Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)

[abake]

Yeah, I obviously failed at explaining what I had in mind!
Anyway, thanks for the lively discussion fellas.

 

[JAWS]

Always thought the throan room fight was overrated.. Thought the Choregraphy was ok first time I saw it and it got worse with each viewing..

The Stunt guy in this video shares his thoughts..

 

[screamingmetal]

Yes, the bombs would not stop at the bottom of the ship unless there’s a force pushing the other way to stop them. The bombs would “drop” as we see them do. Also, the bombs hang in lines in the ship pushing each other down creating momentum.
And therefor what we see on screen is pretty much how it would go if the bombs were ejected by the artificial gravity of the ship.
The asteroids in ESB having their own gravity strong enough to pull the bombs is a much “dumber” and less plausible possibility - but then again, it’s Star Wars. And asteroids and ships have gravity - so who cares!?

You have a problem with that and not the asteroids behaving with implausible chaotic movement?

The problem with the TLJ bombs is that Star Wars has established guided missile technology with proton torpedoes, there's no need to ever fly over a target and drop bombs. Luke was trying to pinpoint an exhaust port with a guided missile that had to be launched in a specific way in ANH, I never thought he was dropping that torpedo, and the TIE bombers in ESB looked to be launching those glowing orbs (similar to photon torpedoes in Star Trek, same filmic language), never thought they were being dropped but shot.
The Last Jedi bombing run comes across as incredibly stupid compared to everything else.

 

[slikkerias]

You have a problem with that and not the asteroids behaving with implausible chaotic movement?

The problem with the TLJ bombs is that Star Wars has established guided missile technology with proton torpedoes, there's no need to ever fly over a target and drop bombs. Luke was trying to pinpoint an exhaust port with a guided missile that had to be launched in a specific way in ANH, I never thought he was dropping that torpedo, and the TIE bombers in ESB looked to be launching those glowing orbs (similar to photon torpedoes in Star Trek, same filmic language), never thought they were being dropped but shot.
The Last Jedi bombing run comes across as incredibly stupid compared to everything else.

No, in fact I don’t have a problem with the bombers in ESB. I don’t have a problem with ANY of the bombers actually. That’s the point. Star Wars is fantasy and a lot of not very likely stuff happens. All of it is implausible if you wanna ruin it! I know enough about science to be aware that nothing in this universe makes any sense if we drag it through this kind of misplaced scrutiny.
Judging a Star Wars movie on plausibility and realism of the “science” and ranking the implausibility is kind of ridiculous. And we all know that if we think about it.
I find this kind of criticism petty and unimaginative querulous.
But lucky that those, who can’t have fun with space bombers anymore, can now have fun with bombing the movies that their 15year old selves most likely would have adored. ;-)

 

[TaliBane]

No, in fact I don’t have a problem with the bombers in ESB. I don’t have a problem with ANY of the bombers actually. That’s the point. Star Wars is fantasy and a lot of not very likely stuff happens. All of it is implausible if you wanna ruin it! I know enough about science to be aware that nothing in this universe makes any sense if we drag it through this kind of misplaced scrutiny.
Judging a Star Wars movie on plausibility and realism of the “science” and ranking the implausibility is kind of ridiculous. And we all know that if we think about it.
I find this kind of criticism petty and unimaginative querulous.
But lucky that those, who can’t have fun with space bombers anymore, can now have fun with bombing the movies that their 15year old selves most likely would have adored. ;-)

SW traditionally never really relied on science concepts all that much (even if science was a backdrop or context, or characters would mention scientific terms amongst other gibberish - "fly right through a supernova..." "... gravity dampers...") But that did seem to change with TLJ - in regards to gravity, esp. in that opening bombs sequence and the Leia-Poppins scene (including the "sucking out the bridge" moment.) These sequences made ACTUAL science necessary to understand what was happening - like that you float and freeze in space for example, and that if a window is shattered, you get sucked into space, and would need an airlock door to seal it etc.

Zero-g or the harsh environment of space was never seen in SW before, even in moments where it should have - like wearing a simple breather in the asteroid cave where it should have been low or zero-g, and would have frozen them.

So it's not quite fair to say that OT films and TLJ were fantasy that both had fuzzy science - TLJ certainly has some sci-fi elements, things that inject real rules of space travel, that are more akin to a movie like "Aliens" than it is to something like "Dark Crystal." It was one of the issues with hiring a writer/director best known for a hard sci-fi film.

Even the "we're running out of fuel" idea - that was a huge story element - wasn't really something seen in SW before, even if we were aware the Falcon probably needed fuel. And FO conversations about the slo-mo chase (that bordered on the absurd at times - numerous youtube videos have delved into the absurdity of that sequence) also seemed to trade much more on science to explain what was happening than anything seen in the OT.

