vs size comparison chart

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-09-07 04:26pm

Paradox244 wrote:The impression I got was that the plastic look was just bad CGI.

It is indeed dated CGI. Of course, that doesn't mean it wouldn't work better and be more original to explain it that way, anyway.

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » 2007-09-07 06:53pm

I always thought Shadow spiders look pretty cool actually. As for a logical explanation to their appearance I don't think that is really neccesary. F-117 Nighthawk might look like a retarded design if you are looking at aerodynamic performance. It is equally possible that there is an advantage in using such shapes which is not immediately apparent.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-07 07:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:That's only an "explanation" in the sense that "God did it" is an explanation for lightning. It's not a meaningful explanation; it's just something you wallpaper on top of what was obviously a cheesy stylistic decision. It doesn't make it appear to be a logical design decision.

It's a rationalisation along the same lines as Trek ship hull forms; claiming that invented/imaginary physics is the reason things have to be shaped that way. Of course in neither case is this imaginary physics detailed well enough for the art designers to produce anything consistent - high warp in Trek seems to involve something like aerodynamic streamlining (except for races who are mysteriously exempt, like the Borg), whereas the best we can say for B5 is a rather pathetic 'really advanced tech usually involves lots of spindly bits'.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-09-08 04:22am

Or 'The First Ones, shadows particularly, don't care about efficiency so much as scaring people.' The shape of the battlecrab seems to make a distinct impression on most of the characters. Some of the other first ones' ships in Into the Fire look much more logical.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2007-09-08 07:02am

NecronLord wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:That's because they are the UBER ORGANIC!!!11!!.
Urk. You know, the Vorlon ships always looked more like some sort of shapeshifting plastic to me, than anything organic.

Which would have been far more interesting, less silly, and cooler anyway.

But plastics are organic

It would be funny if all these "advanced" organic civilisations would actually make their ships out of something like polyethylene. For great recyclability!

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-09-08 10:21am

Dooey Jo wrote:But plastics are organic

True, (and a neat justification for me mentally dubbing 'organic' with 'plastic') but at least they make better construction materials than meat.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2007-09-08 09:41pm

Oh, I don't know. Every tried to chew a plastic toy?

I personally find the size comparison charts from the OP a little 'lacking' in quality.

Then againn, could just be my webbrowser.

Alien-Carrot · Post by **Alien-Carrot** » 2007-09-08 10:30pm

Of course, I like the look of the Omega. Even though something like Rama would make infinitely more sense.

got a good pic of Rama? i did a google search and all i got was some hindu god.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-08 10:33pm

Alien-Carrot wrote:got a good pic of Rama? i did a google search and all i got was some hindu god.

There's always the book covers.

first book
third book

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-09-09 07:17am

Alien-Carrot wrote:got a good pic of Rama? i did a google search and all i got was some hindu god.

The books' descriptions are pretty explicit. Rama is a rotating featureless cylinder.

Starglider wrote:There's always the book covers.

first book
third book

There was a trilogy? ... of course: "Ramans do everything in threes."

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-09 09:13am

Surlethe wrote:There was a trilogy? ... of course: "Ramans do everything in threes."

There were four books, and they got progressively worse. The first one was decent, though not Clarke's best work. The second one was tolerable, if bland. The third one was pretty bad. The fourth one was a steaming pile of shit. Clarke absolutely lost it and started pushing ludicrous religious crap as the main plotline, the central characters got progressively more and more annoying, the tech went from mysterious and interesting to lackluster, it was just a total FUBAR.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-09-09 11:00am

I think I stopped, on popular advice, at two. So I've a pretty good impression of the books.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-10 04:47pm

Starglider wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:That's only an "explanation" in the sense that "God did it" is an explanation for lightning. It's not a meaningful explanation; it's just something you wallpaper on top of what was obviously a cheesy stylistic decision. It doesn't make it appear to be a logical design decision.
It's a rationalisation along the same lines as Trek ship hull forms; claiming that invented/imaginary physics is the reason things have to be shaped that way. Of course in neither case is this imaginary physics detailed well enough for the art designers to produce anything consistent - high warp in Trek seems to involve something like aerodynamic streamlining (except for races who are mysteriously exempt, like the Borg), whereas the best we can say for B5 is a rather pathetic 'really advanced tech usually involves lots of spindly bits'.

Back in the 1970s, almost everyone who watched Star Trek simply assumed that nacelles produced horrible radiation or destructive fields, which is why they were separated from the main engineering section. And they similarly assumed that the main engineering section was probably flooded with some kind of nasty radiation too, which is why it was separated from the saucer section where people spent most of their time. While it wasn't exactly the best design, it was not difficult for people to quickly come up with some kind of justification for why the ship would look that way. No one can even attempt such a thing with the B5 organowank designs.

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2007-09-12 02:57pm

Starglider wrote:
Surlethe wrote:There was a trilogy? ... of course: "Ramans do everything in threes."
There were four books, and they got progressively worse. The first one was decent, though not Clarke's best work. The second one was tolerable, if bland. The third one was pretty bad. The fourth one was a steaming pile of shit. Clarke absolutely lost it and started pushing ludicrous religious crap as the main plotline, the central characters got progressively more and more annoying, the tech went from mysterious and interesting to lackluster, it was just a total FUBAR.

I've always found Arthur C. Clarke to be greatly overrated. I guess I should be grateful to have never read the 'Rendezvous With Rama' novels.

Drowsong · Post by **Drowsong** » 2007-09-12 10:43pm

Alien-Carrot wrote:[...] and like stark said, there is no way to compare unicron to anything but a deathstar or dyson sphere.

HE'S A FUCKING PLANET FOR EMPERORS SAKE.

Actually, when he said "including Unicron (for whom there is basically no consistent scaling even POSSIBLE)"

I think he was referring to the fact that Unicron seems to actually change scale dramatically in the movie (I'm talking the animated one from the 1980s). It shows he's planet-sized in the beginning. However, near the end when they are fighting him, the fact that you can even see the other transformers (and their ships) flying around him as larger than insignificant specks, would imply he is much smaller.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-09-12 10:52pm

That's right, there's no consistencey to his portrayl in the source, so scaling is impossible. In the comics he's MORE consistent, but the cartoon movie is crazy.

Let's not forget the Dinobots 'kicking his ass', where they appeared relatively almost as large as the spacecraft they arrived in.