PDA

View Full Version : Were the X Wing and Y wing fighters a follow on from the Spitfires B wing and E wing?



Xiolablu3
04-11-2006, 07:59 AM
I was just wondering , a lot of the Empires guns in star wars remind you of GErman types, and the Empire has a whole 'Third Reich' feel about it.

Do you guys think the X wing and Y wing were influenced by the Spitfires wing types?

G*y question I know, but just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
04-11-2006, 07:59 AM
I was just wondering , a lot of the Empires guns in star wars remind you of GErman types, and the Empire has a whole 'Third Reich' feel about it.

Do you guys think the X wing and Y wing were influenced by the Spitfires wing types?

G*y question I know, but just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
04-11-2006, 08:23 AM
Errr...neither the X or Y wing has an eliptical shape that bears any resemblance at all to a Spit's wing, clipped or not

The angluar wing of the 109 E is more akin to the X-wing's shape, and the Y wing has no definable 'wing' as we know it

stathem
04-11-2006, 08:33 AM
Would that be the angular 109 E wing that looks a lot like a P-51s?

I ain't never seen an x-wing or a Y-wing so I wouldn't be able to help

Xiolablu3
04-11-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Errr...neither the X or Y wing has an eliptical shape that bears any resemblance at all to a Spit's wing, clipped or not

The angluar wing of the 109 E is more akin to the X-wing's shape, and the Y wing has no definable 'wing' as we know it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just meant the names, but ignore me its a gay question anyway, I was bored. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Chuck_Older
04-11-2006, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Would that be the angular 109 E wing that looks a lot like a P-51s?

I ain't never seen an x-wing or a Y-wing so I wouldn't be able to help </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the P-51 stole the Emil's wing, is that what you mean? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You've never seen an X wing or a Y wing, but you're online as well...

...hmmmm

RCAF_Irish_403
04-11-2006, 01:12 PM
X-Wings Go B'n"Z

TIE Fighters go T'n'B

Discuss

gates123
04-11-2006, 01:38 PM
ever notice the y-wing cockpit struts vs the BF-110 are almost identical?

D-Mentier
04-11-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
X-Wings Go B'n"Z

TIE Fighters go T'n'B

Discuss </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
THat would be kinda hard for x-wings. because as we all sure know Tie-fighters are 10% faster and theres no altitude advantage in space.

but it all does not matter because both x-wings and tie-fighters defy laws of physics.

WOLFMondo
04-11-2006, 01:49 PM
X-Wings have 4 .50 cals so they rock. Tie fighters have UBS so they don't.

StG2_Schlachter
04-11-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I was just wondering , a lot of the Empires guns in star wars remind you of GErman types, and the Empire has a whole 'Third Reich' feel about it.

Do you guys think the X wing and Y wing were influenced by the Spitfires wing types?

G*y question I know, but just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B-Wing:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/bwingstarfighter/img/movie_bg.jpg

E-Wing:
http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/70/news2/23282_1.jpg

fighter_966
04-11-2006, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by D-Mentier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
X-Wings Go B'n"Z

TIE Fighters go T'n'B

Discuss </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
THat would be kinda hard for x-wings. because as we all sure know Tie-fighters are 10% faster and theres no altitude advantage in space.

but it all does not matter because both x-wings and tie-fighters defy laws of physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
May be you have track? PS May force be with you!

RCAF_Irish_403
04-11-2006, 03:27 PM
Specs from starwars.com


X-Wing
Size:
12.5 meters long

Manufacturer:
Incom Corporation

Type:
Starfighter

Weapon:
Laser cannons, proton torpedoes

Affiliation:
Rebel Alliance

Associations:
Antilles, Wedge
Darklighter, Biggs (Red Three)
Durron, Kyp
Horn, Corran
Janson, Lieutenant Wes
Klivian, Derek "Hobbie" (Rogue Four)
Porkins, Jek (Red Six)
R2-D2 (Artoo-Detoo)
Red Leader
Skywalker, Luke
Solo, Jaina






The Incom T-65 X-wing starfighter has become a symbol of the Rebellion's starfighter corps. Pressed into service time and again, the typical Alliance X-wing shows the scars from previous engagements, though the fact that it still performs as an advanced vessel of space superiority is indication of the ruggedness of the craft.
The sleek fuselage of the X-wing starfighter is 12.5 meters long. The long, narrow spaceframe is flanked in the aft quarter by four massive realspace engines. Each engine has an aerodynamic S-foil mounted on it. The wings not only serve as stabilizer surfaces in air travel, but also distribute deflector shield energy and serve as weapons mounts. The surface of each S-foil bears squadron and fighter markings.

Located midway through the ship is the X-wing's cockpit module. Behind the X-wing's cockpit is an astromech socket. The astromech droid provides astrogation data for the fighter's hyperdrives, and serves as a co-pilot and technician during flight. Three landing gears extend when the fighter is docked.


TIE Fighter






Size:
6.3 meters long

Manufacturer:
Sienar Fleet Systems

Type:
Starfighter

Weapon:
Laser cannons

Affiliation:
Empire

Associations:
TIE fighter pilots






Bursting from Imperial hangar bays in gnat-like clouds are the standard starfighters of the Imperial arsenal -- the Twin Ion Engine craft known as the TIE starfighter.
The single-seater short-range vessel lacks a hyperdrive, and as such requires deployment from launch bases and capital ships. It features two fire-linked laser cannons chin-mounted on the ball-shaped cockpit.

TIE fighters were typically employed en masse to make up for their shortcomings. Speedy and maneuverable, these fighters are nonetheless fragile. Though hard to hit, even a glancing blow can destroy a TIE.

Though TIEs presented a formidable challenge to pirates and civilian craft, the skilled pilots of the Rebel Alliance made short work of them in combat. The Alliance workhorse, the T-65 X-wing starfighter, continually bested the TIE in numerous engagements. As the Galactic Civil War raged on, the standard TIE arsenal was supplemented with more advanced and specialized craft, such as the fearsome TIE interceptor and the dedicated TIE bomber.

ploughman
04-11-2006, 03:34 PM
Oh. So now I know what TIE stands for.

LStarosta
04-11-2006, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Oh. So now I know what TIE stands for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn, I thought they were called TIE fighters coz of their shape!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

StG2_Schlachter
04-11-2006, 03:53 PM
That would be Tea Fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Grue_
04-11-2006, 03:54 PM
TIE fighter was way cooler than the X-Wing. And the ladies would have loved the TIE drivers uniform http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

What was the question?

JG5_UnKle
04-11-2006, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by D-Mentier:
but it all does not matter because both x-wings and tie-fighters defy laws of physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like Spits! Yay! Back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

wayno7777
04-11-2006, 08:06 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif A-Wings, baby....

Badsight.
04-12-2006, 01:45 AM
in the wild . . . . Spitfires actually Molt

they shed their ugly exo-skeleton at a young age to reveal the gracefull elliptical shape we all know & Love

.

.

.

.

.

.

here below is a picture of a wild juvenile Spitfire in the process of catching a meal . . .

as you can see this is a juvenile spitfire because it has yet to shed its exo-skeleton


.

.

.


http://server6.uploadit.org/files/clippa-thefarcebewithyou.jpg

Badsight.
04-12-2006, 01:54 AM
as you can see , using young , immature Seafires (navel spit) wasnt without its own problems


http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3613/xwingps7bw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

mature Spits were much less hassel & were generally preffered , which is the reason almost all Spitfire pictures from WW2 are mature , elliptical Spitfires . the above is quite rare

Akronnick
04-12-2006, 03:31 AM
I think the design of the X-Wing was influenced more by the look of the f-16 and f-18 and other jets. How many WWII planes had weapons mounted all the way out on their wingtips? but on modern jets, this is common. Now the Naboo fighter, that has Spitfire written all aver it...

StG2_Schlachter
04-12-2006, 05:09 AM
Hm, the F/A-18 wasn't in service until 1983.
The first Star Wars movie was created before 1977.

I don't know...

Xiolablu3
04-12-2006, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
as you can see , using young , immature Seafires (navel spit) wasnt without its own problems


http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3613/xwingps7bw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

mature Spits were much less hassel & were generally preffered , which is the reason almost all Spitfire pictures from WW2 are mature , elliptical Spitfires . the above is quite rare </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, That has got to be the best picture I have seen in a while. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
04-12-2006, 07:26 AM
Just to clarify, I just wondered if Lucas had got the idea of the ships from the Spitfires wing name. He was known to have used WW2 influenced things all thro Star Wars.

Such as the trench run was inspired by The Dambusters ('I count about *** guns, some on the damns some on the towers') and some of the rifles by MG42's etc which is easy to see.

I thought he may have continued the B,C and E wing of the Spitfires into the X wing and Y wing fighters.

The later B wing and E wing fighters dont count because they werent concieved until Return of the Jedi and therefore an afterthought and continuation of the X and Y wings.

But who cares anyway, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Enforcer572005
04-12-2006, 07:27 AM
yeah, that is way cool. I think ill make a print of that one and confuse people by putting it among other photos of AC. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Monty_Thrud
04-12-2006, 07:34 AM
Y'all need to lay off the crack...mmm-kay http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

stef51
04-12-2006, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I was just wondering , a lot of the Empires guns in star wars remind you of GErman types, and the Empire has a whole 'Third Reich' feel about it.

Do you guys think the X wing and Y wing were influenced by the Spitfires wing types?

G*y question I know, but just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More than a thought for me since I'm both a SW and WWII fighter fan... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Fun question.

Indeed there are a lot of similarity in Star Wars since basically it was the first time there was 'real' dogfights in space. Unfortunately there are not many things made official during that time. The old Bantha track magazine had some interesting infos about models yet I never found how they came up with those ships. It 'looked' like the Y-wings were the fighter bombers and the X-wings simply fighters. However, since both have torpedoes and seem to do well against Ties, it's difficult to apply one plane to them. One thing obvious is the Y-wings light turret gun. Seems like the fighter originaly was a 2 man ship but eventually the gunner was left out. So I imagine the fighter was some kind of Avenger but with fighter like capabilities.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For the A and B wings however, the name on the spec sheet for the model makers was 'A craft' and 'B craft'. They never tried to name them so at one point they had to choose something and it became what we know. No idea if they designed them according to the name since the B-wing is the only one who does not look like the letter B... More like some people are saying that it looks like a blade....

I sure would like to know how the names came out and what was the idea during construction. Those designers were quite imaginative during those days... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Stephen

Jungmann
04-12-2006, 12:08 PM
A typical goofy thread between patches, but...

There's some basis for it. Lucas was fascinated with WWII aerial combat from the time he was a kid, watching WWII documentaries on TV in Stockton, Ca. When he showed his friends his first cut of Star Wars, many of the optical effects weren't finished, specifically the Tie fighter combat sequences. To fill in the gaps, he cut in stock WWII gunfighter footage.

Cheers,

Kocur_
04-12-2006, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
and some of the rifles by MG42's etc which is easy to see.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did someone say guns? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Han Solo pistol was characterised Mauser C96 (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg90-e.htm), the big gun of Imperial troopers was uncharacterised MG-34 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg32-e.htm) and their 'rifle' was British Sterling (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg28-e.htm)smg with shortened magazine, electric cables put through holes in barrel shroud and half of field binoculars attached on top - reversed by 180deg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/276/sterlingblaster38wq.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sterlingblaster38wq.jpg)

Chuck_Older
04-12-2006, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just to clarify, I just wondered if Lucas had got the idea of the ships from the Spitfires wing name. He was known to have used WW2 influenced things all thro Star Wars.

Such as the trench run was inspired by The Dambusters ('I count about *** guns, some on the damns some on the towers') and some of the rifles by MG42's etc which is easy to see.

I thought he may have continued the B,C and E wing of the Spitfires into the X wing and Y wing fighters.

The later B wing and E wing fighters dont count because they werent concieved until Return of the Jedi and therefore an afterthought and continuation of the X and Y wings.

But who cares anyway, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I don't think he used the Spitfire's wing names to name the spaceships at all...

The X wing's "S" foils split to resemble the letter, "X". The Y wing's planform resembles a letter, "Y" when viewed from above or below

Those names, "X wing" and "Y wing" are nicknames anyway.

Friendly_flyer
04-12-2006, 01:30 PM
Why am I not at all suprised to find this forum full of Star Wars fans?

Oh, and I allways though the Y-wings where the coolest. Then again, I prefer to fly Beaufighter and Hurricane IIc...

ploughman
04-12-2006, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


Such as the trench run was inspired by The Dambusters ('I count about *** guns, some on the damns some on the towers') and some of the rifles by MG42's etc which is easy to see.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought they were MG 38s. But, much more interestingly the Imperial blasters as wielded by the nefarious stormtroopers are folding stock Sterling SMGs sans bananan clips, stocks folded.

http://stimpy68.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mp.jpg

BelaLvgosi
04-12-2006, 04:15 PM
P40 and Z-95 headhunter, discuss!

Xiolablu3
04-13-2006, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
and some of the rifles by MG42's etc which is easy to see.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did someone say guns? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Han Solo pistol was characterised Mauser C96 (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg90-e.htm), the big gun of Imperial troopers was uncharacterised MG-34 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg32-e.htm) and their 'rifle' was British Sterling (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg28-e.htm)smg with shortened magazine, electric cables put through holes in barrel shroud and half of field binoculars attached on top - reversed by 180deg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/276/sterlingblaster38wq.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sterlingblaster38wq.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lucas really was in his creative element when he made the first 3 films. That gun just looks, well, cool.

I think he got old when he started putting Stormtroopers on Dewback lizards in the films, and the Gungans are just NOT cool. I mean a cool, hard stormtrooper would NOT ride on the back of a dumb beast like that when he could have a fast landspeeder. I thought they just looked stupid.

Its like he lost it somewhere inbetween ROTJ and the Star Wars 'updated' editions of the first 3 films..

The thing that made the first 3 films so great was the creation of a believable world where people talked about things which you didnt have a clue what they were, like they had a whole life AWAY from the main plot.

('targeting womp rats in my T16', 'lock S foils in attack postion', 'moisture vapourators','R2 units' - all comments about the world they live in which we didnt even understand at the time, yet made the story that much more believable)

The last 3 films were all so fantasy as to be unbelievable in parts I thought, with no efforts to make the world more believable..

Maybe its just cos I saw the first 3 films at a young age (I was 10 when ROTJ came out), do any of you guys have similar opinons?

ploughman
04-13-2006, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its like he lost it somewhere inbetween ROTJ and the Star Wars 'updated' editions of the first 3 films.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lost it? The guy was abducted by aliens and had his brain replaced with a plant pot.

RCAF_Irish_403
04-13-2006, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
and some of the rifles by MG42's etc which is easy to see.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did someone say guns? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Han Solo pistol was characterised Mauser C96 (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg90-e.htm), the big gun of Imperial troopers was uncharacterised MG-34 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg32-e.htm) and their 'rifle' was British Sterling (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg28-e.htm)smg with shortened magazine, electric cables put through holes in barrel shroud and half of field binoculars attached on top - reversed by 180deg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/276/sterlingblaster38wq.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sterlingblaster38wq.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lucas really was in his creative element when he made the first 3 films. That gun just looks, well, cool.

I think he got old when he started putting Stormtroopers on Dewback lizards in the films, and the Gungans are just NOT cool. I mean a cool, hard stormtrooper would NOT ride on the back of a dumb beast like that when he could have a fast landspeeder. I thought they just looked stupid.

Its like he lost it somewhere inbetween ROTJ and the Star Wars 'updated' editions of the first 3 films..

The thing that made the first 3 films so great was the creation of a believable world where people talked about things which you didnt have a clue what they were, like they had a whole life AWAY from the main plot.

('targeting womp rats in my T16', 'lock S foils in attack postion', 'moisture vapourators','R2 units' - all comments about the world they live in which we didnt even understand at the time, yet made the story that much more believable)

The last 3 films were all so fantasy as to be unbelievable in parts I thought, with no efforts to make the world more believable..

Maybe its just cos I saw the first 3 films at a young age (I was 10 when ROTJ came out), do any of you guys have similar opinons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Revenge of the Sith was a good film. I share your concern about Gungans

D-Mentier
04-13-2006, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Revenge of the Sith was a good film. I share your concern about Gungans </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did anyone mention theese stupid little critters flyin hang-gliders in ROTJ - they just SUCK.

Chuck_Older
04-13-2006, 12:59 PM
Those little critters were "Ewoks", not Gungans

Initially Lucas had intended the 'little critters' to be Wookies, but the troubles with making the wookies look helpless when confronted by the Empire was problematic, since wookies are immensely strong and resilient, then there's the little problem with them already being a slave race, so the Empire was known to have subjagated their world- but yet the new Death Star was supposed to be constructed in secret, in a remote area of the galaxy

Kinda tough, making Kashyyk both unknown and well known at the same time, so the race became the faintly similar, but seemingly harmless, Ewoks, a primitive "little guy" and a huge underdog, that rose up to help defeat the Galactic Empire

Also, don't forget (many folks do) that even the initial three Star Wars films were not designed to be unappealing to children. Kids like furry cute stuff.

