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.

 insaniak wrote:

Honestly, what's more likely - that Disney is actively trying to sabotage the property that they paid a swimming pool full of money for and continue to throw truckloads of money at, in an effort to avoid paying some royalties to the original creator... or that some characters died, because in a story setting where the galaxy is in an almost constant state of war, sometimes people die?

Considering this is the company that squeezed out the sequels to Aladdin and Snow White that no one asked for, and is notoriously meticulous about the money they have to spend vs. the money they make... also if I'm not mistaken, Lucas owns a good chunk of stock, too. Not sure how that'd play out.

Personally, I think it's for narrative reasons. Tie up all the loose ends and do what you want, people won't be arguing about canon or challenging your direction. Disney's not trying to drain their account and creative minds wrapping this whole Skywalker saga up, and probably going to focus on bigger things after. Also, I'm pretty sure the future is in streaming services rather than theaters (read an interesting article about that not long ago).

Look, I get it. You like the movies, which is cool- I'd be more bothered if you actually wasted your money. It's hard for you to see the flaws, or you focus a lot more on the good parts. I'm just a bitter old grump, that's mad because [insert your reason]- whichever one you like, go ahead.

I think they're bad movies. Worse than the prequels. Why? Lots of reasons, and the prequels were painful to watch.

And to compare them to movies from the 70's as an excuse for... bombs falling in the vacuum of space and other nonsense, well...

It's not my Star Wars, and I'm fine with that. The Mandalorian looks promising, and maybe it'll be what brings some of the fans around and serves as Disney's apology.

Also, the old Jedi that outwit Emo Ren got a better death than he deserves for being a coward and abandoning the Jedi and his Nephew over a bad dream. The heroic Empire should have stomped him with an AT-AT.

 Ouze wrote:
That's a much better argument/point.

It's literally the exact argument/point I was making. And I'm the one being "contrarian" - genuinely, out-loud, uproariously laughable.

Did the bombs suffer gravity in space?

Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?

Even just Grav Plating (which all ships must have, given none are shown to be zero-g environments not another equally plausible explanation?

Every Star Wars bomber has a WWII Emulator Field. The fools in TLJ turned theirs to maximum.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Every Star Wars bomber has a WWII Emulator Field. The fools in TLJ turned theirs to maximum.

As does every other ship in Star Wars, perhaps the complaint about gravity has more to do with the bombs not slowing to a stop due to whatever space friction that requires ships to provide constant thrust to maintain speed?

But yes, I thought the whole idea of the Starfortress' launching mechanism was that its using the artificial gravity it generates (much Paige Tico's chagrin) to drop the bombs out of its extended bay.

And also a very blatant reference to the B-52 Stratofortress.

Edit: apparently the official techsplanation is that the bomb let's are propelled down the rail by magnets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, jeez. 1048 proton bombs per clip. Each of these things is carrying 52 Y-Wings worth of kaboom.

Weren’t the “boobs” propulsion driven? Looks like gravity given the CGI tech at the time, but they’re pushed out and space does the rest.

If there was one awesome thing about Last Jedi it was the Starfortress bombers!

Apart from them being picked off too easily, it was a cool space opera nod to Memphis Belle. I have a bit of a connection to that film( the fortresses used in the film flew over my house, on the way to Duxford for filming ) and that scene bought back wonderful memories. It also made up for the missed opportunity that was the ROTJ:Special Edition where B-Wings are there to blow up star destroyers(gotta be some reason why the rebels hold out against a numerically superior force AND a Death Star)...instead we got that bloody horrible music number that nobody asked for.

Speaking of B-Wings, theres one in the recent Rise of Skywalker trailer!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did the bombs suffer gravity in space?

Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?

Safer launching? Is this not the bomber that blew itself to kingdom come with a successful ordinance drop?

Can't get much less safer than that.

_________

Look the long and short of it is RJ wanted some ww1 action in his movie and got it.

 Scrabb wrote:
Look the long and short of it is RJ wanted some ww1 action in his movie and got it.

Which, to be fair, is very much what George Lucas did in the first Star Wars. Most of the model shots/movements of X-wings & Tie Fighters were carbon copies of old WWII dogfight footage

-

 Scrabb wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did the bombs suffer gravity in space?

Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?

Safer launching? Is this not the bomber that blew itself to kingdom come with a successful ordinance drop?

Can't get much less safer than that.

A ship with a dead pilot dives into an explosion and its the launching mechanism's fault?

JJ's aerial choreography is one of the things I think was really overlooked in Ep7. In no small part because there was never a real plot focus on space combat, but there's some beautifully done shots throughout the film involving the X-Wings.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did the bombs suffer gravity in space?

Very clearly. They were (eventually) released from their racks, fell and kept falling. And left to explode on the surface of armor and shields, which is the least efficient way to blow something up- a missile with some kinetic penetration would be much more effective.

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did the bombs suffer gravity in space?

Very clearly. They were (eventually) released from their racks, fell and kept falling. And left to explode on the surface of armor and shields, which is the least efficient way to blow something up- a missile with some kinetic penetration would be much more effective.

Of course they kept falling. Why would they stop falling in space?

For the same reason X-Wings need to keep thrusting to maintain a constant velocity. Space is chunky, y’all.

 LunarSol wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did the bombs suffer gravity in space?

Very clearly. They were (eventually) released from their racks, fell and kept falling. And left to explode on the surface of armor and shields, which is the least efficient way to blow something up- a missile with some kinetic penetration would be much more effective.

Of course they kept falling. Why would they stop falling in space?

Because nothing is 'falling' in space. It has a vector consisting of speed and direction.

And since they're leaving the 'inertial dampers' magical field, and suddenly have a lot more forward momentum (relative to the direction of the bomber) than they had a second ago (alternately none, because magic inertia field), and their new vector won't necessarily match the ship they're leaving nor necessarily intersect the vector of the ship 'below' them- or be at a useful speed (which if they were just falling fifteen to thirty feet, they definitely don't have a useful speed for space combat). Best case, they dribble out the back of the ship and slowly wander off as an irrelevance to the battle. Worst case the 'higher' ones are slightly faster (because they fell further and had more time to accelerate) and bump into the lower ones, exploding right after leaving the bomber.

tl;dr- WWII bomber designs don't work in space. Missiles/torpedos are a far superior model.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did the bombs suffer gravity in space?

Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?

Safer launching? Is this not the bomber that blew itself to kingdom come with a successful ordinance drop?

Can't get much less safer than that.

A ship with a dead pilot dives into an explosion and its the launching mechanism's fault?

Huh. I sought said scene out because I distinctly remembered the bomber running parallel to the dreadnaught.

I stand corrected. 3:20
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtNWzc0x0as


The bombs fell straight down, then exploded ahead of the ship in the next shot as the ship nosedived into said explosion ahead of it. Not exactly better, but decidedly different than I claimed. So yeah.

Should have just hyperspaced straight through the dreadnought bridge tower rather than prank call Hux if it was so damn important to Poe.

Hyperspace ramming has been clarified to be down to the Cruiser’s improved shielding.

Not a strong reason, but a reason.

Sauce seems to be TLJ novelisation - https://starwars.fandom.com/f/p/3343172654596124399

As for the bomb racks? When you’re dealing with a likely anti-grav launch system, not too much of a stretch to arrange for it to deliver each at the same velocity.

And once launched, turn on magnetic or something (magnetic bombs confirmed from ROTJ in the bunker) and they’ll be drawn to the strongest source. And to ensure that’s not the launching craft, just ensure some kind of polarity trickery.

Sorted.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Great googly moogly and heavens to murgatroyd!

Quick trip to Wookiepedia confirms I was right!

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/MG-100_StarFortress_SF-17

There is a first time for everything!

I just read about a SW Theory that is interesting, but no way it's gonna happen (at least I hope not).

I'm not gonna spoiler it because it really doesn't seem likely to happen, buuuuut…

Basically time travel is canon (Ezra in Rebels did it, apparently), so the theory is that Rey is sent back in time, changes her name to Shmi Skywalker and is Anakin's mom, hence "Rise of Skywalker"

Some of these theories are just bonkers

-

 Galef wrote:
I just read about a SW Theory that is interesting, but no way it's gonna happen (at least I hope not).

I'm not gonna spoiler it because it really doesn't seem likely to happen, buuuuut…

Basically time travel is canon (Ezra in Rebels did it, apparently), so the theory is that Rey is sent back in time, changes her name to Shmi Skywalker and is Anakin's mom, hence "Rise of Skywalker"

Some of these theories are just bonkers

-

Time travel! Well, it worked for the Avengers!

 Galef wrote:
... , so the theory is that Rey is sent back in time, changes her name to Shmi Skywalker and is Anakin's mom, hence "Rise of Skywalker"
-

That actually kind of works. Would explain the similarities between Jakku and Tatoinne - she chose a world that was familiar to go to.

And now that you mention it, Rey could pass for a younger version of Shmi...

 insaniak wrote:
And now that you mention it, Rey could pass for a younger version of Shmi...

Daisy Ridley also has a resemblance to Natalie Portman and Keira Knightly (who played a decoy of Amidala in EpI), so there's basis to say she's a Skywalker descendant that takes after her grandmother.
But I'm rather against the time travel theory just because it's never been a part of the major saga. Avengers can get away with time travel because the MCU is built around individuals doing incredible, often science/tech-base things which time travel can be.

Personally, I'm hoping for Rey to be revealed as an actual skywalker and the whole "you're a nobody" nonsense was a lie that Snoke planted in Kylo's mind
Even better if Rey is Luke's daughter (that he may not have known about or thought was dead) and Obi-wan's granddaughter (i.e Luke married Obi-wan's long lost daughter and they had Rey)

Ben would then be the son of Anakin's daughter while Rey is the daughter of Anakin's son. There's some good symmetry there and can more easily tie into the Chosen One prophecy.

I mean, if JJ wants this to be the end of the Skywalker saga, even going so far as resurrecting the main baddie, it would make sense for the Protagonist of said saga to be, ya know, an actual Skywalker

-

It would have continuity issues, too. Rey doesn't talk like Shmi, for starters. And her conversations with Qui Gonn would probably have gone somewhat differently.

Rey, a character who went from desert planet scavenger to mastering the force and both lightsaber and starship combat in just a matter of hours after being introduced to each, going back in time just to become a slave? No, that doesn't sound empowering/likely at all.

As long as this one doesn't have Poe prank calling Hux, I'll be fine. That scene was uncomfortably stupid and theme-breaking.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
As long as this one doesn't have Poe prank calling Hux, I'll be fine. That scene was uncomfortably stupid and theme-breaking.

Many Bothan spies died in order to place the whoopie cushion under his chair cushion on the bridge of his Star Destroyer. Their sacrifice will not have been in vain in Episode 9.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
As long as this one doesn't have Poe prank calling Hux, I'll be fine. That scene was uncomfortably stupid and theme-breaking.

To each his own. That was one of my favourite parts of the movie.

 insaniak wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
As long as this one doesn't have Poe prank calling Hux, I'll be fine. That scene was uncomfortably stupid and theme-breaking.

To each his own. That was one of my favourite parts of the movie.

As you said... to each his own.. but wow.

Honestly, I find it odd that people would think it didn't fit the setting. What it reminded me of the most was the pilot banter that runs through the old X-wing novels. Which isn't too surprising, since Poe was quite clearly meant to be a replacement for Wedge Antilles' character, and that 'prank call' was right up the EU Wedge's alley.

Oh yeah, those Rogue books were full of those sort of pranks and silly things, I thought it was quite in keeping with Star Wars (especially Rebel) pilots