SPACE: Above and Beyond - Tonight on BBC2 (6/2/98)
Plain and Simple Cronan
Thor wrote
>If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start
(it
>gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
Uh huh.
Thor
Get your video's ready people.
The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
-Thor
Phil Jefferson
Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
> Thor wrote
>
> >If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow
> start
> (it
> >gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>
> Uh huh
No, complete seriousness here, do watch it. Or, alternatively, don't
watch the first 3 or 4 eps then watch it, it's good, it really is.
Bharat Bedia
So how many episodes are there in total ? (I missed it last time and plan to
Video the whole lot!)
Bharat
Thor wrote:
> Get your video's ready people.
> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>
> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>
> -Thor
Adam Lock
Thor wrote:
>
> Get your video's ready people.
> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>
> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>
> -Thor
Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
--
Adam Lock - lo...@iol.ie
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: "Thor" <Th...@Matts.Force9.Net> Order details:
>Get your video's ready people.
>The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>
>If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
>gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>
Hooo-rah !
Mr50% _________________________________________________
* Time Tells Trend - Dow Site at :-
* http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6284/index.html
Paul Saunders
Isn't that "Hoo-Yah!"?
I missed it this week. Must remember to record it next week.
--
_____ __ .===.__.===._.=.__.===.__.==._.=.
{ ---.\ | .)%%%)%.%)%%.)%%%)%%%%)%%)%%%)%%%%)%%,
`'-._\\ | (\___ %)%%(%%%(%%( Paul Saunders )%%%(%%%%)%%.
`\\|{/ ^ _)=%(%%%(%) <P_Sau...@Geocities.com> %%%%%%%
.'^^^^^^^ /` %%)%%(;%%%)%% ICQ: 4161501 %%%)%%'%%%)%%%
jgs //\ ) , / '%% <http://www.york.ac.uk/~ps114/> %%'
, _.'/ `\<-- \< '%%%)%%)%%%%)%%%'(%%%%%)%%%%%%%;%%%%%'
`^^^` ^^ ^^ '=='^'==='^'='^'=='^'==='^^'=='^
Phil Jefferson
Adam Lock wrote:
> Thor wrote:
> >
> > Get your video's ready people.
> > The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> >
> > If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow
> start (it
> > gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
> >
> > -Thor
>
> Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
> sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
No, it could not.
Phil - J
Phil Jefferson
Paul Saunders wrote:
> Mr 50% wrote:
> >
> > Trade confirmed from: "Thor" <Th...@Matts.Force9.Net> Order details:
> >
> > >Get your video's ready people.
> > >The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> > >
> > >If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow
> start (it
> > >gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
> > >
> >
> > Hooo-rah !
> >
> > Mr50% _________________________________________________
> > * Time Tells Trend - Dow Site at :-
> > * http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6284/index.html
>
> Isn't that "Hoo-Yah!"?
> I missed it this week. Must remember to record it next week.
Both, Wang says Hoo-rah, Coop says Hoo-Yah.
Scott Thornton
In article <34DC508C...@white-star.com>, Phil Jefferson
<P...@white-star.com> writes
-- I love Vansen, shes the gorgeous Marine in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!VA
NSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANS
ENVANSEN
Scott Thornton
Jonathan Tranter
In article <34DBC4EC...@iol.ie>, Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> writes
>Thor wrote:
>Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
>sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
It's not as bad as some things in this respect though, like the
nauseating "Independence Day". Also on "Earth Final Conflict" last week
the "World Bowl" event was pretty funny, apparently in the future 4.5
billion people tune in worldwide to see an American Football match!
Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Anyway, top show in my opinion. It's a pity the US networks didn't stick
with SAAB and other shows like American Gothic. :(
Jonathan
Processor Simulation Software : http://www.wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uk/
-- Please remove "nospam" from my domain name when replying by email! --
Stu Bell
Jonathan Tranter <jona...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uknospam> wrote:
>
> In article <34DBC4EC...@iol.ie>, Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> writes
>
> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>
> It's not as bad as some things in this respect though, like the
> nauseating "Independence Day". Also on "Earth Final Conflict" last week
> the "World Bowl" event was pretty funny, apparently in the future 4.5
> billion people tune in worldwide to see an American Football match!
> Hmmmmmmmmmm....
>
It's all to do with outlook. The makers of ID4 never intended for it to be
anything other than popcorn munching mindless fun, albeit spectacular mindless
fun. In other words it didn't take itself seriously - so for me it was perfectly
successful and I had a great time watching it. The reason I think SAAB may have
disappointed so many people was that it took itself really seriously, coming
accross as though it had pretentions to be something more than just Top Gun
in space. If it had actually done something other than trade in sci-fi and
wartime cliches, maybe dealt with some serious issues, that would have been
fine. Or if it had acknowledged that it was simply a kick-ass action show in
space, that also would have been fine.
Oh, and you'd have thought with 6 leading characters, they could have come up
with at least *one* who was remotely sympathetic. I hated them all.
> Anyway, top show in my opinion. It's a pity the US networks didn't stick
> with SAAB and other shows like American Gothic. :(
>
AG was pretty cool. Except that bloody Merlyn woman! I wonder where that would
have gone in a second season with Caleb finally under Lucas' wing...
Mind you, network cancellation can sometimes be a good thing. If Twin Peaks
had gone on for another 2 or 3 seasons it would have been ridiculous, but as
it stands IMO it's one of the most successful TV experiments ever.
BCNU,
STB
Phil Jefferson
Scott Thornton wrote:
> -- I love Vansen, shes the gorgeous Marine in the
> world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!VA
> NSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVAN
> ENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANS
> ENVANSEN
> Scott Thornton
Hmm, interesting _AND_ informaitve...
Phil - J
Phil Jefferson
Thor wrote:
> Get your video's ready people.
> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>
> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow
> start (it
> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>
> -Thor
Incedentally, I wonder how many of these groups have rules against cross
posting...
Phil - J
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: Phil Jefferson <P...@white-star.com> Order
details:
>Paul Saunders wrote:
>
>> Mr 50% wrote:
>> >
>> > Trade confirmed from: "Thor" <Th...@Matts.Force9.Net> Order details:
>> >
>> > >Get your video's ready people.
>> > >The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>> > >
>> > >If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow
>> start (it
>> > >gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hooo-rah !
>> >
>> > Mr50% _________________________________________________
>> > * Time Tells Trend - Dow Site at :-
>> > * http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6284/index.html
>>
>> Isn't that "Hoo-Yah!"?
>> I missed it this week. Must remember to record it next week.
>
>Both, Wang says Hoo-rah, Coop says Hoo-Yah.
>
Yeh, I'm defo more a wang-man than cooperman ;)
Hoo-rah !
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> Order details:
>Thor wrote:
>>
>> Get your video's ready people.
>> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>>
>> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
>> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>>
>> -Thor
>
>Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
>sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>
Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
believeable than ST or B5.
Pugwash
Thanx. I nearly recorded Robocop instead.
Phew!
Pugwash
Thor wrote in message <6bdr8l$2...@news1.force9.net>...
Travers Naran
Mr 50% (mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com) pontificated:
>
> Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
> believeable than ST or B5.
How do you figure that????
I'm gonna have to call you out on that one. Prove it.
Franklin Hummel
In article <34ddddf9...@news.prestel.co.uk>,
Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
>believeable than ST or B5.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Barry O'Neill
In article <34ddddf9...@news.prestel.co.uk>,
mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com says...
> >> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> >>
> >> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> >> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
> >>
> >> -Thor
> >
> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
> >
>
> believeable than ST or B5.
Yeah, right. At least the FX had two more dimensions than the cast.
regards,
Barry
--
"Humour is *such* a subjective thing, don't you think Mollari?" - Emperor
Cartagia, Babylon 5
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: Scott Thornton <ke...@keets.demon.co.uk> Order
details:
>In article <34DC508C...@white-star.com>, Phil Jefferson
><P...@white-star.com> writes
>>Paul Saunders wrote:
>>
>>> Mr 50% wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Trade confirmed from: "Thor" <Th...@Matts.Force9.Net> Order details:
>>> >
>>> > >Get your video's ready people.
>>> > >The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>>> > >
>>> > >If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow
>>> start (it
>>> > >gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Hooo-rah !
>>> >
>>> > Mr50% _________________________________________________
>>> > * Time Tells Trend - Dow Site at :-
>>> > * http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6284/index.html
>>>
>>> Isn't that "Hoo-Yah!"?
>>> I missed it this week. Must remember to record it next week.
>>
>>Both, Wang says Hoo-rah, Coop says Hoo-Yah.
>>
>
>-- I love Vansen, shes the gorgeous Marine in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!VA
>NSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANSENVANS
>ENVANSEN
>Scott Thornton
NO !, YOU CAN NOT ! Shes MINE, all Mine ! ;)
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: Stu Bell
<bed...@etgate.no-spam-please-we're-british.co.uk> Order details:
>in space. If it had actually done something other than trade in sci-fi and
>wartime cliches, maybe dealt with some serious issues, that would have been
>fine. Or if it had acknowledged that it was simply a kick-ass action show in
>space, that also would have been fine.
>
>Oh, and you'd have thought with 6 leading characters, they could have come up
>with at least *one* who was remotely sympathetic. I hated them all.
There were some real cool episodes, two that come to mind were :-
1. 'Who Am I', when Colnel McQueen goes one on one with Chiggy Von
Rictoven,
2. Then there was the one with 'whats his name', the nipple, going
undercover on his own, where he has fantasies of doing it with a dead
Vansen ;)
For me it delivered, though snif, snif, wish there had been a lot more
episodes.
Tyrone L Cartwright
In <6bdr8l$2...@news1.force9.net>, "Thor" <Th...@Matts.Force9.Net> typed:
| Get your video's ready people.
| The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
|
| If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
| gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
Sorry, I found myself incapable of taking it even remotely seriously after
the "Pancakes In Spaaaaaaaaace" incident.
--
Tyrone C. http://www.whimsy.demon.co.uk/index.html
Scott Thomas
In article <886883876.29325.2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stu
Bell <bed...@etgate.no-spam-please-we're-british.co.uk> writes
>AG was pretty cool. Except that bloody Merlyn woman! I wonder where that
>would
>have gone in a second season with Caleb finally under Lucas' wing...
Skies next!
>
>Mind you, network cancellation can sometimes be a good thing. If Twin Peaks
>had gone on for another 2 or 3 seasons it would have been ridiculous, but as
>it stands IMO it's one of the most successful TV experiments ever.
--
Scott Thomas
Jonathan Tranter
In article <886883876.29325.2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stu
Bell <bed...@etgate.no-spam-please-we're-british.co.uk> writes
>It's all to do with outlook. The makers of ID4 never intended for it
>to be anything other than popcorn munching mindless fun, albeit
>spectacular mindless fun. In other words it didn't take itself
>seriously - so for me it was perfectly successful and I had a great
>time watching it.
I know what you're saying Stu, but this explanation could be given for
any load of bollocks like, the admittedly much worse, "Batman & Robin"
for example. The filmmakers create a completely nonsense storyline
bolstered up by spectacular special effects and then say, okay we know
it's shite but it's good fun, so stop complaining.
I saw "Independence Day" as a shameless rip-off of many other genre
films, like the tv movie "V" for example which it stole entire sentences
from. I just can't relate to July 14th (or June 14th... whenever) as
being a date where the whole planet celebrates a war against aliens
being similar in significance to a few colonial outposts being angry
about taxes on tea. The British parts were played as if they were in
World War II, I mean good luck to American films & tv which take the
piss out of us but they could at least -try- to be funny like "The
Simpsons". Also the casting of the film was as if it tried to itself
seriously, like having an actor from every walk of American life.
"Mars Attacks!" and "Starship Troopers" were just as much aimed at
"popcorn munching mindless fun" audience, had similar quality special
effects, and took themselves a -lot- less seriously than ID4. These are
quality films, ID4 was just a bag of shit... in my opinion! Still, I bet
I still watch it again on Sky Movies this week, D'oh! :)
Stu Bell
Jonathan Tranter <jona...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uknospam> wrote:
>
> I know what you're saying Stu, but this explanation could be given for
> any load of bollocks like, the admittedly much worse, "Batman & Robin"
> for example. The filmmakers create a completely nonsense storyline
> bolstered up by spectacular special effects and then say, okay we know
> it's shite but it's good fun, so stop complaining.
>
If someone actually said to me that they'd enjoyed "Batman and Robin" I
guess I would have to accept it. But I honsetly have yet to meet anyone
who didn't think it was utter shite. Even the 4-year olds in the screening
I went to were crying and screaming to be let out! I take your point though,
maybe I just happened to be in the right mood when I saw Independence Day.
Stu
Simon Fitzgerald
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Scott Thomas wrote:
> In article <886883876.29325.2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stu
> Bell <bed...@etgate.no-spam-please-we're-british.co.uk> writes
> >AG was pretty cool. Except that bloody Merlyn woman! I wonder where that
> >would
> >have gone in a second season with Caleb finally under Lucas' wing...
> Come off it! American Gothic was dreadful. You will be defending Dark
> Skies next!
AG was a very good show, and would have been even better had it been
allowed another season. And Dark Skies was excellent as well, as detailed
planned arc stories always are.
[snip]
> Scott Thomas
>
>
********************************************
* _______ ________ *
* / ____\ \ / / ____| *
* | (___ \ \ /\ / /| |__ *
* \___ \ \ \/ \/ / | __| *
* ____) | \ /\ / | | *
* |_____/ \/ \/ |_| *
* *
* Eagles may soar, but weasels don't *
* get sucked into jet engines *
********************************************
Who ever said that reality had to work right?
Angus Manwaring
On 08-Feb-98 11:14:50, Mr 50% said
>There were some real cool episodes, two that come to mind were :-
>1. 'Who Am I', when Colnel McQueen goes one on one with Chiggy Von
>Rictoven,
Shite as far as I was concerned. McQueen is in a bad way, and shouldn't
really be flying at all, then he goes up and takes out an "unbeatable"
pilot, because he's really hard. Not a story, as far as I was concerned.
>2. Then there was the one with 'whats his name', the nipple, going
>undercover on his own, where he has fantasies of doing it with a dead
>Vansen ;)
I think this was the most memorable episode, without any of the usual
nauseating teen-yanks in trouble rubbish. It pretty much broke all the
normal conventions for S:AAB, and would have worked as an Outer Limits
episode. The rest, for me, was generally enjoyable nonsense with moments
of irritation.
All the best,
Angus Manwaring.
Sorry, but I'm fed up with the SPAM. If you wish to e-mail from a
newsgroup please remove _ANTISPAM_ from my e-mail address.
Paul Saunders
> >> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> >>
> >> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> >> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
> >>
> >
> >Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
> >
>
> Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
> believeable than ST or B5.
>
> * Time Tells Trend - Dow Site at :-
> * http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6284/index.html
Uh-oh! Someone putting B5 down! And in a B5 Newsgroup as well! It
shouldn't be allowed!
Mark Blunden
Mr 50% wrote in message <34ddddf9...@news.prestel.co.uk>...
>Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
>believeable than ST or B5.
Well, compared to ST I'll agree - what isn't?
But, fighter planes with tiny thrusters as an attempted concession to
realism, which fly like they're in atmosphere when they're in space? And
the alien fighters are worse.
Then there are those cargo/passenger transports with the 2 thrusters whose
centre of gravity is completely out of line with their engines once
loaded - making them unflyable in practice.
And as for the episode when they're trapped deep in enemy territory in a
transport and go into orbit around a comet to escape - this is realistic
space technology!?
--
Mark.
mar...@netcomuk.co.uk
To e-mail me, remove the '.spamoff' from my address.
"People are too unreliable to be successfully replaced by machines."
- Star Cops
Batch
Scott Thomas wrote in message ...
>Agreed. Twin Peaks is without doubt one of the greatest TV series ever!
In your opinion :-p
<g>
Tim Stainthorpe
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, wossisname? oh, y'know, that Stu Bell
<bed...@etgate.no-spam-please-we're-british.co.uk>, uttered some
gubbins:
>Jonathan Tranter <jona...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uknospam> wrote:
>> In article <34DBC4EC...@iol.ie>, Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> writes
>> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>> nauseating "Independence Day". Also on "Earth Final Conflict" last week
>> the "World Bowl" event was pretty funny, apparently in the future 4.5
>> billion people tune in worldwide to see an American Football match!
>> Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Bloody Microsoft. Is there *anything* they haven't got their finger in?
:-)
--
Tim Stainthorpe: Well, bugger me i'm up a gum tree.
t...@maingate.demon.co.uk
http://www.maingate.demon.co.uk/marknlard/ (Mark Radcliffe Gubbins)
Thor
Bharat Bedia wrote
>So how many episodes are there in total ? (I missed it last time and plan
to
>Video the whole lot!)
There are 23 episodes including the 1:30h pilot
-Thor
Nathan Dimmock
Mr 50% wrote:
[snip]
> >Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
> >
>
> believeable than ST or B5.
>
> * Time Tells Trend - Dow Site at :-
> * http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6284/index.html
I agree the American sentimentality is OTT, but some of the historical
references are nice. The UN leader who constantly quotes(or copies)
Churchill gets a tad annoying, especially as there is no credit given to
the great man, for what are essentially his speeches. The fact that the
no other country except the US is shown is also very annoying, as it
seems although there is some sort of World Government, the fighting
forces are mainly US ones. I don't think another country is mentioned
once in the whole series!
Somewhere there's also a scene where the "V-Chip" causes a film of one
of Shakespeare's plays to be censored!
However, I don't think the space technology _is_ any more believable
than B5 (ST maybe...), but this is mainly because the sole explanation
for FTL travel is "wormholes." They don't explain two way, FMV
communication over several light years, or the apparent inconsistency
between the fact that in the pilot, the Colony ship _must_ leave ASAP
because another "wormhole" won't open for years, but the Navy can move
about the Galaxy without problem. The space combat between the
Hammerheads and the enemy fights are great in terms in SFX, but also
totally unrealistic.
Despite being flawed in many ways, it was still an enjoyable program to
watch, although if they do ever make another series, they definitely
should not have Wang and the others survive, as that would just be the
last straw and turn it from an enjoyable, but flawed program, to being
crap, silly, and unrealistic...
Nathan
--
Remove ** from the end of my e-mail address to reply. I apologise for
any inconvenience.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
[J.R.R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings]
Nathan Dimmock
Simon Fitzgerald wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Scott Thomas wrote:
> > In article <886883876.29325.2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stu
> > Bell <bed...@etgate.no-spam-please-we're-british.co.uk> writes
> > >AG was pretty cool. Except that bloody Merlyn woman! I wonder where that
> > >would
> > >have gone in a second season with Caleb finally under Lucas' wing...
> > Come off it! American Gothic was dreadful. You will be defending Dark
> > Skies next!
>
> AG was a very good show, and would have been even better had it been
> allowed another season. And Dark Skies was excellent as well, as detailed
> planned arc stories always are.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Scott Thomas
Dark Skies was a brilliant show! While I was watching the Pilot, I kept
thinking "This is a rip off of X-Files" but after that, it turned out to
be a really excellent programme. It had far more consistency between
episodes than XF, you could tell it had a planned arc, and the
alternative interpretation of all those historical events was really
clever, and enjoyable to watch. Not only that, but avoided the trap of
making the main characters invincible, which is *usually* a sign of a
good quality story, and while X-Files hides behind smokes-screens,
mis-leading events and confusing plots, DS was really up front and left
few unanswered questions, while still having a good "Conspiracy Theory"
storyline.
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: bon...@nothanks.cableinet.co.uk (Barry O'Neill)
Order details:
>> >Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
>> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>> >
>>
>> Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
>> believeable than ST or B5.
>
>Yeah, right. At least the FX had two more dimensions than the cast.
>
Look they have NO choice !, how can you pick on one dimensional people
who have no choice but to act one dimensionally ;)
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: tna...@mail.direct.ca (Travers Naran) Order
details:
>Mr 50% (mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com) pontificated:
>>
>> Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
>> believeable than ST or B5.
>
>How do you figure that????
>
>I'm gonna have to call you out on that one. Prove it.
>
Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
Also the idea of having craft carriers aka motherships is much more
believeable then what the other two represent, especially star trek.
Marc Read
Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
>of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
Ah, yes. Much more realistic, of course.
--
Marc Read http://www.rauko.demon.co.uk <*> ma...@rauko.demon.co.uk <><
How many wicked crimes could be committed if everyone had the same face!
-- Fermicus Maternus, _Mathesis_
Stephen Bennett
>>
>
>Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
>believeable than ST or B5.
WHAT? They were using a chemical rocket to get to the settlement in ep 1
then by ep 2 they had a huge star fleet capable of flitting around the
galaxy willy nilly!
Wasn't it like a low rent starship Troopers though?
Regards
Stephen
Who watched it all anyhow:-)
Stephen Bennett
It did get better though, I cant remmeber the characters names even though I
sat thru it all um.. weren;t they.....
Crying girl
Angry boy
square jaw
pamplemousse
and
wanger?
Stephen
Simon Lipscomb
Tyrone L Cartwright wrote:
>
> In <6bdr8l$2...@news1.force9.net>, "Thor" <Th...@Matts.Force9.Net> typed:
>
> | The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> |
> | If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> | gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>
> after the "Pancakes In Spaaaaaaaaace" incident.
It took you _that_ long?
---Simon Lipscomb, Univ. Labs of Physiology. Oxford.----
No-one is completely useless-
They can always serve as a bad example.
Ben Webb
Mr 50% wrote:
> Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
> of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
They also adjust the inertia of their ships to allow the high
speeds necessary (using something known as the 'Eckerley' principle, I
believe). That sounds about as believable as warp drive to me, but
that's just my opinion. (I don't think this is ever directly referred to
in the show, but it's stated by the writers somewhere, so I'm told).
> Also the idea of having craft carriers aka motherships is much more
> believeable then what the other two represent, especially star trek.
Perhaps (although I'm still not quite sure what 'weighing anchor'
refers to in this context - perhaps it just means 'station keeping'). If
by "the other two" you're referring to B5, though, I'd have to point out
that most of the larger craft do actually act as motherships for
fighters, although the roles of aircraft carrier and battleship seem to
have merged somewhat (probably due to the requirement for a large
mothership, in order to house the large hyperspace jump engines).
Ben
--
Email: wadh...@sable.ox.ac.uk WWW: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wadh0298
"What with excellent browsing and sluicing and cheery conversation and
what-not the afternoon passed quite happily."
- 'My Man Jeeves (1919). Jeeves and the Unbidden Guest',
P. G. Wodehouse
Ben Argyle
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Mr 50% wrote:
> Trade confirmed from: Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> Order details:
>
> >Thor wrote:
> >>
> >> Get your video's ready people.
> >> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> >>
> >> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> >> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
> >>
> >> -Thor
> >
> >Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
> >
>
> Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
> believeable than ST or B5.
<fx: chokes on keyboard>
You have to yanking my flame. Vogon Constructor Fleet carriers do not a
sci-fi believable technology make.
--Ben
"Live Faust, die Jung"
_____________________________________________________________________________
|I'm sorry, you must be confusing |Email: B...@cs.man.ac.uk, B...@gits.co.uk |
|me with someone who gives a damn.|Homepage: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~argyleb |
|_________________________________|___________________________________________|
| Abbot, Manchester Chapter of the Monks of Cool since MCMXCVI a.d. |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
Address in .sig
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:30:07 -0800,
Simon Lipscomb (simon.l...@physiol.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: Tyrone L Cartwright wrote:
: > Sorry, I found myself incapable of taking it even remotely seriously
: It took you _that_ long?
Episode 1 at the barracks/training camp was a laugh, and it carried on
in much the same vein.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_
Dr D K G Campbell zzz. /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_.
camp...@cs.york.ac.uk |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~campbell/ '---''(_/--'`-'\_)
"Expertise is measured in units of mean time between RTFM"
Address in .sig
On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 02:20:28 +0000,
Adam Lock (lo...@iol.ie) wrote:
: Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
: sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
Plenty of gung-ho nonsense, and officers acting and being treated like
other ranks.
Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound? Similarly,
what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
Address in .sig
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 19:18:00 +0000,
Jonathan Tranter (jona...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uknospam) wrote:
: It's not as bad as some things in this respect though, like the
: nauseating "Independence Day".
That was a laugh, but nowhere near as funny as Mars Attacks.
Tom Jones, top singer and movie star. Hurrah!
Mat Wakefield
Address in .sig wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 02:20:28 +0000,
> Adam Lock (lo...@iol.ie) wrote:
> : Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
> : sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>
> Plenty of gung-ho nonsense, and officers acting and being treated like
> other ranks.
>
> Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
> that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound? Similarly,
> what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
>
> |\ _,,,---,,_
> Dr D K G Campbell zzz. /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_.
> camp...@cs.york.ac.uk |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
> http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~campbell/ '---''(_/--'`-'\_)
> "Expertise is measured in units of mean time between RTFM"
Are you suggesting star wars would be better if all the space battles
were dark and had no sound? intresting, wonder if it'll catch on
Mat 0-
John Ward
In article <6bmvp6$5sc$6...@pump1.york.ac.uk>,
Address in .sig <dk...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually
> shown that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no
> sound?
I believe it's the only way to "sell" a series to those who are going to
put up the money. The "suits" specify all sorts of things, and silent
space is one of the no-no areas.
--
John M Ward : ZFC A & member of Convergence International
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future
frightens us ...and our lives slip away, moment by moment,
lost in that vast, terrible in-between." (Emperor Turhan)
Simon Fitzgerald
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Marc Read wrote:
> Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> >Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
> >of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
>
> Ah, yes. Much more realistic, of course.
>
If that's sarcasm, then it's misplaced. I'm no astro physicist, but there
are mainstream theories around that show how black holes (and indirectly
technically time travel - you appear the other side before you actually
leave) can be used for space travel.
I think I read those theories in one of Stephen Hawkings' books. Not too
sure though.
> --
> Marc Read http://www.rauko.demon.co.uk <*> ma...@rauko.demon.co.uk <><
> How many wicked crimes could be committed if everyone had the same face!
> -- Fermicus Maternus, _Mathesis_
>
>
********************************************
* _______ ________ *
* / ____\ \ / / ____| *
* | (___ \ \ /\ / /| |__ *
* \___ \ \ \/ \/ / | __| *
* ____) | \ /\ / | | *
* |_____/ \/ \/ |_| *
* *
* Eagles may soar, but weasels don't *
* get sucked into jet engines *
********************************************
Whenever I think about the past it brings back so many memories.
Phil Jefferson
Jonathan Tranter wrote:
> I saw "Independence Day" as a shameless rip-off of many other genre
> films, like the tv movie "V" for example which it stole entire
> sentences
> from. I just can't relate to July 14th (or June 14th... whenever) as
> being a date where the whole planet celebrates a war against aliens
> being similar in significance to a few colonial outposts being angry
> about taxes on tea. The British parts were played as if they were in
> World War II, I mean good luck to American films & tv which take the
> piss out of us but they could at least -try- to be funny like "The
> Simpsons". Also the casting of the film was as if it tried to itself
> seriously, like having an actor from every walk of American life.
>
> "Mars Attacks!" and "Starship Troopers" were just as much aimed at
> "popcorn munching mindless fun" audience, had similar quality special
> effects, and took themselves a -lot- less seriously than ID4. These
> are
> quality films, ID4 was just a bag of shit... in my opinion! Still, I
> bet
> I still watch it again on Sky Movies this week, D'oh! :)
I'm sorry, just so I get this straight: You *LIKED* "Mars Attacks!"? It
was a Quality film? I have yet to see batman and robin, so Mars attacks
stands as the worst film I've ever watched right through. It was a
brilliant concept which had been completely screwed up, once you'd seen
the trailers you'd seen all the bits you were likely to laugh at, and
the trailers somehow managed to be funnier than the actual film...
ID4? It may take itself seriously, but that doesn't mean you have to, it
wasn't a great film, but it was a long way from being a poor one, I
could quite happily watch it a third time, although I might have to fast
forward through the supposedly english accents.
Troopers was good though.
Phil - J
Jared Head
Address in .sig (dk...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
: that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound?
Cause that makes for boring action films. I've never really understood
this complaint. For that complete realistic feel everybody in the cinema
should suffocate and have their eyeballs bulge out, but no one ever
objects about when that doesn't happen.
Jared
--
Jared Head at the Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human
history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
Mitch Ratliffe
Scott Knights
Mr 50% wrote
>>Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
>>sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>>
>
>believeable than ST or B5.
>
I assume you are saying this with your toungue not only in your cheek, but
sticking through it and coming out the other side.
If you are serious, then what were you smoking while you were you watching
SAAB?
Ships in B5 have inertia, they obey Newtons laws of motion.
The ships in SAAB are even less believable than Star Trek. They bank to make
turns. What exactly are they banking against? You may not realise this but
there aint much atmosphere in space. Do they rely on the odd atom of
hydrogen coming by to make a course correction instead of using reaction
thrusters like every sensible spacecraft?
Also, if the dinky toy fighters have the ability to reach orbit simply by
pulling back on the stick, why does the colony ship have to be a bloody
great rocket with a long winded countdown procedure?
--
Scott Knights
Click below to reply, or remove DIE_SPAMMING_GIT from address
scottk...@usa.net
sc...@firstcom.demon.co.uk
Mad person from Nevada on watching for UFOs:
'Quite often, when you see them in a clear sky, they will
try and make themselves look like conventional aircraft'
- Louis Therouxs Weird Weekend
alec
dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig) wrote:
>Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
>that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound? Similarly,
>what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
Well, if 'sound in space' is a problem, you can always imagine the
microphones are strapped to the hulls of the spaceships, picking up
the sounds that way. That of course leaves the problem of why the
ships become louder as they approach the camera, but I think this can
be put down to artistic licence.
Personally I have no quibbles with hearing sound on space scenes.
Watching any film, as soon as there is a cut from one point of view to
another, or from one scene to another, we are effectively viewing
things in a way that we never could if we were there in person. If you
can accept this (and everyone can) having the soundtrack reedited in a
similar way (so that we can hear the noises of the motors/guns on
various spaceships in a shot, at levels proportional to their distance
from the camera) is a logical next step.
(I think that last paragraph makes sense, but I'm not entirely sure.)
| ,||\ ----------------------------------------------------
||||||||||| .` * * alec; in havenpool, wessex * *
|||{|||||{| @ --------------------http://www.wessex.demon.co.uk/
|||X|||||X|||\~ "No time for toast? Nothing's THAT serious" said Dougal
John Ward
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.98020...@sgi7.york.ac.uk>,
> > Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and
> > >instead of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
> >
> > Ah, yes. Much more realistic, of course.
I thought hyperspace was fairly well worked out in theory, maths and
all, but no-one has yet been there so it hasn't been verified. Also I
have heard that space-warping was now thought possible.
> If that's sarcasm, then it's misplaced. I'm no astro physicist, but
> there are mainstream theories around that show how black holes (and
> indirectly technically time travel - you appear the other side before
> you actually leave) can be used for space travel.
That's the problem, I imagine: can one go through one without the
(presumably huge) time-shift?
> I think I read those theories in one of Stephen Hawkings' books.
<Data> Inquiry: does that make it "correct"? </Data>
> Not too sure though.
Okay. I was just checking :)
tee...@spamtrap.com
In uk.media.tv.sf.babylon5 Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
: Trade confirmed from: tna...@mail.direct.ca (Travers Naran) Order
: details:
:>Mr 50% (mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com) pontificated:
:>>
:>> Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
:>> believeable than ST or B5.
:>
:>How do you figure that????
:>I'm gonna have to call you out on that one. Prove it.
: Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
: of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
Ummm... Yeah. That's pretty damn believable.
Of course, you'd have to deal with the fact that anything entering the
black hole would be crushed into neutron soup, and that black holes have
been far from proven to lead ANYWHERE, but yeah. Real believable.
sigh.
: Also the idea of having craft carriers aka motherships is much more
: believeable then what the other two represent, especially star trek.
Star Trek was about a fleet of cruisers during relative peacetime...
Carriers are a weapon of war.
Babylon 5 HAS carriers.
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: Paul Saunders <ps...@york.ac.uk> Order details:
>Mr 50% wrote:
>>
>> Trade confirmed from: Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> Order details:
>>
>> >Thor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Get your video's ready people.
>> >> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
>> >>
>> >> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
>> >> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>> >>
>> >> -Thor
>> >
>> >Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
>> >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>> >
>>
>> Its damn good apple pie, at least the space technologies much more
>> believeable than ST or B5.
>>
>> Mr50% _________________________________________________
>> * Time Tells Trend - Dow Site at :-
>> * http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6284/index.html
>
>Uh-oh! Someone putting B5 down! And in a B5 Newsgroup as well! It
>shouldn't be allowed!
Sorry, ... a lapse of sanity ;)
B5,B5,B5,B5 ........ hoo-rah !
Though with each passing week, I am starting to forget how
good B5 really is :(
Franklin Hummel
In article <34e09d20...@news.prestel.co.uk>,
Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
>of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: "Stephen Bennett" <s.be...@uea.ac.uk> Order
details:
Don't forget the one with the banjo, and his favourite tune 'When I'm
cleaning winders' ;)
tee...@spamtrap.com
In uk.media.tv.sf.babylon5 Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> wrote:
: Thor wrote:
:>
:> Get your video's ready people.
:> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
:>
:> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
:> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
: Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
: sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
No, it's just a dreary, poorly done piece of drek. It's much lower than
standard for American TV... Of course, I realize it has to be pretty awful
to manage that.....
David Johnston
Ben Argyle wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Mr 50% wrote:
>
> > Trade confirmed from: Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> Order details:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Get your video's ready people.
> > >> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> > >>
> > >> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> > >> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
> > >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
> > >
> >
> > believeable than ST or B5.
>
>
> You have to yanking my flame. Vogon Constructor Fleet carriers do not a
> sci-fi believable technology make.
What does that have to with SAAB?
Dave Wonnacott
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.98020...@sgi7.york.ac.uk>
swf...@york.ac.uk "Simon Fitzgerald" writes:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Marc Read wrote:
>
> > Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
> > >of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
> >
> > Ah, yes. Much more realistic, of course.
> >
>
> If that's sarcasm, then it's misplaced. I'm no astro physicist, but there
> are mainstream theories around that show how black holes (and indirectly
> technically time travel - you appear the other side before you actually
> leave) can be used for space travel.
>
Hmmm... Alas, it is very very unlikely that someone will figure out
how to prop open a black hole (they have a nasty tendency to snap
shut before you can get 'through' them). OTOH no-one yet knows if
such a thing as hyperspace exists, and the 'Warp drive' discovered
18 months ago,has since been proved to be unworkable (in its current
form). Yes, there are theories that utilise black holes as subways,
but they're scarcly mainstream. The theories that show they are
unlikely to be used that way are the mainstream ones...
Back to the drawing board...
Wonx ;)
--
Captain Drake: "Do not force us to engage your ship!"
Delenn: "Why not?!" - 'Severed Dreams' :B5-310
Wonx - a.k.a. Dave Wonnacott
Don't be AFWIAD - visit http://www.fudges.demon.co.uk/
David Burnett
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.98020...@sgi7.york.ac.uk>,
Simon Fitzgerald <swf...@york.ac.uk> writes
>On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Marc Read wrote:
>
>> Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
>> >of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
>>
>> Ah, yes. Much more realistic, of course.
>>
>
>If that's sarcasm, then it's misplaced. I'm no astro physicist, but there
>are mainstream theories around that show how black holes (and indirectly
>technically time travel - you appear the other side before you actually
>leave) can be used for space travel.
>
>sure though.
>
Stephen Hawking believes the exact opposite, that wormhole's couldn't be
used for travel, IIRC the radiation level would be far to great for anything
to survive, anyway it was the Guru himself did the maths to prove it.
--
mailto:da...@vargol.demon.co.uk To reply, change my username from 'junk'
http://www.vargol.demon.co.uk/ ICQ 6870732
Is she wierd? is she white?
is she promised to the night? And her head as no room....
David Burnett
In article <34e09d20...@news.prestel.co.uk>, Mr 50% <mr50pcnt
@REMOVEhotmail.com> writes
>Also the idea of having craft carriers aka motherships is much more
>believeable then what the other two represent, especially star trek.
>
Cough, choke....if you actuall watch B5 how could you miss the fact that
the single person fighters are carried in the capital ships for long distance
flight. Any one out there with the Technical Manual know the maximum
flight time for a Statfury. Don't forget in space very little thrust is lost in
the 'vaccum' of space, once you've accelerated, you won't need thrusters
again unless you need to change course, the max distance of a 'Fury is
more likely to be dictated by other factors e.g. Comsic radiation
levels(more of a limit on the pilot), oxygen supply, electrical supply to the
instruments blah, blah blah.
In S:AAB, they used conveniant Wormholes to travel, note that the
Wormholes aren't stable and they talk about Wormholes opening, closing.
I like the plane look of the craft in S:AAB, if make sense since they are
atmosphere capable, unfortunately they still fly like planes in space, which
would leave them at a massive disadvantage up against a craft designed
for fighting in space (e.g. Starfuries could manuver above then, keeping in
the same place relative to the plane by matching vectors, rotate so that
they're facing the top of the S:aab plane and then blow them to kingdom
come, even Chiggy von Rictoven wouldn't have stood a chance :)
So S:AAB gains points for realism but loses them for ignoring real world
physics and lack of pacticallity.
In ST they have to use post lightspeed travel, shields, transporters
to move ships, and desipte this they never seem to use maximum speed
to get to an incident sites any quicker (yes I know about the warp drive
creating holes in space/time thing ) but you know the routine, they go at
warp factor three to deliver urgent medical suppies, yet by hitting warp
factor seven they could get there five times quicker...but it would have
that just in time feel would it :)
So Trek loses in all respects
Case closed m'lud.....
Dave.
Thor
Scott Knights wrote:
>Ships in B5 have inertia, they obey Newtons laws of motion.
Sorry but they did in S:aab as well, one of the regular dog fight tricks we
switching off the main thrusters and spinning the Hammerhead around while
staying traveling in the same directions to shoot back at the attacker, the
same way the White Stars do in B5.
>The ships in SAAB are even less believable than Star Trek. They bank to
make
>turns. What exactly are they banking against? You may not realise this but
>there aint much atmosphere in space. Do they rely on the odd atom of
>hydrogen coming by to make a course correction instead of using reaction
>thrusters like every sensible spacecraft?
????? Sorry but it must have been hard to miss the control thrusters on the
HammerHeads, the thing was covered in them. and when using thrusters to
change direction you would bank...
>Also, if the dinky toy fighters have the ability to reach orbit simply by
>pulling back on the stick, why does the colony ship have to be a bloody
>great rocket with a long winded countdown procedure?
Well... you got me there, I didn't understand that bit either.
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig) Order details:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 02:20:28 +0000,
>Adam Lock (lo...@iol.ie) wrote:
>: Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
>: sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>
>Plenty of gung-ho nonsense, and officers acting and being treated like
>other ranks.
>
>Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
>that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound? Similarly,
>what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
>
2001 was a flop when it was first released, people were coming out of
the cinema scratching there heads, it only took off when the Book by
Clarke became a best seller.
Scott Knights
Mr 50% wrote in message <34e09d20...@news.prestel.co.uk>...
>Trade confirmed from: tna...@mail.direct.ca (Travers Naran) Order
>details:
>
>>Mr 50% (mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com) pontificated:
>>>
>>> believeable than ST or B5.
>>
>>
>>I'm gonna have to call you out on that one. Prove it.
>>
>
>of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
>
>believeable then what the other two represent, especially star trek.
>
Hmmm. Black holes.
What happens as you approach one.
First you get ripped to chunky salsa by tidal effects. You then pass the
event horizon, which you can't get back from unless you can exceed the speed
of light (unlike the appalling episode of Voyager, where they escape from a
black hole by going through the hole they made in the event horizon on the
way in!), this is assuming you survive the tidal effect, which you won't.
Once past this lot, you will then reach the heart of the hole, which is the
singularity. This is the point of infinite density and no size at which
quantum mechanics disappears up its own backside. It is also the point at
which you get squeezed out of the universe.
Not a particularly pleasant or effective means of transportation.
The ships in B5 are effectively carriers, as well as warships in their own
right, as they all carry a complement of star furies and shuttles.
Scott Knights
Address in .sig wrote in message <6bmvp6$5sc$6...@pump1.york.ac.uk>...
>On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 02:20:28 +0000,
>Adam Lock (lo...@iol.ie) wrote:
>: Could that be because it's quite a boring show and full of American
>: sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
>
>Plenty of gung-ho nonsense, and officers acting and being treated like
>other ranks.
>
>Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
>that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound?
Similarly,
>what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
>
I believe this is the 'Star Wars Effect'. Unfortunately, although these are
very enjoyable films, they are complete hokum. They had such a profound
effect, however, that they influence everything made since. Even 2010 has
sound in the space scenes. Post Star Wars, It wasn't until B5 that people
even attempted to show real physics in spaceflight, although this still
suffers from sound in space. I doubt that Warners would put up the cash for
silent dogfights, so this is the only way JMS could get the series made.
Chris
<snip>
>I believe this is the 'Star Wars Effect'. Unfortunately, although these are
>very enjoyable films, they are complete hokum. They had such a profound
>effect, however, that they influence everything made since. Even 2010 has
>sound in the space scenes. Post Star Wars, It wasn't until B5 that people
>even attempted to show real physics in spaceflight, although this still
>suffers from sound in space. I doubt that Warners would put up the cash for
>silent dogfights, so this is the only way JMS could get the series made.
>
pretend, you know. Sheesh.
Address in .sig
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:56:52 +0000,
Phil Jefferson (P...@white-star.com) wrote:
: I'm sorry, just so I get this straight: You *LIKED* "Mars Attacks!"? It
: was a Quality film?
