|
I dunno, I believe it in generations. Enterprise D gets clowned on hardcore by almost everyone in that show except the "lol lasers" aliens and the Pakled. In order for any given episode with a space encounter to ratchet up tension they have almost any ship capable of destroying the Enterprise.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I dunno, I believe it in generations. Enterprise D gets clowned on hardcore by almost everyone in that show except the "lol lasers" aliens and the Pakled. In order for any given episode with a space encounter to ratchet up tension they have almost any ship capable of destroying the Enterprise. Yeah, even in Darmok it nearly gets one-shotted into oblivion. "The Enterprise is comparatively weak and there's a lot of unknown crap out there ready and willing to push our poo poo in" has been a recurring theme of Trek since the original series. LesterGroans posted:That makes a lot of sense. Explains why Snipes's storyline seems like a watered down Kimble and a bit of an afterthought. Also interesting how they incorporated the original idea with RDJ's character. The original idea just sounded so stupid. Gerard is framed, so he goes to ... Richard Kimble for help? Like, what the hell? As I recall, production was tough, too, because RDJ was still a hot mess at the time and constantly having to leave the set to meet with his probation officer. Edit: I can just imagine the dialogue written solely to be in a trailer. Kimble: What makes you think I can help you? Gerard: You beat me. Maybe you can beat them. Timby fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
But then it's being literally cut into by the Borg and doesn't immediately blow up. It's almost as if the TNG writers were inconsistent with how much their Enterprise could put up with. See also: The Ent-D taking quite a beating in Yesterday's Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:On the other hand, I don't really need to watch 50 or 75 films before I get attached to characters. Lots of movies are able to make you feel attachment, friendship, loss, etc. over the course of an hour and a half. But, like I said, Beyond tried to play it both ways. They wanted to go for the big emotional gut punch of The Enterprise being destroyed without earning that emotional investment. By that point in the rebooted series, we haven't really been given a reason to care about the Enterprise in and of itself other than franchise nostalgia. Compare that to, say, if they had destroyed the Millenium Falcon in Return of the Jedi. We'd care, because the effort had been put in. The Falcon was practically a character itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:But, like I said, Beyond tried to play it both ways. They wanted to go for the big emotional gut punch of The Enterprise being destroyed without earning that emotional investment. By that point in the rebooted series, we haven't really been given a reason to care about the Enterprise in and of itself other than franchise nostalgia. Compare that to, say, if they had destroyed the Millenium Falcon in Return of the Jedi. We'd care, because the effort had been put in. The Falcon was practically a character itself. Also, they destroy the Enterprise for the standard "Look how powerful this villain is!" scene. Rather than making its destruction an emotional climax like the death of an Enterprise traditionally has been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:But, like I said, Beyond tried to play it both ways. They wanted to go for the big emotional gut punch of The Enterprise being destroyed without earning that emotional investment. By that point in the rebooted series, we haven't really been given a reason to care about the Enterprise in and of itself other than franchise nostalgia. I think we have to agree to disagree, because the destruction of the Enterprise in Beyond gets me right in the feels every single time, in part because of some of the luxurious starship porn in all three of the reboot movies. That's a beautiful goddamn ship and to see it ripped to shreds like it's made of Kleenex... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
I don't think the ship's destruction in Beyond is supposed to have the same gut punch as, say, its destruction in III. In Beyond it's not about losing a ship that's beloved by the audience, it's about Kirk (who is already doubting his legacy, his career, and his heritage) losing the last comfortable thing in his life. He can talk all he wants about leaving Starfleet and becoming a space-governor, but with his command destroyed he's forced into a choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Edit: Yeah, what that guy said /\/\ I think the point of the scene is more how the destruction of the ship impacts Kirk, which explains why it comes a lot earlier than it traditionally has. It's mostly there to feed into his "bored of space travel" story. I think it works, and it helps that the actual attack/destruction is really well done. Speaking if Kirk's being bored on the five year mission, I really liked the theory someone had in the Trek thread in CineD that he was really just annoyed that he couldn't sleep with crew members anymore since he was the Captain now and it was making him stir crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I think the point of the scene is more how the destruction of the ship impacts Kirk, which explains why it comes a lot earlier than it traditionally has. It's mostly there to feed into his "bored of space travel" story. I think it works, and it helps that the actual attack/destruction is really well done. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't work for me. But that's because the "bored of space travel" story doesn't work for me. But I definitely don't think it's going for the same thing as previous instances of destroying the Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:I don't think the ship's destruction in Beyond is supposed to have the same gut punch as, say, its destruction in III. In Beyond it's not about losing a ship that's beloved by the audience, it's about Kirk (who is already doubting his legacy, his career, and his heritage) losing the last comfortable thing in his life. He can talk all he wants about leaving Starfleet and becoming a space-governor, but with his command destroyed he's forced into a choice. Then this falls into the other criticism of Beyond: it fails to establish Kirk's fading interest in Starfleet, given what we've seen of his character in the last two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah. I mean, it doesn't work for me. But that's because the "bored of space travel" story doesn't work for me. But I definitely don't think it's going for the same thing as previous instances of destroying the Enterprise. I thought it was fine, if unnecessary. Especially since they had Spock kinda going through a similar thing. But, again, if you look at it like him just being grumpy because Chekov fucks and he can't then it works a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:But, again, if you look at it like him just being grumpy because Chekov fucks and he can't then it works a lot better. I mean, sure, this could be entertaining if it was anywhere to be found in the movie. Or am I forgetting something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I mean, sure, this could be entertaining if it was anywhere to be found in the movie. Or am I forgetting something? No, it isn't, I'm just joking. Chekov does sort of take over Kirk's young lothario role, and I think Beyond is the only of the the films that doesn't have Kirk fooling around with anyone. Really that's just all about Kirk settling into being the Captain though, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Just John Kerry. But not Mike Pence, horses are much easier to gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
I'm too lazy to do other than skim, but it looks like the Enterprise-D's destruction was a confluence of multiple things behind the scenes: the effects were getting good enough to do purely digital models, and hauling out the big gently caress-off EntD model and making it pretty for film was just expensive enough that it was more feasible to just steal shots from the show itself. In that context, it totally makes sense to blow up the D and move on to a new film-appropriate Enterprise. As for Enterprises needing to be "earned" before you feel bad about their destruction, that's nonsense. It's a capital-T capital-E The Enterprise, seeing one blown up is inherently a Big Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:hauling out the big gently caress-off EntD model and making it pretty for film was just expensive enough that it was more feasible to just steal shots from the show itself. There are literally two re-used shots of the Enterprise-D from the series, and they last for a combined total of about ten seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Timby posted:There are literally two re-used shots of the Enterprise-D from the series, and they last for a combined total of about ten seconds. It's been forever and a day since I've watched Generations, I'm just going off MA: quote:Unpacking the original six-foot model they built for "Encounter at Farpoint" in 1987, the ILM effects team completely overhauled the Enterprise-D. In order to stand up to high-resolution film cameras and a big screen project, the starship was repainted and redetailed, receiving a new interior lighting scheme. Once again resulting from budgetary cuts, several stock footage shots of the Enterprise-D were interspersed with new model photography and CG imagery, specifically during the first captain's log segment and the start of the saucer separation sequence;
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
They should have gone with what was supposedly the original plan for Generations: the Romulans were the villains, and the Enterprise-D would have gone out in the much-teased knock em down drag em out head-on battle with a D'Deridex warbird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
And instead of doing that, they ponied up the money for Shatner and his horse. Edit: and still didn't have enough money and had to blatantly reuse an iconic shot from the last movie. Thwomp fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Shatner should have died on the bridge of a ship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Shatner should have died on the bridge of a ship. He died on a bridge, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Also, they destroy the Enterprise for the standard "Look how powerful this villain is!" scene. Rather than making its destruction an emotional climax like the death of an Enterprise traditionally has been. The ship truly is the Worf of Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The ship truly is the Worf of Star Trek. "Captain, no one in this sector possesses Replicator technology, and the Space Bloods stole their sick rides from Space Mormons so they don't really know how those ships completely work" 'Excellent, fire a warning--' "Oh god their energy weapon just took out navigation and shields are down to 25% we need to get the gently caress out of here fire a photon spread and empty the shuttlebays!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Honestly if you look at the franchise history the Enterprise gets clowned on a LOT. That's because Star Trek is basically tall ships IN SPACE, and tall ships always limped away heavily damaged in a equal or nearly equal fight, simply because offense was so much better than defense - wood, which also splintered and maimed killed a lot of people this way -, being a slow moving target, that was very slow to manoeuvrer (the actions you see on screen inside of seconds in movies often took dozens of minutes or even hours in reality) and the ships made out of wood and canvas were of course comparably fragile. However, being made out of wood they were also comparably easy to repair again. Translating this to space combat makes it seem quite odd, even with magic like shields added. Decius fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Decius posted:That's because Star Trek is basically tall ships IN SPACE, and tall ships always limped away heavily damaged in a equal or nearly equal fight, simply because offense was so much better than defense - wood, which also splintered and maimed killed a lot of people this way -, being a slow moving target, that was very slow to manoeuvrer (the actions you see on screen inside of seconds in movies often took dozens of minutes or even hours in reality) and the ships made out of wood and canvas were of course comparably fragile. However, being made out of wood they were also comparably easy to repair again. Translating this to space combat makes it seem quite odd, even with magic like shields added. Well, even in WW1 and 2, offence substantially outpaced defence. It would make sense if space battles, where the energies involved are greater and the environment even less forgiving, were similarly impossible to win cleanly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Decius posted:That's because Star Trek is basically tall ships IN SPACE, and tall ships always limped away heavily damaged in a equal or nearly equal fight, simply because offense was so much better than defense - wood, which also splintered and maimed killed a lot of people this way -, being a slow moving target, that was very slow to manoeuvrer (the actions you see on screen inside of seconds in movies often took dozens of minutes or even hours in reality) and the ships made out of wood and canvas were of course comparably fragile. However, being made out of wood they were also comparably easy to repair again. Translating this to space combat makes it seem quite odd, even with magic like shields added. Also, the Enterprise has never been a warship. Every version of the Enterprise on screen to date has been designed as a ship of exploration and research, not designed for frontline combat. Voyager, too, which was explicitly designed as a science vessel. If you want Federation warships, look at the Defiant. Small, fast, cheap, minimal possible expenditure on things like crew quarters (captain has a small cabin, everyone else is in bunks), and armed to the teeth. Traditionally, the ships that kick the Enterprise's rear end are purpose-built warships like birds of prey (killers of the -A and -D) or warbirds (killers of the -C).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Also, the Enterprise has never been a warship.  Actually the TOS Enterprise was classed as a heavy cruiser, which is definitely a warship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
Not the way the Federation treats ships in Star Trek. Kirk says more than once that the Enterprise is prepared for battle but that isn't the ship's primary purpose. The Galaxy class (the -D) are referred to as dreadnoughts a couple of times, but combat isn't what the ships are designed for and Starfleet officers usually get annoyed when non-Federation people refer to Starfleet ships with military terminology like destroyers and battlecruisers. There's some talk about in DS9 that the Federation designs ships to be modular. It's mentioned a few times in the lead-in to the Dominion War that Starfleet is recalling much of the fleet and refitting ships for combat rather than their normal tasks. The Enterprise being a warship defeats the entire theme and aims of the villain in Beyond, for one. Starfleet's whole thing is that they've moved beyond being a military organization crewing warships and that Starfleet ships are built for exploration and scientific research and humanitarian aid. They go armed, of course, because it's a dangerous galaxy, but only in times of crisis does Starfleet evacuate the civilians from their ships, replace the science labs with shield generators, and exchange the data collection probes for more photon torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Yup, you see this reflected plenty of times throughout the different series too where the Federation's military might doesn't come from having a fleet of powerful warships but from having the most adaptable stuff and crews because of how flexible their ships are. Like there certainly are some Federation ships outfitted to kickass first and foremost based on their mission but those are atypical of the ones that are the actual focus of any of the major stories in the franchise. Like the Defiance in DS9 being built from the ground up to be an agile battleship was seen as a huge deal and major change in priorities for Starfleet in DS9. This gets a bit wonky in the movies because the movies tend to play up the strong naval tradition of Starfleet and such so superficially you'd think otherwise (and even since TOS the ships do technically have naval warfare designations like "destroyer," "dreadnought," etc.) but even in those movies you never see a Federation ship win a fight because it's the most powerful or prepared for combat because despite the ever present group of evil Starfleet admirals that just isn't what the ships were built for. Some of that is also budgetary though. A lot of the battles in the TV shows look the way they do because you just hit the budgetary brick wall of having to get these models/extra digital//optical elements together fast so you get,* again, sort of typical on a flat plane kind of battles. If you look at Babylon 5 as an example, since they went all CG they were able to have their battles be much more three dimensional and have more complexity to them just from being able to move the "camera" however they want and have ships come at each other at various angles. There's nothing there on par with like the opening space battle in Revenge of the Sith but you can see a similar principle. *For the movies when a ship explodes, they'd suspend the ship sideways and film it from below, so that thanks to gravity the sparks/etc. would fall down towards the camera, but in the finished product you'd get the impression of something exploding in a weightless environment instead of all of the debris/etc. falling "down." I love that. 
Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:He died on a bridge, at least. This deserves more appreciation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:This deserves more appreciation. "Bridge on the Captain" is one of the greatest jokes in the history of Star Trek, and it's a shame that Moore and Braga continue to get pilloried for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Timby posted:"Bridge on the Captain" is one of the greatest jokes in the history of Star Trek, and it's a shame that Moore and Braga continue to get pilloried for it. I have absolutely no problem with Kirk's death in Generations. He got to "die" while saving a whole starship, then he got to really die "on a bridge" after getting in a fistfight on a rocky planet. It's a very Kirk death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I have absolutely no problem with Kirk's death in Generations. He got to "die" while saving a whole starship, then he got to really die "on a bridge" after getting in a fistfight on a rocky planet. It's a very Kirk death. It's a lot better than getting shot in the back, as he did before the re-shoots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Flatliners reboot trailer, for that sweet Flatliners nostalgia crowd $$$ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDV0CUzG0k
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Is there some sort of Star Trek megathread you all could take this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Flatliners reboot trailer, for that sweet Flatliners nostalgia crowd $$$ Was anyone really yearning for a sequel to an incredibly mediocre, barely remembered 27-year-old movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Timby posted:Was anyone really yearning for a sequel to an incredibly mediocre, barely remembered 27-year-old movie? Me god-dammit. Not really tho I did like the original a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
If you're going to make a movie about Kiefer Sutherland being a doctor who almost dies, make Dark City 2, drat it
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I have absolutely no problem with Kirk's death in Generations. He got to "die" while saving a whole starship, then he got to really die "on a bridge" after getting in a fistfight on a rocky planet. It's a very Kirk death. Not just any starship, the starship containing the entire TNG crew minus Picard, plus the planet's indigenous population. It's a meaningful death, it's just presented poorly in the film. The shot of the bridge tumbling end over end with a Shatner dummy strapped to it is awful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Not just any starship, the starship containing the entire TNG crew minus Picard, plus the planet's indigenous population. He was saying Kirk "died" saving the Enterprise-B.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 19:00
|
|