Yeah what the fuck.. I LOVE DS9, but Babylon 5 is an amazing show that does an overarching plot line in a time TV really didn't do that.
B5 deservey to be watched, it's one of the really good SF Series brought on TV. Kinda like farscape, people dismiss it nowadays because of the effects- Farscape because of the "puppets". B5 because of the "Cheap 3D graphics"
But both are amazing series that any SF fan really should watch
The irony is that the practical effects used on Farscape hold up really well.
edit: Especially funny when the voice actors flub their lines, and the puppeteers play along :biggrin: part 1part 2
Yes, that's a Connie that's been submerged to avoid being seen by primitive natives (Earth, late 20th). And an Andorian crew member (Chief Engineer, in fact) named Shran. From 1991.
Yeah what the fuck.. I LOVE DS9, but Babylon 5 is an amazing show that does an overarching plot line in a time TV really didn't do that.
B5 deservey to be watched, it's one of the really good SF Series brought on TV. Kinda like farscape, people dismiss it nowadays because of the effects- Farscape because of the "puppets". B5 because of the "Cheap 3D graphics"
But both are amazing series that any SF fan really should watch
The irony is that the practical effects used on Farscape hold up really well.
edit: Especially funny when the voice actors flub their lines, and the puppeteers play along :biggrin: part 1part 2
Farscape's puppetry holds up insanely well, both on the voice acting and the voices and the actual models.
B5's CGI isn't bad after season one, though that first year I'm pretty sure they were using EGA graphics. Deconstruction of Falling Stars still holds up as one of the best scifi episodes on TV, and the show did multi-season long story arcs right.
DS9 did a lot of what B5 did, but with better production values. Although I don't think their multi-season arc was as strong, the Dominion War and the Prophet storylines weren't as tightly integrated with each other as B5's Shadow War, Narn v Centauri, and Earthforce storylines were.
The 90s had some damn good scifi going on.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Yeah what the fuck.. I LOVE DS9, but Babylon 5 is an amazing show that does an overarching plot line in a time TV really didn't do that.
B5 deservey to be watched, it's one of the really good SF Series brought on TV. Kinda like farscape, people dismiss it nowadays because of the effects- Farscape because of the "puppets". B5 because of the "Cheap 3D graphics"
But both are amazing series that any SF fan really should watch
The irony is that the practical effects used on Farscape hold up really well.
edit: Especially funny when the voice actors flub their lines, and the puppeteers play along :biggrin: part 1part 2
Farscape's puppetry holds up insanely well, both on the voice acting and the voices and the actual models.
B5's CGI isn't bad after season one, though that first year I'm pretty sure they were using EGA graphics. Deconstruction of Falling Stars still holds up as one of the best scifi episodes on TV, and the show did multi-season long story arcs right.
DS9 did a lot of what B5 did, but with better production values. Although I don't think their multi-season arc was as strong, the Dominion War and the Prophet storylines weren't as tightly integrated with each other as B5's Shadow War, Narn v Centauri, and Earthforce storylines were.
Yeah what the fuck.. I LOVE DS9, but Babylon 5 is an amazing show that does an overarching plot line in a time TV really didn't do that.
B5 deservey to be watched, it's one of the really good SF Series brought on TV. Kinda like farscape, people dismiss it nowadays because of the effects- Farscape because of the "puppets". B5 because of the "Cheap 3D graphics"
But both are amazing series that any SF fan really should watch
The irony is that the practical effects used on Farscape hold up really well.
edit: Especially funny when the voice actors flub their lines, and the puppeteers play along :biggrin: part 1part 2
Farscape's puppetry holds up insanely well, both on the voice acting and the voices and the actual models.
B5's CGI isn't bad after season one, though that first year I'm pretty sure they were using EGA graphics. Deconstruction of Falling Stars still holds up as one of the best scifi episodes on TV, and the show did multi-season long story arcs right.
DS9 did a lot of what B5 did, but with better production values. Although I don't think their multi-season arc was as strong, the Dominion War and the Prophet storylines weren't as tightly integrated with each other as B5's Shadow War, Narn v Centauri, and Earthforce storylines were.
