Star Trek

that dude from heroes being spock puts me off.

the only star trek fan i know is female, and from what i can tell, Spock is supposed to be sexy, that heroes dude doesn't seem sexy

  Awepittance said:

  Quote

Its some of the best CGI, presentation, cinematography Ive ever seen so it would be dumb to watch a cam of it. the space scene's are pretty surreal if your at a good theater with a good view.

 

some of the best CGI and cinematography? The beginning space battle in Episode 3 blew this movie away not to mention how much this movie bit off of the space battles in Battlestar galactica but failed to have as much tension.

I was expecting the CGI to be a little more impressive especially after following movies like King Kong but it didn't meet the mark for me.

I'm sorry that your statement about king kong and star wars is really funny to me.

In this day in age the way I really judge not just CGI but the way its integrated not by the amount of polygons, the objects on screen, the terabytes of textures that was required. I consider CGI good when its used and I don't feel like I'm watching king kong.... plastic, ultra clean, boring polished digital, rendered integration like that in most of the new star wars movies and king fucking plastic kong completely pulls me out of the movie.

That being said I did find the new star wars movies entertaining, but in a childish, horribly acted, plastic CGI, disney roller coaster ride kind of way.

The new Star Trek never felt extremely cheesy childish plastic like a lot of movies made these days with lots of CGI integration these days.

It was a good summer action movie. My only real complaint is that Nero's character wasn't fleshed out nearly enough but I have a feeling they really trimmed this movie down for theatrical release. Lens flares were a bit over the top too. But those are minor gripes, I really enjoyed this. Also...

Zoe Saldana aka Uhuru is pure sex.

if you want more of Nero's backstory, check out Star Trek: Countdown, it's a trade paperback that's a prequel to the new film, and ties Nero and old Spock to the Next Generation cast, kind of giving them a nice sendoff. i thought it really added to the film.

the actor who played spock also really, really, really annoys me, and ever since i saw him in a preview i thought i would hate the film because of it; but he was actually not annoying at all. (the same thing happened with michael pitt in 'last days'; thought i would hate it because of him, but no.)

i mean 'perfect action movie' in the sense of = perfect entertainment, without any real flaws. as silly as it sounds, i would say 'national treasure 2' was very good in this sense as well. though of course neither film is actually, you know, 'good.'

yes Takeshi, she is immaculate!

The Romulan mining drill fight scene was bad ass!

and I thought Chekov was no more annoying than the original...

new Spock > Sylar

glad he he got this opportunity....

I wonder how they managed to hide Zachary Quinto's eyebrows with makeup. He has the thickest eyebrows I have ever seen.

huge ass computers!

  Awepittance said:

  playbynumbers said:

yeah i feel like jj abrams ran across a store that was selling lens flares real cheap. anyway; a perfect action movie

 

 

really 'a perfect action movie' ?

 

i thought the action was kind of generic even for a star trek movie, the opening scene was pretty cool though.

 

but yeah i was surprised honestly how low i would rate this on the Trek movie scale.

 

The guy who played Kirk was good, but jesus the Chekov character was atrocious (it also makes no sense that he was in this movie)

 

  Quote

Its some of the best CGI, presentation, cinematography Ive ever seen so it would be dumb to watch a cam of it. the space scene's are pretty surreal if your at a good theater with a good view.

 

some of the best CGI and cinematography? The beginning space battle in Episode 3 blew this movie away not to mention how much this movie bit off of the space battles in Battlestar galactica but failed to have as much tension.

I was expecting the CGI to be a little more impressive especially after following movies like King Kong but it didn't meet the mark for me.

I agree. The beginning was great, but it levels off and then actually starts to feel mind numbing. I couldnt really get into it after a certain point. Theres also that scene that just feels wrong, and somethings off, but then it keeps going, still feels off, and turns into a huge sequence, and feels like 10-20 minutes have gone by where nothing is going as it should (Im referring to kirk getting ejected onto the ice planet).

No suspense either. Didnt really feel things were on the line.

Honestly I was expecting the first half to be "starfleet academy" but in no time we are on the enterprise fighting romulans. If youre doing a reboot, and youre doing an origin story, then dont pussy around.

  Enter a new display name said:

I wonder how they managed to hide Zachary Quinto's eyebrows with makeup. He has the thickest eyebrows I have ever seen.

 

he said in an interview that he shaved them continually during the shoot

jesus fucking christ you guys are ridiculous. this was an extremely entertaining, fun movie. it was well made, hit the right notes, yes there were weak spots (the ice planet sequence could have been completely cut from the movie and replaced with character development, nero was underdeveloped, tyler perry, leanard nimoy's dentures looked like they were going to fall out of his mouth) but c'mon, it was a great franchise reboot. it was better than the other trek movies (have you watched wrath of khan lately? because i just did, and it sucks). i really couldn't imagine it being better than it was, given that it was made by jj abrams and written by someone who worked on transformers. i'm happy with what i got. and my audience was into it as well. also i have major crush on zoe saldana. suck my dick.

  Enter a new display name said:

I wonder how they managed to hide Zachary Quinto's eyebrows with makeup. He has the thickest eyebrows I have ever seen.

Yeah i wondered that

haven't seen it yet - only thing that puts me off is how pretty everyone is. I mean Uhura, should be a bit more ... plump

I was geeking out so hard after I saw the film Zaphod....

do you not read what I write because I read what you write....

C'mon part 2!

