Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - EdSolo

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 40
LEGO / Re: LEGO Sets - Do You Keep the Boxes?
« on: June 19, 2013, 11:43 AM »
I've kept all the boxes, but I have disassembled my sets and moved them once, and will probably have to do so again.  This time around, when I reassembled them, I part all the extra parts in a gallon zip lock bag.  I have also put boxes inside boxes to save some space, but they do take up a lot of space, especially if you have every set.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Xbox One
« on: June 11, 2013, 07:09 AM »
Between the price and the inability to buy/sell used games, I think they are in big trouble.  It looks like PS4 should easily outsell Xbox 1.  However, I'm sure each platform has its fanboys so only time will tell.

I wondered about Theon as well.  I think that in the book that other things were sent to his father than what was sent on the show.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: June 4, 2013, 03:58 PM »
I'm not sure we can assume that Khan always intended on ending up on Kronos either.  What happens if he killed everyone at Starfleet HQ and Kirk doesn't trash his ship?  Does he still transport out or does he try to find the torpedoes that contain his crew?

The Sequel Trilogy / Re: Star Wars Episode VII
« on: May 31, 2013, 01:43 PM »
Maybe he has gone method and is going to be playing the crazy old Jedi Master like Yoda in ESB.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: iPod-racing
« on: May 30, 2013, 03:19 PM »
I ditched my ipod nano and got a 64 GB iPhone 5.  I wonder if the ipod is on the way out with things like the ipad and touch.  Considering the nano hasn't gone past 16 GB, it doesn't really seem that viable anymore.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 30, 2013, 11:06 AM »
I see this movie getting a lot more criticism for sloppy writing than just about any other Hollywood blockbuster with similar sloppy writing.

You're making the same mistake as before - just because one movie gets a pass for plot holes doesn't mean EVERY movie should get a pass for plot holes.  Films aren't and shouldn't be reviewed objectively.  You don't do that with art.

The plot holes in Trek2 are particularly egregious, IMO.  So bad they pulled me out of the film.  That never happened for me with IM3.  Thus it draws my ire.

Plus I expect Trek NOT to be gallingly stupid.  There's no reason for it to exist if it becomes another dumb popcorn flick franchise.  I don't want to have to shut off my brain when I go into a Trek movie.  Sorry for holding the franchise to such a high standard.

Have you watched much Trek?  Transporter malfunction was a pretty frequent plot device.  This is science fiction after all.  This movie was certainly more entertaining that the vast majority of other Trek movies.  Space whales aren't gallingly stupid?  A god-like being trapped in the middle of the galaxy?  Heaven as ribbon floating through space? A fountain of youth planet?

I'm not saying any movie should get a pass for plot holes, but this one is getting slammed overly hard for them.  I certainly don't see them as egregious as you do.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 30, 2013, 07:45 AM »
I didn't want to hate it.  I wanted to enjoy it.  Who goes into a theater wanting to hate what they're about to see?  Other than a professional reviewer?

Just because you don't agree with the criticism, don't try to paint those who hold a different opinion as somehow biased and thus their criticisms invalid.  Transporters in Trek2 only worked and only failed when it conveniently served the plot.  It was one of many signs of EXTREMELY sloppy writing.

And the fact that other movies have plot holes, some of them excused by various people, is not a meaningful rebuttal.  Reviews are subjective and thus not bound by objective criteria like consistency.  I love me a good, bad zombie movie... that doesn't make any criticism I'd make of a bad good zombie movie invalid.

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy:

I see this movie getting a lot more criticism for sloppy writing than just about any other Hollywood blockbuster with similar sloppy writing.  Yes, I read that article and the writer starts off with a bit of a flawed premise.  Kirk steals the scroll to get the primitives out of the temple so that Spock and company can get to the volcano unseen.  It wasn't about getting them away from the killer volcano.  The cold fusion bomb comment is just really nitpicky.  The average viewer isn't going to know what cold fusion is other than a buzz word about energy generation.  I think the term was used just to sound "sciencey".

As for the Enterprise under water, the merits of that analysis are debatable.  While the vessel was built for the vacuum of space, we don't really know the structural specs of the ship.  On Voyager, they landed the ship on a planet.  I would think the ship would be subject to some strong stresses from an atmospheric landing.  The ship is also designed to fly faster than the speed of light.  Since that is impossible by today's standards, one really can't calculate the stresses involved with warp travel, thus it may be entirely feasible for the Enterprise to be under water due to the structural requirements to withstand warp travel.  At 500 feet of depth in salt water, the pressure would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 psig.  At that depth, it would make the swimming into the ship impossible so either it wasn't that deep or Kirk and McCoy should be crushed.  Really, they shouldn't have survived the cliff jump at the height it appeared to be from.

