PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Death Star question



El Chuxter
02-15-2007, 11:28 AM
This just occurred to me.

The first Death Star has only one weak spot, an exhaust port. The second would've had no weaknesses, had it been completed, and even incomplete could only be destroyed by blowing up the central reactor.

WTF?

Think about this logically for a second.

The Death Star superlaser blows up one planet, which likely has shields, and is prepared to blow up a second one, which is almost certainly shielded.

Small explosions on the surface of the Death Star cause explosions inside.

The Executor crashing into the second Death Star is described as severely damaging the station.

So we see that normal attacks and explosions most certainly do affect the Death Stars. And we know that continued attacks from ships as small as TIEs can bring down a Rebel Cruiser. Plus, the Death Star carries a weapon that can easily disintegrate a target many times its own size, regardless of shielding.

So, in essence, Lucas expects us to believe, despite all the onscreen evidence to the contrary, that the Death Stars somehow escape all logic simply because they're big?

We're supposed to buy into the fact that this thing would survive hours, even days, of continued bombardment by the entire Rebel fleet without any ill effects?

Hell, why don't the Rebels build their own superlaser? Wouldn't a superlaser take out a Death Star, no problem?

And if an ion cannon could take out a Star Destroyer so easily, and they're pretty standard weaponry, why couldn't a large ion blast simply disable the entire Death Star and take it out of commission?

Slicker
02-15-2007, 11:36 AM
It's all about fire power.

The DS was able to shoot through the shields because it overloaded them. The same with the ion cannon on Hoth.

The rebel ships didn't have strong enough cannons to get through the DSII shields so they were ineffective. The Executor only slammed into it AFTER the shield generator had been blown up or else it may have glanced off of it or just impacted into the shield (kinda like the ships in Independence Day).

El Chuxter
02-15-2007, 11:39 AM
But the first Death Star appeared to be (stupidly) unshielded.

And it's been established more than once in the films that shields can be overloaded under sustained firepower.

Slicker
02-15-2007, 11:44 AM
But the first Death Star appeared to be (stupidly) unshielded.Although it's EU, this is from the Star Wars Wiki:


There were small gaps in the shields of the first Death Star; the Empire believed that this was harmless since only small ships could wiggle through the gaps. The shields of the second Death Star would have had no such gaps.

El Chuxter
02-15-2007, 11:48 AM
Oh, that's a reach.

A shield comprised of a continuous stream of energy that has gaps in it?

:rolleyes:

Still, even with shields, the first Death Star came upon a base with the majority of the Rebel Alliance and no escort of Star Destroyers beyond what could fit in its hangars (and even these don't appear to have been launched, and would presumably take a long time to make ready). The Rebels, knowing the Death Star was on the way, could've had all their firepower amassed at one point and blasted the hell out of the Death Star until the shields broke down.

Even a superlaser beam seems to be smaller than a fighter. Some blasts would make it through even before the shields went completely down.

Qui-Long Gone
02-15-2007, 11:52 AM
WTF?

Think about this logically for a second.



Don't think...........................it's bad for the film.....maybe that's why Vader said the ability to destroy planets is insignificant next to the power of the force....and of course Luke technically used the "force" to destory the Death Star....

anyways....thanks to the worst ending of any Star Wars film, we now know it too them from the end of ROTS to the beginning of ANH to build the damn thing so by then stuff was certainly outdated and useless....they're lucky it even worked at all....and that they kept it so well hide in outer space....?????? WTF? Think about this logically for a second....:lipsrsealed:

El Chuxter
02-15-2007, 11:54 AM
Well, shoot. If we're questioning all the illogical stuff, it's always bothered me that X-Wings have jet intake nozzles.

Slicker
02-15-2007, 11:56 AM
Well, shoot. If we're questioning all the illogical stuff, it's always bothered me that X-Wings have jet intake nozzles.For atmospheric travel...

Rogue II
02-15-2007, 01:26 PM
The film is called "Science Fantasy" for a reason.

BountyHunterScum
02-15-2007, 10:16 PM
Well yeah Science Fiction, try telling that to Curtis "turns everything into a real life comparison debate" Saxton.

JediTricks
02-17-2007, 04:35 AM
The Death Star 1's shields are designed for large attacks from captial ships and such, not close-quarters assaults on the armored plating that just happens to find the 1 weak spot no bigger than 2 meters which sets off the right chain reaction that leads to the central core. The Rebel assault craft even mention passing through their magnetic fields as they switch their own shields to double-front, that's most likely the DS1's shield. So shields don't mean squat to the DS1, they're designed to repel the kinds of attacks more likely to be a threat.

The DS2 doesn't even have its own shields, it is being shielded by a generator on the sentry moon it's orbiting. Once the shields are down, the small fighters enter the superstructure and the Executor eventually plummets into the surface, the Executor is herself quite large and volatile when exploding, so it causes a massive impact though not one that itself would be catastrophic (though with such a large hole in either Death Star's superstructure from the resulting impact and explosion, it's likely any movement would cause the station to fracture and tear itself apart at the gap).

The DS1's failures are shown partly rectified by the DS2's shields when the A-wing doesn't pull up in time and is destroyed, (though that shot was cut from the film in most markets) and with the thermal exhaust port weakness that is no longer present on the DS2 at all which is why they have to fly into the superstructure.

As for building their own superlaser, it's a massive undertaking, the Empire has limitless resources while the Rebellion does not. Plus, even if the Rebels did build their own, without a mobile station to carry it around, it'd be useless as they'd have to mount it on a planet or an asteroid or some other large body (or the first test-firing would push the superlaser away into deep space). And as for ion cannons, it's pretty much the same thing, any ion cannon that could take down the electronics of a space station would itself have to be huge, think about all the resources it took to build the Hoth one only to abandon it soon afterwards, having temporarily interrupted the electronics of just 2 Star Destroyers - that's a massive ion cannon and it can only take out a Star Destroyer, the Death Star is significantly bigger than that.


As for gaps, the Rebels have to pass through the DS1's magnetic field, so I say they did pass through it - not at high speed however, that could be the difference. But gaps would be possible if the emitters only covered the areas above them and the emitters weren't in every location, just because we think of the shields as a bubble doesn't necessarily mean they must be.



Well, shoot. If we're questioning all the illogical stuff, it's always bothered me that X-Wings have jet intake nozzles.If you look carefully, there's no actual opening on the front of the engines, it's several larger and larger concentric rings connected to each other. However, it's possible they open for trans-atmospheric flight as Slick suggested.

Bel-Cam Jos
02-17-2007, 11:04 AM
Okay... bait taken. Why call it a "Death Star?" It's no moon, so it's definitely not a star. And if you're supposedly a peacekeeper, we're-the-ones-who're-right-and-the-Rebellion-is-wrong, why put "death" in the name? Why wasn't it "Rule Follower," "Hand of Judgment," "Dream Catcher," or "We Brake For Nobody?"

JediTricks
02-18-2007, 08:27 PM
Why call it an "empire" if you want to pretend you're being gregarious? It's a death star because its name is like its function, they're both tools of fear, fear to keep the local systems in line.

CaptainSolo1138
02-19-2007, 07:36 AM
Why call it "Star Wars" when we never actually see suns fighting each other?

stillakid
02-19-2007, 07:54 AM
Why call it "Star Wars" when we never actually see suns fighting each other?

[Movie] Star Wars



__________________________________________________ ________

2-1B
02-19-2007, 04:02 PM
I thought Guiness and Cushing were the only "stars" in the movie (for its time) ?

Bel-Cam Jos
02-19-2007, 05:14 PM
Why call it an "empire" if you want to pretend you're being gregarious? It's a death star because its name is like its function, they're both tools of fear, fear to keep the local systems in line.Yeah, yeah, yeah. But an empire connotes control under a united system. The word "death" is kinda hard to candy coat. If Tarkin called it that, okay, 'cause that's his doctrine (get your own belief system, Palpy! :p ).


Why call it "Star Wars" when we never actually see suns fighting each other?Uh, the Twin Suns of Tatooine? Dudes just hated each other.


Quote:
re: Original Post by CaptainSolo1138
'Why call it "Star Wars" when we never actually see suns fighting each other?'

[Movie] Star WarsKilljoy. :rolleyes:

JediTricks
02-19-2007, 05:38 PM
Why call it "Star Wars" when we never actually see suns fighting each other?Because "Star System Wars" sounds stupid.


I thought Guiness and Cushing were the only "stars" in the movie (for its time) ?Peter Cushing was not a star in most markets.

El Chuxter
02-19-2007, 11:34 PM
But he was a recognized, established actor.

It wasn't until Top Secret! that he truly became a star in the USA.

Qui-Long Gone
02-20-2007, 09:57 PM
Because "Star System Wars" sounds stupid.

Peter Cushing was not a star in most markets.

Actually, Star System Wars does sound really smart....that way we could keep President Reagan's space defense system seperate from the film(s).....:)

AndPet was star enough in most markets....remember only America and European films mattered at that time, there weren't markets in the plural sense.....plus who honestly went to the films to see a bunch of toys blown up with special effects anyways....it was all about the British acting prowess of Pet, Alec and Carrie Fisher...:lipsrsealed:

JediTricks
02-20-2007, 10:28 PM
So this is the "stupid Death Star answers" thread too?

Qui-Long Gone
02-21-2007, 07:40 PM
Naming your ultimate killing machine a Death Star warrents a bit of stupid answering, don't ya think?

Death Star sounds like a big hair band that just couldn't cut it with Whitesnake, Great White and Poison....;)


(JT, don't be so dense.....)