Reverse homage [Archive] - Colonial Fleets

thomas7g

September 26th, 2004, 05:31 PM

Actually we might have to include the space jumping ability. There is an inconsistancy in the old show that does not fly today. That is the ragtag fleet flew at sublight speeds. And we know stars are years apart at that speed.

One thing that may change is that vipers may pivot in space during a dogfight. Much like the new show. Though that ability was already applied to vipers in the Eden test footage for the DeSanto production back in 2001.

I know fans consider the new show to be a pariah. But including some "tributes" may help. It can bring in some of the newer fans. And help unite a fanbase. Fans tend to be devisive and not want to mix things together. But there are benefits to it.

The funniest moments of the Galacticon revolved about poking fun at Dirk Benedicts "feminity". Even to the point where they handed him a purse in front of the crowd of fans. And think of that funny take on A-Team where a cylon walks by Benedict.

:D

thomas7g

September 26th, 2004, 05:33 PM

I think it would be funny for our Starbuck and Boomer to find feminine undergarments in his locker.

(After starbuck and Boomer find the planted undergarments in their lockers)

Boomer: "... this actually might look nice on you."

Starbuck: "ya know.... I always thought there was someting different about you!"

:LOL:

julix

September 26th, 2004, 05:35 PM

martok2112

September 26th, 2004, 05:41 PM

I must respectfully concur with BST in this assessment. The Original series does not need to make any kind of nod to the new show. It is a different class of animal. What I mean by that is this:

Let's look at the Star Trek analogy. It is alright for a furture show to make a nod to an older show because of the continuity situation. The film Star Trek Generations is the perfect example of this.

However, the two Galactica shows are different breeds altogether. The new Galactica show owes its entire existence (even if it is markedly different from the classic show) to the original Galactica we all know and love. (And I am speaking as a fan of both Galacticas).

Even if the success of the new show actually does benefit a revival of the classic show to the big screen, in my humble opinon, the classic show owes nothing to the new show. The classic was here first, and for many, that is all that will ever be regarded as Galactica.

I also concur that Chief Tyrol is a character that is extremely well suited to EITHER Galactica show. And Grace Park's presence on a Classic Galactica show would be a welcome one IMHO...of course, the role of Boomer is already taken :D
She could be another female pilot in a classic continuation...and perhaps still remain Tyrol's love interest. (Aaron, I am certain you would not object.) :D

Respectfully to all,
Martok2112

julix

September 26th, 2004, 05:47 PM

Martok....
Well said my friend, well said......and I do agree with Grace, I think she is a good actress and Tyrol(as you know).

martok2112

September 26th, 2004, 05:53 PM

Julix, I will also say this about the homages that the new show did pay to the classic.

Most of the nods were cosmetic.

Many of the ships in the rag-tag fleet did look like they were part of the original fleet. In fact, there is one shot toward the end of the miniseries that I would swear looked like a classic establishing shot, just with a new Galactica. It actually brought back memories for me.

Obviously, we see the classic Cylons presented in a museum, to include a classic Cylon basestar, which, in conjunction with Six's statement about them still being around and having their uses, leads me to believe that we might see the Classic Cylons in action in future episodes of new Galactica.

I personally think that the retractable landing bays of the new Galactica are a nod to the intent of the original Galactica design (which was in the novel, and if I recall correctly was axed in production of the original show due to budget constraints) I like to think of it as the new show saying: "Hey, classic Galactica, we got your back with this one."

Probably the most grating nod, one that was not so readilly accepted by many classic fans, was hearing the rather tinny sound of a sample of Stu Phillips' original Galactica theme.

These were the most notable nods I could see. There are many who will not see these as viable nods at all...tokens if anything, but not viables.

As long as Boomer and Starbuck are women (which has got to be the biggest sore spot for many a stalwart classic fan), nothing the new show does will sway their opinons, no matter how positively the show might try to change.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

julix

September 26th, 2004, 05:58 PM

Martok...
Thanks for the reply and I was aware of those you listed I meant actually Homage to TOS not the cosmectic similarities..... :)

martok2112

September 26th, 2004, 06:04 PM

((((((((((((((((((Julix))))))))))))))))))))))

Probably the biggest "referencial" nod to Classic Galactica was part of the "So Say We All" speech at the end of the mini.

" 'Life here began out there..' Those are the first words of the sacred scrolls, and they were told to us by the Lords of Kobol many countless centuries ago." Adama said.

Again though, this may be only a token nod in the view of many classic Galactica fans. Everything else may be superfluous. ;)

Respectfully,
Martok2112

martok2112

September 26th, 2004, 06:11 PM

And think of that funny take on A-Team where a cylon walks by Benedict.

:D

That was a classic moment that forever stays in my mind....and D.B.'s reaction to it was priceless.

A testament to the enduring spirit of Classic BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.

Long Live BATTLESTAR GALACTICA :colonial:
Long Live BATTLESTAR GALACTICA :bg04:

Respectfully,
Martok2112

BST

September 26th, 2004, 06:16 PM

Well, with a 25+ year gap, the "technological gap" could very neatly filled in. Also, handled properly, the ship complement in the RTF could actually have grown.

For me, though, there is simply not much from the new show that intrigues me, not the ship designs, not the technology (or lack thereof), not the premise, not the characters,......only a few of the actors, would I like to see in a continuation movie.

Sorry, Tom, that's the best that I could do for an olive branch.

:(

:eek: I actually started this reply, after julix's 1st post at 20:35.........I had to take a phone call and just got back to this and, WOW, there was a whole lot of talking going on, in the meantime.

A thousand pardons! ;) :D

Dawg

September 26th, 2004, 06:38 PM

I know where I stand on this.....

There should have been no playing of Stu Phillips music. There should have been no display of TOS Cylon Centurions. There should have been no reference to the circular Baseships.

TOS BSG, for all its flaws, was unique. No, it was not a Star Wars ripoff - there was a lawsuit that saw to that. ABC rushed it into production to take advantage of the unexpected popularity of the first Star Wars movie. Period.

RDM said when he came in he decided to reinvent TV sci-fi. He said he went back to the very beginning concept of BSG - watched the movie (not the 3-hour pilot, but the 90 minute movie edited from that), and began writing. He wrote in characters from a favorite WWII film called "In Harm's Way".

And when the fans that have kept BSG alive for 25 years said "Why?", RDM turned up his nose and said, basically, "deal with it" (a quote later repeated by a certain actress, thereby earning her a deserved degree of emnity).

(I'll not provide links - do your own research if you can't take my word for it. His and Eick's interviews have been prominently posted at Skiffy for a year.)

And yet, despite his oft-repeated insistance that his was a unique vision, we see deliberate references to TOS. Considering his adamant statements and arrogant attitude towards TOS fans, forgive me if I, as a fan, find the 10 second, horribly inadequate rendition of the grand Stu Phillips theme to be a slap in the face of TOS rather than an homage to it.

Mustex, you've said elsewhere that you think that TNS should have been called something different to distance itself from TOS - I most heartily agree.

I also agree with what others have said - Aaron Douglas' character of Tyrol was a breath of fresh air throughout - and he would fit admirably within a TOS BSG production.

I hope nobody takes this argumentatively - I certainly don't mean it that way. But I hope the issue is clearer. I would hope, for all the reasons Martok says and more, that there is no reference to or any other link to TNS in a BSG movie.

Mustex, for you and any other "newbie" to the boards who may not know much of BSG history, there are several websites you can visit to get an idea. Cylon Alliance is not a bad place to start:

http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg-intro-01.html

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

thomas7g

September 26th, 2004, 07:38 PM

I don't take anyone's comments even if they are 100% opposite mine as anything personal. :D

Its only when people start ging jihad that I ready the ban button. :D

For me its que sera sera, whatever will be will be. If they add in tribute stuff its fine with me. If they don't, I won't miss it.

BTW- Martof the use of original ragtag ships were not asked for by the creaters of the show. Infact they axed anything that reminded them of the original. But the special effect guys, they are the ones that loved the original. You can thank them for that. It wouldn't surprise me that the reason the models weren't axed was cause Hammer and Crew didn't recognize them. But then that is sheer speculation.

:D

martok2112

September 26th, 2004, 07:40 PM

Gemini1999

September 26th, 2004, 07:56 PM

Okay, my turn....

I can understand why the SFX team (Zoic) felt the need to try and inject as many visual references into the miniseries. Some of them truly loved TOS and wanted to feel that what they were contributing wasn't just technically satisfying, but also in sprit of the original series. All of the TOS ships that appear in the miniseries were some of my favorite scenes, but also the most painful - it was a reminder that only a very small part of this show resembled the original. It was like what people must feel if they win a lot of money, only to have 43 percent whacked off for taxes. They only get what's left over...

When a continuation film does hit the big screen (notice I said "when") - do I think that there should be references to TNS & the mini? My answers would be "no" and "why?". Why should a film production make references to a TV production that did its level best to distance itself from the original? At least, not until boosting ratings to guarantee a better chance of success became an issue... Such references to the Ron Moore production would be rather unneccesary as the two storylines aren't connected anyway.

I always thought that the mini & TNS should stand on it's own merit, not on the shoulders of what came before it. I don't wish TNS to fail, merely to succeed on its own without any gimmics to get people to watch. I mean, either it's good TV, or it isn't, We see that with Enterprise these days - just because it's a Trek show or movie, doesn't automatically guarantee it a success anymore.

I wish TNS & it's supporters the best of success, but I want a continuation movie for the rest of us - the ones that wanted what Tom DeSanto, Glen Larson (or whomever) was planning and didn't get it.

Best always,
Bryan

thomas7g

September 26th, 2004, 11:45 PM

Just wondering... if Grace is going to play your love. Does that mean you are going to play the role of Tyrol or a toaster?

:LOL:

Senmut

September 27th, 2004, 12:41 AM

All of the above merely brings up one of my most asked questions...Is RDM a parasite? Someone who has not an ounce of creativity, but must raid other people's stuff in order to keep himself employed? he talks about "creativity' and "re-imagining", but all I see is a trail of bad retreads from this guy.
What about you guys?

julix

September 27th, 2004, 05:28 AM

You guys are so good!...You all make good points and I love a good discussion. I mean it when I say some of the smartest men and women are here on the boards(fleets)...... :salute:

Mustex

September 27th, 2004, 05:59 AM

Not so sure whare I stand on this...When the continuation movie goes to opening night ask me then...... ;) I don't think TNS gave much homage to TOS which would be deserved and came first...but if you have examples....

Not much, but they had the names, the Cylon eye, and "At your command". I'm sure that would be enough to justify "SO SAY WE ALL!"

Mustex

September 27th, 2004, 06:03 AM

((((((((((((((((((Julix))))))))))))))))))))))

Probably the biggest "referencial" nod to Classic Galactica was part of the "So Say We All" speech at the end of the mini.

I don't remember TOS Adama saying "SO SAY WE ALL!", did I miss it? :wtf:

Mustex

September 27th, 2004, 06:12 AM

I always thought that the mini & TNS should stand on it's own merit, not on the shoulders of what came before it. I don't wish TNS to fail, merely to succeed on its own without any gimmics to get people to watch. I mean, either it's good TV, or it isn't, We see that with Enterprise these days - just because it's a Trek show or movie, doesn't automatically guarantee it a success anymore.

Unfortunately TNS is running the same risk as "2001" of using real science, and possibly being ahead of it's time. Are the masses really ready to accept that space is silent, and you can't see lasers in it? That's probably the reason it took the "Galactica" name to begin with.

Mustex

September 27th, 2004, 06:15 AM

justjackrandom

September 27th, 2004, 06:52 AM

Unfortunately TNS is running the same risk as "2001" of using real science, and possibly being ahead of it's time. Are the masses really ready to accept that space is silent, and you can't see lasers in it? That's probably the reason it took the "Galactica" name to begin with.

It didn't fly with "Firefly". TNS mini compromised. I don't know what they are going to do with the series.

As for trying to “clean up” the science of the TOS: I was originally pretty gung ho about the changes the TNS made, but after careful review and some new analysis of TOS, I am now convinced it is not nearly as “flawed” scientifically as most think. I won’t go into detail, but someday (soon) I hope, I’ll have all of my results posted in final form to my website.

I do think that a number of things seen and heard in the mini were meant as a sort of tribute to TOS, but most of it was simply making use of things that made both shows identifiable as Galactica. Without many of them (including the "life here began out there" quote) there would be no reason to call the show BSG. I am sure a number here would like that, but I for one am happy with the mix of familiar elements with the new.

JJR

julix

September 27th, 2004, 07:11 AM

I see someone with the courage to finally stop dumbing-down Sci-fi.

Explain yourself here...I am not sure I understand what you mean so clarify and give examples......

Gemini1999

September 27th, 2004, 08:14 AM

Unfortunately TNS is running the same risk as "2001" of using real science, and possibly being ahead of it's time. Are the masses really ready to accept that space is silent, and you can't see lasers in it? That's probably the reason it took the "Galactica" name to begin with.

Mustex -

I don't know why you bothered to quote me - you comment had little or nothing to do with what I wrote.

As for the real science in a science fiction show... You pointed out that it's been done before, so it's hardly revolutionary. It's just a retread of someone else's technique.

A TV show isn't all about the background - it's not about the SFX, or the whys, hows and wherfores. It's about the story and the characters. That's why at the ripe old age of 44, I don't give a damn about all the details and how things work - those things are all window dressing. I find that if the story is engaging and the characters interesting, I will probably come away from the experience satisfied.

If you get your jollies from not hearing sounds in space and the use of bullets instead of particle beam weapons, that's great. All I'm saying is that if the show doesn't deliver on a more practical level, then it will suffer the same difficulties as Enterprise has had lateley. If people aren't interested in the storytelling or the characters, they will walk.

Sincerley,

Gemini1999

Ioraptor

September 27th, 2004, 11:16 AM

I think Mustex was just trying to gently change the subject. :salute:

nuGalatica nods its head at portraying realistic science in the fiction but doesnt go all the way. If it did, it would be pretty dry fare for the uninitiated masses.
For instance, no unaugmented human reflexes could match the reaction time of machines.
Gravity control and inertial dampening would be absolutely necessary to match a machine opponent in space. Heck, the robot planes coming down the line in the next decade will be able to outmaneuver human piloted planes (pull more g's, turn on a tighter curve etc).
In space a significant portion of combat would take place at very long distances between missiles and kinetic intercept weapons. Not a visceral thrill for the viewing audience.

The list goes on and on, but I am very happy that somebody is at least attempting to move forward in a more science oriented direction.

As a fan of TOS since it premiered, I would enjoy seeing actors from TNS make appearances in the Continuation. They are all a great bunch of young people and I hope TNS will enhance their acting careers and bring them wealth.

Hmmm, an interesting 'reverse homage' would be a scene where Centurians are about to kill a baby in the habitat (from the DeSanto version) and the mother pulls a blaster and blows em away before they can do the foul deed.
Thats the spirit of TOS!

......(and if the TNS fleet refugees survive long enough, thats the spirit they will have too)

Ioraptor

September 27th, 2004, 11:36 AM

oh yeah I forgot the other point I wanted to address.......

Senmut asked if Mr Moore is a 'parasite'.
I dont think so.
I think he is a gifted writer, and like most writers he has a distinctive style which will appeal to some and not to others.
He has rebuilt Galactica the way he knows how and its very different from TOS. I noticed that there was a statement dissassociating TOS from Star Wars. That goes against everything I have read since Starlog first started writing articles about Galactica in the late 70's to this day.
Stories, creative drama, do not exist in a void from which they spontaneously generate. There are no new human stories and if you look hard enough you will discover a Greek tragedy, Biblical testement, or Shakespearean play that contains all the elements of the fiction of your choice. And those stories are descended from even older ones!

What makes science fiction different, what has changed in human story telling is the direction we look in time. Rather than tell stories that take place in a magical past that never was, science fiction tells stories that take place in a magical future that just might be.
Battlestar Galatica is a mythos now. A rich science fiction myth that deserves respect and attention from creative people. That it langored in obscurity for so long is a tragedy. Lets hope that more artists recognize the power of the Galactica themes and make it over in the images of their creative power.
I suspect that if we survive as a race into the future, Galactica in some form will be present. It has all the primal human themes; human migration, warfare, romance, hope in the face of dispair, and the spiritual questioning that has troubled our minds since the beginning of time.

:cool:

Mustex

September 27th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Explain yourself here...I am not sure I understand what you mean so clarify and give examples......

You need rockets to manuever, you can't see lasers in space, there's actually a reason for humanoid aliens...

martok2112

September 27th, 2004, 12:30 PM

I don't remember TOS Adama saying "SO SAY WE ALL!", did I miss it? :wtf:

:LOL: Mustex, reread the rest of what I wrote. ;)

When I quoted Adama: " 'Life here began out there,' Those are the first words of the sacred scrolls, and they were told to us by the Lords of Kobol many countless centuries ago."

That is the excerpt from the speech I refer to as the "SO SAY WE ALL" speech. :)

That was one of the greatest nods I could find.

But we overlooked the greatest nod of all.

The look of the Viper Mk II which is ALMOST directly taken from the classic show.
With the exception of a couple of design elements.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

martok2112

September 27th, 2004, 12:53 PM

*ahem ahem--cough hack wheeze*

Why ya crazy young whippasnappah! I says it does look almost like the ---cough-cough, hack-- original Vipah!

Wheeze!!!

Why if I wuz a few years youngah--

Ack!

THUD!

Martok the Mortalitized

(Now look and see what ye've done, Warrior, ya done got the old man riled up and dead.) ;)

peter noble

September 27th, 2004, 01:58 PM

If by some blessed miracle a continuation does happen, why would the original want to copy the copy? ;)

Peter

P.S. "The Viper is the most advanced flying machine ever devised by man." – Captain Apollo (Richard Hatch)

BST

September 27th, 2004, 02:06 PM

What makes science fiction different, what has changed in human story telling is the direction we look in time. Rather than tell stories that take place in a magical past that never was, science fiction tells stories that take place in a magical future that just might be.

