Valheru_84

Voss Caltrez said:
You make some excellent points here too.
I thought Del Toro’s character challenging Rose and Finn’s belief that it’s not only the New Order that making the weapons dealers rich but also the Resistance was showing that the issue isn’t black and white. But yes, I think you’re argument that a more subtle and complex approach to these topics make usually make for a better story and discussion.

Definitely a good example of what I am talking about.

Darth Muffy said:

This video best explains the Mary Sue issue not just for StarWars but for other future films.

So I’ve just got around to watching the video and I could not agree more with the entirety of it. However Darth Muffy, though you obviously agreed with the video I think the title of this thread and claiming it to best explain the Mary Sue issue is a misnomer and does a disservice to the video and Thor himself in creating prejudice against him and the video before it is even viewed as people opposed to the term are already in a mindset out of the gate to discount what is being said and view it in a harsh light before even hearing what Thor has to say and people who think Rey is a Mary Sue enter looking for validation and even circle jerking for some who just want to throw around “Rey is such a Mary Sue!” in the comments and have it repeated back to them.

I think Thor says it best himself in that whether you think Rey is one or not, it has no doubt caused the term to surface and feature prominently in discussions around the ST and this would not have happened if there weren’t comparable issues with the character of Rey.

On another note, watching this video has actually answered a question I’ve had for a number of weeks now since I started noticing a growing number of videos on some apparent issue with there being a female lead in Captain Marvel, though I haven’t bothered watching them as I thought how can they have any credence or credibility when the movie isn’t even out yet and there’s nothing in the trailers to suggest as such. It’s probably why I gave this video a pass initially as it had an image of Captain Marvel and Rey together and thought maybe Thor was jumping on the same bandwagon, where in fact he’s actually just addressing the issue that is creating the other videos of which a number are definitely clickbait-esque. Thor has definitely hit the nail on the head though that by creating such a poor female character in Rey, it is having a flow on detrimental affect on other female characters even if it isn’t justified outside of ignorance and cashing in on the drama created out of it.

Anyway, having watched the video now (twice actually as I didn’t get a chance to come here and post until many hours after first watching the video so I’ve watched it again for a refresher) I find myself having no need to change what I’ve already said so far in this thread. If anything, what I said is bolstered by what Thor has said. Because everything makes perfect sense and seems in character for Ripley in Aliens I’m never taken out of the movie to ponder why and start casting a critical eye as to why and start joining pieces together to come to the conclusion that there is a possible pro-woman message being pushed. It’s not until it was mentioned here in this very thread…

Voss Caltrez said:
Also, the character of Ripley could also be accused of “pushing an agenda” since the lone voice of reason is a woman, arguing against a majority of stupid men.

…that I’ve ever looked at it in that perspective and while I can definitely see that as a possibility, it is hardly concrete proof though that it was specifically intended vs TLJ being one step away a number of times from literally having an actor turn to the camera and tell you “animal cruelty is bad”, “slavery is bad”, “capitalism is bad”, “woman dont need men to tell them what to do”, etc. It’s one thing to recognise and witness capitalism in action within the context of the story being told, it’s another for the characters to explain to you via the 4th wall why it’s bad.

Val

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

Generally trying not to reply to you Dom as most of the time what you say is so at odds with how I see, interpret or understand something that it’s not worth trying to discuss it with you as it will only result in an argument that goes no where.

In this case I actually have no idea what you’re on about to start with.

Val

Fair enough and there have been many posts of yours I’ve made a point to just ignore (read: basically all of them).

Touché.

DominicCobb said:
What I’m on about is your lack of self awareness in that post was frankly hilarious. Don’t mind me.

Point out and explain what you find mockingly hilarious and I’ll see if I agree or respond in kind as to why I don’t.

Otherwise don’t post just to have a go at me, you were doing so well up to that point.

Val

I think I already did? There’s no discernible difference in the way Aliens and TLJ treats “politics” but you seem to be able to pretend that in one it’s only obvious when you go back and look really hard but in the other it’s “in your face.”

