Do You Want To See One Big Ass, Insane Fleet Battle?

[rotorbotor]

Agreed. Trek has never been about big-ass, insane fleet battles and when they tried it, or when they had the oppurtunity *cough*First Contact*cough*, they come off as rank ametures. The opening flyby secquence in Revenge Of The Sith alone, before the dialogue, puts every attempted Trek battle to shame. I doubt Trek XI will be any different.

What the hell is wrong with fan wank anyway?

Why are you here then?

Just being here is fan wank.

Revenge of the Sith battle was stupid and confused.No clarity.

it was a cgi MESS.

plus the stupid r2d2 "joke sounds" right in the middle with the stupid spheres.


dum dum and dumber.

The best battles were in TESB AND JEDI.

They had clarity and realism...not that stupid cgi mess in Revenge of the Shit.


First Contact battle was a rip off...

all over in 45 seconds.

pathetic.

then the stupid bastards spent an eternity with that STUPID DEFLECTOR SCENE...yawn...yawn...yawn...


I wish these "we know it all" asshole DIRECTORS would LISTEN TO WHAT WE WANT for a CHANGE.

 

[Sharr Khan]

What the hell is wrong with fan wank anyway?


I wish these "we know it all" asshole DIRECTORS would LISTEN TO WHAT WE WANT for a CHANGE.

Two points: There's nothing wrong with "fanwank" since as you say that's why all of us hang around here. I can only imagine the bitching were this movie to be devoid of anything like inside Trek...

Assuming you weren't kidding. Its not the directors job to listen to anyone but a studio least of all "the fans" the drek we'd get if fans were calling the shots I wouldn't be able to sit through. A director or writer should give the fans what they didn't know they wanted...

Sharr

 

[Akiraprise]

If the directors listened to what WE WANTED there would be 20 people sitting inside the cinema watching opening day. SO it's probably a good thing they ignore the more vocal elements of fandom and do what they think is in the best interest of the franchise. Which is making sure this movie appeals to the
general population, while throwing long time fans a few bones, so it makes a lot of money. Thus ensuring there will be future Star Trek productions in the future.

 

[rotorbotor]

If the directors listened to what WE WANTED and do what they think is in the best interest of the franchise. Which is making sure this movie appeals to the
general population, while throwing long time fans a few bones, so it makes a lot of money. Thus ensuring there will be future Star Trek productions in the future.

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that is why the last 2 films bombed.

 

[Tralah]

And it's worth adding that there's hardly a consensus to what Star Trek fans want anyway. Ask ANYTHING in this board and you'll get at least a half a dozen different answers. Which is why if the producers of this film are smart, they'll focus on creating a well crafted movie first, and sprinkle in a few things aimed for the fans second.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

What the hell is wrong with fan wank anyway?
I wish these "we know it all" asshole DIRECTORS would LISTEN TO WHAT WE WANT for a CHANGE.

To which fan suggestion should Abrams be listening? The one that wanted this film to take the time to show us how Dr. Piper took over from Dr. Boyce, or the one that said that Kirk could be brought back from the dead by Sisko and the Wormhole aliens?

I realize that those are extreme (but real) examples of what some fans have said they want to see, but who is to decide which fan suggestion is worthy and which isn't? You? Me? Some other fan (one who may not share your views)? I would rather have a film maker decide what is best for a film.

 

[Jon1701]

I wish these "we know it all" asshole DIRECTORS would LISTEN TO WHAT WE WANT for a CHANGE.

Dear god, I hope he doesn't listen to the fans. We can't all agree in one fucking thread, let alone a movie screenplay...

 

[RAMA]

Well I think most of would love to see that on the big screen, even if Trek itself is not about war, it would make for a nice large scale set piece for the movie. We haven't really seen more than a few ships in battle, and they were all somehow lacking in some respect, except for the Reliant-Enteprise nebula battle.

RAMA

 

[Sharr Khan]

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that is why the last 2 films bombed.

No its not the reason the last two movies bombed was they were all about make "Star Trek.tm" instead of good broad appealing movies. The last two Trek movies were totally inside Star Trek.

 

[ktanner3]

For the last time: Shatner's not going to be in the movie!!!

 

[StarTrek1701]

I'd love to see a different take on space battles rather than just point and shoot phasers or torpedoes.

 

[Akiraprise]

No its not the reason the last two movies bombed was they were all about make "Star Trek.tm" instead of good broad appealing movies. The last two Trek movies were totally inside Star Trek.

You hit the nail on the head. NEM was especially bad in this regard. Also way too much technobabble in that movie.

 

[ancient]

You hit the nail on the head. NEM was especially bad in this regard. Also way too much technobabble in that movie.

But...we have to know which sheild grid is at which percentage! It is vital to have Data announce the shield strength again and again, followed by exploding consols! And the bridge shakes. OMG the bridge is shaking, OMG that is pulse-pounding stuff! And OMG the badguy has a weapon...that takes 7 minutes to fire because [tech].

I'm all for throwing out the formula battle. Bring on the insanity.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I wish these "we know it all" asshole DIRECTORS would LISTEN TO WHAT WE WANT for a CHANGE.

There are very few ways that could end, and "very badly" tops that short list. To voice agreement with the previous posters, what exactly do "we" want? You know what you want, but what you want probably won't match with what I want probably won't match with what someone else wants.

Besides, those asshole directors are only really in charge of how the movie looks. It's the asshole writers who don't put enough fanwank in for you.

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that is why the last 2 films bombed.

