Thread: Re: Which Inter-Universe Grudge Match?

11 posts.

I have to let SW get away with the original Star Destroyer, because it
made the opening shot work. The fact that it was mostly filled with empty
corridors and had no main weapon commensurate with that size was silly
(official SW material says it only carried 72 TIE fighters, 2 shuttles, 20
and AT-ATs--REALLY? What are they doing with the rest of that empty
space?), but did they really have to go make the "Super Star Destroyer"
that was 12 times as long? George never heard of the square-cube law?

I loved the idea of Enterprise, but it seemed to me they didn't have the
self-discipline to stick with the plan: "here's what happened before Kirk
was born." They kept wanting to deal with flashy things that came after
ST:TOS, but their Mirror, Mirror sequel was great. The fact that they
expanded on the idea of drunk Zefram Cochrane and the Vulcans finding us
first from the regrettable STTNG movie was disappointing but not their
fault. I just can't see Kirk's Federation coming out of that scenario.

As you say, it's impossible to make sense of modern story-arc television
without the ability to watch it weekly like clockwork, so I don't even
try. I catch back up when it comes out on DVD.

On the subject of reboots, I will give them BSG, because the original was
so silly it wasn't worth watching, but in the reboot they gave it back the
dignity it originally could have had...then they immediately threw it
away. The Cylon concept was interesting, but begged some questions that
Traveller would not have gotten away with. How is all of the information
translated in real time when a Cylon does the bathtub reboot? Psionics,
obviously.

Consequently, I discovered Stargate at the same time as I was watching the
BSG reboot, and while SG was lightweight and fluffy compared to BSG,
that's what made me love it. It made a little compact with you as a viewer
that it never reneged on. And watching it as I did in direct comparison
with BSG, which betrayed everything every 5 minutes, I cannot help but
love that about SG. They did speak a little bit too much English
everywhere in SG, but so does everybody else. And their concept of The
Ancients was much more compelling than Traveller's.

The problem with SF is that it is mainstream now. This is exactly what SF
Nation claimed it wanted back in the 60s and 70s, so is a classic example
of "be careful what you ask for." Which is really the answer to, "why not
a Traveller movie or TV show?" No one needs to, you can make a SF universe
with a lot less effort than that, and Traveller comes with too much
baggage.

So, when the universes meet in a great big "Crisis on Infinite..."
cross-over, who do you want to win?

> I will admit to being a bit of a lego fan, I've got a 5 year old so I
claim it's for him... and it is for the most part as long as he doesn't
mess with Hagrid's Hut...
>
> I can still recall quite vividly the effect of that opening shot in SW
on
> a 9 year old me, when that Corellian Corvette comes flying out it was
unlike anything you'd seen before and then the Star Destroyer starts
coming over your head and it never seems to end. Wow, just wow...
>
> I like the original trilogy, although as you say Ford is essentially
mugging for the camera in every shot by the time they get to RTOJ. I
will
> admit to liking the speeder chase and the starship design throughout the
entire series. Even the new ones the vehicle design was amazing. I'm a
bit of an effects junkie, I go to movies and pull the effects apart in
my
> head to figure out how they did it, it was much more interesting in the
old days before everything was CGI and I will admit to loving movies
purely based on the visual aspects of the movie. 5th Element, Titanic,
Avatar all amazing LOOKING movies, storyline kind of meh but visually
they
> are all a feast for the eyes.
>
> I have to admit that George while I admired him years ago should have
made
> the movie, maybe cut in some delete scenes and cleaned up some of the
effects and then just let them be, do we really need a new version of
the
> films every 5 years??? Seriously??? That cow's dead George quit
milking
> it.
>
> I loved Enterprise as a show, the "here's where it starts" kind of
aspect
> of things where they're just figuring out what humanities place is in
the
> universe and how it all fits together. Going down and messing with the
natives and then after they've screwed up their lives saying, "You know
we
> really ought to have some kind of rule about that, a directive maybe."
Bringing back old races like the much neglected Orions, Gorn and
Tholians.
> I liked that they gave the Vulcan's really specific looking ships as
> opposed to everyone in the UFP flying the same boats. You could look at
things and see the design ethic involved.
>
> ST had some great things going on in it too. Yesterdays Enterprise, the
DS9 Trouble with Tribbles cross over, the Mirror Mirror cross over in
Enterprise, it was usually the unusual episodes that I found amazing.
>
> There's so much investment in TV now, I remember back in the 80's and
90's
> when for about 3 months straight the TV-Guide preview for X-Files read,
"Mulder and Scully investigate a series of bizarre murders." You
didn't'
> need to pay attention, you didn't need to watch every episode, hell you
could skip a month or two and you didn't miss anything. Now you miss an
episode in most shows and you're left staring at the screen going, "who
the hell are those guys and why does the main character know them so
well?"
>
> Don't get me started on the Reboot craze in Hollywood either, seriously
how many times do we need to see "The origins of Spiderman." Okay if it
was a generation ago but damn it it wasn't even a decade ago that you
told
> me, my memories not that bad. Do we need a Total Recall reboot? Or a
Highlander reboot? Seriously?
>
> Where has all the good SciFi gone lately? It's all Post Apocalypse,
zombies, sexy vampires, werewolves running amok in a wilderness of evil
corporations and lawyers.
>
> It's been 10 years since they canceled Firefly and I still can't let go
of
> that one, damn you Fox. While I'm on the subject of Fox cancelling
stuff,
> "Sarah Conners Chronicles," seriously whyfo you cancel that? What was
up
> with the Shirley Manson liquid terminatrix, ya john was a dink but
Chromartie and Cameron were cool and it didn't devolve into a Terminator
of the week show. Le Sigh...
>
> BSG I think I abandoned after year 1... The series??? Hell I can't
recall, I know they'd introduced the original Apollo as a bad guy and
then
> I kind of lost interest as the galactic senate bored me to death with
their legal wranglings, no wait that's Phantom Politician. As you say
though the mini series was great and after that... At least it didn't
just fade to black and not give me an ending, or leave me wondering if
the
> flash sideways was really just a purgetory where we were all waiting for
our friends to die and realize they're dead crap so we can all move on
together.
>
> B5 I never got into, nor Stargate or Lexx. I will admit to watching
some
> Farscape but that was mostly for Chiana and mostly because of the way
she
> moved, still can't quite figure out how the actress managed to move like
that. I watched the first season of Earth2 but it lost my interest
after
> that.
>
> PS Check out http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/ and
> http://johneaves.wordpress.com/ both of these guys have been in the
effects / design industry for years and they have some amazing pictures
of
> ST and BSG stuff on their sites.
>
> All this grousing has me wanting to run a game again so I can release
the
> muse once more... A 2300AD mashup with killer robots, space cowboys and
giant computers seeking the answer to life the universe and everything.
>
> DS

Body swap episodes, done well, are always fun. The actress who played
"Kirk" in "Turnabout Intruder" did a brilliant and under-appreciated job,
I think. I remember that Stargate also did one, and it was okay, not
great.

Speeches and montages like that one you sent are the kind of moments that
hook you into a series or universe. Unfortunately I had not come across
anything like that as far as I had gotten in the B5 first season, so I
drifted away from it.

> For Babylon 5, check out this speech from the movie "In the Beginning":
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNBJ5o-b7s (you'll have to scroll forward
> to 1:25 to hear his speech)
>
> As to Farscape, one episode you will likely enjoy is S2 Ep5 "Out of Their
> Minds". It is a body swap episode, but the actors have to act like each
> other, and they do a good job.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Mon, 7/16/12, DEREK STANLEY wrote:
>> B5 I never got into, nor Stargate or Lexx.  I will
>> admit to watching some Farscape but that was mostly for
>> Chiana and mostly because of the way she moved, still can't
>> quite figure out how the actress managed to move like
>> that.  I watched the first season of Earth2 but it lost
>> my interest after that.
>>
>> DS
>

I hesitate to inject my opinion on this topic because its one that I think
isn't in a majority or likely to be well received.

In essence, you can't compare SciFi settings unless the settings 'share'
similar assumptions for their 'hand-waving'. This hand waving are the set
of principles that the author hopes the consumer 'buys' into to experience
the story being told. The story is the point not the setting/hand waving.

Many that enjoy SciFi enjoy the technical aspects of the settings they tend
to gravitate towards without considering that the technical stuff isn't the
point, very very few authors put enough thought into their hand waving to
adequately realize the ramifications of what that hand waving will do when
in interject the human condition over thousands of years into the system.

A while ago I simply stopped considering the A vs B SciFi setting theory
crafting because it seemed to me to be a false discussion due to too many
levels of abstraction necessary. Over a coffee between friends sure no harm
no foul, but between folks that don't know each other or more importantly
don't respect each other and things spiral out of control quickly.

Arguments against an aspect of a setting comes from, in my opinion, when
the consumer hasn't 'bought' in to an aspect of the setting.

Consumers often make the mistake of saying "I see X interact with Y with
result Z. A in the real world works sort of like X and B is similar to X so
result C must be true." ignoring that there are 2 levels abstraction that
are not necessarily true making the statement of C highly suspect.

In the end not all settings are created equally in the minds of their
authors.

If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
Babylon 5 was the first show - at least to my memory - to have an ongoing story arc; the characters didn't get amnesia after every episode.

B5 doesn't really "begin" until season 2. Season 1 had a couple of episodes that had implications later, but it can mostly be skipped. Seasons 3 and 4 were great sci-fi, some of the best on TV up to that point IMO.

-Wayne

--- In , Todd Kes <khartoum@...> wrote:
>
> For Babylon 5, check out this speech from the movie "In the Beginning":
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNBJ5o-b7s (you'll have to scroll forward to 1:25 to hear his speech)
>
> As to Farscape, one episode you will likely enjoy is S2 Ep5 "Out of Their Minds". It is a body swap episode, but the actors have to act like each other, and they do a good job.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Mon, 7/16/12, DEREK STANLEY wrote:
> > B5 I never got into, nor Stargate or Lexx.  I will
> > admit to watching some Farscape but that was mostly for
> > Chiana and mostly because of the way she moved, still can't
> > quite figure out how the actress managed to move like
> > that.  I watched the first season of Earth2 but it lost
> > my interest after that.
> >
> > DS
>

John--

I think you can tell by reading between the lines on my messages that I
feel the same way. I've just temporarily set that aside because I think
the discussion can be interesting, so long as it generates pretty lights
and not heat.

I certainly wouldn't go onto a SW or ST board and try to do this, but I
think it's interesting here in TNE land because the discussion sheds some
light on how the enterprise undertaken by Traveller is fundamentally
different from that bitten off by other SF games.

It's all fun until someone gets hurt, though.

Dave

> I hesitate to inject my opinion on this topic because its one that I think
> isn't in a majority or likely to be well received.
>
> In essence, you can't compare SciFi settings unless the settings 'share'
> similar assumptions for their 'hand-waving'. This hand waving are the set
> of principles that the author hopes the consumer 'buys' into to experience
> the story being told. The story is the point not the setting/hand waving.
>
> Many that enjoy SciFi enjoy the technical aspects of the settings they
> tend
> to gravitate towards without considering that the technical stuff isn't
> the
> point, very very few authors put enough thought into their hand waving to
> adequately realize the ramifications of what that hand waving will do when
> in interject the human condition over thousands of years into the system.
>
> A while ago I simply stopped considering the A vs B SciFi setting theory
> crafting because it seemed to me to be a false discussion due to too many
> levels of abstraction necessary. Over a coffee between friends sure no
> harm
> no foul, but between folks that don't know each other or more importantly
> don't respect each other and things spiral out of control quickly.
>
> Arguments against an aspect of a setting comes from, in my opinion, when
> the consumer hasn't 'bought' in to an aspect of the setting.
>
> Consumers often make the mistake of saying "I see X interact with Y with
> result Z. A in the real world works sort of like X and B is similar to X
> so
> result C must be true." ignoring that there are 2 levels abstraction that
> are not necessarily true making the statement of C highly suspect.
>
> In the end not all settings are created equally in the minds of their
> authors.
>
>
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>

That's what I've always heard, which is why I'm sad that season 1 was
unable to hook me. Maybe what I really need to do is jump in later and get
hooked, then go back and view the earlier ones afterwards.

