The Death Star and the Final Trench Run (2017)
fxrant.blogspot.com
fxrant.blogspot.com
In fact, by showing the picture of the death star with the equatorial trench displayed so prominently the essay itself sort of primes you to make an error you might not have otherwise made.
But the whole thing was explained in the movie as the essay points out. The animation rotating as is pointed out kind of emphasized that the trench was not the equatorial trench. That's how I remembered it.
It was always in my head as a sort of Achilles heel or the culvert in Helms Deep, an important but easily overlooked topological detail.
I was once asked by a tourist near where I lived if the bridge they had just driven across was the 2500m long Forth Road Bridge across what is, I believe, geographically a fjord - it was actually Dean Bridge which is 134m long across a gorge of a fairly small river.
Another example: when the Ever Given ship was stuck in the Suez Canal, all the internet wags were saying "why can't they just excavate the dirt?" Well, this pic shows the scale difference involved: https://i.redd.it/5g9jvoecj6p61.jpg
That probably explains my understanding that it wasn't the equatorial trench...
Oh nevermind it says that in the article.
Does it matter when approaching from space?
They could just as well meant an equatorial run as far as a spaceship pilot is concerned.
Would the Death Star even keep a consistent orientation while travelling in space?
(you may have to scrub back and forward a bit to convince yourself either way). The sphere rotates and you see the big equatorial trench and highlights a smaller trench perpendicular to that that doesn't extend the whole way around. The briefing zooms in to show more detail. That's the one they are going to go down.
At Yavin 4, it approaches gun-first since it is calibrating to fire. But the equator is still level with the center of the planet it’s orbiting, or perhaps the moons orbit plane.
Is it?
But ironically, the line is often misquoted: “Luke, I am your father.” In fact, Vader responds to Luke’s claim that he’d killed the young man’s father. “No,” the villain says, “I am your father.”
https://www.lucasfilm.com/news/defining-moments-i-am-your-fa...
Both the equatorial one and the actual one being trenches, and the equatorial one being more prominent makes it even easier...
It's more something a BBC Sherlock-type would notice, than a regular viewer...
I never paid attention to the briefing graphic which showed it was a longitudinal trench, so in my head canon it was always lateral. But not the equatorial trench. I'm also a bit dumbfounded that misunderstanding is/was so common.
Star Wars, if you look at it closely, has many inconsistencies, and it is rather shallow. But it does a great job at letting our minds fill in the gaps. The trench run is, I think, an unwanted result of that. It is almost set up as if they want us to believe that the final trench run happens at the equator, so that's what we believe, because we have been trained for the entire movie to ignore small details and think big.
This is in contrast to films like, for example, Inception, that clearly encourages the audience to look at every little detail.
This is the duality of the original trilogy.
(Since we're talking about the trench run: if you've not seen it, please enjoy the audio of the trench run played over the corresponding sequence from 633 Squadron, itself based on true events.
It’s true that the action in 633 is closer to Star Wars, though. Dambusters is what Lucas cribbed some lines and the cutting between the action and the control room thing from, but the action itself is more from 633. It’s also a better movie. The action in Dambusters is remarkably ugly and hard to follow even by the standards of contemporary (and much older!) air combat movies.
[edit] oh, and talk about ripping off 633—the new Top Gun! Complete with all the mocked-up training runs! Hahaha.
No trench at all! They just had to skip the bomb off the surface of the water...
"Hey, kid, it ain't that kind of movie"
It has rules, it has structure, it has proposed reasons that things work the way they do.
People wouldn't be nearly as obsessed about Star Wars if it were all just handwavey reasoning.
One reason, for all it's flaws, Last Jedi is my favorite new film. It simultaneously admits (through character dialog) that "there are rules" and "there are egregiously no rules".
I hate the way it threw out the Star Wars universe's physics - because it took me right out of the universe. Yes, the Star Wars universe never had realistic physics, but it did have reasonably self-consistent physics and Last Jedi threw them away. It had bombs falling in space (as opposed to being projected as missiles), it had turbolasers arcing (not something it ever had before), it introduced hyperspace fuel in order to make the finale escape make sense (they could have just used an interdictor instead). It was maddening.
But they almost did something really cool with the force, throwing out the dark/light dichotomy and replacing it with balance. They could have had Rey and Ben actually see eye to eye and both become grey Jedi after dispatching Snoke and finally obtaining the prophesied balance in the force. That would have opened up all kinds of interesting new places to take Star Wars and new stories to explore. But they chickened out at the last second.
And then yeah, the whole last half of the movie with the slow space chase, escape plan, side quest... none of that made any sense in terms of its writing.
The best modern Star Wars movie by far was Rogue One. In some ways Rogue One had an easier job because it was explicitly an exercise in elaborating on the original movies, rather than trying to expand in a brand new direction. But it did its job tremendously well. (And the TV show Andor is taking things in cool new directions.)
When the hinted at a fleet of hidden star destroyers in Rise of Skywalker, I so hoped they would steal some elements of the Katana-fleet story arch. But nope. Funny how all the series set after Endor do their utmost to ignore the sequel movies, at least it feels like that to me.
Fo rTgrawn so, they could have skippes the zombie stormtrooper part. Star Wars zombies were a bad idea when introduced in that book about an infested star destroyer, written at the hight of the pop culture zombie craze, and are an element the new canon could have well lived without. After all, Thrawns thing in Timothy Zahns book triology was cloned soldiers. But we will see how that story goes, Thrawn is bavk, and I'm all for it!
If you do 1 really cool thing and 99 shitty things? Still into it! And TLJ does better than that.
There's far too much average pablum out there. Or almost worse, a movie that's entirely just slightly better than average... but never exceed slightly better.
That being said Star Wars script-writing has been totally winging it on surprisingly big plot points from the start. It's frankly astonishing that it's even as consistent as it is.
As for the "why not just build a hyperdrive shell that you can use to javelin a planet into dust" this is a problem that is ignored in MUCH more serious science fiction than star wars. Because it's a pain I nthe ass to explain away.
Besides, we don't know that shields won't stop a ramming attack. The only time it was done it appears the shields weren't being used.
In ESB:
- An asteroid collides with a Star Destroyer. Communications with the Star Destroyer are lost, but nothing past the hit is shown on screen. (Presumably shields are active since they're putting these ships in the asteroid field.) [Just to speculate, the asteroid itself might have been pulverized and its materials interfering with communications, or some other shield/asteroid interaction causing loss of communications.]
In ROTJ:
- The Executor loses its shields and the A-wing crashes into the bridge. (No shields.)
- The Executor subsequently loses control and crashes into the Death Star. (No shields.)
And in Rogue One:
- The corvette pushes the two Star Destroyers together and they take major damage. (Unknown shield status.)
But no, lasers.
But more to the point: we don't know if the Holdo Maneuver became more common in the SW universe because the only subsequent film decided to try and ignore everything that happened in the previous movie in favor of having space horses galloping on the exterior of a starship.
-- Jon Souza
https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/prelimnotes.php#jo...
To each of their own, the meta in the Last Jedi is precisely why I hated that movie. Too many times it was the director speaking directly to the audience, in particular "the fans". This is simply not why I watch Star Wars. It also plagiarized a Battle Star Galactica episode a bit too much, and who the hell puts an epilogue in the middle of trilogy? Clearly Rian Johnson didn't care about what was going to be next.
I've heard he's making a third Knives Out sequel. To save time, here's the twist: whichever character(s) Johnson has picked to represent "Norman Rockwell America" did the crime, and they did it for a stupid reason they didn't think through. Whichever characters Johnson picked to represent the antithesis of tradition will come through and expose the villainy and stupidity of the old guard, while remaining morally pure of heart.
It’s bad writing. If they wanted to discard something sacred, they could have taken something which was actually in the series and discarded _that_. They sort of did this by ruining Luke’s character, only to reverse it at the end and have him save the day anyway. Really, Luke’s characterization really follows the same pattern. He was strongly characterized in all the other Star Wars films. Then Last Jedi throws this out the window for no reason whatsoever. Then by the time you’ve accepted that he’s a loser now, he steps up and saves the day. All more or less within the blink of an eye.
They’re just setting up a subverting expectations for the sake of doing so. It’s terrible writing, and terrible storytelling.
This complaint about TLJ resonates the least with me, as a (super, at one time) fan from well before the prequels. The seeds of this later Luke and of the situation of the Jedi are there in the OT, and I’m not sure what else you do with hermit-Luke in the setting established for the new trilogy. Sticking with “he’s still a gung-ho hero” doesn’t break “routine” (Johnstone’s terminology) and wouldn’t be good storytelling, and the way in which the routine will be broken has already been hemmed in by choices in VII (he’s withdrawn from taking an active role in galactic politics). At least with this direction, there’s somewhere to go with the character, and conflict for his scenes that’s not a straight repeat of him and Yoda in Empire.
