4 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

The worse thing they did to Rey had nothing to do with Force powers. I don't care about the nerd rage silliness and how she can do whatever with the Force. The biggest mistake was splitting up her and Finn. They had fun chemistry in TFA. Finn was more or less tacked on in TLJ, his whole story arc was silly and the Stormtrooper janitor that knows the location and inner workings of every 1st Order secret device/weapon is colossal bad-lazy writing. Rey on planet Scotland, between lamenting Luke's attitude and her Force powered Skype arguments with Kylo, was not interesting or well written. This is a person wanting to confront evil on a galactic scale and arguing with shirtless Kylo via Force/Skype is a chore? She's an orphan that grew up as a scavenger slave on a desert world barely ecking out existence? More like a soft whiney 1st world suburbanite I thought.

Now, that's a valid critique, whether I agree with it or not. Unfortunately, most of the complaints I've heard, particularly on Youtube, are the aformentioned "fan rage, Kathlen Kennedy, SJW" rants.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Now, that's a valid critique, whether I agree with it or not. Unfortunately, most of the complaints I've heard, particularly on Youtube, are the aformentioned "fan rage, Kathlen Kennedy, SJW" rants.

Does their objection to SJW material (or what they perceive as SJW material might be a more accurate way to phrase that) destroy the legitimacy of their opinion in your eyes? I'm not trying to pick a fight or whatever, just asking what I think is an honest question.

I haven't seen either movie. So I don't know firsthand about any SJW stuff. After a few friends whose opinions I value told me about them, I just shrugged and didn't bother. Nor have I really paid a whole lot of attention to what YouTube has to say. A few videos here and there but if they start getting too....animated?.....about their opinion, or it's one of those "72 Reasons Why This Movie is Teh SUXX!" or it's more than about 7 minutes, I don't bother. The "Leia flying thru space" thing, the "I'll jump the ship to lightspeed and wipe out a fleet" thing, the "This is a poor rehash of previous movies" thing, that's the sort of criticisms I've seen mostly. I did watch Solo, and I could have done without the droid, but it didn't ruin the movie for me, and I don't think it was a bad movie. I rather enjoyed it, and would watch it again. I haven't seen any of the "Solo is TEH SUXX!" vids on YouTube, even though more than a few have shown up on the sidebar. And I loved Rogue One. Saw it in theaters 3 times, and bought it on DVD as soon as it came out.

I guess I just don't pay attention to the right places online. Or maybe I stay out of the wrong places? I never knew anything about the misbehavior of "Rick & Morty" fans until someone on here clued me in on that, either.

18 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

Does their objection to SJW material (or what they perceive as SJW material might be a more accurate way to phrase that) destroy the legitimacy of their opinion in your eyes? I'm not trying to pick a fight or whatever, just asking what I think is an honest question.

I haven't seen either movie. So I don't know firsthand about any SJW stuff. After a few friends whose opinions I value told me about them, I just shrugged and didn't bother. Nor have I really paid a whole lot of attention to what YouTube has to say. A few videos here and there but if they start getting too....animated?.....about their opinion, or it's one of those "72 Reasons Why This Movie is Teh SUXX!" or it's more than about 7 minutes, I don't bother. The "Leia flying thru space" thing, the "I'll jump the ship to lightspeed and wipe out a fleet" thing, the "This is a poor rehash of previous movies" thing, that's the sort of criticisms I've seen mostly. I did watch Solo, and I could have done without the droid, but it didn't ruin the movie for me, and I don't think it was a bad movie. I rather enjoyed it, and would watch it again. I haven't seen any of the "Solo is TEH SUXX!" vids on YouTube, even though more than a few have shown up on the sidebar. And I loved Rogue One. Saw it in theaters 3 times, and bought it on DVD as soon as it came out.

I guess I just don't pay attention to the right places online. Or maybe I stay out of the wrong places? I never knew anything about the misbehavior of "Rick & Morty" fans until someone on here clued me in on that, either.

Given that most of them are just as you just described , yes. For the record, I am a rather politically conservative person myself, and I find their actions offensive. Pretty much all of their rants fit the examples you just gave and then some. They're all rants on how "Disney is destroying Star Wars", how "Kathleen Kennedy is pushing a left wing SJW agenda", how "Kathleen Kennedy needs to be fired", how "TLJ needs to be stricken from canon", etc.

I've already covered Leia flying through space above, aside from her possibly looking a bit too much like Mary Poppins (a common criticism), the fact that she actually could do it, is not really that outside of the powers of the Force. It's simply the Move power. And, Holdo jumping into hyperspace through the First Order fleet, also isn't that much of a stretch. It's been well established that things in real space have corresponding mass shadows in hyperspace, so hyperspace collisions are very destructive. Thus, it makes sense that suicidally ramming a fleet while entering hyperspace would be devastating.

My advice to anyone is this: before you judge any movie, watch it for yourself, particularly if it's from a genre or franchise you normally enjoy to begin with . Everyone's taste is different , so even if other people you know may have hated it, you might actually like it, or not, but you'll never know for certain unless you try it. Then, if you don't like it, for whatever reason, you've come to that opinion from first hand experience, rather than hearsay. Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed both TFA and TLJ. Do they have their flaws? Sure, all movies do. However, in my opinion , they are nowhere near as bad as many of the haters make them out to be. Everyone is free to like or dislike these movies, but I always recommend you base that opinion on your own personal experience rather than simply on the viewpoints of others. The viewpoints of others may provide you with some insight into the story, but it's still just someone else's opinion. Always judge for yourself by actually watching it for yourself, even if it's only on TV.

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's been well established that things in real space have corresponding mass shadows in hyperspace, so hyperspace collisions are very destructive. Thus, it makes sense that suicidally ramming a fleet while entering hyperspace would be devastating.

But wouldn't that make hyperspace travel pretty much impossible? Any ship, asteroid, comet, etc, anywhere between Point A and Point B would result in a collision that destroys both objects. So a breakdown on a busy trade route would pretty much mean instant death for the ship right behind the one that broke down.

Remember, Han came out of hyperspace directly into the remains of Alderaan. The Falcon didn't get destroyed by chunks of a planet as it entered the hyperspace equivalent of the Alderaan system. And the Imperial fleet that attacked Hoth jumped into the system at a point closer than the asteroid field.

Maybe I've read things wrong for the past few decades, but hyperspace isn't just going amazingly fast, it's more like slipping between dimensions while bending time and space. Yes, planets and whatnot have shadows in hyperspace. I don't recall other ships also having them. It's during reversion to realspace that the danger of collision was present. Possibly also while in hyperspace, but I don't remember reading anything about ships in hyperpsace colliding with each other. I would guess it's probably possible, I just don't know the likelihood of it.

But again, while I have done more reading than a lot of the people I associate with, I haven't dug super deep into it.

2 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

But wouldn't that make hyperspace travel pretty much impossible? Any ship, asteroid, comet, etc, anywhere between Point A and Point B would result in a collision that destroys both objects. So a breakdown on a busy trade route would pretty much mean instant death for the ship right behind the one that broke down.

Remember, Han came out of hyperspace directly into the remains of Alderaan. The Falcon didn't get destroyed by chunks of a planet as it entered the hyperspace equivalent of the Alderaan system. And the Imperial fleet that attacked Hoth jumped into the system at a point closer than the asteroid field.

Maybe I've read things wrong for the past few decades, but hyperspace isn't just going amazingly fast, it's more like slipping between dimensions while bending time and space. Yes, planets and whatnot have shadows in hyperspace. I don't recall other ships also having them. It's during reversion to realspace that the danger of collision was present. Possibly also while in hyperspace, but I don't remember reading anything about ships in hyperpsace colliding with each other. I would guess it's probably possible, I just don't know the likelihood of it.

But again, while I have done more reading than a lot of the people I associate with, I haven't dug super deep into it.

Han Solo himself stated in ANH that traveling through hyperspace was dangerous. This is why precise hyperspace calculations are necessary. As he says,

This is also why there are specific entry and exit vectors for hyperspace jumps. It's to prevent collisions between ships. And, yes, Hyperspace is an alternate dimension, however, as I said, objects in real space have mass shadows in hyperspace. The larger the object, the bigger the mass shadow. Pirates have been known to drag asteroids into hyperspace lanes in order to force ships out of hyperspace. Those asteroids don't necessarily have to be "that" large (planet sized) to do the job. Not only that, but when Holdo did her "hyperspace ram", She was in the process of jumping into Hyperspace when she hit the Supremacy . She wasn't fully in hyperspace yet.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Han Solo himself stated in ANH that traveling through hyperspace was dangerous. This is why precise hyperspace calculations are necessary. As he says,

Not only that, but when Holdo did her "hyperspace ram", She was in the process of jumping into Hyperspace when she hit the Supremacy . She wasn't fully in hyperspace yet.

This is a good point, and as we've seen even as far back as ANH, ships go *really friggin fast* during the transition. On both ends of the journey.

Maybe the detractors haven't considered this part.

2 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

This is a good point, and as we've seen even as far back as ANH, ships go *really friggin fast* during the transition. On both ends of the journey.

Maybe the detractors haven't considered this part.

Yes and no. Most of the "detractors" of this particular scene say it's because it "breaks the lore ", rather than the " physics " of hyperspace. One of my favorite Youtube channels discusses this at length. Their issue (valid or not), is that such a "stunt" shouldn't work because otherwise it would have been a widely used tactic , and would have been used to destroy the first Deathstar. However, given how hard it is to actually pull off, and how suicidal it is, I don't follow that reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, there are many reasons why such a maneuver wasn't used very often, predominantly that it's suicidal, and results in the destruction of your own ships, which are very valuable to begin with. No one in their right mind is going to sacrifice ships and lives in such a kamikaze stunt except under the most dire of circumstances. It is just such a circumstance that the Resistance finds themselves in in TLJ.

So, the idea of the hyperspace ram is well within the established canon, but is something that would only be done as a last resort.

18 hours ago, Red Castle said:

Well, for what it's worth, he did say earlier that he never actually saw the movie and don't want to... here's the quote:

Then he loses his right to complain. That's the other problem with today's internet culture: people feel like they can be part of the discussion for art they have not experienced. While taking word-of-mouth, reviews, and so on and deciding whether or not a particular piece of art is of interest to you is probably about as old as art itself, once you've decided not to experience a piece of art for yourself, that's where your contribution to the conversation ends. The most you get to say is "from what I've heard/read/seen this does not interest me," the reasons you've come to that decision, and then it's up to you if you are open to having that position changed by others. You cannot have an informed opinion about something you yourself have not experienced. But for some reason, nowadays, people think they are able to regurgitate arguments second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth hand as factual statements about why something is bad, completely ignoring all the misrepresentations and misinterpretations inherent in that many chains of communication. Seriously, does no one play "Telephone" anymore? Are people less aware of how we, as human beings, misrepresent and distort fact through the lens of our individual perception, often without meaning to or even realizing we're doing it? Add to that the fact that art is subjective, and opinions on art are a subjective of a subjective, and the increasingly-common bald-faced statements of "This Sucks, Here's Why" are. . . are. . . well, just ludicrous beyond belief. You can't state for a fact that a piece of art is good or bad. The most you can do is pinpoint reasons why you, personally, yourself, did or did not like it. Because what you love about a work of art may be what the person standing next to you hates, and vice versa.

On the hyperspace ram: I would go so far as to say that it's only possible during that "flicker of pseudomotion" as a ship is transitioning from realspace to hyperspace, making it even trickier to pull off. It's not used because in addition to all the other difficulties of a ramming attempt, you have to time the hyperspace jump precisely in order to hit with what's basically relativistic physics. Too early, and you won't "hyperspace ram," you'll ram their mass shadow in hyperspace, which will destroy your ship and leave them completely unscathed. Too late, and it's exactly like a normal ramming attempt. The flicker of pseudomotion also lasts a very short time, so covers a very limited distance in realspace. To use the hyperspace ram, you have to get close enough to not only be in direct danger already, but to lose one of the biggest benefits of "real" relativistic kinetic kill vehicles: the fact that by the time you detect them, it's way too late to stop them.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes and no. Most of the "detractors" of this particular scene say it's because it "breaks the lore ", rather than the " physics " of hyperspace. One of my favorite Youtube channels discusses this at length. Their issue (valid or not), is that such a "stunt" shouldn't work because otherwise it would have been a widely used tactic , and would have been used to destroy the first Deathstar. However, given how hard it is to actually pull off, and how suicidal it is, I don't follow that reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, there are many reasons why such a maneuver wasn't used very often, predominantly that it's suicidal, and results in the destruction of your own ships, which are very valuable to begin with. No one in their right mind is going to sacrifice ships and lives in such a kamikaze stunt except under the most dire of circumstances. It is just such a circumstance that the Resistance finds themselves in in TLJ.

So, the idea of the hyperspace ram is well within the established canon, but is something that would only be done as a last resort.

That might be the argument that makes the most sense, actually. Arguments involving physics are limited to our current understanding of the field. We currently can't even get a manned spacecraft to Mars, nevermind hyperspace.

But using this as a tactic would be a lot cheaper than actually crewing and supplying ships. A sublight engine, hyperdrive engine, Droid brain or even just a decent computer, and a big rock, and you're in business. A droid or computer would be better able to get the timing right too.

Maybe by that point, those that hate it had already developed a serious hate-on and can't adhere to the Rule of Cool, they want to pick the scene apart. *Shrug*

There’s so much Star Wars content now it’s just not possible to like everything. Believe me, I’m reading through the old EU, it ain’t all Thrawn and Mara. Luckily I love all all the films (ok, not the Ewok ones) but I’m fully aware that might change down the line. If/when that happens I won’t be trying to ruin the fun for everyone else or throwing all my toys away. The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

However, if your reasons are sexist, racist or homophobic you’ll not be missed.

2 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

That might be the argument that makes the most sense, actually. Arguments involving physics are limited to our current understanding of the field. We currently can't even get a manned spacecraft to Mars, nevermind hyperspace.

But using this as a tactic would be a lot cheaper than actually crewing and supplying ships. A sublight engine, hyperdrive engine, Droid brain or even just a decent computer, and a big rock, and you're in business. A droid or computer would be better able to get the timing right too.

Maybe by that point, those that hate it had already developed a serious hate-on and can't adhere to the Rule of Cool, they want to pick the scene apart. *Shrug*

Well, to be fair, Eckhart's Ladder, the guy who did the video about this particular "issue" he had with the movie, isn't a "hater". He just found this particular scene to be 'problematic". I don't agree, but it's his view on that scene, and he's welcome to it. I thought it worked great specifically because of the "rule of cool". And, no, using it as a tactic wouldn't be cheaper specifically because of the sheer cost of ships themselves. And, as Holdo said in TLJ, someone actually has to man the helm. It's not something that can be dine by "autopilot" because in order to pull it off, you basically have to manually override the hyperdrive's safety systems.

2 minutes ago, Fandabidozi said:

There’s so much Star Wars content now it’s just not possible to like everything. Believe me, I’m reading through the old EU it ain’t all Thrawn and Mara. Luckily I love all all the films (ok, not the Ewok ones) but I’m fully aware that might change down the line. If/when that happens I won’t be trying to ruin the fun for everyone else or throwing all my toys away. The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

I agree that Legends/EU had some stinkers. I'll also say that Disney's new stuff is just as bad. Leia flying was just stupid. Inquisitors flying with helicopter lightsabers is stupid. TFA & TLJ throwing away all previous hyperspace rules is lazy. New Thrawn is so Marty Stew it's not even funny. There's a rifle now that shoots lightsaber-powered super-blasts... Humans and Twi'leks are genetically compatible to have children...

Yeah. There's turds in both pools.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, to be fair, Eckhart's Ladder, the guy who did the video about this particular "issue" he had with the movie, isn't a "hater". He just found this particular scene to be 'problematic". I don't agree, but it's his view on that scene, and he's welcome to it. I thought it worked great specifically because of the "rule of cool". And, no, using it as a tactic wouldn't be cheaper specifically because of the sheer cost of ships themselves. And, as Holdo said in TLJ, someone actually has to man the helm. It's not something that can be dine by "autopilot" because in order to pull it off, you basically have to manually override the hyperdrive's safety systems.

Ships are expensive; rocks are cheap. And a droid can handle it. Safety systems can be disabled, ask anyone who's worked in a factory where management is more concerned with production than worker safety. I've seen more than a few safety devices that were unhooked, bypassed, that kind of thing.

1 minute ago, the mercenary said:

Ships are expensive; rocks are cheap. And a droid can handle it. Safety systems can be disabled, ask anyone who's worked in a factory where management is more concerned with production than worker safety. I've seen more than a few safety devices that were unhooked, bypassed, that kind of thing.

Sure, rocks are cheap, but the logistics involved in installing a hyperdrive with no safeties in them, and programming a "one use" droid? Once again, expensive and wasteful . That's why it wasn't done before.

3 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Inquisitors flying with helicopter lightsabers is stupid.

Ugh. That is one of the most painful parts of watching Rebels. The Inquisitor lightsabers are stupid to begin with, but the helicopter thing.....ouch, it 'urts me brain, it does.

By "New Thrawn", are you meaning in Rebels, in novels, or both? I've only seen him in Rebels, haven't read the novels. He seemed a lot like he did back during the Thrawn trilogy, but then, it's been a LOT of years since I read that, so I may be remembering wrong.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Sure, rocks are cheap, but the logistics involved in installing a hyperdrive with no safeties in them, and programming a "one use" droid? Once again, expensive and wasteful . That's why it wasn't done before.

I'd also argue that it's not that effective for the two uses that always seem to crop up in the "Why didn't they use it before?" argument: that is, taking out the Death Stars.

We have seen no evidence of any Rebel capital ships at the Battle of Yavin. The Supremacy is a lot smaller than the DS1, both in terms of dimensions and mass, and it was still operational after Holdo hit it. Heavily damaged, yes, but still capable of launching the ground assault. So I would imagine the Holdo Manouvre punching a hole through the DS1 and...after that? You still have an operational Death Star and no ship to evac your Rebel base.

ETA: There's also the argument that no capital ship could get anywhere near the DS what with its massive firepower.

DS2 was protected by a planetary-generated deflector shield. We have no idea how the Holdo Manouvre would interact with a massive shield, but I'm happy to accept that her ship would have just impacted on the shield.

Lastly, we don't know that it hasn't been used. The First Order officer on the Supremacy bridge seemed to recognise what she was about to do at the last moment - maybe it is something that's been done before, but for the above reasons, we've just never seen it done in the movies.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Sure, rocks are cheap, but the logistics involved in installing a hyperdrive with no safeties in them, and programming a "one use" droid? Once again, expensive and wasteful . That's why it wasn't done before.

Could be. Seems like it would be easier than installing it in a ship, *with* the safeties. And droids are cheap, the whole system probably costs significantly less than one frigate, nevermind a cruiser/Star Destroyer, but this is one of those things we'll never know. At this point, I wouldn't trust any info that came out about it, since it likely would have been made up by one side of the argument.

I can just see it now, two total nerds with spreadsheets, showing how the hyperdrive rock is a feasible weapon/no it isn't.

*grin*

It's time to get back to sinking boats on War Thunder, before I think about this too much and lose my own ability to follow the Rule of Cool for that scene whenever I finally get around to watching the movie.

44 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

But using this as a tactic would be a lot cheaper than actually crewing and supplying ships. A sublight engine, hyperdrive engine, Droid brain or even just a decent computer, and a big rock, and you're in business. A droid or computer would be better able to get the timing right too.

If you could push a small multi-tonne object like a refined ball of steel, tungsten, DU, or such to C, you could likely crack the mantle of a planet. So accelerating a mc-85 cruiser to C as it enters hyperspace and slicing through “the Supremacy” shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility.

So a kinetic kill weapon like you describe is totally doable with Star Wars technology.

43 minutes ago, Daronil said:

Lastly, we don't know that it hasn't been used. The First Order officer on the Supremacy bridge seemed to recognise what she was about to do at the last moment - maybe it is something that's been done before, but for the above reasons, we've just never seen it done in the movies.

We didn't see it done with the other 2 ships that ran outta 'gas' either in the same monotonous space chase.....they were just left to coast helplessly to be picked off with someone needed at the controls, I guess for the unnecessary cheesey death scenes...

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

If you could push a small multi-tonne object like a refined ball of steel, tungsten, DU, or such to C, you could likely crack the mantle of a planet. So accelerating a mc-85 cruiser to C as it enters hyperspace and slicing through “the Supremacy” shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility.

So a kinetic kill weapon like you describe is totally doable with Star Wars technology.

Actually, you dont know that. There is no reason to believe that a ship entering hyperspace has a kinetic energy. Or that coming out of hyperspace has the same effect as a ram going into hyperspace. Actually, judging from the Millenium Falcon coming out of hyper into atmo and not going splat, it isnt likely that there is alot of energy store coming out of hyper. Maybe there has to be a minimum size mass shadow to affect a target, so that fighter sized ships wont do damage to cap ships, much less planets.

One thing that no one here seems to be mentioning is that warships have turbolasers and shields. Either of which may make it so that the ship trying to do a hyperspace ram would fail. If you look at the situation in TLJ, the Supremacy was fully concentrated on the escaping rebels and had lost track of the Raddus. When they realized where the Raddus was and what it was doing, they collectively panicked. They knew they were toast and tried to open fire on the Raddus.

My takeaway from this is that if a Cruiser running into an SSD will wreck a fleet, then a cruiser running into a few turbolaser shots will get torn apart.

The second thing is that the Raddus was a good deal faster than the Supremacy. This says to me that the Supremacy diverted all power but a few turbolasers into the engines to keep up. The Supremacy's shields were down when the Raddus hit it. That could be an indication that shields may be able to deflect the effect of the hyperspace ram. Dont ask me how.

And before anyone says that there is no way they would have their shields down, I would ask why would they have their shields up? Power takes fuel and fuel costs money, and wearing out the generators on something the size of a Star Destroyer would be a pain in the backside to replace. The rebels had nothing to attack with, so they First Order didnt need to worry about getting shot at, so there was no reason to have their shields up.

Basically, the only reason the ram worked was that there was a long chain of events that all had to go one way to allow it to work. Trying to use it as a standard tactic would fail always.

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

We didn't see it done with the other 2 ships that ran outta 'gas' either in the same monotonous space chase.....they were just left to coast helplessly to be picked off with someone needed at the controls, I guess for the unnecessary cheesey death scenes...

Actually, most of the crew and supplies had already been moved to the Raddus , along with presumably most of the fuel, as part of the plan to sneak off to the abandoned Rebel base and let the First Order just fly on by, still chasing the Raddus . That's also stated in the movie.

The ram was a sheer desperation move, I highly doubt Holdo intended it to work even as well as it did (and as pointed out, the Supremacy was still functional enough to launch a ground assault and, one presumes, limp back to a base somewhere or await rescue by other First Order ships, since so many prominent villains were aboard). She was probably intending to, at most, distract and disorient them from destroying the helpless transports. Earlier in the film, everything was going according to plan, so there was literally no reason to try anything really desperate, and at least one good reason (stick to the gorram plan) not to do anything. Once the transports were discovered and the First Order was obliterating them, threatening to snuff the last sparks of the Resistance forever, then there was really no choice but a move of sheer desperation.

Pretty sure ramming a couple ships into them you just let get shot to pieces anyway would've been "distracting". The plot was crap.

21 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Pretty sure ramming a couple ships into them you just let get shot to pieces anyway would've been "distracting". The plot was crap.

In your opinion.

It could just mean that ramming is a very very low probability of success attack. All that would happen if the frigates turned around is that the Supremacy powers its shields and weapons and is slowed down for all of a minute as it blasts the frigates. Or it could just power its shields and let the frigate ram and do nothing.

Note tho, that I am not saying that this makes the plot good, just that there are better reasons to call it crap. Like Poe Dameron being a hero of the First Order with his actions in TLJ. Same with Rose for that matter. Was saving Finn worth Luke Skywalker dying?