I hope for more traditional space battles

[SeerSGB]

DalekJim wrote:

---

The faster Nero was neutralised, the better. The writer's strike rid his character of any sense and Bana's performance was diabolical.

Really? Compared to the average Trek film villain, I thought he did pretty good. Certainly better than the TNG film villains.

[DalekJim]

Hardy was good. Bana was a piece of growly ham.

[SeerSGB]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Hardy was good. Bana was a piece of growly ham.

I say about the same, in terms of talent. But Bana edges out Hardy because he sold the character better--plus the character had a more believable motivation.

[DalekJim]

A Vulcan stranger arrives a few seconds too late to save Nero's wife's life. So Nero destroys the USS Kelvin for not knowing where Future Spock is (???), waits 25 years (????), chucks Spock on an ice planet, blows up Vulcan, and then plots to blow up Earth (???????).

WHAT. I DON'T EVEN.

[Praetorian]

I didn't find the battles in Star Trek that difficult to follow. However, one can clearly see the difference between the action displayed in Transformers and the one showed in Avatar, for example. One is a convoluted mess that defies comprehension, the other a masterffuly crafted sequence of events that doesn't leave you wondering what the hell just happened... I would rather have action sequences I can follow!

Or does anyone here thinks that James Cameron doesn't how to direct action movies? Or that Avatar had uninteresting action sequences?

Notice both movies were huge financial sucesses, with audiences praising the visual effects. (Btw, this fact flies against the proposed notion that audiences are somehow intelectual...)

I would say JJ stands more or less in the middle. I tend to like his action, though sometimes I do think he exagerates a little. So more Cameron, less Bay, please.

P.S.

I'm a little dismayed at people criticizing DS9's action sequences (and actors!). Unlike the ones from late TNG and most of Voyager (target weapons, shields at 60%, the enemy has been disabled, blablabla boring), they usually were well crafted and, more importantly, had emotion! You cared about what happened. In the end, that's the most important thing.

For example, in Babylon 5, I hardly cared about the battles of the Shadow War. The battles of the Earth Civil War, on the other hand, had me on the edge of the seat. The emotional stakes were much bigger (fighting against your colleagues and friends instead of misterious aliens). But they were presented in similar ways!
If people only care about the "visual intensity" of battle, then I'm afraid I'm even further away from the average moviegoer.

And to conclude, defending the sorry excuse of a villain that Nero is by saying that most villains in other Star Trek movies were like him, doesn't make it better! It just means the difference between the old and the new wasn't that big. Which happens to be my view. Star Trek 09 is neither better nor worse than the previous movies. It's still full of plot holes and nonsensical stuff. Yes, it was directed in a much modern way. Something which I appreciate. But I really do hope the next one has had some thought in its making. The way the battles were displayed is the least of my problems with the last one!

[SeerSGB]

DalekJim wrote:

---

A Vulcan stranger arrives a few seconds too late to save Nero's wife's life. So Nero destroys the USS Kelvin for not knowing where Future Spock is (???), waits 25 years (????), chucks Spock on an ice planet, blows up Vulcan, and then plots to blow up Earth (???????).

WHAT. I DON'T EVEN.

It wasn't just Nero's wife, he lost his whole planet, his whole culture, basically everything but his ship--at least from his POV. Did ya' pay attention to the movie? Cause the motivation for Nero is pretty clear: He's out to 1) Hurt Spock. Not just punish him, but hurt him. 2) Punish Vulcan and the Federation and in doing so (in his mind) save Romulus. He fired on Kelvin before he knew he was in the past--basically just coming out of the blackhole and fired on the first Federation ship he saw, and when he found out that he was in the past he raged and just destroyed the first thing in sight.

He was out for 1/2 revenge and 1/2, in his screwed up way of thinking, doing the right thing. He was motivated by loss, pain, grief, and anger.

Shinzon just came off as a spoiled child that needed a good ass kicking.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

A Vulcan stranger arrives a few seconds too late to save Nero's wife's life. So Nero destroys the USS Kelvin for not knowing where Future Spock is (???), waits 25 years (????), chucks Spock on an ice planet, blows up Vulcan, and then plots to blow up Earth (???????).

WHAT. I DON'T EVEN.

Yeah, that's Nero's motivation and actions through the film. Why the question marks? You do understand the idea that tragic events do lead to extreme actions and the desire for revenge directed at the person you feel is responsible.

[Praetorian]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

It wasn't just Nero's wife, he lost his whole planet, his whole culture, basically everything but his ship--at least from his POV. Did ya' pay attention to the movie? Cause the motivation for Nero is pretty clear: He's out to 1) Hurt Spock. Not just punish him, but hurt him. 2) Punish Vulcan and the Federation and in doing so (in his mind) save Romulus. He fired on Kelvin before he knew he was in the past--basically just coming out of the blackhole and fired on the first Federation ship he saw, and when he found out that he was in the past he raged and just destroyed the first thing in sight.

He was out for 1/2 revenge and 1/2, in his screwed up way of thinking, doing the right thing. He was motivated by loss, pain, grief, and anger.

Shinzon just came off as a spoiled child that needed a good ass kicking.

Rage can make one act in a irrational and rash manner. But after 25 years he should've calmed down.

Nero's actions only make sense if he was batshit crazy. Which is quite possible. His crew, or at least his first officer would have to be insane as well. Also possible, though less likely.

Thing is, crazy villains tend to be uninteresting, at least for me. But then, we have the Joker in TDK. I guess it's all a matter of presentation.

[Hartzilla2007]

UFO wrote:

---

You are not going to suggest he should have used the stun setting are you?

I wonder if whoever made those things even included a stun setting. I mean it kills people in a slow and extremely painful way, so it sounds like something designed for use by evil overlords who want some extra emphasis on why failing them for the last time is bad.

Praetorian wrote:

---

Or does anyone here thinks that James Cameron doesn't how to direct action movies? Or that Avatar had uninteresting action sequences?

Actually I say Avatar had uninteresting story sequences and was kind of a meh film.

[The Stig]

It's a shame they cut the Klingon prison scenes. They explain the 25 year gap quite well.

[Praetorian]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

I wonder if whoever made those things even included a stun setting. I mean it kills people in a slow and extremely painful way, so it sounds like something designed for use by evil overlords who want some extra emphasis on why failing them for the last time is bad.

Actually I say Avatar had uninteresting story sequences and was kind of a meh film.

Note I didn't say story sequences, I said action. The story was quite standard. Of course, you might think that the action was uninteresting as well. James Cameron is considered by many one of the best action directors, but I suppose there are people who aren't impressed with his work.

[SeerSGB]

Praetorian wrote:

---

Rage can make one act in a irrational and rash manner. But after 25 years he should've calmed down.

Nero's actions only make sense if he was batshit crazy. Which is quite possible. His crew, or at least his first officer would have to be insane as well. Also possible, though less likely.

Thing is, crazy villains tend to be uninteresting, at least for me. But then, we have the Joker in TDK. I guess it's all a matter of presentation.

Would 25 years in a Klingon prison calm you down?

[Awesome Possum]

Nero could have just been an asshole. There are plenty on Earth, stands to reason the galaxy is infested with them. I don't think Trek as ever had an asshole as a villain other than that guy in The Voyage Home who let the whales go early.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Praetorian wrote:

---

Rage can make one act in a irrational and rash manner. But after 25 years he should've calmed down.

Saying Nero "should have calmed down" in 25 years... haven't you people looked around at some of the mindless hate on Earth today? Rational, sane people see the error of their ways. Sadly there aren't enough of them on our planet, let alone Romulus.

[yousirname]

When I first saw the film, I assumed that Nero had a way to travel through time at will, but with no particular precision as to when he arrives. That would have solved the 25 years problem and would also mean the Klingons don't get 25 years to study all that future tech (while still of course leaving the ship intact and stealable for Nero's escape ). TBH it's only recently I've learned otherwise. If the actual film explanation (deleted scenes aren't canon IMO) is that he just hung around for 25 years, then I think I prefer my initial assumption.

Still seems weird that he wouldn't try to warn Romulus, though. I suppose the Federation probably will.

But on the issue of destroying the Narada:

Kirk wrote:

---

This is Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise. Your ship is compromised - too close to the singularity to survive without assistance, which we are willing to provide.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt in Kirk's mind that the Narada is utterly boned. Ethically, since we're told the Narada's destruction is certain, I see no significant difference between watching it happen and helping it along. Beaming off other Romulans who may not share Nero's appetite for destruction - well, they'd have to drop their shields, wouldn't they? Sounds risky.

But of course the real reason they pull the trigger is that it's cooler that way. With no ethical barrier, I've no issue with it at all.