6 hours ago, Gnollrunner said:
While there are some holes in the old films they weren't so glaring for me that I instantly rolled my eyes when watching the movies.
I really object to this. We really need to stop putting all of the old films onto a pedestal here. The old films had plenty of unbelievable plot holes. Tiny teddy bears killing Stormtroopers in battle armor by throwing sticks and rocks at them? That was beyond ridiculous. Why does the Emperor leak literally everything to the rebels to spring his trap in the last movie? That seems a bit risky, no? How the hell does Luke have the necessary knowledge to duke it out in a dogfight in a military space-combat vehicle when he's never even left the planet of Tatooine, let alone piloted a spacecraft? Why would anyone sink all that time and money into building a weapon that is so obviously vulnerable (explained only in Rogue One, not the OT)? Why did they not destroy that escape pod as it jettisoned from the Tantive IV in a universe literally filled with non organic beings known as droids?
This list could go on and I haven't even gotten into the prequels, where there are plot-holes galore.
Padme still loves a guy who essentially admits to being a mass murderer?? What? How the hell does nobody notice that there's a massive clone army being built? How do none of the Jedi not notice a Sith infiltrating the political structures of the Republic? How the hell does Anakin lose because of 'the high ground'? Better yet, how the hell did Yoda lose? Why did those star systems leave the Republic anyways?
Now hold on, this sounds like nit-picking, but that's exactly my point. Look hard enough and there are a ton of holes in the original movies as well.
Again, it's absolutely your opinion to like or dislike the new movies, but can we at least stop enshrining the old movies as films without noticeable unbelievable plot holes?
7 hours ago, Gnollrunner said:
Sorry but to me the whole thing struck me as completely stupid. While there are some holes in the old films they weren't so glaring for me that I instantly rolled my eyes when watching the movies. No soldier is going to throw away his perfectly good ranged weapon so he can have melee combat in the middle of a shooting war. That's suicide. Furthermore they wouldn't even be carrying a bloated useless weapon like this into combat. You would carry a backup hand gun (like they do now). That fight should have been over in a couple seconds with Finn being dead. Again, the only way the Jedi/Sith get away with it, is that they are so incredibly skilled they can block incoming blaster bolts.
Blasters work really poorly against lightsabers though. That's been fairly well established. Yes, Finn isn't a force user, but he's already killed one other person with it by the time the other melee weapon wielding Stormtrooper arrives. Now remember this: by the time the First Order is real, the Jedi technically aren't extinct anymore. It is a conceivable threat that First Order troopers would have to face down Jedi. So they'd be trained to take down targets that wield lightsabers. Knowing fully well that shooting at a lightsaber armed opponent means potentially having those shots come back at you, you'd probably last longer with a melee weapon that is capable of blocking a lightsaber. It'd make sense to switch to that melee weapon, especially if the target in question has already killed another guy with it. Sure they know Finn was a former trooper but they don't know if Finn has any training with the lightsaber.
Though I hate to pull out lore books, here's a quote from a novel:
Quote
The instructors demonstrated the use of each weapon, the vibro-axes and shock staffs and force pikes and resonator maces, elaborating at length on the respective strengths and weaknesses of each and when and how to employ them to best effect. They explained the composite alloys used to make the weapons, how some of the equipment was strong enough to block even a lightsaber. FN-2187 wondered about that—not whether it was true but whether or not they would ever be expected to fight someone who used a lightsaber.
5 hours ago, Gnollrunner said:
With Solo we are already seeing signs of its decline and I think this is likely driven by backlash from the TLJ.
That is debatable. There was a heavily crowded release schedule at that time, not to mention that the last SW film was only 6 months old, and, of course, most people weren't super interested in a Han Solo movie anyways. As for the TLJ drop itself, the same thing was observed with The Empire Strikes Back and The Attack of the Clones: part 2 movies always see a bit of a drop.
This is a pretty good summary of all possibilities which includes the whole 'backlash'.
I personally have doubts that this any indication of a 'backlash'.
3 hours ago, SillyCow said:
I would be content if the movie even provided some silly "plot device" justifications (such as the "force" in the first movie ). But the writers couldn't even be bothered to do that. They seemed more concerned with just keeping the story in motion, and bombarding you with new info so they don't have to justify the old.
I think we do need to remember it's only a 2 hour long or so movie. How much more can you possibly add in? The amount of complaints people have had would probably lead to a documentary film than a new Star Wars movie.
Although @Oberon_Command, you did mention you had your complaints about the Force Awakens, what were they? I'm curious since I had my complaints as well.
