That's there to match the live action. It's film-wide, not just the VFX.
Man, the special FX for Star Trek 2009 hold up perfectly 12 years later!
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Unfortunately it impacted the overall film. Without the Lens Flare it would have been ranked higher for me, especially after a recent rewatch.
I agree that the 09 movie still looks amazing. I love the design aesthetic - especially so, because it incorporates TOS design elements and the movie elements that worked so well. Why Discovery had to do away with these, I'll never understand. The ships look real and convey a sense of mass.
The use of lens flares was bold and inspired (at least for me). It's an aesthetic that literally points to a bright future. Lots of films, from Die Hard to Close Encounters of the third kind have that special anamorphic lens flares - and I think that they look cinematic. Was it overdone by JJ? - 'tis in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, it was a distinctive look and a bold choice.
I re-watched 'Beyond' recently and it's no where near as cinematic as the first two movies. Kinda drab in places and the F/X are even a little cartoony in places.
JJ certainly is creative in the vfx department - the extra features showing how he shot the skydiving sequence was a revelation. Lots done in camera and cheaply. Rather than suspend Chris Pine and John Cho upside down in front of a green screen, Abrams instead took the actors out into the Paramount lot and simply had them stand on mirrors. Then he filmed it and shook the camera himself - it looks real, it looks great.
The use of lens flares was bold and inspired (at least for me). It's an aesthetic that literally points to a bright future. Lots of films, from Die Hard to Close Encounters of the third kind have that special anamorphic lens flares - and I think that they look cinematic. Was it overdone by JJ? - 'tis in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, it was a distinctive look and a bold choice.
I re-watched 'Beyond' recently and it's no where near as cinematic as the first two movies. Kinda drab in places and the F/X are even a little cartoony in places.
JJ certainly is creative in the vfx department - the extra features showing how he shot the skydiving sequence was a revelation. Lots done in camera and cheaply. Rather than suspend Chris Pine and John Cho upside down in front of a green screen, Abrams instead took the actors out into the Paramount lot and simply had them stand on mirrors. Then he filmed it and shook the camera himself - it looks real, it looks great.
yes at the time i thought it was basically like TOS as if seen through the lens of the movies I-VI.
Whether or not it impacted the film was apparently a highly subjective thing.
I remember hearing a lot, prior to the film's general release, about how intrusive and distracting the lens flares were -- about how J.J. had just RUINED EVERYTHING™ and rendered the movie unwatchable.
When I went to see Star Trek the week it opened in theaters in May 2009, however, I'd forgotten altogether about lens flares being a thing by the time I was 10 minutes in. I was too busy watching the movie to be conscious of them. Obviously, they weren't invisible, but they were just part of the look, and simply not any kind of a distraction for me.
I think they worked really well, especially on the Enterprise bridge, they gave the impression of a busy workspace with people moving around off camera. After the massive hubub about them, I smile every time I see one in Discovery or Picard.
ST 09 will be my top visual for Star Trek for a long time. It is gripping from the word go.
Practical models are more at home in a fully CGI series? Interesting viewpoint.
Back on topic, I agree, 2009 especially still looks great but that's what happens when you have ILM overseeing most of it. ST: Beyond was a step down in the same way that Insurrection was compared to First Contact (also ILM).
yeh next movie needs ILM back Trek VI style
In what way was Beyond a 'step down' in terms of visual effects? - I've heard several people on this thread saying this, and I just don't see it.
I think the cinematography of Beyond just isn't as good. There's nothing wrong with the way it looks, but it has the same visual style as every other summer blockbuster. I believe it was also shot entirely on digital which doesn't help.
The Special Edition X-Wings aren't practical models, which was the whole point. The OG X-Wings look great because they are physical models (except in some group shots where they look... iffy because of how they were filmed together). The Special Edition X-Wings look like the shiny digital (impressive to some degree for the time) imagery that they are, and have not aged well.
I do CGI for a living. In my view, movie effects from here out will no longer be a matter of "aging well." They will look correct from day one, or they won't. The effects in 2009 look superb, and they will still look superb in 30 years.
Audiencse forgave non-perfect effects before digital, because that's the best we could do at the time. Matte lines were forgiven, because the audience was used to them. Digital effects after 2005 pretty much have to be flawless to hold up. I remember watching Pirates of the Caribbean in 2006, and seeing Davy Jones the first time. I literally thought it was make-up and animatronics. Nope, 100% CG. 15 years later, he still looks flawless. 15 years from now, he will still look flawless.
If a CGI shot doesn't look real now, it will be bad from day one, and look bad forever. Some starship shots in Season 1 of Discovery looked pretty bad the day they came out.
Audiencse forgave non-perfect effects before digital, because that's the best we could do at the time. Matte lines were forgiven, because the audience was used to them. Digital effects after 2005 pretty much have to be flawless to hold up. I remember watching Pirates of the Caribbean in 2006, and seeing Davy Jones the first time. I literally thought it was make-up and animatronics. Nope, 100% CG. 15 years later, he still looks flawless. 15 years from now, he will still look flawless.
If a CGI shot doesn't look real now, it will be bad from day one, and look bad forever. Some starship shots in Season 1 of Discovery looked pretty bad the day they came out.
I can always forgive bad effects.
I partially agree, if the story/characters are engaging it can help the audiance overlook shortcommings in special effects, however the reverse doesn't tend to be true great special effects rearely help the audiance overlook poor story/characterisation, of course there is that rare animal of a film that manages to have poor effects and story/characterisation that it passes from bad to so bad it's good.
Now, if I had the money, I would not remove matte lines, but simply round them off and have them as an ellipse following the ship like a low level defense field. The Super Star destroyer hitting Death Star II is my biggest gripe. This is where ID4 shone. The late Joe Viskocil ran out of the means of destroying the central weapon…so he took the Empire State Building blast and turned it upside down. Starship Troopets was in post so long they took their time on effects. Executor’s destruction would have been the only fix I would have done to the central trilogy
It does drive me a little nuts how much better the Lego model smashing apart in slow motion looks than the version in the movie (you can see the flames from the explosion billowing out from the ceiling of the stage!)
Similar threads
