Star Trek vs. Star Wars (and a collection of memes)

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Aginor]

If you wanted to introduce something so immensely powerful, you must clearly define its limitations (within the movie)

Says who? Star Wars almost never did that, and they are highly inconsistent about what someone or something can or cannot do. Par for the course. Rule of cool wins and that was a very cool scene. It breaks nothing at all.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Says who?

Says anybody who cares about good story telling and the creation of a good story setting!

Star Wars almost never did that, and they are highly inconsistent about what someone or something can or cannot do.

Really, look at the force. It is immensely powerful, but it has limitations:

• only be wielded by those that are force sensitive
• even among force sensitives, only the most innately gifted can harness truly tremendous power
• it takes an extreme amount of training to wield to its full potential

Let's look at the Death Star. It is immensely powerful, but it has limitations:

• requires a huge amount of resources to produce
• takes a lot of time to construct
• requires a very large number of people to operate
• can be easily outmaneuvered

What else was so overpowered in main sequence Star Wars? It is true that the EU ran into this problem often, but this is one of the legitimate criticisms that is often levied against it.

In the non-Disney Star Wars movies, there were powerful elements, but they came with limitations and caveats. You couldn't just randomly apply them to easily win any situation. The Holdo maneuver breaks that mold. It is easy to employ and there is no defense against it.

Answer me this, if you were in the First Order, why would you ever build a ship of significant size knowing it could be destroyed at will by the Holdo maneuver?

Rule of cool wins and that was a very cool scene.

The scene did look cool. But that is the perfect example of accepting a short term gain in exchange for a long term loss. One cool scene in exchange for in-universe logical consistency.

If the rule of cool wins, why are there so many complaints about it? Why the backlash? Doesn't seem like winning to me.

It breaks nothing at all.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...t-first-loss-disneys-star-wars-empire-1116927

 

[Aginor]

People are overreacting, as always. That's why.
If you apply the same scrutiny to the old Star Wars movies they contain a lot of bad stuff but nobody cares.

The Force and the Death Star are great examples because it is not explained what exactly they can or cannot do within the movie. And that's OK since it is part of the mystery. The audience in the OT has no clue at all what Vader, the Emperor, Obi-Wan or Luke can do either. It is part of the mystery.

The Death Star is clearly able of interstellar travel and it can shoot planets. Why doesn't it shoot the moon's planet? Why doesn't it just fly around it but instead waits for the moon to come over the horizon? Never explained.

In the PT the Gungans have a vessel that can travel through a planet's core and withstand the pressure. That means that they are able to build vessels that withstand basically everything.

But wait... The planet's core is filled with water.
That alone breaks _everything_. Physics is bonkers in Star Wars and Star Wars is chock full of stuff that is never explained in the movies.

And as a fellow Star Wars fan you surely know the movies well enough to spot dozens of such things. I certainly can, and have filled whole evenings talking and joking with my friends about those things, years before the new movies. That is entirely possible while still enjoying Star Wars.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

People are overreacting, as always.

So you are level headed and everyone else is wrong?

What about this, is this an overreaction?...

That being said, the Holdo maneuver is unforgiveably setting breaking.

@Scalenex 's statement is completely correct. Our brave master of stories and writing knows the way!


To dismiss such overwhelming backlash by claiming that people are simply overreacting is not very different than if I made the claim that Disney Star Wars fans are not real Star Wars fans. In both cases, we have a whole group of people that are being dismissed.

The Force and the Death Star are great examples because it is not explained what exactly they can or cannot do within the movie. And that's OK since it is part of the mystery. The audience in the OT has no clue at all what Vader, the Emperor, Obi-Wan or Luke can do either. It is part of the mystery.

The Death Star is clearly able of interstellar travel and it can shoot planets. Why doesn't it shoot the moon's planet? Why doesn't it just fly around it but instead waits for the moon to come over the horizon? Never explained.

I already listed the limitations in relation to both the force and the death star, so it is not quite the same thing. What is the limitation of the Holdo maneuver other than requiring a readily available droid and a ship with hyperspace capabilities?

As for the force users you mentioned, throughout the movies you learn what those people are capable. In the movies, the powers exhibited are not taking out capital ships on a whim. There are limitations. You don't need to know every little detail about it, because it doesn't feel broken when you watch the films. Also, those things you mentioned didn't lead to the first Star Wars movie to lose money.

You aren't on the Disney payroll are you?

In the PT the Gungans have a vessel that can travel through a planet's core and withstand the pressure. That means that they are able to build vessels that withstand basically everything.

That doesn't seem nearly so far fetched. So it can withstand very high pressures. How does that break the universe? It isn't an auto win. Faster than light travel seems like a far greater feat of engineering.

And as a fellow Star Wars fan you surely know the movies well enough to spot dozens of such things. I certainly can, and have filled whole evenings talking and joking with my friends about those things, years before the new movies. That is entirely possible while still enjoying Star Wars.

Nobody is claiming that Star Wars movies are not filled with little errors or inconsistencies. The only problem is that the Holdo maneuver basically negates the need for any type of space battle other than small fighter craft vs. small fighter craft. Anything larger is a sitting duck.

Also, I still await your answer to this...

Answer me this, if you were in the First Order, why would you ever build a ship of significant size knowing it could be destroyed at will by the Holdo maneuver?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Scalenex]

The Force and the Death Star are great examples because it is not explained what exactly they can or cannot do within the movie.

My dad said it the Force was great for stories because it's magic and it's vague. It can easily solve some situations and be unable to solve others as the story dictates. The Force is both a good storytelling tool and a weak one at the same time.

The Death Star is clearly able of interstellar travel and it can shoot planets. Why doesn't it shoot the moon's planet? Why doesn't it just fly around it but instead waits for the moon to come over the horizon? Never explained.

For all I know. George Lucas didn't think about why the Death Star didn't just destroy Yavin as opposed to flying around the moon to destroy the moon on Yavin 4.

The Death Star RPG sourcebook did answer that question. Two reasons actually.

1) It takes roughly a week to charge up the OG Death Star's planet destroying laser. That's why the second Deathstar had two setting, planet destroying (still takes about a week) and capital ship destroying (which takes about fifteen minutes).

2) The gas giant Yavin is bigger and more resilient than the moon of Yavin 4. The Death Star would have to hit a gas giant several times to destroy it. Hitting the gas giant with the giant laser might at best cause a weather disruption on Yavin 4.

Among other problems, Tarkin really liked shock and awe tactics. The Death Star has a fleet of support ships on it with roughly the firepower of two or three Star Destroyers, but Tarkin wanted to show off the super weapon. The only ships that were launched was Darth Vader's personal squadron.

Though later, X-Wing my favorite Star Wars computer game retconned a mission where you have to fly to the Death Star ahead of the main attack force to take out the TIE fighter launching bays closest to the exhaust port trench and a preceding mission where you knock out their communications array so they cannot coordinate their supporting fleet with the Death Star.

That said, it's a failure if you need the expanded universe to make something good. That's a big problem with Phasma. The Disney handlers were trying to recreate Boba Fett's popularity only female. They false assumed Boba Fett was popular because his armor looked cool. That's all Phasma had.

Boba Fett was popular because of this clip.

It demonstrates that Vader worked with Boba Fett before. Boba Fett made a mistake in the past and Vader still respects him enough to work with Boba Fett again as opposed to choking him to death. That creates bad ass credentials. Phasma debuted butchering unarmed people than was dumped in a garbage shoot. She had no bad ass credentials. Expanded universe tie-in novels gave Phasma a badass backstory but if you need a tie-in novel to fill in a plot hole in the movie that is a failure on the movie's part.

Along similar lines, Boba Fett's ignominious death was probably my biggest gripe with Return of the Jedi.

Anyway, building Death Star's is harder than it looks.

But wait... The planet's core is filled with water.
That alone breaks _everything_. Physics is bonkers in Star Wars and Star Wars is chock full of stuff that is never explained in the movies.

Agreed that was really really dumb. Not only because of physics. It was purely unnecessary. Let's assume Naboo is geological anomally where water pressure doesn't obey Earth physics. Okay fine.

Why did the Federation invasion fleet land all their ships on the opposite side of the planet as the capitol? The story would have worked just fine if they said something like "It's five hundred miles to the capitol, we need to get there before it's too late!" They didn't have to cross the diameter of the planet.

I can only assume Naboo also has trace amounts of gas that cause brain damage and hormonal imbalances to humans. That is the only explanation for Anakin's romantic dialogue wooing Padme.

Unlike the Holdo maneuver. "Naboo is a messed up planet that makes no sense." That doesn't invalidate every space battle or every ground battle. Just because Naboo breaks reality doesn't mean that Tatoonine and Geonosis have to break reality. The Holdo maneuver breaks every space battle and it was badly delivered.

Admiral Holdo had no reason to not tell her senior staff what her plan was. By keeping her big play secret from the people carrying out her plan she provoked a muntiny. She was also generally an unlikeable character and she replaced Admiral Ackbar, a beloved character. That didn't help.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The Disney handlers were trying to recreate Boba Fett's popularity only female.

Disney pushing the feminist agenda? Feminizing Star Wars?...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Aginor]

So you are level headed and everyone else is wrong?

No. I didn't say everyone is overreacting. Most people don't even care. A small but very loud minority is making this the end of the world.

What about this, is this an overreaction?...

Yes.

@Scalenex 's statement is completely correct. Our brave master of stories and writing knows the way!

I like @Scalenex as much as anyone here, but that doesn't mean he is always right, just like any of us. You are doing an argumentum ab auctoritate there.

To dismiss such overwhelming backlash by claiming that people are simply overreacting is not very different than if I made the claim that Disney Star Wars fans are not real Star Wars fans. In both cases, we have a whole group of people that are being dismissed.

No. See above. It is very different.

I already listed the limitations in relation to both the force and the death star, so it is not quite the same thing.

No you didn't list all of them, and yes it is the same thing. That's why I included a few more of the points.

What is the limitation of the Holdo maneuver other than requiring a readily available droid and a ship with hyperspace capabilities?

We don't know. And we don't need to know. We just know it isn't that easy, otherwise we would have seen it more often.

You aren't on the Disney payroll are you?

I know you made a joke there, but I see it as provoking and insulting. Pure argumentum ad hominem.

That doesn't seem nearly so far fetched. So it can withstand very high pressures. How does that break the universe? It isn't an auto win. Faster than light travel seems like a far greater feat of engineering.

It is auto-win because pressure and temperature is _everything_ in physics.
If a planet can be like that, then it means that all of physics as we know it is not applied. I chose this example because it would literally break the universe, in contrast to the silly Holdo maneuver which doesn't.

The only problem is that the Holdo maneuver basically negates the need for any type of space battle other than small fighter craft vs. small fighter craft. Anything larger is a sitting duck.

It doesn't. We don't know. That was the point you made. You claimed that if something is powerful but not explained in the movie then it breaks it. And that's just not true.

Also, I still await your answer to this...

Oh, I thought this was obvious by now. But OK, why not.
I would use whatever is preventing that from being done on a regular basis. Can't be that hard, because the pure fact that the Holdo maneuver isn't carried out or even attempted all over the known Star Wars history tells us that it cannot be that easy.

My dad said it the Force was great for stories because it's magic and it's vague. It can easily solve some situations and be unable to solve others as the story dictates. The Force is both a good storytelling tool and a weak one at the same time.

Agree. For the reasons @NIGHTBRINGER mentioned. Magic (like everything else) needs defined limits. Only then breaking them means something in the story.

For all I know. George Lucas didn't think about why the Death Star didn't just destroy Yavin as opposed to flying around the moon to destroy the moon on Yavin 4.

Exactly. And he didn't need to. Everyone knew it was just a way to tell the story and build up suspense.
No need to over-analyze it. And that's exactly my point. You don't need to explain everything.
@NIGHTBRINGER said that

If you wanted to introduce something so immensely powerful, you must clearly define its limitations (within the movie)

and that's just not true. You don't have to. Sometimes it is advantageous to not do it. And George Lucas did exactly that.

About the Death Star in General:
That's all well and good, I know that book and I like it.
The book was printed in 1993 though, which is around 15 years after the movie. And that contradicts Nightbringer's point that you have to explain limitations of powerful things within the movie. You don't have to. We all think some stuff in Star Wars is perfectly fine because it is _old_. Basic human behaviour.

Unlike the Holdo maneuver. "Naboo is a messed up planet that makes no sense." That doesn't invalidate every space battle or every ground battle. Just because Naboo breaks reality doesn't mean that Tatoonine and Geonosis have to break reality. The Holdo maneuver breaks every space battle and it was badly delivered.

About Naboo: Yes I think it does, see above. Naboo has a wide range of consequences for the universe. If something breaks physics in one place, it breaks physics everywhere. And you need to break several fundamental rules of physics to build Naboo.

If you can have something as powerful as the Bongo (much more resistant to temperature and pressure than anything else in the universe, definitely more than Star Wars space ships) then, according to @NIGHTBRINGER you have to explain in the movie what its limitations are.
...
.....
........or maybe you don't! It is a silly Fantasy movie in Sci-Fi packaging! It doesn't make sense to begin with, starting with basic physics. Transformers movies are more believable (Ok, they aren't. They are as bad). So all the theorizing about the Holdo maneuver is completely pointless.
I chose Naboo and the Bongo as an example to show how bonkers Star Wars is. The Holdo maneuver is kinda dumb but it isn't half as universe breaking as other stuff.


I think the maneuver itself was well delivered. It looked awesome and it was reasonably surprising. I however agree with the rest of your statement, below.

I can only assume Naboo also has trace amounts of gas that cause brain damage and hormonal imbalances to humans. That is the only explanation for Anakin's romantic dialogue wooing Padme.

That one is gold.

Admiral Holdo had no reason to not tell her senior staff what her plan was. By keeping her big play secret from the people carrying out her plan she provoked a muntiny. She was also generally an unlikeable character and she replaced Admiral Ackbar, a beloved character. That didn't help.

Yep. That was Captain Kirk level dumb. Certainly not a way to command a space ship.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

So you are level headed and everyone else is wrong?

No. I didn't say everyone is overreacting. Most people don't even care. A small but very loud minority is making this the end of the world.

That group you're dismissing as a loud minority is not as small as you believe it to be.

And that is just a small sample, since most people don't actually rate things on RT.

That "small loud minority" was large enough to sink Solo. I would wager that the small loud minority outnumbers the hardcore Disney Star Wars defenders. You have no evidence that the group is small, but the piss poor performance of Solo is strong evidence that shows the opposite.

@Scalenex 's statement is completely correct. Our brave master of stories and writing knows the way!

I like @Scalenex as much as anyone here, but that doesn't mean he is always right, just like any of us. You are doing an argumentum ab auctoritate there.

In a sense, I am (partially) doing an argumentum ab auctoritate here. That is one of the two interconnected purposes of that statement, but let's explore:

1. You claimed the position held by me and many others to be an overreaction. @Scalenex had openly made the same claim (if you remember, that was were the debate originated). So I put forth my statement, in hopes to effectively force you to admit that people can have my viewpoint on the topic without it being a product of a mere overreaction. I'm sure we can all agree that @Scalenex is very well respected and level-headed member of the forum. The ideas and opinions he puts forth are consistently very well thought out and supported. His opinion on the matter is not an overreaction, ergo, the stance of the Holdo maneuver being universe-breaking cannot be dismissed outright as a simple overreaction.
2. Argumentum ab auctoritate. Pretty much, at least partially. In my opinion @Scalenex is the forum's best expert when it comes to stories, writing, story setting etc. That doesn't mean that he can't be disagreed with or that he is always right. However, it does mean that his stance has a greater statistical likelihood of being correct than yours does. Now we tie it back to point #1. I'm not claiming that his opinion equates to a Holdo maneuver (a.k.a. an auto win) , but his viewpoint cannot simply be dismissed as an overreaction to suit your needs. That is why I said that my tactic was partially an argumentum ab auctoritate, because I didn't intend it to outright win the debate, but merely to obliterate your claim that "my stance" was nothing more than an overreaction.

What about this, is this an overreaction?...

Yes.

Funny that should you call my analysis an overreaction; perhaps because it helps serve your narrative. Let me show you what an actual overreaction is...

You aren't on the Disney payroll are you?

I know you made a joke there, but I see it as provoking and insulting. Pure argumentum ad hominem.

That is an overreaction! You recognize that it is joke, but still find it insulting (fair enough some jokes can be, let us continue). The underlying meaning of the joke is a fun poke that your defense of TLJ seems unsubstantiated by the situation (which is pretty much what we are debating, from both sides) and that your response is so passionate that I suggest a fictitious claim that you must have an ulterior motive (paid off by Disney). Nothing really that insulting there and no different than you dismissing my stance on the topic as an overreaction. The difference is I don't get insulted by it (remember that conversation we had about left wing vs. right wing snowflakes/triggering?). Not to be mean, but if you find such an innocent comment insulting (even after recognizing that it was made in jest), how do you navigate the cruel world of the internet? I don't mean for this to offend you, but if that is insulting, perhaps it is best that you don't discuss Star Wars with (against) me. I think you are a nice guy, I really do, but I have little desire to dance on egg shells to avoid offending you. If you have the right to claim my position is an overreaction I have an equal right to jokingly suggest that your position is that of a shill. I'm not sorry for that. However, in hopes of maintaining forum positivity, I'm happy to leave it right here. Based on our past interactions, it is clear that this will end up nowhere. No amount of evidence I have ever laid before you has ever even come close to swaying your opinion (and I'm sure you feel the same going in the opposite direction). Normally, I'd love to keep discussing the topic, but I have no desire to see your feelings hurt. Apparently we can talk politics, but not Star Wars. Let us go in peace, I wish you well.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Aginor]

You got me wrong there. I meant that saying such a thing, even with a smiling emote is an insult, and informed you about it.
I am not offended, and I am not passionate about it since I know that you didn't mean it that way, we have discussed enough in the past for me to know your style. You are right in thinking that would he an overreaction.
I am merely telling you that if you want to be taken seriously you should maybe stop with such things. That's what kills discussions.

That group you're dismissing as a loud minority is not as small as you believe it to be.

And that is just a small sample, since most people don't actually rate things on RT.

Not the same. You and I have no clue how many people say that the Holdo maneuver (the topic of this discussion) is breaking Star Wars.

So no, what you posted does not prove anything.

I will not discuss what Scalenex meant or not, or his standing here, which is not part of the topic, does not matter at all. A single scene that offers a lot of interpretations doesn't break a franchise. That's just exaggerated.

You spend most of your post discussing your ad hominem and my perceived reaction to it, instead of the topic. You don't have to. It's all cool as far as I am concerned.

 

[Scalenex]

I rarely say this @NIGHTBRINGER but "You give me too much credit".

Apparently we can talk politics, but not Star Wars. Let us go in peace, I wish you well.

That is probably the best call. Back to the wacky memes!

Needs a dalek it does. Complete it will be.

 

[Tk'ya'pyk]

View attachment 59495

I find this... Highly Illogical...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I rarely say this @NIGHTBRINGER but You give me too much credit.

Trust me, it is very well deserved. For the record, you also produce A+ level tacticas!

That is probably the best call. Back to the wacky memes!

Indeed! An admittedly difficult thing for me to do, my natural instinct is to shred my "opponent"... which at times comes at too high of a price. But I really do love this community. I'm going to look at it optimistically and chalk this one up to personal growth ... at least for now



But as you said, back to funnier and more light-hearted things....

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]