The Great SW Power Debate

[Verruckt]

Okay, if only for the sole purpose of keeping every sci-fi vs. thread from devolving into the starwars vs. physics debate they inevitably become, I hereby open this thread.

Present your arguments, and run free. Are Star Destroyers really capable of 100+ megaton payloads? Are SW weapons routinely cut in power? I don't know, Enlighten me, this is a place for both sides of the argument, for the sole purpose of keeping the argument contained :smallamused: .

Let it Begin!

[Renegade Paladin]

100+ megatons for Star Wars naval weaponry? Please. That's way below the absolute rock-bottom lower limit for heavy weapons, which is well into the gigaton range. Naturally occurring events right here on Earth range into the hundreds of gigatons; you just don't think about it in those terms because they're reported in terms of the Richter scale and don't leave giant mushroom clouds. Given that a Star Destroyer is supposed to be capable of destroying the biosphere of an Earth-like planet, and Earth is capable of surviving its own seismic activity, we can quite readily deduce that a Star Destroyer must be able to put forth multi-gigaton weapons blasts at the bare minimum in rapid succession.

[SurlySeraph]

No, because normal SW power claims are silly. They violate Occam's Razor, and tend to be recursive: conjecturing that both shields and blasters must be insanely powerful - saying shields must be able to produce, say 1 jillion jigowatts of energy because they can sometimes block blaster shots, and blaster shots must produce 1 jillion jigowatts of energy because they can often go through shields. There would be just as much evidence to suggest that they can each produce 1 jigowatt of energy.

SW fans generally cite hyperspeed as evidence for the power claims, saying that if a craft can move at such-and-such a speed, it must be able to apply the same power to its weapons. I disagree. Consider, for example, modern naval ships. The engines and the guns are powered separately. In this case, this is because the engines are powered by oil and the guns are powered by gunpowder.

However, even if they both used the same fuel source, it would be completely illogical to use the same amount of power to fire a round as you use to travel 1,000 miles. Being able to use a certain amount of energy in a hyperspace jump does not mean the ship can use that amount of energy on every single shot it fires.

Beyond those fuzzy hyperspace arguments, the only real evidence I've seen for the weapon power calculations is when a Star Destroyer blows up an asteroid in one of the movies. The calculations usually assume that a) the asteroid was pure nickel or iron, and b) that the asteroid was completely vaporized. There are far too many possible variables to make a reliable calculation from this: we CAN'T determine the exact volume, mass, or composition of the asteroid, only make subjective guesses. Furthermore, the asteroid could well have been partly hollow, full of holes, or otherwise unstable. Furthermore, if I remember correctly the asteroid was not vaporized, just blown apart into smaller asteroids.

Despite the fact that Leia got shot in the arm with a blaster and didn't die or indeed suffer anything more than a flesh wound, the fanboys insist that hand blasters are powerful enough that they can blow limbs right off or blow people apart. This is mainly used as evidence that Stormtrooper armor is strong despite the fact that Stormtrooper armor never appears to deflect or absorb a single shot from any weapon whatsoever.

Speaking of which: sure, Stormtroopers are great fighters in the fluff. The movies show otherwise. I say the movies are canonical.

[Solo]

I actually have a question about the scene where the Star Destroyer blows up the asteroid:

Being as the Star Destroyer and the Asteroid were in teh dark depths of space, without any way to measure the distance of the asteroid to the ship (I assume, may be mistaken) how do we know how large the asteroid was?

[Renegade Paladin]

No, because normal SW power claims are silly. They violate Occam's Razor, and tend to be recursive: conjecturing that both shields and blasters must be insanely powerful - saying shields must be able to produce, say 1 jillion jigowatts of energy because they can sometimes block blaster shots, and blaster shots must produce 1 jillion jigowatts of energy because they can often go through shields. There would be just as much evidence to suggest that they can each produce 1 jigowatt of energy.
It isn't recursive at all, because no one's using the circular pattern you say they're using. Weapons output is determined through known effects on other materials, such as asteroids or planets, not by assuming that shields are powerful and therefore the weapons must be equally powerful.

SW fans generally cite hyperspeed as evidence for the power claims, saying that if a craft can move at such-and-such a speed, it must be able to apply the same power to its weapons. I disagree. Consider, for example, modern naval ships. The engines and the guns are powered separately. In this case, this is because the engines are powered by oil and the guns are powered by gunpowder.
If they can generate that kind of power, why on Earth would they not apply it to weaponry, given that their weapons are energy-based?

However, even if they both used the same fuel source, it would be completely illogical to use the same amount of power to fire a round as you use to travel 1,000 miles. Being able to use a certain amount of energy in a hyperspace jump does not mean the ship can use that amount of energy on every single shot it fires.
Of course not; it would use up all the fuel. But then again, nobody's claiming that the equivalent energy required to accelerate to the speeds required to travel a hundred thousand light years in a day or so is put into every given volley; the energy required to do that very well could destroy a planet, even for a smaller ship.

Beyond those fuzzy hyperspace arguments, the only real evidence I've seen for the weapon power calculations is when a Star Destroyer blows up an asteroid in one of the movies. The calculations usually assume that a) the asteroid was pure nickel or iron, and b) that the asteroid was completely vaporized. There are far too many possible variables to make a reliable calculation from this: we CAN'T determine the exact volume, mass, or composition of the asteroid, only make subjective guesses. Furthermore, the asteroid could well have been partly hollow, full of holes, or otherwise unstable. Furthermore, if I remember correctly the asteroid was not vaporized, just blown apart into smaller asteroids.
You remember incorrectly. Here is that scene frame by frame:

http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Star%20Wars%20Evidence/Vape1-0.jpg
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Star%20Wars%20Evidence/Vape1-1.jpg
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Star%20Wars%20Evidence/Vape1-2.jpg
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Star%20Wars%20Evidence/Vape1-3.jpg
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Star%20Wars%20Evidence/Vape1-4.jpg
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Star%20Wars%20Evidence/Vape1-5.jpg
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Star%20Wars%20Evidence/Vape1-6.jpg

As you can see, there is nothing left of the asteroid. As for it's composition, the asteroids of the Hoth field are visually identical to nickel-iron asteroids in our own asteroid belt; it's ludicrous to assume that they're made of talc or whatever else, and there's no indication that it was hollow. And you're correct that exact scaling is impossible, but it is possible to derive upper and lower limits through scaling, especially since we're certain that the asteroid was in front of the Avenger rather than behind it or even with it. It wasn't tiny; that's for sure.

Despite the fact that Leia got shot in the arm with a blaster and didn't die or indeed suffer anything more than a flesh wound, the fanboys insist that hand blasters are powerful enough that they can blow limbs right off or blow people apart. This is mainly used as evidence that Stormtrooper armor is strong despite the fact that Stormtrooper armor never appears to deflect or absorb a single shot from any weapon whatsoever.
The stormtroopers were trying to take Han and Leia alive; you may notice that immediately afterwards they ordered them to surrender rather than simply shooting them on the spot. It therefore follows that they weren't aiming to kill.

Speaking of which: sure, Stormtroopers are great fighters in the fluff. The movies show otherwise. I say the movies are canonical.
The movies show otherwise? Right. Witness the storming of the Tantive IV, the Battle of Hoth, and the Battle of Endor, which they were winning up until Chewie hijacked a walker. (Not that winning against Ewoks is a great feat, but the elimination of all their armor and subsequent hunting of the stormtroopers by Chewie in the walker was what won the battle for the Rebels, not the Ewoks, who were running away before then.) Stormtroopers suck when the plot demands it, i.e. when they're fighting main characters.

[Wizzardman]

100+ megatons for Star Wars naval weaponry? Please. That's way below the absolute rock-bottom lower limit for heavy weapons, which is well into the gigaton range. Naturally occurring events right here on Earth range into the hundreds of gigatons; you just don't think about it in those terms because they're reported in terms of the Richter scale and don't leave giant mushroom clouds. Given that a Star Destroyer is supposed to be capable of destroying the biosphere of an Earth-like planet, and Earth is capable of surviving its own seismic activity, we can quite readily deduce that a Star Destroyer must be able to put forth multi-gigaton weapons blasts at the bare minimum in rapid succession.

So, these earthquakes you speak of: do they take place in gigatons per square "laser beam area"? Because a lot of energy spread out across the edge of a planet's tectonic plate, and a lot of energy hitting the ground in an area less than a square foot, have entirely different effects on the planet and its atmosphere. Comparing the energy of an earthquake to the energy your talking about here is a bit like comparing a flashlight to a laser beam.

[factotum]

You remember incorrectly. Here is that scene frame by frame:

As you can see, there is nothing left of the asteroid.

Actually, those pictures seem to prove exactly the opposite--there is definitely debris from the asteroid explosion still there in the final frame.

[shadow_archmagi]

I'd like to know what the canonical reason for this HUGE power gap between the trilogies. The empire is supposedly the republic turned evil, so really they should have equipment far superior to the clone troopers.

Unfortunately, they don't, its really pathetic. Its as if they took every weapon and made it crappy, with slower fire rates and less power. Even the lightsaber fights are slower.

I know the physical reason is generally expressed as "well they didn't have such great CGI back then, so they had to be as minimal as possible" and the canonical reason for jedi being weaker is "luke was untrained, vader was crippled, and obi-wan and yoda were really old"

[Eita]

Actually, those pictures seem to prove exactly the opposite--there is definitely debris from the asteroid explosion still there in the final frame.

Proof:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e45/elgor1/Vape1-6.jpg

[Renegade Paladin]

What you're circling is rapidly dissipating gas; note that it's still even glowing red. You certainly can't point to smaller asteroids that it was blown into, because there aren't any. Those are the individual frames; the frame after that cuts away from the scene. At the propagation rate seen, that would have dissipated within the second.

[Eita]

Then why did you not show said frames?

[Wizzardman]

What you're circling is rapidly dissipating gas; note that it's still even glowing red. You certainly can't point to smaller asteroids that it was blown into, because there aren't any. Those are the individual frames; the frame after that cuts away from the scene. At the propagation rate seen, that would have dissipated within the second.

Well, part of that's because its hard to see the asteroid even before they shoot it, so identifying even smaller asteroids left over from the blast is impossible.

Additionally, rocks tend to glow red when they're heated up a lot, and in space, it takes things that have been warmed up while still in space a long time to cool down (because there's no air for easy transfer of energy), so the rocks would still be glowing red by this point in the frame. So this just begs the question: how do you know its gas, and not just really hot debris?

[Ubiq]

The thing about the "SW Power Debate" is that it's ridiculous that people even assert that there's a debate in the first place.

The notion that Star Destroyers have reactors that generate as much power as a star and are capable of slagging entire planets dates back to West End Games. As such, the current numbers are quantifying fluff that's been around for well over a decade. Fans that cry that they're too high apparently don't understand that, too bad for them as their personal opinion doesn't overwhelm official statistics.

If they can generate that much power, then it has to go somewhere. If even a fraction of it goes into the shields, then they have to have weapons powerful enough to batter them down. There's no way around that.



Unfortunately, they don't, its really pathetic. Its as if they took every weapon and made it crappy, with slower fire rates and less power.


The Clonetroopers were fighting a standing military while the stormtroopers were primarily engaged in suppressing irregulars and insurgents with only the occasional contact against experienced military personnel. Lower fire rates are actually beneficial in that situation; if nothing else, it makes friendly-fire incidents far less likely.

Far as the lower power assertion goes, based on what?



Even the lightsaber fights are slower.


Well, as you said, Vader is old and crippled while Luke didn't have the benefit of lightsaber training from childhood. Beyond that, Palpatine was still around; as such, so was the Shroud of the Darkside. If that was capable of diminishing the abilities of thousands of Jedi, it certainly did the same to a much older Obi-Wan and Luke.

[SomethingElse]

Okay, if only for the sole purpose of keeping every sci-fi vs. thread from devolving into the starwars vs. physics debate they inevitably become, I hereby open this thread.

Present your arguments, and run free. Are Star Destroyers really capable of 100+ megaton payloads? Are SW weapons routinely cut in power? I don't know, Enlighten me, this is a place for both sides of the argument, for the sole purpose of keeping the argument contained :smallamused: .

Let it Begin!

Let's look at it this way: Star Wars is not, in my opinion, so much unrealistic as nonrealistic. We really have no way of predicting what technology will be like or how it will work by the time we can travel across solar systems. While hard sf may be fun, that's not what Star Wars's creators were going for, and it wasn't their focus. And to be honest, if writers really knew how far-future starships would work, they would be physicists and actually building the dang things.

Therefore, I posit that Star Wars ships/other technology can do exactly what whatever level of SW canon you choose to follow states they can do.

[warty goblin]

Well, part of that's because its hard to see the asteroid even before they shoot it, so identifying even smaller asteroids left over from the blast is impossible.

Additionally, rocks tend to glow red when they're heated up a lot, and in space, it takes things that have been warmed up while still in space a long time to cool down (because there's no air for easy transfer of energy), so the rocks would still be glowing red by this point in the frame. So this just begs the question: how do you know its gas, and not just really hot debris?

Quite right. Also note that if the asteroid was reduced to gas, it would be expanding more or less evenly (or, depending how much kinetic energy was imparted to it by the shot, possibly spreading out along the vector of the blast), and not in nice little red dots like that.

My personal feelings about Star Wars power levels is that the setting was intended to be a lower power affair than it ended up. Look at the Death Star, everybody makes a big deal out of it, which wouldn't really make much sense given the ability (added later) of a single ISD squadron to slag a planet. I mean really, why would people get that upset about the Death Star if the Imperial Navy could already do all that? Heck, even the Imperial officers made a big deal of the Death Star, suggesting it was more than simply "Planet Killer v2.0, now with core detonation support."

Another way to look at it is that if slagging planets was that easy, the Battle of Geonosis would never have taken place at the end of Ep. 2. The surviving Jedi could simply have been evacuated in a simple surgical strike, just like they did, and the the Republic fleet, which already had space superiority, could have turned the important pieces of the planet into red hot rubble from high orbit.

[Talkkno]

Another way to look at it is that if slagging planets was that easy, the Battle of Geonosis would never have taken place at the end of Ep. 2. The surviving Jedi could simply have been evacuated in a simple surgical strike, just like they did, and the the Republic fleet, which already had space superiority, could have turned the important pieces of the planet into red hot rubble from high orbit.

Keep in mind, that this Yoda that was leading the assault and being a Jedi, he wouldn't slaughter civilians that incidentally built there cities near such important places.

[SomethingElse]

I'd like to know what the canonical reason for this HUGE power gap between the trilogies. The empire is supposedly the republic turned evil, so really they should have equipment far superior to the clone troopers.

Unfortunately, they don't, its really pathetic. Its as if they took every weapon and made it crappy, with slower fire rates and less power. Even the lightsaber fights are slower.

I know the physical reason is generally expressed as "well they didn't have such great CGI back then, so they had to be as minimal as possible" and the canonical reason for jedi being weaker is "luke was untrained, vader was crippled, and obi-wan and yoda were really old"

Well, it seems to me like you have your answer right there. If George Lucas could do the whole trilogy over, I'm sure the originals would be just as flashy as the prequels. Of course, I'm one of the fans who thinks that George took the wrong route with the prequels, at least to the extent that fans really have the right to say something a creator did was "wrong." At the very least, I would have made the effects in the prequels better than the originals, but in an intentionally retro way, so that everything in the prequels at least looked older and dirtier, instead of the opposite. After all, you can do awesome FX in WWII movies...

But in any case, the canonical answer is, I believe, that in some cases (like the Death Star), the tech is actually more advanced but less flashy, and in others it's just that the Empire isn't doing very well economically and the rebels obviously don't have access to great technology. It's weak but it works.

[Ubiq]

I mean really, why would people get that upset about the Death Star if the Imperial Navy could already do all that?


Because the Death Star can do it even through a planetary shield and instantly?

As Tarkin notes in the novelization, Alderaan's defenses were as strong as any in the Empire and it was still annihilated with a single shot.



The surviving Jedi could simply have been evacuated in a simple surgical strike, just like they did, and the the Republic fleet, which already had space superiority, could have turned the important pieces of the planet into red hot rubble from high orbit.

Ever consider that maybe, just maybe, the Jedi might have ethical issues with exterminating an entire planetary population or even merely a high percentage of one, much of which would be innocent bystanders?

[Hawriel]

Oh god it never ceases to amaze me how super fanboy peaple get when they talk about star wars weapons. You do not know the power output of the weapon, what the blaster bolt is made of. Is it a plasma bolt or lazer beem? does it really mater? It suposed to look cool in the movie theater and on your big TV at home. Thats all that maters. Same with the X-Wings. Yes we all know a ship in space can not fly around like a P-51 mustang. Who cares its a movie thats the style Lucas wanted for his science FICTION movie. Some peaple have a low threshold for suspending their disbelief. My Jr high science teacher is one of them. She hated star wars because they had noise in space. Ok what ever sorry you cant have fun. Why are you crying about the number of reactors in a star distroyer? The USS Enterprise has eight reactors. If your going to guess at how a star distroyer works at least do it logicly. Dont just start spewing statistics pull out of thin air or some fan boy web sight and call it gospel.

[Renegade Paladin]

Spelling, paragraphs, and English grammar are your friends. Please, get to know them.

As it happens, I have a rather high threshold for suspending my disbelief; without suspension of disbelief it's impossible to engage in analysis of the material in the first place. Meanwhile, you're not suspending your disbelief at all, which is fine, but that doesn't mean you need to come barging in to impose that on everybody else.

[Hawriel]

wow you opened with an insult thank you mister mature

[Solo]

wow you opened with an insult thank you mister mature

He also happens to be right about your grammar.

I personally think you should have tried to prove him wrong when he said you had poor grammar by making your next post have, ya know... good grammar.

Like

"Wow, you opened with an insult. Thank you, mister mature."

I'm not entirely sure whether "mister mature" should be capitalized. I'll let you know if I ever figure out the rules regarding that.

[sikyon]

My take:

Trying to determine Star Wars Power Levels is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Even if you cut out all EU stuff, which I am inclined to do, then there is still massive variation in power. It depends on if you go by the lowest possible example or the greatest possible example. For instance, blasters vary from being able to blow up rocks to barley wounding people. You can either "suspend your disbelief" to ridiculous levels, such as blasters being incredibly powerful against rocks but incredibly weak against flesh OR you can say there is no self-consistency. Star Wars is a universe founded on Fantasy, not Science.

Star Wars is Space Fantasy, not Science Fiction.

[Talkkno]

My take:

Trying to determine Star Wars Power Levels is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Even if you cut out all EU stuff, which I am inclined to do, then there is still massive variation in power. It depends on if you go by the lowest possible example or the greatest possible example. For instance, blasters vary from being able to blow up rocks to barley wounding people. You can either "suspend your disbelief" to ridiculous levels, such as blasters being incredibly powerful against rocks but incredibly weak against flesh OR you can say there is no self-consistency. Star Wars is a universe founded on Fantasy, not Science.

Star Wars is Space Fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Throw a book at a english teacher for me then :D

[SomethingElse]

My take:

Trying to determine Star Wars Power Levels is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Even if you cut out all EU stuff, which I am inclined to do, then there is still massive variation in power. It depends on if you go by the lowest possible example or the greatest possible example. For instance, blasters vary from being able to blow up rocks to barley wounding people. You can either "suspend your disbelief" to ridiculous levels, such as blasters being incredibly powerful against rocks but incredibly weak against flesh OR you can say there is no self-consistency. Star Wars is a universe founded on Fantasy, not Science.

Star Wars is Space Fantasy, not Science Fiction.

I don't really think there's a legitimate distinction between "Space Fantasy" and science fiction. Nor do I think that being fantasy is an excuse to not have clearly defined rules. Good fantasy will always make sense, unless it's intending to parody bad fantasy.

Star Wars is science fiction as Orson Scott Card defines it because it "feels" like it. It has spaceships and the heroes are psychic, not magic. Again - we don't really know what the future will be like.

[Lord_Asmodeus]

He also happens to be right about your grammar.

I personally think you should have tried to prove him wrong when he said you had poor grammar by making your next post have, ya know... good grammar.

Like

"Wow, you opened with an insult. Thank you, mister mature."

I'm not entirely sure whether "mister mature" should be capitalized. I'll let you know if I ever figure out the rules regarding that.

my response would have been more like "Grammar nazi's suck, don't be one!" :smalltongue:

but I agree, I'm no master mathematician and I'm not that learned on the subject of the power of weapons and energy transference data and blah blah blah but from what I've been lead to believe the levels of power that people seem to be throwing around (which in base terms is pretty much planet killing) sounds ridiculous to me, Star Wars-verse never struck me as being that powerful, and there are alot of planets the Empire would have been well-served destroying, and don't give me the "planetary shield" bullcrap because last time I checked, kashyyyk didn't HAVE planetary shields, nor did many other backwater Rebel hideouts that the Empire should have just GLASSED if they had the ability, and why make the Death Star? and yes i know-planetary shields, but from what I understand about the nature of Star Wars shielding, and the power outputs some of these weapons have, couldn't they have just broken through these planetary shields with sieges?

[sikyon]

I don't really think there's a legitimate distinction between "Space Fantasy" and science fiction. Nor do I think that being fantasy is an excuse to not have clearly defined rules. Good fantasy will always make sense, unless it's intending to parody bad fantasy.

Star Wars is science fiction as Orson Scott Card defines it because it "feels" like it. It has spaceships and the heroes are psychic, not magic. Again - we don't really know what the future will be like.


It doesn't matter if it has rules if we can't distinguish what those rules are. Star Wars does not make sense. Storm troopers are terrible when they should be excellent, there are obviously poor rules in place for weapons and speeds are poorly defined. You are using poor logic. You assume that all good fantasy has clear, defined rules. This is an assumption. It is wrong, I present the counter example of Star Wars. Star Wars does not seem to have rules, but it is still good fantasy. Thus, assumption wrong.

Orson Scott Card may "feel" that Star Wars is science fiction, but I have never felt that way. And that means this argument is very qualitative and therefore poorly defined. Anyhow, I have always felt that it is some sort of fantasy. I mean really, the force?

Speaking of the force, we have a fantasy element right there. We do not know how the force works, it works irregularly and in varying degrees. This lack of self-consistency is what keeps it from being science fiction.

Finally, if a book tells a tale of medieval knights, princesses, magical artifacts and then reveals as a plot twist that it was the future science fiction?

No, of course not. Science Fiction is not Future Fiction. Science Fiction involves Fictional Science. By it's very definition, Science involves consistency. This IS science. Truth through consistency.

There is not enough consistency in Star Wars. There is not enough truth in Star Wars to represent anything in it as truth, especially with regard to itself.

[SomethingElse]

It doesn't matter if it has rules if we can't distinguish what those rules are. Star Wars does not make sense. Storm troopers are terrible when they should be excellent, there are obviously poor rules in place for weapons and speeds are poorly defined. You are using poor logic. You assume that all good fantasy has clear, defined rules. This is an assumption. It is wrong, I present the counter example of Star Wars. Star Wars does not seem to have rules, but it is still good fantasy. Thus, assumption wrong.
Sorry to go all philosophy-major here, but this is begging the question. You assume that Star Wars is "good fantasy," while this entire discussion is partially centered on whether or not it is, indeed, fantasy. You also assume that it does not have well-defined rules based upon poor arguments, and also have decided that any flaw in plotting must imply that the rules are not clearly defined.

In Indiana Jones, which is set on 1930s Earth, people travel much too quickly and conveniently, and sometimes have information they shouldn't. This is not evidence that the entirety of its 1930s Earth setting is ill-defined, simply that it ignores certain rules for dramatic convenience.

Perhaps the best argument, however, against SW being "science fantasy" is that the sf writing community does not recognize "science fantasy" as a genre - hence why I brought up Orson Scott Card, one of sf's most recognized authors.

[factotum]

Trouble is, you can say more or less the same things about ANY SF universe. When it comes right down to it, a lot of SF (at least on TV and in movies) is written by people who have no clue about the realities of what space travel would be like. You can see examples in countless films over the years...the one I always remember is Star Trek: Generations, where a missile fired from a planet reaches the sun in a matter of seconds. OK, one could possibly assume the missile travelled at warp, even though it had none of the usual external indicators of a warp-capable vessel in Star Trek; however, the writers then had people standing on the planet see the missile's effect on the sun instantaneously when it hit it. This is because SF writers have no clue of the true scale of things, and don't realise that a habitable planet is going to be many light-minutes from its sun and thus you wouldn't see anything happen for quite some time.

It's just another example of the Power of Plot, really, only it's more glaringly obvious in SF because the writers often have to bend or ignore the established rules in order for their plot to work!

[sikyon]

Sorry to go all philosophy-major here, but this is begging the question. You assume that Star Wars is "good fantasy," while this entire discussion is partially centered on whether or not it is, indeed, fantasy. You also assume that it does not have well-defined rules based upon poor arguments, and also have decided that any flaw in plotting must imply that the rules are not clearly defined.

In Indiana Jones, which is set on 1930s Earth, people travel much too quickly and conveniently, and sometimes have information they shouldn't. This is not evidence that the entirety of its 1930s Earth setting is ill-defined, simply that it ignores certain rules for dramatic convenience.

Perhaps the best argument, however, against SW being "science fantasy" is that the sf writing community does not recognize "science fantasy" as a genre - hence why I brought up Orson Scott Card, one of sf's most recognized authors.

If you will put 2 and 2 together in my post, I am not assuming it is space fantasy. I give reasons as to why consistency is a must in science fiction, and since it shows no consistency, then it is fantasy. Therefore, refuting the assumption that good fantasy contains consistency at the same time.

If the setting ignores certain rules, then we cannot extrapolate. This is my science (actually engineering) major talking. Say I make up a new law, of cake equivalence. If the "law of cake equivalence" then logically results in the "law of muffin equivalence", and we can prove the "law of muffin equivalence" wrong, then I cannot just make it the "law of cake equivalence except for muffins", without giving a reason. I must either discard the theory or reduce it to more fundamental levels in order the explain the inconsistency. This is the problem with Star Wars. Either we discard it or we reduce it fundamentally. And the latter option is not possible without stretching disbelief massively. This is a problem in much of science fiction, true, but Star Wars has many more outliers than other examples, causing a disbelief which is nearly impossible instead of merely improbable.

Fine, it's not space fantasy or science fantasy. But it's fantasy. Because when we disregard the category of science fiction, we put it into the next logical category.

Anyhow, the genre itself is not important. Science fiction does not come with a set of rules, like a 90% self-consistency correlation threshold. It doesn't matter if it is science fiction.

The point of my argument was that Star Wars is so inconsistent that to apply science to it is simply beyond our means today. Therefore, any such discussion of Star Wars Power is irrelevent, because it is exceptionally difficult to prove that various facts are consistent enough to have logic built upon them.

[SomethingElse]

I think we just need to agree to disagree, silkyon... I respect where you are coming from, but I think that you are holding Star Wars to too high of a standard, and fantasy to to low of a standard. Many of the issues people have brought up about SW continuity are, quite simply in my few, flaws.

OotS is fantasy, and yet Rich manages to keep it quite consistent - in fact, OotS is built upon the fact that D&D is full of very consistent rules, albeit ones that lead to strange conclusions at times. This seems to me to show that good fantasy should follow strict rules, just not ones that necessarily agree with real-world truth. In the same way, good science fiction is allowed to break real physical laws - many classic sf stories are based on FTL travel, which most physicists at least at the time agreed was impossible in the classical sense...

[The Extinguisher]

I think the one thing that screws up any discussion on a fictional world is plot. We're not watching a documentry. We're watching plot. The stormtroopers could have been the best shots around, but you know, plot.

Also, sikyon, defineing a genre based on popular recognition of said genre kind of ruins 99% of all expiremental works ever.

[SomethingElse]

I think the one thing that screws up any discussion on a fictional world is plot. We're not watching a documentry. We're watching plot. The stormtroopers could have been the best shots around, but you know, plot.
Agreed 100%.


Also, sikyon, defineing a genre based on popular recognition of said genre kind of ruins 99% of all expiremental works ever.
I think that criticism might be directed at me, as I was the one who brought up Orson Scott Card and sf authorities, but I'd like to see you elaborate...?

[The Extinguisher]

Oh yeah, that was you. Sorry, sikyon.

Anyway, you said


Perhaps the best argument, however, against SW being "science fantasy" is that the sf writing community does not recognize "science fantasy" as a genre

If we were to judge all genres based on what the writing community thought of them, there would be a lot less genres.

[Theodoriph]

Star Wars has always felt like a fantasy to me as well. Excluding the magic, what makes it a fantasy world to me is the good/evil aspect of the universe. George Lucas clearly set up a good side and an evil side, something which science fiction generally lacks. Looking at Star Trek, Dune, The Conqueror's series and most other science fiction I've read, there is no real sense of good and evil. There are bad people (both on the protagonist's side as well as the antagonist's side) and there are good people (both on the protagonist's side as well as the antagonist's side), but there usually isn't the idea that everyone of this kind of person is bad or good.

i.e. I can't think up the name of a good person who is under the sway of the dark side, but I can think up the names of both good and bad Romulans, Klingons, Borg etc. (For Vader to be redeemed, he had to renounce the dark side and thus it lost its influence over him).

(Bad != evil. I can't off the top of my head think up the names of any evil Romulans, Klingons, Borg etc.)

This very specific distinction between good and evil in Star Wars is what makes it a fantasy to me.

Science fiction should be believable, even if they use technobabble to "make it so". Star Wars fails in that regard, not because of the force, but because Lucas' concept of good and evil is not realistic. It's far too simplistic, suitable for a story...a fantasy, not for reality.

[SomethingElse]

If we were to judge all genres based on what the writing community thought of them, there would be a lot less genres.
Fair enough... however, I feel that when a genre is broadly defined enough to include another genre, and for most intents and purposes describes the other genre, then the second genre should be at most considered a subgenre.

Star Wars is less focused on science than other space operas I've read, such as The Golden Age or The Risen Empire... on the other hand, it's on the same level as stories like the Wing Commander games and movies, the film The Last Starfighter, and novels like those by Elizabeth Moon. Furthermore, it's already part of the subgenre of science fiction called space opera, so why subcategorize any more? Most people who like science fiction like Star Wars, I'll wager, and that, in most cases, is enough to say something is part of a category. Most literary critics who would, for example, refuse to define science fiction as literature, probably don't like science fiction, and those who would claim that From the Earth to the Moon and Romeo & Juliet are the same genre haven't read at least one of them.

[SomethingElse]

Science fiction should be believable, even if they use technobabble to "make it so". Star Wars fails in that regard, not because of the force, but because Lucas' concept of good and evil is not realistic. It's far too simplistic, suitable for a story...a fantasy, not for reality.
So, if simplistic morality is a trait of fantasy, how do you categorize stories like A Song of Ice & Fire and even Wheel of Time?

[Theodoriph]

There is no reason why Star Wars could not be a space opera and a fantasy (just using this as an example, not stating it as a fact).

Genres are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Fantasy tends to often incorporate a few other genres. You can have mysteries that are fantasies. Such a book would be both a mystery novel as well as a fantasy novel.

[Theodoriph]

So, if simplistic morality is a trait of fantasy, how do you categorize stories like A Song of Ice & Fire and even Wheel of Time?


I've never read A Song of Ice & Fire, so I'm afraid I cannot comment there. The Wheel of Time however is a fantasy and has the good/evil divide that is common of fantasies. The Great Lord of the Dark (I'd say his name, but I'd rather not draw his eye =)) is labelled as evil and everyone who worships him or follows him and does his (or his minions) bidding is evil (darkfriends). You'd be hardpressed in WOT to find someone who follows the Great Lord of the Dark who is good. I've been re-reading the series lately and I haven't come across one yet.

People who side with the light are painted as being good. None of the evil characters that I can think of in the book are on the light's side (though darkfriends may lie and claim they are).

WOT does have people who "are on the side of the light" doing evil things because of zealotry (i.e. Child Byar, Dain Bornhold). I don't think they're ever portrayed as good people though. Even if they are though, zealotry is often part of the good/evil theme.

Besides the good/evil theme, WOT also has the hero, the quest, magic, the company and various other fantasy themes. So I consider it a fantasy. I've never heard anyone call it anything else.

[Eita]

Shai'tan. There. I said it.

[Solo]

The Great Lord of the Dark (I'd say his name, but I'd rather not draw his eye =))


Pansy.


*ahem*

Baal'zamon!


How's that?

[Wardog]

I also have to add:

I seems to me to be rather ridiculous to go through SW frame by frame, using the images to prove novel theories.

I can accept (e.g.) looking at footage of a Star Destroyer blowing up an asteroid, and using that to estimate the power of a SD's guns.

But other things, like using the footage of the destruction of Alderaan to "prove" it had a shield is, IMO, absurd.

The destruction of Alderaan was a Special Effect. It wasn't a genuine film of a genuine planet being blown up. George Lucas made it look the way it did to make it look cool. If the planet was supposed to be shielded, and if the major selling point of the Death Star was that it could blow up a planet through its shields, then they would have said/shown something in the film to make that clear. I really doubt Lucas would have thought to himself "Hmmm.... how can we demonstrate the ultimate power of the Death Star? I know! I'll make a momentarily-visible glow surround Alderaan, to represent its shields overloading!"


Another line of reasoning that is in may ways more logical, but none the less I think is flawed, is extrapolating a Star Destroyer's power output from the energy needed to cross the galaxy.

Firstly, there are a million and one (ok, exaggeration) SF/Space Opera setting where craft can rapidly cross interstellar space, where the authors made no attempt whatsoever to quantify the energy required and make all other weapons and gadgets use a consistent power level. Essentially, their FTL propulsion is powered by Plot, not by a properly quantified energy source. I see no reason why Star Wars is any different.

Secondly, given that Hyperdrive is a purely imaginary technology, achieving effect that are by - current science - literally impossible, I see no reason why it should be assumed to use the same physics as real-world propulsion systems. Indeed, given that its behavior is so impossible, I suggest it almost certainly works in a manner vastly different to real/know physics. IMO, the most likely solution is that somehow, Hyperdrive allows you to cross the galaxy in days, using a plausibly-generatable amount of power.

And once that interpretation is used, there is no need to explain why so few weapons are seen doing the amount of damage you would expect from something with a squillion uberwatt power supply behind it.

[Eita]

Pansy.


*ahem*

Baal'zamon!


How's that?

Coward. Baal'zamon is the name given to him by the Trollocs.

His true name is Shai'tan.

[Talkkno]

Stuff.

Your point of view would make any serious discussion impossible, given that you dismissing stuff out of hand. Besides the shield thing is backed up with the novelisation, which states it has defenses "as strong as any in the Empire."

[Seraph]

Your point of view would make any serious discussion impossible, given that you dismissing stuff out of hand. Besides the shield thing is backed up with the novelisation, which states it has defenses "as strong as any in the Empire."

"defenses", not shields. considering that the preceding line in the novelization was in reference to weapons, then the implications of shields become even less likely when you add context to your statement. I have read several SW novels and seen all the movies, and the only references to planetary shields are years after the movies end.

[Talkkno]

"defenses", not shields. considering that the preceding line in the novelization was in reference to weapons, then the implications of shields become even less likely when you add context to your statement. I have read several SW novels and seen all the movies, and the only references to planetary shields are years after the movies end.
............................
Endor?

[Seraph]

............................
Endor?


there's a visual in the movie itself. you can see that it's NOT a planetary shield, it is NOT covering the planet or moon (just being projected from the surface onto the Death Star). The Novelization of RotJ made an error by saying the planet and moon were shielded, when the movie clearly shows other wise, and canon levels in SW dictate that the movies override everything else, even official novelizations.

[Renegade Paladin]

there's a visual in the movie itself. you can see that it's NOT a planetary shield, it is NOT covering the planet or moon (just being projected from the surface onto the Death Star). The Novelization of RotJ made an error by saying the planet and moon were shielded, when the movie clearly shows other wise, and canon levels in SW dictate that the movies override everything else, even official novelizations.
Then why did the Rebel strike team need the Tyderium and its access codes?

[MeklorIlavator]

Then why did the Rebel strike team need the Tyderium and its access codes?
Because any one of the numerous Star Destroyers in orbit could have destroyed it? Of course, having the shuttle drop down in some random area should also have alerted them, but then again it might have been according to the Emperor's will. Of course the rebels should have realized this when they made the plan, but then again, Star Wars isn't terribly consistent.

Edit: Or, why not just fill the shuttle with high yield explosives and ram the bunker/shield emitter?

[Talkkno]

there's a visual in the movie itself. you can see that it's NOT a planetary shield, it is NOT covering the planet or moon (just being projected from the surface onto the Death Star). The Novelization of RotJ made an error by saying the planet and moon were shielded, when the movie clearly shows other wise, and canon levels in SW dictate that the movies override everything else, even official novelizations.

Shields are not visible in space however...and in a absence a explicitly showing otherwise, i would say the Novelization is right on that.

[Prophaniti]

Star Wars has always felt like a fantasy to me as well. *snip*
Science fiction should be believable, even if they use technobabble to "make it so". Star Wars fails in that regard *snip*

I think Theodoriph hits it on the head here, though he chose to emphasise the wrong thing. Simply distinguishable morality is not what sets sci-fi and fantasy apart. It should be pointed out, before I get into the main subject, that advanced technology does NOT automatically make a movie/story/game science fiction.

All science fiction starts from the same place. They take what we know of science now and construct fiction on top of it. Granted some of them make incredulous leaps and others use science that is purely theoretical or accepted only by the fringes of the scientific community, but they all start from science as a basis.

SW, along with some others, does not do this. George Lucas did not want it to. Everything he put in the films, every piece of technology and weapon, was put there simply to make the universe what he wanted it to be. He neither asked nor cared what was feasible or possible. The best example is, of course, the most iconic piece of SW weaponry: the Lightsaber. In the original screenplays these are referred to simply as 'laser-swords' and he states that they were put in simply to make sword-fighting scenes believable in a world of ray-guns and forcefields.

He himself never attempted to quantify anything in his creation, all of this has been the work of over-zealous fanboys who dream of building their own lightsabers. Any attempt to determine the energy produced by a blaster or the strength of a planetary shield or the ammount of energy produced by a Star Destroyer's reactor is patently ludicrous. If the creator himself couldn't be bothered with explaining it why should I? It simply works.

This approach to creation and delivery puts SW firmly in the realm of a Fantasy story. I can best equate it with movies like Flash Gordon, also a fantasy that happens to take place largely in space. Ok, Flash Gordon sucked a lot more, but that's partly because it's so old. If it had been made with modern movie-making tricks, I'm sure it would also have a cult following attempting to explain why things in it work.

Do not misunderstand me, I like Star Wars and will continue to like it. I simply do not attempt to quantify it and treat anyone else's attempt as the unfounded, fruitless and incredibly pointless waste of time it is. Don't let me stop you, though. Everyone needs a hobby.:smallbiggrin:

[Eita]

They actually remade Flash Gordon.

Somehow, they made it suck even more.

[factotum]

Because any one of the numerous Star Destroyers in orbit could have destroyed it?

Then why were the Rebels in the shuttle told something like "We're opening the energy field for you now" when the Imperials gave them clearance to pass? (Can't remember the exact phrase, but it was something along those lines).

[North]

Cuz Lucas is bloody inconsistent and has no sense of continuity.

[Arang]

So. Um.

If the shield on Hoth prevented a bombardment, and there couldn't be any air assault because it blocked physical objects as well as blasters, how did they get the AT-ATs inside in the first place?

[Hunter Noventa]

So. Um.

If the shield on Hoth prevented a bombardment, and there couldn't be any air assault because it blocked physical objects as well as blasters, how did they get the AT-ATs inside in the first place?

THink of the shield as something of a flat sheet as opposed to a dome. They landed, as Vader ordered 'beyond their energy field' and marched right under it.

[Logic]

So. Um.

If the shield on Hoth prevented a bombardment, and there couldn't be any air assault because it blocked physical objects as well as blasters, how did they get the AT-ATs inside in the first place?

Well, if the shield is anything like the ones the Gungans used in Episode 1, then the AT-ATs just walked right through it.

The one on Endor is harder to explain, but I will give it my best, using the following two assumptions.

1) Part of the planet appears to be shielded in in the hologram of the rebel briefing.

2) Shuttles arriving to deliver supplies must pass through the shield to the planet below to deliver their cargo, and anything else would be against standard procedure. And we all know how the Empire likes its standard procedure!