PDA

View Full Version : The Battle of Endor...Outstanding odds...A Mission Impossible?



Dark Orbit
12 February 2003, 06:33 PM
=======The Space Battle=============

I was watching RoTJ and I put the VCR into slow motion to watch how many Rebel Ships went into hyperspace when they left to attack the Death Star:

3 Mon Cal cruisers
2 Nebulon-Bs
3 Corellian Corvettes
2 Gallofree Medium Transports
around 150 starfighters

Then, I slowed it down and looked at the Imperial Fleet:

22 Imperial Star Destroyer
1 Super Star Destroyer
1 Death Star (not in fight)
over 1,000 starfighters

Now in the first few minutes of the battle, two Mon Cal cruisers were taken out by the Death Star Now were down to:

1 Mon Cal- the only thing a match for an ISD 1 on 1
2 Neb-Bs- one is a med. frigate
3 Corellian Corvettes- Tenative IV, need I say more
2 Gallofree Transports- needed escort and ion cannon in Empire Strikes Back
150 starfighters-Lando and Wedge

vs.

A Fully armed and operation battle station (ie; Death Star)
22 Imperial Star Destroyers raring to go
1 Super Star destoyer
1,000+ Starfighters

Was there a backup Alliance fleet we didn't know about?

=============The ground battle=========
Ah yes 300 little, furry creatures, totally primative and unarmed, with a few dozen Reb Commandoes, beating a legion of the Emperor's best troops (Where are the Storm Commandoes?)

My underlying question is... how did the Alliance win both battles?

(Also note: when the Death Star blows up, and the Alliance ships are pulling away from the doomed Death Star, the number of Alliance ships jumps from 7 to 22...just a little food for thought...)

Any comments?Ideas?Explanations?I am all ears:p

Nova Spice
12 February 2003, 06:42 PM
Well actually, after looking at still pictures, reading many EU sources, and studying different frames of ROTJ, I found that there are actually at least five Mon Calamari Cruisers (Home One, Independence, Liberty, Defiance, Maria ). The Liberty and the Maria are vaped by the Death Star, so that leaves three Mon Cals.

If you scan the background of the frame just after the TIEs go flying past the Falcon's cockpit, you'll notice about a half dozen Nebulon-B-Frigates pulling away from the Death Star. So that triples your estimate of Nebs and almost doubles your estimate of Mon Cals.

Now, the only corvettes I'm aware of by name are the Masanya and the Tantive V (IV was destroyed in A New Hope), but I've heard that the Rancor's Tooth and the Dodonna's Pride were also at the battle. So that increases the number of corvettes by one.

And if you read the Truce at Bakura, you might remember the Quasar-Fire Class Bulk Cruiser Flurry and its complement of five Corellian Gunships that participated at Endor.

That adds another thirteen vessels to your original estimate, giving the Rebels a bit more leverage. B)

Jim Williams
12 February 2003, 07:01 PM
But it was basically the end of the Rebellion or the end of the Empire. Point-blank range or not, it was over for the Rebs until the generator went up, the Executor went down, and le' Emperor went sizzle.

Definitely a Force thing.

As for that fine legion of stormtroopers, the battle didn't turn until that overlooked walking carpet started (Wookiee dance music starts up) taking it to them with their own hardware.

We only see a few scenes, but you know Chewie just had to be rocking and rolling in that AT-ST.

And give the Ewoks some credit for home ground and tenacity (even if they look ridiculous).

There's a line from a Vietnam-era film called Gardens of Stone. Young sergeant (drunk) asks the Vietnam vet older sergeant, "They (the VC) can't take our firepower. I read that one of our helicopters came back from a mission with arrows stuck in it. Arrows! How can they fight helicopters with arrows?!!?"

To which the vet soberly says, "How do you fight an enemy willing to use arrows against a helicopter?"

When the chips are down, well you just jump on that stormtrooper's head and start hitting until you're dead or grey stuff starts flying everywhere.

It's also possible that the write-ups for Ewoks are unfair. There are plenty of 2 to 3 foot monkeys in the world today that will happily hospitalize a grown 6 foot man and walk back into the jungle whistling dixie.

Pel
12 February 2003, 07:41 PM
If I recall correctly, the ROJ novelization describes the Rebel fleet massing around Sullust resembling an immense hooded snake, with the planet as the eye of the serpent. That's a pretty big fleet. Most likely, ILM couldn't fit an accurate number of models into the shot and still give some decent level of detail (it would look much like a bunch of moving, exploding dots).
Not that it really matters since the Imperials also had their entire fleet (or at least a big chunk of it) hiding behind Endor.

Two things really led to the Empire's downfall at Endor:

Blind Obedience: Admiral Piett could've "interpreted" his orders and engaged Ackbar's fleet rather than just sit still and let the Rebels blast him.

Overconfidence: from the Emperor himself to that easily-conned junior officer inside the shield generator, they just didn't believe that they could lose, no matter what.

Dark Orbit
12 February 2003, 08:45 PM
I also have to complement the interior designer for the Emperor's tower. Hey I've got an idea: Lets put a really deep chasm in the Emperor's tower, that goes really far down, just in case one of the Emperor's Minions decides to throw him down into it. Only a person with rocks in their head would design something like that.

Plus, Lucas made the Imps down on the planet look like a bunch of scared panzies. At the first arrow shot, they all run for the woods...doesn't sound very Imperial-like to me.

GL has tricked BILLIONS of people who have seen Return of The Jedi and who don't know what you people know into believing that a hundred Ewoks beat the Best Imperial Troops and saved the galaxy, and a few dozen small capital ships beat the Best the Imperial Fleet had to offer...i find that amusing.

LL|Jerk
12 February 2003, 08:48 PM
The Space Battle

Oh, I see. So the TIE Fighters can attack, but the Star Destroyers can't? I seem to remember the Admiral guy saying "intesify forward firepower!", implying that they were already firing at the Rebels.

I also find it very interesting to consider that if it is as you say, Pel, that the Imps were just sitting there on their a$$es, WHY WOULD THE REBELS ATTACK THEM AT ALL?

WHY WOULD THEY FOCUS THEIR FIRE UPON THE EXECUTOR SPECIFICALLY IF IT WASN'T ATTACKING THEM?

The Death of the Executor

This is one of the most schamed jobs in the Star Wars Trilogy. A Super-Star Destroyer destroyed by 1 shield generator being destroyed and 1 A-Wing crashing into it's bridge. To be frank, that $ucks. The mightiest Star Destroyer in the Galaxy, destroyed by an accident. C'mon, Lucas you can do better than that!

The Ground Battle

It's all about the shield generator. I don't care what you say. It's all about the shield generator. The Imps lose the shield generator, and basically they've lost the battle. NOT ONLY DID THE IMPS KNOW THAT THE REBELS WERE COMING, NOT ONLY DID THEY OUTNUMBER THEM 100 TO 1, THEY HAD TO MAKE THEM STUPID AS WELL!

Cut to stormtrooper briefing in Imperial Bunker on Endor near the Shield Generator

Okay 'troopers, here's the deal. We know that the Rebs are coming, and we know what they're after. They want to destroy this shield generator so they can destroy the Death Star. Now all's we've gotta do, boys, is PROTECT THE SHIELD GENERATOR. THERE'S AN ENTIRE LEGION OF US AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE SHIELD GENERATOR. WE'RE THE STINKIN BEST TROOPS IN THE EMPIRE AND WE WILL DEFEND THE SHIELD GENERATOR.

This doesn't make sense!

I don't even know how many stormtroopers in a legion, but I'm assuming there's over 1000, that's a bare minimum I believe.

So when the Imps caught Han Solo and Company, why didn't they cuff them and take them to the prison block?

Okay, let's assume that the troopers actually decide to take Han, Leia and the Rest of the Commandos outside for some reason.

HOW COULD SCORES OF EWOKS SNEAK UP ON THE IMPS WITH AT-STs CRAWLING ALL OVER THE PLACE?

Okay, let's assume that the Ewoks acually manage to sneak up on the Imps. Not only do they completely surround them, they take them totally by suprise.

WHY WOULD THE EWOKS UNLEASH A BARRAGE OF ARROWS WHEN THE REBELS ARE IN THE SMACK DAB MIDDLE OF WHERE THEY WERE FIRING AT? THE IMPS HAVE ARMOR, ARROWS WON'T HURT THEM! THE REBELS HAVE NO ARMOR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WILL GET KILLED BY THE EWOKS

WHY WOULD THE BEST STORMTROOPERS IN THE GALAXY LITERALLY PANIC AND LEAVE THE SHIELD GENERATOR TOTALLY UNGUARDED?

I would like to believe that there is a logical explanation to all of these questions. But the fact is, there isn't.

If the bad guys always have to lose in the end, don't ya think that George Lucas could have done it in Star Wars a little more subtely?

So sad, that Star Wars falls short like so many other stories:

For all villians:
1) Assume they can't communicate well with each other
2) Assume they are always overconfident
3) Assume they will always act stupidly
4) Assume they will never use common sense
5) Assume they always underestimate their enemies.
6) Assume they always lose, even with a superior force

For all 'heroes':
1) Assume perfect communication
2) Assume they are never overconfident
3) Assume they will never act stupidly
4) Assume they will always use common sense
5) Assume they never underestimate their enemies
6) Assume they always win, even with an inferior force

YOU DON'T CONQUER THE KNOWN GALAXY BY UNDERESTIMATING YOUR ENEMIES!!!

More food for thought:

IF CLONING AND DROID STARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY HAD ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED DURING THE OLD REPUBLIC ERA, WHY DIDN'T THE EMPIRE USE IT?

:?

It must be a Force thing...:D

LL|Jerk
12 February 2003, 09:58 PM
Part One: Blockading Hoth

I like the part in the "Battle of Hoth" where the Empire actually tries to BLOCKADE HOTH WITHOUT LAUNCHING ANY STARFIGHTERS.

As you can see, George Lucas/Admiral Piett has acted in accordance with Villan Laws 2-6.
(see above)

Part Two: Vader's Retribution

After careful consul and consideration, this scene was cut from the original filming of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. The following scene takes place after the Rebels escape from Hoth. Vader is really pissed at Admiral Piett because he let the Rebels escape. Vader thinks that Piett doesn't know $hit about setting up blockades.


CUT TO STAR DESTROYER INTERIOR

Vader: YOU HAVE FAILED ME FOR THE LAST TIME, PIETT!

Admiral Piett/Jamie Kennedy: Well, acually Mr. Vader, I'd like you to come to the viewport with me. Right over here, sir. [pauses] You see that shuttle over there?

Vader: Yes.

Admiral Piett/Jamie Kennedy: We have a hidden camera in there. [waves to the shuttle] You're on my hidden camera show, the Jamie Kennedy eXperiment! YOU'VE JUST BEEN X'D!

Vader: WHAT!?

Rogue Janson
13 February 2003, 02:25 AM
I can't deny a lot of these criticisms - villains do act according to their own special plot driving logic. We can speculate about explanations for some of them though (a good place to go for this sort of thing it the star wars technical commentaries (http://theforce.net/swtc/)).

The Rebel Fleet at Endor
As Nova has pointed out, you see more ships in the battle than you see going into hyperspace. So we can assume this was just a particular battle group and other units jumped from different points and weren't shown. The novelisation describes a much more sizeable armada than we see in the film, making it clear that the alliance has pulled together all the ships it can find for this operation and that's a sizeable number.
Still certainly not enough to take on that fleet of star destroyers, but enough to put up a bit of a fight. Plus, they had Lando's unorthodox point blank range tactics. I'd speculate that a) the rebels adapted better to this better than the rigid Imperials and b) the situation lessened the impact of the Imperial ships greater firepower.

The Executor
The Executor was certainly rather unlucky to plunge straight into the death star, but we can say that its destruction wasn't solely the result of that one A-Wing. As Ackbar told the fleet to concentrate their fire on it, it must have been getting hammered by fair few alliance ships, and had probably taken significant damage (I'd presume it had already taken some for Ackbar to even think it could be taken out). Perhaps it had taken damage to its manoeuvring thrusters as well?

The Ground Battle of Endor
*Evil Emperor Voice* "Send a Legion of my best troops down to the Sanctuary Moon "
Imperial officer: "Ok, so that's a Legion of your worst troops."
"Yes. .... Noo!"
I forget how many troops a legion is, but it is definitely over 1,000. We don't know the distribution of these units though and the Imperial base on Endor seemed to cover a fairly sizeable. There's also the chance that they weren't actually the Emperor's best troops and he was simply exaggerating to scare Luke (why station 1,000 of your best troops to deal with a likely strike force of a dozen or so? - remember the Emperor is overconfident).

So the Imperials capture the Rebels and take them outside. Why? Tough one, but remember this is a back entrance to the base, so perhaps there is a quicker overland route to wherever they were to be taken (presumably the prison or landing pad).

As for the ewoks sneaking up, we only see, what, 2? at-sts on patrol in the area. I can't see it being that hard for the ewoks to infiltrate - they're small, stealthy creatures, they're in their native habitat, and the at-st pilots are 6m up. It does seem a little strange the Ewoks started firing arrows at the group, but then again they didn't hit any of the rebels, so perhaps it was just their most skilled archers.

I think I'd say the stormtroopers immediately launched an aggressive counter-attack - not necessarily a bad tactic, though they underestimated the Ewok level of preparation. I'd put it down to the skill of the Alliance force that they ended up holding the area around the entrance - but they still couldn't get in.
We don't know how many ewoks were involved in the batte - at least the warriors of one tribe, and maybe more. From what we see though, it's fairly clear that the stormtroopers were outnumbered. Once again remember that the battle started at the 'back door' of the Imperial base, so the bulk of Imp troops would not have been stationed there, and with typical Imperial overconfidence, they were probably only fed into the fight slowly.

Anyway, finally, as Jim has pointed out, the battle only turned round when Chewie captued an at-st and began kicking ass left right and centre. By this point it seems most of the other scout walkers had dispersed or been destroyed by ewok traps.

CorpBoy
13 February 2003, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk
[b]Oh, I see. So the TIE Fighters can attack, but the Star Destroyers can't? I seem to remember the Admiral guy saying "intesify forward firepower!", implying that they were already firing at the Rebels.

To clarify: that order was given in response to the bridge deflector screen being taken out. His follow-up line explains it all: "I don't want anything to get through". He was obviously trying to protect the bridge from a direct hit by, oh, say an A-wing fighter :)

CorpBoy

LL|Jerk
13 February 2003, 04:09 AM
And the chances of Han Solo sucessfully conning an Imperial Officer are rather slim, considering Han's past luck with conning Imperials:


CUT TO INTERIOR OF THE SHIELD GENERATOR BUNKER

VIEWSCREEN ACTIVATES, IMAGE OF HAN SOLO DISGUISED AS AN AT-ST PILOT

Han Solo (as AT-ST pilot): It's over, commander. The rebels have been routed and they're fleeing into the woods. We need reinforcements to consider the pursuit.

Imperial Officer: Who is this? What's your operating number?

Han Solo: D@mn!

LL|Jerk
13 February 2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
I think I'd say the stormtroopers immediately launched an aggressive counter-attack - not necessarily a bad tactic, though they underestimated the Ewok level of preparation. I'd put it down to the skill of the Alliance force that they ended up holding the area around the entrance - but they still couldn't get in.
We don't know how many ewoks were involved in the batte - at least the warriors of one tribe, and maybe more. From what we see though, it's fairly clear that the stormtroopers were outnumbered. Once again remember that the battle started at the 'back door' of the Imperial base, so the bulk of Imp troops would not have been stationed there, and with typical Imperial overconfidence, they were probably only fed into the fight slowly.

Watch out, Rogue Janson, what you just said fulfills all 6 of the villian laws!

And when the Rebels finally did break in, don't you think that the Imps would have been ready for them this time? The Rebels DID break in once, and they were caught.

So why didn't they have any more troopers down there?

I KNOW WHY! READ ON:


Boba Fett, obsessed with the destruction of Han Solo, escapes from the Sarlacc only minutes after falling in. He makes his way to the Slave I and fixes himself up.

Using the homing beacon he placed on the Millenium Falcon in ESB, he follows them to Endor, and later receives word that Solo along with that cursed Jedi are part of the shuttle team.

Fett makes his way down to the Shield Generator and lands on the landing pad. Fett talks to an Imperial Officer (Fett says that the Rebel Commandos have landed and will be attacking the Shield Generator shortly). Fett asks permission to hunt the Rebel Commandos.

The Imperials obviously refuse, and Fett gets really mad at them. Using his jetpack, flamethrower, dart launcher, rocket lanucher, personal conner net, and his heavy blaster carbine, he begins to really take it to the Emperor's minions. He's everywhere! Scores of stormtroopers fall before Fett's blaster.

