The New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessels

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-24 11:34pm

You're confusing the after-the-fact excuses for the actual conceptualization. They chose to make pretty-but-dumb shit.

What moron would think up the TF droids as a good military combat idea? Is that what you would've conceptualized?

Trade Fed Battleships didn't make sense and were designed simply to look cool and funky.

C-9979s...thats a complete after the fact excuse for something stupid, and you know it.

AATs should hover a lot higher if shell-launchers really made sense.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-03-24 11:38pm

Well I don't think its a secret that GL takes designs that look cool, but function worse than my shoe, and leaves it to the EU writers to explain how something that shouldn't work does.

Although most of the OT designs were pretty solid. Damn CGI technology.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-24 11:59pm

It's not the CGI at all in this case. Lucas has said many times he's a visual artist. The biggest loss that thre prequels suffer from is Doug Chiang. The Original Trilogies used WWII as inspiration for many designs. Star Destroyers used Elevated bridges found on battleships. B52 windows and gun cockpits on the Falcon, and later still from the war, certain jets were used for the look of the X-Wing. Instead of missles at the tips of the wings, there are laser cannons. It's surprising to see the Acclamator, however, from the documentary, it's very apparent that Lucas wanted to start showing the 'look' of Star Wars, therefore we have more angular ships. Why do I place so much blame on Chiang. Well, I've stated the differences, that should be enough, but the final straw one day came in my Star Wars Insider interview with him. He said when he first watched ANH in theaters, he immediately upon getting home, drew and 'improved' upon the XWings design. Moron from a young age, wow, and we see the improvement quite well don't we.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... er/eu.html

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-03-25 12:05am

Well then, with tha I think its official. TPM designs suck. Case closed.

AOTC had cool designs I thought, though. The Jedi Starfighter and Acclamator obviously hearken back to the OT. The LAAT seems to be functional for most purposes. The AT-TE, although limited by height, at lest has guns in the back! I thought the SPAH-T was dumb though. But I was definatley amused by the Techno Union ships, that blasted off like actual rockets. Definate homage to ages long past there.

But I'm with you on that last one. An N-1 is a piss poor substitute for an X-Wing.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-25 12:41am

I don't blame the Jedi for being skeptical that they were sending parade toys starfighters against a massive, well-shielded, well-armored carrier/troopship.

As much of a whacko Bob Brown could be, he was right about how TPM should have ended.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-25 12:45am

Right, now while I really enjoy TPM, much to the contrary of everyone else, Lucas may have looked at it see his past mistakes. One thing you'll note is the choice of titles for Episode II. Lucas makes the remark that 'Attack of the Clones' harkens back to early sci fi flicks that was just a part of the inspiration for Star Wars. So, the Techno Union ships fire off like standard rockets. Lucas seemed to have more of a direct/indirect control scheme going. In TPM, he might have headed everything, but it seems he didn't tighten his own reigns, much less have people who question him well enough. Here in Episode II he gets more hands on, plus he is aided by Jonathan Hale in script writing. Also, a more direct control 'Wedgie it out' in designs. There was a major difference. While AotC has the same feel as TPM, it seems to have gained a major advantage. Which if done correctly, means Ep III will benefit even more from this.