Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Star Wars Episode VIII - The Last Jedi *spoilers from Post 2857*
Comments
-
-
-
-
The simple answer is always best.
The rebellion are a rag tag fleet. They don’t have anything like the amount of ships they’d need to do this effectively And often. They just don’t. The imperial fleet and later first order fleet are beyond massive. They’d just build tech to counter it anyways. They have tech that can pull rebel ships out of hyperspace already (in Rebels)
Also in real world terms I think our history and 9/11 I guess has brought this up as an idea. There’s no comfortable way to retcon it so that they’ve always done it.
They can’t have anyways they just don’t have the ships needed to do so.
She made a personal sacrifice and I think that’s being glossed over. Not the first suicide run we’ve seen in Star Wars but definitely the most effective.
The simplest answer usually is the best, but only when all other answers have been exhausted.
Hyperspace in the Star Wars universe has been around for 1000's of years. If something like that could be weaponised so easilly, it would have been done so, long before now, even in missile form. In placing this, admittedly, cool looking scene into the 'The Last Jedi' Johnson has just made every single tactical choice made previously and in the future pointless and stupid.
I always thought that Hyperspace in Star Wars worked like warp in Star Trek, in that it warpped the space and time around the ship. Essentially, the ship wasn't present in real time. But, you had to avoid large celestial bodies, like stars or planets because they had their own massive gravity and could pull you out of hyperspace into...um...normal? space.
Now, it seems, that's all bollocks.
So, the idea that nobody had used hyperspace as its own weapon before is just remarkable in its silliness/lore oversight.
Thing is now, in future Star Wars films, when the chips are down and no one suggests the "Holdo manoeuvre", it's going to cause much eyebrow raising and eyeball rolling and there's too much of that kind of carry on happening already, by jimminy! *monocle falls into whiskey*.
Also, 9/11 was nothing new. The Japanese had that idea in the 40's and the Romans used battering ships to destroy their enemies 2000 years before that. The reason we don't see lots of 9/11's is because you have to hijack the aircraft first and that, in itself, is a very difficult thing to do.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The simplest answer usually is the best, but only when all other answers have been exhausted.
Hyperspace in the Star Wars universe has been around for 1000's of years. If something like that could be weaponised so easilly, it would have been done so, long before now, even in missile form. In placing this, admittedly, cool looking scene into the 'The Last Jedi' Johnson has just made every single tactical choice made previously and in the future pointless and stupid.
I always thought that Hyperspace in Star Wars worked like warp in Star Trek, in that it warpped the space and time around the ship. Essentially, the ship wasn't present in real time. But, you had to avoid large celestial bodies, like stars or planets because they had their own massive gravity and could pull you out of hyperspace into...um...normal? space.
Now, it seems, that's all bollocks.
So, the idea that nobody had used hyperspace as its own weapon before is just remarkable in its silliness/lore oversight.
Thing is now, in future Star Wars films, when the chips are down and no one suggests the "Holdo manoeuvre", it's going to cause much eyebrow raising and eyeball rolling and there's too much of that kind of carry on happening already, by jimminy! *monocle falls into whiskey*.
Also, 9/11 was nothing new. The Japanese had that idea in the 40's and the Romans used battering ships to destroy their enemies 2000 years before that. The reason we don't see lots of 9/11's is because you have to hijack the aircraft first and that, in itself, is a very difficult thing to do.
I would suggest that in any kind of ongoing movie or book or whatever franchise the world building is one of the most important aspects.
So when you take the world and start adding elements to it that do not necessarily "jive" with what we've seen before it has a negative impact on the overall mythology.
It sort of destroys a little of the world that was built.
When folks praise TLJ for subverting expectations or deconstructing Star Wars or such things I wonder how much of a good thing that will ultimately be.
The idea of Midi-chlorians was definitely unexpected and new. Was it good though?
We took this old Star Wars and changed all the things. We deconstructed this and subverted that. OK. Now what?0 -
The simplest answer usually is the best, but only when all other answers have been exhausted.
Hyperspace in the Star Wars universe has been around for 1000's of years. If something like that could be weaponised so easilly, it would have been done so, long before now, even in missile form. In placing this, admittedly, cool looking scene into the 'The Last Jedi' Johnson has just made every single tactical choice made previously and in the future pointless and stupid.
I always thought that Hyperspace in Star Wars worked like warp in Star Trek, in that it warpped the space and time around the ship. Essentially, the ship wasn't present in real time. But, you had to avoid large celestial bodies, like stars or planets because they had their own massive gravity and could pull you out of hyperspace into...um...normal? space.
Now, it seems, that's all bollocks.
So, the idea that nobody had used hyperspace as its own weapon before is just remarkable in its silliness/lore oversight.
Thing is now, in future Star Wars films, when the chips are down and no one suggests the "Holdo manoeuvre", it's going to cause much eyebrow raising and eyeball rolling and there's too much of that kind of carry on happening already, by jimminy! *monocle falls into whiskey*.
Also, 9/11 was nothing new. The Japanese had that idea in the 40's and the Romans used battering ships to destroy their enemies 2000 years before that. The reason we don't see lots of 9/11's is because you have to hijack the aircraft first and that, in itself, is a very difficult thing to do.
Tony I’m watching Rogue one and really enjoying it!! There’s hope for us all!
Still think that statue /mountain carving of the Jedi looks like Luke tho.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59091
It even has a blink and you'll miss it cameo in the prequels too.So the new fear and thinking is, we’re gonna see chewie and the falcon especially, get killed in 9. It’s always this unstoppable force that saves them in the nick of time and despite serving as ‘home’ in the OT and ST, as a closure in 9 it will be destroyed.
I’m not sure which is more upsetting. Chewie dying or the falcon being destroyed.
I have a feeling that the mixed reception for TLJ and the treatment of some aspects of the existing universe will have them more than reticent to do something like that in the final act. Or maybe they actually are idiots. Though if they do go Full retard™ they may consider the Falcon as some "masculine" hotrod. For that is what it is, a souped up pickup truck with a stroked V8 and supercharger, with a pair of high testosterone males at the wheel. An American Graffiti 50's hotrod in space. And this might make it disposable.
That said having Luke be a depressive hermit who runs away and throwing out everything "traditional" was dubious enough, but to "kill" Chewie and the Falcon would be a real kick in the teeth for fans old and new. Chewie is loved by kids and adults alike and The Falcon is up there with the Force as a central "character" in that world. Though they've already screwed with the very meat of the force making it an "egalitarian" superpower so at this stage anything is possible, even if it screws things at the box office.
Or Id not be too shocked anyway. Just as Lucas' Star Wars was born from a seam of post war, old Flash Gordon flics on the telly, Japanese cinema, Dune and the UCLA politic of the Hippie 60's, we got what we got in Lucas' vision. Today the seam is UCLA 80's/90's post modernist, progressive politic and a New Disney that tries to mix that with hardline returns and we get what we get in these films(TFA balanced that returns/nostalgia/New Disney angle, R1 went a little off piste and more back to the source and TLJ really went the post modernist route).Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
It even has a blink and you'll miss it cameo in the prequels too.
I have a feeling that the mixed reception for TLJ and the treatment of some aspects of the existing universe will have them more than reticent to do something like that in the final act. Or maybe they actually are idiots. Though if they do go Full retard™ they may consider the Falcon as some "masculine" hotrod. For that is what it is, a souped up pickup truck with a stroked V8 and supercharger, with a pair of high testosterone males at the wheel. An American Graffiti 50's hotrod in space. And this might make it disposable.
That said having Luke be a depressive hermit who runs away and throwing out everything "traditional" was dubious enough, but to "kill" Chewie and the Falcon would be a real kick in the teeth for fans old and new. Chewie is loved by kids and adults alike and The Falcon is up there with the Force as a central "character" in that world. Though they've already screwed with the very meat of the force making it an "egalitarian" superpower so at this stage anything is possible, even if it screws things at the box office.
Or Id not be too shocked anyway. Just as Lucas' Star Wars was born from a seam of post war, old Flash Gordon flics on the telly, Japanese cinema, Dune and the UCLA politic of the Hippie 60's, we got what we got in Lucas' vision. Today the seam is UCLA 80's/90's post modernist, progressive politic and a New Disney that tries to mix that with hardline returns and we get what we get in these films(TFA balanced that returns/nostalgia/New Disney angle, R1 went a little off piste and more back to the source and TLJ really went the post modernist route).
I can’t wait to read your autobiography:)0 -
Chewie and the Falcon? Naw, no way and I'd be genuinely surprised if they were both offed. For one, Chewie is a walking carpet that doesn't require expensive multimovie contracts, and the iconography of the Falcon alone makes it arguably untouchable. For the same reason you'll never see the Enterprise, TARDIS et al redesigned or canned in other franchises, there's too much goodwill and marketing dollars attached to the Falcon to destroy it; especially if that Solo prequel is any kind of success
The enterprise has been destroyed and reborn how many times though?
Check out the falcons look in the han film. All new n shiney n all
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement