Ali-Sama 5 Posted June 2, 2012 consider this. Two movies, set in the same era. Lets say 1920's with al capone and other mob characters. one is made in the 1960's one now. Person does a vs. x's portrayal of al vs the modern portrayal of al Another guy notes that in the original movie when they shot people, they simply fell over and died, In the new movie you see nice entry hole, impact effects, and exit woulds which cause body parts to be ripped off. You see much more brutal dammage from the guns. So the new movie wins. Why? the visuals show more destruction to people and the back ground. walls get bullet holes, and are torn(ala matrix) etc. the old movie had very little blood. no evidence of penetration of body beyond the initial wound leading to death and that is shown with a simple blood stain. now the catch? both are using the same weapons and same ammo. what do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scvn2812 504 Posted June 2, 2012 I really don't understand this. I think you'd get a more robust response if you came right out and asked whatever it is you're trying to ask. Some possible topics I'm getting from this: Reality vs the screen: if something impossible happens on screen, must we rationalize it? TOS vs Star Trek 09, which is the "real" Trek now TOS vs. TOS HD: do the new fx for the Bluray release trump the old ones Star Wars vs Special Editions: does every time Lucas tweaks the films is canon changed? I think the scenario you've given is probably closest to the Trek reboot. To which my answer is that we treat them as separate universes. Gangster movie 1960 is its own unique thing and so is the new one. Now if a sequel to one or the other had dramatically different firepower then we have to start wondering what to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ali-Sama 5 Posted June 2, 2012 I really don't understand this. I think you'd get a more robust response if you came right out and asked whatever it is you're trying to ask. Some possible topics I'm getting from this: Reality vs the screen: if something impossible happens on screen, must we rationalize it? Impossible for us? Or impossible for them? Most things are highly improbable not impossible. It is highly improbable that your body suddenly becomes pure antimatter, causing a massive explosion and killing everyone within the blast range. It is not impossible, but the chances of it happening are so low it may as well be. TOS vs Star Trek 09, which is the "real" Trek now Both are relevant to the topic at hand. TOS vs. TOS HD: do the new fx for the Bluray release trump the old ones They fixed a bit. There are more ships now. The dammage is better portrayed but anything too dramatic would not only cause massive complaints from fanboys but would also harm the story narrative. Star Wars vs Special Editions: does every time Lucas tweaks the films is canon changed? yes. that is his policy. I think the scenario you've given is probably closest to the Trek reboot. To which my answer is that we treat them as separate universes. Gangster movie 1960 is its own unique thing and so is the new one. Now if a sequel to one or the other had dramatically different firepower then we have to start wondering what to do. Not really no. They where incapable of properly showing the wounds in the first one. The visuals don't show it but the dialogue does argument in which they said the dialogue must be wrong. The weapons do damage, the damage portrayed is limited by the creators budget, his intended audience, and the technical limitations of the day. The films are not scientifically accurate documentaries. If the films accurately portrayed battles with proper ranges, you would rarely see most ships in the same frame. The fights would be really boring and the movie would flop. This is true with star wars, to star trek to b5 etc. These are visual propaganda films not documentaries of actual events. A cg error should not take a weapon which could not even harm a starfury and make it on on par with the sharlin neutron beam. which reminded me. I did research. The sharlin's top speed is .2c which is very respectable, but slow when you compare it to other shows. A gundam ship for instance has nice firepower, but it can in no way or form get to .2 c. The uc era from victory and on probably could, the ones before it could not. The victory can accelerate to very high speeds. The one year war ships(ironically the one year war takes place 2 years after earth met the centauri), in uc gundam, their beam/particle weapons, which are called mega particle weapons. Are rated at 50tj a blast(they get more powerful as the years go on, they also had prototype plasmoid rail gun which shot out 500 tj. It not only one shot destroyed a 2-300 mete ship, it cored it and the fire continued, there are instances in gundam canon of firing through mountains and even space habitats). They had fleets of 1000's of ships all capable of constant bombardment with that. Their M physics rendered most if not all em based detection useless, also any not protected electronics will fry, as if being hit by constant emp bursts. It degrades even lasers and other particle weapons. It even skews visible light, so visual targeting is off, it creates a blur. They do not have any form of artifical gravity, their stl is shit(until you get to victory) A sharlin in the one year war would not like it at all. While the weapons may or may not be the same power, that is debatable. lets say it is more powerful. It is also faster. The real question is, what can it do? Even if it stays far away from a minivisky heavy battle field to avoid its; affects. It still cannot use its sensors to target the humans. Nothing active. it would be as usefull as trying to light up a black hole with a flash light. Gundam forces are also used to fighting in the blind, minbari are not. Gundam in the uc era had all the cool tech the mibari had as far as radar. They had fully 3d displays which showed ships in combat in relative positions etc(the novels state it very clearly) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scvn2812 504 Posted June 5, 2012 If we assume science fiction films, unless stated otherwise, are not documentaries, then we have nothing to debate. We can only shrug our shoulders and say it didn't happen like that. That works fine for personal visions of what a universe should be like but everyone needs to have the same common ground when you enter into a discussion with another person about what we should take away from what we've seen in a movie or show. If anything I prefer to wonder why things happened the way they did in a film rather than assume its wrong and make up my own version of events. Except for the Star Wars EU. That I prefer not to even try reconciling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ali-Sama 5 Posted June 5, 2012 If we assume science fiction films, unless stated otherwise, are not documentaries, then we have nothing to debate. We can only shrug our shoulders and say it didn't happen like that. That works fine for personal visions of what a universe should be like but everyone needs to have the same common ground when you enter into a discussion with another person about what we should take away from what we've seen in a movie or show. If anything I prefer to wonder why things happened the way they did in a film rather than assume its wrong and make up my own version of events. Except for the Star Wars EU. That I prefer not to even try reconciling. A movie is as much a documentary as the episode where the alien race portrays the voyager as a hostile race. If you want to use 100% logic, you need to also use it for the other parts. There is no common ground. A show made in the 60;s cannot show as much dammage as one made in the 90's using pure cgi. an explosion on a set will have smoke. In space there is no smoke. yet there it is in the movie/tv show. How do you explain that? there is no atmopshere for it to have smoke. Come up with a silly explanation or just say it is an error and ignore it. your choice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scvn2812 504 Posted June 5, 2012 You're missing the point. For the purposes of debate, we have to assume that what is on screen actually happened and happened exactly the way we saw it with our own two eyes. Otherwise we are left without a common set of facts to argue about. If you can't even agree on what the facts are, then you're left with two people arguing in the context of two entirely different universes they claim are the same one. Kind of like the US political system right now.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted June 6, 2012 I really don't understand this. I think you'd get a more robust response if you came right out and asked whatever it is you're trying to ask. Some possible topics I'm getting from this: Reality vs the screen: if something impossible happens on screen, must we rationalize it? TOS vs Star Trek 09, which is the "real" Trek now No, no, no, no. It is certainly not the 'real' Trek. Its a paralell universe. Its happening simultaneously with TOS. Just like the mirror universe. ST XI Did not replace TOS. Its a separate timeline. TOS vs. TOS HD: do the new fx for the Bluray release trump the old ones Yes. Star Wars vs Special Editions: does every time Lucas tweaks the films is canon changed? Again, yes. That's actually always been Lucasfilm's policy. I think the scenario you've given is probably closest to the Trek reboot. To which my answer is that we treat them as separate universes. Gangster movie 1960 is its own unique thing and so is the new one. Now if a sequel to one or the other had dramatically different firepower then we have to start wondering what to do. ST XI is *NOT* a 'reboot'. Its an alternate timeline. Its happening in paralell with the prime universe. A 'reboot' replaces an existing franchise. ST XI didnt replace anything. It added to it. Now, in the prime universe Romulus is destroyed and ambassador Spock has disappeared. Any new shows or movies set in the prime universe will reflect that. Spock is now living in the alternate universe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scvn2812 504 Posted June 6, 2012 Actually XI really can't take place in even a close alternate version of the original timeline, the first ship Nero destroys is itself as large or larger than the original Enterprise, by the time we get to Kirk's era, the new 1701-null is considerably larger than any ship to bare the name Enterprise in any other era of any other timeline. This Federation must have a vastly greater industrial base than the original, you can pack the mass of all 13 original Constitutions into the frame of the new timeline's. Now I have seen it theorized that the faster development in technology (faster warp drive, bigger starships, more sophisticated computers etc.) is the result of the original Borg incursion into the 21st century and the pollution of the timeline, resulting in the NX-class developing phasers and photon torpedoes early rather than relying on lasers and nukes for battle. Spock didn't just get sucked into the past, he was sucked into the timeline created as a direct result of the Borg's attack on Zephram Cochrane's first warp flight. Whether you accept that explanation or not (I'm rather indifferent about trying to justify the differences in Trek XI from the original) it is clear however, that this is not the same Federation or technology base as in Kirk's era and thus not the same universe and should be debated as a separate entity much as BSG-TOS is not used as a reference point for nBSG. Also, those topics were not statements of belief but me trying to guess what Ali was talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
