Well, we know it's his first mission, so all he's had up to that point is training and indoctrination. You say the presentation makes it seem like a fast turnaround as if there's something unseen that legitimises it. Well, maybe - but we don't see it! All we can judge is what's shown to us - it's not up to you or I to fill in the holes of poor character development. I agree that Anakin's fall was much worse though.Antiriad2097 wrote:We know nothing about Finn prior to his first mission. He could have been (and probably was) having issues long before this. Yes, the presentation does make it seem like a fast turnaround, but not half as bad as Anakin's improbable sudden fall to the dark side. If anything, the latter makes Finn entirely consistent within the Star Wars universe.
Let's not use that as a metric.Very good point, that makes sense. Although again I think you're doing a better job of writing character than Abrams, and filling in the gaps for him!Antiriad2097 wrote:Phasma was heavily hyped in the run up to TFA. I don't doubt there was much more originally going on, so again I think it may be down to the final edit. Regardless, she doesn't think the rebels will have any joy so her turning off the shields is fairly inconsequential to her. She believes in her troops so much she's sure they'll win.
In the EU there were things call 'hyperbuoys' that acted as waymarkers on hyperspace routes. All ships had to travel along these hyperspace routes (think that may have been mentioned in one of the original films, too). Granted, a lot of EU stuff is being erased, but then even allowing for that - wouldn't coming out of lightspeed into a planet's atmosphere require some god-like skill and precision (not to mention creating one hell of a shockwave - like with a sonic boom but...well, much bigger)?Antiriad2097 wrote:Why can't the Falcon come out of hyperspace into the planet atmosphere? Don't think there's been anything written to say it's not possible, any less than there is about being able to hyperspace out of a docking bay.
Yes - it's set in a 'galaxy far, far away', not in another universeAntiriad2097 wrote:We've no idea how distant the other planets are. They're visible in the sky, so can't be that far. And for once, I think it falls into the whole 'fantasy' element where it just looks good and makes 'sense' on screen regardless of actual physics. For most people who see a thing, then see it blow up, they aren't thinking "that's too far away, it should take a while for the light to travel". Do we actually know Star Wars physics to be the same as ours?
But, yes, I agree with your point that it make sense on screen (in the same way that sounds are heard in space, and that gravity exists in the spaceships).Those were just examples off the top of my head anyway; there are plenty of other things that don't make sense even within the 'universe' that was been created by Lucas. Whereas Rogue One, for me, seemed much more loyal to all the work that had gone on before it.
I feel like I have to strongly (and always respectfully) disagree with here, though. What's wrong with liking good, solid writing and an avoidance of deus ex machina?! It's merely an appreciation for and a preference of good story telling and good writers. As I said before, by all means create new rules and laws - but stick to them and be consistent, and make character arcs believable. I don't think that's taking fiction too seriously. You've taken Rogue One to task on much the same lines as I have with FA.Antiriad2097 wrote:You're taking Flash Gordon way too seriously imo if these things are deal breakers for you.
