6 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That wasn't The Great Pit of Carkoon, though.

Was that said? Why not?

6 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The victim isn't necessarily alive that entire time.

I noted that in my post. If dead, there isn't going to be much left to digest of a human body in just a few years without some sort of chemical keeping the "meat" fresh. I don't feel the intention was to slowly digest skin and bones over that millenium.

Just now, Sturn said:

Was that said? Why not?

It was quite clearly not. They said it "lived in an abandoned sarlacc pit" and it lived under a mountain. Not way out in the open of the dune sea.

Now, if the sarlacc pit wasn't in the cave, then maybe it could be. But the terrain there is quite clearly different than the Great Pit of Carkoon.

1 minute ago, Sturn said:

Why not?

For one it was not a pit.
Secondly it was surrounded by mountains.

2 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

That is some strange logic...

The movie has everyone gasping when it's said victims are slowly digested over a 1,000 years. It's meant to be horrifying. It's not very horrifying if you are immediately killed, THEN somehow preserved and digested over a 1,000 years. I really don't care if I'm being digested slowly....unless I'm somewhat alive still.

Just now, Sturn said:

The movie has everyone gasping when it's said victims are slowly digested over a 1,000 years. It's meant to be horrifying. It's not very horrifying if you are immediately killed, THEN somehow preserved and digested over a 1,000 years. I really don't care if I'm being digested slowly....unless I'm somewhat alive still.

It does keep them alive, but the question is how long . My interpretation is that it keeps the body alive for as long as it can, but it can't keep it alive longer than the natural life span.

That's still pretty darn horrifying.

Just now, DanteRotterdam said:

For one it was not a pit.
Secondly it was surrounded by mountains.

Note my comment about the dragon coming out atop of the cliff. What's up there? I would have to watch the episode again and compare to RoJ, but I don't think we get a view of what is atop the cliff the dragon came out of. I've only watched once, was just speculating don't take a mando flamer to me please.

Just now, Sturn said:

Note my comment about the dragon coming out atop of the cliff. What's up there? I would have to watch the episode again and compare to RoJ, but I don't think we get a view of what is atop the cliff the dragon came out of. I've only watched once, was just speculating don't take a mando flamer to me please.

In RotJ, the sarlacc was in the middle of a vast desert.

You do understand that the digestion cpuld take a thousand years and therefore a human being could be aware of what was happening for a long time before it died? That doesn’t necessarily mean a human could live to be a thousand years inside a Sarlacc. What made you make that leap?

2 minutes ago, Sturn said:

I don't think we get a view of what is atop the cliff the dragon came out of

Well... it wasn’t a sea of dunes. That’s for sure.

1 minute ago, DanteRotterdam said:

You do understand that the digestion cpuld take a thousand years and therefore a human being could be aware of what was haplening for a long time before it died?

Yes. But, even if a human is kept alive for a couple decades, that leaves over 900 years for a corpse to be digested. Again, the sarlacc is going to be digesting only mummified skin and bones. Thus, I've always speculated the bodies are kept alive and/or fresh as long as possible somehow to explain the gasps. Why even mention "1,000 years" otherwise?

2 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Well... it wasn’t a sea of dunes. That’s for sure.

I'll give you that. I was hoping. But after reviewing photo's, yeah, nope.

Are we believing that that sarlacc was receiving it's victim's through the cave mouth instead of a pit up top the cliff? As in this sarlacc was lying horizontally instead of vertically?

1 minute ago, Sturn said:

Why even mention "1,000 years" otherwise?

Because it sounds bad ***. You are aware that it was Jabba who said that?

Just now, Sturn said:

Yes. But, even if a human is kept alive for a couple decades, that leaves over 900 years for a corpse to be digested. Again, the sarlacc is going to be digesting only mummified skin and bones. Thus, I've always speculated the bodies are kept alive and/or fresh as long as possible somehow to explain the gasps. Why even mention "1,000 years" otherwise?

Why mention it? Intimidation factor. Regardless of the statement's veracity or how the "1,000 years" are accomplished, it's likely exaggerated and the thousand years is a scary number.

For my money, I say the sarlacc keeps them alive for as long as it can by providing nutrients et cetera until it dies of old age. Then it may take a thousand years to pass through the sarlacc's system, but it doesn't mean it's providing nutrients to the sarlacc the whole time.

(has it occurred to anyone that it is woefully inefficient to provide more nutrients to something being digested than are actually provided by the thing being digested?)

1 minute ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Because it sounds bad ***. You are aware that it was Jabba who said that?

No I thought Jar Jar said that.

I'm so sorry my fan speculation doesn't live up to your standards. Bye for now.

Hey mr. Literal, what I meant is that leaders, gangsters and dictators often say aggrandizing things. You don’t just look at what was said without looking at who said it.

Just now, DanteRotterdam said:

Hey mr. Literal, what I meant is that leaders, gangsters and dictators often say aggrandizing things. You don’t just look at what was said without looking at who said it.

Would you just lay off?

5 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

For my money, I say the sarlacc keeps them alive

Why??

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Would you just lay off?

No. I am having a conversation just like you are.

1 minute ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Why??

You missed the "...until they die of old age" part. Besides, it's what sarlacc are said to do.

You have a terrible habit of cutting things out of context, even mid-sentence.

Just now, DanteRotterdam said:

No. I am having a conversation just like you are.

No. I'm having a nice conversation. You're being arrogant, snarky, and dismissive. AKA, a jerk.

2 hours ago, Eoen said:

Do you think that clone was Boba Fett he looks younger than Rex?

Boba is a proper clone, completely identical to Jango Fett in every way. He should be about 40 and look about 40.

The Clone Troopers have been upgraded, one of the modifications being rapid ageing.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You missed the "...until they die of old age" part. Besides, it's what sarlacc are said to do.

I can only imagine that Jabba says that too make it sound extra scary.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You have a terrible habit of cutting things out of context, even mid-sentence

No I wanted to be concise and precise. Because that was the exact oart I wanted to address.

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You're being arrogant, snarky, and dismissive. AKA, a jerk.

No, I wasn’t. I can see why ot came across as that though. So there might be something for me to look into. However I called him Mr. literal after he started being rude to me.

40 minutes ago, Sturn said:

Recall that the sarlacc could digest it's victim's over a "thousand years". There has to be some sort of stasis going on to prevent victims from dying of old age or rotting away (if dead) before they are digested. He may have aged more slowly while in the sarlacc.

I'm really not going to take Jabba The Frelling Hutt's villainous monologue for accurate and precise scientific data about the digestive habits of Sarlacci.

Also, if a Sarlacc stomach really could keep people alive for a millennium, there would be ancient Sith Lords making their base of operations inthere.

28 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

No I wanted to be concise and precise. Because that was the exact oart I wanted to address.

But if you cut a part of a sentence out of its context, you can easily divorce it from its actual meaning. Even just posting the entire sentence would be better.

30 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

No, I wasn’t. I can see why ot came across as that though. So there might be something for me to look into. However I called him Mr. literal after he started being rude to me.

I'm talking about pretty much all along, not just the "Mr. Literal" comment, and his "rudeness" was exasperation with your snark.

I certainly understand things not coming across as intended, as it is something I have trouble with. But I would suggest that you start watching your tone* more carefully to make sure it's going to read as you intend it. I'm suggesting this very sincerely, I'm not trying to sound bossy or anything, and I'm certainly not perfect myself.

*Example: "You do know it was Jabba who said that, right?" vs. "Jabba was the one who said that, and I wouldn't take everything he says on its face."

1 hour ago, micheldebruyn said:

Also, if a Sarlacc stomach really could keep people alive for a millennium, there would be ancient Sith Lords making their base of operations inthere.

That's a great, tragic, idea, that I may use at some point. Thanks 😊