4 hours ago, Sturn said:

Why the flip seat for the jet back soldiers? Why not just fly off instead of flip off? I suppose it would save a little fuel by being launched and it saves the driver of the bike a few scorch marks during take off?

More the latter. Think of it like a catapult for an aircraft carrier. Also, when you think about it from an in-game perspective, it's like changing the acceleration maneuver to an incidental, which saves you 2 SS if you are trying to take a Move Maneuver at the same time. It certainly would save fuel because the pack doesn't have to push as hard when it's already being propelled forward.

7 hours ago, DanteRotterdam said:

So instead you drop highly questionable one liners and try to leave it at that...

So leave it at that. 😉 You stand out at aggressively targeting critics of Disney Star Wars in the past in a highly emotional fashion. People like you are the reason why no reasonable discussion about the situation about present SW is possible and especially you were the one I referred to with my "pretty messy pretty quickly" remark. I would be greatful if you just ignore me in future. Kind regards.

4 hours ago, Sturn said:

Usually I've explained lack of repulsorlifts away in my head due to armor use. If you look at the tracked, legged, and wheeled vehicles in SW, they tend to be more heavily armored suggesting repulsorlift vehicles can't handle the extra weight as much. While the new bike does look quite more hefty then say a scout bike, it's hard to say it doesn't have repulsorlifts due to added armor, because it's a bike. That would be like the crew of a tank having seats on the outside.

Why the flip seat for the jet back soldiers? Why not just fly off instead of flip off? I suppose it would save a little fuel by being launched and it saves the driver of the bike a few scorch marks during take off?

Fair points. Though in Star Wars where everything looks "used", even imperial armor in the height of the empire, scorch marks will be of the least concern for the inhabitants in that galaxy far away.

5 hours ago, Sturn said:

Usually I've explained lack of repulsorlifts away in my head due to armor use. If you look at the tracked, legged, and wheeled vehicles in SW, they tend to be more heavily armored suggesting repulsorlift vehicles can't handle the extra weight as much. While the new bike does look quite more hefty then say a scout bike, it's hard to say it doesn't have repulsorlifts due to added armor, because it's a bike. That would be like the crew of a tank having seats on the outside.

Why the flip seat for the jet back soldiers? Why not just fly off instead of flip off? I suppose it would save a little fuel by being launched and it saves the driver of the bike a few scorch marks during take off?

Well repulsor technology might not be practical on extreme verticality terrain? Like, if the entire reason your speeder bike isn't hitting the ground is that it's pushing off perpendicular to the ground, if you are now going over ground that is like a 70 degree incline....that might make the whole "repulsor" thing not work. So, on planets with really steep terrain, actually having stuff to stick to the ground would be more practical.

Though I think the First Order design is just basically "Like classic Star Wars stuff, but MORE METAL!!" Like they watched too many episodes of Star Wars Choppers, and decided that only pansies use repulsors. Real toxic masculinity facists use TREAD, and LOTS OF METAL, because they're HARD CORE!! Though more realistically, someone in the design team, probably just said "Hey, Fury Road's chase scenes were cool, can we do something like that?" And the rest of the design team were like "Yeah, Fury Road was cool! I'm totally on board with some heavy metal tread biker speeders in that desert chase scene we have slated. Let's do that!" *goes and runs the designs by the upper echelon, and got approval*

Which I'm honestly fine with, given what the First Order is, the idea that they are constantly trying to replicate the "glory" of the previous age, but are trying to make it also look edgy and emo, makes perfect sense for their little fascist fan club. I don't really care about little details like that, but then I'm a weird kind of SW fan. I don't pause every frame of trailers to try and read ship identifications, and try and determine the identity of a lightsaber someone is wielding by zooming in on handles to see if it's maybe like Darth JooJoo Beans secret lost hilt, which means Insane Internet Fan Theory 27 is correct/wrong, etc etc. I know, shocking.

20 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

More the latter. Think of it like a catapult for an aircraft carrier. Also, when you think about it from an in-game perspective, it's like changing the acceleration maneuver to an incidental, which saves you 2 SS if you are trying to take a Move Maneuver at the same time. It certainly would save fuel because the pack doesn't have to push as hard when it's already being propelled forward.

Well as someone who, as a kid, would hook a bungie cord to my friend's bicycle, and then have him pull me forward by pedaling really fast, and then use the bungie to slingshot ahead of him at super high speeds, translating the "lift off" velocity from the bike to the jetpacker would make sense, to give them an easier, and quicker takeoff. If the packer just pushed off, using thrust, it would possibly damage the bike, but would also probably slow down the bike anyway, as the resistance would kick in. Having been the guy on the bike in my above bungie example, you slow down considerably when the skateboarder propels away from you, siphoning off your velocity to their own use. So if it's going to happen either way, might as well develop a maneuver that lets you intentionally transfer more velocity to the packer, since they are the more important pursuing vehicle at that point.

Plus it looks cool. and Rule of Cool is always alive and well in action films.

3 hours ago, DarthDude said:

You stand out at aggressively targeting critics of Disney Star Wars in the past in a highly emotional fashion.

I stand out in targeting dishonest debaters, something you have shown being in two examples in two posts already. I have no dog in the Disney- nonDisney fight.
Nothing “get messy” or “aggressive” when we discuss content but being belittling and getting personal (you) that is indeed just that. So perhaps a mirror or a thorough reading of your own posts would be in place.
Also, I see no reason to ignore you.
I kinda like most of the rest of your posts.

After next Friday, at least one thing will be clear - there will be parts of Disney Star Wars for everyone to enjoy, from Episode IX to The Mandalorian to the forthcoming Cassian Andor and Obi-Wan shows and to whatever else comes along.

And I think that's a beautiful thing. Star Wars is for everyone, and not everyone has to like everything about it.

19 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I stand out in targeting dishonest debaters, something you have shown being in two examples in two posts already. I have no dog in the Disney- nonDisney fight.
Nothing “get messy” or “aggressive” when we discuss content but being belittling and getting personal (you) that is indeed just that. So perhaps a mirror or a thorough reading of your own posts would be in place.
Also, I see no reason to ignore you.
I kinda like most of the rest of your posts.

3 hours ago, DarthDude said:

So leave it at that. 😉 You stand out at aggressively targeting critics of Disney Star Wars in the past in a highly emotional fashion. People like you are the reason why no reasonable discussion about the situation about present SW is possible and especially you were the one I referred to with my "pretty messy pretty quickly" remark. I would be greatful if you just ignore me in future. Kind regards.

Here's an idea, how about everybody just drop it instead of indirectly/directly continuing the barb tossing, especially when it's expressed that barb tossing is what they want to avoid. Just ******* drop it entirely and comment about something else, like the trailer. Or, don't comment any further in this thread at all if you have no new input to contribute.

OT: I'm now wanting someone to redo the trailer, and during that biker scene, splice in the music from Fury Road as the War Boys on sticks are swinging back and forth. But you know, it's rocket powered stormtroopers riding power-tread bikes in the desert. I find the similarities in theme/mood oddly enjoyable. I want to hear them yell out "WITNESS MEEEEE!" as they are flung off the bikes and into the air.

There's been almost no sign of Rose in any of these trailers. I get why they wouldn't want to foreground her... The scenes on Canto Bight were the worst part of TLJ. But I think Rose is a cool character and Tran is a fun actress. I hope she has some solid scenes in this movie.

38 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

There's been almost no sign of Rose in any of these trailers. I get why they wouldn't want to foreground her... The scenes on Canto Bight were the worst part of TLJ.

I don't think that's why they haven't hyped her up in this trailer. Assuming it even was some conscious effort to exclude her (which I don't think it is) it is more likely due to the level of toxicity that was directed at her by the butt hurt fanboys who harassed her like they did after TLJ. It's also possible they just didn't think the clips that have her in them were as action packed to warrant being in the trailers. I mean remember she ended TLJ seriously injured, and in a medical thing. So depending on how long they let her character recover, based on runtime, she might not have a lot of direct involvement for significant sections of the film.

For example, Act 1, she's still healing up, and the rest of the Scooby's run off because they can't wait because of The Big Problem That Must Be Dealt With, so they go running off and have adventures. Cut back to Rose, waking up at the rebel base, and playing catch up with what's going on. I mean, she's not actually a combatant specialization. She's an engineer, so she might end up adopting the "Control and Command" role that Leia adopted in New Hope, where she's there to look at display screens, and have emotions. Maybe they instead let Rose actually be an engineer, because Something Important Broke, and she has to stay behind to fix it, and can't be bothered running around doing combat stuff, when she's not really a heavy duty combat character class. Sure she CAN fight, but it's not what she's best at. Whereas Rey, Finn, and Poe all have actual combat/survival training in their background. Rose is a Hero Fan Girl (not a criticism, just a fact based on how she reacted when meeting Finn), who is a good engineer. We meet her, not doing anything really epic, she was tasked with just...sitting in the escape pod room and zotting people who tried to escape. Not the most glamorous of positions

Honestly I'd like to see her do something like that. Like, she's not ever involved in the direct combat/battle stuff. She's back at the rest of the resistance, doing engineer stuff, because that stuff is important, but is always glossed over in action films (for obvious runtime reasons). But as someone who, as he's gotten older, has grown weary of everything in films being solved with asplosions and punching, I always enjoy it when a show/film highlights that not everything can be solved by blowing it up. So having a character, established to be an engineer, doing engineer stuff, and it being equally important to the overall goal of The Good Guys Winning, is something I'd really like to see.

I believe that this movie is 3 years later? We also see Rose quite a bit in the comics in the lead up, not still injured. Plus, with bacta, healing times are greatly reduced.

23 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I believe that this movie is 3 years later? We also see Rose quite a bit in the comics in the lead up, not still injured. Plus, with bacta, healing times are greatly reduced.

One year.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I believe that this movie is 3 years later? We also see Rose quite a bit in the comics in the lead up, not still injured. Plus, with bacta, healing times are greatly reduced.

Yes but it's also a very easy way to split the party narratively. I mean it's exactly what happened with Finn and Rey at the start of TLJ. Sure he was only in the marinating bacta bag for like, a day maybe? But it was long enough for Rey to run off and him to not see her again for the rest of the film.

But yeah if they are doing a significant time jump, then my statement about her still healing is highly unlikely. I still hope they just have it be something along the lines of "I'm an engineer, I'm needed doing engineer stuff, not running around in the desert on a sailbarge." But that's just me and my personal preference for non-combat stuff. Sorry I've been watching a lot of anime recently that emphasize the importance of non-combat stuff in the narrative, as well as several audiobooks that highlight that point as well. So it's kind of fresh on my mind as far as plot elements.

On 12/12/2019 at 8:06 PM, DanteRotterdam said:

I stand out in targeting dishonest debaters, something you have shown being in two examples in two posts already. I have no dog in the Disney- nonDisney fight.
Nothing “get messy” or “aggressive” when we discuss content but being belittling and getting personal (you) that is indeed just that. So perhaps a mirror or a thorough reading of your own posts would be in place.
Also, I see no reason to ignore you.
I kinda like most of the rest of your posts.

Since when is disagreeing dishonesty? Are you the only one qualified to decide who is honest and dishonest? Talking about belittling? You have shown a very aggressiveand elitist stance on several occasions. And calling opposite opinions dishonest because you feel insulted by naysayers is a burden you have to carry. Learn to live with opposition instead of selling mirrors and move on is my advice.

A theory:

1 hour ago, Jegergryte said:

A theory:

Baby Y was the source for something needed to create force sensitive clones that Palps could possess, or of Palps himself?

Snoke was such an attempt, more or less botched, but useful as a puppet to steer the FO and keep everyone in the dark of Palps survival and super-evil machinations...

If that turns out to be the case, I'll laugh my *** off because I did largely that in an old D6 Star Wars game set decades after RotJ, just sans the first specified character.

5 hours ago, DarthDude said:

Since when is disagreeing dishonesty? Are you the only one qualified to decide who is honest and dishonest? Talking about belittling? You have shown a very aggressiveand elitist stance on several occasions. And calling opposite opinions dishonest because you feel insulted by naysayers is a burden you have to carry. Learn to live with opposition instead of selling mirrors and move on is my advice.

This is what we would call a strawman. And it is, again, a dishonest way of debating.

I thought we were going to leave this. I had moved along last week as you suggested.

6 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

This is what we would call a strawman. And it is, again, a dishonest way of debating.

I thought we were going to leave this. I had moved along last week as you suggested.

You "moved on" after an ad hominem attack against him. You don't think he's gonna take issue with that?

I am quite curious where I am using ad hominem attacks?

On 12/12/2019 at 4:57 PM, DarthDude said:

People like you are the reason why no reasonable discussion about the situation about present SW is possible and especially you were the one I referred to with my "pretty messy pretty quickly" remark.

If anything is ad hominem than this was.
In fact that was the exact thing I was referring to when I said I have zero problems with other opinions but do have issues with dishonest debaters. The personal attack was against me and that, in my opinion, warranted an explanation. Calling someone a thief when he steals is not an ad hominem and neither is calling someone a dishonest debater when he is misrepresenting your opinions, your emotions and your actions on purpose.

As far as anyone who really wants to (and I cannot for the love of anything think why anyone would) go back through this thread and read what it was I objected to, it was never opinions about the movie. I haven’t even seen the thing just like everyone else here. What I did object to were words too often employed by people trying to shut down reasonable debat. Words like “normies”, “virtue signaling“, etc. are things that should not be brought up by adults in discussions. Ever. As far as I am concerned.

In fact, I am not even that big on the movies since The Disney acquisition. I really enjoy the ST so far but thought Solo was just okayish and I believe Rogue One is the most overrated SW product released yet.

10 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

If anything is ad hominem than this was.
In fact that was the exact thing I was referring to when I said I have zero problems with other opinions but do have issues with dishonest debaters. The personal attack was against me and that, in my opinion, warranted an explanation. Calling someone a thief when he steals is not an ad hominem and neither is calling someone a dishonest debater when he is misrepresenting your opinions, your emotions and your actions on purpose.

Here's the full quote:

On 12/12/2019 at 10:57 AM, DarthDude said:

So leave it at that. 😉 You stand out at aggressively targeting critics of Disney Star Wars in the past in a highly emotional fashion. People like you are the reason why no reasonable discussion about the situation about present SW is possible and especially you were the one I referred to with my "pretty messy pretty quickly" remark. I would be greatful if you just ignore me in future. Kind regards.

There wasn't any argument he was addressing, other than the insinuation that he knew his arguments couldn't stand up to scrutiny, and therefore didn't want to engage. He was explaining why he didn't want to get into an argument. A "debate" if you will. He says that he doesn't want to get into an argument because he has seen how you and some people who agree with you argue, and he doesn't like it. He then tries, again, to sign off, having explained why he would rather not engage, but having been brought back into it.
That said, he could have gone about it differently, in a less confrontational way. Close to ad hominem, but it stays as borderline because you kind of made it the subject.

On 12/12/2019 at 2:06 PM, DanteRotterdam said:

I stand out in targeting dishonest debaters, something you have shown being in two examples in two posts already. I have no dog in the Disney- nonDisney fight.
Nothing “get messy” or “aggressive” when we discuss content but being belittling and getting personal (you) that is indeed just that. So perhaps a mirror or a thorough reading of your own posts would be in place.
Also, I see no reason to ignore you.
I kinda like most of the rest of your posts.

You then call him (and people who agree with him) a "dishonest debater" with no explanation. That is ad hominem because you are not addressing his points, you are simply calling him names. (you know, on a side note, I'd suggest you use the mirror you keep flashing in others faces. Might do you good. Plank in your own eye sort of thing.)

5 hours ago, DarthDude said:

Since when is disagreeing dishonesty? Are you the only one qualified to decide who is honest and dishonest? Talking about belittling? You have shown a very aggressiveand elitist stance on several occasions. And calling opposite opinions dishonest because you feel insulted by naysayers is a burden you have to carry. Learn to live with opposition instead of selling mirrors and move on is my advice.

Here he is addressing the argument that he is a "dishonest debater" and that "you have done nothing wrong." He is responding directly to your assertions and addressing your arguments. I disagree with him somewhat on these points, I wouldn't go quite as far as he does, but he is addressing your points.

The reason you calling him a "dishonest debater" is, in my estimation, ad hominem is because it had no (or, at the very least, no outlined) basis and didn't address any of his arguments. Other than that, he comes up to borderline ad hominem once, and that's pretty much it for both of you.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

There wasn't any argument he was addressing, other than the insinuation that he knew his arguments couldn't stand up to scrutiny

Wait... what?

I did? Oh no, that’s right. I really didn’t.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That is ad hominem because you are not addressing his points, you are simply calling him names.

Must be why you added the “and people who agree with him”part. Because I did not speak about anyone’s opinion. Inonly addressed his discussion techniques so why anyone else has to be dragged into this is beyond me.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Here he is addressing the argument that he is a "dishonest debater" and that "you have done nothing wrong." He is responding directly to your assertions and addressing your arguments.

I never intended to address his points BECAUSE he is a dishonest debater, that’s the whole Point. There are two logical fallacies in the two post before that one (disregarding the “I don’t want to talk about it but here is my bs grenade”-line he pulled) so I am not even talking about his “points”.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

that's pretty much it for both of you.

Not quite sure what just happened here.

“And calling opposite opinions dishonest because you feel insulted by naysayers is a burden you have to carry.”

This, right here, is why I call him a dishonest debater and if this one single sentence doesn’t spell it out why I do so, for him, you or anyone else then I can’t help you. The strawmen are piled up to the rafters here.

I really, truly am done with this “discussion”. Just like I was a week ago. Let’s just stop this.

@DanteRotterdam @P-47 Thunderbolt

Just stop it, both of you. Nearly half of this page of the thread is the two of you bickering, with nothing to actually contribute to the purpose of this thread. If you must comment, comment about the actual subject of the thread, and peoples reactions to it. Don't use it as a public forum for bickering about who is being the bigger online jerk in debate format. We could ALL do without more of that crap being associated with Star Wars.

Agreed.