42 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

I also still hate JJ Abrams because he doesn't know how to apply internally consistent physical 'laws' in his movies (or TV because he was so good with the "laws" of physics in Firefly).

Um...Abrams was not involved with Firefly.

On 12/26/2017 at 5:38 AM, Stan Fresh said:

Some of those that look like energy weapons might not even be ones! Remember the Separatist cruisers from the start of Episode 3? Their guns use shells and need reloading. Who knows what was going on there!

The rounds also explode and dont travel even close to the speed of light (or sound for that matter).

Turbolasers arent lasers.

3 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Um...Abrams was not involved with Firefly.

Yep, I got him mixed up with Joss Whedon. Mea Culpa.

Although, has anyone seen Joss Whedon & JJ Abrams in the same room? And has anyone else noticed that JJ Abrams wears glasses where Joss doesn't?

I'm just say'n.

2 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

Although, has anyone seen Joss Whedon & JJ Abrams in the same room? And has anyone else noticed that JJ Abrams wears glasses where Joss doesn't?

I'm just say'n.

7 hours ago, korjik said:

The rounds also explode and dont travel even close to the speed of light (or sound for that matter).

Turbolasers arent lasers.

So Judas Priest was onto something with that whole "laser bullet" thing we all thought was so silly?

10 hours ago, korjik said:

The rounds also explode and dont travel even close to the speed of light (or sound for that matter).

Turbolasers arent lasers.

Star Wars ships can travel a quarter parsec in eight minutes, at sublight speeds.

The evidence is pretty clear: the physics of that galaxy far, far away are not the same as ours.

1 hour ago, coyote6 said:

Star Wars ships can travel a quarter parsec in eight minutes, at sublight speeds.

The evidence is pretty clear: the physics of that galaxy far, far away are not the same as ours.

It just occured to me that a parsecs actual length is dependent on the diameter of the orbit of the planet that defines it. Maybe the Star Wars planet that defined the parsec has a very small orbit. Using the diameter of the moon's orbit around the Earth gives a parsec of .01 LY. So that would make their speed......650 times the speed of light.

Maybe its a really really small orbit.

Sp I really haven't seen anything convincing as to why hyperspace isn't used as basically the only weapon that matters. Trading a Z-95 for a corvette is math any military strategist would be happy to make. Not to mention a 15-20 ton object like a snubfighter at lightspeed would easily destroy a a dreadnought, or even an entire planet. Why build Death Stars? And forgive me if I assume the Empire is not particularly concerned with the reputation they have with droids.

5 hours ago, TheJrade said:

Sp I really haven't seen anything convincing as to why hyperspace isn't used as basically the only weapon that matters. Trading a Z-95 for a corvette is math any military strategist would be happy to make. Not to mention a 15-20 ton object like a snubfighter at lightspeed would easily destroy a a dreadnought, or even an entire planet. Why build Death Stars? And forgive me if I assume the Empire is not particularly concerned with the reputation they have with droids.

Actually. I have done the math for fighters hitting a planet at lightspeed. So I demand now that you do them as well, because this might give you back some of your sanity. DO IT. SHOW THE MATH.

And btw, convincing a mad man who ignores all evidence against his conspiracy theory is not an desired outcome in any discussion. Anyway. DO the math, it fun, but it will disappoint you, because even at light speed the explosive power is surprisingly low. So low actually, that 5 gigaton turbolasers are more impressive (check Curtis Saxtons math on that too, you seem like the type of guy to have fun with that)

5 hours ago, TheJrade said:

Sp I really haven't seen anything convincing as to why hyperspace isn't used as basically the only weapon that matters. Trading a Z-95 for a corvette is math any military strategist would be happy to make. Not to mention a 15-20 ton object like a snubfighter at lightspeed would easily destroy a a dreadnought, or even an entire planet. Why build Death Stars? And forgive me if I assume the Empire is not particularly concerned with the reputation they have with droids.

I mentioned it... here and in your other thread.

To get the catastrophic results you see in the film you have to hit the target at a rather precise moment. That means not just doing a normal hyperspace calculation, but calculating the exact point at which your ship will be entering hyperspace while intercepting another body in motion (which logically wouldn't be a built-in function of the nava computer beyond just a general and probably oversized, length of space designated by the safety systems). Screw it up, and you get what you see in Rogue One, a relatively normal collision, or you enter hyperspace and pass through the target or collide with it's mass shadow inhyperspace.

Of course we can also get into the political discussion of when it's appropriate to use large scale weapons of mass destruction, mutually assured destruction, and the "reasonable man" theory of escalation in warfare, if you like.

Though last I checked the Star Wars movies that dwelt on politics didn't go over so well...

On 12/19/2017 at 7:02 AM, Mark Caliber said:

I didn't read anything in this thread because I haven't seen The Last Jedi yet, so I'm avoiding the spoilers but . . .

For My Star Wars RPG's I'm ignoring everything post ROTJ because it's all garbage. (I liked Rogue One but even that had Galaxy breaking continuity issues).

Heck, I realized this morning that I have NEVER flown a TFA era vehicle in any of my games of X-Wing, even though I own a handful. I hate TFA with that much vehemence I refuse to do anything with it besides hunt them down and dispatch them with unbridled enthusiasm.

Maybe one day, I'll break out a T-70 and use it . . .

Which is your favorite trilogy? I found myself liking the TLJ when I watched it, but then I went through a period of hating it, and then I watched it again and I still enjoyed it but started looking for easter eggs, plot holes, and cameos.

On 12/22/2017 at 7:46 AM, Desslok said:

To steal a real world reference I saw someone make elsewhere - why was flying airplanes into skyscrapers successful? Because nobody had did it before. Why has nobody done it again since? Because there are strategies and safeguards in place to respond to something like that. We've locked cockpit doors, restricted airspaces and implemented changes to flight lanes, fighter wings with orders to shoot down planes and that sort of thing.

So if the New Order sees someone setting up for a Kamikaze run like that now, they'll take action before the Rebels can implement the FTL attack. Stuff like put smaller expendable ships in the way, concentrate fire against the ship and so on.

http://www.check-six.com/images/Corder-4.jpg this plane hit the White house in 1994.

The star wars Galaxy is old this has to be a known tactic already, but it's an expensive one; that ship has to be hundreds of millions of credits and has an enormous crew who would be on board in normal circumstanced. The effect was gorgeous too.

My PC hyper-spaced into a Hutt Ship yard just last Spring.

34 minutes ago, Eoen said:

http://www.check-six.com/images/Corder-4.jpg this plane hit the White house in 1994.

The star wars Galaxy is old this has to be a known tactic already, but it's an expensive one; that ship has to be hundreds of millions of credits and has an enormous crew who would be on board in normal circumstanced. The effect was gorgeous too.

My PC hyper-spaced into a Hutt Ship yard just last Spring.

My group personally turned the secondary hyperdrive into a bomb; basically set it to cycle over and over; stored the energy and sent it up to explode on the bridge of a Star Destroyer. That action proved to be the decisive blow in that battle, though that was more us trying to assassinate the leader of a fleet then trying to devastate the fleet.

21 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Actually. I have done the math for fighters hitting a planet at lightspeed. So I demand now that you do them as well, because this might give you back some of your sanity. DO IT. SHOW THE MATH.

And btw, convincing a mad man who ignores all evidence against his conspiracy theory is not an desired outcome in any discussion. Anyway. DO the math, it fun, but it will disappoint you, because even at light speed the explosive power is surprisingly low. So low actually, that 5 gigaton turbolasers are more impressive (check Curtis Saxtons math on that too, you seem like the type of guy to have fun with that)

Technically, you cant do the math for hitting at c, it is a singularity (that means a division by zero for those who havent done enough physics)

If you want the math, the kinetic energy of a relativistic mass is (gamma)mc^2 where gamma is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^c). since at lightspeed v=c this gives you mc^2/0 which is infinite, so I dont quite see how that is a surprisingly low amount of damage.

The beauty of hyperspace travel is that it only works because of relativistic shields which negate all relativistic effects. Basic newtonian calculations are enough.
And suddenly it is indeed a surprisingly low amount of damage … for a similar investment in energy from the ships hypermatter reactor.

17 hours ago, Eoen said:

Which is your favorite trilogy? I found myself liking the TLJ when I watched it, but then I went through a period of hating it, and then I watched it again and I still enjoyed it but started looking for easter eggs, plot holes, and cameos.

Which is my favorite movie in this auspicious series of movies? Hmmmm.

Probably New Hope, Return of the Jedi, and then The Empire Strikes Back. And then I need to shoehorn Rogue One in there somewhere because it's a favorite too.

Next would be the Prequels.

I'm not sure which I hate more at this point, The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi. I'm going to wait until later and try to view both movies back to back to figure out which pisses me off the least.

As a point of reference, I just thought of something which may help understand why I dislike these new movies sooooo much.

If you ask Chinese historians about the Disney movie Mulan they will tell you they HATE it, and that may be in part because they are familiar with the subject (As an aside, if you want to see a good treatment of the subject check out the movie Mulan, Rise of a Warrior [2009]).

If you ask Native American historians about Disney's Pocahontas movie, THEY hate is as well, but probably because they're familiar with the actual events.

If you ask anyone who has read Hamlet about Disney's The Lion King, THEY hate is because they're familiar with the source material.

And in the spirit of brevity, I could probably list EVERY cartoon movie that Disney produced since Walt's death and find a similar corollary for EVERY SINGLE MOVIE DISNEY HAS PRODUCED.

I am also reminded that Disney movie studios nearly went out of business for good and were well on the way to tanking permanently until Pixar came along and saved them. (Disney started funding Pixar projects). And if it weren't for Pixar Disney movies would not be a thing today.

And it occurred to me that my utilization of Disney movies has been to use them to entertain VERY young children. But otherwise they seem to be pretty vapid empty products that I wouldn't watch on my own.

Ironically the people over at Disney XD seem to be putting out some quality products (including their Star Wars stuff). <shrug>.

So, in conclusion, I think that part of the reason that I don't like the latest two installments of the Star Wars franchise is because I am already well familiar with the subject . . . .

1 hour ago, Mark Caliber said:

And in the spirit of brevity, I could probably list EVERY cartoon movie that Disney produced since Walt's death and find a similar corollary for EVERY SINGLE MOVIE DISNEY HAS PRODUCED.

You missed Atlantis - The Lost Kingdom, which Disney still adamantly insists was in no way inspired by Nadia - the Secret of Blue Water.

45 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

You missed Atlantis - The Lost Kingdom, which Disney still adamantly insists was in no way inspired by Nadia - the Secret of Blue Water.

I don't recall watching Atlantis so . . . I did not 'miss' this movie.

2 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

If you ask Chinese historians about the Disney movie Mulan they will tell you they HATE it, and that may be in part because they are familiar with the subject (As an aside, if you want to see a good treatment of the subject check out the movie Mulan, Rise of a Warrior [2009]).

If you ask Native American historians about Disney's Pocahontas movie, THEY hate is as well, but probably because they're familiar with the actual events.

If you ask anyone who has read Hamlet about Disney's The Lion King, THEY hate is because they're familiar with the source material.

Hmm, interesting string of arguments ...

1. Expecting animated movies to stay close to historical events and persons (you forgot Hercules here, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, just for the record).

2. To compare said historical/literary discrepancies to a fictional universe.

3. To base one's dislike on one's "familiarity with the subject" when speaking about said fictional universe.

FYI, it doesn't matter to me if you like or dislike the new movies - I'm just pointing out a small flaw in your argumentation.

3 hours ago, Sunrider said:

Hmm, interesting string of arguments ...

1. Expecting animated movies to stay close to historical events and persons (you forgot Hercules here, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, just for the record).

2. To compare said historical/literary discrepancies to a fictional universe.

3. To base one's dislike on one's "familiarity with the subject" when speaking about said fictional universe.

FYI, it doesn't matter to me if you like or dislike the new movies - I'm just pointing out a small flaw in your argumentation.

I think he's just saying that it's is easier to find fault in things you are familiar with.

Fandoms of all shades place a certain value on intimate knowledge of the material, be it military figures of fifth century China, or warp core design.

So just as a gun buff might get annoyed when a WWII movie has a guy in the back with an AK-47 because they ran out of Stg-44s when making the film, a Star Wars buff might get flustered when some new director doesn't present the Force in the same way it's been presented in another story.

Honestly I think that's the reason for a lot of the clawing and knashing of teeth over the canon wipe when that happened. It wasn't because it was a bad idea, or unnecessary, but because a lot of people invested time and brain cells into the EU, and we're suddenly no more knowledgeable than most other fans. I think that actually extends directly to the fuss about Last Jedi.

It's not that the film was bad, just that it did things even the EU didn't have the balls to do, and directly contradicts everything the EU had been training people to believe Star Wars should be.

Were it an EU tale you know darn well Luke would have been the most Jedi Jedi to ever Jedi leading a school for gifted youngsters, Rey would be the grand daughter of Obi-wan and Ahsoka's half sister, Kylo would be Thrawn with a cool helmet, and Snoke would be a Sith only rivaled by Papa Palpy.

TLJ dumped all that, making Luke a gumpy hermit failure that has decided it's time for the galaxy to solve it's own dang problems, Rey is a nobody, Kylo is an Emo cosplayer, and Snoke is a joke.

So through that lens TLJ did it all wrong...

So we are back to expectations. Which can be because of marketing, or because of headcanon or because of familiarity with the subject of chinese history. ;-)
Either way, your expectations leading to the result of not being able to enjoy the work of art on it's own grounds, but projecting to much into it and getting disappointed when your own headcanon does not apply.
Which means Mark indeed had a point, but just did not draw the right conclusions out of it. ;-)


And it even works for me, because I really "hated" RO, not only the first weak acts(those are actually bad for real), but all the re-issued death scene from other movies as well. My expectations for star wars is doing something new, even when it is just setting old stuff into new context. But RO just did a paint job on several old world war movies, but playing all the scenes basically straight out of the book of movie history instead of breaking expectations. And this broke the only expectation I had about the movie … not being boring and predictable.
Still, RO has the best space battle in history of star wars, so there is at least something redeeming about it.

9 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

It's not that the film was bad, just that it did things even the EU didn't have the balls to do, and directly contradicts everything the EU had been training people to believe Star Wars should be.

Yeah, and you're describing pretty well why to me the EU is mostly crap (storywise). Crappy authors writing stories with the same characters and the same tropes again and again. And WHEN they finally tried to do something different, they came up with poodoo like the Vong.

9 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

I think he's just saying that it's is easier to find fault in things you are familiar with.

To me, what he's saying is, that he thinks of Disney as a company, that does children's movies - and he doesn't want SW to be made by such a company, because that would put it in the same league (which is not even true, as there's still the same LF story group).

But, let's face it: SW is nothing that qualifies as something for 'grown-ups' - and what I read in all those threads seems to confirm that most of the haters just have grown too old to accept changes.

They cling to THEIR SW, the same they learned to love when growing up. But now, 30+ years later, they cannot watch a new movie with the same eyes as back then - and they blame the movie for that. And they blame Disney, because it reminds them of how other people view SW as being childish.

Having no problem at being called 'childish' by those working their backs off to fulfill expectations, I can still enjoy changes to old themes, lean back and just enjoy the ride. And I don't give a ... as to the company that makes those movies.

23 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

If you ask anyone who has read Hamlet about Disney's The Lion King, THEY hate is because they're familiar with the source material.

I like me some Shakespeare and I used to like the Lion King

Until someone pointed out how, intentionally or not, it plays like a fascist propaganda piece.

Now I can't unsee it. YMMV.

(The link is in Swedish, as I couldn't find an equally well-written one in English (but quite a few incensed alt-right rebuttals). Run it through Google translate yourselves or look the topic up in your language of choice. For the lazy here is a reddit post that makes a few of the same points but "only" goes so far as calling it conservative.)

I don't want to live on my thread anymore.