DE, your current avatar is a disappointment. Super mainstream for your usual hipster taste.
13(?): Ban imperialscum up to, but not less than, one Plutonian month.
I don’t see how that would help the cause as I hardly ever post around here.
Not that I care either way, but hardly does not equal never.
I am flattered by my impact/importance.
DE, your current avatar is a disappointment. Super mainstream for your usual hipster taste.
13(?): Ban imperialscum up to, but not less than, one Plutonian month.
I don’t see how that would help the cause as I hardly ever post around here.
When I read the title I braced myself for another Nothing Matters Anymore. Then I saw this trivial thing.
DE, your current avatar is a disappointment. Super mainstream for your usual hipster taste.
^No, he’s entirely correct about the uselessness of a rotating turret on a TIE fighter, because the wings are in the way and it would be way easier to shoot yourself down in one of those than in The Last Crusade. Could you imagine Finn saying that:
“Poe, I’m sorry… they got us.”And I’ve always disliked the Millennium Falcon’s design, mainly the cockpit placement making no sense.
If World War One aircraft designers could figure out a way for pilots to fire bullets through the propellers, then making a blaster turret that won’t shoot the solar panels off should be easy.
That is not the point. Software switch could prevent turret from firing when aimed at wings. But the point is that wings block almost half of turret operational space, which makes it useless. Useless if that was a bomber, super useless on a fighter type of ship, which has no need for turret and should spend the extra weight on performance, i.e. better engines or weaponry actually useful for a fighter.
Anyway I am just repeating the stuff I already posted a page ago.
I don’t see the reason why people are nitpicking about Star Wars-y stuff in a Star Wars movie. Just seems odd. That’s all.
Because that is what this thread is basically about.
And I’ve always disliked the Millennium Falcon’s design, mainly the cockpit placement making no sense.
And that’s my point (along with both side’s vehicles on Hoth). You forfeit your right to bitch about these TFA “problems” unless you acknowledge the same in the OT.
You TFA fanboys became like PT fanboys. The thread title is “What didn’t you like about TFA?”, not “What didn’t you like about OT?”. I am simply sticking to the topic.
The only reason the OT keeps being brought up is because you anti TFA people aren’t consistent in the least. If something nonsensical is in the OT it get’s a past but if it’s in the ST it’s a huge problem.
Well that is your assumption based on the fact that some of us stick to the topic of this thread as we are suppose to.
If you want to see if poeple give OT a pass on similar stuff you should go to “What you didn’t like about OT” thread.
since a whole lot of you here liked everything TFA through at you, what are you even doing in this thread.
That does not apply to me. I’ve listed several things I did not like, and also many things that other people complained about that I disagreed with but at the same time sympathized with.
How about a little honesty. You have been the most passionate defended of TFA on this forum besides Lord Haseo.
Just because this thread is about what you didn’t like, it doesn’t invalidate the point that some of these criticisms can be equally thrown at the OT. If you have problems with these things in the OT as well, then I respect that (even where I disagree with it) much more than if you don’t.
I can conditionally tolerate your defending of TFA, i.e. attacking people who express their negative opinion toward TFA in a thread dedicated to expressing negative opinion toward TFA, since it is borderline off-topic/on-topic. But recently you resorted to a common PT fanboy tactic “yes but there are similar problems in OT too” which is completely off-topic.
I will have to disappoint you. The term still have the original meaning (at least when it comes from me). It didn’t turn into anything beyond that as suggested in that post.
And I’ve always disliked the Millennium Falcon’s design, mainly the cockpit placement making no sense.
And that’s my point (along with both side’s vehicles on Hoth). You forfeit your right to bitch about these TFA “problems” unless you acknowledge the same in the OT.
You TFA fanboys became like PT fanboys. The thread title is “What didn’t you like about TFA?”, not “What didn’t you like about OT?”. I am simply sticking to the topic.
Sure it’s possible to shoot your own wing but you’d have to be a toddler to pull something like that off.
Well wings block almost half of the operational space of turret.
I can. The title reads in romaji as “seihou no dai kunshu”. I would translate it to English as “overload of west”.
Let’s not forget how the OT shows starships and fighters making banking turns in outer space. As far as I know, banking turns are exclusively a property of atmospheric flight; you can’t make such turns in an airless vacuum in the real world.
You can make similar motion trajectories. It is just that principle is different. In atmosphere you can have a single forward thrusting engine as the airflow over the wings can be exploited and flight control surfaces can be used to change the velocity vector of centre-of-mass (COM). In space you need more engines to do the job flight control surfaces do in atmosphere. You basically have to apply forces from different directions/configurations with respect to COM to change the ship’s velocity vector.
Applying force vector that intersects COM changes current velocity vector (linear momentum) toward that direction. Applying force vector that does not intersect COM also induces angular momentum that rotates the ship.
Lord Haseo said:
Someone thinking that TFA is too similar to ANH is a valid complaint while TIE Fighters have two seats is not.As opposed to former, the later is actually technically valid complaint. As an expert, I can easily say that having a “gunner” with a rotatable cannon on a fighter is stupid. It is nothing but a waste for a fighter role ship.
I don’t see how having more options as it pertains to offence is a bad thing. Saves the pilot from having to concentrate on flying and blowing stuff up at the same time.
Putting extra stuff to a ship doesn’t come at no cost. It increases the weight and decreases the performance. For a fighter it is better to keep low weight for a better performance of its actual role, or spend the extra weight for better engines and other weaponry that is actually useful for a fighter. Furthermore, aiming at anything with turret while fighter is in a dogfight is useless. Even if this was a bomber (flying mostly straight and using turret for protection), that kind of configuration of the turret is rather useless. The TIE fighter wings block a major portion of the lower sphere around it, in addition to the upper sphere being completely unreachable.
Lord Haseo said:
Someone thinking that TFA is too similar to ANH is a valid complaint while TIE Fighters have two seats is not.
As opposed to former, the later is actually technically valid complaint. As an expert, I can easily say that having a “gunner” with a rotatable cannon on a fighter is stupid. It is nothing but a waste for a fighter role ship.
Padme died on Alderaan in the care of Bail Organa.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5UmTwj6Y18
That is much better than what is in the film.
imperialscum said:
Taking a few story concepts, such as uptight princess rescue element really isn’t much of a Kurosawa rip-off. It is pretty much an element found in ever third fairytale.Character such as Vader and Tarkin in my opinion relatively very unique. Not to mention all the other relatively unique stuff and concepts such as death star, the force, lightsabres, spaceship designs, stormtroopers designs, creatures, etc. I said “relatively” because one way or another you can find something similar somewhere and start a petty argument.
On the other hand, TFA directly copied stuff.
Lucas also directly copied many other people. Often times more than just similarities. Some mentioned here may have been inspiration, others are direct lifts.
http://www.moongadget.com/origins/index.html
As I said, the world is so big that you can find something similar somewhere and start a petty argument. That is what this is. I am sure he wasn’t even aware of any of this. Especially French comics.
Lord Haseo said:
Sue me.
I’ll see you in court!
imperialscum said:
Well he could simply get some other people to write and direct and just take the profit while sipping beer on the beach. Obviously there was some personal reason that he invested his time in it.I think an overwhelming factor was toy sales and marketing. I mean, just look at the insane marketing campaign for TPM- one that was only matched recently by the ludicrous TFA campaign. He stated in the Leonard Maltin interviews in 95 that he was planning on only directing Episode I, then handing off II and III to new directors. I think this was still the plan up until the release of TPM, but due to its poor reception, he didn’t want anyone else to make a Star Wars movie that was significantly better than how own. Mind you, this is only speculation, but I think it’s both ego and profits involved, more than a want to tell great stories.
Let’s stop with this “toy selling” crap. Every Star Wars film helped to sell a lot of toys. To say that any of them was made mainly to sell toys is stupid.
I am pretty sure he said his reason to stay writing/directing the rest of PT was because he found it enjoyable. Even if he hired writes/director he would probably be the creative director behind the film, like in case of ESB and ROTJ.
I would argue that TFA and the Holiday Special are the same kind of monster.
Both made without the creator’s involvement and made solely for profit.
There is nothing even close to a creative vision for either entity.So you would need to lump the prequels into the same “made solely for profit” category. Those films were only made for the money. He had no intention of ever making those films. Lucasfilm needed a money maker. the only parts of Lucasfilm making any sort of money was its subsidiary companies ( ILM, Skywalker sound etc). Lucasfilm needed a hit. The only things of any value on its books were Star Wars and Indy. They had had too many flops. The SE’s were done to test the waters. Did the public still want Star wars? If those had failed, then pre production on TPM would have likely stopped.
Your argument has no basis. I mean it doesn’t seem like Lucas needed any money at that point.
Yes because ALL rich people NEVER try to accumulate more currency.
Well he could simply get some other people to write and direct and just take the profit while sipping beer on the beach. Obviously there was some personal reason that he invested his time in it.
I would argue that TFA and the Holiday Special are the same kind of monster.
Both made without the creator’s involvement and made solely for profit.
There is nothing even close to a creative vision for either entity.So you would need to lump the prequels into the same “made solely for profit” category. Those films were only made for the money. He had no intention of ever making those films. Lucasfilm needed a money maker. the only parts of Lucasfilm making any sort of money was its subsidiary companies ( ILM, Skywalker sound etc). Lucasfilm needed a hit. The only things of any value on its books were Star Wars and Indy. They had had too many flops. The SE’s were done to test the waters. Did the public still want Star wars? If those had failed, then pre production on TPM would have likely stopped.
Your argument has no basis. I mean it doesn’t seem like Lucas needed any money at that point.
…
- ROTJ
- ESB
- SW
- ROTS
- AOTC
- TPM
Many will disagree about ranking AOTC over TPM. But AOTC actually contained some stuff that were the reasons I wanted to see the prequels, like a big ass Jedi/Clone battle. Where as even though TPM is a much better made movie overall (Still sh*t though) it has Jar Jar (and to a lesser extent little Annie) in it for most of the running time. He’s the most irritating character in the history of mainstream movies and it’s difficult to “enjoy” anything else about that movie as a result. If a highly skilled faneditor/FX-artist ever digitally erased Jar Jar from every single pixel of TPM, then sure I’d probablly rank it as the “least worst” prequel. But so far (To my knowledge) they haven’t yet, so it’ll stay bottom for me.
At least AOTC has Kenobi in it for more than 5 minutes and he does things that significantly effect the plot. At least the villain has more than 4 lines (With Christopher Lee’s voice) and does things that significantly effect the plot. The final LS duel actually has some emotion behind it, despite also being almost totally cr*p. At least they got rid of the botched puppet Yoda. Sadly with a CGI Yoda but you can tell the FX-artists really tried.
What do you seek to accomplish with this?
If it was a bait, you got hooked. If he simply didn’t watch TFA yet, you were being dumb. If it was an honest opinion, you were being an intolerant jerk.
ROTS is much more emotionally authentic than TFA.
The shot with all the markings on the wall that show how long Rey has been on Jakku hit me harder than anything in ROTS. That should say quite a bit.
That should say quite a bit about you if that scene “hit you”.
I didn’t say it made me ball my eyes out. I said it effected me. In that moment I instantly felt an emotional connection with her and I felt sorry for her situation as if I put her there. But that wouldn’t mean anything to someone like you.
Yes, I guess I am too sophisticated to be affected by such trivial stuff.
Bullshit. I’ll castrate myself with a butterknife if Snoke isn’t Plagueis. I’m that damn sure.
You better start making some kids then before it is too late. 😃