StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Connor MacLeod wrote:I doubt its an error. Besides, I doubt those things are large enough to mount multi-megaton ion cannons (they don't look much larger than a fighter-grade laser cannon.)

So we're supposed to assume the Visual Dictionary is wrong, when even if that line isn't misplaced it could simply be referring in general to the row of clearly visible mass drivers? Besides, even if the barrel is as small as a fighter gun, it could still be a powerful gun given that there is reletively unlimited volume available for support mechanisms along with a massively greater power source. That there are precisely as many point defense ion cannons listed as there are mass drivers further supports the VD.

The Dark wrote:

Darth Mortis wrote:Bears mentioning that there is now a high level canon example of drug use in the Star Wars Galaxy, and it appears that it is able to be injected.

I would imagine TPM's mention of "deathsticks" would be an example of drug use as well.


Another note: Kashyyyk is much different from how the EU describes it. It's always been claimed that the lower levels are very dangerous to travel, and that the Wookies never travel to the ground. The wroshyr trees are supposed to keep the entire world enshrouded in darkness at low levels, and they are too dangerous to enter. The battle of Kashyyyk appears to take place in a swamp on the ground, with no evidence of wroshyr trees.

[nitpick]Deathsticks were in AOTC[/nitpick]

As for Kashyyyk, it's a planet. As much as some sci-fi writers like to put it, habitable planets don't tend to be one single terrain. Besides, it'd be hard for both fauna and flora, particularly when the flora consists of really huge trees, to survive without a ready source of water. I'm guessing (completely unsubstantiated) that Wookiees tend to live in the wroshyr tree areas, which happen to be in different parts of the continents than the swamp areas in the movies, and that it is only in the lower levels of these forests where the ground is too dangerous to walk on.

I would imagine TPM's mention of "deathsticks" would be an example of drug use as well.

AOTC

Spartan wrote:

I would imagine TPM's mention of "deathsticks" would be an example of drug use as well.

AOTC

And the "spice" smuggling Han was up to (I have not read some parts of the thread yet sorry if this has already been mentioned).

Not to mention cigarras mentioned throughout the EU as well.

HemlockGrey wrote:

By ANH Jedi were no longer a problem, so they may have been no reason to have these Ray Shields installed on the Death Star or other warships of the era, as any infiltrator who may get aboard would be discouraged by the (presumably much cheaper) Blast Doors.

That doesn't make sense, because ray shields would still be more advantageous than blast doors. With blast doors, you still have to gas the enemy, or send in troops to clear them out, etc. With a ray shield, you can just walk a few guys into the room in question and gun them down.

Did you miss all the automated security blasters mounted on the Death Star walls? Close said intruders up in a corridor segment, lable them as "unfriendies", and have the auto-blasters kill them.

HemlockGrey wrote:Also, it is possible that explosives could be set to destroy blast doors, but setting explosives in a ray shield would only kill the intruders.

Blast doors must be able to withstand very powerful blasts.

In RotJ Han opts to use the stolen AT-ST to contact the Imperials inside the bunker, rather than simply try to blast the doors down with the AT-ST cannon. Contacting the Imps and hoping they'll open the back door is far more risky than just blowing the door up. So why didn't Han just blow it up? A simple explanation is that the Blastdoor could withstand fire from an AT-ST. That's pretty sturdy.

Another indication of their strength is in the same sequence when Han is attempting to "hotwire" the door. Doe he not have multiple Proton Bombs? Why does he not use one of these bombs to blow open the door?

In any case, I doubt any infiltrators (in the Imperial Era; i.e: no Jedi)would pack the firepower to destroy the blast door without killing themselves in the process of trying.

Another note: Kashyyyk is much different from how the EU describes it. It's always been claimed that the lower levels are very dangerous to travel, and that the Wookies never travel to the ground. The wroshyr trees are supposed to keep the entire world enshrouded in darkness at low levels, and they are too dangerous to enter. The battle of Kashyyyk appears to take place in a swamp on the ground, with no evidence of wroshyr trees.

as habitable planet tend not have just one type of terrain and for wroshyr trees, Yoda was standing on platform build on one of those trees.

The location on Kashyyk was a coastal area.

Lord Revan wrote:

Another note: Kashyyyk is much different from how the EU describes it. It's always been claimed that the lower levels are very dangerous to travel, and that the Wookies never travel to the ground. The wroshyr trees are supposed to keep the entire world enshrouded in darkness at low levels, and they are too dangerous to enter. The battle of Kashyyyk appears to take place in a swamp on the ground, with no evidence of wroshyr trees.

as habitable planet tend not have just one type of terrain and for wroshyr trees, Yoda was standing on platform build on one of those trees.

Yes, the Novelization says that the battle takes place on an archipelago in the middle of the ocean.

Scouting and scanning the entire Galactic Republic at war for signs of a single sentient (General Grevious) is a casual and brief effort; Ki Adi Mundi replies that Grevious is nowhere to be found in the Republic after only a few days after the Battle of Coruscant.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Scouting and scanning the entire Galactic Republic at war for signs of a single sentient (General Grevious) is a casual and brief effort; Ki Adi Mundi replies that Grevious is nowhere to be found in the Republic after only a few days after the Battle of Coruscant.

Yes, and this also confirms that the Outer Rim (or as Yoda calls it "the outlying regions") are not within the Republic, again confirming the fact that the Empire expanded and gained large amounts of territory in the twenty years before ANH.

On the drug use topic, in Jedi Healer, Barriss Offee is briefly addicted to the antibotic plant bota, which evidently sitmulated the senses of force users.

The Original Nex wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:

Another note: Kashyyyk is much different from how the EU describes it. It's always been claimed that the lower levels are very dangerous to travel, and that the Wookies never travel to the ground. The wroshyr trees are supposed to keep the entire world enshrouded in darkness at low levels, and they are too dangerous to enter. The battle of Kashyyyk appears to take place in a swamp on the ground, with no evidence of wroshyr trees.

as habitable planet tend not have just one type of terrain and for wroshyr trees, Yoda was standing on platform build on one of those trees.

Yes, the Novelization says that the battle takes place on an archipelago in the middle of the ocean.

Ah, thanks. I haven't seen the novelization (bookstores around here either suck majorly or sold out quickly...). I was just interested because the EU books description had made it sound as if the wroshyr tree cover was planet-wide, which obviously is not the case.

Ah, thanks. I haven't seen the novelization (bookstores around here either suck majorly or sold out quickly...). I was just interested because the EU books description had made it sound as if the wroshyr tree cover was planet-wide, which obviously is not the case.

Obviously, there would still be oceans and perhaps even less dense shoreline forests (this is in fact shown in the Essential Guide to Planets.) No previous EU is contradicted.

Spartan wrote: First off Sidious was was throwing the pods down at Yoda, he doesn't have to work as hard, because gravity is doing most of the work for him. Yoda was dodging three pods in rapid sucession, but still manages to catch, slow to a stop, and throw his pod back up at Sidious against gravity. He is actually doing more work, not less.

If you take a closer look at that scene, Sidious lifted the pods up first (taking two or three pods at a time and moving them from below him to above him) to give them more height before throwing them. That doesn't entirely negate your point, since Sidious is still using gravity to assist him and stopping the pods as they fall from a greater height also requires more work from Yoda, but Sidious is doing more work than simply throwing the pods down.

Kurgan wrote:Anakin's Scar. Can't they fix a simple scar with plastic surgery? I know they have Luke's face reconstructed in a deleted scene in ESB (to explain real life Mark Hamill's accident and reconstruction), so the tech exists 23-24 years later in the hands of a band of Rebels. Or is Anakin just too proud? Jedi healing techniques not strong enough?

It might be pride. In Labyrinth of Evil, Anakin proudly mentions his proesthetic arm as a battlewound (if anyone wants, I can dig up the exact quote). It would fit with his prideful character to display evidence that he's battled Dark Siders and survived.

Petrosjko wrote:Actually, they were trying very hard to find Obi Wan, but he's a slippery bastard. It just didn't show much in the movie itself, but it was very much a part of the novelization.

I think someone already mentioned this, but a scanner droid has just passed by when Obi-Wan surfaces from the lake. So even in the movie, there's evidence that they were searching.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:I watched the movie again, and the "non-Jango clone" was shown right before Obi-Wan takes off for the Utapau system, not right before Order 66 as I had thought.

The clone appears to be blonde and has paler skin than Jango Fett, as well as different facial structure.

However, I'm rescinding this as a proposal for the revelations page, since it is disputed. Even after a second viewing I cannot be positive it was not a trick of the light, and lack of confirmation from others leads me to suspect I am seeing things.

FWIW, I noticed a helmetless clonetrooper standing to Kenobi's right during that briefing scene that looked different from the others. He had longer hair, anyway. I didn't get a good enough look to tell if there were any other differences, since I only noticed it in the last few seconds of the scene. I couldn't see him when the camera angle changed though.

I honestly didn't get a close enough look to tell if it was perhaps a younger clonetrooper (as Vympel suggested, I think), if someone at ILM forgot to cut'n'paste a Jango head on somebody in that part of the scene, or what.

Finally, I think it's obvious that loss of midiclorians killed Padme. Luke and Leia probably siphoned them up as the monstrous children of an artficially created Dark Jedi. That's why Sidious boasted that Anakin would be more powerful than either Sidious or Yoda -- Anakin (and his offspring) can already subconsciously manipulate the midiclorians, a skill it took Darth Plagious a lifetime to master. As Qui-Gon said, life would be impossible with the midiclorians. That's why the medical droids couldn't save her -- they had no experience with manipulating midiclorians and probably didn't think to run a test for them.