Ok, Io, I'll bite --

"what has changed in human story telling is the direction we look in time"

Not sure if I understand this one, completely but, IMO, what has changed in human story telling is the seemingly incessant to go over the top in portraying human failings without giving due course to the opposing cases of humans rising above themselves. Also, the apparent need for "shock" footage, to somehow capture viewer interest. Case in point - in the ST episode, "Wink of an Eye", you see Kirk sitting on the edge of the bed, putting on his boots and the Scalosian woman (Deela, I think) combing her hair. With the mini-series, Moore chooses to go the next step and give play-by-play with Gaius and Number 6. In either scenario, was there any question as to what had just occurred?

Do we need this type of "sophisticated" storytelling or have we sunk to the level where we need to have everything explained to us, with illustrations.

"Rather than tell stories that take place in a magical past that never was, science fiction tells stories that take place in a magical future that just might be."

Battlestar Galactica, TOS or Mini / New series, may not apply in either case. Neither show indicates whether it is a story about OUR past, OUR future, or for that matter, OUR present. When and if they would ever reach Earth would be at the hands of the show's creator / writer. In other words, whose to say whether either show failed to live up to that criterion?

With regards to Moore being a gifted writer, he may be. I just haven't seen much of it yet.

peter noble

September 27th, 2004, 02:06 PM

Unfortunately TNS is running the same risk as "2001" of using real science, and possibly being ahead of it's time. Are the masses really ready to accept that space is silent, and you can't see lasers in it?

This was all done a lot better in Firefly, where you actually had NO sound in space whatsoever and spacecraft manouvered with thrusters and space was truly three dimensional.

One of the reasons why Zoic was hired to do the FX nuGalactica in the first place was because of the look and techniques they had developed for Firefly.

Peter

martok2112

September 27th, 2004, 02:21 PM

justjackrandom

September 27th, 2004, 03:29 PM

You need rockets to manuever, you can't see lasers in space, there's actually a reason for humanoid aliens...

It's okay to want to see what we would consider hard science...unlike Gemini1999, I am a died-in-the-wool tech-head, and I do like to know the details of how things work, even at my older-than-dirt age of 43. However, I also totally agree with him in saying that the technobable is all just window dressing. Whether you are watching From the Earth to the Moon, The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, Star Trek, or Farscape: The why and how of the technology (real or imagined) is just so much pretty scenery without a good story with engaging characters. :salute:

The other thing that I would like to point out that what is often meant by “hard”- or “smart” science fiction is really “understandable” science fiction. If sci-fi deals with something that we don’t understand, that doesn’t invalidate it, or make it "dumb". It just means that the creator of the sci-fi has decided that what he/she wants to occur will be hard science by the time the events of the story occur.

Case in point: Everyone knew that Trek’s warp drive was a dramatic device to get them around space quickly, and that it was something that could never be real (not “hard” science)…until a mathematician studying in Mexico City came up with the formula to create one. It is not achievable now, and may still never be…but it IS understandable, and thus now falls into the realm of “hard” science fiction.

Hard science fiction is also often based to closely on what we think we know to be scientific reality, only to find out later that the paradigm has shifted, rendering the story a quaint fable.

Case in point: We all know that War of the Worlds (the book, not the film) is relatively primitive sci-fi that science has proven could never have been the case. But when it was written it was based on what was considered hard science (Yes, it was considered very probable at that time that Mars was inhabited. The Edgar Rice Burroughs' series John Carter of Mars was also based on this idea.)

The more we learn about the nature of the universe and search for our theory of everything, the more we find out just how much we don’t know… To assume that we know what a people hundreds or thousands of years more advanced that we are will know of the universe is no less fantastical than suggesting that pigs will be creatures of flight at that time.

My 2 p

JJR

Ioraptor

September 27th, 2004, 03:38 PM

Thanks, you hit it right on the head justjack....

However I do disagree with your assertion that flying pigs are fantastical.
I hunt them all the time...

http://www.fax-21.com/wingpig.jpg

martok2112

September 27th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Thanks, you hit it right on the head justjack....

However I do disagree with your assertion that flying pigs are fantastical.
I hunt them all the time...

http://www.fax-21.com/wingpig.jpg

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Good one, Ioraptor.

Martok the Breathless

Ioraptor

September 27th, 2004, 04:35 PM

Hello BST,
I was describing science fiction in a very broad sense. I have been eating copious amounts of chocolate and drinking tea which puts me in an expansive mood. :)

My point was that science fiction is a new kind of story telling. A paradigm shift in the tradition of entertaining fables, moral tales, cautionary instruction or 'whatever'. If you look at story telling traditions that come before industrialization you see over and over again tales that refer to a distant past. The trappings of these tales are pseudo historical and or magical. Gods work their will, magical fate intervenes and the trappings and implications of industrial technology are not present.

At some point this changed. Stories inspired by the new technologies were set in future times. When you think of the expanse of time that humans had been telling each other stories about mythical pasts (5,000 years that we know, 500,000 years possibly, more?) this is a profound change. As profound a change in our behavior as industrialization itself. We are projecting our myths into the future now.
What it all ultimately means who can say?
So I was talking in broad historical terms in order to frame my argument concerning Battlestar Galactica. There has never been a time when stories were not reinvented and transformed by the needs and desires of the people who tell them (and the people who listen to them). If a story fails to be 'reimagined' it had no value in the first place and dies a meme death.

A conflict has risen concerning the evolution of the Battlestar Galactica tale. What some would wish to see, others find shocking or lacking entertainment value. If enough people are disturbed by this transformation, if they find the content vulgar or the action dull then that story version will end for lack of interest.
The new writer is man who has sold stories and earned the attention of an audience who enjoys his work. He is a business man and his business is telling stories. He is a doer. Not a talker, a person like myself who posts on bulletin boards. I firmly believe that the person who can create, put a story foward in the media of television or film, should have more say in the matter of his creation than critics. After the work is done, the audience will decide if the story telling was a success. They will watch it or not as it pleases them.
I will be watching it.

Your example of 'showing everything' versus 'suggesting everything' suggests two seperate issues to me. Distaste at the visual portrayal of a sex act and dissappointment that so little is left to the imagination in film and television today.

I agree that too little is left to the imagination in film today. Writers and directors seem drunk on the new visual effects and hell bent to paint pictures where our imaginations can do it better. But where sex acts are visually portrayed in nuGalactica there is one scene that is 'suggested', that is powerful and evokes intense discussion.
The killing of the child.
That is a scene that is only suggested, we never see the act. But our imaginations invest it with horror. Its an example of storytelling by suggestion and it serves the purpose it was meant to serve. The Cylon evil becomes personal, a blow to the face, something horrible and beyond redemption.
And all we see is the face of #6 and all we hear is a faint crunching sound.
Scary isnt it?
That scene is also the single greatest departure from TOS, it introduces a horror element that never existed in the original.

There are other example of suggestion rather than showing in nuGalactica, some of which can be attributed to budget constraints, other to the intention of its creator. All in all I think it turned out rather well.

Then there is the sex. Our nation is in a culture war of sorts. Many find sex shocking or offensive, immoral outside of marriage or for any other purpose than procreation. Others see it as nothing more than a joyful act between consenting adults. It does not disturb them to view it, it is not shocking.
The sex in TNS serves a purpose. We see that Baltar is a shallow man who is easily led into evil through his desire. Its a cautionary example for the viewers.
With the Tyrol and Boomer we see young love and its hardly graphic. It doesnt go beyond what you could see in a soap opera twenty years ago.
We should admit to ourselve that young love often begins with physical attraction and proceeds to other levels and different ends in time.

Ah felgercarb, gotta go unload groceries.......
Well if you had the patience to read through all that yackity yack you can see where I'm going......

Gotta sign off now, bye.................. :salute:

martok2112

September 27th, 2004, 04:46 PM

Hate to break it to ya, but yer younger than I am :D

(rises from the dead...)

Cough--hack--wheeze-- why, if I was just a little older.....awww, heck!

(goes back to the coffin)

:D

Irreverently,
Martok2112

P.S. Well stated, Ioraptor...especially this part....

Then there is the sex. Our nation is in a culture war of sorts. Many find sex shocking or offensive, immoral outside of marriage or for any other purpose than procreation. Others see it as nothing more than a joyful act between consenting adults. It does not disturb them to view it, it is not shocking.
The sex in TNS serves a purpose. We see that Baltar is a shallow man who is easily led into evil through his desire. Its a cautionary example for the viewers.
With the Tyrol and Boomer we see young love and its hardly graphic. It doesnt go beyond what you could see in a soap opera twenty years ago.
We should admit to ourselve that young love often begins with physical attraction and proceeds to other levels and different ends in time.

thomas7g

September 27th, 2004, 05:27 PM

I think its near pointless to argue bring offended at seeing more sexual content in Battlestar Galactica 2004. I mean we sound like prudes at times. Prudes that are outdated with the times. The whole dang programming schedule is ALOT sexier nowadays. There is ALOT of sex on tv that none of us complain about.

BUT YES. This new show does go past the bounds of what is good taste and into the offensive. The cybervirtualsex scene mostly. And the sex with Baltar earlier was a little bit too much with a long extended scene of 6's naked backside bouncing on his dick. Not that sex scenes shouldn't happen. But the extent shown is gratuitous for a show we expect alot of young kids to watch.

But that is really a tired discussion we seem to repeat over and over. Things we don't like about the new show.

Back on topic (homages)

I think alot of people don't want ANYTHING at all from BG4 in the revival. The new show is a bastard son best forgotten for them. But I stand by my view that you can have fun with it. That Hatch and those guys can include scenes that play off the fact that there is a new director. Like Kirk saying to Spock in the second movie "Aren't you dead?"

Of course there is no reason at all to pay homage to the new show. For the new show really didn't pay homage to the old show. It was more like it pillaged the old series and took what it wanted. Anytime it used the old show was to booster itself. Though every show and business has a selfinterest going.

But for me, there comes a time that you have to get over the pain. And get over the injustices and things people did to you. If I didn't believe in that, I would have to focus my life on hating most of our own fanbase cause I've been screwed, raked over the coals, and betrayed ALOT OVER AND OVER and rarely did I get an apology. Cause everyone is always right in their own heads and or seek martyrdom. But ya got to put it in the past and just laugh at the stupidity of those times. Cause frankly you live in the same universe. You can either choose to continue a conflict without end. Or you can run. Or you can put it behind you and hopefully make it a source of laughter instead of pain.

That's why I mentioned I would like to see a scene or two where they make harmless jest about the Moore show. Or include references.

Humor is good for the soul. And good for a fanbase that REALLY needs to heal. :)

thomas7g

September 27th, 2004, 08:50 PM

Why does it have to earn it?

thomas7g

September 27th, 2004, 09:01 PM

http://thomas7g.com/battlestar-galactica/smilies/colonial-rotf2.gif

martok2112

September 28th, 2004, 12:25 AM

:LOL:

I guess some heads were gonna roll sooner or later. :D

Irreverently,
Martok2112

thomas7g

September 28th, 2004, 01:29 AM

Yup and Yup!

:D

Sept17th

September 28th, 2004, 03:32 AM

I found the "homages" to TOS in the mini-series insulting and reminded me of what I was getting after 25 years.

Let each vision go its own seperate way, "So say we all"?

martok2112

September 28th, 2004, 03:46 AM

Let each vision go its own seperate way, "So say we all"?

"So say we all!"

Respectfully,
Martok2112

Mustex

September 28th, 2004, 04:22 AM

This was all done a lot better in Firefly, where you actually had NO sound in space whatsoever and spacecraft manouvered with thrusters and space was truly three dimensional.

One of the reasons why Zoic was hired to do the FX nuGalactica in the first place was because of the look and techniques they had developed for Firefly.

Peter

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

Mustex

September 28th, 2004, 04:24 AM

It's okay to want to see what we would consider hard science...unlike Gemini1999, I am a died-in-the-wool tech-head, and I do like to know the details of how things work, even at my older-than-dirt age of 43. However, I also totally agree with him in saying that the technobable is all just window dressing. Whether you are watching From the Earth to the Moon, The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, Star Trek, or Farscape: The why and how of the technology (real or imagined) is just so much pretty scenery without a good story with engaging characters. :salute:

The other thing that I would like to point out that what is often meant by “hard”- or “smart” science fiction is really “understandable” science fiction. If sci-fi deals with something that we don’t understand, that doesn’t invalidate it, or make it "dumb". It just means that the creator of the sci-fi has decided that what he/she wants to occur will be hard science by the time the events of the story occur.

Case in point: Everyone knew that Trek’s warp drive was a dramatic device to get them around space quickly, and that it was something that could never be real (not “hard” science)…until a mathematician studying in Mexico City came up with the formula to create one. It is not achievable now, and may still never be…but it IS understandable, and thus now falls into the realm of “hard” science fiction.

Hard science fiction is also often based to closely on what we think we know to be scientific reality, only to find out later that the paradigm has shifted, rendering the story a quaint fable.

Case in point: We all know that War of the Worlds (the book, not the film) is relatively primitive sci-fi that science has proven could never have been the case. But when it was written it was based on what was considered hard science (Yes, it was considered very probable at that time that Mars was inhabited. The Edgar Rice Burroughs' series John Carter of Mars was also based on this idea.)

The more we learn about the nature of the universe and search for our theory of everything, the more we find out just how much we don’t know… To assume that we know what a people hundreds or thousands of years more advanced that we are will know of the universe is no less fantastical than suggesting that pigs will be creatures of flight at that time.

My 2 p

JJR

Would people in the future have any REASON to make sound in space, even if they could?

justjackrandom

September 28th, 2004, 06:57 AM

Would people in the future have any REASON to make sound in space, even if they could?

Why does something that may happen have to be made to happen? Perhaps what we are seeing/hearing is a consequence of the circumstances we are viewing, or perhaps even OF our viewing.

If we, the viewer are actually sitting in a place where we can view the action, then we are likely utilizing the same technologies. Perhaps tylinium generates sympathetic vibrations when subjected to various EM waveforms, such as those that might be generated by the collapse of the intense gravimagnetic containment field of a population inversion-created electron bolt (the exploding laser blast outside a cockpit). We, sitting in a nice cozy tylinium bubble would then hear the waves created by these vibrations...sound.

However, in most cases in TOS (or just about any other show I can think of), the POV of the external shots is usually what I like to call the God Camera – a dramatic device that is a third-person objective viewpoint removed from what is happening, giving the viewer more information about what is going on than someone there would have. Since we are seeing the action as God sees it, maybe we are hearing it as God hears it.

JJR

justjackrandom

September 28th, 2004, 08:48 AM

Why does it have to earn it?

Besides being because Warrior says so, homage (as I think it is being defined by Warrior) is given as a sign of respect. Respect for any entertainment property is earned by its quality, among other things. I think Warrior is saying that it is the respect that must be earned.

I know a number of folks out there will disagree with me on this one, but I do feel that TNS paid tribute and respect to TOS with the inclusion of a number of elements. There were things they had to take from TOS in order to make it BSG (“Life here began out there” is a premise necessary to make it BSG), but there were also a number of things TNS did that they did NOT have to do dramatically, but did solely out of tribute, i.e. as a homage. This included Zoic’s use of the original Rag-Tag fleet designs for a number of the new ships (Zoic also put a signature piece in by showing a Firefly in the Caprica scenes), the use of the classic Cylon design as what they used to look like, as well as the raiders, base stars, and almost everything else seen in the museum, and the use of the original music in the decommissioning ceremony.

Maybe not everyone involved with TNS gave a rat’s behind about TOS, but a number of them did, and gave tips of the hat where they could.

My 2p

JJR

Antelope

September 28th, 2004, 10:21 AM

We already see a large amount of homage to TOS in Moore's version. Unfortunately if you don't like what Moore did in general it offends you. I doubt that was Moore's intent. Of the recent scifi remakes or novel based stories I actually think Moore's Battlestar Galactica stayed truer to its source than many others out there. Compared to Planet of the Apes, Lost in Space, and Starship Troopers the new Battlestar is easily the winner in the "true to its source" category. If you look at the description of upcoming episodes we see a lot more homage coming. At least one episodes is even named the same as a TOS episode.

Whether we like it or not the destinies of both versions are linked in the business realm. Moore's version is not a parasite but a compliment (in economic terms). The timing of bringing the TOS DVD box set to market was meant to both help and ride the publicity and release of the mini. TOS is helping the new series and the new series is reviving interest in TOS. It's a two way streak. Look at the increased traffic on TOS based web sites. When the series starts the purist will have a whole new audience of people to educate for the Continuation effort. I bet reruns of TOS will do better on scifi once the new series is airing episodes also. In the future with more episodes I bet it will be easier to sell and franchise TOS and the new series as a package deal. Battlestar Galactica as a franchise has been on life support for some time. Whether you like it or not the publicity of Moore and the scifi effort is the best hope for a future of either Battlestar version.

Dawg

September 28th, 2004, 11:07 AM

They are linked only by name.

They are two different shows.

The "homage" moments were and are attempts to link the two shows - and because they are such vastly different shows, those of us who prefer the 1978 BSG find these attempted links to be another in a long string of slaps in the face that began when Sci-Fi hijacked the production out from under DeSanto.

Like it or not, the fate of the former is not linked to the latter.

Like it or not, some of us continue to believe TNS is not BSG. Never was and never will be.

Like it or not, some of us are disgusted with the fact the producers of TNS are trying to overwrite TOS with their version.

Like it or not, some of us believe that a continuation movie can (and will) happen without reference one made to TNS. And there should be none - TOS came first and without it - and the fans that kept it alive for 25 years, the people this production ignored - TNS could not have happened. COULD NOT have happened.

Like it or not, some of us are already sick and tired of these new argument buzz-words: "like it or not". Like it or not, some of us won't be convinced that TNS is better than sex, so like it or not you're going to have to knock off the like it or not comments.

Have a nice day. :)

;)

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Antelope

September 28th, 2004, 12:14 PM

They are linked only by name.

Unfortunately as a business they are linked by more than just name as we see time and again by various business issues that arise in reference to TOS, SCIFI, Larson, Universal and the continuation effort.

They are two different shows.

They certainly are although as the credits say they are based on the same thing.

The "homage" moments were and are attempts to link the two shows - and because they are such vastly different shows, those of us who prefer the 1978 BSG find these attempted links to be another in a long string of slaps in the face that began when Sci-Fi hijacked the production out from under DeSanto.

I think the word hijacked would objectively be called "bought", "purchased", or were "sold". It's a business not the bible.

Like it or not, the fate of the former is not linked to the latter.

That's an opinion I highly doubt the actual owners share.

Like it or not, some of us continue to believe TNS is not BSG. Never was and never will be.

I agree TNS is not the same as TOS. Although TNS is inspired by TOS.

Like it or not, some of us are disgusted with the fact the producers of TNS are trying to overwrite TOS with their version.

Since TOS can not be destroyed or overwritten and is in fact playing on SCIFI this very day and available at Netflix and for purchase as a box set I wouldn't worry about this ever happening. TOS will be here in its original form so long as America remains a society with DVDs and its future incarnations.

Like it or not, some of us believe that a continuation movie can

I agree with you there 100%!

(and will)

I wouldn't bet on that in Vegas.

happen without reference one made to TNS. And there should be none - TOS came first and without it - and the fans that kept it alive for 25 years, the people this production ignored - TNS could not have happened. COULD NOT have happened.

Like it or not, some of us are already sick and tired of these new argument buzz-words: "like it or not". Like it or not, some of us won't be convinced that TNS is better than sex, so like it or not you're going to have to knock off the like it or not comments.

Like it or not the future of the two are most likely linked. That is business reality. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing depends on what you think that likeage means. Many think a successful TNS means a TOS Continuation is more likely. I don't subscribe to that thought but it is a compelling opinion I hope is right.

Have a nice day. :)

Thanks, I hope you have a nice day also. :salute: :bg04: :colonial:

;)

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

:)

thomas7g

September 28th, 2004, 12:41 PM

Whether we like it or not the destinies of both versions are linked in the business realm. No. :)

They aren't linked anymore. Not really. They are more like Richard Hatch and the other Richard Hatch from Survivor.

Fans relate the two together. So does the public. But business sees these as two entirely separate shows. Though oddly, legally miniseries is the same property as the DeSAnto project.

Also note, that there is a difference between the miniseries and the 2004 series in the business world.

Legality and business does not think in the same terms as the public or fans.

Antelope

September 28th, 2004, 01:09 PM

When I say they are linked I mean they are linked in the same way that the various books, toys, and other Battlestar items are all linked. One feeds off the other. Interest in one supports the interest in the other.

Legally there is linkage also as you (Thomas) point out. Everything derives from Larson. Larson in turn sold certain rights to various people. How these people expand or use the rights they bought depends on them. That they all derive from a common legal source is not in dispute. Larson is indirectly responsible for the mini and the new series because he sold his concept to Universal who in turn did what they did.

As the new series comes out depending on how well it does it may spurn a resurgence in TOS related areas. For example it may increase DVD sales. It may result in better time slots and more viewers for reruns of TOS. It may increase Hatch book sales. It may mean TOS actors sell more photos at scifi conventions. It may mean TOS merchandise may increase in value when sold on ebay. Maybe, just maybe, it may help create momentum for a TOS continuation.

They are definitely "linked" that doesn't mean they are twins. Two brothers are two separate people plying their separate lives but they are linked to a family that may or may not lend a hand or one may stand in the shadow of the others success.

BST

September 28th, 2004, 02:37 PM

Like it or not, the fate of the former is not linked to the latter.

That's an opinion I highly doubt the actual owners share.

Lest we forget the ownership issue --

Universal owns the TV rights to Battlestar Galactica;

Larson owns the Theater based, i.e., movie rights to Battlestar Galactica.

Universal has absolutely NO influence whatsoever in any theater-based production of Battlestar Galactica. Period.

BST

September 28th, 2004, 02:46 PM

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!!

jewels

September 28th, 2004, 04:02 PM

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

September 28th, 2004, 05:16 PM

Mustex

September 28th, 2004, 05:16 PM

Ioraptor

September 28th, 2004, 05:18 PM

Mustex

September 28th, 2004, 05:20 PM

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

September 28th, 2004, 05:27 PM

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

September 28th, 2004, 05:32 PM

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

September 28th, 2004, 05:55 PM

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

September 28th, 2004, 06:15 PM

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 :D

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

September 28th, 2004, 06:44 PM

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
:warrior:

thomas7g

September 28th, 2004, 07:22 PM

I wouldn't bet on that in Vegas.

That's actually a safer bet than you know. :)

amberstar

September 28th, 2004, 07:30 PM

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

September 29th, 2004, 12:19 AM

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

September 29th, 2004, 05:13 AM

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

September 29th, 2004, 07:47 AM

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

:mad:

We are dying to see ships that are designed for a three dimensional environment and behave that way. We :barf: 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....
:wtf:

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

September 29th, 2004, 08:58 AM

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

September 29th, 2004, 09:03 AM

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

September 29th, 2004, 10:45 AM

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

September 29th, 2004, 11:05 AM

Gravity bubble?

:confused:

Sept17th

September 29th, 2004, 11:48 AM

justjackrandom

September 29th, 2004, 11:58 AM

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

WAY too seriously... :/: ;)

JJR

justjackrandom

September 29th, 2004, 12:14 PM

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

September 29th, 2004, 12:42 PM

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?)

:salute:

JJR

Ioraptor

September 29th, 2004, 01:05 PM

...pistols at dawn Sept! :)

Ioraptor

September 29th, 2004, 01:06 PM

...pistols at dawn Sept! :)

ur..... phasers?

peter noble

September 29th, 2004, 01:25 PM

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.

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

September 29th, 2004, 01:50 PM

Great! When do the reruns come on!

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

Sept17th

September 29th, 2004, 02:02 PM

...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. :D

Rowan

September 29th, 2004, 02:11 PM

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

Rowan

September 29th, 2004, 02:11 PM

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,

Peterok this is getting facinating!!! :D

Antelope

September 29th, 2004, 03:01 PM

"I think the word hijacked would objectively be called "bought", "purchased", or were "sold". It's a business not the bible."

antelope, that response to Dawg makes no sense.

You don't know the history of the DeSanto project, do you?

When Dawg said BG was hi-jacked from DeSanto, that is *exactly* what he means.

I think sometimes we lose sight that we are talking about a for profit television show.

Whoever owned the rights to make and/or financed the Desanto continuation at the time it was shut down, shut it down. No one held a gun to their head. They simply decided rightly or wrongly that further investment in the project would not provide the desired return on investment at that particular point in time.

No one is scheming out there to "destroy" the show. No one is trying to "rape" the fans. No one is or was trying to "hijack" anything. All the people involved were trying to make as much money as they could off the franchise.

The fact that all these money oriented people may not understand their product and may be incompetent I would not dispute. :cry:

And Yes I am now aware of the history behind the Desanto Continuation thanks to the many great original Battlestar Galactica series fans I have met here over the past year. :salute:

One of the reasons I believe Larson will sit on his hands for the next year or so is so he can stick his wet finger in the wind and see which way the Battlestar Galactica profit winds are blowing after the new series has some time to air. :bg04: :colonial: Larson may be the creator but he is more worried about his checkbook than he is about any of the concerns you, I, or any other fan may have about the show.

Rowan

September 29th, 2004, 03:11 PM

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?

JJRI love Firefly and had no problem adjusting to no sound in space in fact when Serenity is passing close to the Reevers ship there was no sound and frankly I found it very eerie I loved it. I'm a total animal nut and vegetarian but I love the moment when Mal shot the horse because it broke the rules and loved it when he shot the "police officer" in his cargo hold without a second thought - again because it broke the rules. One of my most favorite Sci-Fi books is the series by C.J. Cherryh about Pyanfar Chanur who is an upright feline creature. In her culture only the females of her species are allowed on spaceships as males are notoriously unstable and emotional (sorry boys ;) ) it's an area of space were oxygen breathers (Hani, Kif etc.) and methane breathers (the Knnn) have worked out an intricate web of communications and politics designed to maintain a mutually profitable economic climate and a shaky peace until one human arrives and throws the whole thing out of whack. Kind of like the way John does in Farscape. I love the battles and chases portrayed in these books all the variety of species and all the space stations everything is alien to me and the rules don't apply and that is why I like it. I like my Sci-Fi to be gritty, scary , unpredictable, I like fast paced but I also enjoy watching the day to day routines of peoples lives as lived on a ship or space station. I want it to be intense and not pretty and I don't want to feel safe. It's only in the third season of Enterprise that I started to like that show once it got a little less safe and characters that were around for a few shows were getting killed and alien species were plotting to eliminate the human race and when Archer throws his morals away. I want it to entertain me but I also want it to blow me away with it's imaginativeness and challenge my morals, ideals, my "humanity" this is why I liked the baby killing scene in BSG 2003. ( I'm not saying this to stir the $hit pot just using it as an example of how moraly / emotionally challenging I like it)

peter noble

September 29th, 2004, 03:12 PM

One of the reasons I believe Larson will sit on his hands for the next year or so is so he can stick his wet finger in the wind and see which way the Battlestar Galactica profit winds are blowing after the new series has some time to air. Larson may be the creator but he is more worried about his checkbook than he is about any of the concerns you, I, or any other fan may have about the show.

Sadly, you may very well be right.

Peter

Antelope

September 29th, 2004, 03:14 PM

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?)

:salute:

JJR

If you believe in UFOs and also certain military and private propulsion theories future craft (and current UFOs) will be (are) enveloped in an artificial gravitational field. The craft basically "falls" in whichever direction the controller wants. Such artificial fields also supposedly can result in the occupant not feeling acceleration. Both Boeing, NASA, and Russia are now openly working on projects in this arena. If such things turn out to be true we should see super acceleration and near light speed craft in the next 100 years.

Mustex

September 29th, 2004, 05:59 PM

Mustex

September 29th, 2004, 06:04 PM

Must not be too many, considering the droves of people that show up to watch Star Wars... the very epeditomy of what you hate.

"Star Wars" at least doesn't pretend to be science. "Star Trek" on the otherhand should make up it's mind, STOP PRETENDING TECHNO-BABBLE IS SCIENCE!

And tell me, prior to "Star Wars" what was the highest grossing sci-fi movie of all time?...say it...say it...SAY IT!...THAT'S RIGHT "2001" BABY! Silly science has it's place, but I think there should be a balance of the two on TV, and this is the first step.

Mustex

September 29th, 2004, 06:19 PM

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

Let me put this in another way. I COULD be riding an invisible, pink unicorn. But can you provide me with evidense that I am? There's a rule in science (can't remember what it's called) that says "if you can't provide evidence something is happening, it probably isn't." Furthermore, while our ancestors might not have understood the world, it's those ideas they got through observations that are most accurate (we have not yet disproven Newton, because he was observant, as we try to be). What you're referring to is called a "singularity", or a point at which predicting the advancement of science becomes impossible. But this does not override previously established laws of physics. The fact that E=MC2, doesn't mean that an object in motion no longer tends to stay in motion. For more, follow this link:

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/grading.html

Mustex

September 29th, 2004, 06:23 PM

Hmm, interesting, very interesting. ;)

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

Best,

Peter

So why can't this "gravity bubble" be used for all acceleration, rather than just having thrusters on the back?

Mustex

September 29th, 2004, 06:25 PM

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.

So liking realism means we don't like TOS? So are you saying that all fans of "2001: A Space Oddessey" hate "Star Wars". Well guess what, in spite of liking realism every now and then, I consider "Return of the Jedi" to be the greatest movie ever made.

Mustex

September 29th, 2004, 06:30 PM

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

And how do you propose I edit out the visible lasers?

Mustex

September 29th, 2004, 06:37 PM

If you believe in UFOs and also certain military and private propulsion theories future craft (and current UFOs) will be (are) enveloped in an artificial gravitational field. The craft basically "falls" in whichever direction the controller wants. Such artificial fields also supposedly can result in the occupant not feeling acceleration. Both Boeing, NASA, and Russia are now openly working on projects in this arena. If such things turn out to be true we should see super acceleration and near light speed craft in the next 100 years.

Fine, but if this were the case there would be NO thrusters, not just thrusters on the back.

Gemini1999

September 29th, 2004, 07:59 PM

So liking realism means we don't like the original Battlestar Galactica series ? So are you saying that all fans of "2001: A Space Oddessey" hate "Star Wars". Well guess what, in spite of liking realism every now and then, I consider "Return of the Jedi" to be the greatest movie ever made.

Mustex -

I just finished watching a 13-minute documentary on the bonus disk for the Star Wars DVD trilogy set. It's called "The Force is With Them - Inspiring a Generation". Basically, it's a mini-documentary where they have interviewed post-Star Wars directors and producers on how Star Wars as a style of filmmaking inspired them to do what they do and make the films they make.

The list includes names like Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Dean Deviln, Roland Emmerich & Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott was quoted as saying "George Lucas took the starkness of space in 2001 and took it to a higher level..." All of these directors/producers talk about how Star Wars inspired them on what they wanted to do and how they wanted to go about it.

These guys also talk about how Lucas pioneered such industry standards as THX sound recording, Skywalker Sound and their "edit droid" process, the development of motion control photography and the creation of ILM. They also talk about how the action adventury/sci-fi fantasy style basically changed the way modern science fiction and fantasy stories are told.

Basically, if we go with your point of view on filmmaking, you want to go back to the dark ages because you are all geeked out on scientific reality being the new style when it comes to Sci Fi storytelling on a visual/audio level. Like I said, they did it "quiet-like" with 2001 and that was 36 years ago. Since 1977, it's been a whole other way of doing things.

You can flog this horse over and over again, but there's 3 generations or more that grew up with filmmaking the way it is and I don't think many want to go back!

Best of luck on your 'crusade for scientific truth'....

Best,
Bryan

justjackrandom

September 30th, 2004, 07:25 AM

Let me put this in another way. I COULD be riding an invisible, pink unicorn. But can you provide me with evidense that I am? There's a rule in science (can't remember what it's called) that says "if you can't provide evidence something is happening, it probably isn't."

I doubt that that is a “rule”, and sounds more like a variation on what many people think Ockham’s Razor propounds (many scientists suggest Ockham’s Razor means things it actually doesn’t, and apply it improperly). Your statement is counter to the foundation that nothing can be proved, only disproved. Just because the evidence isn’t observable doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It simply means we can’t observe it.

Furthermore, while our ancestors might not have understood the world, it's those ideas they got through observations that are most accurate (we have not yet disproven Newton, because he was observant, as we try to be).

Actually the observations of our ancestors were what lead us to believe that there was life on Mars and that time is cyclical and not linier (it may be, but that is more of a philosophical discussion). As for Newton, if he were putting forth his theories today, he would probably be shot down. Newton’s observations don’t really explain anything as to cause, but simply show us how to measure the effect. It can be (and has been) argued very convincingly that Newtonian gravity is a fundamentally flawed concept, and that it violates established physical laws (Conservation of Energy, and no, the Work Function doesn’t fix the problem). And while “disproven” may be too strong a word, Newton has been replaced as being archaic and incomplete. Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is considered the standard model today (which doesn't mean that GR is NOT flawed).

What you're referring to is called a "singularity", or a point at which predicting the advancement of science becomes impossible. But this does not override previously established laws of physics.

Interesting, I had never heard that term used in that way before. However, new science is always overriding previously established science. History is full of examples. And physics is not sacrosanct as a branch of science. Laws can be found to be fallacious, but even if they are not, theory should not hold the weight law does.

Thanks for the link. I am familiar with the site, but it’s cool to have it posted here.

:salute: JJR

justjackrandom

September 30th, 2004, 07:29 AM

And how do you propose I edit out the visible lasers?

Even today, the term "laser" has become a euphamistic one for any directed energy beam created by population inversion. They are even using a proton "laser" in medical research (this is not the same as the cancer-zapping proton beam). Traditional lasers also have issues as space-born weapons, suggesting that what you are seeing aren't traditional lasers.

JJR

justjackrandom

September 30th, 2004, 07:31 AM

BTW, nuBG uses "bullets", or hard projectile weapons on the Vipers, right?

This has yet to be solidly established, and is more an interpretation of some viewers.

JJR

justjackrandom

September 30th, 2004, 07:49 AM

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

Peter,

Miguel Alcubierre is a theoretical physicist who was born and studied in Mexico City until 1990, when he moved to the UK (University of Wales, I believe) for his final grad studies. He was apparently a Trek fan, and decided as an exercise to see if he could create Trek’s warp drive. He publishes a paper in 1994 setting out his findings, and it was astounding. There has been a small barrage of papers since, some pointing out the flaws and discounting the theory, others refining it and making it more viable.

In a nutshell, the drive essentially moves vessels at relativistic speeds by enclosing them in another bubble, one that collapses space in front of it, and expands space behind. As the pocket of space that the ship sits in is what is moving FTL, the ship itself is not violating any laws, nor is it subject to acceleration effects.

There are a number of things that suggest to me that this is what is being used in the Galactica milieu, and I'm hoping to have those, and a more detailed explaination as to how I think it works in Galactica up on my web site in the next couple of weeks. I'll post it when its up.

:salute:

JJR

martok2112

September 30th, 2004, 07:58 AM

This has yet to be solidly established, and is more an interpretation of some viewers.

JJR

With all due respect, considering that the primary armaments of the Galactica herself in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series were bullet/projectile based, and considering that Adama specifically said: "Go find me some bullets, Chief." and "No, get the bullets back to the Galactica." I think it's safe to say that the Vipers and the Galactica in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series use bullets. :D

Respectfully,
Martok2112

justjackrandom

September 30th, 2004, 08:56 AM

With all due respect, considering that the primary armaments of the Galactica herself in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series were bullet/projectile based, and considering that Adama specifically said: "Go find me some bullets, Chief." and "No, get the bullets back to the Galactica." I think it's safe to say that the Vipers and the Galactica in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series use bullets. :D

Respectfully,
Martok2112

Martok, my man! Drawing conclusions so quickly with a whole series ahead of us?

;)

Here’s why I’m reserving judgment:

1) Just as “laser” can be euphemistic, so too can “bullet”.
2) While bullet translates to projectile, it does not necessarily translate to solid.
3) We don’t know that the “bullets” being referred to are specifically viper ammunition. We do know that there are other types of ammo there, as Tigh tells us.
4) The rail guns mounted on the Galactica are much larger than the weapons mounted on the Vipers, look different, and their issue is rendered very differently. This suggests a different technology.

:salute:

JJR

peter noble

September 30th, 2004, 09:02 AM

Peter,

Miguel Alcubierre is a theoretical physicist who was born and studied in Mexico City until 1990, when he moved to the UK (University of Wales, I believe) for his final grad studies. He was apparently a Trek fan, and decided as an exercise to see if he could create Trek’s warp drive. He publishes a paper in 1994 setting out his findings, and it was astounding. There has been a small barrage of papers since, some pointing out the flaws and discounting the theory, others refining it and making it more viable.

In a nutshell, the drive essentially moves vessels at relativistic speeds by enclosing them in another bubble, one that collapses space in front of it, and expands space behind. As the pocket of space that the ship sits in is what is moving FTL, the ship itself is not violating any laws, nor is it subject to acceleration effects.

There are a number of things that suggest to me that this is what is being used in the Galactica milieu, and I'm hoping to have those, and a more detailed explaination as to how I think it works in Galactica up on my web site in the next couple of weeks. I'll post it when its up.

:salute:

JJR

Thanks JJR, interesting stuff.

Could you post a link to your website so I can bookmark it?

Best,

Peter

Rowan

September 30th, 2004, 09:47 AM

For those interested in Dr. Alcubierre's theory on warp drive

http://www.members.shaw.ca/mike.anderton/WarpDrive.pdf

and there is this site that supports his theory through various theories and calculations

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/AlcubierreWarp.htm

his work was made public in : Miguel Alcubierre’s, landmark paper "The Warp Drive: Hyper fast travel within General Relativity," in the journal Classic and Quantum Gravity(11, L73, 1994)

There is also this page that directs you to various other pages where discussion on physics and space travel are taking place
http://www.stahlbrandt.com/html/beyond/alcubierre_warp_drive.html

and for those who love history and space travel etc. there is this book...
http://www.daviddarling.info/works/spaceflight.html

justjackrandom

September 30th, 2004, 09:54 AM

Thanks JJR, interesting stuff.

Could you post a link to your website so I can bookmark it?

Best,

Peter

Thanks.

I'll be moving it to another domain once its finished, but this is where it lives now...

http://www.geocities.com/gilesdancer/index.html

I intend to finish the majority of the content by the end of the year, and then start to work on the graphics and design. I will also be opening up a section to track my other "TOS" projects...a fan film project, and a full-scale "TOS" Viper cockpit and its "flight manual" .

But real life gets in the way all the time, so things are slow...

:/:

JJR

( :wtf: Every time I tried to abbreviate "TOS" it would post as "the Original Battlestar Galactica", or something like that. The quotes seem to have taken care of that, but uhhh...)

peter noble

September 30th, 2004, 10:42 AM

Thanks.

I'll be moving it to another domain once its finished, but this is where it lives now...

http://www.geocities.com/gilesdancer/index.html

I intend to finish the majority of the content by the end of the year, and then start to work on the graphics and design. I will also be opening up a section to track my other "TOS" projects...a fan film project, and a full-scale "TOS" Viper cockpit and its "flight manual" .

One word: "Wow".

I've got a lot of reading to do! ;)

Best,

Peter

Ioraptor

September 30th, 2004, 11:13 AM

Thanks for the links Rowan. If you scroll down to page 9 of the first links pdf you find the classic problem with warp drive and wormholes. You need exotic matter or negative energy; both exist only in theory.
A smart friend of mine pointed out that equations for wormholes and warp drives require a whole lot of energy (once you figure out a way to generate negative energy). To travel any significant distance you would have to convert the mass of a Jupiter size planet into energy! Yikes!

So yes, I think those theories are eventually going to open up space to us, but its not going to be anytime soon. More promising are the discoveries being made concerning electromagnetism and gravity. Some kind of gravity control, even if its merely a way to reduce the weight of a mass (easing fuel costs dramatically) will appear in our lifetimes.
And I wouldnt rule out a dramatic discovery that revolutionizes travel.

justjackrandom

September 30th, 2004, 02:28 PM

If you scroll down to page 9 of the first links pdf you find the classic problem with warp drive and wormholes. You need exotic matter or negative energy; both exist only in theory.

(I'm enjoying this man! Thanks to you and everyone else for the stimulating discussion!!! :thumbsup: )

There are flaws, although a number of these have been addressed in later papers. Yet, I must point out first that while negative energy on the scale we are talking about is only theoritical, negative energy states are not, and have been shown to exist in a number of experiments.

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html

Let me also point out that much of modern cosmology and physics is also only theory, including General and Special Relativity.

So yes, I think those theories are eventually going to open up space to us, but its not going to be anytime soon.

And therein lies my point all along. Who is to say that these technologies, so far acvanced for us, won't be commonplace in 500 or 1000 years?

:salute:

JJR

martok2112

September 30th, 2004, 03:38 PM

Martok, my man! Drawing conclusions so quickly with a whole series ahead of us?

;)

Here’s why I’m reserving judgment:

1) Just as “laser” can be euphemistic, so too can “bullet”.
2) While bullet translates to projectile, it does not necessarily translate to solid.
3) We don’t know that the “bullets” being referred to are specifically viper ammunition. We do know that there are other types of ammo there, as Tigh tells us.
4) The rail guns mounted on the Galactica are much larger than the weapons mounted on the Vipers, look different, and their issue is rendered very differently. This suggests a different technology.

:salute:

JJR

In that, good sir, I do believe ye have a point.

Clearly, if anything, all the projectile weapons (the cannons on the Viper, and the CIWS systems on the Galactica) are high explosive rounds of some type, and bullets may be the catch all phrase for such weaponry.

I am also interested to see the tech explanations behind the Galactica's rail gun system. I know the principles of a rail gun, but it'll be interesting to see their take on it.

Perhaps we will see a Tech Manual published for the new show.
:salute:

Respectfully,
Martok2112

Mustex

September 30th, 2004, 07:31 PM

Mustex -

I just finished watching a 13-minute documentary on the bonus disk for the Star Wars DVD trilogy set. It's called "The Force is With Them - Inspiring a Generation". Basically, it's a mini-documentary where they have interviewed post-Star Wars directors and producers on how Star Wars as a style of filmmaking inspired them to do what they do and make the films they make.

The list includes names like Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Dean Deviln, Roland Emmerich & Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott was quoted as saying "George Lucas took the starkness of space in 2001 and took it to a higher level..." All of these directors/producers talk about how Star Wars inspired them on what they wanted to do and how they wanted to go about it.

These guys also talk about how Lucas pioneered such industry standards as THX sound recording, Skywalker Sound and their "edit droid" process, the development of motion control photography and the creation of ILM. They also talk about how the action adventury/sci-fi fantasy style basically changed the way modern science fiction and fantasy stories are told.

Basically, if we go with your point of view on filmmaking, you want to go back to the dark ages because you are all geeked out on scientific reality being the new style when it comes to Sci Fi storytelling on a visual/audio level. Like I said, they did it "quiet-like" with 2001 and that was 36 years ago. Since 1977, it's been a whole other way of doing things.

You can flog this horse over and over again, but there's 3 generations or more that grew up with filmmaking the way it is and I don't think many want to go back!

Best of luck on your 'crusade for scientific truth'....

Best,
Bryan

You're confused. I was AGREEING WITH YOU. I said I consider "Return of the Jedi" to be the greatest movie ever made (read over my post more carefully next time, please). I actually consider "2001" to be strictly mediocre, but I do like the realistic science. I think we need a balance between realism, and sillytech, with some shows that represent either on TV. Just because I enjoy "2001" DOES NOT MEAN I HATE STAR WARS! I LOVE STAR WARS, AND WILL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ANYONE WHO DOESN'T!

Mustex

September 30th, 2004, 07:38 PM

I doubt that that is a “rule”, and sounds more like a variation on what many people think Ockham’s Razor propounds (many scientists suggest Ockham’s Razor means things it actually doesn’t, and apply it improperly). Your statement is counter to the foundation that nothing can be proved, only disproved. Just because the evidence isn’t observable doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It simply means we can’t observe it.

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

This is the tactic of shifting the burden of proof onto the wrong party. Another version is the assumption that a lack of evidence for side A constituted de facto evidence for side B, even though it was side B that actually bore the burden of proof. For example:

"You can't prove that Earth in Star Trek is not protected by massive shield grids which can withstand orbital bombardment, huge surface weapon emplacements, and orbiting weapon platforms. The fact that we haven't seen them doesn't prove that they don't exist."

"Since you've never actually seen Borg cubes destroyed by a Death Star superlaser, you have no evidence for your claim that they wouldn't be able to adapt to it."
In real life:

"It takes just as much faith to disbelieve in God as to believe in Him, because you can't disprove God's existence any more than I can prove it."

