OK. Call me a geek...just saw the latest Star Trek movie...

[emu!]

...and I thought it was great! As some of you may know, I am one of the cheapest cheapskates around...so I waited until it came out on DVD and watched it for free at a friends house.

Never really been a big Trekkie, but the plot about how the crew of the SS Minnow...errr, I mean the USS Enterprise came to be was quite enlightening. And I liked how the younger versions of the crew kept good with their older parts social dissorders. Like the younger Spock was caught raising the one eyebrow...and Bones had the temper tantrum directed towards everyone who disagreed with him...and Kirk's huge egomaniac diversions. I did find it interesting that there was a side plot of Ohura falling in love with Spock...I don't remember that in the original series. I have watched parts of the other Star Trek movies, and have concluded that this was the best to my knowledge. Three and 1/2 stars/thumbs...what-ever.

I just wish someone would invent a drill like the one in the movie so's we can find that oil quicker.

 

[Commodore 64]

I really liked this reboot of Star Trek too. Didn't really care for Scotty, but other than that, I really, really liked it.

 

[Bolide]

While I'm not a rabid JJ Abrams fan, when he's good he's good.

 

[Duncas]

Spock and Ohura was in the original plot but Shatner didnt like it.

 

[jkingma]

I saw it when it came out and as a coincidence saw it again this weekend on TV. I really liked it... except for all those annoying light glares that fill the scenes so much. Don't think that was necessary.

I'm curious to see how they will bring Spock's mother back... since she was killed in this prequel movie but she played a big part in the original series and subsequent movies.

 

[charlie chitlin]

I'll take the bait...You're a geek

 

[Throttleneck]

Really liked the movie. But I am sorry - if you waited this long to see the movie your geek status is still unresolved.

 

[cosmiccowboy]

The kids and I watched it last week, we loved it. I though it was a great prelude to the original TV series.... and action packed from the jump. I'd give it four outta five stars.

 

[Skully]

I saw it when it came out and as a coincidence saw it again this weekend on TV. I really liked it... except for all those annoying light glares that fill the scenes so much. Don't think that was necessary.

They're called lens flares. They used to be considered something one worked to avoid, now in some films -- especially those by Abrams -- the director and cinematographer try to get them to occur for effect. Sometimes, they're even added digitally in post. There were a lot of lens flares in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." Perhaps it's connected of a childhood attachment to that film.

 

[TelecasterBlooz]

The thing is, this a reboot. And if you'll remember the dialog about Nero interfering with the normal timeline, his interference caused an alternate timeline which allowed old Spock to coexist with young Spock. This alternate timeline precludes the traditional story arcs and the new film from ever coinciding except in miniscule ways ie: technology. All in all a clever way to allow this story arc to have its own direction without having to stick to Star Trek "canon". And yes I'm a Trekkie with a Tele!

 

[MRJ.]

I saw it when it came out and as a coincidence saw it again this weekend on TV. I really liked it... except for all those annoying light glares that fill the scenes so much. Don't think that was necessary.

I'm curious to see how they will bring Spock's mother back... since she was killed in this prequel movie but she played a big part in the original series and subsequent movies.

They wont be bringing her back. The whole premiss behind the reboot is that it's considered an alternate timeline.

EDIT: TelecasterBlooz beat me to it!

 

[elicross]

I love just about everything about the Trek "reboot." I also love the suggestion the older (original) Spock makes about how the bad guy has made permanent changes to time, so things that happened in older Spock's past may not happen the same way now. A brilliant way of helping hardcore fans accept the new Trek; if they want to, they can tell themselves that all of the events of the original series still 'happened' -- they just happened in a different time line.

They're called lens flares. They used to be considered something one worked to avoid, now in some films -- especially those by Abrams -- the director and cinematographer try to get them to occur for effect. Sometimes, they're even added digitally in post.

I think this phenomenon probably started out as a way to make pure CGI shots look more real by introducing artifacts that make the shot look like it was done with an actual camera. Not to make the audience consciously think "Oh, there's a lens flare; this must have really happened and been captured on film!" as the U.S.S. Enterprise glides past the planet Vulcan -- but as subtle way of making the shot look less like it was manufactured entirely in a computer.

They'll also sometimes make the "camera" appear shaky to make a CGI shot look more real, or have stuff hit the "lens" -- like droplets of water or blood (I think one of the space shots in Star Trek features particles of ice). The first time I actually noticed something like this was in Starship Troopers, when the "camera" briefly went out of focus while zooming in on a starship in space.

This stuff is definitely overused these days, though. When people notice it enough to comment on it, it's not working. And I hate to see any shot with junk on the camera lens, whether it's real junk or CGI junk. Either way, it looks like the sort of thing a good director would reshoot or leave on the cutting room floor...but apparently some contemporary directors think it looks cool. To me, it screams to the audience "Hey, don't forget this is just a movie!"

 

[telex76]

I still haven't seen it, and I'm a pretty big Star Trek fan. I just stopped going to the movies and don't have cable and seldom rent movies. I'm sure I'll see it one of these days.

 

[Skully]

I love just about everything about the Trek "reboot." I also love the suggestion the older (original) Spock makes about how the bad guy has made permanent changes to time, so things that happened in older Spock's past may not happen the same way now. A brilliant way of helping hardcore fans accept the new Trek; if they want to, they can tell themselves that all of the events of the original series still 'happened' -- they just happened in a different time line.


I think this phenomenon probably started out as a way to make pure CGI shots look more real by introducing artifacts that make the shot look like it was done with an actual camera. Not to make the audience consciously think "Oh, there's a lens flare; this must have really happened and been captured on film!" as the U.S.S. Enterprise glides past the planet Vulcan -- but as subtle way of making the shot look less like it was manufactured entirely in a computer.

They'll also sometimes make the "camera" appear shaky to make a CGI shot look more real, or have stuff hit the "lens" -- like droplets of water or blood (I think one of the space shots in Star Trek features particles of ice). The first time I actually noticed something like this was in Starship Troopers, when the "camera" briefly went out of focus while zooming in on a starship in space.

It's definitely overdone, though. And I hate to see any shot with crap on the camera lens, whether it's real crap on a real camera or CGI crap on a virtual camera. Either way, it looks like the sort of thing a good director would reshoot or leave on the cutting room floor.

Well, lens flares can look cool. I remember when I when I was shooting something for photography class in high school and I got a lens flare, and I was quite pleased.

They undoubtedly do put some imperfections in there to make CGI shots look more organic. But you have to understand that today's directors and cinematographers grew up with lens flares and think they look cool, just like I did back in high school.

 

[dmarg1045]

You're a geek.

 

[elicross]

They undoubtedly do put some imperfections in there to make CGI shots look more organic. But you have to understand that today's directors and cinematographers grew up with lens flares and think they look cool, just like I did back in high school.

Well, yeah. They do look very cool at times, and I know that's another big reason they're used. But if today's (relatively) young directors think lens flares look cool, it's probably because they saw 'em in another film.

I think you're onto something about all the lens flares in Close Encounters being an influence on directors and cinematographers who were just growing up back then. Probably a major influence on FX people, too. And yet I don't believe Close Encounters is full of lens flares because Spielberg thought they looked cool; I think they were part of an attempt to give the film a more naturalistic look, almost like a documentary, which gets back to the idea of adding camera-related imperfections to make something unreal seem real.

 

[robt57]

The lens flares bordered annoying to me, but these directors are always masturbating in one form or the other IMO. Thankfully for us, the movie was strong enough in the entertainment dept [and then some]. This movie probably is THE most entertaining across my entire family members, and it's value there is the best reason to consider it a total success at our house.

 

[Skully]

And yet I don't believe Close Encounters is full of lens flares because Spielberg thought they looked cool; I think they were part of an attempt to give the film a more naturalistic look, almost like a documentary,

Mm... "Close Encounters" doesn't have a documentary look or feel, and from what I understand lens flares are much more likely to occur with a widescreen anamorphic lens, which is not something generally associated with documentaries.

From the American Cinematographer article on "Super 8":

Viewers familiar with Abrams’ work will recognize his trademark lens flares streaking across the screen. The director even occasionally asked for lights in the frame to specifically create the effect. “We did it in the suburbs, and we even did it in the middle of nowhere,” Fong recalls. “At first some of us were scratching our heads — we’d do a dolly shot, and a light would come into the frame behind the actors’ heads and flare out the lens. [The light] is clearly not the moon, and there are no streetlights or any other sources in the scene. It’s obviously a ‘movie’ light.”

“I know it sounds crazy, but a lens flare reminds me that anamorphic lenses are amazing, gorgeously designed pieces of glass that interact with light in a beautiful way,” explains Abrams. “Flares can be purposeful and additive, and at the right time they remind me, in a good way, that I’m watching a movie. It doesn’t take me out of it. I think it draws me in deeper.”

 

[robt57]

" It doesn’t take me out of it. I think it draws me in deeper.”

For us, in our totally masked and high contrast ratio DLP Projector fed HT, with a bit of screen size greed on my part [ I confess...] I could live without the screen flares. ;O



This movie and District 9 where my fav watch with my boys moves of all time!

 

[Sharp5]

The thing is, this a reboot. And if you'll remember the dialog about Nero interfering with the normal timeline, his interference caused an alternate timeline which allowed old Spock to coexist with young Spock. This alternate timeline precludes the traditional story arcs and the new film from ever coinciding except in miniscule ways ie: technology. All in all a clever way to allow this story arc to have its own direction without having to stick to Star Trek "canon". And yes I'm a Trekkie with a Tele!

um, wow.

I thought it was good to.