Star Wars: Skeleton Crew - coming Dec 2024

Belen

Hero
I would imagine it comes from Dave Filoni and his mission to retroactively patch the sequel trilogy to suck less.

They cannot manage to make the ST suck less by creating a bunch of backstory in mediums that most people will not interact with.

Or, I could just say that there is no method they can use to improve the ST. It just sucks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would imagine it comes from Dave Filoni and his mission to retroactively patch the sequel trilogy to suck less. So, a backdoor Finn origin story dressed up as The Goonies ...In Space. The showrunners where no doubt chosen to emphasise that latter element, and make sure it has the requisite amount of schmaltz.

Consider the uniforms. The Americana trope would be schoolkids don't have uniforms unless they attend really elitist schools (can't attest to how true to life this is, but it's certainly what the fiction shows). So, to be consistent with the rows of immaculate front lawns you would give the kids non-uniforms. So some other factor must be in play. You can just about make out the details on the "school crest" on the shot of the big-nosed kid at the garage door. There is a lot of writing (implicitly the school motto), in Aurebesh, around the outside, that is just too fuzzy for me to read.

The tailoring and colour of the uniform jacket is similar to the one Poe gives to Finn. Maybe Finn likes it because it reminds him of his old school uniform?
You are presenting a pretty strong argument here, I have to admit. I'm increasingly thinking you're probably right!
 

They cannot manage to make the ST suck less by creating a bunch of backstory in mediums that most people will not interact with.
Except that proved you can, by doing exactly that with Clone Wars and Rebels, which retroactively massively improved how people felt and thought about the PT.

I'm afraid you're demonstrably wrong when you claim it "cannot" be done.

Whether they will succeed re: the ST? That's another question. But I suspect that in 10-15 years, if they keep at it, that plus nostalgia from people who are like, 15 now will make some major differences to how the ST is perceived. And those changed perceptions DO work their way back through culture. Gen X absolutely reviled the PT at the time, and for years thereafter. But even Gen X increasingly revised their opinions on it, maybe not to "It's cool!" to but away from "It's nothing but suck" as the generation who were like 10 when they saw it, and who grew up with Clone Wars etc. went on about how much they liked it.
 

There was no conflict to work out. Stark was a former weapons dealer by the time he became Peter's mentor.
He's still developing new weapons and weapon tech - he's clearly selling it/providing it to someone, even if it's the US. That's literally the plot. Maybe he's no longer selling to random "oppressive regimes", but he clearly hasn't moved away from weapons/oppression tech, hence the terrifying drones in the second movie. Further, the entire moral of the movie doesn't work because Tony was selling much worse weapons to much worse people very recently.
 

Belen

Hero
Except that proved you can, by doing exactly that with Clone Wars and Rebels, which retroactively massively improved how people felt and thought about the PT.

I'm afraid you're demonstrably wrong when you claim it "cannot" be done.

Whether they will succeed re: the ST? That's another question. But I suspect that in 10-15 years, if they keep at it, that plus nostalgia from people who are like, 15 now will make some major differences to how the ST is perceived. And those changed perceptions DO work their way back through culture. Gen X absolutely reviled the PT at the time, and for years thereafter. But even Gen X increasingly revised their opinions on it, maybe not to "It's cool!" to but away from "It's nothing but suck" as the generation who were like 10 when they saw it, and who grew up with Clone Wars etc. went on about how much they liked it.
I do not know any children who like the ST. My son and all of his friends love Star Wars and they hate the ST.

Clone Wars launched with a feature length movie in theatres. The cartoon was on Cartoon Network in its heyday. The one attempt at a ST cartoon, Resistance, crashed and burned.

Very few people like the ST characters or want to see more of them. I actually liked Rey and Finn (never Poe) in TFA but subsequent movies ruined them.

The PT suffered from bad dialogue and bad directing but the story was solid. The ST really has nothing that would give it legs.
 

I do not know any children who like the ST. My son and all of his friends love Star Wars and they hate the ST.

Clone Wars launched with a feature length movie in theatres. The cartoon was on Cartoon Network in its heyday. The one attempt at a ST cartoon, Resistance, crashed and burned.

Very few people like the ST characters or want to see more of them. I actually liked Rey and Finn (never Poe) in TFA but subsequent movies ruined them.

The PT suffered from bad dialogue and bad directing but the story was solid. The ST really has nothing that would give it legs.
This is what we call "cope". There's no actual argument or rationale, just a collected anecdotes and vague unsupported, unargued claims, presented as leading to absolute certainty.

Re: the first point, which is at least an interesting anecdote, the question I think is whether the ST was their first real exposure to SW, and whether this is actually their opinion, or your heavily filtered perception of their opinion, and further, whether it will remain their opinion when they're like, 25, and nostalgic for being like being a kid. Because I think there were a lot of kids who liked the PT at like, 8, thought it was uncool at like, 13/14, and then has strong nostalgia for it at like 25+. I think the OT actually had a similar pattern for some people - I know it did for me - Star Wars was actively uncool to like too much when I was say, 14 (in 1992). It wasn't really until I was a bit older that I started to appreciate it again.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
He's still developing new weapons and weapon tech - he's clearly selling it/providing it to someone, even if it's the US. That's literally the plot.
The plot element in Spider-Man: Homecoming is that the technology kept at the Avengers tower in New York City is being moved to the Avengers compound in upstate New York. While this included many things developed by Stark, a lot of the tech was captured from villains, like Chitauri weapons and HYDRA weapons. The Avengers are securing this equipment, some of it for their own use and research, but they are not selling it to anyone. Stark made it clear in Iron Man 2 that his tech is not for the US government, and he is out of the weapons business.
Maybe he's no longer selling to random "oppressive regimes", but he clearly hasn't moved away from weapons/oppression tech, hence the terrifying drones in the second movie. Further, the entire moral of the movie doesn't work because Tony was selling much worse weapons to much worse people very recently.
While Stark Industries may have developed the tech behind the drones, it may be that Stark himself was not the primary inventor. Quentin Beck was the major developer of the holographic technology they used -- it is possible that other rogue/ex-employees were similar experts in other elements of the tech the drones used, and it was added on to the drones. My personal head canon, so purely my opinion, is that the drones were a precursor or offshoot of the Ultron project, so again, not for any government use or sale, but for Avengers use against Avengers-level threats.
 

The plot element in Spider-Man: Homecoming is that the technology kept at the Avengers tower in New York City is being moved to the Avengers compound in upstate New York. While this included many things developed by Stark, a lot of the tech was captured from villains, like Chitauri weapons and HYDRA weapons. The Avengers are securing this equipment, some of it for their own use and research, but they are not selling it to anyone. Stark made it clear in Iron Man 2 that his tech is not for the US government, and he is out of the weapons business.
Was the comment in IM2 ever repeated? I admit I've mentally blocked IM3 so I dunno about there. Because he's still developing weapons technology, and as far as I'm aware, pretty much nothing else (prior to Infinity War). The drones are Stark Industry tech, and whoever originated the holographic bit, and unarguably powerful weapons. Have we seen any Stark civilian tech? Weren't the arc reactors too dangerous or something?

And even in that context, the whole idea that he's a good guy and Vulture is a really bad one just doesn't work. Because he's clearly not really making reparations for the harm he's done - rather he's still running the company, still doing what he wants and so on, which I think is why they make him go out the way he did in Endgame, because noble suicide excuses almost anything. He still has what, hundreds of billions from selling arms to everyone?
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Was the comment in IM2 ever repeated? I admit I've mentally blocked IM3 so I dunno about there. Because he's still developing weapons technology, and as far as I'm aware, pretty much nothing else (prior to Infinity War). The drones are Stark Industry tech, and whoever originated the holographic bit, and unarguably powerful weapons. Have we seen any Stark civilian tech? Weren't the arc reactors too dangerous or something?
Yes, Tony is still developing weapons. I did not dispute that. But they are for his and/or the Avengers' use, not for sale. See Iron Man 3 and Avengers: Age of Ultron for more about how he is obsessed with defending those he loves and the Earth from threats.

And even in that context, the whole idea that he's a good guy and Vulture is a really bad one just doesn't work. Because he's clearly not really making reparations for the harm he's done - rather he's still running the company, still doing what he wants and so on, which I think is why they make him go out the way he did in Endgame, because noble suicide excuses almost anything. He still has what, hundreds of billions from selling arms to everyone?
He did commit millions (billions?) to fund an entire class at MIT in Captain America: Civil War. I am sure he did more, but that does not always make for exciting super-hero movie viewing.
 

MarkB

Legend
Was the comment in IM2 ever repeated? I admit I've mentally blocked IM3 so I dunno about there. Because he's still developing weapons technology, and as far as I'm aware, pretty much nothing else (prior to Infinity War). The drones are Stark Industry tech, and whoever originated the holographic bit, and unarguably powerful weapons.
And very much not in anyone's hands but his own. It's crystal clear that he ceases manufacturing weapons for sale in Iron Man 1, and never starts doing so again.
Have we seen any Stark civilian tech? Weren't the arc reactors too dangerous or something?
In Avengers he's using Arc reactor technology to make Stark Tower self-sustaining, as a flagship model for introducing the tech commercially. As mentioned during the movie he's leading the field in clean energy at that time.
And even in that context, the whole idea that he's a good guy and Vulture is a really bad one just doesn't work. Because he's clearly not really making reparations for the harm he's done - rather he's still running the company, still doing what he wants and so on, which I think is why they make him go out the way he did in Endgame, because noble suicide excuses almost anything. He still has what, hundreds of billions from selling arms to everyone?
Did you actually watch any of these movies? He's still technically heading the company, but Pepper is running it day-to-day and taking it away from any form of weapons tech. What he's primarily dedicated to is developing means of protecting the world against high-level threats, which he does on his own time and his own dime, not through his company.
 

Remove ads

Top