@Russ007 said:

You don't actually believe that they'll stop at IX, right? Right?

Who gives a crap what I believe? Everything I've said is factually correct. Lucasfilm/Disney announced that they'll be making episodes 7, 8 and 9. Whether they do 10+ or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion and at this point I really don't care if they do or don't!

Since you are only using the number of previously produced films as your argument, explain why four films is so much different than three? According to your logic, there are more similarities with VI and I, than I and II.

First off, perhaps you could explain how you've come to the conclusion that I'm "only using the number of previously produced films" as my argument and what mental gymnastics you've used to translate what I've said into "there are more similarities with VI and I, than I and II". Seriously! If not yourself then could anyone else explain how I've made this statement? My argument is based on the internal consistency of the saga in question. Nothing else!

And this is where we differ completely. Where you would say "Wow! Yeah! Jedi laser vision! That's so cool!", I'd be saying "Hang on! If that's a Jedi thing then why didn't Yoda use that whilst fighting Palpatine?"

No, I would say it is an awful idea and shouldn't need to be in the film, but that it now also makes perfect sense in the franchise and deserves to be there because it is.

This is the most nonsensical thing you've said so far. I've even gone as far as to give you a glaring example of how it doesn't make sense which you've either completely missed or wilfully ignored. I can only conclude that internal consistency is a concept that is beyond your comprehension and that you'll embrace anything new no mater how contradictory it might be.

I'm sure by Episode XX you'll be there cheering along whilst the new Jedi use the Force to grow to the size of a Star Destroyer, walk through walls, teleport from one planet to another, turn water into wine whilst telling yourself "these are awful ideas but they started introducing new abilities in Episode II so they should inject new stuff out of courtesy even though they shouldn't need to be in the film but they deserve to be there because they are".

Enjoy!

@M. LeMarchand said:

But it isn't.

Then show me where the inconsistencies are and we'll have a discussion.

Lucas introduced "The Force" as a slightly more science-fictional alternative to magic to enable his characters to do cool stuff and he added powers when he needed them.

And at the beginning of any story that's fine. It's simple development of the universe that we've been introduced to. However, as I've been trying to get through to Russ007, this addition of powers can only go so far before it becomes contradictory. There was no Force telekinesis in ANH (other than possibly Vaders Force choke) so this wasn't a thing before ESB. But if you look back at ANH there were no reasons for Obiwan or Vader to use this ability in any of the scenes they were in so adding it doesn't break anything. If, on the other hand, Luke used Jedi teleportation to get out of his situation in the Wampa cave then that would beg the question "If Luke can teleport via the Force, why didn't Obiwan teleport to the tractor beam controls on the Death Star?"

He claimed at the time that he had nine films planned out but clearly hadn't even got the first (or middle depending on your POV) trilogy fully mapped out as evidenced by the aforementioned incestuous kissing.

He may of may not have had anything "fully mapped out" but that is not proof of inconsistency. Even the "incestuous kissing" (which, BTW, is not "aforementioned" because this is the first time you've mentioned it) doesn't break anything as this was only Leia getting back at Han for being arrogant and not a declaration of attraction toward Luke.

New vehicles were introduced every episode not for plot reasons, but to sell more toys. The OT is a blast, but it's not the epitome of masterful (or consistent) storytelling.

The amount of new vehicles is irrelevant as they're not essential to the plot. He can add as many as he wants provided it doesn't break consistency. The OT is a blast alright and I've made no claim that it's "the epitome of masterful storytelling" but I will say it's brilliant and doesn't contradict itself.

You're right; I'd forgotten that.

You bet I am and don't you forget it!

Though having viewed the scene it involves a lot of mental gymnastics to explain why The Emperor is saying "Annakin Skywalker" rather than "you". Not very consistent of GL.

Not really. I do get what you're saying but it still works well. The mental gymnastics are there but they're small enough to put aside. Especially as this lead to arguably the biggest reveal/plot twist in cinematic history (I am your father!).

So, does the PT meet your standards or not? Either way, my arguments stand.

You don't have an argument as you're off topic. The statement you challenged was:-

@FCough said:

Contrary to what you believe, the OT is one coherent and single entity. It would never have stood the test of time if it were some incoherent mess of a story. There was nothing contradictory from one episode to the next that wasn't explained in some way (from a certain point of view).

There's nothing in this that refers to the PT. You've pointed at the PT and said "but what about this" which is another discussion altogether. One which I don't have time to indulge in I'm afraid.

Yet you're being coy on whether the PT follows your rules.

Until your latest post you haven't asked for my opinion on the PT so I've not been coy about it. For the record, I enjoyed the PT but can acknowledge what it got wrong. I also feel it was overly criticised and got an awful lot right.

A foundation is just that, a base to build on. Pretty much every city in the world looks much different to when it was founded.

This comparison is utterly flawed. A city doesn't have internal story consistency or any kind of narrative. I'm using the term 'foundation' metaphorically.

No way! He snores!

How do you know this?