The "REAL" Star Wars

[01TheDude]

is it terrible to have similar events occur from one film to the next?

 

I realize that the coincidence of the various elements is all too obvious, but it isn't as if there isn't a precedence for the old saying "history repeats itself" or "those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it".

 

The one main issue of that for me is the use of the Star Killer vs the Death Star. But perhaps what we see as "repeating" is just how the new regime decided to use the killer technology without having to build the entire subsystem from scratch. Sure-- the Star Killer does a similar "destroy the planet" type of weapon- but they basically put in on an existing celestial body instead of trying to build a moon sized spaceship.

 

So I can see that as a sort of natural progress. Frankly-- they were/are in the planet destroying business as a means to show their superiority over the rest of the universe. Most of us see this as failed logic-- and slightly ridiculous-- in terms of blowing up an entire planet. But if this were you MO--- finding a better way to blow up planets would be ideal. Lots of savings to be had not having to invest in infrastructure.

 

anyway-- I realize you are all referring to the dynamics of how the story is being told and who should ultimately be telling it. That ship has sailed imo-- Lucas gave up the reins and it is on Disney to produce films that entertain and progress the story. I found the film fairly entertaining, the references to stuff I've seen (more or less) before helped me get back into what is happening, and this gives Disney a good platform to work from hopefully. I just wish it had been Leia on that bridge because Han was one of the best parts of the movie.

[40sJohn]

Question 1: Is this really "Star Wars"? Me... as much as I liked Episode VII, I am okay with simply watching Episodes I through VI and ignoring the Mouse retelling their version of what went down.

 

Question 2: What was Lucas' original vision? It would be interesting to see if Marvel ever releases Lucas' original plans similar to the way Dark Horse did with the original -script for "The Star Wars."

 

 

Interesting questions you have posed and you got me to thinking about this whole Lucas involvement thing.

 

My answer is, "yes, this is Star Wars, with or without Lucas" It has continuity from the previous movies with the same characters, places, story lines and feel. As to question 2, I would love to know Lucas' end game with the Star Wars arc and where it would end up. However, Lucas has removed himself from the equation so we may never know. It may be like LOST and the end may be more disappointing than the thought of not knowing the end.

 

Personally, I really enjoyed the the Force Awakens and put it squarely with the middle three movies for enjoyment. Yeah, there is no Darth Vader quality villain, yet, but I like the foundation that has been set and look forward to more.

[Sauce Dog]

Sure it might make sense on paper, but to us it is just unoriginal. The one issue I had was that while the death star made sense on its ability to move around (albit slowly) the idea of the star killer makes so little sense the more you think about it. It obviously moves from sun to sun (unless the only planned on this being a one-sun-one-shot deal - but that makes even less sense), so how did they manage to move an entire planet without all the gravity messing up and causing massive global damage (just think of the tidal issues!). My BRAIN!

[01TheDude]

Sure it might make sense on paper, but to us it is just unoriginal. The one issue I had was that while the death star made sense on its ability to move around (albit slowly) the idea of the star killer makes so little sense the more you think about it. It obviously moves from sun to sun (unless the only planned on this being a one-sun-one-shot deal - but that makes even less sense), so how did they manage to move an entire planet without all the gravity messing up and causing massive global damage (just think of the tidal issues!). My BRAIN!

 

I got the impression that it gets it's energy from the surface of the sun-- which then replenishes back to normal after being taken.

 

As for moving around-- it appears they fire it from a distance and don't move the planet itself. Those first planets they blew up were no where near the Star Killer planet.

 

I could be wrong but that appeared to be how it worked.

[Sauce Dog]

Sure it might make sense on paper, but to us it is just unoriginal. The one issue I had was that while the death star made sense on its ability to move around (albit slowly) the idea of the star killer makes so little sense the more you think about it. It obviously moves from sun to sun (unless the only planned on this being a one-sun-one-shot deal - but that makes even less sense), so how did they manage to move an entire planet without all the gravity messing up and causing massive global damage (just think of the tidal issues!). My BRAIN!

 

I got the impression that it gets it's energy from the surface of the sun-- which then replenishes back to normal after being taken.

 

As for moving around-- it appears they fire it from a distance and don't move the planet itself. Those first planets they blew up were no where near the Star Killer planet.

 

I could be wrong but that appeared to be how it worked.

 

With a name like 'star killer' I imagine it was because of what it did to the sun (an actual star, not a planet that the weapon destroys). It was like they wanted to use the sun-crusher from the expanded universe but were worried people wouldn't take anything smaller than a death star as a serious threat.

[rjrjr]

Sure it might make sense on paper, but to us it is just unoriginal. The one issue I had was that while the death star made sense on its ability to move around (albit slowly) the idea of the star killer makes so little sense the more you think about it. It obviously moves from sun to sun (unless the only planned on this being a one-sun-one-shot deal - but that makes even less sense), so how did they manage to move an entire planet without all the gravity messing up and causing massive global damage (just think of the tidal issues!). My BRAIN!

 

I got the impression that it gets it's energy from the surface of the sun-- which then replenishes back to normal after being taken.

 

As for moving around-- it appears they fire it from a distance and don't move the planet itself. Those first planets they blew up were no where near the Star Killer planet.

 

I could be wrong but that appeared to be how it worked.

 

I also never got the impression that Starkiller base can move around.

[MR SigS]

I got the impression that it gets it's energy from the surface of the sun--

Yes.

 

...which then replenishes back to normal after being taken.

This I doubt. As the Star Killer absorbs the star's energy, physics suggests that the star would actually begin to expand due to the removal of so much solar mass- Less gravity to hold all that energy- so it begins to grow.

 

If the Star Killer doesn't move, it would only last as long as the star it's killing.

[rjrjr]

I got the impression that it gets it's energy from the surface of the sun--

Yes.

 

...which then replenishes back to normal after being taken.

This I doubt. As the Star Killer absorbs the star's energy, physics suggests that the star would actually begin to expand due to the removal of so much solar mass- Less gravity to hold all that energy- so it begins to grow.

 

If the Star Killer doesn't move, it would only last as long as the star it's killing.

 

I know Star Wars in a fantasy film, but are we really meant to believe Starkiller base has a breathable atmosphere and moves around? If the atmosphere is artificially created, why bother?

 

I see your point, but the physics involved makes my head hurt worse than the physics for the moon breaking away from Earth in Space 1999.

[Thawk]

I got the impression that it gets it's energy from the surface of the sun--

Yes.

 

...which then replenishes back to normal after being taken.

This I doubt. As the Star Killer absorbs the star's energy, physics suggests that the star would actually begin to expand due to the removal of so much solar mass- Less gravity to hold all that energy- so it begins to grow.

 

If the Star Killer doesn't move, it would only last as long as the star it's killing.

 

I know Star Wars in a fantasy film, but are we really meant to believe Starkiller base has a breathable atmosphere and moves around? If the atmosphere is artificially created, why bother?

 

I see your point, but the physics involved makes my head hurt worse than the physics for the moon breaking away from Earth in Space 1999.

 

Because the physics of a light saber are clearly understood. Same with FTL drives.

[TupennyConan]

SW4 was the new sci-fi of the late era '70's -- more pulp fiction aka western aka '80's action film progenitor -- much, much less techie notions about the possibilities of the future through the salvation of science.

[TupennyConan]

That's why it sucked when Lucas went bacteriological with the Force & dryly political with the plots in the prequels.

[BettrFastrStrongr]

"My Father "Has" it, I "Have" it, My Sister "Has" It."

 

I always considered that biological. What do I know?

[Buzzetta]

The New Yorker weighs in on the Lucas Star Wars movies in comparison to Abrams. It was an interesting read and published after I initiated this thread.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-george-awakens

 

Highlights:

But even Lucas’s loathed “Star Wars” prequels have gotten a second look. They’re no longer seen as generation-smiting events—or just generation-smiting events. They’re noble failures. “In his clumsy way [Lucas] was going for what had never been done instead of redoing something that had,” New York’s David Edelstein wrote. Vice’s Brian Merchant left the theater after “The Force Awakens” “kind of wish[ing] it was more like the prequels. That George Lucas had been more involved.”

 

On the other hand, it must be satisfying to see his gifts as a director, so long forgotten, be praised. “The Force Awakens” makes it once again possible to think about George Lucas as a man of imagination, of conviction, and (minus Jar Jar Binks) of taste—as a brilliant appropriator rather than an average one. It took a forgery to get him called an artist.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The New Yorker weighs in on the Lucas Star Wars movies in comparison to Abrams. It was an interesting read and published after I initiated this thread.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-george-awakens

 

Highlights:

But even Lucass loathed Star Wars prequels have gotten a second look. Theyre no longer seen as generation-smiting eventsor just generation-smiting events. Theyre noble failures. In his clumsy way [Lucas] was going for what had never been done instead of redoing something that had, New Yorks David Edelstein wrote. Vices Brian Merchant left the theater after The Force Awakens kind of wish[ing] it was more like the prequels. That George Lucas had been more involved.

 

On the other hand, it must be satisfying to see his gifts as a director, so long forgotten, be praised. The Force Awakens makes it once again possible to think about George Lucas as a man of imagination, of conviction, and (minus Jar Jar Binks) of tasteas a brilliant appropriator rather than an average one. It took a forgery to get him called an artist.

 

It's nice to see that others came to the same conclusions.

[RockMyAmadeus]

“ ‘A New Hope’ and ‘Empire’ are both masterpieces of pop art...

 

They must be reading my posts....

 

 

Scratch that...after finishing the article, I'm convinced they're reading my posts.

 

[Bronze Surfer]

Lawrence Kasdan being a writer makes this a Star Wars movie

 

*drops MIc*