Define "Design"

BBspot linked to a blog post by novelist John Scalzi about design flaws in Star Wars technology (and biology). Essentially, it's gripes about user-friendliness in the Star Wars Universe. For instance, Scalzi complains that it makes no sense for R2-D2 to have been designed with arms, inputs, rocket thrusters, and periscopes, but no beep-to-speech software. He observes that C-3PO is supposed to be a translator, but that he is incapable of translating any language requiring physical gesture since he can barely move his arms most of the time. Then there are the safety issues, like the lack of seat belts, and the inexplicable need to have unshielded core reactors in the Death Star.

I might have a lot of Star Wars junk lying around my house, but, if anything, that just makes me all the more ready to agree with Mr. Scalzi...but I do have some bones to pick with his approach...

However, I think the smugness with which he dismantles Star Wars might be a little misplaced. Scalzi is, apparently, a science fiction novelist. I don't really read much modern science fiction (reducing my geek cred by five power levels), so I've never really heard of the guy. But his approach to Star Wars bears the markings of a science fiction writer, which, to me, suggests that his beef with SW stems largely from the old sci-fi vs. fantasy debate.

I fully concede that Star Wars has done its fair share of marketing itself as the inspiration for futuristic technology (even though its all supposed to be ancient technology), but that is not really Star Wars strongest point. Star Wars' strengths are its theatricality and (when it remembers to have it) its mythicality. (Typepad isn't flagging mythicality, so I'm assuming that's a real word.)

The lack of verbal skills would be a huge design flaw in R2-D2 if one were to design him for reality...but the lack of verbal skills makes perfect sense in terms of theatrical design. R2 doesn't speak because he is largely a sounding board for C-3PO to deliver exposition (and an occasional deus ex machina when our heroes run into a locked door or a disabled hyperdrive). It's one of the reasons why superheroes have sidekicks. Batman needs Robin mostly so that he can sputter out plot points. But the fact that R2-D2 (and Chewbacca) don't speak serve an additional entertainment purpose. Their indecipherable yet still evocative sounds invite the audience to supply dialogue--especially in scenes where other characters don't translate their messages.

Moving on to his complaint about C-3PO:
"Can't fully extend his arms; has a bunch of exposed wiring in his abs; walks and runs as if he has the
droid equivalent of arthritis."
Again, I concede there are weaknesses to 3PO's design for real world applications...but 3PO evokes robot. The stiff motions of the arms are essentially an acting choice to make us forget that he is just a man in a suit. I'm now imagining a sketch in which a snobby actor with geek inclinations is asked to mime a robot and decides to walk perfectly normal since, after all, future robots will walk just like you might expect a person to walk. That might be true, but it wouldn't be convincing on stage. As for the exposed wiring, I'm pretty sure that goes along with the visual cues as well. It visually tells the audience that the actor is supposed to be a robot...that there is nothing inside of him but wiring and hardware. If 3PO didn't have the exposed wiring and stilted posture, we might think he was supposed to be a man in a robot suit (I remember debating whether Stormtroopers were human or robots when I was a kid).

My arguments against most of the other technological issues would run pretty much the same. It might not be believable in a real world environment, but it looks cool on screen.

I would, however, like to deconstruct Scalzi's biological flaws in the Star Wars Universe. He claims to be bothered by the scale of the Sarlaac and Space Worm in ROTJ and ESB. They are really, really big, and how often can you expect them to find food. No problems with his argument on that front. Still, if an audience is going to complain about elements like that, what are they going to do when confronted with, say Scylla and Charybdis in the Odyssey? If sailors know that it is certain death to wonder among them, how often can they actually find prey? Are we supposed to buy a giant Cyclops on a small Mediterranean island? Or what about Jason and that Golden Fleece? Like metal fibers could ever plausibly grow out of a ram's hide. Come on! That's ridiculous! Oh, and what about that Trojan Horse. Like you could expect an army to hide in that thing for hours with no bathroom. Those ancient poets were idiots designing implausible, nonfunctioning chimaera!

Comments

[Akh Ari]

Right, because people on earth always act from the most rational possible motives, doing what makes complete and total sense to outside observers; and as technology advances, everything becomes less arcane and more competently designed. Microsoft Office, anyone? It would take me about 5 min to write a similar drive-by rationalist critic's "Most Epic FAILs in Earth design" and then an hour to cut it down to only 10.

Peter, I think you're really just annoyed because of the sneering tone of the article and smarmy refusal to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I know Star Wars fans love to carp about Star Wars.

[Akh Ari]

Having a laugh over science howlers in the movies is a classic pastime of science types. I was rofl at Lawrence Krauss' top 5 or so ways the aliens in Independence Day could have used basic physics and their huge ship to kill everyone on earth without firing a shot.

[Peter Terp]

There's a hilarious take on the irrationality of Death Star technology done by "How it should have ended" videos on Youtube. I suppose I enjoyed that more because anyone who takes the time to make a cartoon parodying the movie must on some level also love the movie...so it comes off as less judgmental and more clever.