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.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Plus the tie fighter crews wore air masks and tanks, the rebel bomber crews apparently breathed space air.

And yes i get that most imperial forces wore helmets and masks to dehumanize them for the audience while the rebels had visible faces to personalize them for the audience...

I mean, it's Star Wars, invisible force fields that keep atmosphere in and let solid matter pass through are such a thoroughly solved problem that it's the industrial standard for space hangers the galaxy over.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Tne rebel bomber had so much off axs load it6 was simply impossible to believe.

The TIE bomber was kinda cool and was clearly firing warheads at the asteroid, plus it was no so off center loaded it was impossible to accept.

Umm what? Not only is this inaccurate (the resistance bomber carries its load underneath its main fuselage, the bomber to its side), but itignores the fact that most ships in the setting can be described in similar terms.

Plus the tie fighter crews wore air masks and tanks, the rebel bomber crews apparently breathed space air.

Just like the Millennium Falcon? and X-Wings and Y-Wings and B-Wings and A-Wings? Its called environmental controls.

I mean, it's Star Wars, invisible force fields that keep atmosphere in and let solid matter pass through are such a thoroughly solved problem that it's the industrial standard for space hangers the galaxy over.

Yeah, I mean we've seen pretty much exactly this in almost every film to date. A New Hope? The Death Stars hangar bay doors are completely open to space - yet Luke, Han, etc. run through it without any sort of breathing apparatus. Why? Because its magnetically shielded to keep the atmosphere in or whatever. Return of the Jedi basically the same thing on the second death star, as well as in the hangar bay on the Home One. Likewise seen at various points in all three prequel films, also in pretty much every star wars video game ever.

Its complaints like these that really lend credence to the idea that people are hating for the sake of hating and lookig for bs to justify their gakky opinions rather than having legitimate complaints.

Go back and rewatch the various movies. Anytime an opening to space has a bright, glowing rim that's the 'magnetic shield' holding the air in while allowing vehicles to freely transit at low speeds.

The 1-3 episodes at least had a thought out tech set up with the equipment making vague sense (why does the first order have a tracked bike?). 7-9 just doesn't make any internal sense.

But the original films? Watch them again, the first is OK by todays standards, the second is a good film showing a high degree of peril and why the rebel have a real chance of losing, the third... has good points but has everyone forgotten the ewoks? That should be the point you realise they are kids films.

Sadly even kids aren't that gripped by 7-9, as they are objectively poor films if you strip out the star wars associations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Plus the tie fighter crews wore air masks and tanks, the rebel bomber crews apparently breathed space air.

And yes i get that most imperial forces wore helmets and masks to dehumanize them for the audience while the rebels had visible faces to personalize them for the audience...

Cost savings. Cheaper to wear a pressure suit than pressurise a TIE cockpit. The first trilogy and even the second had a bit of thought into logistics and economics which might not have been amazing but did deepen immersion.

Not really, the first trilogy had hero pilots whose faces could be seen verse faceless villains whose death would garner no sympathy. All the stuff about cheaper cockpits or whatever was invented after the fact by people trying to force rules on that really didn't have anywhere near that much thought put into them. Most of what people consider the logical consistency of the Star Wars universe was inserted after the fact by Alan Dean Foster in the novelizations.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The 1-3 episodes at least had a thought out tech set up with the equipment making vague sense (why does the first order have a tracked bike?). 7-9 just doesn't make any internal sense.

AHEM.

Excuse me.

Oh and this thing.

Treads here too.

And who could forget?

I gotta be honest, this really reminds me of the one guy who made a fool of himself for claiming the sequels sucked because BB-8 could never exist because it would be impossible for it to move - only for it to turn out that BB-8 is a physical prop and can, in fact, move under its own power. Because, yknow, treaded motorcycles have actually been built in the real world, they aren't as far-fetched as you seem to think. That, and snowmobiles exist too.

 LunarSol wrote:
Not really, the first trilogy had hero pilots whose faces could be seen verse faceless villains whose death would garner no sympathy. All the stuff about cheaper cockpits or whatever was invented after the fact by people trying to force rules on that really didn't have anywhere near that much thought put into them. Most of what people consider the logical consistency of the Star Wars universe was inserted after the fact by Alan Dean Foster in the novelizations.

I would argue the RPG by West End also had a LOT to do with the "Consistency".

Very true. That's also where you start getting into the gamefication problems with the franchise as well, which is where a lot of the problems with the fanbase really cement themselves.

This is one of my ongoing bugbears with criticism of the sequel trilogy.

Much as I enjoy the films, I do get they’re flawed and imperfect. But a lot of the repeat criticism (as in those who just can’t seem to let it go) focuses on stuff not directly described in the films, whilst forgetting that an awful lot of Nerd Knowledge comes from outside the main 9 films.

For instance, TIE Fighters not having shields, environment or hyperdrive. All well known, yes? And it does seem odd that Kylo Ren salvaged a Rebellion era TIE to get back to Exagol. Except....nowhere in the original trilogy is ever stated TIE Fighter’s don’t have hypderdrive. So that’s outside of the movie knowledge.

Han Solo being Correlian? Never once mentioned in the films.

Obi-Wan chopping Anakin to bits before Hot Lava? Not mentioned in the films, seems that came from a spin-off novel.

Hell, come to think of it I’m not even sure Boba Fett is named until Return of the Jedi, let alone 4-LOM, Bossk, IG88, Dengar or Zuckuss are named onscreen.

Resistance Bombers? I well recall people harping on about No Gravity In Space. Turns out in canon? Gravitic Racks. Just enough to give them a wee hurl toward their target.

Dislike the films all you want, just please don’t invent stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Resistance Bombers? I well recall people harping on about No Gravity In Space. Turns out in canon? Gravitic Racks. Just enough to give them a wee hurl toward their target.

Were those mentioned on the film? I do not recall?

Nope. It is covered in canon media though. It’s the expectation that the sequels need to explain everything right there and then, when none of the other two trilogies did any such thing.

TROS. TLJ at least went against the grain.

TIE fighters not having hyper drives probably comes from “It’s a short range fighter.” However, in the same conversation, “It must have been part of a convoy or something.” This just raises so many questions. Fortunately, that’s speculation from the least-informed character, so fairly ignorable.

TIEs not having shields probably comes from the way they explode into puffy clouds compared to X-Wings, which explode into chunky meteors. However, that could also be the result of TIEs having a pair of teeny-tiny practical guns while X-Wings sport twice as many f-huge cannon. Also, X-Wings are bigger and slabbier.

I forget if we’ve seen a Y-Wing asplode-a-kill a TIE in the OT.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
TIE fighters not having hyper drives probably comes from “It’s a short range fighter.” However, in the same conversation, “It must have been part of a convoy or something.” This just raises so many questions. Fortunately, that’s speculation from the least-informed character, so fairly ignorable.

TIEs not having shields probably comes from the way they explode into puffy clouds compared to X-Wings, which explode into chunky meteors. However, that could also be the result of TIEs having a pair of teeny-tiny practical guns while X-Wings sport twice as many f-huge cannon. Also, X-Wings are bigger and slabbier.

I forget if we’ve seen a Y-Wing asplode-a-kill a TIE in the OT.

"Short Range Fighter" doesn't have to mean it's incapable of hpyerspeeds. It could just mean it's weapons don't have longer ranges.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
TIE fighters not having hyper drives probably comes from “It’s a short range fighter.” However, in the same conversation, “It must have been part of a convoy or something.” This just raises so many questions. Fortunately, that’s speculation from the least-informed character, so fairly ignorable.

TIEs not having shields probably comes from the way they explode into puffy clouds compared to X-Wings, which explode into chunky meteors. However, that could also be the result of TIEs having a pair of teeny-tiny practical guns while X-Wings sport twice as many f-huge cannon. Also, X-Wings are bigger and slabbier.

I forget if we’ve seen a Y-Wing asplode-a-kill a TIE in the OT.

I suspect the no jumpdrive and/or shields came from either the previously mentioned West End RPG and / or the excellent X-Wing / TIE fighter PC games of the mid 90's

The no gravity in space thing went out the window in ANH, pay close attention to how the death star trench run works... heres a hint:



Oh, and ESB has a bit to say about this topic too:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is one of my ongoing bugbears with criticism of the sequel trilogy.

Much as I enjoy the films, I do get they’re flawed and imperfect. But a lot of the repeat criticism (as in those who just can’t seem to let it go) focuses on stuff not directly described in the films, whilst forgetting that an awful lot of Nerd Knowledge comes from outside the main 9 films.

For instance, TIE Fighters not having shields, environment or hyperdrive. All well known, yes? And it does seem odd that Kylo Ren salvaged a Rebellion era TIE to get back to Exagol. Except....nowhere in the original trilogy is ever stated TIE Fighter’s don’t have hypderdrive. So that’s outside of the movie knowledge.

This is a weird response to criticism....
If out of movie knowledge doesn't count, then man takes spaceship to go somewhere in space is... fine?

Han Solo being Correlian? Never once mentioned in the films.

Doesn't matter. Literally nothing hinges on Han being Correlian. I can't think of any 'criticism' that complains about it.

Obi-Wan chopping Anakin to bits before Hot Lava? Not mentioned in the films, seems that came from a spin-off novel.

Ok? Again, so what? What criticism hinges on this?

Hell, come to think of it I’m not even sure Boba Fett is named until Return of the Jedi, let alone 4-LOM, Bossk, IG88, Dengar or Zuckuss are named onscreen.

And?

Resistance Bombers? I well recall people harping on about No Gravity In Space. Turns out in canon? Gravitic Racks. Just enough to give them a wee hurl toward their target.

Dislike the films all you want, just please don’t invent stuff.

Unlike everything else you listed, this is something that is happening on screen, isn't explained, and actually matters for the scene to make sense.

Yeah, I mean that is the source material West End extrapolated from, rightly or wrongly.

I still wonder how often they send short ranged fighters to escort convoys through their core systems.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Yeah, I mean that is the source material West End extrapolated from, rightly or wrongly.

I still wonder how often they send short ranged fighters to escort convoys through their core systems.

Every couple parsecs or so

Another example.

People complaining about Rey being a pilot (despite her clearly stating she’s a pilot whilst they’re legging it), but Luke being able to jump into an X-Wing and fly it with no training.

Remember, the scene where he meets Biggs at Yavin is Special Edition. The T-16 having the same controls isn’t mentioned in the films at all. Nor is that both machines are made by Incom. But nobody cared at the time.

Voss wrote:

Resistance Bombers? I well recall people harping on about No Gravity In Space. Turns out in canon? Gravitic Racks. Just enough to give them a wee hurl toward their target.

Dislike the films all you want, just please don’t invent stuff.

Unlike everything else you listed, this is something that is happening on screen, isn't explained, and actually matters for the scene to make sense.

And yet you didn't bat an eye at basically the same thing occuring during the first two films of the franchise? Arguably it occurs a third time in RotJ when the Executors bridge gets taken out and it suddenly takes a 90 degree turn and careens downscreen out of control as though it was just shot down like an airplane.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Voss wrote:

Resistance Bombers? I well recall people harping on about No Gravity In Space. Turns out in canon? Gravitic Racks. Just enough to give them a wee hurl toward their target.

Dislike the films all you want, just please don’t invent stuff.

Unlike everything else you listed, this is something that is happening on screen, isn't explained, and actually matters for the scene to make sense.

And yet you didn't bat an eye at basically the same thing occuring during the first two films of the franchise?

Didn't I? Or did I?
Is this about my specific reactions? Or the actual criticism?

Either way, the 'hyper-detailed' line drawing illustrating an arc (the behavior of the actual torpedo is even weirder) or the directed energy weapon is very much not 'basically the same thing.'

Arguably it occurs a third time in RotJ when the Executors bridge gets taken out and it suddenly takes a 90 degree turn and careens downscreen out of control as though it was just shot down like an airplane.

Arguably, that was the gravity of the moon or the death star operating on a starship that is no longer fighting the pull of gravity.
But that scene was crap for a whole lot of reasons before it even gets to that point. It is worth remembering that RotJ didn't get a pass on a whole _lot_ of stuff in its day.

But anyway, nitpicking criticism of the criticism is far too far down the intensely silly rabbit hole for me.

I actually only had a problem with the caterpillar-slowness of the Resistance Bombers, than anything else. Like all the other parts of the squadron dogfighting of Star Wars, it was supposed to evoke WW2 dogfighting, in this case B-17 style bombing runs through flak and fighters.

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Voss wrote:

Resistance Bombers? I well recall people harping on about No Gravity In Space. Turns out in canon? Gravitic Racks. Just enough to give them a wee hurl toward their target.

Dislike the films all you want, just please don’t invent stuff.

Unlike everything else you listed, this is something that is happening on screen, isn't explained, and actually matters for the scene to make sense.

And yet you didn't bat an eye at basically the same thing occuring during the first two films of the franchise?

Didn't I? Or did I?
Is this about my specific reactions? Or the actual criticism?

Either way, the 'hyper-detailed' line drawing illustrating an arc (the behavior of the actual torpedo is even weirder) or the directed energy weapon is very much not 'basically the same thing.'

Its a ballistic arc, the kind that can only be produced under the effects of gravity (in fact the entire illustration is basically an illustration of the concept of toss bombing, something that can only be done while under the influence of gravity), just like the arcs taken by the turbolasers in TLJ. BTW, calling turbolasers, blasters, etc. directed energy weapons kinda distracts from their true nature - they are as much an energy weapon as they are a projectile weapon in that they typically fire bolts of magnetically ionized gas - but some of them fire other types of projectile as well:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
TIE fighters not having hyper drives probably comes from “It’s a short range fighter.” However, in the same conversation, “It must have been part of a convoy or something.” This just raises so many questions. Fortunately, that’s speculation from the least-informed character, so fairly ignorable.

TIEs not having shields probably comes from the way they explode into puffy clouds compared to X-Wings, which explode into chunky meteors. However, that could also be the result of TIEs having a pair of teeny-tiny practical guns while X-Wings sport twice as many f-huge cannon. Also, X-Wings are bigger and slabbier.

I forget if we’ve seen a Y-Wing asplode-a-kill a TIE in the OT.

I suspect the no jumpdrive and/or shields came from either the previously mentioned West End RPG and / or the excellent X-Wing / TIE fighter PC games of the mid 90's

Interesting thing ...

The WEG material had to fit into the "Writer's bible" that lucasfilm gave to prospective writers for their EU. This was the same writer's bible that Timothy Zahn used while writing his Thrawn trilogy way back when star wars was pretty much a dead property. All of this stuff got collected up and put into the archives ("The holocron" at the Story Group) as a collection of reference material and was also used later on in Dave Filoni's Clone wars and Rebels (with a little tweak here and there) as well as in Solo (there's a bunch of references on Voss' desk to the older EU stuff in addition to some throwaway lines from Lando in his "captain's log" diary entries) and in the mandalorian.

Indeed although its a bit of a chicken/egg situation as a lot of that material originated in the writers bible before appearing in the WEG RPG or in the Thrawn trilogy, etc. though over time the interpretation of many things shifted to align to the WEG/Zahn version vs its origins in Lucas production notes.

chaos0xomega wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The 1-3 episodes at least had a thought out tech set up with the equipment making vague sense (why does the first order have a tracked bike?). 7-9 just doesn't make any internal sense.

AHEM.

Excuse me.

Oh and this thing.

Treads here too.

And who could forget?

I gotta be honest, this really reminds me of the one guy who made a fool of himself for claiming the sequels sucked because BB-8 could never exist because it would be impossible for it to move - only for it to turn out that BB-8 is a physical prop and can, in fact, move under its own power. Because, yknow, treaded motorcycles have actually been built in the real world, they aren't as far-fetched as you seem to think. That, and snowmobiles exist too.

Sure, but given the speeder bikes of the Empire, WHY has the First Order gone with the earlier technology of TRACKED bikes instead of using the far more common speeder bikes?

I mean, you can't argue it's an economic measure. They could afford the Supremacy and all those Resurgent class Star Destroyers. Next to that the cost of speeder bikes vs. tracked bikes is insignificant compared to the tactical advantages of the faster and more maneuverable speeder bikes.

I love 7,8, and 9. They are all great movies.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is one of my ongoing bugbears with criticism of the sequel trilogy.

Much as I enjoy the films, I do get they’re flawed and imperfect. But a lot of the repeat criticism (as in those who just can’t seem to let it go) focuses on stuff not directly described in the films, whilst forgetting that an awful lot of Nerd Knowledge comes from outside the main 9 films.

For instance, TIE Fighters not having shields, environment or hyperdrive. All well known, yes? And it does seem odd that Kylo Ren salvaged a Rebellion era TIE to get back to Exagol. Except....nowhere in the original trilogy is ever stated TIE Fighter’s don’t have hypderdrive. So that’s outside of the movie knowledge.

Aside from Obi-Wan calling the TIE fighter they encounter at the remains of Alderaan a 'short range' fighter, and the only OTHER Imperial fighter we see in those movies is Vader's personal fighter and the later Interceptor. I'll grant you the Interceptor might well have an in-movie hyperdrive, but we never see it used.

Han Solo being Correlian? Never once mentioned in the films.

Not until Solo, anyway, but that's a fair point.

Editing out some other good points...

Resistance Bombers? I well recall people harping on about No Gravity In Space. Turns out in canon? Gravitic Racks. Just enough to give them a wee hurl toward their target.

Which is fine. That was never my problem with them in the first place. My problems were

1) Aside from selling a new toy, there's no reason to go with new bombers instead of Y-Wings,

2) Dropping 1000 bombs in such tight patters means the first one detonates, and either sets off all the rest in a chain reaction AWAY from the target, or the explosion of the first bomb starts scattering the rest all over creation instead of focusing the destruction in one point like we see in the movie.

3) And that's even before considering how slow the bombers are. Remember that as slow as they appeared on screen moving toward the Dreadnaught? The Dreadnaught was also moving toward them AND the Resistance Fleet behind them, meaning they were EVEN SLOWER THAN THEY APPEAR ON SCREEN.

4) Last but not least, they're so fragile just using them in combat is a suicide mission. Leia should have slapped the logistics officer who procured them instead of a proven ship-killing design like Y-Wings and ion torpedoes; not Poe.

Dislike the films all you want, just please don’t invent stuff.

Strip out the Star Wars trappings and it's not a terrible generic sci-fi movie. What makes it a terrible Star Wars movie is that it ignores the seven previous movies of precedent and keeps the outward trappings of a Star Wars movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Another example.

People complaining about Rey being a pilot (despite her clearly stating she’s a pilot whilst they’re legging it), but Luke being able to jump into an X-Wing and fly it with no training.

Remember, the scene where he meets Biggs at Yavin is Special Edition. The T-16 having the same controls isn’t mentioned in the films at all. Nor is that both machines are made by Incom. But nobody cared at the time.

By and large, my complaint was not that Rey could fly a stock light freighter, but that she could use that 'garbage' stock light freighter and use it to outmaneuver fighters. It's like dogfighting Mig-29s in a 737 when you've never flown in combat before. At least Luke had an F-15 when he went up against MiG-29s.

And never forget, the scene where Biggs tells Red One that Luke was the best bush pilot in the Outer Rim occurred in the original movie, not the later revisions. We may not know who Biggs is, or what his relation to Luke is, but clearly he's an established Rebellion pilot and yet he vouches for Luke's skill as a pilot.

Not to mention Obi-Wan saying that he's heard Luke's become a pretty good pilot when they're talking about Luke's father Anakin.

In short, before Luke gets into an X-Wing we hear twice that he's a decent pilot. Where do we hear about Rey's amazing piloting skills again?

Quadjumper is a tugboat not a light freighter. The Falcon while a freighter is also heavily after marketed with 2 quad turbolasers and missile launcher. So it's more akin to a Me109 taking on a B-25 Mitchell or a B-26 Marauder. The 262 would be closer to something like the Silencer in comparison. So it's not out of the realm that she and Finn could make do with the Falcon against F/O Tie Fighters.

Also Luke never flew in combat until Yavin. Even with the T-16.

Also the Resistance bombers wouldn't even need gravitic racks, they'd drop out at speed into space because of the 1:1 artificial gravity in the bomber, because there's no friction.