myk Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) 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 April 17, 2015 by myk Quote
Duke Togo Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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). Quote
myk Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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... Quote
Dobber Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Chris Quote
Kelsain Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) 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: Even down to the stripes on the nose. Should've rounded the cockpit frame a little bit more, though. Edited April 17, 2015 by Kelsain Quote
Dobber Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) 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 April 17, 2015 by Dobber Quote
miles316 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) 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 April 17, 2015 by miles316 Quote
jvmacross Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 This isn't the planet you're looking for The Jawas were indigenous to Tatooine? The Jawas are the only junk collectors in the galaxy? Quote
JB0 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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). Quote
jvmacross Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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"... Quote
Mr March Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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? Quote
Duke Togo Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I was wondering if the ships aren't 3D-scanned models. Quote
Mr March Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Quote
Roy Focker Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Quote
Guest davidwhangchoi Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 i still think Chewie got plastic surgery, no way he looks that good at his age. Quote
jvmacross Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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! Quote
Guest davidwhangchoi Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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! lol Quote
Duke Togo Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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? Quote
Dobber Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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 Quote
azrael Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Quote
slaginpit Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Luke I AM your FATHER! (yeah I shagged your mom, when anakin was off on rage mission to tatooine ) Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Just by the by, the Star Wars Battlefront conference just confirmed that the Star Destroyers aren't on Tatooine, but rather a new planet: Jakku. Quote
Marzan Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Quote
renegadeleader1 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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). Ugnauts from ESB. Quote
Kelsain Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Jawas or whatever, it would take a looong time to scavenge a Super Star Destroyer. Heck, you'd think having those lying around would cause some serious inflation in the scrap metal & parts market. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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!!! Quote
Duke Togo Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Just by the by, the Star Wars Battlefront conference just confirmed that the Star Destroyers aren't on Tatooine, but rather a new planet: Jakku. They confirmed that before the new teaser trailer yesterday. Quote
wm cheng Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Quote
jvmacross Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Now we know why the new imperial order was forced to the change stormtrooper armor.....the old stuff was prone to yellowing!!! Quote
Chronocidal Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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: 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. Quote
Mr March Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.