Mrebo

Dr. Krogshöj said:

Creox said:

yhwx said:

A thing on timelines here: The two main storylines in TLJ start at different times. The escape storyline starts a week after the events of TFA; the Ach-To storyline happens immediately after the events of TFA.

The bomber: People complained about how the bomber thing was unrealistic because there’s no gravity in space. That pedantry is inaccurate. The bombs fell due to the gravitational force of the Star Destroyer underneath the bomber. This is the same reason that Star Destroyer falls into the Death Star in ROTJ.

I read in the visual dictionary that the bombs used magnetic tech as well.

Yes, and that is unnecessary. The artificial gravity within the bomber is enough to give the bombs an initial velocity once they are released to propel them towards the target, as Mrebo already pointed it out.

Also, this obviates the need to talk about the gravity of the ship, which cannot be that significant. I wonder if someone at LFL actually saw a plothole here and came up with magnets or if they were just a cool add-on.

moviefreakedmind said:

I see no reason to watch any state of the union address because it’s all horseshit and the only thing it accomplishes is wasting my precious time that I could’ve spent watching better television.

I spent the time watching LOTR: TTT. Many rousing speeches. Saruman 2020.

The bombs don’t need much of an explanation. Magnets? Sure, okay, as long as they don’t just stick to the bomber…oh wait, did they just introduce a redundantly unnecessary plothole?!

There is artificial gravity in the ship…hence all the falling of the girl and the remote. So the bombs will fall. And in space they will continue their trajectory.

Dek Rollins said:

yhwx said:

Dek Rollins said:

Your local delusional, ignorant, deplorable, shithole assface pile-o-what’sit here, saying that I was quite fond of our president’s State of the Union Address.

What did you enjoy about it?

I agree with pretty much everything he discussed. I’m hopeful for the future of the country and his administration.

I didn’t see the very end of his speech though.

Oh…that’s where he took back everything he had just said.

Seriously, nice to have a dissenting voice in here. Like ender, I have at least one close family member who voted for and supports Trump. And while his Admin has done a number of things I think are great, there is too much that is discouraging.

Dek Rollins said:

Your local delusional, ignorant, deplorable, shithole assface pile-o-what’sit here, saying that I was quite fond of our president’s State of the Union Address.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html

I don’t see what is so offensive about the President addressing Congress (and the people that are watching on tv) about the state of the union once every year. I have no idea how it could be considered monarchical. I don’t get the problem. Of course, I will certainly disagree with a lot of what Trump will say tonight. But to disagree with the idea of the President addressing Congress and the country about the state of the union every year? I don’t get it. I don’t have a problem with ide of the speech. It is also tradition(since Wilson anyway).

I don’t really care about the monarchal tone of it. I just find that it so pointless. It rarely moves the needle on polling; in fact, the average change of a president’s approval rating before and after at State of the Union is zero. Yep, zero. It’s also the worst of American politics on display: Washington suits jockeying for seats just so that they can have a handshake with the president, how politicians bring in Real People to suit their own message, the canned responses afterwards, the whole media circus around it and the typical media over analyzation, and so many other things that are bad about it. Nobody cares after noon on Wednesday anyway.

I say this, of course, as I will be watching the State of the Union in two hours!

Making my way out of D.C. right now and when I get home probably won’t watch it. Unless morbid curiosity takes hold. For the reasons you give I don’t have much interest!

suit yourself.

I make no promise either way. What do you like about watching it?

It not so much about ‘like’ with me, somehow I just feel like I am suppose to watch speeches like the state of union.

So what did you think?

DominicCobb said:

I feel no obligation to watch this State of the Unisom. If anything, I feel the opposite.

FTFY

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html

I don’t see what is so offensive about the President addressing Congress (and the people that are watching on tv) about the state of the union once every year. I have no idea how it could be considered monarchical. I don’t get the problem. Of course, I will certainly disagree with a lot of what Trump will say tonight. But to disagree with the idea of the President addressing Congress and the country about the state of the union every year? I don’t get it. I don’t have a problem with ide of the speech. It is also tradition(since Wilson anyway).

