Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

[Lihu]

26 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

I saw this last night.  It was awful.  The plot and screen write was by far the worst of the series..and that says a lot.  At least the prequels had a star wars aura about them.  This movie had a b movie plot with big budget and the name star wars taped on it.  If it did not, it would be a straight to Netflix flick.  

Since when do star wars ships require fuel?  -  Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot remember in any of the movies beforehand that fuel was a necessary component to the ships flying.  What a dumb premise to put the 'good guys' in a predicament.  It seemed to be added to make the crummy plot convenient.  The B Plot seemed to just be there to shoehorn FIN into the movie.  At the end of the flick, essentially nothing changes except we lose more classic characters without moving the Star Wars plot along any further.  I left the movie thinking that is the last time I go to the theaters to watch another Star Wars movie.  The next one will simply have to wait until its on Amazon or whatever.  Piss poor..

Yeah, this thought crossed the minds of every person I went with yesterday. All us Robotics guys were thinking what a stupid premise. By the time they can travel faster than relativistic speeds, energy shouldn't be a problem traveling locally. They could have gone dozens of "Castle run in 12 parsecs" before even seeing the "needle" move. 

The other thing was the hokey looking circuitry in Snoke's ship when they opened it up. The HW guys were having a field day with that.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lihu

[nevets88]

Star Wars is fantasy, not The Expanse, I don't expect any scientific realism or adherence to the laws of physics.

[Nutsmacker]

Just now, nevets88 said:

Star Wars is fantasy, not The Expanse, I don't expect any scientific realism or adherence to the laws of physics.

Of course its a fantasy...but when it can't stay consistent from one film to the next...it loses its appeal.

[saevel25]

26 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Since when do star wars ships require fuel? 

What made you think that they didn't?

26 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot remember in any of the movies beforehand that fuel was a necessary component to the ships flying. 

I believe their might have been scenes were the X-Wings or other ships are getting fueled up before leaving their base. Here is a picture of the Yavin hanger. Notice the tubes hanging from the ceiling.

 

26 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

At least the prequels had a star wars aura about them. 

Define Star Wars aura?

Heck, one big issue with the prequels is what Lucas did with the Force. He tried to turn it away from this mystical, hard to understand, concept into something that can be easily explained by a biological indicator. Like he had to justify Anakin being powerful with a number.

26 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

At the end of the flick, essentially nothing changes except we lose more classic characters without moving the Star Wars plot along any further. 

What changed in Empire's Strikes Back from Episode 4?

The Rebels have been driven back into a corner on Yavin. Vader sets a trap for Luke. Han gets captured. The others are able to escape. What major plot line advanced there? None. The entire movie was a conglomeration of short stories to advance character development. Empires is regarded as the best Star Wars movie.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Of course its a fantasy...but when it can't stay consistent from one film to the next...it loses its appeal.

Star ships have had to "fuel" in the past. How else would they move? Movement requires energy.

You will suspend your disbelief about the force, light sabers, etc. and this is what trips you up?

[Nutsmacker]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Star ships have had to "fuel" in the past. How else would they move? Movement requires energy.

You will suspend your disbelief about the force, light sabers, etc. and this is what trips you up?

Because its not noted in any of the other films and it was the entire premise of the plot in this movie.  I thought it was inconsistent with any of the other star wars films.  If you get super nerdy with it, the engines are supposedly powered by some type of fusion reactor in the ships.  If I had heard Han Solo at least once say "Hey, Chewy, I am going to the cantina, please fill up the ship before we take off"  I could buy the weak plot premise that this movie delivered.  But that has never happened.  Some tubes hanging down in the hangar for the Xwings doesn't satisfy me enough.  But, it is my opinion.  If you liked it then that is great.  I am actually Jealous because I wanted to like it,  

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Star Wars is fantasy, not The Expanse, I don't expect any scientific realism or adherence to the laws of physics.

It is fantasy, but I feel like it should be fantasy even for technical people. Why not have something that doesn't look like the transformer circuitry from a 1950's computer console? Could have been an optical network or something cool and futuristic!

 

3 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Of course its a fantasy...but when it can't stay consistent from one film to the next...it loses its appeal.

Yes, and further that they at least have a premise that doesn't have such a hole in it that every person in a group of 30 people doesn't simultaneously think "How can that be, they just came out of light speed and had fuel for one more jump?" Of course after the initial shock, most of us just sat back and enjoyed the "fantasy" part.

I mean, think about it, if Luke could project himself to a far away planet like that, why couldn't he have done something like control one of the gunners on the Dreadnought to start firing on their own ships?

Also, how did the bombs work without significant gravity from the Dreadnought? Why didn't they just fall off towards that planet they were orbiting? They should have called them self propelled and guided spherical devices or something? SPGSD

Of course, then there's the typical issue of "loud sound of explosions" in outer space. . .

1 minute ago, Nutsmacker said:

Because its not noted in any of the other films and it was the entire premise of the plot in this movie.  I thought it was inconsistent with any of the other star wars films.  If you get super nerdy with it, the engines are supposedly powered by some type of fusion reactor in the ships.  If I had heard Han Solo at least once say "Hey, Chewy, I am going to the cantina, please fill up the ship before we take off"  I could buy the weak plot premise that this movie delivered.  But that has never happened.  Some tubes hanging down in the hangar for the Xwings doesn't satisfy me enough.  But, it is my opinion.  If you liked it then that is great.  I am actually Jealous because I wanted to like it,  

Probably not fusion reactors. It has to be way more powerful, or it would take them the entire movie to accelerate towards light speed.

[Jack Watson]

The reason refueling became an issue is that they were being tracked through hyperspace.

I thought that part was a nice twist.

[Nutsmacker]

10 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

Probably not fusion reactors. It has to be way more powerful, or it would take them the entire movie to accelerate towards light speed.

Well, whatever it was...I don't remember them filling up the falcon with some gas or ever alluding to it.  

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Because its not noted in any of the other films and it was the entire premise of the plot in this movie.

I think it has been.

Regardless, I didn't get hung up on it. You did. Okay.

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

The reason refueling became an issue is that they were being tracked through hyperspace.

I thought that part was a nice twist.

Right.

They never before mentioned that Force users could teleport themselves or whatever Luke did at the end, but he did it.

1 minute ago, Nutsmacker said:

Well, whatever it was...I don't remember them filling up the falcon with some gas or ever alluding to it.  

I'm pretty sure there have been other mentions of starships needing "fuel." Plus, again, it makes sense that motion requires fuel.

15 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

If you get super nerdy with it, the engines are supposedly powered by some type of fusion reactor in the ships.

That's fuel. It can run out.

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Well, whatever it was...I don't remember them filling up the falcon with some gas or ever alluding to it.  

They had to refuel the falcon quite a few times. Pretty sure those flexible pipes are fuel lines. . .

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Because its not noted in any of the other films and it was the entire premise of the plot in this movie.  I thought it was inconsistent with any of the other star wars films. If you get super nerdy with it, the engines are supposedly powered by some type of fusion reactor in the ships.  If I had heard Han Solo at least once say "Hey, Chewy, I am going to the cantina, please fill up the ship before we take off"

Yea, I don't get this type of thing. I don't think a movie needs walk me step by step through the plot.

13 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

I could buy the weak plot premise that this movie delivered.  But that has never happened. 

I didn't think the premise was weak at all. Have previous Star Wars movies given you exact numbers before on how many hyperspace jumps a Mon Calamari Cruiser could make, no. That doesn't mean that it can't be used in future movies. That doesn't mean the ships didn't fuel up at some location.

Their wasn't really any excessive hyperspace travel to make me believe they had an infinite fuel source.

I forgot about this. But this is in the canon.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tibanna

Quote

It was used in hyperdrives, starship weaponry, and as a coolant around the gravito-active elements of repulsorlifts, which made it a valuable resource. Once processed, tibanna could be suspended into a block of frozen, super-strong carbonite and safely transported on a repulsor sled.^[1

That is a primary reason why the empire wanted Bespin.

 

[Nutsmacker]

Well, I guess we all have differing opinions.  Like I said, I am glad that you guys liked the movie.  I wish I did.  

[JetFan1983]

QFT

 

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

QFT

 

That's a good one, Constantine! I know because…

[Nutsmacker]

One more thing that annoyed me about this movie....giving Admiral Ackbar an off screen death.  What a shame.  

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Nutsmacker

[JetFan1983]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That's a good one, Constantine! I know because…

Clearly I read all the posts on this thread today... #busted

[nevets88]

Quote

More than anything, mourning over Ackbar’s death in the The Last Jedifeels like mourning over fan-made canon. It’s mourning over hypotheticals and a childhood nostalgia that remembers Ackbar as something bigger and better developed than he was. And that’s fine! Nostalgia, memories, and in-jokes are a big part of a fandom. But there’s a weird dichotomy where those stories and meanings start to take precedence in people’s minds over the actual canon. For better or for worse (probably for the better), Star Wars isn’t a democracy — we don’t ask for a show of hands to plot the movies, we put our trust in the creators who make more of the thing we love. And yes, sometimes that means the particular character or plot point we love doesn’t make the cut. But personally, I’d rather have new and controversial choices that advance what the series can be, instead of an endless loop of safer, fan-pleasing decisions that tirelessly recycle the same handful of characters.

It’s like Kylo Ren says in the movie: Star Wars needs to “let the past go.” Killing off the Ackbars of the series to make way for the Vice Admiral Holdos seems like a pretty good place to start.

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/12/19/16796228/star-wars-the-last-jedi-admiral-ackbar-fan-expectations-canon-theories-rian-johnson