timdiggerm

Does it shed new light on the DSII battle?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

anyone. And then everyone died.

darklordoftech said:

The Republic using a predeccesor of the Imperial symbol. It shows that the Empire is the very Republic that Obi-Wan told Luke about.

 Does the Imperial symbol even appear in the OT?

JEDIT: I am dumb. It's on all those helmets.

I'd like to state, for the record, that I love the Muppets and Jim Henson. The cartoon-ish looks great in certain contexts. Not sure that's the same context as EP7.

Related: This is my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn49H3O0Jvk

HigHurtenflurst said:

timdiggerm said:

TheBoost said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

Klasodeth said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tyrphanax said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

When the Death Star fires at the MonCalamari ship, it always bothered me that the beam didn't just punch right through like it was made of paper and keep going.  It can destroy a whole planet, so a ship shouldn't have stopped it...  Maybe it could even take out another ship(s) in the background.

This is a good one. I've always thought the same, myself.

I believe the official explanation is that the second Death Star had a variable energy output so they could dial it down to destroy a ship, or dial it up to destroy a planet.

Something about that explanation just never sat right with me. 

 Why not? It doesn't make sense to use the full power of the superlaser just to blow up something as tiny as a capital ship. Reducing the power level in exchange for a faster rate of fire not only makes sense, but would also help explain why the Death Star in Star Wars spent 30 minutes traveling around Yavin to to get in range of the Rebel base instead of blowing up Yavin and then blowing up the Rebel base two minutes later. 

 Why not?  Well because the only "official" explanation would be whatever is in the movie in the first place and not some fan-boy EU crap.  The emperor says it's "fully armed and operational," and nobody says anything different.  What you say makes 100% sense, but once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through.  Visually it would be a much more dramatic demonstration of the beam's supposed power.

 The official explanation IS the movie.

The Death Star can blow up a planet. It can also blow up a ship. This is totally clear in the film. It requires no further exposition in the film, nor any outside discussion. 

YOU made up a rule "once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through" that doesn't fit with what's in the film.  The film is not in error. 

This is the correct answer. The DSII is depicted as having variable-strength firepower. That's not a crazy concept.

 ??? I must have missed something.  Depicted how?  In some EU account?  There is no dialogue or discussion in the film to indicate that, (eg. "Fire at 1/4 strength, commander!"), the firing sequence as shown is IDENTICAL to ANH...  You're just ASSUMING that's the case.  FWIW, I totally agree with your logic about variable beam strength/anti ship weaponry, but in reality once a laser burns through a substance, it keeps right on going.   But thank you for giving me credit for making up basic physics!

 Oh true.

I hereby motion that fanedits use a different firing sequence (which, frankly, is a good idea anyway) to show that.

Surely the 6-->1 beam focusing setup confirms the presence of nifty focusing technology

m_s0 said:

On the other hand, Whitta's track record is downright horrifying to me.

Two whole films is not quite enough of a track record, particularly when one of them is known as decent and the other was probably terrible because it was a Jaden Smith vehicle.

DuracellEnergizer said:

One has to wonder how a superlaser fired from a battle station the size of the moon has such a narrow beam, though. You'd think such a beam would be thick enough to envelop and pass right through a conventionally-sized ship regardless of its overall intensity.

JEDIT: I think I just figured out what my problem with the Death Star II's beam blowing ships out of the sky is. 

 Turn down the power, the beam is narrower.

Over all, beautiful as expected. Two criticisms:

- Are the asteroids made of gunpowder?

- I'm not totally sold on that canyon. The bits closest to the camera look a bit plastic.

TheBoost said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

Klasodeth said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tyrphanax said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

When the Death Star fires at the MonCalamari ship, it always bothered me that the beam didn't just punch right through like it was made of paper and keep going.  It can destroy a whole planet, so a ship shouldn't have stopped it...  Maybe it could even take out another ship(s) in the background.

This is a good one. I've always thought the same, myself.

I believe the official explanation is that the second Death Star had a variable energy output so they could dial it down to destroy a ship, or dial it up to destroy a planet.

Something about that explanation just never sat right with me. 

 Why not? It doesn't make sense to use the full power of the superlaser just to blow up something as tiny as a capital ship. Reducing the power level in exchange for a faster rate of fire not only makes sense, but would also help explain why the Death Star in Star Wars spent 30 minutes traveling around Yavin to to get in range of the Rebel base instead of blowing up Yavin and then blowing up the Rebel base two minutes later. 

 Why not?  Well because the only "official" explanation would be whatever is in the movie in the first place and not some fan-boy EU crap.  The emperor says it's "fully armed and operational," and nobody says anything different.  What you say makes 100% sense, but once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through.  Visually it would be a much more dramatic demonstration of the beam's supposed power.

 The official explanation IS the movie.

The Death Star can blow up a planet. It can also blow up a ship. This is totally clear in the film. It requires no further exposition in the film, nor any outside discussion. 

YOU made up a rule "once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through" that doesn't fit with what's in the film.  The film is not in error. 

This is the correct answer. The DSII is depicted as having variable-strength firepower. That's not a crazy concept.

THE HIDDEN PLANET

?

by "Jim Hensony" I think he means "cartoony". The cartoony aliens are one of the many things I don't like about ROTJ.

spectraljulian said:

Tobar said:

I love that they're going more practical with the creature effects. HOWEVER, that alien looks a little too Jim Henson-y.

 I'd tend to agree, but if he's got as much screen time as Wyoslea, Muftak, or Momaw Nadon, he'll be just fine.  And with proper color palette, lighting, etc, he'll probably look better.  

 Even Nien Numb was okay.

Just when you thought the SE couldn't get weirder.

doubleofive said:

They could do like they did with the Star Trek Blu-ray's pair fans with people involved in the production of other parts.

I will put my name in the hat.

 They could do like they did with the Into Darkness Blu-ray and leave assembling a bonus disc to the fans?

Tyrphanax said:

Does this count?

Yes, but I'll transcribe so we can all read it.

JJ Abrams said:

DIADEST O+ST AuO OEEW-------

WIAT AN HONDR IT IS, To VORK
BESIDE 4U OF YDI, ON STAR WARS -EP VII-
I O4^Π TAAU< YDU EΛDVb4, FOR ALL UOPK
PAS7 4UD FU7UPE. LE7'S TAKE GOoOD C7REm,
OF NOT JVST OURSELUES, BUT EAC+ DTHER.
AMAZUG, BUT TRUE: TE+E WORLD AWAITS THIS FILM.
LE7'S GIUE 'EM SDME7HWG GPEA7. YO JJ

I wouldn't want Ady's ESB:R thread to get bogged down by this topic, so here's the thread. It's in this forum, because it's not limited to fan edit purposes, and it's not limited to Original vs SE.

So, where in ROTJ are there mistakes?

We should probably start a "Spot the errors: ROTJ!" thread

JEDIT: I did: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Spot-the-errors-ROTJ/topic/16648/

Doc Sportello said:

STAR WARS: EPISODE II

THE MISSING PLANET

 That is a really good title

That might be the best post in here

Oh, yeah, definitely a different take. But it's still Luke, and I think Obi's just behind his head.

TV's Frink said:

timdiggerm said:

I couldn't see the image until I right clicked it, chose "View image", found myself at some other site, and then hit back. The reason you (and no one else) can see the image on the forum is because you have it cached. No one can see that image until they go to the site that hosts it.

 FTFY

 I meant to say "anyone else who can see it", which, thanks to having it in my cache now, includes me.

But seriously, fail.

Hey, no one had spotted the matte misalign on the Falcon @ Bespin until this week.

Wazzles said:

doubleofive said:

Alright, help me out guys.



It was brought to my attention that 3PO was in a different position during the wipe, but now taking a closer look, everyone is different. Was this a different take they used in the SE and put the original foreground over top? Was the foreground a composite element originally?

 It looks like Luke is played by an entirely different person. On top he has no beard, but he does on the bottom- and it doesn't look like he's Obi Wan.

The second image has darker contrast, making his jaw shadow darker, making it look slightly more like a beard.