Comments on: Jack-O-Cylontern

By: mungascr

mungascr — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:41:59 +0000

My vote would have to be for Babylon-5 as best ever SF TV.

Firefly and the New Galactica were pretty cool too – & then there’s Dr Who – and someone on that Evil Mad scientist site, the same one as theCyclon Jack-o-Lantern actually, has also made a pumpkin Dalek!! Now that takes first prize if I were judging!

Babylon 5 starfuries and the battle scenes there actually used a NASA science advisor (wasn’t you was it Phil?) and were accurate or at least as accurate as TV can be.

Oh and er ..Simon .. *what* do you think was over-rated?

By: mungascr

mungascr — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:41:30 +0000

My vote would have to be for Babylon-5 as best ever SF TV.

Firefly and tehNewGalactica were pretty cool too – &then there’s Dr Who – and someone on that Evil Mad scientist site, the same one as theCyclon Jack-o-Lantern actually, has also made a pumpkin Dalek!! Now that takes first prize if I were judging!

Babylon 5 starfuries and the battle scenes there actually used a NASA science advisor (wasn’t you was it Phil?) and were accurate or at least as accurate as TV can be.

Oh and er ..Simon .. *what* do you think was over-rated?

By: The Centipede

The Centipede — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:36:13 +0000

Also can’t forget the decidedly three-dimensional feel of the nebula run, no? Or how /Galactica/ and /Pegasus/ orbited that one basestar, only banking because it brought more guns to bear… Meanwhile, /Firefly/ had no sound in space but also had no battles in space. There were definitely sounds in space in /Serenity/. Don’t give me any “upper atmosphere” or “nebula” crap either; makes one sound like a rabid Warsie when it comes to defending one’s favorite bit of camp as if it were art.

I agree that there should be no Honorverse movies, but for a different reason than Denny. There is nothing worse to the credibility of hard s-f than Weber and a graphing calculator. As it stands, I don’t have much of a problem with short on-screen engagement ranges and things being oriented. In the old days, 2D was simply how model-making worked and now it’s simply an artistic conceit. Why do characters on BSG wear business suits? Short engagement ranges are fine because silent ships shooting at random directions towards invisible targets a million kilometers away would be BORING and it rarely pays to have what would be an action sequence be BORING.

By: sirjonsnow

sirjonsnow — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:06:50 +0000

BG doesn’t always have ships lined up in a 2D plane. For instance, when destroying the Resurrection Ship the Vypers were all around it and all kinds of angles, shooting directly at it as they “fell” past it, not strafing it.

By: 247200 Blog Verification

247200 Blog Verification — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:14 +0000

247200 Blog Verification…

247200…

By: DennyMo

DennyMo — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:31:33 +0000

Honestly, I’ve never watched Firefly. But now you’ve given me reason to, so maybe. As for the “Honorverse”, I almost hope they don’t make any movies. I’d hate to find out that my imagination’s visualization of the books is “wrong”… But you’re right, the scale of some of those battles is something we’ve never seen on screen yet.

By: DCB

DCB — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:26:15 +0000

When you use the word “port” it’s a nautical term which always refers to the left of the object in question. When you’re on a boat and someone says look port, it’s always to the ship’s left. So it is a much more specific term than saying “left.”