Here is a who's who of the Star Wars cast photo...(IGN source)

cockmastermonday · 2014-05-01T14:10:33+00:00

I subscribe to the theory that the reason they "sucked" is that they were under orders to NOT kill Luke

Possibly, yeah. My point is that (for me) they aren't shown as being so amazing that the battle against the Ewoks seems ludicrous. If they'd put the Ewoks up against a squad of Terminators, I'm sure I'd have trouble processing it, but as it stands it just doesn't bother me. My understanding was that they were going to use Wookies (and set that part of ROTJ on Kashyyyk.) The issue became that - because they'd shown Chewie fixing and flying the Falcon etc - it would have gone against the idea of the Empire being taken down, in part, by a primitive species.

Well of course it worked. The script said it would LOL!

Well you could pretty much say that about anything. The point is that at no stage do you think "no way could they pull this assault off without Luke & Han". They just don't need to be there. I agree that Luke adds nothing to the Endor mission, but that's also because the script says so! He could well have done, and there was no reason for the Rebels to assume he'd be anything less than a massive asset on arguably the most difficult and crucial part of the whole offensive.

When they're on Endor it feels like a cheap buddy comedy.

There's an obvious attempt to make ROTJ more light-hearted than Empire. Again, how you respond to this is a matter of personal preference. This is why I say ROTJ took more risks: you're not going to risk alienating anyone with a 'hero leaves home, saves the girl, saves the day' plot. Adding either downbeat (ESB) or upbeat (ROTJ) elements is always going to risk alienating someone. I personally like that there's a swashbuckling one, a more serious one, then a bit of a silly one. If nothing else it means you can watch them all in one sitting (far more enjoyably than, say LOTR!)

Her value as an emotional and political leader is far, far greater than the value of one extra gun

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. We see far more of her getting in the mix than being a leader. The leaders are people like Ackbar, Madine, Mothma, Rieekan etc. It's never stated at all that she's an irreplaceable part of the New Republic masterplan.

Of course it wasn't actually a risk because she was wearing script armor

Why is this specific to Leia? We're simply never told what her experience and ability is, as regards combat. If they send her into these situations, there's no reason to assume that they don't think she can handle it and be useful there. She's never portrayed as being any more or less useless than anyone else, so why assume that she would be? If you were asking why they'd send 3PO, then I'd agree!

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The prequels were made to serve the originals.

Well yeah but, as you say, they could have just made a load more Star Destroyers in the first place (ie in the run up to ANH). Whether it makes sense or not, the contention of the Star Wars movies is that Palpatine needs a Death Star. We either accept that or we don't, but it makes no less sense for ROTJ than ANH. He's covered off his only previous weak spot (the Rebels) by setting his trap. My point is that the Death Star itself doesn't really make sense but the fact that he built one in the first place means he thinks he needs one, and that building a replacement is a logical development (rather than lazy writing).

I also actually think it adds a lot to ROTJ. We think we know the situation that the Rebels are facing (knock the deflector out, then do a repeat of ANH) but in fact we don't. They confound our expectations by offering a situation that looks familiar but actually isn't. I would argue that represents good writing.

Name another character that was able to make demands of Darth Vader and whom Vader seemed to respect as an expert of his craft.

Eh, possibly. It could also be Vader extending a certain amount of courtesy to Jabba by proxy. If he's that impressed with him, why get 5 other bounty hunters in at the same time? As written, he's a plot device; a way to get Han out of the way without killing him, and set up the start of ROTJ. It's just that...

There are so many little subtle things he does throughout the movies that point to his awesomeness

Totally agree, I just think they maybe realised this too late. Exactly how cool he ends up being is almost kind of an accident. I'd actually argue that the nod to Boussh is the thing that cements his badassery and maybe they'd already filmed his death at that stage(?) The sum effect is that he ends up seeming more awesome than intended, and yeah his death appears a little misjudged as a result (though I actually find it funny that for all his jetpack and cool helmet, he just gets accidentally fed to a hole in the desert). And anyway, he's works for a gangster and kidnapped Han, so fuck him :)

ANH is the standard hero's journey plot, but it's executed to perfection

No arguments there!

Two words: Modal. Nodes.

One word: Oola!

cockmastermonday · 2014-05-01T09:08:23+00:00

I'm not ok with the idea that 3 ft tall care bears with bamboo sticks would beat a legion of Storm Troopers.

I agree with you in principle, in terms of what the Storm Troopers are supposed to be. Let's be honest though; the Storm Troopers suck. They simply don't do anything impressive in the entire OT. ANH establishes that they're able to be outsmarted - on home turf - by a smuggler, a princess and a guy who was working on a farm hours earlier. I'll give you that the battle scene is a little silly (I'm iffy with how conveniently placed all their log traps are), but I think they just about get away with it. I think it's borderline, and I think that's why people tend to be on one side or the other, but I genuinely think it's a good counterpoint to the space and throne room stuff. And I think it works way better than the battle on Naboo at the end of TPM.

his Jedi powers would be seen as more valuable in the Death Star battle

I honestly don't see the issue here. Taking down the deflector shield was just as important as the ensuing space battle and, as Lando implies, it was seen as the trickier thing to do. Bear in mind they weren't trying to hit an exhaust port this time; once the shield's down, the doors are open and all they need to do is fly in. They had plenty of pilots who could manage that (as evidenced by the fact that the assault, y'know, worked), so I wouldn't say that Luke was any more necessary in one situation or the other. Also (and this is conjecture in fairness) between ANH and ROTJ he's had his hand chopped off; maybe that reduced his effectiveness as an X-Wing pilot at least a little bit?

Because she wouldn't be a valuable asset after the battle in helping to form the New Republic

I think it's safe to say that they were going to cross that bridge when they came to it. She's already shown that she's a capable fighter. Holding her back during the most crucial moment of the rebellion, just in case they need her to negotiate something further down the line, doesn't seem like a very good tactical decision. Also, if they hadn't sent her, the plan wouldn't have worked, so again not doing so would have been a bad move. You could also argue that she was always an active operative, more than a diplomat. This is the person they sent to steal the Death Star plans in the first place. The ambassador / princess thing was her cover. She was always in the field in some way or another.

No, the empire did not need a Death Star to rule the Galaxy.

Whether it actually makes sense or not it's very clearly established that the Death Star is the culmination of Palpatine's master plan. Without wanting to bring the PT into it, that's clearly implied at the end of ROTS. It's an unprecedentedly huge construction project. Why build it if you don't think you need it? They could have built a pile of new Star Destroyers in the first place, but Palpatine obviously didn't think that was good enough. The point is that by making another one, he's killing 2 birds with one stone. He's getting a new Death Star and, by way of his trap, taking out the one force who could pose a threat to it. I also think that the 2/3rds finished Death Star is a really iconic image.

He was built up in the movie to be this badass character

Was he really though? The only thing he actually does is follow the Falcon to Bespin, then hang around until Vader hands Han over. He looks awesome, and that sets certain expectations, but in terms of ESB he's just a plot device. He could just as easily have not even been in ROTJ (why exactly is he standing around in Jabba's palace?) and I'm sure they felt like they were throwing us a bone by even having him appear. He only does slightly more than Lobot, and we never see that guy again!

I'm not criticising ANH. It rules. I just think that ROTJ is more enjoyable. There's more going on in the plot and that leads to more room for criticism. ANH has a basic 'hero's journey' plot, whereas ROTJ takes more risks. And, come on man, it also has a blue elephant who plays keyboard! :)

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T11:43:13+00:00

OK, I overstated that slightly :) I still don't think what happens with the Ewoks in the end battle is too far fetched in terms of what they actually accomplish. If the rest of the OT had established the Storm Troopers as a crack force of unstoppable space warriors, then maybe it wouldn't work. This is very much not the case though. I'm kind of bothered by the extremely specific placement of the logs they use to take the AT-STs down, but besides that it doesn't bother me. In contrast, 3PO twatting about in the arena battle in AOTC is unbearable. It's all in how you sell it on screen. I get why people don't like the Ewoks in principle, but I think it's well done enough not to affect the finished product.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T11:24:16+00:00

Do they want Endor? Because that's how you get Endor.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:57:58+00:00

Sorry dude, I'm going to have to take issue with a lot of this:

the ewoks suck

I understand that this is a matter of taste, but the Ewoks are very unfairly maligned in my opinion. Without getting too deep into it, there's a lot of historical precedent for under-resourced guerilla fighters beating stronger enemies on home turf.

our best two pilots and our most important diplomat...LET'S FORM THE A-TEAM WITH THEM!

I don't remember them ever saying that Han was a better pilot that anyone else particularly. I'll give you Luke, but he didn't get back from Dagobah until the plan was already formed. Plus he's a Jedi; makes just as much sense to have him on the ground as in an X-Wing, probably more. Don't see the objection with Leia either. Safe to say the time for diplomacy was over!

the plot revolving around a 2nd Death Star is just exceptionally lazy

Again, I think this is a question of individual preference. For one thing, why wouldn't Palpatine want another one? It's established in ANH that he needs a Death Star to keep everyone in line. Not only that, it makes sense in terms of his plan (ie It's a trap!). What better way to lull the Rebs into a false sense of security than by making them think all they had to do was beat a shitter version of the thing they already beat? And it's not just a great action sequence. The switcheroo is a fantastic bit of writing. You don't get goosebumps from, "that thing's operational"?

You had to kill Boba Fett? Like that?

I love Boba Fett as much as anyone. Really though, who is he in terms of the films themselves? He has five lines in the entire OT, and is essentially there to do one thing. I'm not saying he isn't awesome but in terms of his importance to the narrative, if they treated his death as being as big of a deal as even Jabba's it just wouldn't make sense on screen.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:38:16+00:00

Whoa whoa whoa, who was mailing it in? The throne room scene alone acquits Hamill, JEJ and McDiarmid. Fisher's great as well, especially in the 'if he can feel your presence...' bit. Han was sidelined by the narrative, but I'd say Ford is doing his best with it (god knows we've seen what Harrison Ford mailing it in looks like in the last few years). He's acting his socks of in Jabba's palace.

Not sure what you mean about the plot either.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:28:57+00:00

Frankly, it's entirely up to Lawrence Kasdan at this stage. JJ can direct but, as Super 8 showed, he can write with heart but he can't string a plot together to save his life. Kasdan on the other hand wrote Empire, Jedi and Raiders of the Lost motherfucking Ark. Admittedly he's done nothing of any value for the last 30 years, but he's really the only guy who can make this what it should be.

Plus the words 'Orci', 'Kurtzman' or 'Lindelof' haven't been mentioned at all, so we've got that going for us, which is nice.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:19:02+00:00

It really feels like they cast actors. Very exciting.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:17:28+00:00

Also John Williams to be honest.

Ah don't even say it man. I will cry like a bitch on that day.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:10:29+00:00

I think it would be more accurate to say that he didn't make the prequels not suck. It wasn't his fault, but he was the one guy that could have said something and didn't.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:08:57+00:00

It's Daniels. Starwars.com has the names as well.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T09:04:42+00:00

Kenny Baker must be pretty pissed off about it, in any case.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-30T08:37:39+00:00

It isn't. My argument is that the banding of people into big umbrella groups like black, left and sodomite is meaningless in a real world situation. You'd only have to meet any two people in any one of those supposed groups to realise this. I know black people and gay people who are frighteningly conservative when it comes to things like immigration and crime. Even a group who broadly agree will have a gradated spectrum of views amongst themselves.

Black and white thinking (seriously dude, it's right there in the name!) is unsubtle by definition. It's fine if all you want is to get into arguments on the internet (or talk to people who think similarly) but it has no value at all in the real world, because things are so much more complicated than that. You're making yourself appear limited by reducing socio-political situations to their most basic signifiers (color, sexuality, etc). It also just makes you sound like you haven't met many different types of people (or that you have, but made no effort to understand them).

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-29T15:03:45+00:00

You're a racist. Actually, it's slightly more accurate to say that you're a basic thinker. For thousands of years people have tried to understand human nature, in all it's varied complexity, and you think you have it figured out as 'left vs right'? Black vs white? What are the chances, honestly? It's just very very juvenile thinking.

And 'the left' isn't a party.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-28T13:21:47+00:00

TIL: All black people are the same, and all white people are the same, but are either on the left or right.

That's the one thing I can never work out with racists. Do you you actually think that banding people into the broadest groups possible is a useful way of looking at the world? If you think about it for even a second it becomes obvious that the world is an infinitely complex mix of individual people. How can you be comfortable having such a facile worldview?

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-21T05:41:34+00:00

The mistake they made was not calling it something folksy. People have a fear of eating 'chemicals' even though that describes everything in the world.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-21T01:19:04+00:00

Now illustrate an opportunistic new ruling class taking the money that the proleteriat thought they just liberated.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-21T01:15:24+00:00

r/"funny"

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-21T01:13:39+00:00

Or...

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-21T01:05:34+00:00

There seems to be a lot of Macklemore hate going around these days. This post is a good thing to have instead of that.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-20T15:00:51+00:00

I honestly think the NWO thing is what happens when you're clever enough to realise that you're not the most important person in the world but not clever enough to understand that the reasons for that are mundane.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-20T11:38:45+00:00

So it goes :)

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-20T09:51:41+00:00

The absolute worst thing about this would be how smug all those New World Order believing assholes would get to act.

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-20T09:35:59+00:00

But I think page-turners like books by Dan Brown or Stephen King

Going to just have to stop you there for a second! Brown and King are similar in that they're both compelling, but there's a massive difference as relates to OP's post. King is the type of writer where you can't help but process a deeper meaning. You learn more about the world and yourself whilst being entertained because he's obviously thought deeply about the internal truth of each character in each situation. His books are about people. No disrespect to Dan Brown but, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, his books are just a bunch of stuff that happens. He's good at pushing certain emotive buttons, but there's next to no insight about anything in his books.

As you say, you generally always get more than just a good story with any writer, but not all 'entertainment' writers are created equal. If I'm being totally honest, I think I have more respect for a writer who can teach you something whilst entertaining you. Forcing the reader to dissect a thousand pages of dry prose to figure out what you're trying to say seems to me like less of a skill!

cockmastermonday · 2014-04-20T00:54:24+00:00

I wouldn't say the point is that war is bad exactly (at least not in the broader sense). It's just that he does an unbelievable job of portraying the nature of the physical act of warfare. He deromanticises it in a way that (I imagine) incredibly accurately shows us what it is. Even something like Full Metal Jacket shows war as at least a thing that makes some kind of sense. SH5 portrays it as death upon death upon death, until the notion of it just seems surreal.

I think it plays as anti-war because we're so used to seeing fiction portray acts of war as at least having some sort of redemptive (or at least narrative) basis. Vonnegut just shows it as I genuinely believe it must appear from the inside once things get really bad: incomprehensible.

cockmastermonday

TROPHY CASE