"How can you deny all of the alien abduction stories? You can't seriously tell me that all of the witnesses are lying or delusional. You can't seriously tell me that all of the pictures are faked or inconclusive. You're buying into the Big Lie, and you won't admit that you can't disprove these theories."
In general, the logical principle of parsimony (also referred to as Occam's Razor when discussing the philosophy of science) means that the default condition for a phenomenon is not to believe in its existence. This is a logical and practical policy; if we automatically believe in everything until it is disproven, then we immediately paralyze ourselves because there is quite literally an infinity of ideas which we could invent out of thin air (for example, try to prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn).

In other words, belief in any phenomenon is a positive condition which must be justified, ie- the burden of proof falls upon the person claiming the existence of a phenomenon, not the person denying it. Let's apply that principle to the above examples:

The first Star Wars example is pretty straight-forward; it is unreasonable to demand that someone prove that things we've never seen do not exist. It's true that we have no absolute proof of their nonexistence, but we must choose the most logical conclusion in this situation, and that is "no massive planetary defenses". We cannot assume their existence without some kind of positive evidence. The second Star Wars example is a bit more convoluted: he tries to turn the situation upside down. Borg adaptation technology with limitless capabilities is an absurd idea, yet he expects us to accept it as a default condition, thus demanding that we accept the burden of proof to show that it is not limitless!

The first real-life example is a classic religionist ploy. However, the logical principle of parsimony means that when faced a lack of evidence either way, the most logical conclusion is that it does not exist. In other words, the burden of proof is on anyone who would claim that God does exist (that's why honest Christians admit that they have nothing but their faith, while the idiots and liars try to pretend that their belief system is no less logical than an atheist's conclusions). The second real-life example is another unfortunate but common ploy: he acts as though we should assume the existence of a patently absurd phenomenon: interstellar travellers who would travel dozens, perhaps thousands of light years (an act which might not even be physically possible), only to mutilate cows and abduct people from trailer parks! As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (certainly much more than appeals to popularity or laughably grainy pictures), yet he puts the onus on us to disprove them.

thomas7g

September 30th, 2004, 07:39 PM

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

Mustex

September 30th, 2004, 07:40 PM

Peter,

Miguel Alcubierre is a theoretical physicist who was born and studied in Mexico City until 1990, when he moved to the UK (University of Wales, I believe) for his final grad studies. He was apparently a Trek fan, and decided as an exercise to see if he could create Trek’s warp drive. He publishes a paper in 1994 setting out his findings, and it was astounding. There has been a small barrage of papers since, some pointing out the flaws and discounting the theory, others refining it and making it more viable.

In a nutshell, the drive essentially moves vessels at relativistic speeds by enclosing them in another bubble, one that collapses space in front of it, and expands space behind. As the pocket of space that the ship sits in is what is moving FTL, the ship itself is not violating any laws, nor is it subject to acceleration effects.

There are a number of things that suggest to me that this is what is being used in the Galactica milieu, and I'm hoping to have those, and a more detailed explaination as to how I think it works in Galactica up on my web site in the next couple of weeks. I'll post it when its up.

:salute:

JJR

That isn't ST Warp. ST Warp requires inertial dampeners to keep you from splatting, meaning it DOES involve acceleration.

Mustex

September 30th, 2004, 07:45 PM

(I'm enjoying this man! Thanks to you and everyone else for the stimulating discussion!!! :thumbsup: )

There are flaws, although a number of these have been addressed in later papers. Yet, I must point out first that while negative energy on the scale we are talking about is only theoritical, negative energy states are not, and have been shown to exist in a number of experiments.

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html

Let me also point out that much of modern cosmology and physics is also only theory, including General and Special Relativity.

And therein lies my point all along. Who is to say that these technologies, so far acvanced for us, won't be commonplace in 500 or 1000 years?

:salute:

JJR

It's like the invisible, pink unicorn. You're trying to move the burden of proof.

Mustex

September 30th, 2004, 07:49 PM

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

September 30th, 2004, 07:57 PM

jewels

September 30th, 2004, 08:40 PM

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

September 30th, 2004, 08:58 PM

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

September 30th, 2004, 09:33 PM

martok2112

October 1st, 2004, 01:41 AM

*burp*

I second that emotion.

*burrrrrppppp*

:D
Matok2112

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

justjackrandom

October 1st, 2004, 07:04 AM

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

October 1st, 2004, 07:08 AM

...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

October 1st, 2004, 09:39 AM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:04 PM

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? :wtf:

Mustex

October 1st, 2004, 01:07 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:15 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:19 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:19 PM

jewels

October 1st, 2004, 01:26 PM

(sigh)...I could listen to you write all day!
:blush: :duck: :nervous: psst. Guys? someone tell JJR Jewel's is spoken for. ;)

Seriously, thanks for the compliment.

Mustex

October 1st, 2004, 01:27 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:28 PM

:blush: :duck: :nervous: psst. Guys? someone tell JJR Jewel's is spoken for. ;)

Seriously, thanks for the compliment.
And her husband is a BIIIIIIG man!!!!!!!!!

Mustex

October 1st, 2004, 01:29 PM

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. :mad:

Mustex

October 1st, 2004, 01:31 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:33 PM

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 :blush: !

Best,
Bryan

jewels

October 1st, 2004, 01:37 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:42 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 01:47 PM

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 :blush: !

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

thomas7g

October 1st, 2004, 01:53 PM

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

:D

justjackrandom

October 1st, 2004, 02:35 PM

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.

:salute:

JJR

Mustex

October 1st, 2004, 02:56 PM

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.

:salute:

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

October 1st, 2004, 04:21 PM

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. :D )

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 :D

Antelope

October 1st, 2004, 05:26 PM

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

October 1st, 2004, 05:27 PM

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! :D

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. :D

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

October 1st, 2004, 05:34 PM

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?

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?.......

;) :D

amberstar

October 1st, 2004, 05:38 PM

I *am* one of the hard core purists you speak of.

Yet I made the post you responded to.

Therefore your reply doesn't ring true, does it? ;)

As to your comment about the shreds of the original Battlestar Galactica series in nuBG: There aren't any. That's the problem. nuBG wants to use the NAME of BG, and attempt to hint at "homages" to the original Battlestar Galactica series , but they fall real flat because they aren't TRUE homages.

well said Warrior :salute:

martok2112

October 1st, 2004, 05:45 PM

With all due respect, those shreds may not seem like "homages" per se. Now that I think about it, I do not really consider them "homages" as much as they are simply "nods" , or perhaps a quick "tip o' the hat" to the original Battlestar Galactica series . An homage suggests something deeper, and perhaps more reverent. What is seen in the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series fits more the definitiion of an "acknowledgement".

Does this seem to have maybe a little logic in the assessment?

Respectfully,
Martok2112

martok2112

October 1st, 2004, 05:48 PM

Renamig the remake into something else:

1. Tales of the Colonies
2. Battlestar Galactica: Else Worlds
3. The Colonial Fleet
4. The Adventures of Viper Pilots In The 20th Dimension

That's the SPIRIT!

That fourth one was cute, Warrior. :D

Any other takers?

Respectfully,
Martok2112

BST

October 1st, 2004, 05:50 PM

martok2112

October 1st, 2004, 06:00 PM

:D Lip service is such a nasty term.

(Jeez..now I feel like the the little weasel. ) :rotf:

Irreverently,
Martok2112

BST

October 1st, 2004, 06:02 PM

*BST whistling while walking, not watching where going, trips and falls on head, .....still whistling...

:LOL:

;)

thomas7g

October 1st, 2004, 06:03 PM

I like "The Last Battlestar".

:D

Antelope, please remember there are many different opinions amoung tos fans. I for one would have been alot happier with a different set of names. Though my opnions of the new show are based on its quality, and not its inherited name.

:D

martok2112

October 1st, 2004, 06:04 PM

Steve, read the thread title and you just re-inforced my last post regarding the homage comments :)

It is by will alone I set my mind haltingly forward in motion with a hiccup. It is by the juice of NyQuil that thoughts acquire incoherence, the mind becomes fogged, so fogs become a hazy warning....it is by will alone I set my mind haltingly forward in motion.

:D

In other words....

d'oH!!!

Martok2112

thomas7g

October 1st, 2004, 06:06 PM

Yes... rename the battlestar to another one, drop all the callsigns.

amberstar

October 1st, 2004, 06:27 PM

Yes... rename the battlestar to another one, drop all the callsigns.

That would be a good idea :duck:

Ioraptor

October 1st, 2004, 11:23 PM

Mustex, if you are still watching this thread, check out New Scientist .com (http://www.newscientist.com/).

Its a fantastic FREE site that has all kinds of interesting science articles.
I also recommend Scientific American but I prefer Popular Science. I know how it is on a students budget, but New Scientist .com can satisfy that itch.

Mustex

October 2nd, 2004, 07:42 AM

Mustex

October 2nd, 2004, 07:46 AM

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

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 :D

O.k., I know I've said this before, but someone at scifi.com proposed just "Galactica". If people can stand teenage Superman being "Smallville", would TOS fans have minded that?