Wheezal Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The issue here is not just weight, but mass. if you hold a real sword behind you out of your field of sight, you still have a good idea of where it is due to feeling it's center of mass in your hands. a lightsaber's center of mass is all in its hilt, so force powers are required to use a lightsaber effectively without cutting your own head off. sure any joe schmo can pick one up and use it briefly if they keep it in front of them, but extended usage, and using it in combat of any sort requires some extra abilities, ie., the force. or Grievious' cyborg abilities would count too. The blade is essentially weightless, but doing several minutes of intense acrobatic cardio, all the while trying not to get killed by another skilled combatant, and channeling psychic powers to boot has to bring even the strongest person to their knees eventually. When two blades strike each other, your contending with the force of impact (granted without mass, so i'm not sure how that works) from between the two combatants. Obviously, deflecting and parrying are more efficient than outright blocking, just like in real fencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleux Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Han Solo used Lukes lightsaber in "Empire" Han Solo didn't swing the ligthsaber. He only used it to cut open a ton ton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonoku Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 This is why I take all my clothes off when I go jogging. I'm able to run for an infinite amount of time because, without clothes weighing me down, I never get tired. lol.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chemlak Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 but still though that leaves the blade part of the saber weightless. which makes total sense since its nothing but light and plasma. particles don't have weight. Minor physics fail: many particles do indeed have mass. Just not much. So the mass of a lightsaber blade would be pretty negligible compared to the handle. Every documentary I've seen where people refer to the stage direction Lucas gave in the original trilogy suggests that the wielders were instructed to act as though it required effort to control the blades, rather than explicitly stating that they were "heavy". And yes, it takes a lot of energy to swing a kilogram mass around for ten minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Bodom Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Yeah its not as if he was battling or fighting with it or anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sai-to Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The props did not weight that much so he had to tell them how he envisioned the universe. Yes he told them it weighed that much so they would keep both hands on the lightsaber. Had the weight of the hilt not been a part of the actors getting into character all he would have said was to use both hands on the lightsaber. The characters were given direction and his direction was based his interpretation of the universe and in his interpretation the lightsabers are heavy. No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. He told them to imagine they were heavy so that they would react properly when they "connected" in combat. The force of the magnetic fields clashing is supposed to be extremely strong. He never meant the handles should be literally considered heavy. He dropped the instruction altogether in Episode 1-3, when he completely changed the fighting style of lightsabers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleux Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. He told them to imagine they were heavy so that they would react properly when they "connected" in combat. The force of the magnetic fields clashing is supposed to be extremely strong. He never meant the handles should be literally considered heavy. He dropped the instruction altogether in Episode 1-3, when he completely changed the fighting style of lightsabers. Your opinion "I am wrong." Key word is opinion. You are not familiar with directing and things of that nature. They are actors and using props that in no way actually have the characteristics of what the items are supposed to have. A director gives directions while filming the movies. They tell the actors how they envision the properties of objects in the films have. Lucas had them envision the lightsaber hilts as being heavy even though the props were not heavy and the actors acted according to that direction. So, continue having your opinion. Edited January 17, 2012 by Cleux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sai-to Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Your opinion "I am wrong." Key word is opinion. You are not familiar with directing and things of that nature. They are actors and using props that in no way actually have the characteristics of what the items are supposed to have. A director gives directions while filming the movies. They tell the actors how they envision the properties of objects in the films have. Lucas had them envision the lightsaber hilts as being heavy even though the props were not heavy and the actors acted according to that direction. So, continue having your opinion. No, you are factually wrong. It was specifically stated during the commentary that Lucas had them imagine them as being heavy, not because they actually are supposed to be heavy, but so when they "clashed" it would look correct (the magnetic fields "powerfully" clashing). Unlike you, I don't take some random, unsubstantiated comments from the internet and misrepresent them on a forum. Instead of caring what is true, all you want at this point is to insist that your misinterpretation is true for what I can only imagine is reasons pertaining to ego. And kindly do not tell me what I'm familiar with... I only spent 5 years of my life acting and working in a theater. Edited January 17, 2012 by Sai-to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aesri Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Out of universe explanation: They're physical staffs grafted to hilts and with exerting themselves as they do in that scene actors cannot avoid physical reality...it's merely a fact. In-universe explanation: Lightsaber blades are comprised of a coherent plasma arc magnetically bottled by an attuned EM field. This field has a quality that any magnetic field does...that being that it has inertia. As it also behaves quite similarly to a toroid magnetic field, it imparts this inertia to the hilt, regardless of the incredible focusing of said mag-field. Aside from the obvious reality of "swing a flashlight around and see if you ever touch yourself" it is THAT which is the most important factor in effort/force user requirement...correcting for the ever-present and never abating inertia being imparted to the hilt by the lightsaber's magnetic containment field. Just try imagining the above flashlight idea, only now the flashlight is trying to spin in your hand in opposition to how you move it and against the normal inclination of your wrist to allow. In effect, it's constantly trying to wrench itself out of your hand while it's active. Edited January 17, 2012 by Aesri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodehouse Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Anakin was a master of Djem So, which is entirely designed to break and exhaust an opponent's defense with powerful, overwhelming strikes. Add to that the amount of force leaping and pushing, and add that Anakin was powerful enough to have been a Jedi Master, who had just opened himself up to the rush of power from the dark side. The only reason Obi-Wan won that fight is because he was a master of Soresu and stalled the fight until Anakin made a tactical error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WickedDjinn Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 No, you are factually wrong. It was specifically stated during the commentary that Lucas had them imagine them as being heavy, not because they actually are supposed to be heavy, but so when they "clashed" it would look correct (the magnetic fields "powerfully" clashing). Unlike you, I don't take some random, unsubstantiated comments from the internet and misrepresent them on a forum. Instead of caring what is true, all you want at this point is to insist that your misinterpretation is true for what I can only imagine is reasons pertaining to ego. And kindly do not tell me what I'm familiar with... I only spent 5 years of my life acting and working in a theater. You are incorrect actually. Full length documentaries are not random comments. Lucas original vision wasn't that the light saber hilt itself was heavy, but that the massive amount of energy being utilized required a great deal of physical strength to control. Essentially it was physically difficult to swing a light saber which is why you see more the two handed style in the first movie. Its been stated outright in one of longer documentaries. I even double checked the DVD to make sure. Originally they were meant to be difficult to wield and very, very heavy due to the energy generated once the blade was activated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheezal Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 ok, EVERYONE is empirically wrong! and i dont even know what that means, so i'm sure i'm wrong too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonlinar Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Also keep in mind the force can be used in conjunction with lightsaber forms and techniques. Just because he's swinging a near weightless weapon doesn't mean he's not also focusing to make it feel like a Mac truck on the receiving end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_pinko_grande Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The blade of a lightsaber may be weightless, but the cycling plasma gives it a strong gyroscopic effect. It's for this reason that they need a lot of strength and dexterity to control, and why they are dangerous in the hands of those without heightened awareness. That was my understanding, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detpack Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 "The weapon consisted of a blade of pure plasma emitted from the hilt and suspended in a force containment field. The field contained the immense heat of the plasma, protecting the wielder, and allowed the blade to keep its shape. The hilt was almost always self-fabricated by the wielder to match his or her specific needs, preferences and style. Due to the weightlessness of plasma and the strong gyroscopic effect generated by it, lightsabers required a great deal of strength and dexterity to wield, and it was extremely difficult—and dangerous—for the untrained to attempt using. However, in the hands of an expert of the Force, the lightsaber was a weapon to be greatly respected and feared. To wield a lightsaber was to demonstrate incredible skill and confidence, as well as masterful dexterity and attunement to the Force." sorry for the wall of text but that about sums it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Anakin was a master of Djem So, which is entirely designed to break and exhaust an opponent's defense with powerful, overwhelming strikes. Add to that the amount of force leaping and pushing, and add that Anakin was powerful enough to have been a Jedi Master, who had just opened himself up to the rush of power from the dark side. The only reason Obi-Wan won that fight is because he was a master of Soresu and stalled the fight until Anakin made a tactical error. He was THE master of Soresu not a. But really though, his plan to stall could have easily backfired on him with the way Anakin kept at him. Throughout the whole fight Anakin keeps pushing and pushing Obi-Wan, near the end we see Obi-Wan exhausted and fatigue whereas with Anakin he doesn't even look out of breath. If it weren't for that hill Obi-Wan would have been done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleux Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) No, you are factually wrong. It was specifically stated during the commentary that Lucas had them imagine them as being heavy, not because they actually are supposed to be heavy, but so when they "clashed" it would look correct (the magnetic fields "powerfully" clashing). Unlike you, I don't take some random, unsubstantiated comments from the internet and misrepresent them on a forum. Instead of caring what is true, all you want at this point is to insist that your misinterpretation is true for what I can only imagine is reasons pertaining to ego. And kindly do not tell me what I'm familiar with... I only spent 5 years of my life acting and working in a theater. You are getting upset calm down. You have your opinion that I am wrong and that is your opinion. I did not carry what you suggested is an “unsubstantiated” comment from the internet. I heard it first in a documentary one approved by Lucas. I do hope you calm down though stress caused from being so emotional can lead to high-blood pressure and that as we all know isn’t healthy. If you need to feel you are “right,” go ahead and feel that way; I don’t want you to get upset it isn’t good for your health. And go ahead and say you have spent 5 years of your life acting. If that makes you feel better, anyone who has acted would know how directors work. Your confusion on how this stuff works does make me question your statement. We don’t want to hurt your ego. Edited January 18, 2012 by Cleux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicatrize Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 "The weapon consisted of a blade of pure plasma emitted from the hilt and suspended in a force containment field. The field contained the immense heat of the plasma, protecting the wielder, and allowed the blade to keep its shape. The hilt was almost always self-fabricated by the wielder to match his or her specific needs, preferences and style. Due to the weightlessness of plasma and the strong gyroscopic effect generated by it, lightsabers required a great deal of strength and dexterity to wield, and it was extremely difficult—and dangerous—for the untrained to attempt using. However, in the hands of an expert of the Force, the lightsaber was a weapon to be greatly respected and feared. To wield a lightsaber was to demonstrate incredible skill and confidence, as well as masterful dexterity and attunement to the Force." sorry for the wall of text but that about sums it up I always wondered how something that's weightless could be spun around in your hand to do tricks like a real sword with real weight/physics, or thrown much like a boomerang when there is no weight in the blade. The strong gyroscopic effect generated by the plasma is the apparent reason why this is possible given the laws of physics. Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sai-to Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You are incorrect actually. Full length documentaries are not random comments. Lucas original vision wasn't that the light saber hilt itself was heavy, but that the massive amount of energy being utilized required a great deal of physical strength to control. Essentially it was physically difficult to swing a light saber which is why you see more the two handed style in the first movie. Its been stated outright in one of longer documentaries. I even double checked the DVD to make sure. Originally they were meant to be difficult to wield and very, very heavy due to the energy generated once the blade was activated. This is exactly what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoticdrake Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Really the answer for the OP is this. Lightsaber fights is like ego fights, imagine all of the jumping around in your brain you do while having an argument with someone about something that really doesn't matter in the long run. Now take all the jumping, dodging and weaving. You know, where you dodge their vicious philosophical attack to come back with your own to dissuade their point. Now take that argument and do it in a volcano. Normally you're awake, what, 16 hours a day, leaving 8 for sleeping? Try having that argument in a volcano that is basically freaking out (due to the fact that someone mashed in the controls that were meant to keep it stable) and it's only becoming more unstable as time goes on, in fact the whole factory inside the volcano is falling apart as you're having this argument. I imagine, that you'd start to sweat, you may begin to feel nervous and no longer safe due to the heat and all the energy your body is exerting just so that you can have that simple little argument which doesn't actually involve any movement. Imagine that within an hour or two of starting that argument you're starting to feel tired, beginning to wish for a glass of water, and it's getting harder to concentrate and turn aside your foes arguments. Now take the above, and imagine that you're jumping up and down, getting kicked, punched and swinging around an object with objectionable weight. (Since within the Star Wars community there are many different opinions on what the damn lightsaber actually ways and plenty of evidence to support in either direction, especially since Lucas is a human and he changes his mind about such things as often as humans do. To suit his own needs as a director, producer and writer.) Imagine how much more quickly you would get tired now that your body is not only having to manage its energy stores to keep you from cooking alive in an active volcano, but also trying even harder because now you're moving and jumping around while trading real blows as well as mental ones. You also don't have any water anywhere, so you're getting thirsty and your body is getting tired of trying to keep you alive when you're not even giving it a hand since you're too busy trading mental and physical blows with your opponent and so it's starting to shut down. That is how I imagine that lightsaber fight to be, a philosophical argument while in the middle of a volcano and doing aerobics. I know even in the shape that I'm in, having an argument (using the force, since the force is mostly mental capacity and willpower from my understanding) while running, jumping and fighting is hard. Hell, even in the shape I'm in I struggle to have a conversation while running three miles seriously, in the fall when temperatures are fairly regular. Throw me in a 100+ degree volcano and I can guarantee I'll have trouble thinking straight, let alone talking or even exercising. So OP, I hope I have answered your question to the utmost of your concern and you now have a better grasp as to why any lightsaber fight would be difficult. Let alone the lightsaber fight of all lightsaber fights between Anakin and Obi-Wan. They were in the middle of a volcano... that's not just a little hot. As for all the ego fighting going on in this thread, it's unnecessary. Cleux: You had no right to say, "You are not familiar with directing and things of that nature." You don't know the person on the other end and thus have no ability to gauge their understanding or involvement with acting and directing. Regardless of what you think would prove his understanding of acting and directing. Acting and directing is an art, and it's one that not everyone does in the same way. As far as I'm concerned, that is when you insulted his integrity and intelligence and it turned into an ego fight where you struck him as a person instead of combating his ideas with facts. Your accusation was a speculation and therefore not warranted in this discussion. Sai-To: You should have left it where it was. As soon as he insulted your intelligence you should have realized that Cleux had no interest in having a philosophical debate. You saying the following was uncalled for and again, you don't know anything about the person on the other side: "Unlike you, I don't take some random, unsubstantiated comments from the internet and misrepresent them on a forum. Instead of caring what is true, all you want at this point is to insist that your misinterpretation is true for what I can only imagine is reasons pertaining to ego." You both turned this into an emotional and ego inflated argument and I suggest you apologize to each other and back down from it. You both have opinions which are validated by what George Lucas has said. You both have interpreted the factual evidence in different ways. Another person having a different opinion than you is more than enough reason to debate, politely, what the other one believes. Debating does not result in tireless egotistical and emotionally driven attacks. As soon as you attack someone personally rather than their ideas it stops becoming a debate and becomes something else entirely, some call it an argument, I call it a pissing contest. Stop pissing all over each others feet and get back to what actually matters. Either that, or agree to disagree and leave it at that. EDIT: I apologize for the wall of text. I tend to stay quiet until I'm fully aware of the situation and have my head squarely on my shoulders before I open my mouth. So as to not make a donkey of myself. Edited January 18, 2012 by kaoticdrake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleux Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 As for all the ego fighting going on in this thread, it's unnecessary. Cleux: You had no right to say, "You are not familiar with directing and things of that nature." You don't know the person on the other end and thus have no ability to gauge their understanding or involvement with acting and directing. Regardless of what you think would prove his understanding of acting and directing. Acting and directing is an art, and it's one that not everyone does in the same way. As far as I'm concerned, that is when you insulted his integrity and intelligence and it turned into an ego fight where you struck him as a person instead of combating his ideas with facts. Your accusation was a speculation and therefore not warranted in this discussion. Sai-To: You should have left it where it was. As soon as he insulted your intelligence you should have realized that Cleux had no interest in having a philosophical debate. You saying the following was uncalled for and again, you don't know anything about the person on the other side: "Unlike you, I don't take some random, unsubstantiated comments from the internet and misrepresent them on a forum. Instead of caring what is true, all you want at this point is to insist that your misinterpretation is true for what I can only imagine is reasons pertaining to ego." You both turned this into an emotional and ego inflated argument and I suggest you apologize to each other and back down from it. You both have opinions which are validated by what George Lucas has said. You both have interpreted the factual evidence in different ways. Another person having a different opinion than you is more than enough reason to debate, politely, what the other one believes. Debating does not result in tireless egotistical and emotionally driven attacks. As soon as you attack someone personally rather than their ideas it stops becoming a debate and becomes something else entirely, some call it an argument, I call it a pissing contest. Stop pissing all over each others feet and get back to what actually matters. Either that, or agree to disagree and leave it at that. Go back and reread the conversations. He attacked first. You stated I had no desire to have a philosophical debate but I am not the one who started attacking. I merely have been on the defensive of someone who has constantly called me wrong. My reply to the op was genuine and with a tone as not to be abrasive or offensive but Sai-To turned this into something different. All of that which is highlighted in purple should not be applied to me, apply it where it belongs. This is not an issue of ego for me. Apply it to Sai-to therein lay the ego he started attacking me because of his ego and did not come across to carry a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sai-to Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Go back and reread the conversations. He attacked first. You stated I had no desire to have a philosophical debate but I am not the one who started attacking. I merely have been on the defensive of someone who has constantly called me wrong. I was going to leave it lie, since your last post was nothing but insults, and I don't respond if there's no content in post. Unfortunately, Kaoticdrake went and fed you... You are wrong. Factually and in all objective ways. You try to use the "opinions can't be wrong" fallacy, which is also patently false. See the poster I last responded to, he says the same thing as me (albeit in a different way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoticdrake Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Go back and reread the conversations. He attacked first. You stated I had no desire to have a philosophical debate but I am not the one who started attacking. I merely have been on the defensive of someone who has constantly called me wrong. My reply to the op was genuine and with a tone as not to be abrasive or offensive but Sai-To turned this into something different. All of that which is highlighted in purple should not be applied to me, apply it where it belongs. This is not an issue of ego for me. Apply it to Sai-to therein lay the ego he started attacking me because of his ego and did not come across to carry a discussion. Telling you that you're wrong is not a personal attack. Which is what you devolved your argument to. What you highlighted in purple is what I quoted him for saying, and if you read my post more carefully you may notice that I told him what he said, what you highlighted in purple, was unwarranted. It also came after your personal attack telling him that he knew nothing of acting and directing. Which I also quoted in the same way. Your original response to the OP was not abrasive or offensive to you. That doesn't mean it wasn't abrasive or offensive. Not that I found it to be either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleux Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Telling you that you're wrong is not a personal attack. Which is what you devolved your argument to. What you highlighted in purple is what I quoted him for saying, and if you read my post more carefully you may notice that I told him what he said, what you highlighted in purple, was unwarranted. It also came after your personal attack telling him that he knew nothing of acting and directing. Which I also quoted in the same way. Your original response to the OP was not abrasive or offensive to you. That doesn't mean it wasn't abrasive or offensive. Not that I found it to be either. You stated that the conversation was a difference in interpretation of the facts. His calling my interpretation wrong could have been done more tactful on his part but I looked at his other post and that is not how he does things. His calling me wrong was a direct attack on my memory calling me wrong. I knew what I had heard I wanted to join the conversation in a civil manner. He did not reply to me in that manner. Then after carrying a conversation with no name calling or anything just discussing the fact he states again “I am sorry, but you’re wrong.” I kept it in a tone of “this is opinion and a matter of interpretation” but he did not. He then goes and says I am following the opinions fallacy. Isn’t he doing the same thing? He does not want to even concede we have a difference of opinion. He is stuck on believing his opinion trumps all others and if you don’t follows his opinion you are wrong. I have never called him wrong but have accepted his opinion and interpretation of information. I don’t agree with his opinion but I am not going to attack him and call him wrong. Using a statement "how the response was not abrasive or offensive to me doesn’t mean it was that way to others;" apply that to his response to me. I know what is in purple was your rewording his quote but I am directing it back towards him. Edited January 18, 2012 by Cleux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sai-to Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Then after carrying a conversation with no name calling or anything just discussing the fact he states again “I am sorry, but you’re wrong.” I kept it in a tone of “this is opinion and a matter of interpretation” but he did not. He then goes and says I am following the opinions fallacy. Isn’t he doing the same thing? He does not want to even concede we have a difference of opinion. He is stuck on believing his opinion trumps all others and if you don’t follows his opinion you are wrong. I have never called him wrong but have accepted his opinion and interpretation of information. I don’t agree with his opinion but I am not going to attack him and call him wrong. And this is where you are confused. This is not a matter of interpretation. He clarifies in the same commentary that he says it. Your interpretation, and hence your opinion, are factually wrong. It's like if you were to say, "I interpret the data we have from satellites and space missions to conclude that the Earth is flat." Your interpretation would be factually wrong. I'm sorry if you feel insulted that I corrected your mistake, but there's nothing to apologize for. You remembered something from a commentary (memories are not reliable, unfortunately) and did an internet search to confirm... which is fine and normal. However, instead of getting all the information, you found a couple of posts from random people online (who also misinterpreted) that coincided with what you remembered, and went with it. Had you either re-watched the commentary or dug deeper to get all the information, you would have reached the correct conclusion. I understand fully how you reached your erroneous conclusion, but I am simple pointing out that it is, in fact, erroneous. I even sympathized with your mistake by using the phrase, "I'm sorry". Edited January 18, 2012 by Sai-to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts