I hope for more traditional space battles

[C.E. Evans]

Awesome Possum wrote:

---

I don't think the new 1701 is really much better than the original. Except for it being bigger and seeming to have more firepower, which sort of makes sense given that Starfleet might have made more powerful ships after the Kelvin was destroyed. But I don't think that anything that big can be described as maneuverable, except in comparison to something bigger.

I gotta disagree with that. I do think the nuEnterprise is more maneuverable than the original, especially in combat, even if marginally so in some people's opinions. Ditto for the Kelvin.

[anh165]

Garrovick wrote:

---

There's been quite a lot of discussion about the merits of ST09-style battles versus DS9/TWOK-style battles.

TWoK is nothing like DS9, the former is vastly superior because it had all the essential elements of setting the scene and viewers are left in no doubt that the protagonists are in a real spot of bother.

DS9 space battles leaves most viewers feeling indifferent, and whilst some fanboys excited by some cut n paste ships shooting at some other cut n paste ships.

ST2009's pace and presentation is indeed very different from TWoK, but ask anyone who watched the scene whether or not they felt the severity and the horror of the situation the crew of the Kelvin experienced by encountering a hostile alien. I am certain most people will take from that scene the same sort of feeling after watching the Enterprise attacked by the Reliant.

Garrovick wrote:

---

I know this won't happen with Into Darkness, but would it be asking too much for someone to make a good Star Trek movie with no space battles? Just for a change of pace? Imagine a ST movie where absolutely no one dies at all - the last (actually, the only) ST movie that had no deaths at all in it was The Voyage Home, which was released 27 years ago! Not to mention that TVH did quite well at the box office, was well received by fans and the critics for the most part, and brought a lot of people into the theatres who weren't die-hard fans. Not saying I want them to do a remake, but TVH proves that you can make a successful ST movie without space battles/explosions/Fire Everything!/planets being destroyed/starships crashing/etc.

Just saying.

Star trek isn't all about battles in space, I agree.

[Herkimer Jitty]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Regurgitate Abrams' hum-drum spin as much as you like, it still won't sound like anything but an excuse to make Star Trek more bland and colourless. It doesn't kill my earnest belief that the more strategic submarine-esque combat was more interesting as it didn't resemble all the other big franchise's space battles.

Strategic? In scriptwriting terms, phasers and photon torpedoes are interchangable. There are no special tactics besides sitting across from each other and flinging salvos. One might say submarine, but I think frigate or galleon.

[anh165]

The battles on the TNG era TV shows and movies are far from submarine-esque.

What normally happens on these types of boring battles is just an exchange of fire (usually phaser shots) - then instantly cut to the bridge with some shaky camera, some smoke, and a verbal telling to the audience about some system being off line.

An evasive pattern alpha-gamma-episilon-etc-etc manuever is ordered, and cue hero vessel jink across the screen and just about evades enemy beam weapon (usually green or brown coloured)

Cue more smoke and shaky cams and verbal shouts of system coupling/conduit damage.

Rinse and repeat until help arrives or a deus ex machina plot device occurs to save the day.

[Ovation]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

This seems a really strange thing to say given that very much about Star Trek is unrealistic, especially the space battles. Any "realism" will always take a backseat to the intent of the director. If the idea is to confuse the audience, then fine, that's his choice. But I think some are saying they prefer to not be confused or overwhelmed when it comes to something as simple as a space battle. I don't know if that is a majority opinion though. Maybe some people like to be overwhelmed with lasers and rockets and lens flares, oh my.

It is a stylistic choice. Directors almost always try to provoke a visceral response from the audience when they include depictions of battle (small or large scale). They want audiences to feel what the characters feel as much as possible, rather than offer a detached "oh look what's happening over there" sensation. It has only been possible to do so for a relatively short amount of time. The "realism" isn't about what the audience sees but rather what it feels while the battle is going on. Film has always been primarily focused on getting audiences to have an emotional response (to what degree film makers succeed is, of course, highly variable).

Naturally some people do not like this stylistic choice. Nothing wrong with that. But directors do not owe the audience the satisfaction of their expectations. They make creative decisions that reflect their views of how to best tell the story and hope the audience agrees. Given the ubiquitous presence of the "chaos and confusion" approach to depicting conflict onscreen, I'd say most audiences don't mind most of the time.

[DarthTom]

Ovation wrote:

---

Naturally some people do not like this stylistic choice. Nothing wrong with that. But directors do not owe the audience the satisfaction of their expectations. They make creative decisions that reflect their views of how to best tell the story and hope the audience agrees. Given the ubiquitous presence of the "chaos and confusion" approach to depicting conflict onscreen, I'd say most audiences don't mind most of the time.

George Lucas IMO in terms of battles was very good at setting up the drama. One great example of this was in Return of the Jedi where you had 3 separate battles occurring simultaneously. The battle on the Endor moon to take the shield station, the battle on the Death Star between Luke and Vader and of course the battle between the Empire's fleet and the rebel fleet.

Another example of course was Revenge of the Sith where once again at the end of the film you have Yoda fighting Sidious in the senate chamber, Obi One and Anakin on the volcano planet, and the rebels retreating form the planet.

Star Trek's battle scenes tend to be far more one dimensional versus Star Wars.

[Worfmonger]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

This seems a really strange thing to say given that very much about Star Trek is unrealistic, especially the space battles. Any "realism" will always take a backseat to the intent of the director. If the idea is to confuse the audience, then fine, that's his choice. But I think some are saying they prefer to not be confused or overwhelmed when it comes to something as simple as a space battle. I don't know if that is a majority opinion though. Maybe some people like to be overwhelmed with lasers and rockets and lens flares, oh my.

This seems a really strange (and condescending) thing to say. The purpose isn't to confuse, it's to immerse.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

anh165 wrote:

---

DS9 space battles leaves most viewers feeling indifferent, and whilst some fanboys excited by some cut n paste ships shooting at some other cut n paste ships.

Word.

[Ryan8bit]

Ovation wrote:

---

They make creative decisions that reflect their views of how to best tell the story and hope the audience agrees.

While that is definitely true, there will always be outside pressure, whether it's from the studio, study groups, or test screenings on a random audience. It can be a more symbiotic relationship. If it were really true that a majority of people weren't jiving with it, you'd think that at least the creators would listen and consider it (I'm not sure that's the case though).

It just seems a strange response though when someone says, "I'd like this," and others jump in to say, "Sorry, but the writers are gonna do what they're gonna do," or basically, "fuck what you want."

Worfmonger wrote:

---

This seems a really strange (and condescending) thing to say. The purpose isn't to confuse, it's to immerse.

I don't know how that's at all condescending.

I wasn't the one to suggest that it's confusion. People here were saying that confusion was a large part of the immersion.

[BillJ]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Word.

DS9 had some cool space battles. But they were the ones that were similar to Star Trek 2009 in that they had frenetic pacing.

[Ryan8bit]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Word.

I don't really care about "cut and paste ships" and I still think there are several DS9 space battles that were much more than what some here make them out to be.

One example would be in "Valiant." The cadets in all their hubris attack a formidable foe thinking that they have the solution. But in actuality, they were tricked into thinking their solution would work. The crew goes from excitement to terror within seconds. There was tons of emotion, not just a smattering of ships all over, and on top the visuals were done pretty well.

Of course, I speak for myself here, and not "most viewers," however that could even be known.

[Franklin]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

While that is definitely true, there will always be outside pressure, whether it's from the studio, study groups, or test screenings on a random audience. It can be a more symbiotic relationship. If it were really true that a majority of people weren't jiving with it, you'd think that at least the creators would listen and consider it (I'm not sure that's the case though).

It just seems a strange response though when someone says, "I'd like this," and others jump in to say, "Sorry, but the writers are gonna do what they're gonna do," or basically, "fuck what you want."

I don't know how that's at all condescending.

I wasn't the one to suggest that it's confusion. People here were saying that confusion was a large part of the immersion.

It's the difference between Civil War reeanactments and real battle. The reeanactment is scripted, sterile, and slow. It's just a depiction (because who really wants to volunteer to die or be disfigured? ). There's time for someone viewing it to take it in, think, and analyze (there's where they made their mistake; that's the turning point), but it's not real.
Real battle is spontaneous, very real, and happens very fast. The outcome is not certain. Whether an act on the battle field is a mistake or inspired move is problematic. There is little time to think. It's mostly reacting. There's little time for analysis. The battle takes on a life of its own, and the level of confusion is high. If a director wants to give the audience a real taste of battle, those things must be conveyed. He's not diliberately trying to confuse to audience. He's conveying the reality of the moment to them.

[Ryan8bit]

Franklin wrote:

---

Real battle

This is the part I'm not getting in regards to Star Trek. Nothing about the space battles in any one of them is "real" at all. They will always be the civil war reenactments, regardless of if they're packed with action everywhere on the screen or if some ships are slowly drifting and firing some lasers.

[BillJ]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

This is the part I'm not getting in regards to Star Trek. Nothing about the space battles in any one of them is "real" at all. They will always be the civil war reenactments, regardless of if they're packed with action everywhere on the screen or if some ships are slowly drifting and firing some lasers.

But one type gets the blood flowing, the other are exercises in tedium with some exceptions.

[anh165]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

One example would be in "Valiant." The cadets in all their hubris attack a formidable foe thinking that they have the solution. But in actuality, they were tricked into thinking their solution would work. The crew goes from excitement to terror within seconds. There was tons of emotion, not just a smattering of ships all over, and on top the visuals were done pretty well.

It was just another scenario of David v Goliath / little ship v big ship. Combine that with poor characters and hammy acting (nothing new in DS9) - that leaves me in a position as a viewer feeling irritated by the cast.

Irritating 2 dimensional characters overacted by their performers fails to present a convincing depiction of emotion to the viewer, all it does is 'tell' viewers what is happening rather than show.

Very difficult to empathise with the crew if they irritate you through out the whole episode.

I yet again go back to TWok, just 2 ships fighting at a steady pace, nothing at all like ST2009 but worked because the viewer sides with the protagonists.

If you are a fan of a football/soccer team, you see them under attack from the opposition, you see your team players scramble back to defend, and you the fan/viewer experiences the adrenaline rush, the sense of anticipation of danger.

Sadly DS9/Voy/some TNG battle scenes continiously fails to deliver these emotions.