The Even-Handed STXI Preview

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

No, light everywhere in the Universe is directed so as to make spaceships stand out clear and pretty.

 

[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.

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.

Maybe, but the first pair of examples are both set in earth orbit.

Perhaps a better comparison pair would be the new Abrams flare shot next to the shot from TMP of the Enterprise as it pulls away from a sunrise ... that shot has both detail AND flare.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

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.

It's really a problem I've noticed in modern cinamatography in general, both LA and FX. No one want's to do "lush" photography anymore. The preferred look is a hard-edged, slightly "hazy" or "grimy" focus that I guess is supposed to be "more realistic" or something....I think it looks terrible on screen.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

Gotta have those pink sugar flowers, you know? Nice Crisco frosting. Nothing healthy for god's sake.

 

[pookha]

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.

Maybe, but the first pair of examples are both set in earth orbit.

Perhaps a better comparison pair would be the new Abrams flare shot next to the shot from TMP of the Enterprise as it pulls away from a sunrise ... that shot has both detail AND flare.

hmm yes... missed that..

more tired then i thought.
is the abrams shot supposed to be on the dark side of the earth with sun light reflected from the moon.

does that make sense..

 

[Rii]

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.

XI too, apparently.

Spoiler: Trek XI

The skydiving sequence is apparently necessitated by the transporters being nonfunctional and is concluded with Kirk and co. being beamed out, Scotty presumably having worked some miracle, hopefully without too much technobabble, in the interim. Perhaps he just shovels more coal into the furnace.

It all just seems far more trouble than it's worth. Sure, you can find vaguely plausible explanations for why the transporter isn't working most of the time, but even the most plausible and succinct explanation still requires dialogue and time to be expressed, time that could've been spent on something more interesting than explaining why the magic button isn't available for the thousandth time.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

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.

Technically speaking that's true enough, but there's ways to suggest it that don't necessitate giving the image a near overexposed look. Take a look at NASA photography some time. It's bright (or dark) but also "crisp", which the trailer footage isn't. The Enterprise should LOOK like a starship, not a collection of light and dark blurrs that somewhat resembles a starship.

Dennis can snark about "realism" all he wants, but if I want hyper-"realism" I'll watch 2001. This is Star Trek, which should have a "smoother" photographic presence.

 

[trevanian]

Hey, this is the even-handed thread. Note that I was taking pains to not do serious criticism, just observations and correlations.

 

[pookha]

dosnt the nasa footage go through a lot of enchancement.
ie what we are seeing may not be what stuff would look like if we were just there.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Maybe, but the first pair of examples are both set in earth orbit.

Perhaps a better comparison pair would be the new Abrams flare shot next to the shot from TMP of the Enterprise as it pulls away from a sunrise ... that shot has both detail AND flare.

I pulled the appropriate shot from Trekcore, along with a similar shot of the Enterprise just after V'ger's "ascenscion". Allowing for the fact that these shots come from a film almost 15 years younger (and not sure which generation video transfer), they still have a "crispness" and sense of definition to them that the Adams still lacks.

 

[trevanian]

dosnt the nasa footage go through a lot of enchancement.
ie what we are seeing may not be what stuff would look like if we were just there.

You're thinking of the deep space stuff, JPL and Hubble. They color-correct stuff to make deep space phenomena look photogenic (and as a result, when movies 'ape' those images, they're copying false-color stuff, hence TFF has a blue center of the galaxy because that is the way JPL colors the stuff.)

The pics of spacewalks and shuttles and Apollos and stations is pretty much traditional photography and cinematography, with very little filtration outside of polarizers and neutral density as far as I know. (in fact, a number of shuttle personnel have become members of the American Society of Cinematographers ... honorary, I think, but still counts for something.)

There are some extraordinarily 'shiny' shots of the Apollo 9 flight that show a stunning degree of detail AND reflectivity of the CM and LEM over Earth.



http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020uEs...p://www.daviddarling.info/images/Apollo_9.jpg

 

[ST-One]

The Enterprise should LOOK like a starship, not a collection of light and dark blurrs that somewhat resembles a starship.

Yes, but look at the whole image; the camera (as you can see on the background stars) is about to pan to follow the Enterprise which is speeding up to warp.

 

[ST-One]

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.

It's the DEFIANT.
And his point stands, as even CG elements have to be matted into shots. Besides, the DEFIANT has to resemble the looks of the miniature Enterprise.

 

[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.

It's the DEFIANT.
And his point stands, as even CG elements have to be matted into shots. Besides, the DEFIANT has to resemble the looks of the miniature Enterprise.

Thanks for catching that.

But what doesn't look integrated in the shot? I'll give you it doesn't have the beauty of a Trumbullshot ship element, but for ILM, the FC ship work is some of their best.

 

[Kirk1980]

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.

Did you feel that way back when the Trek movies were first released?

 

[ST-One]

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

It's the DEFIANT.
And his point stands, as even CG elements have to be matted into shots. Besides, the DEFIANT has to resemble the looks of the miniature Enterprise.

Thanks for catching that.

But what doesn't look integrated in the shot? I'll give you it doesn't have the beauty of a Trumbullshot ship element, but for ILM, the FC ship work is some of their best.

That shot look very good, indeed.
But why even compare this FC-shot with the one showing the Kelvin very close to a star? The lighting situations are totally different.

 

[ST-One]

BTW: There isn't that much of a difference between these two shots. Except that you notice that on the TMP-Enterprise the self-illumination doesn't actually come from the ship itself - there is no way that bright spot on the saucer's underside could be cast from that really dim rectangle on the sensor dome.

 

[Kirk1980]

Ah, the limits of real models....

Still, I wonder if they were forced to build a real model based on this Enterprise design...would it still look the same?

 

[lawman]

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?

Good grief, it wouldn't be Trek without it! (To whom are you worried that it would seem pandering?)

To expand into related bits... I quite enjoy Lost, but I credit that more to Cuse and Lindelof than to Abrams. OTOH, I was not a fan of MI:III, nor of Alias... and you couldn't pay me to go see Transformers. I'm not unalterably opposed to the concept of a "re-envisioning" or even a reboot... but such things should only be done if and when they can improve on the original, and thus I am concerned about some of the specifics of what we've seen so far. Visual elements like uniforms and ship design aside (I like the former, not so keen on the latter), I'm most concerned with what the story appears to be changing in terms of the backstory for Kirk (and, less directly, the rest of the crew).

And in general, I think the "we must attract new audiences!" argument is a non-starter. Sorry, but that's a concern for Paramount beancounters, not actual fans. All I want is a film that does justice to the characters and concepts that define Star Trek. How many people pay to see it matters not a whit to me.

 

[Kirk1980]

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?

Good grief, it wouldn't be Trek without it! (To whom are you worried that it would seem pandering?)

Well, the fact that it IS so obvious to put in... you'd have to find a spot where it works. Kirk/Shatner and Picard/Stewart did it as part of the opening narration (which really wouldn't work the same way in a movie) and Spock/Nimoy did it as just kind of a 'don't be sad, guys!' sorta thing. Each make sense in their own context.