The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Why God, Why?
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> General Star Wars -> Why God, Why? Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:22 pm    Post subject: Why God, Why? Reply with quote

[rant]I actually don't hate Star Wars cartoons in of themselves. What I have have always disliked is the mixing of cartoon Star Wars and live-action Star Wars in the same universes. Rogue One putting Chopper, the Ghost and Hera's name easter eggs in the movie was fine and did nothing to diminish the film. Solo, while otherwise a great movie, crossed the line with Maul. A live action character killed in a live action movie in a way that made it absolutely impossible to survive was resurrected in a cartoon, and the resurrected character was later put in a live action movie.

I just don't understand this single universe franchise mentality. What is wrong with a multiverse? DC currently has a live action movie universe, a distinct and separate animated movie universe, a distinct and separate live action TV universe, and a distinct and separate comic book universe. What works in one may not work in the other, and that is ok. They can be different, and all still enjoyable for what they each are.

In the old Star Wars continuity structure, cartoons may exist in the same universe as the films on paper, but the cartoon continuity did not invade film continuity. Cartoon continuity could easily be disregarded and ignored if necessary. When Lucas came up with T-canon for TCW, the higher level films were done at the time so nothing from the cartoon would invade a movie, like Anakin being promoted to Knight a few weeks after his horrible pain felt across the galaxy, and a few days later being assigned a padawan against his will (against the Jedi Code) just to teach him a lesson about attachments that he painfully failed to learn in his first 10 years with the Jedi Order. If it only appeared in the cartoons, it could be ignored.

...

But Disney not only has to have one new universe, almost everything has to be is equally canon. Cartoon-resurrected Maul appeared in a live action movie, and I fear that Rebels characters are the parents of Rey just to put Thrawn in Episode IX. Now, when Luke is first handed his father's lightsaber in Obi-Wan's home, a blast of wind comes from the lightsaber and Luke has the power of Grayskull...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wsHRyLWgWg

I've still got a few years until 50, but I guess this is how I become a curmudgeonly old Star Wars fan. I see this and find that I am vehemently opposed to a series of shorts portraying classic film moments "reimaged" in silly cartoon form to launch a new Star Wars Kids YouTube channel. And using the original live action actor film audio performance to boot. My 9-year-old likes cartoons a lot more than I do, but he was more outraged by Maul being in Solo than I was (On opening night, I actually had to shush his outburst in the theater). I showed him this video, and right away he said it looked stupid.

Why does anyone think we need this series? A gateway to kids getting deeper into Star Wars? I was a little kid who got into live action Star Wars because it was awesome. Toys weren't even a factor yet because they didn't come out until the following year after the movie. Star Wars held my attention while the sad old man handed the young man the flash tube with calm reverence. When kids see this and pass through the gateway to live action, they will find it dull and boring compared to the zany animated versions of these scenes.

Now Luke destroying the Death Star, the greatest climax in cinematic history, is a wacky cartoon. Aw hell no.[/rant]
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pel
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 984
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also have a huge problem with the dumbing down of Star Wars. I get what they're doing (squeezing every last credit out of a beloved property) and Disney is free to do so, but we don't have to watch it.

Resurrecting Maul only punks (to use the vernacular) Obi-Wan. That guy couldn't do anything right! He flubbed Annie's training, didn't really prepare Luke and nearly lost him to the Dark Side too, failed to kill his fallen apprentice (twice), didn't save the one person who probably could've kept Annie on the straight and narrow (Qui-Gon), and despite bisecting Maul, we learned he couldn't even kill a 3rd string Sith Lord.

Ben Kenobi: Epic Failure. I don't know about you, but I prefer to think more kindly of Obi-Wan.
_________________
Aha!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 730
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a mixed view on this new disney canon.
While a part of me feels that star wars is being dumbed down and too much effort is spent on making the franchise into something it is not, I also feel that Disney have done much good.

The old canon needed a reup badly, and if we look to character concepts more than names, we see that the new disney actually revives much of the odl stuff we loved.

As to introducing thrawn to live action, I think can be done but it must be done right.
My issue with Maul in "solo" was that many of the new fans will have problems seeing the timeline, and thus see it as strage with him in rebles, and all other appearences.

I think we as grown up fans should sit back and let go of the "names" and then be better suited to recognize that Disney more than we susally are willing to admit, actually follows the old canon very well, changing what needs to be changed, and keeping concepts though names can be changed.

I am sure if we look to it, we see that gar saxon was the emperor's hand on Mandalore, the name here seperated from the old concept related to mara jade, yet the "role" of force imbued "agents" of the emperor has been shown in other characters, like the inquisitors and kallus, but the latter not being force sensitive and the former being changed in how they operate from the old canon and the like.

