Because someone noted we haven't had an open thread in some time, and because I wanted to point out that someone stole my post title. The ObWings legal team is busy examining our options. Please remain calm.
Because this isn't just another deep space [blog] franchise. We stand for something.
Besides being busy fighting for their lives against Maul, it's pretty clear that Maul is not exactly a sparkling conversationalist. Fictional duels tends to fall down where one of the duellists is both boorish and quite a lot more able than the other(s). Maul is but a stand-in for Palpatine; why on Earth (or elsewhere) would anyone expect him to speak for Palpatine as well?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 12:52 PM
As usual, pretty much all of my posts this morning are at least a few words shy of being sensible. None of this, though, is a result of having imbibed any propellants.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Incidentally, has everyone seen this famous Star Wars character?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Slart,
I have no objection to the lack of dialogue in the duel between Maul and the Jedi. It's the climactic battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin where I think it really hurt the film.
Posted by: Andrew | August 09, 2006 at 12:58 PM
"...why on Earth (or elsewhere) would anyone expect him to speak for Palpatine as well?"
As I recall, Maul has but a single line of spoken dialogue, or close to that: "At last, the Sith shall have their revenge!" There may be an additional "yes, master."
He doesn't even speak when he sends off his flying monkeys, er, droids.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 01:02 PM
Cat's probably got his tongue.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 01:06 PM
AQndrew, did you go to the Royals game last night? Are you going tonight?
Posted by: CharleyCarp | August 09, 2006 at 01:11 PM
Charley,
No, I've been sick as a dog for several days now. Given how the Sox played last night, it's probably for the best I didn't go. I might try to make it to tonight's or tomorrow's game, though.
Posted by: Andrew | August 09, 2006 at 01:14 PM
Thanks for the pointer to Season 2.5 Gary, for some reason I couldn't find it on Amazon. Sept. 19th, which means I'll have to delay my 10,000th repurchase of the original trilogy. (AND NO SPOILERS ON 2.5 IN THIS THREAD PLEASE!!!11!!!)
What stuck in my craw about the prequels was that Yoda/Mace/Obi Wan/Etc. could sit there right next to Palpatine and not know he's the dark lord. The scarring part got to me too.
Posted by: Ugh | August 09, 2006 at 01:24 PM
He was; what do you think Attack of the Clones was, for goodness sake? The whole darn film is nothing but that!
The most salient part of AOTC in this regard was Anakin's massacre of the Sand People village, in perhaps the most crassly manipulative setup of the entire saga. That's when we discover that Padme/Amidala (what the heck is her name again?) just digs psycho killers. I didn't like his character before this act of vengeance, and I liked him even less afterward.
Not Yoda. Otherwise, they're not perfect, as Qui-gon both tells us in the first prequel, and then demonstrates for us. They were surrounded and surprised. It's one thing to hold off several blasters, but another to try to hold off fifty at once from all sides.
Han Solo never seemed to have this problem, and he isn't a master of The Force. Jedi being massacred with blasters by grunts simply goes against the grain of Star Wars. It's much like the Knights of the Round Table being killed by a bunch of foot soldiers with pikes, or Gandalf being taken down not by the Balrog, but by orcs.
Oh, and Qui Gon was killed by a Sith, not by the armies of droids he and Obi Wan faced throughout the movie.
That's purely subjective. I won't argue that you had fun or should have if you won't argue that I didn't.
Yes, opinions are subjective. Sorry for that brief diversion from our purely rational and empirical discussion of which Star Wars movie sucks more.
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 01:30 PM
Ugh: What stuck in my craw about the prequels was that Yoda/Mace/Obi Wan/Etc. could sit there right next to Palpatine and not know he's the dark lord. The scarring part got to me too.
Yeah, that too. Of course, I could probably name hundreds of things, given the time and a second viewing of the trilogy to refresh my memory. But yeah, and the way they waved that off with a simple line of exposition about their vision being clouded was super lame. The Jedi's powers seemed to expand and contract to suit the plot throughout the prequels.
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 01:34 PM
If the Sith weren't constantly in stealth mode, there wouldn't be a story, period.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 01:38 PM
I was watching a showing of either Phantom Menace or Send in the Clones about a year ago. I think it was the former. There was a distant shot of a battlefield scene. I calculated back-of-the-envelope style that the energy bolts being fired by hand and heavy weapons were travelling about 500 mph. I'm still trying to decide if that's as dumb as the parsecs line from the original show. There's no doubt it's pretty dumb, though, IMO.
Posted by: JakeB | August 09, 2006 at 02:08 PM
Andrew:
I went last night and although the final result wasn't great, it was a nail-biter all the way to the end. I've been torn about it for hours -- my son suggesting that I'm an idiot if I don't take the opportunity to go with Beckett on the mound, and my sister-in-law thinking that it'd be nice to make a nice dinner for visiting uncle CC. I've just finally cast my lot with Josh and the Boys.
If you decide to go, drop me a line, and I'll buy you a beer.
(You can't read my blog, but I'm in KC for a couple of days for a case.)
Posted by: CharleyCarp | August 09, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Torn, obviously, about whether to go tonight.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | August 09, 2006 at 02:15 PM
"What stuck in my craw about the prequels was that Yoda/Mace/Obi Wan/Etc. could sit there right next to Palpatine and not know he's the dark lord."
Ya gotta watch out for them Dark Lords. They're sneaky. And the Dark Side: it clouds everything, it does.
"That's when we discover that Padme/Amidala (what the heck is her name again?)"
Amygdala. Princess Amygdala.
"I didn't like his character before this act of vengeance, and I liked him even less afterward."
So you're saying that Darth Vader turns out to have a dislikable side? I'm shocked, just shocked.
"Han Solo never seemed to have this problem, and he isn't a master of The Force."
Standards in Troopers fell once they were no longer all clones.
"Sorry for that brief diversion from our purely rational and empirical discussion of which Star Wars movie sucks more."
It's okay. Soon you will admit that you are objectively wrong.
Did I mention that I finally saw Free Enterprise for the first time the night before last, and thought it was hilarious?
Life isn't complete without seeing William Shatner rapping the musical version of the "et tu, Brutus?" monologue.
"I was watching a showing of either Phantom Menace or Send in the Clones about a year ago. I think it was the former. There was a distant shot of a battlefield scene."
I think it was the latter, since unless I'm having a fit of amnesia (always possible, and I'm, as usual, feeling a dire need for a nap just about now), there are no large battles in TPM. But there certainly is at the end of AOTC, and it's really cool.
But one thing you won't catch me doing is defending the physics or science or realism of Star Wars, no matter what the film. It's all nonsense, and that's why these films aren't science fiction, any of them. They're science fantasy, classic fantasy in a pseudo-science-fiction setting. There's no development of a scientific idea in any of them; instead, there is nonsense pseudo-physics.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 02:22 PM
Eh? I must have dreamed that whole robot/Gungan conflict, then.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 02:30 PM
Yes. Bank-to-turn spacecraft! Spacecraft that slow down when you shut down the engines!
I tell you, though, that I nearly reinvented Fourier analysis at a very young age, trying to come up with how a lightsaber could possibly function, and that didn't explain how come they bounce off each other as if they were solid objects.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 02:34 PM
The battle on the plains of Naboo is pretty large. But yeah, that's hardly the most ridiculous bit of physics in the movies. For instance, in the attack on the first death star, the squad leader says something along the lines of "accelerate to attack speed" when they just traversed at least a quarter of the orbit Yavin IV in the span of a few minutes. I don't have a problem overlooking this stuff, either.
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 02:35 PM
I don't have a problem overlooking this stuff, either.
Most people don't even see it. Why, just yesterday I get this from my brother:
Ok, hello: Mars is roughly twice as big in diameter as the Moon is, and the closest they can ever get (speaking in terms of current orbital parameters) is about 34 million miles, so Mars could, at most, subtend abuot 130 microradians of arc. The Moon is about 2100 miles in diameter and about a quarter of a million miles away, so it subtends approximately 8.4 milliradians of arc, or almost half a degree.
I didn't know the exact numbers when I got that email, but I did know he was off by about two orders of magnitude, which is a pretty instant BS indicator.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 02:47 PM
"I don't have a problem overlooking this stuff, either."
I don't when it comes to comic book-based movies, but for some reason I do when it comes to sci-fi-trappings movies. No idea why, I seem to have developed an allergy at some point. For those amused or bemused by contemplation on such matters, allow me to mention stupid movie physics. Their reviews of movies they dislike can be particularly enjoyable in their biliousness.
Posted by: JakeB | August 09, 2006 at 02:49 PM
Mars could, at most, subtend abuot 130 microradians of arc. The Moon is about 2100 miles in diameter and about a quarter of a million miles away, so it subtends approximately 8.4 milliradians of arc, or almost half a degree.
And I thought my head hurt before...
Posted by: Andrew | August 09, 2006 at 02:51 PM
I think bad science bothers me in direct proportion to the extent to which the science itself is meant to be a character in the story. So movies about the perils of cloning, or virtual reality, or whatever that get the science badly wrong bugs the heck out of me, whereas those that simply use the science as a textural element get more a pass. Star Wars is a sort of collage of all sorts of cultural references that have been uprooted and rearranged to create a somewhat believable world, and I view the science and technology content in this light.
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 02:55 PM
"Star Wars is a sort of collage of all sorts of cultural references that have been uprooted and rearranged to create a somewhat believable world, and I view the science and technology content in this light."
I gotcha. (Or, if you prefer, I grok it. :) ) I seem to have developed a sort of puritanism along the way. I don't like historical movies or books that play fast and loose with history in any significant way--it's excusable when the author explicitly states it, as when Patrick O'Brian notes in preface to _Surgeon's Mate_ (I believe) that he kept Sir James Saumarez in the Baltic somewhat later than he actually was there. But, say, _Gladiator_, with its numerous mischaracterizations of Roman life and the history, led me to a 20-minute rant after seeing the movie (that either bored or distressed or both my co-viewers).
I guess my sense is that there's a kind of cheating going on--you want to take advantage of cultural/historical/scientific references without dealing with their actual implications; this abandonment actually guts, if invisibly, their real value. Not to mention miseducating people. It seems to me in the end a kind of unclarity, and since life is hard enough to figure out _with_ accurate information, I dislike these kinds of things.
But that's just my view. And I recognize it takes a lot of work to be a Dorothy Dunnett, after all.
Posted by: JakeB | August 09, 2006 at 03:09 PM
Well, it also helps when the movie is enjoyable to start out with. That Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics site is great, though. Their review of Episode III is brutal, and I agree with most of it:
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 03:29 PM
Someone noted that watching Last Samurai with Japanese was an eye-opening experience, because he had a strong familiarity with the history and there were so many out and out distortions, that by the end of the movie, he was really upset, but was then shocked to find that the Japanese he watched it with were non-plussed, because they viewed the movie like one of the samurai TV dramas that are equally non/mis representational.
Another factoid, Claude Berri (I think), when he made Germinal, got a lot of flak for ahistoricisms, and said in an interview that it was so bizarre to give him hell over that, yet make not comment with a movie like Reversal of Fortune (about Claus von Bulow) makes up large chunks of dialogue that implied guilt with no evidence that they were said or even thought.
Reminds me of an old joke about Picasso. A guy goes in and looks at a painting of Picasso's mother and says 'look, I've seen your mother, this doesn't look anything like her'. Picasso says 'ok, do you have something that looks like your mother?' and the mam triumphantly pulls out his wallet and brings out a snapshot, saying 'here is a photography of my mother and this looks exactly like her'. Picasso looks at it and says, 'my, she has a very tiny head...'
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 09, 2006 at 03:31 PM
"Eh? I must have dreamed that whole robot/Gungan conflict, then."
Well, aside from that.
:-)
"Bank-to-turn spacecraft! Spacecraft that slow down when you shut down the engines!"
Also, we see in ROTS, but first in Return of the Jedi, huge spaceships that when crippled, begin to "fall down," no matter that they're in freefall. Regardless, if there is another ship (or Death Star) nearby they can "fall" into, they will.
My own theory is that when injured, they seek the comfort of clutching a fellow ship.
Ships in the movie that's allegedly of Starship Troopers did the same, but don't get me started on that piece of sh*te.
"Mars will appear as large as the full moon in late August and will closer to the Earth than ever in recorded history"
That's been going around for some years. Also, Craig Shergold is dying and wants your postcards, and have you heard the Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 03:34 PM
Regardless, if there is another ship (or Death Star) nearby they can "fall" into, they will.
It's an illusion; they're SO incredibly huge that they actually exert substantial gravitational attraction on each other. Or they use spheres of neutronium for something-or-other. But yes, that peeves me a little, too. I mean, how massy can the Death Star be, given that it's mostly empty space, that an Imperial Star Destroyer would just be sucked right into it?
That's been going around for some years. Also, Craig Shergold is dying and wants your postcards, and have you heard the Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe?
It's a reflection on my character that I deliberately refrained from Snopesing it until I'd established for myself that it was irredeemable bullshit. While I was doing that, my younger brother replied with a you idiot email; of course he went straight for Snopes. The only bit of truth to that whole thing is that Mars IS exceptionally bright (not quite as bright as 3 years ago, but still quite nice) and is worth a look if you've got a friend with a decent telescope. Or if you've got a friend with a decent observatory. Or friend with access to a decent observatory.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 04:56 PM
Holy gazonkers, it's staggering what a P.Z. Myers link can do (pray forgive me for another self-centered comment, though it is an open thread):
That "last hour" is kinda not typical of the number of hits I get absent a link like that.Mind, that's about ten minutes worth of hits. He posted 12 minutes ago.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 05:25 PM
I thought that Super Star Destroyer simply lost control when its bridge was destroyed. Is there any reason to assume otherwise?
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 05:25 PM
"He posted 12 minutes ago."
No, actually, that's my mistake. His time-stamping seems to be off; it says he posted at 04:36 PM, which is 03:36 p.m. my time, which hasn't happened yet (5:36 p.m. Eastern time). Not that anyone cares, but me. Sorry.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 05:27 PM
"I thought that Super Star Destroyer simply lost control when its bridge was destroyed. Is there any reason to assume otherwise?"
So it lost control. Why would it head into the Death Star like it was falling?
And, again, see the beginning of Revenge of the Sith for lots of other ships suddenly "falling down," including, of course, the ship Our Heros are on.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 05:31 PM
So it lost control. Why would it head into the Death Star like it was falling?
Why not? Why would turning up and heading away from the Death Star be any better? Plus, it was cool.
And, again, see the beginning of Revenge of the Sith for lots of other ships suddenly "falling down," including, of course, the ship Our Heros are on.
Isn't there at least a plausible explanation for that given that they were fighting near a planet?
Posted by: Ugh | August 09, 2006 at 05:39 PM
"Isn't there at least a plausible explanation for that given that they were fighting near a planet?"
No.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 05:44 PM
They weren't fighting near Coruscant in that? I mean, they could be far enough away such that the gravitational pull had no effect, but isn't Coruscant clearly in the picture?
Posted by: Ugh | August 09, 2006 at 05:49 PM
Isn't there at least a plausible explanation for that given that they were fighting near a planet?
While, admittedly, Star Wars is space opera and not science fiction, orbits do not decay at anything approaching that degree of rapidity. Yes, eventually a ship that lost power would hit Coruscant's atmosphere, but it would not immediately begin to descend. (At least, not noticeably.)
Posted by: Andrew | August 09, 2006 at 05:56 PM
While, admittedly, Star Wars is space opera and not science fiction, orbits do not decay at anything approaching that degree of rapidity. Yes, eventually a ship that lost power would hit Coruscant's atmosphere, but it would not immediately begin to descend. (At least, not noticeably.)
Aha! But Coruscant's atmosphere is not made of air, except near the surface, but transparent wookie jello, and clearly once a ship lost power and hit the atmosphere, said jello would suck it down much faster than plain old air.
...
Ok, I made all that up. It's been a good day, star wars on this thread and muppets on the other.
Posted by: Ugh | August 09, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Why would turning up and heading away from the Death Star be any better?
Which way is "up", in zero-gee?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 09, 2006 at 06:02 PM
Which way is "up", in zero-gee?
Above your head.
Posted by: Ugh | August 09, 2006 at 06:03 PM
"I mean, they could be far enough away such that the gravitational pull had no effect, but isn't Coruscant clearly in the picture?"
Let me put it this way: you can see the moon in the sky, but that doesn't mean it's going to be "falling down" anytime soon. This isn't the way orbital physics works.
Unless the ships were already directly on a trajectory plunging into the atmosphere at the speed we saw them enter at, they wouldn't, you know, enter the atmosphere plunging towards ground at the speed we saw them at. This is known as "Newton's Laws of Motion."
It's quite possible that, given the right trajectory, they might have started to enter the atmosphere in a few months. Or years. Hard to say without more information.
But plunging down at that speed is absolutely and completely and utterly impossible, unless they were already doing so before they lost power.
Ditto Super Death Star hitting the Death Star. This is the most elementary and basic physics there is. It doesn't get any simpler.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 06:07 PM
"Ditto Super Death Star hitting the Death Star."
Super Star Destroyer, that is.
So nobody but me has seen Free Enterprise? Okay, then I recommend it to any of the Star Trek/pop culture "sci-fi" fans here.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 06:13 PM
Goldarnit, I don't have access all day long, when the SW discussions get really good!
Well, Gary has done a fine job defending the prequels in my absence. All I'll add to his fine comments about ROTS is that my favorite acting moment -- perhaps my favorite in all six films -- come at the end of the scene in which Obi-Wan tells Anakin that he has to spy on Palpatine for the Council. When Anakin asks why Obi-Wan is asking him to do this, he simply replies, with a look of pain on his face, "The Council is asking you." I think he realizes at that point just how poorly the Jedi have dealt with "The Chosen One" for nearly 15 years, and sees the writing on the wall. McGregor does a great job of selling it.
Posted by: Phil | August 09, 2006 at 06:15 PM
BTW, the "in-universe" explanation -- to the degree any of this needs an explanation, which isn't much for space opera -- for the Seperatist ship plunge in the beginning of ROTS is that the ships were actually fighting in the highest reaches of Coruscant's atmosphere. Which is also why Anakin's and Obi-Wan's ships behave as if they are facing air resistance; e.g., the dead "buzz droids" being swept off of Anakin's wings as he speeds away.
Posted by: Phil | August 09, 2006 at 06:19 PM
Gary - I suppose you don't buy my "transparent wookie jello" explanation either, what with your "Newton's Laws of Motion" and "elementary and basic physics" science mumbo-jumbo. And what about intelligent space design, I ask you?!!? Clearly there must be some explanation for those ships falling down like they did, and if "physics" and "Newton" and the like can't explain it, it must be a higher power (or a higher love, like Steve Winwood).
In other news, I see CNN's reporting on its front page that 15 Israeli soldiers were killed today (if I'm allowed to say it: ugh).
Posted by: Ugh | August 09, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Gary Farber: So it lost control. Why would it head into the Death Star like it was falling?
I took it to be accelerating, not falling. Am I misremembering, or doesn't the sound editing bear this out?
And, again, see the beginning of Revenge of the Sith for lots of other ships suddenly "falling down," including, of course, the ship Our Heros are on.
I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other.
But plunging down at that speed is absolutely and completely and utterly impossible, unless they were already doing so before they lost power.
Ditto Super Death Star hitting the Death Star. This is the most elementary and basic physics there is. It doesn't get any simpler.
Only if you assume the ship isn't being driven into the Death Star by the power of its own thrusters, which has always been my read.
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 06:26 PM
ugh: you're not.
Posted by: Francis | August 09, 2006 at 06:29 PM
Gromit - that's much better than transparent wookie jello, thank you, my childhood (and adulthood) have been saved from Gary's nefarious clutches. :)
And with that, I'm off to the Nationals game. If you see a bald guy 8 rows up behind home plate with glasses and a goatee wearing a US Open (golf) t-shirt, that's me. I promise not to get on my cell phone and waive.
On preview I see Francis. Sorry, too late, but I won't do it again.
Posted by: Ugh | August 09, 2006 at 06:32 PM
"Clearly there must be some explanation for those ships falling down like they did, and if "physics" and "Newton" and the like can't explain it, it must be a higher power (or a higher love, like Steve Winwood)."
I did explain that when the ships are wounded, they seek the comforting embrace of their fellows. And perhaps a planet looks like their mother.
"Only if you assume the ship isn't being driven into the Death Star by the power of its own thrusters, which has always been my read."
Yes, but if you look at what happens, the Super Star Destroyer gets its bridge hit, and as a "result" starts suddenly "falling down." It's quite clear that it's acting as if there is gravity present, just as the way the X-wings and TIE fighters fly in the great battle at the end of Star Wars is also impossible without gravity and an atmosphere.
(One of the lovely things about neo-Battlestar Galactica, as well as Babylon 5, is that they almost always get the physics more or less perfectly correct -- it's not as if you can't do that and still be completely exciting.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Slart, any comment on this?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 06:37 PM
ugh: what will you be waiving? your right to a disciplinary hearing when you get fired?
oh. you meant "wave". my bad.
;)
Posted by: Francis | August 09, 2006 at 06:38 PM
Jeepers, I was impressed by a certain page-views-per-hour number earlier, but now it's:
Last Hour 655
So, tonight's Netflix movie (or maybe tomorrow, actually): Bubba-Ho-Tep. I've heard many good things, and am a longtime Joe Lansdale fan, so I have positive expectations.
And while we're on skiffy-movie type stuff, everyone see this item about Paul Giamatti wanting to do a Phil Dick biopic?
And my brief post on seeing Elektra.
And Harry Potter slash writers get made fun of again.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 07:12 PM
Gary,
Must you rub our noses in your success? Some of us D-list bloggers have learned to accept our place in the cosmos, but that doesn't mean we enjoy having it pointed out to us. ;)
Posted by: Andrew | August 09, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Gary Farber: It's quite clear that it's acting as if there is gravity present, just as the way the X-wings and TIE fighters fly in the great battle at the end of Star Wars is also impossible without gravity and an atmosphere.
Opinion being subjective and all, I'd say that were it so very clear, the thought would have occurred to me at least once in the dozens of times I've viewed that scene since 1983. Am I really going to have to dig my copy out of the VHS graveyard and dust off ye olde video cassette recorder just to verify that the thrusters could be heard powering up at the time? Doesn't anyone else remember that sound?
Anyway, whoever wrote this wikipedia article agrees with your take, while the authors of this">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_endor"">this one favor mine.
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 07:40 PM
Gary, color me curious about your response to Bubba-Ho-Tep. I think I can say without spoilers that I loved the great dignity it invested in its main characters, and the way the story works so that this present quality matters regardless of whose tales are true or false about the past. This is something that matters to me in real life, and I like seeing it handled well on film.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | August 09, 2006 at 07:51 PM
"Must you rub our noses in your success?"
Hey, that sort of thing happens to me once in a blue moon; that's why it's remarkable. (Stunning, actually.)
Besides, I figure I'm a C/D-list blogger, and you're E-list.
;-) ;-) ;-)
A-List: DailyKos, Instapundit, Atrios, BoingBoing, and their ilk.
B-List: Pharyngula, Wonkette, Jeff Jarvis, Digby, etc.
C-list: ObWi, Tbogg, Protein Wisdom, Jim Henley, most of the "popular" but not top-rated blogs.
D-List: me, and other slightly popular blogs.
E-List: you. :-)
Most blogs: H and I List.
Of course, this is just pulled out of my rear end, pretty much, and perfectly arguable. Not to mention that one can argue either for measuring by links or hits or regular readers.
Gromit: "Am I really going to have to dig my copy out of the VHS graveyard and dust off ye olde video cassette recorder just to verify that the thrusters could be heard powering up at the time? Doesn't anyone else remember that sound?"
Do I even need to mention the problem here, with citing the sound heard in the vacuum to justify the versimilitude? :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 07:51 PM
Gary Farber: Do I even need to mention the problem here, with citing the sound heard in the vacuum to justify the versimilitude? :-)
Verisimilitude doesn't enter into the question for me.
Posted by: Gromit | August 09, 2006 at 09:24 PM
Complaining during the space battles in a Star Wars film that there's no sound in space seems akin to complaining during the narrative voiceovers in a Mafia film that there's no such thing as a disembodied voice that's loud enough to be heard by the audience but not by any of the characters. Just think of it as part of the sound track: there's your TIE fighter music, there's your ion bolt music, there's your Super Star Destroyer thruster music that does indeed turn on just before the thing crashes into the Death Star.
