Adventure trends

[The Heretic]

...most of the Prequels weren't so bad if watched as a trilogy on their own (I loved Episode 1 as a kid, not so much as an adult, but still...)

Well. Um. I recently re-watched the Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, the first time since I had seen them in the theater, and...

AotC was annoying as fuck. All of the characters were annoying. The relationship between Anakin and Obi-wan was antagonistic. You almost wanted Anakin to turn the the dark side by the end.

The beginning of RotS was okay but Anakin's Mary-Sueisms got obnoxious fast. After they got past that and to the actual fall of Anakin Skywalker it picked up considerably. The last half of RotS was probably on par with RotJ. Not as good as ANH, and nowhere near ESB, but still worth watching.

I haven't seen Rogue One yet. Maybe eventually. I have watched the Mandalorian, Ahsoka, and the Acolyte, and I found all three to be enjoyable.

The Heretic

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I haven't seen Rogue One yet. Maybe eventually. I have watched the Mandalorian, Ahsoka, and the Acolyte, and I found all three to be enjoyable.

If you liked the shows, you'll probably like Rogue One. I'd advise against Solo though - even though it carries a lot of the same style as Rogue One, it's demonstrably a much worse film.

As far as the shows go, I've only seen three of them: I felt Madalorian was above average, Book of Boba Fett was ok, and Andor was slightly better than above average. The rest I've either heard bad things about, or I just don't care for the characters (like I have no interest in Ahsoka, because I never watched the Clone Wars animated series) so I haven't checked them out.

Wow we got off topic fast. Sorry Malrex.

 

[squeen]

You are very much in the minority on that one.

I know. Make it make sense.

After Rogue One, I stopped watching Star Wars. That was a big jump from a kid who was gaga over SW from 1977 through the 80s. I had that original (New Hope) poster on my bedroom wall for a decade.

Because it had left such a bad taste in my mouth, I didn't watch Solo until years after it came out. Despite the weak lead actor, I was pleasantly surprise. Ron Howard did a fairly decent homage. If felt like a 1980's movie. I can understand why he'd be respectful -- Howard got his big break in Lucas' American Graffiti.

The prequels were weak, in part because Lucas targeted children---thinking that was his core audience & legacy. Back in the 70's they asked him why he started with Part IV, and his honest answer was "that's where all the action is". The prequels were suppose to be Machiavellian political intrigue. Those two goals were never terribly compatible.

It's not just nostalgia. I can watch the original trilogy again today and still appreciate it. I did enjoy the 1st season of the Mandalorian (as an episodic TV western, there was little "Star Wars" to it). Jon Favreau had a real, alternative vision. But the other Disney bilge water...ugh! They should just admit they're inept and let it go. Genius is rare and almost impossible to mass produce.

What's passed is the past. I have VHF cassettes and DVDs...they can't take it away.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I didn't watch Solo until years after it came out. Despite the weak lead actor, I was pleasantly surprise.

I found Rogue One to be very compelling - the characters are flawed and realistic, the stakes and situations are tense, the universe canon is honored, the visual effects look great, the last scene is literally described by people as "the coolest scene in all of Star Wars"... but if you liked Solo and hated Rogue One, I really don't know what to say. We are clearly different people, and no amount of convincing from me is going to change your mind.

For the record, I worship the OG trilogy as a wonder of the world. My literal very first memory is of my dad watching A New Hope in the basement, specifically the scene where we meet Vader right at the start. I am just as disappointed in the prequels and sequels as you are. I get just as upset over Disney meddling as you do. But Rogue One is still excellent.

 

[The Heretic]

The prequels were weak, in part because Lucas targeted children---thinking that was his core audience & legacy. Back in the 70's they asked him why he started with Part IV, and his honest answer was "that's where all the action is". The prequels were suppose to be Machiavellian political intrigue. Those two goals were never terribly compatible.

Children were always Lucas's target audience, but this became moreso after he had kids of his own. Also, the prequels were the first movies created after his divorce. His wife had a TREMENDOUS affect on the story telling in the first trilogy. They probably would have been just as bad as the prequels without her suggestions. For instance, she suggested the dramatic countdown battle at the end, where they need to stop the Death Star before it destroys the moon of Yavin. Apparently George originally had this battle out in space, probably where the Death Star was for most of the film. This would have lowered the stakes dramatically.

It's not just nostalgia. I can watch the original trilogy again today and still appreciate it. I did enjoy the 1st season of the Mandalorian (as an episodic TV western, there was little "Star Wars" to it). Jon Favreau had a real, alternative vision. But the other Disney bilge water...ugh! They should just admit they're inept and let it go. Genius is rare and almost impossible to mass produce.

A big part of the problem is that you can't relive the thrill you had when you were first introduced to Star Wars (sound familiar?). It's okay to let it go. The new Star Wars is not for you, and that's fine.

The Heretic

 

[The Heretic]

If you liked the shows, you'll probably like Rogue One. I'd advise against Solo though - even though it carries a lot of the same style as Rogue One, it's demonstrably a much worse film.

I should probably watch Rogue One before I watch Andor. Or who knows, maybe not?

I agree with you about Solo. Han Solo was the true hero for the original trilogy. Trying to do a prequel film for him was a big mistake. People have a lot invested in Han as a character. I'm sure almost no one was satisfied with what they came up with in comparison to what they had thought up for themselves as Solo's backstory. This was the same issue with the prequels. The backstory for Obi-Wan and Darth Vader lost a lot of its mystique, and people probably didn't expect it to go the way it did (compared to their headcanon).

As far as the shows go, I've only seen three of them: I felt Madalorian was above average, Book of Boba Fett was ok, and Andor was slightly better than above average. The rest I've either heard bad things about, or I just don't care for the characters (like I have no interest in Ahsoka, because I never watched the Clone Wars animated series) so I haven't checked them out.

Oh yeah, I saw the Book of Boba Fett too. Not bad but it had annoying elements. Like that cyberpunk street gang. They were obnoxious.

I haven't watched the Clone Wars either, but I've absorbed enough of the backstory to make Ahsoka worth watching. I enjoyed it immensely, and I probably would have moreso if I had watched the Clone Wars and that other SW cartoon (Rebels?). Then again, you might find the allusions to Lord of the Rings in Ahsoka* to be obnoxious. To each their own.

The Acolyte is good too. It's unfortunate that it got mixed up with the culture wars. It expands some of the fan theories about how the Jedi's shortcomings were an integral part of their downfall.

* What'shisname is also a fanboy of LotR, so certain allusions were made in Ahsoka. I enjoyed it but I could see how it would rub people the wrong way.

The Heretic

 

[The Heretic]

(Trying to get this thread back on track)

ya...that was kinda of my point with starting this thread. Im in agreement with DP on this one. I just get confused if someone IS trying to do something different, then why try to compare it to Isle of Dread or Moria, etc. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but just see this alot on forums and not necessarily this one. Like every single island, even if its a snow covered in the mountains "ya, but that adventure is no Isle of Dread..." huh?

There's a sweat spot to this. We want something new but it also has to be as thrilling as the classics were when we were first exposed to them. If the new attempt fails it's too easy to say "this is no Isle of Dread!" than it is to say "this was an interesting attempt but it failed because (a) and (b)".

We want to feel like 11 year olds again, introduced to the Isle of Dread for the first time, while getting something new and unique that is not the Isle of Dread.


The Heretic

 

[Beoric]

Well, I see I forgot to press "Post" on this last night. Will get back to the SW discussion that has taken over this thread in a bit.

I don't need more cultists performing a doomsday ritual...

I'm going to go way off topic here to complain that the stereotypical cultists performing a doomsday ritual never feel like real people to me, and I always have to find a way to make them more believable. A lot of the time, that's not possible, and I just can't use the material.

This is related to my irritation with modules that have a BBEG who is always "Insane!" or "Crazed!" I think there was a LOT of this in 3e, and quite a bit in 4e as well. Like, can we come up with a plausible motivation for villains to do what they do?

Circling back to the topic at hand, this is my caveat to the "this has been done to death" problem. IMO, what "done to death" usually signifies is that there is a glut of half-assed, poorly executed, derivative knock offs. Stuff that is done really well never gets old. It's why we can re-use the great modules, or read great books or watch great movies over and over. It's why I can enjoy different theatrical and cinematic productions of Shakespeare's plays. It's why I have a playlist that includes nine different covers of "House of the Rising Sun."

Like every single island, even if its a snow covered in the mountains "ya, but that adventure is no Isle of Dread..." huh?

This kind of relates to my point. Isle of Dread is ... ok. It is decent, but not brilliant. The reason it gets as much attention as it does is that it is really the only mainstream, honest-to-god hexcrawl that everybody knows about (shut up, nobody has heard of Wilderlands of High Fantasy, and that's really a setting anyway). Is far as I can tell, most of the knockoffs of IoD aren't remotely like IoD because, whatever setting flavour they might have, they don't use the hexcrawl mechanic, and a huge part of the experience of IoD is the hexcrawl exploration mechanic. So this is a glut of half-assed, poorly executed, derivative knock offs that actually aren't like the original at all.

Isle of Dread works because its setting and design creates an environment where players expect to be exploring uncharted areas - it is literally uncharted in-game - and the module revolves around the pleasure of exploration and discovery. This is very different from the "points of light" aesthetic where PCs are generally traveling to a known destination along roads. If you make an Isle of Dread that is a poincrawl, it is not an Isle of Dread.

I would love to see more self-contained hexcrawl modules that thought hard about why the players would want to engage in them. Isle of Dread could definitely be done better, but it does have a lot of good elements. The players start out with a map of the coast, so they already have a decision to make as to where to land, which gets them in the right frame of mind to think about the impact their choices will make on their exploration. If they land near the villages, there are paths to guide them for a ways as they get a feel for the exploration mechanic. And then, as they move into the interior, the path ends - but it ends in a place where the presence of a lake means there are only two logical choices as to how to proceed. And there are big landmarks to orient them, and to suggest an ultimate destination if they can beat a path to it.

On the other hand, if they land nowhere near the villages, where it is clear that there are no roads, they have already decided that they are ok with that sort of exploration. And the position of the sea, and the mountains, and the giant mountain in the middle, tends to funnel them in a particular direction, so they always have some information to inform their decisions, and they are not paralyzed with limitless choices.

I think I've sort of talked myself into liking IoD more, now that I think about it. But it is a shade to empty, and IIRC a lot of the encounters aren't particularly interesting. But I'm going to re-read it now.

 

[Beoric]

I agree with you about Solo. Han Solo was the true hero for the original trilogy. Trying to do a prequel film for him was a big mistake. People have a lot invested in Han as a character. I'm sure almost no one was satisfied with what they came up with in comparison to what they had thought up for themselves as Solo's backstory.

This. I haven't seen Solo, and I don't intend to. Solo works because he is a shady character with a mysterious past. My assumption is that making his past not mysterious kind of blows it.

Oh yeah, I saw the Book of Boba Fett too. Not bad but it had annoying elements. Like that cyberpunk street gang. They were obnoxious.

I haven't watched the Clone Wars either, but I've absorbed enough of the backstory to make Ahsoka worth watching. I enjoyed it immensely, and I probably would have moreso if I had watched the Clone Wars and that other SW cartoon (Rebels?). Then again, you might find the allusions to Lord of the Rings in Ahsoka* to be obnoxious. To each their own.

The Acolyte is good too. It's unfortunate that it got mixed up with the culture wars. It expands some of the fan theories about how the Jedi's

For me, Rebels marks a real turning point in the development of the setting. Rebels is the first time the Empire is shown to be objectively worse than the Republic. Prior to Rebels, the Empire is only shown to be bad for the political elites it displaced - politicians and Jedi - whereas it was pretty much the same for everybody else. AFAIK, Rebels is also the first to show use the "middle way" of the Force, which I think is where they were going with The Acolyte before it was cancelled. Some of the SW writers and producers have starte to notice that the Jedi way is actually pretty shitty.

Both Clone Wars (cartoon) and Rebels devlope Ahsoka as a character, which definitely impacted on my appreciation of Ahsoka the series.

Boba Fett may be the weakest of the live action TV shows.

I disliked the prequels as individual movies (Amadala dating the kid she she used to babysit is creepy, and though she is brilliant and tough in the first movie, her brains leak out of her ears by the second; also Anakin's/Vader's "Noooo!" was cringe). But I hate them more as a story arc, because I think they utterly failed to give a reasonable explanation for Anakin's decline and acceptance of the Dark Side. Compare this to the development of Lex Luthor's character in Smallville. Also, Anakin in the latter two prequels was unbearably whiny. Clone Wars (cartoon) did a much better job of portaying Anakin, both as someone to admire, and someone whose flaws could potentially lead him to the Dark Side.

 

[The Heretic]

This. I haven't seen Solo, and I don't intend to. Solo works because he is a shady character with a mysterious past. My assumption is that making his past not mysterious kind of blows it.

From what I read, they crammed too much into the movie. Why does Han wear vests! Why is the millenium falcon missing escape pods! What was the game between Han and Lando over the falcon like! Maybe they could've tackled one of them, but putting them all in one tidy little package diminishes the character.

For me, Rebels marks a real turning point in the development of the setting. Rebels is the first time the Empire is shown to be objectively worse than the Republic. Prior to Rebels, the Empire is only shown to be bad for the political elites it displaced - politicians and Jedi - whereas it was pretty much the same for everybody else. AFAIK, Rebels is also the first to show use the "middle way" of the Force, which I think is where they were going with The Acolyte before it was cancelled. Some of the SW writers and producers have starte to notice that the Jedi way is actually pretty shitty.

