Starfleet Jedi

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=180166

Rather interesting debate if you can call it that on dialog VS visuals.

feats should always take precedent over spoken word...but in cases like in the wounded when all we got is a crummy map..then dialog should be assigned value

Admiral Breetai wrote:feats should always take precedent over spoken word...but in cases like in the wounded when all we got is a crummy map..then dialog should be assigned value

But how do you know the visuals are correct? Many series suffer from what is known as dramatic visuals, and that means things like ship size can change from scene to scene.

I think that dialogue is more correct than visuals, but that depends on how we go when analyzing things - do we go with "writer's intent" (as I do) or with in-universe analysis (which is generally bad idea beacouse most books and scripts are written by omniscient narrator). If you go with first option, dialogue is certainly closer to writer's intent. If you go with latter, take visuals.

Lucky wrote:[
But how do you know the visuals are correct? Many series suffer from what is known as dramatic visuals, and that means things like ship size can change from scene to scene.

you go by consistency of the feats then what's shown to be consistent high end that's not completely outrageous when measured against the over all history

statements can be wildly inaccurate Joss Whedon has for example gone on record saying he feels buffy is about on if not above Kenshin himura and Spiderman..when her actual "visual" evidence barely puts her near some like Robin in terms of strength and speed

you have other series where the narrators talking about basic "fire balls" burning hotter then a star and body armor being completely invulnerable to any type of attack

am I suppose to take either of those to ,mean that said armor can shrug off the deathstars super laser? or the fire balls really are that hot when even trees don't get burned?

I mean it's better just go by what consistently happens in your face when you can see it...though I agree narration and dialog has some merit..in many cases it can be hilariously full of it

maybe it's because I'm more into comics and anime and novels then sci fi tv shows perse' but...honestly some of the most hilariously inaccurate statements I have ever seen have come from word of god..narration and dialog..and it's really gets to the point where you go "show your work..or stfu man"

Admiral Breetai wrote: you go by consistency of the feats then what's shown to be consistent high end that's not completely outrageous when measured against the over all history

And what if the dialog consistently matches those feats, but the don't even consistently show the same things the same sizes?

Admiral Breetai wrote: statements can be wildly inaccurate Joss Whedon has for example gone on record saying he feels buffy is about on if not above Kenshin himura and Spiderman..when her actual "visual" evidence barely puts her near some like Robin in terms of strength and speed

The writer has to at least try to make the claim realistic. Normal humans would never be able to last five seconds in the Buffyverse if that was true.

I was thinking more like this:

Commenting on phaser firepower, Ronald D. Moore said: "The weapons are way too powerful to present them in any realistic kind of way. Given the real power of a hand phaser, we shouldn't be able to show ANY firefights on camera where the opponents are even in sight of each other, much less around the corner! It's annoying, but just one of those things that we tend to slide by in order to concentrate on telling a dramatic and interesting story." (AOL chat, 1997)


Lack of budget, man power, and technology are very good reason for things not to be as they are meant to be as well.

Admiral Breetai wrote: you have other series where the narrators talking about basic "fire balls" burning hotter then a star and body armor being completely invulnerable to any type of attack

am I suppose to take either of those to ,mean that said armor can shrug off the deathstars super laser? or the fire balls really are that hot when even trees don't get burned?

Given it is completely realistic for something to be hotter then a star, and some settings have armors that can do exactly what you describe I have to say you need to look at the context of the statement. Is it just flowery speech, or is it meant to be at least near literal?

If a series consistently has people reading things from monitors, and what they say is consistent in just about every episode, but at times contradict the visual for no reason do we trust the visuals or the dialog?

Admiral Breetai wrote: I mean it's better just go by what consistently happens in your face when you can see it...though I agree narration and dialog has some merit..in many cases it can be hilariously full of it

Isn't it better to go with the more consistent of the two? If you go with visuals over dialog you can often end up with things like ships changing size for no reason.

The big problem is that it is very rare for the writers to be the VFX artists, and the writers and VFX crew are going to have a hard time communicating even if they are in the same building.

Admiral Breetai wrote: maybe it's because I'm more into comics and anime and novels then sci fi tv shows perse' but...honestly some of the most hilariously inaccurate statements I have ever seen have come from word of god..narration and dialog..and it's really gets to the point where you go "show your work..or stfu man"

It depends on what type of narrator we are talking about. Some narrators are all knowing, and some are not.

Word of god can be a funny thing, but it can explain things like lack of shield glow in DS9.

It's usually made clear if the dialog was meant to be wrong, or if the writer just didn't know what he/she was talking about.. A good example of a writers not knowing what they were talking about is "Dear Doctor" in Enterprise.

Lucky wrote:And what if the dialog consistently matches those feats, but the don't even consistently show the same things the same sizes? ]

if the statements contradict a consistent portrayal of sizes scale and feats then..they are unusable

Lucky wrote: The writer has to at least try to make the claim realistic. Normal humans would never be able to last five seconds in the Buffyverse if that was true.

while that's certainly true..the mans said it many times..and has had characters say it..nothing even remotely supports this feat wise..but using a highly distorted version of your logic fans have tried to claim this

of course but he is the word of god...if he says something this asasine most people try and take it as canon

another decent example is Greg pak the idiot has come out and said "world war Hulk is the strongest Hulk and could beat superman" when..he never should of survived half the fights he did..and it was done because the guy intentionally gimped characters that could squash him like a bug..to some one not familiar with the history of said characters the visuals would support his..statements..or at the very least offer nothing to contradict it at all

but any one who's familiar with the material knows the mans full of it

Lucky wrote: I was thinking more like this:

Commenting on phaser firepower, Ronald D. Moore said: "The weapons are way too powerful to present them in any realistic kind of way. Given the real power of a hand phaser, we shouldn't be able to show ANY firefights on camera where the opponents are even in sight of each other, much less around the corner! It's annoying, but just one of those things that we tend to slide by in order to concentrate on telling a dramatic and interesting story." (AOL chat, 1997)

why in the blue hell would he say this? the enterprise cut loose a few times over its various incarnations showing..obscene fire power and no one besides those fanatics on SDN ever question it or have trouble with it

Lucky wrote: Lack of budget, man power, and technology are very good reason for things not to be as they are meant to be as well.

should never be used as an excuse to hand wave a series power level it simply was never shown...

author intent really should be completely irrelevant in cases like that..it branches off into "la de da" land of speculation..which opens the door to the potential for biased

Lucky wrote: Given it is completely realistic for something to be hotter then a star, and some settings have armors that can do exactly what you describe I have to say you need to look at the context of the statement. Is it just flowery speech, or is it meant to be at least near literal?

it's naruto..and nothing ever presented in the series..supports that other then kishimotos own horrendous writing

Lucky wrote:]
If a series consistently has people reading things from monitors, and what they say is consistent in just about every episode, but at times contradict the visual for no reason do we trust the visuals or the dialog?

if the visuals are consistently contradicting the statements? the dialog has no merit if it's a mix of both..still go with the feats

if its in favor of the statements..extreme scrutiny must be applied if the statements pass the muster..then go for it

Lucky wrote:
Isn't it better to go with the more consistent of the two? If you go with visuals over dialog you can often end up with things like ships changing size for no reason.

what happens on "panel" as it where is allot more important then author intent but if the feats have zero consistency? then sure

[

Lucky wrote:The big problem is that it is very rare for the writers to be the VFX artists, and the writers and VFX crew are going to have a hard time communicating even if they are in the same building.

this should never be a legit excuse.IMHO I have seen way too much blatant fan wank and trolling get slip past this justification its just way too risky

Lucky wrote: Word of god can be a funny thing, but it can explain things like lack of shield glow in DS9.

they showed sheilds..when they needed too and its so standard and par the course for trek thinking they suddenly no longer had the tech would just be silly..

Lucky wrote: It's usually made clear if the dialog was meant to be wrong, or if the writer just didn't know what he/she was talking about.. A good example of a writers not knowing what they were talking about is "Dear Doctor" in Enterprise.

you'd be surprised in fiction how wrong this assumption is..especially in many different mediums of it that can get used in vs debates

Dialogue should be included along with visuals as part of the whole context. To attempt to elevate one over the other is the mark of a lazy and dishonest debater. It's a form of "gotcha" debating that ignores the greater picture. This type of dishonest debating tactic became especially popular when certain Warsies wanted to discount the orbital bombardment scene in TDiC. They completely ignored the context of the episode, the dialogue, and implications from earlier episodes. Instead they relied exclusively on analysis of the limited SFX. It's important to take in and account for everything if there's to be any honest debate.

Admiral Breetai wrote: if the statements contradict a consistent portrayal of sizes scale and feats then..they are unusable

I seem to have accidently left out a word>_<.

What if the dialog is consistent throughout the series, but the visuals are not consistent? I can't remember a live action show that did not have dramatic visuals.

One has to take into account the overall ramifications of the dialog being wrong verses the visuals being wrong.

Admiral Breetai wrote:
of course but he is the word of god...if he says something this asasine most people try and take it as canon

another decent example is Greg pak the idiot has come out and said "world war Hulk is the strongest Hulk and could beat superman" when..he never should of survived half the fights he did..and it was done because the guy intentionally gimped characters that could squash him like a bug..to some one not familiar with the history of said characters the visuals would support his..statements..or at the very least offer nothing to contradict it at all

but any one who's familiar with the material knows the mans full of it

The angrier the Hulk gets the stronger he get, and different Hulks manifest their powers differently.World War Hulk was in a controlled rage after all.

Admiral Breetai wrote: why in the blue hell would he say this? the enterprise cut loose a few times over its various incarnations showing..obscene fire power and no one besides those fanatics on SDN ever question it or have trouble with it

Most take it mean he's talking about Star Trek side arms and ground combat. Ships can't really be around corners. It would be very difficult to portray given what Trek ground weapons are like. Mortars and grenades are mini-nukes for example, and even the humble hand phaser can destroy entire reenforced concrete buildings with a single shot, or burn through mundane materials with ease.

Star Trek personal weapons would be right at home in the Rifts/Phase World setting.

Admiral Breetai wrote: should never be used as an excuse to hand wave a series power level it simply was never shown...

author intent really should be completely irrelevant in cases like that..it branches off into "la de da" land of speculation..which opens the door to the potential for biased

Did you know that Klingon, The UFP, and Cardassians have armored vehicles that are either IFVs, APCs, or possibly main battle tanks, but we never see them?

Did you know we never actually see a proper Star Trek ground war.

Lack of money, time, man power, and technology is the reason.

Admiral Breetai wrote: it's naruto..and nothing ever presented in the series..supports that other then kishimotos own horrendous writing

Well hotter then a star is still possible in the setting if you are talking about some weird magic flame, or lightning element.

There is a lot of stuff that is visually self contradictory in Naruto.

Admiral Breetai wrote: if the visuals are consistently contradicting the statements? the dialog has no merit if it's a mix of both..still go with the feats

If the systems can measure distances then how do they target anything, or get to where they are going?

What if the plot demands the dialog be right, and the visuals to be wrong?

Admiral Breetai wrote: if its in favor of the statements..extreme scrutiny must be applied if the statements pass the muster..then go for it

The same must be done with visuals, or do you really think phasers are fired from photon torpedo tubes?

Admiral Breetai wrote: what happens on "panel" as it where is allot more important then author intent but if the feats have zero consistency? then sure

Ships changing size is a problem many live action sci-fi have. Star Trek and Star Gate come to mind.

Admiral Breetai wrote: this should never be a legit excuse.IMHO I have seen way too much blatant fan wank and trolling get slip past this justification its just way too risky

Well an example of this would be in Voyager where the dialog says micrometeoroids, but the VFX team put in meteoroids. By the dialog Voyager was being hit with what amounts to pea-gravel and grains of sand moving very fast in space, but the VFX crew put in much larger objects. It's easy to see why they did it, but the dialog was never changed to reflect what the VFX crew did.

Then you have the Episode Timeless where you are left wondering when Voyager slowed down.

Admiral Breetai wrote: they showed sheilds..when they needed too and its so standard and par the course for trek thinking they suddenly no longer had the tech would just be silly..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVtj7PauX_I
No shield flares for either side for no reason.

Admiral Breetai wrote: you'd be surprised in fiction how wrong this assumption is..especially in many different mediums of it that can get used in vs debates

One can't just assume visuals are correct, and if you do you end up with a lot of silly things like kiloton firepower for fighters, a bleep load of different designs of star ship, and the hero's ship being redesigned dramatically in ways that make little sense.

Lucky wrote: I seem to have accidently left out a word>_<.

What if the dialog is consistent throughout the series, but the visuals are not consistent? I can't remember a live action show that did not have dramatic visuals.

but your seeing something being done on screen, that's happening showings can be inconsistent but if they occur more consistently then dialog...they are more valid

if writers can';t show their work we shouldn't have to hand wave it for them

Lucky wrote:
which he has every right to do..One has to take into account the overall ramifications of the dialog being wrong verses the visuals being wrong.

what ramifications? in some verses like trek..you get a higher showing..i can see why warsies may prefer dialog though going by consistent feats the friggen NuGalactica has better range and accuracy then an ISD


[

Lucky wrote:The angrier the Hulk gets the stronger he get, and different Hulks manifest their powers differently.World War Hulk was in a controlled rage after all.

writers have shown that they have no problem accurately portraying Hulks levels in the past and have no need to rely on on dialog

Lucky wrote: Most take it mean he's talking about Star Trek side arms and ground combat. Ships can't really be around corners. It would be very difficult to portray given what Trek ground weapons are like. Mortars and grenades are mini-nukes for example, and even the humble hand phaser can destroy entire reenforced concrete buildings with a single shot, or burn through mundane materials with ease.

they have the technology to resurrect dead stars and take mars like planets and turn them into paradises if the writers seriously think they can't draw a "power at minimal" "power at medium" and "start leveling buildings" levels...they're nuts it's certainly within the capability of their technology

and theres even canon precedent for it

Lucky wrote: Star Trek personal weapons would be right at home in the Rifts/Phase World setting.

sure when irresponsibly turned up to eleven

Lucky wrote: Did you know that Klingon, The UFP, and Cardassians have armored vehicles that are either IFVs, APCs, or possibly main battle tanks, but we never see them?

when your capital ships are so accurate they can target individuals and even friggen germs..from hundreds of thousands of miles out..track all events in a solar system in real time..and in the case of one race..from some dozen or so lightyears away with no issue

such things aren't really needed

Lucky wrote: Did you know we never actually see a proper Star Trek ground war.

with how advanced their weaponry is..a ground war shouldn't be more then some fat guy eating a cheese burger sitting in a big comfy chair..in some bubble mech with multiple phasers and just targeting..and firing at any ground troops or another cheese burger muncher...seriously when you can BFR your enemy into space from orbit..ground battles have little meaning

outside of raids boarding parties and rare instances where your fighting a really crummy backwards race (Cardassians, Kazon ) theres no real need for highly trained soldiers running around in tanks

a modified shuttle could do to an entire army..and most major cities and industrial centers what tanks..and carpet bombing can do
[

Lucky wrote: Lack of money, time, man power, and technology is the reason.

or just poor writing either way its no excuse

[

Lucky wrote: Well hotter then a star is still possible in the setting if you are talking about some weird magic flame, or lightning element.

there exists both one according to narration allows for a temporary boost to ftl speed..yet was clearly shown to be barely supersonic..

another is a magic fire..but seems to be as hot stars yet fail to sand

Lucky wrote: There is a lot of stuff that is visually self contradictory in Naruto.

dialog as well

Lucky wrote: If the systems can measure distances then how do they target anything, or get to where they are going?

what does this have to do with dialog?

]

Lucky wrote: What if the plot demands the dialog be right, and the visuals to be wrong?

that's why you factor in things like PIS (plot induced stupidity )

Lucky wrote:
The same must be done with visuals, or do you really think phasers are fired from photon torpedo tubes?

when the heck did this happen?

Lucky wrote: Ships changing size is a problem many live action sci-fi have. Star Trek and Star Gate come to mind.[]

how major of a problem is this? I don't really see how varying sizes affects a debate..it's the weapons and the consistency of it you should be arguing

go with the most consistently shown size

Lucky wrote:]

Well an example of this would be in Voyager where the dialog says micrometeoroids, but the VFX team put in meteoroids. By the dialog Voyager was being hit with what amounts to pea-gravel and grains of sand moving very fast in space, but the VFX crew put in much larger objects. It's easy to see why they did it, but the dialog was never changed to reflect what the VFX crew did.

that sounds like they where just being lazy..or cheap..either way thats poor form on their part

Lucky wrote:Then you have the Episode Timeless where you are left wondering when Voyager slowed down.

ehh?

Lucky wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVtj7PauX_I
No shield flares for either side for no reason.

good example of writers being kinda silly..or the fx guys effing up..either way its safe to assume dey has shields on its par the course for trek

Lucky wrote: One can't just assume visuals are correct, and if you do you end up with a lot of silly things like kiloton firepower for fighters, a bleep load of different designs of star ship, and the hero's ship being redesigned dramatically in ways that make little sense.

KT fighters? for what wars? that's asinine they haven't shown fire power coming even close to half a KT for trek...well they had those mini p torps..and where bulky fighters having powerful generators not impossible

one would think a redesinginng of a ship is not so crippling..to the outcome of a debate

Admiral Breetai wrote: but your seeing something being done on screen, that's happening showings can be inconsistent but if they occur more consistently then dialog...they are more valid

if writers can';t show their work we shouldn't have to hand wave it for them

The people who write the scripts are not the people who make the visual effects usually, they at times never even talk to each other, and sometimes aren't even on the same continent.

Visual effects people tend to care more about it looking "cool" then what is in the script.

Seriously which of the many sizes of the Defiant are correct? Why should we assume they can't measure distances?

Admiral Breetai wrote: what ramifications? in some verses like trek..you get a higher showing..i can see why warsies may prefer dialog though going by consistent feats the friggen NuGalactica has better range and accuracy then an ISD

Dialog gives longer ranges for Star Trek then the visuals often, and the dialog is consistent across every show..

Star Wars has ranges that are less then the mark one eye ball can see.

Admiral Breetai wrote: writers have shown that they have no problem accurately portraying Hulks levels in the past and have no need to rely on on dialog

Are you sure the guy drawing and inking are the guys writing the story?

Admiral Breetai wrote: they have the technology to resurrect dead stars and take mars like planets and turn them into paradises if the writers seriously think they can't draw a "power at minimal" "power at medium" and "start leveling buildings" levels...they're nuts it's certainly within the capability of their technology

and theres even canon precedent for it

Can you see the problem why a large battle could be a problem if you used all the known capabilities like wide beam kill, mini-nuke photon grenades, and air strikes.

Computer animation was new at the time, and far more limited.

Admiral Breetai wrote: sure when irresponsibly turned up to eleven

Strange how most Rifts/Phase World weapons don't have SDC settings, or stun settings.

Admiral Breetai wrote: when your capital ships are so accurate they can target individuals and even friggen germs..from hundreds of thousands of miles out..track all events in a solar system in real time..and in the case of one race..from some dozen or so lightyears away with no issue

such things aren't really needed

They still exist, and there were large ammounts of ground combat we never see.

I have to disagree about the IFVs and APCs type things not being useful/needed. No matter what you are going to need troops on the ground at some point, and Cap ships can't always be there.

Admiral Breetai wrote: with how advanced their weaponry is..a ground war shouldn't be more then some fat guy eating a cheese burger sitting in a big comfy chair..in some bubble mech with multiple phasers and just targeting..and firing at any ground troops or another cheese burger muncher...seriously when you can BFR your enemy into space from orbit..ground battles have little meaning

outside of raids boarding parties and rare instances where your fighting a really crummy backwards race (Cardassians, Kazon ) theres no real need for highly trained soldiers running around in tanks

a modified shuttle could do to an entire army..and most major cities and industrial centers what tanks..and carpet bombing can do

Yet it's not like that for some reason.

Admiral Breetai wrote: or just poor writing either way its no excuse

If you can't afford to pay for the number of people, props, and so on that's a damn good reason you couldn't do it.

If you lack the technology to make it look like you have the man power and props because you can't afford them that's a good reason why you don't do it.

If your schedule won't let you do what needs to be done, and you're not making the schedule that's a good reason not to do it.

Admiral Breetai wrote: there exists both one according to narration allows for a temporary boost to ftl speed..yet was clearly shown to be barely supersonic..

I'm going to guess that the technique was done by B during the portion that was focusing on Sasuke?

Keep in mind how hard it would be to visually show something moving at just near light speed.

Admiral Breetai wrote: another is a magic fire..but seems to be as hot stars yet fail to sand

Key word being magic. It's not really fire, it just kind of looks like it.

Admiral Breetai wrote: dialog as well

Take a good look at Naruto verses Pain. You will see visuals that point to the characters having supersonic reaction times, and in the same battle you will see the characters having much slower reaction times and movement speeds.

The really problem with Naruto is that the author seems to be making it up as he goes along with little regard for how never before seen abilities not being used soon makes the characters look, but that's a topic for a different thread, or board.

Admiral Breetai wrote: what does this have to do with dialog?

Sorry I left out a word again without realizing it.>_<

"If the systems on a ship can not measure distances then how do they target anything, or get to where they are going?"

What it means is that if the characters are reading distances measured by a measuring device, and they almost always read about the same distances every time then maybe we should think that what they are saying is true even if the visuals don't show it.

Admiral Breetai wrote: that's why you factor in things like PIS (plot induced stupidity )

Think about how many people and computers would need to be handed an idiot ball for the ships in The Die Is Cast to not be able to do something at least near what was planned, or the numbers of idiot balls you would need for the ICS 2 and 3 to be correct.

Admiral Breetai wrote: when the heck did this happen?

It happened once, never before, and never again.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... f=8&t=1734

Admiral Breetai wrote: how major of a problem is this? I don't really see how varying sizes affects a debate..it's the weapons and the consistency of it you should be arguing

go with the most consistently shown size

If you want to find out how far apart two ships are you need to know the size of both ships, or you can't tell the distance by the visuals, and if the sizes are not always the same how do we know we are seeing thing

Admiral Breetai wrote: that sounds like they where just being lazy..or cheap..either way thats poor form on their part

It is lazy on the visual effects teams part since everything was likely filmed when were or before they made the visual effects.

As for why it was done likely has to do with technological limitations of the time, they likely didn't know any better, and it would be real hard to get it to look nice.

Admiral Breetai wrote: ehh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kjz7-f6DUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1zSpjJi ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc8_LIaF ... re=related

Admiral Breetai wrote: good example of writers being kinda silly..or the fx guys effing up..either way its safe to assume dey has shields on its par the course for trek

Kind them not having the time or money to do it right as I recall.

Admiral Breetai wrote: KT fighters? for what wars? that's asinine they haven't shown fire power coming even close to half a KT for trek...well they had those mini p torps..and where bulky fighters having powerful generators not impossible

one would think a redesinginng of a ship is not so crippling..to the outcome of a debate

I was talking about slave-I in the ICS. As I recall it was a picture in a comic book that was used to obtain the firepower calculation.

UFP fighters and runabouts use full size torpedos if you go by visuals. They apparently never made VFXs for microtorps, but at least this makes sense since they are attacking full size war ships.

Tyralak wrote:Dialogue should be included along with visuals as part of the whole context. To attempt to elevate one over the other is the mark of a lazy and dishonest debater. It's a form of "gotcha" debating that ignores the greater picture. This type of dishonest debating tactic became especially popular when certain Warsies wanted to discount the orbital bombardment scene in TDiC. They completely ignored the context of the episode, the dialogue, and implications from earlier episodes. Instead they relied exclusively on analysis of the limited SFX. It's important to take in and account for everything if there's to be any honest debate.

True, but what if that can't be done, if visuals are completely contradictory to dialogue? (I don't know any such example, just asking)

Picard wrote:

Tyralak wrote:Dialogue should be included along with visuals as part of the whole context. To attempt to elevate one over the other is the mark of a lazy and dishonest debater. It's a form of "gotcha" debating that ignores the greater picture. This type of dishonest debating tactic became especially popular when certain Warsies wanted to discount the orbital bombardment scene in TDiC. They completely ignored the context of the episode, the dialogue, and implications from earlier episodes. Instead they relied exclusively on analysis of the limited SFX. It's important to take in and account for everything if there's to be any honest debate.

True, but what if that can't be done, if visuals are completely contradictory to dialogue? (I don't know any such example, just asking)

What makes the most sense when plot and past showings are taken into account?