Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's Star Wars, it's fantasy. The starship designs aren't supposed to "make sense." You guys have seen these movies before, right?

It's Star Wars, it's sci-fantasy, and we're Star Wars geeks. Besides, after the "midichlorian" thing, we the fans have just as much inclination as the producers/writers to explain things away to our hearts content. We're just shooting the s**t here; Edited by myk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Star Wars, it's sci-fantasy, and we're Star Wars geeks. Besides, after the "midichlorian" thing, we the fans have just as much inclination as the producers/writers to explain things away to our hearts content. We're just shooting the s**t here;

The prequels do not exist in this dojo. (Though, if you paid ANY amount of attention to the original films, you knew Force sensitivity was an inherited trait).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately they do exist, and again we're just musing about starship designs; we're not "attacking" the legitimacy of Star Wars, if there can even be such a thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking this morning, is there anything that would prevent Disney from making their own "prequel trilogy" not necessarily erasing Lucas's prequels just offering a different take....sort of like SDFM and DYRL. Let fans reside what they want to follow as cannon. I have a fealing I know where most fans will follow. :p

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking along the same lines...maybe they are some sort of thrust vector vanes for reverse thrust while in space flight? They LOOK silly but I can come up with "geek" explanations for them ;)

Chris

Yeah, I've assumed (since adulthood, anyway) that those were reverse thrusters or something. If there are fans in there, they could be smaller and ducted to the outside.

Besides, they're just mimicking this:

xwingmcquarrie.jpg

Even down to the stripes on the nose. Should've rounded the cockpit frame a little bit more, though.

Edited by Kelsain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately they do exist, and again we're just musing about starship designs; we're not "attacking" the legitimacy of Star Wars, if there can even be such a thing...

I agree, not complaining just talking "geek" about something we love. It's all good. :)

Chris

Edited by Dobber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, I'm still trying to figure how the Death Star moves. LOL

It's suposed to have a Thousand main engines from stardestroyers lining the equatorial trench to provinde perpulsion at sublight speeds but I doubt it was a speed deamon a SSD/Exitor would have had beter acceleration.

Source "Star Wars the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels".

Curse you all you made me get out my old Star wars books!

Edited by miles316
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jawas are the only junk collectors in the galaxy?

Of course they are. It simply wouldn't be Star Wars if there was more than one race of junk collectors, just like it wouldn't be Star Wars if there was more than one desert planet(or a planet with more than one environment, for that matter).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they are. It simply wouldn't be Star Wars if there was more than one race of junk collectors, just like it wouldn't be Star Wars if there was more than one desert planet(or a planet with more than one environment, for that matter).

Heheh....

Although it seems TFA is finally bucking that trend.....even if they are still rehashing "environments"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep thinking---is it simply due to real sets and real models, as opposed to green-screen sets and CG ships? Or is it something much more than that, harder to identify and replicate?

There's no way those are models flying around, unless they are scanned and built into CGI, which is the same result.

I have to admit Chewie looks cute and adorable.

You like em big and hairy? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly. Either way, the results are spectacular. I maintain my concerns about the story for this new film, wondering whether we'll get good-Abrams (Mission Impossible III, Star Trek 2009) or bad Abrams (Super 8, Star Trek Into Darkness). But at least for the look, execution and style, they have nailed classic Star Wars in a modern way that we've not seen since the original trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prequels do not exist in this dojo. (Though, if you paid ANY amount of attention to the original films, you knew Force sensitivity was an inherited trait).

I work out at one of the franchise dojos.

Star Wars is still good if you don't include the prequels, cartoons or the expanded universe. The prequels at best work as historic photo album.

These photos shows you what Darth Vader and the mother of children looked like when the were younger but it doesn't matter what stupid adventures they actual had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest davidwhangchoi

Chewie seems to have a lot of "looks" throught the films.....still prefer his OT look though....kind of partial to his "ROTJ" mane...Han was probably too busy to take him to the groomer for a few months! :p

chewiepic9.jpg

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly. Either way, the results are spectacular. I maintain my concerns about the story for this new film, wondering whether we'll get good-Abrams (Mission Impossible III, Star Trek 2009) or bad Abrams (Super 8, Star Trek Into Darkness). But at least for the look, execution and style, they have nailed classic Star Wars in a modern way that we've not seen since the original trilogy.

Super 8 was bad? And why do people continually confuse a bad script with bad direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Wars is still good if you don't include the prequels, cartoons or the expanded universe. The prequels at best work as historic photo album.

Clone Wars overall was fantastic and Rebels is off to a pretty good start too. If they are not your cup of tea that's fine though.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I maintain my concerns about the story for this new film, wondering whether we'll get good-Abrams (Mission Impossible III, Star Trek 2009) or bad Abrams (Super 8, Star Trek Into Darkness). But at least for the look, execution and style, they have nailed classic Star Wars in a modern way that we've not seen since the original trilogy.

Trailers can make a lousy movie look good. That's the illusion. Personally, I'm looking for a new story and feel, not A New Hope-redux. As the saying goes, nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep thinking---is it simply due to real sets and real models, as opposed to green-screen sets and CG ships? Or is it something much more than that, harder to identify and replicate?

Very good question. Let's wait and see if the trailer is reflective of the whole film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just figured it out----of course Mr Abrams wouldn't use Tatooine----it only has two suns! With a new planet, he can have three or four suns in the sky at once----think of the lens flares that would create!!!

LOL!!! Love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've assumed (since adulthood, anyway) that those were reverse thrusters or something. If there are fans in there, they could be smaller and ducted to the outside.

Besides, they're just mimicking this:

xwingmcquarrie.jpg

Even down to the stripes on the nose. Should've rounded the cockpit frame a little bit more, though.

I always just assumed the engines worked the same way as a VF-1's, opening up to allow air in for atmospheric use, or reverse thrust, and closing off when not needed.. Those "blades" always looked more like louvres that could open and close, and the overall structure never looked like it would even support a single cylindrical engine structure. The internal section between the wings is the same diameter as the rear section, which also conveniently leaves a decent amount of space for the landing gear. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super 8 was bad? And why do people continually confuse a bad script with bad direction?

There is no confusion. A director chooses the scripts that he/she will make into film. And as I've posted many a time about Abrams, his judgement as to what is hommage/nostalgia versus what is repetition/fanservice is precarious and precisely what is the cause for the most concern about this new film.

Trailers can make a lousy movie look good. That's the illusion. Personally, I'm looking for a new story and feel, not A New Hope-redux. As the saying goes, nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Exactly. The visual style is already a win. But if this new Star Wars is another exercise in slavish reverence to 80's era Spielberg/Lucas that leaves the film drowning in creatively bankrupt nostalgia, we'll have another Abrams dud on our hands. Another Star Trek Into Darkness third act we do not need for Star Wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...