Posted by: morinao | August 09, 2006 at 09:51 PM
"Complaining during the space battles in a Star Wars film that there's no sound in space seems akin to complaining during the narrative voiceovers in a Mafia film that there's no such thing as a disembodied voice...."
Well, look, on the one hand, I don't take the Star Wars films remotely seriously; as I said, they're science fantasy from the get-go, and that's all there is to it.
On the other hand, your analogy is quite awful, and it fails completely. In point of fact, if you want to make exciting space opera with no sound in space, again, look at Babylon 5; or if you want to look at good science fiction that realistically has no sound in space, look at 2001. Noting that something impossible is going on is not the same as pointing to a dramatic convention, such as a voice-over; the two things simply are not analogous. The sound in space is not being presented as something outside the reality of what we are seeing. Claiming otherwise is false.
Now, if you want to suggest that one sort of ignore the point, fine. But that's different than claiming that the sound in space presented in these and other films is a convention like a camera angle or a voice-over. One thing is internal to the reality we are presented with and the other is external; these things are entirely distinguishable, and should be distinguished, for any useful analysis.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 09, 2006 at 10:25 PM
Inasmuch as the Star Wars films have consistently employed it, sound in space is most definitely internal to the reality presented. If a certain whine reliably predicts the appearance of a TIE fighter, then a certain hum can be adduced as evidence that a Super Star Destroyer's engines are firing.
More generally, I think the convention is just that things should sound good to the audience. For example, when a pair of conversing characters stroll through the camera shot, the volume of their conversation typically does not vary with distance from each other or from the camera. It's as if each character carries a separate microphone whose gain is adjusted during audio mixing.
Same thing in space. Everything makes some noise, it's just that the sound doesn't propagate through vacuum. So think of it as having separate microphones in physical contact with each spacecraft (or in some pressurized vicinity). Mix their output till it sounds good.
Or you can resort to the Babylon 5 figleaf: there may not be any sound in B5 space, but there sure is a lot of music synchronized to the supposedly silent explosions!
In any case, when it is easier to list the few films (i.e. 2001) that don't use sound in space than to list all the films that do, it seems that sound is pretty well entrenched in cinematic space. When something is impossible in reality but standard practice in film, to me that's a convention the same way a voiceover is.
Posted by: morinao | August 10, 2006 at 02:15 AM
Isn't that "wookieee"?
Other than it's got some glaring inaccuracies in it? Not really.
Acquisition for space-based defense programs pretty much died out completely in, if memory serves, 1992. Not 1997. I know this because I was working on one of the larger programs at the time. Sure, some programs continued into 1993, because they were smaller and hence had lower profile, or involved SDI hardware reuse (like this, which I was also involved in). Still, most of the development money for programs like that was spent by, oh, 1994 or so. Much of the space-based strategic defense funding went away by the mid 1990s. Prior to the Clinton administration, most likely, considering there were serial, drastic threat redefinitions prior to Clinton's even throwing his hat in the ring. The fact is that the design-to threat began to slide from the massed Soviet attack to anything with a longer range than a Scud as far back as GW1.
On the technical side, I have no idea whether THEL has got merit or not. Probably the single most important thing is to make it small enough so that it can truly be of use in defending smaller groups of people. Since they seem to be gearing it toward small missile and mortar defense, geometry says there's either got to be a lot more of them (because the target has to be in the line of sight) or it's got to be airborne. I have some incidental familiarity with ABL, but I have no idea to what extent it's been demonstrated.
I know: lengthy non-answer. It's all I have, though.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 10, 2006 at 07:10 AM
Which is not to say that no missile defense was funded during the Clinton administration. There was quite a lot of work done on THAAD and PAC-3, which are (to make an important distinction) tactical missile defense systems, and some nonzero and useful work done on NMD (which is strategic defense) as well.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 10, 2006 at 07:16 AM
no sound in space, again, look at Babylon 5
I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. JMS originally wanted to do the space sequences without sound effects, but the test audiences hated it. So you now do hear the sound of thrusters firing, pulse cannons pulsing, etc.
And really...E list? Jeebus, I'm going to run out of letters at this rate. And, must I remind you, I was there at the dawn of the second age of the blogosphere?
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 09:11 AM
Isn't that "wookieee"?
Wookieean? Though if its made out of wookiees, then transparent wookiee jello works just fine (yes I left out the second e in my post, I was infected by my suggested in the Lieberman/Muppet thread that cookie monster should be SecDef).
And I've never seen B5, is it really that good Andrew? What makes it so?
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 09:17 AM
Ugh,
Obviously, good is in the eye of the beholder. There are many here who aren't at all fond of it. For me, I enjoyed it most for two reasons: because it's basically a novel put in TV form over four years, and for the character development.
