Search results

So a poor budget means . . . . . . . . what exactly? I’m aware of this whole ‘sci-fi’ verse ‘science fiction’ argument. Personally I think it’s a bit simplistic, but one part of the bottom line is that a well written ‘science fiction’ story does not need a large budget.

Don’t know why, but this surprised me a little. I was chatting with Ron (Thornton) the other day and he made a passing comment. I did a quick google and sure enough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA875IPnrEA&feature=related http://www.redearthvfx.com/ I’d always just assumed he wasn’t...

Thanks for that Jan, JoeD80 and Republibot. It’s one of those things I never really thought about until quite recently.

Yup, at first (like most I guess) I was hoping for more, but looking at what turned up, and all things considered I’m happy with what we got. Though to this day (once it was confirmed that no one has ever asked him), I can’t for the life of me understand why some talented and hungry writer...

I think part of the reason for folks not responding to many of the threads right now is because they’re simply not reading the forums. Or the threads touch on subjects covered elsewhere or at some previous time. Jan’s post on the new books for example! Or the previous version of this thread...

I agree the story does hold up very well in fact. As a completed product. And is viewed just as a final standalone story. I (by pure luck) purchased the original pilot movie, and only later saw the identically packaged TNT special edition. Some of the changes on it are obviously for story...

It’s possible. (the quotes from Chris Wren not Paul). But it wasn’t the impression I got. Production company could mean anything. He talks about how The gist was that there did seem to be issues between jms & some of the crew and some folks (including network execs) who thought the...

It’s completely possible that he did say that. As Tim Earls pointed out “Joe didn't concern himself too much about tech or specs.” And that can be seen in things like the ever increasing number of rooms, passages and FIGHTER BAY that was added to the white star for instance (Which came to a...

I’m not an engineer, and using google is a bit of a cheat. The approach as far as B5 was concerned was to pay a bit more than lip service to the idea of realistic physics in some (but not all areas). Technology limits at the time where a big factor but so was the realisation that to follow it...

Oh you’re a bad bastard for bringing that up. :thumbsup: (Remember Scottish, I swear a lot, It’s actually a sign of endearment, not that I'm proposing or anything ;-) Well if your talking about unused abilities seeing the Starfury using it’s thrust vectoring baffles correctly would have been...

In all honesty that goes for me as well. Possibly airbrush the sex dance with the Lumati out (I know it’s not a vfx but I thing it’s removal is worth mentioning at every opportunity. ; ) Personally I didn’t see the point of re-doing the Trek: TOS either. Other than pander to the brain dead...

JoeD80, we’ve had this discussion before. It’s cool that your not now saying that there was a plan (and including that dodgy quoting), definite or otherwise. If I’m reading everything right we’re basically all in agreement, kinda. Things could have been done certain ways. The option to do...

Are you suggesting that recompositing (recombining basically) the crystal clear 16:9 plates with the cropped (and zoomed in) 4:3 CGI elements (now pretending to be 16:9 themselves and pretty f*cked up) was the original idea. You don’t see just a tiny bit of a problem with this. ; ) The only...

Any chance of a link?

No it wasn’t. ; ) There was never a plan to recomposit or re-render any CGI or composite shots on B5. No one who has ever worked on the show has ever said there was. It’s one of those fan created myths – all-be-it a widely repeated one. Here's a bit of what John Copeland said when asked...

This is an argument (or point of view) that I’ve seen discussed in a number of places and approached in a number of ways. Personally I believe it’s a terrible idea. Babylon 5 was a product of it’s time. Like it or not, one of the main reasons why the show was a success was the use of CGI –...

@ destron1 The story behind the creation of Babylon 5 is much more complex than a casual browser or casual fan of the show realises. It’s easy to believe many of the little (and big) myths that surround the show such as jms had the 5 year story (AS IT APPEARS ON SCREEN) worked out in advance...

Ripped-Off!!!! You don’t want to go there. ; ) Remember, the guy who designed the Omega also designed the Cortez deep space explorer and didn’t include any ‘nod’ of acknowledgement to Syd Mead’s design for the Leonov (and we’re only talking about one element - the rotating section here), but...

Arthur C. Clark’s work is clearly translated to the technology of the show!? How did you come to that conclusion. Because of one similarity between one design used in 2010 and one used in Babylon 5!?

That’s the one. But it was also a line used a little before it - when it’s mentioned the Shadows technology was centuries ahead of their own so how could they hope to find a cure within 5 years, and they knew that there was races at least as old as the shadows out there. It’s sounds a bit like...