The Last Jedi - There At First.. wait

[Peelee]

the [youtube] comments section is interesting to read

I'm not falling for that.

[Mordar]

Even my sister felt that Luke wasnt done well.
She rather liked the movie - and I cant blame her! She has been a StarWars fan all along, and she had to wait SIX f*ing movies to get a strong female character (sorry, Amidala was sort of a disappointment after a strong start, and Leia has always been a little passive, at least compared to the boys). Rey even looks a little like her. So I am happy for her, but wish the movie would be better, so the general audience would grow more fond of female action heroes (to be fair, I think Hollywood SERVERELY underestimates how popular they already ARE, even with male audience only).
When I told my family I kinda disliked the Last Jedi, my sis immediately said: "Why? It's because of Luke, isn't it?"

For her i think it wasnt so bad, because she has always been more of a Han Solo and Darth Vader "fan" if i may say it like that.

So she didn't pay attention to the first Star Wars movie, then?

She shot at stormtroopers boarding her ship. She mouthed off the Vader and Tarkin both. She refused to give intel despite torture droids and Darth Vader combined interrogating her. She refused to give Intel despite her entire planet being threatened. She mouthed off to a stormtrooper ostensibly coming in to escort her to her death sentence. She took charge of her own rescue and rescued her rescuers.

About the only thing Han and Luke did that she didn't was fly against the Death Star. She's a badass space princess in the first movie. I'm not sure what else your sister could have wanted from her.

ETA: I'm not dismissing your sisters opinions about Rey, I just feel like Leia gets less recognition than she deserves for being as tough as she was. Lord knows I couldn't do anywhere near half the things she did if I was in her shoes.

I thought about a couple of different lines of response here...but I think they both were covered by Peelee et al...

So my big question is...how old is your sister? What is her context? Because I think that is a huge issue. While I might not be the most authoritative voice on the issue, many significant people (to me) consider Leia, Ripley and Sarah Connor as the holy triumvirate of movie "strong women"...and consider both the time points and evolution of those roles. Star Wars has Leia as tough-from-go in 1977. Ripley starts as command-capable-but-reactionary two years later in 1979, and doesn't become bada$$ until nearly a decade after Leia first told Vader about his stench. Sarah Connor needs to be saved and starts the toughening up process in 1984, and goes psycho-bada$$ (but gets better) in 1991.

So while Leia was never blaster-first-badness, she was a more complete "strong female" character than anything seen before on the big screen, inspired both real life and fictional characters and is the shoulders upon which the Reys of the current era stand.

- M

[Peelee]

Ripley starts as command-capable-but-reactionary two years later in 1979, and doesn't become bada$$ until nearly a decade after Leia first told Vader about his stench.

Small point of contention here, she told Tarkin about his stench. She told Vader about his leash.

Sooooooo, even more badass, IMO.

[The Aboleth]

And if this required a large amount of resources, you would have a great point.

You could take a space rock and hook a hyperdrive up to it. You could hook hyperdrives up to escape pods. You could hook hyperdrives up to the freaking space trash that capital ships produce. The only investiture of resources is hyperdrives, and while we don't know how much they run, we do know that most ships in the galaxy have one, and there are one helluva lot of ships. All they need is mass and speed. The speed can be gotten by an incredibly common piece of technology. The mass can be gotten by literally anything in the galaxy.

You keep assuming facts not in evidence. Stop doing this, and you'll have amazingly good points.

First, easy on the condescension. Just because you think I am "assuming facts not in evidence" doesn't mean I am. I have been providing actual, real-world examples to support my argument, in fact, but you're intent on hand-waving them away as "Star Wars isn't real life." I've also been providing examples from the movie itself to support my argument. Your differing interpretations of those examples doesn't mean I am "assuming facts not in evidence."

Now, to my rebuttal of the above: Whether you have 1 ship or 1 million ships, it is still a stupid idea to deliberately destroy that ship in an attempt--one with a high risk of failure--of achieving your objective. In a conventional war in which you do not know when it will end, it is in your best interest to keep as many of your assets intact for as long as possible--assets being ships, pilots, fuel, etc. Why destroy something of yours in an attack that isn't guaranteed to work? It's not a sound strategy, in the real world or in Star Wars.

The article on Kamikaze's say that 3862 Kamikaze pilots died and took out more than 7000 naval enemies. If they were only 19% effective, that's a frighteningly good kill ratio if you can up that effectiveness. That's exactly what they did in terms of hyperspace ramming. It can be automated so you remove the human factor, it can be done extremely quickly AND from outside of weapons range which should massively increase the effectiveness. Seems like it would be a fantastic method of fighting.

I mean if you want to look at the real world we have dramatically increased the effectiveness of kamikaze attacks in the same way. We've created computer/radar guided missiles instead of needing to strap a pilot onto our bomb and have him aim it at the target.

Computer-guided missiles are different from a kamikaze-style attack. Missiles are designed to be expended in such a manner--it is their intended purpose. The drone or ship that fires that missile, in contrast, is NOT designed with the intent of being deliberately blown up.

For whatever reason, lightspeed missiles aren't a thing in Star Wars. Why? We don't know. Lightspeed technology seems common on ships--as Peelee points out--but for some reason it's not present in missiles. My guess is that aiming something at lightspeed is incredibly difficult, if not impossible--remember, in TLJ the dreadnought is basically right in front of the cruiser when it gets rammed, so there was really no need to aim on Holdo's part when she made the jump to lightspeed. But again, that's just my personal guess--I'm not sure if there's any canonical reason for why lightspeed missiles in Star Wars don't yet exist.

It doesn't need to be "very effective". It just needs to be effective. That's the issue. Guided Missles aren't always effective, not even in Star Wars, yet they have plenty of those. What you seem to forget is that the previous accepted canon was that it was simply impossible to jump in/out of hyperspace when a physical object was in the middle. Either because the navicomputer would prevent so; or because your ship would simply obliterate itself (causing no visible harm to the other object) the point is that canon was changed. Now FTL balistics is real. And the problem isn't just why the rebels don't use it, but why nobody uses it, period.

I am arguing it is not effective at all, at least as a strategy to be employed in a long-running, large-scale war. It requires an expenditure of resources with a low degree/chance of success. Even if it DID succeed some of the time, that doesn't make it a good idea--if I rob a bank by pointing my fingers like a gun at the teller, and I get away with it, it's still not a good idea to try that again because odds are it's not going to continue to work. A more effective strategy in a long-running war is to use your resources in such a way that they remain in-tact for as long as possible. Heck, that's basically the message at the end of the movie when Rose says "That's how we'll win--not by destroying what we hate, but by saving what we love."

FO have plenty of resources, and even fighters have their own hyperdrive engines. Instead of wasting a whole squad of sluggish bombers, the Resistance could have launched them into hyperspace on a close location to destroy the dreadnought. That would have made them 200% more effective than what they actually did. Instead of bothering with aiming a humongous canon while compromising the safety of the whole dreadnaught, the FO could have easily constructed self-guiding missiles with droids and TIE spare parts. It's totally game-changing, and the writers aren't witty enough to realize the whole mess they created.

If you launch the sluggish bombers at the dreadnought at lightspeed, you still lose the sluggish bombers. The first plan--the one actually employed in the movie--banks on at least some of the bombers getting back intact. The fact that they don't doesn't mean the hyperspeed-ramming plan would have been better. One plan gives the bombers a chance of making it back, the other gives them NO chance. Most Generals--the sensible ones, I would argue--are going with the first plan because it is stupid to waste resources, be they piloted or remotely-guided.

They had the resources to buy completely ineffective bombers and waste them on a mission that only worked by mere chance. If only the kamikaze girl had the idea to convince their superiors to install a hyperdrive on them...

The bombers weren't ineffective, though--they worked. Yes, the First Order succeeded in destroyed them all and had a little luck in doing so, but that doesn't mean the bombers were ineffective. It's a bomber that takes down the dreadnought, in fact, so I'm not sure why you thought they were ineffective other than "None of them made it back."

You're arguing that they waited too long to use the ramming technique. I agree. That doesn't mean it isn't effective.

As I mention above, I am arguing that it is not a sound strategy AT ALL, even if you move the timeline up. It might succeed, but it probably won't--notice how even when the dreadnought is RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER, Holdo only succeeds in ramming the cruiser through the side of the dreadnought rather than straight through the bridge or even the throne room. Even what we're shown on screen paints the tactic as no sure-fire thing despite being as close as possible to the target; how well do you give it when the ships are much further away and the First Order has more room to either maneuver out of the way and/or shoot the ships down because they can engage light speed?

[Peelee]

First, easy on the condescension. Just because you think I am "assuming facts not in evidence" doesn't mean I am. I have been providing actual, real-world examples to support my argument, in fact, but you're intent on hand-waving them as "Star Wars isn't real life." I've also been providing examples from the movie itself to support my argument. Your differing interpretation of those examples doesn't man I am "assuming facts not in evidence."

Now, to my rebuttal of the above: Whether you have 1 ship or 1 million ships, it is still a stupid idea to deliberately destroy that ship in an attempt--one with a high risk of failure--of achieving your objective. In a conventional war in which you do not know when it will end, it is in your best interest to keep as many of your assets intact for as long as possible--assets being ships, pilots, fuel, etc. Why destroy something of yours in an attack that isn't guaranteed to work? It's not a sound strategy, in the real world or in Star Wars.

First off, I don't mean to be condescending at all. If it's coming off that way, then I apologize, and I'm going to try to phrase everything better from hereon out. Please do tell me if it's not working. Limitations of text-based conversation, and all.

Second, I'm dismissing your real-world examples as "Star Wars isn't real life" because you're comparing similar strategies but with 80-year-old technology vs incredibly advanced technology beyond what we have. The strategies simply fail to be analogous once the technology diverges enough. Ancient Roman shields and modern-day kevlar and ceramic-based armor both are similar strategies - prevent bad projectile from going into my body - but the different types of projectiles and the different propulsion systems absolutely matter. If the Peeleean Soveriegnty fought a war with guns that could not penetrate armor worn by the soldiers of Badlandia, that doesn't mean that modern-day tungsten (or better) bullets don't have much better armor-piercing capabilities against similarly modern-day armors. It's the exact same strategy, but the technology can make the end result diverge radically. Just because WWII utilized a tactic does not mean that a different world with different technology would have the same results.

As I mention above, I am arguing that it is not a sound strategy AT ALL, even if you move the timeline up. It might succeed, but it probably won't--notice how even when the dreadnought is RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER, Holdo only succeeds in ramming the cruiser through the side of the dreadnought rather than straight through the bridge or even the throne room.

Yes, because she's shooting from the hip. Her friends are being killed, every second's delay is another ship blown up. Having any sort of actual aiming mechanism other than "holy crap the Resistance is in danger lemme aim center mass fast" would improve this.

[Mightymosy]

And if this required a large amount of resources, you would have a great point.

You could take a space rock and hook a hyperdrive up to it. You could hook hyperdrives up to escape pods. You could hook hyperdrives up to the freaking space trash that capital ships produce. The only investiture of resources is hyperdrives, and while we don't know how much they run, we do know that most ships in the galaxy have one, and there are one helluva lot of ships. All they need is mass and speed. The speed can be gotten by an incredibly common piece of technology. The mass can be gotten by literally anything in the galaxy.

You keep assuming facts not in evidence. Stop doing this, and you'll have amazingly good points.

To further elaborate on this point:

I checked the sizes of the Raddus and the Supremacy at Star Wars wikia.

Relatively speaking the Supremacy is about twenty times as large as the Raddus.
And the attack destroyed the Supremacy and two adjacent spaceships.

So, one successful hyperdrive attack can destroy a ship about twenty-times the size.

Which means, just comparing the sizes, economically the hyperdrive suicide attack is effective even if it fails 18 out of 19 times!

So, you only really need a success rate of more than 5%.

How many spaceships to the rebels usually lose when going against the empire?
I think the hyperdrive attack would costs less rebel pilots' lives than conventional attacks (psychologically, of course, they are a different thing!).

Which attack group would you rather belong to:
-20 X-Wing-Squad: you all attack the Star Destroyer at once, and any number of you may likely die, possibly all of you (don't have statistics for this kind of fight)
-20 X-Wind-Squad: you all hyperdrive jump into the Star Destroyer one after another until one eventually hits. If one hits, the rest can leave because the Star Destroyer is gone.

And I think the tactic has a MUCH higher success rate than 5% in the first place. Hyperdrive jumps over millions of lightyears usually end SPOT on.
I think hitting a Star Destroyer or even bigger ships IN PLAIN SIGHT will probably be about 99%.

And it doesn't cost a lot.
As I said, just build a couple of the Hyperdrive rings Obi-Wan's spaceship had. They are built to be disconnected to the main ship, so neither you nor your Droid actually has to sacrifice themselves.
For anyone interested:
Hyperdrive-capable equipment that needs neither a human nor alien nor droid to fly through space, from within the accepted canon:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sylui...transport_ring

Additionally, if you design ships exactly for this mission, they will be way more effective.
Remember, people, X-Wing-fired Torpedos can take out Star Destroyers.
Just load the Hyperdrive rings full with Torpedos (or the bombs from the "Slow Bombers of Last Jedi", for that matter), and I BET you can take out ships way bigger than twenty times the size of the hyperdrive assault vessel.


Bottom line: the scene itself was very cool, but made no sense given the framework the other movies in the series give us. But that is, again, the problem with Rian Johnson: He just doesn't seem to care about consistency. Anything for a "Whoa" from the audience.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Abeloth:

I think the point is that if this technique is possible, at all, then warfare would account for it. So you say that guided missiles are designed for their purpose and what we're saying is if you can hyperspace ram things, then hyperspace ramming drones would be designed for that purpose as well.

As far as Holdo's aim and efficiency, well, she's just an admiral deciding to pull off this maneuver impromptu in a moment of desperation. But if we assume that this technique is possible, then the world would have organically adopted to it and I would imagine there would be rather precise ramming drones to pull of these maneuvers.

Regarding resources, it depends. Against something like the Death Star, it would be totally worth it to put resources into a hyperspace ramming drone that could destroy it in one hit. Certainly it would be considered instead of relying on an insanely difficult trench run after securing the Death Star plans in the first place.

[Sapphire Guard]

Lightspeed ramming is never going to be a routine tactic. Most of the time it's not worth it. But for any Imperial 'Big, Dangerous Ship', lightspeed ramming is going to be the single biggest threat.

For the Death Star, it's worth it. A 10km deep hole might not destroy it, but it would certainly take it out of commission, especially when you have the plans and can hit the most vulnerable spots.

For SK Base, its worth it.

For the Supremacy, it's worth it. That ship is pretty much the FO seat of power, it's crew is bigger than the DS. Ideally, Snoke dies, but even if he doesn't, slicing his seat of power in half is a huge symbolic victory, it's basically telling the FO 'none of you are safe', 'Snoke is an idiot' and 'look what that tiny fleet did to us, how are we going to cope with actual opposition?'

We've seen in canon before that it's not easy to stop a capital ship from ramming you even outside hyperspace, so the first thing any captain is going to be aware of is 'lightspeed ramming, how dangerous it is. If this is possible, then it has happened before, and any 'big, dangerous ship' is very vulnerable, it kind of removes the value of 'big, dangerous ships' because they're too easy to knock out.

I don't think 'put a hyperdrive on an asteroid' would work, any more than 'attach a car battery to a rock', but even if it costs you a battleship, you now have a quick, easy solution for any of those superweapons the Empire keeps rolling out.

[The Aboleth]

First off, I don't mean to be condescending at all. If it's coming off that way, then I apologize, and I'm going to try to phrase everything better from hereon out. Please do tell me if it's not working. Limitations of text-based conversation, and all.

No worries. I was probably more defensive than I should have been, so my apologies as well for responding to you so harshly.

Second, I'm dismissing your real-world examples as "Star Wars isn't real life" because you're comparing similar strategies but with 80-year-old technology vs incredibly advanced technology beyond what we have. The strategies simply fail to be analogous once the technology diverges enough. Ancient Roman shields and modern-day kevlar and ceramic-based armor both are similar strategies - prevent bad projectile from going into my body - but the different types of projectiles and the different propulsion systems absolutely matter. If the Peeleean Soveriegnty fought a war with guns that could not penetrate armor worn by the soldiers of Badlandia, that doesn't mean that modern-day tungsten (or better) bullets don't have much better armor-piercing capabilities against similarly modern-day armors. It's the exact same strategy, but the technology can make the end result diverge radically. Just because WWII utilized a tactic does not mean that a different world with different technology would have the same results.

While I agree that more advanced technology changes the nature of the situation in many cases, in this particular instance I don't agree. You're still definitely losing a resource--be it a ship, a pilot, a hyperdrive, or whatever--in exchange for maybe completely destroying an enemy vessel and/or killing their leadership in the process. I still believe it's an ineffective strategy because you're committing to a strategy that requires you to accept a pyrrhic victory (at most) while also putting yourself in a resource hole for an indeterminate period of time against an enemy that has infinitely more resources.

The only time suicide/kamikaze tactics ARE effective is when you're trying to indiscriminately kill large numbers of civilians--say, during an insurgency in an effort to disrupt daily life and create fear and hostility towards the reigning government. That's not what the Resistance is trying to do, however, nor would they want to given what we know about the characters and their ideologies.

Yes, because she's shooting from the hip. Her friends are being killed, every second's delay is another ship blown up. Having any sort of actual aiming mechanism other than "holy crap the Resistance is in danger lemme aim center mass fast" would improve this.

Yes, but keep in mind that having more time and space to aim also gives the target more time and space to get out of aim. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see a battle that's nothing but flash after flash of vessels continually dodging one another at lightspeed until someone finally lands a hit. It'd turn every space battle into one giant strobe light!

[Blackhawk748]

Computer-guided missiles are different from a kamikaze-style attack. Missiles are designed to be expended in such a manner--it is their intended purpose. The drone or ship that fires that missile, in contrast, is NOT designed with the intent of being deliberately blown up.

For whatever reason, lightspeed missiles aren't a thing in Star Wars. Why? We don't know. Lightspeed technology seems common on ships--as Peelee points out--but for some reason it's not present in missiles. My guess is that aiming something at lightspeed is incredibly difficult, if not impossible--remember, in TLJ the dreadnought is basically right in front of the cruiser when it gets rammed, so there was really no need to aim on Holdo's part when she made the jump to lightspeed. But again, that's just my personal guess--I'm not sure if there's any canonical reason for why lightspeed missiles in Star Wars don't yet exist.

Except that they are, just look at the Galaxy Gun from the EU. The reason "mundane" missiles arent is because the payload isnt worth the additional cost, but if ramming something into another thing with Hyperspace does that kind of damage, you dont even need an actual payload, just a heavy object.

The bombers weren't ineffective, though--they worked. Yes, the First Order succeeded in destroyed them all and had a little luck in doing so, but that doesn't mean the bombers were ineffective. It's a bomber that takes down the dreadnought, in fact, so I'm not sure why you thought they were ineffective other than "None of them made it back."

Except they are. The only reason that the things even worked is because the Destroyers hadnt launched their fighters (a violation of Imperial SOP, and the FO is basically the Empire so i dont see why they wouldnt share that SOP). If the TIEs were in the air, te fighters would have been annihilated

[Scowling Dragon]

This is an interesting video about the TLJ and the comments section is interesting to read

Considering the vidamker liked a comment about how salty the people are it can go buzz off.

I got TLJs point, i thought it was terrible

[pendell]

I don't think 'put a hyperdrive on an asteroid' would work, any more than 'attach a car battery to a rock', but even if it costs you a battleship, you now have a quick, easy solution for any of those superweapons the Empire keeps rolling out.

Okay, why not? For a lightspeed kinetic weapon, all we need for F=MA is mass (which the asteroid provides) and A (provided by the hyperdrive). Also a droid brain or even a simple mechanical device to steer it, similar to the guidance systems in use on modern missiles.