I am still mixed in my vies, and though Disney have done much strange and imo stupid dtuff to " try and see if this can be implementen into the franchise" and soewhat failed, they have done much good for the franchise as well
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KageRyu
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 995
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In general Whill, I would agree with you - I do not see a need for an animated retelling of the original three movies , which is all that appears to be to me. On many levels that does annoy me.

On the other hand - I do like cartoons, and the animation doesn't look bad even if the character drawing looks a little simplistic. I have long been a fan of Anime, and the DC Animated Universe (their animated features are a far cry better than the live action offerings). I am such an anime fan when the transforming Star Wars toys were out I experimented with writing a D6 rules update featuring variable fighters and giant robots I was calling Star Wars Z (sadly never finished and the notes are lost).

I can say from what I have heard, a lot of the younger generation is not getting into the original trilogy because the movies are dated by today's standards. For those of us that grew up on that trilogy this is not an issue and we can happily rewatch them again and again. I feel this animated retelling may be an attempt by Disney to expose the new younger audience to that material that they may otherwise not watch or avoid. That is a potential good thing - though I would much prefer they experience it in it's original form... it's like those of us in the states whose first mainstream exposure to Anime was Robotech - horribly edited but it led the way.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 730
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KageRyu wrote:
In general Whill, I would agree with you - I do not see a need for an animated retelling of the original three movies , which is all that appears to be to me. On many levels that does annoy me.

I can say from what I have heard, a lot of the younger generation is not getting into the original trilogy because the movies are dated by today's standards.


I am not sure any of the anotology movies or animated series are retelling the original tilogy. they are paralel stories happening at the same time

it would not at make sense to make a war about resistance in ww2 france preparing for D day, and not have any reerances or obvious crossovers with aliied and nazi forces.

Rebels is the story of how the rebel alliance was created and grew, following a small local group of rebels that eventually become part of the grand alliance.
It also shows sides of the empire with relations between officer and enlisted, and how they are dealing with occupation.

the rebel narrative filling in the world around the original.

As to the younger generation, I think this is in part why we see what happened to the fandom after the recent movies, movies meant possibly to appeal to the younger fans, the ones not growing up on neither the original or the prequals, and thus they did what they did with all the "issues" that have been.

I too like animation, i liked all the star wars animatons thus far, and they show exactly what disney is doing to the franchise.

Look at forces of destiny and then look at the aimation style, the "narrative style" and the "content" and comapre this to other animated franchises, then we see that most other similar franchises are mostly aimed towards a young female audience, which is great and imo was done right enough to not take away to much appeal for male and older fans.

The last jedi in many ways failed at this, RJ is more a "young movies" director than JJ and we see this, rRJ's movie showed too many elements of a "movie aimed at the audience of 15-25" with sitcom humor, etc.
JJ on the other hand, is more classically adult in his vision, still being relevant even to the young audience group, but not aimed at them.

if we look at their movies we see that one is a youth movie director and one is a more classicall genre oriented director, different and both good but the differences between them have made a split in the understanding of the fandom.

so to me the anthology movies, animated series are all fluff, not needed but also VITAL to generate a living working galaxy where several things can happen at the same time, with more than "one" story told even on the same place
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Kenobi & Maul Reply with quote

Pel wrote:
Resurrecting Maul only punks (to use the vernacular) Obi-Wan. That guy couldn't do anything right! He flubbed Annie's training, didn't really prepare Luke and nearly lost him to the Dark Side too, failed to kill his fallen apprentice (twice), didn't save the one person who probably could've kept Annie on the straight and narrow (Qui-Gon), and despite bisecting Maul, we learned he couldn't even kill a 3rd string Sith Lord.

Ben Kenobi: Epic Failure. I don't know about you, but I prefer to think more kindly of Obi-Wan.

Well, Ben Kenobi did finally kill the resurrected Maul on Tatooine, supposedly for good, in Rebels. If that can be believed. He "died" in Obi-Wan's arms talking about the Chosen One, like Qui-Gon had in TPM.

Mamatried wrote:
My issue with Maul in "solo" was that many of the new fans will have problems seeing the timeline, and thus see it as strage with him in rebles, and all other appearences.

Right. That episode was a year before he was included in the chronologically prior Solo, so his appearance in Solo is not only cartoonish but also dramatic limp. It was utterly pointless unless Maul is going to be resurrected again in Episode IX. We can't say that is impossible now.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pel wrote:
I also have a huge problem with the dumbing down of Star Wars. I get what they're doing (squeezing every last credit out of a beloved property) and Disney is free to do so, but we don't have to watch it.

Of course we don't have to watch it, which is why I tagged the OP as a "rant". I refuse to watch it, but I find that I am bothered by this more than the other things I don't have to watch.

Mamatried wrote:
I have a mixed view on this new disney canon.
While a part of me feels that star wars is being dumbed down and too much effort is spent on making the franchise into something it is not, I also feel that Disney have done much good.

The old canon needed a reup badly, and if we look to character concepts more than names, we see that the new disney actually revives much of the odl stuff we loved.

As to introducing thrawn to live action, I think can be done but it must be done right.
...
I think we as grown up fans should sit back and let go of the "names" and then be better suited to recognize that Disney more than we susally are willing to admit, actually follows the old canon very well, changing what needs to be changed, and keeping concepts though names can be changed.

I am sure if we look to it, we see that gar saxon was the emperor's hand on Mandalore, the name here seperated from the old concept related to mara jade, yet the "role" of force imbued "agents" of the emperor has been shown in other characters, like the inquisitors and kallus, but the latter not being force sensitive and the former being changed in how they operate from the old canon and the like.

I am still mixed in my vies, and though Disney have done much strange and imo stupid dtuff to " try and see if this can be implementen into the franchise" and soewhat failed, they have done much good for the franchise as well

My OP wasn't meant to start a bash-fest about Disney. Yes, the Disney franchise, just like the old franchise, has good and bad things. The Disney franchise has Solo, RO and TFA which are overall awesome.

My OP wasn't meant to start a canon war. Yes, the EU was in dire need of a reboot, but that doesn't mean anything will do. I see the main purpose of a reboot as chance to start fresh and not make the same mistakes as the prior canon. The non-film canon of both canons horribly contradict the films and themselves, so they learned absolutely nothing the first time around. It's just EU2. Disney canon is failing where the old canon did.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
I am not sure any of the anotology movies or animated series are retelling the original tilogy. they are paralel stories happening at the same time

Did you watch the video I posted in the OP? They are actually reimaging parts of the live action films using wacky animation. This isn't just parallel stories happening at the same time as the films. This is showing Luke destroy the Death Star in the Battle of Yavin, but in an unnecessary new animated retelling of the event. And a lot of other film events. They are creating new visuals for the original live action film audio tracks.

The animated series were brought up because I have stated some anti-animation statements in the past and don't want people to think that I am just opposed to any animated Star Wars in any form. I'm not. The anthology films were brought up because elements of animated series have entered into live action film canon, which was ok in Rogue One but not in Solo. The way Rebels ended, with Ezra taking Thrawn away to a distant unknown location, and Ashoka and Sabine taking off to go look for them, seems to be setting up the return of these animated characters. I'm ok with Thrawn being in Episode IX but I am worried about these other characters showing up too.

Now animation is "invading" the live action films in a new way.

KageRyu wrote:
In general Whill, I would agree with you - I do not see a need for an animated retelling of the original three movies , which is all that appears to be to me. On many levels that does annoy me.

Exactly! Now it did have Yoda and Dooku, but it mostly did appear to be animated retellings of classic film events.

KageRyu wrote:
I can say from what I have heard, a lot of the younger generation is not getting into the original trilogy because the movies are dated by today's standards. For those of us that grew up on that trilogy this is not an issue and we can happily rewatch them again and again. I feel this animated retelling may be an attempt by Disney to expose the new younger audience to that material that they may otherwise not watch or avoid. That is a potential good thing - though I would much prefer they experience it in it's original form...

That is the stated purpose of it, to entice children into being interested in Star Wars. But what is the point of bringing kids who might otherwise not see real Star Wars to it if they are just bored with it when they do see it? I get the animation angle. My son watched the Ewoks and Droids cartoons, plus some Lego Star Wars animation, as his introduction to Star Wars. But none of these were just retellings of classic film moments. Those should be saved for the actual film. Watch the original tellings before the retellings. Otherwise, the real tellings might seem boring and dull by comparison. I really feel that this animated series will ruin the films for kids.

I'd honestly rather the original trilogy not be seen at all than kids get parts of it spoiled by flashy zany animated retellings followed by the actual original content seeming muted by comparison. In their quest to get kids interested in Star Wars, they may be ruining it for them. Animated kiddie Star Wars should just be original stories, not retellings of the films.

KageRyu wrote:
the DC Animated Universe (their animated features are a far cry better than the live action offerings).

[Wince] When I hear stuff like that I am almost reminded of those who said that TCW was a far cry better than the Prequel Trilogy, which I feel is just flat out preposterous, sensational tripe meant to sound like a witty bash of the prequels.

We will have agree to disagree on DC films. Wonder Woman is the best DC film since The Dark Knight. I've enjoyed Justice League more each time I've seen it (five times now). The extended version of Batman v. Superman is way better than the theatrical version.

I've seen most of the DC animated movies, and I can only agree that they are better than Suicide Squad.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Commander
Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the early 2000s, I was in a deep funk about the state of Star Wars. Lucas was refusing to release the non-special edition versions and there were no alternative options available other than lousy laserdisc rips. I couldn't stand the PT films at all. The novels had gone off the deep end by the time I hit the Black Fleet Crisis (in publishing order, that is) Moreover, I hated how all of the focus had shifted to stuff in the PT era, with which I wanted nothing to do. I missed the OT era, and it seemed that had been forgotten and abandoned.

I felt really embittered and frustrated by all of this, but over time, those feelings subsided, and I came to a place where I just decided to take what I want and leave the rest. I reworked my own "head canon" for the events of the PT, I started watching the Filioni Clone Wars cartoon and grew to like it, and incorporated that into the head canon, and ultimately that allowed me to appreciate ROTS as the capstone of that overall story, even if I still think it's a weak execution and that Anakin's emotional arc isn't really effectively earned (or very interesting to me -- hence me "fixing" his motivations in my head canon).


I felt cautiously optimistic with the announcement of the Disney buyout and the launch of a bunch of new Star Wars material. I've enjoyed Rebels quite a bit from what I've seen (Season 1, some of Season 2). I like the elimination of the different levels of canon, but that's mostly because I've enjoyed pretty much everything that I've consumed thus far. I haven't read any novels or comics, so if they're being done poorly, I don't know about it. But by and large, I think the new stuff is...pretty good. Some of it is great. Some of it is...just ok. I won't go into a lot of detail about my thoughts on this or that project or film.

What I will say is this:

My best advice is to treat Star Wars as a buffet and to make liberal use of your own "head canon." Oh, that's an official story? That's nice. I'll incorporate it at my own choosing, and not at the insistence of the Story Group. If the Story Group can say "All that stuff didn't happen," then news flash: so can I. Likewise, I can make my own story up if I want to.

Ultimately, I find Star Wars is a LOT more enjoyable as a whole, if you don't allow individual parts that you don't like to get in the way of your overall enjoyment. If there's something you don't like, just treat it like you would a sourcebook you didn't care to include. Oh, Black Sands of Socorro says blah blah blah about alien race? I don't use that in my campaign.

Mind you, it took me a LONG time to do this. I still prefer to avoid crappy film entries in franchises if possible, simply because I can't "unsee" something. (Which is why I haven't watched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.) But if I do see it, I'm a lot better at ignoring what I saw, even if I can't unsee it. It makes the experience overall a lot more enjoyable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
I reworked my own "head canon" for the events of the PT, I started watching the Filioni Clone Wars cartoon and grew to like it, and incorporated that into the head canon, and ultimately that allowed me to appreciate ROTS as the capstone of that overall story, even if I still think it's a weak execution and that Anakin's emotional arc isn't really effectively earned (or very interesting to me -- hence me "fixing" his motivations in my head canon).

RotS is the capstone of TCW?! I'm glad TCW works for you, but I have never understood anyone who feels that TCW and RotS compliment each other in any way. TCW began in 2008 an afterthought to the prequels.

Padme didn't get pregnant with Luke and Leia soon after AotC, and a rational reason for that would be that padawans don't have the freedom to just leave the temple and spend the night wherever they want. In ANH, Vader expressed to Obi-Wan that he was not much more than a "learner" when they had last met. These things make it extremely logical that Anakin was had been a full-fledged Jedi Knight less than a year before RotS. It makes no sense that Anakin was promoted to Jedi Knight three years before RotS. And in RotS, Anakin becomes outraged that he is not promoted to Jedi Master when assigned to the Jedi Council, but according to TCW you have to train a padawan to Jedi Knight level to become a master. Anakin would be well aware that Ashoka did not ever make it Knight as she left the Order, so why would he be so outraged that he is not made a Master if he knows he failed to train a padawan? Not to mention the insanity of giving Anakin a padawan only a month after he experienced the "terrible pain" and trauma of his mother dying in his arms, and TPM clearly establishing that Jedi Knights chose their padawans (They were not assigned against the will of the Knight.)

Lucas made RotS as the completion of his film saga in 2005. At the time, the next big project was the live action TV series in development. For a couple years they they struggled with getting the effects technology to allow the production budget to get down low enough for TV standards, so it got put on the back burner and TCW was made with the freedom to contradict whatever it wanted. The very premise of TCW took a proverbial dump on the continuity of the films, and it only got worse as the series went on. Yoda's big final arc in the last season is realizing that peace is the only way to win, but in RotS he went to kill Palpatine (and in original trilogy he wanted Luke to kill Vader, which he knew would be easier if he didn't know the truth about his parentage). I can more easily understand someone enjoying TCW as an alternate reality to the films, but I can't comprehend how anyone can think the films and the TV show actually work together.

I do agree about the dramatic failure of Anakin crossing-over to the Dark Side in RotS (a failure in Lucas's direction and Christensen's acting). In my head canon, how I make it work is that I imagine the Dark Side is more powerfully tempting Anakin, more like Luke on the second Death Star (but of course amplified).

Solo4114 wrote:
My best advice is to treat Star Wars as a buffet and to make liberal use of your own "head canon." Oh, that's an official story? That's nice. I'll incorporate it at my own choosing, and not at the insistence of the Story Group. If the Story Group can say "All that stuff didn't happen," then news flash: so can I. Likewise, I can make my own story up if I want to.

Excellent advice. Even Lucas said that each fan has their own SWU in a Star Wars multiverse. It is a buffet. The Disney sale didn't change that for me. I still take what I want for my SWU, and passover what I don't want. Now I have two buffets instead of one.

Solo4114 wrote:
Ultimately, I find Star Wars is a LOT more enjoyable as a whole, if you don't allow individual parts that you don't like to get in the way of your overall enjoyment.

Great advice, but it really sucks when a part I don't like invades a part I do, like the cartoon-resurrected Maul from TCW invading Solo. I would like TCW a lot more if it would not affect the live action films. This advice is a lot easier to follow if they would just keep animation and live action separate.

Lucas said he intentionally cut Maul in half so he wouldn't be expected by fans to come back in a future live action film. After the films were done, he approved TCW to bring Maul back because, why the hell not? It is just a cartoon TV show and wouldn't effect the live action films at that point. Then Disney kills Maul off again, a seeming final death, in a cartoon TV show (Rebels). Then Disney approves Maul being in Solo a year after he died because he wasn't dead at that point in the timeline. I'll bet Lucas would have said no to that, despite the character's status. Why? Because Maul was cut in half in a prior film, regardless of what he approved to happen for cartoons.

Another Disney property, Marvel Studios, does have everything in the same universe on paper, but in practice they generally keep things separate. Agent Coulson died in The Avengers and was resurrected for TV, but he doesn't appear in the movies because why? Because he died in a movie. The Netflix Marvel shows barely refer to film characters, alien invasions and killer robots of the films, and it is better that way.

Now they are poised to have TCW and Rebels characters in Episode IX. I'd probably be ok with Thrawn, Ezra, and Sabine, but Ashoka is an abomination of continuity and could wreck the film for me. She was created for a time in the franchise when there were not any live action films. It is kinda hard for me to just ignore TCW if they put her in a live action film!

Solo4114 wrote:
Mind you, it took me a LONG time to do this. I still prefer to avoid crappy film entries in franchises if possible, simply because I can't "unsee" something. (Which is why I haven't watched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.) But if I do see it, I'm a lot better at ignoring what I saw, even if I can't unsee it. It makes the experience overall a lot more enjoyable.

I watched the trailer for the OP's cartoon short series a few times, but I have not watched the first 6 videos that dropped Friday. My main issue with this new series is that they said the purpose of it is to introduce Star Wars to a new generation of younger viewers. I'm concerned that after seeing iconic film scenes in wacky animated form, the live action movies will seem boring by comparison. And key scenes will be spoiled. This is supposed to be a gateway, but I feel it will do more harm than good.

I've seen all of the Young Indy episodes and own my faves. The fourth IJ movie better than all the Young Indy stuff - There is really no comparison. No, the movie is not up to par with the classic 80s films, but it is still an enjoyable romp. I don't have nearly the same standard for IJ continuity as Star Wars because TLC and KotCS are both just thinly disguised reprises of RotLA, so Indy keeps unlearning and learning the same lessons over and over again. It isn't really a "universe" franchise.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Commander
Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really interesting reply, Whill.

With respect to TCW, I haven't actually finished it or Rebels yet. I just enjoy it for what it is. I don't spend a lot of time trying to mesh the canon of the films with the canon of the cartoons. If I have to squint at one to make it fit with the other, no big deal for me. I'll figure out how to make it work in my "head canon."

I was unaware that Solo takes place after Rebels where they killed Maul. I was under the impression that it took place beforehand. That'd be annoying, yeah, but it's easier for me to enjoy Solo for what it was (and I did really enjoy it!) and just say "Oh, they got the dates wrong. This film happened before Maul died."

Bringing Maul back was both a good thing and a bad thing. I think he was woefully underused in TPM, even if Lucas was basically making him the "Luca Brasi" of Star Wars (a guy with a fearsome reputation who basically gets taken out quickly). Maul in TPM was just visual. I think he has, what, one line? Two if you include the stuff from the trailer. I'd much rather he be a character and an ongoing menace for the Jedi. That said, BISECTING a guy and resurrecting him thereafter...that stretches credulity. I let it go because I don't want that to ruin the show for me, but man, it's a serious, serious reach. I'd make more sense if they cloned him or something. Hmm. Maybe that's how I'll do head canon. They cloned him, somehow implanted memories in the clone, and because it would be too traumatic for the clone to accept its nature (or would weaken the clone's desire for revenge), grafted mechanical bits on his lower half.

There. Head canon fixed! Smile

As for the Indiana Jones stuff, I always enjoyed YIJC, but I enjoyed it more as just a romp through history. It's a completely different animal from the Indiana Jones films, and although it's nominally the same character, I basically don't bother trying to fit it all together in some kind of timeline. You've got the film guy and the TV guy, and they each have their adventures. Movin' on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1592
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
I was unaware that Solo takes place after Rebels where they killed Maul. I was under the impression that it took place beforehand.


Solo takes place in 10 BBY, but Rebels starts in 5 BBY and the Episode where Maul is killed by Obi-Wan takes place in 2 BBY. You're correct that Solo was before Rebels. Whill was just saying that Lucas' approval of Maul being part of Solo's story came a year after the Rebels episode where Maul was finally killed by Obi-Wan on Tattooine had aired on TV.

And yeah, after knowing that Maul survived TPH since he showed up in TCW and seeing him in Rebels from the end of Season 2 (which takes place in 4 BBY), seeing Maul showing up at the end of Solo was not nearly so jarring for me. After all, I knew that Solo was before Rebels in the Canon timeline. But that's just me.

And Maul's appearance for me raises ALOT of story questions about what happened to Qi'ra and Crimson Dawn in the intervening years between Solo and Maul marooning himself on Malachor, then escaping Malachor and messing with Ezra and company afterwards. All through Maul's appearances in Rebels, there's no hint of Maul utilizing Crimson Dawn's resources, which would have been considerable. So what happened to Qi'ra and Crimson Dawn in the meantime? Did Qi'ra take over Crimson Dawn for good when Maul disappeared on Malachor? And once Maul got back from Malachor, why didn't he just take back his command of Crimson Dawn? Or did he try and Qi'ra outmaneuvered him? (If that happened then Qi'ra would have to be an undeniable badass to deny a Sith Lord control of his own crime syndicate.) Or was Crimson Dawn already destroyed or sidelined (for whatever reason) while Maul was gone?

Yeah, Maul's appearance at the end of Solo has ALOT of nasty implications about what could have happened to both him and Qi'ra as well as Crimson Dawn in general between the end of Solo and the events of Rebels.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
Really interesting reply, Whill.

With respect to TCW, I haven't actually finished it or Rebels yet. I just enjoy it for what it is. I don't spend a lot of time trying to mesh the canon of the films with the canon of the cartoons. If I have to squint at one to make it fit with the other, no big deal for me. I'll figure out how to make it work in my "head canon."

Ah, I didn't realize you hadn't completed TCW and Rebels. I doubt you'll be saying that RotS is a capstone for TCW when you do. The only way to enjoy it is to not really think about all the contradictions to the films. I can't say that I've never enjoyed it for what it is, kiddie cartoon Star Wars. But to me, TCW obviously takes place in a completely separate universe as the live action films. The only way TCW works in my SWU is to excise significant chunks of it.

Sutehp wrote:
Solo4114 wrote:
I was unaware that Solo takes place after Rebels where they killed Maul. I was under the impression that it took place beforehand.

Solo takes place in 10 BBY, but Rebels starts in 5 BBY and the Episode where Maul is killed by Obi-Wan takes place in 2 BBY. You're correct that Solo was before Rebels. Whill was just saying that Lucas' approval of Maul being part of Solo's story came a year after the Rebels episode where Maul was finally killed by Obi-Wan on Tattooine had aired on TV.

I think you mean Lucasfilm's approval of Maul being in Solo. It is pure speculation, but I said Lucas probably would not have approved of it, even though Maul was alive at that point in the official timeline. What works for one form of media (TV cartoons) doesn't necessarily work for another (live action films).

Lucas knew how to run a media empire. Before the prequels, Lucas prevented the EU from delving into certain subjects that would be related to topics the prequels dealt with, but he also denied Luke being killed off in post-RotJ novels for good business because Luke sells books. He didn't deny authors killing Luke because of some future film continuity, because he wasn't going to make post-RotJ films and another franchise owner in the future could just hit the reboot button, which is exactly what happened. Now Chewbacca lives and Luke died. I'm just saying that even though Lucas approved Maul being resurrected for the cartoon, that doesn't mean that he would have thought it was a good idea to put Maul in Solo.

Yes, I was just saying that they killed Resurrected-Maul in Rebels (in 2 BBY) and then they pointlessly put Resurrected-Maul in a live action film. Yes, Solo takes place before Rebels and he was alive at that point so they weren't resurrecting him again, but it also was dramatically limp to put him in there unless he is going to be appear in a another live action film down the road. After the way Rebels ended leaving it open to put a few Rebels characters in Episode IX, and after cartoon-resurrected characters can appear in live action films, we can't rule out Maul being in Episode IX too.

Solo4114 wrote:
Bringing Maul back was both a good thing and a bad thing. I think he was woefully underused in TPM, even if Lucas was basically making him the "Luca Brasi" of Star Wars (a guy with a fearsome reputation who basically gets taken out quickly). Maul in TPM was just visual. I think he has, what, one line? Two if you include the stuff from the trailer. I'd much rather he be a character and an ongoing menace for the Jedi.

I love Maul in TPM. Maul wasn't killed off quickly. He was introduced near the beginning of he film and not killed until the final climax of the three climaxes in the film, after kicking a lot of @ss and killing Qui-Gon. I thought Maul was utilized perfectly for that film, but a single ongoing three-film menace for the Jedi was never in Lucas' vision of the PT.

The Sith Rule of Two was there just to serve the plot regarding the mystery of Who is the Sith master Lord? which was always leading to the reveal of it being Palpatine in Episode III. (Well, we all knew it all along, but for newer, younger, and more casual fans, it was a mystery.) Lucas' PT concept was for each episode to have a new major villain who would represent aspects of Darth Vader. Maul was the scary-looking dark warrior enforcer for his master. Dooku was the former Jedi. Grievous was the Jedi-killing cyborg with respiratory issues. Grievous of course was not a Sith Lord because Anakin became the third Sith apprentice Lord. The whole thing was always building towards how Anakin became Vader. Sidious/Palpatine was the ongoing menace over the three films, but of course he only operated secretly in the shadows in the first two films.

Maul was played by a stunt man so we got some epic Jedi vs. Sith action. Maul didn't talk much because it was part of the mystery. The Sith were believed destroyed a 1000 years earlier, but now it seems they have returned and Maul was not revealing any details about their motivations who who his master was (the phantom menace). Maul was perfect in TPM but he would not have worked as a charismatic Separatist leader in the Clone Wars. And even an ongoing villain in a different plot would eventually have to talk more than Maul did, and if they had done that it wouldn't have been Ray Parks. In TPM and Solo, they had other actors voice his lines.

Lucas said Maul was specifically bisected so fans would not expect him to come back. If they thought Maul could be back, they might have a harder time accepting Dooku. I don't think Lucas' prequel villain structure was completely effective because Dooku getting such a brief appearance in AotC's climax and then getting killed off early in RotS makes Dooku less important than it feels he should be. But overall, Lucas trilogy plot either works for you or it doesn't. With a different story, yeah, an ongoing three-film Jedi-fighting menace might have been cool, but I don't think Maul could have fulfilled that role very well.

Solo4114 wrote:
That said, BISECTING a guy and resurrecting him thereafter...that stretches credulity. I let it go because I don't want that to ruin the show for me, but man, it's a serious, serious reach.

I think I would have no problem with Maul's brief appearance in Solo if he hadn't been so specifically killed in a way which makes it impossible to survive. However a major flaw with his return on TCW would remain that he never used his greatest weapon: revealing Palpatine's Sith identity.

Solo4114 wrote:
I'd make more sense if they cloned him or something. Hmm. Maybe that's how I'll do head canon. They cloned him, somehow implanted memories in the clone, and because it would be too traumatic for the clone to accept its nature (or would weaken the clone's desire for revenge), grafted mechanical bits on his lower half.

There. Head canon fixed!

Yes, that's my fix. Maul was cloned, and "Mauul" possesses some memories of Maul. He may even believe that he is the original Maul and somehow survived being bisected. In my SWU it is extremely difficult to clone Force-sensitivity - If it would be easy, there would be lots of Force-sensitive clones. Maybe Mauul is from an entire batch, and he is the only one that worked. Maybe Maul was cloned by Darth Plagueis and Palpatine didn't know about it, so when Plagueis died, Mauul was free.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:
And yeah, after knowing that Maul survived TPH since he showed up in TCW and seeing him in Rebels from the end of Season 2 (which takes place in 4 BBY), seeing Maul showing up at the end of Solo was not nearly so jarring for me. After all, I knew that Solo was before Rebels in the Canon timeline. But that's just me.

I was also fully aware of Maul being resurrected on TCW, appearing on Rebels, and that Solo took place in between. The jarring part was that a live-action-bisected/cartoon-resurrected character actually made it into a live action film. My then-8-year-old son understood the timeline and loudly objected in the theater. When the credits started to roll, my son's best friend (who loves TCW) also objected to Maul being in the movie. One guy in the audience of our showing had laughed out load at the Maul-reveal, but I don't know if he saw the cartoons. The jarring part is the absurdity of putting Maul in this movie.

Somehow I had accidentally broken my strict media self-exile the day of the seeing the movie and saw a quick blurb about Maul being in Solo. I completely wrote it off as crazy rumors that plague Star Wars films. I had heard all kinds of wacky things about TFA and TLJ that were not remotely true, and the cartoon resurrected Maul appearing in a live action film? Preposterous! I didn't believe it. Even with that advanced warning, it was extremely jarring to see him on the screen.

Sutehp wrote:
And Maul's appearance for me raises ALOT of story questions about what happened to Qi'ra and Crimson Dawn in the intervening years between Solo and Maul marooning himself on Malachor, then escaping Malachor and messing with Ezra and company afterwards. All through Maul's appearances in Rebels, there's no hint of Maul utilizing Crimson Dawn's resources, which would have been considerable. So what happened to Qi'ra and Crimson Dawn in the meantime? Did Qi'ra take over Crimson Dawn for good when Maul disappeared on Malachor? And once Maul got back from Malachor, why didn't he just take back his command of Crimson Dawn? Or did he try and Qi'ra outmaneuvered him? (If that happened then Qi'ra would have to be an undeniable badass to deny a Sith Lord control of his own crime syndicate.) Or was Crimson Dawn already destroyed or sidelined (for whatever reason) while Maul was gone?

Yeah, Maul's appearance at the end of Solo has ALOT of nasty implications about what could have happened to both him and Qi'ra as well as Crimson Dawn in general between the end of Solo and the events of Rebels.

Interesting questions. I'd like to think that Qi'ra eventually decided to do the right thing and destroyed Crimson Dawn from within, of course sacrificing herself in the process.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Commander
Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sadly, at least on film, it seems we'll never know what happened with Crimson Dawn, Qi'ra, etc. :\

Anyway, I think Lucas' problem in the PT (which is present, but somewhat less problematic in the OT) is that he seriously compacted his stories, meaning that individual aspects that should've been fleshed out better didn't have time to breathe.

The notion of each of the various apprentices representing some aspect of Vader? That's interesting...but each villain is sort of introduced, but then underused. By "underused" I mean that not enough time is taken to develop them as characters. Maul in TPM isn't a character; he's an antagonistic force, but he has not real personality other than his appearance and his evident combat prowess. What are his motivations? What are his goals? Hell, what is his personality? Is he cold and calculating? A ball of rage? Does he hate the Jedi for some reason? We have no idea.

Dooku is a similar story, although he's better developed than either of the others. He's a charismatic former Jedi who fell to the Sith, although we don't know exactly why or how. We don't know what his gameplan is long-term. We don't know how long he'd been cultivated as a possible Sith apprentice prior to actually assuming the role. We don't really know a ton about what motivates him either. We know more about his personality than we do with Maul, though.

Greivous is somewhere in between the two. Again, we don't know where he comes from, why he's doing what he's doing, what he hopes to gain, etc. We know that he's some kind of weird, ruthless mechanical Jedi-killer, but we don't know how many Jedi he's killed (well, beyond the obvious 4), or what his role is within the Droid army other than "General." Is he under Dooku's command? Is he under Palpatine's direct command? We don't know. Again, he's mostly a visual and representative figure without a ton of personality.

Story beats in the PT also come really, really quickly, and aren't effectively developed. Even ignoring TCW and its conflicts with the films, I find Anakin's motivation to be really rushed. You could've developed the character better and it's obvious abandonment/attachment issues more effectively, and shown the tendency towards rage more effectively. You could've shown more tensions in his marriage to Padme, his own insecurities in it, and the underlying conflict between their attitudes about government (Padme being an institutionalist, Anakin being far more of a "Just get it done, because the end result matters more" type). Likewise, I'd have preferred to see the rise of the Empire be slower, and the fall of the Jedi to have been played out over a longer period. I'd want to explore more of the way public trust eroded in them.

But when you're limited to three films per series to tell your story (which -- let's note -- is an arbitrary limit. It doesn't have to be trilogies, ya know...), there really isn't enough time to explore all of this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> General Star Wars All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0