Babylon 5 film...

Still not convinced, 90% of it was straigth from the series. They
missed a chnage to reveal lots more and introduce some more plot lines. The
extra bits were almost fillers and didn't go anywhere. I hope the next
ones have a bit original content.

You can make films that stand alone - star trek did and as for the
"The story so far..." comment. What did happened before: isn't it
called "The Beginning" i.e. prequel to the series.

Daniel

=====================================================================

Nortel Ltd, E-Mail : celano@
London Road, TEL : (01279) 405316
Harlow, FAX : (01279) 405070
Essex.

=====================================================================

That was my feeling as well. The film was essentially an excuse to have lots
of good CGI graphics of Minbari warships blowing Earthforce ships up. We
knew the basic story, we knew what happened to whom, when, why and so on.

Was I the only one who missed a major plot fuck-up? The Minbari grey council
allegedly suspected Minbari souls where being reincarnated as Humans before
they kidnapped Sinclair. They only choose Sinclair to confirm what they
suspected. They also supposedly did not know Sinclair was Valen as this is
only alluded to in the series when B4 appears in the previous shadow war.
Note that even Delenn expresses amazement when Marcus utters the famous
"Minbari not born of Minbari" line as Sinclair goes time travelling. Yet
Delenn is present when Sinclair is interrogated in the Film.
Just glad they never used it launch spin-off series.
Agreed. But it was a good film though.

And next week we pull apart Lost In Space.

Dave Barlow

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Dave Barlow wrote:
Well we didn't know about Malari's involvement. We didn't know Delenn's
master's secret. Thats at least two things that were new to the film, that
are very plot relevent.
They never said outright that Sinclair was Valen in the film. They merely
waved that funny device at him, which reacted violently to which they
assumed he was in someway related to Valen and had a Minbari soul.
Pah - I liked it *8).

Chris

---

christ@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

On Monday, August 10, 1998 5:42 PM, Dave Barlow
[SMTP:thed@] wrote:

[ comments like 'could be better', 'disappointed' ]
[ blardy, blardy, blar... lots of high-minded plot analysis
]
[ more criticism ]
<laughs out loud>

Please witness high minded plot analysis being dashed on
the rocks of entertainment.
8-)

---

Matthew Houghton

Matt

I could easily have just said, it was "a crap film with nothing new except
the SFX" or "JMS does it again. A brilliant film leading the way in SF".
Either way it would be subjective and no doubt some one would have disagreed
with me as they thought the film and series is the best/worst thing around.

Yes it was entertaining, I also found Men In Black entertaining and the Star
Trek films entertaining, Asteroid was entertaining for different reasons. It
does not mean I can find fault with them though and share my comments with
the list.
Do you object to my criticism?
So you think it was a bad film and contradict yourself.

Please witness a puerile attempt at a humorous put down dashed on the rocks
of self contradiction.

Dave "Plan 9 from Outer Space was entertaining" Barlow

On Tuesday, August 11, 1998 9:53 AM, Dave Barlow
[SMTP:thed@] wrote:
[ defensive outburst snipped ]
See below.
Don't criticise yourself so. Your argument isn't that bad!
8-)

But seriously:

1. It wasn't a 'put down'. I was merely pointing out how
silly the discussion sounds when two people (yourself and
Daniel, in this example) are criticising and pulling apart
a film in minute detail (something that I often do myself)
and then one of them says "But it was a good film though".
It just tickled me.

I wasn't 'putting you down' or even your argument, I was
merely amused. The only thing that can be inferred from '<
laughs out loud >' is that the writer is amused - nothing
more, nothing less.

2. At no point did any of my comments state/infer/imply my
opinion of the film in any way whatsoever. Hence, nothing
to contradict, let alone self-contradict!

Now let's all get back to slagging-o... errr....
criticising the film.

Please witness a potential flame war dashed on the rocks of
common sense.

---

Matthew Houghton

<snips>
Oh! I was so looking forward to a flame^H^H^H^H^H^H frank exchange of views.

Witness a disgruntled pedantic egoist stamping his foot like a 2 year old at
the outrage of not being able to get his way. I'm going home and taking my
toys with me, so there.

Dave "bad morning, very bad morning, do we have an NFS/DHCP expert in the
house?" Barlow

Tech support, how did we get into it, how do we get out?

I enjoyed lost in space ! Plot - minimal but a bit of a laugh !
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Ayres
E-Mail: payres@
Web Site: www.netcomuk.co.uk/~payres
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Philip Ayres said:
I thought they'd missed the whole point of the series - that Dr Smith
invented so many amusing insulting names for the robot. There are even
entire websites devoted to this fact... see

http://www2.netdoor.com/~gshute/DrSmith2.htm

for example.

Other than that, it was a pretty good film
[listenning carefully for matt's laughter]

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
No matter what result is anticipated, someone will always fit facts to it.

Dave Barlow said:
CGI? CGI as in the interface for programs to appear on the web?

Do you mean SGI? Silicon Graphics International or whatever?

Last I knew, all the graphics were rendered using LightWave on a
network of about a dozen Video Toaster machines, otherwise known as
Amiga 3000s with a 24-bit framebuffer and a different sticker on the
front of the case... But that's not the point.

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
All things considered, insanity may be the only reasonable alternative.

The B5 effects teams, both at Foundation and at NDI, use Lightwave 3D by
NewTek and specialized software to design and render the visual effects. For
the pilot, the effects were rendered on a network of Amiga computers; later,
Foundation used 12 Pentium PCs and 5 DEC Alpha workstations for 3D rendering
and design, and 3 Macintoshes for piecing together on-set computer displays.
The NDI team uses a similar array of equipment; see George Johnsen's
comments below.

CGI space scenes are clearer and have more realistic movement than model
shots. Some interior shots such as docking bays are "virtual sets" combining
live action with computer imagery. Computer-generated aliens make regular
appearances on the show as well.

-------
So they use Lightwave for the better effects and CGI Graphics for others. I
am trying to remember what CGI stood for in this context.

Dave "I was no talking about Common Graphics Interface" Barlow

Of course I really meant Common Gateway interface.

Dave "silly bunt" Barlow