It doesn't need life support of any of the other niceties. This is in space so it doesn't need to be shaped to be aerodynamic.

If we're going to do this over long distances I would propose designing a sort of 'pod' containing a small crew and the hyperdrive. Fly over to a likely looking asteroid and attach. Steer it into position. Press the Big Red Button which detaches the crew pod and initiates a countdown for the hyperdrive. Then pick up another hyperdrive and do it again.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

(Note: all instances of italics in this post are intended as exasperated humor, not as condescension or attacking anyone.)

For whatever reason, lightspeed missiles aren't a thing in Star Wars. Why? We don't know.
[...]
But again, that's just my personal guess--I'm not sure if there's any canonical reason for why lightspeed missiles in Star Wars don't yet exist.

I'm beginning to think no one reads my posts, like the post where I laid out the evidence why hyperspace does not work that way.

I mean, I generally ramble on for a while so it's totally excusable, but still.

The reason that hyperspace missiles à la the Holdo Maneuver aren't a thing in Star Wars is that canonically hyperspace does not work that way. (The Galaxy Gun fired missiles through hyperspace, but they still had to come out of hyperspace and maneuver to their targets.)

The reason that we haven't seen hyperspace ramming before, in movies, Canon material, or Legends material, is that discounting the TLJ retcon hyperspace does not work that way.

A great deal of ink has been spilled and bytes have been transmitted to explain how hyperspace works, and from the beginning it has been clear that hyperspace is not "warp speed," it is not "relativistic travel," it's not even "going faster and faster and damn relativity," it's hyperspace, a different space entirely where if you ram into something else in realspace you go kersplat and the something else in realspace is fine. This effort was presumably invested because if hyperspace did work that way (and it does not work that way) it would render much of the previous Star Wars material (including the OT, the canon material which all other canon material must conform with and uphold at all costs) nonsensical.

Just like being able to jump through shields in TFA would render any parts of the previous movies involving "There's a big honkin' shield we have to get through, gotta find another way" nonsensical (so, just the climaxes of Episodes I, IV, V, and VI, no big deal) unless they came up with some technobabble explaining why Starkiller Base's shields in particular and no other shields in the entire galaxy were subject to this flaw and no other, which they did--by introducing "shield refresh rates," which is how Star Trek shields work and not how Star Wars shields work, but fine, at least the canon damage is localized to one part of one movie.

(And yet jumping through the Starkiller Base shields still involved jumping right into a planet's gravity well when hyperspace does not work that way.)

All of the discussion about whether hyperspace ramming would work tactically, strategically, or logistically is beside the point because, all together now, hyperspace does not work that way!


Look, Disney could easily have retconned everything about hyperspace when they wiped out the EU. It would have made the Holdo Maneuver create just as much of a gaping flaw in the logic of previous material, but at least fans could have wagged their fingers and said "Ah ah ah, not canonical! Maybe hyperspace does work that way and Interdictor cruisers and hypermatter are just a figment of everyone's collective imagination in the new canon." But they specifically included all of that and ensured that all of the material on hyperspace functioning remained canon, and then went ahead and did something nonsensical and plot-breaking in TLJ anyway.

Before the Dark Times...before the Disney Empire the EU was wiped out I was generally inclined to mentally paper over apparent inconsistencies in new material, because the folks in charge of canon were generally good at keeping things consistent and smoothing things over as needed to make new and old material make sense together, even if it took a while and even if they had to really reach for it. But in this case they didn't even put in the bare minimum of effort to add some technobabble in the movie about it. And even if the "Oh, we totally stuck a computer in hyperspace" explanation given in a single paragraph in the TLJ Visual Dictionary were sufficient to explain hyperspace collisions that affected realspace, that should have meant that, at most, the small hyperspace tracker device room exploded when the Raddus jumped at it (assuming it could hit such a small target, which many have pointed out would be tricky even if hyperspace worked that way and it does not) and not the entire ship.


TL;DR: Hyperspace does not work that way!

[Wookieetank]

As I mention above, I am arguing that it is not a sound strategy AT ALL, even if you move the timeline up. It might succeed, but it probably won't--notice how even when the dreadnought is RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER, Holdo only succeeds in ramming the cruiser through the side of the dreadnought rather than straight through the bridge or even the throne room. Even what we're shown on screen paints the tactic as no sure-fire thing despite being as close as possible to the target; how well do you give it when the ships are much further away and the First Order has more room to either maneuver out of the way and/or shoot the ships down because they can engage light speed?

Indeed, Or the FO could just accelerate to light speed themselves. Momentum plays quite the role once two moving objects are in play. Its how you get car accidents where a semi-truck emerges intact with dents where a car gets turned into scrap. Granted relativistic speeds throws standard physics out the window and flips it the bird, but then SW is space fantasy over hard sci-fi. There's several ways in which the light speed ram can be easily countered/negated (light speed shields come to mind, biggest difference in DS1 vs DS2 is shielding, so adding in a light speed resistant shield, not to far of a stretch). Once something is a known thing, counters can/will be thought up to neutralize/negate its effects.

Personally, the light speed ram scene was one of my favorites (stunningly done both visually and aurally), and even had me instinctively covering my ears in anticipation of the sound catching up (and was not disappointed). Its not often where a piece of media has me instinctively reacting to it (other than obvious gross outs done in horror).

[Dr.Samurai]

@PairO'Dice Lost: There are two problems. One is as you've stated now multiple times, which is that this is not how Star Wars hyperdrive works.

But if Disney has changed that so that these ramming techniques are possible, then there is another problem in that this would change how warfare is fought in Star Wars. As Sapphire Guard pointed out, large vehicles/bases like the Death Star, the Supremacy, and Starkiller Base become huge liabilities and are probably not worth their construction.

[The Aboleth]

Except they are. The only reason that the things even worked is because the Destroyers hadnt launched their fighters (a violation of Imperial SOP, and the FO is basically the Empire so i dont see why they wouldnt share that SOP). If the TIEs were in the air, te fighters would have been annihilated

The bombers had fighter escorts specifically to combat the TIEs. Poe himself has been shown to take out multiple TIE fighters, and even if the other pilots aren't as good as Poe they still give the bombers a fighting chance to deliver their payloads. If the bombers had no fighter escort that'd be one thing, but they did specifically to account for the thing that would have neutralized their effectiveness (the TIEs).

[pendell]

(Note: all instances of italics in this post are intended as exasperated humor, not as condescension or attacking anyone.)



I'm beginning to think no one reads my posts, like the post where I laid out the evidence why hyperspace does not work that way.

I mean, I generally ramble on for a while so it's totally excusable, but still.

The reason that hyperspace missiles à la the Holdo Maneuver aren't a thing in Star Wars is that canonically hyperspace does not work that way. (The Galaxy Gun fired missiles through hyperspace, but they still had to come out of hyperspace and maneuver to their targets.)

The reason that we haven't seen hyperspace ramming before, in movies, Canon material, or Legends material, is that discounting the TLJ retcon hyperspace does not work that way.

A great deal of ink has been spilled and bytes have been transmitted to explain how hyperspace works, and from the beginning it has been clear that hyperspace is not "warp speed," it is not "relativistic travel," it's not even "going faster and faster and damn relativity," it's hyperspace, a different space entirely where if you ram into something else in realspace you go kersplat and the something else in realspace is fine. This effort was presumably invested because if hyperspace did work that way (and it does not work that way) it would render much of the previous Star Wars material (including the OT, the canon material which all other canon material must conform with and uphold at all costs) nonsensical.

Just like being able to jump through shields in TFA would render any parts of the previous movies involving "There's a big honkin' shield we have to get through, gotta find another way" nonsensical (so, just the climaxes of Episodes I, IV, V, and VI, no big deal) unless they came up with some technobabble explaining why Starkiller Base's shields in particular and no other shields in the entire galaxy were subject to this flaw and no other, which they did--by introducing "shield refresh rates," which is how Star Trek shields work and not how Star Wars shields work, but fine, at least the canon damage is localized to one part of one movie.

(And yet jumping through the Starkiller Base shields still involved jumping right into a planet's gravity well when hyperspace does not work that way.)

All of the discussion about whether hyperspace ramming would work tactically, strategically, or logistically is beside the point because, all together now, hyperspace does not work that way!


Look, Disney could easily have retconned everything about hyperspace when they wiped out the EU. It would have made the Holdo Maneuver create just as much of a gaping flaw in the logic of previous material, but at least fans could have wagged their fingers and said "Ah ah ah, not canonical! Maybe hyperspace does work that way and Interdictor cruisers and hypermatter are just a figment of everyone's collective imagination in the new canon." But they specifically included all of that and ensured that all of the material on hyperspace functioning remained canon, and then went ahead and did something nonsensical and plot-breaking in TLJ anyway.

Before the Dark Times...before the Disney Empire the EU was wiped out I was generally inclined to mentally paper over apparent inconsistencies in new material, because the folks in charge of canon were generally good at keeping things consistent and smoothing things over as needed to make new and old material make sense together, even if it took a while and even if they had to really reach for it. But in this case they didn't even put in the bare minimum of effort to add some technobabble in the movie about it. And even if the "Oh, we totally stuck a computer in hyperspace" explanation given in a single paragraph in the TLJ Visual Dictionary were sufficient to explain hyperspace collisions that affected realspace, that should have meant that, at most, the small hyperspace tracker device room exploded when the Raddus jumped at it (assuming it could hit such a small target, which many have pointed out would be tricky even if hyperspace worked that way and it does not) and not the entire ship.


TL;DR: Hyperspace does not work that way!

In the original novelization Alan Dean Foster laid out the rules of hyperspace thus: You had to be at least six planetary diameters away from a gravity well in order to make the jump, and to come back out again. That's why Interdictor cruisers were a thing in the old EU.

The new show's attitude is probably best typified by the New Novelization of A New Hope . IMO, it's the best of the OT novelizations which just came out, and the writer is quite talented. She tells the story from three different perspective and does a masterful job.

There is only one sour note: She constantly refers to the noise of space battles, and the great sound that comes from them.

I restrained myself from writing a gentle fan letter pointing out there is no sound in the vacuum.

But I think Disney has this attitude towards everything in the new trilogy: The old canon physics don't apply anymore. We no longer have to travel six planetary diameters to make a jump -- we can do it right from atmosphere and exit hyperspace in the same manner. We couldn't accurately track ships in the old canon, and now we can.

And yes, we're going to have sound in space just because.

What this tells me is that the new SW trilogy is , simply, a fantasy set in space. It is not science fiction. It is not internally consistent. It runs on rule of cool.

We've come a long way since The Black Hole .

I don't think that stories which lack internal consistency are going to last down through the ages, but I don't think Disney cares. So long as the visuals keep bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars per year, Disney could care less if no one remembers them ten years from now.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Blackhawk748]

The bombers had fighter escorts specifically to combat the TIEs. Poe himself has been shown to take out multiple TIE fighters, and even if the other pilots aren't as good as Poe they still give the bombers a fighting chance to deliver their payloads. If the bombers had no fighter escort that'd be one thing, but they did specifically to account for the thing that would have neutralized their effectiveness (the TIEs).

The 4 bombers (i think it was 4, i could be wrong) didnt even have a full squadron protecting them. There was like half a dozen A Wing Interceptors and what few X Wings where there (i doubt more than 6). Meanwhile the Star Destroyers each carry 2 wings of TIE Fighters (a Wing is 6 Squadrons fyi) and should have each had a squadron in hard vacuum the moment they came out of hyperspace. If that had been does, as is SOP, they would have had time to launch more, meaning that the Bombers and their paltry escort would have had to fight somewhere between 3-9 squadrons depending on how long it took. And considering that those bombers are apparently less resilient than a Y Wing (and have worse turret placement) and slower than a Hutt on a bicycle i dont think it would matter how many ships they had protecting them, as the only way to get them safely to their target is to apparently outnumber the opponent.

Basically, that bomber has no business going after a capital ship. Its clearly designed with the same idea as the TIE bomber, destroying stuff after it has been rendered defenseless. (this includes fighters)

In the original novelization Alan Dean Foster laid out the rules of hyperspace thus: You had to be at least six planetary diameters away from a gravity well in order to make the jump, and to come back out again. That's why Interdictor cruisers were a thing in the old EU.

Interdictors are canon again, they get used in Rebels.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The new show's attitude is probably best typified by the New Novelization of A New Hope .

...a captivating retelling of Star Wars: A New Hope like you've never experienced before....takes a deeper look at these three heroes...

So now they're going to retcon the OT through novelizations, too? Can't they just leave the originals well enough alone?

[warty goblin]

@PairO'Dice Lost: There are two problems. One is as you've stated now multiple times, which is that this is not how Star Wars hyperdrive works.

But if Disney has changed that so that these ramming techniques are possible, then there is another problem in that this would change how warfare is fought in Star Wars. As Sapphire Guard pointed out, large vehicles/bases like the Death Star, the Supremacy, and Starkiller Base become huge liabilities and are probably not worth their construction.

Given how routinely they get scrubbed by one-man fighters, they're already not worth their construction.

Lengthy Digression not addressed at anyone in particular.

Seriously, this strikes me as a mountain out of a molehill. Star Wars has never had more than a first-pass sort of consistency or logical cohesion at best anyway. The fact that the fleet engagements make no sense isn't a new problem, they already made no sense. Hell the very existence of capital ships makes no sense, since you'd always get more bang for your buck with a bunch of small hyperspace capable fighters. Maybe a couple of bombers, but seriously, it's not like the capital ships ever actually accomplish anything useful. They just sit there, don't shoot a lot, and get blown up in pretty fashion. According to this, a Star Destroyer masses about 40,000,000 tons, which is equivalent to roughly 7,142,850 X-wings. Guess which one I'd back in a fight?


Basically nothing in Star Wars survives any sort of elaborate setting scrutiny. Jedi are apparently a big deal, but let's be honest, they'd get wrecked by about four druids with high ROF weapons. Or a gun that fires shots in triangles, so they can't block more than two of the shots at a time. Or grenade launchers. Or flamethrowers. There's city-sized planets that should roast themselves, ecosystems that seem to consist entirely of carnivores, a consistent confusion between 'planet' and 'actually right next door', between 'planet' and 'ecosystem' and the list just continues.

The stuff in Star Wars is there to look cool, often by letting the heroes do cool things. Lightspeed ramming is no different. What is different is that Holdo isn't one of the fun characters.

[Peelee]

While I agree that more advanced technology changes the nature of the situation in many cases, in this particular instance I don't agree. You're still definitely losing a resource--be it a ship, a pilot, a hyperdrive, or whatever--in exchange for maybe completely destroying an enemy vessel and/or killing their leadership in the process. I still believe it's an ineffective strategy because you're committing to a strategy that requires you to accept a pyrrhic victory (at most) while also putting yourself in a resource hole for an indeterminate period of time against an enemy that has infinitely more resources.

If the gain is bigger than the resource cost, then the expenditure is worth it, though. If an escape pod with a hyperdrive can take out a standard-size Star Destroyer, for instance, or at least take it out of commission, then the Resistance is spending vastly smaller resources than the First Order would be in repairing or rebuilding the Star Destroyer. And that's just pure financial cost, and is saying nothing about the opportunity costs. If, for instance, such a tactic had been used at the beginning of the movie, and even if the damage was significantly less extensive than Holdo's attack on Snoke's ship (I can't remember the names), so long as it damaged the engines, the shield generators, the hyperdrive, the energy generator, the life support, the any of many systems vital to a warship to participate in battle, of all the ships in the fleet (and there weren't that many), then it doesn't matter that they could have tracked the Resistance through hyperspace, the Resistance could have still escaped. To paraphrase Brill from Enemy of the State, use their strength as weaknesses. If they're big and you're small, then they're slow and you're fast, they're stiff and you're nimble, their costs are huge and your costs are low. More expensive missiles that do significantly more damage and can potentially take out entire capital ships on their own are well worth the necessary investment, assuming that the Resistance is able to gain access to more resources over time. If they are not able to access more resources over time, then I don't know what the next movie is going to be about.

The only time suicide/kamikaze tactics ARE effective is when you're trying to indiscriminately kill large numbers of civilians--say, during an insurgency in an effort to disrupt daily life and create fear and hostility towards the reigning government. That's not what the Resistance is trying to do, however, nor would they want to given what we know about the characters and their ideologies.

I'm going to ask a question I should have asked long ago: why? Why were the old kamikaze attacks largely ineffective, and do those reasonings also apply to the Star Wars universe? I honestly don't know, but I can gather a few guesses. Were they only effective as a surprise, and AA guns could reduce the efficacy of such attacks? If so, there is no real defense against hyperspace kamikazes, as they move too fast to take out. Is it because the real people that piloted them had a certain ratio of them not being able to go through with it? If so, then mechanizing and automating it would reduce that percentage to zero. Is it because if the kamikaze missile missed, the missile was then lost? Again, mechanizing and automating it could allow microjumps only, so that a miss could be easily retreivable and result in no lost resources except a minute amount of fuel. These are just examples; again, I don't know why they didn't have a great success rate in the real world, but the Star Wars world is very different, and may not have have the same limitations at all.

Yes, but keep in mind that having more time and space to aim also gives the target more time and space to get out of aim. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see a battle that's nothing but flash after flash of vessels continually dodging one another at lightspeed until someone finally lands a hit. It'd turn every space battle into one giant strobe light!

The missile itself is virtually instantaneous. So long as the target is in the sights when the trigger is pulled, there's no way to get out of aim. If the target takes evasive maneuvers in a chase, then it will eventually lose the chase. If the target takes evasive maneuvers during a battle, it may very easily put itself in a disadvantageous position for the more conventional that are almost certainly also being levied against it. And all this assumes they even can get out of the way in time; Star Destroyers are very large and not noted for being particularly nimble. I honestly doubt how easily a ship would be able to dodge at all.

[pendell]

I'm going to ask a question I should have asked long ago: why? Why were the old kamikaze attacks largely ineffective, and do those reasonings also apply to the Star Wars universe?

Going from memory, the reason WWII Kamikaze tactics were ineffective was because of three reasons:

1) Lack of pilot experience. The reason Japan was using kamikazes in the first place was because the regular pilot corps had been all but destroyed, and the new crop simply didn't have the skills to compete in the air. Since the pilots couldn't be trusted to maneuver, couldn't be trusted to navigate, couldn't be trusted to pull off a dive attack, they were given the simplest job possible: Aim this plane at a ship and fly into it.

2) Inability to identify a target.
Related to #1. Distinguishing a cruiser from a battleship, or a destroyer from a capital ship, proved challenging in the war even for veteran air crews. These rookies were even worse at it. So what they'd do is aim towards the first ship they saw and fly into it -- which, more often than not was a picket destroyer.

During the battle of Okinawa, those destroyers took a lot of pounding, to the extent that some began hanging "This way to the carriers" signs as a helpful navigational aid.

3) Really tough American air defense.
Radar, fighters, radar-controlled anti-aircraft guns, and all the rest of it -- the modern air defense system was born around American carriers during WWII and it proved quite effective.


Make no mistake -- Kamikaze attacks during the second world war were extremely effective, and American commanders feared them more than just about anything else the Japanese could bring to bear. The immense kamikaze corps the Japanese had prepared as a reception for Operation Olympic -- in which planners estimated the Kamikazes , with 10,000 aircraft, would sink 400 ships, about half the invasion fleet -- was one of the major reasons the Americans decided to forgo invasion and drop atomic bombs instead.

Of these issues, I don't think any of them apply to the first order in Star Wars. Real-world considerations of target identification have never seemed to be an issue in Star Wars, droid brains will easily fly with more skill than any human pilot, and the First Order defenses are laughable. So yes, wave upon wave of suicide droid bombers should make life hell for any capital ship in the Star Wars universe. I'm a bit surprised no one tried it in the Clone Wars.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mightymosy]

So, this is an interesting topic because it's something that always happens with sequels. The problem with stories, always, is that no matter how they end, no matter how happily it ends...there will always be a bad moment later on, if it extends. Not because of malicious directors or anything, but because just realistically, people will die, eventually. Han lives a dangerous life, he'll die eventually leaving Leia a widow, it's kind of an inevitibility given his life style. It's tragic, but that's kind of the idea. ANY story that continues on beyond it's happy ending will have tragedy in spades, because no matter how good something is...it's always impermanent. It's a fascinating thing to think about, and not one I find wholly negative. It's okay if you don't like it, and you don't have to follow the new series. You don't even have to consider them canon if you preferred the EU, nothing's stopping you from going that route. But in the realm of discussion and talking about these things, it's important to realize this inherent tragedy that comes with "and then the story continues". Time's arrow marches forward, and all that.

Also please remember that Mark Hamil has said after seeing the movie he realizes he was wrong. Also, important, Harrison Ford has wanted Han Solo to die since the second movie. He wanted a heroic and cool, climactic death since basically the beginning. He was 100% on board with this and loved every second of getting to finally plan his own death. It's actually kinda creepy like dude, Ford, you okay?

It's not only that sad things need to come but also the way they come. Please look at the post I made where I compare things to if you play an RPG campaign and later return to a sequel to find out everything went back to square one, in your absence, without explanation, without chance to make decisions of yourself, and that's it. That explains why the way it was done is so frustrating for me and for some other people.

There are several different ways to get the same premise (First Order vs Rebellion) without having to reduce the characters of the original movies to ashes.

You can say they lived a happy life, but NOW is 1000 years later and things have deranged since then.
You can say they live but now they are simply to old to fight anymore. Have them give some final advice to the new heroes, and off they go.
Or have them make mistakes and live through the tragedy that everything they fought for is lost again. Sure, it's tragic, but at least they get to live through their own stories. If the message of Last Jedi is "mistakes are our most important lessons", fine, at least let the old cast MAKE these mistakes that finally will be their downfall.
The way the new trilogy did stuff is just sad - and hollow if you get what I mean.

Why would Han Solo need to die?
He lived the dangerous life of a smuggler because he needed the money, and appaerantly smuggling was the option he went with instead of other potentially available jobs like dirt farming, for example.
You could easily see him abandoning that life after Return of the Jedi and settle down with Leia, because now he has enough money to go lazy on some lush paradise planet with her.
In the original EU, he becomes general and, if I remember correctly, kinda dislikes it because he doesn't feel this is a role for him. I remember there being a story where he ends up back in the Falcon on some crap planet, facing Boba Fett one more time at blaster-point-range, where both oldtimers wonder if they shouldn't just pull the trigger and see who survives, just like in the old times. Because both feel old and no longer fit for the world that changed around them.
It was sad, and it was not the best of stories, but it stayed true to Han's character in my eyes, and thus was easily believable.

It is even concievable Han and Leia estranged from each other, one being fit and liking high politics, while the other more fit for "small scale life".
One could easily see Han's arc going either way (settling down peacefully, or feeling unrest and returning to his old way of life). This is why The Force Awakens made me sad about Han, but I was not as furious as with how Luke was handled.
I still think it was bad writing that Han was just put at the end of that arc I described. We don't see how he got there, so it still feels...unfair? At the time I thought this would be told in part VIII, but it didn't.

So anyway, it is totally believable how Han died, but it was in no way a sure thing that he would die because of the dangerous life he was living.

Hey, one time I want to see this trope avoided. One time I want to see a sequel where the protagonist of the previous movie [I]just had lived peacefully till their end.


So, time passes and things can change. Sure. But for my taste? If I am supposed to care for a story, there is a certain level of consistency I am comfortable with. Especially concerning the characters I like. If they change a huge deal, I don't want this done for simple shock value. I want this done as a reasonable progression. Otherwise why use that character at all if you need a different kind of character in the story? Just have him be Jake Skywalker if Jake Skywalker is what you need.

And I will possibly do just what you said: leave the main series for other people from now on. It's sad, but that's it. I have dropped other series I liked before when the tone and idea changed radically because of different writers etc. Mark Hamill defintely said it right: "It's just a movie."

I thought about a couple of different lines of response here...but I think they both were covered by Peelee et al...

So my big question is...how old is your sister? What is her context? Because I think that is a huge issue. While I might not be the most authoritative voice on the issue, many significant people (to me) consider Leia, Ripley and Sarah Connor as the holy triumvirate of movie "strong women"...and consider both the time points and evolution of those roles. Star Wars has Leia as tough-from-go in 1977. Ripley starts as command-capable-but-reactionary two years later in 1979, and doesn't become bada$$ until nearly a decade after Leia first told Vader about his stench. Sarah Connor needs to be saved and starts the toughening up process in 1984, and goes psycho-bada$$ (but gets better) in 1991.

So while Leia was never blaster-first-badness, she was a more complete "strong female" character than anything seen before on the big screen, inspired both real life and fictional characters and is the shoulders upon which the Reys of the current era stand.

- M

Ha I have never heard them being called like that (triumvirate - funny because it literally translates to "three men"), but I follow you with that group. These three female roles stood out during that time.
And the effort the directors of these movies made at the time paid off. Alien (especially 3) and Terminator 1&2 are two of my girlfriend's favourite movies...and she is not into science fiction AT ALL. For her it's just one setting among many, I would guess (about my sister: she is 32, i think she might have been 12 or 14 or something when we first watched Star Wars, but this is a wild guess. I would have to check).

Aaaanyway, to make it a little clearer what I meant about Leia.
Without giving it much thought, quickly answer the following questions:
- Who is the protagonist of Terminator?
- Who is the protagonist of Alien?
- Who is the Protagonist of Star Wars?



I think for most people this would be
Sarah Connor (Hey, another Hamil(ton) )
Ripley
Luke...or Han? Of course most people would try to argue that the protagonists were a team of Luke, Leia and Han Solo (poor Chewie, no medal for you ).
But when pressed to name the one protagonist, Leia would come out third by far is my guess.

I googled it and found very little....but a thread in the Giant in the Playground from 6 years ago
Now guess how many people considered Leia the Protagonist of Star Wars? Hint: R2-D2 got more votes

I sincerly believe diversity (race, gender etc) in movies and other media to be important, and this means that characters of all different kinds of shades need to get the spotlight - which means being the person who actively and obviously is the one who is doing things.
Because I think most people want some story in which they can associate with the hero, the main character, so that for some amount of time, it is their story.

[The New Bruceski]

And the attack destroyed the Supremacy and two adjacent spaceships.

Disabled, not destroyed. The docking bay was pretty severely damaged, but Hux and Ren sure didn't seem to be in any hurry after things had stabilized. And it took the Rebels' largest ship to do that much damage.

[...]If this is possible, then it has happened before [...]

That kind of thinking leads to "if it hasn't happened before it's not possible" and loses battles. Everything is obvious once someone's done it.

