Reverse homage

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

I think we need fantasy fun tech. But it must never make a glaring and annoying mistake. It must be reasonably believable.

I take it this is sarcasm directed at me. Let me try this again:

We need a MIXTURE! There should be shows on TV representing REAL SCIENCE! There should be ENTIRELY SEPERATE SHOWS representing SCIENCE FANTASY! TV SHOULD NOT BE DOMINATED BY EITHER ONE!

[thomas7g]

If you are taking it as sarcasm you need to stop, Take a break and enjoy some fresh air. You are getting too hyped up.



That is my view on scifi realism in general. Not a response to anyone in particular.

[jewels]

Mustex, everyone has their own view of what's entertaining, and sometimes that changes from one evening to the next within the same person. Sometimes I like a good light chick flick like Kate and Leopold, sometimes suspense like in Hunt for Red October, sometimes I want to frolic in the waves with Finding Nemo (or frolick through any Pixar creation for that matter), or watch Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt blend comedy, romance and a little drama to pull off "What Women Want". I'm intrigued with Babylon 5 and it's complex story arcs. Farscape's writing is just over the top in the smart sort of wit I enjoy. Star Wars is fun. Back to the Future is flat out fun. Quantum Leap--fun with a twist of history. TOS BG is the show I fell in love with the characters and the whole idea of "what if there are others out there like us, looking for us" (tip of the iceberg on what I like about BG). Firefly: smart writing, nearly poetic dialogue rhythm, fantastic effects. Sky Captain was a visual feast and a wild departure into an alternate 1930s--a living '30s comic book.

Tommy's into if it's entertainment it should be fun and enjoyable. I can't say I'm far behind him.

I love the orchestral majesty of the scores for Superman: The Movie, and the ST movies and Star Wars and TOS BG. Scoring is something that sets movies apart from each other. Contrast Lord of the Rings with Shindler's List's or Titanic's score: all have their own haunting melodies, all blend into the media that is movies to make those movies have that much more impact. But each is entirely differently handled. The scores make those movies stronger to me.

[BST]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

I think we need fantasy fun tech. But it must never make a glaring and annoying mistake. It must be reasonably believable.

Is it wrong to think outside the box?
Is it wrong to imagine something outside our current knowledge limitations?

We've only scratched the surface in our quest for knowledge about the world and universe around us. I strongly believe that we, humans, are NOT the template for the universe. Don't let "realism" cause you to set the bar too low. Dare to dream. Just because something hasn't been done, yet, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by BST

Is it wrong to think outside the box?
Is it wrong to imagine something outside our current knowledge limitations?

We've only scratched the surface in our quest for knowledge about the world and universe around us. I strongly believe that we, humans, are NOT the template for the universe. Don't let "realism" cause you to set the bar too low. Dare to dream. Just because something hasn't been done, yet, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Warrior

*burp*

I second that emotion.

*burrrrrppppp*


Matok2112

Warrior, let's get some bloodwine...we'll have a belching contest in another thread.

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Mustex

I looked it up, and it was the Law of Parsimony, or Occam's Razor. Here's a quote from stardestroyer.net:

If it said it was the "Law" of Parsimony, then I would question the source. Parsimony is a principle (also known as the Principle of Economy), and not one that the entire scientific community supports, partly because of its metaphysical nature. Ockham’s (I prefer the modern spelling of his home town) Razor is a statement of the principle that he used in his studies, and it says “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which means “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''. That’s a long way from "if you can't provide evidence something is happening, it probably isn't."

Mr. Wong’s arguments are interesting and insightful, but hardly conclusive. Historical counter: What causes disease? In the 16th century it was KNOWN that disease was a result of one of two things; bad humors, or miasma. They didn’t have a clue as to the existence of bacteria or viruses. That doesn’t mean that bacteria or viruses didn’t exist.


The principle discussed, and a great many others are part of a branch of philosophy (Epistemology), and while they are meant to be used as tools in scientific thought, many consider it dangerous to use them as foundations for that thought.

my 2p JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by jewels

...the original Battlestar Galactica series BG is the show I fell in love with the characters and the whole idea of "what if there are others out there like us, looking for us" (tip of the iceberg on what I like about BG). Firefly: smart writing, nearly poetic dialogue rhythm, fantastic effects. Sky Captain was a visual feast and a wild departure into an alternate 1930s--a living '30s comic book...

I love the orchestral majesty of the scores for Superman: The Movie, and the ST movies and Star Wars and the original Battlestar Galactica series BG. Scoring is something that sets movies apart from each other. Contrast Lord of the Rings with Shindler's List's or Titanic's score: all have their own haunting melodies, all blend into the media that is movies to make those movies have that much more impact. But each is entirely differently handled. The scores make those movies stronger to me.

(sigh)...I could listen to you write all day!

[Ioraptor]

Yes, yes let fantasy reign on the big screen as it does in our hearts, but make a place for dreams of new science to inspire the future scientists of the world. There is room for both.


And now I'll shall ride off on my pink unicorn........(cloppity cloppity cloppity)

Uh,,.....not that I'm a virgin or anything like that. (cloppity cloppity )

Ur, I mean my 'fire breathing' pink unicorn. (cloppity cloppity)

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

If you are taking it as sarcasm you need to stop, Take a break and enjoy some fresh air. You are getting too hyped up.



That is my view on scifi realism in general. Not a response to anyone in particular.

How can you expect anything that can be called "fantasy fun tech" to be reasonable?

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by jewels

Mustex, everyone has their own view of what's entertaining, and sometimes that changes from one evening to the next within the same person. Sometimes I like a good light chick flick like Kate and Leopold, sometimes suspense like in Hunt for Red October, sometimes I want to frolic in the waves with Finding Nemo (or frolick through any Pixar creation for that matter), or watch Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt blend comedy, romance and a little drama to pull off "What Women Want". I'm intrigued with Babylon 5 and it's complex story arcs. Farscape's writing is just over the top in the smart sort of wit I enjoy. Star Wars is fun. Back to the Future is flat out fun. Quantum Leap--fun with a twist of history. the original Battlestar Galactica series BG is the show I fell in love with the characters and the whole idea of "what if there are others out there like us, looking for us" (tip of the iceberg on what I like about BG). Firefly: smart writing, nearly poetic dialogue rhythm, fantastic effects. Sky Captain was a visual feast and a wild departure into an alternate 1930s--a living '30s comic book.

That's exactly what I've been saying. The only difference is that realism is one of the things I like to see now and then (for my list photo copy yours, except put "Hard Science Fiction" in place of "Kate and Leopold" and "What Women Want".

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by BST

Is it wrong to think outside the box?
Is it wrong to imagine something outside our current knowledge limitations?

We've only scratched the surface in our quest for knowledge about the world and universe around us. I strongly believe that we, humans, are NOT the template for the universe. Don't let "realism" cause you to set the bar too low. Dare to dream. Just because something hasn't been done, yet, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

This argument is really getting tedious. I was actually talking with my Physical Science teacher from ninth grade today about something unrelated, and TNSBSG came up (she says she like the mini, and will be watching the series), and with it this debate. Her opinion was similar to mine, while anything is "possible", you can't just throw out ideas and expect them to be true.

I've already said I like "dreaming" so to speak, as with science fantasy. But I also like a bit of realism here and there, and I don't think that realism should be confined to occasional reference to real science on SG-1, I think that along with all the science fantasy airing at any given time (by the Orion's Arm definition most of it is actually "soft science fiction", but you get the idea), there should be ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY, ALL BY ITSELF SHOW ON ALL OF THE FRIKKIN' CHANNELS ON MY FRIKKIN' TV THAT I CAN TUNE INTO ONCE A WEEK AND NO LEAVE MY IQ AT THE DOOR! I LIKE "STAR WARS" AND TOS, BUT DON'T TRY TO PRETEND THAT LIKING THEM MEANS I HAVE TO HATE REAL SCIENCE!

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by Mustex

BUT DON'T TRY TO PRETEND THAT LIKING THEM MEANS I HAVE TO HATE REAL SCIENCE!

No you don't, no one's saying that you don't.

If you like science your interest should be encouraged.

More power to you.

Best,

Peter

[thomas7g]

there should be ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY, ALL BY ITSELF SHOW ON ALL OF THE FRIKKIN' CHANNELS ON MY FRIKKIN' TV THAT I CAN TUNE INTO ONCE A WEEK AND NO LEAVE MY IQ AT THE DOOR! I LIKE "STAR WARS" AND the original Battlestar Galactica series , BUT DON'T TRY TO PRETEND THAT LIKING THEM MEANS I HAVE TO HATE REAL SCIENCE!

Dude... relax.....

No one is saying you can't have science in a tv show.

[jewels]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

(sigh)...I could listen to you write all day!

psst. Guys? someone tell JJR Jewel's is spoken for.

Seriously, thanks for the compliment.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

If it said it was the "Law" of Parsimony, then I would question the source. Parsimony is a principle (also known as the Principle of Economy), and not one that the entire scientific community supports, partly because of its metaphysical nature. Ockham’s (I prefer the modern spelling of his home town) Razor is a statement of the principle that he used in his studies, and it says “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which means “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''. That’s a long way from "if you can't provide evidence something is happening, it probably isn't."

Mr. Wong’s arguments are interesting and insightful, but hardly conclusive. Historical counter: What causes disease? In the 16th century it was KNOWN that disease was a result of one of two things; bad humors, or miasma. They didn’t have a clue as to the existence of bacteria or viruses. That doesn’t mean that bacteria or viruses didn’t exist.


The principle discussed, and a great many others are part of a branch of philosophy (Epistemology), and while they are meant to be used as tools in scientific thought, many consider it dangerous to use them as foundations for that thought.

my 2p JJR

Consider this, back in the middle ages they knew about disease. While they didn't know about bacteria, it hadn't been suggested yet. Had it been suggested, then if they were using Occam's Razor (unfortunately, they weren't), they would have asked "which theory has less requirements". While you might not be able to define all the requirements for miasma or bad humor, and if you could explain all the requirements for bacteria they couldn't understand it, let's just pretend the theories were as simple as "miasma causes disease" and "tiny creatures cause disease".

Now, we know disease happens, and so while neither of these theories might be correct, there has to be a cause, so until another possible cause is presented, we have to assume one of these is right. Now in both cases you have one term, in one case it's "miasma", in another it's "bacteria". Now let's say a third theory was presented saying "bacteria use miasma to cause disease". Now, under Occam's Razor when a group of theories each explain a phenomena equally well, the one with less terms is the superior theory, because the excess terms are considered redundant. In this case the first two theories are superior, because if "bacteria" or "miasma" alone could cause disease, why have both?

In much the same way, all these other things that are created for sci-fi shows aren't neccessary to explain phenomena that we've witnessed. If phenomena implying, shall we say, "thalaron radiation" (a term from "Star Trek: Nemesis") were found, and nothing better than "thalarons" could be found to explain it, than you would have evidence that "thalarons" exist, otherwise "thalarons" are a redundant term.

[thomas7g]

Originally Posted by jewels

psst. Guys? someone tell JJR Jewel's is spoken for.

Seriously, thanks for the compliment.

And her husband is a BIIIIIIG man!!!!!!!!!

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

Yes, yes let fantasy reign on the big screen as it does in our hearts, but make a place for dreams of new science to inspire the future scientists of the world. There is room for both.

You have just summarized what I have spent paragraphs trying to explain in two sentences.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by peter noble

No you don't, no one's saying that you don't.

If you like science your interest should be encouraged.

More power to you.

Best,

Peter

I like both science, and escapism. Just let them have seperate shows. Maybe air the realistic one at 7:00 when I'm still awake, and then dumb it down as I get too tired to think about it.

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

And her husband is a BIIIIIIG man!!!!!!!!!

And she's got a young daughter by said BIIIIIG man....!

In other words - she is SO taken!

By the way Julie - I could listen to you talk all day long too !

Best,
Bryan

[jewels]

Originally Posted by Mustex

there should be ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY, ALL BY ITSELF SHOW ON ALL OF THE FRIKKIN' CHANNELS ON MY FRIKKIN' TV THAT I CAN TUNE INTO ONCE A WEEK AND NO LEAVE MY IQ AT THE DOOR! I LIKE "STAR WARS" AND the original Battlestar Galactica series , BUT DON'T TRY TO PRETEND THAT LIKING THEM MEANS I HAVE TO HATE REAL SCIENCE!

1) Write the network heads and tell them what you want. They control the channel programming issues. (and they aren't necessarily the most scientifically astute folks on the planet or they'd be at MIT not NBC, ABC, CBS or SciFi.

2) Have you got a "Scientific American" subscription? That magazine exists for those who love science but aren't active research scientists. TV will never compare with the true depth of science that you can find in a magazine or a book. They don't have the time for it in 43 minutes/show. Steven Hawking would have never been a bestselling author if it wasn't for there being many people like yourself that love science.

Just ideas to ease the frustration I hear.

Jewels

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by jewels

1) Write the network heads and tell them what you want. They control the channel programming issues. (and they aren't necessarily the most scientifically astute folks on the planet or they'd be at MIT not NBC, ABC, CBS or SciFi.

2) Have you got a "Scientific American" subscription? That magazine exists for those who love science but aren't active research scientists. TV will never compare with the true depth of science that you can find in a magazine or a book. They don't have the time for it in 43 minutes/show. Steven Hawking would have never been a bestselling author if it wasn't for there being many people like yourself that love science.

Just ideas to ease the frustration I hear.

Jewels

No I don't, but I'd like to start doing some research at some point. And I'm not asking for a show that would cover everything, just show me you did a little homework.

And as for the execs, unfortunately most people who like realism have given up on televised sci-fi. They read instead. So I'd be in the vast minority (although it is evident that there are still those out there who, like me, don't mind science being traded for the story, but like seeing things that could really happen as well).

[jewels]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

And she's got a young daughter by said BIIIIIG man....!

In other words - she is SO taken!

By the way Julie - I could listen to you talk all day long too !

Best,
Bryan

Speechless....
Re: daughter--Today's her "forever family day" anniversary. Special stuff at our house tonight.

[thomas7g]

You do have a pretty voice Jewels. A nice southern girl drawl.

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Mustex

No I don't, but I'd like to start doing some research at some point. And I'm not asking for a show that would cover everything, just show me you did a little homework.

It's well worth the subscription, and I would highly recommend it. Scientific American also has an on-line version, and you might also want to check out a few of my favorite on-line resources: Space.com, Calphysics.org (California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics), spacetransportation.com (a NASA site) and lbl.gov (Berkeley Labs).

Stand by your guns, my friend. You spin a good argument, and I think you might want to consider a letter-writing campaign to your favorite sci-fi show to reinforce your desires.



JJR

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

It's well worth the subscription, and I would highly recommend it. Scientific American also has an on-line version, and you might also want to check out a few of my favorite on-line resources: Space.com, Calphysics.org (California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics), spacetransportation.com (a NASA site) and lbl.gov (Berkeley Labs).

Stand by your guns, my friend. You spin a good argument, and I think you might want to consider a letter-writing campaign to your favorite sci-fi show to reinforce your desires.



JJR

I'm to busy with school, and trying to get them to consider Mr. Hatch as a writer of TNS tie-in books.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Warrior

If you want a "reality" SciFi show, create one or watch Firefly.

But remember this: Battlestar Galactica started off as a fantasy based SciFi, much like Star Wars.

There was NO reason to "re-imagine" it. None at all.

Ron Moore's version could very well have been named something else. Everything kept just the way you like, but with a different name.

Amazing how something as simple as that could have avoided so much conflict with fans.

.

Warrior, my dear bloodwine slogging friend (sorry if that last bottle was a little too fresh.....2375 wasn't a very good year. )

I can partially agree with this assessment in this manner:

Look at Smallville.....Clearly it is a story about Superman in his adolescent years as Clark Kent. However, it seems to forego the traditional telling of Superman's story, addressing it more from a teenager's point of view.

Before that, there was also "Lois and Clark: The Adventures of Superman".

Now, the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series clearly foregoes the traditional telling of Battlestar Galactica as we knew it from 1978. Conceivably, it could've been retitled something else with different characters, and different names for the ships....stating in the credits that this "differently named" show was "Based on Battlestar Galactica created by: Glen A. Larson."

However, whenever someone hears the following premise:

A lone, mighty warship, the sole survivor of a once great battlefleet now leads the
last remnants of humanity in a motley fleet of starships to search for a final outpost of humankind in the universe, after a single night of violence and bloodshed perpetrated by a mechanoid race solely intent on enliminating the human race.

There is not much doubt in my mind that they will say: "That is BATTLESTAR GALACTICA."

It is kind of a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation for the writers/producers of the new show when it comes to naming the new series "Battlestar Galactica". If it were named anything else, then those who may not have had an affinity for the original Battlestar Galactica series might be turned away from the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series by saying: "God, this is just a ripoff of the original Battlestar Galactica series ." For the very same reason, since it was named "Battlestar Galactica", and since it represents such a radical departure from the traditional tales of the original Battlestar Galactica series , the fans of the original show now say the same thing.

And I do realize that I just cul de sac'd my way into the argument that the original show needed not be remade. All I will say to that regard (after THWACKING myself severely in the THWACK thread) is that the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series is a reflection of modern thinking. Flawed heroes, flawed villains, tons of gray area, somewhat more realistic depictions of space battles, etc. Not that the values of 1978's heroes are outmoded ---far from that....it really just boiled down to bread and circusses.


Now, if you all will excuse me...I do believe I owe myself a THWACKING. You are all invited to attend.

With great humility,
Martok2112

Originally Posted by Warrior

Ron Moore's version could very well have been named something else. Everything kept just the way you like, but with a different name.

Amazing how something as simple as that could have avoided so much conflict with fans.

It would have made no difference. Those who hate it would still hate it so long as it had vipers, battlestars, colonials, or any shred of TOS.

That is like the person who says "if only you said you were sorry I wouldn't be angry" when we all know that the only apology most claim to have wanted are the ones not given.

I accept that the hard core purist hates it with every fiber of their being for every reason they state. The name of the show, the battlestar, or the characters are just individual parts of that hatred. They want a TOS Continuation and want nothing else.

I feel their pain and hope we all get that TOS Continuation. The only thing Ron Moore could do to please the hurt part of fandom is to cancel the show, ask forgiveness, and ensure all copies are destroyed never to be aired again. With that part of fandom Moore never had a chance.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Warrior

Ah ah ah!!!!

Nice try, but you read something I didn't write.

I never said to change the names, locations or anything like that OTHER than the name of the show.

This is why I can accept all of the Superman/Superboy incarnations: Each show is named something different.

Ron Moore's "Battlestar Galactica" flat out uses the same exact name as the original. It shouldn't.

Thus why I deserve the THWACKING!

But, now let's take this to a different tack.

Ok...let's assume that the production goes on "as is" for the most part.
The exceptions being:
1. Character names are changed.
2. The names (and designations) of the ships are changed.


But the EXACT premise is kept.

"A lone, mighty warship, the sole survivor of a once great battlefleet now leads the
last remnants of humanity in a motley fleet of starships to search for a final outpost of humankind in the universe, after a single night of violence and bloodshed perpetrated by a mechanoid race solely intent on enliminating the human race."

And it meant that people would actually like the show...what would you rename it?

And sorry, but "Anything but Battlestar Galactica" (or similar statments) DOES NOT COUNT.

Let's chew on this one for a bit.

And now I that I edit this...it seems that Antelope may have already answered my question...but I am still hoping for some further discussion on this premise.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[BST]

Originally Posted by antelope526

I accept that the hard core purist hates it with every fiber of their being for every reason they state. The name of the show, the battlestar, or the characters are just individual parts of that hatred. They want a the original Battlestar Galactica series Continuation and want nothing else.

I see nothing wrong with that desire. As I recall, the story was started over 25 years ago. Why was there a pressing need to re-invent it? Does one read through the first few chapters of a published book then, go back and re-write the story?

Originally Posted by antelope526

I feel their pain and hope we all get that the original Battlestar Galactica series Continuation. The only thing Ron Moore could do to please the hurt part of fandom is to cancel the show, ask forgiveness, and ensure all copies are destroyed never to be aired again. With that part of fandom Moore never had a chance.

That would be a good start! Uh,.....Mr. Moore?......Ron?.......