Star Wars VII - The Force Awakens

[YJ02]

About this movie...was ANYONE bothered by the starkiller base which destroyed several planetary bodies at the same time? Planetary bodies (other than moons) do not orbit as closely as we saw in the movie. And how did they build something which could actually hold a star inside of it? Much less, use it's energy to destroy stuff. It was cool, but sorta stupid to me. It seemed like a "Mine is bigger and badder than the original!" from JJ. Also the giant hologram of Snope was dumb. Why a giant hologram? The original tabletop versions made more sense, because they could be carried around and/or moved. The giant one had a dedicated room for it? Why? Why did Poe have BB8 built when he was so unique he could be spotted by anyone anywhere because he was unique? Why NOT use a standard astrodroid?

the most obvious thing that I didn't like was Starkiller (and not just because it takes away the name of one of my favorite EU SW characters)

in my comment above I say the one issue

and, it did not contain a star in it, but harnessed the power of the sun in its mechanism. that is why the mechanism (the thermocoupler thingy) needed to be destroyed, with it, the machine could not hold the sun's energy safely-and as Is aid above, they would only get to use it for as many stars the system had. since it is a planet, they couldn't move it to another system.

and, did you notice how they said its destructive beam traveled in hyperspace?

yeah ,that whole starkiller thing is the movies one big issue that I have

 

[Bluce Ree]

Please explain how warp engine work without using the magic element of Dilithium

Dilithium is a real molecule used in a fictional context to control the reaction between matter and anti-matter, which provides the power required to warp space. The only semi-magic part here is dilithium, which is completely unnecessary. The rest is based on theoretical science. It is theoretically possible to achieve faster-than-light travel by warping space, compressing the space in front of the craft while stretching the space behind it, thus traveling great distances without technically being in motion. However the power requirement to achieve this is still beyond our current technology.

Star Wars has no plausible "science". It's a fairy tale in space.

 

[Joelist]

As to Starkiller Base, not bothered by it. It was a base with a superweapon that they built into a planet. It was completed just as the movie began and destroyed the planetary system housing the capital of the Republic but was itself destroyed before it could be used again. It served well as a "bogeyman" to drive the story and indeed made sense as a culmination of the Imperial thinking that created two Death Stars.

Snope as giant hologram beckons back to The Empire Strikes Back where the Emperor was a giant hologram. I think he'll really be a little guy.

 

[YJ02]

Dilithium is a real molecule used in a fictional context to control the reaction between matter and anti-matter, which provides the power required to warp space. The only semi-magic part here is dilithium, which is completely unnecessary. The rest is based on theoretical science. It is theoretically possible to achieve faster-than-light travel by warping space, compressing the space in front of the craft while stretching the space behind it, thus traveling great distances without technically being in motion. However the power requirement to achieve this is still beyond our current technology.

Star Wars has no plausible "science". It's a fairy tale in space.

And I don't see where anyone here has said otherwise

 

[YJ02]

As to Starkiller Base, not bothered by it. It was a base with a superweapon that they built into a planet. It was completed just as the movie began and destroyed the planetary system housing the capital of the Republic but was itself destroyed before it could be used again. It served well as a "bogeyman" to drive the story and indeed made sense as a culmination of the Imperial thinking that created two Death Stars.

Snope as giant hologram beckons back to The Empire Strikes Back where the Emperor was a giant hologram. I think he'll really be a little guy.

Snope may not even be projecting his actual image....

How could Starkiller be used again? It is a planet in a system that must have been binary-for they used it once-"killed" one sun, and were prepping to use it again-killed another star

useless after that-or would a planet become a possibly movable object after it's anchoring stars were destroyed?

 

[Atlantis]

I didn't like it tbh. I felt it was just a rehash of the original trilogy and some cheesy moments too.

 

[Quetesh]

My biggest issue with the Starkiller was the name, I kept thinking of Starlord from GOG everytime I heard it. Bad name.

 

[Joelist]

My biggest issue with the Starkiller was the name, I kept thinking of Starlord from GOG everytime I heard it. Bad name.

Eh. They actually named it after the original name Lucas had given Luke Skywalker in his concept draft for Star Wars - Luke Starkiller.

 

[Joelist]

Snope may not even be projecting his actual image....

How could Starkiller be used again? It is a planet in a system that must have been binary-for they used it once-"killed" one sun, and were prepping to use it again-killed another star

useless after that-or would a planet become a possibly movable object after it's anchoring stars were destroyed?

It was a smallish planet, and we already know from the Death Stars that they have the propulsion tech to move moon sized bodies around. So it may be they were prepared to move their base as well. And with it being able to fire at long range it need only be moved to the nearest star.

And agreed on Snope.

 

[Quetesh]

Eh. They actually named it after the original name Lucas had given Luke Skywalker in his concept draft for Star Wars - Luke Starkiller.

Thank goodness they changed it. I think I could not have handled that.


To from a Death Star to StarKiller just sounds a ton more Cheesy. Dude, I liked the movie, but I don't have to love everything about it. I am not devolving, this is just my opinion. I am far from only one on internet who did not like StarKiller name or magic force in lightsaber.

I post in mutiple arenas and was just stating my opinion on movie here as well.

 

[YJ02]

Eh. They actually named it after the original name Lucas had given Luke Skywalker in his concept draft for Star Wars - Luke Starkiller.

and of course there is the Starkiller of The Force unleashed games <<<<<<<<< my avatar

a game and whose characters were "blessed" by Lucas as being in tune with his ideas and the story so far-post EP 3 and pre DISNEY $

Of course, and I said it before, any idea or character from that game or any other or anywhere in the now" SW LEGENDS" verse can turn up in these new stories

-------------------------
notice how the General, or was it Ren , who made the comment in front of Snope that "perhaps clones would make better soldiers then humans"

with the crushing defection of Finn, will we see clones be re-introduced? now that would make things interesting.

------------------------
was just reading an article on the $ numbers so far for this. would it be any surprise if the hacks at DISNEY INC were now dreaming up ideas for movies that come in between ep 6 and 7? they would be financial fools and should be fired if they were not.

 

[YJ02]

I didn't like it tbh. I felt it was just a rehash of the original trilogy and some cheesy moments too.

ugh! how could you?!

kidding!

 

[Gatefan1976]

I can't explain that, and I can't explain the Q.

End discussion

But that has nothing to do with whether or not there was ever science in Star Trek as opposed to Star Wars which has had ziltch. However, if it has to be explained in scifi "technobabble", the dilithium acts as a mediator for the matter/antimatter reaction in the same way that control rods do in a nuclear pile (according to Roddenberry's notes). There is no such thing as dilithium, or antimatter/matter reactors, but the principle is borrowed from existing nuclear technology. Hence, science-fiction.

science fiction

1. : fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

That's nice dude, it really is, but technobabble is not science, it's babble made to -sound- like science.
Gene also said he was not going to explain how a warp core works because people do not stand around explaining how internal combustion engine's work either. In addition, you are not really using a level playing field to determine which has more "science" in it. SW had 3 movies to tell a story, ST has had hundreds of hours of television and 6 movies before 1-3 came out.
I'll take story over technowank in such a small space.

You can and will find lots of non-science in Star Trek. But you can find science in there too and you cannot in any Star Wars films or books. At least in The Clone Wars, we got to see how lightsabers are built. Unfortunately, the Force is necessary for the crystal to "call" it's master, which makes it like the magical feather in Harry Potter wands. Everything else is just "there", and that is fine for Star Wars.

Again, why waste time out of your 9 hours of film?
Would you think SW was more sciencey if they explained hyperdrives with technobabble?

EDIT:

None of that applies to NuTrek in which all bets are off. Expect to see any and everything in NuTrek including magic and nonsense and ridiculous deus ex machinas. Just sayin!

All those things are in TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY and the movies if you want to -look for them, Just sayin!

 

[Gatefan1976]

Explain ANY of the tech in Star Wars.

I'm not the one making the assertion that there is, you are making the assertion that ST has more, the onus is on you to prove your position and refute my criticism, anything else is moving the goalposts.

If you want me to do that, I would make the -assertion- that Stargate has more science in it that ST, as it uses more current real world physics and technobabble to explain things like the gate, and it's version of Dilithium is Naqhadah.

 

[Gatefan1976]

About this movie...was ANYONE bothered by the starkiller base which destroyed several planetary bodies at the same time? Planetary bodies (other than moons) do not orbit as closely as we saw in the movie. And how did they build something which could actually hold a star inside of it? Much less, use it's energy to destroy stuff.

How does a D'deridix class Romulan warbird use a quantum singularity as a power source?
Forget a star, it's a black hole!!

 

[shavedape]

Jewish sith lord.

 

[Gatefan1976]

LOL!!!
I saw the pic before you comment, and thought, "that's one messed up Menora"

 

[heisenberg]

I can't explain that, and I can't explain the Q. But that has nothing to do with whether or not there was ever science in Star Trek as opposed to Star Wars which has had ziltch. However, if it has to be explained in scifi "technobabble", the dilithium acts as a mediator for the matter/antimatter reaction in the same way that control rods do in a nuclear pile (according to Roddenberry's notes). There is no such thing as dilithium, or antimatter/matter reactors, but the principle is borrowed from existing nuclear technology. Hence, science-fiction.

science fiction

1. : fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

You can and will find lots of non-science in Star Trek. But you can find science in there too and you cannot in any Star Wars films or books. At least in The Clone Wars, we got to see how lightsabers are built. Unfortunately, the Force is necessary for the crystal to "call" it's master, which makes it like the magical feather in Harry Potter wands. Everything else is just "there", and that is fine for Star Wars.

EDIT:

None of that applies to NuTrek in which all bets are off. Expect to see any and everything in NuTrek including magic and nonsense and ridiculous deus ex machinas. Just sayin!

People don't often realize that Science Fiction is really a vision into the future and how accurate it is. Science Fiction isn't just about putting some random complex words to make it sound "cool" but there is actually some real science involve in Star Trek. Star Trek had more real science than some of the other Science Fiction shows actually.

This guy from NASA summed it up nicely about Star Trek

So, the bottom line is: Star Trek science is an entertaining combination of real science, imaginary science gathered from lots of earlier stories, and stuff the writers make up week-by-week to give each new episode novelty. The real science is an effort to be faithful to humanity's greatest achievements, and the fanciful science is the playing field for a game that expands the mind as it entertains. The Star Trek series are the only science fiction series crafted with such respect for real science and intelligent writing. That's why it's the only science fiction series that many scientists watch regularly . . . like me.

You can have a read of his extensive breakdown of the science behind star trek.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/star_trek.html


Gene Roddenberry was a genius though and he visioned a future that many don't realize that is happening as we speak. Sure Star Trek is far from perfect. Though, I did quite enjoy those Q-episodes. Infact, there are a lot of contradiction, but all thanks to Star Trek we have some of the most amazing inventions today.

The Mobile phone which everyone of you take for granted, was invented by Star Trek, Voice recognition software was invented by Star Trek, the Tablet was invented by Star Trek, Portable devices and storage mediums such as floppy disks, usb drives all done by star trek. 3d printers which was invented by Star Trek which is very close to making real food, the GPS, medical live diagnosis system screen done by star trek.We are also close to having a holodec working too, as well as a tricorder and a universal translator.

Most people often hate Star Trek but little do they realize that, Star Trek has had a more of a positive impact to us than Star Wars has ever had. Star Wars is nothing more than watching a theatrical play.


It's sad that the meaning of Science Fiction has been lost over the years.

 

[Gatefan1976]

People don't often realize that Science Fiction is really a vision into the future and how accurate it is. Science Fiction isn't just about putting some random complex words to make it sound "cool" but there is actually some real science involve in Star Trek. Star Trek had more real science than some of the other Science Fiction shows actually.

Phew, glad no one was arguing that.

This guy from NASA summed it up nicely about Star Trek



You can have a read of his extensive breakdown of the science behind star trek. Like I said, Star Trek is not perfect.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/star_trek.html

Phew, glad no one said that there wasn't.

Gene Roddenberry was a genius though and he visioned a future that many don't realize that is happening as we speak. Sure Star Trek is far from perfect. Though, I did quite enjoy those Q-episodes. Infact, there are a lot of contradiction, but all thanks to Star Trek we have some of the most amazing inventions today.

The Mobile phone which everyone of you take for granted, was invented by Star Trek, Voice recognition software was invented by Star Trek, the Tablet was invented by Star Trek, Portable devices and storage mediums such as floppy disks, usb drives all done by star trek. 3d printers which was invented by Star Trek which is very close to making real food, the GPS, medical live diagnosis system screen done by star trek.

We are also close to having a holodec working too, as well as a tricorder and a universal translator.

Most people often hate Star Trek but little do they realize that, Star Trek has had a more of a positive impact than Star Wars has ever had. Star Wars is nothing more than watching a theatrical play.

Phew, good thing no one said otherwise.

It's sad that the meaning of Science Fiction has been lost over the years, but there

It hasn't been, it's just been Hijacked a few times.

 

[heisenberg]

Phew, glad no one was arguing that.

Phew, glad no one said that there wasn't.


Phew, good thing no one said otherwise.

It hasn't been, it's just been Hijacked a few times.

Pretty sure people still confuse space opera with Science Fiction.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Pretty sure people still confuse space opera with Science Fiction.

Phew, pretty sure they ain't here