TUC: Overrated?

[Cyke101]

My little nerdy 2nd grader self was absolutely thrilled to see TOS movie-style warp trails against TNG-style star streaks in TUC. It's not very innovative aside from just combining two warp styles, but it was so very pleasant for me. I really wish we could've seen more of that, especially with Cochrane and the Phoenix (I know it doesn't make sense canonically, but shut up).

 

[Praxius]

Quite Honestly, the Praxis explosion has no equal.

Yes TMP and TWOK had some nice close up shots of the ships, but I don't watch a movie just to count the bolts in the hull.

The Enterprise blowing up in Search for Spock looked like a model almost as bad (if not, worse) than the Bird of Prey in TUC.

Going back to the argument of no good close up shots of the ships in TUC, all the shots of the BoP firing while cloaked were pretty close up to me and had a very nice effect at the same time.

People talk about the detailed phaser damage during TWOK and such, yet TUC has that wonderful shot of the BoP's Torpedo deflecting off the upper hull, the first time (the only time) I've ever seen that in ST.

And while we may not have seen every nut and bolt, there were still some very nice angles used

and based on this link, the model that was used for the close up shots in TWOK/TSFS is the same model used in TUC
http://www.ncc1701.us/12.html

Each movie in the whole ST saga did some things really well and each also did things that urked people.

When it comes to close up shots of starships, I personally think First Contact wins out. Yes, TMP had some nice angles and all that good stuff, but First Contact brought you to "Ground Level" and walking on the hull.

Now before anyone goes on about "But TMP used a real model, not CGI therefore it's better" it's not.

Neither is better or worse, as they are both Models that one or more people spent a lot of hours trying to build.

Building a realistic physical model isn't any harder or easier to do than building one in a 3D Program. The level of ease is solely based on the experience of the person creating it, just with different tools.

And I say that as someone who has formal education and decent experience in 3D Modeling / Animation.

In the wrong hands, a model (be that physical or CGI) can be made into some real crap.... And it also requires good lighting and good camera work to pull off.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Empire Strikes Back was vastly underappreciated at first and only gained stature when its younger fans grew up and appreciated its depth more and we saw how it fit into the whole story.

This is one of the most revisionist notions ever created. Contrary to sentiments similar to the oft-rewritten noise on sites such as Wikipedia, TESB was not only a well received film in 1980, but quickly became the 2nd biggest film in history behind Star Wars. With much to live up to, TESB could have failed miserably (as was the general case with sequels to unusually successful 1st films up to that point in time), but it did not.

The film's effect was such that it primed the final film--Return of the Jedi--to surpass expectations (and TESB's box office) in 1983. An under appreciated sequel does not have the habit of spawning bigger follow-ups.

Also the effects in TUC were inferior to I-III. The model shots were far more detailed in the first 3 films and the fact that TUC came over a decade since TMP should have given it a huge edge is SFX.

That is not always true. If your statement was true, then various moviegoers would not be able to say certain CG FX in today's films are just as screamingly fake as CG FX seen at the start of the 2000s. One would argue that technology and technique should have improved in the considerable amount of time (14 years), but the passing of years does not alter the key component: artistic ability of those employed to create the work.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Every single shot of the Enterprise in TUC vs the opening one in TSFS, absolutely no contest, the enterprise looks dreadful in that shot like it's being artificially lit (which it is) but very badly. Look at TMP, when the big E is approaching Vger. That's how to light that ship.

The enterprise at warp in TUC vs TSFS, again, the shot in the 3rd movie when it warps away from space dock looks ridiculous - a poorly angled cheap optical effect just pasted over the ship. The klingon cruiser in TUC looked awesome - and as big a fan of TMP that I am - you can clearly see they are superimposed over the Vger cloud.

The Enterprise approaching/leaving Space Dock and Genesis are both superb and the self destruct is good also, but they are the only effects in TSFS that are decent in my opinion. I think they are quite patchy.

The FX in TUC are consistently good throughout in my view.

Well we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one. I think the opening shot of the Enterprise itself in TSFS of the ship itself was quite good, it was only the fact they had stars flying around it when it was on impulse that made it look kind of bad.