The 90s had some damn good scifi going on.
Well damn, clearly I need to watch B5.
I've tried! but how?!
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
Yeah what the fuck.. I LOVE DS9, but Babylon 5 is an amazing show that does an overarching plot line in a time TV really didn't do that.
B5 deservey to be watched, it's one of the really good SF Series brought on TV. Kinda like farscape, people dismiss it nowadays because of the effects- Farscape because of the "puppets". B5 because of the "Cheap 3D graphics"
But both are amazing series that any SF fan really should watch
The irony is that the practical effects used on Farscape hold up really well.
edit: Especially funny when the voice actors flub their lines, and the puppeteers play along :biggrin: part 1part 2
Farscape's puppetry holds up insanely well, both on the voice acting and the voices and the actual models.
B5's CGI isn't bad after season one, though that first year I'm pretty sure they were using EGA graphics. Deconstruction of Falling Stars still holds up as one of the best scifi episodes on TV, and the show did multi-season long story arcs right.
DS9 did a lot of what B5 did, but with better production values. Although I don't think their multi-season arc was as strong, the Dominion War and the Prophet storylines weren't as tightly integrated with each other as B5's Shadow War, Narn v Centauri, and Earthforce storylines were.
RE: B5s CGI, it isn't bad, but it is reused. A lot. You'll be seeing the same shot of a starfury launching, or B5's main cannon firing repeated regularly throughout the series, or the hyperspace gates opening.
I mean, it's not a bad thing. They obviously had to get as much mileage out of their CGI as they could to make it budget friendly. But it does kind of stick out after a few times.
RE: B5s CGI, it isn't bad, but it is reused. A lot. You'll be seeing the same shot of a starfury launching, or B5's main cannon firing repeated regularly throughout the series, or the hyperspace gates opening.
I mean, it's not a bad thing. They obviously had to get as much mileage out of their CGI as they could to make it budget friendly. But it does kind of stick out after a few times.
But, but... Netflix...Amazon prime...
I'm spoiled.
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
Was talking movies with a friend, and this came up (Beyond spoiler)
I mentioned in the Fast and Furious movies, Justin Lin had a propensity to land cars always upside down in a crash. I guess since he loves practical effects so much, it's like proof he did it. Anyway, we went on to talking about Suicide Squad, when apparently a light bulb went off in his head, because he started laughing.
"He did the same thing in the Star Trek movie! Holy shit!"
"What?"
"The Enterprise! When it crashed on the planet he flipped the fucking saucer!"
Was talking movies with a friend, and this came up (Beyond spoiler)
I mentioned in the Fast and Furious movies, Justin Lin had a propensity to land cars always upside down in a crash. I guess since he loves practical effects so much, it's like proof he did it. Anyway, we went on to talking about Suicide Squad, when apparently a light bulb went off in his head, because he started laughing.
"He did the same thing in the Star Trek movie! Holy shit!"
"What?"
"The Enterprise! When it crashed on the planet he flipped the fucking saucer!"
no, it landed right way up because they were still able to use consoles without hanging from the ceiling, but then he fired off the thrusts and flipped the bitch.
I was sure Scotty's dialogue in Beyond that there was a risk of people getting spliced together during transport was setting up a Spock-and-Bones-get-spliced-together subplot
I was sure Scotty's dialogue in Beyond that there was a risk of people getting spliced together during transport was setting up a Spock-and-Bones-get-spliced-together subplot
They did that in Voyager with Tuvix. It was bad then. It would be bad now.
I was sure Scotty's dialogue in Beyond that there was a risk of people getting spliced together during transport was setting up a Spock-and-Bones-get-spliced-together subplot
They did that in Voyager with Tuvix. It was bad then. It would be bad now.
I got the impression this was an actually subtle, direct reference to Tuvix. They say, right in the movie, "that would be awful."
There were a bunch of good references in Beyond, although I can't recall all of them at the moment. That's good fan service. You know, in contrast to having a terrible, unnecessary version of Khan in the movie.
Was talking movies with a friend, and this came up (Beyond spoiler)
I mentioned in the Fast and Furious movies, Justin Lin had a propensity to land cars always upside down in a crash. I guess since he loves practical effects so much, it's like proof he did it. Anyway, we went on to talking about Suicide Squad, when apparently a light bulb went off in his head, because he started laughing.
"He did the same thing in the Star Trek movie! Holy shit!"
"What?"
"The Enterprise! When it crashed on the planet he flipped the fucking saucer!"
no, it landed right way up because they were still able to use consoles without hanging from the ceiling, but then he fired off the thrusts and flipped the bitch.
Well yeah, but the fact that it ended up flipped was kind of funny.
Finally got around to seeing Beyond last night, and enjoyed it. Thanks for the suggestion, folks. Not a flawless flick, but about what I expected from this round of movies, and better than the initial trailers lead me to think it would be.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Okay, the content of that is really interesting and really good, but oh my god was that badly produced! The green/blue screen interviews looked awful with terrible keys, the Okuda interview was framed incredibly poorly (unbalanced two shot and the wide angle closeup exaggerates how big his head is and the interviewer was sitting on the wrong side of the camera based on how they were framed up), there are out of focus interview shots, all of the b-roll is poorly lit and underexposed... I seriously think that's the worst-produced "good" documentary/featurette I've ever seen.
If I had CBS/Paramount money to shoot a bunch of interviews and b-roll, I'd damn well make sure my shit was in focus and position my camera in a way that didn't make the main interview look so awkward.
Was talking movies with a friend, and this came up (Beyond spoiler)
I mentioned in the Fast and Furious movies, Justin Lin had a propensity to land cars always upside down in a crash. I guess since he loves practical effects so much, it's like proof he did it. Anyway, we went on to talking about Suicide Squad, when apparently a light bulb went off in his head, because he started laughing.
"He did the same thing in the Star Trek movie! Holy shit!"
"What?"
"The Enterprise! When it crashed on the planet he flipped the fucking saucer!"
no, it landed right way up because they were still able to use consoles without hanging from the ceiling, but then he fired off the thrusts and flipped the bitch.
Well yeah, but the fact that it ended up flipped was kind of funny.
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Just got back from Beyond. I hold very strong opinions about Star Trek in general and generally negative opinions about NuTrek. I didn't hate it. This is the first of these movies that has felt like Star Trek. Simon Pegg has proven to me that he's capable of writing a decent Trek movie. I went into the movie expecting to hate it but I came out actually liking it. It wasn't perfect but delightful none the less.
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
why see a movie if you are expecting to hate it, better to try to have an open mind. glad to hear that you liked it! I found it super enjoyable
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Not to dredge up this conversation but I just need to get it out there. The primary reason I find Insurrection to be the worst Trek movie to date is the god-awful attempts at humor. It's fucking drowning in them. It was shocking coming from First Contact to that. I guess Nemesis felt like a step in the right direction after Insurrection dropped my expectations into the fucking toilet and flushed them.
0
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
Not to dredge up this conversation but I just need to get it out there. The primary reason I find Insurrection to be the worst Trek movie to date is the god-awful attempts at humor. It's fucking drowning in them. It was shocking coming from First Contact to that. I guess Nemesis felt like a step in the right direction after Insurrection dropped my expectations into the fucking toilet and flushed them.
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
edited August 2016
not really, they are actually mostly terrible compared to how data dealt with emotions and the emotion chip in TNG
(well the first contact clip at the end is great)
edit - I'm not sure insurrection even had that much attempted humour in it that I can remember off hand
Hardtarget on
0
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
edited August 2016
WOOO finally
alright, Beyond spoilers: if anybody was looking for proper shots of something shown at basically the very end of the movie:
Official pictures of the new Enterprise 1701-A in NuTrek, these are from the designer and are the literal designs that were passed to the FX department:
I've been waiting for ages now to get a glimpse of these aside from the quick shots we saw on screen. I like it.
Star Trek Beyond. My new Enterprise 1701A. This was the design I gave visual effects, so any changes beyond what you see here were out of my hands, but looking at the film its pretty close.
The brief was to beef up the neck and arms, but I took it upon myself to go further. Certain details and livery are not present as I took it to a certain level, time permitting. Also the classic red graphics were placeholders at the time.
I worked many long hours at work and after work and weekends on this, knowing the weight of the responsibility, which I didn't take lightly.
From growing up watching Star Trek in the countryside of Northern England, this was a great honor to be one of the few to be given the great responsibility to design this ship.
This concludes my Star Trek Beyond posts, in time I may post some early swarm ship concepts. Thank you everyone for the wonderful responses to my work, it has really been amazing.
Hardtarget on
+5
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I FUCKING LOVED the warp effect in Beyond. That wide shot as the ship is traveling was magical. The camera work was also phenomenal. That opening weightless shot panning over the ship blew me away. I really liked the tilting work done during several scenes to add a sense of disorientation.
There was one thing that kind of caught me in this one;
The shot of Kirk and the bike moving while teleporting in kind of took me out of things for a sec. They teleport people who are moving back to the ship all the time, but things being teleported elsewhere from the ship are generally stationary on the platform.
I mean, did they find the longest stretch of corridor in the ship to get up to speed and teleport site to site? Did they take it out into the forest and go site to site like that?
I'm overthinking it, it's not all that pertinent a point, and yes they could've just perched the bike onto the pad, teleported, and then revved up and taken off, so it's either something they didn't really think/care about or felt it made for a better shot this way.
Just something I've come to take for granted after roughly a third of a century of watching Trek. I suppose if they can catch someone from mid air, and can go site to site in general it makes sense, and is likely just too expensive a technique/effect to bother with for the series.
Also I assume someone will point out that it's been done before and I'm just forgetting. I've watched TOS and TNG cover to cover, but admittedly my knowledge of Voyager/Enterprise/DS9 is lacking, and no I don't want any shit about DS9 I know it's great it's also like 200 hours of my life I don't have to spare right now :-P
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
There was one thing that kind of caught me in this one;
The shot of Kirk and the bike moving while teleporting in kind of took me out of things for a sec. They teleport people who are moving back to the ship all the time, but things being teleported elsewhere from the ship are generally stationary on the platform.
I mean, did they find the longest stretch of corridor in the ship to get up to speed and teleport site to site? Did they take it out into the forest and go site to site like that?
I'm overthinking it, it's not all that pertinent a point, and yes they could've just perched the bike onto the pad, teleported, and then revved up and taken off, so it's either something they didn't really think/care about or felt it made for a better shot this way.
Just something I've come to take for granted after roughly a third of a century of watching Trek. I suppose if they can catch someone from mid air, and can go site to site in general it makes sense, and is likely just too expensive a technique/effect to bother with for the series.
Also I assume someone will point out that it's been done before and I'm just forgetting. I've watched TOS and TNG cover to cover, but admittedly my knowledge of Voyager/Enterprise/DS9 is lacking, and no I don't want any shit about DS9 I know it's great it's also like 200 hours of my life I don't have to spare right now :-P
When you've got Scottie at the controls, beaming becomes magic.
I mean, he's already mastered trans warp beaming, and they've seen interstellar beaming, it seems like a relatively simple matter to beam a bike that's in motion from one location to another when the bike is moving 15, maybe 30 mph and you're just moving it to a different place on the same planet. Might have just had it running in circles on the saucer to pick up speed.
There was one thing that kind of caught me in this one;
The shot of Kirk and the bike moving while teleporting in kind of took me out of things for a sec. They teleport people who are moving back to the ship all the time, but things being teleported elsewhere from the ship are generally stationary on the platform.
I mean, did they find the longest stretch of corridor in the ship to get up to speed and teleport site to site? Did they take it out into the forest and go site to site like that?
I'm overthinking it, it's not all that pertinent a point, and yes they could've just perched the bike onto the pad, teleported, and then revved up and taken off, so it's either something they didn't really think/care about or felt it made for a better shot this way.
Just something I've come to take for granted after roughly a third of a century of watching Trek. I suppose if they can catch someone from mid air, and can go site to site in general it makes sense, and is likely just too expensive a technique/effect to bother with for the series.
Also I assume someone will point out that it's been done before and I'm just forgetting. I've watched TOS and TNG cover to cover, but admittedly my knowledge of Voyager/Enterprise/DS9 is lacking, and no I don't want any shit about DS9 I know it's great it's also like 200 hours of my life I don't have to spare right now :-P
When you've got Scottie at the controls, beaming becomes magic.
I mean, he's already mastered trans warp beaming, and they've seen interstellar beaming, it seems like a relatively simple matter to beam a bike that's in motion from one location to another when the bike is moving 15, maybe 30 mph and you're just moving it to a different place on the same planet. Might have just had it running in circles on the saucer to pick up speed.
Yeah, I know, but even in a series of movies that's busy defying how they work in general, it differs from their usual routine pretty substantially.
As I said, probably "rule of cool", but it wasn't even like the interstellar thing where they made a big point about Scotty spending years perfecting this stuff.
Not a deal breaker, just something I noticed. And we seemed behind on our 'pedantic nitpicking quota' of late. >.>
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
There was one thing that kind of caught me in this one;
The shot of Kirk and the bike moving while teleporting in kind of took me out of things for a sec. They teleport people who are moving back to the ship all the time, but things being teleported elsewhere from the ship are generally stationary on the platform.
I mean, did they find the longest stretch of corridor in the ship to get up to speed and teleport site to site? Did they take it out into the forest and go site to site like that?
I'm overthinking it, it's not all that pertinent a point, and yes they could've just perched the bike onto the pad, teleported, and then revved up and taken off, so it's either something they didn't really think/care about or felt it made for a better shot this way.
Just something I've come to take for granted after roughly a third of a century of watching Trek. I suppose if they can catch someone from mid air, and can go site to site in general it makes sense, and is likely just too expensive a technique/effect to bother with for the series.
Also I assume someone will point out that it's been done before and I'm just forgetting. I've watched TOS and TNG cover to cover, but admittedly my knowledge of Voyager/Enterprise/DS9 is lacking, and no I don't want any shit about DS9 I know it's great it's also like 200 hours of my life I don't have to spare right now :-P
When you've got Scottie at the controls, beaming becomes magic.
I mean, he's already mastered trans warp beaming, and they've seen interstellar beaming, it seems like a relatively simple matter to beam a bike that's in motion from one location to another when the bike is moving 15, maybe 30 mph and you're just moving it to a different place on the same planet. Might have just had it running in circles on the saucer to pick up speed.
Yeah, I know, but even in a series of movies that's busy defying how they work in general, it differs from their usual routine pretty substantially.
As I said, probably "rule of cool", but it wasn't even like the interstellar thing where they made a big point about Scotty spending years perfecting this stuff.
Not a deal breaker, just something I noticed. And we seemed behind on our 'pedantic nitpicking quota' of late. >.>
If I recall, there was a weapon on an episode of DS9 that transported a metal bullet through walls while maintaining its velocity relative to the target. So, not totally without precedent.
Obviously this kind of thing breaks multiple conservation laws, but the transporter has always been space magic anyway.
Posts
The irony is that the practical effects used on Farscape hold up really well.
edit: Especially funny when the voice actors flub their lines, and the puppeteers play along :biggrin: part 1 part 2
So be it
Yes, that's a Connie that's been submerged to avoid being seen by primitive natives (Earth, late 20th). And an Andorian crew member (Chief Engineer, in fact) named Shran. From 1991.
Just showing off the glory that is Mort Drucker.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I DID!!!!!
Farscape's puppetry holds up insanely well, both on the voice acting and the voices and the actual models.
B5's CGI isn't bad after season one, though that first year I'm pretty sure they were using EGA graphics. Deconstruction of Falling Stars still holds up as one of the best scifi episodes on TV, and the show did multi-season long story arcs right.
DS9 did a lot of what B5 did, but with better production values. Although I don't think their multi-season arc was as strong, the Dominion War and the Prophet storylines weren't as tightly integrated with each other as B5's Shadow War, Narn v Centauri, and Earthforce storylines were.
The 90s had some damn good scifi going on.
Well damn, clearly I need to watch B5.
I've tried! but how?!
https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-5-Complete-Seasons-1-5/dp/B002DUJ9Q6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470240207&sr=8-1&keywords=babylon+5
I mean, it's less than 75 bucks on amazon.
RE: B5s CGI, it isn't bad, but it is reused. A lot. You'll be seeing the same shot of a starfury launching, or B5's main cannon firing repeated regularly throughout the series, or the hyperspace gates opening.
I mean, it's not a bad thing. They obviously had to get as much mileage out of their CGI as they could to make it budget friendly. But it does kind of stick out after a few times.
But, but... Netflix...Amazon prime...
"He did the same thing in the Star Trek movie! Holy shit!"
"What?"
"The Enterprise! When it crashed on the planet he flipped the fucking saucer!"
They did that in Voyager with Tuvix. It was bad then. It would be bad now.
I got the impression this was an actually subtle, direct reference to Tuvix. They say, right in the movie, "that would be awful."
There were a bunch of good references in Beyond, although I can't recall all of them at the moment. That's good fan service. You know, in contrast to having a terrible, unnecessary version of Khan in the movie.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Okay, the content of that is really interesting and really good, but oh my god was that badly produced! The green/blue screen interviews looked awful with terrible keys, the Okuda interview was framed incredibly poorly (unbalanced two shot and the wide angle closeup exaggerates how big his head is and the interviewer was sitting on the wrong side of the camera based on how they were framed up), there are out of focus interview shots, all of the b-roll is poorly lit and underexposed... I seriously think that's the worst-produced "good" documentary/featurette I've ever seen.
If I had CBS/Paramount money to shoot a bunch of interviews and b-roll, I'd damn well make sure my shit was in focus and position my camera in a way that didn't make the main interview look so awkward.
It's seriously freshman-in-film-school-15-years-ago-before-good-cameras-got-cheap bad.
I guess it just shows that content matters more.
but ya... that's uh.. totally just a insurrection thing.. :rotate: I think we should all just:
(well the first contact clip at the end is great)
edit - I'm not sure insurrection even had that much attempted humour in it that I can remember off hand
alright, Beyond spoilers: if anybody was looking for proper shots of something shown at basically the very end of the movie:
I've been waiting for ages now to get a glimpse of these aside from the quick shots we saw on screen. I like it.
edit, from the designer:
I mean, did they find the longest stretch of corridor in the ship to get up to speed and teleport site to site? Did they take it out into the forest and go site to site like that?
I'm overthinking it, it's not all that pertinent a point, and yes they could've just perched the bike onto the pad, teleported, and then revved up and taken off, so it's either something they didn't really think/care about or felt it made for a better shot this way.
Just something I've come to take for granted after roughly a third of a century of watching Trek. I suppose if they can catch someone from mid air, and can go site to site in general it makes sense, and is likely just too expensive a technique/effect to bother with for the series.
Also I assume someone will point out that it's been done before and I'm just forgetting. I've watched TOS and TNG cover to cover, but admittedly my knowledge of Voyager/Enterprise/DS9 is lacking, and no I don't want any shit about DS9 I know it's great it's also like 200 hours of my life I don't have to spare right now :-P
I mean, he's already mastered trans warp beaming, and they've seen interstellar beaming, it seems like a relatively simple matter to beam a bike that's in motion from one location to another when the bike is moving 15, maybe 30 mph and you're just moving it to a different place on the same planet. Might have just had it running in circles on the saucer to pick up speed.
Yeah, I know, but even in a series of movies that's busy defying how they work in general, it differs from their usual routine pretty substantially.
As I said, probably "rule of cool", but it wasn't even like the interstellar thing where they made a big point about Scotty spending years perfecting this stuff.
Not a deal breaker, just something I noticed. And we seemed behind on our 'pedantic nitpicking quota' of late. >.>
Obviously this kind of thing breaks multiple conservation laws, but the transporter has always been space magic anyway.