Is part of the problem that the guy cast to play the B5 commander in
Season 1 just isn't all that persuasive, hence his replacement in Season
2?

> Babylon 5 was the first show - at least to my memory - to have an ongoing
> story arc; the characters didn't get amnesia after every episode.
>
> B5 doesn't really "begin" until season 2. Season 1 had a couple of
> episodes that had implications later, but it can mostly be skipped.
> Seasons 3 and 4 were great sci-fi, some of the best on TV up to that point
> IMO.
>
> -Wayne
>
> --- In , Todd Kes <khartoum@...> wrote:
>>
>> For Babylon 5, check out this speech from the movie "In the Beginning":
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNBJ5o-b7s (you'll have to scroll
>> forward to 1:25 to hear his speech)
>>
>> As to Farscape, one episode you will likely enjoy is S2 Ep5 "Out of
>> Their Minds". It is a body swap episode, but the actors have to act
>> like each other, and they do a good job.
>>
>> Todd Kes
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/16/12, DEREK STANLEY wrote:
>> > B5 I never got into, nor Stargate or Lexx.  I will
>> > admit to watching some Farscape but that was mostly for
>> > Chiana and mostly because of the way she moved, still can't
>> > quite figure out how the actress managed to move like
>> > that.  I watched the first season of Earth2 but it lost
>> > my interest after that.
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>
>
>

B5's 5 year story arc was why I found B5 more enjoyable than ST. Episodic
story telling has its place but rinse repeat till the end of time gets old
and you can feel the 'formula' for episodic story telling the longer it
runs.

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:17 AM, waynes_books <> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Babylon 5 was the first show - at least to my memory - to have an ongoing
> story arc; the characters didn't get amnesia after every episode.
>
> B5 doesn't really "begin" until season 2. Season 1 had a couple of
> episodes that had implications later, but it can mostly be skipped. Seasons
> 3 and 4 were great sci-fi, some of the best on TV up to that point IMO.
>
> -Wayne
>
>
> --- In , Todd Kes <khartoum@...> wrote:
> >
> > For Babylon 5, check out this speech from the movie "In the Beginning":
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNBJ5o-b7s (you'll have to scroll
> forward to 1:25 to hear his speech)
> >
> > As to Farscape, one episode you will likely enjoy is S2 Ep5 "Out of
> Their Minds". It is a body swap episode, but the actors have to act like
> each other, and they do a good job.
> >
> > Todd Kes
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/16/12, DEREK STANLEY wrote:
> > > B5 I never got into, nor Stargate or Lexx. I will
> > > admit to watching some Farscape but that was mostly for
> > > Chiana and mostly because of the way she moved, still can't
> > > quite figure out how the actress managed to move like
> > > that. I watched the first season of Earth2 but it lost
> > > my interest after that.
> > >
> > > DS
> >
>
>
>

--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
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.
>

How many times were the mile long ships taken out by a hit to the bridge?
I can really only recall the A-wing hitting the Super Star Destroyer at
Endor. It wasn't really destroyed, it just veered a bit out of control and
collided with the Death Star. I chalk the big fireball boiling out of the
Death Star as poetic license but imagine the ship itself was still
relatively intact. At least until the Death Star blows up. :D

WRT main battery, maybe that should be qualified as age of steam
pre-Dreadnought conception... if not Age of Sail style. The main weapons
definitely aren't enclosed like on a Galleon but I think the
early-intermediate age of steam would be closer to the mark than most of
the 20th century examples. Novelization treated it much better.
Conventional wisdom is described as almost Traveller-eque with fighting
BVR. They went point blank at Endor as an extremely unconventional tactic
to avoid the Death Star. Even then Ackbar's inclination is to retreat and
only stays with it as going all in on their strategic goal and verbally
concedes the tactical situation.

I think there is a slight difference in tone with Empire, but it's despite
Lucas and not as much what he wanted. Incidentally, the situation with
Kirshner led to Lucas' issue with the Writers Guild. The famous refrain:

"The Hollywood unions have been taken over by the same lawyers and
accountants who took over the studios," Lucas says angrily. "When the
Writers Guild was on strike, I couldn't cross the picket line in my
function as a director in order to take care of American Graffiti when the
studio was chopping it up. I quit the Director's Guild because the union
lawyers were locked in a traditional combat with the studio lawyers. The
union doesn't care about it's members. It cares about making fancy rules
that sound good on paper and are totaly impractical. They said Lucasfilm
was a personal credit, not a corporate credit. My name is not George
Lucasfilm any more than William Fox's name was Twentieth Century-Fox. On
that technicality, they sued me for $250,000. You can pollute half the
Great Lakes and not get fined that much. When the DGA threatened to fine
Kershner $25,000, we paid his fine. I consider it extortion. The day after
I settled with the Director's Guild, the Writers Guild called up. At least
their fine didn't go all into the business agents' pockets. Two-thirds went
to writers."

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pwHeZSkC&pg=PA139

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM, <> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
>
SW just is not my cup of "Earl Grey, black" (nor is Picard). I own all the
movies on DVD in their original and remastered forms, own most of the Lego
models, all of the visual encyclopedias, the Micro Machines, the game
versions that had come out through 1995, and like to look at the beautiful
visual realizations. But looking at it all does not trip the circuit in my
brain that says, "the technical and operational details carry through all
of this stuff in a consistent way." Nor should they, for they weren't
intended to.

And my swipes at George Lucas are unkind and miss the point. He did not
intend to create a technically consistent SF universe, and good thing too,
as none of us can. As Roddenberry (another not my cup of tea) said about
Lost in Space, (paraphrase) "It achieves what it sets out to do: it tells
an adventure story." George Lucas has achieved more than I ever will, and
more power to him for having the tenacity to stick to his vision.

> How many times were the mile long ships taken out by a hit to the
bridge?
> I can really only recall the A-wing hitting the Super Star Destroyer
at
> Endor. It wasn't really destroyed, it just veered a bit out of control and
> collided with the Death Star. I chalk the big fireball boiling out of
the
> Death Star as poetic license but imagine the ship itself was still
relatively intact. At least until the Death Star blows up. :D
>
> WRT main battery, maybe that should be qualified as age of steam
pre-Dreadnought conception... if not Age of Sail style. The main
weapons
> definitely aren't enclosed like on a Galleon but I think the
> early-intermediate age of steam would be closer to the mark than most of
the 20th century examples. Novelization treated it much better.
> Conventional wisdom is described as almost Traveller-eque with fighting
> BVR. They went point blank at Endor as an extremely unconventional
tactic
> to avoid the Death Star. Even then Ackbar's inclination is to retreat
and
> only stays with it as going all in on their strategic goal and verbally
concedes the tactical situation.
>
> I think there is a slight difference in tone with Empire, but it's
despite
> Lucas and not as much what he wanted. Incidentally, the situation with
Kirshner led to Lucas' issue with the Writers Guild. The famous
refrain:
>
> "The Hollywood unions have been taken over by the same lawyers and
accountants who took over the studios," Lucas says angrily. "When the
Writers Guild was on strike, I couldn't cross the picket line in my
function as a director in order to take care of American Graffiti when
the
> studio was chopping it up. I quit the Director's Guild because the union
lawyers were locked in a traditional combat with the studio lawyers. The
union doesn't care about it's members. It cares about making fancy rules
that sound good on paper and are totaly impractical. They said Lucasfilm
was a personal credit, not a corporate credit. My name is not George
Lucasfilm any more than William Fox's name was Twentieth Century-Fox. On
that technicality, they sued me for $250,000. You can pollute half the
Great Lakes and not get fined that much. When the DGA threatened to fine
Kershner $25,000, we paid his fine. I consider it extortion. The day
after
> I settled with the Director's Guild, the Writers Guild called up. At
least
> their fine didn't go all into the business agents' pockets. Two-thirds went
> to writers."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pwHeZSkC&pg=PA139
>


Then there is my Grandmother.... ;)
--- In , "userbimbob" <userbimbob@...> wrote:
>
> not realizing it's the women you should be concerned about...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaSmassvv4w
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFvkgfBXHPA
>
> at least on Babylon 5... ;)
>
>
> > > My dad can beat up your dad.
> > >
> > > Sorry. That's what sounded like. :D
>