Star Wars Episode VII (allowing for spoilers)

[JediTricks]

In fact, I do have evidence to my point, Kylo Ren's landing party includes TIE Fighters, TIE Fighters don't have hyperdrives, they are brought to locations by Star Destroyers. Where did we see even the more advanced SF TIE Fighters being carried earlier in this film, was it the fighter bay of a Star Destroyer? It was.

Actually, the TIE/sf fighters that are featured in this film are, in fact, equipped with hyperdrives and deflector shields, unlike the previous TIEs. They don't need a Star Destroyer to bring them to a location.

Ugh, fucking SW.com adding in nonsense. Fine. well the ships in that battle weren't TIE/SF Fighters, they were regular TIEs which don't have hyperdrives, they had to have been brought there by a Star Destroyer. So I have proof a Star Destroyer was over Takodana and that there was not strong justification to abandon the hunt for BB-8 when they could call in reinforcements.

I'm not wrong, and what do you mean my claim's "not cited"? When I said the quote came from the Rebel briefing for the attack on the Death Star, that wasn't specific enough for you? Or did you need that in MLA format? Either way, here's the exact quote:

ADMIRAL DODONNA: "The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense.

In no way does that define ANYTHING, there is no citation of size, only that the station's defenses are greater than half the starfleet.

Dodonna is a General, and the final draft doesn't give him a rank at all.

None of what you're saying makes sense, none of what you're citing is accurate, and nowhere did Lucas say he wanted to keep the EU consistent with the films. It's like you're not even living in the same dimension as the rest of us.

Funny, seeing as even you admitted that the name Coruscant came from the EU, which George Lucas later put into the films. And even in the quote YOU posted, Lucas said: "But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used." As I pointed out. So what I've cited is indeed accurate. And Dom backs up the claim that Lucas had said the EU was part of canon at some point. Seems to be you're the one living in another dimension from the rest of us.

So the problem is that you see reality as fluid, as long as you keep wriggling and writhing you can always be right. You cite Dom as backup when Dom cannot actually provide a quote. You cite that Lucas took a name from the EU as proof that he wants to keep all EU in canon whenever possible, which is not the case at all and doesn't prove anything, your quote is so truncated it leaves out the "two universes" line right after that, but you pat yourself on the back about it anyway. Enjoy pretending you're right.

[Dominic]

How about we stop arguing about what Lucas said and when, as Lucas was famously mercurial. (I recall the quote from Lucas being in Wizard/Toyfair, circa 1998 or 99. That is the best I can do.)

I'm not wrong, and what do you mean my claim's "not cited"? When I said the quote came from the Rebel briefing for the attack on the Death Star, that wasn't specific enough for you? Or did you need that in MLA format? Either way, here's the exact quote:

ADMIRAL DODONNA: "The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense.

An officer would likely be able to speak more authoritatively than a smuggler.

Either way, I would not take Han's dialogue as "word of god" so much as "common understanding in context". The real point is that the Death Star was supposed to be an unprecedented death machine.

"Real numbers" are hard to pin down in movies.

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is another example. As much as I love that move, there are way too many apes at the end.

The only way that the end of that movie makes sense is to assume that both the sanctuary and the zoo that Caesar liberates are exceptionally well stocked. (A hard number is given for the laboratory. I forget what it is, but it is low double digits at most.)

The zoo clearly has multiple gorillas and orangutans (which is rare based on my research).

I forget the name of the real sanctuary that the fictional San Bruno was (very loosely) based on. But, the CGA in Florida has ~60 apes (chimps and orangutans). There are at least 60 chimps escaping from San Bruno at the end. (The zoo is similarly well-stocked, with at least a dozen gorillas and orangutans.)

Sometimes, you just have to squint and say "close enough".

Speaking of your recall... you are responding to the wrong thing. That comment was about Rey being written as an audience proxy Mary Sue, not about the Starkiller.

My mistake. I do disagree that Rey was a Mary Sue, as I doubt she was intended to be any sort of audience identification character (or that audiences really need them that much).

Or they just weren't entirely consistent and it wasn't a choice but a mistake. You're swapping results for intents.

I am basing that on the movie itself, Marvel's current comics and (as summarized by a friend) episodes of "Rebels". Disney/Abrams are handling the force differently than Lucas did. It is flashier on screen and more powerful in story. They changed stuff. You might not like the change. But, it is likely not a mistake so much as it is a creative/stylistic choice.

t's based purely on presumption of another's work rather than its own merits.

I am assuming that a movie in a series is going to leave some stuff for the next movie. That is not unreasonable.

[Sparky Prime]

Ugh, fucking SW.com adding in nonsense. Fine. well the ships in that battle weren't TIE/SF Fighters, they were regular TIEs which don't have hyperdrives, they had to have been brought there by a Star Destroyer. So I have proof a Star Destroyer was over Takodana and that there was not strong justification to abandon the hunt for BB-8 when they could call in reinforcements.

It's not just StarWars.com. The Visual Dictionary and "Incredible Cross-Sections" books also mention the TIE/sf carry hyperdrives. And those are TIE/sf fighters at Tokodana. The image on StarWars.com is even from that very scene! Sorry, but that's the facts.

In no way does that define ANYTHING, there is no citation of size, only that the station's defenses are greater than half the starfleet.

I know it doesn't say anything about size. That's been my point the entire time, there is NOTHING in canon that defines the size of the Imperial Fleet. The point of this quote is simply that it proves Han Solo's line wrong because that seems to be the only way to prove to you Han's line isn't meant to be taken literally as you've been doing. Dodanna says the Death Star "carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet" when Han didn't believe the entire Imperial Fleet could blow away a planet, so Han was wrong.

Dodonna is a General, and the final draft doesn't give him a rank at all.

Whatever. The quote is still accurate.

So the problem is that you see reality as fluid, as long as you keep wriggling and writhing you can always be right. You cite Dom as backup when Dom cannot actually provide a quote. You cite that Lucas took a name from the EU as proof that he wants to keep all EU in canon whenever possible, which is not the case at all and doesn't prove anything, your quote is so truncated it leaves out the "two universes" line right after that, but you pat yourself on the back about it anyway. Enjoy pretending you're right.

I didn't "cite" Dom, I was pointing out that at least two of us can recall Lucas has flip-flopped on the subject in the past, while you're the only one that's been denying it. Granted, that's no quote from the man himself, but I know it's out there even if it is difficult to find at this point. And yes, I know Lucas said they are two universes in your quote, I didn't ignore it. But at the same time, you can't just ignore that he also specifically says he wanted the EU and the films to be consistent as well, and even took steps to do just that himself. It just goes to show once again, Lucas wasn't entirely clear on the subject. But you go ahead and just keep denying that if it makes you feel better.

An officer would likely be able to speak more authoritatively than a smuggler.

Either way, I would not take Han's dialogue as "word of god" so much as "common understanding in context". The real point is that the Death Star was supposed to be an unprecedented death machine.

Exactly. Han's line isn't meant to be taken literally. The only point of it is to give the audience a vague idea of just how scary the Death Star supposed to be.

[JediTricks]

Yahoo News is reporting that a soft box office opening weekend in China suggests the movie won't be making it to the #1 worldwide slot:

http://news.yahoo.com/star-wars-the-for ... .html?nf=1

Personally, I'm fine with this. Another billion seems unlikely in the face of the home video announcements. The world can keep stupid Avatar, that movie was dumb as a stump, it proved the rest of the world's cinematic taste is all flash, no substance.

They are saying that it could take down Titanic, which is just under half a billion away.

I already had tickets for today to see it again, I'd like to say I did my part but my theater has $6 Tuesdays so my 2 viewings combined is still less than one normal ticket.

An officer would likely be able to speak more authoritatively than a smuggler.

Either way, I would not take Han's dialogue as "word of god" so much as "common understanding in context". The real point is that the Death Star was supposed to be an unprecedented death machine.

"Real numbers" are hard to pin down in movies.

I don't think this is about which line is more authoritative - although General Dodonna's line is in the context of the station's defenses, not the main planet-buster weapon. This is about the relationship between the audience and the author via his universe and his characters, what is canon and what is suggested by canon, why a story can suggest a thing without having to spell it out entirely. There is no reason given in the films to discount Han Solo's word at this, the story gives only him credit, at no point is he seen bragging beyond his means - I suspect it's easy to dismiss Han Solo's word because of that "12 parsecs" line, which is a flaw of the author to convey meaning to the audience, and the audience easily misunderstanding it to be Han using the wrong measurement when in fact it's Lucas oversimplifying the concept. But the author makes Han worldly, experienced, and suggests at an Imperial past, creating a believable foundation for him to be an authority on the matter as far as the audience is concerned. Since there is no contradiction seen in the author's canon, that makes Han's lines the defacto authority. Hell, the least-credible thing Han says in the whole canon saga is that he and Chewie have gotten into tougher places than the main bunker entrance in ROTJ, and even that cannot actually be discredited.

My mistake. I do disagree that Rey was a Mary Sue, as I doubt she was intended to be any sort of audience identification character (or that audiences really need them that much).

You don't think she's somewhat a Mary Sue? I'm not saying entirely, but somewhat? And could you explain why you don't think she's one of the audience's proxies? She's not only a protagonist, she's a "start from nothing to find greatness" character, seems like that's her role in the same way it was Luke's in ANH.

I am basing that on the movie itself, Marvel's current comics and (as summarized by a friend) episodes of "Rebels". Disney/Abrams are handling the force differently than Lucas did. It is flashier on screen and more powerful in story. They changed stuff. You might not like the change. But, it is likely not a mistake so much as it is a creative/stylistic choice.

Don't cite Rebels if you haven't seen it. Rebels is incredibly faithful to the OT take on the Force IMO and I'd love to discuss this, but not if your side of it is third-hand understanding.

It's not just StarWars.com. The Visual Dictionary and "Incredible Cross-Sections" books also mention the TIE/sf carry hyperdrives. And those are TIE/sf fighters at Tokodana. The image on StarWars.com is even from that very scene! Sorry, but that's the facts.

Fact: https://youtu.be/2gCbnwavkKc?t=3m23s #NotAllTIEfighters

I didn't "cite" Dom, I was pointing out that at least two of us can recall Lucas has flip-flopped on the subject in the past

"Cite"

[Dominic]

I don't think this is about which line is more authoritative - although General Dodonna's line is in the context of the station's defenses, not the main planet-buster weapon. This is about the relationship between the audience and the author via his universe and his characters, what is canon and what is suggested by canon, why a story can suggest a thing without having to spell it out entirely.

It is about how literally you assume a line of explication to be. I have heard that Han is supposed to be a Marty Stu for Lucas. But, I am assuming that the line about what it would take to destroy a planet in "Star Wars" is not meant to be a "word of god".

This is not a question of parsecs (or Lucas' misuse of the word). It is a question of what makes sense given the context of the line. It does not make sense for Han (more correctly, for Lucas to write Han) to be giving OCD precision statistics about what it would take to destroy a planet.

Like I said, the point of the scene is to show that the Death Star is a death machine of unprecedented scale. It is not to give a precise description of how dangerous the Death Star is relative to the rest of the fleet (however big it is).

You don't think she's somewhat a Mary Sue? I'm not saying entirely, but somewhat?

I doubt that audiences are going to see any SW movie for the purposes of identifying with a character. Similarly, I do not think the characters are made to be personally identifiable in that sense. "Hero rises from nothing" is such a cliche that it is arguably meaningless.

Rey's skill with the force (and the other skills it confers) are a function of how Abrams/Disney handles the Force and Abrams' seeming inabilty to write without contrivance. In gaming terms, Rey's character dynamics would be somewhere between "Monty Haul" and "Monty Cargo". She does well in most scenarios (getting rerolls for failed tasks and ultimately succeeding), and the main point seems to be to move her (the the plot) along.

Lazy writing? Probably. Mary Sue? Too much of a leap.

Don't cite Rebels if you haven't seen it. Rebels is incredibly faithful to the OT take on the Force IMO and I'd love to discuss this, but not if your side of it is third-hand understanding.

I am not going to sit through a show that failed to get me with the preview/trailer. I was just citing a friend that I trust.

That being said, Marvel's comics (which I have flipped through more than one issue of) show force users to be more powerful than the movies implied. Vader is pulling things in the comics (set between episodes 4 and 5) that imply he is either taking midichlorian steroids between movies (and getting clean before landing at Hoth) or that Vader was having an off day at Hoth. (Going by the comics, Vader should/could have just collapsed the ice caverns on the rebels, and likely trapped the Falcon before it took off.)

Ren being able to stop and hold a fired shot or Rey being able to do what she does are consistent with this. Abrams and Disney are almost certainly making a deliberate decision to handle the force differently than Lucas did. That is not a mistake, it is a stylistic choice. Characters like Superman have been changed over time, sometimes without explanation.

[JediTricks]

It is about how literally you assume a line of explication to be. I have heard that Han is supposed to be a Marty Stu for Lucas. But, I am assuming that the line about what it would take to destroy a planet in "Star Wars" is not meant to be a "word of god".

This is not a question of parsecs (or Lucas' misuse of the word). It is a question of what makes sense given the context of the line. It does not make sense for Han (more correctly, for Lucas to write Han) to be giving OCD precision statistics about what it would take to destroy a planet.

Like I said, the point of the scene is to show that the Death Star is a death machine of unprecedented scale. It is not to give a precise description of how dangerous the Death Star is relative to the rest of the fleet (however big it is).

Why do you give a shit if Han is supposed to be Lucas' proxy? The character is clearly NOT a Marty Stu, he's plenty flawed from the outset and not beloved by everybody. But what does that change if he were?

Han isn't Lucas' proxy, Luke is -- Luke, hence the name, is a farmboy who sees his life going nowhere until a big event takes him on adventures unheard of and unlocks the power within; George Lucas lived on a walnut farm and felt aimless in community college getting forced into taking over his father's career until a big event unlocked the power within him and opened his life to adventures unheard of (young Lucas was a hot rodder who got T-boned and flipped turning left off the highway into his farm's road, it put him up in the hospital for a long time where he started to think about spirituality and life in a new way which created his idea of the Force, and this pushed him into cinema which sent him to USC). The Obi-Wan/Anakin character from the first draft, Ralph McQuarrie drew that character as an older George Lucas, and that character was treated as "Han Solo" as it went along (the first draft was very different) but he's not really that author proxy.

Anyway, "Word of god" line, why are you assuming Han wouldn't know what it would take to blow up a planet? It's a huge undertaking, there *is* science in this space opera, why wouldn't he know it? The movie gives no indication he's wrong, Obi-Wan doesn't correct him or even grunt or roll his eyes to suggest he's in disbelief. If the audience doesn't trust Han's opinion of the situation, then there's no point to the line; Han has to be giving the audience a reasonable indication of the limitations of that universe. Han's role is one who knows the Empire, he's the protagonists' main authority on the Empire throughout the film, he's the authoritative counterpart to Obi-Wan who is the main authority on the Force and the past in general.

Parsec isn't used wrong, it's used as part of the "science" Lucas had in mind but didn't properly convey about hyperspace travel needing to navigate around gravity wells. And having read the earlier drafts, I now believe Lucas did intend it - the Falcon's able to navigate hyperspace "routes" better and faster than other ships, so he can swing tighter "routes" than most which makes the kessel run about distance as much as time - there's a lot of nerdy shit Lucas had in mind that he intentionally held back, he watched a lot of Star Trek while writing.

I doubt that audiences are going to see any SW movie for the purposes of identifying with a character. Similarly, I do not think the characters are made to be personally identifiable in that sense. "Hero rises from nothing" is such a cliche that it is arguably meaningless.

Rey's skill with the force (and the other skills it confers) are a function of how Abrams/Disney handles the Force and Abrams' seeming inabilty to write without contrivance. In gaming terms, Rey's character dynamics would be somewhere between "Monty Haul" and "Monty Cargo". She does well in most scenarios (getting rerolls for failed tasks and ultimately succeeding), and the main point seems to be to move her (the the plot) along.

Lazy writing? Probably. Mary Sue? Too much of a leap.

Mary Sue is about implication by the author, not inference by the audience. Using gaming dynamics to define a character is apples and oranges.

I am not going to sit through a show that failed to get me with the preview/trailer. I was just citing a friend that I trust.

