24 minutes ago, deltaKshatriya said:

Blasters work really poorly against lightsabers though. That's been fairly well established. @Oberon_Command

This hasn't been established at all.  A lightsaber can block a blaster bolt but that does no good if you don't have the skill to use it. There is a reason the entire army is armed with ranged weapons.

It any case there is no reason we have to convince each other what movies are good or bad.  I will like or dislike what I will and so will you.  I don't really want to spend the time to argue the minutia of each point. As far as the series goes the public at large will decide it's fate.  If Star Wars continues to be successful I'll give the studio credit. That doesn't mean I'll like, or go see the films, but movies are a business and you can't argue with success. If it dies however, that is likewise the studio's fault, not the public's. They have already put the next Star Wars story film on hold, so obviously things aren't completely rosy.

Edit: Apparently Lucas film is now denying they are putting films on hold. I guess we will see. 

7 minutes ago, Gnollrunner said:

It any case there is no reason we have to convince each other what movies are good or bad.

I'm not trying to. Obviously your opinion is yours and mine is mine. What I am trying to illustrate is that people keep pointing to this idea that the original movies don't have many glaring plot holes when in fact the old movies are actually riddled with them. 

You don't have to like the new movies. But this above notion is just annoying.

11 minutes ago, Gnollrunner said:

They have already put the next Star Wars story film on hold, so obviously things aren't completely rosy.

Yea from the sounds of it, they're trying to rethink the spin off movies (I assume you mean the next spin off, since I believe that the next Episode will continue as planned). I can understand why they are rethinking the spin offs. As @Promit mentioned, it's hard to really understand what they are trying to accomplish. My take was that they're doing what RPG games do with side-quests: just add more to the universe.

Thing is, it's really tough to plan spin offs for an already established universe. The Marvel movies aren't really spin offs: they all contribute to one another. Here, the main Episodes are the main event where as the spin offs are just....fluff I guess? It seemed like that the Solo movie was moving in some direction with its end reveal, but it's tough to say.

To be honest, I would rather a SW movie once a year( Christmas works well for me! ) than the Marvel overload we are subjected to these days.   Seriously, they will have had five movies within a year by the time the new Antman comes out.  And one of those includes more super heroes than I have fingers to count on, though I might just manage that if I also use my toes.

I have nothing against the main Avenger movies, but do the characters need their own series of films too?  With so many of those movies with their cookie-cutter sequels, its laugable that Black Widow and Hawkeye never got their own!  Just to add insult to injury they then reboot Spiderman for the second time in a decade!

But no, Solo is one SW movie too many and one we didn't ask for...sigh.

1 hour ago, deltaKshatriya said:

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.

The ones that come to mind are that the plot was too derivative of Ep. IV, the main characters were able to watch the Starkiller weapon blowing up the New Republic capital worlds from light-years (at least!) away, the massive chain of coincidences that get the main characters in the Millennium Falcon, and Han Solo having the reflexes to drop out of hyperspace a couple of hundred feet from the surface of a planet (unless he's Force-sensitive,maybe?). I blame that second one on JJ Abram's lack of understanding of how big space is. The Star Trek reboots had some similar problems.

2 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

people keep pointing to this idea that the original movies don't have many glaring plot holes when in fact the old movies are actually riddled with them. 

Where did you get that idea?

The original movies were riddled with giant plot holes. The first movie was just a cross genre mishmash: "Shakespeare Samurais in Space!". It's just that aside from these potholes, they also had some pretty cool added value in cool universe building and plot payoffs.  And if you think about it then even "Shakespeare Samurais in Space!" is pretty revolutionary if you are the first to pull it off in a big budget movie.

1 hour ago, Anri said:

To be honest, I would rather a SW movie once a year( Christmas works well for me! ) than the Marvel overload we are subjected to these days.   Seriously, they will have had five movies within a year by the time the new Antman comes out.  And one of those includes more super heroes than I have fingers to count on, though I might just manage that if I also use my toes.

Exactly this. This is sort of overdoing the amount of movies we get per year. It sort of works for Marvel, but I doubt the same formula will work for Star Wars.

Solo probably is just a film too far.

2 hours ago, Oberon_Command said:

The ones that come to mind are that the plot was too derivative of Ep. IV, the main characters were able to watch the Starkiller weapon blowing up the New Republic capital worlds from light-years (at least!) away, the massive chain of coincidences that get the main characters in the Millennium Falcon, and Han Solo having the reflexes to drop out of hyperspace a couple of hundred feet from the surface of a planet (unless he's Force-sensitive,maybe?). I blame that second one on JJ Abram's lack of understanding of how big space is. The Star Trek reboots had some similar problems.

I had mostly the same issues. I thought that TFA was far too similar to Episode 4, especially with Deathstar 3.0. The chain of coincidences...ehh I can let that slide along with the whole reflexes thing as well. The reflexes part I simply ascribe to the inherently odd way that SW looked at space period. And hey, that's JJ Abrams for ya.

Did you like TFA or TFJ? Which one more than the other?

27 minutes ago, SillyCow said:

3 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

people keep pointing to this idea that the original movies don't have many glaring plot holes when in fact the old movies are actually riddled with them. 

Where did you get that idea?

The original movies were riddled with giant plot holes. The first movie was just a cross genre mishmash: "Shakespeare Samurais in Space!". It's just that aside from these potholes, they also had some pretty cool added value in cool universe building and plot payoffs.  And if you think about it then even "Shakespeare Samurais in Space!" is pretty revolutionary if you are the first to pull it off in a big budget movie.

I never got that idea, but I hear this notion that the OT had no 'glaring plot holes' as the main means of criticizing the flaws of the new movies. I understand that its subjective whether a film is good or not, but I've really hated how some use a false claim to criticize the flaws of the new movies. 

Star Wars was very revolutionary at its time, and there's no denying it was very visionary for what it did. I don't deny that at all. 

Star Wars Episode 7: "The Search for Skywalker" from LucasFilm,  that was renamed as Star Wars Episode 7: "A new hope" by Disney until LucasFilm said "FOR F*** SAKE!" and had it changed to the mutually-agreeable-by-both-parties Star Wars Episode 7: "The Force Awakens".

Main selling points was some cool chrome storm trooper and the promise of Mark Hamill taking up the role of Luke Skywalker once again...to have said cool storm trooper thrown in a garbage chute and Luke Skywalker giving an amazing 30 second appearance at the very end of the film and without saying a bloody word. Yeah, cheers JJ. Thanks alot mate...

Amazingly TFA includes a bombing raid against a super-sized death star knockoff, but they forget to bring their bombers with them. A bit like sending Spitfires instead of Lancasters on the Dambusters raid. LOL, but yet a whole bombing squadron is lost against a supped up Star Destroyer in TLJ.  Strange how in TFA the goodies are totally overpowered while in TLJ they are completely crap.

Snoke was "his own thang" while Kylo-Ren and Rey were simply "part of it". At least now we all know what the "S" in David S Pumpkins stands for...

Finn...we all love you and you should have been the Jedi of the film.  Well, at least you got to be in a pseudo-lightsaber duel and faced the most morally challenging dilemmas of the film...

BB-8 is awesome. I will not have a word said against them.

Apparently this film was going to "correct the mistakes of the prequels" and go all out on practical effects.  Then they proceed to shove that junk-dealer, Maz and those tentacle monsters in our faces - the most obvious CGI they could have inflicted upon the audience.  But we still continue to shat upon the prequels for doing the same thing...hmm.  Still, I really didnt mind at all - this is the day-and-age of CGI and they were decently done.

Where George gave us the Empire and the Seperatist droid armies...TFA treats us to...the Empire again!  But with slightly different helmets, ties and destroyers.  They even gave us another deathstar! Yay.  You'd think as the prequels moves towards the Empire, that the sequels would move away from the Empire and give us something new...hmmm.

The worst part and yet the saving grace of TFA is that while it fails to allow LucasFilm to run riot in the concept art department and explore new directions, it actually serves as a well directed "abridged" version of the original trilogy.  When I don't fancy the whole trilogy I just pop TFA in the dvd player. 

26 minutes ago, deltaKshatriya said:

Exactly this. This is sort of overdoing the amount of movies we get per year. It sort of works for Marvel, but I doubt the same formula will work for Star Wars.

Solo probably is just a film too far.

I'm happy for the Marvel fans, but I found that when I missed just one movie I was lost.  I didn't get to see Winter Soldier and as a result Civil War( which I assumed was another Avengers movie as it had several avengers in it ) felt like a puzzle with half the pieces missing.  Suddenly it was a requirement to have seen Winter Soldier and then they crammed in Spiderman and Antman for giggles.

I had to pass on Infinity War because although I had seen the previous two Avenger movies( which I managed to keep up with ) this one is said to be connected to other marvel movies I aint even seen yet.  Winter Soldier, Doctor Strange, Ragnarok, Black Panther, Antman, Spiderman Homecoming - something tells me that if I aint seen those then I might as well not bother...and with it being now something like 20 movies...it is too much to expect from the casual cinema-goer.  This whole Marvel thing should be a TV series and not on the big screen.  I found Guardians of the Galaxy to be an escape from this connected universe, but even that has been linked in with Infinity War and now having not watched Infinity War I expect I will be lost once again when the next Guardians movie hits theatres...

For my sanity I have decided to keep it to DC and Deadpool. Sigh, but even Deadpool started going about that Thanos guy who I know little about...

Okay, okay, I give in. I shall just binge watch the missing movies and just get it over with.

10 minutes ago, Anri said:

I found Guardians of the Galaxy to be an escape from this connected universe

Wonder if that was a big factor in how well it was received?

5 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

Wonder if that was a big factor in how well it was received?

Probably.  In the trailer it didnt seem to be a super hero movie, and more like a star-wars meets dirty-dozen adventure. And at the time tided us SW fans over until the release of SW7.