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."

Comments

Star Wars tech?

[religious freak]

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

Re:Star Wars tech?

[east coast]

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.

Re:Star Wars tech?

[flosofl]

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?

Re:Star Wars tech?

[Schemat1c]

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!

Re:Star Wars tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Star Wars tech?

[silentben]

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).

Re:Star Wars tech?

[westlake]

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.

Re:Star Wars tech?

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Star Wars tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

not the most impressive article...

[tpjunkie]

"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

Most ridiculous understatement ever

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:I wonder if there's a new DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's not sci-fi

[MouseR]

But rather fantasy-fiction.

There isn't much science in those film.

Re:Disappointing

[Rude Turnip]

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

Re:You have not watched the movies, have you?

[Trails]

Wrong again! 1 long, 2 fars.

I always love watching these

[Xaoswolf]

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...

Re:Han trolled first

[Anonymous Coward]

30 years, sigh. How many parsecs is that?

A parsec is a unit of distance not time.

Way to not get the point, nerfherder.

Re:Han trolled first

[ACDChook]

Whooosh!

Re:Phasers are for sissies...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Han trolled first

[Anonymous Coward]

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...