Review BLAKE'S 7: SPACE FALL - Episode 02

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
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?
First of all, the Enterprise travelled to Nimbus III, then afterwards, once Sybok and his followers took control of the Enterprise, it travelled to a region near the centre of the galaxy, behind another great barrier. And it was pursued all the way their by a Klingon Bird of Prey.

When I said it was an afterthought, I meant in the context of the distance covered in the film by a Constitution-class starship. From Earth to a region close to the centre of the galaxy and back. Unless Nimbus III was in a perfect line up between Earth and the ultimate destination behind the great barrier, then that means the Enterprise travelled even further - in one film. I thought it best to leave it out of the equation, just for the sake of keeping things simple.

And yes, I'm certain that Kirk, Spock and McCoy - along with other members of the Enterprise crew - were on Earth at the beginning of the film, because Kirk was climbing El Capitan in Yosemite National Park, in the USA, on the North American continent, on Earth, at the heart of the Federation of United Planets. When he fell off the mountain, Spock saved his life because the Vulcan was wearing jet-powered anti-gravity boots.

I've seen this film several times. Have you seen it even once?
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.
Who said anything about future episodes?

I said the information was made available to viewers via literature and other means prior to the beginning of the TV series.

Simple, basic background information to give viewers some context.
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.
If you don't want to read my reply, then you shouldn't read it or engage in this conversation.

Of course, that could well apply to almost every conversation taking place on this thread and every other one regarding BLAKE'S 7.
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.
For the record, the last STAR WARS film I watched was REVENGE OF THE SITH. I am in no hurry to watch any more of them. I simply came across the information regarding the background and historical circumstances of the STAR WARS universe by chance recently.

However, if you wish to remain ignorant, that's up to you.

It's not a goal that I share.
 

Mad-Pac

Member: Rank 5
I've seen this film several times. Have you seen it even once?
Didn't I just say I've seen the movie? Why do you ask then? Yes, I saw it "even" once, and that was enough. And the fact I saw it once doesn't mean I'm supposed to remember such details, as it was a ,long time ago and I didn't like the movie very much. Actually I think it was the worst of the bunch and I hardly consider it to represent what Star Trek really means.

I remember the initial scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy ("life is but a dream"), and yes it was on earth, but I don't remember where Sybok commandeered the ship. and what they did between the initial scene and the moment they headed to Nimbus III. But why are you even insisting on this movie anyway? What do you think that proves? Do you think that somehow makes the data I put about warp speeds wrong? It's from a site, and I thought it was quite accurate and clever, and faithful to the general spirit of Star Trek lore. Regardless of what happens in this particular movie.

Who said anything about future episodes?
The thing is, if you reveal something that was not expressed in the episode themselves, there's no way for me to know whether that information was given in future episodes, in an interview with the actors and writers, in the summary available to viewers in North Cornwall, but not in South Cornwall, or in a forum about the show. There fore I think the best thing is to avoid such outside information completely since there's no way to verify what comes from where.

If you don't want to read my reply, then you shouldn't read it or engage in this conversation.
Of course I want to read your reply, and this is why I'm replying right now. I only ask you a simple favor: not to reveal anything that was not shown in the episodes themselves so far. Just that.

Of course, that could well apply to almost every conversation taking place on this thread and every other one regarding BLAKE'S 7
Indeed. Fortunately things are going nicely otherwise.

For the record, the last STAR WARS film I watched was REVENGE OF THE SITH. I am in no hurry to watch any more of them. I simply came across the information regarding the background and historical circumstances of the STAR WARS universe by chance recently.
Just for the record, I recently found a Star Wars map and it basically seemed to encompass the entire galaxy, except for some "Unknown Regions." Which affects what I said about Star Wars... in no way whatsoever. Which makes me wonder once again why you're insisting on this Star Wars topic. So, the Galactic Empire stretches for all galaxy, 99% of the galaxy or 90% of the galaxy? Who cares? What difference does it make? It's still a good example of galactic organization, something achieved by the fact they can cross galactic distances in a few days due to hyperdrive. Which make me think you just want to be proven right, regardless of what we're discussing.

However, if you wish to remain ignorant, that's up to you.

It's not a goal that I share.
Yes, yes, indeed. Be a better person by knowing more Star Wars factoids. LOL! It's funny how you manage to drop an insult even in some innocuous topic such as "how galactic is the galactic empire?" But thank you for understanding my need to remain ignorant. I knew you would understand because I'm sure in several areas your ignorance knows no limit.

And isn't that how it works with everybody? (Don't bother answering; it's a rhetorical question.)
 

Mad-Pac

Member: Rank 5
Sorry, Mad-Pac, but you haven't done your homework here. They did leave Nimbus III and travel to the centre of the galaxy, breaching "the Great Barrier" and finding a planet behind it, where "God" lived.
Well, I barely remember anything about that movie, and I don't see why this is relevant. All I know is that I didn't like it. I didn't realize I was doing homework or preparing for a test anyway. I'm not even sure what would make this particular movie particularly relevant.

Yes, they did start on Earth, unless Yosemite National Park got moved to some other planet - rather pointlessly!
Yes, as I said earlier, I don't remember what they did after they left earth and how much time passed. I'm only commenting on that movie I barely remember because someone we know brought it up to attempt to prove something, whatever it was.

It really was a bad movie.

Bit cheeky really, M-P, considering that you're the one in the wrong here!

Twice! :emoji_face_palm::emoji_head_bandage:
Ouch! Burn! Fine, I admit it. I know absolutely nothing about Star Trek V. Which, again, proves what exactly? (Besides the fact it proves I know nothing about Star Trek V?) That I didn't keep track of that bad movie? I think all that pales in comparison tot he fact all of a sudden Spock had a brother no-one had ever heard of before, and who was never mentioned again any time later... THAT was "cringy."

Yosemite National Park is a United States national park lying in the western Sierra Nevada of Northern California.
OK, now you're beating a dead horse. So, you included a definition for Yosemite national park in case I thought, I don't know, Yosemite was on Mars between Olympus Mons and Valles Marinneris?
 

Mad-Pac

Member: Rank 5
You sounded very confident in your knowledge of the film there.
We're getting off track here. This movie was brought up for a reason, and that reason hasn't been proven. I think the movie itself is irrelevant.

You sounded very confident in your knowledge of the film there.
Yep, I did. But believe me I really wasn't.

You seemed happy to use it too Mad-Pac. When you thought you were right. Now that it is no longer working in your favour you are rejecting it as a source of argument.
I just replied about the movie because it was brought into the discussion. I never intended to make a debate about the specifics of Star Trek V, and I fail to see the relevance of this. Can YOU even tell me why that matters by the way, besides rejoicing in the fact I was wrong? I know being right is a thing here and very, very important for some people, but I have no problems to admit when I'm wrong and I was and I admit it publicly and... What sort of act of contrition do you still expect?

Now what really matters. Do you think what happens in this movie contradicts in any way the entry I posted about traveling distances and travel times in the Star Trek universe? Because I think, and I may be wrong too at this point, that's the only reason why this god-awful bad movie was brought up.

POSSIBLE LESSON TO LEARN: Check your sources first before composing a rebuttal. :emoji_face_palm:
Yeah, good... Sound advice. It even deserved screaming BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS!!!! Or maybe... perhaps... just don't. Just write what you remember in a confident way, and research if you really, really have to. And if you're wrong someone will be more than happy to point that out and then you'll be corrected and you'll learn in the process and you don't even have to research! How does that sound to you? I think I prefer this approach instead.
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
Didn't I just say I've seen the movie?
Did you?

Well, if you say so, then it must be true.
Why do you ask then?
Because your subsequent post gave every indication of you not having any idea of what you're talking about when it comes to STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER.

To quote you directly...
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?
Yes, I saw it "even" once, and that was enough.
Obviously not if you wish to discuss or debate various plot points in it.
And the fact I saw it once doesn't mean I'm supposed to remember such details, as it was a ,long time ago and I didn't like the movie very much.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't be lazy, do a little research. It's not hard.

Luckily they've come up with a new invention that might help you. It's called the internet. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Actually I think it was the worst of the bunch and I hardly consider it to represent what Star Trek really means.
It's certainly not the strongest entry in the film series.

And it's such a shame really. It would've taken so little extra effort to make this into a far more decent and worthy effort.

However, in places, I think it represents STAR TREK rather well. It boldly goes where no one has gone before and it manages to bring together people from different planets and different cultures in the interests of peace. It's just a shame that it wasn't a better film overall.
The thing is, if you reveal something that was not expressed in the episode themselves, there's no way for me to know whether that information was given in future episodes, in an interview with the actors and writers, in the summary available to viewers in North Cornwall, but not in South Cornwall, or in a forum about the show. There fore I think the best thing is to avoid such outside information completely since there's no way to verify what comes from where.
The information was provided to give the viewers some context to the characters and situations they were to be presented with.

The rest of it is a load of nonsense.
Of course I want to read your reply, and this is why I'm replying right now. I only ask you a simple favor: not to reveal anything that was not shown in the episodes themselves so far. Just that.
So you don't want to know about Blake's evil twin brother, Jenna's lesbian relationship with Avon's sister or when the Daleks from DOCTOR WHO make a cameo appearance at the end of season one?

Okay.
Indeed. Fortunately things are going nicely otherwise.
That's nice.
Just for the record, I recently found a Star Wars map and it basically seemed to encompass the entire galaxy, except for some "Unknown Regions." Which affects what I said about Star Wars... in no way whatsoever. Which makes me wonder once again why you're insisting on this Star Wars topic. So, the Galactic Empire stretches for all galaxy, 99% of the galaxy or 90% of the galaxy? Who cares? What difference does it make? It's still a good example of galactic organization, something achieved by the fact they can cross galactic distances in a few days due to hyperdrive. Which make me think you just want to be proven right, regardless of what we're discussing.
I'm not insisting on anything.

You made a specific passing reference to STAR WARS in regards to it possessing a galactic empire. I just happened to be in possession of information that is contrary to what you supplied. I indicated as much.

Why did you insist on making the reference to STAR WARS in your previous post?
Yes, yes, indeed. Be a better person by knowing more Star Wars factoids. LOL! It's funny how you manage to drop an insult even in some innocuous topic such as "how galactic is the galactic empire?" But thank you for understanding my need to remain ignorant. I knew you would understand because I'm sure in several areas your ignorance knows no limit.
I have no idea if I know more or less STAR WARS facts than you do. As I stated, I just happened to recently come into possession of a few minor facts about the basic set up of the STAR WARS universe.

And I'm sure everything has it's limits - even your passive-aggressive resentment of BLAKE'S 7.
And isn't that how it works with everybody? (Don't bother answering; it's a rhetorical question.)
Is it really?
 

Mad-Pac

Member: Rank 5
Did you?

Well, if you say so, then it must be true.
Good.

Because your subsequent post gave every indication of you not having any idea of what you're talking about when it comes to STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER.
Or maybe I gave every indication i don't remember what happens in the movie. Do you remember the details of every movie you saw in 1989?

Obviously not if you wish to discuss or debate various plot points in it.
Not really, not particularly. This is Life on Mars all over again. I post something, you disagree, then you post something, I disagree. And it goes on and on until we're sick and tired of it. The fact this time it's Star Trek V is a mere detail.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't be lazy, do a little research. It's not hard.
I did. Where do you think that Nimbus III came from? Do you think I would remember such a random detail as Nimbus II from a movie I saw back in the 1980s? But I'm not really worried about doing research I'm not in the mood for. I'm sure you'll always be more than glad to point out my mistakes, so this is why I'm not worried.

Seriously, you did bring up a Star Trek movie you knew well and I didn't for some other reason other than discussing Star Trek and Spock's family. Nice move!

The information was provided to give the viewers some context to the characters and situations they were to be presented with.

The rest of it is a load of nonsense.
Yes, yes, I'm having flashbacks and one of the things we disagreed on was the use of metaphors. OK, "nonsense" aside, I don't know what information was available to viewers in what regions and I'm sure that different viewers watching the show from different sources in different years had, well, different information available to establish the premise. Considering all that uncertainty, I think the wisest thing is to ignore all the extra information. This kind of information is normally given in advance to make viewers interested and get them to watch the thing. Well, I'm already watching it, so I don't need any extra incentives. On the contrary, these bits are distracting.

So you don't want to know about Blake's evil twin brother, Jenna's lesbian relationship with Avon's sister or when the Daleks from DOCTOR WHO make a cameo appearance at the end of season one?
:emoji_grin: Now that's me with my ears covered repeating "LA LA LA LA LA LA!" :emoji_scream: I'm spoilerphobic!

You made a specific passing reference to STAR WARS in regards to it possessing a galactic empire. I just happened to be in possession of information that is contrary to what you supplied. I indicated as much.

Why did you insist on making the reference to STAR WARS in your previous post?
I think I mentioned Star Wars as an example of a galactic organization (and by that I meant system of government such as an empire, republic, federation, confederation, etc) that covered an entire galaxy (or only close to that, apparently, which doesn't matter) and which was done in a smart way. In this universe, the human and alien civilization covers very vast regions because traveling is fast enough to justify it. And the reason that happens is because of the way hyperdrive works and how it differs from Star Trek's warp speed. Again if the Galactic Empire is actually galactic or just covers a huge chunk of the galaxy works the same way for me to use it as an example.

I have no idea if I know more or less STAR WARS facts than you do.
Well, you certainly know more than me about Star Trek V: the Final Country, or something, I give you that. And quite possibly know more than I do about Star Wars, because I always watched it for the sheer fun of it, never to immerse myself in the mythology of that universe.

I also type very, very, very fast, which explains my poor judgment I occasionally show. Slightly.

Is it really?
:emoji_pensive: Hmmm. I'm not going to answer that just in case. :emoji_unamused:
 

Mad-Pac

Member: Rank 5
Could someone please remind me again of why Spock saved him from going splat at the bottom of El Capitan...?
Wasn't El Capitan that natural rock formation that fell apart after being a tourist attraction for centuries? Or, was it the face of an Indian instead, the only Native American president the US had and whose face was immortalized on Mount Rushmore? Yeah, yeah, I know. Research...
 

Mad-Pac

Member: Rank 5
That it seems a bit silly to use a film that you now admittedly know nothing about as the basis for a confident rebuttal. :emoji_confused:
OK, it seems you're not gonna let this go for a while. :emoji_rolling_eyes: Just for the record, I didn't pick this movie. that's the last Star Trek production I'd pick. I was only talking about it because it was used by someone else as an argument for something else. If I originally bring something up, it'll be something I'm much more familiar with, of course.

It merely seemed somewhat fresh of you to accuse someone of incorrect assumptions, when you had made several incorrect assumptions based upon faulty memory yourself.
And yet the essence of what I said that caused this movie to be mentioned in the first place doesn't seem to have been disproved. And ironically I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I am also sorry that you now seem to be taking a somewhat defensive tone with each and every one of your follow up replies.
Well, you said I was wrong, I admitted I was wrong, so really I don't see what else needs to be said about it as these details weren't even important for the point I was originally making.

This is not a personal attack,
Oh, believe me, I never take these things personally. It']s just my typing is the brainstorming kind. I type the first thing I think and type very fast. In a foreign language, by the way. It comes out the way it comes out.

But yeah, if you're trying to develop a credible internet publication, you have to do a lot of research and make your information as credible as possible.

But anyway, this is more of a harmless distraction to me. Real life poses real problems and it is those we should be concerned about. the rest is just banter.

you seem happy to say that you stand corrected, then all is well and good. And the good ship BLAKE'S 7 REVIEW can sail on happily after this blip.:emoji_alien:
My sentiments exactly!
:emoji_innocent:
 

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
I know absolutely nothing about Star Trek V. Which, again, proves what exactly?
I would think that knowing absolutely nothing about Star Trek V proves that you have saved that portion of your brain that would otherwise have been taken up with memories of it and used it for more worthwhile purposes. There is nothing about that movie that is worth wasting brain space on :emoji_relaxed:
 

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
Spock told Birmingham lookalike to quit smoking

The spirit of Spock star Leonard Nimoy, has given words of encouragement to the world's greatest lookalike, Roy Ives.


https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/spock-told-birmingham-lookalike-quit-9765065


Mr-Spock-lookalike-Roy-Ives.jpg

The spirit of Spock star Leonard Nimoy has boldly gone where no other spectre has gone before – the bedroom of a Kitts Green flat.

And from there, the Star Trek legend, who died in February, aged 83, has given words of encouragement to the world’s greatest lookalike, Roy Ives.

Roy, much in demand because of his uncanny resemblance to the actor, spoke of his Vulcan visitations while preparing for yesterday’s “Alien Invasion of Acocks Green”.

The event, organised by the Business Improvement District, saw the suburb awash with such sci-fi favourites as Batman and Robin, Spiderman, Darth Vader and Dr Who.

Roy, aged 71, told the Mercury that Nimoy, a former heavy smoker who died of obstructive pulmonary disease – a condition he blamed on the addiction, had visited him twice.

And he came to implore his “double” to kick the tobacco habit.

Roy, who smokes 30-a-day, said: “I woke up in the early hours of the morning and could feel a presence in the bedroom. I was conscious of someone sitting on the edge of the bed.

“He was Nimoy, not Spock, and was dressed in a light shirt and slacks. He sat on the edge of my bed and said, ‘try hard to give up. Try harder, I don’t want my doppelganger to go the same way’.”

Nimoy emphasised he wanted the man still promoting his most famous role to live long and prosper. He’s desperate for Roy to Klingon.

He also told Roy not to worry about his five cats, issuing a “they’re going to be fine” assurance.

Roy’s adamant he saw Nimoy. It’s not simply a phaser he’s going through.

In life, he never got to meet his hero, but came close, arriving at a 1994 Star Trek convention only hours after the real Spock had left.

The ghost of Nimoy was aware of the close encounter that never was, stressed Roy.

Despite the visit from the Final Frontier, Roy believes being Spock’s twin has hindered his acting aspirations.

“I have always wanted to be an actor,” he said, “and went for an audition for The Bill.

“They told me I was the right height and build, but I looked too much like Spock. It would be a distraction.”

The lookalike work has also slowed.

“A lot of agents are telling me it’s hit rock bottom,” he said.

“The only ones getting the work are ‘The Royals’. ”

As Roy fitted the latex ears that have served him so well over the past 15 years, he began to get into character.

“Spock has no emotion,” he confided, “and in Acocks Green I will show no emotion.”

It’s an Enterprise the lookalike is evidently taking very seriously.



 
Last edited:

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
He's a pretty good lookalike.

But I think he should give up the Romulan ale before bedtime... :emoji_wink:
 

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
I think it's truly sweet that he believes that Nimoy would choose to stop being dead long enough to single him out for a personal visit.

But other than that the poor man seems to be as mad as a bag of spanners.

Also, looks good in a photo as Spock, but as soon as he moves or speaks......... :emoji_head_bandage:


He's still more canon than DISCOVERY though i.m.o.

For I would rather wade through a 7 season boxset, chronicling the mundane adventures of an impossible to explain Sorta-Spock, losing his mind and living in Birmingham with five cats, than even one more episode of the adventures of Michael Burnham and co. :emoji_anguished:
 
Top