Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8794573" data-attributes="member: 4937">I disagree that this is the problem you claim, but even more so that even if you were to make this argument convincing that this was any proof at all of Star Wars tech being analogous to 1940's tech - which is your original claim.The clunky design is not an attempt to mimic 1940's tech, but is the result of prioritizing artistic appearance over form.&nbsp; AT-AT's are definitely not WW2 tanks, clunky mechas though they may be.&nbsp;&nbsp; But like all mecha, they definitely look cool.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Millennium Falcon may have a terrible shape for a freighter, but it definitely looks cool on screen.&nbsp;&nbsp; Weapon systems in the Prequels are all over the place, drawing from basically every period of human history and adding fantasy elements in many cases.&nbsp; The visual precedence for the battle on Naboo is probably Spartacus and not Battle of the Bulge.&nbsp; Indeed, the whole movie 'The Phantom Menace' is heavily inspired by &quot;Swords and Sandals&quot; especially Ben Hur, Cleopatra, and Spartacus.&nbsp;&nbsp; Again, Star Wars the movies are trying to make the visual presentation unique and compelling.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the tech level being 1940s and especially in &quot;every other respect&quot;.And heck, you are going to have this problem even in movie presentations of 1940's tech.&nbsp; &quot;Fury&quot; and it's presentation of WWII tank combat is not realistic, but the ways in which it is not realistic are designed to make the presentation more visually appealing and relatable to the non-technical audience.&nbsp;&nbsp; The same is true in many ways to (don't laugh) &quot;Girls und Panzers&quot;, which while it massively more realistic than &quot;Fury&quot; in some aspects - consider the detail it goes into explaining to the audience how to aim a tank gun and engage an enemy tank at realistic ranges - but also has those tanks move around with the agility and speed of rally cars to make for more visually impressive combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8794573, member: 4937"] I disagree that this is the problem you claim, but even more so that even if you were to make this argument convincing that this was any proof at all of Star Wars tech being analogous to 1940's tech - which is your original claim. The clunky design is not an attempt to mimic 1940's tech, but is the result of prioritizing artistic appearance over form. AT-AT's are definitely not WW2 tanks, clunky mechas though they may be. But like all mecha, they definitely look cool. The Millennium Falcon may have a terrible shape for a freighter, but it definitely looks cool on screen. Weapon systems in the Prequels are all over the place, drawing from basically every period of human history and adding fantasy elements in many cases. The visual precedence for the battle on Naboo is probably Spartacus and not Battle of the Bulge. Indeed, the whole movie 'The Phantom Menace' is heavily inspired by "Swords and Sandals" especially Ben Hur, Cleopatra, and Spartacus. Again, Star Wars the movies are trying to make the visual presentation unique and compelling. It has nothing to do with the tech level being 1940s and especially in "every other respect". And heck, you are going to have this problem even in movie presentations of 1940's tech. "Fury" and it's presentation of WWII tank combat is not realistic, but the ways in which it is not realistic are designed to make the presentation more visually appealing and relatable to the non-technical audience. The same is true in many ways to (don't laugh) "Girls und Panzers", which while it massively more realistic than "Fury" in some aspects - consider the detail it goes into explaining to the audience how to aim a tank gun and engage an enemy tank at realistic ranges - but also has those tanks move around with the agility and speed of rally cars to make for more visually impressive combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification