StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Galvatron wrote: ↑2022-07-23 07:10pm I've seen a lot of his videos. I don't agree with every opinion he has (most recently, his gushing over the Kenobi series), but he's generally on point.

Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2022-07-23 10:31pm Pass. He's a minimalist moron.

Darth Yan wrote: ↑2022-07-24 01:16pm Some of the tech fans could be a bit pedantic and or arrogant, but at the same time again a lot of the hostility was that THEY had grown up with certain numbers, and they didn't want to see them cast aside. It's like how lawyers and judges don't want to see their case decisions overruled even if the original decision was blatantly wrong.

Pablo Hidalgo is like that, and he's very clearly been trying to reinsert the old WEG numbers, showing that he never really saw it as just a movie but was basically trying to preserve HIS stuff and those of his friends.

Spice Runner wrote: ↑2022-07-24 10:13am Yeah I never understood that hatred. There is so much cool technical stuff in Star Wars to analyze and enjoy not the least being all the awesome ships.

Hah it never registered to me that Ecks was a minimalist. I don't like minimalism at all.

Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2022-08-16 11:10pm

Spice Runner wrote: ↑2022-07-24 10:13am Yeah I never understood that hatred. There is so much cool technical stuff in Star Wars to analyze and enjoy not the least being all the awesome ships.

Hah it never registered to me that Ecks was a minimalist. I don't like minimalism at all.

There's one of his videos I saw, can't be fucked to find which one, in which he specifically went after SDN and Saxton as "unrealistic," with no elaboration.

Darth Yan wrote: ↑2022-08-17 01:14pm Judges are similar in that they cling to precedent even if science proves that precedent is wrong.

Mange wrote: ↑2022-08-17 03:49am I much prefer EC Henry's channel. While not perfect, I do sometimes get really annoyed by Eckhart's Ladder which I can't say I've been by EC which tends to be of a higher quality and which often deals with some more unusual subjects.

Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2022-08-16 11:10pm

Spice Runner wrote: ↑2022-07-24 10:13am Yeah I never understood that hatred. There is so much cool technical stuff in Star Wars to analyze and enjoy not the least being all the awesome ships.

Hah it never registered to me that Ecks was a minimalist. I don't like minimalism at all.

There's one of his videos I saw, can't be fucked to find which one, in which he specifically went after SDN and Saxton as "unrealistic," with no elaboration.

While I haven't seen that video myself, I have noticed that he brings up things that Saxton have mentioned or refuted. I thought he perhaps had no knowledge of Saxton until he recently brought him up. I haven't watched many of his videos lately as it's been many "Did you know...!" to which the answer is always "Yes" (but people with a passing knowledge of Star Wars perhaps wouldn't) so perhaps that's why I've missed it.

Darth Yan wrote: ↑2022-08-17 07:07pm Bite Mark Analysis for one, but a surprisingly large number of forensics disciplines have been proven to be utterly worthless.

Judges still accept rulings based on those discredited disciplines. They also continue to use case rulings even when the rulings were invalidated (Youngblood is a notorious case where the guy was later proven innocent via DNA testing, but the Supreme Court STILL holds it a legitimate ruling).

Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2022-08-17 07:22pm

Mange wrote: ↑2022-08-17 03:49am I much prefer EC Henry's channel. While not perfect, I do sometimes get really annoyed by Eckhart's Ladder which I can't say I've been by EC which tends to be of a higher quality and which often deals with some more unusual subjects.

Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2022-08-16 11:10pm

There's one of his videos I saw, can't be fucked to find which one, in which he specifically went after SDN and Saxton as "unrealistic," with no elaboration.

While I haven't seen that video myself, I have noticed that he brings up things that Saxton have mentioned or refuted. I thought he perhaps had no knowledge of Saxton until he recently brought him up. I haven't watched many of his videos lately as it's been many "Did you know...!" to which the answer is always "Yes" (but people with a passing knowledge of Star Wars perhaps wouldn't) so perhaps that's why I've missed it.

It was one of the ones where he tries his hand at versus scenarios. He doesn't usually go out of the way to go after Wong or Saxton unless addressing whether or not the Empire could (for instance since Halo is the other focus of his channel) defeat the Covenant.

Darth Yan wrote: ↑2022-08-17 08:36pm The WEG fanboys have the same mentality. Same with many higher ups who are trying to subtly re insert the old WEG numbers. It's shit THEY grew up with or dreamed up and they don't like being called out on the fact that they were incompetent or that the work THEY cherish was poorly researched.

Mange wrote: ↑2022-08-18 02:55pmHis latest video is also somewhat annoying; he tries to prove Hidalgo's point that the Bothans didn't steal the plans for the second Death Star. While it was part of the Emperor's plan that the Alliance would obtain the plans, Eckhart tries to prove his point by only playing part of Mon Mothma's lines regarding the Bothans, namely that "Many bothans died to bring us this information." He did not play the line: "The data brought to us by the Bothan spies pinpoints the exact location of the Emperor's new battle station." Hidalgo, in an article, plays it sly by claiming that Mon Mothma never mentioned "plans" though that's exactly what she and Ackbar shows (at least the part how it can be destroyed) and the dialogue infers that it was the Bothans who were responsible.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzNVHXNhuIo [youtube]

KraytKing wrote: ↑2022-08-18 05:00pm

Darth Yan wrote: ↑2022-08-17 08:36pm The WEG fanboys have the same mentality. Same with many higher ups who are trying to subtly re insert the old WEG numbers. It's shit THEY grew up with or dreamed up and they don't like being called out on the fact that they were incompetent or that the work THEY cherish was poorly researched.

Bro. Shut the fuck up about it, we get it. You have a problem with WEG fanboys and think they are idiots, you've only said it six times in the fucking thread and ten more in half a dozen other threads.

I used to really like EckhartsLadder, but these days my taste for Star Wars is pretty limited. I still like his videos for sorting through the mountains of shit to find the occasional good idea, though.

Did anyone watch his video "US Military vs Star Destroyer?" He had the US win, though I think he at least put an altitude limit of like ten miles on the ISD. Even if you don't accept the Saxton numbers, that's a tough sell.

Regarding minimalism. There is a limit to what the human mind can comprehend and appreciate in cinema, and since Star Wars is cinema first, I think that's a significant factor. Obviously, if you do the math, you find that any number of Star Destroyers ever listed pales in comparison to the volume of a single Death Star. But for the sake of a pretty picture and a compelling story, you kind of have to accept that the math won't make perfect sense. A space battle over Endor involving millions of ships will have a REALLY hard time making the audience care. Less is quite often more, when trying to manipulate an audience.

There is also the consideration that Star Wars is primarily about characters. In real life, the ability of individual actors to affect world events is pretty limited. In a realistic setting where humanity spans the galaxy, it is WAY more limited; there's simply too much inertia of society for an individual to substantially affect. But a movie can't be that way, so the world has to be limited artifically. Luke and company can blow up a Star Destroyer, but they can't blow up ten thousand--so you must engineer a world where blowing up a single Star Destroyer is strategically significant.

All of this, of course, doesn't necessarily excuse or explain other Star Wars minimalists. I disagree with Hidalgo, at least as he is presented in this thread: the value of the old books was in their portrayal of the FEEL of the setting, not the hard numbers. The latter are flexible, and should be changed to match the former. And of course, there are always those who simply do math poorly.

KraytKing wrote: ↑2022-08-18 05:00pm All of this, of course, doesn't necessarily excuse or explain other Star Wars minimalists. I disagree with Hidalgo, at least as he is presented in this thread: the value of the old books was in their portrayal of the FEEL of the setting, not the hard numbers. The latter are flexible, and should be changed to match the former. And of course, there are always those who simply do math poorly.

Prologue to The Imperial Sourcebook, 2nd Edition wrote:While the information reveals much about the tactics and inner workings of our enemy, I must caution you about reading too much into this report at this time. None of the information contained herein has been confirmed or documented outside of the data presented here. Unlikely though it is, this could be an elaborate ruse to pass along false information to the Alliance. I urge you and the rest of Alliance High Command to view this report in the proper perspective. Until collaborated, this report should be considered high level rumor at best. At worst, the Alliance is being fed half-truths and lies for some unknown purpose, although I do not believe this to be the case.

...

If the actual figures and divisions of forces are wrong, the spirit behind them rings true.