Nerd Blasphemy, Redux.

Dec 20, 2015 15:57

Went to see The Force Awakens - non-3D on a Sunday afternoon meant a nice non-crowded theatre ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 72

theweaselking December 20 2015, 21:34:37 UTC
Abramsisms ( ... )

Reply

affreca December 21 2015, 00:20:59 UTC
Thanks for helping me identify what was bothering me about TFA - sense of the scale. It's what killed the Star Trek reboot for me (actually, I was out after the giant canyon in Iowa).

Reply

theweaselking December 21 2015, 03:46:51 UTC
The worst parts about the Star Trek reboot, for me, were 1) when Abrams clearly and beyond any shadow of doubt established that the Klingon homeworld is somewhere farther than Mars' orbit, but inside Jupiter's - and 2) that humans on Earth can't see the moon.

Basic. Math. Errors.

Reply

torrain December 21 2015, 12:30:26 UTC
Why does the ENTIRETY OF THE REPUBLIC consist of only four planets, on which are docked 100% of all Republic ships, all in the same star system, all within easy viewing from the surface of a *fifth* planet that just happens to have all of our heroes but isn't part of the Republic?

Huh, I could have sworn their were five. Now I want to rewatch.

WRT to the map, and a trail to follow: the Empire has a history of deleting all records of information--I do remember that from movies that predate the current in-universe events by maybe sixty-eighty years, even if the only other things I really remember are an anti-smoking ad and General Grevious's style--space is really really big, and even if there isn't something special about coming in exactly that way--

Star Wars is about the journey. Star Wars has always been about the journey.

Reply


theweaselking December 20 2015, 21:34:53 UTC
Abramsism appendix:

Finally, Starkiller Base: Okay, so they can CLEARLY terraform a planet, and they can CLEARLY aim the damn thing, and the Death Stars were both hyper-capable, so there's no particular reason they can't have put a hyperdrive on it. And the "it eats a star to provide power for the laser" is KIND OF AWESOME, as was the "as long as there's light, there's hope" part and the fact that the star re-ignited once the energy left storage (it should have exploded more but OMG HEY THEY GOT SOMETHING PHYSICS-ISH MOSTLY RIGHT I WILL TAKE IT).

But, uh, how did they charge up the first shot? And why not recharge (then move to a new star so the biosphere stays inhabitable) immediately after firing the first shot? Speaking of which, something with an atmosphere going into hyperspace makes me wonder how much of the air and trees and shit would be left, cf Falcon vs Tentacle Monster, but that's a smaller issue.

Reply

malovich December 20 2015, 22:24:37 UTC
I'm assuming charging, storage, and discharging don't necessarily take up an entire sun's worth of energy.

I can see failsafes keeping the energy of the sun from exploding right up until it's stable enough then finally giving out as it vapourizes.

What I *can't* get out of my mind are those bolts of energy coming out of the Starkiller... visibly... then splitting... then being watched as they crawled across the sky... so visible on a human-eye scale... hitting several targets in close proximity...

Were they all in the same system? No, because they'd see their own star get sucked up... I... I can't even... faster-than-light emissions visible... AIEEEE

Reply

theweaselking December 20 2015, 23:00:22 UTC
Yeah, that's a classic Abrams-ism: ABSOLUTELY no sense of time, distance, velocity, scale, population, the laws of physics, the tendency of light to go in a straight line whenever it can.... Basically, if it's possible for something to have a number, JJ Abrams will always both specify that number and have that number be the *dumbest possible number* that contradicts *as many things as possible* for that value.

Reply

theweaselking December 20 2015, 23:03:58 UTC
Oh, and:
I'm assuming charging, storage, and discharging don't necessarily take up an entire sun's worth of energy.

Well, sure, so they only used part of the sun for the first shot, which might also be why their world is so cold and snowy at the moment.

But then they're going to use the ENTIRE star for the second shot? Which will be their last shot, rendering their planet a lifeless frozen husk and making their superweapon useless, in an entire galaxy of people who just say them nuke 5-8 planets and who know that they have from now until the next Starkiller is built (so, a few decades then) to destroy the New Order?

Nah, in order for the Starkiller to not be the most counterproductive superweapon of all time, in a universe that's already had *two* Death Stars and a droid army? The entire planet has to be mobile.

Reply


lurkerwithout December 20 2015, 21:43:16 UTC
No Ewoks

Thats it, I'm out!

Reply


theweaselking December 20 2015, 21:50:34 UTC
Awesome bits ( ... )

Reply

torrain December 20 2015, 22:06:46 UTC
Re Finn: is it possible his Force-sensitivity is part of why he quit? I get the impression that the First Order troopers were indoctrinated fairly heavily, and yet the first time he sees people getting killed he bails with admirable conviction.(1) I'm guessing the murder of a village might not produce a truly large-scale disturbance in the Force, but I'm wondering if it was enough to help him go.

(I still grin a little over "No-one looked at mgs the way you did." She looked at you like she was gonna beat your ass with a stick, and she did.)

Love the two sides, light/dark, shooter/protector division, mind.
===
(1)"Alright, then, I'll GO to Hell!"

Reply

kierthos December 21 2015, 04:05:54 UTC
Have they come out and said he is Force sensitive? I mean, you don't have to be one to use a lightsaber. You're just almost certainly going to suck at using it.

Reply

torrain December 21 2015, 12:20:21 UTC
Nope, but they have come out and said that he went from heavily trained stormtrooper with no prior indications of questionable behaviour to bravely breaking out an enemy prisoner the first time he was in combat and saw the Empire killing people. That seemed kind of unusual to me. :)

Reply


jayblanc December 21 2015, 01:10:41 UTC
Good News. Abrams is not the creative lead for the franchise, and will have no further role in production of sequels and spin-offs.

Reply

theweaselking December 21 2015, 01:29:14 UTC
I know, and I'm very happy about it. And he's pointedly *not* writing or directing the third Star Trek movie, although he's still "producing".

Reply

pappy_legba December 21 2015, 15:24:20 UTC
Interesting, because I saw the teaser for the new trek movie and thought "This looks even worse than the first two." Like, worse-than-Abrams bad. Like, Michael Bay- or Bruckheimer- bad.

Reply

theweaselking December 21 2015, 16:09:17 UTC
I figure, the trailer makes it look like the first two, but made by the people who made Furious 7, not JJ Abrams. And, unlike Bay, Justin Lin has made some pretty good action movies.

(My real point was: It can't *possibly* be worse, and at least it won't be the same.)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up