|
Post by japaneseteeth on Jan 9, 2018 4:54:08 GMT
Yeah, that was a bit weird, but honestly tech levels in Star Wars have always really been secondary to what's needed for the plot to work, as long as it isn't too gratuitous.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jan 9, 2018 5:39:31 GMT
I got the sense that the Resistance Bombers were much more destructive than the Y-Wings were. In Rogue One, we saw that a squadron of Y-Wings could disable a Star Destroyer—but The Last Jedi showed a single Bomber could blow up a Star Destroyer all by itself. It's just that the greater firepower came at the cost of the Bombers being larger, slower targets.
|
|
|
Post by Applelight Limited on Jan 12, 2018 19:15:27 GMT
When you put it like that, it does make sense. Especially since the star destroyers of the First Order are apparently twice the size of the classic imperial ones. The whole concept still feels weird to me though. See, my brother got Battlefront 2 for Christmas, and you really get the sense of this from the ships. The prequel era ships feel faster and more maneuverable than the latter ships, and their guns and interior feel more advanced too. Sorry, I'm just like that. Is anyone else worried about the future of the trilogy now?
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jan 12, 2018 20:42:23 GMT
Yeah, the prequels do really muddy the water compared to the OT. So many of the Republic vehicles seem to be more efficient and better-designed than the counterpart versions that the Empire would later use. I think the justification from the EU is that the Empire just got cheap, and focused on (1) intimidation and (2) ability to quickly crank out huge numbers, so the quality of the equipments suffered. So Clone Troopers had access to camouflage armor, yet the Stormtroopers only had the stark white armor, because that's more intimidating. The AT-TE walkers from the Clone Wars had six legs and a low center of gravity, while the Empire's AT-AT walkers had only four legs and were much taller, which made them scarier but also easier to tip over. And so on.
At least the technology for holograms and prosthetic limbs clearly improved between the PT and the OT.
I guess I am a bit worried that JJ Abrams isn't the best choice to make the conclusion for this trilogy. By his own admission, he likes introducing mysteries more than he likes solving them. Of course, given what I've heard about Jurassic World and The Book of Henry, it sounds like Colin Trevorrow would have been an even worse choice.
|
|
|
Post by japaneseteeth on Jan 12, 2018 21:07:29 GMT
I think the main issue is that the Prequel Trilogy based most of the designs on a Zeerust aesthetic while the original trilogy went mostly for Used Future.
That said, I do think you can come up with explanations. Namely that in the prequels you have the Republic at its height, while the Empire went more utilitarian and the Rebel Alliance was cobbled together out of whatever was available.
As far the trilogy as a whole goes, it's really up in the air at this point. JJ could go either way for the reasons Meta said. But the main issue is that anybody who takes on the third movie in the trilogy is going to be under an insane amount of pressure, and there aren't a lot of people who can balance dealing with that with also getting a good vision into the movie.
Honestly I think the main issue overall at the current point is that it feels like they made up a lot of plot points as they went along rather than having a planned idea of where things would go. I'm sure they have the broad strokes down, but the finale is the point where you're pretty much required to sort that out.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jan 12, 2018 22:51:13 GMT
I think the main issue is that the Prequel Trilogy based most of the designs on a Zeerust aesthetic while the original trilogy went mostly for Used Future. Yeah, the OT was a 70s vision of the future, with dirt and oil stains on top to sell the illusion that people actually lived there. While the PT was a 00s vision of the future (with some 50s nostalgia mixed in, because that was also happening at the time) with less dirt, both for plot reasons and because it was harder to make CGI dirty. So the PT vehicles and such look a lot more advanced, even if they're supposed to be less advanced. Just like the original trilogy, then. Seriously, though: The original trilogy is still great, and the sequel trilogy has some problems. But the Star Wars talk on the rest of the internet has convinced me that the majority of the sequels' problems are just exaggerated versions of problems that were always there in the originals. I'm not sure how much of the vitriol for the new movies is because the problems are worse now, and how much is because the new movies don't have decades of nostalgia on their side.
|
|
|
Post by japaneseteeth on Jan 13, 2018 1:08:39 GMT
Yeah, in retrospect the OT definitely has some flaws. But it gets away with them because when they came out they were new. You can forgive most of the issues because they were cutting-edge in a lot of other areas and were pretty unique in their approach to sci fi. The modern movies don't have that excuse; the original trilogy came out 40 years ago and you'd think they'd be able to identify and iron out some of the issues in that time. The other issue is that the technical aspects of filmmaking have advanced so far that the the visual elements don't carry the movies like they did; there are tons of other things out there were comparable effects, so the writing and characterization gets more criticism.
I don't know if I'd say that the original trilogy gets by on nostalgia so much as that when it came out people had no preconceptions of what it was supposed to be. The new movies have to contend with and build on decades of analysis. Not to mention that Star Wars basically helped set the standards for sci fi entertainment, so people are going to treat each movie as a new benchmark.
You're definitely right that a lot of the flaws people pick on have always been there. It's just that now they expect the franchise to have addressed those flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Applelight Limited on Jan 13, 2018 16:10:04 GMT
Very true.
It's also sad that Lucas abandoned the used future aesthetic for the prequels considering that he practically invented it.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jan 14, 2018 5:50:44 GMT
So, we were disappointed at the complete lack of backstory for Snoke? According to this, Rian Johnson actually did have his backstory written ... but wound up leaving it out for pacing reasons. "or even J.J. may address it in the next movie." That would be kinda weird, but I wouldn't object to that.
|
|
|
Post by japaneseteeth on Jan 14, 2018 6:01:30 GMT
Honestly, they probably should've at least put some hints in back in TFA. I mean, that movie basically existed to set the scene, so if there's ever a place to establish him, that's it. I wonder if we'll ever actually know what the content of the cut scene was.
|
|
|
Post by Applelight Limited on Jan 19, 2018 14:40:47 GMT
I would love to know what the content of that scene was.
Also, after a conversation with my brother, would anyone like to see star wars movies set in their ancient past?
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jan 19, 2018 18:13:38 GMT
Yes, that would be very interesting.
On the one hand, I know a lot of fans would love to see a movie adaptation of the Knights of the Old Republic games. On the other hand, some of the compromises you'd need to translate a game to a movie might piss those same fans off.
|
|
|
Post by Applelight Limited on Jan 19, 2018 23:58:47 GMT
Indubitably on both accounts. Also, if the current set up is confusing some people (my dad for one), imagine what a 'historical' Star Wars movie might do! Still, I wouldn't rule it out completely. Also, remember how I have an issue comparing prequel tec to original tec? Well, it turns out that they had a lot of concept art from the originals that could have been dug out. Case in point: Those first two designs work far better for me than the AT-TE. The AT-TE is good...too good...and that's a problem for me.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jan 20, 2018 1:10:31 GMT
Yeah, replacing the Clones Wars AT-TE with the Imperial AT-AT only makes sense if you're favoring intimidation over practicality. That concept art would have made a bit more sense as the predecessor to the AT-AT.
Although there is one way that the AT-AT is better than its predecessor. Since the AT-TE is so low to the ground, they're oddly susceptible to individual battle robots with bombs on sticks. If you ever watched the Star Wars: Clones Wars miniseries (the one by Genndy Tartakovsky) there's a scene at the battle of Muunalist where a bunch of battle robots on speeder bikes, using explosive lances, destroy a whole bunch of Republic AT-TEs. Seriously, they just drive up to them from the side, jab the walker with their lance, and the walker lights up like a firecracker. Granted, that was a cartoon series where everything was a lot more explosive than usual—but even so, that strategy just would not work against a taller walker like the AT-AT.
|
|
|
Post by japaneseteeth on Jan 20, 2018 2:24:31 GMT
Well, intimidation over practicality fits the Empire's MO pretty well.
A historical Star Wars would be cool, though it would be tough to figure out what to do with it if there's no connection whatsoever to the storyline.
|
|