or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek 2 - Page 6

post #151 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

FIXED.

biggrin.gif Nice addition. We need to add one more though to make it complete............

****! Sounds like the new Star Trek is going to be variable aspect, constant lens flare and 3d! mad.gif
post #152 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

biggrin.gif Nice addition. We need to add one more though to make it complete............
****! Sounds like the new Star Trek is going to be variable aspect, constant lens flare and 3d! mad.gif


Sounds like the new Star Trek is going to be variable aspect, constant lens flare and fake 3d
post #153 of 682
I have a question of some of you. I'm not without some of my preferences for film, but do you really find some of these directorial choices (lens flare, variable aspect) really take you out of the experience? Again, I'm not without my preferences, but generally, if it's in focus, sound is on point and most of all it's a good storyline then I'm not really finding these other things as a distraction. Do I notice them, yes, but I tend to get more engrossed in the movie itself (or at least I hope to) rather than how it looks. I was curious how it impacts some of you is all?

And IMO, the aspect ratio is kind of a "whatever" matter for me as long as they don't shift it to 4:3. Again, I have my preferences but I personally don't get bent out of shape over it. In fact, until people started talking about it on The Dark Knight, I never even noticed it. Now I do whenever I watch it but still don't find it to be a distraction. Lens flare, I don't know, for some reason with this Star Trek reboot I feel like that effect is appropriate. It's like those movies where you see people in an art gallery looking at something horrific but someone always says "Yeah, I get it. I feel what the artist is saying to me." The lens flare thing truly does add something to the experience for me in this case. Not as much relevant here but the shaky cam thing is annoying to me but that's not to say it doesn't have it's place and purpose in sparse use.
post #154 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I have a question of some of you. I'm not without some of my preferences for film, but do you really find some of these directorial choices (lens flare, variable aspect) really take you out of the experience? Again, I'm not without my preferences, but generally, if it's in focus, sound is on point and most of all it's a good storyline then I'm not really finding these other things as a distraction. Do I notice them, yes, but I tend to get more engrossed in the movie itself (or at least I hope to) rather than how it looks. I was curious how it impacts some of you is all?
And IMO, the aspect ratio is kind of a "whatever" matter for me as long as they don't shift it to 4:3. Again, I have my preferences but I personally don't get bent out of shape over it. In fact, until people started talking about it on The Dark Knight, I never even noticed it. Now I do whenever I watch it but still don't find it to be a distraction. Lens flare, I don't know, for some reason with this Star Trek reboot I feel like that effect is appropriate. It's like those movies where you see people in an art gallery looking at something horrific but someone always says "Yeah, I get it. I feel what the artist is saying to me." The lens flare thing truly does add something to the experience for me in this case. Not as much relevant here but the shaky cam thing is annoying to me but that's not to say it doesn't have it's place and purpose in sparse use.

I only hate variable aspect on a CIH screen since you dont get the intended effect and if you dont have good masking (using the zoom method at least) it is distracting when the frame opens up. It is going to be even more distracting on TDKR because nearly half the film(!?!) opens up to 1.78, and not only that but with numerous switches throughout the film. This does not work on a CIH screen which is why a constant aspect version was used for non IMAX commercial theaters...........I wish we had the same option for blu!
post #155 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

biggrin.gif Nice addition. We need to add one more though to make it complete............
****! Sounds like the new Star Trek is going to be variable aspect, constant lens flare and 3d! mad.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Sounds like the new Star Trek is going to be variable aspect, constant lens flare and fake 3d
IF, and I stress "IF," Star Trek was to use it during their Holodeck scenes, I would be more enthused.wink.gif

Kate Beckinsale....Holodeck....mmmmm....tongue.gifeek.gif
post #156 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Kate Beckinsale....Holodeck....mmmmm....tongue.gifeek.gif

Oh great! I was making great progress on my day til now!
post #157 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I'm not without some of my preferences for film, but do you really find some of these directorial choices (lens flare, variable aspect) really take you out of the experience?
Typically those things don't take me out of the experience, but it depends on how they're used. When I first saw 'Star Trek', I found the lens flares a bit annoying, but within a few minutes I barely noticed them. When watching it again on Blu-ray, I found that the lens flares helped maintain a consistent look during edits, especially when cutting from interior shots to exterior scenes in space. The whole thing look like it had been photographed by the same DP, belieing the fact that some of the footage was pure CG. Same with the shakey-cam in that movie, helping improve consistency between interior and exterior shots.

As for variable aspect ratio, especially with movies that have 15/70 IMAX footage, I enjoy the results. I love it when certain scenes pop open to the full height of the (film-based) IMAX screen. Again, it depends on how it is used. The forest battle scene in the middle of 'Transformers 2' was awesome in full-screen IMAX. How can you beat seeing robots 6 stories high. The entire scene was comprised of IMAX footage. By comparison, the end battle was a mixture of IMAX and 35mm 'scope footage, with some edits using only a single IMAX shot before cutting back to regular footage. That was a little distracting. Happened a couple of times in 'Dark Knight', where a single IMAX shot was inserted into regular footage (like when Lucius goes to see Lau in Hong Kong). Probably the smoothest transitions I've seen with variable aspect ratio was in the recent 'Mission Impossible 4'. Excepting a few transitions, the image gradually opened up or closed down when going between 2.35 and 1.44 aspect ratios.
post #158 of 682
Leaked plot?

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
post #159 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Leaked plot?
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.
As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

Sounds great!!
post #160 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Leaked plot?
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.
As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

If they programmed a computer to write a Star Trek scipt, that is what would come tumbling out. Sold! biggrin.gif
post #161 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Leaked plot?

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet...

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart...
While there were rumors of Khan being the next villian, the underlined parts above make it sound more like the villian might be Gary Mitchell (Kirk's close friend at the Academy).
post #162 of 682
*eyes closed* (please be good, please be good, please be good....) *one eye open*
post #163 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

While there were rumors of Khan being the next villian, the underlined parts above make it sound more like the villian might be Gary Mitchell (Kirk's close friend at the Academy).
Nice guess.wink.gif
post #164 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Nice guess.wink.gif
Well, the description you posted seemed to confirm an earlier slip. During an interview promoting his movie 'Dredd', Karl Urban said about his new Trek co-star Benedict Cumberbatch: "He’s awesome, he’s a great addition, and I think his Gary Mitchell is going to be exemplary.” Wups!

Who knows, the whole thing might be a disinformation campaign.
post #165 of 682
I have become a big Benedict Cumberbatch fan because of his wonderful performances as Sherlock Holmes in the highly entertaining BBC series, Sherlock. He also did a fine job in a minor role in Atonement. According to IMDB, Cumberbatch has been rumored to have been cast as Kahn in Star Trek 2, which is billed by IMDb as Star Trek Into Darkness.
post #166 of 682
Why not both? Gary Mitchell has been implanted with one of those dastardly earworms and is now doing the bidding of that one man weapon of mass destruction..... Kaaaaaaaahn!
post #167 of 682
I hate remakes casting the same ol' villains again and again.
Sheesh, talk about a lack of creativity....rolleyes.gif
post #168 of 682
post #169 of 682
JJ is supposedly a big fan of Chris Nolan. Rumor has it that when he saw the way Nolan promotes his Dark Knight movies, showing the first few minutes of the film in IMAX instead of a trailer, JJ said to his crew 'now that's how you promote a movie!'. No surprise then that he will be attaching the first 9 minutes of the new Trek film to IMAX showings of The Hobbit. Also no surprise that the new Star Trek poster looks like the Dark Knight Rises poster, except with the cut-out looking like the Starfleet logo instead of the Batman logo.



BTW, is that London in the background behind Benedict Cumberbatch?
post #170 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


BTW, is that London in the background behind Benedict Cumberbatch?

The article does mention something of that.
post #171 of 682
Wallpaper version of the image for desktop background. Right click on image and open in new window for full size.

post #172 of 682
Wallpaper nuthin! I'm getting this one done Fat Head!
post #173 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I hate remakes casting the same ol' villains again and again.
Sheesh, talk about a lack of creativity....rolleyes.gif

That's what they said with the Joker... wink.gif

At least if it's a new Khan, we won't have to endure Shatner's usual silly over-the-top acting. (oh my what did I say WHAT DID I SAY??!? blasphemy!! eek.gifwink.gif)
post #174 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post


At least if it's a new Khan, we won't have to endure Shatner's usual silly over-the-top acting. (oh my what did I say WHAT DID I SAY??!? blasphemy!! eek.gifwink.gif)
Careful...careful now....
Capt. Kirk is a certified God!
Our Rock, our Savior, our Salvation!!!!
post #175 of 682
Kkkkkkeeeeee-RRRrrrooooocccckkkkk!!!!
post #176 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Capt. Kirk is a certified God!
Our Rock, our Savior, our Salvation!!!!
He got a commendation for original thinking.
post #177 of 682
post #178 of 682
IBTB.

In before the bitching.
post #179 of 682
Looks good. Epic like.
post #180 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Looks good. Epic like.
Agreed. I saw early squawking that it was too earthy and explosion heavy. I say it's cool and will be the last thing I read or see about it until I see it in the theater.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home