Sure, Ewoks 'suck' but at least there was a rhyme and reason for them. They provided some comic relief, and at least at the time (take it from me, in 1983 I had just turned 12 years old, so I was very clear on both the previous films. I distinctly remember seeing Star Wars and a second-run showing of Butch Cassidy and the SUndance Kid at the drive in when I was 6) Ewoks did not 'suck' for any fan of the film who were in the age group I was in. We all pretty much liked Chewbacca as a 'critter' much more than the Ewoks, but there was no disappointment or anger towrds Lucas for making Ewoks, at least in my area of the US, and I consider myself to have been smack dab in the middle of the intended audience at the time.

When I saw the other three films, especially the first one, I think I may have been the only adult in the theatre who realised that I was going to see essentially a kid's movie that adults could like. I loved it, I felt exactly the same as I did when I was six, seeing Star Wars for the first time, so to me, mission accomplished, time machines exist

D-Mentier
04-13-2006, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Those little critters were "Ewoks", not Gungans

Initially Lucas had intended the 'little critters' to be Wookies, but the troubles with making the wookies look helpless when confronted by the Empire was problematic, since wookies are immensely strong and resilient, then there's the little problem with them already being a slave race, so the Empire was known to have subjagated their world- but yet the new Death Star was supposed to be constructed in secret, in a remote area of the galaxy

Kinda tough, making Kashyyk both unknown and well known at the same time, so the race became the faintly similar, but seemingly harmless, Ewoks, a primitive "little guy" and a huge underdog, that rose up to help defeat the Galactic Empire

Also, don't forget (many folks do) that even the initial three Star Wars films were not designed to be unappealing to children. Kids like furry cute stuff.

Sure, Ewoks 'suck' but at least there was a rhyme and reason for them. They provided some comic relief, and at least at the time (take it from me, in 1983 I had just turned 12 years old, so I was very clear on both the previous films. I distinctly remember seeing Star Wars and a second-run showing of Butch Cassidy and the SUndance Kid at the drive in when I was 6) Ewoks did not 'suck' for any fan of the film who were in the age group I was in. We all pretty much liked Chewbacca as a 'critter' much more than the Ewoks, but there was no disappointment or anger towrds Lucas for making Ewoks, at least in my area of the US, and I consider myself to have been smack dab in the middle of the intended audience at the time.

When I saw the other three films, especially the first one, I think I may have been the only adult in the theatre who realised that I was going to see essentially a kid's movie that adults could like. I loved it, I felt exactly the same as I did when I was six, seeing Star Wars for the first time, so to me, mission accomplished, time machines exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah i know these are not gungans i just have a problem formulateing tze englisch sentencez.
I thought they were cool too when i was 9, but when i ve seen the movie for second time i thought that Lucas must have fallen on his head or something.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 01:06 PM
The thing that always amazes me is that a "A New Hope" features a shot of Luke's step-parent's flensed and scorched corpses smoldering in wind following their murder by Imperial troops and yet the film recieved a U in the UK making it suitable for children of all ages!

polak5
04-13-2006, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Those little critters were "Ewoks", not Gungans

Initially Lucas had intended the 'little critters' to be Wookies, but the troubles with making the wookies look helpless when confronted by the Empire was problematic, since wookies are immensely strong and resilient, then there's the little problem with them already being a slave race, so the Empire was known to have subjagated their world- but yet the new Death Star was supposed to be constructed in secret, in a remote area of the galaxy

Kinda tough, making Kashyyk both unknown and well known at the same time, so the race became the faintly similar, but seemingly harmless, Ewoks, a primitive "little guy" and a huge underdog, that rose up to help defeat the Galactic Empire

Also, don't forget (many folks do) that even the initial three Star Wars films were not designed to be unappealing to children. Kids like furry cute stuff.

Sure, Ewoks 'suck' but at least there was a rhyme and reason for them. They provided some comic relief, and at least at the time (take it from me, in 1983 I had just turned 12 years old, so I was very clear on both the previous films. I distinctly remember seeing Star Wars and a second-run showing of Butch Cassidy and the SUndance Kid at the drive in when I was 6) Ewoks did not 'suck' for any fan of the film who were in the age group I was in. We all pretty much liked Chewbacca as a 'critter' much more than the Ewoks, but there was no disappointment or anger towrds Lucas for making Ewoks, at least in my area of the US, and I consider myself to have been smack dab in the middle of the intended audience at the time.

When I saw the other three films, especially the first one, I think I may have been the only adult in the theatre who realised that I was going to see essentially a kid's movie that adults could like. I loved it, I felt exactly the same as I did when I was six, seeing Star Wars for the first time, so to me, mission accomplished, time machines exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sounds like u know ur stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
chuck_older: clashaholic
Jediholic
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Anyway.
Ive always seen the close relation between the movies and ww2 It is pretty obvious. Good versus evil in a far away galaxy, the "dark force" taking over, etc.. Makes me wonder if George Lucas is a big ww2 enthusiast, I believe his father was on the D-day landings maybe that is the reason.

RCAF_Irish_403
04-13-2006, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Those little critters were "Ewoks", not Gungans

Initially Lucas had intended the 'little critters' to be Wookies, but the troubles with making the wookies look helpless when confronted by the Empire was problematic, since wookies are immensely strong and resilient, then there's the little problem with them already being a slave race, so the Empire was known to have subjagated their world- but yet the new Death Star was supposed to be constructed in secret, in a remote area of the galaxy

Kinda tough, making Kashyyk both unknown and well known at the same time, so the race became the faintly similar, but seemingly harmless, Ewoks, a primitive "little guy" and a huge underdog, that rose up to help defeat the Galactic Empire

Also, don't forget (many folks do) that even the initial three Star Wars films were not designed to be unappealing to children. Kids like furry cute stuff.

Sure, Ewoks 'suck' but at least there was a rhyme and reason for them. They provided some comic relief, and at least at the time (take it from me, in 1983 I had just turned 12 years old, so I was very clear on both the previous films. I distinctly remember seeing Star Wars and a second-run showing of Butch Cassidy and the SUndance Kid at the drive in when I was 6) Ewoks did not 'suck' for any fan of the film who were in the age group I was in. We all pretty much liked Chewbacca as a 'critter' much more than the Ewoks, but there was no disappointment or anger towrds Lucas for making Ewoks, at least in my area of the US, and I consider myself to have been smack dab in the middle of the intended audience at the time.

When I saw the other three films, especially the first one, I think I may have been the only adult in the theatre who realised that I was going to see essentially a kid's movie that adults could like. I loved it, I felt exactly the same as I did when I was six, seeing Star Wars for the first time, so to me, mission accomplished, time machines exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sounds like u know ur stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
chuck_older: clashaholic
Jediholic
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Anyway.
Ive always seen the close relation between the movies and ww2 It is pretty obvious. Good versus evil in a far away galaxy, the "dark force" taking over, etc.. Makes me wonder if George Lucas is a big ww2 enthusiast, I believe his father was on the D-day landings maybe that is the reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lucas is a major history buff and WWII aviation enthusiast

RCAF_Irish_403
04-13-2006, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
The thing that always amazes me is that a "A New Hope" features a shot of Luke's step-parent's flensed and scorched corpses smoldering in wind following their murder by Imperial troops and yet the film recieved a U in the UK making it suitable for children of all ages! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MPAA is really only interested in sex and bad language.

Since the fried bodies of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru were not fornicating or cursing there was nothing objectionable

Chuck_Older
04-13-2006, 03:19 PM
Should I spill the beans and post that I know it's a Koensayr BLT-A4 and an Incom T-65 that we're talking about here?

Ooops

LStarosta
04-13-2006, 03:58 PM
I could go for a BLT right now...

Max.Power
04-13-2006, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
The thing that always amazes me is that a "A New Hope" features a shot of Luke's step-parent's flensed and scorched corpses smoldering in wind following their murder by Imperial troops and yet the film recieved a U in the UK making it suitable for children of all ages! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MPAA is really only interested in sex and bad language.

Since the fried bodies of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru were not fornicating or cursing there was nothing objectionable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe in the next remake! Keep your fingers crossed!

RCAF_Irish_403
04-14-2006, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Max.Power:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
The thing that always amazes me is that a "A New Hope" features a shot of Luke's step-parent's flensed and scorched corpses smoldering in wind following their murder by Imperial troops and yet the film recieved a U in the UK making it suitable for children of all ages! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MPAA is really only interested in sex and bad language.

Since the fried bodies of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru were not fornicating or cursing there was nothing objectionable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe in the next remake! Keep your fingers crossed! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!!!!
Revenge of the Sith got a PG13 rating (and it was deserved)
the film was violent and dark, but it never became cynical

RCAF_Irish_403
04-14-2006, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Should I spill the beans and post that I know it's a Koensayr BLT-A4 and an Incom T-65 that we're talking about here?

Ooops </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So BLT-A4 is the official designation for the TIE fighter? cool