Languish.org

It's the diagrams that make it cool. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/battle-of-hoth/)

Quote
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fhoth-atat.jpg&hash=1d560a23582ae29bbfe92da94224187563682588)

By Spencer Ackerman
Inside the Battle of Hoth

How did the Galactic Empire ever cement its hold on the Star Wars Universe? The war machine built by Emperor Palpatine and run by Darth Vader is a spectacularly bad fighting force, as evidenced by all of the pieces of Death Star littering space. But of all the Empire's failures, none is a more spectacular military fiasco than the Battle of Hoth at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back.

From a military perspective, Hoth should have been a total debacle for the Rebel Alliance. Overconfident that they can evade Imperial surveillance, they hole up on unforgiving frigid terrain at the far end of the cosmos. Huddled into the lone Echo Base are all their major players: politically crucial Princess Leia; ace pilot Han Solo; and their game-changer, Luke Skywalker, who isn't even a Jedi yet.

The defenses the Alliance constructed on Hoth could not be more favorable to Vader if the villain constructed them himself. The single Rebel base (!) is defended by a few artillery pieces on its north slope, protecting its main power generator. An ion cannon is its main anti-aircraft/spacecraft defense. Its outermost perimeter defense is an energy shield that can deflect Imperial laser bombardment. But the shield has two huge flaws: It can't stop an Imperial landing force from entering the atmosphere, and it can only open in a discrete place for a limited time so the Rebels' Ion Cannon can protect an evacuation. In essence, the Rebels built a shield that can't keep an invader out and complicates their own escape.

When Vader enters the Hoth System with the Imperial Fleet, he's holding a winning hand. What follows next is a reminder of two military truths that apply in our own time and in our own galaxy: Don't place unaccountable religious fanatics in wartime command, and never underestimate a hegemonic power's ability to miscalculate against an insurgency.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fprobe-arrives.png&hash=648083b8ab2a683fb7dbf0cbd6c3513b041d1467)


Vader's Incoherent Strategy in Outer Space

Vader realizes the opportunity at hand for an end to the Rebellion. Yet his bumbling fleet admiral leaves hyperspace too close to Hoth, losing the element of surprise and allowing the Rebels to activate the shield. Vader rolls with it (after killing Admiral Ozzel): He orders a ground assault on the Rebel base with the sound objective of destroying the generator that powers the shield. Once the shield is down, the Star Destroyers that make up the majority of the Imperial Fleet can launch the bombardment the shields prevent. Vader further orders that no Rebel ship be allowed to leave Hoth alive.

Sounds simple, right? Alas, Vader's plans are at odds with each other. Vader jumps into the Hoth system with a handful of Star Destroyers; only six are shown on screen. That's got to enforce a blockade of an entire planet. His major ally is the Rebel energy shield itself, which bottles up a Rebel escape to the Ion Cannon's line of sight. But Vader doesn't seem to realize the shield's ironic value. Once Vader orders the shields destroyed, he lacks the force to prevent a pell-mell Rebel retreat.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fempire-arrives.png&hash=ec7c9a1975e6d2fe036688960e5b0d49b5606253)

A smarter plan would have been to launch TIE fighters against Echo Base — since aircraft and spacecraft can get past that Rebel enemy shield — to lure the Rebels into an evacuation from Hoth through their shield's chokepoint. Concentrating the Imperial Star Destroyers there would lead the Rebellion into a massacre. At the very least, Vader has to sacrifice the ground-assault team entrusted with bringing down the generator powering the Rebel shield for a laser bombardment from the Star Destroyers.

Vader does none of this.


The Ground Assault

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fempire-lands.png&hash=022fd520ca1fe119138ef381a7097c4d59ef40ea)

The first phase of the battle is a ground assault launched against the generator. Vader devotes five (or maybe four, since Irvin Kershner's directing isn't consistent) Imperial AT-AT Walkers to the task. Vader sees no need to give them air cover, even though he's tasted the quality of Rebel piloting during the destruction of the Death Star. Two of the Walkers are destroyed, one by Luke Skywalker's Snowspeeder squadron, and another by Luke himself.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Frebel-counterattack.png&hash=1132e5cb53644cfdeae4cdb4424a65da5939a0cc)

Yet the ground assault is pretty successful — by accident. The weaponry on the AT-AT Walkers doesn't overwhelm or destroy the few laser-artillery pieces the Rebels have to protect the generator. Only when Rebel General Rieekan orders the full evacuation of Hoth do the Walkers destroy the generator. (That's an unforced error: The Rebels need to protect that generator at the cost of their lives, lest their evacuation be totally exposed.)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Frebel-evacuate.png&hash=86b92ce6dc44a02e7a6d43319790fa29f84a9446)

Still, a win is a win. Vader is now clear to destroy the Rebel base, and the escaping Rebel ships, with a punishing Star Destroyer bombardment. Presumably, if the Rebels are abandoning their generator, they're also abandoning the Ion Cannon that protects the evacuation.


(In)Vader

Only Vader can't bombard the base: He's in it. For reasons that never get explained — and can't be justified militarily — Vader joins the Stormtrooper assault on the base. So much for his major weapon against the Rebels, and the primary reason for ordering the Walkers to invade and destroy the generator. Once Vader opts to bring down the shield and lead the invasion, he's lost the battle.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fechobase-1.png&hash=a9c6918360861d3c12da248b156d6349e894cfd5)

Worse, Vader is late to the fight. If he wanted to kill some Rebel scum himself, the only ones remaining at the base when Vader arrives are Han, Leia, Chewbacca and C-3PO, who run to the wheezing Millennium Falcon for their own escape. "This bucket of bolts is never gonna get us past that blockade," Leia frets.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fechobase-2.png&hash=6331b42f9cdef1255d192e77e5581af2de11b089)


What Blockade?

She shouldn't have worried. Not only is there no laser bombardment from space once the shield is down, there's no Imperial blockade worth speaking of. By sheer bad luck, Han flies into three of the Star Destroyers, which threaten to overwhelm the Falcon. But he's just too good of a pilot, evading their pincer movement by taking advantage of the Falcon's superior maneuverability. He flies into an asteroid belt — which somehow the Imperial Fleet had failed to account for when planning its hasty "blockade" — and the Falcon has defied the odds.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fhan-escapes1.png&hash=c817705387786b18b9c413f95603be6cc3cbe406)

Nor does that "blockade" trap Luke, who flies to Dagobah without a single Imperial ship harassing him. That's the worst possible news for the Empire: Luke is about to rekindle the Jedi order that poses the biggest danger to the preservation of everything Vader and Emperor Palpatine have built. While I'm not comparing the Rebel Alliance to al-Qaida or the Galactic Empire to the United States, in strategic terms, this is like Osama bin Laden's escape from the December 2001 battle at Tora Bora, Afghanistan — a disaster masquerading as a tactical success. Indeed, once Vader returns to his Star Destroyer, he gets a message from Palpatine explicitly instructing him to prevent Luke from training as a Jedi. Oops.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fluke-escapes.png&hash=03ca547b3231d8a8a546dd4e846238628333d027)


So Much for Striking Back

What did the Empire gain at Hoth? It had the opportunity to deal the Rebel Alliance a defeat from which the Rebels might not have recovered: the loss of its secret base; the loss of its politically potent symbol in Leia; and most of all the loss of its promising proto-Jedi in Luke. Instead, Luke escapes to join Yoda; Leia escapes with Han to Cloud City (where Vader has to resort to Plan B); and the Rebel Alliance's transport ships largely escape to join up at a pre-established rendezvous point, as we see at the end of the film.

At the very most, the Empire's assault on Hoth killed a couple of low-ranking Rebels and destroyed a few transit ships — which we don't even see on screen. Instead of crushing the Rebels, it scattered them, leaving them to survive for the additional successes they'll achieve in Return of the Jedi. It's a classic fiasco of overconfidence and theology masquerading as military judgment — and the exact opposite of the Empire striking back.

 :nerd:

Great big followup. Hoth Symposium. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/hoth-symposium/)

Edit:

Quote

Defense Nerds Strike Back: A Symposium on the Battle of Hoth

    By Spencer Ackerman

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Flandovader.jpg&hash=c1fd6b72064b5b591296e394a34028d388d4879d)

So. You guys have really, really strong opinions about the Battle of Hoth.

Many took issue with my argument that Hoth represented a military debacle for the Galactic Empire. Some questioned the (meta)factual premises of my case (are TIE Fighters even capable of in-atmospheric flight?). Others argued that Vader was deliberately trying to lose, rendering my essay myopic. Still others desired to travel back in time and physically accost my childhood self, so as to spare me the error of even thinking about Hoth. Anger, fear, aggression: the dark side are they.

My responses are less interesting than those that others can provide. So we at Danger Room widened the aperture and brought in six military nerds — soldiers, academics, bloggers — with a similarly abiding love for Star Wars. Some agree with me, most disagree with me, and all add keen insights, except for when they disagree with me. In any event, check out their thoughts on Hoth, for the Force is strong with them.

Vader Lost Bigger at Bespin

If Hoth was a defeat for Darth Vader, as Spencer Ackerman contends, it was a short-lived one at best. Thanks to well-conceived contingency plans, and a judicious use of nefarious private military contractors, Darth Vader was still well along the path to achieving his ultimate strategic objective: turning Luke Skywalker to the Dark Side of the Force, and finally overthrowing the Emperor. Of course, Vader's agenda only tangentially marries up with that of the Imperial Forces at large, and is cross-purposes with that of the Emperor. Thus, Vader's true objective in the attack on Hoth is not the destruction of the Rebel Alliance, but rather, capturing Luke. In many ways, Darth Vader is a one-man shadow government, who seeks to find and shelter the religious extremist responsible for the greatest terrorist act ever perpetrated against the Empire — all to further his own personal political agenda.

Luke Skywalker may have escaped to Dagobah, sure, but Yoda saves Vader the expense and hassle of having to train young Luke. In fact, Luke's escape actually gives Vader plausible deniability when Emperor Palpatine confronts Vader via hologram on Luke's paternity.

Vader's true strategic failure comes not at Hoth, but at Bespin, when he fails to turn Luke to the Dark Side. By the next film, Vader's been removed from field command, relegated to overseeing defense contractors working on yet another flawed and bloated acquisitions program. And of course, in Return of the Jedi, it's Emperor Palpatine's turn to take the offensive, using Luke to dispatch his weakened apprentice, and carry on the Sith legacy. In Star Wars, intergalactic civil war is little more than a vehicle to advance the grand plan of the Sith.

Major Crispin J. Burke is a U.S. Army Aviator who blogs at Wings Over Iraq. Follow him on Twitter at @CrispinBurke.


Losing the Death Star Was Worse

If you ask Old Moff Tarkin, at the heart of the Imperial failure at Hoth are the failures of his subordinates during the Battle of Yavin 4. Had the Imperial Navy been able to protect a 3-meter vulnerability with all of the resources and TIE Fighters it had available, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The Death Star would have ended the Rebel Alliance then and there, and a galaxy cowed by fear would be kept in check by the Tarkin Doctrine.

This is not what happened. With the failure at Yavin 4 the Empire lost two of its greatest assets: a planet-killing doom gun and the strategist who understood it best. Grand Moff Tarkin's fondness for enhanced interrogation techniques offends our modern sensibilities, especially when one of those interrogation tools is to blow up Princess Leia's homeworld and everyone on it. But one doesn't end up in command of the Empire's deadliest weapon without a willingness to use it and the ruthlessness to use it for minor objectives. By threatening to destroy Alderaan, Tarkin forced Leia to reveal Dantooine as a rebel base. By destroying it anyway, he eliminated a world sympathetic to rebels, whose very princess had joined the rebellion, and denied a potential safe haven.

Had Vader not botched the defense of the Death Star, the Battle of Hoth would have been precluded and Grand Moff Tarkin would be rightly recognized as the greatest strategist the galaxy has ever seen. Or, if the rebellion somehow survived the destruction of Yavin to evacuate to Hoth, there is nothing in the Rebel defenses that could have prevented the planet from being destroyed. As others here discuss, this was not just incompetence on behalf of Vader, it was ulterior motives and willful failure. Betrayed by his ally, let down by his subordinates, and undermined by weak InfoSec against Bothans, the defeat at Yavin meant Hoth was lost before it had even begun.

Kelsey Atherton is Popular Science's online Defense Tech writer, and the founder of Grand Blog Tarkin.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fvaderchamber.jpg&hash=5f320a9c6b88598029c06e3f22f5d3995597a1fd)

Feel the Power of the Dark Side

Ackerman's account of imperial tactics at the Battle of Hoth relies far too much on hearsay and questionable inferences. The Empire Strikes Back provides no evidence that Lord Vader intended to obliterate the rebel base from space. His orders to Admiral Piett are not to destroy every rebel ship, but to "deploy the fleet so that nothing gets off that system." But such errors pale in significance to Ackerman's disturbing lack of faith. He dismisses Vader's approach as a "classic fiasco" of "theology masquerading as military judgment." Ackerman clearly underestimates the power of the Force — and thus the strategic context of the Hoth engagement. The rebellion was a relatively "insignificant" component of the true battlespace of Star Wars: the Force itself and the Jedi-Sith struggle over its proper balance.

Star Wars chronicles a pivotal period in this conflict: the near-total victory of the Sith. Palpatine (Darth Sidius) rose to the position of Chancellor in the Old Republic by engineering a civil war between the Republic and the secessionist Confederacy of Independent Systems. As we all know, Palpatine used this conflict to lay the political and ideological groundwork for the creation of the Galactic Empire. But few historians appreciate the extent to which all of this amounted to a means to a different end: the revenge of the Sith in the form of the permanent eradication of the Jedi Order. The perpetuation of the Clone Wars distracted and corrupted the Order. The eventual Jedi attempt at a coup d'état against Palpatine — at a time of his own engineering — provided the pretext for shifting the entire security apparatus of the Republic-turned-Empire to the task of their destruction. By the time of the Battle of Hoth, this task was all but complete: Luke Skywalker was the only (known) threat to the ultimate victory of the Sith.


As other critics document here, a major feature of the Jedi-Sith conflict of this era involved the Sith Master-Apprentice dialectic. Attention to this dialectic reveals the tactical wisdom behind Vader's choices at Hoth — choices driven by the overriding imperative of capturing Luke Skywalker — including his decision to lead the ground assault on Echo Base. Yes, Vader's approach was undermined by the mistakes of his subordinates. Yes, Skywalker escaped. But capturing an extremely powerful Force-sensitive, even one inadequately trained, presents enormous difficulties even under the best of circumstances. Yes, the rebellion managed to survive their defeat at Hoth. But a broader appreciation of the rebellion puts it in its proper place: little more than a sideshow in the Jedi-Sith Long War. The outcome of that conflict depended entirely on the Palpatine-Vader-Skywalker struggle. Palpatine and Vader understood this reality, even if it eludes certain armchair Grand Moffs.

Daniel Nexon is an Associate Professor in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He blogs at The Duck of Minerva.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2FHothsnowATAT.jpg&hash=2ea3978e0d9e27fd7df34ea6dcef5263512b2f22)



Hoth Showed Imperial Overstretch

The Battle of Hoth is difficult to understand without considering Imperial political order. Professor Daniel Nexon argues that empires maintain control through indirect rule and contractual relationships. The Empire is no exception, as coercion alone would be prohibitively expensive in a galactic polity. We don't know how much wealth the Empire could draw on from its subordinate polities, but even an optimistic estimate still doesn't change the fact that military operations in space require expensive capital-intensive military platforms, logistics, and expert technical personnel.

