Tat-Geo Objections

As expected, a variety of peculiar objections have appeared.

1.  What he forgets is to take into account the possibility that Palpatine's office might be on a pretty high latitude, thus guaranteeing that the sun will be "off to the left" at pretty much ANY hour of the day. With that in mind, it is perfectly possible for the two "timing" scenes he uses to be a mere 15 minutes apart.

Wrong.  I did consider this, mind you, since the capital area of Coruscant is almost invariably shown with a fairly low light angle.   However, (1) the primary buildings of government (i.e. the Senate, Executive Building, Senatorial suite buildings, and so on) are all established to be in relatively close proximity in the canon, (2) the window repair scene at Amidala's apartment demonstrates a high midday sun angle, and (3) the notion that Jar-Jar's speech and a Senate vote, preceded by Palpatine getting from his office to the Senate, all took a mere 15 minutes is positively insane.  

Further, even at a high latitude, the sun will always move about laterally in the sky.   However, as the pictures show, the light angle of "off to the left" was not appreciably different in its leftness in the two early-day views out of the chancellor's window:

Now, pick a building (for instance, the one to the left of Palpatine in both shots above) and compare the light angle to that of the dawn shot:

In order for any of these to show afternoon or evening, we should expect a significant direction change in the light angle and shadows, no matter what one's latitude.  We don't see it.

2.  I don't see the logic in considering two different storylines of a movie continuous as one

This isn't really worthy of a reply.   The counterargument being made is that there is no way to know when anything happened, because the scenes are supposedly just randomly placed in the movie with no chronological rhyme or reason.    That makes no sense . . . either X happened before Y, or it didn't.   Given that we're shown X (the Senate vote) happening before Y (the landing), I see no logic in supposing that it didn't occur that way.

 3.  [A]t sunset the clouds reflect sunlight back through a gap, making it seem as though the sun was setting in the opposite direction.

The lengths they'll go to are simply astonishing, aren't they?  But really, why stop there?  Naturally, Coruscant has another sun that we've never seen, and it's just trying to confuse us.   Or maybe the dawn scene outside Palpatine's window really occurred at night, but one of those magic 200 gigaton turbolasers from the non-canon had misfired, and Coruscant was in flames off to the left. 

4.  [E]xplain how the other Jedi travelled across "half the galaxy" quickly enough to arrive only a few hours after they did, at such a pathetic Trek-like rate of speed.

First, this person is using Amidala's statement that the Jedi would never reach Obi-Wan in time ("they'd have to travel halfway across the galaxy" is the actual quote) as a perfectly factual distance statement, one that somehow trumps the rather more specific "less than a parsec away".  Second, he is assuming that Yoda and the clones arrived mere hours after Anakin and Amidala, an assumption that is entirely without merit or evidence.  They arrived during daylight, and the arena battle occurred during daylight . . . that's the "evidence".   Well, Pearl Harbor occurred during daylight, and it's daylight now as I write this . . . am I to assume that Pearl Harbor occurred only a few hours ago?

The counterargument hinges on the notion that daylight equals the same day, and that Anakin and Amidala were taken immediately for execution, unlike Obi-Wan.  He was held for an absolute minimum (even assuming the immediate execution) of 15 hours, with nothing more than a five minute conversation with Dooku to show for it.  And, of course, there's the hyperbole (a la Captain Pike identifying Earth to the Talosians as being "on the other end of this galaxy").    Well, gee, I'm convinced.  

(Seems to me like it would be a better idea to take the better evidence set (i.e. the one I used) that involves clear time values and clear distances, and judge based on that.   To attempt to make a counterargument using assumed time values and unclear distance is very weak.)

It's a ridiculous counterargument.  But, then, it was Wong's, so am I supposed to be surprised?

5.  The DVD caps of the Senate at night look darker than they do on my TV.

If so, then the same must hold true for the daylight scenes, as well, since I made them all with the same software and no adjustments.  Computer monitors and television screens have brightness controls.  Evidently, human beings do not.

The above objection was actually used by someone who was trying to claim that I was lying on the hyperdrive speed page.   #6 (see below) is of a similar argument calibre.

(It's also worth noting that screencaps from DVDs can often seem a bit dark.  However, once again, this would be consistent in the daylight scenes, as well . . . which the claimant didn't bother to check.  I'm quite good about noting modifications to pictures when they are necessary, as can be seen here and here. )

6. I see some blue sky up and to the left on this image:

Therefore, G2k is lying when he says that's a night-time shot.

I'd already smelled this objection coming from a mile away when I was trying to idiot-proof my page.  Hence my comment:

The Senate voting scene is preceded by this establishing shot of the Senate, obviously sometime at night, with the clouds above lit by at least one of the at least three moons of Coruscant.

(If you disagree, simply compare to the TPM scene of the Senate in daylight:)

The only way for the above two shots to both represent daylight would be if Coruscant's sun were variable enough to be dark at random times . . . this would also require us to believe that Coruscant doesn't spin.  Given the changes in light angle throughout the day as seen on the main page, that cannot be so.   It also cannot be related to cloud cover, since we can see the sharp reflection on the left top of the Senate building in the night-shot.  Indeed, on that basis, one could claim that there was a haze in the sky in the daylight shot, since we don't get to see such a sharp reflection.   And, given the almost-exact similar angle of the two reflections, we are forced to conclude that a luminous object is at approximately the same place in the sky in both shots.   Either Coruscant doesn't spin and has a variable sun (which is impossible, as one can readily observe), or there was a less luminous object in the sky illuminating the clouds from above.  That says it was one of the moons of Coruscant, to me . . . but I suppose my detractor feels that the use of reason is invalid.

Another chap tried to claim that the sky must be perfectly black at night . . . that the sky which is lit blue by sunlight cannot be lit a shade of dark blue in a moon-brightened sky.  Or, when that failed him, that even the light reflected from Coruscant's multiple closely-orbiting moons could not have brightened it so far from blackness.   Even our own singular moon can brighten the sky tremendously.  Take, for instance, a passage from The Count of Monte Cristo, regarding a trip to the Colosseum at Rome: 

"[...] and certainly no adequate notion of these stupendous ruins can be formed save by such as have visited them, and more especially by moonlight, at which time the vast proportions of the building appear twice as large when viewed by the mysterious beams of a southern moonlit sky, whose rays are sufficiently clear and vivid to light the horizon with a glow equal to the soft twilight of an eastern clime."
        - Alexander Dumas, 1844

But we need not reach back to the classics for this.  All one has to do is go outside . . . though this is, perhaps, too much to expect from certain sci-fi fans.  However, even sci-fi fans were children once, and thus ought to have colored with "midnight blue" at some point.

But of course, little did I realize that there are some people against whom basic idiot-proofing is insufficient.  And thus, it's yet another claim that I'm lying, simply because the fellow didn't bother to read the page nor even look at the pictures.  Even small children will look at the pictures if they don't want to read the words of the book.