Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, on home media Mar. 13, 2018

[derex3592]

2 hours ago, sh9000 said:

I'm sorry...but that's freakin funny!

[azrael]

I think that's how they described the walkers in this flick. They walk like chimps or gorillas.

[Mommar]

The walkers are designed to move exactly like gorillas.  The claim being that they can actually operate on far more varied landcapes like that and aren't susceptible to tow cables anymore.

[Chronocidal]

Or you know. Use wheels, or treads.  Or even better, they could just flat out hover like every other freakin' civilian vehicle in the franchise.

Getting rid of legs altogether would completely eliminate the possibility of them failing a mission because they fell over.

[Black Valkyrie]

 

The new Walker (AT-M6) . 

 

[electric indigo]

The new walker's "face" is over-decorated IMO. They're leaving the iconic WWII-aesthetics from the OT with that style.

[renegadeleader1]

I swear to god if that new walker ends up being called an AP-ET, I will personally kick someone over at Disney in the baby maker.

[Dobber]

5 hours ago, Black Valkyrie said:

 

The new Walker (AT-M6) . 

 

Yup, they are literally naming their stuff after cash machines now!

ATM 6 

Chris

[Dynaman]

5 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

Or you know. Use wheels, or treads.  Or even better, they could just flat out hover like every other freakin' civilian vehicle in the franchise.

Getting rid of legs altogether would completely eliminate the possibility of them failing a mission because they fell over.

OK now, quit trying to use logic, this is Star Wars after all.  The doors and ledges alone are the stuff of OSHA nightmares.

[Dobber]

As for the flatness of the Dreadnought, that was requested by Rian Johnson who need it that way for the story, apparently.

from Kevin Jenkins, Lucas films design supervisor:

"Basically, it evolved from story reasons because Rian needed a new battleship in the script called the Dreadnought. Essentially, it needed to be a ground-firing gun platform, and the other limitations that Rian put on me was he needed and required a flat surface with gun turrets on it. So basically, it’s an armored gunboat, an armored gun platform. It’s sort of a heavy artillery that’s much bigger than a standard Star Destroyer, about two-and-a-half times the size of a standard Star Destroyer."

Chris

Edited August 24, 2017 by Dobber

[Mommar]

55 minutes ago, Dobber said:

As for the flatness of the Dreadnought, that was requested by Rian Johnson who need it that way for the story, apparently.

from Kevin Jenkins, Lucas films design supervisor:

"Basically, it evolved from story reasons because Rian needed a new battleship in the script called the Dreadnought. Essentially, it needed to be a ground-firing gun platform, and the other limitations that Rian put on me was he needed and required a flat surface with gun turrets on it. So basically, it’s an armored gunboat, an armored gun platform. It’s sort of a heavy artillery that’s much bigger than a standard Star Destroyer, about two-and-a-half times the size of a standard Star Destroyer."

Chris

Well, Kevin, you could have also made it look not stupid too.

[Chronocidal]

Calling it now, they made it flat so it can pass for a building until it takes off.  

Also, they can't count.  That's five times the size of a normal star destroyer.  Is there like.. some kind of viral infection spreading through JJ's productions that renders people completely incapable of understanding scale?  

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Chronocidal

[Dobber]

Maybe when they say standard Star Destroyer they are referring to the First Order Resurgent Class seen in TFA. That does match.

Chris

[seti88]

Hmm not too excited abt these new designs...seems like the starkiller base ripoff of the death star scenario all over again..

[Kanedas Bike]

This is why I straight-up love my fellow sci-fi fans. 

I can't wait until someone starts counting how many windows are on each deck of the new Super Duper Star Dreadnaught Destroyer and then screaming about how they're inaccurate to standard Imperial window sizes. 

Or laser turrets. Or torpedo bays. Or landing bay. Or the power of the tractor beam. Or...or...or...

-b.

[Chronocidal]

4 hours ago, Dobber said:

Maybe when they say standard Star Destroyer they are referring to the First Order Resurgent Class seen in TFA. That does match.

Chris

Mmm, fair, though the idea of that design being the "standard" is its own worry. 

3 hours ago, Kanedas Bike said:

This is why I straight-up love my fellow sci-fi fans. 

I can't wait until someone starts counting how many windows are on each deck of the new Super Duper Star Dreadnaught Destroyer and then screaming about how they're inaccurate to standard Imperial window sizes. 

