StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Romulan Republic wrote:I criticize Doctor Who writer Steven Moffat a great deal, but I'll give him this much credit: when he wrote Day of the Doctor for the show's 50th. anniversary, he knew how to balance old and new. It would have been very tempting, no doubt, to just do a nostalgia fest. But while their were references to old material and a major return to the old status quo with bringing Gallifrey back, some of the most notable and best parts involved moving things forward, both in terms of the current Doctor's characterization and the introduction of the next Doctor. The show subsequently squandered a lot of that, but that's a different story. I think Moffat got that he needed to both honour the past and move the show forward.

Of course, Doctor Who has survived as long as it has because change is built into the premise. But I think this is a model more people should follow.

The difference between doctor who and star wars is that with doctor who, a most of their regular audience have seen little to none of the classic series. Meanwhile in star wars, most of their audience are most familiar with the original trilogy. The equivalent of classic doctor who references in star wars is EU references, and I can't imagine the new star wars movies referencing the new star wars books or the clone wars tv show much.

There may be some truth to that, but the old series is frequently referenced in Doctor Who. So I imagine a lot of fans are still somewhat familiar with it.

I like the way his cloak looks like that "chainmail" you see in low-budget movies: a loose weave of shiny threads. In medievalesque shows it looks like crap, but for Star Wars it works.

Part of me wants to roll my eyes at a masked Sith, but fully enclosed combat helmets are actually pretty consistent on the series. For the bad guys of course, for perception reasons the good guys always get exposed faces so we connect with them more and it makes characterization easier. I'll play along.

I like the new officer overcoat but the rings look too real world Navy. I actually liked how uniforms were handled in the OT and PT with little equivalence to real world insignia. And capes, lands made those look good

The Romulan Republic wrote:There may be some truth to that, but the old series is frequently referenced in Doctor Who. So I imagine a lot of fans are still somewhat familiar with it.

There's a big difference between "fans" and "regular viewers". Yes, most doctor who fans are somewhat familiar with the classic series, just as most star wars fans are somewhat familiar with the EU. But the people who watch it causally generally don't. They know the classic series exists, but that doesn't mean they watch it or know much about it. They're not going to know the significance of coal hill school, the zygons (beyond being told that they are classic villains afterwards), kate's father, and even the numbering of most of the classic doctors.

If this star wars movie was going to have the same amount of references as day of the doctor, it would have to have at least some references to the new EU. Because that is the star wars equivalent of the classic series in doctor who.

Patroklos wrote:Part of me wants to roll my eyes at a masked Sith, but fully enclosed combat helmets are actually pretty consistent on the series. For the bad guys of course, for perception reasons the good guys always get exposed faces so we connect with them more and it makes characterization easier. I'll play along.

I like the new officer overcoat but the rings look too real world Navy. I actually liked how uniforms were handled in the OT and PT with little equivalence to real world insignia. And capes, lands made those look good

I see your point, but Kylo Ren isn't a Sith. The Entertainment Weekly article states that he's a Knight of Ren (whatever that is).

So Kylo Ren isn't just a name, but a title? Kind of like Darth Vader?

So they're basically going for another Sith except with a different name? Not sure what to make of that. I like the idea of doing something new, but I wish they'd go further than just changing the name and title and otherwise being basically the same.

Edit: Also, as a title, Darth sounds way better than Ren.

The Romulan Republic wrote:So Kylo Ren isn't just a name, but a title? Kind of like Darth Vader?

Yes. In the article, JJ Abrams said that Kylo Ren "came to" that name when he joined the Knights of Ren (he also built his lightsaber): Entertainment Weekly:

The Romulan Republic wrote:So they're basically going for another Sith except with a different name? Not sure what to make of that. I like the idea of doing something new, but I wish they'd go further than just changing the name and title and otherwise being basically the same.

Very little is known so far. It has been pointed out that the Knights of Ren have some similarities to the abandoned concept of the Knights of Sith from the original rough draft of The Star Wars.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Edit: Also, as a title, Darth sounds way better than Ren.

That I certainly agree with.

