Is this what JJ envisions for TREK XI sfx (BSG style)?

[trevanian]

I've always thought that the specific place for a bit of vibro-cam was when you had the camera ON THE HULL as a ship made a maneuver (if your psuedotrekscience has structural integrity issues, it'd follow that you'd have a wiggle on the hull, right?).

Visually, it's like when you have most car-mounted jeep stuff, there is a BIT of vibration and it is good, it keeps reality from looking like a process shot or RP. If you're not on the hull, you can get by with simple 'operator error' in terms of misframing shots (kind of like the opening of DS9's pilot or a number of shots in the original SW movie, where you have the 'chase plane' feel, but other than that, it does seem kinda intrusive a lot of the time.

 

[cooleddie74]

"No." It worked for BSG but I don't think the style meshes very well with TREK, either televised or big-screen.

 

[blakbyrd]

No.

 

[AlanC9]

Uptightgirl said:
nuBsg is truly awful.
Gives me a headache with that stupid shaky cam rubbish and the endless talky,talky,talky,talky never ending anguish anguish about their stupid drunken rehab past.Who cares?

Apparently you care, since you're bringing it up in a thread that has nothing to do with BSG except for the camera style.

Seriously, don't you have anything better to do with your time? At least post this stuff over on the BSG board where we can have a private little flamewar.

As for the topic, I can't imagine that BSG-style FX would suit Trek, any Trek.

 

[cooleddie74]

Shaky cinema verite-style camerawork and panning in a TREK movie might give audiences nausea. I know whenever there were too many shaky zooms and pans in TV episodes during battles I felt a little queasy and unfocused.

 

[Kegek]

cooleddie74 said:
Shaky cinema verite-style camerawork and panning in a TREK movie might give audiences nausea. I know whenever there were too many shaky zooms and pans in TV episodes during battles I felt a little queasy and unfocused.

Is it any coincidence that The Yakuza Papers, which has a noted use of shaky cameras (and back in the 1970s, no less) has more than one scene of someone throwing up? Nausea is a theme, and there aware of it. I love those movies... but that's not Star Trek.

 

[cooleddie74]

If that kind of camerawork can get old and nausea-inducing in a simple, earthbound LAW & ORDER episode imagine what it'd do to a moviegoing audience trying to pay attention to the new NCC-1701 and TREK cast.

 

[Kegek]

cooleddie74 said:
If that kind of camerawork can get old and nausea-inducing in a simple, earthbound LAW & ORDER episode imagine what it'd do to a moviegoing audience trying to pay attention to the new NCC-1701 and TREK cast.

I don't have to imagine. I've seen Armageddon.

 

[Sci]

Kegek Kringle said:

cooleddie74 said:
If that kind of camerawork can get old and nausea-inducing in a simple, earthbound LAW & ORDER episode imagine what it'd do to a moviegoing audience trying to pay attention to the new NCC-1701 and TREK cast.

I don't have to imagine. I've seen Armageddon.

And if Star Trek is as successful as Armageddon, the franchise will be saved.

 

[Kegek]

Sci said:
And if Star Trek is as successful as Armageddon, the franchise will be saved.

A fact former Armageddon scribe, J.J. Abrams, knows quite well.

I'd like for Star Trek to be successful, but more importantly I'd like it to be a movie I enjoy. I'd rather it be a movie I like that fails at the box office than vice versa. Selfish? Damn right. My attitude to entertainment is all about me-me-me.

Abrams and co. seem to be making across the board sensible economic decisions (except maybe the big budget). Time will tell if they are vindicated. Time will also tell whether I like the end result.

 

[Sci]

Kegek Kringle said:

Sci said:
And if Star Trek is as successful as Armageddon, the franchise will be saved.

A fact former Armageddon scribe, J.J. Abrams, knows quite well.

I'd like for Star Trek to be successful, but more importantly I'd like it to be a movie I enjoy. I'd rather it be a movie I like that fails at the box office than vice versa. Selfish? Damn right. My attitude to entertainment is all about me-me-me.

Abrams and co. seem to be making across the board sensible economic decisions (except maybe the big budget). Time will tell if they are vindicated. Time will also tell whether I like the end result.

My personal take on it is that, whatever the resulting movie may be, it's wonderful to see so much energy and excitement already building over a Star Trek film. People outside our little Trekkieverse haven't given a shit about Star Trek in years, but with this film, the attitude seems to have gone from, "Another Star Trek movie?" to "Another Star Trek movie!" So that alone -- and the willingness to finally take creative gambles after 18 years of Rick Berman's "Let's take no chances and never make choices that represent creative risks, let's just rehash the same old formula over and over and over again and never grow or change and evolve" -- means that Abrams deserves some credit.

Will the movie suck? Who knows? My sense is that even if it does, it's okay if it revives the franchise, because they'll inevitably end up doing something different after awhile. So I'll accept one bad movie if it revives Trek and gives it new opportunities.

 

[Kegek]

Sci said:
People outside our little Trekkieverse haven't given a shit about Star Trek in years,

Neither had I. I stopped caring around ENT S2. But I'm back now. And yes, this film has something to do with it.

but with this film, the attitude seems to have gone from, "Another Star Trek movie?" to "Another Star Trek movie!"

My personal experiences with non-Star Trek fans I know - i.e., everyone I know in the real world... the former response is far more applicable when I mention it. "I can't believe they're actually making another one," is the general specific sentiment. Not that a random assortment of Dubliners is a scientific poll.

So that alone -- and the willingness to finally take creative gambles after 18 years of Rick Berman's "Let's take no chances and never make choices that represent creative risks, let's just rehash the same old formula over and over and over again and never grow or change and evolve" -- means that Abrams deserves some credit.

Which creative gambles are these, exactly? 'Back to basics' seems a financially sound endeavour, and even a creatively sound one. But it's not all that daring.

Will the movie suck? Who knows? My sense is that even if it does, it's okay if it revives the franchise, because they'll inevitably end up doing something different after awhile.

I agree with this. If I dislike this film, but it does well, it may spawn more Star Trek I do like.

Example: TVH is hardly my favourite Star Trek film, but it made TNG, and by proxy DS9, VOY and ENT, possible.

 

[OptimusPete]

AlanC9 said:

Uptightgirl said:
nuBsg is truly awful.
Gives me a headache with that stupid shaky cam rubbish and the endless talky,talky,talky,talky never ending anguish anguish about their stupid drunken rehab past.Who cares?

Apparently you care, since you're bringing it up in a thread that has nothing to do with BSG except for the camera style.

Seriously, don't you have anything better to do with your time? At least post this stuff over on the BSG board where we can have a private little flamewar.

As for the topic, I can't imagine that BSG-style FX would suit Trek, any Trek.

I imagine your attitude which is pretty indicative of the BSG board is why noone who isn't willing to unconditionally praise the show posts on the BSG board.

As for whether that type of camera work would suit trek? Hell no! I want to actually be able to make out the Enterprise

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

OptimusPete said:...noone[sic] who isn't willing to unconditionally praise the show posts on the BSG board.

This is, in fact, entirely untrue.

And BTW, there's no one named "noone" on this board.

 

[number6]

What about Peter Noone, from Herman's Hermits??

I understand he lurks here. Perhaps Optimus was referring to him?