ST Death Star and Superweapons

You can't compare the Death Stars to lightsabers... the latter is an essential part of a Jedi & Sith's character, whereas the former isn't a necessary plot device anymore. 2 movies with them as a major plot point is more than enough.

 

It is called "Star Wars" after all, so recurrent stars in wars isn't that far fetched. Really.

 

I've noticed that the 2nd Death Star in RotJ is often referenced as an example of a reused & unoriginal plot device. Anyone else encountered that? In articles & podcasts, quite often I've heard someone compare a repeated storyline or weapon as being "a bit like the Death Star 2", in other words a bad idea. Not saying this is a valid point of view but reusing it in Jedi seems to have seeped into pop culture as being a poor storytelling choice.

 

I really don't see it that way...constructing a second Death Star makes sense, if you consider that the first one had been somewhat successful. People would have been bitching about why they didn't make another one if they hadn't, so it's a pointless argument, anyway. But making a third? Ehhhh. I say no. That would be too repetitious and boring. But like I said before, the enemy needs some kind of leverage in order for them to be a threat. Bottom line is, the stakes have to be just as high as it was in the OT.

 

I don't think it was a good idea from a storytelling point of view. You had a new movie & could come up with literally anything that you can imagine. Why retread another Death Star? There's nothing original in it's design, it's nothing new. The plan to have fighters fly in & destroy it had been done before too. This compared to coming up with something completely new & original was a strange way to go IMO.

 

Yeah, but it still makes sense, no matter how you cut it. Sure, it's a recycled idea, but a good one...At least to me it is. One of the main plot points of the OT was that the Emperor dissolved the Senate, and so he needed another Death Star to ensure that all the systems don't rebel against him after the first one was destroyed. What other better way is there than creating another Death Star, then? There is none. Sure, you can come up with something else, but it would still be the same thing in the end — the rebels would have to find this thing and destroy it.

 

I never said it didn't make sense. We seem to be talking about two different things. You're talking about how it makes sense in the context of the fictional Star Wars universe. I'm talking about the wisdom of wheeling out the same "ultimate weapon" that we already saw just 2 movies ago. I'm commenting on the storytelling choice. RotJ would be a more distinctive & original film if it had a completely new threat rather than Death Star 2.0

 

Except, in that day & age of movie-making, you couldn't come up with literally anything imaginable. For example, the Coruscant we all know and love was simply beyond 1983 moviemaking technology.

I think it makes sense from a storytelling perspective and the climax of ROTJ uses the Death Star in a different manner. We're not worried about it destroying a planet/moon, but it is picking off capital ships one at a time.

And if the storytellers had done that, people like you would be saying "it makes no sense why the Empire built Brand New Weapon Alpha - why wouldn't they just build another Death Star?"

 

That's fairly petty. Obviously my point was they could come up with anything that could be translated to the screen, as is still the case & will always be the case. I don't think technology limited them to a spherical metal space station.

Again, I didn't say it did not make sense. It's clutching at straws if you're saying it was in any way original bcs it destroyed a couple of capital ships.

"People like you" is a rude & pointless remark. You seem to be one of these oversensitive defenders who strikes out at any kind of SW criticism.

On the content of your point, if the new weapon was not susceptible to being destroyed in a very similar way to Ep 4 then that would've been a good start in terms of originality. If you want to look at it in the context of the SW story, it made the Empire look like incompetent morons. They build a DS & it gets destroyed just after it's put into service. They then decide to build another one with a couple of safeguards & yet it gets destroyed, again by Rebel fighters & this time before it's even finished.

& by the way Empire, how about having a secondary shield generator within the Death Star itself? Then you know, it would be protected by the very shield it is generating. After all the shield generator was no bigger than a small building with a satellite dish.

 

Well that may have been your point, but it certainly wasn't what you said.

You said "You had a new movie & could come up with literally anything that you can imagine." I didn't realize the phrase "literally anything you can imagine" meant "some of the stuff you can imagine if it can be translated to the screen."

Well if you agree it makes sense from a storytelling perspective, then I think you're the one clutching at straws. You wanted something new for no other logical reason than the sake of having something new. I, for one, am glad they went with storytelling logic instead of the novelty of newness.

I have agreed with and opined my fair share of SW criticism. I just think this particular criticism is lame.

The fact that the 2nd Death Star is unfinished makes the method by which it was destroyed make perfect sense. It was used as bait. The Rebels had to attack it before it was finished.

And I don't consider the 2nd one as having been destroyed like the 1st one. The first one was finished, but had a design flaw. The 2nd one was unfinished and therefore still vulnerable, which makes sense.

 

People try to apply "modern" or "current" style story techniques to "Star Wars" and it just doesn't work. In essence Star Wars is a cheesy, Flash Gordon serial style show. "The bad guy is literally a scary guy in a black wizards robe who builds big planet destroying weapons." It's simplistic. And it works.

Granted the detail that surrounds the Star Wars universe is complex, but at it's heart is good vs evil.

If the emperor was still alive I would suspect a 3rd Death Star, but since he's not, there's got to be a different angle.

The OT had the good guys fighting for their existence against the Empire and their biggest weapon the Death Star.

The PT had the Jedi fighting against the Sith and their biggest weapons the Clone and Separatist armies.

The ST will need something similar.

 

I could only see the DS appearing in the ST in the form of Propaganda posters (stuff like "Remember Alderaan") The only aspect regarding Death Stars that would interest me would be a preemptive Republic assault on the DS construction site. I could see this as a kind of prologue chapter (similar to the first big action sequence in Bond movies that has most of the times little to do with the main story). Imagine a squad of fighters manuevering through various black holes (the MAW installation in the Eu desribed the DS construction site as being surrounded by black holes) and then entering a giant graveyard with literally dead Death Stars in various stages of completition hanging in space. Pirates or a warlord are trying to take over and a gigantic Space Battle erupts. it could end in the collapse of all the black holes into a giant gravity well that sucks in all the bad guys and DS and our heros escaping it narrowly...

 

Well, whatever the case, no more Death Stars.

 

Oh, you know it's coming back, like this.

 

If Palpatine returns and doesn't build another Death Star, the fans will see him as more competent.

 

Like I mentioned before, there has to be some "great threat" throughout the trilogy. Until we know the state of the galaxy, we can't easily guess what the threat would be.

For instance if the Galaxy is "back to normal". The Republic and the Senate are back. The Jedi Temple is flourishing. Then there will need to be another "Phantom Menace". Some unknown thing that threatens the Galaxy. I don't see that because it's too much like the PT story.

Now if the Empire presence is still there ruling the Galaxy (maybe some new sith and evil Imperial officers that are left over) then it will have a OT tone to it. This is more of a possibility because the whole debate was "getting Star Wars back to the OT style". If this is the route they take, then possibly some new super threat (maybe not a Death Star) will be the topic.

The last possibility (which seems to be the most popular) is the Galaxy is in a state of limbo. Everyone competing for power. I see the reason people like this, BUT I also see without clear cut good guys and clear cut bad guys, the film does not seem very "Star Wars" like. It's popular for modern films, but not in the vein of Star Wars. Also in this type of setup, neither side will have the resources available to build something like a Death Star.

 

Is that Disneyplanet?

 

How about a space station that fires lasers that emit stupidity, confusion, and illogical thoughts?

 

I would think that from a Star Wars Universe answer that it would be pretty hard to build another Death Star. Palpatine and the Empire were able to do it because they controlled the Empire's vast resources. After all, that was part of Palpatine's overall plan in the Prequels. Not only did he want to get the Jedi out of the way, but, it was no mistake that he pitted the Republic against the Economic Powerhouses of the galaxy. Once the Clone Wars were over, Palpatine controlled the Republics/Empires Economy and resources. Post Empire, those resources (as far as we know) would be up for grabs by whomever was control in each system, and each system being controlled by different factions, people, etc.

 

I never had a problem with them making DSII in ROTJ, but I don't think we should get any more Death Stars or Death Star-like space stations in the ST.

 

The subject of the conversation wasn't film technology. We were talking about storytelling. My point was there were no restrictions or continuity reasons for another Death Star. GL could've come up with anything, & in fact did develop alternative ideas even close to the filming of RotJ. These other ideas were more original in that we hadn't seen them before in the Saga at that point. That's just a fact.

You would've known what I meant when I said he could come up with anything. That means you weren't seeking clarification but rather being petty, pedantic & engaging in childish point scoring.

Your comment here is irrational. The fact that it "makes sense" has no bearing on whether I should like it as a storytelling choice. It just means there's nothing impossible or implausible in the Empire making a second DS. Well so what? Do you think anything other than a 2nd DS would have to be a novelty or illogical? Do you have that narrow an imagination?

It's just a point of view you disagree with. It's a reasonably common one though. Plenty of fans think it might've been better not to recycle the plot device from Ep4. Kurtz thought this. Lucas himself was going to go down a different road several times during the development of Jedi. As I said earlier it has entered the pop culture vocabulary as an example of a re used plot device. Something recycled is often called a "Death Star 2.0" in the sense of being an unoriginal idea. That's just an opinion & I don't think it's even a majority opinion, but it's not some obscure, ridiculous opinion that makes no sense like you're trying to suggest.

What amuses me is that if Lucas had gone with one of his other ideas for Jedi & someone all these years later were on this forum saying "what Lucas should've done instead was have the Empire build another Death Star in RotJ" - you would probably be on these boards slamming them for suggesting a lame, unoriginal, rehashed story idea.

 

That's where I'm in total agreement with Darth Downunder. They can't try and re-use the same plots of the PT and OT, so no more phantom menaces and no more Death Stars. There's got to be a new recurrent theme that plays out in the ST. What that is, I wish the writers the best of luck.

 

Might I suggest in the future you say (write) what you mean instead of saying one thing when you mean another, and then personally attack the person who responded to what you said instead of what you claim you meant. Perhaps you should gain a better understanding of what the word "literally" means so that you don't continue to use it inappropriately going forward.

 

Again, if you knew what I meant then what was the point in making an issue about it? What's your motivation to bother doing that, other than to be petty & pedantic?

 

Dude, you need to relax. You said "You had a new movie and could come up with literally anything that you can imagine." All I did was reply that in that day and age (and as Lucas has stated countless times) you could not come up with literally anything imaginable. There were very real technical limitations to what moviemakers could do which held their imaginations in check.

Why that simple statement upsets you so much and causes you to behave in such a childish manner, throwing out personal attacks, is beyond me. You're obviously obsessed with having the last word, so have at it.