Spot the errors: ROTJ! — Page 3

I'm wondering if DS1 had that feature. The Rebels made a point of only attcking with small fighters, and only brought the big ships in cuz they thought DS2 wasn't finished.

timdiggerm said:

Surely the 6-->1...

 I thought for a second this was a new viewing order for the movies. 

I wonder how a newcomer to the films would respond to them if viewed in that order.

timdiggerm said:

TheBoost said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

Klasodeth said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tyrphanax said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

When the Death Star fires at the MonCalamari ship, it always bothered me that the beam didn't just punch right through like it was made of paper and keep going.  It can destroy a whole planet, so a ship shouldn't have stopped it...  Maybe it could even take out another ship(s) in the background.

This is a good one. I've always thought the same, myself.

I believe the official explanation is that the second Death Star had a variable energy output so they could dial it down to destroy a ship, or dial it up to destroy a planet.

Something about that explanation just never sat right with me. 

 Why not? It doesn't make sense to use the full power of the superlaser just to blow up something as tiny as a capital ship. Reducing the power level in exchange for a faster rate of fire not only makes sense, but would also help explain why the Death Star in Star Wars spent 30 minutes traveling around Yavin to to get in range of the Rebel base instead of blowing up Yavin and then blowing up the Rebel base two minutes later. 

 Why not?  Well because the only "official" explanation would be whatever is in the movie in the first place and not some fan-boy EU crap.  The emperor says it's "fully armed and operational," and nobody says anything different.  What you say makes 100% sense, but once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through.  Visually it would be a much more dramatic demonstration of the beam's supposed power.

 The official explanation IS the movie.

The Death Star can blow up a planet. It can also blow up a ship. This is totally clear in the film. It requires no further exposition in the film, nor any outside discussion. 

YOU made up a rule "once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through" that doesn't fit with what's in the film.  The film is not in error. 

This is the correct answer. The DSII is depicted as having variable-strength firepower. That's not a crazy concept.

 ??? I must have missed something.  Depicted how?  In some EU account?  There is no dialogue or discussion in the film to indicate that, (eg. "Fire at 1/4 strength, commander!"), the firing sequence as shown is IDENTICAL to ANH...  You're just ASSUMING that's the case.  FWIW, I totally agree with your logic about variable beam strength/anti ship weaponry, but in reality once a laser burns through a substance, it keeps right on going.   But thank you for giving me credit for making up basic physics!

^Good point about the firing sequence. They pressed the same buttons--why would the laser be weaker?

Tyrphanax said:

I don't think we need to have everything be explained explicitly throughout the movie.

 No. What's IN THE MOVIE is never enough.

We see a variable strength DS laser, that's a load of hogwash. We need someone to lean into frame and say "Goodness! The Death Star fired on the ship at lower power, hence the obvious lower power shot!"

I can't just SEE Vader on his Star Destroyer, I need to see him in transit, and frankly, it would have helped if there was someone on screen commenting on it like "It sure is great Vader left Cloud City to arrive here on this Star Destroyer."

I can't imagine any fans having issue with a character like that.

I hope you're not saying anything bad about Ric. He elevates everything he makes an appearance in.

HigHurtenflurst said:

timdiggerm said:

TheBoost said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

Klasodeth said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tyrphanax said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

HigHurtenflurst said:

When the Death Star fires at the MonCalamari ship, it always bothered me that the beam didn't just punch right through like it was made of paper and keep going.  It can destroy a whole planet, so a ship shouldn't have stopped it...  Maybe it could even take out another ship(s) in the background.

This is a good one. I've always thought the same, myself.

I believe the official explanation is that the second Death Star had a variable energy output so they could dial it down to destroy a ship, or dial it up to destroy a planet.

Something about that explanation just never sat right with me. 

 Why not? It doesn't make sense to use the full power of the superlaser just to blow up something as tiny as a capital ship. Reducing the power level in exchange for a faster rate of fire not only makes sense, but would also help explain why the Death Star in Star Wars spent 30 minutes traveling around Yavin to to get in range of the Rebel base instead of blowing up Yavin and then blowing up the Rebel base two minutes later. 

 Why not?  Well because the only "official" explanation would be whatever is in the movie in the first place and not some fan-boy EU crap.  The emperor says it's "fully armed and operational," and nobody says anything different.  What you say makes 100% sense, but once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through.  Visually it would be a much more dramatic demonstration of the beam's supposed power.

 The official explanation IS the movie.

The Death Star can blow up a planet. It can also blow up a ship. This is totally clear in the film. It requires no further exposition in the film, nor any outside discussion. 

YOU made up a rule "once the ship explodes the beam would have gone through" that doesn't fit with what's in the film.  The film is not in error. 

This is the correct answer. The DSII is depicted as having variable-strength firepower. That's not a crazy concept.

 ??? I must have missed something.  Depicted how?  In some EU account?  There is no dialogue or discussion in the film to indicate that, (eg. "Fire at 1/4 strength, commander!"), the firing sequence as shown is IDENTICAL to ANH...  You're just ASSUMING that's the case.  FWIW, I totally agree with your logic about variable beam strength/anti ship weaponry, but in reality once a laser burns through a substance, it keeps right on going.   But thank you for giving me credit for making up basic physics!

And since not a single thing in the entire Star Wars universe behaves like a actual LASER, not the laser-swords, planet destroying lasers, or laser guns, perhaps that's not the best model of what one  should expect to see. 

How do I know Lightsaber blades stop at about a meter length? Real lasers don't, No character ever says that it is so. Is it in the EU? How do I know this?!?!? How can that be?!?!? It can't possibly be because that's what's in the movie.

Personally, I like to believe that none of the lasers in the SW Universe are actual lasers, but some kind of slower-than-light plasma/particle bursts/beams.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Personally, I like to believe that none of the lasers in the SW Universe are actual lasers, but some kind of slower-than-light plasma/particle bursts/beams.

Yes. Blaster bolts are called "bolts" for a reason.

A laser would be an effective means for exciting the plasma, though. It is used for that purpose in experimental fusion reactors.

TheBoost said:

How do I know Lightsaber blades stop at about a meter length? Real lasers don't, No character ever says that it is so. 

There is an annoying 10-year old kid in Episode 1 that uses the word "Laser Sword" the first time he sees a lightsaber. Nobody else does it. It isn't a laser just because a 10-year old kid who does not know better says that it is.

Darth Lars said:

TheBoost said:

How do I know Lightsaber blades stop at about a meter length? Real lasers don't, No character ever says that it is so. 

There is an annoying 10-year old kid in Episode 1 that uses the word "Laser Sword" the first time he sees a lightsaber. Nobody else does it. It isn't a laser just because a 10-year old kid who does not know better says that it is.

 I actually think you're agreeing with me.

Since NOTHING in Star Wars called a laser acts like a laser ("that wasn't a laser blast, something hit us!") worrying about what a real world laser does seems unnecessary. 

Whatever they are, it seems best just to take them as presented as presented in the films. 

This makes me wonder how a true laser beam would work against a lightsaber. A lightsaber blade may only be able to deflect a blaster bolt because they are made up of the same basic substance. A laser beam, on the other hand, may not be affected by a lightsaber blade in the same way; perhaps it could even pass right through it.

It'd be interesting to see this explored in the EU, but I know they're too busy rehashing the Jedi vs. Sith conflict for the nth time to explore actually intriguing topics and questions.

Holy Moly, please accept my apologies for instigating this massive thread drift....

So, uh.... Ewoks. Their very existence is a mistake?

Imperial crewman in the crowd adjusts his eyeglasses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beZPPGdWhBw

First time regular eyeglasses (not protective goggles) are spotted in Star Wars. Error or not?

Darth Lars said:

Imperial crewman in the crowd adjusts his eyeglasses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beZPPGdWhBw

First time regular eyeglasses (not protective goggles) are spotted in Star Wars. Error or not?

*ahem*

 http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Saun_Dann

Saun Dann the lavatory man.

Well, the fact that you could create such thread for ANH and ESB that have plenty logical flaws, errors and "bad decisions" . Heck, that isn't the reason I love OT :)) SW is fairy tail, not a war/life drama where you'd expect logically smooth storytelling and too much logic would contradict the purity of fairy tail, myth, folklore genre (that SW derives from). 

Sometimes this forum just makes me hear the last bit of the MST3K Theme Song looped over and over in my head.