[MatthTheGeek]

No my complaints stem from the movie not making any sense. Not being a believable world.

No, it's just not hard sci-fi. SW never was hard sci-fi. You don't have to explain every little detail for it to globally make enough sense to work. It's actually usually best if you don't try, it distracts from the rest of the show.

[Akalabeth Angel]

No my complaints stem from the movie not making any sense. Not being a believable world.

No, it's just not hard sci-fi. SW never was hard sci-fi. You don't have to explain every little detail for it to globally make enough sense to work. It's actually usually best if you don't try, it distracts from the rest of the show.

Crafting a believable world has nothing to do with the accuracy of science. As Galemp has said, it's about consistency.  Having consistent rules applied in a world.

Here's a simple question:
The ball monsters on the ship killed and devoured everyone they came into contact instantly
But when they captured Po, they didn't kill him but carried him off down the hallway

Why?

[MatthTheGeek]

Plot armour. Welcome to Holywood.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Plot armour. Welcome to Holywood.

You mean welcome to Pinewood right?

Thing is, good directors don't need their fans to make excuses.   And every JJ Abrams film I've seen needs a ton of excuses.  That's the contention.

[MatthTheGeek]

Great, because I'm not here to be a good fan, I'm here to enjoy SW. Too bad for you that you hate fun.

[Erkhyan]

As a fan who, for various reasons, won’t be able to see the movie until it comes out in video:

I'll probably have to avoid others’ opinions on it for a while. Spoilers I never minded, they're like the recipe for a meal: nice info, but no replacement for the actual meal.

However, the more I remain online, the more I feel that the movie will come to me like a meal already covered by the spit and bile of people who have experienced it before me. Ugh.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Great, because I'm not here to be a good fan, I'm here to enjoy SW. Too bad for you that you hate fun.

Nah. I just have fun in other ways. Unlike a baby I need more than movement and pretty lights to enjoy what's going on.   I at least need a couple of numbered dots which when connected, form a picture.
Too bad JJ loves to scribble.

[The E]

So what are you arguing for exactly?
You're arguing that all of the circumstances surrounding when a ship did and did not enter lightspeed in the previous movies is not explained in full,  so when a ship in the new movie acts completely contrary to that behaviour, all of the circumstance are explained not by logical deduction and observation but by the sudden absence of some third unspoken and not obvious factor?

You're being dense. We are never told the complete set of rules of hyperspace in the Star Wars universe. Your claim that TFA violates the rules is therefore spurious.

[Aesaar]

The fact that Rey and Finn can fight with a lightsaber without lopping their arms off despite having never touched one before annoys me far more than the hyperspace thing.  Not that the hyperspace thing isn't dumb, but I don't care much about it.

[The E]

The fact that Luke could fly an X-Wing well enough to survive the Death Star assault despite never having touched one has always annoyed me.


Actually, no, wait, it didn't.

[MatthTheGeek]

Nah. I just have fun in other ways. Unlike a baby I need more than movement and pretty lights to enjoy what's going on.

Well I'm having fun, you don't. Pretty easy to see who is having the best time here.

This looks like a clear case of "how dare you enjoy what I don't" to me.

The fact that Rey and Finn can fight with a lightsaber without lopping their arms off despite having never touched one before annoys me far more than the hyperspace thing.  Not that the hyperspace thing isn't dumb, but I don't care much about it.

Finn has stormtrooper CQC melee training (see the "traitor!" stormtrooper). As for Rey, she also demonstrates ability with her metal stick at the beginning, and her ability with the Force seems to strongly hint that something else is going on with her.

Also what The_E said. It's certainly not the first time SW has demonstrated innate skills in main characters.

[Akalabeth Angel]

You're being dense. We are never told the complete set of rules of hyperspace in the Star Wars universe. Your claim that TFA violates the rules is therefore spurious.

Akalabeth Angel's complaints in this regard ultimately stem from the movies not bothering to explain every single detail . . . I don't need an in-universe explanation of how every i is dotted and every t crossed because I'm in this for the ride.

So if you don't need an explanation of how things work why are you criticizing my argument based on a lack of explanation?
Something tells me you don't actually know what you're arguing for you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. You like a film but you cannot explain why so you grasp at whatever straw presents itself in the moment no matter how contrary it is to your previous statement.

The fact that Luke could fly an X-Wing well enough to survive the Death Star assault despite never having touched one has always annoyed me.

Actually, no, wait, it didn't.