(Yes, I'm kidding. But feel free to troll more reactionary SW forums with this if it'll make people freak out.)

-- Joe Momma

Frank Hipper wrote:

Admiral_K wrote:

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote: Yes, but Luke asks her "Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?"

As far as Leia knew, that was her real mother. She also likely had numerous other care givers being a princess and all.

Then why wouldn't she have asked "What do you mean, my real mother" or something?
The fact remains that Luke stressed that he was asking about her real mother, and Leia answered that question with it's special emphasis without batting an eye.

How can this not show that she understood exactly what he was talking about?

If you want to pick apart semantics, I could point to the fact that luke said "Do you remember our real mother?".

The reason he didn't is because he hadn't revealed at the time that Leia was his sister, therefore she would still believe that Bail Organa's wife was her mother. If Bail's wife died at a young age, and he remarried, or Leia was raised by nannys etc.

Lucas may have originally intended for Leia to be remembering their actual mother, but I think at the time he was also intending for her to have lived with leia for a short time before dieing. However, given the scenario that actually went down, the most logical explanation is she is referring to Bail's Wife. I'd find that highly more likely than her somehow remembering a mother who was alive for about 10 minutes after she was born.

The Mousebot design has been around for at least twenty years.

Not particularly suprising, R2, R4, and C3PO type droid models have also been in service for a long time.

Admiral_K wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:Then why wouldn't she have asked "What do you mean, my real mother" or something?
The fact remains that Luke stressed that he was asking about her real mother, and Leia answered that question with it's special emphasis without batting an eye.

How can this not show that she understood exactly what he was talking about?

If you want to pick apart semantics, I could point to the fact that luke said "Do you remember our real mother?".

The reason he didn't is because he hadn't revealed at the time that Leia was his sister, therefore she would still believe that Bail Organa's wife was her mother. If Bail's wife died at a young age, and he remarried, or Leia was raised by nannys etc.

Lucas may have originally intended for Leia to be remembering their actual mother, but I think at the time he was also intending for her to have lived with leia for a short time before dieing. However, given the scenario that actually went down, the most logical explanation is she is referring to Bail's Wife. I'd find that highly more likely than her somehow remembering a mother who was alive for about 10 minutes after she was born.

That involves adding speculation that does not jibe with the storyline.
If she was remembering her adoptive mother, and if she ignored, or was ignorant of, the implication of "your real mother", then that makes the entire exchange between Luke and Leia nonsensical.

Thanks to Lucas' bungling, we're left with yet another inconsistancy to interpret.
Given the information we have; Leia being a Force sensitive she must somehow have fragmented memories from birth of Padme.
This does not require added speculation involving nannies or the Organas, and it fits the dialogue.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:I watched the movie again, and the "non-Jango clone" was shown right before Obi-Wan takes off for the Utapau system, not right before Order 66 as I had thought.

The clone appears to be blonde and has paler skin than Jango Fett, as well as different facial structure.

However, I'm rescinding this as a proposal for the revelations page, since it is disputed. Even after a second viewing I cannot be positive it was not a trick of the light, and lack of confirmation from others leads me to suspect I am seeing things.

I move that it be re-added. I saw this clone as well. There's definitely someone standing there with yellow-painted armor that does not look like Jango.

McC wrote:

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:I watched the movie again, and the "non-Jango clone" was shown right before Obi-Wan takes off for the Utapau system, not right before Order 66 as I had thought.

The clone appears to be blonde and has paler skin than Jango Fett, as well as different facial structure.

However, I'm rescinding this as a proposal for the revelations page, since it is disputed. Even after a second viewing I cannot be positive it was not a trick of the light, and lack of confirmation from others leads me to suspect I am seeing things.

I move that it be re-added. I saw this clone as well. There's definitely someone standing there with yellow-painted armor that does not look like Jango.

I looked for this too in my second viewing tonight (Digital projector this time) I'm not convinced it wasn't just bad CG. when the viewpoint pulls back, this clone suddenly looks just like the rest.

Alan Bolte wrote: So we're supposed to assume the Visual Dictionary is wrong, when even if that line isn't misplaced it could simply be referring in general to the row of clearly visible mass drivers?

Who said the VD is wrong? Is there something written in stone that demands it can only mount a SINGLE caliber of Ion cannon? The ICS entry hardly lists those "mass drivers" now does it?

Aside from that, I notice you're perfectly willing to assume the ICS is wrong when it comes to where these ion cannons are located, but the VD must be absolutely correct (even though it labels what the ICS calls "targeting sensors" on the ARC-170 as being projectile cannons.)

Besides, even if the barrel is as small as a fighter gun, it could still be a powerful gun given that there is reletively unlimited volume available for support mechanisms along with a massively greater power source. That there are precisely as many point defense ion cannons listed as there are mass drivers further supports the VD.

So they somehow "forgot" the mass drivers, but remembered to mention the ion cannons they just happened to be attached to? On top of that, you're arguing the "point defense ion cannons" are internally mounted point defense guns with shitty firing arcs?

Are we supposed to throw out the entire visual dictionary because it conflicts with the ICS on one point? I don't like the conflict between the targetting sensors and the projectile cannons any more than you do, but by my recollection the rule is that we don't throw out more than we have to.

The ICS lists precisely 12 PD Ion cannons, and the VD lists ion cannons as being mounted on the mass drivers. There are clearly 12 mass drivers. Therefore, that must be at least 12 PD ion cannons, and there can be no others because the total number is also 12. I don't see why you cannot accept the proposal that mass being driven is a torpedo, and so they are listed in the ICS among the 102 torpedo tubes, most of which are unaccounted for.
There are only two other ion cannons listed, and they are specifically separated from the 12 listed as point-defense. You'll notice that the gun in question is labled as point-defense.

Further, as you damn well know, I'm willing to accept the error in the ICS because precisely the same error occurs repeatedly throughout the work and others like it. It isn't as though the line is going off in another direction, it simply seems to be pointing in general to the row of gunports rather than to a specific gun.

As to the narrow view, I don't know why the do that. I don't know why they did it in ANH, I don't know why Venators have the same feature, nor do I know why the mass drivers are mounted the way they are. As for the description of the ion cannons as point-defense weapons, I also have no idea. Perhaps the point they're defending is the mass driver itself. Perhaps that was simply an attempt to qualify the firepower as similar to point defense lasers. Shitty firing arcs may be incomprehensible, but they're clearly a part of the Star Wars universe.

Alan Bolte wrote:Are we supposed to throw out the entire visual dictionary because it conflicts with the ICS on one point?

Of course not. But why should we assume that "point defense ion cannons" refer to ion cannons mounted on the mass drivers when the entry is not pointing to them? Just because you think its an error?

Moreover, please explain to me why you assume there is only *one* caliber of ion cannons mounted on the ship.

I don't like the conflict between the targetting sensors and the projectile cannons any more than you do, but by my recollection the rule is that we don't throw out more than we have to.

Yes, and we don't change around facts arbitrarily. (meaning that we don't assume that the "point defense ion cannons" are mounted on the mass drivers just because the entry happens to be in the rough vicinity of the entry.)

The ICS lists precisely 12 PD Ion cannons, and the VD lists ion cannons as being mounted on the mass drivers.

And the entry in question fails to point AT the mass drivers or the ion cannons mounted on them. Ergo, the ion cannons on the mass drivers are different from the "point defense ion cannons".

There are clearly 12 mass drivers. Therefore, that must be at least 12 PD ion cannons, and there can be no others because the total number is also 12. I don't see why you cannot accept the proposal that mass being driven is a torpedo, and so they are listed in the ICS among the 102 torpedo tubes, most of which are unaccounted for.

Because your explanation requires the assumption of an error that may in fact not be an error. Just because you think its wrong does not in fact make it so, and even if it IS an error, rationalization demands that it be taken as fact unless there is no possible way to rationalize the inconsistency

For example, in ROTS we see that Anakin fires green bolts from what are supposed to be his ion cannons. Do we assume the ROTS: ICS is flat out wrong because of the movie? Or do we infer that perhaps Anakin made modifications to his fighter at some later point that the ICS simply does not reflect?

There are only two other ion cannons listed, and they are specifically separated from the 12 listed as point-defense. You'll notice that the gun in question is labled as point-defense.

You'll also note the ICS entry does not even list the mass drivers at all. So the datafile listing is hardly all-inclusive. (Likewise for the Acclamator, its datafile does not include the SPHA-T beam cannons mounted ventrally on the ship.)

Further, as you damn well know, I'm willing to accept the error in the ICS because precisely the same error occurs repeatedly throughout the work and others like it. It isn't as though the line is going off in another direction, it simply seems to be pointing in general to the row of gunports rather than to a specific gun.

So... its an error that the "point defense ion cannon entry" isn't pointing directly AT the cannon(s) in question, and yet the "ion cannon" on the mass drivers can't be different cannons because the datafile doesn't mention them (ignoring the fact it doesn't mention the mass drivers either.) This is supposed to be your irrefutable logic?

Connor said:

You'll also note the ICS entry does not even list the mass drivers at all. So the datafile listing is hardly all-inclusive. (Likewise for the Acclamator, its datafile does not include the SPHA-T beam cannons mounted ventrally on the ship.)

Minor nitpick: I think you mean Venator, not Acclamator.