No. I don't like that. It works for BSG, but not for Trek.
Is this what JJ envisions for TREK XI sfx (BSG style)?
- Thread starter Stag
- Start date
"Shakeycam" is today's version of what "lens flare" was just a few years ago.
It's a slick and impressive visual effect (I remember being wowed by it the first time I played "Unreal") but it became SOOOOO overused that it became a cliche'. You barely see it today, even in places where it would be APPROPRIATE, because it became so horribly overused.
The same holds true for "shakeycam." It's a GIMMICK. If used sparingly, it's great. If overused, it becomes a cliche'.
It's a slick and impressive visual effect (I remember being wowed by it the first time I played "Unreal") but it became SOOOOO overused that it became a cliche'. You barely see it today, even in places where it would be APPROPRIATE, because it became so horribly overused.
The same holds true for "shakeycam." It's a GIMMICK. If used sparingly, it's great. If overused, it becomes a cliche'.
I'd rather he emulate movies than TV shows. And I chose IMHO a good example, 2046, though all are free to disagree (and probably do!) That's every bit as modern.
What I think they need is more evocative cinematography. A lot of Star Trek had a starched, bland look to it. Give us striking colour contrasts and beautiful choreography.
^ Yeah, but at the first sign of Vogons it would be "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish".
No, because the shakeycam has become cliche, and because I would hope this film breaks new cinematographic ground within the framework of many of the old design forms. They need to find the next shakeycam -- but it needs to be a technique in service of the story, and not just a flash-bang impressive effect that actually distracts attention from the story.
Another problem with this particular style of shakeycam is that it treats its subject as an aircraft, which inevitably makes it seem smaller. I can see how this might work in certain kinds of shots, but it had better be balanced by shots communicating the massiveness of the ship, lest it seem frail (unless, again, that is a point of the story -- an idea I would welcome if handled well).
Another problem with this particular style of shakeycam is that it treats its subject as an aircraft, which inevitably makes it seem smaller. I can see how this might work in certain kinds of shots, but it had better be balanced by shots communicating the massiveness of the ship, lest it seem frail (unless, again, that is a point of the story -- an idea I would welcome if handled well).
Actually, as the miniseries was originally conceived and written they. That's the genesis of the whole thing, the premise that whatever we see in space is being recorded by equipment on one vehicle or another. I'm sure that gets lost from time to time in practice.
It was a pretty fresh approach to the visuals when the BSG people started it. I'm sure that someone can invent something different that's just as new and startling one of these days - and I'm pretty sure that it won't be any iteration of "Star Trek."
Probably the best that Abrams can ask for is that ILM pumps out the familiar macaroni-and-cheese beauty shots that so many fans adore.
I see. What about the interiors? I recall a similar shaky-cam being used there when I saw the first part of the miniseries. It kind of took me out at a moment, when Tigh and Adama are discussing Starbuck privately and the camera's wobbling. 'Uh, so who's that supposed to be?'
*shrug* I'd be happy.
No idea, other than that the producers have said that they disliked the old-old-old-fashioned master/close/reverse-angle shooting of the Trek shows. I tend to agree.
I'll page through the script later and see if there were any specific notes about photographic style other than as pertains to the exteriors (which were intended to be even more unusual than they eventually were - a lot of use of split-screen and such).
Sure, why not? Every box is the same as the last. Mickey-Dee sells a whole lot of burgers on just that principle.
I'm hardly claiming the sterile, TV-look of much of Star Trek should be a model. But, to use an example on sci-fi TV I did like, I thought Farscape's use of tilted, disorienting camera angles could be quite effective, especially when it involved a pan through a corridor.
What occurs to me as one of my favourite uses of camera would also be the intense, grainy Battle of Algiers, which should by no means be used as a model for Star Trek, but had a striking cinema verite style and a seething depiction of the Casbah. I love a lot of cinematic styles, but what they have in common is that they feel meticulous, precise, and detailed.
Shakycam just comes off as sloppy, and it does so intentionally to promote this whole realism thing.
And I eat 'em. It's what I love about America: Mass-produced affordable quality product.
Kegek said:
And I eat 'em. It's what I love about America: Mass-produced affordable quality product.
I eat 'em when I must or when I'm lazy, because they're dependable. If I'm trying to make good time on a long drive through unfamiliar areas, a McDonalds sign at the exit ramp to the rest stop is a good thing to see. Best thing that can be said about 'em is that I don't know anyone who's gotten food poisoning at one.
Given the choice, though, I almost always go for something better - and what I love about America is that such is almost always available in exchange for the most minor of effort.
My take is that the documentary style “shaky-cam” technique, especially when applied to things like outer space special effects sequences, is actually an overcompensation response to the hyperkinetic “virtual camera” techniques that were all the rage for a while—and still are sometimes to the point of overuse. It’s purpose is to give the viewer a “you are there” sense of realism, which can be very effective and works quite well for BSG, in my opinion, but it’s certainly not appropriate for everything.
I do believe Abrams’ Star Trek needs to break the cinematographic mold that both big and small screen Trek has been stuck in since the late 80’s. If you’re going to spend $150 million to put something on a 40’ screen then it damn well needs to look like it wasn’t made for television. Say what you will about the Star Wars prequels in terms of poor storytelling and bad acting but they looked spectacular, expansive and larger-than-life. That’s something that Star Trek has never really attempted to do and it’s high-time.
As far as the actual style of the outer space special effects, when it comes to Trek, I don’t think a sense of “you are there” is as important as the sheer wow factor that Trek badly needs to achieve. Thus, no shaky-cam, please. What I recommend instead is simply getting away from what Spock once referred to as “two-dimensional thinking.” Trek has always had a tendency to try to confine the three-dimensional vastness of space into an arbitrary two-dimensional plane with a distinct up/down orientation, as if everything were taking place on a great big table-top. They need to show us some new angles for a change, throw in some off-kilter visual cues to lift us out of our seats and dispel the force of gravity.
Ironically, some really good examples of just such an unconventional approach can be seen in the early third season of Enterprise during the Xindi arc. There were several episodes where the space effects shots were elevated significantly above the Trek standard by tricks as simple as a slow roll added to the camera during an NX-01 fly-by.
The camera doesn’t need to shake and it doesn’t need to flit around like an over caffeinated humming bird, just break that 2-D plane of reference and suddenly the whole universe opens before you.
I do believe Abrams’ Star Trek needs to break the cinematographic mold that both big and small screen Trek has been stuck in since the late 80’s. If you’re going to spend $150 million to put something on a 40’ screen then it damn well needs to look like it wasn’t made for television. Say what you will about the Star Wars prequels in terms of poor storytelling and bad acting but they looked spectacular, expansive and larger-than-life. That’s something that Star Trek has never really attempted to do and it’s high-time.
As far as the actual style of the outer space special effects, when it comes to Trek, I don’t think a sense of “you are there” is as important as the sheer wow factor that Trek badly needs to achieve. Thus, no shaky-cam, please. What I recommend instead is simply getting away from what Spock once referred to as “two-dimensional thinking.” Trek has always had a tendency to try to confine the three-dimensional vastness of space into an arbitrary two-dimensional plane with a distinct up/down orientation, as if everything were taking place on a great big table-top. They need to show us some new angles for a change, throw in some off-kilter visual cues to lift us out of our seats and dispel the force of gravity.
Ironically, some really good examples of just such an unconventional approach can be seen in the early third season of Enterprise during the Xindi arc. There were several episodes where the space effects shots were elevated significantly above the Trek standard by tricks as simple as a slow roll added to the camera during an NX-01 fly-by.
The camera doesn’t need to shake and it doesn’t need to flit around like an over caffeinated humming bird, just break that 2-D plane of reference and suddenly the whole universe opens before you.
Exactly. Damn straight.
What's now being reported at trekmovie.com and iesb.net is that someone (probably a licensee) has seen the design of the Enterprise and that while it generally resembles the television version of the ship the hull texture is "grittier" and metallic.
Given how subjective such descriptions are, I don't guess we know much that we didn't know before.
Well, I'd argue it did do that with TMP... but that was 1979. Nothing since then. I certainly do hope that this film has a striking cinematic style, because this will be the first Star Trek movie with no direct link to one of the TV shows, plus it has a big budget.
I have always been strongly against shaky-cam and nothing has changed. I don't even like it on BSG (and I like BSG), so I certainly don't want it on Star Trek.
Shaky-cam is fine if it's used for specfic scenes, but the tendency these days is to overdo it (The Bourne Supremacy, BSG, etc). It was great during the opening sequence of the DS9 pilot, but I am very grateful they didn't film the whole damn series that way.
Shaky-cam is fine if it's used for specfic scenes, but the tendency these days is to overdo it (The Bourne Supremacy, BSG, etc). It was great during the opening sequence of the DS9 pilot, but I am very grateful they didn't film the whole damn series that way.
Uptightgirl
Lieutenant
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?
Special effects look like a poor man's cheap cgi speeded up to hide the hideous soft focus look and edited to make no sense.You never see the cylons as they look like humans as it's cheaper to make them look human.
The characters were dull,grey,monotonous,boring,stuck in the past humourless cardboard cutouts from some dull soap opera.
I will never watch another episode of this nausea inducing crap with it's stupid shaky cam.
And we don't need a shaky cam for Star Trek
Similar threads
