Separate names with a comma.
...you know you cannot hide. Join the forum today!
Discussion in 'Nevermore' started by Talking Backwards, Nov 29, 2014.
Other than the dumb as fuck, for so many reasons light saber design, I'm hyped as hell.
Never liked stars wars
Blake 7 scifi is for the gods
I liked them alot. I liked the inside look of the pilot and the x-wing fighter...looks like old star wars and not the prequel's CGI style.
I love that new light saber design.
The "international" trailer is a fake. Too bad, because it was in some ways better than the official.
That light saber is dumb as fuck and wouldn't function the way you think a claymore crossguard would function. Not only would the beam projectors get sliced off since the side beams are not flush with the main beam if another saber slid down the length of the blade (negating the whole point of a crossguard), how many times have you seen light sabers actually slide against each other?
Maybe they are just thrusters, and that saber is just super heavy and needs help with precise turning!
The thing I liked the most about the official trailer was the sound effects. They are using so many of the original effects from the first three movies that were missing from the prequels. /nostalgia!
How many times have you seen a beam slide down the side of another beam? If that were the case and were so common, there would be thousands of one-handed Jedi and Sith. That's why there are like 20 different kinds of lightsaber fighting forms. It's for extremely close combat and is obviously made for a Juggernaut and not a Marauder or Sorcerer; it's made for someone who is pure dark side hatred like Vader, for whom a lightsaber is merely a tool to help absorb and deflect damage. A headbutt or jab with the hilt to put them off their balance, then a flick of the wrist and that side beam is inside your forehead. Don't forget there's also a dial that adjusts the length and resonance of the beam to suit the wielder. In any case, make it out of Mandalorian iron and voila! Lightsaber-resistant crossguard. See how easy that was?
The thing that doesn't make sense is the CIRCUMFERENCE of the beam. If it were wider it could function as both an extremely close-combat weapon and have a viable crossguard.
And for the record, claymores weren't swung like rapiers or short swords; they were wielded with one hand on the hilt and the other hand at the base of the blade and were used to impale opponents by thrusting, not cleave them by swinging.
Also, let's be honest: always sticking to canon is fucking dumb and limited and is only done by the nerdiest of nerds circle jerking over what they think it should be. Remember Mace Windu's purple lightsaber? That wasn't canon and it was AWESOME. Sure, Sam Jackson was a pretty lame Jedi, but that lightsaber was badass and is now canon. They didn't want to do it and he flat out told them: purple lightsaber or I walk.
In the end I think we should all remember that arguing over a fictional plasma sword wielded by space wizards just might be a tad ridiculous.
I've already seen that, and it's from the extended universe, which is not canon anyway. In the comics, Luke becomes the most powerful Jedi that ever existed, mastering both light and dark.
Yeah, yeah sticking to canon is limiting. I agree for the most part, but there's so much fan stuff that's been created, both good and bad that it could really screw some shit up if they were not trying to stay as close to canon as possible, instead of rewriting the storylines. Lucas even did it himself (*cough* *cough* midichlorians).
Not sure what you mean about the Claymore being one-handed though. There were one-handed variants, but the more common known Claymore is a two-handed weapon and it was used to cleave and thrust. Most were thrusting or an attempt at being both a slashing and thrusting, but a light saber is not (unless trying to penetrate bulkhead doors), and the design of that looks like it's some lame ass anime nerd fan service shit just to be cool. Trying way too hard.
Uh, so I don't care much for this discussion, but I felt obligated to chime in with my ancient and medieval warfare geekiness and correct a few things there that are ultimately not relevant to this conversation.
Rapiers are pretty much exclusively thrusting weapons. Some of the prototypical "cut and thrust" swords of the 16th century maintained a bit of a design that allowed for more powerful cuts, but they were still way more biased towards thrusting (abbreviated: its a matter of weight balance and blade shape).
"Short swords" is a pretty wide category. Some were designed for slashing cuts, some for thrusting. Even within certain types of short swords, like the Roman gladius, you have variants that may be more biased towards one type of attack or the other.
Claymores are predominantly cutters ("slashers"), but they developed late enough in the middle ages that they share some characteristics of late medieval thrusters that were common elsewhere in europe by that time (see below).
Actually, until advances in steel plate armor were made in the 14th century, most swords were dedicated to cutting ("chopping"). It's easier to deal an incapacitating cut against a unarmored or lesser armored opponent than it is with a thrust (exaggerated example: pierce an enemies arm with a point and he might still keep fighting, cut his arm off and he's out). Plate armor pretty much rendered that useless, you aren't getting through solid steel with a sword. However, thrust centric swords can make precise strikes into the gaps or lesser protected areas of the body. Really, if you are fighting someone in plate armor your best bet is to chuck the sword away and pick up a warhammer, or as I like to call them, "Can openers".
This doesn't add anything to your discussion, but I felt like nerdgasming all over this thread.
This is fucking hilarious.
I think he's reffering to the leather "demi-scabbard" you see on some late medieval/early Renaissance greatswords, particularly on swords carried by the Germans and Swiss.
The leather on the blade is to make choking up when in close quarters fighting more comfortable, but it wasn't always used in such a way.
By the way, despite what Mel carried in Braveheart, thats not a claymore. Normally whats reffered to as a claymore (and there are a few types that sometimes get called that) look like the below:
i think ive seen that one^ before
Sorry chopping like in carrots!!!
Talkingbackwards, now I understand why we disagree so often: you don't read my posts at all before you reply to them. Now it all makes sense.
A claymore isn't a one-handed weapon and I never said it was. It's not even relevant, but what IS relevant is you think I said so because you simply saw the two words, "one hand" and went "Aaaaaah that's a yes!" This is why we always disagree, I think, because you simply don't take the time to read it.
As far as Star Wars goes, I have absolutely zero problem with The EU's (expanded universe for anyone wondering) liberal take on SW. It's just an opinion and it really doesn't matter, but I'll be honest and say that the SW universe without The EU would be dull and one-dimensional. Without it we wouldn't have Revan who also mastered both light and dark, we wouldn't have characters like Darth Bane and we wouldn't have the rich history and underlying story of the SW universe without it.
Luke was only mildly interesting because he was Vader's son...that's it. He stumbled into his place among the Jedi, complaining every step of the way. Before his showdown with Vader we see a flicker of the Dark Side take over in him as he tries to strike down the Emperor. We get all excited because we'd love to see him fall, but you know what happens? Nothing. He recovers and then gets his ass handed to him by Sidious and gets rescued by Vader. Luke was instrumental in showing Vader the light, so to speak, and any reverence for him is due to him simply being tortured in front of Vader who brought balance to the force after his self-sacrifice to save his son. Luke is just a USO morale booster for the troops.
The SW purists, while they often have valid gripes about Lucas' decisions in the past, what with the midichlorians and such, are primarily just old middle-aged guys who are quite literally jerking off to their Princess Leia posters and original figurines. They saw the movies as teenagers in the theaters and were captivated and don't want to deviate from what they saw - and more importantly - WHAT THEY THINK should be the direction of SW. A lightsaber with a crossguard, while odd and a bit unorthodox when it comes to even EU SW, is a bold move and shows that there's still life in this old saga.
I personally think it's cool. Also:
NO ONE HAS EVEN SEEN IT IN USE YET.
In the original SW, the lightsaber was to be a sort of neato-hey-wouldya-look-at-that sort of weapon, but what it ended up being was the greatest weapon of all time, fiction or non. Lucas was taken completely by surprise with the reception of the Jedi and the lightsaber because he thought the main draw was the space part of it. We don't know where they're taking this and we don't know how it will be wielded. I personally thought the double lightsaber was pretty meh until I found out about the Sith Assassin and how it's not just a good fit, but it's CRUCIAL to the Assassin's fighting style. Like I said, a lightsaber with a crossguard can only mean it's to be wielded by someone extremely powerful, both physically and with The Force. It's a bulky, long weapon and the Jedi and/or Sith's fighting style must match it. I'm sure the figure in the trailer is a Sith Juggernaut, no doubt about it. The gait, fighting stance, and lightsaber scream a Darth Bane-like Juggernaut. Lightsabers are made by each individual for each individual's fighting style; it's not like we're gonna start seeing nunchaku lightsabers or anything. It's ONE lightsaber held by what is considered the last Sith in existence (or so we're supposed to think). Even if he's not the last, there's only gonna be one more due to the Rule of Two.
And again, if anyone brings up the silly-ass notion that it can't function as a viable cross guard (that Washington Post article), keep in mind that:
1. We're talking about plasma swords wielded by space wizards who shoot lightning from their fingertips
2. There are PLENTY of lightsaber-resistant materials in the SW universe.
The fact that The Washington Post asked an ACTUAL bladesmith about the viability of the aforementioned PLASMA SWORD WIELDED BY SPACE WIZARDS speaks volumes about both the writer of the article and those who would use it as some sort of "proof" to support their position that it's impossible for said space wizards to wield said plasma swords with crossguards.
Colbert's take. Actually makes some sense.
saw that earlier. pretty cool
I never thought about it being done that way, routed through the two actuators as part of the same beam. That's pretty ingenious and should shut everyone up.