|
Grex > Cinema > #6: Star Wars: nitpicking and memories |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
Star Wars: nitpicking and memories
| 
Feb 12 09:19 UTC 1997 |
A NEW HOPE (the movie formerly known as STAR WARS) has been (back) out
again for a couple of weeks. I haven't seen the rerelease yet, but it's
on my social calendar if it holds for another week.
I'll start the item by discussing some of my creebs about the plotting
and storytelling of the TRILOGY.
1) It always annoys me that STAR WARS and EMPIRE are inconsistent in
their handling of the little fighter ships. In STAR WARS, a significant
point is made that the little Empire fighter could not have gotten out
into deep space by itself. In the next movie, though, Luke takes his
X-wing off to visit Yoda's planet. Long haul travel in a little fighter:
clearly one of the great strengths of The Force is control over the
Jedi Knight's bladder.
2) There's a big scene in STAR WARS at the Death Star Management Meeting.
One of the Empire officers is making fun of Vader's faith in the Force.
"Your sad devotion to this ancient religion..." etc. etc. etc.
Vader is the last (known) follower of The Force, and there was a great
story to be told about why he sold out his co-religionists to serve
a secular Empire.
Second movie: Ooops! We forgot to mention the Emperor is a devotee of
The Force too. Amazing that we overlooked that in the previous movie,
and that nobody else but Vader knows.
Having put in two creebs, I will have to balance the scales by mentioning
that the Imperial attack on the ice planet is one of my favorite sequences
of movie making.
|
| 69 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 1 of 69:
|
Feb 12 20:40 UTC 1997 |
Nit about your first point: One of the main differences between emperial and
rebellion fighters is that the empire went overboard on the "small" and
"manuverable" of the "small manuverable fighter" class of ships. They have
little tiny engins, lightweight bodies, and few small guns. That's it. No
hyperdrive, among other things. The rebellion, on the other hand, went in
for larger, heavier, slower fighters, with such amenities as hyperdrives,
because they had to use hit and fade tactics. Hense, Luke can, if he want
to endour the problems of hygene, fly his ship to Dagobah, while the Emperial
fighter could not have gotten into deep space on it's own.
Nit with that same scene, where the emperial ship got into "deep space" on
it's own: A planet just got blown up, for heaven's sake. There must have
been any number of ships that were in space around it when it went. The
fighter could have been one of them.
All in all, I really liked the new movie, with the exception of the Jaba
scene, and Greedo shooting. The dogfights were improved dramatically.
|
drew
|
|
response 2 of 69:
|
Feb 12 23:25 UTC 1997 |
I have not seen the new version. However, the old version, for all its
glory, had numerous outright blunders that I would lay long odds were not
fixed in the new version. The characters spend a significant part of the
movie riding around in vehicles that proport to be spaceships, in a setting
that proports to be interplanetary space. However, their maneuvers and
other behavior are not that of space vehicles, but instead resemble craft
which never experience vacuum for so much as a minute. The fighter craft
seem to behave like airplanes, while the larger ships more resemble a cross
between a large passenger aircraft and a surface ship. All of the above
behave as if they were always operating in atmosphere.
This is a problem with almost all space fiction that is published in
the form of video or film. More detailed explanation of this problem can be
found in Item 62 in the Science Fiction conference, "Space ships, and how
they work".
I would like to know if any of this was fixed; and I am especially
interested in whether they got rid of that line where Harrison Ford says
that the _Millenium Falcon_ "can make the Kessel run in less that 12
parsecs". It sounded so damned *moronic*!
|
void
|
|
response 3 of 69:
|
Feb 13 00:11 UTC 1997 |
no, solo still claims that his ship can "make the kessel run in less than
twelve parsecs." i've been told that solo made that claim in an attempt to
find out if obi-wan and luke knew anything about space travel, but that's not
made terribly clear in the movie.
one thing that bothers me about space fiction in general is that you always
*hear* ships and planets exploding. i'm pretty sure "dark star" is the only
movie i've seen in which explosions in space were inaudible.
and i doubt i'll go see the other two movies in the "star wars" trilogy
when they come out. the changes in the first one just weren't worth $7 to me.
|
valerie
|
|
response 4 of 69:
|
Feb 13 16:28 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 5 of 69:
|
Feb 13 18:36 UTC 1997 |
I really liked the adaptions they made... (if you read the Star Wars
novels you would know that there is the M<aw Cluster- a group of
many many black holes that make people take longer routes to
get to the glitterstim mines on Kessel).
Although, maybe it was just in the theater where I saw it, but
sometimes the mouths didn't move at the right times for the
voices...
./
|
dang
|
|
response 6 of 69:
|
Feb 13 19:47 UTC 1997 |
Quote from the _Star_Wars_Technical_Journal_ under the section Millenium
Falcon:
"the Falcon's greatest claim to fame was that she was the ship that
held the completion record for the Kessel Run, something of a smugglers
speed and endourance contest. Those ships hired to make the run must
deliver specified loads of certain substances (usually spice from the
mines of Kessel) to a number of moving trade ships before they all pass
beyond the limits of the free trade lanes near the planet. Speed is
of the essence, for the smuggler's ship must cover the distence between
the divergently-moving vessels and make all of it's deliveries before
the trade vessels cross into Imperial space."
I'm not sure it this is what Lucus had in mind, but it's a good explaination
of why distance is a measurement of speed. The back hole deal would be a
measure of manouverability, but not of speed.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 7 of 69:
|
Feb 16 06:36 UTC 1997 |
In a cluster of black holes greater speed would allow you to come closer to
a black hole and still remain faster than the escape velocity from that
distance, so you could choose a straighter line through the cluster. Funny
that they would have a unit of distance measure that is derived from our solar
system.
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 69:
|
Feb 16 17:26 UTC 1997 |
especially given the initial prologue.. " a long, long time ago in a galaxy
far, far away..."
btw, what is the origin of "parse?"
uh, make that "parsec"
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 69:
|
Feb 16 19:04 UTC 1997 |
A star is at a distance of one parsec if its semi-annual parallax is one
second of arc. So parsec comes from (par)allax and (sec)ond.
|
krj
|
|
response 10 of 69:
|
Feb 16 20:39 UTC 1997 |
Why can't people just accept that Lucas made a small but highly
embarrassing mistake in the script?
|
arthurp
|
|
response 11 of 69:
|
Feb 16 22:52 UTC 1997 |
That could be. Movie types are always saying really stupid things in movies
because it sounds technical enough to swap the processors of the average
viewing public. (That's what the movie types think, anyway)
|
drew
|
|
response 12 of 69:
|
Feb 16 23:22 UTC 1997 |
It shouldn't be that big a part of the budget to hire some writers and
technical advisors who know something about space travel before even writing
the script.
|
tcp
|
|
response 13 of 69:
|
Feb 17 02:39 UTC 1997 |
What, admit you don't know everything? Never!
|
bru
|
|
response 14 of 69:
|
Feb 17 14:49 UTC 1997 |
Okay. I like your defenition of parsec. So, since there are no stars within
one parsec of earth, where the hell did they get the defenition?
|
dang
|
|
response 15 of 69:
|
Feb 17 20:01 UTC 1997 |
They wanted a large unit of distance that was based on mathmatics (That are
applicable anywhere, not just earth) so they got the parsec.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 69:
|
Feb 17 21:53 UTC 1997 |
More than that. These distance measures are contrived. The "light year"
was chosen so the numbers to describe distances would be simple: the
nearest star is ca. 4 light years away. However it is a cumbersome term.
Could shorten it to a "lear"...or maybe a "ligear...."lytear"?..ugghh.
Also, it is not a geometric measure. However all this time a lot was being
done using the parallax of nearby stars with respect to background stars,
using the earth's orbital diameter around the sun as the baseline, to
measure the distances to the nearby stars. They begin at just a few
arc-seconds of parallax. It would be natural to talk about their distances
in terms of arc-seconds of parallax. So, someone called it a "parsec", and
it caught on. It is about 1.36 light years.
|
matthew
|
|
response 17 of 69:
|
Feb 18 03:52 UTC 1997 |
From an article I remember hearing w/Lucas (Sorry, I can't quote where it was,
I don't remember where, just that I heard it) Luacs said the line about the
parsec was a blunder. They made a mistake and jnd didn't find out until later
when it was too late to change the scene. As for hiring technical advisors,
when Star Wars was made they didn't have tbudget they got for the later
movies, they may not have been able to aford much more than what they had.
As for the desire so many people have for absolute scientific accuracy clook
at this as a fantasy, with a futuristic theme instead of a medieval theme.
|
mom
|
|
response 18 of 69:
|
Feb 19 17:24 UTC 1997 |
Me thinks you think too much and have too much time on your hands.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 69:
|
Feb 20 15:39 UTC 1997 |
judgemental, aren't we? ;)
|
mom
|
|
response 20 of 69:
|
Feb 21 00:43 UTC 1997 |
I don't sound to be judgemental, but I think if we are going to spend our time
complaining, we might as well complain about things we can change.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 69:
|
Feb 21 11:03 UTC 1997 |
But change is scary. It's much more comfortable to bask in the
status quo and complain about stuff you can't do anything about.
Anyway, the Force be with you.
|
krj
|
|
response 22 of 69:
|
Feb 21 19:13 UTC 1997 |
We finally went to see the rerelease of STAR WARS on Wednesday.
Twenty years ago, I did not realize what a little boy's fantasy
movie it was. In kinship, it is much closer to FLASH GORDON than
to 2001.
|
giry
|
|
response 23 of 69:
|
Feb 21 20:13 UTC 1997 |
I just spent an hour and a half in 20 degree weather waiting for
tickets for The Empire Strikes Back. I was 14th in line. The local news
station came and filmed all of us crazy people standing in the cold. I can't
wait to see it tonight.
|
remmers
|
|
response 24 of 69:
|
Feb 21 22:29 UTC 1997 |
Re #22: Twenty years ago, I *did* realize what a little boy's
fantasy it was. The parallels with Flash Gordon are quite
striking. Nonetheless, I'll probably go to see "Star Wars" and
sequels in their new release, although you'll notice that I'm
not exactly rushing it.
|