Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on August 21, 2013, 08:26:37 am
-
I do remember Star Destroyers spamming my tiny X Wing with green lasers. Was that my imagination?
-
In X-Wing (the original one) I never had much trouble with Star Destroyers, since flying at the bridge fast enough made the guns shoot below and behind you, but Nebulon-B frigates were a nightmare to take down for me.
I remember getting splashed a few times by ships and base defenses in Tachyon too.
-
I recall capships in Wing Commander 2 being troublesome at times, fly too close and the flak would shred you, even from a transport. Or in certain missions they'd fire their anti-matter guns at you, the Broadsword/Crossbow could tank one shot, the Sabre on the other hand... and evading the shot would ruin your torpedo lock :)
-
In X-Wing (the original one) I never had much trouble with Star Destroyers, since flying at the bridge fast enough made the guns shoot below and behind you
Not to mention they made the classic mistake of "radar domes = shield generators", so you could literally solo a Star Destroyer without even using torpedoes by taking out the domes and then plinking it to death.
-
Not to mention they made the classic mistake of "radar domes = shield generators", so you could literally solo a Star Destroyer without even using torpedoes by taking out the domes and then plinking it to death.
I hate to tell you but by now that's not a mistake. If it ever actually was.
-
Yep, that was even in the movie. If there ever was a mistake, it was made by the special effects crew of "Return of the Jedi".
-
Yep, that was even in the movie. If there ever was a mistake, it was made by the special effects crew of "Return of the Jedi".
its also part of the lore of the extended universe
-
No one gives a **** about the extended universe. :p
As the 7th movie will almost certainly make abundantly clear.
-
Jesus. The more time passes, the more I am convinced that SW VII will be absolute garbage material. I'm starting to feel old, I am beggining to understand those old fellas who used to decry the degenerated music and movies and culture and so on twenty years ago.
-
Actually I wasn't passing judgement on the quality of the movie in the slightest. Simply saying that it won't bother with extended universe canon much, so I don't know why anyone else bothers with it either. As far as I'm concerned the extended universe is basically fanon that George Lucas wanted to make money off of. That doesn't diminish the quality of the work itself but we should treat it the same way we treat Blue Planet or Inferno when it comes to FS canon.
-
I wasn't commenting on the extended universe per se. The discussion of this made my mind wander imagining how they are currently processing the movie, the script, the screenplay and so on and all that comes to my mind is "They will **** this up and shove it to another rollercoaster. **** damn ****"
-
Not to mention they made the classic mistake of "radar domes = shield generators", so you could literally solo a Star Destroyer without even using torpedoes by taking out the domes and then plinking it to death.
I hate to tell you but by now that's not a mistake. If it ever actually was.
The radar dome exploding was a symptom of the shields being down, not the cause of it. Not even the Empire is stupid enough to paint a shield generator with a giant bullseye; radar domes actually have a reason for being off the hull like that.
-
Not to mention they made the classic mistake of "radar domes = shield generators", so you could literally solo a Star Destroyer without even using torpedoes by taking out the domes and then plinking it to death.
I hate to tell you but by now that's not a mistake. If it ever actually was.
The radar dome exploding was a symptom of the shields being down, not the cause of it. Not even the Empire is stupid enough to paint a shield generator with a giant bullseye; radar domes actually have a reason for being off the hull like that.
I dont see much other than the dome exploding, also lifting the shields away from the hull can be made to have logic if needed but I agree it was probably more of an artistic decision
-
The radar dome exploding was a symptom of the shields being down, not the cause of it. Not even the Empire is stupid enough to paint a shield generator with a giant bullseye; radar domes actually have a reason for being off the hull like that.
I see you failed to address the argument entirely, i.e. it's widespread enough in other official work it's no longer a mistake.
Don't post again on the subject until you can address that, maybe?
-
There's a lengthy discourse here on the shields vs sensors (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes) question (which fully supports the sensors view), interestingly it claims that "official non-canon sources are divided". :nervous:
-
There's a lengthy discourse here on the shields vs sensors (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes) question (which fully supports the sensors view), interestingly it claims that "official non-canon sources are divided". :nervous:
The can of worms has been opened! :D
I did and still do wish it is true when I read Ralwood's post.
