PDA

View Full Version : I hope there are giant insects in the next Star Wars trilogy



Tycho
12-04-2012, 09:53 PM
Insects are gross and big ones are disgusting and really big insects are impressively disgusting.

We had the Ackley and Mustafar lava flea.

But we have not had the main characters ride the insects like they rode banthas and dewbacks .


I have just noticed my 1/6 scale dewback and out of the corner of my eye I had imagined it being a giant green praying mantis. What a disgustingly awful toy that would make huh?

El Chuxter
12-04-2012, 10:25 PM
As long as it's not those stupid things from the Joiner Trilogy.

Bel-Cam Jos
12-05-2012, 07:23 PM
Some things that may be forever washed away in the EU vs. Disney Trilogy war might not be so bad then, eh?

JediTricks
12-05-2012, 07:35 PM
I'd prefer creatures to be more believable to the eye, stuff that can actually hold its weight up under its body and protect itself from predators and environmental threats (cold, heat). There's a reason we don't have giant insects in real life, no horse-sized horseflies. It's also why the Tauntaun and other OT creatures are believable, they're based on ideas that come from believable real life.

JimJamBonds
12-05-2012, 08:04 PM
I'd prefer creatures to be more believable to the eye, stuff that can actually hold its weight up under its body and protect itself from predators and environmental threats (cold, heat). There's a reason we don't have giant insects in real life, no horse-sized horseflies. It's also why the Tauntaun and other OT creatures are believable, they're based on ideas that come from believable real life.

I agree, lets keep things (somewhat) believable.

JediTricks
12-05-2012, 08:14 PM
I agree, lets keep things (somewhat) believable.Exactly, no creatures that are just breakdancing rainbows or creatures that walk via their teeth. (And now Chux will come in and say something arbitrary about how both those ideas are just what we need. ;))

El Chuxter
12-05-2012, 08:39 PM
Something arbitrary about how both those ideas are just what we need.

bigbarada
12-06-2012, 01:23 PM
I'd prefer creatures to be more believable to the eye, stuff that can actually hold its weight up under its body and protect itself from predators and environmental threats (cold, heat). There's a reason we don't have giant insects in real life, no horse-sized horseflies. It's also why the Tauntaun and other OT creatures are believable, they're based on ideas that come from believable real life.

I agree, the reason why creatures with exoskeletons are so tiny is because exoskeletons are heavy. If you were to have a 6' insect or a 10-12' insect, then that creature's exoskeleton would be so heavy that the animal wouldn't be able to lift itself off the ground.

Maybe if they were on a low-gravity planet, it would be acceptable, but not a planet with earth-like gravity (which it seems is the only kind that exists in the Star Wars universe).

I'm one of those people who prefers my fantasy to be based pretty firmly in reality and that's one of the things that I believe made the original trilogy so good. Sure there was stuff that we couldn't explain using our current technology levels, but for the most part, everything was believable and made sense.

I think that's also one of the benefits of being forced to physically build every single creature in the film. You become very conscious of the weight of the creature and the amount of volume that its body takes up. Plus, you have to design a prop, puppet or costume that can physically hold itself up and not collapse under its own weight. I think this is something that gets frequently overlooked with CGI characters and that's why they often appear to just be floating around the movie screen and not actually a part of the scene itself.

JediTricks
12-06-2012, 02:00 PM
Something arbitrary about how both those ideas are just what we need.Heyo!!!!!


I agree, the reason why creatures with exoskeletons are so tiny is because exoskeletons are heavy. If you were to have a 6' insect or a 10-12' insect, then that creature's exoskeleton would be so heavy that the animal wouldn't be able to lift itself off the ground.

Maybe if they were on a low-gravity planet, it would be acceptable, but not a planet with earth-like gravity (which it seems is the only kind that exists in the Star Wars universe).

I'm one of those people who prefers my fantasy to be based pretty firmly in reality and that's one of the things that I believe made the original trilogy so good. Sure there was stuff that we couldn't explain using our current technology levels, but for the most part, everything was believable and made sense.