Claiming I am “pretending” is enough for me to not care to bother dealing with you again. So until the such time as there is a remote chance of reasonable discussion, take care.

Val

Can’t remember if I’ve already posted this one before.

3rd Polish Nationwide Music Schools Symphonic Orchestra Competition playing The Throne Room & Star Wars Main Title. It’s simply a stunning and beautiful performance and is so so close throughout much of it to a perfect rendition of the original John Williams score:

https://youtu.be/dydhnAi0A3E

Val

screams in the void said:

^ I will stick to the three years between OT movies in my head 😃

No probs, I wasn’t debating that and I’d prefer to keep a head canon of 3 years as well or not even put a number on it or the time between ANH and TESB since I never used to which means I was never concerned with whether something was possible in such a specific timeframe.

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

Generally trying not to reply to you Dom as most of the time what you say is so at odds with how I see, interpret or understand something that it’s not worth trying to discuss it with you as it will only result in an argument that goes no where.

In this case I actually have no idea what you’re on about to start with.

Val

Fair enough and there have been many posts of yours I’ve made a point to just ignore (read: basically all of them).

Touché.

DominicCobb said:
What I’m on about is your lack of self awareness in that post was frankly hilarious. Don’t mind me.

Point out and explain what you find mockingly hilarious and I’ll see if I agree or respond in kind as to why I don’t.

Otherwise don’t post just to have a go at me, you were doing so well up to that point.

Val

The thing is Screams, without checking canonical references outside of the movie (which the majority of the audience outside of hardcore fans would not do) there is no indication as to how much actual time has passed and therefor it allows yourself to determine and make this up for yourself based on what you are shown in the movie and therefore it automatically creates it’s own inspecific supporting logic due to understanding enough time (however much that might be per individual) has passed for that to be realistic.

In the case of TFA and TLJ, the events themselves and the obvious fact that TLJ carries on directly after TFA with no time jump literally puts a time frame around the events of both movies to something like 1-2 weeks, maybe a month at best (but that is a big stretch) having passed from Rey thinking the Force is a myth to twice defeating a Sith trained by both Luke Skywalker and more powerful than the Emperor of old Snoke. She guns down any fighter in her way as she expertly pilots a ship she has only fixed in the past and lifts a literal couple or more tonne of rocks. All this in the space of what I approximate to be the passing of 1.5 weeks.

There is so much clearly different between the two examples that they cannot be so simply compared in saying that people give Rey grief…

Val

ray_afraid said:

Valheru_84 said:

it created such a media sensation.

I’ve never once heard/seen it mentioned outside of this site…

Then you simply haven’t been looking or stumbled across the articles online. These are the first mainstream ones I can across after searching “Jonathan Kasdan Pando Lando”:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/5/17/17365604/lando-calrissian-sexuality-solo-star-wars-jonathan-kasdan

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5af77d59e4b00d7e4c1b37a9/amp

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/5/17/17366002/lando-calrissian-solo-a-star-wars-story

Val

Mocata said:

Valheru_84 said:
I haven’t seen the video linked in this thread

Yeah I can tell.

My point was not saying these elements are “bad” but it was in counter to his idea that (and I paraphrase) that characters that are written properly act in a logical way, and not in way that betrays how the writer wants or feels they “should” act. To which my reply was to say that clearly Ripley changed from one movie to the next in a way that shows how Cameron likes to write female leads. Authorial intent is very apparent. So I’m not saying Aliens or the character is “bad”, but rather that if we wanted make his argument look flimsy it’s very easy to do. Which, as I’ve already said would be silly since I love Aliens.

Ah k, I understand what you’re saying above and can see what you mean about Cameron. For me though I have no issue with the progression of Ripley’s character from Alien to Aliens and I’ve never noticed any examples in either that stands out as the writer trying to manipulate how they want you to feel.

Will have to watch the video when I can to understand what you are saying in respect to Thor though.

Val

Generally trying not to reply to you Dom as most of the time what you say is so at odds with how I see, interpret or understand something that it’s not worth trying to discuss it with you as it will only result in an argument that goes no where.

In this case I actually have no idea what you’re on about to start with.

Val

Voss Caltrez said:
Good point.
Also, the character of Ripley could also be accused of “pushing an agenda” since the lone voice of reason is a woman, arguing against a majority of stupid men.

Mocata said:
Yes, also to further the subtext that she is the mother and they are children.

The difference being in the case of Ripley is that the male characters aren’t shown as normal male characters that are dumbed down to make her stand out. Instead there are some actually dumb ones (that are essentially stereotyped grease monkeys) and there are smart and capable ones that work alongside Ripley in Alien to operate the mining vessel and later attempt to contain the alien. There’s a range of character strengths on display and her’s is just logically shown to be one of the strongest and most resourceful (and lucky at times) which earns her the right to be a strong female character amongst strong male characters. This is how gender equality is achieved - through the lack of inequality, not male characters purposefully written to bolster poorly written female characters and in doing so, making it clear an agenda is being pushed through the movie which can very easily take you out of it.

Edit: I think in Aliens it definitely can be seen more as a lone woman arguing against a sea of men that don’t try to understand and take advantage of her. Looking retrospectively at it in that light you can definitely see a topic of gender inequality being pushed in the movie, however in simply absorbing the movie as it rolls on this isn’t apparent, instead just seeming as if the men are the usual big company or military stereotypes that you wouldn’t expect to really give much credence to a lone civilian whether they are female or male.

And it that lays the example of how to do it right. The political issue is left to be discovered afterwards by means of critical analysis and introspection rather than the movie breaking the 4th wall to tell you directly about animal rights, capitalism and gender inequality as TLJ does and is so on the nose about it.

Val

Mocata said:

I love that he goes on about Aliens so much (a movie I love) but then misses how laboured and on the nose the motherhood themes are after Ripley was just a straight edge pro in the original that was written without gender. If you wanted to be really silly about this it would be just as easy to suggest that like Terminator 2 James Cameron can’t help making his leads into simple child bearing stereotypes who must overcome very basic fears to become mothers/heroes.

I don’t understand what you mean here about on the nose mother themes and being written as genderless in the original. Can you please expand on this?

Ripley is very much a woman in Alien with her femininity on display multiple times, all the while portraying a strong character that gets stronger through her trials towards the end of the movie.

In Aliens we learn she is in fact a working mother who learns her daughter has passed away as a result from being in stasis herself for so long. This is obviously a key setup for the events that happen later on and helps give insight and explanation into why she feels so strongly about mothering and later rescuing Neut considering how from Ripley’s perspective she has only just lost her own daughter.

That and Neut has survived against all odds and it would be inhumane to leave her to the fate they now know awaits those captured by the aliens.

I don’t understand what is wrong with any of this, it all plays into justifying her reasons and the events that happen in the movie, making her one of the most badass female characters of all time while also showing you can still be feminine and a mother with a full range of emotions.

Val

Voss Caltrez said:

joefavs said:

RogueLeader said:

At least they actually have fun watching these movies, and their conversations are generally positive.

This. When your relationship with Star Wars consists largely of railing against Star Wars, you’re doing Star Wars wrong.

I disagree.
Take for example the case of the heavy criticism against the prequels and the OT Special Editions, I’d argue it’s not the fans doing Star Wars wrong, it’s the producers literally doing Star Wars wrong.

^ This. Most people wishing George would take the reigns again stem from a place of “anything George might do would even if not great, would have to be better than this”.

While I think George would have put together a much more cohesive story that at its core still felt like Star Wars and would work well over an entire trilogy and tie in properly and respectfully to the existing saga (almost reasons enough anyway to want him back), I think at least initially it was exciting to see it sold to Disney and have the prospect of seeing new movies that shouldn’t have any of the issues that did come with George’s PT.

Unfortunately for those of us that don’t like TLJ or the ST altogether, that hasn’t worked out so well in the end and at this point I can’t wait for Ep9 to come out just so I can not watch it and start forgetting about the ST for good.

