Text 16521, 81 rader
Skriven 2007-08-01 19:59:42 av Josh Hill (2997.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 16510 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (2986.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Nimoy at SDCC: "It was logical!"
============================================
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:40:42 -0400, "John W. Kennedy"
<jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:15:55 -0400, "John W. Kennedy"
>> <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>>> Which reminds me of a pet peeve: why do shows set in the future
>>>> usually contain design elements that are firmly rooted in the present?
>
>>> Have you forgotten /why/ Dr. McCoy's futuristic instruments were really 
>>> salt shakers?
>
>> But we're talking CGI and paintbox here and a studio shoot, so I don't
>> think that cost is a significant factor. Mimbar and Cenaturi Prime
>> look different, why not 24th century Manhattan?
>
>You /have/ forgotten.
>
>The salt shakers were purchased at gift shoppes, etc., as props for "The 
>Man Trap", to be used as -- futuristic-looking salt shakers. But when it 
>came to filming the scene, a problem came up. They were all so 
>futuristic, that it would have been necessary to introduce some kind of 
>stupid line saying, "This is a salt shaker." So they gave up on them, 
>and just used a regular glass-and-cap salt shaker from the studio 
>commissary. That the futuristic salt shakers were then made into medical 
>instruments was simply canny recovery on a bad investment.

Ah, yes, you're right -- I had. But I doubt that 24th-century
buildings would be unrecognizable to 21st-century eyes, and even if
they were, well, a) we're told it's New York City and provided with
some recognizable landmarks and b) the Paintbox buildings could be
familiar enough to recognizable and yet display a new and unique sense
of style, as in the case of the alien capitals.

>>>> Those NYC skyscrapers in TLT could have been in the rebuilding plans
>>>> for Ground Zero. The architecture and fashions of 2300 will presumably
>>>> be as different from ours as the architecture and fashions of 1700.
>
>>> As long as there are cities, the dominating element of architecture on 
>>> Manhattan Island is going to be the vertical.
>
>>> And architecture does tend to be conservative. There have really been 
>>> only two schools of architecture in western history that have lasted.
>
>> The Parthenon, the Pantheon, and the Capitol in Washington are all
>> classical buildings, but no one would mistake one for the other.
>> Conversely, the Flatiron Building is classically inspired while the
>> Woolworth Building is gothic, yet they have enough in common so that
>> they're easily recognized by even the naive eye as belonging to the
>> same period of skyscraper construction and, in fact, the same borough
>> of the same city. Conversely, I don't think that anybody would mistake
>> the Woolworth building for the Empire State Building for the World
>> Trade Center for the Feedom Tower, erected though they were (or will
>> be) in the course of only a century or so. They're as easily
>> distinguished by era as clothing is.
>
>And perhaps the buildings of 2300 are just as easily distinguished -- by 
>the natives. To my eye, there is considerable variation when I examine 
>them closely.

One doesn't have to be a native to distinguish this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Woolworth_Building.jpg

from this:

http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/freedom%20tower%202.jpg

A few blocks and a century apart, but they could almost be from
different planets.


-- 
Josh

"Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is
good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
	-- Samuel Johnson
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)