A lucky shot that only two people in the galaxy could have made, Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader. The Thermal exhaust port only a Jedi or Sith would be able to hit that target. No pilot even the most gifted without the force would have been able to do it, especially at full speed.
I personally think most of the issues people point to are fairly surface-level stuff that doesn’t really damage the movie as a whole. A second Death Star makes sense in-universe.
Return of the Jedi is a great movie, but I kind of think this is a stretch. The last one didn’t work, why would a second one with essentially no changes work this time? Palpatine gets a surprise attack on the Rebels I guess, but he still dies, they still lose the Sanctuary Moon, and the loss on Endor doomed the Empire.
Just because your expensive military hardware is destroyed in a battle, you do not simply stop making that hardware. When a country lost a capital warship during the World War I or World War II, they did not just say “oh that did not work, let’s stop building new ones” or “oh that did not work, let’s just stick to building small torpedo boats instead”.
If capital warships were incredibly expensive and had a well known, easily exploitable weak point that leads to total, irreparable destruction, they probably might have said that.
Except that the weak point you refer to was not well known (it took Alliance a great effort to find out about it), and it was not easily exploitable (without a pilot with rare force abilities it was impossible to do it, as clearly shown in the film).
By Return of the Jedi, it was well known, and it’s clearly easily exploitable because they easily exploit it the second time.
And besides, who says they did not fix it for the DS2?
The indie arthouse kino filme known as “Return of the Jedi”
The only reason why ships could fly inside it was because it was only 1/4 finished by the time of ROTJ.
In other words, not fixed. Edit: Or, as Yotsuya says, you could view it as them replacing one easily exploitable weakness with another that’s even worse. But if you take Rogue One’s word for it (maybe you do maybe you don’t), they literally did jack to fix the problem.
No matter which way you slice it: The core of the Death Star was too easy to put bombs inside of. Fair mistake, people harp on ANH too much for it. You have to exhaust heat somehow, and it literally took magic powers to take down the First Death Star. But they made it a thousand times easier for the Second. No excuse.
Now going to my analogy, unlike DS in Star Wars, real-life incredibly expensive capital warships (i.e., battleships) did actually have several well known, easily exploitable weak points, i.e., against attacks from relatively inexpensive aircraft or torpedo boats. Yet they were still building them for decades after those weak points were evident.
I’m no military tactician, but I imagine it’s because they aren’t actually easily exploitable. At least, I hope not. Because if they are actually sending capital warships with weaknesses so easily exploitable they get murked before they manage to even do anything (like the DS2 did), military waste is a much, much bigger issue than I thought it was.
Reading R + L ≠ J theories
I personally think most of the issues people point to are fairly surface-level stuff that doesn’t really damage the movie as a whole. A second Death Star makes sense in-universe.
Return of the Jedi is a great movie, but I kind of think this is a stretch. The last one didn’t work, why would a second one with essentially no changes work this time? Palpatine gets a surprise attack on the Rebels I guess, but he still dies, they still lose the Sanctuary Moon, and the loss on Endor doomed the Empire.
Just because your expensive military hardware is destroyed in a battle, you do not simply stop making that hardware. When a country lost a capital warship during the World War I or World War II, they did not just say “oh that did not work, let’s stop building new ones” or “oh that did not work, let’s just stick to building small torpedo boats instead”.
If capital warships were incredibly expensive and had a well known, easily exploitable weak point that leads to total, irreparable destruction, they probably might have said that.
Except that the weak point you refer to was not well known (it took Alliance a great effort to find out about it), and it was not easily exploitable (without a pilot with rare force abilities it was impossible to do it, as clearly shown in the film).
By Return of the Jedi, it was well known, and it’s clearly easily exploitable because they easily exploit it the second time.
And besides, who says they did not fix it for the DS2?
The indie arthouse kino filme known as “Return of the Jedi”
The only reason why ships could fly inside it was because it was only 1/4 finished by the time of ROTJ.
In other words, not fixed. Edit: Or, as Yotsuya says, you could view it as them replacing one easily exploitable weakness with another that’s even worse. But if you take Rogue One’s word for it (maybe you do maybe you don’t), they literally did jack to fix the problem.
No matter which way you slice it: The core of the Death Star was too easy to put bombs inside of. Fair mistake, people harp on ANH too much for it. You have to exhaust heat somehow, and it literally took magic powers to take down the First Death Star. But they made it a thousand times easier for the Second. No excuse.
This is an extremely silly argument. It is basically like saying that a car model does not have wheels and doors, while looking at an unfinished example at the beginning of production line in a factory. Of course, unfinished DS2 had weaknesses, but it was not designed to be unfinished…
Now going to my analogy, unlike DS in Star Wars, real-life incredibly expensive capital warships (i.e., battleships) did actually have several well known, easily exploitable weak points, i.e., against attacks from relatively inexpensive aircraft or torpedo boats. Yet they were still building them for decades after those weak points were evident.
I’m no military tactician, but I imagine it’s because they aren’t actually easily exploitable. At least, I hope not. Because if they are actually sending capital warships with weaknesses so easily exploitable they get murked before they manage to even do anything (like the DS2 did), military waste is a much, much bigger issue than I thought it was.
In general military is huge waste of money purely from economy point of view. Most weapons that are built are never even used once. But in rare cases when you need them, they might save your country. Same with the battleship type of warships. Even though they were proven completely useless, they could have somehow turned out critical in some unforeseen situation, therefore countries could not gable with its safety. In the end, hindsight is 20/20.
真実
I personally think most of the issues people point to are fairly surface-level stuff that doesn’t really damage the movie as a whole. A second Death Star makes sense in-universe.
Return of the Jedi is a great movie, but I kind of think this is a stretch. The last one didn’t work, why would a second one with essentially no changes work this time? Palpatine gets a surprise attack on the Rebels I guess, but he still dies, they still lose the Sanctuary Moon, and the loss on Endor doomed the Empire.
Just because your expensive military hardware is destroyed in a battle, you do not simply stop making that hardware. When a country lost a capital warship during the World War I or World War II, they did not just say “oh that did not work, let’s stop building new ones” or “oh that did not work, let’s just stick to building small torpedo boats instead”.
If capital warships were incredibly expensive and had a well known, easily exploitable weak point that leads to total, irreparable destruction, they probably might have said that.
Except that the weak point you refer to was not well known (it took Alliance a great effort to find out about it), and it was not easily exploitable (without a pilot with rare force abilities it was impossible to do it, as clearly shown in the film).
By Return of the Jedi, it was well known, and it’s clearly easily exploitable because they easily exploit it the second time.
And besides, who says they did not fix it for the DS2?
The indie arthouse kino filme known as “Return of the Jedi”
The only reason why ships could fly inside it was because it was only 1/4 finished by the time of ROTJ.
In other words, not fixed. Edit: Or, as Yotsuya says, you could view it as them replacing one easily exploitable weakness with another that’s even worse. But if you take Rogue One’s word for it (maybe you do maybe you don’t), they literally did jack to fix the problem.
No matter which way you slice it: The core of the Death Star was too easy to put bombs inside of. Fair mistake, people harp on ANH too much for it. You have to exhaust heat somehow, and it literally took magic powers to take down the First Death Star. But they made it a thousand times easier for the Second. No excuse.
This is an extremely silly argument. It is basically like saying that a car model does not have wheels and doors, while looking at an unfinished example at the beginning of production line in a factory. Of course, unfinished DS2 had weaknesses, but it was not designed to be unfinished…
Now going to my analogy, unlike DS in Star Wars, real-life incredibly expensive capital warships (i.e., battleships) did actually have several well known, easily exploitable weak points, i.e., against attacks from relatively inexpensive aircraft or torpedo boats. Yet they were still building them for decades after those weak points were evident.
I’m no military tactician, but I imagine it’s because they aren’t actually easily exploitable. At least, I hope not. Because if they are actually sending capital warships with weaknesses so easily exploitable they get murked before they manage to even do anything (like the DS2 did), military waste is a much, much bigger issue than I thought it was.
In general military is huge waste of money purely from economy point of view. Most weapons that are built are never even used once. But in rare cases when you need them, they might save your country. Same with the battleship type of warships. Even though they were proven completely useless, they could have somehow turned out critical in some unforeseen situation, therefore countries could not gable with its safety. In the end, hindsight is 20/20.
Battleships were far from limited. They had a proven track record of being able to sink other ships and could bombard the shore at a fair distance. The Aircraft Carrier proved it was better able to sink other ships, but nothing beat a battleship pounding the shore. The last Battleships were retired in the 1990’s, after doing shore bombardment in every conflict up through Desert Storm. But it became more cost effective and accurate to use missiles so they were finally retired. The same way satellite photographs forced the retirement of the SR-71.
Battleships were far from limited. They had a proven track record of being able to sink other ships and could bombard the shore at a fair distance. The Aircraft Carrier proved it was better able to sink other ships, but nothing beat a battleship pounding the shore. The last Battleships were retired in the 1990’s, after doing shore bombardment in every conflict up through Desert Storm. But it became more cost effective and accurate to use missiles so they were finally retired. The same way satellite photographs forced the retirement of the SR-71.
I would say that battleships were extremely limited for what they were designed for. Actually, they had a very poor track record. Since the emergence of HMS Dreadnought (which is where a modern battleship starts) in 1906 and until WW2, there was basically just a single noteworthy battleship engagement, i.e., Battle of Jutland in 1916. And in that engagement, torpedo boats basically already showed how useless battleships can be in their primary role. WW2 then finally sealed their fate as one of the most useless and expensive weapons ever.
To be relegated to shore bombardment role is like going from a king to a bagger. Not to mention it is a role that can be (and also was) done just as effectively by much cheaper cruisers, since shore bombardment is basically a suppressive fire rather than anything that would actually cause any physically damage to well dug in defenders.
Anyway, I think we went completely off topic now. 😃
真実
Battleships were far from limited. They had a proven track record of being able to sink other ships and could bombard the shore at a fair distance. The Aircraft Carrier proved it was better able to sink other ships, but nothing beat a battleship pounding the shore. The last Battleships were retired in the 1990’s, after doing shore bombardment in every conflict up through Desert Storm. But it became more cost effective and accurate to use missiles so they were finally retired. The same way satellite photographs forced the retirement of the SR-71.
I would say that battleships were extremely limited for what they were designed for. Actually, they had a very poor track record. Since the emergence of HMS Dreadnought (which is where a modern battleship starts) in 1906 and until WW2, there was basically just a single noteworthy battleship engagement, i.e., Battle of Jutland in 1916. And in that engagement, torpedo boats basically already showed how useless battleships can be in their primary role. WW2 then finally sealed their fate as one of the most useless and expensive weapons ever.
To be relegated to shore bombardment role is like going from a king to a bagger. Not to mention it is a role that can be (and also was) done just as effectively by much cheaper cruisers, since shore bombardment is basically a suppressive fire rather than anything that would actually cause any physically damage to well dug in defenders.
Anyway, I think we went completely off topic now. 😃
Some things might seem off topic, but often circle back in a strangely logical way.
I think the Bizmark/Hood engagement was pretty significant. And our greatest ships have a history of shore bombardment that has been quite effective and necessary. Have you read the Marine song lyrics lately? You know those shores of Tripoli? USS Constitution and her sister ships bombarded the shore and were instrumental in the success of that engagement. The Star Spangled Banner was written about a ship bombardment of the shore. The area where the Battleships shone was the size and range of their guns, unmatched by anything prior to missiles except aircraft. So shore bombardment was not something they were reduced to, it was part of their purpose from the beginning. The bigger the gun the further out and the larger the shell. And a good team could get pretty accurate at the right distance.
