Wow...just got on here after a couple of days and it feels like we're headed for those good ol' days of thread lock again.

10 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Let me see if I have this straight: A piece of new technology just showing up in a movie that you (more or less) like = "a good example of how to introduce new technology;" a piece of new technology just showing up in a movie that you're bound and determined to hate, and want to scream and shout about = not so much.

You keep going on and on about what we know "from the movies" making all the difference. So, you've already defeated yourself. What do we know about a difference between the TIE and TIE advanced from the movies? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The real reason there were two different models in the movie? So Vader's could be identified on sight. On the flip side, their different roles and capabilities were expanded in the ancillary media, which means if you accept that external information for those models, we should expect you to accept similar information for the later models. And that ancillary information points out that the First Order TIE model that we've seen the interior of has a dedicated gunner to take advantage of its variable firing arc. Now...what, exactly, does Solo (the movie itself) tell us is different about its variant? Nothing. We have to, once again, go to external media.

Now, as someone who can get impassioned and end up generating walls o' text myself, I'm going to choose to not go into point-by-point response and add to the detritus in the thread any more than necessary, because the rest of your post follows the same concept: the movies you like and the movies you don't like doing the same sorts of things, and providing the same sorts of information levels, with you lauding one example, and insisting that the other is horrible, awful, sub-par, and terribly damaging to Star Wars. And, you're bound and determined to continue disliking them no matter what. (It's probably fair to say we all have movies or tv shows like that.)

As I said before, if you don't like them, that's fair. No one is saying that you have to. But your reasoning, going so far as to complain about minutia of in-story technology variants, is disingenuous.

Have a great weekend.

Wrong.

A piece of new technology just showing up in a movie that i like or dont like but has a purpose, like the first order landing shuttles = "a good example of how to introduce new technology".

A piece of technology just showing up in a movie that is only introduced to explain a weak story plot = not so much.

Where exactly did i say that i am bound to hate the new movies or that i want to scream or shout about them ? I wrote down what i think could have been done better. Your first answer on the otherside was what again ?

You keep lecturing from above as if your viewpoint is the only one and everything else is just rant, untrue, or must come from someone who hates the movies.

Same goes for the other guys using cut of quotes to the argue about a different topic.

You are so trapped in your bubble that you cant take a step out and have a neutral view on the movies. And there is a word for that - you might google it.

9 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Most ironically about all this is that we are getting some clear stuff about the TIE/FO. It got the gunner seat, we can see it in use, we get even iirc info about it having shields, which is a major change over TIE/LNs.

They do and they also got Rokets, Guns and Pulesomething just to bad that noone tought the First Order Pilots how to use them or how to activate the shields, since thats the only explanation why they get destroyed by the dozens by a handful of X-Wings. They even die faster than the old ones - poor poor First Order Pilots if only the knew they had shields...

The only reason that the TIE has 2 seats is for 2 plot characters to escape.

Please stop deluding youreselves, its you who dont accept any other view than your own and anything not fitting with your view, but dont worry seems like the new Episode will have a huge space battle, i am really looking forward to see those new TIE shields and Star Destroyers being destroyed by Hyperjump Ramming freighters.

Noone if forcing me or you to answer to any post in here, so please stop pretending you "have to". But i bet you will, can't have someone not agreeing not being called a troll or his post a rant.

27 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

Please stop deluding youreselves,

Aye, I will try to stop deluding myself … but it's so hard, I just can't stop seeing those pictures of X-Wings exploding left and right in the battle of Yavin. If just someone told them to activate their shields …

39 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

noone tought the First Order Pilots how to use them or how to activate the shields, since thats the only explanation why they get destroyed by the dozens by a handful of X-Wings.

Compared to how X-wings, with shields, have always been portrayed as virtually blaster-proof? No. Fighters have always died easily in Star Wars, regardless of shields.

39 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

The only reason that the TIE has 2 seats is for 2 plot characters to escape.

This might be hard on you, so brace yourself.

All tech in Star Wars are driven by plot. Why do X-wings have life support and TIEs don't? So we can see the good guys faces and the baddies can wear face concealing masks. Why do X-wings have shields? To excuse wingmen blocking shots on the leader during the trench run. Why do Imperial and Rebel starfighters look radically different despite, logically, most fighters from a similar tech base should atleast look vaguely similar? To tell the baddies apart from the good guys. Why does the X-wing have a hyperdrive and the TIE doesn't? Because Luke needs to go to Dagobah.

In the Battle of Yavin most X-Wings and TIEs both shoot each other, both destroy each other in an equal number, of course the TIEs had turret support.

In episode 7 and 8 whole squadrons of TIEs are being taken down with barely any X-Wing being scratched. Again the TIEs needed turret support to win the battle.

Wonder why since they now have gunners and shields and turrets. Shouldnt they now have the upper hand ? And at Yavin you saw X-Wings explode left and right ? There were 30 rebel fighters of which 6 were Y-Wing if i remember right.

How many TIEs do we see explode within those few minutes of the resistance arriving ?

Equal numbers is btw funny, in context that it was like 30 Rebel fighters against Vader's Black Squadron.
But you know, Neo Nazi's are just not the real deal and in the cockpit the better pilot survives. Though those TIE/SF did a splendid job with the bridge of the Raddus.
And btw, the TIE/FOs are not the ones with the gunner seat. If only the first order would build more TIE/SF ... extra shields, better weapons and a dedicated gunner seem to help. Their performance really was splendid.

Just like Wedge, who is the only guy in the OT who actually found the button to turn on the shields. ?

42 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Compared to how X-wings, with shields, have always been portrayed as virtually blaster-proof? No. Fighters have always died easily in Star Wars, regardless of shields.

This might be hard on you, so brace yourself.

All tech in Star Wars are driven by plot. Why do X-wings have life support and TIEs don't? So we can see the good guys faces and the baddies can wear face concealing masks. Why do X-wings have shields? To excuse wingmen blocking shots on the leader during the trench run. Why do Imperial and Rebel starfighters look radically different despite, logically, most fighters from a similar tech base should atleast look vaguely similar? To tell the baddies apart from the good guys. Why does the X-wing have a hyperdrive and the TIE doesn't? Because Luke needs to go to Dagobah.

The X-Wings have shields becouse they needed an explanation why the good guys get hit more often and the bad guys die faster true but you could also say the Rebels care more about their pilots than the Imperium does.

To assume that all fighter from a similar tech base atleast have to look vaguely similar is simply wrong, a Northrop B-2 looks different than a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird both US planes. And those are both from earth and not from a galaxy inhabitat by many species. Of course the design is still human thats why we dont really have anything exotic.

And the X-Wing having a hyperdrive just as all the Rebel ships was already explained in the first mercendise books and interviews after a New Hope launched. TIEs being classified as short range fighters.

But in Episode 1-6 the good guys at least were all equal, they all had shields, which made them superior to the non shield TIEs.

Whats the moint for the new order to add a shield, a gunner and rockets if an outdated X-WIng seems to still be ahed in technology and them loosing severral TIEs when fighting a few X-Wing ? None the whole new shield tech, and advance of a gunner or rockets isnt really shown, its just talk between the 2 main plotters when taking a seat inside the TIE, actually i dont thin he mentioned shields, but i could be wrong.

An please dont hand youreself on the TIE, it was just an example, explain the gravity cheating ballistic bomb dropping bombers. Where did the Y-Wing go ? Why didnt they use Torpedos ...

Of course you are right that all the new tech in any movie is plot based, but there is a difference in how i add new technology.

Is it something a whole fraktion (Rebels/Imperials/Smugglers) have access to, or just one single person just for one scene.

Sorry but episode 8 had lots of bad decisions on the directors that didn't really help the movies story plot.

On the other side i kinda liked the idea with the escape pod in front of the falcon and yes it was only there to shoot it away in one scene, but at least we now know what the Imperials talk about when they say: It seems like one of the escape pods has been launched.

SR-71 Blackbird is not a fighter.

12 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

But in Episode 1-6 the good guys at least were all equal, they all had shields, which made them superior to the non shield TIEs. 

Now you are just trolling us. Well, now you are trolling is a little to obvious.

18 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Equal numbers is btw funny, in context that it was like 30 Rebel fighters against Vader's Black Squadron.
But you know, Neo Nazi's are just not the real deal and in the cockpit the better pilot survives. Though those TIE/SF did a splendid job with the bridge of the Raddus.
And btw, the TIE/FOs are not the ones with the gunner seat. If only the first order would build more TIE/SF ... extra shields, better weapons and a dedicated gunner seem to help. Their performance really was splendid.

Just like Wedge, who is the only guy in the OT who actually found the button to turn on the shields. ?

Vader his Black Squadron and all those turrets, which shot down a few rebel fighters even ahed of the TIEs arriving and made a good distraction for X-Wing pilots.

And again the TIE, funny how you dont want to talk about anything else.

Why not switch to the new Bomb dropping Bombers in Space, or why the rebel fleet just didnt Hyperspace Ram the Deathstar in the first place. And why didnt they send the TIE/SF to destroy the last ships ? Why do the cruisers slow down without enought fuel in space ? Why did the Mellenium Falcon float away when the holding clamp was released while the ships now slow down ? Why didnt any Imperial look out of the WIndow, he would have seen those shuttles. So many questions, but that TIE really triggered you guys, well i can understand that i always was a fan of their design but still ...

Well you can answer or dont i dont think either side will win this, we all have our opinions and we dont seems to move at all.

Some people like more of a good "entertaining story" some more of an deeper background to a story and its charakters, in the end its just taste and discussing why someone did or did not add shields in a scifi movie or which is a better or worse story is kinda pointless. For me its Episode 1-6 Rogue One and a bit of Solo. Not to mention that a bad backgroundstory can be worse than none ...

Thats why i wrote plane. They both arent fighters.

5 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

Why not switch to the new Bomb dropping Bombers in Space, …

Because explaining again and again conservation of momentum and now magnetic rails work seems to be a waste of time. If people were unable to get such basic concepts in high-school ... than they are a lost cause.
?

3 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

Thats why i wrote plane. They both arent fighters.

"To assume that all fighter from a similar tech base atleast have to look vaguely similar is simply wrong."
So yeah, you arbitary switch from one very specific type of plane to two completely different types of planes. LOOK they are looking completely different.


But if it makes you feel better. The SR-71 Blackbird is not a bomber either. ?

1 minute ago, Waxfire1 said:

Thats why i wrote plane. They both arent fighters.

"To assume that all fighter from a similar tech base atleast have to look vaguely similar is simply wrong."
So yeah, you arbitary switch from one very specific type of plane to two completely different types of planes. LOOK they are looking completely different.


But if it makes you feel better. The SR-71 Blackbird is not a bomber either. ?

I only watched the movie once but i dont remeber any magnetic rails, it looked more like they were dangling about on chains. If i am wrong and they had a launch system adding momentum id have to change my view on the Bombers.

1 minute ago, Waxfire1 said:

I only watched the movie once but i dont remeber any magnetic rails, it looked more like they were dangling about on chains. If i am wrong and they had a launch system adding momentum id have to change my view on the Bombers.

They have. They even have a targeting system.

But you know what they have as well in that launch bay? Artificial gravity. They explicite made a point of someone falling down that bomb shaft first. But it's a total stretch afterwards that the bombs fall the same way ?

1 hour ago, Waxfire1 said:

Wrong.

A piece of new technology just showing up in a movie that i like or dont like but has a purpose, like the first order landing shuttles = "a good example of how to introduce new technology".

A piece of technology just showing up in a movie that is only introduced to explain a weak story plot = not so much.

Where exactly did i say that i am bound to hate the new movies or that i want to scream or shout about them ? I wrote down what i think could have been done better. Your first answer on the otherside was what again ?

You keep lecturing from above as if your viewpoint is the only one and everything else is just rant, untrue, or must come from someone who hates the movies.

Same goes for the other guys using cut of quotes to the argue about a different topic.

You are so trapped in your bubble that you cant take a step out and have a neutral view on the movies. And there is a word for that - you might google it.

They do and they also got Rokets, Guns and Pulesomething just to bad that noone tought the First Order Pilots how to use them or how to activate the shields, since thats the only explanation why they get destroyed by the dozens by a handful of X-Wings. They even die faster than the old ones - poor poor First Order Pilots if only the knew they had shields...

The only reason that the TIE has 2 seats is for 2 plot characters to escape.

Please stop deluding youreselves, its you who dont accept any other view than your own and anything not fitting with your view, but dont worry seems like the new Episode will have a huge space battle, i am really looking forward to see those new TIE shields and Star Destroyers being destroyed by Hyperjump Ramming freighters.

Noone if forcing me or you to answer to any post in here, so please stop pretending you "have to". But i bet you will, can't have someone not agreeing not being called a troll or his post a rant.

So then you hate the TIE advanced, too, right? Because it wasn't even included to "explain a weak story plot." It was introduced so the audience could tell which ship Vader was in.

If I'm saying you're ranting it's because...well...you're ranting. I've said more than once that, if you don't enjoy the movies, no big deal...it happens. It even happens in franchises that someone's enjoyed before. But all of your examples of what's "wrong" (not what you didn't care for, but what's "wrong") with the ones you don't like here are no different than what the other entries in the series that you're holding up as examples of doing it "right." (It's "wrong" that, for plot's sake, Poe & Finn grabbed a TIE/sf...which would, y'know, kinda make sense since there ARE two of them, so they need the passenger capacity. And they ARE about to fly out of an enemy ship, so probably a good idea to take a quick, armed fighter rather than a more lightly-armed shuttle, wouldn't you say? Meanwhile, it's "right" when for plot's sake Luke happens to steal the only suit of stormtrooper armor we've ever seen with a grappling hook instead of a thermal detonator canister on the back...a canister that was retroactively described as such.)

And why do the First Order pilots go down so quickly? Because they're the faceless bad guys.

Again...if you don't care for them, fine. That's all you really have to say. But to go digging for minutiae to justify it, then railing on and on about how it's "wrong?" No need...because your issues have been addressed in exactly the same manner as the "right" examples that you've provided.

15 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

And the X-Wing having a hyperdrive just as all the Rebel ships was already explained in the first mercendise books and interviews after a New Hope launched. TIEs being classified as short range fighters.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it establishes you're fine with accepting explanations from the ancillary media. So....

16 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

An please dont hand youreself on the TIE, it was just an example, explain the gravity cheating ballistic bomb dropping bombers. Where did the Y-Wing go ? Why didnt they use Torpedos ..

"Bombs don't technically 'drop' in microgravity, but are impelled from their racks by sequenced electromagnetic plates in the clip. The bombs are then drawn magnetically to their unfortunate targets."
-Star Wars: The Last Jedi - The Visual Dictionary, p22 (Pablo Hidalgo)

Released concurrently with the movie.

But then, is that really any different than the "gravity cheating bomb dropping" TIE bombers in The Empire Strikes Back?

2 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

"To assume that all fighter from a similar tech base atleast have to look vaguely similar is simply wrong."
So yeah, you arbitary switch from one very specific type of plane to two completely different types of planes. LOOK they are looking completely different.


But if it makes you feel better. The SR-71 Blackbird is not a bomber either. ?

Boeing Rockwell B-1B Lancer and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and Convair B-58 Hustler better ? see all bombers all have "wings" just like the TIE and the X-Wing.. hmm why doesnt the A-Wing have actually have wings ? And why does the B-WIng look so different. so many questions ...

22 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

On the other side i kinda liked the idea with the escape pod in front of the falcon and yes it was only there to shoot it away in one scene, but at least we now know what the Imperials talk about when they say: It seems like one of the escape pods has been launched.

No, we don't know that, actually. When the Falcon is first seen in Solo, a line specifically states that the forward escape pod is an after-market modification made by Lando.

Besides, we'd already seen the "factory" escape pod system.

In The Last Jedi.

The Trooper is saying one of the escape pods seems to have been launched. Not all of them or the factory one. But hey ok seems like Solo is dropping escape pod all over the place.

2 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

The Trooper is saying one of the escape pods seems to have been launched. Not all of them or the factory one. But hey ok seems like Solo is dropping escape pod all over the place.

Yes, that line does exist. In fact, the line is, " Several of the escape pods have been jettisoned." A holdover from a preliminary design for the Falcon whose layout allowed for visible escape pods and, after additional tweaks to the design, became the Rebel Blockade Runner.

(Notice the escape pod banks on the port and starboard, and even from this angle, you can see that there's only one on the starboard, when there's multiple pods on the port.)

Over the years, there have been many attempts in ancillary media to reconcile the final design of the Falcon with that line, one of the most popular being a "racked" set of small, spherical pods that are moved to the portside docking port and shot out. But, as of TLJ, we now have the official coffin-style pods that drop out of the aft ventral hull near the rear landing gear.

As for "dropping escape pods all over the place," I'd have to look up the source, but I seem to recall another ancillary source that indicated Han quickly doctored the ship's log to indicate that the pods had been jettisoned to explain why no one was aboard. Even without that, we've seen the condition Han keeps the ship in. Do we really expect he'd replace missing pods unless he had none left? (If even then?)

24 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

But then, is that really any different than the "gravity cheating bomb dropping" TIE bombers in The Empire Strikes Back?

Besides the fact that the Asteroid seems to have enought mass to create its own "well unrealistic" gravity since the Falcon can land and Solo walk inside thet wormhole. No its not.

You dont even consider that the movies could have a few plot holes not to mention not fitting backgrounds the 2 of the main charakters, but hey its fine little fanboy.

The movies are being slaughtered by many reviewers, actually i havent found a really good one but we are all just ranting. Not to mention all the peole standing infront of the cinema box offices and talking stuff like ahh lets rather watch deadpool i really didnt like the last Star Wars movie.

But hey its just rant - as long as we play a RPG in the rebell timeline what wait why dont we play the force awakens again ? Just keep telling yourself everythings fine till the new Rian Johnson triology is launched.

There is a reason why the Marvel franchise is way more popular that Star Wars at the moment. And if Disney would release the Guardian movie next to Episode 9 everyone would ask episode what ?

I'm out of this fanboy conversation good night and happy dreaming about the new great success, hopefully there isnt any other movie being released at the same time.

25 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

They have. They even have a targeting system.

But you know what they have as well in that launch bay? Artificial gravity. They explicite made a point of someone falling down that bomb shaft first. But it's a total stretch afterwards that the bombs fall the same way ?

Btw Artificial gravity in Star Wars seems to work towards the floor one in standing on. How exactly did someone fall down that bomb shaft. And if the floor he landed on had artificial gravity where the floor pulling down the bombs, wouldnt the floor hey laying on pull the bombs upward. hmm

Well id have to watch that movie again.

2 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

Besides the fact that the Asteroid seems to have enought mass to create its own "well unrealistic" gravity since the Falcon can land and Solo walk inside thet wormhole. No its not.

So, you agree that the element you complained about from TLJ (the "dropping" bombs) isn't all that different than the one you're fine with (TIE bombers "dropping" bombs). Good. We're making progress.

(Must be some odd "gravity" in there, as it appears the gravity was pulling towards a single vertical axis instead of the horizontal. Makes the TIE bombers even more puzzling, as the bombs were being pulled to the horizontal.)

3 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

You dont even consider that the movies could have a few plot holes not to mention not fitting backgrounds the 2 of the main charakters, but hey its fine little fanboy.

I've yet to see a movie without a plot hole to one degree or another. But, not seeing how different the "not fitting backgrounds of the 2 of the main charakters" is any different than how the characters were handled in the originals. So, yes...it is fine.

5 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

There is a reason why the Marvel franchise is way more popular that Star Wars at the moment. And if Disney would release the Guardian movie next to Episode 9 everyone would ask episode what ?

Yeah...they'd release two big franchise tentpoles at the same time, drawing revenue away from themselves.

But, sure...you're not ranting.

2 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

Btw Artificial gravity in Star Wars seems to work towards the floor one in standing on. How exactly did someone fall down that bomb shaft. And if the floor he landed on had artificial gravity where the floor pulling down the bombs, wouldnt the floor hey laying on pull the bombs upward. hmm

Well id have to watch that movie again.

Meanwhile, the "gravity" that allows you to accept the TIE bombers over the Resistance bombers was drawing the Falcon and the characters to a "wall," but the bombs to the "floor."

Curiouser and curiouser.

27 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

Well you can answer or dont i dont think either side will win this, we all have         our opinions and we dont seems to move at all. 

Some words for you that might come across as a bit harsh, but any bluntness is for claritys sake:

While you are free to have any opinions you like, your statements are a confused, jumbled mess that it's a meaningless waste of time to answer them point by point.

The problem with your posts isn't any one point as much a cocktail of flawed logic and cultural illiteracy to the point where I find it more likely that you're being intentionally obtuse.

If that's not the case, I'm sorry.

10 minutes ago, Waxfire1 said:

Well id have to watch that movie       again    .

Given the accuracy of your statements, I'm frankly amazed you've seen it at all.