MovieChat Forums > Rogue One (2016) Discussion > I hate it that Star Destroyers can land ...

I hate it that Star Destroyers can land on the planet and hover above its ground

posted 2 years ago by lolkatz (495)
27 replies | jump to latest

I really hate it, and this started already during the Prequels, that those gargantuan ships can normally land on planets, move around and hover above ground just as easily as an X-wing or a speeder. Wouldn't it be nice to impose some limitations from time to time? Imagine the plot twist this limitation would entail. Imagine if you could only reach these ships with shuttles and leave them in dropships, and they could only be assembled and docked in a planet's orbit in a huge space hangar.
I believe that ever since the Prequels, they only look for things that "look cool." So, they liked the idea of Star Destroyers hovering above that citadelle and loading/unloading cargo, but it just makes the Star Wars tech too omnipotent, by having such huge ships defy gravity so easily.
People who will reply to this by saying that it's a space wizard movie, should try to read something from time to time. No matter how fantastic a story is, it must be consistent and it should from time to time impose some limitations on what you can do and cannot do in the story world.

[–] howgamer (3938) 2 years ago

What about when Palpatine uses unlimited powah and raises thousands of Star Destroyers out of the ground, was that too much?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

In all honesty, this is how I always imagined Star Destroyers to be. Huge space carriers that were meant to be mobile bases w/ tons of firepower. Something like that should be way too heavy to support itself outside of the vacuum of space.

I’m with you on this one. Keep those things in space where they belong. The only Star Destroyers we should see on a planet are crashed/destroyed one.

[–] FootOfDavros (8246) 2 years ago

Didn't the rebooted Star Trek show the Enterprise being built in Earth? I'm sure moody young Kirk drives up to it on his motorbike and throws his helmet or something at it.

I always thought that was strange as every other Star Trek shows them being built / repaired in space docks.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Haha, I can imagine in the original Star Trek film, with that long opening sequence when the enterprise leave the dock in space. Move it to ground on earth and it would jus crumble when trying to lift off.

This is the kind of stuff I would love to see in a new Space Balls or Star Trek equivalent.

Edit: Yes, I remember Kirk riding up the the enterprise on his bike. Please someone tell us that it wasn’t the enterprise but some sort of transport if we are mistaken.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The technology involved is called a "Repulsorlift", and has been in existence for a long time in the Star Wars galaxy, and is extremely widespread and reliable:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Repulsorlift/Legends

I'm referring to non-Prequel material here (Legends) at least I hope, as I've never read or known any of the older stuff, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] MikeCable (1860) 3 months ago

That's what I thought... the bigger the ship, the bigger the repulsor engine, so it does what it does.

[–] Kendricks (2239) 2 years ago

Yup, total nonsense and part of Disney's "everything's possible" bullshit approach...

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Disney had nothing to do with the Repulsorlift "anti-grav" technology, that's Lucas's idea.

[–] Martoto (5049) 2 years ago

Were you similarly annoyed at the Rebel transports and cruisers on Hoth.

[–] millsey72 (10372) 2 years ago

Relax, this is just a space wizard movie

[–] lolkatz (495) 2 years ago

*chuckles*

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I'm fine with the idea of hovering or ground-sitting destroyers, and I object to your objections! For one thing, if 20th century humans can build hundred-story skyscrapers or aircraft carriers that don't collapse under their own weight, surely a more advanced society could make something rather larger? Especially as their anti-gravity technology is so cheap and advanced that most of the galaxy seems to have abandoned the use of the wheel, and that they might have access to Khyber crystal power, which could possibly give their tech a magical component. But really, I mostly object on fandom grounds - in that Star Trek did the no-landing thing first! And they only did it because of budgetary constraints, they came with the transporter so they wouldn't have to pay for shots of the Enterprise landing on the gorund.

Now, one question for the real geeks: Did the Star Destroyers predate the rule of Palpatine, or was it he that funded the creation of starships powerful enough to blast Mandalore into a ball of glass? Were any of ships of that size seen before he became Chancellor (with special powers)?

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Just re-watched the excellent "Rogue One"! And yes, the Empire IS using Khyber crystal technology, so Imperial tech has a supernatural component in it, and doesn't need to obey the laws of physics.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Khyber crystals have NOTHING to do with the anti-grav tech, or it wouldn't be anywhere as cheap or as universal as it is.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Maybe it takes Khyber cristals to give standard anti-gravity tech enough power to make a dreadnought float above a city for days or weeks! We just don't know, although we DO know that the Empire is using the crystals for something.

They never told us anything about how the Star Wars tech works, beyond the fact that it may include the crystals, and that's okay with me. I'm with the rest of you in that I'd be happy if they imposed some internal limitations on what various forms of technology can do, that's one of those things that make imaginary worlds believable. But the thing is, once the writers get geeky enough to start inventing technology and explaining how it works and what it can or can't do, that not only overloads a movie script with too much detail and slows things down, it gives the sort of nerds who like to pick apart imaginary technology an opening! Best not to encourage them.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"although we DO know that the Empire is using the crystals for something."

Lightsabers for Sith and Death Star superlaser tech, that's what.

Remember the Death Star 2 blowing up in Return of the Jedi? Just before the station itself goes up, there's an explosion on the laser dish, and I always thought that was the massive Khyber crystal that focused the superlaser exploding. I always liked that idea.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

There aren't enough Sith and Sith apprentices to create much of a demand for Imperial lightsabers, yet in "R1" they said the Empire was mining the crystals as fast as possible! So maybe they were needed to make the Death Star or its weapons work, maybe they're a standard part of a Dreadnought or Destroyer.

Which is why I asked above whether any destroyer or dreadnought-class starships predated Palpatine ascension to the Chancellorship (with special powers). So I guess I'm asking again!

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I don't know the answer to that, although we see huge ships that look vaguely like Star Destroyers lifting off at the end of AOTC, so there's that. If I'm wrong, sorry, I don't know much about ship classes in Star Wars.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Ah, but Palpatine was Chancellor (with special powers) at that point, and he was putting all the galaxy's resources into the war effort. Expensive clone army, and for all I know he'd also thought of a way to make all those dreadnoughts appear on short notice.

Not something I've ever looked into. I don't even know if those huge pointy ships are actually called Dreadnoughts, or Star Destroyers.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

You're right there about Chancellor Palps influencing warship design, but I'm sorry, I really don't know anything about these classes, as I am not an obsessively anal Star Wars fan, but casual at most. It bothers me that so many Americans get so worked up over Star Wars, when all it ever was was a story of good vs evil.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I'm over 60 but my job is very high-stress, so I still love escapist stuff. But I'm strictly about enjoying Star Wars and other escapism, letting it enhance my real life a bit, while some people spend their fandom time being angry and yelling about Disney.

Those people are incredibly tiresome, but surely some of them know about starship classes...

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I always loved Star Trek more, all of the series spin-offs, seeing as how it's OUR future in space and not a fucking bunch of ALIENS from prehistory.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I love both, I was a massive Trekkie when I was younger, but these days I prefer Star Wars. More escapist. Trek keeps bringing in the real world, or trying to, and I watch silly sci-fi to forget about the real world.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"Trek keeps bringing in the real world"

When did Star Trek do that? I said I love Star Trek, but NOT the stuff since 2005, that's for fucking sure! Abrams and Kurtzman can go fuck themselves, as far as I'm concerned!

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Quite a lot of TOS episodes were metaphorical treatment of current events or the zeitgeist of the time, such as the racial tensions of the 1960s and the Vietnam War, that continued to some extent TNG and beyond. I'm old enough to remember most of those events, so I can discuss them if asked, but I won't unless asked, because it's kind of a dull topic and I'm not the kind of old person who likes to endlessly rehash the past.

And I HATE HATE HATE the new movies! Abrams totally doesn't understand what made the show loved in the first place.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

It's true, Abrams didn't have a clue about Star Trek when he directed those ABOMINABLE movies, but he saw it as a stepping stone to Star Wars (which he ultimately trashed as well), so he figured it was the same sort of thing... which it ISN'T.

[–] SweetTooth43 (2056) 5 months ago

You'd think the Death Star traveling at light speed would bother you more.