• Star Wars: The Force Awakens teaser is coming Friday
    355 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Whiplash~;46607747]I don't understand how it's any better. I mean, sure it [i]looks[/i] better, but if the exhaust theory is true, this redesign doesn't make any sense. Well, it already doesn't. If I'm looking at it right, the light coming from the handle just splits into 3 directions for no reason. Energy doesn't bend like that by itself. Why do people think they can outsmart the artists behind a [i]Star Wars[/i] movie? I'm sure there's a reason the saber looks the way it does, they wouldn't redesign it unless they had a strong concept and reason for it.[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/RxBDqST.jpg[/t] is a lot more practical [t]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt123/XXXpredALIEN/revananddriver_zps83238c31.jpg~original[/t]
[QUOTE=Tuskin;46610326][url]http://makingstarwars.net/2014/11/visual-new-droid-sidekick-works-star-wars-force-awakens/[/url] Here is how that Ball Droid works supposedly. This was posted 4 days before the trailer. I'm scared about how much leaked material is actually true.[/QUOTE] Really hoping that thing doesn't become a comic relief with how absurd it looks.
From /tv/ I don't like to hotlink directly from 4chan but my Dropbox isn't working today. [IMG]http://i.4cdn.org/tv/1417408996596.gif[/IMG] [vid]http://i.4cdn.org/tv/1417413016897.webm[/vid]
you're all fucking nerds [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Papytendo;46610775]you're all fucking nerds[/QUOTE] Indeed we are. What of it?
[video=youtube;yBEdgPFoBjY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBEdgPFoBjY[/video]
[QUOTE=J!NX;46610240]are people actually complaining about the science... of a science fiction movie do people not understand the point of science fiction or something? It's science fiction, of course it's impractical. It's a fucking sword made of lazer beams and you're questioning the logic of an alternative design of the light sabers? You don't see me complaining about the practicality of warp drives or how stupid it is that [URL="http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Threshold_(episode)"]warp[/URL] 10 causes such silly effects, because I understand that it exists within a theoretical science fictional world and suspend my belief and immerse myself into the science of that world. Star Trek has far more complicated technology, too, and I still don't question it so much that I question simpler things this hard. I sit back and enjoy the plot and story for what it is. Great Science Fiction. Star wars is AMAZING science fiction at its worst, but it does have its flaws. But of all the things people complain about it's something as minor as that. [editline]1st December 2014[/editline][/QUOTE] Others have already beaten me to commenting, but Star Wars is space fantasy, not science fiction. Being set in a futuristic environment is just a setting, not implicitly a genre, so the fact that it is set in a high-tech environment doesn't make it science fiction. Science fiction as a genre generally involves the ramifications of technology, of [I]science[/I], and its effects on the world. You could take the original Star Wars films and transplant them into medieval Europe and the same plot would basically work, because it's a classic fantasy hero's journey story with a veneer of futurism. Unlike something like Blade Runner or Neuromancer, the setting and technology are not implicitly tied to the story and themes. If you were making new Star Wars movies or books, you could have them be all sorts of genres- military fiction, political fiction, romance, drama, mystery, depending on how they're written, because the laser guns and space ships are just props, not a genre in themselves. By comparison, while Star Trek is also very 'fluffy' and not overly concerned with realistic, plausible science, it's considered science fiction because many its themes and stories (although not all) are explicitly tied to futurism. Exploring the nature of consciousness when a person's mind is transferred to a machine, or how cloning affects societies, or what meeting a truly alien intelligence would be like, are all very science fictiony ideas. Meeting a long-lost family friend who sends you on a quest to save a princess is not, regardless of whether it's set in modern day, ancient Rome, or the distant future. That said, I agree wholeheartedly that arguing over the practicality of a made-up laser sword in a setting as batshit insane as Star Wars is ridiculous. I think it's a dumb design, but not because of some made-up technological reason that has no connection to reality.
[QUOTE=catbarf;46612003]Others have already beaten me to commenting, but Star Wars is space fantasy, not science fiction. Being set in a futuristic environment is just a setting, not implicitly a genre, so the fact that it is set in a high-tech environment doesn't make it science fiction. Science fiction as a genre generally involves the ramifications of technology, of [I]science[/I], and its effects on the world. You could take the original Star Wars films and transplant them into medieval Europe and the same plot would basically work, because it's a classic fantasy hero's journey story with a veneer of futurism. Unlike something like Blade Runner or Neuromancer, the setting and technology are not implicitly tied to the story and themes. If you were making new Star Wars movies or books, you could have them be all sorts of genres- military fiction, political fiction, romance, drama, mystery, depending on how they're written, because the laser guns and space ships are just props, not a genre in themselves. By comparison, while Star Trek is also very 'fluffy' and not overly concerned with realistic, plausible science, it's considered science fiction because many its themes and stories (although not all) are explicitly tied to futurism. Exploring the nature of consciousness when a person's mind is transferred to a machine, or how cloning affects societies, or what meeting a truly alien intelligence would be like, are all very science fictiony ideas. Meeting a long-lost family friend who sends you on a quest to save a princess is not, regardless of whether it's set in modern day, ancient Rome, or the distant future.[/QUOTE] I called it sci/fantasy fiction later in my post but that all makes sense. But my point was that, people are taking a fake science (Light sabers) and arguing about it as if actually physically existent. the theme doesn't matter all that much, what I meant was that they're taking a world with X physical rules and trying to argue about how those rules "Actually" play out. Star Trek is the closest thing I could relate to Star Wars since people complain about the two (even though star wars is better in its native format, and star trek better in it's native format, both are the same in a way, but one is built around the movie format, and the other TV). Calling star wars Space fantasy only reinforces that it's simple in nature and thus makes great film. and since your post is the case they literally could just call the trisaber a space claymore and it's all good. Because that thing is basically a big, bad ass laser claymore. If this was medieval times, it'd have big bad ass knives instead of lasers for the cross guard, and people would bitch about how a knifecrossguard would cut his hand off and how thats "like dumb and stuff" of course, calling it science fiction is what I see most everyone do, since we are not familiar with fantasy in a futuristic setting. I try calling it science fantasy but the robots (Golems) throw me off.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl5lfy2wndg[/media]
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46612097]It's microorganisms - [url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian]Georde Lugas[/url][/QUOTE] "Anakin Skywalker, possibly conceived by the midi-chlorians" "Midi-chlorian counts were linked to potential in the Force, ranging from normal Human levels of 2,500 per cell to the much higher levels of Jedi. The highest known midi-chlorian count—over 20,000 per cell—belonged to the Jedi Anakin Skywalker, who was believed to have been conceived by the midi-chlorians." Fuck sake Lugas [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] Anakin is space Jesus now, apparently
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46610238]Well, seeing as they aren't scientifically possible, they're fiction of science; science fiction. Besides, I know for a fact that I've seen at least Gulliver's Travels under Science Fiction. [t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7333627/ShareX/2014-11/30T23-42-42.png[/t][/QUOTE] Alright Gulliver's travels is science fiction in one of his travels, otherwise not really. The rest are nothing of the sort. Just because it's not scientifically possible doesn't make it science fiction. The difference between science fiction and fantasy is that science fiction focuses on scientific themes or content such as space travel, etc which explain such content by science. Fantasy usually describes impossible events with magic or supernatural acts. Therefore Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are nowhere near science fiction. This also puts Star Wars at a weird balance between science fiction and fantasy, as there's a lot of tech involved but also a lot of magical elements involved too. [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] I've been debating genre definitions a lot recently for some reason.
I never understood what was so bad about midichlorians. Is it because they tried to explain the force?
Yeah, the biological explanation of the force removed a lot of what made it interesting from a metaphysical standpoint. It's supposed to remain mysterious, but with midichlorians it's about how many force cells you have in your blood. Star Wars is a fantasy, not science fiction. We don't need extraneous details about how the force works.
[QUOTE=geogzm;46612309]I never understood what was so bad about midichlorians. Is it because they tried to explain the force?[/QUOTE] It's that they tried to come up with a pseudo-scientific explanation for what was supposed to be this mystical element to the setting. The original films use the Force as an element of fate, a kind of undercurrent of religious symbolism that various characters reject or embrace. Obi-Wan describes it in very mystical terms as a force that connects all living things. It's an archetypical example of Destiny with a capital D, and you can find very similar things all over classic hero's journey literature, the force of fate that drives the hero towards his goals. It goes all the way back to the Homerian epics, with the heroes being pushed towards their ultimate destiny by the will of the gods. Then Lucas come along with the prequels and says it's actually space bacteria that give you magic powers and if you don't have them then you're shit out of luck. It destroyed the mystique and religious symbolism of the Force, and its power as a narrative element. The characters that seemed to be chosen by fate and called to action are now revealed to just be genetically psychic. Then once it was reduced to a bland science fiction trope, it wasn't used or explored any further, it was just throwaway dialogue with no real plot significance that negatively impacts the themes of the original films. It's lazy writing and the quintessential example of bad technobabble.
Less about the lightsaber, more about the first guy who popped up in the beginning. He looked so out of place and it made me think this was some fake video or something.
[QUOTE=redBadger;46612429]Less about the lightsaber, more about the first guy who popped up in the beginning. He looked so out of place and it made me think this was some fake video or something.[/QUOTE] I agree with you, but at the same time we're seeing these "scenes" completely out of context. It may not seem as jarring if we were able to see everything leading up to that. Also, I am very happy to see a real human wearing a real costume at a real location rather than some green screen thing. I'll take hammy shots over that any day.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;46614029]I agree with you, but at the same time we're seeing these "scenes" completely out of context. It may not seem as jarring if we were able to see everything leading up to that. Also, I am very happy to see a real human wearing a real costume at a real location rather than some green screen thing. I'll take hammy shots over that any day.[/QUOTE] I don't think practical effects inherently make a movie better, nor do I think they excuse hammy shots.
[QUOTE=catbarf;46612400]It's that they tried to come up with a pseudo-scientific explanation for what was supposed to be this mystical element to the setting. The original films use the Force as an element of fate, a kind of undercurrent of religious symbolism that various characters reject or embrace. Obi-Wan describes it in very mystical terms as a force that connects all living things. It's an archetypical example of Destiny with a capital D, and you can find very similar things all over classic hero's journey literature, the force of fate that drives the hero towards his goals. It goes all the way back to the Homerian epics, with the heroes being pushed towards their ultimate destiny by the will of the gods. Then Lucas come along with the prequels and says it's actually space bacteria that give you magic powers and if you don't have them then you're shit out of luck. It destroyed the mystique and religious symbolism of the Force, and its power as a narrative element. The characters that seemed to be chosen by fate and called to action are now revealed to just be genetically psychic. Then once it was reduced to a bland science fiction trope, it wasn't used or explored any further, it was just throwaway dialogue with no real plot significance that negatively impacts the themes of the original films. It's lazy writing and the quintessential example of bad technobabble.[/QUOTE] I would also argue that while a movie series meant for a fun and good time, it also destroyed a deeper interpretation of the original trilogy. The force was never said (to my memory) to be something that only chosen people could follow or use, anyone could use it if they tried and trained enough. It was something that went beyond the physical boundaries of life, Yoda is the perfect example of this. He doesn't need to be a tall handsome man, he was a small goofy hermit yet was an incredibly powerful Jedi. By adding midichlorians they not only tainted the things you mentioned and made up goofy babble, but it destroyed the idea that anyone could become a Jedi or perhaps a hero. Only special people with special genetics could ever become a Jedi. It makes the whole thing a lot less meaningful when people are naturally tuned to the force due to genetics and that not only removes the movie's mystical wonder but the deeper message that anyone could do what they wanted in life. :words: [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Krinkels;46614103]I don't think practical effects inherently make a movie better, nor do I think they excuse hammy shots.[/QUOTE] Practical effects don't make a movie better or worse, I think what ThePanther is trying to say is that practical effects are well, real. They have a sense of grit and depth that is hard to simulate with a computer and also impacts the movie as a whole, it becomes very difficult to act when everything around you is green-screen, especially if a monster or character is CGI as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with "hammy" shots, there is no shame in something not being what you or I want or think is good and Star Wars always had a slight draw of melodrama (which is fine), we don't know the context nor where this clip actually cuts from, in context it will probably be very different.
[QUOTE=Krinkels;46614103]I don't think practical effects inherently make a movie better[/QUOTE] They do if it's Star Wars.
[QUOTE=redBadger;46612429]Less about the lightsaber, more about the first guy who popped up in the beginning. He looked so out of place and it made me think this was some fake video or something.[/QUOTE] No, please, less about him- all im seeing on youtube and facebook are people complaining that "SJW's" have banned straight white Christians from being in star wars and have ruined it forever because a black guy is in it. [img]https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10407286_963278320366492_7082755192683211479_n.jpg?oh=fa722f60083b0f3552877ef174df5b4f&oe=55200628[/img]
[QUOTE=fulgrim;46614598]No, please, less about him- all im seeing on youtube and facebook are people complaining that "SJW's" have banned straight white Christians from being in star wars and have ruined it forever because a black guy is in it. [img]https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10407286_963278320366492_7082755192683211479_n.jpg?oh=fa722f60083b0f3552877ef174df5b4f&oe=55200628[/img][/QUOTE] What's the modern day joke he's talking about? [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;46612003]Others have already beaten me to commenting, but Star Wars is space fantasy, not science fiction. Being set in a futuristic environment is just a setting, not implicitly a genre, so the fact that it is set in a high-tech environment doesn't make it science fiction. Science fiction as a genre generally involves the ramifications of technology, of [I]science[/I], and its effects on the world. You could take the original Star Wars films and transplant them into medieval Europe and the same plot would basically work, because it's a classic fantasy hero's journey story with a veneer of futurism. Unlike something like Blade Runner or Neuromancer, the setting and technology are not implicitly tied to the story and themes. If you were making new Star Wars movies or books, you could have them be all sorts of genres- military fiction, political fiction, romance, drama, mystery, depending on how they're written, because the laser guns and space ships are just props, not a genre in themselves. By comparison, while Star Trek is also very 'fluffy' and not overly concerned with realistic, plausible science, it's considered science fiction because many its themes and stories (although not all) are explicitly tied to futurism. Exploring the nature of consciousness when a person's mind is transferred to a machine, or how cloning affects societies, or what meeting a truly alien intelligence would be like, are all very science fictiony ideas. Meeting a long-lost family friend who sends you on a quest to save a princess is not, regardless of whether it's set in modern day, ancient Rome, or the distant future. That said, I agree wholeheartedly that arguing over the practicality of a made-up laser sword in a setting as batshit insane as Star Wars is ridiculous. I think it's a dumb design, but not because of some made-up technological reason that has no connection to reality.[/QUOTE] I better quit calling Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" science fiction, then.
[video=youtube;BJgLa3eKMYs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJgLa3eKMYs[/video] this is you nerds and also me because YES
I'm fucking excited for this. I CANNOT get over the millennium falcon scene, it's so fucking well set up, holy shit I'd pay just to watch the next trailer.
[QUOTE=Kaios;46618398]I'm fucking excited for this. I CANNOT get over the millennium falcon scene, it's so fucking well set up, holy shit I'd pay just to watch the next trailer.[/QUOTE]What do you mean? Not much happens in it. It's a 3D model that flies around and tie fighters shoot at it. What am I missing?
[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46618433]What do you mean? Not much happens in it. It's a 3D model that flies around and tie fighters shoot at it. What am I missing?[/QUOTE] "Why are you getting excited about this here is why you should not be excited"
[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46618433]What do you mean? Not much happens in it. It's a 3D model that flies around and tie fighters shoot at it. What am I missing?[/QUOTE] James Bond? Not much happens in it. It's a dude that runs around and shoot people and save the world. What am I missing? Half-Life? Not much happens in it. It's a physicist that runs around and kills aliens. What am I missing? Game of Thrones? Not much happens in it. It's a bunch of families fighting over a throne. What am I missing?
[QUOTE=Limed00d;46618466]James Bond? Not much happens in it. It's a dude that runs around and shoot people and save the world. What am I missing? Half-Life? Not much happens in it. It's a physicist that runs around and kills aliens. What am I missing? Game of Thrones? Not much happens in it. It's a bunch of families fighting over a throne. What am I missing?[/QUOTE]Actually you're bang on target about Game of Thrones :v:. Seriously though, if I'd seen any of the actors from the original movies in the trailer or at least something impressive my reaction would be different. But this is what I'm seeing : [video=youtube;g4HEQq4r3eA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4HEQq4r3eA[/video] [video=youtube;QWVdbOeNSsY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVdbOeNSsY[/video] [video=youtube;RKI6qqWjXhY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKI6qqWjXhY&list=UU87IhCfF-ScrIcb9MPiG-Hw[/video] [video=youtube;R2yF8oFAxpk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2yF8oFAxpk[/video] I really want to get excited, but yeah.. Sorry for being a kill joy, but I can't figure out what I'm missing here.
It explicitly states everywhere that it's a teaser so we don't get much content
[t]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/335/7/0/star_wars_episode_viii_by_belovp-d88cthm.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46614829]I better quit calling Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" science fiction, then.[/QUOTE] Interstellar has widely been called a science fiction/drama, because it's a drama about people as much as it's sci-fi, but relativity features very heavily. It's explicitly tied to science fiction concepts, and that makes it sci-fi- if you stripped out the spaceships and the exploration and it was a story about family and identity that just happened to involve a spaceship, then yes, it would be a drama and not science fiction. A family drama is a drama whether it's set on a Viking longship, Saharan caravan, New York city block, Conestoga wagon, or spaceship. It's the addition of science fiction themes (guessing a film about a Viking longship won't involve relativity or string theory) that make it science fiction.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.