While the gravity-bomb problem can be dismissed as a WWII homage, there is some merit to it. Physical projectiles in SW have always had some sort of energy shielding around them, originating from a ship's projectile launcher. For example, when launched, proton torpedoes have red energy surrounding them. Relatedly, Star Trek's photon torpedoes also have red shielding. In both instances, I think its meant to signify to the audience that the shielding allows the non-laser based weapons to work in space.

As for bombs, in Empire, TIE bombers bomb asteroids looking for the Falcon. The bombs they drop have a blue energy field surrounding them. This probably means that they were not dropped, but rather launched downwards the same way a proton torpedo would be launched.

The creators of Empire probably recognized the physics problem of dropping bombs in gravityless space, but wanted to keep the WWII-aesthetic. As a solution, they made those blue energized "space bombs". Audiences were meant to recognize the WWII aesthetic, but also accept the weapon's feasibility, because its blue energy signals that its a different technology.

CJS4715 said:

---

I remember those. I was curious about the low-speed version the Resistance was using. The tie bombers look a little quicker.

---

I don't think there have been low maneuverability bombers. There were fighter-bombers such as Y-wings. But the retconning of physics to "bomb" a target didn't happen.

Flashdiaz said:

---

this bomber sequence discussion is tired... how about we discuss how easy to destroy the bombers are. no shields, 1 tie can take out a ship, in fact, I think 1 tie took out 2.

to summarize, the bombers:
- move slow
- are easy to destroy
- have to be directly above their target to work.

---

That stuff bothered me more, as well. Because of those things, it didn't work as an action scene. Even if your story is in a sci-fi/fantasy setting, you still need to tastefully ground your action in physics and dramatic tension. In short, you need rules. Rules allow audiences to have fun during action scenes, and not constantly question their feasibility. Creators should avoid plot armor like the plague.

I heard they're going to alter Rogue One so J. Erso mentions heat-seeking lasers.

It's not difficult to imagine, but the film makers should have given some visual cue to indicate that that was the case. Because they didn't, it momentarily severed people's suspension of disbelief. "Wait a minute. How do bombs fall in space?..." It's ultimately a minor plot hole, but it's a very visual one, so people will pick at it.

Flashdiaz said:

---

I heard they're going to alter Rogue One so J. Erso mentions heat-seeking lasers.

---

Might as well get force time travel in there as well.

CJS4715 said:

---

Render said:

---

It's not difficult to imagine, but the film makers should have given some visual cue to indicate that that was the case. Because they didn't, it momentarily severed people's suspension of disbelief. "Wait a minute. How do bombs fall in space?..." It's ultimately a minor plot hole, but it's a very visual one, so people will pick at it.

---

I bet very few people had that thought when watching it in the theater for the first time.

---

I did. I guess I'm too picky about movies.

AliasMan02 said:

---

Guys, there is very clearly GRAVITY on the bomber. The bombs fall when released and continue on that trajectory when leaving the bomber.

---

True, ships have antigravity generators, but I don't think objects move away from ships unless they're pushed out in some way. Since there's nothing pulling it, wouldn't an object stay at rest? From what I remember, the bomber's bomb bay doors opened and then the bombs just dropped - like a planet's gravity was pulling them out, a la a B-29's payload.

But I could be completely wrong about that scene, and how gravity works, as well.

And I forgot about the trash scene in Empire. Maybe the Resistance is doing the same thing the Empire did, expect with bombs.

I don't think we're bickering, just having pleasant, stimulating conversation.

Render said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

Guys, there is very clearly GRAVITY on the bomber. The bombs fall when released and continue on that trajectory when leaving the bomber.

---

True, ships have antigravity generators, but I don't think objects move away from ships unless they're pushed out in some way. Since there's nothing pulling it, wouldn't an object stay at rest? From what I remember, the bomber's bomb bay doors opened and then the bombs just dropped - like a planet's gravity was pulling them out, a la a B-29's payload.

But I could be completely wrong about that scene, and how gravity works, as well.

And I forgot about the trash scene in Empire. Maybe the Resistance is doing the same thing the Empire did, expect with bombs.

---

Why would bombs inside the ship behave any differently than Paige, who feel between decks?

The difference is that Paige had a force cause her to fall, while the bombs looked like they didn't. A ship's artificial gravity generator would prevent objects from moving away from the ship if their coupling was removed, because the ship's artificial gravity would pull the objects towards the ship. Unless, of course, there is a greater force pulling or pushing the objects away from the ship.

Quote:

---

The focus of Lesson 1 is Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

---

If the Paige continued to fall and passed through the open bomb bay doors, then that means the force acting on her was enough to overcome the ship's artificial gravity. And then it would be inertia that keeps her going through the vacuum, not gravity pulling her down. Her inertia speed would be determined by the initial force that overcame the ship's artificial gravity, nothing else.

But, imo, the force acting on Paige wasn't enough to overcome the ship's gravity. So, if she were to continue to fall between decks, she would be stopped by the ship's gravity at some point, i.e. she wouldn't have passed through the open doors.

But if I'm wrong (probably, I'm no physicist) then that means the bombers are using their artificial gravity generators to launch projectiles. If that's the case, they wouldn't fall with much speed (let alone the speed with which the bomber's fell), meaning the enemy could destroy the bombs before they reached their target. The Empire ejecting their trash is a good example of this - the trash moves slowly away. That isn't good weapon design if that's what they're using as a launcher.

(Yes, I'm a dork)

CJS4715 said:

---

Hey guys, Empire had a monster space slug living on a floating rock.

---

fig96 said:

---

cbr said:

---

oh and lol, how is it possible for any ******* to make a star wars franchise movie and get a 46% score at rotten tomatoes? LOL.

i'll tell you how, make a movie worse than phantom menace (55%), finish off two of the most iconic characters in movie history in an insulting, asinine way, and fill it full of PC bull**** agendas....

---

Actually, it's largely because there was literally an organized campaign from some very sad individuals who wanted to torpedo the film. Which you'd know if you'd paid any attention at all.

---

One guy making a facebook post that he "botted" the Last Jedi fan score does not prove anything. no matter how much Disney pushes that it does or the shill movie sites repeat Disney's talking point on it.

Star Wars fans, the vast majority, hated this movie. Just look at posts, youtube videos, conversations in person with fans, and the Solo bomb. It all points to the obvious if you don't choose to willfully ignore it.

This defense of TLJ is the most massive gas lighting for a movie I have ever seen. Episode IX, like Solo, will further expose what the majority of star wars fans are saying - that TLJ was a complete failure of a movie.

Also, I thought the opening sequence with the bomber taking out the Imperial ship was one of the few highlights of the movie. Physics and space sh** be damned!

bangobango said:

---

Star Wars fans, the vast majority, hated this movie. Just look at posts, youtube videos, conversations in person with fans, and the Solo bomb. It all points to the obvious if you don't choose to willfully ignore it.

This defense of TLJ is the most massive gas lighting for a movie I have ever seen. Episode IX, like Solo, will further expose what the majority of star wars fans are saying - that TLJ was a complete failure of a movie.

---

Yep.

TLJ was in the 6-8 range:
1. The best Star Wars movie of the saga (so far)
2. Awesome
3. Very Good
4. Good
5. Decent
6. Not so good
7. Bad
8. Terrible
9. The personification of the Lard-Ass scene from "Stand By Me" in movie form...



Reference:

Actually, after rewatching that scene - it may be #9.

Lard-Ass = Rian Johnson
The crowd chanting for Lard-Ass = SW fans, pre-Release
All the other pie-eaters are the Disney execs

AliasMan02 said:

---

That would be the case if the ship's gravity pulled toward the center of the ship, but it doesn't. Artificial gravity establishes a "down" for the entire ship, unless it is locally reversed for a portion of the ship like in the Falcon.

---

That could work, then. It still seems rather odd mechanically and visually. Y-Wings would have been cooler to use; I remember playing Rogue Squadron 2 and using the Y-Wing's bombs to blow up a Star Destroyer's shield towers.

When does the new animated series come out?

dromo07 said:

---

When does the new animated series come out?

---

The fall iirc.

Way too long to keep reading about TLJ posts.

Urban Ag said:

---

Terrible Force ghost Yoda, Luke's demise, nothing burgers Snoke/Maz/Phasma, droll characters, lame plot, Mary Poppins Leia, purple haired evening gown "Admiral", ridiculous casino planet, ROSE, FINN, space sea cow milk, chucking one of the greatest movie props in history over his shoulder....and you guys want to nerd out over space/gravity physics?

GTFO

---

I would talk about all that, but I don't want to upset Spilner's delicate sensibilities.



(I kid, Spilner)

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Actually, after rewatching that scene - it may be #9.

Lard-Ass = Rian Johnson
The crowd chanting for Lard-Ass = SW fans, pre-Release
All the other pie-eaters are the Disney execs

---

Don't beat around the bush, Spreadsheet, tell us how you really feel!

SF2004 said:

---

bangobango said:

---

fig96 said:

---

cbr said:

---

oh and lol, how is it possible for any ******* to make a star wars franchise movie and get a 46% score at rotten tomatoes? LOL.

i'll tell you how, make a movie worse than phantom menace (55%), finish off two of the most iconic characters in movie history in an insulting, asinine way, and fill it full of PC bull**** agendas....

---

Actually, it's largely because there was literally an organized campaign from some very sad individuals who wanted to torpedo the film. Which you'd know if you'd paid any attention at all.

---

One guy making a facebook post that he "botted" the Last Jedi fan score does not prove anything. no matter how much Disney pushes that it does or the shill movie sites repeat Disney's talking point on it.

Star Wars fans, the vast majority, hated this movie. Just look at posts, youtube videos, conversations in person with fans, and the Solo bomb. It all points to the obvious if you don't choose to willfully ignore it.

This defense of TLJ is the most massive gas lighting for a movie I have ever seen. Episode IX, like Solo, will further expose what the majority of star wars fans are saying - that TLJ was a complete failure of a movie.

---

Except that this all fueled by a false pedestal that the original trilogy is placed upon.

They aren't that great of movies. As has been said, they carried ground breaking special effects (that still hold up today), had cool toys to ask your parents for, and Darth Vader who had very little screen time in the first one. Other than that it is a standard science fiction heroes journey.

I love star wars because of when I started watching them, I am not sure I would LOVE star wars the way I do if I saw them as an adult. In fact I don't know many rapid fans that were adults back when they came out.

During my lifetime it wasn't cool to like star wars, then it was cool, and now you aren't a true star wars fan if you don't hate every second of any movie not named ANH or ESB.

---

No one is saying (at least not in this thread) that you need to hate everything new or else you're not a true fan. What gets ridiculous is when people confuse their enjoyment of an objectively bad movie, with that movie being actually good. I enjoy Episode 1 far more than TLJ, but I still recognize that 1 is a terrible, terrible movie.

If people seem more passionate than usual about calling out a bad film (like TLJ), it usually means the cluster f***s were truly spectacular. Which doesn't mean the movie is all bad... but c'mon, green alien tit milk? Reaction to Episode 1 was similar. (See "Hate against Jar Jar".)