The truth:

THE IMPERIALS WEREN'T BEING OVERCONFIDENT, THEY REST OF THE LEGION OF STORMTROOPERS WERE FIGHTING (AND LOSING TO) BOBA FETT!

This is a good explanation why there weren't more troopers guarding the shield generator bunker...:D

Dark Orbit
13 February 2003, 09:58 AM
I am not trying to say that the Alliance couldn't win the battle, I think they could have made it a bit more fair in the movie. Add two dozen more Mon Cal Star Cruisers, and Id agree they'd have a chance. Make the rebs friends not 3 foot ewoks, but something a little less cute, and more technically advanced

I like the Imperials, and to watch their admirals and generals continually make bad decisions, the troopers fight lousy battles, the emperor underestimate the enemy, and the empire as a whole never in three consecutive movies winning any battle outright, it gets kind of redundant after awhile.:o

In all three battles, the Empire found ways of losing their edge. At Yavin, they were overconfident, and they lost the Death Star. Instead of learning from this, they put the 2nd Death Star out as bait, and let the Alliance come and try to destroy it. If the Emperor had any brains at all (He's a lot smarter in the Ep. 1,2,3; Hell, he eliminated all the Jedi)this is what he would have done:

He would have waited till the 2nd Death Star was completed, then send out the word that the Death Star isn't operation just yet, along with the plans for the Alliance to capture. Not only would they not need the shield generator, they could merrily blast away at any rebel fleet that came by. I read somewhere that Palpy succeeded where other bad guys had failed b/c he was patient. Couldn't he have waited a couple more months, than fly around and blast the Alliance from his Death Star with no repurcussions. But alas, that is not how the chips fell.

The battle of Hoth was a calamity of errors for both sides, but the Empire could have annhilated the Rebellion there. Overconfidence, stupidity were prevelant on the parts of all Imperial commanders.

The Empire deserves a better than what they got in the movies.

Rogue Janson
13 February 2003, 12:18 PM
Actually the original plans for RotJ had the battle taking place on Kashyyyk rather than Endor, where the wookiees would have made somewhat more formidable opponents than the Ewoks.
I'd have to put the lack of rebel ships at Endor down to the constrants of time and special effects. One of the things that disappointed me most about the special editions was that they didn't touch the Endor battle - imagine what it could look like if they did it now! (though hopefully we'll have a big space battle in epIII.)

LL|Jerk
13 February 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
I'd have to put the lack of rebel ships at Endor down to the constrants of time and special effects. One of the things that disappointed me most about the special editions was that they didn't touch the Endor battle - imagine what it could look like if they did it now! (though hopefully we'll have a big space battle in epIII.)

I can't tell you how many times that I've thought about that very same thing myself. About COMPLETELY re-creating the original trilogy. They could fix alot of the "glitches" in the Trilogy that we have discovered during this thread, and the continuity of the technology in the starships would be taken care of. What I mean by this is that the fact that the Millenium Falcon's controls (circa 1977) look PRIMITIVE compared to Obi-Wan's starfighter controls (circa 2000), which are over 50 years older, yet they look really futuristic, and the Falcon's controls consist of a wall of blinking lights! The Jedi Starfighter is ancient technology compared to the Falcon, but this "ancient" Jedi Starfighter has more futuristic technology than the Falcon!

Do you guys think that they should redo Episodes 4, 5 and 6? He||, it might be just what the Star Wars Universe needs...:D

dgswensen
13 February 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk
[B]What I mean by this is that the fact that the Millenium Falcon's controls (circa 1977) look PRIMITIVE compared to Obi-Wan's starfighter controls (circa 2000), which are over 50 years older, yet they look really futuristic, and the Falcon's controls consist of a wall of blinking lights! The Jedi Starfighter is ancient technology compared to the Falcon, but this "ancient" Jedi Starfighter has more futuristic technology than the Falcon!

No it doesn't. The Jedi Starfighter requires a hyperspace ring to get anywhere. An X-Wing or Y-Wing the same size has its hyperdrive built right in. The ships are shinier and slicker-looking in the Republic era, but I believe that's a design decision meant to illustrate that before the civil war, more attention was paid to aesthetics; after the war, things are slapped together, gritty, and functional.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more spectacular ROTJ space battle, but I think George has tinkered with the movies too much as is.

Nova Spice
13 February 2003, 07:54 PM
I can't tell you how many times that I've thought about that very same thing myself. About COMPLETELY re-creating the original trilogy. They could fix alot of the "glitches" in the Trilogy that we have discovered during this thread, and the continuity of the technology in the starships would be taken care of. What I mean by this is that the fact that the Millenium Falcon's controls (circa 1977) look PRIMITIVE compared to Obi-Wan's starfighter controls (circa 2000), which are over 50 years older, yet they look really futuristic, and the Falcon's controls consist of a wall of blinking lights! The Jedi Starfighter is ancient technology compared to the Falcon, but this "ancient" Jedi Starfighter has more futuristic technology than the Falcon!

Actually I'd like to point out that the more hi-tech looking ships and controls in the prequels is intentional. When the Empire took control, it threw the galaxy into what you'd call the "Dark Ages of Star Wars." Instead of building ships that are elegant and fancy, the ships became more rugged, less ornate, and more war-oriented.

George Lucas specifically explains this in the Twelve part Documentary on the DVD. It makes perfect story sense IMO. ;)

Pel
13 February 2003, 08:01 PM
Agreed. Han shot first.

Besides, since the Death Star II had such a glaring (and easily accessible) weakness, why not just move some heavy machinery into the interior and block off the passage? Because the Imperials were plainly overconfident. It's a result of the Emperor's ruling by fear and blind obediance rather than inspiring his generals and troops to think for themselves.

Apparently the Emperor hadn't seen those 'good idea/bad idea' commercials.

Rogue Janson
14 February 2003, 03:09 AM
You have to understand that the Emperor has not considered the possibility the shield generator will be destroyed, so confident is he in his foresight. Therefore there's absolutely no need to block the hole, install more defences or do anything extra.

Another thing to remember about the falcon is that it's a pretty old, mid range design, and the jedi starfighter (or naboo royal cruiser) was modern and top of the line in AotC.
It's hard to tell whether or not there is meant to be technological progression in the films (obviously there is in EU material), but either way you'd have to look at how ships actually perform, rather than simply how stylish they look - which is a much much harder thing to do from the films.

LL|Jerk
14 February 2003, 07:32 AM
Part One: Retarded Villans

Regarding any "overconfidence" and "blind obedience", I think it all comes back to that the bad guys always have to lose in the end. George Lucas just did a terrible job trying to show how it worked out in Star Wars. If he recreated the original trilogy, some "advantageous" changes could be made...:)

Part Two: Technological Inconsistencies

Or, instead of the whole freaking Galaxy entering a "dark age", maybe we should just consider that A New Hope was made about 25 years before The Phantom Menace. It's just a matter that George Lucas never realized how popular Star Wars would become when he made A New Hope! This is yet another reason for Lucas to recreate the origninal trilogy: technological consistency.

Oh, and I'm still wondering why the Empire didn't just use Droid Starfighters instead of TIE Fighters...the technology was already there, and Droid Starfighters would obviously be alot cheaper than TIE Fighters, and "strength in numbers" is obviously what the Emperor wanted from his military...

And I can anticipate what you're all going to say:


The Emperor used TIE Fighters because he could control the minds of this troops (ala "Enhanced Coordination", etc.). He can't control droid starfighters with the Force!

And to counter that:
The Emperor's range for Enhanced Coordination did not stretch across the WHOLE GALAXY, hence Palpatine could only use Enhanced Coordination for his armies/navy within the same star system!

And so we come back to my original question:

WHY DIDN'T THE EMPIRE USE DROID STARFIGHTERS?

It looks to me like Lucas is making it up as he goes along (not that there's anything wrong with that...;))

I guess it all depends on your "point of view"... :D

Jim Williams
14 February 2003, 07:54 AM
The Emperor did not use droid fighters for two reasons I can see:

1) Regardless of the d20 write-up, a droid-piloted fighter can not match a skilled sentient pilot. While sentient pilots are more expensive to utilize, the Emperor didn't care. He had, under his build-up, more skilled manpower than probably any military machine in the history of the galaxy.

2) Droids are either tied to a control ship for quicker processing and command control, or they are left to their own poor decision-making processes. For example, a programming algorithm for commanding a droid to engage starfighter x---Can it change its mind? Under what conditions? Will it pursue until another target enters its prime kill zone, or will it doggedly pursue (leaving itself vulnerable to predictability?)

I'm also not buying this technology discussion. Besides GL saying there was a dark ages...why is the Falcon being held up as some paragon of technological wonder? The thing was a heap held together by Han and Chewie and modified to do a few things very well. Of course it had blinking lights in the cockpit. I picture the Falcon as a restored muscle car. Did other ships of its era have "better" control panels? Sure. Some did. I definitely buy into the Naboo fighters looking pretty (but still functional, don't get me wrong) compared to the uniform grimness of the TIE or rugged lines of the vaunted X-wing.

Rogue Janson
14 February 2003, 08:06 AM
Leaving aside the question of new versions of the films and what should be in them (though it could make an interesting topic for a new thread).

I doubt that GL ever intended his films to stand up to the sort of scrutiny we put them under. The Emperor's failures have to be clear and concise to fit into the film.

Technological Inconsistencies
First off, let me emphasise what's been said before:
1) Until you see the performance of the ships and technology from the prequels and OT side by side, you can't judge which is better.
2) The tech in the OT deliberately looks less sleek and modernist than the prequel stuff. This is NOT an afterthought to simply explain the fact, it is an integral symbolic distinction.

In fact it is unclear whether there is technological progress in the SW galaxy. Instead it follows an essentially premodern view of history as declining from a past 'golden age' (see certain posts in this (http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11406) thread for a little discussion on the matter).

Why the Empire didn't use droid starfighters is an interesting question. In EU terms, it's explained by the fact that droids are never meant to be as good, in particular as adaptable as humans. It also has a symbolic point however. The trade federation, and separatist groups, have no large scale support from the populace so they are forced to use unthinking mass-produced droids. The republic/early empire uses mass produced people in the form of clones. By the height of the empire, its values have been internalised, it's population brutalised, and it is able to use people as its soldiers. Thus the Empire's repression is not simply a small cadre supported by their droid armies, it is violence by thinking people upon one another, a much more unpleasant thing.
I'm not sure I've made that point too clearly, I hope you get the gist of it.

Jim Williams
14 February 2003, 08:52 AM
RJ:


By the height of the empire, its values have been internalised, it's population brutalised, and it is able to use people as its soldiers. Thus the Empire's repression is not simply a small cadre supported by their droid armies, it is violence by thinking people upon one another, a much more unpleasant thing.

Amen.

Now we need a thread to explore how well (since George's storytelling is becoming a viable topic) George is illustrating his belief that all democracies/representative republics are doomed to fall, mostly likely due to internal corruption, and juxtapositioning the concept into a StarWars universe with Force-powered Jedi guardians to protect it.

Don't get me wrong...GL has annoyed me too. Han shot first! Anikin should have had different dialogue or kept his yippying mouth shut during the end of TPM.

Rogue Janson
14 February 2003, 09:06 AM
Now we need a thread to explore how well (since George's storytelling is becoming a viable topic) George is illustrating his belief that all democracies/representative republics are doomed to fall, mostly likely due to internal corruption and juxtapositioning the concept into a StarWars universe with Force-powered Jedi guardians to protect it.
You know, I've been considering a thread on that very same topic, whether star wars has an essentially anti-democratic , but I try to avoid political rants, since I tend to go on and on. The idea extends very well to the NJO era as well, which annoys me further.

Rogue Janson
15 February 2003, 06:38 AM
Though this might be stretching things a bit far, I was thinking about EU stuff yesterday and the Empire's use of TIE droids. It turns out there's a nice, if accidental symmetry in the Empire's deployment of forces.
(This takes Grand Admiral Thrawn and the Reborn Emperor to be the gravest threats in the NRE.)

Trade Federation/Separatists - Droid armies
Republic/Early Empire - Clone troopers
High Empire - 'Normal' troops and personnel (with a debatable level of clones)
Grand Admiral Thrawn - Clones
Reborn Emperor - Droids (TIE droids, war droids)

CaamasiJedi49
15 February 2003, 07:49 AM
Actually, there is a real reason why Palpatine didn't use droids. After the Clone Wars, everyone was tramatized by the sheer destruction inflicted by the droids, and palpatine wanting to acert his power completely from anyone else with droid armies, banned "ANY" military droid, soldier and/or fighter. Granted he used military droids in Dark Empire, etc., he did it because man power was at a low for the empire. And to comment on what you said Rouge, I think that George is trying to warns us about not being complacent and uncaring with democracy, or live in a dictorial government. But that is my opinion, believe what you want.

Caamasi Jedi49

LL|Jerk
15 February 2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Jim Williams
I'm also not buying this technology discussion. Besides GL saying there was a dark ages...why is the Falcon being held up as some paragon of technological wonder? The thing was a heap held together by Han and Chewie and modified to do a few things very well. Of course it had blinking lights in the cockpit. I picture the Falcon as a restored muscle car. Did other ships of its era have "better" control panels? Sure. Some did. I definitely buy into the Naboo fighters looking pretty (but still functional, don't get me wrong) compared to the uniform grimness of the TIE or rugged lines of the vaunted X-wing.

Okay, Jim Williams, you want a better example? THE DEATH STAR. The most technologically advanced piece of hardware in the universe and what do we have? WALLS OF BLINKING LIGHTS, circa 1977.

Explain that, buddy.

LL|Jerk
15 February 2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by CaamasiJedi49
Actually, there is a real reason why Palpatine didn't use droids. After the Clone Wars, everyone was tramatized by the sheer destruction inflicted by the droids, and palpatine wanting to acert his power completely from anyone else with droid armies, banned "ANY" military droid, soldier and/or fighter. Granted he used military droids in Dark Empire, etc., he did it because man power was at a low for the empire.

As I recall, dictators don't need to give a $hit what their citizens think. Being a dictator means that YOU are in charge. The Emperor kills all of the Jedi and discriminates against aliens, yet he doesn't want the cowering masses to be "tramatized" by his use of a Droid army? You're wrong on that point, Caamasi.


Originally posted by Rogue Janson
I doubt that GL ever intended his films to stand up to the sort of scrutiny we put them under. The Emperor's failures have to be clear and concise to fit into the film.

I'm sure that GL never intended his films to stand up to this sort of scrutiny. You think that he actually knew when he started out that Star Wars would become this popular? We see all this futuristic technology in the Prequels, and you expect me to believe that in 50 years all of the advanced stuff we see in the Prequels simply "disappears"? Yeah, right! And as for the rest of your post ("The Emperor's failures have to be clear and concise to fit into the film..."), I have already addressed this in Part One (see below).

You guys have yet to argue these points down:


B)Originally posted by LL|Jerk B)
Part One: Retarded Villans

Regarding any "overconfidence" and "blind obedience", I think it all comes back to that the bad guys always have to lose in the end. George Lucas just did a terrible job trying to show how it worked out in Star Wars. If he recreated the original trilogy, some "advantageous" changes could be made...

Part Two: Technological Inconsistencies

Or, instead of the whole freaking Galaxy entering a "dark age", maybe we should just consider that A New Hope was made about 25 years before The Phantom Menace. It's just a matter that George Lucas never realized how popular Star Wars would become when he made A New Hope! This is yet another reason for Lucas to recreate the origninal trilogy: technological consistency.

Face the ugly truth, I'm right! :D

CaamasiJedi49
15 February 2003, 05:43 PM
Well, let me specify for your well being LLlJerk( excuse the spelling, but I just can't figure out what is after those L's). The law about the no droid armies was made way back in the beginning of palpatines term as supreme chancellor, but it was loosly enforced for a long time. The Clone Wars came and went, and since the Republic was still standing, Palpatine bent to the whims of the people and enforced the Legislation more strictly. It was enforced even more during the Heyday of the Empire when a assasin droid slaughtered a entire crowd of innocent imperial citizens just to kill one corrupt imperial official. Publicly, he put more effort into banning any droid who could use a weapon from anyones control, but privately kept a few assasin droids for himself when the need arrived. And that is that.

Caamasi Jedi49

Corr Terek
15 February 2003, 05:59 PM
As I recall, dictators don't need to give a $hit what their citizens think. Being a dictator means that YOU are in charge. The Emperor kills all of the Jedi and discriminates against aliens, yet he doesn't want the cowering masses to be "tramatized" by his use of a Droid army? You're wrong on that point, Caamasi.

Dictators *do* care about what the people think -- if they push their subjects too hard, they can get ousted. I can cite several examples from the last century if you're unconvinced.

LL|Jerk
15 February 2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Corr Terek
Dictators *do* care about what the people think -- if they push their subjects too hard, they can get ousted. I can cite several examples from the last century if you're unconvinced.
In response:

1. We're not talking about world history here, we're talking about the SW Universe.
2. Palpatine doesn't give a rat's a$$ about anybody except himself.
3. And as for "pushing their subjects too hard"...would enslavement of alien species count?

Rogue Janson
16 February 2003, 03:53 AM
LL|Jerk can you restate your position briefly and concisely? I'm not 100% sure whether I agree or disagree with it.

Corr Terek
16 February 2003, 06:22 AM
1. We're not talking about world history here, we're talking about the SW Universe.

Doesn't change anything. Fundamental laws still apply there. Palpatine must NOT let the populace see him as evil, or he will get slammed big-time.


2. Palpatine doesn't give a rat's a$$ about anybody except himself.

And I'm sure he'd take interest when several million Imperial citizens swarm his palace.


3. And as for "pushing their subjects too hard"...would enslavement of alien species count?

Humans are the majority in Star Wars. Besides, the "persecution" of alien species is in the background, where the only people who know about it are on the shady side of the law and can't be trusted. I imagine the populace at large doesn't care about some far-off alien species being persecuted.

But we're hijacking the thread, so I'll move it back to its original theme...


Oh, and I'm still wondering why the Empire didn't just use Droid Starfighters instead of TIE Fighters...the technology was already there, and Droid Starfighters would obviously be alot cheaper than TIE Fighters, and "strength in numbers" is obviously what the Emperor wanted from his military...

I believe Episode 1 showed the reasons for this quite well. Droids have no initiative, no real independant thinking. They're useless as combat models unless their order is to kill everything but themselves. Which, by the way, is a really dumb strategy.


THE DEATH STAR. The most technologically advanced piece of hardware in the universe and what do we have? WALLS OF BLINKING LIGHTS, circa 1977.

Please don't use caps so much -- most people interpret it as shouting, and it's considered rather rude. Anyway, to answer your criticism, the Empire is not concerned with *nice-looking*. Empire wants functionality. Little buttons and blinking lights may look incredibly stupid, but they serve their purpose. And who says the Death Star is so technologically advanced? It's basically a space station that moves. The superlaser is the only real innovation on it.

As to why the Rebels won Endor...they adapted better and quicker. Very simply put.

Jim Williams
16 February 2003, 07:48 AM
I guess at times I have posted a response in threads that interested me with humor that may prove irritable to some; at other times I have felt strongly about a gaming or mechanics issue and debated/argued my point to death. Only rather infrequently on this board do I encounter responses to anyone that are purposely argumentive or rather defensive to a point someone makes.

Explaining the Rebel victory at Endor is rather difficult for a few reasons, most of which have been expounded on. I unfortunately commented on the rapidly spirally downward at infinite terminal velocity detour about technology.

To the original post:
1) Ewoks are horridly dangerous, just ask Ardent. They simply have to be because they fought stormtroopers to the death.
2) Stormtroopers are blindly obedient, but they are, unfortunately, also assault troops. It is in their nature to attack than to grimly hold a fixed position. Our own history has examples that underscore the futility of using highly trained highly trained assault troops to hold the line. The U.S. Army Rangers during the WW2 campaign in Italy the French paras at Dien Bien Phu are but two examples.
3) Admiral Nelson, at the Battle of Trafalgar, defeated (while outnumbered and outgunned) superior French and Spanish naval forces for three reasons: innovative, superior tactics; superior will to win; and disciplined crews, not because his ships were better. At Endor, the Empire had number 3 (With the caveat that the officers in command were those that survived Vader's wrath. It's easy to "get the job" when you're the only one alive and stupid enough to "submit your resume".), but the Rebels had all three. I'd wager no had ever gone to point-blank range with Imp Star Destroyers.



Explain that, buddy.

I have some folks on here I pretty much consider my on-line buddies. I may meet them and they'll loathe me because of my horrid b.o., but on here I can count on them for well-meant, ruthless criticism of house rules and PrCs and friendly conversation.
The way you use buddy inclines me to tell you:
Call me Jim, Jim Williams, or nothing.

Grimace
16 February 2003, 08:30 AM
C'mon guys, let's play nice here. No need to rub anybody's nose in anything, or get hot under the collar. We're in this hobby because we all like Star Wars, so let's remember that.

As Rogue Janson mentioned, it would be nice to see a little bit of a clarified statement about what was still being talked about here...as even I have lost track of the discussion with all of the side topics.

Corr Terek
16 February 2003, 08:59 AM
Oh, I see. So the TIE Fighters can attack, but the Star Destroyers can't? I seem to remember the Admiral guy saying "intesify forward firepower!", implying that they were already firing at the Rebels.
I also find it very interesting to consider that if it is as you say, Pel, that the Imps were just sitting there on their a$$es, WHY WOULD THE REBELS ATTACK THEM AT ALL?


Simple. Ever hear of preventative medicine? Better to take them out before they enter the fray than after. Besides, the Destroyers were blocking the only possible escape route. The Alliance would *have* to fight their way through.


This is one of the most schamed jobs in the Star Wars Trilogy. A Super-Star Destroyer destroyed by 1 shield generator being destroyed and 1 A-Wing crashing into it's bridge. To be frank, that $ucks. The mightiest Star Destroyer in the Galaxy, destroyed by an accident. C'mon, Lucas you can do better than that!

Well, it's kind of important to remember that the bridge *did* control almost all functions aboard the Executor. And the Executor wouldn't have been destroyed if the Death Star's artificial gravity hadn't pulled it in. The damage would've been contained otherwise.


WHY WOULD THE EWOKS UNLEASH A BARRAGE OF ARROWS WHEN THE REBELS ARE IN THE SMACK DAB MIDDLE OF WHERE THEY WERE FIRING AT? THE IMPS HAVE ARMOR, ARROWS WON'T HURT THEM! THE REBELS HAVE NO ARMOR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WILL GET KILLED BY THE EWOKS

Actually, considering the Ewoks are the smallest creature on their planet, they'd *have* to be excellent marksmen in order to survive. Ewoks are *very* skilled at survival on their own world. I think they could manage to avoid hitting their allies.

Also, the Imperial armor isn't 100% arrow-proof. See those lovely little black lines around the stormtroopers' shoulders, elbows, necks, etc.? That's not armor, it's a bodyglove of sorts, and can be punctured by an arrow quite easily. And I'm pretty sure stormtroopers can bleed to death just like everyone else. As for the officers, unless they wear kevlar vests, they don't wear armor, period.


HOW COULD SCORES OF EWOKS SNEAK UP ON THE IMPS WITH AT-STs CRAWLING ALL OVER THE PLACE?

Low visibility. And the Ewoks were in their home town, so to speak.


IF CLONING AND DROID STARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY HAD ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED DURING THE OLD REPUBLIC ERA, WHY DIDN'T THE EMPIRE USE IT?

I believe I answered the question about droids, as did several other people. As for clones -- *they were*! If you read anything at all from what GL has been saying about Ep 3, you'd know that the clonetroopers are an early model of stormtrooper.


And the chances of Han Solo sucessfully conning an Imperial Officer are rather slim, considering Han's past luck with conning Imperials:

There's a big difference between impersonating an officer and impersonating a common trooper. Besides, you can see on the screen an AT-ST chasing some Rebels as Han talks (if I'm not mistaken). Han just neglected to mention that Chewie was piloting the walker.


I would like to believe that there is a logical explanation to all of these questions. But the fact is, there isn't.

Make a general statement like that, and you'll usually be proven wrong. :D

I'd say most of the arguments brought forth have been very logical. They make sense to me, at least.

LL|Jerk
16 February 2003, 05:59 PM
Part One: Cleaning out the Closet


Originally posted by Rogue Janson
LL|Jerk can you restate your position briefly and concisely? I'm not 100% sure whether I agree or disagree with it.
Wow. I'm not really sure that I have just one main point that I'm pushing for, I'm just sort of making it up as I go along (I learned from GL) :D


Originally posted by Corr Terek
I believe Episode 1 showed the reasons for this quite well. Droids have no initiative, no real independant thinking. They're useless as combat models unless their order is to kill everything but themselves. Which, by the way, is a really dumb strategy.
Droids have no skillz and no initiative? As I recall, quite a few Jedi were killed by Battle Droids in Episode 2. Either the Jedi are weak or the droids really ()wn...


Originally posted by Corr Terek

1. We're not talking about world history here, we're talking about the SW Universe.
Doesn't change anything. Fundamental laws still apply there. Palpatine must NOT let the populace see him as evil, or he will get slammed big-time.

Last time I checked, "fundemental laws" do not apply to the Star Wars Universe. (and neither does common sense, see below)


George Lucas' Villian Guidelines:
1) Assume villians are always overconfident
2) Assume villians always act stupidly
3) Assume villians never use common sense
4) Assume villians always underestimate their enemies.
5) Assume villians always lose, even with a superior force

George Lucas' Hero Guidelines
1) Assume heroes are never overconfident
2) Assume heroes never act stupidly
3) Assume heroes always use common sense
4) Assume heroes never underestimate their enemies
5) Assume heroes always win, even with an inferior force

It's hard to envision Palpatine getting slammed by anyone, even though GL made him into an overconfident fool who underestimates his enemies at every possible juncture. The amazing part is that the whole Empire is just as stupid and overconfident as he is.


Originally posted by Corr Terek
Make a general statement like that, and you'll usually be proven wrong. :D
Though this may seem a bit redundant, you can't prove me wrong any more than I can prove you wrong. This is all speculation (see below).

Part Two: My position

We can contine to push around explanations and discussions of how everything in the SW Universe eventually makes complete sense "from a certain point of view", but arguing over the small things gets us nowhere. George Lucas made The Phantom Menace about 25 years after A New Hope. That's the only fact we have. The rest is speculation.

GL should redo the Original Trilogy because of the numberless inconsistencies that we have discovered, and will discover in the future. Take Swordfish for example. Gabriel Shear (John Travolta) is a villian that is far more intelligent than ANYONE I have seen in the SW movies. Movies are better when the villians aren't overconfident fools...maybe it was just the dark side that made Palpatine into an idiot :D

Rogue Janson
17 February 2003, 04:53 AM
Right, so we have 3 main points:
1) There are inconsistencies, particularly technological in the films. This is a major problem.
2) Villains and heroes follow a set of rules, making villains stupid. This is a major problem.
3) As a result, the Original Trilogy should be remade.

Mostly these have been covered fairly comprehensively so I'll try to just summarise.

1) Technology
Firstly, you have to distinguish between form and function. Unless we see the performance of prequel and OT technology side by side, their relationship is indeterminate. Second, we've established that there is not meant to be technological progress in the films, and that there may even be intentional regression. You might want to note that the Death Star was not some great OT breakthrough, as we see the plans decades before in epII (though obviously we don't know at what stage of development they are).
It's impossible to deny that the OT does use the design and technological vernacular of its time, as I'm sure we'll see in a couple of decades the prequels do. For me though, and I think a lot of other people, the design is one of the essential features of the films. Things look battered and somewhat dated. I don't think I'd want to change this.

Droids
The question of why the Emperor didn't use droid armies has also been pretty well addressed:
Intrinsic reasons - the limitations of droids mean that they are normally inferior to living beings; a law was passed banning their use.
Extrinsic reasons - the symbolism of using real people, over automatons.

I'll add a bit more, particularly regarding the Emperor and public opinion.

Last time I checked, "fundemental laws" do not apply to the Star Wars Universe. (and neither does common sense, see below)
If fundamental law don't apply, then all this argument is academic. What we are trying to do is precisely to apply fundamental laws and common sense to Star Wars and see the results. In this case, it seems they
do apply. If they didn't, then there's no reason for the Emperor not to use droids, but then, there's no particular reason for him to do so either.
Back to intrinsic factors - the law banning military droids was introduced while the republic was still in existence, and it was still crucial for Palpatine to cultivate opinion in his favour. In particular I'd imagine this law had particular relevance to the republic military, an especially important sector for Palpatine to control.
Naturally as the law receded into history and Palpatine entrenched his control, it became less important, but by then he had the might of the Imperial military at his disposal, so he didn't need droids. You could go so far as saying he had turned these people into automatons - when was the last time you saw a TIE pilot or stormtrooper question their orders or voice dissent? (don't answer that question) For a Sith Lord I think this kind of dominance - getting living beings to oppress others - is much more satisfying than using droids.

2) Rules of behaviour and villain stupidity
Do the characters in Star Wars act according to a particular set of rules? Yes, undoubtedly they do. Star Wars is heavily set in a genre (or two genres) which implies rules and conventions. It is a) not about challenging those conventions; and b) at heart not a very clever film. Anything that needs more than a little explaining is out. Villains have clear weaknesses and strengths, as do heroes and these have to be brought out in as straightforward and clear a fashion as possible.

So I think your rules are in fact integral to the films. That's not saying they're not broken, particularly in ESB, eg
Villains
5) Assume villians always lose, even with a superior force - Battle of Hoth.
Heroes
1) Assume heroes are never overconfident - Luke ignoring Yoda & Ben's advice and leaving for Cloud City.

In films like Star Wars, following these rules is what makes heroes heroes and villains villains.

It's hard to envision Palpatine getting slammed by anyone
As a counter-exercise, can you explain, in a simple manner suitable for the tone of the films, how Palpatine could lose were he not to have such a major weakness?

Is this a major problem? well, for the majority of the SW audience, no. For the hardcore minority like us, it can be, which is one reason why we go to such great lengths to explain these things away.

3) Should the OT be remade?
Well as someone for whom more star wars pretty much automatically = good, I'd say, yeah, that would be cool. But I'm not sure the remade editions would necessarily be better. The central points of star wars are not the inconsistencies and plot holes, they're the atmosphere and dynamism. And that's not to mention that the prequels have these faults as well (although I think they are more limited).

Dark Orbit
17 February 2003, 05:31 AM
I just wanted to thank all the people who explained the Battle of Endor, what this thread was originally about.

I like the Empire, cuz they got cool stuff (Superweapons, Star Destroyers, etc.)and I still feel like the Empire got ripped off at Endor, but that doesn't really matter. B)

The Fact is we all have pet peeves about what could have been different in the movies(Jar Jar Binks, I know many who "despise" him), but for the most part, George Lucas has done (and is still doing) an outstanding job of making at least six Starwars Movies, and keeping the general ideas (plot, technology) true. If you dont believe me, then I purpose a question to you LL|Jerk:

How much money has SW made?

With over three-hundred books published, 5 movies, and countless other toys and things made, easily over a billion dollars.:raised:

How can you argue with a billion dollars?

Back to the Battle of Endor, I Still have one question remaining that has been buried in the off-topic debte


Originally posted by Dark Orbit; Me

THE EMPEROR'S NORTH TOWER

I also have to complement the interior designer for the Emperor's tower. Hey I've got an idea: Lets put a really deep pit in the Emperor's tower, that goes really far down, just in case one of the Emperor's Minions decides to throw him down into it. Only a person with rocks in their head would design something like that.

What do yousa think?
Meesa all ears:D :D :D

LL|Jerk
17 February 2003, 06:20 AM
There is not just one question, there is not just one inconsistency, Dark Orbit; there are a hundred. Star Wars was originally created back in the 1970's, and now GL decides to finish what he started in the 2000's? The only way for true cinematic consistency to ever be achieved in the SW Universe is for GL to redo the whole OT.


Originally posted by Rogue Janson
Well as someone for whom more star wars pretty much automatically = good, I'd say, yeah, that would be cool. But I'm not sure the remade editions would necessarily be better. The central points of star wars are not the inconsistencies and plot holes, they're the atmosphere and dynamism. And that's not to mention that the prequels have these faults as well (although I think they are more limited).

Now you're beginning to understand what I'm talking about. However "good and great" the Star Wars films are now, think how much better they would be if GL remade them within the next 10 years!

Why do you think that everybody loves Lord of the Rings? Because it actually makes sense, and uses really great special effects.. Crap, they filmed the whole trilogy in only 3 years! And the Matrix 2 & 3? They're being filmed back to back.

GL has got to start adapting to current filming and producing techniques if he hopes to keep Star Wars alive for the next decade. Can any of you out there really sit back and say that you're satisfied with the way Star Wars has turned out compared to movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings? I don't think that you can.

Deck
17 February 2003, 06:38 AM
Just to avoid any further flamings... <i>DarkOrbit</i> just tried to bring the thread to a calm end with a summary and one remaining aspect. Please don't start the whole debate again in re-discussing another <b>quote:</b> hundred questions <b>end quote</b> again. Thanks! :)

LL|Jerk
17 February 2003, 07:11 AM
I'm not starting anything again; all's everybody else has done is just talk about the small insignificant inconsistencies, while I'm addressing the underlying problem...


"You can cure the symptoms, but the disease is still there..."

Rogue Janson
17 February 2003, 07:18 AM
How about splitting and taking this up in the R&R forum LL|Jerk then we can stop disturbing Deck's peace and quiet.

LL|Jerk
17 February 2003, 11:49 AM
a better idea would be to just move the whole thread to the R&R forum...i think moderators can do that...

Deck
17 February 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
How about splitting and taking this up in the R&R forum LL|Jerk then we can stop disturbing Deck's peace and quiet.

That was cynical, wasn't it?

Faraer
17 February 2003, 12:29 PM
Star Wars is myth. The Battle of Endor, like the Battle of Yavin, represents the hero's passage of the "terrible gap" through impossible odds, in this case a macroscopic parallel of Luke's confrontation with evil. All these realistic considerations are just trivial texture, scenery. Episode IV establishes how it works right at the start when the droids pass unharmed through a corridor of blasterfire, not because the stormtroopers and the Rebels are bad shots, not because "George wasn't thinking", but because R2-D2 and C-3PO possess mythical virtue.

LL|Jerk's argument is that he wants Star Wars to work like realist military SF. It doesn't, but there's plenty of stuff that does if that's what he wants.

Rogue Janson
17 February 2003, 12:31 PM
apologies to Dark Orbit who started the thing off on a somewhat different topic then and whose thread has largely been hijacked. Actually, I used the term "splitting" deliberately because moderators can split up threads can't they? (though this one is probably too intertwined.)

Anyway, you might quite like this little article/essay (http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/swquestions.htm) LL|Jerk, which has some of the ways Lucas did actually make things up as he went along (and it wasn't anything as trivial as putting a big hole in the emperor's throne room).

Faraer
17 February 2003, 12:52 PM
I agree with most things Andrew Rilstone writes but this reads like a low-grade rationalization of personal disappointment. Answer to the first question is unambiguously 1. The second question is pointless speculation before Episode III. Then he argues that because the story developed before Episode IV came out, and because of his (correct) guess that not all the details of Episodes I-III were known in 1977, that Lucas changed the story since Episode VI in some significant and deceptive way. (In one important sense he is definitely mistaken, that Anakin's messiah status is not original -- just glance at the first page of the second draft of Episode IV.) Then he says that Episode I is "specific and crowded", which would be an interesting argument if he explained why he found it so.

Rogue Janson
17 February 2003, 01:18 PM
Actually, I got the wrong link there. the correct section is the next one, here (http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/viewpoint.htm). (Faraer seems to have read at least both sections.)

LL|Jerk
17 February 2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Faraer
LL|Jerk's argument is that he wants Star Wars to work like realist military SF. It doesn't, but there's plenty of stuff that does if that's what he wants.
My argument is that Lucas should recreate the Original Trilogy. As I have already stressed, there are far too many inconsistencies in the OT for them to be truly enjoyable in this day and age. I want Star Wars to continue to grow in popularity in the coming years, but I honestly can't see that happening unless Lucas does redo the entire OT.

Faraer, maybe you forgot to consider that I love Star Wars so much that I'm willing to disagree with all of you when I say that GL doesn't know what he's doing (see my signature). I feel that the OT has become outdated and inadequate, much as the Old Republic has in the Prequels.

Warning: Strong opinions voiced below

1. I resent the implication that I have offended Dark Orbit in any way. If he feels offended or taken advantage of, I'm sure that he would have told us by now.
2. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I believe that you will find that Dark Orbit's question had already been answered by the time I stuck my foot in the door.
3. I don't really understand why everybody is so d@rn uptight about keeping the thread "on topic". It seems ridiclious to me that after 3 pages of posts that somebody would mention about the thread being "off topic" or even *hijacked*. I laugh at such.
4. The thread becoming "off topic" is not a cause for any concern. If you don't like how a thread is evolving, don't read it.
5. If you guys want, we can go back to quabbling over the small things (like the interior design of the Emperor's Throne Room). I just see no point in bringing up all 201 inconsistencies to be found in RotJ. I'm just trying to find the root of the problem. If you guys want to go back to babbling about the small things, just say so. Either way is fine with me.
6. Can you honestly tell me that participating in this thread hasn't caused you to question the validity and plausibility of the events that happen in the Star Wars Universe? I joined the Holonet and posted to this thread because I thought that some liked to talk about their opinions. I posted to this thread because I felt, as Dark Orbit did, that there are several "unexplainable" inconsistencies in the SW Universe (namely the OT).
7. My only concern is for the future of Star Wars.

CaamasiJedi49
17 February 2003, 05:54 PM
I agree with you LL, the OT does need to be re-made to help fix some, if not all of these inconsistinces. I heard a crazy rumor way back when that George would be re-making the OT and presenting it in DVD format, but it was a crazy rumor from way back when. Time will only tell.

Caamasi Jedi49

Rogue Janson
18 February 2003, 04:16 AM
Hey, calm down LL, I agree with you that Dark Orbit's original concern had largely been dealt with, I was just being polite to him. If I had wanted to stop the thing going this way I wouldn't have posted a good proportion of the replies.


there are far too many inconsistencies in the OT for them to be truly enjoyable in this day and age
Ultimately, this is LL|Jerk's central argument so it might be worth reqriting to analyse more closely:

1) a) Audiences nowadays (compared to when?) are less tolerant to inconsistencies
and/or
1) b) the prequels bring out significant new inconsistencies in the OT.
2) These factors prevent the OT from being truly enjoyable for a contemporary audience.

1) a) is an intriguing idea. It may be that it's true, but it may well be that LL|Jerk is speaking for himself (and other hardcore SW fans of course).
1) b) I don't think is true. (I think) The only thing we've come across in this thread is that the technology in the OT looks more dated, which is firstly largely intentional and secondly not really all that important. In fact its symbolic role is probably more important than achieving "consistency".

2) This may be true for a die-hard SW audience, but what about the rest of the world? In particular, don't forget that children are a primary audience for Star Wars. Do they care a jot about these problems?
To argue this, you have to think from the point of view of a first-time or inexperienced viewer, not like a die-hard, which is really going to be very tricky for people on this board.
I have to agree with Faraer that SW is a fantastical, mythic story. If you want logical consistency and realism, look elsewhere. In fact, you yourself have said that fundamental rules don't apply in star wars. (Though this doesn't rule out remaking the films, a mythic story can be retold any number of times, it's just that it won't seriously affect the core.)

It sounds to me that you're just voicing your own problems and disillusionment with the specifics of the flim that have seriously affected your view of the whole of the OT. If you really want to argue your point you need to explain how this all matters to a casual audience.

LL|Jerk
18 February 2003, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
1) a) Audiences nowadays (compared to when?) are less tolerant to inconsistencies
and/or
1) b) the prequels bring out significant new inconsistencies in the OT.
2) These factors prevent the OT from being truly enjoyable for a contemporary audience.
Truer words were never spoken, my friend. Star Wars is obviously still enjoyable for the children and the "softcore" fans; but for us older guys, we notice stuff that they don't. Bad guys should never be as overconfident and foolhardy as GL made Palpatine and his minions. In remaking the OT, the consistency in which GL has shown in creating the Prequels may be carried over to the OT. What GL's problem is, is that the OT generally has a very good story, but some of the more important events (stormtroopers vs. ewoks, rebel fleet vs. imperial fleet, blockade of hoth, etc.) are presented rather unrealistically. And the exact opposite is true for the Prequels. Events in the Prequels are portrayed a bit more realistically (such as the ground and space battles), but there's no "passion" or "energy" in the story, which GL did a decent job of showing in the OT.

For those of you that have watched The Two Towers (aka Lord of the Rings 2), can draw certain similarities. 10,000 orcs vs. @700 men? NO WAY! BUT the producers ran the battle in a way that showed how it was PLAUSIBLE for the Heroes to win without the bad guys being freaking idiots. And that's what we all like to see. We don't want the Emperor and the whole d@mn Empire to be a bunch of overconfident fools. We want them to be smart, calculating villians that really give the Heroes a run for their money.

Revised OT (filmwork aspect):
1. Many of the space battles should be shown very differently. However AWE-INSPIRING the cinematic scenes from The Two Towers are, think how much better a TRUE Star Wars space battle would be! GL has slightly improved his space battles in the prequels, but the ones in the OT are just barely marginal (save for the Battle of Endor, which was filmed quite well (for its time)).
2. Ground battles in the OT need to be more intense like the ground battle on Geonosis.
3. While much could be changed about the way the story and battles are portrayed, the end result (could? :D) remain the same. As is becoming more common these days, several alternate endings could also be presented in a revised OT.

While these guidelines may seem rather vague, they're a start...

Zakzahn
18 February 2003, 06:54 AM
LLJerk, can you answer a question for me? Do you like Star Wars? All I've seen you do on this board is state how everything was done wrong. You seem to have a very low opinion on the series in general, and yet you come to a message board where people hang out to share their enjoyment in Star Wars. I just don't get it.

Rogue Janson
18 February 2003, 07:08 AM
Next thing you're going to be saying the prequels need to be remade to put the passion back in.


Star Wars is obviously still enjoyable for the children and the "softcore" fans; but for us older guys, we notice stuff that they don't.

I want Star Wars to continue to grow in popularity in the coming years, but I honestly can't see that happening unless Lucas does redo the entire OT.
There's a bit of an inconsistency here. For Star Wars to grow in popularity, presumably that means attracting new fans. But you admit that new fans aren't likely to be bothered by the problems.

It's clear that there's a tension between 'consistency' and 'realism' and 'passion' and 'energy'. The obvious danger with any rewrite of the OT is that it would sacrifice the latter for the former.

I'm not sure the comparison with TTT is appropriate. There is one and only one reason the Rohirrim won the battle, and that's the pretty much demi-godlike power of Gandalf. If he hadn't blinded and panicked the orc formation, the riders would have been slaughtered on the orcs' polearms.

Anyway, your revised OT framework:
Revised OT (filmwork aspect):

1. Many of the space battles should be shown very differently. However AWE-INSPIRING the cinematic scenes from The Two Towers are, think how much better a TRUE Star Wars space battle would be! GL has slightly improved his space battles in the prequels, but the ones in the OT are just barely marginal (save for the Battle of Endor, which was filmed quite well (for its time)).
To be honest, I think the opposite. I don't think there's a great deal that could be done to improve any of the space battles, except for Endor, where new technology could give us greater scale. In particular, I think the battle above Naboo held up poorly compared to OT battles, it's really just a rapidly moving array of bright lights.


2. Ground battles in the OT need to be more intense like the ground battle on Geonosis.
To be honest, I don't think you're ever going to make the Battle of Endor like the Battle of Geonosis. It's just not going to happen. Like the Endor space battle, Hoth could be done on a greater scale, but I don't really think it would add anything crucial to the sequence. While we're on the subject, Geonosis contains one of my favourite prequel inconsistencies - where the hell were the acclamators? Why weren't they helping bombard the separatist forces and why were leaving the federation ships to assemble unmolested in orbit?


3. While much could be changed about the way the story and battles are portrayed, the end result (could? ) remain the same. As is becoming more common these days, several alternate endings could also be presented in a revised OT.

This point is partly a summary, but it suddenly brings up the idea that after all these changes the end result might be different. I'm not sure I understand it properly, especailly the bit about alternate endings. Do you mean the end result of the story (what happens), or the end result of the films (the effect on the audience)?

LL|Jerk
18 February 2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Zakzahn
LLJerk, can you answer a question for me? Do you like Star Wars? All I've seen you do on this board is state how everything was done wrong. You seem to have a very low opinion on the series in general, and yet you come to a message board where people hang out to share their enjoyment in Star Wars. I just don't get it.
That seems like a silly question to ask. Of course I like Star Wars. I just think that GL did a mediocre job in the movies. They were far beyond their time, yet these Prequels we're seeing has brought up some interesting inconsistenecies that have been addressed throughout this entire thread.

GL writes the ending (OT) before the beginning (Prequels). I call that bad planning. He||, GL never knew that he was going to include Yoda in SW at all until a 1980 Convention! (see my signature for details). And he sure as he|| didn't know that SW was going to become as popular as it did (see my past posts in this thread).

I guess you could say that it was a smashing idea wrecked by a producer who doesn't really know 100% what he's doing.

As I have repeatedly stressed, a Revised OT would solve any and all inconsistneces that we have discovered.


Originally posted by Rogue Janson
This point is partly a summary, but it suddenly brings up the idea that after all these changes the end result might be different. I'm not sure I understand it properly, especailly the bit about alternate endings. Do you mean the end result of the story (what happens), or the end result of the films (the effect on the audience)?
I mean the end results of the story. If you have the DVD or VHS of Swordfish, you'll notice they have an alternate ending where the bad guy gets screwed in the end instead of getting away with it. That's what I mean by alternate ending. Example: All the Rebel Commandos are captured and killed, Vader kills the Emperor to save Luke and dies in the process, leaving Luke to take the reigns of the Empire. :D


Originally posted by LL|Jerk
I want Star Wars to continue to grow in popularity in the coming years, but I honestly can't see that happening unless Lucas does redo the entire OT.
I would like to retract this statement. I realize that it probably isn't going to happen, and for GL to make a "postlogy" is more likely (see the "Possibilities for the Next Trilogy" thread). I have been a bit wild in saying that a Revised OT is the "only" way for Star Wars to survive, and I recognize that now.

I will not have it said that I did not try to end this thread peacefully:


Originally posted by LL|Jerk
a better idea would be to just move the whole thread to the R&R forum...i think moderators can do that...
I was willing to leave it at that, but Faraer among others brought me right back into the fight :D. It's all good though. (as long as the moderators don't come along and ruin our fun again ;))

Jericho_Narcas
18 February 2003, 08:43 AM
I could have sworn that the second ship to get blown away by the Death Star was a Corellian Corvette. The first was definitely a Mon Cal cruiser though...

Corsec025
18 February 2003, 02:23 PM
Alright, I read through this entire thread, and all of the 'inconsistencies' that you mentioned can simply be resolved with several answers:

You said that it was idiotic how the Executor was killed by one A-wing, the fact is this: an entire squadron of A-wings was probably dedicated to taking out the shield generators, and they fired concussion missiles; each A-wing is loaded with 12 of these (X-wing CPU game). This explains how the shields were destroyed, and the Executor had probably taken a beating. The reason it was destroyed is that an A-wing was hit and as a last valiant act the pilot rammed the bridge (BTW: if any of you know his name it would help in my campaign)

The only inconsistency that I can pull from this is the fact that a SSD can be controlled from the rear, near the engines. I do not know if this technology was implemented in the OT, but we all know that the Lusankya possessed this tech in Rebel Stand.

Also, when Piett ordered them to intensify forward fire power, it was because of the fact that they were already firing at the starfighters that were taking out the shields.

The reason why the Ewoks were able to destroy the legion (this is 1000-5000, Webster Dictionary) of troopers is because the Empire if anything overestimated. When the Ewok jumped the speeder bike, 3 troopers chased him off! Also, when R2 and Threepio were surrendering an entire platoon was dedicated to capture them. Furthermore, an entire Ewok clan was dedicated to that battle. Also, Han's party consisted of the BEST SpecForce troops that the Rebellion could muster.

The thing about the Ewoks getting past the AT-STs was absurd. It is fact that the Ewoks are tiny, also they blend in with their natural enviroment!

I agree with everything so far said against the use of droid tech. Addressing clone tech: the Empire did use some, as was modeled by Dark Empire and Thrawn Trilogy. When you mentioned that the Emperor could only control troops within the system using the Force, you can not prove that. When you say that you are telling me that Joruus C'boath was stronger than the Emperor in the Force?!?

LL|Jerk's fantasy about Boba Fett was already proven wrong. In the Mandalorian Armor , By K.W. Jeter, Boba Fett is found by Dengar and stays with Dengar past Endor!

Thank you for your time.

Moridin
18 February 2003, 02:47 PM
(BTW: if any of you know his name it would help in my campaign) Arvel Crynyd.

Krad-edis
18 February 2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk
WHY WOULD THE EWOKS UNLEASH A BARRAGE OF ARROWS WHEN THE REBELS ARE IN THE SMACK DAB MIDDLE OF WHERE THEY WERE FIRING AT? THE IMPS HAVE ARMOR, ARROWS WON'T HURT THEM! THE REBELS HAVE NO ARMOR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WILL GET KILLED BY THE EWOKS

I couldn't help but agree with most of your critisisms of ROTJ's Battle of Endor, however, don't underestimate an arrow. An Imperial Stormtrooper struck by an arrow is most likely to find themselves with chunks of stone, wooden shaft, and pieces of plastic armor (fragments) in their guts. Bows from our history have been known to penetrate iron plated armors, and absolutely rip through bronze armor. Plastic would fall prey to the same thing. What I am trying to say is that the Ewoks fired into a melee in which no one was safe from the arrows.

LL|Jerk
18 February 2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Corsec025
The reason why the Ewoks were able to destroy the legion (this is 1000-5000, Webster Dictionary) of troopers is because the Empire if anything overestimated.

This assumes that an entire legion of the best Stormtroopers in the galaxy is unable to take out a clan of Ewoks. Underestimation and overconfidence can only get you so far. When the Imperials realized that they were having trouble with the Ewoks/Rebels, why didn't they call for backup?

Corsec025
18 February 2003, 04:45 PM
I said that the troopers OVERestimated, and if anything they were UNDERconfident. I was merely saying that the troopers were not sure how many Ewoks there were in those woods. Neither do we. I myself believe that the Ewoks had the upperhand, surprise! In game terms (d6 I'm not sure about d20) that would mean that the Ewoks would get the first move. Even not in game terms, when the Ewoks surprised the stormtroopers they each fired an arrow, say they had 75 archers. Take a 20% chance to hit (those aren't very good odds) and 15 troopers were hit. Also, no one knows how big the Ewok clan that attacked the stormtroopers was. I myself think it to be the largest clan on the Sanctuary Moon (the Ewok adventures included this clan). This could mean that they had a warrior population of 1000, so they could have been equally matched numerically. They were also on homeground, which would give them the upper hand. Even if they weren't all on screen, they still could have been there! A good roleplayer should understand this, as you should always be using your imagination!

LL|Jerk
18 February 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Corsec025
I agree with everything so far said against the use of droid tech.
Could you elaborate a little more on this statement :D


Originally posted by Corsec025
When you mentioned that the Emperor could only control troops within the system using the Force, you can not prove that. When you say that you are telling me that Joruus C'boath was stronger than the Emperor in the Force?!?
From what I've seen in the movies it looks to me as though droid starfighters and battle droids are just as effective (in large groups) as humans are. And also from what I've seen in the movies the Emperor exhibited no "Enhanced Coordination" with his troops. What I meant when I said that Enhanced Coordination's effect is only limited to the local system is just that. It's not possible to coordinate troops when you're in an entirely different sector than they are. If that was the case, the Emperor should have just stayed in Imperial City and coordinated the Battle of Endor from there. I originally brounght the subject up only because I was looking for a rational explanation for the Empire's non-useage of droids.

And C'boath did not use Enhanced Coordination to control Thrawn's troops. Enhanced Coordination links coordinated troops on a subconscious level, and does not allow the Jedi mental control over the troops affected. It seems more likely that he used Control Another's Mind, which is even more difficult, and therefore, even more limited in range.

Zakzahn
18 February 2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk

That seems like a silly question to ask. Of course I like Star Wars. I just think that GL did a mediocre job in the movies. They were far beyond their time, yet these Prequels we're seeing has brought up some interesting inconsistenecies that have been addressed throughout this entire thread.

GL writes the ending (OT) before the beginning (Prequels). I call that bad planning. He||, GL never knew that he was going to include Yoda in SW at all until a 1980 Convention! (see my signature for details). And he sure as he|| didn't know that SW was going to become as popular as it did (see my past posts in this thread).

I guess you could say that it was a smashing idea wrecked by a producer who doesn't really know 100% what he's doing.



So basically your problem is that George Lucas can not see forward in time? That he didn't know that Star Wars was going to be such a success, and thus couldn't plan from the start exactly what was going to happen?

You say you like Star Wars, but all you do is complain. Now that you've seen the prequels, the old Trilogy seems out dated and has "inconsitances". But on the other hand, the prequels aren't as good as the old trilogy because they don't have as much passion. As far as I can see, you are complaining because Star Wars is not exactly how you would do it.

Corsec025
18 February 2003, 05:07 PM
LL:

I am going to quote from the Dark Empire Sourcebook:
..."(Palpatine has spent decades studying the most arcane and esoteric Jedi disciplines. It is believed that he has mastered nearly all known powers, perviously unknown powers, and devises new ones at his pleasure)"..."Control, Sense, and Alter: Affect Mind...enhanced coordination*...*:This power is described in the DARK FORCE RISING SOURCEBOOK!"

That passage shows that Palpatine has an unfathomable amount of power! It also shows that Joruus did use enhanced coordination, as I can't think of any other Jedi in command of thousands of clones...

Corsec025
18 February 2003, 05:11 PM
Sorry LL:

Elaborating, I agreed with every statement on droid tech, such as droid tech can not adapt. The Emperor needed adaptable people to command, and to fight. That is all.

LL|Jerk
18 February 2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Corsec025
That passage shows that Palpatine has an unfathomable amount of power! It also shows that Joruus did use enhanced coordination, as I can't think of any other Jedi in command of thousands of clones...
I am not disputing the fact that Palpatine has the Enhanced Coordination power; I just said that Palpatine hasn't used it in the movies. It's strictly an EU thing at this point.

I agree that Palpatine has an unfathomable amount of power. SO WHY DID GL PLAY HIM LIKE AN OVERCONFIDENT FOOL? :D

And if you continue reading the Dark Empire Sourcebook, you will find that Emperor Palpatine is listed as a "Jedi Master", and...well...it's kinda obvious that HE'S A SITH MASTER, NOT A JEDI MASTER! That's a rather serious typo considering the Jedi and Sith are mortal enemies...:D

And for the sake of argument, I will repeat that the Enhanced Coordination power cannot be used to control other people's minds. It's in the power's description. Control Mind is the power for controling other people's minds. :D


Originally posted by Corsec025
Elaborating, I agreed with every statement on droid tech, such as droid tech can not adapt. The Emperor needed adaptable people to command, and to fight. That is all.
The Emperor needs adaptable people to command? Wow, that kinda blows Pel's "blind obedience" argument out of the water...

LL|Jerk
18 February 2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Zakzahn
As far as I can see, you are complaining because Star Wars is not exactly how you would do it.
If you want to see why I am complaining, Zakzahn, maybe you should read the entire thread, because I don't feel like explaining it again. :D

Rogue Janson
19 February 2003, 04:12 AM
I agree that Palpatine has an unfathomable amount of power. SO WHY DID GL PLAY HIM LIKE AN OVERCONFIDENT FOOL?

Right, this is a central plank of LL|Jerk's argument, so anyone new to this thread, pay attention to it.

I keep adding more to this list, but I think we can ask four questions:
1) Is Palpatine an overconfident fool?
2) What is the functional effect of his overconfidence?
3) What is the symbolic effect?
4) Is there a plausible alternative?

1) Except for the whole Luke/Vader thing, which isn't really relevant, there's one reason why Palpatine's plans at Endor failed (bear in mind that we're massively over-analysing here). The reason Palpatine's plan failed is the role of the Ewoks. Is this as great an oversight as it seems? Consider the following chain of events which must occur: rebels meet ewoks > ewoks befriend rebels > ewoks agree to help fight the Imperial forces (at great cost it might be added) > ewoks successfully fight Imperial forces. (you could add in an "ewoks don't eat rebels" stage if you wanted.)

2) The functional effect is simple. It allows the rebels to win.

3) The symbolic importance of the Emperor's over-confidence is more interesting. Firstly, a SW villain must have a clear and concise weakness. In the Emperor (and also Jabba) this is over-confidence. A fairly obvious point is that there may be a link between "unfathomable power" and over-confidence. In particular, as we've established, the crucial element the Emperor overlooked were the Ewoks - small, primitive, seemingly unthreatening, but really brave and dangerous fighters. Another important symbolic point.

4) Well this one's not really up to me to answer. There probably is a more subtle way to make the Empire lose, but the real question is about the negative effects it would have. Bear in mind it should ideally demonstrate all the symbolism mentioned above.

LL|Jerk
19 February 2003, 05:26 AM
1) Is Palpatine an overconfident fool?
As GL has portrayed Palpatine in the movies, yes, he is an overconfident fool. But is he really overconfident realistically? The answer to this question is most definately no. He outsmarts the entire Jedi council, the senate, and the whole galaxy for that matter, only to suddenly become overconfident when he faces the Rebellion? I don't think so.


2) What is the functional effect of his overconfidence?
To make it too easy for the heroes :D


3) What is the symbolic effect?
The Dark Side makes you stupid :D


4) Is there a plausible alternative?
Yes. Portray Palpatine as the Evil Genius that he truly is.

LL|Jerk
19 February 2003, 05:45 AM
And I'm not buying into this whole Ewok thing. Ewoks are there for comic relief, not to open up a can of whoop a$$ on an entire legion of the Empire's best troops.

The Rebellion's entire victory is totally dependent upon the best stormtroopers in the galaxy completely abandoning the the one thing they're supposed to protect. I guess the stormtroopers never heard of following orders. :D

Codym
19 February 2003, 10:45 AM
The Emperor was an over confident fool by the time you reach ROTJ. The Darkside of the Force and most likely the extreme political power had driven him insane, and that was clear from the first viewing. He can see into the future, but only the possible futures he wants to see. There's a reason the Darkside is seductive.

The reason droids aren't used has been clearly addressed, on screen. I'm sure it will be addressed again in Episode III. If this is not good enough for you, well, tough.

Military depictions in SW are fine as long as take into account that basic story telling will always cause a few minor holes. Lucas has actually done better than many other fantastical war films in that respect. If you cannot deal with this fact, don't watch movies peroid. Every film has these sort of holes.

The original trilogy is fine, and so far the newer prequels fit well with them. They do not need to be remade. I'm not willing to cast judgement on unreasolved mysteries until Episode 3 is release.

Corsec025
19 February 2003, 12:14 PM
Alright boys and girls:

Palpatine wasn't overconfident as all of you prove this in your arguments about the Ewoks! LL|Jerk says that Ewoks are there for comic relief not to open up a can of whoop @$$, and the Emperor probably thought the same thing... a bunch of tiny creatures to fight his best soldiers? It would have appeared a joke, so he wouldn't have expected his shield to get blown up.

But the Ewoks were skilled fighters, and nobody would've known it. Palpatine wasn't basing his tactics on overconfidence, but merely basing his tactics on the wrong knowledge.

And the supposed "dark side" of the Force wouldn't have done this to him. There is no dark side of the Force, as any Star Wars fanatic would know! For those of you who have read the NJO series you will understand when I quote Vergere from the book traitor: "What you call the 'dark side' is the raw, unrestrained Force itself: you call the 'dark side' what you find when you give yourself over wholly to the Force. To be a Jedi is to control you passion... but Jedi control limits your power. Greatness-true greatness of any kind-requires the surrender of control. Passion that is guided, not walled away. Leave your limits behind"..."If your surrender leads to slaughter, that is not because the Force has darkness in it. It is because you do."

Hence, any argument brought up about the dark side corrupting people is wrong, as they corrupt themselves with their own "dark side".

LL|Jerk
19 February 2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Corsec025
And the supposed "dark side" of the Force wouldn't have done this to him. There is no dark side of the Force, as any Star Wars fanatic would know! For those of you who have read the NJO series you will understand when I quote Vergere from the book traitor: "What you call the 'dark side' is the raw, unrestrained Force itself: you call the 'dark side' what you find when you give yourself over wholly to the Force. To be a Jedi is to control you passion... but Jedi control limits your power. Greatness-true greatness of any kind-requires the surrender of control. Passion that is guided, not walled away. Leave your limits behind"..."If your surrender leads to slaughter, that is not because the Force has darkness in it. It is because you do."

Hence, any argument brought up about the dark side corrupting people is wrong, as they corrupt themselves with their own "dark side".
Very good point. Vergere's new way of understanding the Force has some major implications regarding everything. Vergere's way is probably the "Old Jedi" way; (we've all heard that the "Jedi Knights of Old" were far more powerful than "modern" Jedi Knights are). There is practically no limit to all the new cool stuff that a "Vergere Jedi" could do. (is it okay if that's what I call Vergere's way of understanding of the Force?)

LL|Jerk
19 February 2003, 06:18 PM
I have a post quite similar to this one in the D6 Discussion Forum, though I feel that might be addressed in here:


Regarding new ways of using the Force...

WHY ISN'T THERE BULLET-TIME IN THE STAR WARS UNIVERSE?

Ya know, that's what Star Wars' problem is. NO BULLET-TIME. You know, all that slo-mo stuff from the Matrix. They have it in most of Jet Li's movies, like The One, Romeo Must Die, he||, it's even in The Art of War. IN THOSE MOVIES THE MAIN CHARACTERS ARE NORMAL PEOPLE AND THEY CAN DO BULLET-TIME! WHY SHOULDN'T JEDI DO IT TOO?

Super strength, super speed, flight, he|| yeah!

My point is that in the Star Wars Universe we actually could logically explain how Jedi could have the ability to do bullet-time and other Matrix-style moves...it's the Force!

Corsec025
19 February 2003, 06:57 PM
Bullet time... Genius...

The thing about the bullet-time idea is this:

The bullets aren't slowing down, the people are just getting faster. It is a special effects show, but it is still an advanced way of dodging. I think that a GM could use bullet time, but I think that the Jedi shouldn't be the only ones to use it!

Think about it... we are both d6ers and so if you made a house rule that there was an advanced (A)Bullet Time skill that evolved from having 5D in dodge that would be awesome...

Nova Spice
19 February 2003, 07:54 PM
As GL has portrayed Palpatine in the movies, yes, he is an overconfident fool. But is he really overconfident realistically? The answer to this question is most definately no. He outsmarts the entire Jedi council, the senate, and the whole galaxy for that matter, only to suddenly become overconfident when he faces the Rebellion? I don't think so.

This is the downfall of your argument LL|Jerk; you just answered your question in your statement. Allow me to elaborate.

Palpatine outsmarted the Jedi Council, the Republic Senate, and the Republic itself. He undermined the Jedi by initiating the Clone Wars, all but destroyed the Jedi Order, and established a Galactic Empire with him the Supreme Ruler. IMO, that is a very plausible explanation for his overconfidence. I mean, in his eyes, what is a pathetic band of Rebels against him and his Empire?

You have to understand how over-matched the Rebels were and how, at the base of things, unorganized the Rebel Alliance was against the might of the Imperial Army and Navy.

This is great storytelling, and it hits the home of how the underdogs, in some cases, win against all odds. The two factors Palpatine forgot to include were: Luke Skywalker (his ability to turn his father) and the Ewoks (their fighting capability on their home turf). It's blatantly obvious the Alliance was getting decimated in space, especially early on, but as always, the Emperor wanted to savor the defeat of his opponents, thus utilizing stand off tactics to frighten and demoralize the Rebels while TIEs ripped their fighters to pieces and the Death Star vaporized their beloved capital ships.

IMO, you're argument on Palpatine not being overconfident is pretty weak....and moot. ;)

LL|Jerk
19 February 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
IMO, you're argument on Palpatine not being overconfident is pretty weak....and moot
That's not my argument. My argument has been all along that GL could have made the the good guys win without making the bad guys look like fools, but nobody listens to me.

LL|Jerk
19 February 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
This is great storytelling, and it hits the home of how the underdogs, in some cases, win against all odds. The two factors Palpatine forgot to include were: Luke Skywalker (his ability to turn his father) and the Ewoks (their fighting capability on their home turf). It's blatantly obvious the Alliance was getting decimated in space, especially early on, but as always, the Emperor wanted to savor the defeat of his opponents, thus utilizing stand off tactics to frighten and demoralize the Rebels while TIEs ripped their fighters to pieces and the Death Star vaporized their beloved capital ships.
I'm pretty sure that you just called George Lucas a great storyteller...to put it very lightly, I think you're wrong on that point... (see, I can be nice! :D)

Allow me to explain in my next post...(it's rather long)

LL|Jerk
19 February 2003, 11:25 PM
I guess what it comes down to is that nobody will ever win this arugument. In the Prequels we can take everything at face value, including the battles, the one-on-one fights, everything. But the Original Trilogy is not on the same level as the Prequels. In the Original Trilogy we don't know what is truth and what is false, because GL didn't show us didly squat in the OT.

We don't know how the whole Empire could be overconfident. We don't know if the Rebel fleet shown in the Battle of Endor is the ONLY Rebel fleet. We don't know if there were any TIE Fighters being used to blockade Hoth. We don't know why the Executor collided with the Death Star 2. We don't know why the original Death Star had NO anti-starfighter lasers.

So we speculate. And speculation is all we can give to the Original Trilogy because it's frankly too old to survive this type of analyziation without entering the realms of Not Plausible. Therefore, a revision of it is needed.

