View Full Version : Jedi Starfighter - What do you think?

08-21-2001, 09:07 AM
Go pick up the new issue of Star Wars Insider and there is a picture of the Jedi Starfighter. Sorry I could not find a picture to post up.

Eternal Padawan
08-21-2001, 09:23 AM
How new? Issue #55? or 56? issue #55 isn't really "new" it's been out for over a month. issue #56 is just around the corner...

08-21-2001, 09:48 AM
Just wanted to get other opinions on the new star fighter. Alittle better that the naboo figther but not as cool as the x-wing or the B-WING and the others.To me it looks like a one man star destoryer.What do you think?

08-22-2001, 10:55 AM
Issue 55, there's a bluescreen stump where the astromech goes.

Grif, you got anything to say about it, or are you just saying there's a pic in the new insider?

08-22-2001, 11:28 AM
I agree, it's supposed to look like a one-man Star Destroyer and does. It's colors are kinda A-Wing styled, which seems interesting, and what appears to be the Republic logo (pre-Empire logo) is thought-provoking. However, the pilot sitting WAY back behind the rest of the ship, actually behind the engines, seems weird to me, but if it's cool in action and the droid is cooler than that normal R2 they showed on the official site, I could grow to like it.

08-22-2001, 03:19 PM
Eternal Padawan, it is in issue #55. Jeditricks, I was just saying that it looked cool and I was wondering if you all thought the same thing. And the other cool thing is that it has a Rebel Alliance symbol on it.

The 'Xir
08-22-2001, 03:53 PM
I get that whole star destroyer reference, but when I first saw the picture of it, I thought Battle Star Gallactica the whole way! The circle is now complete, they stole from SW now SW steals from BSG, but would it really be considered stealing for SW to steal a similar idea back? Hhhmmmm? ;-)

08-22-2001, 04:22 PM
I think the fighter is quite neat looking. But I have a problem with this whole birth of the star destroyer thing. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, whichever way you look at it, for a fighter craft to be the genesis of an aircraft carrier. That's like saying that the Bismark was based on a coracle or canoe. When did a military force ever base the design of the ship on the craft that it carries? NEVER!
This nonsense is just shoe horning the OT into the prequel trilogy. It's far too coincidental and IMO is totally contrived and trite.
As is the pilot sitting among the engines with a droid as a co-pilot. What's the droid for? He's got a navi-computer and no doubt shields and weapons. What's the droid for in a fighter that small? What's it gonna do - sing? Make the pilot a nice cup of java and a bagel snack? Silly silly silly contrived nonsense!:mad:

08-23-2001, 12:41 AM
Grif, gotcha. I wasn't sure what direction you were going in, that's why I asked.

I think the idea is to show that the design elements being consistant throughout palpatine's design requests.

08-23-2001, 12:45 PM
In one of the Ep2 doncumentaries ol'George said that the vehicle designs being made for this new trilogy are a lot better than the designs for the OT. But, so far I have yet to see it. The Jedi Starfighter is cool but just to unified in shape to compete with the X-Wing or Y-Wing or Falcon. I'll probably still buy the toy though.:)

08-23-2001, 06:18 PM
I agree they just don't seem as good as the X-Wing and such,but I will buy them anyway and be glad I did.

08-24-2001, 07:10 AM
Oh for sure, I'll certainly buy the vehicle in toy version cuz it'll look good with the other fighters hanging from my ceiling. But as far as the films go it seems pretty silly. Seems to lack that certain something that made the OT so rock hard special. Bring back ralph McQuarrie and Joe Johnston that's what I say.

08-24-2001, 08:36 AM
Amen,Emperor Jargo.I think you hit it on the first try.We need them back.

08-24-2001, 12:48 PM
Jargo, RIGHT ON! Nothing personal Doug Chiang, but there's a reason even you worship Ralph McQuarrie, it's because he's BETTER THAN YOU ARE!!! Joe and Ralph, they really made Star Wars great. I personally am a big fan of Ralph McQuarrie's work, I think it's the most alive stuff I've ever seen on paper.

08-26-2001, 08:08 PM
I don't neccesarily think that Ralph is the best artist that ever lived but he seemed to encpsulate the feelings of the movies in his paintings without trying too hard to push a particular design. Chiang seems to be more technical and his art has a samey samey look like a single idea he keeps pushing forward because he wants to see it used right now. take a look at his robota or robotica or whatever he calls his pet project. It's all the rejected EP1 and EP2 designs or it's his old art that he recycled for the star wars movies. Either way he aint that original. Ralph didn't have a theme he kept re-using, he had favoured shapes and lines to his images but he never over stressed the point. he seemed to let the design grow as he painted which is why his art has warmth that Chiangs lacks.

08-27-2001, 09:02 AM
I remember Ralph's "Jedi" pre-production artwork being published a while before the film was released. I guess they were pretty "spoiler-rich", but they sure got me longing for the films release.

You're right Jargo (and JT)... Doug's pictures don't quite reach those levels, almost to the point of being a little sterile.

The Jedi Starfighter on the other hand is kinda cool, lets see what it can do before we make a complete judgment.

08-27-2001, 10:03 AM
Oh, I don't think McQuarrie is the best artist in the world either, but you totally nailed why Chiang's work is a big step down from Ralph's. McQ's work comes alive, I cannot think of a sci-fi painting I've seen of his that wasn't "alive", he manages to capture action, even when it's passive, all while keeping a rich, textured environment.

Doug's work does indeed feel very one-note, though some of his passive paintings for Ep 1 did come alive for me too. Unfortunately, not all or even most of them, and I think the film's feel reflects this.

BenQuad, IIRC, the Jedi Starfighter wasn't directly designed by Chiang, he only oversaw it.

08-27-2001, 10:22 AM
BenQuad, IIRC, the Jedi Starfighter wasn't directly designed by Chiang, he only oversaw it.

Ok JT the starfighter may not have been designed by Chiang, but most of the pre-production artwork we have seen so far has all been done in a similar style. Almost as though Doug has said "this is the way I draw - you guys draw the same".

I wonder how many people were actually responsible for the starfighter?

jedi master sal
08-27-2001, 03:09 PM
I think we like the old ships because they were different and yet somewhat familiar. (with the exception of the Falcon).

We need to have that again. The Naboo fighter is the y-wing turned around and slimmed down. The jedi starfighter is too much like the Star Destroyer and even the counselor ship from EP1 was too familiar (Although I did like that one) The problem I think that they are facing is that the "new ships of Ep2 and Ep3 have to look older and less advanced as the X, A, B, and Y wings.

This is a little hard considering that they already botched that up with the naboo fighter (its sleek and curving body) as oppossed to the squarish confines of the Y+X wings.

All of you should try coming up with a "new starfighter and see where you end up at.

If you think yours is good enough for our scrutiny post it here and let us be the judge.

Then, only then will you see.......

08-27-2001, 04:41 PM
Yeah but maybe the Naboo fighter harkens back to a more civilised time......

08-28-2001, 01:11 PM
Bring back ralph McQuarrie and Joe Johnston that's what I say.

Amen brother.