The Founder

Senior Member
  • Content count

    5,082
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Founder

  1. Episode 1.15 “Will You Take My Hand?” Discussion Thread

    Quinto as Spock Quinto doesn't rule it out, but he seems to think that they probably won't need him. Nimoy's son also is ok with a CGI Spock ...
  2. Star Wars: Solo

    Solo Trailer
  3. Star Wars: Solo

    Sadly, yes :/ I didn't say that this will destroy the franchise. If the prequels didn't - nothing will. Star Wars will always survive. But if backlash after backlash after backlash continues - then it could negatively impact the future of Star Wars as movies. The same way the big wigs behind DC movieverse has people wanting to walk back this franchise. It isn't getting the love they thought it would. It's still getting money, of course, but will always be told "You're no Marvel". That is an impact. Same with these new Star Wars movies constantly being told "You're not original trilogy". I don't want Star Wars to be "an event". In fact, I was so excited at the idea of a new trilogy, spin off films, and a possible t.v. show. I want to be over saturated with Star Wars. But I want GOOD Star Wars. Not garbage.
  4. The Federation-Klingon War in 2257 (SPOILERS)

    You won't get "new creative energy to flow" by creating a prequel. A prequel that is not a reboot. A prequel that is, by their own words, in the prime universe. That is the "trade off" of doing a prequel and it's sad that after ENT they didn't learn that lesson. A good writer can navigate this and have continuity to what came before (not asking for perfect, slavish alignment). In regards to the uniforms - I'm not asking for perfect alignment to the uniforms. The point I was making was the criticism that the old Star Trek is too archaic and silly looking to "modernize". We have to start from scratch. Abrams' visuals proved that is garbage. The last episode of DSC season 1 showed a perfect Enterprise. One that looks like an updated of the original. Hell - I'd argue it looks better than the Abrams' version. It can be done. It's not because they want to do a reboot without admitting it. I'm not bothered by the uniforms. I am saying that the argument that the uniforms, technology, ships, etc. cannot be modernized because they would be laughed off screen is not true. It can be done. It has been done by both DSC and Abrams. There is a choice being made to not even try. This choice will always be a detriment to some corner of fans. It is so peculiar that DSC can get some upgrades so right (The Enterprise and the Tellarites are examples of updates) but yet get some so horribly wrong (the Klingons).
  5. Star Wars: Solo

    I don't want Solo to fail and I think most fans don't want that either (even most of the critics). I think, however, there are those that want a message to be sent that these movies should be approached with much more care instead of making them yearly Transformer movies. So I don't think supporting this movie failing is a good idea, but if it's a success then Disney will think this is the direction they should keep going. It's a Catch 22 - either harm the SW brand by causing the movies to fail or let it continue to success with mediocrity (or terribleness with TLJ).
  6. Episode 1.15 “Will You Take My Hand?” Discussion Thread

    I'm (half) sorry to .... bring this up again, but .... It is absolutely baffling how DSC can get "updating" TOS-era ships so right ... but fail so miserably in other aspects. I haven't watched the episode but I saw a post on Facebook that showed the pictures of the Enterprise. And it looks .... so amazing. It easily disproves the notion that everything in Star Trek needs to be monstrously revamped to the point where it is completely unrecognizable. Yet ... they've updated the Enterprise yet it looks so recognizable. Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. Who knew it was possible to update the old design but keep it true to the original? I thought that was just a fanboy's whiny dream...
  7. The Federation-Klingon War in 2257 (SPOILERS)

    Ultimately - I agree that we have different "limits". And that is ok. I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" to like this show. I too can stretch my imagination (up to a point). After all, I love DS9 - the show that "re-imagined" Trills radically from TNG. However, DSC has gone far beyond any limits of making the show link up to a prime universe. I'm not a fan of saying it's an alternate universe or time line unless the story says so. However, it is impossible to believe this will lead up to TNG/DS9/VOY. Hell, I find it hard to believe it will lead up to even TOS... They really should just say this is a reboot. I understood Behr's point. Like I said, I wasn't strict with DS9 changes. I understand fully that this an art form to a degree and requires less rigid interpretations. But again - I am not calling for that with DSC. I am asking for what they sold this product as before it aired - prime universe ten years before The Cage. Once thing I will say to your credit - a lot of you know TOS better than I do. So I am unfamiliar if DSC has cross the lines with the Klingon war. Honestly, from what little I know of TOS, I understood it as a war did occur with the Klingons. Picard (before Enterprise screwed this up) even said that first contact with the Klingons was disastrous and led to DECADES of war with the Klingons. My understanding was that it wasn't "skirmishes" and a "cold war" until Kirk's era. Even Axanar (I know - not canon) depicted a brutal, devastating war with the Klingons. But I feel we're kind of going in circles on this topic .... so as you said - agree to disagree. I find this interesting because in all the forums or comment sections I've read - I don't think I've read anyone advocating for it to look like the 1960s Star Trek in terms of production values. The average person is asking for what Abrams' Trek did with production values. It is what I am asking for as well. The top picture is an "updated" version of the below picture. Even if I never saw the new Abrams' Star Trek movies - I could easily tell they are meant to be a younger version of the second picture. The uniforms are similar but "updated" with better production values. I can tell this is meant to be a modern telling of the 1960s version. However, if someone showed me this picture with no context: There is no way in hell that I could figure out this is Star Trek (Prime time line) and a prequel at that. These uniforms match up with Star Trek: Enterprise uniforms more than TOS. That wouldn't be an issue if this was taking place ten years AFTER ENT rather then ten years BEFORE TOS. Don't even get me started on the technology that is decades more advanced than the Enterprise E. I don't think anyone is asking for TOS as it perfectly was. (outside of the fan film fans) .... If they wanted to make a Star Trek that is aligned with the Prime time line then what is the point of all these (pointless) changes?
  8. The Federation-Klingon War in 2257 (SPOILERS)

    I don't want to beat a dead horse on this, but I talked about this in one of the topics about DSC. I agree there is almost a spectrum of fans that have their own personal limits on what to accept and what not to. Some fans are grossly unreasonable and the slightest change is deemed a "betrayal" of Star Trek. However, on the other side of that spectrum, are fans that accept anything that comes from these writers even at the cost of what has been established. If some are the point where it is all being rationalized away as "a parallel time line" or saying that it is better to take what came before and making it fit with DSC (rather than DSC making itself fit with canon) - then the show is not in a good place. As for the comment about Ziyal - that is not the same thing at all. It's not absurd to accept they are the same character because they ARE the same character. I don't care if actors change because I am not so grossly unreasonable that I would say it ruins Ziyal. The character has not changed in the slightest in terms of her history, her personality, her current story. The loos are different but I understand that's because a new person took over the role. The same way I understand that Karl Urban is playing McCoy - despite the fact he looks nothing like DeForest Kelly. I am fine with that because A) everything else is the same and B) because I am fully away that he an actor playing a role .... The appeal to use our imagination misses the point. I'm using my imagination when I watch a universe with pointed-eared aliens and warp drives. Even the writers don't want us to take the "imagination" approach by their constant reassurance that this takes place in the same universe and that it will all connect at some undisclosed point in the future. So they're even acknowledging that this is disconnected to what came before and they will, for whatever reason, have to clean it all up. My point is this: if thy wanted to just do whatever they wanted. Fine. No reason to say this is all the same timeline. Just say they are going full circle and like TOS, will just make an episodic show and do what they want. Done. Problem solved. I don't see how this is an "absurd standard" - if writers want to get their hands on a popular franchise with an established history, but want to write a chunk of history that is not explored - then they should look to what is established already. To make it connect. Especially since these people bang on and on about how this is meant to be in the same universe/same time line as the TOS/TNG-era. I can't believe that this is being deemed unreasonable .... I can only speak for myself .... but this has nothing to do with any type of "fear". It simply is a desire to see continuity. Not rigid continuity (ex. Tuvok is a lieutenant commander, but in ONE scene, in one episode he had lieutenant pips on his neck). I mean - important aspects that have been deemed part of Trek lore. If they have no desire to follow said continuity - then they should simply say Trek no longer has any type of canon and is now a "Black Mirror" type show. Random episodes.
  9. Star Wars: Solo

    Longer Trailer I'm not sure how I feel about this. I want to like it but ... I'm still pissed about TLJ.
  10. The Federation-Klingon War in 2257 (SPOILERS)

    Again - I agree up to a point. There is a difference between upgrading aesthetics (ala JJ Abrams with the TOS movies) and completely transforming it to something unrecognizable. Plus, I'm not asking them to conform to 700 episodes. Only the ones that are relevant to what is going on in DSC. They don't need to watch an episode about Bajoran spirituality or research the history of that sludge that killed Tasha Yar. I'm guessing you're referring to the removal of Tom Bombadil?
  11. New Humans

    Thanks for the replies. Shame that only two replies came in ... The 100th "Why do Klingons look different?" topic gets more replies. Haha ... Oh well. Interesting points! For sure - I'm not implying that Roddenberry meant conservative in today's terms. In fact, I almost had to deprogram my mind a bit when reading that bold snippet because I kept applying it to modern day political terms. However, it is undeniable there is a certain overlap in today's ideas. The concept of being for the individual versus losing your own identity so that it is merged with a "group" is talked about even now. I find it fascinating to think that not all humans are the (excuse me for saying this) drones that prattle on about how life should only be to better Mankind. While I can appreciate the selfishness of today's humans has been... rendered obsolete - I find it slightly disheartening to think that all traces of what makes us ... well .... us has been erased. It is interesting to think that Kirk's brand of Humanity is better suited to the perils of space travel and the dangers of how it can impact you as an individual. If you're someone that isn't tribal (for your species) at some visceral level, you may be more susceptible to joining with someone else. If you're mind is literally so open that it can be plucked out by a competing philosophy - it would spell a certain danger to space travel wouldn't it? Especially since, for all intents and purposes, Starfleet is the emissary of the Federation (and to a degree of humanity). If Starfleet was filled with officers that minimized their self-worth to a point where they don't recognize the benefit of being part of the Human family - it would seem natural to seek that out in alien civilizations... If I remember correctly - there was a Starfleet officer in TNG who did just that. He joined the Romulan Star Empire because he felt they had clear moral values and an absolute certainty about the purpose of life. Seems like he could fit what Roddenberry was talking about ... Interesting points as well! I'm not sure I read that the same, though. It doesn't come off as bitter to me. In fact in the above Kirk even says: "I am prepared to accept the possibility that these so called “new humans” represent a more highly evolved breed capable of finding rewards in group consciousness that we more primitive individuals will never know." The acknowledgement kind of tells me that Kirk realizes that his brand of humanity is fading out and they are the future, but that he isn't obsolete yet. He is still needed and may be better suited for Starfleet. Plus, Kirk has the added virtue of being right in the sense that what he says above shows space exploration was hindered because of this problem. Versus an older person calling a member of the next generation weak or something.
  12. New Humans

    Mods - I put this in the General section because I am not focusing on the novel itself, but rather on this content and how it pertains to the rest of Trek. I know, I know - I have a habit of harping on the depiction of humanity and the "evolution" of our society as depicted by Star Trek. I still have a lot of qualms of the idea that humans are mostly perfect and have gotten over every negative impulse in our genetic memory. It is why I always loved DS9 which exposed that humans were still human underneath the shiny painting brought on by sonic showers, holodecks, and replicators. I loved that Sisko said there was something different from humans living in the core of the UFP and humans living in the frontier. It makes it more palpable that humans are not the angels we're led to believe ... I found something interesting in the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Roddenberry wrote a preface through Admiral James T. Kirk. Sadly, none of this is in the movies or shows (not even DS9). But regardless, I find it adds such a unique layer to the mythos that Star Trek was kind of robbed by omitting this. (I bolded the aspects I find especially interesting.) _________________________________ Admiral Kirk’s preface: My name is James Tiberius Kirk. Kirk because my father and his male forebears hauled the old custom of passing along a family identify name. I received James because it was both the name of my father’s beloved brother as well as that of my mother’s first love instructor. Tiberius, as I am forever tired of explaining, was a Roman emperor whose life, for some unfathomable reason, fascinated my grandfather Samuel. This is not trivial information. For example, the fact I used an old fashioned male surname says a lot about both me and the service to which I belong. Although the male surname custom has become rare among humans elsewhere. It remains a fairly common thing among those of us in Starfleet. We’re a highly conservative and strongly individualistic group. The old customs die hard with us. We submit ourselves to starship discipline. Because we know it is made necessary by the realities of deep space exploration. We’re proud that each of us has accepted this discipline voluntarily. And doubly proud when neither temptation nor jeopardy is able to shake our obedience to the oath we have taken. Some critics have characterized us in Starfleet as primitives. And with some justification. In some ways, we do resemble our forebears of a couple of centuries ago more than we do most people today. We’re not part of those increasingly large number of humans who seem willing to submerge their own identities into the groups to which they belong. I am prepared to accept the possibility that these so called “new humans” represent a more highly evolved breed capable of finding rewards in group consciousness that we more primitive individuals will never know. For the present, however, this new breed of human makes a poor space traveler and Starfleet must depend on us primitives for deep space exploration. It seems an almost absurd claim that we primitives make better space travelers than the highly evolved, superbly intelligent, adaptable new humans. The reason for this paradox is best explained in a Vulcan study of Starfleet’s early years. During which vessel disappearances, crew defections, and mutinies had brought deep space exploration to a near halt. This once controversial report diagnosed those mysterious losses as being caused directly by the fact that Starfleet’s recruitment standards were dangerously high. That is Starfleet Academy’s cadets were then being selected from applicants having the highest possible test scores on all categories of intelligence and adaptability. Understandably, it was believed that such qualities would be helpful in dealing with the unusually varied life patterns which starship crews encountered during deep space exploration. Something of the opposite turned out to be true. The problem was that sooner or later starship crew members must inevitably deal with life forms more evolved and advanced than their own. The result was that these superbly, intelligent and flexible minds being sent out by Starfleet could not help but be seduced eventually by the higher philosophies, aspirations, and consciousness levels being encountered. I have always found it amusing that my academy class was the first group selected by Starfleet on the basis of somewhat more limited intellectual agility. It is made doubly amusing of course by the fact that our five year mission was so well documented due to an ill-conceived notion by Starfleet that the return of the USS enterprise merited public notice. Unfortunately, Starfleet’s enthusiasm affected even those that chronicled our adventures. We were all painted somewhat larger than life. Especially myself. Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of modern Ulysses. And it has been painful to see my command decisions of those years so widely applauded. Whereas the plain facts are that 94 of our crew met violent deaths during those years. And many of them would still be alive if I had acted either more quickly or more wisely. Nor have I been as foolishly courageous as depicted. I have never happily invited injury. I have disliked in the extreme every duty circumstance which has required me to risk my life. But there appears to be something in the nature of depicters of popular events which leads them into the habit of exaggeration. As a result, I became determined that if I ever again found myself involved in an affair attracting public attention, I would insist that someway be found to tell the story more accurately. As some of you well know, I did become involved in such an affair. In fact, an event that threatened the very existence of Earth. Unfortunately, this has again brought me to the attention of those who record such happenings. Accordingly, although, there may be many other ways this story is told or depicted, I have insisted that it all should be set down in a written manuscript which would be subject to my corrections and my final approval. This is that manuscript. Presented to you here as an old style printed book. While I cannot control other depictions of these events that you may see, hear, and feel – I can promise that every description, idea, and word on these pages is the exact and true story of V’Ger and Earth as it was seen, heard, and felt by. – James T. Kirk ________________________________________ This is pretty fascinating stuff (and admittedly non-canon). The idea of two classes of humanity emerging from the rubble of World War III. The utopian humans who focus more on group consciousness ("We work to better ourselves and the whole of humanity" types). The individualistic humans that don't lose that sense of self, but are not as self-sacrificing as the other group. This actually makes me re-examine the character of James T. Kirk a bit now. There are a lot of political discussions in this forum (especially with the fandom split on DSC). I can see why some find Kirk to represent a much different type of human than say Picard. I am intrigued, also, by the notion that some humans (despite their intelligence) are not cut out for space exploration. That their loss of self caused them to be easily seduced by alien ideologies and they would "go native" essentially. It almost seems like this is an endorsement (or simply an acknowledgment by Roddenberry) that the "proud" to be human types were necessary to maintain a space fleet that could explore on humanity's behalf. I wonder what Roddenberry was actually saying about the "new humans" and what he was saying about the old ones that were more like us than they were "enlightened"?
  13. The Federation-Klingon War in 2257 (SPOILERS)

