Is the great rift repairable?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And (as much as I hate to say this), tell the progressives to butt out and let the writers and directors do their thing. Stop using Star Trek as your bearer for your beliefs...

Good writers always infuse their work with their values and their beliefs - maybe even especially when it's "only" work for hire.

The problem is that the Star Trek formula ceased to recognize the existence or importance of subtext just as it did irony: every idea is articulated, every theme commented upon, every parallel brought explicitly to the surface and exhaustively repeated.

And at some point - a point not too late into Trek's evolution, still during TOS - that stopped being really clever, and the whole thing began to devolve into a series of Sunday School homilies.

 

[Squiggy]

They did SOME of it, and only with the "fighters". A 725 meter heavy cruiser does not barrell roll continuously around like a drunken dolphin that has lost the ability to hold an attitude.

A 725 meter heavy cruiser also doesn't travel faster the speed of light or..ya know...exist. So saying that fictional thing that does other fictional things doesn't do a fairly mundane fictional thing is pretty stupid.

Ah, the "magic of fiction" defense...aka the "BS defense".

If a filmmaker had a 747 engaging in a dogfight with a MIG fighter performing just as the fighter did, the viewer would rightfully say "That's a load of crap!" 747s do not have the handling characteristics of fighters because they are bigger and heavier.

Likewise a 725meter, multi hundred thousands of metric tons heavy cruiser does NOT perform maneuvers like a 4m, 10,000kg fighter.

And you know this how?

 

[DonIago]

Simple logic.

Physics and Filmmaking share an initial consonant sound. Therefore, knowledge of one is equivalent to knowledge of the other.

 

[TheQman]

This place doesn't work like that.

Yeah, it's gotta be rough when people don't agree with you.

I didn't expect people to agree with me, that wasn't the the reason I brought this topic up. Rather I was hoping for good discussion on the subject of what could be happening in the "trek" world. Instead I got what you see here. After some reading I found that the number of folks who don't like what JJ did to Star Trek is much bigger than I expected. Also the venom between the two groups is quite strong on both sides, as again evidenced here.

I had assumed this board to be a collection of better thinkers on Star Trek in general and thought this would be a perfect place to get a feel for things. But thus far I am pretty let down by the way things went. Hence I have given up on the subject...lesson learned as it were.

-Chuck

CDR6: I agree with you about XI. But, when I read the replies to your comments I noticed something, people are very touchy on this topic. I brought this topic up before and got the same type of reply. It seems everyone is has become obsessed with accepting something because it is 'flashy' and has the name Star Trek attached.

I used to find on this board people that accepted both sides of an issue. However, it seems everyone is closing their minds to a different view.

 

[TheQman]

I have, and it's only been the last few years that this particular "style" has mestasized through Hollywood like a cancer. Remember when "bullet cam" was supposed to be the "wave of the future" just a few years ago? Now it's a cliche and a joke, and the Bey Abrams "What the crap is going on in this scene" 2 second shot style will fall to the same level of (lack of) respect.

I agree 100% with this statement.

 

[MANT!]

Some folks are elitist even as they disparage elitists..


The Franchise is FINALLY in the public eye... and some fans are pissed

Those fan elitists..(who are upset that it's no longer just for them ) are just as moronic as those who don't see problems with the new direction..even as Mr. Abrams has acknowledged that mistakes were made (including the brewery local) and is planning on improvements..

Considering that the film was #7 in total box office in 2009..

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1951371,00.html

it didn't fail...

it is a success in every measure..

ensuring more fans, who ARE looking at other series and movies..

So get over it elitists...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I agree 100% with this statement.

That's too bad, because it's drivel.

Some folks are elitist even as they disparage elitists..


The Franchise is FINALLY in the public eye... and some fans are pissed

Those fan elitists..(who are upset that it's no longer just for them ) are just as moronic as those who don't see problems with the new direction..even as Mr. Abrams has acknowledged that mistakes were made (including the brewery local) and is planning on improvements..

Considering that the film was #7 in total box office in 2009..

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1951371,00.html

it didn't fail...

it is a success in every measure..

ensuring more fans, who ARE looking at other series and movies..

So get over it elitists...

"Elitism" implies some superiority or grounds for a claim of superiority, and none exist in this case.

 

[MANT!]

EXACTLY my point..

there shouldn't be elitism in Star Trek fandom..after all it's entertainment, designed to make money from those who sell Sugar Smacks and Chryslers to the public...


the entire argument is moronic

but it's here... and keeps happening...

 

[ST-One]

Cinematography and camera operation is a skill that is taught in technical schools and film schools, just like any other skill.

So is acting.
What's your point? Can't go 'against the book'?

You can, but expect to get called on it.

Who calls them on it?
Those in the craft? Those who make a living from being a DP, camera operator, director...? Who?

 

[doubleohfive]

Despite the efforts of many in this thread, and the one in the TOS forum and the one in the Movies forum ... sigh ... I've yet to read anything that would convince me that the movie I enjoyed viewing several times last summer -- J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" -- was a poorly produced, written, directed, or in any way inferior film. Nor have I seen anything that would even inch near to convincing me that its obvious, undeniable success is a bad thing for the Star Trek franchise.

 

[ST-One]

Despite the efforts of many in this thread, and the one in the TOS forum and the one in the Movies forum ... sigh ... I've yet to read anything that would convince me that the movie I enjoyed viewing several times last summer -- J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" -- was a poorly produced, written, directed, or in any way inferior film. Nor have I seen anything that would even inch near to convincing me that its obvious, undeniable success is a bad thing for the Star Trek franchise.

This.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You can, but expect to get called on it.

Not by anyone whose opinion is worth a tinker's dam.

 

[ST-One]

You can, but expect to get called on it.

Not by anyone whose opinion is worth a tinker's dam.

Exactly.

 

[cultcross]

If a filmmaker had a 747 engaging in a dogfight with a MIG fighter performing just as the fighter did, the viewer would rightfully say "That's a load of crap!" 747s do not have the handling characteristics of fighters because they are bigger and heavier.

Likewise a 725meter, multi hundred thousands of metric tons heavy cruiser does NOT perform maneuvers like a 4m, 10,000kg fighter. The audience knows instinctively that it's too big and too massive to do so.

Then the audience would be flat out wrong. Vessels in space have no need nor inclination to behave like planes in atmospheric conditions. An aeroplane in atmospheric flight is affected by the physics of the medium through which it is travelling - in fact, the very ability for it to fly depends on the properties of it. Because of the method of flight in use in a plane, a change in orientation of the plane necessitates a change in velocity. There is resistance to these changes because of the reaction of the physical medium (air) surrounding the plane. The faster it is able to turn, the more manoeuvrable it is said to be.

A spacecraft is in a radically different environment. In fact, to a first approximation, it's not in an environment at all. A spacecraft can spin completely round on its axis without changing velocity at all. 'Front' and 'back' ends are meaningless except to the extent that propulsion can be applied only from certain angles. There is no need for air to flow from the front of the craft to the back to keep it 'up' as there is on an aeroplane. And there is no air resistance to any velocity changes it does make. The term 'manoeuvrability' does not apply to the two situations interchangeably. You are incorrect to assert that it does.

The 'manoeuvrability' of a spacecraft would result not from the ability to turn but from the ability of the craft to change its velocity. Newton's first law, applied in space, means that it needs to do this by applying a force opposing its present trajectory. And what does it use to do this? Propulsion systems. In Treknology terms, thrusters, impulse and warp engines. And which ship has more powerful engines, a small fighter, or the Enterprise?

 

[Dusty Ayres]

If a filmmaker had a 747 engaging in a dogfight with a MIG fighter performing just as the fighter did, the viewer would rightfully say "That's a load of crap!" 747s do not have the handling characteristics of fighters because they are bigger and heavier.

Likewise a 725meter, multi hundred thousands of metric tons heavy cruiser does NOT perform maneuvers like a 4m, 10,000kg fighter. The audience knows instinctively that it's too big and too massive to do so.

Then the audience would be flat out wrong. Vessels in space have no need nor inclination to behave like planes in atmospheric conditions. An aeroplane in atmospheric flight is affected by the physics of the medium through which it is travelling - in fact, the very ability for it to fly depends on the properties of it. Because of the method of flight in use in a plane, a change in orientation of the plane necessitates a change in velocity. There is resistance to these changes because of the reaction of the physical medium (air) surrounding the plane. The faster it is able to turn, the more manoeuvrable it is said to be.

