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.

 Galef wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The art book explains that the bombers use magnetism first to eject (repel) from the bombers and then to be attracted to their targets.

See! Plenty of explanations. One really cool one from an extra source, or my explanation that doesn't rely on extra info, just common sense.
Either explanation works, pick the one you like most and just enjoy the movie!
-

I was not bothered by the bombing bit - it was a fun action sequence that gave me hope for the film then it was sadly dashed by the sludge that followed.

I was far more bothered by the sheer length and tedium of much of the rest of the film, the trip to casino world in particular and the worst paced, worst filmed "chase scene" I have ever seen which completely lacked any kind of narrative tension or indeed inteligence in the plot that set it up and continued it.

I enjoyed TFA, I hated TLJ and won't bother going to the cinema for the next one. No I don't care about the EU, yes I like powerful women in film.

 Galef wrote:

 theCrowe wrote:
Like for example. Wow, loved the bombers. Sooo cool visually, pure Star Wars-space ship style- all messy and non-Streamlined, cause you know, space going vessels don't need aerodynamics. Giant racks of bombs just primed and ready to be dropped down upon the... Hang on, wouldn't that need gravity... Ah shoot.

To which I would argue: How do the crew and pilots of those bombers keep their feet to the floor of the bomber? How did Paige "fall" while inside the bomber

Answer: the bomber has artificial gravity inside it, which allows the bombs to "fall". Once outside the bomber, they continue to "fall" because of the momentum generated from the artificial gravity inside the bomber.

Why is that so hard? I've seen this complaint several times and it kills me that it doesn't make sense to so many people. Just think it through

-

Because gravity doesn't work like that? The attraction wouldn't magically stop at the threshold of the bay doors, and the bombs wouldn't have enough momentum not to be pulled back towards the ship that 'dropped' them. So they'd either be slowed to the point of uselessness, or be an active danger to the bomber.

Magnetism has the same sort of problems. It isn't specific to the targets (assuming they're made out of sufficient metals, which is quite an assumption), and at the distances involved, would be attracted to something closer to the bomb... ie, the launching ship.

These are terrible 'explanations' if you think them through.

 Compel wrote:
Wouldn't it have been neat if they showed that?

Like, powered rails (ala railgun), ramping the bombs down, through a visible force field so that they slam into the ship.

Or, perhaps, attaching rockets to the bombs. Instead it's, "I've just sat through a particularly overlong joke about being on hold and am now being faced with this..."

You're kidding right? People in space ships that are NOT floating around IS showing you there is artificial gravity. Never in a SW movie have we ever seen people floating in space (until Leia anyway)
In order for this to happen, artificial grav HAS to exist

Once the bombs pass this artificial downward pull, they would just continue to move in that direction (i.e. "down"). What do you think would have happened if Rose's sister didn't hit that grid when she fell down the shaft? She would have kept "falling". Apply this logic to the bombs.
If that isn't "good enough" for you, there is the even cooler (and canon) magnets explanation. done.

-

Voss wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 theCrowe wrote:
Like for example. Wow, loved the bombers. Sooo cool visually, pure Star Wars-space ship style- all messy and non-Streamlined, cause you know, space going vessels don't need aerodynamics. Giant racks of bombs just primed and ready to be dropped down upon the... Hang on, wouldn't that need gravity... Ah shoot.

To which I would argue: How do the crew and pilots of those bombers keep their feet to the floor of the bomber? How did Paige "fall" while inside the bomber

Answer: the bomber has artificial gravity inside it, which allows the bombs to "fall". Once outside the bomber, they continue to "fall" because of the momentum generated from the artificial gravity inside the bomber.

Why is that so hard? I've seen this complaint several times and it kills me that it doesn't make sense to so many people. Just think it through

-

Because gravity doesn't work like that? The attraction wouldn't magically stop at the threshold of the bay doors, and the bombs wouldn't have enough momentum not to be pulled back towards the ship that 'dropped' them. So they'd either be slowed to the point of uselessness, or be an active danger to the bomber.

Magnetism has the same sort of problems. It isn't specific to the targets (assuming they're made out of sufficient metals, which is quite an assumption), and at the distances involved, would be attracted to something closer to the bomb... ie, the launching ship.

These are terrible 'explanations' if you think them through.

