sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It's really good.
"The Expanse" - New near-future sci-fi TV
- Thread starter Crispy
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
they've improved a lot since the days of 'sharks on a plane with lazers' and so on
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Belter
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
No they haven't.
Watched this last night and enjoyed the first episode. One question though: How do SyFy make their productions look so cheap? It has a very 90s feel to it.
Reno
The In Kraut
SyFy are doing something on the scale of Game of Thrones on a fraction of the money. They just don't have the type of budget at their disposal which an HBO or Netflix have, so it will end up looking somewhat less spectacular.
Last edited:
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Yeah er do you remember Babylon 5? Fake lens flare, non existant textures, and all the CGI done on Amigas. For a niche channel it looks great. And furthermore they insist on building genuine sets. It looks <i>at least</i> as good as BSG.
Reno
The In Kraut
I thought Babyln 5 looked very cheap and its low production values are one thing that put me off it (I just about struggled through the entire first season on recommendations before I gave up) BSG was as world apart from it. I'm not a dedicated science fiction show fan though I will watch them if they can create a reasonably believeable world and characters with a modicum of depth. Babylon 5 was the type of show where I was always worried a wall would fall over if someone bumps into one in those cramped sets. I can only suspend my disbelief for space operas if the world building is reasonably convincing
Last edited:
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Actually the CGI/Sets wasn't worst part, it was terribly written and with the notable exception of Andreas Katsulas & Peter Jurasik the acting was uniformly awful. Fans of the show would enthuse about the arc, and say "if you overlook the acting, the dialogue, and the effects, it's really good".
What I think Babylon 5 did and does need to be recognised is that it was one of the first shows, and certainly the first sci fi show that had a story arc that ran over several series.
What I think Babylon 5 did and does need to be recognised is that it was one of the first shows, and certainly the first sci fi show that had a story arc that ran over several series.
They used Lightwave 3D running on a server-farm of Amiga 4000s.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Like I said Amigas, I wasn't getting into the technical specifics. The fake lens flare in a purely cgi environment used to annoy the living shit out of.
Reno
The In Kraut
I was promised that it would be like a TV novel, but most of the first season were self contained sub-Star Trek episodes and by the time this much hyped arc kicked in, I'd lost the will to live.
I am a geek. I can not remember a great deal about it but I can remember I didn't like it!
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Ditto. The 1st season was uniformly terrible (also not helped by the lead actor, Michael O'Hare having serious mental health problems, this was only revealed after his death by JMS with O'Hare's permission), it was only in the 2nd series that it warmed up. I was never a huge fan, the notable exception being Kutsula and Jursaik, who shared a fantastic dynamic, a wonderfully designed arc, and were both actors who rose above the material that were given.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
The Lens flare was a running joke among people bitching about the risible CGI.
Reno
The In Kraut
At that point CGI was barely used on TV and considering that, it was not bad at all and as far as I remember the effects got a lot of praise. Of course the lens flare is supposed to add a "real camera" feel, which has become a cliche since but also hadn't been done back then. Even the stills you posted contradict the supposed awfulness of the CGI. It still looks OK. Space ships and many other inorganic things are not that difficult to do in CGI. In terms of production values it was the physical sets and art direction which let that show down, they were almost of vintage Dr Who quality.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
I think comparing the effects of Babylon and say Star Trek DS9 I think Star Trek's combination of Models and CG looked alot better than B5, and I think thats why B5 came under alot of derision.
Star Trek also had the budget to go onto location, so when they weren't onboard the station it had higher production values, while B5 was stuck primarily on studio and it showed.
I think people will forgive cheap sets CG if the writing is good, and both the acting and dialogue of B5 was clunky to put it politely.
Star Trek also had the budget to go onto location, so when they weren't onboard the station it had higher production values, while B5 was stuck primarily on studio and it showed.
I think people will forgive cheap sets CG if the writing is good, and both the acting and dialogue of B5 was clunky to put it politely.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I thought it(the Expanse) looked fine. 
Reno
The In Kraut
Star Trek had a much larger budget and that's why they had far better sets, more extras, etc. Babylon 5 first came out a year after Jurassic Park had revolutionised the effects industry and back then nobody was bitching about its CGI, in fact it was considered to be quite ground breaking for the industry. Star Trek at that point barely used CGI and they relied entirely on models for their space ships, which in retrospect has probably dated better (though they rejigged a lot of the effects for TNG for the Blu-Ray release)
Btw Deep Space Nine which was in many ways similar to Babylon 5 was a show I did occasionally managed to watch exactly because it didn't look so ropey in terms of its overall production values. It was also better acted and written.
Last edited:
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Actually I think the debt the ds9 and a lot of sci fi and tv owes Babylon 5 is the story arc. Very few shows tried to tell an epic story over a series or several series before b5. If shows had a recurring plot it only appeared in stand alone episodes. It's only after b5 had been on for a few years that Star Trek started the whole dominion war thing. Babylon 5 had a big story arc that started in season 2 and lasted till the end of season 4 and was the driving force of the whole show. It's why fans of the show would ask you to over look the acting or the naff sets and focus on the story
Sorry for messing up the thread 
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
It was an interesting diversionSorry for messing up the thread
Similar threads
