1 hour ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

“F-ing magnets, how do they work?”

What do you mean? It was explained a while back starting here:

And continuing for the next 3 posts.

11 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

What do you mean? It was explained a while back starting here:

And continuing for the next 3 posts.

It's a joke. ICP reference.

Have people watched the Matt Colville The Last Jedi review? It's not much of a typical review, but it's incredibly thoughtful. Reminds me why I loved the OT. Worth checking out.

22 hours ago, Derpzilla88 said:

Episode VIII: Episode 6.5: The Sequel's Prequel.

Essentially yes. However, the plot that I presented could be wrapped into a quarter of the film. Without it, we are left with a shallow, almost non-existent backstory with respect to Luke's huge personality swing. Too much time has elapsed between RoTJ and this trilogy for Disney to expect us that Luke has completely lost his mind because one student is too strong. It also creates a better justification for Kylo killing his father other than needing to become stronger and frankly, Ford not wanting to be in these movies anymore.

Disney already copy and pasted a New Hope. They might as well have done the same with RoTJ through a Luke/Ren mentorship gone wrong.

Instead, we are left with an objectively bad script that completely ignores the successful elements of the previous films, and replaces them with CGI sensory overload.

9 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

I would just like to point out that Starkiller base is actually about the size of a small asteroid.

Large asteroid. Ceres is the only asteroid in our solar system's asteroid belt that is bigger - all the rest are smaller.

4 hours ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Instead, we are left with an objectively bad script that completely ignores the successful elements of the previous films, and replaces them with CGI sensory overload.

Amazing, everything you said is wrong. It absolutely is not an objectively bad script, it does not completely ignore the successful elements of the previous films, and there is hardly CGI sensory overload in this.

But then you think TFA is a copy and paste of ANH, so already you're not really arguing with much reason. Wild stab in the dark here, Legends fan?

11 minutes ago, redxavier said:

Amazing, everything you said is wrong. It absolutely is not an objectively bad script, it does not completely ignore the successful elements of the previous films, and there is hardly CGI sensory overload in this.

But then you think TFA is a copy and paste of ANH, so already you're not really arguing with much reason. Wild stab in the dark here, Legends fan?

Here ya go:

19 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Here ya go:

I'm not a fan of the Disney Lucasfilm Star Wars stuff, but I will say that you can take any film and cherry pick it to fit your argument. Part of the reason I find studies are usually terrible. You can massage your data until you get the result you want.

Also, it's really hard to say a movie is objectively bad. Like I said, I really don't like the new movies. I think they hurt what makes the originals special by ruining the magic of them. See a video done by Matt Colville about it. It's good.

I'm not a Legends fan either. I kind of sit somewhere in the camp where I want to enjoy the movies and the rest of the content should either be not canon or irrelevant to the movies. I'm also a fan of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, so you know where I'm coming from.

There are entire sections of the film left out of that video... and most of the examples are distilled down to a superficial similarity. It's not nearly enough to say that one is a copy and paste of the other or the same movie. To continue to say so demonstrates startling cognitive dissonance, a wilful bias, misunderstanding of what words mean, or all of the above.

21 minutes ago, redxavier said:

There are entire sections of the film left out of that video... and most of the examples are distilled down to a superficial similarity. It's not nearly enough to say that one is a copy and paste of the other or the same movie. To continue to say so demonstrates startling cognitive dissonance, a wilful bias, misunderstanding of what words mean, or all of the above.

Yeah because the similarity between blowing up a "Starkiller Base" and a "Death Star" is superficial. Get real, man.

3 minutes ago, redxavier said:

There are entire sections of the film left out of that video... and most of the examples are distilled down to a superficial similarity. It's not nearly enough to say that one is a copy and paste of the other or the same movie. To continue to say so demonstrates startling cognitive dissonance, a wilful bias, misunderstanding of what words mean, or all of the above.

I called the outline of TFA a month before release: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28925.msg1468644#msg1468644

They left in the Falcon and then immediately met Han and Chewie. I sooooo whiffed on that one.

They put the cantina scene after they left Tatooine Jakku. But that bit sort of doubled as escaping from the Death Star didn't it?

It is more than just superficial.

Funny that you should be proud of an outline where you get the McGuffin and numerous other things wrong. And it's superficial because for every point where the same thing happens, the characters, motivations and circumstances are very different. You're merely looking at an action (or a thing in some cases) and not looking beyond that. As Abrams has admitted, the the familiarity is intended as a framing device for new characters and sequences. All in all, the two most repetitive beats of TFA, hiding information in a droid and the trench run, aren't nearly enough to say that it's a copy and paste. Is TPM a copy and paste of ANH as well?

On a side note, I'm surprised that you're so willing to reveal that you had such an open mind before you even saw the movie...

It's okay to enjoy the movie even though it isn't very good and only superficially doesn't copy the original Star Wars. I've enjoyed plenty of bad movies because they've got a pretty girl and lots of explosions.

Wait, didn't this happen too?

Kylo to Rey: I know who your parents are.

*5 minutes later*

Kylo to Rey: Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.

Rey: Who are my rents?

Kylo: Nobody, you have no past. Your parents were nobodies. Lol. Nice saber battle tho.

People forget how much the Empire Strides Back subverted the story from the Star Wars.

The entire direction pivoted from being just about a rebellion to a personal struggle between father and son. Vader till that point was just a badass looking villain, nothing more so the paternal twist was huge.

The Last Jedi really is a modern analogue for Empire in modern storytelling.

After watching it a second time, it felt like the movie was just setting up expectations to subvert them. And not for any good reason, or to make the story more interesting, they just thought they needed to subvert everything. Actually it felt like it made the story less interesting. I think the only parts are really enjoyed was the last quarter. The rest just felt kind of pointless and boring. The chase, the casino and even Rey and Luke, all felt slow and not really to any major pay offs.

1 hour ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

After watching it a second time, it felt like the movie was just setting up expectations to subvert them. And not for any good reason, or to make the story more interesting, they just thought they needed to subvert everything. Actually it felt like it made the story less interesting. I think the only parts are really enjoyed was the last quarter. The rest just felt kind of pointless and boring. The chase, the casino and even Rey and Luke, all felt slow and not really to any major pay offs.

They continually traded one trope for a lesser/worse trope.

On 12/28/2017 at 7:48 PM, ImperialCaptain2017 said:

By the way, they can't be gravity feed unless the Dreadnought had its own gravity well (which it doesn't)...

Does make me wonder: what happens if you drop a massive bunch of bombs near an Interdictor?

While I agree with several other posters here about the absolute ridiculousness of that entire scene/concept.

That Ship is inside the planets gravity well, it is skimming the planets upper atmosphere when it commences its bombardment, so technically there is gravity to pull bombs out of a rack and onto a target. Kinda like how the Sulaco in Aliens has the Dropship sat on 4 prongs inside the hanger bay, which release and gravity pulls the dropship out of the hanger bay.

And please would people stop with the WW1/WW2 examples, The Bismark was immune to the Bombs/Aerial torpedoes carried by the fighter bombers from the British ships, nothing they carried could penetrate its armour plate. Eventually however technology advanced to such a degree that they could build munitions that could take out something the size of a Battleship, cost is what got rid of Battleships ultimately, but you have to consider other factors, yes we have Oceans, but we are still a small planet, for a Battleship to be effective it needs to come near to coastlines, near to coastlines means being near to ground based Aircraft, ground based Aircraft cost a fraction of the cost of a Battleship, so we diverted our resources into other areas (as a species). If you think for one minute we couldn't have produced something competitive your sorely sorely mistaken, just look at the evolution of Tanks from WWI to now. Just because we chose to not do something, does not mean something in fact could not have been done.

Again many factors played a monumental part in this, resources being the primary, funds being secondary, your looking at this world and how it was in WW1/WW2 and basing that on a space faring empire that has mastered faster than light travel, and that can produce objects the size of a DeathStar. They are not even remotely the same ballpark, this is not some poxy nation with 30 million people living inside it, sharing resources with several billion people and hundreds of individual countries. This is a pan galactic empire, the resources available are on such a scale as to be unimaginable, beyond our comprehension, nothing at all like desperate nations locked in a primitive war with combustion engines and projectile weaponry.

Simply put, if you're building ships of the Size of ISD's then you have the technology to protect them from attacks from single manned fighter craft. Because Capital ships are designed to trade fire with other Capital ships, if your technology is not good enough for your Capital ships to deal with single manned fighters, then it is not going to have a chance in **** of trading fire with a Capital class grade weapon system.

54 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

While I agree with several other posters here about the absolute ridiculousness of that entire scene/concept.

That Ship is inside the planets gravity well, it is skimming the planets upper atmosphere when it commences its bombardment, so technically there is gravity to pull bombs out of a rack and onto a target. Kinda like how the Sulaco in Aliens has the Dropship sat on 4 prongs inside the hanger bay, which release and gravity pulls the dropship out of the hanger bay.

Or, you know, they were magnetic. . .

54 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Simply put, if you're building ships of the Size of ISD's then you have the technology to protect them from attacks from single manned fighter craft. Because Capital ships are designed to trade fire with other Capital ships, if your technology is not good enough for your Capital ships to deal with single manned fighters, then it is not going to have a chance in **** of trading fire with a Capital class grade weapon system.

I disagree. Fighters are far smaller and more maneuverable than capital ships. So you can be great at fighting capital ships, as you need big guns that needn't move quickly, but still terrible against fighters, as for those you need light and fast cannons.

Die Hard is beat for beat the same film as Home Alone

33 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Or, you know, they were magnetic. . .

I disagree. Fighters are far smaller and more maneuverable than capital ships. So you can be great at fighting capital ships, as you need big guns that needn't move quickly, but still terrible against fighters, as for those you need light and fast cannons.

I did not say they weren't magnetic, I simply stated for a ship bombarding a planet surface, usually, and as shown in the film the Ship is inside the upper atmosphere of the planet...hence there is Gravity.

Who said Capital class ships need to be able to fight fighters? They just need to be immune to their attacks. And big guns that don't move quickly?? you do not think much about space combat then?

Computers would be needed for combat, very powerful very advanced computers, space combat by its very nature is not a natural environment, it doesn't obey the same rules that we evolved with, and certainly not any ground based lifeform, we do not process nor do we have the capability to process high speed combat in space, we just wouldn't be able to process things fast enough, and a computer would be able to, a computer wouldn't black out due to the insane g forces generated in a high speed, high maneuvering required to function effectively in that environment and be an effective threat.

So computer controlled fire systems would have an almost insurmountable advantage against organic piloted snub fighter craft. After all, there are only so many places you can physically be when you are travelling at X velocity on Y axis relative to the plane of the ship you are attacking.

Don't believe me?? have a look at our current gen of anti missile systems, they can target, plot and shoot in seconds, at munitions the size of a Artillery round travelling tremendous velocity. it is not hard to extrapolate from our primitive technology that in the future hard wired systems will have such and edge as to make manned craft a liability, were almost getting there now and we are barely a space faring species.

2 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

I did not say they weren't magnetic, I simply stated for a ship bombarding a planet surface, usually, and as shown in the film the Ship is inside the upper atmosphere of the planet...hence there is Gravity.

Who said Capital class ships need to be able to fight fighters? They just need to be immune to their attacks. And big guns that don't move quickly?? you do not think much about space combat then?

Computers would be needed for combat, very powerful very advanced computers, space combat by its very nature is not a natural environment, it doesn't obey the same rules that we evolved with, and certainly not any ground based lifeform, we do not process nor do we have the capability to process high speed combat in space, we just wouldn't be able to process things fast enough, and a computer would be able to, a computer wouldn't black out due to the insane g forces generated in a high speed, high maneuvering required to function effectively in that environment and be an effective threat.

So computer controlled fire systems would have an almost insurmountable advantage against organic piloted snub fighter craft. After all, there are only so many places you can physically be when you are travelling at X velocity on Y axis relative to the plane of the ship you are attacking.

Don't believe me?? have a look at our current gen of anti missile systems, they can target, plot and shoot in seconds, at munitions the size of a Artillery round travelling tremendous velocity. it is not hard to extrapolate from our primitive technology that in the future hard wired systems will have such and edge as to make manned craft a liability, were almost getting there now and we are barely a space faring species.

Ah, I thought it was fully in space. My apologies for missing your point.

Well it would be tough to be immune to their attacks when snubfighters can carry the same munitions (APTs and ACMs) as capital ships. Less of them, granted, but of the same caliber. So any advance that improved the armor of capital ships would lead to an advance in the tech to pierce it, and thus elevate snubs once more to the same level of lethality (in bursts) as a capital ship. And massed fighters can equal a capital ship in damage potential. Within the Star Wars universe, of course.
Additionally, in SW there is artificial gravity everywhere, so computer operated ships and manned ships would have the same abilities excepting speed of response, and for some reason only the CIS used droid fighters. Furthermore, the guns on the capital ships are manned (as far as we can see) by people. So both the guns and the fighters have the same response time.

4 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

While I agree with several other posters here about the absolute ridiculousness of that entire scene/concept.

That Ship is inside the planets gravity well, it is skimming the planets upper atmosphere when it commences its bombardment

I agree with everything you said except this...

I distinctly remember the Dreadnought and the FO fleet standing off some distance from the planet when the Fulminatrix fired her autocannons at the base.

Take a look at this video (it's not very good, but it has a screen capture from TLJ that explains this):

When Poe attacks the Dreadnought, you can see blank space behind it...not the planet underneath it.

Also, if they were skimming the atmosphere, they would have to pivot the whole ship to face the fleeing Raddus and support ships (which they didn't have to do).

Therefore I think the gravity bomb objection still stands...

To me it would have been better if the Dreadnought was smaller. A small little cruiser with huge bombardment cannons. Sort of the way the Interdictor worked in the old EU. It was very dangerous for the rebels and the main objective to defend by the imperials.

Even in the movie it doesnt feel as huge as it is meant to be. You could perfectly change the size of the ship to 500-800m in the starwars databank and nothing would change.

1 hour ago, ImperialCaptain2017 said:

Therefore I think the gravity bomb objection still stands...

Except they're magnetic, which has been said a hundred times. Reverse the polarity on the racks when you launch, and then the vacuum of space means they keep the same velocity and direction all the way "down" to their target.

Or, ya know, accept that it's an intentional homage to WWII B-17s and appreciate the pretty damned cool cinematography that goes with it. Star Wars fighter combat has always been based on WWII air combat. Always. There's no sound on space, but I'll be damned if I never had the beautiful scream of a TIE Fighter in my life. The magnetic wracks is plausible enough for me to thoroughly enjoy the scene. I absolutely love it, as I love an awful lot of this movie. And guess what? I'm allowed to do that. Just as you're allowed to hate it. No skin off either of our backs. Just don't ignore the fact that there exists a plausible method of delivery that is every bit as "realistic" as everything else in Star Wars.

Fair warning: I will be trolling every 'I want Prequels stuff' thread with a request for these beautifully combustible bombers.