backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jul 23 at 10:50 AM

It's not a Z-95 Headhunter

Star Wars fans are keeping a close eye on any developments concerning the upcoming episodes, likely making sure there aren't any huge mistakes approaching (i.e., Jar Jar Binks-like characters and a terrible-looking CGI Yoda). Thankfully, some good news has been revealed.
 
JJ Abrams, director of the upcoming Star Wars: Episode VII, recently showed off an X-Wing starfighter from the set of the new movie. This is great news for die-hard fans hoping to see bits and pieces from the original trilogy. 
 
There was originally some discussion about the starfighter looking like a Z-95 Headhunter, but the official Star Wars Twitter page confirmed that it's an X-Wing:



 
Further confirmation was provided with this follow-up tweet:



The X-Wing is an important fighter that was partially responsible for the destruction of two Death Stars.
 
Disney bought Lucasfilm Ltd. -- the studio responsible for Star Wars -- for $4.05 billion USD in October 2012. At that time, it was also announced that Disney started working on the new Star Wars trilogy, beginning with "Episode 7." The new episode is due out in 2015, and Episodes 8 and 9 will shortly follow. According to Disney, the new trilogy will follow Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia and Han Solo beyond Return of the Jedi, which was the third film in the original trilogy (but is chronologically the sixth film in the franchise).
 
In March 2013, it was announced that Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford (the original Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo in Episodes IV-VI) would resume their roles in the upcoming trilogy made by Disney. 
 
The rest of the cast was announced in April 2014, which included Peter Mayhew as "Chewbacca", Anthony Daniels as "C-3PO" and Kenny Baker as "R2-D2". 
 
You can check out Abrams' update here, where he also discusses a chance to be in the new film and give away an advanced screening in the winner's hometown with 20 friends. 

Sources: YouTube, Twitter



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Something about this "X-Wing" just didn't look right to me. I never remembered the X-Wing having just one giant engine intake per side like this one has.

https://www.google.com/search?q=x+wing+star+wars&e...

The X-Wing I remember had 4 engines with 4 intakes, even when the wings were in the locked position. I can't find a single image search that shows otherwise.

So how could this be an X-Wing from RoTJ?




RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 12:45:33 PM , Rating: 3
In the novels there were new X-wing variants. But all of them still had 4 engines and splitting wings. Even Stealth-Xs that the Jedi used.


RE: Not Right
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/21/2014 1:35:55 PM , Rating: 5
Look here at Ralph McQuarrie's X-Wing concept:

http://s27.postimg.org/mcnmrsoar/90_ralph_mcquarri...

Source: http://www.starwars.com/news/an-annotated-guide-to...

Also, if you watch the video in HD full screen, you can see where the engines split (and where the wings split).


RE: Not Right
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/21/2014 1:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, meant to reply to Reclaimer


RE: Not Right
By Dorkyman on 7/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not Right
By Spuke on 7/21/2014 2:10:40 PM , Rating: 5
Your nerd card has just been revoked.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 1
What an asshole...


RE: Not Right
By Dorkyman on 7/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not Right
By drlumen on 7/21/2014 2:20:01 PM , Rating: 5
Burn the heretic!!!


RE: Not Right
By Samus on 7/21/2014 2:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
What advantage does an X wing have over a bi-wing, anyway?


RE: Not Right
By JediJeb on 7/21/2014 3:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
You spread your guns farther apart to give a wider field of fire.


RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 3:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
At least in the movies, all the bolts converged on the same point in space.


RE: Not Right
By Schrag4 on 7/21/2014 5:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying the point at which they converge changes based on the distance to the selected target? So the guns are not actually in a fixed position on the wing?


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 5:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
I got the distinct impression pilots are able to change the convergence range of the 4 cannons mid-flight, yes. That wouldn't really be possible without the X-Winged design.

I'm almost certain I also read that in the Rogue Squadron books.


RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/22/2014 7:21:45 AM , Rating: 3
Yes they are able to change it. Or make them not converge at all. The Rogue Squadron and Wraith Squadron books touched on this stuff.


RE: Not Right
By amanojaku on 7/21/2014 3:50:10 PM , Rating: 5
None, really. An X-wing is only interested in flying with Y-wings, limiting it's mass appeal. A bi-wing will fly X-wings AND Y-wings, making for more adventurous films. That's why bi-wings get paid more.

Poor Y-wings are lucky to get any screen time. Nobody cares about them.


RE: Not Right
By inperfectdarkness on 7/22/2014 10:23:17 AM , Rating: 3
You, sir, win the internet!


RE: Not Right
By mm2587 on 7/22/2014 10:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
Someone give this man a 6!


RE: Not Right
By Jedi2155 on 7/23/2014 4:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait till you see the size of my E-Wing....


RE: Not Right
By Jeffk464 on 7/21/2014 2:41:09 PM , Rating: 3
Technically you don't fly in space. There is no reason for intakes or wings at all. Something like the shuttle from Star Trek makes more sense.


RE: Not Right
By Jeffk464 on 7/21/2014 2:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
Now the scooters from Return of the Jedi just make good engineering sense. :)


RE: Not Right
By zozzlhandler on 7/21/2014 4:08:30 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, if you want a sensible design, the star fury from Babylon 5 is the most logical space fighter I have seen. Engines at the end of pylons for maximum rotational effect. Super maneuverable.

But since we are talking about movies in which we can see rays in a vacuum, sensible obviously left the building a long time ago.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 4:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
Babylon 5 was pretty awesome...

I often wonder what the season 4 space battles would look like in high def. Sadly we'll never know, because the show was shot in video :(


RE: Not Right
By Jeffk464 on 7/21/2014 5:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that does sound reasonable.


RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/22/2014 7:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
The new BSG was pretty accurate too. In flights of the fighters, you can see all the thrusters all over pushing the ship around and how the ship can move up, down, left, right, etc at will instead of just banking and what not.


RE: Not Right
By Manch on 7/22/2014 1:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
<Q>But since we are talking about movies in which we can see rays in a vacuum, sensible obviously left the building a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.... </Q>

fixed it for you :D


RE: Not Right
By Visual on 7/23/2014 8:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
rotating with engines instead of a gyro is lame


RE: Not Right
By Mitch101 on 7/21/2014 3:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yea but can it do the Kessel Run in 12 Parsecs or less? I think not.


RE: Not Right
By ianweck on 7/21/2014 3:30:12 PM , Rating: 1
Well I don't see any lasers on that thing. Good luck taking down a Death Star with one of those.


RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 3:31:29 PM , Rating: 1
You shut your filthy mouth!

:)


RE: Not Right
By Any14Tee on 7/21/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not Right
By Jedi2155 on 7/23/2014 4:40:57 AM , Rating: 1
Your lack of faith is disturbing.


RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 3:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough. Just in that model, it doesn't look like there is enough material for there to be a split. I'm not saying it doesn't look cool. I just don't see where there will be a split unless each wing is super thin. Not that friction is a problem in space.


RE: Not Right
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/21/2014 3:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, the wing doesn't split like the X-Wing we know, it splits along the long axis. See my post below.


RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 12:49:41 PM , Rating: 3
The only thing I'm thinking is that each engine is half a circle and the wings do indeed split. It's not like they're turbine engines or anything.


RE: Not Right
By retrospooty on 7/21/2014 12:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
30 years later, a newer model with a slightly different design? Why not.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 1:20:05 PM , Rating: 1
Did you read the article? They said it's an X-Wing from Episode VII. But it obviously cannot be.

I'm not griping about the new design, I'm just saying it didn't look right to me. I didn't see ANYTHING like that from Return of the Jedi.


RE: Not Right
By Flunk on 7/21/2014 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Return of the Jedi is episode VI.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 1:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
/facepalm

AHAHAH!!! WOW

Talk about your all-time brainfarts!

*blushes*


RE: Not Right
By tayb on 7/21/2014 1:34:32 PM , Rating: 1
VII = 7
VI = 6

Return of the Jedi is episode 6. This is from episode 7.


RE: Not Right
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/21/2014 1:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
Look here at Ralph McQuarrie's X-Wing concept:

http://s27.postimg.org/mcnmrsoar/90_ralph_mcquarri...

Source: http://www.starwars.com/news/an-annotated-guide-to...

Also, if you watch the video in HD full screen, you can see where the engines split (and where the wings split).


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not Right
By Spuke on 7/21/2014 2:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so he anally raped
Ouch!


RE: Not Right
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/21/2014 2:30:36 PM , Rating: 4
Who got it worse? Kahn, or Indiana Jones in "Crystal Skull"? :)


RE: Not Right
By Jeffk464 on 7/21/2014 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 5
Crystal Skull by a long shot.


RE: Not Right
By Griffinhart on 7/21/2014 3:03:56 PM , Rating: 3
agreed, Crystal Skull crapped all over my childhood!


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not Right
By Manch on 7/22/2014 1:54:30 PM , Rating: 4
While I thought the second of the JJ Star Trek movies was a bit of a let down Crystal Skull F#ck was absolutely horrible!

Lets see
CGI sun and warehouse
Nuke the Fridge
Shea Lebouf
CGI Monkeys
CGI in General
Shea Lebouf
and where was the witty banter, action, and light whoring? And Aliens?

I'm not against CGI but I am against the overuse of it. Some movies just dont need it. They simply waited too long to do another HF got too old and then they turned it into a ABC family movie.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2014 5:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Into Darkness

Lets see...

CGI EVERYTHING (were there even real sets?)
Khan Magic Blood
Spock's "KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN!!!"
Horrible Acting
Horrible Writing
Admiral Robocop

Khan's masterplan was to put his people in torpedoes (that are made to explode) in order to somehow save them? And then..uhhhh???

Witty banter of original series replaced by screaming, over-emoting, and bilge-inducing plot of Uhura and Spock being romantically involved.

Khan is smarter, so he gets transporters to work ACROSS THE GALAXY. That's like a genius today getting a Corvette to go Mach 20 by playing with the ECU. Intelligence doesn't work that way...

Honestly the list goes on and on. Horrible movie.

I'll take Crystal Skull any day. It's at least RECOGNIZABLE.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2014 5:53:36 PM , Rating: 1
Oh and how could I forget!

Lens flares
Lens flares
LENS FLARE!!!!!!!!!


RE: Not Right
By HaB1971 on 7/23/2014 9:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
And don't forget that the Enterprise bridge looks like and Apple Store while main engineering is a brewery?

JJ Abrams is a turd of a director/story teller... He makes George Lucas look good...


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 2:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Not Right
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/21/2014 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
I knew what it was even before clicking :)


RE: Not Right
By Dug on 7/21/2014 2:33:56 PM , Rating: 3
Complaining just to complain.

Actually it looks better because it matches Ralph's design.
I'm sure if Ralph's design was in the original movies and then they switched you would complain about that too.

For Star Trek most people will of course disagree with you... again.
90% rating on rotten tomatoes, but I'm sure all of those people are wrong.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 4:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I'm sorry I thought I could have an opinion!


RE: Not Right
By atechfan on 7/21/2014 8:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
If they thought Into Darkness was good, then, yes, they were wrong.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 10:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think if you're going to review a remake, you should watch the original beforehand. It's clear these buffoons on Rotten Tomato (as if that's an authority anyway) didn't.

And make no mistake, Into Darkness is a remake. Albeit a terrible one.

Frankly I'm wondering what half these idiots even watched. Star Trek 2009 is clearly a FAR superior film, much better writing and a tighter-focused story, yet they're saying Into Darkness is the pinnacle.

I guess cause it has morer biggerer explosions and stuff?


RE: Not Right
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 3:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
E-Wings were more advanced, but even in the latest novels, they're still flying X-Wings.


RE: Not Right
By illuvatar81 on 7/22/2014 5:20:08 AM , Rating: 1
Im afraid you dont understand how canon works. The only thing canon is from the movies. All the books(extended universe) are not canon. Therefore the only thing that will be the successor to the ep. 6(vi) x-wing, will be JJ abrams ep7(vii) x-wing.


RE: Not Right
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2014 9:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
Look whatever. You take ANY Star Wars book ever written, and it makes for a better script and story than those revolting "canon" prequels by Lucas.

The only reason those books and other works aren't officially "canon", is because Lucas is a merchandising money grubbing and controlling a-hole who wants to force everyone to work within the horrible prequel universe he created. Even though he has one one-hundredth the talent as even the most pedestrian author.

So the shi*&y Clone Wars cartoons are canon but Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire series isn't? Okay lol, well I can tell you which one I'll go with as being the superior product.


RE: Not Right
By Omega215D on 7/21/2014 7:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot where I read it from but there were pictures of an X-wing concept that had t he wings split into attack position and the single circular engine splits in half. You can also kinda tell when you look at the laser cannon arrangements though I can't the wing separation in the photos.


Hard to tell but
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 12:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
If the wings don't split into an X, it's not an X-wing. There it doesn't look like they do. The X-wing was the successor to the Z95 and they look very similar. Anyone who's ever played X-wing vs Tie Fighter knows this.

Not that I expect them to care much about what's considered "non-canon" anymore.




RE: Hard to tell but
RE: Hard to tell but
By Ammohunt on 7/21/2014 1:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
So its a Z-95 with 2 extra wings.


RE: Hard to tell but
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 3:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
The original X-Wing yes.


RE: Hard to tell but
By Ammohunt on 7/21/2014 6:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
So the X-Wing was redesigned post Episode VI? to look like the pre episode IV Z-95? What never made sense was that the rebels were supposed to be using ancient versions of the X-Wing yet the version they have in the last 3 movies is newer looking than the ones in the first three episodes with only maybe ~20 years of time passage between episode III and episode IV.


RE: Hard to tell but
By FITCamaro on 7/22/2014 7:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. They did a horrible job with a lot of that. In Episode III though there were X-wing looking ships used by the clones.


RE: Hard to tell but
By chromal on 7/21/2014 1:15:20 PM , Rating: 3
Does this mean it's an I-wing? :)


RE: Hard to tell but
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/21/2014 1:30:02 PM , Rating: 3
Take a look at this:

http://s30.postimg.org/v2gjal08x/2u5uxys.jpg

Look at how the cannons attach to see where the "split" occurs


RE: Hard to tell but
By JediJeb on 7/21/2014 3:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
Makes you wonder if there were some things that Lucas didn't include in the sale of the rights, forcing them to have to redesign.

Then again, Abrams is probably just trying to go with a more "modern" streamlined design hoping younger fans will think it is better looking.

Good thing he didn't direct "Red Tails" or they would have been flying F35's lol.


RE: Hard to tell but
By JediJeb on 7/21/2014 3:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and notice he even included chrome trim rings around the engine inlets :)


RE: Hard to tell but
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 3:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
You also figure in the 30-40 years that these movies are set after Episode VI, there has been improvement of the design. I think that's what Abram's is attempting to do. Not change it just to change it. Show progression.


RE: Hard to tell but
By Amiga500 on 7/22/2014 9:10:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
or they would have been flying F-35s lol


Would have made for a mighty boring film when they'd been grounded (again)... ;-)


RE: Hard to tell but
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2014 9:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
lmao

"Take that, Mister Hitler - oh wait, something...."

*airframe cracks in half*


Let me get this straight
By bug77 on 7/21/2014 12:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
So there was no balance brought to the force by the demise of Palpatine? Thus, is it safe to say Anakin failed in fulfilling the prophecy?
Or should I assume the story has been bastardized into irrelevance and the series reduced to its special effects?




RE: Let me get this straight
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 12:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
There is roughly 40 years of "history" in the Star Wars universe post RotJ through the novels.

The idea of bringing "balance" from the prequels was part of the bastardization. Not what happens after them in my opinion.

I'm hoping for a quality story. Without any stupid love affairs and talks about stupid organisms in your bloodstream. Way to kill the "magic" of Star Wars George.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Nightbird321 on 7/21/2014 1:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Anakin succeeded, before Anakin there was too many Jedi and not enough Sith. Afterwards the number became far more equal.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 1:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
lol somehow I don't think that's the "balance" they were looking for...


RE: Let me get this straight
By zephyrprime on 7/21/2014 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 1
Of course it's not. And that's the point. It's irony. The Jedi never realized what the prophecy actually meant. They never realized that the prophecy actually meant something shitty would happen and needed to happen.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 2:38:07 PM , Rating: 1
Is that written somewhere or is this more Lucas prequel BS and you being an apologist for it?


RE: Let me get this straight
By JediJeb on 7/21/2014 3:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
When you read the novels following the movies, you see more balance brought through Luke. What it sorta pointed to was that Luke was the one to bring the balance instead of Anakin. Luke went on to fall to the dark side, then reject the dark side and return to the light, and used the experience to balance his training as he rebuilt the Jedi Knights.

Of course, Disney has announced they are throwing all that out so they can take the story any direction they want.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Nightbird321 on 7/21/2014 2:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Yoda warn about reading into prophecies? Jedi interpreted "bring balance to the force" as saying the light side of the force wins over the dark side. Whenever you talk about two opposing forces, the word implies equality more than anything else. Heck, even IRL the word balance is a nice way of saying "to cut back".


RE: Let me get this straight
By FITCamaro on 7/21/2014 3:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
"A prophecy that misread, could have been." ~Yoda


cool but
By Nightbird321 on 7/21/2014 12:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Don't really see two wings on each side plus turbines don't spin very well with a half-cylindrical shape. Oh well, will still go to see the movie.




RE: cool but
By Jacerie on 7/21/2014 12:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
Turbines are useless in space so why would you expect an X-Wing to use them?


RE: cool but
By Nightbird321 on 7/21/2014 1:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sub-light drives in Star Wars is not like the impulse drives in Star Trek, they still work using the principle of thrust. Just think of it as fictional turbines that work in space alright? xD It's in all the movies.


RE: cool but
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 1:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
X-Wing's don't just fly in space, FYI.


RE: cool but
By Akrovah on 7/21/2014 2:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
That, and you can very clearly hear the turbines spinning up in the original films.

To argue that turbines aren't needed in space may be accurate, but pointless since the films make it very clear these ships do in fact have turbines.


RE: cool but
By Jeffk464 on 7/21/2014 2:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sabre engine? Breathes air in the atmosphere and becomes a rocket engine in space.


ugh
By chromal on 7/21/2014 1:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
After what he did to Star Trek, I hope that the producers are keeping a really tight creative reign on this guy for the sake of the franchise's integrity, tho in fairness, I'm not sure he could do worse than Lucas himself. :/




RE: ugh
By Akrovah on 7/21/2014 2:26:39 PM , Rating: 1
Well, there's the problem that his Trek films, for all their bastardization, have made more money than any other Trek film.

The producers at Paramount at least love him. Disney will probably be given a very wide lattitude because he is a proven money making director, even if he shits all over the properties he's given.


RE: ugh
By Bostlabs on 7/21/2014 6:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
in 1966 I was 6 years old. I was a big Lost in Space fan.
September 8, 1966 - Star Trek's first episode.
I was hooked. Been a Trekkie ever since.

As much as I dislike the lens flare stuff that has been in the new Trek movies, I do like them.

What I had to do, though, was to firmly plant in my mind that this is not Shatner, Nimoy (ok, one of the Spocks are), Kelley or Doohan. It is a different timeline. So I got over myself and enjoyed the movies.

It's not my original Star Trek but it is a version of Star Trek.

I'll approach the new Star Wars movies the same way and be entertained. That is all that I am truly wanting after all.


RE: ugh
By drlumen on 7/21/2014 2:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
You know it is going to be Disneyfied.

Look at Pixar. Since Disney bought them it seems that they have struggled to maintain quality near that of their previous work. IMO.


at least its not white
By drewsup on 7/23/2014 8:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Never understood why a space combat vehicle would be painted white, visual perception in space would make ANYONE with 1/2 a brain paint their ship a dark colour, just to make it harder to see.




RE: at least its not white
By HaB1971 on 7/23/2014 10:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
Would make it harder to fly in formation as you can't see the edges of the other vehicle next to you...

But with Star Wars it is trading on the old cowboy hat tradition of White Hat = Good, Black Hat = Evil... so it follows that White ships are good...


RE: at least its not white
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 10:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's a compromise for the viewer. It's kind of hard to film black ships on a black background and make it appealing for the audience, you know?


I did like the Naboo fighters from Ep I
By VoodooChicken on 7/21/2014 2:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
They were definitely not X-Wings, and had a distinct "retro" look to them. Since they were prequels, they could look inferior to original trilogy vehicles. Unless this happens to be Luke's personal ship, I don't see any reason for X-Wings to still be around. Maybe he's touring around like a Galactic Blue Angel squad? (Red Rebels?)




By Jeffk464 on 7/21/2014 2:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
The F35 looks inferior to an F14, just saying.


I'd hate to dogfight in that...
By Griffinhart on 7/21/2014 3:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
While it looks neat, The visibility in that cockpit looks like it would be terrible.




RE: I'd hate to dogfight in that...
By DougF on 7/22/2014 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
Your R2 unit, however, has a spectacular view, the survival rate is not the best, tho.


Not An X-Wing
By Arsynic on 7/21/2014 2:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously...




Split mechanism
By llamas on 7/21/2014 3:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised if the wings split with the axis of rotation at the center of the engine. i.e. each wing attaches to a ring/sleeve that rotates around the outside of the engine.

It seems like that would work/look a lot better than the engine splitting into two part like it is in the original movie's concept art.




Hey at least it's 'real'.
By Director12 on 7/21/2014 4:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
As in a real prop like they had in the first three movies. This alone gives me more hope than anything I saw in the travesty that shall go unamed.




By JoJoman88 on 7/22/2014 7:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
To me it looks like a cross between a Z 95 and an X Wing. Note there is no astro-mech on board either. The whole area at the rear is redesigned in that it looks like their maybe only 2 space engines instead of the four at the rear of the X Wing or after 30 years those space engines are now smaller and so they redesigned the rear. Same with the four turbines or atmosphere engines, 30 years later they are smaller/new layout as to make the X Wing better in atmosphere operations. Think progress in 30 years time and i think you'll get what they are going for.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki