Text 16863, 149 rader
Skriven 2007-08-07 22:26:22 av Mac Breck (3340.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: "Babylon 5: The Lost Tales" - A Review (SPOILER Warning)
====================================================================
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r77ib3tsusah448j6gkgl5tl3ian2rfefa@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:15:46 -0400, "Mac Breck"
> <macthevorlon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ><StarFuryG7@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:1186453959.549081.187230@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> ***: I don't give much away, but read at your own risk
> >> nonetheless if you haven't seen this movie as yet.***
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >I COMPLETELY disagree with that.  The ONLY things in the B5:LotR
pilot
> >that were better, was the fact that they had SETS, real, physical
sets
> >in the B5:LotR pilot;  and Dulann's line about Tannier having been
given
> >command of The Valen, David's priceless, offscreen reaction, and
> >Dulann's innocent reply.
> >
> >In B5-TLT, IMHO, every space shot and model is exquisite.  Ditto for
the
> >planetary background on Minbar.  Hyperspace/Quantumspace entry and
exit
> >vortices, and the almost fabric-like nature of that space itself, are
> >the best I've ever seen.  :D
> >
> >Where the CGI in B5:TLT falls down is the background of Lochley's
> >quarters, the hallways in the first story (except for the hallway in
the
> >very first scene, which looked better than the rest) and the docking
bay
> >in both stories.  In all of those cases, the CGI backgrounds just
didn't
> >look real.  In Lochley's quarters, the lamps looked almost 2D, and
the
> >lampshades looked like one was made and then copied to make the
other,
> >and both were perfectly symmetrical and sharply edged.  The
background
> >looked like an illustration in a magazine, 2D.  Same for the
hallways.
> >They looked too sterile, with an almost "Star Trek: Enterprise" feel
to
> >them.
>
> Both the corridor and the window wall in Lochley's quarters were sets,
> though. Maybe CGI would have been more realistic . . .

A piece of a corridor was a set (doorway and a length of wall), the rest
was CGI.  I don't think the background behind the couch where Lochley
and the priest were sitting was a set.  That's what I'm talking about.
If it was a set, they managed to make it look fake.



> >To me, the docking bay looked too much like a matte painting.
> >Yes, if you looked closely and viewed the scenes several times, you
> >could see that almost all the "people" were moving, and moving fairly
> >believably, but putting the moving fake people next to the moving
real
> >people, Lochley and the priest, and Sheridan and Prince Vintari, made
> >the fake people "look like" animation.  IMHO, the docking bay scenes
> >would have looked better (flaws less apparent) if they'd been less
> >brightly lit, less uniformly lit, and shorter in duration.  The
docking
> >bay needs dirtied-up, and some differences, physical flaws and
details
> >introduced (e.g. scraped paint, caution tape, warning signs, debris
on
> >the floor, maintenance materials lying around, etc.).  Those little
> >added touches would make it look more real.
>
> Guess I'm the only one who liked the docking bay.

I didn't hate it.  It's just that it took me out of the moment,
prevented me from continuing to suspend disbelief.  In contrast, the
distant, Eilerson cliff scene in Crusade's "War Zone", didn't take me
out of the moment as much because all the distant, moving people were
relatively the same size and moved similarly.  Except for the odd moment
in B5 when an actor chewed the scenery and a wall moved a bit, B5
Seasons 1 thru 5 made me feel like we really were on a space station.
It felt REAL.

If Lochley, the priest, Sheridan and Vintari, shown far away in the
docking bay, walking/running on the ramp towards camera, were CGI,
somebody did a helluva good job in making them look real.  It looked
like they scaled down actual footage of those actors and put them in the
CGI scene.


> >One more thing, the destruction scene at NYC was nothing compared to
> >what a Vorlon or Shadow planetkiller could do.  Galen's line was off
the
> >mark because of that.  Both Sheridan and Galen have seen what those
> >planetkillers could do.  Heck, even the Centauri use of mass-drivers
at
> >Narn did worse.  Also, those beams would have looked better if they'd
> >blown up buildings with attendant smoke, fire and flying debris.  In
> >action, it just didn't look like those beams were doing much.
>
> Had the same reaction to the destruction of NYC. Why would it take
> 1000 ships to destroy the planet? But there's something to be said for
> the visuals, and those beams could presumably cover a lot of area.

Seemed like even with 1000 ships, it'd take awhile.  Compare that to one
shot from the Vorlon Planetkiller.  One shot and it's rubble, an
asteroid field.



> But
> then, I was kind of disappointed by the Shadow planet killer. I mean,
> wouldn't races millions of years old have developed something more
> lethal than hydrogen bombs?

Re. the Shadow Planetkiller, it's a case of huge yield H-bombs,
delivered from all directions, burrowing inward to the planet's core
before exploding.  Each race had a planetkiller that was kind of in-line
with its own philosophy.  Vorlon, orderly, one superbeam.  Shadows,
shoot 'em from all sides, chaos.


-- 
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Galen: "There is always hope, only because it's the one thing that no
one has figured out how to kill yet."

"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)