Star Trek is all about the science and how science works in the universe to find the solution of the current problem. Star Wars is all fantasy masturbation of going on some epic space adventure to save the galaxy against all odds with superpowers and magical technology that is never explained how it is supposed to work.
I thought Star Trek was about how making choices that are correct within the context of a single given system of ethics always turn out for the best imaginable outcome due to the screenwriter having written all the problems as specifically situations where the good guys can show what the correct answer in that situation is for the given system of ethics. In essence it's a bedtime story. "The man stole a ring from the bishop but alas, the finger upon which he wore the stolen ring fell off!" -don't steal from the bishop or you'll be smitten. It is sad that we cannot just show 9 episodes of SW and conclude high school natural sciences with them. At least we have WW2 and historical war movies to cover all the basic historical information from elementary all the way to university. It's the war veterans and historians who got their facts wrong. Give me hell or high water but I'll watch every damn Star Trek and Star Wars movie they dare to produce. As to the Nothing New From West Front (aka SW vs. ST) I have this to say. I'll see any ST movie at the theatre at least once. I'll see any SW movie at the theatre at least twice if humanely possible. They're both great! So, are you going with the redhead that has bigger rack or the dark beauty that's amazing at bed? My solution is, menage a trois, watch SW and ST simultaneously. Use a VR headset, you've got two eyes for a reason.
not sure I agree with your bedtime story assessment ^.^ I'll certainly agree with the menage though, I was simply pointing out the difference between one fandom and the other, doesn't mean you can't be a fan of one and like the other all the same
Aye, also, I'm a fan of both but that doesn't necessitate blind veneration. Like people who go study Christian theology, the very first thing they do is they rip apart and through bible to reveal every last inconsistency, error, logical fallacy and differences between editions, omissions, additions and their original sources and so. Same here. When we spend enough time with something we love we cannot avoid noticing that any work of art has a number of flaws, mistakes, inconsistencies and so on. Like me when I pretend that I'm learning fencing. One of the very first things I learnt (besides how much I suck) was that it's not real fencing, instead it is swinging around with toys that bear varying degrees of resemblance with swords. I need to wait until I'm certain that my kids will be alright before I can eventually spar with the real things to know real fencing - even then it won't be "in earnest", as in it will be known that it is purely friendly affair. Not going 100% of force, not being afraid that the opponent is suddenly going to thrust the sword through you. Our awareness of things affects how we see them. As such as part of intellectual growth our experience of things changes. What might have passed as "amazing" 15 years earlier may leave one wanting. Ignorance is a bliss, knowledge increases pain. For anyone who truly loves and cherishes gaming, I do not recommend becoming familiar with development, quite the opposite. Just like I after getting familiar with game development try to avoid learning more from movie making than I already know. To preserve a shred of that innocent capability for awe. Learning more about things and how they work, learning abstract structures and advanced concepts that describe plot structures or game core loops, game theory etc.. What they mean with knowledge increases pain has to do with cognitive dissonance. The new information causes conflicts in your mind that produce discomfort in proportion to emotional value of the conflicting ideas. Compartmentalization is a great concept, dealing with 'roles'. In this role I consume entertainment, I can watch Star Trek and get excited about it. In this another role I can tear apart plot structures, motives of the writer and so on, I am not a consumer of entertainment but an analicist. Problem with forums raises from one puts away the entertainment, reads something that triggers the analistical side and then accidentally applies analitics to the entertainment at hand. Apologies for the wall of text. TL;DR Often we are in the wrong and different mindset when we are writing stuff on a forum or talking about it vs. when we are just trying to enjoy it. As a consequence we don't always agree even with ourselves as we are explaining or commenting things in this mode. I think that it's funny and it explains how conflict arises in social interaction.
Like how everything "new" disney is doing in star wars has already been done in the legends pre-disney EU?
Maybe the "will of the force" prevents them from discovering the basic infantry tactics that have been around for thousands of years...
well to be fair the rebels arn't exactly a military unit. the imperials still use infantry tactics... and somehow still lose. which in reality the galaxy has been plunged into crushing economic depression because of the rebels TWICE. by destroying both death stars.
not that i pay much attention to the logic behind Star Wars, but I'm pretty sure the crushing economic depression was more affected by the building of two (now three) deathstars rather than their destruction. it was like the Star Wars version of a "bridge to nowhere" scandal.
Yeah except wasn't that mostly just smoke and mirrors to scare the shit out of the Russians and bluff them into overspending on their defense budget and exacerbate their budget deficit? It's not like we ever built anything with it. That's how my professors all characterized it anyway.
I think building the death stars would have been a short economic boost because of all the mining. Then probably just a huge drain on financial resources from maintaining them.
So the rebels were creating jobs and helping the economy by destroying them before they started to become a drain.
