This Article Makes Me Sad

Replies

  • Tanzos2
    17 posts Member
    The guy complained about too many airplane scenes in EP. 4. What, all 2 of them?

    He had some fair points but they're all points that are pretty surface level. And obviously seeing each movie just once also doesn't help him understand the nuances of everything unlike us who have seen them hundreds of times.

    He questioned why anyone cared about Darth Vader being Luke's father and said he had no backstory to him or character development. But uh... he kinda did once he revealed himself. Obi Wan talked about his father being his best friend and Vader being his nemesis. So when he says he's his father you know Obi Wan's nemesis is his best friend and that he turned evil.

    Likely something he didn't catch on a first watch but still. It's in there, he just didn't listen.
  • Tanzos2
    17 posts Member
    Also he mentioned how Vader doesn't seem like one of greatest villains of all time when he compliments Luke half the time.

    I mean even villains can be proud of their son dude.

    But seriously if he listened he'd know that Vader was trying to turn him to his side. You don't smack talk people if you're trying to recruit them.

    He can't understand why it's so popular cause he didn't pay attention enough to everything. His article means nothing though so it's whatever, just unnecessary. If he just gave his thoughts on a first viewing and left critique out I'd be fine.
  • LordDirt
    1415 posts Member
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol
  • littleMAC77
    2291 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.
  • littleMAC77
    2291 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.
  • TVF
    24202 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Or didn't they
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • littleMAC77
    2291 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • Nihion
    2979 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    Pastman respectfully disagrees.
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    So they had Disney+ in 1977? I'm only talking about the present. If we bring time into this, we could also argue that the backstory has been written in the future and I should know about it already.
  • Kard_1986
    11 posts Member
    edited July 8
    That is literally the point you’re making about the original trilogy. So yes, yes you should know the story to the sequel prequels (Is that a thing?) they write in 20 years. At least by your logic.
  • littleMAC77
    2291 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    So they had Disney+ in 1977? I'm only talking about the present. If we bring time into this, we could also argue that the backstory has been written in the future and I should know about it already.

    So we should judge the OT based on a story written 20 years later, but we should judge the ST only on what exists now? Ok, i see now you do not have a point and I should just stop this.
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out the Underworld Alliance on Discord:https://discord.gg/wvrYb4Q
  • LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    So they had Disney+ in 1977? I'm only talking about the present. If we bring time into this, we could also argue that the backstory has been written in the future and I should know about it already.

    So we should judge the OT based on a story written 20 years later, but we should judge the ST only on what exists now? Ok, i see now you do not have a point and I should just stop this.

    How can I judge a trilogy based on what doesn't exist yet? I was only expressing my opinion, which was Force Awakens would be a better middle movie than an intro...
  • TVF
    24202 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    So they had Disney+ in 1977? I'm only talking about the present. If we bring time into this, we could also argue that the backstory has been written in the future and I should know about it already.

    So we should judge the OT based on a story written 20 years later, but we should judge the ST only on what exists now? Ok, i see now you do not have a point and I should just stop this.

    How can I judge a trilogy based on what doesn't exist yet? I was only expressing my opinion, which was Force Awakens would be a better middle movie than an intro...

    It's both though, it's an intro to the new characters while a return to the old (specifically Han Leia and Chewie) at the same time.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Nihion
    2979 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    So they had Disney+ in 1977? I'm only talking about the present. If we bring time into this, we could also argue that the backstory has been written in the future and I should know about it already.

    So we should judge the OT based on a story written 20 years later, but we should judge the ST only on what exists now? Ok, i see now you do not have a point and I should just stop this.

    How can I judge a trilogy based on what doesn't exist yet? I was only expressing my opinion, which was Force Awakens would be a better middle movie than an intro...

    It is a middle movie. Like TVF said, it picks up where our previous main characters left off, while introducing new ones. They assumed that most people had scene the original trilogy, but the movie is enjoyable even without any other piece of the story.

    I think you’ll judge it differently in 20 years, when Disney shoves a million comics, books, shows and movies in between those trilogies. Without the prequels, there’s a lot of randomness in the original trilogy too. Vader’s scary, but when the prequels came out, he got scarier because he went through real change. Palpatine never felt like a powerful villain to me until I watched him manipulate the whole galaxy with the Clone Wars. Before you compare it to the originals, give it time.
  • Chucko_marek
    3420 posts Member
    edited July 9
    Nihion wrote: »
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    So they had Disney+ in 1977? I'm only talking about the present. If we bring time into this, we could also argue that the backstory has been written in the future and I should know about it already.

    So we should judge the OT based on a story written 20 years later, but we should judge the ST only on what exists now? Ok, i see now you do not have a point and I should just stop this.

    How can I judge a trilogy based on what doesn't exist yet? I was only expressing my opinion, which was Force Awakens would be a better middle movie than an intro...

    It is a middle movie. Like TVF said, it picks up where our previous main characters left off, while introducing new ones. They assumed that most people had scene the original trilogy, but the movie is enjoyable even without any other piece of the story.

    I think you’ll judge it differently in 20 years, when Disney shoves a million comics, books, shows and movies in between those trilogies. Without the prequels, there’s a lot of randomness in the original trilogy too. Vader’s scary, but when the prequels came out, he got scarier because he went through real change. Palpatine never felt like a powerful villain to me until I watched him manipulate the whole galaxy with the Clone Wars. Before you compare it to the originals, give it time.

    But I'm not comparing it to the originals at all, nor the prequels. I might see it differently if I had the time to go through the mountain of other content, but I'm not sure I even like the saga enough to do so. Seems like I still enjoy the movies for nostalgia sake. I think if I were to watch the saga, from episode 1 on, I wouldn't enjoy it as much.
  • Nihion
    2979 posts Member
    Nihion wrote: »
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    But there was a trilogy to give Anakin's background. Poe, Finn and Rey just kinda show up in Force Awakens, which makes it feel more like the middle movie of a trilogy, and not the beginning. To me, it seemed like I was supposed to feel something for these characters without knowing anything about them. This technique could work and have backstory filled in through flashbacks, or dialog, but I felt that Last Jedi dropped the ball on that. Just my opinion, so no shoe throwing required. lol

    So poe and finn just kinda show up, just like an old dude in the desert, a walking carpet, and a cocky smuggler?

    Only when it was just the original trilogy only. Obi Wan plays a huge role in the prequels. Chewie was even in there for a bit and Solo. Han had an origin movie, where we learned how he won the Falcon, met Chewie and became the lovable scoundrel we know. Not so much with the others. From what I know, there are books and comics, but nothing from the main sagas.

    So what you are saying is star wars has a history of introducing characters, and then filling in their stories and backstory later? Weird, sounds like the sequels

    No I am not. I am saying the examples you used didn't support your point.

    Then you don't understand my point. The point is, when released we knew just as much of the backstory for OT characters as we do for the new characters in the ST. Lucas filling that info in 20 years later does not suddenly make it available in 1977

    So they had Disney+ in 1977? I'm only talking about the present. If we bring time into this, we could also argue that the backstory has been written in the future and I should know about it already.

    So we should judge the OT based on a story written 20 years later, but we should judge the ST only on what exists now? Ok, i see now you do not have a point and I should just stop this.

    How can I judge a trilogy based on what doesn't exist yet? I was only expressing my opinion, which was Force Awakens would be a better middle movie than an intro...

    It is a middle movie. Like TVF said, it picks up where our previous main characters left off, while introducing new ones. They assumed that most people had scene the original trilogy, but the movie is enjoyable even without any other piece of the story.

    I think you’ll judge it differently in 20 years, when Disney shoves a million comics, books, shows and movies in between those trilogies. Without the prequels, there’s a lot of randomness in the original trilogy too. Vader’s scary, but when the prequels came out, he got scarier because he went through real change. Palpatine never felt like a powerful villain to me until I watched him manipulate the whole galaxy with the Clone Wars. Before you compare it to the originals, give it time.

    But I'm not comparing it to the originals at all, nor the prequels. I might see it differently if I had the time to go through the mountain of other content, but I'm not sure I even like the saga enough to do so. Seems like I still enjoy the movies for nostalgia sake. I think if I were to watch the saga, from episode 1 on, I wouldn't enjoy it as much.

    The very first argument you made was that “Anakin had a trilogy to tell his backstory, Poe Finn and Rey just show up.” Whether you’re still arguing that now or not, you kept on the train that the originals were somehow different for a while. That’s why we’re responding.
  • Boo
    4084 posts Member
    I found this article somewhat comical.

    I especially enjoyed his review of the PT, it was pretty spot on.

    The OT was from a different era, yet the 1997 "modernized" the effects to some degree, but the dialogue? Lets face it, all star wars movies generally have some pretty bad dialogue. I think that is what kinda makes them all star wars movies.

    His bashing of the ST wasn't really enough. Because he doesn't care about the genre or franchise or story - he missed all the gapping plot holes etc. that came out of the ST.

    At the end of the day, this was an article from a dude who doesn't care or like the genre or these movies at all. He claims "they are for kids or immature adults" yet doesn't give them the time they deserve in understanding them because he has no interest in providing a good in depth review - which makes him lazy and immature when it comes to being a critic. I understand he claims not be a critic, then why doesn't he critic movies he does care about (like Harry Potter) rather than ones he doesn't?

    This was a review from a bloke who simply doesn't care about what he is doing - hardly anything gospel coming from this article and its common sense just to ignore such writings or at least have a laugh.
  • Boo
    4084 posts Member
    Who is arguing?

    This lol, all i see are people commenting their opinion on an article.

    I think that was the point in the OP posting the article with his own view, looking to discuss with the opinion of others, no?
  • Boo
    4084 posts Member
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    No because in the OT we are quite clearly walking into the middle of a story - hence it being E4.

    We know the Emperor overthrew the Old Republic with a tyrannical Empire and Vader fell to the darkside as an agent of the Empire to take out the galaxy's super heroes.

    The problem with the ST is that the audience spent the entire PT seeing that backstory - how a great galaxy fell to darkness and tyranny, then spent the entire OT seeing how even small force of good against all odds can win over evil.

    Only for the ST to start and we are back to a galaxy in tyranny and everything and everyone who fought so hard for was undone in an instant. It also made the backstory of Palpatine and Vader - how rare and powerful they were in a plan that took decades to come to fruition seem irrelevant, because - here's Snoke.

    That's why the backstory in the ST was needing some explanation - then we got the "oh Palpatine is alive" at the end, that undermines everything the franchise has done to that point, especially the character and purpose of Anakin/Vader - who the entire franchise had really been about all along, until Disney, lol.
  • Nihion
    2979 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    LordDirt wrote: »
    No back story, lol. Of course Vader and especially Palpatine didnt have any backstory yet OT lovers seem to overlook that and point out ST doing the same.

    No because in the OT we are quite clearly walking into the middle of a story - hence it being E4.

    We know the Emperor overthrew the Old Republic with a tyrannical Empire and Vader fell to the darkside as an agent of the Empire to take out the galaxy's super heroes.

    The problem with the ST is that the audience spent the entire PT seeing that backstory - how a great galaxy fell to darkness and tyranny, then spent the entire OT seeing how even small force of good against all odds can win over evil.

    Only for the ST to start and we are back to a galaxy in tyranny and everything and everyone who fought so hard for was undone in an instant. It also made the backstory of Palpatine and Vader - how rare and powerful they were in a plan that took decades to come to fruition seem irrelevant, because - here's Snoke.

    That's why the backstory in the ST was needing some explanation - then we got the "oh Palpatine is alive" at the end, that undermines everything the franchise has done to that point, especially the character and purpose of Anakin/Vader - who the entire franchise had really been about all along, until Disney, lol.

    I do actually agree with you here (even though I’m not a fan of continually discussing the ST) that the “New Empire” feel is very much Disney’s attempt at nostalgia instead of actual story.

    The First Order are actually a group of terrorists, as they should be, but they spend the entire trilogy making them a new Empire, which doesn’t make any sense. Why would anyone willingly fight for the First Order? (Stormtroopers were brainwashed, but officers? Technicians?) The only reason to fight for them is if you’re pure evil, which means that there is no righteous conflict that makes the OT era so rich. It also makes no sense that they could take out an organized Republic in one fell swoop, or that they could build what they had with what seems like zero preparation. Hopefully we get more explanation and story soon.
  • Boo
    4084 posts Member
    @Nihion - good luck waiting on more explanation and story surrounding the ST.

