Star Wars VII-IX, what do you think?

[Unorthodox]

Well, it had a guy in a very shiny jacket mounting a military assault on a whorehouse from Luke's landspeeder, firing a laser pistol out the open top.  With the Serenity crew boarded up inside, shooting out the windows.  There were some powerful shark-jumping vibes about that episode.  Like Mal's wince-inducing sexual healing with the madam.  To be fair, it also had some fun moments with Jayne, because whorehouse, but when I revisit the series, I watch that episode last.  Even after the one that's all flashbacks.

EDIT: Also, that episode was naturally rather heavy on the Inara.  Inara was always at least a little bit annoying just from Baccarin's acting, and when you throw on her lah-di-dah space geisha hokum, uck.  She was most tolerable when she was fighting with Mal.  Heart of Gold had her trying to be serious and dramatic.  Which was simply painful.

I always rather thought having the madam take the place of Inara and have that rescue be just a 15 minute backstory for how she ended up on the ship would have been a much better fit for the tone of the show. 

[bvanevery]

I think Stargate Atlantis had better writing, characters, and acting than most things out there now.  For one thing it wasn't genre blind.

[Buster's Uncle]

I think it was just budget Stargate, and written by people who'd already said everything they had to say.

[Lorizael]

I think Stargate Atlantis had better ... acting than most things out there now.

Oh yeah, especially Dr. Elizabeth "I hope this scene calls for me to be breathy" Weir.

[bvanevery]

Wasn't that budget.  Not like they skimped on special effects in any way, or did any less than SG-1 did in that regard.  Yeah at the time SG-1 was making feature films, whatever.  Movie budgets are larger than most TV shows.

I mean really, budget?  STTOS was budget.  Only to be outdone by old Dr. Who.

[Vishniac]

I think it was just budget Stargate, and written by people who'd already said everything they had to say.

Budget what?
It had perhaps my most favorite (isn't that a double superlative?) scene of all time: nothing beats this space-launched MIRV attack! 
(ok,  GI Joe 2 had a space-launched 'rod from God' kinetic attack but it was a movie, not just a...budget...serie  )

The MIRV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAjAdQpprgg

The Rod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKf5r_JMAo

[Buster's Uncle]

Eh, MacGyver cost more than CGI.  -It wasn't bad, exactly, just lacking in heart.

[Unorthodox]

I think it was just budget Stargate, and written by people who'd already said everything they had to say.

Budget what?
It had perhaps my most favorite (isn't that a double superlative?) scene of all time: nothing beats this space-launched MIRV attack! 
(ok,  GI Joe 2 had a space-launched 'rod from God' kinetic attack but it was a movie, not just a...budget...serie  )

The MIRV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAjAdQpprgg

My god that was mind numbingly horrible science...

So much wasted weight that could have been spent on more warheads that could have hit a broader target area.  Fuel is for exit, not re-entry.    And ooooo 6 whole warheads.  This was science fiction that was using lower technology than we had at the time of it being made? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P969v7Ryjc

[bvanevery]

My god that was mind numbingly horrible science...

No it wasn't.  It's weapons design that differs from your own preconceptions.

So much wasted weight that could have been spent on more warheads that could have hit a broader target area. 

How do you know it didn't need to be armored to protect the warheads?  Nothing did shoot at the incoming MIRV launcher, but something could have.  AFAIAC it's reasonable to hand wave that this thing was ruggedized for one time, "must not fail" use.

Fuel is for exit, not re-entry.

That's false.  The missile needs to go as fast as possible to minimize the chance of enemies shooting it down.  The ship just dropped out of warp and wasn't going fast.  It might be a good idea to release the missile before coming out of warp, but I bet the accuracy of ending warp is not guaranteed.  Also, that missile may have need to have been launched under any possible contingency.  If you were expecting your ship to "throw" it and something got in the way of that, you'd have a problem.  So again, "must not fail".

And ooooo 6 whole warheads.

Ten.  Freeze the frame, there's a full frontal view that shows it quite clearly.

This was science fiction that was using lower technology than we had at the time of it being made? 

Your preferred simulation has 8 warheads accelerating using fuel on the final approach.  So I think you should check yourself before making pronouncements of "bad science".  The science fiction here is fine.  I think the only real critique is too much air drag on the launch rocket.  It's not streamlined, it's made to look spaceship kewl.

[Lorizael]

That's false.  The missile needs to go as fast as possible to minimize the chance of enemies shooting it down.  The ship just dropped out of warp and wasn't going fast.  It might be a good idea to release the missile before coming out of warp, but I bet the accuracy of ending warp is not guaranteed.  Also, that missile may have need to have been launched under any possible contingency.  If you were expecting your ship to "throw" it and something got in the way of that, you'd have a problem.  So again, "must not fail".

If the ship is in orbit of the planet, then it is going very fast almost by definition. If it's not in orbit but moving along with the planet, it would need constant thrust to avoid falling. So a MIRV that just drops out of the ship is fine. When the reentry vehicle is falling, gravity accelerates it until air gets in the way. Any fuel you burn before reaching significant atmosphere is wasted when you slam into the air.

[bvanevery]

When the reentry vehicle is falling, gravity accelerates it until air gets in the way.

What part of "we want it to fly faster than gravity or air resistance" don't you understand?

[Buster's Uncle]

b, no.  You're trying to argue with a rocket engineer and an astronomer.

[bvanevery]

That hasn't made them correct so far.  Unorthodox posted a "better" video, which had the warheads spending fuel, clearly indicating there are reasons to do this.  If he wants to gripe narrowly about the launch vehicle spending fuel, fine, but he's forgetting that this is being done in a combat situation in the far future.  They presumably have technologies that could intercept, unlike our present day, and he simply forgot that.  In his haste to condemn "bad" science.

You know, the people who wrote that scene for Stargate Atlantis, went through a lot of trouble to include some valid science stuff in it.  Like an atmospheric entry cone for instance, nobody twisted their arm to do that.  At what point does one recognize that one is an audience that can't be pleased?

Wargame designers have problems with "Grognards" in the same way.  They think they know everything, and complain endlessly, even when they're wrong.  In the limit, one can't afford to write games for them, because their level of concerns would require a literal moon shot to fulfill.  And similarly with people who want the hardest core of "hard" science fiction.  Go get a job as technical consultant for one of these TV shows if you can do so much better!

[Elok]

I was not aware that TV shows were hiring consultants off internet forums.  Why am I bothering with this physical therapy program when I could be explaining to guys in Hollywood that their plots suck and their characters are flat?

[Buster's Uncle]

-But, but that would be getting back to talking about what was fundamentally wrong with Stargate: Atlantis...