I think its probably only film snobs or trekies nerds that are complaining about this film really. Its made to bring back to the franchise to those who hated star trek not cater to those who already are obsessed with the series. I couldn't expect anything more from it. The film balanced between many dynamics to cater to 90% of the audience really well(much better than the way that star wars prequels tried to be cool, fun, goofy for kids, epic, serious etc. for everyone)

Again visually I think it was flawless, I actually liked the lens flares, the space shots were incredibly surreal, the cgi never looked plastic fake as fuck. Made me have high hopes for how well CGI can be implemented into movies in the near future. I would love to see a movie like space odyssey with another 10 years of CGI technology advancements and classy implementation.

  Rubin Farr said:

unless Terminator really delivers.

Doubt it. :ermm:

Yeah it will not be as good as this, neither will many films....

FUCKING RAD KYLE GASS AVATAR Q27

if you had it before or whatever I never noticed, I love old school HBO episodes Tenacious D.

  zaphod said:

it was better than the other trek movies (have you watched wrath of khan lately? because i just did, and it sucks).

i would probably rank this the 4th or 5th best star trek movie.

  Quote

i really couldn't imagine it being better than it was, given that it was made by jj abrams and written by someone who worked on transformers.

i was hoping it to be a little more mental like the plot in Mission impossible 3 since it had time travel and all but yeah it was written by the guys who did transformers so that explains the simplistic fun plot.

as a trek fan ( ) i felt certain things were unnecessary and 'stuck in' like why even call that character Captain Pike? or why put a young Chekov in the movie purely for comic relief when he wasn't even in the show until the 3rd season?

They had a perfect opportunity to invent plenty of new likable characters but they trapped themselves by only trying to reintroduce the entire old cast. and in all honesty i thought the only people who really hit the mark for me in that area were Bones and Scotty. Kirk was pretty good but he played it totally differently than shatner which i was expecting but i thought the guy who played Spock was trying way too hard. He wasn't bad he just didnt feel natural like Nimoy doing it.

I also thought the attempts to link it to the original franchise with old Spock were movie draggers. For people who weren't into Trek this would maybe seem kind of neat, but for me being really into it it just seemed like a blatant plot hole covering excuse to not pay attention to the canon and nothing more. I liked seeing planet Vulcan a lot but not so much seeing old spock in the film. I would have rather they just rebooted the franchise with no explanation ala Batman Begins.

  Mr Salads said:

Honestly I was expecting the first half to be "starfleet academy" but in no time we are on the enterprise fighting romulans. If youre doing a reboot, and youre doing an origin story, then dont pussy around.

agree here, and why use Romulans again? the previous Trek movie Nemesis was romulans and it was kind of a boring piece of shit. I understand the plot and all about spock trying to stop Romulas from destruction bla bla but really can't they come up with some new aliens or threat? and since when in the history of the Trek universe could a super nova next to a highly populated planet cause the entire planet to be destroyed?with the high technology they have it would seem they could avoid these things. even for trek seemed a little far fetched, and this is coming from a man who can swallow the genesis planet concept.

I'm just bored as hell by Romulans.

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

The new Star Trek never felt extremely cheesy childish plastic like a lot of movies made these days with lots of CGI integration these days.

to say king kong himself 'pulled you out of the movie' is really baffling. The cgi used on the creature of king kong is still to this day some of the best realistic cgi work i have seen in film or anywhere.

to each his own, i mean i just got really hyped up by all the reviewers saying the new trek had 'state of the art special effects' and 'Abrahms is raising the bar on CGI' . I was hoping for better, but i can't say the CGI work was bad. it was actually really well done, just didn't raise the bar in any way. In fact i would argue that Battlestar galactica is what raised the bar that allowed Star Trek to follow in it's footsteps, For being an extremely high budget film VS a TV show i can't say i was very impressed by the quality. When i first saw Battlestar i was extremely impressed by its shaky cam CGI work.

The cgi in Lost and Cloverfield is so fucking bad.

The cgi in Star Trek was some of the best I have seen...

besides Rutherford, Pixar and Star Wars....

This looked fucking idm as fuck!

FUCK!

Kubrick used the light flare minimally and beautifully, Cunningham started the flare party on film, Abrams takes it way too far and it is beautiful....

Anyone here wanna hate on light?

I personally love light....

I am glad I can still see after seeing ST...

  Awepittance said:

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

The new Star Trek never felt extremely cheesy childish plastic like a lot of movies made these days with lots of CGI integration these days.

 

 

 

to say king kong himself 'pulled you out of the movie' is really baffling. The cgi used on the creature of king kong is still to this day some of the best realistic cgi work i have seen in film or anywhere.

 

to each his own, i mean i just got really hyped up by all the reviewers saying the new trek had 'state of the art special effects' and 'Abrahms is raising the bar on CGI' . I was hoping for better, but i can't say the CGI work was bad. it was actually really well done, just didn't raise the bar in any way. In fact i would argue that Battlestar galactica is what raised the bar that allowed Star Trek to follow in it's footsteps, For being an extremely high budget film VS a TV show i can't say i was very impressed by the quality. When i first saw Battlestar i was extremely impressed by its shaky cam CGI work.

They might have used nearly as much terabytes of textures as transformers and billions of hair shaders on king kongs 3d model. But the way it was integrated into the actual film, I don't its like I was saying like the star wars prequels were it looks TOO CLEAN is the main issue I have with it.

Like even jurassic park which was done a grip ago, probably used a 16th as much processing as these movies but the way it looks integrated into the film doesnt look sooo uber clean that it doesnt look like fabricated high detail plastic.

The shakey cam cgi was really impressive in star trek on a few scenes and you might be right that it was a technique borrowed from B-star galact

i am fucking drunk

  BCM said:

i am fucking drunk

I was gonna say nice work since its early in the Sunday but its probably hella late so no props for you