Quote from: Skarg;924949Luke & Leia kissing was cool? T.

No. It was a moment in the second film that becomes a big deal because of the 'cool' plot twist that she is his sister (which is pretty clear they made up later on).

Quote from: Skarg;924949I know I'm more sensitive to certain types of logic than many viewers, but to me it's really clear that the OT had some logic & explanation that is not only lacking in TFA, but replaced by stuff that makes much less sense and also messes with the SW universe as a tolerable/interesting place. Especially how TFA supposedly takes place in several (5-6?) different parts of a galaxy, yet no one has any trouble finding anyone else in a matter of minutes, and of course the whole guided splitting bending lasers that strike all the way across the galaxy AND whose destruction can be seen large in the sky from an entirely different system thing, which breaks my scale of WTF and also makes the universe pretty ridiculous and unpleasant.

All I am saying is Star Wars is a space romp and has never really held up to the scrutiny of that kind of logic. I don't fault you for finding flaws, I just think it is odd to hold a Star Wars movie to that kind of standard. The only real difference I think between the first trilogy and this one in that respect is a product of differences in pacing between then and now (and personally i vastly prefer 70s pacing to modern pacing). But most movies move at a certain pace now and things tend to get glossed over to have a more streamlined and final edit. If were another type of film, I'd agree with you on a lot of this. But for me this was as enjoyable as a New Hope.

Quote from: Skarg;924949The only passionate kiss was fake passion to get Han jealous, and they didn't know they were siblings till later so it may cringe some people and yes Lucas just made it up for his own version of "oh let's reprise the family connection reveal that people liked in ESB", which is where I'd say the "because it's cool" comes in, but it's not actually a contradiction.

I get all those arguments, but it still sticks out and it makes it pretty obvious they were never intended to be brother and sister from the beginning. Lucas came up with a plot twist to add to the third film and he went with it because this is based on serials like Flash Gordon, where coolness is more important than continuity. It is pulp in space with a bit of mythic resonance.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;924952

QuoteI know I'm more sensitive to certain types of logic than many viewers, but to me it's really clear that the OT had some logic & explanation that is not only lacking in TFA, but replaced by stuff that makes much less sense and also messes with the SW universe as a tolerable/interesting place. Especially how TFA supposedly takes place in several (5-6?) different parts of a galaxy, yet no one has any trouble finding anyone else in a matter of minutes, and of course the whole guided splitting bending lasers that strike all the way across the galaxy AND whose destruction can be seen large in the sky from an entirely different system thing, which breaks my scale of WTF and also makes the universe pretty ridiculous and unpleasant.

All I am saying is Star Wars is a space romp and has never really held up to the scrutiny of that kind of logic. I don't fault you for finding flaws, I just think it is odd to hold a Star Wars movie to that kind of standard. The only real difference I think between the first trilogy and this one in that respect is a product of differences in pacing between then and now (and personally i vastly prefer 70s pacing to modern pacing). But most movies move at a certain pace now and things tend to get glossed over to have a more streamlined and final edit. If were another type of film, I'd agree with you on a lot of this. But for me this was as enjoyable as a New Hope.

I think it depends on what your logic scrutiny chart looks like. The reason I keep ranting about TFA is because I see what to me are massive differences in logic between the OT and TFA. I do agree that the cause may largely be about pacing, but I think the drive for that pacing causes stuff to have no explanation I can think of and accept... though as I've said, I don't think that's necessary, it just happened because they wanted the pacing and weren't sensitive to the things that to me seem like minimal requirements to make sense. To me, the degree to which things are plausible and make sense has a whole lot to do with whether I can hold any interest in it. Particularly, to bring this back to site relevance, for whether I'd ever consider gaming it. I can see gaming most of the OT and finding it fun and interesting. Things might play out differently, but I wouldn't feel a need to change most of the way things work. In TFA, I can't get anywhere without balking. If they slowed the pacing down and paid attention, it wouldn't make sense. If I let my players make choices, they'd never do the things done in the film the way they do them. And ya, I balk at many parts of most modern action films too.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;924954I get all those arguments, but it still sticks out and it makes it pretty obvious they were never intended to be brother and sister from the beginning. Lucas came up with a plot twist to add to the third film and he went with it because this is based on serials like Flash Gordon, where coolness is more important than continuity. It is pulp in space with a bit of mythic resonance.

Well I do agree that it's a bit silly and was made up later, but the kiss isn't a contradiction. It's a bit contrived but it's not breaking logic. The places where the OT actually breaks continuity for me stand out in a few annoying places, but they are a contrast to the many things that make some sort of sense and engage me because they set up a situation and then show action that is about that situation in a way that is interestingly self-consistent to some degree. The battles in the OT tend to involve various explained elements that make sense and take some time - in TFA Han makes fun of even having a plan - the plan is "these things always have a way to blow them up" yuk yuk. They're not even trying - they're making fun of the part that made the OT interesting. In the OT even the un-named people in the action seem like relate-able people with their own perspectives and limits and reaction times, and the action also doesn't break basic things like the galaxy being huge so you can't pew pew and see explosions from other systems, or find spaceships in 10 minutes in random places in deep space, or shoot down tie fighters on completely different courses that you could never have seen while doing a super-tight turn, etc.

Quote from: Skarg;924964Well I do agree that it's a bit silly and was made up later, but the kiss isn't a contradiction. It's a bit contrived but it's not breaking logic.  

Well, if it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you, but I personally find it to be one of the biggest inconsistencies in film making I can think of. It is so glaring if you watch the first two films with knowledge of the revelation in this third. It is just obvious that in this moment they are not brother and sister, were never meant to be brother and sister, and are enjoying a kiss. Then suddenly in the third movie they are brother and sister. That is an inconsistency. That is a huge, gaping, inconsistency. Every time I come upon that scene it emphasizes that inconsistency to me, and it is always a little jarring because it is so painfully obvious. You can charitably explain it away but it is still a clear inconsistency of characterization to me. And any explanation you come up with is after the fact reasoning that the film makers clearly never intended. It is pretty obvious if George Lucas thought of the sibling relationship before that scene was filmed, they never would have kissed in the first place. And after he just figured there was enough room for doubt for him to add in the new detail (or he just plum forgot that they kissed).

Quote from: Skarg;924963I think it depends on what your logic scrutiny chart looks like. The reason I keep ranting about TFA is because I see what to me are massive differences in logic between the OT and TFA. I do agree that the cause may largely be about pacing, but I think the drive for that pacing causes stuff to have no explanation I can think of and accept... though as I've said, I don't think that's necessary, it just happened because they wanted the pacing and weren't sensitive to the things that to me seem like minimal requirements to make sense. To me, the degree to which things are plausible and make sense has a whole lot to do with whether I can hold any interest in it. Particularly, to bring this back to site relevance, for whether I'd ever consider gaming it. I can see gaming most of the OT and finding it fun and interesting. Things might play out differently, but I wouldn't feel a need to change most of the way things work. In TFA, I can't get anywhere without balking. If they slowed the pacing down and paid attention, it wouldn't make sense. If I let my players make choices, they'd never do the things done in the film the way they do them. And ya, I balk at many parts of most modern action films too.

I tend to watch more movies from the late 60s and the 70s than modern, so I feel you on the pacing. But I think if you pay close attention you'll find there have been improvements in some areas, while problems have been introduced elsewhere. If you watch action-adventure movies from the 70s, 80s or even the 90s, they often let the heroes get away with really stupid plans of escape in terms of the action choreography itself (the classic, 'hey look while I slap the gun out of your hand'). But I think the faster pacing and more streamlined editing (plus the fact that audiences are global now and what tends to matter is the visuals) has moved films away from being able to linger more on internal logic.

But I look at it as different genres and style of film have different bars for that kind of thing. I expect a lot of characterization consistency in say a Tarantino film, but I don't expect the physics consistency like I might from 2001. If Abrahms made a sequel 2001 and 2010 or something, then I'd probably be like 'WTF!' if it had the logic of a flash Gordon Serial. To me this just continues the same level of Flash Gordon serial logic that existed in the first films (with some added problems because of modern pacing issues). They still occasionally make movies without the action pacing. The pacing on the martial for example felt a bit more old school.

People will disagree of course. But the original trilogy to me always felt like it was largely built on a series of convenient coincidences and that what was driving it was getting the characters from point A to point B to point C. And one of its chief problems is many of its later revelations force you to question some things that happen earlier in the film (both with Vader and with Luke and Leia). I see star wars as a film fueled more by the demands of adventure, action and drama. So I am just not as worried about consistency unless it punches me in the nose the moment I am watching (and I mean consistency with things like "this guy was over here, but because of a crappy edit he is suddenly two miles away even though time hasn't elapsed).

The biggest problem I have with the new trilogy now that I've watched the first movie a few times (and I think this comes from some of the consistency issues  and from pacing) is space feels a little smaller in this one than in the first ones. But I think that is because there was more time with talking while in space on ships in the first trilogy than because it was hugely consistent about space travel. There were road trip moments which help make space feel larger to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;924969Well, if it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you, but I personally find it to be one of the biggest inconsistencies in film making I can think of. It is so glaring if you watch the first two films with knowledge of the revelation in this third. It is just obvious that in this moment they are not brother and sister, were never meant to be brother and sister, and are enjoying a kiss. Then suddenly in the third movie they are brother and sister. That is an inconsistency. That is a huge, gaping, inconsistency. Every time I come upon that scene it emphasizes that inconsistency to me, and it is always a little jarring because it is so painfully obvious. You can charitably explain it away but it is still a clear inconsistency of characterization to me. And any explanation you come up with is after the fact reasoning that the film makers clearly never intended. It is pretty obvious if George Lucas thought of the sibling relationship before that scene was filmed, they never would have kissed in the first place. And after he just figured there was enough room for doubt for him to add in the new detail (or he just plum forgot that they kissed).

Hmm. Well the bro-sis "reveal" was annoying to me the first and second time I saw it. If I recall correctly, I think the first time I was thinking, "Huh what? Oh no not again - what bullshit did someone invent to fuck with us to give us something different to think about and surprise us? Am I willing to even think about this and care? Errgh this is going to take some adjustment. It hurts my brain. No, that's not true. That's impossibru... uhhhgh. Yeah Luke is right! Having Vader be Luke's father makes Obi Wan a withholding dick! Yoda too! How annoying. Luke would be totally justified to be very un-Light-Side towards them! Well Yoda's still talking... I'm glad at least he's dying so we're probably not going to have to watch Luke do lots more pushups in the jungle. Um, ok, I think I can handle it. I hope it doesn't get worse." So, yeah, but after seeing the rest of the film, and re-watching it, I cooled down about it to just think more like I do now, which is something like, "well that was obviously a plot twist Lucas chose to try to give us another family weirdness moment, and it seems annoying and needless and unlikely and silly... but oh well, at least it means we can not be tortured by love triangle moments, nor feel sorry for Luke not getting the girl. Kind of ridiculous. Whatever. Fortunately, it doesn't really affect the part I enjoy, which is mainly the battles. Bring the battles... Oh what teddy bears? oh crap... show me some Star Destroyers."

So ya, we're not that far off there, but we do react differently.

I think in the first film, Luke starts clearly interested in Leia, and there is one kiss during the escape and maybe a congrats kiss at the end, though by that time they seem more like comrades than Luke on the prowl.

