I hope for more traditional space battles

[Ryan8bit]

anh165 wrote:

---

I yet again go back to TWok

Weren't you just talking about hammy acting? I mean, that's pretty much TWOK in a nutshell.

And the Valiant crew were not to be empathized with, nor was it a David and Goliath situation, which leads me to believe you really don't know that much about it.

[Cinema Geekly]

The only thing battle wise that stuck out to me as bad was Kirk and co. firing on the Narada after it was already 95% obliterated by the black hole.

It just didn't seem to fit well with what Starfleet people would normally do.

"You can't escape your going to die, but we will help you"

"I don't want your help"

"Okay, shoot them then".

[Borgminister]

Cinema Geekly wrote:

---

The only thing battle wise that stuck out to me as bad was Kirk and co. firing on the Narada after it was already 95% obliterated by the black hole.

It just didn't seem to fit well with what Starfleet people would normally do.

"You can't escape your going to die, but we will help you"

"I don't want your help"

"Okay, shoot them then".

Civilization on brink of extinction:

"Please help us, we want to live!"

"Sorry, non-interference and all that rot.."

"Oh, very enlightened, never mind--AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"

[daveyNY]

DarthTom wrote:

---

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.

Technically, wouldn't he have been Obi TWO ??

<chuckle>

[BillJ]

Cinema Geekly wrote:

---

The only thing battle wise that stuck out to me as bad was Kirk and co. firing on the Narada after it was already 95% obliterated by the black hole.

It just didn't seem to fit well with what Starfleet people would normally do.

"You can't escape your going to die, but we will help you"

"I don't want your help"

"Okay, shoot them then".

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.

[BillJ]

Borgminister wrote:

---

Civilization on brink of extinction:

"Please help us, we want to live!"

"Sorry, non-interference and all that rot.."

"Oh, very enlightened, never mind--AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"

Quoted for fucking truth!

[Ovation]

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.

The director is trying to get the audience to imagine the situation as if it were actually happening. In order to do so, he has several stylistic choices among which to choose.

If he wants the audience to "watch it all unfold", he chooses the outside observer perspective so often seen in earlier Trek movies (and earlier films with battles in general). Today, this is a choice. Years ago, it was a requirement (no feasible camera tech to allow any other option).

If he wants to immerse the audience into the moment by approximating the chaos of real conflict, then the more frenetic style is the one chosen (and has become the default selection). This applies to space battles, hand to hand combat set in the contemporary world or clashing, sword-wielding armies on mediaeval or ancient battle fields. None of these depictions is "real". The goal of the filmmaker is to elicit a feeling from the audience. The immersive, chaotic one is a closer approximation of any kind of real physical conflict (anyone who's been in an actual bar fight will confirm this--it's nothing like in classic movie fights).

It doesn't matter how "unreal" any Star Trek movie (or movie in general) is. What matters is the feeling the director is attempting to evoke from the audience.

As to the firing on the Narada at the end--not too hard to comprehend, really. Once the offer of help is refused (recall that Kirk was hoping it might lead to peace with the Romulans of that time), the next concern is for the safety of the Federation. The Narada might look badly damaged, but it did just wipe out an entire planet (and it had survived a similar black hole before). Why take the risk of them surviving and causing further havoc?

Perhaps it seems out of character, but this situation was rather unusual. Moreover, each of the characters is younger and less mature than the iterations we're used to seeing. They haven't grown into the people whose character is what you remember of them.

[anh165]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Weren't you just talking about hammy acting? I mean, that's pretty much TWOK in a nutshell.

You mean Shatner/Kirk & Montalban/Khan? They are powerful Alpha characters with theatrical performances to do those characters justice, the rest of the cast were quality supporting actors/actresses.

Nothing can be said the same about 95% of the cast in that DS9 episode.

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

And the Valiant crew were not to be empathized with, nor was it a David and Goliath situation, which leads me to believe you really don't know that much about it.

You must be watching a different Valiant vs Jem H'dar battle to me then?

And if a character / group of characters have very little for the viewer to side by, then what is the purpose of them a story telling value? And if they are not antagonists, then what's the point of placing arrogant cadets who are not villains in a situation of great danger?

There is no story-driven entertainment or moral understanding to be gained from it, other than for fanbois to see another fan fav Defiant style ship mix it up with the villain of the week.

A complete fail. I rather the new Star Trek movies have NO space battles than have space battles that we are subjected to in DS9 or something like from first contact.

[Ryan8bit]

Ovation wrote:

---

The immersive, chaotic one is a closer approximation of any kind of real physical conflict (anyone who's been in an actual bar fight will confirm this--it's nothing like in classic movie fights).

Could you imagine a movie like Roadhouse if the fights were closer to reality? It would be a real snooze.

I get what you're saying about the director's choice of pace though, and these decisions make sense for Abrams who's all about lens flares and shaky cam for the same reasons. They create an illusion of reality regardless of how unreal it actually is.

[Franklin]

BillJ wrote:

---

Quoted for fucking truth!

and from me, too.

As far as the Narad goes, as Ovation said above, these characters were younger and brasher than we remember them. It's also possible the Narada may still have been a threat, you can't be sure what's going to happen to it on the other side of that black hole.

All that said, I was disappointed with Spock's response to the aid Kirk offered. I think we'd have expected different from an older and seasoned Spock, even in those circumstances. After all, when is vengeance ever logical (or ethical)? Destroying the Narada doesn't take back Vulcan. He is half human, and that was a very human moment for Spock, but not one to be proud of.

And I'll always wonder if Abrams had him bathed in the devilishly red glow of the "red alert" lights dilberately when he delivered that line, "No, not really. Not this time." Had to be deliberate.

[Ryan8bit]

anh165 wrote:

---

You mean Shatner/Kirk & Montalban/Khan? They are powerful Alpha characters

Oh, surely they have charisma, but yeah totally hammy.

And if a character / group of characters have very little for the viewer to side by, then what is the purpose of them a story telling value? And if they are not antagonists, then what's the point of placing arrogant cadets who are not villains in a situation of great danger?

Does every story you watch have to be so black and white? Not every story requires antagonist/protagonist without any shades of gray. You weren't supposed to like the crew, and the battle exemplified that their hubris overshadowed them.

There is no entertainment or moral understanding to be gained from it, other than for fanbois to see another fan fav Defiant style ship mix it up with the villain of the week.

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.

[Franklin]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Could you imagine a movie like Roadhouse if the fights were closer to reality? It would be a real snooze.

I get what you're saying about the director's choice of pace though, and these decisions make sense for Abrams who's all about lens flares and shaky cam for the same reasons. They create an illusion of reality regardless of how unreal it actually is.

But it's unreal based on what? My guess is any real space battle wouldn't even involve people. It'd be all be fought by drones. There would certainly be no "Star Wars" type fighters in outer space dogfights. But I don't even know that is correct. Who does?

The only real thing a director can convey in a space battle is the sense of emotion combatants feel in battle. After that, it's all extrapolation. And one thing that's been constant about battles since the days of ancient Greece is chaos and terror.

As far as stylized fighting versus "reality" goes, whether it be "Roadhouse" or any Tarantino movie, the type of "battle" is up to the director. But even that violence has to convey some feeling to the audience that is consistent with the level of person-on-person mayhem being shown, otherwise, it's just gratuitous.

[Ryan8bit]

Franklin wrote:

---

But it's unreal based on what?

Just about everything.

The only real thing a director can convey in a space battle is the sense of emotion combatants feel in battle.

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

[BillJ]

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.

I'm confused, Star Trek 2009 showed both actors acting and exterior space shots.

[Ryan8bit]

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.