tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post6470004741104174285..comments2024-03-25T09:31:36.926+01:00Comments on Furahan Biology and Allied Matters: Wildlife in the Star Wars universeSigmund Nastrazzurrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-63173818983310074702021-01-20T12:06:43.955+01:002021-01-20T12:06:43.955+01:00Davide Gioia:
I think the panspermia event in the...Davide Gioia:<br /><br />I think the panspermia event in the Star Wars universe had its origin in the low cost of rubber masks that you could pull over an actor's head. But, staying in-universe, yes, there must be something like that. I suppose The Force had something to do with that. <br /><br />And I could not have a look at Joschua's designs, because I would have to accept Facebook nosing around in my private life, which I try to resist. Sigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-75495436157337458132020-12-28T11:29:41.826+01:002020-12-28T11:29:41.826+01:00By the way, Joschua Knüppe has made some redesigns...By the way, Joschua Knüppe has made some redesigns of the creatures to make them more plausibly alien, I thought you may like them <br />https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1726773080808881&id=100004286175433Davide Gioiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00541804529581203322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-88661675298452237012020-12-21T21:49:42.609+01:002020-12-21T21:49:42.609+01:00To me, the entirety of Star Wars species and plane...To me, the entirety of Star Wars species and planets could only represent the result of a HUGE event of panspermia and terraforming...Davide Gioiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00541804529581203322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-32155553926488724142011-05-28T17:22:27.424+02:002011-05-28T17:22:27.424+02:00From an email by Metalraptor Maximus:
"By th...From an email by Metalraptor Maximus:<br /><br />"By the way, I have seen most of the creatures mentioned in your Star Wars article before this book came out. They could be older, but I first encountered the shaak, ollopom, pom hopper, geejaw, nabooan tusk cat, narglatch, yobshrimp, nyork, urusai, bogwing, faynaa, daggert, peko-peko, clodhopper, veermok, tookie, ikopi, hrumph, nuna, shaupat, gullipud, saw-toothed grank, shiro, and chuba in the Star Wars video game Star Wars: The Gungan Frontier. It was an actually rather educational game, breaking down complex ecological lessons into a format understandable by a little kid (or, at least, when I saw it).<br /><br />I looked that up on Google; it looks intersting! -SNSigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-18140449030863667902011-05-10T17:36:51.123+02:002011-05-10T17:36:51.123+02:00Unfortunately, the plausibility of the biology tha...Unfortunately, the plausibility of the biology that drives the plot of District 9 is pretty flimsy too, IMO. I mean what are the odds that some random fluid accidentally turns a human into a completely unrelated alien life form, but keeps the individual alive as it does so? That kind of complete physiological reconstruction involves serious bodily trauma, and the movie does a good job of suspending disbelief, but I'm surprised nobody ever points out this detail, especially since it's such a crucial plot point.Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-78646591489713015382011-05-10T06:16:43.966+02:002011-05-10T06:16:43.966+02:00Personally, I'm a big fan of stories where bio...Personally, I'm a big fan of stories where biology drives the plot, like District 9. I can still enjoy Star Wars, though :) .Lukenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-54568293239040492082011-05-09T18:05:13.580+02:002011-05-09T18:05:13.580+02:00Excellent points as well, Luciano, and your point ...Excellent points as well, <b>Luciano</b>, and your point makes sense now that it's separated out.<br /><br />I too appreciate internal consistency, even among such whimsical works as Star Wars. I think Whitlatch does a good job of adding what plausibility she can to the "sillier" creatures in the book. For example, the sarlacc benefits from cooperating with anoobas, desert pack hunters who drive herds of herbivores toward the exposed maw. The anoobas trap prey as they swerve to avoid the hole; the sarlacc gobbles up any who fall in. What started as George Lucas saying, "Let's toss our heroes into a hungry, tentacled pit monster" has had enough details added to it from multiple contributors over the years that I can suspend enough disbelief to enjoy the show. That's the core of this matter: suspension of disbelief. Just as <b>Sigmund</b> talked about in his blogs about Dune and the sandworms, when biology takes a back seat to a deeper, unrelated plot then its implausibilities are somewhat forgivable. However, there are those of us who find it enjoyable to analyze that plausibility (or lack thereof) any way. ;)Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-56817901581174324442011-05-09T03:45:31.601+02:002011-05-09T03:45:31.601+02:00Evan Black:
"But this is an entirely differ...Evan Black:<br /> <br />"<i>But this is an entirely different concept as what you've pointed out, Luciano. You mentioned the imperfections of evolutionary development in Earth examples as evidence to support alien concepts; the comparison just doesn't resonate logically.</i>"<br /> <br />Indeed, I got two completely different points mixed up carelessly, that's inexcusable. I was actually making two different statements:<br /> <br />1 - That I believe life evolved in other places will probably have a completely different biological make-up. So when it comes to fictional ETs, I tend to prefer those with a non-Earthly biology. However, as you correctly pointed out, these are almost impossible to be considered believable or unbelievable, given our lack of knowledge on that field. In most cases, we can only go as far as judging whether or not it is "<b>internally consistent</b>". For example, given that the space slug is supposedly silicon-based, we should avoid saying something like "the space slug is impossible because there wouldn't be enough food available for it, or any sort of air for it to breath". We just don't know if it would be possible for a titanic silicon creature to consume asteroids or to live without breathing. But we <b>could</b> complain if the creators stated something about "space slug DNA" for example, because DNA does not contain silicon and would likely be damaged by exposal to space radiation. So in this case we do have enough info to judge, albeit crudely. When food and breathing is concerned, the field is so speculative that we must be careful with our opinions. BTW they never did mention breathing or DNA I think, that was just for the argument's sake.<br /> <br />2 - My other point is totally unrelated, and I'm sorry for the confusion. We often deem alien designs unrealistic when we find biological problems with them. We often look at an alien creature and say "oh, that's unlikely, this being would have serious trouble eating" or "walking" or "reproducing". But if an alien scientist were to imagine a human being, wouldn't he also say something like "oh, that's unlikely, that thing is all erect, how would it deal with body balance?" or "that breathing system is inefficient". Yet, we exist, which proves that life can and do find its ways around difficulties like that. The giant pit monster from Star Wars VI would surely have trouble finding enough animals to feed upon. But how do we know? C3PO did mention that it takes decades to digest food, that suggests a pretty slow metabolism! Maybe it releases scents in the air to attract prey like a kaiju-sized venus flytrap. These are poor examples I guess, but you get the idea :- )Luciano N. Ribeirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377655622158843597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-62620242064210053892011-05-09T03:41:57.246+02:002011-05-09T03:41:57.246+02:00Thanks for the responses, Sigmund and Evan! You go...Thanks for the responses, Sigmund and Evan! You got some very valid points there<br /> <br />Sigmund Nastrazzurro:<br /> <br />"<i>The odder a statement is, the stronger the evidence for it should be. I had read that the space slug is supposed to be silicon-based, but on its own that argument seemed like a 'deus ex machina' to me, or, in other words, the designers ask the viewer to believe in their design without evidence. <br />Please feel free to comment on the above.</i>"<br /> <br />You're probably right here. Perhaps being a science fiction reader and amateur writer has made me get a little bit used to rely on the concepts of "alien biochemistry/ physiology" as a sort of <i>deus ex machina</i>. I admit that's bad and thank you for pointing it out. In my defense, I can say that creating a deeply detailed and completely believable alternative biochemistry is not only a hard task (and even harder to judge whether it works or not, as Evan points out) but also risks deviating too much from the point. Whitlatch could have taken all the effort to write all about how the space slug's silicon cells get energy, built silicon protein-analogs and stuff like that, but that would make the whole book rather... well, for me or you it wouldn't be boring, but most readers are just not interested. When I write a sci-fi story, I only go as far as to describe the outside appearance, psychology, and the most important aspects concerning metabolism (unless of course if there's a detail that's relevant to the plot!). Now, if I ever decide to create a speculative zoology worldbuilding project like yours, I will describe everything, I promise :-) Well, first I would need to take some art lessons, LOLLuciano N. Ribeirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377655622158843597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-50281427768449596772011-05-09T02:26:51.168+02:002011-05-09T02:26:51.168+02:00The meaning I used for "geeking out" is ...The meaning I used for "geeking out" is closest to definitions 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of that link (decidedly <i>not</i> those involving marijuana). Whether or not it's a good thing I think is a matter of perspective. If, to use the relevant example, someone were to regard my considerable knowledge of Star Wars to be unusual and disturbing, then if I shared too much of it with them it would be considered a negative thing. If, however, that someone didn't mind my enthusiasm for the subject then it wouldn't really be so bad a thing. Speaking from experience, there are only a few forums where my familiarity with the franchise is looked on as a boon, so I usually refrain from holding back.Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-13115201475557436732011-05-08T18:33:59.953+02:002011-05-08T18:33:59.953+02:00Hi Evan,
the mistakes (which film the tauntaun wa...Hi Evan, <br />the mistakes (which film the tauntaun was in and the typo in 'Nuna') have been corrected.<br /> I need a bit of help with the verb 'to geek out' though; is it a good thing? I found 7 meanings here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geek+outSigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-42326307811638567362011-05-08T17:57:43.289+02:002011-05-08T17:57:43.289+02:00As an avid Star Wars fan, I'm going to try my ...As an avid Star Wars fan, I'm going to try my best to not geek out too much about this post. 8)<br /><br />First, a couple points of correction: the tauntaun was featured in the <i>second</i> film, not the first. Also, the "Numa" of Naboo you feature here is acually called a <i>Nuna</i>.<br /><br />Terryl Whitlatch's work is phenomenal. I own both books you've mentioned in this post, and have enjoyed both of them. Most of the creatures were in fact not explicitly present in the movies, and many were based on concept designs for each movie. Terryl Whitlatch's own work was featured most in Episode I on the planet Naboo, where the forests and swamps are heavily populated with her creations.<br /><br /><b>Sigmund</b>, you mentioned that you'd like to know where the different creatures come from. Given my familiarity with Star Wars I could go through the book and cross-reference each example with other sources to give an itemized list of whether each species is based on previous concepts or an original creation from Whitlatch herself. I think you may find that your theory about her own creations being generally more plausible will be well founded.<br /><br /><b>Luciano</b>, thank you for your comments. I too feel that alien concepts shouldn't be summarily dismissed, especially since our own knowledge on the possibilities of life in the universe. But it's that distinction that I think is often unspoken in these discussions. Life "as we know it" and life "as we <i>don't</i> know it" are two different approaches to contemplating xenobiology. With the first, we use Earth life and familiar biophysical processes as something of a measuring stick for creative and well conceptualized aliens, something with which I think <b>Sigmund</b> is wonderfully adept. The other is a much less explored field, presumably because it requires a much more in-depth knowledge of a broad range of sciences. That combination of breadth and depth means that very few can speak with scientific certainty, but it also means that any products of such speculation have purely theoretical bases, and are difficult to "prove" as plausible. Thus the "truly alien" aliens out there are few and far between, and by definition don't match up to life "as we know it."<br /><br />But this is an entirely different concept as what you've pointed out, <b>Luciano</b>. You mentioned the imperfections of evolutionary development in Earth examples as evidence to support alien concepts; the comparison just doesn't resonate logically.<br /><br />I'd love to see more exploration on the subject of the two axes of similarity to Earth life and of plausibility.Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-39226571038184755812011-05-08T12:39:23.924+02:002011-05-08T12:39:23.924+02:00J.W. : it would be very interesting to learn where...J.W. : it would be very interesting to learn where all the creatures came from. I usually try to inform people whose work I wrote about that I have done so, but have not contacted Ms Whitlatch yet. <br /><br />Luciano: thank you for these valuable insights. I don't think you have to worry about your use of English, but others should judge that, not being a native speaker myself.<br /> Your ideas deserve careful thought. You mention three concepts: 'alienness', similarity with life on Earth, and believability. I would place 'wholly alien' and 'Earth-identical' as two end points on one axis of a possible graph, an axis that could possibly be labelled as 'similarity to life on Earth'. <br /> On the other axis we could place 'believability', with 'utterly silly' as one end point and 'totally believable' as the other. <br /> The two axes form a nice graph (I might just use this in a post at a later date).<br /> Life on Earth would be in the corner of 'totally believable' and 'Earth-identical'. Those who design alien life want their creations to end up in the corner of 'totally believable' and 'very alien'. <br /> The corners to avoid are the two other ones, both 'not believable' (i.e. not on Earth nor anywhere else).<br /> One type of argument to place a design there is because it breaks fundamental physical laws (breathing in a vacuum, legs that do not fit size, etc.). Another type of argument is that we are asked to belief in something without any support. The odder a statement is, the stronger the evidence for it should be. I had read that the space slug is supposed to be silicon-based, but on its own that argument seemed like a 'deus ex machina' to me, or, in other words, the designers ask the viewer to believe in their design without evidence. <br /> Please feel free to comment on the above.Sigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-45877956172822936152011-05-07T22:03:26.198+02:002011-05-07T22:03:26.198+02:00PS: Oh, and sorry for the ridiculously long commen...PS: Oh, and sorry for the ridiculously long comment...Luciano N. Ribeirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377655622158843597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-51452415220753150052011-05-07T22:02:09.035+02:002011-05-07T22:02:09.035+02:00Hello there!
First let me say that I greatly admi...Hello there! <br />First let me say that I greatly admire your blog and your creatures. But it is funny to notice that, when it comes to reviewing creatures from others you seem to consider the level of similarity with Earth organisms and the level of 'alienness' not only as separate concepts but rather conflicting ones. I always considered as a general rule that the most 'alien-looking' of aliens are usually the most believable ones.<br /><br />I do understand your points about how evolution and biomechanics make many alien concepts flawed and hard to believe; and I also acknowledge your emphasis that deeming something biologically unrealistic doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate it. But if you think about it, many aspects of Earth life are somewhat 'flawed' and could conceivably be improved. Our one-way respiratory system, as opposed to your Fuharan one, is actually a classic example; as is our 'upside down' eyesight as opposed to cephalopods.<br /> <br />Still, my belief is that any lifeform evolving on an alien world will be fundamentally different from Earth life (and I do believe lifeforms of sorts could evolve on practically any place in the universe, following biochemistries that are so wildly different, we wouldn't even be able to comprehend them). I've read a few pages of <i>The Wildlife of Star Wars</i> in a local library and found the creatures to be wonderfully illustrated, but much less realistic than, say, Wayne Barlowe's aliens for example. Yet the space slug, which you've readily dismissed as impossible, interested me for being silicon-based. That fact alone doesn't mean it could exist of course, but it means we shouldn't disregard its possible existence based on its massive size or environment, before considering that maybe somewhere there is a biochemistry that works on these conditions.<br /><br />Anyway, I certainly don't mean to condemn or criticize, I'm simply presenting these views; I have deep respect for you and for this website. By the way, English is not my first language, so I apologize for possible mistakes. Keep the good work! ;- )Luciano N. Ribeirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377655622158843597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-65052160050101768042011-05-07T16:43:18.560+02:002011-05-07T16:43:18.560+02:00I agree Whitlatch's art is amazing, and elevat...I agree Whitlatch's art is amazing, and elevates the rather mundane creature concepts into something very much worth looking at.<br /><br />I don't know about the specific origin on these creatures, but the star wars movies (especially the latter ones) were made with tons of creature/alien/ship concepts. Only a fraction made it to the screen. And there have been a myriad of novels written-- so the fact that you didn't see these creatures in the movie doesn't mean Whitlatch made them up for this book.j. w. bjerkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06800512284198234202noreply@blogger.com