Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Wars City Doomed By Sand Dunes

samzenpus posted 1 year,6 days | from the and-nothing-was-lost dept.

Star Wars Prequels 166

An anonymous reader writes "The buildings and set of the fictional city Mos Espa are set to be swallowed by migrating sand dunes in the Tunisian desert. From the article: 'Ralph Lorenz, from Johns Hopkins University, US, together with Jason Barnes, from the University of Idaho, and Nabil Gasmi, of the University of Sousse, Tunisia, visited the Mos Espa site in 2009, and noted that part of a nearby set used in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope had already been overrun. Using satellite images of the site, they were able to determine the speed of dune movement, which is approaching the buildings once inhabited by such luminaries as Anakin, his slave owner Watto, and rival podracer Sebulba.'"

cancel ×

166 comments

And then in a thousand years (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44346969)

Archaeologists will study these homes, and come up with all sorts of explanations for their features or lack thereof.

Re:And then in a thousand years (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347017)

Well, they'll have to be alien archaeologists that like a drier and hotter planet than Tattoine since we're doomed to heat death from global warming.

Re:And then in a thousand years (4, Funny)

Teresita (982888) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347075)

"Sweep the sand out of the garage? But Uncle Owen, I was going to Toshi Station to hang out with Koo Stark!"

Re:And then in a thousand years (-1, Troll)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347031)

Just like all the crazy theories surrounding all the "dinosaur" fossils that the jews buried in 1924.

Re:And then in a thousand years (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347063)

More likely they'll come to the conclusion that someone was playing silly buggers, due to the lack of non-structural detritus, middens, or other forms of human leavings.

Re:And then in a thousand years (3, Insightful)

tibman (623933) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347283)

I thought it was normal for construction workers to take dumps all over the property and unfinished buildings?

Re:And then in a thousand years (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348831)

I thought it was normal for construction workers to take dumps all over the property and unfinished buildings?

I understand that when the David Lynch version of "Dune" was filmed in Mexico, they had to sweep cigarette butts, food wrappers, and other such detritus out of the dunes to get that "deep desert" look.

or watch the movie? more documents than people (5, Interesting)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347339)

I wonder about future historians and archeologists.TThere are now more web pages than people. Several 24/7 news channels document everything in excruciating detail. Will people in the future wonder about anything that happened in the 21st century, or will they merely need to decide which stories are interesting enough to tell in history books?

With the technologies Facebook is developing and knowledge graphs being pioneered for Google Now, will historians of the future even need to compile narratives, or will Google 3000 interpret the database and narrate the story in real time when you query it? "Siri, tell me about my great-great-great-grandfather."

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (5, Interesting)

osu-neko (2604) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347385)

Yeah, the latter is more likely. In the far future, the start of the information age will be considering the effective start of history. Knowledge of events prior to the 21st century will be considered semi-mythical, due to the fact that they weren't recorded at the time and all we have are essentially second hand accounts recorded in files with timestamps from the 21st or late 20th century at the very earliest. They'll (correctly) consider any "historical" texts of time before that as the theories and opinions on history given by later scholars, whereas from the 21st century forward they'll have actual historical records, rather than speculation.

Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people (2)

Simon Brooke (45012) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347733)

So the writers of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, for example, were theorising and speculating, were they?

Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people (1)

jbolden (176878) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348653)

We know they were frequently giving us biased versions of events. Details are missing that go against their case. We know this because when we can check the records with other medieval sources that's what we find. For many of the translations we can't tell what stuff is being added by scribes and what is in the original, we know it happens by comparing the Chronicles with themselves. We know for a fact some of the dates are wrong. We know some of the places are wrong. There were a lot of errors in moving from Latin to Middle English.

Of course it also has all sorts of bias problems about being focused on a small group of people at the time. I think they are clearly 3rd or 4th hand knowledge of events. I don't see how they represent a counter argument.

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348131)

That's outright bullshit and I can't see how it got modded up with anything besides funny.

It's going to be the complete opposite. There's going to be a gap in history of things lost due to unreadable formats and hardware failures where the data isn't even there to read, and that's not even counting things like DRM and data in the cloud that just gets deleted when the company fucks up or closes. The loss is can already be experienced daily, and it can pretty much only get worse.

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (2)

jbolden (176878) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348575)

Paper records were frequently lost too. Losing 3% of the data per year for a century leaves: 6% behind. 6% of what we produce now is far more than was produced a century ago.

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348673)

That's outright bullshit and I can't see how it got modded up with anything besides funny.

It's going to be the complete opposite. There's going to be a gap in history of things lost due to unreadable formats and hardware failures where the data isn't even there to read, and that's not even counting things like DRM and data in the cloud that just gets deleted when the company fucks up or closes. The loss is can already be experienced daily, and it can pretty much only get worse.

The information age is not limited to the porn you have stored on your hard drive.

Let say that we eradicate all electronics completely. Every computer, phone, microwave oven, calculator gone.
Now everything that is left is all printed documents. That means that future historians will have a pretty large record of how average Joe lived his life and what his economy looked like. With all printed legal papers, printed spam mail, travel information, printed manuals for all that electronic stuff and printed newspapers on top of that there is an insane amount of information that will be available for the future compared to what was written just a century ago. Go back 500 years and all written documents about life in my region can be counted on a mans fingers. A thousand years ago? The only thing written about it a note from the Roman empire that essentially says that people here was generally friendly but would go to war at the drop of a hat.

These days pretty much everyone have at least one bookshelf worth of papers and storage rooms filled with junk wrapped up in old newspapers. If one in a million of those papers are preserved for a thousand years then pretty much everything worth knowing will be available for the future.
You might not be able to re-watch Pulp Fiction but you will have enough reviews to be able to piece it together in chronological order and probably enough images to reenact the scenes.

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348725)

I doubt that unreadable formats will be more than annoyances to future archeologists than outright memory holes. Many formats, especially older formats are actually pretty simple. Those which bother with cryptography, crcs, or checksum security features would fall to Moore's law.

mass aggregation and history (1)

jbolden (176878) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348595)

I suspect you are right. Mass data aggregation wasn't done. We know a great deal about what important people thought, but we don't have much information about how common their views are. So we what we have are just editorials and we make guesses as to how much to weigh those editorials and what facts ban be derived from them. Our historians are very skilled at that since this technique still exists in parallel with mass aggregation of data. But 500 years from now when people have good statistical data about everything they might not be good at sorting through non-representative editorials and trying to reverse engineer what was going on.

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348809)

You say that now, but was the same thing said of papyrus and scrolls 3,000 years ago?

Who is to say that in 3,000 years people will look back at our "digital age" and scoff at the notion of storing bits of data on mundane physical drives.

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (2)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347407)

I'm somehow certain that you won't get an exemption for such petty things like archaeology from the ban on breaking DRM. So... good luck finding a device that can play that content back.

Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348723)

If someone were to restore the data of a punch-card today. What do you think is most likely, that they build a device to mechanically read the holes or that they just throw it into an optical scanner/take a photo of it and write software to read the hole positions?
When future archeologists are going to read a spinning platter drive they won't bother with figuring out the pinout of the connectors and how the controller circuit works. They are going to make a detailed magnetic scan of the platters and from that figure out the data format.
Figuring out ancient partitioning tables and filesystems are going to be major breakthroughs but it's not really more complex than what teenagers already do with proprietary file formats for games theses days. If a child can do it in a week I assume that an expert will be able to do it in less than a year.

Re: And then in a thousand years (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347701)

Not least because they're incomplete as dwellings. If you ever visit the site, you'll just enough fibreglass supported on wooden frames to complete each shot required for the films.

Re:And then in a thousand years (4, Funny)

xstonedogx (814876) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347849)

Or it will lead them to discover Episode I and they will finally understand why the Second Dark Ages occurred.

Re:And then in a thousand years (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347925)

Based on the movement of the dune, it looks like it will pass over and within decades the city will be uncovered again.

Re:And then in a thousand years (1)

thereitis (2355426) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348917)

"The barchan will probably continue on its journey past the city site, which in due course will re-emerge from the sand, but it is anticipated that it will not remain unscathed." Another interesting tidbit: "persons ~ 1.6 m tall atop the dune (~ 35 pixels) act as a scale bar to estimate the dune height (135 pixels) as ~ 6.5 m high". That's a lot of sand.

Re:And then in a thousand years (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348479)

My thought was more along the lines of "great, when they're swallowed up, can we finally stop giving a shit about Star Wars?"

Unfortunately, I think it'll still be milked and unimaginative dolts will still be jacking off to the franchise in a thousand years, when these are unearthed.

those horrible prequels (5, Funny)

KernelMuncher (989766) | 1 year,6 days | (#44346993)

if only the sand could swallow up those horrible prequels as well . . .

Re:those horrible prequels (1)

felixrising (1135205) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347043)

here! here! Some things deserve to be buried and forgotten.

Re:those horrible prequels (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347567)

Don't you mean "Hear, hear!"?

Re:those horrible prequels (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348119)

No, he was calling his dog. The dog ran away a few weeks ago and he is obviously hoping that the dog still reads slashdot every now and then.

Re:those horrible prequels (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348485)

Depends what sex the dog is. Everyone knows bitches don't read slashdot.

(I shall now retire to my underground bunker where I can hide from the incoming for the above statement).

Re:those horrible prequels (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347051)

swallowing up those unwanted becquereals

SAVE STAR WARS, relocate to the negev desert in israel next door to their nuclear weapons factory!

"How can a party negotiate for the re-positioning/resettlement of a specific scene, when the chief negotiator is a fugative war criminal?" -Whats the frequency david
youtube.com/watch?v=I45pwRZXe0I

Re:those horrible prequels (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347107)

Daammmnnn!!! Boom - Headshot!

Re:those horrible prequels (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347347)

only if Jar Jar can be buried as well.

Re:those horrible prequels (0)

pwizard2 (920421) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347361)

Episode 3 almost made up for the other two (the key word being almost). That said, I watched EPIII again a few days ago after not having seen it for awhile. The reason for Anakin/Vader's fall has always seemed really petty to me. I guess after 20+ years of build-up I expected something more compelling than Anakin's fear of losing Padme because of a few nightmares.

Re:those horrible prequels (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347509)

The only part of Episode 3 that I enjoyed was seeing Anakin scream in pain as he burned.

Re:those horrible prequels (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347785)

The problem was Anakin was petty. Instead of taking this innocent boy and tormenting the hell out of him, they just made him a whiny baby who, by the way, was stronger in the force than anyone else (thanks to magical pixie dust, but I digress).

If I would have written it and been required to keep the basic storyline, I'd at least have him KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOW he was the killer in the dreams.

But really, by the end of the second movie, we should have already seen a lot of Darth coming out of him. Not just hints that he's not following the ways of the Jedi. He should have been basically unlikeable and out of control at that point. Instead we had him frolicking in some flowers with Padme. Oooh, what a rebel, pardon the pun.

Again, if I'd have written it, he'd have married Padme much earlier (perhaps sparing us the romance entirely) and it would be a bad relationship for both of them, giving a chance for us to see his darker side.

I really think the problem with the whole thing is that we meet him as a five year old boy and he progresses into a whiny teenager. I'd have rather met him when he was older (making more sense with the "too old to train" nonsense). Then he can be whiny and progress into a dangerous loner.

Re:those horrible prequels (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347987)

Bad StarWars is like bad pizza; it's better than no pizza and I still finish it.

Re:those horrible prequels (4, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348493)

More like all Star Wars is like a bad long-term relationship. Everyone else knows you should get out and experience more things in life. Better things. Far more amazing and creative and imaginative things. Unfortunately, you've invested so much time in it that it is all you know and you stick around taking the whacks and insults rather than venturing out.

Re:those horrible prequels (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348763)

Bad StarWars is like bad pizza; it's better than no pizza and I still finish it.

It must suck to be starving. Personally, if I met a pizza as bad as the prequels, I'd drive it back to the store and start complaining. I could not finish Episode III. For my money, that was by far the worst of the movies. I had the same feeling for the entire half of that movie that I watched that I had when Legolas went shield-surfing.

Re:those horrible prequels (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348087)

It's a set from the prequels. See honey badger for comments.

Re:those horrible prequels (1)

Swampash (1131503) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348287)

Is there a Kickstarter or something where we might donate money to help accelerate the process? Hell, I'll take a bucket and a spade and throw sand myself if it will help.

Sand dunes caused by set? (4, Interesting)

MatthiasF (1853064) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347015)

From the series of photos and shape of the dune, it seems like the set itself altered the wind pattern and caused the very same dune that is going to engulf it?

Re:Sand dunes caused by set? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347069)

Dunes are always crescent shaped like that.

Why was the set left? (5, Insightful)

thorbsd (2737135) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347023)

Why was the set left in the desert? Was the film crew asked to leave it, or could they just be bothered to spend money removing their trash when they were finished shooting?

Re:Why was the set left? (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347057)

Previous sets have been left there as well. What good is the set now in the digital age?

Re:Why was the set left? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348605)

Previous sets have been left there as well. What good is the set now in the digital age?

None at all. That's why they should pick up their trash and cart it out, rather than leave detritus strewn through the desert

Re:Why was the set left? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347409)

They're from Hollywood, they'll leave their trash all over. Dirt bags.

Re:Why was the set left? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347597)

Obviously so sand niggers can take up residence afterwards.

Re:Why was the set left? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347631)

Why was the set left in the desert? Was the film crew asked to leave it, or could they just be bothered to spend money removing their trash when they were finished shooting?

Because it is a tourist attraction and brings money to the area.

Re:Why was the set left? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348145)

Why not? It's not like anybody lives there.

Space Balls (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347039)

Barf: Chief... I can't... I can't go any further. I can't go any further.
Lonestar: Just one more dune to go.
Barf: That's what you said three dunes ago. I got no more left. Oh, waiter... cheque please.
[collapses, dropping Dot]
Lonestar: Must go on... MUST GO ON! Must go on...
[stops]
Lonestar: Who am I kidding?
[Drops Vespa, collapses]

Location, location, location (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347045)

There's a reason why the Sand People are nomadic. And they don't call the Jawa transports 'sand crawlers' just to be mean either.

Who builds in a dune anyway? Man, have I got some property in Dagobah to sell you!

Re:Location, location, location (2)

rossdee (243626) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348695)

"Who builds in a dune anyway? "

The Fremen

Duned, not Doomed (2, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347047)

It seems a new hope was duned from the beginning. I thought everything looked a little grainier from Episode IV onward. Hope they can clear things up in the future.

Re:Duned, not Doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347105)

Mos Espa was from The Phantom Menace, not A New Hope.

Re:Duned, not Doomed (3, Insightful)

guttentag (313541) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347173)

Dunes don't move that quickly. It took a few years.

Re:Duned, not Doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347205)

The Phantom Menace came out in 1999. What's your point?

Re:Duned, not Doomed (1)

TooTechy (191509) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347221)

Ahh - thanks. I was wondering where it came from. Now if it was Mos Eisley we'd all be worried..

Re:Duned, not Doomed (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347247)

That's no dune!

Re:Duned, not Doomed (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347419)

Thank you. I was already worried nobody would make that joke.

Re:Duned, not Doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348687)

Also: "It's a (sand) trap!"

Let the city be buried (2)

Scoldog (875927) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347065)

I've was reading a thread last week were some bloke said about how when his dog died, he buried it wearing a paid of swimming googles and a towel wrapped around the dogs neck like a cape. He then went to his shed and got a whole pile of assorted metal pieces and welded them together in a few different collections of strange shapes and parts. Then he buried them around his dog.

In the future when the dune moves and this city is uncovered, hopefully we could really screw with some archaeologists head!

Dune (5, Funny)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347067)

That's no dune.

What??? (2)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347071)

They weren't required to restore the dunes to their native state after the shoot?

Re:What??? (3, Informative)

siride (974284) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347141)

Which native state would that be? They're always moving, reshaping and disappearing.

Re:What??? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347439)

Hollywood has left a lot of its garbage lying around over the years. Something I stumbled on this morning was a YouTube video of a guy visiting the site where they filmed the train/bus crash & derailment scene from the 1993 version of The Fugitive. The locomotives and remains of the bus were just shoved off to the side and have been left sitting there for 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvizgSKTaVE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWdMm8J0lc

Its a trap! (1)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347095)

The sarlacc is just below that sand waiting for prey fool enough to dig in those ruins.

Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. (0, Troll)

dgharmon (2564621) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347123)

Lucas and Spielberg both destroyed the US film industry. What remains are translations of comic strips and live action video games. It's all the average attention of that particular audience demograph (fourteen) that these "motion pictures" are aimed at . Apart from the first one, the entire "Star Wars" serial is infantile rubbish interlaced with endless shots cadged from Metropolis and the Sith/Jedi mythology being endlessly and (retrospectively) rehashed. eg. Yes Luke you are your own mother and father, as you went back in time had a sex change and married yourself. As Harrison Ford once put it: "You can type this shit, George, but you sure can't say it."

Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. (1)

siride (974284) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347153)

Alright, alright, I'll get off your lawn.

Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347301)

The sad thing is... you're right.

Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. (1)

Horshu (2754893) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347315)

"Duck Dynasty: The Movie" will make you feel better.

Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347373)

Lucas and Spielberg didn't do it.

The people buying the tickets did it. They readily spend their dollars voting for these movies.

So quit your film school 101 elitist whining and go fuck yourself.

Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347497)

Watch films from outside of the US film industry. Those are pretty much all I watch now, aside from the occasional fun US film like Fast & Furious or Pacific Rim.

Good (1)

maliqua (1316471) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347151)

Can they put the original reels for the prequels to die with the set

Tanis (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347213)

Consumed by the desert, wiped clean by the wrath of god.

The spice flows!!! (2)

rts008 (812749) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347297)

The sandworms are back!

Oh wait, wrong story.

Maybe they should have put the Dune set there instead. ;-)

Sarlacc wins (1)

srichard25 (221590) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347381)

The Sarlacc always wins in the end.

A good start. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347495)

Now just need to add the proofs.

The sarlacc is coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347563)

Now PETA's goals will be challenged. Do we kill such a harmless and wonderful creature?

Mos Espa? Who cares? (2)

ildon (413912) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347579)

Everyone knows Mos Eisley is where it's at.

Re:Mos Espa? Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347655)

Everyone knows Mos Eisley is where it's at.

Mos Eisley?! I've never encountered a more wretched hive of scum and villainy...

Dunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347583)

The spice must flow...

So like does this mean... (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347603)

...that Dune is better than Star Wars?

I can totally see that as long as we're talking about books, not films. There are some many parallels. Both started great. Eventually sequels turned both to crap. Course Dune has no good sequel. Both are messiah stories. Both have deserts. Both have magical powers inside people. Holy shit. Dune IS Star Wars!

Re:So like does this mean... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347719)

It sounds like you've never read the Dune books. God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse: Dune were much better than the first book.

If you meant the books by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson, then yes, those were horrible.

Re:So like does this mean... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347755)

...that Dune is better than Star Wars?

While it is true that Dune is better than Star Wars, this dune swallowing a set doesn't mean anything.

I can totally see that as long as we're talking about books, not films.

If we talk about films, you do realize we have to talk about the prequels, right? I don't like Lynch's version of Dune at all, but it's definitely better than The Phantom Menace. And we should really include the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries Frank Herbert's Dune and Children of Dune. FHD is a little rough around the edges, but it's good. CoD is fantastic. Both at LEAST as good as Jedi, maybe as good as New Hope. Empire probably wins it.

There are some many parallels. Both started great. Eventually sequels turned both to crap. Course Dune has no good sequel.

Dune has five excellent sequels. Like Empire is better than Star Wars, Messiah is better than Dune. The only sequels that are crap are written by KJA and Brian Herbert, may their knives chip and shatter.

Both are messiah stories. Both have deserts. Both have magical powers inside people. Holy shit. Dune IS Star Wars!

Uh, if anything, Star Wars is Dune.

Re:So like does this mean... (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348135)

The original is one of the worst movies ever to be made...it was even terrible when it was made. Voice based powers? Illdefine "spice"? Inner monologue voiceovers? Ugh awful

That's a bit of a stretch (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347607)

poised to bury a famous Star Wars film set

It's a set from EP1 .. I think the author meant to say 'infamous Star Wars film set'. It may not be dead and buried, but 1 out 2 aint bad.

Re:That's a bit of a stretch (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348143)

Why all the hate for episode one? It literally sets up the entire trilogy! The senate alone makes it worth watching. I guess since something doesn't get shot or explode constantly?
I went back and watched the originals and had (until now) never notice how little substance there is...episode one also didn't have Hayden Christiansen

Re:That's a bit of a stretch (1)

Sockatume (732728) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348159)

A sheet of letter-sized paper simply stating the events of Episode 1 would've set up the trilogy too, that doesn't mean it would be entertaining. It probably would've involved less monologues about trade embargoes though.

Re:That's a bit of a stretch (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348625)

1. Okay that's fantastic, but you could say that about almost any series.
2. I fail to understand what was wrong with that?

The politics and the monologues made a lot of sense. The characters (except qui-gon and amadala) were all relatable, and they all had a proper arc. Their motifvations were organic for the most part. You didn't have the pile of contrived horse shit that is the arena scene from Episode 2. Or Hayden Christiansen boo-hooing every 3 seconds. Or a (again) contrived and terrible love story.
I also hate, utterly hate, and abhor stylized action. The transporter and its ilk shouldn't exist in my opinion. I say so because the entire content of 2 and 3 is one super-stylized super-long action scene after another. The action in the originals wasn't exactly gritty, but it was a damn sight closer!
Anakin's decent almost felt shoehorned in instead of a gradual decline. The scene with Palpatine was just...ugh. I can't talk about this anymore.

Most of it probably stems from my frankly being tired of action scenes. Episode one to me had a good balance between dialogue and action. The podracer scene was great, and the lightsaber duel at the end was one of the best. That duel is stylized, but they hadn't gone overboard yet. The scene with the gungans was a halfway decent battle, but it felt lot more like the other movies in a bad way.

Re:That's a bit of a stretch (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348427)

Wait, you actually got into the simplistic and child-like representation of politics in the prequels?

Episode I was pure garbage and did nothing for the overall story. Episodes II and III were little better. Everything from the poor character development to the trite plots to the entirely slapstick vibe to the constant spinny ninja lightsaber brandishing to the sterile, obvious CGI environments left me disgusted with all of the prequels.

Re:That's a bit of a stretch (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348789)

I fucking hate it when people use the word "literally" incorrectly.

ecological tragedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44347683)

The movement of dunes was kept in check by whomp rats, docile creatures who only eat sand, and things stayed in balance til the whomp rats were wiped out by human predators introduced by none other than Lucasfilm, who used to bullseye on them.

Piffle (1)

ReadAholic (245150) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347695)

Meh... So what... Maybe people need to re-learn how to let go.
Let it go.

Disney (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,6 days | (#44347999)

Disney's freaking out: "Quick, buy the Dune franchise!"

God wants to forget the prequels too! (4, Funny)

ukemike (956477) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348077)

Mos Espa? That must be from episode 1. God wants to forget the prequels too!

If we pool some money over the net... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348115)

... I'm sure we could hire a small army of Tunisians with trucks and get the abomination buried faster!

blame it (1)

mikerubin (449692) | 1 year,6 days | (#44348583)

on the Sith

Dune giveth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44348775)

and Dune taketh away.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...