And do you know why it didn't annoy you?

Nah. I just have fun in other ways. Unlike a baby I need more than movement and pretty lights to enjoy what's going on.

Well I'm having fun, you don't. Pretty easy to see who is having the best time here.

This looks like a clear case of "how dare you enjoy what I don't" to me.

Yeah except that you're replying to me, not the other way around. If you actually contributed to this thread before responding to me I didn't read it.
Thus you're trying to defend the movie from my criticisms, rather than me trying to tear down your enjoyment of it.

[MatthTheGeek]

Yeah except that you're replying to me, not the other way around.

Yes, yes I am. You're a big boy, you'll figure out why.

If you actually contributed to this thread before responding to me I didn't read it.

Well that's certainly an interesting admission from you.

[The E]

You're being dense. We are never told the complete set of rules of hyperspace in the Star Wars universe. Your claim that TFA violates the rules is therefore spurious.

Akalabeth Angel's complaints in this regard ultimately stem from the movies not bothering to explain every single detail . . . I don't need an in-universe explanation of how every i is dotted and every t crossed because I'm in this for the ride.

So if you don't need an explanation of how things work why are you criticizing my argument based on a lack of explanation?
Something tells me you don't actually know what you're arguing for you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. You like a film but you cannot explain why so you grasp at whatever straw presents itself in the moment no matter how contrary it is to your previous statement.

I don't need an explanation. You apparently do. As far as I can work out, your main complaint is that the film never took the time to explain itself in sufficient detail for you to work it into your conception of what the Star Wars universe is like; Personally, I find this incessant need to have things explained that really do not need explanation a major failing of current nerd culture.

But looking at it from the perspective of someone who wants to know every rule, your criticism that some behaviour doesn't fit into a ruleset you were never completely aware of is rather spurious.

The fact that Luke could fly an X-Wing well enough to survive the Death Star assault despite never having touched one has always annoyed me.

Actually, no, wait, it didn't.

And do you know why it didn't annoy you?

Yes. Do you know why it doesn't, or why I do not care about what you deem to be plotholes and errors and universe-destroying rule breakings?

(The thing about Rey and Finn knowing how not to chop their limbs of with a light saber? Finn has had some amount of close combat training, we see Rey being quite handy with that stick of hers, and unlike certain prequel Jedi, Kylo Ren is not an unhittable gummy ball jumping around the scenery....)

[zookeeper]

The hyperspace thing is strangely similar to the limitless Star Trek teleporter. A mode of transportation that previously was clearly limited by some rules, even if we didn't know exactly what the rules were, but in a JJ film the old rules get discarded seemingly very lightly. And at least in the case of Trek, it was apparently made up just to solve one piece of plot and afterwards ignored.

[The E]

Difference being that (AA's complaints notwithstanding) the changes to the hyperspace rules in TFA do not actually represent a complete invalidation of plot points in previous films (or, in ST's case, TV series).

[chief1983]

As someone who has nearly completed watching all of Star Trek, I can say that the teleporter must have been one of the most interesting pieces of technology that a writer could ever have to contend with.  Any time someone is trapped, some explanation has to be given as to why the teleporter isn't feasible at the moment.  In Enterprise though, early on it was mostly 'the teleporter is so new we won't risk using it except in dire emergencies', but the level of emergency where it might be used often seemed to have been reached without considering it as a solution.  It more seemed they forgot to even consider (the writers or the characters, your choice).  But the rules themselves don't really seem to fit across all of Trek.  And since Star Trek and Star Wars are basically reboots of one kind or another, I think we have to give a little wiggle room for this things.  Yes, Star Wars is apparently being considered a 'soft reboot', so I think that while it is attempting to follow the existing plots in this universe, I'm not even entirely sure you have to expect the same universal laws to be followed.  If you really want to tie a movie's worth to how well things agree between movies when directors change, then half the Harry Potters suck because the Hogwarts grounds kept changing from movie to movie.  Apparently the Whomping Willow teleported between movies 2 and 3!  Prisoner must have been a ****ty movie because of that.  Or, we just accept that directors and writers are going to take certain liberties and break a few rules.  If it had been the same writing/directing team that couldn't keep their universe consistent, I might be more upset.  But it's a new generation of creators.

[Akalabeth Angel]

If you actually contributed to this thread before responding to me I didn't read it.

Well that's certainly an interesting admission from you.

