StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stop me if you've heard this one.

But what if SW blasters (not talking ship level weaponry, just small arms and possibly ground vehicle level for starters) were actually rail-guns that fired "bottles" (of some unknown substance) containing explosive gas that reacted with targets when the bottle (or "bullet") struck a physical target?

This might not work in conjunction with lightsaber deflection of course, unless there's some "sweet spot" on each "bottle" that can be safely deflected at the correct angle (found with Jedi abilities) with a lightsaber without "breaking" it (sort of like the strength of an egg if you squeeze it in your hands at the proper points).

Anyway, let's hear this theory ripped to shreds, or at least somebody telling me it's been done before...

Actually, that's how BOWCASTERS work, not blasters.

Interesting. I thought bowcastors were supposed to be metallic energized bullets or something? I grant you, it's been a long time since I read up on that...

Praxis wrote:Actually, that's how BOWCASTERS work, not blasters.

That EU explanation is contradicted by canon. Read Brian Young's Turbolaser commentaries.

It's been awhile since I read over the TLC, but that's a discussion of turbolasers. Do we absolutely know that 'blasters' (infantry level small arms, possibly larger land based vehicle mounted weapons) are the same as "turbo lasers" (or "lasers")?

It's tempting to say that they are, just as it's tempting to say that the SuperLaser of the Death Star and some of the weapons seen in AOTC are the same, but that's not a given is it? Or is it...


Me, I always assumed Chewie's bowcastor was just another type of blaster, possibly the design being a converted crossbow, or with the ability to fire regular crossbow bolts as well as blaster shots (a multi purpose weapon, etc). In the movies it appears to just fire the standard "blaster" shots we know and love. But then the official literature seems to diagree...

Kurgan wrote:Do we absolutely know that 'blasters' (infantry level small arms, possibly larger land based vehicle mounted weapons) are the same as "turbo lasers" (or "lasers")?

We know they are based on similar technology and principles, but their in-flight behavior differ enough that it's a safe assumption that blasters are, in general, STL projectile weapons while turbolasers tend to be lightspeed energy beams.

Mad wrote:

Kurgan wrote:Do we absolutely know that 'blasters' (infantry level small arms, possibly larger land based vehicle mounted weapons) are the same as "turbo lasers" (or "lasers")?

We know they are based on similar technology and principles, but their in-flight behavior differ enough that it's a safe assumption that blasters are, in general, STL projectile weapons while turbolasers tend to be lightspeed energy beams.

No arcing. A few cases of damage before impact just like TLs.

nightmare wrote:No arcing. A few cases of damage before impact just like TLs.

But those aren't as much of a problem for bolt behavior as the non-beam behavior shown by blasters.

The biggest problem is bolt deflection. If we go by my turbolaser theory, then the bolt speed is timed such that it hits its target just as the beam ramps up to full power. So when a Jedi blocks the bolt, a lightspeed beam should be deflected and that beam should instantly hit whatever it is reflected into.

This does not happen. The bolt flies off into another direction, and after a delay hits something else, perhaps killing somebody. That delay would be impossible if the blaster was shooting a lightspeed beam.

As another note, AotC makes a mention about a lightsaber fighting style and its effectiveness against "projectile weapons like blasters."

Yeah, about the "damage before hit" thing, I remember, like when Luke's robot hand is damaged in ROTJ. Though, I still believe that this can be chalked up to SFX gaffs (I know, I know, others will still argue that I'm an idiot and this fits under SOD, etc).

Another thing (and this is only speculation I haven't tried it and don't really have time to) is to go through the films and see if there are any instances of "dodging" blaster bolts. If they are moving at lightspeed we'd have to assume that those doing the dodging are moving at FTL...

But that's only if any instances are actually observed.

Mad wrote:As another note, AotC makes a mention about a lightsaber fighting style and its effectiveness against "projectile weapons like blasters."

I believe that "projectile" is simply a reference to range.

Kurgan wrote:Yeah, about the "damage before hit" thing, I remember, like when Luke's robot hand is damaged in ROTJ. Though, I still believe that this can be chalked up to SFX gaffs

That'd be a lot of SFX gaffes, then. It also happened with the asteroid destroyed by a laser cannon shot in TESB. The asteroid turned white before the green bolt hit it. It just happens too many times in too many wildly different circumstances to be a coincidental string of errors.

Kurgan wrote:It's been awhile since I read over the TLC, but that's a discussion of turbolasers. Do we absolutely know that 'blasters' (infantry level small arms, possibly larger land based vehicle mounted weapons) are the same as "turbo lasers" (or "lasers")?

It's tempting to say that they are, just as it's tempting to say that the SuperLaser of the Death Star and some of the weapons seen in AOTC are the same, but that's not a given is it? Or is it...

Do you realy think I would direct you there if there was not relevent information there? I am quite fucking aware that they must operate by different mechanisms.

Me, I always assumed Chewie's bowcastor was just another type of blaster, possibly the design being a converted crossbow, or with the ability to fire regular crossbow bolts as well as blaster shots (a multi purpose weapon, etc). In the movies it appears to just fire the standard "blaster" shots we know and love. But then the official literature seems to diagree...

And his pages detail how the EU explanation is unworkable.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Kurgan wrote:Yeah, about the "damage before hit" thing, I remember, like when Luke's robot hand is damaged in ROTJ. Though, I still believe that this can be chalked up to SFX gaffs

That'd be a lot of SFX gaffes, then. It also happened with the asteroid destroyed by a laser cannon shot in TESB. The asteroid turned white before the green bolt hit it. It just happens too many times in too many wildly different circumstances to be a coincidental string of errors.

So the grand total of two instances qualifies as "a lot" now?

Crazedwraith wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:

Kurgan wrote:Yeah, about the "damage before hit" thing, I remember, like when Luke's robot hand is damaged in ROTJ. Though, I still believe that this can be chalked up to SFX gaffs

That'd be a lot of SFX gaffes, then. It also happened with the asteroid destroyed by a laser cannon shot in TESB. The asteroid turned white before the green bolt hit it. It just happens too many times in too many wildly different circumstances to be a coincidental string of errors.

So the grand total of two instances qualifies as "a lot" now?

There's more than that, I'm pretty sure. Didn't Leia's blaster do it too when she shot the stormtrooper on the Tantive IV during her capture? I'm not sure.

Rogue 9 wrote:It just happens too many times in too many wildly different circumstances to be a coincidental string of errors.

Have you ever worked on a film?

If you're going to use it in a debate you should probably come up with an explination, but in real world terms, I would bet one of my testicles that it is a coincidence.

Jessie Stamos wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:It just happens too many times in too many wildly different circumstances to be a coincidental string of errors.

Have you ever worked on a film?

Yes. Yes I have. But I wasn't on the special effects end of things, so I can't really speak for them regardless.

Ender wrote: Do you realy think I would direct you there if there was not relevent information there? I am quite fucking aware that they must operate by different mechanisms.

And his pages detail how the EU explanation is unworkable.

Fair enough. You are right that he does spend some time dealing with the blaster (& bowcastor, which was a side issue brought up by Praxis you'll note) issue.

And I didn't mean to accuse you (or anyone in particular) of saying that blasters & turbolasers are identical. I simply forgot that his page does make a clear distinction (while he focuses primarily on the ship weaponry), and there we don't disagree (ie: that blasters & turbo lasers aren't necessarily the same thing, even if they might be "similar").

---------

As to filmic elements, I have not done any special effects work for film either. But I wouldn't think it impossible for an effects team to create some effect and then declare it "good enough" (to fool the audience) when in fact it is less than perfect. We've all heard the stories of the early attempts at making the lightsabers "glow" and we've seen the metal sticks that Obi-Wan and Vader are clearly holding even in the special editions. We've seen the boxes around ships, the matte lines on the Rancor, etc. And we've heard the stories about the filming of Star Wars, and all the problems they had. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that the FX crew could have made mistakes, even repeated the same ones in multiple instances.

I'll admit it is still something of a judgement call without a crewer coming out and directly saying "We didn't mean for it to look that way, oops! We meant for it to look like ____. Sorry!"

The mere fact that we're dealing with the depiction of things that aren't real leaves open the possibility that there might be an explanation in the material itself, I admit that also. I mean, we don't try to argue that many of the characters in AOTC must be ghosts because they often don't cast shadows or appear to pass through solid objects at times.

Still, the "damage appears before bullet/missile/etc hits" is a common SFX gaff in a lot of movies (and in Star Wars films too, note how Anakin's arm gets cut before Dooku's saber hits), so when I see it in Star Wars, I immediately think "gaff" not "ah, invisible lightspeed weapon with visible tracer!" And I'm not planning to argue the TurboLaser thing, since that's been done to death here.

Kurgan wrote:Yeah, about the "damage before hit" thing, I remember, like when Luke's robot hand is damaged in ROTJ. Though, I still believe that this can be chalked up to SFX gaffs

I wouldn't rule out that some hand weapons might work on the TL principle as well, though they seem rare.

Like Disruptors?

Never seen one in operation so I couldn't say.

Well neither have I, except in the games, which don't count.

Though they are based on descriptions from the Essential Guide to Weapons and Tech, so that might list the sources they come from...

I was thinking about the massless energy travelling in a tight spiral theory again in order to explain E-11 blasters, in the new screenshots from the ANH 2004 DVD the shot fired from an E-11 is clearly translucent and sub-light speed, soit can't be a projectile-plasma weapon but we know from later on that E-11's aren't firing invisible beams with ripples either(the ANH trash compactor scene).

They really seem to be energy weapons and they seem to travel forwards at sub-light velocities, the idea of having the particles making up a blaster shot travelling in a tight spiral would have them being both, but IIRC this would create a visible drop in gravity as well.

Having the DVD's (19 days!) will definately be a nice thing for this type of analysis (sure, divx or LD rips and such are nice, but not everyone of us is so privileged)...

This "tight spiral" you speak of, this isn't like the Quake style "rail guns" is it? Or do you just mean the spin, like that of a physical "bullet" (say in a conventional firearm)?

What the hell does "light in a spiral" do for us? Its still moving sublight and will arc. It doesn't work.

E-11 shots are translucent? Bugger. Are any blaster shots opaque? Because some bad screen caps I've got kicking around have them as opaque bolts, but obviously the DVD would have priority...