ST Starkiller Base Discussion Thread

I was responding to the claim made by LordDallos.

 

Of course they say they weren't going for a scientific approach. That's the Star Wars catchphrase whenever something doesn't make any sense. Actions speak louder than words though. Starkiller Base was designed using bad interpretations of earthly scientific theories rather than creating something fantastical and original such as kyber crystals or the force.

 

That's completely baseless. Unless you want to include things like hyperspace in general in that category.

 

It's far from baseless. Hyperspace counts as well. Hyperspace involves entering a 4th dimension. There is magical lore to explain the impossibilities.

 

See quintessence and phantom energy.

 

So you really believe that Lucas intended hyperspace to be scientifically plausible?

I'll add that I do push against the notion that Star Wars isn't science fiction, since that classification ignores a whole branch of the genre stemming from planetary romances and other forms of "soft" science fiction. But that's the point: not all stories featuring technology need to be grounded in plausible science. And I say this as someone in the STEM fields.

 

Keeping the science aside, the idea that bigger and bigger death stars will bring peace to the fan-galaxy will backfire as much as other ideas in the past that were on the "bink" of insanity...

 

What? No. that's the opposite of what I'm saying. Hyperspace works because it is given 'magical' properties and lore explanations. i.e. Traveling time and space by entering a 4th dimension. It's not scientifically possible but it's given a fantastical reason as to how it works. SKB does not.

I agree with you that there is some sci-fi in Star Wars and that the label shouldn't always be rejected when used to describe the universe. But SKB is just pseudoscience. At least sound in space adds to the excitement of the films. SKB adds exactly nothing to the universe other than bad lore.

 

SKB works because it is given 'magical' properties and lore explanations. i.e. Channeling the energy of a star into an oscillator and directing it through a 4th dimension.


I don't see a difference.

 

I'm not really sure why Starkiller Base itself is singled out. This civilization has artificial gravity and anti-gravity machines. Supersize those technologies and you can create Starkiller base. At that point it is just converting the stars energy into another form of energy. The only thing that goes beyond disbelief is being able to see the planets explode from light years away in real time. If this was actually a thing I would expect to see other similar phenomenon in the background of other scenes throughout the saga from all of the stuff going in and out of hyperspace every second through out the galaxy. Most of all a movie, or series of movies, has to be internally consistent with their "science" even if it isn't backed up by real world science, and in this case it was not.

Also please stop being up sound in space. Just because they use sound for dramatic effect does not mean there is literally sound in space. Unless you have a quote from a movie or George Lucas any argument that there is sound in space in the Star Wars universe is utterly idiotic.

 

The traveling laser beam, sure. Not how the energy is collected or weaponized.

 

More like how the Internets like to watch TFA.

 

The SW pilot's explanation of how things work when he isn't sure,"Kriffing magic."

And this is the best explanation for how SKB works.

LordDallos
You are not alone in your sentiments. I'll side with you in more depth when I can get a chance.

 

Who are the "they" you refer to?

 

I kid you not. There is sound in space - and it's official canon. George Lucas himself said that "this is one of the basic tenets of Star Wars"...

Evidence added:
http://billmoyers.com/content/mythology-of-star-wars-george-lucas/

 

Kyber crystals are magical objects which give the impossibility of the lightsaber foundation within the Star Wars universe. Starkiller Base has no mystical features to explain how it sucks up a sun and blows it out while its operators stand about 10 miles away, LOOKING at the blast of WEAPONIZED STARLIGHT as it reflects off Hux's eyes. The big difference here is that a lightsaber doesn't look unbelievable when you are seeing it on screen. And when you look it up, you can see how a lightsaber would be fathomable within the fictional laws of the Star Wars universe because of it's magical properties. Starkiller Base took me and a great deal of other viewers right out of the film because the scenes in which it is appears are objectively absurd. I went to do a little research on how they say this thing operates, hoping that they would apply some sense of mysticism to make that monstrosity a little bit less horrible. But they failed at that as well. There's no magic, no mysticism, no fantasy. Only a poor interpretation of scientific theories.

Those who crafted SKB.

 

That is entirely subjective. For me, the SK beam is no more unbelievable than a lightsaber blade. Both break the laws of physics as we know them. I personally don't have any problem accepting one but not the other.

 

I think a lot of the beefs about Starkiller Base could have been alleviated if it were aesthetically different from a Death Star.

 

SK was the only Death Star-like weapon that actually did a huge damage to the Republic. So it is a win.

And to be true, SK is actually just a gun, a big one, mounted in a planet.

It remembers me of the WW1 Paris Gun and other rail guns.

 

That part may be subjective. But the fact that the lightsaber has mystical and magical lore to back up its foundations while Starkiller Base does not is an objective reality.