Star Wars - why no subtitles?

[Silvercrest]

Nothing wrong with that, except that (as in any magic-based universe) it's harder to figure out what's at stake if we don't know what the rules are. At least determining what's at stake more specifically than "I have a bad feeling about this."

On the other hand, in SW that may be enough!

(ninja'd by DonIago, but that's a good example of trying to understand what's at stake.)

 

[The Old Mixer]

Although never specified, it's possible that these ships' normal drives are capable of FTL, just not at the same galaxy-spanning speed as jumping into hyperspace with the hyperdrive.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

^ That's what I was thinking as well.


If they had to fly through a nebula or the Rishi Maze or the center of the galaxy, that would be more like me flying to Paris, an they could probably only do that with hyper-drive and maybe other equipment.

 

[The Old Mixer]

In Trek terms, it could be the difference between a Warp 2 ship from the pre-Enterprise era and using transwarp conduits.

 

[Silvercrest]

Insert joke here regarding the Romulans and their supposed lack of FTL.

 

[Set Harth]

When they say "light speed," they mean "hyperspace" so it may actually not be the technical speed of light. It may be faster.

That's what I was getting at - typical hyperspace speed must ( not may ) be significantly faster than the speed of light. However, your velocity starts at a sublight speed so it passes by the actual speed of light as it leaps to hyperspace speed, which could help to explain the nomenclature. But by the same token - when they say "jump to lightspeed" they mean "go to hyperspace" - we know that the speed they're using when not in hyperspace is a sublight speed.

 

[Turtletrekker]

My theory is that you have to achieve lightspeed in order to enter hyperspace.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

we know that the speed they're using when not in hyperspace is a sublight speed.

I agree with what you said except for this. Yet, I'm close to agreeing with this. I might agree with it if you phrased it "we know that one of the speeds they're using when not in hyper-spece is a sublight speed."

Even that doesn't cover it. When we start talking like this, it sounds like we are talking Trek Tech.

Star Wars is a fantasy. It's as much a fantasy as the kinds of stories we played out using 20 sided dice and tossing saving throws.

In this fantasy, ships go between stars, just like a car goes between towns. Simple as that. The point of the story is not to get mired in the technical details of how this happens. By the time someone examines whether the method of transportation between systems is consistent from one scene to the next, everything starts to break down.

Star Wars is an illusion. For the first film, they actually built huge sets, and great vistas, to sell us on the idea that this completely unreal place would feel real. The light speed thing is just another way to do it. Like the set for the Millennium Falcon (which can't actually fly) it adds to the illusion while never adding up.

I'm not saying this to attack what you said. Not at all. I think it's actually so close to being accurate, and yet, in reading it, I realized that it misses the point of Star Wars, that it's a romantic fantasy ("romantic" in the sense that's it's classical storytelling with big characters and sweeping emotions). So, while I agree with you, once I read "explanations" like that, my heart sinks.