Moments that really made you cringe or disliked

[Cryogenic]

So what? Anyone who has actually seen the film hardly notices the lens flares.

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

You were doing a better job with all that "industropunk" stuff.

Did you just make that up?

Yes. Are neologisms illegal?

Having a lot of money does not mean that you eventually won't hit a budgetary wall. And given how much money was obviously spent everywhere else on the film, I think a reasonable person can see where they would at some point hit a budgetary wall and have to make choices and compromise to keep from going over-budget.

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.

A fact which has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

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.

Scotty's engine room is not iconic. Scotty's Jeffrey's tube is iconic. Not his engine room, which is a very generic, boring-looking space in TOS.

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.

This film was NOT cheap. Yet they ran out of money to build at least one set for Main Engineering, one of the most iconic places on board the Enterprise, in a film meant to relaunch ST?

Yes.

It should also be noted that the SW and LOTR films were shot back to back to save money and take advantage of location and resources.

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.

A great deal of ST XI's money went for special effects.. Did you see the miles of credits given to animators and rotoscopers...

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.

Yeah, I would have liked to have seen an engine room that looked a little more futuristic, but I already knew it was a brewery before I saw it. I am willing to admit that knowing that colours my opinion of it. I don't think anyone else is willing to admit that, because they are to busy hating on it..

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...

And yes it is possible to run out of money making a film..any film. Those sandwiches don't make themselves!!

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.

 

[number6]

^^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.

 

[Kegg]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Cryogenic]

^^What does any of that mean??

It means I can ignore you from now on.

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

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.

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.

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

 

[number6]

^^What does any of that mean??

It means I can ignore you from now on.

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

 

[Cryogenic]

^^What does any of that mean??

It means I can ignore you from now on.

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

Ditto.

 

[number6]

It means I can ignore you from now on.

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

Ditto.

Ditto?? Is that all you've got??

 

[number6]

^^What does any of that mean??

It means I can ignore you from now on.

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

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.

 

[M'Sharak]

Closing for review.

 

[M'Sharak]

This thread is a trainwreck, but I can't look away.

I have a solution: delete or relocate this non-related discussion between Shazam, number6 and myself, and the thread can go on.

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:

Yeah, those guys saying "Why don't you do it better" are idiots, unless they give away the actual money to be able to do it better. I'm sure there are many guys around here who would have been able to write a much better script (either from scratch, or as a revision of the Orci draft), and many who would have been able to direct a far superior movie with that budget.

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

This, also, is no good:

Yeah, those guys saying "Why don't you do it better" are idiots, unless they give away the actual money to be able to do it better. I'm sure there are many guys around here who would have been able to write a much better script (either from scratch, or as a revision of the Orci draft), and many who would have been able to direct a far superior movie with that budget.

Insults aside..

I think my point here is that many fans here think they could write a script, or direct a movie, but the fact is that instead of doing something brilliant, they're simply here bitching about it. They didn't get the gig, nor do they really deserve it, and they want to use teh intrawebs as their bully pulpit to tell everyone else how it all should have been done. I don't think any one of these "armchair" hotshots would last a day on a film set, otherwise we would have heard about their exploits in Variety by now.

That's a lot of crap, and you're much more the fool than I ever thought if you don't realize it deep down. Plenty of people don't 'make it' or 'catch on' regardless of talent. It could be money, it could be leaving town or the industry to take care of a sick relative (Robin Curtis springs to mind) ... hell, I remember John Carpenter mentioning often in articles that the best filmmaker he ever knew couldn't ever break in. (and no, numbthoughts, that isn't namedropping as you put it, that is INFORMATION ... you know, 'we want information.')

But the difference is that I did try for more than 15 years, while holding down fulltime work and taking care of other people. And I still work on the non-spendy (i.e. spec writing) end when time allows. So I don't have anything to prove to myself in this regard, and in terms of proving anything to you ... get real, bub. You want something of mine other than what you see here, you pay for it. And if you don't like what you see here, there's some kind of ignore function, isn't there?

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.

You were doing a better job with all that "industropunk" stuff.

Did you just make that up?

Yes. Are neologisms illegal?

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.