Author Topic: Over-analyzing Star Wars  (Read 11725 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,453
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2009, 10:52:42 AM »
Fistful, which version of Star Wars are you watching? The original where Han shot first?

Mostly original, but I have both versions of ESB, and I watched them both.  I don't see much difference in that one.  It looks like they added some cheesy CG effect for the explosion of the power generator at the rebel base.  Other than that, I can't find any negatives with the Special Edition of ESB. 

But of course, Han shot first. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

freedom lover

  • resident high school student
  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 745
  • "Who is the Coon?"
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2009, 02:53:37 PM »
I was watching in full-screen, so it was cut off completely, and all I saw was Han walking into view from offscreen. 

The full screen has Han coming out of a small orange one man tent.

Quote
My guess is, the armor DID protect them from serious injury, but they were still taken out of the fight.

How the hell would that work? Even if there was massive blunt force trauma from the plasma "bullet" that wouldn't have stopped a determined man. People have fought and killed others with much worse injuries than liquified chest muscles and smashed ribs. I conclude that the plasma "bullet" must penetrate to kill. 

Quote
Oh, I'm not saying it was an outer-space vacuum situation.  They were in atmo of some kind.  But if the air pressure was low enough out there, that Luke would be sucked out, wouldn't that mean the air is too thin?  I don't know.  I'm asking. 

Luke wasn't sucked out the novelization (which was based on a version of the script) states that Vader was using the Force to chuck things at him, causing the window to smash. My guess is that Vader either pushed him out or he jumped using the force.

Star Wars was meant to be an entertaining movie series, not something to be heavily analyzed. Being a serious fan took some of the fun out of it. Nevertheless, I have two minor quibbles.

1) The blaster bolts are slow enough to be deflected. They would not be too hard to dodge. They also show where the shooter is. I know the filmakers and artists wanted the movies to be futuristic, but they could have picked something more believable.

2) Something as hot as a lightsaber blade would be impractical because even with the blade being shielded from radiating heat to anything not touching it any inflammable surface would be set on fire and anything made of earthly metal would melt into a puddle of slag even if grazed. You couldn't even think about using it underwater.

Obviously the saga is full of holes and retcons.

Ya know, I was watching it in the suckular full-screen, so that may have been cut off on the side.   ;/

I prefer the original widescreen theatrical verisons. You would enjoy this.
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Episode-IV-Widescreen/dp/B000FQJAIW

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,453
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2009, 04:59:55 PM »
Yeah, I admit I'm over-analyzing it a bit.

How the hell would that work? Even if there was massive blunt force trauma from the plasma "bullet" that wouldn't have stopped a determined man. People have fought and killed others with much worse injuries than liquified chest muscles and smashed ribs. I conclude that the plasma "bullet" must penetrate to kill. 
I'm not sure what probably you have with that, exactly.  Obviously, people have fought through some pretty bad injuries.  But people have also folded up under lesser injuries.  It's a matter of will.  From accounts I have read, taking a bullet in the vest can be a pretty painful experience, even if there is no serious injury.  Couldn't it be the same deal with storm trooper armor and blaster hits?

Quote
Luke wasn't sucked out the novelization (which was based on a version of the script) states that Vader was using the Force to chuck things at him, causing the window to smash. My guess is that Vader either pushed him out or he jumped using the force.

In the film, it's pretty obvious that there's very low pressure beyond the window, and both characters are hanging on, so they don't get sucked out.  The idea that Luke jumped, or was pushed, with the help of the Force just doesn't fit very well in that scene. 

Same thing with all those star destroyers and Tie Fighters never managing to do any damage to the Falcon.  You could explain it by saying the Falcon had good shields and was fast, but to the guy (like me) who doesn't play the games or read the novels it just looks like all those gunners on all those star destroyers and all those Tie pilots are just horrible shots.  And that's the fault of the film-makers.  Not that it matters, really.  Just sayin'.

"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2009, 07:56:42 PM »
As far as the Falcon goes, I think they tried to emphasize it's speed in ANH/IV with dialogue instead of SFX. They were pushing the bleeding edge of motion control and the multi-layer film printing/bluescreen process and kept pushing how dramatic of maneuvers it made in each subsequent film.

And IIRC, other than the light sabers, Lucas wanted to make a space opera with more realistic space and weapons action. Beam weapons you couldn't see "from the side", Newtonian/vacuum spacecraft maneuvers etc. He knew he had to give it up, because people wouldn't get it, or would be bored.

The design for Darth Vader originally came from the need for him to wear a space suit/combat armor to board ships in a vacuum, then combined/inspired by the look of ancient Japanese samurai. Making Darth Vader himself be a Seven Samurai/Akira Kurosawa homage. If you also look at the early/original Ralph McQuarrie concept art, many characters to have a lightsaber, (Stormtroopers with sabers and shields, not just Vader and the Jedi.) Which was inspired by Lucas's love for the Erol Flynn swashbucklers. (Also, early concept art had Vader with both a blaster and a light saber...)

However the SFX budget and the tech was a stretch just to have three, Luke's, Ben's, and Vader's in the original ANH/SWIV. So the saber became "special" and reserved for the Sith/Jedi.


I promise not to duck.

erictank

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,410
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2009, 12:55:08 PM »
[Cletus, from the Simpsons] Mah time ta shine.[/Cletus] =D


1. I distinctly remember a scene of them getting rescued in the morning, with Han popping out of a snow-covered shelter as snowspeeders whent overhead and he waved at them. No interior shot of it.

2. No way of explaining that one, I agree.

3. Storm trooper armor is actually pretty good ballistic/fragment armor, but there's not much that's man-wearable that will resist a blaster. Just like today, where full rifle-proof body armor is in the SAPI plates, but too cumbersome/heavy to wear everywhere.

Exactly.  Since, under the Empire, blasters are basically illegal for the general population (Palpatine's no fan of the Second Amendment either! =D), all that's needed is armor to resist civilian projectile weapons.  TK armor is supposed to be rated to resist a glancing balster hit, or a stun charge, but a full-power, straight-on blaster bolt?  Yeah, for that, your family gets a nice certificate from the unit CO about what a fine soldier you were prior to your untimely death at the hands of those Rebel scum.  The armor also serves as short-duration protection from vacuum, a protected environment (suitable for moderately-hot or -cold climate and the like), and presents a menacing, faceless appearance to those the Emperor seeks to oppress with an iron fist protect from the lawlessness of the Rebel Alliance.

4. They do hit the Millennium Falcon a lot. However as a small courier/pocket freighter it's larger than single-seat fighters, and has proportionally more powerful shields and deflectors. (TIE fighters, the basic model anyway, in contrast are a quantity vs. quality argument and have no shields at all...) Also, the Millennium Falcon is indeed FAST. If you've played any of the X-Wing or TIE-Fighter sims for the PC where the Falcon makes an appearance, it is incredibly fast and slippery due to all of Han Solo's modifications. It's even faster than the Alliance A-Wing, or the various advanced TIE models. If it keeps turning, it might stay in the dogfight area to get shot at, but you'll never actually catch it in a flat-out run.

In one TIE-Fighter sim mission where you're supposed to catch the Falcon, you've got about 10 seconds to do so from the start of the mission before it's out of range and it disappears into hyperspace.

Also, IIRC, there's a picture of what the original stock ship from the factory looks like and the cockpit is in the center between the two gapped winglets. So Han Solo has had some serious modifications to move the entire cockpit over onto the side like he did. (Presumably more room for engines/gear...)

No, the Falcon's cockpit was always over on the starboard side.  Han's illegal upgrades included military-grade armor and deflectors, heavy weapons, and military realspace and hyperdrive systems which he then tinkered with to get far-better-than-stock performance out of (at the cost of having to beat on the instrument panels occasionally to get it all to work).  Her shields, for example, are the only reason she wasn't destroyed by the hit Avenger's gunners landed during their pursuit in the Hoth system (in ESB).  A stock YT-1300 would likely have been torn in half by it.

5. Might have been part of a force-throw by Vader, or a Force-jump by Luke to escape. In the Prequels, you see more examples of how the Jedi are willing to jump/fall many stories and control their fall with the Force.

6. The family that lays together... stays together...  :laugh:

7. Ewoks = FAIL. Should have been Wookies, and the battle take place on Kassyaak or whatever it's called.

Kashyyyk.  And Lucas SHOULD have stuck with the Wookiees.  Although that fan-film someone made several years back about "Endor's Hidden Menace" (shows how tough the Ewoks really are) as an explanation for how a bunch of teddy bears could defeat the Empire's finest WAS pretty funny.

8. The pimp is strong with that one...

Can't argue with that one!  :laugh:

freakazoid

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,243
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2009, 01:10:14 PM »
Quote
3. Why is Storm Trooper armor so bloody useless?    :lol:

http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/shortfilms/injured/index.asp :D

Also if you love Mystery Science Theater 3000 then you will love these, http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/star-wars-episode-iv-a-new-hope There are others too. They are commentary tracks for different movies that you play when you watch the DVD.
"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic

coppertales

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 947
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2009, 05:09:10 PM »
I would love to take Lea home and do a serious analyze of her but, she is an old lady now........I hated those little furry f******....chris3

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,453
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2009, 05:12:56 PM »
her but?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

freakazoid

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,243
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2009, 05:18:46 PM »
ROFL, that can be taken both ways,  :lol:
"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic

S. Williamson

  • formerly Dionysusigma
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,034
  • It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2009, 06:43:59 PM »
I dunno... she still seems fun to hang out with.   =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ97s396kb0
Quote
"The chances of finding out what's really going on are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
"And are you?"
"No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid. Pity, it sounds like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise."
-Douglas Adams

RaspberrySurprise

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,020
  • Yub yub Commander
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2009, 05:09:37 PM »


(Note the little lightsaber zipper pull...)
WANT!
Look, tiny text!

just Warren

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,234
  • My DJ name is Heavy Cream.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2009, 05:40:45 PM »
If the Empire was anti-blaster they really didn't do much about it.
Member in Good Standing of the Spontaneous Order of the Invisible Hand.

Iapetus

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2009, 01:28:12 PM »
I was (and still am) a big fan of the original Star Wars movies, and at least some of the Expanded Universe stuff.

However, I've always thought it was best when viewed as a light-entertainment space opera / western / fairytale.

Treating it as "hard" science fiction and trying to explain or justify every detail, or form a consistent narrative that incorporates all the retcons just results in far too many ridiculous claims.

Note that I'm not criticising Fistful's original post, rather things like:

* The numerous and increasingly convoluted attempts to explain how the Falcon could "make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs".  (For those not in the know, a parsec is actually a unit of distance).

* Stepping through the film a frame at a time and examining the destruction of Alderaan, noting that the debris appears to be slowing down as it expands, concluding that the Super Laser must therefore work by sending part of the target's mass to hyperspace, and then insisting that this explanation is "canonical" because "thats what the film shows happening".

* Stepping through the film a frame at a time and examining the destruction of Alderaan, noting that the laser special effect seems to be spreading over the planet's surface for a fraction of a second before it blows up, concluding that this represents a planetary shield overloading, and then insisting that it is "canonical" that Alderaan had a shield because "thats what the film shows happening".

* Getting extremely irrate with anyone who suggests that you can't conclude something is "definitely canonical" when the only evidence is a special effect that is only visible for a couple of seconds or less and which no-one ever mentions on-screen again.

And so forth.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,453
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2009, 02:18:22 PM »
I find your lack of faith - disturbing.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2009, 09:04:23 PM »
Iapetus:  You have just defined The Jedi Council Forums on www.theforce.net.....and don't get me started on the Fleet Junkie discussions (ships, order of battle, hyperspace mechanics, etc.)....  :rolleyes:
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

erictank

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,410
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2009, 09:19:26 PM »
WANT!

One of the women in my garrison was actually the person who made that for the ThinkGeek April Fool's ad.  She reported later that they're actually considering offering that as a real, regular item (they've done it with other April Fool's items in the past).

S. Williamson

  • formerly Dionysusigma
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,034
  • It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2009, 09:38:08 PM »
One of the women in my garrison was actually the person who made that for the ThinkGeek April Fool's ad.  She reported later that they're actually considering offering that as a real, regular item (they've done it with other April Fool's items in the past).
I must admit, I really, really wonder where she got the "intestine print" for the lining...  :O
Quote
"The chances of finding out what's really going on are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
"And are you?"
"No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid. Pity, it sounds like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise."
-Douglas Adams

erictank

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,410
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2009, 09:53:32 PM »
I must admit, I really, really wonder where she got the "intestine print" for the lining...  :O

For the story, go here: http://electricsoup.livejournal.com/631830.html

ETA: Misunderstood her involvement originally - she SEWED it, but did not originate the concept.  They came to her and asked if she'd make it for them.  Still pretty cool, IMO.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 09:56:41 PM by erictank »

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2009, 01:19:54 AM »
Iapetus:  You have just defined The Jedi Council Forums on www.theforce.net.....and don't get me started on the Fleet Junkie discussions (ships, order of battle, hyperspace mechanics, etc.)....  :rolleyes:

And SDN.net.

And SpaceBattles.com.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2009, 06:08:09 AM »
And SDN.net.

And SpaceBattles.com.

Agreed....'cause everyone knows that SW ships outgun ST ships by a million to one...  =D
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

S. Williamson

  • formerly Dionysusigma
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,034
  • It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2009, 11:11:06 AM »
Agreed....'cause everyone knows that SW ships outgun ST ships by a million to one...  =D

"Oh, really? A million to one, you say?"

*snaps fingers*
Quote
"The chances of finding out what's really going on are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
"And are you?"
"No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid. Pity, it sounds like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise."
-Douglas Adams

freedom lover

  • resident high school student
  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 745
  • "Who is the Coon?"
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2009, 12:14:11 PM »
Exactly.  Since, under the Empire, blasters are basically illegal for the general population (Palpatine's no fan of the Second Amendment either!

What's your source for that info? In both the movies and the EU novels I've read I remember people carrying blasters openly everywhere they went, even on empire controlled worlds like Bakura and Coruscant (though I'm sure that if any novelists wrote about the puppet Senate they would be smart enough to realize that it would be illegal to do so there.) Also Wookieepedia and the Starwars.com databank mention no such restrictions.

As for trooper armor I would suggest that the only blast proof technology is either too expensive (personal sheilds and superconducting or extremely rare metals) or too inaccessible (the only moderatly abundant stuff is Mandolorian iron, which I've never heard of anyone but a Mando using). Your idea of trooper armor only needing to be projectile resistant is also false because the Empire did fight organized armies at times (like on Devaron.) If the tech was cheap why not use it?

I was (and still am) a big fan of the original Star Wars movies, and at least some of the Expanded Universe stuff.

However, I've always thought it was best when viewed as a light-entertainment space opera / western / fairytale.

Treating it as "hard" science fiction and trying to explain or justify every detail, or form a consistent narrative that incorporates all the retcons just results in far too many ridiculous claims.

Too true. When I was young I was really into it. Now I realize it was a movie designed to stimulate kids imaginations and more inportantly make money and entertain. Besides, being too hardcore and constanly overanalyzing takes the fun out of it. Nowadays I could care less what they write.

Kashyyyk.  And Lucas SHOULD have stuck with the Wookiees.

That would have been hard. Back then it was alot easier to find a bunch of midgets than a bunch of 6' 9'' actors. At the time Peter Mayhew was the tallest man in England.


 

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,812
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2009, 01:02:14 PM »
I guess I thought part of the reason they wore the armor is that they were all clones and no one was supposed to know. 

However, if they actually wore some invincible armor, it would kind of suck and make it less entertaining, sort of like the black armored guys on Stargate SG-1.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2009, 01:19:56 PM »

"Oh, really? A million to one, you say?"

*snaps fingers*

I see your Q and raise you Exar Kun....

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Exar_Kun

...and he's a better dresser, too....  =D
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

freakazoid

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,243
Re: Over-analyzing Star Wars
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2009, 01:23:00 PM »
Quote
What's your source for that info? In both the movies and the EU novels I've read I remember people carrying blasters openly everywhere they went, even on empire controlled worlds like Bakura and Coruscant (though I'm sure that if any novelists wrote about the puppet Senate they would be smart enough to realize that it would be illegal to do so there.) Also Wookieepedia and the Starwars.com databank mention no such restrictions.

I remember hearing somewhere about that blasters were illegal.
"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic