Reverse homage

[jewels]

Originally Posted by Mustex

I had never seen "Firefly". I'll have to check it out now.

Firefly=excellent writing+great ships and EMMY AWARD WINNING FX (amazing what Zoic can do when they don't have to be overly dark or slow)+great camera work (handheld bits won't make you airsick)+wonderful costuming (especially for Inara)+the movie comes out in April. Also decent scoring and music.

Well worth renting the boxset, watch Serenity (the original pilot) 1st.

[thomas7g]

Mustex, I would recommend Firefly too. It was highly underated.

You will notice that alot of the innovations that firefly created were later used on the Moore Battlestar Galactica vision. No sound in space. Real physics. The edgy handheld moving camera. Treating scifi with a darker more real edge. Dropping aliens with latex makeup. Reverting from lasers to gunfire and missles.

Alot of the stuff people like about the new show, were pioneered on Firefly. Which btw IS making a comeback to the big screen.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by BST

While we are sitting here debating the various merits of being scientifically "true to source", let's step back and take a deep breath.

Have we forgotten entertainment?

Which makes a larger impact on your entertainment meter --

the scientifically correct "no sound in space" ?

OR

the earth shattering, blast you out of your seat explosion of a base ship, battlestar, viper or raider?

While we go around espousing the theoretical merits of Newton, Einstein, Asimov, etal, do we forget the primary reason for watching the show

ENTERTAINMENT!!

It depends on what I've seen more of. If every show on TV lacked sound in space it would be B. As the industry stands, I choose A.

[Ioraptor]

I'm here to represent a large number of people who are sick to death of roaring space ships and zinging laser bolts. We are tired of space vessels making turns as if they were in atmosphere and are bored with 'torpedoes' that do less damage than a WW2 era weapon.
Futhermore we think 'flying bridges' on spaceships are FRACKING STUPID.
STUPID



We are dying to see ships that are designed for a three dimensional environment and behave that way. We in our TV dinners every time we see a Federation vessel line up nicely on a two dimensional plane with its opponent.
ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!
We cant take it anymore!!!

Any concession on these points will earn our viewership.
We would watch TNS for this reason if they used a CGI Miss Piggy to play Adama and everyone onboard was a transvestite muppet!

.....uh urr (wiping foam from mouth), I think its time for my meds....

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

Mustex, I would recommend Firefly too. It was highly underated.

You will notice that alot of the innovations that firefly created were later used on the Moore Battlestar Galactica vision. No sound in space. Real physics. The edgy handheld moving camera. Treating scifi with a darker more real edge. Dropping aliens with latex makeup. Reverting from lasers to gunfire and missles.

Alot of the stuff people like about the new show, were pioneered on Firefly. Which btw IS making a comeback to the big screen.

Great! When do the reruns come on!

Of course this seems kind of ironic. Both TOS and TNS borrowed from a show/movie that recently revolutionized the industry (in TOS's case it was "Star Wars", with TNS I guess it's "Firefly").

[thomas7g]

One of the problems Iorapter is that you can have a ship flying a high near light speeds, but if you are being realistic, the ship should be filmed with the stars staying still. Space is visually deceptive. Without atmosphere to tint things as it gets further away, you can't judge distance by eyesight or a camera photo.

Also you may want a change. And alot of people would agree. But after the tenth show, it will seem less exciting to most of the viewers. And then for the rest of the show it will be less exciting. Hardly a thing a producer or a network strives for.

[thomas7g]

Mustex, the first season is only available on dvds. Not enough episodes to make a syndication package.

But the movie is starting production. It just was announced a month or two ago.

[thomas7g]

I do recall all the ships of the Battlestar Galalctica miniseries lined up on a 2 dimensional plane with every ship oriented the same way.

[martok2112]

Aye, and contrary to the producers/writers' original intent, the new BSG does have some sound in space...but they seem to be going on the premise that you have to be really, really close to the ships in order to hear their thrusters, or the Galactica's flack and suppression cannons as they rotate into position.

The only exception to this new rule of theirs seem to apply to the new Cylon Raiders which you can apparently still hear in space from a considerable distance

I do believe that a couple of episodes of Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek : DS9 did portray some semblance of 3 dimensional space in a few of their battles.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[Dawg]

The biggest problem with adhering 100% to physics in an entertainment medium is that comparatively few of your viewers are physicists.

In order to make a space-based war story appeal to the mass audience concessions must be made. I recall an interview (dim recesses of the memory, so bear with me), with Gene Roddenberry. If you recall, in the opening sequence of TOS ST the Enterprise "whooshes" past. They tried to do it without sound - trying to use accurate physics - but it did not have the emotional impact that including sound did - so they went with sound - a concession.

You must appeal to the knowledge, the experience, and the familiarity of your audience. If that means using sounds in space in 1967, that means you use sound in space. If it means using terms that sound other-worldly to your audience ("laser torpedoes" in 1978), you use them even if the 100% accurate meaning of "laser" doesn't fit.

In 2004, the average viewer knows a tremendous amount more about the physics of space than they did in 1968; using three-dimensional effects (attitude thrusters) rather than the two-dimensional dogfight effects of 1967 is now appropriate. However, in order for it to be entertaining (and not something they have to think hard about) some degree of that old familiarity must be engaged. Ergo, some sounds are used to trigger the appropriate emotional/familiar responses in the minds so the story can continue without a lot of effort on the part of the average viewer.

I expect that when BSG comes to the big screen we will see these advancements in sophistication fully depicted.

Thank you for your attention.

I am
Dawg

[thomas7g]

I wouldn't bet on that in Vegas.

That's actually a safer bet than you know.

[amberstar]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

That's actually a safer bet than you know.

Keep telling me that Hun! I know it in my heart and mind but I still need to hear it every so often

[Ninja]

That reply was very interesting Dawg.
I've never even really thought about the Physics side of things having to be real or not. To me, it's the entertainment value that counts.

[julix]

Originally Posted by amberstar

Keep telling me that Hun! I know it in my heart and mind but I still need to hear it every so often

Me too!!!!

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

I'm here to represent a large number of people who are sick to death of roaring space ships and zinging laser bolts. We are tired of space vessels making turns as if they were in atmosphere and are bored with 'torpedoes' that do less damage than a WW2 era weapon.
Futhermore we think 'flying bridges' on spaceships are FRACKING STUPID.
STUPID



We are dying to see ships that are designed for a three dimensional environment and behave that way. We in our TV dinners every time we see a Federation vessel line up nicely on a two dimensional plane with its opponent.
ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!
We cant take it anymore!!!

Any concession on these points will earn our viewership.
We would watch the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series for this reason if they used a CGI Miss Piggy to play Adama and everyone onboard was a transvestite muppet!

.....uh urr (wiping foam from mouth), I think its time for my meds....

A number of folks have already addressed this well as far as the dramatic reasons for doing this, but I’ll try to put it another way. Space combat governed by the science of today would be boring. And who is going to watch boring?

Firefly was an interesting show. I really liked it. I can’t wait for the movie. But one reason it didn’t work as television is because it broke too many dramatic necessities to make it interesting to a larger audience, and one of these was trying to be too realistic in its portrayal of vacuum operations.

As for what constitutes “realistic” in scifi, I’ll reiterate something I said earlier by posting a quote from another source: “We inevitably tend to envision the capabilities of putative extraterrestrials as being similar to, or slightly more advanced than ours”. (Seth Shostak November 2003, Space.com). Meaning that the more scientific-minded of us usually want our heroes to live and work in a world that follows roughly the same rules as ours does. Yet who is to say what those rules will be in 100 years, or 200, or 500?

Our understanding of the nature of the universe has changed so many times in the last 2000 years we often find it comical to see how our ancestors viewed creation. And the more we learn about he nature of the universe today, the more we realize just how much we still don’t know. How will our descendents 2000 years hence see our view of the universe? Probably the same way we see the view of our ancestors.

How do we KNOW that in 200 years ships won’t move through space as if in a liquid medium, and may then create some form of sound? If you accept FTL capabilities in any form, or the control over the force of gravity, then why is the rest so difficult?

JJR

[Ioraptor]

I know, I know, heck I composed half the explanations for why ships could move the way they do in Star Trek and Star Wars myself. Its not that you cannot find a no-prize explanation, its that I'm tired of seeing the same old stuff.

I'm just tired of the emphasis on space fantasy over science realism, the way some folks are tired of 'conflicted characters'. Its just damn boring to me now, and I know quite a few people who think the same way.

My previous post is meant to be funny. You can tell by the ranting tone and the reference to foaming at the mouth and meds.
Sometimes we nerds take ourselves a little too seriously dont you think?

[Ioraptor]

oh,....and it doesnt have to be boring.
Check out 1st season Star Trek, the episode where Kirk battles the Romulan vessel at long range. That is a great example of a gripping, exciting battle that uses very little effects and simulates a more realistic space combat.

Its not that realistic battles are unexciting its that the nature of the excitement is different from the WW2 dogfights we are used to. There is suspense, and strategy and the interplay of characters in command as they develop situational awareness of a battle field that spans hundreds of millions of miles.
A realistic space battle lends itself to a more dramatic interpretation.


(hello Martok, the premise for sound in TNS is that you are hearing what the pilot onboard the vessel hears..... caught that in the 'naturalistic science fiction' statement issued early on by Moore)

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

How do we KNOW that in 200 years ships won’t move through space as if in a liquid medium, and may then create some form of sound? If you accept FTL capabilities in any form, or the control over the force of gravity, then why is the rest so difficult?

Hmm, interesting, very interesting.

You do know that Vipers and Raiders etc manouver in some sort of 'gravity bubble' don't you?

Best,

Peter

[thomas7g]

Gravity bubble?

:confused:

[Sept17th]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

I'm here to represent a large number of people who are sick to death of roaring space ships and zinging laser bolts. We are tired of space vessels making turns as if they were in atmosphere and are bored with 'torpedoes' that do less damage than a WW2 era weapon.
Futhermore we think 'flying bridges' on spaceships are FRACKING STUPID.
STUPID



We are dying to see ships that are designed for a three dimensional environment and behave that way. We in our TV dinners every time we see a Federation vessel line up nicely on a two dimensional plane with its opponent.
ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!
We cant take it anymore!!!

Any concession on these points will earn our viewership.
We would watch the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series for this reason if they used a CGI Miss Piggy to play Adama and everyone onboard was a transvestite muppet!

What the hell is a "flying bridge"?

I think you all or ya'll are in the minority. I think the group you represent have a boring idea of what science fiction on TV should be. I think some one as highly enlightened as your self shouldn't be eating TV dinners its so 1978.

I think what you described above with the silence of space, bullets and Muppets should have its own name...maybe something other than Battlestar Galactica which clearly is so flawed to you.

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

Sometimes we nerds take ourselves a little too seriously dont you think?

WAY too seriously...

JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

oh,....and it doesnt have to be boring.
Check out 1st season Star Trek, the episode where Kirk battles the Romulan vessel at long range. That is a great example of a gripping, exciting battle that uses very little effects and simulates a more realistic space combat.

Balance of Terror is an excellent episode based loosely on Run Silent, Run Deep, a submarine vs destroyer WWII story (good film, great book, written by Edward L. Beach as part of a trilogy). But if ALL combat in Trek were that way, it would get old quick. Additionally, establishing such a style of combat would shoot holes in the idea of fighter operations. This may be realistic (I don’t think fighter operations will be viable for a long time in space…), but not where certain shows (BSG) want to go.

JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by peter noble

Hmm, interesting, very interesting.

You do know that Vipers and Raiders etc manouver in some sort of 'gravity bubble' don't you?

Best,

Peter

Yep. I figure there are two separate fields of energy that surround small ships for exoatmospheric operations in the Galactica Milieu. The first generates the gravity “bubble” that the ship uses for maneuvering as it would in a liquid medium, by interacting with the field with its control surfaces (I even have a few ideas on the specifics of how it works), and the second is a modified Alcubierre drive field, which is what allows the ships to travel FTL without special FTL engines. It’s also great for tooling around a solar system at fractions of C. As it is also sort of a grav drive, it becomes useful for cruising the interstellar and intergalactic waterways of negative energy.

The first field must also be configurable for shape, allowing for gravitic streamlining of the ship in an atmosphere (how else can the Viper reach escape velocity with a wind-sock in its nose?)




JJR

[Ioraptor]

...pistols at dawn Sept!

[Ioraptor]

...pistols at dawn Sept!


ur..... phasers?

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Yep. I figure there are two separate fields of energy that surround small ships for exoatmospheric operations in the Galactica Milieu. The first generates the gravity “bubble” that the ship uses for maneuvering as it would in a liquid medium, by interacting with the field with its control surfaces (I even have a few ideas on the specifics of how it works)

He gets it!


It's my hypothesis that some of the atmosphere from the Galactica gets trapped in the bubble when the Viper launches and if the ship explodes the bubble bursts while the tylium/solium ignites leading to the brief fiery gas cloud explosion we see on screen.

A lot of Colonial technology looks simple but it's not if you think about it. They've got forcefields that a ship can pass through and them not lose any atmosphere from the launch bay.

The warrior's helm is basically a spacesuit in itself acting like the Flickinger Field does in Jack McDevitt's books. Those bars that light up top and bottom aren't there for show they generate a forcefield that'll allow the pilot to breathe if the cockpit gets holed and de-pressurises.

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

The second is a modified Alcubierre drive field, which is what allows the ships to travel FTL without special FTL engines. It’s also great for tooling around a solar system at fractions of C. As it is also sort of a grav drive, it becomes useful for cruising the interstellar and intergalactic waterways of negative energy.

I'd like to here more about this, I've never heard of this in SF before, is it like an Alderson Drive?

Best,

Peter

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by Mustex

Great! When do the reruns come on!

Have a peek here at Firefly...
http://versaphile.com/download/firefly.html

[Sept17th]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

...pistols at dawn Sept!


ur..... phasers?

I prefer "blasters". I'll set mine for stun, a painful stun but no one need be die over this. You can set your volume to zero.

Really though, a smart guy like you must stay away from the TV dinners.

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by Warrior

If you don't like sound in space, then TURN THE VOLUME OFF!

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by peter noble

He gets it!


It's my hypothesis that some of the atmosphere from the Galactica gets trapped in the bubble when the Viper launches and if the ship explodes the bubble bursts while the tylium/solium ignites leading to the brief fiery gas cloud explosion we see on screen.

A lot of Colonial technology looks simple but it's not if you think about it. They've got forcefields that a ship can pass through and them not lose any atmosphere from the launch bay.

The warrior's helm is basically a spacesuit in itself acting like the Flickinger Field does in Jack McDevitt's books. Those bars that light up top and bottom aren't there for show they generate a forcefield that'll allow the pilot to breathe if the cockpit gets holed and de-pressurises.

I'd like to here more about this, I've never heard of this in SF before, is it like an Alderson Drive?

Best,

Peter

ok this is getting facinating!!!