dahmage said:

ZkinandBonez said:

I’m curious as to how people would have reacted to the “flying Leia” scene had something similar been done back in the 80’s. I really think this scene has the most polarized reactions in the entirety of TLJ. Some people love it, and others think it’s complete nonsense. Even my first reaction was “is this brilliant or silly?”. Maybe it’s the obvious CG-look of the moment that puts people off?

Or maybe it’s the fact that many anticipated a Leia death scene,

then all of a sudden she “flies” back to safety (it’s pretty jarring the first time). Or maybe GotG vol.2 was still to fresh in people’s memory and all they could think of was Yondu’s Mary Poppins scene.

I personally think it’s a really interesting idea, but I can’t help but find the execution of the scene to be a tad off. It’s the wide-shot of her flying (this shot) that weirds me out a bit. But none of this makes it a “bad” scene in my mind. Plus, it’s a scene that to me gets less weird the more I watch it, though I can’t tell if that’s a good or bad sign.

emphasis mine, i agree with much of your post, but that part stands out, and i think it is impossible for most of us to effectively gauge what our subconscious was doing as we watched this, but i strongly suspect that our collective thought was “ok, this is how she dies”, and then we were all wrong.

That’s exactly what I thought the first time I saw TLJ, so when her hand suddenly started twitching and her eyes opened it really caught me off guard. It’s a scene I didn’t really appreciate until I saw it a second time. For me that actually applies to all of the new films; I don’t properly watch them on their own terms until I sew it a second time.

I think the Internet has shifted a lot of the focus on the actual production of movies, and as a result we’re simply watching movies differently than before. Nowadays we expect so much beforhand, and there’s such a diverse range of opinions, preferences and pre-suppositions. Back in the 80s people really just wanted more SW. Now people want their interpretation of what SW should be. And of course there’s no established template for what that is.

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Fair enough. But quality of filmmaking has nothing to do with wheather or not something should/could be added the lore; that’s all I’m saying.

I agree that new things can and should be added—it’s just the way they’re added that has to feel right; like they belong, like they’ve always been there/been possible. Even if you’ve never seen something happen before, it should feel like it could have happened all along. I remember the first time everyone saw Jabba in ROTJ and how great and disgusting he was—he didn’t feel out of place, he was just…Jabba.

I didn’t mean to turn this into another TLJ-bashing thread. Just wanted to discuss the current perception of the Star Wars films with the public in general. I think the brand has been cheapened, and it’s going to affect the future of the franchise.

I get what you’re saying. I’ve had similar reactions to the new movies, I just tend to take these differences as a natural side effect of them being new movies, using new methods. Plus, it’s all very subjective; the new Star Trek films f.ex. does nothing for me at all. They just feel off. But I get why people like them.

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

“Rules”? Why does the OT have to be the rules? The OT showed very little of the galaxy, and is set in a time with only a handful of Force-users. There was always the implication that the Force could do so much more, so why limit it to what little we saw in the OT?

And who makes the “rules” anyway? George Lucas? Seeing how many people dismiss the PT, there really isn’t much of an official baseline for what can or can’t happen in these movies.

Mielr said:

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

Just because something like that never happened within the plot of three movies doesn’t mean it can’t happen within the world.

Plus, what about Palpatine’s Force-lightning. That was a pretty jarring addition to the lore that didn’t resemble anything seem before. At least “flying” Leia is consistent with levitation, telekinesis, etc.

I’m not saying anyone has to like this scene, or the film, or any of the new SW stuff, I just don’t get the point of the argument that these movies aren’t conforming to what we saw in the OT. We saw so little in the OT, it only makes sense for the new films to introduce weird new things, just like the OT did when they were new.

They could have at least conformed enough to make them good films, like the OT were. It’s not about “weird new things” it’s about quality. With the prequels, George Lucas misinterpreted what made the OT great. It wasn’t FX, it was the story. Which is something sorely lacking in the recent films.

Fair enough. But quality of filmmaking has nothing to do with wheather or not something should/could be added the lore; that’s all I’m saying.

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

“Rules”? Why does the OT have to be the rules? The OT showed very little of the galaxy, and is set in a time with only a handful of Force-users. There was always the implication that the Force could do so much more, so why limit it to what little we saw in the OT?

And who makes the “rules” anyway? George Lucas? Seeing how many people dismiss the PT, there really isn’t much of an official baseline for what can or can’t happen in these movies.

Mielr said:

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

Just because something like that never happened within the plot of three movies doesn’t mean it can’t happen within the world.

Plus, what about Palpatine’s Force-lightning. That was a pretty jarring addition to the lore that didn’t resemble anything seem before. At least “flying” Leia is consistent with levitation, telekinesis, etc.

I’m not saying anyone has to like this scene, or the film, or any of the new SW stuff, I just don’t get the point of the argument that these movies aren’t conforming to what we saw in the OT. We saw so little in the OT, it only makes sense for the new films to introduce weird new things, just like the OT did when they were new.

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Force ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover in ROTJ; there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes in the OT that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia connection moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

I’m curious as to how people would have reacted to the “flying Leia” scene had something similar been done back in the 80’s. I really think this scene has the most polarized reactions in the entirety of TLJ. Some people love it, and others think it’s complete nonsense. Even my first reaction was “is this brilliant or silly?”. Maybe it’s the obvious CG-look of the moment that puts people off? Or maybe it’s the fact that many anticipated a Leia death scene, then all of a sudden she “flies” back to safety (it’s pretty jarring the first time). Or maybe GotG vol.2 was still to fresh in people’s memory and all they could think of was Yondu’s Mary Poppins scene.

I personally think it’s a really interesting idea, but I can’t help but find the execution of the scene to be a tad off. It’s the wide-shot of her flying (this shot) that weirds me out a bit. But none of this makes it a “bad” scene in my mind. Plus, it’s a scene that to me gets less weird the more I watch it, though I can’t tell if that’s a good or bad sign.

It’s kind of hard to judge all of this though. I mean aren’t most people on this forum old enough to remember SW before the PT? Even the younger people here seems to have grown up with the PT (like myself), so I don’t think too many here really knows what the general consensus about the new movies really are. Though I personally wouldn’t go as far as saying “jumping the shark” (not yet anyway), I too feel like they’re overdoing it a bit. But then again I’m used to a more old fashioned formula of filmmaking, so I honestly have no idea what people under the age of twenty feel about the new method.

oojason said:

by Steve Anderson - more of his quality work can be found at https://www.steveandersondesign.com/

I really wish the movie posters looked like this; so much better than the official photoshopped ones.

Mocata said:

Those pics aren’t showing /\

They are working fine for me.

dahmage said:

LexX said:

When I saw TLJ the second time it was all too clear when half of the resistance seemed to be women to the point it just didn’t feel believable, just transparent. The contrast is so stark compared to the OT it’s ridicilous. If you’re really at war and showed people inside battleships there wouldn’t be 50% women. It’s not wrong, it’s not right, that’s just the way it is.

you are comparing this movie to your own past here on earth, and it is a fact that in the past there was a concept of ‘a woman’s place’.

I for one like the fact that Star Wars isn’t reflecting that past anymore.

I don’t think LexX was trying to refer outdated gender roles. The strange thing is that even in the modern world, even in the most progressive countries, there are rarely, if ever, any occupation or field of interest that is 50% men and 50% women. Even in liberal countries like Norway, where both men and women are “drafted”, more men choose the military as a career afterwards than women. Similarly there are certain occupations that are over-represented by women, just like some jobs have an abundance of men. I think that’s what he meant by; “It’s not wrong, it’s not right, that’s just the way it is.”

Of course I agree that this still doesn’t have to apply to a fictional universe. Also a Galactic Civil War (or two of them) I’d imagine would make people do more things out of necessity than preference.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Didn’t Solo make him 190 years old just so he would be exactly 200 in ANH?

Chewie being 200 years old has been official since the beginning. It’s even stated in the script.

DominicCobb said:

ZkinandBonez said:

SilverWook said:

Chewie is likely safe. I don’t think Lucasfilm is going to want to revisit the Vector Prime reaction in this current fan climate.

Ironically, Chewie is probably going to be the only flesh-and-blood member of the original main-cast to survive in the new continuity.

I guess Chewie falls under the “don’t kill the dog” movie trope.

Yeah that, plus Chewie is one of the only characters who could continue to appear without anyone noticing the actor changing. And, since he’s a supporting character, he doesn’t face the burden of always (or ever) needing a compelling story arc in each film (like the droids).

Yeah, Chewie and the two droids are probably going to be in SW pretty much forever as they either don’t age or age very slowly, and, as you said, since the actors/performers can easily be replaced. Threepio is a bit of a problem though. I don’t really know how people would respond to replacing Anthony Daniels, but Chewie and Artoo are probably going to be in future SW content indefinitely.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Why is that ironic?

Irony (one definition): “a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects”

The old continuity made an effort to not kill any of the original main-characters, except for Chewie. And now the new series has pretty much done the complete opposite.

SilverWook said:

Chewie is likely safe. I don’t think Lucasfilm is going to want to revisit the Vector Prime reaction in this current fan climate.

Ironically, Chewie is probably going to be the only flesh-and-blood member of the original main-cast to survive in the new continuity.

I guess Chewie falls under the “don’t kill the dog” movie trope.

The way I see it; a story (movie, book, etc.) can only be judged by what came before it. Therefore I don’t think ANH can be judged in relation to ROTS, but ROTS is definetely informed by ANH and the OT. F.ex; a comic story set during ANH published after the PT is obviously affected by both the OT, the PT, and the EU so far.

I guess movies (especially the OT) exist in two (technically three) continuities;
Simply as a film only affected by any previous films (if any),
or as it exists retroactively as a part of the larger EU(s).

I’d completely forgotten this thread, and my old head-canon list (which seems really weird to me now).

I don’t bother with head-canons anymore, and simply acknowledge whatever the official canon is/was. And if I don’t like a story I just ignore it.

It’s interesting to hear Star Wars referred to as “a male power fantasy story for guys.” When I hear “male power fantasy” I think James Bond, and even Indiana Jones to a degree, but I personally don’t see how SW fits that category, well, except for this moment in ROTJ, but I’d say that’s more of an evocation of old movie-serial tropes (and it’s from the same film where Luke and Leia are established as siblings for the first time).

Luke never comes off as being macho, and by the end of the trilogy when he becomes a Jedi Knight he’s about as far away from Bond or Indy or any other 80’s action heroes as possible. Han and Lando obviously fits the description to various degrees, but a lot of their toughness and swagger is played for laughs, and both are much more subdued and well-balanced by the end of the trilogy. Plus, neither are the main-character of the trilogy. And of course, there’s Leia; not exactly the type of woman you’d see in a Bond movie (even the newer ones). Even the damsel-in-distress trope in ANH is completely turned on its head the moment she’s let out of her cell.

There are obviously old tropes that both intentionally and unintentionally leaked into the original three, but growing up with them I never got a “power fantasy” feel from them. If anything I’d say Luke’s character journey completely avoids the usual “male power fantasy” plot.

However I see how Luke being the hero makes the OT sort of “for guys”, while Rey as the hero makes the ST “for girls”. Though obviously both have been fans of either trilogies regardless.

screams in the void said:

neat …those would make cool posters . would also be neat to see them in anaglyph 3d

That’s an interesting idea. If I had any idea how to do that I’d definitely try it. However, my image-manipulation skills don’t extend any further than photoshop (and I’m hardly an expert at that as well).

Also, before I googled what anaglyph actually was I though you meant something more like these gifs or even an animated version, which would also be pretty cool to do with Marvel SW covers (again if I had any idea how).

Apparently so.

I finally got around to finishing the clean version of SW #25 using the German and Mexican covers as reference for Leia’s right hand. My original hand looked kinda weird, and it still might look a little off, but at least now I can blame it on the foreign cover artists.

I also did some light editing on SWW #99.

paja said:

That’s awesome. Is is fanart or an official image from Thrawn:Alliances?

A lot of the post-ANH props (incl. Han’s blaster) were made from model kits as opposed to real weapon parts. (Some of the miniatures where even made from SW model kits.)

Or it could be a stunt prop.

This video talks a lot about the parts that the original DL-44’s were made from:
Adam Savage’s One Day Builds: Han Solo’s DL-44 Blaster

DuracellEnergizer said:

ZkinandBonez said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

ZkinandBonez said:

I always got the impression that it was more of an colloquialism as opposed to an official label.

That’s what it should’ve been, but it always was something of an official label. There’ve been self-described dark Jedi, and most sources capitalize the “D” in “dark”.

I prefer “fallen Jedi” as a term for Jedi who went bad.

That sounds a little better, but doesn’t that communicate more-or-less the same idea though? Plus I don’t see why a darksider would destcribe him-/herself as being “fallen”.

Sorry. I should’ve specified that “fallen Jedi” is a term Jedi themselves would use. I imagine darksiders would identify as ex-Jedi, or even continuing identifying as adjectiveless Jedi.

“Dark” is at least a term such a character might use with some pride

I can see more “Satanic” darksiders going that route.

I just figured that a force-user committed to the dark side should mind using the word “dark” to describe themselves. In their mind “dark jedi” would probably be a proper Jedi. Plus there’s no story were they won and got to steal the word “Jedi” for themselves. However the only darksiders in the EU that “won” and ruled for a long period of time were Sith.

Also “satanic” as a metaphor for anything in SW seems to fit the Sith and their more cult-like ways IMO.

ZkinandBonez said:

Does anyone know what big Barsoom characters were turned into the giant stormtroopers? (I couldn’t even find an EU explanation/retcon on Wookieepedia.)

Correction; I did find an EU explanation of the giant stormtroopers, which in turn kind of explains who they replaced.

They were apparently T’Syriél renegades equipped with modified stormtrooper armour by Sk’ar. That makes sense, though the comic never really made this apparent. The T’Syriél, whom I assume are Green Martians re-drawn to have two arms instead of four, appear so briefly at the beginning of the first of the two issues that it’s easy to forget them all-together.

darklordoftech said:

ZkinandBonez said:

darklordoftech said:

I’d understand Han Solo in ANH calling Vader a “dark Jedi” the way my parents might call a Playstation a “Nintendo”, but it doesn’t make sense for Yoda to call someone a “dark Jedi”.

When did Yoda refer to anyone as “Dark Jedi”?

I meant if he did. What I meant was characters who are Force-educated.

Right, but that’s my point; the term does make sense if only spoken by post-ROTJ characters. Even Luke is hardly an expert on Jedi history as Palpatine destroyed most of it. And since there were no actusl Sith around, I guess the term just stuck out of necessity.

I’m curious, does the term Dark Jedi get used by pre-OT characters?