    What we are getting so far is just double down silliness. Pointless backstories on Knights of Ren and then the attempt at justifying and trying to make sense of the Emperor's return, involving clones and even unidentical clones etc. it just seems the more they try to explain, the sillier it gets.

    I guess I am so butt hurt about the ST, because I was really looking forward to it and for me it just failed hard on every level while damaging the others. So sad.

    I just hope for better star wars going forward, which I know they can do, I just hope they learned from what the ST did to the fans.
  • Nihion
    2979 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    @Nihion - good luck waiting on more explanation and story surrounding the ST.

    What we are getting so far is just double down silliness. Pointless backstories on Knights of Ren and then the attempt at justifying and trying to make sense of the Emperor's return, involving clones and even unidentical clones etc. it just seems the more they try to explain, the sillier it gets.

    I guess I am so butt hurt about the ST, because I was really looking forward to it and for me it just failed hard on every level while damaging the others. So sad.

    I just hope for better star wars going forward, which I know they can do, I just hope they learned from what the ST did to the fans.

    I, too, was expecting better. Silliness... eh. It’s all a little silly. But I hope that the future of Star Wars is rich and powerful.
  • Boo
    4084 posts Member
    Nihion wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    @Nihion - good luck waiting on more explanation and story surrounding the ST.

    What we are getting so far is just double down silliness. Pointless backstories on Knights of Ren and then the attempt at justifying and trying to make sense of the Emperor's return, involving clones and even unidentical clones etc. it just seems the more they try to explain, the sillier it gets.

    I guess I am so butt hurt about the ST, because I was really looking forward to it and for me it just failed hard on every level while damaging the others. So sad.

    I just hope for better star wars going forward, which I know they can do, I just hope they learned from what the ST did to the fans.

    I, too, was expecting better. Silliness... eh. It’s all a little silly. But I hope that the future of Star Wars is rich and powerful.

    Indeed! Raise a glass for better Star Wars hence forth!!!! lol
  • Nihion
    2979 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    Nihion wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    @Nihion - good luck waiting on more explanation and story surrounding the ST.

    What we are getting so far is just double down silliness. Pointless backstories on Knights of Ren and then the attempt at justifying and trying to make sense of the Emperor's return, involving clones and even unidentical clones etc. it just seems the more they try to explain, the sillier it gets.

    I guess I am so butt hurt about the ST, because I was really looking forward to it and for me it just failed hard on every level while damaging the others. So sad.

    I just hope for better star wars going forward, which I know they can do, I just hope they learned from what the ST did to the fans.

    I, too, was expecting better. Silliness... eh. It’s all a little silly. But I hope that the future of Star Wars is rich and powerful.

    Indeed! Raise a glass for better Star Wars hence forth!!!! lol

    To better Star Wars and more Porkins!
  • Boo
    4084 posts Member
    Nihion wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Nihion wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    @Nihion - good luck waiting on more explanation and story surrounding the ST.

    What we are getting so far is just double down silliness. Pointless backstories on Knights of Ren and then the attempt at justifying and trying to make sense of the Emperor's return, involving clones and even unidentical clones etc. it just seems the more they try to explain, the sillier it gets.

    I guess I am so butt hurt about the ST, because I was really looking forward to it and for me it just failed hard on every level while damaging the others. So sad.

    I just hope for better star wars going forward, which I know they can do, I just hope they learned from what the ST did to the fans.

    I, too, was expecting better. Silliness... eh. It’s all a little silly. But I hope that the future of Star Wars is rich and powerful.

    Indeed! Raise a glass for better Star Wars hence forth!!!! lol

    To better Star Wars and more Porkins!

    Hahahah - I don't know about "more Porkins" lol
  • Nihion wrote: »
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/06/21/review-watching-star-wars-for-the-first-time-on-disney-plus.html

    Why do we let people who don’t know what they’re talking about post on the internet? I found this article to be insensitive, and his “I’m not a professional” statement doesn’t make up for it.

    Okay you sold me... People who don't know what they are talking about should not be allowed to post in the internet.

    How can we stop these people from posting something insensitive?
Sign In or Register to comment.