Prequel Ships have no "meat."
#31
Posted 11 July 2004 - 03:03 AM
Quote
#32
Posted 11 July 2004 - 04:45 AM
Yeah, that really sucks. I guess the artist that week had a shiny pen.
I was in the toy store today. the 3po/droid factory incident with both characters, operating room and swappable heads. It was marked down big time. But not as much as the where's the jar-jar stand up candy land game that was 2/$5. My brother in law bought that for the nephews when we were on vacation, years ago, and all paid Lucas to see (for the second time at least, clearly at fault or wanting to believe,) TPM and of course the boys all loved it. Mind you they were much younger then.
Back to the (crowded) toy store at the mall. A young couple and child came by and as I moved on, I heard the shrill, wonderfully misguided sounds of "I want That one!" "Anikan and Speeder Car? Is that it that you want?"
(and I don't intend to take away one moment of enjoyment found through creative play.
Just stop making the stuff. there's plenty to go around.)
#33
Posted 11 July 2004 - 09:28 PM
Even if they butcher every single scientific and engineering concept?
like that slingshot around the sun, go back in time BS?
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#34
Posted 12 July 2004 - 01:00 AM
No doubt. Lucas is goofy or something. In his original scripts, there was some strange importance placed on the "Chrome Guilds." Sheesh, now we know why--every FREEAKING SHIP IS COVERED IN CHROME!!
The guy is just... a nutcase.
Even if they butcher every single scientific and engineering concept?
Or transparent aluminum? Come on!!! That just sounds stupid. Or inertial dampners, or gravity on every blasted ship in the galaxy--the same galaxy. Every race relatively human. The list endless....
Battle for the Galaxy--read the "other Star Wars"
All I know is I haven't seen the real prequels yet.
#35
Posted 12 July 2004 - 03:40 AM
This post has been edited by Jordan: 12 July 2004 - 03:41 AM
#36
Posted 12 July 2004 - 04:40 AM
[QUOTE][like that slingshot around the sun, go back in time BS?/QUOTE]
Yes, all those and much, much more.
Stardestroyer.net
Check it out... lots of stuff by an Engineer.
#37 Guest_Guest_*
Posted 12 July 2004 - 05:42 AM
It's good to suspend disbelief a bit... ie. to accomodate Star Destroyers and hyperspace and cloud city.
But we shouldn't suspend disbelief too much... ie. R2-D2 flying, Anakin falling hundreds of metres to catch onto an airspeeder without tearing his arms off or having Hayden Christiansen as Anakin Skywalker in the first place.
#39
Posted 12 July 2004 - 05:53 AM
It's good to suspend disbelief a bit... ie. to accomodate Star Destroyers and hyperspace and cloud city.
Star Wars is fantasy, though - it doesn't really need to be 'realistic', any more than Lord of the Rings. Star Trek is supposedly based on real-life scientific concepts, though I don't know how badly these are 'butchered' since I'm not a scientist myself. (Except for the really obvious stuff, such as almost all the alien races being semi-human - and the fact that they can mate with each other...)
- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
#40
Posted 12 July 2004 - 09:11 AM
Well, most of star trek technology is pretty out there, and they definetly don't limit themselves to whats actually possible. However, they do at least try to come up with explanations that are at least, in some way, grounded in reality. Some are certainly more grounded than others. Whats important to keep in mind about Star Trek is that they place characters, plot, and monetary budgets over technology. So, they'll often use a technology as a tool towards those ends, and then come up with a scientific explanation later. For example, transporters were created because it was both expensive and inconveniant to show characters taking a shuttle to and from a planets surface. So, boom, transporters make the job easy; later they come up with an explanation on how it works (which, though impossibly hard to realise, is sort of interesting philsophically). Same goes for gravity generators. And the universal translator.
"like that slingshot around the sun, go back in time BS?"
I was never crazy about this particular choice. On one hand, it keeps the plot moving. However, it trivializes time travel, which is never a good thing. And it really pushed the boundries of plausibility. I could buy, maybe, slingshotting around a blackhole, but a sun probably shouldnt cut it. Make no mistake; Star trek certainly has it blunders, but many times they do a pretty nice job of blending the fantastic with the somewhat scientifically plausible. And thats really all we want anyway, right?
#41
Posted 13 July 2004 - 01:31 AM
the Terminator: Time Field Generator, Time displacement unit, organic matter only, etc. nothing really explained but it all sounded rather spiffy and up to sctratch... well done.
Back To the Future: Flex Capacitor, engine must reach 88 miles per hour, Uranium, some number of Gigawatts required, Mr.Fusion, etc.
causality was impressivley covered in this trilogy! also well done.
Future Cop: went for an auto-neptul quantuum leap methode. interesting, and treated lightly enough to not draw attention to itself, while at the same time being able to stand up.
Austin Powers 2 and 3: Absured, but bloody funny!
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#42
Posted 13 July 2004 - 06:23 AM
Why is it for some reaon, I've just got an idea to rent a few Austin Powers DVDs/VHS?
And yes guys, we shouldn't apply too much reality into Sci-Fic... but it's always fun to nitpick and write entire websites full of commentries to show how lame most are.