What did you hate the most about the new Galactica CGI model?

[martok2112]

Ok...here's a question? What did you hate the MOST about the new Galactica model?

I am going to place the same constraints on this poll that Thomas7g placed on his poll. Kindly restrict your comments to sheer objectivity about aesthetics. None of this "It's no Galactica!" claptrap! Speak about it strictly as a model of science-fiction.


If there was one thing that I did not like about the new design was that it was easily mistakable for an MC-80 Star Cruiser from Return of the Jedi.

Have fun,
Martok2112

[julix]

Martok
I didn't notice the resemblence first time around....I will have to pay more attention...esp for me a big star Wars fan!

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by martok2112

If there was one thing that I did not like about the new design was that it was easily mistakable for an MC-80 Star Cruiser from Return of the Jedi.

I actually don’t see that likeness at all.

At first I wasn’t too sure about its overbite profile. But after looking at detailed exteriors, I have come to understand and appreciate that design aspect. So at this point, I have no issue with anything about it.

My 2p

JJR

Well, i didn't like those 'ribs'. Can't understand the utility and it looks ugly to me.

I like the idea of the retractable landing bays, but i don't like the shape of that ship when they are retracted.

[Dawg]

There were too many things I dislike about it to avoid voting "everything".

Retractable landing bays: stupid. Too massive, too many things that could go wrong in combat. If the retracting mechanism is at all damaged, you can't retract 'em. You can't retract 'em, you can't get away.

Ribs: Please. While streamlining is mostly useless in space (bricks travel just about as well as arrows), it just makes no sense not to sheath the ship in additional armor - both tactically and aesthetically.

There would also be some external equipment showing - antennae, turrets, etc. If there was any such equipment on this thing, I missed it.

I also felt it missed on one other vital component: character. There's no special feeling when you look at it - unlike the unmistakable, soul-stirring grandeur of the Galactica.

:laugh:

I am
Dawg

[jewels]

I'm not sure what you mean by grated design. I thought the ribs lacked funtion, more damage can be caused when your structural members are exposed than when you're fully armored. Also thought the ribs made it look like something Trojan would be proud to manufacture.

I didn't mind the curve vs angles--expected that from the TOS Enterprise to ST:TMP Enterprise "updating".

The landing bays are what made little sense: they are massive and would require too much time to move out if you needed to launch vipers immediately post-jump.

I don't like the Galactica design reboot because the end result looks dinky. The classic Galactica was huge! The surface of the ship was very detailed and this helped sell the impression that it was gigantic. The new design is all ribs and smooth surfaces. As a result, there is no frame of reference to determine the scale of the ship. It looks like a toy. Also, the new design lacks character. In the story, it is supposed to be a ship that is at the end of her service life, yet it looks brand new. The original Galactica was a ship with character. It looked like a very old ship that has been through many battle repairs and upgrades over the years. She was a ship with a history. The new Galactica, like the mini series itself, makes me yawn.

[Gemini1999]

I would have to say that the ribs bug me the most......that, coupled with the fact that some areas had plating over the ribs made the thing look unfinished. The top profile does look somewhat familiar compared with the original. It is a sleeker design (not that that matters in space), but not more interesting. When seen from the side profile, I feel that what part of the re-design does work, is ruined by what looks like almost a whole other ship underneath.

The retractable landing bays are an interesting feature, but they seem hardly necessary - you can't retract them during battle as it would be difficult for pilots to land to refuel & reload. I would assume that there is some kind of shield barrier that keeps the atmosphere inside - why not beef that up a bit, or have doors that would close during heavy attacks. The "fly-thru" design of the bay looks neat, but would seem to open up the bay and bay crews to attack from both ends of the bay, thus making it easy to compromise the ship.

When the series comes to air, I can just hear someone say "We can't retract the landing pods - what are we gonna do...?!

It's not a totally sucky design, just not a very practical or attractive one.

Best,
Bryan

[peter noble]

I quite like the design choices they made with it, it's probably the only thing from NuGalactica I like. I think the ribs came from looking at some sort of ceramic design, which I thought was interesting.

The underneath sucks ass though and it'll never replace the real Big G!

Peter

[thomas7g]

Dont like the rear end. The engines don't look as bad from the front, but they look very weak from the back. They look like they took the Enterprise 1701D's engines and stuck them on. The comparison is especially more obvious since the original Galactica had a great engine unit design. One of the best in scifi.


The ribs I'm not fond of. I think it doesn't make alot of sense to me. Also since such large sections of the ship are ribbed, it kinda gets kinda dull. Basically you get smooth plate or ribs over laaarge sections. There needs to be more varied surface detail than that.

The head needs more detail. It looks...bland. You especially need it on the top center surface.

Don't like the hanger bay openings. The tip of the triangle needs to be changed. Too designy.

But what really looks bad is that flat boring underside. Its lacking in character. It looks like it wasn't finished.

[justjackrandom]

I do agree that the new g lacks the character and aesthetic appeal of the Big G, and will never measure up as far as charisma. I felt much the same way about the Enterprise-D and Voyager, but that’s just me. As a design for a real-space carrier, the new g isn’t bad.

Here’s my take on two of the most questioned design features:

Ribbing. Yes it’s ugly, but the designers were obviously not concerned with that aspect. Functionally, I doubt that they are structural supports for the ship, although they may be attached to the main space-frame. The ribs are probably simply support struts for spaced armor. The primary armor is inboard of the struts, but there are just some things that have to be mounted on the outside of the hull (radiators, large passive EM antenna arrays, etc.). In order to protect these, it makes sense to mount a secondary layer of armor over them. Or maybe you just want to add more protection to certain areas of the ship. Why not cover the whole ship? First, you cover up things you might not want covered up, and second, more mass than necessary. The more mass, the more fuel consumed to move the mass.

Landing Bays. Unlike the Big G, the new g's bays are open to space and do not maintain an atmosphere. This was made apparent in a number of establishing shots in the mini. They may be air-tight when retracted, but that has yet to be established. The bays are open for and aft so that larger vessels, such as Colonial One, that are too large to turn around in the bay can still land and launch. As for the retractable bays, this was an idea that was supposed to be incorporated in Big G’s design, but for whatever reason was dropped. While it is a two-edged design feature, I understand the utility of it. It protects the flight deck, something Big G and her sisters had a problem with. As for retracting them in the middle of battle and leaving your fighters stranded; if it comes down to protecting your fighters or your flight deck, you protect your flight deck. I do think it is unwise to require the pods to be retracted to jump, but then history is full of craft and vehicles that have design flaws of a similar nature. Lastly, while craft can’t land with the bays retracted, I see nothing in the design or in the mini that suggests that vipers can’t launch with the pods retracted.

And yes, there are plenty of antennas and detailed thingys that stick out up front or in the areas not covered in plating, including what I make out to be 24 of the big gun turrets and a whole bunch (maybe upward of 200) of the small ones. We just couldn’t see them too well because the shots were so darned dark and murky.

my 2 p...

JJR

[julix]

also...most all of you know I am tech-impared. so true. I am not a big fan of (sometimes)CGI and here is why....sometimes it looks more fake to me. For instance...The inncredible Hulk...I'll take Lou Ferrigno anytime over CG....Jeckel and Hyde in LEG, etc...sometimes more CGI looks more fake to me. I know, I know I am old school and that is okay. Like I watch BG(TOS) and am not bothered by the way it looks anymore then I can watch The Day the Earth Stood Still and love it. I think "hollywood' people put so much into effects and not enough into story and characters!...Sorry to deviate a little from the question but all the updated effects just didn't phase me in the new BG it is a dime a dozen out there and all looks the same to me(but it is not my special interest)


IMHO-the best of both worlds great special effects and a great story with great character deveolpment

How bout some good shots of the new Galactica for reference?

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr Syn

How bout some good shots of the new Galactica for reference?

The cylon alliance has some, but the best I've seen are the Zoic Studios shots over on the 2003.net site. I'd post the URL, but every time I do, it removes the first part and replaces it with the words "banned site". :confused:

JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by julix

Jeckel and Hyde in LEG, etc...sometimes more CGI looks more fake to me.

Hey Julix, if you get a chance, check out the special features on the LEG DVD. I was surprised to learn that a great deal of the Jeckel and Hyde stuff was actually the actor in a special suit, and not CGI...

JJR

[julix]

JustJack..........
didn't know that ...so, good to know...I was just trying to pull some recent examples that I have seen where I feel CGI looks more fake(to me)But thanks again..I will have to check it out!


Like the new avitar!

[bsg1fan1975]

the design stunk I did not like it because I like the old one better! It just wasn't the same design that we were accustomed to seeing and another thing the design was weak!

[nccdee]

Oh there are plenty examples of bad CGI....Epoch, Dragon Storm, BoaVSPython, Sabratooth...many more and of course, you can get catch them the Sci-Fi Channel although they are not limited to that channel.

I think that models have a few years left in them. IMO some studio use CGI to cut cost and you know how that turns out. I mention this before that Lucas get away with using CGI because he puts lots of money into it and it works for the universe he has created (also the facts the great details that visually bombards the audience). How many went back to their DVD to look at the Senate scene and look for E.T. representative or watch the spaceship in the background to see the Enterprise go by?

If you have not already done so, I recommend checking out the Gallery and seeing some of the CGI done by John Lomax. Now imagine 13 battlstars and over 500 vipers in the final battle in TOS.

You can see Desantos vision at this website (http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg-desanto-01.html). The outside of the ship was the same but he made major chances to the bridge and othe sections of the ship and little changes to the frighters. Desantos also did a short video (from Foundation Image available at another website but I don't remember which one).

I just throwing this out for those who have not seen how TOS could be updated to current SFX/CGI.

nccdee

You want bad CGI? Try "Dungeons & Dragons"

Of course any movie whose hero looks like the bastard son of Wesley Crusher and Quinn Malory was doomed no matter WHAT the CGI was like.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr Syn

You want bad CGI? Try "Dungeons & Dragons"

Of course any movie whose hero looks like the bastard son of Wesley Crusher and Quinn Malory was doomed no matter WHAT the CGI was like.

Good one, Rev.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

Thanks.

And dont even get me STARTED about the one Wayans brother who isnt remotely funny...

Or Jeremy Irons acting like Palpatines flaming drama queen little brother.


Worst part about the CGI In D&D? The RELENTLESS fly by shots of the buildings. It was cool that one time in Mortal Kombat, but THIS was just obnoxious

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by julix

Like the new avitar!

Thanks!

It’s my first draft rendition of the Red Squadron patch for the Pacifica. It’s part of some early work on a fan-based continuation project.

JJR