Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:11:30 EDT

In a message dated 9/1/00 9:05:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

<< Sure, that makes sense. But, like I was thinking, it depends on what you
 it to do. If you want a true all-purpose machine to take the place of a lot
 other machines then, ya, make it modular as possible, give it limbs, etc.
 if you want it to do a couple different things only then the design can
 more specific.>>

  Right, a modular machine is basiclly "A jack of all trades, Master of
None," isn't it? A jack of trades is nice, but sometimes a Master of one
trade is needed, is that basiclly what you are trying to say?

<< Two hard science fiction movies come to mind. "2001" and "The Andromeda
 Strain". Both were "real" as hell, the only liberties, really being the
 scenario itself. They're both entertaining and they're both not so steeped
 science fact as to be unwatchable. They're also rare. It's hard to pull
 off right, as shown by so many horribly science-inaccurate movies like
 "Armageddon" and "Star Wars". The effort usually isn't worth it.>>

  I haven't read the Andromeda Strain, but have seen 2001 and read 2002, so I
see what you mean. Yes, they sure are rare. It's nice when they work, but it
usually is like you say, more effort then it's worth. It seems like since
that's so, many don't try to, as it's usually more trouble then it's worth.
Have you read the Venus Prime series? It's really good, it's a good example
of realstic sci-fi, with a bit of alien life thrown in. No, these aliens
aren't generic. I can't say more or else spoilers with be needed and I don't
want that. You won't get the whole picture, unless you read the series. It's
I think a five book series, but each book is only like 250 pages.

<<But there are
 sci-fi fans, like me, who like to imagine that their favorite movie/TV show
 could actually exist in reality.>>

  So do I at time.

<<Now, the more science accurate the science
 fiction, the easier to accept the many plot devices and gear and the more
 enjoyable to imagine.>>

  You do have a point. As long as it's enjoyable, it's fine, but I've read
books that read like a science journal. This stuff is fine, but it was so
technicial, the story takes a back seat while the author explains it. This
stuff is fine, but it needs to be done like some books do it, they have a
technology explaination in the book front or back, instead inserted in the
story itself.

<<Gundam isn't that far off if you exclude the mecha
 themselves, and they're not *too* insane. The space colonies, the shuttles,
 weapons, all of them are things I can see happening. A Z-Plus going full
 vertical in the clouds seems reasonable. So, I agree that it's silly to
 *expect* a giant robot anime to be realistic, but not silly to *want* it to
 especially since it can be.>>

Right, thats what I was trying to say. It's silly to expect it to be, but
it's fine to want it to be. Some people I've talked seem to let this want,
shadow their enjoyment of the story though. I've read and watched stories
that are good, but I think it should have this or that, I just don't let it
shadow all the good points of the story. If everything was prefect, Boy,
would we be bored! :)
 << Depends on your flavor of sci-fi. Hard science fiction is usually an
 extrapolation of something that exists now or the taking of a theory as fact.
 That's my favorite type, the 2001s of the genre. They're the most
 to me because they are the most believable, I can really see myself living
 enough for those things to happen. And they're great for refuting someone's
 assertion that it's sci-fi so it would never happen. "Didn't you read the
 Discover magazine 2 months ago? They were talking about just such a
 in the lab. They say it could be practical within 10 years". "Oh, well
 reading sci-fi is still dumb." "Try 'incomprehensible', ape." >>

  Yes, I see what you are saying. I like stuff like 2001, but I also like the
fantasyish sci-fi as well. I like the stuff like in Escaflowne and I also
like stuff like Gundam.


Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Sep 02 2000 - 11:03:58 JST