quote:Oh, I understood why they were showing our advances towards AI and I liked the idea of posing the question of whether the cycle would happen again with us. I just didn't think stock footage was necessarily the best way to do it. It almost looked as if they'd run out of budget in the last five minutes of the show.
Again, I viewed this differently. What I got out of the use of stock footage was "OK people, the sci-fi show Battlestar Galactica is now over, but its message still exists. This is Earth, our Earth, the real thing, and not part of the fictional show. However, look at what we're doing. We're becoming reliant on machines, computers, robots, etc., and in the future we could have our own analogous Cylons." Worked well for me. And I hate stock footage :-)
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There are many instances where the use of stock footage is a sign of a limited budget or laziness. This is neither. In fact if you listen to the commentary, they had a hard time coming up with good footage and then had further headaches getting permission from the various parties involved to use said footage. Regardless, it's portrayed as a news story on the TV, so stock footage is really the only option. Would you propose they invent a bunch of fictional CG robots and show that instead? I hardly see the point.
posted
Heck, the whole POINT of the footage that it WAS real. It would lose the impact if it weren't.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
