The Pacing of Space Battles: Old vs. New

[Shat Happens]

Battles don't tend to be "full course strategic meals." It is not chess or the systematic unfolding of a step-by-step plan. Read about most battles (especially in the Civil War), and the plans go out the window not long after the first shot is fired. "The fog of war" is almost an axiom.

The battle between the Enterprise and Reliant in TWOK relied on Kirk's experience over Khan's as a tactical expert, but little could be planned or orchestrated. Luck was still very important.

The Kelvin v. Narada was chaotic and hard to follow on screen. To that end, for what it's representing, it was quite real. The opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan" is often called one of the most realistic battle scenes ever filmed. It's a disorganized and bloody struggle for survival.

IIRC, the battle in Pvt. Ryan was very understandable. First they disembark, then have to run for cover, then destroy a machine gun nest, climbing a hill before that. It's intense and bloody, but not so chaotic.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Enterprise-E vs Scimitar tops the lists of battles for Trek for me.

Vengeance vs Enterprise was a let down. The Vengeance just went "pew pew", while the Enterprise didn't fire back in it's own defense.

Kelvin vs Narada was fine short battle. Although the length of the battle leaves me puzzled. Considering the Enterprise and 5 other ships that went to help Vulcan got solo'ed by the Narada even faster than the 28 year old Kelvin.

The DS9 battles were cool the first time I saw the series. Watching them later I noticed problems. Space is 3 dimension. But the big battles in DS9 are framed in 2 dimensions.

ENT and VOY are comparable in style. No problems really. Except VOY taking down a "Heavily Armed" Tactical Borg Cube. That's dumb.

 

[Franklin]

Battles don't tend to be "full course strategic meals." It is not chess or the systematic unfolding of a step-by-step plan. Read about most battles (especially in the Civil War), and the plans go out the window not long after the first shot is fired. "The fog of war" is almost an axiom.

The battle between the Enterprise and Reliant in TWOK relied on Kirk's experience over Khan's as a tactical expert, but little could be planned or orchestrated. Luck was still very important.

The Kelvin v. Narada was chaotic and hard to follow on screen. To that end, for what it's representing, it was quite real. The opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan" is often called one of the most realistic battle scenes ever filmed. It's a disorganized and bloody struggle for survival.

IIRC, the battle in Pvt. Ryan was very understandable. First they disembark, then have to run for cover, then destroy a machine gun nest, climbing a hill before that. It's intense and bloody, but not so chaotic.

Um. OK. I think any officer worth his salt would say almost all battles become chaotic, and so one must prepare for that chaos. You anticipate strategies breaking down. You even expect it. You anticipate poor information and disorientation during battle. Whoever deals with that the best will have the best chance to win. In WWII, it was said that what made American troops better fighters than the enemy was their ability to take advantage of situations where things broke down and innovate rather than be sticklers for strategies or waiting for orders from the top to meet the changes those above them may not even know about.

 

[publiusr]

This is why a ST/SW cross over would do well. Small fighters swarm a star destroyer while Enterprise's crew plots after hiding behind an asteroid. They emerge then finish the job.

This way you keep both sets of pacing.

 

[Shat Happens]

Battles don't tend to be "full course strategic meals." It is not chess or the systematic unfolding of a step-by-step plan. Read about most battles (especially in the Civil War), and the plans go out the window not long after the first shot is fired. "The fog of war" is almost an axiom.

The battle between the Enterprise and Reliant in TWOK relied on Kirk's experience over Khan's as a tactical expert, but little could be planned or orchestrated. Luck was still very important.

The Kelvin v. Narada was chaotic and hard to follow on screen. To that end, for what it's representing, it was quite real. The opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan" is often called one of the most realistic battle scenes ever filmed. It's a disorganized and bloody struggle for survival.

IIRC, the battle in Pvt. Ryan was very understandable. First they disembark, then have to run for cover, then destroy a machine gun nest, climbing a hill before that. It's intense and bloody, but not so chaotic.

Um. OK. I think any officer worth his salt would say almost all battles become chaotic, and so one must prepare for that chaos. You anticipate strategies breaking down. You even expect it. You anticipate poor information and disorientation during battle. Whoever deals with that the best will have the best chance to win. In WWII, it was said that what made American troops better fighters than the enemy was their ability to take advantage of situations where things broke down and innovate rather than be sticklers for strategies or waiting for orders from the top to meet the changes those above them may not even know about.

I see now we are talking about different things. I am talking battles should be intelligible from my pov as movie audience. Real battles are another thing of course.

 

[beamMe]

Battles don't tend to be "full course strategic meals." It is not chess or the systematic unfolding of a step-by-step plan. Read about most battles (especially in the Civil War), and the plans go out the window not long after the first shot is fired. "The fog of war" is almost an axiom.

The battle between the Enterprise and Reliant in TWOK relied on Kirk's experience over Khan's as a tactical expert, but little could be planned or orchestrated. Luck was still very important.

The Kelvin v. Narada was chaotic and hard to follow on screen. To that end, for what it's representing, it was quite real. The opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan" is often called one of the most realistic battle scenes ever filmed. It's a disorganized and bloody struggle for survival.

IIRC, the battle in Pvt. Ryan was very understandable. First they disembark, then have to run for cover, then destroy a machine gun nest, climbing a hill before that. It's intense and bloody, but not so chaotic.

The opening sequence of Star Trek was just as "understandable", and quite easy to follow.

 

[xavier]

Pacing of old battles because in the old battles it does not limit the characters interactions. Abram's new films does that. a perfect example is spock and uhura talking of their relationship during a space battle.

JJ forced them to talk about romance/love in a space battle because he loves to keep thingd very fast paced which means action action action and he gives the characters no chance to breathe and chart with each-other so the old battles hands down wins as it does not take away any important character moment that needs to be dealt with when things getting blown up all around the characters.

 

[Franklin]

IIRC, the battle in Pvt. Ryan was very understandable. First they disembark, then have to run for cover, then destroy a machine gun nest, climbing a hill before that. It's intense and bloody, but not so chaotic.

Um. OK. I think any officer worth his salt would say almost all battles become chaotic, and so one must prepare for that chaos. You anticipate strategies breaking down. You even expect it. You anticipate poor information and disorientation during battle. Whoever deals with that the best will have the best chance to win. In WWII, it was said that what made American troops better fighters than the enemy was their ability to take advantage of situations where things broke down and innovate rather than be sticklers for strategies or waiting for orders from the top to meet the changes those above them may not even know about.

I see now we are talking about different things. I am talking battles should be intelligible from my pov as movie audience. Real battles are another thing of course.

Yeah. Fair enough.

 

[beamMe]

Pacing of old battles because in the old battles it does not limit the characters interactions. Abram's new films does that. a perfect example is spock and uhura talking of their relationship during a space battle.

JJ forced them to talk about romance/love in a space battle because he loves to keep thingd very fast paced which means action action action and he gives the characters no chance to breathe and chart with each-other so the old battles hands down wins as it does not take away any important character moment that needs to be dealt with when things getting blown up all around the characters.

Spock and Uhura did not talk about their relationship during a battle.

That movies today are faster paced has nothing to do with Abrams - that's just the way it is now. A faster pace isn't "action action action".

 

[F. King Daniel]

Kelvin vs Narada

That is one of the worst examples of space battle ever.

I'm all for different viewpoints and opinions, but NO.

Just no.

That is all.

 

[xavier]

Pacing of old battles because in the old battles it does not limit the characters interactions. Abram's new films does that. a perfect example is spock and uhura talking of their relationship during a space battle.

JJ forced them to talk about romance/love in a space battle because he loves to keep thingd very fast paced which means action action action and he gives the characters no chance to breathe and chart with each-other so the old battles hands down wins as it does not take away any important character moment that needs to be dealt with when things getting blown up all around the characters.

Spock and Uhura did not talk about their relationship during a battle.

That movies today are faster paced has nothing to do with Abrams - that's just the way it is now. A faster pace isn't "action action action".

they did, they were on their way to kronos when they started talking about their relationship. Honestly I expected better from the romance especially after how well written and heartfelt it was in the first film.

it would not have killed jj if he had them discuss it in a private way or at a time that seemed peaceful. JJ threw the romance talk between a battle mission. It was not great directing from his part and I am no JJ hater. I adore star trek 2009.

Not all films are fast paced. many films like Nolan's batman films or even the old star wars and lord of the rings films where medium paced that is why they run for about 2 hours 30 minutes because the time length does give time for the characters to be at peace with each other without things about to be blown up among them.

Into darkness is less than 2 hours the film is like a roller-coaster . It is so fast paced that we do not even have time to think and digest the story before all the excessive actions. I hope the writers can correct this error in the next film.

 

[TheFlutteringHorde]

Ehh I don't really see it as a New versus Old thing. It's not like all old movies battles were equally good. The Wrath of Khan was miles ahead of TUC in my opinion, and I think pretty much all the TNG movie battles were crap except for First Contact.

NuTrek battles have been pretty good so far. I especially like how things just don't wrap themselves up nicely after the enemy ship is destroyed or crippled. They still have problems to deal with, and for the first time in forever the quality of the ground action is also pretty good.

My only complaint would be that we haven't gotten a good fleet battle

 

[beamMe]

they did, they were on their way to kronos when they started talking about their relationship. Honestly I expected better from the romance especially after how well written and heartfelt it was in the first film.

That's basically down-time and not "in a battle" as you said before.

Into darkness is less than 2 hours the film is like a roller-coaster . It is so fast paced that we do not even have time to think and digest the story before all the excessive actions. I hope the writers can correct this error in the next film.

I've had enough time to think about, digest and understand the movie's story.

 

[Smellmet]

NuTrek films are paced the way they are because the brief was quite simply 'get a general audience or bust' The franchise was almost apologetic in it's approach - 'this is not you're father's Star Trek' it had become far too fan-centric and we all knew it.

 

[xavier]

NuTrek films are paced the way they are because the brief was quite simply 'get a general audience or bust' The franchise was almost apologetic in it's approach - 'this is not you're father's Star Trek' it had become far too fan-centric and we all knew it.

I disagree with respect to you.

harry potter
batman
lord of the rings
star wars

all medium paced film with lots of character interaction and this franchise rakes in billions.

 

[TheFlutteringHorde]

NuTrek films are paced the way they are because the brief was quite simply 'get a general audience or bust' The franchise was almost apologetic in it's approach - 'this is not you're father's Star Trek' it had become far too fan-centric and we all knew it.

I disagree with respect to you.

harry potter
batman
lord of the rings
star wars

all medium paced film with lots of character interaction and this franchise rakes in billions.

So? There are also franchises out there that make faster paced films, the Marvel Cinematic Universe being the biggest one I can think of. I honestly don't see the problem though, I thought the character interaction was fine. My only real complaint would be that Chekov got the short end of the stick, but that's not anything new. I actually like the interactions a bit better than 09, since we get to see more of the other crew members interact amongst themselves, instead of the focus being on Kirk meeting and interacting with them.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

It was DS9's Defiant zipping around and doing loop-the-loops which seems at odds with the majority of Trek to me. I saw that and thought, "Trekllennium Falcon". I thought the ships in the new movies were appropriately weighty and slow to react - like the Enterprise moving to avoiding debris over Vulcan. Massive starships, not jet fighters.

I'm forever grateful that they've ditched the nonsensical trope of exploding consoles and the more sensical but really rather boring trope of gradually decreasing shield percentages, and instead actually show damage being inflicted on the ship's lower levels.

Well, the Defiant was a smaller ship than, say, the Galaxy-class..and was built to handle Borg. So, the speed efficiency doesn't seem to far-fetched.

I should also add: DS9 also showed that the Federation had fighter squadrons. Granted, we heard about fighters in the TNG episode 'First Duty'....but we briefly saw them in action on DS9.

 

[BillJ]

they did, they were on their way to kronos when they started talking about their relationship. Honestly I expected better from the romance especially after how well written and heartfelt it was in the first film.

it would not have killed jj if he had them discuss it in a private way or at a time that seemed peaceful. JJ threw the romance talk between a battle mission. It was not great directing from his part and I am no JJ hater. I adore star trek 2009.

So they were suppose to ride all the way to Kronos with their collective sphincters locked?

 

[Smellmet]

NuTrek films are paced the way they are because the brief was quite simply 'get a general audience or bust' The franchise was almost apologetic in it's approach - 'this is not you're father's Star Trek' it had become far too fan-centric and we all knew it.

I disagree with respect to you.

harry potter
batman
lord of the rings
star wars

all medium paced film with lots of character interaction and this franchise rakes in billions.

None of those franchises were facing extinction in the way Trek was

 

[BillJ]

NuTrek films are paced the way they are because the brief was quite simply 'get a general audience or bust' The franchise was almost apologetic in it's approach - 'this is not you're father's Star Trek' it had become far too fan-centric and we all knew it.

I disagree with respect to you.

harry potter
batman
lord of the rings
star wars

all medium paced film with lots of character interaction and this franchise rakes in billions.

None of those franchises were facing extinction in the way Trek was

I honestly don't understand the claim that the Abrams films are fast paced. Are they fast paced compared to other Trek episodes/films? A bit. Are they as fast paced as something like Transformers? Not even close.