece, the ad hoc info dump kludge to expedite a resolution to get to the next visual setpiece... this is the hallmark of JJ Abrams films. Like it happens in TFA, but go watch Into Darkness again where it REALLY happens. Super 8 is like his only film that's isn't bogged down with this stuff.

Khaat wrote: ↑2017-11-18 12:33am So a "KOTR shoutout" proves my point: we are asked to reference something other than the movies (a game) for justification. Odd, since Lucas managed to set up and sell Star Wars with just one film, crap on the set (for a reason), dialog, and some cutting edge (for the time) SFX.

The prequels were lousy with being this kind of mass media tie in. "Who is General Grievous?" "Well if you read these 3 novels, read these 8 trade paper backs, watch these 2 cartoon series, and play this video game, then you get his backstory"

TFA is just that Abrams sucks, he makes these same mistakes in all his stuff.

Ender wrote: ↑2017-11-18 12:35am Except this is a film by JJ Abrams. So we know the answer here is A) he half-assed it. The protagonist being a mary sue/gary stu because he doesn't establish and constrain their knowledge, the massive gains in abilities at convenience to set up a desired visual piece, the ad hoc info dump kludge to expedite a resolution to get to the next visual setpiece... this is the hallmark of JJ Abrams films. Like it happens in TFA, but go watch Into Darkness again where it REALLY happens. Super 8 is like his only film that's isn't bogged down with this stuff.

Well, shit. I guess "half-assing it" is a solid option. But why have other products clean up his mess? Well, money.

Khaat wrote: ↑2017-11-18 12:33am So a "KOTR shoutout" proves my point: we are asked to reference something other than the movies (a game) for justification. Odd, since Lucas managed to set up and sell Star Wars with just one film, crap on the set (for a reason), dialog, and some cutting edge (for the time) SFX.

Note: the hypothesis of a deliberate KotOR reference was a side-note in addition to my main argument, not my main argument.

Does TFA have plot problems? Yes. However, I would contend that Rey's abilities are not the primary example of this- just the one that got the most attention from people because of gender politics. My harshest criticisms of the film are largely to do with the overall plot holes/contrivances, mainly the absurd exposition Force-vision Rey gets at Maz's castle, and the rushed, random, deus ex machina-style resolution of the MAIN PLOT- the search for Luke.

These failures, however, are not exclusive to Abrams, or to Disney, or to whichever scapegoat/whipping boy the internet fandom bandwagon has decided to go after now. It is endemic to Hollywood SF writing, and perhaps Hollywood writing as a whole. If I go to see a movie, generally, if there is one glaring weak link, its the script, and if there is one glargin weak link in the script, its the plot construction and/or pacing. The films skimp on coherent plots, focusing instead on the actors and effects, with the story being little more than a collection of clichés and contrivances to facilitate a series of "cool" set-pieces, and/or to convey a point in the most ham-fisted of manners.

Actually, not even just Hollywood. Doctor Who is BBC, and it has plot holes and snarls that make TFA look like a perfectly-crafted masterpiece of plot construction.

Edit: Actually, Who under Moffat is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about- SF that relies on the skill of the lead actors and the coolness or cleverness of the set-pieces and the gimmickry to get audiences to overlook the fact that the plot alternately resembles either Swiss cheese, or the Gordion Knot.

It's a symptom of executives thinking people will get bored more if there's a quiet spot in the story that's more then 1 min max and thus parts that are needed for a good story need to be constantly justified so you can't really blame writers going "that's it I'm not even gonna try anymore if all that happens is that I get overruled by the suits"

That's no excuse, and I suspect its an oversimplification in any case, since some writers and directors (Moffat and, yes, Abrams) have practically made this "style" into a trademark. I think its more than just "The executives won't let the writers write good stories"- that's the easy answer, and an appealing one, because it evokes a classic narrative of the corporate system crushing brilliant artists. And its part of the picture, at times, but I don't think its the whole picture.

The truth is, I don't think the industry as a whole, at all levels, puts much value on plot coherency and pacing. Even writers seem often to be more interested in clever dialog, or worse, "clever twists" and ham-handed symbolism that lets them seem cleverer than they are, than in writing a solid narrative. But maybe that's just my perception.

Whatever the cause, though, its not necessary, not even if your goal is "fast-paced action-fest". You can write an action-packed special-effects-and-blood-bath with a coherent plot. As an example of this done right in the SF/action genre- Terminator. The original one. Its not a hugely deep film, or a very complicated one, and while it might not be the fastest-paced action film ever, its certainly not slow, and spends a great deal of screen time on chase scenes and shootouts (and, cleverly, works much of the exposition into the chase scenes). But it has an almost impeccably logical plot- not complicated, but all the major plot points and even most of the characters' actions make sense in the context of the film.

Which makes me ask: "What the hell happened to James Cameron?"

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-11-19 06:30pm
Which makes me ask: "What the hell happened to James Cameron?"

Maybe still working on his Avatar sequel to get off the ground

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-11-20 11:46am

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-11-19 06:30pm
Which makes me ask: "What the hell happened to James Cameron?"

Maybe still working on his Avatar sequel to get off the ground

Production is due to start in April. 4 sequels, filmed simultaneously.

James Cameron got interested in underwater stuff after The Abyss, which led to Titanic and a bunch of non-Hollywood oceanography stuff, then Avatar. He got tired of doing the typical Hollywood thing of making various movies one after the other, I guess.

Elheru Aran wrote: ↑2017-11-20 12:36pm James Cameron got interested in underwater stuff after The Abyss, which led to Titanic and a bunch of non-Hollywood oceanography stuff, then Avatar. He got tired of doing the typical Hollywood thing of making various movies one after the other, I guess.

Unlike Michael Bay

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-11-20 11:46am

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-11-19 06:30pm
Which makes me ask: "What the hell happened to James Cameron?"

Maybe still working on his Avatar sequel to get off the ground

I meant more "when did he go from being a guy who could write an airtight script to another "effects over story" director, actually.

But Terminator he had a co-writer for IIRC, so maybe that's what did it?

He doesn't have the full ownership to Terminator anymore does he?

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-11-21 10:05am He doesn't have the full ownership to Terminator anymore does he?

Gale Anne Hurd owns the rights, apparently, but in a couple of years they lapse back to Cameron. He sold them for production money to make Terminator.

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-ca ... r-1-2015-7

Cameron is doing Alita, though.

Frankly I think he became a spectacle director when his spectacle movies began making all the money.