DominicCobb

Funny… I’ve just been listening to this:

ATMachine said:

Seriously, though, Tobar explained the idea in two sentences. Surely it can’t be that hard for the writers to do likewise?

Maybe not but why if there’s no purpose or need?

Proposed EpVIII scene
Rey is doing a handstand with Luke sitting on her foot
Luke: Concentrate
Rey: But Luke, how did Artoo have the map?
Luke: Why is that important?
Rey: Because I need to EXACTLY how I was able to find you.
Luke: But… you’re here now.
Rey: Tell me I need to know or it will bother me forever and I’ll never stop complaining about it.
Luke sits down on a log and Rey joins
Luke: Well, as you know, I put himself into a self-imposed exile. If anyone ever needed me, I trusted Lor San Tekka and Artoo to know when and if to disclose my location. Separating the map ensured that it meant both of them agreed that I was really needed.
Rey: Thank you for taking the time out of my training to explain this! Plot hole resolved!

Seriously though, they could easily explain this more efficiently in the film, but I see no reason unless something else (not easily inferred from watching TFA) in addition is revealed that pertains to more directly to the plot of VIII (not VII).

Sony finally lost the license and Disney records put them out as soon as they could so they could get that money. Nothing remotely pertaining to the release of the OOT here.

Tobar said:

Been some time since I last saw the film but it seemed to me that Luke put himself into a self-imposed exile.

If the others ever needed him, he trusted San Tekka and Artoo to know when and if to disclose his location. Separating the map ensured that it meant both of them agreed that he was really needed.

Yeap exactly this seems the most likely explanation, and is all but implied in the film. Will we get direct confirmation of this in the next films? If it’s important, sure. But it isn’t, necessarily.

Even though the question is left unanswered in the film, calling it a plot hole is kind of silly. A plot hole is an unanswered question that can’t be answered. This has plenty of possible explanations, from obvious to less so. Just because it isn’t spelled out doesn’t make it a “major plot hole.”

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

You guys talk about the “wardrobe malfunction” like it’s something anyone other than people here would notice or care about.

I didn’t notice nor do I care.

Yup same.

You guys talk about the “wardrobe malfunction” like it’s something anyone other than people here would notice or care about.

Nope.

Why does R2 have the map? Why does Lor San Tekka have a fragment? Legitimate questions. Will they be answered? Who knows.

Why doesn’t the Resistance have the same map? Don’t give a shit.

Pretty much all that stuff is out of print at this point (and so is going for lots of money on ebay I’m sure).

Putting a “Legends” banner on the OOT would be like putting a “Legends” banner on the novelizations of the first six films, which they aren’t doing.

Not to mention Pablo Hidalgo’s twitter exchange where someone asked if the OOT is still canon except where the SE contradicts and he said “I guess. It’s never really come up.”

Burdokva said:

Mithrandir already gave some great examples. I would add a couple more - both Communist and Nationalist Chinese factions used Japanese equipment during and after the Chinese Civil War, despite the symbolism carried by it. They were, after all, useful weapons, some quite modern and capable (the Ki-84 fighters, for example).

The United States Colonial Army used the same uniforms during and after the American War of Independence that were issued by the British Empire. Why? Again, because it was not only practical, it was necessary to do so.

Now, Star Wars being a movie I understand why they went with the “visual aesthetic inheritance” for the good/evil factions, even though the Resistance using old Imperial equipment would have been a radical and fun thing to see.

What I do not get is why is the FO so clean and flashy, while the Resistance is all rag-tag? Alright, keep the design aesthetic but couldn’t we actually reverse the theme and have the good guys be shiny and well equipped, while the FO soldiers being the grizzled but stoic making do with worn-out, dirty and scrapped together equipment? TIE-Fighters actually looking like the Rebel fighters in ANH, dirty, worn-out, and having personal insignia as each one is precious and kept to its pilot; stormtroopers being more varied as their armor doesn’t get issued on time after repairs are needed and they have all kind of field-mods, being dirtier and scratched…

Would have been cool. 😕

I mean, it’s an interesting idea. It’s just not the story they decided to tell, and not the position the galaxy is in at the start of the film. I imagine the beginnings of the First Order looked just like that, but they’re a bit further along and more powerful at this point.

Lord Haseo said:

DominicCobb said:

Cthulhunicron said:

How is not major? It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained what the Death Star weakness was.

Not at all. It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained why Leia couldn’t just beam the plans directly to Yavin.

Fuck, that hadn’t even occurred to me. Why would you do such a thing to me?

No, see that’s exactly the point. The universe of Star Wars doesn’t operate at the same progression of technology as ours does. Think of the galaxy as if it were more like hundreds of years ago in some ways. You couldn’t contact someone so far away, and not every map would contain the same information.

It’s the same reason R2-D2 and C-3PO exist when most of their jobs could be solved with an advanced, duked-out smart phone.

Cthulhunicron said:

How is not major? It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained what the Death Star weakness was.

Not at all. It’d be like if the original Star Wars never explained why Leia couldn’t just beam the plans directly to Yavin.

Honestly none of that seems very “major” at all. I hope they don’t waste their time “explaining” it in the next film.

Yeah but see “why” to me is most important of all. Either of the alternatives you suggested would have missed the point of the why entirely.

Your son is gone and speaking of one’s former self in third person while trying to affirmate a totally made up identity, we’ve already seen that.

But the why is completely different. When Vader says it he’s talking about a life he left behind decades before. When Kylo says it he’s talking about a life he’s in the process of trying to force behind him. The similarity is obvious but it’s there to highlight the difference, which is the key.

If you find the word rehash a little too strong, then take repetitive. Because that is what it is to have already three stories about orphans who go out for adventure and find a destiny bigger than life while destroying a superweapon and face the evil that kills their adopting fathers.

I wouldn’t use either word, necessarily. We give George shit but I’d say “rhyming” is exactly what it is. To me, that basic plot IS Star Wars. To me it’s like a myth or legend, which is how I see the saga. It’s told differently each time but it always comes down to that basic framework. And I think it’s fitting - it’s right there from the beginning. Star Wars has always been about fate and destiny. And the original film was built on classic myths and legends. We’ve seen the hero rescue the princess countless times on film before. It’s how Star Wars does it differently that’s important.

If you see the saga differently that’s totally fair. But I find the repetitions with significant deviations rather fitting.

Cthulhunicron said:

DominicCobb said:

I’ve always seen SW as more of a fantasy saga. So while, in the real world, it wouldn’t necessarily jive with our concept of maps (which cover everything), in a mysterious fantasy galaxy, its a bit different. Lots of spots in the galaxy are uncharted, just like lots of spots on a map of the earth in a medieval fantasy film would be, or any other sort of older setting (like the wild west or the high seas or something).

I agree. My issue is that they state that Max Von Sydow’s map doesn’t match anything in their records. Then R2 rolls out at the end, and it matches. So R2 had a map that no one else in the galaxy had. So evidently all of that space was uncharted until some mysterious person made the map and gave it to R2, apparently WHILE he was turned off. It seems odd that no one reacts to this. At least when they find Luke’s lightsaber, characters at least wonder aloud where it came from.

How do you know it happened that way? It could have easily been given to R2 BEFORE he was turned off. There are a million possible explanations as with the lightsaber - and as with the lightsaber, the explanation isn’t really all that important to anything.

And there’s nothing to say that no one else in the galaxy had this map - in fact Kylo Ren says the opposite. Just that the Resistance doesn’t have it. Again, if you think in terms of modern day, this doesn’t necessarily make sense. But there’s nothing to suggest that the GFFA has internet, or even the ability to communicate across long distances. If you’re looking for technological logic in relation to our universe, you won’t find it anywhere, and that’s because it’s not sci-fi, it’s fantasy.

Mithrandir said:

This bullet is an old one.
In 1897, it was fired at the president of Uruguay by a young man from Montevideo, Arredondo, who had spent long weeks without seeing anyone so that the world might know that he acted alone. Thirty years earlier, Lincoln had been murdered by that same ball, by the criminal or magical hand of an actor transformed by the words of Shakespeare into Marcus Brutus, Caesar’s murderer. In the mid-seventeenth century, vengeance had employed it for the assassination of Sweden’s Gustavus Adolphus in the midst of the public hecatomb of battle.
In earlier times, the bullet had been other things, because Pythagorean metempsychosis is not reserved for humankind alone. It was the silken cord given to viziers in the East, the rifles and bayonets that cut down the defenders of the Alamo, the triangular blade that slit a queen’s throat, the wood of the Cross and the dark nails that pierced the flesh of the Redeemer, the poison kept by the Carthaginian chief in an iron ring on his finger, the serene goblet that Socarates drank down one evening.
In the dawn of time it was the stone that Cain hurled at Abel, and in the future it shall be many things that we cannot even imagine today, but that will be able to put an end to men and their wondrous, fragile life.
*J L Borges (1899-1986) In Memoriam J.F.K. *

Just found this eloquent.

Provided that what happens in both scenes is essentially the same plot device, and very similar in its features, all you can have to be different, in order not to upset most of people is location, illumination, characters… perhaps even motivations. Summing up details. Both scenes are different in only in details, at least to me.

What feels somewhat wrong is that having those characters and their motivations be different (these are details, because the main thing is that the character’s roles are exactly the same), the dialogue remains way too similar, and the thing that changes, which is the location, does so in an diametrically opposite way to what I would have expected. A patricide, if anything, is too much of an intimate crime, more akin to a small-scale set than to a monumental location (which would have fit better ObiWan vs Vader, had I to choose).

That’s where it began, before I just deviated from topic.

EDIT: The interrogation scene didn’t bother me much. While obviously these are personal impressions, had I to give one not-so-subjective justification, I’d say that Rey’s role in TFA is SW’s Luke, not Leia.

I suppose if what you’re looking for in film is just the “what,” and the overarching plot, that’s fine. But to me that’s only a fraction of what’s there. You’re overlooking so much of importance when you say it’s only details. Think that way if you please, but I frankly feel that outlook is monumentally misguided.