Electromagnets. Just reverse the polarity when they are closer to the target than the bomber. Heck the target doesn't even need to be magnetic, just negative polarity to release them from the bomber. More like a dumb bomb. Pretty simple explanation, if you think it through.

Nope, not kidding. It's also not a particularly big deal for me when it came to the film but, when one isn't particularly enjoying something, seeing things like that which cause a skeptical eyebrow raise, does not continue to endear someone towards the film.

It helps dig deeper into a negative experience trough that makes it harder for the good parts of the film to dig out of.

Ultimately, I never really was pulled out of that trough.

You guys did see that the same film showed TIE fighters with missiles that blew out the command deck, right? In a franchise where previous bombs flew out of the front of fighters and freighters, once even making a hard, right-angle turn into an exhaust port to strike some space station's vulnerable innards. Remember that? Where some backwater smuggler could afford to pimp out his U-Haul into some kind of fighter-killing, attack mission-leading, Death Star reactor-bombing son of a bantha?

The bombers also had the cruciform look of WW2 bombers, far more on the nose than any previous Star Wars designs. Everyone knows that Star Wars ships may fly like WW2 fighters, but they are supposed to look like something the producer saw at lunch time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not that the scene wasn't gorgeous or inspiring.

 Compel wrote:
...., seeing things like that which cause a skeptical eyebrow raise, does not continue to endear someone towards the film.

Ya know, I feel this sentiment highlights a problem with this generation. We are too quick to be bored and thus hyper analyze everything. It's like we are WANTING to raise that skeptical eyebrow

-

Of course, that all depends on what generation you assume I am.

I wanted to on the whole like "The Last Jedi" - I, on the whole, like "The Force Awakens" - I downright LOVE 'Rogue One.'

The Last Jedi, nope.

To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....

Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.

The whole SW universe basically runs on magic.

 Lance845 wrote:
To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....

Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.

The whole SW universe basically runs on magic.

But there has to be some consistency, rules that govern the magic, or there is no dramatic tension.

 Lance845 wrote:
To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....

Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.

The whole SW universe basically runs on magic.

Well the official guidebook says, the MG-100 Starfortress pushes its payload out of its containment rack with “sequenced electromagnetic plates,” and the proton bombs then are “drawn magnetically to their unfortunate targets." So at least some thought has been put into it.

That said, the film"s production designer, Rick Heinrichs says, "Well, I think that the language of a Star Wars film, the graphic language, the way the details are presented… There’s a very sophisticated approach to how tech is approached. It’s done in a very graphic way that doesn’t necessarily invite the audience to study it too hard. It just looks really cool as a background element. And it doesn’t get the audience hung up on the hardware, if you will." So you aren't really wrong either.

Ok, lets look at Snook Doggy Snoke for a minute.

What do we know about him? He's evidently a sith lord in the model of the former Emperor.
He's possessed of enough power to corrupt Ben Solo, presumably by the same means he's using to try to corrupt Rey.
He's not as gifted in the old mind reading as he lets on.
His demise has not resulted in the immenant collapse of the First Order or society or whatever.

My brother complained about zero back story for Snoke and then he's dead. I get where he's coming from but honestly would a small flashback of a young homeless Snoke scratching a living by painting postcards on imperial Coruscant really help. Do we need a framed picture of the Sith class of 83 with Snoke and Vader as BFF's sitting on his dresser? Do we really need the long and tedious expositional lineage of master/apprentice to help us peg exactly where in the grand scheme of things this bald goon belongs?
I say nah- kill him off- don't care- lets just give the demonstrably unready apprentice absolute power and see what happens.

I'm just glad the boys in red got a decent innings before they snuffed it. Thought for a moment they were just going to look at eachother, shrug and salute Kylo Ren. Meet the new Boss, you know.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....

Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.

The whole SW universe basically runs on magic.

But there has to be some consistency, rules that govern the magic, or there is no dramatic tension.

There IS consistency. The rules don't have to be explicitly stated for you to follow them. The ships, people, and everything else isn't doing anything now in SW that they wern't doing before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 theCrowe wrote:
Ok, lets look at Snook Doggy Snoke for a minute.

What do we know about him? He's evidently a sith lord in the model of the former Emperor.

No hes not. The sith followed the rule of 2. Snoke isn't decended from that AND trained Kylo and his knights of Ren (multiples... i.e. not 2).

He's possessed of enough power to corrupt Ben Solo, presumably by the same means he's using to try to corrupt Rey.

It doesn't take power to corrupt. It taken fagile weakness. Ben was scared. Ben was unsure. Snoke built on that and pushed it.

He's not as gifted in the old mind reading as he lets on.
His demise has not resulted in the immenant collapse of the First Order or society or whatever.

My brother complained about zero back story for Snoke and then he's dead. I get where he's coming from but honestly would a small flashback of a young homeless Snoke scratching a living by painting postcards on imperial Coruscant really help. Do we need a framed picture of the Sith class of 83 with Snoke and Vader as BFF's sitting on his dresser? Do we really need the long and tedious expositional lineage of master/apprentice to help us peg exactly where in the grand scheme of things this bald goon belongs?
I say nah- kill him off- don't care- lets just give the demonstrably unready apprentice absolute power and see what happens.

Agree with this. We knew as much about snoke at his Time of Death as we did about Palpatine. Why is Snoke under scrutiny for it was Emp P never was?

 Compel wrote:
Wouldn't it have been neat if they showed that?

Maybe?

Or it might have just been uneccessary detail. I don't recall anyone ever insisting that RotJ needed am explanation of how thermal detonators work for the scene in Jabba's palace. We just assumed from the context that it was some sort of scary explosive.

Same thing here. They're bombers. They have bombs. The captain of the Dreadnought is worried about them, so it's safe to assume the bombs work, even if the movie doesn't waste time explaining how.

 Galef wrote:

 Compel wrote:
...., seeing things like that which cause a skeptical eyebrow raise, does not continue to endear someone towards the film.

Ya know, I feel this sentiment highlights a problem with this generation. We are too quick to be bored and thus hyper analyze everything. It's like we are WANTING to raise that skeptical eyebrow

-

I went with two other people - one was in her thirties, we are in our forties. Only one of us is a big Star Warsfan and he did not like TFA -w did.

We all hated the film due to terrible pacing and plot.

 Compel wrote:
Of course, that all depends on what generation you assume I am.

My apologies. I was not trying to make any assumption about anyone. I was referencing the "culture of the day", so maybe generation was the wrong word.
I've witnessed people from older generations than myself exhibit the same kind of behavior (being quick to judge and over analyze to the point of losing enjoyment of something that would have been just fine in the past)
I attribute this to the "internet culture" of the day. When you have a platform as expansive as the interwebz, anyone is a critic and it is (sadly) encouraged to critique everything, almost like it's a competition to see who can point out (or explain away) the most plot holes in movies.

I stand by my statement that had ESB come out during the internet age, very similar complaints as TLJ would also be hurled at it too.

-

Lance, the slow bombers with gravity-ish bombs, the technobabble plot points, and the hyperdrive ramming scene were all inconsistent with previous material. Heck, the parabolic path of the turbo lasers in deep space goes against established canon.

Next time there is a battle against overwhelming odds, the rebels will seem like idiots for forgetting they can just hyperram the bad guys away. Man, Admiral Raddus could have solved the end of Rogue One before the Death Star even showed up.

So as this post we stand at:
52% Liked
35% didn't
13% conflicted

If we rule out the conflicted (because they probably just need to see it again) and take into account that people that dislike something are more vocal than those who liked something, we can conclude the "most" people actually liked TLJ.
I'm ok with that.

-

Well, it's more complicated than that. Someone can enjoy the movie while agreeing that it is poor Star Wars that ultimately harms the overall narrative of the series.

 Galef wrote:
So as this post we stand at:
52% Liked
35% didn't
13% conflicted

If we rule out the conflicted (because they probably just need to see it again) and take into account that people that dislike something are more vocal than those who liked something, we can conclude the "most" people actually liked TLJ.
I'm ok with that.

-

Just shows how subjective films are -

You can legitmately say just over alf of those who watched it liked it which is what the stats actually say .

Conflicted is conflicted

To add the opinion of someone with not much more interest in Star Wars than watching an entertaining sci-fi movie (yeah, I never had a problem with the prequels because I found them entertaining), I was baffled by Episode 8. Didn't seem to me to have much in common with what the earlier movies portrayed. Didn't meet my expectations in the least, and on top of that had an excessive amount of fluffy critters being cute.

I didn't even have a problem with the pacing per se. I'm used to sitting through long movies. Nets more explosions, right? But it didn't feel like anything actually happened, nor was there much in the way of character interaction.

@Galef:

I'd argue that blindingly accepting something without criticism hasn't been in fashion since the enlightenment came around and has nothing to do with the Internet. My question is, why is that a problem? As I said, I like the prequels. I seem to be quite in the minority for it. Doesn't bother me one bit. I get just as much enjoyment out of watching them as if everyone was of my opinion. Really, that's between me, my taste and the movies. Let people form their opinions.

On the point of Empire Strikes back, I agree to an extent. I watched that one with a critical eye once, and while that's been so long ago that I couldn't give a complete list of what I found to be wrong with the movie, I could find something to criticize in virtually every scene. For what is apparently the best Star Wars of all time, it raises a lot of eyebrows in my opinion.

However, and here is where I disagree, everything that happens in Empire Strikes Back is either relevant to the previous and following movie or happens for the sake of character development. We obviously don't know how Episode 8 and 9 interact, but as been pointed out in this thread, anything built up in Episode 7 is largely dismissed in Episode 8 and staple characters (timeless ones like the beeping trash can that don't have to worry about the actor's age) don't do anything. Instead we get new characters to replace characters that already replaced old characters. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense and adds about as much.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Lance, the slow bombers with gravity-ish bombs, the technobabble plot points, and the hyperdrive ramming scene were all inconsistent with previous material. Heck, the parabolic path of the turbo lasers in deep space goes against established canon.

Next time there is a battle against overwhelming odds, the rebels will seem like idiots for forgetting they can just hyperram the bad guys away. Man, Admiral Raddus could have solved the end of Rogue One before the Death Star even showed up.

They had plans for the Death Star. Hitting the reactor with a hyper jump would've been so much easy than recruiting a farmer to hit an exhaust port.

That shield generator on Endor? There's an easy target. Death Star 2 would have only taken at most the sacrifice of two ships.

Remember how they had to slog it all the way to the generator of Death Star +1? In the freezing cold to boot? They could have gotten that done so much easier.

The possibilities are truly endless.

 Galef wrote:

If we rule out the conflicted (because they probably just need to see it again)

Or they're people having trouble coming to terms with admitting to themselves they watched a bad Star Wars movie? I remember coming out of the cinema having just sat through Phantom Menace, and on the way back to the bus station me and my two friends (we were 17-18) really did a good job trying to convince ourselves we'd seen something flawed but still great. The possibility that the film would be bad, or that we wouldn't like it hadn't even entered my head before seeing it. It was Star Wars, how could it fail? So we were giving it 'qualified success' reviews and would have likely answered any exit poll in that manner.

What I don't get is why there's such a push from people who love the film to change the narrative that a significant number of others don't. The 'liked' here is 52%, Rotten Tomatoes is 51% now but has been in the low 50s since launch. Seems to me to correlate? I'd happily accept (based on who I've spoken to in real life) that a little more than half of viewers gave it a thumbs up, even if I disagree with them. And yet we just get stories about hacking, and your massaging of numbers to boost how popular the film seems to be.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Lance, the slow bombers with gravity-ish bombs, the technobabble plot points, and the hyperdrive ramming scene were all inconsistent with previous material. Heck, the parabolic path of the turbo lasers in deep space goes against established canon.

Next time there is a battle against overwhelming odds, the rebels will seem like idiots for forgetting they can just hyperram the bad guys away. Man, Admiral Raddus could have solved the end of Rogue One before the Death Star even showed up.

Watch anything with tie bombers in space, which is in the animated canonical series, the bombs drop strait down. Also... Empire? Which one had tie bombers sweeping the asteroid while the MF was hiding in a giant space snake?

Hyperdrives having to navigate and set courses is not inconsistent. While we have never seen a ship ram another one that way, it's been said in starwars before that they have to set a navigation course otherwise risk ramming into major gavity sources or other objects.

Head canon wise, i suspect the reason it actually did what it did was because of proximity. The ships were so close that the cruiser never made it into actual hyper space, it just rapidly made a jump in speed and was still physically here when it collided. I have no real basis for this. It's all space magic anyway. The cruiser got into range to have this effect because the FO ships were not firing on it. So while they were progressing forward, it turned around into them before making the jump.

What technobabble plot points?

You're suggesting that TIE bombers only drop bombs down because in Empire they drop bombs down? (The animated series is not something I care to watch, and as part of the new, nonfilm canon is total BS anyway.). Even though the obvious answer is that the TIe bombers are not under attack, not flying full throttle, and don't want to dive at the asteroids again and again, thus they are aiming their launchers down? Again, remember when the proton torpedos in SW changed course?

They had to set course to avoid things like stars. If any solid object interacted with ships in hyperspace, there would be no FTL travel because of all the diffuse interstellar hydrogen, micro debris, etc. the Falcon would have been obliterated before it jumped out of hyperspace at Alderaan--remember that it came out in the middle of a debris field. Imperial procedure to dump garbage at their mustering points before going to light speed would be even more crazy.

I have the same head canon you do about the impact in TLJ, but it still sets up the question of why no one else ever used hyperspace ramming before. Hell, junky old fighters have hyperdrives and so do disposable probe droid delivery pods. They must be extremely cheap and plentiful.

For that matter, why did the transports on the Raddus not have hyperdrives? Even the shuttle that spends all its time on a Star Destroyer waiting to carry someone down to the planet next to the Star Destroyer has a hyperdrive.

The technobabble plot points refer to how the FO were tracking the resistance, necessitating a trip to OBSG's casino planet's uglier stepsister. The Star Wars universe has always done best when all events were a result of human actions or intents. The hyperspace tracking would have been more "Star Wars" as the result of human action rather than a new technology, such as a traitor in the resistance, the Force guiding Snoke or Ren, some arms dealer on planet Greed selling out his resistance clients for a fast,thematically appropriate buck, something like that.

 Galef wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Of course, that all depends on what generation you assume I am.

My apologies. I was not trying to make any assumption about anyone. I was referencing the "culture of the day", so maybe generation was the wrong word.
I've witnessed people from older generations than myself exhibit the same kind of behavior (being quick to judge and over analyze to the point of losing enjoyment of something that would have been just fine in the past)
I attribute this to the "internet culture" of the day. When you have a platform as expansive as the interwebz, anyone is a critic and it is (sadly) encouraged to critique everything, almost like it's a competition to see who can point out (or explain away) the most plot holes in movies.

I stand by my statement that had ESB come out during the internet age, very similar complaints as TLJ would also be hurled at it too.

-

That happened long before the internet was a gleam in a 1200 baud modems eye. Before then even. It's no worse now than before computers became household items.

12 parsecs anyone? a slip of the pen by George get's rationalized by fans of the movie. the best advertisement is still word of mouth, we have always been critics and have recommended movies to friends and warned them away from the horrible ones, like highlander 2 and TLJ. Get this though, some people like movies others don't, *caugh*firefly*caugh* just because others don't like a movie you do for the same reasons you do, doesn't equate to some sad critic culture, it's just human nature. Don't get so offended when people don't like what you do.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I have the same head canon you do about the impact in TLJ, but it still sets up the question of why no one else ever used hyperspace ramming before. Hell, junky old fighters have hyperdrives and so do disposable probe droid delivery pods. They must be extremely cheap and plentiful.

Remembering that without the EU we have very little 'ever' to go on, my guess would be because it's really, really difficult to actually pull off, requiring a precise combination of being close enough to not be entirely transitioned into hyperspace while being far enough away to not simply get blown to pieces.

So it wouldn't work with smaller ships... They would get obliterated while they were lining themselves up just right.

For that matter, why did the transports on the Raddus not have hyperdrives? Even the shuttle that spends all its time on a Star Destroyer waiting to carry someone down to the planet next to the Star Destroyer has a hyperdrive.

Presumably because they're short-range transports that don't normally need a hyperdrive.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I have the same head canon you do about the impact in TLJ, but it still sets up the question of why no one else ever used hyperspace ramming before. Hell, junky old fighters have hyperdrives and so do disposable probe droid delivery pods. They must be extremely cheap and plentiful.

Remembering that without the EU we have very little 'ever' to go on, my guess would be because it's really, really difficult to actually pull off, requiring a precise combination of being close enough to not be entirely transitioned into hyperspace while being far enough away to not simply get blown to pieces.

So it wouldn't work with smaller ships... They would get obliterated while they were lining themselves up just right.

For that matter, why did the transports on the Raddus not have hyperdrives? Even the shuttle that spends all its time on a Star Destroyer waiting to carry someone down to the planet next to the Star Destroyer has a hyperdrive.

Presumably because they're short-range transports that don't normally need a hyperdrive.

A). I am pretty sure that the costs of buying a bunch of hyperdrives and shiel emitters are more than justified by the benefit of removing command ships, fleet yards, Death Stars and task forces with minimal loss of human life. It is pretty well established that the Rebellion had plenty of money/materiel and not enough people (and that's why even farm boys got to fly X-Wings).

It couldn't be too difficult to calculate given that Holdo managed it. If you need some reprogrammed astrometry droids to help with the calculations, I know a guy who's selling them second hand at quite a bargain.

B). They aren't TIE fighters shedding every bit of extraneous mass. The Resistance/Republic had plenty of money, and prior canon pretty much established that even local transports carried hyperdrives. It makes little sense for the Resistance to stock up on near-useless transports for their flagship.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

A). I am pretty sure that the costs of buying a bunch of hyperdrives and shiel emitters are more than justified by the benefit of removing command ships, fleet yards, Death Stars and task forces with minimal loss of human life. It is pretty well established that the Rebellion had plenty of money/materiel and not enough people (and that's why even farm boys got to fly X-Wings).

Then there's obviously more to it... Otherwise everyone would be doing it...

It couldn't be too difficult to calculate given that Holdo managed it.

But did she mean to, or was she just aiming to ram them and got lucky?

Star Wars, remember?

B). They aren't TIE fighters shedding every bit of extraneous mass. The Resistance/Republic had plenty of money, and prior canon pretty much established that even local transports carried hyperdrives. It makes little sense for the Resistance to stock up on near-useless transports for their flagship.

Prior canon established that some local transports carried hyperdrives. Not that every single ship bigger than a tie fighter does.

There are any number of reasons for the Resistance to have those ships. The two most obvious being that they're on the run and using whatever they can get their hands on by that point, or that those transports came with the base.

A surface transport not having a hyperdrive isn't 'near useless' when they're only intended to be carried around from system to system on a bigger ship. Having plenty of money isn't a reason to waste or on hyperdrives that wouldn't normally be needed... And if the Resistance had limitless money, they would have a more effective fleet to begin with.

I saw it yesterday with my wife and daughter.

We all liked it. We all thought there were some silly plot holes. We all agreed that the film is written for narrative tension, not for consistency of internal logic and technical background and so on.

Star Wars has never been War And Peace. My daughter said, "Well, it's written for 12-year-olds." There's nothing wrong with that.

I was 16 when I saw the first Star Wars. Whilst I really enjoyed it, I didn't glom onto the whole SW obsession thing like boys 5 to 15 years younger did. I think that's the key age divide.

Something very few people remember is that when Star Wars was first shown, the opening crawl did not call it Star Wars IV. It was just Star Wars. The story was complete in itself.

The rest of the films got made because it was so successful that no-one wanted to leave money on the table.

That's the way it's going to be from now on. Disney will never make such a gakky SW film that it kills the franchise.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I saw it yesterday with my wife and daughter.

We all liked it. We all thought there were some silly plot holes. We all agreed that the film is written for narrative tension, not for consistency of internal logic and technical background and so on.

Star Wars has never been War And Peace. My daughter said, "Well, it's written for 12-year-olds." There's nothing wrong with that.

I was 16 when I saw the first Star Wars. Whilst I really enjoyed it, I didn't glom onto the whole SW obsession thing like boys 5 to 15 years younger did. I think that's the key age divide.

Something very few people remember is that when Star Wars was first shown, the opening crawl did not call it Star Wars IV. It was just Star Wars. The story was complete in itself.

The rest of the films got made because it was so successful that no-one wanted to leave money on the table.

That's the way it's going to be from now on. Disney will never make such a gakky SW film that it kills the franchise.

Can I ask which bit you thought had a narrative tension? - we all thought it was so drawn out that it destroyed that element, except maybe some of the scenes between the two leads.

I assume that Disney will have now have a big casino in the Staw Wars theemed resorts - no other reason for that sequence.