Chefelf.com Night Life: Nitpicking the Deleted Scenes? - Chefelf.com Night Life

Very true, and I especially love the Dune comment. On the other hand, I think you need to do a little more research on planet formation and how environments work before you say some of those things. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just saying that you might want a little more than your opinion to back those statements up, that's all.

Not sure what you mean by that. I mean I've read up on city-wide planets, and they just wouldn't work as portrayed in the prequels. You would need massive amounts of food trucked in constantly from off world because you'd have no room to grow crops without arable land (underground hydroponics couldn't grow enough to feed the huge population, and you'd need layers upon layers of underground food production!)... the amount of waste produced would be tremendous which would need to be trucked off world or recycled somehow. You'd have massive amounts of waste heat from all those electronics in the futuristic city. Imagine the heat and congestion from all those bodies. There must be massive poverty and crime. Managing such a thing would be a nightmare. Are there oceans? Polar icecaps? How do they generate power? It's just rather unbelievable. We just have to assume they are so technologically advanced that it's somehow possible, and yet it just seems like such a waste. They do it just so they can say they have a planet that's one giant city and the capital. It's like they need to drain the wealth and power and everything of thousands of planets just to support this one, when their resources could be used better elsewhere.

Now as to the cold planets, well we have cold planets in our own solar system. Hot planets, ditto. Gas giants? Got 'em. Granted the atmosphere would be pretty poisonous, so you'd need space suits. The only time they're "outside" is in those shots in ESB on the landing platforms entering cloud city and leaving (when Fett's ship takes off with Han for example). The rest of the time they are "inside" somewhere, or in some place where the air could conceivably be filtered or contained.

A desert planet, yeah I could see that happening, and twin suns are possible, but if they were that close, some have argued that the planet wouldn't be habitable at all, period. I don't known enough about plantery science to know if that's true or not going by what we see in the movies, but still. My point about the moisture is how much money could you honestly expect to get from dew on a desert planet. It would seem like there'd be better ways to make money or to get the water (from underground? clouds?). Now they never say that it never rains on Tatooine (like it never rains on Arrakis in Dune) so maybe it's not as hot and dry as one might think, but still.

A planet that's just a lifeless rock isn't too much of a stretch. A planet covered in factories is something we don't have in real life, but it might make sense, because you're not trying to make the place habitable. Just put in a bunch of machinery and things and automate it with droids. Of course it would not make much sense to build your factories in the ocean (unless it was essential) or put them in the polar regions (again unless it was essential). But at least a factory planet makes more sense than a city planet. An artificial planet could be done based on their high level of technology, though it seems like a waste if most of it is just empty space. At least the Death Star is a super weapon (ie: there's a reason it's that big), rather than just being a place for people to live on (since finding a real planet would be cheaper, or even an asteroid). We don't really know from the movies if they have terraforming tech in Star Wars. But that's no problem because with their fast FTL they can just find another habitable planet without too much trouble.

A Forest planet doesn't make sense because it would still be colder at the poles and hotter at the equater. On earth we don't have red woods growing at the north pole and at the equater do we? Granted it could be smaller than earth, but unless the planet is somehow artificially maintained in its atmosphere, the gravity can't be too low or the Ewok gliders won't work, and the physics of the rocks and trees and people running around will be all messed up. We don't see Stormtroopers making huge leaps into the air, etc. More than likely we only saw a small portion of it that was forested or it's some kind of artificial construct that somehow works that way (global climate control). At least in this case it would make sense to do that (why climate control a planet to be all desert.. since you're not using the desert to create spice like in Dune) since it's something useful like trees which could be harvested for lumber or create the zoo to house your animals. The trouble with that theory is that they call it "the Forest Moon of Endor" as if the whole thing is one big forest, so again the one climate brain bug!

Basically in Star Wars, if we see one portion of the planet, we're lead to assume that the whole planet is that way based on that small sample.

Oh, don't worry, I won't even attempt to argue about the city planets. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was pretty sure that location on the surface of a planet doesn't have as much to do with climate as you think. On our planet it has more to do with the fact that our axis is at a tilt compared to the sun. This makes it so that different parts of the planet get different percentages of sunlight (Amount of sunlight to actual surface area). That is why we have so many vastly different climates. That also affects wind patterns and such. Anywho, who said Endor wasn't colder at the poles? Trees and other plants can survive the cold you know.

It's one several factors. Ask a climatalogist for specifics. Anyway, the poles pointed away from the sun all the time are always going to be colder. It's just that these planets need to be able to house human beings walking around in normal clothes (rather than space suits) reasonably well. If they have climate control technology, that's cool, but it makes one wonder why all their planets aren't pretty garden paradises where everywhere is like Florida. Poor planets in the Republic/Empire? Maybe.

Maybe Endor was colder at the poles, but was it warmer at the equater? I said Hoth was more realistic a planet. The only thing one wonders about is how did the Wampas live. What did they eat.. each other? How did they evolve there? Was Hoth always cold or what happened?

Maybe there are polar Ewoks with white fur living someplace. My point is it's not going to be the same everywhere on the surface of the planet unless you have some kind of super advanced climate control tech to overcome that, that we just don't see. Each area of each planet we see is limited to a few dozen square kilometers at best, but still. When they say stuff like "the Forest Moon" and "the entire planet is one giant city" you get the idea that's what he intended us to believe.

This post has been edited by KurganX: 29 November 2005 - 03:43 PM

actually that's good point about the bi-sun sitch on tatooine. I mean you're looking at 140-176 degrees F. on the planet suraface there...

still i think i could handle that better than 2000 degrees.

140-176 with a high humidity factor... no onder jabba came out that way.

--------------

if force fields can stop the death star from explosivly decompressing with its big open hangar, i'm sure cloud city had something goin on up there for their landing bay.

ofcourse saying that, the planets minable gasses prabably forced its argon, oxygen, carbon dioxide etc. supply to a higher alltitude. which is why cloud city is built in the sky, and why the air supply isn't as thin at that height as it is here.

between the established hover technology (lukes landspeeder, the carbonite block, the mind probe, etc.) and bespins heavier gasses it's not inconceivable that cloudcity is made largley with a structurley stong but atmoically light alloy, using even lighter materials to store lighter gases. It sounds stupid but if huge metal ships can float on the ocean due to shape and distribution there's no real reason that cloud city can't stay 'afloat' with the aid of hover technology. it's consistant with other factors in the trilogy.

(it's more believable than surviving being frozen in carbonite)

artificial gravity is another acceptable (for some reason). but it goes hand in hand with hover-tech.

----------------------------

the asteroid in ESB could have had a thin breathable atmosphere, at least enough for the worm, who was some sort of O2 camel. perhaps he got what little O2 he needed from a mineral diet. OF course if he were a silicon based life form he would conceivably need a low O2 environment as for respiratory purposes silicon is not as esay to dispose of when it oxidizes as carbon is because carbon dioxide is a gas where as the oxidization of silicon results in silicon dioxide which is a solid (as it uses 4 oxygen atoms in a lattice formation when it forms a molecule).

han and liea walking around in its trachea is pushing things but again with some O2 in there there would at least be an inhabital environment but not entirly breathable. they did where masks... i can't remember if they take them off or not though... then there'd be trouble.

---------------------------

SW has always been a fantasy for most of these factors, but it's scientific grounding on it's 'sci-fi' elements was alot stonger (although relativley weak in comparison to other movies of its time), but the things that appear in the PT are as absurd as that childrens book where the dude can fly because no one told him that people can't fly.

surfing lava is comparitable to having a character survive being shot up the ass with a silkworm missle, while sopping a MIRV in the gut all while being shredded by a dasiy cutter whil frollicking through the anthrax gardens of planet known for its Napalm atmoshpere.

oh come on Barand, you're just making excuses now.

That scene turns logic on its head.

Standing on a platform ABOVE THE CLOUDS and having a slight ruffle of the hair be the worst thing that happens to you turns logic on its head.

Standing directing above lava and fighting and not burning up turns logic on its head.

This is STAR WARS....



actually thats not true. Lucas took the idea directly from one of Ralph whatshisname's original concept drawings.

Ralph McQuarrie. Ok, if Lucas uses an idea from someone it's fine if it's part of the OT. That would be my understanding anyway.

Fine, I was bothered by the absence of space suits, the drop-down oxygen masks and little else. that is my honest assessment. I still returned to the theater another 25 times to see it again.

Has ANYONE, ANYWHERE been to the theater to see any of these PT films TWENTY-FIVE times?
Less explanation, less CGI, fewer pre-introductions and better writing would've helped.

Can you imagine going back to the time of Abe Lincoln and seeing today's politicos in 1860's costumes running the show or hiring a changeling to hire John Wilkes Booth? Wouldn't you find that a little prepostorous?

Well if you wanna blow your load all over SW's incredulousness then you can say that it is impossible to travel the speed of light ergo none of these bizarre aliens could never meet ergo SW universe does not exist ergo GL sucks

I'M making excuses?

first of all that's a totally weak and dissapointing thing to say in response to the effort i went to in writing up on silicon life forms.

secondly... the the whole CC breeze isn't a blatent offence to believability as we've already seen the death star has wide open bays so we assume some manner of force feild is in operation on the out door walking platforms as in the lower decks and underneath luke is barley able to hold on.

some thought has gone into that.

the inside of living creature would have air in it. and at the time it was ofen theorized that larger asteroids may have a thin atmosphere, having once been a part of a planet or whatever...

there is still a big difference between those belief-stretching elements that don't push the fantasy boundaries and the people can walk on a firy ball!!!

even after the fight when obiwan is on the 'shore'... his boots would have melted pretty early on in his 'chosen one' speech. they'd both be on fire.

and yes... this STAR WARS not 'voyage of the lava proof men who visit planets with fresh water planet cores'

we're talking about Star Wars and you bring up 'silicon life forms'. I think the real reason we disagree on these films is that we live 6 worlds apart.

and yes, it sound to me like you have one set of rules for the OT, but refuse to apply them to the PT. How can you accept one film that throws logic out the window (ESB) but not another (RotS)? You're an intelligent chap, Barend, which is why im having trouble figuring this out. Of course the Mustafar scene is silly, but its inherant sillyness, its OTT drama, is one of the reasons why its fun.

Its the same in ESB (to keep the comparison going). Three characters step out of their ship in the middle of a large chunk of rock in space with no protection other than those cheap looking space masks and suffer no ill affect. Later, the step off a ship on a platform thats above the clouds and again suffer no ill affect. The same thing happens again in TPM.

All these films demand that you put the 'logic' part of your brain on hold. If you want to attack SW for that, fine. As long as you're aware that you'd be damning the OT in the process.



so a film isn't valid unless you can sit through it 25 times?!!

If you'll excuse me, i'm off for a lie down...

I'm not sure the max temperature a human being can stand, but I know if your blood rises to 120, you're dead. It's something I'd have to look up.




The trouble is we see NOTHING of the kind around the landing bay. It's completely exposed. You can rationalize the Death Star hangars with a semi-permeable force field (that allows ships to enter and leave, but stops air from escaping).

In order for the Cloud City thing to work, we'd have to assume that either the entire planet is breathable, or else there is an invisible shield projected around the entire Cloud City (such that you can walk around "outside" with no problems) and ships can still casually fly in from the sky (notice they didn't have to deactivate any energy shield like the Death Star.. they just had a cloud car or two patrol them in).

You could say they waste tons of energy pumping oxygen and stuff around so that people don't pass out in those landing platforms, but a pressurized shield of some kind seems essential, period.

Anyway, I'm not arguing against the realism of a gas giant planet. The only problem for me is the dangerous gases, but I could buy it's some exotic type of gas in the atmosphere that isn't harmful to humans. So Bespin for me is one of the least objectionable SW planets in terms of realism and believability.




The Asteroids is too small. Plus, how did such a creature evolve? Are there others? Does it live in deep space? It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Even if you speculate that this was a deep planet dwelling creature and this chunk somehow blasted off of a planet without killing it (like a worm stuck in an apple falling from a tree), it's still odd that it could survive in the vaccum like that.

It's a cool, but fantastic element. The gravity thing is completely silly, again, it's too small. They act like they're walking around a cave on earth, with only tiny oxygen masks for support. One explanation is that they somehow were able to extend the artificial gravity of the Falcon outward for a radius of several meters to let them walk around. If you buy that...



All the Star Wars movies are full of scientifically inaccurate or impossible nonsense. Face it, none of them are believable from that standpoint, which is why you have to suspend disbelief. If you're going to bash one movie for being scientifically nonsensical, they are all up for grabs.



Well they explain that by having the Jedi use the Force to able to protect themselves. It's hokey, but it has precedents in the rest of the movies (like Qui Gon not burning his hand off while he turns the blast door into molten slag).

And yes, the Force is overused as an excuse for apparent gaffes in physics. Oh well, Lucas wanted to focus the prequels on the Jedi (supposedly) in their prime (but we have the Shroud of the Dark Side in Episodes II and III, oops), so it was probably inevitable if we was going to show off. At least Padme isn't out there long and stays on the landing platform (on Mustafar, while the shields are still working properly!).

It's true a lot of the gaffes in these movies are common in hollywood. How many action movies show people taking much more abuse than is possible, surviving long falls that would be fatal, or even getting near hazardous materials that a normal person wouldn't survive?

And check out movies like Goldfinger, where the mistaken notion that paint suffocates you because it doesn't let your skin "breath"... or Total Recall, wherein exposure to vaccuum or the atmosphere of Mars somehow makes your body swell up like a balloon and your eyeballs explode.

99% of Sci Fi movies and Tv shows have sounds in space, and inaccurately portrayed "laser" or "plasma" weapons. A common brainbug portrays biological tech as superior to mechanical tech. The speed of light is poorly understood or poorly portrayed in movies of all kinds.

The SW flicks have their own share of stuff like that. For a quick rundown of some of the problems read Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" book, and the companion website, badastronomy.com.

You can argue the OT trilogy is better because it came first, or has better acting, or more likable characters, a fresher story, whatever you like. But don't argue its superiority based on greater scientific plausibility.

This post has been edited by KurganX: 01 December 2005 - 04:58 AM

I know of a guy who went to the threater to see ROTS 22 times. No joke! It's insane that somebody would spend that much money on one movie in such a short time (even if he claimed he used 10 "Free Passes" he had saved up). I can see a projectionist seeing a movie that many times in a similar period, but I can't see a sane person doing that, even if it was an awesome movie and they were starved for entertainment. Wouldn't it start get extremely boring after awhile? Especially considering it's almost 2 1/2 hours per sitting...

Another person claimed to have gone to see it 15 times. Pretty danged amazing, but there you go.

I could see doing that in a lifetime, but in the space of one short theatrical run? Pure insanity! Then you have the people waiting in line for 42 days to see Episode I. Granted, that was before they knew it sucked so bad... But people still waited in line to see Episodes II and III. Some guy was on TV trying to set the world record by waiting in line for ROTS for 3 months. I don't know if he succeeded...

Fact is people saw movies a lot more in the theaters in the past because 1) Tickets were relatively a lot cheaper 2) Seeing movies at home was much more expensive and harder to do than it is now, plus the quality sucked. You would have to rent your VHS or Betamax Star Wars in pan'n'scan a few years after SW came out, on your $2,000 vcr, for example. Or you could just pay for a ticket, since it was released in theaters like 5 times before the Special Editions.

Of all the types of entertainment, movies were typically the cheapest. Much cheaper than investing in a home theater setup. Sure, you could have a cheap-ass computer, and watch cheap-ass bootleg movies like is the norm in Asian countries, but that option wasn't open to so many people in the past.

Edit (sorry forgot to put this into the previous post):

And if you want to give the excuse that the "science back then" didn't know as much as we know now, fine. But then you have to do the same with something like "Voyage to the Moon" showing people walking around on the moon with no more protection than a top hat and waistcoat, and use an umbrella as a parachute. Lucas may have been imitating these serials, b-movies and comic books of the past that didn't know or didn't care about science, but that doesn't mean we can't point out that it's ludicrous.

Can you still enjoy a movie with bad science in it? Sure. But this idea that you can use that to attack the PT and say it's crap, but not turn around and do the same to the OT is pure hypocrisy.

This post has been edited by KurganX: 01 December 2005 - 05:10 AM

um, on the Goldfinger bit, the actress actually did die. They had to get a replacement and left a large unseen portion of her skin unpainted. Just thought you should know. (Not my fault my dad is a huge JB fan) I don't know if was actually the paint that caused the death though.

This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 01 December 2005 - 06:31 PM

From imdb.com under trivia for Goldfinger:

After the film was released, rumors circulated that Shirley Eaton had actually died on set, owing to the misconception that the gold paint caused asphyxiation.

Ok, fine. Let me resubmit the question.

Not your friend, not your cousin. Not your cousin's friend's sister.

Of all the Gushers present, DVD happily in hand: have you seen any one film more than 25 times?



I was a huge fan of ESB. It was the escape of the summer, and I ALWAYS saw something new.
Those who have seen the VHS 5,000 times understand.