The Empire had no local partners on Hoth, and Vader commanded a large personal armada that was nonetheless barely adequate for the daunting task of completely blocking off both Hoth's surface and orbital expanse. A much larger ground force with air superiority met with similarly subpar results during the Clone War's Battle of Geonosis. In contrast, all the Rebel Alliance needed to do was evacuate its elites and reconstitute its forces elsewhere. As Graham Jenkins points out in this roundtable, the Rebels deserve credit for their tenacious — and effective — delaying battle.

Why didn't the Empire devote more resources to Hoth? It's hard to tell from the Canon alone. Maybe other political machinations necessitated competing Imperial deployments. Palpatine, intending to replace Vader with Luke Skywalker, may also have been wary about giving his heavy-breathing subordinate a larger force than the substantial units Vader already commanded. Finally, supporting large expeditionary forces and building the second Death Star likely strained Imperial finances. Despite Vader's operational errors and structural disadvantages, the outcome was still dangerously close for the Rebel Alliance. Imperial command decisions were not the dominant factor in Imperial strategic failure.

Adam Elkus is a Ph.D. student in International Relations at American University.


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fvaderluke-660x415.jpg&hash=81fe21241afec22a5508ab3adcb994c325da8aa1)

What Matters for Vader Is Luke, Not Hoth

There's one key element of the Empire's failure at Hoth that Ackerman never fully explores when he warns not to "place unaccountable religious fanatics in wartime command": To Vader, the Imperial force at Hoth — and the battle against the rebels — was a pretext for his real goal, finding Luke. He wouldn't have minded wiping out the rest of the rebels, and he was happy enough to use the Imperial fleet to try to stop rebel ships (Luke's ship) from leaving the system, but that's not why he was there. Vader didn't care at all whether or not they defeated the rebels that day. Understanding why that is requires understanding Vader's personality.

Vader wasn't a strategist, he was a tragic hero. He was Anakin Skywalker, supremely talented, painfully sensitive, devilishly impatient, stubbornly sure of his own rightness, and most of all ruled by instinct and emotion. Anakin Skywalker never listened much to what other people wanted him to do, no matter their nominal authority over him. He ignored his mother and Qui-Gon, resisted Obi-Wan on matters large and small, and defied the Jedi Council. He was passionate and impulsive, prone to leaping before he looked and taking off on unapproved missions if he felt they were right. He hared off to Tatooine after his mother against Obi-Wan's orders. He married Padme in violation of the Jedi Code.

As unsuccessful as George Lucas might have been in depicting this, Anakin loved Padme so passionately and so beyond reason that he was willing to burn down the whole galaxy for just a chance to save her. Luke was his son, and more importantly, Luke was Padme's son. As soon as Vader knew he was out there, Palpatine's wishes no longer mattered, and Vader was once more in service only to his own motivations. He continued to follow the Emperor's orders where it was convenient for him, but on Hoth and everywhere else for the rest of the series, he was doing what he wanted, to the inevitable detriment of the Empire's military effectiveness.

Caitlin Fitz Gerald is the Boston-based writer and artist behind the Children's Illustrated Clausewitz.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2013%2F02%2Fattack-of-the-clones-2.jpg&hash=35e2ab654194f1070785605e2725c48965ea8b16)

Vader Forgot the Clone Wars

Ackerman's discussion of the fiasco at the Battle of Hoth is fine as far as it goes, but makes no effort to understand the sources of Imperial failure. We shall concentrate on the ground assault, which was emblematic of the state of the late Imperial armed forces. The main Imperial ground force carried out a poorly organized frontal assault, over unbroken ground, against prepared defenses, with minimal provision for either air defense or air superiority, without integrated tactical airlift, without serious attempt to flank the rebel position, and without sufficient artillery. Although the Rebel base was reduced, Imperial forces took unacceptable casualties, and allowed a high proportion (over 50 percent) of fielded Rebel forces to escape destruction. Given the rarity of such an opportunity during the Galactic Civil War, this failure represented nothing if not a strategic catastrophe.

We do not speak of the sources of failure, but they should be well known. The first was the commitment of extensive resources to the construction of strategic weapons which could, by their very nature, make no tactical contribution. The second was the decision to abandon the tactics and procedures which had won the Clone Wars; well equipped clone armies honed to razor sharp conventional military effectiveness. We have little space here to revisit the destructive "Clones can't do Counterinsurgency" debates that helped lead to a shift in personnel policies, but it is clear that these misguided efforts to defuse the rebellion by co-opting individual insurgents inevitably produced a force unready to fight high intensity, conventional battles against dedicated, well-equipped, and well-trained foes.

Instead, Imperial commanders marched blithely forward, relying on the strength of their armor in lieu of tactics, training, and professional excellence. To be sure, these failures were not limited to Imperial ground forces, as the Imperial Navy's disgraceful performance at the Battle of Endor should make clear. The strategists of the Empire put technology and politics ahead of tactics, and individual proficiency became a joke; we saw the consequences not just at Hoth, but also at Yavin, Endor, and a dozen other battles.

Robert Farley is assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky.

Even assuming the shield was constructed so that there was only one aperture, how could the Empire have known this fact?  Or knowing this fact, how could they have known its location?

This entire study would be so much more interesting if Lucas didn't shit out those goddamned prequels.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
This entire study would be so much more interesting if Lucas didn't shit out those goddamned prequels.

I cringed at "Commander Cody".

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
This entire study would be so much more interesting if Lucas didn't shit out those goddamned prequels.

True, although the "Luke matters" chick made me really sad about how shitty the prequels were, given that they had the material for something grand.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2013, 08:41:16 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
This entire study would be so much more interesting if Lucas didn't shit out those goddamned prequels.

I cringed at "Commander Cody".

Uh, yeah.  Could we make the inside jokes a slight bit more subtle, FFS?

I mean I love "Hot Rod Lincoln" and all but that one was just too obvious.

All this did was remind me that I hate Lucas Art for never making a SW Battlefront 2 for the PS3.  :mad:

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2013, 08:41:16 PM
I cringed at "Commander Cody".

Lucas grew up in the 50s.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_M7reXFXt12Q%2FTGKzndawj8I%2FAAAAAAAAAFQ%2F0YB-ztqI8JM%2Fs320%2FSeason1-Commando2.jpg&hash=cd99c189661fe30e186bfe12223b67d0f044591d)

*This* was the story which was on the front page of Slate that I was sure Tim would post here.

Documentary on how AT-AT patrols are deployed and operate in snow environment:

http://impstherelentless.com/tek9.asp?pg=chapter2

Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 08:53:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
This entire study would be so much more interesting if Lucas didn't shit out those goddamned prequels.

True, although the "Luke matters" chick made me really sad about how shitty the prequels were, given that they had the material for something grand.

And I disagree with the premise that the assault on Hoth was necessarily a failure of tactics, planning or outcome.  The assault worked with acceptable losses against a force with a negligible set-piece value.  Echo Base was eliminated as tangible semi-permanent headquarters, forcing the Rebellion to form a fleet that spent the next two movies on the run until Endor.  General Veers pulled a Grant on the Rebellion's Lee, easily and willingly matching his attrition with his opponent's, and forcing him to redeploy elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the Hero Factor was at work on Hoth with Skywalker's and the Falcon's escapes.  However, that did not take away the degradation of the Rebellion's land-based conventional forces.

The Fleet itself failed the Empire in the subsequent engagement at Endor.  Admiral Piett did, in fact, fail Vader again.

Quote from: Syt on February 13, 2013, 11:58:00 PM
Documentary on how AT-AT patrols are deployed and operate in snow environment:

http://impstherelentless.com/tek9.asp?pg=chapter2

I can't believe how much time and money some people spendon such things.

I must admit - that was very well done.  :blush:

It's the 1st comment on the 1st article the one that takes the prize.  :lol:

QuoteHave you even served with the Imperial forces? Sure it's easy to take potshots from your military blog in some no-name star system while the fleet and its legions fight the rebel insurgents, but combined space/air/ground operations are a lot messier than any infographic could ever portray.

Even with the Empire's full spectrum dominance of the battlespace, you can't just leverage fleet assets which are optimized for ship-to-ship combat into a large scale ground invasion force. A Star Destroyer might have more firepower than the entire militaries of less advanced worlds but you still need a proper ground assault ship to support infantry landings.

Unfortunately, the do-nothing blowhards in Coruscant couldn't get funding for the promising alternative designs from Sienar Fleet Systems and we ended up (as usual) with Kuat Drive Yards' overpriced, overdue, and underperforming AT-AT mess.

 That's just great! :D

Quote from: The Larch on February 14, 2013, 05:02:05 AM
It's the 1st comment on the 1st article the one that takes the prize.  :lol:

QuoteHave you even served with the Imperial forces? Sure it's easy to take potshots from your military blog in some no-name star system while the fleet and its legions fight the rebel insurgents, but combined space/air/ground operations are a lot messier than any infographic could ever portray.

Even with the Empire's full spectrum dominance of the battlespace, you can't just leverage fleet assets which are optimized for ship-to-ship combat into a large scale ground invasion force. A Star Destroyer might have more firepower than the entire militaries of less advanced worlds but you still need a proper ground assault ship to support infantry landings.

Unfortunately, the do-nothing blowhards in Coruscant couldn't get funding for the promising alternative designs from Sienar Fleet Systems and we ended up (as usual) with Kuat Drive Yards' overpriced, overdue, and underperforming AT-AT mess.

Ironically, the older "Victory" class ships were far superior orbital bombardment platforms...

Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 08:53:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
This entire study would be so much more interesting if Lucas didn't shit out those goddamned prequels.

True, although the "Luke matters" chick made me really sad about how shitty the prequels were, given that they had the material for something grand.

Indeed.

The prequels may be the greatest failure in movie history, given their potential from a story-telling content, and the resources available to realize that potential.

A great potential story combined with basically unlimited resources to tell it resulted in Jar Jar Binks and whiny brat.

It really is quite sad.

Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2013, 08:52:29 AM
A great potential story combined with basically unlimited resources to tell it resulted in Jar Jar Binks and whiny brat.

It really is quite sad.

You forgot the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Flying Jew.

But yeah, talk about the absolute destruction of a concept of so much promising material.  They'll still be talking about it 80 years from now. 

Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2013, 08:52:29 AM
Indeed.

The prequels may be the greatest failure in movie history, given their potential from a story-telling content, and the resources available to realize that potential.

A great potential story combined with basically unlimited resources to tell it resulted in Jar Jar Binks and whiny brat.

It really is quite sad.

I agree that the potential was there, but would argue that the third movie had already shown that Lucas was unable to comprehend the potential of his own creation.  The end of that movie left me with no desire to see more, quite the opposite of how I felt at the end of the first and (especially) the second movie.

Open question to those who were disappointed with Return of the Jedi: if the original plan to use Wookiees and Kashyykk (or however that's spelled, I am emphatically not looking it up), instead of Ewoks and Endor, had been followed, but the same general plot structure remained, would you have been okay with it?  If so, are you valuing appearances--conceding that Wookiees look way cooler than Ewoks--too greatly?  Or is there another aspect to the Ewoks that grates, i.e. their primitiveness, a problem that would not have been present with the incomprehensible but technologically advanced Wookiees?

Discuss, bearing in mind that we did see the Wookiee homeworld in the filmed Star Wars universe long before Episode III, and the results were intensely disturbing.

Quote from: BerkutIndeed.

The prequels may be the greatest failure in movie history, given their potential from a story-telling content, and the resources available to realize that potential.

A great potential story combined with basically unlimited resources to tell it resulted in Jar Jar Binks and whiny brat.

It really is quite sad.

Fully agreed; however, with the transfer of the Lucasfilm properties to Disney, I would not be wholly surprised if they remade the prequel trilogy within the next ten or fifteen years.  I expect there's a huge market for it, and it would be both easier from a logistical standpoint and subject the brand to less overexploration if they remade the PT instead of Random Star Wars Movies 14-16 (which, with the absence of Lucas' restraining hand, we must accept as inevitable--there's already like FIVE new Star Wars films in pipeline, mere months after the sale).

I wouldn't put it past them to do a re-boot, or go to The Old Republic for fresh stories. I've always looked at The Old Republic (4000 years before the movies) setting (the comics and later the games) as an alternative version of the "classic" Star Wars story and universe. You have the same places and concepts, but are free to do completely different things with them. Of course, several comics, novels, and games in this is starting to get crowded, too. But nothing to keep people from going further back, or slightly forward.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Discuss, bearing in mind that we did see the Wookiee homeworld in the filmed Star Wars universe long before Episode III, and the results were intensely disturbing.

Dead wrong.  It was pure awesomeness.  Life Day FTW!

Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2013, 09:54:31 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Discuss, bearing in mind that we did see the Wookiee homeworld in the filmed Star Wars universe long before Episode III, and the results were intensely disturbing.

Dead wrong.  It was pure awesomeness.  Life Day FTW!

You just like them because the Ewoks didn't have whore pills.

Quote from: SytI wouldn't put it past them to do a re-boot, or go to The Old Republic for fresh stories. I've always looked at The Old Republic (4000 years before the movies) setting (the comics and later the games) as an alternative version of the "classic" Star Wars story and universe. You have the same places and concepts, but are free to do completely different things with them. Of course, several comics, novels, and games in this is starting to get crowded, too. But nothing to keep people from going further back, or slightly forward.

My thing is that I've never really felt the Star Wars universe was as inherently interesting as a lot of people clearly do.  I don't think it ever matched Star Trek, for example, in terms of reusability and story modularity.  The overweening presence of the Force and the unninterrupted (and frankly hard to believe) thousands-year span of one-galaxy government and culture, at basically one technological level the entire time, homogenizes the Star Wars universe, regardless of era.  And you can't really add anything or change anything without it seeming bizarre and alien to the franchise (I think they tried some extragalactic invaders once, for example, which doesn't sound particularly interesting).  Which is fine--Flash Gordon stories don't have infinite possibilities, there's no reason Star Wars stories should.  Not all concepts should, in fact most concepts do not, lend themselves to infinite repackaging.

That's why I don't care that much about Star Wars outside of the core Skywalker parable (moral: "great, kid, [but] don't get cocky").  Like, wow, there were Sith and smugglers ten thousand years ago?  TELL ME MORE?

P.S. I'll still be disappointed if Thrawn doesn't show up somewhere in the new, post-Jedi movies.  That guy was probably the only concept from beyond the films that I ever felt had any legs whatsoever.

Quote from: PDH on February 14, 2013, 09:56:36 AM

Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2013, 09:54:31 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Discuss, bearing in mind that we did see the Wookiee homeworld in the filmed Star Wars universe long before Episode III, and the results were intensely disturbing.

Dead wrong.  It was pure awesomeness.  Life Day FTW!

You just like them because the Ewoks didn't have whore pills.

But they did have virtual interracial porno.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 10:10:37 AM
P.S. I'll still be disappointed if Thrawn doesn't show up somewhere in the new, post-Jedi movies.  That guy was probably the only concept from beyond the films that I ever felt had any legs whatsoever.

Mara Jade's unshaven red bush.  Just sayin'...

:whistle:

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 10:10:37 AM

Quote from: SytI wouldn't put it past them to do a re-boot, or go to The Old Republic for fresh stories. I've always looked at The Old Republic (4000 years before the movies) setting (the comics and later the games) as an alternative version of the "classic" Star Wars story and universe. You have the same places and concepts, but are free to do completely different things with them. Of course, several comics, novels, and games in this is starting to get crowded, too. But nothing to keep people from going further back, or slightly forward.

My thing is that I've never really felt the Star Wars universe was as inherently interesting as a lot of people clearly do.  I don't think it ever matched Star Trek, for example, in terms of reusability and story modularity.  The overweening presence of the Force and the unninterrupted (and frankly hard to believe) thousands-year span of one-galaxy government and culture, at basically one technological level the entire time, homogenizes the Star Wars universe, regardless of era.  And you can't really add anything or change anything without it seeming bizarre and alien to the franchise (I think they tried some extragalactic invaders once, for example, which doesn't sound particularly interesting).  Which is fine--Flash Gordon stories don't have infinite possibilities, there's no reason Star Wars stories should.  Not all concepts should, in fact most concepts do not, lend themselves to infinite repackaging.

That's why I don't care that much about Star Wars outside of the core Skywalker parable (moral: "great, kid, [but] don't get cocky").  Like, wow, there were Sith and smugglers ten thousand years ago?  TELL ME MORE?

P.S. I'll still be disappointed if Thrawn doesn't show up somewhere in the new, post-Jedi movies.  That guy was probably the only concept from beyond the films that I ever felt had any legs whatsoever.

You really need to get out more often.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 10:10:37 AMThe overweening presence of the Force and the unninterrupted (and frankly hard to believe) thousands-year span of one-galaxy government and culture, at basically one technological level the entire time, homogenizes the Star Wars universe, regardless of era.  And you can't really add anything or change anything without it seeming bizarre and alien to the franchise (I think they tried some extragalactic invaders once, for example, which doesn't sound particularly interesting).

You can still do a lot with the basic elements. Light side vs. dark side, Republic vs. Empire, Bounty Hunters, familiar worlds etc. without being weighed down by supposed canon or the expanded universe. Because the base building blocks are so elementary there's a lot of room to tell stories with them.

I'd argue that the base building blocks are so few that correspondingly few structures can be built from them.

Quote from: The Larch on February 14, 2013, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 10:10:37 AM

Quote from: SytI wouldn't put it past them to do a re-boot, or go to The Old Republic for fresh stories. I've always looked at The Old Republic (4000 years before the movies) setting (the comics and later the games) as an alternative version of the "classic" Star Wars story and universe. You have the same places and concepts, but are free to do completely different things with them. Of course, several comics, novels, and games in this is starting to get crowded, too. But nothing to keep people from going further back, or slightly forward.

My thing is that I've never really felt the Star Wars universe was as inherently interesting as a lot of people clearly do.  I don't think it ever matched Star Trek, for example, in terms of reusability and story modularity.  The overweening presence of the Force and the unninterrupted (and frankly hard to believe) thousands-year span of one-galaxy government and culture, at basically one technological level the entire time, homogenizes the Star Wars universe, regardless of era.  And you can't really add anything or change anything without it seeming bizarre and alien to the franchise (I think they tried some extragalactic invaders once, for example, which doesn't sound particularly interesting).  Which is fine--Flash Gordon stories don't have infinite possibilities, there's no reason Star Wars stories should.  Not all concepts should, in fact most concepts do not, lend themselves to infinite repackaging.

That's why I don't care that much about Star Wars outside of the core Skywalker parable (moral: "great, kid, [but] don't get cocky").  Like, wow, there were Sith and smugglers ten thousand years ago?  TELL ME MORE?

P.S. I'll still be disappointed if Thrawn doesn't show up somewhere in the new, post-Jedi movies.  That guy was probably the only concept from beyond the films that I ever felt had any legs whatsoever.

You really need to get out more often.

Because I criticized one of the most popular entertainment franchises of our, or any, era?  :wacko:

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
I'd argue that the base building blocks are so few that correspondingly few structures can be built from them.

Unlike Star Trek, that by the time of Voyager was bogged down in Prime Directive Fundamentalism and technobabble hell. :P

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:31:08 PM

Quote from: The Larch on February 14, 2013, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 10:10:37 AM

Quote from: SytI wouldn't put it past them to do a re-boot, or go to The Old Republic for fresh stories. I've always looked at The Old Republic (4000 years before the movies) setting (the comics and later the games) as an alternative version of the "classic" Star Wars story and universe. You have the same places and concepts, but are free to do completely different things with them. Of course, several comics, novels, and games in this is starting to get crowded, too. But nothing to keep people from going further back, or slightly forward.

My thing is that I've never really felt the Star Wars universe was as inherently interesting as a lot of people clearly do.  I don't think it ever matched Star Trek, for example, in terms of reusability and story modularity.  The overweening presence of the Force and the unninterrupted (and frankly hard to believe) thousands-year span of one-galaxy government and culture, at basically one technological level the entire time, homogenizes the Star Wars universe, regardless of era.  And you can't really add anything or change anything without it seeming bizarre and alien to the franchise (I think they tried some extragalactic invaders once, for example, which doesn't sound particularly interesting).  Which is fine--Flash Gordon stories don't have infinite possibilities, there's no reason Star Wars stories should.  Not all concepts should, in fact most concepts do not, lend themselves to infinite repackaging.

That's why I don't care that much about Star Wars outside of the core Skywalker parable (moral: "great, kid, [but] don't get cocky").  Like, wow, there were Sith and smugglers ten thousand years ago?  TELL ME MORE?

P.S. I'll still be disappointed if Thrawn doesn't show up somewhere in the new, post-Jedi movies.  That guy was probably the only concept from beyond the films that I ever felt had any legs whatsoever.

You really need to get out more often.

Because I criticized one of the most popular entertainment franchises of our, or any, era?  :wacko:

No, because you devoted way too much thought and time in order to make a pedantic and verbose critique of it.

Quote from: The Larch on February 14, 2013, 01:36:39 PM
No, because you devoted way too much thought and time in order to make a pedantic and verbose critique of it.

An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.

Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2013, 01:32:08 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
I'd argue that the base building blocks are so few that correspondingly few structures can be built from them.

Unlike Star Trek, that by the time of Voyager was bogged down in Prime Directive Fundamentalism and technobabble hell. :P

Now, now, Voyager could have been really good.  The premise was solid.  Unfortunately it was rare enough that anyone working on the show had any ideas at all, let alone coherent ones about how to advance that premise to interesting conclusions.  It's unfortunate that Moore wasn't in a position of authority with Voyager along with DS9--while Galactica veered into shittiness, in many ways it was practically the same show (starship that is a community to itself must find Earth) but it did so much more with it--invention of a strong recurrent antagonist, realistic and interesting tensions between different factions within the protagonists, and so forth.

Actually, how much fun would it have been if, like Tom Zarek, Chakotay had led a mutiny against Janeway and Harry Kim got blown out an airlock for treason?  HIGH HILARITY.

OK, NOW El Larcho can accuse me of not getting enough sunlight. -_-

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 12:15:06 AM
The Fleet itself failed the Empire in the subsequent engagement at Endor.  Admiral Piett did, in fact, fail Vader again.

The weird thing is that we're not really sure how, why or even if the fleet failed at Endor.  The fleet's job was to hold the Rebels so that the Death Star could merrily annihilate them.  Once the fighters fly into the Death Star and the fleet battle commences, we really don't have much of an update as to the progress of the naval engagement, except that at some point Vader's flagship is destroyed due to an absolutely idiotic design decision.  If you've built your space battleship so that it crashes into something and explodes if the main bridge is destroyed, you've committed an act of unspeakable stupidity.  You should maybe have it not crash in that case.

Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

I blame the little Chinese dude with alcoholic epiphora flying with Lando.

I see I am the only one to have noticed this :

QuoteCaitlin Fitz Gerald is the Boston-based writer and artist behind the Children's Illustrated Clausewitz.

Now that's a book for children I can get behind.  I'd buy that. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:49:44 PM
Now, now, Voyager could have been really good.  The premise was solid. 

Yes it was. And "Year in Hell" or "Equinox" showed what could have been. Instead we got little continuity, lots of truly idiotic writing, and Neelix.

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:19:40 PM
I see I am the only one to have noticed this :

Not really;  read through it last night.  Pretty decent.

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

Except that the Emperor and Vader were both dead, a Death Star blew up, and several ISDs were lost or heavily damaged. Most of the sway Palplatine held over the Empire and the Imperial Moffs was thoroughly Force Manipulation from the Dark Side, as shown in the prequels. What happens to the puppet when the puppeteer gets thrown in a Death Star core?

So in essence, people on the Imperial Fleet suddenly woke up in a faze and said "Where the fuck am I? Why I'm here fighting furries? Screw that, retreat."

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2013, 01:32:08 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
I'd argue that the base building blocks are so few that correspondingly few structures can be built from them.

Unlike Star Trek, that by the time of Voyager was bogged down in Prime Directive Fundamentalism and technobabble hell. :P

Now, now, Voyager could have been really good.  The premise was solid.  Unfortunately it was rare enough that anyone working on the show had any ideas at all, let alone coherent ones about how to advance that premise to interesting conclusions.  It's unfortunate that Moore wasn't in a position of authority with Voyager along with DS9--while Galactica veered into shittiness, in many ways it was practically the same show (starship that is a community to itself must find Earth) but it did so much more with it--invention of a strong recurrent antagonist, realistic and interesting tensions between different factions within the protagonists, and so forth.

Actually, how much fun would it have been if, like Tom Zarek, Chakotay had led a mutiny against Janeway and Harry Kim got blown out an airlock for treason?  HIGH HILARITY.

OK, NOW El Larcho can accuse me of not getting enough sunlight. -_-

See, but Voyager was supposed to counteract the militarism and general awesomeness of DS9 and return closer to Roddenberry's original hippie-flippie vision.  It also suffered from outdated, reset-button plot and characterization.  Sure, it's alright to be episodic, but when nobody really grows or changes over the entire series run except for maybe the Doctor), that shit don't fly anymore.

One of the series that got continuity very right was Farscape. I know, many were turned off by the muppet aliens. Still, the characters accrue a big amount of emotional baggage over the show's run, and it shows, with characters noticeably changing over time (esp. the main character who goes from wide eyed space tourist to cynical, traumatized fighter). And more importantly, it works.

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:23:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

Except that the Emperor and Vader were both dead, a Death Star blew up, and several ISDs were lost or heavily damaged. Most of the sway Palplatine held over the Empire and the Imperial Moffs was thoroughly Force Manipulation from the Dark Side, as shown in the prequels. What happens to the puppet when the puppeteer gets thrown in a Death Star core?

So in essence, people on the Imperial Fleet suddenly woke up in a faze and said "Where the fuck am I? Why I'm here fighting furries? Screw that, retreat."

There were at least two dozen Star Destroyers at Endor.  The loss of a few isn't really going to be decisive.

I've heard that 'force manipulation' theory before, but I've never seen much in the way of evidence to support it.  It just seems so ridiculous on the face of it, that the only way that Palpatine could get fighting men equipped with the most awesome weapons around to fight was to trick them with the Force.  Does not compute.

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:32:27 PM
There were at least two dozen Star Destroyers at Endor.  The loss of a few isn't really going to be decisive.

I've heard that 'force manipulation' theory before, but I've never seen much in the way of evidence to support it.  It just seems so ridiculous on the face of it, that the only way that Palpatine could get fighting men equipped with the most awesome weapons around to fight was to trick them with the Force.  Does not compute.

There are quite a few examples in ROTS of people who follow Palpatine like drones because they are demonstratively under his magic sway. For example his guests in the Opera house with Anakin, the alien chancellor who calls him master, the Senators during his discourse, and so on.

If I were an Imperial officer, deploying massive, planet-destroying resources to pursuit a 18 year old blond Ken doll- like peasant from Tatooine would certainly appear whimsical. Yet they do stupid military decisions like this without a single protest.

While technology is quite fundamental to the Empire, such a huge Empire oddly doesn't have any factionalism among its military human elements; on the contrary they seems totally subjugated to Palpatine's every whimsical order. Either it is an effect of simple, sheer Stalinian terror among its military (which we have no evidence of, except directly when Vader is involved. As an aside in the original trilogy novelization his casual 'dismissal' of officers for even trivial military mistakes in one big stain on his rap sheet, and a reason of dissatisfaction of officers serving under him) or Dark Side Magic (as in the canon totally, indiscutably exists).

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:38:34 PMEither it is an effect of simple, sheer Stalinian terror among its military (which we have no evidence of, except directly when Vader is involved. As an aside in the original trilogy novelization his casual 'dismissal' of officers for even trivial military mistakes in one big stain on his rap sheet, and a reason of dissatisfaction of officers serving under him)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jdQqjcsfC8

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:38:34 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:32:27 PM
There were at least two dozen Star Destroyers at Endor.  The loss of a few isn't really going to be decisive.

I've heard that 'force manipulation' theory before, but I've never seen much in the way of evidence to support it.  It just seems so ridiculous on the face of it, that the only way that Palpatine could get fighting men equipped with the most awesome weapons around to fight was to trick them with the Force.  Does not compute.

There are quite a few examples in ROTS of people who follow Palpatine like drones because they are demonstratively under his magic sway. For example his guests in the Opera house with Anakin, the alien chancellor who calls him master, the Senators during his discourse, and so on.

If I were an Imperial officer, deploying massive, planet-destroying resources to pursuit a 18 year old blond Ken doll- like peasant from Tatooine would certainly appear whimsical. Yet they do stupid military decisions like this without a single protest.

While technology is quite fundamental to the Empire, such a huge Empire oddly doesn't have any factionalism among its military human elements; on the contrary they seems totally subjugated to Palpatine's every whimsical order. Either it is an effect of simple, sheer Stalinian terror among its military (which we have no evidence of, except directly when Vader is involved. As an aside in the original trilogy novelization his casual 'dismissal' of officers for even trivial military mistakes in one big stain on his rap sheet, and a reason of dissatisfaction of officers serving under him) or Dark Side Magic (as in the canon totally, indiscutably exists).

We're not talking about people doing weird things or being unusually obedient though.  We're talking about naval officers with a superior fleet doing the exact opposite of what their experience and training tells them to do.  Palpatine's mastery of the Force can explain a lot of things that happened during his reign, but his death is insufficient cause for the Navy to retreat in the face of the enemy.

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2013, 01:32:08 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
I'd argue that the base building blocks are so few that correspondingly few structures can be built from them.

Unlike Star Trek, that by the time of Voyager was bogged down in Prime Directive Fundamentalism and technobabble hell. :P

Now, now, Voyager could have been really good.  The premise was solid.  Unfortunately it was rare enough that anyone working on the show had any ideas at all, let alone coherent ones about how to advance that premise to interesting conclusions.  It's unfortunate that Moore wasn't in a position of authority with Voyager along with DS9--while Galactica veered into shittiness, in many ways it was practically the same show (starship that is a community to itself must find Earth) but it did so much more with it--invention of a strong recurrent antagonist, realistic and interesting tensions between different factions within the protagonists, and so forth.

Actually, how much fun would it have been if, like Tom Zarek, Chakotay had led a mutiny against Janeway and Harry Kim got blown out an airlock for treason?  HIGH HILARITY.

OK, NOW El Larcho can accuse me of not getting enough sunlight. -_-

See, but Voyager was supposed to counteract the militarism and general awesomeness of DS9 and return closer to Roddenberry's original hippie-flippie vision.  It also suffered from outdated, reset-button plot and characterization.  Sure, it's alright to be episodic, but when nobody really grows or changes over the entire series run except for maybe the Doctor), that shit don't fly anymore.

That may be the direction it evolved in, but recall that DS9 started far less dark and militaristic than after, at the earliest, the first episode with the Jem'Hadar, and probably not until that one where Garak tortures Odo half to death but it's a bonding experience, and arguably not till Way of the Warrior right at the beginning of the fourth season and the reinvention of the show as a full-blown space opera and political/war epic.

I'd say it's really more the people involved in each--Behr, Moore, and Berman's lack of interest on DS9 vs. Braga, Biller, and Taylor, along with Berman's greater interest, on Voyager.  You had more talent, and better-used talent, in the latter as opposed to the former; maybe even more importantly, you also had people on DS9 who had correctly gauged that the future of television was serial storytelling.  Like, Braga could write a decent freakout episode every now and again, but he never should have been allowed to help run a show--even if he wasn't totally creatively bankrupt, he was also not especially good.  More egregiously, Berman's control and insistence on maintenance of a status quo was poison.  This Berman/Braga approach of repetition of ideas so long as they were both bad and old, was also pretty much entirely responsible for turning Enterprise, a potentially neat prequel show, into retread garbage right from take one, and it never really did anything interesting until they allowed some experimentation, and eventually let it become a vehicle for Coto's faintly entertaining exercise in inbreeding depression in the form of officially-approved fan fiction.  Anyway, it's easy to see why it floundered and ultimately failed--it was Voyager until too late.

Even so, it's difficult to argue from a pure business standpoint that DS9 was better.  Voyager, iirc, got better ratings overall.  At the same time, DS9 is remembered fondly, probably always will be, and will support arguments from fans that it was artistically the best the franchise ever achieved (despite its flaws, and even if it's a little obscure in comparison to the two pop culturally preeminent series), whereas Voyager is remembered largely as a joke and may wind up forgotten.  DS9 also, as you say, was a forerunner to pretty much the only kind of successful dramatic programming today.  (Then again--shit, Friends wasn't afraid of story arcs and character growth.  So it's not like this was totally unheard-of back in the 1990s.)

Anyway, I don't know if the shape DS9 took led Voyager to take on opposing (or if we wanted to be charitable, "complementary") qualities.  I think it was really just an accident, and the respective tones and content of each series reflect the abilities and predilections of each series' creators.

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:32:27 PM

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:23:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

Except that the Emperor and Vader were both dead, a Death Star blew up, and several ISDs were lost or heavily damaged. Most of the sway Palplatine held over the Empire and the Imperial Moffs was thoroughly Force Manipulation from the Dark Side, as shown in the prequels. What happens to the puppet when the puppeteer gets thrown in a Death Star core?

So in essence, people on the Imperial Fleet suddenly woke up in a faze and said "Where the fuck am I? Why I'm here fighting furries? Screw that, retreat."

There were at least two dozen Star Destroyers at Endor.  The loss of a few isn't really going to be decisive.

I've heard that 'force manipulation' theory before, but I've never seen much in the way of evidence to support it.  It just seems so ridiculous on the face of it, that the only way that Palpatine could get fighting men equipped with the most awesome weapons around to fight was to trick them with the Force.  Does not compute.

Imperial Rule was entirely centralized in the personal hands of the Emperor (and Vader at his right side).  There is no other formal structure - no Senate, no imperial bureaucracy, and most importantly, no obvious line of succession.

Once the Emperor and Vader is gone, there is a power vacuum.  Sure, the Fleet could have stayed on to defeat the Rebels, but suddenly the real action is back on Coruscant.  A smart and ambitious Admiral would retreat to the capital where they assert their control over the seat of power, then deal with the rebels later.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 03:36:03 PM
That may be the direction it evolved in, but recall that DS9 started far less dark and militaristic than after, at the earliest, the first episode with the Jem'Hadar, and probably not until that one where Garak tortures Odo half to death but it's a bonding experience, and arguably not till Way of the Warrior right at the beginning of the fourth season and the reinvention of the show as a full-blown space opera and political/war epic.

It seems to me that there were some hints of what they had in store relatively early on.  Even in the beginning they were delving into Maquis terrorists and a civil war on Bajor.

Quote from: Barrister on February 14, 2013, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:32:27 PM

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:23:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

Except that the Emperor and Vader were both dead, a Death Star blew up, and several ISDs were lost or heavily damaged. Most of the sway Palplatine held over the Empire and the Imperial Moffs was thoroughly Force Manipulation from the Dark Side, as shown in the prequels. What happens to the puppet when the puppeteer gets thrown in a Death Star core?

So in essence, people on the Imperial Fleet suddenly woke up in a faze and said "Where the fuck am I? Why I'm here fighting furries? Screw that, retreat."

There were at least two dozen Star Destroyers at Endor.  The loss of a few isn't really going to be decisive.

I've heard that 'force manipulation' theory before, but I've never seen much in the way of evidence to support it.  It just seems so ridiculous on the face of it, that the only way that Palpatine could get fighting men equipped with the most awesome weapons around to fight was to trick them with the Force.  Does not compute.

Imperial Rule was entirely centralized in the personal hands of the Emperor (and Vader at his right side).  There is no other formal structure - no Senate, no imperial bureaucracy, and most importantly, no obvious line of succession.

Once the Emperor and Vader is gone, there is a power vacuum.  Sure, the Fleet could have stayed on to defeat the Rebels, but suddenly the real action is back on Coruscant.  A smart and ambitious Admiral would retreat to the capital where they assert their control over the seat of power, then deal with the rebels later.

That doesn't make sense though.  You have the Rebels right there, and there is political and military value in destroying them and being the guy who destroyed them.  Why not do both?

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 04:07:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 14, 2013, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:32:27 PM

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:23:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

Except that the Emperor and Vader were both dead, a Death Star blew up, and several ISDs were lost or heavily damaged. Most of the sway Palplatine held over the Empire and the Imperial Moffs was thoroughly Force Manipulation from the Dark Side, as shown in the prequels. What happens to the puppet when the puppeteer gets thrown in a Death Star core?

So in essence, people on the Imperial Fleet suddenly woke up in a faze and said "Where the fuck am I? Why I'm here fighting furries? Screw that, retreat."

There were at least two dozen Star Destroyers at Endor.  The loss of a few isn't really going to be decisive.

I've heard that 'force manipulation' theory before, but I've never seen much in the way of evidence to support it.  It just seems so ridiculous on the face of it, that the only way that Palpatine could get fighting men equipped with the most awesome weapons around to fight was to trick them with the Force.  Does not compute.

Imperial Rule was entirely centralized in the personal hands of the Emperor (and Vader at his right side).  There is no other formal structure - no Senate, no imperial bureaucracy, and most importantly, no obvious line of succession.

Once the Emperor and Vader is gone, there is a power vacuum.  Sure, the Fleet could have stayed on to defeat the Rebels, but suddenly the real action is back on Coruscant.  A smart and ambitious Admiral would retreat to the capital where they assert their control over the seat of power, then deal with the rebels later.

That doesn't make sense though.  You have the Rebels right there, and there is political and military value in destroying them and being the guy who destroyed them.  Why not do both?

No matter what happens, Endor will be remembered as a massive Imperial defeat at that point.

The value is in being on Coruscant.

I know there are historical analogues, but the only one I can think of was the death of genghis khan.  The armies immediately retreat in order to determine succession.

But once you get there, why should anyone listen to you?  You don't have an especially large or powerful fleet, and you're only achievement is being a coward.  You're also relatively junior, since you were one of Piett's subordinates.  You need to bring something to the table.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 03:36:03 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:49:44 PM

Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2013, 01:32:08 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
I'd argue that the base building blocks are so few that correspondingly few structures can be built from them.

Unlike Star Trek, that by the time of Voyager was bogged down in Prime Directive Fundamentalism and technobabble hell. :P

Now, now, Voyager could have been really good.  The premise was solid.  Unfortunately it was rare enough that anyone working on the show had any ideas at all, let alone coherent ones about how to advance that premise to interesting conclusions.  It's unfortunate that Moore wasn't in a position of authority with Voyager along with DS9--while Galactica veered into shittiness, in many ways it was practically the same show (starship that is a community to itself must find Earth) but it did so much more with it--invention of a strong recurrent antagonist, realistic and interesting tensions between different factions within the protagonists, and so forth.

Actually, how much fun would it have been if, like Tom Zarek, Chakotay had led a mutiny against Janeway and Harry Kim got blown out an airlock for treason?  HIGH HILARITY.

OK, NOW El Larcho can accuse me of not getting enough sunlight. -_-

See, but Voyager was supposed to counteract the militarism and general awesomeness of DS9 and return closer to Roddenberry's original hippie-flippie vision.  It also suffered from outdated, reset-button plot and characterization.  Sure, it's alright to be episodic, but when nobody really grows or changes over the entire series run except for maybe the Doctor), that shit don't fly anymore.

That may be the direction it evolved in, but recall that DS9 started far less dark and militaristic than after, at the earliest, the first episode with the Jem'Hadar, and probably not until that one where Garak tortures Odo half to death but it's a bonding experience, and arguably not till Way of the Warrior right at the beginning of the fourth season and the reinvention of the show as a full-blown space opera and political/war epic.

I'd say it's really more the people involved in each--Behr, Moore, and Berman's lack of interest on DS9 vs. Braga, Biller, and Taylor, along with Berman's greater interest, on Voyager.  You had more talent, and better-used talent, in the latter as opposed to the former; maybe even more importantly, you also had people on DS9 who had correctly gauged that the future of television was serial storytelling.  Like, Braga could write a decent freakout episode every now and again, but he never should have been allowed to help run a show--even if he wasn't totally creatively bankrupt, he was also not especially good.  More egregiously, Berman's control and insistence on maintenance of a status quo was poison.  This Berman/Braga approach of repetition of ideas so long as they were both bad and old, was also pretty much entirely responsible for turning Enterprise, a potentially neat prequel show, into retread garbage right from take one, and it never really did anything interesting until they allowed some experimentation, and eventually let it become a vehicle for Coto's faintly entertaining exercise in inbreeding depression in the form of officially-approved fan fiction.  Anyway, it's easy to see why it floundered and ultimately failed--it was Voyager until too late.

Even so, it's difficult to argue from a pure business standpoint that DS9 was better.  Voyager, iirc, got better ratings overall.  At the same time, DS9 is remembered fondly, probably always will be, and will support arguments from fans that it was artistically the best the franchise ever achieved (despite its flaws, and even if it's a little obscure in comparison to the two pop culturally preeminent series), whereas Voyager is remembered largely as a joke and may wind up forgotten.  DS9 also, as you say, was a forerunner to pretty much the only kind of successful dramatic programming today.  (Then again--shit, Friends wasn't afraid of story arcs and character growth.  So it's not like this was totally unheard-of back in the 1990s.)

Anyway, I don't know if the shape DS9 took led Voyager to take on opposing (or if we wanted to be charitable, "complementary") qualities.  I think it was really just an accident, and the respective tones and content of each series reflect the abilities and predilections of each series' creators.

Forget Friends;  even I Love Lucy had a few story arcs.  And, heck, within the ST franchise, TNG and even TOS had some character growth.

What's really puzzling about Voyager is their failure to use what they had set up.  The whole whole point of having the mixed Fleet/Marquis crew was to set up plot lines about how they viewed things and approached problems differently--but after the first few episodes, this never comes up again;  they might as well have had the Marquis ship destroyed with all hands, or just have Voyager flung to the Delta quadrant by some non-reproducible accident or phenomena, without having the Marquis along at all.  Tom Paris is set up as a guy who nobody trusted that Janeway only brought along because he had potentially valuable skills and knowledge, but that never is dealt with, and his characterization for the rest of the series is essentially just "crack pilot".  Harry Kim is supposed to be the eager but inexperienced young officier just out of the academy, so we're supposed to be able to watch him gain experience and confidence, but it never happens.  Neelix they're letting stay on the ship mostly because they know very little about the Delta quadrant and he's supposed to be their expert local guide--but he doesn't actually know anything useful.  Let him really have useful local knowledge to impart so that he has a legit function within the show.  If you still want him to be the comic relief, you can go ahead and also have him be the incompetant ship's cook (because everyone else has more important jobs or is even worse at cooking) and make jokes about his cooking while still letting him be able to give good information on the cultures, resources, politics, etc., of the Delta quadrant.  Or go the other way, and make him a much darker, more sinister character who's manipulating the situation for his own ends--when he gives them wrong information, it's not because he's an idiot who doesn't know anything, but because he's deliberately misleading them.  (There are definately elements of this darker side to the character, but as with most other potentially interesting ideas in Voyager, the writers never bother to develop them.)

So much intellectualizing.  :lol:

Man is an intellectual creature.  This is what we do.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 03:36:03 PM
Anyway, I don't know if the shape DS9 took led Voyager to take on opposing (or if we wanted to be charitable, "complementary") qualities.  I think it was really just an accident, and the respective tones and content of each series reflect the abilities and predilections of each series' creators.

Agreed, understanding that JMS was effectively the creator of DS9.  Had DS9 not been able to see the success of the the storytelling model used by B5 from its start, I don't think DS9 would have used serial storytelling from the halfway point or so of its run.

I also think the fact that DS9 was a syndicated rather than a network show allowed its producers more freedom to experiment with their format.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
So much intellectualizing.  :lol:

This shit is important, man.

I'm disappointed in a lot of you.

This thread makes me want to play TIE Fighter again.

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 08:35:28 PM
This thread makes me want to play TIE Fighter again.

The best post in the thread by far.

I can't find my old CDs.  :(

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 04:19:32 PM
But once you get there, why should anyone listen to you?  You don't have an especially large or powerful fleet, and you're only achievement is being a coward. 

Worked just fine for MacArthur. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2013, 06:00:58 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 04:19:32 PM
But once you get there, why should anyone listen to you?  You don't have an especially large or powerful fleet, and you're only achievement is being a coward. 

Worked just fine for MacArthur.

He never got to be President.

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2013, 06:08:36 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2013, 06:00:58 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 04:19:32 PM
But once you get there, why should anyone listen to you?  You don't have an especially large or powerful fleet, and you're only achievement is being a coward. 

Worked just fine for MacArthur.

He never got to be President.

DeGaulle then.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 15, 2013, 06:14:02 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2013, 06:08:36 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2013, 06:00:58 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 04:19:32 PM
But once you get there, why should anyone listen to you?  You don't have an especially large or powerful fleet, and you're only achievement is being a coward. 

Worked just fine for MacArthur.

He never got to be President.

DeGaulle then.

DeGaulle ran so he could fight.

The last bit really hit home to me.  The clone troopers acted like a military, while the stormtroopers were almost comically bad.  Thinking of Hoth, remember those gunners scrambling to set up an E-WEB in the Falcon's hangar?  According to the semi-canon Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, that monster could take up to ten minutes to fully deploy and charge- I always got the idea that it was the Imperial equivalent of resting a targeted assassination on a squad's SAW gunner.

Especially given Anakin's backstory, Vader was always more hype than actual skill.  He was capable enough for intimidation tactics, but finesse and discipline weren't exactly his strong point.  He was more of a barking dog that Palpatine let off the chain when he wanted to send a message.

ETA: Time for me to dust off my copy of TIE Fighter.  That game was and still is so incredibly awesome.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 07:28:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
So much intellectualizing.  :lol:

This shit is important, man.

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 04:03:57 PM
Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

Then start a Star Trek thread, and we can discuss exactly how Chambers' coil emissions could in no way possibly overload comms systems.

Babylon 5 sucks.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 16, 2013, 06:41:55 PM
Babylon 5 sucks.

see, intellectual debate!

I shit out more compelling arguments every day.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 16, 2013, 06:56:27 PM
I shit out more compelling arguments every day.

In that case I demand you perform like the (badly) trained monkey you are and fling some compelling arguments about who is better Sinclair or Sheridan.

Both couldn't hold Janeway's jockstrap.

There you go.

Janeway's reportedly had a huge penis.

B5 needed Bester mind raping everybody.

Erm...

:nerd:

Going back to the original opener of the thread, since when did the Rebel Base at Hoth have a planetary shield? The dialogue in the film is quite explicit that the shield protects only a portion of the planet; said portion of the planet also happens to be the rough firing arc of the Ion canon.

[It's also a reasonable assumption from the sequence of events and the topography shown in the film that the Ion canon is some distance from the Rebel Base and that the Probe Droid was destroyed before locating it; the Empire doesn't know when planning it's attack and organising the blockade that the Rebels have a ground based weapon that can reach them in orbit.]

I always assumed that the Shield had flaws at the edges due to the imperfections of the terrain (Hoth's a long way from being a flat plain) and the Walkers slipped in under the shield using one of these flaws.

And as for using a "planetary bombardment" to kill all the Rebels? There's a simple problem with that - it's the Emperor who wants the Rebels dead; Vader wants Luke.

I'm not overly impressed by the analysis of the battle, in other words.

---------------

As for Endor I have to agree that the retreat of the fleet is fairly inexplicable. The EUs explanations and expansions work (the Emperor's 'Force Borging' of his troops, the death of all the Imperial commanders on scene - including IIRC three Grand Admirals etc. etc.) after a fashion given they also have the battle lasting for several hours after the destruction of the Death Star, but it still feels like a hole.

One thing I do suspect without having to rely on the EU for evidence is that the Empire did not actually outmass/outnumber the Rebellion by a huge amount at the battle; relying solely on the forces under Vader's direct command rather than redeploying additional fleet units that might have been noted by Rebel spies.

The Death Star was the "big equaliser" and when that blew it became a slugging match that could have gone either way but that the rebels one due to their higher morale (even ignoring the death of Vader, the Emperor and your admiral seeing several million of your fellow soldiers killed all at once can't have been anything but highly demoralising.

-----------------

I find it amusing that a thread initially about Star Wars has become a discussion of the relative merits of Deep Space 9, Voyager, Enterprise, Babylon 5, "New" Battlestar Galactica and Farscape! :D Within no more than a page.

I have to agree with the poster who said that Farscape was the best at character development; while Babylon 5 had some individually compelling character arcs it was somewhat erratic. G'Kar's development, for example, was spectacularly well done; on the other hand, despite all the traumas and experiences of her four years presence in the series I'd be hard pressed to point out any real growth on Ivanova's part.

Conversely, Babylon 5's a much better "Arc show" than DS9, Farscape or BSG, despite the truncation of the main arc into four seasons rather than the planned five. DS9's arcs feel "bolted on", Farscape's arcs are too often treated as an afterthought in the development of the seasons episodes, and BSG's arcs are fatally compromised by the retcons introduced by the creators of the show in the later seasons.

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 04:03:57 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 07:28:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
So much intellectualizing.  :lol:

This shit is important, man.

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

:lol: Awesome. Suck it..... :huh:...hell, what do you even call you Star Wars freaks?  Nerds?

Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2013, 07:28:02 PM
As for Endor I have to agree that the retreat of the fleet is fairly inexplicable. The EUs explanations and expansions work (the Emperor's 'Force Borging' of his troops, the death of all the Imperial commanders on scene - including IIRC three Grand Admirals etc. etc.) after a fashion given they also have the battle lasting for several hours after the destruction of the Death Star, but it still feels like a hole.

One thing I do suspect without having to rely on the EU for evidence is that the Empire did not actually outmass/outnumber the Rebellion by a huge amount at the battle; relying solely on the forces under Vader's direct command rather than redeploying additional fleet units that might have been noted by Rebel spies. 

I am assuming that the "EU" is the retconned retconn of the Star Wars retconn.  At what point does the Star Wars fanboi just acknowledge that it is a fun fantasy (well for three movies, anyway) without a meaningful larger "universe" in which to place it?  These attempts to bolt on a background just sound absurd to an outsider, and frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I was caught trying to pretend that Star Wars was anything but a fantasy set in an illogical (like all fantasy) universe.

QuoteI have to agree with the poster who said that Farscape was the best at character development; while Babylon 5 had some individually compelling character arcs it was somewhat erratic. G'Kar's development, for example, was spectacularly well done; on the other hand, despite all the traumas and experiences of her four years presence in the series I'd be hard pressed to point out any real growth on Ivanova's part.

I can't really debate Farscape's long-term character development, because I failed a morale check at the end of the first season and never watched more.  I certainly didn't see any character development in the first season, but that was probably because the show hadn't found its feet yet and, like TNG, B5, and DS9 before it, was mostly retreading old SF stories.

Ivanova went through a lot of character development, though you had to watch the series in order to see it.  She started as a humorless, by-the-book officer who was definitely wound too tight (due to family issues, we discover later on), to the black-humor-loving improviser who understands the importance of the bigger picture, to a famous but burned out case who considers herself to be valued only because she can be "trotted out so kids could point their fingers" at her and who delivers that brilliant final soliloquy.  She is damaged goods at the start of the show, finds herself, and then loses everything she cares about to finish as damaged goods again.

Quote from: 11B4V on February 16, 2013, 08:56:40 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 04:03:57 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 07:28:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
So much intellectualizing.  :lol:

This shit is important, man.

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

:lol: Awesome. Suck it..... :huh:...hell, what do you even call you Star Wars freaks?  Nerds?

Virgins.

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 09:02:42 PM
At what point does the Star Wars fanboi just acknowledge that it is a fun fantasy (well for three movies, anyway)

2.66 movies.

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 09:02:42 PMI am assuming that the "EU" is the retconned retconn of the Star Wars retconn.  At what point does the Star Wars fanboi just acknowledge that it is a fun fantasy (well for three movies, anyway) without a meaningful larger "universe" in which to place it?  These attempts to bolt on a background just sound absurd to an outsider, and frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I was caught trying to pretend that Star Wars was anything but a fantasy set in an illogical (like all fantasy) universe.

:lol:

And Babylon 5 isn't a "fun fantasy" with plotholes as well?

Of course it's a fun fantasy, but a plothole in a movie is still a plothole; why shouldn't it be discussed?

By the way, if the whole EU is the third retconn (assuming I've counted your retconns correctly) what was retconns 1 and 2? :huh:

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 09:02:42 PMI can't really debate Farscape's long-term character development, because I failed a morale check at the end of the first season and never watched more.  I certainly didn't see any character development in the first season, but that was probably because the show hadn't found its feet yet and, like TNG, B5, and DS9 before it, was mostly retreading old SF stories.

Fair enough; apart from the retreads there's a fair number of "dud" (very poor) episodes in the first season as well.

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 09:02:42 PMIvanova went through a lot of character development, though you had to watch the series in order to see it.  She started as a humorless, by-the-book officer who was definitely wound too tight (due to family issues, we discover later on), to the black-humor-loving improviser who understands the importance of the bigger picture, to a famous but burned out case who considers herself to be valued only because she can be "trotted out so kids could point their fingers" at her and who delivers that brilliant final soliloquy.  She is damaged goods at the start of the show, finds herself, and then loses everything she cares about to finish as damaged goods again.

I have seen it, Grumbler; I watched it when first broadcast in the UK and own the DVDs...I've even watched the incredibly dud first season episode involving that sick alien boy and his parent's religious beliefs at least six times when rewatching the series (although I've really, really had to force myself not to skip it the last four times.)

Ivanova is a bright, loyal to her commander, by the book officer with a hint of recklessness at the start of season 1; she is essentially the same at the end of season 4, albeit mourning for Marcus. The revelation of her secrets, the trauma of Talia's betrayal, everything except the death of Marcus (which has literally just happened) doesn't seem to have affected her to any great extent, not in her public nor her private persona.

Then she's a jaded half-wreck in the 20 years later episode, filmed for the end of season 4 but shown at the end of season 5. She evolves and develops but the majority occurs off-screen in that twenty year period. Whereas in the case of G'Kar, or Londo, or Vir, we get to see the changes occur over the four years of the main arc (and they're still evolving in the final year as well.)

In terms of character development the "Alien arcs" are by far the most compelling ones in Babylon 5; it makes me wonder if JMS is more comfortable writing for non-human characters than he is for human since of the human characters only Garibaldi has nearly as compelling a developmental arc for his character.

Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2013, 05:45:18 AM
And Babylon 5 isn't a "fun fantasy" with plotholes as well?

No, B5 is a fun SF tale with plot holes.  There is a difference between fantasy like Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz and SF like Star Trek or B5. 

QuoteBy the way, if the whole EU is the third retconn (assuming I've counted your retconns correctly) what was retconns 1 and 2? :huh:

Before the EU there was the EEC, and before that the ECSC.

QuoteI have seen it, Grumbler; I watched it when first broadcast in the UK and own the DVDs...I've even watched the incredibly dud first season episode involving that sick alien boy and his parent's religious beliefs at least six times when rewatching the series (although I've really, really had to force myself not to skip it the last four times.)

Ivanova is a bright, loyal to her commander, by the book officer with a hint of recklessness at the start of season 1; she is essentially the same at the end of season 4, albeit mourning for Marcus. The revelation of her secrets, the trauma of Talia's betrayal, everything except the death of Marcus (which has literally just happened) doesn't seem to have affected her to any great extent, not in her public nor her private persona.

Well, I have explained her character development.   She is certainly not a "by the book" officer by the end of the Shadow War (she lies to and insults the First Ones to get them to join her side, for instance.  That's not "by the book.")  If you refuse to see it, then there's nothing to discuss.  Your refusal to acknowledge Ivanova's character changes does make your criticism of the lack of it rather hollow, however.

QuoteIn terms of character development the "Alien arcs" are by far the most compelling ones in Babylon 5; it makes me wonder if JMS is more comfortable writing for non-human characters than he is for human since of the human characters only Garibaldi has nearly as compelling a developmental arc for his character.

Your comments make me wonder if you are more comfortable analyzing non-human characters than you are for humans, because you miss considerable character development in Sheridan, Bester, Franklin, Alexander, and Allen, all of them human.  Plus Ivanova, of course.

The alien characters get more "character development,' in a way, because they are alien, and so all of their character has to be developed.   Lennier, for instance, didn't really change during the series, he (and we) just found out more about him and what he was actually capable of.

Especially Lyta Alexander.  That said, I think that Londo and G'Kar do have the broadest arcs of any characters in the series, even Sheridan.  G'Kar is almost unrecognizable compared to his earlier self, and Londo not far behind, but because the story is so well-crafted it makes sense.

Vis-a-vis Ivanova, I think she comes a long way between the beginning of the series and the end of Season 4.  I don't think it's super obvious, because she's still fundamentally quiet and the sort of person who supports others rather than forging her own path the way that Sheridan would.  In the beginning, she comes off as a bit green, especially in comparison to the wise guru Sinclair or the worldly veteran Garibaldi.  When Sheridan showed up he really made an effort to develop Ivanova, and you could see by the way she interacted with other characters.  By the end, she was a more confident character, albeit wounded from all the losses she had suffered in the war against Clarke.

Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2013, 07:28:02 PM

One thing I do suspect without having to rely on the EU for evidence is that the Empire did not actually outmass/outnumber the Rebellion by a huge amount at the battle; relying solely on the forces under Vader's direct command rather than redeploying additional fleet units that might have been noted by Rebel spies.

The Death Star was the "big equaliser" and when that blew it became a slugging match that could have gone either way but that the rebels one due to their higher morale (even ignoring the death of Vader, the Emperor and your admiral seeing several million of your fellow soldiers killed all at once can't have been anything but highly demoralising.

Agreed. Endor was a secret installation and only the Emperor knew that the rebellion was going to risk everything on Endor (and he expressly did not share the plan with Piet).  This suggests that the naval garrison was medium-large rather than overpowering. The rebels almost certainly knew that they were going to face a large fleet including the Executor, and so wouldn't have launched the attack without enough ships to take them on. The Emperor's plan hinged on the Death Star + battle meditation.

We know that there was a significant Imperial fleet there, just from having watched the movie.  The Rebel fleet is a little hazier, since I don't recall us ever getting a really good shot of the whole fleet at Endor.

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 04:03:57 PM

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

It's a lot more pleasing aesthetically, and the core characters of the original trilogy are more distinct and enjoyable than their equivalents in Trek. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 08:20:22 PM
Even assuming the shield was constructed so that there was only one aperture, how could the Empire have known this fact?  Or knowing this fact, how could they have known its location?

They could lower the shield more, buy then they'd be exposed to orbitabl bombardment.

The rebels have a "rag tag fleet", they are under-equipped compared to the central authority (rebels usually are ;) ).
Presumably, they have smaller shield that can not cover then entire planet, and you should not see it as one big shield, but rather a series of overlapping shields.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Planetary_shield

Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

Imagine a naval battle where the King is present in his most famous Dreadnought.
Somehow, the ennemy has managed to sink the Dreadnought killing the King.
The King's most trusted general is also presumed killed in the battle.
Then, there's another command ship with the Fleet's top admirals who is sunk.

Don't you think that changes the momento of the battle?

Also, keep in mind that this being Star Wars, the Emperor is using his battle meditation technique to coordinate the assault on the rebel fleet.  Once dead, there is a degree of coordination lost, and there's really no one strong enough left on the field to take command and rally the troops to victory.

Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:38:34 PM
There are quite a few examples in ROTS of people who follow Palpatine like drones because they are demonstratively under his magic sway. For example his guests in the Opera house with Anakin, the alien chancellor who calls him master, the Senators during his discourse, and so on.

If I were an Imperial officer, deploying massive, planet-destroying resources to pursuit a 18 year old blond Ken doll- like peasant from Tatooine would certainly appear whimsical. Yet they do stupid military decisions like this without a single protest.

While technology is quite fundamental to the Empire, such a huge Empire oddly doesn't have any factionalism among its military human elements; on the contrary they seems totally subjugated to Palpatine's every whimsical order. Either it is an effect of simple, sheer Stalinian terror among its military (which we have no evidence of, except directly when Vader is involved. As an aside in the original trilogy novelization his casual 'dismissal' of officers for even trivial military mistakes in one big stain on his rap sheet, and a reason of dissatisfaction of officers serving under him) or Dark Side Magic (as in the canon totally, indiscutably exists).

The Emperor doesn't really use the Force to control each individual.  It's more like extreme coordination, everyone reacting when they should react.  And Stalinian terror.  Tarkin's theory is to rule by fear.

The Imperial fleet seemed much more powerful than the Rebel fleet.  Whether the Emperor is assisting them or not, it shouldn't matter.

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 04:09:30 PM
The Imperial fleet seemed much more powerful than the Rebel fleet.  Whether the Emperor is assisting them or not, it shouldn't matter.

The British looked superior to the Americans, yet the Americans won.
At Bull Run, the Federals lost to the Confederate.

It's not unusual in history to find examples of a superior force being defeated by an inferior one.

And we know that the Empire is kinda overstreched, from the first movie as a rebel fleet coming from an unknown base defeated the Imperials, and they can't seem to ammass huge fleets everywhere they go.

Presumably, without leadership, everything crumbles.  Not unusual.  And anyway, who's in charge now?  Who coordinates the attack?  No Emperor, no Vader, no Piett, no command ship, unable to communicate through shields... it becomes a slugging fest with ISDs in an "hold position".  And many of these ISDs must habe been interdictor cruisers with ligther armament.  A Mon Calamari Cruiser has superior firepower to a regulard Star Destroyers.  The rebels are in attack position, able to strike at the Empire's fleet with concentrated firepower.  All they need to do is target one of them at the time, starting with the biggest ships and fighters running interference.  The X-Wing, and the A-Wing are superior to the Tie Fighters, and the Empire didn't seem to have any Tie Advanced or Tie Interceptors in the fight.

When Luke escapes the Death Star, the battle is still going on. We can deduce from that that the empire didn't immediatly retreat, they kept fighting, but without coordination, they lost.

No, we know that the Imperial fleet is superior to the Rebel one, probably on a ship to ship basis.  "We won't last long against those star destroyers".

There was no fleet action in the first movie.

If we look at the ships seen in the movie, then the Imperial fleet has a huge preponderance of force.  Assuming that the Imperial chain of command went from Piett directly to the individual ship captains seems unreasonable.

TIE Interceptors were definitely there.  They were created for the movie.  I don't think that the Rebel fighters are that much better than the Imperial equivalents.

Is TIE an acronym?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2013, 04:50:30 PM
Is TIE an acronym?

Twin Ion Engine.

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 03:40:41 PM
We know that there was a significant Imperial fleet there, just from having watched the movie.  The Rebel fleet is a little hazier, since I don't recall us ever getting a really good shot of the whole fleet at Endor.

I remember seeing shots of the Rebel fleet going into hyperspace to Endor...

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstoriesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2Frj_fleet.jpg&hash=73d7692d86ff892a04b5260777aa54b83f4424b4)

vs.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theforce.net%2Fswtc%2FPix%2Fgiven%2Fmw%2FFleet1.jpg&hash=02942dd592b69e4a159584be39b5c305492b3917)

Those Cockroach class gun boats are obviously no match for a Star Destroyer.

I dunno...a Super Star Destroyer was no match for an A-Wing.

Yeah, but because it's not at Endor, it's possible that the Rebel fleet massed from multiple launch points.  Just considering all the options.

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 17, 2013, 06:07:08 PM
I dunno...a Super Star Destroyer was no match for an A-Wing.

I think that it would be better to say that a Super Star Destroyer was no match for a disasterous design flaw.

"Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here."

Though from another movie, that sums up the super star destroyer.

Remember that Akbar and Calrissian ordered the Rebel capital ships to attack the star destroyers at "point blank range" while the star destroyers were ordered not to fire back, which presumably did quite a lot of damage.

Are people embarrassed to be seen with you guys in public?

Quote from: chipwich on February 17, 2013, 07:32:59 PM
Remember that Akbar and Calrissian ordered the Rebel capital ships to attack the star destroyers at "point blank range" while the star destroyers were ordered not to fire back, which presumably did quite a lot of damage.

The star destroyers were clearly firing back.  Once the Rebels came in close, it was on.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 07:37:37 PM
Are people embarrassed to be seen with you guys in public?

Only when they wear their "It's a TRAP" T-shirts.

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 07:52:27 PM

Quote from: chipwich on February 17, 2013, 07:32:59 PM
Remember that Akbar and Calrissian ordered the Rebel capital ships to attack the star destroyers at "point blank range" while the star destroyers were ordered not to fire back, which presumably did quite a lot of damage.

The star destroyers were clearly firing back.  Once the Rebels came in close, it was on.

Whoops, you're right, that was after the laser.

That said, the fact the rebels were able to take a risky by concentrating their firepower on the most heavily shielded enemy ship and not get totally wiped out suggests that the rebels had an acceptably strong tactical position. And Admiral Akbar does a sigh of relief when he watches the SSD crash, which suggests that the other star destroyers aren't that big a problem anyomre.

I'm not sure anything George Lucas was responsible for can survive this much scrutiny.  :hmm:

I wish I could bully each and every one of you via the Internet. Several of you need wedgies.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:20:52 PM
I wish I could bully each and every one of you via the Internet. Several of you need wedgies.

Tough talk, brittle-bones. 

Quote from: Queequeg on February 17, 2013, 03:45:07 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2013, 04:03:57 PM

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

It's a lot more pleasing aesthetically, and the core characters of the original trilogy are more distinct and enjoyable than their equivalents in Trek.

I'll take Kirk, Spock, and McCoy over Luke, Han, and Leia.  Indeed, I was reflecting earlier today, and I think the original cast films may be my favorite film series of all.  (Now, the TNG movies are all pretty much garbage.)  But this may be a matter of preference.  And I guess if you're comparing the Star Wars films to the Star Trek show, yeah, I could see it, given that the show features about exactly zero character growth, and almost zero narrative continuity, and is dissimilar enough in its style that the movies are an almost entirely distinct, and superior, work of art.

I might give you aesthetics.  Star Wars had a broader scope (and generally more money), and featured two apocalyptic battles, whereas the Star Trek series labored to get more than two starships on screen at once (and the last of the two times they did it, one of them was invisible :lol: ).  Likewise, Star Wars' set design, and its on-location shooting, is obviously more lavish and more inspired.  ICompare anything in Star Trek to, say, the Death Star II observation deck, or Bespin, or just the endless desert expanses of Tunisia standing in for Tatooine, yeah, it doesn't really compare.  That said, I think the model work is just as good (which you'd expect, given ILM did both).  The Enterprise, the Reliant, or Starbase 1 don't compare too unfavorably to star destroyers, Rebel ships, or the Death Stars.  Except Star Trek V, of course, which looks kinda crummy, because ILM didn't do it.

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 08:31:36 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:20:52 PM
I wish I could bully each and every one of you via the Internet. Several of you need wedgies.

Tough talk, brittle-bones.

I'm one big piece of scar tissue. I won't feel a thing.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 08:31:36 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:20:52 PM
I wish I could bully each and every one of you via the Internet. Several of you need wedgies.

Tough talk, brittle-bones.

I'm one big piece of scar tissue. I won't feel a thing.

You'll be cowering in your home, clinging to your castle doctrine.  So long as I can avoid getting tricked into walking on any lawns in Ohio, I think I'll be safe.

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 08:54:31 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 08:31:36 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:20:52 PM
I wish I could bully each and every one of you via the Internet. Several of you need wedgies.

Tough talk, brittle-bones.

I'm one big piece of scar tissue. I won't feel a thing.

You'll be cowering in your home, clinging to your castle doctrine.  So long as I can avoid getting tricked into walking on any lawns in Ohio, I think I'll be safe.

I have a giant model of the HMS Iron Duke in my yard.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:58:30 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 08:54:31 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 08:31:36 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:20:52 PM
I wish I could bully each and every one of you via the Internet. Several of you need wedgies.

Tough talk, brittle-bones.

I'm one big piece of scar tissue. I won't feel a thing.

You'll be cowering in your home, clinging to your castle doctrine.  So long as I can avoid getting tricked into walking on any lawns in Ohio, I think I'll be safe.

I have a giant model of the HMS Iron Duke in my yard.

Telephoto lens.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:58:30 PM

I have a giant model of the HMS Iron Duke in my yard.

If it was one of those Austrian Pre-Dreadnoughts you would have him.

Quote from: PDH on February 17, 2013, 09:45:57 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2013, 08:58:30 PM

I have a giant model of the HMS Iron Duke in my yard.

If it was one of those Austrian Pre-Dreadnoughts you would have him.

Highly rare and exotic.  I always liked the Radetsky.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2013, 08:31:48 PM
I'll take Kirk, Spock, and McCoy over Luke, Han, and Leia. 

That's a love triangle I'd rather not contemplate.  :lol:

Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2013, 08:31:48 PMthe TNG movies are all pretty much garbage.

Star Trek: First Contact was great!

Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2013, 08:31:48 PM
I'll take Kirk, Spock, and McCoy over Luke, Han, and Leia.

Star Trek TOS suffered from hackneyed 60's writing, incredibly obtuse morality, bad science and godawful storylines. ROMANS NAZIS AND GANGSTERS IN SPACE OH MY

But the interplay between Kirk, Spock and McCoy as characters was by far the best element of the series;  Spock's spiritual conflict between his humanity and his Vulcanism, his emotion and his logic, alone could've been a centerpiece, but the interaction between McCoy's moralism and Spock's logic--not just with one another on numerous occasions, but as equally weighted counterbalances to Kirk's command decision-making, not in a struggle for Kirk's soul but more as the Super-Ego and Ego to Kirk's Id--made for much better three party chemistry than Lucas' half-incestuous trilogy triangle.

And yes, I just dropped Kazantzakis' "dual substance of Spock" on you people, goddammit.  Spock as Christ figure, bitches.  Lucas couldn't come up with anything like that, even with all his cribbing of Joseph Campbell.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2013, 10:26:26 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2013, 08:31:48 PMthe TNG movies are all pretty much garbage.

Star Trek: First Contact was great!

I wouldn't go as far as 'great'.  It was certainly much, much better than all the other TNG movies.

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 10:35:00 PM
I wouldn't go as far as 'great'.  It was certainly much, much better than all the other TNG movies.

It was a compression issue.  The "space opera" that TNG settled into only worked given the massive length of each season.  First Contact was entirely self-contained (yes, there was a callback to Best of Both Worlds, but it was adequately explained in the Moby Dick scene with Lily and Picard).  It wasn't so much a space opera as a zombie survival movie with Borg in place of walking corpses.

Also, the battle in Return of the Jedi was far more plausible.  It was a large Alliance fleet, and several of the ships comprising the battle group could plausibly defeat star destroyers given sufficient superior training.  The turbolaser turrets on star destroyers were slow to track and had low rates of fire.  The Imperials also had a fondness for dropping overwhelming numbers of TIE fighters into the fray (each star destroyer carries 72 of a combination of TIE fighters, TIE bombers, and TIE interceptors.  Given a conservative 3:1 ratio of TIEs to rebel fighters in a big fight confined to a relatively tight space, the TIE pilots simply couldn't have had as many shot opportunities without worrying about friendly fire.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2013, 10:34:26 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2013, 08:31:48 PM
I'll take Kirk, Spock, and McCoy over Luke, Han, and Leia.

Star Trek TOS suffered from hackneyed 60's writing, incredibly obtuse morality, bad science and godawful storylines. ROMANS NAZIS AND GANGSTERS IN SPACE OH MY

But the interplay between Kirk, Spock and McCoy as characters was by far the best element of the series;  Spock's spiritual conflict between his humanity and his Vulcanism, his emotion and his logic, alone could've been a centerpiece, but the interaction between McCoy's moralism and Spock's logic--not just with one another on numerous occasions, but as equally weighted counterbalances to Kirk's command decision-making, not in a struggle for Kirk's soul but more as the Super-Ego and Ego to Kirk's Id--made for much better three party chemistry than Lucas' half-incestuous trilogy triangle.

And yes, I just dropped Kazantzakis' "dual substance of Spock" on you people, goddammit.  Spock as Christ figure, bitches.  Lucas couldn't come up with anything like that, even with all his cribbing of Joseph Campbell.

All of which made them entertaining and interesting, but it wasn't till the movies that they granted them a third dimension beyond their archetypes, replete with the loss of children, friends, enemies, valued material objects, and ultimately their entire way of life, when peace was made with their greatest foe in order to offshore jobs and dismantle the manufacturing base in return for Klingons purchasing Federation debt.

And that's why the new movies are less satisfying.  The diminuation of McCoy takes away from the series.

I just couldn't understand why they let someone who was, from their perspective, clearly a sociopath take over the ship.  SO YOUR MOM'S DEAD HUH FEELIN' SAD?

Though an overweening style and not a small amount of wit made Trek 11 an excellent movie to experience the first time, it seemed sort of hastily written, which has really hampered rewatch value.

I think the one out in May will be better, even if it appears to be a retread of Space Seed.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2013, 11:52:53 PM
All of which made them entertaining and interesting, but it wasn't till the movies that they granted them a third dimension beyond their archetypes, replete with the loss of children, friends, enemies, valued material objects, and ultimately their entire way of life, when peace was made with their greatest foe in order to offshore jobs and dismantle the manufacturing base in return for Klingons purchasing Federation debt.

No, they didn't.  If anything, they polarized the friendship between Spock and Kirk and, as Neil said, marginalized McCoy.  There was no third dimension introduced:  none of the films portrayed the interpersonal conflicts that the TOS did among the characters.
So there.

You guys sure like your stories.

Poor McCoy was out of his times.  As CdM said, he represented convenntional morality.  So what purpose does McCoy when he's being written in a time when people don't have much of a concept of morality?

For God's sake Neil, he's a doctor a not a representative of morality. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2013, 04:48:11 PM
No, we know that the Imperial fleet is superior to the Rebel one, probably on a ship to ship basis.  "We won't last long against those star destroyers".

At that point, there is a Super Star Destroyer.  By the time the Death Star is destroyed, the SSD is gone and so is at least on of the ISD, IIRC.

Quote
TIE Interceptors were definitely there.  They were created for the movie.  I don't think that the Rebel fighters are that much better than the Imperial equivalents.

TIE Fighters have no shields but are a bit faster than X-Wings.
TIE Interceptors are way faster than the X-Wings but they lack shields.
Y-Wings are slow bombers.
But the A-Wing is faster than anything in the imperial fleet and it has shields.

Shields don't seem especially useful for the fighters.  Even with them, a good burst of fire seemed to be fatal.  Besides, do we know that the TIE fighters don't have shields?

He's basing that on the old Star Wars space fighter games. TIE fighters were just pieces of shit in those games.

Yeah, and while those were great games, I'm not sure they're 100% accurate in their description of space combat in Star Wars.

TIEs are meant to be fast.  They're a cockpit sitting on an engine, so there isn't much room for shields; X-wings are at least twice as large with the additions of the larger laser cannons, hyperdrive, and shield generators.

Y-wings might be slow, but there's a lot of mass in the design- it seems it would take quite a bit of digging before getting to vital internals or ordnance mags.

The B-wings were the actual threat; as heavily armed for ship-to-ship as an X-wing, faster and at least as agile, but with a far smaller profile to hit, most of which wasn't essential components (the thrusters and cockpit together are smaller than an A-wing; given the thrust vectoring, I'm assuming a B-wing could stand the loss of at least one of it's strike foils).

ETA: Also, let's not forget how shitty the Imperial gunnery staff was.  It was an Imperial gunner that lost the Executor, not a Rebel pilot.  The second that gunner hit the A-wing, he turned it into a missile aimed straight at the bridge, which was obviously the CIC for the Imperial fleet.  If there had been any threat awareness and threat management, they would have fired along the flight path to force the fighter to change its approach.

The TIE fighters don't really seem smaller.

And you guys give me shit about taking this stuff too seriously.  Geez.

I am sure if things had gotten too bad for the Rebel fleet, the Ewoks could have just started catapulting boulders into the Star Destroyers, and the Empire wouldn't have a chance.

About Star Wars vs. Star Trek - I never really saw them in competition with one another.

Star Trek explores classic sci-fi themes: how technology influences life and society, and, in its better moments, an examination of the human condition.

Star Wars was conceived as a modern mythology that while taking place in space aims to tell a universal story with well known tropes and archetypes; it's in that respect similar to Lord of the Rings. And just like Lord of the Rings, there's no reason not to fill out the backdrop or tell new stories in this general setting. Where it comes apart for me, though, is trying to explain the universe in scientific terms. Yes, it should be internally (somewhat) consistent. For that I don't need to know about midichlorians or what the relative acceleration properties of an A-Wing vs. a TIE-Fighter are, or what the tracking speed of a Death Star turbolaser is.

Much like I don't need to know at what temperature the One Ring was forged, or what the supply chain of the Uruk-Hai was.

Star Wars isn't about the technobabble.

Quote from: Syt on February 18, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
Much like I don't need to know at what temperature the One Ring was forged, or what the supply chain of the Uruk-Hai was.

Somebody's working on a variant of CNA (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/the-campaign-for-north-africa) for LOTR where  Uruk-Hai use up extra supply points for extra rat consumption and if enough rats aren't available they eat goblins.

Quote from: Syt on February 18, 2013, 02:55:19 PM

Star Wars isn't about the technobabble.

Tell that to the midi-chlorians.

Btw, in case anyone ever wondered why the Death Star Mk. 2 was operational within a few years, while the smaller Death Star Mk. 1 took from the end of Ep. III to becoming operational in Ep. IV (19 year later):

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/DS-1_Orbital_Battle_Station

QuoteHowever, the project nearly ended before it began. Although much of the technology of the Death Star was impressive, actually building it proved to be more difficult than anyone imagined. The project was dragged out over a nineteen year time period as labor union disputes along with the supply and design problems slowed the construction. Efforts were not helped by repeated—albeit usually unsuccessful—sabotage efforts. Actual effective work on the station took less than two years, and involved resources from every corner of the Empire being funneled to complete the project.

:lol:

Quote from: Syt on February 18, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
or what the supply chain of the Uruk-Hai was.

Less the Uruk-Hai, since Isengard is relatively fertile, but did you never wonder where the orcs of Mordor got their food from?  There's nothing growing there.

Apparently the Galactic Empire neither had the Rush Act (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/us/guide/012.html) or Orin Zento (http://babylon5.wikia.com/wiki/Orin_Zento)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 03:20:16 PM

Quote from: Syt on February 18, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
or what the supply chain of the Uruk-Hai was.

Less the Uruk-Hai, since Isengard is relatively fertile, but did you never wonder where the orcs of Mordor got their food from?  There's nothing growing there.

mushrooms

Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 03:22:28 PM
mushrooms

Requires moisture.  Mordor is dry.

And orcs are witnessed by Frodo and Bilbo eating nasty bread.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 03:20:16 PM

Quote from: Syt on February 18, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
or what the supply chain of the Uruk-Hai was.

Less the Uruk-Hai, since Isengard is relatively fertile, but did you never wonder where the orcs of Mordor got their food from?  There's nothing growing there.

If you bothered to read the book (do you kids learn to read these days?) you'd know that the food came from the vast farmlands around Lake Nurnen.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 03:20:16 PM
Less the Uruk-Hai, since Isengard is relatively fertile, but did you never wonder where the orcs of Mordor got their food from?  There's nothing growing there.

Considering the amount of workplace violence, each other occasionally isn't outside the realm of possibilities.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 03:29:54 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 03:22:28 PM
mushrooms

Requires moisture.  Mordor is dry.

And orcs are witnessed by Frodo and Bilbo eating nasty bread.

Southern Mordor had some farms.  The area they walk through in the books is plateau of Gorogoroth, which has little vegetable growth.

Quote from: Queequeg on February 17, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
It's a lot more pleasing aesthetically, and the core characters of the original trilogy are more distinct and enjoyable than their equivalents in Trek. 

I agree that the characters merit discussion.  I simply note that the setting is nothing but a fantasy, with any pretense to logic and "science" bolted on because the creators belatedly decided that they were going to pretend that this was an intellectual work.  Playing along with that obvious nonsense seems foolish to me, especially when there are superior works that are designed with the idea that fans want to take off the cover and see how the pieces work.

Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
Shields don't seem especially useful for the fighters.  Even with them, a good burst of fire seemed to be fatal.  Besides, do we know that the TIE fighters don't have shields?

you can see it in the movies too, as well as in the game.  One good shot for a TIE fighter and it's dead.  An X-Wing can take more punishment.

Quote from: Syt on February 18, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
Btw, in case anyone ever wondered why the Death Star Mk. 2 was operational within a few years, while the smaller Death Star Mk. 1 took from the end of Ep. III to becoming operational in Ep. IV (19 year later):

actually, the Death Star was never meant to be unique :)

Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2013, 05:09:49 PM
An X-Wing can take more punishment.

Tell that to Porkins.

Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2013, 05:09:49 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
Shields don't seem especially useful for the fighters.  Even with them, a good burst of fire seemed to be fatal.  Besides, do we know that the TIE fighters don't have shields?

you can see it in the movies too, as well as in the game.  One good shot for a TIE fighter and it's dead.  An X-Wing can take more punishment.

Really?  I don't remember an X-Wing surviving a solid hit.  They seemed to burn up pretty easily in the trench run.  Luke survived a hit to his stabilizer, and Wedge lost his starboard engine, but everyone else just exploded.

Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2013, 05:07:11 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on February 17, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
It's a lot more pleasing aesthetically, and the core characters of the original trilogy are more distinct and enjoyable than their equivalents in Trek. 

I agree that the characters merit discussion.  I simply note that the setting is nothing but a fantasy, with any pretense to logic and "science" bolted on because the creators belatedly decided that they were going to pretend that this was an intellectual work.  Playing along with that obvious nonsense seems foolish to me, especially when there are superior works that are designed with the idea that fans want to take off the cover and see how the pieces work.

I don't accept your assertion that sci-fi is inherently superior to fantasy.

That said, I think that almost every work of fiction has certain 'black boxes' that can't easily be explained.

Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2013, 05:51:15 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2013, 05:07:11 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on February 17, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
It's a lot more pleasing aesthetically, and the core characters of the original trilogy are more distinct and enjoyable than their equivalents in Trek. 

I agree that the characters merit discussion.  I simply note that the setting is nothing but a fantasy, with any pretense to logic and "science" bolted on because the creators belatedly decided that they were going to pretend that this was an intellectual work.  Playing along with that obvious nonsense seems foolish to me, especially when there are superior works that are designed with the idea that fans want to take off the cover and see how the pieces work.

I don't accept your assertion that sci-fi is inherently superior to fantasy.

That said, I think that almost every work of fiction has certain 'black boxes' that can't easily be explained.

Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

Quote
I agree that the characters merit discussion.  I simply note that the setting is nothing but a fantasy, with any pretense to logic and "science" bolted on because the creators belatedly decided that they were going to pretend that this was an intellectual work.  Playing along with that obvious nonsense seems foolish to me, especially when there are superior works that are designed with the idea that fans want to take off the cover and see how the pieces work.

I largely agree with you, but I don't think you acknowledged my point-that the Star Wars movies are gorgeous and innovative visually in a way that Star Trek never was. 

Quote from: Queequeg on February 18, 2013, 06:39:13 PM
I largely agree with you, but I don't think you acknowledged my point-that the Star Wars movies are gorgeous and innovative visually in a way that Star Trek never was.

Oh come now.  You think Star Trek was not innovative?

Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 06:34:23 PM

Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

You guys are thinking too much about it. The demarcation line between the two types of sci-fi as grumbler laid out is simply whether or not grumbler is a fanboy of it or not.  :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 07:00:16 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on February 18, 2013, 06:39:13 PM
I largely agree with you, but I don't think you acknowledged my point-that the Star Wars movies are gorgeous and innovative visually in a way that Star Trek never was.

Oh come now.  You think Star Trek was not innovative?

Visually innovative.  Star Trek was a TV show with a dinky budget.  Industrial Light and Magic wrote the book on modern special effects.

Whereas the VFX work on Star Treks I, II, III, IV, and VI was done by Industrial Light and Magic, so there's clearly no comparison.

Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2013, 05:47:52 PM
Really?  I don't remember an X-Wing surviving a solid hit.  They seemed to burn up pretty easily in the trench run.  Luke survived a hit to his stabilizer, and Wedge lost his starboard engine, but everyone else just exploded.

Actually, most of them crashed after being disabled, Porkins included.

Actually, adopting a bit of EU makes things a LOT smoother for the Death Star construction time, even though it was written long before Episode III- the idea is that the one we see at the end of Revenge of the Sith is NOT the Death Star; it's a prototype built as a testing platform for the superlaser, kept quiet by using the gun on very remote planets.  Effectively, that's the first Death Star, the one in A New Hope is the second Death Star, and the one in Return of the Jedi is actually the third.

Porkins' ship was definitely coming apart around him on the last shot we saw of the cockpit.

Now here is some intellectualizing of a movie that doesn't need intellectualizing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9458558/Bruce-Willis-would-have-needed-a-bigger-bomb-to-stop-asteroid-scientists-say.html

Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2013, 05:47:52 PM
Really?  I don't remember an X-Wing surviving a solid hit.  They seemed to burn up pretty easily in the trench run.  Luke survived a hit to his stabilizer, and Wedge lost his starboard engine, but everyone else just exploded.

They exploded after multiple hits, not just one shot.  And at least 2 survived while zero TIE figthers that were hit survived.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 19, 2013, 12:20:31 AM
Now here is some intellectualizing of a movie that doesn't need intellectualizing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9458558/Bruce-Willis-would-have-needed-a-bigger-bomb-to-stop-asteroid-scientists-say.html

I imagine that not only would a Texas size rock be seen in time, it would have been documented decades ago.  I mean, a body of that size would be classified as a Dwarf planet.  People were spotting the big rocks of the asteroid belt in the early 19th century.

Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2013, 05:51:15 PM
I don't accept your assertion that sci-fi is inherently superior to fantasy.

I don't accept your assertion that I said anything about "inherently superior."

QuoteThat said, I think that almost every work of fiction has certain 'black boxes' that can't easily be explained.

Of course it does.  And spending time trying to explain them is foolish, which is my point.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 12:52:21 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 19, 2013, 12:20:31 AM
Now here is some intellectualizing of a movie that doesn't need intellectualizing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9458558/Bruce-Willis-would-have-needed-a-bigger-bomb-to-stop-asteroid-scientists-say.html

I imagine that not only would a Texas size rock be seen in time, it would have been documented decades ago.  I mean, a body of that size would be classified as a Dwarf planet.  People were spotting the big rocks of the asteroid belt in the early 19th century.

Yeah, an Asteriod as big as Texas would be bigger than Ceres. It would have been discovered in the 18th century.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 06:34:23 PM
Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

When the central concept of a work is magical, like "the Force," the work is a fantasy work.  It doesn't matter how The Force works; all that matter is that it is incredibly powerful and only those born with the right genes can use it.  The Force is thus closer to The Ring (whose composition and exact weight we never discover, but we don't care) than it is to telepathy (which existed in B5, for instance, but could have been eliminated entirely without changing anything significant).

One could make the argument that Star Trek "is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage" only if get whacked on the head so hard that you forget about Star Wars, because there is no conceptual approach under which Star Trek is more anti-intellectual than Star Wars.  Sure, there is a lot about Star Trek, or B5, or any other series that one can question, but my point is that Star Wars was never designed as anything but a fantasy, and so trying to explain it in terms of science is foolish.  The fact that Star Wars has space ships does not make it SF.

A fantasy about trade agreements and senate debates? Unlikely, and if actually the case, sick.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
The demarcation line between the two types of sci-fi as grumbler laid out is simply whether or not grumbler is a fanboy of it or not.  :P

True.  I am much more a fanboy of the first three SW movies than I am of ST:TOS.

And by "true" I meant, of course, "false."  :P

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2013, 05:47:32 AM

Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2013, 05:51:15 PM
I don't accept your assertion that sci-fi is inherently superior to fantasy.

I don't accept your assertion that I said anything about "inherently superior."

You're the one who used the word 'superior works'.  I'm just going to assume that your descent into grumbler-fu is a concession.

Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:30:06 AM
You're the one who used the word 'superior works'.  I'm just going to assume that your descent into grumbler-fu is a concession.

I used the phrase 'superior works" in a context.  I'm just going to assume that you are now ignoring that context because you concede that including the context would reveal how foolish your position is.

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2013, 05:57:02 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 06:34:23 PM
Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

When the central concept of a work is magical, like "the Force," the work is a fantasy work.  It doesn't matter how The Force works; all that matter is that it is incredibly powerful and only those born with the right genes can use it.  The Force is thus closer to The Ring (whose composition and exact weight we never discover, but we don't care) than it is to telepathy (which existed in B5, for instance, but could have been eliminated entirely without changing anything significant).

Psychic abilities in B5 seemed pretty darn powerful, and I thought that there was at least a genetic component to psychic abilities in that work.  And while I will agree that psychic abilities weren't central to B5 as the Force was to SW, I'd say cutting them and PsyCorps out of B5 would definately have been a significant change.

Quote from: Kleves on February 18, 2013, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2013, 05:09:49 PM
An X-Wing can take more punishment.

Tell that to Porkins.

:( Porkins died a hero to tubby space pilots everywhere.

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2013, 09:34:42 AM

Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:30:06 AM
You're the one who used the word 'superior works'.  I'm just going to assume that your descent into grumbler-fu is a concession.

I used the phrase 'superior works" in a context.  I'm just going to assume that you are now ignoring that context because you concede that including the context would reveal how foolish your position is.

My position was that you're wrong and a bit of an ass.  You've never done anything to refute it.

Why does "psychic powers", get a pass in sci-fi works?  I mean, it's magic.  Why does it not automatically shift the work into the realm of fantasy?

Quote from: PDH on February 19, 2013, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Kleves on February 18, 2013, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2013, 05:09:49 PM
An X-Wing can take more punishment.

Tell that to Porkins.

:( Porkins died a hero to tubby space pilots everywhere.

His weight probably contributed to his X-Wing crashing or whatever.

I don't think the fat snowspeeder pilot who found Han and Luke ever got the acclaim he deserved.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 12:16:53 PM
Why does "psychic powers", get a pass in sci-fi works?  I mean, it's magic.  Why does it not automatically shift the work into the realm of fantasy?

You mean like Betazoids?

Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 12:16:53 PM
Why does "psychic powers", get a pass in sci-fi works?  I mean, it's magic.  Why does it not automatically shift the work into the realm of fantasy?

It's the next step in human evolution. You don't think that evolution is science?

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2013, 05:57:02 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 06:34:23 PM
Right.  I mean, taking Babylon 5, I don't think you can really say that telepathy/telekinesis and jump gates are intellectually superior to the Force and hyperdrives, given that all of the above are based on made-up nonsense (and are practically, albeit not exactly, identical in function).  At best, they may have been more coherently described and depicted.  And if coherence is all of what the intellectual value of a work is about, Star Trek taken as a whole is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage (and that argument has been made, usually by self-righteous ultra-nerds who think scientific fidelity or, more often, internal continuity is the beginning and end of all analysis or even possibility for enjoyment).

When the central concept of a work is magical, like "the Force," the work is a fantasy work.  It doesn't matter how The Force works; all that matter is that it is incredibly powerful and only those born with the right genes can use it.  The Force is thus closer to The Ring (whose composition and exact weight we never discover, but we don't care) than it is to telepathy (which existed in B5, for instance, but could have been eliminated entirely without changing anything significant).

One could make the argument that Star Trek "is the ultimate in anti-intellectual garbage" only if get whacked on the head so hard that you forget about Star Wars, because there is no conceptual approach under which Star Trek is more anti-intellectual than Star Wars.  Sure, there is a lot about Star Trek, or B5, or any other series that one can question, but my point is that Star Wars was never designed as anything but a fantasy, and so trying to explain it in terms of science is foolish.  The fact that Star Wars has space ships does not make it SF.

But Star Trek has the Q who are far more powerful than anyone using the Force in Star Wars.

Quote from: PJL on February 19, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
But Star Trek has the Q who are far more powerful than anyone using the Force in Star Wars.

And with a much better sense of humor.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 01:13:04 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 12:16:53 PM
Why does "psychic powers", get a pass in sci-fi works?  I mean, it's magic.  Why does it not automatically shift the work into the realm of fantasy?

You mean like Betazoids?

I don't know what that is.  Technically a lot of stuff in sci-fi is impossible (faster then light travel for instance), but the spoon benders always have annoyed me.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnerdsofwisdom.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fcharlie_X-e1346677255202.jpg&hash=db136d0aed8730070a00c720c379d42bbd5a1d8f)


With the Q it could simply be technology/evolution so advanced as to be indistinguishable to magic. Hyper-advanced techno-mages. :P

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fagentbedhead.com%2Fwp-content%2Fpiccies%2Fleiapillowightsm.jpg&hash=de0a0b5238a2caf9b87ba2a8222d11e375f56038)

better.

Then get used to it with the next Star Trek film because that's what it's all about:  with Benedict Cumberbatch as Kirk's old friend-turned-nemesis Lt. Gary Mitchell.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 19, 2013, 02:00:40 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fagentbedhead.com%2Fwp-content%2Fpiccies%2Fleiapillowightsm.jpg&hash=de0a0b5238a2caf9b87ba2a8222d11e375f56038)

better.

OK, I'm over the lesbian batgirl thing now...

Tattoo and short hair on that one? Boo.

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2013, 05:57:02 AM
telepathy (which existed in B5, for instance, but could have been eliminated entirely without changing anything significant).

Like that entire plotline where Shadows tried to eliminate or control telepaths because they were harmful to them and the whole 5th season.  Yeah, nothing significant ;)

Quote from: PJL on February 19, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
But Star Trek has the Q who are far more powerful than anyone using the Force in Star Wars.

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.  :P

Quote from: derspiess on February 19, 2013, 02:14:55 PM
Tattoo and short hair on that one? Boo.

You was looking at the tat? Homo.

Star Wars was a movie made by movie guys.  Setting in space allowed for the tricked-out effects but the action and the content are based on westerns, shorts, and old war pics.  Why are Star Destroyers so big?  So they could have the iconic opening shot.  Why is there such heavy usage of 1-man fighters?  Because the guys who made it grew up watching news reels, comics and features with piston-engined dogfights.  Why four legged Imperial walkers?  Because they look menacing and a little gothic.  Why would the Empire put so much resources building a giant planet killing structure itself the size of the planet?  Because that is kind of thing that a Bond villain would do, or Fu Manchu if his cGDP was higher.  Trying to take all these characteristics and fashion some kind of logically consistent "universe" out of them not only is a fool's errand, it misses the point in a unintentionally comic way. 

 :secret:  Most movies are made by movie guys.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 02:03:08 PM
Then get used to it with the next Star Trek film because that's what it's all about:  with Benedict Cumberbatch as Kirk's old friend-turned-nemesis Lt. Gary Mitchell.

I don't believe that has been confirmed.  My impression from the trailers was that Cumberdict was gonna be a genetically engineered fellow from the 1990s 21st century that was not Khan, but was, you know, basically Khan.

I think I'd rather see a remake of Space Seed than Where No Man Has Gone Before, but they're both pretty good, I guess.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 06:24:55 PM
:secret:  Most movies are made by movie guys.

When dealing with people that do things like write detailed analyses about Darth Vader's operational art, it's best to spell out everything explicitly.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 19, 2013, 06:30:44 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 06:24:55 PM
:secret:  Most movies are made by movie guys.

When dealing with people that do things like write detailed analyses about Darth Vader's operational art, it's best to spell out everything explicitly.

Yeah, that whole thing is pretty weird.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 06:29:39 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 02:03:08 PM
Then get used to it with the next Star Trek film because that's what it's all about:  with Benedict Cumberbatch as Kirk's old friend-turned-nemesis Lt. Gary Mitchell.

I don't believe that has been confirmed.  My impression from the trailers was that Cumberdict was gonna be a genetically engineered fellow from the 1990s 21st century that was not Khan, but was, you know, basically Khan.

I think I'd rather see a remake of Space Seed than Where No Man Has Gone Before, but they're both pretty good, I guess.

The Khan rumors have already been squashed.  And quite frankly, I think going back and rebooting Khan would be a loser premise with the fan base.  The Gary Mitchell angle can work better.

Indeed, a Wrath of Khan remake?  The kind of outrage that would generate might have you might end up with Trekkies burning their Klingon-English dictionaries in the streets.

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 19, 2013, 06:46:01 PM
Indeed, a Wrath of Khan remake?  The kind of outrage that would generate might have you might end up with Trekkies burning their Klingon-English dictionaries in the streets.

Ricardo Montalban may be dead, but he's still in Montalban stage 4 of his career.

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 19, 2013, 06:46:01 PM
Indeed, a Wrath of Khan remake?  The kind of outrage that would generate might have you might end up with Trekkies burning their Klingon-English dictionaries in the streets.

That reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fo.onionstatic.com%2Fimages%2Farticles%2Farticle%2F709%2Fonion_news1719_jpg_250x1000_q85.jpg&hash=7b4996dbe8b2641cb920ef7d8d6792138e9550cd)

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 19, 2013, 06:46:01 PM
Indeed, a Wrath of Khan remake?  The kind of outrage that would generate might have you might end up with Trekkies burning their Klingon-English dictionaries in the streets.

Space Seed remake, not Wrath of Khan remake. :nerd:

Money--I don't think it's Khan, but I think it's a Khan-like character (unless this has been fully squashed), and I don't think it's Mitchell.  Like I said, I think both are potentially good ideas to mine.  Guess we'll see in May. :)

I also wouldn't mind Garth of Izar.  That episode was awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L04dpkbU3IA

Lol.

Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 07:15:50 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 19, 2013, 06:46:01 PM
Indeed, a Wrath of Khan remake?  The kind of outrage that would generate might have you might end up with Trekkies burning their Klingon-English dictionaries in the streets.

Space Seed remake, not Wrath of Khan remake. :nerd:

Money--I don't think it's Khan, but I think it's a Khan-like character (unless this has been fully squashed), and I don't think it's Mitchell.  Like I said, I think both are potentially good ideas to mine.  Guess we'll see in May. :)

I was speaking of a WoK remake in general terms, not specific to these circumstances.

Well, O Brother Where Art Thou wasn't inspired by The Iliad. :blurgh:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 19, 2013, 06:21:35 PM
Star Wars was a movie made by movie guys.  Setting in space allowed for the tricked-out effects but the action and the content are based on westerns, shorts, and old war pics.  Why are Star Destroyers so big?  So they could have the iconic opening shot.  Why is there such heavy usage of 1-man fighters?  Because the guys who made it grew up watching news reels, comics and features with piston-engined dogfights.  Why four legged Imperial walkers?  Because they look menacing and a little gothic.  Why would the Empire put so much resources building a giant planet killing structure itself the size of the planet?  Because that is kind of thing that a Bond villain would do, or Fu Manchu if his cGDP was higher.  Trying to take all these characteristics and fashion some kind of logically consistent "universe" out of them not only is a fool's errand, it misses the point in a unintentionally comic way.

This sort of thinking is silly.  Wasting time by trying to imagine a universe out of scenes from a movie is a leisure time activity, and is no better or worse than drinking and attempting to determine which wine is best.  If people weren't wasting their time with this sort of thing, they'd have no choice but to start thinking about how to solve social probles.  Since the result of that would inevitably be lawyers being hunted down and shot like animals, it's probably advantageous for you that we're taking the time to do this.

Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 07:47:31 PM

This sort of thinking is silly.  Wasting time by trying to imagine a universe out of scenes from a movie is a leisure time activity, and is no better or worse than drinking and attempting to determine which wine is best.  If people weren't wasting their time with this sort of thing, they'd have no choice but to start thinking about how to solve social probles.  Since the result of that would inevitably be lawyers being hunted down and shot like animals, it's probably advantageous for you that we're taking the time to do this.

I liked how they solved the Lawyer problem on Ajuris 5 :nerd:





^^^ In Blackest Night, episode 4-5 of Justice League (animated series)

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 19, 2013, 06:09:18 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 19, 2013, 02:14:55 PM
Tattoo and short hair on that one? Boo.

You was looking at the tat? Homo.

She ruined the pic and should've been photoshopped out.

Quote from: dps on February 19, 2013, 09:56:17 AM
Psychic abilities in B5 seemed pretty darn powerful, and I thought that there was at least a genetic component to psychic abilities in that work.  And while I will agree that psychic abilities weren't central to B5 as the Force was to SW, I'd say cutting them and PsyCorps out of B5 would definately have been a significant change.

I agree that the change would have been a change, but there was never anything magical about psychic abilities in B5, nor were they in any way central to the plot. 

The force was never presented in the first three movies as anything but magic.  There's nothing wrong with that; the One Ring was never presented as anything but magic, either.  Nor superman's powers, etc.  My point simply is that fantasies lend themselves to analysis of characters, but not, in most cases, plot elements or "science."  Analyzing Vader's tactics as though they had been designed to meet the criteria for military tactics looks to me like a mug's game.  Noting that Vader wanted to capture Luke and not kill him (as the Emperor wanted him to do) is perfectly valid analysis; debating whether Hoth had a whole-planet shield or just a local one is not.

It's just an observation.  People who take it personally have bigger problems than just being fanboys.

Quote from: PJL on February 19, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
But Star Trek has the Q who are far more powerful than anyone using the Force in Star Wars.

True.  I never watched those episodes (other than that awful last ep), but I know they existed.  Those were pretty much full fantasy eps, but weren't central to the ST concept like the force was to Star Wars.

Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2013, 02:57:11 PM
Like that entire plotline where Shadows tried to eliminate or control telepaths because they were harmful to them and the whole 5th season.  Yeah, nothing significant ;)

Exactly.  That could have been dropped with no impact on the story.

Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2013, 10:10:26 PM

Quote from: PJL on February 19, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
But Star Trek has the Q who are far more powerful than anyone using the Force in Star Wars.

True.  I never watched those episodes (other than that awful last ep), but I know they existed.  Those were pretty much full fantasy eps, but weren't central to the ST concept like the force was to Star Wars.

I'd say the Borg were central to the story arc of The Next Generation, and Q was involved with that.

Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 07:47:31 PM
This sort of thinking is silly.  Wasting time by trying to imagine a universe out of scenes from a movie is a leisure time activity, and is no better or worse than drinking and attempting to determine which wine is best.  If people weren't wasting their time with this sort of thing, they'd have no choice but to start thinking about how to solve social probles.  Since the result of that would inevitably be lawyers being hunted down and shot like animals, it's probably advantageous for you that we're taking the time to do this.

Lawyers were thriving quite nicely before Star Wars.
I'll take my chances.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 19, 2013, 10:32:19 PMI'd say the Borg were central to the story arc of The Next Generation, and Q was involved with that.

He merely pushed up their meeting of the Borg. Like throwing them in the deep end of the pool.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 19, 2013, 10:40:28 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 07:47:31 PM
This sort of thinking is silly.  Wasting time by trying to imagine a universe out of scenes from a movie is a leisure time activity, and is no better or worse than drinking and attempting to determine which wine is best.  If people weren't wasting their time with this sort of thing, they'd have no choice but to start thinking about how to solve social probles.  Since the result of that would inevitably be lawyers being hunted down and shot like animals, it's probably advantageous for you that we're taking the time to do this.

Lawyers were thriving quite nicely before Star Wars.
I'll take my chances.

Lawyers are the modern equivalent of slaveholders.  You can take your chances because there is enough entertainment in this world to distract most people from your perfidy.

Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
No, B5 is a fun SF tale with plot holes.  There is a difference between fantasy like Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz and SF like Star Trek or B5.

:hmm:

The boundaries of what constitutes SF and fantasy are an individual choice, I suppose; since the obvious clear dividing line between "Fantasy" and "SF" in this context would be the use of an FTL drive, something that I note exists on both sides of your personal dividing line. I guess we'll have to agree to differ here.

Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
Before the EU there was the EEC, and before that the ECSC.

:D

Ah. Nice. I'm ashamed to say that I completely missed it.

Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
Well, I have explained her character development.   She is certainly not a "by the book" officer by the end of the Shadow War (she lies to and insults the First Ones to get them to join her side, for instance.  That's not "by the book.")  If you refuse to see it, then there's nothing to discuss.  Your refusal to acknowledge Ivanova's character changes does make your criticism of the lack of it rather hollow, however.

There's a "book" for getting First Ones onto your side now? Moreover that's more an expression of the recklessness of her character that's underlain it since series one rather than "breaking the book" since she's an officer, not an ambassador.

Ivanova is as close to a "Star Trek reset" character as exists in the series. And then twenty years later she shows up as an almost different person, bitter and jaded. While she did have some development on screen it affected her far less than other characters; her main changes seem to have occurred off-screen.

In this respect I find it interesting to note that of the four command staff members most involved in the break with Earth in season 3, Ivanova seems to have been the one to have the easiest time reintegrating with EarthForce and its' standard career path at the end of season 4.

Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2013, 09:55:57 AMYour comments make me wonder if you are more comfortable analyzing non-human characters than you are for humans, because you miss considerable character development in Sheridan, Bester, Franklin, Alexander, and Allen, all of them human.  Plus Ivanova, of course.

The alien characters get more "character development,' in a way, because they are alien, and so all of their character has to be developed.   Lennier, for instance, didn't really change during the series, he (and we) just found out more about him and what he was actually capable of.

There's a difference between describing character arcs as being more compelling than others and denying that they exist at all. That's putting words into my mouth. 

Nor do I see how my comment justifies your accusation of being more comfortable analysing aliens than humans since I specifically quoted Garibaldi's arc as being nearly as compelling as G'Kar's and Londo's.

As for the arcs you list?

Sheridan develops a considerable and believable degree of gravitas during the series, but his overall arc really feels very shallow - partly because he's been shoehorned into a chunk of another character's role, and partly because he's the lead and thus constrained more by the overall plot than some of the others. He's "ticking boxes" in the plot as much as undergoing character development at times, which is a shame; Boxleitner's performance grew on me after the rocky start that was his introduction in season 2.

Bester's arc suffers by his lack of appearances and by the fact that it's been left as "unfinished business" at the end of the series. We learn more about him, yes, but what we learn of him adds to our knowledge of him as he is rather than showing him change as a person. Although this interpretation is, I admit, somewhat reliant on one's opinion of how long his relationship with the "blip" lasted.

Franklin's arc is probably the next one down from Garibaldi's in terms of interest overall; certainly his addiction to stims was handled much better and more believably than in just about any other science fiction series I could name that has had episodes handling a similar issue. Unfortunately I found him to be the least engaging character of all the command staff so there's an unfortunate degree of disinterest in my appreciation of his arc, I will admit.

Alexander's arc...well, like Bester's it suffered from being completed "off screen" in the telepath war. Moreover, I'm one of those people who think that her relationship with Byron and his refugees was the worst part of the fifth season. Her development across seasons 2 through 4 though wasn't bad, her character seeming to subtly change with each appearance, especially in the episodes where more and more she had to choose between her human and Vorlon loyalties. A very good performance unfortunately slightly spoiled by her season 5 plot-arc.

Allen? Well, his arc when he had one was quite good...but he basically only had one for most of season 3 before and immediately after B5 broke from Earth. His personal struggle with what was morally right in the situation was extremely well done. Unfortunately before and after that his role was much more supporting, acting more as a foil for characters with arcs of their own which damages the overall impact of his own arc.

I stand by my statement that in general the alien arcs, in particular Londo's, G'Kar's and (in addition) Vir's are more compelling than the human arcs with the exception of Garibaldi's.

As for Lennier...he seems to be the exception to the rule. The overall impression of his development is almost that of underuse; perhaps it's because his most significant decision (to equate his loyalty to the Minbari explicitly with his loyalty to Delenn over his ties to caste and family) occurred so early in the show's run that it overwhelmed any possible subsequent development for him. I think also his arc was probably hurt by the truncating of 2 years worth of story into 1 with season 4 as well. Or perhaps JMS found him a problem to write since unlike Vir he had no obvious path that he could be written as being prepared for (in which case it perhaps might be significant that G'Kar's aide Na'Toth is originally recast for season 2 but then simply disappears after a few episodes since her character could have shared Lennier's issues with development although I am aware that there have been "official" explanations for this disappearance as well.)