There was intensive research into weapons system that would have been fabulously expensive to create. For instance Americans were researching multiple different types of high energy laser weapons including weapons which would draw their energy from a nuclear explosion that would vaporize beam emitters creating dozens of intensely powerful laser beams that would each be individually targeted thus eliminating a whole swarm of incoming missiles. Casaba howitzer, the idea to build an orbital battleship that could deploy multiple casaba howitzers in addition to other potential weapons. X-ray lasers were built and tested with energy levels that caused instant vaporization and subsequent explosion of their target - I can't find the link because it's been drowned by all the modern laser stuff but there's actual footage of X-ray weapons from Star Wars era. All of these weapon systems were threatening to completely devastate the MAD principle. I mean, "rock paper scissors - orbital death ray that destroys your missile silos". Soviets themselves launched ~50 nuclear reactors to orbit. Americans as far as we know iirc. only ever sent a single reactor. It wasn't smoke and mirrors, it was goddamn expensive project that Americans couldn't afford - someone said that it's only benefit was that "Soviets couldn't even afford to dream of it". The Empire was forcibly confiscating or collectivizing property. I am not certain if it actually cost them much anything to build their things given that they could literally just go to a farm and say "your farm belongs to us now" and they'd own all the produce, then they could go to a mine and say "we own your mine" and again all the produce would belong to them.. All the way to being able to just go to a bank and say "thanks for all your gold (whatever they'd have)". Imagine the US carrier fleet. For US the carrier fleet isn't a question of whether they're going to have the world's biggest air force or more carriers than the rest of the world together. It is a question of whether they feel like having twice as many carriers and aircraft than they are now having in addition to all the other things that they have that other people can only dream of. When you have a galactic Empire it means that your projects are going to be pretty enormous. How many Executor-size ships did they build again? I lost track, in addition to stupendous fleet of Star Destroyers. There was that thing about sabotage. Without it the first one would have allowed Empire to pretty much scare the rebellion into submission. I wonder if the second one's flaw was due to the design being based on the sabotaged design? As for the First Order, they're trying to prove that they're not 'just' like Empire but that they're far more. Their weapon's destruction wasn't "inevitable" and the Schwerer Gustav example doesn't apply here - Gustav couldn't even be deployed and had no impact. Starkiller Base knocked out Republic and it's fleet with a single first shot. Without some truly unique circumstances and heavy plot armor it wouldn't have been possible to be destroyed. If the rumor about First Order fighting an alien race emerging from outside the galaxy is true then it would further merit such a weapon - unite the galaxy in minimal time by demonstrating absolute military supremacy and then take it against the aliens. But I don't know much of that alien hypothesis.
In legends i know of 4 executors i think there were at least 6. I think only 1 or 2 each of the other classes of super star destroyers. Both the sovereign and eclipse classes were smaller than the executor class (the one in episode 6 for those don't legends) but both had a axial superlaser.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor-class_Star_Dreadnought/Legends That's a lot of Super Star Destroyers with many equipped with cloaking field generators. All I'm saying is that they were accelerating the production of Executor-class while building two Death Star-class ships on the side, while building massive fleets of ships. As for "big is always dumb" remark, look at the Battle of Lepanto for alternate view: 212 Holy League vessels fighting against 251 Ottoman Navy vessels. Ottoman Navy's doctrine was to build vast amounts of nimble light vessels - galleys - whereas Holy League was merely an alliance of various smaller powers that could not compete with the Ottoman Empire without uniting their forces. Many of these powers had invested in massive capital ships, galleasses. They were vastly larger in all dimensions and a lot heavier, slower and expensive than galleys. However they had fearsome broadside firepower and they were sturdy, being able to take a pounding. These galleasses were remarkably expensive and look at how they were deployed - in front of the cheaper more nimble ships. In this painting you can easily see the galleasses with their massive hulk rising far above the galleys. The battle ended with 137 Ottoman vessels captured and 50 sunk for a loss of 17 Holy League vessels. All I'm saying is is that: #1 Expensive project does not mean bankruptcy - look at Manhattan Project #2 Big super weapon is not necessarily a bad idea, it depends on deployment. Schwerer Gustav and supertanks were idiotic whereas Manhattan Project ended a war. "Don't limit your imagination with your super weapon"? #3 There are plenty of historical examples where someone building something far bigger results in complete and utter devastation of the enemy to the level that the old way of fighting is rendered obsolete. Galleasses at Lepanto, path to battleships and how dreadnoughts outclassed them and made pre-WWI battleships obsolete. We can't just always use Schwerer Gustav and WWII battleships as some kind of defining rule that bigger is always inferior, more crude, 'idiotic' and arcane and that small and agile is always superior, smarter and better. It always depends on many things. In case of Star Wars whether something is stupendously big and a waste of resources is up to the writer, really. If the writer writes that a weapon strips the Empire bare and doesn't even deliver, then it's how it is in that story. If the writer writes that the weapon would have ended the war and that it was in all reality something like 3% cut from the military budget and only failed because of sabotage and immense amounts of luck - then it was a good call to build the weapon and no one could have foreseen that amount of misfortune, essentially if you always worked from the position that whatever you build will have immense structural sabotage and will be taken out by lucky potshots then can you even hope to win, shouldn't you just surrender if you realized that the writer (god of their universe) is on the side of your enemy?
I have to retract my last comments about the vader scene. I found out it was filmed and cut in 3 days. Good job to teh effects guys, they didn't have time to re do thing.
they'd have to really pull out all the stops to make it worse than the "noooooooooooo" scene. I just press mute after Palpatine tells him, infinitely better.
