This thing is the most absurd vehicle that I can think of in the entire Star Wars universe. Pretty much every other craft I can think of has something interesting from an aesthetic or technical standpoint, or has a kind of utilitarian practicality about it. Unfortunately, the SF-17 was kind of lacking on all those aspects. And the way it was depicted in the film, it seemed like the writing staff forgot that the battle was in outer space.
This thing is the most absurd vehicle that I can think of in the entire Star Wars universe. Pretty much every other craft I can think of has something interesting from an aesthetic or technical standpoint, or has a kind of utilitarian practicality about it. Unfortunately, the SF-17 was kind of lacking on all those aspects. And the way it was depicted in the film, it seemed like the writing staff forgot that the battle was in outer space.
That is putting it so nicely. You deserve some kind of Keeping It Positive But Its Real Hard medal.
This thing was obviously inspired by the B-17 flying fortress. Not so much in design, but definitely in concept.
Except they forgot that the heavy strategic bomber niche doesn't exist in star wars because that just doesn't work in space. The way these things were portrayed in the movie, if nothing else, do a pretty good job of showing "why" that's the case.
There's also something inherently silly about a rebel group operating strategic bombers. I'd expect that from the Empire as a sort of aerial version of their heavy walkers, but not the highly mobile rag tag band of mavericks that the rebels are supposed to be.
But that's the sequel trilogy. Literally "every" single detail is worth it's own rant.
The old Rogue Squadron games portrayed the Y-Wing similarly, as a slow-but-durable bomber. Of course, all the actual bombing missions took place planetside...
The old Rogue Squadron games portrayed the Y-Wing similarly, as a slow-but-durable bomber. Of course, all the actual bombing missions took place planetside...
Only in the first one, there's space bombing in the later ones.
That's kinda my point. The Y-wing is a strike craft, meant to deliver ordinance while still being small and agile enough to avoid turbolaser batteries and survive in a dogfight. Both sides used their own versions during the clone wars, and the empire & FO field the Tie-bomber because it's more flexible and readily available than orbital bombardements.
True multi-crewed heavy bombers as humans know and use them was never a thing in star wars prior to TLJ, and since pretty much every single seat fighter comes with a hyperdrive the niche for "long range strategic bomber" simply isn't there.
This thing was obviously inspired by the B-17 flying fortress. Not so much in design, but definitely in concept.
Except they forgot that the heavy strategic bomber niche doesn't exist in star wars because that just doesn't work in space. The way these things were portrayed in the movie, if nothing else, do a pretty good job of showing "why" that's the case.
There's also something inherently silly about a rebel group operating strategic bombers. I'd expect that from the Empire as a sort of aerial version of their heavy walkers, but not the highly mobile rag tag band of mavericks that the rebels are supposed to be.
But that's the sequel trilogy. Literally "every" single detail is worth it's own rant.
These things are an insult to the B-17. For one thing, the B-17 lived up to it's name "Fortress". They were tough and it was very dangerous to approach a formation of them in a fighter. Luftawaffe pilots compared them to a porcupine or beehive. Any given approach had dozens of guns pointed at you.
I'll also point out that one of the major problems plaguing modern Star Wars is that they're taking inspiration from Star Wars...and not that which originally inspired Star Wars. Modern Star Wars plays out like video game scripts from the 90s and 00s. Those scripts are fine...for a video game. You know, those things which are like an amusement ride for kids to give them the illusion of knowledge and skills they don't actually possess? What can be done *in a video game* should not be lifted verbatim and applied to a movie screen. That does not work. When you get down to it, most of the things you do in video games is not there to challenge you, but to occupy your attention and ultimately provide a false sense of accomplishment.
You don't actually become a hero by playing a video game. And characters portrayed in the same vein as a video protagonist are going to be just as hollow.
