NeverarGreat

Matt.F said:

NeverarGreat said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

tere are good explanations for most of them anyway.

There are explanations now that we’ve had ages to ponder them. Conversely, the novelization for TLJ isn’t even out yet.

The TFA novel straight up explains how the Starkiller beam could destroy a planet on the other side of the galaxy from where the base itself is located. It just depends on it you want to accept that explanation.

That is to say, you like the movie or you don’t, and that’s your choice. But holding ST and OT up to different yard sticks isn’t exactly fair.

We shouldn’t need novelizations to justify the events of a movie.

But as for different yardsticks, the Death Star was a moon sized space station with essentially a big version of a blaster that could blow up rocky planets. It required the resources of a galaxy-spanning empire to build.

Starkiller Base is a piece of construction many times larger than the Death Star, with a primary weapon requiring seemingly universe-breaking technology that has never been previously hinted at or explained, built by an organization that by all indications is a fraction the size of the Empire.

These are not two yardsticks.

Iteration is your answer.

The German Empire was defeated in WWI, the Nazi’s “rose from the ashes” and 20 years later the Third Reich invaded Poland and WWII began.

The engineering iteration upon the previous weapons, saw the war machine now employ cannon that could span the English channel, unmanned V2 bombs, U boats, and any number of other more advanced hardware (including ultimately nuclear weapons).

Pretty obvious that the First Order is based upon the hardware of the Empire (TIE Fighters, Star Destroyers, Stormtrooper armour, Starkiller Base, etc), and so iteration is your answer to why they are more advanced.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of why they were able to build a far more ambitious project with far less resources. If we saw that they used a robotic workforce and had a lot of automation for their fleet it would make sense, but we get no indication that it’s different from the Empire in this regard. Hux even says that it’s a machine ‘that you have built’. Yet another missed opportunity if you ask me.

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

tere are good explanations for most of them anyway.

There are explanations now that we’ve had ages to ponder them. Conversely, the novelization for TLJ isn’t even out yet.

The TFA novel straight up explains how the Starkiller beam could destroy a planet on the other side of the galaxy from where the base itself is located. It just depends on it you want to accept that explanation.

That is to say, you like the movie or you don’t, and that’s your choice. But holding ST and OT up to different yard sticks isn’t exactly fair.

We shouldn’t need novelizations to justify the events of a movie.

But as for different yardsticks, the Death Star was a moon sized space station with essentially a big version of a blaster that could blow up rocky planets. It required the resources of a galaxy-spanning empire to build.

Starkiller Base is a piece of construction many times larger than the Death Star, with a primary weapon requiring seemingly universe-breaking technology that has never been previously hinted at or explained, built by an organization that by all indications is a fraction the size of the Empire.

These are not two yardsticks.

chyron8472 said:

As much as I disliked Dubya and was disinterested in watching his State of the Union addresses for policy reasons, I really can not stand listening to Trump for one second. The man infuriates me on a deeply personal level, for more than just policy. I flat out refuse to waste a moment of my time listening to him blow smoke up the asses of his base.

I felt this last night. For a president to so wildly misrepresent the issues to paint himself in a grandiose manner is gross enough, but to go on about bipartisanship and unity is basically gaslighting, given what has happened in the past year.

chyron8472 said:

Why does Shuttle Tydirium that is supposedly transporting parts and crew (by the rebels) to Endor look identical to the shuttle carrying the Emperor himself?

Because he is an Emperor of the people, for the people.

chyron8472 said:

Sighdescraper.

WYCHS

Mrebo said:

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.

One does not simply argue with that.

Probably so. Changing the color of the star to dark orange should be an easy fix.

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/07/tiny-new-star

Interesting tidbit:

It’s an ultracool M-dwarf star, slightly bigger than Saturn, so if we assume that Starkiller Base is about the same size as Earth, that would bring this into the realm of the comprehensible:

trimboNZ said:

canofhumdingers said:

Pretty sure the Emperor’s tower is supposed to be at or near the North Pole of the DSII

I had always thought it was closer to the South Pole, as the Emperor points upwards (roughly ten o’clock) when gesturing to the sanctuary moon, and Luke’s gaze follows in that direction.

Assuming, of course, that DS2 isn’t orbiting upside-down. I thought it was only flipped horizontally in post 😃

From memory he even says, “your friends up there on the sanctuary moon are walking into a trap”, though I’ll have to re-watch it to confirm it. Online quotes record him saying “out there”, “down there” and “up there” depending on which version you read!

According to this Bothan intelligence, the Death Star is oriented along the same axis as Endor:

Who are you going to believe?

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.

From what I’ve gathered, even an ‘effing moron’ can make a cogent speech once in a blue moon.

Better than the other guy’s speech.

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.

Oh dear oh dear.

It says here that the sound was a combination of an elephant recording from 1958 which had been used in several movies, overlaid with car noises.

Yeah, that’s definitely how it reads. But it’s just so monotone, always a poor teacher. It would be nice to have one moment of good instruction without him butting in, just to give a bit of contrast to the part.

That scene would also be a good place to start. The reason I like the Casino planet first, however, is that it would allow a great deal of specificity about Finn and Rose which would be necessary to understanding what’s going on.

On another note, something that bugs me:

“And this is the lesson. That Force does not belong to the Jedi.
To say that if the Jedi die the light dies is vanity, can you feel that?
There’s something else…”

I’d remove the sentence about vanity, since his meaning is clear with his first two sentences. This scene is one of my favorites in the movie, and this line is one of many in the movie that overexplain and end up being a detriment to the tone.

Great news!

Other than two spelling errors and the strange J e d i at the end, it’s really good. I really like how it is more reminiscent of old serials than the movies.

DominicCobb said:

Not every story has to be a massive galactic conflict Star War.

FTFY 😉

darth_ender said:

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.

I apologize, both for my snarkiness, as well as for my confused message. I was trying to say, as it seemed to me that Frink was painting Republicans or conservatives as hindrances to these progressions, that conservatives and Republicans have actually advocated for disadvantaged demographics and brought progress to the nation. Sure, the nature of both parties has changed drastically, but many of the core principles remain, and conservatism has done a lot of good for the country.

Apology accepted 😃 And I apologize if I painted with too broad a brush.

It’s important to have a strong conservative party in the US, guided by the founding principles of our nation and advocating for the valuable traditions of the past. I just wish that the Republican party today reflected those principles and traditions instead of bowing down before the lies, immorality, and undemocratic impulses of our current president.

Thumbs up for Female Purple Saber Kylo

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.

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.

Antivirus is telling me that there’s an infected link on this page.

Collipso said:

I’d buy a computer that can open Chrome while Spotify is playing without crashing one of the two (if not both).

You’re clearly drunk with power.