My point is really that there’s an inconsistency that’s all. If I am honest, a ship moving faster than light should absolutely obliterate anything it collides with, even an x-wing. A ship at that speed is essentially performing the same function as a slug fired from a railgun (Halo MAC cannons, railguns in Mass Effect). But there’s clearly a reason in Star Wars, albeit unexplained, why they don’t and why it doesn’t work. And it’s shown not to work in Rogue One. However based on what we see in Last Jedi, something like a cruiser should have absolutely destroyed the Death Star. If it can destroy the First Order world ship, it would have been able to disable the Death Star. I mean, we saw a Super Star Destroyer cause significant damage to Death Star II with a slow motion crash, imagine if that had been hyperspeed.

Here’s some maths.

Assuming a weight of 20,000kg (roughly the same as an F22, which is probably lighter than an X-wing), if it moved at the speed of light it would strike the Death Star with a force of around 898755179 Kilotonnes in a single, concentrated impact. This is around 160000 times more powerful than a trident nuclear missile and 17975 times more powerful than the meteor that reportedly wiped out the dinosaurs. If we’re being honest, if an X-Wing travelling at the speed of light struck a planet it would probably destroy it…

So, in conclusion, if such a manoeuvre were possible, it would have been tried already. Probably against the Death Star or Super Star Destroyers. But it hasn’t so there must hitherto have been some reason why it wasn’t used against the Death Star. This is by far the least egregious of The Last Jedi’s issues.

I am appealing to real world physics (and indeed logic) because real world physics and logic still apply. Whilst there’s obviously lore that implies the denizens of the galaxy far far away have mastered other areas of science that we have not and can work around some of those physical laws, there’s no evidence that any of the physical laws as we understand them don’t apply. It’s called verisimilitude, without it stories tend to be less relatable and believable.

But like I said, the only thing I am really pointing out is that it’s a massive inconsistency. My point isn’t whether it should be possible or impossible within Star Wars lore, only that if it IS possible it would have been tried already, at least twice in fact. And that if it is possible it would in fact be possible with something as small as an X-wing. Smaller, in fact, which would have lead to the development of Hyperspace projectiles and missiles because that’s how militaries generally work. Of course you could say I am reading too much into what is, when all’s said and done, just Fantasy but it all boils down to verisimilitude; the further you deviate from our own reality the less of it you have and the harder something becomes to accept and believe. When you think about it, the only real difference between Star Wars and reality is the technology and “magic”, or the Force. Humans are still humans, gravity is still gravity, politics is still politics. All the things that are common between Star Wars and Reality exist and behave exactly as you expect them to and this is really, really important for story telling. Any difference between what js possible in Star Wars but impossible in reality is explained by Technology or Magic. But there’s no specific technology involved in hyper-ramming a ship into another one, nothing in the film suggests that and as we have seen, the hyper-ram worked. For this to be true, it must therefore follow that it was possible all along. Which then raises the massive questions of why didn’t they ram the Death Star and why didn’t they invent hyperspace missiles? Simply saying “physics doesn’t work the same” doesn’t wash because in every other way, it does work the same. Why would that one physical equation evaluate differently when all others evaluate the same?

I’m not trying to say that you didn’t really like TLJ or that shouldn’t like it. If you enjoyed TLJ that’s absolutely fine. But enjoying the film doesn’t plug those plot holes or correct the inconsistencies. Basically, if something has to be explained after the film, it wasn’t a good film and the new Star Wars films really do no need a hell of a lot of explaining.

Of course there’s an inconsistency, the inconsistency of why something like has never been tried before. Ramming has been part of naval warfare here for centuries, millennia even, so it stands to reason that they would be well aware of such a tactic and that speed and mass play a huge part in its effectiveness. If it were indeed possible to perform a hyperspace collision/ram it WOULD have been tried before. What we actually see in TLJ with the hyperspace collision is inconsistent with what has gone before. There’s never been an example of it happening and so it is assumed that it doesn’t. Then all of a sudden it is shown to work raising the question of why it’s never been performed before (or why a civilisation as advanced as Star Wars hasn’t just invented Hyperspace Missiles to do the same job). That’s the inconsistency, the raising of the question of why it hasn’t been tried before and so far your best answer seems to be “because Physics doesn’t work the same” (actually all the evidence suggests that it does) or “because it looks cool” (Star Wars never traded solely on what looks cool).

From what I can see, the Hyperspace Ram serves only two purposes. One, to give Admiral Holdo a heroic death, something the character doesn’t really justify. And two, to “subvert expectations” which it does, but in doing so creates a whopping inconsistency with everything that had gone before.

All of the other things you claim are playing fast and loose are believable because of either our acceptance of the existence of the Force or the technology gap as shown in the film. They are also all consistent between films.

Fixed Length Laser Swords – sure we don’t know how to make one but it is conceivable that a society as far ahead technologically as Star Wars might just know a thing or two about science that we don’t. So we accept it as possible. Crucially though, light sabres are consistent throughout all films, the only noticeable differences being blade colour and the design of the hilt.

Telekinesis we accept the fantasy that magic exists and that users of it can move things around. Again it’s also entirely consistent from one film to the next.

Super Powerful Lasers capable of destroying planets. Well, as humans we have already developed technology capable of destroying our own world, although perhaps not blowing up the entire planet. But we do know that if an object is struck with enough force it will break, that doesn’t matter whether it’s a crystal glass or a planet, the only thing that changes is the amount of force needed. I don’t particularly like the Death Star as a concept, it’s tactically unsound, but it does fit the narrative. Again, it’s also consistently portrayed between all the films in which it appears.

When you are only dealing with a single stand alone film you don’t really need to worry too much about “consistency”, it need only be consistent with itself. So when Episode IV was released for the first time, consistency wasn’t a problem. When Empire Strikes back was released it had to ensure that it stayed true to Episode IV while still telling a new chapter in the story and so on and so forth. So nobody tried flying a ship into the Death Star at hyperspeed in Episode IV, there’s absolutely no explanation as to why they didn’t, nor do we really need one. The fact that they didn’t try it and opted for the highly dangerous fighter Assault is enough of a justification for us to assume that hyperspace ramming doesn’t work. Also, it would be a pretty crap end and would largely undermine the threat of the Death Star if it were possible. So there’s a plot reason not to do it but in order for that plot reason to work without an actual explanation, it has to be seen to be something that is consistently applied. Which up until TLJ it was. Now, suddenly, it’s been done which breaks the acceptance of what has happened in previous films and hence the question of why such a simple tactic hasn’t been done before. What really happened is that Disney went with “what looks cool” instead of “what looks cool but also remains consistent with previous films”.

Not a sensible tactic, a desperate tactic. The sort of tactic you might use when you have very few options available. Were the Reb… Resistance desperate in TLJ? Yes. Was this the most desperate situation we have ever seen in a Star Wars film? No. I would argue Yavin was more desperate and also time constrained. If Hyperspace Ramming were a plausible, if somewhat desperate, tactic then Yavin was the place to do it. With only a small window of opportunity to destroy the Death Star before it fires and destor the entire Rebel Alliance, if you had two options, hyperspace ramming or Fighter Assault, you would choose the quickest option, or maybe even try both – start with a hyperspace ram with fighters on standby. But they didn’t and as viewers we take it as read that it isn’t possible. Now we’re left questioning why they didn’t try it, and it’s interesting that you say “who knows” as an answer to that question; because that is the plot hole, the inconsistency, right there. We don’t know why the rebel alliance didn’t just ram the death star, despite being in an equally if not more desperate predicament and there’s no adequate explanation given.

You say maybe because it was too close to Yavin, but the Death Star blew up anyway, what difference does it make whether that goal is achieved via a fighter Assault or a Hyperspace Ram, why is the collateral damage more severe if it was rammed instead of having its reactor detonated? The size of the explosion wouldn’t be any bigger because it was rammed, in fact there’s a chance it might even be smaller. If collateral damage were a concern they wouldn’t take any action to detonate the Death Star. Now, maybe your explanation is correct, but the point is the film does give that explanation and it leaves viewers having to try and internally reconcile and justify what they have just seen with what they have seen and understood from previous films. It doesn’t flow naturally and it doesn’t fit with previous events.

Don’t get me wrong, if you can overlook it, that’s totally fine. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a massive inconsistency, it just means it doesn’t bother you.

No its not. In fact when the Raddus rams the supremacy there isn’t an explosion as such. The Raddus disintegrates and the Supremacy is cut in two, it is disabled but it doesn’t actually explode. Flying straight through the centre if the Death Star would probably cause an explosion though, of the exact same magnitude as detonating it via a proton torpedo.

https://i2.wp.com/qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-04ae3cbd0b63770483f021e9b7c34334

Not the size of explosion I would expect. Not an explosion at all really.

This really isn’t about trying something new, it’s about why something as simple as a high speed ramming manoeuvre is considered “new” in TLJ. It’s such a simple tactic, it requires zero new technology to achieve and is then shown to be effective. That being the case there’s no adequate reason why it hasn’t been done before and, specifically, why it wasn’t performed against the Death Star. If they had shown, in the film, that the Raddus had been specially modified in some way maybe by having a reinforced nose or special shields or a special hyperdrive it may be believable that up until that point it wasn’t possible. But they don’t show anything of the sort which leads us to the conclusion that this was always possible and thus leads inevitably to the question, why didn’t the Rebel Alliance do it against the Death Star? That’s why it’s so hard to believe that the Rebe… Resistance are trying something new; it’s because that “new” thing is an incredibly primitive tactic

In terms of “desperation” the Rebels couldn’t escape the Death Star at the Battle of Yavin. But to compound that by losing not only would they be destroyed but they would then be allowing the Empire to unleash the Death Star on the Galaxy. The two are comparable but I think there’s potentially much higher stakes in the original Star Wars film.

It sems to me that it affects exactly the amount of space that you would expect from two ships colliding at high speed. It doesn’t seem to either explode or implode, it breaks up on impact, much like an aircraft does when it crashes.

I also totally disagree that writers are limited purely to what has been seen before. Introducing new things is both desirable and necessary but they have to be explained, especially if they appear to contradict previous films. TLJ fails to do this on a number of occasions.

Star Wars has never necessarily tried to be physics accurate but at the same time it hasn’t actively flouted physics in any way that other sci fi shows do (i.e. faster than light travel, laser weapons). It’s never gone into detail about how these things work but it hasn’t actually gone out of its way to defy newtonian physics. So it seems, in the surface at least, that the laws governing force and kinetic energy seem to behave normally in almost every situation which means the limitations on whether or not a ship can be collided with another at light speed to destroy it are not related to physics and therefore I (and lots of other people) require an explanation of why it hasn’t been done before and why FTL projectiles haven’t been developed as a weapon. From what you seem to be saying, you accept that it’s a bit flangy but you’re ok with it and can overlook that. Which is fine, I have already said it’s OK to like it and it’s ok to overlook the gaping plot holes it contains but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there, and by being there it makes it objectively a bad story even if subjectively you enjoyed it anyway (Starship Troopers falls into that category for me)

There’s lots of possibilities for everything, that’s not the issue. Golden rule of film is Show, don’t tell. TLJ does neither, it just leaves game changing events and actions unexplained. And that’s the issue, it does so many things without even telling how or why they’re only possible now despite everything we have seen in previous films suggesting they have always been possible, they just haven’t been done. The issue, a total lack of exposition or explanation about any of those things.

The issue with Force Projection is that it seems to run counter to anything that’s happened before but it’s also just lazy. Like, we want Luke to refuse to travel with Rey but still be there to save the day. It’s Deus Ex Machina. It’s basically breaking with precedent set in previous films for no reason other than to service bad writing. Much like the Hyperspace Ramming.