I'll go with you on the SW stuff, and merely say that it's not my cup of
tea for someone to build all these mile-long ships which are just, "plot
device," time after time when they're all killed by lucky hits on the
bridge. It's the same thing as killing three or four red-shirts before
first commercial. If a writer has that much contempt for the things he
creates, he communicates that to me and I think, "okay, I'll hate it since
you told me to." So I maintain that I have learned my contempt for
mile-long starships. I used to have that argument with game designers who
would say, "you want to scare your players? Bring in a bunch of spear
carriers and kill them off." That's hack-technique for people who can't do
it better. And there's something Kantian in there as well, but I've just
veered into taking it too seriously.
Okay, one last parting shot. I'm with you on TESB as well, widely regarded
as the deepest one of the lot. Well, it's still just a puddle on the
sidewalk, but I guess that might be the deep spot.
Two! Two last parting shots! The Star Destroyer "main battery" is pretty
much invisible--a main battery must be visible (whether via big turrets on
the centerline, a flight deck, or open deck space for VLS): by definition
the ship was designed around that thing; if it disappears into the scale,
the ship carrying it is uselessly large. The Death Star obviously had a
main battery. But as RotJ showed, it was also uselessly large.
NO ONE expects....
I'm also with you on Enterprise. That should have been the story that told
us why Kirk's Federation was the way it was, and it did everything
possible to not do that. I understand why: doing what it should have would
have been "dull." Treating it as a sequel to DS9 and Voyager and the TNG
movies and following their threads was considered more sellable. No
self-discipline.
> I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and the
> production values were too low
I like enemas better than I like new BSG. And they both leave you feeling
about as good about yourself.
> I like some aspects of Star Wars and some aspects of Trek more than the
> other, but generally like Star Wars more. I prefer science fiction
grounded in real science while keeping in mind Asimov's Law, though not
using it as a crutch. Star Wars is unashamedly science fantasy and
makes
> no pretensions of hard science. George Lucas has always been a visual
guy
> and wanting to pay homage to stuff he likes (Kurosawa to WW2 to Flash
Gordian serials). The latter was always his aim for the Star Wars
universe. If you've ever tried watching those 1930's and 40's Flash
Gordon
> serials, they make Jar Jar look like the deepest character from
> Shakespear.
> On the whole, I think all 6 movies are the same stuff: synthesis of a
> hodgepodge of serious and not so serious concepts wrapped ina gorgeous
visual package. Anything else is taking it too seriously. That
includes
> TESB, which I always thought was overrated. I think there was a writing
issue with the prequels in that they could have used another draft or
two
> (Lucas himself says he hates writing but he'll roll over dead before he
pays the lawyers and goons from the Writers Guild for anything in Star
Wars) and the time limits Lucas constrained himself in were too short,
but
> that ship, as they say, has sailed.
>
> Don't recall seeing very many huge corridors on a Star Destroyer, but think
> if we dropped a layperson on a couple certain areas of a Super Carrier
or
> even LHD, they would scratch their heads and wonder, too. Star Wars
never
> aimed to show us the berthing areas or where the "real work" was done.
> That isn't entirely to excuse the symbolism over substance nature of
> Lucas' universe, but Star Destroyers purpose isn't as an aircraft
carrier
> or trooper transport, but battleship. There's great details on those
models which speak at the main battery (in naval parlance) on both port
and
> starboard sides of the dorsal as well as the hundreds of of smaller weapons
> on the central ridge line. The biggest problem with the prequels is
something similar to that faced by Traveller. Misplaced preconceptions
about the universe became established and that clashed with the "truth"
and
> it's a lot of angst-ridden cognitive dissonance. This is most visible
in
> the Jedi, which have been shown to be pretty close to Lucas' original draft
> concepts.
>
> Grew up with syndicated TOS and still love it for a more realistic
portrayal of a more advanced and evolved Earth but not one that was made
absurd and nonsensical. Always largely despised TNG for it's
technobabble
> (which is where they really began to use it as a crutch after the last
commercial break) and leftist economic concepts. On a similar level, I
was
> very disappointed in Enterprise and still haven't watched more than a
couple complete episodes. Instead of the promise of showing united
Earth
> fighting the Romulans and the foundation of the Federation, they trashed
their earlier continuity and had dismal execution. I did largely enjoy
DS9
> once they got into the war fighting stuff, though.
>
> Ironically enough, I was most enjoying B5 until then at which point they
flipped. I loved the story arc but would have much preferred the
original
> concept than the changes in Captain (the original story was going to end on
> a very bad note with B5 destroyed by the Minbari Warrior Caste who
restart
> the Earth-Minbari War but with the crew moving to B4, which would be
renamed Babylon Prime). Michael O'Hare was purposely playing a morose
character but would have "opened up" as it went on. My biggest
> disappointment with B5 was with the anti-climactic resolution to the war
and it's smelling of deus ex machina. Vorlons and Shadows just up and
leaving was just meh.
>
> I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and
the
> production values were too low but the new one substituted angst and
dislikable characters as well as absurd connections to the here and now.
> When the fight is for survival, their moralization and behavior was
> incredulous and unbelievable. I liked the general tech and style but hated
> renaming characters for no good reason (Starbuck, Boomer, etc). I would
have much preferred Hatch's aborted version. I hate reboots/remakes in
general, though, when there's an opportunity for sequel and continuity
with
> different tone/perspective, etc.
>
tea for someone to build all these mile-long ships which are just, "plot
device," time after time when they're all killed by lucky hits on the
bridge. It's the same thing as killing three or four red-shirts before
first commercial. If a writer has that much contempt for the things he
creates, he communicates that to me and I think, "okay, I'll hate it since
you told me to." So I maintain that I have learned my contempt for
mile-long starships. I used to have that argument with game designers who
would say, "you want to scare your players? Bring in a bunch of spear
carriers and kill them off." That's hack-technique for people who can't do
it better. And there's something Kantian in there as well, but I've just
veered into taking it too seriously.
Okay, one last parting shot. I'm with you on TESB as well, widely regarded
as the deepest one of the lot. Well, it's still just a puddle on the
sidewalk, but I guess that might be the deep spot.
Two! Two last parting shots! The Star Destroyer "main battery" is pretty
much invisible--a main battery must be visible (whether via big turrets on
the centerline, a flight deck, or open deck space for VLS): by definition
the ship was designed around that thing; if it disappears into the scale,
the ship carrying it is uselessly large. The Death Star obviously had a
main battery. But as RotJ showed, it was also uselessly large.
NO ONE expects....
I'm also with you on Enterprise. That should have been the story that told
us why Kirk's Federation was the way it was, and it did everything
possible to not do that. I understand why: doing what it should have would
have been "dull." Treating it as a sequel to DS9 and Voyager and the TNG
movies and following their threads was considered more sellable. No
self-discipline.
> I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and the
> production values were too low
I like enemas better than I like new BSG. And they both leave you feeling
about as good about yourself.
> I like some aspects of Star Wars and some aspects of Trek more than the
> other, but generally like Star Wars more. I prefer science fiction
grounded in real science while keeping in mind Asimov's Law, though not
using it as a crutch. Star Wars is unashamedly science fantasy and
makes
> no pretensions of hard science. George Lucas has always been a visual
guy
> and wanting to pay homage to stuff he likes (Kurosawa to WW2 to Flash
Gordian serials). The latter was always his aim for the Star Wars
universe. If you've ever tried watching those 1930's and 40's Flash
Gordon
> serials, they make Jar Jar look like the deepest character from
> Shakespear.
> On the whole, I think all 6 movies are the same stuff: synthesis of a
> hodgepodge of serious and not so serious concepts wrapped ina gorgeous
visual package. Anything else is taking it too seriously. That
includes
> TESB, which I always thought was overrated. I think there was a writing
issue with the prequels in that they could have used another draft or
two
> (Lucas himself says he hates writing but he'll roll over dead before he
pays the lawyers and goons from the Writers Guild for anything in Star
Wars) and the time limits Lucas constrained himself in were too short,
but
> that ship, as they say, has sailed.
>
> Don't recall seeing very many huge corridors on a Star Destroyer, but think
> if we dropped a layperson on a couple certain areas of a Super Carrier
or
> even LHD, they would scratch their heads and wonder, too. Star Wars
never
> aimed to show us the berthing areas or where the "real work" was done.
> That isn't entirely to excuse the symbolism over substance nature of
> Lucas' universe, but Star Destroyers purpose isn't as an aircraft
carrier
> or trooper transport, but battleship. There's great details on those
models which speak at the main battery (in naval parlance) on both port
and
> starboard sides of the dorsal as well as the hundreds of of smaller weapons
> on the central ridge line. The biggest problem with the prequels is
something similar to that faced by Traveller. Misplaced preconceptions
about the universe became established and that clashed with the "truth"
and
> it's a lot of angst-ridden cognitive dissonance. This is most visible
in
> the Jedi, which have been shown to be pretty close to Lucas' original draft
> concepts.
>
> Grew up with syndicated TOS and still love it for a more realistic
portrayal of a more advanced and evolved Earth but not one that was made
absurd and nonsensical. Always largely despised TNG for it's
technobabble
> (which is where they really began to use it as a crutch after the last
commercial break) and leftist economic concepts. On a similar level, I
was
> very disappointed in Enterprise and still haven't watched more than a
couple complete episodes. Instead of the promise of showing united
Earth
> fighting the Romulans and the foundation of the Federation, they trashed
their earlier continuity and had dismal execution. I did largely enjoy
DS9
> once they got into the war fighting stuff, though.
>
> Ironically enough, I was most enjoying B5 until then at which point they
flipped. I loved the story arc but would have much preferred the
original
> concept than the changes in Captain (the original story was going to end on
> a very bad note with B5 destroyed by the Minbari Warrior Caste who
restart
> the Earth-Minbari War but with the crew moving to B4, which would be
renamed Babylon Prime). Michael O'Hare was purposely playing a morose
character but would have "opened up" as it went on. My biggest
> disappointment with B5 was with the anti-climactic resolution to the war
and it's smelling of deus ex machina. Vorlons and Shadows just up and
leaving was just meh.
>
> I liked original BSG much more than the new one. Yes it was campy and
the
> production values were too low but the new one substituted angst and
dislikable characters as well as absurd connections to the here and now.
> When the fight is for survival, their moralization and behavior was
> incredulous and unbelievable. I liked the general tech and style but hated
> renaming characters for no good reason (Starbuck, Boomer, etc). I would
have much preferred Hatch's aborted version. I hate reboots/remakes in
general, though, when there's an opportunity for sequel and continuity
with
> different tone/perspective, etc.
>