Sennadar Forums

Saw it last night at a pre-showing. Great movie. Worth seeing in IMAX. Good story, excellent cgi, especially the destruction of Snokes command ship.

No during or after credits scene, but they are worth watching.

Maybe i'll watch it...... in a year or two. Its not like its a very good book or anything.

its not like they are following the books well anyway.

Ya the books got the big middle finger. But then only some of the books could remotely be called good or better.

The last few star trek movies also took a different route than previous series or books, but they at least tried to reason that this new star trek is in a parallel universe and so things might be a bit different. Star Wars just throws nice special effects at us and expects a rain of gold as a result.

Previously Star Wars was much more aware of the storyline and went to great lengths to keep it all consistent. Star Trek on the other hand had quite a few holes in it in the past. Now... in my eyes, Star Wars has pretty much been sold out to those who just wanted the name on their product hoping to get more money from it than if they came up with a name on their own. I doubt the people getting paid to write the movie scripts have read any of the hundreds of books that continued to tell the story after the first three movies a few decades ago.

On the other hand, I had a few bitter disappointments in movies after I read the books and had high expectations. Since then, I either read the books or watch the movie - but never, ever both. Despite the saying that pictures say more than a thousand words and movies having millions of fast-moving pictures, no movie that goes less than half a day seems capable of reproducing any of the little details that go into world building, background story and character development that are so prevalent in good books.

MartinK wrote: On the other hand, I had a few bitter disappointments in movies after I read the books and had high expectations. Since then, I either read the books or watch the movie - but never, ever both. Despite the saying that pictures say more than a thousand words and movies having millions of fast-moving pictures, no movie that goes less than half a day seems capable of reproducing any of the little details that go into world building, background story and character development that are so prevalent in good books.

I agree with this. I haven't and dont plan on reading the any star wars books. I will just watch the new movie but i wont be in a big hurry to watch even that. While i do consider myself a fan of science fiction, i have no interest in some of the big names in the genre. In fact, my favorite books are by self published authors who couldnt interest a publisher in buying their books.

kyli wrote:..., i have no interest in some of the big names in the genre.

The Star Wars expanded universe isn't all that bad. It got me reading english books when I was young - translation took more than a year per book and I just couldn't wait so I ordered an english book. Had the nice side effect of providing days of fun since it took a lot longer to read in a language I wasn't used to. Sorry to say, that advantage vanished soon after.

I hate books that stuff all the important details into just a single book. Good stories need more than one book. Although, Star Wars and Star Trek both suffered a bit from getting managed by a big company that distributed planed books to a bunch of different authors. It wasn't a single author that developed the story but a group of them with people being added to it and others dropping out. But that is a format that is used in many brand names. Heck, even an indie author named Michael Anderle is trying his hands with that sort of thing, although more like other authors taking up one aspect of his universe and developing their own stories in his world and with him working together on it.

Sad to say that some book series take decades and suddenly stop when the author either can't continue due to health issues or dies of old age. I'm thinking of David Eddings or Patrick O'Brian, both with unfinished stories left behind.

kyli wrote:In fact, my favorite books are by self published authors who couldnt interest a publisher in buying their books.

Yeah, like, oh... Fel? Although I don't rememer him mentioning he tried to publish anything back when self publishing still didn't exist. And if you could see posting in a forum on his own website as 'self publishing'.

But thanks to amazon self publishing is now a thing these days that goes beyond a few people posting their works for free on a blog of forum. There are even some authors that left their publishing houses and went indie on their own. I'm thinking of Mike Shepherd with his Kris Longknife books, although I couldn't find his announcement of that fact on his site just now. Just that his newest books go under the label KL & MM Books whereas work from two years ago still got published by Ace.

MartinK wrote:

kyli wrote:In fact, my favorite books are by self published authors who couldnt interest a publisher in buying their books.

Yeah, like, oh... Fel? Although I don't rememer him mentioning he tried to publish anything back when self publishing still didn't exist. And if you could see posting in a forum on his own website as 'self publishing'.

But thanks to amazon self publishing is now a thing these days that goes beyond a few people posting their works for free on a blog of forum. There are even some authors that left their publishing houses and went indie on their own. I'm thinking of Mike Shepherd with his Kris Longknife books, although I couldn't find his announcement of that fact on his site just now. Just that his newest books go under the label KL & MM Books whereas work from two years ago still got published by Ace.

I was talking about Fel but also Thomas Deprima's books and I recently discovered Laurence Dahners too. I love both of their books though I've read some mixed reviews from them. I'm actually not sure if Dahners ever tried selling to a publisher but i'lI know Deprima did. I do usually like longer books with more worldbuilding, but I also love a good story and thats what they give me in my opinion.

Pff I think Star Wars fans should just be glad that Last Jedi isn't a somehow a remake of Empire Strikes Back.

Rakshasa claw wrote:Pff I think Star Wars fans should just be glad that Last Jedi isn't a somehow a remake of Empire Strikes Back.

You will have to admit Rakshasa that the "siege" was rather strongly pulling its inspiration from Empire Strikes Back... But I feel was well done - they added enough new stuff to mix in with a idea/scene from empire to make it work. I felt that it was different enough, had enough extras and additional personal scenes that Empire did not have that it worked well.

Rakshasa claw wrote:Pff I think Star Wars fans should just be glad that Last Jedi isn't a somehow a remake of Empire Strikes Back.

A remake of Empire Strikes Back?! Now you've done it. Within the next 10 years Disney will come up with the glorious idea of doing the first three movies from back in the '70s again. It's got to be better than it was then, right? At the very least, the special effects will be glorious. And who cares if it ain't Harrison Ford? Be thankful we went shopping for someone that at least looked a bit like him. :-O

I haven't watched the new movie yet. And I wouldn't have objected to The Force Awakens being a remake as much if it WAS a remake. I realize that Hollywood's stooges can't think up new ideas more than about once a decade so they need to reboot old movies constantly. My issue with Force Awakens is that it was supposed to be a continuation of the Star Wars saga that was essentially a retelling of the A New Hope.

As for the siege being like the attack on Hoth Base, eh it's okay to re-use elements of a previous movie. But let's face it, when it's easier to point out what's different between two movies rather than to illustrate what is similar.... that's a remake.