Just got back from seeing Indy 4. No new Star Trek XI trailer, not even the teaser trailer.
Sure enough, no STXI trailer with Indy 4
- Thread starter Carpe Occasio
- Start date
I know that not all the previews are showed with the same movie at every theater. Unless they specifically say on TV or radio that there will be a special sneek preview or whatever.
I just hope the next Star Trek movie is better than this latest attempt at an Indy flick.
It is a somewhat bizarre film. I feel somewhat assaulted after seeing it.
Moving to Trek XI though.
Moving to Trek XI though.
So? The film is almost a year away from release.
Originally it was announced that there would be a STXI trailer with Indy 4 but then it was pulled (probably because of the release date being pushed back as you allude to). But I thought they might at least include the already released teaser trailer.
As for Indy 4, if that's how TPTB try to jumpstart, restart, whatever you want to call it, a franchise, then we're doomed.
Wow, you got 15 minutes? I was unimpressed from damn nearly the opening frame.
Wow, you got 15 minutes? I was unimpressed from damn nearly the opening frame.
You too? Visually didn't it have a Sky Captain/King Kong look? Most of the sets appeared to be CGI with the actors in front of blue/green screens. When they do that they can't make it look 100% real so the whole movie has to be shot to look like the CGI. It gives the whole thing an overall "fake" feel. When I got home I watched Indy 3 and it had a much better look to it. More like an old film instead of a CGI one.
I'm worried what STXI will look like. The whole actors on CGI sets is becoming more and more common. Were being force fed Hollywoods version of what looks real. Special effects today suck. I fear for STXI.
Indy 4 was Okaaaaaaaaay.
It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't a great film. I enjoyed it, but too many things bugged me. The ADR was bad at the start of the film - for some reason Harrison Ford had to redo most of his lines, and the synch wasn't perfect.
Too many CGI sets and too many lucas-esqe moments spoiled things a bit, but Shia Lebouf was good. Ray Winstone and John hurt were wasted though. And Jim Broadbent fared even worse.
A good romp, but I'd rather just had the orginal trilogy.
It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't a great film. I enjoyed it, but too many things bugged me. The ADR was bad at the start of the film - for some reason Harrison Ford had to redo most of his lines, and the synch wasn't perfect.
Too many CGI sets and too many lucas-esqe moments spoiled things a bit, but Shia Lebouf was good. Ray Winstone and John hurt were wasted though. And Jim Broadbent fared even worse.
A good romp, but I'd rather just had the orginal trilogy.
Is it really becoming so common, though? And have you been given reason think that STXI will suffer from it overmuch? If there's evidence that it will, please share (with appropriate spoiler warnings/coding, naturally.
)
Yes, great article. My point exactly.
Is it really becoming so common, though? And have you been given reason think that STXI will suffer from it overmuch? If there's evidence that it will, please share (with appropriate spoiler warnings/coding, naturally.
Yes, it's very common. Star Wars Episode 1 was mostly CGI sets. Then Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow showed how an entire movie, except the actors, could be made with CGI. Then King Kong did it. The Spiderman movies did it. The 300 did it. The rest of the Star Wars movies did it. Now Indy 4 did it. And look at this quote from the article listed above -
"Even JJ Abrams has admitted that it's impossible to build sets for everything on his Star Trek movie because it would cost too much."
And this quote from the article is the point I'm trying to make -
"There's an increasing feeling that CGI, which promised so much, is looking increasingly clunky these days, that sophisticated audiences can see the joins and spot the jerky movements, and that these failings are cheapening the cinema experience. What began as a grumble about the CGI-heavy Star Wars prequels looking worse than the original trilogy has metamorphosed into full-grown irritation with the notion that computer wizardry is enough to make a film. It's easy to see why: was Deep Blue Sea any scarier than Jaws? Would ET have been as cute if he'd existed on a hard drive rather than as a model? The first leaked review of the new Indy film, on the Ain't It Cool News website, crystallised the feeling: "The fake stuff doesn't mix with the real stuff at all."
No big budget sci-fi movie gets made anymore without heavy CGI. And I'm not talking about just the spaceships and space scenes. I'm talking about all the rest. The sets, the lighting, even some characters. The quote above makes a valid point. ET, Jaws, and I'll add the original Alien, were better as animatronic models or men in suits. Even miniature spaceships look better when done right. Look at 2001, Alien, Outland, etc.
CGI has it's place, but not to make a movie in it's entirety. Even those who liked Indy 4 complain about the CGI look and feel. And Abrams quote from the article above doesn't bode well for STXI.
With you, so far. I quite agree.
I'll have to take your word for this, for the moment, as I have not seen Indy 4 yet.
However...
...I'm not sure I'm reading this quite the same way as you are. He's said that you can't build sets for everything, but that's not news. Even Cecil B. DeMille had to fudge on sets sometimes; George Lucas used miniatures in the original Star Wars, as had many filmmakers before him, and miniatures were also used in a number of instances in Lord of the Rings.
What the article containing the Abrams quote (and the quote itself, really) seems to me to be saying is that there is a growing recognition of the limitations of CGI, and that there is a visible trend among prominent directors toward using physical props and models again. CGI will still be used to fill in the gaps, but it's become apparent to a lot of people that CGI isn't the be-all and end-all, where movie effects are concerned; it's just one of the tools available.
Your Abrams observation is my point exactly. Of course everything can't be built full size, but miniatures often look better than CGI. CGI is being relied on for everything today. I long for the old "matchstick and rubberband" days. Go back and look at some of those old Cecil B. DeMille films. The miniature work was fantastic.
Well, I doubt that we'll ever get all the way back to what you call the "matchstick and rubber band" days (I like the old stuff, too) but we're already seeing an adjustment away from too much dependency on CGI, which is what the article is saying, overall.
Will there continue to be those who try to use CGI for everything? Sure, but it's looking like the people who give their productions some aesthetic consideration in the design stage are looking more and more at ways in which they can avoid CGI wherever possible, using it only when any other method is cost-prohibitive, and I suspect pretty strongly that Abrams is one of them.
TrekXI will certainly have CGI effects -- to expect otherwise simply wouldn't be realistic, in today's state of filmmaking -- but I don't think it will be overwhelmed by CGI.