Oh yeah, we did discuss that before, didn't we? You do get the genocide in Aalderan. That's pretty nasty. But none of the original movies had the chance to show how awful the Empire was in everyday life. None of them took place on any of the core worlds. The closest you get is the excessive police presence in Mos Eisley.

I disliked the prequels as individual movies (Amadala dating the kid she she used to babysit is creepy, and though she is brilliant and tough in the first movie, her brains leak out of her ears by the second; also Anakin's/Vader's "Noooo!" was cringe). But I hate them more as a story arc, because I think they utterly failed to give a reasonable explanation for Anakin's decline and acceptance of the Dark Side. Compare this to the development of Lex Luthor's character in Smallville. Also, Anakin in the latter two prequels was unbearably whiny. Clone Wars (cartoon) did a much better job of portaying Anakin, both as someone to admire, and someone whose flaws could potentially lead him to the Dark Side.

The "No!" is a little cringey, but I can tolerate it as an homage to Frankenstein. Speaking of old movies (and serials), I had an interesting observation while re-watching ANH recently. At the very beginning of the move, Darth Vader sounds very whiny when he declares "Tear apart this ship until you find those plans!". But he also has an accent I can't place, one that wouldn't seem out of place in a movie from the 30's or 40's. Also, this makes the voice acting for Darth Vader in parts of ANH kind of cringe. Did Lucas have James Earl Jones deepen Vader's voice in later movies in the series? I'll find out when I get to Empire.

Speaking of whiny, I found that Anakin wasn't that bad in RotS. Certainly not as obnoxious as in AotC.

Wasn't Amidala supposed to be 15 (and Anakin 12?) in the Phantom Menace? I could almost see that working. Almost. But Amidala didn't seem like she was 15. She seemed more like a 20 year old. Cringe away!

The Heretic

 

[Beoric]

@The Heretic , I think Amadala was supposed to be 14 and Anakin was 9. And yes, I had no idea when I watched the movie that she was anything like that young. She wasn't just coded as an adult, she was coded as an experienced and sophisticated adult. I suspect there was a one-line reference to her being 14, but if so I totally missed it, and it wasn't enough to overcome her actual characterization.

In Attack of the Clones Anakin was 19, and Amadala was 24. Which would have been fine(ish) if Phantom Menace Amadala had acted like a 14 year old. But whereas Amadala in PM may have acted like a (very mature and politically experienced) 24 year old, Amadala in AotC acted more like a 14 year old.

But Lucas was always shit when it came to characterization. I think he once said that he would have preferred it if he didn't have to use actors for his movies; if my memory is correct, I think that is telling.

 

[squeen]

But Lucas was always shit when it came to characterization. I think he once said that he would have preferred it if he didn't have to use actors for his movies; if my memory is correct, I think that is telling.

I have to disagree. American Graffiti was all characters and it was a huge hit. New Hope worked so well because of the characters. F/X did sort of take over because that's what blew everyone's minds in '77.

This. I haven't seen Solo, and I don't intend to. Solo works because he is a shady character with a mysterious past. My assumption is that making his past not mysterious kind of blows it.

Yes! THIS is precisely what's wrong with exploring backstory. I all movies, book, D&D, etc. Idiotic fan retcons.

Let us consider Obi Wan: How much better was Alec Guinness as a mysterious wizard? Everything that came later just made the character smaller and smaller --- even though I like Ewan McGregor as an actor.

However, for me, the dude in Solo was not Han...just a dumb kid, so I just enjoyed the movie because it was fun and had a decent plot. Woody Harrelson and Emilia Clark were both excellent. When it was over, I wanted to know what was going to happen next.

 

[Beoric]

Let us consider Obi Wan: How much better was Alec Guinness as a mysterious wizard? Everything that came later just made the character smaller and smaller --- even though I like Ewan McGregor as an actor.

However, for me, the dude in Solo was not Han...just a dumb kid, so I just enjoyed the movie because it was fun and had a decent plot. Woody Harrelson and Emilia Clark were both excellent. When it was over, I wanted to know what was going to happen next.

Uh, the mysterious space wizard thing was never going to last, since Luke's arc is to eventually become a space wizard. And Anakin's story couldn't be told without also telling Obi Wan's. And I do think Anakin's story should have been told, they just should have done a better job of it.

 

[The Heretic]

I have to disagree. American Graffiti was all characters and it was a huge hit. New Hope worked so well because of the characters. F/X did sort of take over because that's what blew everyone's minds in '77.

That's an interesting observation. Beoric is correct, Lucas did say that he didn't like directing people. I wonder why American Graffiti turned out so well. Maybe because it was taken from his life experiences?

Yes! THIS is precisely what's wrong with exploring backstory. I all movies, book, D&D, etc. Idiotic fan retcons.

Let us consider Obi Wan: How much better was Alec Guinness as a mysterious wizard? Everything that came later just made the character smaller and smaller --- even though I like Ewan McGregor as an actor.

This is why Ahsoka, the Mandalorian, and the others work so well for me. They are new characters. Well written new characters. The achievements of the original trilogy have not been negated yet. They're not about Han, Leia, and Luke (you can never go home), but they aren't the main characters anyway.

I thought what they were doing with Ahsoka would've been better as a sequel trilogy than what we got. Well anyway...

@squeen with regards to Rogue One, which was worse? The 'objectively bad' filmography or the retconning of the Death Star's fatal flaw? If it's the latter I may not like it.

Uh, the mysterious space wizard thing was never going to last, since Luke's arc is to eventually become a space wizard. And Anakin's story couldn't be told without also telling Obi Wan's. And I do think Anakin's story should have been told, they just should have done a better job of it.

I'm on the fence with Anakin's story needing to be told. It might've been better to give us that information through flashbacks. We'd keep the mystique. Then again it could've worked but Lucas botched it so badly. Anakin wasn't written well as a protagonist. He was too cocky, his flaws were too pronounced. You got the feeling it would only take a gentle tap to make him fall. And the 'friendship' between Anakin and Obi-wan is almost non-existent until the middle of RotS. There's actual affection in some parts of that movie. Not so in Attack.

The Heretic

 

[Beoric]

The 'objectively bad' filmography or the retconning of the Death Star's fatal flaw? If it's the latter I may not like it.

I need to watch it again, but I think to the extent that anything was changed about how the DS came to have a flaw (which I don't remember but I see people arguing about it), the intelligence as to how the flaw came to be that was received by the rebels in A New Hope might not have been entirely accurate. Particularly since (if memory serves) pretty much everyone who received alternate information in R1 died. I think it's a real stretch to that that an effectively unreliable narrator in one movie cannot be contradicted by a different narrator in another movie (who might have also been unreliable, I can't remember). Particularly since we are talking about a pretty trivial detail, in a narrative sense, in both stories. Insofar as they revolved around the schematics, R1 was about getting them and delivering them to Leia, and ANH was about bringing them to the rebel base and using them.

EDIT: I will say this, though. In some ways, R1 doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie. It does not revolve around the elites, and the themes of courage and sacrifice in the face of adversity were largely absent from the franchise to that point, which I feel (to the extent the movies were serious at all) were more oriented towards having faith in yourself and the Force (aka Jedi religion). I remember when I watched it I felt that R1 was more like a Star Trek story set in the Star Wars universe.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think it's a real stretch to that that an effectively unreliable narrator in one movie cannot be contradicted by a different narrator in another movie (who might have also been unreliable, I can't remember). Particularly since we are talking about a pretty trivial detail, in a narrative sense, in both stories.

Yeah, "ret-conned" is a harsh term. Literally one sentence from the original was invalidated ("many Bothans died"); the rest of the canon is unchallenged by RO. To label RO as a "shit movie" because many Bothans *didn't* die... I mean, that just feels shortsighted. It's not a flawless franchise; we all know this.

If it helps though, I like to imagine that all those rebel troopers who got slaughtered at the end of Rogue One were from the planet Botha. They may not be "Bothan" as a species, but they could be "Bothan" as a citizen.

 

[squeen]

R1's fail was not is the retcon of the Death Star's flaw for me---that's ubiquitous. It was the pointless running around in circles because the plot was a hash. The utterly uninteresting and unlikable characters (totally fixable in ANY movie with good writing and patience to set up the audience). Making the Force seem goofy because Hollywood is too-cool-to-care. An utterly worthless caricature of a villain. Ending with the vapid, hollow, and disingenuous "horrors of war" slo-mo BS after drooling over all the cool space-fighter shoot-'em-up F/X.

Hollow at its core.

I honestly can't even remember a single character from that movie now. Porridge characters. Porridge plot. Porridge acting.

 

[squeen]

It does not revolve around the elites, and the themes of courage and sacrifice in the face of adversity were largely absent from the franchise to that point...

Sometimes @Beoric, I honestly wonder about you...

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Sometimes @Beoric, I honestly wonder about you...

You're both (along with myself) very "contrarian" members of this little forum. One of us could say the sky is blue, and the other two would say "well it's grey with clouds where I am now" or "actually the sky is black just as often as it is blue". It's just headbutting.

That being said, Rogue One is still awesome. No amount of porch-complaining is going to change that for me.

 

[Avi]