Why didn't the original Death Star have ANY anti-starfighter lasers?
Why weren't any TIE Fighters used in the Blockade of Hoth?
Why weren't the Rebel base and Rebel transports attacked by TIE Fighters and TIE Bombers once the shield generator was destroyed in the Battle of Hoth?
Why didn't the stormtroopers protect the shield generator in the Battle of Endor?
How did Ewoks beat the best stormtroopers in the galaxy?
Why was there a huge pit in the midddle of the Emperor's throne room?
How did the Rebel fleet beat the Imperial fleet in the Battle of Endor?
Why didn't Vader cut down the Emperor with Luke's lightsaber? It was right there on the floor...
Why aren't there any true missiles used in the Trilogy, when they have been used so much in the Prequels?
Where is all this advanced technology we have seen in the Prequels?

Where the facts end and speculation begins, it helps to use common sense. My type of common sense assumes that the bad guys still have common sense (and aren't excessively overconfident) and that this technological gap we have seen is caused by the fact that A New Hope was created 25 years before TPM.

And great storytelling usually keeps the story within the realms of plausibility. I'm not sure that the OT is kept so.

Sorry if I've raked any old flames :D

Jericho_Narcas
20 February 2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk


This assumes that an entire legion of the best Stormtroopers in the galaxy is unable to take out a clan of Ewoks. Underestimation and overconfidence can only get you so far. When the Imperials realized that they were having trouble with the Ewoks/Rebels, why didn't they call for backup?

Who were they going to call? The Imperial garrison was the only installation on the moon of Endor. Even if the Imperial fleet had tried to send help, they would have still had to get past the Rebel fleet to get there. Basically what it boils down to is they didn't have anybody they could call for backup.

Rogue Janson
20 February 2003, 08:24 AM
I just lost a big post through putting too many smilies in. Oh well.

I can answer this though:

Why was there a huge pit in the midddle of the Emperor's throne room?
Because it's a nice design feature.
Do you think anyone advised the Emperor to watch out in case he ever got thrown down it by his most trusted minion?

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Jericho_Narcas
Who were they going to call?
The rest of the legion of stormtroopers, obviously. GL only showed about 100 stormtroopers total in the ground battle, and there were at least 1000 in the nearby bunkers...

Realistically, the Imps would have called for reinforcements when the Ewoks ambushed them outside of the shield generator bunker, but for some reason they didn't...

Must be that traditional Imperial Overconfidence again...:raised:

Rogue Janson
20 February 2003, 08:33 AM
To be honest, LL, I think you're showing a lack of imagination now. True, not every aspect of the battle was shown, but what we can't see we have to imagine. If you've lost the ability to do that, no wonder you're having trouble with the OT. And that's not necessarily a criticism, I sympathise with you.

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 08:58 AM
Oh, I have an imagination, I just have trouble "imagining" that every move the Empire makes is some sort of mistake, like you guys like to assume.


Fundemental laws of physics do not apply to the Original Trilogy (and neither does common sense, see below).

George Lucas' Villian Guidelines:
1) Assume villians are always overconfident
2) Assume villians always act stupidly
3) Assume villians never use common sense
4) Assume villians always underestimate their enemies.
5) Assume villians always lose, even with a superior force
6) Assume villians will always make the wrong choice
Common sense should still apply, shouldn't it? Always saying that the bad guys make the wrong choice is such a crappy way to end a trilogy :D

My argument that a Revised OT is needed stands.

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 09:04 AM
And Janson, to avoid losing your long posts, you could try copying the message to the clipboard before submitting it. And for the really good/long ones, i recommend that you back them up in Notepad.

That's what I do...hope it helps :lukejedi:

Rogue Janson
20 February 2003, 10:53 AM
yeah, that's what I should do, I just tend to forget. Ah well, I'll reconstruct some of it, there wasn't much new in there, just things restated and (hopefully) clarified.

I suggested that you (or anyone else) should try and come up with alternate ways to do things, to see if these were feasible and better, but you've done that anyway (this (http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11502) thread for anyone interested). Hopefully this discussion can produce some interesting things.
If the bad guys make the right choice, how do the good guys win?
And how is it symbolically demonstrated that they are bad? (remember the symbolic importance of a crucial character flaw.)

With regards to the Emperor, as some people have said, sure he was an evil genius who destroyed the republic, created the Empire and wiped out the jedi. But after several decades of power and the ravages of the Dark Side, there's no guarantee he still is. In particular, he places too much faith in his cisions of the future ("I have foreseen it") and in the end the Dark Side either fails or betrays him.

I think, in its most reduced form, your argument comes down to the believability of the ground battle at Endor. The Ewoks are beneath Palpatine's notice, it can't be denied. What reflects badly on Palpatine is the failure of the troops that he places such confidence in.
And the Endor battle is undeniably a little implausible without a good deal of explanation. (Although this probably isn't true for children, a major part of the SW (target) audience.) We can provide lots of explanations why the Ewoks won, some good, some spurious, but ultimately it's down to how much the individual can suspend their disbelief. Generally Star Wars requires quite a large suspension of disbelief and I don't really think that's going to change.
:chirpa: :emperor: :wicket:

Nova Spice
20 February 2003, 10:58 AM
Why didn't the original Death Star have ANY anti-starfighter lasers?

It did, as you can see by the towers and laser being fired at the X-wings and Y-wings on their trench runs and their strafing runs.
"What about those towers?"-Wedge
"You worry about those fighters, I'll worry about the towers."-Luke

Jek Porkins was ripped to pieces by anti-starfighter and turbolaser
firepower.

I realize you are going by the line: "We count thirty ships Lord Vader, but they're so small they're evading our turbolaser fire."-Lieutenant Tanbris

Notice he said turbolaser fire...of course the X-wings were evading turbolasers, that's what they were built to do. But as shown by the death of Jek Porkins, the sheer amount of turbolaser fire was bound to take down the starfighters eventually.



Why weren't any TIE Fighters used in the Blockade of Hoth?

Remember the nice little asteroid chase scene with the Falcon and those TIEs? I'm pretty sure those fighters were patrolling around the Imperial fleet as the Battle of Hoth raged on the surface. It's readily apparent that the first transport escaped with ease because there was only a single Star Destroyer in that particularly sector (at we know what happened to it). I'm sure that with the Rebels losing so horribly, the Imperial navy suspected that they would be able to launch TIEs to engage once they saw the first signs of an evacuation. When the v-150 Ion Cannon disabled the Star Destroyers in the escape path, they no longer had the power capacity to launch TIEs until they had become "un-ionized."


Why weren't the Rebel base and Rebel transports attacked by TIE Fighters and TIE Bombers once the shield generator was destroyed in the Battle of Hoth?

There was a discussion in the Echo Base hangar with Han and Lieutenant Jamiro. "We're having trouble adapting the speeders to the cold."-Jamiro

It's obvious that the rigid cold of Hoth was not condusive for starfighters or air vehicles. It took the Rebels several weeks to outfit the X-wings and T-47's to Hoth's frigid environment. I imagine that's why Vader went with a ground strike in the first place. The fast-delivery drop capsules that carried the AT-AT's were far cheaper than a TIE and thus were expendable. And because of the armor on the AT-ATs, they were better able to sustain in the coldness of Hoth's icy plains.


Why didn't the stormtroopers protect the shield generator in the Battle of Endor?

I'm guessing because hundreds of furry little animals surrounded them and commenced a massive assault. A surprise attack of that magnitude is bound to force the Imperial troops to scatter into their squads and take the fight to the Ewoks. Besides, we see that some of the stormies and army troopers attempted to retake the bunker.

-Han shot two stormtroopers and an army trooper charging at the bunker just prior to Leia being wounded.
-Leia popped two stormtroopers that had come to retake the bunker and capture them immediately thereafter.

Besides, if you watch the film closely, you'll notice that Page's Commandoes are right beside the bunker in the woods (at least a half-dozen) and are helping secure the bunker's flanks.


How did Ewoks beat the best stormtroopers in the galaxy?

Again, it was undoubtedly surprise and numbers. Palpatine had an entire legion around the bunker (that is according to him). I imagine that was merely an intimidation factor to force Luke to give in to his fear for Han and Leia's safety.

Its obvious that there were LOTS of Imperial troops, but the Ewoks also had superior tactics, surprise, and home turf resilience to beat back the white-clad stormtroopers. It's also obvious that the Ewoks were hard to see in their environment, unlike the white-armored stormtroopers.

Utilizing massive logs, battering rams, catapults, and gliders, the Ewoks had the natural weapons to hammer the easily seen Imperials.

This is really not that unbelievable. Ever hear of the American Revolution? ;)


Why was there a huge pit in the midddle of the Emperor's throne room?

Well, I suspect that Janson's response can handle this one.


How did the Rebel fleet beat the Imperial fleet in the Battle of Endor?

Well, the Rebels had superior starfighters; that's common knowledge and is evidenced even in the films. However, I will mention that the Rebels weren't winning, that's why Lando and Ackbar commenced the all or nothing (practically suicide) attack against the Imperial Fleet, shielding them from the Death Star's superlaser.

When Arvel Crynyd rammed his A-wing into the bridge of the Executor, the main attack ship and moral of the Imperial Navy sunk like a rock in water. Pellaeon mentions this in the opening chapters of Heir to the Empire. The Imperial Fleet could have still wasted the Alliance fleet, but the loss of the Executor and the Death Star, along with lord Vader and the Emperor was such a stunning blow that it caused the Empire to retreat in confusion.

Again, this isn't that hard to comprehend either.


Why didn't Vader cut down the Emperor with Luke's lightsaber? It was right there on the floor...

Actually, it was further away than you might have thought. Luke tossed that sucker a pretty long way away from him and where Vader would eventually be standing. I imagine that simply lifting the old bastard in the air and tossing him down the drain was much easier, at the time, and faster than grabbing a lightsaber and running back over to chop him in half.

On the other hand (no pun intended), Vader probably didn't have the Force "strength" left to pull the lightsaber to him. He was in very bad shape and there is always the possibility that the lightsaber broke when Luke threw it away.


Why aren't there any true missiles used in the Trilogy, when they have been used so much in the Prequels?

This is a very confusing question. I suppose you mean a missile like Jango's in the asteroid belt and the ones used by Attack Gunships at the Battle of Geonosis? Well, its fairly obvious that the OT did contain warheads.

"It's ray shielded, so you'll have to use proton torpedoes."-General Jan Dodonna

"It's away!"-Red Leader, who had subsequently fired his torps at the Death Star's porthole

"I copy Gold Leader, I'm already on my way out."-Wedge Antilles, who then subsequently fired concussion missiles into the north tower.

I'm not sure I even see your point here......


Where is all this advanced technology we have seen in the Prequels?

Again, as has been stated on numerous occasions by GL, the Imperial era is supposed to represent almost a dark age in Star Wars. The technology is more rugged and straight to the point, all the flashiness of the Republic era has been sacrificed for a more "war-like" and archaic design centered around durability and firepower, not beauty, elegance, and fancy.

None of it is hard to believe IMO.......never has been, never will be. ;)

Corsec025
20 February 2003, 12:17 PM
Alright guys, what is with all of this attack against LL. Honestly, no one is with him, except now there are poor arguments being brought against him.

Janson... Janson... Janson... have you read this entire thread? I clearly stated that there was no "dark" side of the Force. I am actually starting to agree with LL now that you people keep bringing the "dark" side of the Force into this!

I am also realizing that I was mistaken earlier when I said GL didn't play the Emperor for a bumbling, overconfident fool! Thank you LL! :D

The Emperor would've known that there were Ewoks on the planet! Honestly!

The surprise and numbers thing does make sense though. I still do see how the Rebel Alliance won at Endor, but I agree with LL that now there are inconsistencies and bad story telling.

Palpatine wouldn't have had to lie to Luke, what would the point be? He didn't know that Leia was Luke's sister! Luke wouldn't have been able to send his fear to her either! Why would the Emperor have wanted to scare Luke, when he looked out the viewport we see the Executor and all of the Imperial ships! If Luke would've been afraid, it would have been that there would be no Rebel Alliance left to take out the shield generator!

The Battle of Endor doesn't only play Palpatine as an overconfident fool either! Look at the fleet situation:

The Executor crashes into the Death Star... before the DS is destroyed!
The Imperial Navy is one of the most organized bodies in the galaxy! They control it afterall, and now you are telling me that a battlegroup can't stay organized after their flagship is destroyed? One of the ranking Imperial officers would've taken command and the Rebel fleet would've been pulverized!

When the Death Star was destroyed it would've been a shocker, but the Imperials still outnumbered the Rebels! They would have pulverized them!

We must also consider what makes the Empire evil! I don't see it as that, it is just a governmental body with one supreme leader. Sure it sounds terrible but it isn't. The Emperor allowed some democracy to prevail until the Rebellion came along and started killing people! Take a look at the American Civil War, The Confederates rebelled, and they are seen as the evil people!

The Emperor barely restricts freedoms! They can say whatever the f*** comes to their mind as long as it doesn't harm him! They can go wherever they want in the galaxy! They can own weapons, ships with weapons, houses, businesses, you name it they had it! The Rebel Alliance is what caused the dark ages!

I think the Rebellion should have been destroyed!

Jim Williams
20 February 2003, 12:52 PM
On the contrary, it was Vader's style of leadership and the rapid style of both advancement and "retirement" in the upper echelons of the Imperial Navy that directly led to the Imperials' morale being broken.

The Imperial fleet probably had not been that hotly contested in battle ever. All too often I'm sure they had numbers, firepower, and just enough training and discipline on their side to defeat their enemies in space combat. At Endor, the Imperial fleet was not prepared to execute the full weight of their plan: defeat and annihlate the rebel fleet.

I take that back. They were prepared to defeat the Rebel fleet assuming all went by their plan and doctrine. Desperate, suicidal tactics didn't work because they were so brilliant, they worked because no one had ever counterattacked Star Destroyers at point-blank range before.

As a real world parallel, here in the Hampton roads area we have a major military simulator command to conduct extensive exercises. A Marine general was rather thoroughly thrashed by his superiors when he criticized the unrealistic tactics being planned by our U.S. Navy. Here' the kicker. He was the "bad" guy, and caused so much damage to the U.S. Navy with suicide boats and such, the brass told him to cut it out because the losses were throwing off deployment schedules and it "was a pain to go back in and reprogram the forces back in after you wiped them out."

Don't believe for a second that the ambitious, shocked men on those Star Destroyer wouldn't crack like eggs under pressure. I think it was Napoleon who said, "Morale is to numbers as 3 is to 1."

Corsec025
20 February 2003, 01:16 PM
How did Vader's tactics lower morale? Fear is a powerful ally. If your subordinates fear your wrath, they will work harder to make sure that it is brought against them.

How do we know that Vader often executed officers? We see three attempts in the movies... one on the Death Star, but Tarkin stops him. Captain Needa, the idiot who lost the Falcon. And the overall picture of the idiotic villain. Admiral Ozzel. He deserved to die! The Rebellion could've been destroyed at Hoth!

Vader never killed Piett, and Piett died at Arvel Crynyd's hands.

Gilad Pelleaon was at the Battle of Endor! He took over the Empire around the times of the NJO! The Empire's men would have been able to react. Afterall, they outnumbered the Rebels with firepower probably around 5 to 1 which makes up for the 3 to 1 of morale. That leaves the Empire 2 to 1! They could've crushed the Rebellion yet!

Rogue Janson
20 February 2003, 02:29 PM
I think we're getting sidetracked into more minor debates again ... may not matter, we'll see what LL says


Janson... Janson... Janson... have you read this entire thread? I clearly stated that there was no "dark" side of the Force. I am actually starting to agree with LL now that you people keep bringing the "dark" side of the Force into this!
Yes I did read your post Corsec025 I just, umm, ignored it.
But since you bring it up again, here's why:
1) We're talking about the films here, and we're trying to keep EU out of the picture. Barring some improbably and stunning revelation in epIII In the films there clearly is a Dark Side in the films.
2) I'm afraid I'm not quite up to date in my NJO reading (I just got Traitor today) but I'm right in thinking Vergere's way of thinking (the Potentiate heresy) hasn't been proved correct yet. Personally I'm hoping it won't be.
3) It's a bit harsh criticising GL's storytelling on the basis of EU fiction that was written 20 years later.

Krad-edis
20 February 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Corsec025
How did Vader's tactics lower morale? Fear is a powerful ally. If your subordinates fear your wrath, they will work harder to make sure that it is brought against them.

Fear can also cripple one's ability to function. If your subordinates fear your wrath, they can be overwhelmed by the enemy and the one giving them orders. They will hesitate when they should act, out of fear from two different sides. In both instances with Ozzel and Needa, both officers figured that what they were doing was right (Ozzel was a tactical retard and Needa just was not as quick as Solo). They both could have been reprimanded, but not necessarily killed.

The last thing you want is for your officers to second guess themelves into a tizzy. Then they do not act. Vader did nothing for morale except cause problems. He could have transferred Ozzel or Needa to a lesser command, or demoted them. Instead he executed them right in front of others. What will they learn from that experience? Nothing...because they are dead. What did the others learn?

Do not act on your best judgements because if you do you may still be wrong, so you better be right.

How the heck are they supposed to know ahead of time if they are going to be right or not? Experience maybe? But then again, an admiral or captain is experienced. So they should be left to do their jobs without Vader interfering or reprimanding them. Afterall, who wants to step to the plate and make a decision when Vader is on board. Would you like to be the watch officer when the "fit hits the shan"? If you say yes, well you better be right in your decisions. I think the officers were paralyzed in his presence after ESB. While Imp admirals and captains are left to worry and second guess whether they are right, in fear of their lives from the ships approaching and the dark helmeted figure standing behind them, the Rebels are free to coordinate.

You want your officers to do their jobs. You want them to think and make decisions. You don't want your officers to fear making decisions, because as said, it is their job.

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 05:46 PM
1) Ewoks can beat stormtroopers
2) The Executor has teleportation capabilities
3) "The Dark Side" made Palpatine overconfident
4) Imperial troops are "blindly obedient"
5) The Imperials panicked at the Battle of Endor
6) There were hundreds more Ewoks at the Battle of Endor (we just didn't see them)
7) There were thousands more ships in the Rebel fleet at the Battle of Endor (we just didn't see them)
Anybody who argues for the points listed above has some serious explaining to do. In arguing for these points, you risk 1) Looking like an idiot and 2) Undermining George Lucas' storytelling abilities, for obvious reasons.

Plausibility is one of the key components of a science fiction story. Can you honestly tell me that the Return of the Jedi, the Empire Strikes Back and A New Hope are all plausible? And even if you somehow do find them plausible, you're telling me that there isn't one major event that you think couldn't have happened without the intervention of Jesus Christ?

And so far everybody who has disagreed with me has made these assumptions about the Imperials:


Updated Villian Guidelines:
1) Assume villians are always overconfident
2) Assume villians always act stupidly
3) Assume villians never use common sense
4) Assume villians always underestimate their enemies.
5) Assume villians always lose, even with a superior force
6) Assume villians will always make the wrong choice
7) Assume villans cannot adapt to new tactics
8) Assume villians will panic at the worst possible moment
Are these the guidelines by which you would write a space opera?

Are these the types of blatant storytelling errors that we like to see in modern movies, circa 2003? NO. In modern movies, the villians aren't played like foolish children. In modern movies, you say that "such and such" happened in a movie, because that's what actually happened.

In the Original Trilogy (circa 1977), you can't accept "such and such" at face value. We see a "very small Rebel fleet at the Battle of Endor". We see "no TIE Fighters in the Blockade of Hoth". We see that "the Executor was nowhere near the Death Star 2".

Yet you expect me to believe that there is actually a very large Rebel fleet at Endor? You expect me to believe that there were TIE Fighters in the Blockade of Hoth? You expect me to believe that the Executor really collided with the Death Star, even though the Executor would have to teleport past the entire Rebel fleet?

http://www.geocities.com/tk44a/endor.jpg

I have painted a hopeless picture. A picture in which everybody is wrong except me and Corsec025, a picture in which George Lucas would be better suited to painting figureines of Japanese cartoon characters in Korea. A picture in which we have proven that some of the major events in the Star Wars Trilogy are just not plausible.

What are we to do?

I'll tell you what we can do. A vote of "no confidence" in the Original Trilogy is what I'm thinking about. We make our own version of what happened.

And you can call me Jerk from now on...


Just Jerk.

Corsec025
20 February 2003, 06:37 PM
Amen to that Jerk!

Addressing Ozzel and Needa...

Needa didn't act... he feared too much to act, otherwise he would have found Han. He didn't fear reprimand from Vader too much obviously, because his utter lack of courage made him do absolutely nothing!

As to Ozzel, he acted, but he was stupid! He jumped too far into the system! Vader didn't order him to do anything, he blew on his own. He had nothing to fear from Vader if he had any intelligence at all.

Furthermore, I didn't see any TIEs either at the battle of Hoth. If one argues that they were there because they chased Han, they were wrong! Han flew in the asteroid field AFTER the Battle of Hoth... the evac happened BEFORE.

As to Endor, I will be the first to admit that the Rebel scum could've won on the ground, but in space they would have been utterly destroyed. Also, the Executor wasn't even pointing at the Death Star when it was disabled! IF it would have been as close as everyone is claiming, it wouldn't have struck the Death Star bow first! And if it drifted like I have heard it said, the commanders on the Death Star would have made different orders that involved destroying the Rebel Fleet.

And I remembered someone addressing the gathering at Sullust... not every ship jumped from Sullust to the Endor system! Mon Mothma wasn't present at the DS's destruction. That would've been too great a risk.

Nova Spice
20 February 2003, 07:17 PM
Actually Jerk, I made rebuttles against all your points on the prior page. Take a gander at my thoughts and realize how wrong you are! :D

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
Actually Jerk, I made rebuttles against all your points on the prior page. Take a gander at my thoughts and realize how wrong you are!
On the contrary, my dear friend, it is you that are wrong.

1) Those are not the same questions as the ones on the other page.
2) I only repeat questions to which you have given me bu||$hit answers to.
3) This "EWOK ISSUE" will be addressed soon enough in the "Impossible Inconsistencies" thread
4) There were no anti-starfighter turbolasers on the original Death Star (take a look at its D6 stats). Those were capital-scale turrets. I'm not 100% positive on this point, my copy of the Trilogy sourcebook was stolen a few years ago.
5) There were no TIE Fighters participating in the Blockade of Hoth. Just watch as the ISD gets blasted by the Ion Cannon. As the transport and X-Wing streak by, what do we see? NO TIE FIGHTERS!
6) Again and again I have posted this:


George Lucas' Villan Guidelines for Star Wars
1) Assume villians are always overconfident
2) Assume villians always act stupidly
3) Assume villians never use common sense
4) Assume villians always underestimate their enemies.
5) Assume villians always lose, even with a superior force
6) Assume villians will always make the wrong choice
7) Assume villans cannot adapt to new tactics
8) Assume villians will panic at the worst possible moment
I have compiled these statements from posts by various Holonet members who have disagreed with me throughout this thread. Therefore, since nobody has been commenting on them, I am assuming that they are all correct...after all, they came out of your own mouths! That list is a reason in and of itself for the OT to be disgarded!

I'm still waiting for somebody to prove me wrong on anything but minor points!

I challenge you!

my will be done...:emperor:

dgswensen
20 February 2003, 08:53 PM
Plausibility is one of the key components of a science fiction story. Can you honestly tell me that the Return of the Jedi, the Empire Strikes Back and A New Hope are all plausible? And even if you somehow do find them plausible, you're telling me that there isn't one major event that you think couldn't have happened without the intervention of Jesus Christ?

Star Wars is not really science fiction, but space opera. And implausible things happen in space opera all the time. Star Wars is just a jumped-up Flash Gordon serial, and Flash Gordon had some of the most egregious deus ex machina ever. But, one of the greatest books of the 20th century (IMHO), Lord of the Rings, also contains a couple whoppers when it comes to deus ex machine (i.e. the eagle rescuing Sam and Frodo). Extremely unlikely events are part and parcel of any fantasy. That is an axiom.




1) Assume villians are always overconfident
2) Assume villians always act stupidly
3) Assume villians never use common sense
4) Assume villians always underestimate their enemies.
5) Assume villians always lose, even with a superior force
6) Assume villians will always make the wrong choice
7) Assume villans cannot adapt to new tactics
8) Assume villians will panic at the worst possible moment

Are these the guidelines by which you would write a space opera?


Actually, yeah. The elements you describe are all staples of the kind of wahoo fantasy that Star Wars is the heir to. I think the "never" and "always" is a bit much, though; even stereotypes are not absolute. So, while I don't disagree with you on these points, I also don't find them to be drawbacks to the kind of storytelling Star Wars is. There is a time and a place for thoughtful, deeply insightful characterization; Star Wars is not really it. They are great films, I love them to death, but they are not very deep films.


Are these the types of blatant storytelling errors that we like to see in modern movies, circa 2003? NO. In modern movies, the villians aren't played like foolish children. In modern movies, you say that "such and such" happened in a movie, because that's what actually happened.

Maybe in a magical fairyland that you've made up in your head, villains aren't played by foolish children. I'd like to know what sci-fi movies you've been watching lately where the bad guys don't constantly screw up. No, seriously. Please, tell me. The state of modern movies is by and large the same as ever, as far as I've seen.



I have painted a hopeless picture. A picture in which everybody is wrong except me and Corsec025, a picture in which George Lucas would be better suited to painting figureines of Japanese cartoon characters in Korea. A picture in which we have proven that some of the major events in the Star Wars Trilogy are just not plausible.

Okay, first of all, acting like a jackass isn't going to help make your point. You're entitled to your opinion, but the "picture in which everybody is wrong but me" isn't going to encourage anyone to engage you in civilized debate. Respect that other people think differently than you. We are talking about a bunch of made-up movie trivia here -- there is no "right" or "wrong" about it. This whole discussion is speculation about a fantasy film, which is about as ephemeral as you can get.

Secondly, I don't feel Star Wars is plausible on many levels, nor should it be. I don't want plausibility in my heroic fantasy. I want heroic victories against impossible odds, daring risks, and narrow escapes. It's a movie about spaceships and aliens and laser swords, for crying out loud; why are we even talking about plausibility? Even from a storytelling angle -- sure, there are some fudges in the OT when it comes to the fleets, TIE blockades, blah blah blah, but those are budgetary concerns. Lucas did not have the money to make the pictures he wanted, which the Special Editions prove beyond a doubt.

In the time in which those movies were made, people had to use their imaginations to fill in the gaps of what was happening -- special effects simply could not do EVERYTHING like they can now. In my opinion, that's part of what made the original trilogy so great, and why so many people complain about the special effects not being as evocative now, despite the technology being obviously superior.

Imagination is everything.

Jim Williams
20 February 2003, 09:06 PM
So do you have this thing about being right or do you just like to argue? Valid points have been made on both sides and one day you will understand the concept that agreeing to disagree does not make either one right.

I would submit to you that you will probably enjoy your time on the holonet more if you would refrain from using bold face, using caps, and generally not coming off like an argumentative sort of person.

And don't call someone's answers bull$hit. It may not technically be profanity due to the clever!!! use of the $ symbol, but it is rather insulting (something frowned upon here but rampant on other lesser quality boards).

The real reason I pray GL doesn't redo the OT is because of the truly memorable moments that have nothing to do with Hoth or the space battle over Endor (which I barely watch anyway).

Every line uttered byJames Jones as Vader is awesome.
Yoda the puppet as a wizened old jedi Master
Vader chucking Palpy over the railing like yesterday's garbage.
The entire DS attack from liftoff to "the shot heard round the galaxy."
Ah, heck, I could go on and on. If GL redoes the OT, it'd just be more glitzy special effects and less character drama, not to mention the chance of extreme amplification of the Greedo shoots first thread virus.

The villains to you may be the reason a new OT needs to be redone, but the strength of the story---a Hero's journey/epic, and how well GL told it, is the reason why it should NEVER be redone.

Ridiculous counterarguements may now commence.

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by dgswensen
Star Wars is not really science fiction, but space opera. And implausible things happen in space opera all the time. Star Wars is just a jumped-up Flash Gordon serial, and Flash Gordon had some of the most egregious deus ex machina ever. But, one of the greatest books of the 20th century (IMHO), Lord of the Rings, also contains a couple whoppers when it comes to deus ex machine (i.e. the eagle rescuing Sam and Frodo). Extremely unlikely events are part and parcel of any fantasy. That is an axiom.

Wow. So as long as it's that easy to explain...:D That is a very good point.


So basically what you just said is an explanation for everything that I could possibly say about inconsistencies. Of course I don't agree. What you said is a clear and consise reason why the Original Trilogy doesn't have to make sense. And the necessity of plausibility is mandatory for all stories, not just science fictions or space operas. Thirty years ago directors could get away with it, but not today.

Why do you think that the Prequels have been written as "Action/Adventure" films? Obviously because those types of movies are popular nowadays.

So now we have an even bigger inconsistency then anything I have mentioned so far.

Original Trilogy ==> "Space Opera"
Prequels ==> "Action/Adventure"

So that's the iconsistency we've been looking for all this time! The two trilogies are from different genres, for cripe's sake! Thank you dgswensen for bringing this to my attention!

And that is yet another reason for us to put "no confidence" in the Original Trilogy.

Moridin
20 February 2003, 09:42 PM
Alright, watch it guys. Tempers are getting a little hot, and I don't want this to degenerate into a flame war. I and other moderators are keeping an eye on this thread to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.


So do you have this thing about being right or do you just like to argue? Valid points have been made on both sides and one day you will understand the concept that agreeing to disagree does not make either one right.

This is an excellent point. You guys may just have to agree to disagree, but every time someone comes up with a rebuttal for a point you guys just say "no you're wrong" and then go on not conceding any points. You can't browbeat people into agreeing with you, and continuing to goad people is bordering on trolling.

Jerk, if you refuse to listen to any other points of view, then you're not discussing things, you're declaring that you're right. However, for new people joining the thread, here's a suggestion. Take a list of every point you believe your argument depends on, and list them. Then allow people to respond to them point by point, without bringing other aspects in until those points are discussed and decided upon one way or another.

Another thing to consider: you cannot in any way bring the Expanded Universe, i.e. anything other than the movies themselves, into most of this argument. Remember, everything in the EU doesn't come from George Lucas and, thus, any inconsistencies between the movies and the EU are the fault of the EU and not the fault of Lucas. The movies are right, and the EU only can be considered if it doesn't contradict the movies.

And one more thing on a personal note. The concept that there is no dark side is absolutely the biggest load of tripe I've ever heard in my entire life. One of the central axioms of what the Force is is that there exists a light side and a dark side. It is CLEARLY defined in the movies, which are the ultimate and final say on what exists. When I read Traitor, I almost threw the book away because Matt Stover thought he could change the entire nature of the Force. Matt Stover, and by extension Vergere, are wrong. The Force has a light side and a dark side as the movies dictate. "Bad intentions" don't cloud the future, the dark side does. Live with it, deal with it.

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 09:50 PM
I would like to appologize to Nova Spice for calling his answers bullcrap. What I merely meant was that his explanations to my questions were quite unsatisfactory for me. I will be more careful in the future regarding my opinion of other people's explanations. Sometimes my arrogant side gets the best of me (hey, you think it's easy being right all the time? :D).

On to business...


Originally posted by Jim Williams
The real reason I pray GL doesn't redo the OT is because of the truly memorable moments that have nothing to do with Hoth or the space battle over Endor (which I barely watch anyway).

Ah, heck, I could go on and on. If GL redoes the OT, it'd just be more glitzy special effects and less character drama, not to mention the chance of extreme amplification of the Greedo shoots first thread virus.

I agree, that the Original Trilogy has something that the Prequels definately do not have...probably has something to do with the two trilogies being of a different genre...;)

And I also agree that that Space-Opera-ey feel is definately not present in the Prequels, and if GL redid the OT, he would probably do only a mediocre job, which is how he's doing with the Prequels so far.


The villains to you may be the reason a new OT needs to be redone, but the strength of the story---a Hero's journey/epic, and how well GL told it, is the reason why it should NEVER be redone.
Perhaps you haven't been following my "stream of consciousness" over the past few posts. I will admit that I was rash in stating that the OT needs to be redone, but from there I have moved to the position of merely disregarding the events that take place during the OT. The acting is superior, and the special effects of the OT were superb (for their time).

My position now is that the SWRPG community should make its own version of the events depicted in BOTH TRILOGIES, considering the dozens of inconsistencies and impossibilities that we have discovered thus far.


Ridiculous counterarguements may now commence.
Thank you for your permission.

And regarding my flappulent use of bold and CAPS, I would like to say that I use them to put emphasis on my main points. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR, ISN'T IT?

And don't worry Jim, I haven't forgotten your comment on those "horribly dangerous ewoks"! :D

dgswensen
20 February 2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk
So basically what you just said is an explanation for everything that I could possibly say about inconsistencies. Of course I don't agree. What you said is a clear and consise reason why the Original Trilogy doesn't have to make sense. And the necessity of plausibility is mandatory for all stories, not just science fictions or space operas. Thirty years ago directors could get away with it, but not today.

They can't? Obviously you've never seen Armageddon, Mission to Mars, Deep Impact... Preposterous science fiction is practically a tradition. Good directors and bad "get away with it" all the time. Granted, these are all bad examples, but my point is, plausible science fiction has always been a rarity in Hollywood. Personally, I happen to think that Star Wars is one of the examples of the good kind of preposterous, however, because it knows it's fantasy and embraces it wholeheartedly.

In 1977 Lucas was making the kind of space opera story that was big in the 1940s and 1950s. The genre was already nearly 30 years old by that time. The age in which the film is made has nothing at all to do with it.


Why do you think that the Prequels have been written as "Action/Adventure" films? Obviously because those types of movies are popular nowadays.

So now we have an even bigger inconsistency then anything I have mentioned so far.

Original Trilogy ==> "Space Opera"
Prequels ==> "Action/Adventure"

No, I don't think so at all. The prequels are still basically pulp adventure. You have a princess in danger, a "funny" native (Jar Jar), a menacing bad guy and his evil henchman, and a couple of swashbuckling heroes who spend most of their time getting away. Any of these characters would be just at home in Sherwood Forest or the pages of Jules Verne. Episode II is even more so. You have crafty assassins, a showdown in a bar, and an ending featuring an arena full of creatures. Seriously, take out the sci-fi trappings and you could easily make that storyline into an Indiana Jones adventure or a pulp serial much like it.

Also, the original trilogy was as much action / adventure as it was space opera. The films are not that different... in my humble opinion, the original trilogy just had stronger writing.


So that's the iconsistency we've been looking for all this time! The two trilogies are from different genres, for cripe's sake! Thank you dgswensen for bringing this to my attention!

Sorry, but I think you're grasping at straws here. I don't think they're significantly different at all, except in terms of technology and the strength of the scripts.


And that is yet another reason for us to put "no confidence" in the Original Trilogy.

Why would that be a valid reason?

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Moridin
Jerk, if you refuse to listen to any other points of view, then you're not discussing things, you're declaring that you're right. However, for new people joining the thread, here's a suggestion. Take a list of every point you believe your argument depends on, and list them. Then allow people to respond to them point by point, without bringing other aspects in until those points are discussed and decided upon one way or another.
Well, simply allowing dozens of people to list what they believe about a certain set of points back-to-back does not encouage discussion on the forum. What I am trying to do is pay "personal attention" to every person's opinion. Threre's nothing wrong with that, is there?


Another thing to consider: you cannot in any way bring the Expanded Universe, i.e. anything other than the movies themselves, into most of this argument. Remember, everything in the EU doesn't come from George Lucas and, thus, any inconsistencies between the movies and the EU are the fault of the EU and not the fault of Lucas. The movies are right, and the EU only can be considered if it doesn't contradict the movies.
I have kept this in mind since my very first post on this thread. However, for others it may be difficult, considering the EU is the only way to fill in some of the gaps/inconsistencies that I have pointed out.

Although big contradiction/inconsistency with the EU and the movies is the origin of the Death Star...

And since this seems to be my show, I think that I should be allowed a little more leeway than the average Joe. Primarily because we're talking about the very integrity of the Star Wars Universe here, and secondarily because 96% of this thread's topics have been steered by my posts.

It has been said humans define life by misery and conflict. It's no fun if everybody feels the same way about something. That's why each and every one of us is different. Sure, most of us are content to stand on the sidelines and watch the gladiators fight in the arena, but what fun is that? I like to be in the arena, fighting off the hordes with my wit and my lightsaber as my only allies. Well, there's also Corsec025. :D

dgswensen
20 February 2003, 10:27 PM
And since this seems to be my show, I think that I should be allowed a little more leeway than the average Joe. Primarily because we're talking about the very integrity of the Star Wars Universe here, and secondarily because 96% of this thread's topics have been steered by my posts.

Sorry, but we're all pretty much average Joes here, you included. :) I feel like I've been around Holonet long enough to say that arguing merely to gratify your runaway ego is the fastest route to never getting taken seriously in any discussion, ever again. I don't think anyone here is really interested in whose "show" you think this is or how much pull you think you have. (And, really, the "show" belongs to the moderators, and no one else, period.)

You've brought up some interesting points in your discussion, but I'd recommend setting the self-importance aside and concentrate more on having fun discussing Star Wars. This is Holonet... trolling and flame wars are for other, lesser message boards :)

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 10:39 PM
Sorry, but I think you're grasping at straws here. I don't think they're significantly different at all, except in terms of technology and the strength of the scripts.

The OT came about 25 years before the Prequels, but the Prequels actually happened about that long before the OT...it just sounds like GL did them backwards to me...

On all the movie sites I have looked at, the OT and the Prequels are all listed in the Science Fiction/Fantasy genre, but that aside, there are some major differences in each Trilogy's plot line and filming techniques (like 25 years worth of differences)...cross-examining these differences would give us a good answer to your question, dgswensen, but I have neither the time nor the will to undertake such an endeavor.

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 10:47 PM
Sorry, but we're all pretty much average Joes here, you included. I feel like I've been around Holonet long enough to say that arguing merely to gratify your runaway ego is the fastest route to never getting taken seriously in any discussion, ever again.
I'm not arguing to gratify my runaway ego (I don't care what my signature says! :D). I'm arguing because I want to see if there is a logical explanation for all the inconsistencies that I have found, or is Star Wars just the next space opera, where nothing has to make sense (no wonder nobody likes space operas anymore).

Rogue Janson
21 February 2003, 04:06 AM
To be fair, LL|Jerk's got a lot of people posting against him and he could be doing a much worse job trying to reply to them all.

We can argue about whether SW is consistent until we all become one with the force, but I think the general consensus is 'not completely'.

So how much does it really matter. We can say for certain SW is not meant to be read in this manner (that's read in a technical sense). We can also say that for the vast majority of SW fans, and other people who watch the films, it doesn't matter at all.

So I think what LL|Jerk is trying to do is 'play up' the inconsistencies of the flims to bring people round to his way of feeling about them. You could accept all his arguments about inconsistencies but still not have it spoil your enjoyment of the films - personally I'm somewhere in between the two poles. The argument is about how people feel and I'm afraid, LL, that however rational and logical your posts, the sentiment against them shows that in this respect you are wrong and all these (possible) inconsistencies are not really a problem after all. Except for you (and Corsec025).

Anyway, this is LL's current position:


My position now is that the SWRPG community should make its own version of the events depicted in BOTH TRILOGIES, considering the dozens of inconsistencies and impossibilities that we have discovered thus far.
Can you explain what would be the purpose of this exercise and what it would involve? I know I've been trying to get suggestions as to how the story could be changed for a while ... but with no success.

Since it doesn't change the actual films, I don't see how this is fundamentally different from the rationalisation and use of EU material people have been doing already.

Faraer
21 February 2003, 06:32 AM
I'm arguing because I want to see if there is a logical explanation for all the inconsistencies that I have found, or is Star Wars just the next space opera, where nothing has to make sense (no wonder nobody likes space operas anymore).If those are the only possibilies you see, you are misunderstanding Star Wars. Again, Star Wars is myth, dream made celluloid and digital tape, and logic has nothing to do with it. Its strength and importance comes from adhering to mythological archetypes and patterns. You can't criticize art as if it was a documentary. (And in fact it contains mythological infidelities because nobody's perfect, and those would be pertinent to discuss.)

LL|Jerk
21 February 2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
So I think what LL|Jerk is trying to do is 'play up' the inconsistencies of the flims to bring people round to his way of feeling about them. You could accept all his arguments about inconsistencies but still not have it spoil your enjoyment of the films - personally I'm somewhere in between the two poles. The argument is about how people feel and I'm afraid, LL, that however rational and logical your posts, the sentiment against them shows that in this respect you are wrong and all these (possible) inconsistencies are not really a problem after all. Except for you (and Corsec025).

Can you explain what would be the purpose of this exercise and what it would involve? I know I've been trying to get suggestions as to how the story could be changed for a while ... but with no success.
Rogue Janson is asking me for the reason that I have brought up all these inconsistencies. I really wish that there was a good reason, but there isn't. By your own admittance you have said that there are several things that can't be explained in Star Wars, and that in and of itself is a perfectly good reason.


Originally posted by LL|Jerk
My position now is that the SWRPG community should make its own version of the events depicted in BOTH TRILOGIES, considering the dozens of inconsistencies and impossibilities that we have discovered thus far
I will admit that most of my conclusions have been rather ridiclious, but 90% of my facts and logic are correct. I'm sure if I thought about it long enough, I could come up with a meaningful conclusion.


Originally posted by Rogue Janson
To be fair, LL|Jerk's got a lot of people posting against him and he could be doing a much worse job trying to reply to them all
You're d@rn right I'm doing a good job! Even though I have been incorrect on some of the minor points and I tend to make ridiclious conclusions, most of my logic and facts are correct.


Originally posted by Faraer
If those are the only possibilies you see, you are misunderstanding Star Wars. Again, Star Wars is myth, dream made celluloid and digital tape, and logic has nothing to do with it. Its strength and importance comes from adhering to mythological archetypes and patterns. You can't criticize art as if it was a documentary. (And in fact it contains mythological infidelities because nobody's perfect, and those would be pertinent to discuss.)
I expect a multi billion-dollar storyline to make sense. What's wrong with that?

Rogue Janson
21 February 2003, 08:15 AM
Rogue Janson is asking me for the reason that I have brought up all these inconsistencies. I really wish that there was a good reason, but there isn't. By your own admittance you have said that there are several things that can't be explained in Star Wars, and that in and of itself is a perfectly good reason.
Actually, I didn't ask why you brought them up, it's a star wars message board, these are good things to discuss, if not necessarily this much.

I actually asked for you to clarify what you were thinking with the following:

[i]originally posted by LL|Jerk
My position now is that the SWRPG community should make its own version of the events depicted in BOTH TRILOGIES, considering the dozens of inconsistencies and impossibilities that we have discovered thus far.
(in LL's quote of me, this is missing, I presume due to the quirk of the copy/paste function.)

Just to make that clear. :janson:

LL|Jerk
21 February 2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk
My position now is that the SWRPG community should make its own version of the events depicted in BOTH TRILOGIES, considering the dozens of inconsistencies and impossibilities that we have discovered thus far.
In my previous post I mentioned that some of my conclusions were "silly". This is one of them, and moreover, my conclusions are not the point of this discussion.

:D

dgswensen
21 February 2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by LL|Jerk

I'm not arguing to gratify my runaway ego (I don't care what my signature says! :D). I'm arguing because I want to see if there is a logical explanation for all the inconsistencies that I have found, or is Star Wars just the next space opera, where nothing has to make sense (no wonder nobody likes space operas anymore).

Well, I believe there is a certain necessary level of illogic in all fantasy stories. Magic, after all, is inherently illogical, and Star Wars is full of magic.. the Force not the least of it. (I don't care what anybody says about midi-chlorians.) So while certain things should always make sense, from a storytelling point of view, some things won't, and shouldn't -- Star Wars does not stand up to a rigorous application of logic, but then, neither do a lot of sci-fi movies or TV series.

And I think saying "nobody likes space operas anymore" is a silly assumption that could not be more wrong. Star Wars is space opera, and millions of people worldwide love it -- including pretty much everyone on this board. If by that you mean YOU don't like space opera... well, that's different.

Anyway, the horse is dead... the poor thing's been beaten enough... I'm out :)

LL|Jerk
21 February 2003, 09:55 AM
And I think saying "nobody likes space operas anymore" is a silly assumption that could not be more wrong. Star Wars is space opera, and millions of people worldwide love it -- including pretty much everyone on this board. If by that you mean YOU don't like space opera... well, that's different.

When I say that "space operas aren't popular anymore", I was addressing your reference to Flash Gordon. My point was that people don't like "true" space operas any more, the ones that are from the 1950s and 1960s.

Sorry for not being more specific :D

LL|Jerk
21 February 2003, 11:56 AM
Wickett W. Warrick:
The New Face of Terror

http://www.geocities.com/tk44a/wicket.jpg

I posted this especially for you, Jim Williams, to reflect my feelings on your "horribly dangerous ewoks".

ROTFLMAO :D:D:D

Nova Spice
21 February 2003, 04:31 PM
I would like to appologize to Nova Spice for calling his answers bullcrap. What I merely meant was that his explanations to my questions were quite unsatisfactory for me. I will be more careful in the future regarding my opinion of other people's explanations. Sometimes my arrogant side gets the best of me (hey, you think it's easy being right all the time? ).

A wise decision.....I was about to pull rank and have a little "chat" with the Admins about your behavior. I never take too kindly to people calling my explanations crap without any explanation themselves.

Just remember to watch yourself.....there are plenty of long-time H-net members, such as myself, that have seen many people banned for attitudes and remarks similar to what you've said in this thread.

Anyway, by-gones be by-gones....it's probably a good thing the rating system was disabled.... :D

Corsec025
21 February 2003, 07:23 PM
Alright everyone, I have a question.

Are we to assume the EU is wrong just because GL didn't write it himself? Afterall, some of the EU does make more sense than the movies, (such as the Death Star being designed by a team working with Dooku 20 years before it was put into action). For those of you who have seen the thread "Ideas for the next trilogy" I myself hope that GL doesn't make another one. That scene in Ep. II where Dooku has the DS design totally ruined a lot of things for me. Afterall, look at all of the books written about Kessel and the operations that took place there (or books with characters involved in the designing of the DS).

What I am saying is: just because GL came up with the idea of Star Wars, does that make him the ultimate power? I mean honestly, just because he has the money to go and make movies, does that make him better than all of the authors who have written SW books?

Moridin
21 February 2003, 07:32 PM
What I am saying is: just because GL came up with the idea of Star Wars, does that make him the ultimate power?

Well, yes.

I mean honestly, he invented Star Wars. It's his creation, his world. His word is law, and the EU is just him allowing other authors to play in his sandbox. That'd be like someone else coming along and writing up planets for the Decimus Sector and claiming that they have more right to the setting than me. Or like someone else writing books set in the world of the Wheel of Time and declaring them fact when they contradict the real novels written by Robert Jordan.

If you think the EU takes precedent over the movies, you're not talking Star Wars. You're talking licensing. And frankly, I'm glad. With a few exceptions, the EU is mostly garbage. I know, horrible thing to say coming from and RPG writer that writes EU himself, but it's true. Many novels, comics, and games are as far from the spirit of Star Wars as possible.

If you want to discuss flaws in the movies based on the movies, that's fine. But to declare contradictions between the movies and the EU the fault of GL is really just silly, at least in my mind..

dgswensen
21 February 2003, 07:48 PM
I'd have to agree with Moridin on that one. WIthout Lucas, there is no Star Wars. That makes him the ultimate arbiter of the franchise for as long as he lives.

Jim Williams
21 February 2003, 08:10 PM
Speaking of the EU, roleplaying, continuity and such, I distinctly remember a holonetter here making a comment about dark side points or something very closely related to that topic as far as game mechanics.

The comment was..."We probably care about this stuff a whole lot more than George Lucas does."

I wouldn't be surprised if GL basically has folks monitoring the EU, and as long as a certain boundary isn't crossed, he could care less what happens in the EU. Well, of course it has to make money :hansolo:

I mean, if he only knew how hard he made it on us gamers when Anikin jumped out of that freakin' speeder! Sheesh. I want to see what happens when a Jedi hits concrete. Do they bounce? Roll out of it? What?

Rogue Janson
22 February 2003, 03:16 AM
Depends what species jedi it is - most roll out of it, but some, like Kitonaks and Ortolans bounce.

I think Jim's idea of how the EU works is probably right, maybe GL had some involvement when it was starting off (in its various guises) but nowadays it's just left to LFL licensing.

I disagree with GL being the ultimate arbiter of Star Wars. I think we, the audience decide what we want to take from Star Wars and what we want to leave. There is no ultimate truth to be found in the author, what's important is the reaction of the audience. And of course that means that everyone has their own valid version of Star Wars and no-one's is more 'right' than anyone else's.
Which is probably the root cause of this whole argument.
(Death of the Author anyone? anyone? Faraer? :janson: )

CaamasiJedi49
22 February 2003, 08:25 AM
I have too agree with you Rouge, we ultimately take in what we want to take in in the end.

And a suggestion for everyone here: You all have valid arguements, but many are completely irrelevent to what the thread is. I say we should get back on topic, and make seperate threads for each of your individual ideas. Things would become more orderly here, since I really have forgotten any points made about this thread. But, this is a suggestion, ultimately, you must do what you want, not what other say( including me).

Caamasi Jedi49:plokoon:

Rogue Janson
22 February 2003, 09:08 AM
I doubt if most people are even sure what's being argued about here ... actually I'm not even sure LL|Jerk has a clear idea anymore.

It has branched off into at least one other thread, but I think that's going the same way as this one...

Grimace
22 February 2003, 10:02 AM
You know what, Rogue Janson, you're absolutely right. In fact, for that reason, I think I'm going to close this thread, as it's gotten so far off topic that it's not even worth trying to steer it back in line.

I'm sure if people are still willing to discuss things, the other threads will do fine, or new ones can be started.

Thread closed.