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.

Yeah, Star Wars is not supposed to be scrutinised like that, but because it has gone on so long and nerds being nerds, everything has been scrutinised to high heaven.

i think all franchises collapse under the weight of their own success after a while.

You wind up with too many call backs or knowing nods to the older movies to let the long term fans know that the creators are fans/know the story too -- which wind up essentially being repeats of what we've seen before - desert world, giant tree land, weird old ruins, super super bigger space station etc etc etc -- , whilst struggling to replace the older characters even if the actors/actresses are tool old/fat/dead etc -- tbf as we discussed in another thread recently the possibility of licensing a persons image for use might well stop this and we'll forever have a "young".. well middle aged Harrison Ford Indianna Jones forever.

Think back to the 80s and the home video market which extended this issue :

there's something like 10 or so Hellraiser films, with talk of yet another reboot.


IIRC first one or two of a series made it to the cinema, then normally by about the 3rd film it might well go straight to video -- possibly after a (very) limited release in some small country you've never heard of where part of it was filmed for tax purposes.

Then normally there's none of the original cast left by film 3 or 4... maybe the villain is allowed to stick around as they're hopelessly typecast by now -- until a few films later when one of the original cast will return as an older, wiser kickass warrior type who i etc etc etc .

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's something I didn't quite get, why was the Holdo Maneuver all of a sudden one in a million?

If it's called the Holdo Maneuver, that implies that she was the first to do it, or that it wasn't popular/well known beforehand. No-one else was aboard the ship at the time, so if there were any difficulties or technical problems she encountered while doing it, they wouldn't know that (and as viewers, we didn't see any).
The new trilogy has made it very clear that lightspeed isn't how it used to be, and the existing restrictions (getting too close to celestial bodies, using it within atmosphere, ramming other vessels, and even minor teleportation - in the start sequence of RoS, the Falcon "skips" through the mouth of a space worm thing, and doesn't blow a hole in the back of it's head) no longer seem to apply to cause any problems.

Unless the Resistance has been testing the Holdo Maneuver themselves, with their already tiny skeleton crew, how would they know it's a "one in a million chance"?

At least with Han's comment of "one in a million" about Luke firing a proton torpedo into the Death Star, we know that characters have been talking about how difficult it is because of it's size and the concept of hitting a small target while moving in a starship while being shot at yourself sounds like it would be a difficult thing. It's heavily suggested that Luke *only* pulls it off because he is Force sensitive, and uses it to guide his shot.
We get none of that with the Holdo Maneuver. There doesn't seem to be any obstacles she needs to overcome, and unfortunately, in the real world, we are well aware of the deadliness and relative ease such a ramming action has.

Because if it works reliably it entirely breaks the space combat in half. Capital ships are worthless, you just deadfire the smallest possible vehicle you can strap a hyperspace engine to, and win, every time. Computing is advanced enough that you don't even have to use people, its simple vector intersection. The only effective ships become small ships and fighters that are fast enough that they can't be targeted reliably in that fashion. Everything else is just a target that hasn't been blown up yet.

And given how long hyperspace travel has been around in the setting (there are thousands of years of history, basically using the same ships, and a lot of space battles), the idea that no one had done it before is pants on head stupid and unlikely. In a universe where the Holdo Maneuver works, star destroyers and deaths stars would never be considered viable, and never would have been built,

So, by introducing the 'Holdo Maneuver,' Johnson basically destroyed how space combat in the SW setting works. The 'one in a million' is Abrams tossing out an easy dialogue fix to a Johnson problem so he doesn't have to deal with it.

You speak wise words reds8n.

Actually, I must just give a nod to Jurassic World, when the two Brothers find the old Rotunda. That whole set piece was quite literally me and my older Brother back in 1993, going on a bit of a trek - without mum and dad - to see the original Jurassic Park at the Odeon in Ipswich - which is still there, but abandoned. To see JW, with the brother felt really special - as if they filmed that bit just for us. Except for the younger brother in the film - he was a little bit better behaved and less hyperactive!

SW has weird technology. There is computing but it's all done manually and analog instead of digital. A droid can calculate a hyperspace jump, but it has to touch controls to input the data the pull a lever to do it.

Despite being able to build droids, ships don't have AI's.

And worse, SW tech is more or less stagnant until someone wants to build a ever bigger gun.

Thats the world that SW started with. It's how it is in the old republic, the new republic, the empire, and that SW comic where it's like 20 generations later and lukes descendant is a thief and a pirate or some crap.

You can't argue things like "Why don't they just put a hyperdrive into what amounts to a bullet with a droid brain programmed to fire at targets". Because nobody ever has so nobody ever will. Thats Starwars. It's dumb.

Voss wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's something I didn't quite get, why was the Holdo Maneuver all of a sudden one in a million?

If it's called the Holdo Maneuver, that implies that she was the first to do it, or that it wasn't popular/well known beforehand. No-one else was aboard the ship at the time, so if there were any difficulties or technical problems she encountered while doing it, they wouldn't know that (and as viewers, we didn't see any).
The new trilogy has made it very clear that lightspeed isn't how it used to be, and the existing restrictions (getting too close to celestial bodies, using it within atmosphere, ramming other vessels, and even minor teleportation - in the start sequence of RoS, the Falcon "skips" through the mouth of a space worm thing, and doesn't blow a hole in the back of it's head) no longer seem to apply to cause any problems.

Unless the Resistance has been testing the Holdo Maneuver themselves, with their already tiny skeleton crew, how would they know it's a "one in a million chance"?

At least with Han's comment of "one in a million" about Luke firing a proton torpedo into the Death Star, we know that characters have been talking about how difficult it is because of it's size and the concept of hitting a small target while moving in a starship while being shot at yourself sounds like it would be a difficult thing. It's heavily suggested that Luke *only* pulls it off because he is Force sensitive, and uses it to guide his shot.
We get none of that with the Holdo Maneuver. There doesn't seem to be any obstacles she needs to overcome, and unfortunately, in the real world, we are well aware of the deadliness and relative ease such a ramming action has.

Because if it works reliably it entirely breaks the space combat in half. Capital ships are worthless, you just deadfire the smallest possible vehicle you can strap a hyperspace engine to, and win, every time. Computing is advanced enough that you don't even have to use people, its simple vector intersection. The only effective ships become small ships and fighters that are fast enough that they can't be targeted reliably in that fashion. Everything else is just a target that hasn't been blown up yet.

And given how long hyperspace travel has been around in the setting (there are thousands of years of history, basically using the same ships, and a lot of space battles), the idea that no one had done it before is pants on head stupid and unlikely.

So, by introducing the 'Holdo Maneuver,' Johnson basically destroyed how space combat in the SW setting works. The 'one in a million' is Abrams tossing out an easy dialogue fix to a Johnson problem so he doesn't have to deal with it.

That's pretty much how I see it.

I'm not denying it looks awesome, it was a very cool moment - but with the amount of inconsistencies it spawns in it's wake, was it worth it? I don't think it's fair to say "that's what happens when you overanalyse, stop caring about consistency and just appreciate it for what it is" - if it hadn't been included, then we wouldn't be analysing it. Honestly, I have to question what the narrative point of that scene was and why it was so important to the plot.
From a thematic standpoint, I guess it's supposed to be a support of the idea of heroic sacrifice and saving your friends, at any cost - but this message is subverted minutes later when Finn is denied the chance to do exactly the same, and told that "that's how we're gonna win. Not fighting what we hate. Saving what we love", which is exactly what both he AND Holdo were doing.
So, it's not thematic. How about narratively necessary?

Holdo's maneuver stops the large ship destroying the fleeing Rebel ships, I guess, but doesn't stop the other ships in the fleet pursuing them. It saves Finn and Rose (unknowingly). It breaks up the stalemate between Kylo and Rey (again, unknowingly). But could these be done in other ways, without causing as many inconsistencies within the universe? Probably - I'll make up a plot that resolves these, without needing Holdo to do a lightspeed ram.

Instead of ramming the First Order ship, Holdo moves her own ship to intercept and block shots from the fleet. This then puts her "in range" of the ship's guns, and she willing acts as a body shield for the escape pods. The First Order, unable to target the escape pods, vent their frustrations on the ship, and destroy it above Crait.
The Kylo/Rey duel and the Finn/Rose executions are broken up either by BB-8 doing some kind of manual detonation of some critical system (a magazine explosion? engine failure? idk) aboard the ship, rewriting the plot to allow for BB-8 to escape from the rest of the group when they get captured - maybe include a droid vs droid fight here between him and the evil BB droid we saw, similar to the Duel of the Droids episode in Clone Wars.
Alternatively, Kylo and Rey create a massive Force Explosion (probably completely made up), which rocks through the whole ship, and causes catastrophic damage.

Things play out as they did before, with Finn defeating Phasma, Rose and Finn escaping in an Imperial shuttle, and Rey finding her way back onto the Falcon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
You can't argue things like "Why don't they just put a hyperdrive into what amounts to a bullet with a droid brain programmed to fire at targets". Because nobody ever has so nobody ever will. Thats Starwars. It's dumb.

Honestly though, I've never had that problem with "what if we put a hyperdrive into a bullet and get a droid to fire it", because I just assume, as you say, because it's never been done, it's somehow impossible.

If we don't see it done, it's not possible, and even if we see something done that we previously thought to be impossible, we're usually shown why it is so rare.

That's why I have such a problem with the Holdo Maneuver. Because no-one pulled off Holdo Maneuvers, we just learned to accept that hyperspeed ramming wasn't possible for whatever reason in the setting. Within the realism of that universe, it's just not done - and that was fine.
But when someone actually *does* do the Holdo Maneuver, and we're never given any indication of why it can't be done more frequently, and why it is a "one in a million" thing, that creates a narrative inconsistency.

Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.

"It was a one in a million shot" and she did it. Done. Other people can't. Droids can't.

Like the hyperspace skipping, I figure it's an extension of what Han did in SW7, Han can do it, Poe can do it, the Falcon can do it. A whole bunch of TIEs tried and died. Prior movies established the Empire can track through hyperspace, so a new counter had to be tried. It works for me.

It's a heroic universe. Batman can swing around Gotham City without dislocating his shoulders or missing a rope and falling to his death. No one asks why GCPD doesn't do that too. Think of the gas money they'd save!

People are just looking for nits to pick.

I tend to agree. The hyperspace jump I think mostly gets picked on because people already did not like the character of Holdo for various other reasons. It was a cool bit of cinema.

But everything gets picked on when you extend stuff like this for so long and into so many media.

 Da Boss wrote:
I tend to agree. The hyperspace jump I think mostly gets picked on because people already did not like the character of Holdo for various other reasons. It was a cool bit of cinema.

But everything gets picked on when you extend stuff like this for so long and into so many media.

That's just an excuse not to think about the media you consume. 'Don't think about it' is a very bizarre stance to take on anything.

And no, equating any criticism to some wackjob opinions about a character is not a reason to not analyze the implications of events in the film.

As for 'coolness,' I honestly don't care. It was a bizarre glorification of pointless suicide to end a very boring sequence of events that made no sense. That Johnson tried (and failed, personally) to make it visually striking is neither here nor there.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.

There isn't any particular reason to think the former, and the latter doesn't hold up. Matching up two vectors of linear movement isn't hard. Seriously at all. The giant ship is moving straight at her ship. She goes along the same line in the opposite direction. Boom, done. The 'maneuver' is actually really simple. She just blasts through another ship with hyperspeed engaged. Preventing it would be very difficult, but doing it is dead simple.

To be fair, it seemed a bit far-fetched when she took out almost the whole fleet.

The bigger issue, though is that they have a fleet of Star Destroyers - including a super-big one(oo-er) and yet they don't have enough fighters and bombers to take down a single crusier and a frigate? And they are worried about not getting covering fire from the crusiers?

Yet back in 1994, we were sent out to clear a mine field in an unshielded craft!

Star Wars does not deserve to be thought about. The people writing it don't think about it, they make it up as they go along. It is schlock, it is not a serious subject. It is a big budget B movie. When I watch Godzilla, I am not thinking "Wait, radiation doesn't work like that!" because I know what I am watching. It bugs me, of course! But like, so do the bombs falling zero gravity, the noises in space, Han Solo not wearing a space suit when he disembarks from the Falcon inside the weird asteroid monster, the likelyhood of said asteroid monster existing, the fact that all the planets and also places like Endor have Earth gravity and breathable atmospheres and so on and so on.

I am not equating "any criticism", I am sayiing that a lot of (not all of, so feel free to exclude yourself if you don't think this applies to you) criticism for Holdo seems to be coming from a position of not liking the character for other reasons.

Coolness? I mean okay, but then why are you watching Star Wars at all? Rule of cool is the only thing that keeps this show on the road.

