Random Star Wars Thoughts

[Darth Logos]

So I found this fascinating and very well thought out and inciteful.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXgGPYvG9c" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXgGPYvG9c</a>

[Darth Logos]

http://www.youtube.com/shorts/mXFoEpwTi-w

Spit. Apparently shorts don't load like vids do.

[ThreadJack]

http://www.youtube.com/shorts/mXFoEpwTi-w

Spit. Apparently shorts don't load like vids do.

Is it established officially that the blades DO have mass? Or is it still kinda "it depends"?

[Darth Logos]

Tepes had the best explanation once. Since the blade is made of plasma (super heated AIR), it would have a negligible amount of mass, that a Force sensitive would be able to perceive. But DSW, in their infinite stupidity, soldiers forth in their moronic quest to fill their story with a bunch of mystical WOO-OO-OOOOO crap.

Welcome back btw.

[ThreadJack]

I think the question is more "what does the blade weigh" rather than "does it have mass." From what I always understood, the tech used a sort of gyroscopic effect that made the blade feel like it had weight. I think i remember something about GL telling the prequels actors the blade should feel heavy like a real sword.

And thank you, good to be back.

[Darth Logos]

I think the question is more "what does the blade weigh" rather than "does it have mass." From what I always understood, the tech used a sort of gyroscopic effect that made the blade feel like it had weight. I think i remember something about GL telling the prequels actors the blade should feel heavy like a real sword.

And thank you, good to be back.

Blah. The only real weight a saber has then in the hilt. Blade heft, crystal consciousness/will are just bad writing, even from George. Besides, if the blades were supposed to feel heavy, then, how is the old man (Dooku) supposed to wield his with such grace, fluidity and speed?

[ThreadJack]

Blah. The only real weight a saber has then in the hilt. Blade heft, crystal consciousness/will are just bad writing, even from George. Besides, if the blades were supposed to feel heavy, then, how is the old man (Dooku) supposed to wield his with such grace, fluidity and speed?

Not sure he intended it to be heavy; I think he was just trying to say it has a bit of weight like a normal sword/saber. That can be designed to be wielded one or two-handed, depending on design. I do remember reading in one of the "tech" books that the curved hilt was specifically designed to be used one-handed, similar to a fencing saber.

Although that could just be an IRL thing to get the actors to act like they had a full sword, rather than just a hilt and antenna thingy.

[Lord Tepes]

Blah. The only real weight a saber has then in the hilt. Blade heft, crystal consciousness/will are just bad writing, even from George. Besides, if the blades were supposed to feel heavy, then, how is the old man (Dooku) supposed to wield his with such grace, fluidity and speed?

Not to mention real swords weren't even that heavy.  BTW its me Darth Tepes.  I never updated my Email and long since got rid of that email.  So new account it is.

[Darth Logos]

Not to mention real swords weren't even that heavy.  BTW its me Darth Tepes.  I never updated my Email and long since got rid of that email.  So new account it is.

BLAH! Ring up SaberSurfer. I'm sure she could resurrect that old account. Good to see you again.

[Taegin Roan]

Blah. The only real weight a saber has then in the hilt. Blade heft, crystal consciousness/will are just bad writing, even from George. Besides, if the blades were supposed to feel heavy, then, how is the old man (Dooku) supposed to wield his with such grace, fluidity and speed?

I disagree. It's not necessarily "bad writing". Its a matter of perspective. How do you view Star Wars? If you view it as a Sci-Fi, then yeah, it doesn't work very well. But if you view it more as Fantasy, it fits right in with the Force. At least in theory. Execution is a different matter all together, and Disney isn't renowned for well written Star Wars.

[Darth Logos]

I disagree. It's not necessarily "bad writing". Its a matter of perspective. How do you view Star Wars? If you view it as a Sci-Fi, then yeah, it doesn't work very well. But if you view it more as Fantasy, it fits right in with the Force. At least in theory. Execution is a different matter all together, and Disney isn't renowned for well written Star Wars.

Alright, we'll ring it up as Sci-Fan. It's both. But it definitely leans more toward sci-fi, while still not getting as tech-heavy as Star Trek. Most of the dilemmas, even with tech, are resolved with easily understood ideas: swap out a part, power it up, get a replacement, slice it ('hacking' for those that aren't into SW computer terms), etc. {And if anyone says "bypass the compressor" Ima make sure bad things happen to you.} The Force aspect usually doesn't run afoul of too many dilemmas beyond one losing their connection. To me that's what always made SW the superior franchise; it told good stories around good characters. The tech, aliens, and mystical energy fields was just a dash of seasoning to distinguish its unique flavor. Essentially, you could take the same stories and archetypes drop them into any franchise, and they'd be just as good.

[Taegin Roan]

Alright, we'll ring it up as Sci-Fan. It's both. But it definitely leans more toward sci-fi, while still not getting as tech-heavy as Star Trek. Most of the dilemmas, even with tech, are resolved with easily understood ideas: swap out a part, power it up, get a replacement, slice it ('hacking' for those that aren't into SW computer terms), etc. {And if anyone says "bypass the compressor" Ima make sure bad things happen to you.} The Force aspect usually doesn't run afoul of too many dilemmas beyond one losing their connection. To me that's what always made SW the superior franchise; it told good stories around good characters. The tech, aliens, and mystical energy fields was just a dash of seasoning to distinguish its unique flavor. Essentially, you could take the same stories and archetypes drop them into any franchise, and they'd be just as good.

While I agree here, I wanna push you a bit further with the weight thing. And we'll take it outside of Star Wars to do so. LOTR, which many would consider the greatest story, does something similar (not the same) with the One Ring. It's weight also changes. But how can that be if it is just a ring made of gold? A lightsaber is a mechanical weapon that focuses energy through a crystal. That certainly, at the very least, is more complicated than a metal loop.

Of course, I could go into why each one is the way they are, but that's not the point. No one argues that the increasing weight of the Ring is "bad writing", because it's not about the Ring. Just as the explanation regarding weighted lightsabers is (supposed to) not be about the saber. It's a more spiritual matter ("surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together"). Anything of that nature would have different effects to those more in tune with such things, such as the Jedi who study it. Now, does that justify, or explain when the concept is used poorly? Absolutely not. But to use the blanket statement of "it's bad" is also not terribly beneficial. You certainly don't have to like it. Personal enjoyment of a thing is vastly different than inherent quality. In other places I've talked a fair bit about story Tropes. A trope is not inherently a bad thing. It is literally a shortcut for talking about a recognizable story piece. It's completely in the execution of the trope that determines the quality. There's plenty of tropes I don't tend to enjoy. Resurrection, Hidden Royalty, Love Triangles, and so many more. But there's also plenty of examples where I do like them.

[Darth Logos]

While I agree here, I wanna push you a bit further with the weight thing. And we'll take it outside of Star Wars to do so. LOTR, which many would consider the greatest story, does something similar (not the same) with the One Ring. It's weight also changes. But how can that be if it is just a ring made of gold? A lightsaber is a mechanical weapon that focuses energy through a crystal. That certainly, at the very least, is more complicated than a metal loop.

Of course, I could go into why each one is the way they are, but that's not the point. No one argues that the increasing weight of the Ring is "bad writing", because it's not about the Ring. Just as the explanation regarding weighted lightsabers is (supposed to) not be about the saber. It's a more spiritual matter ("surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together"). Anything of that nature would have different effects to those more in tune with such things, such as the Jedi who study it. Now, does that justify, or explain when the concept is used poorly? Absolutely not. But to use the blanket statement of "it's bad" is also not terribly beneficial. You certainly don't have to like it. Personal enjoyment of a thing is vastly different than inherent quality. In other places I've talked a fair bit about story Tropes. A trope is not inherently a bad thing. It is literally a shortcut for talking about a recognizable story piece. It's completely in the execution of the trope that determines the quality. There's plenty of tropes I don't tend to enjoy. Resurrection, Hidden Royalty, Love Triangles, and so many more. But there's also plenty of examples where I do like them.

I knew where you were going as soon as you said LotR. First, the realm of LotR is full-bore fantasy; an inanimate object can defy physics. The One ring was bound to Sauron's life force and will so it too had choice in the matters surrounding it to a point, as well as its physical characteristics. It Shrank when Isildor cut it from the hand of Sauron. It decided to betray and leave him. It stayed hidden until within Gollum's grasp for centuries until it felt the spirit of Sauron rising to power. They didn't show it (and I've never read ) but it shrank again to fit Hobbit fingers. It most likely kept itself from being lost again when it fell like a boulder when Bilbo dropped it. It spoke and tempted those around it, and actively worked on Frodo to wear it and draw the Nosgul in. And it weighed itself down to slow Frodo's progress toward Mt. Doom.

The Lightsaber is more technologically sophisticated, but ultimately far simpler in terms of what it is: it's a weapon. Anyone can turn it on, unless you have an internal switch requiring a Force connection to activate. Its construction requires the Force, but that IMO only increases the level of its technological sophistication; where in even modern SW tech cannot reproduce a saber. Now we're getting into some meat. Tolkien hated allegory. The weight of the Ring was a dirty trick by essentially a cursed object. The weight of the blade symbolizing the weight of deciding who lives and dies? zzzzz. Now I fully understand different strokes for different folks, but this isn't fan theory that you can agree/disagree with, it's their horrible canon. But then it opens up a million loop holes that they lazily "forgot" to edit. How many times do we see someone wield a saber as easily as a child with a flash light? And then, according to SWR, the crystals used in the Death Star are kyber......so how do you explain away that its entire threat is based on a technology that has to be "strongly convinced" to do bad things, but then also continues to produce green energy when a) it's been told to be bad, and b) kyber in its natural state is WHITE? It just becomes massively bad because it was needlessly over-complicated. Thank the Force George had the foresight to make it a contractual obligation that they can never name Yoda's species. Simple. Elegant. Done.

[Taegin Roan]

I knew where you were going as soon as you said LotR. First, the realm of LotR is full-bore fantasy; an inanimate object can defy physics. The One ring was bound to Sauron's life force and will so it too had choice in the matters surrounding it to a point, as well as its physical characteristics. It Shrank when Isildor cut it from the hand of Sauron. It decided to betray and leave him. It stayed hidden until within Gollum's grasp for centuries until it felt the spirit of Sauron rising to power. They didn't show it (and I've never read ) but it shrank again to fit Hobbit fingers. It most likely kept itself from being lost again when it fell like a boulder when Bilbo dropped it. It spoke and tempted those around it, and actively worked on Frodo to wear it and draw the Nosgul in. And it weighed itself down to slow Frodo's progress toward Mt. Doom.

The Lightsaber is more technologically sophisticated, but ultimately far simpler in terms of what it is: it's a weapon. Anyone can turn it on, unless you have an internal switch requiring a Force connection to activate. Its construction requires the Force, but that IMO only increases the level of its technological sophistication; where in even modern SW tech cannot reproduce a saber. Now we're getting into some meat. Tolkien hated allegory. The weight of the Ring was a dirty trick by essentially a cursed object. The weight of the blade symbolizing the weight of deciding who lives and dies? zzzzz. Now I fully understand different strokes for different folks, but this isn't fan theory that you can agree/disagree with, it's their horrible canon. But then it opens up a million loop holes that they lazily "forgot" to edit. How many times do we see someone wield a saber as easily as a child with a flash light? And then, according to SWR, the crystals used in the Death Star are kyber......so how do you explain away that its entire threat is based on a technology that has to be "strongly convinced" to do bad things, but then also continues to produce green energy when a) it's been told to be bad, and b) kyber in its natural state is WHITE? It just becomes massively bad because it was needlessly over-complicated. Thank the Force George had the foresight to make it a contractual obligation that they can never name Yoda's species. Simple. Elegant. Done.

Again, the details aren't the point of what I was saying (and I could argue all sorts of various points). The point was that it depends more on the execution of the idea as to whether it's interesting or not. It has nothing to do with the idea itself.

There's another side of things as well that could feed into things. It seems (could be mistaken, but let's go with it for the sake of conversation) that you're more interesting in maintaining canon. And so anything that appears to break canon (whether it truly does not) is offensive to you and "bad". Fair enough. I understand where you're coming with that, and in a lot of ways I'd be the same. But as much as I want accuracy and consistency, more important to me is story. Is a good story being told? Are the changes made in service to the story? Is the goal of every decision about how to further the story in some way? Again, the discussion of how Star Wars is or is not doing that is a worthwhile one. But that is also not the point of the current discussion. So for me, as long as something is a good story, I'm far more forgiving of changes or things that seem out of character or inaccurate. If it serves the story, and the story is good, that is the most important thing to me. There are aspects of the "Kyber" lore that I think have served the story well, and some that I don't. There are changes to the SW universe that have been made that I feel serve the story well, and some that I don't. But just because something "breaks canon" does not mean that I immediately hate it. Starkiller "broke canon", Andor "broke canon", Ahsoka Tano "broke canon", the prequels "broke canon", George's edits to the OT "broke canon", and so many more examples. Heck, The Lord of the Rings broke canon so much that Tolkien went back and rewrote sections of The Hobbit. But there were still incredible stories told through those things, and I'm not going to throw them out just because they don't align perfectly with all that came before.

Man, I miss the constant conversations we all used to have.