Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Climbs like a sprinter...
Joined
·
6,976 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I haven't have cable or satellite for the last 15 years so I don't see much Network TV. I bought season one of Babylon 5 on DVD. I must say that the acting and special effects are pretty lame considering all the brouhaha I remember the show getting.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,071 Posts
bmxhacksaw said:
I haven't have cable or satellite for the last 15 years so I don't see much Network TV. I bought season one of Babylon 5 on DVD. I must say that the acting and special effects are pretty lame considering all the brouhaha I remember the show getting.
They got better...

But not a whole lot. You can watch season 1 and 2 on hulu...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
What made B5 so kickazz were the special effects. In the 1st season, episode 2, there is a scene where Captain Sinclair grapples a damaged space ship that on a collision course with the station. In that scene, the lighting, stars, shadows and ships all rotate and move in unison and in synch. No other special effects company at that time had been able to do that, putting B5 on the cutting edge in 1994

Also, in another episode, I believe it was Season 2, episode 1, there is a scene with at least 50 - 100 independently moving ships with a star field and planets in the scene, all moving realistically with lighting, shadows and perspective correct in the scene. At the time, no special effects company had had more than 5 independent moving objects in any 1 scene and none had managed to get the perspective correct.

The way that B5 did that was to abandon all model based CG and go for 100% computer generated images. They were the first to get that right, and they set the standard for that until a few years later when Star Trek went 100% computer generated and Farscape soon after.

Today, everyone is making better stuff and using computers in ways that B5 could not begin to compare with. But remember, B5 is 1990's technology, which means Pentium was brand new and catching fire all the time, 486 chips were still considered standard, and the SciFi movies still used plastic model ships not much more advanced than the orginal Star Trek.
 

·
Climbs like a sprinter...
Joined
·
6,976 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Actually, to me, the original Star Trek's beauty shots of the Enterprise slowly moving across the screen look more realistic - with its shot on film looking graininess - than most CGI stuff. That being said, the acting in B5 is still lame and the shallow story lines with all their predictable agendas and soap box standing is nothing more than Star Trek - The Original Series rehashed.
 

·
Bacon!
Joined
·
9,190 Posts
I liked Babylon 5. It and Farscape are my favorite sci-fi series with BG not that far behind.
 

·
Moderatus Puisne
Joined
·
15,883 Posts
I was going to post, but Wayne's description is better than I have time to make...

Except, also, there were things like realistic thrust from the fighters -- 8 separate little thrusters to maneuver the things, instead of just "look, it's a plane in space!"

No "sound effects" in space either, just a classical score that wasn't John Williams, but was pretty cool, and often had "sound effects" from instrumentals.

For all that, the acting was pretty -- HOLY CRAP IT'S A SCI-FISHOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!

But, I enjoyed it immensely as a teen. I don't think I'd go for it today.


WaynefromOrlando said:
What made B5 so kickazz were the special effects. In the 1st season, episode 2, there is a scene where Captain Sinclair grapples a damaged space ship that on a collision course with the station. In that scene, the lighting, stars, shadows and ships all rotate and move in unison and in synch. No other special effects company at that time had been able to do that, putting B5 on the cutting edge in 1994

Also, in another episode, I believe it was Season 2, episode 1, there is a scene with at least 50 - 100 independently moving ships with a star field and planets in the scene, all moving realistically with lighting, shadows and perspective correct in the scene. At the time, no special effects company had had more than 5 independent moving objects in any 1 scene and none had managed to get the perspective correct.

The way that B5 did that was to abandon all model based CG and go for 100% computer generated images. They were the first to get that right, and they set the standard for that until a few years later when Star Trek went 100% computer generated and Farscape soon after.

Today, everyone is making better stuff and using computers in ways that B5 could not begin to compare with. But remember, B5 is 1990's technology, which means Pentium was brand new and catching fire all the time, 486 chips were still considered standard, and the SciFi movies still used plastic model ships not much more advanced than the orginal Star Trek.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,071 Posts
bmxhacksaw said:
Actually, to me, the original Star Trek's beauty shots of the Enterprise slowly moving across the screen look more realistic - with its shot on film looking graininess - than most CGI stuff. That being said, the acting in B5 is still lame and the shallow story lines with all their predictable agendas and soap box standing is nothing more than Star Trek - The Original Series rehashed.
Again, it got better.

By the middle of season 2, the threads that would play out over it's 5 year run were pretty well laid out and the acting and special effects got a whole lot better.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,071 Posts
I always had a hard time with the carpeted, wood-paneled Enterprise as a ship of war or exploration. It was more like a cruise ship.

And while Patrick Stewart was an acting powerhouse, he was really carrying the rest of the crew... And then there was Wesley Crusher... ugh.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top