Star Wars flaws? Get over it!

Scott Manning
November 7, 2002 | Comments (7)

starwarsfake (26k image)

I finally picked up my August issue of Computer Graphics World the other days and came across an interesing article entitled "Star Wars Flaws". It was a letter from a Greg Roelofs in San Jose, CA. Greg had some thought-provoking things to say about the cohesiveness of the Star Wars movies.

In the middle of his page-long letter, Greg says "The biggest flaw is the most pervasive one: Namely, in a technologically advanced culture where nearly every vehicle floats and half of them can attain escape velocity, energy must be essentially free-in which case mud huts, subsistence farming, and slave labor make little or no sense. In addition, a slave who has the knowledge and resources to create an AI from scratch (C3P0) and to build a jet-powered hover pod from spare parts must be stupendously valuable-yet he's allowed to wander around in a dangerous locale, one in which his mother is eventually kidnapped and killed. Under what economic model does any of this make sense?"

It goes on and on. He even goes on to talk about how if stars where closer together in a cluster, there would be no night sky.

From this letter, I can tell that Greg is one of those of people that feel the need to point out that wrestling is fake whenever it is on. This proves my theory that these same people cannot enjoy movies either.

To Greg, and all the other technical geeks - Wrestling is fake. So is Star Wars and so is the Matrix. You'll never enjoy until you learn to get over the fact that it is all fake and have fun.

Enjoy this article? There's more. Digital Survivors is a source of articles, tutorials, reviews, and commentary on all things digital.

Stay informed with , our feed is permanently ad-free.

These articles are new:

	The Best Solution for the Financial Crisis
	Photos from the McCain/Palin Rally in Media, PA (9/22/08)
	Churchill's Earliest Warning About Hitler
	"Friendship with Germany" by Churchill (Sep 17, 1937)

If you don't immediately see what you want, you can start a topic in our forums.

Comments (7):

1) Posted by: Justin
November 8, 2002 12:01 PM

Go Scott!

2) Posted by: Chris
November 11, 2002 2:47 AM

Anyone ever noticed in about EVERY car chace scene, the street suddenly is soaking wet? Is that NOT fake too?

3) Posted by: MixMatch
November 12, 2002 2:19 AM

Santa Clause is still real. Isn't he?

4) Posted by: Phil B
November 12, 2002 5:15 AM

I'll have to agree....and slightly disagree with you on this one. Certain movies don't lend themselves to too close an analysis of facts, consistancy, or making sense. They are just for fun. Though even with these the best ones are still those with good scripts, some cohesiveness, and that entertain the mind as well as the senses. The Matrix is a great movie to enjoy on all levels but doesn't have to answer all of my questions to fulfill it's purpose. The bottom line is, "does it entertain me".

I didn't need sociological and cultural consistancy or common sense to make Star Wars enjoyable. With so many species inhabiting the same living space who is to say what the norm would be. That wasn't the point of the movie.

But many movies do more than entertain. They challenge, stimulte thinking, move us, inform, ect.. Movies that are supposed to portray something akin to real life situations, are much more effective if they get the facts right, and don't have holes in the story "big enough to drive a semi through".

5) Posted by: Scott
November 12, 2002 8:22 AM

It looks like someone is finally getting it. ;)

6) Posted by: MixMatch
November 13, 2002 12:47 AM

>It looks like someone is finally getting it. ;)

I knew he was real and all those punks at school were a bunch of brianless idiots! Thanks for the confirmation Scott!

7) Posted by: Scott
November 13, 2002 6:55 AM

RE: I knew he was real

LOL. Yeah, he's real. He's acutally my father-in-law. He knows more about movies than I could ever imagine.

One of the disadvantages of letting people anonomysously comment on your site, is they tend not to think through their three-word answers. Phil would be the opposite of this spectrum.