    Why? The Enterprise-E was doing missions like that during the Dominion War. Hell - even the Defiant was doing surveys in the Gamma Quadrant while the Klingon-Federation War was raging. I don't think the exploratory arm of the UFP grinds to a halt while a war is going on. It's probably just reduced. I agree with everything you said, but the above is why I don't like giving too much "ground" to so - called minor detail changes (ex. uniforms). Because once you do that on a minimal level, they'll start doing it on other levels. And when a fan protests, we're dismissed as whiny fanboys that need to get over it. I think after the other Treks - enough ground has been ceded to lazy writers that don't want to do research. We all agree upgrades in looks are needed, but DSC has literally gone off the rails to the point that people in this very topic are saying it's simply easier to pretend this is another universe.... I think that's a bit of a cop out to be honest. No one is asking for the TOS writers to have foreknowledge of DSC. We're asking the DSC writers to understand and respect the source material. Make it connect. What exactly is the appeal of creating a Star Trek show closely linked to TOS both with the time frame and characters (Spock's adopted sister) only to cry foul when we see any links are specious at best? Upgrading looks is ok up to a point, but we should not literally be at the point where we as fan are meant to shoehorn DSC into canon. This is why I hate the prequels of Star Wars (among many other reasons). It made little to no effort to seem like it was connected to the OT. Instead, we're told that we have to take the OT and make it fit in the PT. Nope. No. No. No. No. It's the opposite (or should be). It should be made to fit the the OT like Rogue One did. Unfortunately, now that is considered "making a movie for fanboys". It is truly baffling why Star Trek/Star Wars has such trouble staying consistent with what has come before. The Harry Potter or LotR movies didn't seem to when they delved into prequels. (Not that I've heard at least).
  14. Vulcan nerve pinch

    I think that would make sense considering there are very few Vulcans in TNG. VOY? Yeah - I'm surprised Tuvok did not utilize it a bit more. I always thought the Nerve Pinch was odd. It seemed like something only a touch telepath like Vulcans can do, but we've seen other non-Vulcans do it.
  15. The Man in High Castle/ Mirror

    I never looked at it that way, but yeah .... TMITHC really is a "mirror universe" of sorts. I wouldn't be surprised if in Trek's mirror universe - the Axis won WWII.
  16. I don't mind the idea of time traveling causing subtle changes which keeps diluting the time line, even if only by a little bit. Thus - the constant differences every time they go backwards or do a show in that time. My issue with this is - Trek needs to say that is the case. Otherwise, it's just us as fans running defense for the laziness of writers that want to wade into a popular franchise but without any of the hard work that goes into research.
  17. Black Mirror

    So does anyone else watch this? It's like a 21st century Twilight Zone. Really good show! Season 4 just kicked off and episode 1 should have a familiar setting for us here ...
  18. Where's the Enterprise?

    Last I checked - Star Trek Online is currently on the Enterprise-F. With a whole new crew.
  19. THE LAST JEDI - Movie discussion and critique

    The only expectation I had was they continued what the OT established. Literally the bare minimum of expectations.
  20. THE LAST JEDI - Movie discussion and critique

    Yes - true. That more or less works. Kylo just seemed to have a visceral hatred of Han. Between his murder and telling Rey that Han is a failure as a father-figure, he seemed to have a more personal reason for hating Han besides wanting to wipe away the past. But it probably was just to prove himself to Snoke and maybe prove to himself he is Darth Vader 2.0. The issue with this article and the myriad of articles that have come out since TLJ came out is ... it misses the core point of the criticism of Luke's radical personality shift. It's not a matter of it not "serving the story" or it "not making sense". It kind of does, within the context of this story, on why Luke did what he did (even if its a huge stretch given his history). The issue is ... was this a good idea for the character? As I said in a previous post - with enough time (and writing classes :P) - I can write a story that takes place 20 years after Star Trek: Nemesis where Jean-Luc Picard has turned into a vicious imperialist killer or a coward that hides in France while the universe is burning around him. I can make up any convoluted plot line on why he is the way he is. Any plot line that will have a myriad of articles saying "All things considered ... it does make sense why Picard changed." or "In real life .... people change. Stop being so entitled, NERDS." or "Considering the events that led up to this story, it's true to life on why Picard did what he did." and so on and on. It has nothing to do with it making sense within the context of a particular story. It has to do with regression of a character. Transformation of a character (especially a radical one) is a tricky thing. Especially if this transformation tends to ... harm the legacy of the character. It can work at times, but was it a good idea? - - - that is the bigger point. And as others have said - connecting to the previous movie - Luke's choices are just ... odd (in a trilogy context). If he went to this planet to die - where did this map leading to him come from? Why did R2 have a piece of it again? It seemed like such a big build up that Luke found the planet where the Jedi were formed. As if he was gaining some type of lost knowledge. With the trailers hovering over his quote "It's time for the Jedi ... to end." - you're led to think he must have discovered something so controversial .... but nope. He didn't discover anything. He just went there to die. So .... why not just go to Tatooine and jump into the Sarlacc pit? Why not go to Hoth, walk into a random cave, and let a Wampa eat you? Why not go swimming in Dagobah and let a giant alien shark devour you? What did he go to this planet for?
  21. THE LAST JEDI - Movie discussion and critique

    I agree completely. In fact - now that we know the "whole story" on Ben Solo .... why exactly did he hate Han so much? We never really find out. Is it because Luke is his friend? Because Han and Leia gave Ben to Luke? IDK ... It would have been much more powerful for Han to have that weak moment then instantly regret it. Or at least .... much more understandable than Luke of all people.
  22. Looking for DS9 RPG

    Did you mean like roleplaying on a forum?
  23. THE LAST JEDI - Movie discussion and critique

    I am inclined to agree with the criticisms by Sehlat Vie and prometheus59650. Especially the criticism that this felt like a solo-stand alone film and not the middle of a trilogy. I don't know if it's because Rian is an idiot and wanted to put his individual stamp on the franchise or the forces behind Disney/JJ are idiots for not telling him "this is the general framework - please try and go in this direction". In regards to Rey - I don't care that she is a no body. I don't care if they are trying to establish "using the Force and being a hero is open to all!" In fact - I'm pretty sure on this very forum I whined about how the PT turned being a Force user as something akin to the mutant gene. Only some people have super powers. I hated that. I loved how in the OT - you got the vibe that anyone can do it but they have to have the will. The issue with Rey is solely what TFA built up. So she had "visions" because the lightsaber wanted her to? It "called to her"? Since when is Luke's lightsaber sentient? This lends itself to what prometheus59650 said about this feeling like a film that isn't part of a trilogy. Why all the build up ... for this? All of that build up in TFA just to give us an "unexpected" reveal ... that was lack luster and just added in to be a really cheap version of "I am your father". In regards to "It actually makes sense that Luke is the way he is" defense - I get that. I'm not calling it a plot hole. I mean, it is kind of silly to give Luke the plot line of wanting to murder someone (his own family) for darkness in them when his entire arc in the OT is not giving up on his father because he sense a little bit of light in him. It's a complete total regression of the character. Wouldn't it have made more sense for Leia and Han to do that? But putting that questionable decision aside, many of us are not pleased with the decision - not because it makes no sense. But ultimately because it was a cheap waste of a character that has existed in pop culture for decades. It looks like 75% of his post-RotJ life was living along on a planet not doing anything other than milking alien teats ... Seriously? We waited decades for that? When news broke that a sequel trilogy was coming out and they got Hamil, Fisher, Ford to agree to come back (a huge long shot in those days) .... this is not what was expected. Before I get "What's wrong? Mad your fantasies since the OT ended didn't come true? LOL!!!" No .... the only "fantasy" or expectation I had was a progression from the RotJ. I didn't care for where the characters went in the EU but I didn't absolutely hate it either. I had low expectations. All I expected was the story moving beyond the big bad empire and the small rebellion. That's it. This new trilogy couldn't even meet my LOWEST expectations. I knew due to their age that they would not be the "heroes" of the movie and a new generation of heroes would be at the forefront. Which is fine. However, I still expected them to play a role that was an organic evolution of where we left them in RotJ. Almost no fan of the OT waited decades to see them again just to see Han is still a bitter smuggler ... Leia is a rebellion leader .... and Luke is doing his best Yoda/Obi-Wan cosplay. The issue is not it being a plot hole or that "it doesn't make sense". It's that the three iconic characters were utterly wasted after decades of waiting to see their return (however minimal their role in the plots would be). This trilogy is also their send off ... it's the trilogy that truly ends their stories (even if it is secondary). I can write an entire plot line of seeing Captain Picard decades after Star Trek: Nemesis and he is now written to be a war monger that wants the Federation to conquer the galaxy. I can write a plot that Picard suffered loss and vowed that he would never let anyone under his command die out. I can piece it together to make complete and total sense. That doesn't make it a good plot line. It doesn't matter if "it makes sense why Luke became that way." anymore than it makes sense for Picard to turn into a psychopathic imperialist. It's a regression of the character ... You know ... this reminds me of how people hate the new Superman in the new movies. Because he doesn't act like his heroic self. The boy scout. I don't mind it because this change is organic to the story. He is starting out and no one knows him. People are fearful but I expect that one day Superman will be who he is meant to be. In the case of Luke, I don't care if he stumbles. But he didn't stumble and lost his way. Decades of his life was thrown aside and his "redemption" was a one minute death scene ... If you're going to make their fall big then their redemption must equally be big. We waited decades to see Hamil as Luke again just to get .... ? Then to top it all off - he died. (although to be fair, it is highly likely he'll play Luke again as a ghost in the next movie). It's just disappointing to know that after all that Luke accomplished, his "legacy" is failing to restore the Jedi Order. It was literally everything he was built up for in the OT. Just like that - thrown away so we can have what some people are calling "realism". Apparently, failure is the only thing true to life in cinema. Who knew? My ultimate complaint on the use of the OT character is .... was this the best they can come up with? This trilogy needs the same thing Lucas needed during the PT. Someone to look at the ideas brought forward by Lucas, Abrams, Johnson, Disney and whoever else and then if something isn't good or doesn't work with what came before? This brave soul must ask:
  24. THE LAST JEDI - Movie discussion and critique

    There are plenty of avenues that can be explored in the Star Wars universe. Every novel/game/show has proven that. The movies, both the PT and ST just didn't want to go anywhere different than a young Jedi being trained and a war in the back drop. That's not really a failure of the potential of SW but more a failure on those writing the stories. In regards to Rey, I too did not want her to be related to Luke, Han, or Obi-Wan. That would have been silly. But they were clearly gearing up for her to have some unique background. Between her strength in the Force and the visions she received when touching the lightsaber all hinted that there was more to her than meets the eye. Why did she have visions of Kylo Ren and the Knights of Ren killing someone? Why did she visions of Bespin? Why did she have visions of her parents leaving? Why did she have visions of Luke and R2 watching the temple burn? She heard the voice of Obi-Wan and Palpatine in her visions. .... why? Cause she's the daughter of drunks? I didn't think that she was some Alderanian princess or Jedi God or Anakin reincarnated or something. But there did appear to be a hint she was more than what we see. This wouldn't be such an issue if TFA hadn't laid some ground work about her lineage. If they wanted to go down the route of her being a no body with a destiny - than Maz should have told her when she said no one was coming back to Jakku for her and Rey knew that deep down inside. But I guess ... this is what happens when you have separate people making a trilogy without a unified story ...
  25. THE LAST JEDI - Movie discussion and critique

    And the possible retconning of TLJ begins... Rey's Parents