Well, a planet sized base doesn't get built in thirty years with things
like "safety" and "security" getting in the way.
Sheesh, we're trying to be efficient here.

Side note, this is my numero uno film of the year and ain't nobody talkin'
me out of that.  It was fun and it was all that I wanted in a new SW film!

-Steve D

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Cameron Crum <cc...@wispmon.com> wrote:

> Or not build bottomless pits with precarious bridges and no handrails.
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jay Weekley <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
> wrote:
>
>> You would think they would learn how to protect their reactors better.
>>
>> Chuck McCown wrote:
>>
>>> Bigger, same weakness.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jay Weekley
>>> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 8:45 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Movie Review
>>>
>>> I heard there is a new death star.
>>>
>>> Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>
>>>> Something about the pacing was weird.�
>>>>
>>>> I enjoyed the little insights into the lives of storm troopers.
>>>>
>>>> You are right about repeated themes though....Ray (sp?) is the new
>>>> Luke.� Luke is the new Yoda.� Old Han Solo is the new Han Solo.� The
>>>> story is all about "the resistance" against the new empire so that the good
>>>> guys can remain underdogs.� The Republic is talked about, but seen only
>>>> briefly.
>>>>
>>>> I would have liked them to have drawn upon on Timothy Zahn's Thrawn
>>>> Trilogy for inspiration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Star Wars
>>>>> OK, I was there at the beginning, watching it with my girlfriend and
>>>>> her family.� So old and jaded for certain.�
>>>>> �
>>>>> If you saw that original one one, you also saw this new one.� Just
>>>>> retooled.� Same thematic elements, story arc, crisis etc etc.�
>>>>> Some of the scenes could have been shared.� Just no garbage
>>>>> compactor, but there is reference to it.�
>>>>> �
>>>>> Sorry but it sure as hell is not worth standing in line to see.�
>>>>> I got free tickets, and it was barely worth the price of admission.�
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to