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.

Subject change.

I want a Solo Disney+ series.

Seriously. Solo isn't a perfect film, but it is fun. And it deserves a follow up, especially with it's relatively last minute reveal.

However, I'm not sure it deserves a cinematic follow up. As I've said before, as a Star Wars story, it's actually quite 'disposable'. Fun to watch, but doesn't add anything for the fan or the casual viewer - certainly not in the way Rogue One did (ace film, and shows a new aspect of The Empire/early Rebellion).

But....as a limited run Disney+ series? Perhaps as two or three TV Movies? Heck yes that could work. And it's not like anyone involved is a particularly big name actor that might get snooty about playing on TV instead of the Silver Screen.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Subject change.

I want a Solo Disney+ series.

Seriously. Solo isn't a perfect film, but it is fun. And it deserves a follow up, especially with it's relatively last minute reveal.

However, I'm not sure it deserves a cinematic follow up. As I've said before, as a Star Wars story, it's actually quite 'disposable'. Fun to watch, but doesn't add anything for the fan or the casual viewer - certainly not in the way Rogue One did (ace film, and shows a new aspect of The Empire/early Rebellion).

But....as a limited run Disney+ series? Perhaps as two or three TV Movies? Heck yes that could work. And it's not like anyone involved is a particularly big name actor that might get snooty about playing on TV instead of the Silver Screen.

I'd agree Solo felt way better suited for a TV series than a film.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
If the new films really gave us, for example, some decent amount of time with Han and Leia in TFA. Then Luke and Leia in TLJ then things could have been more explicit.

Other than Leia snubbing Chewie, (which clearly wasn't intentional, just dumb) the worst scene in TFA is the bit between Han and Leia where they explain each others past to one another. It's really clunky and forced compared to the way the rest of the backstory segments are done.

I just watched Solo. It was pretty good. I've been a Star Wars fan all my life; even made it through seeing Phantom Menace in the theater as a 14 year old. It was the day my childhood died.

That's still the nadir of SW for me. The other two prequels were ... less awful.I hated things like the yoda light saber fighting and the generally bad writing, but the set piece battles were okay, and Ewan McGregor saved a lot.

When the sequels came out I obviously didn't have 14 year old starry eyed dreams for them, but I hoped. I was okay with 7 being a retread - we kind of needed a safe movie after the prequels- even if I think they could have still been more original while hitting all the main points.

I watched TLJ a long time after it came out. I didn't love it or hate it, it wasn't great. It had a few moments, but mostly it felt like a waste of a movie. The pursuit part of the plot was boring. At least half the plot didn't need to happen, with Poe Dameon getting a bunch of people killed if Laura Dern would have trusted her subordinates with her ultimately crappy plan.

But, my only serious concern is the ending. And no one but me seems upset about it. Weaponizing the jump to lightspeed means that every other movie was full of idiots. How many lightspeed capable ships died attacking death stars and star destroyers? Any one of them could have rammed any of those things and destroyed them. Moreover, in the 30000+ years civilization has been around no one built a lightspeed torpedo? It means everyone in every other film was actually a complete idiot. And everyone in every future movie will also be an idiot for not doing that. Space battles are now ruined for the rest of Star Wars for me. Thanks, TLJ.

 Bromsy wrote:


But, my only serious concern is the ending. And no one but me seems upset about it. Weaponizing the jump to lightspeed means that every other movie was full of idiots. How many lightspeed capable ships died attacking death stars and star destroyers? Any one of them could have rammed any of those things and destroyed them. Moreover, in the 30000+ years civilization has been around no one built a lightspeed torpedo? It means everyone in every other film was actually a complete idiot. And everyone in every future movie will also be an idiot for not doing that. Space battles are now ruined for the rest of Star Wars for me. Thanks, TLJ.

I feel like the implication was always that the lightspeed kamikaze only worked because the ships were so similar in size. You couldn't jump that same ship into the death star because the relative size would have just caused it to bounce right off. This movie wasn't the first Star Wars property to use the idea, I feel like I read about something similar in the old EU at least once.

