Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
October 16, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
12,459 (2 today)
Favourites
1 (who?)
Comments
54
×
Thanks to all who responded to my latest poll on science in science fiction. As some of you may have guessed the poll was driven by the (minor) controversy around "Gravity" which arose when a few science and SF notables publicly shared their nitpicks on the film's facts.

I'm usually the first one to nitpick an SF film, but after seeing "Gravity" that was not my first instinct. I think that may be due to the fact that those controversial shortcomings are in the details of specific of technologies (orbital altitudes of given objects, cycle rates of airlocks,  space suit structural details, NASA standard procedures) and not so much with the actual physics or character motivations. So maybe this film taught me something about myself and how I measure SF cinema. I feel that "Gravity" is a great film, both in terms of entertainment and technical achievement.

Argosy-UBS-Shroud-Jettison by Drell-7

I don't get to see my buddy Tom (Drell-7 drell-7.deviantart.com/ ) very often as he's half a continent away, but as luck would have it he had to make a road trip to the East Coast so we got to see it together. Before seeing the film I went into near total blackout mode in terms of detailed reviews and feedback. Tom – not so much, it seems… so he went in with things like deGrasse-Tyson's nitpicks www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24… in mind. Perhaps he'd have picked up on them anyway, but he came out of the movie primed to nitpick and reluctant to give it his stamp of approval without detailing his caveats. I just came out amazed at what I saw and blown away by the new standard of space realism the film set. So when Tom unloaded the nitpicks, it really kinda rained on my parade (sorry, bud...).

Far Side of the Sky by Drell-7

Now in all fairness I had my own set of nits…. but I was more inclined to overlook those in the face of a really great SF experience that had more solid science than almost anything since "2001". For me the film proved wrong the old adage that "accurate science in SF would just make it boring", and that's worthy of celebration! So yeah… some real world details were fudged, but in this case I just don't seem to care. Maybe it makes me a hypocrite? But I'm with Steve Burg (Steve-Burg steve-burg.deviantart.com/ ) in regarding this film as a new high bar for scientific accuracy and aerospace realism. Plus it's a delight to see a film like this pop up in the age of Hollywood over-caution and sequelmania.

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

On another subject – and more on the space operatic side of things – we're a little over a week out before Space Battleship Yamato 2199's final four episodes hit the Web. Can't wait. As I've said before the series has illustrated just how a series reboot of a classic should be done, respecting and tuning up the source material instead of just vomiting one's creative ego all over an established background. Yeah, "Galactica" did a pretty good job, but "Yamato 2199" gets to the same place without such a dramatic face lift. "2199" is an anime masterpiece, in my mind. Fun, exciting, neat tech, good (for space opera) science, and solidly entertaining. It just gets better with every episode.

Combat Stations by Odyanii

If you missed it last time, these are the sites where you should be able to stream the series:

Gogoanime: www.gogoanime.com/category/uch…
Pinoy Anime: www.pinoyanime.tv/space-battle…
Anime Flavor: animeflavor.com/index.php?q=no…

  • Mood: Angsty
  • Listening to: CliqHop (SOMA-FM)
  • Reading: "The Starless World" by Eklund
  • Watching: Agents of SHIELD
  • Playing: Star Wars Angry Birds 2
  • Eating: In
  • Drinking: ...yeah...
Add a Comment:
 
:icondana-redde:
dana-redde Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Also, they could have EASILY solved the hair thing by just cropping her hair short. But then a bunch of execs/audiences would have complained because she wasn't ~pretty~ enough (which is insane because you could tip a dumpster over that woman's head and she'd still be radiant). But seriously, bam, cut down on a big inaccuracy and save a big chunk of CGI budget.

Hire me, Hollywood, I solve problems.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2013  Professional General Artist
Sadly I don't think that they really WANT their problems solved... (sigh)
Reply
:icondana-redde:
dana-redde Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Gravity inspired one of the stupidest thoughts I've had in a long time:

As Sandra Bullock climbed onto the various space stations and opened the hatches to climb in: "Wait, why aren't the doors locked?"
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2013  Professional General Artist
LOL! Yeah... that's one you kind of kick yourself even for entertaining for a few seconds ;)
Reply
:icondeepblu742:
Deepblu742 Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013
I saw it in IMAX 3D and although definitely pricier I can't recommend it enough, the visual feel of flying debris and first person & revolving external perspective felt much more intense than on a normal 2d screen.

I didn't view Gravity as a magnus opus like treatment of a hyper-realistic NASA docudrama, as it has some purely fictional ideas of the nature of a satellite debris cascade, the presence of a large Chinese space station, among others. More of a gripping space drama set amongst current astronautic tech, decisions where made that weren't necessarily realistic to continue the suspense and narrative intensity. Intense it certainly was, which hopefully will set a bar to encourage film-making to incorporate more realistic space based storytelling than the Michael Bay-like spectacles we get mostly today.

Battelship Yamato...crickey, haven't seen anything of that since the ancient days of Star Blazers.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013  Professional General Artist
Yamato went on with many movies and series, but 2199 goes back to the first story and updates it... with exceptional results, I feel.
Reply
:iconghostbirdofprey:
GhostBirdofPrey Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2013

Why is it that the more accurate a film tries to be the most people nitpick the MINOR things?  Nobody cares that X-Wings fly like there's an atmosphere but everyone is up in arms because an actress' hair isn't floating in free-fall because it would blow the special effects budget.  I'm actually a bit surprised Drell-7 went into it already against the film considering he does a lot of Star Trek related stuff


If we want to nitpick though, remember they stood up and leaned on a table while in free-fall in 2001 and Bowman inhaled before taking a spacewalk sans helmet.  No film is perfect, but that shouldn't interfere with enjoying it.


Personally, for me while I do like more hard SF just because the real life technologies that they extrapolate to come up with it intrigue me (and it's a nice break from your standard space opera), I am less concerned with perfect accuracy as I am consistency, if your made up future technology has a reasonable explanation, and more importantly functions exactly the same way every time it is brought up, that's plenty fine for me.  The only thing that really bugs me is when they make huge mistakes in ignorance like the space will instantly freeze you or make your head asplode kind of crap (I am willing to ignore the fact most movies have sound in space and battles take place at ranges under several dozen-hundred kilometers since that's fairly difficult to portray in an entertaining manner.)

Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013  Professional General Artist
Well I guess the more a product says "good science", the more we expect it? But yeah... it's good to give them credit for trying and for what they get right, rather than following on a few shortcomings. In Gravity's case I felt that the good so outweighed the bad (science-wise) that the bad didn't deserve much attention.
Reply
:iconienkoron:
Ienkoron Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013

One week till last 2199 cannot wait *squeeeeee*

Ok fan moment over...

 

Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013  Professional General Artist
It ain't over 'til it's over ;)

:squee:
Reply
:iconienkoron:
Ienkoron Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2013
Aye and I think they set up for the next series if you noticed... :XD:
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013  Professional General Artist
Yup. Seems pretty certain we're gonna get the Comet Empire redux!
Reply
:iconienkoron:
Ienkoron Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2013
Which ought to be good, as it was a little clunky in Old SB...
Reply
:iconnight-forager:
Night-Forager Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2013   General Artist
I finally watched "Into Darkness" a couple of weeks ago, having read the synopsis on Wikipedia, heard SF Debris initial reaction to the film; but I basically forced myself to build a "Chinese Wall" in my head to block out what I'd already known.  And, in all honesty, I found myself liking it.  And, like most critics of the JJ Abrams Trek, I have my nitpicks, but it was overall a good film, and a good Trek film.  My biggest gripe overall is that it came out more than ten years too late; its message was exactly one that I feel we needed to hear in the wake of the 9-11 attacks (the victims of which they dedicated this film to).  However, to be fair, that's more a gripe that I have against Star Trek: Nemesis, for not even remotely touching on current events.  The ending of the film, for me, shows that Abrams was finally getting a feel for what Star Trek was and should be.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013  Professional General Artist
Hm. I still don't feel much of an urge to watch it. It just doesn't feel like there's much there for me.
Reply
:iconnight-forager:
Night-Forager Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013   General Artist
I do want to apologize if I got off on a tangent.  It was late when I wrote it.  I was just making the point that, from experience, I agree with what you were saying.  Going into a film after listening to all the nit-picky things being said about it can ruin your enjoyment of what would otherwise be a good story; it's also common for the reverse to be true.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty much in the middle when it comes to the JJ Abrams Trek reboot; which is to say, I don't think it's horrible, but it's not as good as it could have been.
Reply
:iconcompass-uk:
compass-uk Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2013
Just watched the first episode of Yamato 2199. It is well drawn and very polished; obviously since it is more than 30 years since the original version.

But I miss Leiji Matsumoto's drawing style. I liked his lithe females with the unrealistic long eye lashes and long flowing hair, and the new Doctor is considerably more serious looking than the 1974 counter-part.

