5 hours ago, Khazadune said:

Demoted or not, he’s still the CAG. Doesn’t mean I care whether or not they told him, but everyone cares so much about his rank they forget that rank isn’t necessarily important to ones duties in the military.

(The obvious and next point is that he doesn’t have a flight group anymore)

That still doesn’t remove his position as CAG. Only by directly replacing him in the position would he have been effectively out of the chain of command. That said, there may have been other reasons; unsure if there is a mole, didn’t like him, it was a tense situation, she was filling in and didn’t have the luxury of running everything by her command staff etc etc.

I don’t need to debate it, I get where each side is coming from. But we cannot talk about military positions and ranks as if they are synonymous.

I need a source of this. Poe was a squadron commander of a squadron of FOUR ships in the new republic. Who made him CAG? Which is btw two pay grades above commander and three above captain, which usually are people in charge of a flight of 4 ships at best.
So I really wonder what the source for Poe Dameron being the Wing Commander of the resistance flag ship.

28 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

I need a source of this. Poe was a squadron commander of a squadron of FOUR ships in the new republic. Who made him CAG? Which is btw two pay grades above commander and three above captain, which usually are people in charge of a flight of 4 ships at best.
So I really wonder what the source for Poe Dameron being the Wing Commander of the resistance flag ship.

Also this is the kind of thing that Star Wars doesn't usually get into the weeds about on film and television.

Poe was in charge of a lot of starfighters, screwed up pursuing the allure of battle, disobeyed direct orders, and got demoted. After that demotion he wasn't allowed in the cool kids club anymore.

So it's not a stretch to assume that, if he even was the CAG, his demotion included being relieved. In real wars it's actually pretty common for commanders to be relieved (and worse) for screw ups like Poe made.

It's just a simple matter of the average viewer not needing all that detailed info. Every minute spent explaining rank and command structure is a minute not spent advancing the plot, developing Characters, and blasting Stormtroopers.

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

I need a source of this. Poe was a squadron commander of a squadron of FOUR ships in the new republic. Who made him CAG? Which is btw two pay grades above commander and three above captain, which usually are people in charge of a flight of 4 ships at best.
So I really wonder what the source for Poe Dameron being the Wing Commander of the resistance flag ship.

In reading up on this account it indeed shows not only a demotion of Commander to Captain but of Wing Commander, ensuring that indeed he is removed from the senior command position and you are indeed correct in your assertion that he is no longer in the position. (Something that while stated has caused confusion again and needed further exploration to identify, unfortunately)

6 hours ago, mulletcheese said:

If the bombs fall using earth level gravity they accelerate at a rate of 9.81 meters per second, if you estimate 30 foot between the bottom of the bomb rack and the outside of the ship they will have a velocity of around 36 kilometres per hour when they enter space and accelerate no further.

A granny in a Skoda could overtake these bombs.

Space ships can cross a solar system using sublight engines, even a star destroyer could accelerate (in any direction) faster than those bombs could "fall" in space.

That's why they have space magnets to pull themselves towards the target.

6 hours ago, mulletcheese said:

The only reason the resistance used bombers was because the director decided he wanted WW2 style bombers in his movie, there is no logical reason behind it.

A Star Wars battle inspired by WW2 footage!? You don't say! Now, about that trench run...

10 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

That's why they have space magnets to pull themselves towards the target.

A Star Wars battle inspired by WW2 footage!? You don't say! Now, about that trench run...

The point Mullet was making was actually that the “story” of the truth behind how the bombs drop wasn’t simply gravity as several posts had commented bc it wouldn’t work. There are official stats for the B-17 which do mention the tech behind the act, the debate began bc I said that the film could have taken two seconds to say something as a nod to the “pseudo-science” behind the tech. “Release the magbombs!” This leaves the viewer with a sense of how it’s working by way of techno-babble. It’s probably the most overused device in any sci-fi franchise because most fans care about and understand the science behind what they are seeing.

And again, the point of my post starting all this was not to discuss specific moments but rather the sense that much of the fandom splitting plot points could have been handled by simply applying slightly different scripting or some quick adjustments.

Many have pointed out that the OT had its share of faux pas, and that you have to accept those as par for the course in a movie about space wizards and light swords. That’s also true. As fans we should be able to ask for a movie with as few plot problems and inconsistencies as possible and yet be able to see one another’s perspectives on them.

7 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

It’s probably the most overused device in any sci-fi franchise

An excellent reason not to do it.

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

An excellent reason not to do it.

Are you just trying to be argumentative?

Clearly devices can be overused, like Deus Ex style FTL ship’s as missiles. Sometimes they are used for expediency, sometimes because a writer has went too far down a bad path, is lazy or too stupid to write their way out of it. Sometimes the devices offer simplicity or avoid pointless bickering among fans that otherwise share the same interests.

If you can’t see the spirit of my posts and instead want to continue in anger then I hope you find redemption from your dark path. ?

12 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

Are you just trying to be argumentative?

I'm pointing out that you're arguing for the movie to be stupider and use more clichés.

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

I'm pointing out that you're arguing for the movie to be stupider and use more clichés.

While the device is cliche its application need not be, in fact, it’s used in nearly every scene of the movie already. For example, terming the bombs as magbombs conveys that there is some force other than gravity at work. I fail to see how that is stupid.

Just now, Khazadune said:

While the device is cliche its application need not be, in fact, it’s used in nearly every scene of the movie already. For example, terming the bombs as magbombs conveys that there is some force other than gravity at work. I fail to see how that is stupid.

First of all, magbomb sounds awful because it's the sort of Sci Fi term that would just be shortened down in actual use. They're bombs.

Secondly, it's completely unnecessary for the movie because it's already explained visually why the bombs fall, and people know how bombs work from war movies. It's an explanation in search of a reason to exist.

Thirdly, thus is exactly the kind of dumb pseudo-intelligent criticism that you would get from Neil degrasse Tyson. It's about feeling smart but is completely wrongheaded actually. Like the time he said bb-8 couldn't roll properly on sand when the prop robot actually does.

56 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

The point Mullet was making was actually that the “story” of the truth behind how the bombs drop wasn’t simply gravity as several posts had commented bc it wouldn’t work. There are official stats for the B-17 which do mention the tech behind the act, the debate began bc I said that the film could have taken two seconds to say something as a nod to the “pseudo-science” behind the tech. “Release the magbombs!” This leaves the viewer with a sense of how it’s working by way of techno-babble. It’s probably the most overused device in any sci-fi franchise because most fans care about and understand the science behind what they are seeing.

And again, the point of my post starting all this was not to discuss specific moments but rather the sense that much of the fandom splitting plot points could have been handled by simply applying slightly different scripting or some quick adjustments.

Many have pointed out that the OT had its share of faux pas, and that you have to accept those as par for the course in a movie about space wizards and light swords. That’s also true. As fans we should be able to ask for a movie with as few plot problems and inconsistencies as possible and yet be able to see one another’s perspectives on them.

Or they could just, y'know...show it working, which shows the audience that it works.

Show, don't tell, is what a visual medium is designed for. What's that saying about how many words a picture is worth? A movie gives us 24 pictures a second. So how many words was the bomb sequence worth?

The scene where Obi-Wan gives Luke his father's lightsaber would have been so much better if Obi-Wan stopped to explain that it's really a magnetically contained plasma blade.

Maybe all of the characters should start speaking like the X-Men's Psylocke--

14 hours ago, coyote6 said:

Also, Luke's X-wing had been sitting underwater for years, and he had no astromech; it's not clear he could have physically gotten anywhere useful in time.

Yeah, IIRC one of the wings was separated from it, even.

After reading the two pages since yesterday, I have just few thoughs.

Keep your real life physics away from my Star Wars. No space ship in star wars has ever followed real life physics. E.g., star ships have no propellant and they are otherwise impossible, e.g. T-65C-A2 X-wing has atmosperic maximum speed of 1050 kph, so it could never leave earth sized planets atmosphere, and go to orbit as earths escape velocity is 40270 kph, and X-wing couldn't even go to orbit in our moon, which has escape velocity of 8568 kph. Realistic physics have never been a thing in Star Wars. Forget the realism and enjoy the movies as they are (or don't if you prefer it that way).

And about things not explained (e.g. Snokes past and rise to power). AFAIK Not explaining everything has always been part of Star Wars, and IMO that part of the allure of the franchise. We as fans can fill out the empty spots. That's also one of the pitfalls of star wars, as sometimes fans hate it when their fan theories are proved wrong, or discrepancy in expectations may cause disappointments.

BTW. There was a talking about fuel in this or some other thread. TLJ is not first canonical SW work to where fuel plays significant part. In Luceno's novel Tarkin hyperspace fuel plays a significant part.

It was a long movie (though didn't feel it), imagine how long it'd be with all the exposition to explain stuff in detail that wasn't ? I suspect a lot of cutting happened, as there was precious little fat that wasn't required for one pay off or another.

9 hours ago, Khazadune said:

Something that while stated has caused confusion again and needed further exploration to identify, unfortunately

Or; you were right but I still find fault with the movie for my personal misunderstanding.

1 hour ago, Darzil said:

It was a long movie (though didn't feel it), imagine how long it'd be with all the exposition to explain stuff in detail that wasn't ? I suspect a lot of cutting happened, as there was precious little fat that wasn't required for one pay off or another.

They trimmed already 30 minutes of "fat". Imho they could have got rid of about another 10 minutes on Canto Bight, which was imho a rather interesting thing to show and helpful for Rose and Finns characters, but did not need any action imho.

On 1/1/2018 at 7:24 AM, mulletcheese said:

The only way both fleets would remain at the edge of the firing range for 16 hours is it one of the fleets chose to maintain that range but could have chosen to close/increase the range at will.

That's not true and it can be proven mathmatically. If two ships have the same maximum speed, but one can accelerate faster, than the ship that can accelerate faster would create and initial separation that would grow until the second ship reaches top speed also. At that point the distance between them would remain constant.

if you want the math I can provide it.

1 hour ago, dgamal01 said:

That's not true and it can be proven mathmatically. If two ships have the same maximum speed, but one can accelerate faster, than the ship that can accelerate faster would create and initial separation that would grow until the second ship reaches top speed also. At that point the distance between them would remain constant.

if you want the math I can provide it.

The assumption about maximum speed is a legit one for star wars, but opens up a new can of worms for the discussion.
So in before someone comes in and tells us about lightspeed being the maximum speed and the lack of fuel requirements to keep maximum speed up. Or how maximum speed is unreachable, etc

5 hours ago, dgamal01 said:

That's not true and it can be proven mathmatically. If two ships have the same maximum speed, but one can accelerate faster, than the ship that can accelerate faster would create and initial separation that would grow until the second ship reaches top speed also. At that point the distance between them would remain constant.

if you want the math I can provide it.

I'd love to see the math behind ships having a maximum sublight speed in a vacuum.

Can you also provide the math to explain why the resistance fleet didn't have to start decelerating 1/2 way through the journey to crait to prevent them shooting past/into the planet after 16 hours of constant acceleration.

Are we really doing this?!

43 minutes ago, mulletcheese said:

I'd love to see the math behind ships having a maximum sublight speed in a vacuum.

I can only assume that you think that New Hope, Empire and Jedi also stink because the ships DO NOT ******* BEHAVE LIKE THEY WOULD IN REAL LIFE. PHYSICS HAS NO MEANING IN STAR WARS. IT'S ******* KUNG FU MONKS WITH LASER SWORDS AND LENSMAN SUPERPOWERS AND RAY GUNS AND HAWKMEN ON ROCKET SLEDS!

****.

The caveat that ships in Star Wars have a 'maximum speed' is sort of part and parcel of it being a 'space opera' rather than a 'science fiction' like, say, Star Trek. I am over that part. As long as it is coherent within the narrative I am ok with it.

What I don't get is if you can use hyperspace as a weapon why don't people do it all the time? Why make a Death Star when an Imperial Shuttle at light speed will obliterate a planet just as well?