The original Battlestar Galactica series is even more painful to watch 
as a veteran than it was as a civilian.

My wife is watching the original Battlestar Galactica series on NetFlix. 
  (I want to watch Yellow Submarine, but who am I?)

The science howlers are too numerous to list here.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 24/06/2012 10:35 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> The science howlers are too numerous to list here.

That is Hollywood for you. ;-)
And SF movies in general.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24/06/2012 10:44 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/06/2012 10:35 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> The science howlers are too numerous to list here.
>
> That is Hollywood for you. ;-)
> And SF movies in general.

Pick, oh I don't know, ANY FILM involving space ships. Immediately we 
have a raft of question:

- Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?

- Why do they come to a stop if the engine stops working?

- Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?

- Why are they so flammable in a vacuum?

- Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?

Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold, 
dark vacuum), tractor beams (how would that work?), teleporters (um...) 
and so forth.

If you actually stop and analyse the details of all these things... 
damn, you wouldn't be able to watch much. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> If you actually stop and analyse the details of all these things...
> damn, you wouldn't be able to watch much. ;-)

True, and that is why we have the phrase suspension of disbelief. But 
some of the howlers are like a slap in the face with a wet fish. Maybe 
one of the reasons I don’t watch SF movies.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?

It's a filming convention.

You don't complain if you hear, for example, two people speaking inside
a restaurant even though the "camera" is filming them from outside, through
the window. Realistically speaking what you should hear is the sound of
traffic and no dialogue, but instead it's the other way around. Yet how
many people complain about this being "unrealistic"?

None, because it's a filming convention. There is no camera, there is no
microphone, and the convention is that the soundtrack depicts the sounds
heard by the subjects being shown on the picture. If it's two people
talking, the soundtrack depicts their conversation. Likewise if the picture
shows a spaceship, the soundtrack depicts what can be generally heard inside
the spaceship (ie. the humming of the propulsion system or whatever).

Remember, there is no "camera" nor "microphone" in the vacuum of space
(in the fictional reality of the film), so expecting them to behave like
they were would be the unrealistic thing to do.

(Not that this cannot be done effectively as well. Space Odyssey 2001 did
it quite well. However, that can be considered just another filming
convention.)

> - Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?

Care to give an example?

> - Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?

It can be justified in that many of those spaceships also need to fly in
atmospheric conditions.

> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold, 
> dark vacuum)

What do you mean?

(Besides, vacuum is not cold. It has no temperature because there's nothing
to have any temperature.)

> tractor beams (how would that work?)

Why not? Even mundane things like magnetism work. It's not completely
inconceivable that in the distant future other forms of action at a
distance are developed/discovered.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 11:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?
>
> It's a filming convention.

Still doesn't really explain why all ships have to make that low 
rumbling "I'm moving through space" noise, but hey...

> (Not that this cannot be done effectively as well. Space Odyssey 2001 did
> it quite well. However, that can be considered just another filming
> convention.)

I was waiting for somebody to mention the ONE TIME IN FILM HISTORY that 
this was done right. ;-)

>> - Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?
>
> Care to give an example?

I literally can't find the image I'm looking for, but near the end of 
Star Wars Episode I, when the "driod control ship" blows up from the 
inside, the pieces all dramatically sink downwards... despite the planet 
clearly being BEHIND the ship, not BELOW it.

(While we're on the subject, why do ships always park perpendicular to 
the surface of a planet's equator rather than parallel to it anyway?)

>> - Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?
>
> It can be justified in that many of those spaceships also need to fly in
> atmospheric conditions.

Yeah, that one I'll give you.

>> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold,
>> dark vacuum)
>
> What do you mean?

On Earth, you could conceivably render yourself invisible by simply 
emitting less radiation than your surroundings. (And by somehow curving 
nearby light around yourself. And making less sound than your surroundings.)

In outer space, which is perfectly jet black apart from a few tiny 
points of light, it's going to be a tad difficult to not emit a single 
stray photon of thermal radiation. A space ship is presumably quite hot. 
Certainly a damn site hotter than what little dark matter is floating 
around out there. I'm also unsure whether you can shield the /outside/ 
world from radio-frequency signals emanating from /inside/ a structure. 
(These ships have computers, right?)

>> tractor beams (how would that work?)
>
> Why not? Even mundane things like magnetism work. It's not completely
> inconceivable that in the distant future other forms of action at a
> distance are developed/discovered.

It's not completely impossible, just a little unlikely, that's all. I 
will agree, compared to faster-than-light travel, solid matter 
teleportation, and subspace radio communications, this is one of the 
more plausible ideas. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 11:53 AM, Invisible wrote:

> I literally can't find the image I'm looking for

What I /did/ find, however, was this:

http://tinyurl.com/744s9cu

Given that this wasn't even what I was searching for... Well, apparently 
some people feel quite strongly about the matter.

Also:

http://tinyurl.com/6wp9lzf

Anyone can say Episode I sucked. It's more difficult to articulate 
exactly /why/ it sucked. I especially like how one guy managed to 
describe ways to /improve/ it, and that actually seemed really insightful.

(OTOH, I don't agree with all the comments. E.g., the kid playing 
Manikin Skylark was at least as wooden as the internationally renowned 
actors he co-stared with. I don't see what the big deal about 
midichlorians is; considering all the fatal failings of the film, this 
is the /least/ of my worries. And so on.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 25/06/2012 11:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?
> >
> > It's a filming convention.

> Still doesn't really explain why all ships have to make that low 
> rumbling "I'm moving through space" noise, but hey...

Why do all cars make the same noise? Lack of imagination?

> I literally can't find the image I'm looking for, but near the end of 
> Star Wars Episode I, when the "driod control ship" blows up from the 
> inside, the pieces all dramatically sink downwards... despite the planet 
> clearly being BEHIND the ship, not BELOW it.

Perhaps the gravity generator malfunctioned?

> (While we're on the subject, why do ships always park perpendicular to 
> the surface of a planet's equator rather than parallel to it anyway?)

Why not?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 1:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> - Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?
>
This one actually makes some sense. There is solar wind, small objects, 
etc., all of which can either impact the ship, or slow it down, 
depending on direction of flight, so, even though the result may be 
relatively small, compared to atmospheric flight, there still exists a 
need to "push through" things in space, which means a lower cross 
section, in the direction you are flying, if you *at all* want to reduce 
fuel costs, or impact profile, etc.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 1:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold,
> dark vacuum), tractor beams (how would that work?), teleporters (um...)
> and so forth.
>
Not really. You are not trying to cloak the stuff that isn't there, just 
the stuff that is, which includes light, EM, and possibly your own 
signals. Interestingly, one of the recent Star Wars books did it right, 
in that cloaks, as we can do them, don't just leave the thing inside 
invisible, they render everything inside unable to see out, so there was 
a whole fleet, sitting and waiting, for a scout to finally slip in at 
their coordinates and say, "Ok, time to move", in the mean time, they 
all sat in the, literal, complete dark, looking at a black wall, with no 
idea what was going on outside.

As for tractor beams. The problem is, as mentioned, distance. Gravity 
can't be adjusted, yet, magnetism can, but has a short range, and 
doesn't work on non-metals, so you have some issues making it work. The 
biggest one is compensating for masses. Two ships of equal size would be 
pulled "towards" each other, unless one of them was intentionally 
thrusting away, to compensate. Surprisingly, a lot of Sci-Fi shows, and 
books, get this right. Others, just ignore it. None of them, in general, 
actually violate the rule, they just fail to explain that the "pulling" 
ship is either way larger, so relatively unaffected by mass, already 
traveling in the same direction, so only accelerating a bit in that same 
direction, or, most likely, reducing its speed/thrusting the opposite 
direction, to compensate.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 4:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> (OTOH, I don't agree with all the comments. E.g., the kid playing
> Manikin Skylark was at least as wooden as the internationally renowned
> actors he co-stared with. I don't see what the big deal about
> midichlorians is; considering all the fatal failings of the film, this
> is the /least/ of my worries. And so on.)

lol The way I figure it is, Midichlorians are sort of like mitochondria. 
No higher life is possible without them, but in the Star Wars universe, 
where spooky action at a distance is apparently very common, these small 
life forms developed a kind of nebulous "hive mind", of sorts, as well. 
Unlike mitochondria, the number that exist in the body vary from person 
to person. The more you have, in principle, the stronger you "hear" this 
hive mind, and, in turn, the more you can nudge it into doing things for 
you.

Some species, interestingly enough, may have very high counts, but 
instead of developing Jedi like abilities, they developed "defenses". 
One book described using the Jedi Mind Trick on one of the races, like 
the blue flying one on Episode I, as like reaching out and finding 
nothing was there. Later books include a species that developed this 
defense, as prey animals (non-sentient), on a world with a lot of 
predators, some of them force sensitive, to an extent that they 
literally "short circuit" force abilities nearby. You try to force leap 
past a tree with one of them in it, and you end up in the swamp, instead 
of on the next patch of dry land, since the "push" you are giving 
yourself literally fails, the moment you come into their sphere of 
influence.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 4:28 AM, Warp wrote:
>> I literally can't find the image I'm looking for, but near the end of
>> Star Wars Episode I, when the "driod control ship" blows up from the
>> inside, the pieces all dramatically sink downwards... despite the planet
>> clearly being BEHIND the ship, not BELOW it.
>
> Perhaps the gravity generator malfunctioned?
>

If it was generating artificial gravity, then only the structural 
integrity of the ship would keep every part of it from being "thrown" in 
the direction of that artificial gravity. So, it wouldn't even need to 
malfunction, just keep working, long enough for the structure to fail, 
and all the parts to "sink" towards where "down" was.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Not really. You are not trying to cloak the stuff that isn't there, just 
> the stuff that is, which includes light, EM, and possibly your own 
> signals. Interestingly, one of the recent Star Wars books did it right, 
> in that cloaks, as we can do them, don't just leave the thing inside 
> invisible, they render everything inside unable to see out, so there was 
> a whole fleet, sitting and waiting, for a scout to finally slip in at 
> their coordinates and say, "Ok, time to move", in the mean time, they 
> all sat in the, literal, complete dark, looking at a black wall, with no 
> idea what was going on outside.

That reminds me of the fridge logic about the Invisible Man story (and all
of its incarnations, such as the movie Hollow Man).

How is the invisible man able to see anything?

We see because our eyes focus light onto our retinas. Now, the invisible
man's eyes neither focus light, nor do their retinas catch any of it. The
light just goes through without modification.

Even if the retinas did catch light (which they don't because they would
by definition become visible if they did), it would still not help him see
anything because his eyes are not focusing the light properly (if they did,
they would also become visible as a distortion, like floating lenses; no
matter how transparent the lenses are, you can still see them due to how
they distort the background.)

Even if invisibility of a human were physically possible, it would make the
person completely blind.

(The only pseudoplausible way out of this conundrum is if the invisibility
were only on the visible light spectrum, but his eyes could still catch eg.
infrared ok. However, that would require a physical modification of the
retinas to be able to see infrared light, which would be a problem all in
itself. Also, I think it would probably also break some law of physics if
his body were to let visible light through unhindered but react to infrared
light normally. This is probably something physically impossible.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/06/2012 10:11 AM, Warp wrote:

> How is the invisible man able to see anything?

> Even if the retinas did catch light (which they don't because they would
> by definition become visible if they did), it would still not help him see
> anything because his eyes are not focusing the light properly (if they did,
> they would also become visible as a distortion.

Many very small sea creatures are nearly completely invisible because 
they are transparent and they match seawater's salinity. Often the only 
really visible part is... the eyes.

> (The only pseudoplausible way out of this conundrum is if the invisibility
> were only on the visible light spectrum, but his eyes could still catch eg.
> infrared ok. However, that would require a physical modification of the
> retinas to be able to see infrared light, which would be a problem all in
> itself.

Well, if we postulate not an invisible "man", but an invisibility suit, 
there's no particular problem with the suit having infrared goggles.

> Also, I think it would probably also break some law of physics if
> his body were to let visible light through unhindered but react to infrared
> light normally. This is probably something physically impossible.)

I don't know. People have built things like antenna arrays with have a 
negative index of refraction at radio wavelengths, but (obviously) 
behave perfectly normally at visible wavelengths. Whether you could make 
something that does not affect radiation /at all/ over one specific band 
is another matter, I'll admit...

