Yep, works for me
Nah, not really
Stared at it for a minute...got dizzy..
Hmmm, can't vote yet, still thinking out loud ....
I can sort of see that you have one element in the middle distance; the lights, that don't move and things near and far; yacht and stars, that do.
My thoughts on the yacht's movement are that it contradicts the apparently smooth water surface (that we know has been 'averaged' to smooth).
Then my mind wandered to thinking "what if the star trails were clone-moved so they were all 'aimed' at the hull of the yacht", but that kind of liberty taking might probably upset a few 'astro' members
I think, on balance, due to places my mind is going to make it work better, the answer is probably "Nah ..."
I love the star effect on the lights in the distance, they're beautiful! And the small star trails look great too. But I have to agree with Dave about the contradiction between the smoothness of the water and the almost violent movement of the yacht.
Could you have got a flash shot of the yacht and cloned it over the top I wonder? Or maybe that would look odd...
I'm afraid I am going to have to say no on the poll Colin
It is not so much the motion which starts my reactive state as much as the amount of light on the boat itself compared to the rest of the scene. Go back and reshoot with a GND (if you have one) and lower that light value significantly. I am guessing about a 10 or fifteen second exposure (gauging by the sharpness of the backdrop lights), so would think the "star trails" are more likely aircraft. hard to tell, though.
I had to go the Naw, way myself...solly.