Kathleen Kennedy's Lucasfilm Deal Extended for Three Years

Tsumi said:
You're not interested in discussing anything, and you've made that quite clear despite what you might claim. You are the very definition of a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Just ignore him, as he's ignoring every argument ever presented to him. And then goes on to claim in the very next post that there were no arguments. Yeah no arguments that he cared to respond to or even acknowledge.
 




https://www.wired.com/story/star-wars-russian-trolls-study/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...targeted-by-russian-trolls-study-says-1148475


This is why I will not do much of anything Disney, and will not do Star Wars at all: The Russians. Seriously, this is most fucking, dumbest, retarded shit I have ever read in my short existence on this planet. It makes me have not one single hope (no pun intended) at all for our race. It is simple. They fucked up, its a shit movie, they cannot understand the simple shit of it. It sucks, it sucks it sucks...simple. But now Star Wars is politically motivated and with TROLLS! If it is it is because they made that shit that way. But whatever...they need to stick a fork in it and yield because they cannot convince the wiser. First it was white men, then toxic fans, then it was Thundarr the Barbarian. They cannot make up their mind who the fuck it was.


Such stupid shit. Seriously, fuck this, man. I never thought I was going to be ever experiencing this shit with Star Wars. I basically wish it was never part of my childhood-feels like such a waste.
 
So no one actually read the study, instead resorted to an emotional knee-jerk response ... jeez, I thought the liberals were supposed to be the snowflakes.
 
I think this quote sums up The Last Jedi pretty darn well:
This film is the cinematic equivalent of Homer Simpson's makeup shotgun.



 
Draax said:
So no one actually read the study, instead resorted to an emotional knee-jerk response ... jeez, I thought the liberals were supposed to be the snowflakes.
Click to expand...

Yes I read it and it is laced with issues.

  1. The paper does not make the raw data that they used publicly available. Several sentences in the paper make me think that he may have destroyed the data: "All information revealed in this paper was immediately available and observable on public Twitter accounts during the study period collection" To me this is saying that if you want the raw data set you have to go out and collect it yourself. -- The paper also states: " The collected data has been stored on protected computing devices" with the key words being ("has been"). Either way the author of the paper makes no public way for anyone else who wishes to re-create this study to have access to the raw data set that they used.
  2. The paper was based off of a "manual sentiment analysis" while this method is sometimes used, the normal method is automated sentiment analysis. With manual analysis human bias can come into play as the the author of this paper was the one deciding which categories comments fit into. With no raw data to go off of and only a handful of examples that the author selected listed in the paper. We are basically having to take the author's word for it. Additionally the only examples that the author included in the study are ones that we can not verify. Per this in the paper: "Only handles of subsequently deleted or suspended accounts are revealed in this paper". Without the raw data set there is no way to verify anything in this paper.
  3. The papers author uses "Political Agenda" to exclude almost 50% of his subject data. This is the real scientific fo pa. The author says this in the paper: "A majority of the accounts in this category would tweet frequently and positively about party-based politics". A major scientific and statistical tenant is (correlation does not imply causation). Just because posters also frequently post about politics does not mean that their feelings about the star wars movie is because of their political agenda. The author does not present any evidence that their posts are biased because of this. They just assume that it is and exclude these comments.
  4. The conclusion of the paper is seriously flawed, per the paper: "Assuming that the collected dataset of Twitter interactions with The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson is at least to an extent representative of Star Wars fandom on Twitter, there are a number of statements that can be made on the basis of the collected data" He really can not assume that at all. First of all this is tweets to one person associated with the movie. Second I don't think you could assume that all of twitter's posts about star wars could be representative of the overall stars wars fan base. You get into a lot of grey areas when you start extrapolating relatively small data sets (ie this study-aprox 1000) to star wars fans( no reliable data but at least in the 10s of millions).



https://www.researchgate.net/public...pop_culture_through_social_media_manipulation

https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article/67/4/941/2526189

https://www.cloudbeds.com/articles/perform-sentiment-analysis-reviews/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
Paul_Johnson said:
I'll give you one example that you will ignore. Fuel. Fuel has never been an issue in the original trilogy movies before. The ships operated on some principle where fuel was not a significant importance for whatever reason. Now, conveniently, fuel is a major issue. Why? Forced drama.
Click to expand...

Why would I ignore it? That actually sounds like an interesting discussion.

When Han was intercepting the tie fighter in Episode IV before being captured by the Death Star there was a discussion with Obi-Wan about how it could have gotten out so far. I don't recall anything in the series implying that ships have unlimited range, whether in hyperspace or realspace. The games and novels reference various hyperfuel and realspace fuel sources, as does the Solo film.

TLJ was certainly the first time we've seen low fuel used as a plot device in one of the films, but I'm not seeing anything inconsistent about it. The attack on Starkiller Base revealed the Resistance position. The Republic capital ship fleet was destroyed along with the Hosnian system. Leia was left with less time, ships, and supplies to escape with than she had at Yavin IV or Hoth because of the need to attack Starkiller base right away. Then they discovered that the First Order had found some way to track them through hyperspace, forcing them to rely on realspace engines.

On top of that, the way it was forced made no sense. You are in space, in an area that does not depict massive gravitational fields that would affect the ships differently....so why is fuel burn an issue? See, SicFi doesn't have to conform to our understanding of science but it at least has to be internally consistent in order to suspend disbelief and watch the films.
Click to expand...

Moving through space without any kind of fuel isn't consistent with anything...

TLJ failed to do that from the get go (gravity launched bombs in a vacuum). It was a bad movie.
Click to expand...

I believe we've discussed this before. Gravity doesn't magically go away just because you reach vacuum, astronauts orbiting the Earth experience weightlessness because they're traveling horizontally at nearly 5km/sec. They're literally falling around the Earth. If you could climb a ladder up to the same altitude as the ISS or use engines to hover at that altitude you would experience nearly the same gravity you do on the surface. The various things falling in the opening battles of Episode III and Episode VIII are behaving correctly. The ships and bombs used in the opening battle of Episode VIII make sense given their situation following the battle at Starkiller base (where they lost more than half their craft and munitions).

pendragon1 said:
#ImNotABot


shitty writing, shitty plot, shitty characters and forced sjw agendas like the evil rich people and animal activism.
Click to expand...

Then don't act like a bot.

Saying it's shitty shitty shitty is not an argument. I liked the juxtaposition of Rose's naive views on good an evil with DJ's jaded opinion ('good guys, bad guys, made up words, it's all a machine, partner). Finn grows a lot in TLJ. I guess you can say that some of Rose's dialog was corny, but was it any worse than ROTJ (Leia's dialog or the teddy bears winning the battle)? How does it ruin the film?

As for animal activism, I don't recall space-PETA showing up in this film. Did I miss something?

Paul_Johnson said:
No, you just ignore all of the valid points that are raised and then runaway to claim such.
Click to expand...
Tsumi said:
You're not interested in discussing anything... you are the very definition of a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
M76 said:
Just ignore him, as he's ignoring every argument ever presented to him. And then goes on to claim in the very next post that there were no arguments.
Click to expand...

Ok...

There are a number of popular films I didn't particularly care for. I really didn't like Avengers Infinity War, but I don't go into every Marvel movie thread to shit on it or the people that like it. I can appreciate the good parts and I can identify what it is specifically that I don't really like about it (like the uncanny valley CGI on Grimace and Proxima Midnight). I think it's pretty obvious at this point that people are trolling TLJ hard as a political statement, and I think that's sad.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Ok...

There are a number of popular films I didn't particularly care for. I really didn't like Avengers Infinity War, but I don't go into every Marvel movie thread to shit on it or the people that like it. I can appreciate the good parts and I can identify what it is specifically that I don't really like about it (like the uncanny valley CGI on Grimace and Proxima Midnight). I think it's pretty obvious at this point that people are trolling TLJ hard as a political statement, and I think that's sad.
Click to expand...
Not liking the movie is not political. But as soon as they came out stating that those who didn't like it, are alt-right, conservative, or simply sexists (or as russian trolls as of recently) they sealed their own fate. You call someone names, expect some retaliation.

And even if the so called trolls are 100% wrong, and there was zero political reason behind the logical and plot failures of the movie, and it's blatant disrespect and misuse of old beloved characters, the failings still remain.

Of course it is a great scapegoat for hollywoo, to simply dismiss criticism as sexist trolling. Using any social problem like a shield in this manner disgusts me. If you call everyone sexist or racist that didn't like your movie then sooner or later there would be no way to sort out actual racists, because everyone will be labeled as such. And who wins? Well actual racists and sexists.
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
Then don't act like a bot.

Saying it's shitty shitty shitty is not an argument. I liked the juxtaposition of Rose's naive views on good an evil with DJ's jaded opinion ('good guys, bad guys, made up words, it's all a machine, partner). Finn grows a lot in TLJ. I guess you can say that some of Rose's dialog was corny, but was it any worse than ROTJ (Leia's dialog or the teddy bears winning the battle)? How does it ruin the film?

As for animal activism, I don't recall space-PETA showing up in this film. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
get off your high horse there buddy.
I liked rose's sexual assault on fin...
 
pendragon1 said:
get off your high horse there buddy.
I liked rose's sexual assault on fin...
Click to expand...

high horse.jpg
 
DeathFromBelow said:
TLJ was certainly the first time we've seen low fuel used as a plot device in one of the films, but I'm not seeing anything inconsistent about it
Click to expand...

Fuel is possible. It was never mentioned before, sure, but yeah, okay we can accept that it can be a concern - it's not quite an inconsistency.

However- why didn't the First Order just jump ahead of the Rebel- I mean Resistance ships? Also, acceleration in a vacuum isn't insurmountable. It would be possible to increase their speed in order to catch the Resistance ships if fuel was a concern for their side. It's just a weird plot device to rely on, am I right?

(Note I'm not even going to touch hyperspace tracking.)

DeathFromBelow said:
If you could climb a ladder up to the same altitude as the ISS or use engines to hover at that altitude you would experience nearly the same gravity you do on the surface
Click to expand...

This is not how gravity works.

But if you must- sure, gravity can exist in the Star Wars "universe." That does not explain why the bombers need to work in this fashion (what does explain it, however, is Rian Johnson's desire to evoke a WW2 bomber run).

DeathFromBelow said:
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that people are trolling TLJ hard as a political statement, and I think that's sad.
Click to expand...

While I cannot deny that it is easy to make this into a political statement, it is also impossible to deny that there are legit questions raised by the writing displayed in TLJ.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Why would I ignore it? That actually sounds like an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

Because you do every time some one points out you are wrong.

When Han was intercepting the tie fighter in Episode IV before being captured by the Death Star there was a discussion with Obi-Wan about how it could have gotten out so far.
Click to expand...

Because it was a point fighter without the ability to travel faster than the speed of light and there were not supposed to be any Imperial bases in that system. It had nothing to do with fuel.


I don't recall anything in the series implying that ships have unlimited range, whether in hyperspace or realspace.
Click to expand...

You don't?

The games and novels reference various hyperfuel and realspace fuel sources,
Click to expand...

They are not cannon.

as does the Solo film.
Click to expand...

And was produced after this crutch was introduced.

TLJ was certainly the first time we've seen low fuel used as a plot device in one of the films, but I'm not seeing anything inconsistent about it.
Click to expand...

That is because you are incapable of acknowledging that it is just one of the many problems with the movie and part of why the movie was terrible.


Moving through space without any kind of fuel isn't consistent with anything...
Click to expand...

Sure it is, a number of SciFi films have used methods. Until they needed a crutch so did Star Wars.



I believe we've discussed this before.
Click to expand...

I haven't because I would have pointed that in the bombing scene that isn't how gravity works but that is not what you are interested in because it would just add to the list of terrible writing problems with the movie and that would make you have to start saying that it was a terrible movie.
 
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/P-s4_twin_ion_engine

Wookieepedia lists "High pressure radioactive gas fuel tank" as a component of the P-s4 twin ion engine of the TIE fighter.

The entry for the Imperial II-class star destroyer states it is powered by: 3x KDY destroyer-I ion engines and it also has 4x Cygnus Spaceworks gemon-4 ion engines. The entries for both of these engines are minimal and do not list any system components. Is it not fair to assume they use the same matter?

If I am thinking of the same bombing scene the bombs were magnetic were they not?

According to the Official Guidebook for TLJ, the bombs are released using “sequenced electromagnetic plates" and rely on magnetism to speed towards the target.
Click to expand...

To quote another sci-fi film "Newtons third law, the only way humans have ever figured out of getting somewhere is to leave something behind.” - TARS
 
Last edited:
Draax said:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/P-s4_twin_ion_engine

Wookieepedia lists "High pressure radioactive gas fuel tank" as a component of the P-s4 twin ion engine of the TIE fighter.

The entry for the Imperial II-class star destroyer states it is powered by: 3x KDY destroyer-I ion engines and it also has 4x Cygnus Spaceworks gemon-4 ion engines. The entries for both of these engines are minimal and do not list any system components. Is it not fair to assume they use the same matter?

If I am thinking of the same bombing scene the bombs were magnetic were they not?
Click to expand...

C a n n o n. Say it after me, cannon. Savvy?
 
Paul_Johnson said:
C a n n o n. Say it after me, cannon. Savvy?
Click to expand...
Do you have a cannon link that states that none of the engines I mentioned use fuel? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Whether it is cannon or not my understanding of ion engine propulsion is that some form of matter needs to be accelerated to generate thrust.

If there is no cannon either way then there are really 3 choices: 1. We can refer to accepted non cannon explanations / fan fiction which is the link I provided. 2 We can refer to the real life scientific principles of ion engine propulsion. 3. We can ignore the first two and claim that since it isn't stated, it doesn't exist. Honestly though … isn't the third choice the worst choice of the three? Savvy?
 
Last edited:
Paul_Johnson said:
No, you just ignore all of the valid points that are raised and then runaway to claim such. There is a difference between people presenting valid points and you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalalala" and people not telling you why it was bad.

I'll give you one example that you will ignore. Fuel. Fuel has never been an issue in the original trilogy movies before. The ships operated on some principle where fuel was not a significant importance for whatever reason. Now, conveniently, fuel is a major issue. Why? Forced drama. On top of that, the way it was forced made no sense. You are in space, in an area that does not depict massive gravitational fields that would affect the ships differently....so why is fuel burn an issue? See, SicFi doesn't have to conform to our understanding of science but it at least has to be internally consistent in order to suspend disbelief and watch the films. TLJ failed to do that from the get go (gravity launched bombs in a vacuum). It was a bad movie.
Click to expand...

