Hi pourpletrouble,To be fair Star Wars has never got too into explaining the tech in the way Star Trek does. I like that but the cruiser hyperdrive kill was just lazy, as was most of that plot. Indeed, arguably what I disliked about TLJ and ROS was perhaps a more Trek style reliance on tech.
i guess perhaps they just aren’t that good films - it’s the idea and the Universe they created that gets the interest. Arguably Game of Thrones succeeded similarly because it created an incredible world - did something new (killing key characters and genuinely surprising twists) as Star Wars did with its tempo.
After-all you watch 2001, a long film and man is it slow. Some black things, a guy goes to the moon, there is a spaceship, a real time battle between AI and a spaceman, and then a dream (aka LSD!). 2hrs 44mins - for what, 5 things?
I’d be typing all night trying to summarise A New Hope!
wow dude - you *really* thought the last part of 2001 was an acid dream rather than the depiction of an actual transformational occurrence? I guess you really don't know anything about Stanley Kubrick, do you, bro? The absolutely fundamental, decisive difference between 2001 on one side and droning on popcorn sci-fi space opera serials or even standalone films in any way, shape, or form like any incarnations of Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Outland, Enemy Mine, Avatar, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Expanse, Firefly ,or Solaris (both the original and the remake), i.e. *any* other "franchise" or "standalone masterpiece" is that, just like the Black Obelisk at it's very core, 2001 IS NOT INTENDED to be a riveting narrative, but a stand alone contemplation of life, the universe, and everything. The point is not *action* but *introspection*. I can understand though if you were unimpressed by 2010. So don't worry ,grasshopper, you will learn to hop someday .