LogFAQs > #965617463

Heh. I was just thinking of how all the idiotic decisions that set the plots of the prequel and sequel trilogies in motion make even the most idiotic decisions made in the original trilogy look believable - for instance, apparently the reason Governor Tarkin refuses to deploy the Death Star's reserve squadron is because there wasn't enough money to show it, so it's just passed off as in-universe haughtiness...except to be fair, the bad guys do almost win and only get taken down by sheer luck on Luke's part because he finally decided to believe in The Force. So it's not like Tarkin had no ground to stand on.

I also find it amusing how some act like the Death Star's weakness is a plot hole, even though it's such a tiny weak point (and no, I was not a fan of how Rogue One explained it) it's easy to just pass it off as an effect of how it was built. And on that token I always found one of the most common arguments against the Holdo Maneuver, that the rebels could have used it on the Death Star, rather precious since this is the same Death Star with one tiny weakpoint that Luke had to make a one-in-a-million shot against.

I also don't necessarily mean that said idiotic decisions are bad writing though - they were definitely intentional to some degree and it's not like people in real life don't make similarly dumb decisions. They probably just fall flat due to the dense politics presented in the prequel trilogy and the lack of attention to worldbuilding in the sequel trilogy.