Slashdot Mirror


First Star War Episode 7 Trailer Released

Midnight Thunder writes: The first trailer for Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens has been released. (YouTube link.) This is the first real opportunity to get a feeling for whether childhood dreams will be crushed or Disney, with the help of JJ Abrams, will be able to breath new life into the story without making it feel like a merchandising excuse.

390 comments

  1. Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny

    will be able to breath new life

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Funny

      will be able to breath new life

      It actually does say "breathe." It's just hard to see that last "e" due to the lens flare.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they should ask frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton

      Nobody needs to ask Bennet what he thinks.

      When he decides the world needs another of his missives, it simply happens ... and the pearls of wisdom appear, like semen dribbling out of a discarded condom in a dirty alley.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're going to be picky, it's spelling you're complaining about and not grammar.

    4. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by OzPeter · · Score: 0

      When he decides the world needs another of his missives, it simply happens

      Oh god .. don't say it .. that Bennet is like .. Chuck Norris?!?!?!?!?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Desler · · Score: 1

      No, it's a grammar issue. Breath is a noun. So "to breath" is grammatically incorrect.

    6. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Oh god .. don't say it .. that Bennet is like .. Chuck Norris?!?!?!?!?

      Nah, more like the crazy homeless guy on the corner screaming at the passing cars.

      Nobody actually cares what he's saying, they just want him gone, and can't understand why nobody is doing anything about it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he did not use breadth which is an unrelated noun.

    8. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except that it is obvious that it is just a typo by way of an accidentally omitted letter e. Not even Soulskill would intentionally write "to breath new life". This is not a grammar issue. Different AC.

    9. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it seems more likely that they misspelled the right word than used the wrong one, don't you think? Just because a misspelling happens to correctly spell another word doesn't mean that was the intent. Or sew it seams to me.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Fair comment ...

      I actually have a relative who is a schizophrenic, have known my share of people seriously affected by mental illness and/or homelessness, and have known a couple of people who were on antipsychotics.

      You're right, it's a disservice to them to compare them to Bennett.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      will be able to breath new life

      It actually does say "breathe." It's just hard to see that last "e" due to the lens flare.

      Ah; that explains the "Star War" title then too!

    12. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by plopez · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has editors?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    13. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA I just saw.. wow lame

    14. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      will be able to breath new life

      If /. ever gets unicode support it may be possible to obscure bad grammar with lens flare glyphs. I wouldn't hold my breathe.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    15. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Cito · · Score: 2

      Someone call APK
      This problem requires a good HOSTS file!!!

    16. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abrams loves those lens flares doesn't he.!?! I think Into Darkness had 230 lens flares altogether, I mean I don't know for sure the exact number since I never really sat and counted all of them, but it's probably somewhere around that number. The Trailer seemed a bit hokey to me, but the Millennium Falcon looked really cool though. I hope Harrison Ford is more alive in this movie than in his other most recent films. He smiled only once in Enders Game I think and never showed anymore emotions the rest of the film, and Mark Hamill hasn't acted in over 30 years, it's going to be awkward seeing him act again.

    17. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Mark Hamill hasn't acted in over 30 years, it's going to be awkward seeing him act again.

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm000... disagrees with you. While he's spent most of the past 30 years voice acting and doing TV shows, his most recent movie part was this year in "The Halloween Pranksta".

      I'd say it's more that he hasn't had a leading role since the late 70's. He's definitely kept his acting going.

    18. Re:Can Abrams correct slashdot grammar too? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      +1. I genuinely loled at that - thank you! :D

  2. Grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Breath" is not a verb, Soulskill.

  3. Apparently it's not for kids... by Eyeballs · · Score: 2

    ...YouTube's Safety Mode won't show the video in the direct link to me unless I turn the 'safe for viewing' mode off...

    1. Re:Apparently it's not for kids... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, Star Wars has been known to have serious consequences for youth with side effects such as lifelong virginity.

    2. Re:Apparently it's not for kids... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That's okay. My IT department prevents me from viewing Youtube videos because then I would be unproductive for 88 seconds (while I am eating lunch). So instead, I'll have to spend hours trying to hunt it down on a site that I CAN access. Or maybe I'll just not watch it and post lots of comments anyway. That's how slashdot usually works.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Apparently it's not for kids... by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      That's not why... because if every dope in the company was watching cats videos on youtube it would cause to lag when IT is playing it on their lunch hour.

    4. Re:Apparently it's not for kids... by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      Someone has clearly not been to a big convention like Supanova and seen the ludicrous amount of sex that goes on there after hours.

      Source: Went dressed as Pikachu, ended up making out with a Hetalia cosplayer.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    5. Re:Apparently it's not for kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ludicrous amount of sex" != "making out"

    6. Re:Apparently it's not for kids... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Correlation != causation

      For all we know, it is lifelong virginity that leads to Star Wars.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  4. It's all about the merchandising. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "without making it feel like a merchandising excuse."

    But if it doesn't feel like a merchandising excuse, it just won't feel like star wars. Even the original trilogy had that feel. Every alien, ship and droid seems to whisper 'action figure in stores soon.'

    1. Re:It's all about the merchandising. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I still haven't received my "Spaceballs: The Flamethrower".

    2. Re:It's all about the merchandising. by physicsphairy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be fair, a lot of those things actually were action figures because that's how the effects were done. And puppets probably translate fairly well. But at least they didn't come off as specifically designed to be turned into a McDonald's toy. I suppose I didn't really get that impression in the new trilogy either, although part of that may be simply because I wasn't made to care about any of the characters and am not sure why I would want them as figurines. . . .

    3. Re:It's all about the merchandising. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Did you check the bottom of that box of cracker jacks?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:It's all about the merchandising. by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

      That ball droid could conceivably be built, and would be an awesome toy. Imagine: segway-like computer driven gyroscopes, wifi remote control with smartphone app controller, and mobility with an operating principle similar to a ball mouse in reverse. Instead of a ball turning wheels on perpendicular axes to sense motion, wheels on perpendicular axes turn a ball to affect motion.

      The droid toy could be placed atop any ball of the right size, and it would be balanced and mobile. Add a HD digital camera, and you actually have something pretty useful for amateur film making too. Stabilizer for the camera? Now it's a cheaper replacement for cameras on sleds and rails.

      So, this toy has the potential to be a tool. And it wouldn't look very different from the cute little droid in the film either. I already want one!

    5. Re:It's all about the merchandising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They signed a legal agreement not to franchise anything from Spaceballs

      Even though it is pure parody and protected by law.

      G.L. is an absolute asshole.

  5. You should never watch trailers from this decade by bitflusher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They also should also rename them to spoilers!

  6. It Reminds me of by Dartz-IRL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sitting here, watching it, I'm reminded of how awesome the trailer was for Episode 1 a long time ago and the reaction it got.

    --
    So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
    1. Re:It Reminds me of by JMJimmy · · Score: 0

      Sitting here, watching it, I'm reminded of how awesome the trailer was for Episode 1 a long time ago and the reaction it got.

      I thought the trailer from Episode 1 was crap, this one is a mixed bag. For this trailer, some of the scenes look like classic Star Wars and give me some hope... some looks like Star Wars meets Game of Thrones. Other parts like the overly "artistic" storm trooper shot are just stupid and don't fit Star Wars at all.

    2. Re:It Reminds me of by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sitting here, watching it, I'm reminded of how awesome the trailer was for Episode 1 a long time ago and the reaction it got.

      Quite so. OTOH, the Red Letter Media reviews (longer than the movies) were great. I hereby coin:

      Plinkett's Law: The entertainment value of a Star Wars/Trek movie plus the entertainment value of the corresponding Plinkett review is constant.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:It Reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember watching in a theater in Minnesota. The reel broke after the trailer ended and the whole place just sat silent in the dark for about thirty seconds before people started talking. I don't think there's been anything like it before or since.

    4. Re:It Reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other parts like the overly "artistic" storm trooper shot are just stupid and don't fit Star Wars at all.

      Anyone actually think that he was not actually a Stormtrooper and just put on the suit to escape someone chasing him?

      Its amazing how many uber SW nerds have a hissy fit about the nuance. Kudos to you. Just like all the star trek nerds had the same gasms.

      You want something good? Get rid of the problem. J.J.

      Cheers

    5. Re:It Reminds me of by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was referring to the group of Stormtroopers - with the closeups, floor angles, etc. There's a very distinct difference in the shooting style of the originals, whether intentional or not, the shots with the empire tended to be wide/mid shots and very few closeups or low shots, with the exception of Darth Vader and the Emperor. They were also often in larger sets/environments. The rebel shots on the other hand tended to be mid/close shots on smaller sets or low shots. They were often in smaller sets. This gave contrast and really supported the david vs goliath feel. When you apply "gritty" mid/close shots in a small environment with Stormtroopers then it obliterates that contrast and just doesn't feel right.

      You can go off about SW nerds all you want but there's a reason they exist. They may not be able to illiterate why or go too far in trying to do so but there are reasons why those films stand the test of time and have such a fanbase.

    6. Re:It Reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They may not be able to illiterate why"

      Indeed.

    7. Re: It Reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. This is going to be another OK movie. The whole shaking camera action doesn't fit the atmosphere they should try to accomplish. The original was a space opera not an in you face action film.

    8. Re:It Reminds me of by hyperfine+transition · · Score: 1

      "They may not be able to illiterate why " ... Darn it! What is that word? It's on the tip of my tongue ! Why can't I remember the word that describes my inability to summon the right word just when I need it?. Oh .... It's 'articulate'! Dementia denied once more.

    9. Re:It Reminds me of by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Not the word I was looking for actually. Elucidate was the word. My brain's autocorrect screwed up ;)

    10. Re:It Reminds me of by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      This gave contrast and really supported the david vs goliath feel. When you apply "gritty" mid/close shots in a small environment with Stormtroopers then it obliterates that contrast and just doesn't feel right.

      On the other hand, this is twenty-five years after the Alliance victory. The Empire should be the underdogs now, so a bit less Goliath treatment for them might be appropriate.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    11. Re:It Reminds me of by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      This gave contrast and really supported the david vs goliath feel. When you apply "gritty" mid/close shots in a small environment with Stormtroopers then it obliterates that contrast and just doesn't feel right.

      On the other hand, this is twenty-five years after the Alliance victory. The Empire should be the underdogs now, so a bit less Goliath treatment for them might be appropriate.

      That's a very good point. However, if that were the case I would have expected the rebel scenes to feature new equipment instead of beat up X-Wings and the Stormtroopers to have scuffs and dents in their equipment, not looking pristine.

  7. Millennium Falcon = Win by bpgslashdotaccount · · Score: 1

    This will be successful.

    1. Re:Millennium Falcon = Win by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Oh! A prequel fan.
      Don't see many of those around these days.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:Millennium Falcon = Win by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be a prequel fan to appreciate that Milennium Falcon shot. That maneuver is beautiful aerial acrobatics, and to anybody familiar with even the most rudimentary concepts of flight, it marks the Falcon as an incredible piece of machinery worthy of its legend. Not to mention, if Han Solo is at the helm then it turns out he actually does know a few maneuvers. We've been waiting since the 1970's for him to make good on that bragging.

  8. Another case of you're holding it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey look, hilts that will take off your thumb.

    Also I found one lens flare which is probably about right given how little they actually showed..

    1. Re:Another case of you're holding it wrong by Minwee · · Score: 2

      You're not looking at scenes carefully chosen to build anticipation. You're looking at the only two minutes of the movie that didn't have lens flares in them.

    2. Re:Another case of you're holding it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking at the only two minutes of the movie that didn't have lens flares in them.

      There is a lens flare, either Jar Jar Abrams put it in the trailer as a joke... or...

  9. Had a realization by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I just realized that all of JJ Abrams' movies are the same style. That only hit me while seeing this trailer.

    Also there's a robot playing soccer in it, and I wish Mr. Sith good luck in not searing his own wrists off.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Had a realization by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I just realized that all of JJ Abrams' movies are the same style. That only hit me while seeing this trailer.

      I don't know where you get that with this trailer. It looks like every other SW trailer that I have seen.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Had a realization by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's one of the reasons Star Trek felt so wrong. Star Wars pacing and action pasted onto a franchise with callous disregard for pretty much everything. But Star Wars seems a much better fit for Abrams, since that's what he's always wanted to do.

    3. Re:Had a realization by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I just realized that all of JJ Abrams' movies are the same style. That only hit me while seeing this trailer.

      I don't know where you get that with this trailer. It looks like every other SW trailer that I have seen.

      Yes, but, as has been pointed out, that's because SW is a very good fit for JJ Abrams' style. This kinda drives that home.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Had a realization by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      My take on Abrams is that he isn't the right guy to do Star Wars. Based on what I've seen from his Star Trek movies, his approach to storytelling is too intellectual- he's interested in complex storylines and clever plot twists. That's not what Star Wars is about. Star Wars is a modern fairy tail/myth/epic with lots of action and character-driven drama, but not much in the way of clever plot twists. Okay, I will give you the Luke I am Your Father bit, and the Now Witness the Power of this Fully Armed and Operational Death Star bit. But mostly, it's about plucky heroes and the odd scoundrel fighting black-clad villains and rescuing princesses, swordfighting and magic and spaceships and aliens. It's not about the head, it's about the heart, it's about feelings, and none of Abrams work has ever struck me as having the kind of soul needed to tell this sort of story. I guess I could sum it up by saying... I've got a bad feeling about this.

    5. Re:Had a realization by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 2

      Abram's Star Trek? Intellectual? Plot twists? ...

      Uhhhhh....

    6. Re:Had a realization by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Based on what I've seen from his Star Trek movies, his approach to storytelling is too intellectual- he's interested in complex storylines and clever plot twists

      J. J. Abrams' Star Trek was Star Wars set in the Star Trek universe. I don't think he'll have a problem adapting to setting it in the Star Wars universe...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Had a realization by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like "cocky cadet eats apple on bridge, and thus is promoted to Captain of the flagship."

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Had a realization by denzacar · · Score: 1

      They all had shaky cam and orange and teal stormtroopers and robots?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    9. Re:Had a realization by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Red matter. No one saw that coming. It was Star Trek's mitoclorians.

  10. Well, let's face it ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the first real opportunity to get a feeling for whether childhood dreams will be crushed or Disney, with the help of JJ Abrams, will be able to breath new life into the story without making it feel like a merchandising excuse.

    Let's face it, it is a merchandising excuse.

    Di$ney will have fresh Star Wars everything on sale.

    The movie will be guaranteed to have some cloyingly cute character which can be marketed to kids.

    Taco Bell and McDonalds will have special toys.

    They'l re-re-re-re-release extended cuts or special editions of the damned movies.

    Little children will have R2D2 pyjamas and underpants. And diapers. And sippy cups. And hats. And halloween costumes.

    Disney will eventually put out 9 more movies, of ever diminishing artistic merit.

    There will be friggin' Ewok porn.

    I'm nostalgic about the first series. I mostly liked the second series but it had some issues.

    But I tried to watch Episode I with my wife, and within five minutes of Jar Jar Binks appearing on screen she said "if he's in the rest of this film I'm leaving". So now if I want to watch it I'm on my own, and the pod racer scene is mostly how I calibrate my home theater.

    I honestly can't decide if I will see this or not.

    But let's not for a minute pretend this is being done for any reason besides the zillions of dollars Disney expects to wring from this franchise.

    If they were doing a billion a year in merchandising for Cars years after it was released, you won't believe the marketing blitz which will accompany this.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Well, let's face it ... by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      And sippy cups.

      But nothing could beat the Buzz Lightyear homoerotic sippy cup!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Well, let's face it ... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The movie will be guaranteed to have some cloyingly cute character which can be marketed to kids.

      Like R2D2 or the Ewoks?

      There will be friggin' Ewok porn.

      Too late. Way too late.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be friggin' Ewok porn.

      I don't currently swing for Ewoks, but I might with enough exposure. I think Disney are grooming me.

    4. Re:Well, let's face it ... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I submit the Jar Jar Binks candy. That's not an unfortunately placed functional element, the candy IS his tongue. I mean...that is his tongue, right? 8-(

      But it is indeed hard to beat the cup due to Buzz's facial expression.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Well, let's face it ... by doconnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unlike most media companies, Disney takes the long view of merchandising. Anyone was can make a movie that sells merchandising for a year or so, but Disney knows that for a movie to be able to keep selling merchandise for 70+ years, like Snow White has, the movie has to have a very appealing and timeless story to it. The original trilogy has that long term appeal. That is something Disney is going to try to recapture.

    6. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to think of any Hollywood action films that haven't had merch planned as early as pre-production in the last 10-15 years and I'm straining.

      Yogurt was right, the real money is in the merchandising.

    7. Re:Well, let's face it ... by jsilver212 · · Score: 1

      This is the first real opportunity to get a feeling for whether childhood dreams will be crushed or Disney, with the help of...

      and then

      breath new life

      I think a comma after crushed would have helped. It took me too long to parse that sentence (even after pausing to breath). Anyway, aside from my grammar complaints in the summary, I haven't much to say about this. We'll see how it turns out.

    8. Re:Well, let's face it ... by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      There will be friggin' Ewok porn.

      There's Ewok porn *now*.

    9. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But let's not for a minute pretend this is being done for any reason besides the zillions of dollars Disney expects to wring from this franchise.
       
      Um... While you didn't say this... and keeping in mind that you may well know this... This is pretty much true of every movie that has come out for the masses. Blame "teh Di$$$$$$ney!" all you want but if you really think the marketing of the first Star Wars film was any different, aside from scale, it's only because you have fonder memories of those years of your life and it wasn't money that you earned that got you the nifty X wing fighter complete with flashing lasers.
       
      Oh, and the only reason that the scale of this type of promotion has gotten so out of hand is because of the massive success that they've had in the past. Star Wars episode IV is largely to blame for that too.

    10. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      There will be friggin' Ewok porn.

      Too late. Way too late.

      Ewok porn? There's already Wookierotica. (No, you'll have to google that one for yourself.)

    11. Re:Well, let's face it ... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Let's face it, it is a merchandising excuse. Di$ney will have fresh Star Wars everything on sale. The movie will be guaranteed to have some cloyingly cute character which can be marketed to kids. Taco Bell and McDonalds will have special toys. They'l re-re-re-re-release extended cuts or special editions of the damned movies. Little children will have R2D2 pyjamas and underpants. And diapers. And sippy cups. And hats. And halloween costumes. Disney will eventually put out 9 more movies, of ever diminishing artistic merit. There will be friggin' Ewok porn. I'm nostalgic about the first series. I mostly liked the second series but it had some issues. But I tried to watch Episode I with my wife, and within five minutes of Jar Jar Binks appearing on screen she said "if he's in the rest of this film I'm leaving". So now if I want to watch it I'm on my own, and the pod racer scene is mostly how I calibrate my home theater. I honestly can't decide if I will see this or not. But let's not for a minute pretend this is being done for any reason besides the zillions of dollars Disney expects to wring from this franchise. If they were doing a billion a year in merchandising for Cars years after it was released, you won't believe the marketing blitz which will accompany this.

      So, EXACTLY like the original trilogy?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    12. Re:Well, let's face it ... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I'd make a 'cannot be unseen' joke, except that I've actually seen Jar Jar rule 34, and... no. It will always be with me. I don't like even thinking about it.

    13. Re:Well, let's face it ... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's in the holiday special.

    14. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's been published Ewok porn since at least 1985. (Cherry Poptart #2, page 21 - Larry Welz)

      Anon because I'm not about to admit I was able to give a cite on this.

    15. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I honestly can't decide if I will see this or not."

      lol, you will.

    16. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats wrong with it being a merchandising excuse? Why shouldn't the making of money be the primary incentive for a major studio to produce a movie?

    17. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... will have fresh Star Wars everything on sale"
      "... guaranteed to have some cloyingly cute character which can be marketed to kids"
      "... will have special toys"
      "There will be friggin' Ewok porn."

      Wait, are you talking about 2015 or 1977? (Ok, ewok porn didn't show up until 1982 or so, but still)

    18. Re:Well, let's face it ... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "Let's face it, it is a merchandising excuse."

      So? The original Star Wars (IV, for the clueless) was just meant to be a superficial serial-action cowboy movie in space. (shrug) It doesn't have to be deep to be enjoyable.

      And seriously:
      "... I tried to watch Episode I with my wife, "
      If you're introducing Star Wars to anyone why in heaven's name would you start with Ep I? Holy Christ, I'd show them 4, 5, apologetically 6, and pretend 1-2-3 never happened

      I watched the trailer, and it's on the bubble for me. I'll probably go see it mainly because Lucas ISN'T in charge. If he was? It would be a netflix-when-I-have-2-hours-to-kill at best.

      --
      -Styopa
    19. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule 34 of the internet says that there is already ewok porn.
      Try to keep up.

    20. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Episode 6 was ewok porn. None of them were wearing pants!

    21. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If they were doing a billion a year in merchandising for Cars years after it was released, you won't believe the marketing blitz which will accompany this."

      Enough Said.

      Considering they built a multimillion dollar theme park piece around that movie and it's making boku bucks.... This is going to be the orgasm event of the century for anyone in the marketing industry. And Wall Street will easily blow a load over the week of the première to much fan fare as the iPhone 4..

    22. Re: Well, let's face it ... by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      What... the actual... fuck?

    23. Re:Well, let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as this moves them to do a proper restoration and release of the theatrical editions of IV-VI then they can merchandise the crap out of the franchise for all I care.

    24. Re:Well, let's face it ... by x0 · · Score: 1

      gstoddart said:

      But let's not for a minute pretend this is being done for any reason besides the zillions of dollars Disney expects to wring from this franchise.

      I understand your point, but why would anyone think that Disney is doing this for any other reason than the profit? Seriously, no studio is going to make a movie like this for the fan service - especially as a 'loss leader'.

      Indie studios may do a movie for the art, but it's obvious that Disney paid ~$4.1B US for a property they think will make them money back in excess of the purchase price.

      m

      --
      In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
  11. Remarkably little lens flare. by jpellino · · Score: 2

    Nice work on the contrails. No Jar Jar. Hey, it's a teaser but I like what I see so far.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      No Jar Jar.

      That's why it's a teaser. Haven't you heard of bait and switch before?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be the greatest act of trolling in history if he popped on screen early into the movie yelling "Surprise! Yousa think meesa not in this movie! Yousa wrong! Hahahahaha!" and then there was a long Bollywood-style dance scene with dozens of Jar Jars singing and dancing on screen XD

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough if there were, I'd go see it simply for that.
       
      It would keep me laughing at least a week.

    4. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The rebooted Star Trek trailers looked good, but I disliked the movies.

    5. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by jfengel · · Score: 3

      The lens flare that was there was actually well used, when the Falcon went up into the sun. It helped highlight a dramatic moment. I thought that was good work.

      Once. The problem is that he over-uses the trick.

    6. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      That's why it's a teaser. Haven't you heard of bait and switch before?

      Still reeling from the last air bender previews where nothing from the preview was present in the movie. For over a year I wanted to see it and when I finally did I wish I hadn't.

    7. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! A worthy successor to Hardware Wars, with echoes of the end of Blazing Saddles.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Bollywood-style dance scene with dozens of Jar Jars singing Together Forever...

      There, fixed that for you.

    9. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by tensigh · · Score: 1

      Best comment on this thread!

    10. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This made me laugh out loud.
      AC

    11. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably didn't have time of finish adding lens flare to the other scenes. Tatooine with 3? suns should definitely have some crazy lens flares.

    12. Re:Remarkably little lens flare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why every shot in this trailer last for 2 seconds. The production crew managed to cut between the lens flares for that long.

  12. Summary of Trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Aren't you a little black to be a stormtrooper?
    2. A beach ball droid?
    3. Oooo! Nice X-Wing shot. Okay I might go and watch this.
    4. That sword's a bit silly. You're still going to lose a hand if the light-sabre slices through the metal bit!
    5. Millenium Falcon! Woohoo!

    1. Re:Summary of Trailer by tompaulco · · Score: 0

      1. Aren't you a little black to be a stormtrooper?

      If Star Wars taught us anything, in the future (but somehow the past) Blacks are relegated to positions of being political shills for the empire. Hmm, Star Wars ahead of its time?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Summary of Trailer by Immerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      4) That sword *almost* makes sense. I mean what else are you going to make an anti-lightsaber hilt guard out of except more lightsaber? Only problem is that instead of catching your opponent's blade like a traditional guard, this one just guides it directly towards your emmitter (and hands), which it will then presumably slice through without problems.

      Oh, wait, Wookipedia says they do have a lightsaber-shorting material in the universe, so wrap the mechanical bits in that and it would be a formidable weapon for lightsaber dueling, though a simple cortosis guard would make even more sense. But hey, he's presumably a Sith, and when have they ever chosen practicality over looking badass?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Summary of Trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scene:
      Luke looks into the camera, raises his fist and yells "VAAAADDDER!!!!" - twice; as the camera pans away - and pulls away from the planet of Endor.

    4. Re:Summary of Trailer by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2

      So what's Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker's excuse? Anakin was supposedly this technical wizard, why doesn't he have a freaking 12 bladed light saber sphere? Did Vader opt for a plain light saber because he has the cool suit? Did Anakin lose the fine motor control required to construct light saber bad-assery when he was put into the life support suit? Did he just say "fuck it" because - who's he gonna fight?

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    5. Re:Summary of Trailer by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. Aren't you a little black to be a stormtrooper?

      This seems like canon, I thought all the stormtroopers were clones of Jango Fett.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Summary of Trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1. Aren't you a little black to be a stormtrooper?

      It worked in Spaceballs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3iFJpGJiug

    7. Re:Summary of Trailer by Imagix · · Score: 4, Informative

      The original clone troopers were... but somewhere between Ep III and IV, it was opened up to conscripts.

    8. Re:Summary of Trailer by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > 2. A beach ball droid?

      Yes. You can already buy the toy, I'm sure. The toy sales outdo the theater sales 10 to 1, the movies are a loss leader.

      The Falcon whipping around like that, land and ship, I haven't felt a presence like that since...

      Since 1977.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Summary of Trailer by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Especially considering all the clones had their aging accelerated, so would be doddering old men by the time ep IV starts.

    10. Re:Summary of Trailer by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Thus accounting for the fact that they suddenly can't hit the broadside of a barn anymore...

    11. Re:Summary of Trailer by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, he's at least middle age by the time we meet him as Vader - he probably reached the point where he realized his awesome saber-sphere was more dangerous to himself than his enemies and got back to the basics. Besides, his master is clearly a fan of the "tear them apart with the force" school of combat, which has obviously rubbed off on him. Lots of force-choking after all, but did you ever see him threatening anyone with his saber?

      I suspect he kept it around as a primarily as a ceremonial piece, maybe some nostalgia from the good old days. And possibly because Force users apparently have some sort of Highlander-esque attachment to ritualized sword fighting. I mean sure it's great that your sword can reflect bullets, and maybe the Force will let you sense the incoming shot at your back, but all it takes is one idiot with a shotgun and you've had it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:Summary of Trailer by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It doesn't reflect bullets. It reflects blaster... er, blasts. Which move a lot slower than bullets, though I presume pack a considerably greater punch.

      One day someone will go through their military history books and learn about handheld projectile weapons which, though they may not be able to puncture even the weak armor of a stormtrooper, would make excellent anti-jedi weapons.

    13. Re:Summary of Trailer by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Going by stuff in the SW-universe, the more complex the weapon the more you have to be proficient at using it, so you don't kill yourself by accident. Light whips are a good example of this.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Summary of Trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was always canon. All the way back to the beginning of A New Hope, when looking at the wreckage of the sandcrawler, its side and the ground around it littered with blaster scorch marks, Obi Wan acerbically remarks, "...only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."

    15. Re:Summary of Trailer by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      First thing I thought is that the wielder of the hilted light saber would be more likely to cut off their own hand. Maybe not with the saber work in the original trilogy but the prequels definitely had fancy fighting that would lead to self-severing.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    16. Re:Summary of Trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light sabers are "sticky." This is quite clear from the fact that they do not pass through each other when used to deflect blows. Since a light saber is a beam of energy, and not solid matter, it stands to reason that this is not simple impermeability (hence, "sticky"). It therefore further stands to reason that two clashing blades will not slide laterally along one-another...they will remain stuck until pulled directly apart. Therefore, no hand-guard is necessary.

      And also; it is folly to apply too much logic to something that is essentially magic.

    17. Re:Summary of Trailer by matbury · · Score: 2

      1. Aren't you a little black to be a stormtrooper?

      Disney Inc.'s market research team found that American viewers found killing black storm troopers less disturbing than white ones.

      That sword *almost* makes sense.

      Especially if it's by crusty old white guys in long robes with burning crosses.

      Here's Darth Vader trying out his new suit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    18. Re:Summary of Trailer by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

      - Unintentionally comical Sudden Black Man
      - Comical Soccer Ball Bot
      - Unintentionally comical Desert Box Cycle
      - Hilarious "trying to hard to be edgy" Cross Saber
      - Shitty voice over

      + X-Wings
      + Millenium Falcon

      On a scale of Midi-chlorians to Yoda, this trailer is a Jar Jar Binks.

    19. Re:Summary of Trailer by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Thus accounting for the fact that they suddenly can't hit the broadside of a barn anymore...

      Only Imperial Stormtroopers are this precise.

    20. Re:Summary of Trailer by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      When Jengo found out, he threw a fett.

    21. Re:Summary of Trailer by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      If Star Wars taught us anything, in the future (but somehow the past) Blacks are relegated to positions of being political shills for the empire.

      And then you've got Darth Vader: the blackest brother in the galaxy. Nubian God.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    22. Re:Summary of Trailer by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2

      It doesn't reflect bullets

      Haha, right. Jedi/Sith attempts to deflect a bullet - and the light saber wielding bad-ass gets a face full of melted lead and copper jacket.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    23. Re:Summary of Trailer by Cito · · Score: 1

      The biggest surprise?

      Is when it was leaked Jar Jar Binks is now the galactic president after the empire dissolved.

      Luke and Leigh's kids are out to stop a lone with who is putting together a guerilla force to form a coup to reinstate the empire with the with as the new emperor.

    24. Re:Summary of Trailer by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      Nah, they will just pull a Neo and stop them mid air with the Force.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    25. Re:Summary of Trailer by tensigh · · Score: 1

      Agree with points 4 and 5. The "Excalibur" style Lightsaber just looked plain silly. Lightsabers are already cool. Adding anything to them like that just makes them look stupid and those side beams were functionally useless.

    26. Re: Summary of Trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice!

    27. Re:Summary of Trailer by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

      It's possible to be precise but not accurate:
      http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.o...
      Imperial Stormtroopers appear to be low accuracy, high precision.

    28. Re:Summary of Trailer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Seems reasonable to assume that, like the characters in A New Hope, the armour is stolen.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Summary of Trailer by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      "...this one just guides it directly towards your emmitter (and hands), which it will then presumably slice through without problems."

      Yea but you would quickly learn to avoid sliding your hand up past the hilt guard. After you made a couple slips you would never make that same mistake again.

    30. Re:Summary of Trailer by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Rule number one of using a wonky badass sword: Avoid wonky badass fighting moves.

      Corollary: the better the sword, the crappier the fighter probably is. I think it's a compensation thing. Or maybe an intimidation thing, like the Goa'uld weapons. Designed primarily for striking terror into the hearts of a much inferior opponent. That sounds like it would fit right in with the Sith temperament at least.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:Summary of Trailer by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? All the fact that they don't pass through each other means is that they don't pass through each other. Out here in the real world repulsion is a far more common energy-field phenomena than "stickiness". We've got electrostatics and magnetics as the obvious "everyday" examples, while I can't think of *any* examples of "stickiness" that don't involve physical contact forces - usually the interaction of long-chain molecules with the surrounding materials.

      Moreover, stickiness exerts an *attractive* (or at least counter-repulsive) force, so if you presume the "stickiness" between saber surfaces is preventing them from inter-penetrating, then pulling them apart again should take roughly as much force as pushing them through each other would, and I've never seen the slightest evidence of such a thing. All evidence suggests that they interact with each other much like metal blades, only with more sparks.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    32. Re:Summary of Trailer by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they put three crystals in the handle to produce a V-shaped hilt, with the beams all emerging from the same point?

    33. Re:Summary of Trailer by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't quite work - the crystals can't exist at the same point, so the beams wouldn't start at the same point. Plus you have all the modulation, focusing, etc. circuitry between the crystal and the emitter. What you could do though is have the two auxiliary generators arranged to form the head of a not-quite-planar "arrow", with the hilt forming the tail, so that when activated you have those two "V" beams just grazing the primary, one to either side, so that an incoming blade couldn't squeeze through the almost-intersection.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    34. Re:Summary of Trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you shoot at me, I'll force push down your throat mother fucker." -- Mace Windu

    35. Re:Summary of Trailer by Guppy · · Score: 1

      This seems like canon, I thought all the stormtroopers were clones of Jango Fett

      Presumably at some point the clone tanks get blown up, or maybe conscripts ended up being cheaper than clones.

      Although it would be more interesting if some random strain of the common flu ended up adapting itself perfectly to that nice monoculture of Fetts, and killed them all off (except for Boba, who got a flu shot).

    36. Re:Summary of Trailer by AnnaZed · · Score: 1

      1. Aren't you a little black to be a stormtrooper?

      That black actor is John Boyega, star of the incredibly marvelous micro-budget film 'Attack the Block' (which you should rent or watch on Netflix RIGHT NOW) and said to be one of the stars of this film. He will not be killed off early in the movie. That leads me to wonder if the plot involves his character hiding inside the Storm Trooper army (which would indeed be hard if you are a dark skinned person); it also leads me to wonder why smart geek sites like this aren't (a.) doing their homework and (b.) exploring these plotline possibilities instead of bickering about lightsaber shorting materials.

    37. Re:Summary of Trailer by F1re · · Score: 1

      What's a nubian?

      --
      ...there is no sig...
    38. Re:Summary of Trailer by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Thus accounting for the fact that they suddenly can't hit the broadside of a barn anymore...

      The only time they were not able to hit what they were shooting at was when herding prisoners that were tricked into thinking they were escaping to a spaceship that had a transmitter installed on it to lead the Empire to the rebel base.

  13. Tentatively excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh please please please be good.

  14. Gritty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So far the tech seems dirty and gritty. Held together by duct tape and prayers. It's what I liked about (most) of the original trilogy and was largely missing from the prequels. If other trailers retain that feel I may be willing to give this movie the benefit of doubt, but I will certainly not wait up for the Thursday midnight release showing.

  15. I see nothing exciting here by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative

    This trailer is getting lots of hype but has very little content. I know, it's only 88 seconds long but really what is in it? Not much. Yeah. we see the Millenium Falcon again. We see a spiffy new kind of multi-blade light sabre. We see some other clever method of moving around faster than the best that us poor feeble humans can walk. We see some other nifty little robot. But none of that really tells us much about the movie itself; it could just as well be a teaser for Disney's toy catalog for next Christmas.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:I see nothing exciting here by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Actually, this isn't even a trailer. This is a teaser. A trailer is supposed to give you some idea of the movie's plot to get you interested enough to want to see the movie. (Ideally, this should be done without giving away the ending. I'm looking at you, Iron Giant trailer.) A teaser, however, can have a bunch of quick-shot scenes or even one mysterious, short, "what can this be" scene. A teaser is best done if it reveals nothing about the plot but shows you just enough to pique your interest.

      Thus, as a teaser, I think this succeeds. It doesn't tell us much about what is in the movie, but that wasn't its job. Instead, it shows us a bunch of cool stuff and whets our appetite for Star Wars. If they work it right, the first trailer will be released in a few months which will give some idea of the plot and will build on the excitement and anticipation. Then, more trailers and media releases will build more until opening day.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:I see nothing exciting here by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      But none of that really tells us much about the movie itself; it could just as well be a teaser for Disney's toy catalog for next Christmas.

      In other words, ff you get an advance copy of the catalog, you will know what is in the movie.

      To this day I don't understand how Lucas could make something as good as "American Graffiti" and an entire collection as mediocre as "Star Wars", other than using them to sell toys. If it wasn't for Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and James Earl Jones in the original movie, my guess is that it would have flopped. It's sort of surprising to me that so many people with technical backgrounds like the SW series, given all of the science the movies completely disregard:

      • Sound in space
      • Spacecraft that make banked turns in a vacuum
      • Breathable atmosphere almost everywhere
      • No variation in gravity on different planets
      • Humans flying spacecraft while AI sits in the back seat
      • Humans aiming and shooting weapons while AI sits in the back seat
      • Large formations of spacecraft in close proximity even though they can move at hyper-light speed
      • etc, etc

      The SW franchise strikes me as a series of repackaged westerns with WWII themes and an abundance of special effects. I like sci-fi that leaves you wondering about possibilities you never thought of before. I don't know why Hollywood has such a hard time with sci-fi given the example of "2001, A Space Odyssey". Not that 2001 was such a great movie given how disjointed it was, but the weightlessness, lack of sound in space, and of course the impossibility of understanding HALs AI made those sequences very alien and intriguing. (Martin Scorsese's comment that Dave Bowman shutting down HAL was actually a murder scene made the question of AI even more interesting.) "Terminator", "Predator", and "Alien" were all better, IMHO. I think all of the Philip K. Dick derived movies were better than SW, too. When it comes to SW, the stories leave little or nothing to the imagination, the antithesis of what good sci-fi should do. But then again, the movies are really just ads for toys and promotions at Burger King. In that regard, they make a lot of money so I will not argue with them as a business proposition. Now "Get off my lawn!"

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    3. Re:I see nothing exciting here by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I think Star Wars was more innovative at the time it first came out. No-one had seen anything quite like it before. There were sci-fi movies, yes. Even with gunfights and spaceship battles. But none on such an epic scale, none drawing so effectively upon other cinematic genres like the western.

      Films like star wars are ten-a-penny these days, of course. But back then? It was revolutionary.

    4. Re:I see nothing exciting here by operagost · · Score: 1

      You criticized all that things that DON'T MATTER IN A FAIRY TALE, which is what Star Wars is-- not sci-fi.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:I see nothing exciting here by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      It's sort of surprising to me that so many people with technical backgrounds like the SW series, given all of the science the movies completely disregard:

      Because... many of us well understand that SW is really a fantasy set in outer space, and we're not looking for technical realism? Once you realize and accept this, you'll stop worrying about technical issues. I mean... come on... take a hint. There's a princess and the knights who rescue her. There are wizards with swords and magic powers. The film follows the classic "hero's journey" paradigm. Pure fantasy with a science fiction veneer.

      Thank God Hollywood knows better than to follow the example of 2001. Nothing against it - it's a fine movie for a small subset of people who care about technical accuracy in space scenes rather than... well... fun. But that's not what Star Wars is about. 2001 is not the film to take your 7 year old son to. "Alien and intriguing" is not what Star Wars is trying to be.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:I see nothing exciting here by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Arthur C. Clarke's analogy was that HAL was afraid because he'd never slept before.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  16. Thoughts. by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    Looks like JJ can do action scenes but just throws in stuff "to make it interesting"...like a lightsaber cross-guard! Also the intro dialogue? Phantom Menace level bad.
    The initial shot is obviously pre-finished. It slowly builds from raw to production level scenes. I have high hopes, but it will have bad parts.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  17. The Original Trilogy by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    ... should have stayed as a trilogy.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:The Original Trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean? There were only three Star Wars movies. They came out in 1977, 80, and 83.

    2. Re:The Original Trilogy by jd · · Score: 1

      It was imagined as a 9-parter from the very beginning. The mistake Lucas made was to not write all nine parts in one go. Had they all been written together, you'd not have had the continuity errors or the deterioration in quality after the original.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:The Original Trilogy by MagickalMyst · · Score: 2

      The other problem is that Lucas wrote them.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  18. I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    X-wing shot: 'Hey I thought it wasn't safe for x-wings to fly in an atmosphere with the s-foils deployed.'
    Millenium Falcon shot: I hope he's got a new pilot, because I think Han's getting too old for this. Also: 25+ years later and they're still using original TIE fighters?

    1. Re:I agree, except: by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Millenium Falcon shot: I hope he's got a new pilot, because I think Han's getting too old for this. Also: 25+ years later and they're still using original TIE fighters?

      Harrison Ford still has a valid pilot's license.
      As far as technology goes, what I observed from the episodes 1-3 is that they had better technology available than they did in 4-6, like double bladed light sabers, unlike the paltry one bladed ones available in the future. It's almost like their society is failing and their technology is limited to only what has already been produced and hasn't been destroyed yet. They should count themselves lucky to have TIE fighters.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts on the Xwing was why do the two in the background have rooster tails yet the one up close to the camera has none.

    3. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:I agree, except: by fermion · · Score: 1
      So Ford evidently got injured on the Falcon set.

      Tie fighter over water was just them playing with special effects. Very gratuitous.

      Guards on the light saber was definitely the silliest addition.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:I agree, except: by doconnor · · Score: 2

      Light saber technology is not the best example, since that is a Jedi weapon and the Jedi are all but extinct during this period.

      The Death Star is an impressive example of technology that did not exist in the first episodes.

    6. Re:I agree, except: by lgw · · Score: 2

      X-wing shot: 'Hey I thought it wasn't safe for x-wings to fly in an atmosphere with the s-foils deployed.'
      Millenium Falcon shot: I hope he's got a new pilot, because I think Han's getting too old for this. Also: 25+ years later and they're still using original TIE fighters?

      I noticed these and several other "no longer even pretending consistency" moments. I guess my reaction to the trailer is: "I've got a bad feeling about this."

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:I agree, except: by Maxwell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because you cant see the back of it, where the rooster tail is?

      My though is why do the TIE's fire? blasters go straight. If you aren't lined up, what's the point of firing?

    8. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X-wing shot: 'Hey I thought it wasn't safe for x-wings to fly in an atmosphere with the s-foils deployed.'

      X-wings are used frequently in atmosphere in Star Wars: Rogue Squadron. Deploying s-foils reduced maximum speed. I guess that make sense--increased drag, so you probably need to slow down and avoid sharp turns to reduce stress forces on the ship.

      Not that I expect anyone to have thought of this when making the film--they just wanted to put the pilots in X-wings because those are familiar to us.

    9. Re:I agree, except: by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also: 25+ years later and they're still using original TIE fighters?

      The US and many other countries are still flying the top gun f16s, and that was 20 years ago.

    10. Re:I agree, except: by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      At the end of ep3 they're starting to work on a Death Star.

    11. Re:I agree, except: by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      True, but in Star Wars 4-6 it looks like any technology that isn't in direct service to the Empire is second-hand, beaten up, sometimes barely working technology. The Death Star is for the Emperor so it's "state of the art" and shiny and new. The Rebellion can't get access to technology made for the Empire so they make due with what fighters they can scrounge together.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess my reaction to the trailer is: "I've got a bad feeling about this."

      Indeed. A new JJ Abrams trailer often seems to be followed by millions of voices crying out in terror. I guess time will tell whether they will suddenly be silenced on release day.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    13. Re:I agree, except: by Longjmp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Light saber technology is not the best example, ...

      Obi Wan Gilette: "Heck, we'll make one with 5 blades!"
      (or was it Wilkinson?)

      --
      There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
    14. Re:I agree, except: by kylemonger · · Score: 2

      F-14's, and they are from a single planet's defense industry. You'd expect a whole galaxy full of designers to come up with something better in 25+ years. When a beat-up freighter is both faster and more agile than your top-of-the-line fighters, then maybe killing all the aerospace engineers in a tiff wasn't such a great idea.

    15. Re:I agree, except: by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Infinite ammo, and the ship might jink into the shots. Why not fire?

    16. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked this light saber so much I bought the company!

    17. Re:I agree, except: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      You'd expect a whole galaxy full of designers to come up with something better in 25+ years.

      Sure. And I'd expect that they'd be able to get them into mass production, shipped, and deployed in... well under 100 years. Probably. If everything goes smoothly.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well they have been working on the new F35 TIE fighter but you know now these things go.

    19. Re:I agree, except: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Seems unlikely it can be saved now. Filming is finished, it's going to look like that. Crappy CG, shakey camera, extremely fast cuts and flashing lights so you can't see anything... Even had the lens flare in there, although not as bad as Star Trek. In other words a standard J.J. Abrams film.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:I agree, except: by shadowknot · · Score: 1

      I'm most certainly over thinking this but it could be a comment on the inefficiencies of the giant bureaucracy that would need to be in place in order to administrate a massively autocratic, centralized regime such as the Empire.

    21. Re: I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      not really there are lightsaber resistant metals they could make the cross gaurds out of. It would block lightsabers. Mandelorean iron or Phrik alloys like palpatines sabre

    22. Re:I agree, except: by number17 · · Score: 1

      Good points. Only counter is that it might give away your position more easily.

    23. Re:I agree, except: by allsorts46 · · Score: 1

      Hey at least it still *looks* like an X-Wing and not an iWing, like what happened to the Enterprise...

    24. Re:I agree, except: by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      Extremely fast cuts isn't really indicative of anything in a trailer.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    25. Re:I agree, except: by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not infinite ammo! You have to press F9 to recharge them, and then your MGLT drops. Don't even have shield from which to redirect charge, dang widow makers.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    26. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the F-15, designed in the late 1960's, is still in production.

    27. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harrison Ford still has a valid pilot's license.

      ...but he never remembers to turn off his damned left turn signal!!! And when he's in the left hand lane he's always driving 5-10 mph below the speed limit!

    28. Re:I agree, except: by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      I thought the new light saber version was Christian symbolism.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re: I agree, except: by Stickerboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah, you're overthinking it. Episodes 4-6 are about the rebels living on the ragtag fringe of galactic society. Think of what cars tend to look like in the poorer sections of Mexico. Shade tree mechanics and barely running junk. Episodes 1-3 were most of the time centered on the heart of the Republic when not in battle. Shiny, ergonomic, aesthetically pleasing. And when the Sith and the Empire took power the newest tech became blunt instruments of power.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    30. Re: I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care how many lens flares are present. What oddball styling the lightsaber has ( Maybe the Sith is named Darth I-used-to-be-left-handed ) or even the crazy looking beach-ball R2 unit: As long as we leave out all the cute, fuzzy, family friendly, children saving the day by accident, direct to merchandising department characters, it will be infinitely better than the last three episodes combined.

      Even better if the Empire destroys both Naboo and Endor in the first fifteen minutes. . . lol

    31. Re: I agree, except: by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not really there are lightsaber resistant metals

      That's "expanded universe" bullshit, which is less valid canonically than the fucking Star Wars ride at Disneyland.
      Canon hierarchy goes:

      Original Trilogy
      Original Trilogy toy line
      Original Trilogy Pez dispensers
      Holiday Special
      Second Trilogy
      Second Trilogy toy line
      Disneyland ride
      Third Trilogy
      Third Trilogy toy line
      -------------------
      CANON ABOVE
      FANFICTION BELOW
      -------------------
      "Expanded universe" "novels"
      Comic books
      Video games
      Shitty cartoon series
      Pogs

    32. Re:I agree, except: by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Not canon.

    33. Re:I agree, except: by Aereus · · Score: 1

      Seemed to me to be symbolism for a "Dark Templar" as it were. Crusader ... for the dark side.

    34. Re: I agree, except: by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      the first rule is nobody mentions the "Holiday Special"... the second rule refers to the first rule...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    35. Re:I agree, except: by Notabadguy · · Score: 2

      As far as technology goes, what I observed from the episodes 1-3 is that they had better technology available than they did in 4-6, like double bladed light sabers, unlike the paltry one bladed ones available in the future. It's almost like their society is failing and their technology is limited to only what has already been produced and hasn't been destroyed yet. They should count themselves lucky to have TIE fighters.

      Give it time. Disney won't kill the franchise, so look forward to:

      Star Wars Episode 10: Jedi facing a crisis of lightsaber shortages. Lightsabers handed down generationally.
      Star Wars Episode 15: Re-introduction of kinetic weaponry. Jedi learn to their horror that when a lightsaber blocks a kinetic round, they get splashed with plasma and liquified metal.
      Star Wars Episode 18: Droids across the galaxy are falling into disrepair without the technology to repair them, and people with the ability to calculate the logistics and plotting for hyperspace routes grow fewer - they form into a guild called "Navigators."
      Star Wars Episode 22: Droids are gone, kinetic weaponry and explosives dominate, Jedi lightsabers are a thing of legend, and interstellar travel requires the help of the navigators, whom no one actually ever sees.
      Star Wars Episode 24: A boy with unprecedented midiclorian levels is born on the planet Calidan. Legend foretells that he will save or destroy the Universe.
      Star Wars Episode 25: A New, New Hope: The spice.....must flow....

    36. Re: I agree, except: by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know. Making Jar Jar Binks responsible for handing the galaxy over to the most evil man in it was a nice touch. ;-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    37. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the movie Top Gun featured F-14s which have been retired.... F-16 was in Iron Eagle series...

    38. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F16 has been in service since August 1978.

    39. Re:I agree, except: by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      The 5 blade razors aren't the best example. That would go to the original Schick Quattro, which had three blades positioned exactly like the three in Gillette's Mach 3 plus a fourth blade that did nothing at all -- it was set FARTHER BACK than the first three so it would never actually cut anything. The Quattro was later redesigned because the first version infringed on a Gillette patent.

    40. Re:I agree, except: by zuel · · Score: 1

      We're too stuck on the idea that technology *must* progress rapidly, but that's an artefact of our time in history.

      Plausibly in the Star Wars universe, fundamental science is effectively settled, so there are no new innovations to be found through new scientific discoveries (like we shrink transistors, or build better solar panels, or eventually figure out room temperature superconductors). I believe the lore states that hyperdrives and blasters have been around for millennia. That suggests the science behind this stuff as firm as it'll ever get.

      Instead, technological progress comes in the form of devices changing form to prioritise things like manufacturing, supply, economics and changes in 'market' dynamics - such as noticing Rebel fighters start using shields, so producing more TIEs with shields in response, which might cost more but be an effective strategy, until, for example, the Rebels recruit millions of new pilots and turn to building more inexpensive shieldless fighters, and so it goes.

      Lightsaber changes might be better explained through signalling - like knights' swords and armour could be embellished to mark their station - so too do individual Sith customise their 'sabers to maximise recognition and intimidation (Jedi are probably beneath this stuff).

      Just a thought.

    41. Re:I agree, except: by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Where we're going, we don't need... licenses.

    42. Re: I agree, except: by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      The technological decline was obvious once episodes 1-3 were released. That was the peak of Galactic Civilization. Things have been in decline since. No more shines ships. The Millennium Falcon is still the fastest ship around. No more research into the force, and the little knowledge gained re: midichlorianes was completely lost. And the Jedi devolve from a quasi-science into a cult.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    43. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      citations needed

    44. Re:I agree, except: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has however retired the F14. Speaking of Top Gun I mean.

      Now Iron Eagle on the other hand, there's a movie with staying power............

  19. Lightsaber crossguard wtf by kruach+aum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not something you can do to a lightsaber goddammit. And why to the crossguard beams look like they're on fire?

    1. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Piata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The stupid part is it's not even an effective crossguard. There's a metal section close to the hilt so you can easily cut the crossguard off. Congrats on making a (most likely) primary antagonist look like an idiot. Unless they intented Luke Skywalker to show a juvenille Sith how moronic his added bling is in an actual fight...

    2. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not something you can do to a lightsaber goddammit.

      Ahem. Actually, it makes a kind of sense: it always bothered me how Star Wars lightsabers didn't have any kind of hilt/crossguard, which should have made it almost trivially easy for their opponent's to simply slide their lightsaber down the blade and slice off their opponents hand. Maybe someone in the universe finally realized that with a crossguard every lightsaber duel wouldn't end with someone loosing a hand?

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly WHY having a group of religious nuts running around 'guarding' the universe by wielding energy swords with no hilts was completely ridiculous in the first place, especially when that very same universe was also populated by people wielding weapons with both physical and energy based ammo that simply would beat the reaction time of any human, force or no force. Go ahead, try to use your light sabre to defect my incoming blaster fire, you would fail every time and you would be dead before you could close to use that silly sabre.

    4. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you forget that "in this universe" beam weapons are visible and travel at the speed of spit.

    5. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      That article only mentions a secondary emitter at a 45 degree angle, not 2 more at a 90 degree angle.

    6. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Man, you forget that "in this universe" beam weapons are visible and travel at the speed of spit.

      They don't even have beam weapons. They're not LASERs, they're "blasters".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not something you can do to a lightsaber goddammit.

      Ahem. Actually, it makes a kind of sense: it always bothered me how Star Wars lightsabers didn't have any kind of hilt/crossguard, which should have made it almost trivially easy for their opponent's to simply slide their lightsaber down the blade and slice off their opponents hand. Maybe someone in the universe finally realized that with a crossguard every lightsaber duel wouldn't end with someone loosing a hand?

      It's the big "robotic appendage replacement" that's trying to keep jedis' down.

    8. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of you would pay more attention to the actually used fighting style you had realized that the choreographers are aware of the problem and use a fighting style that avoids losing hands.
      Your idea of sliding along the 'blade' is easy countered ... if you know how to handle a light sword, floret or katana.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the ones that are referred to as turbolasers, of course.

    10. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Either you've got a point with the bling, or the answer is in the midichlorians -- the crossguard is useless unless it is *also* controlled by the Force. This would indicate a higher degree of control, which would be a Force status symbol. Of course, if you're *really* good with the Force, you don't really need the sabre at all, and don't really need to move your body around either. The sabre is meant to focus power, not to be a fancy dueling weapon. I mean, a light Epee would work just as well. It's all about the visualization (and the enjoyment of the special effects by the viewers).

    11. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's the only turbo that slows something down.

      Or maybe they transcribed tai-bo lasers wrong.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    12. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General Grievous' guard's staff's didn't cut in half when they were hit with a light saber. They blocked it. Apparently there are things a light saber can't cut through.

    13. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The stupid part is it's not even an effective crossguard. There's a metal section close to the hilt so you can easily cut the crossguard off. Congrats on making a (most likely) primary antagonist look like an idiot. Unless they intented Luke Skywalker to show a juvenille Sith how moronic his added bling is in an actual fight...

      This is why I'd a Trek guy and not a Wars guy. You cannot apply any sense of rational thought or reasoning to anything in starwars... because starwars has MAGIC. Once that's in a fictional universe, anything goes. He's got a "magic" crossguard. There, you're argument is moot.

    14. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Both the floret and the katana are designed to allow blades to slide along and be kicked away. A crossguard like this is often used to trap, or even snap, incoming weapons.

      I like to think that the choreographers will find clever and interesting things to do with this. They always have in the past. It is a little odd that it appeared to have a metal nub near the base, where it could potentially be damaged by an energy blade, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were still able to use it to trap an incoming blade (and perhaps counter by pivoting around that point and using the crossguard offensively).

    15. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Of you would pay more attention to the actually used fighting style you had realized that the choreographers are aware of the problem and use a fighting style that avoids losing hands. Your idea of sliding along the 'blade' is easy countered ... if you know how to handle a light sword, floret or katana.

      In reality, fights using conventional blades don't slam the blades against each other like duels in Star Wars always do. That's a very quick way to ruin a sword (sharp metal on sharp metal quickly ends up with an edge more suitable to a hacksaw). In fact, duels with something like a katana are usually ended in a stroke or two, conventionally. Real sword fighters would usually use a shield, buckler, or some other variety of off-hand blocking device (or the flat of the sword, if absolutely necessary) if the combat style emphasizes blocking.

      Star Wars duels are pure Hollywood looks-good-on-screen-but-totally-impractical (mind you, the lightsaber itself is a totally impractical weapon in a world where ranged weapons are common: it's like people in that universe haven't even heard of shotguns). Even then, no less than 3 people end up losing a hand in a duel (Mace Windu, Anakin (twice), and Luke). The fighting style in Star Wars only avoids losing hands during the duel because it's written that way (there are many times when the fighters clash blades inches away from the hilt).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    16. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is exactly WHY having a group of religious nuts running around 'guarding' the universe by wielding energy swords with no hilts was completely ridiculous in the first place, especially when that very same universe was also populated by people wielding weapons with both physical and energy based ammo that simply would beat the reaction time of any human, force or no force

      I wondered why no one ever came up with the idea of a blaster that fired three bolts in a slightly spreading triangle. The lightsaber is a line - it can only block two of them, no matter who fast its wielder is.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      That's not how magic works in works of fiction. Along with the magic you introduce the Rules Of Magic, precisely so that not "anything goes". For instance, you can't cast fireballs with the Force, or turn lead into gold, or regrow amputated limbs.

    18. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      How many katana duels have you seen that you can confidently make that statement?

    19. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      INVERT THE FLOW OF TACHYONS AND REROUTE POWER TO THE 'SPLODEY CONSOLES

      Calling Star Trek science fiction is like calling creationism cosmology.

    20. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      More precisely, it's a space opera. A sub-genre of scifi in which the technology isn't the focus, the characters are. Interstellar travel and lightsabres exist only to provide the epic backdrop upon which the characters may perform.

    21. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My only qualification for this post is watching A New Hope about a million times while in my pajamas on Saturday mornings, back when I was just a wee laddie. Nonetheless, the effects that sounded like violently-arcing electricity, and the fact that the blades never seemed to slide once in contact made my four-year-old self believe that light sabers could not slide along other light saber blades, as the blades kind of fused on contact, and required some effort to be pulled apart.

    22. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand how the light saber is supposed to work. the crossbar needs the bits of metal, as there are the emitters based. However even with that in mind you could have displaced the emitters in an overlapping way, likely let the two short 'crossbar' sections pointing forward and overlap in a way that they protect the emiter of the other crossbar half.

      But well, those movie designers hate us guys who obviouslybare smarter than them :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you had payed attention, you had noticed: star war duells are mot that bad as you claim. 'Blade blocking' is avoided most of the time ... actually I'm not really aware from a situation where that happened (but well, I'm not an SW fan and by far not an expert)

      Regarding your other 'claims': you are right about 'ruining' a blade by heavy contact. However the way how to use a blade varies widely from sword school to sword school and from the age when the balde/school/fighting style was developed.

      The main difference is whether a school e.g. is aimed for duels (later tImes) or war fare. In war fare you don't realy care if you get some nothces and have to throw away the blade, as long as it is not completely destroyed.

      So yes, there are plenty of sword schools where you have a very hard blade contact, e.g. Kashima Shin Ryu.

      I'm not sure, but you don't make the impression you ever used a sword. E.g. that blades clash close to the hilt does not imply that a cut to the wrist is possible. You might cut my wrist but I might cut your head afterwards ... would you do that in a duell? Likely not ... Perhaps the situation is even symetric, I could cut your wrist but then you would cut my head ... I certainly would not attempt that :)

      (Disclaimer: I practice various jap. Katana based fencing styles)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by steveha · · Score: 1

      I wondered why no one ever came up with the idea of a blaster that fired three bolts in a slightly spreading triangle.

      And I wondered why nobody ever used simple projectile weapons, like a 20th-Century assault rifle or even a shotgun. With blasters, when you shoot at a Jedi, you or one of your buddies gets hit with the deflected blaster bolt; so use simple bullets that would vaporize on the sabre even if the Jedi could get them all.

      Or if you want to go all science-fictiony, lasers. Go for what Larry Niven once called "a mile-long invisible sword".

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    25. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star trek has not just magic but actual gods wandering around.

    26. Re: Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for nothing, but the whole series is full of nonsensical crap. What's important is that the story and characters deliver such a good performance that we don't care.

    27. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Let's assume it's like a some Bowie knives (inlaid copper strip catches opponent's blade), and that once two light saber beams touch they can't slide against each other.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re: Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martial artist here. If you are really well skilled at sword, you don't need a handguard. As the opponent tries to slide down your sword, you should feel that happening and already be gradually reorienting the blade of your sword so that by the time the opponent reaches your hand, your sword is close to perpendicular to the direction the opponent's blade is traveling, thus being able to catch the opponent's blade on your own, very close to your wrist, without actually getting your wrist chopped off. (Once caught in this manner, various nasty responses are possible.) Of course, a handguard is nice in case you screw up this maneuver or fail to see the opponent's stike coming, but neither of those should happen if you are as skilled and prophetic as Jedi are supposed to be.

      Note that the sword-wielding opponent (not the protagonist) in "Kill Bill" did not have a handguard on her sword. This showed that she was so skilled and so confident in her swordsmanship that she didn't feel she needed one.

    29. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      "Which is exactly WHY having a group of religious nuts running around 'guarding' the universe by wielding energy swords with no hilts was completely ridiculous in the first place"

      It is better than wielding supreme executive power some watery tart threw a sword at you...

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    30. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by jd · · Score: 1

      Midichlorians don't exist in the Star Wars universe. We all heard Obi Wan, the Force is similar to an energy field except that the Jedi scientists could not understand its nature fully. Ergo, no deeper understanding exists, ergo midichlorians are mythical.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    31. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      It is called Kendo.

      If you search youtube, you can watch kendo matches, at the high levels it resembles the Kenobi/Vader fight.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    32. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by jd · · Score: 1

      A projectile containing a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

      The bullet vaporizes on the force field surrounding the plasma interior. However, this isn't instantaneous. During that time, there is a cavity in the force field. The BEC gets through this cavity and impacts the plasma. This causes the BEC to instantaneously heat up to temperatures that permit fusion. Since the nuclei are already overlapping, fusion into a mega atom takes place. The mega atom instantly disintegrates as it's violently unstable, drenching the Jedi in hard radiation.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    33. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crossguards are mostly to keep YOUR hand from sliding onto YOUR blade when you thrust it into something. A lightsaber hilt is dangerous to you.

    34. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you forget that "in this universe" beam weapons are visible and travel at the speed of spit.

      They don't even have beam weapons. They're not LASERs, they're "blasters".

      Most heavy weapons in the SW universe are turbolasers, look it up. </comic-book-guy>

    35. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      I wondered why no one ever came up with the idea of a blaster that fired three bolts in a slightly spreading triangle. The lightsaber is a line - it can only block two of them, no matter who fast its wielder is.

      I imagine there were three reasons:

      1. You could intercept all three if you inclined the blade forward so you intercepted one in advance of the other two, then caught the others closer in. Alternatively, just sidestep one and deflect the other 2.
      2. Items with mass could be controlled by force telekinesis
      3. Nobody was particularly interested in killing Jedi when the only ones around were a mountain hermit and a swamp rat
      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    36. Re:Lightsaber crossguard wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I... think I might be madly in love with you

  20. CGI by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most of the trailer is CGI, which makes sense at this point. The movie won't be released for another year, so this early on most of the finished shots would be fairly generic CGI stuff that was being worked on in parallel to the main shooting. The hard part is all the editing and incorporating CGI into the shots with the actors, and they've only just wrapped up the shooting this month. That's what they'll be working on for the next several months.

    One thing about the lightsaber scene, at first I was like "that's a lame gimmicky lightsaber", but then looking at it more closely, it doesn't have a pure even glow like a normal lightsaber. It looks more like fire and less refined. So my hunch is that sith guy had to figure out how to fabricate the weapon on his own without any guidance, so it's this crude, barely controlled weapon that has to vent extra energy so it doesn't blow up or melt or something. Yeah, that was a pretty geeky analysis.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:CGI by poisonborz · · Score: 0

      I also thought it was lame first, but actually it has use, the same traditional swords have: to protect the hand holding the sword.

    2. Re:CGI by jd · · Score: 2

      Plausible. Also, since it's an amateur rig, the force field may well extend well beyond the blade and not just envelop it. If that's the case, the cross guard's projectors cannot be sliced off as the force field would be protecting them as well.

      Since they filmed some of the movie in Puzzle Wood and since I'm damn sure I recognize the trail, I'm going to say that's the likely location for this scene. If so, expect some seriously gnarled and twisted trees in the background. Those won't be CGI, that's really what the place looks like.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  21. Star war: Backstroke of the West by tepples · · Score: 2

    First Star War Episode 7 Trailer Released

    Wasn't singular "Star war" one of the subtitles in the infamous "Backstroke of the West" bootleg? (Pic)

  22. Meh. by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I was chomping at the bit for all three Lord of the Rings movies, and for every single Harry Potter movie, and I certainly enjoyed the original Star Wars trilogy as a kid.. but not so much the 'prequels', and my subject line pretty much sums up my level of enthusiasm for this. It just seems like so much piling-on the Star Wars gravy train. Also I'm still pissed at J.J. Abrahms for his piss-poor attempt at making Star Trek movies, and over time have become a little disgruntled over how Lost ended, although I rather liked Fringe. I think the man should stick to television, and I'll wait to see what other people say about this new Star Wars before I bother myself to go see it. Chances are about 50/50 that I'll end up waiting for it to be rentable on-demand and watch it at home instead of going to a theatre.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  23. TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't JJ know that Ion Engines don't generate enough thrust to propel so much as a paper airplane through atmosphere, much less an entire TIE-Fighter And even if those Twin Ion Engines could generate enough thrust, TIE-Fighers don't have control surfaces or the proper aerodynamics to fly?!?!?! Is he that big of a moron or is he purposely out to make the sequels worse than the prequels? And don't get me started on the sheer stupidity and uselessness of the crossguard on that Sith's lightsaber UTTER IDIOCY!

    1. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      After what he did with the Star Trek franchise are you really surprised?

      He's all about his big set-piece moments, internal logic or universe consistency be damned. He thinks that it looks cool so who cares if it doesn't make any sense.

    2. Re: TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      And there's a new generation of 7 year olds who will think that cross guard is the coolest thing ever.

    3. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't TIE fighters fly through the atmosphere on Bespin in ESB while they were making their escape? The lightsaber cross-guard is, indeed, pointless bling, and fairly insulting to the viewer's intelligence.

    4. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luke landed and took off in a Tie Fighter on Dagoba. So I don't think it's a stretch.

    5. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      ...And don't get me started on the sheer stupidity and uselessness of the crossguard on that Sith's lightsaber UTTER IDIOCY!

      Why? In a no holds barred sword fight with medieval weapons you learn pretty quickly that the blade is not the only part of a sword that can kill you. You can do some pretty nasty damage with the cross guard of a European bastard sword (which is presumably the inspiration of that new lightsaber) and you can crack a person's scull with the pommel if it is heavy enough and the right shape. The hand guard of a Scottish broadsword makes for the mother of all knuckle dusters, you can crush somebody's larynx with the edge of your shield and you can slide your spear through your hand as you thrust it to surprise an opponent or use a spear to slash his throat. Very few people think of a spear as a slashing or cutting weapon. In a fight against a person with a regular Katana type lightsaber where they seem to spend a lot of time with their lightsabers locked together you could for example use the cross guard to slice the other guy's hand off. You have to think out of the box. That being said I'd prefer to add a second cross guard below the light-guards to keep my hands out of the beams.

    6. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Luke never and I mean NEVER piloted a TIE-Fighter His daddy did though

    7. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by QilessQi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I read your entire post in Comic Book Guy's voice.

    8. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Ion Engines" of Star Wars are obviously not the "Ion Engines" of the real world; if they were, you wouldn't see any of the maneuvers in the original trilogy because ion engines are extremely slow engines.

      Moreover, land speeders and other such things also don't have control surfaces or any practical way of maneuvering, unlike hovercraft of real life, and yet they manage. Lucas has always said Star Wars tech is supposed to look and work very unlike real life tech.

    9. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to sound like such a goddamn Star Wars nerd, because it's been years (decades) since I was that into it. However, I believe that the official explanation would be that flight in the atmosphere is made possible with Repulsorlift technology (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Repulsorlift), so thrust and lift really doesn't enter into it.

    10. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Landed" is an optimistic word for Luke's arrival on Dagobah, and it definitely wasn't in a TIE fighter.

    11. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing in Star Wars has ever been aerodynamic, and any realistic application of physics (without assumptions of unknown technology compensating for our perceived errors) would cause the entire universe to fall apart. Did you know that lasers are invisible and definitely don't fire in pulses that move slowly enough to be seen? If you claim that the "lasers" are actually bolts of plasma or something, why don't you allow a similar rationalization for other phenomena such as TIEs or other in atmosphere?

      Regarding TIE fighters in the atmosphere, you may refer to Episodes 5 and 6 (iirc wrt the special editions, TIEs are shown to operate around Cloud City on Bespin and the forest moon of Endor). At the very least, atmospheric flight has been featured prominently in the video games, especially Rogue Squadron.

      Regarding the lightsaber, why is a crossguard automatically stupid? They are practical and exist in real life, and what else is going to stop a lightsaber besides another? Also note that said lightsaber looks unstable. There may be more to it than appears.

    12. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's all about his big set-piece moments, internal logic or universe consistency be damned.

      Which is exactly how it should be. Internal consistence in "extended canonical persistent galactic universes" is overrated.

      Good storytelling is what drives tales memorable; consistency is the hobgobling of control freaks that don't know how to enjoy a good story.

      Dwelling in the details of how the wings of a model blend in the air in a different angle that they did in an earlier series or that, if you stop a frame, you can see a character carrying watch that came from a period in the 30-centuries-long background. Details in canonical universes are ''fictional'', dammit; there's nothing wrong in each author introducing their personal mark, even if it conflicts in minor ways - or even if they reboot major elements, as long as they stay true to the main themes.

    13. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luke never and I mean NEVER piloted a TIE-Fighter

      for now.

      There's three more movies that could change that.

    14. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

      ... you could for example use the cross guard to slice the other guy's hand off.

      I would wager 2 to 1 that this is exactly what happens. Hands are cut off with absurd frequency in Star Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    15. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Livius · · Score: 1

      This should be a familiar tactic to a Slashdot readership, or anyone with the misfortune to buy from Microsoft or Oracle.

      Make the first edition terrible, on purpose. Then sell newer versions where you fix the defects you intentionally created in the original. Once it's optimal, stop supporting it.

    16. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by aevan · · Score: 1

      So how did they take off/land on the moon of Yavin again, to face the first deathstar?

    17. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by aevan · · Score: 1

      Ignore, replied to wrong post *amused* was referring to the x-wings in atmo, not TIEs

    18. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Luke landed and took off in a Tie Fighter on Dagoba. So I don't think it's a stretch.

      Are you sure? I think it was Jim Kirk. In a firefly. On Epsilon III.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bespin. An atmosphere dense enough to be comfortably breathable at Cloud City's altitude. And yet, TIE fighters. Go figure.

      Episode V. This has been done before.

    20. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Megol · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* A katana is a slicing instrument for meat and isn't designed for or intended to stop another sword. Doing so is an excellent way to destroy a very costly weapon, the edge would be chipped and the spine bent.

      The same applies to almost every kind of edged weapons - including something sturdy like a broadsword.

    21. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by steveha · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, JJ Abrams also had the Enterprise submerged in under water. I could maybe buy that if they had the shields up the whole time and the water never got to touch the hull, but it was made completely clear that no, it was just dunked in water and functioning normally.

      In short, JJ Abrams doesn't care about geeky physics and engineering concerns; if something looks kind of cool, he'll go with it.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    22. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by bobjr94 · · Score: 1

      Remember this was a long, long time ago. Maybe ion's were heavier back then and could produce more thrust. The ion cannon on the ground at the start of EP 5 seemed to pack quite a bit of punch.

    23. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by jd · · Score: 1

      I think it was the second of the unofficial Han Solo novels during the time of the Original Trilogy that first had TIE Fighters in the atmosphere. So you're absolutely right that they're impossible, but it's "legitimate" extended canon. (Which is why I don't consider anything after the first movie "canon" at all.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Moreover, in Episode 2f09, Itchy plays Scratchy's ribs like a xylophone, and he strikes the same rib twice but it makes two clearly distinct tones. Are we supposed to believe it's some sort of magic xylophone or something?

    25. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most people, who are engaged in mortal combat, are more concerned with preserving their own life rather than the life of their blade. Your sword only has to last until the end of the fight. Nobody is going to catch a strike on their arm to avoid possibly dinging their weapon.

    26. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that says volumes more about you than OP

    27. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by QilessQi · · Score: 1

      I agree!

    28. Re:TIE-Fighters flying in Atmosphere?!?!?!?! by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      Well, its not even that big of a deal when it happens. You just go down and get a new one at the hand store.

  24. The Star Wars universe has always been impractical by shagoth · · Score: 1

    but it clearly just gets worse in the future. There's no doubt there will be plenty of catwalks with no guard rails and plenty of other Imperial style over substance. It's remarkable though that light sabers just get more treacherous to use. The flaming laser guard on the evil light saber in the teaser looks like a great way to lose and arm and frankly just didn't look all that cool. After not really understanding Star Trek and what made it amazing, JJ Abrams will bring his special brand of ruination to the Star Wars franchise. Thanks, Disney. Thanks.

  25. It worked in blazing saddles by BobSwi · · Score: 1

    Django Fett, the "D" is silent.

    1. Re:It worked in blazing saddles by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

      the "D" is silent.

      Hmmm ... but ouchebag just doesn't have the same ring to it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  26. Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You comment on the TIEs (which actually have been mentioned as flying in atmosphere throughout the extended universe if not in any 'canonical' sources), and totally overlook the X-wings with s-foils deployed flying in the atmosphere. (I think they possibly did that in the X-wing Rogue Squadron videogame, but I was under the impression they weren't meant to be deployed in the atmosphere. Certainly not at the speeds and altitudes shown in the trailer. Although it's possible since I wandered out of Star Wars around the time the X-wing novels came out that I just missed references to them.)

    1. Re:Sad... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the S-Foils... but according to wookiepedia, they were deployed for "high stress situations" -- whatever that means. So considering that in space, there is no G-Force, there can be no exertion of "stresses" -- unless by "stress" they simply mean combat. But the X-Wings at least have control surfaces and afterburners -- and they show them flying in atmosphere in Ep IV and V So I can overlook that. The TIE Fighters on the other hand... totally bogus.

    2. Re:Sad... by doconnor · · Score: 2

      The have shown TIE fighters in the atmosphere on Star Wars: Rebels, which is canon.

    3. Re:Sad... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      So considering that in space, there is no G-Force,

      You have clearly never been in space.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Sad... by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Perhaps technological advances between the end of 6 and beginning of 7 have overcome these obstacles.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    5. Re:Sad... by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      (and didn't Luke fly his x-wing in Dagoba's atmosphere?)

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    6. Re:Sad... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ofc you have gforces in space. The inertia laws, forces and physics is the same as on earth!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a thread where geeks far more Star Wars geeky than I lay some pseudo-science and canon upon you:

      http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=3615

    8. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just love the little sci-fi freaks who know all about crap like Star Wars but misstate 10th grade science in a tone of authority. You guys are worse than the creationists who try to deny science because you only think you know science, at least the creationists can admit to not knowing it.

    9. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you haven't either.

    10. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Yes, but it crashed).

    11. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres's plenty of space around here.

    12. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are shown in the movies to have significant acceleration, both linearly and in terms of the radius of turns they are able to execute - TIE fighters are sufficiently nimble to navigate the weapons trench of a Death Star.

      I suggest you work on your willing suspension of disbelief. It's clear that the "ion engines" of the movies share only the name and distinctive blue glow of modern electric propulsion in space.

      The behavior of other vehicles shown in the movies operating in an atmosphere suggests that very few rely on aerodynamic principles for lift or maneuvering.

    13. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But his s foils weren't in attack position.

    14. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, he crashed it into a swamp...

  27. Zach and Miri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Princess Leia ain't never had no sex with Han Solo in the Star War.

  28. Re:The Star Wars universe has always been impracti by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called "space cheese", and you can't ruin the Star Wars universe by adding more cheese, because the entire thing was made of cheese to begin with! It's kinda its whole schtick.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  29. Pandering galore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That looked more like I was watching the trailer to a MMORPG video game with all the reused assets and sounds.

  30. Quibble by toby · · Score: 1

    How is this automatically "homoerotic"? Girls don't "sip" from "straws"??

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Quibble by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      How is this automatically "homoerotic"? Girls don't "sip" from "straws"??

      Girls aren't the target audience of a toy like Buzz Lightyear.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Quibble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this automatically "homoerotic"? Girls don't "sip" from "straws"??

      Anything not explicitly "straight" is automatically "gay."

      You have to understand. If he is not fucking girls in the mouth, that is a gay Buzz.

      There is no "ifs" or "buts" or excuses to be made. If he is just hanging it out, he is gay, looking for a gay lover
      to come handle his straw.

      You have to understand human sexuality. People are animals, to be bred and conditioned for work.

      Children, are future tax dollars, future citizens to be molded, a family member to provide free labor for your family
      business.

      Straight folks are DEMANDING Buz produce livestock, otherwise he is WORTHLESS as a sippy cup, USELESS just a LEECH ON SOCIETY of the HARDWORKING straight folks.

      You have to put this in the proper context, of "people are fucking retarded" and "human beings only have value in what they can do to serve ME."

      In that light, yes, that sippy cup is COMPLETELY GAY if I do not somehow benefit from it in some way. If that cup does not follow my orders (i.e. submit to my wishes, for free, for no reason at all other than I say so) that makes that sippy cup COMPLETELY GAY.

      If it DOES submit to my orders (that is, submit to me) then it is a straight cup, because it is doing what I tell it to do, and providing some benefit to me.

      I hope this clears things up.

      It LOOKS gay. Doesn't matter what it actually is. That smirk, that uniform, is a gay smirk. Astronauts are not brave heroic explorers, they are all science faggots.

      You are not familiar with the modern human condition? Science and scientists and "explorers" have always been "gay" to those who think everyone should follow orders and obey them, rather than thinking for themselves.

      Doublespeak toby, doublespeak. This is not "truthful world" anymore, that universe is GONE.

      Telling the truth, was declared obsolete.

      What drawback is there to lying to you, telling you that the sippy cup is gay?

      IF you believe it, they win. If you disbelieve it, they are not out anything, no loss, did not cost them anything to lie to you.

      There is no reason not to lie to you, no reason to tell you the truth. If a lie is what it takes to convince you, then that is in their
      best interests.

      Not that complicated to follow, pretty basic "power corrupts" 101 stuff since the dawn of time.

    3. Re:Quibble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I will grant you, just the mere act of calling the sippy cup "homoerotic" does not make it gay.

      But has it fucked any girls in the mouth? No? Then it IS a gay, homoerotic Buzz cup.

      I don't see any little Buzz Jr. cups wandering around. It looks like, it is a gay cup after all.

      You are thinking too hard toby.

      Fuck girls in the mouth (consent or not) == straight sippy cup.
      Does not fuck girls in the mouth == homoerotic gay sippy cup
      Fucks guys in the mouth (consent or not) == straight sippy cup
      Gets fucked by guys == homoerotic gay sippy cup

      Sex is all about POWER and CONTROL toby. Think like a rapist. The "sex act" and "gender" is quite irrelevant in these terms.

      That cup has not fucked anyone in the mouth, of any gender. Ergo, it is a gay, homoerotic cup, just waiting to be fucked itself.

      There is no "in between" there is no "depends on my mood that day" there is no "I was drugged and submissive at that time" there is no "I was drugged and aggressive at that time" there is just:

      1) one side fucking
      2) one side getting fucked

      (or, extrapolate as needed, for more number of persons, if you prefer a homoerotic orgy of gay Buzz sippy cups)

      Humans are animals toby. Just livestock, to be bred, controlled, used, consumed, and so forth.

      There is nothing but "fuck" or "be fucked" and if you are not 1) you are automatically "gay" and "homoerotic."

      I do not necessarily condone or agree with such a view of life and sexuality, but merely point out, that is not such an uncommon viewpoint. Even people who do not believe in such things, will SAY such things, if they think it will get them
      laid. Sex is a COMPETITION to many. If you paint the other "competitor" as gay, it does not matter what it is true or not.

      You get offspring QUICKER and FASTER because your honey believed you, and they die a lonely pathetic existence of "homoerotic smirk" forever plastered on their face. Doesn't matter if they ever fucked a dude or not, or sucked a big giant astronaut cock before or not. Doesn't matter if the "straight" guy did either, that is all irrelevant.

      You need to ask "who benefits?"

      Since when did "telling the truth" have any benefit to "getting me laid?" to someone who does not care about anything else.
                              Maybe in some cases, sure.

      For people looking for a quick score? Not at all. Makes no difference. Truth is not the goal, it is just gets in the way.

      The "dominant" personality and viewpoint I will not say is "wrong" and think you are being too judgemental.

      Just that there is REALITY and then there is TALK.

      Homoerotic, gay, none of that matters. The fact is, that smirking Buzz cup has no girl sucking it off, therefore it is a gay, homoerotic cup. That is just fact.

      There is no girl lined up getting fucked by that cup. Therefore, it is gay, homoerotic Buzz cup.

      This, is the mindset of the "dominant" personality. This, is how CEOs and pillars of industry "think."

      I need numbers toby, not "I believe" -- The Sharks

      It is a homoerotic, gay, smirking Buzz cup until it proves otherwise. This, is the mindset of "retardation" sure, but since when was "thinking" conducive to "reproducing" or "good sex" or "hot, sweaty monkey sex" ?

      There is nothing to debate, nothing to "think" about it. It is a homoerotic cup until it proves otherwise.

      That makes me full superior and dominant to put that cup down, assures me that I am comfortable in my sexuality and have
      nothing to be insecure about. If that cup is gay and homoerotic, then I have a clear target to stay away from, something to
      avoid, a "Satan" that is clearly-labelled and easy to point out.

      It is just easier FOR ME if that is a gay, homoerotic sippy cup of Buzz. If not, that would shatter my fragile little mind toby!

      Why are you so mean? Why do you hate straight people so much toby? Why?

  31. Is it just me ... by quax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... or is all the whining about a *black* stormtrooper on the youtube comment thread beyond embarrassing.

    1. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't read YouTube comments. Ever. For any video.

    2. Re:Is it just me ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Uh, I thought we had established that all the stormtroopers were clones of Jango Fett. The trailer clearly shows that they don't give a shit about continuity and are going to do whatever they damn well feel like. But leave it to leftists to immediately assume that everyone other than themselves are racists.

      "Man as such does not exist. There are only men belonging to this or that race."
      -- Walter Gross, head of the German Office of Racial Purity, 1936

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Is it just me ... by Colonel+Fahlt · · Score: 1

      I'd assumed he was a good guy who'd stolen a stormtrooper uniform to infiltrate and/or escape. Though of course they may have expanded their cloning program to include equally capable subjects from varied genetic backgrounds...

    4. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know that was never established, that was fan canon. In any case, while it sounds reasonable that the first batch of stormtroopers were mostly the left over clones, by the time the original trilogy starts those guys are getting on in age. By the time of the new trilogy, they'd definitely need new blood.

    5. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The clone troopers are the clones of Jango Fett, but by the time of the Original Trilogy, the only remaining clones were in the 501st, the rest being recruited the usual way. While the majority of the Imperial officers we see are white, there's no reason to assume the stormtroopers are so homogeneous. I remember seeing art of stormtroopers of other species, although those are noted to be an extremely slim minority deployed in special circumstances where their species' traits are highly beneficial.

      tl;dr you're racist and wrong. Turn in your Star Wars fan card.

    6. Re:Is it just me ... by quax · · Score: 1

      Good point.

    7. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The initial republic troopers were clones of Fett, but it stands to reason that those initial clones were reinforced by recruits or conscripts in the ~22 year gap between the first deployment of the clones and episode IV.

      I'm not sure I'd jump on the "they don't give a shit about continuity" bandwagon just yet.

    8. Re:Is it just me ... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      As far as I know that was never established, that was fan canon. In any case, while it sounds reasonable that the first batch of stormtroopers were mostly the left over clones, by the time the original trilogy starts those guys are getting on in age. By the time of the new trilogy, they'd definitely need new blood.

      So why not just get a fresh batch of clones? The most canon thing to do might be to claim it's another batch of clones but updated with some genetic engineering to explain the different actor.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Something about clone production ceasing after the clone wars. That wasn't really all the clear. In the EU (including a couple of the video games) all the cloning facilities are destroyed by the time the Empire dissolves the senate, but I don't remember any harder canon saying anything either way. Wookiepedia has a section on it

    10. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very noble of you to bear that burden of embarrassment for others. Thank you.
      But once again blacks are being pushed into the roles of villains.

    11. Re: Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 501st? 501st what? Which movie was this in?

    12. Re:Is it just me ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'd assumed he was a good guy who'd stolen a stormtrooper uniform to infiltrate and/or escape

      Star Wars took a fair beating for being almost all white. Bringing Billy Dee Williams on was at least partially a response to such criticism. We would expect casting from a 2015 Star Wars to be broad and inclusive and not repeat the first film's mistakes.

      The funny thing is all this "aren't you a little black for a stormtrooper?" talk is arguing for a "white" stormtrooper when the guy who portrayed Fett is part Maori so it's wrong, if you even care about the premise.

      But it's all nonsense anyway - people need to enjoy the film and try to be a little bit more colorblind. None of the characters are humans anyway.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:Is it just me ... by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Don't forget: The original clones were made by the Kamino, on their planet, using their facilities and knowledge as the galaxies cloning specialists to create a "secret army"

      The usual canon explanation I always heard in various books etc.. was that supplying new clones simply became too expensive and cumbersome, especially with the Kamino not WANTING to supply new clones to the empire and probably sabotaging the process at every possibility. Add to that the fact that "secrecy" is no longer an issue, that you can set recruiting stations on every planet you like, and there is not much sense to continue using clones.

    14. Re:Is it just me ... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The trailer does not even remotely establish that the guy in stormtrooper armor is a stormtrooper. Why would they ever show the face of a stormtrooper? He's much more likely to be a good guy in disguise, especially from the expression on his face -- Luke and Han wear stormtrooper armor in episode IV.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:Is it just me ... by quax · · Score: 1

      Embarrassment is like athletes foot, it just crops up uninvited and no matter how much you scratch, it just won't go away.

      But thanks anyway.

      BTW I don't know why the dude's in a Stormtrooper outfit, but I have a hunch that he won't be the villain.

    16. Re: Is it just me ... by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      Battlefront II is the only place I've seen this bit of trivia mentioned.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    17. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the cloning facilities were destroyed in the (still canon) Clone Wars series.

      Plus, original series storm troopers are obviously not all the same height.

    18. Re:Is it just me ... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Does this mean he will die? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    19. Re:Is it just me ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Why would they ever show the face of a stormtrooper?

      Shock value, by those who think that somebody will find it shocking.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    20. Re: Is it just me ... by gman003 · · Score: 1

      The 501st Legion started as the costume group, the nerds who dress up in Stormtrooper costumes for fun. They were later incorporated into canon, starting with a Zahn novel I can't remember the name of, and later with Episode 3 (not mentioned in the movie, but the Clone Troopers Anikin led into the Jedi temple became the core of the 501st Legion), the Clone Wars TV series, and the game Battlefront II.

    21. Re:Is it just me ... by LihTox · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's body armor that he picked up at the Army/Navy Surplus Store. It's been 30 years: if there are still "stormtroopers" they might have changed uniforms.

    22. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      Where is the bitching and whining about the lack of muslim stormtroopers?

    23. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need blacks to be villains anymore. We have islam for that now.

    24. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Balls.. The Movie

      That was what I was thinking when I saw the black guy in a stormtrooper outfit in the desert.

    25. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whining is understandable when people suspect that's what someone at Disney thought would be the selling point of the movie. That, and the fact that the first thing they chose to show contradicts established canon in a bad way, like what they did with the black elf with a crossbow in the Dungeons & Dragons movie. People take it as a clear warning that this movie is going to suck big time, because the producers are focusing on the wrong things, like shoehorning minorities where it does not make sense (cloned troopers). Even if that is not the case, and the black character is just a main character disguised as a stormtrooper, the teaser tries hard to hide it. The fact that the last Disney movies are also feminist porn of the bad kind doesn't help in the slightest.

    26. Re:Is it just me ... by quax · · Score: 1

      So far you made the most well reasoned argument on behalf on the whiners and than you lost me with this:

      "... the last Disney movies are also feminist porn of the bad kind."

      See, I have two daughters, and the classical Disney princess role model just makes me want to hurl. So I very much appreciate that they at least try a little bit to break away from this. Yet, with Frozen it still was way too much about the dress and being pretty. But at least they got nicely across that just because a dude's a prince, and a smooth talker, doesn't mean you should just fall for him.

      The latter is a message that any dad will very much appreciate. If you think that's feminist you obviously don't have a daughter.

    27. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, the problem is that you, like most feminists, don't understand what the princesses actually do in Disney movies. The feminist focus is placed on the wrong things, and because they miss the point, their arrogant attempts to "fix" or "censor" them end destroying all that was good about them. The end result sends a noxious message and is a very bad influence for girls, just take a look at TumblrInAction to watch the monsters this mentality creates.

      This is akin to the events on "Nightmare before Christmas", where the inhabitants of Halloween try to create a "better" Christmas without having a clue of what Christmas is about, with disasterous results. Please do a favor to your daughters and let them watch the classic Disney movies, even if you don't understand the "magic" behind them.

    28. Re:Is it just me ... by quax · · Score: 1

      Really have no idea what your are talking about. As far as I am concerned Frozen and Tangled are perfectly fine, but my favorite remains Lilo and Stitch.

      Doubt that you've watched any of them, but if you have then please get a bit more concrete about what you consider to be negative 'feminist' influence. I.e. plot points characterizations etc.

    29. Re:Is it just me ... by quax · · Score: 1

      And boy, you must just hate the Legend of Korra ...

    30. Re:Is it just me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, but in Star Wars I believe all the storm troopers are clones of that really popular boba fett guy, so they're all confused.

      I have a hunch this actor (awesome in attack the block, go rent it) landing in the desert was someone who put it on as a disguise, like when they were walking around the death star in the original series.

    31. Re:Is it just me ... by qzzpjs · · Score: 1

      I think the simplest answer is that making clones is very costly, whereas it would be very cheap to just recruit regular people from the trillions of people across the empire. Training costs can be reduced as well if you simply have higher numbers of troopers to throw at problems. Hopefully 5 less-trained troopers can shoot as well as one expensively, well trained clone.

  32. No sign of Admiral Thrawn by caseih · · Score: 2

    Lame!

    1. Re:No sign of Admiral Thrawn by hattable · · Score: 2

      They have already stated a complete abandonment of the accepted post-ROTJ canon. New stories, and I would assume a completely different storyline for any of the movies to be released by Disney.

      More to how Disney is 're-imaging' the EU rights as they acquired it with Lucasarts ILM, they just re-branded all of the previously accepted EU under a different banner and now are running forward like they own the place...which they do. This move is unfortunate for everyone that is familiar with the expanded universe but probably won't affect sales of tickets or merchandise in a significant enough way.

      --
      OMG facts!
  33. Can we have more HOTH battles, only this time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Let's move the Yavin/Trench run down onto the surface of a planet"

    "Ya, that sounds awesome, we could have X-Wing's carving their way down a shallow mountain pass with a lake it it"

    "Oh my god yes... Rooster tails, we need rooster tails on the X-Wing's"

    "...and that scene, in the forest with the Sith lord, it's missing something, he looks really cool, like a Knight of old"

    "Oh I know, let's put tiny little light-sabre hilt things on his sabre, kinda like a hilt, that would be cool"

    "Oh, and we have to make something that will work for the Lego franchise, so let's make sure the design for her Speeder Bike to be really blocky"

    "Ya, and we have to have robotic humor, cause that's a staple, since clearly Jar Jar was an utter failure"

    "Hold up, we are not allowed to speak oh him that shall not be named. How about a soccer ball with a head, that would be cute, the kids would love that"

    "And what about a homage to Space Balls? We should do that."

    "How about a really scared looking black man in a storm trooper uniform, minus his helmet. There's your space balls homage right there."

    "Ya, let's start with that. Make him all sweaty and scared looking, and have him pop up from the bottom with scary music, on a desert scene"

    "Ya...

    and on and on it goes.

    Really great trailer, but I fear that the trailer will be the best thing out of Star Wars 7. Something definitely indeed has awakened (Dune reference anyone) and it's likely going to be the wrath of the fans after Disney completely trashes the entire franchise.

    A word to JJ A. Get as much money as you can out of this, and then free yourself from the shackles that is Disney.

  34. Love those by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    black space where stars don't shine scenes. And I can't wait for it to be listed on The Piratebay....

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  35. Re:The Star Wars universe has always been impracti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And space cheese is a perfect appetizer for the main course for a Holiday Special near and dear to our hearts.

  36. Is this real? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying it looks bad, I'm just saying it looks like what talented college students were doing for their end of year projects...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Is this real? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it looks bad, I'm just saying it looks like what talented college students were doing for their end of year projects...

      That is how the original series was done. My Senior Design instructor, Tom DeFanti, and the Electronic Visualization Lab were responsible for some of the work in the original Star Wars movie.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  37. oh yes by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Funny

    50 seconds worth of film in the trailer and it includes a bloody lens flare.

    1. Re:oh yes by jd · · Score: 1

      Movie makers edited out lens flares at one point. There were a LOT of complaints. So many that even in pure CGI movies and animations, lens flare is now edited IN.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Re:The Star Wars universe has always been impracti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least the Firefly verse is safe from him!

  40. Weird lightsabre design by joelholdsworth · · Score: 2

    Why does he gave a lightsabre with a cross-guard made out of two mini lightsabres? The cross-guard is to protect the fingers, not amputate them

    1. Re:Weird lightsabre design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!... the desing of the crossguard should be half metal on the hand side and half saber on de lightsaber side. And those two metals parts should get open from the tip of the light saber when the light saber it's turned on.

    2. Re:Weird lightsabre design by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      To prevent what we saw happen to Luke's hand in The Empire Strikes Back, that's why. Also, the Sith took pride in and had more individuality when it came to designing their hilts.

      I just hope Abrams and Disney at least tosses us fans a few bones with the crystal colors of the sabers though. There were more than just Blue, Green, and Red.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  41. Re:The Star Wars universe has always been impracti by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    There's no doubt there will be plenty of catwalks with no guard rails [...]

    The imperial senate decided that there was no need for OSHA.

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Useless by RobinH · · Score: 1

    You can't tell anything from a trailer other than how much they're willing to spend on special effects (and how much they're willing to ignore canon). The real test is whether or not the story is any good, and we'll just have to wait and see. Honestly I doubt it, but here's hoping. Also, friggin' shakey cam! Boo!

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  44. There may REALLY be A New Hope after all- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JJ may make the first Star Wars movie (besides Spaceballs) that doesn't suck.

    I don't give a rats ass about piddly crap like light saber hilts, I just want a movie that has actual dialogue, plot and acting.
    If I can watch it without cringing it will be better than any of the other star wars movies, so it doesn't need much to be a vast improvement.

    1. Re:There may REALLY be A New Hope after all- by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't give a rats ass about piddly crap like light saber hilts, I just want a movie that has actual dialogue, plot and acting.

      In a JJ Abrams movie?

      This will have explosions, lens flare, and time travel. And the ending will suck.

    2. Re:There may REALLY be A New Hope after all- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And will still make boat loads of money, securing JJ in doing all the sci-fi remakes for the next 10yrs.

      JJ == The new Spielberg
      Bay == The new Lucas
      Cameron == The new Scorsese

      At least Tarantino is the new Woody Allen... whew!

    3. Re:There may REALLY be A New Hope after all- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely.
      Dialogue in the worst Abrams movie makes the best of Star Wars look like it was written by a bunch of third graders at recess.
      Face it- Abrams gets a lot of crap (and yes, he does a lot of cheesy, predictable stuff with effects and plot) and is not likely to ever win the award for Most Intellect Driven Movie but everything he has done is better than ANYTHING we have see in Star Wars so far.

  45. Early opinions seem positive to me .... by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've seen this trailer shared around Facebook all morning and many of my friends who are long time Star Wars fans are optimistic, based on the little bit shown.

    Personally, I feel like part of the reason the original 3 movies were viewed as so superior to episodes 1-3 had a lot to do with the limitations of the technology of the time preventing everything from being "overdone".

    Starr Wars featured enough visually amazing things (from the Imperial Star Destroyer coming on the screen and viewers slowly realizing just how massive it was, to each one of the interesting robots) that appreciating them fully required not cluttering the scenes up with too much other eye candy or content. Back in 1977, that wasn't an issue because it was difficult and time-consuming enough to create these things that nobody would make the mistake of putting too many of them in one scene.

    The computer CGI capabilities of today made it too easy to make scenes too "busy" and cheapen the value of individual creatures, backdrops, weapons, spaceships or robots. The prequel movies felt like they were trying to see how many thousands of objects they could render at the same time in some of the battle scenes. (EG. Jedi knights chopping and hacking away at robots in wave after wave.) Believability suffered.

    If they go back to simple sets like the desert of Tatooine and stop going "CGI crazy" with every single background, I think there's a good chance they'll achieve the original Star Wars feel we all know and love. (And yeah, no insipid characters like Jar Jar either.)

    1. Re:Early opinions seem positive to me .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the original 3 movies are superior because the first one got all the fresh ideas from Lucas, and the rest were done by masterful people who got the spirit of the first one. The prequels are sith because nothing happens in the first movie except killing a great design of a villain for no reason, nothing happens in the second movie except one child becoming an adult in record time, and everything happens on the second half of the last movie, including a nine-month pregnancy. Add to that CGI clowns replacing good characters, Anakin's embarrasing scenes, shoehorned cameos (Vader is the father of C3P0), and infantile plot, and then you start to get why people consider the first three were better movies.

      Other people have had more success with Starwars than George Lucas, because they got the basics right. The Knights of the Old Republic games are one such example. Disney's teaser gives bad vibes because they pull all the wrong notes, which indicate they didn't give freedom to Kasdan to write a good movie and we have to expect the same awful experience as with Tim Burton's Alice.

    2. Re:Early opinions seem positive to me .... by twokay · · Score: 1

      Given the first movie of the Start Trek reboot was surprisingly good, and got the feeling of an updated "TOS" pretty spot on I'm hopeful for this too. However the second Star Trek movie went downhill rapidly into "typical Sci-Fi blockbuster", and I'm expecting the same from Star Wars unfortunately.

      --
      Wannabe nerd.
  46. Re:The Original Trilogy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should never have occurred.

  47. it doesn't get any better than this episode by plopez · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this is much better than the new episodes:

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c3B18gAJyc

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  48. Cliche by Skarjak · · Score: 1

    This looks like every American action movie that has come out in the last 5 years. I would not have been surprised if Micheal Bay had done this. Pass.

    1. Re:Cliche by ikhider · · Score: 1

      I thoroughly agree. What made Star Wars originally was the special effects and design concepts. This looks like a rehash of old ideas, right down to the cliche intro. They could have done a better job. They also could have brought in some really good concept designers instead of reserve stale ideas. This is sort of the McDonald's of sci-fi. Take a look at what was done to the Star Trek franchise, they turned it into children's movies. Little better than cartoon series whereas the original idea was to boldly go where noone has gone before. Instead we have the binarisms of villains and good guys instead of exploration of the new.

      --
      "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  49. Re:The Star Wars universe has always been impracti by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    There's no doubt there will be plenty of catwalks with no guard rails [...]

    The imperial senate decided that there was no need for OSHA.

    And of course that was the REAL reason that thing was called "Death" Star by the people working there.

  50. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably going to turn out like those new Star Trek movies where you will have a lot of screaming, over dramatic, and explosions all over the place and very little story.

  51. Utterly forgettable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to bet that it will be "utterly forgettable" just as anything else JJ Abrams has directed.

  52. In another news.... by w1zz4 · · Score: 1

    Global productivity (outside US obviously) dropped by 30% on nov 28th 2014

  53. I'm over star wars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This looks about as exciting as another fucking hobbit movie, which is to say not at all.

  54. goodie by silfen · · Score: 1

    I found all the characters and political groupings in Star Wars unlikable. Go ahead, kill each other, see if I care.

  55. Fuck everything! We're doing three blades! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    And an aloe strip. Call it Mach3Turbo!

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  56. It's only plausible... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...until bastards go to four blades.

    Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three blades and a strip.
    Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five blades.

    Sure, we could go to four blades next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do.
    After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe.
    Let's make a thicker aloe strip and call it the Mach3SuperTurbo. Why innovate when we can follow?
    Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!

    You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-blade game.
    Are they the best a man can get? Fuck, no. Sith is the best a man can get.

    What part of this don't you understand? If two blades is good, and three blades is better, obviously five blades would make us the best fucking saber that ever existed. Comprende?
    We didn't claw our way out of a sarlacc pit to the top of the saber game by clinging to the two-blade industry standard.
    We got here by taking chances. Well, five blades is the biggest chance of all.

    Here's the report from Engineering. Someone put it in the bathroom: I want to wipe my ass with it.
    They don't tell me what to inventâ"I tell them. And I'm telling them to stick two more blades in there.
    I don't care how. Make the blades so thin they're invisible. Put some on the handle.
    I don't care if they have to cram the fifth blade in perpendicular to the other four, just do it!

    You're taking the "light" part of "light saber" too literally, grandma. Cut the strings and soar. Let's hit it.
    Let's roll. This is our chance to make saber history. Let's dream big. All you have to do is say that five blades can happen, and it will happen.
    If you aren't on board, then fuck you. And if you're on the board, then fuck you and your father.
    Hey, if I'm the only one who'll take risks, I'm sure as hell happy to hog all the glory when the five-blade saber becomes the fencing tool for the Gal-a- "this is how we cut the hands off now"-xay.

    People said we couldn't go to three. It'll cost a fortune to manufacture, they said. Well, we did it.
    Now some egghead in a lab is screaming "Five's crazy?"
    Well, perhaps he'd be more comfortable in the labs at Coruscant, working on fucking electrics. Rotary blades, my white ass!

    Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just ride in Empire's wake and make blasters. Ha!
    Not on your fucking life! The day I shadow a penny-ante outfit like the Empire is the day I leave the saber game for good, and that won't happen until the day I die!

    The market? Listen, we make the market. All we have to do is put her out there with a little jingle.
    It's as easy as, "Hey, cutting with anything less than five blades is like scraping your beard off with a dull hatchet."
    Or "You'll be so smooth, you'll make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs."
    Try "Your neck is going to be so friggin' soft, someone's gonna walk up and tie a goddamn Medal of Bravery under it."

    I know what you're thinking now: What'll people say? Mew mew mew. Oh, no, what will people say?!
    Grow the fuck up. When you're on top, people talk. That's the price you pay for being on top.
    Which Sith is, always has been, and forever shall be, Amen, five blades, sweet Jesus in heaven.

    Stop. I just had a stroke of genius.
    Are you ready? Open your mouth, baby birds, cause Mama's about to drop you one sweet, fat nightcrawler.
    Here she comes: Put another aloe strip on that fucker, too. That's right.
    Five blades, two strips, and make the second one lather. You heard meâ"the second strip lathers.
    It's a whole new way to think about swords. Don't question it. Don't say a word.
    Just key the music, and call the chorus girls, because we're on the edgeâ"the saber's edgeâ"and I feel like dancing.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  57. So far, so good. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    No EWoks in sight, no Gungans in sight.

    Can it be they actually learned from the "we want Darth Maul and WTF is this jarjar shite doing under my xmas tree" toy debacle?

    One can only hope.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  58. It was not a joke ? by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

    A friend sent me a link to the video. Every second I expected to see the logo of a prankster. When I saw the idiotic lightsaber with a guard ... I was almost laughing.
    And then it ends with a release date.
    Really ? This piece of crap is supposed to be the next Star Wars movie ?

    Ah well ...

    I guess I can forget about it and wait for an eventual release of the "original" 4 5 6 in BluRay.

    --
    Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    1. Re:It was not a joke ? by neminem · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The whole video felt like an amateur parody of a new SW trailer. I'm expecting the movie to be terrible, but I wasn't expecting the trailer to make that so *clear*. Definitely will be waiting to see reviews before I bother watching it (and most likely won't).

  59. Yes he will... have problems... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    He thinks that Star Wars is Star Trek and vice versa.

    That's why the flying zamboni sounds like a TransformerTM transforming in front of you - while moving away.
    It's grinding down instead of zooming away and dopplering out.

    Gears grind. Gears inside mechanical things.
    Star Wars technology is indistinguishable from magic. The moment you start thinking "How does light saber work" it breaks apart.
    Until that point Force is plausible, hyper jumps across galaxy in a small fighter are plausible, Death Star i plausible, Ewoks are plausible...

    Lucas fucked that up with midi-chlorians.
    This is the same thing, only it's not as obvious. You don't see it right away - but your brain does.
    Star Trek is the one where the tech needs explanation.
    In Star Wars "it just works" (or not) because plot demands it.

    Three blade saber does the same thing.
    You don't question the original saber, but that one literally BEGS an explanation.
    WHY? Why three blades? How? What's the use? What for?

    Same for the soccer ball and R2's love child robot.
    How? Why? What for? What's the use?

    It makes you question the fairytale on a level on which you are not supposed to be questioning it.
    You should ponder the moral message NOT the verisimilitude of the SCENERY.

    Even the Falcon in the end.
    No tech issue there. Instead, it feels too CGI and static.
    Because it is not moving. It sits and spins in the shot while the HORIZON moves.
    But your brain and your body know that the horizon is not moving. You know it's fake.
    Compare it to the scenes of doing loops in the original trilogy - where it moves THROUGH the shot and you have the distinct feeling of action and movement taking place.
    Cause you have a stationary point of reference. A fixed horizon.

    This will be an overproduced and very expensive fan movie.
    High on effects, interesting concept, plenty of action - overall... just meh.

    Star Wars is the McDonald's of franchises now.
    Note how they HAD to include the old actors and promise to keep it the same - while Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Avengers etc. keep being completely re-imagined?
    FFS the same guy tried rebooting Star Trek.
    Remember how Superman used to have a John Williams theme?
    Would they DARE to try to change that with Star Wars?

    It's a TOY franchise now. Like Lucas intended it to be.
    You know... for kids.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  60. The Dish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anybody notice the square dish on top of the MF? I suppose since the other one got torn off in Jedi.

  61. You seem to be forgetting by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that it's _Twin_ Ion Engines.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  62. It's not a documentary. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    I have a science background and it my actual spaceship made any of your blunders I would be livid. But that's not what we're doing here. We're going for a ride. Enjoy it.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  63. Sure. Ep.IV. Ever see the original trailer? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    It's a wonder anyone went to see it based on the actual original trailer. Check out the behind the scenes of the 6-film DVD set. The production was so disjointed, when crew from various units saw the first complete cut the remarks were along the line of "Cool! So what movie is this?"

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  64. With any luck they have Abrams fitted by jpellino · · Score: 1

    with a cattle prod - a la GoatBoy - that automatically fires if he so much as utters the first "Jar-"

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  65. Hope and Fear by gman003 · · Score: 1

    My biggest hope for this new series is that it acts as a condensation of the best of the Expanded Universe, sort of like how the Marvel and TDK movies take the best storylines and elements from the decades of comics, and condenses it into a handful of cohesive stories. The EU had a lot of bad and even just mediocre shit in it, but it also had a ton of good stuff. Disney would be foolish to slavishly follow continuity, yes, but they'd also be foolish to completely ignore the best stories of it. Sure, nobody outside the hardcode Star Wars nerds know who Thrawn is or why we should be excited for his movie, but nobody outside the hardcore comic nerds knew who Rocket Raccoon was, and how much money did GotG make? Take Thrawn, X-Wing, Corellia, the two Han Solo trilogies, maybe some of the New Jedi Order (it was a good idea, just unevenly executed and too continuity-laden), and distill those down to a decade's worth of movies. Mix in some original stuff, and you'll be printing money.

    My biggest fear is that this turns out like Abram's Star Trek reboot - it copies the superficial elements, ticks off all the checkboxes for the series, but completely misses the point.

    For Star Trek, it was the optimism and the science. Roddenberry genuinely believed the future was going to be good, and the best Trek showed us a future that had its problems, but was overall optimistic. The science was often laughable, but they at least *tried* to figure out where the future might go. The reboots had Kirk and Spock, they had the Enterprise, they had Klingons, they had time travel and warp drives, but it didn't have optimism (just lens flare), and didn't have either a retro-futurist science, or a modern scientific outlook (either of which would have been acceptable).

    For Star Wars, it's the heroism. Clear-cut bad guys, archetypal Hero's Journey, and a heavy dose of fantasy on top of the sci-fi foundation. Other than the zweihander-esque lightsaber, I didn't see any of that - although such a short trailer can hardly be expected to. So my fears were neither proven valid, not assuaged. We'll have to wait and see.

  66. If the Falcon is CGI... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...does it still make a "WHOOOSH!" sound as it flies by?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:If the Falcon is CGI... by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

      Only if a tree falls in the woods.

    2. Re:If the Falcon is CGI... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      ...on Endor.

      Or was that AND-OR?
      Which one's a logic gate and which one had the holocaust of savage bear-people happen on it?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  67. Blue Harvest by kwiatkotomx · · Score: 1

    Now with more blue.

  68. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is less like a modern 'NASA' ion-engine, and more like a chernobyl(sp?) ion plume, only concentrated into a pair of apertures a foot or two in diameter. That amount of power might be capable of moving such a vehicle at the speeds they used.

    But that's just a navel gazers opinion so YMMV.

  69. Vincent? by Forthan+Red · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice a disturbing similarity between the "rolling" droid, and the robot Vincent from Disney's horrible "The Black Hole"?

  70. Episode VII?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Episode 7?

    They should really make the 3 prequel films. That would be awesome.

  71. Star Wars: The Force Awakens Stuff Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh!

    The new lightsaber design was totally uncalled for.

    Hey kids, this is the new Star Wars movie. Stuff happens.

  72. JJ Abrams??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JJ Abrams hasn't made a single movie that had a good story, and he's doing the new Star Wars that needs a good story?

  73. The Farce Awakens by jandersen · · Score: 1

    What is it with film makers in the last too many years, who think that using growling voices and Double Thunder Base Technology (TM) or whatever it is called is all it takes to make an 'epic' movie? And why would that in itself be an adequate replacement for a good storyline, proper acting and all the rest? You know, I've found to my horror, that given the choice between 'Sound of Music' and this crap, I'd actually go for 'Sound of Music'. Well, I don't know, actually; I might just choose to slit my own throat slowly with a spoon.

  74. WHERE'S THE EPIC ?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ?!!!

  75. Star Wars was never never SF by hawk · · Score: 1

    Star Wars was never science fiction by genre.

    It's Space Opera. Which in turn was descended from Western Opera.

    Space opera and science fiction have some overlap, but they're different creatures.

    hawk

  76. The trailer... by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    Max Von Sydow: It's not ready.
    Harrison Ford: (looking old and resigned) It's ready enough.
    (plays the lamest trailer, ever)

  77. Sequel or prequel? by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    I'm more of a Trekkie than a Jedi master, so just wondering if you'd enlighten me about the title. The Force Awakens? Doesn't that make this a prequel? Now if knowledge of the Force was lost after Return of the Jedi (along with the smarts on howto build a proper light saber), then we're talking about a RE-awakening of the Force. Of course The Force Reawakens sounds quite awful, but hey the Wachowskis did come up with a rather clever title for their Matrix sequel, even if the actual move left much to be desired.

  78. Leia is a Racist! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Maybe that was an off comment when she said "Aren't you a bit short for a short for a Storm Trooper?"