Star Wars has always played somewhat loose with physics for the sake of making things look cool and telling a rather simple story with great style and flare. There was always a certain charm to it and epic nature that makes it easy to overlook many of the glaring faults in the series as a whole. Original trilogy included. However, TLJ takes bad physics and bad writing to Sharknado levels. The film doesn't even bother to include anything that people liked in the previous films. The characters are all unlikable and most of them are totally irrational. Some plot points like having the Resistance cruiser turn into a hyperspace rail gun are so badly conceived that their very inclusion creates retroactive problems for the rest of the films and the universe as a whole. If you could simply do that with ships, there would be no need to fear some slow moving space station like the Death Star which could be destroyed by a few cruisers. Hyperspace missiles could easily be developed which would make Star Wars warfare as we've always seen it completely illogical.

George Lucas made some increasingly questionable decisions with the franchise as time went on. However, he never would have allowed something like that scene to make it into the script much less get filmed and included in the final product. Much of what we see in the film are simple failures on the writers part to understand the source material and their obvious inability to write a cohesive story that makes sense within the existing narrative constructs of the Star Wars films. The Last Jedi is so fucking bad that Episode 9 can't possibly be a decent film because what led up to it was a soggy shit sandwich that's so putrid that maggots won't touch it. Episode 9 has no chance of turning the trilogy around.

Basically, the only way to fix Episode 8 is to introduce time travel, alternate universes or any number of other sci-fi tropes designed to provide in-universe retcons for shit no one likes. Either that or pull a "Dallas" and say Episode 8 was a Force vision and do that motherfucker over again. Even retcons provided by time travel and what not won't be well received (more than likely) as its a complete departure from the tone and ground rules set by the franchise as it stands now. In Star Trek or Stargate, they have the creative freedom to do those things because those elements were established early enough that they aren't off the table. Star Wars is more grounded in that its basically sci-fantasy or closer to an action movie than the aforementioned science fiction franchises that can get away with that stuff.

The real way to fix this shit is to pull Episode 8 from the shelves and remake that bastard. Either that or reboot EVERYTHING. Neither of which is going to happen. A reboot might, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon. I think its certainly possible, just not soon.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
C a n n o n. Say it after me, cannon. Savvy?
Click to expand...

Authorized books, games, etc are 'cannon' as long as they don't contradict the films.

Can you refrence anything in the films before now that suggests ships have unlimited range and don't use fuel? If you dont like the tie fighter example I mentioned earlier then what about in ESB when Leia and Han were looking for places to go after hiding on the back of the Star Destroyer? He tells Leia that Lando's mining colony was 'far, but I think we can make it.'

ghostwich said:
This is not how gravity works.
Click to expand...

Unless you've figured out some new theory of gravity, yes it actually does work that way. Gravity doesnt turn off when you reach space, Earth's gravity at the altitude of the ISS is about 90% what it is on the surface. Astronauts are weightless because they're travelling at orbital velocity and literally falling around the Earth. The Moon is much further away and is also within Earth's gravitational field, Earth orbital velocity is about 1km/s out there.

If you could climb a magic ladder up to those altitudes (or hover in a spaceship) and jump off you would fall to the Earth. Likewise, the stuff falling in the opening battles of Episode III and VIII is behaving correctly.
 
Last edited:
In this and only one case I agree with DeathFromBelow. Unless my memory completely fails me I do remember seeing something that clearly are meant to be fueling pipes attached to spaceships like Xwings before they take off to battle against Deathstar. I have to doublecheck to be sure. Alternatively they could be chargers for batteries but then we are arguing about semantics, POWER is the end result the spaceships need to operate and fly.

TLJ is a bloody disaster and a piece of shit that ruined future SW movies for me but the fuel thing was not one of its problems.
 
What's with all the talk of cannons? Is the next SW going to do time travel?


MaZa said:
Unless my memory completely fails me I do remember seeing something that clearly are meant to be fueling pipes attached to spaceships like Xwings before they take off to battle against Deathstar.
Click to expand...
That does look like some kind of "fuel"

mpv-shot0001.png mpv-shot0005.png
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Authorized books, games, etc are cannon as long as they don't contradict the films.

Can you refrence anything in the films before now that suggests ships have unlimited range and don't use fuel? If you dont like the tie fighter example I mentioned earlier then what about in ESB when Leia and Han were looking for places to go after hiding on the back of the Star Destroyer? He tells Leia that Lando's mining colony was 'far, but I think we can make it.'



Unless you've figured out some new theory of gravity, yes it actually does work that way. Gravity doesnt turn off when you reach space, Earth's gravity at the altitude of the ISS is about 90% what it is on the surface. Astronauts are weightless because they're travelling at orbital velocity and literally falling around the Earth. The Moon is much further away and is also within Earth's gravitational field, Earth orbital velocity is about 1km/s out there.

If you could climb a magic ladder up to those altitudes (or hover in a spaceship) and jump off you would fall to the Earth. Likewise, the stuff falling in the opening battles of Episode III and VIII is behaving corectly.
Click to expand...

Come back when you decide to stop cherry picking arguments. One of the biggest complaints has been the ship hyperspace into another ship as a weapon, yet you do not address that at all and just conveniently ignore it.

