2046 wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:You're right. They do walk down a staircase. But not a rampway.
Devastating! The point was clearly that it is subsurface, as intended, and as you attempted to reject.
Yes, and I conceded this. Beating the deadhorse won't make you gain any extra points, expecially on such a minor issue. That said, that's just another minor issue which shows that the book isn't even right when it comes to point out staircases.
That is absurd. It says "pit gouged".
No, it says it consisted
mostly of a pit gouged into the rocky soil. Wiggle room is left that the set designers inhabited. It's a bit of a stretch, but it isn't wholly inconsistent with what we see.
A bit of a stretch? That's a ludicrous spin.
Most of = at least, more than 50%, if we're conservative.
Your point would stand if it would make any sense to point to a building and only sum it to the former excavation made before construction even started!
I think no one is stupid enough to do that.
Not to say that to make such a building, even the crudest building, you'd need more than a shabbily clad hole with slope edges.
Plus let's laugh again:
This mostly is a gouged pit.
Nevermind if, both seen from the outside and the inside, such docking bays actually largely look like buildings. Wait. They are building, and decent ones.
Plus, funny how you nitpick on that. The "mostly" part is from the book, while the "pit gouged" one is from the script. Rich from the person who accused me of misquoting.
Finally, the simple fact that the book completely fails to mention any part of the building, and only concentrate on features which can't even be seen, is enough to show that first, you're just beyond sense and mere observation ability on this issue, and that secondly, that the book is just plain wrong.
Only in your mind. If you instead accept the script as accurate unless directly contradicted by the films (y'know, being canon and all), then you are in fact looking at a dirt pit.
I already know that, in your mind, a dirt pit ought to be something that looks like someone just made it with a shovel in sand. But your presumption is not evidence of contradiction.
We're told that this is a pit gouged from the rocky soil, implying some structural stability of the same type seen in the more rough-hewn pit that served as shelter for the Lars family.
We are also aware of some of the construction methods on Tatooine.
"His home was small and shabby and packed tight against dozens of others, its thick walls comprised of a mixture of mud and sand."
TPM Ch. 2
That's who's home exactly?
Anakin's? Of course, it
isshabby!
Yes, so?
It's built in the slave sector of Mos Espa.
Yes, so?
Huh. You point to buildings which have nothing to do with DBs. Slave buildings, in particular, and you don't see the problem?
Plus, it's funny how you shot your foot.
The quotation you provided actually mentions
walls.
I guess those poor slave houses are much more worth a proper description than a docking bay that looks a thousand times more finished and firm than any slave house seen in TPM!
What they are made of isn't particularily relevant. Not that the materials are necessarily poor. Mud and sand can do wonders btw.
We can really appreciate the irony...
Any simple comparison between his house and DB 94 shows that the DB is more refined.
Okay, and . . . ?
My point is that we've certainly seen the type of construction method I'm specifying as being in use. You're calling the place some sort of durasteel fortress and insisting on materials for which you have no evidence.
Strawman. I never ever susggested that a DB was akin to a durasteel
fortress, nor even necessarily implied that the walls were mainly made of durasteel.
Thus the most likely surmise to make is that the walls are themselves composed of the dirt initially taken from the pit. To argue otherwise is to insist on a contradiction where none is necessary.
Just like they could be reinforced and made of other elements inside. We just don't know.
So, in defiance of Occam, and by employing argumentum ad ignorantiam, you continue to insist on a contradiction?
The hell,
you provided a quote saying that some of the buildings would actually have walls containing layers of durasteel.
If the novelisation from ROTS is of any indication, the DB could likely have an internal structure relying on a double layer of durasteel.
That would, in fact, be expected for the structures which are ought to deal with more than sandstorms and other forms of erosion; namely, starships' engine exhaust.
Why would engine exhaust contribute a great deal to wall erosion? They're antigravs. It's not like the Falcon blasted dust about when she took off, if you recall. Her engines weren't even all the way to blue. Hell, walls made of
ice did very well on Hoth when the Falcon's engines were blue and bright.
Heat differential. Especially at night.
Nevertheless, I simply said there could be durasteel in the walls. There's no point harping on hours on the question of any durasteel being there or not in the end.
Many houses are built upon excavations. Yet, this does not serve as a correct basis to claim that those houses, or gardens, or whatever, are vulgar pits, just because back when the construction started, a hole had to be made in the ground.
Unlike your claim of strawman, I'll be kind and simply assume you misunderstood.
I'm saying that if you dig a hole in the ground and shape the dirt into a rim wall along the outside, you still have a hole in the ground.
Please. The question, really, is not if it's a hole or not, since I accepted the point that it was at substreet level.
The point is to properly describe what that "hole" actually is.
You're saying you've made a building. I guess in some senses we're both correct, but in this instance my case has canon backing whereas yours requires insistence on contradictions without evidence (and without Occam, but with fallacies). Therefore, in this instance, mine is the correct position to take.
BS. My insistance is that the descriptions point to a poor pit, a glorified crater and nothing more.
The book totally fails at describing a building. It described nothing more than a vulgar savagely excavated dirt pit with a rampway to do down there. Nothing more.
And what's about imperfections?
Let's not blow the thing out of proportion, please. Slight at best, with small packets of sand eventually stuck in corners. That is all.
Oh yeah, it's a great place, really upscale. I love the crack . . .
Oh, a crack in a wall! Oh noes, my argument is ruined!
Dude, I think you should think outside of America, and realize that houses aren't always made of wood.
Go to Venice, one day. Or, better, I could take pictures of my house. It's a fine one. It uses plenty of materials, notably due to recent extensions, from metal to modern agglomerates to limit heat exchanges. There are concrete pillars, and whole wall sections made of concrete brick. There's also a large amount of metal inside.
However, all of it is covered by several layers of plaster and paint, and they're cracked at several points.
Some of these cracks are largely multi meter long.
Nevermind, I'd never exchange by house for one of those lousy wooden cans that any wind blow can level.
. . . and the five or six meter-wide chunks here that are out are nifty-cool, too:
But heaven forbid we think it might be run-down and crumbling in places!
That is stupid. You point to, what? A few cracks and holes in
high, large and globally smoothily shaped walls, and that somehow must equal to the
sloping sides of a shabbily clad enormous dirt pit?
Do you even understand the term shabby by any chance?
It's even more absurd, since the descriptions describe absolutely nothing of a building, don't even mention walls, fails to mention the staircases and think rampway instead...
Oh, besides, let's put a footnote here. Say "
A". So basically, you're trying to show,
now, that the description of the books match the film, and that the pits are docking bays are buildings. We'll see more on that later.
This does seem contradictory, but one can hardly invalidate vast portions of the canon on this basis.
Does
seem contradictory?
Dude, please let's call a cat a cat, and admit that it simply
is contradictory.
Actually, let's do nothing of the kind. I meant precisely what I said.
Sure, even before you actually noticed that some of the walls were... huh, negligibly sloped.
Upon further review, the inner walls of the docking bay are sloped. Ergo, while it seemed contradictory, it isn't.
Yes, they're so slightly sloped that one will simply miss it. They actually look much more vertical than sloped, and I'd like to see how the
whole sides are sloped.
It requires a stupidly close inspection to start noticing the slope.
Funny that this same close inspection isn't used to properly describe the DB!
Ah, double standards...
Nevermind if it mentions sides, not walls. I mean, woah, how hard would have it been to talk about walls... you know, those same walls that actually range even above street level. Even slave houses in Mos Espa have walls. But apparently, docking bays don't.
Oh but I guess. These are just sides, just as much as there are no rectangular caves, nor plenty of pipes in the walls (which there are not, lies!), no notches, no mechanical bliping gizmos, etc.
This is just a "shabbily cut and run-down" pit.
Sure, these are just "sides". Muddy, sloped and shabbily dug sides! See!
Nevermind the near perfect circular and multinotched structure!
It's not there, it's a product of my imagination. How can I look at this and dispute the idea that it's a shabbily gouged pit!
Plus, see, sides are crumbling
instead of being smooth... it's not me, it's the book that says "instead of" anyway.
In any situation, anyone would have simply pointed out that the book is wrong.
But let's go back in time, and remember why the whole docking bay argument structure was brought.
I argued that having a docking bay requires lots of room.
In
this post, you say:
"Whether the docking bays are numbered sequentially, and their average size, is not known. Most are said to be mere gouges in the dirt, for what it's worth, and
hence we need not expect to see buildings for most."
We're most than right to expect buildings.
As we've seen in point
A, if the book was right, then it would mean that all docking bays are ought to be like DB94, and thus be buildings of significant volume.
Not that I think the book is right, but remember, if we only keep what is correct from the book, then all docking bays are structural copies of DB 94, of varying sizes of course.
But anyway, this is not necessary. We have seen what a DB looks like, and we saw two more in Mos Eisley.
The point is quickly made that all docking bays will be similar structures.
End.
First, I was Mange the Swede.
Then I freaked out (?).
After that, I even pretended I was from SD.Net!
By hanging your arguments upon gross irrelevancies and fallacies, then insisting that they overwhelm basic logic, yes.
That was a very stupid thing to say.
- but let's pretend we didn't see that lie of yours -
No, no, let's pretend you're not pretending to be from SD.Net.
They're everywhere! CIA, FBI, greys, terrorists (muslims, of course), etc.
You need psychiatric attention.
As simple as that.
So you
do ignore them. Very well:
LINK TO HUGE PIC
That's an enhanced view of the frame, bear in mind, so some structures that appeared to be towers to me in the more pixellated version may not be in this one.
Precisely. They may not be towers at all!
It's lovely. All of the so called towers you point to, besides the two main ones, are packs of pixels horizontally segmented by various miserably shaped lines, or bands, of lighter or darker pixels, yet it doesn't stop you from claiming they're unique structures.
Eventually, the possible candidates are just so far on the outskirts of the city that they are just irrelevant.
The tower is even
fainter than the two famous ones. It
is more distant.
Is
that why you've been using a differently-colored pic the whole time? Here's the relevant portion of the frame from the HDTV version:
As you can see, the building appears lighter in color than the TL tower, and slightly lighter than the lighter round-top, which is hardly a bright white building (though it does have good reflectivity given its dingy state).
It was from the SE. Some of the other caps, I found them elsewhere, couldn't remember where. As often as I could, I used HD caps instead of the SE version.
Now, that just makes the tower easier to spot.
It is interesting, as we get the real look of the structure.
The tower is still faint and whiter.
Now, let's assume, like you do, that this lighter color is merely an effect of haze and thus that the light left tower is more distant and taller. If this were true, it should show up somewhere in the crane shot (as I already said and which you said "no" then agreed with).
This tower largely looking more like a tall tower than a rather closer one.
A checkout on photoshop interestingly shows that the more distant the object, the more blue it contains, in the total amount of RVB, while the closer buildings have much more red than other colours, even in their whitest parts. This is verified on buildings for which we know their distance.
The tower I was pointing to has the highest amount of blue, on any region you can pick, and sometimes, even in slightly higher concentrations in regards of the two other colours.
This coupled to the lack of details on its surface, and its global more stylized and clean cut aspect make it look much more like a tall building than some closer house structure.
Last but no least, on enhancing the contrat a lot, we see that the shadow on the tower disappear the closer you get to the base.
Not surprising, as the whitish fog gets denser as it comes close to the horizon, and the distance explains it.
The TL tower is affected by the same effect, to a smaller degree. The cousin mushroom like tower almost not, and that's right, as it's closer, even if we don't see their full base. But this would apply even more to the distant tower I pointed out.
So yes, I persist to claim that in that shot, the tower I pointed to is a very tall one, and due to perspective, just as tall, or taller than the TL one.
The fact that the shadows on the tower are extremely faint, due to a significant amount of haze between us and the tower, proves that it is at a large distance.
I've created this panoramic view of the crane shot. While naturally imperfect since the camera moves quite a bit during the shot, the panorama is focused on prominent background structures a couple of blocks beyond the roadway and thus gives an acceptable view of nearby buildings and the horizon. Click it for a larger version.
Now, where the devil is this ubertall tower of yours? Remember, you yourself said it should be off to the left, and judging by this pic:
. . . if the roundtop is closer then this ubertall tower of yours ought to be more than visible, since it would have to be straight along a line connecting the round-top and the TL tower, or else behind that line (from the perspective of the crane shot).
So where is it? You're the one claiming that the in-town shots are all mutually consistent and that the wide shot is inconsistent and hence wrong, so obviously you ought to be able to see it.
Mutually consistent. If that's so, it's only to a degree, precisely because I've been pointing out, a while ago, how even shadows are completely fucked up in the crane shot.
So another mistake in that shot would surprise me... not.
Of course, you can't, because it isn't where your claims suggest it ought to be.
Meaning that unless we wish to assume that they were imploding a building just after the Mos Eisley entry shot, then either (a) your thesis of that building being more distant (and hence taller, and hence an inconsistency with the wide shot) is wrong, or (b) the speeder entered Mos Eisley from the other way, meaning the ubertall tower, which still need not be ubertall, is actually to the right of the crane shot, and is one of the tall structures I've already noted. Your thesis would thus still be wrong but for another reason.
Take your pick. I don't give a damn.
You went through a lot of trouble for someone who doesn't give a damn.
A should have been the right one, but there's an inconsistency.
B is wrong. If it were true, the TL tower would look even way taller and bigger than the mushroom tower.
These are examples of taller buildings.
They would not be hard to spot at all on this picture:
And where should we look for them? We have no information as to their location. It isn't like they have to be to the left of the two towers, though I'm sure that's the impression you wanted to give. However, they appear a few shots after the crane shot, so they could be just about anywhere.
Three buildings of that size shouldn't be hard to spot. Simply put, while on the wide shot, without any zoom, it seems we can notice what the VFX team wanted to be the sister towers, it does require severe zooming on a HD cap to start extrapolating about the presence of other towers, and this remains arguable.
They are ought to be taller and as large, if not larger than the sister towers we often get to see, including the TL one.
You would not have to look for them.
I didn't have to, since they were plainly visible, but neither do we have to ignore them as you do.
Of course, you're going to claim that they were easy to spot. It's interesting, however, that the zoom in makes these towers look like they could be anything, from a series of aligned small buildings to eye tricks due to the distance and poor level of detail.
The following HD shots are interesting. That's the shortcomings of not having access to the highly detailed video medium.
Once again, let's compare those shots:
And now look at the tallest
and farthest buildings on the two following shots:
Y'know, the right-hand building in your first pic is the same color as the right-hand multi-story structure on the second. Why do you consider that proof of extreme distance?
It's still bluer and has less sharp in its colours. And this applies to the three structures.
The building in the second pic might be another block or two beyond the farthest brown-walled white-dome, but it isn't like the white-dome is especially tall. We can see dudes walking in front of it:
Interesting. Still no real way to tell how behind the houses, the bigger building is.
If the smallest of the three whitish dome, the one on the right, at mid height, is of any indication, and as small as any of the smallest domes seein in Mos Eisley, it points to a large building.
The presence of such a dome, plus the beams supporting this smaller structure, seem to point to a small room of some sort, like a balcony.
Further, the left tower in the first shot appears to have the shadow of the brown building to its right on it. Yet you call its blue color proof of extreme distance and therefore extreme height. How could the not-bluish brown building be of that same extreme distance given that thesis?
That could be another glitch.
Reminds me of a trick I used to create a distant background in a CGI composition as well.
See, there's that shadow that is cast on the tower. It's quite dark. The building's self cast shadows are way more faint than the one strangely cast from that very contrasted and coloured building, next to it.
The whole building is significantly blue. Way bluer than the distant one on
this picture.
I think I know what they might have done. Instead of making a big building, and placing at the correct distance, they quickl assembled a small structure, changed the materials, and put it not too far from the intermediate background. Unfortunately, it was too close to one of the houses, and that model cast its shadow on the building which was supposed to be far away.
It's either that, or it's not a and glitch, then there's a roughly taller building next to it, but due to the angle of view near the ground, it remains masked.
That is possible. Preferable actually, since it doesn't require an argumentation of about a VFX glitch.
Plus the way the shadow is cast is weird. It shouldn't extend more downards, instead of looking like an hemisphere, if it was cast from the adjacent building.
Also, I note how you use as evidence the middle structure, one of your "skyscrappers" in the first pic, obstructed by the walking dude, and claim that it is also a blue and distant tower. Naturally you are mistaken, though if I were less polite I'd simply assume that you intentionally used the obstruction of the sandy-colored building in order to support your lies.
That's a satellite dish on top of a close sandy-colored building, as you can see in this unobstructed view. That building might be four stories tall, give or take . . . nothing compared to the TL tower, which is about 16 times taller than the guy on the most-distant right in the red shirt:
I didn't make the caps. I only had a couple of shrinked HD caps, the ones you've seen. I'd have obviously chosen one which would have allowed a far better view of the structure if I could.
As long as I'm completely neglecting building color, let's also neglect architecture:
As you can see in this pic, your #3 right-most building, presumably also a "skyscrapper", is awfully similar in design to the structure on the left in front of the dome. The left structure seems to have a tank-like assembly in the front and a tower with a ladder on it in the rear, on the right. The same is true of the right-hand structure, though it may be a bit wider and taller. However, the two are clearly of the same basic design, and you can even see the same ladder assembly on the right-hand structure.
Looks like one guy tried to create some busy background with the assembled models they had at hand, or something close to it, because they clearly look similar on the HD.
But that's not all...
The size of that left structure is interesting, since it has a more bluish top compared to other buildings yet is clearly in front of the dome. Its bluish top is similar to the bluish top of the right-hand structure you claim to be a tall building.
According to you, that means it must be very distant, subjected to bluish atmospheric haze. However, that is nonsense in this case. It is also nonsense in regards to the right-most structure, since unless the person who climbs that ladder can smell the blood of an Englishman, then that building isn't of exceptional height either . . . just of exceptional color.
It is not nonsense. The
whole structure in the background is blue tinted, not just the tip, and its shadows are, once again, extremely off, which is an effect of a dense volume of haze between the object and the viewer, while the very similar structure in the foreground, which is not excessively bigger if we compare the ladder-like external structure, has very dark shadows, and contrasted "hot" colours.
Obviously, the intent was to create some kind of building that would look distant, with what they had at hand.
You can observe it easily:
So why bring it?
You're asking me to prove a negative. Superb.
What part of the entry CGI shot did you not understand? According to
Pablo Hidalgo the landspeeder actually bounces off the uneven ground.
Further, it appears to me that the right side of Mos Eisley in the wide shot is crawling up a bit. But that's not necessary to my position, nor is any question of uneven terrain. However, flat earth is required for your view.
Not in the slightest, especially since there's not that much of difference of height.
The bump... actually, it doesn't seem that it bumps on the ground, since the landspeeder's shadow disappears when it gets closer to the tip of the dune, so it rather hops from one "dune" to another.
The pictures in the middle of Mos Eisley globally show a major part of the city being flat. If a bit of city climbs on a hill towards the far east rim, that's not even dramatic at all.
Blah blah blah. Quit whining.
You asked for something and got it, but it wasn't something you wanted so you're trying to weasel your way out of it.
The initial point was whether a wide-open space in which a 90m vessel could be parked was visible near the two towers in the wide shot. It is, and there's plenty of room for it, as anywhere in the green area would suffice:
(And do try to remember, O, that we're looking on Mos Eisley from a shallow angle.)
So don't try to reject that on the grounds that the shots have other discrepancies. That's how dishonest twits operate. Just accept that there is a large area of more-than-sufficient size and *then* try to bitch about your other imagined discrepancies.
Nope, you still get it extremely wrong. This time, there's no magical HD trick to pull out of your hat.
See why:
See? It wasn't that hard.
Oh get real. You're including areas of other buildings.
Let's look at the enhanced view:
And now let's look at a non-enhanced view:
In both cases the shadow side is at or near twice the width of the sunny side. Your randomly-drawn lies notwithstanding.
I'm including area of other buildings? That is possible, however, in doing so, I do it equally on both sides. What you forget is that what you remove from one side, you remove from the other as well, and in the end, the orientation of the buildings is just extremely similar to the one in this shot:
But if you insist on this point, then you open up every part of flat ground in the lower half of your green circle as possibilities, so either way your argument is nullified.
Vagueless and senseless claim. Please point to those open flat grounds, or concede.
Done.
[/quote]
Stop humouring me, please.
Why don't you paint the whole valley while you're at it?
A vast bulk of your green pond of goo goes way beyond several bands of a dark soil.
See the colour of the ground around the ship. Just the same light coloured sand that paves the whole city.
Even more, you extend the area an absurd distance away from the edge of the city, when we know that the plaza is just a few houses down the street, and we see plenty of other buildings on the left, behind the Gallofree transport.
So it can't even be outside.
Plus you still get the orientation of the street wrong.
Where a vast plaza should be... we just see a cramped pack of structures.
The plaza has to be inside the city, since we can see plenty of structures on the left of the transport.
The horizontal blue line is the so called TL tower's height, turned 90°. You assumed this tower being 50 m tall. The transport itself is 90m long, and there's still room around.
The green horizontal lines and arrows point to the towers's bases (though I was too generous regarding the mushroom tower, but I'm not arsed to redo the picture - the arrow should be a few pixels higher).
There is just no way the plaza can be there.
Let's compare this to another earlier zoom:
And then to your grossly inaccurate positioning:
End.
So let's review what you've got so far:
I. You still insist that the novelization and script suggest a craterish depression in the ground for DB94, which is true, but insist that this impression overrides the film view and thus requires contradiction. That is false.
No, but I'm not surprised you so glaringly try to twist my words.
The book simply describes what is nothing more than a glorified crater. It makes ZERO mention of all the elements which actually make the docking bay be a building in the film.
Capice?
2. You still insist that there should be 94 docking bays, based on one "grandiosely" named one. That is silly.
Ahem, I never insisted on that much, and simply considered it a possibility only since page 2.
3. Based on buildings that are whiter or more bluish than other structures, and a frickin' satellite dish, you've claimed the existence of "skyscrappers" in Mos Eisley that are not visible in the wide shot. Those claims are false, and a waste of my time.
Ooh, I'm just so sorry wasting your time.
Word.
4. You have rejected the existence of a large field in the wide shot based on circular reasoning. You have then defended that circular reasoning with circular reasoning. That is now dishonesty, and a waste of my time.
Talk to my hand. I have made a picture that should be enough for anyone sensible, to see that there's no plaza where there should be one.
Arguing beyond this point would be for sure pointless and idiotic, but who knows?
5. You have asserted that the wide shot should be discarded because of these erroneously-claimed inconsistencies with the in-town shots, yet you also acknowledge that there are inconsistencies within the in-town shots yet you hold fast to them over the wide shot, despite the internal contradictions of your claims. This dizzying illogic is silly.
No, I simply point out that most everything in those shots is not consistent.
Which means that in the end, there is no way to know which set of evidence is the right one.
But you decide that that the wide shot is accurate enough.
7. You've generally been an annoying pest in this thread, one who has only managed to drag things out about Mos Eisley this long because I haven't had enough time to open up the GiMP until now. You've tried to bolster your stance with claims that I'm a liar and a fool since page one, but you've only served to embarrass yourself and generally piss me off.
I didn't need much work to do so. You've largely helped me.
Stop wasting my time, stop trying to mislead, and take your personal attacks and shove them where the sun doesn't shine (which, in your mind, it doesn't do anywhere).
If you felt like I was wasting your time, you were equally free not to post here any longer.