I don’t really care about the monarchal tone of it. I just find that it so pointless. It rarely moves the needle on polling; in fact, the average change of a president’s approval rating before and after at State of the Union is zero. Yep, zero. It’s also the worst of American politics on display: Washington suits jockeying for seats just so that they can have a handshake with the president, how politicians bring in Real People to suit their own message, the canned responses afterwards, the whole media circus around it and the typical media over analyzation, and so many other things that are bad about it. Nobody cares after noon on Wednesday anyway.

I say this, of course, as I will be watching the State of the Union in two hours!

Making my way out of D.C. right now and when I get home probably won’t watch it. Unless morbid curiosity takes hold. For the reasons you give I don’t have much interest!

suit yourself.

I make no promise either way. What do you like about watching it?

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html

I don’t see what is so offensive about the President addressing Congress (and the people that are watching on tv) about the state of the union once every year. I have no idea how it could be considered monarchical. I don’t get the problem. Of course, I will certainly disagree with a lot of what Trump will say tonight. But to disagree with the idea of the President addressing Congress and the country about the state of the union every year? I don’t get it. I don’t have a problem with ide of the speech. It is also tradition(since Wilson anyway).

I don’t really care about the monarchal tone of it. I just find that it so pointless. It rarely moves the needle on polling; in fact, the average change of a president’s approval rating before and after at State of the Union is zero. Yep, zero. It’s also the worst of American politics on display: Washington suits jockeying for seats just so that they can have a handshake with the president, how politicians bring in Real People to suit their own message, the canned responses afterwards, the whole media circus around it and the typical media over analyzation, and so many other things that are bad about it. Nobody cares after noon on Wednesday anyway.

I say this, of course, as I will be watching the State of the Union in two hours!

Making my way out of D.C. right now and when I get home probably won’t watch it. Unless morbid curiosity takes hold. For the reasons you give I don’t have much interest!

Well said, Warb.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I am glad to hear the pro-life sentiments from you, Frink.

I would not characterize it as such. Only the most radical pro-choice supporters demand abortion on demand regardless of circumstance.

The real difficulty for most people on both sides is where and how to draw the line. There aren’t many absolutists on either side.

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

By the way, did you actually read the rest of that sentence you quoted?

We seem to be saying the same thing. It’s just that your use of ‘Democrat party’ could be interpreted to imply that the modern Democratic party has more than a nominal relationship to the party as it existed a century ago, and I wanted to give more historical context in this regard. The fact that many constituencies which were solidly Democratic many years ago in the south are now solidly Republican is not exactly in dispute.

Just as the parties changed, so have the constituencies. The constituencies of a century ago are dead. The reasons for realignments are interesting, but not conclusive as to what constituencies believe today.

I am glad to hear the pro-life sentiments from you, Frink. Pregnancy can be terrifying. So many things that can go wrong. When a baby is desperately wanted, any act is taken with that life in mind. I understand it being hard enough without worrying about some law.

But like you, I think there needs to be some limit. With appropriate exceptions, I think a bill like this would be good.

Handman said:

History is never on anyone’s side. All these grand myths are a lot uglier the closer you look at them.

I abhor the “right side of history” claim. Worst appeal to authority ever.

TV’s Frink said:

Everyone who voted for that bill wants to take away our (my wife’s and I’s) choice to terminate our pregnancy because it’s past a magic number of weeks and who gives a damn what the actual circumstances are. So yeah, I don’t care what your opinion of that is, not one bit.

A constructive dialogue would be possible if people were willing to talk and listen to each other. The 20 week point is when fetuses may be able to feel pain. I think circumstances do make a difference. Sadly, this all becomes a moot point. Inflicting pain and killing a life just because it is inconvenient/unwanted is what troubles me. Whatever policy views one has, I don’t know how one can’t be troubled by that.

dahmage said:

yhwx said:

You guys made me go to Wookieepedia.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Death_Star

With the exception of the crust, the station’s entire interior space was uninhabited, and housed the hypermatter reactor, hyperdrive, sublight engines, and the station’s superweapon.

