The Even-Handed STXI Preview

[Cyke101]

They should've done away with the transporter entirely, it's a universal "get out of jail free" card that has to regularly be made nonfunctional for some arbitrary reason or another (curse that ionic interference!) in order to maintain dramatic tension. Certainly the original rationale of saving on the production budget doesn't hold much weight in this film.

It's not really Star Trek without the transporter (along with the phaser, tricorder, etc), much in the same vein as lightsabers and itty bitty fighters being quintessential Star Wars.

And how many movies have the transporters been disabled for plot reasons? Okay, you have I, II, IV, V, VII, X...

...um, nevermind.

 

[Kirk1980]

Yeah, transporter malfunctions are about as Trek as NCC-1701.

Idle thoughts :

Would people feel it a pro or a con if we got some variation of the 'Space....the final frontier' narration. IE: would that help cement it more as a TOS Trek film or would you see it as needless pandering?

 

[ST-One]

I'm not too fond of the SFX shots already shown [...]. It looks simultaneously dark,

Yeah, space, you know, is kinda dark.

grainy,

and washed out.

Yeah, a bright light-source like a sun (and being close to it) tends to have that effect.

 

[Kirk1980]

Hey... ST-One, relax, tone down the sarcasm a bit there, okay? That's not what this thread is about.

 

[ST-One]

Hey... ST-One, relax, tone down the sarcasm a bit there, okay? That's not what this thread is about.

Just pointing out facts.

 

[trevanian]

Hey... ST-One, relax, tone down the sarcasm a bit there, okay? That's not what this thread is about.

In theory.

But look at his posts in all these threads and there is a common ... well, thread. Attack or deride. Could be substantiated in some cases, in others, just a lot of air, but always attack or deride. Not about communication, but about shouting down communication, usually in tandem with others.

 

[seigezunt]

I agree pretty much with the OP, but maybe a little more optimistic. The few details thta have leaked out I find encouraging. My one cause for pause is that I don't like Lost at all.

 

[ST-One]

Hey... ST-One, relax, tone down the sarcasm a bit there, okay? That's not what this thread is about.

In theory.

But look at his posts in all these threads and there is a common ... well, thread. Attack or deride. Could be substantiated in some cases, in others, just a lot of air, but always attack or deride. Not about communication, but about shouting down communication, usually in tandem with others.

I only 'attack' those who claim the core of what makes Star Trek is being destroyed by having the ship build on the ground and by having the audacity to let a glass window/viewer have reflections.

 

[M'Sharak]

Hey... ST-One, relax, tone down the sarcasm a bit there, okay? That's not what this thread is about.

In theory.

But look at his posts in all these threads and there is a common ... well, thread. Attack or deride. Could be substantiated in some cases, in others, just a lot of air, but always attack or deride. Not about communication, but about shouting down communication, usually in tandem with others.

I only 'attack' those who claim the core of what makes Star Trek is being destroyed by having the ship build on the ground and by having the audacity to let a glass window/viewer have reflections.

Neither of which are being discussed in this thread. Again, from the OP:

I'd like to state clearly that I hope this thread can be reasonable and not devolve into gushing or ripping. If it does, I'll be the first to ask a moderator to close the thread. I'd like this to be something where people can say what they like but be understood that everyone else's opinion is respected.

[...]

Remember, keep it civil!

Kirk1980 has requested that everyone be accommodating of other opinions and to avoid the sort of thing which has turned a few other threads into brawls in recent weeks, and that would go for the "look at his posts in all these threads" part, too. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for Kirk1980 to ask.

 

[Kirk1980]

I agree pretty much with the OP, but maybe a little more optimistic. The few details thta have leaked out I find encouraging. My one cause for pause is that I don't like Lost at all.

Yeah that's unfortunately a factor in my evaluation, too.

I've yet to find Abrams' stuff interesting.

Anybody who does like his stuff...what do you like about it? Convince me I should give his shows another shot

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Hey... ST-One, relax, tone down the sarcasm a bit there, okay? That's not what this thread is about.

In theory.

But look at his posts in all these threads and there is a common ... well, thread. Attack or deride. Could be substantiated in some cases, in others, just a lot of air, but always attack or deride. Not about communication, but about shouting down communication, usually in tandem with others.

I only 'attack' those who claim the core of what makes Star Trek is being destroyed by having the ship build on the ground and by having the audacity to let a glass window/viewer have reflections.

Since I was the one you were attacking above, I'll respond here.

Nowhere did I make any such claim. I said I thought that, compared to the FX work done for other features, that the "cinametography" of the FX was dark, grainy and washed out.

Take the "wreckage on the viewer" footage from the trailer, for example and compare it with similar footage from "Best of Both Worlds" or from any of the Dominion War eps. The trailer footage is very harsh, visually, with details either completely lost in shadow, or completely washed out in bright light. It looks like a grainy, poorly color/contrast corrected photo, not a real time camera image of a real scene. I'll try to make some grabs for reference.

 

[pookha]

SPOILERS BELOW..... GO AWAY IF YOU DONT LIKE SPOILERS

some of the other lost fans may know more about this.
but i suspect abrams influence was greatest during the first season of lost.
the best parts of that season was this grand sense of mystery along with the characters being revealed like peeling away layers of an onion.

SPOILERS....
one thing i expect this movie will skip through the life of the characters to reveal different aspects of them.
i really believe those who think that kirk takes over as a cadet are wrong.
that years are between kirk as cadet and kirk when he takes over enterprise.

i am still trying to figure out how much abrams believes in or just uses what fritz leiber called law of conservation of history ie the notion that history resists change.
we have already seen some of that in lost.

if so nero might be in for a rude suprise if despite his tinkering kirk comes close to the man he was .

In theory.

But look at his posts in all these threads and there is a common ... well, thread. Attack or deride. Could be substantiated in some cases, in others, just a lot of air, but always attack or deride. Not about communication, but about shouting down communication, usually in tandem with others.

I only 'attack' those who claim the core of what makes Star Trek is being destroyed by having the ship build on the ground and by having the audacity to let a glass window/viewer have reflections.

Since I was the one you were attacking above, I'll respond here.

Nowhere did I make any such claim. I said I thought that, compared to the FX work done for other features, that the "cinametography" of the FX was dark, grainy and washed out.

Take the "wreckage on the viewer" footage from the trailer, for example and compare it with similar footage from "Best of Both Worlds" or from any of the Dominion War eps. The trailer footage is very harsh, visually, with details either completely lost in shadow, or completely washed out in bright light. It looks like a grainy, poorly color/contrast corrected photo, not a real time camera image of a real scene. I'll try to make some grabs for reference.

see i am keeping an open mind that some of the effects shots we are seeing are not totally finished.
the may have still gone in and done some clean up and tinkering on them.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

see i am keeping an open mind that some of the effects shots we are seeing are not totally finished.
the may have still gone in and done some clean up and tinkering on them.

One could certainly hope that is the case.

In any event, I went back and pulled some MOVIE images for comparison, in case someone wanted to complain about comparing tv budget footage with feature film I hope will illustrate my point.

First, two different "leaving starbase" shots:





Now two different "fight scenes":





I hope these illustrate my point effectively. The trailer footage looks "blown out" and harsh compared to the cooler and crisper look of other Trek films.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The footage from the new film looks like objects interacting with a harshly lit environment.

The old Trek examples look like pretty models matted into pretty backgrounds.

Advantage: Abrams.

 

[trevanian]

see i am keeping an open mind that some of the effects shots we are seeing are not totally finished.
the may have still gone in and done some clean up and tinkering on them.

One could certainly hope that is the case.

In any event, I went back and pulled some MOVIE images for comparison, in case someone wanted to complain about comparing tv budget footage with feature film I hope will illustrate my point.

First, two different "leaving starbase" shots:





Now two different "fight scenes":





I hope these illustrate my point effectively. The trailer footage looks "blown out" and harsh compared to the cooler and crisper look of other Trek films.

The jury might be out on the second set of examples (though I prefer the first contact shot myself), but on the first example, you make a good clear point.

Even in 'real' backlit flared-out images, you can usually still see rich detail in some part of the frame most of the time, because a flare doesn't affect the whole image, but on that one you have of the ship leaving the dock from the new movie, the flare looks to be applied generally, the look imparted like a filter, rather than an actual photographic imperfection. Not too credible at all.

 

[ancient]

I'm pretty excited about the movie. Most of what I've seen looks pretty sweet. I do have a shitload of minor nitpicks and blah blah blah, you heard it before, time for cake.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I do have a shitload of minor nitpicks and blah blah blah, you heard it before, time for cake.

This is most important.

What kind of frosting, BTW?

 

[trevanian]

The footage from the new film looks like objects interacting with a harshly lit environment.

The old Trek examples look like pretty models matted into pretty backgrounds.

Advantage: Abrams.

Odd observation, considering you must know that the RELIANT in FC was only done as a CG craft, not a miniature.

 

[pookha]

see i am keeping an open mind that some of the effects shots we are seeing are not totally finished.
the may have still gone in and done some clean up and tinkering on them.

One could certainly hope that is the case.

In any event, I went back and pulled some MOVIE images for comparison, in case someone wanted to complain about comparing tv budget footage with feature film I hope will illustrate my point.

First, two different "leaving starbase" shots:





Now two different "fight scenes":





I hope these illustrate my point effectively. The trailer footage looks "blown out" and harsh compared to the cooler and crisper look of other Trek films.

but wouldnt some parts of space be darker then others.
depending on the type of sun and how far away from a sun the ship is.

 

[ancient]

I do have a shitload of minor nitpicks and blah blah blah, you heard it before, time for cake.

This is most important.

What kind of frosting, BTW?

Something blue and shiney hopefully.

I find that as the actual real movie draws near I'm getting less and less interested in online combat over it. It's like cake. If you don't have the cake, you talk about it. When the cake is in sight, you don't want to talk about it, you want to eat it.

I hope that analogy was filling. I mean fitting.