Jump to content

Star Wars VII Has Begun Filming


RutgersJetFan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I thought for sure that was a Z-95 until I scrolled down to the concept art. Interesting, true to the original concept but plausible enough to believe that 30 years later a few innovations were made.

 

 

Ah but Z-95's are part of the Expanded Universe, therefore they don't exist anymore.

Along with TIE Defenders etc... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it. SciFi has a mechanical aspect to it that other genres don't. But at the same time, even Asimov requires some suspension of disbelief.

 

Take a movie like Sunshine, for example. It's one of the best SciFi movies of the millennium, and no aspects of the story or the physics are remotely plausible.

 

Never seen Sunshine, but after reading a plot summary I might have to check it out for the hell of it.

As for Asimov, he's got some really good stuff--what I've read, anyway--and most of it seems at least rooted in plausibility. He did a good job painting pictures of (at least partly) utopian futures that could support all the outlandish stuff he wove in there. A lot of his writing reflects the somewhat misguided optimism of the Space Age that figured we'd be a lot further along by now than we actually are. Still a good read, though, even now.

By the way, speaking of dated scifi thinking we'd be further than we are now: Where's my hoverboard? C'mon scientists; You've got, like, six months...

 

Marty.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but wasn't Abrams' crime against Trek the removal of social commentary (which was unique to that series)?   Star Wars never concerned itself with social commentary, it was just a swashbuckling 'sins of the father' kind of thing.

 

Yeah, that was one of the major talking points against his version of Star Trek, but for me the removal of the social commentary wasn't the biggest flaw in the reboots. I was more appalled at the way he completely ignored the 40-odd years of established Trek canon and storylines in favor of releasing a neatly-packaged, slick action picture for the short attention span generation that was big on 'splosions and flash while being short on character development and scientific plausibility.

Star Trek had always been a more intimate scifi franchise focused on inter-character relationships and a building plotline which kept fans coming back for more. Sure, Abrams brought it over to the masses per se, but the essence of what made the series and movies hits got lost in translation. There was a horribly rushed feeling dominating the first movie as he tried to pack in as many characters and action sequences as he could, and it just didn't work for me. It ended up being a big, bloated, shiny turd. (Also, lens flare.)

But yeah, I'm trying to remain optimistic over Star Wars. I'm not as big a fan of that franchise as I am Trek, but I'm familiar with it and have grown up with it like everybody else. I will have my Debbie Downer moments from now until next December, though. :-)

 

debbie-downer.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never seen Sunshine, but after reading a plot summary I might have to check it out for the hell of it.

As for Asimov, he's got some really good stuff--what I've read, anyway--and most of it seems at least rooted in plausibility. He did a good job painting pictures of (at least partly) utopian futures that could support all the outlandish stuff he wove in there. A lot of his writing reflects the somewhat misguided optimism of the Space Age that figured we'd be a lot further along by now than we actually are. Still a good read, though, even now.

 

 

Yes and no. The general concepts of the Foundation novels are brilliant, and Asimov's strength is that he always weaved in social sciences in with physical sciences in order to drive philosophical undertones, but plenty of his ideas on planetary habitation are wildly off base. The point is that it doesn't matter, because if the story is good, who gives a flying ****? It isn't real. The point of science fiction is not to give science or physics lessons, it is to critique the present through portraying the future. All stories require some suspension of disbelief. No SciFi great, from Heinlein to Herbet and even Asimov, the grandmaster, gets everything right. And expecting the same from movies is even more batsh*t loony because there is an infinite less amount of time to explain things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no. The general concepts of the Foundation novels are brilliant, and Asimov's strength is that he always weaved in social sciences in with physical sciences in order to drive philosophical undertones, but plenty of his ideas on planetary habitation are wildly off base. The point is that it doesn't matter, because if the story is good, who gives a flying ****? It isn't real. The point of science fiction is not to give science or physics lessons, it is to critique the present through portraying the future. All stories require some suspension of disbelief. No SciFi great, from Heinlein to Herbet and even Asimov, the grandmaster, gets everything right. And expecting the same from movies is even more batsh*t loony because there is an infinite less amount of time to explain things.

 

I get what you're saying, and you're right. Admittedly I've only read maybe seven or eight Asimov novels/short stories in total over the years and I like his stuff but I'm not that huge of a fan, so granted I'm no expert. He's just one of those quintessential scifi badasses who command attention every time you see his name--even today. And realistically it's not fair to judge his or his peers' writing on scientific merit since the world is a totally different place now as opposed to when he was at his peak. I remember reading The Time Machine and The Invisible Man during the time my wife and I were in the hospital as my second daughter was being born, and there was a lot of whack sh*t going on in there but I didn't care, the stories were still awesome. H.G. Wells kicks ass.

I think, for whatever reason, that there are different expectations for film as opposed to the printed word. Maybe it's easier to suspend disbelief when you're reading a compelling story, since it's a lot more intimate than watching something on a TV, and if you so desire you can make up your own explanations and backstories for the discrepancies as you go along. There's a certain disconnect that exists between the eyes and the screen that can muddy an otherwise competent movie within a few details. Maybe that's why there are several dozen scifi classics that exist only as books or stories, and only a few scifi movies that can claim the same universal honor. (2001: A Space Odyssey being one that immediately comes to mind.)

Or maybe I'm over-analyzing, lol.

 

Okay, this is getting too deep. I feel obligated to return this thread to a lighthearted, hopeful, fun mood.

 

080.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, and you're right. Admittedly I've only read maybe seven or eight Asimov novels/short stories in total over the years and I like his stuff but I'm not that huge of a fan, so granted I'm no expert. He's just one of those quintessential scifi badasses who command attention every time you see his name--even today. And realistically it's not fair to judge his or his peers' writing on scientific merit since the world is a totally different place now as opposed to when he was at his peak. 

 

I disagree. The original Foundation trilogy was written in the 50s, but he picked up where he left off in the 80s with Edge, Prelude...etc. And even then he was still writing as if the Milky Way had thousands of habitable planets. Even the modern goliaths get stuff wrong here and there. Guys like Joe Haldeman and John Scalzi, none of them get everything right. It's fiction, it's not supposed to.

 

 

 

I remember reading The Time Machine and The Invisible Man during the time my wife and I were in the hospital as my second daughter was being born, and there was a lot of whack sh*t going on in there but I didn't care, the stories were still awesome. H.G. Wells kicks ass.

I think, for whatever reason, that there are different expectations for film as opposed to the printed word. Maybe it's easier to suspend disbelief when you're reading a compelling story, since it's a lot more intimate than watching something on a TV, and if you so desire you can make up your own explanations and backstories for the discrepancies as you go along. There's a certain disconnect that exists between the eyes and the screen that can muddy an otherwise competent movie within a few details. Maybe that's why there are several dozen scifi classics that exist only as books or stories, and only a few scifi movies that can claim the same universal honor. (2001: A Space Odyssey being one that immediately comes to mind.)

 

Wells is fantastic. What makes 2001 work, despite lingering questions that can only be cleared up by reading Clarke's book, is decontextualization, which Kubrick did in too many of his classics. There's a balance that great directors can find in leaving some things to mystery, but it also gives the movie the liberty of not being picked apart. And even in 2001, plenty of errors, starting with the seemingly magical alignment of Jupiter and its satellites. Your boys in Star Trek have been rife with scientific errors, (aliens that look exactly like humans, explosions causing the Enterprise to just stop...etc). Hell, there's even the goddamn pixel fiasco in Blade Runner. Star Wars is rife with errors, Hoth alone makes absolutely no sense; who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wells is fantastic. What makes 2001 work, despite lingering questions that can only be cleared up by reading Clarke's book, is decontextualization, which Kubrick did in too many of his classics. There's a balance that great directors can find in leaving some things to mystery, but it also gives the movie the liberty of not being picked apart. And even in 2001, plenty of errors, starting with the seemingly magical alignment of Jupiter and its satellites. Your boys in Star Trek have been rife with scientific errors, (aliens that look exactly like humans, explosions causing the Enterprise to just stop...etc). Hell, there's even the goddamn pixel fiasco in Blade Runner. Star Wars is rife with errors, Hoth alone makes absolutely no sense; who cares?

 

It's been a while since I've seen 2001, so I'm drawing from fuzzy, booze-damaged memory here, but what I remember being cool about it was the way he depicted the zero-gravity--it wasn't like all those other space-themed movies that showed people waltzing around spaceships like they were strolling across their living rooms. Also there was that slow, deliberate pacing and absence of sound in the exterior shots. That was a nice touch. Besides, any movie that prompts people to go outside and get high during the intermission has something going for it. I'm gonna have to go back and watch that one again.

And I realize that there are going to be errors in just about everything if you analyze it closely enough, but it's just off-putting when it feels like a movie/show/book isn't even trying to get the science right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up.

 

Lol.

No, I totally get what you're saying, and it makes sense. I really do agree.

Also, I'm not really this bitter and jaded about everything; It just seems to be coming out that way after rereading some of my posts. It's probably somehow J.J. Abrams' fault.

 

samasource-debbie-downer.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I like both series for what they are, I thought the Wrath of Khan was poop.  I watched it with my 13yr old prior to seeing the new one.  His first comment, 5 minutes in was: "what's with the rubber pecs?".  Wrath of Khan might be loved by others, but for me the cheesy rubber pecs define the film.

 

I think Abrams rescued the whole khan storyline.  And Benjamin Cumberbatch is cool.

 

Also, the new kahn movie had me wondering all the time if the guy deserved better treatment, and if he was a product of having been abandoned.  So we can't say there isn't any social commentary either.

 

..just humbly offering up a counterpoint to the discussion,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

science fiction is just drama with a green screen, using aliens allows you to do things you can't do with people, like the movie district 9

 

the science isn't the point

 

star wars is half hero quest, half western

Link to comment
Share on other sites

science fiction is just drama with a green screen, using aliens allows you to do things you can't do with people, like the movie district 9

 

the science isn't the point

 

star wars is half hero quest, half western

 

Yes but couldn't they have at least TRIED to get the science behind giant grasshopper people right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but couldn't they have at least TRIED to get the science behind giant grasshopper people right?

 

That made me lol.

 

That's not the point I'm trying to make, though. I'm just talking about the glaring and obvious (and easily correctable) errors that take the viewer out of the film completely. I'll throw out this one example and then I'm going to shut up about this because I'm even starting to annoy myself.

 

Take that new movie Lucy with Boobs Johansson in it.

 

hqdefault.jpg

 

The whole premise is based on a woman who ingests a drug that allows her to access the "other" 90 percent of her brain--you know, because OMG you guys we only use 10 percent of our brains.

Trouble is, that "10 percent" nonsense is an old wives tale at best and a bold-faced lie at worst. The writers knew this when they were putting the script together. They could have changed things up a bit to put it at least somewhere near the realm of believability (maybe some horsecrap about extra neurological pathways, etc.) but didn't bother.

I understand that fact that you have to suspend disbelief when you're watching a scifi movie--or any movie--but basing an entire film on a flawed premise (or featuring one as a major plot point) is just asking too much. It would be like writing an entire movie about how if you cross your eyes they'll get stuck that way, or getting warts from touching a toad. It's almost like a 'roided-up, ugly deus ex machina that lasts an entire movie.

 

And for the record, I liked District 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if the science always has to be 100%.  It depends whether the film is a 'what if' or a social commentary.   Contact and Gravity need to be plausible because they're "what if" type films.   District 9, Elysium and other films that are a front for social comment don't need it so much.

 

...But for the record I think the storm in Gravity couldn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if the science always has to be 100%.  It depends whether the film is a 'what if' or a social commentary.   Contact and Gravity need to be plausible because they're "what if" type films.   District 9, Elysium and other films that are a front for social comment don't need it so much.

 

...But for the record I think the storm in Gravity couldn't happen.

 

Yeah, I think you've got a point there. The amount of explanation required depends somewhat on the style and subject matter. Elysium is the only one of those you mentioned that I haven't seen, but I did like those other three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but couldn't they have at least TRIED to get the science behind giant grasshopper people right?

 

as a side note, one of my pet peeves with sci-fi is when there are no g-forces for the people going to warp 3. 

 

yeah, a body that is like 86% water doesn't rip apart at the molecular level from that, hell they don't even sit down and put seat belts on lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a side note, one of my pet peeves with sci-fi is when there are no g-forces for the people going to warp 3. 

 

yeah, a body that is like 86% water doesn't rip apart at the molecular level from that, hell they don't even sit down and put seat belts on lol

 

Mine has always been explosions in space, with sound and big expanding booms. The deliberate omission of either is one of the things I enjoyed most about Gravity, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine has always been explosions in space, with sound and big expanding booms. The deliberate omission of either is one of the things I enjoyed most about Gravity, actually.

 

and star wars is a huge perpetrator of both sins, and we both are super geeked up for the 7th installment, lol :-)

 

hyperspace_zpsd0cef84d.jpg

 

 

death-star_zps725dce22.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a side note, one of my pet peeves with sci-fi is when there are no g-forces for the people going to warp 3. 

 

yeah, a body that is like 86% water doesn't rip apart at the molecular level from that, hell they don't even sit down and put seat belts on lol

 

Unless the 'engine' functioned by creating an intense (but moving) gravitational point in front of the ship.  All molecules would accelerate evenly, with little noticeable thrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Abrams, Hammill and co spent the past few days filming on a little rock off the ass end of Ireland. A UNESCO World Heritage site - because it has some ancient houses and a f**kload of puffins.

And we had the usual suspects giving out about the impact the film crew could do to the place, with one fellow worrying about things getting damaged by lightsabers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Abrams, Hammill and co spent the past few days filming on a little rock off the ass end of Ireland. A UNESCO World Heritage site - because it has some ancient houses and a f**kload of puffins.

And we had the usual suspects giving out about the impact the film crew could do to the place, with one fellow worrying about things getting damaged by lightsabers.

Rightfully so. You can chop an arm off with one of those things if you're not careful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Does anyone know if Disney will re-release the full trilogy excluding all the bullsh*t moderations? If not I guess I have to buy the blu ray trilogy. Used to have the originals on vhs and the prequels on DVD but that along with most of my stuff was ruined in hurricane sandy. It's about time I get my hands on star wars again. If anyone knows if a re-release will happen or not I'd appreciate the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if Disney will re-release the full trilogy excluding all the bullsh*t moderations? If not I guess I have to buy the blu ray trilogy. Used to have the originals on vhs and the prequels on DVD but that along with most of my stuff was ruined in hurricane sandy. It's about time I get my hands on star wars again. If anyone knows if a re-release will happen or not I'd appreciate the info.

 

I read something about this a while back...supposedly there are plans to re-release the original (unaltered) trilogy on Blu-Ray in a box set, but there were some problems with deterioration on the original film negatives. Also, Fox owns the distribution rights so I don't know how all of that would work in legal terms. I don't think Lucas would be on board with the idea anyway but I'm not sure how much pull he has with those kinds of decisions nowadays.

If I'm not mistaken, the last time the true, original trilogy was released without all the add-on nonsense (extraneous CGI, Greedo shooting first, etc.) was on Laserdisc in the 80s. I have DVD copies of those somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read something about this a while back...supposedly there are plans to re-release the original (unaltered) trilogy on Blu-Ray in a box set, but there were some problems with deterioration on the original film negatives. Also, Fox owns the distribution rights so I don't know how all of that would work in legal terms. I don't think Lucas would be on board with the idea anyway but I'm not sure how much pull he has with those kinds of decisions nowadays.

If I'm not mistaken, the last time the true, original trilogy was released without all the add-on nonsense (extraneous CGI, Greedo shooting first, etc.) was on Laserdisc in the 80s. I have DVD copies of those somewhere.

Thanks for the info, looks like I'll be buying the blu ray copies. Even though there's some stuff I can't stand for example the things you mentioned and Vader screaming no, it's still better than nothing. In the end I love those movies. I'm kind of skeptical on a 7th one because I feel like they'll ruin it but Abrams could do something great with them so we'll see. Once again thanks for the info appreciate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info, looks like I'll be buying the blu ray copies. Even though there's some stuff I can't stand for example the things you mentioned and Vader screaming no, it's still better than nothing. In the end I love those movies. I'm kind of skeptical on a 7th one because I feel like they'll ruin it but Abrams could do something great with them so we'll see. Once again thanks for the info appreciate it.

 

Sure thing. I'm not sure how accurate any of that info is; That's just some stuff I've heard. There's a lot of rumor and speculation out there surrounding a re-release of the original trilogy in its pure form (and there has been for a long time, even from the prequel days), which is understandable.

My advice would be to hold off on buying any new copies of the original trilogy for a little while if you can. I can't imagine a better time for Fox and Disney to partner up on some sort of re-release of episodes 4-6 than in the few months leading up to the theatrical release of Episode VII. There's just too much money to be made off of it and right around this time next year would be the perfect time to do it.

Just a guess, but it would make sense to me anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I'm not mistaken, the last time the true, original trilogy was released without all the add-on nonsense (extraneous CGI, Greedo shooting first, etc.) was on Laserdisc in the 80s. I have DVD copies of those somewhere.

 

Or the VHS box set. Which can still be found very cheap online. I actually stumbled across an unused one, with the coupon book still in it, at a book fair last summer for 5 bucks. Much easier than having to find a laser disc player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the VHS box set. Which can still be found very cheap online. I actually stumbled across an unused one, with the coupon book still in it, at a book fair last summer for 5 bucks. Much easier than having to find a laser disc player.

 

Damn, I need to visit your neighborhood. I go to garage/estate sales every weekend around here during the summer and the only books I ever find are dogeared copies of Twilight and The Hunger Games. I picked up a copy of Animal Farm for 25 cents last month and thought I was high society.

But yeah, you've got a point. Most people still have a VHS player still lying around--if not they're easy to find. I think the only time I've even seen a laserdisc player was in a store back when I was a little kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...