Asteroids and Star Destroyers (NOT turbolaser-related)

[McC]

Okay, so the lag theory is out. How do we justify the delay, then?

[Connor MacLeod]

It should also be tnoted (as Mike does on his page regarding the incident) there is no reason to believe that the Bridge Tower would even be indicative of the strength of the main hull (any more than the bridge tower of an Aircraft carrier would be indicative of its overall strength) - considering that that million ton nickel iron asteroid is comparable to a good-sized ship

It may also be that they utilize forcefield technologies normally to strengthen the hull in combat situations (as indicated by the EGW&T and other sources) that would be down when shields are down.

We should note that if the tower were "destroyed" or damaged, in such a fashion as to open the tower to space, there would be obvious vaccuum effects as the air inside the bridge rushed outwards.)

And as a side note, it should be indicated that according to the TESB novelization, the ramming of the Falcon into the Avenger's bridge would not have significantly damaged the tower itself (it would however shatter the viewports and kill all the crew, though.. so it would do some damage.)

[Super-Gagme]

We should note that if the tower were "destroyed" or damaged, in such a fashion as to open the tower to space, there would be obvious vaccuum effects as the air inside the bridge rushed outwards.)

Obvious vaccuum effects that were beyond the ability or thought of Lucas? Because lets be honest, the obvious intent was to destroy the bridge. But FX Nit-picking gets around that. Imagine if SW were made today, every FX shot re-done. The bridge would probably be blown up properly, the turbolasers shooting asteroids would probably be more explosive and chunky rather than a lazy smudge to get rid of it. Etc.

[Publius]

Obvious vaccuum effects that were beyond the ability or thought of Lucas? Because lets be honest, the obvious intent was to destroy the bridge. But FX Nit-picking gets around that. Imagine if SW were made today, every FX shot re-done. The bridge would probably be blown up properly, the turbolasers shooting asteroids would probably be more explosive and chunky rather than a lazy smudge to get rid of it. Etc.

The absence of noticeable depressurisation rather strongly suggests that the superstructure was not in fact destroyed, as there would be considerable loss of atmosphere were such a large portion of the ship exposed to space. The fact that Mr Lucas and his special effects team either lacked the ability to show such depressurisation else did not think to show it is wholly irrelevant to the consideration of the fact that it is not shown.

One really cannot make a cogent argument based on what one perceives to be implicit intentions. For example, here you have contended that the obvious intention of the scene was to destroy the bridge (by which you presumably mean the entire conning tower, and not simply the compartment from which the Star Destroyer is piloted); however, this entire claim is based upon your perception of the incident, based on what you think the scene is intended to show. You are analysing the scene from one perspective, but what of others?

What if one should analyse it from a dramatic characterisation perspective? What if one should contend that the intention was to show Lord Vader's disregard for his subordinates' safety, and that no thought whatever was given to whether or not the conning tower ought to be destroyed, only to be seen to suffer a severe collision? The fact that no models of Star Destroyers were known to have been decapitated suggests rather strongly that no effort was made to show the superstructure's destruction. The "obvious intention" of the scene, then, was to show that Lord Vader cares little for the lives and safety of his subordinates; the specific details are irrelevant and "obviously" no effort was made to show the result of the collision because no thought was given to what the result was.

Please do remember, dear Sir or Ma'am, that one cannot make cogent arguments regarding observed phenomena based entirely upon the perceived intentions of the storytellers. Perceived intentions are useful for qualitative purposes, but thoroughly unreliable for quantitative discussions. Divination of what is intended to be seen is no substitute for observation of what is actually seen.

PUBLIUS

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Okay, so the lag theory is out. How do we justify the delay, then?

cinema syntagmatics. The shots technically overlap each other chronologically.

[Robert Treder]

I'd also like to point out that there's no reason that the doomed captain had to be in the hammerhead bridge structure. He could very well have been deep inside the ship while making his transmission.

However, I'm not convinced that the bridge tower was torn off simply because the explosion didn't look big enough to have taken that much off in that short a time.

[Super-Gagme]

*snip*

Wow, that's fucking fantasic, but you missed the point. I believe the "tower" was not destroyed. But I also believe the intent was to show it was. Just like I don't believe the intent in the destruction of asteroids was to make them vapourise, although I believe they were. See where I'm going? Oh nevermind, just spam me with a load more useless shit that I already know. Was just making a statement.

[McC]

At least the forward and top portions of the tower were destroyed. The starboard scanner globe is no longer present after the asteroid impacts. Given that the asteroid impacted on the port side, this strongly implies that the entire section was obliterated.

cinema syntagmatics. The shots technically overlap each other chronologically.

As I recall, this breaks with SoD, in that we are to assume what we're shown happens in linear sequence. There can be gaps between sequences, but sequences cannot overlap. Unless I missed something...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Fine, be difficult. It's not like I actually wanted to help you understand something so fucking simple...

[McC]

Did I come up with SoD? No. But it's the accepted standard -- even I didn't like some of the implications when I first came here, if you recall. If this were so "fucking simple," we wouldn't have a multi-page thread about it.

[Super-Gagme]

SoD? And this "policy" dictates that no sci-fi can ever have overlapping scenes. Wtf? What is this "SoD"?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

And who's responsible for that?

That's right - you.

Don't be so fucking dense.

In a sequence such as that, we have to accept the cinematic presentation and the means they are presented to us. With SoD, we're accepting what we're seeing on film as true. However, the fact that the film is edited still applies.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

SoD? And this "policy" dictates that no sci-fi can ever have overlapping scenes. Wtf? What is this "SoD"?

Suspension of Disbelief: accepting what we see on film as true so we can analyse it objectively.

However, McC still doesn't seem to understand it very well, and is treating it like a mentality rather than a mode of operation.

[McC]

And who's responsible for that?

That's right - you.

Don't be so fucking dense.

Unnecessary. And in any case, my principal question was answered on page one. This thread continued on off-shoot topics. So if you want "blame" the length of the thread (funny, I thought bulletin boards were about discussion...) on me, go right ahead, but I see a few other names involved in this thread.

In a sequence such as that, we have to accept the cinematic presentation and the means they are presented to us. With SoD, we're accepting what we're seeing on film as true. However, the fact that the film is edited still applies.

Valid point, and a sensible modus operandi as far as I'm concerned. As I said, I thought SoD included ruling out simultaneous events, but if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. You definitely don't need to be an asshole about it.

Suspension of Disbelief: accepting what we see on film as true so we can analyse it objectively.

However, McC still doesn't seem to understand it very well, and is treating it like a mentality rather than a mode of operation.

You're right, I don't understand it in its entirety yet. I'm learning. Sue me. Your caustic attitude is totally unnecessary, though. The confusion of someone trying to understand is a lot different than the stubborn trollish idiocy wherein such an attitude is merited. Lighten up and lay off.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As I recall, this breaks with SoD, in that we are to assume what we're shown happens in linear sequence. There can be gaps between sequences, but sequences cannot overlap. Unless I missed something...

Why not? Ever see a documentary which overlapped real-life footage? Do we assume it never happened because they cut it that way? Will you claim the title cards in the beginning of each SW movie actually exist in space in the GFFA?

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

Wow, that's fucking fantasic, but you missed the point. I believe the "tower" was not destroyed. But I also believe the intent was to show it was. Just like I don't believe the intent in the destruction of asteroids was to make them vapourise, although I believe they were. See where I'm going? Oh nevermind, just spam me with a load more useless shit that I already know. Was just making a statement.

Why don't you shut the fuck up, smartass? You made this remark.

Obvious vaccuum effects that were beyond the ability or thought of Lucas? Because lets be honest, the obvious intent was to destroy the bridge. But FX Nit-picking gets around that. Imagine if SW were made today, every FX shot re-done. The bridge would probably be blown up properly, the turbolasers shooting asteroids would probably be more explosive and chunky rather than a lazy smudge to get rid of it. Etc.

Which was entirely meaningless and proved nothing. It was entirely irrelevent and extraneous to the argument at hand, and quite frankly even if you knew that (as you say retroactively after Publius pointed out the meaninglessness of your commentary) then that just makes you a hot-air fuckhead. If you want to talk big, maybe you should actually contribute something worth reading, imbecile.

SoD? And this "policy" dictates that no sci-fi can ever have overlapping scenes. Wtf? What is this "SoD"?

Maybe you should READ THE FUCKING SITE AND PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION.

[Darth Wong]

*snip*

Wow, that's fucking fantasic, but you missed the point. I believe the "tower" was not destroyed. But I also believe the intent was to show it was.

No, you missed the point. "I believe" is not an argument, and is nothing more than useless spam in a thread where people are supposed to be able to back up what they say with something more than "I believe". You are using your personal beliefs about the unknowable and impermanent subjective imagined "intent" of people two decades ago as evidence, and that's a waste of breath.

Just like I don't believe the intent in the destruction of asteroids was to make them vapourise, although I believe they were. See where I'm going? Oh nevermind, just spam me with a load more useless shit that I already know. Was just making a statement.

Is "just making a statement" your way of admitting that you're just wasting my bandwidth with your totally unsupported bullshit?

[Super-Gagme]

SoD? And this "policy" dictates that no sci-fi can ever have overlapping scenes. Wtf? What is this "SoD"?

Maybe you should READ THE FUCKING SITE AND PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION.

Sorry if I didn't know the Acronym you asshat.

[Super-Gagme]

Fine, yes it's useless spam. I know a lot of people out there think the tower was destroyed because that is what is more or less clearly shown in the movie. In fact, non-obsessed fans who don't come to these boards to argue the little details like this, more or less will think that. I have no way to back it up other than just asking people around you what they think of the scene. And it is a touchy subject with you type of people because you can't even have an opinion on it without mounds of evidence.

Sorry but the scene conveys the destruction of the tower. I can't "prove" what it conveys since that is an opinionated thing. I also, however, like to go along with the fact that it wasn't destroyed, since it lets Star Wars be more uber.

[McC]

Why not? Ever see a documentary which overlapped real-life footage? Do we assume it never happened because they cut it that way? Will you claim the title cards in the beginning of each SW movie actually exist in space in the GFFA?

*chuckles* Okay, okay, the enormous flaw in my thinking has been thoroughly examined. The point is conceded.

Given the timing of the two incidents matches up very closely, can we then simply state that the scene outside takes place at the same time the scene inside does, and we are shown both so that we are not left confused by the sudden disappearance of the Captian from the HoloNet transmission?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

That's exactly what I just freaking said, McC...

[McC]

And that's why I told you it was a valid point, and said that if I'm mistaken, then I'm mistaken. In other words, I admitted that you were right, but I also pointed out your way of saying it was totally unnecessary and annoying. IP didn't lace his post with said annoyances, and also cited a different example, so I responded to his post as well.

Just drop it, alright? I got the point, from both you and IP, and have acknowledged my error in the matter.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Fine, yes it's useless spam. I know a lot of people out there think the tower was destroyed because that is what is more or less clearly shown in the movie. In fact, non-obsessed fans who don't come to these boards to argue the little details like this, more or less will think that. I have no way to back it up other than just asking people around you what they think of the scene.

It doesn't matter what all those fans think. Argumentum ad numerum is not a valid argument, sorry.

And it is a touchy subject with you type of people because you can't even have an opinion on it without mounds of evidence.

Not being a dogmatic, irrational, or subjective moron often necessitates that. We're able to think logically. If you cannot, well, graduate High School, get an epistemology handbook, and try not to be such a snooty little fuck, and we'll get back to you.

Sorry but the scene conveys the destruction of the tower.

Argumentum ad nauseam is not a valid argument, sorry.

I can't "prove" what it conveys since that is an opinionated thing.

Bullshit. There is a method to come up with conclusions which actually follow from their premises. This method is lost on a childish moron like you.

I also, however, like to go along with the fact that it wasn't destroyed, since it lets Star Wars be more uber.

Subjective bullshit.

To sum you up, you still have nothing to contribute, and you're just bleeding into your panties as per your modus operendi.

Go back to masturbating in the shower, asshole.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's exactly what I just freaking said, McC...

Yeah, but you were unnecessarily an asshole about it. McC clearly was looking at SoD as somesort of weird "god-eye's view of an alternative universe" rather than the true real-world equivalent; we're looking at documentary footage of that alternative universe.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I apologise for that, but it's frankly irritating for me to deal with someone who continuously fails to understand and frequently misapplies an easily understandable concept, and I unfortunately have a very thin patience for that.

But what I was specifically expressing irritation with in the above post was McC's seeming habit of having to rephrase and restate almost every arguement and conclusion that crosses his path. Nothing to do with claim of original credit, but it's something that McC does that rather annoys me, because he often uses his reinterpretations and restatings to his advantage, such as for platforms for nagging tangents and endless arguments.