Larry Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 10, 2019 Author Share Posted June 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 10, 2019 Author Share Posted June 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 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. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 (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 June 10, 2019 by mistertim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 That had to be big bang theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 10, 2019 Author Share Posted June 10, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfrankie Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Enjoy! https://www.ranker.com/list/making-of-the-phantom-menace/jacob-shelton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 30 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: Enjoy! https://www.ranker.com/list/making-of-the-phantom-menace/jacob-shelton 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Flaw in this franchise has always been.... If you can move people with the force....why is it really not used? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (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 July 23, 2019 by Burgold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Is there really people out there that give a **** whether it's science fiction, science fantasy, etc? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Have you even been on twitter? No. I just see what people post here from twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now