Back from LA with Honorverse move news

Michael Everett wrote:While the astronomical properties of thermonuclear explosions are indeed fascinating (and no, I'm not being sarcastic, I actually am fascinated by it), I have to admit that should HotQ come out in 3D, I won't be going to see it in that format.
This is not due to any philosophical reasons or quibbles about the "pop-up" effects, it's just that watching 3D films etc for over 15 minutes or so gives me one heck of a headache that could be mistaken for a migraine.
Therefore, I have two questions to ask.
1) Will it be released in 2D format as well as 3D at the cinema?
2) Do any other WeberFans suffer from the same migraine-induction side-effects of 3D films?
As for the starship design, I think that the easiest way to show differing star-nation navies is probably going to be the shape of the hammerhead. Would Solarian ships have dome-like hammerheads as compared to the blocky Haven ones?
We now return you to your regular thread...

No clue about point 1, but I feel safe in assuming that there will be a 2D version as well.

For point 2, as I said, my objection is more due to aesthetics than physical issues. That said, while I can't feel your pain, I can understand your problem.

On your suggestion about changing the hammerhead design, I honestly don't think the differences will be enough for general audiences to make note of. They're going to get confused, whereas the rest of us detail-obsessed fans will spot the differences right away.

No, I think the designs are going to be fairly different from one Navy to the next. Not quite like the difference between a Rebel X-Wing and the Empire's TIE Fighter, but still different enough that I'm sure some "purists" will complain. There may be *some* commonality of components - impeller nodes, maybe, and the blades of the grav sensor arrays - but for the most part, there won't.

MaxxQ wrote:On your suggestion about changing the hammerhead design, I honestly don't think the differences will be enough for general audiences to make note of. They're going to get confused, whereas the rest of us detail-obsessed fans will spot the differences right away.

No, I think the designs are going to be fairly different from one Navy to the next. Not quite like the difference between a Rebel X-Wing and the Empire's TIE Fighter, but still different enough that I'm sure some "purists" will complain. There may be *some* commonality of components - impeller nodes, maybe, and the blades of the grav sensor arrays - but for the most part, there won't.

This is one case where I hope Evergreen DOES ignore the "purists". You can't be complete slaves to the fanboys, so let 'em complain, I want to see some significant differences between the navies. Color schemes aren't enough, unless perhaps they're like the artwork used in Stewart Cowley's TTA books, or the computer game Homeworld (which was influenced by Peter Elson's work). Something like the differences between ships in say, Babylon 5, might be required. Visual appeal is a large part of a space sci-fi movie, so pump up the looks of the ships.

61Cygni wrote: This is one case where I hope Evergreen DOES ignore the "purists". You can't be complete slaves to the fanboys, so let 'em complain, I want to see some significant differences between the navies.

Yeah, I agree in principle, but as I've been building some of this stuff, it would have been nice to see some of our (BuNine's) designs on the screen. Oh, well, not unexpected so I'm not really upset about it.

61Cygni wrote:Color schemes aren't enough, unless perhaps they're like the artwork used in Stewart Cowley's TTA books, or the computer game Homeworld (which was influenced by Peter Elson's work).

Oh, yeah... first time I played the Homeworld demo way back when, it was pretty obvious where the influence came from. Now I need to play it again...

61Cygni wrote:
This is one case where I hope Evergreen DOES ignore the "purists". You can't be complete slaves to the fanboys, so let 'em complain, I want to see some significant differences between the navies.

I think where the concern for some "fanboys" comes from is that the shape of ships are heavily dependent upon the Honorverse physics, be they grounded in fact or not, which is an aspect of this series many find so gratifying. They'll surely change for mass consumption, but there is no need to belittle a group of people for their interests, whether they be deep or shallow (metaphorically speaking).

61Cygni wrote:This is one case where I hope Evergreen DOES ignore the "purists". You can't be complete slaves to the fanboys, so let 'em complain, I want to see some significant differences between the navies. Color schemes aren't enough, unless perhaps they're like the artwork used in Stewart Cowley's TTA books, or the computer game Homeworld (which was influenced by Peter Elson's work). Something like the differences between ships in say, Babylon 5, might be required. Visual appeal is a large part of a space sci-fi movie, so pump up the looks of the ships.

In case you'd forgotten, pretty much everyone you're talking to is going to come under the heading of "fanboys", since we're passionate enough about the series to spend hours here talking about it. Is it really necessary to insult everyone around you quite so gratuitously just to sound "cool"?

That said, RFC has given us
an idea of how much the ship designs could be expected to change. Early on in the thread he said:

runsforcelery wrote:there’s going to be a significant degree of “reimagining” the ships, although I think I can guarantee that the redesign process won’t step on the established physics of the Honorverse. We had a conference which lasted just over an hour with Patrick, Mike, Scott, Richard Browne (Evergreen’s Executive VP for Gaming and Interactive), and me — and in which Tom Pope participated via videoconferencing from the perspective of all the work BuNine’s done on the Honorverse — which gives me quite a bit of confidence at this point.
...
the original concept art had been executed by someone who didn’t yet fully understand the Honorverse’s physics. That led to some idiosyncratic layouts that couldn’t possibly be made to work within those physics’ constraints. As a result, there’s a large amount of “back to the drawing board” ahead of us.

So yes, of course we're going to see changes. We're not going to see ships that are only distinguished by the angle of the impeller nodes and layouts of the missile tubes, because that wouldn't work; but we're also not going to see the kind of differences we saw in Babylon 5 or Star Wars, and honestly we shouldn't. Those ships were representative of the different technologies, priorities and biologies of multiple different species, whereas the Honorverse ships are explicitly all using very similar technology to solve the same problems - and more importantly, they were all built by human psychologies.

I'm not sure how major the differences really need to be in order for audiences to clearly tell the difference between good guys and bad guys. I'm reminded of films like The Hunt for Red October or Battle of the River Plate where quite similar-looking vessels faced off against one another, and it was never at issue which side was which. I'm not expecting the ships to look as similar as those ones, of course, but I don't think we need to go overboard in distinguishing them either.

Werrf wrote:I'm not sure how major the differences really need to be in order for audiences to clearly tell the difference between good guys and bad guys. I'm reminded of films like The Hunt for Red October or Battle of the River Plate where quite similar-looking vessels faced off against one another, and it was never at issue which side was which. I'm not expecting the ships to look as similar as those ones, of course, but I don't think we need to go overboard in distinguishing them either.

Well the Battle of the River Plate ships might have looked a bit less similar if they'd been able to find a Graf Spee without the 2nd forward turret

Understand that while RFC says that Evergreen wants to make a faithful adaptation, the movie is THEIR property, and they will make THEIR own version of HoTQ. The same with the director they hire, he will further make it HIS own. Directors are free to change and/or ignore parts or large sections of a screenplay, especially ones they didn't write themselves, and many movies end up being quite different from the first draft of the script. Personally, as long as the spirit, themes and basic plot of the book is maintained, I'll be happy, as the rest is subject to change.

I do know that many Tolkien fanatics hate Peter Jackson's LOTR movies. I haven't read the whole of LOTR (I always give up shortly after "Concerning Hobbits") and I greatly enjoyed PJ's version. Glancing through various pages of LOTR, I say that most of the changes PJ made were for the better.

I can already see it now, there are going to be complaints of "the movie sucks!" from certain types because Fearless doesn't have the "proper" number of missile launchers, or the ships don't look like BuNine's designs, or the ships' bridges don't look exactly like what was described in the book, or so-and-so character was missing or said different lines, or that there weren't any infodumps on weapons or the FTL comm or whatever, and on and on and on. YOU are not making the movie, David Weber is not making the movie, Evergreen Films IS making the movie, and in the end they will make what they want.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Werrf wrote:I'm not sure how major the differences really need to be in order for audiences to clearly tell the difference between good guys and bad guys. I'm reminded of films like The Hunt for Red October or Battle of the River Plate where quite similar-looking vessels faced off against one another, and it was never at issue which side was which. I'm not expecting the ships to look as similar as those ones, of course, but I don't think we need to go overboard in distinguishing them either.

Well the Battle of the River Plate ships might have looked a bit less similar if they'd been able to find a Graf Spee without the 2nd forward turret

Yeah, sorry about that - our fault, we accidentally sank the others

61Cygni wrote:Understand that while RFC says that Evergreen wants to make a faithful adaptation, the movie is THEIR property, and they will make THEIR own version of HoTQ. The same with the director they hire, he will further make it HIS own. Directors are free to change and/or ignore parts or large sections of a screenplay, especially ones they didn't write themselves, and many movies end up being quite different from the first draft of the script. Personally, as long as the spirit, themes and basic plot of the book is maintained, I'll be happy, as the rest is subject to change.

I'm sorry, maybe it's just because I'm a fanboy, but do you think you're saying something original and insightful here? Because it's been well known from the very beginning of this whole process that yeah - the studio are going to make their own film. Many of the choices they make will be for the better. Nobody is denying that.

However, based on what David Weber has said - y'know, the chap who was involved in the actual meetings with the studio - they want to stay as close to the Honorverse and its physics as they can. That means no Babylon 5 ship designs, but also no Honorverse Companion ship designs either, but something in between. We're trying to figure out what, if that's okay by you.

61Cygni wrote:I do know that many Tolkien fanatics hate Peter Jackson's LOTR movies. I haven't read the whole of LOTR (I always give up shortly after "Concerning Hobbits") and I greatly enjoyed PJ's version. Glancing through various pages of LOTR, I say that most of the changes PJ made were for the better.

I read Lord of the Rings for the first time when I was eight, and the Silmarillion when I was fourteen. I have read them every year since. I LOVE the Jackson films, as do most of the Tolkien fans I know. It's a bad comparison - the Tolkien fandom is insanely huge, while with all due respect to Mr. Weber, the Honorverse fandom is much smaller. We here on this forum, in fact, are probably the core of that fandom, and as the posts here attest, we are aware and happy with the idea of changes being made.

What was your point again?

Werrf wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Well the Battle of the River Plate ships might have looked a bit less similar if they'd been able to find a Graf Spee without the 2nd forward turret

Yeah, sorry about that - our fault, we accidentally sank the others

Well in the interest of artistic integrity Powell and Pressburger really should have convinced the US Navy to rectify that by temporary shipping the Salem's B turret ashore. Really it's nothing a major naval shipyard can't do in a month or two, and it would add so much authenticity!

I am going to hate myself for this....BUT...

For the real science and math types who have been throwing around all these exponents and numbers....A Question.

All of the numbers you have been using are based on Earth tech fission bombs, which have a fission "Trigger" to start the Hydrogen Fusion which increases the power of the explosion, correct?

The Honorverse uses gravity pinch to achieve a Fusion reaction without fission. Therefore......What?

The Boss said so is what I say.