Star Wars #7 Character Details

[YJ02]

It has nothing to do with it being a "cartoon"-if CW's and the new Rebels are "cartoons" in the way you (OM1) are thinking then so is just about every other movie that has heavy CGI

These are no cartoons that you sit little kids in front of to sip on their bottle. I would say that CW's and the new show should only be for kids 10 and up and at least monitored by a parent

There is violence and lightsaber decapitations, etc-stuff that you do not see in Daffy Duck or the Flintstones

I think they do these series in this format as a money saving method vs live action

 

[Overmind One]

It has nothing to do with it being a "cartoon"-if CW's and the new Rebels are "cartoons" in the way you (OM1) are thinking then so is just about every other movie that has heavy CGI

These are no cartoons that you sit little kids in front of to sip on their bottle. I would say that CW's and the new show should only be for kids 10 and up and at least monitored by a parent

There is violence and lightsaber decapitations, etc-stuff that you do not see in Daffy Duck or the Flintstones

I think they do these series in this format as a money saving method vs live action

I guess this is a Star Wars fan thing. I always loved Trek more than Star Wars and I always considered it much less sophisticated than Trek. Not only that, it is in the fantasy genre and not the science fiction genre. I dont hate cartoons or fantasy, but to me all cartoons belong in a different category than live action films. I dont doubt that these cartoons may have adult themes, but the vast majority of cartoons do not, and are made for children.

I guess the only way to see if I like them is to watch them, right?

 

[Gatefan1976]

I guess this is a Star Wars fan thing. I always loved Trek more than Star Wars and I always considered it much less sophisticated than Trek. Not only that, it is in the fantasy genre and not the science fiction genre. I dont hate cartoons or fantasy, but to me all cartoons belong in a different category than live action films. I dont doubt that these cartoons may have adult themes, but the vast majority of cartoons do not, and are made for children.

They are in a separate category, animated movies.

I guess the only way to see if I like them is to watch them, right?

Yup

 

[Overmind One]

They are in a separate category, animated movies.

Yup

I will watch it then. I enjoyed Neon Genesis Evangelion, and I was addicted to Speed Racer and Kimba and Jonny Quest when I was a kid, so how bad can it be?

 

[Gatefan1976]

I think TWC is better than NG:E, it's far more epic in scope, more like Robotech in it's arcs and complexity.

 

[mzzz]

Actually, no. Your adjustments dont fly. Things that happen in a (well written) scifi universe MUST follow the laws of physics and rules of known science, even if that science is theoretical, this is why I hated the introduction of Q into TNG and Voyager. cartoon characters have NO element of reality in them. Even if they animate a known locale or a known person, it still is not anywhere near a real life depiction. Even the silliest real life show is still more real than any cartoon.

This will never happen to me:

View attachment 29288

hahaha, things in most scifi universes DON'T follow the laws of physics and rules of known science. There are so many violations on so many levels. Most scifi just use science buzzwords rather than adhere to the laws of physics. I think you just have an inherent bias against cartoons due to the fact the beings in cartoons have no 'flesh and blood' and NOT that they have no element of reality in them. There's more to "elements of reality" than just 'flesh and blood'. I've watched cartoons with better portrayal of elements of reality than real life shows.

And there are genres in cartoons, Looney Tunes is not within the same genre as Batman the Animated Series. The way you seem to word things seems to suggest you categorize all cartoons in one grouping.

 

[Overmind One]

hahaha, things in most scifi universes DON'T follow the laws of physics and rules of known science. There are so many violations on so many levels. Most scifi just use science buzzwords rather than adhere to the laws of physics. I think you just have an inherent bias against cartoons due to the fact the beings in cartoons have no 'flesh and blood' and NOT that they have no element of reality in them. There's more to "elements of reality" than just 'flesh and blood'. I've watched cartoons with better portrayal of elements of reality than real life shows.

And there are genres in cartoons, Looney Tunes is not within the same genre as Batman the Animated Series. The way you seem to word things seems to suggest you categorize all cartoons in one grouping.

Nothing is perfect, but Star Wars, for instance, makers absolutely no pretenses of having science. And neither do the two movies from NuTrrk. But old Trek from the TNG era had it in spades. Stargate had it as well, albeit both stretched the limits of science theory a lot. At the very least, things in real life need flesh and blood. I cannot put myself in a cartoon world in a serious fashion. But I can have fun watching them. I guess it is because I associate cartoons with my nephew. I dont think I would have enjoyed a movie like The Avengers if it were a cartoon (animated) movie. My little nitpicking of which characters should be in those films is just a personal preference.

But yeah, I do still put cartoons and anime and to some degree, CGI movies like Toy Story into a box based purely on the medium and not the content. I will watch Clone Wars just based on the recommendations I got here.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Nothing is perfect, but Star Wars, for instance, makers absolutely no pretenses of having science.

I still don't get why you say that. The only difference I see between Trek and SW from a science perspective is that Trek tries to explain it's bullshit rationally. There is no explanation in SW why Hyperspace works, but there is plenty in trek that tries to explain how warp drives do.
Does Trek try harder to "make science sense"?
Sure.

And neither do the two movies from NuTrrk. But old Trek from the TNG era had it in spades. Stargate had it as well, albeit both stretched the limits of science theory a lot. At the very least, things in real life need flesh and blood. I cannot put myself in a cartoon world in a serious fashion. But I can have fun watching them. I guess it is because I associate cartoons with my nephew.

Why??
Why associate animated stuff with "just for kids"?
Again, watch something like "brave" and forget the notion that it is delivered in a CGI manner, but the *story*
I bet your opinion is exactly the same as when TV first came into being and stage actors went "what is this bullshit, you need a stage, an audience and a direct connection to people to be real entertainment"
It's out dated dude.

I dont think I would have enjoyed a movie like The Avengers if it were a cartoon (animated) movie.

Try the series "the Avengers: Earths mightiest Hero's"

My little nitpicking of which characters should be in those films is just a personal preference.

Sure, and that's perfectly fine. I just feel that you cut yourself off from a lot of brilliant material because you just don't take the method of delivery of a *story* seriously.

But yeah, I do still put cartoons and anime and to some degree, CGI movies like Toy Story into a box based purely on the medium and not the content. I will watch Clone Wars just based on the recommendations I got here.

forget the medium, concentrate on content.
Should I wipe Farscape as a show because it has muppets??
Hell NO.
Stargate for it's use of animatronic characters?
Star Trek because it has prosthetics??
Bab 5 cause it has some CGI??

By such standards, Eureka is probably the most consistantly realistic sci-fi series.

 

[YJ02]

I will watch it then. I enjoyed Neon Genesis Evangelion, and I was addicted to Speed Racer and Kimba and Jonny Quest when I was a kid, so how bad can it be?

I know speed racer, not the others, but IMO both SW "cartoons" are a bit above speed racer. though on the other hand, one must remember that when we were kids we were a bit better educated and less simplistic then today's youth (they excel in adapting to tech use but are falling behind in the common place and basic ed stuff)

there was another Japanese english lang cartoon I remember from back then, it was geared towards young teens- it was called battle of the planets. It was plot heavy and one ep connected to the other in theme--a far cry from Bugs and Speedy Gonzales

 

[YJ02]

Rumors of "ghosts" in Ep 7

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/5-star-wars-episode-vii-rumors-to-start-out-the-new-year.html/6/

 

[Gatefan1976]

Force spirits??

Interesting, they focus on the LS ones, and sorta mention the DS ones in passing, yet in the EU of SW, dark side ghosts are far more prevalent, and dangerous.

 

[Overmind One]

Force spirits??

Interesting, they focus on the LS ones, and sorta mention the DS ones in passing, yet in the EU of SW, dark side ghosts are far more prevalent, and dangerous.

So, there must be Sith spirits too right? Or only the "good" Jedi can come back as a spirit?...... SPIRITS?

 

[Gatefan1976]

View attachment 29293

So, there must be Sith spirits too right? Or only the "good" Jedi can come back as a spirit?...... SPIRITS?

I just said that dude

I know, you see them as "magic ghosties", but that's a little too simple. if you accept the premise that the force is a "universal energy field", then does it not make a certain sense that those who were more in tune with it can exist as an "echo"??
I mean, we have no real issues with the scifi concept of consciousness transference if we have a technological object to facilitate such a thing, so why is it so different to cut that object out?
In a way, they don't even cut that object out, they change it to a person (Luke seeing Yoda, Ben and Aniken, but the only one who can), or Sith spirits being tied to their temples and such.

 

[Overmind One]

I just said that dude

I know, you see them as "magic ghosties", but that's a little too simple. if you accept the premise that the force is a "universal energy field", then does it not make a certain sense that those who were more in tune with it can exist as an "echo"??
I mean, we have no real issues with the scifi concept of consciousness transference if we have a technological object to facilitate such a thing, so why is it so different to cut that object out?
In a way, they don't even cut that object out, they change it to a person (Luke seeing Yoda, Ben and Aniken, but the only one who can), or Sith spirits being tied to their temples and such.

I guess the Jedi robes also have this ability? Anakin's spirit even got to change clothes when he became a spirit. Neat trick! Star Wars is not science fiction...it is fantasy. But that is not necessarily a bad thing, it just needs to be stated...for the record.

 

[Overmind One]

I still don't get why you say that. The only difference I see between Trek and SW from a science perspective is that Trek tries to explain it's bullshit rationally. There is no explanation in SW why Hyperspace works, but there is plenty in trek that tries to explain how warp drives do.
Does Trek try harder to "make science sense"?

Star Wars is not science fiction...not even remotely close. If you cannot see the huge differences between fantasy done in space and science fiction, then the marketers have done what they intended to do for the part of the audience you belong to. No science can explain a light saber. And why would anyone choose to use such a weapon if there are blasters? Oh, that's right...if you are a magical Jedi, you only need a light saber to defeat dozens of enemies. Jedi mind tricks? Robes and palaces? COME ON!

Why??
Why associate animated stuff with "just for kids"?
Again, watch something like "brave" and forget the notion that it is delivered in a CGI manner, but the *story*
I bet your opinion is exactly the same as when TV first came into being and stage actors went "what is this bullshit, you need a stage, an audience and a direct connection to people to be real entertainment"
It's out dated dude.

Most adults do, ya know. . My nephew loves cartoons, and perhaps the only reason I see them as being for children is because I only watch them when my nephew is visiting? The medium of animated cartoons was invented for children, not adults. The vast majority of children's programming is cartoons. The vast majority of cartoons made are made for children. That is probably why.

Try the series "the Avengers: Earths mightiest Hero's"

Sure, and that's perfectly fine. I just feel that you cut yourself off from a lot of brilliant material because you just don't take the method of delivery of a *story* seriously.

Sure, I can do that. I just had to be told that it has adult content first.

forget the medium, concentrate on content.
Should I wipe Farscape as a show because it has muppets??
Hell NO.
Stargate for it's use of animatronic characters?
Star Trek because it has prosthetics??
Bab 5 cause it has some CGI??

All of those shows are live action at the core, with elements of animation added. Big difference than a completely animated world. I cant ever feel a sense of visual awe in an animated medium. CGI can do it, because it looks absolutely real when done right. But you cant make a cartoon that real. And it gets worse when the characters look cartoonish, like if they have huge eyes or have some weird cartoon mascot tagging along after it (like Pikachu). Im not saying these things are bad, but I am saying they are very severely separate.

By such standards, Eureka is probably the most consistantly realistic sci-fi series.

Eureka has time travel at the core of the show, and it traveled in the wrong direction (to the past). I like Continuum better.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I guess the Jedi robes also have this ability? Anakin's spirit even got to change clothes when he became a spirit. Neat trick!

Spirits are a reflection of the person they are reflecting, Anakin felt that the robes of a Jedi, a return to the light more accurately reflected his state of being, big deal

Star Wars is not science fiction...it is fantasy. But that is not necessarily a bad thing, it just needs to be stated...for the record.

It shares more in common with fantasy, very true. I do not believe I have said otherwise. It ALSO shares elements of scifi. places like Corusant, spaceships, droids, blasters are definitely in the realm of scifi.

 

[Overmind One]

Spirits are a reflection of the person they are reflecting, Anakin felt that the robes of a Jedi, a return to the light more accurately reflected his state of being, big deal

It shares more in common with fantasy, very true. I do not believe I have said otherwise. It ALSO shares elements of scifi. places like Corusant, spaceships, droids, blasters are definitely in the realm of scifi.

That actually describes a visual appearance, not any science. But I do like the way they explain why Corusant is covered with infrastructure. The droids and spaceships are cool looking, but not scientifically sound. Droids in coffee shops saying things like "You want a cup of Joe?", or security droids armed with blasters who randomly say "Roger Roger" and stand there to be slaughtered.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Star Wars is not science fiction...not even remotely close. If you cannot see the huge differences between fantasy done in space and science fiction, then the marketers have done what they intended to do for the part of the audience you belong to.

The audience *I* belong to??
ROFLMFAO!!!!
You mean the audience that can accept the internal logic of a series?
Perhaps if you really were a Vulcan with the ability to meld with me, or a Betazoid who could sense my emotions, you could see how............ stupid I find that perception.
Hang on, they are "magic abilities", so much for the scifi "purity" of Trek.

No science can explain a light saber. And why would anyone choose to use such a weapon if there are blasters? Oh, that's right...if you are a magical Jedi, you only need a light saber to defeat dozens of enemies. Jedi mind tricks? Robes and palaces? COME ON!

Yes, cause every man and his monkey runs around with a light sabre in SW....................
They are a force sensitive weapon because they require more than "point and shoot". Do Jedi fall under the blanket of "mystical", sure. why is that such a bad thing to have in a scifi setting?

Most adults do, ya know. .

Really??
Poll this forum.

My nephew loves cartoons, and perhaps the only reason I see them as being for children is because I only watch them when my nephew is visiting? The medium of animated cartoons was invented for children, not adults. The vast majority of children's programming is cartoons. The vast majority of cartoons made are made for children. That is probably why.

So what??
Here is a thought, EXPAND your viewpoint, rather that tie it to some outdated concept of what animation is, cause that's what it was when YOU were a kid. I am always, ALWAYS astounded with the depth of subject matter in some "cartoons" or "animated movies", Things like UP which challenge us to live our dreams no matter how old we are. Moral questions presented in stuff like Trigun about just because we have power, do we have a right to impose it on others, The value of fighting for our beliefs, despite overwealming odds.
These are THEMES, that travel across all genre's, and to ignore a story, just because it is presented in animated format seems.......... silly to me.

Sure, I can do that. I just had to be told that it has adult content first.

Most things have some value to adults.

All of those shows are live action at the core, with elements of animation added. Big difference than a completely animated world. I cant ever feel a sense of visual awe in an animated medium. CGI can do it, because it looks absolutely real when done right. But you cant make a cartoon that real. And it gets worse when the characters look cartoonish, like if they have huge eyes or have some weird cartoon mascot tagging along after it (like Pikachu). Im not saying these things are bad, but I am saying they are very severely separate.

That's Japanime, not western animation, don't even try to compare the two.

Eureka has time travel at the core of the show, and it traveled in the wrong direction (to the past). I like Continuum better.

Dafuq??
Continuum travelled to the past as well from it's start point.

 

[Gatefan1976]

That actually describes a visual appearance, not any science. But I do like the way they explain why Corusant is covered with infrastructure. The droids and spaceships are cool looking, but not scientifically sound.

HOW??
How are they not scifi sound??

Droids in coffee shops saying things like "You want a cup of Joe?",

That's the stupid choice of language, but do you find the idea of replacing service staff with droids "non-scifi"??

or security droids armed with blasters who randomly say "Roger Roger" and stand there to be slaughtered.

They are not security droids, they are dumb grunts. Do you see Droid destroyers, or General Grevious and his guards say that??
They are mass produced, dumbass droids, not Data or Lore.

 

[YJ02]

I just said that dude

I know, you see them as "magic ghosties", but that's a little too simple. if you accept the premise that the force is a "universal energy field", then does it not make a certain sense that those who were more in tune with it can exist as an "echo"??
I mean, we have no real issues with the scifi concept of consciousness transference if we have a technological object to facilitate such a thing, so why is it so different to cut that object out?
In a way, they don't even cut that object out, they change it to a person (Luke seeing Yoda, Ben and Aniken, but the only one who can), or Sith spirits being tied to their temples and such.

Was it a Sith spirit that impregnated Anakin's mom? For some reason I always tune out during that part of the film.