Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Infern0, Feb 4, 2013.
Quoted for fucking truth!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, surely they have charisma, but yeah totally hammy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why can't the actors and the exterior shots convey the mood and emotion going on?
Only fanboys find nerdish canon centric value in those 'filler' battle scenes in DS9, whereas if someone with intellect and with a balanced appreciation of story telling will find the acting is poor, the characters are even worse and add that to an unremarkable story / concept with nothing to say.
Pointless mediocre Tv filler has no room on the big screen where people invest their time and money to watch it.
They can both, but primarily it should be the characters. Everything with space battles is superfluous.
This is probably where the conversation ends. Nothing about any of Star Trek's space battles ever involves anything remotely resembling an appeal to intellect, especially not in the latest movie. This kind of posturing is ridiculous.
Why is there some kind of moral high ground to be sought over what part of each episode people gain value from?
It's all star trek people, this isn't a cerebral play or high end science fiction with emphasis on the science.
Whether it be an intellectual discussion about furthering the human condition or a high action episode with a large amount of space battles, it's all part of the same show and that's the beauty of it.
I will not be made to feel inferior for enjoying the work of the talented VFX artists the show has employed over the years.
I will not make a distinction between good CGI and good model work as at the end of the day there's just good FX work and bad FX work using whatever tools are available.
Those who look down on the special effects sequences are just trying to be superior for its own sake and at the same time missing out the enjoyment of some great sequences.
So enjoy the space battles and enjoy the wordy episodes, its all part of the same enriching show
Well, yeah, it's unreal based on everything because there is no reality with which to compare it, like there'd be with tank battles or dogfights. So, let's lose the word "real" and use "totally imagined" or "purely speculated upon" or "completely fictionalized" versions of space battles.
How do I show starships fighting? It's an interesting question. Would they be like two navy surface ships banging away at each other from a distance (kind of like the Narada and the Kelvin)? Would they engage in stealth to gain an advantage (TUC)? Would it be like submarines maneuvering for advantage and the decisive shot (TWOK)? Would the crew of one ship try to board the other to continue the fight (like times in ENT)? Should there be smaller "fighter" craft (like DS9 or especially in the "Star Wars" universe)? Is it a heavyweight fight of 15 rounds or a first-round knockout? Is all hell breaking loose or is someone in control?
Once you've established your parameters, then you can discuss what the battle should look like in the world you just created and script it to get the outcome you need for your story.
It doesn't have to be associated with any kind of reality other than whatever fits the world it's in. (Frankly, I hated the notion of "fighters" in the "Star Trek" world, but there they were in DS9.)
And how the exterior of the battle is shot (frenetically, tense, focused with purpose, chaotically, fast, slow) can correlate with the feelings and emotions of the combatants being shown during the battle as well.
For me it's "fanboy".
Cinema goers have reasonable intellect at the very least and those responsible for re-booting Star Trek are very wise to acknowledge that. Hence the dramatic change from how ST2009 is presented to how say Nemesis - and thus every TNG era trek was presented.
You are just defending dead concepts with very weak reasoning to justify why they should be used in modern Trek movies.
Couldn't resist tossing another insult at Star Trek 2009?
That's not really an insult, it's just the truth. And "another"? You'd have to point out the first one.
Dead horse + beating = still dead horse
Separate names with a comma.