I hope for more traditional space battles
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
No no, the only way. They'd rather have a "brain haemorhage" than be sujected to anything else.
(I find this level of
fanboyism highly entertaining. 
)What I missed in ST09's battle scenes (perhaps excepting the very first one, with the Kelvin) was the sense of scale. Somehow, the ships' manoeuvring brought to mind small and nimble fighter vessels, not huge majestic starships.
I think what we got in Trek 09 will continue, and that's a good thing. That first ten minutes grabbed the viewer by the lapels and never let go. That harrowing moment where the crewmember is sucked into the noiseless vacuum as the chaos of battle happened all around her was simply stunning. Nothing before in Trek even came close to that kind of visceral impact.
Of course, I'm also a strong proponent of the firefly/BSG style 'doco' combat footage. It just has an immediacy and impact that the more staid 'fixed camera angle' stuff of FC never accomplished.
Of course, I'm also a strong proponent of the firefly/BSG style 'doco' combat footage. It just has an immediacy and impact that the more staid 'fixed camera angle' stuff of FC never accomplished.
Traditional by what definition? DS9 Trek battles were moving into the realm of Star Warsish style space battles; even down to doing a "trench run" with the Defiant on a Cardassian outpost and a Klingon warship and the Valiant and Dominion warship. Trek's space battles will always be a function of budget.
While ST II (IMO) is the best in the franchise, it has nothing to do with the FX but all to do with what's happening between Kirk and Khan. You can have the same tension and drama with a bigger budget battle. For example: I had no problem with the opening battle in ST ('09) and could tell pretty well what was going on FX wise, but I was more vested in what was going on with George Kirk and his crew than I was the FX; it was a fast pace, chaotic event, and the FX just reflected that mad pace of what was going on.
While ST II (IMO) is the best in the franchise, it has nothing to do with the FX but all to do with what's happening between Kirk and Khan. You can have the same tension and drama with a bigger budget battle. For example: I had no problem with the opening battle in ST ('09) and could tell pretty well what was going on FX wise, but I was more vested in what was going on with George Kirk and his crew than I was the FX; it was a fast pace, chaotic event, and the FX just reflected that mad pace of what was going on.
My thoughts exactly. For most of the time, you can't really see what's going on in Star Trek XI because it's too zoomed-in, too shaky and too fast.
Funny, I thought that the First Contact battle was the best ever shown in a Star Trek movie. I can watch it in a loop for hours!
I riff on the FC battle 3/4 of the times I watch it. "Jean Luc use the force" was my immediate thought the first time I watched it in theaters. The whole thing struck me as very A New Hope in what was going on
In my opinion, that FC battle was a cheese fest of the highest order and just an exhibition of mid 90's DS9 and TNG viewers favourite ships whizzing around using stock TV sound effects.
Then add cheesy lines like "prepare for ramming speed", and "trust me mr data (aim for that weak spot that our near invincible all conquering foes for an unexplained reason can cause immediate destruction)
The net result is that there was absolute no sense of drama or danger, no one felt really threatened on screen. Watching it again 16 years on the scene looks even more jaded.
If you take that out of it, all I mean was it was easy to follow and visually appealing at the same time (granted the film is "old" now) but the effects still add up.
ST09 by contrast its like "FIRE EVERYTHING ARGGHHHHHHH BOOM CRASH POW ARGHHHHHHH"
that's the feeling I got watching it, maybe it was "visceral" or whatever you want to say, you can do that, you can mix in those scenes like that, hell add in some gore effects if you like when parts of the ship come apart, but at the same time let me see what's happening
"LET ME SEE WHATS HAPPENING"
Don't muddle it up in one big, loud, colourful explosion
no more of this:
http://www.davidbarrkirtley.com/images/startrek2009screen.jpg
[Image converted to link. Images posted inline must be hosted on your own web space. - M']
What even is that?
Last edited by a moderator:
F**king-A!
That's what space is, a horrible nasty place to be.
Watching TNG style space battles, it is clear the directors/producers and VFX specialists all were inspired by watching pet fish pottering around in a tank.
It actually reminds me of this
http://mattsmoviethoughts.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/movie_bg.jpg
as opposed to this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iBuNz7Kv1jk/TQBGon4uVRI/AAAAAAAABAw/ekn7d0yv-ts/s1600/StarWars1.jpg
[Images converted to links. Images posted inline must be hosted on your own web space. - M']
yeah one was "less visceral" and had a lot less going on, but there was emotion in it and it's a better battle imo because it's not just throwing crap all over the place, it's two guys dueling, simple.