But you are right that does stray from the Death Star. It didn’t need to be very accurate since it could destroy an entire planet. And even its version of shore bombardment, which we saw twice in Rogue One, didn’t need to be that accurate. Except it was. Direct hit on Jedda City and direct hit on the communications tower on Scarif. And in ROTJ, direct hits on several rebel ships. So again, we find the parallels and see that even for such an all powerful weapon, it can be toned down for lesser uses. Still, the rebels destroyed the first one and the second one because they can destroy planets. While under construction is an ideal time as it is more vulnerable. And in Palpatine’s arrogance, he has them finish the weapon, but not the shields. If that would have even stopped a ship from flying inside it. Why worry about finding a tiny exhaust port when you can just fly in and destroy it directly. Palpatine counted on his legion on the forest moon to keep his only protection safe. Oopsie.
Battleships were far from limited. They had a proven track record of being able to sink other ships and could bombard the shore at a fair distance. The Aircraft Carrier proved it was better able to sink other ships, but nothing beat a battleship pounding the shore. The last Battleships were retired in the 1990’s, after doing shore bombardment in every conflict up through Desert Storm. But it became more cost effective and accurate to use missiles so they were finally retired. The same way satellite photographs forced the retirement of the SR-71.
I would say that battleships were extremely limited for what they were designed for. Actually, they had a very poor track record. Since the emergence of HMS Dreadnought (which is where a modern battleship starts) in 1906 and until WW2, there was basically just a single noteworthy battleship engagement, i.e., Battle of Jutland in 1916. And in that engagement, torpedo boats basically already showed how useless battleships can be in their primary role. WW2 then finally sealed their fate as one of the most useless and expensive weapons ever.
To be relegated to shore bombardment role is like going from a king to a bagger. Not to mention it is a role that can be (and also was) done just as effectively by much cheaper cruisers, since shore bombardment is basically a suppressive fire rather than anything that would actually cause any physically damage to well dug in defenders.
Anyway, I think we went completely off topic now. 😃
Some things might seem off topic, but often circle back in a strangely logical way.
I think the Bizmark/Hood engagement was pretty significant. And our greatest ships have a history of shore bombardment that has been quite effective and necessary. Have you read the Marine song lyrics lately? You know those shores of Tripoli? USS Constitution and her sister ships bombarded the shore and were instrumental in the success of that engagement. The Star Spangled Banner was written about a ship bombardment of the shore. The area where the Battleships shone was the size and range of their guns, unmatched by anything prior to missiles except aircraft. So shore bombardment was not something they were reduced to, it was part of their purpose from the beginning. The bigger the gun the further out and the larger the shell. And a good team could get pretty accurate at the right distance.
But you are right that does stray from the Death Star. It didn’t need to be very accurate since it could destroy an entire planet. And even its version of shore bombardment, which we saw twice in Rogue One, didn’t need to be that accurate. Except it was. Direct hit on Jedda City and direct hit on the communications tower on Scarif. And in ROTJ, direct hits on several rebel ships. So again, we find the parallels and see that even for such an all powerful weapon, it can be toned down for lesser uses. Still, the rebels destroyed the first one and the second one because they can destroy planets. While under construction is an ideal time as it is more vulnerable. And in Palpatine’s arrogance, he has them finish the weapon, but not the shields. If that would have even stopped a ship from flying inside it. Why worry about finding a tiny exhaust port when you can just fly in and destroy it directly. Palpatine counted on his legion on the forest moon to keep his only protection safe. Oopsie.
I do not think Bismarck/Hood engagement was significant in the grand scheme. It was just overly popularised, in part due to the fact of extreme rarity of battleship-battleship engagement in the first place (adding to their obscurity). On top of that, in the end it was an antiquated biplane with a torpedo that crippled Bismarck. As for the shore bombardment, it did not significantly help in numerous landings in the Pacific. For example, on Tarawa and Iwo Jima, ships practically shelled every square meter for days and yet that did not weaken the defenders in the slightest for the Marines.
While we do not agree about the usefulness/uselessness of battleships, we are in complete agreement when it comes to DS2 in ROTJ. DS2 in Star Wars universe was infinity more useful than battleships in real life. So if they continued to build new battleships in real life, it makes complete sense that a new DS was built in Star Wars universe.
真実