RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,962
Posts: 5,391,746
Members: 24,719
Currently online: 601
Newest member: terkarivish

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 12 2013, 07:18 AM   #46
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: QonoS and its moon

throwback wrote: View Post
Rand:
Captain, I'm getting a message from Praxis.
What's happening? Some of the ship's sensors can't detect the moon, but other sensors can visualize the moon. Then there is the message from a moon that was destroyed. How did Kerla transmit from a destroyed moon that doesn't exist?
I assumed that the visualization of the whole moon was simply a computer overlay that showed where the moon would be, if it still existed.

The actual transmission from Praxis was immediately before Kerla's. It was of a Klingon desperately saying something amidst a fire. His transmission gave out, I'd say probably when he was killed and his transmitter was destroyed (though perhaps maybe the Klingon government jammed it or otherwise cut it off).

Kerla came on when the first Klingon's transmission gave out, to warn the Federation away, and from Kerla's words (not to mention, the fact that he was not in the process of dying as he spoke), one can infer that he himself was not on Praxis.

Later, in the briefing I learned, from Spock:

The moon's decimation means a deadly pollution of their ozone.
I am led to believe by some sources that the moon's explosion caused this event. Yet, wouldn't the explosion have devastated the atmosphere, by blowing a portion of it off the planet? Early, I learned that Praxis was a key energy production facility. Was this facility manufacturing a product not found elsewhere that continually replenished the ozone layer of Qo'noS? And, when this source was destroyed, the Klingons didn't have a second location for this product, and the planet would be using the reserves to replenish the ozone layer?
Handwavium has lots of interesting properties, doesn't it?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 07:46 AM   #47
throwback
Captain
 
Re: QonoS and its moon

I am re-reading the script. According to the script, when they show where the moon was located, there was "Nothing there.". Furthermore, the message came from the Klingon High Command, not from Praxis.

In the briefing, Spock states the issue and a possible solution.

Bold - what was said in the movie
Italics - what was added
Underlined - what was omitted

Two months ago a Federation starship monitored an explosion on the Klingon moon Praxis. We believe it was caused by over mining and insufficient safety precautions. The moon's decimation means an almost eighty percent loss of available energy and a deadly pollution of their ozone. They will have depleted their supply of oxygen in approximately fifty years. Due to their large enormous military expenditures, the Klingon economy does not have the resources to combat this catastrophe.is in a very weakened condition. They do not have sufficient resources to manufacture air shelters in large enough quantities to sustain anything like their current population. Last month - at the behest of the, uh, Vulcan Ambassador - I opened a dialogue with Gorkon, Chancellor of the Klingon High Council. He proposes to commence negotiations at once.
http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/l...ure329/tuc.txt
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 07:55 AM   #48
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: QonoS and its moon

Screencaps of what I've mentioned are here.

computer-enhanced image of Praxis:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tuchd0129.jpg

the actual transmission from Praxis, before Kerla comes on:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tuchd0138.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tuchd0141.jpg
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 08:25 AM   #49
Zeppster
Commodore
 
Zeppster's Avatar
 
Location: Oklahoma
Re: QonoS and its moon

throwback wrote: View Post
For an explosion to have a subspace shockwave, wouldn't that imply that the cause was somehow subspace related?

In ST VI, Praxis is identified as a Klingon moon.

I have thoughts about this moon.

Valtane:
Yes, sir. I have confirmed the location of Praxis, sir, but...
Sulu:
What is it?
Valtane:
...
Rand:
Captain, I'm getting a message from Praxis.
What's happening? Some of the ship's sensors can't detect the moon, but other sensors can visualize the moon. Then there is the message from a moon that was destroyed. How did Kerla transmit from a destroyed moon that doesn't exist?

Later, in the briefing I learned, from Spock:

The moon's decimation means a deadly pollution of their ozone.
I am led to believe by some sources that the moon's explosion caused this event. Yet, wouldn't the explosion have devastated the atmosphere, by blowing a portion of it off the planet? Early, I learned that Praxis was a key energy production facility. Was this facility manufacturing a product not found elsewhere that continually replenished the ozone layer of Qo'noS? And, when this source was destroyed, the Klingons didn't have a second location for this product, and the planet would be using the reserves to replenish the ozone layer?
Well we probably don't need to use scientific fact into this. Losing atmosphere would be the least of the worries if we had our moon blow up. We would basically lose the tidal pull the moon gives us changing the earths rotation completely. In the long run the atmosphere would probably be replaced eventually but we would have drastic planetary climate changes because and gravitational shifts on the planet. We would see climate changes in a few days not over thousands or millions of years like we've had the last half a billion years or so. But again this is fake science not real science.
__________________
"And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named Kirk"
Zeppster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 02:22 PM   #50
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: QonoS and its moon

Zeppster wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
^^Don't worry, it's not chaotic enough for Abrams standards.
And not nearly enough lens flare.
I don't get this criticism from Star Trek fans. Especially Original Series era. Star Trek as it was made was pretty much all about being over the top chaos featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy most of the time. And there were a lot of stories far more ridiculous in TOS and even in the Original cast movies, The Search for God in STV, Whales saving the Earth in IV, and I won't even go into how ridiculous some of the TOS episodes story lines were. That's what made them great though. Being chaotic and over the top is pretty much what Star Trek is for me. I don't like discussion/technobabble resets that pretty much became almost all of TNG era.
Take a look at the action scenes in the Abrams movies. It's all shaky cam, quick cuts and busy as fuck. Take the Kelvin scene for example, all it is is missiles and phaser railguns going off amongst explosions, with each shot lasting a fraction of a second while the camera shakes. Trying to figure out what's going on is hard enough, but whatever you do happen to see is obscured by all the lens flares. Nothing before Abrams took over was anywhere near that chaotic. Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene doesn't mean I'm some kind of dinosaur clinging to TNG's technobabble discussions.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 04:33 PM   #51
CitizenjaQ
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Manchester, NH, USA
View CitizenjaQ's Twitter Profile
Re: QonoS and its moon

FKnight wrote: View Post
As long as it doesn't end with this shot, we're good:
I shot out of my chair in shock at that visual.
__________________

CitizenjaQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 06:06 PM   #52
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: QonoS and its moon

Zeppster wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
^^Don't worry, it's not chaotic enough for Abrams standards.
And not nearly enough lens flare.
I don't get this criticism from Star Trek fans. Especially Original Series era. Star Trek as it was made was pretty much all about being over the top chaos featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy most of the time. And there were a lot of stories far more ridiculous in TOS and even in the Original cast movies, The Search for God in STV, Whales saving the Earth in IV, and I won't even go into how ridiculous some of the TOS episodes story lines were. That's what made them great though. Being chaotic and over the top is pretty much what Star Trek is for me. I don't like discussion/technobabble resets that pretty much became almost all of TNG era.
Clearly you do not understand the Khancept of humor.

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Zeppster wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post

And not nearly enough lens flare.
I don't get this criticism from Star Trek fans. Especially Original Series era. Star Trek as it was made was pretty much all about being over the top chaos featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy most of the time. And there were a lot of stories far more ridiculous in TOS and even in the Original cast movies, The Search for God in STV, Whales saving the Earth in IV, and I won't even go into how ridiculous some of the TOS episodes story lines were. That's what made them great though. Being chaotic and over the top is pretty much what Star Trek is for me. I don't like discussion/technobabble resets that pretty much became almost all of TNG era.
Take a look at the action scenes in the Abrams movies. It's all shaky cam, quick cuts and busy as fuck. Take the Kelvin scene for example, all it is is missiles and phaser railguns going off amongst explosions, with each shot lasting a fraction of a second while the camera shakes. Trying to figure out what's going on is hard enough, but whatever you do happen to see is obscured by all the lens flares. Nothing before Abrams took over was anywhere near that chaotic.
Or that fun to watch, really. Even the Nemesis space battle was relatively tame by comparison and is almost quaint by today's standards.

More importantly, this pattern is pretty much the way space battles have been filmed since at least 2007, in a pattern that was basically pioneered by Transformers and Battlestar Galactica (though the latter does it much better than the former). It's not just Star Trek, it's the way sci-fi is done now; 2010s style is pretty ubiquitous, and I suspect you're going to see something very similar in Ender's Game.

Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene...
You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 08:28 PM   #53
Richard Baker
Commander
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Location: Warrior, AL
Re: QonoS and its moon

Ever wonder why the subspace shockwave was perfectly circular but the moon clearly shows the blast went off to one side?
Richard Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 09:06 PM   #54
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: QonoS and its moon

This is a reach, but if we assume the moon was actually oriented so that it was the "upper half" that was destroyed, is it possible the physical blast went "upwards" while the subspace shockwave radiated outward as shown?
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 09:17 PM   #55
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: QonoS and its moon

DonIago wrote: View Post
This is a reach, but if we assume the moon was actually oriented so that it was the "upper half" that was destroyed, is it possible the physical blast went "upwards" while the subspace shockwave radiated outward as shown?
So that the shock wave and the part of the moon that's left share a common axis of symmetry? Sure! Why not!
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 11:15 PM   #56
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: QonoS and its moon

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene...
You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.
They only did that because they didn't have the money to show it with a VFX shot.
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 11:40 PM   #57
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: QonoS and its moon

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene...
You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.
They only did that because they didn't have the money to show it with a VFX shot.
Which would have been a good excuse if "Star Trek: Generations" hadn't been made.

By the time we got to "First Contact" there is literally no reason whatsoever for starships to still be firing phaser banks exactly one at a time, or for that matter, for starships engaged in combat to NOT be constantly firing at each other every possible second that they are within firing range of each other.

Kelvin vs. Narada has that kind of realism to it: it's the kind of fight you'd see if, say, USS New Jersey got into a skirmish with the Kirov. Should the Captain really have to specifically order every single discharge by every single weapon on the ship every time he wants those weapons to fire? "Fire phasers! Fire them again! And again! And fire again! And now one more time! And still another time! And fire phasers again! And fire two torpedoes with those phasers! Okay, now... fire phasers! And another torpedo! And now another phasers!"

Captain says "Fire all phasers" then it ought to look like this.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; June 12 2013 at 11:54 PM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 01:31 AM   #58
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: QonoS and its moon

CitizenjaQ wrote: View Post
FKnight wrote: View Post
As long as it doesn't end with this shot, we're good:
I shot out of my chair in shock at that visual.
I think FKnight was commenting on how that shot was reused in Generations.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
More importantly, this pattern is pretty much the way space battles have been filmed since at least 2007, in a pattern that was basically pioneered by Transformers and Battlestar Galactica (though the latter does it much better than the former). It's not just Star Trek, it's the way sci-fi is done now; 2010s style is pretty ubiquitous, and I suspect you're going to see something very similar in Ender's Game.
And that's one of the reasons I don't care for the Transformers movies. And while BSG may have had too much fun with the shaky cam, it at least was able to stay focused on something for longer than 3.7 seconds and didn't have two dozen simultaneous lens flares going off.

You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.
I'm not saying the whole thing has to be on the bridge with the captain shouting orders and the officers describing everything that happens. That does get tedious. I want to see the battle, see the ships fly around each other firing weapons at each other. In all honesty, I can't really make sense of any of the fights in the Abrams movies, it's just mindless shooting and explosions. More realistic, maybe. But it doesn't engage the audience. To engage the audience you need beauty shots consisting of crisp clear visuals. That is an entertaining battle to me.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 01:52 AM   #59
RyanKCR
Vice Admiral
 
RyanKCR's Avatar
 
Location: RyanKCR is living here in Allentown
Re: QonoS and its moon

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
CitizenjaQ wrote: View Post
FKnight wrote: View Post
As long as it doesn't end with this shot, we're good:
I shot out of my chair in shock at that visual.
I think FKnight was commenting on how that shot was reused in Generations.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
More importantly, this pattern is pretty much the way space battles have been filmed since at least 2007, in a pattern that was basically pioneered by Transformers and Battlestar Galactica (though the latter does it much better than the former). It's not just Star Trek, it's the way sci-fi is done now; 2010s style is pretty ubiquitous, and I suspect you're going to see something very similar in Ender's Game.
And that's one of the reasons I don't care for the Transformers movies. And while BSG may have had too much fun with the shaky cam, it at least was able to stay focused on something for longer than 3.7 seconds and didn't have two dozen simultaneous lens flares going off.

You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.
I'm not saying the whole thing has to be on the bridge with the captain shouting orders and the officers describing everything that happens. That does get tedious. I want to see the battle, see the ships fly around each other firing weapons at each other. In all honesty, I can't really make sense of any of the fights in the Abrams movies, it's just mindless shooting and explosions. More realistic, maybe. But it doesn't engage the audience. To engage the audience you need beauty shots consisting of crisp clear visuals. That is an entertaining battle to me.
How exciting were the battles in TWOK?
__________________
"I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to.....I guess."
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."
"Not all treasure is sliver and gold, mate."
RyanKCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 02:01 AM   #60
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: QonoS and its moon

RyanKCR wrote: View Post
How exciting were the battles in TWOK?
The Mutara Nebula is awesome to look at! James Horner's music also enhances it so much. That is a wonderfully done battle scene.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.