Who doesnt like star wars?

44leto

Ironically nothing dates quicker then science fiction. I was watching it recently and I ask why didn't they Email the plans of the Death star to the rebel base.

That would have saved a lot of bother.

Doc Ruby

Would everyone complaining about the realism of Star Wars please lend me their crystal ball for a while, I need to make some thousand year long investments and could use a few pointers.

Why lightsabers or "laser swords" as they were originally called, well why not? We still have combat knives and bayonets alongside machine guns today. Sooner or later you are going to have to get up close and personal, and it doesn't get much better than lightsabers.

EdenHazard

me loada homos

Big Nasty

Never saw a full Star Wars movie.

When I was about 7/8 we RENTED a VCR and the the tape of Star Wars (original movie) to play at my birthday party for myself and all the lads and it wouldn't work.

Think that pretty much killed it for me.

The_Thing

Bambi wrote: »

Star wars is for c**ts

Blakes 7 is all you need.

+1

I watched episode 34 - 'Rumours Of Death' - last night.

mattjack

I also like MC Hammer

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIRQf0S3oD0

Chuck Stone

krudler wrote: »

Its a beam of concentrated laser, the day lighsabers become a reality is the day life becomes awesome

Then when Traveller feuds are fought with light sabres instead of slash hooks everyone will be like 'Wow.. that's awesome' :pac:

icarus86

Many hours well spent watching the original trilogy as a kid, good times! Then Lucas goes and wrecks the whole lot with his prequels:mad:

Ben D Bus

I was 9 when Star Wars was released. Haven't seen it in years but loved it.

I'll be watching the last episode of Firefly on Netflix tonight. I've enjoyed the series but it's really a Western with a spaceship. There's not much sci in this sci-fi.

And the mention of Blakes 7 has made me want to watch it again. I don't remember much cgi in that series. Lots of cardboard & papier mache though

44leto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt0UuNpUqK4

Star wars in general does have good scores. This was a good scene but what really got me was the score. Brilliant, IMO one of the best film scores.

krudler

44leto wrote: »

Ironically nothing dates quicker then science fiction. I was watching it recently and I ask why didn't they Email the plans of the Death star to the rebel base.

That would have saved a lot of bother.

if China can stop google I'm sure the Empire can prevent data being sent across the galaxy, they did build the Death Star after all, despite its shocking lack of safety railings.

The King of Moo

EdenHazard wrote: »

me loada homos

Jar Jar, I didn't realise you were homophobic!!

44leto

krudler wrote: »

if China can stop google I'm sure the Empire can prevent data being sent across the galaxy, they did build the Death Star after all, despite its shocking lack of safety railings.

LOL
It also had a great crèche facility for the empire orphans.

A0

Galway K9 wrote: »

I work in a 9-5 job as a programmer, and apparently were all "nerds" (I disagree completely) and my collegues are puzzled as to how i don't like star wars LOL....oh and avatar is another!

Ignore your colleagues. May the force be with you.

tan11ie

Me! never liked it never will.

Dudess

Never watched it. Looks pretty cool though, so I should.

Rabies

fundlebundle wrote: »

Uh hello?
4, 5 and 6 are actually the first trilogy.
1, 2 and 3 are the prequels, and I think they are really underrated. George Lucas always had a vision and it should be respected.

Seriously though I hate them all except for empire. It's the only one I can enjoy

Is it bad that I read that in my head in the Comic Book Guy voice.

Doc

I was a big fan of the first tree movies had loads of the toys and loved to watch them but this review of the first prequel is pretty much is dead on as to how I feel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI

The prequels ruined what was a classic and they could have been so good.

danniemcq

I hate them,

the original 3 yeah ok they are mediocre, the last 3 are just laughable.

although to be fair i also HATE Lord Of The Rings which i have been ridiculed about. but WHY THE F*CK DIDN'T THEY JUST FLY THE WHOLE WAY

Loomis

danniemcq wrote: »

I hate them,

the original 3 yeah ok they are mediocre, the last 3 are just laughable.

although to be fair i also HATE Lord Of The Rings which i have been ridiculed about. but WHY THE F*CK DIDN'T THEY JUST FLY THE WHOLE WAY

Eyjafjallajökull, innit

I've never watched them. Have no interest.
I saw the final one (whatever it was called), thought it absolute horse**** which didn't give me any desire to watch the originals.

the_syco

Is Star Wars an inferior version of Star Trek? :pac:

Wibbs

danniemcq wrote: »

the original 3 yeah ok they are mediocre, the last 3 are just laughable.

I loved the first one*, but I was a kid at the time. Today it wouldn't appeal so much. Makes sense. The empire strikes back I thought good and still do. The last of the first lot was godawful. That said it was a real breath of fresh air at the time. The only sci fi you were exposed to in the 70's was in comics or Dr Who and star trek reruns. It was the first time I'd seen a "lived in" future universe anyway. Without SW stuff like Alien etc would probably not have gotten a studio green light.

although to be fair i also HATE Lord Of The Rings which i have been ridiculed about.

Plus one. Could never see the attraction with it at all. Started reading the books when I was a kid and got soooo bored. Never liked the wizards and dwarfs sword and sorcery stuff anyway.



*and it was the first one. None of this "oh I had a trilogy in mind" BS from Lucas. Sure ya did George, sure ya did.

danniemcq

Wibbs wrote: »

I loved the first one*, but I was a kid at the time. Today it wouldn't appeal so much. Makes sense. The empire strikes back I thought good and still do. The last of the first lot was godawful. That said it was a real breath of fresh air at the time. The only sci fi you were exposed to in the 70's was in comics or Dr Who and star trek reruns. It was the first time I'd seen a "lived in" future universe anyway. Without SW stuff like Alien etc would probably not have gotten a studio green light.

Plus one. Could never see the attraction with it at all. Started reading the books when I was a kid and got soooo bored. Never liked the wizards and dwarfs sword and sorcery stuff anyway.



*and it was the first one. None of this "oh I had a trilogy in mind" BS from Lucas. Sure ya did George, sure ya did.

he probably sees this series as 10 or 12 movies long with all the edits he has made too.

That really annoys me about Lucas he is constantly changing for whatever reason (artistic, story, ego) and a perfect example of this is the "who shot first" debacle

First release Hans shoots first and shows himself to be ruthless and not caring about anyone meaning the swooping in and saving the day shows that he has had a massive change of heart and is the perfect hero

second remake they shoot together .... meh

third remake the wee bounty hunter shoots first from 2 foot away and misses. HOW USELESS is he as a bounty hunter and makes Hans character look like some mediocre badass.

As far as LOTR and fantasy goes yeah i don't mind it but this was urgh for lack of a better word

Paparazzo

I'm not a fan of wizard and dwarf stuff either, but game of thrones is worth a watch. It's like lord of the rings for adults.

lazygal

I've never seen any of them. No desire to either.

danniemcq

Paparazzo wrote: »

I'm not a fan of wizard and dwarf stuff either, but game of thrones is worth a watch. It's like lord of the rings for adults.

except brilliant,

I know a lot of people were put off by the whole fantasy thing of GoT but there is so much more to it, there is the epic political struggle between the families, the backstabbing, the betrayals, the twists the sheep epicness of the entire thing and just wait till end of season 2 for some truely orgasmic eye porn!

Wibbs

danniemcq wrote: »

he probably sees this series as 10 or 12 movies long with all the edits he has made too.

Probably. Though there's no way in hell he thought of it as a long saga back when he made the first as he now claims. In the original Vader is not Lukes daddy and his first name is Darth, it's not some sith title. Indeed no mention of these sith AFAIR. Vader is an imperial lackey subservient to the bloke Vincent price plays. Leia is not Luke's sis, she was his love interest. Luke was the main character not vader. He changed all that stuff to expand the franchise. Fair enough, but don't come out now and say "oh I meant it like that all along".

What he meant at the time was to make a good old style saturday matinee flash gordon type dealio for kids*. With sword fights and spaceships and laser guns and baddies and princesses that even a farm boy can get. To that end he did make one of those flash gordon movies and as I kid I damn near wet myself watching it. I fcuking loved it. Went two or three times. Bought the toys and comics and tee shirts and chewing gum cards. Even blagged an original cinema foyer poster from a mates dad who worked there. Still have it too. Probably worth a few quid now I suppose. It was great to be a kid at the time, the right age to fall into that story and universe.

That really annoys me about Lucas he is constantly changing for whatever reason (artistic, story, ego) and a perfect example of this is the "who shot first" debacle

First release Hans shoots first and shows himself to be ruthless and not caring about anyone meaning the swooping in and saving the day shows that he has had a massive change of heart and is the perfect hero

second remake they shoot together .... meh

third remake the wee bounty hunter shoots first from 2 foot away and misses. HOW USELESS is he as a bounty hunter and makes Hans character look like some mediocre badass.

You are kidding. No way. Haven't caught any of the remixes so.. FFS. As a kid I clearly remember thinking how cool han solo was at that very point. If he's pulling guff like that then I'll likely never watch a remix. It'll ruin a memory.



*One heavily based on a couple of Japanese samurai movies by Kurosawa. To the degree he actually thought of buying the rights to one in case they got sued.

foxyboxer

The known laws of physics do not apply to the Star Wars universe, therefore, Star Wars is a Fantasy movie and not science fiction.

danniemcq

foxyboxer wrote: »

The known laws of physics do not apply to the Star Wars universe, therefore, Star Wars is a Fantasy movie and not science fiction.

is that why you can hear the pew pew zoom noises in the vacuum of space?

Wibbs

foxyboxer wrote: »

The known laws of physics do not apply to the Star Wars universe, therefore, Star Wars is a Fantasy movie and not science fiction.

If you apply such criteria/pedantry then precious few science fiction movies have been made. 2001? Even that's a stretch. For me the clue is in the title; Science fiction.

fitzgooble

7 of 9 was daecent though

foxyboxer

Wibbs wrote: »

If you apply such criteria/pedantry then precious few science fiction movies have been made. 2001? Even that's a stretch. For me the clue is in the title; Science fiction.

For me the science fiction implies story telling with a solid grounding in a physical reality. Take Alien for example, they just don't travel from one side of a galaxy to the next using hyperspace travel, they go into hypersleep, which as a mature viewer you would take it as plausibly how it would have to be to travel enormous distances. When they land on LV-426, it's not a case of they are in orbit and ,cut scene, they land. It would appear physically traumatic to the Nostromo ship and indeed it get's damaged in the process.

Take Robocop, with advances in biotechnology, it will someday be a reality.
For me science fiction is where writers create stories based on a physical reality, of using ideas which have not been invented yet and telling stories when the authors take liberties on the physical reality then it becomes fantasy.

So when a tie fighter passes the screen shooting lasers with a whoosh! bang! if it were true science fiction then that wouldn't happen but seeing it as a fantasy it certainly makes it more exciting for a viewer.

Science Fiction isn't applied to 'Space' either.
Planet of the Apes? Godzilla? Cloverfield? Genetic Mutations.

krudler

foxyboxer wrote: »

For me the science fiction implies story telling with a solid grounding in a physical reality. Take Alien for example, they just don't travel from one side of a galaxy to the next using hyperspace travel, they go into hypersleep, which as a mature viewer you would take it as how it would have to be to travel enormous distances. When they land on LV-426, it's not a case of they are in orbit and ,cut scene, they land. It would appear physically traumatic to the Nostromo ship and indeed it get's damaged in the process.

Take Robocop, with advances in biotechnology, it will someday be a reality.
For me science fiction is where writers create stories based on a physical reality, of using ideas which have not been invented yet and telling stories when the authors take liberties on the physical reality then it becomes fantasy.

So when a tie fighter passes the screen shooting lasers with a whoosh! bang! if it were true science fiction then that wouldn't happen but seeing it as a fantasy it certainly makes it more exciting for a viewer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8

Fizman

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I've never gotten into it.
I like sci-fi, but not Star Wars....

That's like saying you love to swim, but you're not a big fan of water.

Doc Ruby

foxyboxer wrote: »

The known laws of physics do not apply to the Star Wars universe, therefore, Star Wars is a Fantasy movie and not science fiction.

You can fiddle anything if you want to though. For example lets look at the most clear example of physics-defying-atheist-scientician-purist-angrifying things in the whole trilogy (there were no prequels), the Force. Explain that one away eh.

Here's how it goes, just purely off the top of my head. As time passes and science becomes more and more specialised, certain genetic traits are engineered. These include things like microgravity manipulation and electromagnetic field adjustment. Because they are genetic they become inheritable, and restricted to a certain kind of police force, along with superb reflexes and a few other bits and bobs.

Thousands of years pass, there are wars, alliances, peace and the rise and fall of civilisations, this police force has changed into a religious cult, with basically the same rules, calling itself the Jedi. The inheritable traits still exist to one extent or another, scattered all over the place, but now it's called the Force, since much of the original genetic engineering has been either lost or forgotten about.

Et voila! Disbelief suspended and ye don't ever have to go outside your mental comfort zone about science and technology thousands of years in the future.

Princesses and Princes? We have them today in modern developed nations, plenty of them and they serve in, wait for, largely diplomatic positions! The K in UK stands for Kingdom.

Noise in space? Poetic licence. Or whatever the person inside their ship hears.

Why not make 100m long light sabers? Its handy not to slice a good cutlet off the hull of whatever ship you're on every time you flick your wrist, eh? That's assuming its even technologically possible at the time, I'd view lightsabers as more or less stabilised blasters, the beams for which never get too long. And indeed even at the start of the 20th century the US navy used boarding cutlasses, which were handy in the close quarters and sorts of places you'll get all over space.

B-but fighter ships make no sense! Close quarter fights make no sense! Of course they make perfect sense when you can hop out of hyperdrive a few hundred km away from your target. Why put in all the ridiculous amount of effort needed to go a few percent of c when you can just zap over there instantly?

Take that ya magic killin bastards.

foxyboxer

Considering that Lucas stole from almost every conceivable movie genre :pac:, when it get's labelled purely science fiction it get's me :mad:

Paparazzo

Fizman wrote: »

That's like saying you love to swim, but you're not a big fan of water.

More like you like to swim, but not the back stroke.

Run_to_da_hills

Never had any interest in Starwars, Startrek or any other science fiction except for Thunderbirds when I was a kid.

kfallon

Not a Sci-Fi fan but I love Star Wars, had so many of the action figures when I was younger! Empire Strikes Back is just top class!

However I am not a fan of these :mad:

http://cdn100.iofferphoto.com/img/item/203/742/624/original-mens-adidas-star-wars-sweatshirt-trefoil-logo-35fe4.jpg

http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=29547457

JohnMarston

Fizman wrote: »

That's like saying you love to swim, but you're not a big fan of water.

Not quite. You can like comedy but dispise family guy (which i do, its generous even to call it comedy)

44leto

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=joseph%20campbell%20hero%20with%20a%20thousand%20faces&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces&ei=Sc96T-7jBtGYhQfRlYWDCQ&usg=AFQjCNH-vKT8MznL1Tw0eXmEo6wUAdbMuw

Since publication of The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell's theory has been consciously applied by a wide variety of modern writers and artists. The best known is perhaps George Lucas, who has acknowledged a debt to Campbell regarding the stories of the Star Wars films

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man

Lucas set the myth and legend within a SciFi (of sorts) but the universality of the tale is explained by Joseph Campbell. Kucas wrote the saga based on his work.

So it really isn't SciFi more a hero story, "A hero with a thousand faces"

Snowie

Galway K9 wrote: »

I work in a 9-5 job as a programmer, and apparently were all "nerds" (I disagree completely) and my collegues are puzzled as to how i don't like star wars LOL....oh and avatar is another!

You can comincate with us meer mortals :eek:? :cool:

Fizman

JohnMarston wrote: »

Not quite. You can like comedy but dispise family guy (which i do, its generous even to call it comedy)

Where I was coming from was if you spoke to the average Joe, and asked him to mention the very first film/show/actor that comes to his head when you mention the term 'sci-fi', there is a very good chance he will mention Star Wars (imo). Regarding that genre, it could be seen as the flagship show. It almost defined sci-fi for the best part of a quarter of a century.

Regarding a genre like comedy, I think it is far more widespread that different opinions would be had on different shows.

bnt

I think Star Wars is OK, in the sense that it "does what it says on the tin". Look a little closer, you can see George Lucas pushing buttons and pulling levers to manipulate the audience, according to well-established literary and mythological theories e.g. Joseph Campbell, as already mentioned. Not much about it is generally original.

bnt

foxyboxer wrote: »

The known laws of physics do not apply to the Star Wars universe, therefore, Star Wars is a Fantasy movie and not science fiction.

As already noted, mythology was more central to Star Wars than science, and I also regard it as more fantasy than SF. I think that's one reason why the whole "midichlorian" business was so controversial: an attempt to provide a pseudo-scientific basis for something essentially supernatural, it fell between two stools and satisfied nobody.

But even where SF includes things that don't work under out current knowledge of science, that doesn't mean that it can't be rigorous about it. This is so-called "Hard SF", and a favourite of mine is The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle. For example, faster-than-light travel is possible, but it's difficult and problematic. But people are still people, and they travel to a world on which evolution has produced an alien race with very specialised sub-castes. The humans think they can deal with the aliens, but they have no idea what they've let themselves in for ... :eek:

Paparazzo

There's a few "I don't like sci-fi" people on here.

Can you honestly say you haven't enjoyed Back to the Future, Predator, Wall-e, Jurassic Park, E.T., Planet of the Apes, Terminator, Matrix, Inception, Avatar, Robocop, The Fly, Blade Runner, or Mad Max?

Fair enough you don't like star wars, but to say you don't like it because you've automaticly ruled out an entire genre is just weird

danniemcq

44leto wrote: »

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man
So it really isn't SciFi more a hero story,

"A hero with a thousand faces"

wasn't that Jesus?

Shryke

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You can fiddle anything if you want to though. For example lets look at the most clear example of physics-defying-atheist-scientician-purist-angrifying things in the whole trilogy (there were no prequels), the Force. Explain that one away eh.

Here's how it goes, just purely off the top of my head. As time passes and science becomes more and more specialised, certain genetic traits are engineered. These include things like microgravity manipulation and electromagnetic field adjustment. Because they are genetic they become inheritable, and restricted to a certain kind of police force, along with superb reflexes and a few other bits and bobs.

Thousands of years pass, there are wars, alliances, peace and the rise and fall of civilisations, this police force has changed into a religious cult, with basically the same rules, calling itself the Jedi. The inheritable traits still exist to one extent or another, scattered all over the place, but now it's called the Force, since much of the original genetic engineering has been either lost or forgotten about.

Et voila! Disbelief suspended and ye don't ever have to go outside your mental comfort zone about science and technology thousands of years in the future.

Princesses and Princes? We have them today in modern developed nations, plenty of them and they serve in, wait for, largely diplomatic positions! The K in UK stands for Kingdom.

Noise in space? Poetic licence. Or whatever the person inside their ship hears.

Why not make 100m long light sabers? Its handy not to slice a good cutlet off the hull of whatever ship you're on every time you flick your wrist, eh? That's assuming its even technologically possible at the time, I'd view lightsabers as more or less stabilised blasters, the beams for which never get too long. And indeed even at the start of the 20th century the US navy used boarding cutlasses, which were handy in the close quarters and sorts of places you'll get all over space.

B-but fighter ships make no sense! Close quarter fights make no sense! Of course they make perfect sense when you can hop out of hyperdrive a few hundred km away from your target. Why put in all the ridiculous amount of effort needed to go a few percent of c when you can just zap over there instantly?

Take that ya magic killin bastards.

Your makey upy back story doesn't fit though. As the basis for a different universe you could give that a go but not with SW. It doesn't gel. Nor does it explain talking to/seeing ghosts. The only detectable difference in those with the force is some midichlorine rubbish?
And Darth Vader was an immaculate conception by the force which was also the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy...
Light sabers and the rest are all pure fantasy. Making up your own explanations doesn't work when there are really stupid ones already given in the SW universe.
Noise in space, artistic license... I'm a bit meh on that one myself. It's the sheer magnitude of purely fantastical elements that make it fantasy rather than sci-fi. The only reason to call it sci-fi? It's in space. That's not really enough in my book. Not with space wizards. Was Space Balls a sci-fi? They're as ridiculous as each other.

Nice to see a Transmet fan by the way.

Logical Fallacy

foxyboxer wrote: »

For me the science fiction implies story telling with a solid grounding in a physical reality. Take Alien for example, they just don't travel from one side of a galaxy to the next using hyperspace travel, they go into hypersleep, which as a mature viewer you would take it as plausibly how it would have to be to travel enormous distances. When they land on LV-426, it's not a case of they are in orbit and ,cut scene, they land. It would appear physically traumatic to the Nostromo ship and indeed it get's damaged in the process.

Take Robocop, with advances in biotechnology, it will someday be a reality.
For me science fiction is where writers create stories based on a physical reality, of using ideas which have not been invented yet and telling stories when the authors take liberties on the physical reality then it becomes fantasy.

So when a tie fighter passes the screen shooting lasers with a whoosh! bang! if it were true science fiction then that wouldn't happen but seeing it as a fantasy it certainly makes it more exciting for a viewer.

Science Fiction isn't applied to 'Space' either.
Planet of the Apes? Godzilla? Cloverfield? Genetic Mutations.

In Alien/Aliens they also have full gravity on the ship even while in space...kind of lacking the "physical reality" element there though.

For me, Science Fiction is anything based in a reasonably developed culture or place that simply holds true to the laws and traits is established within it's own context.

It's normally why i despise movies that involve time travel, as they spend a lot of time completely contradicting the laws and rules they established in earlier scenes just to resolve plot holes.

The thing that kills science fiction is the over-explanation problem a lot of films/authors have. Look at guys like Banks...who simple state something as a possibility and leave it at that. No need to explain the physics in relation to what we currently know...the point of a lot of science fiction is to establish that it's based in a time of development beyond our own, so understandings are different and new things are possible.

Hell, I'd consider The Difference Engine to be great science fiction, possibly the progenitor of Steampunk and that was set in yet olde England.

44leto

danniemcq wrote: »

wasn't that Jesus?

Another version of it, the author argues well that all myths and legends have a similar formula. Be it in the bush of an Amazonian tribe or a sophisticated culture of the middle east, humans tend to tell the same type of myths and legends.

Its a seminal academic work, quite famous in those circles. Lucas actually gave campbell a private screening of Star Wars.