Author Topic: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread  (Read 45438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
I cannot immediately think of a single worthwhile thing in Blood and Chrome. Not even one line of dialogue or story beat springs to mind.

e: I am open to being convinced though!

 

Offline An4ximandros

  • 210
  • Transabyssal metastatic event
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
I can think of one thing of Blood & Chrome: they don't mix.

 
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
One of the shots that David_cgc got my attention was the museum window located at the forward starboard flight pod. . . did it survived (intact) throughout the whole 4 seasons? :)
Phasers?!?!?  We don't need no frakking phasers!

 

Offline BritishShivans

  • Jolly good supernova
  • 29
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
No, IIRC a Heavy Raider crashed through it and decompressed the flight pod that was being converted into a museum. I think they eventually returned it back into service and got the viper launch tubes operational again, but again, this is if I remember correctly.

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
That was the back window.
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline newman

  • Moderator
  • 211
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
David, can we please, please, with a cherry on the top and for the love of all things holy, get rid of the logic that because other shows made mistakes here and there that gives B&C carte blanche to make them all over the place and still remain at least passable?

As several people said numerous times here, yes nuBSG made mistakes too, but on the whole, it was a very good show for the most of us. It would have some CGI errors but wasn't made of them. It didn't put so much crap in every shot your eye couldn't find a fixed point. It sometimes retconned stuff but didn't do it on the B&C scale with fat greebled vipers now called mk3's, the beloved mk2 nowhere to be seen, the so much overgunned it looks like bad fanon Galactica, the Valkyrie, etc etc. BSG had one really silly action scene in Razor, B&C has one every 10-15 minutes. BSG had interesting characters and plot, B&C doesn't.

Most of all, BSG felt the part. The space scenes felt like they happened in space. The overall mood followed the setting. B&C feels like Michael Bay making a transfomers spinoff on a tight budget.

In the end, a lot of us here love BSG to a point where we were willing to work for free for 4 years on a game dedicated to it. I for one wanted to like B&C but for me, it failed to deliver on every level. Sorry if that rains on your parade, it certainly rained on mine - but no amount of forum arguments and stretched comparisons are going to make me enjoy this tacky looking, clumsy storytelling excuse for a show - not sure if you think you'll convert us into liking it by some well aimed comment but that won't be happening. If you like this show, good for you - some of us don't and forum posts aren't likely to change that. To quote the young non-Adama (this kid doesn't look, act or sound the part) -  deal with it :)
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 07:17:56 am by newman »
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread

Right. Avoid feathering live-action mattes in my 3D work and don't view JJ Abrams as a trendsetter. To think, I wasted all that time in those photography classes, and agonizing over polyflow and UV maps, when I could've substituted knowledge of composition, lighting, and modeling with the three noes: No matte feathering, no bloom, and no compositing tricks from after 1998. I can feel my work in the parts of the pipeline I'm not involved with becoming better already.

I love, absolutely love that your detailed complaints about the CGI have absolutely nothing to do with the CGI. Look development and compositing, but not CGI. And then you mock me for foolishly thinking you were judging quality of the CGI by the quality of the CGI.

You'd do so much better without the sarcasm it's not even funny. Look, it's not my fault if the people in command of the compositing, the look, the every bit and bolt that makes the final picture has botched your "CGI" work (to me CGI is more broad than UV Mapping but hey) and turn it into a pile of plastic looking garbage. To complain that this was a "JJ trendsetting" makes it even worse, since JJ's CGI team (was it light and magic? I think so) actually executed it masterfully and without any single mistake of B&C. The lens flares of Star Trek are annoying as hell but you never feel they exist to hide the problems of glueing CGI with filmed characters.

There's a difference between a style and a hack.

Quote
So it's just a little irritating when the most lively discussion about B&C is a half-dozen people running around in circles finding ever more inane reasons to say it's the suckiest piece of suck that ever sucked. Each treated equally, as unforgivable sins against drama. And it's the people you'd think would be the first ones to see a lackluster story as an opportunity, not a burden.

It's a burden, it's a piece of trash television that might as well never have existed in the first place. Now, you might say that some people might have enjoyed it and so on, but such facts are irrelevant to me and I dare say to many people here.

Quote
This isn't a defense. This is a (vain, apparently) attempt to discuss anything other than how much fun it is to bully the movie, deserving target though it may be.

You don't seem to stand other people having opinions different than yours.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
No, he's just saying that the constant slagging off of B&C for the same things every week is getting a bit old.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline newman

  • Moderator
  • 211
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
Whatever one's opinion on B&C is, this thread is needlessly spiraling into something not nice. It's *just* a tv series, getting worked up about it like a bunch of 12 year olds is silly. If you liked it, fine. If you didn't like it, also fine. Both sides gave ample arguments for their positions, so maybe it's time to give it a rest without getting personal.
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
No, he's just saying that the constant slagging off of B&C for the same things every week is getting a bit old.

Thank you.

In a sentence, I'm as disappointed in the thread as most of the people in it are in the movie.

And I'm unmoved by the notion that this, suddenly, this place is where the rubicon was crossed. I've been hearing that this is the place where Battlestar Galactica became unwatchable trash, without one single redeeming line or moment, all the way back to the first report Starbuck was going to be a woman in the remake. I'm not really interested in going back to dig up every contemporary negative review (which was just as well-supported and sincere as the opinions in this thread) saying that the second Battlestar Galactica became terrible because Starbuck was a woman, or because of gratuitous sex, or because the production design wasn't futuristic, or because they switched from 13 episode seasons to 20, or because of the stand-alone episodes in season 2, or because it just became a bunch of liberal Iraq War whining on New Caprica, or because it spent too much time on the Cylons, or because of the love polygon, or because Athena could go around murdering people and no one cared, or...

I'm sure we all remember people with those reactions over the last eight or nine years. Vehement reactions. Heartfelt reactions. To this day you can't mention "Daybreak" without people who didn't even watch the show knowing about how it was such a betrayal, an utter failure that tainted everything that went before. Except not everybody thought that, but the ones who did were kind of loud.

B&C was weak, but a lot of these reactions are way beyond appropriate. You'll have to do better than being Languatron 2012 to get a response that comes down to more than "Would it kill you to have a little perspective?" out of me.

 

Offline newman

  • Moderator
  • 211
Re: [Spoilers] Blood & Chrome - The Discussion Thread
Right. On one hand, saying B&C sucked and listing the same reasons over and over is getting old. On the other, so is drawing comparisons to other stuff to somehow justify it. Comparisons that are stretched beyond belief (comparing with people whining about Starbuck being a woman before the show was aired isn't analogous to people who spent years analyzing ever bit of BSG being disappointed in B&C after it was aired and they've seen it. But, back to the point..) So we have a situation where some people say it sucks a lot, others say it sucks a hell of a lot more, and yet others who want to nitpick about ones or others having missed the mark in the levels of suck. It is tiresome and pointless.

Kara can unlock this if he wants to, but given that everyone insists on finding new and creative ways of saying the same damn thing over and over and no side seems to be giving signs of giving up, I'm locking this thing.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 09:50:30 am by newman »
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb