Would HV ships need an extreme makeover for a TV series?

Having seen a cavalry charge (in Star Wars) across the deck of a ship in orbit, I'm convinced that the average viewer is pretty stupid. Little things like - lack of air and gravity, energy weapons visible and noisy in vacuum, don't seem to worry people.
The last time we discussed this I suggested that we think "Dukes of Hazard" Dodge for Haven ships, and current Porsche GT3 for Manticore. Both are two door powerful cars, but one is smoother and more sophisticated.

Erls wrote:Take Flag in Exile - you could watch the commanders plot their approaches from the Bridge(s), and then see that first missile salvo. You could follow that first salvo in and see all of the BBs wrecked, and go back to Honor's Bridge to see them preparing to cut through the Peeps. You could then jump out to a broad screen, showing the two fleets slicing past each other and the flurry of laser/graser first tearing ships apart before the camera goes back to the bridge.

Of course - camera footage would get even better come the Shrike - and the chance to have a version of the classic "starfighter" view.

I don't agree with quite a bit of what you said. Grasers and lasers aren't visible; energy torpedoes and grav lances might be, we don't know. Grasers and lasers are also definitely the fastest. By the time anyone sees them, either you're hit or you're not hit - there's no dodging or countering. I do agree with the wedge views though.

As for battle scenes, I think we'll see a lot of them in the tac plot. That's how we could know that missiles are inbound our outbound, when they are approaching. There's not much to be seen with a camera on a missile itself, since they move really slowly for the distance. We may be able to see launches, before they engage their own wedges, like in The Expanse. For the pre-Buttercup defences, we may be able to see CM launches and the resulting explosions. Maybe the PDLCs can have "muzzle flashes".

There would also have to be a lot more dialogue explaining things for the viewer (and then YouTube videos dissecting further). Like in Flag in Exile, where it would go something like:

"Weird. Those battlecruisers are evading in distinctive pattern. Almost like they are forming a wall."

"That's absurd. Battlecruisers don't form walls. Even if they did, those intervals are all wrong. For that to be effective, they'd have to be superdreadnoughts." camera shows ashen face; view shifts to the outside showing BBs exploding.

Energy torpedoes are super-hot plasma encapsulated in a magnetic field. Should be very visible.

Daryl wrote:Having seen a cavalry charge (in Star Wars) across the deck of a ship in orbit, I'm convinced that the average viewer is pretty stupid. Little things like - lack of air and gravity, energy weapons visible and noisy in vacuum, don't seem to worry people.

It's more that movie directors, producers and companies have contempt for their audience and like to demonstrate it. If you get one of those involved in the project you probably won't like the outcome, as they piss all over the IP to amuse themselves and try to make stupid political points.

kzt wrote:

Daryl wrote:Having seen a cavalry charge (in Star Wars) across the deck of a ship in orbit, I'm convinced that the average viewer is pretty stupid. Little things like - lack of air and gravity, energy weapons visible and noisy in vacuum, don't seem to worry people.

It's more that movie directors, producers and companies have contempt for their audience and like to demonstrate it. If you get one of those involved in the project you probably won't like the outcome, as they piss all over the IP to amuse themselves and try to make stupid political points.

The biggest threat to SKM/SEM in a movie would be the anti-monarchical blathering of the producer and director looking to score some "Social Justice" cred. They'd be worse than the Progressives.

Fox2! wrote:

kzt wrote:It's more that movie directors, producers and companies have contempt for their audience and like to demonstrate it. If you get one of those involved in the project you probably won't like the outcome, as they piss all over the IP to amuse themselves and try to make stupid political points.

The biggest threat to SKM/SEM in a movie would be the anti-monarchical blathering of the producer and director looking to score some "Social Justice" cred. They'd be worse than the Progressives.

So stay away from Hollywood. Get it made by the British. They know a thing or two about making monarchs and kingdoms look good, even if members of the royal family let them down from time to time.

Future Queens good? Done already: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Elizabeth_X

munroburton wrote:

Fox2! wrote:The biggest threat to SKM/SEM in a movie would be the anti-monarchical blathering of the producer and director looking to score some "Social Justice" cred. They'd be worse than the Progressives.

So stay away from Hollywood. Get it made by the British. They know a thing or two about making monarchs and kingdoms look good, even if members of the royal family let them down from time to time.

Future Queens good? Done already: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Elizabeth_X

Or, we could invite them to meet us for a walk down in the park in Landing. Mention Mr. Ellington as a reference.

Fox2! wrote:The biggest threat to SKM/SEM in a movie would be the anti-monarchical blathering of the producer and director looking to score some "Social Justice" cred. They'd be worse than the Progressives.

David intentionally made the monarchy the good guys and the fact that a Republic was their opponent was a important to the plot. Changing that would mean a major rewrite.

Not to mention losing one of the central characters: the dark-skinned, strong, independent, and assertive woman who sits on the throne.

No, I don't think we have a problem with diversity in the characters. But the producers may need to condense the cast and therefore merge some characters. So, for example, we could see Tremaine and Cardones merged into one and we may not get a Mercedes Brigham at all.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Fox2! wrote:The biggest threat to SKM/SEM in a movie would be the anti-monarchical blathering of the producer and director looking to score some "Social Justice" cred. They'd be worse than the Progressives.

David intentionally made the monarchy the good guys and the fact that a Republic was their opponent was a important to the plot. Changing that would mean a major rewrite.

Not to mention losing one of the central characters: the dark-skinned, strong, independent, and assertive woman who sits on the throne.

No, I don't think we have a problem with diversity in the characters. But the producers may need to condense the cast and therefore merge some characters. So, for example, we could see Tremaine and Cardones merged into one and we may not get a Mercedes Brigham at all.

I don't think any of the regular characters would get merged. They would give the studio too many "shots" at finding one that becomes a fan favorite and thus eligible for a spin-off movie or two. Think of some of the SHIELD Agents in Marvel (not Fury, but Cobie Smulders and Patton Oswalt). They have their small roles in each film and allow for more continuity. I could see, however, some of the less mentioned characters get the axe (e.g., Aubrey Wanderman in HAE).

As far as your comments re adding coloring to lasers/grasers/etc. Think about it - of course it isn't pure to the books, but it provides the visual that television needs. Even if 85% of battles are shown via the Tac Plot on the Bridge, that other 15% (of walls of battle crossing, missile salvo's landing, ships blowing apart, etc) would be the 'eye candy' that movies demand today. It would be sacrificing a small, minor, unimportant scientific fact to make for more appealing movies for the masses. That is, after all, what (at least I) would want in a director for a RFC work. Someone who stays true to the story on the major and minor (that become major down the road) plot points, but adding their own tweaks to make the story come alive on the big screen.

Finally, as far as progressives/cancel culture/the monarchy/etc go... I agree on a British Director (at least for the first film) - Christopher Nolan. I don't think there is a better Director out there today, and his Batman trilogy was incredible at staying true to the comic books while also capturing the rawness and grit of Batman. I know that's a huge ask, but if RFC was able to get Nolan to sign on for the first movie - and then to choose the dedicated Director for the next 2-10 movies and produce the 2nd film, the movie would get made and would likely win awards. Dream big, why not!

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I don't agree with quite a bit of what you said. Grasers and lasers aren't visible; energy torpedoes and grav lances might be, we don't know. Grasers and lasers are also definitely the fastest. By the time anyone sees them, either you're hit or you're not hit - there's no dodging or countering. I do agree with the wedge views though.

Random kid to a naval person: Are battles like how their shown on TV? <Other random kid> says its all rubbish because Grav Waves and energy weapons are invisible in space.

Naval Person: Normally they are, but in battle we tell the computers to assign different colours based on the star nations involved to weapons and grav waves so we can see what is happening more easily.

Bingo, not only have we passed the information that the grav waves and weapons should normally be invisible, we have an in universe reason as to why they aren't invisible...as well as having a longer ranged visual effect from the coloured grav waves resulting in coloured wedges.