We saw a Star War! Last Jedi spoiler thread

[Mallus]

Given the way that TLJ went the rebels could either start doing Kamikaze runs with fighters, or just automate a straight line jump sequence on unmanned fighters (after all, you don't need to make a SUCCESSFUL jump), and blow the best warships that the FO has out of space.

Heh, given the way RotJ went, kamikaze runs with fighters proved to be an effective tactic. Wasn't the Stardestroyer that shivved into the 2nd Death Star crippled by the damaged X-Wing that the pilot deliberately crashed into the bridge?

"Why don't they used fighter-sized torpedoes?" has been an open question since the original trilogy.

And of course the answer to it involves the cinematic logic that governs the Star Wars universe.

 

[Ryujin]

Heh, given the way RotJ went, kamikaze runs with fighters proved to be an effective tactic. Wasn't the Stardestroyer that shivved into the 2nd Death Star crippled by the damaged X-Wing that the pilot deliberately crashed into the bridge?

"Why don't they used fighter-sized torpedoes?" has been an open question since the original trilogy.

And of course the answer to it involves the cinematic logic that governs the Star Wars universe.

Just the same way that 50% of Star Trek episodes, in anything but Enterprise, would end in 10 minutes if they realized that the transporter fixes everything.

In RotJ the A-Wing(?) was hit by Imperial fire, went out of control, and took out the destroyer's bridge. Good memory

Anyone remember the RPG "Space Opera"? Torpedoes virtually ignored shields IIRC.

 

[Hussar]

Star Wars has always operated on the "Rule of Cool" rather than anything remotely approaching realism. From the basic "How does a Light Saber actually stop?" all the way on up. It's all technobabble and bafflegab.

What I don't understand is the rather selective application of this to different episodes. It's almost like people have a pathological need to "prove" that the movie they didn't like is somehow "bad" and justify their personal tastes. I will never, ever understand this need.

 

[Istbor]

Star Wars has always operated on the "Rule of Cool" rather than anything remotely approaching realism. From the basic "How does a Light Saber actually stop?" all the way on up. It's all technobabble and bafflegab.

What I don't understand is the rather selective application of this to different episodes. It's almost like people have a pathological need to "prove" that the movie they didn't like is somehow "bad" and justify their personal tastes. I will never, ever understand this need.

I agree with you there.

+1 for teaching me the word Bafflegab.

 

[Manbearcat]

Something ironic and amusing has occurred to me regarding the prevailing winds of this thread.

It has an eerie similarity, though something of an inversion, of the edition war against 4e.

As the angry revolt unfolded, it was all about how 4e was the worst thing ever because it didn't hew to ye olden days enough and pay proper tribute to tradition, thereby alienating the faithful. D&D is for people who have been playing since the 70s up through 3.x. Its about recapturing that zeitgeist through fealty to most all of its sacred cows and intricacies and removal of any play paradigm, tropes, language, or design implementation that ruffles the feathers of the old guard. Most importantly it needs to be deliberately designed with the specific outcome of "feeling like D&D" and be recognizable/aesthetically pleasing for those specific people who felt alienated and responded with wrath. That was the message then.

The message here is_not_quite_that. Just an observation (that will surely be agreed with by people in this thread!).

 

[delericho]

It has an eerie similarity, though something of an inversion, of the edition war against 4e.

See also: Star Wars vs Star Trek, Coke vs Pepsi, Windows vs Mac, etc. It's a tribal thing - people tie up elements of their identity in things they probably shouldn't, and then any criticism of the thing becomes criticism of the tribe, becomes an attack on them.

Which sucks, especially if you're the guy in the middle (who sees benefits and flaws in both sides, and as a consequence is hated by everyone), but that's the world we live in, now more than ever.

 

[Ryujin]

See also: Star Wars vs Star Trek, Coke vs Pepsi, Windows vs Mac, etc. It's a tribal thing - people tie up elements of their identity in things they probably shouldn't, and then any criticism of the thing becomes criticism of the tribe, becomes an attack on them.

Which sucks, especially if you're the guy in the middle (who sees benefits and flaws in both sides, and as a consequence is hated by everyone), but that's the world we live in, now more than ever.

Not necessarily "tribal." I enjoyed the new Star Wars movies precisely because they're based on 'space magic' and are essentially space Westerns, with an almost Buck Rogers esthetic. For that reason I cut them more slack than the new Star Trek movies, which are based in a universe that tries at least to hand-wave science (REVERSE THE POLARITY!!). That's a personal taste thing.

Coke vs. Pepsi? I just don't like the taste of Pepsi. I also don't like the taste of the various Diet Coke options. Even tried the latest "Coke Life" ("Sweetened with cane sugar and stevia, with only 60% of the calories!) and almost spat it out. Again, a (literal) taste thing.

Are there people who tribalize over things? Sure, but I think they're in the minority and relegated to trolling social media for attention. Most people like what they like. They may defend their likes perhaps a bit too vehemently. When they tell you why you shouldn't like a thing rather than just sticking to why THEY don't like it, that's tribalism.

 

[delericho]

Are there people who tribalize over things? Sure, but I think they're in the minority...

Sure, but we're talking about people who are posting about Star Wars on an RPG forum. We're very much a vocal minority ourselves.

 

[Jester David]

Something ironic and amusing has occurred to me regarding the prevailing winds of this thread.

It has an eerie similarity, though something of an inversion, of the edition war against 4e.

As the angry revolt unfolded, it was all about how 4e was the worst thing ever because it didn't hew to ye olden days enough and pay proper tribute to tradition, thereby alienating the faithful. D&D is for people who have been playing since the 70s up through 3.x. Its about recapturing that zeitgeist through fealty to most all of its sacred cows and intricacies and removal of any play paradigm, tropes, language, or design implementation that ruffles the feathers of the old guard. Most importantly it needs to be deliberately designed with the specific outcome of "feeling like D&D" and be recognizable/aesthetically pleasing for those specific people who felt alienated and responded with wrath. That was the message then.

The message here is_not_quite_that. Just an observation (that will surely be agreed with by people in this thread!).

I have had that same thought. That many criticism of The Last Jedi are similar to ones levelled at 4th Edition. "It just doesn't feel like Star Wars" or "it disrespects the past."

See also: Star Wars vs Star Trek, Coke vs Pepsi, Windows vs Mac, etc. It's a tribal thing - people tie up elements of their identity in things they probably shouldn't, and then any criticism of the thing becomes criticism of the tribe, becomes an attack on them.

Which sucks, especially if you're the guy in the middle (who sees benefits and flaws in both sides, and as a consequence is hated by everyone), but that's the world we live in, now more than ever.

Kinda...
I agree that people get defensive of their hobby tribe. And are quick to call out things they believe disrespects their tribe or threatens it. Hence why "ruined forever" is a teasing line in multiple fanbases: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Ruined_FOREVER
(Here's the Star Wars equivalent: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Ruined_FOREVER)

When you wrap up your identity in an external thing ("I'm a Star Wars fan.") then it's hard to reconcile the disconnect when you don't like something. It's like not liking yourself. There's probably a very interesting psychological paper in there somewhere...

Not necessarily "tribal." I enjoyed the new Star Wars movies precisely because they're based on 'space magic' and are essentially space Westerns, with an almost Buck Rogers esthetic. For that reason I cut them more slack than the new Star Trek movies, which are based in a universe that tries at least to hand-wave science (REVERSE THE POLARITY!!). That's a personal taste thing.

Which is funny since I've spent so much time defending The Last Jedi while criticising Discovery and some of the newer Trek films (like Star Trek and Into Darkness) for what could be very similar reasons...

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Given the "established facts" (note the scare quotes) of the Star Wars universe at the time of RotJ, you could easily write the Battle of Endor without the fleet.

Rebel Alliance fighters & bombers have hyperdrives. They're not carrier-based. Instead of the whole Rebel fleet, you could just as easily have had the Falcon and a handful of escorts fighters jump in really, really close to the 2nd Death Star, then do their 'inside-the-superstructure' bombing run.

I think the reasons it wasn't written that way was obvious. It would have been too directly similar to the end of Star Wars, and the creative team wanted to show a full-fledged fleet battle between the Empire & the Rebels. Which looked terrific! But in terms of the what we saw on the screen, the Rebel fleet didn't accomplish much. They basically acted as a tension-raising element; each capital ship getting picked off by the 2nd Death Star was like the tick of a countdown clock.

The battle in ROTJ does not make a whole lot of sense for the reason you mention. The only thoughts that come to mind are that the location of the DS was not known well enough for fighters to jump in close. They would have been out a ways and that would make them targets for Cap Ships anti-fighter weaponry. Second the Emperor is reported to be in the DS so it makes sense to throw everything in because killing the Emperor is basically worth any material cost. Finally, sending in only fighters means you are sending anyone whose ship is damaged in the fight on a suicide run. There would be no cap ships to retreat to.

Does the Rebellion really know what level of completion the DS2 is? They "know" its non-functional, but the fact that it has holes in it large enough for fighters might have been a huge break. They may have expected to have to blast away at it endlessly with their cap ships until such time that fighters could make it to the core.


One could argue that all the Rebellion really needed to do was send Luke. He surrendered was brought before the Empire and the end result was a dead Vader and Emperor. Did we need the surface fight and fleet battle to encourage Luke to defeat Vader? Once both of them are dead Luke either leaves or he sabotages the DS2 from the inside.

To me the oddest part of all is the Rebellion planned the entire assault on the DS2 with no specific plan on how to use the only living Jedi in existence.