Okay. The asteroid field in ESB. That's not how asteroid fields work.
Why is ship speed only a problem for fans with ST and STiD?
- Thread starter Turd Ferguson
- Start date
Turns out wikipedia has an article on this very subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_and_Star_Wars (usual disclaimers about wikipedia applies)
Why waste the time? I tend to think you know Star Wars has shitty physics. It doesn't impede my enjoyment of it, just like shitty physics in Star Trek has never stopped me from enjoying it.
Okay, what's in the first paragraph of said wikipedia article:
"The iconic status that Star Wars has gained in popular culture and science fiction allows it to be used as an accessible introduction to real scientific concepts. Many of the features or technologies used in the Star Wars universe are not yet considered possible. Despite this, their concepts are still probable."
That's something you cannot say about Abrams Trek.
And all criticism to GL boils down to "starships move like planes, like in all science fiction"
"The iconic status that Star Wars has gained in popular culture and science fiction allows it to be used as an accessible introduction to real scientific concepts. Many of the features or technologies used in the Star Wars universe are not yet considered possible. Despite this, their concepts are still probable."
That's something you cannot say about Abrams Trek.
And all criticism to GL boils down to "starships move like planes, like in all science fiction"
Yeah, no.
Yeah, Star Wars is loose with physics. At least visually and from sounddesign.
It's not shitty. George Lucas know a lot about interstellar distances, objects and phenomena.
JJ Abrams science is shitty.
No one else claimed that Star Wars (or anything else) was 'shitty' because of scientific inaccuracy.
They just said it was inaccurate.
Which it is.
A lot.
Though funnily enough, I don't really remember much 'phenomena' in Star Wars. For a space opera, space itself (and all its contents) doesn't get a whole lot of focus. The most we get is a few asteroid fields.
They just said it was inaccurate.
Which it is.
A lot.
Though funnily enough, I don't really remember much 'phenomena' in Star Wars. For a space opera, space itself (and all its contents) doesn't get a whole lot of focus. The most we get is a few asteroid fields.
Muhahaha, you are like the third person in this thread who's only anser is: "no"
No clue about anything of the topic, not actually interested in the discussion, only a vague feeling that you need to protect "your" new Trek, without realising that critizism can actually be quite healthy to improve problems. But no, just accept anything as it is, no need to change or improve. Also, no interest in any sort of discussion, but still a need to contradict, because you don't like other opinions
The Rishi Maze says "hi."
You must have missed my first post upthread.....Muhahaha, you are like the third person in this thread who's only anser is: "no"
No clue about anything of the topic, not actually interested in the discussion, only a vague feeling that you need to protect "your" new Trek, without realising that critizism can actually be quite healthy to improve problems. But no, just accept anything as it is, no need to change or improve. Also, no interest in any sort of discussion, but still a need to contradict, because you don't like other opinions
You DO know that Star Wars takes place in a different Galaxy, a long time ago? Also, even our Galaxy has some sort of smaller compagnion galaxy.
Yeah, in your first post you posted things like "Hyperdrive", and "the idea that there's an energy field created by all living things that surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together" as things wrong with Star Wars...
I just quote myself again then:
Muhahaha, you are like the third person in this thread who's only anser is: "no"
No clue about anything of the topic, not actually interested in the discussion, only a vague feeling that you need to protect "your" new Trek, without realising that critizism can actually be quite healthy to improve problems. But no, just accept anything as it is, no need to change or improve. Also, no interest in any sort of discussion, but still a need to contradict, because you don't like other opinions
Why do you answer at all if you are clearly not interested in the topic or basically any sort of discussion at all? Is it because your only interest is to shut any critisizm up?
Yeah, cuz those things are so true about space as we know it.
Anyway, not even an apology, for saying that all I said was just "no" and then criticizing me for it? That's nice.
Oh, they did say the word 'shitty'. You could now quote me saying the word 'shitty', and be 100% truthful.
But that's not someone claiming 'Star Wars is shitty because of scientific innnacuracies', is it? Not even a paraphrase.
You should read before you try to rebute:
I didn't "imply" anything here. THat's straight up quoting what was said.
My point was "the science in Star Wars is not shitty". And a LONG shot away of how bad it is in Abrams Trek.
Edited:
Is starship movement in Star Wars inaccurate? Hell yes. But remember: this was the first motion picture to actually show fast movement in space at all. They were pretty spot on for their time. And having "sounds" for blasters falls under artistic license. Every science fiction movie does that. I think the ONLY movie that we can EVER say portrayed space travel correct is "2001: A sapce Odysee", and even that is wrong by now since we already have 2016...
But Star Wars was for example better with Orbit mechanics than even "Gravity" from a few years ago, and the "space phenomena" (twin stars) more realistic then, say, the make-up of that star system in "Interstellar" with 3(!) habitable planets and a gargantuan black hole.
Last edited:
The thing is: time moves on. As more as we know about space, the more factually wrong things stick out sore.
Star Trek was pretty scientifically correct in it's handling of wormholes at the time, in Deep Space Nine for example. But back then wormholes were often portrayed as simply funky "holes" in the space. "Interstellar" was the very first movie to visually show a wormhole and a black hole correct. If a new science fiction show goes back to the old, more incorrect way of portraying those things, I will critizise it. But I will not hold that against DS9 in the first place.
In the same way, most of all old Trek and Star Wars holds up pretty well. Is it perfect? No. Not at all. Was it the best scientific presentation possible at the time? Pretty much most of the time.
JJ Trek get's critizised by me because it's already egregious wrong at the time of it's conceiving. It's painfully obvious no one of the creators cared about science. In a science fiction movie.
Star Trek Beyond on the other hand looks already pretty good. The new warp effect is not just beautiful, it matches much better with Trek's theory of warp. Perfect? No. But a vast improvement. The first two JJTrek movies on the other hand were a major step back. That's where my critizism lies.
Star Trek was pretty scientifically correct in it's handling of wormholes at the time, in Deep Space Nine for example. But back then wormholes were often portrayed as simply funky "holes" in the space. "Interstellar" was the very first movie to visually show a wormhole and a black hole correct. If a new science fiction show goes back to the old, more incorrect way of portraying those things, I will critizise it. But I will not hold that against DS9 in the first place.
In the same way, most of all old Trek and Star Wars holds up pretty well. Is it perfect? No. Not at all. Was it the best scientific presentation possible at the time? Pretty much most of the time.
JJ Trek get's critizised by me because it's already egregious wrong at the time of it's conceiving. It's painfully obvious no one of the creators cared about science. In a science fiction movie.
Star Trek Beyond on the other hand looks already pretty good. The new warp effect is not just beautiful, it matches much better with Trek's theory of warp. Perfect? No. But a vast improvement. The first two JJTrek movies on the other hand were a major step back. That's where my critizism lies.
You just quoted someone saying Star Wars wasn't shitty. It's science was. Exactly what I claimed was said, back there in my very first post.
You've sure shown me. My shame is so great, I think I may just go have a cry. Or preorder my ticket for Beyond. I hope I haven't left it too late. 36 hours is practically last second.
You've sure shown me. My shame is so great, I think I may just go have a cry. Or preorder my ticket for Beyond. I hope I haven't left it too late. 36 hours is practically last second.
Similar threads