Funny you should mention that, I seem to have a recollection that Insurrection did pretty decently. And, like others have said, Nemesis was very fan oriented. It was a fan who wrote the bloody thing in the first place!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

If the directors listened to what WE WANTED there would be 20 people sitting inside the cinema watching opening day. SO it's probably a good thing they ignore the more vocal elements of fandom and do what they think is in the best interest of the franchise. Which is making sure this movie appeals to the
general population, while throwing long time fans a few bones, so it makes a lot of money. Thus ensuring there will be future Star Trek productions in the future.

I just keep being amazed by how prevalent this opinion is.

I am 100% totally convinced that this is a false argument. That "what the fans want" is NOT somehow "opposite" of what everybody else wants.

We... all of us... got into this because it was entertaining to us. Yes, some of us have elevated it to the status of a religion (wherein Shatner's toupee is one of the Holy Artifacts) but we this isn't nature... we weren't BORN Star Trek fans. We LEARNED to be fans. And the reason we learned to be fans is because we saw something that entertained us.

So unless the claim being made is that there's a certain genetically-predisposed subsegment of the population who don't like what other people like... AT ALL... and who do like things that nobody else likes... AT ALL...

Unless that's the case, this argument really is spurious.

If, as stated above, the directors gave the fans what they wanted... the general audiences would get what they'd want as well. They'd also get some other stuff that they wouldn't CARE about, but wouldn't find objectionable either.

The only way that what was stated above would be true is if the directors made a choice to ONLY put into the film those things which ONLY the fans care about.

But that's not ultimately what fans want, is it? We want it to be the Enterprise we know... but you could get a near-flawless Enterprise and if the rest of the film sucked, we'd hate it. You could cast people who are nearly identical to the original actors, and who could mimic them flawlessly... but if the movie sucked, we'd still hate it. You could get the combination to Kirk's safe correct, match his Samsonite luggage perfectly... but if the movie sucked, we'd hate it.

Why is it that Star Trek fans are sooooo anxious to try to claim that we're somehow "different" from the rest of the human race? THAT is what turns "the rest of the population" off, and what makes them conclude that we're geeky losers who live in our mommy's basements... because SOME of us seem to be predisposed to ACTING LIKE WE'RE DIFFERENT SPECIES!

Sorry to rail on your post in particular, Akira... it's not specifically targetted at you... it's just the most recent example.

But you did say

If the directors listened to what WE WANTED there would be 20 people sitting inside the cinema watching opening day.

And that could ONLY be true if Star Trek Fans are a different, alien species with totally different psychological makeup from the rest of humanity.

Otherwise, what "fans want" shouldn't be different from "what everyone else wants," overall.

But I can accept the following statement... "if fans got what some of them ASK FOR, the theater would be filled with about 20 people on opening day."

A much better argument, in other words, would be that (like everyone else among the human race) what we REALLY WANT isn't necessarily what we ASK FOR.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Just a broad statement: For good or ill it isn't the job of a writer/director/author to "give you what you want" its their job to one be entertaining and two hook you on something you didn't realize that you wanted all along.

They'd be bored and what they turned out would be completely uninteresting if makers of fiction kowtowed to the masses desires, particularly those among the masses to label themselves fans.

Sharr

 

[DarthTom]

I love me my fleet battles. DS9's Sacrifice Of Angels gave me goosebumps watching all those Galaxy, Reliant, Akira and Excelsior class ships (and lest we forget the Oberth class) diving into the Dominion/Cardassian fleet.

Not that it's the be all and end all, of course. It's very fanboyish. But I must admit a small part of me would love to see the Enterprise lead a fleet of ships into battle and unleash an absurd amount of mayhem.

You?

I'd settle for a compelling story, with good acting, that isn't riddled with plot holes and absurd story constructs.

In short not anything like Star Trek Nemesis.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Just a broad statement: For good or ill it isn't the job of a writer/director/author to "give you what you want" its their job to one be entertaining and two hook you on something you didn't realize that you wanted all along.

That's pretty much what I was saying... but I like your way of phrasing it.

The job of the production team is to give us what we want... good entertainment... not what we sometimes mistakenly THINK we want. (That which is most often referred to, here, as "fanwank.")

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Fans and Abrams want the same thing -- an interesting Star Trek film that will allow the franchise to regain some of the sense of wonder and excitement that has been missing in the last two films. However, I have more faith in Abrams' ability as a filmamker to achieve this end rather than the fans ideas.

Story and plot points are not what is important making a great film -- it's all about execution of that story and those various plot points. Fans can suggest all of the "cool Star Trek" story ideas and plot points thay want -- Romulan war, 29th-century timeship, a 'wolf359-style' battle, etc -- and quite possibly ALL of those could be part of good films. It's all in the way the director decides to put it on screen, the dialogue (very impotant, IMO), the dramatic flow of that story, and how classic architypal story elements fit into that specific plot -- I think the specific story told is far less relevant.

Take LOTR for instance. It's the story of a bunch of mythical species trying to destroy a ring. That's not really the type of plot that makes people want to run to the movie theaters. But the dialogue, the acting, the artistic filming and the dramatic presentation of that plot is what made LOTR a good series of films -- not the overall plot.

One could argue that LOTR is about more than just the ring -- it's about friendship and it's about normal people overcoming great odds. Star Trek XI might also be about more than learning the origins of the TOS crew -- it too may really be about friendship, among other archetypal sub-plots.

Abrams may be giving the fans exactly what they want -- and that is an intersting and exciting film that has the feel of classic Star Trek TV and movies and still tells a classic age-old story that leaves us satisfied and wanting more, regardless of what it is specifically about. We'll find out in 15 1/2 months.

 

[Holytomato]

:flame resistant suit on:

My wife has threatened to divorce me if there isn't a One Big Ass, Insane Fleet Battle.



I would have no problem with a battle that involved the characters. :thumbsup:

I will not invoke The Canon tm.