The first season can be somewhat frustrating to watch, because the series puts a lot of balls in the air and resolves very few of them. It is rife with foreshadowing, to the degree you'll be watching an episode in the third season and realize that a first season incident precipitated it. It rewards viewers who pay attention, and by stretching the story over four years, it allows things to develop at a reasonable pace. It would have been even better if the arc had spanned the full five years, as was originally intended.
Then there are the characters. If you were to watch only the pilot and the final episode, you'd walk away tremendously confused, because the characters have changed so much as a result of their experiences. Again, this is something I really enjoyed, because you can watch the characters realize the results of their actions and see how it changes their outlook on life over time. Two of the aliens, G'Kar and Londo, are particularly fascinating to watch because their characters move the furthers over the series, but none of the characters is the same at the end of the series as they were at the beginning.
Having said all that, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will throw out their own reasons for disliking the show, and since it's all subjective, I can hardly counter them. I think it's the best TV show ever made, but I don't expect that to be even a plurality opinion.
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 09:26 AM
I think it's the best TV show ever made, but I don't expect that to be even a plurality opinion.
Better than 21 Jump Street?
More seriously, thanks for the info, maybe I'll check it out sometime.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 09:39 AM
Well, I never saw 21 Jump Street, so perhaps I should be more precise and say it's the best show I've seen.
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 09:41 AM
21 Jump Street was teh suck.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 09:49 AM
Wow, there sure are a lot of people who like even the Star Wars prequels. Myself, I hated the first, watched the second only because I was bored late one night and couldn't sleep, and hated it, and have seen no reason to investigate further.
But then, I seen ot be among the very small percentage of bloggers who have only a very limited interest in -- oh dear, what's the OK way to say science fiction? I don't know...
Posted by: hilzoy | August 10, 2006 at 09:54 AM
hilzoy,
I think 'science fiction' is a reasonable way to phrase it, although I'll defer to Gary for the official nomenclature. :)
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 09:58 AM
And can I just say that the top post on redstate.com right now is despicable? Thanks.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 10:02 AM
And as to the interest in the first three Star Wars movies, I explain that as follows: human beings are not good with sunk costs. In general, people loved the first two Star Wars films, and they've been waiting 20+ years for Lucas to replicate that success. hilzoy, unlike most of us, figured out that after three failed attempts, the odds of Lucas making a good movie out of III were low enough to make seeing the film a bad idea. But the majority of people couldn't shrug off the sunk costs of watching the other five, and so went to see it.
At which point cognitive dissonance set in. Nobody wants to admit they paid $10 to watch crap, so the mind comes up with reasons to like I-III.
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 10:07 AM
These are sunk emotional costs, yes?
I'm that way with Lost. Even when it's pissing me off, I harbor the illusion that someday there will be closure.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 10, 2006 at 10:20 AM
These are sunk emotional costs, yes?
Yes. If you're in a certain age group, Star Wars was a formative experience for you, and you're so deeply invested in it, it's very hard to let go.
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 10:23 AM
If you're in a certain age group, Star Wars was a formative experience for you, and you're so deeply invested in it, it's very hard to let go.
That would be me. Hence my bleating about buying the original trilogy for the umpteenth time.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Andrew: I learned the lesson of sunk emotional costs via the Red Sox. I had just turned eight during the wondrous 1967 season. I waited for ages for something like that to happen again. Hah. Nothing like the Red Sox to drive that little point home.
Posted by: hilzoy | August 10, 2006 at 10:38 AM
hilzoy,
Yes, I remember getting ready to go to school the day after Game 7 of the 1986 World Series and hearing a song on the radio that I believe was called 'Every Loser Wins' or some such. It wasn't until I was a few years older that I really appreciated what we had lost in Game 6.
But, it was all worth it in 2004. Even the bone-crushing pain of Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS.
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Not much different from "Weak and Wrong: Meet the Defeat-ocrats" on the RNC front page, Ugh. The RedState folks are just following their marching orders.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 10, 2006 at 11:04 AM
The RedState folks are just following their marching orders.
Very true.
And now I am reminded of the discussion that went around the right-wing blogosphere a couple years ago about how the Rebellion was a bunch of terrorists and the Empire was not so bad.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 11:11 AM
"I'm that way with Lost. Even when it's pissing me off, I harbor the illusion that someday there will be closure."
That is why I haven't watched it. All of my friends say I'll love it. It sounds interesting. But I strongly suspect that it will go the route of the X-Files with more and more complexity until it just gets crushed under its own weight. At that point they will have a wrap-up that will be totally unsatisfying. I'm not interested in that. Furthermore, it was on an inconvenient day and I didn't get Tivo until last week.
There is something to be said for the Japanese TV convention with long story arcs (sometimes multi-year) that nevertheless have definite endings built in.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 10, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Ugh: for me the top three must-see's are B5, SW 4-6 and Firefly.
21 jump street was nice, but became much of a muchness after a while, so I stopped watching.
My current must-see's are neo-BSG, dr Who and Lost, though about the latter I agree with Slarti.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | August 10, 2006 at 11:36 AM
There is something to be said for the Japanese TV convention with long story arcs (sometimes multi-year) that nevertheless have definite endings built in.
I think that's why B5 worked so well: JMS went into it with an idea for an arc built to last five years, and stuck with it.
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Oh, and I really hated SW-III. It was really really bad. The conversations between Anakin and Padme made me long for.... I don't know.... even the average kitchen novel has better dialogue I think.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | August 10, 2006 at 11:40 AM
dutchmarbel - I recently purchased Firefly and Serenity based on recommendations from friends, but haven't watched either yet, but hope to soon.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 11:41 AM
At least you see firefly in the right order...
I liked Serenity, but firefly was better. It had so much potential..... all the good series are killed early these days and fast-food SF like Stargate gets season after season.... *sigh*
Posted by: dutchmarbel | August 10, 2006 at 11:43 AM
I eagerly await the President's sure to be mind-numbing statement on the disrupted terror plot. Drink each time he mentions 9/11 and terror/terrorist; finish the glass each time he mentions Iraq.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Ugh,
I'm curious, do you think that there is any chance that this plot was, in fact, real?
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 11:49 AM
We'll keep this thread fun and talk about the terrorist threat on the other thread.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 10, 2006 at 12:02 PM
Seb - yeah, moved my comment over and Andrew moved his follow-up.
Does anyone know if BSG is signed up for a third season (or more)? I guess it must be if the end of the second was a cliffhanger (though I think the final season of Benson ended with a cliff-hanger and they never came back to resolve it, IIRC).
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Sebastian, I feel the same way about Lost, but it's too late for me; I'm already hooked. Even worse, I'm having to catch up with season 2 this summer, and ABC has preempted it with crappy sitcoms four weeks in a row, and looks to be skipping a bunch of episodes in the process.
As for sunk emotional costs, I'll cop to that for Episode I (which did have some really neat moments, amid a sea of tedium and annoyance), but I cut my losses after seeing Killer Klones from Outer Space. It was such a godawful mess, it became quickly evident that Anakin was going nowhere as a character, the Jedi were being neutered, Yoda was now a punch line, and it didn't even have Episode I's exquisite score to recommend it (the Anakin and Padme theme was just wretched, and it was played for what seemed like a full third of the movie). I ended up seeing Episode III at a drive-in. A truly awful way to see a truly awful movie.
Posted by: Gromit | August 10, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Ugh,
Benson ended with Benson and the Governor waiting for the election returns together, but I don't recall it being played as a cliff-hanger, as we all knew that it was the show's finale.
So...who remembers the show Benson was spun off from?
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Benson ended with Benson and the Governor waiting for the election returns together, but I don't recall it being played as a cliff-hanger, as we all knew that it was the show's finale.
We did? I guess I was a little young to know that (and hence have no idea what show it was spun-off of). I was pissed off when they didn't come back the next season and tell us who won.
Posted by: Ugh | August 10, 2006 at 12:15 PM
The royal 'we', of course. ;) I may be projecting my current knowledge back over what I knew then, however.
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 12:19 PM
It was a spin-off of Soap.
Interesting side note--(by way of background my family is firmly fundamentalist Christian) we weren't allowed to watch Soap when I was young (it was too racy) but I think we saw every episode of Benson. I loved that show.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 10, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Very good, Seb. If only you'd worked harder on defending my intellectual property from the Toronto Star. ;)
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 12:25 PM
I've never seen Benson, but I loved soap. I still love it actually :), the other day I contemplated buying the series to share it with my kids - but I don't know where to put more dvd's. Buying them is cheaper that going to the film and paying for the babysit weirdly enough.
If Benson is a watered down version from soap I might hate it - it was the exaggeration that made it so much fun IMHO.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | August 10, 2006 at 12:25 PM
Benson's relationship to Soap was only that of moving Robert Guillaume's character. He became the butler (and ultimately, the Lieutenant Governor) at the Governor's residence. It was less absurd than Soap, but then...what wouldn't be?
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2006 at 12:27 PM
It was less absurd than Soap, but then...what wouldn't be?
And isn't the absurdity the feature we fell in love with? I most certainly did. Sebastian: maybe try Soap now?
Posted by: dutchmarbel | August 10, 2006 at 12:33 PM
I remember Katherine Helmond's character making at least one appearance on Benson. I believe she was a ghost or an astral projection in the episode I'm thinking of.
Posted by: Gromit | August 10, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Does anyone know if BSG is signed up for a third season (or more)?
Yep, it starts in October.
Posted by: Anarch | August 10, 2006 at 01:07 PM
"Yes, I remember getting ready to go to school the day after Game 7 of the 1986 World Series and hearing a song on the radio that I believe was called 'Every Loser Wins' or some such. It wasn't until I was a few years older that I really appreciated what we had lost in Game 6."
I was in law school at the time, and my tax professor was a big Red Sox fan. The day after Game 6, before the professor got to class, a classmate of mine from Long Island wrote on the board:
"Q. What do the Red Sox and the French Army have in common?
A. Neither has been any good since 1918."
I do not believe I ever say a blackboard cleaned faster than on that day.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 10, 2006 at 01:13 PM