			    TRAVELLER Digest 527

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Test Message
	by peterb@superlink.net (Peter L. Berghold)
  2) SAAB
	by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 13:52:37 -0500
From: peterb@superlink.net (Peter L. Berghold)
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Test Message
Message-ID: <199512261845.NAA13350@mars.superlink.net>

Sorry for the bandwidth waste, but this is to see if I'm getting to this
list.  If I do, great, but if I don't my ISP is going to catch hell...
     _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
    _/ Peter L. Berghold -- Teleport Communications Group           _/
   _/ Sr. Unix Specialist   UUCP: ..!uunet!tcgny!berghold          _/
  _/VOX: (718) 355-2722 INTERNET: peterb@superlink.net            _/
 _/ FAX: (718) 355-4248      URL: http://superlink.net/~peterb   _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:18:09 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: SAAB
Message-ID: <0e181040@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

As the holiday doldrums slowly start to dissipate:

I've caught up on last week's discussion of Space: Above and Beyond, and it 
seems to me there are some misconceptions out there.  I don't think SAAB suffers
so much from lack of a technical advisor as it does the need to present 
accessible entertainment not just for techies, but for a general audience.  

Now, I'm not one to profess that we should "dumb down" all our TV shows for the 
lowest common denominator, but I _am_ a proponent of using "willing suspension 
of disbelief" where necessary to provide marketable entertainment.  (Yes, I 
believe there's a difference.)

Some of the problems with the show that have been discussed have been:

1)  Lack of accurate vector-based space-combat.

2)  A dodgy military hierarchy.

3)  Having expensively trained pilots double as ground troops.

4)  Dicey acting.

5)  The Americans-only "U.N." fighting force.

(My worst beef with the show is Wang's constant reference to 20th century sports
teams and players.  I get the feeling the Cubs might've obtained a _few_ more 
players the caliber of Ryne Sandberg and Andre Dawson, no matter what the show 
thinks.  Couldn't they have thrown in a few made up names for players who played
during the 21st century?  Oh, and the disparaging remark about the 49ers did not
sit well with _this_ Bay-Area resident! <g>)


Addressing the above problems:

1)  I side with the members of the list that believe an accurate system would 
not produce exciting enough combat.  At least for the majority of the 
home-viewing crowd.  Remember, a large portion of the viewers are video-gamers 
and moviegoers who want some pyrotechnics.  Whether it's realistic or not, and 
to what degree, is irrelevant.  The point here is that the producers of the show
want to produce a winner, not a technical expose.  They want to sell advertising
dollars, not obtain the plaudits of the university science community.

2)  Yes, a bunch of lieutenants and one lt. col. leaves a few gaps to say the 
least.  But for one thing, we don't know what form the military of the future 
would take.  I doubt it would be quite like it is in SAAB, but I'm willing to 
let it slide since it's not really germaine to telling the story anyway.

3)  Sure it's silly that pilots, whose training programs would cost millions 
(_billions_ due to inflation?), are used as ground troops, but here's a spot you
need to employ that "willing suspension of disbelief."  A TV show, especially a 
sci-fi TV show in which the effects cost a fair amount of money, cannot provide 
permanent employment to 50 actors.  Sure it'd make more sense to have a squadron
of pilots and a platoon of troops, but a) It would dilute character development,
which the show is at least _attempting_ to provide, and b) it would be a 
budgetary nightmare for the show's producers.  I'm willing to accept this little
lack of verisimilitude in order to appreciate the air/ground war story they're 
trying to tell, rather than disparaging it in deference for realistic military 
structure.

4)  Yeah, the acting's weak for the most part.  The show probably needs it's own
"Boxleitner" next year.  Sure, Bruce is no Anthony Hopkins, but you have to 
admit, he lends B5 an aire of legitimacy in a slowly crowding market.  You can't
help but like Sheridan, not just as a character, but as the respectable old 
hand.  Part of the establishment of that personality comes from the fact that 
Bruce Boxleitner brings market recognition to B5.  Hopefully, SAAB will get 
someone like that next season to fill the gap.

5)  See Mitch Schwartz's explanation in TML 522.  He says it better than I 
could.  His explanation works.  Now, if we don't _eventually_ start seeing more 
non-American troops filling positions, we have more reason to be skeptical.


I think we've done the In Vitro issue to death, so I'll leave that one alone.  I
agree with Charles Collin's opinion, that it makes sense.

All in all, the show's about average, but I laud the effort and I don't think 
the show's producers are half-assing it or anything like that.  I think they're 
making good use of their resources and trying to put out not only a good 
product, but a marketable one.

--Chris

------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 527
***************************
