I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.
- Thread starter Gepard
- Start date
Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.
But not as angry as you apparently are at your girlfriend and child:
But not as angry as you apparently are at your girlfriend and child:
the problem with this movie is not that it isnt ENTERTAINING because it is ENTERTAINING!
I enjoyed watching the movie- however
the plot has more holes than swiss cheese.
plausibility was stretched a little too much
and I think they could have developed the Romulans a bit more & uhura got handed the short straw. plus where were all the women? it was almost a sausage fest.
that said- its an enjoyable movie, doing well at the box office & the life has been kicked back into a tired franchise.
I enjoyed watching the movie- however
the plot has more holes than swiss cheese.
plausibility was stretched a little too much
and I think they could have developed the Romulans a bit more & uhura got handed the short straw. plus where were all the women? it was almost a sausage fest.
that said- its an enjoyable movie, doing well at the box office & the life has been kicked back into a tired franchise.
Nice first post. Stick around.
Actually, you've just broken new ground in the ongoing effort to be dismissive of people who like something you don't.
Congratulations on a truly vapid, stupid line of reasoning.
Only in your opinion, not as a matter of fact. The movie was not too loud for me.
Touche. Probably depends on the theater you go to, too. My fifth grade daughter started covering her ears in the fight and explosion scenes, so I just did the same. No harm done. Be well.
Hear hear!! You nailed it better than my five attempts across this BBS! I kept WAITING for a great Trek ending. I thought Kirk WAS going to spare the scary bad guy at the end. Nope. Blast 'em. I could just picture Kirk in Arena NOT killing the Gorn. Where was the "Star Trek" in this movie named Star Trek? Thanks for putting it into words so well!
I'll give you one reason I don't like the new film ...
TMP (1979)
ST (2009)
Spend a few seconds looking at each image. Let your mind feast a little.
Does one image strike you as far more natural and beautiful than the other?
It does, for me.
The top image was composed and lensed by a master director and cinematographer. It has wonderful depth, great flesh detail, rich, natural colours. There's a painterly feel to it. The bottom image looks terribly fake, is flat, lifeless and washed out. The actors in the foreground look pasted in, there's some terrible CG backlight work and the colours have a general malaise to them. It feels more like something out of a video game.
So, why is it, then, that the bottom image comes from a film with a production budget of some $150 million and looks like ass? Why, too, when it comes from a film made thirty years later, with advances in film stock, camera equipment, lighting rigs and film technology in general, which should result in better images, not worse ones? There is no excuse for it, except to assume a general lack of care on behalf of the filmmakers, and to note a gradual decline in the art and craft of motion picture making since 1979.
That's just my opinion, but I stand by it. This is also just my opinion, but ...
JJ Abrams has the mentality of a TV producer, not a movie maker. The big screen is a venerable medium that takes real nerve and ability to work within. I don't think Abrams cuts the mustard -- not by a long shot. Now, people can get behind ST XI all they want. I'm down with the idea that it's entertaining, it's thrilling, it's uplifting, it's this, it's that, but if you care about cinematic excellence, you'll find it wanting (again, in my opinion). It's kinda sad that some people take these things so lightly or not at all.
TMP (1979)
ST (2009)
Spend a few seconds looking at each image. Let your mind feast a little.
Does one image strike you as far more natural and beautiful than the other?
It does, for me.
The top image was composed and lensed by a master director and cinematographer. It has wonderful depth, great flesh detail, rich, natural colours. There's a painterly feel to it. The bottom image looks terribly fake, is flat, lifeless and washed out. The actors in the foreground look pasted in, there's some terrible CG backlight work and the colours have a general malaise to them. It feels more like something out of a video game.
So, why is it, then, that the bottom image comes from a film with a production budget of some $150 million and looks like ass? Why, too, when it comes from a film made thirty years later, with advances in film stock, camera equipment, lighting rigs and film technology in general, which should result in better images, not worse ones? There is no excuse for it, except to assume a general lack of care on behalf of the filmmakers, and to note a gradual decline in the art and craft of motion picture making since 1979.
That's just my opinion, but I stand by it. This is also just my opinion, but ...
JJ Abrams has the mentality of a TV producer, not a movie maker. The big screen is a venerable medium that takes real nerve and ability to work within. I don't think Abrams cuts the mustard -- not by a long shot. Now, people can get behind ST XI all they want. I'm down with the idea that it's entertaining, it's thrilling, it's uplifting, it's this, it's that, but if you care about cinematic excellence, you'll find it wanting (again, in my opinion). It's kinda sad that some people take these things so lightly or not at all.
Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.
As still images they're both nice.
As moving images in a film - well, the former remains a still image. I prefer the latter.
As still images they're both nice.
As moving images in a film - well, the former remains a still image. I prefer the latter.
I'll give you one reason I don't like the new film ...
TMP (1979)
ST (2009)
Spend a few seconds looking at each image. Let your mind feast a little.
Does one image strike you as far more natural and beautiful than the other?
It does, for me.
The top image was composed and lensed by a master director and cinematographer. It has wonderful depth, great flesh detail, rich, natural colours. There's a painterly feel to it. The bottom image looks terribly fake, is flat, lifeless and washed out. The actors in the foreground look pasted in, there's some terrible CG backlight work and the colours have a general malaise to them. It feels more like something out of a video game.
So, why is it, then, that the bottom image comes from a film with a production budget of some $150 million and looks like ass? Why, too, when it comes from a film made thirty years later, with advances in film stock, camera equipment, lighting rigs and film technology in general, which should result in better images, not worse ones? There is no excuse for it, except to assume a general lack of care on behalf of the filmmakers, and to note a gradual decline in the art and craft of motion picture making since 1979.
That's just my opinion, but I stand by it. This is also just my opinion, but ...
JJ Abrams has the mentality of a TV producer, not a movie maker. The big screen is a venerable medium that takes real nerve and ability to work within. I don't think Abrams cuts the mustard -- not by a long shot. Now, people can get behind ST XI all they want. I'm down with the idea that it's entertaining, it's thrilling, it's uplifting, it's this, it's that, but if you care about cinematic excellence, you'll find it wanting (again, in my opinion). It's kinda sad that some people take these things so lightly or not at all.
I'm not really seeing anything wrong specifically with the image you posted, but I do agree that this movie had some issues with the cinematography. There were many times where it definitely felt like it was being filmed for a TV screen. Obviously, he's used to making TV, and I think this is a normal problem for someone like him who hasn't done too many big feature films. Hopefully it will improve with time.
To be honest, the second image strikes me as far more natural and beautiful than the other. It gives the hall depth, it gives the impression there are many, many more cadets then we see in that frame and it looks like a real ceremony. The first, while not bad, looks like it's shot in a bathroom closet where the people have just been caught like deer in the headlights; it looks like a cramped social gathering, not like a ceremony at all.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Personally, I don't see why the condition of having the camera moving is preferable to keeping it still. If anything, I feel it's the other way around. Movement, by definition, implies energy and energy expenditure -- a filmmaker had, therefore, better do something damn important that warrants an otherwise excessive embellishment. I like dynamic camera movements, cinema verite and the like, but I also value static shots and subtle gestures. With the right editing, a film composed of nothing but still shots can be more expressive and more alive than a film with a billion pans, zooms, tilts, etc.
I wasn't talking about the setting so much as the composition and lighting. In this sense, they are objectively different and it's hard to judge. That said, I think "deer in headlights" is a silly description. Although the crew is assembled to hear dire news, they look focused but relaxed, and the tension they do exhibit is totally warranted. In the latter, the cadets are supine, some almost startled-looking, although their tensed body language is, again, warranted. The latter still fits your description more, though. Also, the former is taking place on a ship's Recreation Deck, as opposed to an auditorium in a vast institution, and the crew has been hastily assembled due to unforeseen circumstances. The more intimate feel is a natural part of the setting and parameters of the story.
Last edited:
I'll give you one reason I don't like the new film ...
TMP (1979)
ST (2009)
Spend a few seconds looking at each image. Let your mind feast a little.
Does one image strike you as far more natural and beautiful than the other?
It does, for me.
The top image was composed and lensed by a master director and cinematographer. It has wonderful depth, great flesh detail, rich, natural colours. There's a painterly feel to it. The bottom image looks terribly fake, is flat, lifeless and washed out. The actors in the foreground look pasted in, there's some terrible CG backlight work and the colours have a general malaise to them. It feels more like something out of a video game.
So, why is it, then, that the bottom image comes from a film with a production budget of some $150 million and looks like ass? Why, too, when it comes from a film made thirty years later, with advances in film stock, camera equipment, lighting rigs and film technology in general, which should result in better images, not worse ones? There is no excuse for it, except to assume a general lack of care on behalf of the filmmakers, and to note a gradual decline in the art and craft of motion picture making since 1979.
That's just my opinion, but I stand by it. This is also just my opinion, but ...
JJ Abrams has the mentality of a TV producer, not a movie maker. The big screen is a venerable medium that takes real nerve and ability to work within. I don't think Abrams cuts the mustard -- not by a long shot. Now, people can get behind ST XI all they want. I'm down with the idea that it's entertaining, it's thrilling, it's uplifting, it's this, it's that, but if you care about cinematic excellence, you'll find it wanting (again, in my opinion). It's kinda sad that some people take these things so lightly or not at all.
You had me until, "a gradual decline in the art and craft of motion picture making since 1979 ".
1979? Really? What a coincidence! You know what, maybe filmmaking just took a nose dive after Dec 7th 1979. You don't care about film - you're just a drooling Trekkie Fanboy, aren't you?
The mental gymnastics people will go through to slag Abrams is just crazy.
Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.
Mileage varies.
Wise's work on ST:TMP doesn't represent a high-water mark in the history of motion picture making - not even in his own career and not even for the calendar year of 1979.
Mileage varies.
Wise's work on ST:TMP doesn't represent a high-water mark in the history of motion picture making - not even in his own career and not even for the calendar year of 1979.
The latter has motion. In fact, the whole picture had motion. A kinetic energy long missing in Trek movies... until now.
I wouldn't mind a healthy mix of the two. Abrams' Trek may have motion, but that doesn't mean you have to have the camera constantly moving when someone is talking.
Agreed, Dennis. I can't believe the lengths people will go to justify their hate-on for Abrams and STXI - to the extent of rewriting film history.
Right.
Essentially, what Paramount has done is break up with their long term wife to chase after a young hot girl. And for now, they are thrilled because the young hot girl love love LOVES them. But the wife was extremely loyal and stuck with them through a lot of crap. The young hot girl is fickle and not likely to do the same. If they screw up the sequel, the young hot girl will not hesitate to dump them for the next big thing, and they will likely be left with neither.
I didn't have a problem with the camera constantly moving for the most part. I did have an issue of it during the Pike/Kirk conversation in the bar. The camera in one shot tends to list away from Bruce Greenwood when he is saying Pike's great line. I dunno something about that grated on me. I just felt the line had such weight that the camera should've been kept steady and "in frame" the entire time.
But I also mention motion as a means of expressing that the film also had momentum in terms of story and characters.
Similar threads
