Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I saw it the Thursday it came out was such a blast I loved it and saw it again couple days later

Perhaps, though I feel von Sydow's presence works in terms of shock value. Having this venerated actor be touted as a potentially major player only for him to die in the very first scene is a sign of how serious this movie gets (and also drive home the whole "next generation" thing). Also, it's a two-hour movie, they can't cram in every single old character as they're trying to establish a whole new cast of primary characters for us to follow. Also, consider the fact that the entire movie is about the search for a missing Luke and it's not too surprising that they leave his appearance until the end. They'll most likely get more screen-time in the sequels anyway, and the old character the film focused on the most was Han because, well, they're not going to focus on him anymore anyway.

Different types of ammo for different situations? Seeing as Chewie's bowcaster is not a blaster, it's not dependent on shooting lasers and can easily be used to fire off different things. I imagine that the kind of concussive round necessary to blow away multiple stormtroopers would not be advisable when the group is doing a stealth mission on Starkiller Base, hence why the shot he takes leaves Kylo with a bloody open wound instead of sending him flying. That, plus it's very likely that Kylo is a powerful enough Force user to deflect enough of the charge's power so that he doesn't go flying but instead sustains a severe wound in the process. Either way, neither of that would translate to a steel bridge being destroyed - if it can't even penetrate stormtrooper armour then it shouldn't destroy a bridge.

Even though he was a janitor, it's not like the First Order would have put him out in the field in the first place without at least some weapons training. If the stormtroopers have their own melee weapons anyway, then I'm sure he can apply what he's learned to holding a lightsaber. Also, it's not like Finn does particularly well in either fight anyway - in both instances, his opponents get the upper hand and he is ultimately saved by other characters.

From a narrative standpoint, it makes sense that astromech droids would have shifted from cumbersome leg/wheels to a more flexible sphere shape in the space of thirty years (especially since Poe needs an astromech for his X-wing anyway, so BB-8's design is at least justifiable). If it ain't broke, etc.

Two words: Boba Fett. Besides, explain to me just why a female stormtrooper not taking off her helmet is a bad thing (especially since the only times we ever see her are when she's supposed to be on duty and in full uniform).

Blame Ren for trying to read her mind only for her Force-sensitive mind to not only resist but apply the same mind-reading right back at him. It's not like she instantly becomes a master - she fumbles her way through parts (such as mind-tricking the Daniel Craig stormtrooper) and she is only just able to fend off Ren (who had already severly been weakened by Chewie shooting him with the bowcaster) before escaping, plus she is able to do a Force-pull because she is mimicking Ren's movements. Obviously, she's still not very experienced, which is why she seeks out Luke to teach her how to hone her skills. As for Luke himself, the first time we see him do a Force-pull is at the very start of Empire, which is between Obi-Wan dying and him seeking out Yoda for training, so it's obviously not something that requires a lot of training to do when you're just summoning a small object like a lightsaber.

Leaving aside how all that stuff is spread out across three entire movies instead of being crammed into one, how much of that would make sense in context? The story is a chase involving a couple of outlaws on the run along the fringes of the galaxy and doesn't have time to get bogged down in stuff like pod-racing (which, while inventive, does ruin Menace's momentum by stopping the film dead for a 10-minute race sequence). I imagine there's only so many different types of planet they could have that are what Star Trek would refer to as "M-class" so of course they settled for ones that had more in common with with OT than the prequels, hence desert/forest/tundra.

If anything, they learned the wrong thing from their mistake. In Return of the Jedi, they were going to rebuild the Death Star, sure, because why wouldn't your fascist regime want to rebuild a super-powerful weapon designed to keep any potential dissenters in line? It was also doubling as part of a ruse so that the Emperor could bring Luke over to the dark side. Their mistake was actually having the overconfidence to believe that the Rebels couldn't actually deactivate the shield generator on the Endor moon's surface anyway. Also, Starkiller Base is more than just a third Death Star - it's designed to be substantially more powerful than the Death Star ever was. To the Order, it's also a symbol of the Empire at its apex and thus becomes a goal for the Order to aspire towards. I read a post somewhere that likened the Order to Nazi Germany because both are states that have been damaged by recent military losses and are looking to recover their former glory (as exemplified by both the Empire and pre-WWI Germany respectively). It may look stupid and unoriginal, but I can understand why they'd do that. It makes thematic sense that the Order, in looking to reach the heights of the Empire, would also fall prey to the same errors of judgment that caused the Empire to lose in the first place. Besides, Starkiller Base is ultimately a secondary concern compared to what the main characters are actually doing, such as the heroes' various confrontations with Ren while Poe and the fighters blowing up Starkiller Base feels like it's happening in the background of the actual important stuff. It's a backdrop for the real story like in Return of the Jedi, not the over-arching end goal like in A New Hope.

I the First Order can actually build a fully functional laser cannon into a planet then it's easy to assume that they have the technology to maintain just enough of an atmosphere. It's not Starkiller is some impossibly verdant paradise - it's covered in snow and dead trees, presumably as a result of it being a planet without a consistent source of sunlight. Also, leaving aside how it's a matter of serial escalation and that the First Order is concerned with rebuilding the Empire to be even bigger and better than before, being able to target multiple planets simultaneously is of benefit to the First Order. In the OT, the Empire was already everywhere and the Death Star was a symbol of how they consolidated their power that showed how easily they could crush even the smallest amount of resistance. By the time of Force Awakens, the First Order and New Republic are evenly matched, so the Starkiller Base is supposed to be the Order's secret weapon that will give them the edge in the latest galactic conflict (which they immediately demonstrate by blowing up the Republic's capital planet and others). It's no longer about making a point like the original Death Star, it is the key to the Order's victory.

If it changed stuff around, can it really be called a "complete" rip-off, then? In any case, I created an entire thread dedicated to pointing out why using "basically" when describing movies that you didn't like is a rather meaningless exericse.

There's a different between drawing parallels and shameless plagiarism. Force Awakens does dance on that line, but the changes tend to be more tolerable than you make them out to be.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

JUST GOT TOLD.

In the Battlefront games (the real ones), wookie bowcasters fire in a horizontal spread and deal considerably less damage at long distances.

Chewie's got a rocket launcher for that.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

I liked the design and look of BB8. What I have an issue with is that his personality is virtually the same as R2D2's. On a side note: Is BB8 really an astromech droid? Wouldn't his design make him a terrestrial droid? Does it make sense to reduce the surface area making contact with the hull of a space ship or satellite?

They hired Gwendoline Christie from Game of Thrones to play her, but you wouldn't know it. Yes, I know stormtroopers do not remove their helmets on duty (she reprimands Finn for taking his off for this reason), but surely they could've put an excuse in there (like her helmet is damaged, or she was romantically involved with somebody, like General Hux) in order to express more of the character. We were used to seeing Boba Fett without his helmet and men wearing helmets (even Vader wore his helmet virtually all the time). It's funny, when I heard Phasma talk, I instantly thought of talking AI like "Mother" in Alien. Phasma seemed like a robot and not a woman.


I doubt she learned to do something as complex as reading minds by having her mind read. That's like saying you can put a choke hold on somebody while they put one on you. When she used a mind trick to get the stormtrooper to let her go, she seemingly stumbled on this power by accident and learned it in mere seconds. Luke had years between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back to explore The Force on his own.

Any one of those movies display much more creativity and originality.

Really? They don't have time while travelling through a galaxy that's millions of light years wide? They could have lengthened the movie to 3 hours and had plenty of time to let the movie breathe and explore more of the Star Wars universe.

This is an excuse for lack of imagination in many avenues of pop culture, the "it's all been done before" argument. The Barenaked Ladies song expressed this in '98 in their song "It's all been done" and years later, great songs are still being written, and original and interesting sci-fi settings are still being created. At least they could've gone back to one of the locations (like Tattoine), to see another side of it, or see the historical progression of it (perhaps a retrospective on slavery on Tattooine) instead of pretending it was some place new.

More like beating a dead horse. Is it too much to ask for them to come up with something original and interesting?


Dead trees? For dead trees, they have a lot of green needles on them...

This is a huge logical leap to say that because they can make a high-powered laser they can make just about anything. We've seen evidence of high-powered lasers elsewhere in the SW universe - we haven't seen much in the way of 'cyborgnetic planets', terraforming or illumination on a planetary scale. They don't provide much explanation as to how any of this works or makes sense. They made Starkiller bigger than the Death Star in a lame attempt to make it more menacing. What's next - are they going to give us a larger Starkiller and say "oh, look - it's 10 times bigger than Starkiller!"


They didn't change nearly enough, in my opinion. The characters go through the same, exact events - they just changed some of the characters. As I watched the movie, I kept thinking My God, this happened in A New Hope! Even Finn isn't very original: it can be deduced that the original Rebel Alliance was formed partially by Empire defectors. The original characters were misused. I understand handing the baton to the 'next generation', but we hardly saw Luke, Leia, C3PO, R2D2. It's sloppy, unoriginal storytelling and undeserving of the Star Wars phenomenon and brand.

*laughs*

My god, this sequel is similar to the movie before it!

Thanks for skipping my first few rebuttals. Anyway, if BB-8 is being used as part of an X-wing like R2 was being used in the OT, then it makes sense to think of it as an astromech droid (and Wookieepedia seems to back me up in this regard). As for the surface area issue - who knows. We'll just have to wait and see if it actually comes up.

I don't know, she does have a rather distinctive voice. Also, why should there be an excuse for her to remove her helmet at all? To "express more of the character"? All we need to know about Phasma at this point is that she is an elite stormtrooper - she's not meant to be your average woman. The fact that you suggest a romantic sub-plot of all reasons as a means of her getting character development does not help matters in the slightest. The only time we ever saw Boba Fett without his helmet in the canon films was in Attack of the Clones, and that's because he was a little boy at the time. Regarding his appearances in Empire and Jedi, he is never seen without his helmet. If we're so used to men wearing helmets pretty much all the time, then why is it that you have such a problem with a woman wearing her helmet all the time?

I'm not saying she mastered it completely, but she's apparently got enough existing Force energy to resist his mind-reading. Mind-tricking the stormtrooper is something she figures out from this experience and even then it takes her three tries before it works.

And that's why everybody loves them so much.

But seriously, the prequels coming up with "original" plots and concepts didn't automatically guarantee that they were good - originality and creativity only go so far when it comes to making an all-around good movie. As a result, I can understand why they'd want to play it safe by invoking parallels to the original trilogy in Force Awakens, especially since they're trying to win back a rather skeptical crowd.

Sure, they could have made it three hours, but why should they? A major complaint that people had about the prequels was how much time they spent on sequences that killed any narrative momentum - I already mentioned the pod-racing in Menace, plus there were all those scenes of the Galactic Senate or the Naboo scenes in Clones. The movie had a lot to get through in two hours as it was - spending an entire third hour on scenes that would not significantly further the plot, well, that would have been just as likely to hurt the movie as help it (if not more so).

A desert planet's a desert planet. Making it Tattooine again could easily prompt even more complaints about lack of originality anyway.

If the reaction to the prequels was any indication, then yes. I've already explained why it makes sense in detail already, so...skip.

I don't think of Star Wars as being an especially hard example of science-fiction - if anything, it's as soft as they come. As a result, I don't find it especially questionable or implausible that the First Order might be able to build something like this, and just because we "haven't seen much" of similar concepts does not render them impossible. It's a big galaxy and several decades have passed since the conclusion of the OT. In short, you're just supposed to roll with it. Also, is a giant laser that can destroy multiple planets at once not objectively more menacing than a giant laser that can destroy only one planet at a time? Originality (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with this concern - consider what it means in the context of the story, where the search for Luke that's been driving the film gets pushed to the side in order to deal with this extremely dangerous threat.

That is quite the reach when it comes to Finn. You're calling his character unoriginal based on your "deduction" that there might have been defectors among the Rebels? That is an extremely flimsy reason. As for underused old characters, well, I already posted a response to that.

*nods*

What do you mean when you say this?

Time for some nerdgasm stuff.


Yep... BB-8 is an Astromech Droid.


R2-D2 is known as an R2 Unit, the R2 being his designated Model Number... and the D2 is his personal serial number... numerous Astromechs are known as R2-*something* as they are R2 Units.
Others like Obi Wan's R4-P17 as seen in Attack Of The Clones and Revenge Of The Sith is an R4 Unit, serial number P17.


BB-8 is a BB Unit, serial number 8.

__________________

The concept of hardness is used in reference to a work of science fiction's application of actual science to its plot, world-building, objects, etc. The "harder" a work of sci-fi is, the more grounded it is in reality, while the "softer" a film is naturally means that it leans towards the scientifically improbable/impossible. For example, Interstellar is considered hard sci-fi because of how much it applies current astrophysical theories surrounding black holes and relativity in telling its decades-long story of space travel. On the other hand, something like Back to the Future is soft sci-fi because of its extremely loose and fantastic approach to science that involves scientifically improbable concepts such as people fading out of existence or alternate timelines. Something like Star Wars arguably doesn't count as science-fiction at all, but rather as a fantasy series that just so happens to be set in space due to its whole "long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" setting. As a result, in an instance such as the Starkiller Base being able to sustain an atmosphere even as it moves through space without orbiting a star, I have to cite Clarke's Third Law as potential evidence that the science used to make things happen in the Star Wars universe might as well be magic. I can suspend my disbelief in this particular regard because, hey, this is a fictional universe where an all-powerful invisible energy affects everything, run-down spaceships can travel faster than light, and laser swords can be used to deflect laser bullets. I don't take Star Wars too seriously.

*laughs* Gotcha. "Hard Science", should've guessed.

You've never had someone ignore something you wrote? Happens to me sometimes in this forum ... but since you asked...
I didn't care enough about the character to be shocked when he was killed. As a matter of fact, it was very predicable. The same thing happened to Aunt Buru and Uncle Owen. They gave classic actors of von Sydow's generation like Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee much better roles and not just as "shock" tools.

Agreed that it's soft si-fi with a generous helping of fantasy, but if you stretch believability too much, it breaks. I don't buy a giant planet that ignores the rules of physics and ecology. Besides, if you have a weapon that can suck all the energy out of a star, why wouldn't you just destroy a system's star rather than shooting the planets? Live-sustaining planets cannot survive without stars.

Ok, I'll buy that. But it would've been nice to see this projectile. A crossbow in sci-fi is already a bizarre thing.

What I mean is that a rolling ball makes more sense in a terrestrial environment with possible obstacles and rough terrain, whereas a smooth surface (like a spaceship) makes more sense for a droid like R2D2. When they were shooting ANH, the filmmakers had a struggle getting R2 to move around in the desert.

I noticed you ignored my point about BB8's personality, or lack thereof.

Boba Fett was defined by his actions - we didn't need to see his face. Phasma hardly did anything. Seeing her face would've made her more unique and therefore might have strengthened the character.

Where did a military-trained Rebel Alliance come from except the Empire? Luke mentions that his friends were already at the "Academy", which was a state-supported (ie. Empire) institution. One of Luke's friends, Biggs, probably was trained using a tie-fighter before he came over to the Rebels.

I'm not going to respond to the other arguments, because I'm starting to feel like this thread is going around in circles.

Force Awakens is just an attempt to make a whole lot of money. They hyped it up big-time before the movie came out, especially with merchandise, to the point where audiences were already emotionally-invested and found it difficult to overlook the fact that Force Awakens sacrifices good story-telling and substance.

So disapointed by this last Star Wars with no charism actors, a poor and slow story and a ****** end : its look like a child movie

People ignore me all the time, that's their right. I just figure that, if we're going to discuss each other's points, then we shouldn't necessarily be so selective about which ones we address. You threw out ten reasons, I offered ten responses. Seems fair.

Doesn't this only prove how shocking it is? You expect him to actually have an important role in the story like those other actors did, and yet he doesn't. It doesn't matter if you care about the character himself - he's not that important in the grand scheme of things. That being said, I thought it was a bit ridiculous how they kind of did the same thing with the guys from the Raid movies later on in the film.

This is a series where you can hear gunshots and explosions in space, though. Anyway, you could just destroy the star itself and watch the planets themselves simply die slowly of the cold, but Star Wars takes place in a universe where spaceships are commonplace. If it's only the star that gets destroyed, then the citizens on the orbiting planets can still evacuate into outer space instead of being stranded and doomed. By having the planets themselves be blown up instantly, it demonstrates that power with much more immediacy.

Fair point. This is something that could have easily been clarified within the film itself.

I'm guessing you're referring to moments like in Menace where R2 and the other astro-droids have to carry out repairs on the Nubian's hull from the outside when you say that BB-8 would not be ideal for being on a spaceship's surface. That's why I said we'd have to wait and see how it'd accomplish such a task, but if it's just being used in an X-wing (where it's stuck in the same slot on top of the fighter anyway) then it hardly matters.

Yeah, I could always just shrug it off as it having something to do with different types of droids having default personalities programmed into them and that, given how BB-8 seems like a next-generation model of R2-D2 anyway, it makes some sense that it'd retain a similar personality to its predecessor. That seems to be a common theme with much of these points - you see them as unimaginative rehashes of existing concepts, while I see them as logical variations of the same concepts. I did notice the similarities, but most of them still make sense within the context of the story being told - to me, that was just enough to compensate for any complaints about a lack of creativity or hard scientific accuracy.

It's not like Boba Fett had a whole lot to do in the first place - about the only thing he actually did in Empire was track the Falcon to Bespin, at which point the Imperials took over capturing Han and proceeded to freeze him, while Jedi saw him get killed off with ridiculous ease. It says a lot about the Star Wars fandom that they were able to elevate him to legendary badass levels anyway. I'll concede that Phasma hardly did anything in the film either, but I don't think that seeing her face would've helped anything. If anything, the fact that she's the only one of the major characters who is never seen without a helmet distinguishes her much more in her own right (especially since Kylo Ren removes his own helmet anyway, further distinguishing these two from one another). We'll see what they end up doing with her in later films anyway.

That's a good point and I hadn't considered that. However, Finn's particular development is at least a little more complex than a guy growing up and just deciding to join the Rebels for reasons like adventure or a righteous cause. There's the fact that he's a child soldier with no identity outside of being part of the Order, which means that his defection is not just an example of a soldier disobeying his orders but also that of a person raised to be evil making his own steps towards fighting for good. It also makes him an interesting foil to Kylo Ren, who was brought up by a loving family of actual galactic heroes and he still turned to the dark side. That's still a unique enough character trait that hasn't been explored too closely in the other films, so I think Finn's whole character and arc are at least one of this film's more original creations.

Yeah, that tends to happen when people bring up the similarities to the original and other people provide their justifications again and again.

Couldn't the exact same thing be said about The Phantom Menace, especially when it first came out? Lucas himself had no problem swapping Wookiees for Ewoks in Jedi because they'd be more commercially viable (to say nothing of Jar Jar), so it's not like Force Awakens is a significantly more cynical exercise in commercialism, presence of Disney and J.J. Abrams be damned.

*thinks* Yeah... can't think of any-oh wait. Spelljammer.

Yeah, I was disappointed with that. She was all over the promo material, but she never does jacksquat.

Won't argue that.

Say hello to Hyperbole Bear:


Yeah, different handlers of a product can go a long way to color one's vision of that work simply knowing that it's out of the hands of it's original creator and subject to an entirely separate line of expectations.

The FIRST installments of the each trilogy.

Back to this point. I liked the pod-racing sequence. It showed the culture of Tattoine and delved into the issue of slavery and explored Jabba's power as well as demonstated how Anakin was "already a great pilot when I met him" (Kenobi in ANH). The pod-racing was exciting and original. A good movie doesn't rush through everything. There should be slower, calmer, more introspective moments, to let the audience catch their breath and do some thinking (I know this seems to be a challenge these days for a younger segment of the audience with a short attention span).

The droids seem to have a good amount of AI in them (R2D2 and C3PO do, at least), as they build on their foundation with distinctive personalities. Listen to R2 and 3PO in the previous movies (especially the original trilogy) and tell me they didn't have personalities. Even R2's sounds are imbued with expression. Heck, Lucas himself said that Episode 4 was told from the droids' perspectives (whether it really was or wasn't isn't the point). They even did a cartoon with those two as the protagonists.

Umm... yeah, Boba Fett only managed to do what the Empire, Jabba and all the bounty hunters in the galaxy failed to do for several years: find Luke and his friends and lure them into a trap, exactly what an elite bounty hunter does. Fett's strength as a villain wasn't his muscle, but his brains, and I think this is what made him such a fascinating character (besides the fact that his armor was really cool).

I mean I've already argued about the droids' personalities and to what extent the movies resemble each other and here we are talking about them again. No body has convinced me that Force Awakens is not a rip-off of A New Hope, nor that any of the other films are rip-offs of each other. Some of you have admitted that it is a rip-off, but that doesn't seem to matter to you, which just blows my mind - your expectations for this movie were abysmally low, which is odd considering it's supposed to be a Star Wars sequel!

First of all, Lucas explained that originally ROTJ was supposed to take place on Kashykk (or however you spell it) with wookies, but he didn't feel film making technology was ready for that, so he wrote in ewoks instead. Sure, the ewoks were cute and cuddly and ready-made for the store shelves, but you could say the same thing about jawas and Yoda. I really didn't mind the ewoks - they didn't beat the Empire (as some critics contend), they helped the Rebels attack the shield generator, just like the Hobbits in LOTR didn't defeat Sauron, they assisted the Fellowship, Gondor and Rohan in destroying the One Ring. Yet in the end, Aragorn bowed to the four, little Hobbits, because the point of LOTR and ROTJ is that "even little people can change the world". A powerful message, to be sure. The fact of the matter is that Lucas's Star Wars's commercial success is secondary to the film's extraordinary, top-notch storytelling and movie-making. The American Film Institute ranked Star Wars (1977) as the thirteenth greatest film of all time. I doubt I'll ever see Force Awakens on that list, and if we do, I'll bet the AFI was quietly bribed by the deep pockets of Disney Inc. Speaking of Disney, the Force Awakens seems like a movie that was thrown-together in a Disney board room. It's a Star Wars wannabe ... and a very poor one at that.

I think the problem that people tended to have with the slower/calmer/more introspective moments is that, well, they were boring. The major complaint was how a significant chunk of the prequels' quieter scenes were dedicated to the politics of the world, which has the capacity to be fascinating and is important to the story but still feels a bit too dry and not too well-written, plus they mess with the pacing and drag out the movie a little too much. It's not so much the fact that they exist, it's more the fact that they're not done all that well. Of course, the people who made Force Awakens thought that it would be safer just to excise any such scenes entirely, which also causes its own problems.

Is that not what I said? I figured that astromech droids like R2 and BB-8 build off the same basic personality and only have the subtlest of differences. They've got to have out-sized but ultimately dutiful personalities if they're going to be vital in the operation of single-pilot ships like X-wings.

When you write it like that, that's giving Fett way too much credit. He didn't do any actual luring, for instance - Han had already decided to go to Bespin of his own accord simply because Lando was there, and Fett merely followed him while alerting the Empire in order to set their own trap. Still hard to say just how much of his move was genius, though - his bounty-hunter cleverness allowed him to see through Han's hide-in-plain-sight ruse and track them when they escaped with the garbage, but that's about it.

Why shouldn't my expectations be low? I don't have an especially high opinion of the prequels and it was being directed by J.J. Abrams. The man directed the weakest Mission: Impossible (at least John Woo's one had some personality) and he also decided to reboot Star Trek as a whizz-bang blockbuster that's completely at odds with the original series' more cerebral brand of sci-fi adventure. You want to complain about how Force Awakens straight-up steals from A New Hope, but that pales in comparison to how Abrams and co. not only copied but mangled Wrath of Khan when they did Into Darkness. Compared to that, the reverence that Abrams shows towards Star Wars in making Force Awakens practically makes it a masterpiece - but hey, maybe that's just the understandably low expectations talking.

Fair point about the limits of technology, I don't think that I had considered that. However, it seems a little unfair to use the AFI all-time list against it. By that logic, you might as well dislike every Star Wars that isn't A New Hope because they're all unlikely to make it onto the same list regardless of their quality.

Seconded. Boba Fett's cool because his armor is cool.

The Fett doesn't actually do a lot in the stories tbh. He wasn't even designed to be a favourite.
He's more along the lines of Wolverine from X-Men. He looked kinda cool, had a small part, but the fans for some reason went nuts for him and he was then expanded on.


Boba Fett is simply something that fans picked up on because he "was there" when that trap was set. I mean, IG88 looks cool too, as does Bossk, so if one of those had been there during Bespin, it would be them that people may have picked up on and we'd have IG88 spin-offs and maybe had seen him being built in Episode II.

I saw it a few days ago. I give it a strong , it was better....im sorry, Watchable compared to episodes 1 & 2. Never saw 3 cause 1 & 2 were so bad.