I would have to say SUBSMASH is a very good episode in terms of its dramatic situation allowing the characters some
less then usual interaction for a series like UFO. In fact it is to Gerry Andersons credit that he allowed scripts like SUBSMASH to be filmed at all considering the fickle attitude of its American backers. There maybe faults in the scripting of SUBSMASH and its certainly not my favourite,but from the point of view of immediacy it is very absorbing.Who after all remained detached enough to realise that in Stephens Spielbergs JAWS , enviornmental continuity (the weather) was all over the place. You only realise this after the event,but its your initial response that is all important.Its called empathy and film makers have known about it for years. Mark UK [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
By the way, now that we are talking about "Subsmash", if you really think about it, this whole concept of Skydiver is somewhat ludicrous :-). I mean, I love Skydiver and what it did on various episodes, but there would really be no reason to have a craft like this. First of all, submarines are mainly for spying, destroying ships, or launching missiles. No need to conceal this weapon from the aliens (they knew where SHADO headquarters were). Sky, although very cool, would probably be a major technological headache to develop (due to its required ability to witstand water pressure and the harsh environment of sea water, ability to be launched from inside the ocean, etc). This thing appeared to have had a long range and could be where it was needed in almost no time :-). I know there were supposed to be at least 2 Skydivers, but it probably would had been easier and more effective to have several intercepting planes in different parts of the world, maybe even stationed in an old oil platform (or something like that) if it was necessary to have them on open sea. Also, after Sky mission was complete, how would it aqualand over the ocean, and even more challenging, how would it attach again to diver? Comments? David --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
David Levine wrote:
> > By the way, now that we are talking about "Subsmash", if you really > think about it, this whole concept of Skydiver is somewhat ludicrous > :-). I mean, I love Skydiver and what it did on various episodes, > but there would really be no reason to have a craft like this. > First of all, submarines are mainly for spying, destroying ships, or > launching missiles. No need to conceal this weapon from the aliens > (they knew where SHADO headquarters were). Not sure - although the aliens knew where SHADO HQ was, there is still a tactical advantage in being able to conceal Sky 1 beneath the waves, and of course it's a way of being able to move around in secrecy. In 'reality' (if you can conceive of such a thing with respect to a war against invading UFOs!) I'm sure an aircraft carrier would be used - no development costs, could use conventional aircraft and wouldn't arouse suspicion of any kind. Maybe a bit more vulnerable, but then again you could have half a dozen aircraft instead of one. > Sky, although very cool, would probably be a major technological > headache to develop (due to its required ability to witstand water > pressure and the harsh environment of sea water, ability to be > launched from inside the ocean, etc). Yes I agree here, but then again - of course it's sci-fi, where anything is possible in the 'future'. How expensive would the Enterprise's transporter be to develop? :) Actually having said that I heard this week that a team of Australian scientists had managed to teleport photons within a laser beam, so maybe it's possible .. |
David Levine wrote:
> Sky, although very cool, would probably be a major technological > headache to develop (due to its required ability to witstand water > pressure and the harsh environment of sea water, ability to be > launched from inside the ocean, etc). I still think that Sky 1 is a very un-aerodynamic shape with e.g. its big square rear end, and that if a submarine carried jet fighters they would have folding wings and be cylindrical and would be launched out of a tube like missiles. To recover them they would land on thw water and be designed to stay afloat and the sub would scoop them up, or something like that. |
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Anthony wrote:
>I still think that Sky 1 is a very un-aerodynamic shape with e.g. its >big square rear end, and that if a submarine carried jet fighters >they would have folding wings and be cylindrical and would be >launched out of a tube like missiles. To recover them they would land >on thw water and be designed to stay afloat and the sub would scoop >them up, or something like that. If you haven't already, try and see the 1995 anime release "Super Atragon". In the opening scenes is a sub-launched fighter jet which, I think, is close to what you're suggesting. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com |
Anthony Appleyard wrote:
> I still think that ... a submarine carried jet fighters > they would have folding wings and be cylindrical and would be > launched out of a tube like missiles. ... --- In SHADO@y..., "Michael Wolff" <phydeaux44@h...> wrote: > If you haven't already, try and see the 1995 anime release "Super > Atragon". In the opening scenes is a sub-launched fighter jet which, > I think, is close to what you're suggesting. Sorry about the OT, but has anyone got any screen captures of (stills from) this sequence? I would have asked on an Atragon-related email group, but I called text search in Yahoo's list of email groups for "Atragon" and found nothing. |
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Anthony wrote:
> >--- In SHADO@y..., "Michael Wolff" <phydeaux44@h...> wrote: > > If you haven't already, try and see the 1995 anime release "Super > > Atragon". In the opening scenes is a sub-launched fighter jet which, > > I think, is close to what you're suggesting. > >Sorry about the OT, but has anyone got any screen captures of (stills >from) this sequence? I would have asked on an Atragon-related email >group, but I called text search in Yahoo's list of email groups >for "Atragon" and found nothing. Anthony, you might have better luck searching for an anime email group. I've got the video in question, but no way of making screen captures. Any video rental outlet with a decent SF/Japanimation section should carry the video (released domestically by AD Vision, Inc.). Michael _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com |
In reply to this post by Michael
<<If you haven't already, try and see the 1995 anime
release "Super Atragon". >> Better than that, check out the ORIGINAL feature film from 1963, "Atragon." JF __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Even better than that, check out my review of Atragon at
http://icydeath.www.50megs.com/ Michael >From: ultramannick <[hidden email]> >Reply-To: [hidden email] >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: SUBSMASH >Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:21:42 -0700 (PDT) > ><<If you haven't already, try and see the 1995 anime >release "Super >Atragon". >> > >Better than that, check out the ORIGINAL feature film >from 1963, "Atragon." > >JF > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com |
In reply to this post by jamesgibbon
--- In SHADO@y..., James Gibbon <james.gibbon@v...> wrote:
> Yes I agree here, but then again - of course it's sci-fi, where > anything is possible in the 'future'. How expensive would the > Enterprise's transporter be to develop? :) In the future?? Don't you remember that the series was supposed to occur in 1980?? :-) A couple of other things that I think don't make much sense: SID: You would need at least two of these things, and probably on a geo-sync orbit. SHADO's SID looks to be on a low earth orbit. Maybe you could have gotten away with only one of these birds, but then maybe in some circunstances, the earth would had blocked SID's view when an ufo was approaching. They never payed attention to try to reflect a lower gravity inside moonbase (or did they have "something" to make the people inside moonbase to feel normal gravity?) And the episode "Conflict" was very unrealistic. You would never destroy space garbage like that, you would only make a large cloud or small debri that would be a bigger hazard for other spacecraft (the thing to do would had been to attach small rockets to deorbit the craft). And they made it sound like you can just move from point A to point B in space easily (without following an orbit), and you could pass very close to space garbage. In reality, you would like to pass several miles away from known space garbage, and the intersecting speeds would usually be huge. But I know, I know, this wasn't supposed to be a "realistic" show but just a fun sci-fi series! And obviously when I was about 7 years old and watched the series these thoughts never crossed my mind :-). David Levine |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |