Space Slug scene in The Empire...

[Lt. Trull]

I think han knew creatures like that inhabited places like that tunnel.... but he never expected to ever to run into one like that...

 

[sidious618]

Star Wars is a fairy tale. To question it's science is a meaningless endeavor.

 

[Beagleman]

This doesn't really explain it, but it's a fun read: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Exogorth

I love that site. I could waste hours and hours there and it's all just completely useless information...

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Star Wars is a fairy tale. To question it's science is a meaningless endeavor.

If it's a fairy tale, to question it is science is not a meaningless endeavor. Unless you meant "its".

 

[exodus]

Star Wars is a fairy tale. To question it's science is a meaningless endeavor.

True.

 

[FordSVT]

Star Wars is a fairy tale. To question it's science is a meaningless endeavor.

True.

There's an entire forum on this board dedicated to a similarly meaningless endeavour.

It's fiction, there is very little productivity to be had by discussing any of it at all, so it's a little odd to bother pointing out the obvious in order to stifle conversation.

 

[exodus]

Star Wars is a fairy tale. To question it's science is a meaningless endeavor.

True.

There's an entire forum on this board dedicated to a similarly meaningless endeavour.

It's fiction, there is very little productivity to be had by discussing any of it at all, so it's a little odd to bother pointing out the obvious in order to stifle conversation.

I doubt very much agreeing with one of my fellow posters is going to stifle this thread. Folks are going to talk about what they choose regardless of my opinions. It's not like I haven't agreed on points you've made in the past that have pointed out the obvious as well.

 

[Set Harth]

They flew in from the other side?

Yes, they went in the butt.

 

[JonathonWally]

Star Wars is a fairy tale. To question it's science is a meaningless endeavor.

True.

There's an entire forum on this board dedicated to a similarly meaningless endeavour.

It's fiction, there is very little productivity to be had by discussing any of it at all, so it's a little odd to bother pointing out the obvious in order to stifle conversation.

I think it's more of them pointing out that Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.

 

[I Grok Spock]

The space slug annoyed me even at 11 years old.

What does it eat? A species really evolved to hide on asteroids and wait for the one in a Google chance that a spaceship will land in its mouth?

What did it eat to get that big?

Silly space slug.

I had the same questions.

Yeah, it crossed my mind too.

But screw the slug, how is it that Our Heroes are surprised by an asteroid field that's like 5 minutes from Hoth? Uh, didn't they see it on the way in?

 

[FordSVT]

True.

There's an entire forum on this board dedicated to a similarly meaningless endeavour.

It's fiction, there is very little productivity to be had by discussing any of it at all, so it's a little odd to bother pointing out the obvious in order to stifle conversation.

I think it's more of them pointing out that Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.

Star Trek isn't exactly hard-core sci-fi.

 

[JonathonWally]

There's an entire forum on this board dedicated to a similarly meaningless endeavour.

It's fiction, there is very little productivity to be had by discussing any of it at all, so it's a little odd to bother pointing out the obvious in order to stifle conversation.

I think it's more of them pointing out that Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.

Star Trek isn't exactly hard-core sci-fi.

Hardcore or not, Trek is scifi, Star Wars is pure fantasy in a space traveling futuristic setting.

Did Star Wars ever try to explain how any of it's tech was possible? I don't remember them doing that at all.

Just about everything works because of either "magic" or crystals.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Hardcore or not, Trek is scifi, Star Wars is pure fantasy in a space traveling futuristic setting.

Yeah, it's space opera.

 

[FordSVT]

I think it's more of them pointing out that Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.

Star Trek isn't exactly hard-core sci-fi.

Hardcore or not, Trek is scifi, Star Wars is pure fantasy in a space traveling futuristic setting.

Did Star Wars ever try to explain how any of it's tech was possible? I don't remember them doing that at all.

Just about everything works because of either "magic" or crystals.

I really do get what you're saying, and this is a very old debate at this juncture, but how does artificial gravity work in Trek? How do the shield projectors work? How do force fields work? How do phasers work and what the hell is a "phased nadion"?

Other than the fact that Warp Drive somewhat resembles the Alcubierre warp drive, photon torpedoes annihilate matter and anti-matter (we know that would basically work), and the transporters work (somehow) with a Heisenberg compensator (which is a nice nod to physics I guess), very little about Star Trek has anything to do with science. It's people gallivanting around in a plot-driven ship doing plot-driven things and spouting nearly meaningless tecnobabble as they fight implausible and usually very human-like aliens. The vast majority of "explaining" is done outside of canon, in things like the Technical manuals and the novels, and Star Wars does the same thing.

Is the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy really just "they tried to explain how a few things work on screen?". I don't think so. They're both speculative fiction and there is a lot of overlap between sci-fi and fantasy, and neither of these properties are 100% one or the other. Trek contains some very fantastical elements as well.

 

[JonathonWally]

Star Trek isn't exactly hard-core sci-fi.

Hardcore or not, Trek is scifi, Star Wars is pure fantasy in a space traveling futuristic setting.

Did Star Wars ever try to explain how any of it's tech was possible? I don't remember them doing that at all.

Just about everything works because of either "magic" or crystals.

I really do get what you're saying, and this is a very old debate at this juncture, but how does artificial gravity work in Trek? How do the shield projectors work? How do force fields work? How do phasers work and what the hell is a "phased nadion"?

Other than the fact that Warp Drive somewhat resembles the Alcubierre warp drive, photon torpedoes annihilate matter and anti-matter (we know that would basically work), and the transporters work (somehow) with a Heisenberg compensator (which is a nice nod to physics I guess), very little about Star Trek has anything to do with science. It's people gallivanting around in a plot-driven ship doing plot-driven things and spouting nearly meaningless tecnobabble as they fight implausible and usually very human-like aliens. The vast majority of "explaining" is done outside of canon, in things like the Technical manuals and the novels, and Star Wars does the same thing.

Is the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy really just "they tried to explain how a few things work on screen?". I don't think so. They're both speculative fiction and there is a lot of overlap between sci-fi and fantasy, and neither of these properties are 100% one or the other. Trek contains some very fantastical elements as well.

Well, now that you've steered this discussion way off topic into some debate you wish to have, have fun with it, I don't care about Star Trek.

 

[Lt. Trull]

there's one or two bit's of evidence that trek is not just scifi.... they've teleportated light from one spot to another....
just think of what they'll do in 2 or 3 hundred years... then theirs the padd's (pc tablets)... medical scanners... I've seen scanners for environmental hazards...

show me a working bit of star wars tech and I'll believe it's more then fantasy...

 

[exodus]

Hardcore or not, Trek is scifi, Star Wars is pure fantasy in a space traveling futuristic setting.

Did Star Wars ever try to explain how any of it's tech was possible? I don't remember them doing that at all.

Just about everything works because of either "magic" or crystals.

I really do get what you're saying, and this is a very old debate at this juncture, but how does artificial gravity work in Trek? How do the shield projectors work? How do force fields work? How do phasers work and what the hell is a "phased nadion"?

Other than the fact that Warp Drive somewhat resembles the Alcubierre warp drive, photon torpedoes annihilate matter and anti-matter (we know that would basically work), and the transporters work (somehow) with a Heisenberg compensator (which is a nice nod to physics I guess), very little about Star Trek has anything to do with science. It's people gallivanting around in a plot-driven ship doing plot-driven things and spouting nearly meaningless tecnobabble as they fight implausible and usually very human-like aliens. The vast majority of "explaining" is done outside of canon, in things like the Technical manuals and the novels, and Star Wars does the same thing.

Is the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy really just "they tried to explain how a few things work on screen?". I don't think so. They're both speculative fiction and there is a lot of overlap between sci-fi and fantasy, and neither of these properties are 100% one or the other. Trek contains some very fantastical elements as well.

Well, now that you've steered this discussion way off topic into some debate you wish to have, have fun with it, I don't care about Star Trek.

I'm just amazed that all this started & I was called into question for simpling agreeing with a fellow poster.

 

[sojourner]

there's one or two bit's of evidence that trek is not just scifi.... they've teleportated light from one spot to another....
just think of what they'll do in 2 or 3 hundred years... then theirs the padd's (pc tablets)... medical scanners... I've seen scanners for environmental hazards...

show me a working bit of star wars tech and I'll believe it's more then fantasy...

Close enough to upset Lucas:

http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/S3_Spyder_Arctic-96-37.html

 

[FordSVT]

Hardcore or not, Trek is scifi, Star Wars is pure fantasy in a space traveling futuristic setting.

Did Star Wars ever try to explain how any of it's tech was possible? I don't remember them doing that at all.

Just about everything works because of either "magic" or crystals.

I really do get what you're saying, and this is a very old debate at this juncture, but how does artificial gravity work in Trek? How do the shield projectors work? How do force fields work? How do phasers work and what the hell is a "phased nadion"?

Other than the fact that Warp Drive somewhat resembles the Alcubierre warp drive, photon torpedoes annihilate matter and anti-matter (we know that would basically work), and the transporters work (somehow) with a Heisenberg compensator (which is a nice nod to physics I guess), very little about Star Trek has anything to do with science. It's people gallivanting around in a plot-driven ship doing plot-driven things and spouting nearly meaningless tecnobabble as they fight implausible and usually very human-like aliens. The vast majority of "explaining" is done outside of canon, in things like the Technical manuals and the novels, and Star Wars does the same thing.

Is the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy really just "they tried to explain how a few things work on screen?". I don't think so. They're both speculative fiction and there is a lot of overlap between sci-fi and fantasy, and neither of these properties are 100% one or the other. Trek contains some very fantastical elements as well.

Well, now that you've steered this discussion way off topic into some debate you wish to have, have fun with it, I don't care about Star Trek.

You're right, how dare I say something slightly off-topic and mention science in Trek when we're talking about science in Star Wars.

I wasn't arguing with anyone, stop being so touchy. And you don't like Star Trek? WTF are you on this board in the first place for?