 |
|
Space05us
|
|
Star Wars for the coolness factor
Star Trek for the geekness factor
and
Babylon5 for the OMG look I can rip off Star Trek and do a better job than they did even though thier budget most likely surpasses mine by like a billion dollars - ness factor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pchang
is pretty lame about projecting the future of weaponry and warfare. Just take a look at Starship Troopers. In the book, each infrantry man is an incredible fighting machine armed with tactical nukes. In the movie, they might have spaceships, but they are no better armored and armed than current day US Army Rangers.
Have you ever seen the destructive power of the 30mm gun on an A-10 (firing depleted uranium rounds)? It is far more destructive than any sci-fi weapon I have ever seen on TV or the movies. Don't you think people who can regularly cross the distance between stars could do better than that for an infantry weapon?
Some other things that really bother me
Beam Weapons:
If they fire out a continuous beam of destructive power, why don't they ever sweep the weapon while firing? |
Sometimes they do; in Wrath of Khan the Enterprise takes sweeping beam damage a couple time, and they took advantage of it at least a few times in later series. In B5, shadow vessels always swept their beam.
I think the logical reason most don't sweep is because with beam weapons, time on target = penetration; that is, longer it focuses on a single spot, the deeper it can penetrate and the more damge it can do. In most shows, shield and/or armor tech keeps up with the beam tech, so the extra penetration is needed. Sweeping would occur when the beam is powerful enough to do extensive damage without concentration -- like most Federation ships with shields down, the destroyer attack on passenger ships in B5, or shadow vessel attacks against...well, pretty much anything.
quote:
Smart Weapons:
Our hit rates have gone up by an order of magnitude in the last 20 years. Why do hit rates in the future stay the same or get worse? |
Don't ask me to explain hand weaons, I can't.
However, shipboard weapons have to deal with much greater speeds and ranges than we have today; in addition, spoofing --fooling sensors -- probably has a lot to do with it as well (it certainly did in B5, where Earth vessels could not even target Minbari vessels.
quote:
Rapid fire:
Why are do most weapons of the future fire single shots? Even the ones that are rapid fire have a slower rate of fire than current day weapons. |
You have to consider the power involved. Given a fixed, finite power source (to keep it simple), you can fire a single burst at x power (where x equals all avaible power in that time frame), or y bursts at x/y power. Power = penetration = damage, but higher rates of fire give a greater chance of any particular burst hitting, so the designers must strike a balance between the two.
Constant beam weapons are the ultimate in rapid fire, and consequently have relatively sucky penetration (as I noted above)
quote:
Over the Horizon:
Current day weapons routinely target enemies beyond the field of view (over the horizon). Why are weapons of the future limited to line of sight? |
They're beam weapons. Short of banking one off a black hole, shooting around things isn't gonna happen.
Missles/torpedos are another matter, and in most sci-fi I've seen they manuver and track just fine, unless spoofed.
Last edited by The Mad Monk on 05-06-2004 at 10:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
The Ewoks definitely were the first signs of Lucas' decline as a film-maker, this is true. But despite this, RotJ was my favorite Star Wars movie ever.
what I am really curious about is if Lucas might take all the criticism of the prequels to heart, and really pour his heart into making an Episode III that is at least somewhat of the same quality as the originals. So that perhaps, he can retire on a postive note knowing that he brought back some of the old Star Wars magic. It's just like the old adage of film-making goes: your movie can have it's flaws, but if you wow them in the last act, you have will have a hit.
I don't really think Lucas cares enough to try anymore, in fact, I don't know if he is even still capable of making a good movie if he wanted to. In fact, some of the things I have heard about Episode III sounded really cheesy, but who knows? You just never know.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
The Ewoks definitely were the first signs of Lucas' decline as a film-maker, this is true. But despite this, RotJ was my favorite Star Wars movie ever.
what I am really curious about is if Lucas might take all the criticism of the prequels to heart, and really pour his heart into making an Episode III that is at least somewhat of the same quality as the originals. So that perhaps, he can retire on a postive note knowing that he brought back some of the old Star Wars magic. It's just like the old adage of film-making goes: your movie can have it's flaws, but if you wow them in the last act, you have will have a hit.
I don't really think Lucas cares enough to try anymore, in fact, I don't know if he is even still capable of making a good movie if he wanted to. In fact, some of the things I have heard about Episode III sounded really cheesy, but who knows? You just never know. |
He'll win back alot of people if he dedicates atleast a half an hour examining why the gungans aren't in 4 5 or 6.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:36
|
|
ST movies in rank order: II, IV, III, VI, I. V not worth rating. As a group they win over SW.
ST series in rank order: Original, DS9, TNG; Voyager barely worth rating. Enterprise not worth rating.
SW movies in rank order: SW (IV), RotJ (V). Others not worth rating. SW wins for ground-breaking effects, so much so that I feel sorry for people who didn't live the experience of seeing it for the first time.
B5 was good for a change-up. Interesting to have a series with a closed story line that didn't get ridiculous.
Andromeda got ridiculous in the first season, and has grown moreso with each season. Nothing else on TV late night Sunday, otherwise I woudn't watch.
Blade Runner—coolest sci fi movie to date, a real plot, possibly the best cinematography for sci fi to date.
2001—broke ground, shattered old space opera mold.
Forbidden Planet—broke out of the old space opera mold. Excellent cinematography and a real plot.
The Day the Earth Stood Still—again a break from the space opera genre. A tad preachy, but in such a surprising way.
Outland—shotguns in space. Somewhat realistic look on near future space exploitation. Traveller, anyone?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2004 01:07
ACK!
|