In fact, it's been shown that planet-based shields can deflect Star Destroyer fire back at them (which requires ground assaults to overcome).
StarKiller {SPOILER}
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Guys, physics 101 - if you drain matter from a star it starts to eat the heavier elements within itself. Each time the weapon is charged the star would get bigger.
But they specifically said the light would go out, which implies it's drained most if not all of the star's elements. Which in the real world would send the star super nova.
But they specifically said the light would go out, which implies it's drained most if not all of the star's elements. Which in the real world would send the star super nova.
Well, Clone Wars and Rebels are canon as well. That said, I can't with say authority whether or not such has been established.
However, it's an obvious conclusion to come to. We as humans here on Earth have the power to devastate our own world and reduce it to rubble and we don't even need a fleet of giant Star Destroyers in orbit with advanced weapons to do it.
Last edited:
So the super weapon isn't scientifically sound?
No shit, I hear Tie Fighters shouldn't make a sound in space either.
No shit, I hear Tie Fighters shouldn't make a sound in space either.
Isn't that inherent in being able to build the Death Stars, though?
Okay, those rendered the planet uninhabitable.
Still, it seems to me like that gets you 90% of the way to the trench. "Just" scale the power down, fire it off, and let the planet's rotation through the beam carve the trench.
I don't think anyone has ever accused JJ of properly developing antagonists. JJ is one of the rare people in the industry that could actually benefit from the use of a bit more exposition, and a little less of the macguffin.
That being said, the film accomplished what I was hoping for. A return to the original feel. It established the tone that star wars needs to have. And I fully expect Rian Johnson to create an impeccable sequel.
The EU references to Star Destroyers rendering a planet uninhabitable (Base Delta Zero) don't involve it being turned into a debris field. That's what Han said the Death Star couldn't do.
(Also, General Dodonna said the Death Star only had more "firepower than half the starfleet". While you can word-lawyer them to both be correct, it certainly implies that the Death Star's firepower can be exceeded by the entire fleet...)
I've not seen the film, so I'm going by your post, but...
They're not the same. You're indicating the StarKiller drew power from the sun. That would not necessarily destroy the sun. The star would still have nuclear fusion on to generate energy, which can last a very long time depending on the size of the star. As the sun the Earth revolves around is reported to be really small on comparrison to the average sized star telescoped out in the cosmos, I'm sure the sun the planet the StarKiller is on, will be like the Energizer Bunny: It'll keep going, and going, and going, and going.....
While on the other hand, what happened in Generations is completely different. Soran launched a fictional substance into the sun that according to on screen dialogue, inhibited all nuclear fusion in a star, which burned it out and caused it to supernova. Again, using your post as a reference, the StarKiller doesn't appear to stop nuclear fusion.
The Starkiller removed all 'light' from the star, which would imply all nuclear fusion has ceased and is no longer burning… anything.
My head-canon is that the Starkiller Base specifically targeted the smallest, weakest and coolest stars due to the necessity of being so close to them in order to charge. It is the only thing that makes any sense to me, especially given that the planet is frozen and yet seems to be so close to the star it is leeching off of.
The more complexity you introduce to a plot device the more sense it has to make to be satisfying. Nothing in the OT has the level of complexity of Starkiller Base or how it operates. The Death Star is just a big "turbolaser" which is just a big "blaster." The details are never explained because they aren't important. Starkiller however is explained just enough to make the audience aware of how little that explanation makes sense.
I think you overthink that. Trust me, 98% of the people heard the explanation, and said 'ok'.
Or, as my girlfriend said: With movies like this, I tune out the technobabble and just let the thing make boom. The science doesn't matter here.
EDIT: I really think it's important to realize that movie-makers are aware that there is a very, VERY small crowd out there that care about the science. But that group is so small, that they are not going to ruin an entire movie with an exposé on the science. Honestly, almost no one cares about that.
Of course they did. They just couldn't do it in real time with so many people. The letters page of Starlog often had nitpicky stuff sent in by readers.
Heat doesn't vanish instantly it'd take quite some time for the heat to bleed away into space/be absorbed by the masses on the planet.
And though they are interchangeable mass and energy are different, absorbing all of the energy of the star isn't the same as absorbing its mass.The weapon simply absorbed energy from the star faster than it could create it, eventually shutting off the fusion process. Some deal of mass would still remain.
So do we all freeze to death instantly every night?
The atmosphere is pretty good at storing and distributing heat.
The atmosphere is pretty good at storing and distributing heat.
Similar threads
