Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

30 Years of Star Wars Technology

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the everything-i-need-to-know-i-learned-from-star-wars dept.

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."

46 of 146 comments (clear)

  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.
  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. 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: 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.

    2. 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
  4. 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 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.
    2. 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"
    3. 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"
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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).

    10. 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.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  5. 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 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
  6. 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."
  7. 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 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.

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

      Whooosh!

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  8. 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.

    --
    riding round the world on an old motorcycle
  9. 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?

  10. 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."
  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  13. 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.

      --
      Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
  14. 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

  15. Re:You have not watched the movies, have you? by Trails · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wrong again! 1 long, 2 fars.

  16. 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.
  17. 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."
  18. 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.

  19. 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...

    --
    Xaotik Designs
  20. 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.
  21. 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.