New Star Trek Movie

[Hawriel]

Originally Posted by terrant

What did annoy was Spook's ship. It moved like a Star Wars craft and sounded like a Star Wars craft. I suspect some crossover of effects people who should have been roundly beaten on.

Not the only thing that was star wars ish. The warp drive and how it works was totaly remade into star wars hyperdrive. Also back then you dont go to warp that close to a planet. Pike should have never been suprized by the junk yard he flew into. He would have been able to see it comming. You can see things out side the warp bubble.

Edit.
the more I think about it the more I dislike this movie. Sorry Dervag I tried to accept your argument for why Nero's dump truck was armed like a battle ship. I just cant. Its a dump truck. Albeit with a back ho lazer drill attachment. Its still a damn dump truck. 150 year old weaponry should still rip it appart.

As for the comic. It brakes the plot even more. When did Nero have time to go off for who knows how long to have his ship refitted into a killing machine? He was doing his job then bang Romules is destroyed he goes ape **** and attacks spock. NONE! No time at all. And how does a minor know whare a secret base that has borg tech is?

[SmartAlec]

Originally Posted by Hawriel

Its a dump truck.

Well, if you compare a modern-day dump truck with the original Benz patent motorwagon from 1886... that's less than 150 years, and my money's still on the dump truck if it comes to a fight.

[Joran]

Originally Posted by SmartAlec

Well, if you compare a modern-day dump truck with the original Benz patent motorwagon from 1886... that's less than 150 years, and my money's still on the dump truck if it comes to a fight.

Then outfit it with a couple fifty-cal machine guns and a TOW missile launcher and armor it up a bit. You'd have a pretty fearsome weapon for the 1850's.

[SmartAlec]

Originally Posted by Joran

Then outfit it with a couple fifty-cal machine guns and a TOW missile launcher and armor it up a bit. You'd have a pretty fearsome weapon for the 1850's.

If we're going to add guns, I'm fairly sure that if you gave the motorwagon state-of-the-art 1880s firearms and the dump truck commonly-available firearms for the year 2009, the dump truck is still going to come out ahead.

Things tip even further if you open up the field to explosives and large-scale projectiles - allowing for the idea that the Narada is packing military-grade hardware. The motorwagon is simply too small to mount a howitzer or a cannon, but the dump truck is quite capable of having someone in the back with a rocket-propelled grenade.

Perhaps a better analogy would be an early 19th century East Indiaman/Royal Navy ship of the line vs. a World War II-era merchant navy vessel? The merchant navy ship is at a serious disadvantage against warships of its' own era (not to mention aircraft or submarines), but it could likely outpace and sink a wooden sailing ship with little trouble.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Saw it. Liked it, but only because I refused to think about it. The casting and acting was spot-on, at least. Especially McCoy.

[Ziren]

Originally Posted by Hawriel

And how does a minor know whare a secret base that has borg tech is?

At least that question I can answer: The Romulan council members told him before he killed them.

[Dervag]

Originally Posted by Titleless Bob

Despite this, I completely understand why most of you enjoyed this movie. It was full of high fructose nostalgia. That's okay. We all have a weakness for childhood memories. For those of you who just liked it for the shiny lights and the explosions, that's fine really. There will always be generic blockbusters in need of idiotic masses. You fit the bill perfectly.

Well, I may be an idiot, but at least I can take consolation in the fact that most of the human race is similarly idiotic while I work on my graduate degree in physics.
______

Originally Posted by Hawriel

Not the only thing that was star wars ish. The warp drive and how it works was totaly remade into star wars hyperdrive. Also back then you dont go to warp that close to a planet. Pike should have never been suprized by the junk yard he flew into. He would have been able to see it comming. You can see things out side the warp bubble.

I'm not sure I agree about the "Star Wars hyperdrive" thing; having ships boom out of visibility as they enter warp is entirely reasonable even if they travel only in normal space at small multiples of the speed of light.

On top of that, going towards Vulcan at the warp factor they were using, they wouldn't have had much warning of the debris cloud via lightspeed sensors- the destruction of the Federation fleet happened only a few minutes ago. Pike would not have had time to react to the wreckage cloud before arriving in the middle of it.

With FTL sensors it's another matter, but I'm not sure Kirk-era subspace sensors were up to the task of resolving debris on the hundred meter scale that close to a planet, and distinguishing it from a fleet of functioning starships.

So yes, Pike could see outside the bubble; the question is whether his sight would be sharp enough and long-ranged enough to give him a useful warning.
________

Edit.
the more I think about it the more I dislike this movie. Sorry Dervag I tried to accept your argument for why Nero's dump truck was armed like a battle ship. I just cant. Its a dump truck. Albeit with a back ho lazer drill attachment. Its still a damn dump truck. 150 year old weaponry should still rip it appart.

It's a freaking Romulan dump truck. The Romulans are no more likely to build an unarmed warp-capable ship than they are to become a hippy commune.

So they put their equivalent of a .50 caliber machine gun on their dump truck. Do you know how much damage a dump truck with a .50 caliber machine gun could do to an army loaded with weapons from the early nineteenth century?

[Athaniar]

Just saw the movie approximately 5 to 3 hours ago, and I have to say it was a good movie. I liked it, and hope there will be many sequels. Alternate universe for the win?

Also, debate: which one is the coolest, the Narada or the Scimitar?

[chiasaur11]

Originally Posted by Lord Xavius

Just saw the movie approximately 5 to 3 hours ago, and I have to say it was a good movie. I liked it, and hope there will be many sequels. Alternate universe for the win?

Also, debate: which one is the coolest, the Narada or the Scimitar?

Narada.

It's in a good film, giving it a massive edge. Also, Cthulhian tentacles.

[ColonelFuster]

Originally Posted by Dervag

Well, I may be an idiot, but at least I can take consolation in the fact that most of the human race is similarly idiotic while I work on my graduate degree in physics.

I've been lurking for quite a while; I just popped in to say that Dervag just won the internet.

I went to see the movie not long ago, and I have to say i'm impressed. Being in the business, I see too many bad castings and terrible plotlines shoved in my face, to the point where I don't go to see movies anymore. I am quite content watching a TV show that I can turn off partway through without feeling like i'm wasting money. Star Trek was an exception because, well, I never was into Star Trek as a kid (I had no TV), and I felt less geeky for it. I love LOST despite all of it's shortcomings, so a Bad Robot version of Star Trek seemed like it would be perfectly tolerable. I took my $25 gift card for AMC that had been gathering dust and went to see it.

My first thought? The scene of Spock as a child was pulled off masterfully. Would have made a great short film just by itself.

Arriving at the wreckage outside of Vulcan was tense and ridiculously emotional, all the way through to when they left. I don't care how warp drive works. Neither should you. Star Trek is now... cool. You can go into a college dorm and shout, "Hey, has anyone seen the Star Trek movie??!" and not get beat up! If my plastic sister can say something like "I loved Star Trek- Don't tell anyone." than I am happy with the movie.

Casting Sylar as Spock was masterful. Totally cold with something lurking just below the surface, like a Great White about to break through the ice to eat a baby seal... that was what I see from his performance in Heroes. That's the only reason I watch the show, because the rest of the actors are TERRIBLE.
Scotty was exactly as comic-relief as he should have been. And does anyone else think that there was some poking fun at how Scotty got fat later?

All in all, it was great. Maybe i'm not a rabid fanboy, so it dosen't hurt my sense of pride to say this, but CHILL OUT. I don't care if the stardates were incorrect, or if you can observe what's at the terminal point of your warp, or if a mining ship shouldn't be equipped with that much weaponry, or if Spock was really gay, or WHATEVER. Let it go. It's not really Star Trek. It's an alternate universe- one that's not geeky, it's cinematic. It dosen't need ties to the old show to be enjoyable. And you definately won't enjoy the movie if you're actively trying to pick it apart.

[Athaniar]

Originally Posted by chiasaur11

Narada.

I probably agree. I was almost paralyzed with awesome in the opening scene.

[TheEmerged]

Originally Posted by Ziren

Also: In the prequel comic it is shown that Nero's ship is able to attack while being cloaked. One has to wonder why he never used that move in the movie. Seriously, he's shown to destroy a dozen Kilngon ships that way, one would think that during that time he could take on the whole federation armada, if he just used that technology.

Perhaps it's for the same reason he didn't just kill Spock -- he (arrogantly) wants his enemies to see him coming.

[Ra_Va]

I saw the movie in theaters and as I would expect form a Star Trek movie they spent alot of time on it and made it 'logical'. It was a good movie especially with the movies like 'wanted' thats a good movie while your still in the 'Oooo Shiny' mode but hate it when you start thinking about it.

[skywalker]

Originally Posted by Titleless Bob

Despite this, I completely understand why most of you enjoyed this movie. It was full of high fructose nostalgia. That's okay. We all have a weakness for childhood memories. For those of you who just liked it for the shiny lights and the explosions, that's fine really. There will always be generic blockbusters in need of idiotic masses. You fit the bill perfectly. I hope you enjoy the new Terminator movie... ugh

You like it extra crispy there Bobbo?

Good job signing up for a forum to trash a movie and its fans.

Checked Rotten Tomatoes lately? Critics have given this move a 95% fresh rating... Are they all idiots too?

I'm sure film school makes you the be-all, end-all of movie critics. You should ask for a refund, methinks.

[Hawriel]

Originally Posted by Dervag

So they put their equivalent of a .50 caliber machine gun on their dump truck. Do you know how much damage a dump truck with a .50 caliber machine gun could do to an army loaded with weapons from the early nineteenth century?

Yes a .50 caliber machine gun would do damage to a regiment from the army of the Patomic. The springfield rifles at the time where .58 caliber. A regiment had about 800 to 900 men. Then throw in a battery of 12 pound nepolions. My mony is on the regiment.

This is a bad example. Every thing in a society does not fallow along with what ever shiny new tech is available. A dump truck today is pritty much the same as a dump truck from 60 years ago. Well minus the DC player and AC. Nero's ship, not being a military ship, would most likely be very similar to a mining ship 50 or so years befor his time. No society or corporation automaticly upgrates there inventory just because a new gadget is made. They use what they have untill what they have is no longer profitable.

[Ziren]

Since most people apparently don't understand, why I some other guys didn't like the movie much, I'm going to describe it a little better:

As a movie in general, I give it a 5/10.

It gets the five point for the action, the effects and the mostly good actors. It looses the other five points for bad storyline and horrible characters (everyone had exactly one characteristic that defined him/her) .


As an action movie, I'd give it a 8/10.

Same reasons, but the weighting is different.


As a Star Trek movie it gets no more than a 2/10.

And no, "it's a new timeline" is not a valid excuse for changing the whole flair of the Star Trek universe. I can only assume that the writers had the movie play there for a single reason: Laziness. They didn't want to come up with their own sentient alien races (and Scotty's monkey thing really doesn't count) or characters. A agree with Titleless Bob in that it was essentially a fanfic - except that it obviously wasn't written by actual fans.

[SmartAlec]

Originally Posted by Hawriel

A dump truck today is pritty much the same as a dump truck from 60 years ago.

Remember - we're not talking about 60 years, or even 100 years. We're talking 150 years. Automobiles barely existed 150 years ago. The Age of Sail was still in full swing 150 years ago. It's an eternity in technological development.

To put things in perspective, during Kirk's era the Romulans were still trying to make cloaking technology viable and not all of their warfleet had warp drive. They had to barter with the Klingon Empire for decent ships. 100 years later, during Picard's era, the Romulan fleet's pride and joy is the kickass D'deridex-class warbird. That's a big leap. The Narada is another 20 years ahead of that, which is easily enough time for the advances made in the development of the D'deridex to have trickled down to lesser branches of the Romulan fleet.

Because yes, the Narada isn't a corporate ship, as there are no corporations, but a ship of the Romulan Star Empire. Our society doesn't upgrade constantly, as we're a capitalist society, but the 24th century has state-owned industrial replication and upgrading ships is only a matter of time, energy and capacity.

Again, to put things in perspective - and using the Federation as a yardstick, as it's the best we've got - the Galaxy-class ship was brand new during the 2350s. 20 years later, it's the Sovereign-class, Akira-class and Steamrunner-class which are brand new, not to mention the experimental Defiant and Prometheus. The Galaxy-class is old hat, and has undergone several refits, if the Enterprise-D's life is anything to go by. Starfleet still has quite a few Excelsior-class and Miranda-class ships kicking around, but they've all long since been upgraded to 24th-century standards. Some Miranda-class (which won't be developed until 50 years after the events of the Star Trek movie and would be considered state of the art at that time) are used as simple supply ships during Picard's time.

Take one of those refitted Miranda class 'supply ships' and send it back in time 150 years and it'll likely be capable of everything the Narada was (except the whole drilling thing). Throw in some quantum torpedoes and there won't be any doubt.

[Dervag]

Originally Posted by Titleless Bob

This comment is relevant because a degree in physics is a garuntee as to ones taste in film?

Bob, you didn't just disagree with my opinion about whether a movie was good. You called someone with a bachelor's in physics an idiot, by very strong implication.

Your taste in cinema may be impeccable; I am not ruling out the possibility. But I question your use of English vocabulary, because I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by Hawriel

Yes a .50 caliber machine gun would do damage to a regiment from the army of the Patomic. The springfield rifles at the time where .58 caliber. A regiment had about 800 to 900 men. Then throw in a battery of 12 pound nepolions. My mony is on the regiment.

Might I point out that the dump truck is vastly more mobile than the infantry regiment?

But seriously, the essence of your argument is that a Romulan mining ship (a large and presumably expensive one) would be armed with no weapons, or with weapons light enough to be easily overcome by 23rd century warships. If that were true, then it would be even more easily overcome by 24th century warships, which would defeat the purpose of arming it in the first place.

I forget who came up with the better analogy, but consider what would happen if a WWII-vintage Liberty ship armed with its single 102 millimeter gun firing explosive shells went up against a Napoleonic ship of the line. By any reasonable measure, the Liberty ship is a civilian vessel and the man-of-war is a warship... but the Liberty ship could blast Age of Sail warships into splinters all day and never be in any real danger so long as the ammunition held out.

[Tamburlaine]

I saw it yesterday, and I liked it a lot, far more than I was expecting to. Most everyone was well cast, the action scenes were pretty cool, some of the references made me laugh (a Futurama reference in Star Trek? Is the universe inside out?), and it was pretty cool in general.

There were a couple of things that bugged me though:

Originally Posted by Swordguy

...the scale of the engineering spaces, for example, are almost certainly too large to actually fit within the ship, given the scale of the windows and the depth of the shuttlebay...

Right from the very first scene with the Kelven, I was thinking this. However, it has absolutely no impact on how good the film is.
How advanced the evil mining behemoth was bugged me as well, until I read this thread and realised it was actually from 150 years in the future, which kinda explained everything...

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Hawriel

Yes a .50 caliber machine gun would do damage to a regiment from the army of the Patomic. The springfield rifles at the time where .58 caliber. A regiment had about 800 to 900 men. Then throw in a battery of 12 pound nepolions. My mony is on the regiment.

Yes, early firearms often fired larger-diameter projectiles. The machine gun, though, will demonstrate much better range and accuracy than a mid-19th century rifle - partly due to firing heavier projectiles of a more efficient design, and partly due to greater muzzle velocity. The machine gun will also enjoy a massive advantage in rate of fire over any individual rifleman: in fact, depending on the standard of training and equipment of the rifle regiment, one machine gun might conceivably be able to approach the rate of fire of an entire unit of green troops with muzzle loaders. Combined with the mobility advantage conferred by the vehicle, I'd say the machine gunner has better than even odds here.

This is a bad example. Every thing in a society does not fallow along with what ever shiny new tech is available. A dump truck today is pritty much the same as a dump truck from 60 years ago. Well minus the DC player and AC. Nero's ship, not being a military ship, would most likely be very similar to a mining ship 50 or so years befor his time. No society or corporation automaticly upgrates there inventory just because a new gadget is made. They use what they have untill what they have is no longer profitable.

Actually... Even if I were buying into this argument (A modern dump truck is going to be rather more different from a 1949 model than you give it credit for, even if many of the differences don't show. For starters, a newly-built dump truck is apt to be considerably larger, and correspondingly more powerful and more ruggedly built, than one from the immediate post-war period.), I'd be willing to bet on a converted 2009-ish dump truck, with jury-rigged late-20th-Century armament, over a 1919-model tank. That's only a difference of 90 years. Heck, I'd pick the refitted modern dump truck over several 1939 tanks - and that's only a 70 year difference, less than half the gap posited in the film.

[The Glyphstone]

Somebody hasn't read the forum rules on flaming apparently...

[averagejoe]

Originally Posted by Titleless Bob

If you took it in the context that I was saying you were some drooling moron incapable of tying his own shoes, then yes I would (most likely) be wrong. However, I was merely saying that you are all idiots about film. If asked to participate in a discussion of astrophysics, I too would be an idiot. Fortunatley, we are talking about film and here you are an idiot.

The moral of the story is: Don't take part in conversations that are beyond you.

That's stupid. For several distinct reasons.

For one, unlike physics, film isn't something that builds off of prior knowledge as it increases in complexity and conceptual difficulty. In fact, I'd be willing to wager money that I could have a conversation about film at the same level as the best film guy in the world, so long as I had the meaning of any specialized terms explained to me. I suppose I could be wrong on this, but film would have to be very different than other artistic endeavors into which I've gotten more involved.

For two, being knowledgeable about film doesn't automatically give you great taste. In fact, your position of authority is pretty much all you have here, and that's tenuous at best; you haven't actually given any especially deep reason for anything you've said, you've just been like, "Trust me guys, I'm a film major, I know about this sort of thing." I knew a film major once who thought Maid in Manhattan was pretty good. Clearly eduction isn't everything.

For three, what the hell is it with academics in creative pursuits that drives them to such snobbery? I've been much more educated in literature, but it comes to the same thing, a bunch of snobs who consider themselves to be the few people on earth who know how to "properly" enjoy a film, secure in their knowledge that everyone else is doing it wrong, and are stupid for enjoying themselves when they shouldn't. I mean, I understand the idea of quality in such things. My feelings on the movie in discussion are even pretty similar to yours, but to suggest that the people who enjoyed it are, essentially, watching movies the wrong way and enjoying the stupid parts of them is inane, short sighted, and more than a bit masturbatory.

So much for rational. It probably would have been more effective just to suggest that you're just trying to make film seem like a real major and pretend that you're actually doing something difficult and not something that anybody could do, but I'm a classy guy so I try to stay away from such arguments. Something more substantive is certainly better for debate.

[BlueWizard]

I loved it!!!!


McCoy for an Oscar! {Karl Urban}

[An Enemy Spy]

Originally Posted by Tamburlaine

I saw it yesterday, and I liked it a lot, far more than I was expecting to. Most everyone was well cast, the action scenes were pretty cool, some of the references made me laugh (a Futurama reference in Star Trek? Is the universe inside out?), and it was pretty cool in general.

There were a couple of things that bugged me though:

Right from the very first scene with the Kelven, I was thinking this. However, it has absolutely no impact on how good the film is.
How advanced the evil mining behemoth was bugged me as well, until I read this thread and realised it was actually from 150 years in the future, which kinda explained everything...

Can you jog my memory on where the futurama reference was? I can't remember that.

[Tamburlaine]

Originally Posted by An Enemy Spy

Can you jog my memory on where the futurama reference was? I can't remember that.

When FutureSpock shows Scotty his transporter equation:

Originally Posted by Scotty

I never thought of thinking of it as space being the thing that's moving!

Which is how the Planet Express ship's engines work - they move the universe around the ship.

[Dervag]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Actually... Even if I were buying into this argument (A modern dump truck is going to be rather more different from a 1949 model than you give it credit for, even if many of the differences don't show. For starters, a newly-built dump truck is apt to be considerably larger, and correspondingly more powerful and more ruggedly built, than one from the immediate post-war period.), I'd be willing to bet on a converted 2009-ish dump truck, with jury-rigged late-20th-Century armament, over a 1919-model tank. That's only a difference of 90 years. Heck, I'd pick the refitted modern dump truck over several 1939 tanks - and that's only a 70 year difference, less than half the gap posited in the film.

Depends on the jury-rigged armament, the 1939 tank, and the mission.

Throw in a Javelin or a TOW and I'll buy it, though. Unless we're talking about attacking a fortified position in a set-piece engagement and the tanks in question are Matilda IIs.
_____

Originally Posted by Titleless Bob

If you took it in the context that I was saying you were some drooling moron incapable of tying his own shoes, then yes I would (most likely) be wrong. However, I was merely saying that you are all idiots about film. If asked to participate in a discussion of astrophysics, I too would be an idiot. Fortunatley, we are talking about film and here you are an idiot.

You still keep using that word. I still don't think it means what you think it means.

[Jimor]

Originally Posted by Titleless Bob

If you took it in the context that I was saying you were some drooling moron incapable of tying his own shoes, then yes I would (most likely) be wrong. However, I was merely saying that you are all idiots about film. If asked to participate in a discussion of astrophysics, I too would be an idiot. Fortunatley, we are talking about film and here you are an idiot.

The moral of the story is: Don't take part in conversations that are beyond you.

I'm a professional fiction writer and editor, and I've pitched to 2 of the Star Trek series.

Now that we have all of our meaningless credentials out of the way...

The movie has its flaws, and technobabble and incomplete reasoning to the backstory have always been Trek weaknesses, but this movie does 80-90% of what it needs to do to be a fun and entertaining film. The biggeset and always the most important is that it used the characters very well overall.

The action was up to the standards of what viewers expect, and it fit well within the context. The balance between it and the characterizations was good as well.

So calling this movie a complete waste just shows a lack of objectivity that rather belies any claim to knowledge of how much can go wrong in movies even with the best intentions.

I can nitpick with the best, but I never forget to not let SOME details that slip through a massively complex undertaking undermine my appreciation for what WAS accomplished, and in this case, that was a lot.

[Ravens_cry]

Thing that bugged me, the Ice moon "Summon Bigger Fish'
Kirks terror at a CGI creation was palpable and well done, but, it didn't make sense. Big wet red creature, grabs and kills thing larger then Kirk, then chases Kirk? What the. . .? If it was hungry, why didn't it stop to eat the creature it killed? Another thing that bugged me. The phasers, they. . .pulsed, ala Star Wars. Also, the differances in transporter times was very noticeable to me.
I know Hollywood time is quite flexible, but SPocks mothers death felt preventable.
The death of Vulcan, wow, this felt like the movie saying "This is the New Star Trek, bitches."
The acting was pretty good, some of the dialog, especially certain parts of Old Spocks iffy, the space fights were frankly nauseating. So much happening at once with just two ships. I was frankly lost inside the Enterprise, it was like a chemical plant.
I liked the jump to warp, that conveyed the sheer speed very effectively.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Dervag

Depends on the jury-rigged armament, the 1939 tank, and the mission.

Throw in a Javelin or a TOW and I'll buy it, though. Unless we're talking about attacking a fortified position in a set-piece engagement and the tanks in question are Matilda IIs.

I did say "some" 1939 tanks. Not everything in 1939 was a Matilda II (or a comparably tough French or Soviet heavy tank): light tanks were both more numerous and more vulnerable.

And yes, I was thinking of something a little more extensive and expensive than bolting a .50-cal to the edge of the truck's bed on a pintle mount. After all, such machine guns represent a relatively mature technology and as such haven't changed much since the 1940's - so they're not the best representation of 2009 tech. I was actually thinking 25mm Bushmaster, or maybe 105mm RR - but plunking an ATGM team down in the bed would certainly work, too.

[Dervag]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

Thing that bugged me, the Ice moon "Summon Bigger Fish'
Kirks terror at a CGI creation was palpable and well done, but, it didn't make sense. Big wet red creature, grabs and kills thing larger then Kirk, then chases Kirk? What the. . .?

My best guess is that it's trying to kill as much meat as possible, knowing it can go back for the big creature. But even that isn't a very good explanation for why it would chase Kirk... unless it's strongly drawn to movement, or is suffering from the giant ice-monster equivalent of rabies or some other insanity.

If it was hungry, why didn't it stop to eat the creature it killed? Another thing that bugged me. The phasers, they. . .pulsed, ala Star Wars. Also, the differances in transporter times was very noticeable to me.
I know Hollywood time is quite flexible, but SPocks mothers death felt preventable.

My guess is that locking onto someone in the midst of seismic disruptions while a black hole is rapidly growing below their feet is difficult, and took longer.

That said, Spock's mother's death was definitely avoidable; had any of a number of things happened a few seconds faster, she'd have lived. But that doesn't mean that the effort of locking onto a transponder signal and beaming the High Council up was one of those things.
_____

Originally Posted by Philistine

I did say "some" 1939 tanks. Not everything in 1939 was a Matilda II (or a comparably tough French or Soviet heavy tank): light tanks were both more numerous and more vulnerable.

As long as the honor of the Matilda is upheld, I agree with the general idea you're trying to express.