That was one of the best "Space" Battle sequences EVER. Abso-fracking-lutely brilliant. Also I believe one of the very very few science fiction TV/Movie scenes to actually have a spaceship *jump* while in the atmosphere.
Agreed. That made my jaw drop when it first aired - this beautiful "How fricking *obvious*!" moment. And nicely executed by the fx dept.
That's my point. A constellation as seen from Earth, is actually a collection of stars/ star systems that have over 20 star/ star systems *within a constellation*, with the size of a constellation spanning up to 5000 light years or more.
That's the "problem" with the "Colonies" of Battlestar Galactica, there is no indication, for example, for Caprica, which planet in which star system it is in of the Capricorn constellation.
However, it is an essential part of the storyline (yes I know it is fiction, hence the word "story"line) that Caprica is a planet in a star system that is part of the Capricorn constellation.
There is an episode in Season 2 of BSG where they see the constellations as seen from Earth. And this correlates to the Colonies.
But again, it's half-here half-there, given a particular constellation covers so much of the galaxy, there's a lot of wiggle room in the storylines.
The tribe names are symbolic, not literal. Twelve tribes, twelve constellations that were religiously connected with some of the traits the tribes considered important/defining. Since the constellations do not exist if you move very far from Earth, the meanings of the constellations would be lost since they wouldn't exist. Also some of the stars in constellations aren't stars, but other galaxies. They just line up as bright enough, in an appropriate angular relationship from Earth's current neighborhood, for the next few ten thousands of years before they begin to deform enough to be visually different.
On the geeky side I find it interesting that the Map in Athena's Tomb is an NP-hard computational problem. You could spend eternity trying to compute it, but once you are on Earth you can check the solution by eyeball in just a few seconds.
The tribe names are symbolic, not literal. Twelve tribes, twelve constellations that were religiously connected with some of the traits the tribes considered important/defining. Since the constellations do not exist if you move very far from Earth, the meanings of the constellations would be lost since they wouldn't exist. Also some of the stars in constellations aren't stars, but other galaxies. They just line up as bright enough, in an appropriate angular relationship from Earth's current neighborhood, for the next few ten thousands of years before they begin to deform enough to be visually different.
On the geeky side I find it interesting that the Map in Athena's Tomb is an NP-hard computational problem. You could spend eternity trying to compute it, but once you are on Earth you can check the solution by eyeball in just a few seconds.
Good points. The fact that the constellations pre-1900 AD are pretty much defined by magnitude, (those bright enough that line up as you mention), it only really stretches as far as 1000 light years max. In modern astronomy today they use the constellations as a "segment" of space as viewed from earth*, and they have picked up galaxies hundreds of thousands of light years away eg. from Hubble deep space observations.
*As in Stellarium and Celstia Mac apps, the red-coloured borders that define areas in the sky like states on a country map...
So yeah, the 12 tribes and 13th tribe and all that is pretty much symbolic. And as for "Earth", well, we'll see what the writers do with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
Damn, nvidia2008, I spent the entire day yesterday resting and investigating as well, but you had ghe more interesting topic! I somehow got stuck on Noah's Ark and Christianity in general. Should have gone the SF route; it certainly is more comprehensible, logical and believable and at least the creators are open about its being fiction.
Wonder what life forms migh exist on that planet...?
Think they might look like this: ?
So this could be a family: . There is always a little devil in the fam!
Perhaps I need another day off...
Heh. You definitely need some more chill time. ... I think you've been mindfracked by MarkUK's "Noah's Ark as metaphor for the body". That's a very personal interpretation because whatever one reads online about it, can be interpreted differently. I'm heavily into Course in Miracles right now, so I could give my "Noah's Ark/ Flood and the Body" interpretation which would be perhaps wildly different from most other views.
Agreed. That made my jaw drop when it first aired - this beautiful "How fricking *obvious*!" moment. And nicely executed by the fx dept.
Best part: When the Battlestar jumped out of the atmosphere and we saw the "poof" remnants of the burning air around the empty space (air) of the outline of the starship. Nice.
Not to mention the thunder and suction from air collapsing into the vacuum left behind... gorgeous.
Yeah, that's one of the nice things about the CGI age, even relatively low budget TV shows and movies can now have top notch SFX shots. (Firefly, BSG, etc.)
Of course, it's also easy to get carried away with relying too heavily on CGI/SFX to carry a lack of direction/development. (I'm looking at you, George Lucas and Peter Jackson(King Kong)... )
Yeah, that's one of the nice things about the CGI age, even relatively low budget TV shows and movies can now have top notch SFX shots. (Firefly, BSG, etc.)
Of course, it's also easy to get carried away with relying too heavily on CGI/SFX to carry a lack of direction/development. (I'm looking at you, George Lucas and Peter Jackson(King Kong)... )
I'm not sure that BSG is very low budget.
As for Star Wars 1-3, I think that Lucas's use of CG was at least vindicated in 3. For many of those scenes, there was simply no other way to capture the grandness of it all. Yeah, it wasn't perfect, but I think it was a noble attempt and worth the risk. There's always going to be room for improvement.
Yeah, that's one of the nice things about the CGI age, even relatively low budget TV shows and movies can now have top notch SFX shots. (Firefly, BSG, etc.)
Oh, I wasn't talking about the FX execution, but the concept. Finally, someone used their frickin' brain when writing a sf show.
There was a 3? I gave up after 2 - no amount of FX will fix a crappy movie. :P
3 was actually pretty damn good: worth watching, for sure. It was a cut above the rest in the prequel trilogy, and is my second favorite of all the six star wars movies.
There was a 3? I gave up after 2 - no amount of FX will fix a crappy movie. :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
3 was actually pretty damn good: worth watching, for sure. It was a cut above the rest in the prequel trilogy, and is my second favorite of all the six star wars movies.
Yeah, After Empire Strikes Back, Episode 3 stands as the next favourite for me too. I'm pretty much over Star Wars, but it was good to see some of it salvaged in Episode 3 and all the CGI actually coming together to tell how Anakin became Evil and stuff. Episode 1 was, in 1999, a total and other debacle that made me feel like a real loser for so desperately waiting for it. Episode 2 was a little silly as well, didn't take it too seriously. Yoda bouncing around like a frog in a sock was interesting, to some extent.
I'll be over Star Wars once I see Episode Seven, and not before.
After all, someone's got to deal with that Sith on the Outer Rim.
I'm still waiting for the Grand Admiral Thrawn/Jedi Academy movie!!
(too obsure?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Oh, I wasn't talking about the FX execution, but the concept. Finally, someone used their frickin' brain when writing a sf show.
I agree with that, over the last 5 years or so we've finally started getting some science with the fiction! In fact, since Firefly I still believe all space scenes should be silent. BSG takes the middle ground of muffled sound at least...
I agree with that, over the last 5 years or so we've finally started getting some science with the fiction! In fact, since Firefly I still believe all space scenes should be silent. BSG takes the middle ground of muffled sound at least...
I think Star Trek: The Next Generation is pretty much the gold standard for a sci-fi show that packs a lot of science content. A lot of it is very hypothetical, but a lot of it is also based on fact. Neither Firefly or BSG make efforts to integrate science content, although I suppose you could say that the makers tried to be accurate. I haven't really analyzed BSG too much, since I never found it to be a "hard" sci-fi. It touches on philosophical and political issues, which make it interesting. Firefly was just a pile of rubbish, in my opinion -- barely a notch above Andromeda.
I think Star Trek: The Next Generation is pretty much the gold standard for a sci-fi show that packs a lot of science content. A lot of it is very hypothetical, but a lot of it is also based on fact. Neither Firefly or BSG make efforts to integrate science content, although I suppose you could say that the makers tried to be accurate. I haven't really analyzed BSG too much, since I never found it to be a "hard" sci-fi. It touches on philosophical and political issues, which make it interesting. Firefly was just a pile of rubbish, in my opinion -- barely a notch above Andromeda.
I'd agree with you on BSG and Firefly's content, I was speaking in terms of SFX there. Personally I put both in my top 10 TV series, as TV shows. But yeah, not much science in the show itself. I haven't seen Andromeda yet. IIRC the first season or two of SeaQuest tried to include some science in each episode?
I forgot about NextGen, been a while since I saw it! Some of the episodes did have good science basis, depending on the writer. I remember liking that they finally got the phaser/laser SFX correct; I can't stand how so many shows/movies, including Star Wars, go with the 'tracer' effect rather than a continuous beam of light/energy! And don't even get me started on lightsabers!!
