Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

Now Playing on /1701/tube -

Did anyone actually watch/like Babylon 5?

- Mon, 14 May 2018 12:13:30 EST NSyoVkIK No.64546
File: 1526314410794.png -(159203B / 155.47KB, 500x374) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Did anyone actually watch/like Babylon 5?
I know this is a Star Trek board. But I see this series brought up often here and I did myself try to watch it. I'm not one of those "durr only Star Trek" people- I like a good *story.* Wherever is comes from.

More to the point- did anyone actually watch Babylon 5? I seriously tried to but the acting is so bad. And the production value and CGI so terrible that it was at times for me unwatchable. The story that I've read in the past on the various Wiki entries and what not make the Shadow Conflict thing seem interesting! But watching it appears to be such a god dam slog that I cannot bring myself to watch all of it...
Spock - Mon, 14 May 2018 13:50:47 EST pekGfeeU No.64547 Reply
you are me
i tried it multiple times and dropped it multiple times for the same reasons
Lt. Cmdr. Dexter Remmick - Mon, 14 May 2018 17:03:32 EST j4ERvPYe No.64555 Reply
Completely skip season 1, come back to it afterward.
For that matter, skip the last season too.

Otherwise, a show equal to DS9 with some of the best Sci-Fi acting until BSG reboot (and then Fringe).
Jaro Essa - Mon, 14 May 2018 18:19:10 EST l5TvN503 No.64556 Reply
1526336350475.jpg -(40565B / 39.61KB, 672x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Early on, the production values and acting (??) may bother but before long the excellent writing and dialogue totally make you look past the flaws and they even become endearing. It obviously hasn't aged well in terms of production value but besides that it's timeless. It's a perfectly written show. No other show, let alone a sci fi show, has had that depth on so many levels and been so perfectly executed story wise.
Deanna Troi - Mon, 14 May 2018 18:41:58 EST +gPRLRG+ No.64557 Reply
It was on par with Trek with me when I was a kid, but kid's are stupid. Haven't really watched it since.
Leonard McCoy - Mon, 14 May 2018 19:25:43 EST DStF7Vev No.64559 Reply
I've seen it at least a dozen times. Make sure you watch the JMS viewing order. The first film and season are slow but important and it really build from there. Every season gets better and better until the end of S4 but there is still some good stuff in S5. The other films and spin-offs are decent, nothing great but they are good world building and often continue the story.
Broik - Mon, 14 May 2018 19:58:26 EST SfiMcBo4 No.64560 Reply
season 2 starts with them bringing Captain Tron up to speed
Guinan - Mon, 14 May 2018 20:13:30 EST b048m/L8 No.64561 Reply
1526343210084.png -(73651B / 71.92KB, 1012x1289) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I can't find the watch list I had.. but basically there's a really streamlined way to watch it and cut out the filler episodes. My pic is semirelated but don't ever watch crusade or call to arms, ever. So bad.
Hoshi Sato - Tue, 15 May 2018 13:10:34 EST HeFO2p/X No.64571 Reply
Yes man everyone has a hard time getting started with it but you just need to nut up and do it. You will never be a true fan of TV sci-fi unless you can speak authoritatively about how you feel about B5. Just get over yourself and watch it, start with S2 and stop at S4, that's only 3 seasons. If you can watch 3 seasons of a Trek before it gets good, you can watch this. You'll wonder why you waited so long.
Jaresh-Inyo - Tue, 15 May 2018 22:25:28 EST 5VzmgF16 No.64576 Reply
Honestly, this is a perfect binge show. It gets all GoT-in-space and it is nice to sort of follow it in one long binge where you don't forget who is doing what to whom behind whosits back....
Corporal Chang - Wed, 16 May 2018 00:05:55 EST ZR416Pa+ No.64577 Reply
so op here-

you're the second person to say that in this thread can I ask why? The first season is what I couldn't get past in seriousness. And why the last season as well? I know about the different viewing order. is it that or something else?
Admiral Owen Paris - Wed, 16 May 2018 01:08:33 EST 4WVh8sFm No.64578 Reply
how could I ever speak authoritatively on B5 when my opinion is just "ehhhh, it was aight"?
General Martok - Wed, 16 May 2018 16:48:45 EST j4ERvPYe No.64583 Reply
First season is almost completely out of continuity with the rest of the show.

Just like S1 of DS9 didn't establish the main story of Sisko and Dukat being an allegory of a predestined battle between Good vs Evil. This setup is presented in S2.

Also main protagonist shifts to Sheridan.

Last season is an epilogue to the series, as they expected to get cancelled in S4... so lots of side quests, another shift of the main protagonist, and dealing with life after your destiny is fulfilled.

Would of got to see that in DS9, but they decided to let viewers wonder instead of answering our fears.
Leskit - Wed, 16 May 2018 19:02:25 EST DStF7Vev No.64585 Reply
The first season is in no way out of continuity with the rest of the show. S1 is actually very important to the overall story and sets up a lot.
Seska - Wed, 16 May 2018 21:31:19 EST SfiMcBo4 No.64589 Reply
S1 doesn't hurt, but if you want to get grabbed by the balls and go "oh shit Babylon 5 is cool" I think S2 does a sharper job of it.
Third of Five - Wed, 16 May 2018 23:43:23 EST HeFO2p/X No.64593 Reply
It's like everyone is saying, S1 is ok but it has more filler episodes than any other season. Yes, there is stuff there that is picked up later but you don't absolutely NEED anything in the whole season so if it's putting you off just skip it. Once you're hooked you can come back later if you want.
5 is more useless though. Explaining why it is so irrelevant is kind of spoilers but suffice it to say everything you really care about is over by the end of season 4 and you only stick around for 5 if you are really interested in the characters and setting.
Gul Evek - Thu, 17 May 2018 16:29:30 EST 38Rd3CpY No.64598 Reply
1526588970411.png -(72257B / 70.56KB, 300x173) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I liked it. Didn't finish it though. The jokes and the nonessential conversations are poorly acted throughout, but you can kind of learn to ignore it. Acting gets better on the part of the main characters as the show progresses, though, especially with all of the ambassadors and their assistant dudes.

Like everyone else said it really picks up during season 2 but a lot of season 1 has to be watched for exposition and some stuff from season 1 ends up resurfacing later on. The plot gets pretty deep on a lot of different fronts. The whole shadow thing is a little formulaic but there's a cool tweest at the end that makes it worth it.

Also human Delenn is best waifu
Badar N'D'D - Thu, 17 May 2018 21:27:52 EST pekGfeeU No.64601 Reply
i'm trying to watch the gathering for the 4th time now and god how its awful
i'm not gonna bother listing everything i find shit about it but damn

189IQ writing they said
Guinan - Thu, 17 May 2018 21:31:52 EST b048m/L8 No.64602 Reply
You can totally skip that one.. it only introduces characters and the setting, really

It was also where Paramount got the idea for Odo
T'Pau - Thu, 17 May 2018 23:16:20 EST FgLloLjB No.64603 Reply
The movies, in general are horrible TV movie trash. In the Beginning bookends the series whether you've seen all of it or none of it.
Thirdspace is a long episode. River of Souls: lol Martin Sheen is an alien. Rangers is Starship troopers without the satire, or the troopers. And A Call to Arms while I know I've seen it. I couldn't tell you a single thing about it. And that's a bad review in my book.

>Babylon 5: The Lost Tales was intended to be an anthology show set in the Babylon 5 universe.
lol like those Discovery rumors.
>The project consists of one direct-to-DVD production containing two stories.
Protip: Don't make an anthology movie with two stories. You need three. Then on the DVD you can release extended cuts of each of them as not-quite-feature-length movies in their own right like Sin City.

I didn't know this existed. I'll probably watch it later.
Guinan - Fri, 18 May 2018 01:48:00 EST r99xqWCw No.64605 Reply
One is good.. or at least okay.. one is trash, just fyi
EMH MARK 2 - Fri, 18 May 2018 10:52:02 EST VYIAkxPv No.64608 Reply
Is this shit seriously about exorcising a goddamn demon with magic powers in space
Katogh - Fri, 18 May 2018 12:13:48 EST HeFO2p/X No.64611 Reply
>> The whole shadow thing is a little formulaic
B5 is literally Lord of the Rings in space. JMS has said as much. It's why he was able to come up with the whole arc of the show in one flash of shower inspiration, his brain just copied over the narrative of LOTR to a knock-off Trek universe (he originally pitched the show as a Trek show to Paramount, btw, they rejected him and used his idea a year later to make DS9, he retooled and made his show after spending a lot more time begging for funding.)
Geordi La Forge - Sat, 19 May 2018 10:40:16 EST VYIAkxPv No.64624 Reply
Yeah but I was seriously concerned that it was the good one.
Robin Lefler - Sat, 19 May 2018 14:12:20 EST Y11CrKsu No.64629 Reply
I grew up on B5. I love it and it has a lot of nostalgia for me. Rewatching it though, it's deeply flawed, even if I love it.

It's good for its time. At the time there wasn't tons of long arc storytelling on tv, so that was pretty groundbreaking. Also, the shadow war holds up as a story and the internal politics are interesting. The Londo/G'Kar relationship is one of the best crafted in TV scifi.

But... it never stops being awkward. As soon as they start getting their feet on the ground they lose some actors. They continue to diverge off into stupid filler side-episodes. They introduce Marcus who is one of the most cringey/skeevy characters ever conceived.

I probably wouldn't recommend it to someone who isn't really into scifi. I would recommend it to trekfans though, just with a lot of caveats.
Kai Winn - Sat, 19 May 2018 19:57:29 EST 7FETLPOS No.64635 Reply
the thing is i cant sit through STD either and i hate modern sci-fi with the exception of the orville

i'm not even talking about war and action and that stuff, i'm just talking about anything

like i said, these first few episodes (and the ones i havent watched yet) all smell like filler
Guinan - Sat, 19 May 2018 20:57:02 EST b048m/L8 No.64637 Reply
TBQHFAM I used a watch list the first time. I've been trying to find it but I can't seem to locate the exact one I used.. but I am going to try looking again right now.
Guinan - Mon, 21 May 2018 01:28:05 EST b048m/L8 No.64649 Reply
It is for me.. last rewatch I just stopped after the conclusion of the Shadow War and watched only the s4 finale and the last 2 episodes of s5 after that

I think that's how it goes
DaiMon Torrot - Tue, 22 May 2018 20:53:29 EST 5VzmgF16 No.64672 Reply
At the time, that CGI was ground-breaking for a TV series. The Video Toaster used to be the shit back in the day.
William T Riker - Tue, 22 May 2018 21:58:45 EST SfiMcBo4 No.64673 Reply
Video Toaster was the workhorse of 90s low budget TV..
Legate Hovat - Wed, 23 May 2018 02:11:12 EST 4WVh8sFm No.64674 Reply
nobody told me shit I watched this show a long time ago before ever coming to this board I was just stating my opinion
Hoshi Sato - Wed, 23 May 2018 02:29:51 EST yU9mPOdm No.64676 Reply
>that CGI was ground-breaking for a TV series.

But not properly used, terribly animated, over-ambitious for pure computer animation.
If I could go back and make one contribution to that show I'd puppeteer the spaceships and turrets on a side and overhead camera and motion tracked it by eye.

The biggest problem isn't how shitty the lighting and surfaces are. That actually works okay on CRT televisions. But they tried to do pure computer animation in a computer that couldn't render out a wireframe in real-time.
Otherwise they would have noticed how often they turn a starfury about its frigging Z axis pivot, centered in the middle of the mesh.
A: A pilot wouldn't fly that way.
B: the pivot for the starfuries should be between the engines and behind them, adjusting to the right or left and up or down based on the ratio of thrust between the engines
This shit is floating, once it starts rotating something has to stop it. This is why you model and animate stabilizing thrusters.
All of that shit is too complicated, so just go play with toys like an 8 year old for 10 minutes and make yourself a visual reference.

Pure computer animation is so difficult and painstaking to do well that most video games switched to mo-cap ages ago and the ones that didn't mostly had terrible animation. And it's difficult with real-time playback. Impossible on an Amiga.
Brok'tan - Wed, 23 May 2018 09:56:28 EST j4ERvPYe No.64677 Reply
>This shit is floating, once it starts rotating something has to stop it. This is why you model and animate stabilizing thrusters.

High School Physics says NOTHING HAS TO STOP IT (Newton's First Law).

A title of one of the damn episodes references this "Objects in Motion".

Pretty fucking sure they knew what they were doing internet wise-guy.
Sarpek the Fearless - Wed, 23 May 2018 12:43:19 EST HeFO2p/X No.64679 Reply
Using pure CGI was not a creative decision. They simply could not afford to go the traditional model route. Using nothing but CGI was the only way they had enough money to make the show.
Guinan - Wed, 23 May 2018 13:04:12 EST b048m/L8 No.64680 Reply
>make fun of the first real use of CGI in television based on criteria that were not yet developed when it was made
I kinda think you're being harsh. Go look at what videogames looked like the year the first season came out
DaiMon Torrot - Wed, 23 May 2018 14:15:23 EST 5VzmgF16 No.64681 Reply
So much this...so much.

They did a lot with very little on that show. Give them credit. Sorry it wasn't Jurassic World level CGI.
Hoshi Sato - Wed, 23 May 2018 14:20:39 EST yU9mPOdm No.64682 Reply
>High School Physics says NOTHING HAS TO STOP IT (Newton's First Law).
Wut? It also says they can't stop for no reason, which is exactly what they do.

Videogames actually do need a physics model though. None of them were accurate at the time and almost all of them still aren't now, but they are a set of rules that govern movement consistently in a way that Babylon 5 lacked.

You don't need any technology they didn't have to do a drastically better job. Stock footage of the Blue Angels/Red Arrows maneuvering in formation would have been a good frame-by-frame reference.
But so would playing with toy models with a top and side view. The four-pronged shape of starfuries is actually perfect for doing this.
Turanj - Wed, 23 May 2018 16:05:32 EST 9giLxpHZ No.64683 Reply
1527105932076.jpg -(23435B / 22.89KB, 450x268) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You-you-you you're really continue to compare fighter formations in gravity to fighter formations in a vacuum?

I have spotted the person that ignored their physics class people.
Hoshi Sato - Wed, 23 May 2018 16:54:46 EST yU9mPOdm No.64684 Reply
Absolutely not. But it's still a better animation baseline, and would serve the show better than winging it. You can see how the formations work in 3D.

Stunt planes and fighter jets roll because of the difference in maneuvering power they have across their axes. Airplanes are much stronger at pitching up and down doing a yaw. A Starfury, by comparison is stronger at doing a yaw than a pitch due to the spacing of its engines. So they have a reason to roll. Despite this, they still prefer to align themselves to pitch and usually maneuver along the pitch.
So I dunno that you can claim space physics when they were clearly already biased toward the fighter jet style.

But you'll notice one thing over all else: They almost never roll. And usually when they do, it's while they're flying straight.
What is actually the point of a flat plane delta formation in space anyway? 'cause that's what they use in the show, and unlike a fighter-jet delta where the planes fly at slightly different elevations in the formation, those ones are legit flat.

We have physics simulations now that help animators tremendously, but back in the day every animation studio really needed a physics major to help with the acceleration/deceleration curves.

It's also a writing thing. If you take more modern stuff like The Expanse or Seven Eves there's a lot more research on behalf of the writer to figure out mass/acceleration and impress upon the readers/audience that movement in space is all about Delta-V. And it forces the animators to take it in those same terms.

JMS was writing a fantasy space opera, and not trying to be hard sci-fi. But there's a visual intuition that just betrays the Starfuries.
And that's probably why Star Trek never did fighters until 1998.
Guinan - Wed, 23 May 2018 19:30:39 EST GwChYndC No.64685 Reply
Hadley - Wed, 23 May 2018 22:14:40 EST l5TvN503 No.64689 Reply
So easy to criticize 20 years later. God you're obnoxious.
Jannar - Wed, 23 May 2018 23:49:49 EST yU9mPOdm No.64691 Reply
1527133789367.jpg -(31497B / 30.76KB, 650x366) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I'd count it. It was all individual effects, compositing and digital matte paintings before then. But almost entirely in films, not really in Television.

VeggieTales does not fucking count. Cartoons in general don't count, at least not until ReBoot Insektors if you're a frenchy french fuck. That's an objective fact.
Odo - Thu, 24 May 2018 00:05:32 EST 8QEm2Cld No.64693 Reply
I don't get it, myself. Special effects and graphics have never mattered that much to me. Like whether it's an NES or a Switch, I'm just impressed they got the little plumber to move across the screen and enjoy the game. My imagination fills in the gaps, and with B5 or classic Doctor Who it's part of their charm. Plus without old CGI there's no modern CGI, so to me watching B5 and complaining about the effects is akin to visiting The Alamo and complaining about it not being air conditioned.
Gaila - Thu, 24 May 2018 00:47:07 EST lfvXQevj No.64694 Reply
Uh hey guys OP here. Not like that matters much?

Anyway- I can kind of see where Guinan was coming from, if you're being totally realistic about the time line of it yea computers and film have been around for a while.

Moreover I think what Guinan is talking about is that specific time that, for lack of a better word, "our kind" of CGI started coming to the fore. T2, Jurassic Park, etc etc. It started to really become "more common" in terms of production. I can be fine with that for Babylon 5 in terms of groundbreaking-ness.

I think the problem now has to do with ageing though. I state it simply that I'm new to B5 and that it's quite ugly. I have no nostalgia for it so I cannot say that it didn't matter as much since I was a kid.

And let me be clear it's not really a 'deal breaker' for me. It's just a thing that is how it is.
Lt. Diana Giddings - Thu, 24 May 2018 12:53:40 EST WedrHoVC No.64695 Reply
Jurassic Park has aged so well because it used so little CGI.

Babylon 5's effects are pretty awful but it didn't have the budget for muppets and Claudia Black in her 20s. But it's a one of those shows where it's really about examining the human condition via aliens and modern issues by the future and primarily having a cool plot.
K'Ehleyr - Thu, 24 May 2018 16:36:14 EST HeFO2p/X No.64697 Reply
1527194174367.jpg -(93014B / 90.83KB, 600x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Guise this is the first show that had CGI in it (to replace a ship model; as a main effect) also it's getting a remake so yay!
Commander Morag - Thu, 24 May 2018 20:00:49 EST yU9mPOdm No.64699 Reply
1527206449211.jpg -(254554B / 248.59KB, 1125x859) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
So in my quest for Starfury design diagrams I've found they actually look pretty badass.

Especially this one they didn't use. That shit is hot. They're all very derivative of The Last Starfighter but that's a functional design. Plus the Starfury is better, more mass in the center and the pilot placed much closer to the center of mass so you don't splatter all over the windscreen like captain Highway Star.
Jadzia Dax - Thu, 24 May 2018 23:11:22 EST l5TvN503 No.64701 Reply
The CG or action isn't the primary focus so it doesn't matter much to me. I just only watched it like 2 years ago and I still loved it. That generation of CG is kinda endearing once you get to the point of liking the show and characters.
Zefram Cochrane - Fri, 25 May 2018 00:16:08 EST SfiMcBo4 No.64704 Reply
have the laserdiscs ever been transferred?
I want to rewatch it but the shit DVD cropping triggers my tisms
Sarah Sisko - Fri, 25 May 2018 20:58:07 EST kYb6aaGt No.64722 Reply
1527296287430.jpg -(43119B / 42.11KB, 975x1663) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Can we just appreciate how cute this unfinished engine pod is?
Sarah Sisko - Sat, 26 May 2018 16:46:30 EST kYb6aaGt No.64731 Reply
>B5 is literally Lord of the Rings in space.
The ancient space-elf is named Lorien lol.
Captain Braxton - Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:28 EST Y0lA/p9U No.64913 Reply
1528918588134.jpg -(609917B / 595.62KB, 2560x2880) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Fuck it. I'm gonna start modeling a Starfury right now.
Well that was 20 days ago.

I played a lot of Fortnite instead, though.
Kira Taban - Sun, 17 Jun 2018 13:06:42 EST 0RjgU92B No.64933 Reply
I feel like post season one in turns into a pretty good show honestly. Even the early episodes aren't terrible. But its got the trek syndrome of being a show slow to start. But once it gets going it's got its own flavor, the unirverse dosen't feel quite as friendly as treks does.

I'm not in love with it. But I dont hate it. I'd call it worth a watch for a sci fi fan. The whole thing has a layer of cheesiness to it. And if you can't handle that skip skip skip.
Dr. Mizan - Sun, 17 Jun 2018 16:18:31 EST l5TvN503 No.64936 Reply
All trek has some level of cheese. Even STD though they tried not to.
Grand Nagus Smeet - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:28:27 EST MLBkNMi0 No.64971 Reply
1529540907420.jpg -(1557781B / 1.49MB, 5120x4320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If anyone knows what the original polygon count of the Starfury was I'd like to calculate how many times I blew through the polygon budget.

What I do know is that I blew through the memory budget of a maxed out Amiga 3000 about 420 times.
Kolo - Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:08:46 EST HeFO2p/X No.64986 Reply
A.) How did you have the time to do this
B.) I hope you do 3d modeling professionally cause you're amazing <3
Luth Lexor - Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:20:42 EST oxhxahfe No.65033 Reply
Yeah babylon 5 is based
you have to learn to appreciate the naffness of the costumes etc. it will pay dividends!
they made the wise decision to keep all aliens humanoid which means they can effectively explore decent storylines without huge plotholes\questions
the writing is great, hints of comedy, and pertinent themes to today. also well paced story arks, having been conceived as one 5 season project
have just finished my 2nd watchthrough and it gets better with time, as good as a space opera novel and that's a high praise

yes the CGI looks naff, mainly due to budget\technology at the time, but the story really gets you in for the long run
best way to watch it is the torrent of the full 5 seasons, there's a wiki with the proper order to include the movies in sequence

G'kar is my fave character and thalia is slammin hot.

great characters, great story, forgive the graphics and blast off

>man's last, best hope for peace
The Traveler - Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:07:11 EST iY71rgMr No.65034 Reply
>4 seasons of suspense build up
>war finally starts
>shortly after both the vorlons and shadows become best friends again and fuck off from the milky way

Groundskeeper Boothby - Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:59:59 EST UMfDMM4P No.65035 Reply
It's 3 seasons of build-up. And if you leave now you're missing the bitchin' Earth resistance war.
Colonel Lovok - Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:15:02 EST DStF7Vev No.65036 Reply
I watch it at least once a year and enjoy every bit of it every time. You cover it all pretty well. If you don't already make sure you watch the JMS viewing order. It is a fantastic series though. I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape because of the CGI. Its not modern eye candy with no substance. The CGI rightly takes a backseat and its not like its awful for the time and budget either. I don't get how people can sit through TOS and other similar series of the time no problem but you bring up B5 and suddenly it doesn't matter how good the story is or the characters are because the CGI isn't up to 2018 standards.

If you think that is all those 4 seasons are then it went totally over your head.
DaiMon Bok - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:43:57 EST 4WVh8sFm No.65037 Reply
B5's a great show and all but don't act like it was super deep or something man
Governor Torak - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:00:15 EST l5TvN503 No.65038 Reply
As opposed to 5 seasons of build up all for the silly wormhole prophet to just disappear?
Governor Torak - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:01:17 EST l5TvN503 No.65039 Reply
Literally nothing is deep at all to people on the internet. It can have intricate writing that touches on all kinds of subjects but all someone has to do is ironically say "2deep4me" and then it's not up to deepness standards.
Governor Torak - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:04:52 EST l5TvN503 No.65040 Reply
I have incomplete thoughts, so sorry for the third post but if Measure of a Man aired today people would say "lol, people actually like this 2deep4me shit?"

There's some kind of stigma that if a show or movie addresses anything philosophical that it is automatically pseudo philosophy, so basically no philosophy allowed.
Symbolic nb.
Captain Rixx - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:16:20 EST ZR416Pa+ No.65041 Reply
>As opposed to 5 seasons of build up all for the silly wormhole prophet to just disappear?

I assume you're referring to DS9. That show, imho, is less about the Prophets and more about the War Diplomacy that makes up the bulk of the series.

>Literally nothing is deep at all to people on the internet. It can have intricate writing that touches on all kinds of subjects but all someone has to do is ironically say "2deep4me" and then it's not up to deepness standards.

Yes. Yes that's true. Most of the time the idea is to see who can win "The Contrarian Olympics." The internet was functionally a mistake.

>There's some kind of stigma that if a show or movie addresses anything philosophical that it is automatically pseudo philosophy, so basically no philosophy allowed.
Symbolic nb.

I think that's literally true when it's written by hacks. otherwise serious people can have genuine disagreements
Ikat'ika - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:28:15 EST chOkTgWk No.65065 Reply
This is a weird depth of nitpicking about how space works for a Trek board. To this day Trek still has ships always meeting on a plane at close distance like they're boats.
Vice Admiral Nakamura - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:52:04 EST NmJ0Aupw No.65066 Reply
Well to be fair, if Discovery proved anything with its big zoomy traveling shot eventually revealing the Enterprise it's that camera perspective is pretty limited and we have almost no idea how close they actually approach.

Unless of course the camera moves around fast, which classic trek would never do because the camera is real and it would smash the models.
Guinan - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:03:45 EST A7VCaQlc No.65068 Reply
It always bothered me that ships orbit planets without the dorsal portion of the ship facing downward towards the planet, or even the ventral part of the ship facing the planet, they're always orbiting with the the broadside of the ship facing the planet. This is annoying because it would make adjustments to orbit really awkward since your perspective is all sideways and shit. If you understand what I'm saying, you will never be able to unsee it.
Kira Nerys - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:29:55 EST HeFO2p/X No.65071 Reply
>>Trek still has ships always meeting on a plane at close distance like they're boats.
>>ships orbit planets without the dorsal portion of the ship facing downward towards the planet
Guize, it's a TV show. They were trying to communicate the idea of space travel to troglodytic 1960's suburbia through a 17 inch cathode ray screen; the best frame of reference they could have to help people understand was naval action.

You wanna see the ship oriented correctly to the viewer, and humans have no natural understanding of 'three dimensional thinking', so seeing the planet above or below the ship naturally makes one think the ship is at one of the planet's poles. Obviously nerds like us understand that this is just for simplicity's sake, but if they didn't do it, every episode they would have to explain it or people would be confused

if you think they wouldn't be confused, consider how many key plot moments thought up by the writers and greenlit by the producers throughout the shows rely on a totally faulty understanding of the 3dness of space.
Guinan - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:32:16 EST A7VCaQlc No.65072 Reply
This is why I don't usually spout off about such minutia. But if you ever play Kerbal Space Program, you'll gain an intuitive understanding of orbital mechanics that will make scenes like the one from Into Darkness where the ship is falling straight down so fucking unbelievable that you'll be filled with white hot, enthusiastic rage
Ikat'ika - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:48:30 EST chOkTgWk No.65074 Reply
Well yeah. I don't care. I just mentioned it because I thought >>64676 was hilariously specific.

Though it is super cool when a show actually cares about that stuff. Everyone watch the Expanse if you haven't yet.
Dr. Denara Pel - Tue, 03 Jul 2018 21:56:43 EST jmSOtBOw No.65106 Reply
There's a point where shit becomes inescapably dumb. I'm fine with ships being close enough together to bump hulls, because it's easier in terms of storytelling to have them on screen at the same time. Even The Expanse did it on at least one occasion, even if it didn't make a ton of sense. I have more of an issue with writers not staying consistent with ranges between episodes, so you have the Enterprise practically running into something before detecting it, but the next episode it can detect things on the other side of the star system. But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to notice inconsistencies.

Stuff like >>65072 is completely retarded, though. Not only because spaceships aren't cars, but also because it ignores physics to do stuff that isn't very exciting, and is very cheap. And that's the risk of ignoring one part of the equation: If you get the other part wrong, too, there's nothing left to look at.

Trek was very often retarded with its physics. But it also almost always used its physics in order to set up that core of true Trek: Character interaction. For instance, in Hollow Pursuits Barclay has to solve some technobabble anomaly thing. But it's not about his investigation at all. Instead it's about his strained relationship with his crewmates, which comes to light due to the more difficult than average assignment. But when you say "these dudes are fighting on a falling spaceship" you're making that setting paramount to the scene. So if you fail at creating the appropriate setting, there goes your entire scene.
Admiral Cartwright - Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:52:17 EST l5TvN503 No.65188 Reply
1531576337742.png -(473563B / 462.46KB, 704x626) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Started my re watch of b5 this weekend and this time around I can really appreciate the humor more. I'm more acquainted with the style of humorand all the context so I'm finding tons of laughs I each episode. It's definitely more fun the second time around.

Also, I remember that someone here turned me on to Star Trek Shitposting, the fb group, so I'll return the favor and recommend Babylon 5 Spooposting. It's great.
Guinan - Sun, 05 May 2019 13:18:14 EST b048m/L8 No.67421 Reply
1557076694615.jpg -(56288B / 54.97KB, 641x641) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I feel like this year old B5 thread deserves a bump and maybe another year
Gregory Quinn - Sun, 05 May 2019 22:41:42 EST mw1AnnTr No.67425 Reply
lost half a year of discussion due to the database corruption
Lt. George Primmin - Thu, 09 May 2019 12:47:18 EST MZ6goDu/ No.67451 Reply
1557420438275.jpg -(396508B / 387.21KB, 1440x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Watch all seasons of B5 two times. Ask me everything. First answere is: Yes, B5 is better than Star Trek.
I.G. Tarah - Thu, 09 May 2019 15:57:34 EST HeFO2p/X No.67454 Reply
1557431854653.jpg -(38035B / 37.14KB, 600x435) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Do you think the resolution to the Shadow arc was hamfisted? Is it a cop-out how much it veered into being space LOTR, or was that just leaning in to its stated mission plan. On a larger scale, do you think the season 5 switcheroo helped or hurt the season 4 narrative?
T'Les - Thu, 09 May 2019 16:51:12 EST 60zgf9Xq No.67457 Reply
I've done that and my conclusion is that B5 is just okay
Gaila - Thu, 09 May 2019 21:22:58 EST bOlOhkyn No.67458 Reply
it's probably worth noting that LotR was WAY more obscure back then
Guinan - Fri, 10 May 2019 00:56:56 EST b048m/L8 No.67462 Reply
I think they did a damn good job considering all the storylines had to be compressed by an entire season. They thought they were getting cancelled at the end of s4 so everything had to sped up drastically.
Gaila - Fri, 10 May 2019 11:32:34 EST bOlOhkyn No.67464 Reply
That's still a lot less info about Kzhahadum or whatever than you get from them being on basic cable all the time
Natasha Yar - Fri, 10 May 2019 19:39:10 EST FkQ7Hlrv No.67467 Reply

Just started with the Gathering and I liked what I watched, now I can begin Season 1 Thanks for the rec.
Chell - Fri, 17 May 2019 23:33:49 EST Pa0YLefx No.67556 Reply
1558150429268.jpg -(31326B / 30.59KB, 400x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Well since JMS himself seems to recommend it, I suppose I will stick with that viewing order. Thank you for the link.
I just finished Deathwalker and so far I'm really enjoying season 1.
I'm not exactly sure if I understand the criticisms about s1 mentioned in this thread. The acting and jokes are apparently bad but I don't see a problem with them. The CGI is apparently too cheesy for people to take seriously but I enjoy it. The CGI reminds me of Starcraft and you can tell what they were trying to convey in relation to the scene.
As another user said, the cheese factor can be quite endearing but never too distracting either. The feel and aesthetic of the show is exactly what I've been looking for because it reminds me so much of Trek.
If you can watch TOS for what it is, then you'd think people would accept season 1 of B5 for what it is. Honestly the criticisms here seem pretty knit-picky. I'm new to the series so I can't speak at great lengths about the show yet, and I'm not saying it's flawless, but people should cut season 1 some slack. It's enjoyable and exactly the kind of show I need to fill the Trek void.
Guinan - Sat, 18 May 2019 00:53:08 EST b048m/L8 No.67558 Reply
If you like s1 you will fucking LOVE s2-4. S5 is uneven and shitty but I feel like it had a few gems nonetheless.
Ikat'ika - Sat, 18 May 2019 04:33:47 EST 60zgf9Xq No.67562 Reply
oh boy just wait until you get to the movies and Crusade...

...shits bad yo
Phlox - Sat, 18 May 2019 22:52:58 EST 8Tu6WKEq No.67563 Reply
I've held off from watching any sci-fi that isn't Trek ever since I discovered it. I think I might finally take the plunge into B5 though. I just have to find a good way to watch it. Is it on Netflix or HBO?
Guinan - Sun, 19 May 2019 02:36:41 EST b048m/L8 No.67564 Reply
Babylon 5 is a great show, it has a very trek vibe to its overarching themes and yet it has it's own unique aesthetic. The unfortunate thing about it is that it is completely unavailable on any streaming service. I mean the paid ones that is. The best and easiest place to find it would be through torrents or pirate streams laden with pop up ads. Its worth the struggle.
Lt. Joseph Carey - Sun, 19 May 2019 02:40:38 EST 5SVJcPG+ No.67566 Reply
They aren't amazing but they aren't absolute trash. If you like B5 then they are 100% worth watching for the lore and certainly watchable. The books and comics are good too.
Dr. Mora Pol - Sun, 19 May 2019 04:59:00 EST +2Tbsh8G No.67569 Reply
1558256340214.jpg -(139761B / 136.49KB, 707x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I'm just using watch-series. Use duckduckgo or whatever to find it if you don't know what I'm talking about. It's not like it was mastered in anything above 480p anyway so hopefully that's not too inconvenient for you. On the contrary, watch-series is a damn good site.
Guinan - Sun, 19 May 2019 12:12:55 EST b048m/L8 No.67573 Reply
I wanted to like crusade. I really did, but it is so bad that it's borderline unwatchable. The problem is that what we got all takes place before the primary storyline of the show had really kicked in, which would have been the end of a longer season. They should have just jumped right into it instead of dicking around because you just get the cinematic/storytelling equivalent of blue balls because nothing really happened.

I mean if you can enjoy crusade, more power to you, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Nevala - Mon, 20 May 2019 01:34:34 EST HeFO2p/X No.67581 Reply
Crusade is like if all the Dominion War was was the episode where Quark is trying to get tulaberry wine from the BDSM space clowns. Galen is cool though, they should have just had a show about him.
Ga'Kar - Thu, 23 May 2019 01:07:46 EST MahoacCW No.67609 Reply
1558588066105.jpg -(136289B / 133.09KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Holy shit those seasons ( 1-4 ) were AWESOOOOOOOOOOOOME
Harry Kim - Fri, 24 May 2019 18:24:09 EST JpsWdQPO No.67639 Reply
All I remember is being a teenager and wanting to fuck Ivanova
Vosk - Mon, 27 May 2019 19:10:30 EST OIcLaJGo No.67671 Reply
1558998630614.gif -(2996878B / 2.86MB, 474x268) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I tried watching it multiple times,
but the ugly CGI looked even worse than first PS1-prerendered-cutscenes.

Back to DS9 I went.
Syrran - Tue, 28 May 2019 00:42:15 EST bOlOhkyn No.67673 Reply
was there any B5 video games
Guinan - Tue, 28 May 2019 13:20:38 EST ndGosVGz No.67677 Reply
Sadly no but it would have made for some amazing games. Can you imagine if they remade B5 not as a TV show but as the best vidya game ever crafted by human code?
EMH MARK 2 - Tue, 28 May 2019 19:12:27 EST HeFO2p/X No.67681 Reply
>>ugly CGI looked even worse than first PS1-prerendered-cutscenes.
I bet you only play games with 'good graphics' too...
Actually (and this is a pretty rare pokeman) there was a space-invaders clone where you piloted a star fury against raiders that was a bonus on the CD of one of the soundtracks. As one would imagine, it was garbage.

Oh hey here it is: https://www.myabandonware.com/game/babylon-5-shadow-wars-3t5
Gul Evek - Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:01:27 EST 5SVJcPG+ No.67691 Reply
Ehh, its their loss. So many people miss out on great shows because its not new enough for them. I bet dude watched TOS though and had no problem with it.

If you can't get past some not really that terrible for the time CGI to watch some world class story telling when watched in proper order then i feel sorry for you. You're missing out on one of the greats.

Next some 18y/o who has never seen anything but nu-trek is going to say SG-1 is too outdated to be watchable.
Lt. Daniels - Tue, 04 Jun 2019 12:09:14 EST BIw1HvBc No.67718 Reply
dude stop whiteknighting Babylon 5's CGI. Even the motion and acceleration looks terrible.

But that's not the worst part. The worst part is when they reverse-composite flat footage into CGI windows. Fuck that shit.

They could have pulled it off by layering actors in front of matte screens, shooting the background separately and at least giving a pop-up book look with 3 layers.
Star Trek does the same thing, and it's just as bad, but they were also a lot more tactful about how far they'd dare to zoom in on TNG. They'd cut before the lack of depth became discernible.

It's second only to whiteknighting the fucking cropped DVD set, which is a crime against humanity.

DS9 uses the same CGI. It just also puts a model in front of it.
By the time it actually does use full CGI the whole war kind of blows DS9's load prematurely. Whereas B5 only shot its wad prematurely because it got fake cancelled, forcing them to cram two seasons into one, which at 90's season lengths actually improved it, but unfortunately also led to an absolute bullshit filler season that is borderline unwatchable.
Lt. Daniels - Tue, 04 Jun 2019 12:12:30 EST BIw1HvBc No.67719 Reply
> a lot more tactful about how far they'd dare to zoom in on TNG
Not that I think this was deliberate on their part. There's actually just a physical limitation as to how far you can pull into the giant Enterprise D model without switching to a much more expensive camera and lens set up.
Guinan - Tue, 04 Jun 2019 12:52:27 EST b048m/L8 No.67720 Reply
I'm not sure if you're taking into context that B5 was the FIRST television show in history to rely on CGI for effects at all. The first. The fucking first. And you're bitching they didnt do the things THEY probably discovered. This is like shitting on the Orville brothers after they made the first plane because it was unable to do a barrel roll.
DaiMon Tarr - Tue, 04 Jun 2019 20:32:18 EST HeFO2p/X No.67724 Reply
>>dude stop whiteknighting Babylon 5's CGI.
Wtf does that even mean? I like Babylon 5, and I think complaining about its CGI is on an intellectual par with complaining about the matte effects in TOS or complaining that Metropolis is in black and white. Does that mean I think Metropolis looks better than Avengers: Endgame? No, but I also wouldn't hope to be looked at anything other than a pitiable retard if I said Avengers: Endgame was superior as science fiction to Metropolis because it doesn't look like shit.
>>The worst part is when they reverse-composite flat footage into CGI windows.
They do the exact same thing in "What You Leave Behind" and it looks balls awful. I never thought to complain about it because I knew it was the best technology they had at the time and hella expensive as it was. It doesn't have a bearing on the impact of the narrative for me.
>>They'd cut before the lack of depth became discernible.
But they had to do that because of other technical limitations, namely that TNG used models and you can only zoom the camera in so far before it becomes obvious you're looking at a small painted acrylic model.
Prinadora - Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:02:42 EST BIw1HvBc No.67731 Reply
Babylon 5's CGI is so fucking bad. It's worse than bad miniatures. Blake's 7 holds up better than Babylon 5 visually. It's really distracting.

It's also really annoying because I absolutely love the design on the show.
Once in a while they do a REALLY good job of hiding a CGI set with proper lighting and camera tricks. There were a bunch of bridge scenes on Narn cruisers that hold up really well.

>They do the exact same thing in "What You Leave Behind" and it looks balls awful.
lol that's true. What you actually need to do to pull off that effect with normal video footage is that fake postprocess 3D thing they do for movies like Alice in Wonderland. It looks god-awful with 3D glasses on but if you want to render it to 2D for a zoom-in effect it would probably hold up.
If they wanted to do it properly though it's still a practical effect. They'd need to layer the scene for parallaxing. It wasn't something CGI could just pull off and nobody realized that at the time.
>and you can only zoom the camera in so far before it becomes obvious you're looking at a small painted acrylic model.
By all accounts the Enterprise D model was just as good as the one in TMP and they went absolutely batshit crazy with that one. The silhouettes in the conference room window actually look good enough to push a lot further than they did I think. But it was wise to leave a safety margin, because what holds up on TV doesn't necessarily hold up on pre-remaster DVDs, and despite their best efforts might not have held up post-remaster either.
Prinadora - Wed, 05 Jun 2019 13:02:39 EST BIw1HvBc No.67735 Reply
>I'm not sure if you're taking into context that B5 was the FIRST television show in history to rely on CGI for effects at all. The first. The fucking first.

I'm not criticizing the Wright brothers. I'm criticizing Leonardo DaVinci. B5 jumped the gun by about 6 years.

It's not what they discovered. It's what they persistently never discovered.

Like that with limited CGI, you have to make the scene first and then match your studio lighting and environment around it.
The stunning thing is JUST HOW MANY productions still haven't learned to even attempt to do this. The work flow is this: make the scene, pre-render it with quick and dirty shading, fully render stills with at least a majority of your prominent assets done.

This on top of the principles of layering practical effects, live-action and partial sets on top of the CGI, which is exactly what Star Trek did. What the Warcraft movie did, what half of the regular shows do with background streets and buildings so they can shoot in Vancouver where it's cheap, what the Star Wars prequels or Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them fail to do by having NOTHING in the way of sets to bridge the illusion between the composited backgrounds.
Note that it doesn't even matter that so many of the prequel backgrounds were practical miniatures, and not CGI. Just because of how clumsily they were composited.

At some point someone who apparently worked in CG effects at the time called me an ignorant bastard because ST and B5 both used the same Lightwave graphics, which is true. But they didn't use them in remotely the same way. That's what's most important. At the end of the day the editor has the most power over a film, and the compositing director has the ultimate power over effects.
Now if they'd given the compositing guy some matte painting shots instead of raw green screen footage, it would have been a whole lot more effective. But B5 just didn't have the money for that.
Guinan - Wed, 05 Jun 2019 14:09:18 EST b048m/L8 No.67737 Reply
Okay I get where you're coming from. Part of me thinks "oh hey that's nitpicking" but another part of me thinks about how fucking lazy and sloppy CGI is in general nowadays. Maybe things would have been different if they had done things like you said.. I personally have come to hate CGI and I wish that the general rule would be to be "save CGI for when practical effects are completely impractical" but that sort of wishing is like pissing into a strong wind in your best white tailored suit
Weyoun 8 - Thu, 06 Jun 2019 19:53:21 EST bOlOhkyn No.67744 Reply
I think in time people will look back fondly at bad 3d graphics like they do 8bit sprites, janky stop-motion, and goofy suit-imation.
for me B5 gets the same "C+ for a lot of hustle and heart" like TOS's "what do we have sets/props for? yeah it's a planet of that" and "ooh a cool pic of an amoeba. what do you mean 'what else are we using' it's a fucking amoeba dude paint that shit and let's roll"
Iliana Ghemor - Fri, 07 Jun 2019 13:22:32 EST BIw1HvBc No.67753 Reply
1559928152484.png -(1068302B / 1.02MB, 1450x630) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You don't notice the best CGI. The best CGI is also the most mundane shit you could imagine, like background street swaps and car commercials (Yes, any car commercial you see without the "*Professional driver on a closed course*" disclaimer is fully CGI while the car is moving, and possibly also when the car is stopped.
I haven't seen a car ad shot on a nighttime city street that wasn't CGI in over 15 years if ever.

>I think in time people will look back fondly at bad 3d graphics like they do 8bit sprites, janky stop-motion, and goofy suit-imation.
We already do. But the 3D graphics we love are from 1990 and earlier. The groundbreaking shit generally rendered on a bigger class of computer than personal microcomputers. For the 70's that means absolutely all of it, for the 80's it means most of it, for the 90's it means SGI workstations full stop.

The Amigas they did B5 with were just PCs with extra RAM and a specialized add-in card. The Video Toaster aesthetic is beloved for certain things, but the special effects, not so much. At least not in B5's case. For that   Λ  ESTHETIC, you'd look more along the lines of REBOOT.
Jimmy - Sat, 08 Jun 2019 05:47:21 EST 4xG8xdJJ No.67757 Reply
>You don't notice the best CGI. The best CGI is also the most mundane shit you could imagine.
So true, plus with the advent of physically based rendering and deep learning in production software it will be so ambitious that not even a soap opera played in a suburban settings will have cgi, because it's simply cheaper and indistinguishable to have a virtual street with houses in a green screen setting than to rent a real one.
Sarek - Sat, 08 Jun 2019 11:01:49 EST mw1AnnTr No.67759 Reply
1560006109644.png -(12530B / 12.24KB, 56x75) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
dis nikka thinking car ads are taken from Gran Turismo completely invalidates his other point

almost like he's never seen an episode of Top Gear>>67753
Lorian - Sat, 08 Jun 2019 13:57:28 EST CzoP/iRU No.67761 Reply
1560016648795.webm [mp4] -(292924B / 286.06KB, 800x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
There's also this variable wheelbase buggy that can match most cars measurements and record motion information.

They make a whole bunch of car ads before the cars come out y'know.
Sarek - Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:11:20 EST mw1AnnTr No.67763 Reply
1560031880644.png -(15232B / 14.88KB, 95x95) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yea, they also have pre-production versions before retail. You know, the ones to pass emission and safety requirements?

It's what the Top Gear guys review, the same cars from the commercials available months before retail.
Grimp - Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:48:02 EST CzoP/iRU No.67768 Reply
>any car commercial you see without the "*Professional driver on a closed course*" disclaimer

Okay my bad, this is actually just not a very common disclaimer anymore. But all in all that's a good thing because it means they've stopped covering their asses over regular-ass driving.
Throughout the 90's and 00's that disclaimer was on EVERYTHING regardless of whether the ad included stunt driving or not.
Marla Gilmore - Mon, 10 Jun 2019 04:27:38 EST CQsvR4/z No.67780 Reply
>I disagree therefore it's whiteknighting

Okay I get it. You've obviously worked in this field, and it's great you're so passionate about it.
The point still stands. Don't get so caught up on the visuals that you can't enjoy the story.
Xerius - Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:40:34 EST QbMtGnA1 No.67781 Reply
But most car commercials have cars just breezing through empty City streets. This is indeed a closed course and some one, an idiot mind you, might try and sure them for experiencing traffic. I wish I was joking
The Doctor - Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:50:53 EST CzoP/iRU No.67783 Reply
A lot of them are also not real on closed courses.

The aesthetic they've always gone for of the lone car and maybe its sister models in a stark empty world just happens to also be the most amenable to full CGI car ads.
It's actually not easy to tell which is which. It's not always about which is cheaper either. Either way you go it's a great deal of man hours and expertise. But if you want a nighttime cityscape you're a lot more likely to go with CGI than if you want runways or salt flats.

I think a lot of it has to do with whether they want to ship the damn cars around for a better ad. The full CG car ads tend to be more prevalent among cheap cars that in no way justify taking out to a salt flat for MUH SPEED.
Brok'tan - Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:22:51 EST TKugaC+X No.67799 Reply
>High-end sportscar
>A supercar by all the standards of 15 years prior
>2011 around the dawn of when CGI car ads became popular

>CG car ads tend to be more prevalent among cheap cars

>Acting like all car commercials are one or the other and that anyone said that

Oh wait, you said that.
>This is what appears in commercials. Full stop.
>Full stop.
Guinan - Sat, 15 Jun 2019 05:30:25 EST b048m/L8 No.67803 Reply
Each time I read the words 'full stop' in this thread I heard screeching tires
Is that happening for anyone else or is that just the felicium?
Simon Tarses - Sat, 22 Jun 2019 16:59:37 EST KkAObrir No.67837 Reply
Of course I watched b5, it's actually better than ST in a lot ways. It's tremendously good, that overarching story has a lot of smarts and heart, and overall I found it more interesting than something like DS9.
Guinan - Sat, 22 Jun 2019 17:51:02 EST b048m/L8 No.67838 Reply
With how good B5 is it's almost mindblowing how TERRIBLE the spinoff Crusade was
Borg Queen - Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:44:15 EST u646u7ZY No.67852 Reply
Crusade was cancelled faster than Swamp thing and it wasn't any worse than Season 5 fight me.

Babylon 5 never should have done episodic. That was an instant way to turn it to garbage.
Lt. JG Ayala - Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:38:45 EST bOlOhkyn No.67856 Reply
>wasn't any worse than Season 5
that's up there with "Better at MMA than CM Punk"
Jake Sisko - Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:14:57 EST eZqQqz6F No.67865 Reply
Joe Rogan on mushrooms is better at MMA than CM Punk lol
Kasidy Yates-Sisko - Wed, 26 Jun 2019 04:56:39 EST qMhwBmdn No.67872 Reply
Shit I bet toe Rogan wouldn't be able to hold back and channel the spirit of Bruce Lee but it's actually David Carradine.
Guinan - Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:41:28 EST b048m/L8 No.67875 Reply
Joe Rogan on mushrooms would just hug everyone and talk to them about weird esoteric shit, but you're right since he's a big guy and gives big hugs
Furel - Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:58:17 EST EDJ6wn0M No.67912 Reply
1562263097204.jpg -(628723B / 613.99KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Jesus christ, I've been working on my Babylon 5 model for months and then I was googling for references and the motherfucking professional-ass professional they contracted for the 2007 movie uploaded hi-res shots to his website.

And this made me realize that I have not 1 more detail pass to go, but at least 3.

Since this isn't the kind of thing I get to fudge with particle systems or Houdini, there's no way around it. Hopefully I can crack some procedural materials that look half-decent.

On the plus side my hull textures look basically identical to his, but actually better thanks to PBR materials decidedly being not a thing in 2006.
Also his height maps are WAYYYYY TOO FUCKING HOT, but probably exactly what they needed to be to pop at straight-to-DVD resolution.
Still, Babylon 5 is 8 kilometers long, a circumference of over 1300 meters. At this scale, the implication of heightmaps this extreme are several feet of height difference between different hull plates.

My hull materials have heights that are comparable to the close-up bump maps of the original show (in later seasons, when bump mapping actually became a thing) I put that same detail mainly into a roughness map that is a lot more subtle. The panels don't pop out nearly as much, but glint beautifully in the light. It looks amazing on the cylindrical sections.

My main issues holding me up are the extreme low quality of the original references. Interpreting what the hell I'm looking at is a feat of serious mental gymnastics. And only once I finally get the basic shapes and details from the original model can I start being creative with additional details.

I'll probably have something original to post in a few weeks.
Furel - Thu, 04 Jul 2019 14:23:00 EST EDJ6wn0M No.67915 Reply
1562264580204.jpg -(347346B / 339.21KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Also I was doing some math.

Assuming Babylon 5 rotates at 12 RPM, the upper decks of Green sector where the garden is have ~.8 Gs of centripital gravity.
The people living in down below have 1.6 Gs.

Also C&C is on a non-rotating section of the station.
The bridge of this sucker is a big fat lie. It could have centripital gravity generated by counter-rotation, except the outer hull is not counterweighted, and would wobble the hell out of the station so nobody would be able to dock. It's also just incredibly obvious from every single effects shot ever that there is no counter rotation.
Same with the bridge on every Earthforce battleship.

It's a goddamn Minbari conspiracy I tell ya. Or literally any other race since everyone but humans seem to have artificial gravity.
It would be the easiest thing to handwave away, but not once is it ever addressed.

Pic related if anyone didn't believe me that the heightmaps were too damn hot.
Emperor Sompek - Fri, 05 Jul 2019 05:07:51 EST 60zgf9Xq No.67917 Reply
>heightmaps to hot

I don't even know wtf that means
Burt Ryan - Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:48:32 EST CzoP/iRU No.67920 Reply
Too hot is when the volume knob stops making the music sound better.
Guinan - Sun, 07 Jul 2019 04:07:16 EST b048m/L8 No.67924 Reply
1562486836014.jpg -(54586B / 53.31KB, 397x594) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
it's kinda like pic related but times a hundred, if I'm understanding correctly
Lorian - Sun, 07 Jul 2019 12:03:28 EST bOlOhkyn No.67927 Reply
Cyrano Jones - Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:02:48 EST hXhDbr+0 No.67930 Reply
1562691768486.png -(289970B / 283.17KB, 609x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

There's a PBR validation node that literally shows you any pixels with values too hot, just like OBS or Audacity will show your mic clipping.

If you're using it to generate a bump map, you're literally correct. It'll just result in harsher normals and an exaggerated cartoonish aesthetic.

Using them for mesh displacement though...

Ultimately as long as they're proportional you can just multiply them down.
That model was made in 2006 when normal mapping was hot shit, roughness maps.... weren't, and 10 years before PBR shaders became a unified standard for 3D materials.

I distinctly remember watching behind-the-scenes stuff for Stargate Atlantis and the VFX guys loudly bragging "We don't use textures, we modeled everything!"
That was a pretty prevalent attitude for the day.

But eventually people realized how much work can be done with a basic set of 4 PBR textures for Color/Roughness/Metalness/Height.
It's the difference between Atlantis' modeling and basic procedural materials and much, much more complex procedural materials, and ones suitable for either high end VFX work or downsampling into textures for realtime visualization or video games.
The "We don't use textures" attitude has become laughable at this point. And it really is the reason those mid 2000's shows have their distinctly Xbox-y look when today, the photorealism is actually there if you want it and have the time. It's all about accurate light modeling and powerful procedural materials that can map the variance and imperfection of surfaces to dictate how the virtual light bounces on any given pixel of a frame.

Anyway it's a glorious new age, and Bethesda still isn't fucking using PBR even on their upcoming games. Because why would you want streamlined, physically accurate goodness? Why not have another 10 years of metals that don't look like metal and are literally more work to make textures for? Fuck it.
Lt. Ro Laren - Tue, 09 Jul 2019 14:53:46 EST 60zgf9Xq No.67932 Reply
I understand clipping when it comes to audio but I don't understand how you would translate that to visual
Cyrano Jones - Tue, 09 Jul 2019 15:39:22 EST hXhDbr+0 No.67933 Reply
Well for valid PBR materials the color/albedo, height, roughness/gloss or metal/specular values have to fall within certain ranges to remain physically accurate and consistent between scenes.

Strictly speaking it actually doesn't apply to heightmaps as they don't directly impact the lighting properties. But subjectively they can also be too hot. Depends very much on the art style you're going for though. They really can't be too hot for a stylized or cel-shaded aesthetic, but there is a point where realism goes out the window. >>67915 is a good example, but since they didn't ever show the model from that angle in the movie it just didn't matter.

But I also pride myself on subtlety. I'll put loads of work into creating detail only to crank it way down right onto the threshold of perceptibility. It's still there, it's still doing its job. But I don't want all of my work to insist upon itself.
I try to create the best 3D art I can, not the Stranger Things Season 3 of visual effects.

Jesus christ the bar is high though. 2006 Babylon 5 is overall, an incredible model, but it's really a product of its time.
Kimara Cretak - Wed, 10 Jul 2019 03:25:46 EST 60zgf9Xq No.67935 Reply
I'm a Hamm's man personally, more for your buck ya know?
Spock - Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:54:15 EST 5QBe4giM No.67936 Reply
I'm not a canadian but one of those northern bastards sold me on the Labatt's Blue years ago.
There's also a nice local seasonal Maine blueberry ale that I enjoy more than is reasonable.
EMH MARK 2 - Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:35:40 EST 60zgf9Xq No.67938 Reply
Labatts is aight, I had another CN beer the other day that was better but I can't remember the name of it, I just remember the can being very generic looking started with an "M" I think

what kind of generic beer do you think the feddy replicators serve?
Darien Wallace - Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:03:22 EST /kHC1PuT No.67946 Reply
1562958202690.jpg -(1814665B / 1.73MB, 4420x2640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Guys I think my decimal point key wants a spanking
Captain Rixx - Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:12:30 EST 60zgf9Xq No.67947 Reply
how many PBR's did you have

I know it was hot but it's not just your height that determines how much alcohol effects you, it's also weight
Guinan - Sat, 13 Jul 2019 02:49:59 EST b048m/L8 No.67951 Reply
Hey as a bartender I gotta keep up with the craft brews
Who makes this and where is it from?
Also what kind of beer, and what is your impression of it?

NB because technically not really related to star trek even slightly

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.