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."

21 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.

  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 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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
  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. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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."
  9. Disappointing by Capmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  10. 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

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

    Wrong again! 1 long, 2 fars.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.