Generally, if I want strong science content, I 'read the book'. Movies and TV shows normally sacrifice science in name of either budget/time, or just a simple lack of public interest. For example, the only SciFi IMHO that's gotten the 'shield' effect right was the Mote in God's Eye series by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. When their ships put up their shields, they can't see/fire out through the shields, unlike ST or SW or so may others where the shield only effects EM radiation in one direction. (incoming) I realize shields are a scientific implausibility in any case, but the way it normally gets treated in SciFi always bugs me. One of the reasons I like BSG is, they stay away from futuristic tech as much as possible, one legacy of Ron Moore's experiences with NextGen.
I haven't really analyzed BSG too much, since I never found it to be a "hard" sci-fi. It touches on philosophical and political issues, which make it interesting.
What you say about BSG is what makes it hard Sci-fi. Good hard sci-fi has always been about politics and philosophy, just told in a futuristic setting. The best sci-fi does this AND maintains scientific plausibility. BSG seems to be doing relatively OK there, you get a few passes when you go as far advanced as they are because supposedly they know more about technology. Things like artificial gravity and a stable fuel with a energy density high enough to get a Viper or Raider in and out of a reasonable planetary gravity well safely and without refueling.
The Starbuck Maelstrom/return thing is going to take some explaining though, or they go straight into the deep end of fantasyland. I'm willing to wait and see.
The Starbuck Maelstrom/return thing is going to take some explaining though, or they go straight into the deep end of fantasyland. I'm willing to wait and see.
I can't wait until January, to see the resolution on that one. My money is on Apollo having a 'Head Starbuck'! (and thereby being the 5th of the Final Five)
You guys (Hiro, iPoster) both make good points. I'm a big fan of BSG regardless, since it's a very clever TV show. Over the past three months I've been pretty tied up remodling my condo and in moving across the country, so I really need to catch up with BSG. Netflix is a wonderful thing.
The Starbuck Maelstrom/return thing is going to take some explaining though, or they go straight into the deep end of fantasyland. I'm willing to wait and see.
Alternatively, is how Cylon clones work transferrable to humans? Perhaps that's another part of the work down on The Farm.
Comments
That was one of the best "Space" Battle sequences EVER. Abso-fracking-lutely brilliant. Also I believe one of the very very few science fiction TV/Movie scenes to actually have a spaceship *jump* while in the atmosphere.
Agreed. That made my jaw drop when it first aired - this beautiful "How fricking *obvious*!" moment. And nicely executed by the fx dept.
That's my point. A constellation as seen from Earth, is actually a collection of stars/ star systems that have over 20 star/ star systems *within a constellation*, with the size of a constellation spanning up to 5000 light years or more.
That's the "problem" with the "Colonies" of Battlestar Galactica, there is no indication, for example, for Caprica, which planet in which star system it is in of the Capricorn constellation.
However, it is an essential part of the storyline (yes I know it is fiction, hence the word "story"line) that Caprica is a planet in a star system that is part of the Capricorn constellation.
There is an episode in Season 2 of BSG where they see the constellations as seen from Earth. And this correlates to the Colonies.
But again, it's half-here half-there, given a particular constellation covers so much of the galaxy, there's a lot of wiggle room in the storylines.
The tribe names are symbolic, not literal. Twelve tribes, twelve constellations that were religiously connected with some of the traits the tribes considered important/defining. Since the constellations do not exist if you move very far from Earth, the meanings of the constellations would be lost since they wouldn't exist. Also some of the stars in constellations aren't stars, but other galaxies. They just line up as bright enough, in an appropriate angular relationship from Earth's current neighborhood, for the next few ten thousands of years before they begin to deform enough to be visually different.
On the geeky side I find it interesting that the Map in Athena's Tomb is an NP-hard computational problem. You could spend eternity trying to compute it, but once you are on Earth you can check the solution by eyeball in just a few seconds.
The tribe names are symbolic, not literal. Twelve tribes, twelve constellations that were religiously connected with some of the traits the tribes considered important/defining. Since the constellations do not exist if you move very far from Earth, the meanings of the constellations would be lost since they wouldn't exist. Also some of the stars in constellations aren't stars, but other galaxies. They just line up as bright enough, in an appropriate angular relationship from Earth's current neighborhood, for the next few ten thousands of years before they begin to deform enough to be visually different.
On the geeky side I find it interesting that the Map in Athena's Tomb is an NP-hard computational problem. You could spend eternity trying to compute it, but once you are on Earth you can check the solution by eyeball in just a few seconds.
Good points. The fact that the constellations pre-1900 AD are pretty much defined by magnitude, (those bright enough that line up as you mention), it only really stretches as far as 1000 light years max. In modern astronomy today they use the constellations as a "segment" of space as viewed from earth*, and they have picked up galaxies hundreds of thousands of light years away eg. from Hubble deep space observations.
*As in Stellarium and Celstia Mac apps, the red-coloured borders that define areas in the sky like states on a country map...
So yeah, the 12 tribes and 13th tribe and all that is pretty much symbolic. And as for "Earth", well, we'll see what the writers do with that.
Damn, nvidia2008, I spent the entire day yesterday resting and investigating as well, but you had ghe more interesting topic! I somehow got stuck on Noah's Ark and Christianity in general. Should have gone the SF route; it certainly is more comprehensible, logical and believable and at least the creators are open about its being fiction.
Wonder what life forms migh exist on that planet...?
Think they might look like this:
So this could be a family:
Perhaps I need another day off...
Heh. You definitely need some more chill time.
Agreed. That made my jaw drop when it first aired - this beautiful "How fricking *obvious*!" moment. And nicely executed by the fx dept.
Best part: When the Battlestar jumped out of the atmosphere and we saw the "poof" remnants of the burning air around the empty space (air) of the outline of the starship. Nice.
Not to mention the thunder and suction from air collapsing into the vacuum left behind... gorgeous.
Yeah, that's one of the nice things about the CGI age, even relatively low budget TV shows and movies can now have top notch SFX shots. (Firefly, BSG, etc.)
Of course, it's also easy to get carried away with relying too heavily on CGI/SFX to carry a lack of direction/development. (I'm looking at you, George Lucas and Peter Jackson(King Kong)...
Yeah, that's one of the nice things about the CGI age, even relatively low budget TV shows and movies can now have top notch SFX shots. (Firefly, BSG, etc.)
Of course, it's also easy to get carried away with relying too heavily on CGI/SFX to carry a lack of direction/development. (I'm looking at you, George Lucas and Peter Jackson(King Kong)...
I'm not sure that BSG is very low budget.
As for Star Wars 1-3, I think that Lucas's use of CG was at least vindicated in 3. For many of those scenes, there was simply no other way to capture the grandness of it all. Yeah, it wasn't perfect, but I think it was a noble attempt and worth the risk. There's always going to be room for improvement.
Yeah, that's one of the nice things about the CGI age, even relatively low budget TV shows and movies can now have top notch SFX shots. (Firefly, BSG, etc.)
Oh, I wasn't talking about the FX execution, but the concept. Finally, someone used their frickin' brain when writing a sf show.
As for Star Wars 1-3, I think that Lucas's use of CG was at least vindicated in 3.
There was a 3? I gave up after 2 - no amount of FX will fix a crappy movie. :P
There was a 3? I gave up after 2 - no amount of FX will fix a crappy movie. :P
3 was actually pretty damn good: worth watching, for sure. It was a cut above the rest in the prequel trilogy, and is my second favorite of all the six star wars movies.
There was a 3? I gave up after 2 - no amount of FX will fix a crappy movie. :P
3 was actually pretty damn good: worth watching, for sure. It was a cut above the rest in the prequel trilogy, and is my second favorite of all the six star wars movies.
Yeah, After Empire Strikes Back, Episode 3 stands as the next favourite for me too. I'm pretty much over Star Wars, but it was good to see some of it salvaged in Episode 3 and all the CGI actually coming together to tell how Anakin became Evil and stuff. Episode 1 was, in 1999, a total and other debacle that made me feel like a real loser for so desperately waiting for it. Episode 2 was a little silly as well, didn't take it too seriously. Yoda bouncing around like a frog in a sock was interesting, to some extent.
I'm pretty much over Star Wars..
I'll be over Star Wars once I see Episode Seven, and not before.
After all, someone's got to deal with that Sith on the Outer Rim.
I'll be over Star Wars once I see Episode Seven, and not before.
After all, someone's got to deal with that Sith on the Outer Rim.
I'm still waiting for the Grand Admiral Thrawn/Jedi Academy movie!!
(too obsure?)
Oh, I wasn't talking about the FX execution, but the concept. Finally, someone used their frickin' brain when writing a sf show.
I agree with that, over the last 5 years or so we've finally started getting some science with the fiction! In fact, since Firefly I still believe all space scenes should be silent. BSG takes the middle ground of muffled sound at least...
I agree with that, over the last 5 years or so we've finally started getting some science with the fiction! In fact, since Firefly I still believe all space scenes should be silent. BSG takes the middle ground of muffled sound at least...
I think Star Trek: The Next Generation is pretty much the gold standard for a sci-fi show that packs a lot of science content. A lot of it is very hypothetical, but a lot of it is also based on fact. Neither Firefly or BSG make efforts to integrate science content, although I suppose you could say that the makers tried to be accurate. I haven't really analyzed BSG too much, since I never found it to be a "hard" sci-fi. It touches on philosophical and political issues, which make it interesting. Firefly was just a pile of rubbish, in my opinion -- barely a notch above Andromeda.
I think Star Trek: The Next Generation is pretty much the gold standard for a sci-fi show that packs a lot of science content. A lot of it is very hypothetical, but a lot of it is also based on fact. Neither Firefly or BSG make efforts to integrate science content, although I suppose you could say that the makers tried to be accurate. I haven't really analyzed BSG too much, since I never found it to be a "hard" sci-fi. It touches on philosophical and political issues, which make it interesting. Firefly was just a pile of rubbish, in my opinion -- barely a notch above Andromeda.
I'd agree with you on BSG and Firefly's content, I was speaking in terms of SFX there. Personally I put both in my top 10 TV series, as TV shows. But yeah, not much science in the show itself. I haven't seen Andromeda yet. IIRC the first season or two of SeaQuest tried to include some science in each episode?
I forgot about NextGen, been a while since I saw it! Some of the episodes did have good science basis, depending on the writer. I remember liking that they finally got the phaser/laser SFX correct; I can't stand how so many shows/movies, including Star Wars, go with the 'tracer' effect rather than a continuous beam of light/energy! And don't even get me started on lightsabers!!
Generally, if I want strong science content, I 'read the book'. Movies and TV shows normally sacrifice science in name of either budget/time, or just a simple lack of public interest. For example, the only SciFi IMHO that's gotten the 'shield' effect right was the Mote in God's Eye series by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. When their ships put up their shields, they can't see/fire out through the shields, unlike ST or SW or so may others where the shield only effects EM radiation in one direction. (incoming) I realize shields are a scientific implausibility in any case, but the way it normally gets treated in SciFi always bugs me. One of the reasons I like BSG is, they stay away from futuristic tech as much as possible, one legacy of Ron Moore's experiences with NextGen.
I haven't really analyzed BSG too much, since I never found it to be a "hard" sci-fi. It touches on philosophical and political issues, which make it interesting.
What you say about BSG is what makes it hard Sci-fi. Good hard sci-fi has always been about politics and philosophy, just told in a futuristic setting. The best sci-fi does this AND maintains scientific plausibility. BSG seems to be doing relatively OK there, you get a few passes when you go as far advanced as they are because supposedly they know more about technology. Things like artificial gravity and a stable fuel with a energy density high enough to get a Viper or Raider in and out of a reasonable planetary gravity well safely and without refueling.
The Starbuck Maelstrom/return thing is going to take some explaining though, or they go straight into the deep end of fantasyland. I'm willing to wait and see.
The Starbuck Maelstrom/return thing is going to take some explaining though, or they go straight into the deep end of fantasyland. I'm willing to wait and see.
I can't wait until January, to see the resolution on that one. My money is on Apollo having a 'Head Starbuck'!
The Starbuck Maelstrom/return thing is going to take some explaining though, or they go straight into the deep end of fantasyland. I'm willing to wait and see.
Alternatively, is how Cylon clones work transferrable to humans? Perhaps that's another part of the work down on The Farm.