The Empire Strikes Out - Inside the Battle of Hoth

[Ed Anger]

B5 needed Bester mind raping everybody.

[Agelastus]

Erm...



Going back to the original opener of the thread, since when did the Rebel Base at Hoth have a planetary shield? The dialogue in the film is quite explicit that the shield protects only a portion of the planet; said portion of the planet also happens to be the rough firing arc of the Ion canon.

[It's also a reasonable assumption from the sequence of events and the topography shown in the film that the Ion canon is some distance from the Rebel Base and that the Probe Droid was destroyed before locating it; the Empire doesn't know when planning it's attack and organising the blockade that the Rebels have a ground based weapon that can reach them in orbit.]

I always assumed that the Shield had flaws at the edges due to the imperfections of the terrain (Hoth's a long way from being a flat plain) and the Walkers slipped in under the shield using one of these flaws.

And as for using a "planetary bombardment" to kill all the Rebels? There's a simple problem with that - it's the Emperor who wants the Rebels dead; Vader wants Luke.

I'm not overly impressed by the analysis of the battle, in other words.

---------------

As for Endor I have to agree that the retreat of the fleet is fairly inexplicable. The EUs explanations and expansions work (the Emperor's 'Force Borging' of his troops, the death of all the Imperial commanders on scene - including IIRC three Grand Admirals etc. etc.) after a fashion given they also have the battle lasting for several hours after the destruction of the Death Star, but it still feels like a hole.

One thing I do suspect without having to rely on the EU for evidence is that the Empire did not actually outmass/outnumber the Rebellion by a huge amount at the battle; relying solely on the forces under Vader's direct command rather than redeploying additional fleet units that might have been noted by Rebel spies.

The Death Star was the "big equaliser" and when that blew it became a slugging match that could have gone either way but that the rebels one due to their higher morale (even ignoring the death of Vader, the Emperor and your admiral seeing several million of your fellow soldiers killed all at once can't have been anything but highly demoralising.

-----------------

I find it amusing that a thread initially about Star Wars has become a discussion of the relative merits of Deep Space 9, Voyager, Enterprise, Babylon 5, "New" Battlestar Galactica and Farscape! Within no more than a page.

I have to agree with the poster who said that Farscape was the best at character development; while Babylon 5 had some individually compelling character arcs it was somewhat erratic. G'Kar's development, for example, was spectacularly well done; on the other hand, despite all the traumas and experiences of her four years presence in the series I'd be hard pressed to point out any real growth on Ivanova's part.

Conversely, Babylon 5's a much better "Arc show" than DS9, Farscape or BSG, despite the truncation of the main arc into four seasons rather than the planned five. DS9's arcs feel "bolted on", Farscape's arcs are too often treated as an afterthought in the development of the seasons episodes, and BSG's arcs are fatally compromised by the retcons introduced by the creators of the show in the later seasons.

[11B4V]

So much intellectualizing. 

This shit is important, man.

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

Awesome. Suck it..... ...hell, what do you even call you Star Wars freaks?  Nerds?

[grumbler]

As for Endor I have to agree that the retreat of the fleet is fairly inexplicable. The EUs explanations and expansions work (the Emperor's 'Force Borging' of his troops, the death of all the Imperial commanders on scene - including IIRC three Grand Admirals etc. etc.) after a fashion given they also have the battle lasting for several hours after the destruction of the Death Star, but it still feels like a hole.

One thing I do suspect without having to rely on the EU for evidence is that the Empire did not actually outmass/outnumber the Rebellion by a huge amount at the battle; relying solely on the forces under Vader's direct command rather than redeploying additional fleet units that might have been noted by Rebel spies. 

I am assuming that the "EU" is the retconned retconn of the Star Wars retconn.  At what point does the Star Wars fanboi just acknowledge that it is a fun fantasy (well for three movies, anyway) without a meaningful larger "universe" in which to place it?  These attempts to bolt on a background just sound absurd to an outsider, and frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I was caught trying to pretend that Star Wars was anything but a fantasy set in an illogical (like all fantasy) universe.

I have to agree with the poster who said that Farscape was the best at character development; while Babylon 5 had some individually compelling character arcs it was somewhat erratic. G'Kar's development, for example, was spectacularly well done; on the other hand, despite all the traumas and experiences of her four years presence in the series I'd be hard pressed to point out any real growth on Ivanova's part.

I can't really debate Farscape's long-term character development, because I failed a morale check at the end of the first season and never watched more.  I certainly didn't see any character development in the first season, but that was probably because the show hadn't found its feet yet and, like TNG, B5, and DS9 before it, was mostly retreading old SF stories.

Ivanova went through a lot of character development, though you had to watch the series in order to see it.  She started as a humorless, by-the-book officer who was definitely wound too tight (due to family issues, we discover later on), to the black-humor-loving improviser who understands the importance of the bigger picture, to a famous but burned out case who considers herself to be valued only because she can be "trotted out so kids could point their fingers" at her and who delivers that brilliant final soliloquy.  She is damaged goods at the start of the show, finds herself, and then loses everything she cares about to finish as damaged goods again.

[Ed Anger]

So much intellectualizing. 

This shit is important, man.

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

Awesome. Suck it..... ...hell, what do you even call you Star Wars freaks?  Nerds?

Virgins.

[CountDeMoney]

At what point does the Star Wars fanboi just acknowledge that it is a fun fantasy (well for three movies, anyway)

2.66 movies.

[Agelastus]

I am assuming that the "EU" is the retconned retconn of the Star Wars retconn.  At what point does the Star Wars fanboi just acknowledge that it is a fun fantasy (well for three movies, anyway) without a meaningful larger "universe" in which to place it?  These attempts to bolt on a background just sound absurd to an outsider, and frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I was caught trying to pretend that Star Wars was anything but a fantasy set in an illogical (like all fantasy) universe.

And Babylon 5 isn't a "fun fantasy" with plotholes as well?

Of course it's a fun fantasy, but a plothole in a movie is still a plothole; why shouldn't it be discussed?

By the way, if the whole EU is the third retconn (assuming I've counted your retconns correctly) what was retconns 1 and 2?

I can't really debate Farscape's long-term character development, because I failed a morale check at the end of the first season and never watched more.  I certainly didn't see any character development in the first season, but that was probably because the show hadn't found its feet yet and, like TNG, B5, and DS9 before it, was mostly retreading old SF stories.

Fair enough; apart from the retreads there's a fair number of "dud" (very poor) episodes in the first season as well.

Ivanova went through a lot of character development, though you had to watch the series in order to see it.  She started as a humorless, by-the-book officer who was definitely wound too tight (due to family issues, we discover later on), to the black-humor-loving improviser who understands the importance of the bigger picture, to a famous but burned out case who considers herself to be valued only because she can be "trotted out so kids could point their fingers" at her and who delivers that brilliant final soliloquy.  She is damaged goods at the start of the show, finds herself, and then loses everything she cares about to finish as damaged goods again.

I have seen it, Grumbler; I watched it when first broadcast in the UK and own the DVDs...I've even watched the incredibly dud first season episode involving that sick alien boy and his parent's religious beliefs at least six times when rewatching the series (although I've really, really had to force myself not to skip it the last four times.)

Ivanova is a bright, loyal to her commander, by the book officer with a hint of recklessness at the start of season 1; she is essentially the same at the end of season 4, albeit mourning for Marcus. The revelation of her secrets, the trauma of Talia's betrayal, everything except the death of Marcus (which has literally just happened) doesn't seem to have affected her to any great extent, not in her public nor her private persona.

Then she's a jaded half-wreck in the 20 years later episode, filmed for the end of season 4 but shown at the end of season 5. She evolves and develops but the majority occurs off-screen in that twenty year period. Whereas in the case of G'Kar, or Londo, or Vir, we get to see the changes occur over the four years of the main arc (and they're still evolving in the final year as well.)

In terms of character development the "Alien arcs" are by far the most compelling ones in Babylon 5; it makes me wonder if JMS is more comfortable writing for non-human characters than he is for human since of the human characters only Garibaldi has nearly as compelling a developmental arc for his character.

[grumbler]

And Babylon 5 isn't a "fun fantasy" with plotholes as well?

No, B5 is a fun SF tale with plot holes.  There is a difference between fantasy like Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz and SF like Star Trek or B5. 

By the way, if the whole EU is the third retconn (assuming I've counted your retconns correctly) what was retconns 1 and 2?

Before the EU there was the EEC, and before that the ECSC.

I have seen it, Grumbler; I watched it when first broadcast in the UK and own the DVDs...I've even watched the incredibly dud first season episode involving that sick alien boy and his parent's religious beliefs at least six times when rewatching the series (although I've really, really had to force myself not to skip it the last four times.)

Ivanova is a bright, loyal to her commander, by the book officer with a hint of recklessness at the start of season 1; she is essentially the same at the end of season 4, albeit mourning for Marcus. The revelation of her secrets, the trauma of Talia's betrayal, everything except the death of Marcus (which has literally just happened) doesn't seem to have affected her to any great extent, not in her public nor her private persona.

Well, I have explained her character development.   She is certainly not a "by the book" officer by the end of the Shadow War (she lies to and insults the First Ones to get them to join her side, for instance.  That's not "by the book.")  If you refuse to see it, then there's nothing to discuss.  Your refusal to acknowledge Ivanova's character changes does make your criticism of the lack of it rather hollow, however.

In terms of character development the "Alien arcs" are by far the most compelling ones in Babylon 5; it makes me wonder if JMS is more comfortable writing for non-human characters than he is for human since of the human characters only Garibaldi has nearly as compelling a developmental arc for his character.

Your comments make me wonder if you are more comfortable analyzing non-human characters than you are for humans, because you miss considerable character development in Sheridan, Bester, Franklin, Alexander, and Allen, all of them human.  Plus Ivanova, of course.

The alien characters get more "character development,' in a way, because they are alien, and so all of their character has to be developed.   Lennier, for instance, didn't really change during the series, he (and we) just found out more about him and what he was actually capable of.

[Neil]

Especially Lyta Alexander.  That said, I think that Londo and G'Kar do have the broadest arcs of any characters in the series, even Sheridan.  G'Kar is almost unrecognizable compared to his earlier self, and Londo not far behind, but because the story is so well-crafted it makes sense.

Vis-a-vis Ivanova, I think she comes a long way between the beginning of the series and the end of Season 4.  I don't think it's super obvious, because she's still fundamentally quiet and the sort of person who supports others rather than forging her own path the way that Sheridan would.  In the beginning, she comes off as a bit green, especially in comparison to the wise guru Sinclair or the worldly veteran Garibaldi.  When Sheridan showed up he really made an effort to develop Ivanova, and you could see by the way she interacted with other characters.  By the end, she was a more confident character, albeit wounded from all the losses she had suffered in the war against Clarke.

[chipwich]

One thing I do suspect without having to rely on the EU for evidence is that the Empire did not actually outmass/outnumber the Rebellion by a huge amount at the battle; relying solely on the forces under Vader's direct command rather than redeploying additional fleet units that might have been noted by Rebel spies.

The Death Star was the "big equaliser" and when that blew it became a slugging match that could have gone either way but that the rebels one due to their higher morale (even ignoring the death of Vader, the Emperor and your admiral seeing several million of your fellow soldiers killed all at once can't have been anything but highly demoralising.

Agreed. Endor was a secret installation and only the Emperor knew that the rebellion was going to risk everything on Endor (and he expressly did not share the plan with Piet).  This suggests that the naval garrison was medium-large rather than overpowering. The rebels almost certainly knew that they were going to face a large fleet including the Executor, and so wouldn't have launched the attack without enough ships to take them on. The Emperor's plan hinged on the Death Star + battle meditation.

[Neil]

We know that there was a significant Imperial fleet there, just from having watched the movie.  The Rebel fleet is a little hazier, since I don't recall us ever getting a really good shot of the whole fleet at Endor.

[Queequeg]

Star Trek rewards intellectual debate.  Babylon 5 rewards intellectual debate.  But Star Wars?  There's nothing intellectual there.  It is just a fourth-rate space opera concept carried out without any concern for continuity or logic or overall plot.  Debating Vader's tactics at Hoth is no more "intellectual" than debating Dorothy's tactics against the flying monkeys.

It's a lot more pleasing aesthetically, and the core characters of the original trilogy are more distinct and enjoyable than their equivalents in Trek. 

[viper37]

Even assuming the shield was constructed so that there was only one aperture, how could the Empire have known this fact?  Or knowing this fact, how could they have known its location?

They could lower the shield more, buy then they'd be exposed to orbitabl bombardment.

The rebels have a "rag tag fleet", they are under-equipped compared to the central authority (rebels usually are ).
Presumably, they have smaller shield that can not cover then entire planet, and you should not see it as one big shield, but rather a series of overlapping shields.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Planetary_shield

[viper37]

Still, for all we know the fleets might still be engaged at the end of ROTJ, although the attitude of the rebels makes it seem unlikely.  The Imperial fleet seemed much larger and more powerful than the rebel one, so I would hope that whoever took command after Admiral Piett died was hanged for cowardice.  There's no good reason to pull your superior fleet back, even though you've just lost a Death Star and your flagship.

Imagine a naval battle where the King is present in his most famous Dreadnought.
Somehow, the ennemy has managed to sink the Dreadnought killing the King.
The King's most trusted general is also presumed killed in the battle.
Then, there's another command ship with the Fleet's top admirals who is sunk.

Don't you think that changes the momento of the battle?

Also, keep in mind that this being Star Wars, the Emperor is using his battle meditation technique to coordinate the assault on the rebel fleet.  Once dead, there is a degree of coordination lost, and there's really no one strong enough left on the field to take command and rally the troops to victory.

[viper37]

There are quite a few examples in ROTS of people who follow Palpatine like drones because they are demonstratively under his magic sway. For example his guests in the Opera house with Anakin, the alien chancellor who calls him master, the Senators during his discourse, and so on.

If I were an Imperial officer, deploying massive, planet-destroying resources to pursuit a 18 year old blond Ken doll- like peasant from Tatooine would certainly appear whimsical. Yet they do stupid military decisions like this without a single protest.

While technology is quite fundamental to the Empire, such a huge Empire oddly doesn't have any factionalism among its military human elements; on the contrary they seems totally subjugated to Palpatine's every whimsical order. Either it is an effect of simple, sheer Stalinian terror among its military (which we have no evidence of, except directly when Vader is involved. As an aside in the original trilogy novelization his casual 'dismissal' of officers for even trivial military mistakes in one big stain on his rap sheet, and a reason of dissatisfaction of officers serving under him) or Dark Side Magic (as in the canon totally, indiscutably exists).

The Emperor doesn't really use the Force to control each individual.  It's more like extreme coordination, everyone reacting when they should react.  And Stalinian terror.  Tarkin's theory is to rule by fear.