them CGI effects!

[RobertScorpio]

Trek XI’s CGI, at least in my opinion, are really great. And when compared to NEMESIS’s awful CGI, only five-six years ago, makes one really appreciate how far these FX have come.

I am not an expert in CGI, and sometimes I think they go too far (Transformers II). But I really got into the way the scene would spin, at times, during TREK XI’s effects shots. Gave it a more ‘realistic’ feel, especially that shot where the missiles are closing in on the Enterprise and the seen twists. I didn’t expect to see anything like that, and, on the Giant IMAX screen I saw it on that first time, I actually got sea sick..AND I WAS IN THE NAVY!!!

Now I know that some of you (if not all of you) are more versed in this CGI stuff more than I am. How did you think these effects in XI compared to the later Star Wars movies? I think they held up quite well. And how much of the FX budget do you think went into producing those shots..

I remember an interview from JJ where he said ‘he was working on some of the FX at home, and they were looking quite good”. Now, what did he mean by that? Or does he mean they (who ever did them, ILM I guess) would send him segments to look at and, somehow, manipulate?

Anyway…love the CGI. For the first time, for a Star Trek film, they really made me think I was seeing “real” objects in space, not cartoon crap that I saw in the later two TNG movies.

Rob Scorpio

 

[Jeyl]

Too bad they had to shake the bloody camera whenever the shots looked good.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Too bad they had to shake the bloody camera whenever the shots looked good.

But I liked that. It gave it that 'you are there' feeling, because I don't know about you, but when I'm running around during an emergency (for example; the Northridge Earthquake) things are 'quite jittery' from my perspective...

Rob

 

[Trajet]

I really don't think it's fair to compare Star Trek's CGI to Nemesis, considering that Star Trek had almost 3 times the production budget to work with, and didn't have to fork out a considerable amount of that budget to pay for "star names".

The TNG movies were hamstrung by Paramount lowballing the budgets. Nemesis cost - by today's blockbuster standards - a fairly insignificant $60 million to make, while simultaneously having to fork out fairly large paycheques (rumoured to be as high as $10 million) to secure the services of Patrick Stewart.

For the money they had to work with, Nemesis' effects were perfectly acceptable. However, Insurrection, which costs $10 million more than Nemesis, has effects that are completely indefensible, with some of the cheapest looking CGI its ever been my misfortune to witness. The first time we see the Enterprise in that movie, there's a bunch of fairly prominent windows missing from the ship, along with a row of pixels that blink on and off seemingly at will!

 

[Falcor5]

For the money they had to work with, Nemesis' effects were perfectly acceptable. However, Insurrection, which costs $10 million more than Nemesis, has effects that are completely indefensible, with some of the cheapest looking CGI its ever been my misfortune to witness. The first time we see the Enterprise in that movie, there's a bunch of fairly prominent windows missing from the ship, along with a row of pixels that blink on and off seemingly at will!

Ya considering the huge budget difference for Nemesis and Trek XI I think Nemesis' effects were just fine for that movie. The effects were not the problem with Nemesis it was more the story and pacing imo. And I agree the effects for Nemesis were much better than the effects for Insurrection despite Insurrection costing more money to make.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I guess I feel badly for viewers who are bothered by moving cameras and the like; I dunno, at a certain point it's like feeling bad that some viewers are startled by jump cuts or crane shots - movie form and technique evolves and will continue to.

 

[Cyke101]

For the money they had to work with, Nemesis' effects were perfectly acceptable. However, Insurrection, which costs $10 million more than Nemesis, has effects that are completely indefensible, with some of the cheapest looking CGI its ever been my misfortune to witness. The first time we see the Enterprise in that movie, there's a bunch of fairly prominent windows missing from the ship, along with a row of pixels that blink on and off seemingly at will!

Ya considering the huge budget difference for Nemesis and Trek XI I think Nemesis' effects were just fine for that movie.

I disagree with this statement, if only because I think Generations and First Contact, two older movies, had better and less video game-esque special FX but had roughly the same budget as Nemesis (in my honest opinion, of course).

 

[MvRojo]

I really don't think it's fair to compare Star Trek's CGI to Nemesis, considering that Star Trek had almost 3 times the production budget to work with, and didn't have to fork out a considerable amount of that budget to pay for "star names".

The TNG movies were hamstrung by Paramount lowballing the budgets. Nemesis cost - by today's blockbuster standards - a fairly insignificant $60 million to make, while simultaneously having to fork out fairly large paycheques (rumoured to be as high as $10 million) to secure the services of Patrick Stewart.

For the money they had to work with, Nemesis' effects were perfectly acceptable. However, Insurrection, which costs $10 million more than Nemesis, has effects that are completely indefensible, with some of the cheapest looking CGI its ever been my misfortune to witness. The first time we see the Enterprise in that movie, there's a bunch of fairly prominent windows missing from the ship, along with a row of pixels that blink on and off seemingly at will!

Also, Digital Domain did the effects for Nemesis. Although they did decent work, they aren't ILM.