-
Jesus. The more time passes, the more I am convinced that SW VII will be absolute garbage material. I'm starting to feel old, I am beggining to understand those old fellas who used to decry the degenerated music and movies and culture and so on twenty years ago.
...despite having the evidence of it being a psychosomatic reaction to one's own ageing staring you in the face?
-
The radar dome exploding was a symptom of the shields being down, not the cause of it. Not even the Empire is stupid enough to paint a shield generator with a giant bullseye; radar domes actually have a reason for being off the hull like that.
I see you failed to address the argument entirely, i.e. it's widespread enough in other official work it's no longer a mistake.
Don't post again on the subject until you can address that, maybe?
Nothing in the Expanded Universe is internally consistent with other Expanded Universe works anyway, unless the authors intentionally work together (or by sheer coincidence). I know at least one (rather good, in fact) book that refers to the domes as shield generators. It also uses the laughably small figure of 8 kilometers for the length of an Executor-class. I don't care about the inaccuracies because it's a good book, but I don't take it as anything but a work of C-canon by an author without an encyclopedic knowledge of everything Star Wars.
EDIT: To make my point more clear, we have only one instance of one of those domes exploding in the movies, which is the only source of canon that actually matters 99% of the time.
-
They're actually both sensor domes and shield emitters. The "ball" piece is probably a radar dome, while the shield emitters are overlaid on that. IIRC, that's the "word of god" official statement.
-
Nothing in the Expanded Universe is internally consistent with other Expanded Universe works anyway,
That's a kind of ridiculous statement to make considering most of the EU actually doesn't step on each others toes at all.
Also I'd point as they're never identified by name or type in the movies the movies are utterly useless in identifying them as sensor domes (but not as shield generators, see below!), and I've never seen an EU work that does otherwise than as shield generators. (Or for that matter a second-tier work, not EU but something like one of the Essential Guides or an artbook.)
You're falling into the trap that folks like sd.net do, with saying that turbolasers are amazingly powerful based on a couple scenes in ESB where the effects budget and technology didn't permit showing the Star Destroyers firing broadsides is more likely (assuming the staff even knew the calculations that ultimately derive turbolaser power output and did so in the knowledge of them), but they were taking out asteroids with single shots so clearly they must be that powerful because that's what's on screen. People assert the movies as the only legitimate source of truth, basically, and insist to a rigid adherence of what happened onscreen.
Yet when it comes to this, where something blows up and the shields go down immediately onscreen, it's obviously a second-order unrelated effect in blatant defiance of any attempt at good narration, which follows conservation of detail and shows us only things we need to know so that we can establish clear logical chains of events. If something blows up and we cut immediately to a report of the shields going down, it's very unlikely that even a marginally competent storyteller would have had the thing that blew up be completely unrelated to making the shields work. And whatever you want to say about Lucas now, he had an editorial group back then.
That is to say, your following the narrative on the screen is subordinate to your desire to make assumptions that paint the creations of the screen in the best possible light. You're working backwards from a premise (that premise being that making exposed shield generators would be dumb, something we don't even know for a fact; they might need to be exposed), not forwards from the evidence, every time you assert they're sensor domes.
EDIT THE TEN MILLIONTH: I mean christ I watched some of the least-competent sci-fi ever made the last couple of nights with Voyager and Enterprise and when they tell you that Deck 5 is about to blow out and then we cut to an exterior shot of half a deck exploding, are you saying it's something other than Deck 5 blowing out? This is basic narrative theory, okay?
-
Nothing in the Expanded Universe is internally consistent with other Expanded Universe works anyway,
That's a kind of ridiculous statement to make considering most of the EU actually doesn't step on each others toes at all.
Yeah, the only instance of inconsistency that I know of is the Clone Wars books. They kinda messed up their timeline with respect to the rest of the EU. I believe they have since fixed this, but this is the only major mistake that I know of. Sure, there are probably a bunch of minor mistakes throughout, but generally newer books try to fit in with the rest of the EU.
when they tell you that Deck 5 is about to blow out and then we cut to an exterior shot of half a deck exploding, are you saying it's something other than Deck 5 blowing out?
That makes the most sense. They show something explode then immediately tell you the shields are down. We don't have an unreliable narrator here and the whole "the empire would never do that" argument isn't definitive or strong enough to overturn it. Sure, having shield generators exposed would be kinda stupid (unless for some reason they HAD to), but it's also stupid to have the bridge the only system able to keep the ship operational. There should be backups in case the bridge went down.
I know at least one (rather good, in fact) book...
May we have a name?
-
but it's also stupid to have the bridge the only system able to keep the ship operational. There should be backups in case the bridge went down.
Yes, unfortunately that statement adds credibility to the shields being the domes.
Imagine a ship that vast, and all you have to do is destroy the bridge and then it's nothing more than a car with a brick on the accelerator...
-
but it's also stupid to have the bridge the only system able to keep the ship operational. There should be backups in case the bridge went down.
Yes, unfortunately that statement adds credibility to the shields being the domes.
Imagine a ship that vast, and all you have to do is destroy the bridge and then it's nothing more than a car with a brick on the accelerator...
IIRC ISD and the Executor classes had backup bridges near the engineering sections of the ship, the EU I believe offers the explanation that in the case of the Executor the backup command crew were not able to establish control of the ship before the gravity from the second death star pulled the ship in
-
but it's also stupid to have the bridge the only system able to keep the ship operational. There should be backups in case the bridge went down.
Yes, unfortunately that statement adds credibility to the shields being the domes.
Imagine a ship that vast, and all you have to do is destroy the bridge and then it's nothing more than a car with a brick on the accelerator...
IIRC ISD and the Executor classes had backup bridges near the engineering sections of the ship, the EU I believe offers the explanation that in the case of the Executor the backup command crew were not able to establish control of the ship before the gravity from the second death star pulled the ship in
Ah, that's not so bad then. :)
-
Nothing in the Expanded Universe is internally consistent with other Expanded Universe works anyway,
That's a kind of ridiculous statement to make considering most of the EU actually doesn't step on each others toes at all.
Yeah, the only instance of inconsistency that I know of is the Clone Wars books. They kinda messed up their timeline with respect to the rest of the EU. I believe they have since fixed this, but this is the only major mistake that I know of. Sure, there are probably a bunch of minor mistakes throughout, but generally newer books try to fit in with the rest of the EU.
Timelines are kind of a different kettle of fish because they're generally little more than flavour detail with a limited effect on the actual story, and it's very easy to accidentally create inconsistencies amidst the web of cross-references.
-
Not to mention they made the classic mistake of "radar domes = shield generators", so you could literally solo a Star Destroyer without even using torpedoes by taking out the domes and then plinking it to death.
I hate to tell you but by now that's not a mistake. If it ever actually was.
The radar dome exploding was a symptom of the shields being down, not the cause of it. Not even the Empire is stupid enough to paint a shield generator with a giant bullseye; radar domes actually have a reason for being off the hull like that.
I dont see much other than the dome exploding, also lifting the shields away from the hull can be made to have logic if needed but I agree it was probably more of an artistic decision
On the other hand, the Star Wars universe is well known for having ships with critical design flaws. Possibly, the radar dome going down is what causes a malfunction, causing the shields to go down almost simultaniously.
Or it just looked cool.
That's probably the reason.
-
And thats why the bridge must be in the safer part of the ship, whats the point of placing it exposed with windows that are structural weakness.
-
The point is that it looks cool. Your argument is invalid.
-
The problem with Star Wars is that those ships were put together for a movie. No one was going over them with a toothcomb to make them balanced and effective for their role in a simulated engagement. They just needed to look nice for the films.
-
Also, real-life ships, vehicles, and hardware in general, are flawed. If you really want something that makes sense in a given universe, finding and removing flaws is going straight the wrong way.
-
But so is introducing glaring, unremarked-upon flaws in the design of every single ship.
-
If we're continuing down this fun little tangent, wouldn't it make reasonable sense for a device that projects an energy shield over an entire ship to have to be positioned in a place where it can, y'know, actually project over the ship? Having shield emitters need to be positioned on the ship's exterior seems like far less of a logical leap than having them be buried somewhere in the innards.
-
every machine no matter how well designed is flawed by virtue of it needing to balance conflicting needs, for example, a door, no matter how well designed will be weaker than the wall it's attached to and yet the door is needed to allow access.
also ask this. are the shields on a star destroyer a field or a barrier?
if they are a field then yes they are poorly placed. if they are a barrier then all points that generate/manipulate it must allow the barrier to go around the ship without intersecting it and if the design of the hull forces you to mount the generators/manipulators away from the hull to make them work properly then that is what you must do.
-
when they tell you that Deck 5 is about to blow out and then we cut to an exterior shot of half a deck exploding, are you saying it's something other than Deck 5 blowing out?
That makes the most sense. They show something explode then immediately tell you the shields are down. We don't have an unreliable narrator here and the whole "the empire would never do that" argument isn't definitive or strong enough to overturn it. Sure, having shield generators exposed would be kinda stupid (unless for some reason they HAD to), but it's also stupid to have the bridge the only system able to keep the ship operational. There should be backups in case the bridge went down.
The reason it's stupid is because no other class of ship (not even on the same scale as star destroyers) has giant, exposed shield generators. Later works have apparently retconned them into hyperspace communication domes that also have shield projector vanes? I don't know; Wookieepedia has never exactly been perfectly reliable, and I kind of stopped trying to keep track of the EU's continuity snarl.
I know at least one (rather good, in fact) book...
May we have a name?
It's in the X-Wing series. I think the particular book I'm thinking of is Iron Fist; specifically, the battle for Razor's Kiss.
-
when they tell you that Deck 5 is about to blow out and then we cut to an exterior shot of half a deck exploding, are you saying it's something other than Deck 5 blowing out?
That makes the most sense. They show something explode then immediately tell you the shields are down. We don't have an unreliable narrator here and the whole "the empire would never do that" argument isn't definitive or strong enough to overturn it. Sure, having shield generators exposed would be kinda stupid (unless for some reason they HAD to), but it's also stupid to have the bridge the only system able to keep the ship operational. There should be backups in case the bridge went down.
The reason it's stupid is because no other class of ship (not even on the same scale as star destroyers) has giant, exposed shield generators. Later works have apparently retconned them into hyperspace communication domes that also have shield projector vanes? I don't know; Wookieepedia has never exactly been perfectly reliable, and I kind of stopped trying to keep track of the EU's continuity snarl.
I know at least one (rather good, in fact) book...
May we have a name?
It's in the X-Wing series. I think the particular book I'm thinking of is Iron Fist; specifically, the battle for Razor's Kiss.
the one where one of the wraiths piggybacks on the hull of the razors kiss and blasts the shield generator to give the Mon Remonda a fighting chance against both SSDs
-
Actually Battlestar Galactica made it right, no fancy windows and the bridges of both the Pegasus and Galactica where very well protected, placing something so important like the command crew so exposed is just stupid, there is nothing cool about it, its just a massive design flaw.
-
You just have no sense of cool. Sucks to be you.
-
Might as well paint a target on both the bridge and the generators.
-
Actually Battlestar Galactica made it right, no fancy windows and the bridges of both the Pegasus and Galactica where very well protected, placing something so important like the command crew so exposed is just stupid, there is nothing cool about it, its just a massive design flaw.
most modern warships still have the navigation bridge high up on the superstructure towards the front
-
The thing is tho, on the vast majority of modern warships, the "bridge" as people usually think of it is just a place to drive the ship from.
-
The thing is tho, on the vast majority of modern warships, the "bridge" as people usually think of it is just a place to drive the ship from.
hence the use of the word navigation preceding the word bridge. fact is it is the navigation bridge aspect which caused the SSD to crash
-
Actually Battlestar Galactica made it right, no fancy windows and the bridges of both the Pegasus and Galactica where very well protected, placing something so important like the command crew so exposed is just stupid, there is nothing cool about it, its just a massive design flaw.
most modern warships still have the navigation bridge high up on the superstructure towards the front
They are not warships designed for space combat, and belive or not, the "tower" super structure of a warship is the safer place howday, missiles are all sea skirmming, on impact they are going to hit the ship just above the water line, no "gun" combat exist today on warships, neither planes can attack them the "old fashion way".
Main combat systems are still below the main deck, means if the ship get hit by a missile if a high chance if will be left out of combat, but there is a chance of save it.
And still, they are not space ships with advanced tecnology, the ISD triangle desing is brillant in terms of firepower, as you can place a vast amount of turrets on the triangle line and while facing the target place them all to bear on a single ship, and the "increasinly fat hull" along the triangle line allows to place even more turrets, a real life ISD could fire all its turrets at the same target if its on front, but placing the bridge exposed is just dumb, its like painting a big bulleye on it.
-
since massive offtopic, split?
-
The reason it's stupid is because no other class of ship (not even on the same scale as star destroyers) has giant, exposed shield generators
You don't know that. Nothing in the damn movies has its shield generators conveniently labeled. We can only infer when it comes up. (Oh and the only place it ever comes up was in direct relation to the domes.)
but placing the bridge exposed is just dumb, its like painting a big bulleye on it.
Regardless, it's what's been done, and every time we saw Executor's bridge from the many stations in the crew pits it was obvious that it combined navigation and CIC functions, so you're arguing against the visual evidence of ESB and ROTJ here.
-
They are not warships designed for space combat, and belive or not, the "tower" super structure of a warship is the safer place howday, missiles are all sea skirmming, on impact they are going to hit the ship just above the water line, no "gun" combat exist today on warships, neither planes can attack them the "old fashion way".
Wrong, while attacking a modern warship with dumb bombs or cannons is not the best tactic, it's certainly a viable one. I've once sunk an enemy warship (I think a destroyer) in the old Fleet Command, which is a good 'modern' (as long as '99 counts as such) naval combat sim. I was kind of desperate and it was rather close (it did fire missiles, but they got wasted by my CIWS. I was saving mine.), but it could happen in an extended engagement. Also, ballistic missiles hit a ship mostly from the top, while they don't have the "pick a window" accuracy of a sea-skimming cruise missile, they're still in use. Furthermore, some sea-skimming missiles (like Harpoon) perform a "jump" maneuver during the terminal attack phase to avoid CIWS fire. So, the tower is very much at risk of being blown off.
Regarding SSD not having a backup nav bridge, it's because the Empire was afraid of mutiny more than of enemy attacks. Given Vader's style of commanding and their attitude about attacks, this is perfectly understandable. That would also be the reason for concentrating CIC functions on the nav bridge, so that the entire command staff would be handily available and the place would be easy to barricade in case of a mutiny. Empire had every reason to design a ship like that, especially a flagship vessel like SSD, by definition too powerful to be threatened in any sort of combat (and indeed, it's destruction was kind of a fluke).
Regarding placement of the shield generators, both ISD and SSD have exceptionally strong shields, so the projectors are probably required to achieve such strength. The radar domes just provided convenient location to place them. Mon Calmari cruisers also have shield generators mounted on the hull, in some of the blisters (according to the EU).
-
Im not arguing that, im just saying its increible dumb to place windows on the bridge AND having a critical component so exposed, the triangular shape its brillant to concrentrate firepower and have a quite good turret coverange, except from the back.
But no one on its right mind will place a critical command structure, with all the command authorities outside of the main hull with windows on it, they did it so the ships looked better for the film, but practicaly speaking, its a big mistake.
BSG was the first series that i see it bring some sence intro space ship building, Baseship, Galactica and Pegasus CIC are not only located inside the main hull, they are deep inside, nowhere near hull armor.
-
The movie was done in a kind of homage to naval battles in the pacific and so on. Star Destroyers are pretty much Destroyer class warships from the US navy from the 40s and so on with "wings". Of course, they are much more than this, but this is the core design, and the reason they were designed like this was obviously to put the viewer of the late 70s immediately understanding what kind of ship this was, where the command center is, and a really big gut feeling of familiarity. People relate to the SDs precisely because they were so iconicly similar to the battleships of the second world war and so on.
Anything that starts to try to "count" megajoules and anything of the sort in these movies fail so hard to see the obvious fact that all these battles are an illusion concocted for the sake of plot. To argue the mathematics of the turbolasers can be fun, but one should *always* keep in mind that it is an exercise of outright sillyness just as big as discussing magical attributes of magicians as if it is really real and not a coordinated effort of tricks to make a really nice entertainment evening.
-
But no one on its right mind will place a critical command structure, with all the command authorities outside of the main hull with windows on it, they did it so the ships looked better for the film, but practicaly speaking, its a big mistake.
Indeed, but keep in mind that in SW, windows are not glass, but transpirasteel, which is pretty much as good for armor as normal plating. Windows are much less of an issue than they seem. Also, I imagine that the CIC placement is the result of design evolution. KDY built ships with a nav bridge tower since long before the Empire, and even ISD could've had it's CIC inside the hull. SSD was supposed to be invincible anyway, so they figured out they could as well give the Admiral (and the important dignitary on board) a good view of the battle, while allowing him to watch the staff (it's possible that orders to combine CIC and Nav Bridge came from the top). Those ships were not designed for practicality. They were designed to look impressive both to their targets and to the command crew. If you look at it that way, an SSD makes much more sense. Remember what kind of regime the Empire is.
-
The material of the windows does not really matter, what it implies is what matter, it means that the CIC is, outside of the hull AND nailed directly to the ship armor plating, warships should be designed to take a beating, if a out of control A-wing can take it down something is really wrong there. And yes, it was unshielded, because someone placed the shield generator also outside the hull unprotected....
A good view of the battlefield can be done with both radar and camaras, we can have holograms, but not a radar to display its information on hologram? thats far more usefull that using your eyes.
So bad the Lucifer was not based on SW ships...
-
You're still ignoring the fact that nobody even thought that an SSD would lose it's shields. In fact, Tarkin Doctrine assumed it'd hardly be attacked anyway. Remember the Death Star's design (the SSD design predates DS1), "those vents will never be a problem, fighters will never get that close" mentality that caused it's downfall was probably at work here. It's typical Imperial thinking. Also, the bridge probably has the thickest armor of all the ship, and that includes windows (transpirasteel is pretty much armor, too). Not that it helped against the speeding A-W, but it wasn't even out-of-control, it was very precisely flown into the bridge. A kamikaze is a pretty deadly method of attack and A-Ws are dedicated interceptors, meaning they fly very fast.
Also, it wasn't the shield dome destruction that brought down it's shield. According to Wookiepedia, they first broke thought the shield itself with concentrated, point-blank range turbolaser fire, then blew the dome to expose the bridge itself. Normally, those domes seem to be inside the shield.
-
That A-Wing was absolutely spinning out of control. Or rather, was fatally damaged.
-
Also, it wasn't the shield dome destruction that brought down it's shield. According to Wookiepedia, they first broke thought the shield itself with concentrated, point-blank range turbolaser fire, then blew the dome to expose the bridge itself. Normally, those domes seem to be inside the shield.
Or, to put that another way, the...
...dome exploding was a symptom of the shields being down, not the cause of it.
Which, to bring things back around to the original topic that started this off-topic branch, is that a single X-Wing being able to blow up the domes and then plink a Star Destroyer to death, like they could in the video games, is laughable.
...But then, we already knew that.
-
You guys are hilarious. This thread is hilarious. All the logical inconsistencies, effects-predominance, and poorly-executed plot-carrying dialogue in the Star Wars films can be neatly summed up in two words:
George Lucas.
But yeah, I've always operated on the premise that said dome was a local shield generator for the bridge area and when it went up in smoke, so did the shields for the bridge... and hence the SSD was effectively taken down by a mortally-wounded A-wing in typical Imperial-engineers-are-overconfident-idiots fashion.
-
That A-Wing was absolutely spinning out of control. Or rather, was fatally damaged.
Those are not the same thing. It's clearly stated on Wookiepedia that while being unrecoverable, it was steerable enough to be aimed. TBH, it'd be a incredible coincidence if it just happened to go straight for the main bridge window.
Which, to bring things back around to the original topic that started this off-topic branch, is that a single X-Wing being able to blow up the domes and then plink a Star Destroyer to death, like they could in the video games, is laughable.
...But then, we already knew that.
Ships could do a lot of funny things in SW video games. In fact, if there were no other factors, a single X-W could, in XWA, just plain shoot it's way through an ISD's shield. In the original X-Wing, if you were good enough, you could kill the ISD you were chasing in every mission it appeared, racking up an obscene amount of point along the way. The games took a lot of liberties regarding capship behavior. Also, XWA allowed you to shoot off turrets and subsystems like they were outside the shield, which obviously isn't be the case in the movies nor in the EU.
-
You guys are hilarious. This thread is hilarious.
Oh come on, me too? :D
George Lucas.
Nah, that's not really true, somewhat unfair actually. The movies are just camp(y) sy fy amazing battleships shooting each other with great visual effects and a lot of sudden plot twists. What matters is the feeling, not the ridiculous hilarious "consistencies" that so many fans clearly indulge themselves in. The movies give you the gist of being inside amazing battles and that's what matters. All these shenanigans are, I agree with you, silly.
-
That A-Wing was absolutely spinning out of control. Or rather, was fatally damaged.
Those are not the same thing. It's clearly stated on Wookiepedia that while being unrecoverable, it was steerable enough to be aimed. TBH, it'd be a incredible coincidence if it just happened to go straight for the main bridge window.
Which, to bring things back around to the original topic that started this off-topic branch, is that a single X-Wing being able to blow up the domes and then plink a Star Destroyer to death, like they could in the video games, is laughable.
...But then, we already knew that.
Ships could do a lot of funny things in SW video games. In fact, if there were no other factors, a single X-W could, in XWA, just plain shoot it's way through an ISD's shield. In the original X-Wing, if you were good enough, you could kill the ISD you were chasing in every mission it appeared, racking up an obscene amount of point along the way. The games took a lot of liberties regarding capship behavior. Also, XWA allowed you to shoot off turrets and subsystems like they were outside the shield, which obviously isn't be the case in the movies nor in the EU.
Please, note the phrasing "fatally damaged". The way you phrased it before made it sound like the pilot, of his own free will and volition, without any prior damage or expectation to receive such damage, decided to crash himself into the bridge. That's what I took issue with.
That said, crazier **** has happened, happens today, and will continue to happen until the heat death of the universe.
EDIT: Also thought I might address MP-Ryan with a small but significant detail: George Lucas did not direct the Star Wars original trilogy, merely produced it. This is why Episodes 4-6 are so much better than 1-3; because he didn't have near the level of strangling creative control over the final cut.
-
EDIT: Also thought I might address MP-Ryan with a small but significant detail: George Lucas did not direct the Star Wars original trilogy, merely produced it. This is why Episodes 4-6 are so much better than 1-3; because he didn't have near the level of strangling creative control over the final cut.
Well, technically speaking he directed IV, just not V & VI. Otherwise yeah, I always figured in 4-6 that he wasn't such a "legend" that the other production/directing/editing staff felt like they could actually give him advice (and he took it!), rather than just do what he said, because you know, he's George Lucas :rolleyes:
-
He had a big part to play in the others.
The difference between the first and second trilogy is not a matter of who directed or who worked on the movie, but instead, it's a great example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without the studio system to keep him in check, Lucas was free to make his Luke Starkiller, 3-CPO/Used car salesman abortion of a movie.
-
:confused:
I thought a big part of 4-6 was Lucas giving the finger to the studios. Even for minor stuff, like moving credits to the end of the movie, which IIRC earned him & Kershner (sp?) a massive fine after Empire was released?
-
Yeah, but like most young idealists who finally get power, it corrupted him.
By the time of the new trilogy he could do whatever he wanted and no one would tell him that he was wrong.
-
By the time of the new trilogy he could do whatever he wanted and no one would tell him that he was wrong.
Cool - that's what I was (poorly :)) trying to say a couple of posts back.
-
Also, from what I've heard, Lucas would rather edit movies that somebody else did than actually make them himself. There was a whole story with how SW became what it is, shame that I don't remember where I read it. IIRC, he didn't even want to direct it in the first place. I don't remember the details, though (if only I could find the darn thing...).
-
Also, from what I've heard, Lucas would rather edit movies that somebody else did than actually make them himself. There was a whole story with how SW became what it is, shame that I don't remember where I read it. IIRC, he didn't even want to direct it in the first place. I don't remember the details, though (if only I could find the darn thing...).
I'm pretty sure I read that one, on Cracked. Can't find it after a brief googling though.
-
Yeah, it was Cracked. I got there from TVTropes, but I don't remember from which page (not one directly SW-related). I'll keep my eye out when I'll next visit Cracked, I might stumble upon it.