STAR WARS: Convoluted Cash- Cow Disney Adventure Series That Will Never End Thread

[DieselDaisy]

There is a big different between creating a fantastical universe setting and actually contradicting yourself through absent minded plotting, volte-face and basically pulling stuff out of your arse. I am surprised people cannot see that difference. The original trilogy does not consist of a series of disjointed plot changes but has consistency, especially across Empire and Jedi. And so far as this is a fantastical setting with space ships and so forth, we are made to buy into that fantastical setting. We are convinced of the character changes, their decision making. The fantastical universe that is created, with the Jedi and so forth, still has its own logic. 

And the biggest plot hole of all which leads to a big plot twist, Vader killing Anakin turning into Anakin turning into Vader, is explained with convincing character reactions. Luke is angry at Ben Kenobi's (as force ghost) lying. But in hindsight the film rationalises Ben Kenobi's decision to lie and it is plausible. It actually makes the plot twist that much greater when it arrives, and indeed is one of the best plot twists in cinematic history. The plot inconsistencies in the Disney sequels are not handled with anything like that amount of drama and deftness. There is next to no exposition on Palpatine's return, and Rey's lineage, in the first two films; there is also no explanation why Palpatine is alive. The story simply surges from one dramatic extreme (Rey being a nobody, Snork being the main villain) to another (Rey being Palpatine's grandkid and Palpatine being the main villain), with little rhyme or reason. It is madness how the story lurches backwards and forwards with so little consistency.

In the original trilogy, the emperor is introduced in the second film (albeit with monkey eyes) before assuming full coverage in the third. In the Disney films, Palpatine's return is not hinted at in the slightest in the preceding films. The reveal of Luke's parentage at the end of Empire's denouement leads directly to Luke's attempts to seek redemption in Vader in Jedi. In the third Disney, Palpatine's survival should have been this dramatic plot twist but it is dealt with in the opening crawl, and discussed with barely much surprise by the characters.  

Edited December 23, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[RussTCB]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is a big different between creating a fantastical universe setting and actually contradicting yourself through absent minded plotting, volte-face and basically pulling stuff out of your arse. I am surprised people cannot see that difference. The original trilogy does not consist of a series of disjointed plot changes but has consistency, especially across Empire and Jedi. And so far as this is a fantastical setting with space ships and so forth, we are made to buy into that fantastical setting. We are convinced of the character changes, their decision making. The fantastical universe that is created, with the Jedi and so forth, still has its own logic. 

And the biggest plot hole of all which leads to a big plot twist, Vader killing Anakin turning into Anakin turning into Vader, is explained with convincing character reactions. Luke is angry at Ben Kenobi's (as force ghost) lying. But in hindsight the film rationalises Ben Kenobi's decision to lie and it is plausible. It actually makes the plot twist that much greater when it arrives, and indeed is one of the best plot twists in cinematic history. The plot inconsistencies in the Disney sequels are not handled with anything like that amount of drama and deftness. There is next to no exposition on Palpatine's return, and Rey's lineage, in the first two films; there is also no explanation why Palpatine is alive. The story simply surges from one dramatic extreme (Rey being a nobody, Snork being the main villain) to another (Rey being Palpatine's grandkid and Palpatine being the main villain), with little rhyme or reason. It is madness how the story lurches backwards and forwards with so little consistency.

In the original trilogy, the emperor is introduced in the second film (albeit with monkey eyes) before assuming full coverage in the third. In the Disney films, Palpatine's return is not hinted at in the slightest in the preceding films. The reveal of Luke's parentage at the end of Empire's denouement leads directly to Luke's attempts to seek redemption in Vader in Jedi. In the third Disney, Palpatine's survival should have been this dramatic plot twist but it is dealt with in the opening crawl, and discussed with barely much surprise by the characters.  

OK, so the incest plot hole across the OG trilogy means nothing? What about Carrie's cardboard acting and shifting accent? The former isn't a plot and consistency issue? The latter isn't a quality issue? Sorry, but these arguments just keep coming across as "it's because I like the OG trilogy better". 

[Jw224]

57 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is a big different between creating a fantastical universe setting and actually contradicting yourself through absent minded plotting, volte-face and basically pulling stuff out of your arse. I am surprised people cannot see that difference. The original trilogy does not consist of a series of disjointed plot changes but has consistency, especially across Empire and Jedi. And so far as this is a fantastical setting with space ships and so forth, we are made to buy into that fantastical setting. We are convinced of the character changes, their decision making. The fantastical universe that is created, with the Jedi and so forth, still has its own logic. 

And the biggest plot hole of all which leads to a big plot twist, Vader killing Anakin turning into Anakin turning into Vader, is explained with convincing character reactions. Luke is angry at Ben Kenobi's (as force ghost) lying. But in hindsight the film rationalises Ben Kenobi's decision to lie and it is plausible. It actually makes the plot twist that much greater when it arrives, and indeed is one of the best plot twists in cinematic history. The plot inconsistencies in the Disney sequels are not handled with anything like that amount of drama and deftness. There is next to no exposition on Palpatine's return, and Rey's lineage, in the first two films; there is also no explanation why Palpatine is alive. The story simply surges from one dramatic extreme (Rey being a nobody, Snork being the main villain) to another (Rey being Palpatine's grandkid and Palpatine being the main villain), with little rhyme or reason. It is madness how the story lurches backwards and forwards with so little consistency.

In the original trilogy, the emperor is introduced in the second film (albeit with monkey eyes) before assuming full coverage in the third. In the Disney films, Palpatine's return is not hinted at in the slightest in the preceding films. The reveal of Luke's parentage at the end of Empire's denouement leads directly to Luke's attempts to seek redemption in Vader in Jedi. In the third Disney, Palpatine's survival should have been this dramatic plot twist but it is dealt with in the opening crawl, and discussed with barely much surprise by the characters.  

Yeah, the sequel trilogy wasn't planned. And there's plenty to complain about, but some wreckage falling from and exploding ship is not one of them. Star Wars fans take everything too literally and it's why the series is stagnating and they are afraid to do anything new. They introduce something cool and the entire fanbase goes "em that contradicts some small thing that happened in that one scene six films ago so it sucks and I can't enjoy any of it anymore". 

Star Wars fans don't actually care about what star wars is about anymore. The Force was always just to drive the plot forward, ALWAYS. You have new force powers being introduced constantly in the OT (it was also literally made up as they went along) yet fans complain when anything new is done. I watched a review of TROS in which the reviewer said that Star Wars fans are constantly looking for someone or something to blame for the reason they don't like Star Wars anymore. Maybe you just don't like it. 

[Dazey]

15 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

Yeah, the sequel trilogy wasn't planned.

Why? They only had 32 years to figure it out. I really enjoyed TFA but the rest of them have been pretty grim. They knew at the start of the new films that it was going to be a trilogy so with all the money, talent and mythology at hand, how did they mess it up SOOOOO badly?

26 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

OK, so the incest plot hole across the OG trilogy means nothing? What about Carrie's cardboard acting and shifting accent? The former isn't a plot and consistency issue? The latter isn't a quality issue? Sorry, but these arguments just keep coming across as "it's because I like the OG trilogy better". 

Generally because the OG trilogy was objectively better.  

[Jw224]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Why? They only had 32 years to figure it out. I really enjoyed TFA but the rest of them have been pretty grim. They knew at the start of the new films that it was going to be a trilogy so with all the money, talent and mythology at hand, how did they mess it up SOOOOO badly?

Generally because the OG trilogy was objectively better.  

I honestly don't know, it's baffling to me that they didn't have a plan going into it. I don't think the issue is if the OT is better or not, it's that fans are complaining about things in these films as if they are huge deals and ruin the films whilst simultaneously ignoring those same issues in OT and acting like they are fine. 

[PatrickS77]

35 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

OK, so the incest plot hole across the OG trilogy means nothing? What about Carrie's cardboard acting and shifting accent? The former isn't a plot and consistency issue? The latter isn't a quality issue? Sorry, but these arguments just keep coming across as "it's because I like the OG trilogy better". 

Why the hell is it an incest plot hole? The characters obviously didn't know they were related. And them feeling an attraction to each other is natural. So there was some slight sexual tension. It's what you expect in a plot revolving around young, good looking people. I don't really see how that is a problem. It's less of a problem than Kylo getting the hots for Rey and abandoning his life path for her and her having feelings for him, after she watched him killing his unarmed father, which really doesn't make too much sense.

[PatrickS77]

47 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

Yeah, the sequel trilogy wasn't planned. And there's plenty to complain about, but some wreckage falling from and exploding ship is not one of them. Star Wars fans take everything too literally and it's why the series is stagnating and they are afraid to do anything new. They introduce something cool and the entire fanbase goes "em that contradicts some small thing that happened in that one scene six films ago so it sucks and I can't enjoy any of it anymore". 

No. That's not it. There are plenty of contradictory things in the PT, but nothing is too jarring to not enjoy those movies for what the are. Unlike the ST. And really to throw out the EU, to come up with the crap they came up with instead adds further insult to injury and makes it even harder to overlook things.

