Results 1 to 10 of 29

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    I hope there are giant insects in the next Star Wars trilogy

    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?
    BAD Pts Need: R5-C7 lf leg (x2), , R4-P44 right leg BAD Pts Offered For Trade: PM me - I have lots of parts now including BG-J38!. New Kyle Katarn is also available.

  2. #2
    As long as it's not those stupid things from the Joiner Trilogy.
    Tommy, close your eyes.

  3. #3
    Some things that may be forever washed away in the EU vs. Disney Trilogy war might not be so bad then, eh?
    'It is always nice to see you, says the Besalisk at the counter... And instead I pour blue milk...' From "Dex's Diner" by Su-San Vega

  4. #4
    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.
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by JediTricks View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJamBonds View Post
    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. )
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJamBonds View Post
    I agree, lets keep things (somewhat) believable.
    This is Star Wars. It's Fantasy. That ship sailed way back in 1977.
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JediTricks View Post
    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.
    "To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence… When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C.S. Lewis

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chuxter View Post
    Something arbitrary about how both those ideas are just what we need.
    Heyo!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbarada View Post
    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.
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO