5 ms·

This sounds like a question Sci-fi Stack Exchange would make mince meat out of. For example: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/182014/why-does-the-death

This sounds like a question Sci-fi Stack Exchange would make mince meat out of. For example: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/182014/why-does-the-death-star-have-a-trash-compactor https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/182014/why-does-th... But seriously, little inconsistencies like these make me think Star Wars was just meant to be a kids’ movie and not a sacred document to be handed down and analyzed by generations like the Tanakh or something.

mlevental 9y ago
>But seriously, little inconsistencies like these make me think Star Wars was just meant to be a kids’ movie and not a sacred document to be handed down i'll give you a hint: almost every piece of modern fiction is like this. look to the old masters for very very thoroughly fleshed out stories (there are hundreds of characters in war and peace and they all have full lives consistent with each other - no surprise it took tolstoy a decade to write it)
_sdegutis 9y ago
Having first watched the originals as an adult, I really don’t understand the mass appeal.
michaelchisari 9y ago
Star Wars was just meant to be a kids’ movie and not a sacred document I saw The Last Jedi, had a great time, and came home to find Star Wars fans apoplectic about it, picking apart all kinds of things ("how does rey know how to swim?", "how does leia survive space?", etc). The original trilogy would never survive similar scrutiny. I went to see a kids movie about space wizards, and that's what I got. It was fun.
- discoursism 9y ago
  Obviously, everyone is entitled to enjoy what they want, but this movie was difficult for me, even by Star Wars standards. If we can just destroy entire enemy fleets by jumping to lightspeed with one ship, why are not all battles fought that way. Also, why couldn't the captain leave and have the computer pilot the ship? Maybe it's just that the original trilogy slipped in to me before I got old enough to where I think about such things. Maybe it is a double standard. But I don't feel like it is. And that's all I have to go on. But, I don't begrudge you enjoying the movie! Wish I felt the same.
  - ozim 9y ago
    With the ships jumping into lightspeed, it is easy economical calculation. How long it takes to build a ship? They also aimed at one big commander ship not wiping entire fleet. I think it is reasonable for ship systems to be programmed to avoid collisions when jumping to lightspeed. Manual override would be reasonable measure to pull that move.
    - omnimus 9y ago
      I also think it makes no sense. It was full of fake constructed emotion moments. Manual override? You cant program your own ship? Okay. What about not putting your most experienced war general but one of the zilion androids? Or the sick guy with cancer who will volunteer because he has 2 months to live. I mean star wars arent so much scifi but fantasy in scifi setting. Battles would surely not be fought like this. But this had so many glorious plot holes and constructed fake moments...
      - Gigablah 9y ago
        I suppose it’s the romantic notion of “captain goes down with the ship”. Plus it’s probably not a common situation that you would have an empty capital ship with a kamikaze pilot — let alone pursuers that can chase it across hyperspace.
        mrknowitall 9y ago
        It seems to me that it was meant to be a symbolic female power eliminating the male power moment.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - krapp 9y ago
    > If we can just destroy entire enemy fleets by jumping to lightspeed with one ship, why are not all battles fought that way. For the same reason naval battles in the real world weren't always fought by ramming ships into other ships. Ships are expensive, hyperdrives are expensive, and more valuable as ships than as ballistic mass. It would be a waste of resources for it to become a common tactic. It was a lucky gamble that paid off. >Maybe it's just that the original trilogy slipped in to me before I got old enough to where I think about such things The OT is just as ridiculous. The trench run on the Death Star makes no sense outside of the context of the World War 2 film it was lifted from, no one in their right mind would design AT-ATs with such a high and vulnerable center of gravity, stormtrooper armor clearly does nothing against teddy bears and small rocks, spaceships bank and make noises in space, etc. Even lightsabers are just "cool laser swords" and metaphors for "space samurai" but don't make a lot of sense as weapons in a universe with telekinesis and blasters. Actual samurai weren't stupid enough to use their katanas if they had spears, bows and eventually guns available, yet I don't recall ever seeing a Jedi sniper, or the lightsaber version of a naginata. Sound military tactics and plausible design were never really a thing in Star Wars.

mlevental 9y ago

>But seriously, little inconsistencies like these make me think Star Wars was just meant to be a kids’ movie and not a sacred document to be handed down i'll give you a hint: almost every piece of modern fiction is like this. look to the old masters for very very thoroughly fleshed out stories (there are hundreds of characters in war and peace and they all have full lives consistent with each other - no surprise it took tolstoy a decade to write it)

_sdegutis 9y ago

Having first watched the originals as an adult, I really don’t understand the mass appeal.

michaelchisari 9y ago

Star Wars was just meant to be a kids’ movie and not a sacred document I saw The Last Jedi, had a great time, and came home to find Star Wars fans apoplectic about it, picking apart all kinds of things ("how does rey know how to swim?", "how does leia survive space?", etc). The original trilogy would never survive similar scrutiny. I went to see a kids movie about space wizards, and that's what I got. It was fun.

discoursism 9y ago
Obviously, everyone is entitled to enjoy what they want, but this movie was difficult for me, even by Star Wars standards. If we can just destroy entire enemy fleets by jumping to lightspeed with one ship, why are not all battles fought that way. Also, why couldn't the captain leave and have the computer pilot the ship? Maybe it's just that the original trilogy slipped in to me before I got old enough to where I think about such things. Maybe it is a double standard. But I don't feel like it is. And that's all I have to go on. But, I don't begrudge you enjoying the movie! Wish I felt the same.
- ozim 9y ago
  With the ships jumping into lightspeed, it is easy economical calculation. How long it takes to build a ship? They also aimed at one big commander ship not wiping entire fleet. I think it is reasonable for ship systems to be programmed to avoid collisions when jumping to lightspeed. Manual override would be reasonable measure to pull that move.
  - omnimus 9y ago
    I also think it makes no sense. It was full of fake constructed emotion moments. Manual override? You cant program your own ship? Okay. What about not putting your most experienced war general but one of the zilion androids? Or the sick guy with cancer who will volunteer because he has 2 months to live. I mean star wars arent so much scifi but fantasy in scifi setting. Battles would surely not be fought like this. But this had so many glorious plot holes and constructed fake moments...
    - Gigablah 9y ago
      I suppose it’s the romantic notion of “captain goes down with the ship”. Plus it’s probably not a common situation that you would have an empty capital ship with a kamikaze pilot — let alone pursuers that can chase it across hyperspace.
      - mrknowitall 9y ago
        It seems to me that it was meant to be a symbolic female power eliminating the male power moment.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- krapp 9y ago
  > If we can just destroy entire enemy fleets by jumping to lightspeed with one ship, why are not all battles fought that way. For the same reason naval battles in the real world weren't always fought by ramming ships into other ships. Ships are expensive, hyperdrives are expensive, and more valuable as ships than as ballistic mass. It would be a waste of resources for it to become a common tactic. It was a lucky gamble that paid off. >Maybe it's just that the original trilogy slipped in to me before I got old enough to where I think about such things The OT is just as ridiculous. The trench run on the Death Star makes no sense outside of the context of the World War 2 film it was lifted from, no one in their right mind would design AT-ATs with such a high and vulnerable center of gravity, stormtrooper armor clearly does nothing against teddy bears and small rocks, spaceships bank and make noises in space, etc. Even lightsabers are just "cool laser swords" and metaphors for "space samurai" but don't make a lot of sense as weapons in a universe with telekinesis and blasters. Actual samurai weren't stupid enough to use their katanas if they had spears, bows and eventually guns available, yet I don't recall ever seeing a Jedi sniper, or the lightsaber version of a naginata. Sound military tactics and plausible design were never really a thing in Star Wars.