I can vouch for this I was actually one of the engineers that worked on the Death Star.

Wow, a survivor!

joefavs said:

I am reminded of a frequent point they used to make on the Cracked Podcast about suspension of disbelief. In The Dark Knight Rises, there’s a chase scene where Batman goes into a tunnel in broad daylight and exits at night. This is absolutely a textbook hole in the movie, but when the movie came out almost everyone didn’t notice it until it was pointed out to them. The Cracked folks considered this a mark of effective movie-making rather than an egregious mistake, because audiences were swept up in the movie enough not to notice that flaw in the logic. That’s how I felt about all of these nitpicks about the in-universe rules of space travel in TLJ. I was engaged enough in the story that was in front of me that I was not giving any thought at all to whether or not it was 100% consistent with the last eight films (which, it’s worth noting, are not entirely consistent with each other either). I get that that’s not enough for everyone, but it’s enough for me.

This is very true. As I said, I think the audience wasn’t supposed to notice. When the audience isn’t sufficiently engaged so that they do notice such oddities, I blame those who made the film; as is suggested by your description of the Cracked folks’s view also. In general, a filmmaker should avoid these types of things. If you have too many, that can cause an audience to disengage. My main criticisms of the movie have to do with the overall story and characters. I am very forgiving of incongruities in physics or night-to-day kind of continuity. Holdo’s hyperspeed unprecedented ramming, the bombers, lasers arcing, even the new Force powers are good by me. What really gets to me is not understanding characters’ actions/motivations. That strikes me as a fault of the storytelling. If a movie works for you despite these issues, that is great.

yotsuya said:

Mrebo said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Why didn’t the Death Star just jump in a position where it could immediately fire at Yavin 4, instead of circling the planet for half an hour?

I never thought of the Death Star having hyperspace capability. As we try to rationalize travel times in a sciencey way that probably isn’t very realistic. But such is the burden of trying to make space fantasy = science. But let’s follow that thread. I think it very likely that in calculating the hyperspace jump, they didn’t account for the location of the orbit. Some slight additional travel time might be expected (in the movie, half an hour) to adjust, but that’s no big deal. Any jump with something the size of the Death Star would presumably expend a tremendous amount of energy. Just makes sense to finish the last 30 minutes of the journey in normal space.

Getting back to TLJ situation: the chase could go on for another day or longer. I don’t recall if the FO somehow knew exactly how much fuel they had. We know that the ships in question, in the movie, absolutely do have hyperspace capability. That should answer how the two situations are different.

In A New Hope the Falcon jump to hyperspace to escape the Death Star and go to Yavin 4. The Death Star is right behind them and the only way that could happen is if the Death Star has a hyperdrive. It’s there in the original story as it played in 1977. I think the reason is that Capital ships Star Destroyers and larger have a hard time making smaller jumps. And they’d have to time it just right so that the ship they’re chasing doesn’t see them and evade them, so it’s not really a valid flaw that the first order ships didn’t do a mini jump to get ahead of the resistance Cruiser.

ANH isn’t that clear in terms of timeline but I’m cool with the DS having hyperdrive.

The warp issue is not near the top of the list of issues/questions I have.

You guess at one possible solution: big ships can’t jump very accurately at short distances. I admit, that is a reasonable solution even if we must pull it out of our ears.

Where a movie creates a seeming plothole, inconsistency, or oddity - especially something obvious - it’s perfectly reasonable to ask why. The audience might be expected to guess at answers of their own (or just not think about it, which I think is more likely), but for some portion of the audience it won’t be very satisfying or there may be simply too many unanswered elements.

Some have asked - reasonably, I think - why Luke threw the skull to bring the door down on the Rancor rather than using the Force to press it. It’s not something that entered my mind watching it. The reason I see is that Luke was frantic, not thinking, not sufficiently trained in the ways of the Force - basically everything we see on the screen. Whether that works for you, I can’t say.

The lack of warping just kind of hangs out there. I liked the scene with Canady where Kylo calls him out for not sending out fighters. We didn’t have to try to guess that all the fighters were in the repair shop. Canady was caught flat-footed and what could have been a weird oversight was turned into a good moment. It’s that kind of verisimilitude that keeps an audience’s attention, rather than wondering why something that seems obvious wasn’t done.

I was always fine with the DS taking weeks or something to get to Yavin (not that I gave it much thought). It gave time to analyze the plans to find a weakness. Unless Galen left an “x” where the weakness was so they could find it in under an hour. That’s possible I suppose.

SilverWook said:

The Death Star is as big as a small moon. You probably want to jump in and out where you’re less likely to run into something. It might even tax the systems needed to power the superlaser. Even the second Death Star can’t pop off several shots at once.

There’s also the psychological terror aspect of seeing that indestructable sucker slowly coming at you. Everyone on Alderaan had plenty of time to contemplate their doom even if they didn’t know what the DS was going to do.

Agree on all points.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think there’s any question that the Death Star has hyperspace capabilities.

It was not something shown or stated in ANH. I don’t think it was meant to be an issue either way. That was something truly not important to the movie.

Anyway, I’ve explained what I think are some pretty obvious differences in the two situations.

I don’t think you have.

Disagreement is one thing but don’t deny obvious differences I’ve stated above.

To recap, assuming DS does hyperspace:
(1) ANH-only 30 minutes; TLJ-unknown amount of time, at least many hours
(2) ANH-DS jumps must take enormous energy; not as big a deal for normal ships

I’m not going to get in a big debate about this but suffice to say it’s just silly inconsequential nitpicks either way.

We must have different ideas about what constitutes silly inconsequential nitpicks. When I watch a movie and I wonder why didn’t character X just do Y, especially given the situation, that seems an entirely reasonable criticism. This extends to any movie.

That’s not to say I think these are the biggest issues ever. Asking why a FO ship didn’t make a short jump ahead is not well answered by “that’s a nitpick I refuse to discuss.” But of course you don’t need to discuss anything.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think there’s any question that the Death Star has hyperspace capabilities.

It was not something shown or stated in ANH. I don’t think it was meant to be an issue either way. That was something truly not important to the movie.

Anyway, I’ve explained what I think are some pretty obvious differences in the two situations.

I don’t think you have.

Disagreement is one thing but don’t deny obvious differences I’ve stated above.

To recap, assuming DS does hyperspace:
(1) ANH-only 30 minutes; TLJ-unknown amount of time, at least many hours
(2) ANH-DS jumps must take enormous energy; not as big a deal for normal ships

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think there’s any question that the Death Star has hyperspace capabilities.

It was not something shown or stated in ANH. I don’t think it was meant to be an issue either way. That was something truly not important to the movie.

Anyway, I’ve explained what I think are some pretty obvious differences in the two situations.

TV’s Frink said:

Yeah, as has been pointed out before, people do love to pick on the flaws of the new movies while ignoring very similar flaws in the OT.

None of these flaws have every dampened my enjoyment of the movies. They’re movies, not real life.

The questionable travel times in the OT never bothered me. Because, as you say, it’s not real life. Here, the issues are fairly obvious in-universe oddities. And those things do bug me.

Frank your Majesty said:

Why didn’t the Death Star just jump in a position where it could immediately fire at Yavin 4, instead of circling the planet for half an hour?

I never thought of the Death Star having hyperspace capability. As we try to rationalize travel times in a sciencey way that probably isn’t very realistic. But such is the burden of trying to make space fantasy = science. But let’s follow that thread. I think it very likely that in calculating the hyperspace jump, they didn’t account for the location of the orbit. Some slight additional travel time might be expected (in the movie, half an hour) to adjust, but that’s no big deal. Any jump with something the size of the Death Star would presumably expend a tremendous amount of energy. Just makes sense to finish the last 30 minutes of the journey in normal space.

Getting back to TLJ situation: the chase could go on for another day or longer. I don’t recall if the FO somehow knew exactly how much fuel they had. We know that the ships in question, in the movie, absolutely do have hyperspace capability. That should answer how the two situations are different.