Review BLAKE'S 7: SPACE FALL - Episode 02

[ant-mac]

OK, I'm in a hurry! I'll take the fastest ship I can find. What about an Intrepid Class Starship (USS Voyager)? At Warp 9.975 you won't even feel time pass, and these will be your quickest 186 days! Or... 6 months.

If you're in such a hurry, why not take the Sovereign-Class Enterprise. Apparently it can travel at about Warp 9.985, or around 5 829 times the speed of light. That's approximately 1 475 times the speed of light faster than Intrepid-Class Voyager.

So... How can 8 months in an old prison transport be considered "vaguely realistic"? Unless the operative word is actually "vaguely". Because that's very, very fast!

You might be overlooking the time factor in this instance. The technology displayed in BLAKE'S 7 is from around the twenty-eighth or twenty-ninth century - approximately 400 to 500 years more advanced than anything seen in STAR TREK - with a few obvious exceptions. Therefore, there is more than enough time for various technological advancements and revolutions to have occurred. Just look at the history of STAR TREK itself to see my point.

In real life, I drive a 4-cylinder car which was built around 2008. It can easily match the performance of a 6-cylinder car I drove before that, which was built in the mid-1990s. Before that, I drove a V8 car, which was built in the mid-1970s. And that's just the technological advancement that occurred over a 30 year span in the real world. Just imagine what could be accomplished in 400 to 500 years in a fictional world...

The fundamental problem with Blake's 7 Federation, methinks, is that it's trying to cover distances that are just too damn long.

Do you mean like in STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER, where Kirk took a Constitution-Class Enterprise to the centre of the galaxy?

Is that what you mean?

By the way, we don't know for a fact that a planet named Cygnus Alpha - 800 years from now - is related to the location of a star in the Cygnus constellation in present times. I expect it's highly likely, but it is by no means certain.

Therefore it is entirely possible that Cygnus Alpha might be closer than we think - or even further away for that matter.

Let's not forget that the United Federation of Planets only covers the Alpha and Beta Quadrants, not the entire galaxy.

Is there any reason to assume that the Terran Federation is any different?

Although it's had a further 500 years to expand, there's no reason to assume it's been able to accomplish steady, uninterrupted empire building for centuries on end. Many other factors - some completely unknown - may have influenced the current state of affairs depicted on screen.

 

[ant-mac]

But this is what I'm just trying to tell you. It takes days or hours to travel from star to star in Star Trek, because they go to nearby stars only! For instance, Vulcan (a planet in the 40 Eridani triple star system) is only 17 light years from earth. And it makes much more sense to build a federation with a planet 17 light years away than one 2600 light years from us. In fact, Blake's 7 makes one of the least convincing cases for a galactic organization, apart from Star Wars, (but then that one has a good explanation for this).Why would you include a star 2600 light years away in your empire or something when there are so many more conveniently located stars nearby? It doesn't make much sense.

BLAKE'S 7 has not yet made a case for an all-encompassing, galactic-wide organization at all.

Just because the Terran Federation may have a few far-flung and primitive outposts scattered about a small fraction of the galaxy, at this stage in the proceedings that in no way suggests that it possesses a fully-functional and effective galactic empire.

Also, by the second half of twenty-fourth century, STAR TREK claims that the Federation had already explored about 11 per cent of the Milky Way Galaxy. So why is it so unlikely that a reasonably equivalent organization - with a further 500 years of existence and experience up its sleeve - was able to establish a penal colony well within the original 11 per cent of territory that had been explored 500 years earlier?

BLAKE'S 7 is no more or less believable than STAR TREK - and in my own opinion, both leave STAR WARS for dead.

And there's another factor you're forgetting to consider: TIME! Maybe there was a highly advanced civilization on a planet orbiting our nearest star (Proxima Centauri) 1,000,000 years ago. Maybe one will exist one million years from now. In the cosmic scale, this means very little. Well, maybe there will be a highly advanced civilization... on our planet... one civilization that is not ours, by the way... one million years into the future. Even though this time difference is inconsequential for the age of the universe, it makes absolutely complete difference for us, and that's a barrier we cannot cross. So, you add space and time and you'll see how unlikely it is for us to meet an advanced civilization. Or any civilization for that matter.

Very true, but that's never stopped many science fiction franchises from ignoring this fact - especially ones like BABYLON 5, DOCTOR WHO, STAR TREK, STAR WARS and so on.

Mind you, BLAKE'S 7 does do a reasonable job of not going overboard in this department...

 

[ant-mac]

Good ratings for this episode and i think everyone has reviewed, so on we go to the next episode this weekend. A few have already got there, so at your own pace Sages.
Next ; EPISODE 3 CYGNUS ALPHA -where we meet the irrepressible force of BRIAN BLESSED!

A charming and witty individual as well as a talented and wonderful actor...

But you wouldn't want to get trapped in an elevator with him.

 

[michaellevenson]

Okay, dealing with two points raised without giving away spoilers is hard ,but here goes.
1. Someone in some future episode says " on the rim of the section of the galaxy colonized by mankind"
So it's not a galaxy wide empire.
2.Someone says in some future episode. " The Federation's latest expansion and conquest". So not a continuing expansion to galaxy wide control and empire.
I read a wonderful book by Asimov titled ' the search for extraterrestrial life' , in which he painstakingly went through all the scientific reasons for alien life, its whereabouts, how to get there etc and came to the conclusion that there could be as many as 30,000 advanced or equal to us civilizations in our galaxy alone, but our chances of meeting are practically zero because of the vast distances. So no science fiction show with a meeting of numbers of aliens is realistic. Sad but true.

 

[ant-mac]

Okay, dealing with two points raised without giving away spoilers is hard ,but here goes.
1. Someone in some future episode says " on the rim of the section of the galaxy colonized by mankind"
So it's not a galaxy wide empire.
2.Someone says in some future episode. " The Federation's latest expansion and conquest". So not a continuing expansion to galaxy wide control and empire.

It can be difficult to discuss and debate certain points in an ongoing conversation without giving away certain "spoilers".

 

[Mad-Pac]

Just because the Terran Federation may have a few far-flung and primitive outposts scattered about a small fraction of the galaxy, at this stage in the proceedings that in no way suggests that it possesses a fully-functional and effective galactic empire.

By galactic organization I meant an organization that takes a large chunk of the galaxy, but not necessarily all of it. And I said "empire or something" which means the type of organization is still pretty loose in my mind. Of course a mere two episodes into the show we cannot have a good idea of what things are like, but the fun of it is to speculate anyway. Of course we could wait until we were absolute certain to say something, but then we'd have to shut up until the very final episode and only THEN say something, which doesn't work. Considering that, I still stand for what I said.

 

[Mad-Pac]

It can be difficult to discuss and debate certain points in an ongoing conversation without giving away certain "spoilers".

Yet, I have no problems with that since I know none! But you don't have to try and prove anybody wrong or give better arguments. Of course you can debunk any newcomer's arguments about the specifics of the show simply because you know everything about it and we know nothing. But what we're suggesting works as speculation, only that.

Still, what I said about having an outpost 2600 light years away makes no sense and I maintain it. It only works if you can go there relatively easily, or at least in practical terms.

 

[Mad-Pac]

Overall, Mad-Pac, and putting aside any scientific, political, or technical quibbles, what are your views on the characters so far? The feel of the show? Is it gripping you? Good actors? Good dialogue? Good set up, dramatically?

Blake is certainly the character the writers spent more time creating a background for, and we also have seen many of his reactions to events around him. All that makes him a character we can relate to and care about. As the most fleshed out person in the story so far, he seems much more real than everyone else. Avon is potentially good, but could slip into cliché territory very easily as the "Han Solo cynic" type. Now taht I know he's going to be around a while longer, I figure when the writers came up with the character they didn't really understand the impact Avon was going to have on the show. The one that needs developing the most is the lady, Stannis, if I recall correctly, because she doesn't seem much more than pretty with great hair, and one who won't trade sex for favors (but then she doesn't seem desperate at all to resort to that yet).

The pace is very "British," which reminds me that the notion we had of European and American productions back in the 1970s: European stuff is more artsy, more boring, with longer scenes. American shows and movies favor more action, are more superficial and, in general, more standardized in terms of cinematic language. The interesting things about this all is that even if that was true or partially true once, it no longer makes a difference, since now European productions are as dynamic as the American ones, and American shows can be equally "artsy" if that's what you're looking for. Anyway, in 1978 a show like Blake's 7 was easier to identify as British.

The dramatic set up is good. The situation is simple enough for us to know who to root for, but complex enough for the story to develop into unforeseen consequences. However there's a still a major problem: there's no clear antagonist. A faceless tyrannical government doesn't qualify as such.

It just occurred to me that the characters are potentially compelling, but in the beginning you see a bunch of White English people and they all have more in common than differences. Nowadays you'd have people of different ethnicities, which would make them different from the very beginning. But in shows from the past that was not the case. However, in Star Trek, you also had a bunch of White guys, but they were distinct enough from the get-go. You had young and handsome Captain Kirk, Spock (the resident alien), McCoy (not known for his physicality and with a more noticeable Southern accent), Sulu (an Asian), Uhura (a Black woman), Scottie (another one with a different accent), Chekov (again, accent and somebody younger than the rest). Each character is easy to identify and remember for certain characteristics. In Blake's 7 I'm still trying to get used to who is who, except for Blake. OK, there's a woman, obviously (great hair!), Blake (even greater hair!!), and Avon (OK hair). But that Villa guy, I don't remember what he looks or sounds like.

If I were watching this by myself, I might have continued or not. I'm not totally buying the show yet, but I'm reasonably interested.

 

[michaellevenson]

Blake is certainly the character the writers spent more time creating a background for, and we also have seen many of his reactions to events around him. All that makes him a character we can relate to and care about. As the most fleshed out person in the story so far, he seems much more real than everyone else. Avon is potentially good, but could slip into cliché territory very easily as the "Han Solo cynic" type. Now taht I know he's going to be around a while longer, I figure when the writers came up with the character they didn't really understand the impact Avon was going to have on the show. The one that needs developing the most is the lady, Stannis, if I recall correctly, because she doesn't seem much more than pretty with great hair, and one who won't trade sex for favors (but then she doesn't seem desperate at all to resort to that yet).

The pace is very "British," which reminds me that the notion we had of European and American productions back in the 1970s: European stuff is more artsy, more boring, with longer scenes. American shows and movies favor more action, are more superficial and, in general, more standardized in terms of cinematic language. The interesting things about this all is that even if that was true or partially true once, it no longer makes a difference, since now European productions are as dynamic as the American ones, and American shows can be equally "artsy" if that's what you're looking for. Anyway, in 1978 a show like Blake's 7 was easier to identify as British.

The dramatic set up is good. The situation is simple enough for us to know who to root for, but complex enough for the story to develop into unforeseen consequences. However there's a still a major problem: there's no clear antagonist. A faceless tyrannical government doesn't qualify as such.

It just occurred to me that the characters are potentially compelling, but in the beginning you see a bunch of White English people and they all have more in common than differences. Nowadays you'd have people of different ethnicities, which would make them different from the very beginning. But in shows from the past that was not the case. However, in Star Trek, you also had a bunch of White guys, but they were distinct enough from the get-go. You had young and handsome Captain Kirk, Spock (the resident alien), McCoy (not known for his physicality and with a more noticeable Southern accent), Sulu (an Asian), Uhura (a Black woman), Scottie (another one with a different accent), Chekov (again, accent and somebody younger than the rest). Each character is easy to identify and remember for certain characteristics. In Blake's 7 I'm still trying to get used to who is who, except for Blake. OK, there's a woman, obviously (great hair!), Blake (even greater hair!!), and Avon (OK hair). But that Villa guy, I don't remember what he looks or sounds like.

If I were watching this by myself, I might have continued or not. I'm not totally buying the show yet, but I'm reasonably interested.

The antagonists are coming.

 

[Mad-Pac]

My general response to people asking if we'll ever find intelligent life in space is "we haven't even found it here on earth yet".

Of course we have. How would you explain the phrase "military intelligence" otherwise?

 

[Gavin]

How would you explain the phrase "military intelligence" otherwise?

An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

I'm reminded of a Monty Python sketch (which unfortunately I can't find now) with an army general on the phone explaining that he doesn't know, couldn't possibly be expected to know, and really doesn't know. Then he hangs up and the phone rings again and he picks it up and answers "Military Intelligence!"

 

[Mad-Pac]

Do you mean like in STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER, where Kirk took a Constitution-Class Enterprise to the centre of the galaxy?

Is that what you mean?

No, that's not what I mean. But really? Did Kirk do that? And where were they initially? Maybe they were not very far to begin with. How far did they travel in how much time? All I know is that Nimbus III is in the Alpha Quadrant, the same earth is in. And I'm not going to rewatch that godawful movie just to see if you have a point, but if you care to provide the information then we can analyze that.

But even if the writers had a slip there, which wouldn't surprise me, considering how bad that movie was, one should stick to canon and one aberration doesn't rewrite canon.

By the way, we don't know for a fact that a planet named Cygnus Alpha - 800 years from now - is related to the location of a star in the Cygnus constellation in present times. I expect it's highly likely, but it is by no means certain.

Therefore it is entirely possible that Cygnus Alpha might be closer than we think - or even further away for that matter.

Nothing is really certain at this point, since so little information is given and the little we have is not reliable. For the time being, I'll stick to my initial conclusions. But if the show corrects itself in the future I promise I'll personally write the show's producers an official letter of apology, if any of them is still alive.

You might be overlooking the time factor in this instance. The technology displayed in BLAKE'S 7 is from around the twenty-eighth or twenty-ninth century

I'm working with the information I have, and so far no information about the century has been given. And apparently not even you are sure of the century. But, yes, it would be unlikely that this show takes place in the same century as the Star Trek shows.

Very true, but that's never stopped many science fiction franchises from ignoring this fact - especially ones like BABYLON 5, DOCTOR WHO, STAR TREK, STAR WARS and so on.

Yes, and they all do a terrible job is this department. Well, except for Star Wars, because considering it's a unified Galactic Empire, the most advanced civilizations gradually made the less advanced ones catch up with them, or simply populated deserted planets.

 

[Mad-Pac]

An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Well, well, you did leave OUT my emoticons () They were part of the comment!

 

[Mad-Pac]

You mean Blake is fighting the Borg as well?

 

[Mad-Pac]

And Kryptonians apparently...

 

[Mad-Pac]

Well, well, you did leave OUT my emoticons () They were part of the comment!

Oops, typo located! Now, corrected.

 

[ant-mac]

No, that's not what I mean. But really? Did Kirk do that? And where were they initially? Maybe they were not very far to begin with. How far did they travel in how much time? All I know is that Nimbus III is in the Alpha Quadrant, the same earth is in. And I'm not going to rewatch that godawful movie just to see if you have a point, but if you care to provide the information then we can analyze that.

At the start of the film, certain members of the crew of the Enterprise are enjoying shore leave on Earth. At the end of the film, at least Kirk, Spock and McCoy are back on Earth, enjoying shore leave. In between, they travel to Nimbus III and the centre of the galaxy, beyond yet another great barrier. And all of this is achieved on a Constitution-Class starship that has apparently not undergone any special modifications.

But even if the writers had a slip there, which wouldn't surprise me, considering how bad that movie was, one should stick to canon and one aberration doesn't rewrite canon.

You can analyse it all you want, but STAR TREK V is apart of official STAR TREK canon.

Rewriting doesn't come into it.

The STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION episode THE NTH DEGREE basically remade the film and showed how it should've been done.

Nothing is really certain at this point, since so little information is given and the little we have is not reliable. For the time being, I'll stick to my initial conclusions. But if the show corrects itself in the future I promise I'll personally write the show's producers an official letter of apology, if any of them is still alive.

I doubt it.

I don't think your word is worth that much.

I'm working with the information I have, and so far no information about the century has been given. And apparently not even you are sure of the century. But, yes, it would be unlikely that this show takes place in the same century as the Star Trek shows.

It is set sometime in the twenty-eight century, or the 2900s.

Yes, and they all do a terrible job is this department. Well, except for Star Wars, because considering it's a unified Galactic Empire, the most advanced civilizations gradually made the less advanced ones catch up with them, or simply populated deserted planets.

Actually, it seems that even in STAR WARS there is no unified galactic empire.

It certainly controls a large area, but apparently not the entire galaxy.

 

[Mad-Pac]

You can analyse it all you want, but STAR TREK V is apart of official STAR TREK canon.

It certainly is. What I meant is that franchises that last a long time with many writes contradict themselves all the time, so my advice is that you should follow the rules observed in a large number of episodes or movies, not a single case. Unless, of course, you want to prove a point on a technicality. Anyway, as I said, it would depend on how far they were from Nimbus III initially and how long it took them to get there or if new technology was introduced. Lots of variables.

It is set sometime in the twenty-eight century, or the 2900s.

Well, I have no way of knowing that yet.

It is set sometime in the twenty-eight century, or the 2900s.

To my knowledge it was, but I'm not particularly interested in Star Wars.

 

[ant-mac]

It certainly is. What I meant is that franchises that last a long time with many writes contradict themselves all the time, so my advice is that you should follow the rules observed in a large number of episodes or movies, not a single case. Unless, of course, you want to prove a point on a technicality. Anyway, as I said, it would depend on how far they were from Nimbus III initially and how long it took them to get there or if new technology was introduced. Lots of variables.

Your logic is a little faulty there, Spock.

Nimbus III is almost an afterthought - and largely irrelevant. Enterprise NCC - 1701 A travelled from Earth to the galaxy's centre and back, without any introduction of new technology. There were no adjustments made to the warp engines, no trans-warp technology no wormholes, nothing...

Well, I have no way of knowing that yet.

Yes you do, I just told you.

The information is part of the basic knowledge made known to viewers when it was first broadcast. It's also available in literature about the program and possibly on the internet as well.

To my knowledge it was, but I'm not particularly interested in Star Wars.

I'm not particularly fond of STAR WARS either.

However, I don't let that fact keep me ignorant of other facts concerning the franchise, where they are of relevance to me.

 

[Mad-Pac]

Nimbus III is almost an afterthought - and largely irrelevant. Enterprise NCC - 1701 A travelled from Earth to the galaxy's centre and back, without any introduction of new technology. There were no adjustments made to the warp engines, no trans-warp technology no wormholes, nothing...

First of all, the Enterprise didn't travel to the center of the galaxy, but to Nimbus III, a planet near the center of the galaxy, so your flawed logic started wrong, Sybok. Nimbus III is not an afterthought, it's the destination in the movie. And are you sure they started on Earth, or you're assuming that as well as you just did with the "center of the galaxy" fallacy?

But anyway, it is also quite possible the writers made a blunder there and contradicted everything we knew about Star Trek lore. If someone sees how the Borg have changed depending on which show or movie one saw, one would see how easily writers contradict what was said before and this is why we cannot take every piece of information at face value.

Yes you do, I just told you.

Yes... And I already asked you not to do that, didn't I? I don't want to learn things about future episodes, so I choose to disregard any extraneous information as unreliable.

The information is part of the basic knowledge made known to viewers when it was first broadcast. It's also available in literature about the program and possibly on the internet as well.

Which makes me wonder if you're saying 2900 A.D because they say that in the show or because you just bought what they told in the "basic information package" and ran with it. And no, don't tell me which one it is. Yes, and official trailers reveal the entire story of movies these days, and trailers of comedies show the best jokes in the trailer. All the more reason to avoid them. And sure, I can read everything about the show on the Internet. Even the finale. But just because it's there it doesn't mean I should see it. The less we know, the better to appreciate and evaluate the show it is, and the more the viewer depends on in order to understand the story, the more problematic the writing is.

However, I don't let that fact keep me ignorant of other facts concerning the franchise, where they are of relevance to me.

Well, they are not relevant to me and there's nothing wrong about being "ignorant" of a number of facts concerning a franchise I'm not particularly interested in. All I can say is that I've seen all movies but one, and I just don't remember any reference to unexplored regions in the galaxy, or why the Empire inexplicably chose not to expand into those directions. All I hear is the Empire being referred to as "Galactic Empire," so while that works for me, I'll just go with that. But the day I have to star on a TV show answering questions about Star Wars minutia in order to win a lot of money and prizes, then I promise I'll properly "study" the material.