logo Sign In

imperialscum

User Group
Members
Join date
7-Mar-2013
Last activity
16-Jan-2022
Posts
3,205

Post History

Post
#1340647
Topic
I'll never understand the attitude of people who oppose the release of the unaltered original trilogy.
Time

Whoever is actively against release of original version is obviously kissing George ass. There is no other reasonable explanation, besides trolling.

If one is to be fair, they should support the release of ALL official versions in the best quality format, not just the original version. For example, when they released 1997 version, a whole new generation grew up with those versions and many may be as fond of 1997 just as the older generation is fond of original version.

There are also many original version fans who actively dismiss other versions. Whenever I express that all version should be released, you have a bunch of original version fans saying “it is pointless because there is no real difference between SE versions anyway”, or even “no one cares about SE versions”, or something similar. In my opinion, those fans are the very same kind of inconsiderate a-holes like the ones who do not care about release of original version, whom they despise so much.

Post
#1340142
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:
See above. I still maintain Luke only cared about redeeming Vader.

And I still maintain that Luke cared about Vader as a means of destroying Palpatine. But since it’s clear that neither of us will budge on our positions, maybe we should just stop.

I agree. I believe his original intention was to use Vader (Anakin) so that they would defeat the Emperor together. However, things turned out a bit differently but worked out just the same.

Post
#1339808
Topic
Poll: which ship would you wanna fly?
Time

oojason said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Y-TIE

I like it 😃

(and looks like something Starbuck and mortal enemy Cy would have to work together to build from their respective damaged ships whilst marooned together on an alien planet…)

and would certainly confuse the opposing forces; do we open fire or not…? Too late! A cunning plan…
 

I think it would confuse everyone; both the enemy and the friendly forces. I guess in the heat of the battle, the likely approach would be “let’s just shoot it down, better safe than sorry”. 😄

Post
#1339714
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

canofhumdingers said:

Couldn’t have said it better Ray and Starkiller. The movie is about redemption and not stooping to the level of your enemies. And it delivers an elegant illustration of the Jedi ideology in the way Luke defeats the emperor. Just because the movie doesn’t hold our hand and spell out things doesn’t mean that all the pieces aren’t there for my interpretation to clearly be the intent. Luke was clearly intent to turn Vader in order to defeat the emperor. That was his plan, he stuck to it and used the nonviolent Jedi ideology to bring his father back and win the day. The movie may be uneven and weaker than its two predecessors, but I’ve always thought it completely stuck the landing in the most satisfying way.

Good point.

I would not say ROTJ is uneven and weaker. It has plenty of depth (these discussions alone are indication enough). I would say that in many aspects it has much more depth than SW and ESB.

Post
#1339370
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

BedeHistory731 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

BedeHistory731 said:

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

I still maintain that Luke didn’t actually save the galaxy - a fact that renders his entire ‘new hope’ journey somewhat meaningless to me.

Luke was the only one who could get through to Vader. Vader was the only one who could destroy the Emperor.
Without Luke, there’s no hope. He saved the galaxy by redeeming his father. (or, by Returning the Jedi, if you will)

I also hate the sister thing. Luke should have gone off alone in search of “The Other” at the end.

I’ve beat this drum several times in these forums, but the best way to explain my unease wth Luke’s actions is to boil it down to the following - what exactly did Luke tell everyone at the Ewok after-party?

If he’d said “I defeated the Emperor” that would’ve been a lie. He didn’t beat the Emperor. He surrendered and circumstances luckily prevailed in a way that led to Palpatine’s demise. That’s it. What Luke actually did was a) refuse to fight (after a brief and justifiable tantrum), b) spare the life of the second most evil guy in the galaxy because…well, he’s dad, and c) declare himself a Jedi and throw his weapon aside. All of this, by the way, while countless innocent beings were being slaughtered outside.

He probably said “I redeemed my evil father, Just like I told Leia I would & he killed the Emperor.”
All of those actions, or inactions, saved the galaxy. *shrug

And he would’ve found himself hanging from the nearest redwood. How many rebels would’ve lost loved ones and/or had their lives ruined under the jackboots of Vader and his buddies? How thrilled would such folk be to hear that, while Palpatine was killing people by the hundreds with his new weapon, Luke was hiding under a staircase because he didn’t want to lose his temper and risk Vader not going to Jedi Heaven?

Nor can I see why anyone would even consider the possibility of a new Jedi Order based on these actions.

That’s EU anyway. Nowhere in the film does Luke even hint towards restarting anything.
[EDIT- I guess the ST says that Luke went on to do whatever, but that’s not in this film]

Yoda says “pass on what you have learned”. The implication is that Luke will go on teach younglings how to hide under staircases in order to spare the bad guys.

Okay, now it just seems like you’re deliberately misinterpreting the movie. The message the movie was trying to get across was that everyone can change, not that you should hide under a staircase or whatever you said. And the whole “war criminal” thing doesn’t apply, because Star Wars shouldn’t be taken that seriously. It’s a mythic fantasy, not a true story.

Indeed. Shopping Maul’s take sounds like a CinemaSins-level bad-faith interpretation of the movie, fundamentally misunderstanding the whole point about redemption and Luke’s connection to his father. It’s not meant to be a strict reflection of reality, nor should we want it to be. This is a fantasy story, not gritty realism.

Sounds like the best way to interpret ROTJ. The movie isn’t worthy of good faith.

I beg to differ. Your posts reek of toxicity. Whenever I read your posts here, the general attitude is that you think you’re better than people who like media that you dislike. You may have some good points, but I find you utterly insufferable.

I see you’ve met DuracellEnergizer.

Post
#1339292
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

SilverWook said:

Arguably, Luke does distract Palpatine from micro managing the battle too closely, and Vader might have had an impact had he been outside in his TIE fighter.

As Vader never says Leia’s name out loud, does he only sense Luke has a sister, but not her actual identity?

Those are good points.

I would also bring up the question whether Luke even believed that rebels could actually defeat the imperial fleet and destroy the Death Star.

Post
#1339197
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

Shopping Maul said:

I’ve said this before but a simple dialogue tweak would fix this. If Luke had said to Leia “I have to turn myself in, I’m endangering the mission. The Sith can feel my presence and know that we’re here. I’ll allow myself to be captured - Vader will take me to the Emperor himself and I will make sure he’s on the Death Star when the attack is launched”.

That would just make Luke a “captain obvious” to those in the audience who cannot make 1+1=2 on their own. On the other hand, it would ruin things in-universe. Luke probably knew and accepted that it was a suicide mission and that he would most likely die if the Death Star was blown off (whether or not Vader was redeemed). Why the hell would he tell such a thing to Leia and make her upset before such a crucial mission she was about to undertake? The way he handled it was very wise; he did not lie but he did not tell her that he is going off on a suicide mission either.

Post
#1339080
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

Kurtz was also asked to produce Revenge Of The Jedi - which he turned down for the reasons we all know…

That seems extremely unlikely. After falling out with Lucas, it would be ludicrous to think that Lucas would ask him to do anything for him after that.

Like Lucas asking him to stay around until the film was finished? As stated below in your reply to Wook? 😉

I did not want to imply that he was asked to stick around. I implied that they just let him stick around in order not to cause any trouble, like making a complaint to PGA, which could easily doom already fragile situation. 😉

The information that “he was asked to produce ROTJ” only ever came from Kurtz during his interviews (and of course secondary sources that refer to him saying so). I have not seen any other independent source confirming that information. Also, he never specified by WHO he was asked. Maybe by a voice in his head? Unless he was asked by Lucas (which is more or less impossible), it makes the whole thing completely irrelevant.

A ‘voice in his head?’ - no, somebody from Lucasfilm had obviously obviously spoke with Kurtz and offered him Producing work (or credit) on ROTJ - as of 1981, in the official Lucasfilm press release below… to which Kurtz must have agreed to.

This seems like a thing for the public not to question and wonder why he was removed and replaced. Lucasfilm always seemed to have tried to make it look like everything was fine and dandy. We did not even know he was removed until many years afterwards when people investigated behind-the-scenes for books and documentaries. Same goes for many other key figures and events of OT that we had only learned about many years after.

Even if this “Production Consultant” was an actual job (which it was not for sure) instead of just a make-up for the public, it is still by no means any kind of proof that he was offered to actually produce ROTJ. I mean you do not remove a producer in the middle of the film only to then offer him to produce a sequel.

oojason said:

oojason said:

https://www.jeditemplearchives.com/specialreports/banthatracks/archives/banthatracks11.pdf

^ Bantha Tracks: Issue 11 (official Star Wars Newsletter), dated February 1981, re Revenge Of The Jedi and an official Lucasfilm press release:-

“Gary Kurtz, who produced ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Empire Strikes Back’ will serve as a Production Consultant on ‘Jedi’, while he prepares two of his own projects.”
 

So, not so ‘ludicrous’ as you think or claim, yes? 😉

As to ‘Independent source’? who are you expecting to know outside of Kurtz and high-end Lucasfilm employees that would have know he been offered the job of producing ROTJ? Do we need ‘independent sources’ to confirm Lynch was offered the chance to direct ROTJ, or Cronenberg etc?

The who and the when are irrelevant in the context of Kurtz stating he was asked to produce ROTJ - the statements came the man himself - to which nobody from Lucasfilm has challenged any of them - including George. You believe a professional and highly regarded producer (a job which requires inordinate levels of trust & professionalism) and would make continuous false claims he was offered the producer job for a famous film… when at any time the said employer - or employees - could turn around and deny it? His reputation and credibility would likely be ruined.

In fact, would a be a ‘ludicrous’ thing for Kurtz to claim… if it was not true, yes? 😉

Like said above, Lucasfilm extremely rarely challenged anything or anyone in order to keep things appear fine and dandy. In his later interviews, Kurtz seemed very resentful of his removal, so it would not surprise me if he made it up. After all, he did use ideas from Lucas’ pre-SW drafts and tried to present them as if they were ROTJ draft (when it actually did not exist in any form at the time). Also, he tried to claim that he left because he did not like the direction in which the saga was going in order to try to cover the fact that he was fired because the production was hugely over-budget and over-schedule. 😉

‘Seems’ is a word - often a guess - people use when they wish to use / value a narrative or opinion etc over or contrary to fact or evidence.

As for your book claims… most strange… as you stated previously it is also years after the event that Kurtz gave his, so far, undisputed account.

And we know for a fact that Rinzler’s ‘Making Of’ books contained retcons & revisionism (at the request of George himself, according to Rinzler) - and also omitted or downplayed people’s contributions to the making of the films (even the author himself as to the Lippincott interviews / archive).

You also stated it would be ‘ludicrous’ for Lucasfilm to have anything to do with Kurtz (after your claim of him being removed and replaced / Kurtz sending in his resignation letter) - and yet when presented with a document of Lucasfilm crediting Kurtz as a Production Consultant just two years later for ROTJ… you now claim this is ‘just a make-up for the public’.

Not forgetting the official ‘Once Upon A Galaxy: Making of Empire Strikes Back’ book… which has Kurtz involved in post-production on Empire - you should really give that a read as to Kurtz’ work on Empire throughout the whole process, it is quite illuminating.
 

Available evidence and facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored. For many, they also remain above opinion and speculation - though you are most to welcome to your opinion 😉
 

(I’ll have to leave it there - though found it fun; especially the gap-filling guesswork and dismissal of statements and documents contrary to it. Let me know if you do ever find proof to back up your opinions to continue this 😃 )
 

Well for the most part I was not stating my opinions. I was just making reasonable conclusions based on what is available in several major sources (one of them you even labelled as “retcon & revisionism”, since it does not fit your story) and common sense.

In return, you provided some obscure fan club newsletter material to base your conclusions on (btw “Production Consultant” or whatever is not a Producer by any means) along with a bunch of opinions of your own that you claim as facts. In response to that fan club newsletter material, I can provide the film credits of ROTJ. I am sure if they listed just about every assistant of an assistant, he should be there somewhere, right?

At least we agree that this debate is pointless to continue. 😉

Post
#1339012
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

RogueLeader said:

I mean, could it be possible George and Gary talked about George’s evolving ideas for Star Wars III during production of Empire, and maybe Kurtz wasn’t thrilled about the direction they were taking, so he contributed that to his departure somewhat, regardless of whether he was fired or if he left voluntarily?

It is highly unlikely that anyone had time to talk about the sequel when the production was hugely over-budget and over-schedule to the point that it almost bankrupt the film itself and Lucasfilm along with it. And the real reason for his removal is right there; “the production was hugely over-budget and over-schedule”.

Post
#1339011
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

Kurtz was also asked to produce Revenge Of The Jedi - which he turned down for the reasons we all know…

That seems extremely unlikely. After falling out with Lucas, it would be ludicrous to think that Lucas would ask him to do anything for him after that.

Like Lucas asking him to stay around until the film was finished? As stated below in your reply to Wook? 😉

I did not want to imply that he was asked to stick around. I implied that they just let him stick around in order not to cause any trouble, like making a complaint to PGA, which could easily doom already fragile situation. 😉

The information that “he was asked to produce ROTJ” only ever came from Kurtz during his interviews (and of course secondary sources that refer to him saying so). I have not seen any other independent source confirming that information. Also, he never specified by WHO he was asked. Maybe by a voice in his head? Unless he was asked by Lucas (which is more or less impossible), it makes the whole thing completely irrelevant.

A ‘voice in his head?’ - no, somebody from Lucasfilm had obviously obviously spoke with Kurtz and offered him Producing work (or credit) on ROTJ - as of 1981, in the official Lucasfilm press release below… to which Kurtz must have agreed to.

This seems like a thing for the public not to question and wonder why he was removed and replaced. Lucasfilm always seemed to have tried to make it look like everything was fine and dandy. We did not even know he was removed until many years afterwards when people investigated behind-the-scenes for books and documentaries. Same goes for many other key figures and events of OT that we had only learned about many years after.

Even if this “Production Consultant” was an actual job (which it was not for sure) instead of just a make-up for the public, it is still by no means any kind of proof that he was offered to actually produce ROTJ. I mean you do not remove a producer in the middle of the film only to then offer him to produce a sequel.

oojason said:

oojason said:

https://www.jeditemplearchives.com/specialreports/banthatracks/archives/banthatracks11.pdf

^ Bantha Tracks: Issue 11 (official Star Wars Newsletter), dated February 1981, re Revenge Of The Jedi and an official Lucasfilm press release:-

“Gary Kurtz, who produced ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Empire Strikes Back’ will serve as a Production Consultant on ‘Jedi’, while he prepares two of his own projects.”
 

So, not so ‘ludicrous’ as you think or claim, yes? 😉

As to ‘Independent source’? who are you expecting to know outside of Kurtz and high-end Lucasfilm employees that would have know he been offered the job of producing ROTJ? Do we need ‘independent sources’ to confirm Lynch was offered the chance to direct ROTJ, or Cronenberg etc?

The who and the when are irrelevant in the context of Kurtz stating he was asked to produce ROTJ - the statements came the man himself - to which nobody from Lucasfilm has challenged any of them - including George. You believe a professional and highly regarded producer (a job which requires inordinate levels of trust & professionalism) and would make continuous false claims he was offered the producer job for a famous film… when at any time the said employer - or employees - could turn around and deny it? His reputation and credibility would likely be ruined.

In fact, would a be a ‘ludricous’ thing for Kurtz to claim… if it was not true, yes? 😉

Like said above, Lucasfilm extremely rarely challenged anything or anyone in order to keep things appear fine and dandy. In his later interviews, Kurtz seemed very resentful of his removal, so it would not surprise me if he made it up. After all, he did use ideas from Lucas’ pre-SW drafts and tried to present them as if they were ROTJ draft (when it actually did not exist in any form at the time). Also, he tried to claim that he left because he did not like the direction in which the saga was going in order to try to cover the fact that he was fired because the ESB production ended up hugely over-budget and over-schedule. 😉

Post
#1338917
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ATMachine said:

Back in the days of writing the original SW, there was a point where Lucas depicted the rise of the Empire as a more gradual decline and fall of the Republic, rather than a power grab by a single dictatorial Emperor figure.

This was the idea in the January 1975 second draft, and it evidently persisted for a while - hence in 1976 Lucas had to tell Alan Dean Foster to take out references to it in the novelization. One slipped through, though: a mention of “the later corrupt Emperors”.

In the same conversation Lucas apparently mentions wanting Leia to become Empress at the end of the trilogy, and says he would have to discard or modify this idea if he kept to the storyline of a single evil Emperor figure instead of a more gradual transition.

So Kurtz’s idea here of Leia becoming a “Queen” does seem to derive from early SW concepts. (Including also the 1974 rough draft, where Leia becomes queen of her planet at the end, in a finale sequence much like the Triumph of the Will-style ending to SW 1977.)

A marker of how much the story had shifted to revolve primarily around Luke by the time of ROTJ is that in the story conferences there Larry Kasdan suggested having Luke, not Leia, become the new Emperor. (Lucas’ apparent idea during ESB of having both Han & Leia die in the third film, to clear the way for a Sequel Trilogy featuring Luke’s sister, likely boosted this marginalization.)

This is a great post that summarized the whole thing perfectly. Kurtz was seemingly referring to Lucas’ pre-SW drafts that were completely irrelevant by the time of ESB, and he tried to present them as the story draft for ROTJ (which did not yet exist at the time).

Post
#1338912
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

Shopping Maul said:

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

As a fan I never actually allowed myself to truly accept that I didn’t like the film until I started getting a sense of the ROTJ that could have been - obviously guys like Larry Kasdan and Gary Kurtz and Harrison Ford have come out in favour of Han’s sacrificial death and a generally deeper/bleaker finale.

I am still surprised when people are bringing up Kurtz when it comes to ROTJ. He was fired and replaced by Kazanjian in the middle of ESB principal photography. He basically had nothing to do with ROTJ, let alone being aware of any details such as Kasdan’s and Ford’s suggestion to kill off Han. He basically just jumped on the “ROTJ should have been darker” bandwagon years later, while probably still being resentful of his removal from ESB.

Now considering Kasdan’s and Ford’s suggestion, killing off Han would have not have made the story and the film magically any better.

I’m aware that the Kurtz thing is speculative in the sense that none of us can know exactly how/why things broke down between him and Lucas. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle - Lucas was annoyed at the cost overruns on TESB and Gary was less than thrilled at the direction SW was going in. But the general feeling about ROTJ stays the same - many folks involved felt that ROTJ was too light or didn’t do justice to its predecessor. Even Kershner apparently read the ROTJ script and said he wasn’t feeling it.

Well it is extremely likely that the main reason why Kurtz was replaced was because of cost overruns during ESB, as you mentioned. But by the time he was replaced, any kind of form of ROTJ story/script was at least a year away. So I guess the only direction he could have been “less than thrilled at” by that point, was the direction until ESB. He might have read ROTJ script later on (like many other people), but that is judging in retrospect without being involved, and therefore cannot be the reason for his departure during ESB, as he likes to claim. We all know Lucas did not have anything pre-written as Lucas himself likes to claim; he basically wrote story and script for both ESB and ROTJ only after SW and ESB were released, respectively.

It’s not that killing Han was the answer. It’s more that killing Han (or having him die a noble sacrificial death) was something quite a few people were down with, and that in itself is an indicator of what people were feeling in terms of giving the story some weight generally.

After you invest two and a half films developing romantic sub-plot between Han and Leia? That is not “giving the story some weight”, that is giving the story a slap in the face (as Ray put it).

Post
#1338909
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

Kurtz was also asked to produce Revenge Of The Jedi - which he turned down for the reasons we all know…

That seems extremely unlikely. After falling out with Lucas, it would be ludicrous to think that Lucas would ask him to do anything for him after that.

Like Lucas asking him to stay around until the film was finished? As stated below in your reply to Wook? 😉

I did not want to imply that he was asked to stick around. I implied that they just let him stick around in order not to cause any trouble, like making a complaint to PGA, which could easily doom already fragile situation. 😉

The information that “he was asked to produce ROTJ” only ever came from Kurtz during his interviews (and of course secondary sources that refer to him saying so). I have not seen any other independent source confirming that information. Also, he never specified by WHO he was asked. Maybe by a voice in his head? Unless he was asked by Lucas (which is more or less impossible), it makes the whole thing completely irrelevant.

Post
#1338786
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ray_afraid said:

Han dying would have been a tremendous slap in the face.
We just spent a movie watching Han & Leia fall in love which ends tragically, but a glimmer of hope. That hope needs to pay off, not die off.
I think Hans character was underused & at times misunderstood in Jedi, but killing him isn’t the answer.

Also, the “Leia becomes Queen” thing…
Queen of what? She was the princess of a planet that was destroyed years ago. When we first meet her, she’s mostly using the princess thing as a ruse, hiding the fact that she’s part of the Rebel military.

Exactly. Killing Han would be extremely counter-productive in terms of story. I think many fans just like to jump on some bandwagon because it sounds cool. If anyone of the main three, they could potentially kill off Luke at the very end.

And Leia becoming a queen is even more ridiculous. It would go against the whole character development and against everything the rebellion is fighting for. You do not fight to overthrow the emperor just to replace him with a queen.

Post
#1338783
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

oojason said:

Kurtz was also asked to produce Revenge Of The Jedi - which he turned down for the reasons we all know…

That seems extremely unlikely. After falling out with Lucas, it would be ludicrous to think that Lucas would ask him to do anything for him after that.

SilverWook said:

I thought George’s beef was with the DGA and that didn’t happen until Empire was finished?

Yes, but that is a different matter. Regarding PGA, that was just my speculation why they officially kept him around, when he was already effectively replaced. It is safe to assume that Lucas did not want to get in trouble with PGA over something like that.

Post
#1338760
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

There are numerous sources stating that he was effectively (but not officially) replaced by Kazanjian four weeks before filming ended. I would assume that they were obliged to officially keep him around until the end in order not to get in trouble with Producers Guild of America. But then you can guess how much his opinion counted at that point.

Post
#1338739
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

Shopping Maul said:

As a fan I never actually allowed myself to truly accept that I didn’t like the film until I started getting a sense of the ROTJ that could have been - obviously guys like Larry Kasdan and Gary Kurtz and Harrison Ford have come out in favour of Han’s sacrificial death and a generally deeper/bleaker finale.

I am still surprised when people are bringing up Kurtz when it comes to ROTJ. He was fired and replaced by Kazanjian in the middle of ESB principal photography. He basically had nothing to do with ROTJ, let alone being aware of any details such as Kasdan’s and Ford’s suggestion to kill off Han. He basically just jumped on the “ROTJ should have been darker” bandwagon years later, while probably still being resentful of his removal from ESB.

Now considering Kasdan’s and Ford’s suggestion, killing off Han would have not have made the story and the film magically any better.

Post
#1336119
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

Mocata said:

imperialscum said:

Mocata said:

The number of capital ships alone makes it kind of ridiculous. Admiral Piett says they have orders not to engage, but what happened after DSII exploded did they all just retreat?

Well the only explanation for their retreat (or destruction) would be the one I mentioned before. See below:

imperialscum said:

Assuming the inspiration came from WW2 (as stated by Lucas), where ships were very vulnerable to air attack, I guess the same could apply to Star Wars universe. The explanation then could be that since imperial ships initially sent all TIE fighters to engage the rebel fleet and they themselves did not attack, their TIE fighter complement was destroyed by rebel fighters and ships. Then by the time the Death Star was destroyed, the imperial ships were left extremely vulnerable without any TIE fighter protection.

For example, in the pacific theatre of WW2, aircraft carriers were quite useless without aircraft cover (and other type of ships even more so by default) if enemy had air power. In both Battle of the Coral Sea and Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands Japanese basically achieved tactical victory, but since they lost almost the entire aircraft complement in the air attacks on US fleet, they were forced to retreat. Like I said, ships were very vulnerable to air attacks without air cover.

I understand this metaphor but Admiral Ackbar says that the fleet “won’t last long against those Star Destroyers” so we are led to believe they are perfectly capable of shooting down the rebel fighters.

Well yes, it still makes sense within the same metaphor framework. While a star destroyer is a carrier, it is also a battleship at the same time, and getting into range of battleship will get your carrier in a big trouble. As long as you can stay out of the range of their guns, you can use bombers to attack them. That is what WW2 carrier would do; stay away from the the battleships and use long-ranged bombers to attack them.

So in that sense, Ackbar’s “we won’t last long against those star destroyers” makes complete sense, since it was a reply to Lando’s suggestion of getting into their gun range. Assuming the majority of star destroyer fighter complement was destroyed by a combination of rebel fighters and guns from the rebel ships, the rebel fleet could just keep the range and use their bombers to attack star destroyers (that were without fighter cover at that point) from a distance.

Post
#1336013
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

screams in the void said:

They fought on …like cadets .

While I like the Thrawn Trilogy, that explanation was very silly. I mean even if the Emperor used the force to enhance their performance (which by itself is silly), when it stopped after his death, the Imperial navy officers were in the end still experienced experts, not cadets.

Post
#1336011
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

Mocata said:

The number of capital ships alone makes it kind of ridiculous. Admiral Piett says they have orders not to engage, but what happened after DSII exploded did they all just retreat?

Well the only explanation for their retreat (or destruction) would be the one I mentioned before. See below:

imperialscum said:

Assuming the inspiration came from WW2 (as stated by Lucas), where ships were very vulnerable to air attack, I guess the same could apply to Star Wars universe. The explanation then could be that since imperial ships initially sent all TIE fighters to engage the rebel fleet and they themselves did not attack, their TIE fighter complement was destroyed by rebel fighters and ships. Then by the time the Death Star was destroyed, the imperial ships were left extremely vulnerable without any TIE fighter protection.

For example, in the pacific theatre of WW2, aircraft carriers were quite useless without aircraft cover (and other type of ships even more so by default) if enemy had air power. In both Battle of the Coral Sea and Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands Japanese basically achieved tactical victory, but since they lost almost the entire aircraft complement in the air attacks on US fleet, they were forced to retreat. Like I said, ships were very vulnerable to air attacks without air cover.

Post
#1335799
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ATMachine said:

DID the Death Star II have a “huge TIE fighter/bomber complement”? Since the station was unfinished, its fighter defenses might not be at full capacity.

A very good point. Since it was only at 1/4 of the construction phase, it certainly did not have a full TIE complement as the finished DS would have. However, the structure was still huge and could accommodate many hangars. So I would assume they still had a lots of TIE fighters to patrol and defend the construction site. At least that would be a smart thing to do.

Post
#1335777
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

People often complain about the ground battle of Endor and how rebels and ewoks beating the imperials is unrealistic. However, I would say it is much more realistic than rebel fleet beating imperial fleet in the space battle over Endor. At least in the ground battle the imperials were severely outnumbered (it appears to be only one infantry company plus 4 AT-ST involved in the that area) and were also being ambushed. On the other hand, in the space battle rebel fleet is severely outnumbered (judging from the scenes, around 30 ISDs plus Death Star vs around 20 rebel ships) and were the one being ambushed by the imperials.

The only reasonable explanation for the outcome of space battle I can see is that Death Star’s huge TIE fighter/bomber complement was not used at all in order to slow down the rebel fleet’s destruction and buy time for Emperor to gradually turn Luke to the dark side. Then the Death Star was destroyed before its fighter/bomber complement could be deployed.

This still leaves the advantage in number of ships. Assuming the inspiration came from WW2 (as stated by Lucas), where ships were very vulnerable to air attack, I guess the same could apply to Star Wars universe. The explanation then could be that since imperial ships initially sent all TIE fighters to engage the rebel fleet and they themselves did not attack, their TIE fighter complement was destroyed by rebel fighters and ships. Then by the time the Death Star was destroyed, the imperial ships were left extremely vulnerable without any TIE fighter protection.

Post
#1335591
Topic
<strong>The Empire Strikes Back</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

Regarding rebel commanders (and personnel) being changed from film the film, I think that was the only right way to go in terms of story/universe. First, it provides a sense of scale of the rebellion, i.e., they have many bases around the galaxy, and counterbalances the rest of the universe shrinking elements. Second, it provides a sense of how dangerous being a rebel actually is, i.e., even the top commanders might get killed regularly.