Val

Shopping Maul said:

NeverarGreat said:

RogueLeader said:

Man, I really don’t like Thor Skywalker. All of his stuff is very clickbaity. He speaks with this same tone in all of his videos, as if each sentence is some deep point he is making. It’s really manipulative, and makes people feel like they agree with what he’s saying without even thinking about it. But I guess that describes most clickbaity Star Wars YouTubers.

EDIT: And personally it seems a lot of female fans like Rey, and it gets kind of tiring hearing the perspective of male fans (or the one or two female YouTubers who have a large male audience). That’s personally why I like the Reylo community a lot. At least they actually have fun watching these movies, and their conversations are generally positive.

I generally appreciate the points Thor makes, though not the affected gravitas. However, I think there are far worse offenders in that category (Nerdwriter, I’m looking at you).

However, your point about the Reylo community got me thinking…most of the male critics of Rey like to point out how egalitarian they are by offering up Strong Female Leads, and they’re invariably Ripley/Sarah Connor/Furiosa/etc, in other words action heroines. They then compare Rey to these examples to show how easy her victories seem in comparison to these legendary badasses.

But maybe they have made the mistake of assuming that the Star Wars ST falls under the action genre, when the reality is that the ST could simply be a different genre altogether.

In a drama, especially a romantic drama, the female lead is rarely beset by physical obstacles, but rather mental/emotional ones. The most defining flaw of Rey’s character is a desire for belonging against the growing feeling that her every relationship is doomed. Rey would not be out of place as the lead in a drama, but since Star Wars has such a strong aspect of action there is also the expectation for Rey to be an action heroine and conform to the rules and limitations implied in its previous installments.

That’s where the disconnect seems to be - the Reylo crowd reads the ST as a (romantic) drama, while the ‘""""“True”""""""’ Star Wars fans read the ST as an action movie and a strict continuation of everything in the first six Star Wars installments.

I think the reason fans keep offering up Ripley and Sarah Connor as examples of their own egalitarianism is to counter the constant claim that criticism of Rey is tantamount to fostering misogyny. Then, of course, they’re accused of being misogynists for that very reason - the fact that they doubled down with Ripley and co. is supposedly proof of the fragility of their position. They simply can’t win.

We don’t get this with Jar Jar Binks. Plenty of fans hate Jar Jar and say he’s a childish and badly written character. Plenty of defenders counter with notions of mythical and psychological tropes to justify Jar Jar’s place in the saga. But no-one gets accused of being ‘anti-comedy’. If they did, I’m sure they would double down on Youtube and cite Charlie Chaplin and Monty Python as good examples of comedy in order to dispel the ‘anti-comedy’ position. Similarly no-one gets accused of being ‘anti-wildlife’ or somehow ‘speciest’ for hating on the Ewoks.

The problem with dismissing any comparison of Rey to action heroines is that Rey is portrayed as an action heroine, irrespective of whatever supposed emotional undercurrent is intended. The bare fact is that Rey goes around kicking everyone’s ass without breaking a sweat. Therefore it has to make sense both in the narrative and the canon as established. For many fans it simply doesn’t.

I haven’t seen any of Thor’s content beyond the above example, but I thought his position was entirely reasonable in this instance. And I certainly didn’t come away from it thinking that he has issues with women or is putting out cheap clickbait.

Great post Maul. I haven’t seen the video linked in this thread, though I had seen it in my feed multiple times I simply haven’t been interested in watching it. I have seen other videos by Thor though and always found them to be well thought out and considered, never clickbaity even while other channels at the same time are sliding into the pure clickbait territory more and more every day (such as G&G and Ivan Orgtega).

Val

This thread would not exist in its current size if no one cared 😉

You have a different way of listing them though for sure 😛

Val

exitzero said:

I was a kid when it came out, and I remember debating with friends that he was his father. I believed it because of Owen’s line about being afraid Luke had too much of his father in him. But there were a lot of kids you couldn’t accept it.

I’ve watched it twice but just can not find it for the life of me. But if you can find that vid on youtube about what was originally planned and what could have been, it’s really interesting. He put together a lot of info from old magazine interviews and the letters sent out to members from that old 80’s Star Wars official Fan Club.

Um, the post you are replying to is in our PM 😉 Not sure if you’re getting your web browser tabs mixed up or something??

Val

snooker said:

I don’t like to cast aspersions on the fans because I know you mean well, but what I have found is that ninety-nine percent of the Jar Jar Binks haters are failures at life. In essence, these haters are taking out their frustrations on Jar Jar. I don’t mean to be cruel, but we need to examine the facts. The most popular Star Wars collectibles are all Jar Jar-related. Now, the failures at life who have no money, no women, and no future will spend all day on the Internet talking about how they hate Jar Jar Binks. This is very sad. The Phantom Menace is one of the top five films of all time.

WTF?..

I probably hated Jar Jar at some stage, at least for a little while when I was younger. Not anymore, though I still find his character incredibly cringe inducing and unneeded in the story. Also the fact that we have Holdo and Rose now has had an elevating affect on Jar Jar 😉

Val

Edit: Ah I see you’ve directly quoted some random website, though without clearly indicating so for some reason…

Yeah good idea, I’ll catch you in there. Cheers!

Hey Everyone,

Just letting you know that I still have all 3 of these edits but because I haven’t had any requests for quite some time now I no longer have them hosted sorry. If anyone wants them though just shoot me a PM and I’ll look into re-uploading them.

For those that create accounts here on OT.com simply to request links for the edits and then never come back, I’d prefer it now if you were to stick around and start posting in the forum before even bothering to PM me. I’m simply a little tired of people signing up just to get these and then vanishing, I think if you managed to find your way here then you should at least stick around for a bit and see what else this place actually has to offer, maybe even give back and contribute something yourself 😃

MTFBWY(A),

Val

Exitzero, did you just reply to yourself in the 3rd person? LOL

Now that you mention it, I think I had heard or read somewhere a number of years back about the same thing with GL stating 3 years had transpired between each movie which lines up with the actual time between the movies themselves releasing and probably why I misread the BBY/ABY times as I already had a preconception of the time frames.

In regards to your second post, I believe Yoda only said it in that fashion to try and impress upon Luke how unready he is to face Vader at that time.

Where in ROTJ Yoda knows he is ready now or as ready as he’ll ever be in the time they have left to defeat the Empire before all is lost, so he essentially gives the confrontation his blessing but knows as well that it will be the biggest challenge Luke will have ever faced and if he comes out of it alive and still on the light side, then he will have mastered control of his mind and emotions in the face of that massive adversity and facing the Emperor and his father of all people, essentially proving his worth to take the title of Jedi Knight (not Master mind you, but the first level of “Jedi-hood”) regardless of the time it would take under more normal circumstances and the fact that he will be the last of their kind and so needs Luke to become a Jedi to keep the flame of their order alive and pass on what he has learned. He could not do that if Yoda told him he hasn’t met the prerequisite 25 years of constant training under another Jedi and that there’s no one else left to teach him now anyway 😉

Val

Thanks Canofhumdingers for straightening my words back to their original meaning and Screams for acknowledging you overreacted to something you obviously took offence to (which wasn’t my intent).

So to answer your question anyway - no I do not call pansexuals or any other people of any sexual orientation or lackthereof “it”. Canofhumdingers has the right of it and that’s all there is to that particular post.

To expand on it a bit more though on why I’m not enthused by the idea of “Pando Lando” sticking around and becoming part of the collective pop culture and also answer your second question of why it bothers me:

Lando is an established character from nearly 40 years ago that I expect for the majority of people, would come across as a heterosexual “ladies man” as he was portrayed and stereotyped in the way he acted around Leia. Once Han essentially tells him to stop hitting on his love interest and Lando loses Cloud City to become a Rebel, he just becomes one of the gang and we don’t ever get any more information as to what sexually attracts him.

Some people may have taken a different view in feeling he could possibly be bisexual simply due to getting the impression of Lando being a rather promiscuous individual (or so I read, not sure how as I certainly don’t, he simply seems flirtatious with a beautiful woman) and this in turn can and I guess did play into Jonathan Kasdan’s rather random and sudden statement/confirmation in lieu of ‘Solo’ releasing that Lando is pansexual (probably just to generate the reactionary drama he would have known and expected it to create - any press is good press). Pansexuality is really just a broader term that effectively encompasses bisexuality anyway but without trying to place you in one “box” or another, essentially pansexuals have no sexual preference or default orientation when it comes to being attracted to another human. Many people though even in this day and age are still trying to come to terms and understanding with gay and bi, let alone now pan and it is simply not something one even comfortable with these wouldn’t be surprised about to be so openly and suddenly linked with Star Wars which has only ever had heterosexual relationships represented up till that point, hence why it created such a media sensation.

I don’t have a problem myself if there are homosexual, bisexual or pansexual characters in movies. If that is the character and it plays to the story at hand and isn’t shoved in my face just so no one can miss that the movie makers ensured the “representation” box was ticked, then that’s fine.

I object to “Pando Lando” because:

• It needlessly alters the fundamentals of a classic character and in effect can retcon many if not all of your memories of said character (a reason I will also never watch Solo…I like Han just the way I know and remember him from the OT).

• It puts a spotlight focus on sexual orientation in Star Wars when there never was and never needed to be. Previously you simply had characters who were the way they were without their orientation being highlighted outside of the movies. So if there were characters simply being shown to be attracted to the same sex or other species in the new movies as part of the natural flowing of the story and/or background environment, this would be perfectly fine. While Star Wars clearly is a movie for all ages, that does still include children and so there is no need for blatant advertising and signalling of sexual tendencies and orientations even if that was just for heterosexuality. Adults are smart enough to pick up on these themes and finer details while leaving it obscured enough for children to miss and maintain their innocence until such time as they are ready to notice themselves or be educated on such matters. Star Wars has always done fine without this kind of content just like it has without heavy swearing and obscene cursing which is actually a really nice change when many other movies use obscene language for every other word because they have no other way to create impact in the dialogue.

• “Pando Lando” is in itself not accurate but attached to the understanding that in Solo, Lando is maybe pansexual in his orientation but is actually inferred (a number of times as I understand) to be attracted and engage in mechanophilia / robosexuality with his droid counterpart L33T. Now that is really something that is not needed in Star Wars nor to be reminded of when references are made to it in memes.

Basically if Dryden Vos (the main bad guy?) and Qi’ra are indicated to be sexual partners (which I think is inferred as the case?) but then Vos is also shown to leer at a group scantily clad male and alien sex slaves and is inferred to take them to bed sometimes before turning back and killing someone or doing something evil, there’s your pansexual character and if it’s worked logically into the story somehow or kept to the background where it doesn’t overtly distract from the main story then that would have been completely fine.

The difference is, it’s not a core original character we already know, there’s no one shouting “there are pansexuals in Star Wars!?” before the movie releases and kids have no real idea about what’s going on in that scene apart from the baddie being evil as expected (in relation to it being the bad character, you can of course have one of the good characters have a similar scene as they pass through a cantina or something).

Anyway this post is getting a bit lengthy so I might stop it there and wait to see where this discussion goes before continuing 😉

But I will say there would be nothing wrong at all with the meme oojason posted if it didn’t have L33T hanging off of his shoulder. It would then refer to the Lando of old that we already knew…

Also, I just wanted to point out your use of “it” here:

screams in the void said:
…why does it bother you ?

😛

Val

Ah yes, you’re all correct actually. I misread an article listing all BBY/ABY for each movie, re-checking it I can see now it is indeed 1 year between TESB and ROTJ (just based on the BBY):

0 BBY - ANH
3 ABY - TESB
4 ABY - ROTJ

So yeah, 3-4 years is getting a bit into the realm of an unbelievable time frame. Not impossible but definitely hard to believe by our standards even in a fictional universe as it still draws understanding from parallels and familiarity to ours.

In saying that, it’s still never bothered me personally as I never knew till looking at that article what the time lapses / jumps actually were and both sequels in the OT make you feel like a sufficient amount of time has passed to account for what has changed with our characters and the story.

Val

iamweasel said:

Telion said:

OK, I’d like to begin with saying this isn’t my idea and it is one from another editor they may or may not be end up using it, but its an idea none the less that I thought might be worth sharing as it requires little to no alterations, to already planned edits.
Rather than having Death Star I and then II the idea is to have the death star damaged or at least only partially
destroyed, and then repaired over the course of ESB to be once again fully operational.

I think this is a great idea !

It is easy to implement, and takes away that unrealistic second death star that was built in no time and it was clearly a proof that GL was out of ideas to be used in ROTJ. And fixes that unrealistic idea that an entire death star was simply vaporized. There should be a giant piece that was still there, despite broken by the big explosion caused by the main reactor (that of course took a big piece of the Death Star, but it didn’t destroy it completely).

In ESB the mentioning of the death star being repaired can be done in the crawl, and that’s it ! You don’t need to change anything else in this movie ! The audience would be expecting to see the repaired death star, but they wouldn’t see it, they would only see it in ROTJ, and it would still be broken, what makes it more realistic due to the size (it is the size of a small moon, something this big can’t be fixed fast).

Besides that, the only thing I would like to see is a fix for Luke becoming a Jedi without finishing his training. In the crawl of ROTJ can be mentioned that Luke returned to Dagobah to finish his training, and the Empire was chasing the rebels across the galaxy. So when ROTJ starts Luke is already a Jedi (some rearranging of the scenes can be done in the way it was done in a previous ROTJ Fanedit, I don’t remember who it was, sorry).

I have to say I’m on the other side of the room on this idea. While there is nothing wrong with the idea itself and it’s logic works well, I feel it should be part of a different set of fan edits (which this one could be used as a base for) rather than one that is more or less sticking to the original and widely loved story, including the 2nd Death Star which wasn’t an issue for most people. Of course it is Ady’s edit in the end, I am simply stating that personally I feel it would be a shame for what will be the perfect re-imagining of what the SEs could have been turn into another alternate take of the Star Wars story that one has to decide whether the story changes align with what they enjoy about Star Wars or not.

In regards to some of your comments about the 2nd Death Star, I don’t see how it was unrealistic when:

• 7 years had passed since the destruction of the first one (so not “no time”) and it is only partially built at probably around 55-60% when looking at what is visibly missing and still under construction with large gaping spaces they are yet to fill in on the more completed left hemisphere where the Superlaser resides and even the visible lights are only focused around the centre area right below the Superlaser.

• Considering the vast resources of the Empire, the bulk of them usually unseen and the obvious urgent need to rebuild their ultimate big stick to keep all the local systems in line out of fear (as explained in ANH), it actually makes sense for them to pour more resources and effort into reestablishing that ultimate weapon even quicker than before especially considering the Rebel’s themselves know they are not indestructible as the general public are led to believe.

And I don’t see the first Death Star being vaporised as an issue either considering how much energy is stored in it such that it can destroy an untold amount of planets which are many magnitudes large than the Death Star itself.

I agree that something could be added to the crawl regarding Luke having become a Jedi in all but name but you can make this assumption anyway from the movie title and I feel it was meant to be left ambiguous as it elevates the tension of the Jabba rescue not knowing what Luke’s abilities are when seeing him again for the first time since the events of TESB 3 years ago (4 years in movie time) when he lost badly to Vader.

Technically he is not yet a Jedi though when you remember Luke’s exchange with Yoda later on where Yoda says only after confronting Vader will he truly be a Jedi. Luke also confirms for us that this is the first time he has returned since he left in TESB, intending to complete his training, so your idea for the crawl would clash with this:

Luke: But I need your help. I’ve come back to complete the training.
Yoda: No more training, do you require. Already know you that which you need.
Luke: Then I am a Jedi.
Yoda: [coughs trying to speak] Not yet. One thing remains: Vader. You must…confront…Vader. Then, only then, a Jedi, will you be. And confront him, you will.

Val

^ LOL!

A friend sent me this one. I think I feel a bit disturbed after having viewed it… (possibly NSFW):

https://youtu.be/jghqSxs-bDY

Val