Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Original HD Star Wars is available if you look...
I know it re-kindled my love!
Original HD Star Wars is available if you look...
I know it re-kindled my love!
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Warpaint
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Even just watching the SD version last May 25 on my PC was enough to remind me that I still love the OOT.
Original HD Star Wars is available if you look...
I know it re-kindled my love!
Even just watching the SD version last May 25 on my PC was enough to remind me that I still love the OOT.
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
One thing that I hope they do not include in this new trilogy is another Death Star or some other super weapon, that trope has been done to death in the EU, it's time for a super weaponless villain. Oh, and no more of everything looking like things we've seen before, I don't want New Republic cruisers to look like modified Star Destroyers or Mon Cal cruisers for that matter, and I don't want any fighters looking like tweaked TIEs or X-Wings; lets come up with some original designs for once instead of just rehashing existing designs.
One thing that I hope they do not include in this new trilogy is another Death Star or some other super weapon, that trope has been done to death in the EU, it's time for a super weaponless villain. Oh, and no more of everything looking like things we've seen before, I don't want New Republic cruisers to look like modified Star Destroyers or Mon Cal cruisers for that matter, and I don't want any fighters looking like tweaked TIEs or X-Wings; lets come up with some original designs for once instead of just rehashing existing designs.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Totally agree!
Totally disagree! Battleships, fighter planes, tanks, guns... They all look basically the same now as they did 50 years ago. I would fully expect the same in a future Star Wars universe.
Totally agree!
Totally disagree! Battleships, fighter planes, tanks, guns... They all look basically the same now as they did 50 years ago. I would fully expect the same in a future Star Wars universe.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
That'd be great. But you know they're gonna do it at least once in the trilogy. Why? Because "It's not Star Wars without a superweapon/Death Star!" Just like "It's not Star Wars without Luke, Han, and Leia!" and how it's "Not Star Wars without Jedi and lightsabres" and basically everything that's ever appeared in Star Wars. It's basically not Star Wars unless it's the OOT, rehashed, according to most people.
On the one hand, I agree. On the other, I think a similar style makes sense as an evolution of design. If you look at, say, an F-22, it looks like a recognizable evolution of military aircraft designs, albeit different. You could see how it shares similar design traits with, say, the F/A-18, F-14, F-15, etc.
That said, the EU stuff has included plenty of different looking designs that still "felt" Star Wars-y. I wouldn't expect them to be included in these films, but my point is that it CAN be done. You CAN design ships that look like they'd fit in the Star Wars universe, but don't involve a tie- or X-shaped wing design, or folding/flipping wings like the "S-foils" on the X-wing. Even within the OT, who would've predicted the look of the Nebulon-B after watching the first film? Or the Mon Cal cruisers, after watching the first two films? Or the look of B-wings and A-wings, etc., etc.? Yet all those things are accepted as "Star Wars" in terms of their look.
By contrast, I don't find much in the prequel films to look like Star Wars, mostly because it all seems way too advanced and shiny as compared to the OT era. The only stuff that looked familiar were the capital ships on the Republic side, and that was on purpose.
That'd be great. But you know they're gonna do it at least once in the trilogy. Why? Because "It's not Star Wars without a superweapon/Death Star!" Just like "It's not Star Wars without Luke, Han, and Leia!" and how it's "Not Star Wars without Jedi and lightsabres" and basically everything that's ever appeared in Star Wars. It's basically not Star Wars unless it's the OOT, rehashed, according to most people.
On the one hand, I agree. On the other, I think a similar style makes sense as an evolution of design. If you look at, say, an F-22, it looks like a recognizable evolution of military aircraft designs, albeit different. You could see how it shares similar design traits with, say, the F/A-18, F-14, F-15, etc.
That said, the EU stuff has included plenty of different looking designs that still "felt" Star Wars-y. I wouldn't expect them to be included in these films, but my point is that it CAN be done. You CAN design ships that look like they'd fit in the Star Wars universe, but don't involve a tie- or X-shaped wing design, or folding/flipping wings like the "S-foils" on the X-wing. Even within the OT, who would've predicted the look of the Nebulon-B after watching the first film? Or the Mon Cal cruisers, after watching the first two films? Or the look of B-wings and A-wings, etc., etc.? Yet all those things are accepted as "Star Wars" in terms of their look.
By contrast, I don't find much in the prequel films to look like Star Wars, mostly because it all seems way too advanced and shiny as compared to the OT era. The only stuff that looked familiar were the capital ships on the Republic side, and that was on purpose.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I'm still optimistic about this new trilogy, and I look forward to it. I like the new Star Trek, and Into Darkness looks like it will be great.
I am still having a hard time unlearning that Vader built C3PO.
That will all be fixed in the inevitable reboot. I hope I live that long.
I'm still optimistic about this new trilogy, and I look forward to it. I like the new Star Trek, and Into Darkness looks like it will be great.
I am still having a hard time unlearning that Vader built C3PO.
That will all be fixed in the inevitable reboot. I hope I live that long.
Last edited:
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
To a certain degree but form does follow function but that only goes so far and not to the degree that they've in Star Wars. The OT alone has shown us that there is a wide variety in starship designs and that not everything has to look a like. 50 years ago our military was flying F-4s, the Century series of fighters, our warships still had multiple gun turrets on their decks and far busier superstructures, our tanks were much rounded all around and lacked side skirts. All in all a whole lot less resemblance between them and what we have now then an Old Republic cruiser and a Star Destroyer and Jedi fighters and TIEs.
To a certain degree but form does follow function but that only goes so far and not to the degree that they've in Star Wars. The OT alone has shown us that there is a wide variety in starship designs and that not everything has to look a like. 50 years ago our military was flying F-4s, the Century series of fighters, our warships still had multiple gun turrets on their decks and far busier superstructures, our tanks were much rounded all around and lacked side skirts. All in all a whole lot less resemblance between them and what we have now then an Old Republic cruiser and a Star Destroyer and Jedi fighters and TIEs.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
The equipment doesn't look fundamentally different at all.
Tank in 1944:
Tank in 2012, almost 70 years later:
Naval ship in 1940:
Naval ship in 2012, again, 70 years later:
As for fighter jets, hell, we're STILL using the same basic designs as we were in the 1970s. 40 years, look the same.
The equipment doesn't look fundamentally different at all.
Tank in 1944:
Tank in 2012, almost 70 years later:
Naval ship in 1940:
Naval ship in 2012, again, 70 years later:
As for fighter jets, hell, we're STILL using the same basic designs as we were in the 1970s. 40 years, look the same.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
That's what I mean about an evolution in design, rather than radical shifts.
Compare the F-4:
...to the F/A-18, pictured alongside the F-22.
Similarities? Sure. But not identical. I mean, yeah, you can find identical designs in some cases, but there's also evolution in there, primarily as functionality changes.
That's why, within the EU, the evolution of design in the X-wing to E-wing made sense. You can see the provenance of the E-wing, but it's not the exact same thing.
I could see them doing something similar in future films. That said, I could also see them doing something radically different.
Take, for example, the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut:
Pretty radical departure from the F-4 look, even if it shares some similar design characteristics (granted, it's also not an American fighter, but still).
As for tank design, we actually have changed design philosophies on armor several times in this country. So, yeah, you can show me a Centurion from '44, but I can just as easily show you a Sherman tank, or an M-60 Patton, and while there'll be some design similarities, it'll look pretty different from the Sherman, from the Centurion, and from the M1A1 Abrams.
The equipment doesn't look fundamentally different at all.
Tank in 1944:
Tank in 2012, almost 70 years later:
Naval ship in 1940:
Naval ship in 2012, again, 70 years later:
As for fighter jets, hell, we're STILL using the same basic designs as we were in the 1970s. 40 years, look the same.
That's what I mean about an evolution in design, rather than radical shifts.
Compare the F-4:
...to the F/A-18, pictured alongside the F-22.
Similarities? Sure. But not identical. I mean, yeah, you can find identical designs in some cases, but there's also evolution in there, primarily as functionality changes.
That's why, within the EU, the evolution of design in the X-wing to E-wing made sense. You can see the provenance of the E-wing, but it's not the exact same thing.
I could see them doing something similar in future films. That said, I could also see them doing something radically different.
Take, for example, the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut:
Pretty radical departure from the F-4 look, even if it shares some similar design characteristics (granted, it's also not an American fighter, but still).
As for tank design, we actually have changed design philosophies on armor several times in this country. So, yeah, you can show me a Centurion from '44, but I can just as easily show you a Sherman tank, or an M-60 Patton, and while there'll be some design similarities, it'll look pretty different from the Sherman, from the Centurion, and from the M1A1 Abrams.
Bigdaddy
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
:thumbsup " ..judge me by my digital effects do you? and well you should not, the OT is my ally, and a powerful ally it is" :lolOriginal HD Star Wars is available if you look...
I know it re-kindled my love!
jme3
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I didn't see anything in the OT that was really in stark contrast to what premiered in the prequels; they were evolutionary designs. And I'm guessing the artsy side of the galaxy is alive and well during the sequel era, with ships that reflect any number of interpretations besides the Imperial military aesthetic. But I'm also gonna guess that we'll see the Galactic Republic/Imperial design as well, with those wedge-shaped destroyers and tri-winged shuttles that reflect the design evolution started with the prequels through to the OT. That wouldn't rub me the wrong way at all. To see the evolution of the SSD would be great, and another model to eventually add to the collection!
I didn't see anything in the OT that was really in stark contrast to what premiered in the prequels; they were evolutionary designs. And I'm guessing the artsy side of the galaxy is alive and well during the sequel era, with ships that reflect any number of interpretations besides the Imperial military aesthetic. But I'm also gonna guess that we'll see the Galactic Republic/Imperial design as well, with those wedge-shaped destroyers and tri-winged shuttles that reflect the design evolution started with the prequels through to the OT. That wouldn't rub me the wrong way at all. To see the evolution of the SSD would be great, and another model to eventually add to the collection!
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Thinking more of it I suppose that the PT ship designs were fairly evolutionary but there really was no reason for an Old Republic cruiser to have the same basic wedge design as a Star Destroyer. Form does follow function but when you're talking about spacecraft you have a lot more freedom than you do say a convention waterborne warship where hydro and aerodynamics are a factor that dictate and limit your designs but when in space those limits are no longer there and a cube works as well as something sleek and aerodynamic in appearance.
I will admit that my main criticism extends to The Old Republic MMO where in the trailers for the game you see a lot of ships that looked an awful lot like what we've seen before despite the huge difference in time. Still, as cool as Star Destroyers are I don't want to see any more wedges, I want to see more innovative designs like the old Corellian Corvettes, the Nebulon B, and the Falcon, something that breaks the mold some.
Thinking more of it I suppose that the PT ship designs were fairly evolutionary but there really was no reason for an Old Republic cruiser to have the same basic wedge design as a Star Destroyer. Form does follow function but when you're talking about spacecraft you have a lot more freedom than you do say a convention waterborne warship where hydro and aerodynamics are a factor that dictate and limit your designs but when in space those limits are no longer there and a cube works as well as something sleek and aerodynamic in appearance.
I will admit that my main criticism extends to The Old Republic MMO where in the trailers for the game you see a lot of ships that looked an awful lot like what we've seen before despite the huge difference in time. Still, as cool as Star Destroyers are I don't want to see any more wedges, I want to see more innovative designs like the old Corellian Corvettes, the Nebulon B, and the Falcon, something that breaks the mold some.
jme3
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I don't know... If you look back at ships of our own history (planet earth, not just America), ships still look remarkably like ships. And not back just 70 years or so, but even further than that into antiquity. Yes, materials have changed, sizes have changed and so forth, but they still have the classic outline of ships. So I don't think it's a big leap to think the two differing eras in SW would have produced radically different designs.
As noted above, I think the "wedgies" will still be there. As for the other types of craft which can easily trace their lineages back to non-military purposes, I think the sky's the limit.
I don't know... If you look back at ships of our own history (planet earth, not just America), ships still look remarkably like ships. And not back just 70 years or so, but even further than that into antiquity. Yes, materials have changed, sizes have changed and so forth, but they still have the classic outline of ships. So I don't think it's a big leap to think the two differing eras in SW would have produced radically different designs.
As noted above, I think the "wedgies" will still be there. As for the other types of craft which can easily trace their lineages back to non-military purposes, I think the sky's the limit.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
As others have pointed out, it would be unrealistic if they weren't still using A, B, and X-Wings in the new movies. We're using F-15s that are 30 years old right now and B-52s that are 50+ years old. I'm guessing at the most, Episode VII will be 20 years after ROTJ. They would be upgraded versions.... just like in the EU. There's also no reason to have Star Destroyers still in use, along with newer Mon Cal designs. You could make a case and say that the new government wouldn't use Star Destroyers because they were a symbol for the Empire.
As others have pointed out, it would be unrealistic if they weren't still using A, B, and X-Wings in the new movies. We're using F-15s that are 30 years old right now and B-52s that are 50+ years old. I'm guessing at the most, Episode VII will be 20 years after ROTJ. They would be upgraded versions.... just like in the EU. There's also no reason to have Star Destroyers still in use, along with newer Mon Cal designs. You could make a case and say that the new government wouldn't use Star Destroyers because they were a symbol for the Empire.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
True, but that's not to say they don't still exist out there used by renegade warlords or outlying systems. They'd get used, I imagine there's a lot of investment there.
True, but that's not to say they don't still exist out there used by renegade warlords or outlying systems. They'd get used, I imagine there's a lot of investment there.
Zombie_61
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Oh, wait...you meant...never mind.
Nope. As George Lucas told Carrie Fisher during the filming of Star Wars, "There's no underwear in space."
Oh, wait...you meant...never mind.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I expect to see some old favorites, that will be nice, but I hope he adds a generous portion of things I've never seen before!
I expect to see some old favorites, that will be nice, but I hope he adds a generous portion of things I've never seen before!
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Yeah, but there may be other design factors at work. Hell, some of it might be "branding." Like, "Oh, you see a bowtie-shaped ship, you know it's made by Sienar."
I think we can safely discount the Old Republic MMO, particularly given what a flop it's turned out to be. I tend to think, however, that it illustrates one of the basic problems with taking an established franchise and moving it very far in one direction or the other in its own in-universe timeline. Which, actually, is the same issue you face with reboots/remakes. How do you strike the balance between familiarity and newness? I think that's a MUCH harder thing to do than most people -- and especially most "suits" -- recognize.
Yeah, but there may be other design factors at work. Hell, some of it might be "branding." Like, "Oh, you see a bowtie-shaped ship, you know it's made by Sienar."
I think we can safely discount the Old Republic MMO, particularly given what a flop it's turned out to be. I tend to think, however, that it illustrates one of the basic problems with taking an established franchise and moving it very far in one direction or the other in its own in-universe timeline. Which, actually, is the same issue you face with reboots/remakes. How do you strike the balance between familiarity and newness? I think that's a MUCH harder thing to do than most people -- and especially most "suits" -- recognize.
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
That's because a waterborne ship has certain limitations placed on it in order to function properly and/or efficiently on water but even then there is considerable variation due to function. You could hardly say that an ancient Greek or Roman trireme looks much like a Nimitz class carrier or that a Spanish American War era battleship bears much resemblance to a modern cruise ship. Like I said earlier, we're talking space ships so unless it's mean to be trans-atmospheric it can be any shape you want it to be from a sphere to a cube to star and it would operate just the same assuming that it had the same mass and engines.
That's because a waterborne ship has certain limitations placed on it in order to function properly and/or efficiently on water but even then there is considerable variation due to function. You could hardly say that an ancient Greek or Roman trireme looks much like a Nimitz class carrier or that a Spanish American War era battleship bears much resemblance to a modern cruise ship. Like I said earlier, we're talking space ships so unless it's mean to be trans-atmospheric it can be any shape you want it to be from a sphere to a cube to star and it would operate just the same assuming that it had the same mass and engines.
Similar threads
