If you look at how ground-breaking the VFX were/are for their time, then Star Trek 2009 would lose against every movie except TFF I think.
Which Trek movie(s) had the best Special Effects, IYO?
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
If you look at how ground-breaking the VFX were/are for their time, then Star Trek 2009 would lose against every movie except TFF I think.
LOL, sorry Broc, but it was a mixed bag. Much of Abrams' flick (FX-wise) was a bunch of visually noisy, overly lens-flared fast-food bulls**t ( just check that mess of a red beast that chases Kirk on Delta-Vega). They seemed to have spent the most time & money animating Enterprise, and it showed. Questionable design issues aside, she looked solid. And the live action/green screen stuff was excellent.
But nothing in Abrams movie, I repeat, NOTHING, approached the grace, grandeur & sheer beauty of Enterprise pulling into dock in STIII.
In my limited 20th Century- opinion, of course.
Seriously, for great CGI, Abrams' movie is very *meh* (not at all bad, just not spectacular). Serenity or Avatar both easily beat it, quality-wise.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
The best effects? ST XI. To be surpassed in two years by ST XII. An answer to a question like this is always tilted towards the latest and upcoming, unless something's gone wrong.
TMP had better effects than any of the other TOS movies because of its relatively larger budget. Taking the fact that TMP is from 1979 into account.
TVH, taking place mostly in 1986, didn't need as many FX throughout the film, so they were able to concentrate their effects budget into fewer, better visuals. The whales were very convincing and the probe looks better than it should have. Not to mention the Federation actually looks like a United Federation of Planets for once instead of a "Homo Sapiens Only Club".
On the flip-side, GEN did what it could with sets designed for TV and INS made the switch to CGI too soon. The Enterprise was much more believable looking in FC.
I started seeing Star Trek movies at theaters in 1989 (I saw TFF about a year-and-a-half before I became a fan) and the ones whose special effects I remember being the most impressed by at the time were TUC, FC, and ST XI.
TMP had better effects than any of the other TOS movies because of its relatively larger budget. Taking the fact that TMP is from 1979 into account.
TVH, taking place mostly in 1986, didn't need as many FX throughout the film, so they were able to concentrate their effects budget into fewer, better visuals. The whales were very convincing and the probe looks better than it should have. Not to mention the Federation actually looks like a United Federation of Planets for once instead of a "Homo Sapiens Only Club".
On the flip-side, GEN did what it could with sets designed for TV and INS made the switch to CGI too soon. The Enterprise was much more believable looking in FC.
I started seeing Star Trek movies at theaters in 1989 (I saw TFF about a year-and-a-half before I became a fan) and the ones whose special effects I remember being the most impressed by at the time were TUC, FC, and ST XI.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I had to pick one, I would say First Contact has the most pleasing and convincing visual effects in the whole series. Sure, Trek09 may have the benefit of being more modern, but some elements just boggle it down.
- Too much camera shaking hinders the ability to truly appreciate what's going on.
- The overused lens flare distracts more than it adds.
- Some of the angles chosen for the effects are just awful. Like when the fleet warps out to Vulcan, you only the ships just move out of frame. That's really exciting.
- Speaking of warping out, what is the deal with the ship going up the moment it warps? Did JJ think going in a straight line was too boring? Geez, the Enterprise E going to warp in Nemesis was handled way better than this, and I hated how it looked with that stupid steam/gas like substance coming out of the warp engines.
That shot of the Enterprise E warping to Earth from First Contact is way better than any Enterprise shot in Trek09.
- Too much camera shaking hinders the ability to truly appreciate what's going on.
- The overused lens flare distracts more than it adds.
- Some of the angles chosen for the effects are just awful. Like when the fleet warps out to Vulcan, you only the ships just move out of frame. That's really exciting.
- Speaking of warping out, what is the deal with the ship going up the moment it warps? Did JJ think going in a straight line was too boring? Geez, the Enterprise E going to warp in Nemesis was handled way better than this, and I hated how it looked with that stupid steam/gas like substance coming out of the warp engines.
That shot of the Enterprise E warping to Earth from First Contact is way better than any Enterprise shot in Trek09.
I agree to an extent. I find there's something very odd about the lighting of the Enterprise and the planet once they are in the past. It's like from that point on another group at ILM took over the space shots.
I agree with this. I'm confused here...are you focusing only on the space stuff? Or are you including the effects that were filmed in conjunction with the live action. Your comments are conflicting on this manner.
Which is not so much the visual effect, but how it was directed and filmed. It's a thin line, but a line nonetheless. The filmmakers could have used the exact same technology to film the Ent entering spacedock, but filmed in in a completely different way and making it look like shit.But nothing in Abrams movie, I repeat, NOTHING, approached the grace, grandeur & sheer beauty of Enterprise pulling into dock in STIII.
In my limited 20th Century- opinion, of course.
Seriously, for great CGI, Abrams' movie is very *meh* (not at all bad, just not spectacular). Serenity or Avatar both easily beat it, quality-wise.
But we are not comparing STXI to Avatar. The discussion is comparing the visuals to the other Trek movies.
Seriously, for great CGI, Abrams' movie is very *meh* (not at all bad, just not spectacular). Serenity or Avatar both easily beat it, quality-wise.
But we are not comparing STXI to Avatar. The discussion is comparing the visuals to the other Trek movies.
I think the point is that STXI effects relative to the effects of the other 2009 movies were mediocre. But the effects of the previous movie were mostly groundbreaking at their time. Genesis Effect, 100% robotic but incredibly life-like whales, the Klingon blood or the shockwave in TUC, etc... . The shockwave in TUC was in fact so awesome that it was copied in the Stargate movie three years later, and eventually found its way into the Star Wars Special Edition, too.
SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS. You know, what can't be done by just pointing a camera and filming something that already exists. From removing a wire to exploding a planet.
This conflict is yours.
Yes, and that they were all CGI-heavy FX. Also, Serenity is 2005. Better CGI four years earlier.
Didn't mean to break {Be a jerk}
Last edited:
[smartass]The distinction is between Visual Effects (everything that is achieved in post production, for instance blue screen work, phaser fire, liquid Terminators, spaceships (CGI or real models)) and Special Effects (everything that is achieved on set, for instance sparks, explosions, breaking furniture). If you do a Matrix movie, have an actor kicked through a hallway on wires and have to digitally remove the wires, then it's the mix of Visual and Special Effects.[/smartass]
SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS. You know, what can't be done by just pointing a camera and filming something that already exists. From removing a wire to exploding a planet.
This conflict is yours.
"Rules of posting"...the hell? What'd I do to you? I thought we were having a friendly discussion here. Is there really a need to get personal?
It's my way...
Sorry, you seemed rather, er, demanding upthread (NOT a slam, BTW), and I tried to be snippy in a funny way back. I guess it was a *FAIL* if you didn't take it that way.
(please see my next post)
Last edited:
Hey smartass, I call anything a special effect if it's effect is...
rather special!!!
Something reconfigured to do what it's not supposed to (like a breakaway chair), somebody doing what they couldn't normally (like flying on a wire), something made to look real that isn't (like a starship), or optically or digitally added or deleted material (like phaser fire).
I'm not gonna always precisely define technical differences between effects.
Mostly 'cause I'm kinda lazy.
Okay, okay, but I DO know the differences, and you ARE right, but if you tell anyone I said so, I'll totally deny it.
It's my way...
Sorry, you seemed rather, er, demanding upthread (NOT a slam, BTW), and I tried to be snippy in a funny way back. I guess it was a *FAIL* if you didn't take it that way.
(please see my next post)
I see.
There are two different ways I can look at this. If we're just looking at pure quality of product, Star Trek XI is going to be the winner. That scene where the Enterprise drops out of warp in Saturn's rings and then rises up just made me go "woooooooooooooow" - and I usually don't give a shit about modern CGI.
If we're looking at my favourite special effects - The Motion Picture by a LONG shot. The movie has a unique look and feel to it and the creativity and imagination that went into V'Ger, despite falling short of the concepts, is still breathtaking by today's standards. The final Meld sequence and the Spock Walk would be my picks, but pretty much everything in that movie is amazing.
I generally like to watch the Director's Cut as I get to see the film as if it had actually underwent post-production, as opposed to being cut, printed and shoved into a cinema projector.
If we're looking at my favourite special effects - The Motion Picture by a LONG shot. The movie has a unique look and feel to it and the creativity and imagination that went into V'Ger, despite falling short of the concepts, is still breathtaking by today's standards. The final Meld sequence and the Spock Walk would be my picks, but pretty much everything in that movie is amazing.
I generally like to watch the Director's Cut as I get to see the film as if it had actually underwent post-production, as opposed to being cut, printed and shoved into a cinema projector.
Yeah, a golden moment to be sure. But notice the severe lack of ship pron in ST09- it's as if they deliberately wanted to avoid excessive NuE shots... wonder why?
Yeah, the new ship ain't pretty.
Frustratingly, it only really needs one real fix - pulling back that damn deflector! I can't see how anyone can say that looks aesthetically pleasing.
There are other things here and there, but fixing that would make the ship look 90% improved.
Frustratingly, it only really needs one real fix - pulling back that damn deflector! I can't see how anyone can say that looks aesthetically pleasing.
There are other things here and there, but fixing that would make the ship look 90% improved.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
