Riggo#44

All Things Star Wars Thread -- Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Our only hope rests in a farm boy whose first reaction to handling a light saber is to point it at his face and stare into the hilt. 

 

 

 

But fortunately we have an F-16 sitting around which he's never seen before, but we're going to hand him the keys and send him into combat, anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

But fortunately we have an F-16 sitting around which he's never seen before, but we're going to hand him the keys and send him into combat, anyway. 

 

An lo-and-****ing-behold...he hits the target none of the other thoroughly trained and seasoned pilots could come close to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

An lo-and-****ing-behold...he hits the target none of the other thoroughly trained and seasoned pilots could come close to.

 

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

He argued that the movie was fantasy, not science fiction. Complete with wizards and sword fights. 

 

I remember the line "Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

And then, a few months later, they published a rebuttal letter. 

 

The author stated that, for qualifications, he was an animator on the film. He explained, for people who wondered what an animator is doing on a live action films, that they worked on special effects. For example, he pointed out that when the Jawa shot R2 with a fire extinguisher, an animator drew lightening around all the seams on him. 

 

And he asserted that the movie wasn't about anti-science so much as it was about the triumph of the human spirit, and of Good versus Evil. 

 

And he concluded with "And 'The Force' didn't make that proton torpedo go in that exhaust port, I did."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Larry said:

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

So the joyless trolls were always there, they just have a wider voice now.

 

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

Ok, that's funny right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

He argued that the movie was fantasy, not science fiction. Complete with wizards and sword fights. 

 

I remember the line "Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

And then, a few months later, they published a rebuttal letter. 

 

The author stated that, for qualifications, he was an animator on the film. He explained, for people who wondered what an animator is doing on a live action films, that they worked on special effects. For example, he pointed out that when the Jawa shot R2 with a fire extinguisher, an animator drew lightening around all the seams on him. 

 

And he asserted that the movie wasn't about anti-science so much as it was about the triumph of the human spirit, and of Good versus Evil. 

 

And he concluded with "And 'The Force' didn't make that proton torpedo go in that exhaust port, I did."

 

My rebuttal to both of them is they have too much time on their hands. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, for all we know "the force" could be some incredibly advanced nanotechnology (midichlorians) that used fundamental forces of physics to influence the outside universe and was introduced into certain people so far back that nobody currently (currently in that fictional universe) understands what they truly are.

 

You can retcon science into many things if you want. Lighsabers were originally designed as "laser swords" but now the canon is that it's actually plasma. Which is certainly possible to control/contain. Despite the fact that if you switched on the lightsaber, the air around you would probably become so superheated that you'd burst into flames instantly. 

Edited by mistertim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a line on a TV show lately. One character said he was into science fiction. Mostly Star Trek. 

 

Other character said she was into science fiction, too. Her favorite was the show with the talking horse. 

 

First character says a talking horse isn't science fiction, it's fantasy. 

 

She replies that a genetic mutation that causes a horse to develop a larynx is science fiction. Flying faster than light?  That's fantasy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Once read a letter to the editor on the science fiction magazine, attacking Star Wars for being anti-science. The writer argued that the whole theme was about ignoring facts and science, and just wishing for things to happen. 

 

He argued that the movie was fantasy, not science fiction. Complete with wizards and sword fights. 

 

I remember the line "Trust your feelings, Luke. Switch off that multi-billion-dollar targeting computer. Eyeball it in."

 

And then, a few months later, they published a rebuttal letter. 

 

The author stated that, for qualifications, he was an animator on the film. He explained, for people who wondered what an animator is doing on a live action films, that they worked on special effects. For example, he pointed out that when the Jawa shot R2 with a fire extinguisher, an animator drew lightening around all the seams on him. 

 

And he asserted that the movie wasn't about anti-science so much as it was about the triumph of the human spirit, and of Good versus Evil. 

 

And he concluded with "And 'The Force' didn't make that proton torpedo go in that exhaust port, I did."

 

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

 

I just call it a movie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dfitzo53 said:

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

 

I'm pretty sure it's ok to call it either one.  You could also fit it into the "action" movie genre.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 4:00 PM, dfitzo53 said:

I mean...isn't it pretty widely accepted that Star Wars is not technically science fiction?  People tend to use other terms like space opera and fantasy.

I've always classed Star Wars as science fantasy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Ouch!
Well, that does make me feel a little bit better that those who were making the film knew it was ****.

9 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I've always classed Star Wars as science fantasy.

Space cowboys.

I've never quite understood what people mean when they say "space opera".

And why isn't science fiction appropriate? Is it because of the Force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Ouch!
Well, that does make me feel a little bit better that those who were making the film knew it was ****.

Space cowboys.

I've never quite understood what people mean when they say "space opera".

And why isn't science fiction appropriate? Is it because of the Force?

In the classical definition of science fiction the story hinges on some element of science to make it work. Think Jules Verne needing the submarine or the genetics of Jurassic Park. In Star Wars, science doesn't solve the problem. The characters just live in a futuristic world.

 

Now, this definition goes gray when you get into some classic SF like HG Wells the Time Machine except the science there winds up being sociology. So, it kinda still applies.

 

Mind you, I find conversations like this to be fraught with silliness. It's like people who want to argue the difference between art and craft while ignoring the skill, beauty, and story inherit in the piece itself.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flaw in this franchise has always been.... If you can move people with the force....why is it really not used? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Flaw in this franchise has always been.... If you can move people with the force....why is it really not used? 

 

 

Because they tend to gang up on you in pretty big ways. I will admit, the one thing that Ep 1-3 did was show a greater willingness to use the force than in 4-6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Because they tend to gang up on you in pretty big ways. I will admit, the one thing that Ep 1-3 did was show a greater willingness to use the force than in 4-6.

1. Way more Jedi around and they hadn't been forced into hiding. 

 

2. Decades of special effects advances. Look at the way Vader moves at the end of Rogue One vs. the beginning of A New Hope. Or Yoda in Attack of the Clones. 

 

(2 is really the driving factor.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burgold said:

In the classical definition of science fiction the story hinges on some element of science to make it work. Think Jules Verne needing the submarine or the genetics of Jurassic Park. In Star Wars, science doesn't solve the problem. The characters just live in a futuristic world.

 

Now, this definition goes gray when you get into some classic SF like HG Wells the Time Machine except the science there winds up being sociology. So, it kinda still applies.

 

Mind you, I find conversations like this to be fraught with silliness. It's like people who want to argue the difference between art and craft while ignoring the skill, beauty, and story inherit in the piece itself.

Yeah seems a pretty thin distinction, I guess 2001 Space Odyssey would be science fiction, just set in the future as well, and Jupiter Ascending. Oddly enough Star Wars isn't in the future. And I don't think of Jurassic Park as sci-fi. For me sci-fi is space/futuristic/time travel/future fantasy/adventure/horror etc. I'm not sure what I call JP or any of the awful sequels but not sci-fi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

1. Way more Jedi around and they hadn't been forced into hiding. 

 

2. Decades of special effects advances. Look at the way Vader moves at the end of Rogue One vs. the beginning of A New Hope. Or Yoda in Attack of the Clones. 

 

(2 is really the driving factor.)

1) we see that in Ep 1-3 the way Obi and Qui gon deal with some crowds of droids. And the Jedi were to serve, using the force on people seems hostile. Now why Darth uses his physical strength to lift the Captain (opening scene) rather than the force I dunno.

 

2. And yes, I think the biggest problem with using the force in Ep 4-6 was the technology for the story telling, that existed for Ep 1-3 and following but in the 70's and 80's would have looked silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

2. And yes, I think the biggest problem with using the force in Ep 4-6 was the technology for the story telling, that existed for Ep 1-3 and following but in the 70's and 80's would have looked silly.

 

Just pointing out, you have just announced that the biggest problem with the OT is that there wasn't enough CGI.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yeah seems a pretty thin distinction, I guess 2001 Space Odyssey would be science fiction, just set in the future as well, and Jupiter Ascending. Oddly enough Star Wars isn't in the future. And I don't think of Jurassic Park as sci-fi. For me sci-fi is space/futuristic/time travel/future fantasy/adventure/horror etc. I'm not sure what I call JP or any of the awful sequels but not sci-fi.

2001 Space Odyssey would be classified SF because the major problem stemmed from a computer failure and the dangers of artificial intelligence. Continuing my geeky trend, that was the major fighting point between lovers of Star Trek vs. Star Wars. Star Trek is considered science fiction. Star Wars was treading on their turf without being classicly SF.

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, you have just announced that the biggest problem with the OT is that there wasn't enough CGI.  :) 

I'm not bashful about admitting that. Some stories are told before their time. 

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is there really people out there that give a **** whether it's science fiction, science fantasy, etc?

Have you even been on twitter?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Have you even been on twitter?

 

No.  I just see what people post here from twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.