Maybe that style is too "old fashioned" now.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013  Professional General Artist
Well Matsumoto's women were strikingly beautiful... but the downside was that he could pretty only draw one woman. There was a definitely sameness to all his female characters, from Yamato to Harlock. 2199 ultimately acknowledges that and actually uses it as a plot point.... and I guess a fan in-joke ;) I like 2199's character refined design, personally. I didn't notice that Doctor Sado was much different... but he IS less of a slap-happy drunk. Perhaps the most radical character tweak was Analyzer. They ditched his inexplicable lechery towards Yuki and his general comic relief and made him into an interesting character.

I think you'll find that the first 4-5 episodes are pretty faithful. After that they keep with the plot, but start breaking new ground and lend the story a contemporary level of sophistication.... like the episode where Analyzer develops a friendship with a captured Gamillas android and the one where they have a party to celebrated leaving the heliosphere - and analog to the Equator crossing rituals of sea travel.

If you give the whole thing a go, I think you'll like it.
Reply
:iconcompass-uk:
compass-uk Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2013
Well, just finished watching the final episode. Quite a few variations from the original, but production was top-notch and the plot more polished.

In light of that, I am looking forward to the re-imaging of the follow-up series.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
Me too!
Reply
:iconcompass-uk:
compass-uk Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013
I hadn't really thought about all the Leiji-verse women looking the same, but you're right. The variations are in costume and colour (especially in Interstellar 5555) and other minor attributes. As I don't spend all my time in the Leiji-verse, I didn't really pay much attention to it.

I will watch 2199 though, I was planning on reviewing all the 1974 version as a precursor to watching the following stories which I haven't seen yet.

The last thing I watch from Leiji was Galaxy Railways and Harlock, Endless Odyssey. Both were great, but a friend thought that trains in space was a rather silly idea, but hey, it's fantasy!
Reply
:iconmillenniumfalsehood:
MillenniumFalsehood Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2013
Saw Gravity and while there are technical inaccuracies, it's still a fun ride, especially if you like suspense films. It also did a great job conveying the desolation of space.

For me, as I mentioned in the poll, I don't mind inaccuracies in the science if they're not too egregious. I care mostly about whether the story is good and the characters are relatable when I watch a movie. That being said, certain things I simply can't overlook. The ice that sank in water in G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra is one of those things.

But things like the phasers in Star Trek, the non-Newtonian movement in Star Wars, and the plasma guns in Babylon 5 don't really bother me as long as it remains internally consistent.
Reply
:iconstarshipmodeler:
starshipmodeler Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013
Internal consistency, more than anything else, is what sells a series (book or video/movie/TV/whatever) for me.  There's a lot of good fantasy that does this (and by "fantasy", I mean all of it - magic (tolkein), supernatural (werewolves/vampires/etc) and space opera).  The various incarnations of Star Trek (excepting the original series and DS9, mostly) were really bad with consistency.  The rebooted Galactica, for all that I enjoyed it during it's run, was pretty inconsistent as well.  B5, on the other hand - pretty much rock solid, once you bought into the premise. JJ's Star Trek - fun as entertainment, but so full of holes that both movies had me yelling at the screen - in the theater.

Linda and I are jonesing to see Gravity.  That's dependant on a babysitter though.

And I've tried, I really have, but I just can't get into Yamato 2199.  That said - when Bandai releases the Garmillias' carrier models next year, I am *so* going to build me an epic space fleet.
Reply
:iconbigloader69:
BigLoader69 Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013
What ever happened to going to the movies or watching a movie at home without looking at it & saying thats not possible. Movies were meant to be fun. How cares if real science isn't involved. I for one will not see it just because who plays in it.
Reply
:iconjames-is-james:
James-Is-James Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I only have seen the trailers for "Gravity".  I've read the nit picks (orbital mechanics, Sandra's hair), but everyone I've talked to has thought the film was great.  From the trailer it looks too scary for me...
Reply
:iconmillenniumfalsehood:
MillenniumFalsehood Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2013
It's not scary so much as it is suspenseful. There are many parts where you're just sitting around waiting for something to happen, which is what creates the suspense. The trailer actually contains most of the action.
Reply
:iconmaster-ninjabear:
master-ninjabear Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Hobbyist Artist

I don't go to movie theaters any more.

Went to see "Man of Steel" with a friend.

After the film we went for a snack, he got into a fender-bender on the way to KFC and I'm not exaggerating when I say the accident was less jarring than the film.

 

So no, have yet to see this film, and I will wait patiently to see it before I comment.

Any good story relies on a certain amount of artistic/dramatic/poetic license, but so long as they're not curing death with superblood serum, I'll take a look.

B-) (Cool)  

Reply
:icondrofdemonology:
DrOfDemonology Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional Writer
Haven't seen it yet, and given the lead cast, not in a rush (not a huge fan of either). Will wait for video or TV.

I'm not into pointless nitpicking on any film, and can easily overlook small details *if* it's a good cinematic experience. If there's big breaking of my suspension of disbelief (again, on any genre) I will freely rip a film to shreds for being stupid.

My only beef with "hard" sci-fi tends to be with the authors/creators, and their rabid fans ~ with the attitude that if it's not "hard" sci-fi then it's useless and unrealistic. Also, speaking as an author:

Just because a person has scientific and-or engineering degrees, does NOT automatically qualify them as a talented writer capable of creating an enjoyable, engaging story with characters you root for and a captivating plot. I don't care how "accurate" a story is, scientifically. If it's boring as shit, then it's boring as shit and vector equations aren't gonna save it.

From what I've seen of the ads, Gravity is set in the relative now. All well and good. But I've seen too much "hard" sci-fi set hundreds and hundreds of years in the future, but all the "hard science" in them is based on *today's* technology. Same goes for lots of art concepts here on DA, and on TV and film. Then people go on about how realistic it is. Oh, really? Way into the future and the best they can come up with is designs using today's stuff? (especially spacecraft) That's not realism, that's lack of imagination and foresight.

Sorry for the rant, but this topic of "real" and "proper" science fiction always hits a nerve.
Reply
:iconravens-eye-studio:
Ravens-Eye-Studio Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Okay...I gotta see this movie. Hopefully, before it comes out on DVD, although sitting in a theater is becoming a matter of how long I can sit in those chairs. But, we shall see. It would be nice to see something great on the big screen. 
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
We gots comfy chairs! Come here!! :D
Reply
:iconravens-eye-studio:
Ravens-Eye-Studio Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Wish we could! 
Reply
:iconcolourbrand:
Colourbrand Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yet to see this Gravity - may watch it on DVD...the nit picks on Gravity I will have to see the film than take 'various' expert's opinions.


As for the "Science with that Fiction" I think its not the case of accuracy - its rules and reasonable credability; the problem I find with Sci-fi, especially Star Trek is what I call convenient technology; ships that have hulls that can widthstand pulsar energy but cannot take phaser hits; tri-corders or other tech where if fed more power, or reversing the polarity will help our heroes win the day; handy robot that can DO ANYTHING to get the good guys out of a pickle (R2 D2!); vagueness of said tech for storytelling reasons - a great cuplrit is that in Babylon Five; magical technology where ships take on a THRASHING but somehow stay intact, and so on and so forth.

If they stick within their set of rules or rules of Science, I can live with that, but too many times we have seen poor writers bend the rules for cheap wins, feeding us pseudo-science that they make out as credible, and make out ONLY the good guys understand it.

Limits are more attractive than convenient technologies.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
Yeah, with higher tech SF establishing an internal logic (and sticking to it) is vital, IMHO.
Reply
:iconglitterboy2098:
Glitterboy2098 Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
when discussing this on various RPG forums, i use the term "verismilitude". "the appearance of being true or real"
which is basically can be explained for this stuff, that accuracy is less important than making sure everything seems believable and consistent.
Reply
:iconcr99nut:
CR99nut Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013
I happen to like deGrasse-Tyson, but man, he seemed to go overboard tearing 'Gravity' apart! I knew that there were going to be scientific inaccuracies for the sake of the story, and I was OK with that; it's not, after all, a documentary. But I've seen other films with far less scientific accuracy that seem to get a pass from critics, so the amount of criticism heaped on this particular film (not only by deGrasse-Tyson, but others as well) seems a bit much. Kind of like the reviewers are showing off there scientific knowledge by dumping on how 'wrong' the film is, rather than discussing (either positively or negatively) the story and/or theme(s).

(Then again, I like Space:1999's first season, and you can't get much more scientifically inaccurate than THAT! But again, I'm willing to overlook that for the sake of some good stories, and S99 did have some very well crafted tales. I digress...)

I STILL haven't had time to watch Yamato 2199, but from what I've heard, your assessment of it being the 'right' way to do a remake seems spot on! If only we could do something like that in America. (Or better yet, create more new things, instead of always doing retreads!)
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
In all fairness to deGrasse-Tyson, I think more weight has been given to his crits by the public than he intended. He tried to emphasize that he thought it was a really good movie, so he didn't tear it apart.... though that's the impression given from the Web's ripple effect. And again, what I found impressive were that the inaccuracies were "technical" more than "scientific" and that's because the film chose to use existing technology. If they'd set the film in, say, 2030 with all new craft, then they'd have gotten away with it.
Reply
:iconcr99nut:
CR99nut Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2013
Just a follow up... I finally watched the first two eps of 2199, and WOW, it's amazing to look at! And as you've said in other comments, so far it's faithful to the original series. My biggest gripe about it is that so many of the spaceship shots are so FAST; there are only mere seconds to see/process those gorgeously drawn vessels before they're gone. Even establishing shots are a bit too quick for my liking. I'm not saying that the spaceship scenes should linger like the opening scene in 'Spaceballs,' of course, but I shouldn't have to hit the pause button to enjoy the view, either. (And ep two's Yamato emerging from the planet bomb mushroom cloud seemed over before it began... the original played up the suspense just a tiny bit longer and gave us what has become one of the original's more iconic shots, with the Yamato coming straight at the viewer while the out-of-focus mushroom cloud wavers in the background.)

Otherwise, though, it looks great, and there seems to be added depth to the characters and their various backgrounds/histories that should be interesting to watch unfold. I do hope that the Comet Empire gets a similar treatment (but with the series 2 ending as opposed to the movie ending, of course).
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013  Professional General Artist
The last four episodes with English subtitles should be hitting the web this weekend! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
:iconvektorix:
Vektorix Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
Soooo...final four: whatdidya think?? :)
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2013  Professional General Artist
OK... but I'm not sure it really lived up to the rest of the series. It wasn't bad. In fact it was good. But they didn't quite blow me away as I was hoping. The twists on the last episode were especially nice, with Okita becoming the ship and saving the planet. But I guess my big disappointment was in Dessler. He seemed to go unhinged awfully quick. And it looks like he's really dead. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out if they're able to move forward with season two. Also leaving the Gammilas homeworld intact and quasi-friendly is quite interesting.

So... they twisted and turned the original plot outline until the end. And I really didn't expect them to retain Kodai's brother's curtain call. They did that well. Overall I maintain my high marks for the series, even if the end didn't have quite the impact I'd hoped for. It felt a bit like they blew their budget mid-series and had to tighten their belts for those last few eps.

How about you?
Reply
:iconvektorix:
Vektorix Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
I am pretty much with you. I give the final four eps a B-, the overall series a B+.

The writers - well I won't say screwed up - but seem to have left a lot on the table with Dessler's arc. Clearly, he had a plan. He was infatuated with Starsha, he was willing to do what she wanted, but in the only way he could understand (i.e. conquer the universe), and he evidently had a sizable popular base of support at home (but obviously there was dissent). Clearly he wanted to join Gamelas and Iscandar and needed (he thought) Iscandarian support/approval (hence the using of Yuki and the references to Iscandar having a religious significance for the Gamelas). The writers didn't articulate that plan well though, and left a lot of dots unconnected. Why Second Baleras? Why the willingness to destroy the old Baleras just because Yamato was sticking out of the side of his palace? Iscandar has like two people on the whole planet (another thread left unexplained) - one shipload of troops would seem sufficient to secure that unification. Dessler descended into madness in the original also, but the original battle on Gamilas provided MUCH more rationale for that descent - Dessler's plan to drag Yamato to its destruction backfiring and causing the downfall of his entire civilization (something that would NEVER be done in 2199 since using the Wave Motion Gun to destroy Baleras would essentially have been genocide on the part of the Yamato crew). In 2199 - was he crazy all along, or maybe more accurately, crazy in a non-megalomaniacal-ruler sense, since he was clearly very self-important in the early eps.

All of this is made more ironic because the writers put so much in to fleshing out Gamilas itself in 2199. And, in perhaps the biggest change from the original series, Gamilas as an empire still exists! With a sizeable fleet! I guess Admiral Ditz is at least nominally in charge? Even though the Balun warp gate is destroyed, clearly there could be contact/relations between Earth and Gamilas - there is obviously a level of understanding/accomodation after Yamato saved Baleras and with the Yamamoto/Melda Ditz/Yurisha friendship. How will that play out in the future? WILL that play out in the future? The other aspect of Gamilas the writers didn't flesh out enough was what really was up with the dissidents? Did they object to Gamilas' expansionist policies (something alluded to in one episode, but never stated). Did they want more political freedoms in the empire? And what of the Admiral who got the bulk of the Milky Way fleet together at Balun for the attempted coup? Was that a third faction? Was he a setup? What's most frustrating is that "Captain's Log" monolog at the start of Ep 22 seemed like the perfect place to answer all that, and maybe was intended to, had that been an entire episode rather than crammed into three minutes… Assuming the obvious "lost in translation" isn't the case, just seemed like with a few changes in scene focus and lines of dialog, they could have connected the dots of the Gamilas political structure and left us with a satisfying resolution.

I don't think Dessler is dead - the creators of 2199 have taken far too many pains to stick close to the path, if not the fine details, of the original. Dessler is too big a factor in the second series, so I figure they will show his escape in flashback in S2, just as they did after his seeming death at the end of the original first season. What will be interesting to see is that Dessler's motivation in S2 was revenge for the destruction of Gamilas at the hands of Yamato, as he lead his rag-tag fugitive fleet looking for allies. Now, there is no Gamilas diaspora, so unless they plan to make some sort of Gamilas civil war a theme in S2 (which would be interesting but might well detract from the Gatlantis being center stage) maybe it will be just Dessler trying to manipulate the Gatlantis. To be honest going in to the latter part of Ep 25 I kind of expected Dessler's "redemption" from near the end of S2 to be done then, and it probably would have been a fitting place for it to clear the stage for S2.

The Iscandar segment was interesting, although I think it could have been longer. The idea that the CosmoDNA worked via the "memory" of the life on a planet - thus necessitating a human to make it work - was a very nice touch. Mamoru Kodai's curtain call, as you said, was good, although Yuki's death/resurrection was a little melodramatic for my taste. And why was the Wave Motion Gun plugged up for the trip home? That was never explained - they just set sail with the barrel covered without a word. Was it a promise to Starsha to not use it any more? If so, we all know it's a promise that won't be kept. 

I don't think it was a lack of budget at the end that caused things to tail off, since the animation was back to top quality in the final four. They could have done with two more episodes to clean up the Gamilas storyline, and flesh out some of the side stories better (Yamamoto, Kato, etc.). I think it was the writing that failed at the end, writing that was SO GOOD most of the way through and then jumped the track a bit as things game to a head. 
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013  Professional General Artist
You pretty much touched on all the things I saw as creative shortcomings with the final four. It just didn't feel as rigorously conceived as the rest of the series... almost like they had too much story left to tell, but not enough episodes to do it in so they skipped a lot of explanation. It'll be interesting to see how all these revised events segue into season 2. I give 'em high marks for at least showing us that it was the Gammilans who were keeping the aspirations of the Comet Empire in check. While their planet still exists, I suspect they'll be less expansionist/interventionist.
Reply
:icontrekkiegal:
TrekkieGal Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I have yet seen the film, but I tend to take ANY motion picture with a grain of salt.  If you want true facts, details, and entertainment read a book it last longer.  The fact is that no one makes a motion picture for fans of any interest, they make movies for the average moviegoer.  With that said it seems to match what you wrote in your journal, and doesen't sway my decision one bit as if I will, or will not see a picture.  The sad fact we can nitpick any film, my favorite line is if we didn't then there would be NO MOVIE.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
I agree that books usually do a much better job of scientific and technical realism.
Reply
:iconglitterboy2098:
Glitterboy2098 Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
books don't have to deal with special effect budgets.
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2013  Professional General Artist
True... but that's not the road block it used to be with physical effects. CG has really opened things up.
Reply
:icon2753productions:
2753Productions Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Basically the way I go to view a movie is to completely ignore most of the critics.  I've seen great movies that Siskel & Ebert said were mediocre or bad.  I've seen bad movies that critics said were great...  Basically it all boils down to what you, the viewer, likes.  If you want to go see Gravity because you think it may be a good movie, then by all means, GO!  I myself thoroughly enjoyed the movie. 
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
Maybe I didn't make my text clear? I went... and ignored the critics beforehand. I haven't trusted most critics for years, anyway. It was after the movie where my experience got a bit... "sullied".
Reply
:icon2753productions:
2753Productions Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Ummm yeah, I read the journal.  That was a comment simply about how I feel about those critics...  my two cents so to speak...
Reply
:iconrob-caswell:
Rob-Caswell Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
I'm with ya! :)
Reply
Add a Comment: