Scav Posted January 20, 2002 Author Share Posted January 20, 2002 That about explains it, Starscrap. Everyone better get off his lawn, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted January 20, 2002 Author Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by Dino-Bob I don't really have anything to say, just wanting to make my first post to the forum. ...Forum seems sufficiently nerdy to be fun .. anyway.. I'll post whenever I have something important to say, or even if I don't. But anyway, someone might find http://web.sfuhs.org/Amy_Physics/1st_Period/Adler_Hillary/Final%20Project/blaster.html interesting. =) *frown* That website takes the MOVIES for example.. They should have checked the books and they would have noticed that the stormtroopers <i>don't</i> fly backwords unless they collapse backwords; usually they just say the shot goes right through them. The movies are, like most, inaccurate. However, it's also possible that the particles react with the elements in the stormtrooper armor to create a little push. ERR.. ERROR! Insufficient variables//choices to create accurate//objective analysis! Recommend aborting argument//conversation immediately! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaberPro Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by StarScrap Sorry to bring us back to the argument (not really), but here I go. Point one: We don't know that it is not "actually possible" to explain and make these things. We just know that it isn't possble to make them with our current technology. Point two: Being able to explain something, even being able to provide step by step instructions, is much different from being able to make it. Examples for this. Real life examples. I recently did a research project on nanotechnology. We (the human race as a whole) can explain in full how to make some wonderous little devices that could do stuff such as let people hold their breath for four hours, build buildings in a matter of days from nothing but different kinds of dirt, stuff like that. The problem is that we can't manipulate stuff on a fine enough level to be able to yet. We can push around atoms with an SPM, even make pyramids of them, we can manufacture nanotubes and buckyballs, but we can't make all those nifty atoms into machinery just yet. And even if we could it would be sloooow. (just as an interesting note, if we could rearange atoms however we felt like, we could make any food in the world from dirt water and air) The second real life example is a proposed modular car chasis. I don't know much about this, but the basics are: all the mechanics of the car (fuel cell, hydrogen fuel tank, gears, cranks, shafts, steering etc.) would be put into a base that would be all at wheel level, then you could purchase any top you wanted to slap on top. You could have a sports car and a pickup sitting in your garage with only one of the bases, and be able to get up in the morning and decide which one you wanted to drive. The problem with this one is we can't get fuel cells small enough to fit in even a large car yet. Now for a fictional example. If we could go back in time, I would bet you whatever you wanted that you couldn't go back to...say...ancient rome and build a computer, no matter what information you took back with you. At least not in a relatively short period of time. We can't make these weaponry and gadgets YET (for technology is not advance enough)...maybe not in our lifetime. But probably in the next hundred years...nothing is impossible [for example: I bet some great scientists in the past didn't think cloning people were possible]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarScrap Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by SaberPro We can't make these weaponry and gadgets YET (for technology is not advance enough)...maybe not in our lifetime. But probably in the next hundred years...nothing is impossible [for example: I bet some great scientists in the past didn't think cloning people were possible]. I did say that didn't I? Originally posted by StarScrap We don't know that it is not "actually possible" to explain and make these things. We just know that it isn't possble to make them with our current technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaberPro Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by StarScrap Yeah you did. I'm just making a big essay into small summary (easy to read) The reason I didn't post that is because I didn't finish your essay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by Scav *frown* That website takes the MOVIES for example.. They should have checked the books and they would have noticed that the stormtroopers <i>don't</i> fly backwords unless they collapse backwords; usually they just say the shot goes right through them. The movies are, like most, inaccurate. However, it's also possible that the particles react with the elements in the stormtrooper armor to create a little push. ERR.. ERROR! Insufficient variables//choices to create accurate//objective analysis! Recommend aborting argument//conversation immediately! LOL the MOVIES are inaccurate?!? I hate to tell you this...but the movies are superior canon to the books, which aren't even full canon And a couple misconceptions in this thread: blasters are not lasers, and hyperspacing is a dimensional jump, not just "going really fast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pogwaffle Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 It isnt a siper rifle. I've read some where the wookie bowcaster will act as a type of sniper rifle as it has a scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathBoLT Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 you read that in PC Gamer Nov. Issue, and a Raven dev later came onto these forums and said that that particular aspect of the article was incorrect. the bowcastor will not being sporting a scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaberPro Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by [eVe]DeathBoLT you read that in PC Gamer Nov. Issue, and a Raven dev later came onto these forums and said that that particular aspect of the article was incorrect. the bowcastor will not being sporting a scope. Bowcaster with scopes is just WRONG. I have never seen a Wookie sniping Stormtroopers off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Well it would be good fun in the game to have a sniper scope on the bowcaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted January 20, 2002 Author Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing LOL the MOVIES are inaccurate?!? I hate to tell you this...but the movies are superior canon to the books, which aren't even full canon And a couple misconceptions in this thread: blasters are not lasers, and hyperspacing is a dimensional jump, not just "going really fast" *really large frown* In order to get into Superspace, or 'hyperspace' for the common layman, you have to 'go really fast', and that opens a window. Try reading 'The Next 10,000 Years', I think it's in there. Blasters ARE lasers, coupled with explosive gases so they do damage. The gases need the laser to move. And I think the books are a lot more detailed than the movies. The movies have horrible acting, some incorrect physics etc. And if you hated to tell me that, why'd you say it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Yea, I agree with you that the books are always much much more detailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted January 20, 2002 Author Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by CaptainRAVE Yea, I agree with you that the books are always much much more detailed. Yeah.. It tells you what they are thinking and other extra stuff which improves the storyline.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proto Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Originally posted by Scav And I think the books are a lot more detailed than the movies. The movies have horrible acting, some incorrect physics etc. What? IMO Star Wars books are much worse as a books then the Star Wars movies as a movies. I mean they are mostly poorly written and only few of them are really good (e.g. Zahn's trilogy, I Jedi, SotE). The movies represents much better class then the books do. Books are not more detailed than the movies: they just give more space for your imagination and expands the universe but the movies are the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 mmmm........I remember the Zahn trilogy very well. That had to be my favourite set of books; probably one of the most cleverly written and most descriptive star wars trilogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Big Fat CoW Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 ack, too many posts, too little time.... i wasnt calling him a n00b, obi. i was calling MYSELF a n00b, since i only have like, 12 posts here. ack, gtg, will edit this post later and explain more about what i wanted to say... Guess what? its later, now. heh prepare for a long, probably boring post that most likely wont make sense (like most of the things i say) Scav: ack, my first post is all completely screwed up. before posting it i remembered something i wanted to add, so i scrolled up and spliced it in there, but heh i put it in the wrong place, and screwed it up n stuff. the heat caused from friction and stuff has nothing to do with the invisible-bolt theory i stated (infact, that should be in parenthewhatever's, much like this sentance), or atleast very little. what i meant was that the heat from the friction wouldnt be the full cause of the blaster damage(for ANY blaster, just so i dont get another mis-understanding), though it might add to it. did that make sense? didnt think so. heh my train of thought de-railed... grr... Obi: i randomly stumbled onto this news thingy about the military creating real-working laser cannons to use in battles if they're ever needed. they use a similar system that star wars blasters do (energised gas's with energy crap and stuff), so though star wars hand-held blaster-pistols wont be the same as lasers in the future, they're close enough that the theory is prove-able. and scav said something about heat caused by friction, so i was doing things the "nice" way, and trying not to act like a jerk (which i do sometimes without meaning to when it comes to exchanging theorys and junk) by completely bashing what he said (then again, i completely forget what he said now... curse my lack of brain cells..), so thats why i said something about friction and stuff. and blasters in star wars DO have range factors, because the energy dissipates after awhile (the reason why in the guide it lists optimum and maximum range. again, not trying to be rude, just trying to back up what i said)... chuga-chuga-chuga-CHOO-CHOOO *KABOOOM!!!* ... that would be my train of thought again... on to my next point... Bah, i cant find the post now, but someone said something that i was gonna reply to... oh well. as with all my posts: sorry if i sound like im being rude or anything, im honestly not meaning to be, and if my post comes across that way then i apologize (is that supposed to be an S or a Z? ack, looks wrong both ways.. curse my horrible spelling..) i also apologise (heh tried it the other way) if that post didnt make ANY sense, but then again, most of the stuff that comes out of my mouth (or fingers, in this case) doesnt make sense... so.. uhm... *post* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 I know what you mean about having very little time, which many people have noticed lately with my lack of posting. But this weekend has been good.........little work, finished exams, no new computer games and theres a storm outside. Im only on here alot also because JK2 is so close to release. I plan to spend at least an hour a day on here from now on.......and probably all day on weekends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted January 20, 2002 Author Share Posted January 20, 2002 I don't understand your viewpoint, Proto. How can the movies be the base when movies are <i>never</i> the base? The base of <i>what</i>, exactly? Take Starship Troopers for example. The book absolutely blows away the movies, and so does the animated series. With LotR, the books far outstrip the movie(s). In Star Wars, the movies are so-so, while the plethora of books being added on are actually quite good. The original books are badly edited, but otherwise they are actually superior to the movies in every aspect; most book-movies are like that, actually. I'm not trying to fight with you, I'm just wondering why you say the movies are better without good evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Big Fat CoW Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 MWAHAHAHAAA i edited my post... heh your probably wondering why im laughing. the answer: i have no idea. why didnt i just post it here, you ask?. see my previous answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 A book will always be better than the film because it has so much more room for description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted January 20, 2002 Author Share Posted January 20, 2002 Agreed, RAVE. Cow... I never said the heat from the friction caused all the damage, did I? The explosion of the gas when it hits a target does. One last thing, Cow.. You're nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toms Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 books have to be more detailed... they have to describe everything in words, what people say, what they see, what they think and what they do.... a picture is worth a thousand words... and at 25 frames a second that means each second of a movie is equal to 25000 words in a book. but they are totally different artforms... what works well in one doesn't always (or even often) work well in another... LOTR is a great example... i love the books, and they are probably far superior to the movie... but if they had filmed the movie EXACTLY like the books it would have sucked. it would have been unbalanced, badly timed, too wordy and about 20 hours long. A book is much more comparable to a TV series... if you think about it, it is usually in chapters, you read it in a number of small bits over a period of time. In a film they have to introduce and develop the characters and tell the whole story in 2 hours. on the other hand, just because they can have more detail doesn't make the books better.... in fact i have yet to find a single starwars book that would rank in my top 100 books. They all seem to be second rate rip offs of other sci-fi cliches (big unstopable alien race appears from nowhere, ANOTHER super weapon etc...) written by 3rd rate automaton sci-fi writers. The 5 Zahn books are the only good ones i have found, but even they aren't great. They resort to sticking in obvious film quotes to "make it feel more starwarsy" and he has a really annoying habit of having his characters overthink everything. ("it's a trap", "maybe they just want us to think it's a trap". "maybe that is what they want us to think") and then walking straight into trouble anyway. (which would make for a really annoying film, btw). and then, after eveding the most complex trap ever made, they will decide to take their holiday on the one moon of the one planet that a sleeper Imperial cell hapens to have jsut been awakened on... what a coincidence... production line spin off tv/movie books very rarely work well... for the same reason movies of films very rarely work well: they fill in all the gaps that your imagination had been doing. and they very rarely come up with as good a feeling answer as we had all come up with in our heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 NOW NOW........dont start an argument because Stormhammer has his mod gun out in force today ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proto Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Scav: My viewpoint is simple: the movies are the base as they were first. In cases you mentioned (LotR, ST) the books were inpiration for the movies. There are worse and better novelisations as well as screen versions but they are rarely better and more important then the prototype. And SW are not an exception to this rule. You don't need any evidences as it is a matter of taste. To justify my words I must say that generally i prefer books to movies:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toms Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 still got fingers crossed for a cool looking, low-tech, long barreled sniper rifle like the tuskens carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.