It's called Episode V! It's right in the title!Can't wait for Solo. I'm not a huge SW fan past the second movie - the one everyone insists is the "fifth," nowbut this looks like fun.
It seems there is a reason for the visual reboot and the producers aren't being honest about it.
- Thread starter Smoked Salmon
- Start date
I don't think everyone does.
Can't wait for Solo. I'm not a huge SW fan past the second movie - the one everyone insists is the "fifth," now
Loved the original Star Wars trilogy and Force Awakens. Last Jedi has some interesting stuff going on too. I had high hopes for Rogue One and the other prequels, but was disappointed. I don't understand the appeal of prequels, which is why I will skip Solo in theaters.
Discovery - So many reasons I dislike it. The fact that it's also a prequel is one of them. It removes some of the drama when you know that the Federation will probably still be there at the end of the series, barring time travel multiverse scenarios.
I remember while watching DS9 thinking to myself, "The Federation can't be destroyed because TNG still has to make movies and Voyager still has to get home." Or, to quote Worf and O'Brien's discussion in "The Way of the Warrior"...
Worf: "Chief, do you remember when we rescued Captain Picard from the Borg?"
O'Brien: "How could I forget? It was touch and go for a while there. There were moments where I thought we'd all end up assimilated."
Worf: "I never doubted the outcome. We were like Warriors from the Ancient Sagas. There was nothing we could not do."
O'Brien: "Except keep the holodecks working."
I don't expect the Federation to fall in any series, but I do wonder if Discovery or the crew will survive and what'll ultimately happen to them.
Aside from that, I've liked as many prequels as I've disliked. I never clicked with ENT but I love DSC. I don't like the Star Wars prequels but I like Better Call Saul and I liked Caprica. Someone told me I should check out The Hobbit. I still haven't seen it yet.
Worf: "Chief, do you remember when we rescued Captain Picard from the Borg?"
O'Brien: "How could I forget? It was touch and go for a while there. There were moments where I thought we'd all end up assimilated."
Worf: "I never doubted the outcome. We were like Warriors from the Ancient Sagas. There was nothing we could not do."
O'Brien: "Except keep the holodecks working."
I don't expect the Federation to fall in any series, but I do wonder if Discovery or the crew will survive and what'll ultimately happen to them.
Aside from that, I've liked as many prequels as I've disliked. I never clicked with ENT but I love DSC. I don't like the Star Wars prequels but I like Better Call Saul and I liked Caprica. Someone told me I should check out The Hobbit. I still haven't seen it yet.
Last edited:
Yeah. It's the fifth episode, but still the second movie produced.
Funnily, introducing Trek to other friends, when starting up "Where No Man Has Gone Before" I had to explain why we were watching the third aired episode as it was the first produced one with Shatner, and that the production order of all TOS is mixed up.
I wouldn't. Just assume it's tightly paced and not at all padded, and get on with your life.
How about the book? My math teacher in the 11th grade recommended it to me... 22 years later, I still haven't gotten around to reading it yet!
There is actually something lost, the Oliver Harper retrospective on either The Last Jedi or Discovery reviews talked about this, how originally Star Trek and Star Wars was this special thing, Star Wars OT was for example this film series that came out of a specific art film movement from the 70s, it was all these techniques and styles from this film movement brought to the big screen with massive budget and this is what made Star Wars OT unique and special, but now, they're just 3 films of largely a crap franchise that is being bled dry is generic Disney formula, you cannot ever detach Star Wars OT from what it has become thus some of the specialness of Star Wars is lost. Not only that, if you have watched Disney Wars, you know your OT beloved characters, die meaningless deaths, alone and miserable, having achieved literally nothing.
In the review they touch upon Star Trek is much of the same, TOS, TNG and DS9 are special and even VOY and ENT have still that special Star Trek feel, but after Kelvin and now Discovery, Star Trek IS just now another generic modern franchise with generic storytelling, no unique feel whatsoever and that cheapens the franchise as a whole, not only that, because Discovery "is canon" yet doesn't fit anywhere at all really, it butts head with the worldbuilding of the universe.
I actually do feel something is lost with these cheap, lazy modern sequels/remakes in the end, you cannot separate the franchise from the film. Star Wars OT are still great films, but now when you watch it, you know every character here basically dies achieving nothing and I have no idea how you're supposed to square Star Trek TOS is set in the same universe as Discovery at all.
The Star Wars OT consists of three well done and entertaining films, but let's not pretend they're an art form or anything. That's just silly.
Star Trek's been pretty generic all along. Hell, the greater majority of the franchise more or less cycles through something like five generic sci-fi plots on a near constant basis. And world building has never been one of the franchise's strengths. Disco is flawed and doesn't really fit in with the Prime Universe like the writers insist it does, but that doesn't mean we suddenly look at the other shows with rose-tinted glasses.
Wow..such a condescending and hostile response for simply expressing my opinion. Ouch! Drama? My statement wasn't meant to convey any emotion, I am simply stating my opinion on the subject. A fact I am perplexed at why you would attach such ridiculous statements to my opinion? I never said anything about my childhood...
Kinda shitty to put that upon me for no reason other than to prop up ones prowess.. Sad.
I'm just not a fan of the newer star wars, that's all. I like the originals, sure. The prequels. Eh..it's a mood sort of thing. TFA? Meh..seen it when it was called "Star Wars" and later renamed "A New Hope." and then there's TLJ...flying leia Mary poppins, blue teet milk, free the space horses willy, and Holdo, gravity in Space bombing raids, the long chase, etc..etc..etc.. Rogue one. What's the point they all dead..LMAO! Seriously, it lacked.
Vader..meh..fan service like a paid..well you know.
Solo...not really my thing. Seen him die like a bitch already by his dork son. Do I really need that wound rubbed in salt with a movie about his younger self. Nah.. If solo wasn't killed in TFA as an obi wan standin, then maybe the dream of him alive and fighting for good would be there, as it stands, making him a jerky father, scoundrel again, and back to smuggling, tarnished his memory, and so on, and so on, all the legitimate arguments are there and well known.
However as before I offered the caveat, that there's nothing wrong if you or anyone else actually likes it. Just not my thing is all. Cheers.
Last edited:
Ah...now I see.. No sorry my mistake there. I should have added "Disney" Star Wars. Not the genre as a whole. My bad.
To KennyB, I can now see why you got that impression I was talking about all things star wars. I apologize. Tho you're reply was still snarky and condescending.
Why are people so hung up over that? There is artificial gravity on the bombers, and the bombs are not going to suddenly stop moving when they hit vacuum, it’s simple physics. An object in motion stays in motion until after upon by another force. Since there is nothing stopping the bombs in space, they’re going to keep going.
not really, the second force is removed it should float, and since there's energy winds in space, there would be resistance in it's fall. the bombs should have tumbled in zero G, like an astronaut's tooth brush on the ISS.
Tuskin38 - That explanation works perfectly well.
Another I read is that the mines use repulsors to be impelled out of the bombers bay doors, and are gravity-attracted to the Dreadnaught once they are released from the bay of the bomber, hence they reach their target and detonate when impacting the larger object of the dreadnaught.
But, TBH - yours works even better, IMO!
Another I read is that the mines use repulsors to be impelled out of the bombers bay doors, and are gravity-attracted to the Dreadnaught once they are released from the bay of the bomber, hence they reach their target and detonate when impacting the larger object of the dreadnaught.
But, TBH - yours works even better, IMO!
Honestly, this is likely one reason why modern drama has edged toward heavy serialization, rotating ensemble casts and the "anyone can die at any time" format. It means that you don't need so much suspension of disbelief to be wrapped up in the risk to the characters. Anything really can happen, and there's no guarantee of a happy ending at the end of the episode - or even the season.
According to the Visual Dictionary they’re magnetically launched from the bombers, and you’re right, magnetically attracted to the target.
That book by the way written months before the movie came out, so it wasn’t in response to fan complaints.
That 'science' made my brain hurt. Tuskin is right - an object ejected at a particular speed will continue at that velocity until acted upon by another force - in this case, impact with the hull of the Dreadnought. Also, wind resistance in space? There's a possibility they were still in the upper atmosphere, but the short distance and the very low particle density at such an altitude would make any effect negligible.
The only part about the bombers that is weird is the way that there appears to be no visible pressure seal on the ship - but one can infer a forcefield without too much effort.
For all the physics problems in Star wars generally, that's not a big one.
Yeah, there is a white or blue glow near the exit of the chute , like you see on the star destroyer or Death Star hangars in the OT.
Anyways back to the correct universe, lmao
Similar threads
