Star Wars IX: Rise of the Skywalker (Trailer)

Star-child

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
129
Unlike so many here, I can hardly wait. I'll see it as soon as I can.

The one thing that's been eating me about these movies is the space battles. There is no way so many space ships would bunch together in that way. they don't act as a fleet it's just a willy nilly charge into the enemy lines. They need Weber or Campbell to show them how these battles if ever fought will actually look.
It is fair to point out that the propulsion, power, shields and weapon principles driving those fleet formations aren't derived from anything by Weber or Campbell.
 

Parson

This world is not my home
Supporter
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
8,394
Location
Iowa
It is fair to point out that the propulsion, power, shields and weapon principles driving those fleet formations aren't derived from anything by Weber or Campbell.
Sigh! Yeah, there is that. But having those guys in charge of the space battles would make it a little less "Space Fantasy."
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
23,083
Location
Highlands
It does look crowded from that point of view - but it doesn't provide any sense of depth of field. Abrams has a knack for showing things from a different perspective, making things look different, surprising, and new - cf, The Force Awakens with the disorientating follow of the Millenium Falcon when Rey first flies it (and IMO one of the best cinematic moments across all the films), plus in the new trailer getting a Stormtrooper's viewpoint of facing Rey, Fin, and Chewie blasting at you - another great shot (literally!). :)
 

Star-child

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
129
Sigh! Yeah, there is that. But having those guys in charge of the space battles would make it a little less "Space Fantasy."
"Real" space battles probably don't look like much of anything. I imagine Weber sprinkles a liberal dose of not-so-realistic pacing and close in fighting to bring more drama to it.

But the other point I was making is that (Last Jedi aside), Star Wars physics is pretty internally consistent, and given that it is describing a speculative set of technologies, the way it ends up looking is the way it really works rather than just the cinematographer screwing things up. We benefit because the speculative technology happens to make for good cinema, but that's part of the reason we'd rather watch Star Wars tech in action rather than a film set in an STL universe where everyone is on vacation. Conflict and action require ground rules, and we have to buy into those.

When it comes to speculative fiction I really try to suspend my disbelief to the extent that everything remains internally consistent, otherwise you're taking the work out of context by forcing your external set of speculative physics beliefs on it. Which isn't much different than saying that you think a character should be different than they are, or the trees are the 'wrong' shape, etc.

In other words, if Superman can fly because of a yellow sun, than that's the reason Superman can fly. My opinion is irrelevant to what the author created.
 

Parson

This world is not my home
Supporter
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
8,394
Location
Iowa
"Real" space battles probably don't look like much of anything. I imagine Weber sprinkles a liberal dose of not-so-realistic pacing and close in fighting to bring more drama to it.
Actually very little of that. He has some magnificent fleet scenes with very understandable tactics. And most battles are fought from missile range where technology balanced by numbers almost always makes all the difference. I'm struggling to a remember a single battle which was fought with what would look like atmospheric dog fighting in space. His small craft tend to be used in mass to attack a large unit like a carrier. As for pacing, the epic battle in his first Honor Harrington book was spread over the best part of a day.
 

Star-child

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
129
Actually very little of that. He has some magnificent fleet scenes with very understandable tactics. And most battles are fought from missile range where technology balanced by numbers almost always makes all the difference. I'm struggling to a remember a single battle which was fought with what would look like atmospheric dog fighting in space. His small craft tend to be used in mass to attack a large unit like a carrier. As for pacing, the epic battle in his first Honor Harrington book was spread over the best part of a day.
Not to make this into an argument, but I find this interesting: I think Weber has tweaked the "laws" that his ships and weapons work under to make something as unlikely as a space missile or a one day battle sound reasonable. And I think he did this because he wanted the pacing and action to resemble naval battles - even though spaceships and real ships have so little in common.

Star Wars has rules that require the reactionless drives of their ships to maneuver as if there are in a fluid, and must have weapons with limited range, while having what must be defenses that are proof against something as lightly shielded as a missile. It's just another fictional way of producing juicy action, rather than anyone being "realistic". The only space battle that is arguably fully realistic is one that works on entirely known technology, like in Footfall (nuclear Orion with cannon). Most everything else requires a new tech or something that blocks other known tech from working. It's all hand waving in the end.
 

soulsinging

the dude abides
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
2,247
Not to make this into an argument, but I find this interesting: I think Weber has tweaked the "laws" that his ships and weapons work under to make something as unlikely as a space missile or a one day battle sound reasonable. And I think he did this because he wanted the pacing and action to resemble naval battles - even though spaceships and real ships have so little in common.
I think you're taking that a bit literally. I've read Campbell and I believe his point was that Campbell doesn't rely much on cool weapons or ships duking it out. The battles revolve more around the strategies of the captains trying to get their ships into the right position to even use their weapons when the enemy is visible but hours away and changing direction is a slow and difficult process. It's less about the "missiles" than it is about the challenge of hitting anything with ANY weapon when you're guessing/calculating where the enemy will be hours from now and how to coordinate your fleet's actions via messages that take minutes to hours to reach your ships. More so than any sci-fi I've read it seems to actually account for the actual physics of time and distance in space.
 

Parson

This world is not my home
Supporter
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
8,394
Location
Iowa
Not to make this into an argument, but I find this interesting: I think Weber has tweaked the "laws" that his ships and weapons work under to make something as unlikely as a space missile or a one day battle sound reasonable. And I think he did this because he wanted the pacing and action to resemble naval battles - even though spaceships and real ships have so little in common.
I agree, let's not make this into an argument. Weber has done some tweeks, the biggest of which is the "Wedge" which is a formidable defense, which has no basis in current science. But the day long battle is a tail chase, where one ship is pursuing the other to stop it. As such, the times involved are much longer than the eye blink battles that Campbell weaves.

I agree with @soulsinging that Campbell's battle ring pretty true in record to known physics.
 
Top