posted
I think the FTL effect is actually more Star Wars than Battlestar Galactica - in BSG they disappear on the spot, whereas Star Trek and Star Wars show some kind of lightning fast accelleration.
I prefer the new effects, but that's 'cause I'm a Physics student, and it seems more "realistic" to me. I like the fact that through the viewscreen, you can't conveniently see anything, which is logical. Sure, it isn't the same as what we're used to. But neither are most of the ship designs, the attention to detail, or the general lack of cheesiness. "Different" isn't inherantly bad.
I percieved the new movie as if the writers had gone back to the "original source material", rather than making an adaptation of the original show. Its like Pride and Prejudice - rather than trying to remake the BBC version, they went back to the original novel and re-adapted it. Just in this case, instead of "novel", its "Gene Roddenberry's notes".
Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
You lost me with the "attention to detail" part. Yes, it's a fun movie but it's got far more than the usual amount of plot holes and VERY bad science for a Trek movie.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
We have never seen a TOS-ship go to warp. And the effect from TMP onwards was changed so many times I lost count. Even when it doesn't make sense: why did the E-E have different warp-effects in FC, Ins and Nemesis? (Especially Nemesis reminded me of that strange 'burnout' warp effect of the Chodak cruiser in the Generations game - see here) Actually, I'm quite happy with the new effect. I just miss the warp flash, but that's just me being sentimental...
As for the phasers: is there any reason for 'beams' at all - other than the fact that they look cooler than pulse weapons? From an effects pov, there sometimes wasn't even a distinction between phasers and photons.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Like M-A said, warp effects have always been changing. It only stayed somewhat consistent in TNG/DS9/VOY. Then towards the dark ages (ENT and Nemesis) it got worse, with the NX-01 and Ent-E having streaks behind them whenever they jumped, then the warp flash was shrunk to an almost unviewable size. The new warp effect may not be like the TNG era effect, but is sure is a step above the Ent and Nemesis effect.
Also about the Kelvin, I want to know what Survey or Colony ship packs so much heat. I mean you have standard beam phasers and then those flak cannon things.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Try this vid from youtube for the different warp efects. Some of the movies didn't have the warp flash, and Nemesis sucked. Just sucked. Everything. Sucked. So bad. Don't want to think about how bad. Now I have to go and eat something to make me feel better after thinking about Nemesis. So bad...
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
There's something truly wonderful about the way the E-E is first seen to go to warp (in ST:FC) - made all the more piquant by the fact that subsequent iterations of the sequence have been so piss-poor.
I'd forgotten how disco most of the OS movies' warp FX were!
I can't decide which is rock-bottom worst though - the E-A in ST5:TFF or the E-E in ST:N.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You lost me with the "attention to detail" part. Yes, it's a fun movie but it's got far more than the usual amount of plot holes and VERY bad science for a Trek movie.
Very bad science? I have to say, a lot of the science featured in the movie was actually more logical than we're used to in Trek. I'd be intregued to hear which science in particular you thought was bad. Or do you just mean it "was bad Trek science"... meaning actually realistic?
Regarding attention to detail, I'm talking about little things; the lens flipping around on the phasers when the settings change; the PDF weapons; the fact that there were no SFX in space when the guy got blasted out during the Kelvin scene; that sort of stuff.
They're completely unnecessary. They aren't a nod to existing stuff for the fans, since they're all new. They aren't the kind of things that casual viewers would remember from the show when they watched it either, so that isn't the reason. Someone has sat down and thought "Right, so how is this going to work?" and has put a hell of a lot of effort into the fine details that most viewers probably wouldn't notice. The only "reason" is attention to detail, in the truest sense of the term.
Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Captain Untouchable: Very bad science? I have to say, a lot of the science featured in the movie was actually more logical than we're used to in Trek. I'd be intregued to hear which science in particular you thought was bad. Or do you just mean it "was bad Trek science"... meaning actually realistic?
Supernova? Black holes? Red matter? Transwarp beaming? WTF?
Sure, there has been really bad science in Trek before, but these were certainly no exceptions.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Did they not have a scientific advisor? Where is Okuda when you need him?
On the other hand, call it red matter, or trilithium, or tachyon particles, or metaphasic particles, or ... what was that stuff in Nemesis again? Whatever. Or lets ask a simple question: how many decks does the E-E have? Hmm? The movies, of all the Treks over the decades, certainly have one of the worst track records. Giving the baby another name doesn't change the fact that it is your McGuffin, and its scientific plausibility is only secondary to the purpose of advancing the plot. Do you notice how we barely touch on any topic concerning the movies on this board? Subconsciously, we seem to know this already.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
That's exactly the point, though. Just as with VGR & ENT, what was touted as being a new take on Trek, as something we'd never seen before, was ultimately just the same thing dressed up differently. Except now we've thrown continuity--which had been astonishingly well-preserved given the franchise's four decades of history--out the window, too.
True, other films have been much worse. It was plenty of fun to watch as long as you didn't think about it too much. But really, what is all this Second Coming crap so many are getting swept up in (though not necessarily anyone in this thread)? What is sooooo great about this, besides the mere having of another product on the market with the title Star Trek attached to it?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
(I realize we're wandering off here: This IS a starship thread, after all.)
Here's the thing: Canon stifles a writer's creativity. If you have an an exciting out-of-the-box idea with a certain story, but then are forced to check that it doesn't contradict some little detail in however many years of other materials, well guess what? You are now back inside the box.
In rebooting the producers have succeeded in making a very exciting, accessible and popular film which (whether we die-hard fans like it or not) has re-invigorated this franchise. I think the real genius here is that they did so without negating or betraying any of the Trek we've come to love, lo these many decades. So we will get to see more Trek because Paramount can make money from movies and stuff. The Trek we get will different enough that there's new stories, but similar enough that things are familiar. And so I'm excited to see what they come up with. If Nemesis was where it was headed, I for one am VERY glad to see it take a different direction.
Except, fuck that the Enterprise is 700 meters long. Fuck that shit right out the airlock.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Supernova? Black holes?
My god, you're right. I've totally never heard of those scientific concepts ever before in my life. They definately weren't covered AT ALL in my Astrophysics lectures. And Supernovas definately don't extend for lightyears and destroy everything in their path - including planets. That's just totally ridiculous, and scientifically inaccurate.
Supernovas do actually do that. Sure, the implied pace of the thing was a little squiffy, but that might just be the editing: the star could have gone supernova years before Spock tried to stop it.
The idea of flying through a black hole and travelling through time is a genuine scientific theory - the idea is that a black hole might be the opening to a wormhole, the other end of which isn't necessarily at the same set of 4D coordinates. Stephen Hawking explains it pretty well in his book.
And yeah, Red Matter is a cheat. So is Transwarp Beaming; hell, beaming isn't real, or Warp for that matter. But its science fiction; and as sci-fi goes, it isn't all that big of one. There's a ton of stuff about the universe we don't actually know as yet. O'course its going to fill in the blanks.
I don't think that's cause to paint the movie as scientific bullshit; its certainly no worse than anything else the Trek franchise has churned out.
*shrug* I guess that's just how it looks from my particular perspective and background, though.
Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
Interesting note: on some concept art from James Clyne, linked to from TrekMovie.com, the Kelvin interiors are labelled as being the Iowa. I gather the name "Kelvin" is one that Abrams insisted on as it has some kind of significance to him. Now, putting aside the notion that they were obviously try to be a bit TOO cute in having Kirk born on (or near) the USS Iowa, rather than the Hawkeye-State Iowa, it would be a pretty neat name for the Kelvin's class. Iowa-class, almost like the WW2 battleships. It's certainly big enough!
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Born *on* Iowa? Reminds me of that infamous "USS Discovery" from TOS...
bX, you know, I was thinking the exact same thing. If you really have a good story that does not fit into canon, you should be free to abandon it (I mean canon, not the sory... ). The thing is just: *This* particular story could have been told within the established realm of canon. There wouldn't have been a story if it was not for plot-devicing your way out of canon. That's the sole reason for Nero's existence. And besides, while I was watching the movie, I found it hard for me to connect to the characters (and I wondered why Spock did). After all, if there are infinite universes, why care for any universe but your own? Trek taught us about that big reset button, and for me it is quite hard to adjust and suddenly care for "those people". Maybe that's where the origin-story failed; it did not tell an origin of anyone I know or care about. It is nothing more than a fun but ultimately pointless what-if-scenario.
(Maybe I should mention that this is one of the best movies I've seen in years. But in the end, it is a far better "movie" than it is a "Star Trek movie", and I was hoping for both.)
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mirror-Amasov: , you know, I was thinking the exact same thing. If you really have a good story that does not fit into canon, you should be free to abandon it (I mean canon, not the sory... ).
I disagree on this point. Then again, I'm a canonista so what would one expect but to disagree?
I never knew my feelings about canon until I read an interview with Frank Miller several years ago. He was of the above mindset - canon (well, I think he said continuity) can be ignored in the face of a good story.
I understand this thinking but it ultimately comes down to what parts of canon you choose to ignore and what parts you choose to accept. Let's say I've got a great story for TOS but at the end of it Chekov dies. Can I do that? Can I tell this story, kill Chekov off only to have him reappear again later with no explanation? Some people think so but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sure, maybe they're just minor background points. So what if Kirk was born/raised in Iowa or not? So what if Kirk ever spent time on Tarsus IV or not? In the grand scheme of things what does it matter? Probably not much.
But for those of us that live, eat and breathe this stuff constantly ripping out and reworking canon and continuity is akin to ripping out and re-weaving our favorite shirt over and over and over again.
Why should we get to pick and choose which bits of canon to include and which bits to exclude? And does that mean that next week we can go back and include and exclude different bits over again?
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic