[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 02 August 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 02 August 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 August 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 02 August 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

Also

Spoiler

The music was meant to throw off the coordination of the planes, but instead of making the attacks uncoordinated with the odd crash, they just blow up.

Spoiler

...Into each other. That was the goal. Throw off co-ordination and this massive, tightly knit swarm of ships becomes a huge multi-car pileup explosion.

Spoiler

Right, but some of them would miss wouldn't they? It should not uniformly blow them up? I mean, it doesn't even really show any course changes. Just within range of the VHF transmission ANDDDDD boom.

And of course the ships outside range of the transmission do not adapt or retreat at all.

Ever been in a multi-car pileup...or seen one on the news? If one goes, they all go like a chain reaction in seconds. But honestly, I think you're looking for nits to pick with this complaint. It's SUPER minor.

Well, you're wrong. But its it is such a super minor nitpick, it probably wasn't worth debating in the first place, was it?


But hey if you want to keep debating ...

Spoiler

Best place to see a pileup is nascar, and yeah, you'll see a lot of cars get caught in it, but some always get through, or around, and it is rare that all the cars at the start of the group are in the collision.

Cars also travel two dimensionally, and on a road or track which bounds them in at the sides. Spaceships have, you know, space.

And something has to cause the initial collision. Losing coordination would hurt but to my recollection they were not even dramatically shifting course at the time.

And then there is the matter of all these ships instantly exploding when they collide (bearing in mind that these ships are designed to RAM other ships in close formation).

And of course the explosions would probably do some damage to the ship and station, no?

So, yeah, instant 100% effectiveness is probably a little too convenient.

But yes, this is a minor nitpick. People get to make minor nitpicks. Observations on things they noticed or felt off to them while watching. And if you think whether they are right and wrong isn't important, then maybe don't argue about whether they are right or wrong. It is the debate which makes the molehill a mountain. So if it doesn't matter just let it not matter.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 02 August 2016 - 08:09 PM

[QuickTidal]

Well that escalated quicklly.

[Tsundoku]

QuickTidal, on 02 August 2016 - 09:16 PM, said:

Well that escalated quicklly.

Like ... a molehill becoming a mountain?

@PG agreed, but seriously, what else will 99.999% of people be thinking in those shots these days? I guarantee it won't be "Gee, what a wonderful representation of a Blahblah type station design."

Just like http://inception.davepedu.com/ for adding drama has become a stale joke, especially in trailers.

[QuickTidal]

Tsundoku, on 03 August 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

@PG agreed, but seriously, what else will 99.999% of people be thinking in those shots these days? I guarantee it won't be "Gee, what a wonderful representation of a Blahblah type station design."

I'd say this is much more like an exacerbated version of DS9...considering their positioning (both are on the edge of Federation space, on a frontier, hubs of new species offloading and intermingling) and their design.

And I'm honestly not sure where the "inception city" analogy comes from. None of this moves, or collapses or anything like in that movie. It's just a multi-surfaced, base with an outer shell and gravity. So if the comparison is just "Inception had cities and towers in its shots" and "this has cities and towers in its shots"...then sure? Otherwise I'm not seeing it at all.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 03 August 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

And I'm honestly not sure where the "inception city" analogy comes from. None of this moves, or collapses or anything like in that movie. It's just a multi-surfaced, base with an outer shell and gravity. So if the comparison is just "Inception had cities and towers in its shots" and "this has cities and towers in its shots"...then sure? Otherwise I'm not seeing it at all.

It's because it has city towers pointing at each other and shit. I get why people are using it here, but it is kinda silly imo.


It works for the Doctor Strange trailer mind.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 03 August 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 03 August 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

And I'm honestly not sure where the "inception city" analogy comes from. None of this moves, or collapses or anything like in that movie. It's just a multi-surfaced, base with an outer shell and gravity. So if the comparison is just "Inception had cities and towers in its shots" and "this has cities and towers in its shots"...then sure? Otherwise I'm not seeing it at all.

It works for the Doctor Strange trailer mind.

For sure, That's exactly what I equated it to in that trailer.

[Tsundoku]

QuickTidal, on 03 August 2016 - 06:19 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 03 August 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 03 August 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

And I'm honestly not sure where the "inception city" analogy comes from. None of this moves, or collapses or anything like in that movie. It's just a multi-surfaced, base with an outer shell and gravity. So if the comparison is just "Inception had cities and towers in its shots" and "this has cities and towers in its shots"...then sure? Otherwise I'm not seeing it at all.

It works for the Doctor Strange trailer mind.

For sure, That's exactly what I equated it to in that trailer.

That's because you guys are lefty intyleckshuls and don't unnerstan the common man at all. Trump 2016, yeah!