logo Sign In

Reimagining the OT with more realistic space physics

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Star Wars has been a massive cultural phenomenon for almost 50 years at this point. Regardless of the quality of any recent Disney productions, the Original Trilogy is likely to remain beloved and influential for another 100 years.

But I wonder… as the decades roll by, real world space travel may become more and more familiar to ordinary people. Even if the majority of humans don’t travel into space, general knowledge of space travel will likely become more widespread as corporations and governments send manned or unmanned craft into space for commercial or exploratory ventures. In the same way that early 1990s movies about the Internet or “hacking” now often seem totally ridiculous in light of widespread experience with computers, I wonder if basic knowledge of space travel will eventually have a similar effect on how audiences perceive Star Wars.

Now, I’m NOT talking about realism here. I’m not talking about things like sound in space, Faster-Than-Light travel, energy shields, Death Stars, or the fact that flesh-and-blood humans are involved in space combat in the first place. I think audiences will always be willing to accept the fantastic. But imagine a (non-science fiction) movie, set in the present day, that has a car chase involving normal every-day consumer car models, but all the cars in the film can somehow move sideways. Since the audience is very familiar with cars, everyone would be totally baffled by this unless some explanation was provided by the movie itself. It would be very odd if the movie required audiences to just accept this as part of the experience, because it’s not fantastic or mind-blowing - it’s just contrary to everyone’s day-to-day experience. Unless some explanation is provided, I think it’s easier for audiences to accept Superman and Deathstars than it is to accept a Honda Civic that moves sideways, because the latter falls into this “uncanny valley” of something ordinary operating in a way everyone knows it doesn’t, making the film seem weirdly out of touch. The scene in Empire Strikes Back where Han and Leia walk around inside the giant asteroid worm without wearing protective suits has this effect. It’s easier to accept the freaking GIANT SPACE WORM than it is to accept Han walking around in a vacuum without a space suit! We know the giant worm is a cool fantasy conceit - but Han walking around in a vacuum like that just makes the director seem clueless.

So I wonder how Star Wars will ultimately hold up in centuries to come, when iconic action scenes rely on the audience being totally unfamiliar with ordinary movement in space. Consider the Battle of Yavin - probably the most famous sequence in the whole Star Wars saga, where Luke pulls off an impossible shot at the last second, saving the day. The drama and tension comes from the fact that we all have a visceral understanding of how impossible this shot really is. Apart from the fact that many characters in the movie itself communicate this to us (e.g. Han Solo saying “Great shot kid! That was one in a million!”), we can see how difficult it would be to hit that tiny exhaust port while flying through a trench at insane speeds, while also being shot at by laser turrets and TIE fighters.

But… an audience watching this movie 100 years from now might feel differently. I think there are two main things about ordinary movement in space that go against our normal 21st century intuition: (1) objects in motion never slow down, they keep moving forever unless energy is exerted to decelerate, and (2) an object moving through a vacuum can rotate along its axis three-dimensionally without effecting the object’s forward trajectory or speed.

If this were common knowledge or experience, the Deathstar trench run might be viewed differently. For example, given the threat of enemy TIE fighters, why not have the X-wing pilots fly in pairs: both pilots fly through the trench, but one would face “forwards” and target the exhaust port, while the other would face “backwards” to fend off enemy TIE fighters and protect the first pilot. When Vader is pursuing those X-wings through the trench, any one of those X-wings should be able to rotate 180 degrees and fire back at Vader (while still moving forward through the trench).

Or consider that in the film, they fire proton torpedoes downwards at a 45 degree angle into the exhaust port. But why not do the following instead: When approaching the exhaust port, rotate the X-wing 90 degrees so its nose points downward facing the trench surface, then fire the proton torpedo directly downward in a straight line when passing over the exhaust port. This would require precise timing, but surely a targeting computer could do it. And you could have other X-wing pilots around to fend off TIE fighters when approaching the port.

Or… why even do the trench run at all? Just align an X-wing at a 90 degree angle to the Death Star surface and fly directly towards the exhaust port. Then fire torpedoes in a straight line into the port. Fire multiple proton torpedoes in case some are intercepted by laser turret fire, or first target the laser turrets themselves. You could fire the torpedoes from a great distance away. A computer-guided torpedo could hit the small exhaust port without a human pilot having to fly anywhere near the Death Star. Even in the 21st century, drones are capable of hitting precise targets from a great distance, while also dealing with the added complexity of flying in an atmosphere and gravity well. Targeting something in a vacuum would be much easier. The Battle of Yavin takes place in a vacuum with no significant gravity well (the Death Star is enormous, but still only about 140 kilometers in diameter, thus the effect of its gravity would be negligible).

To me, if experience with space travel became widespread, the Battle of Yavin would fall into that “uncanny valley” where something ordinary is portrayed in a weirdly incorrect way that feels lame or out of touch, like a normal car moving sideways or a computer virus in a 1990s movie. I wonder if the Battle of Yavin could somehow be reimagined to work with an updated understanding of movement in space, while still keeping the general premise of pulling off this “impossible shot” at the last second using the Force.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’m not a science buff, but I have at least a rudimentary understanding of biology and physics, and it does vex me immensely when I see sci-fi works blatantly disregard physical laws. Star Trek is a perfect exemplar of what I’m taking about, which is why I have an immense love/hate relationship with that franchise. And this came to colour my perception of Star Wars, too. But there’s a thread on this site which makes a strong case that SW was never meant to be viewed as sci-fi, but rather Surrealist fantasy.

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Star-Wars-is-Surrealism-not-Science-Fiction-essay/id/82402

Viewed through that lens, the 2D space travel, human-piloted fighters, giant legged walkers, and other logically implausible elements SW is rife with don’t bother me so bad.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, what he said. That’s honestly one of the main reasons why I’ve come to prefer Star Wars over Star Trek as I grow older (it was the other way around as a kid).

Star Wars never had any pretentions of being accurate in the slightest, it was always a Tolkein-esque epic fantasy story in space. Star Trek, on the other hand, is clearly supposed to be more “realistic” and “grounded”, but somehow manages to mangle science even worse than Star Wars ever did.

My preferred Skywalker Saga experience:
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Author
Time

Yeah. Star Wars ships were never meant to move realistically. They knew how space travel worked in 1976. They were literally landing people on the moon just four years prior.

Star Wars ships were intentionally made to fly and maneuver like 1940’s fighter planes. Like so many other things in Star Wars they took something familiar and put a new skin on it.

The analogy of a Honda Civic moving sideways doesn’t really work. A Honda is a real world vehicle. X wings and TIE fighters are not. But they were intentionally designed to mimic real world things from our past. A better analogy might be a newly designed car-like object that moves in the same fashion as stagecoach. And with that in mind (making something new mimic something familiar/old) I think future audiences will accept it just fine.

I think the fact that it will be (is?) an old movie with old effects, old makeup, old sound design, old dialogue, etc will ruin it for people before it hits that “uncanny valley of the familiar”. Much in the same way old silent films or even talkies from the ‘30’s are a difficult watch for most audiences today.

And finally, SuperweaponVII is right to point out (as has been done many a time) that Star Wars is, at heart, a swashbuckling fantasy with a sci-fi veneer. To lean so deep into the hard science would destroy what makes it Star Wars.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Superweapon VII said:

But there’s a thread on this site which makes a strong case that SW was never meant to be viewed as sci-fi, but rather Surrealist fantasy.

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Star-Wars-is-Surrealism-not-Science-Fiction-essay/id/82402

Viewed through that lens, the 2D space travel, human-piloted fighters, giant legged walkers, and other logically implausible elements SW is rife with don’t bother me so bad.

I agree Star Wars was never meant to be anything close to hard science-fiction. I mean, George Lucas basically just wanted to make something like Flash Gordon. But I would argue that Star Wars is, in fact, science fiction - at least partially. I realize the boundary between sci-fi and fantasy is fuzzy and often reduces to semantics depending on how you define “science fiction”. But I would argue that the key aspect that separates science fiction from fantasy is that sci-fi should include a plot or theme that explicitly highlights how some theoretical technology effects the world/characters. Star Wars has this. A major plot point of Episode IV is how the Death Star is a game changing technology that allows for complete authoritarian control. There’s also this underlying theme of man vs. technology, e.g. Vader (part machine himself) downplaying the Death Star, or Luke making the impossible shot without using his targeting computer.

I think Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi definitely have less of a claim to being science fiction, because that aspect of a game changing technology is either not present or not emphasized. Although, ROTJ still has the “man vs. technology” theme with the Ewoks, even though it’s not really presented very well in my opinion.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It is an interesting idea. Why don’t these X-Wings have the capability to fire backwards too? Or have a rear gun? Or are able to fire chaff or a debris field from the rear like Luthen’s ship did in Andor?

I wonder if people will think that, and for other similar issues, in 100 years when they watch the films. I guess if it doesn’t break the “suspension of disbelief” of being in the moment when watching them it will likely always be accepted?
 

Their thoughts on 005’s gif of the Death Star having a clear line of sight for Yavin IV, from as soon as it entered the system. Only from the 1997 Special Editions onwards, and think “why didn’t they fix that for any of the future Special Edition releases?” or “why didn’t it just blow up the Rebel base before the X-Wings started their assault?”:

 

Maybe it is like us looking back some of the World Wars II craft that some of the Star Wars ships were based on? Why don’t the smaller planes have a rear gun? Or why not a larger space for more ammunition? Without going into the detail, and immersing yourself to the time of design, the situation they were in, shortage of materials, and how fast they could manufacture them? Most of us have watched WWII films and accepted the logic of it. Unquestioningly? The same as sci-fi, when using earth-like craft?

Up to the point of breaking that “suspension of disbelief” or logic: Battleground Earth type thinking for the lack of logic in that was very noticeable, and pulls the viewer out of the film. There may be other things in the film that had similar issues too!

The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.

Author
Time

Channel72 said:

Or… why even do the trench run at all? Just align an X-wing at a 90 degree angle to the Death Star surface and fly directly towards the exhaust port. Then fire torpedoes in a straight line into the port. Fire multiple proton torpedoes in case some are intercepted by laser turret fire, or first target the laser turrets themselves. You could fire the torpedoes from a great distance away. A computer-guided torpedo could hit the small exhaust port without a human pilot having to fly anywhere near the Death Star. Even in the 21st century, drones are capable of hitting precise targets from a great distance, while also dealing with the added complexity of flying in an atmosphere and gravity well. Targeting something in a vacuum would be much easier. The Battle of Yavin takes place in a vacuum with no significant gravity well (the Death Star is enormous, but still only about 140 kilometers in diameter, thus the effect of its gravity would be negligible).

To me, if experience with space travel became widespread, the Battle of Yavin would fall into that “uncanny valley” where something ordinary is portrayed in a weirdly incorrect way that feels lame or out of touch, like a normal car moving sideways or a computer virus in a 1990s movie. I wonder if the Battle of Yavin could somehow be reimagined to work with an updated understanding of movement in space, while still keeping the general premise of pulling off this “impossible shot” at the last second using the Force.

Have any of the fan-made animations done something like this? Or even gifs or memes?

It would be cool to see. And people’s reactions to it as well.

Author
Time

Emre1601 said:

Their thoughts on 005’s gif of the Death Star having a clear line of sight for Yavin IV, from as soon as it entered the system. Only from the 1997 Special Editions onwards, and think “why didn’t they fix that for any of the future Special Edition releases?” or “why didn’t it just blow up the Rebel base before the X-Wings started their assault?”:

They fix the awful Jabba from the 1997 Special Editions for the 2004SE release, they meddle with “Han vs Greedo” for every single release, but they don’t fix this? Maybe they don’t know? Or don’t care?

Author
Time

Juno Eclipse said:

They fix the awful Jabba from the 1997 Special Editions for the 2004SE release, they meddle with “Han vs Greedo” for every single release, but they don’t fix this? Maybe they don’t know? Or don’t care?

I don’t think they care. They probably didn’t know until fans like doubleofive pointed it out. But still not care enough to change it.

The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Channel72 said:

Or… why even do the trench run at all? Just align an X-wing at a 90 degree angle to the Death Star surface and fly directly towards the exhaust port. Then fire torpedoes in a straight line into the port. Fire multiple proton torpedoes in case some are intercepted by laser turret fire, or first target the laser turrets themselves. You could fire the torpedoes from a great distance away. A computer-guided torpedo could hit the small exhaust port without a human pilot having to fly anywhere near the Death Star.

There is a line of dialogue about it being “heavily shielded” or “ray-shielded” in the rebel briefing? I took that as the reason why they couldn’t fire at it from distance or closer distances with “line of sight”, though I could be wrong on that, or misinterpreting it? I’ll have to watch go watch it, the whole film, again! 😃

The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.

Author
Time

Emre1601 said:

Channel72 said:

Or… why even do the trench run at all? Just align an X-wing at a 90 degree angle to the Death Star surface and fly directly towards the exhaust port. Then fire torpedoes in a straight line into the port. Fire multiple proton torpedoes in case some are intercepted by laser turret fire, or first target the laser turrets themselves. You could fire the torpedoes from a great distance away. A computer-guided torpedo could hit the small exhaust port without a human pilot having to fly anywhere near the Death Star.

There is a line of dialogue about it being “heavily shielded” or “ray-shielded” in the rebel briefing? I took that as the reason why they couldn’t fire at it from distance or closer distances with “line of sight”, though I could be wrong on that, or misinterpreting it? I’ll have to watch go watch it, the whole film, again! 😃

I think they say that the ray shields are the reason they need to use proton torpedoes (as opposed to, I guess, just regular laser fire?). Maybe the idea is that ray shields only protect against energy weapons, but wouldn’t protect against a physical object like a torpedo.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Channel72 said:

Superweapon VII said:

But there’s a thread on this site which makes a strong case that SW was never meant to be viewed as sci-fi, but rather Surrealist fantasy.

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Star-Wars-is-Surrealism-not-Science-Fiction-essay/id/82402

Viewed through that lens, the 2D space travel, human-piloted fighters, giant legged walkers, and other logically implausible elements SW is rife with don’t bother me so bad.

I agree Star Wars was never meant to be anything close to hard science-fiction. I mean, George Lucas basically just wanted to make something like Flash Gordon. But I would argue that Star Wars is, in fact, science fiction - at least partially. I realize the boundary between sci-fi and fantasy is fuzzy and often reduces to semantics depending on how you define “science fiction”. But I would argue that the key aspect that separates science fiction from fantasy is that sci-fi should include a plot or theme that explicitly highlights how some theoretical technology effects the world/characters. Star Wars has this. A major plot point of Episode IV is how the Death Star is a game changing technology that allows for complete authoritarian control. There’s also this underlying theme of man vs. technology, e.g. Vader (part machine himself) downplaying the Death Star, or Luke making the impossible shot without using his targeting computer.

I think Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi definitely have less of a claim to being science fiction, because that aspect of a game changing technology is either not present or not emphasized. Although, ROTJ still has the “man vs. technology” theme with the Ewoks, even though it’s not really presented very well in my opinion.

let me tell you about the cutting-edge technology showcased in this series. From the iconic lightsabers that slice through anything with their plasma blades to the hyperdrive engines enabling faster-than-light travel, Star Wars is packed with futuristic marvels. The droids, like R2-D2 and the protocol-driven C-3PO, showcase advanced artificial intelligence and robotic engineering.I once had an assignment on my physics class, writing about The Death Star,I found this site which helped me a lot https://essays.edubirdie.com/finance-assignments an enormous space station capable of annihilating entire planets, epitomizes the destructive power of technology in the wrong hands. Even the Force itself, a mystical energy field harnessed by the Jedi and Sith, blurs the line between science and fantasy. The innovative and imaginative technologies of Star Wars have captivated audiences for generations, solidifying its place in the realm of groundbreaking science fiction and that’s a fact

Author
Time

Channel72 said:

Emre1601 said:

Channel72 said:

Or… why even do the trench run at all? Just align an X-wing at a 90 degree angle to the Death Star surface and fly directly towards the exhaust port. Then fire torpedoes in a straight line into the port. Fire multiple proton torpedoes in case some are intercepted by laser turret fire, or first target the laser turrets themselves. You could fire the torpedoes from a great distance away. A computer-guided torpedo could hit the small exhaust port without a human pilot having to fly anywhere near the Death Star.

There is a line of dialogue about it being “heavily shielded” or “ray-shielded” in the rebel briefing? I took that as the reason why they couldn’t fire at it from distance or closer distances with “line of sight”, though I could be wrong on that, or misinterpreting it? I’ll have to watch go watch it, the whole film, again! 😃

I think they say that the ray shields are the reason they need to use proton torpedoes (as opposed to, I guess, just regular laser fire?). Maybe the idea is that ray shields only protect against energy weapons, but wouldn’t protect against a physical object like a torpedo.

Yes that is the idea. However… ray shields since the prequels are now ‘made of rays’ instead of protecting ‘against rays’ because they’re shown trapping people.