ST The "Bad Science" of Star Wars & TFA

Tython Dawn wrote

From my point of view, the existence in Star Wars of technology like hyperdrives leads one to expect that the way objects (and presumably therefore, light) travels through space are comparable, if not identical, to how those things work in our world.

The visibility of the explosion as it happens, but light-years away, violates the expectation of how those things work. In my view, it is necessary to explain the rules of a universe when they differ radically from our expectations, if for no other reason that to aid suspension of disbelief.

I'll grant that there is no set-in-stone rule which was violated, but it was certainly jarring to me (and others). I don't think it's to much to expect to understand, even in a general way, the rules of a fictional world.

This (bold)!

 

Even hard scifi often plays pretty fast and loose with FTL, relativity and simultaneity. Look, it's pretty tough to write realistic (and fun) galaxy spanning space stories and comply with the laws of physics.

Edit: I'll just add that that is probably why we don't live in one.

 

The main details about how Starkiller Base worked that were explained in the movies was A.) it absorbed a sun(s) to fuel it's big cannon and B.) the beam traveled faster than the speed of light (per. the comment that it was a "hyper light-speed" weapon in the war room scene). The explosion being visible from Takodana didn't bother me (we were never told enough about the pseudo-science to know if that could happen or not, so I assumed that it was "correct"). Besides, the "tear in hyperspace" explanation is as good as any, so why not accept it.

Star Wars, like other soft sci-fi franchises, has always utilized impossible things (FTL travel, ray guns, aliens, lots of Class-M planets, etc.), using the hand wave that we will have made the scientific break throughs to make them possible by the time of the stories. The suspension of disbelief is hardwired into the series, Starkiller Base fits into the pre-established rules of its franchise, and the tie-ins that spackle over the last few cracks are part of the official canon, so all the bases have been covered. What's the problem?

(My biggest problem is that the novelization went out of it's way to create a version of the weapon that conflicts with the movie's, and it's been unexplained if we're supposed to ignore the novel on that count, or somehow integrate the parts of the novel that could work with the movie to get the full picture of Starkiller Base.)

 

Since my youth I have read and watched more science fiction and fantasy than any other genre. There are things you can buy into, things you can take with a bit of salt, things that make you say, "whatever ... ", and things that make you say, "aw ... c'mon ... ". There are things that contradict other things in the same piece of work that are lazy storytelling, and there is some work that is just so far beyond any degree of acceptability that plowing through its elements is painful, which is just bad writing and / or not understanding your audience.

I posted earlier about how I felt the view of the Hosian system destruction on Takodana was a dumb move. I still believe that, and it could have been handled differently. That did not diminish how I felt about the story or the film in general. It is a personal thing. It really needs to be. I get out my salt cellar and move on. The entire saga is littered with a certain degree of pseudo science convenience that is difficult even for a fantasy. This is not about prequel or any other Star Wars movie verses TFA. Any attempt to make this a TFA critique solely, opens a huge can of worms on the entire saga. There is a large spectrum in pseudo science from reasonably believable to "naw ....". That spectrum is personal. How it affects one's appreciation of the whole is also personal.

I handle these pseudo science things in the saga I love in my own way, since there is so much else to enjoy, and the small hiccups hardly diminish the whole. I rationalize, which works most of the time, compartmentalize when rationalization becomes a chore.

 

Of course it's bad writing. Do you think they took the idea out of the junior encyclopaedia of science or something? It's feckin inane to try and make the audience believe that SKB can open a rift in space and time where the destruction of the Hosnian system can be seen simultaneously at every point across the cosmos, rather than it just... you know... not being seen simultaneously at every point across the cosmos.

 

If that's the standard, then there's a whole heck of a lot of bad writing in the saga.

 

Star Wars is mythology in the same war Arthur is mythology. There are fantastical events and things happen that make sense in universe. I find the bad science comment pointless.

 

Dude, Star Wars is FULL of that.

But what needed to be explained? Did it affect the story? I'm a fan of fictional non-fiction (like tech manuals, etc) and I love to get stuff explained. But seriously, Star Wars has always taken HUGE liberties with science.

 

It's really not. And when there are laxness, they tend to be called out.

 

Sometimes, sometimes not. A lot of science goofiness is a matter of production convenience. Other times, it's just because Lucas didn't really care all that much about continuity. A classic example is how the Falcon got to Bespin with a broken hyperdrive. It has to be explained off-screen. But did it really affect the story? Nope.Another favorite: Where did all those Star Destroyers come from at the end of AOTC? In addition to being master cloners, are the Kaminoans also the greatest Star Ship builders int he galaxy? Can the Kuat Drive Yards produce a couple hundred ships in a matter of weeks? But again...does it affect the story? Nope. Lots of that kind of stuff In Star Wars.

 

There is.

Just seems the degree to which it bothers any given person is in direct correlation to the degree that they enjoy any given episode.

 

And yet, sometimes the convenience does affect the story. Lucas needed the Emperor to save Vader at the end of ROTS, but in order to tell the story of the duel and the Yoda/Palpatine fight the way he wanted, the timing needed to be such that Palpatine could hyper from Coruscant to the Outer Rim in a matter of minutes.

 

Yeah. I'm sorry, had they explained it in the film, this would be an issue for virtually no one. The issue or "bad writing", as much as there is one, is that it's not conveyed in the film. The explanation is as valid as anything else in the saga, it's just not given, which is a shame. It's not "feckin' inane".

 

Is it bad though? Or just appropriate to the genre? I admit it would be bad if dropped into, say, a Clarke novel. But Star Wars is not a Clarke novel.

 

If someone likes the episode they will let a lot slide, if they don't they won't. I don't see anything problematic in SW with some kind of hyperspace weapon being seen around the galaxy, I actually think it's quite a cool idea, but I agree that if you don't make that clear in the movie, some will be bothered by it. It's not a hill worth dying on either way.

 

"Bad" in the context of the particular criteria this thread is focusing on: scientific accuracy.

 

Then, at the risk of repeating myself, lightsabers are bad, too. With no on screen explanation for how they work, either

 

Exactly.

Which is why I said that this stuff often bothers people to the degree that they have greater issues with an episode.

 

To be fair, I'd say that SKB is perhaps more in need of explaining than sabers. The fact it's not clear is kind of proof of that. Everyone gets sabers.

But yes, some people will be fine with the force conceiving a human being but not the SKB hyperspace weapon and vice versa. The times to get to planets don't bother me at all, as none of the films have put much store in such things. Who really cares? Just keep the story moving.

 

No everyone accepts sabers at face value. Just like everyone seems to accept:

The Force.
Force Ghosts.
Parsecs as a measure of time.
Sound in space.
Wonky gravity.
Travel that surpasses the speed of light.
Ships moving through space exactly as they do within planetary atmosphere.
A seemingly infinite amount of livable planets, perfectly suited for easy breathing of multiple species.

There's a massive difference between "accepts" and "gets".

 

True. I think the primary reason people don't accept SKB is that it's not conveyed 100% clearly in the film so that they get it.

I would say that (like with the FO and Resistance) once you know, you know, so while it might still (legit) bug someone it wasn't explicit on the movie, it's kind of pointless to act like we still don't know. Most people on here do know by now.

 

Can you think of any examples of laxness in the OT or PT that bother you, maybe not as much, but a lot?

 

I bet they wish they had never released that map lol.

 

i usually tend to side with your side of the argument, but there needs to be an attempt made to make it somewhat realistic. people do care about things making sense.

 

That's why I think in regards SKB, it is fair to suggest it's not 100% clear in the movie. That will bother some but not others. It's not some kind of Gotcha! criticism.