A spacecraft is in a radically different environment. In fact, to a first approximation, it's not in an environment at all. A spacecraft can spin completely round on its axis without changing velocity at all. 'Front' and 'back' ends are meaningless except to the extent that propulsion can be applied only from certain angles. There is no need for air to flow from the front of the craft to the back to keep it 'up' as there is on an aeroplane. And there is no air resistance to any velocity changes it does make. The term 'manoeuvrability' does not apply to the two situations interchangeably. You are incorrect to assert that it does.

The 'manoeuvrability' of a spacecraft would result not from the ability to turn but from the ability of the craft to change its velocity. Newton's first law, applied in space, means that it needs to do this by applying a force opposing its present trajectory. And what does it use to do this? Propulsion systems. In Treknology terms, thrusters, impulse and warp engines. And which ship has more powerful engines, a small fighter, or the Enterprise?

^THIS!!!

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Maybe it's just me, but I always took it for granted that basic transporter room controls and operation was standard information that every Starfleet officer knew.

If you want to gripe and moan about something in the '09 movie about Chekov and the transporter room, how about this: How is it the whiz kid can beam up Kirk and Sulu whilst the two are plummeting to their likely deaths on the Vulcan surface, yet he (or whoever, I can't remember who was at the controls later) can't seem to keep a solid "lock" on Amanda, when just a few rocks crumble out from beneath her?

To clarify my point: my complaint wasn't that Chekov could operate the transporter, it was that it seemed to be his biggest role in the film. He was basically a "plot monkey", used to provide the way out of the dilemma of the moment.

Your point about the 2nd beam attempt (and it was Chekov at the controls for that) is interesting and well taken.

It COULD be that the problem lay in the fact that he was trying to manually compensate for gravimetric distortions, etc on 6 individual transporter signals, each slightly different and he simply could not manage all 6, esp with the parameters of Amanda's signal suddenly "going wild". This as opposed to Kirk and Sulu's signals which were basically falling in the same space at the same rate, etc.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Simple logic.

Physics and Filmmaking share an initial consonant sound. Therefore, knowledge of one is equivalent to knowledge of the other.

Laying aside the humor attempt, you pretty much nailed the concept, intentionally or otherwise.

The human brain is conditioned by it's experience of reality to intuitively analyze and understand concepts like "mass" etc. Things with a certain mass move in a certain way, and the more mass a thing has, the slower and more "ponderous" it's movements will be. That's reality.

When filmmakers break the link between mass and motion, it bleeds veritas from the visual because the image doesn't look right to the eye or mind.

So is acting.
What's your point? Can't go 'against the book'?

You can, but expect to get called on it.

Who calls them on it?
Those in the craft? Those who make a living from being a DP, camera operator, director...? Who?

Ultimately, the audience does, both the critical and general.

To be fair, it isn't just Trek 09 that suffers bad cinematography. The "harsh and gritty" visual style seems to have become popular (for the moment) for all kinds of films.

You can, but expect to get called on it.

Not by anyone whose opinion is worth a tinker's dam.

Look in the mirror.

 

[ST-One]

To be fair, it isn't just Trek 09 that suffers bad cinematography. The "harsh and gritty" visual style seems to have become popular (for the moment) for all kinds of films.

There isn't anything 'harsh and gritty' about the cinematography in Star Trek.
I can't think of a single shot right now that would fit your 'harsh and gritty'-description.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

To be fair, it isn't just Trek 09 that suffers bad cinematography. The "harsh and gritty" visual style seems to have become popular (for the moment) for all kinds of films.

There isn't anything 'harsh and gritty' about the cinematography in Star Trek.
I can't think of a single shot right now that would fit your 'harsh and gritty'-description.

Some samples of the worst: Vulcan surface LA shots, the shipyard shots in Iowa.

On the FX side, the initial Kelvin shots, shuttles leaving San Fran, Vulcan city exterior visuals

 

[ST-One]

To be fair, it isn't just Trek 09 that suffers bad cinematography. The "harsh and gritty" visual style seems to have become popular (for the moment) for all kinds of films.

There isn't anything 'harsh and gritty' about the cinematography in Star Trek.
I can't think of a single shot right now that would fit your 'harsh and gritty'-description.

Some samples of the worst: Vulcan surface LA shots, the shipyard shots in Iowa.

On the FX side, the initial Kelvin shots, shuttles leaving San Fran, Vulcan city exterior visuals

Quite honestly, I think you don't have a clue what 'harsh and gritty' cinematography actually means.