I think the important words in my quoted post that I perhaps didn't emphasise was "things like this". By that I mean, things that are popular because they look and feel cool and have a good (ish) story attached to them but are actually pretty dumb schlock that the creators made up as they went along.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the prequels and the sequels to me is the focus on the Force all the time. The Force, Light Side and Dark Side is some of the most half baked crap in the movies. It works as a mysterious otherworldly source of mystery, a hint of the divine in this story. But once you start systemising it and nailing it down it becomes a set of super powers rather than a mystery, and once the philosophy that is supposed to go behind the Force is shown it starts to fall apart. Celibate Jedi, but the force is genetic? Only 2 sith at a time, but they are always trying to lure more people in? Jedi are weird unemotional freaks and Sith are all raving lunatics.

But who cares, did you see the new force power in the movie?!
(btw, I love dumb schlock. )

Voss wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.

There isn't any particular reason to think the former, and the latter doesn't hold up. Matching up two vectors of linear movement isn't hard. Seriously at all. The giant ship is moving straight at her ship. She goes along the same line in the opposite direction. Boom, done. The 'maneuver' is actually really simple. She just blasts through another ship with hyperspeed engaged. Preventing it would be very difficult, but doing it is dead simple.

Yeah hitting something is easy, hitting something with defenses and force fields and suchwot is hard. Hence luck/good/magical, pick one.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.

"It was a one in a million shot" and she did it. Done. Other people can't. Droids can't.

But why?
Just saying "that was one in a million" doesn't really work when we aren't told or shown what about it was particularly difficult.

I'm more than happy to buy that droids can't do it, in the same way that droids in Star Wars exist as this weird mix of sentient and slave being (C-3PO no being able to speak Sith, despite wanting to, because of programming issues - and seeing that suicide droids aren't really a thing, I guess, programming one with the express intent to act as a lightspeed torpedo delivery system isn't possible). I'm happy to accept that.
But why can't other humans do it? Why is it a "one in a million" shot? Why would those characters come to that conclusion? What thing about it was so difficult it could never be done before?
Why does a Force Sensitive need to be the one to do it? What did the force have to do with anything? It's not like it was a really difficult shot, or being able to predict something. It was as simple as facing something, and pulling the hyperspace lever.

If Rian had demonstrated that she did something that was incredibly difficult or shown somehow why it wasn't just done by any particularly desperate pilot, then maybe I'd be fine with it. But in the film itself, we get nothing, and it's shown to be no more difficult than Finn driving straight at the Death Star laser on treads, and in the film after, it's handwaved by a "it's a one in a million move" without explaining why.

Basically, I don't need an explanation for things that are shown to be possible, or for things that simply aren't done (like why lasers don't travel at the speed of light, or why there's sound in space, or what the Force is). I do want explanations for when things happen that have never been done before, and why they weren't done before - like the Holdo Maneuver, or Force Healing.

Like the hyperspace skipping, I figure it's an extension of what Han did in SW7, Han can do it, Poe can do it, the Falcon can do it. A whole bunch of TIEs tried and died. Prior movies established the Empire can track through hyperspace, so a new counter had to be tried. It works for me.

But why can Han do it in SW7, when all 6 films prior have demonstrated that this simply isn't done?

I'm okay with things not being possible "because we've never seen it done". I'm less okay with things being able to be done, when there's no reason they shouldn't be possible earlier on.

Even if the *First Order hadn't invented hyperspace tracking, there's still plenty of cases where people would want to use hyperspace skipping - the blockade of Naboo, Jango Fett escaping from Kamino, the blockade of Ryloth and other planets in the Clone Wars, the Rebel fleet escaping Hoth, etc etc.
The fact that blockades exist in the Star Wars universe would suggest that they're useful to some degree. Including things like hyperspace skipping calls the existence of such blockades into question.

Similarly, we aren't told of any sort of technical improvement or innovation that would suddenly make hyperspace skipping or Holdo Maneuvers suddenly possible - if one had been included ("gee, I'm sure glad we upgraded the Falcon with that new hyperspace technology they've just created from Convenientia!") it would be far less headscratching.

It's a heroic universe.

Good heroic universes still have consistency. They don't need to be grounded in reality, and not everything needs to be explained, but they're still consistent.

Superman is weak to kryptonite. Why? He just is. There's probably explanations, some of them probably conflicting, but the general point is that he is weak to it. If Superman suddenly came along a piece of kryptonite, and wasn't made weaker as a result, then that would require an explanation.

In Star Wars, it is established through 6 films that ships are limited in where they can use lightspeed. They still need to use sub-light movement to travel to and from planets and dock. They are never used as weapons, only as a fast method of transport. I don't need an explanation why, because that's what's been established. When that established knowledge is undermined, I want to know why.

Batman can swing around Gotham City without dislocating his shoulders or missing a rope and falling to his death. No one asks why GCPD doesn't do that too.

Because it's established that superheroes can do that, where superheroes can survive massive beatings and bludgeonings because "we're the superheroes".

They can do it because they've always been able to do it, and we've never seen the GCPD do it, to therefore they can't.

In Star Wars, ships haven't been seen used as lightspeed projectiles, therefore, they cannot do it, without explicit explanation. Ships are never seen using lightspeed to land straight on a planet, therefore it cannot be done without explanation.


Is it too much to ask for basic continuity to be kept in fictional universes? Or, when another sequel or prequel of another property comes out that violates the established rules of that setting, I should just sit back and pretend that nothing's happening?
I'm not saying "it's the end of the world, they're messing with a fictional universe, oh the humanity!". I'm saying "is it really so hard to not mess up the consistency of a pretty simple universe, and you couldn't have done anything else instead?"

The 2nd movie fethed the continuity of the 1st, and people are surprised it still happens 10 movies later?

You guys defending SW don’t realize it is making fun of you.

In the very same movie that the Holdo Maneuver is said to be one-in-a-million, the same maneuver is shown to have been performed again in the celebration montage in the shot over Endor.

And we have people here insisting Holdo is Force-sensitive in order to rationalize this garbage.

No. What everyone is saying is that SW is dumb, and always has been dumb. Getting upset because a dumb thing has proven to be dumb again is insanity.

It didn’t start dumb, actually.

And defnding something by insisting it’s dumb is its own can of worms, btw.

 Manchu wrote:
It didn’t start dumb, actually.

And defnding something by insisting it’s dumb is its own can of worms, btw.

Sure it did. Starwars episode 4. How does the Falcon lift straight up into the air with no jets on it's bottom and without disturbing the ground AT ALL. Nobody is blasted away by the force needed to propel that big of a metal ship up off the ground and then away at speed. Why does luke just have a grappling hook? Hes a farm boy. Why is the galactic empire so inept that a ship is pulled into their secret base with tractor beams but the ship is able to take off and leave? Why are space fights handled like WW1 dog fights with people looking out windows to see targets? Why is there a droid language at all? Shouldn't all droid only speak in a users language? How come when the guy gets his arm chopped off there is blood but when obiwan gets cut he turns into a pile of robes? BTW, his robes don't get cut at all. They just drop to the ground as though vader hit them with a wiffle-ball bat. Why can't stormtroopers hit ANYTHING.

There is more. SW is dumb. It's dumb fantasy in space. It's enjoyably dumb, but you only have to start thinking about it a little bit and it's easy to see just how little sense any of it makes.

At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.

And that's okay. It's okay for things not to make sense in a fictional universe compared to real life.

What is less okay is when things don't make sense within the established rules and logic of the fiction itself.

No-one's saying "Star Wars always made sense and there was no kind of suspension of disbelief!" Yeah, the first episode has all the things you've described - but that's the first episode, and those things just are possible, because they are.
It's when previously established things are called into question because someone decided that lightspeed worked differently that people get antsy.

“Dumb” is not a synonym for fantasy. Kind of surprising to need to post this.

 d-usa wrote:
At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.

Science, yes, but consistency? I disagree - I don't think it should ever be an audience's fault for expecting consistency, or at the very least, an explanation for the inconsistency. Maybe in a small budget student, fan or indie film, I can understand overlooking something like that.
But for a film as large as this, with the House of Mouse behind it, with a whole Story Team behind it? No chance. For a film with apparently a $275 billion budget (Ep. 9, that is), I'd expect them to do a lot better.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And that's okay. It's okay for things not to make sense in a fictional universe compared to real life.

What is less okay is when things don't make sense within the established rules and logic of the fiction itself.

No-one's saying "Star Wars always made sense and there was no kind of suspension of disbelief!" Yeah, the first episode has all the things you've described - but that's the first episode, and those things just are possible, because they are.
It's when previously established things are called into question because someone decided that lightspeed worked differently that people get antsy.

Okay. At no point in any scene past the guy loosing his arm in Mos Isley is there blood from a light saber. So starwars stopped being consistent with it's own rules after a single scene establishing the rules of light sabers. Again, it's always been this dumb.

Manchu wrote:“Dumb” is not a synonym for fantasy. Kind of surprising to need to post this.

Agree. I didn't say fantasy was dumb. I said Starwars was dumb.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.

Science, yes, but consistency? I disagree - I don't think it should ever be an audience's fault for expecting consistency, or at the very least, an explanation for the inconsistency. Maybe in a small budget student, fan or indie film, I can understand overlooking something like that.
But for a film as large as this, with the House of Mouse behind it, with a whole Story Team behind it? No chance. For a film with apparently a $275 billion budget (Ep. 9, that is), I'd expect them to do a lot better.

Look above about the blood. If you are 9 movies in an expecting consistency after the lack of it in the orig trig and then the butchering of it in the prequels then what are you even watching these for anymore? This is what SW has always been.

Sgt Smudge, you are really being impressively patient about this, considering this isn’t the first or even second time we’ve been on this particular merry go round. I salute you!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.

Science, yes, but consistency? I disagree - I don't think it should ever be an audience's fault for expecting consistency, or at the very least, an explanation for the inconsistency. Maybe in a small budget student, fan or indie film, I can understand overlooking something like that.
But for a film as large as this, with the House of Mouse behind it, with a whole Story Team behind it? No chance. For a film with apparently a $275 billion budget (Ep. 9, that is), I'd expect them to do a lot better.

The Empire Strikes Back was inconsistent with what was established in A New Hope. Every single movie has been inconsistent and hasn’t bothered to explain stuff.

So if you are walking into RoS expecting that to suddenly not be a problem, then you just might be the problem.

How exactly is ESB inconsistent with ANH?

 Manchu wrote:
How exactly is ESB inconsistent with ANH?

Ep.4



Ep.5

Just saw it. Maybe Cats got me in the mood to laugh at bad decisions, but I started laughing at and mostly kept on at least chuckling.

PS: my wife thinks I’m super nerdy for noticing this, but did anyone else enjoy the measure of pettiness it takes to replace the cockpit of Kylo’s TIE Silencer, the best ship design in the sequel trilogy, with a JJ-style TIE/fo ball?

PPS: <3 The bad guy from Hudson Hawk <3


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Different aliens’ blood cauterizes differently?

Oh, and we were amused by the than the Home Alone franchise.

Lance845 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And that's okay. It's okay for things not to make sense in a fictional universe compared to real life.

What is less okay is when things don't make sense within the established rules and logic of the fiction itself.

No-one's saying "Star Wars always made sense and there was no kind of suspension of disbelief!" Yeah, the first episode has all the things you've described - but that's the first episode, and those things just are possible, because they are.
It's when previously established things are called into question because someone decided that lightspeed worked differently that people get antsy.

Okay. At no point in any scene past the guy loosing his arm in Mos Isley is there blood from a light saber.

*Is* that blood? Maybe it's something else.
Maybe, because the guy's an alien, it's alien blood that reacts differently.

But, that's the establishing scene. As I recall, we don't see a lightsaber used offensively before that.
As for Kenobi being cut in half, he's a space wizard. It's not just a random guy having an arm lopped off in a bar brawl. It's a Jedi, clearly in some form of meditation, and considering we later have him speaking to Luke via the Force, this works. It's another establishment - that when a Jedi who is one with the Force dies, they just disappear - something reinforced with Yoda's death and Luke's.

So starwars stopped being consistent with it's own rules after a single scene establishing the rules of light sabers.

That's not what happened.
They established what a lightsaber could do to an alien. Later on, far after the first "single scene", a completely different set of circumstances occur.

The main "rule" of the lightsaber is that it's a energy sword of some kind, that projects a beam of light that can cut through things and deflect blaster bolts. We don't need to know about how and why it does this, only that it does. If something comes along and changes that without altering the context, then that's something that needs addressing.

Again, it's always been this dumb.

To you, perhaps, but you're welcome to your opinion.

d-usa wrote:The Empire Strikes Back was inconsistent with what was established in A New Hope. Every single movie has been inconsistent and hasn’t bothered to explain stuff.

What was the inconsistency there?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
How exactly is ESB inconsistent with ANH?

Ep.4



Ep.5

Your father is dead and killed by Vader vs Your father is Vader.
Darth Vader is an underling to a Moff vs Darth Vader is 2nd in command of the Empire.

Did blowing up Alderan actually accomplish anything? Is it ever mentioned again at any point?

When did Darth Vader find time between the two movies to train in sword fighting?

The easy things that come to mind.