If actual science is used to explain what is happening onscreen, then critiquing it on the basis of science is valid - because it has become science fiction. If it's clear that a few scientific terms and concepts are jumbled into sequences that don't trade on those concepts, then it's not - because it's just fantasy with a few terms tossed in.

This is something that has confused people about SW since the very beginning - what is interesting is that when TLJ came out, the media (in trying to defend TLJ in the context of a fan reaction) seized on an online story about how ESB was maligned by fans in its day. The source article was based on reactions in Starlog magazine, which was largely run by David Gerrold, who despised Star Wars and seemed to believe it was intended as science fiction, and would critique it from a scientific perpsective (he was a Star Trek writer and fan, and disliked Sw immensely.)

When a movie specifically embraces science as a way to explain things - as TLJ does - you can't say stuff like "Judging a Star Wars movie on plausibility and realism of the “science” and ranking the implausibility is kind of ridiculous" - that's having your cake and eating it too.

 

[Khev]

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone defend the Mary Poppins scene. Even the most diehard TLJ fans seem to acknowledge that it was terribly done. But the dropping bombs via the ship's internal artificial gravity does line up with SW "physics" from previous films.

It does break form with OT era "energy weapon" bombs (ESB TIE Bombers and RO Y-Wings) but the "falling" aspect of the mechanical bombs really shouldn't be a sticking point for anyone who has accepted the physics of the OT and PT.

 

[xipotec]

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone defend the Mary Poppins scene. Even the most diehard TLJ fans seem to acknowledge that it was terribly done. But the dropping bombs via the ship's internal artificial gravity does line up with SW "physics" from previous films.

It does break form with OT era "energy weapon" bombs (ESB TIE Bombers and RO Y-Wings) but the "falling" aspect of the mechanical bombs really shouldn't be a sticking point for anyone who has accepted the physics of the OT and PT.

I do not have trouble with her using the Force and surviving...

It was just a terrible shot, and done very poorly....



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[Khev]

See even you say it was terribly done.

 

[TaliBane]

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone defend the Mary Poppins scene. Even the most diehard TLJ fans seem to acknowledge that it was terribly done. But the dropping bombs via the ship's internal artificial gravity does line up with SW "physics" from previous films.

It does break form with OT era "energy weapon" bombs (ESB TIE Bombers and RO Y-Wings) but the "falling" aspect of the mechanical bombs really shouldn't be a sticking point for anyone who has accepted the physics of the OT and PT.

I'm not referencing how it was handled - yes, poorly in a number of ways (even if some visuals are quite beautiful, and in the abstract I kind of like it as a CF tribute moment) - I'm talking solely about hard science concepts that literally underpin the whole Poppins sequence that are not a part of the OT and so in some ways are alien concepts to SW (even if scientific terms - like "ion", "laser" and "light speed" for example - are used in its fantasy-tinged jargon.)

The conversation seems to have been about hard science like gravity and space science and how they relate to SW. Some have said that they should be no more analyzed in TLJ than they were in the OT. But what I'm saying is that TLJ employs hard science in a far more crucial way (actually underpinning scenes, and setting up hard-science rules/parameters for characters and scenes) than the OT ever did.

So its fair to criticize TLJ on that basis, but you can't lump the two entities, TLJ and OT, together because they employ these ideas in totally different ways, even if superficially it seems like they don't. TLJ very clearly and firmly crosses into hard science fiction in certain scenes, whereas the OT never does, even if random science-based terms that are bandied around make it seem like it does.

 

[Khev]

I hear where you're coming from though I'm not sure that being sucked out into space and freezing is particularly "hard science" anymore, at least not to blockbuster film audiences. I mean most kids watching TLJ probably remembered the exact same thing happening to Yondu earlier that same year and therefore wouldn't need to run to their physics books afterward in order to understand what happened to Leia.

I certainly wouldn't say that it's "harder" science than say a wrist stump cauterizing instead of bleeding when the hand is sliced off by a burning lightsaber blade. Which interestingly enough was an example of George himself breaking his own rules when compared to Walrusman's arm.

 

[TaliBane]

I hear where you're coming from though I'm not sure that being sucked out into space and freezing is particularly "hard science" anymore, at least not to blockbuster film audiences. I mean most kids watching TLJ probably remembered the exact same thing happening to Yondu earlier that same year and therefore wouldn't need to run to their physics books afterward in order to understand what happened to Leia.

I certainly wouldn't say that it's "harder" science than say a wrist stump cauterizing instead of bleeding when the hand is sliced off by a burning lightsaber blade. Which interestingly enough was an example of George himself breaking his own rules when compared to Walrusman's arm.

Walrusmen tissue doesn't cauterize like human tissue does due to their water planet origins. Different rules.

But I'm talking about genre convention. Whether those aspects are in other blockbusters or not, it wasn't in the OT. A bridge breach in ROTJ is just an explosion, while in TLJ it introduces imagery that is very different and very much fully sci fi movie - especially stuff like zero-g drifting debris as Leia re-enters the bridge and air-lock doors. That's out of an Alien movie, not SW, at least anything seen in the OT.

I don't consider it "just something that didn't happen before" in the SW universe - I'd consider it a different take on the SW universe that is clearly steps toward true sci-fi (obvious given RJ was best known for a pretty hard sci-fi movie.)

Whether that's good or bad is up to the individual (there certainly can be genre evolution/drift with a franchise - look at how HP evolved toward many true horror aspects, or how Indy drifted more toward comedic aspects by the third movie, or how the newest F&F entry is positioned) I'm just saying its inconsistent with the OT.

And TLJ can also to some degree be criticized on the basis of sci-fi "rules," ie you can't just present true science-based concepts and then say "bah, it's fantasy like the OT was." The OT didn't do it to anywhere near the degree that is shown in the example of the Leia Poppins scene.

 

[Khev]

Walrusmen tissue doesn't cauterize like human tissue does due to their water planet origins. Different rules.

But I'm talking about genre convention. Whether those aspects are in other blockbusters or not, it wasn't in the OT. A bridge breach in ROTJ is just an explosion, while in TLJ it introduces imagery that is very different and very much fully sci fi movie - especially stuff like zero-g drifting debris as Leia re-enters the bridge and air-lock doors. That's out of an Alien movie, not SW, at least anything seen in the OT.

Or Guardians of the Galaxy, which is just as high fantasy as Star Wars. Ergo not an exclusive element of "hard sci-fi" and thus not genre breaking.

That's true that Piett wasn't sucked out into space when the A-Wing hit his bridge which is different than what happened to Leia. But again, like the cauterizing limb inconsistencies Lucas broke his own "bridge breach" rules when General Grievous broke the glass in ROTS. So yeah, the whole Leia thing was jarring in it's own way but ultimately not any more inconsistent with what came before or outside the bounds of the genre than when George was in charge of the Saga.

 

[TaliBane]

Or Guardians of the Galaxy, which is just as high fantasy as Star Wars. Ergo not an exclusive element of "hard sci-fi" and thus not genre breaking.

That's true that Piett wasn't sucked out into space when the A-Wing hit his bridge which is different than what happened to Leia. But again, like the cauterizing limb inconsistencies Lucas broke his own "bridge breach" rules when General Grievous broke the glass in ROTS. So yeah, the whole Leia thing was jarring in it's own way but ultimately not any more inconsistent with what came before or outside the bounds of the genre than when George was in charge of the Saga.

All films have their own unique blend of genres - the MCU is totally different to the OT. I mean the main character in GotG is from 1980s earth.

In the Fantasy genre, there are many sub-categories but two key kinds - the Fantasy Uncanny and the Fantasy Marvelous. The key thing that differentiates them is that Uncanny is the movement of an earth-based character into the fantasy world (ie "portal" of some kind, like John Carter,) which MCU is an example of, whereas Marvelous there is no "portal" involved - that is SW. Everyone you see is born there.

It's a key distinction because the Uncanny can more easily pull from earth-connected genres like sci-fi (ie earth based technologies and sciences,) the other does not - mostly. However, this is where SW is fascinating in that it does play with science based ideas and terms yet does not actually put them into proper use. In the same way, another Marvelous fantasy film, LOTR, uses earth-bound terms like "horse" and shows unaltered horses as they exist on earth (not with a made-up name or with a unicorn horn) - same with swords - so you'd expect a fantasy film set in space/planets to have to use terms we are somewhat familiar with as a kind of shorthand.

And I'm solely discussing the OT vs TLJ, the OT being the SW gold standard that both the PT and the ST were/are designed to measure up to and "recapture," whether Lucas was at the helm or not.

I really don't know the PT very well at all - does zero gravity occur in the PT? because to me the zero-g is the most "un-OT" (and therefore un-SW) element of the Leia-Poppins scene. Obviously if you broke a window between space and a room in the OT SW universe SOMETHING had to happen and a rush of wind likely would have been top of that list, kind of like the Bespin window break.

This is actually a really fascinating discussion. Getting to the core of what makes SW... SW.

 

[Khev]

To your question about Zero-G occurring in the PT I think we can assume that had Grievous not grappled his own ship after being sucked out the window that he would have experienced it, but...it's not a given since we didn't see it happen. In fact the one time that characters *should* have experienced Zero-G was when Grievous ship took a dive and yet...Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Palpatine fell *down* the elevator shaft. Obviously you and I know that if Lucas had them obey our laws of physics then they should have floated to the ceiling like when Cap was fighting the Red Skull at the end of TFA. So I've just provided you another difference between SW and the MCU.

Even if you take the vacuum/no vacuum inconsistency with regard to Grievous' and Piett's respective bridges I hear you about the OT setting the rules and trumping all inconsistencies that follow. Despite my posts on the subject I really am not invested in making Leia's ordeal "fit" with the rest of the Saga. It just didn't strike me as too "un-Star Warsey." Reading your take on it though I am leaning toward your perspective. I never got the impression in the OT that people were ever in danger of being sucked out into space if they were ever too close to a hull explosion. They always seemed to have "magnetic fields" and whatnot that would prevent that. Hell didn't Leia's own ship have an open air hangar that Kylo shot his torpedoes into where people were just walking around without spacesuits?

Even *with* the vacuum caused by the shattered glass on Grievous' ship you could easily just assume that magnetic fields hadn't been perfected back during the time of the PT which would explain the difference between Grievous' bridge and Piett's. So yeah, Leia and Ackbar probably should have stayed put based on what we saw in the OT.

 

[slikkerias]

TLJ breaking into hard science and therefor should be judged by it? ...that’s very very far fetched to be honest. That seems like an excuse for criticism.
30 years later an audience expects something different than they did 40 years ago because so many space movies have been made since and there are some things that have come to be expected, like zero gravity in space, as it would otherwise seem very weird to the audience that does not only consist of old fans like us. That doesn’t make it hard science or even science fiction. We are still very far from that. It just makes it less weird for a younger audience. New movies will have to balance this, just as the OT and PT had to back in the day.
We have had a lot of time to come up with explanations/excuses for how stuff work in the OT and PT, though the makers never intended them. Let’s see, in a few years, when the anger has settled and the younger fans take over, we’ll get all sorts of explanations/excuses for the ST too. Just like Star Wars has always worked.
Personally I wasn’t a fan of the Leia space scene. The “science” aspect didn’t bother me at all though. My problem was the forced aspect of it (pun not intended), but I think it was there to give Leia a more important character arc. Showing she could now use the force in some ways. It was even more important since, when they edited the movie, Carrie Fisher was already dead and they knew they had to end her story here.
It was also a way to underline a general plot line - that the Force does not just belong to the Jedi.

 

[Khev]

Oh I definitely think that space in SW has zero gravity. Han does make the comment about Luke "floating home" after all.

 

[slikkerias]

Oh I definitely think that space in SW has zero gravity. Han does make the comment about Luke "floating home" after all.

I know, we just never saw it.

 

[TaliBane]

To your question about Zero-G occurring in the PT I think we can assume that had Grievous not grappled his own ship after being sucked out the window that he would have experienced it, but...it's not a given since we didn't see it happen. In fact the one time that characters *should* have experienced Zero-G was when Grievous ship took a dive and yet...Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Palpatine fell *down* the elevator shaft. Obviously you and I know that if Lucas had them obey our laws of physics then they should have floated to the ceiling like when Cap was fighting the Red Skull at the end of TFA. So I've just provided you another difference between SW and the MCU.

Even if you take the vacuum/no vacuum inconsistency with regard to Grievous' and Piett's respective bridges I hear you about the OT setting the rules and trumping all inconsistencies that follow. Despite my posts on the subject I really am not invested in making Leia's ordeal "fit" with the rest of the Saga. It just didn't strike me as too "un-Star Warsey." Reading your take on it though I am leaning toward your perspective. I never got the impression in the OT that people were ever in danger of being sucked out into space if they were ever too close to a hull explosion. They always seemed to have "magnetic fields" and whatnot that would prevent that. Hell didn't Leia's own ship have an open air hangar that Kylo shot his torpedoes into where people were just walking around without spacesuits?

Even *with* the vacuum caused by the shattered glass on Grievous' ship you could easily just assume that magnetic fields hadn't been perfected back during the time of the PT which would explain the difference between Grievous' bridge and Piett's. So yeah, Leia and Ackbar probably should have stayed put based on what we saw in the OT.

Yeah, the sense you get about OT SW is that it's set with space and planets as a "backdrop" but it really isn't interested (at all) in the scientific reality of those things in terms of rules we know, and only kinda hints at them when absolutely necessary. To OT SW space is no different to a desert or a jungle or ice field, just another backdrop to be traversed and might have an ancient beast or two and some other dangers that are easily understood in a pulpy sense.

SW is very, very selective - it's the world of no buttons.

TLJ breaking into hard science and therefor should be judged by it? ...that’s very very far fetched to be honest. That seems like an excuse for criticism.
30 years later an audience expects something different than they did 40 years ago because so many space movies have been made since and there are some things that have come to be expected, like zero gravity in space, as it would otherwise seem very weird to the audience that does not only consist of old fans like us. That doesn’t make it hard science or even science fiction. We are still very far from that. It just makes it less weird for a younger audience. New movies will have to balance this, just as the OT and PT had to back in the day.
We have had a lot of time to come up with explanations/excuses for how stuff work in the OT and PT, though the makers never intended them. Let’s see, in a few years, when the anger has settled and the younger fans take over, we’ll get all sorts of explanations/excuses for the ST too. Just like Star Wars has always worked.
Personally I wasn’t a fan of the Leia space scene. The “science” aspect didn’t bother me at all though. My problem was the forced aspect of it (pun not intended), but I think it was there to give Leia a more important character arc. Showing she could now use the force in some ways. It was even more important since, when they edited the movie, Carrie Fisher was already dead and they knew they had to end her story here.
It was also a way to underline a general plot line - that the Force does not just belong to the Jedi.

You mean young people 40 years ago didn't understand or expect zero-g in space... the generation that followed Apollo, the moon landing, and the birth of the space shuttle... but young people today, with little in the way of a space program, do? And this is because of so many space movies?

And a younger audience feels no difference between space-based sci-fi like "Gravity" and space-based fantasy like SW? Or that some fantasy movies are anchored to earth realities like the MCU - the kind that have space, aliens but also billionaire industrialist playboys and WWII - and others are not?

Maybe mass audiences are indeed as dumb as people have made out for so long.

I know, we just never saw it.

In THREE two hour movies produced over six years.

 

[slikkerias]

Yeah, the sense you get about OT SW is that it's set with space and planets as a "backdrop" but it really isn't interested (at all) in the scientific reality of those things in terms of rules we know, and only kinda hints at them when absolutely necessary. To OT SW space is no different to a desert or a jungle or ice field, just another backdrop to be traversed and might have an ancient beast or two and some other dangers that are easily understood in a pulpy sense.

SW is very, very selective - it's the world of no buttons.



You mean young people 40 years ago didn't understand or expect zero-g in space... the generation that followed Apollo, the moon landing, and the birth of the space shuttle... but young people today, with little in the way of a space program, do? And this is because of so many space movies?

And a younger audience feels no difference between space-based sci-fi like "Gravity" and space-based fantasy like SW? Or that some fantasy movies are anchored to earth realities like the MCU - the kind that have space, aliens but also billionaire industrialist playboys and WWII - and others are not?

Maybe mass audiences are indeed as dumb as people have made out for so long.



In THREE two hour movies produced over six years.

You are pretty impossible to have a real discussion with. You try to dumb my comments down to make me look like an idiot. Are you really that afraid of being questioned?
You are quite aware that is of course not what I mean by my comment - and of course you know that ‘space movies’ for kids were very different back then. You really think I’m that ignorant? That I don’t know that kids back then knew about this stuff? They just didn’t expect or demanded it in their adventure movies. You really don’t think that the expectations have changed since 1977? Or you just need to dumb my opinions down to avoid agreeing with something I said? ... but why do I even bother.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Oh I definitely think that space in SW has zero gravity. Han does make the comment about Luke "floating home" after all.

That wasn't the only "floating" comment Han made in the OT. In fact, the other time he mentions "float away" is more relevant because he actually puts the concept of zero-g to use when he releases the Falcon from the Star Destroyer and drifts through space along with "the rest of the garbage."

And if you want more proof that space has zero gravity in SW, and during the OT, just look to spacetroopers. Stormtroopers equipped for zero-g environments. Pretty self-explanatory.

I really don't know the PT very well at all - does zero gravity occur in the PT? because to me the zero-g is the most "un-OT" (and therefore un-SW) element of the Leia-Poppins scene. Obviously if you broke a window between space and a room in the OT SW universe SOMETHING had to happen and a rush of wind likely would have been top of that list, kind of like the Bespin window break.

As far as zero-g being "un-OT" I would point to the examples I gave above. And as to whether Lucas applied the "science" concept of space in the PT, Khev nailed that one: