Slashdot Mirror


Star Wars Minutiae

Class Act Dynamo writes "CNN does a story on some of the finer points of making the Star Wars flicks. I like the part where Mark Hamill discusses the theoretical logistics of employing janitorial staff for the entire Death Star. Enjoy."

75 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. The logistics of building the Death Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Randal: So they build another Death Star, right?
    Dante: Yeah.
    Randal: Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it.
    Dante: Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due.
    Randal:And the second one was still being built when they blew it up.
    Dante: Compliments of Lando Calrissian.
    Randal: Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right.
    Dante: And you figured it out?
    Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.
    Dante: Basically.
    Randal: So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished.
    Dante: And the second time around...?
    Randal: The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction.
    Dante: So?
    Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
    Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.
    Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
    Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
    Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.
    (The Blue-Collar Man (Thomas Burke) joins them.)
    Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
    Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
    Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
    Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
    Randal: Like when?
    Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
    Dante: Whose house was it?
    Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's.
    Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
    Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
    Dante: Based on personal politics.
    Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
    Randal: No way!
    Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.

    1. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Too+many+errors,+bai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry to spoil the humor, but the Star Wars Databank says the Death Star was built by Geonosians, which are insect-like hivemind creatures and therefore not individual contractors. :p

    2. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.

      Even that is not true - we know that Death Star had lots of prison cells (we know that there are more cell blocks than just the one where Lea is kept. It's safe to assume that on Death Star there were at least dozens (if not hundreds) of prisoners of the Empire. Now, some of them could be also evil, like drunken stormtroopers or a lousy TIE-fighter pilot who scratched paint on Vader's machine while parking, but many of them were probably genuine freedom fighters - the prisoners from blocade runner, for example.

    3. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Attack of the Clones pretty much says this too.
      The geonosians were the funny-speaking bugs right? :)

      They show Count Dooku the blueprints they've made, which I suppose later gets leaked to R2-D2. :)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Sique · · Score: 5, Funny

      [...] but many of them were probably genuine freedom fighters [...]

      It's terrorist, man. They don't wear uniforms, they are not commanded by a government, they are not for open battle, but doing stealth attacks... So they are terrorists, and any support to them is punishable by the PATRIOT act.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by gilroy · · Score: 5, Funny
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Well I believe most of the construction in that era was performed by large robots.

      Well, if by "robots" you mean "droids", then what's the difference? Droids are clearly sentient in the Star Wars universe. Are you saying that the life of an organic is intrinsically valuable but the life of a mechanical is not? I am so tired of this carbon bias on slashdot! :)
    6. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Mr. Lucas,

      You are welcome to create new races of aliens to populate your Star Wars universe. In fact, we welcome you to. And we don't even mind if you want to flesh out your backstory with these creatures... well some of us do, but they are zealots, so never mind them.

      But if we catch you splicing in Geonosian construction workers in the DVD Extra Special Superpak release next year, we will be waiting for you at Skywalker Ranch with pitchforks and shotguns.

      Sincerely,
      Your fans

    7. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cease this specieist talk!
      Insect-like hivemind creatures are people too. Just take a look at Microsoft employees...

      I see your point now. Kill em! Kill em all!

    8. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't be silly - they never actually told the contractors that it was a *Death* star.

      "Hey, Frank... what in the heck *is* this thing we're building, anyway?"

      "They told me that once we're done laying down the linoleum the whole outside of this thing gets fitted with reflective tile."

      "You mean...?"

      "Yep. Biggest self-sufficient disco ball in the universe!"

      "But what for?"

      "They gave me a card - here."

      "'Our mission - riding the solar wind and spreading the good news and intergalactic funk from event horizon to event horizon.'"

      "Yeah, isn't that just the wierdest?"

      "Wait, there's more... 'D.V. and The Black Hole Sunshine Band - The Best Bang Since the Big One'. Where have I heard that before?"

      "Dunno, Charlie, but I've got a *bad* feeling about this..."

    9. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Dirtside · · Score: 4, Funny
      I am so tired of this carbon bias on slashdot! :)
      Well what do you expect? Slashdot is entirely populated with carbon-biased lifeforms!
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    10. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by henrik · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe the more recent term for them would be "illegal combatants". Terrorists have rights to legal hearing and legal help, the former does not.