The Khan criticism if legitimate, but that was more a casting choice than anything.  They essentially ignored his back story and I don't think they even mentioned the Botany Bay.  They certainly didn't mention his background of the Eugenics War.  I would think they were more concerned about comparisons to the old Khan, however, the climax of the movie was written to draw comparison to Wrath of Khan.  Not necessarily the character, but the plot.   Really, they may have been better served by having Harison being another Botany Bay crew member that was either pretending to be Khan or attempting to revive Khan thus saving Khan for the next movie... which looks like they could be doing anyway.

While the writer is being tongue in cheek with a lot of his writing, he brings up a lot of "original universe character did this, and new universe character did this".  They aren't the same people anymore after the universe changed.  I believe I mentioned in several posts earlier that the entire crew is closer in age than they should be.  Sulu, Uhura and Chekov should all be like 15 to 20 years younger than Kirk, Scotty and McCoy, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The secret branch of Starfleet, Section 31, was something that was created for DS9 and later used in Star Trek Enterprise.  It isn't out of the realm of possibility for it to exist here.  It also really isn't a stretch to believe there is a militant wing of Starfleet due to Nero's actions in the previous movie.

LEGO / Re: Lego 2013
« on: May 30, 2013, 07:05 AM »
It could be something along the lines of the scope of the Death Star.  That one was $400 and had like 20 mini-figs and a lot of detail.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 29, 2013, 01:24 PM »
Chalk it up to a difference of opinions then.  I think the final duel is completely within reason given multiple factors.  If you want to call out gaps in realism or probability, I'd bring up things like the crack stormtroopers' inability to hit anyone or the likelihood that the alliance gives Luke a ship to fly against the Death Star after just meeting him.  There are lots of convenient plot points in scifi that are just necessary to tell a good story.

That is my point in all of this.  People seem to be nitpicking the death out of the transporter thing and thus saying Star Trek is a poor movie when it is a similar plot device that is used in numerous movies.  I think people are being overly harsh on Star Trek just because they want to hate it.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:27 AM »
I am amazed that the "How did Luke beat Vader?  argument is still going on.  I swear I talked about this 10 years ago on this site.  Luke beat Vader for a few reasons...

1.  He had to, and he believed in himself.  Ok.  This is cheesy, but has an underdog team ever beat a undefeated team?  Yes.  Things happen in real life that are unexplainable.

2.  It's a movie, not a video game or RPG.  Meaning, yes, Vader is technically more powerful, but Luke won.  (See reason #1)

3.  Luke was fighting for his life.  People can do amazing things under stress.  Again, look at real life, not games.

Ugh...I could go on and on...

It really isn't a debate of "how did he do it" more so a debate of "is it logical it happened".  It is more of "if this were real" type of scenario.  Since there was an endgame in ROTJ, yes Luke had to win or it would have been a real depressing story and not a proper end to a trilogy of movies.  Of course their are underdogs that win in real life, but the odds are against it.  I put this on the level of 14, 15 or 16 seed winning the NCAA tournament more than the NY Giants beating the undefeated Patriots in the Superbowl.

Vader was fighting for his life as well.  I would think he was pretty aware the Palpatine wanted Luke for an apprentice.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:22 AM »
Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.

Totally disagree. 

Luke didn't have training partners obviously, but he could have been training with remotes as we saw in ANH.  I seriously doubt Vader was doing the same or getting any more training from the Emperor.  Luke should be getting better, Vader should be getting worse.

Luke is entering his prime from an age and development standpoint.  Vader is getting old and hindered by his armor.  When you can't feel your own legs and arms and have had the same prosthetics for 20 years, I have to think your ability to sword fight is greatly reduced.  Yes, a limited time since Bespin, but health rarely follows a static decline.  Luke's got motivation on his side as well - what did Vader really care about by ROTJ?

The Padme angle is totally valid, or more directly the family angle.  Luke doesn't install good in Vader, he helps bring the good back to the surface.  And since we know there was still good in him, it's natural to assume that even a fairly bad person would still have reservations about killing his own son - practically the only family he has left.  Pretty hard to channel your best when faced with the prospect of killing your boy.  Anyone with a son should see that pretty clearly.

As for Leia remembering her mom, there's a ton of logical explanations there too.  She's tuned into the force, so maybe she picked up her mom's sadness at birth and carried that forward.  Did she see visions of her mom's life, similar to what Anakin saw of his mom?  Seems pretty likely that Anakin's daughter could channel similar abilities, even if only for a few years.  Do we even know that she's talking about her real mom?  Heck, maybe she's even referring to Breha Organa, her adoptive mother. 

It's all subject to your own interpretation I guess, but I don't find any faults with how either of these issues were addressed in the movie.

You are looking at this with a lot of revisionist history.  You have to look at this as ROTJ in 1983 as a stand alone movie and what is shown on screen in order to make the comparison with Star Trek in terms of being illogical.  The gripes that I have seen about Into Darkness mostly don't deal with previous Trek.  As for Luke, sure Luke may have been training with remote, but he also may have been running so many missions for the Rebellion that he didn't have time to train.  The only lightsaber training that is the top level of cannon is his initial training with a remote in ANH.  Additionally, training with a remote isn't for dueling, it is for blaster deflection.  He had one previous one on one duel and he lost badly.

As for Vader's health, in the OT there isn't any evidence that his health is in a rapid decline.  A lot of the poor health of Vader stuff is from the EU.  Until Luke beats him down, Vader appears to be fine.

True that Luke has more motivation, but it wasn't like Vader was on the defensive until he brought up Leia, which sent Luke into a rage.  Luke's victory serves the purpose of the story, not the purposes of logic.  It is hard to believe that Luke's first brush with the darkside would increase his focus since he has been trained to use the Force when he is calm and at peace.  It would give him the extra power, but probably not the focus to wield it properly.  Vader really only makes the decision to save Luke when the Emperor is frying Luke with lightning and Luke is begging for Vader's help.  Who really knows what would happen if Vader turned Luke's anger against him and ended up disarming Luke.  Maybe he kills him on Palpatine's command and secretly decides to turn Leia instead.

The reason I said Padme was invalid is because when ROTJ was made, Padme didn't exist.  There wasn't a story written for her yet.  As for Leia's memory, it is of Padme or the idea that would be Padme in the future.  Luke specifically says "do you remember your mother, your real mother?".  It is easy to speculate about the Force and use that is a possible way to have these memories, but it is a real stretch with what is shown on screen.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 28, 2013, 03:20 PM »
I had a totally different take on that fight than most people I guess.  I didn't see it as Luke being that much better, but as Vader/Anakin being that much worse, which is a totally different thing.  Sure, Luke had some skills and was more aggressive than usual given the situation.  On the flip side, Vader's literally not the man he used to be.  He's much older, has been living in the same crap armor for two decades, he likely hasn't had much for sparring partners for several years, AND he's facing off against his own son - the only link he has back to Padme (along with Leia I Guess).  Maybe he's just not trying all that hard given the circumstances.  Do people really need more excuses why he wouldn't be as good as he was pre-armor?  I don't think he was getting stronger under Palpy - he was getting weaker, which is why Palps wanted a fresh Luke to replace him.

I don't really see how this relates to Star Trek plot holes anyway.  The transporter only works part of the time?  Seems plausable to me.  No one else has trouble with their cable screwing up or DVR not recording correctly?  Do you never have issues with connecting to a new wireless signal?  Your lawnmower or snowblower always starts up just fine with no issues?  Hell, I can't get the vending machine in the office to work half the time.  It's much more realistic to have some of the tech fail now and then in these movies (in addition to make a more dramatic story).  I always thought that was a great move by Lucas with the Falcon...its a totally tricked out space muscle car and sometimes pulls off amazing tricks that other ships couldn't match.  But it just as often fails when they need it most because that's just what happens with tech/mechanics in real life.

My point was that Trek seems to be getting nitpicked to death with the "this plot is not logical" argument so I drew a comparison with Star Wars since this is a Star Wars sight.  Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 28, 2013, 07:21 AM »
Even gimped, a Sith Lord with full Jedi training and 20+ years under Palpatine can't match a kid with maybe a month's worth of training, with almost zero lightsaber training? 

Luke gave into his hatred in ROTJ, and that made him stronger...until he came to his senses.  The force was always strong within in him, anyway.

Still pretty weak, since both Palpatine and Vader were trying to get him to do that anyway.  Luke didn't seem to have any loss of focus during his first brush with the dark side.  I would think Vader would be prepared for this outcome since both he and Palpatine have been trying to turn Luke.

It seems easy to give the lack of logic in this scenario, which is needed for story purposed, a pass while Star Trek is being lambasted for being illogical.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 23, 2013, 10:32 AM »
I think the hardest thing was (and is) disconnecting my ideas of what certain characters are or look like and not try to compare them to those in TOS.

The way I handle that is to remind myself that Nero's actions changed everything so that they aren't the same person we saw in TOS.   Spock is a prime example.  Quento's Spock in the 2009 movie seemed much more accepting of his human half.  TOS Spock would never have had a relationship with a human.  Nimoy's Spock only really accepted his human half around Star Trek 4.

Look at Carol Marcus, she was in the biological sciences in the original universe (don't think there is any info on her original universe father) and is now a military scientists specializing in weapons systems.

Chapel is still a nurse, but Kirk banged her so she wants to be far away from him and will probably never serve as McCoy's nurse.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 40