Visuals vs dialogue

[m52nickerson]

....and then we can get into another reason why pure suspension of disbelief is flawed, the MATH. It is writers that are coming up with numbers that are thrown out in dialogue on the shows. They are not doing the math to make sure the numbers make sense. Not to mention that FX people aren't doing the MATH themselves. All they know is ship A shoots ship B and ship B explodes.

[Sionnach Glic]

You know, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there's a way to explain the TDiC situation without throwing out either dialogue or visuals.
The visuals show some serious damage to the surface of the planet.
Someone comments that the surface is 30% destroyed.

Now, why can't this just mean that 30% of all the surface has been destroyed? It doesn't necessarily have to mean that crust itself was destroyed, just whatever may be on the surface. Not only does this fit the situation perfectly, but it doesn't contradict any other scenes of Romulan firepower that we've seen before. The guy who reported the figure could just mean "we've blasted 30% of the surface with our guns, and destroyed everything there". Easy.

[m52nickerson]

Rochey, I would agree that is a reasonable explaination.

[Graham Kennedy]

....and then we can get into another reason why pure suspension of disbelief is flawed, the MATH. It is writers that are coming up with numbers that are thrown out in dialogue on the shows. They are not doing the math to make sure the numbers make sense. Not to mention that FX people aren't doing the MATH themselves. All they know is ship A shoots ship B and ship B explodes.

There might even be a point to FX dependence if the FX people were careful about making things look realistic. But they aren't. FX are mostly intended to look cool, and whilst that may include realism it often doesn't. For instance I've seen FX people talk about making ships bigger purely to make them look threatening, or smaller purely to make them look overmatched.

Dialogue and plots do this too of course - witness the ships that travel at the Speed of Plot, the appearance and mysterious vanishing of all sorts of technology items, etc. Whilst my own leaning is towards dialogue as the truest reflection of the creator's intention, I have no difficulty putting my fingers in my ears and pretending that Data never really did use contractions, any more than I have a problem pretending that O'Brien really always did wear his NCO pips.

Does that mean we can't have verbal battles with objective outcomes? Sure. Why is that such a bad thing?

[Mikey]

I, personally, never said it was a bad thing of itself. This forum would be a lot more boring, though, if every discussion ran for two posts and ended with some reason why a discussion was impossible because of no common platform between the debaters.

[m52nickerson]

I, personally, never said it was a bad thing of itself. This forum would be a lot more boring, though, if every discussion ran for two posts and ended with some reason why a discussion was impossible because of no common platform between the debaters.

No one is saying that every instance of FX is going to be thrown out. Just the ones that a great majority of people know that it was a FX mistake, and did not change anything as far as the story.

[Graham Kennedy]

Personally I think any absolutely inflexible rule about what to accept will lead to problems like those I've described. Star Trek is an imperfect product, if we are utterly literal and rigid in how we interpret it then we're going to land in trouble. I just go with whatever seems to be the best explanation of what's on screen. Can Data use contractions? No he can't, regardless of the fact that he often has. Those things didn't happen in my own interpretation of TNG. Did a phaser beam come out of the torpedo tube? Of course not.

Hey, here's a thought. If FX is so important, what do you do when they go back and change the effects sequences like in the reimagined TOS? Pretend it was always that way?

I'm thinking of Obsession. The dialogue supports a massive detonation from a small quantity of antimatter, but the FX doesn't really support this. But in the reworked TOS, we see the planet after and there's a crater on it that's thousands of miles across.

[Harley Filben]

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

You missed my point. If we acknowledge that what we're seeing is FX than any and all discussion about firepower, speed or resilience of starships is meaningless since they are not starships but plastic toys. Either we pretend it's real or we don't. If we do then there is no FX only live footage. If we don't then there is no Captain Picard and Garak but only Patrick Stewart and Andrew Robinson.

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.

If you do that then it's no longer real. Again either we explain it through characters being mistaken in which case we can continue our discussion about the speed of starships or firepower or we explain it through actor error or script error in which case our starships turn into plastic toys and any further discussion about their capabilities is meaningless.

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.

No it isn't since you are not being consistent. The ships are plastic toys but Picard is really Captain Picard of the starship Enterprise.

There might even be a point to FX dependence if the FX people were careful about making things look realistic. But they aren't. FX are mostly intended to look cool, and whilst that may include realism it often doesn't. For instance I've seen FX people talk about making ships bigger purely to make them look threatening, or smaller purely to make them look overmatched.

Dialogue and plots do this too of course - witness the ships that travel at the Speed of Plot, the appearance and mysterious vanishing of all sorts of technology items, etc. Whilst my own leaning is towards dialogue as the truest reflection of the creator's intention, I have no difficulty putting my fingers in my ears and pretending that Data never really did use contractions, any more than I have a problem pretending that O'Brien really always did wear his NCO pips.

Does that mean we can't have verbal battles with objective outcomes? Sure. Why is that such a bad thing?

FX people actually have a far better record of keeping things consistent than writers if not for the simple fact that every other episode is written by a different writer. Also saying that FX is just something "to look cool" is a gross misinterpretation. Star Trek is not a radio drama. The audience expects visual information and I wonder what the ratings would be if no battle was ever shown on screen in DS9 or Voyager.
Furthermore I could easily say that writers simply drop terrawats, lightyears, mantle or crust into their scripts to "sound cool" without even bothering to perform the slightest math check. Quite frankly I think it's far more likely that FX guys will have a greater technical background than your usual writer.
By the way do you think that all FX battle scenes are completely under control of the FX crew and that director has nothing to say about it? If we are talking about "creator's intention" than that would be the director.

[Captain Seafort]

Can Data use contractions? No he can't, regardless of the fact that he often has. Those things didn't happen in my own interpretation of TNG.

Tough - in this case it's the dialogue that disagrees with you. Data may have claimed several times that he's unable to use contractions, but this is refuted by the fact that he has. Conclusion; he's programmed to think that he can't, but can (subconciously, obviously). Why on Earth Soong would add such convoluted programming is anyone's guess. Alternatively, Data's simply wrong, or forgot - he's not prefect.

Did a phaser beam come out of the torpedo tube? Of course not.

Like it or not, it did.

Hey, here's a thought. If FX is so important, what do you do when they go back and change the effects sequences like in the reimagined TOS? Pretend it was always that way?

Like it or not, Greedo is a really crap shot.

I'm thinking of Obsession. The dialogue supports a massive detonation from a small quantity of antimatter, but the FX doesn't really support this. But in the reworked TOS, we see the planet after and there's a crater on it that's thousands of miles across.

IIRC, we never saw any visuals in the original. We did, however, see the Enterprise rocked heavily, despite being in high orbit. Something obviously hit it,

[m52nickerson]

Tough - in this case it's the dialogue that disagrees with you. Data may have claimed several times that he's unable to use contractions, but this is refuted by the fact that he has. Conclusion; he's programmed to think that he can't, but can (subconciously, obviously). Why on Earth Soong would add such convoluted programming is anyone's guess. Alternatively, Data's simply wrong, or forgot - he's not prefect.

So it is better to make up that fact Data is programed to think he can't use contractions then to chalk it up to bad scripts? No, unless you enjoy and taking away from the stories.

Like it or not, it did.

Seeing that most understand that it was a FX error, heel even the studio came out and said it, it should be judged as such.

Like it or not, Greedo is a really crap shot.

Like it or not that re-working is supported by the Creator and not a mistake. Which goes back to intent. Was it the intent of the creators of TNG to have a phaser come from the torpedo tube, no.

[m52nickerson]

If you do that then it's no longer real. Again either we explain it through characters being mistaken in which case we can continue our discussion about the speed of starships or firepower or we explain it through actor error or script error in which case our starships turn into plastic toys and any further discussion about their capabilities is meaningless.

Only meaningless to you or others that share your view.

No it isn't since you are not being consistent. The ships are plastic toys but Picard is really Captain Picard of the starship Enterprise.

It is called imagination. Remember the shows are ment to be entertaining, that is it.

FX people actually have a far better record of keeping things consistent than writers if not for the simple fact that every other episode is written by a different writer. Also saying that FX is just something "to look cool" is a gross misinterpretation.

Have you watched the series?

Star Trek is not a radio drama. The audience expects visual information and I wonder what the ratings would be if no battle was ever shown on screen in DS9 or Voyager.

Audiences expect to be entertained, not presented with real life accuracy.

Furthermore I could easily say that writers simply drop terrawats, lightyears, mantle or crust into their scripts to "sound cool" without even bothering to perform the slightest math check. Quite frankly I think it's far more likely that FX guys will have a greater technical background than your usual writer.

OK, but they are the FX and are not writing the stories. Technical background also does not protect them from a director telling them to make something bigger them the FX guy knows it is.

By the way do you think that all FX battle scenes are completely under control of the FX crew and that director has nothing to say about it? If we are talking about "creator's intention" than that would be the director.

Right, so as good as the FX people may make it a director can muck it up just the same. So we have to look at intent.

[Captain Seafort]

So it is better to make up that fact Data is programed to think he can't use contractions then to chalk it up to bad scripts?

As has been explained repeatedly, there are two ways of analysing Trek. One is the in-universe model, whereby you treat everything you see as documentary footage. The other is the out-of-universe model, whereby you treat everything you see as the product of scriptwriters, actors and VFX people. If you want to treat Brent Spiner using contractions during filming as the product of poor reseach by the scriptwriters, or a slip-up by Spiner, I have no problem with that, so long as you don't try and use it to analyse Data's abilities.

Seeing that most understand that it was a FX error, heel even the studio came out and said it, it should be judged as such.

See above.

Like it or not that re-working is supported by the Creator and not a mistake. Which goes back to intent. Was it the intent of the creators of TNG to have a phaser come from the torpedo tube, no.

See above.

[m52nickerson]

As has been explained repeatedly, there are two ways of analysing Trek. One is the in-universe model, whereby you treat everything you see as documentary footage. The other is the out-of-universe model, whereby you treat everything you see as the product of scriptwriters, actors and VFX people. If you want to treat Brent Spiner using contractions during filming as the product of poor reseach by the scriptwriters, or a slip-up by Spiner, I have no problem with that, so long as you don't try and use it to analyse Data's abilities.

Since I have yet to see official rules on how one can analyze Star Trek, I in fact can use that to analyze Data's abilities. In other words, Does Data use contractions, No. Did the Enterprise fire a phaser from its torpedo tube, No.

By treating everything a documentary footage one only mucks up what is the Trek Universe. That is why it is a far inferior way of looking at things.

[Graham Kennedy]

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

You missed my point. If we acknowledge that what we're seeing is FX than any and all discussion about firepower, speed or resilience of starships is meaningless since they are not starships but plastic toys. Either we pretend it's real or we don't. If we do then there is no FX only live footage. If we don't then there is no Captain Picard and Garak but only Patrick Stewart and Andrew Robinson.

It's mere semantics. When we talk of "Picard did this", we really mean "The fictional character of Picard as depicted by Patrick Stewart did this", but it's too wordy to bother saying it. Just as when we say "The GCS can do 5,000 c" what we really mean is "The fictional Starship which features in TNG and is depicted with a plastic model blah blah blah." But nobody talks like that. You may as well complain that we don't talk about "The conglomeration of cells which forms Graham Kennedy" rather than just calling me Graham.

Of course there's no ship, of course there's no Picard, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it and speaking as if it were real doesn't mean we think it is or have to act as though it is.

If you do that then it's no longer real. Again either we explain it through characters being mistaken in which case we can continue our discussion about the speed of starships or firepower or we explain it through actor error or script error in which case our starships turn into plastic toys and any further discussion about their capabilities is meaningless.

It was never real, and isn't no matter what terms we discuss it in. You are saying it has to be an all or nothing approach; that we either have to act as though it's real and talk as if it's a documentary, or act as though it's not and not talk about it at all. Either approach can be taken, but they aren't the only approaches! We can very easily just treat it like a TV show with the inherent inaccuracies of that, and still refer to "Picard" and the speed of the ship.

No it isn't since you are not being consistent. The ships are plastic toys but Picard is really Captain Picard of the starship Enterprise.

Lol, if you like you can take it as read that I am mentally putting "the plastic model of..." every time I say "the Enterprise."

It doesn't affect my reading of the show one iota.

FX people actually have a far better record of keeping things consistent than writers

Oh, that very much depends on what spin you want to put on the effects. For instance I know people who prefer to believe that ships do not in fact fight at close range, because they never did in TOS. That alone would render inaccurate just about every battle sequence we have seen since TOS.

Then there's the fact that weapons fire emerges from pretty much random points on the ship throughout TOS, which rules all that out too. And the infamous "holes or covers" issue on re the back of the nacelles of the E-nil.

I could go on, but

if not for the simple fact that every other episode is written by a different writer. Also saying that FX is just something "to look cool" is a gross misinterpretation. Star Trek is not a radio drama. The audience expects visual information and I wonder what the ratings would be if no battle was ever shown on screen in DS9 or Voyager.

The audience expects it, but they don't generally expect realism in it. They expect coolness from it. So we have ships that fight at point blank range regardless of weapon ranges, ships that bank to turn, sound effects in space, energy weapons that appear as bright lines, yadda yadda yadda.

Furthermore I could easily say that writers simply drop terrawats, lightyears, mantle or crust into their scripts to "sound cool" without even bothering to perform the slightest math check.

They often do, I suspect. Certainly they mess up power and energy so often that they clearly don't know (or care) about the difference.

Quite frankly I think it's far more likely that FX guys will have a greater technical background than your usual writer.

Yes, quite probably. But they also openly state that they bend the expected reality to meet audience expectations.

[Captain Seafort]

Since I have yet to see official rules on how one can analyze Star Trek

Who said anything about "official". I'm merely talking about what's logical. Here's a more detailed explanation for you.

I in fact can use that to analyze Data's abilities.

No, you can't. You can use it to analyse Brent Spiner's acting, but you can't use it to analyse Data.

By treating everything a documentary footage one only mucks up what is the Trek Universe.

So, treating everything the same, instead of throwing stuff out depending on your preconceived notions of what should be happening "mucks up what is the Trek Universe" does it?