or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek 2

post #1 of 682
Thread Starter 
After months of rumors that he would only produce, JJ Abrams has officially signed on to direct the sequel to the breakout hit of summer 2009. He has been spending that time developing the script with Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof. Filming is scheduled to begin this upcoming winter for a 2013 release.

http://www.slashfilm.com/jj-abrams-o...r-trek-sequel/

A recent interview with Abrams where he states that he will delay the film if he has to, in order to get the story and characters right.

http://www.slashfilm.com/jj-abrams-s...-release-date/
post #2 of 682
Bout time. I was wondering if they were just not going to make any more of what. Hope they keep the principle cast.
post #3 of 682
I ask only three things from Mr. Abrams. One, get rid of the lens glare gimmick. Two, no Deep Roy as the half-pint alien. Three, a better plot. I forgave him for some of the holes you could drive a truck through simply because the story moved right along. I won't give him a second chance.
post #4 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by smudge981 View Post

I ask only three things from Mr. Abrams. One, get rid of the lens glare gimmick.

+1
It was silly and distracting.

Why on earth didn't Paramount box him in contractually to whip out a sequel quickly if the initial movie was successful?

This will cost them some $$$ from a marketing POV...
post #5 of 682
Lens glare works sometimes because it gives the illusion of location recording. But when you use it so much that the viewer starts to notice it, then it becomes a distraction.

What I on the other hand loved about the first film, was that they manage to create that epic star trek feel in the first scene. It got me in the right mode from start.
post #6 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Lens glare works sometimes because it gives the illusion of location recording. But when you use it so much that the viewer starts to notice it, then it becomes a distraction.

What I on the other hand loved about the first film, was that they manage to create that epic star trek feel in the first scene. It got me in the right mode from start.

Absolutely agree.
post #7 of 682
He did the same lens glare gimmick in Super 8 but fortunately, it was very little.
post #8 of 682
I really like the new crew. If done well a great chemistry could develop between them over the coming films. I'm looking forward to this one and will probably be there on day one.
post #9 of 682
Thread Starter 
It's not a "gimmick", it's a visual styling. Many directors have one (or many). Personally, I don't find them to be distracting and feel they often add to the atmosphere of the film. I think people find reasons to nitpick a film and complain. But for those that disagree, take a moment and read JJ's own thoughts on the matter:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/hey...-in-star-trek/

Excerpt: "I wanted a visual system that felt unique," Abrams says. "I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, 'Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many.' But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame."

http://www.slashfilm.com/film-interv...g-mystery-box/

Excerpt: To me it’s such a cool beautiful image, the light through the glass. There are times that I feel like it sort of adds another kind of smart element, and it’s hard to define. But it is a visual taste that I do like. I think there are a couple shots in Super 8 where I just think I should definitely pull back here or there, but I can’t help myself sometimes.

And there are many more if you guys could be bothered to google it a bit.
post #10 of 682
Just because Abrams likes it doesn't mean everyone else should.

I think it's pretty cool but could have been toned down a bit in ST.
post #11 of 682
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post
Just because Abrams likes it doesn't mean everyone else should.
I'm not saying that, I'm simply saying before one dismisses it as a gimmick by a thoughtless director, one should see what said director has to say about it.
post #12 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post
I'm not saying that, I'm simply saying before one dismisses it as a gimmick by a thoughtless director, one should see what said director has to say about it.
Whether or not one wants to call it a gimmick isn't really important IMO.

Watching the movie, it felt "gimmicky" or "silly" or "distracting" to me.
The bottom line, from my perspective, is it pulled me out of the movie somewhat.
post #13 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Excerpt: To me it's such a cool beautiful image, the light through the glass. There are times that I feel like it sort of adds another kind of smart element, and it's hard to define. But it is a visual taste that I do like. I think there are a couple shots in Super 8 where I just think I should definitely pull back here or there, but I can't help myself sometimes.

Methinks Abrams pretty much slapped his own directing hand right there. He KNEW he shouldn't have done it but he did it anyways. I'm not going to roast the guy over an open flame for something like that. It didn't bother me that much but it sure bothered the people who watched it with me. As one friend put it, "maybe next time, the bridge won't look like a Tiffany's store with the lights on."
post #14 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

+1
It was silly and distracting.

Why on earth didn't Paramount box him in contractually to whip out a sequel quickly if the initial movie was successful?

This will cost them some $$$ from a marketing POV...

Take your pick:
Shakey Cam
Teal and Orange
Lens Glare

I know what I'd pick.

larry
post #15 of 682
LOL - I have always felt that Lens Flare was a mistake on the part of the camera operator. Like seeing a mike boom in the picture or the reflection of the camera crew in a highly polished surface.

They are flaws.
post #16 of 682
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LOL - I have always felt that Lens Flare was a mistake on the part of the camera operator. Like seeing a mike boom in the picture or the reflection of the camera crew in a highly polished surface.

They are flaws.

Read the interviews, they were calculated and intentional.
post #17 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

Take your pick:
Shakey Cam
Teal and Orange
Lens Glare

I know what I'd pick.

larry

That's asking "Do you want to be shot in your right foot, left foot or other left foot. I find them all annoying when overdone...director's artistic choice or not.
post #18 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Read the interviews, they were calculated and intentional.

I like that they were calculated. Maybe Abrams and his cronies had a computer program to run scenarios to get the right length, duration and intensity of the lens flare to achieve the proper emotional reaction so as to contribute to the overall arc of the story. Beats the old days when directors only had slide rules and punch card calculators to judge the impact of their iris wipes.

Come on, Abrams puts them in solely because he thinks they're cool and they're his films to do what he wants. That's it. And even he admits he does it too much.

But that doesn't at all take away from the fact that some people (a lot of people?) don't like them.
post #19 of 682
I was not that distracted by the lens flares but I did notice it so in a sense it was too much.
But lens flares are kind of outdated after numerous of early CGI SciFi TV-series, e.g. Babylon5.
It kind of looks cool but you get sick of seeing it all the time
post #20 of 682
I'm betting it will be minimized in the next film.

My issue is this... Eric Bana's part was poorly written. He played a lame villain. THAt has to change. And for the love of God, no more villains that say, "Helloooo" on the monitor. That was just painful.

And please, let the film breathe. Don't be in such a rush all of the damned time. The conversation or lecture from Pike to Kirk is a grand example. That was cut so quickly that it was as if Pike was running out of oxygen and had to speak quickly, without pauses.

Mi3 didn't suffer from that and neither did the JJ episodes of LOST.
post #21 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post
Read the interviews, they were calculated and intentional.
I understand that - I just don't agree with his use of a flaw as a shooting technique.

Lens Flare is just one of the points that shows how inferior cameras are to the human eye.
post #22 of 682
Then it's agreed. Mr Abrams has to touch base with us in this thread before shooting.
post #23 of 682
Abram's reboot had bigger problems than the lens flaring effect..
post #24 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post
Abram's reboot had bigger problems than the lens flaring effect..
It worked fine for me.
post #25 of 682
And here I was hoping for lens flares in 3-D next time. But seriously....

While both lens flare and shaky cam were over used for my tastes, I did think they helped to provide a visual consistency between interior practical shots and exterior special effects work. Some of the space ship scenes looked like they were filmed out there rather than generated in a computer. And they often cut seamlessly with interior live action shots.
post #26 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Abram's reboot had bigger problems than the lens flaring effect..

like what?
post #27 of 682
Best Trek film since Undiscovered Country here, I don't have problems with it.
post #28 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

Take your pick:
Shakey Cam
Teal and Orange
Lens Glare

I know what I'd pick.

larry

OK....you have a point there.
post #29 of 682
Little help here..... I hate to ask this question, but ask it I must: just what exactly is "lens flare"? I know what a "focus pull" is - they used it all the time in BSG and it added to the realism of CGI spaceship shots. They also used "shaky-cam" - I know what that is - but they were judicious about it to the point that it wasn't distracting (too many feature films and TV shows haven't learned that lesson yet, obviously). But I'm at a loss to describe what this "lens flare" is and how it's been overused. Thanks.
post #30 of 682
There were a few HUGE plot holes in the film. Just big giant plot holes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home