It was a laugh, and very funny at that.
Address in .sig
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:03:58 +0000,
Mat Wakefield ("mwakefie"@(nospam:)fdgroup.co.uk) wrote:
: Address in .sig wrote:
: > Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
: > that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound? Similarly,
: > what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
: Are you suggesting star wars would be better if all the space battles
: were dark and had no sound? intresting, wonder if it'll catch on
It would be interesting to see it that way. Space craft would have small lights on
them, illuminating some surfaces, and when close to a planet, there is the light
from its sun.
As for battle noises, you could be inside a space craft, seeing laser fire all around
you, then it arcs towards you (still in silence) and you have the sound of the
explosion once it hits you. It could be quite unnerving - a silent and dark force
of destruction.
Address in .sig
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:42:09 GMT,
Jared Head (bi...@zeus.bris.ac.uk) wrote:
: Address in .sig (dk...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
: : that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound?
: Cause that makes for boring action films.
No, it makes for poor directors who fall back on physical principles
that are only valid in an atmosphere at with a large light source.
: I've never really understood
: this complaint.
It's physics.
: For that complete realistic feel everybody in the cinema
: should suffocate and have their eyeballs bulge out, but no one ever
: objects about when that doesn't happen.
Now you're being silly.
Address in .sig
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:18:34 GMT,
alec (al...@nospamplease.wessex.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig) wrote:
: >Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
: >what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
: Personally I have no quibbles with hearing sound on space scenes.
: Watching any film, as soon as there is a cut from one point of view to
: another, or from one scene to another, we are effectively viewing
: things in a way that we never could if we were there in person.
The sounds heard in a particular shot are supposed to be those able to
be heard by an observer at that position. Place the shot from inside
a space craft and you hear all the sounds going on inside it. Look
out of the window and you still hear all those sounds, but any action
outside is silent. Place the shot from a point in space, and you
hear nothing.
Address in .sig
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:03:10 -0000,
Scott Knights (scottk...@usa.netDIE_SPAMMING_GIT) wrote:
: Post Star Wars, It wasn't until B5 that people
: even attempted to show real physics in spaceflight, although this still
: suffers from sound in space. I doubt that Warners would put up the cash for
: silent dogfights, so this is the only way JMS could get the series made.
A bit of imaginitive direction - using camera shots from inside the space
craft, rather than external vantage points - could be in order here.
Space craft would be illuminated by explosions, or a nearby star, or
silhoueted across the explosions or stars. They could also be illuminated
by laser fire, have hull lights to illuminate surfaces - which could
then be switched off in battle.
Explosions could be cut from silent external shots to internal shots with the
sound of the explosion, e.g.
space craft in a dog-fight
pilot in cockpit (breath and instrument noises)
laser fire arcs across the screen (silent but for internal noises)
explosion inside space craft (bang!)
view from external point (silent)
plus a few other external shots and shots from the attacking pilot's
cockpit thrown in for good measure.
Anyway, I shouldn't be mentioning lasers, as you can only see the beam when
looking at it, or when reflected to you off another surface. Photon
torpedos, plasma beams, or somesuch would be better.
Jonny Ervine
David Johnston wrote:
>
> Ben Argyle wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Mr 50% wrote:
> >
> > > Trade confirmed from: Adam Lock <lo...@iol.ie> Order details:
> > >
> > > >Thor wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Get your video's ready people.
> > > >> The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> > > >>
> > > >> If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> > > >> gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Thor
> > > >
> > > >sentimentalities? Nice FX though.
> > > >
> > >
> > > believeable than ST or B5.
> >
> >
> > You have to yanking my flame. Vogon Constructor Fleet carriers do not a
> > sci-fi believable technology make.
>
> What does that have to with SAAB?
>
agree with me...)
--
Jonny
Jonny Ervine
Scott Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <886883876.29325.2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stu
> Bell <bed...@etgate.no-spam-please-we're-british.co.uk> writes
> >AG was pretty cool. Except that bloody Merlyn woman! I wonder where that
> >would
> >have gone in a second season with Caleb finally under Lucas' wing...
> Come off it! American Gothic was dreadful. You will be defending Dark
> Skies next!
> >
> >Mind you, network cancellation can sometimes be a good thing. If Twin Peaks
> >had gone on for another 2 or 3 seasons it would have been ridiculous, but as
> >it stands IMO it's one of the most successful TV experiments ever.
> Agreed. Twin Peaks is without doubt one of the greatest TV series ever!
American Gothic was pretty good (excellent by American tv standards).
Although i thought it lost quite a lot when Dr. Matt (can't remember his
second name) was just suddenly dropped. Did he drive back in time to
meet his parents or what? I was very disappointed with the finish
especially when no second series was comissioned.
--
Jonny
Mark Stevens
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 15:31:00 +0000, Jonathan Tranter
<jona...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uknospam> wrote:
[ID4]
>Also the casting of the film was as if it tried to itself
>seriously, like having an actor from every walk of American life.
Come off it -- you can hardly say that any film featuring Bill Pullman
as the President is trying to take itself too seriously. And then
you've got that whole Will Smith "brother whups ET's ass" aspect.
Throw in Jeff Goldblum reprising his Jurassic Park role, that bloke
from Taxi playing the comedy-relief father figure and Brent Spiner as
a mad scientist and you've got a movie that's practically screaming,
"Don't take me seriously!"
But, surprisingly, a lot of people did. More fool them.
/\/)ark
Mark Stevens
>If that's sarcasm, then it's misplaced. I'm no astro physicist, but there
>are mainstream theories around that show how black holes (and indirectly
>technically time travel - you appear the other side before you actually
>leave) can be used for space travel.
Yeah, take everything far too seriously, why don't you. Sorry to
remind you, but ST, B5 and SAAB are works of fiction. If their
respective creators want to have spaceships travelling through
hyperspace instead of black holes (or vice versa), then that's their
business.
Some of us watch The Bill because we enjoy a good crime story. Others,
it would appear, are more concerned with the inner workings of the
combustion engine in Reg Hollis's panda car.
/\/)ark
mhubbar...@usa.net
In article <886934669.4396.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
tyr...@whimsy.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> In <6bdr8l$2...@news1.force9.net>, "Thor" <Th...@Matts.Force9.Net> typed:
>
> | Get your video's ready people.
> | The BBC in their "wisdom" :-D have chosen to put it on at 1:20am.
> |
> | If you didn't see it last time, or you thought it go off to a slow start (it
> | gets a LOT better) and gave up. Then don't miss your chance.
>
> the "Pancakes In Spaaaaaaaaace" incident.
But that was "Butts"! What a guy! "Fry me a pancake. I'll be back for
breakfast".
This is a test post BTW. I'm posting from work with Dejanews and a freebie
account.
On the subject of TV programmes on soon, I suppose everyone knows all
about Red Dwarf Night on BBC2 on Saturday? And the special commemorative
episode of DS9 on Thursday where they "Gump" the crew into the "Tribbles"
episode? When I first found out about that I was disappointed, because
they will probably muck it up, but now I've found out more about it I
think "Dax in a red miniskirt! Who cares what the plot is!"
Something that has olutely zero publicity is Beauty and the Beast. It's
being repeated at 2pm every day on Channel 5. Well, someone might be
interested - it was popular the first time round.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Nick Rothwell
dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig) writes:
> space craft in a dog-fight
>
> pilot in cockpit (breath and instrument noises)
>
> laser fire arcs across the screen (silent but for internal noises)
Erm ... and why exactly would the laser fire be visible?
--
Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL contemporary dance projects
http://www.cassiel.com music synthesis and control
NOTICE - this vessel has triple screws - keep clear of blades
Jared Head
: Jared Head (bi...@zeus.bris.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Address in .sig (dk...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: : : Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
: : : that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound?
: : Cause that makes for boring action films.
: No, it makes for poor directors who fall back on physical principles
: that are only valid in an atmosphere at with a large light source.
Every director who ever made a space film except for Kubrick is poor?
: : I've never really understood
: : this complaint.
:
: It's physics.
Sure, but it's also a touch anal.
: : For that complete realistic feel everybody in the cinema
: : should suffocate and have their eyeballs bulge out, but no one ever
: : objects about when that doesn't happen.
:
: Now you're being silly.
It's physics. Or is it OK to subvert realism every now and then for the
sake of entertainment?
I think there are two separate situations here. When Luke Skywalker looks
out of the window of the Death Star it would be nice if he doesn't hear
the sound of X-wings whooshing past; fair enough. But when the POV is
supposed to be 'space', that doesn't imply a spectator anymore, so the
mechanics of human hearing aren't as important.
Jared
--
Jared Head at the Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human
history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
Mitch Ratliffe
Zathras
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Edward Edmondson wrote:
[snip discussion about sound in space vs no sound]
Quickly my take: it's artistic license, after all if you don't like it,
press the MUTE button on your remote & hey presto physically accurate
sound. (Wonder how long you leave it muted though...)
}I think it'd be a pretty good idea in a battle situation to have a
}computer making up sound effects based on sensor information. That way
}you get information from sensors all round the ship without having to
}change views and look at displays and that.
Give the man a cigar - an excellent example of tuirning a physics debate
into a good excuse to have sound - one that would in practice be
*extremely* useful, and could theoretically be implemented using
existing technology :-) (Building a fighter to put it in though would be
the biggest prioblem of course :-)))
}You could hear where other ships were and get a better idea of your
}situation more quickly.
Zath.
---------------------------------<*>----------------------------------
"Though we are not now that strength which in days of old moved earth
and heaven, that which we are, we are; one equal temper of heroic
hearts made weak by time and fate but strong in will to strive,
to seek, to find and not to yield" -- Tennyson's "Ulysses"
Simon Fitzgerald
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Mark Stevens wrote:
Hold on there!!!!
You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post. I am quite well aware
of the nature of B5, ST and SAAB - works of fiction, ie not real, so the
creators can do what they want - and I was replying to a post about
scientific theories. I'm not taking those works of FICTION as REAL at all!
Carm down the tone there, you might have started a flame war otherwise!
Simon
------
Well, what should we lie about now?
Jonathan Tranter
In article <34e03700...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mark Stevens
<ma...@sonance.demon.co.uk> writes
Hey come on, be fair! Your talking about comedy, a film can still be
funny while taking itself seriously. ID4 was just a no-brain well made
fun film aimed at Joe Six-Pack I guess we'll agree on that, but if you
compare it to Mars Attacks! which takes the piss out of the whole idea
of a war with alien invaders and how America would respond to it, -and-
pull of being funny (although opinions differ naturally!) ID4 does come
across as being holier than though. However the actors played their
parts the underlying concept of the film was just one of a jingoistic
and emotional shoot-em-up, and in these two respects it -did- take
itself very seriously.
Anyway, Bill Pullman is about as funny as Harrison Ford being President
as in Airforce One! Also the part of the film that said "Don't take me
seriously" the loudest was the fact that every American heard about the
alien' arrival from Sky News! :)
Jonathan
Processor Simulation Software : http://www.wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uk/
-- Please remove "nospam" from my domain name when replying by email! --
Ben Evans
In article <6QYTsHAd...@vargol.demon.co.uk>, David Burnett wrote:
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.98020...@sgi7.york.ac.uk>,
>Simon Fitzgerald <swf...@york.ac.uk> writes
>>On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Marc Read wrote:
>>
>>> Mr 50% <mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
>>>
>>
>>are mainstream theories around that show how black holes (and indirectly
>>technically time travel - you appear the other side before you actually
>>leave) can be used for space travel.
>>
>>sure though.
>>
>Stephen Hawking believes the exact opposite, that wormhole's couldn't be
>used for travel, IIRC the radiation level would be far to great for anything
>to survive, anyway it was the Guru himself did the maths to prove it.
Folks, folks, folks.
As far as the "mainstream" goes, the experimental evidence for the
*existence* of black holes has only risen above the "reasonable doubt"
level in the last few years. The existence of extrasolar planets is still
not at the 95% confidence level yet.
Yes, there are theoretical models which predict naked singularities, "time
travel", "warp drive" and a load of other stuff but they are all highly,
highly speculative and not in any way part of the canon of accepted
Physics yet. Anyone who says differently is almost certainly attempting
to talk up their own speciality and cover up its experimental shortcomings
(see eg: Supersymmetry, SuperString Theory, etc, etc, etc)
Ultimately, every form of SF/Fantasy requires some sort of suspension of
disbelief. In this case, the fact that the light barrier imposes all sorts
of nasty constraints on the story is what needs to be side-stepped.
What does it matter what we think is a more "common-sense" form of FTL
travel? Nature just *is*, and whatever turns out to be the case when we
get to that level of Science/Technology, that's just the way it is, and it
won't be any respecter of our prejudices.
Ben
--
Ben Evans (Ben....@Swansea.ac.uk) University of Wales, Swansea
"There's a war being fought, and people on drugs are winning it" - Hicks
Just Another Politely Frivolous Evil-Policy Wielding High Density Random
Blonde Gonzo Perl-Hacking Geek Girl Nancy Boy
alec
dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig) wrote:
>Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
>that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound?
Actually, as I recall the Doctor Who story "Revenge of the Cybermen"
did this quite well - at the end of episode 4 there is a sequence
where the director cuts back and forth from exterior shots of Nerva
Beacon (silent) to interior (deafening engine noise) - fairly
effective and unusual.
>Similarly,
>what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
You're forgetting the 'running lights on' scene in Star Trek - The
Motion Picture (repeated in STII), where you see all the little
spotlights that illuminate the saucer section being switched on.
I admit, I'm just listing the exceptions to the rule here.
| ,||\ ----------------------------------------------------
||||||||||| .` * * alec; in havenpool, wessex * *
|||{|||||{| @ --------------------http://www.wessex.demon.co.uk/
|||X|||||X|||\~ "No time for toast? Nothing's THAT serious" said Dougal
Barry O'Neill
In article <34f1de2a...@news.prestel.co.uk>,
mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com says...
> >what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
> >
> the cinema scratching there heads, it only took off when the Book by
> Clarke became a best seller.
Wrong.
JamesG
John Ward wrote:
>
> In article <6bmvp6$5sc$6...@pump1.york.ac.uk>,
> Address in .sig <dk...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually
> > shown that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no
> > sound?
>
> to put up the money. The "suits" specify all sorts of things, and
> silent space is one of the no-no areas.
I've got an idea; put the "suits" in a vacuum, and expain it to them
again. Don't let them out until you can hear them asking nicely...
JamesG,
space the lot of them...
************************************************************************
* Official RASSM Organiser. Will design starships for food. *
* (-o-) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2843 <*> *
* "Outside a dog, a book is man's best friend. *
* Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx *
************************************************************************
Jake S Greenland
In article: <6bmvp6$5sc$6...@pump1.york.ac.uk> dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig)
writes:
> Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
> that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound?
> Similarly,
> what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
It's fairly simple. The people who produce films want to make money. Part of
making money means a soundtrack, and hence sound effects, it also means being
able to see the spacecraft. Also people who go to films want to be
entertained in the whole. A film like Star Wars or ID4 or anything with
massive space battles would be incredibly boring if we had 20 minute long
space battles that were only interspersed with sound when we got a shot from
inside one of the ships, and even then not that much sound. It's also be
boring if the couldn't see anything.
It's all about suspension of disbelief, OK we know that on current
understanding of what sound is and what Space is there should be no sound but
I can let this slip. It's like the old "Car blows up because it's been
riddled with bullets" cliche in films, if they showed what really happens, the
car just falls apart, it would be astonishingly boring and not very visually
spectacular.
Kubric made a stunning film that was very close to reality, however ST, SW,
SAA:B etc are all Science _Fiction_, it follows fact but only to a point.
It's primary purpose is to entertain.
As to your light sources. It's reasonable to assume that most of these
battles happen in a solar system, now if our sun is bright enough to
illuminate the planet I'm sure it can illuminate a coupla spacecraft that are
close enough. After all - it's possible to see a sattellite in Earth orbit
with the naked eye at night - all you see is a pinprick of light but it's
still there.
Womble on.
J
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Ja...@Mythology.demon.co.uk Sojan@Discworld
"I am not a Frog, I am a Free Womble"
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Webb
>
> Erm ... and why exactly would the laser fire be visible?
Read the rest of the post!
Ben
--
Email: wadh...@sable.ox.ac.uk WWW: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wadh0298
"Make it so."
- Picard, 'Star Trek'
Mr 50%
Trade confirmed from: tee...@spamtrap.com Order details:
>: Well that they use black holes to traverse through space, and instead
>: of warping space time or going through hyperspace.
>
>Ummm... Yeah. That's pretty damn believable.
>
>Of course, you'd have to deal with the fact that anything entering the
>black hole would be crushed into neutron soup, and that black holes have
>been far from proven to lead ANYWHERE, but yeah. Real believable.
>
>sigh.
Sigh... I'm not going to win this one :(
What if I sent in an aramada of pan-cakes ahead of the ships, would
that make a difference ;)
John Cartmell
In article <MPG.f4aa33a1...@news.cableinet.co.uk>,
Barry O'Neill <bon...@nothanks.cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <34f1de2a...@news.prestel.co.uk>,
> mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com says...
> > Trade confirmed from: dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig) Order details:
> >
> > >shown that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no
> > >sound? Similarly, what are all these light sources that illuminate
> > >space craft?
> > >
> > the cinema scratching there heads, it only took off when the Book by
> > Clarke became a best seller.
> Wrong.
It wasn't a great success because the distributors cut its run short
despite the fact that it was filling seats. They wanted to put another
film in and multiple cinemas were rare then. I can't remember the film
that replaced 2001; it certainly wasn't as good.
Basically the studio bosses and the distributors didn't understand the
film. The people who went to watch the film did - though it made them
think. No wonder the Hollywood Moguls were confused. :-(
--
John Cartmell
Manchester
using Acorn RiscPC & StrongARM
Ben Webb
David Burnett wrote:
> I like the plane look of the craft in S:AAB, if make sense since they are
> atmosphere capable, unfortunately they still fly like planes in space, which
> would leave them at a massive disadvantage up against a craft designed
> for fighting in space (e.g. Starfuries could manuver above then, keeping in
> the same place relative to the plane by matching vectors, rotate so that
> they're facing the top of the S:aab plane and then blow them to kingdom
> come, even Chiggy von Rictoven wouldn't have stood a chance :)
Unfortunately the Hammerhead could easily out-race a StarFury, by
using its handy ability to alter its inertia. You have to persuade Hammerheads
to stand and fight to have any chance of beating them in a 'proper physics'
craft like the 'Fury.
> (yes I know about the warp drive creating holes in space/time thing )
The warp 4.7 limit thing? A daft idea if ever I heard of one, and
conveniently side-stepped in DS9 and Voyager (presumably due to some sort of
'modification' to the warp engines). Incidentally, this is yet another
instance of the mysterious number 47, which is always popping up in Trek.
(What number 47? See http://www.delta-9.com/net47/47society/ for more details,
and http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~schlock/the47s.html for Trek and 47.)
> So Trek loses in all respects
As a B5 fan, I'd better say "no comment". :)
Ben Webb
Ooh, better not reply to it then. Oops.
> And the special commemorative episode of DS9 on Thursday where they
> "Gump" the crew into the "Tribbles" episode? When I first found out
> about that I was disappointed, because they will probably muck it up,
> but now I've found out more about it I think "Dax in a red miniskirt!
> Who cares what the plot is!"
I've seen it. I won't tell you anything about it, not wishing to
spoil you, but I liked it. I hear the writer of the original Tribbles
episode wasn't too pleased about it though - I don't think they gave him
enough credit for pinching his work!
Phil Jefferson
Thor wrote:
> >Also, if the dinky toy fighters have the ability to reach orbit
> simply by
> >pulling back on the stick, why does the colony ship have to be a
> bloody
> >great rocket with a long winded countdown procedure?
>
> Well... you got me there, I didn't understand that bit either.
I did.
The colony ship was going off to colonise a whole nother planet, that
might require a fair amount of kit to accomplish, the inside of the
thing was pretty large, wheras the dinky toy fighters don't have that
much space to stretch your legs in.
Oh, and you might have noticed that the military do tend to get slightly
better equiptment than civillians.
Phil - J
Phil Jefferson
Barry O'Neill wrote:
> In article <34f1de2a...@news.prestel.co.uk>,
> mr50...@REMOVEhotmail.com says...
> > Trade confirmed from: dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig) Order
> details:
> >
> > >Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually
> shown
> > >that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no
> sound? Similarly,
> > >what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
> > >
> > 2001 was a flop when it was first released, people were coming out
> of
> > the cinema scratching there heads, it only took off when the Book by
>
> > Clarke became a best seller.
>
> Wrong.
I thought so too.
Simon Clay
Jake S Greenland wrote:
>
> In article: <6bmvp6$5sc$6...@pump1.york.ac.uk> dk...@york.ac.uk (Address in .sig)
> writes:
>
> > Why is it that Kubrik is the only director I know of who's actually shown
> > that space is a vacuum in any film/programme, so there is no sound?
> > Similarly,
> > what are all these light sources that illuminate space craft?
>
> making money means a soundtrack, and hence sound effects, it also means being
> able to see the spacecraft. Also people who go to films want to be
> entertained in the whole. A film like Star Wars or ID4 or anything with
> massive space battles would be incredibly boring if we had 20 minute long
> space battles that were only interspersed with sound when we got a shot from
> inside one of the ships, and even then not that much sound. It's also be
> boring if the couldn't see anything.
>
> It's all about suspension of disbelief, OK we know that on current
> understanding of what sound is and what Space is there should be no sound but
> I can let this slip. It's like the old "Car blows up because it's been
> riddled with bullets" cliche in films, if they showed what really happens, the
> car just falls apart, it would be astonishingly boring and not very visually
> spectacular.
>
> Kubric made a stunning film that was very close to reality, however ST, SW,
> SAA:B etc are all Science _Fiction_, it follows fact but only to a point.
> It's primary purpose is to entertain.
>
> As to your light sources. It's reasonable to assume that most of these
> battles happen in a solar system, now if our sun is bright enough to
> illuminate the planet I'm sure it can illuminate a coupla spacecraft that are
> close enough. After all - it's possible to see a sattellite in Earth orbit
> with the naked eye at night - all you see is a pinprick of light but it's
> still there.
>
The problem with space ships is that they have no atmosphere outside
them, so no refraction of light around them. Therefore one side of the
ship is as bright as day, while the other side is pitch black.
Mind you, I don't let it bother me. I believe, when confronted on the
point, JMS merely said that there weren't any symphony orchestras in
space either. It's called artistic licensce (or however you spell the
word :) ).
Simon.
Phil Jefferson
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> It did get better though, I cant remmeber the characters names even
> though I
> sat thru it all um.. weren;t they.....
>
> Crying girl
> Angry boy
> square jaw
> pamplemousse
> and
> wanger?
>
> Stephen
Crying girl - Vansen
Angry boy - West
square jaw - Hawkes
pamplemousse - Damphoose (Did you mean Pamplemuse? that's german for
something, I forget what...)
and
wanger? -Wang
When you say you sat through it all, do you mean the pilot or the
series?
Phil - J
Simon Clay
Ben Webb wrote:
>
> mhubbar...@usa.net wrote:
> > This is a test post BTW.
>
> Ooh, better not reply to it then. Oops.
>
> > And the special commemorative episode of DS9 on Thursday where they
> > "Gump" the crew into the "Tribbles" episode? When I first found out
> > about that I was disappointed, because they will probably muck it up,
> > but now I've found out more about it I think "Dax in a red miniskirt!
> > Who cares what the plot is!"
>
> I've seen it. I won't tell you anything about it, not wishing to
> spoil you, but I liked it. I hear the writer of the original Tribbles
> episode wasn't too pleased about it though - I don't think they gave him
> enough credit for pinching his work!
>
He was perfectly happy about it. He's in it, as a security guard
somewhere in the background, petting a tribble.
Simon.
Phil Jefferson
Address in .sig wrote:
> Anyway, I shouldn't be mentioning lasers, as you can only see the beam
> when
> looking at it, or when reflected to you off another surface. Photon
> torpedos, plasma beams, or somesuch would be better.
You seem to forget that there's always something to reflect the laser,
there is no such thing as a complete vacuum (Or rather, there is, but if
you take that view then you have to also consider the fact that you are
99.98% vacuum yourself, as is pretty much everything else) Space is not
a vacuum, it just has very little air.
Light sources? Well, how about the sun for a start? Space battles in
films tend to take place in inhabited systems, which implies a sun. In
the abscence of a nearby sun, there are always the billions of distant
ones to provide you with light, which while it may not seem like much
compared to the light of a nearby sun, is an awful lot compared to no
light sources as you seem to suggest.
Phil - J
"You came all this way just to say THAT?"
"He started it."
Phil Jefferson
Ben Evans wrote:
> Ultimately, every form of SF/Fantasy requires some sort of suspension
> of
> disbelief. In this case, the fact that the light barrier imposes all
> sorts
> of nasty constraints on the story is what needs to be side-stepped.
I think we should make the suspension out of 8 parts water, 2 parts JMS,
1 part A C Clarke, and one part real science.