Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site iitcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!iitcs!draughn
From: draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Blaster aim in STAR WARS
Message-ID: <168@iitcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 02:15:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: iitcs.168
Posted: Mon Sep 16 02:15:16 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 05:56:44 EDT
References: <275@lzwi.UUCP>
Reply-To: draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark draughn)
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago Il.
Lines: 57

In article <275@lzwi.UUCP> psc@lzwi.UUCP (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
>There have be numerous comments on lousy blaster aim in the STAR WARS
>movies.  Though it's not mentioned anywhere, there seems to be a
>pattern - blasters are affected by the Force.

I'll buy this.  It even seems to extend to the guns on the fighters.
Luke's fighter consistently takes hit after hit without major damage
(i.e. it still flies and still has life support) nearly all other
fighters blow up when hit.

>First, note that non-living targets are dog meat for blasters.
>Examples:  the sand crawler and the cell block cameras in STAR WARS
>[a.k.a. A NEW HOPE], the Rebel's power station in TESB.  Second, note
>that, with one exception, *nobody* can squeeze off a single shot and hit
>a person.

This is nothing new.  Police reports of gun battles show that most
bullets miss their intended targets.  There are two basic reasons
for this.

First, stress interferes with performance and even someone with years
of training can't hit a damned thing.

Second, self preservation.  If there are thirty-five cops around, no single
cop is likely to risk getting shot by exposing himself long enough to get
in a careful shot.  (This is worse in wars, where soldiers often stay in
fox holes, firing blindly by holding the rifle above their heads.  The
bullets-per-kill ratios can run into the thousands.)  The same effect probably
occurs with blasters.  (Although, the stormtroopers seem to just stand and fire,
and they get mowed down accordingly.)

>Third, consider the exception:  when Obi-Wan Kenobi dies in the first
>movie.  (Dear oh dear, I hope I haven't spoiled the movie for anyone.-)
>In four shots, Luke takes out the controls to the door and three
>stormtroopers.  I submit that in his rage, he's unconsciously using the
>Force to guide his aim.

Could be.  Also, luke knows that his shots will make a big difference in
his escape.  He therefore takes the time to shoot properly.  The stormtroopers
are, of course, still shooting wildly.

>Fourth and finally, consider how unlikely it is that even a Jedi knight
>could react to blaster fire fast enough to deflect it.  Far more
>reasonable that he (or she?) can "pull" the bolt towards his (her?)
>sword.

Note that not only is Vader protected from Han's blaster fire, but his
glove isn't singed either.  This implies that a Jedi can extend the Force
easily into objects that he is touching.  This explains the Jedi's preference
for light sabers.  Blaster fire is easily deflected, even if fired by a Jedi,
it cannot be controlled reliably when aimed at another Jedi.  But a Light
Saber is an intimate, personal weapon.  A Jedi carries it always and
becomes one with it.  It is one thing to deflect an opponent's oncoming
blaster bolts.  It is quite another to deflect a Light Saber infused
with your opponent's Force.  Except with one's own Light Saber.

                                             Mark T. Draughn