Since the ships had to be the same size, it only works in a few very specific circumstances. Most people won't build a capital ship just to kamikaze it into another capital ship.

balmong7 wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:


But, my only serious concern is the ending. And no one but me seems upset about it. Weaponizing the jump to lightspeed means that every other movie was full of idiots. How many lightspeed capable ships died attacking death stars and star destroyers? Any one of them could have rammed any of those things and destroyed them. Moreover, in the 30000+ years civilization has been around no one built a lightspeed torpedo? It means everyone in every other film was actually a complete idiot. And everyone in every future movie will also be an idiot for not doing that. Space battles are now ruined for the rest of Star Wars for me. Thanks, TLJ.

I feel like the implication was always that the lightspeed kamikaze only worked because the ships were so similar in size. You couldn't jump that same ship into the death star because the relative size would have just caused it to bounce right off. This movie wasn't the first Star Wars property to use the idea, I feel like I read about something similar in the old EU at least once.

Since the ships had to be the same size, it only works in a few very specific circumstances. Most people won't build a capital ship just to kamikaze it into another capital ship.

The ships were definitely not the same size.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Raddus_(MC85_Star_Cruiser)

Length
3,438.37 meters (11,280.74 ft)[1]
Width
706.55 meters (2,318.08 ft)[1]
Height/depth
461.61 meters (1,514.84 ft)

1120537026 - rough internal volume

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Supremacy

Length
13,239.68 meters[1]
Width
60,542.68 meters[1][3]
Height/depth
3975.35 meters[1]

3186024263550 - rough internal volume

We can't know relative density but we can assume it's similar, so the Supremacy has roughly 2840 times the volume of the Raddus. The Supremacy internally docked ships the same size as the Raddus. Not to mention requiring ships of a certain size doesn't make any sense given physics at all, and we see large ships get damaged by turbolaser fire and bombers, and lightspeed ramming unequivocally released more energy than either of those things.

*Further*

Even if everything worked like you guessed, why have a lengthy chase - they could have simply evacuated everyone from the Raddus to the other ships, kamikazeed the Raddus into the Supremacy and then scooted with their other ships instead of letting them get picked off one by one - leading to loss of life and resources and then doing the kamikaze thing

So.... here's the thing with Star Wars. They are built on and completely riddled with moments of logic like this. Lets not forget that the previous "biggest Star Destroyer EVAR" was destroyed when it was rammed by a much much smaller ship. Sure, that one is set up better, but still....

In 5 years time there will be some dumb extended story where we learn that ships generally have shielding that protects against this to some degree, but because the Resistance ships were so small the FO dropped it to keep up while maintaining fire or something dumb like that. There's a whole extended story of why taking the bridge out of the Executor resulted in the entire ship crashing and its roughly as dumb as anything they'd add here.

 LunarSol wrote:
In 5 years time there will be some dumb extended story where we learn that ships generally have shielding that protects against this to some degree, but because the Resistance ships were so small the FO dropped it to keep up while maintaining fire or something dumb like that.

Come on, that's an easy one:

"Wary of the small-scale strike actions that laid low the Empire's greatest superweapons, the First Order employed shield technology that allowed them to cover massive ships and planet-sized installations in a nigh-impervious field bands comparable to that of a planetary deflector and ray shield but with only a fraction of the power requirements. The shield's fractional refresh rate proved to be a critical flaw, recognized too late when Resistance operatives led by Han Solo infiltrated Starkiller base by approaching at faster than light speed just as he exited hyperspace, and employed shortly thereafter to devastating effect by Vice Admiral Holdo against their flagship."

And I just made that up with what I remember from Force Awakens.

The problem of what exactly happens when you 'fly into a star or bounce too close to a supernova' has been answered a few times in the old EU inconsistently. The most common answer from the books in the 90s on was that you'd simply drop out of hyperspace because the safety is built in and you can't turn it off - Interdictors only work if this is true. However, we have alternatively had a planet that was totally ruined by a clone wars era ship accidentally hitting it at light-speed, and at least one comic book where the SSD could tank multiple regular star destroyers hitting its shields at light speed too.

If we go with the formerly-canonical Incredible Cross Sections, SW ships turn into tachyonic ships when they go FTL, that is instead of atoms made of quarks or whatever, they are made of tachyons. Supposedly, they can interact only indirectly with matter, such as through gravity fields. So, by the old canon, a ship engaging its hyperdrive is traveling at its normal rate until it transitions into tachyonic matter. Of course, this does not really match the visuals. And we saw a transitioning ship crash and die on an ISD's shields in Rogue One, so...

Star Wars Hyperdrive now works however it needs to work in a given scene. This is really distracting for me because I like a setting with consistency.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Seriously. Solo isn't a perfect film, but it is fun. And it deserves a follow up, especially with it's relatively last minute reveal.

Yes, but...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
However, I'm not sure it deserves a cinematic follow up.

... why?

Sure, Han's career as a criminal could easily fit into a crime of the week style show, but for the same reason you can make easy adventure movies for him. Isn't that what people often argue normal people (that's me, by the way) want out of Star Wars movies? Fun space adventures?

Solo got most event references in the old movies out of the way and a new movie could do two things. A, provide that fun space adventure with no baggage, so the writers are mostly free to write a good story without having to worry about fitting in events we already know about. And B, flesh out Han's early life for moviegoers who don't have a clue about tie-ins and extended universes (that's me, too) that may have already done so.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If we go with the formerly-canonical Incredible Cross Sections, SW ships turn into tachyonic ships when they go FTL, that is instead of atoms made of quarks or whatever, they are made of tachyons. Supposedly, they can interact only indirectly with matter, such as through gravity fields. So, by the old canon, a ship engaging its hyperdrive is traveling at its normal rate until it transitions into tachyonic matter. Of course, this does not really match the visuals. And we saw a transitioning ship crash and die on an ISD's shields in Rogue One, so...

Star Wars Hyperdrive now works however it needs to work in a given scene. This is really distracting for me because I like a setting with consistency.

Alternatively, it takes some time for a ship to make the transition as it accelerates (as seen in all the films by the ships being visible as they accelerate and decelerate from lightspeed) and Holdo was just close enough that she could hit right at the edge of that transition from realspace to hyperspace.

If that were an option, we'd be back at the OT powers being idiots.

So again, if the Supremacy's shields have the same flaw as those of Starkiller base, doesn't everything fall back into continuity?

No. Star Wars technology is mature tech, most of it tens of thousands of years old. Flawed shields make very little sense. Also, how would the resistance know about these flaws and how to exploit them?

Frankly, technobabble should not be the solution nor the source for problems in Star Wars movies. TFA and TLJ both screwed up on that score. They both harmed the consistency of the setting.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Frankly, technobabble should not be the solution nor the source for problems in Star Wars movies. TFA and TLJ both screwed up on that score. They both harmed the consistency of the setting.

Easy solution: Reverse the polarity!!!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Star Wars Hyperdrive now works however it needs to work in a given scene. This is really distracting for me because I like a setting with consistency.

You're never going to be happy with Star Wars then. This is a setting where decisions are made based on what looks good on screen, rather than what fits the established continuity. And that's not a new thing - Lightsabers were originally only red or blue. Luke has a green one in RotJ because the blue didn't stand out against all the sky in the Tatoine scenes.

You can choose to take the TLJ scene as breaking the continuity, or you can choose to assume that there was some reason that this only worked in that specific situation and wouldn't have been a reliable enough way to take out enemy ships as a standard tactic. For me, I prefer to not over-analyse everything and just enjoy the movie, but YMMV.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
No. Star Wars technology is mature tech, most of it tens of thousands of years old.

I hear that a lot but it doesn't hold up in the actual materials: Ties have a clear iterative design even if we ignore instances where the EU said the Empire hadn't included shields on them because their ion engines interfered with them and they hadn't solved that problem yet. The X-Wing is often described in the old fluff as a revolutionary fighter design but they still tried to improve upon it with the E-Wing and by Legacy era its gone completely. Extending that backwards we see the Republic adopt 'new' technological ideas over the course of the Clone Wars which are in turn refined into things we recognize in the Empire, right down to the blasters they carry.

The Disney fluff is even more explicit about it: the A-Wing is now about as old as the Tie, and is less speedy, more shieldy and about evenly gunny around the time of New Hope, then got overhauled into the lighter armed and shielded speed demon of RotJ, Tie fighters post-Jakku are upgraded with better weapons to close the 'shield gap', and the First Order is explicitly pushing technologically superior weapons and ships despite maintaining the empire aesthetic.

If technology can't improve or change paradigms then every single star wars movie falls apart when no one thinks to use the perfect floating imprisonjng field from Attack of the Clones or ray shields from Revenge of the Sith.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Flawed shields make very little sense. Also, how would the resistance know about these flaws and how to exploit them?

The real question in either case would be 'how did Han know' as Holdo would simply be attempting to exploit the same weakness that he'd demonstrated a few days ago - with the added difficulty of trying it on a moving target.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Star Wars Hyperdrive now works however it needs to work in a given scene. This is really distracting for me because I like a setting with consistency.

You're never going to be happy with Star Wars then. This is a setting where decisions are made based on what looks good on screen, rather than what fits the established continuity. And that's not a new thing - Lightsabers were originally only red or blue. Luke has a green one in RotJ because the blue didn't stand out against all the sky in the Tatoine scenes.

You can choose to take the TLJ scene as breaking the continuity, or you can choose to assume that there was some reason that this only worked in that specific situation and wouldn't have been a reliable enough way to take out enemy ships as a standard tactic. For me, I prefer to not over-analyse everything and just enjoy the movie, but YMMV.

n

Sure, I could choose either of those choices. Or I could choose to ignore everything but the OT, R1 and Solo, and even then squint through certain scenes. The OT maintained remarkable consistency in terminology and the apparent limitations of the setting. Luke's green lightsaber is a non-issue because they don't make thousands of supposedly-competent Rebels look like morons for not using their green lightsabers.

Yes, the more movies they make, the harder it is to maintain a consistent setting. However, I would find minor mistakes more excusable than the in-your-face own-goals of Disney Wars. Theyjust don't care about the details, and it shows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
No. Star Wars technology is mature tech, most of it tens of thousands of years old.

I hear that a lot but it doesn't hold up in the actual materials: Ties have a clear iterative design even if we ignore instances where the EU said the Empire hadn't included shields on them because their ion engines interfered with them and they hadn't solved that problem yet. The X-Wing is often described in the old fluff as a revolutionary fighter design but they still tried to improve upon it with the E-Wing and by Legacy era its gone completely. Extending that backwards we see the Republic adopt 'new' technological ideas over the course of the Clone Wars which are in turn refined into things we recognize in the Empire, right down to the blasters they carry.

The Disney fluff is even more explicit about it: the A-Wing is now about as old as the Tie, and is less speedy, more shieldy and about evenly gunny around the time of New Hope, then got overhauled into the lighter armed and shielded speed demon of RotJ, Tie fighters post-Jakku are upgraded with better weapons to close the 'shield gap', and the First Order is explicitly pushing technologically superior weapons and ships despite maintaining the empire aesthetic.

If technology can't improve or change paradigms then every single star wars movie falls apart when no one thinks to use the perfect floating imprisonjng field from Attack of the Clones or ray shields from Revenge of the Sith.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Flawed shields make very little sense. Also, how would the resistance know about these flaws and how to exploit them?

The real question in either case would be 'how did Han know' as Holdo would simply be attempting to exploit the same weakness that he'd demonstrated a few days ago - with the added difficulty of trying it on a moving target.

The old EU was all over the map on this stuff; I tend to ignore it. I also ignore TIEs not having shields, based mostly on the trench collision and X-Wings and Y-Wings having f-huge cannon. The X-Wings and Y-Wings we see in the first movie look tired as dirt. They were clearly intended to be surplus fighters from some previous conflict, perhaps more expensive and capable than TIEs individually since the Rebels had more money than pilots. As for the TIE iterations, there are lots of reasons to have different ships all with the same tech base designed for specific mission profiles. Plus, you gotta sell new toys.

The clone wars were part of the prequel trilogy, so they don't really count, but even then the evolution of the fighter designs probably reflect more on the changing needs of the Republic armed forces and the broadening scope of the war. There does not need to be any technological innovations to explain why wartime vehicle designs will change to adapt to changing pressures as each side tries to find the rock to the other's scissors.

Disney fluff is garbage that doesn't fit the setting. That was my whole point. Using Disney fluff to justify Disney fluff doesn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remind me again what the Ray shields did in RotS, please. I find only a blank entry in my memory.

The whole shields thing isn't really important. Nothing is flying around with it's shields running all the time, and they'd have no way to raise them after you fire a droid flown x wing at them after jumping in or sneaking up.

A superluminal ship could kill planets. All of this used to be gentleman's agreement. It's sci fantasy, they never got to technical with how stuff works, it just works. Now this works.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Remind me again what the Ray shields did in RotS, please. I find only a blank entry in my memory.

Ray shields were this spotlight thing in Revenge of the Sith that block people or ships from moving through them, as opposed to the shields we see in episode 1 or Empire that block incoming fire but can be walked through.

Also in New Hope they have to use torpedos because they now do the opposite or something.

Also they have to say the whole name every time. Ray Shields.

Edit: As for the rest it, if you're ultimately only going off of what is said and seen in the OT I don't think they really make a case for technology being stagnant either. But at that point if we're just talking about your interpretation of a handful of movies I don't really see the need to argue if that's just the part you enjoy.

I disagree with those saying the Disney era fluff is garbage just by virtue of it somehow being 'Disney', as it is by and large the same people who made the previous fluff with the benefit of hindsight. I enjoyed Alphabet Squadron as much as any of the Rogue Squadron books I read as a kid, and I actually do prefer the Disney post-endor timeline to that of the old EU.

Of the OT movies, Empire Strikes Back has the most 'technobabble' of sort and many of the points revolving around technology do not really make much sense or come across contrived. For example, whole assault on Hoth looks quite weird and counterintuitive. Admiral Ozzel fails to achieve surprise by "coming too close"? Rebels have super-shield which can withstand a sustained bombardment from a fleet of Star Destroyers, but not a land assault? Han flies to another star system without his FTL drive? (They'd repeat this later in PM).

EU stories of course threw all caution to the space wind. For example in Dark Empire, the belligrents constantly one-upped each other with new supertoys. It was so tiresome and weak.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remind me again what the Ray shields did in RotS, please. I find only a blank entry in my memory.

They get used all of once, inside General Grievious' ship, in one of the hallways. They snap on and the jedi can't walk through them, because reasons. Why there are shield projectors to turn on in the middle of a hallway (rather than to protect critical systems or a saferoom) is left to the viewer as a puzzle to solve.

Its one of those throw away moments that make other plot elements make no sense. If used again it breaks the narrative multiple times in key places, as various doors, people, computers and things are now safe from the protagonists forever.

Basic security measure I assume.

After all, if someone is sneaking about your ship, you can either just kill them (didn't work well in Phantom Menace), or incarcerate them, find out who they are, where they came from etc, then kill them/let them go as you see fit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
Of the OT movies, Empire Strikes Back has the most 'technobabble' of sort and many of the points revolving around technology do not really make much sense or come across contrived. For example, whole assault on Hoth looks quite weird and counterintuitive. Admiral Ozzel fails to achieve surprise by "coming too close"? Rebels have super-shield which can withstand a sustained bombardment from a fleet of Star Destroyers, but not a land assault? Han flies to another star system without his FTL drive? (They'd repeat this later in PM).

EU stories of course threw all caution to the space wind. For example in Dark Empire, the belligrents constantly one-upped each other with new supertoys. It was so tiresome and weak.

Shields are good against energy weapons, and fast moving things (hence we later see in Rogue One ships going splat against it). AT-ATs et all are slow moving. So like in Dune, they can penetrate the shield.

I want to say it's similar to a Newtonian liquid thing. Like custard or ketchup (or is it non-Newtonian? Dammit, science isn't my strong suit!). If you slap it, it behaves like a solid. But if you gently press your hand against it, it acts like a liquid.

And those shields can hold out as long as the generator does (hence why we see snub fighters knocking the shield generators in RotJ, and indeed why the AT-ATs target the shield generator in ESB). If it's strong enough, and it's power supply constant, you can't break them. This is also demonstrated in TLJ, where because reasons, the First Order can't get enough hits against the Rebel shields fast enough to prevent regeneration (and in spin-off media, it's made clear those were particularly spanky shields, which enabled Holdo's ramming move).

Voss wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remind me again what the Ray shields did in RotS, please. I find only a blank entry in my memory.

They get used all of once, inside General Grievious' ship, in one of the hallways. They snap on and the jedi can't walk through them, because reasons. Why there are shield projectors to turn on in the middle of a hallway (rather than to protect critical systems or a saferoom) is left to the viewer as a puzzle to solve.

Its one of those throw away moments that make other plot elements make no sense. If used again it breaks the narrative multiple times in key places, as various doors, people, computers and things are now safe from the protagonists forever.

Considering that these shields also seemed to be used to keep the atmossphere / oxigen within the ship during space battles, (see coruscant) one could assume that it is a basic security meassure if the ship generally transports species that require breath.
Kinda like with emergency hatches?

With shields, and my comment about the snub fighters? It does seem incongruous that a Super Star Destroyer wouldn't have shield comparable to a planetary installation.

I myself am unaware if there's a canonical (old or new EU) explanation for this. It could be they're by necessity different kinds of shields, or whether the fact a starship is always moving changes things any.

Solid shields are well established though, they spit up Obi Wan and Qui Gon in the fight against Darth Maul, and prevent the fighter bombers flying inside the 2nd Deathstar until the shield generator on Endor is disabled.

The Gungans even show mastery of both shield types, the Bongo has hard shields which must be lowered for the passengers to get out, whilst the grand army shield is permeable and can be walked through by the battle droids.

Also looking forward to the next season of Clone Wars.

I say next, because I'm fairly confident Disney won't look a cash cow in the mouth if it's received well.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
With shields, and my comment about the snub fighters? It does seem incongruous that a Super Star Destroyer wouldn't have shield comparable to a planetary installation.

I myself am unaware if there's a canonical (old or new EU) explanation for this. It could be they're by necessity different kinds of shields, or whether the fact a starship is always moving changes things any.

I think that would come down to different functions - the planetary shield around Endor is designed both as protection against attack and as a traffic barrier. It has to be lowered for ships to pass through. That wouldn't be an idea setup on a capital ship equipped with fighters... The last thing you want to do is lower your shields in order to let your fighters in and out. So they would be tuned to keep out fast moving projectiles to ward off attacks, but while still allowing comparatively slower ships to pass through (in the same way as the battle droids walk through the Gungan's shields in Ep1).

So a fighter inside the shield bubble would be able to target the shield generators unimpeded... and why all of those super-huge capital ships are so vulnerable to snubfighter attacks, when their fighter screen is pulled away.



That's just off-the-top-of-the-head rationalising, though. I don't know if it was ever explained like that. In the novels, from what I remember, they generally overwhelmed the shields with mass torpedo strikes rather than getting in close and taking out the shield generators directly.

Very mighty effing good point!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's also the wording of ship shields - Deflector Fields.

We hear Han specifically say 'angle the deflector fields'. That suggests they're akin, 40k wise, to a Knight's Ion Shield. Rather than an encompassing bubble ala Void Shields, it's instead a barrier you have to vector to best repel firepower.

And if as the name suggests (never a sure thing!), it could be the intent to deflect incoming fire is to preserve power compared to absorbing and disappateing energy. Kind of like how angle armour on tanks works?

Even aboard a Capital Ship, your energy/power is limited. The same reactors that power your engines, weapons. environment, lights, computers etc also power your shields. Going down the deflection root, rather than absorption (as in Star Trek) could help prevent sudden critical power drains should a sufficient bombardment/single powerful occur?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interestingly, again relying on a quote (risky as already noted, the script not especially noted for technical consistency), Ackbar says 'our cruiser's can't repel firepower of that magnitude.

Not absorb. Not resist. Repel. So one can fairly reasonably infer MC-80s at least pack Deflector Shields (and one of their canonical advantages is the projectors are in the blister pods. Still vulnerable, but harder to identify what's what and eliminate than massive Golf Balls that might as well have 'FOR A GOOD TIME, SHOOT HERE' painted on them.

You also have 'all power to front deflector screens' - a line of dialogue that inspired an entire core mechanic in the X-Wing games and a lot more besides.

As for the question of deflection...

This is correct!

And I think there's a quote from the SSD too, just before it gets a fatal A-Wing to the face?

Something about they've lost the bridge deflector shields? The wording may be slightly out, but it's near enough.

Because that is suggestive at least Imperial Capital Ships don't have an all encompassing, single field?