Oh yeah, mind blowing isn't it?
The fact I don't care to read two pages of people's opinions before giving my own? It's almost as if I was . . . thinking for myself! That's some crazy **** huh?

The only thing truly peculiar is that while skimming the first couple of posts before replying I found my opinion was not much different from Battuta's.  Now that IS interesting.

I don't need an explanation. You apparently do.

Dude, I know how hyperspace works.  It's made clear from the previous movies and the choices that characters make in specific circumstances within those movies. In fact Han Solo even tells you how it works in the original movie, requiring precise calculations and requiring the avoidance of objects. It's even clear from the visual effect that the ship accelerates in normal space before entering a different state.

So either you don't get it, or you're deluding yourself.

Take Star Trek 2009. I know that things in that movie don't make sense. I know that they're broken, particularly in terms of Star Trek but I enjoy it so I give them a pass.  I don't make up reasons for why it may or may not be different I just accept that overall, I enjoy the movie, but that certain elements are stupid.

Force Awakens doesn't get a pas, because overall I can't enjoy the movie. The faults of the movie outweigh its positives.

The fact that Luke could fly an X-Wing well enough to survive the Death Star assault despite never having touched one has always annoyed me.

Actually, no, wait, it didn't.

And do you know why it didn't annoy you?

Yes. Do you know why it doesn't, or why I do not care about what you deem to be plotholes and errors and universe-destroying rule breakings?

Oh I know why it doesn't annoy me, just wondering if you knew why it didn't annoy you, so far the jury is still out as to whether you know or not.

Difference being that (AA's complaints notwithstanding) the changes to the hyperspace rules in TFA do not actually represent a complete invalidation of plot points in previous films (or, in ST's case, TV series).

What hyper space rules? You said you don't know the rules. What are the rules of hyperspace? How about you list out the rules and we can apply those rules to each situation.

The biggest problem in Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness is not the teleporters. The problem is the Warp Drive. It's again, a teleportation device.

[The E]

Dude, I know how hyperspace works.  It's made clear from the previous movies and the choices that characters make in specific circumstances within those movies. In fact Han Solo even tells you how it works in the original movie, requiring precise calculations and requiring the avoidance of objects. It's even clear from the visual effect that the ship accelerates in normal space before entering a different state.

Han Solo is not exactly a reliable source of information. The original trilogy, at several points, makes it very clear that he is in fact pretty full of **** a lot of the time

Take Star Trek 2009. I know that things in that movie don't make sense. I know that they're broken, particularly in terms of Star Trek but I enjoy it so I give them a pass.  I don't make up reasons for why it may or may not be different I just accept that overall, I enjoy the movie, but that certain elements are stupid.

Force Awakens doesn't get a pas, because overall I can't enjoy the movie. The faults of the movie outweigh its positives.

Okay, fair enough.

Oh I know why it doesn't annoy me, just wondering if you knew why it didn't annoy you, so far the jury is still out as to whether you know or not.

Wasn't what I asked, but no matter.

Yes, I do know why Luke's prowess with the X-Wing (and Rey's and Finn's ability to handle a light saber) doesn't bother me. It's set up early on that Luke considers himself to be an able pilot (even though you'd have to go back to deleted scenes or the novelization to get the full setup); it's also implied that he might have inherited some natural ability from his father (As for Rey and Finn: We see Rey having some skill with a quarterstaff, and we must assume that Finn has had some close combat training at some point).

What hyper space rules? You said you don't know the rules. What are the rules of hyperspace? How about you list out the rules and we can apply those rules to each situation.

The biggest problem in Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness is not the teleporters. The problem is the Warp Drive. It's again, a teleportation device.

Hyperspace is a form of FTL travel that requires specialized equipment. That's the only firm rule we know of. We do not know the absolute speed attainable (Han says ".5 past light speed" in the OT, but it's not like that allows us to extrapolate anything), we do not know what conditions must be met for a hyperspace jump to be possible (but it's reasonable to assume that large objects like Planets inhibit travel), however we do know that a ship can jump from within another ship (although we do not know what happens to the ship that is jumped out of). We also have little information about the conditions for successful hyperspace exit; the only firm rule seems to be that exiting within another solid body is probably not a good idea.

That's all we know of hyperspace and how it works, after now 7 films.

[MatthTheGeek]

There's also the handwavium part where the Falcon can go from Hoth to Bespin without a hyperdrive. Have fun explaining that.

Ep7 has issues, but OT has its fair share of inconsistencies as well.