strypey

strypey, 4 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

The tense, evolving relationships between the crew were a combination of some fantastic dialogue from the writers of Blake's 7, and nuanced performances by both the regular cast and many of the guest cast. It would be hard to do justice to the onscreen chemistry that resulted. The atmosphere created by the eerie music and signature visuals could be easily spoiled by high-budget reproduction.

(2/?)

strypey, 4 days ago

Once you started trying to pick Blake's 7 apart and update it for a 21st century audience, you'd end up with a completely different show. Lots of more recent sci-fi shows could be seen as influenced by it, including Farscape (1999), Firefly (2002), and Dark Matter (2015).

But the premise of a crew of renegades struggling against an oppressive, interstellar empire is potentially just as inspired by Star Wars, which was released in cinemas a year before B7 started screening on British TV.

(3/3)

strypey, 3 days ago

Once again, listening to the Star Fall hosts talking about the production of Blake's 7...

https://kitchendavid.podbean.com/

... makes clear that it's more than the sum of its parts. As with the original Star Wars (see the Fixed in the Edit video).

(1/?)

#podcasts #StarFall #Blakes7

strypey, 3 days ago

The cast added their own layers of flavour, and not only the quality of their portrayals. Decisions to leave the show shaped the story in ways neither Nation, nor any of the other writers - could have predicted. As with Star Trek TNG, the ways fan connected with each of the regular and recurring characters - or didn't - also had some influence on how long the characters stuck around. The last minute change of heart that led to Series D had similar effects.

It truly was a group creation.

(3/?)

strypey, 3 days ago

Terry Nation, credited as the creator, did indeed come up with the initial ideas, characters and plots. But he was drafting scripts in a hurry after agreeing to write 13 episodes for Series A. So script editor Chris Boucher added a lot of the flavour - especially in the dialogue - that fans remember B7 so fondly for.

The effects department were working with a meagre budget for the first series. But did some beautiful design work with what they had. These visuals too are iconic for fans.

(2/?)

strypey, 4 days ago

@cloventt
> because I have tried to volunteer to work on an ambulance, and they do not seem interested

St John trains plenty of potential ambos through their cadets programs. Maybe the problem is a shortage of ambulances rather than a shortage of staff?

Which part of the country are you in? Are ambulances there run by St John or another provider?

strypey, 4 days ago

@cloventt
> Ōtautahi, so St John, and yeah maybe not enough vehicles, which also super sucks

Given the state of the ambulance service (and the health system in general), it would be great if more people were trained in first aid. That's also something St John do, and maybe that's an area you could volunteer in?

strypey, 4 days ago

@zakalwe
> A sort of ambulatory expert system — a consulting physician, not a trauma surgeon

Exactly. The lore of the EMH is that they're intended to instruct crew in performing advanced first aid on themselves or each other, in situations where the medical staff are overloaded or unavailable. Having to function as Chief Medical Officer forces the EMH well out of his comfort zone, just as Voyager's situation does for the rest of the crew. Creating some great character possibilities.

@RickiTarr

strypey, 4 days ago

@zakalwe
> Though as you 100% correctly point out, the Doctor didn't gain the ability to physically interact with things until a lot later

What I got 100% wrong was the origin of the device that allowed that. I said it was alien, but when I was looking up the name of the EMH's fictional creator, I saw it actually came from a time traveller from the far future.

Apparently Robert Picardo was initially sceptical of this change to his character's capabilities, but warmed to it.

@RickiTarr

strypey, 4 days ago

@zakalwe
> That's still an advanced alien, right? (Or was it actually a human time traveler?)

I'd have to rewatch the episode to be sure. But I suppose if we went a few centuries into the past and gave someone a 21st century device, we'd be seen as aliens ; )

@RickiTarr

strypey, 4 days ago

@AccordionBruce
> I was responding as much to what was above with my random interjection

No worries. Just trying to figure out some more context before deciding if it needed a reply from me.

strypey, 4 days ago (edited 4 days ago)

@sj_zero
> you have to consider the total environmental cost of building and maintaining massive rail lines

As already mentioned - with network maps supplied - the rail lines already exist. Upgrading those has a tiny environmental impact compared to building them from scratch.

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 4 days ago

@sj_zero
> stuff like trees don't hold carbon for very long in geological timeframes

Individual trees, no. Forests potentially. Where do you think coal comes from?

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 4 days ago (edited 4 days ago)

@sj_zero
> When you're talking about tens of thousands of kilometers of rail, the amount of steel and cement required are almost beyond human comprehension

Bridges and such use concrete, but I'm not sure it's needed for most rail lines.

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 4 days ago

@sj_zero
> I forgot to mention that a high-speed rail system needs to have a much different level of workmanship

I did mention that. I also mentioned that the upgrades can be done in stages. Fast trains can travel slow over unimproved sections, with travel times getting get shorter and shorter as more upgrades are done. Which is why they're a better choice than new tech like mag-lev, which can go faster, but entire lines have to be built from scratch.

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 4 days ago

@sj_zero
> you can't do high speed rail on normal rail infrastructure

Again, that was mentioned in the thread you're replying to.

> you'd need a lot more material

As spelled out in an edit you may not have seen...

> the rail lines already exist. Upgrading those has a tiny environmental impact compared to building them from scratch.

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 4 days ago

@sj_zero
> Coal almost exclusively comes from an era hundreds of millions of years ago called the carboniferous period before any organisms learned to digest cellulose

Huh. I did not know that..

>After that period, wood that would just sit there and sink into coal beds instead gets converted back into CO2 by fungi

... and reabsorbed by growing plants. As long as forests aren't cleared, they can hold carbon indefinitely.

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 4 days ago

@sj_zero
> Calling construction an upgrade doesn't mean it doesn't use material

Calling an upgrade "construction" implies ripping a path through unaltered countryside. It implies having to buy or seize the land required from existing owners.

Yes, the upgrades and ongoing maintenance have an ongoing resource cost. As does upgrading and maintaining roads, although I'd wager rail maintenance is much less resource intensive per kg carried than road maintenance.

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 2 days ago

@sj_zero
> you can't say for certain whether a spot will even stay a forest on geological timeframes, and the odds are it will not

Fair point. We also can't guarantee that future generations won't clear the forests to "improve" land, as our well-meaning but ecologically ignorant ancestors did. But for as long as a forest is allowed to exist, it's at minimum a carbon store, and potentially a carbon sink, depending on its maturity, biodiversity etc.

(3/3)

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 2 days ago

New forests absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. Once the biodiversity stops increasing - adding more species to absorb carbon in the same area - they become carbon neutral. So returning cleared areas to wild forest, wetlands etc, is a fantastic way to reduce net atmospheric carbon in the short term, and potentially hold it for centuries. With a bonus effect of helping to restore biodiversity.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dont-mature-forests-carbon-dioxide.html

(2/?)

@sj_zero
@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf

strypey, 2 days ago

@sj_zero
> The CO2 in a tree is gathered over years and years, whereas rotting can occur in a relatively short period of time.

Right, but you're not seeing the forest for the trees. What you call "rotting" is mostly fungi, bacteria and other decomposers, eating dead plants and using the carbon to form mycelium etc. A wild forest has a wide range of plants and fungi, all of which are absorbing carbon as they grow.

(1/?)

@fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf