Kojiro wrote: ↑2018-05-17 03:07pm
Based on what? Their stunning military tactical acumen of shooting the base first? Of not jumping fighters in with them? Of having unshielded point defense? Of having several Resurgents just sit back and watch a seven stories tall bomber cruise up? Of entertaining a prank call? Of launching a maybe 5% of their available fighters? Yeah, all tools used to maximum advantage. And that's before you consider how long it took them to get there.
So your basis for assuming they exist somewhere other than at D'Qar is substantially based on the existence of assets assets that were - notwithstanding how poorly they were used - clearly and unequivocally all present at D'Qar?
Having to take the Falcon somewhere instead of going directly to a location and being spotted, and thus bringing the First Order down on them is too far fetched for you eh? You realise that's exactly how Rey got captured in TFA?
So if we imagined that if for some unexplained reason what happened in TFA - which has no bearing whatsoever on her intentions at the end of TFA at all - happened all over again, that would mean it'd be reasonable to believe she was captured?
If they were at all concerned that the Falcon could not get them there, they could've just taken a Resistance transport from D'Qar.
Or using a blockade ship to... blockade? That's what you call a Rube Goldberg set up?
Why would any reasonable person infer the existence of one in the absence of any evidence?
Again, the FO has part of the map, they know part of the route. If they can display the intelligence of this captain they could intercept anyone sent to find Skywalker. It's really not that complex.
Prove that the part of the map that they have (from the old Imperial archives) provides them with sufficient information to anticipate the route of and then intercept and capture someone traveling to Ach'To from D'Qar.
I don't even know what you're referring to here exactly. Please elaborate.
You complain that the beacon could be detected, I point out we're told the beacon uses a cloaked signal, which is the end of that issue. But then you complain about that instead - see below where you complain that it "makes fuck all sense".
I never said decode- you don't need to decode a signal to triangulate it. All they have to do is detect it. Clearly it can be detected- that's the entire point of it- so it's only a matter of whether FO hardware is up to the task. This is of course hand waved as 'cloaked' but that makes fuck all sense.
Can you tell me how a cloaked beacon works? How it can put out a galaxy spanning signal a bracelet sized device can detect yet remain undetectable to top of the line military sensors?
Who cares? It works very well, and that's all that the plot requires. You can make up any completely unnecessary technobabble explanation for it you want in your head, it's totally irrelevant to anything of import in the film.
Ideally I'd like information conveyed quickly and naturally to the audience, that's actually a thing you can do in a good film that's well constructed.
No well constructed film would waste its time on this - it would accomplish nothing but to waste a bunch of time before arriving at where the movie needs the story to get to anyway.
When you're making up complaints like this in your head, you should really wonder if literally any scriptwriter in the universe would ever go through the following decision making process.
"Hmm, so why couldn't the First Order track the beacon Leia has? I'll just say its a cloaked binary beacon, that's fine to convey that it's only trackable by its pair. Ah, but what if someone
doesn't believe it when the script says it's only trackable by its pair? I know - I'll have the characters spout exposition at each other about
why its only trackable by its pair."
What a scriptwriter would actually do - if he even bothered to consider the possibility of the audience not believing something he's telling them at all - is refuse to waste his time pandering to someone who won't engage with the film except from a position of adversarial nitpicking.
So what indeed. This has zero relevance to the point made, which was about their canon status.
Their canon status is irrelevant- there's no reason to assume the existence of interdictors in the First Order fleet at this time.
Or if you don't assume Rose has the perfect knowledge of an audience member, but is instead a tech who spends most of her days behind pipes hearing stories and rumours.
You don't need 'perfect knowledge of the audience', you just need to not have terribly paranoid reasoning skills.
Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2018-05-17 11:51am
I wouldn't call it technological nitpicking though, I'd call it calling out bad writing. When you include to plot points 'I have a tracker here so X character can find me' and 'Imperials tracking us through hyperspace in a way that should be impossible' close together, It's not unreasonable for an audience to think that may be a clue and there's a connection.
In the absence of any other evidence, yes. But if you're expressly told before any of this is a factor that its a "cloaked binary beacon" and the conclusion the character reaches after it happens is that they're being tracked through hyperspace, that should be the end of the issue.
Likewise when you include both 'we can't talk to people far away' and 'talking this far away person' with not even a handwave people are going to be puzzled by the contradiction. Yeah this is [insert a bunch of stuff that should be true but is clearly not the case] but avoiding that kind of thing is what good writing is about.
It's not really technological minutia because it's a big in your face contradiction.
I really don't see the contradiction. The line in the movie re: "talking to people far away" is "We need to find a new base. One with enough power to get a distress signal to our allies scattered in the Outer Rim."
At no point does anyone ever say that they can't communicate with anyone, anywhere, or that Maz Kanata is an ally they have in the Outer Rim.