Of course, all this was thrown away in the next installment, so it turns out I'm the fool!
Technically the heroes blast a hole in the wall to get into the compactor.
Perhaps the strongest influence (?): Most video games from the Atari 2600 version in '83 onwards have a sequence where you enter the final run into the equatorial trench.
Sure, there could be additional trenches on the surface of the Deathstar — like the seeming randomness of the digits of pi, there might even be a close approximation of the Taj Mahal somewhere on the surface — but we go with what we see, not so much what we imagine.
For DOS Star Wings: X-Wing, I scrubbed multiple videos and didn't see anything about the trenchrun:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL480EC9A01E8C50F7
There is no Attack on the Death Star PC videos that I could find. I did find Rebel Assault:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FX3B8yC38U
Which almost explicitly avoids the entire conversation by starting at the trench entry.
I found an x68000 version of "Attack on the Death Star" (maybe the same, maybe different) and it does the same as the previous, only showing the surface turret battle and then directly into the trench:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUzqbVRUxAE
It would appear that most games of the era were either unsure, or aware that it wasn't the hangar bay trench.
I knew the equatorial was hangars, but I was seduced by the shots in thinking that these were East-West trenches.
Goes to show how bad assumptions can be.
And I just assumed they got the trench wrong too, ha ha.
For example I recently watched the movie "the Creator" and the space-based defense system "NOMAD" was clearly visible from the earth, as if it was maybe 1-3000 feet above. But no, it's in space! Yes, you heard right, it's in space, and you can see its scale in the movie, yet somehow instead of being a tiny dot, it's visible to everyone as it "hovers" over an area. So, they don't even try to make it realistic for people who think scientifically:
The only SF series getting that right, potentially as an other way around budget issues, is The Expanse. The just show space combat on the control screens of the engaged ships. Makes more realistic as well.
That's an even more annoying answer, but I think it lets us pull a more interesting lesson out of this than a factoid which nerds are going to trump each other with: how "direction" in the filmmaking sense and "misdirection" in the magic sense are related. We see a series of shots from a variety of angles and follow the action from shot to shot - despite the shots not taking place at the same time or even necessarily the same place.
Lewis, however, regularly teleported significant distances in the pursuit of A Clue.
I believe the toll booths are gone now, the bridge has been toll free in both directions since 2000.
When discussing a novel, you wouldn't say "well actually, none of that is real, it's all just letters on paper, but the font is really nice", would you?
I think the most interesting part of the article is that it basically criticizes the film for featuring a prominent geographical feature that kinda looks like a trench and having the big ending scene take place in a trench but making the two completely unrelated. This is an example of misdirection, which can be a useful tool in storytelling, but it doesn't do anything with it.
Others have commented about films being "flexible" with real-world urban geometry to better provide a visual narrative but I think the point is that considering these "mistakes" misses the point. It's not that, say, Paris looks like that, but in the context of the film it is certainly meant to feel like that.
Patrick H Willems made a (infamous?) video about the related topic of "plot holes" a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9HivyjAKlc While I disagree with the idea that plot holes never matter (arguably they can get in the way of suspension of disbelief and be a case of bad craftsmanship even if the art itself still ends up fine) he's right that trying to dissect a film through the lens of "logic" usually misses the point.
Yeah, that's why I never believed otherwise. Didn't know anyone thought it was the equator.
What I missed as a kid was how dumb it was to have to wait for the Death Star to "clear the planet". It's a giant planet destroying laser. If the planet is in the way you blow it up. Then blow up the moon, assuming blowing up the planet didn't take the moon with it.
(Note that I'm talking energy densities far above a normal hydrogen bomb. The temperature/pressure required for a runaway fusion burn in deuterium-tritium is far below that required in plain old H-1.)
I'm not talking about the target increasing the energy of the Death Star, but whether the energy of the Death Star's weapon can initiate a runaway fusion reaction. Does Yavin simply go up like Alderaan, or does a good chunk of that hydrogen fuse to helium and fry everything around?
They can clearly communicate with other sentient robots, maybe they don't care that much about communicating to humanoids.