    11. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by nigelc · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not a Death Star. It's a ... Freedom Globe

      --


      Cthulhu Barata Nikto
    12. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by rd_syringe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't wear uniforms

      Really? The rebels even have their own insignia!

      they are not commanded by a government,

      Then how was a princess involved? Leia's own mother was a queen of a government on Naboo.

    13. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by eidechse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. You might want to lay off Fox News for a while. You seem to be getting a bit worked up if you think that anyone (except the occasional serial killer or vampire) engages in that sort of activity for absolutely no reason.

    14. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Funny

      They should have put some DRM on those plans.

    15. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by hazem · · Score: 3, Funny

      I, on the other hand, am firmly convinced that slashdot is at least 1/4 populated with really advanced versions of ELIZA and the emacs psychologist.

      Oh, that's just great. I can't get any friends in real life, and now you're telling me that maybe a 1/4 of my "friends" on slashdot aren't even real? Can't a geek get a break?

    16. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What reason could possibly justify terrorism?

      You're engaging in circular reasoning. If your defintion of terrorism is, as you state, "[w]hat makes a terrorist a terrorist is the fact that he [kills] for absolutely no reason," then the answer if trivial, but you have the problem that your defintion applies to almost no one we usually label terrorists.

      Let's look at another defintion from the FBI: "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

      Note the qualifier "unlawful". So all I have to do is pass a law saying what I do is ok. But if we remove that qualifier, no doubt that most major governments are terrorist organizations. Ooops.

      And that's the problem. Every state uses force and terror for political goals. There is no clean shining line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    17. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Informative
      One person's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter".

      No, that's precisely where you're wrong. Some folks love to quote that old cliche, but it's simply not true. The difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist is in the methodology. The minute a freedom fighter --or whatever term you want to apply to a non-terrorist --attacks civilians in a way that's intended to inspire widespread terror, that person becomes a terrorist.

      E.G., the Mujahadin were "Afghani Freedom Fighters" when they were fighting the "Evil Soviet Empire". Now they're "terrorists" or "illegal combatants".

      You do see the difference, do you not? When the Afghan mujahedeen were fighting Soviet troops who had invaded their country, they were not terrorists. The "mujahedeen" in Iraq, as they sometimes call themselves, are trying to fight the same basic fight, but they're using terrorist tactics to do it. Instead of attacking Coalition troops, they're publicly executing civilian hostages and detonating bombs outside police stations. That's not a war of resistance. It's not a war at all. It's terrorism, and it's unacceptable. No set of circumstances can justify, excuse or mitigate terrorism. It's off limits to civilized human conduct.

      See the difference?

      Had I spent my life in Northern Ireland, the Basque region, or the Gaza strip such distinctions might prove to be naive at best.

      I reject the idea of situational morality. I think that the civilized world as a whole does as well.

      The whole concept of "terrorism" is being used now a magical incantation invoked against convenient targets.

      I really don't know where you get that idea. It's simply not true. I quote from the State Department's annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report:
      The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

      The term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

      The term terrorist group means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

      The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.
      Emphasis mine. The definition of terrorism didn't change between 1983 and 2002. In 2002, for obvious reasons, the president in his National Security Strategy directive expanded the definition slightly to include any individual, group or nation that provides financial or material support or safe harbor to terrorists. This is not the legal definition nor the one that State uses though; it's just the definition that the executive branch uses to set national security policy with respect to nations or groups that sponsor or willfully turn a blind eye to terrorism.
      --

      I write in my journal
    18. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Uatu · · Score: 2, Funny

      They show Count Dooku the blueprints they've made, which I suppose later gets leaked to R2-D2.

      One more reason for them to ban USB drives and iPods...

    19. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by Nutria · · Score: 2, Funny
      (in the sense of the Geneva Convention) is. It has at least to show the flag of the government you are fighting for in a size no less than about 1"x2". It has to show your name and rank

      • Tthe 1st Geneva Convention was signed in A.D. 1864. The Clone Wars were fought well before then.
      • Evil Empires usually only follow treaties when it gives them an advantage.
      • It's a movie, dammit!
      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    20. Re:The logistics of building the Death Star by AndroidCat · · Score: 2

      I guess the Empire had already banned p2p networks. Why send a princess and a blockade runner when you could just BitTorrent it?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. I'm sure by Misinformed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "theoretical logistics of employing janitorial staff"

    I'm sure this is just one of the problems HR staff struggle with every day. Or is he implying that janitorial staff are stupid and unable to follow instructions?

    --
    --

    Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
    1. Re:I'm sure by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I wish I had mod points, I think this is subtlety insightful. The problem with hiring janitorial staff is that these employees need to be trustworthy and responsible but the employer can't really pay them an amount that fully compensates that level of trust. The employee must be inherently honest, or need the job enough not to risk termination by stealing stuff or goofing off.

      Therefore one can't hire the pimply faced teenager as they do at the movie theaters. Theaters get away with this because they watch the employees carefully, count everything at the end of the night, and generally use draconian measures. For unsupervised clean up, one generally hires someone with little skills to do anything else and dependents to support. This is why Good Will Hunting is such a stupid movie. Damon would have never been allowed access to the rooms to clean.

      Of course this would be no problem on the Death Star. If they hired private staff, the staff would know they would be spaced if anything came up missing. It is not an issue anyway because, like any ship, the sailors keep it clean.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  3. Mark Hamill talking about janitorial staff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So that's what he's doing these days...

    1. Re:Mark Hamill talking about janitorial staff? by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually he's big on voice-overs for american cartoons.

      He's quite good as "The Joker" and "Grundy" on episodes of the Justice League.

      --
      | - | - |
    2. Re:Mark Hamill talking about janitorial staff? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny
      Anyway, Hamill was a lawyer.

      A defence lawyer? "If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit."

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  4. Re:Well, sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    This is actually the first post, believe it or not.

    This isn't the first post you're looking for...

  5. Meh by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I like the part where Mark Hamill discusses the theoretical logistics of employing janitorial staff for the entire Death Star. Enjoy."

    Well, similar discussions have been had before (http://imdb.com/title/tt0109445/). Please, will someone think of the contract workers?!??!!

  6. You heard it here first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    "How can you be so serious on a film where you are dodging explosions and running away with Sir Alec Guinness on this side and an eight-foot monkey on this side, and the eight-foot monkey is the one flying the spaceship?"


    Luke just said that Chewbacca is a monkey, not a Wookie. That makes it cannon! Oh man, I'm gonna have to go rewrite my fanfic, now that I know he was born on Earth and not on Kashyyyk.

    As Johnnie Cochran once said, "If Chewbacca is a monkey, you must acquit!"
  7. Janatorial staff? by Spudley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Janatorial staff? I thought that's why they invented droids.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    1. Re:Janatorial staff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Okay, this makes it official: we're fast approaching the end of the universe.

      We can have a Starbucks right across the street from another Starbucks. We can sue fast food chains for our own gluttony.

      And now, a comment on janitorial logistics for a fictitious planet-killing deathship in a thirty-year-old movie has been rated "Insightful" by the Slashdot illuminati because it makes note of another fictitious element used ealier in the same plot.

      This is way beyond pathetic.

  8. Re:Why can't I have a death star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You do realize of course, Hamil was discussing the fictional janitors in the fictional world, and in fact NOT janitors that cleaned up the movie set.

    Jesus Christ...

  9. Wookies verses Yoda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    All I know is that there are people we all know (generally male) who claim to have a large wookie, but when the time of truth comes it ends up looking like Yoda, small stout and green. Let's see if the not so hidden meanings sneek past the moderators!

  10. Overcoverage by Wingchild · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I didn't know when Star Wars was being released. I hadn't been paying attention. I know, I know - I'm a bad geek.

    As it turns out, my lack of observance didn't matter at all - I'm a bit oversaturated on news and so I tend to read CNN fairly frequently throughout the day. I guessed something was up after two seperate articles on Lucas (and THX1138) showed up, followed by three more on Star Wars (quote heavy thanks to interviews with Mark Hamill), all posted on the main page and all within a twenty-four hour period.

    I've been swimming in Star Wars news.

    While I don't normally consider this a bad thing it's interesting to see how heavily the tail is wagging the rest of the dog, with respect to CNN; I don't know if they're being paid to be a corporate shill, or if their tech department doing website updates has a strong love of this movie -- whatever the case, it's had better coverage than Iraq this week. :)

  11. GoogleWhack by AikenDrumGotWired · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we can all cross the phrase "naked wookie" off the list of possible GoogleWhacks, though it might be interesting to see the GoogleAds served op to match this phrase in a few days.

  12. Telling quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Kershner, who studies Buddhism as a hobby, said the "Star Wars" movies have a homespun wisdom, but that people shouldn't look too seriously to the Force to solve their problems.

    "Yoda's philosophy was quite simplistic. 'If you get angry, you're gonna lose.' 'Don't try, do.' He has a basic philosophy that is very charming. Not very profound, although young people consider it profound. I wish they would read more."[emphases mine]
    AMEN!
    1. Re:Telling quote... by Illserve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thing is, that's not really the philosophy.

      It's more like: if you get angry, you're gonna win, but the price in karma won't be worth it.

      And that bit about "luminous beings, not this crude matter" etc, that's a few steps more sophistiticated than the philosophy of many modern day religions.

  13. the extras dvd is impressive... by jpellino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    for the documentary on the making of the other three movies, it's amazing what had to be done to get these things made. Say what you want abotu Lucas' judgement on recent things, he had the brains and the stones to get star wars done - In some ways it's as compelling a story as any of the films. And as the man says, iit has the added advantage of being true.

    And for the trailers - they are ruly insufferable - hard to believe anyone went to see ANH on the strength of the trailer - the ROTJ trailer is just tolerable by today's standards,

    Also - did I miss something? Wasnt the piece on VH1 last week - with Kevin Smith and lots of others also supposed to be on the DVD set?

    Speaking of minutiae, step thru the draw between Greedo and Han ;-) And can you find the translucent x-wings flying through each other?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:the extras dvd is impressive... by zoeblade · · Score: 2, Funny

      [The documentaries have] the added advantage of being true.

      One of the featurettes features a whole bunch of directors acting as if George Lucas invented the whole concept of making sci-fi films, singlehandedly invented computer graphics, and a whole bunch of other things. OK, maybe ey did come up with the idea of producing a lot of merchandise for a film, but I wouldn't say that's such a good idea anyway...

      Those documentaries are more like big ego trips than true stories. The main one even starts with a line about how it's "hard to remember a time before Star Wars." Please!

      Having said that, the films have been retouched very well, and certainly look a lot cleaner and more modern than the Laserdisc rips floating around online.

    2. Re:the extras dvd is impressive... by madmancarman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And for the trailers - they are ruly insufferable - hard to believe anyone went to see ANH on the strength of the trailer - the ROTJ trailer is just tolerable by today's standards,

      It was probably sometime in the late 80s or early 90s when movie trailers began to be tolerable. Often, I prefer watching the trailer to sitting through the actual movie, so I used to try to show up early to the theater to catch all the trailers. Now, of course, they beat you over the head with 20-30 minutes of trailers and stupid MovieTickets.com commercials. It's easier to watch them at Apple's Quicktime movie trailers page.

      For a while in the 90s, every movie trailer that I ever saw seemed to be done by the guy who did the voice for Optimus Prime in the original Transformers series, Peter Cullen. You could pretty much tell whether or not a movie studio took the trailer seriously if they used him for the voiceovers....

      "(rising voice) A time of prosperity.... (lowering voice) A place of peace. (slow, heavily enunciated lower voice) Now.... one man... threatens.. it.. all." Fun stuff, even though there seem to be more trailers now that don't use voiceovers at all but instead rely on screens of text to piece things together.

      My major pet peeve about trailers, though, is when they show the entire movie plot in the trailer. It completely removes any element of surprise, and makes it almost pointless to go see the movie. For example, the new trailer for Flight of the Phoenix does just that - the entire story is compressed down into a two minute version, sort of like a Readers Digest condensed book. It's sort of how trailers for comedy flicks show you the funniest parts of the movie in the hopes that you'll shell out $9 to see it, but then have nothing additional to offer.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    3. Re:the extras dvd is impressive... by puppet10 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or you could just watch the original

      It looks like it was mostly copied, and judging from the trailer the orignal looks like a considerably better film.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    4. Re:the extras dvd is impressive... by MacGod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My major pet peeve about trailers, though, is when they show the entire movie plot in the trailer. It completely removes any element of surprise, and makes it almost pointless to go see the movie. For example, the new trailer for Flight of the Phoenix does just that - the entire story is compressed down into a two minute version, sort of like a Readers Digest condensed book. It's sort of how trailers for comedy flicks show you the funniest parts of the movie in the hopes that you'll shell out $9 to see it, but then have nothing additional to offer.

      In general, I agree this is true. I think a far worse case is when comedies have every funny bit in the trailer

      However, sometimes, the movie itself is worth watching; especially if the spectacle outweighs the story. Remember, for example, that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet gave a summary of the entire plot in the opening sonnet. You knew what happend, you knew how it ended. It was watching the characters get there that was worth seeing

      --
      "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
  14. and in self-referential news... by jpellino · · Score: 4, Informative

    it's 'minutiae' not 'minutae'

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re: and in self-referential news... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > it's 'minutiae' not 'minutae'

      That's where we stole the extra 'i' for use in "virii".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. Monkeys can fly by cwebb1977 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quote: As the Skywalker actor put it: "How can you be so serious on a film where you are dodging explosions and running away with Sir Alec Guinness on this side and an eight-foot monkey on this side, and the eight-foot monkey is the one flying the spaceship?" Yeah, monkeys cn fly. And we're taking this too serious. Why do so many people have to overanalyze everything and can't just enjoy a movie?

    --
    www.weberseite.at
  16. harrison ford? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    i wanna hear harrison ford tell me who shoots first :p

  17. Worn to death by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Je-heee-zuz H. Christ.

    This was a mediocre story which used advanced techniques for about two years and was quickly eclipsed by much better stories using the same and better techniques.

    SW is much like Flash Gordon. Put it on the shelf and relive it with a buzz on every five years or so.

    Elsewise, get a life, get a life, get a life.

  18. Sorry, you fail... by stevejsmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have never in my life heard the word "minutiae" used where it didn't sound contrived. And I haven't ever heard the word "minutae" in my life, period ("minutia" is the singular and "minutiae" is the plural; "minutae" is not a word).

  19. Re:Why can't I have a death star? by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Funny

    "That's no set!"

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  20. The Iraq Kidnappings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The recent spate of kidnappings in Iraq represent a horrific, real-world example of the situation laid out by the parent. A number of friends/associates of mine have been offered exceptionally high paying jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of them have accepted as they regard the risk as too great, but I have found myself wondering:

    * The pay is high because the risk is high - anybody who takes on such a job must realise this. Is it thus their fault if they are harmed/kidnapped/killed?

    * Also, since they are working for/in-the-name-of people whom some Iraq's would regard as the enemy (they do this knowingly) and since by mutual admission of both sides, this is a war - are they legitimate targets?

    I would like to point out that I am referring to people working for western corporations, rather than people performing aid work - the fact medecins sans frontiers and aid workers are being targeted is in my opinion, one of the saddest aspects of this conflict.

    1. Re:The Iraq Kidnappings by cybpunks3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the Japanese kidnapped and shot at everyone who came in to rebuild that country after World War II they never would have gone anywhere as a country.

      At some point you have to realize that it's in your best interest to lay down your guns and MOVE ON.

    2. Re:The Iraq Kidnappings by innerweb · · Score: 3, Insightful
      True, but it must look like you are defeated, not slowly turning the tide of battle against the US. So far, it seems, we are doing a wonderful job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Winning the ground war with troops is not a victory in this case. We have to win the hearts and minds of the people.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    3. Re:The Iraq Kidnappings by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At some point you have to realize that it's in your best interest to lay down your guns and MOVE ON.

      If some nation invaded America I don't think I'd be looking at it this way, especially if they'd killed tens of thousands of my countrymen in the process and imposed a military dictatorship with a farcical 'representative government' on top of it.

      Fact is, I think I'd be out there killing the motherfuckers. As often and as brutally as I could. And I'd brand those Americans who refused to fight for their country as spineless little cowards who don't get any say in how the country will be reconstructed if/when the invaders are driven off.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    4. Re:The Iraq Kidnappings by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMO entirely wrong.

      We didn't win "hearts and minds" of the Germans, or the Japanese. We (the allies collectively) kicked the crap out of them, killed millions of them (including, inevitably, a lot of people who didn't deserve it), and levelled their countries.

      Then, when everything is destroyed and the people are exhausted, then we rebuilt the countries.

      This whole idea of "hearts and minds" is Cold War BS implemented because the idea of total war was impossible with an enemy Superpower always willing to backstop the existence of the enemy. Now there is no superpower to insure that Iraq remains.

      Sorry to say, but any conflict which we've fought SINCE WW2 has been a halfassed joke. To put it bluntly, we should have used our whole military, sealed off the country, and levelled every major city, annihilate (not simply defeat) every military formation that existed, and smash their infrastructure entirely, making peace only when something crawled out of the rubble begging us to stop.

      One might point out that perhaps if a country never waged 'sort of' wars, but only committed to war that was total (wartime economy, draft, etc.) and to the finish (i.e. annihilation of the enemy, utter destruction of his society), then perhaps that country would:
      a) be less likely to resort to war as a convenience
      b) be taken far, far more seriously when it DID finally threaten war.

      Hm?

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:The Iraq Kidnappings by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is exactly why warfare in the conventional sense simply doesn't work the way it used to. The US pretty much ran the table against the Iraqi army in what? A matter of weeks? Did it even take that long? The Iraqi army was defeated easily. The Iraqi people though were not defeated in any way, shape, or form. They were inconvienienced. They were without electricity. They were basically put it an bad spot but they weren't beaten.

      Modern warfare, in it's attempt to spare non-combatants from unnecessary suffering has allowed us to wipe out an army while leaving a nation completely "intact" in terms of it's will to fight. Now don't get me wrong about this. Trying not to kill innocent civilians is a good thing in principal. I'm firmly on the "For" side when it comes to not bombing orphans and hospitals. It's just that when you spare the civilian population from that you don't leave them in the position that the post WWII Germans and Japanese were and that leads to a very crappy environment for nation building.

      The US in general sucks at nation building. We've (I'm an American) been good at it twice and that was when we literally blew the holy shit out of everything in sight in Japan and Germany. Once the people in a defeated nation are in complete "Fuck this shit, I don't want to fight anymore. Where do I vote?" mode you can impose a system on them. When they're in "Hey when do I get my power back on and why are you still here?" mode it's impossible.

      Bush & Co. screwed up on this one. They seem to have had in mind that they could get WWII era results using 21st century rules of war.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    6. Re:The Iraq Kidnappings by JWhitlock · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry to say, but any conflict which we've fought SINCE WW2 has been a halfassed joke. To put it bluntly, we should have used our whole military, sealed off the country, and levelled every major city, annihilate (not simply defeat) every military formation that existed, and smash their infrastructure entirely, making peace only when something crawled out of the rubble begging us to stop.

      First, the Funny: Ah, the Civ3 answer.

      And now the Troll: Good Final Solution, Hitler. It's too bad:

      1. Iraq didn't have terrorists (except for areas protected from Baghdad by the UN no-fly zone),
      2. they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction to speak of, because
      3. the inspections were keeping Saddam from accumulating any, and
      4. Saddam would never give the people that hate his regime a thimble of nerve gas, much less a nuclear device, but of course
      5. Saddam wasn't anywhere near a nuclear device. And, of course,
      6. Iraq was a distraction from the fact that a full ground offensive in Afghanistan couldn't find Osama Bin Laden, because he was probably hiding in the backyard of our ally, Pakistan.

      And, perhaps the Insightful: If we had done like we did for the Germans and Japanese, and relocated all the military personnel to Prisoner of War camps in the Midwest, giving them a chance to acclimate to a life without war, then maybe we would have had a chance to rebuild the country. Accountants and Idealists lost these particular wars for the US.

      So, there ya go mods. Have fun, and please wait for "Overrated" until it gets a few points...

  21. Exactly. by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's why R2-D2 is shaped like a trash can.

  22. seeing as it's the directors saying it... by jpellino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... there's a bit more credence than if undredentialed fans just gushed for an hour. Granted this is promotional material, and Lucas had this made, but when Ridley Scott and James Cameron can tell you why this opened their minds to doing what they have done so well, you tend to listen. Especially when they're referring to a guy who bucked the system, paid thru the nose to defy the DGA, then eventually quit the DGA and MPAA to retain creative control. He could have pulled an Alan Smithee.

    Again - it's less science fiction, more space opera. Not much in the way of history-changing technology or advanced science uncovering deep truth and human potential. OK , there may be a little of it, but it's secondary to the plot and drama and spectacle.

    In truth, look at the state of science fiction before Star Wars - you had story or realism, but rarely both, and you forgave the missing one. But you still missed it. 2001, Silent Running were two popular exceptions. Star Trek had passable story, cheesy realism, but it was all we had. This had both.

    Ditto the state of computer graphics - like Edison, who didn't invent the light bulb, but did invent the electric *company* - Lucas didn't invent CG but likely invented the CG *shop* as we know it today. And that has changed filmmakiing in a deeper way than we usually realize. The Terminal - a movie about a guy in a couple of rooms - had a visual effects department and hired CafeFx - Ok they did the outdoor parts - but today you don't need to move an entire production company made of meat across the country to shoot 30 seconds of film. You pick up the phone and get the bits moving. To paraphrase Nicholas Negroponte, the movement of bits is easier than asses.

    For everyone under the age of 27, Star Wars always existed, like electricity or clouds. Under 37, probably also true if they started paying attention to movies about age 10... and by age 37 you've covered more than half the people in the US anyway... so they're not far off the mark for most people. And that's only increasing.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  23. Chewie's pants... by queenofthe1ring · · Score: 5, Funny
    This character has no pants on!' This went back and forth. They did sketches of him in culottes and baggy shorts.

    Clearly Chewbacca needed a nice Hawaiian print pair of bermuda shorts. :-) Or maybe some dockers...

    Leia: "Could somebody get this walking carpet out of my way... Hey, nice pants." ;-)

    --

    ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

    yes, girls read /. too...

  24. Aarg... by johannesg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know what scares me more: that someone would know this, or that it gets modded "+4 insightful"...

    1. Re:Aarg... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny
      I don't know what scares me more: that someone would know this, or that it gets modded "+4 insightful"..


      How about the fact that Lucas decided to name one of his characters "Count Dooku"? :^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Aarg... by selectspec · · Score: 5, Funny
      How about the fact that Lucas decided to name one of his characters "Count Dooku"?

      Count Chocula was already trademarked.

      --

      Someone you trust is one of us.

    3. Re:Aarg... by tukkayoot · · Score: 2
      How about the fact that Lucas decided to name one of his characters "Count Dooku"? :^)

      A fallen Jedi character, no less. Though at least his Sith name is properly menacing, "Darth Tyranus". That's probably the whole reason he turned to the Dark Side.

  25. The Dork Side. by macdaddy357 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Beware of the dork side. Once you step down the dork path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will!

    You will live in your mother's basement. You will never kiss a girl. The only girls you will ever see will be prOn on the internet. You will have no outlet but playing with your own light saber.

    Don't cross over to the dork side.

    --
    How ya like dat?
    1. Re:The Dork Side. by wpmegee · · Score: 3, Funny

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

  26. Mark Hamill: Get a life! by Chas · · Score: 2, Funny

    William Shatner: I already told them that. It doesn't work...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  27. Slightly offtopic, but... by ImTwoSlick · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Check out the bonus disk in the new DVD set. There's a section showing behing the scenes pictures of all three movies. I was floored when I saw the caption to a picture showing Han and the actor playing Greedo pointing guns at each other in the canteena scene.

    Han Solo (Harrison Ford) prepares to shoot first in the original version of A New Hope.
    The Rodian bounty hunter Greedo was portrayed by actor Paul Blake, shown here sans mask.
  28. Microsoft Imperial Death Star XP by inkswamp · · Score: 5, Funny
    Something just occurred to me.

    * The Death Star plans were secret, but rebels managed to obtain them anyway.
    * Windows is closed source, but people keep managing to steal bits of code anyway.

    * The Empire was confident that The Death Star was secure and couldn't be compromised.
    * Microsoft is confident that Windows is secure and cannot be compromised.

    * Occassionally, rebellious hackers stumble across Windows vulnerabilities that nobody noticed before or thought was important.
    * The rebels discovered a vulnerability into the Death Star that nobody noticed before or thought was important.

    * Windows slowly positions itself to wipe out the competition.
    * The Death Star slowly positions itself to wipe out the competition.

    * Microsoft analyses virus attacks and discovers that there is some danger... albeit too late.
    * The Empire analyzed the rebel attack and discovered that there was some danger... albeit too late.

    * Script kiddies sometimes take devastatingly accurate shots at these backdoors and weaknesses.
    * Luke Skywalker took a devastatingly accurate shot at the Death Star's exhaust port.

    * Microsoft is attempting to rebuild Windows from the ground up, promising to make it better than before although it looks pretty much the same.
    * The Empire tried to rebuild The Death Star from the ground up, promising to make it better than before although it looks pretty much the same.

    Therefore... we can conclude the following:

    * Luke Skywalker is a script kiddie.

    * The Apple switcher campaign should feature Harrison Ford shouting, "Great shot kid, that was one in a million! Let's blow this thing so we can go home!"

    * When Windows explodes... oooohhh... pretty.

    * Hackers should have medals presented to them by Carrie Fisher.

    * Bill Gates is Linus Torvald's father.

    * And finally: Microsoft should not put too much faith in this technological terror they've constructed... the ability to destroy the competition is insignificant next to the power of open source.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  29. Are you totally stupid? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (Yeah, yeah, off-topic but you've got to respond when someone asks that kind of question.)

    The US occupiers in post-WWII weren't calling in air strikes on cities and killing innocent men, women and children in the process. If you're American, you hear about every US soldier that dies but how often do you hear about Iraqi deaths at American hands?

    According to some estimates, this war has killed over 25,000 Iraqi civilians so far. Note, those are estimates, because nobody's been keeping an official count of Iraqi dead probably because - and this is the honest truth that most politicians wouldn't admit - most people in positions of responsibility don't give a shit.

    Now, answer honestly, if you're an average Joe, and your wife and kids are killed in by an American air strike that flattens you home and you neighbourhood, just how hurt, how frustrated and how angry are you going to feel? And what are you more likely to do: take it lying down or want to fight back.

    300 Iraqis civilians are dying every week as a result of the ongoing fighting. That's 300 people per week in a country with less than 10 percent of America's population. In other words, that's the Iraqi equivalent of a September 11th every damn week.

    Now do you get an idea of why the country is so fucked up?

    Did I mention that the war's illegal? That there never were WMDs? That there never was any link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime? That September 11th had nothing to do with Iraq? Etc, etc.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Are you totally stupid? by servognome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US occupiers in post-WWII weren't calling in air strikes on cities and killing innocent men, women and children in the process.
      That's because Japan/Germany were beaten into submission. Drop 2 atomic bombs on Iraq, and firebomb Baghdad and things might change.
      The US should never have gone into Iraq. You cannot occupy a country without breaking the will of the people, and to do that, you pretty much have to decimate it. The war made no sense to begin with, and there was no coherent strategy post defeat of the standing goverment.
      Unfortunately the US is stuck keeping troops in Iraq, otherwise, the power vaccuum would most likely lead to civil war and there'd be thousands of deaths a week. So now the US is stuck sacrificing money and lives to try and keep the peace in a situation it caused. We have GWB to thank for running our country into a deficit on a war we didn't need, and for alienating the rest of the world.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:Are you totally stupid? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *** Drop 2 atomic bombs on Iraq, and firebomb Baghdad and things might change.***

      and half the iraq would celebrate, and all of them hate americans even more...

      that's the problem, they're not centralised, and neither is it a stabilised region. the only thing holding it together was saddam and his goons. it is not an old 'natural nation. they have a tradition of not getting along.

      if you take a look at the quite recent history anyone with brains would stay the fuck out and let them duke it out and form more natural nations(this takes time, can't be sped up and might not never happen). but alas, because of the oil(and some other political happenings in the region that made usa back up hussein earlier) they can't just be let alone.

      lose/lose..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  30. Re:Contractor Discussion Relevant by kurfu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The guerillas are actively targeting the reconstruction crews in Iraq. They view them in the same light that they view the armed forces. Now that we sit on the Empire's side of the whole contractor debate, do we view the death of the contractor's as any more or less tragic then the death of the soldiers?

    Very simple...

    The contractor's working on The Death Star were building a weapon capable of detroying entire planets.

    The contractor's in Iraq are trying to rebuild a country as to provide a better life for it's citizens.

    Any questions?

  31. Re:Clerks and Contractors by bckrispi · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you listen to the commentary on AOTC, when the Geonosians are shown giving the DS plans to Dooku, Lucas chimes in "Now Jay & Silent bob know who it was that built the Death Star".

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  32. OT: your sig (was Re:Which Death Star?) by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Informative
    John Kerry argued for unilateral preemptive action in Iraq on CNN's CROSSFIRE in '97

    Please follow the link, notice the correction/retraction, and correct your .sig (preferably with a correction/retraction of your own).

    (Gee, a paper controlled by the Moonies gets incorrect facts about Kerry from a Republican source. Color me shocked.)

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  33. Nitpick by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    They're not a 'hive mind', they just have a 'hive mentality'. The difference is, they're individuals, but their insect nature makes it basically impossible for them to function outside the hive. They get scared, kinda like super agoraphobia. This is why they make such good workers, you can treat them as bad as you want and they'll take it from fear of being kicked out of the hive.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/