Star Wars: Rogue One (Spoilers!!!)

[razark]

7 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Then why even bother with a hull?

Because hulls don't require energy to maintain, probably.

[Kerbart]

2 minutes ago, razark said:

Because hulls don't require energy to maintain, probably.

But think of the mass you're saving. You'd probably only need two of those stadium-sized engines running all the time, and use the power required for the third one to power the shields.

 

[razark]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

But think of the mass you're saving.

True, but the frequency at which shields fail in sci-fi space combat would make me very very much want to have a solid wall between me and the outside vacuum/laser storm/debris field.  (Preferably several walls.  (With more walls that can be sealed off if needed.))

[FunnelVortex]

In sci fi shields are more or less a first line of defense. They will do their job and hold their own, but you can't expect them to last. When the shields fall you are going to want reinforced armor. 

Really, who in a sci-fi or space opera setting would ride around space in a bare boned superstructure? Especially in a setting where engines are clearly many many times more efficient and there is far less concern over delta V than today?

[insert_name]

the hangar bays in starwars have shields when they are open. however this type of shield has to be held in place by projectors on the edge of  it. hit any of them and the shield will pop. needless to say this would make for a horrible warship

[FunnelVortex]

5 minutes ago, insert_name said:

the hangar bays in starwars have shields when they are open. however this type of shield has to be held in place by projectors on the edge of  it. hit any of them and the shield will pop. needless to say this would make for a horrible warship

That's what blast doors are for.

[insert_name]

Just now, FunnelVortex said:

That's what blast doors are for.

yes but  there is no point in a ship covered in hangar shields like @razark is advocating for

[FunnelVortex]

9 minutes ago, insert_name said:

yes but  there is no point in a ship covered in hangar shields like @razark is advocating for

Then that brings us back to why we have the thick armored hulls. 

Sci-fi shields fail under heavy loads. And when they fail you'll want something to protect you.

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

Then why even bother with a hull?

Because kilometer-scale flying metal warships are cool.

---

Another note on my experience with the movie: I got super excited when they gave the order to activate the hyperdrives on the Death Star, because for some reason the idea of seeing something that big with the radiating blue lines was really exciting, but then they didn't show it.  

Edited December 27, 2016 by cubinator
Formatting

[tater]

Regarding shields, etc... Star Wars is not science fiction, it's space opera fantasy. Don't overthink it or it entirely falls apart. How long did it take for the Rebels to fly to the death star (not hyperspace that I could tell)? Because if it wasn't days, they were moving pretty fast. Assume a distance roughly like Earth-Moon. New Horizons did that in ~9 hours, making over 16 km/s. The attack is launched with an estimated time to firing for the Death Star in about 15 minutes. So the attackers flew their x-wings, etc at least 40 times that velocity (to give some room for combat before firing).

Assume an x-wing is about 12 tons (F-15 empty), then it has almost 600 kilotons of KE. That's a large bomb. Best not to think about SW, as I said...

[razark]

15 hours ago, insert_name said:

yes but  there is no point in a ship covered in hangar shields like @razark is advocating for

I was pointing out that you would want a hull.  Kerbart brought up the idea of a hulless ship covered in shields.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

On 12/17/2016 at 10:26 PM, Veeltch said:

Well, that ending kind of ruins the "Many Bothan spies..." sentence from 'A New Hope', but it was worth it IMO.

Can't avoid few plot holes when making sequels (I know it's not a sequel but I lack a better word for it, ok?).

I believe the word is "anthology film"

[Josh IN SPACE]

On 12/25/2016 at 3:33 AM, 5thHorseman said:

I did as well though it was odd that in 30ish years he'd not aged a day while Obi Wan aged 50 years

Being a man of stature surely helped him age lightly. The desert winds did not treat Kenobi as kindly. 

[Tex_NL]

On 25-12-2016 at 0:33 PM, 5thHorseman said:

I did as well though it was odd that in 30ish years he'd not aged a day while Obi Wan aged 50 years

If the force can stop people from dying there might be a medical technique to slow ageing. Or perhaps certain environmental factors. He might not be (pure) human. He may merely look human but in fact be part of some long lived species. Or he might have simply been genetically altered to age more slowly.
All pure speculation of course but well within established Star Wars lore.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Tex_NL

[Ten Key]

I didn't really care for it, to be honest. The director spent too much time setting up things that ended up going unused (the kyber necklace, the mental trauma from the tentacle creature, Jyn's talent with fighting sticks) and then wound up having to contrive much of the ending. It seemed to me that the rebel fleet was already pretty focused on bringing that shield down before they received the message from the surface team. And then suddenly that corvette comes out of nowhere and saves the day? Sloppy. 

The final thing they leave you with is that CGI Princess Leia, and it really sticks out in a bad way. After a few days to mull it over, I think I know why. The facial expression, body language and tone of voice feel very out of character to me. . .much more "Disney Princess" than "Snarky Rebel Leader". I really think Leia's line should have been some sort of sarcastic retort. I think if it had been, the CGI would have been much less jarring. 

Using full clips of the pilots from the "trench run" scene in the original movie was a terrible move. If you absolutely have to do that, just do the "voices on the radio" thing. But even better, don't do it at all. 

All in all I think they tried to cram too much in and then made inefficient use of screen time on top of it. I think, at a fundamental level, Rogue One is a story about a daughter seeking vengeance for a betrayed father (not unlike The Italian Job) and I think that was the story they needed to tell. But by the time they finished packing in easter eggs and trying to sell toys, there just wasn't enough time left to do it. 

It wasn't a terrible movie, but it was disappointing. Somewhere, in the vast sea of merchandising and special effects, it really seems like the movie industry has forgotten how to tell a story.  

[Cydonian Monk]

46 minutes ago, Ten Key said:

It wasn't a terrible movie, but it was disappointing.

This is what I've been telling myself about Star Wars movies for.... (checks watch).... 17 years, 7 months and 20 days now. Maybe longer.

I pretty much agree with your take on it, and I really felt the "archive footage" BS from Red and Blue squadrons was badly done. Too many ghosts. Likewise the two (four?) CGI characters just weren't "right", though I was rather more comfortable with the fake Peter Cushing than I was the fake Carrie. (Which I suspect is in part due to Cushing's long and storied career in arguably terrible movies.) 

Of the "fan service" bits, only Vader's much-loathed aspirations line felt like it was in character. And yet.... Lava castle? Awesome. Nice to finally see on screen. Not new. And Krennic's visit felt rather completely out of place to me. 

My takeaway: This movie was a strange and expensive fanfic that desperately needed an editor.... Someone to go back and cut out the parts that weren't relevant to the story.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Cydonian Monk

[FishInferno]

On 12/17/2016 at 5:26 PM, Veeltch said:

Well, that ending kind of ruins the "Many Bothan spies..." sentence from 'A New Hope', but it was worth it IMO

 

On 12/17/2016 at 5:51 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Yeah, I noticed the Bothans got shut out of it too. You could fly a Star Destroyer through that plot hole, but it is just one line that is easily forgotten about

Bothans stole the plans to the Second Death Star.  They were never mentioned in A New Hope.

[Tex_NL]

On 30-12-2016 at 3:51 PM, FishInferno said:

Bothans stole the plans to the Second Death Star.  They were never mentioned in A New Hope.

And that's why this was already mentioned multiple times on the first page of this discussion two weeks ago.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Tex_NL

[tater]

I have to say that my bar for Star Wars films is pretty low, since most of them are so very awful.

[Robotengineer]

1 hour ago, tater said:

I have to say that my bar for Star Wars films is pretty low, since most of them are so very awful.

Which ones are awful? I mean, other than the prequels. 

[Superfluous J]

18 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

Which ones are awful? I mean, other than the prequels. 

Many people dislike the teddy bears in Jedi and many also disliked Force Awakens though I still can't understand why, and if you add all the prequels in, that's a 3:4 or 2:5 like:dislike ratio before Rogue 1.

For me, it's 4:3, now with Rogue 1 5:3 because the only movies I actively dislike are the prequels.

Edited December 31, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Robotengineer]

32 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Many people dislike the teddy bears in Jedi and many also disliked Force Awakens though I still can't understand why, and if you add all the prequels in, that's a 3:4 or 2:5 like:dislike ratio before Rogue 1.

For me, it's 4:3, now with Rogue 1 5:3 because the only movies I actively dislike are the prequels.

Same. If it were like:meh:dislike for me it would be 3:2:3 I like ANH, TFA, ESB, mixed feelings about R1 and ROTJ, and dislike the prequels. The prequels should never have been born made.

[tater]

7 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

Which ones are awful? I mean, other than the prequels. 

All the prequels. Return of the muppets would have been fine as originally conceived with it being Chewie's planet. Wookiee fighting the Empire I'm down with. Teddy bears? Not so much.

Force Awakens needed a plot that wasn't 150% derivative. It was ok, I guess. Honestly, Lucas has bad instincts, imho. 

[monstah]

On 01/01/2017 at 3:17 AM, tater said:

Force Awakens needed a plot that wasn't 150% derivative.

I am not disagreeing with you (that was my major peeve about it), but don't you think Luke's Hero's Journey was also 150% derivative of classical myths to begin with? I do, and it's still pretty fun.

[tater]

2 hours ago, monstah said:

I am not disagreeing with you (that was my major peeve about it), but don't you think Luke's Hero's Journey was also 150% derivative of classical myths to begin with? I do, and it's still pretty fun.

Sure, I'm fine with retelling old stories in a new way. It could have been a space-opera retelling of any number of classical tales and I would be fine with it. What I don;t like is for movies within  a series to tell the SAME classical tale over more than once. If Luke had defeated the Death Star by using a Trojan Horse to appease the Empire in the first Star Wars movie, that would be such a tale. If they defeated the new Spherical planet killer in 7 with... a slightly different Trojan Horse... weak, very, very weak effort.