Slashdot Mirror


30 Years of Star Wars Technology

An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this month, Computerworld Australia checked out the exhibition of 30 years of Star Wars history at Sydney's Powerhouse museum. They also have a pictorial look at what's on display: one of the largest collections of Star Wars memorabilia combined with real-life examples of how such technology is being applied for business and social advancement."

146 comments

  1. 30 years? No Way! by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Funny

    It hasn't been 30 years. That would make me 30 + ...omfg! I'm freakin old!

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:30 years? No Way! by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      It is old you are. It is even older am I. In '78 sitting in a theater watching as the word scrolled up the screen I was prepared, I thought, to be fascinated. When the ship screamed from the upper portion of the screen fleeing something (?) I was impressed. When the impressive, gigantic, enormous battle cruiser filled the screen chasing what you thought was a pretty big ship, I was awed, and I was a frakkin adult.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. sorry to be pedantic but... by owlnation · · Score: 4, Informative

    It hasn't been 30 years. It's been 31. The movie was released on 25th May 1977 in the US, and 27th October 1977 in Australia.

    1. Re:sorry to be pedantic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It hasn't been 30 years. It's been 31. The movie was released on 25th May 1977 in the US, and 27th October 1977 in Australia.

      The term isn't pedantic it's anal.

    2. Re:sorry to be pedantic but... by kungfugleek · · Score: 2, Funny

      31 years since the *movie*. But TFA is talking about the *tech*, which didn't come out until a year later, star wars being sci-fi and all...

    3. Re:sorry to be pedantic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck my pedants.

    4. Re:sorry to be pedantic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think that is "oral".

  3. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by binarylarry · · Score: 0

    Wrong again, it's clearly stated as "A LONG, LONG TIME AGO."

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  4. Phasers are for sissies... by fruviad · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'd rather have a sonic screwdriver any day of the week...

    1. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by westlake · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I'd rather have a sonic screwdriver any day of the week...

      The thing is, the "everyday tech" you see in Star Wars or Star Trek does believable things in believable ways.

      The sonic screwdriver is nothing more than the all-purpose tool for the writer who has painted himself into a corner.

    2. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Which is of course totally different from when spock reconfigures his tricorder to emit a tachyon pulse which according the Star Trek physics has whatever effect is required to amazingly save the day.

    3. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      For certain large and variable meanings of the word 'believable' sure.

    4. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The sonic screwdriver is nothing more than the all-purpose tool for the writer who has painted himself into a corner.

      How is THE FORCE any different?

    5. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
      Which is of course totally different from when spock reconfigures his tricorder...

      Star Trek makes three simplifying assumptions common to space opera: The FTL drive. Teleportation. Artificial Gravity.

      This draws viewers into your story quickly and cheaply without distractions.

      But once there reliance on technobabble is unforgivable. Firing off a gun within the tight confines of a spacecraft is lunatic.

      The energy weapon that can be powered down to disable but not kill - a sophisticated alternative to a Taser - makes perfect sense. This isn't something you have to explain to your audience, they can work it out by themselves.

    6. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by Glonoinha · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jesus this thread is pathetic.
      There's a pretty good reason for all of the above : Star Trek is a damn television show. Star Wars is REAL LIFE.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    7. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by portforward · · Score: 1

      Why is it that I never have mod points when I see a post this funny? Gosh that was hilarious.

    8. Re:Phasers are for sissies... by westlake · · Score: 1
      How is THE FORCE any different?

      There is no difference - when The Force is being used - and abused - as nothing more than a Swiss Army Knife.

      In the mythology of Star Wars, the Force represents all the temptations of a corrupted and undisciplined mind:

      anything you can imagine -

      anything you can put into words - "I want her." - lies within reach.

      It is the wish fulfillment of the Krell machines in Forbidden Planet.

      The Genii of the Lamp.

      To use the power responsibly demands absolute mastery of self. Mastery of fear. Mastery of desire. That is the hero's true quest.

  5. Re:Star wars is the greatest film ever made! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr Bush? Are you going to start posting in ./ now that your presidency is close to be over?

  6. Star Wars tech? by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I happen to like Star Wars, but in my mind it was never about the tech, at all, nor was it even about space. Star Wars is almost completely story driven, IMHO.

    Trek has the tech focus.

    /me runs away

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Star Wars tech? by causality · · Score: 0

      All that said, yes, Star Wars isn't tech-focused, Trek is. Except for lightsabers. If someone can make an actual lightsaber, I would sell my soul to them for one.

      Dear Sir,

      With the many recent advances in infernal technology, my minions have finally managed a technological breakthrough. A laser-like energy beam of nearly infinite power can now be created and confined to a three-foot "blade". Human stupidity is the most hellish thing known to us on Earth, and so the device uses human stupidity as a power source. We anticipate that you will never deplete this source of energy due to its overabundance (and that was not easy to achieve but then you silly humans created mass media and did half our work for us). The unit is handheld and fashioned into a convenient handle with an on/off switch. In short, we have created your lightsaber.

      Your lightsaber will be delivered to you promptly. Of course, your kind and generous offer of your eternal soul will be very much appreciated. To quote one of you humans who went by the name of Bill Hicks, normally "eternal suffering awaits those who question God's infinite love" and so most of the souls we receive are quite surprised to be here. You will have a special place in my realm because your offer was made knowingly and willfully. This is most pleasing indeed. Ha ha ha!

      Sincerely,


      Satan
      Your New Eternal Lord and Master

      P.S. Enjoy the lightsaber!

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Star Wars tech? by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      How can you say its a forgettable story when its been re-used a multitude of times, including in Harry Potter!

    3. Re:Star Wars tech? by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree with you here from the tech aspect. There was no real tech. A car hovered because they said it did. No explanation was given. It's on the same level as a fairy tale with fairy dust.

      For that reason alone I disqualify Star Wars as sci-fi. There simply is no "sci" to it at all. Even terrible pseudo-science films like Dante's Peak and Deep Impact are miles ahead of Star Wars.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:Star Wars tech? by flosofl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Star Wars (and Harry Potter) is simply a re-telling of themes found in mythic legends around the world using archetypes common to them all. Why do you think Lucas used Joseph Campbell as a sounding board for the original Star Wars series?

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    5. Re:Star Wars tech? by flosofl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoops, my bad. Lucas used Campbell's work to help create the first three. He didn't actually meet him until after Jedi was done.

      Still the main point stands.

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    6. Re:Star Wars tech? by Miseph · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "For that reason alone I disqualify Star Wars as sci-fi. There simply is no "sci" to it at all. Even terrible pseudo-science films like Dante's Peak and Deep Impact are miles ahead of Star Wars."

      So sci-fi has to have crappy pseudo-science explanations for all of the vaporware contained therein? I guess that also disqualifies a book like Neuromancer from being sci-fi, since Gibson pretty much gives the explanation of "at some point in the future people figure out how to [implant cybernetics/write Turing Test passing AI/perfect human cloning/build sustainable space colonies/develop a full-immersion global VR network/defy the normal laws of electro-magnetic physics/create devices which allow the creation of full audio-visual illusions through the use of high powered and mind controlled lasers/work around human physiological operation to devise new forms of drug use/dozens of other non-trivial technological challenges] in some way... now quit asking useless questions and read the $%#@ing book!". So much for there being anything worth reading in THAT genre.

      Seriously, have you never just taken it for granted that certain technology "just works"? the car flies because that's something cars can do... the characters don't care how, in fact they barely care that it does at all; it's just a car, and their main concern is using it to get from point A to point B. I for one have absolutely no interest in sitting through a BS explanation every time something not currently possible happens on screen, but I would LOVE to just get on with the fucking movie.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    7. Re:Star Wars tech? by Schemat1c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can you say its a forgettable story when its been re-used a multitude of times, including in Harry Potter!

      And Lord of the Rings, the Iliad, Grimms Fairy Tales, 1001 Nights, the 12 Labors of Hercules, the Bible, the Koran, etc...

      Congratulations you've discovered mythology!

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    8. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell is this in a science museum? There isn't enough real science for them that they have to have exhibits of sci-fi? Great way to pass off entertainment as education.

    9. Re:Star Wars tech? by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... I disqualify Star Wars as sci-fi.

      Right, and I disqualify the Pope as a Catholic. Next I disqualify Obama as President Elect. Then I disqualify Earth as a planet and Claudia Schiffer as hot.

      Dude, for an entire generation Star Wars has defined Sci-Fi. Transporters on Star Trek were no better explained than hover-craft in Star Wars. Ray guns in War of the Worlds were no better explained than Light Sabers.

      Besides, before George Lucas was abducted by aliends and replaced with a replicant, he made the two best movies in the world (Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars, in order of greatness). In all good humor I hereby accuse you of blasphemy and disqualify you as a geek.

      --
      My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
    10. Re:Star Wars tech? by ethicalBob · · Score: 4, Funny

      I happen to like Star Wars, but in my mind it was never about the tech, at all, nor was it even about space. Star Wars is almost completely story driven, IMHO.

      See, I always thought it was Lucas' excellently written dialog...

      (ducks and cowers from swinging lightsabers)...

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    11. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The fact that most people don't understand the difference between science fiction and fantasy is irrelevant - the fact remains that there *is* a difference. Here's a hint - it's about the plot, not the props. Fantasy can have lasers, and science fiction can have science that's sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic.

      In science fiction, science is part of the plot, not merely a prop. In "Star Wars", one could just as easily replace the light sabers with metal swords, the space ships with seagoing ships, the speeders with wheeled vehicles, etc. without changing the plot one bit. The same story has been told countless times - the fact that this particular telling of it is in space does not qualify it as science fiction.

      "Flowers for Algernon", on the other hand, is science fiction - despite the complete absence of laser guns and space ships. The basis of its plot is a scientific advance - a cure for developmental disorders. It makes no attempt to explain the cure; it simply assumes that such a cure exists, and examines its effects on both the patient and those around him.

    12. Re:Star Wars tech? by Eil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have to agree with you there. Star Wars is a good tale, but the designers of Star Trek really thought long and hard about what future technology would be like and then came up with plots for how humans (and other species which are really just caricatures for human traits) would use and deal with that technology. This is what drew me to TNG in the first place. The technology was almost as much as part of the story as the characters were. That is *real* science fiction. Other types of drama where the technology takes a distant back seat (like Star Wars and Firefly, excellent though they are) should really occupy a somewhat different genre.

      The other day, I came across my old copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual. I fondly remembered flipping through it as a teenager memorizing the (*almost* entirely fictional) technical details of the 1701-D's innards. And then it dawned on me that much of the technology detailed in the book has already come to fruition just in the last 20 years. Our computer systems are not very different than the ones depicted in the 24th century: large touchscreen LCDs are not yet mainstream, but smaller versions are already very popular in handheld devices (our equivalent to tricorders, PADDs). The Internet combined with powerful personal computers rivals the Starfleet mainframe computer systems in almost every regard. Worldwide communications are generally easy and cheap. Computers are getting astonishingly good at recognising human speech, although it will be awhile longer before they can interpret arbitrary questions.

      I'm intensely curious to see what the next 20 years will bring.

    13. Re:Star Wars tech? by silentben · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This response is directed to the entire sub-thread, not just the post - it IS true that Star Wars opted to steer clear of explaining its sci-fi tech where Star Trek revolved around the tech itself. But I have to completely disagree about Star Wars not being sci-fi.

      If Jules Verne wrote a book about a version of the 20th century where carriages were propelled without horses, but failed to explain some sort of combustion engine as being the driving force, would that have made his work less sci-fi? Much of good science fiction literature relies not on the explanation and believability of the science, but of the fiction. In The Time Machine my H.G. Wells, it was not explained exactly HOW the time machine traversed time, but that is surely science fiction.

      What makes Star Wars great science fiction is that the technology used integrates smoothly with the worlds in which the story it set - the hover car on Tattouine fit in place mach as a normal car fits in on Earth, the technologies presented blended with the settings in which they existed and didn't seem forced or in need of explanation. By the 'science fiction equals explained science' definition, would Battlestar Galactica be science fiction?

      As for the story - yes, Star Wars was story-driven (at least the originals). Sure a lot of the fundamental story ideas were borrowed from other source, that fact doesn't negate a story being present. But in truth there are very few works of fiction that are truly original - the fundamentals are fairly constant and reused in pretty much every story ever. What makes Star Wars work is the relatability of the story - the course of events made enough sense and the characters actions and reactions were those we could see ourselves or people we knew doing in such circumstances (something that Star Trek occasionally could have used a little more of).