Ship battles can work the same, you can up the effects, you can have people dying or whatever you need to do, just pan the camera OUT a little and let me see what's going on that's all
Meet in the middle, that's all i'm saying.
http://mattsmoviethoughts.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/movie_bg.jpg
as opposed to this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iBuNz7Kv1jk/TQBGon4uVRI/AAAAAAAABAw/ekn7d0yv-ts/s1600/StarWars1.jpg
[Images converted to links. Images posted inline must be hosted on your own web space. - M']
yeah one was "less visceral" and had a lot less going on, but there was emotion in it and it's a better battle imo because it's not just throwing crap all over the place, it's two guys dueling, simple.
Ship battles can work the same, you can up the effects, you can have people dying or whatever you need to do, just pan the camera OUT a little and let me see what's going on that's all
Meet in the middle, that's all i'm saying.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't want new stuff to be just like things I've already seen; when I want that old stuff, I already have my greatest hits disks at home that I can loop through as many times as I want.
I want new stuff to be—new!
Star Trek (2009) brought new and exciting visualizations to the franchise. I hope Into Darkness will do the same.
I want new stuff to be—new!
Star Trek (2009) brought new and exciting visualizations to the franchise. I hope Into Darkness will do the same.
Last edited:
In case you're referring to me, what I actually said was: "I'd rather have a brain hemmorhage than be subjected to anything that old Trek fans would describe as "traditional".", which, you may now realize belatedly, includes millions of possibilities besides anything that Abrams could come up with.
No no, the only way. They'd rather have a "brain haemorhage" than be sujected to anything else.
(I find this level of
Even though you misunderstood what I said, I'm glad I managed to entertain you anyway.
I cringe at the militant JJ Abrams fawners' posts generally ("Trek should be as much like Mission: Impossible III as it can be!" 
) but I'd agree the opening attack on the Kelvin in 2009 is a good sequence. It's a shame the final act of the movie is insanely forgettable and hard to follow in comparison.
The First Contact opening battle is good but it's the show-stopping action on the ship exterior later on in the film that stands out more. Much more memorable than any of the action on Nero's ship.
) but I'd agree the opening attack on the Kelvin in 2009 is a good sequence. It's a shame the final act of the movie is insanely forgettable and hard to follow in comparison.The First Contact opening battle is good but it's the show-stopping action on the ship exterior later on in the film that stands out more. Much more memorable than any of the action on Nero's ship.
Who said that?I cringe at the militant JJ Abrams fawners' posts generally ("Trek should be as much like Mission: Impossible III as it can be!"
I think I see his point. Regardless of any contrivances in the battle itself, there are no abundant lens flares or shakiness in the camera work of the FC battle. Even in the more battle in Sacrifice of Angels, you can still make out the ships and what they are doing, and it doesn't look like they smeared Vaseline on the lens.
The ships are shooting at each other. I think that's abundantly clear in any of these things.
The difference is that in Abrams's version, it looks dangerous and as if people might get hurt.
Trek's never going back to the kind of stiff formality that it had degenerated into - in terms of characterization (as Marina Sirtis once said, "We don't converse, we hit our marks and declaim") or visually. That's a good thing, whether it's Abrams calling the shots or another modern director.
The difference is that in Abrams's version, it looks dangerous and as if people might get hurt.
Trek's never going back to the kind of stiff formality that it had degenerated into - in terms of characterization (as Marina Sirtis once said, "We don't converse, we hit our marks and declaim") or visually. That's a good thing, whether it's Abrams calling the shots or another modern director.
It's pretty clear the Kelvin is getting overwhelmed by a far superior enemy in a mad unprecedented fashion which leaves the Kelvin's crew stunned - how much clearer can it be?
To compare anything from DS9 to the high quality and thrills in ST 2009 is embarassing - it is as I said earlier, space battles in TNG/DS9/Voy are akin to pet fish swimming in a tank.
To compare anything from DS9 to the high quality and thrills in ST 2009 is embarassing - it is as I said earlier, space battles in TNG/DS9/Voy are akin to pet fish swimming in a tank.
You mean the slow walking and 3 phaser shots as Worf, Picard, and Lt. Redshirt input command codes? That show stopping action?
Well, I'd say Deep Space 9 did everything better than Star Trek 2009, what with it being the best Star Trek series. And I'd be far from alone.
Holla!
Similar threads
