[Storm]

In addition to that, as I keep pointing out, there is nothing in the film to say that Luke has never trained in an X-wing before.

Although I think TPM sucks, I could easily use your same reasoning and say "In addition to that, as I keep pointing out, there is nothing in the film to say that Anakin has never trained in a space ship before."

Even if he hasn't, he may well have flown ships that are very similar. I somehow doubt that real-life pilots are unable to fly anything but the exact model of plane they used for training.

The big difference is that one ship hovers over a desert (The T-16) and one flies in space (X-Wing). That's like saying if I can pilot a submarine, I should also be able to pilot a helicopter.

As for the Falcon scene, it may well be unrealistic, but I've only seen ESB once and I don't remember it well enough to be able to comment. I'd have thought that if lack of realism is your main problem, the 'giant space slug' scene would be the first to come to mind.

Yes, the Space Slug is silly, but ultimately whether or not they landed in it makes no major difference to the overall story. The fact that Han evades the Imperial Fleet with something as 'clever' as "hiding on the back of a ship" (and people say these aren't kid's movies) makes a huge difference in the plot of the movie. It's such a lame cop out way of escaping from the Avenger. On the other hand, going into the asteroid field is a decent way of escaping the initial Star Destroyers because we can clearly understand a ship that big cannot enter an asteroid field without getting pummeled.

This post has been edited by Storm: 01 August 2006 - 04:24 PM

[Helena]

Although I think TPM sucks, I could easily use your same reasoning and say "In addition to that, as I keep pointing out, there is nothing in the film to say that Anakin has never trained in a space ship before."

Of course there is. For one thing, no one in their right mind would allow a nine-year-old - however bright - to pilot a spaceship, whereas a teenager is an entirely different matter. For another, Anakin's own lines ("Oops, what does this do?") show quite clearly that he's never been in a ship before.

The big difference is that one ship hovers over a desert (The T-16) and one flies in space (X-Wing). That's like saying if I can pilot a submarine, I should also be able to pilot a helicopter.

How many times do I have to say this: whether or not the T-16 can actually fly in space, that tells us nothing at all about whether Luke has flown in other spaceships before that point. If the T-16 is capable of space flight, fine: there's no problem. If it isn't capable of spaceflight, Luke could still have experience of other ships which can fly in space. The mention of the T-16 and womp rats is purely to indicate to us that Luke is capable of hitting small targets.

Yes, the Space Slug is silly, but ultimately whether or not they landed in it makes no major difference to the overall story. The fact that Han evades the Imperial Fleet with something as 'clever' as "hiding on the back of a ship" (and people say these aren't kid's movies) makes a huge difference in the plot of the movie. It's such a lame cop out way of escaping from the Avenger. On the other hand, going into the asteroid field is a decent way of escaping the initial Star Destroyers because we can clearly understand a ship that big cannot enter an asteroid field without getting pummeled.

Like I said, I can't remember the scene well enough to comment on it. Take it up with the others if you want to argue about this one.

[StarWarsIsUs]

Yes, the Space Slug is silly, but ultimately whether or not they landed in it makes no major difference to the overall story. The fact that Han evades the Imperial Fleet with something as 'clever' as "hiding on the back of a ship" (and people say these aren't kid's movies) makes a huge difference in the plot of the movie. It's such a lame cop out way of escaping from the Avenger. On the other hand, going into the asteroid field is a decent way of escaping the initial Star Destroyers because we can clearly understand a ship that big cannot enter an asteroid field without getting pummeled.

What is wrong with Han and gang hiding in his smuggling compartments? Isn't that the point of the compartments, so that they are hard to find? Some things smuggled across the galaxy would get you arrested in a heart-beat if they were found. That is why those things were put there as a perfect hiding place. They blend right into the floor. That isn't unrealistic at all in my opinion.

[Despondent]

Good thing General Grevious wasn't around to scan the new hope MF ship with his x-ray vision.

Which brings to mind the idea that if only the cloners had cloned someone with x-ray vision, then every trooper would have that ability, right? So why not clone a force sensithive being?

Or freaking clone the midichlorians

[StarWarsIsUs]

I am not altogether sure if the storm troopers were all clones leftover from the Clone Wars. I think that they might have been mostly just humanoids that had been hired by the Empire. As you know, clones have rapid aging. And there is a 18-and-a-half year span between ROTS and ANH.

[barend]

you know what fuck the force!

those bastards have AI, and R2 units...

X-Wings would pretty much fly themselves!

[civilian_number_two]

The fact that Han evades the Imperial Fleet with something as 'clever' as "hiding on the back of a ship" (and people say these aren't kid's movies) makes a huge difference in the plot of the movie.

HOW SO?

Han evades the Star Destroyers, and is thereby caught anyway when Boba Fett proves to be just as clever as he is. The plot, which required that the heroes be caught at that point, would have been equally served had they been caught in space as when they are caught on Bespin. The plot is unchanged. The only purpose that evasion served was to show us more of the Boba Fett character's abilities. That is how that scene served the story. STORY and PLOT are two different things, and if you're unclear as to the distinctions, then you should read some literary theory or stop using the terms. That scene changed the STORY, but the PLOT was not changed at all, because the heroes were still captured despite the evasive actions. I think you're missing your own point if you make a bigf deal about the realism of a scene that doesn't change the plot at all, but you don't mind the space slug scene, another unrealistic scene that doesn't change the plot at all.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 02 August 2006 - 03:33 AM

[CowboyCurtis]

The big difference is that one ship hovers over a desert (The T-16) and one flies in space (X-Wing). That's like saying if I can pilot a submarine, I should also be able to pilot a helicopter.

What's funny, this is exactly what the gushers say about Annie and the pod racer..."Gee, if he can pilot that pod racer---he can pilot a starship!"

No wonder you're a PT fan, your analogies are so hyperbolic.

And ditto what Helena said, too.

[barend]

yeah, this has gotten boring... PT fans've got nothing!

repetition. and ignorance...

i'm going to try and convert them, they don't want to learn.

so leave intellectualizing films to the grown ups.

[Storm]

HOW SO?

Han evades the Star Destroyers, and is thereby caught anyway when Boba Fett proves to be just as clever as he is. The plot, which required that the heroes be caught at that point, would have been equally served had they been caught in space as when they are caught on Bespin. The plot is unchanged. The only purpose that evasion served was to show us more of the Boba Fett character's abilities. That is how that scene served the story. STORY and PLOT are two different things, and if you're unclear as to the distinctions, then you should read some literary theory or stop using the terms. That scene changed the STORY, but the PLOT was not changed at all, because the heroes were still captured despite the evasive actions. I think you're missing your own point if you make a bigf deal about the realism of a scene that doesn't change the plot at all, but you don't mind the space slug scene, another unrealistic scene that doesn't change the plot at all.

There's a huge difference if Leia, Han, and Chewie are captured in space. First off, we don't get Lando. Secondly, because there is no Lando, there is no possibility for Leia and Chewie to escape. Third, Han wouldn't be frozen in carbon. Fourth, assuming Luke is still stupid enough to confront Vader, he wouldn't have Lando, Leia, and Chewie to bail him out after he loses.

What's funny, this is exactly what the gushers say about Annie and the pod racer..."Gee, if he can pilot that pod racer---he can pilot a starship!"

No wonder you're a PT fan, your analogies are so hyperbolic.

Why is it that since I point out flaws in the OT, I am instantly assumed to be PT lover? As I have stated here several times, TPM is one of the most boring movies of all time, AOTC is one of the worst movies of all time, and although I do enjoy ROTS I do acknowledge it is laced with flaws and corny scenes.

And again, you resort to the PT to defend your point. Is it possible for you to defend any moment in the OT without refering to the futility of the PT. If the PT didn't exist, I would STILL be pointing out flaws in the OT.

repetition. and ignorance...

i'm going to try and convert them, they don't want to learn.

so leave intellectualizing films to the grown ups.

Repetition and ignorance. Let's see....

Storm: [Points out legitimate flaw in OT movie]
Basher: [Defends the OT the only way they know how to, by pointing out a worse flaw in the PT]
Storm: [Explains that "defending a flaw by explaining how it's not as bad as something else that occured in the PT" is not a legitimate defense]
Basher: You're just a stupid PT lover, therefore you cannot think!

And the cycle repeats again, and again, and again.....

It's sickening how much some people are here in denial about the quality of the OT. I acknowledge that they were spectacular to watch as a kid, but that feeling of nostalgia is dying away as I just sit back, watch, and realize how totally unrealistic and stupid all 6 movies are.

Barend, I think what you meant to say is "leave the OT (and PT) movies to the man children of the world". There's a reason so many people dislike Star Wars in general.

[civilian_number_two]

Storm I just don't get how the Falcon's maneuver is such a legitimate flaw. I think the biggest weakness of EMPIRE was the big where Luke was standing on one hand and making rocks move with his mind. We all know that this is impossible. As for what souped up Corellian freighters are capable of, I could show you some stats that would blow your mind. Even the 180 series, a decade older than Han's, was making the Kessel run in under 15 parsecs.

[StarWarsIsUs]

Storm, why don't you just make a big list of 'reasons to completely hate Star Wars'?

We would read it and laugh. I gaurantee you.

[CowboyCurtis]

Why is it that since I point out flaws in the OT, I am instantly assumed to be PT lover? As I have stated here several times, TPM is one of the most boring movies of all time, AOTC is one of the worst movies of all time, and although I do enjoy ROTS I do acknowledge it is laced with flaws and corny scenes.

I neither assumed or inferred that, what I'm saying is that in all of the "flaws" of Star Wars, you would pick the "worst" as being ones from the OT?

And again, you resort to the PT to defend your point. Is it possible for you to defend any moment in the OT without refering to the futility of the PT. If the PT didn't exist, I would STILL be pointing out flaws in the OT.

Okay, fine, but we've given you more than enough points to show you that Luke's flying ability is NOT a flaw. Why don't you criticize something that deserves it and has no points....like Annie's lack of skill to fly a starship.

[barend]

Repetition and ignorance. Let's see....

Storm: [Points out legitimate flaw in OT movie]
Basher: [Defends the OT the only way they know how to, by pointing out a worse flaw in the PT]
Storm: [Explains that "defending a flaw by explaining how it's not as bad as something else that occured in the PT" is not a legitimate defense]
Basher: You're just a stupid PT lover, therefore you cannot think!

And the cycle repeats again, and again, and again.....

No offence, but that's the lamest bullshit I’ve ever seen put down.
did you type that shit with a straight face?

The only reason you ever "point out" a "flaw" in the OT is IN defence of the PT to draw attention from your lame devotion to it.

"oh noes, they can surf lava because Luke can pilot an X-wing" and so on... what are you, 4?

but let's take this point by point;

Storm: [Points out legitimate flaw in OT movie]

The word legitimate does not apply there. What legitimate flaws have you uncovered? They’re just films FFS. you can take some things for granted, but they don't turkey slap you and say this is impossible. There are admittedly moments of improbability that do little to offend or extend the wiling suspension of disbelief, but not insultingly impossible within the confines of the futuristic world they inhabit.

Basher: [Defends the OT the only way they know how to, by pointing out a worse flaw in the PT]

first of all, it's not the only way, that's the most insulting thing anyone has ever typed on here.
1. Pointing out comparatively and insurmountably worse flaws in the PT is merely the easiest and most obvious choice as it truly is what drives the biggest wedge between the two sets.
2. Actually, i have attacked the PT flaws with much study and sited both scientific studies, sci-fi /fantasy commonology, and SW precedent introduced by the OT. (which, as i hope you understand is responsible for all prerequisites and standards, and therefore unavoidably essential as they are the ONLY referential material available.) but you continue to not only refuse to acknowledge those damning points, but now accuse me of never having made them at all...

i must say your argument is quite feeble by this point.

Storm: [Explains that "defending a flaw by explaining how it's not as bad as something else that occurred in the PT" is not a legitimate defense]

nor is excusing a flaw in the PT by fabricating one in the OT.

Basher: You're just a stupid PT lover, therefore you cannot think!

actually this is quite an inaccurate interpretation of my view point.

i actually believe it to be vice versa; that one's inadequacy in the cerebral department qualifies them for enjoyment of the PT.

It's sickening how much some people are here in denial about the quality of the OT. I acknowledge that they were spectacular to watch as a kid, but that feeling of nostalgia is dying away as I just sit back, watch, and realize how totally unrealistic and stupid all 6 movies are.

Again nostalgia is not the ticket here. if it were I would equally love watching thundercats, but that shit is just stupid now that I’m an adult, whereas star wars has a timless quality to it despite the dated haircuts, technological advancements, and further education and scientific awarness. By it's merits for the time it came out it's fine. Comparison to the PT is not only inevitable, IT'S THE WHOLE DAMN POINT!!!

the PT is meant to fit in with the OT and it doesn't!!! that completely necessitates constant comparisons and warrants die-templative fucking stress checks!!!

THE only reason the OT comes up in arguments against the PT is because the PT is meant to match!!! if it did in just the tinest way, we wouldn't be having this argument. so you may be sick of it, but that's what you get for saying that the PT is in the same ballpark.

it's like saying 'life is peachy' by Korn is as classic a metal album as 'master of puppets' by mettallica. i don't refute that because of my 80s nostalgia, but because MOP is a fast paced, intense piece of work drawing influences from diverse sources including Black Sabbath, Killing Joke, and even David Bowie. Whereas Korn are a bunch of homie ass wankers who detune their guitars because they can't write a heavy riff. and were they to use normal instruments, they'd just be another boy-band.

Barend, I think what you meant to say is "leave the OT (and PT) movies to the man children of the world". There's a reason so many people dislike Star Wars in general.

no i meant exactly what i said; "so leave intellectualizing films to the grown ups."

because your attempts to match those of who know what we're talking about is undermined by you questionable taste in films. So don't try to enfeeble me with your words whilst mine are quite adequate.

This post has been edited by barend: 03 August 2006 - 09:30 PM

[Storm]

No offence, but that's the lamest bullshit I’ve ever seen put down.
did you type that shit with a straight face?

The only reason you ever "point out" a "flaw" in the OT is IN defence of the PT to draw attention from your lame devotion to it.

Are you seriously this ignorant?

Let me quote myself....

Why is it that since I point out flaws in the OT, I am instantly assumed to be PT lover? As I have stated here several times, TPM is one of the most boring movies of all time, AOTC is one of the worst movies of all time, and although I do enjoy ROTS I do acknowledge it is laced with flaws and corny scenes.

Explain to me how I have a lame devotion to the PT. Why can't you just accept that I enjoy pointing out flaws in all the movies?

Just another thought, although Lucas did an extremely poor job with the PT, I sincerely question "Could any of us have done it any better?". The only reason I ask this is because recently I was reading somebody's PT rewrite, and the way Anakin experiences his deformations is from being kicked out of a space ship and having his skin burnt as a result of flying through the atmosphere. Somehow he survives the decent from space to land....