Entertainment desk
< June 20	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 21

Star Wars Episode 4

I've not seen the film, so bear with me if I get details wrong; I'm asking for a friend. Apparently, at one point, the protagonists fly down a long, tunnel-like structure without a roof (like a canyon, I suppose) in order to reach a reactor core and destroy it. She asks; why don't they simply fly directly at the core from above? Vimescarrot (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have to hide from the weapons defending the thing. The direct attack was an expected possibility and so they would be easy targets. --Anonymous, 19:08 UTC, June 21, 2009.

It doesn't seem to be any more or less defended than anywhere else though (actually if anything it is less defended, considering no one fires on Luke for a very long time while he's Force-fully aiming at it).

(Interrupting Adam Bishop to reply to his two points separately)

Yes, that's what I said. It was less defended that way. --Anonymous, 21:55 UTC, June 21, 2009.

The real answer, of course, is that it allowed for a extended kick-ass action scene using the most advanced special effects available at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And also, it resembled the attack sequence in 633 Squadron, which Lucas admired. --Anonymous, 21:55 UTC, June 21, 2009.

This is the most amusing questions I've ever seen here. Nothing personal. I'm just amused at someone who has never seen Star Wars: A New Hope describing the Death Star trench sequence. Thanks for brining a smile to my day. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. How is it amusing? Thanks for everyone else's responses. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing because Star Wars is an incredibly popular movie. I have no idea where you live, but in North America (and other English speaking countries), the percentage of people who have seen that film is probably quite high and even higher when you're only talking about the subset of people who use the internet. There was a time when you could virtually be assured that anyone you met on the internet had intimate knowledge of both Star Wars and Star Trek. Like being an anglophone and male though, that truism about the 'net has now become much less true. Matt Deres (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I was at university when the movie came out, and there was no need to ask anyone I knew whether they'd seen it -- the question to ask was how many times they'd seen it. --Anon, 03:24 UTC, June 23, 2009.

I wonder whether one ever gets over the shock of "Has it been thirty years already?". —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing to see such a shared cultural experience described by an outsider. Thanks, it made me smile. APL (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in the movie, Luke (the main hero) attends a briefing by the rebel leaders. They explain that the highest probability of success is to launch a large attack on the Death Star as a whole and then sneak a single fighter into the trench. It is a very brief explanation of the attack plan, which is good because a long discussion would have been very boring during an already boring lull in the action. -- kainaw ™ 21:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and yet Lucas still made Episode 1 ;-) --LarryMac | Talk 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I tried watching Episode 4, but...I'm too young. It looks too old to me. I can't enjoy it. O_o Vimescarrot (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need a stiff drink. This is really depressing! It's STAR WARS! Just watch it! PLEASE! :) --Navstar (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, twice. It was really, really boring. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen more than 1 hour of Star Wars. Borrowed the box set from someone, began "New Hope", and shortly later said, "What on earth is happening? Why do so many people enjoy this?" and I have a (moderate but growing) film collection and am often considered technical/nerdy. I just can't seem to get into it, but got through 15.5hrs of Heimat with no problem. Freedomlinux (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how the opening could be boring, particularly if you haven't grown up watching it so don't know how things are going to relate to later things. BUT, you are not too young. 10 year olds happily watch it and spend years making buzzing sounds to go with their invisible swords because they find it so exciting. I distinctly remember not understanding half the things that were going on in the plot until I was in my teens and watching for maybe the 5th time (no video player), but the exciting bits were still exciting. Find someone who enjoys the films and watch with them; they can tide you over the bits you find boring, make silly comments, and explain important plot-points you missed ;) Or watch with someone else who has never seen them, but has a similar sense of humour to you; you can mock the films together. If you can, see the original versions. 89.168.19.118 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious youth might do better to watch The Empire Strikes Back (aka Episode V), the only one with a decent script (by a real writer). —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VC, you wanna elaborate on "I'm too young"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another way to watch it... When I was in the Marines and I was constantly deployed to uninhabited mountain peaks all over the world, I decided to take up a rather boring task just to fill the time. On each deployment, I took a sack of movies with me to watch. I picked up every movie that won an academy award for best picture, best actor, or best actress. They were old, slow, and boring (but slightly more exciting than watching clouds move). To make it bearable, I made it my task to watch them and try to identify why they won an academy award. I was able to continue this until I got into the 50's. Then, the movies were so slow and boring that watching clouds was more interesting. So, if you watch Star Wars and simply try to identify why kids in the 70's would find it interesting, you might be able to make it past the boring factor. Keep in mind that MTV wasn't around yet. So, kids had an attention span of about 5 minutes, not 5 seconds. -- kainaw ™ 12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of enemy turrets at the surface. By entering the trench they were out of range of most of them.

It didn't really make sense that the trench itself was so lightly defended, or that the point they entered the trench was less defended than the target. "Star Wars" is not the sort of movie that holds up to that close of an examination. APL (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have 1 hour per day. Go crazy.

Okay, so imagine you have one hour every day, at noon, where time freezes and you can do what you like. You have a functional watch which tells you how long you've got. I'm curious as to what you'd do, but my real question is - what good things could you do with that daily hour? Traditional superhero stuff like rescuing people from burning buildings may sound like the obvious choice, but finding a burning building within an hour doesn't sound that easy to me... Vimescarrot (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuning? --Dr Dima (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some special self time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.208 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not a chat room; this is not the place to solicit opinions of this kind. There are many other forums out there where you can ask this kind of stuff. Matt Deres (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't after opinions, but what useful things might be practically possible to do within a one-hour time frame...Is that allowed? Vimescarrot (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define "useful". That is nothing but opinion. You are, in fact, attempting to start a discussion where random strangers throw opinions at one another and debate who has better opinions. This is not the place. Use a discussion forum. -- kainaw ™ 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better suited for the Science reference desk? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the questioner inquiring into the nature of morality, on a practical level, in the daily lives of busy people involved in endeavors that are not, on the surface of them, moral in nature? In other words, is the questioner asking what good can a person do if they are not employed in some obviously beneficial-to-mankind, kind of a way? Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything, a science fiction novel with similar premise by John D. MacDonald. Pepso2 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner is trying to find a practical use for an inconvenient superpower. I'll go get the book from a library...it sounds a lot like Bernard's Watch. I didn't understand "Tuning", but then, I've not seen the film... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "an inconvenient superpower." Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how is this inconvenient? It would make you enormously powerful. The potential for supervillainy is nigh limitless. Algebraist 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. I would spend that hour to do my banking. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see...

You could solve a hostage crisis. One hour would plenty of time to walk in, take all the terrorist's guns, "borrow" some handcuffs from the surrounding police and drag out the handcuffed terrorists.
If you had surgical skills or trained in them, imagine what radical new surgical techniques you could use in that hour of frozen time - you could operate without blood loss.

Just two examples. Exxolon (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks. Inconvenient because if you haven't thought of something to do in that hour...it'd be really boring. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but far more interesting is a discussion of what you couldn't do. Time is stopped -- change does not occur -- you could no more place the terrorists' arms in handcuffs than you could tie the Statue of Liberty into a pretzel. Your patient's skin would be impermeable as concrete. Doors would not open, cars would not run, the very air would be unbreathable. Time stop works well for the tricky genie doublecross story, but it's rife with irreconcilable, irrationalizable inconsistencies otherwise. — Lomn 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - all of which can be explained away by rubbish, false science in the interest of writing a good story. Breathing, for example, could be sorted by having the time-stop field expanded a small distance from your body to encapsulate the air directly in front of your nose. You'd have to keep moving, though, before you ran out of air. But I digress... Vimescarrot (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hero of The Fermata, by novellist (and Wikipedian) Nicholson Baker uses it to undress women, generally breach their privacy and masturbate. Although the hero reacts with utter disgust when someone he in turn poses this question to suggests actually raping women: a neat trick by the author. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

singer

So, because it's cooler to be a singer-songwriter than just a mere singer. Are artists given writing credit for songs in order to give the appearance that they had some input whereas in reality they had little to do with it? Is there a word for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.78.87 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's rare, because it would mean the writer gives up part of the royalties. —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The royalties don't have to go to the credited author. More likely the writer would demand full royalties and/or some sort of additional payment or some way to improve his/her professional status in return for the false credit. But I'm speaking hypothetically here. --Anonymous, 07:48 UTC, June 22, 2009.

The Turtles credited one of their songs to an engineer, so that he'd have the royalties as a "tip". That got him in some trouble, because it was against the rules for him to submit a song! In principle, one would think, they could have assigned him the royalties without putting his name on it; so why didn't they? —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostwritee? Ghostwriter#Music gives a couple of reasons for doing this. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly common for people to be given writing credits for "contractual" reasons. A good example would be the Beatles songs credited to Lennon/McCartney but actually written by just one of them. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]