Production Values.

[rotorbotor]

After being a lurker I noticed one thing has not been discussed at all,forcing me to join.

We are talking about production values and what kind of production values they will be.

Some of you may not understand what I mean.

The look of a film.

For example if you look at a Australian soap opera like Neighbours and then compare/contrast it with say CSI or TOS Hill Street Blues or Dynasty/The Colbys all which demonstrate a range of production values.

I don't like dinghy looking made in the dark films.I hate films made with just blue/bluish light.

I hate films with soft focus looks and I hate films which look very harsh also.

I also detest films filmed in sepia and in that hideous yellow color and also films like three kings or nemesis dune buggy scene which made me ill.

I also hate very glossy films or films that look super slick.

Also they put filters in front .
of the camera lens to determine the look of the film.

So the point is to discuss the visual look and production values as indicated before.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Dont say we forced you to join, it makes us look bad.

 

[Arlo]

Um so what kind of film look *do* you like?

 

[Dac]

Ok, lets see...

Its set in Space, Space is dark.

Blue is the connotation for science fiction, and the new Enterprise is blueish grey.

You Hate Soft AND Hard focus? What would you like, blocks of colour?

The film will probably showcase alien worlds, which, believe it or not SHOULD be lit with different colours, im willing to bet the show never had that due to the Production values.

And you hate films which have...gloss? slickness? You mean a budget?

I think you best stay at home come christmas day then

 

[Dale]

I think the film should look like one of those creepy-ass investment bank commercials where all the live action is animated over... and everything everything should have a rotoscoped lightsaber glow.

Also, all scenes should be shot through that filter where the sky is always red and the ground is always yellow.

 

[Arlo]

JJ (among others) have already said it is "epic" in scale. I'd say we're looking at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. In terms of the overall color timing (which is seemingly what the OP is on about), I'm guessing they will go for a generally cool palette, which would be in keeping with the Trek aesthetic. I don't expect bizarro lighting such as in Generations, which had to compensate for the low-detail sets.

In terms of camera work, I don't expect anything radical. Probably mostly your standard lock down/tracking shots, with a smattering of hand held (which is NOT the same as "shakey-cam") where appropriate.

 

[Balrog]

I wouldn't worry about soft-focus camera lens work unless Joan Collins or Barbara Walters is in the movie.

I just hope the sets don't look so cheesy like the later TOS movies (TFF and TUC) or the TNG movies. I hate the overuse of neon lighting. It makes the future look like it's been sponsored by Dairy Queen.

One pet peeve I have always had was in FC. The doors to the escape pods are plastic toboggans spray-painted silver that you can by at any snow belt TRU or Wal-Mart. Cheap and cheesy, kinda like Mr. Berman...

 

[igrokbok]

I just hope it's not shot in shake-o-vision. I hate that style where the camera is always floating about, playing peek-a-boo behind a plant while we try and watch two characters have conversation.

 

[davejames]

I would just love to see the Trek movies get back to the rich and atmospheric look that ST:II, III, and VI had. The colors were really lush and the movies had this almost "magical" quality to them.

The TNG movies in comparison just looked really flat and dull to me.

 

[Balrog]

davejames said:
I would just love to see the Trek movies get back to the rich and atmospheric look that ST:II, III, and VI had. The colors were really lush and the movies had this slightly "magical" quality to them.

The TNG movies in comparison just looked really flat and dull to me.

TNG Movies - TVish

I had high hopes for FC. Then I saw the cheap sets. But, at the time, I thought, "Hey, it's not like we could get cool space battles and the ramped-up borg costumes and Borg Queen on TV."

Then VOY started featuring the Borg. And many of THEIR episodes made FC look even more cheap.

Then DS9 started with the Dominion War, and the space battles they produced made FC's Borg battle look even more cheap.

Then I PAID to see INS, and was SOOOOOO pissed I had paid money to see this crappy TV quality production when I was getting the same, and even better, on TV for FREE.

So NEM came out, and I didn't bother to go see it.

God, I'm looking forward to a great Trek movie with fantastic production values! Seems like it's been forever...

 

[Chindogu]

Even though I like the stylized look of II and III that's when the "TV-ish look" (close shot, less detailed sets) started to seep in. Not surprising though considering the franchise was taken over by a TV producer. The NG movies couldn't really evolve past the show since their visual continuity had to remain, more or less, in line with the shows still on TV. Or at least that's probably what the new TV producers thought.

Hopefully, as a TV producer, Abrams can get past that. Considering how cinematic Lost is and with the bigger Trek budget I think he will.

On a side note, does anyone know what Aspect Ratio they've chosen to shot in is and whether or not they're using digital cameras over film?

 

[ancient]

Nemesis looked...tired to me. Glossy and overdesigned, but with little in the way of interest. Everything had become so familiar at that point it was numbing. And the shields are at 60% again. Damn shields.

Instead of trying to ape Nick Meyer and failing to capture any of the excitement TWOK, they should've...I don't know...written a script that wasn't total ass.

This time they're going a long way towards better production values by not having to pay Shatner or Stewart/Spiner with 70% of the film's budget...

 

[Arlo]

I'm encouraged by a few things; as I said earlier, people have been calling the scope of the film "epic". JJ and others have said the goal was to make the interior of the E a big, real, working ship, just not a bunch of sets.

Orci(?) mentioned the book "Prime Directive" as a source of inspiration. It's one of my favorite books; reading it I felt it was very cinematic and indeed epic.

 

[Holytomato]

Berman took full credit for Nemesis on the Nemesis DVD.

"Prime Directive" is one of my favorite Trek stories. Which is also a bridge between TOS, and TAS.

M'Ress, Arex...Oh...My...

 

[ancient]

Arlo said:
Orci(?) mentioned the book "Prime Directive" as a source of inspiration. It's one of my favorite books; reading it I felt it was very cinematic and indeed epic.

I think I read that, but it was forever ago so I can't remember it. I can't link the different plots I recall to the titles. It's been too long.

 

[Valar]

ancient said:
Instead of trying to ape Nick Meyer and failing to capture any of the excitement TWOK, they should've...I don't know...written a script that wasn't total ass.

lol, I look forward to future reviews by you.

 

[Tamek]

I don't even know what all these big words like sepai and pallette mean

im going to go back to my yogurt now

 

[Plum]

You mean sepia? It's a colour (google it). palette refers to a colour palette. the frame of a film is likened to a canvas... your colours just happen to move.

rotorbotor said:
After being a lurker I noticed one thing has not been discussed at all,forcing me to join.

We are talking about production values and what kind of production values they will be.

Some of you may not understand what I mean.

The look of a film.

For example if you look at a Australian soap opera like Neighbours and then compare/contrast it with say CSI or TOS Hill Street Blues or Dynasty/The Colbys all which demonstrate a range of production values.

I don't like dinghy looking made in the dark films.I hate films made with just blue/bluish light.

I hate films with soft focus looks and I hate films which look very harsh also.

I also detest films filmed in sepia and in that hideous yellow color and also films like three kings or nemesis dune buggy scene which made me ill.

I also hate very glossy films or films that look super slick.

Also they put filters in front .
of the camera lens to determine the look of the film.

So the point is to discuss the visual look and production values as indicated before.

Hmm... call me crazy, but, as far as I know what you're speaking of is style, what we see in the frame. Production values refer to how much is spent, the artistry of design, the locations, the caliber of actors, and so on.

As for style, JJ Abrams is almost too straight a shooter for my tastes. The more adventurous styles you mentioned, as had others, don't pop up much in his other work.

As an old Trekkie the younger crowd may not notice but TOS was pretty good at giving all sorts of terrific styles, camera work, shadow, and lighting (often purple!). If JJ Abrams is feeling adventurous with Star Trek I'm all for it.

 

[Wowbagger]

I want to be not bored.

I loved Enterprise. Really, a great series. But just now I was reflecting on how incredibly boring it was to look at things on that show. Same bloody Bridge-Engineering-Ready Room-Sickbay combination, all of which looked, to varying degrees, more or less as they used to, on a ship that looked... well, pretty much like it could have fought in the Dominion War. And, most especially, the camera work was pretty much Voyager-standard.

It was dull. Good show, but no thanks to the sets.

Now, I'm an originalist canon-defender for Trek XI, so I wouldn't want to see overly radical redesigns of the basic sets, but anything JJ can do on the camera-side to liven things up will make me a happy camper.

 

[rotorbotor]

Wowbagger said:
I want to be not bored.

I loved Enterprise. Really, a great series. But just now I was reflecting on how incredibly boring it was to look at things on that show. Same bloody Bridge-Engineering-Ready Room-Sickbay combination, all of which looked, to varying degrees, more or less as they used to, on a ship that looked... well, pretty much like it could have fought in the Dominion War. And, most especially, the camera work was pretty much Voyager-standard.

It was dull. Good show, but no thanks to the sets.

Now, I'm an originalist canon-defender for Trek XI, so I wouldn't want to see overly radical redesigns of the basic sets, but anything JJ can do on the camera-side to liven things up will make me a happy camper.

Enterprise did have good smooth production values,but were very boring with a monotonic bluish look and lack of visual stimuli,which added to Archers very boring persona ruined the whole show.Also the NX-01 was a bad design and I hated that biscuit bite on the saucer front.I feel it betrayed true trek spirit.

TOS seemed to have got the balance right with it's visual flare.