I don't know... it's kinda of difficult to say...
The key thing I seem to notice is that everyone wants to compare it to the old
show and noone really seems to want to simply accept it as being... "a
different vision" per se... at least that's how most people seem to voice
their opinions...
I will go on a few points....
I always felt the original series was kind of like laruel & hardy in terms of
the people and the setting... They had some really nice things.. BSG looked
cool, the vipers looked cool, the cylons looked cool, and the raiders were
cool... but the storylines.. they just always seemed kinda cheesy... I mean...
bordering on offensively campy... I mean come on... you're whole civilization
gets nearly wiped out, what survivors you do have are crammed like sardines...
and you're on the run... but hey look, here's a casino planet that we've just
happened to run into right off the bat.. yeah, let's stop for a bit and party
a little... uhhh.... yeah.
Now the new series is taking a darker, harder look at the setting... and for
the most part their doing what they want and doing it right... what they want
that is... I think they're doing a good job of a "dramatic" take on the BSG
storyline. Things are dark and grity, it's grim, it's... dramatic... Here we
have the same story, civilization almost wiped out, the few survivors are
packed like sardines (BTW... don't know if anyone else noticed this, but a few
friends tell me that if you look closely, a good part of the fleet actually
look very similar to the original series verssels, and... that the fleet seems
to keep about the same organization as from the original series) and they're
infiltrated with bad guys... The new show seems to be spending more time on
character and plot development... which I think is great! I would like to see
some more action, but I think we'll start to see it more as the characters are
a little more defined and there's fewer things to establish... they can focus
more on dogfights and things
then....
I will say that I'm not completely sold on the new ship... I like the darker
color scheme, and I suppose the more streamlined look is more realistic, but
there's just something cool about the detailing on the original BSG. I also
like that the vipers aren't much different from the originals ones.... I guess
my biggest gripe on the new BSG is the cylons... I'm sorry but the old cylons
just had something that doesn't loose cool with time... the new ones are
alright... but I just can't like them... even if they were in a different film
I couldn't like them... and the raiders.... sheesh... everytime I see the
flashing light I keep wanting to play the "COPS" or "Knight Rider" ringtones
on my phone just so it at least feels right, or that I can laugh.... And a
friend of mine brought up a good point tonight... you'd think that with the
fighters the can move FTL, they'd mount something other than a modified.50 cal
for weapons...
Overall.. I'd say that I think I'll like it for what it is... a dramatic
treatment of a particular storyline, not a remake of an old show... Then
again... I wokr night shift... so I'm probably only gonna get to see a few
episodes... Damn Scifi channel... having to run the
SG/BSG nights during the week .... grumbles....
> On Saturday 22 January 2005 06:04, Rrok Anroll wrote:
Given that they mount FTL drives, they probably don't have much room for
anything else.
Actually, one thing I do like about the series is that it's not using laser
guns just for the hell of it. Too much SF equips everything with laser guns
because someone thought that SF should have laser guns, even if it's only set
~10 years in the future.
> --- Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Given that they mount FTL drives, they probably don't have much room
Well I do see what you're saying... but I'd have to say that I'd think that it
probably would have been just as easy or believable to use some form of energy
weapon. I mean, power couplings, converters, etc, would probably take about
the same space as a.50 cal and it's ammo... besides, with the little space
that would be available, they wouldn't be able to carry much ammo before
having to return for arming....
> Actually, one thing I do like about the series is that it's not using
I will definitely grant you this one, using something other than lasers is
very cool. However, I will say that using high velocity penetrators in space
does require a little forethought... Afterall, when they were working with
supersonic flight, didn't they have an instance where a plane or two shot
themselves down, because they were moving faster than the bullets? Wouldn't
the same apply here? You'd think. Perhaps a scene covering this would be
appropriate... such as a tactics reference about not being able to fire in
high speeds or something.... or perhaps some technical element about the
actual ammunition used... perhaps the
rounds are actually hyper-kenetic in some fashion, ramjets or something.
--- Rrok Anroll <coldnovemberrain_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Afterall, when they were
It would not apply here. In atmospheric flight you have to worry about air
friction slowing down the
bullets to below the velocity of the firing vehicle -
if the vehicle is very fast and the bullets have horrid aerodynamic
properties.
In space, you are dealing with a vacuum. There isn't a whole lot of air to
create friction and slow down the bullets.
Plus, the bullets start out at high velocity relative to the firer. If the gun
at rest sends out the bullets at 1000 kph (mach 0.8, very slow for anything
but a handgun), and the plane is travelling at 2000kph (mach 1.6), the bullets
exit the plane at 3000kph (mach 2.4)
- 1000kph faster than the plane. You need serious air
friction and/or a major acceleration on the part of
the plane immediately after firing for it be a factor. Add in a SLIGHT turn on
the part of the plane.....
> Rrok Anroll wrote:
> Afterall, when they were working with supersonic flight, didn't they
No. In addition to the lack of air resistance to slow the bullets down which
Chris mentioned, there's also not nearly as much gravity to make the rounds
deviate from a straight path as there is close to (within 20 km or so of) a
planetary surface. (The aircraft which managed to shoot themselves down dove
after firing, so while air resistance slowed the shells enough to let the
aircraft catch up gravity curved the shells' trajectories downwards enough to
make them hit the aircraft.)
Regards,
> On Sunday 23 January 2005 02:54, Rrok Anroll wrote:
It's generally more efficient to accelerate a mass than it is to power a laser
or similar weapon. The limited supply of ammo is countered with the extra
energy needed to power the laser. More energy requirements mean more cooling
is needed, or less power to other systems.
Lasers make sense in some circumstances (point defence against missiles for
instance, since they can be more accurate). It is possible that a shift in
technology will make lasers a better choice in general, though 'Hard SF'
purists tend to think not.
> > Actually, one thing I do like about the series is that it's not
Actually the problem is that you're littering the battle field with thousands
of bits of high velocity junk. If a Cylon is heading towards the Galactica,
and you're on their tail firing at them, for every round that misses is
another round heading towards the Galactica, and it won't stop until it hits
something.
At least lasers diffuse over distance.
...
> moving faster than
It would not apply here. In atmospheric flight you have to worry about air
friction slowing down the bullets
...
However, bullets-as-we-use-the-term have no thrusters, while the firing
platform does. You could be thrusting in the direction of fire, and more than
overcome the velocity difference imparted at firing.
On the other, other hand, space is full of plenty of other things to run into;
the whole ST concept of deflectors was created for this, and may explain why
beam weapons are necessary in space combat in all those 'lasers used'
gratuitously examples mentioned elsewhere.
> ramjets
Air-breather, right? But you're probably thinking rocket-rounds.
Just out of curiosity, are we sure they're mg's? I know the visible packets of
light moving apparently at sublight make you assume so, but I must have missed
where they were so designated.
And how about those non-dissipating Cylon missile trails?
The_Beast
PS Note, I'm avoiding those parts of the discussion not related to possible FT
use, but I will say I wish the camera folk would quit playing with the zoom
lens and swinging the camera in the space scenes. Plot holes and why bother
using the name Battlestar Galactica at all should be for another list.
> Doug Evans wrote:
[...]
> PS Note, I'm avoiding those parts of the discussion not related to
*nod*
I like the way the storyline is going, like the character interactions, like
the ships, but I am really **not** liking the camera work, either for the
space scenes or the interior shots. Too jerky, too jumpy, too chopped, too
swinging and panning. Yes, I know they are trying for a different style, a
different feel, but it actually is distracting and detracting from my being
able to concentrate on and enjoy the *show*
(or individual scenes). :-( I do like that they have filmed it in
widescreen, though. One plus on the camera work.
Mk
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:08:21AM -0500, Indy wrote:
> I like the way the storyline is going, like the character interactions,
I normally despise that style, but for some reason it actually works for me in
this particular show.
R
> I normally despise that style, but for some reason it actually works
I wondered if it was a case of cinema verite' gone wrong, or if there were
visual 'cultures' that would appreciate it. I'm not as fond of the rest of the
package as others, here YMMV indeed, so this is approaching a deal breaker.
I'll probably not finish the season.
Here's hoping we see some toys, at least.
By the way, does it seem as if the UK has seen more than us in the US? I'm
getting confused by 'season' references.
The_Beast
> > I normally despise that style, but for some reason it actually works
I'm
> getting confused by 'season' references.
The UK *has* seen more than us. They are about 10 shows further along in the
story.
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:21:33AM -0500, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> The UK *has* seen more than us. They are about 10 shows further
The season finale (episode 13, it's a half-length season) is to be
broadcast in the UK tonight.
R
> At 1:20 PM +0000 1/24/05, Roger Burton West wrote:
Same here. I also like the general lack of sound from far away when you see a
ship doing things. The best is with the scenes of the Galactica when it FTL's
into orbit around the Ragnar Anchorage (it's tiny in the background and then
you zoom into see it) and then there's the scene where the Galactica exits the
Ragnar Anchorage and
yaw/pitches to bring all the main point defense into arc on the
Cylons.
In general, I like the camera shots. I get the feeling that one is looking at
a distant battle from view ports and cockpits and zooming in and panning with
telephoto lenses. It seems more immersive. If only I had a massive HD TV to
watch it on.
> --- Rrok Anroll <coldnovemberrain_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
My TiVo says that USA Network is going to start running them Saturday
afternoons about 3-4 weeks delayed from their airing on SciFi.
J
Really?! Sweet!
> --- J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Rrok Anroll <coldnovemberrain_2000@yahoo.com> wrote: