The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.org/

Spoiled by the Last Jedi
https://gladerebooted.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11955
Page 2 of 2

Author:  FarSky [ Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Upon second viewing, I cottoned to the Canto Bight stuff more (and it's much shorter than you may think on initial viewing, despite the really good stuff coming after). It's the key to the whole thing...Rose and Finn failed at their mission. They failed hard, and that's in line with the general theme of disappointment and loss of hope. But ultimately, their failed mission may wind up being the reason the rebels will win the war. Poe was right about these few stragglers being the spark that will light the fire of the rebellion, but it's not in a firefight, holed up in a cave with their backs against the wall. It's the inspiration of their bravery and kindness to the greater universe, or even just a slave stable boy, to show what's worth fighting for.

“That’s how we’re going to win. Not fighting what we hate. Saving what we love.”

Author:  Serienya [ Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ulfynn wrote:
Bad: Finn and Rose (the entire casino thing...ugh), Holdo (other than hyperspace kamakaze, which was epic).


I'm going to pick up the prequel YA book, Leia: Princess of Aldaraan, which delves into the early friendship between Leia and Holdo.

Author:  Wwen [ Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ulfynn wrote:
Mixed, but overall I thought it was fun and I like that it's theme seemed to be about forging ahead vs. reliving the past.

Good: Luke, Rey, Kylo.

Bad: Finn and Rose (the entire casino thing...ugh), Holdo (other than hyperspace kamakaze, which was epic).

Indifferent to the other characters at this point.

They've now established that Force ghosts can interact with the physical world, a la Yoda's bonfire. We could get to see Luke in 'action' once more as something other than the Force's spectral Dear Abby.

I'm not that stoked that Abrams is back at the helm, but 'it is what it is'.

This. I will never every get back the feeling I had the first time I found SW as a kid, so I have very managed expectations. SW isn't perfect, but there's something about being young and not having a wide range of experiences that makes seeing this stuff for the first time special.

Kylo is right, let the past die. You can't go back home again. The new movies will never be like the old ones to you, regardless of their quality.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm not so sure that the claim about Rey's parentage was coming from a trustworthy source.

The vice admiral and her evening gown was kind of annoying, especially since she could have defused the entire "mutiny" by just saying "we're going to that planet."

Other than that, I loved it.

Author:  Wwen [ Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

FTL scene was cool. But begs the question "why don't you do that all the time?" Seems like space warfare would be pretty much focused on FTLing objects into other objects. You probably wouldn't even need to make a D-Star to blow up a planet...

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Wwen wrote:
FTL scene was cool. But begs the question "why don't you do that all the time?" Seems like space warfare would be pretty much focused on FTLing objects into other objects. You probably wouldn't even need to make a D-Star to blow up a planet...


Probably because it's a suicide move. They also may not have had their shields etc. fully up since they already had the cruiser on the ropes and may have figured there was no need. Wouldn't be the first time the bad guys have been overconfident.

Also, the mass of even that big-ass command ship is far, far less than that of a planet.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

"Suicide move" is a bizarre concept when we have a world full of robot servants capable of executing the maneuver.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
"Suicide move" is a bizarre concept when we have a world full of robot servants capable of executing the maneuver.


You also lose the entire cruiser, which is a significant asset.

The rebels were in extremely dire straights; it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that they tried something that wouldn't normally be attempted.

Author:  FarSky [ Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Diamondeye wrote:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
"Suicide move" is a bizarre concept when we have a world full of robot servants capable of executing the maneuver.


You also lose the entire cruiser, which is a significant asset.

The rebels were in extremely dire straights; it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that they tried something that wouldn't normally be attempted.

Yeah, was gonna bring this up. The rebellion isn't exactly flush with cash, ships, or people.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

But if you're employing it as a strategy, you don't need to build the whole ship. You slap a hyperdrive engine (and enough maneuvering engines to aim it) on a hunk of asteroid or whatever's handy.

Likewise, when you're improvising and doing it out of desperation with a real warship, you let C-3PO (or a droid less sentimentally valuable to leadership) hit the button. You had given up on the warship's survival anyways, so that shouldn't come into the discussion.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
But if you're employing it as a strategy, you don't need to build the whole ship. You slap a hyperdrive engine (and enough maneuvering engines to aim it) on a hunk of asteroid or whatever's handy.


We've never seen them "slap a hyperdrive" on something other than a ship either. We don't even know if that would be feasible since we don't know how a hyperdrive interacts with the rest of a starship in order to work as a package. We only know that they DID do it with a complete ship, and a big one at that, and they did it in extreme circumstances. We can't generalize from "works in an extreme edge case under highly particular circumstances" to "therefore must always work, but hasn't been done before so plot hole."

In particular, we saw in ESB that Star Destroyers could easily vaporize asteroids in a single shot, so there's little reason to think they'd be vulnerable to this attack.

There could be other problems as well. We have no understanding of the transition of an object between the universe and hyperspace, so we have no idea how reliable this is. It might be that it only works within a precise distance from the target. There's a host of other information we would need to know in order to even begin to decide if this was viable on a normal basis.

Quote:
Likewise, when you're improvising and doing it out of desperation with a real warship, you let C-3PO (or a droid less sentimentally valuable to leadership) hit the button. You had given up on the warship's survival anyways, so that shouldn't come into the discussion.


But they didn't do that. They had a vice admiral do that. At that point, a ship designed for hundreds or thousands of crew was being managed by just one person. This is an obvious edge case and that doesn't translate to "obviously should be do-able all the time."

Prior to that, the New Order had the overwhelming advantage. It's entirely possible, even likely that they simply weren't taking precautions as they should have been which normally preclude the use of this tactic. In fact, it was obvious they were surprised by the move, so it's safe to assume it's not normally done and was a desperation gambit. Their commanders certainly don't appear to be lacking in arrogance as a character flaw which might easily lead to laxity when in a position of advantage.

Author:  Wwen [ Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:48 am ]
Post subject: 

That not a bad reason why they maybe can't do that all the time. Though if they could, seems like sacrificing a cruiser to kill that other way bigger ship could be worth it. Though it seems like the Space Nazi have unlimited resources.

Also, the planet destroying thing for TFA had a beam that apparently moves faster than the speed of light to traverse light years between it and it's targets and was also able to be seen FTL by observers.

I just want to ruin everything with SCIENCE!

Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Wwen wrote:
That not a bad reason why they maybe can't do that all the time. Though if they could, seems like sacrificing a cruiser to kill that other way bigger ship could be worth it. Though it seems like the Space Nazi have unlimited resources.


In this case, it seems that it was worth it solely because it provided cover for the shuttles to escape.

Quote:
Also, the planet destroying thing for TFA had a beam that apparently moves faster than the speed of light to traverse light years between it and it's targets and was also able to be seen FTL by observers.


We don't know what the interaction between an effect like the Starkiller in hyperspace and real space actually is, so this isn't quite as unreasonable as it seems.

Quote:
I just want to ruin everything with SCIENCE!


I was tempted to say something like this, but it really wasn't necessary here since Kaffis is really not like that and it would have just started a pointless argument.

However in other times and/or places I've certainly seen that. In movies that include a lot of magic or magic-like science we only know what we see on the screen; we don't get a full understanding of "how it works" that the people that live in that world probably have but don't go into long-winded expositions about. People like to invent plot holes so they can stroke their own ego about how they need to "teach the director about physics" or something. This is a common failing of the sort of person who thinks science is really cool and awesome as long as it involves no actual work on their part. The sort of person who likes banging on about science on the internet but would never be caught dead in an actual program that might qualify them for a job at SpaceX for example.

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Spoiled by the Last Jedi

Seems to me you are all arguing on the wrong side of the equation. With the resources they possess why wasn't the Empire/First Order slapping FTL engines on ships, asteroids, whatever and blasting the Rebellion out of the sky. They were chasing the Rebel convoy for over 18 hours waiting for their deflectors to drop when they could have just started FTL blasting Tie Fighters at them. Deus Ex Machina eh?

Author:  Screeling [ Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

FarSky wrote:
Upon second viewing, I cottoned to the Canto Bight stuff more (and it's much shorter than you may think on initial viewing, despite the really good stuff coming after). It's the key to the whole thing...Rose and Finn failed at their mission. They failed hard, and that's in line with the general theme of disappointment and loss of hope. But ultimately, their failed mission may wind up being the reason the rebels will win the war. Poe was right about these few stragglers being the spark that will light the fire of the rebellion, but it's not in a firefight, holed up in a cave with their backs against the wall. It's the inspiration of their bravery and kindness to the greater universe, or even just a slave stable boy, to show what's worth fighting for.

“That’s how we’re going to win. Not fighting what we hate. Saving what we love.”

This was a major source of my disappointment in the film. This may end up being true, but that mission should have helped shape the plot of this movie in a more meaningful way. Instead, they go on a mission and end up on the star destroyer and accomplish nothing while they're there. The failure isn't even redeemed by linking up with Rey and managing to get her off the ship. Then Finn's suicide run at the battering ram as well accomplished nothing other than giving Rose a pretext to confess feelings she developed for him. This could have been done just as easier with her pushing him out of the way of some falling rocks after the ram punched a hole in the door. Why those two were the ones piloting those things is beyond me. Those two getting back to the base without getting blasted sky-high also seemed too improbable. But this brings me back to the criticism I had of Finn from the first movie: He's there and he's part of the adventure, but his character isn't providing much, other than that he's good at running into important people.

Poe's little mutiny had pretty much no lasting impact either. It didn't really enable the Finn/Rose mission to progress, it didn't change Leia's mind about him, he didn't stumble on information that made him understand the weight of choices a leader makes, and gaining Admiral Dern's approval/respect ultimately amounted to nothing.

I was really let down with the reunion between Luke and Chewie.

Overall, I didn't hate the movie. It just felt like there was too much filler for what little it accomplished. Given the expense of taking the family to the movies these days, I'm really glad I didn't drop cash to see this in theaters.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed May 02, 2018 7:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Screeling wrote:
Poe's little mutiny had pretty much no lasting impact either.


This, for me, was the weakest part of the entire movie. The entire thing could have been avoided by the Vice Admiral just spelling out her plan to her staff.

That's kind of the whole point of having a staff and subordinate leaders like... the X-Wing squadron leader (his errors notwithstanding). Movies like to brush off any explanation by the Commander with "don't kweschun mah orders, dood!" either in order to surprise the audience with the clever plan or simply because they think that's realistic.

In reality it often comes off as stupid because if your subordinates don't know what it is you're trying to accomplish, they can't intelligently support it. It doesn't just pertain to military situations in movies either; one of the dumbest plot devices there is IMO is people leaving out major pieces of information that are critical to getting their point across, or being excessively secretive to spring something on the audience rather than for an actual reason in the context of the plot.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/