As far as we can see in universe, the tactical benefits of a planetbuster seem to outweight the costs.

There's one benefit to the second Death Star that you're overlooking. The LOLZ. What is the point of running the entire universe if you cant abuse the hell out of your position - and Palpatine is clearly the sort of dude that would enjoy having a whole bunch of slaves and minions build him a space station for the sole purpose of luring in the last Jedi so he can turn him.

Palpatine has the whole galaxy under his thumb. Why not build a big ass vanity project? He's got enough resources at his command to build a dozen and one for his Sunday best and the Empire would hardly blink at the prospect.

There is actually one reason, in-setting, that actually makes sense as a motivation for certain characters to keep trying to get the concept of a "galactic WMD" to work -- even after the previous attempts have failed and been destroyed by applications of far lower resourced and effort.

As far as we can see in universe, the tactical benefits of a planetbuster seem to outweight the costs.

There's one benefit to the second Death Star that you're overlooking. The LOLZ. What is the point of running the entire universe if you cant abuse the hell out of your position - and Palpatine is clearly the sort of dude that would enjoy having a whole bunch of slaves and minions build him a space station for the sole purpose of luring in the last Jedi so he can turn him.

Palpatine has the whole galaxy under his thumb. Why not build a big ass vanity project? He's got enough resources at his command to build a dozen and one for his Sunday best and the Empire would hardly blink at the prospect.

I, uh, said as much. Several times, actually, but maybe not clearly enough. The Deathstar is basically his Versailles. And it kills planets, too! I'd go so far as to quite literally call it his Murderboner

There is actually one reason, in-setting, that actually makes sense as a motivation for certain characters to keep trying to get the concept of a "galactic WMD" to work -- even after the previous attempts have failed and been destroyed by applications of far lower resourced and effort.

They didn't actually fail. Well, at least the first one and Starkiller didn't. The second was more a trap than a WMD. The first one successfully destroyed Alderaan and the Starkiller wiped out the Hosnian system. The fact that they were destroyed does not discount there capability.

There is actually one reason, in-setting, that actually makes sense as a motivation for certain characters to keep trying to get the concept of a "galactic WMD" to work -- even after the previous attempts have failed and been destroyed by applications of far lower resourced and effort.

They didn't actually fail. Well, at least the first one and Starkiller didn't. The second was more a trap than a WMD. The first one successfully destroyed Alderaan and the Starkiller wiped out the Hosnian system. The fact that they were destroyed does not discount there capability.

The first Death Star failed to inspire fear and cow the populace into submission... it failed to destroy the Alliance or really even one base... and then it was blown up by a handful of starfighters.

The second Death Star failed as a trap for the Alliance fleet... failed as a trap for Skywalker... and then it was blown up (and the Emperor would have died with it had he not already been killed by Vader.)

In the EU, the derivative and "oh my, this one's even MORE dangerous!" ultraweapons I can think of at the moment were all destroyed before accomplishing their actual strategic goals.

In TFA, we don't know yet if Starkiller accomplished anything other than mass murder, I guess we'll find out.

Overall, these weapons fail to achieve the strategic goals they are built for, and fail to live up to their enormous costs.

As WMDs they did their jobs. In both cases of the first Deathstar and Starkiller they became imminent threats to Rebels and Resistance so had to be destroyed for those groups to survive. Just as in any movie or story where the bad is trying to kill the good guy, there comes a point where it is kill or be killed. It doesn't make those bad guys any less capable of killing. If either of those weapons had not been destroyed then those groups would have been able to go on using them and their ultimate purpose could have been realized. And as movies and real life have shown, as devastating as attacks that are to inspire fear can be effective, they can also be your downfall.

We'll have to disagree... as far as I'm concerned, the ultraweapons in Star Wars failed in the same way that Pearl Harbor failed.

Had Japan been able to take away the US's nukes things would have probably turned out differently. Or if the German's had created the nuke before the US. The whole Deathstar thing is riff on "what if the Germans had completed their nuke?" The thing is, in real life, great tragedies like Pearl Harbour and 911 only show that we tend to get very pissed off and hunt down and eliminate the threat when they happen. It doesn't stop people from trying them as the recent Paris attacks show. But again all these groups have done is piss off some very powerful countries.

The Star Wars movies have always had a David vs Goliath aspect just as so many movies and other forms of fiction have so yes the big WMDs will ultimately fail or be destroyed. Nothing new here nor do I expect it to change in the future. There are no new stories.

And in every example that's been brought up, the strategic aim of the "devastating attack" has failed.

Doesn't stop the bad guys from trying it again. How many movies have rogue nukes? The concept of using a WMD will continue to be used.

Too many do.

More importantly, this franchise has too many "yet another galactic WMD" McGuffins. It's been done. It's a cliche at this point, and every time it gets done again, it's just the author / screenwriter / "creative" team going back to the well hoping to take another big bucket of what they think worked before.

Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it didn't work period. Could they have done something different? Possibly. The Prequels tried something different but with all their success they carry a stigma of being second rate compared to the Originals. Only time will tell if the new trilogy ends up the same. The reality right now, though, is that this a good addition to the franchise rather than a so-so one. It has re-invigorated new as well as old interest.

To be fair .....any Star Wars movie re invigorates interest. As much as people bad mouth the PT it's not like there were box office failures and it's not like the movies themselves didn't drive a massive marketing megamachine that churned out every more Star Wars material. Star Wars is just one of those brands where even a bad Star Wars movie is still good for business.

I'm not really concerned with "good for business"... quality and commercial success have become utterly disconnected.

There is actually one reason, in-setting, that actually makes sense as a motivation for certain characters to keep trying to get the concept of a "galactic WMD" to work -- even after the previous attempts have failed and been destroyed by applications of far lower resourced and effort.

They didn't actually fail. Well, at least the first one and Starkiller didn't. The second was more a trap than a WMD. The first one successfully destroyed Alderaan and the Starkiller wiped out the Hosnian system. The fact that they were destroyed does not discount there capability.

The first one was a failure. They successfully destroyed a planet of peaceful people and that WOULD have worked for their purpose of showing what they were capable of... If they hadn't promptly lost that capability because it proved vulnerable to X-Wings. I don't believe the second one was meant solely as a trap for the Rebels. It seemed fairly clearly to actually be a Death Star and therefore could and would fill the same role as it's predecessor regardless of other uses it was also turned to. However, it again failed and I don't think getting blown up by the rebels can be described otherwise. With the third one, maybe it was a success and maybe it wasn't. I don't think we can really know until the story resumes and we see what the consequences are. It certainly seems that the FO's intent with it was that it shouldn't be blown up by plucky rebels (again) and if it didn't meet their intent, it's presumably a failure on at least one level. And this seems a big one. But like I say, I don't think we can really know for certain until we see more.

I don't think anyone is arguing that a Death Star cannot destroy a world - we've seen that we can. But success or failure is more complex than that. It is judged by outcomes, not actions. The discussion is really about whether after the first two, you'd want to invest huge amounts of resource in a third attempt.

It is an evergreen product, hence why Disney spent 4 billion on it. A majority of the money comes from the toys. This movie, though, is doing extraordinarily well even compaired to other movies, Star Wars or not.

??? I don't understand.

It is an evergreen product, hence why Disney spent 4 billion on it. A majority of the money comes from the toys. This movie, though, is doing extraordinarily well even compaired to other movies, Star Wars or not.

My basic point was that even the "bad" ones did extraordinarily well when compared to other movies of their time. I think the only one that truly under-performed was Attack of the Clones. Ep I (the number one movie of 1999) and III (it wasn't until Nov that Harry Potter topped it) however did extraordinarily well for it's day. And TFA is doing extraordinary well, for it's day. So overall, based on what we've seen, pretty much any Star Wars movie is a blockbuster movie that draws the fans back into Star Wars. Yes, TFA is kicking ass ..... but so did Ep I and III and the quality of those films is highly debatable.

If I have to explain the joke...

It is an evergreen product, hence why Disney spent 4 billion on it. A majority of the money comes from the toys. This movie, though, is doing extraordinarily well even compaired to other movies, Star Wars or not.

My basic point was that even the "bad" ones did extraordinarily well when compared to other movies of their time. I think the only one that truly under-performed was Attack of the Clones. Ep I (the number one movie of 1999) and III (it wasn't until Nov that Harry Potter topped it) however did extraordinarily well for it's day. And TFA is doing extraordinary well, for it's day. So overall, based on what we've seen, pretty much any Star Wars movie is a blockbuster movie that draws the fans back into Star Wars. Yes, TFA is kicking ass ..... but so did Ep I and III and the quality of those films is highly debatable.

Yes and i acknowledged that they were successes monetarily if not story-wise. It remains to be seen if TFA will also suffer the same fate as the Prequels do.

"*sniff* Bye-bye, virgin alarm..."

Wait, there are seriously people here who don't know Spaceballs?

Holy crap!

Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it didn't work period. Could they have done something different? Possibly. The Prequels tried something different but with all their success they carry a stigma of being second rate compared to the Originals. Only time will tell if the new trilogy ends up the same. The reality right now, though, is that this a good addition to the franchise rather than a so-so one. It has re-invigorated new as well as old interest.

Exactly.

The film needed to do two things in terms of the franchise. The first was to draw in people that weren't already enthusiastic about the franchise (which it's doing), and the second to establish the new characters while also making the audiences have an interest in their fates, be it cheering for Rey/Finn/Poe or hoping that Kylo Ren has his ass-to-ear ratio forcibly adjusted, which again the film has done. So from that POV, it's been quite successful in accomplishing the intended goals, as Star Wars is far more mainstream than it's been in decades.

For better or worse, enduring franchises are the order of the day, especially after Marvel Studios demonstrated that a "shared universe" could be successfully done using their lesser-known properties, with other studios scrambling to catch up in the wake of Avengers' box office success cementing the idea could indeed work. While Disney now holds the reigns to Marvel Studios, they're certainly looking for repeat success with Star Wars, which really shouldn't surprise anyone given how much Disney paid to acquire Lucasfilm; the House of Mouse made a huge investment, and they want to make sure that it pays off for them. So far, it seems to be doing just that.

Disney is, has been, and always will be a "for profit" company. Whether you absolutely loved the movie, simply enjoyed it, disliked for various reasons, or utterly hated it, as long as the price of the ticket was paid, they're happy. That it's getting generally good reviews by movie critics and audiences is simply an added bonus to them.

Plus, if you paid attention to the trailers, it was pretty clear they were going to hit a lot of the same beats that ANH and TPM did.

Personally, I find it rather amusing when people complain about originality or lack there-of. I'd like to illustrate why in three simple pictures:

What people say they want:

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/kleckse-5795720.jpg

What they actually want:

What people unconcerned about originality think is actually good:

http://theartmad.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Graffiti-19.jpg

'course, the true hilarity here is that none of those three images are in any way original and they're all deriative. Same goes for literally every movie out there right now, even the art house avant garde stuff. If 'originality' is such a big concern, I would strongly advise not delving into art at all.

Here's god's honest truth on the matter: