• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Star Wars Day

chimeric oncogene

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
51
I have a *vague* recollection of reading that Gene Roddenberry pointed out that nobody explained the functioning or physics of a phaser in the original Star Trek for the same reason that a cop doesn't stop to explain how his .38 works.
I do have a certain fondness for the description of repulsorlifts in Star Wars that has them composed of microcircuitry with stable microscopic black holes inside (neutronium or degenerate matter works better, IMO, without the kaboomy consequences of Hawking Radiation but with other problems like the kaboomy consequences of evaporating neutronium...).
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
681
Reaction score
155
To be fair Star Wars has never got too into explaining the tech in the way Star Trek does. I like that but the cruiser hyperdrive kill was just lazy, as was most of that plot. Indeed, arguably what I disliked about TLJ and ROS was perhaps a more Trek style reliance on tech.
i guess perhaps they just aren’t that good films - it’s the idea and the Universe they created that gets the interest. Arguably Game of Thrones succeeded similarly because it created an incredible world - did something new (killing key characters and genuinely surprising twists) as Star Wars did with its tempo.

After-all you watch 2001, a long film and man is it slow. Some black things, a guy goes to the moon, there is a spaceship, a real time battle between AI and a spaceman, and then a dream (aka LSD!). 2hrs 44mins - for what, 5 things?
I’d be typing all night trying to summarise A New Hope!
Hi pourpletrouble,

wow dude - you *really* thought the last part of 2001 was an acid dream rather than the depiction of an actual transformational occurrence? I guess you really don't know anything about Stanley Kubrick, do you, bro? The absolutely fundamental, decisive difference between 2001 on one side and droning on popcorn sci-fi space opera serials or even standalone films in any way, shape, or form like any incarnations of Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Outland, Enemy Mine, Avatar, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Expanse, Firefly ,or Solaris (both the original and the remake), i.e. *any* other "franchise" or "standalone masterpiece" is that, just like the Black Obelisk at it's very core, 2001 IS NOT INTENDED to be a riveting narrative, but a stand alone contemplation of life, the universe, and everything. The point is not *action* but *introspection*. I can understand though if you were unimpressed by 2010. So don't worry ,grasshopper, you will learn to hop someday ;).

Best wishes,

Martin
 
Last edited:

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
To be fair Star Wars has never got too into explaining the tech in the way Star Trek does. I like that but the cruiser hyperdrive kill was just lazy, as was most of that plot. Indeed, arguably what I disliked about TLJ and ROS was perhaps a more Trek style reliance on tech.
i guess perhaps they just aren’t that good films - it’s the idea and the Universe they created that gets the interest. Arguably Game of Thrones succeeded similarly because it created an incredible world - did something new (killing key characters and genuinely surprising twists) as Star Wars did with its tempo.

After-all you watch 2001, a long film and man is it slow. Some black things, a guy goes to the moon, there is a spaceship, a real time battle between AI and a spaceman, and then a dream (aka LSD!). 2hrs 44mins - for what, 5 things?
I’d be typing all night trying to summarise A New Hope!
Hi pourpletrouble,

wow dude - you *really* thought the last part of 2001 was an acid dream rather than the depiction of an actual transformational occurrence? I guess you really don't know anything about Stanley Kubrick, do you, bro? The absolutely fundamental, decisive difference between 2001 on one side and droning on popcorn sci-fi space opera serials or even standalone films in any way, shape, or form like any incarnations of Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Outland, Enemy Mine, Avatar, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Expanse, Firefly ,or Solaris (both the original and the remake), i.e. *any* other "franchise" or "standalone masterpiece" is that, just like the Black Obelisk at it's very core, 2001 IS NOT INTENDED to be a riveting narrative, but a stand alone contemplation of life, the universe, and everything. The point is not *action* but *introspection*. I can understand though if you were unimpressed by 2010. So don't worry ,grasshopper, you will learn to hop someday ;).

Best wishes,

Martin
??? Aside from your daft and offensive tone, you clearly haven’t read the thread where I make my admiration for 2001 clear, indeed watching it with a live orchestra playing the scote and Kubriks wife giving an intro was probably the most impactful film I’ve ever seen.

2001 is awesome, but ponderous. The last section confuses the hell out of everybody.Please don’t for a second try and claim that section was and is not very ”druggy” in interpretation, and even how people actually watched it!

Star Wars is not slow and doesn’t - as I said before, it is cinema as entertainment/escapism at it’s best. It created a universe with a feel and depth to it, only Star Trek has done the same and the rest of what you mentioned never got close.

I get the impression you think it should be art and anything less that that, or that which people like, is to be demeaned. Perhaps one day you will get over this, but, as the line cinema cemented in our minds, not today.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,639
Reaction score
398
... watching [2001] with a live orchestra playing the score and Kubrick's wife giving an intro was probably the most impactful film I’ve ever seen.

2001 is awesome, but ponderous. The last section confuses the hell out of everybody.
I believe that was on purpose. My take - a man is transported to utterly alien places over some unspecified distance/time, by something radically different from anything he ever imagined and (nearly?) loses his bearings. Alien takes pity, places him into an environment more in line with his usual environment. I still have trouble fitting Star Baby in this picture, so yes, I am confused - and moved.
Star Wars is not slow and doesn’t - as I said before, it is cinema as entertainment/escapism at it’s best. It created a universe with a feel and depth to it
I have seen Star Wars/ANH and 2001 repeatedly, I will likely see 2001 a few more times. I am less likely to see ANH again, unless to show it to some young relative who hasn't seen it before. It was fun, but lacks 2001's depth.

For sheer entertainment, I would skip ANH/all the other SW stuff and watch Bruce Willis + John Malkovich in RED
No depth whatsoever, just fun to watch.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
Yeah I guess, when I last binge watched Star Wars I did zone out a lot. Hard to do that with 2001 but the length and sombreness plus that feeling of confusion is always there. A bit like when I first saw Pulp Fiction I was quite drunk, it was only years later seeing it sober I realised it wasn’t shown in sequence and it wasn’t my drunk state that made me think that was me!

For me entertainment and emotion in a film hit a high with A Life Aquatic. If I’d been 10 years younger I’d have become an Oceanographer or something off the back of that. Nearly did anyway but, well, reasons! Good Morning Vietnam similarly.

Seen RED but, well, I suppose it’s a lot better than anything Segal did but still ... :) The Rock - Connery and that other bloke, has to be similar, the film we always put on when getting back from a night out, I’ve seen the first 20mins dozens and dozens of times, lasted to the ending about twice!

The ‘Cinema Wins’ link up the thread, and finding ‘Cinema Sins’ has literally kept me up at night for a couple of weeks now!! Like in 2008 when I finally replaced my dialup with broadband.
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
681
Reaction score
155
To be fair Star Wars has never got too into explaining the tech in the way Star Trek does. I like that but the cruiser hyperdrive kill was just lazy, as was most of that plot. Indeed, arguably what I disliked about TLJ and ROS was perhaps a more Trek style reliance on tech.
i guess perhaps they just aren’t that good films - it’s the idea and the Universe they created that gets the interest. Arguably Game of Thrones succeeded similarly because it created an incredible world - did something new (killing key characters and genuinely surprising twists) as Star Wars did with its tempo.

After-all you watch 2001, a long film and man is it slow. Some black things, a guy goes to the moon, there is a spaceship, a real time battle between AI and a spaceman, and then a dream (aka LSD!). 2hrs 44mins - for what, 5 things?
I’d be typing all night trying to summarise A New Hope!
Hi pourpletrouble,

wow dude - you *really* thought the last part of 2001 was an acid dream rather than the depiction of an actual transformational occurrence? I guess you really don't know anything about Stanley Kubrick, do you, bro? The absolutely fundamental, decisive difference between 2001 on one side and droning on popcorn sci-fi space opera serials or even standalone films in any way, shape, or form like any incarnations of Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Outland, Enemy Mine, Avatar, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Expanse, Firefly ,or Solaris (both the original and the remake), i.e. *any* other "franchise" or "standalone masterpiece" is that, just like the Black Obelisk at it's very core, 2001 IS NOT INTENDED to be a riveting narrative, but a stand alone contemplation of life, the universe, and everything. The point is not *action* but *introspection*. I can understand though if you were unimpressed by 2010. So don't worry ,grasshopper, you will learn to hop someday ;).

Best wishes,

Martin
??? Aside from your daft and offensive tone, you clearly haven’t read the thread where I make my admiration for 2001 clear, indeed watching it with a live orchestra playing the scote and Kubriks wife giving an intro was probably the most impactful film I’ve ever seen.

2001 is awesome, but ponderous. The last section confuses the hell out of everybody.Please don’t for a second try and claim that section was and is not very ”druggy” in interpretation, and even how people actually watched it!

Star Wars is not slow and doesn’t - as I said before, it is cinema as entertainment/escapism at it’s best. It created a universe with a feel and depth to it, only Star Trek has done the same and the rest of what you mentioned never got close.

I get the impression you think it should be art and anything less that that, or that which people like, is to be demeaned. Perhaps one day you will get over this, but, as the line cinema cemented in our minds, not today.
Thanks for the clarification - I apologize for misinterpreting and offending you.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,639
Reaction score
398
The Rock - entertaining, but too cruel at times to be fun for me. I've never seen a Wes Anderson film I didn't like, one of those directors who always deliver for me. Kubrick certainly one of those, Jean Pierre Jeunet another one. The Coen brothers.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
Rock cruel?
The only Wes A I don’t get is the dogs one, other than that all excellent - I love the Grand Budapest particularly. Yes Coen also - The Dude!
 

chimeric oncogene

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
51
Somewhat depressing news:
I have recently learned that a substantial portion of the Star Wars fanbase is reasonably supportive of the idea that neutron stars, black holes, relativistic time dilation, and anything too "science-y" have no place in the setting of a space fantasy, and for all intents and purposes do not exist in the setting. Likewise, following counterargument, that segment agrees that for all intents and purposes, Han Solo's butthole does not exist either, since it is irrelevant to the story or the genre of space fantasy - a cogent and very good counter-counterargument, I suppose, but one that rather misses the point.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
869
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Somewhat depressing news:
I have recently learned that a substantial portion of the Star Wars fanbase is reasonably supportive of the idea that neutron stars, black holes, relativistic time dilation, and anything too "science-y" have no place in the setting of a space fantasy, and for all intents and purposes do not exist in the setting.
Black holes have a long history in the side-stories of Star Wars.
 

chimeric oncogene

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
51
Black holes have a long history in the side-stories of Star Wars.
They were in Solo. That sequence was cool, but really didn't do the Maw or the Kessel Run justice, IMO.

I mean, the whole point was that Solo was better at navicomputing his way through a tangled web of black holes and stars (since they put a nebula in there) in hyperspace with the power of the Falcon's hyperdrive. They cut much of the hyperspace navigation from the Kessel Run (it looked like it was usually being done on sublight through a thick gas cloud... ugh), and made the whole nebula and black hole accretion disc look... unspectacular.
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
869
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com

chimeric oncogene

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
51
What could have been. :(
Eh. It was constrained by the use of Han Solo. Unless they magically de-aged Harrison Ford, or had a really really convincing CGI deepfake puppet (and public acceptance of such), it had an uphill battle to fight.

I would have tried a Boba Fett movie instead of Han Solo. So much easier on the casting (which is where the Mandalorian came from). But then you run into audience drawing issues again with an unknown character.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
512
Indeed - The Aviation Historian Issue 32 - this issue is particularly interesting : WW2 G-suits, Luftwaffe operations in Tunisia in 1943, The problem that was Shorts, Iranian Jetstars, the Battle of Kent and why the Air Horse crashed...and Hawker's Star Destroyer.

Chris
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,395
Reaction score
1,618


Overlord DVD
180K subscribers


New Star Wars leaks have surfaced regarding the George Lucas cut of Rise of Skywalker, rumors that not only provide new details about this fabled version of Episode IX, but also suggest that Kathleen Kennedy may be about to pay a price for suppressing it. #starwars #riseofskywalker #thelucascut
Overlord DVD 1 hour ago

Hail all! I just want to clarify something for you guys: I don't think that the Lucas Cut could make Rise of Skywalker a good movie. I think Lucas' changes will definitely make it a lot better than it is, but when I say it could wind up saving Star Wars, I'm saying it may finally end up ousting Kennedy from her role as head of Lucasfilm. The rumor suggests that a lot of bigwigs at Disney weren't aware of the Lucas Cut, and in these times of fiscal austerity, the idea of an executive who would sabotage a better version of a movie for political purposes may be the last straw.

I don't know if Star Wars can be saved. I hope it can, but like you, I have a deep rage over what I saw in the Disney sequels, the attacks on the fans, and the arrogance of Kennedy and her clan of cultural vandals. The ONLY way Star Wars could ever POSSIBLY be saved is getting rid of Kennedy, decanonizing the sequels, and bringing in people who love Star Wars. Period. BUT...if this rumor is true, and these events are as I'm interpreting them, then Kennedy's exit would fulfill one of these conditions.

WITHOUT RESPECT WE REJECT!
 
Top