Review BLAKE'S 7: SPACE FALL - Episode 02

[Gavin]

Next ; EPISODE 3 CYGNUS ALPHA -where we meet the irrepressible force of BRIAN BLESSED!

Hang on while I grab my earplugs. Given the volume with which he usually delivers his lines, I've always wondered what he'd do if the script required him to shout.

 

[Cloister56]

It's one of the few space based shows where they are vaguely realistic about travel times. Space is so huge that even with faster than light speed, travel will still take a long time. Even at 10 times the speed of light it would take 6 months to get to Proxima Centauri (our closest star). Even allowing for higher multiples of light speed a travel time of 8 months isn't unreasonable.

I read an excellent series of books called the Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell. It tries to present what space battles would be like given the immense speeds that would be involved. Things like fleets arriving into a system would be able to see the layout of the system for several hours before the light of their arrival reached any of the planets. Targeting is done with computers as human reactions are woefully too slow to target at 0.8 of light speedIt made me reconsider all the space battles in other fiction.

 

[Gavin]

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

That's a fundamental problem with almost all interstellar space based shows. To allow for reasonable travel time between star systems you need to have unbelievably fast travel speeds. The reason I said Blake's 7 was "vaguely" reasonable is that at least it doesn't suggest travel times of only a few hours or days between stars (at least not so far - I suspect the new ship might change that).

On the other hand the warp speed calculations for Star Trek do provide a realistic explanation as to why the Enterprise is always the only ship available. Even with thousands of ships available there would be no way another ship could get to where the Enterprise is quickly.

In the real world the sheer size of space is hard for people to grasp. That and the age of the universe. It's something that people seeking alien life don't seem to get. There could be an intelligent life form on a planet orbiting our nearest star and we might never get to meet them or communicate with them because of the distances involved. Or we might miss each other by a relatively short amount of time (a million years or so) with one race becoming extinct before the other gets to the level of being able to communicate.

 

[Gavin]

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.

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".

 

[Gavin]

Talking about distances, here's an image showing how far our radio signals (broadcast over the last 100 years) have travelled in our galaxy. It's a much larger area than I had thought but still only represents a tiny fraction of our galaxy.

 

[ant-mac]

I often hear the expression "the ends justify the means" in the same category as "the road to hell..." But I understand that makes good fiction for sure.

Many well-known expressions or proverbs have similar or overlapping messages.

Actually it could be. If, for example, the government that issued this law defining something as a crime is illegitimate, then lots of good things might be listed as crimes. But all I was saying before is that something wrong not being considered a crime and something right being considered one have no direct relationship. For instance, this illegitimate government could define several good things as crimes, but it also could define several terrible things as crimes as well, just because it's a severe (and often unfair) government. Or it could define good things as crimes and bad things as rights just because it's totally screwed anyway.

I'm sure it could.

However, I was not making that point.

What I'm seriously attempting to do is establish a context for such harsh and even criminal actions. Some things are not justifiable, but it's possible to understand what has caused them to happen. It is a general belief that organizations like the CIA or the MI6 do, let's say, reprehensible things, so to speak, but people don't really want to know what they are and there's no denying that the society where these reprehensible actions originated is democratic and ruled by legitimate laws.

It is still not defensible behaviour.

And if a so-called "democratic" and "legitimate" society is based upon those types of reprehensible actions, then it's not really a democratic and legitimate society after all.

Again, CIA, Guantanamo prison, military and political interventions, etc. There are so many shades of gray I don't have to provide different explanations. I'm sure you can figure that out by yourself. And, again, I'm not justifying anything, just trying to understand the context. Oh, and there's also another possibility which I covered earlier, is that these actions area localized case of corruption with a single person or relatively small group of corrupt officers perverting government actions.

There are so many shades of grey, you don't have to provide different explanations...

Welcome to BLAKE'S 7.

I merely suggested Blake would question his decision, not that it would "always lead to action based on those questions."

Fair enough.

Again, as I previously stated, Blake should eventually end questioning his decision, not that it would automatically follow that he will change his actions because of those questions. I never said that part.

Who said that you did?

I was just reinforcing my earlier point.

Well, well, I do hope that two episodes into the show we still have significant character development to witness ahead. It would be very disappointing if things are crystallized by the second episode, and that would be an example of a very basic dramatic premise. OK, here's what I think. The Federation is bad. They've told more than shown, and the cases described could easily be spun to make the Federation look much better, but I don't think the writers will bother to go any further, so the Federation is evil. But the resistance/rebels will show some sort of ugly side as well. This is a very common trope nowadays: to fight evil you have to become evil yourself, but since deep inside you're better, you'll never become just as evil as the evil ones. But writers usually have more leeway to make good guys act evil (becoming antiheroes) than to allow villains to show a more humanized side, even making the viewer think they have a point. But, yeah, in this show the Federation is evil.

Two episodes in, the basic outline or skeletal structure of one aspect - although a major aspect - of the BLAKE'S 7 universe has been fairly well established.

Minor details and more specific information will help to flesh it out more over the next 50 episodes.

Nope, definitely it is not...

Thankfully...

What fun would it be if they were all the same?

Even the various STAR TREK TV series have variations between them.

Ha! So you do agree with me that only two episodes into the show is way too soon for things to be settled.

I never said I did or did not agree.

I simply asked...

And as you don't know what might lay ahead for the cast of BLAKE'S 7, how can you know whether two episodes is too soon, too late or just right for people to start making up their minds about the lead characters overall situation?

I also made further reference to the developing themes of BLAKE'S 7 above.

This is a work of fiction and the idea was told rather than shown, lacking much emotional impact. Besides, even in dead serious situations, children or old ladies or puppies are used as an excuse for the perpetrator to be seen as moral and justified. As for what's funny, I was referring to this funny bit:

What funny bit?

Har, har! I did think you were going to say something like that!

Oh, you did, did you...?

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

 

[ant-mac]

That would mean Blake's his own man!

Not an easy accomplishment, considering everything that's been done to him so far.

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[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!"

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[ant-mac]

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.

 

[ant-mac]

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?

 

[Doctor Omega]

A musical interlude from the Shat himself, filmed at Yosemite....

 

[ant-mac]

A musical interlude from the Shat himself, filmed at Yosemite....

Could someone please remind me again of why Spock saved him from going splat at the bottom of El Capitan...?