I hope for more traditional space battles

[BillJ]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

What I meant to say is that you have the actors convey the mood and emotion, not ship battles. The exterior shots are just something to illustrate the action of what's happening, which is mostly just nice to look at, and not too much more.

Why can't the actors and the exterior shots convey the mood and emotion going on?

[anh165]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Bullshit. Even though the moral is a very clear and obvious one, it still exists. You don't have to be a fanboy to appreciate it.

Only fanboys find nerdish canon centric value in those 'filler' battle scenes in DS9, whereas if someone with intellect and with a balanced appreciation of story telling will find the acting is poor, the characters are even worse and add that to an unremarkable story / concept with nothing to say.

Pointless mediocre Tv filler has no room on the big screen where people invest their time and money to watch it.

[Ryan8bit]

BillJ wrote:

---

Why can't the actors and the exterior shots convey the mood and emotion going on?

They can both, but primarily it should be the characters. Everything with space battles is superfluous.

anh165 wrote:

---

intellect

This is probably where the conversation ends. Nothing about any of Star Trek's space battles ever involves anything remotely resembling an appeal to intellect, especially not in the latest movie. This kind of posturing is ridiculous.

[Dick_Valentine]

Why is there some kind of moral high ground to be sought over what part of each episode people gain value from?

It's all star trek people, this isn't a cerebral play or high end science fiction with emphasis on the science.

Whether it be an intellectual discussion about furthering the human condition or a high action episode with a large amount of space battles, it's all part of the same show and that's the beauty of it.

I will not be made to feel inferior for enjoying the work of the talented VFX artists the show has employed over the years.
I will not make a distinction between good CGI and good model work as at the end of the day there's just good FX work and bad FX work using whatever tools are available.

Those who look down on the special effects sequences are just trying to be superior for its own sake and at the same time missing out the enjoyment of some great sequences.

So enjoy the space battles and enjoy the wordy episodes, its all part of the same enriching show

[Franklin]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Just about everything.

I guess to me that means you show the actors acting, not too much to do with exterior spaceship shots.

Well, yeah, it's unreal based on everything because there is no reality with which to compare it, like there'd be with tank battles or dogfights. So, let's lose the word "real" and use "totally imagined" or "purely speculated upon" or "completely fictionalized" versions of space battles.

How do I show starships fighting? It's an interesting question. Would they be like two navy surface ships banging away at each other from a distance (kind of like the Narada and the Kelvin)? Would they engage in stealth to gain an advantage (TUC)? Would it be like submarines maneuvering for advantage and the decisive shot (TWOK)? Would the crew of one ship try to board the other to continue the fight (like times in ENT)? Should there be smaller "fighter" craft (like DS9 or especially in the "Star Wars" universe)? Is it a heavyweight fight of 15 rounds or a first-round knockout? Is all hell breaking loose or is someone in control?

Once you've established your parameters, then you can discuss what the battle should look like in the world you just created and script it to get the outcome you need for your story.

It doesn't have to be associated with any kind of reality other than whatever fits the world it's in. (Frankly, I hated the notion of "fighters" in the "Star Trek" world, but there they were in DS9.)

And how the exterior of the battle is shot (frenetically, tense, focused with purpose, chaotically, fast, slow) can correlate with the feelings and emotions of the combatants being shown during the battle as well.

[Borgminister]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

This is probably where the conversation ends.

For me it's "fanboy".

[anh165]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

This is probably where the conversation ends. Nothing about any of Star Trek's space battles ever involves anything remotely resembling an appeal to intellect, especially not in the latest movie. This kind of posturing is ridiculous.

Cinema goers have reasonable intellect at the very least and those responsible for re-booting Star Trek are very wise to acknowledge that. Hence the dramatic change from how ST2009 is presented to how say Nemesis - and thus every TNG era trek was presented.


You are just defending dead concepts with very weak reasoning to justify why they should be used in modern Trek movies.

[BillJ]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

This is probably where the conversation ends. Nothing about any of Star Trek's space battles ever involves anything remotely resembling an appeal to intellect, especially not in the latest movie. This kind of posturing is ridiculous.

Couldn't resist tossing another insult at Star Trek 2009?

[Ryan8bit]

BillJ wrote:

---

Couldn't resist tossing another insult at Star Trek 2009?

That's not really an insult, it's just the truth. And "another"? You'd have to point out the first one.

[anh165]

Dead horse + beating = still dead horse

[Shazam!]

BillJ wrote:

---

Plus, they showed the other side of the black hole and it looked like the Narada was coming through at least partially intact.

It went through the black hole and back in time and created another alternate universe in which Nero hangs around for 25 years waiting to kill Kirk who had stopped him after he hung around for 25 years in a different universe from killing Spock who had failed to save his home planet in a different universe in the future.

[Squiggy]

BillJ wrote:

---

No different than Kirk and Sulu continuing to fire on Chang's Bird of Prey after it was clearly disabled in The Undiscovered Country.

Plus, they showed the other side of the black hole and it looked like the Narada was coming through at least partially intact.

It wasn't traveling through the black hole, the black hole was forming in the middle of the ship and was sucking everything to the middle.

[BillJ]

Squiggy wrote:

---

It wasn't traveling through the black hole, the black hole was forming in the middle of the ship and was sucking everything to the middle.

If you go back and look at the end scene, it looks like at least part of the Narada remains intact and still has lights on...

[Franklin]

BillJ wrote:

---

If you go back and look at the end scene, it looks like at least part of the Narada remains intact and still has lights on...

That's what I thought I saw. This time, there were pieces of it flying around from the collision with the Jellyfish and then attack of the Enterprise, but the FX looked like it was going "through" the black hole just as it had done, before.

Further, if Kirk was firing on a dying ship, then that was bloodthirsty, for lack of a better word. I was under the impression he was firing on the ship to destroy it before it disappeared and then, God knows what happens to it. Yet another universe disturbed?

[UFO]

BillJ wrote:

---

Quoted for fucking truth!

You mean: "Quoted because it is at best only superficially similar to the situation it is being compared to and the person doing so hopes no one will be able to point out why it's really very different."

Personally I don't think the Prime Directive is always a good idea. In fact it is sometimes carried to extremes, probably just to generate conflict etc. But in those situations the whole point is: The characters involved don't think it is a good idea either!

In other words in those situations we have a battle of competing principles which, correct me if I'm wrong, are resolved in the "right way" in the end most if not all of the time. I.e. I don't think any race has been actually left to become extinct because of the PD, have they?

In any event, notice how this differs from the quick change of heart by Kirk (almost like he had no intention of really helping in the first place), where there is no competing principle and no debate at the time or afterwards, by anyone we are aware of. Certainly no offical mention of it. That's why I agree it "... just didn't seem to fit well with what Starfleet people would normally do."

BillJ wrote:

---

No different than Kirk and Sulu continuing to fire on Chang's Bird of Prey after it was clearly disabled in The Undiscovered Country.

In my view very different actually. Kirk and Sulu had no way of knowing how or to what degree it was disabled. All they knew for sure that they had done was render it visible. If they had let up for an instant the tables might have been turned. There was no time to contemplate their navels as was "arranged" in ST09.

Plus, they showed the other side of the black hole and it looked like the Narada was coming through at least partially intact.

It looked like they were trying to depict a three dimensional effect in two dimensions. But clearly the actual centre of the black hole was in the centre of the ship. I mean if the rest of the Narada was in another universe at that stage, how did we see it by just going "behind" the black hole? Later on we see what really happened to Nero's ship. In fact notice how that shot differs from when the Narada first enters the alt universe. Ie. We don't see the "other half" of it. Just a black circle.

Franklin wrote:

---

That's what I thought I saw. This time, there were pieces of it flying around from the collision with the Jellyfish and then attack of the Enterprise, but the FX looked like it was going "through" the black hole just as it had done, before.

Further, if Kirk was firing on a dying ship, then that was bloodthirsty, for lack of a better word. I was under the impression he was firing on the ship to destroy it before it disappeared and then, God knows what happens to it. Yet another universe disturbed?

Well, if you look at the scene around 1:46:31, all that is left is swirling debris and a few explosions/flames. There are no discernible lights. In fact even in the commentary they state that: "I think it is crystal clear that the ship is being broken in to tiny little pieces". As far as I can see that's all that disappears "when the lights go out". While you could argue Kirk didn't know what would happen, he did know the black hole started inside the Narada this time.

So, a black hole that ignites in the centre of a ship doesn't really sound like the sort of thing a ship can "fly through" despite the ambiguous nature of red matter black holes in ST09. That and because it looks like Kirk is reacting out of anger at being turned down, I believe more was needed by way of explanation for the scene to come closer to "normal Star Trek behaviour". Fans attempting to defend the film might come up with an excuse of course but who else would bother? Most people would just assume that's how Starfleet personnel behave.