Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
The reason to go out at long range is because there is such an extreme amount of space. I mean, Star Wars shows "blockades" around planets where they feature just a few ships. Even if these ships are staggeringly massive like the size of cities, it would be pudding to launch a ship into space at a distance far enough that you wouldn't even see another ship as a speck in the distance.

We've seen that Star Wars ships have the speed and acceleration to circle a planet within minutes to pursue a target so even a fairly loose blockade will catch a ship. Han's "fastest ship in the galaxy" almost gets run down and blown away by capital ships coming over the horizon as he tries to leave Tatooine so it's pretty clear that initial starting positions don't matter a lot. And if you're trying to destroy the death star you might as well jump in next to it, if weapons are effective out to absurd range you're not gaining anything by staying at long range.

But, again, the issue is not technobabble EU explanations, it's consistency. Star Wars combat is arguably unrealistically short-ranged but it's consistently short-ranged. The movie tells us "this is how it works" and then it works like that every time. In the case of hyperspace ramming the movies tell us completely different and contradictory things because nobody bothered to think beyond what would look cool in one scene.

Well, we see four Jedi encounter force lightning in the prequels and every one of them can counter it with ease (despite not having encountered a Sith for like a century or something) and that includes both of Luke's teachers who also both knew that Palpatine uses Force Lightning as a standard combat tactic.

Again, Luke had days of training while everyone those other jedi had years to decades. He has a few minutes/hours with Obi Wan in ANH, some vague ghost noises about "trust the force", and a short enough training session with Yoda that Han and Leia don't even bother changing clothes before he's running away to go save them. It's hardly a reach to assume that when we see Yoda still struggling to get Luke to understand Jedi 101 he may not have covered all of the advanced fighting techniques, especially given Yoda's explicit statements that he did not intend for Luke to go fight anyone and Luke is being a reckless moron by running off without finishing his training.

But I think you calling Luke a fumbling amateur hits on one of the grand inconsistencies of the greater Star Wars narrative. Luke has to be the most powerful being in the universe or some kid who barely graduated from Jedi school after missing his first twenty years of classes now.

Why does Luke have to be the most powerful being in the universe? Luke is the most religiously significant character in the setting, that doesn't mean he has to be the most powerful in combat. Or do you complain that the bible is inconsistent because the story of Jesus is about mere sacrifice and forgiveness instead of Jesus kicking ass in combat? Is it unrealistic that the bible doesn't establish Jesus' skills with an AR15? I mean, if Jesus isn't the greatest marksman in the world how is he going to defend America from the zombie apocalypse?

Let's remember here that Luke doesn't win by being a god of slaughter and beating Palpatine in a duel. He wins because of his faith in the light side of the force, his devout belief that his father can be redeemed no matter what anyone else says, and his father's love for his son. None of that has anything to do with Luke knowing a particular jedi combat technique.

I agree that consistency is king in this regard of suspension of disbelief. That is how I came around to those Resistance bombers, they were consistent to the “WW2 aerial combat in space” feel of Star Wars combat.

And it is also the lack of consistency in the evidence of the “Stormtroopers always miss” trope that irks me.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
I agree that consistency is king in this regard of suspension of disbelief. That is how I came around to those Resistance bombers, they were consistent to the “WW2 aerial combat in space” feel of Star Wars combat.

And it is also the lack of consistency in the evidence of the “Stormtroopers always miss” trope that irks me.

SW space battles never bothered me because it's clear until the point Disney took the helm that Lucas kept looking back to movies like Tora, tora, tora, or Midway while creating the setting. In that spirit Holdo could have gotten the same effect with a (e.g.) conventional ram between ships by using some kind of power shunt to the engines that gave the ship the speed of a fighter without breaking canon, and less belly aching among fans.

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
I agree that consistency is king in this regard of suspension of disbelief. That is how I came around to those Resistance bombers, they were consistent to the “WW2 aerial combat in space” feel of Star Wars combat.

And it is also the lack of consistency in the evidence of the “Stormtroopers always miss” trope that irks me.

SW space battles never bothered me because it's clear until the point Disney took the helm that Lucas kept looking back to movies like Tora, tora, tora, or Midway while creating the setting. In that spirit Holdo could have gotten the same effect with a (e.g.) conventional ram between ships by using some kind of power shunt to the engines that gave the ship the speed of a fighter without breaking canon, and less belly aching among fans.

M.

I quite agree.

If you have not seen them, there are a number of videos comparing the original Star Wars space combat with the Dam Busters and 633 Squadron.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdb03Hw18M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdb03Hw18M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZq-tlJTrU

I will say, watching those clips again… it reminds me just how much I love the original Star Wars (even the space combat in the Expanse is a bit more “realistic”) and just how much of an impact the soundtrack has.

 Miguelsan wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
I agree that consistency is king in this regard of suspension of disbelief. That is how I came around to those Resistance bombers, they were consistent to the “WW2 aerial combat in space” feel of Star Wars combat.

And it is also the lack of consistency in the evidence of the “Stormtroopers always miss” trope that irks me.

SW space battles never bothered me because it's clear until the point Disney took the helm that Lucas kept looking back to movies like Tora, tora, tora, or Midway while creating the setting. In that spirit Holdo could have gotten the same effect with a (e.g.) conventional ram between ships by using some kind of power shunt to the engines that gave the ship the speed of a fighter without breaking canon, and less belly aching among fans.

M.

We might have had bellyaching from fans who wondered why she didn't use the hyperdrive. Because canonically you can use hypserspace speeds and run into things- that's been canonical from the very start (Han mentions it in the OG, and it comes up in Rebels).


What fans are asking for is that this bit of canon be ignored so that they can pretend that there's some nebulous explanation as to why it doesn't happen rather than accept the canonical nebulous explanation as to why it doesn't happen.

epronovost wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Yes.... against other SHIPS.

How hard would it be to arrange to be at that specific distance to a PLANET? Given even a planet in a very tight orbit isn't moving all THAT fast compared to a starship, I'd say 'not terribly hard at all'.

That's why it breaks Star Wars. It makes the Death Star irrelevant. Just load up a cheap bulk freighter with useless rock and a probe droid motivator, and BOOM!

Planet may not be blown up, but you've certainly sterilized the surface and killed EVERYONE there. Bonus points because it works with any largish ship you don't mind expending, making it nearly impossible to defend against, You just don't know it's coming until it's too late.

You could make the exact same argument with an asteroid. Why don't they just put an hyperspace drive on a giant asteroid and teleport it straight on a planet they want to destroy? It doesn't do a better job than the Death Star. It might be cheaper and more simple, but money was no object for the Empire. It's not reusable for once and it doesn't have other secondary functions. The Death Star is also a giant military base to repair and supply ships, base tens of thousands of stormtrooper and equipment, etc. It can target ships effectively in addition to planets during the same engagement. It's not as easy to destroy (well the Death Star was easy to destroy, but mostly because it was sabotaged in the design phase) compared to a ship. It also has a intimidation factor which was supposed to be it's entire raison d'être. The simple fact you could ''parc'' the Death Star to intimidate or send a regular army to quell a rebellion in less drastic measures. The Death Star doesn't have an easy counter too. A simple Interdictor prevents any sort of Holdo maneuvre, but no shield is strong enough to resist a blast from the Death Star or the even more powerful Starkiller base which can shoot several planets at the same time without even needing to be close to it. Yes, 30 years or so after a New Hope, the Death Star was completely obsolete.

Except Han Solo proved that you CAN jump in gravity wells, and for whatever reason most people just don't. So the Interdictors might be useful for more routine stuff and non-suicidal pilots; probably not going to deter a kamikaze droid brain linked to a hyperdrive.

The rest of the Death Star functions? That can be done by an ISD, or multiple ISDs. Heck, we see them DO IT on Hoth. And if push comes to shove, it wouldn't be too hard for that ISD to carry that bulk freighter - or a mid-size asteroid with a hyperdrive - in the ventral docking bay for just such emergencies.

Even more to the point, you'll never know WHICH ISD has just such a party favor onboard... or can nip over to the nearest asteroid belt and get one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember, The Chosen One wasn’t a prophecy on the end of The Empire. They were just meant to bring Balance To The Force. The trouble with that prophecy of course is it doesn’t exactly define what Balance meant…

And he did. Where before there were thousands of Jedi and only two Sith, when he was done there were two Jedi (Yoda and Obi-Wan) and two Sith (Siddious and Vader). Balance.

My understanding has always been that the nav computer doesn't allow hyper space jumps when it detects a gravitational field and that Han rigged the Falcon to bypass it somehow. I suspect it's been done before but without survivors but Han gets to be Han. It vaguely reminds me of the trick Luke pulled in the Thrawn trilogy to escape a tractor beam in his X-Wing.

I think it’s more Unexpected/Uncharted Gravity Wells.

I mean, gravity is everywhere constantly, even in deep space, albeit weaker and weaker the further you get from planetary bodies.

The Interdictor Cruiser just puts them where your Navicomp didn’t expect/predict them. And whilst I’d again need to read up, it may be more Emergency Cutouts kicking in which snap the ship out of it.

In some science fiction settings, the area near large gravity bodies like stars creates a singularity that makes Relativity act the way it does, and if you fly past that, you can go faster than light.

Of course, that's not Star Wars. In A New Hope, the Millennium Falcon doesn't seem to move all that far from Tattoine before making the "jump to light speed" (which is definitely a lot faster than light speed).

 Vulcan wrote:

And he did. Where before there were thousands of Jedi and only two Sith, when he was done there were two Jedi (Yoda and Obi-Wan) and two Sith (Siddious and Vader). Balance.

I liked that interpretation (even though George kept insisting that "bring balance" means "all Sith are dead and Jedi are still alive"). I let it go when it became clear that the films weren't going to do anything at all with that idea.

But this and the Rule of Two gets less and less true every time anything new is released. In Rebels there were four Jedi, five Sith and three force wielders who insist that they're neither Jedi or Sith.

Hmmm. Inquisitors weren’t Sith. Potential apprentices, sure. But with Palpatine in charge, only he could anoint a Pupil. And the Inquisitors wee far more disposable than a Pupil.

And anyway, it just goes to show Anakin never was The Chosen One. At all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though I again belatedly hasten to point out I’m not having a pop at Odinsgrandson.

Indeed I find his comments on the OT useful, because they show what happens to the OT if people apply the ludicrous level of nitpicky criticism applied to the Sequels.

 Vulcan wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember, The Chosen One wasn’t a prophecy on the end of The Empire. They were just meant to bring Balance To The Force. The trouble with that prophecy of course is it doesn’t exactly define what Balance meant…

And he did. Where before there were thousands of Jedi and only two Sith, when he was done there were two Jedi (Yoda and Obi-Wan) and two Sith (Siddious and Vader). Balance.

Yeah, you'd think when Qui-Con brought Ani back & presented him as the chosen one that [i]someone[i] sitting on the council would've been like "No thanks, we quite like the balance as is. Now put him back where you found him. Please."
I mean, at that point they thought there were no Sith left. So if Anikan is supposed to bring Balance? Things are going to go REAL bad.
There's either going to be a whole lot less Jedi, or a whole bunch more Sith. Maybe both.
In any event: :(

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Because canonically you can use hypserspace speeds and run into things- that's been canonical from the very start (Han mentions it in the OG, and it comes up in Rebels).

It's canon that you can hit something in hyperspace. It's much less clear that you can do any damage to the thing you hit. There are various speculative theories about why, but the obvious way to rationalize the lack of hyperspace ramming with Han's statement is that a ship in hyperspace that hits an object in normal space (or its gravity shadow projected into hyperspace) is destroyed but it doesn't hit the object hard enough to do anything. For example, if the gravity well of a planet or star distorts hyperspace in a way that is fatal for a ship trying to pass through it the ship might be destroyed without even making physical contact with the object in normal space, hyperspace itself destroys it. Or if part of avoiding the whole infinite fuel requirement for near-c travel is that the hyperdrive greatly reduces the mass of the ship then the energy of the collision might only be comparable to an ordinary plane crash: fatal for the ship and everyone on it, a minor local issue for whoever's house is hit.

What fans are asking for is that this bit of canon be ignored so that they can pretend that there's some nebulous explanation as to why it doesn't happen rather than accept the canonical nebulous explanation as to why it doesn't happen.

What canonical explanation is ever given, aside from handwaving it as "one in a million" despite every character in the scene clearly believing that it isn't? Imagine if they'd bothered to think through the consequences of their story choices instead of doing whatever looks cool in the moment and given us a scene like this instead:

Holdo begins to turn towards the enemy fleet.
Rebel: "she's running away!"
Poe: "no she's not, she's dumb enough to think that hyperspace ramming works. Leia, why did you give this clown a ship?"
Imperial officer: "sir, the rebel ship is attempting to hyperspace ram us."
Hux: "lol, what a moron, everyone knows that's a one in a million shot. Keep killing those transports."
Holdo: "JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL"
Boom.

There, now you make it clear that hyperspace ramming only worked because the force guided Holdo's aim. Nobody bothers to try it in other situations because they know it's virtually impossible to hit the target and you can't guarantee a force miracle on demand.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Because canonically you can use hypserspace speeds and run into things- that's been canonical from the very start (Han mentions it in the OG, and it comes up in Rebels).

It's canon that you can hit something in hyperspace. It's much less clear that you can do any damage to the thing you hit. There are various speculative theories about why, but the obvious way to rationalize the lack of hyperspace ramming with Han's statement is that a ship in hyperspace that hits an object in normal space (or its gravity shadow projected into hyperspace) is destroyed but it doesn't hit the object hard enough to do anything. For example, if the gravity well of a planet or star distorts hyperspace in a way that is fatal for a ship trying to pass through it the ship might be destroyed without even making physical contact with the object in normal space, hyperspace itself destroys it. Or if part of avoiding the whole infinite fuel requirement for near-c travel is that the hyperdrive greatly reduces the mass of the ship then the energy of the collision might only be comparable to an ordinary plane crash: fatal for the ship and everyone on it, a minor local issue for whoever's house is hit.

What fans are asking for is that this bit of canon be ignored so that they can pretend that there's some nebulous explanation as to why it doesn't happen rather than accept the canonical nebulous explanation as to why it doesn't happen.

What canonical explanation is ever given, aside from handwaving it as "one in a million" despite every character in the scene clearly believing that it isn't? Imagine if they'd bothered to think through the consequences of their story choices instead of doing whatever looks cool in the moment and given us a scene like this instead:

Holdo begins to turn towards the enemy fleet.
Rebel: "she's running away!"
Poe: "no she's not, she's dumb enough to think that hyperspace ramming works. Leia, why did you give this clown a ship?"
Imperial officer: "sir, the rebel ship is attempting to hyperspace ram us."
Hux: "lol, what a moron, everyone knows that's a one in a million shot. Keep killing those transports."
Holdo: "JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL"
Boom.

There, now you make it clear that hyperspace ramming only worked because the force guided Holdo's aim. Nobody bothers to try it in other situations because they know it's virtually impossible to hit the target and you can't guarantee a force miracle on demand.

Yep. That would have done it. Establishes up front that this is a stupid idea and it 'never' works and nobody expects it to work.

But let's face it. Holdo's entire character is dumb. She's written in for the express purpose of cutting Poe Dameron down. Leia's also way out of character too. She slaps Poe in the face after he does EXACTLY the same thing she gave Luke Skywalker a A MEDAL, A HUG, AND A KISS ON THE CHEEK for.

We came up with a far better use for Holdo just piddling around on the internet that explains everything. Holdo isn't badly-written; she was a First Order SPY. Now her disrupting the chain of command makes sense. Now you don't need a hyperspace tracker to explain why the First Order can find them. Heck, it even explains the Resistance being out of fuel; make Holdo the senoir logistics officer!

She's given up on the Resistance with the fall of the New Republic, and doesn't want to see more people get killed (which explains her genuine anger with Poe). The First Order has promised to capture the Resistance and treat them gently, IF Holdo can get them out in the open where it can be done easily - thus, the 'evacuate on transports, I'll lure them off' plan. And when the First Order just starts blowing the transports out of space ("You're far too trusting, my dear"), Holdo can EARN her redemption with a self-sacrifice.

WAY more interesting that what we got in the move, yes?

(The Critical Drinker on YouTube mentioned the possibility that Holdo is Ryan Johnson... shall we say, subtly critiquing Kathleen Kennedy's micromanagement style and sneaking it in under her radar. If that's the case, then mission accomplished, RJ! That and that alone would redeem this film in my eyes.)

Agree, but a thin plot with a hole or two is much different than a totally broken main plot where the entire movie does not make sense.

Hey, last I checked, there were other movies than Star Wars movies out there......

Some of the even have plot holes.

Pretty sure, we have a Star Wars thread all ready around here too.

 Easy E wrote:
Hey, last I checked, there were other movies than Star Wars movies out there......

Some of the even have plot holes.

Pretty sure, we have a Star Wars thread all ready around here too.

I mean, yes, but Star Wars is incredibly ripe Fruit for this thread. I immediately thought of Star Wars after I read the title, I expect a lot of people did. The fact that it's such a massive franchise does it no favours either.

Eh, Star Wars is just too much of a low hanging fruit for this kind of topic. It really is one big example of things just happening for the sake of onscreen spectacle.

The later Paranormal Activity movies.

The first couple, maybe even the first four are fun enough. Definitely creepy and at least inventive in terms of effects and atmosphere building.

But then…..someone wanted To Let Me Explain. And it all went horribly wrong, because Let Me Explain became its whole thing, rather than focusing on being effective scarefests.

About the only long running horror series I can think of which avoided that is Hellraiser. Sure the direct to video efforts aren’t great, but they’re at least new ways to look at the mythos, rather than trying to add new stuff. With the exception of 8, Hellworld which despite Lance Henriksen is pretty awful.

I had a whole thing ready to write about Cats - but I went back to OP and remembered we were talking about 'Plot' problems, and that isn't really the issue that Cats has, is it?

Another time, I guess.

That said, have you noticed how people try to argue a movie has plot holes when what they mean to say is they simply don't like certain aspects of the story? I've seen people pin the blame for this on Cinema Sins, sparking some kind of neurotic need in people to argue a movie they don't like is 'objectively' bad.

I watched someone argue the flashback scenes in The Last Jedi are a plot hole because they're not consistent with each other, dude doubled and trippled down that flashbacks relaying false information is 'objectively' bad and Rashomon was therefore bad because Last Jedi referenced it.

Staying with Kurosawa I've seen people argue that in Seven Samurai...


Signs is one I see get brought up a lot...

Well…if by that you’re acknowledging that Cats does not, in fact, have a plot. And has its origins as a deeply pretentious staging of a bunch of poems.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Signs is one I see get brought up a lot...

Spoiler:

But strictly speaking the aliens and water thing doesn't add up to a plot hole either - people go on and on about how baffling it is for them to come to a planet covered in deadly dihydrogen monoxide to do... whatever it is they're here to do, but because the movie doesn't explain the aliens at all beyond wild speculations of the characters and audience, we don't know if their choice to do so ultimately made sense or not.

And even if we had all the information and it still didn't quite add up, they have this built-in excuse for it, since the actual twist of Signs isn't that aliens are weak to water, it's that God exists and is nudging events in humanity's (or at least, Mel Gibson's) favour.

The water problem isn't that they're weak to water and go to a water planet. It's that at least one of them survived for months in a cornfield with no protection. The corn in no way grew that tall without some water falling from the sky.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well…if by that you’re acknowledging that Cats does not, in fact, have a plot. And has its origins as a deeply pretentious staging of a bunch of poems.

Not at all - in fact Cats has a very simple plot:


Super simple, and that's all it needs to be, as you pointed out it's a framework narrative to hang up songs based on cat poems - and that doesn't make it bad, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, the problem with Cats (the movie) is that Cats (the play) is built around the performances - the plot gives them slots for song and dance numbers that can be added or removed, but gives the cast and crew the maximum amount of freedom when doing those song and dance numbers. So when its done right Cats resembles a Cirque show, with tumbling and pyrotechnics and involved dance solos - the best the cast thinks they can manage how many times a night for however many nights in a row they're doing it.

Since a movie has all the benefits of editing and special effects, you can't win over audiences this same way, you need to go further, pull out all the stops and use those tools to maximum effect (Little Shop of Horrors is a great example of how to do that right!) to go above and beyond what can be done safely live. Cats (the movie) doesn't do that. It doesn't even try to do that - the dance numbers are garbage and would have been garbage if done live on stage, without the awful CGI. Hollywood has this meme about musical theatre being the lowest form of entertainment but the creators of that movie were living that contempt with every decision they made: for God's sake they had the actors do their numbers at whatever pace they felt like and forced the poor musicians working on the score to adjust tempo to make the notes line up with the words. They had no idea what they were doing and they were smug about it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The water problem isn't that they're weak to water and go to a water planet. It's that at least one of them survived for months in a cornfield with no protection. The corn in no way grew that tall without some water falling from the sky.

Maybe? The point is they come across ridiculously unprepared for something so incredibly common and harmful. Like the humidity in the air alone should be enough for them to be in agony just trying to walk around given how little it takes to kill them.

So there's the metaphysical question right there- can you have plot problems without first having a plot to speak of?

But the plot of Cats DOES EXIST. It was just so incoherent that your mind blotted it from your memory. But the flaws are probably just too glaring to start nit-picking.


See, the cats all come together once a year and beg for death, and the Elder Cat gets to choose which one dies. It seems that whoever tells the saddest story gets to die- which is a reward since that cat no longer has to live in the existential horror setting Cats takes place in.

The oldest cat gets to decide who gets to die, and there's an evil cat who kidnaps him- presumably to torture and threaten the elder cat into letting him die. But then the magic cat brings him back by using powers no one has before manifested.

Then the old cat picks a cat that dies and it is the old 'glamor' cat who for extra-textual reasons some people think is a hooker.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Signs is one I see get brought up a lot...

Spoiler:

But strictly speaking the aliens and water thing doesn't add up to a plot hole either - people go on and on about how baffling it is for them to come to a planet covered in deadly dihydrogen monoxide to do... whatever it is they're here to do, but because the movie doesn't explain the aliens at all beyond wild speculations of the characters and audience, we don't know if their choice to do so ultimately made sense or not.

And even if we had all the information and it still didn't quite add up, they have this built-in excuse for it, since the actual twist of Signs isn't that aliens are weak to water, it's that God exists and is nudging events in humanity's (or at least, Mel Gibson's) favour.

The water problem isn't that they're weak to water and go to a water planet. It's that at least one of them survived for months in a cornfield with no protection. The corn in no way grew that tall without some water falling from the sky.

Heck, if you've ever actually been in the midwest in the summer, you'd know that corn gets absolutely COVERED in condensation in the wee hours of the morning.

There's no plausible way a creature who dissolves at the slightest touch of water could survive in a cornfield overnight, rain or no, unless it's wearing the equivalent of a spacesuit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The water problem isn't that they're weak to water and go to a water planet. It's that at least one of them survived for months in a cornfield with no protection. The corn in no way grew that tall without some water falling from the sky.

I always thought it wasn't the water as much as something to do with the salivary microbiome. Every time a cup was left out Bo had taken a sip from it, so whatever microbes were in her mouth that got transferred to the glass had tons of time to reproduce.

There have been tons of attempts to explain it away over the years, but M.Night is adamant that its just water.

Whilst my distaste for Cats stands, I accept others are more informed about its genuine merits.

But one had to wonder about who exactly thought “what this movie needs isn’t just James Corden….but also Rebel Wilson”.

I mean…..have….have they not seen anything those cretins have vomited out into the world?

Doc wins the Intertubes for today

If all Cats did was raise awareness of the total worthlessness of Cordon then its served a purpose