So this is a poster they just showed off at D23 Expo - and i find it interesting that Finn is holding what looks like Lukes old lightsaber and it got me thinking perhaps Han Solo and Leia didn't get together and have kids perhaps it was Lando and Leia and Finn's last name is Calrissian and that is why we First see Leia with the lightsaber (in the trailer) and now Finn with it - she was sending it to her son which would be force sensitive.

Also explains why they won't tell us Finn's last name.

Perhaps I'm just crazy but it's really not that much of a stretch.

The stupid light crossguards still annoy me.

Batman wrote:The stupid light crossguards still annoy me.

What's stupid about them?

Steven Colbert did a pretty good bit on his show explaining the crossguards. I'll have to see if I can find a clip of it.

Elfdart wrote:

Batman wrote:The stupid light crossguards still annoy me.

What's stupid about them?

The fact that if you touch them (which you inevitably will) you you'll get burned/lose a finger? The whole point of crossguards is to protect the wielder.

Why would you inevitably touch them?

Sure, you could burn yourself on them, but that's a risk with any lightsaber to some extent. And the cross guards will decrease the risk of the enemy slicing the hilt and your hand. And on the whole, I'd be more worried about getting burned by the person actively trying to burn me than burning myself by mistake.

Edit: Also, the part of the cross guard closest to the wielder's hands is the metal emitter things that jut out of the handle, not the sabre blades.

You haven't handled a sword in your life I take it.

I believe I got a brief introduction to fencing on stage in an acting class a long time ago, but I wouldn't call myself particularly knowledgeable about swordplay.

Have you ever used a sword?

If anyone here with proper training in swordsmanship would care to weigh in, it might help.

That makes two of us but I maintain that it's going to include a lot of your hand touching the crossguards which is unlikely to be pleasant for a saber blade-y one

Actually, I'm not sure how much real-world sword fighting is applicable. Their is no real-world equivalent of a lightsaber.

Plenty that had crossguards and guess what? The wielder would inevitably touch them.

Well, neither of us is really an authority on this subject, as we've already discussed, but in any case, I repeat: the part of the cross guard closest to the handle, the part most likely to touch the wielder's hands, is metal, not... whatever lightsaber blades are made out of.

Batman wrote:The stupid light crossguards still annoy me.

Would you accept them if the in-universe reason for them isn't to make that lightsaber better, but instead the result of this lightsaber being a less refined design ?

For example, if the person who made it had to improvise from incomplete instructions. Leading to some serious technical issue he couldn't overcome without some shorter side blades. Maybe his solution requires them to be placed exactly there. Maybe he had some choice over where to put them and decided that there would be the best place (would another arrangement be better ?).

Because I can't overlook the fact that this lightsaber looks and sounds different to every other SW lightsaber I've seen. Even if I ignore the crossguards.


If it turns out that the crossguards are put there because crossguards would make a better lightsaber I'll be annoyed. Not because I know much about swordsmanship, but because it would raise the question: Why didn't anyone think of crossguards during the Old Republic ?

Their are numerous types of swords in history, so why not numerous types of lightsabers? Unless the film specifically goes out of its way to say this is a superior lightsaber, I don't see why it matters that no one did it before.

You might as well ask why didn't everyone build a double-bladed lightsaber or a one with a curved hilt.

Haven't we been through this already?

Maybe.

Sadly, that doesn't mean that people won't still whine about it twenty years from now, just like they're still whining about pretty much everything in the Prequels (justified or not).

As someone who has done a reasonable amount of HEMA, a crossguard that is dangerous - sharpened, pointed, whatnot - is almost unheard of in swords used in actual combat. Too many stances, grips, and maneuvers would bring the point or edge close to or in contact with one's hand, wrist, arm, chest, or face.

On a lightsabre, there is the additional problem that an opposing blade is most likely to be caught in the corner between the crossguard and the main blade, which is the exact place there isn't an active portion to catch it. Mind, the "stickiness" lightsabre blades seem to have to one another would keep the blade from actually sliding into that corner, but the point stands that as is, the crossguard poses a set of dangers that a standard lightsabre doesn't have, and a questionable benefit: the main reason for crossguards, quillons, basket hilts, etc. was to protect the hand from the opposing blade sliding down the forte. Lightsabre blades don't (as a rule, there is at least one exception) slide down other blades to begin with.