Also, the "official TLJ" explanation for the bombs was magnetism rather than gravity. Which is also a moronic explanation in of itself. Why risk getting close to do a bombing run when you can fire proton torpedoes and turn away to evade incoming fire immediately? Sure, proton torpedoes have limited range, but magnetism has even less range.

But hey, keep calling everyone that doesn't like TLJ (and really, what Disney has done to Star Wars in general) trolls. I would ask you the reverse... why are you so obsessed with defending Disney Star Wars? It's as bad as heatlessun defending Microsoft.
 
As expected my post with the inconvenient points gets ignored, again.
 
Tsumi said:
Also, the "official TLJ" explanation for the bombs was magnetism rather than gravity. Which is also a moronic explanation in of itself. Why risk getting close to do a bombing run when you can fire proton torpedoes and turn away to evade incoming fire immediately? Sure, proton torpedoes have limited range, but magnetism has even less range.
Click to expand...
Well bombs were already in Tie Fighter they are released at speed and carried by their momentum to the target. They could've done the bombing in such a way that the bomber flies towards the capital ships releases the bombs and turns back. Had the writer any understanding of physics, or had they cared at all about it.
 
Tsumi said:
Come back when you decide to stop cherry picking arguments. One of the biggest complaints has been the ship hyperspace into another ship as a weapon, yet you do not address that at all and just conveniently ignore it.
Click to expand...

I've addressed it previously in other threads. Several times, actually. I'm on my phone atm but you can find my posts with the search function if you don't believe me.

Using a ship as a hyperspace weapon requires an expensive high mass ship with heavy shielding. The small Rebel cruisers in Rogue One crumpled on Vader's Star Destroyer shields. It requires the ship launching the attack to be right on top of the opposing ship(s) so that they're within the hyperspace wake, and it may well require a force sensitive pilot or improbable luck to pull off. With that in mind there are very few circumstances where a hyperspace attack would make tactical sense. Leia's cruiser could only get close enough because the enemy fleet thought it was abandoned.

The "official TLJ" explanation for the bombs was magnetism rather than gravity. Which is also a moronic explanation in of itself
Click to expand...

The bombs had to be dropped right on top of the target ship for the magnetic guidance to carry them to the ship reactor. I was refrencing the various other objects that fall towards the planet during the battles in episode III and VIII too.

Why risk getting close to do a bombing run when you can fire proton torpedoes and turn away to evade incoming fire immediately? Sure, proton torpedoes have limited range, but magnetism has even less range.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, they lost more than half their strike craft and munitions during the battle at Starkiller base, thus the need for the modified transport bombers.

Come back when you decide to stop cherry picking arguments.
Click to expand...

Come back when you've actually seen the movie.
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
Using a ship as a hyperspace weapon requires an expensive high mass ship with heavy shielding.
Click to expand...

What equations did you use to come up with this statement? A larger mass ship would no doubt be more effective. However, a starfighter approaching FTL would no doubt put serious hurt on something like a Star Destroyer. While a single hit might not necessarily destroy it, a blow that's easily crippling isn't out of the question. It wouldn't take a very large asteroid (relative to Earth) to render our planet uninhabitable. Testing on rail guns and the math behind all of that suggests that a small object at extremely high velocities is incredibly damaging. I know TLJ disregards science, but you can't act like your using science to support a film that contradicts the laws of physics so blatantly.

DeathFromBelow said:
The small Rebel cruisers in Rogue One crumpled on Vader's Star Destroyer shields.
Click to expand...

There is a massive difference in size between the ships in question. No doubt, there is a huge difference in shielding. Granted. However, this also doesn't prove that a smaller ship at hyperspace or near hyperspace velocities wouldn't destroy a much larger vessel at such speeds. In fact, we saw in TLJ that a ship a 10th of the size of the First Order flagship was able to rip a 3rd or more off of the ship off and cripple it. What we observe in the film directly contradicts your statement. A smaller vessel at near FTL speeds would severely damage or destroy larger ships with ease.

DeathFromBelow said:
It requires the ship launching the attack to be right on top of the opposing ship(s) so that they're within the hyperspace wake, and it may well require a force sensitive pilot or improbable luck to pull off. With that in mind there are very few circumstances where a hyperspace attack would make tactical sense. Leia's cruiser could only get close enough because the enemy fleet thought it was abandoned.
Click to expand...

Where the fuck are you getting this stuff? The attacking ship would simply have to be within a range that wouldn't allow it to disappear into hyperspace completely or allow the target time to react and move out of the way. I don't recall precise numbers, but at the speed of light, you can travel something like 300,000km per second. A large ship like Executor would no doubt need several seconds if not minutes to make major course changes. Kylo's ship in TLJ was even larger. This would mean that the attacking ship could be a considerable distance from the target. The Resistance Cruiser in TLJ wasn't exactly close when it made the initial run on Kylo's flagship.

Physics are really not part of the equation because so many things are wrong about that entire scene. However, if their blasters were at the edge of their effective range, (there are reasons why this is ludicrous too, but that's another matter) that would be several hundred thousand kilometers away at the very least. It also makes no sense that the First Order ships would allow the Resistance cruiser to turn around and come at them before destroying it. They presumably had the firepower to do so. There certainly seemed to be enough time to either cripple the ship or destroy it outright before the obvious attack. There is no way the First Order thought the ship was abandoned as it was fucking turning towards them.

A hyperspace attack, if they were that effective would always make sense on larger targets such as super star destroyers or the Death Star. That's one of the reasons that scene is so fucking stupid. If you throw a single Mon-Cal cruiser at a target like Kylo's ship, Executor or the Death Star, then the loss of that one nearly empty ship to destroy a much larger vessel with thousands of enemy combatants aboard is a bargain in tactical terms. Given the size and lack of maneuverability, it would be pretty fucking easy too. Such attacks could also be brought against shipyards and other large space stations that are effectively stationary targets. For that matter, Rebels could steal ships for making these types of attack runs and hyperspace missiles could be made in any size needed to get the job done.

Why do you bring Force sensitivity into the equation? Admiral Holdo was flying the ship and there is zero evidence she was force sensitive. Next?

DeathFromBelow said:
The bombs had to be dropped right on top of the target ship for the magnetic guidance to carry them to the ship reactor. I was refrencing the various other objects that fall towards the planet during the battles in episode III and VIII too.
Click to expand...

What makes you say this? There is absolutely zero fucking evidence of guidance in the film.


DeathFromBelow said:
As I stated earlier, they lost more than half their strike craft and munitions during the battle at Starkiller base, thus the need for the modified transport bombers.



Come back when you've actually seen the movie.
Click to expand...

You are making shit up. Nothing of the sort is stated in the film.
 
MaZa said:
There. End of discussion about the fuel being canon.
Click to expand...
That's just the cable used to sync the x-wing flight control system with the HQ computers. :p

So it is settled, only 938 mistakes, plotholes and errors left in the movie to explain away, to be finally able to proclaim that those who didn't like the movie are just sexist russian trolls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this
Dan_D said:
What equations did you use to come up with this statement? A larger mass ship would no doubt be more effective. However, a starfighter approaching FTL would no doubt put serious hurt on something like a Star Destroyer. While a single hit might not necessarily destroy it, a blow that's easily crippling isn't out of the question...

There is a massive difference in size between the ships in question. No doubt, there is a huge difference in shielding. Granted. However, this also doesn't prove that a smaller ship at hyperspace or near hyperspace velocities wouldn't destroy a much larger vessel at such speeds. In fact, we saw in TLJ that a ship a 10th of the size of the First Order flagship was able to rip a 3rd or more off of the ship off and cripple it. What we observe in the film directly contradicts your statement. A smaller vessel at near FTL speeds would severely damage or destroy larger ships with ease.
Click to expand...

From a physics standpoint it seems to me that if you can breach the opposing ships shields then pretty much any mass traveling at the speed of light (or faster, this is sci-fi) could do massive damage.

I'm going off the information in the novels and the films. In Rogue One a GR-75 (the ships that were used as transports in ESB) spatters like a fly on the windshield when it jumps at close range into a Star Destroyer, barely breaching the destroyer's shields if it did at all. Leia's Cruiser, the Raddus, was far more massive, included 'experimental deflector shielding,' and hits the Supremacy at just the right moment before entering hyperspace.

Where the fuck are you getting this stuff? The attacking ship would simply have to be within a range that wouldn't allow it to disappear into hyperspace completely or allow the target time to react and move out of the way. I don't recall precise numbers, but at the speed of light, you can travel something like 300,000km per second. A large ship like Executor would no doubt need several seconds if not minutes to make major course changes. Kylo's ship in TLJ was even larger. This would mean that the attacking ship could be a considerable distance from the target. The Resistance Cruiser in TLJ wasn't exactly close when it made the initial run on Kylo's flagship.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that ships shrink and gain mass in realspace as they accelerate towards lightspeed and move into hyperspace (in the real world things actually do gain mass and stretch out at they approach the speed of light). In the star wars novels you can die from flying through something in hyperspace, but unless you time your jump so you fly through another object at close to lightspeed while not actually in hyperspace you wont do a lot of damage in realspace because your physial presence in realspace while in hyperspace is reduced.

A hyperspace attack, if they were that effective would always make sense on larger targets such as super star destroyers or the Death Star. That's one of the reasons that scene is so fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

They couldn't fly capital ships against the Death Star because of it's immense array of long-range weaponry and superlaser. You'd get torn to shreds before you could get close enough to make the suicide jump.

Why do you bring Force sensitivity into the equation? Admiral Holdo was flying the ship and there is zero evidence she was force sensitive.
Click to expand...

Her backstory is that she was a force-sensitive friend and trainee of Leia.

It took a force sensitive farm boy with no fighter combat experience to line up some proton torpedos just right at the battle of Yavin.

What makes you say this? There is absolutely zero fucking evidence of guidance in the film.
Click to expand...

The magnetic guidance is from the Star Wars visual dictionary.

You are making shit up. Nothing of the sort is stated in the film.
Click to expand...

They lose half the fleet in TFA right before the beginning of TLJ. These kind of statements are why I don't think you guy(s) have actually seen the films.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't have a problem with the ending, but I'm not generally into fatalistic, or endings where everyone dies. I liked the movie despite that.
Click to expand...
See this is what I was thinking. I went into Rogue One expecting to see everyone die......It fit perfectly in the narrative of A New Hope and return of the Jedi.....it tied everything together. Which is probably why i enjoyed it the most. Its the only spin off that actually had much of the Original canon included.
Solo was a mess......it was an OK movie but was disappointed how they handled Chewie and Hans relationship....
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Why would I ignore it? That actually sounds like an interesting discussion.

When Han was intercepting the tie fighter in Episode IV before being captured by the Death Star there was a discussion with Obi-Wan about how it could have gotten out so far. I don't recall anything in the series implying that ships have unlimited range, whether in hyperspace or realspace. The games and novels reference various hyperfuel and realspace fuel sources, as does the Solo film.

TLJ was certainly the first time we've seen low fuel used as a plot device in one of the films, but I'm not seeing anything inconsistent about it. The attack on Starkiller Base revealed the Resistance position. The Republic capital ship fleet was destroyed along with the Hosnian system. Leia was left with less time, ships, and supplies to escape with than she had at Yavin IV or Hoth because of the need to attack Starkiller base right away. Then they discovered that the First Order had found some way to track them through hyperspace, forcing them to rely on realspace engines.



Moving through space without any kind of fuel isn't consistent with anything...



I believe we've discussed this before. Gravity doesn't magically go away just because you reach vacuum, astronauts orbiting the Earth experience weightlessness because they're traveling horizontally at nearly 5km/sec. They're literally falling around the Earth. If you could climb a ladder up to the same altitude as the ISS or use engines to hover at that altitude you would experience nearly the same gravity you do on the surface. The various things falling in the opening battles of Episode III and Episode VIII are behaving correctly. The ships and bombs used in the opening battle of Episode VIII make sense given their situation following the battle at Starkiller base (where they lost more than half their craft and munitions).



Then don't act like a bot.

Saying it's shitty shitty shitty is not an argument. I liked the juxtaposition of Rose's naive views on good an evil with DJ's jaded opinion ('good guys, bad guys, made up words, it's all a machine, partner). Finn grows a lot in TLJ. I guess you can say that some of Rose's dialog was corny, but was it any worse than ROTJ (Leia's dialog or the teddy bears winning the battle)? How does it ruin the film?

As for animal activism, I don't recall space-PETA showing up in this film. Did I miss something?





Ok...

There are a number of popular films I didn't particularly care for. I really didn't like Avengers Infinity War, but I don't go into every Marvel movie thread to shit on it or the people that like it. I can appreciate the good parts and I can identify what it is specifically that I don't really like about it (like the uncanny valley CGI on Grimace and Proxima Midnight). I think it's pretty obvious at this point that people are trolling TLJ hard as a political statement, and I think that's sad.
Click to expand...


The movie is shitty! End of story.
 
I'd take any/all of the new movies vs. the prequels. Especially the first one, which I'd consider to be good in general.
Even at their worst, they're still watchable and fun, Solo included.

There's something about those movies that seems to incite rage for some reason. People see political statements where there are none and people remember the old movies with rose tinted glasses.
 
relapse808 said:
The movie is shitty! End of story.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, there are plenty of popular movies I don't care for. If you didn't like TLJ for whatever reason, that's fine, but I don't shit on every person/thread relating to movies I don't like, and I can clearly explain why I don't like them.

IMO some of the best moments in Star Wars are in TLJ, particularly the throne room confrontation and Luke's talk with Yoda. I'm totally open to discussing issues with the film, but I get the impression that most of the negative commentary is politically motivated trolling rather than serious discussion of alleged issues with the film. I think that's sad.
 
Domingo said:
I'd take any/all of the new movies vs. the prequels. Especially the first one, which I'd consider to be good in general.
Even at their worst, they're still watchable and fun, Solo included.

There's something about those movies that seems to incite rage for some reason. People see political statements where there are none and people remember the old movies with rose tinted glasses.
Click to expand...
The only one of the new movies that wasn't bad is Rogue One, but even that is bad as a Star Wars movie. It's enjoyable, but it offers zero lore expansion, and zero fanservice. And that makes it a bad SW movie.

The prequels are still infinitely more faithful to the lore and legacy of the universe than any of the new movies. Even if they are badly written and in some cases terribly acted, and overcgi-zed.

And the same problem can be seen in STD. They take old lore and things you take for granted then take a giant shit on it. Meaning they completely disregard the original message and the established facts. Even if it was good it would still anger fans of the old lore. Who don't want their favorites to be completely disregarded, and put to the sidelines. And I bet that is the faith waiting for Picard as well. The character will be completely inside out, preaching the exact opposite of his original values.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
From a physics standpoint it seems to me that if you can breach the opposing ships shields then pretty much any mass traveling at the speed of light (or faster, this is sci-fi) could do massive damage.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. However, shields would have a finite amount of kinetic energy they could absorb or deflect. I'd wager that a ship accelerating close to the speed of light or beyond would be enough to destroy the shields in this context.

DeathFromBelow said:
I'm going off the information in the novels and the films.
Click to expand...

Which novels? Most of them have been re-branded and aren't considered canon.

DeathFromBelow said:
In Rogue One a GR-75 (the ships that were used as transports in ESB) spatters like a fly on the windshield when it jumps at close range into a Star Destroyer, barely breaching the destroyer's shields if it did at all. Leia's Cruiser, the Raddus, was far more massive, included 'experimental deflector shielding,' and hits the Supremacy at just the right moment before entering hyperspace.
Click to expand...

It would be a matter of the precise speed, mass, etc. of the vessel at the time of the collision. Normally when we see a ship in Star Wars re-appear in normal space it slows to sublight velocities rather quickly. The bulk of the deceleration appears to be done while the ship is still technically in hyperspace. No reason for this is given, but this is the most likely scenario. Again, we can't know for certain given that Star Wars has always played things loosely when it comes to physics.

DeathFromBelow said:
My understanding is that ships shrink and gain mass in realspace as they accelerate towards lightspeed and move into hyperspace (in the real world things actually do gain mass and stretch out at they approach the speed of light). In the star wars novels you can die from flying through something in hyperspace, but unless you time your jump so you fly through another object at close to lightspeed while not actually in hyperspace you wont do a lot of damage in realspace because your physial presence in realspace while in hyperspace is reduced.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, Star Wars source material on the subject has never been all that clear on exactly what happens in hyperspace. This is highly speculative and I don't think there are any real examples to back this up. At least nothing that's considered canon and nothing recent. Please correct me if one of the newer novels contradicts this or provides more information. Unless its in the novelization of The Last Jedi in which case its horseshit along with the movie its based on.

DeathFromBelow said:
They couldn't fly capital ships against the Death Star because of it's immense array of long-range weaponry and super laser. You'd get torn to shreds before you could get close enough to make the suicide jump.
Click to expand...

Absolute horseshit. There is no evidence of this. They absolutely could fly capital ships into the Death Star based on what we saw in TLJ. Its weapons are the same as what are on Star Destroyers, there are just far more weapons than a Star Destroyer is equipped with. The super laser, while immensely powerful doesn't exactly move quickly. While it has some independent movement of the beam within the station, its clear that it can only hit ships in extremely close range. We saw this in Return of the Jedi. Keep in mind that at longer distances a ship would have an easy time moving out of the firing arc of the super laser. Also, approaching the station at near lightspeed would do the trick. Presumably, the shields may be a problem but we saw something a 10th of the mass of the First Order flagship breach the sheilds and hull of the ship doing immense damage to it. There is no reason why larger capital ships couldn't do precisely the same thing to the Death Star. It might take many more ships to destroy it or render it inoperable, but it should be possible based on TLJ. This is the problem with the TLJ scene as it creates problems for the rest of the series. It retroactively makes the warfare we've seen look really stupid.

There is also no evidence that the Death Star can destroy capital ships quickly enough to prevent them from slamming into the thing at near FTL velocities. The Death Star wasn't destroying Rebel capital ships with conventional weapons very quickly. Granted, the Rebels did try and avoid direct fire from it, but many were in the firing line as we saw those destroyed with the super laser.

DeathFromBelow said:
Her backstory is that she was a force-sensitive friend and trainee of Leia.
Click to expand...

Even if that's true, this is NOT in the film. No dialog suggests this and even if that were true, there is no reason to believe that someone who isn't force sensitive couldn't do it. This is an example of bad film making. If a plot point hinges on something that's not obvious in the film, dialog or some scene needs to convey the necessary information. There is no statement that her actions are impossible for anyone but someone who is trained in the use of the Force. Force hyperspeed ship ramming is also not a force power I've ever heard of.

DeathFromBelow said:
It took a force sensitive farm boy with no fighter combat experience to line up some proton torpedos just right at the battle of Yavin.
Click to expand...

While this is true, there is no evidence that the hit on the first Death Star couldn't have been done by computer. Also, the ships were shooting at something indirectly as they used the trench as cover against the turbo lasers. A more direct shot would have been very possible, although much riskier for the pilot attempting to make the shot. This also has fuck all to do with Admiral Holdo piloting a Resistance cruiser into the First Order flagship and in no way suggests such an act requires force affinity.

DeathFromBelow said:
The magnetic guidance is from the Star Wars visual dictionary.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of guidance in the film. Period. They appear to fall as unguided munitions would in an atmosphere which is fucking stupid.

DeathFromBelow said:
They lose half the fleet in TFA right before the beginning of TLJ. These kind of statements are why I don't think you guy(s) have actually seen the films.
Click to expand...

I've seen TFA a few times but its been awhile. I saw TLJ twice unfortunately. This has fuck all to do with the bad bomber design and the shitty writing for the space chase nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top