If the max acceleration of all the ships was wildly different then the Rebel fleet would've increased the distance, yet they did not, so its obviously not possible. Further, the ships running out of fuel has nothing to do with anything. Also, your assumption that the jump could be executed at any range is based on what data?Patroklos wrote: ↑2018-02-23 01:33am Doesn't work based on what we see in the movie. There is no reason for the ships to wait until they actually run out of fuel. If this was possible it should have been realized instantly by both sides (again, just like 99% of the audience). So unless the max acceleration of all the ships present just happens to be exactly the same (I hope you realize how stupid this would be), a rebel cruiser who is already outside of the destructive range of the FO guns with hours worth of fuel at whatever acceleration should have been able to burn ahead to execute the jump well outside the FOs ability to interfere.
This reminds me of what Pablo Hidalgo said when being questioned about the ram on twitter re: "oh why didn't Holdo just get someone else to do it or use a droid or whatever".
"Why assume it's easy?"
(oh and also, it was never Holdo's original intention to being with, but anyway)
That's pretty much the beginning and the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I don't see the need to deliberately find fault with a really straightforward scene. Probably because I enjoyed the film.
Any movie you care to name has some sort of 'more logical' solution to a problem baked in that would nullify an entire scene - or even the entire film. That's not the point of writing or watching a movie. It's just a sad exercise in joyless nitpicking and missing the entire point of why we watch films in the first place.Don't write yourself into corners where such things make sense then.
So sure, Rian Johnson could've written the movie so that the Resistance are hyper-competent cold-hard badasses who will of course immediately leap to the idea that suiciding their ships into the enemy fleet will totally work because of [insert unstated assumptions that are nowhere in the film as shot here]. It also would've ruined the film. What a tough call.It’s an age old quandary where someone asks “why didn’t they just do __ to solve the problem?” and the answer is because then the movie would be over. Every single conflict scenario you have ever seen on screen has probably had a more logical solution than the one that plays out It in the narrative, but that truly doesn’t matter.
That sentiment should be blindingly obvious to all of us, and yet we still love to ask those logical questions. Especially with horror movies (this is largely because we place ourselves in the stalkee’s shoes a great deal in those kinds of movies and actively look for solutions on our own). But the real answer to “why didn’t they just do ____” in a horror movie is always because if they don’t, it’s the way to make the most effective, dramatic scare, which, lest we forget, is utterly the point of why we are in the theatre. Of course, there are a million other things that have to do with making an effective scare or an emotionally effective scene, but Hulk assures you they often don’t have all that much to do with plot logic either.
So in Hulk’s mind, these sorts of overt logic questions that are “movie-stoppers” are really not even worth getting into that much. They fundamentally misunderstand what the goal of a dramatic experience is all about.