New efforts!

[Azrael]

https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oi66.tinypic.com%2F2dbp4co.jpg

Sweet.  I like 'Star Wars' by George Lucas.  I'm not sure what that diluted 'junk' put out by Disney Inc. is suppose to be.  Other than one stiff confusing torrent of heavy panting.  (Frozen vs the latest StarWas.  Hmm.  Strangely appropriate.)

Yep, *Snip*.

A very ironic post. 

I'd take George Lucas at his 'worst' over the pandering, empty, vacuous non-sensical and stilted garbage 'Disney' put out.  *(Exceptions may apply.  Ewoks not included.)

Azrael.

[Flickershow]

Reminded me of Larry Niven's Ringworld, which described a habitable technological structure built in the shape of a ring around a star.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Ringworld%281stEd%29.jpg

Neil Stephenson toys with the question of a destroyed moon in "Seveneves", which is an excellent read.  Of course he uses an unknown "agent", which may, or may not be a singularity to do it.   ;)

Flickershow

[Arcana]

I'd take George Lucas at his 'worst' over the pandering, empty, vacuous non-sensical and stilted garbage 'Disney' put out.

Fortunately for you, there is no end of people more than willing to make that trade.

Incidentally, I should also point out that "Disney" is a mega corporation most of which had nothing to do with Star Wars; if you feel The Force Awakens is a bad movie the two most important contributors to that feeling would be JJ Abrams - George Lucas' hand-picked director for the sequel - and Lawrence Kasdan, aka the guy who wrote Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. 

[Brigadine]

Fortunately for you, there is no end of people more than willing to make that trade.

Incidentally, I should also point out that "Disney" is a mega corporation most of which had nothing to do with Star Wars; if you feel The Force Awakens is a bad movie the two most important contributors to that feeling would be JJ Abrams - George Lucas' hand-picked director for the sequel - and Lawrence Kasdan, aka the guy who wrote Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

Ill take star trek thanks. I used to be a SW fan but after the massive disappointment of ep 7 and how AWFUL the new Battlefront game is...

[Arcana]

Ill take star trek thanks. I used to be a SW fan but after the massive disappointment of ep 7 and how AWFUL the new Battlefront game is...

Wait: you're holding a game against whether to be a fan of a franchise?  What movie franchise could possibly be capable of surviving its video game spinoffs?  The Riddick movies maybe?

[LaughingAlex]

Firstly, I'm still waiting for the opportunity to actually see the movie in theaters....with that said.

As I look back on star wars episodes 1-3 I see a sore lack of proper character development and very fixed, and "forced" moments that are highly unnatural and dry.  Even ignoring the flop that was Jar Jar Binks and how much racism the dumbo portrayed, you quickly notice that characters act on a fixed "plan" by lucas.  When Anakin is first encountered, he's not uneasy around the total strangers that are Qui Gon Jin(I know I mispelled that, right?) and Padme like just about any kid living as a slave likely should.  At the same time, even, Padme and the Jedi are to trusting of one another initially.  There is no "we are forced to work together in order to make this" going on, it's just tacked in there.

Nore was there a reason for the jedi to deal with Jar Jar.  And course, "midi-chlorians".  Way to ruin the magic there, the mystery behind the force.  This is just the first movie, mind you.  Then of course, endless politics and more politics, was there a reason(I already know it and will get to it later)?

Now lets fast forward a hair to the second movie.  Anakin, buddy....why are you so obsessed with Padme?  Um, after all...those...years?  Isn't that, creepy?  Shouldn't padme have remained creeped out by it, to?  She was, but didn't remain creeped out for long, suddenly she's head over heels for him for no reason.  And remains so after his confessing to a mass murder fest.  So she's not really developing as a character.  She's still the action-first goody goody we saw in her before and still was, where was the change or concern after Anakin confession to mass violence?  Then there is of course Anakin himself.

His development was very "stepped" and "staged".  While everyone expected him to become an evil sith lord, it's done in a way thats a total failure.  Firstly, all it took was for his mother to turn bad for a moment?  Pretty hallow to be honest, and to expected at that point.  I'd have set things up so he goes in wanting to be a hero and wanting fame and glory and make him mess up horribly such as to leave him a little traumatized at himself.  His whining, I get it, he's supposed to be a bit power hungry, arrogant and greedy.  But make those flaws apparent through his ACTIONS, not his dialogue.  If it's just dialogue, such a character comes off as a greedy crybaby rather than a potentially evil wanna be hero that we were expecting to turn into a streight up cold hearted villain we knew and loved.

And then he makes one other bad decision to seal that, but only one?  Why not a few things to make it clear to him that he's a bad guy and made to be a sith lord?  What really should have happened was he as a hero wannabe should have been more of a doer from the get-go.  We get some of it, but he was to reactionary and once again George Lucas focused far to much on dialogue, dialogue, more dialogue, politics.  And a love story thats hallow and unrealistic.  Padme should have been creeped out and the things Anakin said would have driven her away.  She had to be, lets be honest, very screwed up to want to side with a mass murderer in episode 2.  And george could have made Anakin screw up more besides mass murder and just rushing and getting his arm cut off.  Even THAT felt forced.

But I'd have also made Anakins mistakes in Episode 2, since it'd be to early for him to really turn evil, smaller in scale.  More to make it clear that he's potentially very evil, but doesn't realise it yet.  Now lets move to the third movie....

....So the guy married Padme, greaaat.  Besides already thinking of a few dozen ways that Anakins love life could have turned out more differently for the better, we still haven't really seen much character development.  Padme is finally settled down because she's expecting, thats fine, but really, we had three full movies and again George makes it a very stepped and sudden change.  Character development is a GRADUAL thing, not a sudden thing.

And once again, Anakins development is very staged/stepped.  George spent far to much time with temptation, rather than also mixing in say, nastier mistakes caused from Anakins more prominent character flaws; his greed and lust for glory.  It's a mistake to say he wanted just power, he also wanted glory with it.  So make him act as a hero wanna be does, and make him take even bigger risks and make even bigger mistakes.  If the second movie was handled right, the third would easily see him turn fully into a dark and cold individual.  As it was he should have been somewhat cold by the end of the SECOND movie, the third could have seen the last straw on the camels back in a far more proper manner.

Instead, again, we see crybaby.  Trying to stop the inevitable this time, and at least there was a lot more action but even so, it was just, forced.  Could he have been friends with Palpatine?  Sure, in fact it could have even been the same thing to break the straw on the camels back, but lead up to it with an even larger mistake from Anakin.  Instead, the Jedi are seen using political backstabbary that doesn't even seem in THEIR character.

There is a LOT wrong with episodes 1-3 and much of it is in how the characters behave.  It's not anywhere as natural as the original Star wars saga.  4-6 we had actually a lot of action in them, but also the characters had very natural development to them.  Were any of them trustful of each other?  Nope, hardly at all.  Luke had trust in Ben Kenobi, but you could see he was slightly skeptical at first, ahem "Well with the blind fold on I can't even see.".  Or when he successfully catches the lasers, Han replies "I'd call it luck".  Because Han is and was already established as a cut throat smuggler, and had no reason to believe in anything he'd see as superstitious.  And Luke had to appeal to Hans sense of greed in order to enlist his aid to rescue Leia.  Han made it pretty clear that he wasn't going to do anything for free.

It was clear that neither had any trust for one another yet, towards the end that trust had built up.  Likewise, Leia was initially a tense person when they'd first rescued her and when she took charge, Han was pretty upset with her.  In fact she even resorted to a bit of a racial slur against Chewbacca.  Towards the end?  They gained her trust and she'd gained theirs.  That is character development.  And it grows through the rest of the series.  Han turns from a "wow, this guy shot him almost unprovoked" to a fully three dimensional individual who tended to do the right thing first and ultimately Leia's love interest(when it was pretty clear that Leia and Han hated each other in the first episode).  It was the trust that built over time as they were forced to work together to survive against the empire while fighting for the rebellion that helped them develop as characters.

Which you did not have in episodes 1-3.  It was all dialogue, politics, but no character development.  There was one clear inspiration though since I'd been holding it off for this long; the rise of the roman empire.  George Lucas more or less copied how the Roman Empire formed when making the story for episodes 1-3, but he did not focus on character development at all.  He had the environment, but he lost the spark that drew people in.  People don't care about the huge picture in stories, they care more about how that picture effects the characters.  Episodes 4-6 had the big picture to, and the big picture affected the characters properly. Episodes 1-3 lacked that.  Everything was very, very planned and rushed.

Within minutes of meeting one another, the protagonists of the Prequals were instantly a full functioning band, not a rabble struggling to get past petty differences that we saw in 4-6. 
They didn't have to move or change to make it.  They were "already at the end" of team build up relationship.
The protagonists in 4-6 had to change to make it.  Their environment required it of them.
Lukes rise as a Jedi was battling himself(and even his skepticism) and learning.  It was gradual.  Luke's rise was a slow 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10.
Anakins fall as a Sith was because "fate(george)" decided it, rather than a gradual decline.  Suddenly Anakin would have a morality of say, 10 and then down to a 5, and then 0, in only a couple of steps.
Leia and Hans relationship developed over time.  They were forced to change from the environment.
Anakins and Padme's relationship was forced/planned because neither had to change in the first place.
Original Trilogy had a world that profoundly effected the characters.
Prequal Trilogy lacked that somewhat.
Original Trilogy The villain was a doer.
Prequal Trilogy The villain(whoever it was) was always a talker.

I could go on but, 4-6 had a lot right.  1-3 just didn't get it.

[Taceus Jiwede]

What the world really needs is a KOTR movie.   Ya I said it.

[hurple]

Sweet.  I like 'Star Wars' by George Lucas.  I'm not sure what that diluted 'junk' put out by Disney Inc. is suppose to be.  Other than one stiff confusing torrent of heavy panting.  (Frozen vs the latest StarWas.  Hmm.  Strangely appropriate.)

A very ironic post. 

I'd take George Lucas at his 'worst' over the pandering, empty, vacuous non-sensical and stilted garbage 'Disney' put out.  *(Exceptions may apply.  Ewoks not included.)

Azrael.

Well, at least this movie didn't have a cartoon character performing in "blackface" slave patter like Episode I.

[Kassandros]

So a black actor playing a cgi amphibian is blackface? Got it.

[Arcana]

Well, at least this movie didn't have a cartoon character performing in "blackface" slave patter like Episode I.

Spoilers.

[Arcana]

So a black actor playing a cgi amphibian is blackface? Got it.

hurple didn't say Jar-Jar Binks was blackface, he said the character was performing "blackface slave patter" which is a statement about his speech, not his appearance.  And this is an accusation that has nothing to do with whether Ahmed Best is black or not, because the contention that Jar-Jar's speech sounds too caricaturisticly like something that was once used to mock black people has nothing do with the race of the performer, unless Ahmed Best actually talks like that normally.

I'm not sure I would go that far myself personally.  I still remember when those same accusations were leveled against Pat Morita for the way he voiced Mr. Miyagi.  The notion that he was making fun of Japanese people because "Japanese people don't talk like that" was something that was discussed a lot at the time in Hawaii where I live, and where people who actually talk exactly like that still live.  I have relatives that talk like that completely unironically.  So I'm much more cautious about leveling that accusation.

[Keldian]

Ill take star trek thanks. I used to be a SW fan but after the massive disappointment of ep 7 and how AWFUL the new Battlefront game is...

In the last star trek movie, they made starships irrelevant by creating overpowered personal transporters and then found a cure for death.  That's some pretty shoddy world building.

[Joshex]

I would like to see this equation. As far as I know it's not possible to prove that mathematically within the framework of the commonly accepted cosmological theories, but if it is possible, I'd be interested to see how the math for it works out.

Note that simply writing an equation is not a proof. Proof in mathematical terms arises from being able to transform the equation using standard rules to show that it is equivalent to (or a logical consequence of) another equation that is already accepted as true.

"another equation that is already accepted as true" which if you go back far enough is based on something we physically recorded or deduced from measurable repeat physical happenings, though accepted as law I provide to you the possibility that it may be incorrect if even partially.

it's like a game of sudoku (but with a much larger grid spanning with numbers beyond the thousands), you start off with the givens which are physically known laws because they are verifiable and provided from the start. then you try to find the missing numbers (each one is a theory) via deduction of what must do what based on the numbers already present, and after a few rounds of that, if the game is extra hard you will eventually encounter a point where math and deduction will not aid you, now anything entered into the grid is a mere guess based on probability and cross referencing. They are indeed equal to or a product of the original and the deduced numbers entered until that point, and compute correlate to provide no conflicts, but only compute so long as the puzzle never reaches an almost complete stage, if it should there will arise mass conflicts and you better hope people still remember and are willing to admit which theories were un-grounded guesses.

that is why it could be written that a chicken sandwich at the coordinates of a kentuky fried chicken in kentuky is the center of the universe and if consumed would cause the universe to become unstable and collapse, it's just numbers filling a hole on a grid based on the already present numbers, given that the center of the universe is an unknown and that there is nothing to deduce it from and cross referencing yields no direct answer; it is a blank spot on the grid that literally anything could fill.

this is why I use such a preposterous example.

If it were true though imagine the universe bending conundrum; is this chicken sandwich really from KFC or was it brought in from outside!  :o

[darkgob]

I'm not sure I would go that far myself personally.  I still remember when those same accusations were leveled against Pat Morita for the way he voiced Mr. Miyagi.  The notion that he was making fun of Japanese people because "Japanese people don't talk like that" was something that was discussed a lot at the time in Hawaii where I live, and where people who actually talk exactly like that still live.  I have relatives that talk like that completely unironically.  So I'm much more cautious about leveling that accusation.

That doesn't make it not a caricature.  Stereotypes do exist for a reason.  The question is, did it make sense for Mr. Miyagi to talk that way?  I would argue that it did.  You really can't make the same argument for Jar Jar though.

[Todogut]

I should also point out that "Disney" is a mega corporation most of which had nothing to do with Star Wars; if you feel The Force Awakens is a bad movie the two most important contributors to that feeling would be JJ Abrams - George Lucas' hand-picked director for the sequel - and Lawrence Kasdan, aka the guy who wrote Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

Yes, most people working at Disney had nothing to do with SW:TFA; and JJ Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan are the credited director and screenwriter, respectively. However, if you can't perceive the obvious, palpable, icky degree of corporate influence by viewing the final product, then perhaps you should visit an optometrist.

Do you believe that what we saw on screen was the story that Lawrence Kasdan would have created on his own? SW:TFA was corporate film-making and design by committee. Kasdan cashed in on another big payday before retiring... not before getting his son, an aspiring screenwriter, a co-credit for the upcoming young Han Solo movie: Screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan is Done With 'Star Wars' After His Han Solo Movie.

[Arcana]

"another equation that is already accepted as true" which if you go back far enough is based on something we physically recorded or deduced from measurable repeat physical happenings, though accepted as law I provide to you the possibility that it may be incorrect if even partially.

it's like a game of sudoku (but with a much larger grid spanning with numbers beyond the thousands), you start off with the givens which are physically known laws because they are verifiable and provided from the start. then you try to find the missing numbers (each one is a theory) via deduction of what must do what based on the numbers already present, and after a few rounds of that, if the game is extra hard you will eventually encounter a point where math and deduction will not aid you, now anything entered into the grid is a mere guess based on probability and cross referencing. They are indeed equal to or a product of the original and the deduced numbers entered until that point, and compute correlate to provide no conflicts, but only compute so long as the puzzle never reaches an almost complete stage, if it should there will arise mass conflicts and you better hope people still remember and are willing to admit which theories were un-grounded guesses.

that is why it could be written that a chicken sandwich at the coordinates of a kentuky fried chicken in kentuky is the center of the universe and if consumed would cause the universe to become unstable and collapse, it's just numbers filling a hole on a grid based on the already present numbers, given that the center of the universe is an unknown and that there is nothing to deduce it from and cross referencing yields no direct answer; it is a blank spot on the grid that literally anything could fill.

this is why I use such a preposterous example.

I don't think you understand what scientific theories are, or equations.  Essentially none of these statements are true.  Science doesn't work that way, not even a little bit.  Not even as an approximation.  Not even as a casual oversimplification.  Take the standard model of physics.  It wasn't initially formulated as a matrix of numbers; that came way later as a way to organize the information.  And even now, the standard model isn't a set of equations per se.  Its more like a periodic table.  And even to the extent that it contains something like a matrix the underlying basis for the standard model isn't algebraic equations, its group theory and topology.

But probably the single most egregious error is the notion that Science is about filling in holes.  That's a small part of a small part of Science: the process of theoretical confirmation.  The whole *point* of Science isn't interpolation, its extrapolation.  The usefulness of Science isn't about finding "the last piece of information" like the last piece of a puzzle.  The usefulness of Science comes from taking what we know, and systematically using that to determine what we can't directly observe with a high degree of confidence.  We don't *know* that light behaves exactly the same way at Alpha Centauri as it does here, but we have a high degree of confidence it does based on how we've studied how light works: knowing that we can deduce the composition of that star from its spectra.  We aren't filling in a hole in a puzzle, we're pushing beyond its borders.  Even to the extent that we're trying to fill in "holes" in the standard model, that's within the context of trying to go beyond it to theories that better explain the physics without resorting to all those "numbers in a grid."  The discovery of the Higgs boson, for example, is part of an attempt to discover if the mesh of mass numbers in the standard model aren't just "numbers in a grid" but actually arise from a single mechanism with a unifying principle that governs how mass arises.

Beyond that, no parsing of your description of how scientific progress works lands on something actually correct.  The starting point "givens" aren't laws, they are observations.  The only possible thing that could correspond to "missing numbers" are tuning parameters, not theories.  Scientific progress doesn't occur through mathematical deduction, but through the process of verifiable induction.  Scientific theories are overturned through experimental refutation; not some random game of which one was a guess.  Research the history of relativity or quantum mechanics: none of those theories were produced by a process that could in any way remotely be described as you are doing.  Science is not about equations.  Science is about theoretical confirmation.  Some of the biggest theories in science contain statements that can be expressed as simple equations: E=mc^2, or Gm + gD = 8piGT/c^4.  But those equations aren't the theory.  They are a component of the theory.  You can stare at Gm + gD = 8piGT/c^4 all you want, but without the theory that gives those symbols meaning the equation is sterile.  The actual theory, which states that spacetime curvature is determined by its energy density in a specific way**, isn't just about the equation.  Its about the descriptive power of the field equation to make predictions about how the universe works.  Its about the fact that curved spacetime implies no universal clock, which can be experimentally tested.  Its about the fact that light moves through space in geodesics defined by those equations, which is different than the paths light would take if gravity was a newtonian force that applied to photons, and therefore can be tested.  Its about the fact that energy is what produces the effects we call gravity, and mass is just a specific kind of energy that gravity cares less about in general.

Many of those things can be described by equations, and much of it can only be precisely described through mathematical language, but none of it is about filling in numerical parameters.  There aren't any new parameters in there: just the speed of light and the universal gravitational constant, both of which were known before Einstein came along.  Special and General Relativity didn't shuffle numbers in a game of Sudoku, Relativity set fire to the Sudoku cards and forced everyone to start playing Chess.



** Basically, General Relativity

[Codewalker]

...

...

* /me watches the thread closely to obtain experimental confirmation of what happens when particles and antiparticles meet

[Joshex]

I don't think you understand what scientific theories are, or equations.  Essentially none of these statements are true.  Science doesn't work that way, not even a little bit.  Not even as an approximation.  Not even as a casual oversimplification.  Take the standard model of physics.

The standard model of physics is incomplete. which is exactly what I'm getting at, there may be a whole bunch of things wrong with it and no one will know till they try to figure out the last bits and find out that it just doesn't add up any way you spin it.

take dark matter and life for example, two things that definitely exist, scientists have some guesses but no conclusions. finding out what they are could change the whole model proving some things which were ascertained from other things to be mere guesses.

[Arcana]

Yes, most people working at Disney had nothing to do with SW:TFA; and JJ Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan are the credited director and screenwriter, respectively. However, if you can't perceive the obvious, palpable, icky degree of corporate influence by viewing the final product, then perhaps you should visit an optometrist.

Do you believe that what we saw on screen was the story that Lawrence Kasdan would have created on his own? SW:TFA was corporate film-making and design by committee. Kasdan cashed in on another big payday before retiring... not before getting his son, an aspiring screenwriter, a co-credit for the upcoming young Han Solo movie: Screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan is Done With 'Star Wars' After His Han Solo Movie.

I assure you my cinematic perceptions are at least the equal to your own.  All movies are corporate constructs, from Star Wars to Citizen Cane to the tiniest independent film.  The question is the degree to which Disney execs micromanaged the process, and that's not obvious at all.  The "Disney Exec" that basically runs that part of the house is Kathleen Kennedy, formerly the icky corporate stooge of George Lucas.  She just traded icky corporate influence masters.

If anything, the modern Disney is a far less oppressive corporate master than most.  Marvel is oppressive, but its Marvel oppressive where the same corporate micromanagers who used to run the place before Disney bought them are still micromanaging the place afterwards.  That's not on Disney.  And Frozen, that giant overcommercialized monstrosity that pretty much every child under 12 loved was a product of Disney Animation Studios that Disney all but handed to John Lasseter, formerly one of the icky corporate masters of Pixar before they were acquired by Disney.  Disney didn't take over Pixar, Pixar took over Disney animation.  How does that fit into your icky corporate overlord theory?

Disney's marketing and merchandising arms commercialize the hell out of Disney properties: of that there's no doubt.  That's their job.  But the notion that there's some Disney committee that micromanages all Disney media productions from Big Hero 6 to The Muppets is tin foil hat nonsense.  Just because you see them and I don't, doesn't mean its my eyes that are bad.

Do I believe we saw what Kasdan would have created on his own?  No, but that's because we've never seen what Kasdan would have created on his own, and never will.  But there's absolutely no question that what we saw was heavily influenced by him.  If you actually studied both Kasdan and Abrams, you can see a lot of where Abrams had a clear hand (for example, the light saber as the first McGuffin: pure Abrams), and where Kasdan obviously had some significant influence (pretty much Rey's entire arc, but particularly her interactions with Han).  The icky corporate parts?  Subtle if anywhere.  The presence of the Millenium Falcon lets them sell all kinds of toys, but heck if *I* was writing that script the Falcon would have been in there somewhere: that's impossible to pin on commercialism.  The nods and homages to the original movies?  If that was enforced by Disney good for them: that's probably where the production veered the most away from what George Lucas wanted to do, and its in retrospect the overwhelmingly correct decision to restart the movies on.

If anything, most of the parts of the movie that I think are less successful are things corporate masters would ordinarily advise against.  Abrams clearly is in full mystery-box mode with his love of jumping into the middle of stories and leaving a lot of unanswered plot questions.  That's almost certainly something the suits were uncomfortable with but cut him slack on - still a point of criticism for many fans.  There's the Mary Sue accusations which I personally think are a load of crap, but again if anything that runs counter to how you'd expect corporate interference to run.  You'd think the suits would want to involve the old cast more for nostalgia points.  You'd think the suits would want to focus on the male lead more than the female one.  But if you *are* going to Hunger Games the female lead then you're not going to shift to her in act two, you're going to focus on her more in act one, and not Finn.  You're not going to have Emo Darth Vader which seems more like a Kasdan thing.  You're not going to have the scene on the bridge, which seems like both an Abrams thing *and* a Kasdan thing.  You're going to stretch that thing out for as long as possible.

The missteps I see in TFA don't look like corporate interference.  They look more personal, like the things that often trip up Abrams in particular.  I haven't heard a good argument yet for a bad thing in TFA that a) actually is an objectively bad thing and b) doesn't look like something Abrams hasn't done before or something Kasdan hasn't written before.  It looks like most of Disney's influence was exercised *before* the movie shot, not after.  Disney (and Lucas actually, who at the time was still involved) knew what they were getting with Abrams, and picked him because of his resume.  By picking him, they already had a huge impact on what TFA would become.  It would be a movie that combined an emphasis on intersecting character trajectories and action sequences.  By allowing Abrams to bring in Kasdan, Disney had to know that this would steer TFA into a more nostalgic direction reminiscent of Empire.  These are legitimately corporate influences, but that's not the same thing as saying these things didn't come from the minds of Abrams and Kasdan.  It just means Disney knew what they were getting when they put Star Wars in their hands and not others.  Disney, and Kennedy in particular, did not like the ideas that Lucas had when he was a consultant.  That too is influence, but its legitimate influence that isn't about micromanaging the final product, its about rejecting ideas they don't like when the movie is being conceptualized.

I concede those corporate influences.  And I presume there are other subtle ones in the movie.  But if you can actually point to major elements of the movie that are clearly the product of Disney steering production and not just what Abrams or Kasdan were most likely to do anyway, I'm all ears.

[Arcana]

The standard model of physics is incomplete. which is exactly what I'm getting at, there may be a whole bunch of things wrong with it and no one will know till they try to figure out the last bits and find out that it just doesn't add up any way you spin it.

Actually, the Higgs boson is the final piece of the standard model.  With that, acknowledging refinements in the future, the standard model *is* complete, in that all of the components of the theory have now been experimentally verified to exist.

Its obviously not "complete" in that it doesn't explain all physical processes, but that's like saying your high school education is incomplete because you don't know everything yet.  No scientific theory will every be complete in that sense of the word.

Now, could there be "a whole bunch of things wrong with it"?  Not in the way you mean.  The standard model is a theory that makes very specific predictions.  Those predictions have so far been experimentally verified to high degree of precision.  Its unlikely at this point to be "wrong" in any way you mean - i.e. that experiments contradict it, particularly with the Higgs detected.  However, its always possible that the theory can be superceded by a better one; one that explains more or somehow explains the same thing more accurately.  Newton was a very good theory of gravity, and we still use Newton's equations today.  Today we understand that gravity isn't even a real force, its a manifestation of spacetime geometry.  However, that doesn't mean Newton was wrong in the sense you mean: every prediction Newton made in the past and was verified is still true today.  Where Newton and Einstein don't agree are in places Newton himself could not possibly have tested for.  In those places, Einstein wins, and Newton's predictions are wrong.  That's why we believe Einstein is "right" and Newton is "wrong" but in a larger sense we thought Newton was right, and now we know he was mostly right.  Once you experimentally verify a theory like Newton's gravitational theory, its extremely unlikely it will be proven to be totally wrong.  And for Einstein's theories to be accepted as better, they had to not only make predictions that Newton couldn't, they had to basically agree with Newton in all the older historical settings.  If Einstein couldn't reproduce Newton, his theories would be worthless.  Because we *know* Newton works, at least to within a degree of precision.  Einstein also works to that precision, but it goes further and works to an even higher precision, and also makes totally different predictions that aren't just numerically different than Newton, but phenomenologically different as well.

take dark matter and life for example, two things that definitely exist, scientists have some guesses but no conclusions. finding out what they are could change the whole model proving some things which were ascertained from other things to be mere guesses.

The jury is still out on dark matter, but all life we know of is made of matter and energy.  No life we've ever discovered violates the standard model.  Life doesn't contradict the standard model of physics in any way.  And I still have no idea what you mean by "some things which were ascertained from other things to be mere guesses."  Do you actually know what the inductive process of science is, or even what induction is, or even what is, is?