[Scowling Dragon]

Disabled, not destroyed.

Thats downright wrong. Maybe most charitably "Severly Damaged".

Severly DAMAGE an entire FLEET of "Fleet Destroyers" with one puny ship...Thats no joke.


Yes the video is a parody but thats the only version I found without a copyright strike. The content is still the same.

[The New Bruceski]

Thats downright wrong. Maybe most charitably "Severly Damaged".

Severly DAMAGE an entire FLEET of "Fleet Destroyers" with one puny ship...Thats no joke.


Yes the video is a parody but thats the only version I found without a copyright strike. The content is still the same.

That's what "disabled" means. Combat capable --> disabled (can't fight but can be salvaged) --> destroyed (you're just getting scrap parts). People on board lived, therefore it's not destroyed.

[Scowling Dragon]

That's what "disabled" means. Combat capable --> disabled (can't fight but can be salvaged) --> destroyed (you're just getting scrap parts). People on board lived, therefore it's not destroyed.

I said "Damaged" CHARITABLY. That is one MASSIVE blast. Even DISABLING a massive fleet like that is an impressive feat.

Pretty sure most of those ships are full of dead people. Its not blown up, but most of those are definetly destroyed.

[Mechalich]

That kind of thinking leads to "if it hasn't happened before it's not possible" and loses battles. Everything is obvious once someone's done it.

Absent new technologies, every possible tactical maneuver in a combat situation has indeed been tried, repeatedly, since fairly early in history. This is one of the reasons why Sun Tzu is still in print.

TLJ offers a plausible tactical permutation based in new technology - hyperspace tracking leads to conducting pursuit in realspace, a situation that, prior to this development was largely nonsensical (in ESB the Empire is able to effectively chase the Falcon only because it's hyperdrive is disabled). No new technological changes to hyperdrives are presented and there is nothing to indicate that the Raddus is an unusual ship in any way (this is another case where TLJ should have thrown in a 1-line fix, by having Rose mention that the ship has an experimental hyperdrive or something to that effect). More importantly - Hux notices when the Raddus begins to maneuver onto a ramming course and orders a reaction. This makes it clear that he fully understands what is about to happen.

That matters immensely. Hyperspace ramming is clearly not unknown to the First Order. Hux - who is possibly the least competent military officer in Star Wars films since the Gungans made Jar Jar a general - sees it coming. This means that hyperspace ramming is now a viable tactic in-universe and all previous battles must be reexamined in light of this possibility. Of course, when you do this pretty much every previous engagement looks insanely stupid and combat in universe makes no sense at all. At the same time, it also de-values Holdo's sacrifice because her maneuver only succeeds due to Hux's incompetence - if he knew the tactic was an option his fleet should have been deployed properly to neutralize it. For instance the fleet ought to have been deployed in line instead of in column so that the escorts would have been unaffected and even with the Supremacy disabled they could have killed all the transports with ease.

Ultimately, any way you like it the lightspeed ramming moment is a terrible inclusion in the film. Even if you can justify it, the sequence is immensely problematic in that it demands justification. TLJ is rife with these sorts of issues it presents elements: bombs dropping in space, hyperspace ramming, Luke's altered character, Leia's force abilities, everything about Snoke, etc., without having placed anything in the film to earn them. This is the same kind of 'storytelling' used in the recent Michael Bay Transformers films (if not quite so blatantly), which is basically 'screw coherency, that was cool, and I have more explosions to film.'

[Lethologica]

What this tells me is that the new SW trilogy is , simply, a fantasy set in space. It is not science fiction. It is not internally consistent. It runs on rule of cool.

This sort of attitude comes up all the time and I don't know why fantasy fans put up with it. Fantasy is not a garbage bin for SF that fails to live up to sufficient standards of internal consistency. Fantasy is full of stuff with great internal consistency. SF is full of stuff with crap internal consistency. That has nothing to do with what is fantasy and what is SF. Quality =/= genre.

By any reasonable measure that counts Star Wars as fantasy now, it has always been fantasy. By any definition demanding that SF follow the tradition of John Campbell rather than, say, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Star Wars has always failed to measure up (barring the EU, which has undoubtedly told some Campbellian SF stories because anything goes in the EU). Personally, I see that as a rather narrow view of SF, but if people are gonna subscribe to it, they ought to be internally consistent about it.

Also, the new novelization of ANH referring to the sound of space battles is only being true to the extremely noisy space battles that were shown in ANH. Yes, just because. Yes, it deviates from reality. That's completely unrelated to internal consistency, but if it's bothersome nonetheless, then it has been bothersome since the opening scene of A New Hope, and ceaselessly for the intervening forty years of storytelling. It did not become a problem only when Disney took the reins.

Yes, the new trilogy has consistency issues, including the implications of Han's hyperspeed-to-planetside jump and Holdo's ram. But let's not lionize the OT and pretend this stuff started in 2015, let alone wax elitist about Star Wars' genre classification on that basis. There are no life forms aboard that argument.

[Sinewmire]

Whilst I can agreee about the stern chase (nothing made sense there) I can't agree on the portrayal of Luke, and the claims that it is against his character.

Luke explains that it's his fault that the Dark Side is ascendant again.

He saw a new Darth Vader arising inside Ben, and one that he was responsible for. Ben was his student, and he saw what he would become. Knowing that he was responsible for it. Luke ignited his saber, ready to stop the worst case scenario before it began, and then realised he couldn't. He couldn't murder someone in cold blood even to save the Galaxy from Kylo Ren.
I have no problem with that revelation. Luke is tested, feels responsible, but ultimately cannot do the wrong thing, even for the right reasons.

The new jedi order is slaughtered and a new Dark Side led Empire arises, and it's all Luke's fault. He goes in search of the original Jedi texts on the first Jedi Temple to try and find an answer - where did he go wrong? And he cannot find one.

Are the Jedi flawed? Is it just Luke's fault? Over time he decides both.
He stays on Achto because the galaxy is better off without Luke Skywalker and without the Jedi.

The Jedi who didn't stop Darth Sidious and didn't stop Kylo Ren. Who allowed both to rise on their watch.

Luke is viewed as the greatest hero in the galaxy, a messiah to the Resistance, and Star Wars fans.

He failed. He made the galaxy a worse place. And he's Luke Skywalker. He can't face going back.

The story is about Luke forgiving himself for failing, and I don't agree with all the "Luke wouldn't do that!" arguments I've heard - what we're presented with made perfect sense. Luke is at his lowest, blames himself, is doubly hard on him because of who he is what he's acheived in the past and needs Rey to convince him that there's merit in both the Jedi way and by extension himself.

I loved the film, despite the dumb parts - I can overlook Ewoks to enjoy the Luke/Vader/Emperor sceness in ROTJ!

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.