Visuals vs dialogue

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Of course we don't "have to" do that. We may choose to treat it that way, but that is an entirely arbitrary choice and no inherently better or worse than, say, the approach of "I think the dialogue is right and the FX shots are wrong."

On the contrary - using the suspension of disbelief model, we maintain consistency, just as we would be able to were the events we observe real. By throwing out certain pieces of visual evidence because they're "FX errors" we loose all consistency - after all, where do we draw the line? The phaser beam in "Darmok"? TDiC? The phaser beam coming from the Defiant's bridge area? Everyone would have different ideas of what constituted an "FX error". By treating everything as if it were valid documentary footage we remove this subjectivity.

Well... no. It's pretty simple to me. Dialogue trumps visuals due to limitations on what can/could be shown. And obvious stuff is... obvious.

[Graham Kennedy]

Of course we don't "have to" do that. We may choose to treat it that way, but that is an entirely arbitrary choice and no inherently better or worse than, say, the approach of "I think the dialogue is right and the FX shots are wrong."

On the contrary - using the suspension of disbelief model, we maintain consistency, just as we would be able to were the events we observe real. By throwing out certain pieces of visual evidence because they're "FX errors" we loose all consistency - after all, where do we draw the line? The phaser beam in "Darmok"? TDiC? The phaser beam coming from the Defiant's bridge area? Everyone would have different ideas of what constituted an "FX error". By treating everything as if it were valid documentary footage we remove this subjectivity.

So what? Just because something is objective, why does that automatically make it better?

The one single most fundamental fact about Star Trek is that it is not in fact a documentary. It's a made up show, which does indeed represent different things and have different interpretations to different people. And so yes, people will indeed reach different conclusions based on how they interpret the evidence. Why is that such a bad thing? I see nothing inferior or threatening about the idea that you think TDIC doesn't show a massive planetary bombardment whilst I think it very clearly does.

[Captain Seafort]

So what? Just because something is objective, why does that automatically make it better?

Because it's scientific. There are enough variables as it is without introducing yet more.

The one single most fundamental fact about Star Trek is that it is not in fact a documentary. It's a made up show, which does indeed represent different things and have different interpretations to different people. And so yes, people will indeed reach different conclusions based on how they interpret the evidence. Why is that such a bad thing? I see nothing inferior or threatening about the idea that you think TDIC doesn't show a massive planetary bombardment whilst I think it very clearly does.

Different conclusions based on the evidence are all well and good, but how can any scientific analysis be made if everyone has different ideas of what consitutes evidence?

[Captain Seafort]

Well... no. It's pretty simple to me. Dialogue trumps visuals due to limitations on what can/could be shown.

On the contrary - visuals trump dialogue because people are failible and/or liars. Unless you believe the E-nil's firepower exceded 10^32 J.

And obvious stuff is... obvious.

Define "obvious".

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Well... no. It's pretty simple to me. Dialogue trumps visuals due to limitations on what can/could be shown.

On the contrary - visuals trump dialogue because people are failible and/or liars. Unless you believe the E-nil's firepower exceded 10^32 J.

And obvious stuff is... obvious.

Define "obvious".

Prove what, that it was an error that a phaer beam shot out of the torp launcher in Darmok? Okay... it's there and proven. That was an FX error. And no, dialogue trumps visuals. Because some things are difficult to be shown on the small screen and exceed their creator's visions.

"I want a big explosion!"

"Sorry, not enough money in the budget and time to animate. How's about a smaller one?"

"Okay... *Grumble*"

And... okay. Maybe it is 10^32 J. How the hell should I know? I'm an ICS associate, not a guy who can figure that stuff out.

And to be honest... I don't really care what the power output is. It varies to plot. It has always varied to plot. And it always will vary to plot.

[Captain Seafort]

Prove what, that it was an error that a phaer beam shot out of the torp launcher in Darmok? Okay... it's there and proven.

Simple solution; the E-D has a ring phaser array surrounding the forward torpedo launcher - we saw such weapons on DS9 after the refit.

And no, dialogue trumps visuals. Because some things are difficult to be shown on the small screen and exceed their creator's visions.

Tough. If we're discussing the capabilities of starships, "creator's vision" doesn't exist - what we see is what we get.

"I want a big explosion!"

"Sorry, not enough money in the budget and time to animate. How's about a smaller one?"

"Okay... *Grumble*"

As I've been saying, if you want to argue about the episodes as episodes, fair enough. If you want to argue about Romulan or Cardie firepower, you're no longer discussing it as entertainment, but as if it were real. As soon as you start talking about VFX errors, you're no longer talking about Romulans and Cardassians but about cinematic antagonists.

And to be honest... I don't really care what the power output is. It varies to plot. It has always varied to plot. And it always will vary to plot.

If that's your approach to Trek fair enough. It does, however, beg the question of why you're even involved in a technical discussion of the ships' abilities rather than just sticking to debates on the series.

[Graham Kennedy]

So what? Just because something is objective, why does that automatically make it better?

Because it's scientific. There are enough variables as it is without introducing yet more.

The scientific method is wonderful at determining objective truth within the world in which we live. But we aren't operating in the world in which we live here. There is no objective figure for the firepower of a GCS. There is no rule that says that what we see on screen is inherently more likely to be true than what people say on screen. These things are merely arbitrary conventions that some people have adopted so they can argue with one another.

Which is all fine and dandy, adopt whatever conventions you like. But other approaches are just as reasonable. I maintain that what the characters say and do is the basic driving force of the show. FX are secondary in my view, though I go with whatever seems to be the best interpretation on a case by case basis. If you don't want to do that that's fine, but you approach is no better or more "scientific" than mine.

And because we are talking about a fictional TV show, either approach will lead to absurdities if pushed too hard. As I said, if you claim what we see is documentary footage then you are left with explaining little details like why a camera crew was watching Picard escape from Sela's office in Unification Part 2, why the Enterprise was occasionally transparent in the original series, or why characters hair partings suddenly switched sides now and again, or why the level of liquid in a glass tends to leap up and down instantaneously at random intervals during a meal. Not to mention the fact that all events in the world of the future come with an orchestral accompaniment.

Different conclusions based on the evidence are all well and good, but how can any scientific analysis be made if everyone has different ideas of what consitutes evidence?

Science leads from conclusion to evidence. But in a fiction context it's absurd to suggest that science should dictate what evidence is good and what is bad, IMO.

[Graham Kennedy]

Simple solution; the E-D has a ring phaser array surrounding the forward torpedo launcher - we saw such weapons on DS9 after the refit.

No such ring was present, and the beam did not emerge from around the tube, it emerged from within it.

Tough. If we're discussing the capabilities of starships, "creator's vision" doesn't exist - what we see is what we get.

Your opinion. Other opinions vary.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Prove what, that it was an error that a phaer beam shot out of the torp launcher in Darmok? Okay... it's there and proven.

Simple solution; the E-D has a ring phaser array surrounding the forward torpedo launcher - we saw such weapons on DS9 after the refit.

And no, dialogue trumps visuals. Because some things are difficult to be shown on the small screen and exceed their creator's visions.

Tough. If we're discussing the capabilities of starships, "creator's vision" doesn't exist - what we see is what we get.

"I want a big explosion!"

"Sorry, not enough money in the budget and time to animate. How's about a smaller one?"

"Okay... *Grumble*"

As I've been saying, if you want to argue about the episodes as episodes, fair enough. If you want to argue about Romulan or Cardie firepower, you're no longer discussing it as entertainment, but as if it were real. As soon as you start talking about VFX errors, you're no longer talking about Romulans and Cardassians but about cinematic antagonists.

And to be honest... I don't really care what the power output is. It varies to plot. It has always varied to plot. And it always will vary to plot.

If that's your approach to Trek fair enough. It does, however, beg the question of why you're even involved in a technical discussion of the ships' abilities rather than just sticking to debates on the series.

There was no ring. It just shot out of the torp launcher. What we see and hear is what we get. Not one or the other. I can't argue just the episodes or separate OOU and IU. And I'm not arguing about technical discussions. I'm arguing abotu interpretations. I'm talking about... all of it.

[Mikey]

In the final analysis, FX errors, limitations, etc., may be the real behind-the-scenes reason for something; but if we're not going to use the standpoint of "it happened IU if it was shown" then we really can't discuss anything at all. How can we talk about what was presented on a show - fictional or not - if we can't agree that what was shown was really what was shown?

[Coalition]

If anyone wants to see what planet destruction from an orbital bombardment really looks like, try watching the ForeShadow's attack on Brunnis-2, from the Lexx series.

Lots of pieces flying up into space, even pieces from the opposite side of the planet are seen.

[Graham Kennedy]

In the final analysis, FX errors, limitations, etc., may be the real behind-the-scenes reason for something; but if we're not going to use the standpoint of "it happened IU if it was shown" then we really can't discuss anything at all. How can we talk about what was presented on a show - fictional or not - if we can't agree that what was shown was really what was shown?

It's perfectly simple and easy to do, and people do it all the time. You simply explore the different interpretations of the evidence and see which one best explains all the facts.

For me this is far better than being a slave to the FX, because that ties you in knots. For instance apart from the flubs so far mentioned, take The Die is Cast. Lovok wants the Obsidian order and Tal Shiar to go into a trap. So on the way, he deliberately tells lies to Garak and Tain. His lies exaggerate the expected effects of weapons by billions and billions of times. He has absolutely no reason whatsoever to tell this lie. It doesn't help his cause one little bit, because just destroying the Great Link is all either man wants; they could care less about vapourising most of the planet. But he lies anyway. If either man spots the, Lovok's entire plan falls apart on the spot. And since both men have long careers in intelligence work, it's entirely possible and even very likely that both would tumble to the lie.

So Lovok tells a lie that does him no good, and in fact is very likely to destroy his own plan. Really the only possible reason for it is that Lovok is in fact a drooling moron.

Then we get to the planet and the Romulan weapons officer reports the effects of the bombardment. And we have to assume that those effects are sensor fakes. Again, there's no real reason to fake such sensor returns. They are already in the trap, fooling them for another five or ten seconds does no good whatsoever. It's just done because... well, because.

Now to my mind, this is beyond unreasonable; it's simply stupid to think that this is actually what was happening in that episode. If this is the conclusion your method leads you to then your method is not one I can get behind. For me it is far, far more logical and sensible to take the dialogue at its face, and then either interpret the special effects to work with it or just ignore them.

And actually I think we can make a pretty reasonable case for the FX working in this episode anyway. Clearly the weapons do produce effects that span much of the globe :



Those weapons are having SOME effect which covers the required area. We need only speculate about what that effect may be. No lava/magma visible, but then we don't know that this planet has molten magama; it may be solid allt he way through. Trek weapons frequently vanish things without leaving much trace of glowing hot debris behind too, so that's not a problem. There's not a great noticeable gash out of the planet, but then how deep is the crust on this world? You could gouge out several miles and not notice it from that height. And then factor in that the atmosphere may have cloud cover that obscures what is going on beneath. And so on, and so on.

But in the end, whatever the FX say is secondary to my mind. You may differ, of course, and that's fine. I'm not saying you are wrong to analyse it the way you do. I do think you are wrong to insist that your way is the best or only way.

[Harley Filben]

But in the end, whatever the FX say is secondary to my mind. You may differ, of course, and that's fine. I'm not saying you are wrong to analyse it the way you do. I do think you are wrong to insist that your way is the best or only way.

I would say that the scientific method combined with suspension of disbelief is the only intellectually honest way. If one dismisses FX as simply plastic models on a string or matte paintings then one should also recognize the fact that there is no colonel Lovok but a human actor Leland Orser with makeup who simply recited the lines he read in the script which was written by people who are just as likely to make mistakes as the FX crew. There is no Romulan sensor officer and no sensors but merely another actor staring at a wooden box with lights and strange doodles that are supposed to represent Romulan writing.
Either we pretend it's real or we acknowledge it's a TV series with FX crew, producers, writers, director, actors, makeup artists, camera crews etc. Singling out the FX crew is intellectually dishonest; simple as that.

[Mikey]

Well said, Mr. Filben. My point is, and has been, that if we constantly force ourselves to be aware that the FX are "only" FX, then we lose the whole point of escapism and immersion in the show. Yes, there are occasions when we MUST regard an FX error or limitation as such, and not just in 'Trek - when Buster Crabbe's rocket clearly shows the guy wire or some such, of course there is no way to explain it AND maintain SoD.

The exampel we've been using in "TDiC" is an example of a subset, and one that has produced valid points on either side of the debate: do visuals trump dialogue, or vice verse? In general, despite what I've mentioned earlier, I'd much rather assume the latter than be forced to accept the fact that professional Starfleet officers don't know the most basic facts of their own starship, for example. In this specific case, however, we have a situation in which we know that misinformation has been given, and there is no reason to assume that such misinformation isn't still being given. Further, as Seafort mentioned in passing eralier, dialogue is canon only inasmuch as it "canonically" represents what a character believes or claims, not actual fact.

I guess the gist is that even this point is a matter of interpretation. We must choos personally and for each instance separately whether we take visual evidence over spoken, or vice verse. I will still maintain, however, that for me chalking inconsistency up to an OOU reason like FX limitations interferes with the SoD and immersion which is it what makes a show entertaining.

[Graham Kennedy]

But in the end, whatever the FX say is secondary to my mind. You may differ, of course, and that's fine. I'm not saying you are wrong to analyse it the way you do. I do think you are wrong to insist that your way is the best or only way.

I would say that the scientific method combined with suspension of disbelief is the only intellectually honest way.

I think that's pretty ridiculous. If anything, declaring FX Uber alles is the more dishonest route.

If one dismisses FX as simply plastic models on a string or matte paintings then one should also recognize the fact that there is no colonel Lovok but a human actor Leland Orser with makeup who simply recited the lines he read in the script which was written by people who are just as likely to make mistakes as the FX crew.

Yes, absolutely we should do that. And hence we can explain little issues like people flubbing their lines sometimes, or why Pike's Exec looked identical to Christine Chapel, or why Data once claimed he graduated in the class of 78 when other dates contradict this.

If you want to argue that case that Lovok and the Romulan officer flubbed their lines in TDIC, or the writers messed up, then by all means argue it. That's a perfectly reasonable course to take.

Either we pretend it's real or we acknowledge it's a TV series with FX crew, producers, writers, director, actors, makeup artists, camera crews etc. Singling out the FX crew is intellectually dishonest; simple as that.

If we want to really be honest, then assuming it is real is assuming a lie. Treating FX as a TV show and characters as real is a half lie. The route I suggested is the honest one.