I think that's also one of the benefits of being forced to physically build every single creature in the film. You become very conscious of the weight of the creature and the amount of volume that its body takes up. Plus, you have to design a prop, puppet or costume that can physically hold itself up and not collapse under its own weight. I think this is something that gets frequently overlooked with CGI characters and that's why they often appear to just be floating around the movie screen and not actually a part of the scene itself.Even if there were a low-gravity planet and somehow conditions allowed gigantic bugs to develop, I don't think I'd want them in Star Wars. Star Wars does best when it deals with simpler organic lines, if you look at a lot of the cantina concept drawings (they're very crude), it's obvious why they stand out as the oddest and why Lucas was desperate to reshoot that material and move that stuff to the back whenever he was forced to use it - they just feel wrong for that universe.

I don't mind fantasy taking liberties, but it should be obvious that it's grounded in SOMEONE'S reality from the first glimpse, it should be something we as an audience can look at and accept immediately without our subconscious brains noticing oddities and asking too many questions.

Good point about the real needs of gravity in a character, so true, that's the area where the conscious eye might accept it but the subconscious brain is still going to notice the problem. I think it's the same with the CGI camera as well, you have impossible shots and the brain knows, so it becomes an animated movie.

QLD
12-06-2012, 10:05 PM
On top of the realism factor, I am just not a big fan of insect based aliens in general.
But I definitely hope the new movies are more grounded in reality than the prequels were in all aspects.

El Chuxter
12-06-2012, 10:16 PM
Insects don't have lungs. Their oxygen-delivery mechanisms aren't sophisticated enough to allow them to become particularly large. Anything larger than a huge tarantula would need a respiratory system like a vertebrate's.

Tycho
12-06-2012, 11:26 PM
What do you think of man sized aliens with XO skeletons such as in the Sigourney Weaver series with aliens?

Those movies are classics. Geonosians are similar but made less threatening for audiences including children. But the Mustafar lava flea is a better example for what I was talking -about creatures that the figures can ride

bigbarada
12-07-2012, 12:56 AM
What do you think of man sized aliens with XO skeletons such as in the Sigourney Weaver series with aliens?

As cool as the first two of those movies were, those aliens could never exist in reality. You'd be talking about a couple hundred pounds of nothing but exoskeleton.

I personally hope that the creature designers for the new trilogy are a little more creative than just making giant insects. What made most of the OT creature designs so great was that they might have suggested certain animals that exist on our planet, but they rarely ever copied those animals directly.

The OT designers put a lot of effort into creating creatures that audiences had never seen before, but still somehow felt familiar and were firmly grounded in reality. For instance, Tauntauns and Banthas feel familiar, but we don't have a single animal on earth that looks anything like those creatures.

Tycho
12-07-2012, 01:59 AM
How about the rancor and Sarlaac? A giant hairless gorilla and a huge venus fly trap? The space worm in ESB? (EXOGORT)

Yeah sorry to bug you but we need bugs ;')

They could go to Mon calamari and do more sea creatures though. But wait for it... It's a trap!

However riff Tamsen's people brought to life would be cool.

Wait. They briefly show the cancell on kashyyyk in episode 3. But no major characters used it for any significant amount of time like the dewbacks.

But maybe after the Battle of Endor The New Republic has chained ewoks and they ride them with harnesses

El Chuxter
12-07-2012, 07:48 AM
But maybe after the Battle of Endor The New Republic has chained ewoks and they ride them with harnesses
If this happens, I will personally clone George Lucas so I can murder him millions of times.

QLD
12-07-2012, 09:08 AM
If this happens, I will personally clone George Lucas so I can murder him millions of times.

Can I please help. Pretty please.

But I am with Big B on this one. I definitely would like a return to the more familiar types of creatures and aliens. Sure an odd one thrown in the background here or there is fine, but I certainly want them to be very heavily used.

bigbarada
12-07-2012, 10:57 AM
How about the rancor and Sarlaac? A giant hairless gorilla and a huge venus fly trap? The space worm in ESB? (EXOGORT)

Yeah sorry to bug you but we need bugs ;')

They could go to Mon calamari and do more sea creatures though. But wait for it... It's a trap!

However riff Tamsen's people brought to life would be cool.

Wait. They briefly show the cancell on kashyyyk in episode 3. But no major characters used it for any significant amount of time like the dewbacks.

But maybe after the Battle of Endor The New Republic has chained ewoks and they ride them with harnesses

Other than long arms, what about the Rancor design suggested a gorilla to you? :confused:

The Special Edition Sarlacc might have evoked a Venus Flytrap... barely.... but I'm talking about the original design for the ROTJ. The Special Editions and the Prequels showcase some of the lazy and uncreative design work that I hope the new trilogy is able to rise above.

The spaceslug... well technically I guess that could be classified as a giant bug, but it made sense within the context of that specific scene. Plus, there was no exoskeleton and it existed in a low atmosphere environment.

JediTricks
12-07-2012, 04:28 PM
I dunno if the prequel concept design work is lazy and uncreative, I think it largely lacks the discipline to know when not to do something just because it is new or unique, or is what the boss says he wants. Also that Lucas and/or McCallum may have picked the wrong people to put the focus of concept artwork on, putting the wrong types of artists in charge of certain things. Doug Chiang isn't untalented, he's just focused on an aesthetic that is too experimental, too many flights of fancy, too much insectoid detailing and impossible/improbable machines, lots of complexity... IMO that means not cinematic - it may be undisciplined in that regard, but I don't think it's uncreative and lazy. You're the artist though, you're more qualified to make an objective statement in that regard - stuff like overly complex without sense to why it'd really operate, that's where I suppose we should defer to your opinion.

bigbarada
12-09-2012, 01:41 PM
But that's the thing about art, it's purely subjective. I might look at a specific design and say, "it's great" and you might look at that same design and say "it sucks." Which one of us is right? We both are.

When the original designers started to work on Star Wars, they obviously had very little to draw from, so they needed to cull their ideas from several different sources: Flash Gordon, WW2, westerns, pulp sci-fi, comic books, high-fantasy, mythology, etc. For Empire Strikes Back, they didn't have a lot freedom to explore new ideas since studios didn't think that "Star Wars 2" was going to be a success. Plus, I'm pretty sure making Yoda actually work onscreen probably took up the lion's share of ILM's special effects budget.

By the time ROTJ came around, Star Wars was officially a phenomenon and the designers finally had all the money they needed to create all of the creatures that they wanted to create. Having over 80 different aliens/creatures/monsters in ROTJ was considered totally revolutionary at the time. So, what we saw in ROTJ were the results of a group of artists who had had their hands tied creatively for several years, because of limited budgets, finally cut loose to create whatever they could imagine. But they weren't interested in repeating themselves, they wanted to surpass ANH and ESB in every possible way; so they went back and started drawing all of their inspiration from the real world again.

As a result, I think the mass of creativity and the level of polish that each design showcased in Return of the Jedi has yet to be matched even today.

When it came time to start designing for the Prequels, ILM had some massive hurdles to overcome since, not only did they have to outdo Return of the Jedi, but they also needed to outdo the 16 years of sci-fi films that had also tried to outdo ROTJ. Basically, Star Wars had inspired so many copycats, that the Prequels were in great danger of looking like just another copycat.

I was actually very encouraged by that first Ep1 trailer because everything looked so different from anything we had seen before and I think that's why I still believe Ep1 is the strongest of the Prequels from a design standpoint and is the one that feels the most like a Star Wars movie. What I think made the design work so well was that they "went back to the drawing board" and took most of their inspiration from non-Star Wars sources.

However, I think Lucas started to seriously second-guess himself during the concept stage of Ep2 and we got designs that no longer drew their inspiration from the real world, but drew their inspiration from the previous Star Wars films. Lucas tried to justify it by saying that we needed to see "transitionary forms" in the vehicles, but I believe that was just an excuse to play it safe. Instead of taking another risk on new ideas, ILM decided to start eating their own feet (figuratively of course). Because of that the pool of creativity started to shrink more and more. By Ep3, we were getting old designs broken apart, mashed-up and passed off as new designs (Commander Cody, I'm looking at you).

There are a few great Prequel designs that I still believe surpass some of the OT designs, however. Queen Amidala's outfits from Ep1 (that kind of thing made sense for a queen, but just became a tired joke with no punchline by Ep2 and 3), Sebulba and Dud Bolt (my two favorite Prequel alien designs), and the AT-TE (which is like an AT-AT that seems like it would actually be practical on the battlefield).

For the most part, though, I think the Prequels suffered from just too much stuff and very few designs could be polished to the level that we had become used to in the OT.

JediTricks
12-12-2012, 05:26 PM
Art for art's sake is subjective, but this isn't only for its own sake, that's what makes it concept design. This art has a specific purpose which gives it some level of objective slant. Art here is serving a different medium (and one could well argue, a lower common denominator-oriented medium), it's conveying a story's ideas through a cinematic medium to a mainstream audience. It's not serving a Warhol film that would be meant to challenge the very notion of cinema and of storytelling.

Looking over the concept art for Star Wars and ESB, it's clear that there were several schools of thought and several philosophies, some more based on Lucas' words and some more based on '70s sci-fi magazines. McQuarrie worked most closely with Lucas in the formative era and was concerned more with art as an expression of designs and ideas than of itself, and I think that gives it more objectivity on which to draw from. The Flash Gordon stuff got tossed pretty early, you don't see it in Joe Johnston's ANH work much because by then they had moved past it, Lucas and McQuarrie worked out an aesthetic that moved away from that limited look (the costumes are the biggest shift IMO, they go from very Flash Gordon comic book era to something more lived-in and thought out; Lucas also tossed the Flash Gordon industrial style early on, no gleaming rocketships with fins and flames and portholes. Once you get to Yoda concept work, there's almost an agony over how to express the idea with a myriad of ideas, Johnston, McQuarrie, and even Stuart Freeborn have many different avenues explored on the character - some of those changes were needed from technical perspective, and some were just Lucas and Kasdan working the character out as a concept on the page.

I dunno how financially free Lucas was for ROTJ, he had to take out a huge loan from Bank of America to make the film on his own, and he was going through an expensive divorce. It seems like just with ANH and ESB before, bringing in new blood and then those eyes were bigger than the stomachs, fabrication and design wanted to do any- and everything and thought they could get away with it because the money was coming in from somewhere else, from an unseen mom and dad. If anything, I'd say the variety of aliens in ROTJ served Lucas' bruised ego after feeling pummeled during the disaster that was the need for a cantina scene reshoot, another situation where a lot of money went into realizing a lot of alien designs, only this time Lucas put more effort into ensuring the myriad of aliens weren't cinematically-unusable. Yet ROTJ is the first film in Star Wars where you can see actors eyes inside the eyeholes of the alien masks - the Gamorrean, red Nikto, and Barada masks fall short here. So money was certainly anything but no object. Ideas however, in ROTJ, were in no short supply, and for every piece of concept art that succeeds you have a piece that looks torn from the pages of a '70s-era Heavy Metal magazine - Jabba alone has some of the most unusable and visually offensive ideas sketched out.


For TPM, I think Lucas tried so hard to look "old and elegant" that he got wrapped up in trying to be different. TPM is like Alex P. Keaton, he's a young Republican mainly because his parents are hippies, without them his identity would seem entirely foreign, TPM's aesthetic serves primarily to exist as a rebelling act against Star Wars, to make a universe that wasn't Star Wars rather than to be its own take on Star Wars. Eps 2 and 3 clumsily attempt to backpedal, as you said, into a 'bridge' that it compromises the aesthetic. There was also a lack of thought on how things would evolve to how they were, from creatures to equipment to buildings to vehicles, and then taking those ideas and THROWING A THOUSAND MORE OF THEM ONTO THE SCREEN AT THE SAME EXACT TIME just because the digital tools gave them the power to do so. How does the Kaadu become a thing that's just 2 legs and a head, no arms? Lucasfilm's answer seemed to be "who cares, it's not the tauntaun!" Nothing has a past in the prequels, it seems like it's just about getting different ideas up there, either derived from Star Wars or the polar opposite of Star Wars.


Dud Bolt, really??? Sebulba is a relatively straightforward design with the challenge of "front to back jobs for limbs", but Dud Bolt is just a warthog crossed with a platypus to me, he's just seems silly and cartoonish, second in that scene only to Ben Quadinaros. Like, how does Dud Bolt keep that head supported, how does he get those clothes on over that giant noggin and beak, how does he see anything ahead of him (you know, kinda important for a racer)? Whenever I see him those things jump out at me first thing, I can get past some aliens like Sebulba and Jar Jar and Gasgano, but Dud Bolt stops me in my tracks. What about him appeals to you so much, if you can put it into words?

Funny you should say that, in my collection so far, the AT-TE in real life is actually less stable than the AT-AT. When you look at industrial equipment and designs that inspired those two vehicles, the AT-AT is based on big stuff like elephants and cargo cranes, while the AT-TE is based on tiny stuff like bugs. My AT-TE has dumped itself once and flipped itself over once, my AT-AT has never fallen.

Tycho
12-12-2012, 06:56 PM
I'm inspired to respond to BigBarada (above) and haven't read JT's statement at this moment. Just trying not to lose my thoughts.

I liked the idea of transitioning to OT ships by AOTC / ROTS. I think the militaries of SW could be shown constantly evolving. (Totally agree with you about the coolness of the AT-TEs. I wanted a toy the moment I saw it - completely falling for Lucas' merchandising trap but enjoying the journey like most of us here.)

AOTC saw Slave-One arrive - which is great beause some ship should not transition, like you still see old Buicks and Oldsmobiles now and then on the freeway.

Landspeeders and taxis wouldn't change much. The triangular shape of Jedi starfighters and Republic assault cruisers was an enjoyable addition.

Also the Correllian Systems Engineering ships with the rows of horizontal engines like the blockade runner were great to see since Episode One's Radiant 7 and Palpatine's diplomatic cruiser.

Now the Trade Federation converting those ring-like freighters to assault and invasion carriers was a great and creative idea that would be very plausible considering what they were and how their military plans were evolving.

I need not mention the walkers again, but in the comics, AT-ATs out of Balmorra were also deployed as early as the time they were using AT-TEs. That also made sense. I think the flatter ones were more practical on Geonosis terrain for better balance and lower anti-personnel guns good for fighting battle droids on foot.

I think we didn't see (Republic) gunships on Hoth because it was too cold and on Endor because there were too many trees. But I'm sure the Empire still had them. They said the speederbikes on Endor were really old.

Because of the toy's features (CW release versions) I'd like it if they'd said the ROTS Jedi Starfighters actually were the Delta starfighters of E2 / CW after they had been hit and refitted for service, with parts missing. In all honesty, the ROTS versions looked to be better, more maneuverable ships than the AOTC types and the EU says they are actually made by different (fictional) manufacturing companies. Lucas just wanted more triangular ships like star destroyers I suppose. But AOTC did have star destroyers at the end at any rate.

bigbarada
12-13-2012, 02:49 AM
Yet ROTJ is the first film in Star Wars where you can see actors eyes inside the eyeholes of the alien masks - the Gamorrean, red Nikto, and Barada masks fall short here. So money was certainly anything but no object. Ideas however, in ROTJ, were in no short supply, and for every piece of concept art that succeeds you have a piece that looks torn from the pages of a '70s-era Heavy Metal magazine - Jabba alone has some of the most unusable and visually offensive ideas sketched out.

Actually, one of the things that I liked so much about the Gamorrean Guard and Barada was that you could see the actor's eyes under the mask. It just added an extra level of humanity to the characters and it's probably one of the reasons that I consider those two species to be the #1 and #2 greatest alien designs in all of cinema (not just the best Star Wars designs).


Dud Bolt, really??? Sebulba is a relatively straightforward design with the challenge of "front to back jobs for limbs", but Dud Bolt is just a warthog crossed with a platypus to me, he's just seems silly and cartoonish, second in that scene only to Ben Quadinaros. Like, how does Dud Bolt keep that head supported, how does he get those clothes on over that giant noggin and beak, how does he see anything ahead of him (you know, kinda important for a racer)? Whenever I see him those things jump out at me first thing, I can get past some aliens like Sebulba and Jar Jar and Gasgano, but Dud Bolt stops me in my tracks. What about him appeals to you so much, if you can put it into words?

I don't know, it's just his Saturday-morning-cartoon goofiness that appeals to me so much. Whimsy is a quality that is far too underused in modern, cinematic alien design and Dud Bolt has plenty of whimsy to him.


Funny you should say that, in my collection so far, the AT-TE in real life is actually less stable than the AT-AT. When you look at industrial equipment and designs that inspired those two vehicles, the AT-AT is based on big stuff like elephants and cargo cranes, while the AT-TE is based on tiny stuff like bugs. My AT-TE has dumped itself once and flipped itself over once, my AT-AT has never fallen.

It's the lower profile and sleeker design for one, which makes it less of a target. Plus the 360 blaster coverage, whereas the AT-AT can only shoot in the direction that the head is pointed. Finally, the six legs just make the vehicle seem more stable, less top-heavy, and less likely to be tripped. The smaller footprint of the AT-TE "feet" would make it more all-terrain than the AT-AT, also.

Tycho
12-13-2012, 07:43 AM
I like everything BigBarada had to say in his post immediately above.

Gamorrean Guard is obviously based on a pig, and Klatoonians are based on bulldogs.

Dud Bolt is some kind of mix of a dog and a crocodile, and yes he is Saturday morning whimsy. His species could have reappeared in Clone Wars quite comfortably - maybe instead of adding that silly "colonel's" species - and a smaller (whatever Dud Bolt is) might have fit inside a completely hollowed-out astromech as well, though the snout might be a tight fit - so he might have used some kind of miniature gunner's chair inside the R4 unit. Pod racing species are small and the Gran (Mohawnic) that races is a midgit for his species if you look at Ainlee Teem or Rey-Yees.

JediTricks
12-16-2012, 07:31 PM
Actually, one of the things that I liked so much about the Gamorrean Guard and Barada was that you could see the actor's eyes under the mask. It just added an extra level of humanity to the characters and it's probably one of the reasons that I consider those two species to be the #1 and #2 greatest alien designs in all of cinema (not just the best Star Wars designs).Let me restate what I meant because I don't think I explained it well enough before, the actors' eyes aren't my problem with the masks, it's the open space around the eyes that's my problem. The masks are poorly blended to the actors, it's very much "mask mask mask PERSON INSIDE!", there's a bit of a gap and makeup issue on both of those masks. Also, after Sideshow did their 1:6 Gamorrean figure, it became obvious to my eye how ridiculous that appliance is, the sculpt on the Gam is really good but the eyes are so ridiculously narrow and set so far back that they're useless, they can hardly see past their noses, it's a bit too much of a compromise - the film gets away with it at first blush because you're in the moment, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny as well.


I don't know, it's just his Saturday-morning-cartoon goofiness that appeals to me so much. Whimsy is a quality that is far too underused in modern, cinematic alien design and Dud Bolt has plenty of whimsy to him.Alright. An interesting reason, I find it to cross the line for the very same reason. Surely TPM isn't light on whimsy though.


It's the lower profile and sleeker design for one, which makes it less of a target. Plus the 360 blaster coverage, whereas the AT-AT can only shoot in the direction that the head is pointed. Finally, the six legs just make the vehicle seem more stable, less top-heavy, and less likely to be tripped. The smaller footprint of the AT-TE "feet" would make it more all-terrain than the AT-AT, also.Except for height, it's in every way a larger target. From in front, from above, and from the side the AT-TE is a wide target. Also, while the legs should make it less unstable, the legs being cambered puts much more stress on the joints than the straight legs of the AT-AT where the stress is distributed evenly across the joint.

I would give you that the top cannon and rear turrets on the AT-TE should make it less vulnerable, but somehow the AT-AT's intentionally-designed vulnerability seems to make it seem that much more threatening - the Imperials are so confident it's going to kick *** that they don't even bother putting offensive weapons onto the sides or back or top or bottom, just the front. Also, the AT-TE's top cannon being a manned cannon with NO protection for its gunner makes it somewhat mediocre as a defensive weapon.

I'd say the lower stance of the AT-TE makes it more vulnerable to large terrains where the AT-AT in theory could clear those areas, but we've never really had a chance to see either used in a rough enough terrain to judge.

Beast
12-16-2012, 10:22 PM
I agree, lets keep things (somewhat) believable.
This is Star Wars. It's Fantasy. That ship sailed way back in 1977.

El Chuxter
12-16-2012, 10:28 PM
No, it stuck around for about a year before Krelman killed it with his weird head-funnel thing. lol

JediTricks
12-18-2012, 03:04 PM
This is Star Wars. It's Fantasy. That ship sailed way back in 1977.That is a lazy way to look at it, IMO. That type of thinking gives rise to my aforementioned breakdancing rainbows and creatures that walk via their teeth, there has to be some recognizability and limitations within reason for it to resonate.

bigbarada
12-21-2012, 02:56 PM
That is a lazy way to look at it, IMO. That type of thinking gives rise to my aforementioned breakdancing rainbows and creatures that walk via their teeth, there has to be some recognizability and limitations within reason for it to resonate.

I agree, it's a cop-out to think that "it's fantasy" can explain away lazy filmmaking and concept design.

I think the strength of the original Star Wars was that they really worked hard to make everything look like it could exist in the real world. We all knew it was fantasy, but it felt real onscreen.

Tycho
12-21-2012, 04:26 PM
As is often the case, I am agreeing with BigBarada, but I don't see how giant insects ridden by characters like how Obi-Wan rode Boga or the Sandtroopers ride Kaadus is such a big deal?

Perhaps many fans and especially kids won't question whether large insects can support such body weight?

The Mustafar Lava flea and Geonosian Arena Acklay are two such examples already shown.

Now maybe Ben Skywalker can hop around on a giant grasshopper or something. Jaina Solo could ride a butterfly like Wookiees were shown riding the cancels on Kashyyyk (I think - they go by so fast that it was hard to tell if their were riders, but the Yoda figure came with one from a deleted scene I imagine - and in Clone Wars animated, Anakin and Ahsoka rode one).

I'm just saying:

giant reptiles - repeats the dewback, reek, rontos, Faambas, and Boga, amongst others.

giant mammals - or medium sized ones - repeats TaunTauns, Eopies, Falumpasets, Banthas.

giant sea creatures - maybe the aiwas? Kaminoans are shown riding them - and they seem to be amphibious and very much like thrantas.


The last brings up giant avians. Reptilian avians were show on Utopau, and in cartoon form on Onderon, and elsewhere.

I think insects - as well as maybe avians - and definitely aquatic animals (non-reptilian) are under-represented.

I would just like to see it kept fresh by adding something new that would be memorable (for any new planets we visit).

If we go back to Tatooine - again (?!) - we sure can and should have banthas, rontos, eopies, etc.

As to vehicles? We've seen everything. They can just update 'em. The K-Wing Bomber (expanded universe) is an excellent continuation of the ARC-170, Z-95, X-wing format of fighter. Man I'd love to see K-wings! (look 'em up on Star Wars Wookieepedia - you should love this design. It's so Star Wars-z!)