    14. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars (and Harry Potter) is simply a re-telling of themes found in mythic legends around the world using archetypes common to them all.

      So is Shakespeare, you tool.

      Find a different line of argument if you want to denigrate Star Wars / Harry Potter.

    15. Re:Star Wars tech? by westlake · · Score: 1, Insightful
      There was no real tech. A car hovered because they said it did. No explanation was given.

      Well, of course, no reason is given.

      Luke was exiled to a world that hasn't stumbled over a new idea - or a new machine - in over 5,000 years.

      That is the story point you need to get across.

      You do it by showing his clapped-out car. You don't do it by talking about his clapped-out car.

      Exposition is dull. Exposition take time. You only have ninety minutes or so to tell your story.

    16. Re:Star Wars tech? by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1

      ... designers of Star Trek really thought long and hard about what future technology would be like ...

      Yeah, you can see the evidence by reading the raw scripts they produced, which are littered with references to ... (tech). The scriptwriters would literally write the word "tech" in parentheses to indicate the places where their science writers (who had NO INFLUENCE on the actual PLOT) should insert some technical-sounding jargon.

      --
      The Web is like Usenet, but
      the elephants are untrained.
    17. Re:Star Wars tech? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, have you never just taken it for granted that certain technology "just works"? the car flies because that's something cars can do... the characters don't care how, in fact they barely care that it does at all; it's just a car, and their main concern is using it to get from point A to point B. I for one have absolutely no interest in sitting through a BS explanation every time something not currently possible happens on screen, but I would LOVE to just get on with the fucking movie.

      It's not necessarily that it's explained (though that is often an element) but that it is necessary. The science in Star Wars in unnecessary and irrelevant. That's why it isn't a "science" fiction movie. It is fantasy because it has things in it we don't have, and it gives no reason, explanation, and if they weren't there, the movie would have been exactly the same. The lines could have been nearly identical and the action similar if it had been set in the 1800s in the Caribbean. Replace "sci-fi" words like "lightsaber" with "saber" and "blaster" with "gun" and "droid" with "slave" and it's all good. The "force" could be voodoo or some "hokey religion" and you have the same movie. If it was a "sci-fi" movie, changing the time/tech would have changed the fundamentals of the movie. Try changing iRobot ro work with slaves rather than robots. It wouldn't work.

      So sci-fi has to have crappy pseudo-science explanations for all of the vaporware contained therein?

      No, it has to have the vaporware be involved somehow in the story, and that story is about how tech makes us more or less human. Sci-fi was started to explore the future techs and how they could affect us personally and us as a race. Anything that doesn't do that is fantasy (even if in the future with high-tech vaporware). Of course, now sci-fi is taken by people like you to mean anything that contains any gadget that doesn't exist. By that definition, CSI is sci-fi, as well as so many other trash TV shows. Since most wouldn't put CSI into sci-fi, I can only assume your definition is wrong (but liberally applied when all other genre descriptions other than "fantasy" are exhausted and it has some claim to science, tech, or the future).

      But, of course, there are cases where something is debatable. The Time Machine could be sci-fi or not. Aside from the obvious time machine, there is nothing in it that would be unusual to someone from the 1700s. It makes a much better story about the industrialization of the world leading to a form of socialism of the weak with limited resources, and the strong preying on the weak for personal gain. There are a lot of things in there that are more comments about the industrialization of the world as it was happeneing when written, as opposed to any piece of tech (other than the tech was a necessary plot device). So does that make it sci-fi because there was one piece of vaperware and some of it happened in the future? Or is it an allegory about the path of industrialization? Or would it qualify as sci-fi because it is an allegory about current tech (even though that tech never makes a direct appearance in the work)?

      Nah, we'll just go with yours. If it has things that haven't been invented yet (or ever will be) then we'll call it sci-fi because that's easier than actually thinking about it.

    18. Re:Star Wars tech? by Aramgutang · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is this in a science museum? There isn't enough real science for them that they have to have exhibits of sci-fi? Great way to pass off entertainment as education.

      Actually, this is a big improvement over the last major exhibition the museum hosted, which was on the life of Princess Diana (see link).

      The museum's location within Sydney, despite being near the city centre, is such that it's really difficult to attract foot traffic from wandering tourists, so almost all visitors are people that actually set out with the intention of visiting the museum. This unfortunately means that these "big name" temporary exhibits are really needed to bring in visitors, even if their subject matter strays from the theme of the museum.

      For such temporary exhibitions, the museum charges A$20 (for Diana) or A$24 (for Star Wars) on top of the A$10 admission price, but it's really a way for the museum to raise its profile and bring in more people, rather than actually make money. Apparently for the Diana exhibition, the ticket revenue wasn't even enough to cover the full cost of hosting the exhibit.

    19. Re:Star Wars tech? by Eil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can see the evidence by reading the raw scripts they produced, which are littered with references to ... (tech). The scriptwriters would literally write the word "tech" in parentheses to indicate the places where their science writers (who had NO INFLUENCE on the actual PLOT) should insert some technical-sounding jargon.

      I'm not saying they didn't make up a fair bit of dialogue as they went along. And I likewise wouldn't expect that their story writers grasped every pseudo-scientific theory upon which the technology supposedly worked. But the fact remains that Star Trek (in its good years) went into far greater detail about the technology than any other work of science fiction I've come across. That kind of dedication to an idealized dream of the future is admirable, even if some choose to deride it.

    20. Re:Star Wars tech? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      And Lord of the Rings, the Iliad, Grimms Fairy Tales, 1001 Nights, the 12 Labors of Hercules, the Bible, the Koran, etc...

      Congratulations you've discovered mythology!

      You have obviously never read The Iliad. It has absolutely no romance, no evil empire, and no rebellion. It is about the pride and honor of one of the greatest warriors in Greek history/mythology, set during the greatest siege in Greek history.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    21. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... designers of Star Trek really thought long and hard about what future technology would be like ...

      Yeah, you can see the evidence by reading the raw scripts they produced, which are littered with references to ... (tech). The scriptwriters would literally write the word "tech" in parentheses to indicate the places where their science writers (who had NO INFLUENCE on the actual PLOT) should insert some technical-sounding jargon.

      So the technobabble was handled by people who know science, and the story by creative, yet computer illiterate writers. And this is a problem... why?

      At least Star Trek didn't feel the need to invent some pseudo-religion with mysterious forces, millions of people being silenced, inside a volcano filled with H-bombs... wait I forgot who I was criticizing again...

    22. Re:Star Wars tech? by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never read The Iliad. It has absolutely no romance, no evil empire, and no rebellion. It is about the pride and honor of one of the greatest warriors in Greek history/mythology, set during the greatest siege in Greek history.

      You speak of fundamentals, I speak of myth.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    23. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the scientific principles necessary to the Star Wars story actually exist? No. They are fictitious. Hence the term "science fiction".

    24. Re:Star Wars tech? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Star Wars (and Harry Potter) is simply a re-telling of themes found in mythic legends around the world using archetypes common to them all.

      So is just about every other epic written in the past 2000 years. Any writer of such stories that says otherwise is almost certainly an idiot or liar.

    25. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the scientific principles necessary to the Star Wars story actually exist? No. They are fictitious. Hence the term "science fiction".

      LOL! Someone who has no idea what a term actually means, shouldn't be lecturing people about it. The plot in Star Wars does not depend on the science. The lightsabers, droids, and spaceships are just props, not part of the story - the same story could be (and has been) told in any setting, and that's why it's fantasy - not science fiction.

    26. Re:Star Wars tech? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Well, of course, no reason is given.

      Luke was exiled to a world that hasn't stumbled over a new idea - or a new machine - in over 5,000 years.

      That is the story point you need to get across.

      You do it by showing his clapped-out car. You don't do it by talking about his clapped-out car.

      Exposition is dull. Exposition take time. You only have ninety minutes or so to tell your story.

      Yep, it's one of the things Lucas understood best. "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." He'd spend an enormous amount of money on these wonderful sets and special effects, but would only spend a few passing seconds on them, or be completely in the background, out of the way, part of the subconscious of the film experience.

      I've seen other sci-fi films and shows, past and present, where the director seemed acutely aware of what were the big, expensive shots, and were determined to convey this to the audience of this by spending screen time according to cost rather than importance to the story.

      The other thing he advocated (as you pointed out) was the concept of the "used future". A spacecraft doesn't have to be new and shiny just because it's sci-fi to *us*. It wasn't exactly new to sci-fi in general, but it was somewhat novel for film.

      I can't imagine anything more boring than the movie slowing down enough to tell the audience *how* the speeder was hovering. How many times has the concept of how your car is propelled come up between you and other passengers in a car? I'm guessing, not too many times, unless they're children, right? Besides, we saw how the audience reacted when we actually learned *how* the Force interacted with people. People liked it much more without the explicit explanation.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    27. Re:Star Wars tech? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      "Hold your fire. There are only two slaves. The lifeboat must have fallen off the deck."

      You're not going to be able to move Star Wars into another setting without changing the dynamic of the film. For example, you can't just make the droids into slaves without changing the nature of them, since people are going to bring in their preconceptions about slavery. Also, I don't see what you're going to use a Death Star, or a planet destroying super laser, or how the hero is supposed to destroy whatever it is with a single shot. Also, keep in mind that there is a technology vs. The Force element to Star Wars too - Darth Vader turns to technology to keep him alive, whereas Luke Skywalker turns away from technology to make the Death Star-destroying shot.

      I won't disagree that you can make a Star Wars-like movie in another setting, but it wouldn't be Star Wars.

    28. Re:Star Wars tech? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Clearly I am alone in having played West End Games' "Star Wars" RPG. In addition to lightsabers, there's also repulsarlift vehicles like the landspeeders and the scout bikes. Also, fairly unseen in the movies, there's vibro-tools.

      And unlike in Star Trek, our assassination droids work damn it.

    29. Re:Star Wars tech? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Science fiction should involve science. Star Wars doesn't do that. It uses future technology as a backdrop, sure, but doesn't actually involve the technology in and of itself. That's science fiction when the technology is involved.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    30. Re:Star Wars tech? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Sure I would say The Time Machine is sci-fi on two fronts.

      First is the most obvious matter of time travel. I guess this could be reduced to mere fantasy so I won't push the point.

      But secondly, as you said, it's partly about the industrialization of society at the time and Wells' outlook on where it had a potential to lead. This is the same reason that Neuromancer (which someone brought up earlier) can be sci-fi; it's a story of what the future might be because of the technology. Star Wars doesn't address the technology itself, it hardly even uses it as a vehicle for anything at all.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    31. Re:Star Wars tech? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I'll play devil's advocate and take the hard line approach and say that science fiction is at least in some tangible way about the interaction of man with scientific phenomena and technology and the consequences of that interaction. "The Terminator" was science fiction as was "Minority Report", "The Fly", and "Strange Days". "Alien" was not per se. You could have had the same story using a Cthuluian sea monster on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

      "Star Wars" merely takes place in a fantasy world where technology is extraordinarily advanced. In that respect, it has more in common with "Outland".

      Hmmm. Maybe I'm forcing a more cyberpunk author's view on science fiction as a whole?

    32. Re:Star Wars tech? by Lxy · · Score: 1

      Transporters on Star Trek were no better explained than hover-craft in Star Wars

      In reality they were. Transporters on Star Trek are only one step ahead of what we could build today, and the only reason they don't work in real life is because of Heisenburg's principle. Heisenburg identified that you cannot measure the position and velocity of a molecule at the same time. You either know one or the other. Both are required for the transporter. Hence, Star Trek utilizes the "Heisenburg compensator".

      Because the Enterpise often encountered species that were less knowledgeable, it was often that the crew would show off and explain their technology to other guests. Much different than Star Wars. The visiting species didn't want to learn about your tech, they wanted to kill you. By the time they "learned" of the tech, it was because it killed them.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    33. Re:Star Wars tech? by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Mod parent up, mod parent up!

    34. Re:Star Wars tech? by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Right, and I disqualify the Pope as a Catholic. Next I disqualify Obama as President Elect. Then I disqualify Earth as a planet and Claudia Schiffer as hot.

      Ha ha ha ha ha! Your post is a fine example why we need multiple tags in SD. It's funny, informative, and insightful at the same time.

      I realised many of us SW-fanboys are trying to adjust Mr East Coast's opinion of SW. It's an emotional reaction, when somebody disdained something that we all grew to love and respect.

      This is a fine thread, and the discussions are insightful and open-minded. Why don't we seek his definition of Sci-Fi, and ask him what movies qualify, instead?

    35. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the incomprehensible technobabble in Star Trek is just a modern-day equivalent of "fairy dust".

      Calling them phased fairy particles created by rerouting the warp plasma intermix to the primary deflector array doesn't make it any more "scientific".

    36. Re:Star Wars tech? by Atiniir · · Score: 1

      So sci-fi has to have crappy pseudo-science explanations for all of the vaporware contained therein? I guess that also disqualifies a book like Neuromancer from being sci-fi, since Gibson pretty much gives the explanation of "at some point in the future people figure out how to [implant cybernetics/write Turing Test passing AI/perfect human cloning/build sustainable space colonies/develop a full-immersion global VR network/defy the normal laws of electro-magnetic physics/create devices which allow the creation of full audio-visual illusions through the use of high powered and mind controlled lasers/work around human physiological operation to devise new forms of drug use/dozens of other non-trivial technological challenges] in some way... now quit asking useless questions and read the $%#@ing book!". So much for there being anything worth reading in THAT genre.

      Seriously, have you never just taken it for granted that certain technology "just works"? the car flies because that's something cars can do... the characters don't care how, in fact they barely care that it does at all; it's just a car, and their main concern is using it to get from point A to point B. I for one have absolutely no interest in sitting through a BS explanation every time something not currently possible happens on screen, but I would LOVE to just get on with the fucking movie.

      I could not agree more. What points you've made illustrate exactly why I love reading William Gibson's books, and why I've always liked Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and the like better than Star Trek. I don't care about why their technology does what it does. I'll accept that it works and get on with it. It's why the whole demystifying The Force with the bullshit about midichlorians was one of the things that really fucked with Star Wars - The Force especially is something we don't need an explanation for - at least, enough has already been given in A New Hope, shortly after the introduction of Kenobi.

      ie:"Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."

      That's enough for me. I don't care how it works, it does, clearly, as the power to destroy a planet is insignificant to its power, and to me, that is plenty of qualification to be "working". And really, I cannot agree more with the Gibson argument. One of the things that I liked most about reading his books was that he'd introduce a technology without giving any real explanation of its function or how or why it worked, and once you saw it working, he'd consider it explained. Hell yes.

    37. Re:Star Wars tech? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "The Terminator" was science fiction as was "Minority Report",

      Terminator is clearly, in that the invention of an aware computer dominates every portion of the movie. Something like T3 is less so, because "robot hunting someone" movies are not sci-fi. They are thrillers, action, or whatever and could have any other creature in its place. The original had at least one thing going for it, in a time paradox created by the tech. Minority Report I think isn't sci-fi. There is no "tech" that advances the story. The psychics aren't tech driven. The closest thing is the cool interface, and that's not something that, if gone, would have affected the story at all. It could just as easily be three psychics in the mid 1900s (could be earlier, but having the ability to play the thoughts on TV necessitates having a TV).

      "The Fly"

      Hmmm. I'd put that in horror, but it does have a plot driven by tech.

      Hmmm. Maybe I'm forcing a more cyberpunk author's view on science fiction as a whole?

      My favorites are basing them off Jules Verne and such, long before he came along. Sci-fi is when the idea drives the tech, and the tech drives the ideas such that they are inseperable.

    38. Re:Star Wars tech? by kv9 · · Score: 1

      ... whereas Luke Skywalker turns away from technology to make the Death Star-destroying shot.

      Is that why he threw a rock at the death star? oh wait...

    39. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Hold your fire. There are only two slaves. The lifeboat must have fallen off the deck."

      No, the slaves *somehow* managed to escape the ship undetected. No-one's claiming you can literally use the same dialogue with a few word substitutions.

      Also, keep in mind that there is a technology vs. The Force element to Star Wars too

      Surely you mean 'technology vs. magic'? It's a fantasy film.

      I won't disagree that you can make a Star Wars-like movie in another setting, but it wouldn't be Star Wars.

      No, it wouldn't have exactly the same dialogue and it probably wouldn't be called 'Star Wars' but the characters could be essentially identical, and the reasons they do things could be identical, the relations between them could be identical and the events they go through could affect them in an identical way. The only difference would be the where the action is set.

      "That's no mountain, it's a fortress!"
      "It's too big to be a fortress..."
      "I have a bad feeling about this."

    40. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been in a hospital lately? They have a computer monitor over the beds in the ER which displays heartbeat, O2 level, and respiration, etc. This is very similar to what they had in Star Trek. With CAT, MRI, and similar, we have many imaging technologies that were described in Star Trek but not invented until MUCH later.

    41. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realised many of us SW-fanboys are trying to adjust Mr East Coast's opinion of SW. It's an emotional reaction, when somebody disdained something that we all grew to love and respect.

      Defensive much? Saying that Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction, is no more disdainful than saying its correct place in an alphabetical listing is under "S", not "W".

    42. Re:Star Wars tech? by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Sci-fi and Fantasy are not, by the definitions I am familiar with, particularly differentiated. I tend to see Sci-fi as a sub-genre of fantasy, but I can see you take your genres far more seriously than I do. You know us English literature majors, we just know nothing about what differentiates types of literature.

      I can see your point though, dealing with the ramifications of a device capable of destroying entire planets clearly has nothing to do with the effect tech could have on us personally and as a species. Oh, wait...

      I'd also point out that the earliest sci-fi was about sci-fi, and that until the invention and widespread use of transistors there hadn't been a technological advance fundamental enough to justify discussing something else. Hell, I haven't seen any sci-fi written at any time that isn't dealing with industrialization at least in some way; industrialization is the root of post-modernism and the themes of isolation and alienation in literature. I can't even imagine sci-fi that doesn't touch on those concepts.

      On a side note, I think CSI would count as sci-fi by your definition. Think about it.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    43. Re:Star Wars tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sci-fi has to have crappy pseudo-science explanations for all of the vaporware contained therein?

      The problem is there's two elements of fiction in sci-fi. One is a made up story, and the other is made up technology. An alternative could be a narrative fiction about some real science related stuff.

      I consider the sci-fi part of it to refer to made up technology.

      Star Wars cares little for the techology - probably the death star laser, darth vader's suit are the only bits explored as science fiction, every other element could be reimplemented in a different setting with only trivial rearrangement.

      The force is akin to magic and it isn't explored on a technological or scientific level, so there's no fiction (or pseudoscience) there, it's a "just is, don't think about it" sort of thing.

      Most of what makes Star Wars seem sciency is the look, or the aesthetics.

      If you want to go and look at some science inspired sculpture, then check out the exhibition, but seriously Star Wars with it's "Force" has less scientific credibility than "The Secret"

  7. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  8. not the most impressive article... by tpjunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The exhibition starts with the juxtaposition of the Millennium Falcon, which can travel between galaxies effortlessly,... "

    Ok, one would assume that being in "a galaxy far far away" would mean that the story took place within that galaxy, although they never specifically said this, it is a logical assumption that the author seems to have missed.

    "Another is dubbed "dataless" and uses nuclear fusion as the fuel. It is a concept that dates back to the 1970s and one originally from the Interplanetary Society."

    Here they somehow seemed to have confused "Daedalus" in an impressive homophone that had never even occurred to me before seeing that.

    thats as far as I got before closing the tab in disgust

    1. Re:not the most impressive article... by bitrex · · Score: 1

      The great thing about being a technology journalist is that since journalists don't know anything about technology, and techies don't know anything about journalism, one doesn't have to have any skill in either to get the job!

    2. Re:not the most impressive article... by bckrispi · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The exhibition starts with the juxtaposition of the Millennium Falcon, which can travel between galaxies effortlessly,... "

      Effortlessly??!!? Did these pinheads ever see The Empire Strikes Back? Half the film's storyline was spent just trying to get the damn ship to jump into hyperspace.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    3. Re:not the most impressive article... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      since journalists don't know anything about technology, and techies don't know anything about journalism, one doesn't have to have any skill in either to get the job!

      Ah, you've read Roland Piquepaille's technology trends too?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:not the most impressive article... by bitrex · · Score: 1

      That, or BoingBoing.

  9. Please mod this down ... a little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It hasn't been 30 years. It's been 31. The movie was released on 25th May 1977 in the US, and 27th October 1977 in Australia.

    If you're going to do that, at least take off the karma-bonus.

    1. Re:Please mod this down ... a little by chimpo13 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well it has been 30 years since the Star Wars Holiday Special.

      Great article about it here: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/star_wars_special200812

      And a disturbing site about it here: http://www.starwarsholidayspecial.com/

      I'll leave on my karma bonus.

    2. Re:Please mod this down ... a little by corbettw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well it has been 30 years since the Star Wars Holiday Special.

      And the scars have still not healed completely.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  10. that would be nothing by yada21 · · Score: 0

    with real-life examples of how such technology is being applied for business and social advancement

    that would be nothing then. hate to break it to the jed-dork's but guys, it ain't real.

    --
    I will have a sig when the market demands it.
  11. Spell check please by sithkhan · · Score: 2

    They misspelled tauntaun for one of the captions ... D;

    --

    is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
    1. Re:Spell check please by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hope they didn't spell it "taunting", as in the cardinal happy fun ball no-no. And before anyone asks: no, of course I didn't frikking read it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Han trolled first by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    30 years, sigh. How many parsecs is that?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Han trolled first by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Funny

      2 2/3s libraries of congress.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:Han trolled first by base2op · · Score: 0, Redundant

      30 years, sigh. How many parsecs is that?

      A parsec is a unit of distance not time.

    3. Re:Han trolled first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      30 years, sigh. How many parsecs is that?

      A parsec is a unit of distance not time.

      Way to not get the point, nerfherder.

    4. Re:Han trolled first by ACDChook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whooosh!

    5. Re:Han trolled first by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Fewer than I did the Kessel run in...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Han trolled first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit. Sec means second.

    7. Re:Han trolled first by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nice rendition of the sound the Falcon made when leaving the spaceport on that (in)famous run!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    8. Re:Han trolled first by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Informative

      I call "idiot". The "sec" actually stands for arcsecond (an angular quantity), as in "the parallax of one arcsecond".

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    9. Re:Han trolled first by beckerist · · Score: 1
    10. Re:Han trolled first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, if you're working in relativity, time is measured in meters (one meter is how long it takes light to travel, well, one meter). Therefore,

      c = 299 792 458 m / s
      1 parsec = 3.08568025 * 10**16 meters

      30 years is approximately 9.19 parsecs. /I'll go back to my corner now...

    11. Re:Han trolled first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to these "experts" RAEL, 1 parsec is 1 light second so that would be about 946728000 parsecs.

    12. Re:Han trolled first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real idiots are the ones trying to show off how fucking smaert they are in a thread that's an obvious reference to an error in a movie - whatever the fanboiz say - and/or a troll. STFW for 'kessel run'.

    13. Re:Han trolled first by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      I promise you, I was NOT trying to show off how fucking smaert I am.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  13. Most ridiculous understatement ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The exhibition starts with the juxtaposition of the Millennium Falcon, which can travel between galaxies effortlessly, and our own forms of space travel.

    "We are not quite there yet," Connell said. "We can send things out, but people have been thinking about interstellar travel for a long time."

    Does this guy know anything about science?

  14. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, that's when I rememeber how that music used to make me smile. And anyway, I'm a mayfly, you insens

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. I wonder if there's a new DVD by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

    Usually media stories about Star Wars means that George Lucas has decided his pension pot needs a little top up and another remaster of the only successful movies he's made are on the cards. There are so many different versions now it's hard to see any new remastering swindles to pull.

    Perhaps an Ewoks sequel (or prequel...we know he's fond of those), or maybe a "who shot first" DVD, with the option to play ANH and have a different cut of the cantina scene edited in. Since the Star Wars franchise are all about making money, my guess is that a "who shot first" DVD would be sold as 2 DVDs, with a new 5 minute documentary interview with George Lucas on why this new remaster is worth buying to sit alongside the multiple copies you already have. Part 1 of the interview (the first 2.5 minutes will be on DVD 1, the second part will be on DVD 2....like Pokemon....."gotta buy 'em all").

    Maybe it's a remastered Special Edition with Hayden Chritsiansen removed from Vader's funeral pire scene in ROTJ. It could be a new scene added to the end of ROTJ where Jar Jar is accidentally shot and killed by celebratory laserfire......to please the crowds who have given him his pension pot, despite being fucked over and over again.

    1. Re:I wonder if there's a new DVD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is a new two box set DVD release in slim boxes, I continue to buy every version that comes out and feel not at all "fucked over" because I collect them. The only people who are fucked over is those who feel obligated to buy them and then endlessly bitch that "George is a money grubbing bastard and takes all my money!"

      Please...take some responsibility for your own purchasing you tools.

    2. Re:I wonder if there's a new DVD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just amused because Lucas swore up and down for years that the original versions would never be re-released, that his Special Editions were now definitive, the way it was meant to be. Then a couple years ago, the original theater versions were released on DVD.

      I've still got the THX digitally remastered VHS tapes, pre-1997. They were the best version around for a looong time ;-)

      Lately I've seen a full comparison of each edition, and came away convinced that there's still a "best version" yet to be released. I'll wait for that. And for Blu-Ray prices to come down to earth.

    3. Re:I wonder if there's a new DVD by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

      Slashdot really needs easy markup.

    4. Re:I wonder if there's a new DVD by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

      Damn, it filtered my tag. Is there a way to edit a previous post you made on Slashdot? All I see is "Reply". I guess that's what happens when you rarely use tags in replies. You go to use them and the input setting strip them off. Perhaps I should preview stuff beforehand huh?

  16. Exhibit's Been Around for a While by darthservo · · Score: 2, Informative

    The "Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination" exhibit has been going on for quite some time (three years now). It was in Portland two years ago where I got some pics of the same exhibit.

    --

    Prove it.

    1. Re:Exhibit's Been Around for a While by MsGeek · · Score: 1
      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  17. Business and Social Advancement by Bezultek · · Score: 1

    I agree that the Stormtrooper's appearance probably influenced the Asimo's appearance.

    I wouldn't credit the advancement in Prosthetics or Bionics to Star Wars - more the 6 million dollar man and the original Battlestar Galactica.

    And until the Cinnamon Bun Hairstyle and Metal Bikini become fashionable, I'm not buying the Business and Social Advancement.

    1. Re:Business and Social Advancement by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      And until the Cinnamon Bun Hairstyle and Metal Bikini become fashionable, I'm not buying the Business and Social Advancement.

      We can dream, we can dream...

    2. Re:Business and Social Advancement by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't credit the advancement in Prosthetics or Bionics to Star Wars - more the 6 million dollar man and the original Battlestar Galactica.

      Star Wars predates the original Battlestar Galactica by a year (1977 vs. 1978).

      Although I wouldn't credit the advancements in prosthetics or bionics to anything in any movie or TV show. I'd credit it to R&D.

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
  18. 30 Backward Years Of Marketing Technology by tunapez · · Score: 1

    ...is more like it. What a regression in taste, quality and importance over 30 years. Let's hope GL passes peacefully before he makes another BurgerKing/Kenner/Hasbro inspired prequel/sequel.

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  19. It's not sci-fi by MouseR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But rather fantasy-fiction.

    There isn't much science in those film.

    1. Re:It's not sci-fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fiction about Science in particular is typically very strange and boring.

      A story all about Newton's laws and them being proven incorrect? It sounds more like a research paper.

    2. Re:It's not sci-fi by fartrader · · Score: 2, Funny

      I disagree, frankly I think we'll all be using watches that measure time using parsecs in the near future - driven by linux of course.

    3. Re:It's not sci-fi by fartrader · · Score: 2, Informative

      The whole genre of "Hard Science Fiction" rabidly disagrees with your sentiment. Try reading some more.

    4. Re:It's not sci-fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, frankly I think we'll all be using watches that measure time using parsecs in the near future - driven by linux of course.

      Assuming Wikipedia is correct, and the Earth orbits the sun at about 107,218 km/h on average we're getting about 32,831 years to the parsec.

      Note that this ignores distance traveled due to Earth's rotation as that varies based on the observer's distance from the equator. This also ignores the movement of our solar system around the galaxy, as well as the movement of the galaxy through the universe, as there is no sane way to measure these yet.

  20. Disappointing by Capmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    All I read was "30 years and still no lightsabers".

    1. Re:Disappointing by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because it's meant to be an elegant weapon for a time more civilized than ours.

    2. Re:Disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is such a civilized time, why do they need weapons?

    3. Re:Disappointing by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      They don't, but the lightsaber, like all military technology, is a launchpad for other great consumer products like the lightsaber cheese slicer. Admit it, with the holidays here, you want one.

    4. Re:Disappointing by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      You've made me spit bread all over my monitor, laughing uncontrollably ...

      ... you inconsiderate clod!

    5. Re:Disappointing by Entropy98 · · Score: 0

      Ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.
      --
        find your ip

  21. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by WoLpH · · Score: 4, Funny

    "A long time ago, yet somehow in the future..."
    © Family Guy

  22. At least we have the training droid... by Xerolooper · · Score: 1
    --
    "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
  23. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by Trails · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wrong again! 1 long, 2 fars.

  24. Re:Star wars is the greatest film ever made! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is an allegory for Jesus who is our LORD

    Having just sort of watched "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe", it would appear that you are slightly confused.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  25. These aren't......... by wa2flq · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stormtrooper: Let me see your Technology.
    Obi-Wan: : [with a small wave of his hand] You don't need to see his Technology.
    Stormtrooper: : We don't need to see his Technology.
    Obi-Wan: : These aren't the Technologies you're looking for.
    Stormtrooper: : These aren't the Technologies we're looking for.
    Obi-Wan: : He can go about his business.
    Stormtrooper: : You can go about your business.
    Obi-Wan: : Move along.
    Stormtrooper: : Move along... move along.
    Stormtrooper2: : Hey, let's go check out the new Subspace Communicators at the Apple Store in Mos Eisley.

  26. I always love watching these by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When they have specials like this on the the Discovery Channel.

    Of course, every answer that they always come up with is always "Plasma!"

    Lightsabers, PLASMA!

    Open Docking Bay Doors, PLASMA!

    The Force, PLASMA!

    Jar Jar's ability to annoy, PLASMA!

    Everything is plasma...

    1. Re:I always love watching these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a subliminal message telling you to buy a new TV.

    2. Re:I always love watching these by Siridar · · Score: 1

      If only Jar-Jar was turned into plasma...right in front of us.

      Slowly.

    3. Re:I always love watching these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to be honest, there is PLASMA in human blood so that is where the force resides or something. And then sometimes we donate PLASMA so its like giving up the force and maybe then they use it in lightsabres or docking bay doors or hmmm. Ok, now i am totally lost. WTF were we talking about?

  27. Brings back memories... by dwiget001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My former brother in-law used to work at Industrial Light and Magic, I toured their studio three times in the early 80s.

    Saw the original Falcon there, the walkers, planet setups for space shots, line of cannibalized model parts that were used for shots where fighters and other craft were near larger craft (like the Start Destroyers).

    Last time I was there, they were filming Star Trek III, got to see the Enterprise in front of the blue screen after it had taken damage. And, they also had a miniature forest scene setup for the flying bicycle scene(s) in ET. The model and monster shop was also astounding, seeing the different molds, tools, partially completed and complete models and monsters.

    I even saw the baby dragons from the movie Dragonslayer, which were designed and operated by my former brother in-law for that movie.

    1. Re:Brings back memories... by denttford · · Score: 3, Funny

      Be honest. You married that chick for her brother, didn't you?

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    2. Re:Brings back memories... by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, my sister married *him*.

  28. If we've had 30 years of Star Wars Technology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I want my light saber already!

  29. Hope by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    And Obiwan is STILL my only hope.

  30. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is that Star Wars took place on Earth? There have been lots of countries on Earth where after getting a new wonderful government the only technology that advances is military and much of what the people had goes to pot. My father-in-law who lived in a jungle city of Vietnam before the war there said people had cars. After the war, nobody had cars. I was there a few years ago, and a few people in Saigon had cars, but for the most part he was still correct some 30 years later.

    --
    Stop Global Warming!
    Just say no to irreversible processes!
  31. Amarok plays Imperial March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, Amarok had become self aware. I was reading this and it started playing the Imperial March!

  32. Jar-Jar by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just wanted to point out that there are two kinds of Star Wars fans:

    1. Those who secretly despise Jar-Jar Binks, and
    2. Those who openly despise Jar-Jar Binks.

    Q: What if I actually like Jar-Jar?

    A: Then you're obviously one of the first kind.

    --
    The Web is like Usenet, but
    the elephants are untrained.
  33. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

    No, that's when I rememeber how that music used to make me smile. And anyway, I'm a mayfly, you insens

    Apparently a dictating mayfly...

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  34. Re:A Good Joke by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

    1 mile = 5,280 feet
    3 miles = 15,840 feet
    Lowest reasonable estimate estimate for the number of participants = 669,600
    Assumed # of participants per link in your hypothetical chain (at 12 links per foot) = 3.5
    Your attempt at a racist joke = Fail
    Your estimated IQ based on aforementioned attempt = 1-24

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  35. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by toddestan · · Score: 1

    Plus, in that galaxy technology works the other way around: it get worse with time except for Death Stars (compare the technology in A New Hope with the one in The Phantom Menace)

    I've interpeted that as the Empire causing a dark age of sorts, probably triggered by all the stuff that got destroyed in Episode 3. Even so, some things don't make sense, like why is the droid army in Phantom Menace so crude compared to the likes of R2D2 and C3PO?

  36. George Lucas to unveil lolcat Star Wars by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    Star Wars fans are to feel the force of the seminal sci-fi films and their iconic soundtracks on stage, screen, television, Game Boy, comic book and Internet in major new releases, which will launch next year.

    In Star Wars: Journey To The Bottom Of The Barrel , the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra will play a live score as recreations of scenes from the six films with amusingly-captioned kittens are shown on a cinema screen.

    It will not be a traditional musical with actors playing characters from the films, but will feature live narrators, speaking authentic lolcat dialect, as painstakingly reconstructed by linguists.

    As well as the destruction of the Death Star (an exploding Wikipedia puzzle globe) and various love scenes between Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala (rendered with the relevant LEGO(tm) figures), there will be several of the epic battle scenes for which Star Wars is famous, featuring Airfix model spacecraft taking on miniature cardboard battleships, as held in the jaws of cute kittens.

    "Star Wars holds memories for practically everyone," said George Lucas. "I can't think of anyone who won't be simply thrilled to have those memories lovingly caressed by these reconstructions. They'll be particularly pleased to know that JarJar Binks is back, warning Han that Greedo is about to shoot first."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  37. Definition of Science Fiction by troll8901 · · Score: 1

    For that reason alone I disqualify Star Wars as sci-fi. There simply is no "sci" to it at all.

    I think we all have different definitions of Sci-Fi, and attach different levels of importance to certain aspects (e.g. the "explanation of the science/tech" part).

    What is your definition of "Science Fiction"?

    Does a Sci-Fi movie need to highlight or explain the science/technology involved?

  38. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by ObitMan · · Score: 1

    " like why is the droid army in Phantom Menace so crude compared to the likes of R2D2 and C3PO?"

    does cannon fodder really need to be all that smart or advanced?

    --
    Who run Barter Town?
  39. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by sootman · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember a parody starting off "A far time ago, in a galaxy long, long away..." I thought it was Hardware Wars but checking YouTube I see that that starts with the equally-funny "Meanwhile... in another part of the galaxy, later that same day..." Oh well, at least it gives me an excuse to link to Hardware Wars. :-)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  40. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    man, i had $50 bucks riding on long too. now i have to avoid my bookie until payday.

  41. Can't stop laughing by Jedimstr397 · · Score: 1

    Just reading all these posts makes me warm inside. I love Star Wars fans. Did anyone notice that in the pictures from the exhibit: Han Solo, Anakin Skywalker, Princess Leia Organa, and Mace Windu are all black? When did this happen? Well Mace I understand.

    --
    This signature has The Force
  42. Wasn't impressed by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    I saw this exhibit this past summer when it was at the Science Museum of Minnesota. I have to say I wasn't that impressed.

    Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Star Wars. But it was just an exhibit of props and costumes. The whole thing about showing modern technology based off Star Wars tech felt like an afterthought at best.

    There was also an Omnitheater movie that they were showing at the same time. However they neglected to mention it was really a 10+ year old movie about special effects (they were making Independence Day and Kazaam in the movie).