Or laser turrets. Or torpedo bays. Or landing bay. Or the power of the tractor beam. Or...or...or...

-b.

If you want a real fun thing, go look up the debate on the true size of the original ESB SSD Executor.  I worked on X-Wing vs TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance mods for years, and the debates over "canon" sizes for that thing were relegated to "thou shalt not discuss" status, just to keep the peace.  

Far as actual scale goes though.. Star Wars has always been really lax about it.  I don't think any of the filming miniatures were built in a specific scale to begin with, so everything was kind of just eyeballed, and a lot of scaling data was just made up.  It's funny seeing the dirty laundry get aired now that companies are actually producing kits designed to be in a particular scale.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Chronocidal

[Kanedas Bike]

1 hour ago, Chronocidal said:

Mmm, fair, though the idea of that design being the "standard" is its own worry. 

If you want a real fun thing, go look up the debate on the true size of the original ESB SSD Executor.  I worked on X-Wing vs TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance mods for years, and the debates over "canon" sizes for that thing were relegated to "thou shalt not discuss" status, just to keep the peace.  

Far as actual scale goes though.. Star Wars has always been really lax about it.  I don't think any of the filming miniatures were built in a specific scale to begin with, so everything was kind of just eyeballed, and a lot of scaling data was just made up.  It's funny seeing the dirty laundry get aired now that companies are actually producing kits designed to be in a particular scale.

Ha! Nope, I'll pass on that. And sometimes I wish we had a "thou shalt not discuss" status for a few things, namely Macross toys, but then that'd take some of the fun out of being a member of the community. 

 

 

I will agree with some of the criticism that the new trilogy designs are too derivative of the original trilogy. I'm fine with homages (think the VF-25 to the VF-1) provided the newer designs can stand on their own. The new walkers and the destroyer look like remake designs versus design evolutions and the new X-Wing is just a sleeker old X-Wing.

*I DO like the new X-Wing 

Just would have been nice for new designs to become iconic on their own.

-b.

[Dobber]

I for one am liking the many of the new designs, but totally respect others opinions too. I'm glad most of us can maturely discuss and even disagree here without it devolving into madness.....like what Chronocidal  was saying.

For me, while I can admit that some newer designs would've been nice, I really do adore the new T-70 X-Wing and FO Star Destroyer. The new Walker is also cool looking to me, and the Dreadnaught is ok. Hopefully, when I see more of it  it'll grow on me more. The TIE's, I appreciate their more subtle updates (and there are actually quite a lot more than what most think i.e. color change, antenna, and cogs for the SF TIE), like what is done with many modern military aircraft...but maybe something a little more different would've been more welcome by most of us. The command Shuttle and resistance troop ship, though, I really don!t like. 

Here are a few more images of the Dreadnought.

 

Chris

[Sildani]

I really like the new X-Wings, it's McQuarrie's awesome original concept painting in motion. Everything else is average to me, although the two-man TIE had nice details. 

[azrael]

On 8/23/2017 at 10:18 PM, Chronocidal said:

Or you know. Use wheels, or treads.  Or even better, they could just flat out hover like every other freakin' civilian vehicle in the franchise.

Getting rid of legs altogether would completely eliminate the possibility of them failing a mission because they fell over.

Oh look, hovertanks.

And wheels.

 

[Dobber]

Yeah, Walkers never really made much sense but they're an in universe thing that most people loved. I have no problem with continuing their use.....however silly it may be.

Chris

[technoblue]

6 hours ago, Dobber said:

Yeah, Walkers never really made much sense but they're an in universe thing that most people loved. I have no problem with continuing their use.....however silly it may be.

Chris

The attacks made by Wedge and Luke were both one in a million, though. And Luke probably had that whole Jedi in training thing on his side. 

The Walkers as they appeared in Empire and Rogue were lumbering, mechanized, well-defended mobile ramparts (especially when engaging ground forces). One of the big points of having them in those movies was to produce the definitive "uh oh" moment. And although Jedi continued to show how adaptable they were to different environments, I think that movie is when they lost their fangs and became silly. 

[peter]

How were the walkers in Rogue One taken down by blasters from the X-wings (or was that a torpedo?) and side gun from the U-wing?  Did we discuss this?

 

I vaguely remember something about the Snow Speeders not having sufficient firepower, but I'm not sure now.

[technoblue]

40 minutes ago, peter said:

How were the walkers in Rogue One taken down by blasters from the X-wings (or was that a torpedo?) and side gun from the U-wing?  Did we discuss this?

 

I vaguely remember something about the Snow Speeders not having sufficient firepower, but I'm not sure now.

Here's one explanation:

 

 

[Chronocidal]

21 hours ago, Sildani said:

I really like the new X-Wings, it's McQuarrie's awesome original concept painting in motion. Everything else is average to me, although the two-man TIE had nice details. 

See, I like everything about the new X-Wings except the non-McQuarrie aspects.  The offset split wing just bugs me enough that it ruined the entire vehicle for me.  And it's not that it couldn't work physically, or mechanically or whatever.. I just think that the symmetry of the original design is one of the most striking and beautiful aspects of the ship, and they went and pissed all over it for the sake of looking "new" and "different."

I'm not going to question anyone liking the design, it still looks great to me as long as the wings stay closed.  

I guess it just feels odd to me that even with how bad the prequels were, they still managed to introduce a heap of memorable and unique designs that I felt a decent need to go out and buy merchandise of.  They really haven't managed to sell that on this new trilogy.  Most of the designs have been either minor tweaks of old things, or new designs that languish on store shelves because they're completely forgettable, or just downright ugly.

4 hours ago, peter said:

How were the walkers in Rogue One taken down by blasters from the X-wings (or was that a torpedo?) and side gun from the U-wing?  Did we discuss this?

 

I vaguely remember something about the Snow Speeders not having sufficient firepower, but I'm not sure now.

They definitely made a comment in ESB about it.  Luke's line is "That armor's too strong for blasters."  I think in-universe, you can kind of make the analogy that the difference between blasters and the cannons found on X-wings is something like the difference between machine guns and cannons on WWII aircraft.

I always thought it was a bit of a silly contrivance, especially given the relatively huge size of the cannons on the snowspeeders,, but if you consider the likely difference in power output between speeder repulsorlifts and the ion fusion engines used on starfighters, it's very likely the speeders just couldn't put out enough juice to run heavier weaponry.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Chronocidal

[Focslain]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 6:11 PM, Chronocidal said:

They definitely made a comment in ESB about it.  Luke's line is "That armor's too strong for blasters."  I think in-universe, you can kind of make the analogy that the difference between blasters and the cannons found on X-wings is something like the difference between machine guns and cannons on WWII aircraft.

I always thought it was a bit of a silly contrivance, especially given the relatively huge size of the cannons on the snowspeeders,, but if you consider the likely difference in power output between speeder repulsorlifts and the ion fusion engines used on starfighters, it's very likely the speeders just couldn't put out enough juice to run heavier weaponry.

Pretty much, the snow speeders were lightly armoured and lightly powered. This translated in the RPGs. IIRC the X-Wing guns packs a larger punch (4d10x2) while the snow speeder's guns was the equivlent to an e-web (5D8).

[peter]

That must have been a pretty powerful gun in the door of the U-Wing though.

[mechaninac]

^ Well, I remember it being mentioned somewhere that not only are the AT-ACTs much taller than the AT-ATs, but also lightly armored as they were never intended for front-line operations; therefore, weapons capable of taking down the former had little to no impact on the latter.

This explanation for the apparent inconsistency in resiliency and survivability between the two models may be a bit contrived and entirely too convenient, but it has enough in-universe consistency and logic to be adequately serviceable, so I'll go along with it and move on.

[Focslain]

15 hours ago, peter said:

That must have been a pretty powerful gun in the door of the U-Wing though.

Not really, the U-wing door gun was a rapid fire Ion cannon. During the scene you can see the knee joint pop as if under pressure, not explode in fire.

[Dynaman]

What really happened is that the battle with the AT-ACTs occurs before the battle with the AT-ATs and the Empire uparmored them after seeing what happened.

[sh9000]

[Sildani]

Found this, dunno if it's canon or not. Doesn't do much for me though. 

 

[kajnrig]

Continuing the food trend, I see.

Om nom nom.

Edited September 2, 2017 by kajnrig

[TangledThorns]

Was at Target yesterday and they are going full Star Wars with their promotions for the film with signs, cardboard characters and new toys.

[Thom]

17 hours ago, Sildani said:

Found this, dunno if it's canon or not. Doesn't do much for me though. 

 

Actually kinda like the wing design. Much better than the pizza slice.