Moments that really made you cringe or disliked

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by startrekrcks, Aug 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    In an interview, even J.J. Abrams admitted that the lens flares are overdone:

    http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

    Yes. Are neologisms illegal?

    If I'm unreasonable for expecting the filmmakers of a $150 million Star Trek movie to not squander enough of their budget to make the building of an important set impractical or impossible, them I'm the most unreasonable mutha in the Alpha Quadrant.

    The budgets of six recent high-profile, high-budget Sci Fi/Fantasy films are plenty relevant. Those films are very lavish, and they were brought in for less money a piece than STXI, with not a beer brewery in sight.

    I thought you'd say that. After the Bridge and the Transporter Room, the engineering section is a critical location/set of locations dating back to TOS. Yes, it wasn't the most elaborate or ornate place ever, but it was still a pretty important and well-integrated location, and was greatly expanded on (looks-wise) in the feature films and television series.

    :wtf:

    The LOTR films were shot roughly back-to-back (with separate pick-up work for each picture), but the SW features were not. Each SW feature has been shot independently of the others. For the prequels: TPM was shot 1997-1998, AOTC was shot 2000-2001 and ROTS 2003-2004. Except for a single shot of Obi-Wan dropping Luke off on Tatooine (filmed in Tunisia during the AOTC shoot) at the close of ROTS, not a single frame of footage was carried over from one film's production to the next, either.

    Number6, you say this like it's a good defence, but it strikes me as part of the problem. Visual effects are meant to come after sets, not before. And engineering is neither a scabby little pub down the road nor a jungle of concrete, metal, liquid water, stream and dials -- it's the heart of the Enterprise's power and the epitomy of rationalism fused with imagination. From TMP on (and "backwards", through to ENT), engineering has embodied, and been defined by, compactness, minimalism, clean energy and sleek, refined, ergonomic awesomeness (in fact, I think you can include TOS in this, too). It is almost a place of zen beauty, actually, from the gentle hum of the power systems (serving as the ship's heartbeat) to the controlled, almost detached, simple (yet elegant) and strangely calming interior. It is almost unconscionable to depict it in anything but these terms.

    I didn't know it was filmed in an actual brewery before I saw the picture. I disliked it from the get-go and researched it later. I won't deny for an instant that my disdain is amplified by knowing this fact, just like my love and admiration for other things in life is amplified by knowing more than the surface. That's what life is about -- you lean more to know more to learn more to...

    Most big budget film productions are down to the wire, so this isn't news. What separates greatness from the rest is as the difference between a good cook and a bad one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2009
  2. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    ^^What does any of that mean??

    When you do a movie, the nature of which requiring a profound amount of SFX, then money is going to be spent on it.

    I agree with you on the engine room. I wish they hadn't used a brewery.. But looking at the conceptual drawings, doesn't make me wish they had built the set either.. It's not like someone said "Hey we're out of money, let's just set up our gear down the pub," either.. Abrams had gone on record talking about how he likes to use locations for a sense of realism. I think the mistake with the engine room wasn't that they used a brewery as a location..but that the ship is supposed to be brand new and the brewery/engine room doesn't look brand new.

    As far as TOS, we only saw two rooms and an office..who is to say that behind those bulkheads isn't a bunch of pipes??

    As far as the SW.. I thought Lucas mentioned in the commentary that they were shot back to back. I stand corrected..

    Spending money on FX instead of sets is precoming more prevalent with genre films..so much so that you forget that loads of sets and locations were used for this film.

    I look at the engine room/brewery decision as an aesthetic decision.. not necessarily a budgetary one, given Abrams discussions on how he wanted the ship to look.

    As far as lens flares.. Just because Abrams said he went a little overboard doesn't mean it doesn't still look cool.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2009
  3. Kegg

    Kegg Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    Ireland.
    I was fine with engineering. It was big and busy looking. I prefer engineering rooms such as TMP's or TNG's as being easier on the eye and with their imposing, throbbing warp cores, but the one in this movie was fine.

    I'll be interested to see if they revamp it at all for the inevitable sequel.

    Not quite true. Some sets from TPM which reappeared in subsequent movies (like the Jedi Council room and the throne room of Naboo) were spliced together from footage taken in those movies. Which shouldn't be too surprising, the Star Wars prequels were enamoured of all kinds of visual fakery.
     
  4. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    It means I can ignore you from now on. :techman:

    EDIT: Oh, I see. You decided to revise your post and add something beyond the above. Why didn't you do this initially?

    Can you indicate or present any shots in which this is the case?
     
  5. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    Saves me the trouble of wasting my time on trying to have a discussion with you.:techman:
     
  6. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Ditto.
     
  7. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    Ditto?? Is that all you've got??
     
  8. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    I decided to flesh out my thoughts.. Is Jarod the only one allowed to do that?? At least I never accused you of ignoring my post. ;)
     
  9. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Closing for review.
     
  10. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    It's a little late for that, don't you think? That would have been the thing to do before your flame here, clearly aimed at number6:

    for which you will receive a warning. Comments to PM.

    This, also, is no good:

    There's nothing wrong with the balance of your post following (with the possible exception of the last sentence) but, no matter how you slice it, in the passage I've underlined you're calling him a fool, when you could easily have stopped short at simply telling him you think he's in error. That part's flaming, and gets a warning. Comments to PM.


    They are not. I quite like those, in fact, and thought the thread might finally be getting back on track.

    Alas, no -- only a few posts later, we're down to sniping about who can ignore whom. It's unfortunate, as there has been some very interesting discussion mixed in amongst the other business, and the "industropunk" angle might be the subject of its own thread, but I think this one's gone past its sell-by date and will remain closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page