Man, the special FX for Star Trek 2009 hold up perfectly 12 years later!

[The Rock]

The special FX for it were SO good when it came out that I think they were well ahead of their time. If you watch it today, it honestly looks like a movie that could've been made in 2021. Now, you might say that special FX haven't advanced much in the last 12 years, but you'd be surprised at how dated a number of movies look that came out back in the late 00's compared to movies today.

Paramount really outdid themselves! I know that Avatar won the Oscar for "Best Achievement in Visual Effects" that year, but to me, Star Trek 2009 looked much better than Avatar and I think Star Trek 2009 should've won the Oscar that year because Avatar already looks a bit dated to me.

As weird as this might sound, I think Star Trek 2009's special FX look far better than the ones in Into Darkness and Beyond. Make no mistake, Into Darkness and Beyond look great, but there's something about them that makes them look a tad bit cheaper than Star Trek 2009. I can't put my finger on it. Am I crazy for thinking this?

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

It’s the brewery...

 

[Vger23]

Visually, 2009 was the best. ID looked great too, but had almost too much “polish.”

 

[The Rock]

Visually, 2009 was the best. ID looked great too, but had almost too much “polish.”

Yeah, the polish you are referring to, I know exactly what you mean.

 

[captainkirk]

Not just the effects, but the cinematography as well. A lot of big movies go for very generic visual styles where they all try to copy Michael Bay and so look quite dated and lazy. All the visuals for ST09 I feel will stand the test of time much better.

 

[M'Sharak]

 

[captainkirk]

The best Enterprise. I will die on this hill if I have to.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The first two movies look utterly amazing (Beyond looks fine but isn't quite up there). I'd say ID looks slightly better, since even in HD I can't see the blend between real San Francisco and the futuristic VFX version.

 

[publiusr]

We have reached the point where you can tell any story. FX does seem to have reached a plateau of sorts…it is all refinement and personalization at this point. Choose your own adventure. Data was right about TV dying. It’s all streaming now…

Now the 1997 New Hope X-wings look more at home on a Babylon 5 ep and themselves need replacing. New footage for the Super Star Destroyer hitting the Death Star. Keep the original footage on a viewscreen in Ackbar’s bridge somewhere…

 

[fireproof78]

Tell new stories. Stop updating old ones.

More on topic I think 09 is beautiful. Moves me emotionally every time.

 

[Mudd]

No, the original Star Wars films look perfectly fine. The B5 comparison is insulting and unobservant.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

No, the original Star Wars films look perfectly fine. The B5 comparison is insulting and unobservant.

The original Star Wars films look perfectly fine in even the worst places. But the B5 comparison above was to the special editions, which have dated quite poorly in many places. I'd venture its quite specifically referencing that one shot of the (CG) rebel ships leaving Yavin and approaching the Death Star, everybody knows that one shot, it might have been the most heavily used shot for promoting the special editions, and it looked shiny new (exciting?) then, but it didn't really hold up even at the time. It doesn't really truly look B5 level, but...

 

[Smellmet]

Quite possibly the best shot of the enterprise in the three movies for me. And honestly, if this film was made today, 2021, would it look any better or more realistic than this? I don't think it would.

Same goes for the rest of the film for me. I watched it yesterday and I still think it looks fresh and modern.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

The exterior detailing and lighting are simply outstanding in Trek 09. It has most of the rare Starship exterior shots in the era of CG that hold a candle to the model shots from (some of) the earlier films. As a personal preference, I'd say there aren't enough exterior shots in 09, and they are too short (not arguing for TMP length in this case), but the QUALITY is off the charts level good. There's a few moments in the other Kelvin Trek films that are close, but overall, the Trek 09 effects shots just look the best.

To put it simply, the Enterprise (and the Kelvin) look TANGIBLE in a way ships rarely do, especially in CG form.

 

[publiusr]

Well, I have no problem with different level CGI if an explanation is given. Early CGI water looks bad…so call it liquid hydrogen.

The Last Starfighter was made of a special metal, say…etc

 

[MacLeod]

Some effects of far older films than ST09 still hold up well today perhaps going as far back as into the 60's . The real question is how will these effects hold up in another twenty or thirty plus years.

Well, I have no problem with different level CGI if an explanation is given. Early CGI water looks bad…so call it liquid hydrogen.

The Last Starfighter was made of a special metal, say…etc

The finest Star League technology. Must have been what Xur and the Kodan's were after.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

How do you know they hold up perfectly and not just extremely well?

 

[BillJ]

The best Enterprise. I will die on this hill if I have to.

The TOS 1701 for me, but the 2009 version has grown on me a great deal. Though I thought it looked terrible in Beyond with the skinny nacelle pylons.

 

[M'Sharak]

How do you know they hold up perfectly and not just extremely well?

The thread title is -- for reasons which ought to be obvious to even the most casual observer -- not going to contain a complete explanation. The thread-starter does, however, carry the thought further in the opening post of the thread.

But then, you didn't really need anyone to draw you a diagram of how this works.

Did you?

 

[tomalak301]

If it wasn't for the Lens Flare, I would have thought 2009 had the best visual effects of any of the movies. Unfortunately the Lens Flare was distracting.