I think in the second film, Luke Han and Leia have been doing Rebel shit for who knows how long (months? years?), no one is with Leia, and Han seems more interested in Leia that way than Luke is. There's still a triangle/competition, but Leia kisses Luke because she's trying to show Han she's not under his thumb, because she's interested in Han, not because she actually is into Luke.

I remember reacting with "what? no..." to the "I am your father" reveal in Empire, too. It seemed like (and was) an idea added in a later film, to try to be more dramatically cool and surprising.

But what if Lucas had known from the beginning that Luke & Leia were Vader's twin kids? If they were raised separately and had no way of knowing, why wouldn't they act as they did? Wouldn't it only be because the author knew they were siblings, and so was using his author powers and knowledge that should have no realistic effect, to have effects? Or do you believe that even such kids would have an instinctive non-attraction? (Leia does say she always had some sense of it, yes overstated as "I always knew", which if she consciously did would be more weird.) Of course, they also really didn't do much of anything.

Sure the siblingness was invented later, but it's not an impossible invention. Seems to me the objection is more that the forced plot would've been different due to out-of-character reasons (since they didn't know), which would actually be a less realistic influence than writing the earlier stories without that knowledge, since no one had that knowledge. . .
 ... um...
Ok... wait... sorry... actually though, what about Obi-Wan and Yoda? Oh right, they knew all along (at least according to Episode III), and supposedly they need to keep them from knowing to protect, say, Luke from betraying Leia's Force status to Vader when Luke faces Vader... errrgh. That to me is more annoying to me than the kissing part, except maybe that Obi-Wan didn't keep Luke from getting interested in Leia ... or maybe he used Force Disinterest? Uhgh. I'm not a big fan of the whole Force chosen one destiny ooh we need someone with Force powers or we're all doomed, thing, so if there is a part that makes me groan about the OT, it's that whole business. I'd groan almost as much even if Lucas had planned it and had it make more sense. The big continuity issues for me are things like the Ewoks wiping out stormtroopers and the timing and space/distance issues with the Executor suddenly hitting the Death Star II, and how the Falcon flies through the whole Death Star and blows it up but flies out of it in time to escape, and stuff like that...

... which is why seeing planets explode in the sky of a planet in the wrong part of the galaxy bugs me. As do hyperactive dogfights. As does two different groups of enemies showing up at the same time on Han's ship. And other tactical and timing details. I'm largely in it for the action, and the situations and choices leading to the action, and when the action makes no sense, and the thinking about what to do seems wrong or mindless, etc, that's what gets me, and what seems rather deficient in TFA versus the OT.

Quote from: Skarg;925169But what if Lucas had known from the beginning that Luke & Leia were Vader's twin kids? If they were raised separately and had no way of knowing, why wouldn't they act as they did? Wouldn't it only be because the author knew they were siblings, and so was using his author powers and knowledge that should have no realistic effect, to have effects? Or do you believe that even such kids would have an instinctive non-attraction? (Leia does say she always had some sense of it, yes overstated as "I always knew", which if she consciously did would be more weird.) Of course, they also really didn't do much of anything.

Sure the siblingness was invented later, but it's not an impossible invention. Seems to me the objection is more that the forced plot would've been different due to out-of-character reasons (since they didn't know), which would actually be a less realistic influence than writing the earlier stories without that knowledge, since no one had that knowledge. . .
 .

I think most audiences (particularly at the time) would have expected instinctual lack of attraction. I think we could debate the reality of that endlessly, but that is what people expect, and incest is only of the biggest taboos out there. So it just stands out (even if it is for out of character reasons, it draws attention to Lucas not being concrete or consistent in characterization). The out of character stuff matters (though I think this still has obvious in character problems). But just from a quality issue, a twist like this, if its planned, ought to be foreshadowed. I defniitely wouldn't have expected the writer to have them kiss to trick the audience. It is the kind of thing I'd like to see hints of, hints that might seem meaningless at the time, but add up at the time of the revelation. I'm a big Doctor Who fan and one of my pet peeves with that series, especially lately is when they don't even bother to plan out the twists in advance properly (by laying the groundwork early on to give them a better sense of reality and consistency). I get the same feeling with the original trilogy. I get why he did it. I think he was right to make that call in the end, because the trade off was worth it. But I do think it would have been better if this had occurred to him at the start of filming rather than midway through. Still, like I said though, this is flash gordon serial stuff....I can easily overlook it. I just don't see a huge difference between this and a lot of the problems in 7.

I follow you, and mostly agree. It was weird and fairly obvious it was a new idea. Though I think I have less sympathy and interest on the part about the audience expectations  that a movie wouldn't have attraction or any kissing between oblivious siblings - that mostly just makes it more comical to me, but doesn't seem like necessarily a continuity issue, since I think some siblings might not really get it or not go there (e.g. contrast Game of Thrones, yes times have changed, but SW is a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... so misalignment with 20th Century US conventional moral film expectations in all things is not a continuity issue to me).

And again, it's in a field I don't care about so much for continuity, compared to whether the conflict events make sense and are shown in a way that's interesting and consistent and that I can suspend enough disbelief for. Again my gripes with Ep. VI are more about combat results and timing (Executor destruction scene, Ewok combat effectiveness, and Falcon flying into and out of the Death Star are the main ones that come to mind - I don't care that much about Leia and Luke being siblings and even though it's an obvious silly afterthought, I'm ultimately relieved not to have to bother with a love triangle in Star Wars.

As for pacing and different types of qualities of older movies, I mostly agree. I mostly prefer the older styles, even when they're lazy or low-budget or sloppy in the stunt choreography or effects. I'd rather use my imagination cheritably with Roger Moore beating up a younger fitter thug with sloppy biff'em moves, than have to try to believe that Daniel Craig (in contrast to some grittier scenes) can be sure which helicopter to shoot at over London with his pistol from a moving boat at night and bring it down, also in such a way that it kills everyone aboard except the main villain. I re-watched The Spy Who Loved Me after Spectre expecting wild fakeness and was fairly shocked at how I didn't think it was actually bothering me with unrealistic stuff (being generous about the physical aspects), except for the few absolutely nonsense aspects of it.

Quote from: Skarg;925207As for pacing and different types of qualities of older movies, I mostly agree. I mostly prefer the older styles, even when they're lazy or low-budget or sloppy in the stunt choreography or effects. I'd rather use my imagination cheritably with Roger Moore beating up a younger fitter thug with sloppy biff'em moves, than have to try to believe that Daniel Craig (in contrast to some grittier scenes) can be sure which helicopter to shoot at over London with his pistol from a moving boat at night and bring it down, also in such a way that it kills everyone aboard except the main villain. I re-watched The Spy Who Loved Me after Spectre expecting wild fakeness and was fairly shocked at how I didn't think it was actually bothering me with unrealistic stuff (being generous about the physical aspects), except for the few absolutely nonsense aspects of it.

Action scenes are really important to me (but then I like Kung Fu movies and grew up watching films like Commando and bloodsport). It isn't that I dislike older action scenes. Ben Hur had some great moments for example. I just feel it is an area where filming has generally improved (though I also think we've declined on that front in more recent years as CGI has demanded less physical performances). But pacing and storytelling...I like the older stuff better. And if you are talking asian cinema, I love the old Kung Fu and wuxia movies but the late 80s-90s is probably my favorite.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;924969Well, if it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you, but I personally find it to be one of the biggest inconsistencies in film making I can think of. It is so glaring if you watch the first two films with knowledge of the revelation in this third. It is just obvious that in this moment they are not brother and sister, were never meant to be brother and sister, and are enjoying a kiss. Then suddenly in the third movie they are brother and sister. That is an inconsistency. That is a huge, gaping, inconsistency. Every time I come upon that scene it emphasizes that inconsistency to me, and it is always a little jarring because it is so painfully obvious. You can charitably explain it away but it is still a clear inconsistency of characterization to me. And any explanation you come up with is after the fact reasoning that the film makers clearly never intended. It is pretty obvious if George Lucas thought of the sibling relationship before that scene was filmed, they never would have kissed in the first place. And after he just figured there was enough room for doubt for him to add in the new detail (or he just plum forgot that they kissed).

Odd that Lucas the revisionsit, hadn't taken out the kiss scene and replaced it with an awkward CGI scene of some sort before he scuttled off.

Quote from: Skarg;924946THan shooting Greedo first was consistent with that - when it came down to it, he anticipated, prepared under the table, and shot as soon as it was clear he needed to.

No the point was Han (who doesn't like sneaking around) didn't anticipate that hanging out in one of the usual hangouts for shady smugglers might get him recognized. His raise his hand up to draw Greedo's eye as a set up for shooting the Rodian with the gun he'd drawn under the table was masterful improvisation to get out of a situation he should have anticipated he'd get into and tried to avoid. If Greedo hadn't been greedy enough to go after Han solo and had instead brought along a few partners, the seat of the pants, shoot him under the table, thing might not have worked out so well.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;924969Well, if it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you, but I personally find it to be one of the biggest inconsistencies in film making I can think of. It is so glaring if you watch the first two films with knowledge of the revelation in this third. It is just obvious that in this moment they are not brother and sister, were never meant to be brother and sister, and are enjoying a kiss. Then suddenly in the third movie they are brother and sister. That is an inconsistency.

Or a rather unsettling view of appropriate sibling relations. :eek:

Quote from: Bren;925311No the point was Han (who doesn't like sneaking around) didn't anticipate that hanging out in one of the usual hangouts for shady smugglers might get him recognized. His raise his hand up to draw Greedo's eye as a set up for shooting the Rodian with the gun he'd drawn under the table was masterful improvisation to get out of a situation he should have anticipated he'd get into and tried to avoid. If Greedo hadn't been greedy enough to go after Han solo and had instead brought along a few partners, the seat of the pants, shoot him under the table, thing might not have worked out so well....

Yes the might not have, but we don't know. Han is overconfident but he also manages risk. Isn't there a scene where a squad of stormtroopers seems to be about to catch Han & Chewie in the cantina booth with Luke & Obi-wan, but when they make it to his booth, Luke & Obi-wan aren't there? Of course, that could have been Obi-wan's work.

QuoteOr a rather unsettling view of appropriate sibling relations. :eek:

I still don't get why people who have no idea they are siblings should be expected to act like siblings...

Quote from: Skarg;925330I still don't get why people who have no idea they are siblings should be expected to act like siblings...

• Because the incest taboo is culturally pretty strong so if you don't want it to be incest squicky the two siblings should have a different sort of feeling in the force than "the lovers." On some level they should intuitively know that they aren't attracted in that way.

• Or maybe not, if the author wants to go there for some weird reason. And that is supposing it's not a continuity error based on Lucas changing stuff (who shot first?) after the fact and just making shit up as he goes along without a very strong a tie to continuity. Like he does with a lot of other shit.

• And because it's fiction - lighthearted space opera in fact - not reality or anything that is supposed to closely resemble reality. And the author knows...or maybe he doesn't...when he scripts the kiss "for luck" in film 1 and the romantic rivalry between Luke and Han for Leia that the two are actually brother and sister.

I think you are way overthinking The Force Awakens. Are parts dumb? Sure they are. There's dumb stuff in all the films which just seems dumber the more films that are made and the more times we see really similar dumb stuff. I try not to focus too much attention on continuity and reasonable behavior in my space opera. I find it's much more enjoyable if I look at the big picture, the special effects, and the emotional thrill ride. Which is why prequels 2 and 3 (with the wooden romantic acting of the "stars") are so much less fun than the romantic scenes in the original films ("I love you." "I know.").