If the blasters are so inaccurate they would still use projectile weapons, unless they choose our G36 for example.
If the blasters are so inaccurate they would still use projectile weapons, unless they choose our G36 for example.
The symbolism of Obi Wan vs. Vader is what sells the fight between the two. It is literally the mentor vs. his old student, and the last time they faced each other, Obi Wan left Anakin for dead.
That's what makes Obi Wan vs. Vader > all other lightsaber duels except the sheer anger of Luke vs. Vader in RotJ.
You kids, and your need for flash. Jesus. Back then, fights needed to be sold on the drama of the moment, not the actual effects, because they couldn't pull off shit with the effects. None of the fights in the new prequels have any soul to them, they're just mindless flashes of light, choreographed to hopefully make you forget they're fairly meaningless.
its not a problem exclusive to storm troopers. any antagonist in nearly any franchise, tv series, film, etc. all have terrible aim.
they also die instantly when shot, even in the arm or knee. yet the hero can take a dozen bullets and 'walk it off'
You can't post all this and then say the fights in the newer trilogies are better choreographed when they're aiming over where the other person's head is, and they feel the need to duck anyways.
I'm not saying the Obi Wan vs. Vader fight was unable to be better choreographed. I'm especially not saying they were more "stylistic" than the new duels in the prequels, which were very technically hectic and coordinated. Considering Alex Guiness's age, they probably couldn't manage anything more strenuous. What I'm saying is that it is qualitatively *better* than any lightsaber duel in the new prequels, and it has nothing to do with how good it was choreographed.
- - - Updated - - -
Edit: And while Scaramouche might have better swordplay, in the Star Wars movies, with how they were doing the effects, it would be really difficult to do "at the body" blows with imaginary light beams added in post. I obviously wasn't an editor in the late 70s, but I imagine trying to insert a light beam whizzing past Vader's face would have been much more technically difficult than having it clash midair with another, non-existant, post-added light beam. That's what I meant when I said these fights had to be sold on the drama of the fight itself, not the effects.
Why let facts get in the way of a good story? This is something that is common to all franchises. The flagship of the Federation, with presumably its best crew and best weapons can barely survive an encounter with a lightly armed old transport. It nearly gets blown up whenever it goes toe-to-two with a Bird of Prey.
Gene Roddenberry once said that the reason transporters got added was because he needed a way to get the crew down to the surface immediately.
Their troops know how to fight very well- perfect soldiers, in fact.but can't even afford to teach their troops how to even aim right?
The Empire's enemies had what is called "plot armor", however. All that you see of Storm Troopers missing shots at 10ft is done for the sole purpose of creating drama. Nothing more and there is no other logical explanation aside from the fact the books, games and films of Star Wars are meant to entertain through escapism.
Last edited by Fencers; 2015-04-27 at 02:39 AM.
There are a few reasons for this.
1) "Blockbuster syndrome": you have to make them miss all the time, since otherwise the protagonists will just be killed early in the movies/games/books.
2) Blaster rifles wielded by regular Stormtroopers are inaccurate. Jedi Knight series emulate it quite well.
3) Luke, Han and Leia are not amateurs. Luke and Leia are force sensitive and naturally move so as to dodge incoming projectiles, and Han has been mercenary his entire life and knows all the tricks of blaster combat. Stormtroopers, on the other hand, are just regular soldiers who haven't had any practice other than on dummies. No matter how rich the Empire is, it just can't train everyone to be able to stand against such pros.
Well, that fight was not about lightsabers, it was about minds. This is what makes it look much better than duels in prequels to me: these two are true Jedi/Sith, they do not need to leap acrobatically to fight effectively, their fight is on another level, outside of their physical shells. In comparison, say Obi-Wan + Qui-Gon vs Darth Maul was more like a show-off of acrobats, but didn't have much intellectual stuff to it.
Last edited by May90; 2015-04-27 at 02:44 AM.
I dunno. The Luke/Vader fight in Return of the Jedi has more appeal than any of the duels in the Prequel trilogy.
I thought the Prequel fights were cool at first... But the more I watch them the more I realize I'm watching some kind of choreographed dance. There's no real passion to it, nothing that looks like combat. It's a bunch of guys attacking each other's swords. Especially in Revenge of the Sith. That Obi-Wan/Anakin fight goes on way too long and is in no way convincing.
By contrast, it looks like Luke is straight up trying to kill Darth Vader.
My only issue I take is that in the original trilogy, the fights had meaning and gravitas to drive them and not just choreography. Unlike the prequels where it was mostly driven by flash. Even what was meant to be the epic duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan, wasn't nearly as important feeling as Luke vs Vader in ROTJ because it was just too entirely overproduced that it detracted from the moment. It was 10 minutes of Lucas wanking on screen before the only meaningful moment of drama and emotion came into it with Obi-Wan's "chosen one" speech...promptly ruined by "the high ground"...but that's not a sword fighting issue really.
Well, he goes from angsty teen to creepy, obsessed stalker teen, to the suit. I mean, seriously, some of the shit he says to Padme in the second movie is horrifying.
I agree. The prequel fights were lovely fight choreography, but there was no heart or soul to them. And, tbh, they seem overly flashy in retrospect, see:
The classic fights: Vader and Obi-wan, Vader and Luke, Vader and Luke redux, there's a lot more going on with them than the "ooh, look, a baddie with a red lightsaber" that we got in I and II. The Obi-wan vs. Anakin fight should have been the best fight in the trilogy, but I've watched it recently, and it really does have no soul. Idk what did it in: bad directing from Lucas, too much greenscreen, wooden dialog, bad acting (I know, Ewan McGregor, at least, can do far better), too much flashy fight choreography, or what, but it comes across as flat. (I remember being 'wowed' by the Darth Maul fight in the theater. The RotS fight didn't even do that much. The Yoda vs. Palpatine fight was better - at least that and some feeling. Yeah, the CG muppet and the guy in a ton of latex had more emotion than the two actors.)
- - - Updated - - -
With regard to that particular fight, I see to recall somewhere an interview that talked about how they fighting team had originally planned to film it mainly with stuntmen and stand-ins, using the actors for close-ups and such, and then it was changed at the last minute, so that the actors who weren't prepared for the fight suddenly had to do it, thus the abrupt nature of it. Of course, now Lucas says it was intended to showcase how deadly Sidious was, and how much he outclassed the Jedi, so idk.
"In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)
I`ve to agree with Lucas here who said that the only duel that came close to what actually Jedi vs. Sith would be was final Luke vs. Vader.
Obi Wan vs. Vader is basically an old man fighting a cripple with limited agility.
Empire Strikes Back Luke vs. Vader duel was untrained Jedi trying to kill obviously superior rival while Vaders goal wasnt to kill him, but at best to maim him.
But I agree that some of the prequel duels had too much non-sense happening but I also think lot of that has to do with cinematography which at times was really poor.
I really loved SWTOR cinematic duels, even if they were too cartoony (but that was the idea).
Lots of physical engagements, love this move at 2:58-3:00.
I liked that one too, but then, again, it was different from Episodes IV-VI in that it was just a fight, flashy fight. In the original episodes the fights were much more about psychology, about dialogue, about battle of minds. Two highly skilled force users do not have to jump like acrobats and wave their lightsaber like lassos, they just need to overwhelm the opponent with mind force. Like this one:
Vader doesn't defeat Luke with lightsaber, not even with force pushes and pulls. He defeats him by making him afraid, by clever dialogue, by slowly ridding him of any hope to win. You can even see the difference between true mastery and regular force wielding: Luke tries desperately to win by his superior dexterity and passion, but Vader doesn't bother really showing his skill, he just slowly destroys Luke emotionally. This is something that was completely thrashed in prequels. Lightsaber duels there no longer were battles of minds, they were just physical contests of who waves his lightsaber better. I don't think this is how real master Jedi should fight. What is the use of all this force they have been mastering for decades, if in the end only acrobatics and lightsaber mastery matters?
Last edited by May90; 2015-04-27 at 09:12 AM.
Both ended the same way, with the "loser" basically turning off this lightsaber and giving up.
- - - Updated - - -
You must also realize, that Vader was trying to recruit him. Not kill him. Vader could have easily just killed him like such fodder and be done with it, but Palpy and Vader both wanted him, and that's where "use your anger... getting mad yet? use it. USE IT!!!!" angle comes from.
I really liked the Maul vs Jabroni's fight, and the Yoda fights much, much more than the emotion, non-choreographed original trilogy fights. I understand the meaning, but it never hit the mark with me. Not 30 years ago when I saw them, not last week when I rewatched. I will totally agree that the Obi-Wan vs Anakin fight was rather piss as well.
The "remastered" version of Jedi showed people celebrating, tearing down a statue of Palpatine. Tho that doesn't mean you're wrong, it would seem the empire was pretty much done for all ready. I kinda find it hard to believe the capital would fall that fast, I dont think any military would fold that quickly if the head of state dies.
Grand Moffs, Admirals, generals, Emperor's Hand, plenty around that would keep some chain of command, unless they were all like Ozzel I guess.
The empire controlled all, I'd see it as say Samsung making a monitor with just Samsung parts, but also Samsung controlling the raw resources and transport/logistics, owning the lands and roads etc etc.. If the empire had slaves, labour costs would be nothing more then feeding them I guess.
Anyway "Timothy Zahn's" books are very good, it's a shame they didnt opt to turn those into the another trilogy set after Jedi.. Well, IMHO. And the books support your line of thought I suppose.
Last edited by Amorac; 2015-05-07 at 09:08 PM.
~Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.~
~Every damn thing you do in this life, you have to pay for.~