Tales Of The Empire (May 4th) - Mini Series

[Faleel 5,377]

20 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

 

Well... that's certainly a take you won't find much company on.

 

 

I think you must just love young Kirstie Alley, because your diatribe against it (while completely failing to even explain why it's "dumb" according to you) really doesn't make you out to be a fan. And @Tallguy quite effectively pointed out that you really weren't paying much attention to the movie.

 

 

Uh... WHY? Terraforming is a thing in sci-fi. What if there was a device that could terraform an entire planet super-fast, but the consequences were that it would also destroy any pre-existing life on that planet? That is an *interesting* sci-fi concept/conundrum. There's nothing dumb about it.

 

 

Well... you're especially dumb for saying this, because of course your issue is with Star Trek III! Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of the film, absolutely 100% intended Spock's death to be permanent, and was very upset when Paramount decided to back out of that. I agree that (as much as I do enjoy Nimoy's presence as Spock in the remaining Trek films), dramatically that was a huge mistake, and Star Trek II should have been allowed to have the powerful ending for the character than Meyer (and Nimoy himself, originally) intended!

 

 

 

Didn't Star Trek II have stuff added to make Spock's return possible though? (The capsule on Genesis, "Remember"?)

[Tallguy 3,406]

6 minutes ago, Faleel said:

Didn't Star Trek II have stuff added to make Spock's return possible though? (The capsule on Genesis, "Remember"?)

 

Added without Meyer? Yes. Added after the film was released? No.

 

Look! TIE fighters!

 

I never did see the Clone Wars episodes where Dooku razes Dathomir. Maybe I should catch up. I also never saw the whole "Ahsoka on trial" part either.

[Faleel 5,377]

30 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

I never did see the Clone Wars episodes where Dooku razes Dathomir.

That was part of the Return of Darth Maul arc IIRC.

[Yavar Moradi 2,609]

3 hours ago, Faleel said:

Didn't Star Trek II have stuff added to make Spock's return possible though? (The capsule on Genesis, "Remember"?)

 

Yeah, as Tallguy pointed out -- without the involvement from the writer/director of the film. But even then, it was vague and open-ended. It's still Star Trek III's fault for actually bringing Spock back and negating his sacrifice at the end of II. Even with those producer/studio additions to II, III could have had some kind of remnant of Spock's memories and such living in McCoy, without his physical body being resurrected and such. It's bizarre to lay that complaint on Wrath of Khan.

 

Yavar

[DarthDementous 1,059]

On 09/04/2024 at 11:24 AM, Schilkeman said:

Don't even get me fucking started on KOTOR II. Actually KOTOR I for than matter. Grey Jedi aren't a thing. I get why they're there as a game mechanic, but they aren't a thing.

in terms of the narrative, 'Grey Jedi' (a term not even used in the games) just means someone who follows Jedi ideals but doesn't associate with the Jedi Order - that's it

[Schilkeman 969]

14 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Uh... WHY?

Terraforming is a fine concept. The resurrection device it's turned into is dumb. That's some comic book nonsense. They don't use it as a hard sci fi concept. Its plot relevance is to set up the ending.

 

14 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

even though you didn't explain why

A super genius who can be outsmarted by thinking in 3D? You know, the dimension we all live in.

 

14 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Well... you're especially dumb for saying this, because of course your issue is with Star Trek III! Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of the film, absolutely 100% intended Spock's death to be permanent

They go back on it by the end of the movie. They are hedging their bets with that last shot on the planet. Again, it's comic book nonsense. I called the movie dumb, not you. Learn the difference. 

 

14 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Star Trek V

...is the movie against which all badness is measured.

 

14 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

And yet you champion the big dumb let's-turn-Picard-into-a-violent-action-hero movie?

"And he piled upon the whales white hump, the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it."

 

or the actual quote, “He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it.”

 

Look, I think all the ST movies have a share of stupidity, but I always love the stories that go back in time to show us poor idiots in the past that things really can improve, all we have to do is choose to be better. Star Trek is hopeful and idealistic. Rodenberry was wrong to say that in the future all conflict would be resolved and everyone would get along. He was not wrong to say that in the future we would possess the mental health and general emotional competence to overcome petty personal struggles when we are confronted with doing so. This is exemplified in First Contact.

 

14 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

quite effectively pointed out

He didn't really. It's still under the surface. There are military inspections, straight-up naval uniforms, and an apparent fear from some members of the general population that Starfleet is a "military" organization outside the civilian world, but which can commandeer civilian projects.

 

14 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

But nice try!

It wasn't a gotcha. I responded to the thing you posted. You asked my opinion on WoK and how I though Meyer maybe wasn't the best fit for Star Trek, and I gave it to you. It wasn't a personal attack on you, your character, the things you like, or your character for liking the things you like.  Maybe chill a little.

 

 

5 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

in terms of the narrative, 'Grey Jedi' (a term not even used in the games) just means someone who follows Jedi ideals but doesn't associate with the Jedi Order - that's it

That's one half of it. The other is a Jedi who "walks a fine line" so to speak between light and dark. Dawn of the Jedi (the comic) deals with this quite intelligently, and in line with George's general ethos on using the dark side (that it will eventually corrupt you fully). The grim dark, clearly-written-in-the-aftermath-of-9/11 Republic comic from 2002, best exemplified by Quinlan Vos, does not. The game uses force powers interchangeably, because the game is more fun to play that way, and they attempted to find a way to explain how a character could be both light and dark. I understand why it's there, but I don't accept it as canon.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

That's one half of it. The other is a Jedi who "walks a fine line" so to speak between light and dark. Dawn of the Jedi (the comic) deals with this quite intelligently, and in line with George's general ethos on using the dark side (that it will eventually corrupt you fully). The grim dark, clearly-written-in-the-aftermath-of-9/11 Republic comic from 2002, best exemplified by Quinlan Vos, does not. The game uses force powers interchangeably, because the game is more fun to play that way, and they attempted to find a way to explain how a character could be both light and dark. I understand why it's there, but I don't accept it as canon.

so to be clear, an explanation for that other kind of Grey Jedi isn't in the games themselves unless I'm misremembering. you took issue with me praising KOTOR 2 because of its handling of Grey Jedi, but it sounds like your issues with that lie outside of that game as you acknowledge being able to use both light and dark powers is a gameplay conceit

[Schilkeman 969]

2 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

so to be clear, an explanation for that other kind of Grey Jedi isn't in the games themselves unless I'm misremembering. you took issue with me praising KOTOR 2 because of its handling of Grey Jedi, but it sounds like your issues with that lie outside of that game as you acknowledge being able to use both light and dark powers is a gameplay conceit

“Light side? Dark side? Oh no, it's all grey to me.” A quote from KOTOR I

 

"Gray Jedi are those who, though having completed the teachings of the Jedi, operate independently and outside of the Jedi Council. They are typically seen as misguided, though they have not necessarily succumbed to the dark side." An item description from KOTOR II. 

 

The idea of being "down the middle" showed up in a few places around that time, probably in response to people not liking the movie take on the Jedi. The games use it as a mechanic, and attempt to justify it through story. The games are really where the concept comes from, and bringing it back to Filoni's output, he seems to be moving in a more Jedi critical direction since the end of Rebels.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

On 10/04/2024 at 5:27 PM, Schilkeman said:

“Light side? Dark side? Oh no, it's all grey to me.” A quote from KOTOR I

 

"Gray Jedi are those who, though having completed the teachings of the Jedi, operate independently and outside of the Jedi Council. They are typically seen as misguided, though they have not necessarily succumbed to the dark side." An item description from KOTOR II. 

 

The idea of being "down the middle" showed up in a few places around that time, probably in response to people not liking the movie take on the Jedi. The games use it as a mechanic, and attempt to justify it through story. The games are really where the concept comes from, and bringing it back to Filoni's output, he seems to be moving in a more Jedi critical direction since the end of Rebels.

 

this is very uncompelling evidence

that quote is from Jolee Bindo who is the type of Grey Jedi covered in that item description

I said that the 'other kind of Grey Jedi' you brought up didn't have any explanations in the games, the one that uses both light and dark abilities. Jolee only uses light side abilities and is morally aligned to the light side

on the point of Quinlan Voss as well, I read the Republic comics and the whole point of his character is that you can't use the dark side without consequence. even though he does it to be a double agent, it actually starts getting to him and he starts falling to the dark side. he doesn't fit the category of Grey Jedi you described either, he's a maverick within the Jedi Order who skirts too close to the dark side whilst trying to be in deep cover.

[Yavar Moradi 2,609]

On 09/04/2024 at 9:14 PM, Schilkeman said:

Terraforming is a fine concept. The resurrection device it's turned into is dumb. That's some comic book nonsense. They don't use it as a hard sci fi concept. Its plot relevance is to set up the ending.

 

You mean the tacked-on-last-minute-without-the-writer/director's-involvement-or-approval ending? So the actual script written by Nicholas Meyer conceived the Genesis device with a "plot relevance" that didn't exist until he was no longer on the project? You are making no sense, and your issues are still clearly with Star Trek III.

 

On 09/04/2024 at 9:14 PM, Schilkeman said:

A super genius who can be outsmarted by thinking in 3D? You know, the dimension we all live in.

 

Ok, thanks for explaining what you meant. I mean, okay... how do you feel about how the borg queen is outsmarted(?) at the end of your beloved Star Trek: First Contact then? 

 

But really I don't think this is even a dumb concept at all: Khan left Earth in the year 1996. What he thinks of as battleships operate on a two dimensional plane of the ocean's surface. The point is simply that he doesn't have experience with true three-dimensional space battleship combat, even if the concept might click for him if he thinks about it for a while. In a way I think it feels like a bit of an in-joke dig at the Star Trek franchise itself, which much of the time just like Khan *does* treat spaceship combat as two-dimensional! (The computer game Starfleet Command is the ultimate expression of this phenomenon which was present throughout TOS and TNG in particular.) Like I wonder if Nicholas Meyer watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture, saw the three Klingon cruisers in formation firing on V'Ger as if they all had to be operating in the same plane, and then cooked up that little bit of script.

 

I'm anticipating that you'll come at me with, "but in 1996 Khan would have been familiar with submarines and airplanes, which operate more three-dimensionally". But you know what? Even though the battle in the Mutara Nebula sequence was inspired by submarine movies, it's not even true that space combat would behave the same way, because of gravity. There is still an "up" and a "down" when it comes to air and underwater combat, and sure you might change your elevation but you're still not going to behave fully three-dimensionally like you would in space, where even with your artificial gravity, it's tied only to your floorboards or whatever, and not your vessel's surrounding environment.

 

But the *smart* idea at the core of what Meyer wrote with that "two-dimensional thinking" line is that the villain might be smarter than Kirk, but he is less experienced with the kind of starship combat maneuvers that Kirk knows well. That is an interesting idea, and a good way to write a story with a menacing and intelligent villain that can still be defeated in a way that makes sense.

 

On 09/04/2024 at 9:14 PM, Schilkeman said:

They go back on it by the end of the movie. They are hedging their bets with that last shot on the planet. Again, it's comic book nonsense. I called the movie dumb, not you. Learn the difference. 

 

"They"? Again, are you really so unaware of how last minute an addition to the film that was, by Paramount brass? You're dismissing Nicholas Meyer's work (which is why I originally brought up Star Trek II in the context of this thread -- a Star Trek film done by a non-Trek fan) as "comic book nonsense"... when he vehemently opposed that last minute modification which was NOWHERE in the script he wrote (or shot). And you're acting like that was the POINT of the movie that it was building to... when that couldn't be further from the truth!

 

On 09/04/2024 at 9:14 PM, Schilkeman said:

...is the movie against which all badness is measured.

 

Hard disagree, to say the least. There are lots of things about it which make it the worst of the original six films, no question. The shoddy effects and most of all, the treatment of the supporting cast... after how well Nimoy treated them in his two films, that honestly really pisses me off. The script needed another pass or two. But at its core, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier has the absolute BEST depiction of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy friendship in all of the original six movies. And it has more TREK feeling/essence in what it's about (even if often executed sloppily) than any of the other movies with the possible exception of TMP:

 

Oh, and for my money it has the best score of the entire franchise.

 

I will watch it over and over again before I ever feel like EVER rewatching the overrated Star Trek: First Contact, which frankly feels like it betrays the familiar TNG characters in a way similar to how The Final Frontier treats Uhura/Scotty/Chekov/Sulu.

 

On 09/04/2024 at 9:14 PM, Schilkeman said:

Look, I think all the ST movies have a share of stupidity, but I always love the stories that go back in time to show us poor idiots in the past that things really can improve, all we have to do is choose to be better. Star Trek is hopeful and idealistic. Rodenberry was wrong to say that in the future all conflict would be resolved and everyone would get along. He was not wrong to say that in the future we would possess the mental health and general emotional competence to overcome petty personal struggles when we are confronted with doing so. This is exemplified in First Contact.

 

Don't understand what point you were trying to make with the Moby Dick quote...Picard's Borg trauma is a "petty personal struggle"? What the First Contact writers did with Picard was criminal, and didn't in any way grow naturally out of his arc and character development on the series itself. You're really going to try and square FIRST CONTACT Picard with the Picard that refused to send Hugh back to the Collective with a virus?? First Contact is the epitome of dumb action movie made for dumb normies who "don't really like Star Trek, but this one is cool"...which is why it was successful, I guess. Even though it's far from perfect, I think I'll stick with The Voyage Home for the kind of idealism you're talking about here. First Contact honestly makes me angry every time I try and give it another chance. I'd rather rewatch Generations or even Insurrection. Not Nemesis though... somehow they found a way to betray all the characters and make an even more dour I-don't-understand-Star-Trek film than First Contact, with that one.

 

On 09/04/2024 at 9:14 PM, Schilkeman said:

He didn't really. It's still under the surface. There are military inspections, straight-up naval uniforms, and an apparent fear from some members of the general population that Starfleet is a "military" organization outside the civilian world, but which can commandeer civilian projects.

 

 Are you serious right now? StarFLEET *is* and always WAS a military organization! Now, yes the conceit is that it's somehow a peaceful one (just like the United States military supposedly is, lol...)

 

But dude, get real. The ship has phasers and photon torpedoes. Since the 60s TV series!

 

All of the characters on the ship wear uniforms, have ranks, and follow orders/answer to superiors in a military hierarchy:

 

Yeah, there are scientists on the ship too... military scientists, with ranks fitting into a military hierarchy! They are explorers, but they are explorers that are part of a MILITARY ORGANIZATION. They go on away missions to "new worlds and new civilizations"... ARMED WITH GUNS. Even in the "more cerebral" original pilot episode "The Cage" (before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" went in an even more action-oriented direction!) Good grief, man:

 

So yeah, when I see THIS, I don't think Nicholas Meyer messed up, as you seem to; I think he did his homework as a "non-fan":

 

As for your "straight up naval uniforms"... did the navy somehow start wearing deep maroon and I missed it? These uniforms look far more "naval" to me:

 

On 09/04/2024 at 9:14 PM, Schilkeman said:

I responded to the thing you posted. You asked my opinion on WoK and how I though Meyer maybe wasn't the best fit for Star Trek, and I gave it to you.

 

By using arguments like, "the Genesis device only existed for the plot purpose of resurrecting Spock at the end in comic book fashion", apparently completely oblivious to the fact that the ending wasn't a part of the film Meyer wrote, shot, and edited, and was only added last minute without his involvement and over his vehement objections. Yeah... it appears to me that non-fan Meyer did his Star Trek homework far better than you. And to finally bring this back sort-of-on-topic... so did Tony Gilroy do his Star Wars homework, before going into his first role as sole creator/showrunner, with ANDOR.

 

Yavar

[Faleel 5,377]

Tell us how you really feel Yavar.

 

[Chen G. 3,965]

I leave you people alone for a little bit, and y'all go off and talk about Star Trek!

[Tallguy 3,406]

Bravo @Yavar Moradi!

 

47 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

These uniforms look far more "naval" to me:

 

That's what I've been saying for over FORTY YEARS!

 

21 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I leave you people alone for a little bit, and y'all go off and talk about Star Trek!

 

Hey, he brought it back to Star Wars at the end.

 

[Schilkeman 969]

This is the last I'll address this because this isn't a Star Trek thread.

 

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

You mean the tacked-on-last-minute-without-the-writer/director's-involvement-or-approval ending?

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

"They"? Again, are you really so unaware of how last minute an addition to the film that was, by Paramount brass? You're dismissing Nicholas Meyer's work (which is why I originally brought up Star Trek II in the context of this thread

It's still in the movie, and so is his name. If it wasn't his choice, fine, redirect the "they" to Paramount. My objections were not to Meyer specifically, but to the artistic choices made making the film. The militaristic stuff and the cartoon villiany are all him, so he still gets a fair share of the credit, as far as I'm concerned, for a movie I mostly like, but have a few objections to.

 

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

The script needed another pass or two.

 

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Don't understand what point you were trying to make

That is apparent.

 

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

makes me angry

Doesn't sound too hard

 

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

I'm anticipating that you'll come at me with, "but in 1996 Khan would have been familiar with submarines and airplanes,

I'm coming at you with: he left Earth in a space ship. He knows how to travel and navigate in space. He "never forgets a face," but forgot about space-time? I don't buy it.

 

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

StarFLEET *is* and always WAS a military organization!

Some nice tidbits in here. https://www.npr.org/2013/05/21/185774613/the-starfleet-divide-the-star-trek-universe-revisits-one-of-its-great-debates

 

For my take, Starfleet had a Prime Directive to not, "interfere with (the progress of) a less developed civilization." That is a mandate of science and exploration, not a military.

 

13 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

so did Tony Gilroy do his Star Wars homework

He appears to have had plenty of help from Pablo Hidalgo and the story group. He seems well-versed on the 5 years or so the show and movie takes place. Out of universe, though, he doesn't appear to have looked to any of the sources of Star Wars narratively, thematically, stylistically, or cinematically. And for me, those things count for an awful lot.

 

Maybe Tales of the Empire will give me what I'm looking for. Filoni is capable of good work, as evidenced by most of Rebels and the Ahsoka centric arcs of TCW.

 

20 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

this is very uncompelling evidence

I honestly don't remember what evidence I was supposed to be presenting, but my objection to the concept of Jedi who would skirt with the dark side is this: an abuse of power is justified by the ability to reason that what I'm doing is ok, if it achieves goal X. What George reasons, and I agree with him, is that this "grey" area is actually very thin. That justifying it once is a sure-fire way to justify it more, and that ultimately, it will corrupt us.

 

The idea that heroes, so to speak, could walk a morally relativistic line, so long as it achieved their goals, was a popular concept in the edge-lord world of comics in the early aughts. George's "dogmatic" view of the Jedi was, and continues to be, criticized, with a growing segment coming from the story creators themselves. From my point of view, "grey" is antithetical to Star Wars.

 

"Rogue" Jedi can only exist because the Jedi order exists. The Jedi order exists as part of a boon with the galaxy's populace that they will be self-regulating. This is why they were tied to the Senate, which in a functioning republic represents the populace, and why they were so concerned with having to take over the Republic in Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine was able to use the idea that they were "trying to take over" to hunt them to extinction.

 

Using the dark side is a do, or do not situation, or as my jazz professor would say, a pregnancy question. You either use it, or you don't. It is not a set of powers, so much as the intention behind their use. The intention behind their use is to achieve goal X, which I am justified in doing because of Y. The entire friction of the prequels is predicated on the ideals of the Jedi being used against them. They chose not to violate them, even to their destruction. That's the point, and the ultimate thesis delivered by Luke in Return of the Jedi.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

7 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I honestly don't remember what evidence I was supposed to be presenting, but my objection to the concept of Jedi who would skirt with the dark side is this: an abuse of power is justified by the ability to reason that what I'm doing is ok, if it achieves goal X. What George reasons, and I agree with him, is that this "grey" area is actually very thin. That justifying it once is a sure-fire way to justify it more, and that ultimately, it will corrupt us.

 

The idea that heroes, so to speak, could walk a morally relativistic line, so long as it achieved their goals, was a popular concept in the edge-lord world of comics in the early aughts. George's "dogmatic" view of the Jedi was, and continues to be, criticized, with a growing segment coming from the story creators themselves. From my point of view, "grey" is antithetical to Star Wars.

 

"Rogue" Jedi can only exist because the Jedi order exists. The Jedi order exists as part of a boon with the galaxy's populace that they will be self-regulating. This is why they were tied to the Senate, which in a functioning republic represents the populace, and why they were so concerned with having to take over the Republic in Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine was able to use the idea that they were "trying to take over" to hunt them to extinction.

 

Using the dark side is a do, or do not situation, or as my jazz professor would say, a pregnancy question. You either use it, or you don't. It is not a set of powers, so much as the intention behind their use. The intention behind their use is to achieve goal X, which I am justified in doing because of Y. The entire friction of the prequels is predicated on the ideals of the Jedi being used against them. They chose not to violate them, even to their destruction. That's the point, and the ultimate thesis delivered by Luke in Return of the Jedi.

yes. you've just described Quinlan Voss's arc which you previously threw into the 'edgelord comics post 9/11' category despite it exemplifying everything you're talking about and saying that George wanted to convey. Quinlan Voss also existed before 9/11, for the record

this also has nothing to do with KOTOR 2 narratively, that was the evidence you were meant to be presenting

[Yavar Moradi 2,609]

14 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

This is the last I'll address this because this isn't a Star Trek thread.

 

It's the thread where you called Star Trek II a "dumb movie" in response to my using Nicholas Meyer as an example that one doesn't have to be a fan of a franchise in advance, to make a significant positive contribution to it... so it's the thread where the debate is happening.

 

14 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

It's still in the movie, and so is his name. If it wasn't his choice, fine, redirect the "they" to Paramount. My objections were not to Meyer specifically, but to the artistic choices made making the film. The militaristic stuff and the cartoon villiany are all him, so he still gets a fair share of the credit, as far as I'm concerned, for a movie I mostly like, but have a few objections to.

 

Seems like you have a lot of objections to the movie and haven't mentioned much of anything you like, but I didn't even specifically bring up The Wrath of Khan itself -- you did. I brought up *Nicholas Meyer*, for his positive contributions to the Star Trek franchise (on three films: II, IV, and VI) despite being a self-described non-fan of Star Trek (just as Tony Gilroy has made significant positive contributions to the Star Wars franchise despite being a self-described non-fan of Star Wars). Then you listed a bunch of issues you had with Star Trek II, the most significant of which Nicholas Meyer had nothing to do with, and the others of which were just silly and thoroughly refuted by me just above, which you have conveniently ignored.

 

14 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

That is apparent.

 

So instead of this snarky comment, you could have actually explained what point you were trying to make, if you found it significant. (Does anyone else here understand what he was trying to say?)

 

14 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

Doesn't sound too hard

 

Another little zinger of a comment that's basically an empty response from the guy who's apparently upset about a lot more things, including some of the best Star Trek and Star Wars to ever be produced.

 

14 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I'm coming at you with: he left Earth in a space ship. He knows how to travel and navigate in space. He "never forgets a face," but forgot about space-time? I don't buy it.

 

Space...time? Huh?? I thought the issue in question was maneuvering a ship for battle in 3D rather than 2D. But sheesh, here we go... Khan left Earth in a space ship in 1996, less than three decades after the Star Trek episode "Space Seed" was produced. He left on that ship as a passenger. There is no evidence I recall from "Space Seed" indicating he was either the pilot or the navigator of that ship. And even when he is eventually captaining the Reliant and eventually punches a button or two later on (i.e. to speed up after the Enterprise at one point), he is clearly not steering the ship himself or inputting navigation, but only giving orders to other people operating the controls. So even though he may be a battle tactician from the Eugenics Wars on earth centuries before, he does NOT have battle experience in space, and so is at a disadvantage despite being highly intelligent. Never forgetting a face has nothing to do with it. He can't remember 3D space battle tactics he NEVER LEARNED. I haven't read the Eugenics War novels, but as far as I know, Earth isn't supposed to have had space battles between ships occurring during the Eugenics Wars. I don't think space vessel technology was supposed to be remotely that advanced at that point.

 

14 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

Some nice tidbits in here. https://www.npr.org/2013/05/21/185774613/the-starfleet-divide-the-star-trek-universe-revisits-one-of-its-great-debates

For my take, Starfleet had a Prime Directive to not, "interfere with (the progress of) a less developed civilization." That is a mandate of science and exploration, not a military.

 

So you ignore all my points about rank, orders, military discipline being present there all along from the original series, and Nicholas Meyer falling largely in line with that... and instead bring up the Prime Directive. Setting aside the fact that every Starfleet captain seems to regularly violate the Prime Directive, have you ever considered that it might be a rule IMPOSED upon a military to keep it from doing things it should not do (and probably would do, without that directive)? It's like how the Geneva Convention came up with rules of engagement that all world militaries are supposed to follow (though we sure are seeing lately how much those are really worth... even less than the Prime Directive, it seems like.)

 

14 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

He appears to have had plenty of help from Pablo Hidalgo and the story group. He seems well-versed on the 5 years or so the show and movie takes place. Out of universe, though, he doesn't appear to have looked to any of the sources of Star Wars narratively, thematically, stylistically, or cinematically. And for me, those things count for an awful lot.

 

Sure, and Nicholas Meyer had plenty of help, too, on Star Treks II and VI. (And he *was* the help on Star Trek IV.) In fact on Star Trek II many of the story beats were not his, but incorporated by him (with improvements) from the disparate previous drafts written by other people. Some of the elements you dislike were probably already pre-determined by those previous scripts, before Meyer made something cohesive out of the whole thing. But the only thing relevant to my point you were originally replying to is: as a non-fan of the franchise, did Meyer turn out to be overall an asset to it, or a detriment? And I think most people in the world will agree he was very much an asset (many would even say he saved the franchise from oblivion). You bringing up things you dislike about Star Trek II is *wholly irrelevant*, if Meyer wasn't the one responsible for them.

 

Yavar

[Tallguy 3,406]

The difference between Nicholas Meyer's Wrath of Khan and Gilroy's Andor and to a lesser extent Rogue One: Meyer made a Star Trek movie that was in many ways more Star Trek than Star Trek. It wasn't trying to go in another direction. It was trying to get back to basics.

 

Andor is addressing the Star Wars universe and presenting it in a different way. Andor is like if Star Wars was a real place and Coppola or Fincher decided to make a movie there instead of Lucas.

 

Oh, and Starfleet is definitely a military. Before TNG that wasn't even a question. (Dammit. I slipped back into Star Trek.)

[DarthDementous 1,059]

12 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Andor is addressing the Star Wars universe and presenting it in a different way. Andor is like if Star Wars was a real place and Coppola or Fincher decided to make a movie there instead of Lucas.

it's interesting because I still see a lot of Lucas in Andor, maybe not Star Wars Lucas, but the Prison Arc especially is incredibly reminiscent of THX-1138

[Chen G. 3,965]

5 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

but the Prison Arc especially is incredibly reminiscent of THX-1138

 

 

[Yavar Moradi 2,609]

9 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

it's interesting because I still see a lot of Lucas in Andor, maybe not Star Wars Lucas, but the Prison Arc especially is incredibly reminiscent of THX-1138

I see a lot of Star Wars Lucas in Andor, and I think just like Nicholas Meyer on Star Trek, Tony Gilroy did his research by going back to the beginning… the 1977 Star Wars. Or actually, maybe even earlier… the very first Star Wars media to be commercially released. The 1976 novel by… George Lucas:

 

And if we look at the very opening pages of Lucas’s most early published words about the world of Star Wars, we get the sense of an original conception not quite THX, but much more Andor than the prequel trilogy:

 

The Jedi Knights are mentioned for this setting, but in the background. Not a single one is named. There is no Darth Vader, supposedly the guy Lucas’s six-film saga is about, the prophesied one to bring balance to the Force? Hell, there is no “The Force” even mentioned here! (Compare that to the kinda similar crawls at the beginning of the movies.) Instead we get the vague “Journal of the Whills”… what the heck the whills?

 

Oh now wait a second… there is exactly ONE other piece of Star Wars media I’ve encountered where I’ve heard that term referenced again. What was it? Oh yeah! I think Tony Gilroy had a little something to do with this…

 

Okay so now we are getting somewhere. Notice the Leia Organa quote at the end as well — she is a “senator”, not a “princess”. And her quote *perfectly* fits… well, Andor himself! Don’t you think?

 

And also notice her fellow Senator, Palpatine, is NOT an evil wizard! He’s just a politician! A power-hungry politician who in fact isn’t some great mastermind, but once he takes power, gradually has it taken away *from* him by those he elevated, eventually ending up as little more than a figurehead of the Empire itself — the system he enabled eventually even consumed the Emperor, himself! Man, this sounds so much more like political sci-fi rather than space fantasy! It sounds so much more like… Andor.

 

And after the absolutely horrible prequels which attempted to cover this same time period, and the messy sequel trilogy that ended with an equally dumb (if far more entertaining) film to the prequels… MAN, do I kinda wish George Lucas had continued with his original, more Foundationy, vision for this world. And what Tony Gilroy has achieved with Andor is to somehow move more towards that while also reconciling it somewhat with all the filmed Star Wars world we’ve seen. It’s really an incredibly impressive feat, especially since the writing and the drama and the character development and the acting are all so powerful.

 

Yavar

[Chen G. 3,965]

22 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

And if we look at the very opening pages of Lucas’s most early published words about the world of Star Wars, we get the sense of an original conception not quite THX, but much more Andor than the prequel trilogy:

 

The Jedi Knights are mentioned for this setting, but in the background. Not a single one is named. There is no Darth Vader, supposedly the guy Lucas’s six-film saga is about, the prophesied one to bring balance to the Force? Hell, there is no “The Force” even mentioned here! (Compare that to the kinda similar crawls at the beginning of the movies.) Instead we get the vague “Journal of the Whills”… what the heck the whills?

 

Although I'm sure Lucas had a lot of input into this book - and especially the prologue - the book was principally the work of Alan Dean Foster and was only credited to Lucas to keep the appearance of the single visionary. In fact, the requirement to have the book credited to Lucas deterred his first choice of writer, Dan Glut.

 

All the "Whills" stuff is from Lucas' early drafts. Its basically his version of Burroughs' "Girdley Wave."

 

None of which is to go against your basic argument, of course.

 

Oh, and just one more thing I can't resist:

 

22 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

And also notice her fellow Senator, Palpatine, is NOT an evil wizard! He’s just a politician! A power-hungry politician who in fact isn’t some great mastermind, but once he takes power, gradually has it taken away *from* him by those he elevated, eventually ending up as little more than a figurehead of the Empire itself — the system he enabled eventually even consumed the Emperor, himself! Man, this sounds so much more like political sci-fi rather than space fantasy! It sounds so much more like… Andor.

 

This is supposed to be in the background of the movie: The whole idea is that the Emperor is the lackey of the Imperial officers and, specifically, Tarkin, not the other way around. Tarkin's line "regional governors now have direct control over their territories" was obviously mean to be read more smug than it does in the film, being that Tarkin is a regional governor.

[Faleel 5,377]

Apparently the ROTS script also mentioned the Whills:

 

• "The Tenebrous Way" — Star Wars Insider 130 (Mentioned only)
• Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith (Mentioned in script, not in final film)
• Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith novelization (Mentioned only)
• Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith unabridged audiobook (Mentioned only)
• † Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith (Mentioned only)
• "Lone Wolf: A Tale of Obi-Wan and Luke" — SkyeWalkers: A Clone Wars Story (Mentioned only)
• "The Last One Standing" — Legacy of the Jedi/Secrets of the Jedi omnibus (Mentioned only)
• The Last of the Jedi: The Desperate Mission (Mentioned only)
• The Last of the Jedi: Dark Warning (Mentioned only)
• Star Wars: A New Hope novelization (First mentioned

[Tallguy 3,406]

The two things that kept trying to find their way back into Star Wars in the 90s was The Whills and The Sith. 

[tee_oh 20]

Me popping into this thread to see if there's any interesting discussion related to the thread title

 

[Chen G. 3,965]

I guess for some  here (and I very much approve) Star Wars had reached such super-saturation that any new project needs to have its raison d'etre aruged about.

[Schilkeman 969]

Yeah, I was about to say, about par for the course on Star Wars threads.

[Gabriel Bezerra 308]

On 09/04/2024 at 2:45 PM, Tallguy said:

I never did see the Clone Wars episodes where Dooku razes Dathomir. Maybe I should catch up. I also never saw the whole "Ahsoka on trial" part either.

That's Massacre from Season 4 (E19) and the final 4 episodes of Season 5, really good episodes.

[JNHFan2000 2,974]

Some of the best epsiodes of the entire series

[JNHFan2000 2,974]