The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Lindelof teases Trek 3 villains and potential crossover with original timeline
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:58 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
NEM had the great potential of being the first Trek movie about Romulans and I think it failed because it did not focus enough on the Romulans.
I also think that the villain with the monstership pattern which started there made the Romulans look far too weak.
And yes, I am perfectly of the irony: whining about missing the chance to do THE epic Romulan TNG movie is a fanboy critique.

So yeah, I don't wanna generalize and imply that fans suck at writing, e.g. during Piller's open door policy fans submitted great story drafts.
And of course it is unfair to merely focus on the plot and criticize STID as being too much of a copy job in this respect while totally ignoring that the texture and atmosphere of NuTrek is entirely new.

But I also think that two movies which heavily borrow from what came before are enough, now everything is set up and you could do your own thing (this was basically Kevin's thesis in another thread, view ST09 and STID as "setup" movies) yet Lindelof indicates that the next movie will not be different in terms of standing more on its own feet.
Let's not forget that the most popular was also the most radical Trek movie, there were quite some paradigm changes in TWOK (and while some like the stronger emphasis on Starfleet being a military was only used in the two Meyer movies the way spacebattles were handled remained virtually unchanged during the next twenty years).
One thing I could never stand about a lot of Star Trek space battles though (and I know budget is a major factor in this) was this:


-Show an epic shot of one of the ships firing on the other.
-Then cut to an interior shot of the good guy bridge for the majority of the fight, with nothing but : "They're firing!" (bridge is given the shaky cam treatment to simulate some kind of hit) "Shields down to seventy eight percent!" "Return fire!" "Firing! Minimal damage to enemy ship."
-Maybe...just maybe....one more effects shot.
-Battle resolves on the interior of the bridge.

I could NEVER stand that on the shows....and it was even like that for Insurrection as well. At least Generations and First Contact had a few more effects shots of their battles....I'll give those overblown episodes at least that much credit in that area.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-11-2013, 03:42 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

I think space battles are influenced by the portrayal of space itself.
TWOK set these parameters concerning space battles just like it basically made space an ocean. Sure, there is this 3D trick but its idea is after all that nobody, not even a genetically enhances superman, perceives space as three-dimensional.
NuTrek changed space battles as well as space itself. The ship is no longer "swimming in the ocean", i.e. mainly being shot from angles in which the horizontal axis is kept fairly fixed and in space scenes space itself has become more of a substance. It feels more like an actual medium than merely the empty background. A good comparison would be the deflector scenes in FC vs. the jump onto the platform in ST09.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-11-2013, 11:49 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

I agree...lots of times, in many different sci-fi shows and movies, space battles are portrayed as occurring on a single plane in space, largely because the average movie goer cannot conceive of 3D space in terms of warfare...at least, not in terms of, say, a space battle vs. a dogfight in a movie like Top Gun or The Final Countdown.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-12-2013, 01:59 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
I agree...lots of times, in many different sci-fi shows and movies, space battles are portrayed as occurring on a single plane in space, largely because the average movie goer cannot conceive of 3D space in terms of warfare...at least, not in terms of, say, a space battle vs. a dogfight in a movie like Top Gun or The Final Countdown.
I always assumed that it was because the writers and directors couldn't grasp the concept properly.
__________________
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of


(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-12-2013, 02:56 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

I think it is more a matter of getting used to it. I also think that the creating a vague topology, like the Dominion is in front of you and the Romulans are behind you in perfect back-stabbing position, is only possible in two dimensions.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:42 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Meyer's nautical sensibilities brought about the 'battleships on the ocean' effect but I think the 2D plane presentation that's normally always in Trek is a combination of how to practically present the audience with something we can quickly process and understand spatially and also because I would imagine that to truly have 3D presentation would be costly and time consuming from a visual effects point (maybe easier now with CGI) and probably would disorient people if it were truly depicted, because it would be a visual cluster****.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:44 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Although sure, technically that shouldn't be an issue for people in universe as they would be used to it. You can't recreate everything as it 'really' would be.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:09 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default

On the subject of warping… a ship could never reach its destination in a straight-line unless first changing the ships axis (to align with the destination) with thrusters before going to warp. The ship would then have to readjust itself at the end of the warp to meet the planetary orbit requirements… of course the would have to several course corrections to avoid obstacles in the line of warp as well… so how does one do this while at warp… obviously they must drop out of warp at some point, change direction with thrusters and then continue on.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-12-2013, 10:25 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

I assumed they just "do it."

I don't recall ever seeing any visual effects to indicate such, however it seems to me they've changed course on a number of occasions without dropping out of warp. Like if they suddenly detected something and needed to intercept.

As for avoiding collisions, don't they use their deflectors first? And then make corrections if the deflector beam failed to push the object aside?

This is what I get for subconsciously tuning out most of the technobabble.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-13-2013, 12:05 AM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
I assumed they just "do it."

I don't recall ever seeing any visual effects to indicate such, however it seems to me they've changed course on a number of occasions without dropping out of warp. Like if they suddenly detected something and needed to intercept.

As for avoiding collisions, don't they use their deflectors first? And then make corrections if the deflector beam failed to push the object aside?

This is what I get for subconsciously tuning out most of the technobabble.
Doubt very much if the deflector could push aside anything as big as a planet!
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.