hutchison66
Donator
Check out the new Star Wars Rogue One trailer its AWESOME
-
ORBITER-FORUM will be temporarily closed at 2026-07-23 18:00 UTC while we complete some OF maintenance tasks. The amount of downtime is expected to take up to one hour, but probably less.
New Star Wars movies confirmed (NO SPOILERS!)
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,813
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
Please be good...
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
+1
That 2 minute trailer is better than 90% of the last 4 Star Wars movies, so let's hope!
I didn't know Mads Mikkelson was in this film, that's a good sign.
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
They're doing an amazing job in the trailers with the shots building up the Death Star's astronomical size.
Except that, unless they're retconning the Death Star I's size to be rather larger than it was originally (or the planet it's orbiting is absurdly tiny), they've got it all wrong.
The Death Star I was 120km in diameter (source), so if it was orbiting Earth at just the edge of space directly overhead (so 160km above the surface, given the Karman line at 100km), it would indeed be quite imposing, filling 41 degrees of the sky (source). 41 degrees is about a quarter of the way from one horizon to the other, so to imagine how it would look, point one arm straight up and the other straight out to your side. Now move your arm that's out to the side so it's halfway from where it was to straight up, and then move it again so it's halfway from there to straight up. Now move your straight-up arm so it's at the same angle on the other side. The Death Star would fill that space, approximately.
Or, even simpler, imagine holding a large (16" diameter) pizza at arm's length above your head--that's about what the Death Star would look like. Except less tasty.
So, sure, the shot in the trailer at 60seconds seems like it could be 41 degrees or less, so it's accurate, right?
Not quite.
Notice that the death star in the image is not directly overhead. It is, in fact, more than halfway below the horizon. So, it has to be farther away--a lot farther away.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume it's still 160km above the ground, right at the edge of space. Let's also, for ease of calculation, determine how big the Death Star would appear when it's halfway above the horizon, since that should be bigger than it is in the trailer, since it could be closer. Let's also start the calculations assuming an observer at ground level, even thought the above shot is clearly quite high in the air, since again, this assumption will bring the distance closer.
At that point, it becomes a simple horizon distance calculation--the observer, in this case, is at the horizon distance from the Death Star's altitude.
That means the Death Star would need to be 1438km away in the "observer on ground, halfway over the horizon" simplified case--and in that case, it would only cover about 6 degrees -- only about 12 times the size of the Sun. Still impressive, but nowhere near as huge as shown in the trailer.
In conclusion, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScifiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale
As an aside, I find it kind of disappointing that they didn't just build a digital model of the situation and use that--instead, they evidently just had the 2d artists draw what "looked impressive" and left it at that...
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,813
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
Huh?
That shot looks like it's done from orbit with quite a lot of zoom.
That is, it reminds me of similar pictures of the Moon taken from ISS.
Which would give us a rather small object a few dozen degrees ahead of you in orbit, no?
That shot looks like it's done from orbit with quite a lot of zoom.
That is, it reminds me of similar pictures of the Moon taken from ISS.
Which would give us a rather small object a few dozen degrees ahead of you in orbit, no?
D
Deleted Orbinaut
Guest
Clearly it must be filmed from the planet Kerbin, which would put the Death Star at a distance of 466km on the horizon in the case you describe. On the other hand, maybe they're just trying to simulate the moon illusion.
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,813
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
This kind of picture, to be precise:
You can see the atmospheric distortions of the same kind and scale in the movie, along with the far-below clouds, which suggests similar altitude and high zoom.
You can see the atmospheric distortions of the same kind and scale in the movie, along with the far-below clouds, which suggests similar altitude and high zoom.
Yep, I can disprove that too! If we assume the moon is orbiting just above the atmosphere...
:facepalm:
This is what I get for posting without having coffee first...
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,813
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
Saw it today.
In a word, hope fulfilled.
One observation, that is actually noticeable even in the trailers - this movie seems to de-canonize at least one sub-story from the prequels. I wonder if someone would feel the same.
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Great news, thanks!
As far as the prequels go, they could pitch the entire prequel series and start over as far as I'm concerned, so fine by me, since the prequels themselves "de-canonized" several big preconceptions we got from episodes 4-6 growing up in the 70s and 80s.
Zatnikitelman
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,303
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
I think if Disney announced that they were going to remake the prequels, then that would give us a new hope!
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Can't really argue with you there.
I can't think of any JJ Abrams movies or TV shows I actually like, either. He squandered opportunities in both Star Trek and Star Wars.
Best thing you can say for Ep 7 is there was no Jar Jar Binks, Waddo, or two-headed sports announcers.
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
I agree that episode 7 did almost nothing plot-wise, but at least it was a movie you could watch without crinching half the time... :lol:
Got tickets for rogue one on saturday, looking forward to it.
I actually re-watched Phantom Menace a couple months ago after my 4th time seeing Force Awakens, and I actually found Phantom Menace to be far better than I had remembered (and better than the average opinion of it on the internet). In fact, I actually found Jar Jar to be rather less annoying than Finn.
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
I didn't have much issues with Finn, I just thought initially he was a brainwashed stormtrooper so he didn't have a lot of room in the brain pan for normal things.
But Lucas could have culled 45 minutes or so from Phantom Menace and it wouldn't have hurt the story at all.
I have a contact on the only other forum I frequent that is finishing up a paper model of the U-wing soon. When he's ready would anyone like a link to it?
But Lucas could have culled 45 minutes or so from Phantom Menace and it wouldn't have hurt the story at all.
I have a contact on the only other forum I frequent that is finishing up a paper model of the U-wing soon. When he's ready would anyone like a link to it?
