Solo: A Star Wars Story

[p1stonhead]

JagLover said:

Halb said:

The thing about enigmatic characters, they're enigmatic. Explaining away very single thing usually dissolves them. Writing 101.
It's not SW only, one can see how owners of IPs are unable to handle their property properly because they don't understand it/don't like it/ or want to change it, or all three. It seems quite common these days and those that can do, are the rare breed.

So what you are saying is you don't want a Boba Fett prequel

God no. Is he even that interesting of a character?

Personally I can’t believe they haven’t made an obiwan stand-alone with Ewan mcgregor yet. Probably another story which doesn’t need to be told.

[HorneyMX5]

An Obi Wan film is The me of the few I think could work. McGregor is at a good age where he can pick the role back up and have a story based around his isolation before A New Hope. We already l ow his back story so there’s nothing to ruin and scope to build an interesting noir film around the Hutts and other goings on.

[p1stonhead]

HorneyMX5 said:

An Obi Wan film is The me of the few I think could work. McGregor is at a good age where he can pick the role back up and have a story based around his isolation before A New Hope. We already l ow his back story so there’s nothing to ruin and scope to build an interesting noir film around the Hutts and other goings on.

Don’t get me wrong, I like McGregor and thought he was one of the best parts of the prequels, it’s just they have made a mess of a lot of stuff since taking over, so not sure Disney have it in them.

Have any of the films since they took over actually been more than totally forgettable cash grabs?

Excluding Rogue One which I thought was excellent.

[Halb]

JagLover said:

So what you are saying is you don't want a Boba Fett prequel

[Nik da Greek]

DMN said:

Nik da Greek said:

But wait... Disney's scriptwriters do know that a parsec is a measure of distance, right?

Yes, and thats the point. Doing the run in 12 parsecs means flying closer to the blackhole. Which most craft can't do, so they take a longer route which puts them in less danger. Hence Hans boast.

Hell, no

He makes the boast in response to a question about how fast his ship is. It jarred even in ANH and trying to explain it for a third of this film was a bad mistake because it makes less sense, not more.

[p1stonhead]

Nik da Greek said:

DMN said:

Nik da Greek said:

But wait... Disney's scriptwriters do know that a parsec is a measure of distance, right?

Yes, and thats the point. Doing the run in 12 parsecs means flying closer to the blackhole. Which most craft can't do, so they take a longer route which puts them in less danger. Hence Hans boast.

Hell, no

He makes the boast in response to a question about how fast his ship is. It jarred even in ANH and trying to explain it for a third of this film was a bad mistake because it makes less sense, not more.

DMN explains it perfectly in terms of why distance being shorter means it’s faster.

[Nik da Greek]

Really? Or have I just triggered the PH argue-for-the-sake-of-arguing massive? Because it sure still sounds like bks to me. If people can do things really quickly, they tend to measure that feat in terms of speed, not in terms of how elaborately they can distort the measurement system

[p1stonhead]

Nik da Greek said:

Really? Or have I just triggered the PH argue-for-the-sake-of-arguing massive? Because it sure still sounds like bks to me. If people can do things really quickly, they tend to measure that feat in terms of speed, not in terms of how elaborately they can distort the measurement system

Go back and read what he wrote.

The ship could take a shorter route (the boast about distance) as it could go close to a black hole and not get affected due to how fast it was going. If it was going slower it would have been sucked in. Like how a fast boat could skim past something and a slower one may get caught in a current.

I’ve heard this explanation for years and yes it was probably thought up after the fact, but it still makes sense.

Ps this is the most dweeby discussion / argument ever

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 11th February 12:40

[Nik da Greek]

I understood what he wrote the first time round and yes, it does make sense in isolation. Just not really in the context that... as you point out... was arbitrarily laid down in a throwaway comment in 1977. Trying to retrofit all that astrophysics into an ill-conceived sentence where the scriptwriter clearly didn't know miles from hours is inelegant at best and downright insulting to our intelligence at worst.

Plus, a parsec is a truly massive measurement of distance. It's three and a quarter light years (also not a measurement of time!) or 19 trillion miles. Do we really see those kinds of distances being represented while the (comparatively) tiny ship squeezes past Squiddly and a couple of floating mountains? I'd suggest not. None of it makes sense. And yeah, I know a lot of the rest of the film doesn't really make sense either but for me it really jarred

Yes. Geeky is good. Pedantry matters

[Bullett]

He's a bull stter, con man and hustler. It was an idle boast to impress an old man and a young farm boy.

[Nik da Greek]

Exactly. Disney would have been well advised to stick to that rather than try to explain it, force half the film to arbitrarily fit into this bullst explanation.... and fail abjectly at both aspects

[youngsyr]

Nik da Greek said:

I understood what he wrote the first time round and yes, it does make sense in isolation. Just not really in the context that... as you point out... was arbitrarily laid down in a throwaway comment in 1977. Trying to retrofit all that astrophysics into an ill-conceived sentence where the scriptwriter clearly didn't know miles from hours is inelegant at best and downright insulting to our intelligence at worst.

Plus, a parsec is a truly massive measurement of distance. It's three and a quarter light years (also not a measurement of time!) or 19 trillion miles. Do we really see those kinds of distances being represented while the (comparatively) tiny ship squeezes past Squiddly and a couple of floating mountains? I'd suggest not. None of it makes sense. And yeah, I know a lot of the rest of the film doesn't really make sense either but for me it really jarred

Yes. Geeky is good. Pedantry matters

Wow, you know Star Wars isn't set in the modern day and has no relation to our modern society? What makes you think that the Star Wars definition of a parsec is the same as our definition of it?

Do you really accept that a spaceship like the Millenium Falcon can fly and maneuver in a breathable atmosphere with Earth like gravity, yet get hung up on the definition of a word?

Edited by youngsyr on Monday 11th February 13:03

[Nik da Greek]

youngsyr said:

Wow, you know Star Wars isn't set in the modern day and has no relation to our modern society? What makes you think that the Star Wars definition of a parsec is the same as our definition of it?

Really?

[youngsyr]

Nik da Greek said:

youngsyr said:

Wow, you know Star Wars isn't set in the modern day and has no relation to our modern society? What makes you think that the Star Wars definition of a parsec is the same as our definition of it?

Really?

Yes really. Sci Fi by design requires a suspension of belief. I find it incredible that anyone can accept the universal rejection of the laws of physics, yet gets completely hung up by the improper use of a single word.

[Nik da Greek]

Humans tend to be creatures of habit and like measurements to stay pretty constant. For example, although an obsolete term of measurement, a cubit is still a cubit despite the fact no-ones really built much using them since Noah had his rainy day. If you needed an SI unit that described flying within inches of a black hole, it'd probably be easier just to make one up than re-use one that has fallen out of favour but actually meant something completely different. It's not, as a rule, how language tends to evolve.

But since this already took place "Long ago in a Galaxy far, far away..." parsec is a definition we presuambly inherited from these people via some obscure race memory? Or simply parallel evolution and we happened to arrive at the exact same portmanteau word to describe something completely different?

Or... just maybe... it's a bullst explanation for something that was never a thing and you're arguing just for the sake of contrariness?

As for science fiction being able to trample over everything for the sake of a good story, I'd suggest that Larry Niven and Isaac Asimov might like a word with you about that. To name but two...

[youngsyr]

Nik da Greek said:

Humans tend to be creatures of habit and like measurements to stay pretty constant. For example, although an obsolete term of measurement, a cubit is still a cubit despite the fact no-ones really built much using them since Noah had his rainy day. If you needed an SI unit that described flying within inches of a black hole, it'd probably be easier just to make one up than re-use one that has fallen out of favour but actually meant something completely different. It's not, as a rule, how language tends to evolve.

But since this already took place "Long ago in a Galaxy far, far away..." parsec is a definition we presuambly inherited from these people via some obscure race memory? Or simply parallel evolution and we happened to arrive at the exact same portmanteau word to describe something completely different?

Or... just maybe... it's a bullst explanation for something that was never a thing and you're arguing just for the sake of contrariness?

As for science fiction being able to trample over everything for the sake of a good story, I'd suggest that Larry Niven and Isaac Asimov might like a word with you about that. To name but two...

Or maybe you're being ridiculously pedantic about an inconsequential detail in a film series absolutely chock full of impossible feats and irregularities?

[Nik da Greek]

Yeah. Your point being....?

So, pedantic. But right, yeah?

[youngsyr]

Nik da Greek said:

Yeah. Your point being....?

So, pedantic. But right, yeah?

No, pedantic to the point of ridiculousness to focus on that specific detail as blowing the immersion in a Star Wars film.

[Nik da Greek]

OK, well as I said, I'm not the one who put the focus on it, the scriptwriters did when they turned it into a significant chunk of the movie. But thanks for your opinion and for bringing absolutely nothing except insults to the discussion

[FourWheelDrift]

I still haven't been bothered to see it.

Watching reviews are more entertaining - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texYhVa2ddU