How many times were the mile long ships taken out by a hit to the bridge?
I can really only recall the A-wing hitting the Super Star Destroyer at
Endor. It wasn't really destroyed, it just veered a bit out of control and
collided with the Death Star. I chalk the big fireball boiling out of the
Death Star as poetic license but imagine the ship itself was still
relatively intact. At least until the Death Star blows up. :D
WRT main battery, maybe that should be qualified as age of steam
pre-Dreadnought conception... if not Age of Sail style. The main weapons
definitely aren't enclosed like on a Galleon but I think the
early-intermediate age of steam would be closer to the mark than most of
the 20th century examples. Novelization treated it much better.
Conventional wisdom is described as almost Traveller-eque with fighting
BVR. They went point blank at Endor as an extremely unconventional tactic
to avoid the Death Star. Even then Ackbar's inclination is to retreat and
only stays with it as going all in on their strategic goal and verbally
concedes the tactical situation.
I think there is a slight difference in tone with Empire, but it's despite
Lucas and not as much what he wanted. Incidentally, the situation with
Kirshner led to Lucas' issue with the Writers Guild. The famous refrain:
"The Hollywood unions have been taken over by the same lawyers and
accountants who took over the studios," Lucas says angrily. "When the
Writers Guild was on strike, I couldn't cross the picket line in my
function as a director in order to take care of American Graffiti when the
studio was chopping it up. I quit the Director's Guild because the union
lawyers were locked in a traditional combat with the studio lawyers. The
union doesn't care about it's members. It cares about making fancy rules
that sound good on paper and are totaly impractical. They said Lucasfilm
was a personal credit, not a corporate credit. My name is not George
Lucasfilm any more than William Fox's name was Twentieth Century-Fox. On
that technicality, they sued me for $250,000. You can pollute half the
Great Lakes and not get fined that much. When the DGA threatened to fine
Kershner $25,000, we paid his fine. I consider it extortion. The day after
I settled with the Director's Guild, the Writers Guild called up. At least
their fine didn't go all into the business agents' pockets. Two-thirds went
to writers."
http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pwHeZSkC&pg=PA139
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM, <> wrote:
>
>
> I'll go with you on the SW stuff, and merely say that it's not my cup of
> tea for someone to build all these mile-long ships which are just, "plot
> device," time after time when they're all killed by lucky hits on the
> bridge. It's the same thing as killing three or four red-shirts before
> first commercial. If a writer has that much contempt for the things he
> creates, he communicates that to me and I think, "okay, I'll hate it since
> you told me to." So I maintain that I have learned my contempt for
> mile-long starships. I used to have that argument with game designers who
> would say, "you want to scare your players? Bring in a bunch of spear
> carriers and kill them off." That's hack-technique for people who can't do
> it better. And there's something Kantian in there as well, but I've just
> veered into taking it too seriously.
>
> Okay, one last parting shot. I'm with you on TESB as well, widely regarded
> as the deepest one of the lot. Well, it's still just a puddle on the
> sidewalk, but I guess that might be the deep spot.
>
> Two! Two last parting shots! The Star Destroyer "main battery" is pretty
> much invisible--a main battery must be visible (whether via big turrets on
> the centerline, a flight deck, or open deck space for VLS): by definition
> the ship was designed around that thing; if it disappears into the scale,
> the ship carrying it is uselessly large. The Death Star obviously had a
> main battery. But as RotJ showed, it was also uselessly large.
>
> NO ONE expects....
>
> I'm also with you on Enterprise. That should have been the story that told
> us why Kirk's Federation was the way it was, and it did everything
> possible to not do that. I understand why: doing what it should have would
> have been "dull." Treating it as a sequel to DS9 and Voyager and the TNG
> movies and following their threads was considered more sellable. No
> self-discipline.
>
>
> > I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and the
> > production values were too low
>
> I like enemas better than I like new BSG. And they both leave you feeling
> about as good about yourself.
>
>
> > I like some aspects of Star Wars and some aspects of Trek more than the
> > other, but generally like Star Wars more. I prefer science fiction
> grounded in real science while keeping in mind Asimov's Law, though not
> using it as a crutch. Star Wars is unashamedly science fantasy and
> makes
> > no pretensions of hard science. George Lucas has always been a visual
> guy
> > and wanting to pay homage to stuff he likes (Kurosawa to WW2 to Flash
> Gordian serials). The latter was always his aim for the Star Wars
> universe. If you've ever tried watching those 1930's and 40's Flash
> Gordon
> > serials, they make Jar Jar look like the deepest character from
> > Shakespear.
> > On the whole, I think all 6 movies are the same stuff: synthesis of a
> > hodgepodge of serious and not so serious concepts wrapped ina gorgeous
> visual package. Anything else is taking it too seriously. That
> includes
> > TESB, which I always thought was overrated. I think there was a writing
> issue with the prequels in that they could have used another draft or
> two
> > (Lucas himself says he hates writing but he'll roll over dead before he
> pays the lawyers and goons from the Writers Guild for anything in Star
> Wars) and the time limits Lucas constrained himself in were too short,
> but
> > that ship, as they say, has sailed.
> >
> > Don't recall seeing very many huge corridors on a Star Destroyer, but
> think
> > if we dropped a layperson on a couple certain areas of a Super Carrier
> or
> > even LHD, they would scratch their heads and wonder, too. Star Wars
> never
> > aimed to show us the berthing areas or where the "real work" was done.
> > That isn't entirely to excuse the symbolism over substance nature of
> > Lucas' universe, but Star Destroyers purpose isn't as an aircraft
> carrier
> > or trooper transport, but battleship. There's great details on those
> models which speak at the main battery (in naval parlance) on both port
> and
> > starboard sides of the dorsal as well as the hundreds of of smaller
> weapons
> > on the central ridge line. The biggest problem with the prequels is
> something similar to that faced by Traveller. Misplaced preconceptions
> about the universe became established and that clashed with the "truth"
> and
> > it's a lot of angst-ridden cognitive dissonance. This is most visible
> in
> > the Jedi, which have been shown to be pretty close to Lucas' original
> draft
> > concepts.
> >
> > Grew up with syndicated TOS and still love it for a more realistic
> portrayal of a more advanced and evolved Earth but not one that was made
> absurd and nonsensical. Always largely despised TNG for it's
> technobabble
> > (which is where they really began to use it as a crutch after the last
> commercial break) and leftist economic concepts. On a similar level, I
> was
> > very disappointed in Enterprise and still haven't watched more than a
> couple complete episodes. Instead of the promise of showing united
> Earth
> > fighting the Romulans and the foundation of the Federation, they trashed
> their earlier continuity and had dismal execution. I did largely enjoy
> DS9
> > once they got into the war fighting stuff, though.
> >
> > Ironically enough, I was most enjoying B5 until then at which point they
> flipped. I loved the story arc but would have much preferred the
> original
> > concept than the changes in Captain (the original story was going to end
> on
> > a very bad note with B5 destroyed by the Minbari Warrior Caste who
> restart
> > the Earth-Minbari War but with the crew moving to B4, which would be
> renamed Babylon Prime). Michael O'Hare was purposely playing a morose
> character but would have "opened up" as it went on. My biggest
> > disappointment with B5 was with the anti-climactic resolution to the war
> and it's smelling of deus ex machina. Vorlons and Shadows just up and
> leaving was just meh.
> >
> > I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and
> the
> > production values were too low but the new one substituted angst and
> dislikable characters as well as absurd connections to the here and now.
> > When the fight is for survival, their moralization and behavior was
> > incredulous and unbelievable. I liked the general tech and style but
> hated
> > renaming characters for no good reason (Starbuck, Boomer, etc). I would
> have much preferred Hatch's aborted version. I hate reboots/remakes in
> general, though, when there's an opportunity for sequel and continuity
> with
> > different tone/perspective, etc.
> >
>
>
>
I can really only recall the A-wing hitting the Super Star Destroyer at
Endor. It wasn't really destroyed, it just veered a bit out of control and
collided with the Death Star. I chalk the big fireball boiling out of the
Death Star as poetic license but imagine the ship itself was still
relatively intact. At least until the Death Star blows up. :D
WRT main battery, maybe that should be qualified as age of steam
pre-Dreadnought conception... if not Age of Sail style. The main weapons
definitely aren't enclosed like on a Galleon but I think the
early-intermediate age of steam would be closer to the mark than most of
the 20th century examples. Novelization treated it much better.
Conventional wisdom is described as almost Traveller-eque with fighting
BVR. They went point blank at Endor as an extremely unconventional tactic
to avoid the Death Star. Even then Ackbar's inclination is to retreat and
only stays with it as going all in on their strategic goal and verbally
concedes the tactical situation.
I think there is a slight difference in tone with Empire, but it's despite
Lucas and not as much what he wanted. Incidentally, the situation with
Kirshner led to Lucas' issue with the Writers Guild. The famous refrain:
"The Hollywood unions have been taken over by the same lawyers and
accountants who took over the studios," Lucas says angrily. "When the
Writers Guild was on strike, I couldn't cross the picket line in my
function as a director in order to take care of American Graffiti when the
studio was chopping it up. I quit the Director's Guild because the union
lawyers were locked in a traditional combat with the studio lawyers. The
union doesn't care about it's members. It cares about making fancy rules
that sound good on paper and are totaly impractical. They said Lucasfilm
was a personal credit, not a corporate credit. My name is not George
Lucasfilm any more than William Fox's name was Twentieth Century-Fox. On
that technicality, they sued me for $250,000. You can pollute half the
Great Lakes and not get fined that much. When the DGA threatened to fine
Kershner $25,000, we paid his fine. I consider it extortion. The day after
I settled with the Director's Guild, the Writers Guild called up. At least
their fine didn't go all into the business agents' pockets. Two-thirds went
to writers."
http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pwHeZSkC&pg=PA139
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM, <> wrote:
>
>
> I'll go with you on the SW stuff, and merely say that it's not my cup of
> tea for someone to build all these mile-long ships which are just, "plot
> device," time after time when they're all killed by lucky hits on the
> bridge. It's the same thing as killing three or four red-shirts before
> first commercial. If a writer has that much contempt for the things he
> creates, he communicates that to me and I think, "okay, I'll hate it since
> you told me to." So I maintain that I have learned my contempt for
> mile-long starships. I used to have that argument with game designers who
> would say, "you want to scare your players? Bring in a bunch of spear
> carriers and kill them off." That's hack-technique for people who can't do
> it better. And there's something Kantian in there as well, but I've just
> veered into taking it too seriously.
>
> Okay, one last parting shot. I'm with you on TESB as well, widely regarded
> as the deepest one of the lot. Well, it's still just a puddle on the
> sidewalk, but I guess that might be the deep spot.
>
> Two! Two last parting shots! The Star Destroyer "main battery" is pretty
> much invisible--a main battery must be visible (whether via big turrets on
> the centerline, a flight deck, or open deck space for VLS): by definition
> the ship was designed around that thing; if it disappears into the scale,
> the ship carrying it is uselessly large. The Death Star obviously had a
> main battery. But as RotJ showed, it was also uselessly large.
>
> NO ONE expects....
>
> I'm also with you on Enterprise. That should have been the story that told
> us why Kirk's Federation was the way it was, and it did everything
> possible to not do that. I understand why: doing what it should have would
> have been "dull." Treating it as a sequel to DS9 and Voyager and the TNG
> movies and following their threads was considered more sellable. No
> self-discipline.
>
>
> > I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and the
> > production values were too low
>
> I like enemas better than I like new BSG. And they both leave you feeling
> about as good about yourself.
>
>
> > I like some aspects of Star Wars and some aspects of Trek more than the
> > other, but generally like Star Wars more. I prefer science fiction
> grounded in real science while keeping in mind Asimov's Law, though not
> using it as a crutch. Star Wars is unashamedly science fantasy and
> makes
> > no pretensions of hard science. George Lucas has always been a visual
> guy
> > and wanting to pay homage to stuff he likes (Kurosawa to WW2 to Flash
> Gordian serials). The latter was always his aim for the Star Wars
> universe. If you've ever tried watching those 1930's and 40's Flash
> Gordon
> > serials, they make Jar Jar look like the deepest character from
> > Shakespear.
> > On the whole, I think all 6 movies are the same stuff: synthesis of a
> > hodgepodge of serious and not so serious concepts wrapped ina gorgeous
> visual package. Anything else is taking it too seriously. That
> includes
> > TESB, which I always thought was overrated. I think there was a writing
> issue with the prequels in that they could have used another draft or
> two
> > (Lucas himself says he hates writing but he'll roll over dead before he
> pays the lawyers and goons from the Writers Guild for anything in Star
> Wars) and the time limits Lucas constrained himself in were too short,
> but
> > that ship, as they say, has sailed.
> >
> > Don't recall seeing very many huge corridors on a Star Destroyer, but
> think
> > if we dropped a layperson on a couple certain areas of a Super Carrier
> or
> > even LHD, they would scratch their heads and wonder, too. Star Wars
> never
> > aimed to show us the berthing areas or where the "real work" was done.
> > That isn't entirely to excuse the symbolism over substance nature of
> > Lucas' universe, but Star Destroyers purpose isn't as an aircraft
> carrier
> > or trooper transport, but battleship. There's great details on those
> models which speak at the main battery (in naval parlance) on both port
> and
> > starboard sides of the dorsal as well as the hundreds of of smaller
> weapons
> > on the central ridge line. The biggest problem with the prequels is
> something similar to that faced by Traveller. Misplaced preconceptions
> about the universe became established and that clashed with the "truth"
> and
> > it's a lot of angst-ridden cognitive dissonance. This is most visible
> in
> > the Jedi, which have been shown to be pretty close to Lucas' original
> draft
> > concepts.
> >
> > Grew up with syndicated TOS and still love it for a more realistic
> portrayal of a more advanced and evolved Earth but not one that was made
> absurd and nonsensical. Always largely despised TNG for it's
> technobabble
> > (which is where they really began to use it as a crutch after the last
> commercial break) and leftist economic concepts. On a similar level, I
> was
> > very disappointed in Enterprise and still haven't watched more than a
> couple complete episodes. Instead of the promise of showing united
> Earth
> > fighting the Romulans and the foundation of the Federation, they trashed
> their earlier continuity and had dismal execution. I did largely enjoy
> DS9
> > once they got into the war fighting stuff, though.
> >
> > Ironically enough, I was most enjoying B5 until then at which point they
> flipped. I loved the story arc but would have much preferred the
> original
> > concept than the changes in Captain (the original story was going to end
> on
> > a very bad note with B5 destroyed by the Minbari Warrior Caste who
> restart
> > the Earth-Minbari War but with the crew moving to B4, which would be
> renamed Babylon Prime). Michael O'Hare was purposely playing a morose
> character but would have "opened up" as it went on. My biggest
> > disappointment with B5 was with the anti-climactic resolution to the war
> and it's smelling of deus ex machina. Vorlons and Shadows just up and
> leaving was just meh.
> >
> > I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and
> the
> > production values were too low but the new one substituted angst and
> dislikable characters as well as absurd connections to the here and now.
> > When the fight is for survival, their moralization and behavior was
> > incredulous and unbelievable. I liked the general tech and style but
> hated
> > renaming characters for no good reason (Starbuck, Boomer, etc). I would
> have much preferred Hatch's aborted version. I hate reboots/remakes in
> general, though, when there's an opportunity for sequel and continuity
> with
> > different tone/perspective, etc.
> >
>
>
>