And I know exactly (and care about) what Star Wars is (it's the people who don't care and don't have a clue, who celebrate these new movies). It's what's been introduced 40 years ago. That is the framework. Those are the rules. Any further story should be based in the framework and follow those rules. And not bend, extend and shit on those rules however they see fit.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by PatrickS77

[Dazey]

6 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

No. That's not it. There are plenty of contradictory things in the PT, but nothing is too jarring to not enjoy those movies for what the are. Unlike the ST. And really to throw out the EU, to come up with the crap they came up with instead adds further insult to injury and makes it even harder to overlook things.

I'd disagree with that. As bad as TLJ and ROS are, the prequel trilogy movies are infinitely worse. The sequels may be shit but at least they didn't make Darth Vader into a spotty teenager who was a whiny little bitch. 

The prequels also completely ruin the "No, I am your father" moment which is kindof a big deal is it not?

Edited December 23, 2019 by Dazey

[PatrickS77]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I'd disagree with that. As bad as TLJ and ROS are, the prequel trilogy movies are infinitely worse. The sequels may be shit but at least they didn't make Darth Vader into a spotty teenager who was a whiny little bitch. 

Well, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad. You're not supposed to like Darth Vader. He was a flawed human being, otherwise he wouldn't have turned to the dark side and stayed there for most of his life.

[Dazey]

Just now, PatrickS77 said:

Well, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad. You're not supposed to like Darth Vader. He was a flawed human being, otherwise he wouldn't have turned to the dark side and stayed there for most of his life.

Yeah but the whole dramatic heft of Empire kinda hinges on the fact that we don't know that Vader is Luke's father. The prequels completely ruin that.

[PatrickS77]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Yeah but the whole dramatic heft of Empire kinda hinges on the fact that we don't know that Vader is Luke's father. The prequels completely ruin that.

So? You saw the PT after you saw the OT. So nothing changes. At least the PT shows that Yoda is more than a funny talking frog. 

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, PatrickS77 said:

So? You saw the PT after you saw the OT. So nothing changes. At least the PT shows that Yoda is more than a funny talking frog. 

I did see it after I saw the originals but for anybody coming to the films now, the chronology is Episodes I-IX and by watching them in that order you spoil a lot of what made the originals great for old cunts like me.  

Also Yoda in the PT was fucking horrible!

[The Holographic Universe]

5 hours ago, Jw224 said:

Complaints like this make no sense to me, you're watching a film about people who can use powers and fly spaceships and turn into ghosts and you're complaining about some wreckage. 

I understand the point you are making, but the plot holes and logic jumps in this film warrant being called out because it’s all so fucking silly. Palpatine having children is fucking seriously loopy. And why didn’t her parents have force powers, but she did?

[The Holographic Universe]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I knew someone would reply with this! 

There has to be an eternal logic to the film which exists irrespective of its genre. Just because it is set in a ''galaxy far far away'' does not create an excuse for variable plotting, puzzling/abrupt character changes and incidents which simply completely contradict one and another. 

All this ^

5 hours ago, Jw224 said:

The wreckage fell when it blew up, that's the clear explanation. No wonder filmmakers don't want to work on star wars when fans complain about stuff like this. 

I’m almost certain that is why the show runners of GOT backed out of their own Star Wars trilogy. Just give Christopher Nolan a Stars Wars film or two. 

[PatrickS77]

14 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I did see it after I saw the originals but for anybody coming to the films now, the chronology is Episodes I-IX and by watching them in that order you spoil a lot of what made the originals great for old cunts like me.  

Also Yoda in the PT was fucking horrible!

But people can still watch it in the way it was released. At least when they watch it for the first time that is recomended anyway. But really, for people who watch it now, it might be common knowledge either way that Vader is Luke's father.

Why? Because you prefer him to be a puppet?

Edited December 23, 2019 by PatrickS77

[Dazey]

Just now, PatrickS77 said:

But people can still watch it in the way it was released. At least when they watch it for the first time that is recomended anyway. But really, for people who watch it now, it might be common knowledge either way that Vader is Luke's father.

I'm sure they do but the prequels add nothing as far as I'm concerned. The Skywalker saga was better as three movies than nine. I did really enjoy Rogue One and Solo however. They should have just left the OT well alone and concentrated on the spinoffs. 

[PatrickS77]

7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I'm sure they do but the prequels add nothing as far as I'm concerned. The Skywalker saga was better as three movies than nine. I did really enjoy Rogue One and Solo however. They should have just left the OT well alone and concentrated on the spinoffs. 

They certainly add more than the ST. Sure Menace is a bore, but I quite like Attack and Revenge. Rogue one also adds nothing, it's not even a fun movie to watch, but still my favourite of the new ones. And really, you don't recast Han Solo (or Lando Carlrissian), so I could have perfectly done without Solo.

Edited December 23, 2019 by PatrickS77

[Dazey]

7 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

They certainly add more than the ST. Sure Menace is a bore, but I quite like Attack and Revenge. Rogue one also adds nothing, it's not even a fun movie to watch, but still my favourite of the new ones. And really, you don't recast Han Solo (or Lando Carlrissian), so I could have perfectly done without Solo.

It seems we may never agree but that's cool. I actually think that as execrable as the prequels were, Phantom was by far the best. At least it had some actual sets as opposed to being a total CGI shitfest and Darth Maul was a great villain. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Dazey

[PatrickS77]

8 minutes ago, Dazey said:

It seems we may never agree but that's cool. I actually think that as execrable as the prequels were Phantom was by far the best. At least it had some actual sets and Darth Maul. 

Yeah. Looks like it. I don't care too much about Darth Maul. And while I view Menace more favourible than I used to, it's still the one I want to watch least. Too much desert, too much Jar Jar, too much pod racing, too much of that kid, too much Liam Neeson (who I kinda consider boring), McGregor not really shining in the role yet and just wrong pacing. But the other moments are quite alright.

Edited December 24, 2019 by PatrickS77

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

OK, so the incest plot hole across the OG trilogy means nothing? What about Carrie's cardboard acting and shifting accent? The former isn't a plot and consistency issue? The latter isn't a quality issue? Sorry, but these arguments just keep coming across as "it's because I like the OG trilogy better". 

Your ''incest plot'' concerns one kiss which was done to make Han jealous. It cannot be compared with the sudden changes, flip-flopping between villains, characters doing a dramatic volte-face, etc etc, in the Disney films. Not sure I agree about Carrie Fisher's acting. And yes, the original trilogy is light years - pardon the expression - better.

PS

About children watching them, I am currently introducing my nephew to them: IV-VI. He can stumble on the prequels and Disney shit if he stumbles on them but I'll not be the one to introduce them to him.

Edited December 24, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Chewbacca]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

I'd disagree with that. As bad as TLJ and ROS are, the prequel trilogy movies are infinitely worse. The sequels may be shit but at least they didn't make Darth Vader into a spotty teenager who was a whiny little bitch. 

The prequels also completely ruin the "No, I am your father" moment which is kindof a big deal is it not?

Nah. The prequels are pretty bad, but they aren't a disaster that makes the OT meaningless. TFA was a good flick, better than I and II will ever be, but 8 and 9 cripled this trilogy so bad that the prequels don't look that bad next to it and they WERE bad.

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah. Looks like it. I don't care too much about Darth Maul. And while I view Menace more favourible than I used to, it's still the one I want to watch least. Too much desert, too much Jar Jar, too much pod racing, too much of that kid, too much Liam Neeson (who I kinda consider boring), McGregor not really shining in the role yet and just wrong pacing. But the other moments are quite alright.

I saw Phantom Menace on opening night and actually really loved it at the time. It didn't stand up to repeated viewing. Saw Clones on release too and thought it was awful. Didn't bother going to see ROTS and to this day I've still not watched the whole thing. Tried a bunch of times and I just get about half way through and turn it off.

[Dazey]

Just now, Chewbacca said:

Nah. The prequels are pretty bad, but they aren't a disaster that makes the OT meaningless. TFA was a good flick, better than I and II will ever be, but 8 and 9 cripled this trilogy so bad that the prequels don't look that bad next to it and they WERE bad.

The problem is that they by definition come before the OT therefore they have an impact on the story and the characters. You can't watch the prequels without affecting your perception of the characters in the OT whereas you can see the ST purely because it doesn't really impact narratively on what happened before.

[PatrickS77]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I saw Phantom Menace on opening night and actually really loved it at the time. It didn't stand up to repeated viewing. Saw Clones on release too and thought it was awful. Didn't bother going to see ROTS and to this day I've still not watched the whole thing. Tried a bunch of times and I just get about half way through and turn it off.

Yeah, well. Saw all of them in the cinma, was disapointed with Menace, while happy that Star Wars was back. Enjoyed Attack and Revenge so much more. Both in the cinema and  on repeat viewings. But then again, I read the comics, read the books and played the computer games, so I have a different access than one who just watched the OT. Maybe you should watch the complete Revenge to have a valid opinion though.

[Dazey]

7 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah, well. Saw all of them in the cinma, was disapointed with Menace, while happy that Star Wars was back. Enjoyed Attack and Revenge so much more. Both in the cinema and  on repeat viewings. But then again, I read the comics, read the books and played the computer games, so I have a different access than one who just watched the OT. Maybe you should watch the complete Revenge to have a valid opinion though.

Does it suddenly turn into Citizen Kane at the halfway mark then?  

Edited December 24, 2019 by Dazey