Star Wars 7

[Brethern]

Actually it's far worse than that. This goes right back to the 'relateable' problem I mentioned earlier. People are somehow becoming MORE narrow-minded, meaning that all movies have to somehow be a direct reflection of their real life, where only the scenery and the cool toys are allowed to be different. It amazes me how many cartoons I used to watch as a child that presented to me other worlds that introduced new spiritual, political, social, etc. systems that I had never seen before, and more unique concepts than my brain knew what to do with. I go to a source for what the modern equivalent of that is, and all I see are "foreign" worlds where everything works pretty much exactly the same as what I could experience by walking out the front door. And the same has now become true (for the most part) with adult-targeted entertainment as well. Whether not this is just a case of entertainment grossly underestimating the audience, or everyone really has become that boring, I don't know. But in the case of Star Trek being altered to match that, it's almost ironic.

"To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms and new civilizations."

In other words, the exact opposite of what Hollywood does now. We don't get strange new worlds. We get Earth after Earth after Earth (or often even more specifically, America after America after America). Classic Trek had its share of 'parallel Earths' but it never tried to hide when it was going down that route. But these days? Vulcan, the quintessential voice of reason in the Star Trek universe has to be even more primally 'human' than the humans are.

Over to the quote you were responding to...

Your problem with Star Trek is that it's Star Trek. If you want sci-fi without politics you don't have to look very far to find it these days. It's nice to have at least a COUPLE things still out there that encourage people to think about who and what they are, where they're going and why, what their place in the universe is, and how they can make the universe better (besides by killing a big evil tyrant).

And your assessment of the forum population's opinion on politics is a very poor argument. Politics on this forum is forbidden because the popular belief is that it always leads to arguments, NOT because nobody wants to hear about politics. I can think of many political threads that went a VERY long way in an intelligent and civilized manner, but then got locked anyway simply because the threat of a flame war is still present. Kind of sad, because I've never found a forum ANYWHERE that is able to handle politics as well as this one, and that's because we have a lot of folks here who think very similar to how the people in the Star Trek universe do. We don't just want to argue for our "party," we look at the human race as a whole and want to work together to find actual solutions to problems. A very rare mindset on Earth, unfortunately, but we have an abundance of it here.

I don't mind politics, if it's done in a good way, star trek has done nothing but contradict itself at every turn. Not to mention the other stuff.

[Sandworm]

There is theorizing and there is theorizing. Predictions are always speculative, but the act of making predictions requires an examination and discussion of what came before. The process creates a better-informed audience. I get a lot more out of movies when I have a bit of background on the creators and their politics. They cannot help it bleeding through into the production. Firefly and Farscape were Australian, X-files and X-men were Canadian. It shows.

JJ Abrams directed the latest Star Trek movie. That movie did lots of filming at the National Ignition Facility, operated by the US Department of Energy. You don't get into places like that unless the DOE approves of you view on nukes (DOE maintains US nukes and the NIF is tasked with developing bomb tech). The original Star Trek series and movies were very anti-nuclear, but not the last film. Having control over the best nukes wins the day.

Star Wars has also maintained a strong anti-nuclear themes (death stars = evil). Given what happened to Abrams' Star Trek reboot, we won't see any death-star superweapons in the hands of evil people. I expect the big evil to be something small, something more akin to terrorism or hacking. That would be a total flip flop from episodes 4-5-6 where the terrorist bombers were the good guys. We cannot have any of that these days.

Whether the US military/DOE supports a production can be very telling. Top Gun = Yes. Transformers = Yes. Independence day = No. SHIELD = No. Red October = Yes. Crimson Tide = No.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Sandworm

[Brethern]

There is theorizing and there is theorizing. Predictions are always speculative, but the act of making predictions requires an examination and discussion of what came before. The process creates a better-informed audience. I get a lot more out of movies when I have a bit of background on the creators and their politics. They cannot help it bleeding through into the production. Firefly and Farscape were Australian, X-files and X-men were Canadian. It shows.

JJ Abrams directed the latest Star Trek movie. That movie did lots of filming at the National Ignition Facility, operated by the US Department of Energy. You don't get into places like that unless the DOE approves of you view on nukes (DOE maintains US nukes and the NIF is tasked with developing bomb tech). The original Star Trek series and movies were very anti-nuclear, but not the last film. Having control over the best nukes wins the day.

Star Wars has also maintained a strong anti-nuclear themes (death stars = evil). Given what happened to Abrams' Star Trek reboot, we won't see any death-star superweapons in the hands of evil people. I expect the big evil to be something small, something more akin to terrorism or hacking. That would be a total flip flop from episodes 4-5-6 where the terrorist bombers were the good guys. We cannot have any of that these days.

Whether the US military/DOE supports a production can be very telling. Top Gun = Yes. Transformers = Yes. Independence day = No. SHIELD = No. Red October = Yes. Crimson Tide = No.

The US air force also supported Stargate SG1 and they had no problem with them saying an entire carrier group was destroyed. And are you honestly forgetting the Narda? It's basically a scaled down death star.

[Sandworm]

Yes, but SG1 was a very loooong series. I think the longest ever. They hit most every base in all of science fiction. They had to do the death star thing eventually. USAF was a partner even though SG was filmed almost totally in Vancouver. But SG1 was a very pro-military show, without much to disagree about politically. It was also very pro-nuclear, with many plots revolving around a rare mineral akin to uranium. It's not a bad thing per se to get military backing on a production, but there are some decisions that seem linked to this partnership.

Independence Day (1996) was filmed without USAF support because the plot involved Area51 and couldn't really be changed. US authorities had yet to admit Area51 existed. Then a year later SG1 decides to use Cheyenne Mountain as their fictional HQ. Another scifi series, 7 Days (1998) used Area51 did not get support. Whether these decisions were artistic or political we will never know. But understanding the background can make the show more interesting.

And the destroyed carrier group was US navy, not air force. There is significant rivalry between the various forces. USAF would be perfectly happy to see carriers sink on TV just as the USN probably laughed as the Battleship movie opened with a satellite being knocked out of the sky. Since the USN is the world's second-largest air force they couldn't knock down too many planes, but sats are USAF territory. USN supported Battleship. USAF did not.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Sandworm

[Superfluous J]

Area 51 featured fairly prominently in the early Stargate SG1 seasons. They stored the 2nd gate there along with most of the artifacts that teams recovered. Sam frequently went there to do research, both on and off camera.

[megatiger78]

wait why is this star wars?

[Tex_NL]

wait why is this star wars?

This thread USED to be about Star Wars but gradually it became about Star Trek, Stargate and politics.

I would like to ask those still convinced there will be no technological progress in the 30 years between 6 and 7 on what they are basing that assumption. All you've seen is a few X-wings and a ship that looks like the Falcon. Nothing else. There are plenty of 50 year old cars and plane in use today. They are still used either out of necessity or nostalgia. And exactly the same is true in the Star Wars universe.

The Z-95 Headhunter is the direct precursor of the classic X-Wing. It was developed during the Clone Wars but still in use, side by side to the X-Wing, during the Galactic Civil War.

So unless you've got more reference material this entire discussion is totally useless. It's like looking at a glass of water and concluding that since it contains no life the entire earth is devoid of life. Your sample size simple is too small.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Tex_NL

[worir4]

This thread USED to be about Star Wars but gradually it became about Star Trek, Stargate and politics.

You wouldn't happen to be this Tex would you??? http://www.orbiter-forum.com/member.php?u=6

[Superfluous J]

I think we ran out of things to say about 4 seconds of contextless CGI of classic space ships.

[Tex_NL]

You wouldn't happen to be this Tex would you??? http://www.orbiter-forum.com/member.php?u=6

Unless I suddenly developed a split personally, no.

[*Aqua*]

Your problem with Star Trek is that it's Star Trek.

We are talking about Star Wars here.

[megatiger78]

and republic commandos

[vger]

I think we ran out of things to say about 4 seconds of contextless CGI of classic space ships.

Oh, I could add my own rant to this, but... keeping it short...

Claymore saber... WTH?

FIFA Astromech. LOLWTH?

Everything else? Yeah, pretty. But a little unsettling. What I've seen Abrams using most to sell this film to the fans is a lot of talk about REAL sets, REAL props, and REAL alien costumes. He was adamant about how this wouldn't be another CGI fest. Doesn't mean I expected the vehicles to be real models, but the last thing I wanted was a "look how awesome our CGI is!" teaser.

[Sandworm]

...REAL sets, REAL props, and REAL alien costumes. ..

Doctor: You'll have normal relationships with normal people at a normal school.

Bart Simpson: I don't like how many times you said normal.

Every director says these things. It's like when they say "character development" is more important than imagery or when they talk about how great it would be to film in black and white again. Self-aggrandizing artistic dribble imho. Star Wars was about spectacle from literally the first second when episode IV hit audiences with that opening bang. I think he is bragging about how his cgi will be altogether different than anyone else's. His will be better ... even though it isn't finished and he likely hasn't seen much finished product of beyond what's in the trailer.

We do know that Disney threw a pile of money to render Big Hero 6 on a massive cloud, actually a couple massive clouds. No doubt Star Wars is has access to similar rendering capacity.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/18/disney-big-hero-6/

*And Star Trek is relevant because the director for episode 7 (Abrams) just did the last two Trek films, both of which were radical departures from classic trek themes. His selection suggests Disney is looking to move Star Wars away from its roots. Is Scott Bakula still around?

Claymore saber... WTH?

That saber gives me hope. It isn't simply a Claymore. It's a flaming cross sword, a very strong religious image. And it's red, a color traditionally associated with the dark side. A fire cross wielded by an evil character might mean they are going in a very interesting direction vis-a-vis the force as a religious conflict.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Sandworm

[vger]

Doctor: You'll have normal relationships with normal people at a normal school.

Bart Simpson: I don't like how many times you said normal.

CGI is what's normal now, not physical effects

Every director says these things. It's like when they say "character development" is more important than imagery or when they talk about how great it would be to film in black and white again. Self-aggrandizing artistic dribble imho. Star Wars was about spectacle from literally the first second when episode IV hit audiences with that opening bang. I think he is bragging about how his cgi will be altogether different than anyone else's. His will be better ... even though it isn't finished and he likely hasn't seen much finished product of beyond what's in the trailer.

You clearly didn't actually watch what I'm talking about. These weren't random passing comments made during a late night interview. These were actual teasers of sorts that came directly from Abrams in many cases, with live footage and production stills. There is no way he was disguising a statement that his CGI was so good you'd think it was real.

And sorry, no. It wasn't "all about spectacle." It was a good selling point, but it had more going for it than that. There were a LOT of films loaded with spectacle in that era, but characters and story (with a few exceptions) from the modern equivalent can't hold a candle to those. These days it almost begs the question, "Why use real actors at all anymore?"

That saber gives me hope. It isn't simply a Claymore. It's a flaming cross sword, a very strong religious image. And it's red, a color traditionally associated with the dark side. A fire cross wielded by an evil character might mean they are going in a very interesting direction vis-a-vis the force as a religious conflict.

That would be nice, but I have a great deal of trouble imagining that Disney would ever allow it. Religion is even less popular now than it was when Episode I came about, and they completely did away with the mysticism of the Force in favor of Midichlorians, just to ensure they didn't tick off the Anti-theism crowd. I hope I'm wrong, but risk-taking isn't very popular in entertainment these days.

As an aside, if they want to make an epic dark-aged story about a Force 'crusade,' they should just go WAY back in time to the Sith wars.

Edited November 30, 2014 by vger

[FishInferno]

ok, going back to the point of the limited progression in 30 years:

In the Clone Wars, there is a rapid advancement in military technology. This is because there is a need for war goods. In the time between III and IV, the clone-wars era ships are being phased out in favor of better, more advanced craft. The Empire needs new ships to enforce their grip on the galaxy. once the newer ships are designed and built, there is very little advancement, other than a few ewer models of TIE fighters. Once the rebels defeat the Empire, there is (presumably) a time of relative peace. Any small squabbles that break out could be easily met with the current technology. They do not really need to rapidly develop new war craft. However, there is still some advancement going on. The X-Wings in the trailer look like they have narrower wings. They are just the next generation of similar-looking fighters (ARC-170 to X-Wing to Ep. VII X-Wing).

[Fingal]

Why are lots of people complaining about a film they haven't seen yet?

[spaceman1999]

I don't want to argue i'm just inputting an opinion

I prefer the older "feel" for lack of a better word of plastic props and old lightsaber noise making techniques. (For those who dont know it was a microwave hum and TV Static)

[vger]

Why are lots of people complaining about a film they haven't seen yet?

It's kinda the same feeling you would get when someone cheats on you a hundred times and then begs you to give him/her one more chance.

[PakledHostage]

Here's a new trailer (for szits and giggles):

[L3GO]

The KSP one is a great one too Pak.

[Helix935]

uhh oh ok everyone calm down we don't need a moderator here to close this down

[gooddog15]

At least john williams will be composing the movies music.

[WinkAllKerb'']

dumbness is an important of the show @saberguard xD

else yick* but kids probably gonna love it so ... place to next the gen

[GoSlash27]

I'm looking forward to this movie. I enjoyed his re-spins of the Star Trek franchise for all the reasons so many Star Trek fans hated them. The old Star Trek movies were boring, his weren't.

Likewise, I can tell from the teaser that he's fixed what I hated about Star Wars: Lucas has ADD and it was only the technical and budget limitations that enabled him to make the first couple movies watchable. Abrams has simplified things, gone back to the "used universe" concept, and put the focus back on special effects.

The only bad news is I gotta wait a whole year to see it

YMMV,

-Slashy