Mithrandir said:

I disagree both particularly and generally with that statement.

I could go in depth as to why I feel that way but I suppose this is where we say “agree to disagree.”

The comparisons are surface level, though. The differences are what ultimately matter the most.

darthrush said:

JawsTDS said:

Kellythatsit said:
I really can’t believe that people are defending the prequels as decent watchable movies on this thread.

It’s as if people have opinions that are different than yours. Woah!

Thank god someone reminded him this.

Hands down, my biggest issue with our forum is how much people get disrespected for not agreeing with a certain opinion. If someone hates Rogue One, they get bashed. I loved it, but don’t give a crap if someone else hates it. I discuss it with them to understand why they disliked it, which results in a civil and respectful discussion.

And the hate that prequel lovers get is ridiculous. I think episodes 1 and 2 are god awful films that will make most humans cringe every other scene. But I have no issue with someone liking or loving them. I just hope we can all quit the bashing of the people who like the new Disney movies and quit with the bashing of prequel lovers. We should create a forum where everyone’s opinion is respected and not throw a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with you.

Sorry for the rant but I’m fed up with seeing this sort of behavior in so many threads.

I see your point, but you do have to admit that the prequels are objectively bad and the other films objectively are not.

I’d say the Solo matchup is far more emotionally investing than the master/apprentice one.

I don’t think “neglect everything” is quite right. A lot has happened in the intervening years. The First Order is threatening that very victory.

If TFA were a direct sequel to ROTJ I’d agree they drop the ball on picking up where it left off (in that case and others), but it’s less a continuation of that story and more a start of a new one further down the line.

Mithrandir said:

DominicCobb said:

The Republic becomes the Empire. The Empire does not become the New Republic, it becomes the First Order.

Honestly we’re not given a precise answer to this. In the outer rim territories, looks like that’s it. But I’m not sure that’s the same situation in the inner Core systems.

The crawl states that the First Order rose from the ashes of the Empire, seemingly in the outer rim. Otherwise it seems like the New Republic took over.

The Rebels form the New Republic, and later the Resistance.

The fact that the Resistance is sort of a fringe, unoficial faction of the Republic might help explain the use of guerrilla garments. But in VIII, after the escalation of the conflict and an open attack on the republic, I don’t think they could still keep showing the good guys as a poor band of outcasts. They are in control of the wealthiest systems of the galaxy

We’ll see. But the New Republic has come under attack (losing their capital, senate, and fleet), so they aren’t necessarily in the best position at the moment.

The First Order’s stuff is new and spiffy because so are they. That doesn’t make them in charge, and they’re not. The Resistance is scrappy because they aren’t in charge either, they’re a separate group created by members of the New Republic. As to whether or not they should have armor is a legitimate question but in my mind it would make no sense whatsoever for them to look like stormtroopers.

The thing with the First Order having top tech and being all shiny and new might not be just a design flaw, but rather expose some of the weaknesses of the movie’s plot. At least with what we have been told so far.

If their take was, as Abrams said, to think of the FO as a what-if scenario with the nazis hiding in Argentina, I think they just didn’t make enough research about what happened down here.

I can take that admirers of the old Empire would still honor its aesthetics. I can even take that a splitting appendice of the oficial government would look and feel poor funded. I can a galaxy-wide regime having enough resources to build a superweapon the size of a moon. But it is far more difficult to accept a band of outcasts being able to fund the transformation of an entire planet into a sun-sucking superweapon the upsaid regime couldn’t even afford.

It’s not quite like that though. This would have been if the Nazis took control of the Argentinian government and then the rest of South America. The First Order started as a band of outcasts, but they’ve been growing in power. At the point we meet up with them in TFA, they’ve become quite a bit more than that. They’re a legitimate force in the galaxy in control of a number of systems. The New Republic has been complacent in this and that’s why the Resistance was formed in the first place.

Let’s see what approach they take with Episode Eight, where the New Republic is to be a warring faction. In the meanwhile, I think that clearly these design choices weren’t made under an in-universe logic, but rather with an outsider perspective. Bad guys don’t show their faces and hide beneath masks while the freedom fighters are humans you can get invested with.

Well sure, and I’d say good. Using visuals to tell the story is far more important in my mind than in-universe logic. I’ll admit that the Resistance should have armor in the next film, but if they don’t, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

This is explained in the crawl, I believe.

The Republic becomes the Empire. The Empire does not become the New Republic, it becomes the First Order.

The Rebels form the New Republic, and later the Resistance.

It would be very strange if these teams swapped uniforms, so to speak.

The First Order’s stuff is new and spiffy because so are they. That doesn’t make them in charge, and they’re not. The Resistance is scrappy because they aren’t in charge either, they’re a separate group created by members of the New Republic. As to whether or not they should have armor is a legitimate question but in my mind it would make no sense whatsoever for them to look like stormtroopers.

I remember seeing that scene for the first time in the theater as a kid and thinking “why are they playing that song here?” but its use has since grown on me.