The trailer failed me almost completely, I went into it expecting it to outright stink, and yet the pilot it was cut from was really great, I very much liked it and outright loved the next episode I saw (it was the 4th episode out of order for a press screening). I think your interpretation of your friend's interpretation of the show's handling of the Force is not really enough to go on. If you decide to give a full episode a look, and I would definitely recommend it, LMK what you think.

That being said, Marvel's comics (which I have flipped through more than one issue of) show force users to be more powerful than the movies implied. Vader is pulling things in the comics (set between episodes 4 and 5) that imply he is either taking midichlorian steroids between movies (and getting clean before landing at Hoth) or that Vader was having an off day at Hoth. (Going by the comics, Vader should/could have just collapsed the ice caverns on the rebels, and likely trapped the Falcon before it took off.)

Ren being able to stop and hold a fired shot or Rey being able to do what she does are consistent with this. Abrams and Disney are almost certainly making a deliberate decision to handle the force differently than Lucas did. That is not a mistake, it is a stylistic choice. Characters like Superman have been changed over time, sometimes without explanation.

Comic books and video games are always going to hypercharge the Force, this is why the EU should stay separate. Novels get it a little better because they can spend more time giving the reader an idea of the feelings and subtleties and challenges in a way that a comic panel can't.

Kylo Ben holding that shot does reframe the Force considerably, and it is something I cited as dubious - I'd cite it as dubious had this been the first Star Wars movie ever though. Rey's abilities are not inconsistent with the Force of old, it's just that all of it is unearned, and some of it involves a Force vision which we've *seen* previously in ROTS but hypercharged. Cut dialogue talks about this being the actual awakening of the Force, but if that were the case then Rey's previous successes wouldn't be attributable to the Force at all, so I'm not treating it as canon (I think it's in the novelization tho).

[Sparky Prime]

Fact: https://youtu.be/2gCbnwavkKc?t=3m23s #NotAllTIEfighters

Nice little video. Not seeing what it has to do with the TIE fighters.

"Cite"

Having an English degree, I'm already very familiar with what the word "cite" means, thanks. It's a term used when quoting an author or providing proof from something of authority, not so much when simply pointing out someone else said the same thing.

Anyway, "Word of god" line, why are you assuming Han wouldn't know what it would take to blow up a planet? It's a huge undertaking, there *is* science in this space opera, why wouldn't he know it?

Because Han Solo is just a smuggler? Why would a smuggler know what it'd take to blow up a planet? That's not something in his line of work, and Han doesn't exactly seem like the type that would care about science.

[Shockwave]

Why would a smuggler know what it'd take to blow up a planet? That's not something in his line of work, and Han doesn't exactly seem like the type that would care about science.

I used to be a janitor at a community college and yet I'm pretty sure I know how many nukes it would take to destroy a city. I also know that we as a species have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over. That's common knowledge. Having this kind of knowledge just a reasonable estimate of available technology, not some government secret. Being a smuggler doesn't mean he's ignorant. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

[Sparky Prime]

I used to be a janitor at a community college and yet I'm pretty sure I know how many nukes it would take to destroy a city. I also know that we as a species have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over. That's common knowledge. Having this kind of knowledge just a reasonable estimate of available technology, not some government secret. Being a smuggler doesn't mean he's ignorant. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

That's not a fair comparison. The Death Star was the first of it's kind with a weapon capable of destroying a planet, which wasn't even public knowledge in the galaxy yet. Destroying Alderaan was it's debut. And until that point, I don't think anyone besides the Empire in the Star Wars universe had really conceived of what it'd take to destroy a planet. To use your example, that'd be like knowing what a nuke was before the public even knew what a nuke was, much less what it was capable of. I'm not saying Han was ignorant because he's a smuggler, but why would a smuggler know what it would take to blow up a planet before anyone had done it when such weapons didn't exist, as far as he knew at that point? Han Solo isn't a mad scientist bent on galactic domination.

[Shockwave]

Sure it is. Because when Han says the line, he still hasn't seen the Death Star yet and all he knows at that point is that Alderan had been destroyed. His comment is an assessment of what is publicly known to be the Empire's military capability. He was commenting on the strength and size of the Imperial Starfleet which would be common knowledge.