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 1:14, Invisible wrote:
> tractor beams (how would that work?),

If you can stand on the flat deck in outer space, chances are you can work 
out a tractor beam.
-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 3:07, Warp wrote:
>> - Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?
>
> Care to give an example?

Any starship enterprise when it loses power and spirals out of orbit.

>> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold,
>> dark vacuum)
>
> What do you mean?

How do you get rid of your heat?

> (Besides, vacuum is not cold. It has no temperature because there's nothing
> to have any temperature.)

Not true. If you're at thermal equilibrium, then you're at the same heat as 
the surroundings. If you're orbiting mercury, your thermal equilibrium will 
be much higher than if you're orbiting pluto.

FWIW, I used to think vacuum has no temperature also. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> In outer space, which is perfectly jet black apart from a few tiny
> points of light, it's going to be a tad difficult to not emit a single
> stray photon of thermal radiation. A space ship is presumably quite hot.
> Certainly a damn site hotter than what little dark matter is floating
> around out there. I'm also unsure whether you can shield the /outside/
> world from radio-frequency signals emanating from /inside/ a structure.
> (These ships have computers, right?)

In _Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country_, the Enterprise tracks a Klingon
ship by its exhaust.

Question is, why can't they do that in /every/ episode that has Klingons or
Romulans?  (Answer: because it would kill off a neat plot device.)
________________________

There are some suspensions of disbelief that are pretty standard for SF movies
with interstellar settings:
  - FTL travel and instantaneous communication across astronomical distances.
  - No G forces.  (_Star Trek: TNG_ addresses this with inertial dampeners.)
  - Nearly all intelligent life forms are humanoid.
  - Artificial gravity.
  - All habitable planets have a gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s².
  - The stars of all habitable planets radiate at 5800 K.  Except Krypton.
  - In interstellar space, there is enough lighting to see the ship's hull.
  - In _Star Trek_, the universal translator.  In other movies, aliens that
    speak English on first contact.

_Star Trek_ has a couple of irritants: planets are backlit with a large finish {
ambient }, and gaseous nebulae are dense enough to hide in.

In _Star Wars IV: A New Hope_, the _Millenium Falcon_ is said to go 0.5 past
light speed.  Not fast enough!

_ST:TNG_ episode "Who Watches the Watchers?" has an inhabited planet orbiting
the star Mintaka.  No can do!  Mintaka is a class O star IRL; in the unlikely
event that a planet can even form around such a star, such stars do not live
long enough for intelligent life to evolve.  (It was still an excellent
episode.)

_ST:TNG_ episode "The Next Phase" has so many scientific plot holes it whacks
you upside the head with a frozen fish.  Could not suspend disbelief.

_ST:TNG_ and _ST: Voyager_ have episodes where individuals evolve or devolve.
Evolution doesn't work that way.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/1/2012 9:15 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> In _Star Wars IV: A New Hope_, the _Millenium Falcon_ is said to go 0.5 past
> light speed.  Not fast enough!
>
This "assumes" you are talking about the literal speed of light, or a 
colloquialism. Lets say that a "light speed drive", to qualify, would 
cut down a trip of 10 light years to say 10 days. The same trip at .05 
past "light speed" would then be recognized, base on this metric, to the 
average traveler, as only taking 5 days instead. What the *actual* speed 
was, on this basis, isn't relevant, since its no a scientific measure 
being used, but a "common usage, meaning, X amount faster than the 
slower ship that can travel at 'light speeds'".

Yeah, I know. In reality its just one of many things that wasn't either 
bothered with, or which was "intentionally" left Buck Rogersish, so that 
it fit in with the sort of campy space travel of that era's TV shows, 
which tended to get everything wrong, including their predictions of 
what the future would even remotely look like. lol

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-07-02 00:15, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
> In _Star Wars IV: A New Hope_, the _Millenium Falcon_ is said to go 0.5 past
> light speed.  Not fast enough!
>

That's also the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. 
Which simply  means Han (or Lando!) took a short cut since parsecs are 
units of distances, not time.

> _ST:TNG_ and _ST: Voyager_ have episodes where individuals evolve or devolve.
> Evolution doesn't work that way.
>

Bah!  Evolution, mutation... It's all the same to a Hollywood script writer.

(Or Kentucky museum curator, but that's another topic)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> That's also the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.
> Which simply  means Han (or Lando!) took a short cut since parsecs are
> units of distances, not time.

PARallax arcSEConds.  According to which planetary orbit?  (Or are all planetary
orbits the same diameter because they are all in the habitable zone of a 5800 K
main sequence star?)

Along the same geocentric theme, Worf once welcomed a Klingon crew to the 24th
century.  What would "24th century" mean to a Klingon?  Or does the universal
translator take care of that?

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> Along the same geocentric theme, Worf once welcomed a Klingon crew to the 24th
> century.  What would "24th century" mean to a Klingon?  Or does the universal
> translator take care of that?

A klingon who was raised by humans, on earth, and spent most of his life amongst
humans... a better question would be what would "24th century" mean to any
federation citizen, given that they use a different calendar :)

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> > Along the same geocentric theme, Worf once welcomed a Klingon crew to the 24th
> > century.  What would "24th century" mean to a Klingon?  Or does the universal
> > translator take care of that?
>
> A klingon who was raised by humans, on earth, and spent most of his life amongst
> humans... a better question would be what would "24th century" mean to any
> federation citizen, given that they use a different calendar :)

Yes, but he was speaking to Klingons who weren't even members of a San
Francisco-based federation.  Don't they have multicultural sensitivity training
at Starfleet?

Post a reply to this message

On 09/07/2012 2:37 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Yes, but he was speaking to Klingons who weren't even members of a San
> Francisco-based federation.  Don't they have multicultural sensitivity training
> at Starfleet?

There's Klingons on the starboard bow...

Ah! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;
we come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 15 lines --]

> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > "Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> > > Along the same geocentric theme, Worf once welcomed a Klingon crew to the 24th
> > > century.  What would "24th century" mean to a Klingon?  Or does the universal
> > > translator take care of that?
> >
> > A klingon who was raised by humans, on earth, and spent most of his life amongst
> > humans... a better question would be what would "24th century" mean to any
> > federation citizen, given that they use a different calendar :)

> Yes, but he was speaking to Klingons who weren't even members of a San
> Francisco-based federation.  Don't they have multicultural sensitivity training
> at Starfleet?

I see no difference to, for example, Japanese and Chinese using and
understanding the western calendar, even though historically they have
had their own (and still have; eg. dates printed on money do not follow
the western calendar but their traditional ones).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > "Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> > > Along the same geocentric theme, Worf once welcomed a Klingon crew to the 24th
> > > century.  What would "24th century" mean to a Klingon?  Or does the universal
> > > translator take care of that?
> >
> > A klingon who was raised by humans, on earth, and spent most of his life amongst
> > humans... a better question would be what would "24th century" mean to any
> > federation citizen, given that they use a different calendar :)
>
> Yes, but he was speaking to Klingons who weren't even members of a San
> Francisco-based federation.  Don't they have multicultural sensitivity training
> at Starfleet?

Definitely not in Kirk's time! To be fair, it's difficult to see how worf would
make this mistake - he was always depicted as embracing his klingon heritage
with gusto to make up for his human upbringing.

Maybe the "24th century" line was supposed to have been universally translated
for the audience?

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 3:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 24/06/2012 10:44 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/06/2012 10:35 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> The science howlers are too numerous to list here.
>>
>> That is Hollywood for you. ;-)
>> And SF movies in general.
>
> Pick, oh I don't know, ANY FILM involving space ships. Immediately we
> have a raft of question:
>
> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?

Which reminds me.  Have the guys from Mythbusters ever detonated 
something in a vacuum chamber, with a microphone at the other end, to 
see if the mic picks up any sound?  It would be the only meaningful 
earth-bound test of whether explosions make noise in space.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 6/24/2012 4:44 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/06/2012 10:35 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> The science howlers are too numerous to list here.
>
> That is Hollywood for you. ;-)
> And SF movies in general.

Time for me to post a link to my SF cliches page.  I've had this up for 
over a dozen years:

http://evilsnack.byethost22.com/cliche.htm

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 7/8/2012 21:33, Stephen wrote:
> Ah! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOxcWR1y6E

Adam Jensen, Man of Peace.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 20/07/2012 12:14 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/8/2012 21:33, Stephen wrote:
>> Ah! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOxcWR1y6E
>
> Adam Jensen, Man of Peace.
>

Woosh!

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/21/2012 5:26, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/07/2012 12:14 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 7/8/2012 21:33, Stephen wrote:
>>> Ah! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOxcWR1y6E
>>
>> Adam Jensen, Man of Peace.
>>
>
> Woosh!
>

I'm not sure what you think whooshed. Did you watch the video to the end?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 22/07/2012 12:01 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you think whooshed. Did you watch the video to the end?

What went over my head was the link between the hypocrisy of “We come in 
peace, shoot to kill” and the psychopathic behaviour of Adam Jensen.
Yes I did watch it to the end and the only thing that struck me was the 
crappiness of the fighting. Block-pause-strike, even the 2D Prince of 
Persia was more fluid.
Not true that that was the only thing. The misogyny was unsettling too.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:46:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 22/07/2012 12:01 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what you think whooshed. Did you watch the video to the
>> end?
> 
> What went over my head was the link between the hypocrisy of “We come in
> peace, shoot to kill” and the psychopathic behaviour of Adam Jensen. Yes
> I did watch it to the end and the only thing that struck me was the
> crappiness of the fighting. Block-pause-strike, even the 2D Prince of
> Persia was more fluid.
> Not true that that was the only thing. The misogyny was unsettling too.

That's not a factor in the game itself, that's up to the individual 
player in this particular video.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/07/2012 8:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's not a factor in the game itself, that's up to the individual
> player in this particular video.

Shows how much I know about gaming. :-)

I wouldn't like to meet that individual in a dark ally. I might die of 
old age. Although I would like to see the meeting with Gail Shaw. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/22/2012 0:46, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/07/2012 12:01 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what you think whooshed. Did you watch the video to the e
nd?
>
> What went over my head was the link between the hypocrisy of “W
e come in
> peace, shoot to kill” and the psychopathic behaviour of Adam Je
nsen.
> Yes I did watch it to the end and the only thing that struck me was the

> crappiness of the fighting. Block-pause-strike, even the 2D Prince of P
ersia
> was more fluid.
> Not true that that was the only thing. The misogyny was unsettling too.


You missed the achievement "Pacifist" being granted at the very end?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 22/07/2012 11:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> You missed the achievement "Pacifist" being granted at the very end?

To be honest. I had difficulty paying attention.

Okay, shoot to kill, get a peace prize. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.07.2012 19:44, schrieb Stephen:
> On 22/07/2012 11:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> You missed the achievement "Pacifist" being granted at the very end?
>
> To be honest. I had difficulty paying attention.
>
> Okay, shoot to kill, get a peace prize. ;-)

If you /do/ pay close attention, there's no shooting at all (not from 
the player's side at any rate); "only" some heavy punching, kicking and 
tazing going on.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/07/2012 9:46 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> If you /do/ pay close attention, there's no shooting at all (not from
> the player's side at any rate); "only" some heavy punching, kicking and
> tazing going on.

No attention is needed to see that there was no shooting so I must have 
been using artistic licence. :-P
There was some heavy jumping going on. At least that is what we, in my 
youth, called it when someone went in for a throw and his opponent 
jumped over him pretending that he had been thrown.
That video is a poor advertisment for the game. IM(NS)HO

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/23/2012 13:46, clipka wrote:
> If you /do/ pay close attention, there's no shooting at all (not from the
> player's side at any rate); "only" some heavy punching, kicking and tazing
> going on.

Well, that and the total destruction of an entire city during that black 
period right at the end after he pushes the self-destruct button.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2012 02:53, schrieb Darren New:
> On 7/23/2012 13:46, clipka wrote:
>> If you /do/ pay close attention, there's no shooting at all (not from the
>> player's side at any rate); "only" some heavy punching, kicking and
>> tazing
>> going on.
>
> Well, that and the total destruction of an entire city during that black
> period right at the end after he pushes the self-destruct button.

Inevitable collateral damage.

Post a reply to this message