All I can say is that IMHO the space effects shots in I-III were
And that is honestly the only way you can compare the films since there was no assasination scene like in TUC.

TMP would be expected to have better effects since it had about 10 times the SFX budget of any of the other films. But even the original shots in II and III were, for the most part, far better looking than TUC shots. I hear people badmouth the mutara nebula now, which I don't understand in the least. I think it was an awesome breakthrough which still looks great today. People say "Well it looks unrealistic..." OK tell me have you been in a nebula, what should a battle between starships in a nebula look like.

I think the approach and original battle between Enterprise and Reliant was great, the Nebula was great, including the shots of the ships heading towards it. The Bird of Prey and Enterprise/Spacedock scenes were great. And the shot of the Enterprise approaching genesis and the fight between the BOP and the self destruct were great. You want to nit pick and say well so and so shot didn't look good, fine. I never said they were perfect. I think the really high angle shot of the Enterprise clearing the space doors in III isn't the best, but I can live with it.

I can play the nitpicking game too. The Enterprise in spacedock in III had many well lit, detailed and creative angled shots also excelsior too. Both when it arrived and it was stolen. You saw the Enterprise and spacedock in great detail and it looked like a large and majestic ship flying to a huge structure. In TUC when the Enterprise-A left spacedock you saw one low quality shot of the ship from the front recycled from TVH. Then a terrible shot of the spacedoors for about three seconds and then the next shot of the enterprise flying away. The two don't even come close in quality.

And I hardly call the Klingon cruiser "awesome" It looked way better in TMP and the bird of prey was better in III. In fact one of the worst effects in the film was when Kirk comments she's spinning out of control and the shot on the view screen looks like a grey blob being pulled on a string. In fact there was only one shot of the Enterprise n TUC that I thought was creative and had some kind of realism and that was the shot from head on and beneath the Enterprise as it approached Khitomer. Besides that I don't think any of the ship effects were anything special and that includes the battle scenes.

The BOP in TUC when it exploded looked like a model with charges set it in it where as when the Enterprise self destructed they went to great lengths to show the ship slowly being eaten away before the big saucer explosion and then show it's burning hulk flying away.

The Praxis explosion was good but it was your basic big explosion with a shock wave thrown in. The Reliant explosion started realtively small and then grew and grew in magnitude and was one of the best on screen explosions I've ever seen. I don't understand why people get so hard over the praxis one, it had a nice shock wave effect added in.....great. Don't know why George Lucas thought it was so ground breaking he had to add it into the original triology three times

I've never worked for ILM but I am not exactly a stranger to the EFX business and as much as you can nit pic about this or that in my semi professional opinion the effects in I-III at their best were clear superior to TUC at its best. Especially given the first III were made a decade earlier.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Empire Strikes Back was vastly underappreciated at first and only gained stature when its younger fans grew up and appreciated its depth more and we saw how it fit into the whole story.

This is one of the most revisionist notions ever created. Contrary to sentiments similar to the oft-rewritten noise on sites such as Wikipedia, TESB was not only a well received film in 1980, but quickly became the 2nd biggest film in history behind Star Wars. With much to live up to, TESB could have failed miserably (as was the general case with sequels to unusually successful 1st films up to that point in time), but it did not.

The film's effect was such that it primed the final film--Return of the Jedi--to surpass expectations (and TESB's box office) in 1983. An under appreciated sequel does not have the habit of spawning bigger follow-ups.

Also the effects in TUC were inferior to I-III. The model shots were far more detailed in the first 3 films and the fact that TUC came over a decade since TMP should have given it a huge edge is SFX.

That is not always true. If your statement was true, then various moviegoers would not be able to say certain CG FX in today's films are just as screamingly fake as CG FX seen at the start of the 2000s. One would argue that technology and technique should have improved in the considerable amount of time (14 years), but the passing of years does not alter the key component: artistic ability of those employed to create the work.

Agreed to an extent. An IMHO the people who did the work on ST I-III were much better at creating spaceship shots, whether because they knew more ,were talented or had more money. TUC was fine and all, but nothing groundbreaking for 1991 and it wouldn't have been all that groundbreaking in 1982 either.

