ST Starkiller Base Discussion Thread

so when the SKB destroys the Hosnian planet (planets?) - at that point are the SKB planet , the Resistance base planet and Hosnia all in different star systems ?

.

 

I'm torn on that. If they could come up with something brilliant - and different enough / something to do with the Dark side maybe - then I could be OK with it.

 

Wasn't DS #2 bigger than 1st???

 

It's a good weapon but very poorly executed on screen.

You do not get, on screen, a good sense of how the thing works, how the beam can be seen in various different star systems and certainly you do not get an understanding of how one system being blown up can be seen, in daylight, in another system.

That one scene of the weapon in use is the one time I was taken out of the movie with a series of 'What is actually going on here?'

Followed up with the 'It uses the power of suns to operate' really frustrated me further. Number one, ours is the only sun, everything else is a star. The sun is a name not a noun. i wish people would get that. second, it had been fired. Therefore it had been charged. Therefore there should already not be a star near the planet. unless it can move between star systems. Which is not stated in the film.

Just very poorly executed. And it annoys me more each time I see the film. i am praying that it doesn't get to the point that it stops me being able to watch the rest of the film because I really love the rest of the film.

 

This is actually incorrect. Astronomers call other stars "suns" if those stars are at the center of a system of planets. For example, Tatooine has two "suns" and Earth has one "sun." In this context, assuming that SKB is orbiting the star it consumes, that star is indeed its "sun."

 

Yes, otherwise we would always refer to the twin stars of Tatooine.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that these facts may have no effect on the poster's opinion about Finn's line...

 

I guess that's as close as you will get to admitting that it is flawed.

 

I'm on record as saying, of my own volition, that Starkiller Base was a very misjudged idea from concept to execution. The only discussion point is what it is capable of, in universe, which is the case regardless of how much we like it.

 

But see the writers saying it can is just pure arse covering by them. It merely highlights how poorly thought out some of their concepts are.

 

Why?

The weapons need to move.

This is not the real world.

In the fictional world, the tech exists to move something vast.

We know they have built deep inside the planet for the firing mechanism and whatever energy containment system they use. Why is some kind of propulsion technology (which we know exists because we've seen the Death Star) not thought out properly or a stretch too far. The only issue I can empathise with on the conceptual / clarity stage is the hyperspace nature of how the weapon fires. It's supposed to fire through hyperspace I believe (I can't remember the exact dialogue that mods to this) and what Finn and co are able to see is the rip in hyperspace iirc. That works for as an idea, but isn't fully clear onscreen. But making it able to move? No. Not if you can swallow the Death Star.

The originality thing, I totally understand (though it doesn't bother me so much).

 

Jabbathehumanbeingsays:

Well, I stand corrected and so do you.

So, that's one annoyance associated with SKB removed. The rest? Still there and totally valid, especially the ability to see a few planets in another star system blow up in daylight.

 

I just explained the explosions/ visibility thing - but I agree it's not that clear in the film. Now you know the explanation though.

 

Apparently writers can only include something scientifically implausible in Star Wars if they can actually make it work. It's such a wilful choice to ignore what Star Wars has always been that it's hard to argue with.

 

FWIW here is the dialogue from the film (I'm fully aware if anyone hates it they'll not be swayed but it's worth remembering what is at least in the film - and, to be fair, what is not).




SNAP
They've somehow created a hyper
lightspeed weapon built within the planet itself.


And here is the databank entry:


Deep in the Unknown Regions, the First Order has constructed a superweapon that uses an entire planet as its weapons platform. The deadly Starkiller harvests energy from its system’s star, contains it within magnetic fields inside its base’s planetary core, and then converts that energy into an ultra-powerful beam that blasts through hyperspace, able to sterilize the worlds of a distant star system with a single shot. The icy world that houses the Starkiller is the First Order’s greatest secret, and essential to its plan to conquer the galaxy.

No one has to like that, and I can see why that could have been clearer in the film, but there is no need to wonder how Finn and co can see what they see. If you're still going to debate the nitty-gritty physics of any of this, I'm not quite sure how you've coped with previous SW films.

 

Essentially, Star Wars's space setting has always been a "skin" for a fantasy story, rather than a genuine space setting in which space works in the way we think of space working. The visual dictionaries and databank entries are entertaining enough in a "ha, fair play to whichever poor bloke had to come up with THAT as an explanation", and help to paper the cracks in the science just as a smear of Vaseline on screen in the first film helped fudge the idea that the landspeeder did indeed hover. It all hinges on suspension of disbelief; if the film doesn't do that for you, then to some degree it has failed - but the willingness to suspend disbelief has to be there, too.

 

Actually stretching science is not an issue, but plot-filling stupid science is. But hey, it's not cool to think or provide a valid argument here, so I retreat to the cave.

 

I can also appreciate that if you don't like the characters, or the rest of the story, then you're not going to be bothered looking for an explanation or understanding. If you hate the film, SKB will be a major annoyance.

So if you say it's plot-filling stupid science, that's you thinking and providing a valid argument? If you post with less aggression, you'll get better debate back and won't need to post in the cave.

 

clinteastwoodbradfield wrote

It can move. How does it do so? Cos of Star Wars science. Like it or hate it, it moves.

That was all the reply to post # 347 of Darth Pig in a thread that supposedly examines whether SKB was a good or bad idea.

First of all, I'm not aware there is some universally agreed upon "Star Wars science".

Fact, however, is that all the renowned Carl Sagan was finding fault with after watching ANH was the apparently erroneous use of "parsec" as a measurement of speed and not distance. He didn't find fault with artificial gravity, hyperdrive etc. as these were all scifi concepts he was apparently familiar with.
One of George Lucas major intentions (and concerns) was to give Star Wars a realistic feel and that included accepted and established scifi concepts.

The one particular thing that strikes me about SKB (in contrast to ANH's Death Star) is that there is no sense of awe or respect of its size. SKB may just be as well one of the greatest engineering accomplishments by men ever put on screen, but I didn't get any impression from the film suggesting that. Just another big thing to be blown up.

And its all too obvious that the producers didn't give it much concern or thought either. Doug Chiang confessed they just wanted something bigger but apparently that's about it. The whole discussion whether it can move (how?) or not or the confusion what it's weapon source is (Kyber crystals according to Hidalgo, dark energy according to Alan Dean Foster?) just reveals that there was little to none thought how such a thing could or would work, pretended it's real.

All I can say is: I find their lack of vision disturbing.

 

Carl Sagan was ok with lightsabers then?

 

Oh, the irony.

 

Oh the inane comments continue.

 

Hija - can you explain to me how the Death Star can move, but it's not acceptable for the SKB to be engineered (given we know the FO have terraformed the crap out of the planet) with a similar kind of propulsion system?

Back in 1977, the explanation would be the same - it moves because it has boosters. Do you think George got into it any deeper than that? this is the guy who invented laser swords.

 

Satipo, the DS was built form scratch and took 30 years (though I note in 77 this was not known). It was built to be able to be moved. It does not have some dense inner core which adds significant mass to the station like a planet would. That makes it very different in terms of propulsion and the mechanics of moving. Moving a planet with an atmosphere just makes no sense. The DS was fully enclosed with the purpose of being a large space station.