Paramount wants the next Trek to be in 3D

[Amaris]

Funny how a duiscussion about the film being in 3D turned into an argument about how much kissing there should be in a Trek film (mosty Trekkies would prefer none because it reminds them about what they're never going to do)

Funny. You speak as if you, yourself, were not a Trekkie, posting on a Star Trek message board.

...Curious.

I've noticed that to be the attitude toward people that don't like the new movie 'round here. They're just a bunch of nerd-ass Trekkies. Ironic, really.

I wouldn't say everyone does it. Some do it to people who dislike the movie, but those folks are abrasive anyway. There are those who hate the movie, and are abrasive towards those who like it. Best thing to do is just ignore it and go with your own thoughts and opinions on it. For me, I love the movie, it was a blast, had a lot of fun, laughed at the jokes, loved the special effects, everything had a gritty realism (for a Trek movie) to it, loved the characters (particularly Karl Urban's McCoy!), and am excited to see the next movie. Does the movie have problems? Certainly. No movie, Trek or otherwise, comes out clean on everything, but was it enough to make me dislike the movie? Not nearly. I do understand legitimate gripes against the movie, and disagreement in matters of taste (say, you didn't like the design/uniforms/what have you), but the concentrated hate against the very idea and anyone who likes it even in the slightest? Nah, life's too short for that.

Anyway, this new Trek in 3D, I might make it my first foray into 3D, as I have been putting it off. I just hope if they do make it 3D, they do it from the ground up and not as an afterthought. I've heard bad things about doing the 3D after the principle photography has been shot for 2D.

 

[SMC]

Anyway, this new Trek in 3D, I might make it my first foray into 3D, as I have been putting it off. I just hope if they do make it 3D, they do it from the ground up and not as an afterthought. I've heard bad things about doing the 3D after the principle photography has been shot for 2D.

A few of the 3D movies that came out recently were converted to 3D in post production (i.e. after principal photography was done) to cash-in on the wave of interest in 3D generated by Avatar and such. i.e. they thought "Hell, look how much money Thundersmurfs over there made, we need a piece of this action too!"

Problem is, while its no problem to render CG effects stereoscopically, inserting them into 2D live action footage is extremely problematic - you need to create a 3D "space" for the effects to go in and doing this to 2D footage will create a "cardboard cutout" effect, with the image looking like a series of flat planes at different depths from the viewer. Throw in some true stereoscopic CGI on top of that and the results aren't pretty.

A "true" 3D movie will make use of steroscopic cameras in principal photography to capture each scene from slightly different perspectives (often going as far as to mount camera lenses the same distance apart as a typical pair of human eyes) The advent of digital cinema really is what made the kind of 3D we see today affordable to produce- you don't have to worry about two pieces of film running through separate cameras matching up exactly, let alone doubling the cost of film stock and lab fees.

Personally I feel that even using a proper stereoscopic camera doesn't *quite* work - even the best 3D can still look like cardboard cutouts at times but it is a pretty cool effect nontheless even if to me, it hardly makes things look more "real." A Trek film would probably look really cool in 3D though and I support the decision to do it.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I don't see Star Trek as being more sophisticated than Avatar in any respect - pretty much the opposite, in fact.

I rather enjoyed seeing that Cameron's movie so annoyed commentators on both ends of the political spectrum

Avatar was about as sophisticated as Barney The Dinosaur IMO. I'm not saying I think Trek is the most sophisticated thing ever (truth be had a lot of it is unbearably childish) but Trek at its best is FAR more intelligent than Avatar in my opinion.

Cameron's film didn't annoy me on a political level - it annoyed me on ALL levels. It was just simplistic drivel that thought it was being terribly clever and meaningful - dumb things pretending to be smart - that's orders of magnitude more annoying than dumb that glories in its dumbness (such as most Michael Bay films)

Yes, Avatar is more successful than any Trek, but then again, the Twilight novels are more successful than Nabokov....

Yeah, I have to agree that I found Avatar a meh movie.

I'm astonished that people STILL aren't finished calling it Ferngully with smurfs / Pocahontas in Space / a Dances with Wolves rip-off. Really people...it's neither funny nor especially original.

Nor, in fact, will those films be remembered for as long as Avatar (well, Dances might be) and certainly are nowhere as popular.

Pop quiz: how many versions of Romeo and Juliet had been staged before Shakespeare wrote his? It's possible that one of the earlier versions was better than his - if so, it's lost in obscurity and we will never know.

The Star Trek movies are very weak tea in every respect, compared to Avatar.

I think it ultimately makes no difference whether Avatar is seen 3D or 2D - the 3D effect was very subtle anyway. Only without the 3D it loses the one genuine selling point it has and becomes a generic, bland, uninspired and contrived movie with the usual plastic looking effects and no trace of a soul.

As our good Captain Kirk would say: "Bullshit."

Um I should also point out that another reason I found it meh was when I realized I had already seen it back in 2003 when it was a Stargate SG-1 episode called Enemy Mine.

 

[ST-One]

I don't see Star Trek as being more sophisticated than Avatar in any respect - pretty much the opposite, in fact.

I rather enjoyed seeing that Cameron's movie so annoyed commentators on both ends of the political spectrum

Avatar was about as sophisticated as Barney The Dinosaur IMO. I'm not saying I think Trek is the most sophisticated thing ever (truth be had a lot of it is unbearably childish) but Trek at its best is FAR more intelligent than Avatar in my opinion.

Cameron's film didn't annoy me on a political level - it annoyed me on ALL levels. It was just simplistic drivel that thought it was being terribly clever and meaningful - dumb things pretending to be smart - that's orders of magnitude more annoying than dumb that glories in its dumbness (such as most Michael Bay films)

Yes, Avatar is more successful than any Trek, but then again, the Twilight novels are more successful than Nabokov....

Yeah, I have to agree that I found Avatar a meh movie.

I think it ultimately makes no difference whether Avatar is seen 3D or 2D - the 3D effect was very subtle anyway. Only without the 3D it loses the one genuine selling point it has and becomes a generic, bland, uninspired and contrived movie with the usual plastic looking effects and no trace of a soul.

As our good Captain Kirk would say: "Bullshit."

Um I should also point out that another reason I found it meh was when I realized I had already seen it back in 2003 when it was a Stargate SG-1 episode called Enemy Mine.

Now, that's a title that radiates originality...
Personally, I don't care whether you liked Avatar (or Star Trek)or not, but it betrays quite an amount of disconnect to reality to call that film's VFX "plastic looking" - that poster quite probably can't tell where the live-action ends and the CGI begins.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Avatar was about as sophisticated as Barney The Dinosaur IMO. I'm not saying I think Trek is the most sophisticated thing ever (truth be had a lot of it is unbearably childish) but Trek at its best is FAR more intelligent than Avatar in my opinion.

Cameron's film didn't annoy me on a political level - it annoyed me on ALL levels. It was just simplistic drivel that thought it was being terribly clever and meaningful - dumb things pretending to be smart - that's orders of magnitude more annoying than dumb that glories in its dumbness (such as most Michael Bay films)

Yes, Avatar is more successful than any Trek, but then again, the Twilight novels are more successful than Nabokov....

Yeah, I have to agree that I found Avatar a meh movie.

As our good Captain Kirk would say: "Bullshit."

Um I should also point out that another reason I found it meh was when I realized I had already seen it back in 2003 when it was a Stargate SG-1 episode called Enemy Mine.

Now, that's a title that radiates originality...
Personally, I don't care whether you liked Avatar (or Star Trek)or not, but it betrays quite an amount of disconnect to reality to call that film's VFX "plastic looking" - that poster quite probably can't tell where the live-action ends and the CGI begins.

Oh, I agree the CGI was great and if the next Trek film could do something like that I would be all for it, the story just didn't do anything for me. And I only saw it in 2D so I really don't know how the 3D looks.

 

[SMC]

it betrays quite an amount of disconnect to reality to call that film's VFX "plastic looking" - that poster quite probably can't tell where the live-action ends and the CGI begins.

I work in the industry so I think I *might* know how to spot CGI... and the fact that we know for a fact that pretty much all of it except the human actors and some of the sets was CG anyway.... Avatar's effects while good did not overly impress me. The hype about them being "revolutionary" is really nonsense - and the Navi creatures were definitely the weakest element in the film, both in design, which didn't help sell them, but in execution - they look no more "realistic" than Jar Jar Binks did and that animation and rendering was done over a decade ago. Gollum in LOTR was definitely better, as was Davy Jones and his crew in Dead Man's Chest - those characters were vastly superior to what was done in Avatar IMO.

 

[ST-One]

it betrays quite an amount of disconnect to reality to call that film's VFX "plastic looking" - that poster quite probably can't tell where the live-action ends and the CGI begins.

I work in the industry so I think I *might* know how to spot CGI... and the fact that we know for a fact that pretty much all of it except the human actors and some of the sets was CG anyway.... Avatar's effects while good did not overly impress me. The hype about them being "revolutionary" is really nonsense - and the Navi creatures were definitely the weakest element in the film, both in design, which didn't help sell them, but in execution - they look no more "realistic" than Jar Jar Binks did and that animation and rendering was done over a decade ago. Gollum in LOTR was definitely better, as was Davy Jones and his crew in Dead Man's Chest - those characters were vastly superior to what was done in Avatar IMO.

Okay, I'll play.
Spot the CGI:

 

[JarodRussell]

The funny thing is that the CGI in JP still looks a lot better than CGI in a lot of today's movies. What did they do back then that they don't do now to make it all look so good?

 

[Anticitizen]

Cover it up with rain.

Just kidding, of course, that was just in that scene. But it helps.

The CGI's a bit weaker in other scenes, such as parts of the velociraptors-in-the-kitchen sequence, but still very good.

 

[Gepard]

The funny thing is that the CGI in JP still looks a lot better than CGI in a lot of today's movies. What did they do back then that they don't do now to make it all look so good?

1. Set it at night.
2. Cover it with rain (as noted)
3. Make extensive use of animatronics for most shots, and as CG reference.
4. Have only about 50 CG shots, as opposed to hundreds or thousands today. Fewer shots = more time per shot to make it look good.
5. Light the live-action footage to minimize things like reflections that are harder to match in CG. Thus, the switch is less noticeable (this applies mostly to the car in that shot).

 

[JarodRussell]

1. Set it at night.
2. Cover it with rain (as noted)

From what I've heard from a client that's what makes it more difficult, and not easier. The wet skin, water splashes, reflections, etc...

And the daylight shots look great, too. Especially the finale with the raptors and the Rex inside the building.

Have only about 50 CG shots, as opposed to hundreds or thousands today. Fewer shots = more time per shot to make it look good.

So the advances in CG software and hardware were not rising as fast as the amount of shots needed? I don't know how long it took to make the effects of JP, but if a frame took ten hours in 1991, wouldn't the same frame just need a minute today?

 

[Gepard]

From what I've heard from a client that's what makes it more difficult, and not easier. The wet skin, water splashes, reflections, etc...

We're not really seeing much in the way of interaction between the water and the T-Rex, though. It's mostly there to muck up the image a bit. The wet skin in the JP shot is a bit glossy, but they've lit the set to damp the reflections down and allow the CG guys to replicate the look with their tools. It works, so I'm not knocking it.

So the advances in CG software and hardware were not rising as fast as the amount of shots needed? I don't know how long it took to make the effects of JP, but if a frame took ten hours in 1991, wouldn't the same frame just need a minute today?

Fewer shots means the artists can spend more time setting up the lighting and shading on a per-shot basis. I'm not talking about render times; that's got nothing to do with quality. I can guarantee you that ILM spent a long time pouring over every facet of those JP shots, because it was the first time anyone had done effects work on this scale for a feature, and because they had the time. In contrast, I've spoken with some CG artists today who've complained of only being allowed to spend a few hours on lighting for a shot because how many shots need to be done, and that's just not enough time to be able to do an outstanding job, no matter how good the tools are.

I'm not saying CG tools haven't improved – they have, tremendously – but there's a trade-off; better tools means more shots and more shots means getting them done faster, as opposed to having an artist take the time and use their judgment to craft a really excellent shot. Not saying that doesn't happen today, either, but especially on TV and lower-end features, it's rare.

 

[VonHelton]

Spock has effectivly been neutered. Loss of Vulcan. Loss of Human mother. No real science duty. Giving up Vulcan heritage. Outranked by juvenile delinquent. Having to crawl back to Kirk and beg for job back.

Why would Uhura stay with him?

Years ago, I told you guys this new Star Trek would be an abomination, but everyone on this board yelled at me.

I also told them it would be "Doogie Howser in Space", because everyone would be too young.

.......I was RIGHT ON BOTH POINTS.

As we saw in the movie, they were still in the Academy when the Enterprise was rushed into duty. Chekov was only 17!!

.....But I was told by people on this board, EVEN BY MODERATORS, that I was an idiot.

Well I'm the one laughing now! This is *not* Star Trek, it's a laughing stock.

 

[RAMA]

I avoided the 3D thing till recently, but now I'm on board. Its no FAD...not with money being thrown into TVs, DVDs/Bluray outside of theaters in the secondary market. This is not your father's 3D.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Spock has effectivly been neutered. Loss of Vulcan. Loss of Human mother. No real science duty. Giving up Vulcan heritage. Outranked by juvenile delinquent. Having to crawl back to Kirk and beg for job back.

Why would Uhura stay with him?

Years ago, I told you guys this new Star Trek would be an abomination, but everyone on this board yelled at me.

I also told them it would be "Doogie Howser in Space", because everyone would be too young.

.......I was RIGHT ON BOTH POINTS.

As we saw in the movie, they were still in the Academy when the Enterprise was rushed into duty. Chekov was only 17!!

.....But I was told by people on this board, EVEN BY MODERATORS, that I was an idiot.

Well I'm the one laughing now! This is *not* Star Trek, it's a laughing stock.

Actually it was a gigantic success and the acting, writing and production garnered critical acclaim and numerous industry awards. It continues to be the highest rated Trek movie on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB. Thanks for playing, you lose.

RAMA

 

[VonHelton]

Actually it was a gigantic success and the acting, writing and production garnered critical acclaim and numerous industry awards. It continues to be the highest rated Trek movie on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB. Thanks for playing, you lose.

RAMA

Um, no......No more so than any other movie that has came out. In my day, Trek was a household name. My 21 yr old wife, by contrast, has never heard of Trek.

Trek is dead, long live Trek.

 

[Amaris]

Um, no......

Yes.

No more so than any other movie that has came out.

Moving the goal posts. It's the highest grossing Trek movie to date. On RottenTomatoes.com, it has a 94% freshness rating (still, after a year). It is also currently #186 on the IMDB Top 250, with an average rating of 8.1/10 and after a year upon it's initial release, no less, which puts it well into the highly successful movie bracket as well. Here is a list of it's awards, including the Academy Award: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/awards, so whether you like it or not, the movie was a critical success.

In my day, Trek was a household name. My 21 yr old wife, by contrast, has never heard of Trek.

Trek is dead, long live Trek.

Your idea of Trek has changed. This new Trek is different, and opinions on taste vary. I don't care whether your 21 year old wife has never heard of Trek. That is completely irrelevant to the conversation. That said, Star Trek XI is well liked by the majority of Trek fans. Your "points" were way off the mark. I don't care if you like the movie or not, that's your right to like or dislike anything you want, but when it comes to statistical data and overall reception, you are very wrong.

 

[SMC]

Okay, I'll play.
Spot the CGI:

Ironic that the shot you chose supports my argument that Avatar isn't all that....

 

[SMC]

In my day, Trek was a household name. My 21 yr old wife, by contrast, has never heard of Trek.

What he doesn't mention however is that his 21 year old wife was raised by wolves in Siberia

 

[ST-One]

Okay, I'll play.
Spot the CGI:

Ironic that the shot you chose supports my argument that Avatar isn't all that....

Nothing ironic about it as the Avatar-creatures look much better than the T-Rex does in this shot (not that it looks bad).
The car though is so convincing (to me, at least) that I've never noticed that it's actually CG.

Pity though, that you didn't even try to point out the live-action and the CG-parts in that shot.