Star Wars

by **Jehan** on Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:27 pm

we're discussing why the new star wars had such bad acting, cos the actors themselves aren't that bad, one theory is that actors cant act on green screen, 300 is the counter-example to that theory, I'm saying that 300 didn't have that great acting in it anyway. So any other theories on why Oscar nominated actors could do such a bad job on the new star wars?

by **Jenos Ridan** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:15 am

Nobunaga wrote:... Hey! What's 300 got to do with Star Wars?! Jump on their case, Nate! Damned thread-jackers!

... didn't much care for 300, as it was so historically-off. ... then a friend told me it's naught really to do with history and more to do with some graphic novel that came out a while ago. ... in that light, hmmm not bad, I guess.

Good point, what does 300 have to do with Star Wars?

And 300 was only accurate in the basics: battle of thermopalae, 300 spartans, entire million-man army of persia under xerses, "Arrows will blot out the sun, so we'll fight in the shade", etc.

by **Jenos Ridan** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:18 am

Jehan wrote:we're discussing why the new star wars had such bad acting, cos the actors themselves aren't that bad, one theory is that actors cant act on green screen, 300 is the counter-example to that theory, I'm saying that 300 didn't have that great acting in it anyway. So any other theories on why Oscar nominated actors could do such a bad job on the new star wars?

Christopher Lee and who-ever played Palpatine didn't do so bad. Brits, I think tend to do a better job in the greenscreen films. Might have something to do with classical training, perhaps?

by **Jehan** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:47 am

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:... Hey! What's 300 got to do with Star Wars?! Jump on their case, Nate! Damned thread-jackers!

... didn't much care for 300, as it was so historically-off. ... then a friend told me it's naught really to do with history and more to do with some graphic novel that came out a while ago. ... in that light, hmmm not bad, I guess.

Good point, what does 300 have to do with Star Wars?

And 300 was only accurate in the basics: battle of thermopalae, 300 spartans, entire million-man army of persia under xerses, "Arrows will blot out the sun, so we'll fight in the shade", etc.

its not so bad, their attitude was about right, the training for young boys (agoge) was maybe right though i doubt fathers had that much contact with their sons, the whole queen gorgo thing was crap as was the politician character, who would not have existed in ancient sparta.
Back to star wars , how many ewoks could darth vader take out single handed.

by **MR. Nate** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:52 am

I am absolutely positive that Darth Vader could kill every ewok that ever lived in about an hour.

The real question is, why didn't he kill Jar-Jar once the purge was complete. That flapping frog would be first on my kill list every day.

by **Jehan** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:23 pm

yes but remember that the ewoks beat 1000 storm troopers, so either therte millions of them and the battle in ROTJ didn't show the scenes of them piling bodies in small hills, or each ewok is at least worth 1/2 a storm trooper, so i reckon darth vader could take at least 2000 storm troopers, therfore at least 4000 ewoks.

by **MR. Nate** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:23 pm

It depends on the fight though, doesn't it?

I mean, the ewoks were in their home territory, with ambushes prepared. The storm troopers were not quite as prepared for guerrilla warfare as they might have thought. So in most battles, I think a ewok would be worth less the 1/2 a stormtrooper.

by **Jehan** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:17 pm

ok so on the open plains charging darth vader en mass, he should be able to take at least half a million of them, but in the battle field of ROTJ i think he would be taken after killing about 4000 of them.

by **gethine** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:13 am

what does a stormtroopers armour actually do? it doesn't stop damage from any projectile or laser.

alsowhy why does obi-wan tell luke that the attack on the jawa landcrawler must of been by imperial stormtroopers as only they could be so accurate with their shooting, while during every other scene in the films they could not hit a barn door if they were standing right next to it

by **Jenos Ridan** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:52 am

gethine wrote:what does a stormtroopers armour actually do? it doesn't stop damage from any projectile or laser.

alsowhy why does obi-wan tell luke that the attack on the jawa landcrawler must of been by imperial stormtroopers as only they could be so accurate with their shooting, while during every other scene in the films they could not hit a barn door if they were standing right next to it

The shots fired on the first Death Star were token shooting, made to look like real fighting. Remember, "The ease of our escape"? Every other shot was at ranges of about 20 to 30 meters or more. Even in real life, not every shot hits the target.

by **Nobunaga** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:56 am

gethine wrote:what does a stormtroopers armour actually do? it doesn't stop damage from any projectile or laser.

... It makes them look REALLY cool!

Probably keeps the mosquitoes away, too.

by **gethine** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:12 am

Nobunaga wrote:
gethine wrote:what does a stormtroopers armour actually do? it doesn't stop damage from any projectile or laser.

... It makes them look REALLY cool! Probably keeps the mosquitoes away, too.

when i was kid my dad told me they were all robots so that i wouldn't think that they were people being killed. he is a liar.

by **Nobunaga** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:13 am

gethine wrote:when i was kid my dad told me they were all robots so that i wouldn't think that they were people being killed. he is a liar.

... That's funny! I think I'd be holding a grudge over that one.

by **MR. Nate** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:27 pm

gethine wrote:what does a stormtroopers armour actually do? it doesn't stop damage from any projectile or laser.

Military helmets generally won't stop a shot to the head by an assault rifle, but they help with shrapnel. So maybe it only stops small weapons fire, shrapnel and knives.

by **Jenos Ridan** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:25 pm

MR. Nate wrote:
gethine wrote:what does a stormtroopers armour actually do? it doesn't stop damage from any projectile or laser.

Military helmets generally won't stop a shot to the head by an assault rifle, but they help with shrapnel. So maybe it only stops small weapons fire, shrapnel and knives.

Also, the armor provides complete NBC coverage and the helmut is loaded with communications gear and sensors. And they do provide limited protection against blasters, much like modern kevlar vests with the ceramic plate inserted.

by **lduke1990** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:01 pm

ok I have been away for a while, but I would just like to point out that Picard was NOT the pilot of the Enterprise in any of it's incarnations he was the Captain! Miles O'brein was the battle bridge flight controller in TNG.

by **MR. Nate** on Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:50 pm

lduke1990 wrote:I am unable to read the title of the thread, and am so bullheaded that I refuse to listen when people advise me not to threadjack.

What I don't understand is why is ALL stormtrooper armor white? On hoth, it makes sense. In space, it doesn't matter, so whatever. But for crying out loud, fighting in the forest wearing white. They might as well paint targets on their chests.

by **lduke1990** on Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:35 am

tie pilots armor is black, and sandtroopers have those funny black and orange backpacks for water recycling and whatnot.

by **Nobunaga** on Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:43 am

MR. Nate wrote:What I don't understand is why is ALL stormtrooper armor white? On hoth, it makes sense. In space, it doesn't matter, so whatever. But for crying out loud, fighting in the forest wearing white. They might as well paint targets on their chests.

... Perhaps it's how the Empire weeds out their weak? I mean, if you can survive in the forest with what amounts to a target on your chest, you must be a pretty tough ba*tard.

... Or maybe they just got a huge discount buying in bulk.

... OK, which were cooler, the big 4-legged walkers that attacked Hoth, or the 2-legged types used against the Ewoks? I like the 2-legged variety. I'm not talking firepower here, but style.

by **gethine** on Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:06 am

only if you think walking round in an armoured chicken is stylish.

by **MR. Nate** on Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:57 pm

yeah, both the AT-AT's from Hoth and the AT-ST's from Endor were retarded looking. I prefer the At-Te's from the clone wars.

by **Jehan** on Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:32 pm

thats only cos you never saw one get taken down by someone flying a rope around it.

by **lduke1990** on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:10 am

I would like to point out that while disabled the ATATs were not destroyed by the afore mentioned, "harpoon and tow cable" maneovre. Also ATTEs got owned by spider walkers and light tanks just as often as they downed the above vehicles, the non troop casualties of the rise of the empire were astronomical.

by **Jehan** on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:23 am

yes well being disabled by a harpoon and tow is really still pretty bad, their to vulnerable, you would think any aircraft trying to pull that maneuver would get owned by the walkers grip on the ground, but apparently not.

by **lduke1990** on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:24 am

what happens is that it fucks up the walkers knees, the knees buckle and grip does nothing except speed the fall.

Star Wars

Who is online