Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
- Thread starter Miguex
- Start date
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,113
- 30,208
Zapatta
Krugman's Fax Machine
- 76,330
- 397,047
Corman was a genius. Google actors / directors who got their start working for him, its the whos who in Hollywood Cinema.
Corman is famous for never once making a film that lost money. No one in HW has his track record.
Who doesnt love the original Death Race.
- 1
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,714
- 213,030
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,635
- 8,802
There's gravity in all the ships. The pilot fell to the bottom of the bombing bay and nobody had a problem with that. If there's gravity in the ship, the momentum will carry the bomb as soon as it's in the vacuum of space. But there was a blueprint concept art thingy going around that said the bombs were propelled along their rails by magnetism, so you don't even need gravity.
That said, it's dumb to have to fly over top of a target in space to hit it with a projectile. It takes no additional effort to hurl it from 1000 yards away
- 2
- 1
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,387
- 50,466
Malakriss
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 12,348
- 11,738
Original Star Wars showed that proton torpedoes exist and the prequels showed missiles. Rogue One added ion torpedoes to disable a star destroyer (once one of its shield generator towers was taken out).
But TLJ bombers were slow and only had vertical drop bombs. They were even instructed to fly a tight formation which resulted in a TIE collision taking out multiple bombers because they were too close. Stupidly, it appears the last bomber triggered explosions large enough to engulf the bomber anyways so the design itself is suicide.
Bottom line: Why could these "bombers" not be designed to propel the bombs forward? Change nothing else just make them launch IN FRONT. Down is stupid.
But TLJ bombers were slow and only had vertical drop bombs. They were even instructed to fly a tight formation which resulted in a TIE collision taking out multiple bombers because they were too close. Stupidly, it appears the last bomber triggered explosions large enough to engulf the bomber anyways so the design itself is suicide.
Bottom line: Why could these "bombers" not be designed to propel the bombs forward? Change nothing else just make them launch IN FRONT. Down is stupid.
- 2
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,635
- 8,802
To be fair, the last bomber didn't trigger an explosion big enough to engulf it, it fell into the explosion... in space... it fell in space
- 2
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,635
- 8,802
And why do they have to attack the star destroyers head on? Why not fly at a right angle from above or below?
- 1
Gamma Rays
Large sized member
- 3,954
- 9,409
That's the old Battleship tactic 'Crossing the T'. Basically bring all you guns into an optimum firing position while putting your enemies into the worst.
Crossing the T - Wikipedia
None of the combat in these can make much sense because it's incredibly hard to display what fleet to fleet combat would look like in a 3d capable space within a limit amount of screen time, even when ignoring Newtonian physics.
If the bombers came at the fleet from a more vertical angle, the targets could just use RCS/Thrusters w/e to alter their firing angles to be able to do the space equivalent of being able to "broadside" anything coming from any direction, with only speed/reaction time as a limiter.
The bombers just make no fucking sense. Why would you design a ship to 'drop' bombs in space (da fuck?) instead of just using missile/railgun boats, or kamikaze drone piloted ships loaded to blow similar to naval fire ships. You wouldn't, because it's fucking retarded.
If the bombers came at the fleet from a more vertical angle, the targets could just use RCS/Thrusters w/e to alter their firing angles to be able to do the space equivalent of being able to "broadside" anything coming from any direction, with only speed/reaction time as a limiter.
The bombers just make no fucking sense. Why would you design a ship to 'drop' bombs in space (da fuck?) instead of just using missile/railgun boats, or kamikaze drone piloted ships loaded to blow similar to naval fire ships. You wouldn't, because it's fucking retarded.
- 1
Chris
Potato del Grande
- 18,241
- -311
Everyone doing that is why every single european country but one lost all their wooden ships
Battle of Trafalgar - Wikipedia
Sludig
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 9,009
- 9,317
My memory is fuzzy but they actually had dummy big bombs in the old tie fighter dos game.
Used on a light bomber that could rapidly drain energy to go really fast and you would speed towards target and lob it.
- 1
PatrickStar
Trakanon Raider
- 1,529
- 558
Pretty bad 3d animation there. Should have outsourced it to Korea/Taiwan and finished it up in Japan
Malakriss
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 12,348
- 11,738
Missile Boat
Yeah, the proton bombs were slow as balls but conveniently fired frontal like everything else. So the propulsion of the ship itself could be used to increase the speed of the weapon.
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,113
- 30,208
Those were more like torpedoes and/or mines in practice, often relying on the momentum of the Tie Bomber to deliver them to the target. The fluff reason was having dumb bombers with simple bombs made conventional slicing or ECM measures useless, plus Tie Bombers were both cheap and easy to man.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,538
- 7,842
The bombing run was very clearly meant to reveal theme through imagery to the viewer, rather than to make sense from a battle strategy or physics standpoint. This was very clearly a conscious production decision.
There is so much actually wrong with this movie. Please fucking stop.
There is so much actually wrong with this movie. Please fucking stop.
- 3