Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
A challenge: Defend SD.net!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernd: [QB] Something I notice is that this thread, despite all of my attempts, never gets to the point. What do you all think about it (about Wong, rather than me - although comments on the question are welcome too)? What would you write into Wong's guestbook? [QUOTE]J/k, but about the criticism of Wong's and Saxton's chosen approach to ST/SW physics, isn't it just that you felt slightly worried that the letter-faithful crowd would outgrow our more generally-seeing crowd, not that we'd ever get to see an exact estimate of the real size of them two "crowds"?[/QUOTE]Uhm, "exact estimate"? I was yot asking anyone to defend himself, (and it's nothing to be ashamed of going there). I just wanted to hear opinions, or do you have none? [QUOTE]For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand. The only reason for such a convoluted explanation were a few instances where the VFX people accidentally made things explode before the blaster shot arrived. [/QUOTE]Let me say that this is a perfect example of 1. first overanalyzing something (who gives a damn on a beam that is too fast for the eye to track its tip?) 2. making up unnecessarily complicated explanations. Why not accept special effects as a real-world effect that is not perfect only due to the shortcomings of the equipment? Could I ever become so desperate that I had to care about totally irrelevant things? Maybe there should be a few hundred hours more of Star Wars, so that the fans care about the fiction as such again and not about its tertiary side effects. It's *not* a role model for Star Trek. Keep in mind that I am someone who received lots of angry e-mails from casual fans because I did not like the Akiraprise and the too early battlecruiser. But somewhere I must draw a line between what I care about and what not. [QUOTE]Same here -- we've seen the Empire destroy an inhabited planet, but the rebels did kill a great number of people on...[/QUOTE]I don't know where and how this argument is going to fit in. Are we talking about the fiction or the real world? [QUOTE]All I'm saying is that if we stop being like Star Trek writers and look at what's actually onscreen, we can make the show more serious, just the way it was in the beginning. [/QUOTE]Oh man, I'm beginning to love Braga and his simplistic view of what may be on screen and what not. I mean, that man has a pragmatic approach. His silly ideas and plot rehashing anger me, but what alarms me almost more if a fan who takes everything literally comes along, doesn't hear the word "Ferengi" in the whole episode, and is happy because there was no error. In my view that's almost self-delusion. Just like Wong making up twisted explanations for everything flawed in Star Wars. Ironically, that way the "over-analyzers" will be with the "don't care" faction in the end and leave "generalists" like me all alone. Maybe Nimpim is right... And yes, I know that I am taking this too far in the views of most people. But to me it matters more than political views, for instance, as I am primarily here to discuss about science fiction and not politics. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3