I hope for more traditional space battles

[Shazam!]

Why can't we all post? Why can't we all offer our observations and facts in a thread? I'm pretty sure we're all big boys and girls here.

I know. And I agree. I think however, the 'business' angle is irrefutable; we know what works and doesn't work. We know a TMP movie isn't going to happen any time soon. We know big-bangs-for-your-buck is successful and at times, damn entertaining and we know that JJ's Trek is working and is here to stay, albeit most likely for only another movie or so.

I just see a lot of otherwise entertaining conversation and idea threads - however wild and unrealistic they may be - derailed by what are essentially office meetings with charts and graphs and facts and figures.

I don't actually mean for anyone to stop posting or anything. It's just a thing that bugs me.

 

[Shazam!]

As for battles, I'm partial to TWOK myself. I know the nebula played a part in how that battle played out but I like the idea of Trek ships as warships or even pirate ships. DS9 had some cool scenes and battles but even they had Galaxy class ships zooming around like X-Wings every now and then.

The opening scene in Trek 09 was powerful and visceral and served as a demonstration of how [Nick Fury]hilariously[/Nick Fury] outgunned the Federation ships are. It set up the end of the movie fairly well but at the same time it almost blew it's load too early. The Narada had no surprises up its sleeve during the climax as we'd [Patrick Stewart]seen everything[/Patrick Stewart], including red matter and the jellyfish.

 

[The Doctor]

I guess it all depends on whether or not you want an action sequence to be immersive and immediate or objective and detached. Do you want to be caught up in the terror facing a small survey ship faced with impossible odds or do you want to be impressed by the tactical maneuvers of the attacking ship? I much prefer something that draws me in to the situation and makes me feel like I'm there, in the moment.

I don't have to be spoonfed and can be engaged with something shown from an objective point of view.

You keep using 'spoonfed.' I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Why is a kinetic action sequence that draws the viewer into the situation 'spoonfeeding?' Was Spielberg spoon-feeding the viewers of 'Saving Private Ryan?' Were the Bourne movies? Or the cinema-verite reboot of BSG ten years ago. (I can't believe it was 10 years ago, but that's another story.) Even something as classic as Midway used gun camera footage and archival materials to give the movie a feeling of authenticity and immediacy.

But hey, I'm not the one with the PhD. So what do I know?

Edit: sniped by Ovation on the Saving Private Ryan reference. Blast!

 

[Awesome Possum]

The new films have battles that actually seem to be like battles. They're incredibly fast, a little terrifying to imagine yourself there, almost insane and you don't fully know what is really going on.

It isn't like a video game where they just have to get where they can shot the bad guy. TWOK and few other battles are mainly saved by the editing and acting. TWOK in particular, it wasn't a battle, it was a Chess game between Kirk and Khan.

 

[Garrovick]

You know, when I made my previous post about how I wished ST might, just might, for one movie, just for a change of pace, get back to more like a TVH-style of film, I did it in full awareness of what the trends are in Hollywood these days (incidentally, I did go see Lincoln, and I thought it was great). And I'm not saying I completely dislike that style of moviemaking. It's not that I didn't like the ST09 space battles, they were quite spectacular. It's just that the post got me thinking about all the death and destruction in that movie, and I guess I just got a bit nostalgic for a time when Star Trek on film was about more than explosions and death. Sorry.

 

[BillJ]

You know, when I made my previous post about how I wished ST might, just might, for one movie, just for a change of pace, get back to more like a TVH-style of film, I did it in full awareness of what the trends are in Hollywood these days (incidentally, I did go see Lincoln, and I thought it was great). And I'm not saying I completely dislike that style of moviemaking. It's not that I didn't like the ST09 space battles, they were quite spectacular. It's just that the post got me thinking about all the death and destruction in that movie, and I guess I just got a bit nostalgic for a time when Star Trek on film was about more than explosions and death. Sorry.

My comment was never intended as a rebuke.

These threads always turn into where Trek's been, where its currently at and where its going. My post was just expressing where I think those films fit in the current state of movies. It wasn't about the quality of the film or whether or not I think a film like TVH should be made now.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You know, when I made my previous post about how I wished ST might, just might, for one movie, just for a change of pace, get back to more like a TVH-style of film, I did it in full awareness of what the trends are in Hollywood these days (incidentally, I did go see Lincoln, and I thought it was great).

Yes, and you ended with:

TVH proves that you can make a successful ST movie without space battles/explosions/Fire Everything!/planets being destroyed/starships crashing/etc.

What people have chosen to point out is that TVH proves nothing of the kind. TVH proves that you could make a successful Trek movie of that kind in 1986 (over a quarter of a century ago!), and that it's probably not possible now.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I dunno--from TOS to Star Trek X, I kind of liked the idea of the space battles getting more and more intense with the ships becoming faster and more maneuverable.

With Star Trek XI, its a brand-new game, so I have no problems with the ships already being faster and more maneuverable than they were in TOS. I still think you can have the same kind of dramatic tension with the characters that was in TWOK, though, with ships playing a game of cat-and-mouse until one pounces, and then it's on for both.

 

[Franklin]

The ST09 battles are part of a larger trend towards a kind of stylized realism (I know it sounds contradictory, but it is Hollywood). People complained about the fight scenes in Batman Begins, the Bourne movies and in a bunch of other films. It goes back as far as Saving Pvt. Ryan, where people complained they had trouble following the action during the landing at Normandy (unfavourably comparing it to The Longest Day).

The fact that such fights and battle scenes are difficult to follow is precisely the point. Real life conflict is chaotic and disorienting. It wasn't until the past two decades or so that filmmaking technology could convey that sense of chaos. Fights and battles were highly staged because that's what technology allowed for. And like all changes in aesthetic standards, there will always be resistance from some and admiration from others. Staged battles and fights were once a requirement. Now they are a stylistic choice. I expect they will return (some filmmakers never abandoned them) in greater numbers but the more frenetic style is here to stay.

It depends on what you're going for with the audience, too.

Tension: In TWOK, I'd say the emphasis was on ramping up the tension for the coming battle in the nebula as much as it was about the battle itself, which wasn't really that long.

Action: The "Star Wars" battles were all about providing the audience a lot of fast action and thrills. But in my opinion, they were comic-bookish, glossing over the massive loss of life one was witnessing. They were too clean. Hundreds or thousands of people just died in front of the audience, and the only real reaction or feeling would be, "Kewl battle."

Horror: The attack on the Kelvin was frenetic, but the scene was also humanized, reminding the audience time and again that this was ship full of people going through a horriffic event and meeting horrible ends. The shot of the woman being sucked out of the ship was one of the most poignant moments of the movie. You were meant to feel lucky to be alive after it was over, and sad for those who didn't make it.

 

[Shazam!]

TVH proves that you could make a successful Trek movie of that kind in 1986 (over a quarter of a century ago!), and that it's probably not possible now.

It's a good job we're not in Hollywood actually pitching the idea to studio fat cats then, and instead idly speculating amongst ourselves about what some of us like to see.

For my money, Master and Commander is the ideal Trek movie template. It never felt rushed, the action was tense and dangerous and it left plenty of room for character moments and interaction. It was a perfectly balanced movie.

It even managed to throw in some good ol' fashioned exploration into the mix.

 

[sidious618]

I'd say that TVH is as possible today as it was in 1986 all things equal. The catch is, when TVH was made we'd already had three films and three TV seasons with these characters and they were very much in the public consciousness. A film where we just have a good time with them was seen as worth it because we already knew them all. The characters in the new Trek are not nearly as known and therefore such a film would not fly. Comparing what the original series' films did to what new Trek's film can do is a bit of a false comparison; they're very different beasts.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I dunno--from TOS to Star Trek X, I kind of liked the idea of the space battles getting more and more intense with the ships becoming faster and more maneuverable.

With Star Trek XI, its a brand-new game, so I have no problems with the ships already being faster and more maneuverable than they were in TOS. I still think you can have the same kind of dramatic tension with the characters that was in TWOK, though, with ships playing a game of cat-and-mouse until one pounces, and then it's on for both.

Were the ships in XI faster and more maneueverable? The Enterprise seemed to be really struggling to maneuver around the debris over Vulcan, twisting and dipping pretty slowly. Allowing for the real-life limitations classic Treks had (i.e. working with models on a budget) I don't think there was much difference.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd say that TVH is as possible today as it was in 1986 all things equal.

And all things are never equal.

Unless you can do it as a Rom Com, no.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I dunno--from TOS to Star Trek X, I kind of liked the idea of the space battles getting more and more intense with the ships becoming faster and more maneuverable.

With Star Trek XI, its a brand-new game, so I have no problems with the ships already being faster and more maneuverable than they were in TOS. I still think you can have the same kind of dramatic tension with the characters that was in TWOK, though, with ships playing a game of cat-and-mouse until one pounces, and then it's on for both.

Were the ships in XI faster and more maneueverable?

Than the ones in TOS? Yes.

The Enterprise seemed to be really struggling to maneuver around the debris over Vulcan, twisting and dipping pretty slowly. Allowing for the real-life limitations classic Treks had (i.e. working with models on a budget) I don't think there was much difference.

I guess we could pretend that every ship has moved the same way...

 

[Awesome Possum]

I don't think the new 1701 is really much better than the original. Except for it being bigger and seeming to have more firepower, which sort of makes sense given that Starfleet might have made more powerful ships after the Kelvin was destroyed. But I don't think that anything that big can be described as maneuverable, except in comparison to something bigger.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But I don't think that anything that big can be described as maneuverable, except in comparison to something bigger.

Yeah. The nu-E wasn't exactly darting all over the place when dodging debris, after arriving at Vulcan. Sulu probably wished she were a lot more maneuverable than she was.

 

[sidious618]

I'd say that TVH is as possible today as it was in 1986 all things equal.

And all things are never equal.

That was the point of my post.

 

[Kruezerman]

Why don't we wait until the franchise gets back on it's feet before we talk about more "difficult" movies?

Because they can happen and they can do well, but there needs to be some faith by those who fund them. The only way that can happen is getting an audience again.

Star Trek can be whatever we want it to be, but we have to make sure that people will watch it with us. It's not our "precious" that no one else can have, on the contrary, it's there for us to share.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The fact that such fights and battle scenes are difficult to follow is precisely the point. Real life conflict is chaotic and disorienting.

This seems a really strange thing to say given that very much about Star Trek is unrealistic, especially the space battles. Any "realism" will always take a backseat to the intent of the director. If the idea is to confuse the audience, then fine, that's his choice. But I think some are saying they prefer to not be confused or overwhelmed when it comes to something as simple as a space battle. I don't know if that is a majority opinion though. Maybe some people like to be overwhelmed with lasers and rockets and lens flares, oh my.

 

[lurok]

I'm trying to think which of the films had battles as opposed to skirmishes. Probably just Nemesis. *gasp*