And it is not Wikipedia that says that about ESB. There are many many well researched articles and books that clearly show that many people and critics say it was a step back from star wars at the time and only in the bigger scope of things did it truly become to be appreciated for its depth and excellence. So it was the 2nd biggest money maker of all time at the time, hate to tell you but box office returns do not always equate to greatness. You're telling me Avatar is the best film ever made?

Don't know why its so hard for people to accept this fact that is rather well known amongst Star Wars fans about ESB. It's happened before. Wizard of Oz, Casablanca and Shawshank Redemption were not hailed as immediate classics, but grew over time. Few people came out ESB saying "Man that was shit" but it was NOT instantly given the exhaulted status it has now for a multitude of reasons. People were wrong at the time but changed their minds, it happens and ESB is my favorite film ever so I'm not some basher. Were their exceptions, sure, some thought it kicked utter ass from the start but the GENERAL CONSENSUS AT THE TIME was that it didn't quite live up to what a lot of people were expecting. It is not some revisionist history or urban myth, it is a rather well documented story that is even said in some official Lucasfilm documentaries.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Quite Honestly, the Praxis explosion has no equal.

Yes TMP and TWOK had some nice close up shots of the ships, but I don't watch a movie just to count the bolts in the hull.

The Enterprise blowing up in Search for Spock looked like a model almost as bad (if not, worse) than the Bird of Prey in TUC.

Going back to the argument of no good close up shots of the ships in TUC, all the shots of the BoP firing while cloaked were pretty close up to me and had a very nice effect at the same time.

People talk about the detailed phaser damage during TWOK and such, yet TUC has that wonderful shot of the BoP's Torpedo deflecting off the upper hull, the first time (the only time) I've ever seen that in ST.

And while we may not have seen every nut and bolt, there were still some very nice angles used

and based on this link, the model that was used for the close up shots in TWOK/TSFS is the same model used in TUC
http://www.ncc1701.us/12.html

Each movie in the whole ST saga did some things really well and each also did things that urked people.

When it comes to close up shots of starships, I personally think First Contact wins out. Yes, TMP had some nice angles and all that good stuff, but First Contact brought you to "Ground Level" and walking on the hull.

Now before anyone goes on about "But TMP used a real model, not CGI therefore it's better" it's not.

Neither is better or worse, as they are both Models that one or more people spent a lot of hours trying to build.

Building a realistic physical model isn't any harder or easier to do than building one in a 3D Program. The level of ease is solely based on the experience of the person creating it, just with different tools.

And I say that as someone who has formal education and decent experience in 3D Modeling / Animation.

In the wrong hands, a model (be that physical or CGI) can be made into some real crap.... And it also requires good lighting and good camera work to pull off.

I never said TUC was crap and totally worthless, it just wasn't as good. And even if it is the same model a lot of things can go into making it look good or bad on screen besides the model itself. It was the same model in TFF too and it looked like a playtoy.

I thin the enterprise self destruct was great, you said it was bad. You love the BOP torpedo I personally thought it looked like it was a glowing bullet flying through some plywood. So I guess we'll just have to believe what we want.

 

[Khan 2.0]

In TUC when the Enterprise-A left spacedock you saw one low quality shot of the ship from the front recycled from TVH. Then a terrible shot of the spacedoors for about three seconds and then the next shot of the enterprise flying away. The two don't even come close in quality.

VI had one of the most awe inspiring spacedock FX - the shuttles journey up toward it after the HQ conference

 

[Smellmet]

I'll give you the recycled footage from TVH and the door exit, but the shot of the E speeding away from spacedock - that looked superb, slick and detailed. What would you improve about that?

The BoP explosion I thought was pretty decent, no more, at least it was a physical model shot, trying to do it with the CGI of the day would have looked far worse. It was good enough to feature in Generations three years later and didn't particularly jar.

I've never dissed the Mutara sequences - I still think whilst dated in terms of detail, still look great, and the resulting Genesis explosion is still outstanding.

The Klingon battlecruiser - 'a grey blob on a string' - come on. I don't see any problems whatsoever with those scenes, using your rationale with the Mutara Nebula - what does and alien battleship really look like when it's been hit by fictional weapons and is spinning out of control? My only beef is that the action only took place on the viewscreen. The first time you see the Klingon ship and it sweeps into view - now that looks superb, shows the design of that ship to it's menacing best.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

In TUC when the Enterprise-A left spacedock you saw one low quality shot of the ship from the front recycled from TVH. Then a terrible shot of the spacedoors for about three seconds and then the next shot of the enterprise flying away. The two don't even come close in quality.

VI had one of the most awe inspiring spacedock FX - the shuttles journey up toward it after the HQ conference

Really? It was a good shot and the angle was creative I'll give you that but awe inspiring? I don't see it.

To me a badly damaged Enterprise finally reaching home and home being this huge structure we'd never seen before and then a beautiful transition, complete with music, of the Enterprise majestically entering the dock with great shots of it entering it and inside of it, seeing the Excelsior for the first time and it pulling up besides a lounge where people can see the damage up close, the shot of including Yeoman Rand looking disapprovingly was silly, but the compositioning of the ship against the lounge windows was flawless even by todays standards. That was awe inspiring.

By compairson a few second shot of a shuttle approachng spacedock and not even being shown going inside is not even in the same ball park. IMHO.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

I'll give you the recycled footage from TVH and the door exit, but the shot of the E speeding away from spacedock - that looked superb, slick and detailed. What would you improve about that?

The BoP explosion I thought was pretty decent, no more, at least it was a physical model shot, trying to do it with the CGI of the day would have looked far worse. It was good enough to feature in Generations three years later and didn't particularly jar.

I've never dissed the Mutara sequences - I still think whilst dated in terms of detail, still look great, and the resulting Genesis explosion is still outstanding.

The Klingon battlecruiser - 'a grey blob on a string' - come on. I don't see any problems whatsoever with those scenes, using your rationale with the Mutara Nebula - what does and alien battleship really look like when it's been hit by fictional weapons and is spinning out of control? My only beef is that the action only took place on the viewscreen. The first time you see the Klingon ship and it sweeps into view - now that looks superb, shows the design of that ship to it's menacing best.

All right maybe blob on a string was too strong. But that particular shot looked like a cheap model to me instead of a huge battlecruiser losing control. The close ups of the cruiser were good but I think the opening of TMP was better which I don't blame on TUC because like I said TMP had a huge special efx budget compaired to any other ST film.

Look I'm not saying TUC sucked in story or effects, you can nit pick particular shots in II and III that didn't look great and I can nit pick shots in TUC that I thought didn't look great. Overall though I just think the sfx that you can compare between the two II and III are generally considerably better.....You disagree. No problem, I wish we could meet and watch all three films together to point out and discuss our views, but I respect what you're saying and can understand it.

Now if you were in here arguing that the effects in TFF were really good and equal to any other of the original films.....then I would think this guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

 

[Smellmet]

I'll give you the recycled footage from TVH and the door exit, but the shot of the E speeding away from spacedock - that looked superb, slick and detailed. What would you improve about that?

The BoP explosion I thought was pretty decent, no more, at least it was a physical model shot, trying to do it with the CGI of the day would have looked far worse. It was good enough to feature in Generations three years later and didn't particularly jar.

I've never dissed the Mutara sequences - I still think whilst dated in terms of detail, still look great, and the resulting Genesis explosion is still outstanding.

The Klingon battlecruiser - 'a grey blob on a string' - come on. I don't see any problems whatsoever with those scenes, using your rationale with the Mutara Nebula - what does and alien battleship really look like when it's been hit by fictional weapons and is spinning out of control? My only beef is that the action only took place on the viewscreen. The first time you see the Klingon ship and it sweeps into view - now that looks superb, shows the design of that ship to it's menacing best.

All right maybe blob on a string was too strong. But that particular shot looked like a cheap model to me instead of a huge battlecruiser losing control. The close ups of the cruiser were good but I think the opening of TMP was better which I don't blame on TUC because like I said TMP had a huge special efx budget compaired to any other ST film.

Look I'm not saying TUC sucked in story or effects, you can nit pick particular shots in II and III that didn't look great and I can nit pick shots in TUC that I thought didn't look great. Overall though I just think the sfx that you can compare between the two II and III are generally considerably better.....You disagree. No problem, I wish we could meet and watch all three films together to point out and discuss our views, but I respect what you're saying and can understand it.

Now if you were in here arguing that the effects in TFF were really good and equal to any other of the original films.....then I would think this guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I guess a lot of it is how we judge them and how it makes you feel - don't get me wrong, the spacedock sequences in TSFS are amongst my absolute favorite scenes in all of Trek, I watch them on youtube on my phone all the time. The composition, music, and drama of these scenes are pitch perfect. For me though it's the technical aspects of the FX that I'm more critical of - they just don't look quite as real to me, like you can see some of the superimposing going on. The Regula station in TWOK is a perfect example of this - you can see a shape surrounding the station as it drifts over Regula in one shot, this combined with some of the wonky optical effects with the warp and I just don't find them technically as pleasing as the (admittedly smaller in scope) ones in TUC, where I don't see any rough edges like this - but it is a newer film after all. Overall I think that for their respective times, they are about equal.

Now the FX in TFF, you'll get no argument with me whatsoever on that. I still cringe when the Enterprise almost seems to warp sideways away from the Klingon torpedo...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Empire Strikes Back was vastly underappreciated at first and only gained stature when its younger fans grew up and appreciated its depth more and we saw how it fit into the whole story.

This is one of the most revisionist notions ever created. Contrary to sentiments similar to the oft-rewritten noise on sites such as Wikipedia, TESB was not only a well received film in 1980, but quickly became the 2nd biggest film in history behind Star Wars. With much to live up to, TESB could have failed miserably (as was the general case with sequels to unusually successful 1st films up to that point in time), but it did not.

The film's effect was such that it primed the final film--Return of the Jedi--to surpass expectations (and TESB's box office) in 1983. An under appreciated sequel does not have the habit of spawning bigger follow-ups.

Also the effects in TUC were inferior to I-III. The model shots were far more detailed in the first 3 films and the fact that TUC came over a decade since TMP should have given it a huge edge is SFX.

That is not always true. If your statement was true, then various moviegoers would not be able to say certain CG FX in today's films are just as screamingly fake as CG FX seen at the start of the 2000s. One would argue that technology and technique should have improved in the considerable amount of time (14 years), but the passing of years does not alter the key component: artistic ability of those employed to create the work.

Agreed to an extent. An IMHO the people who did the work on ST I-III were much better at creating spaceship shots, whether because they knew more ,were talented or had more money. TUC was fine and all, but nothing groundbreaking for 1991 and it wouldn't have been all that groundbreaking in 1982 either.

Two things:

1. The Praxis explosion would have been technically and visually revolutionary in 1982, when you compare that to the Genesis demonstration.

2. Regarding space vehicles in the TOS movies--what more is necessary? The one thing the films needed was visual consistency, since it is the same universe in a short amount of in-story time running through the films. Aside from the company switch and budget problems in TFF, there's not a glaring FX drop from TMP to TUC.

And it is not Wikipedia that says that about ESB. There are many many well researched articles and books that clearly show that many people and critics say it was a step back from star wars at the time and only in the bigger scope of things did it truly become to be appreciated for its depth and excellence.

I recall articles and reviews in 1980 noting the maturity of the film, and it taking a step above Star Wars in not being a mere sequel/imitation.

So it was the 2nd biggest money maker of all time at the time, hate to tell you but box office returns do not always equate to greatness. You're telling me Avatar is the best film ever made?

The point was that sequels--historically--were never strong follow-ups to a successful original. TESB had much to live up to, and could have failed like innumerable sequels before it, but its rise to the 2nd biggest film in history (at the time) said much about its effect on the audiences who embraced the original film.

As noted yesterday, ROTJ outperformed TESB--but one cannot underestimate how TESB's effect primed the movie going public into caring about a the cliffhangers and expected conclusions set up by the second act.

How often do you see that in film history?

 

[enterprisecvn65]

I'll give you the recycled footage from TVH and the door exit, but the shot of the E speeding away from spacedock - that looked superb, slick and detailed. What would you improve about that?

The BoP explosion I thought was pretty decent, no more, at least it was a physical model shot, trying to do it with the CGI of the day would have looked far worse. It was good enough to feature in Generations three years later and didn't particularly jar.

I've never dissed the Mutara sequences - I still think whilst dated in terms of detail, still look great, and the resulting Genesis explosion is still outstanding.

The Klingon battlecruiser - 'a grey blob on a string' - come on. I don't see any problems whatsoever with those scenes, using your rationale with the Mutara Nebula - what does and alien battleship really look like when it's been hit by fictional weapons and is spinning out of control? My only beef is that the action only took place on the viewscreen. The first time you see the Klingon ship and it sweeps into view - now that looks superb, shows the design of that ship to it's menacing best.

All right maybe blob on a string was too strong. But that particular shot looked like a cheap model to me instead of a huge battlecruiser losing control. The close ups of the cruiser were good but I think the opening of TMP was better which I don't blame on TUC because like I said TMP had a huge special efx budget compaired to any other ST film.

Look I'm not saying TUC sucked in story or effects, you can nit pick particular shots in II and III that didn't look great and I can nit pick shots in TUC that I thought didn't look great. Overall though I just think the sfx that you can compare between the two II and III are generally considerably better.....You disagree. No problem, I wish we could meet and watch all three films together to point out and discuss our views, but I respect what you're saying and can understand it.

Now if you were in here arguing that the effects in TFF were really good and equal to any other of the original films.....then I would think this guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I guess a lot of it is how we judge them and how it makes you feel - don't get me wrong, the spacedock sequences in TSFS are amongst my absolute favorite scenes in all of Trek, I watch them on youtube on my phone all the time. The composition, music, and drama of these scenes are pitch perfect. For me though it's the technical aspects of the FX that I'm more critical of - they just don't look quite as real to me, like you can see some of the superimposing going on. The Regula station in TWOK is a perfect example of this - you can see a shape surrounding the station as it drifts over Regula in one shot, this combined with some of the wonky optical effects with the warp and I just don't find them technically as pleasing as the (admittedly smaller in scope) ones in TUC, where I don't see any rough edges like this - but it is a newer film after all. Overall I think that for their respective times, they are about equal.

Now the FX in TFF, you'll get no argument with me whatsoever on that. I still cringe when the Enterprise almost seems to warp sideways away from the Klingon torpedo...

Well like I said I think we could have a fun and spirited conversation if we sat down and watch the films together.

I think if you have to pick one of the films that was superior technically vs its release date it'd have to be TMP. But that comes with a major caveat because Paramount gave TMP an unlimited checkbook because they knew after Star Wars that any film they did had to have effects as good or better or the audience wouldn't go for it. So Trumbull and Dykstra basically had a shitzillion dollars to work with and it showed. Unfortunately noone at Paramount also seemed to realize that Star Wars worked not just because of the effects because it walked that fine line of a film that was enjoyable to adults and younger people.

As great as TMP's effects were. When they showed things like slowly approaching vger, slowly going into vger, standing still in vger etc....it wasn't going hold a lot of people's attention for 2+ hours.

As great a film as II was the fact that I was so damn expensive and only made 1/3 what Star Wars did and Paramount closed the checkbook I think prevented TWOK and TFSF from being even better visually. Can you imagine what they could have done if they had had TMP's sfx budget. They were essentially working on a shoestring, even using recycle footage, which didn't really bother me because how many ways can Enterprise leave drydock. But Roddenberry's ego caused Paramount to cut the purse strings and I think they did an extraordinary job with what they were given for II and III. If the sfx guys weren't so talented and creative it could have easily been closer to TFF visually

I don't recall how tight Paramount was with TUC's budget, so you'd have to enlighten me there.

 

[Khan 2.0]

They were essentially working on a shoestring, even using recycle footage, which didn't really bother me because how many ways can Enterprise leave drydock

Think they were able to get away with it more so back then as there was little to no VHS so the last time many people would have seen the TMP drydock scene was Xmas 79

I think they did an extraordinary job with what they were given for II and III. If the sfx guys weren't so talented and creative it could have easily been closer to TFF visually

Think I read somewhere that many ILMers were big trek fans having grown up with TOS and been inspired by the FX etc and were very keen to work on the movies so that probably helped the FX look as good as they did

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I haven't see this film (VI) in quite a while, but is the 'exiting spacedock doors' shot of which you speak the rather flat one, which basically looked like a glorified zoom-in? If that's the one, it reminded me of the shot from The Motion Picture, of the zoom past Jupiter's moons (the viewscreen shot)...just not a whole lot of depth.

I brought up in another thread recently the subject of sequels feeling the need to top the predecessor, resulting in a very fast degeneration into the ridiculous (though I was mostly speaking of story lines). In terms of special effects, though, I suppose it could be equally true.

I'm happy if the shots are competently done storytelling, without necessarily having to be "more dazzling than ever before". If a really neat idea for a shot is thought of, then go for it, by all means.

I guess what I'm getting at is a question I've long had now, my cinematic equivalent of "the chicken or the egg": do studios produce bigger, better, stronger, faster movies because audiences expect them, or do audiences expect them because that's what studios make?

 

[NeroShrimp]

This film was brilliant. The best ending and send-off I've ever seen. This and The Dark Knight Rises are my favorite endings of all-time. I highly enjoyed them. I know the 6th Star Trek film isn't without flaws. All movies aren't without flaws.

 

[fireproof78]

I haven't see this film (VI) in quite a while, but is the 'exiting spacedock doors' shot of which you speak the rather flat one, which basically looked like a glorified zoom-in? If that's the one, it reminded me of the shot from The Motion Picture, of the zoom past Jupiter's moons (the viewscreen shot)...just not a whole lot of depth.

I brought up in another thread recently the subject of sequels feeling the need to top the predecessor, resulting in a very fast degeneration into the ridiculous (though I was mostly speaking of story lines). In terms of special effects, though, I suppose it could be equally true.

I'm happy if the shots are competently done storytelling, without necessarily having to be "more dazzling than ever before". If a really neat idea for a shot is thought of, then go for it, by all means.

I guess what I'm getting at is a question I've long had now, my cinematic equivalent of "the chicken or the egg": do studios produce bigger, better, stronger, faster movies because audiences expect them, or do audiences expect them because that's what studios make?

One thing I have noticed about studios, regardless of production, is they go with what is a safe bet. If a formula is working, and bringing in money, then they will likely continue with it, sticking with a safe thing rather than something dangerous.

So, big action movie that made plenty of money? Means an even bigger, louder action movie that will more money. It's formulaic, and a bit frustrating, but studios are not making films like they used to and rely upon the big "tent pole" films to make money.

So, it is a bit of a vicious cycle, because audiences go to see the big films, and because they go and see it studios make more. Then the audience gets in to mode of, "This is what films are now" and goes and sees them.

It isn't pretty, but it seems to be what happened.

 

[F. King Daniel]

While some are very good, there are a few terrible shots in VI. In particular, the warp speed flybys, where the Enterprise looks like a plastic toy spewing streamers of coloured smoke.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch11/tuc0557.jpg

 

[Smellmet]

While some are very good, there are a few terrible shots in VI. In particular, the warp speed flybys, where the Enterprise looks like a plastic toy spewing streamers of coloured smoke.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch11/tuc0557.jpg

I'll give you that one - I still think it's smarter than the warping in TSFS but at least it's brief enough to not jar.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

This film was brilliant. The best ending and send-off I've ever seen. This and The Dark Knight Rises are my favorite endings of all-time. I highly enjoyed them. I know the 6th Star Trek film isn't without flaws. All movies aren't without flaws.

That could be debated.

I still think "Empire Strikes Back" is a perfect film. And, I'm sure there are other examples...like maybe "Raiders of the Lost Ark."