Star wars "Fake"

Seen any good movies or TV shows lately? Or anything so bad you just have to vent?
User avatar
clintmemo
Questing for the elusive New Title
Posts: 22731
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:38 am
Location: Louisville KY
Contact:

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby clintmemo » Thu May 09, 2019 12:13 pm

Ikoma wrote: It literally took the force to coax the weapon into swinging properly. Non-jedi would end up hurting themselves. Because without that limitation, why does everyone not carry the cool weapon/tool that can cut through almost anything?


That sounds like what I have always read about guns and longbows. When guns were first invented, they were inaccurate, had a short range, and had a terrible rate of fire in comparison to person trained with a long bow.
Any idiot could be trained to fire a gun with a few hours training, but becoming skilled with a longbow took much, much longer.
And idiots were cheap.
2020 Goal: Develop a side hustle

User avatar
Azhrei Vep
Drinks like a Bear
Posts: 27605
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby Azhrei Vep » Thu May 09, 2019 1:09 pm

clintmemo wrote:
Chad wrote:
Ikoma wrote:Right. In canon sources (or perhaps they are not now canon sources?), it has been said that the light saber is a magnetic field trapping a plasma. That kind of intense magnetic field has impacts on the world around it and is impacted by the world around it. Specifically, they describe it as having a resistance. The field doesn't want to move. The field also doesn't to stop once it is moving. Which would 'feel' a lot like weight. And the non intuitive nature of that resistance is part of what made light sabers the weapon of the jedi and only the jedi. It literally took the force to coax the weapon into swinging properly. Non-jedi would end up hurting themselves. Because without that limitation, why does everyone not carry the cool weapon/tool that can cut through almost anything?



General Grievous used 4 of them at the same time.


General Grievous was a robot where it mattered.

That is to say, everywhere but the guts and (some of) his skull. And hey, if he cut off a limb or thirty in the process of figuring out how to use a lightsaber properly, well ... it's not like they weren't replaceable.

... Man, he was so cool in the Clone Wars miniseries. Shame about the movies.
Julia wrote:You don't understand the amount of dick I get ... in my giant American Hoohah.
PS Fuck you Cafepress

User avatar
Wihzerd
LF's frikin' laser attendant
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:23 am
Location: Lord Foul's Lair

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby Wihzerd » Thu May 09, 2019 6:33 pm

Ikoma wrote:Right. In canon sources (or perhaps they are not now canon sources?)


There are layers to this.

The first distinction is similar to 'Pre or Post Crisis' with DC Comics continuity. There's Canon and Legends.

Canon continuity includes the Original Trilogy, the Prequel Trilogy, the Clone Wars tv series, the post-reboot movies and tv shows, and all post-reboot expanded universe material specifically intended to exist in this continuity.

Legends continuity consists of the all the material BEFORE the Disney reboot, which had a canonicity hierarchy that Wookiepedia still uses today. Contradictions between various sources could in some cases be resolved by one source being more authoritative than another. If an article or Youtube video points out that Boba Fett has been eaten by the Sarlacc Pit three times, they've probably failed to take into account this canonicity hierarchy.

In 2000, Lucas Licensing, through the Holocron continuity database, as overseen by Leland Chee, began categorizing all Expanded Universe content into a tiered hierarchy of canon. This system applied a limited degree of canonicity to Expanded Universe stories, though they remained absolutely subordinate to Lucas's personal canon. Chee created the following classification system, which no longer applies:

G-canon, or George Lucas canon: The six Star Wars films in their most recent incarnations, including unpublished production notes from Lucas or his production department. Elements originating with Lucas in the film novelizations, reference books, and other adaptations. Direct declarations made by Lucas. Deleted scenes from the films that do not conflict with the film itself.
T-canon, or Television canon: The Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series, its feature film, and the Star Wars Rebels animated series.
C-canon, or Continuity canon: The majority of Expanded Universe stories, including novels, comics, video games, and other content originating from other authors. C-canon material could be elevated to G-canon if a subject appeared in a Lucas project.
S-canon, or Secondary canon: Material that could be used or ignored as desired by authors, including older works that predated a concentrated effort to maintain a consistent continuity, such as the Marvel Star Wars comics. Anything that is not completely outrageous or intentionally comic.
N-canon, or Non-canon: "What-if" stories, including those published under the Infinities label. Any content directly and irreconcilably contradicted by higher canon. Cut content and canceled projects. This was the only level that Lucasfilm did not consider to have some degree of canonicity.
D-canon, or Detours canon: The Star Wars Detours animated series, which was not released before the Lucasfilm declaration of April 25, 2014. This canon level was never fully defined as a result.

User avatar
Sith_Mafia
Official FtC Dealer
Posts: 3064
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:13 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby Sith_Mafia » Fri May 10, 2019 7:35 am

this video is great.

i was always bothered with the prequel light saber fights because they didn't talk to each other. i love the back and forth of vader and luke/obi while they duel.
-Casey

User avatar
tombombodil
3 for 3
Posts: 12204
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: Just south of the Barrow Downs
Contact:

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby tombombodil » Fri May 10, 2019 1:37 pm

clintmemo wrote:
Chad wrote:
Ikoma wrote:Right. In canon sources (or perhaps they are not now canon sources?), it has been said that the light saber is a magnetic field trapping a plasma. That kind of intense magnetic field has impacts on the world around it and is impacted by the world around it. Specifically, they describe it as having a resistance. The field doesn't want to move. The field also doesn't to stop once it is moving. Which would 'feel' a lot like weight. And the non intuitive nature of that resistance is part of what made light sabers the weapon of the jedi and only the jedi. It literally took the force to coax the weapon into swinging properly. Non-jedi would end up hurting themselves. Because without that limitation, why does everyone not carry the cool weapon/tool that can cut through almost anything?



General Grievous used 4 of them at the same time.


General Grievous was a robot where it mattered.


Is "where it mattered" his wiener?
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?

User avatar
tombombodil
3 for 3
Posts: 12204
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: Just south of the Barrow Downs
Contact:

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby tombombodil » Fri May 10, 2019 1:38 pm

Sith_Mafia wrote:this video is great.

i was always bothered with the prequel light saber fights because they didn't talk to each other. i love the back and forth of vader and luke/obi while they duel.


And it was like watching fucking looney toons lol. The fights with Yoda make me laugh out loud every time and not in a good way.
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?

User avatar
tombombodil
3 for 3
Posts: 12204
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: Just south of the Barrow Downs
Contact:

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby tombombodil » Fri May 10, 2019 1:39 pm

clintmemo wrote:
Ikoma wrote: It literally took the force to coax the weapon into swinging properly. Non-jedi would end up hurting themselves. Because without that limitation, why does everyone not carry the cool weapon/tool that can cut through almost anything?


That sounds like what I have always read about guns and longbows. When guns were first invented, they were inaccurate, had a short range, and had a terrible rate of fire in comparison to person trained with a long bow.
Any idiot could be trained to fire a gun with a few hours training, but becoming skilled with a longbow took much, much longer.
And idiots were cheap.



I wonder if seasoned long-bow professionals complained about technology taking there jobs :lol:
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?

User avatar
Knaight
Harbinger of the Coz
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby Knaight » Mon May 13, 2019 6:50 am

clintmemo wrote:
Ikoma wrote: It literally took the force to coax the weapon into swinging properly. Non-jedi would end up hurting themselves. Because without that limitation, why does everyone not carry the cool weapon/tool that can cut through almost anything?


That sounds like what I have always read about guns and longbows. When guns were first invented, they were inaccurate, had a short range, and had a terrible rate of fire in comparison to person trained with a long bow.
Any idiot could be trained to fire a gun with a few hours training, but becoming skilled with a longbow took much, much longer.
And idiots were cheap.

The vast majority of this is after the fact mythologizing (often also applied to crossbows). Any idiot was very much not cheap; feeding armies was miserable enough even after advances like canning, let alone centuries prior. Guns and shooting were also not generally done by any idiot; instead there were society wide warlike games including routine shooting festivals which tended to push weapon familiarity to just about everyone, with the areas that produced a lot of gunners usually going particularly heavy on the shooting festivals over other warlike games. These early guns were also pretty finnicky.

About the only accurate point is guns being inaccurate and short range, and by the time you'd be comparing them to long bows that was long since out of date. Also I suppose the trope is at least better applied to guns than crossbows, where hundreds to upwards of a thousand pounds of draw weight tended to lead to needing a lot of specialized handling for the weapon not to maim its wielders, which showed up in crossbowmen being elite troops that were paid well in basically every period pay document we see.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
clintmemo
Questing for the elusive New Title
Posts: 22731
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:38 am
Location: Louisville KY
Contact:

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby clintmemo » Mon May 13, 2019 2:11 pm

Knaight wrote:
clintmemo wrote:
Ikoma wrote: It literally took the force to coax the weapon into swinging properly. Non-jedi would end up hurting themselves. Because without that limitation, why does everyone not carry the cool weapon/tool that can cut through almost anything?


That sounds like what I have always read about guns and longbows. When guns were first invented, they were inaccurate, had a short range, and had a terrible rate of fire in comparison to person trained with a long bow.
Any idiot could be trained to fire a gun with a few hours training, but becoming skilled with a longbow took much, much longer.
And idiots were cheap.

The vast majority of this is after the fact mythologizing (often also applied to crossbows). Any idiot was very much not cheap; feeding armies was miserable enough even after advances like canning, let alone centuries prior. Guns and shooting were also not generally done by any idiot; instead there were society wide warlike games including routine shooting festivals which tended to push weapon familiarity to just about everyone, with the areas that produced a lot of gunners usually going particularly heavy on the shooting festivals over other warlike games. These early guns were also pretty finnicky.

About the only accurate point is guns being inaccurate and short range, and by the time you'd be comparing them to long bows that was long since out of date. Also I suppose the trope is at least better applied to guns than crossbows, where hundreds to upwards of a thousand pounds of draw weight tended to lead to needing a lot of specialized handling for the weapon not to maim its wielders, which showed up in crossbowmen being elite troops that were paid well in basically every period pay document we see.


You forgot rate of fire. I remember seeing a fantastic side by side video of a one guy drawing an arrow from his quiver, pulling it back, aiming and firing, while a guy in the next panel was loading and firing a revolutionary war era ( I think) musket. The archer's rate of fire was about 3 times faster.
My point about idiots being cheap is that what is expensive is training time and experience. Armies/Nations/Economies generally buy what is cheap.
I see the same thing it IT. 30 years ago, people were cheap and hardware was expensive. Now hardware is cheap and people are expensive. It has changed how programming is done. No one cares about efficiency. It's easier and cheaper to throw more memory and CPU at the problem then to write a better routine.
2020 Goal: Develop a side hustle

User avatar
Knaight
Harbinger of the Coz
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: Star wars "Fake"

Postby Knaight » Wed May 15, 2019 7:56 pm

clintmemo wrote:You forgot rate of fire. I remember seeing a fantastic side by side video of a one guy drawing an arrow from his quiver, pulling it back, aiming and firing, while a guy in the next panel was loading and firing a revolutionary war era ( I think) musket. The archer's rate of fire was about 3 times faster.
My point about idiots being cheap is that what is expensive is training time and experience. Armies/Nations/Economies generally buy what is cheap.


There's a few pintle guns and the like that mess up a clean rate of fire analysis - and my point is that the training time and experience differences aren't really there for early firearms or crossbows. Muskets cropping up hundreds of years later, sure, but wide scale battlefield deployment in Europe was common by the 1400's, especially in central and eastern Europe. There were major simplifications before the training time and experience stopped being relevant, along with the impact of significantly cheaper gunpowder once some of the colonial sources of nitrates started showing up in the supply chain.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw


Return to “Moving Pictures”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests