|
Post by Jockolantern on May 27, 2009 0:29:33 GMT -8
"This new film is about action, effects, half-assed revenge plots that reason themselves into existence (there is no development of events or characters that leads them to their conclusion: things just are for the sake of being) and, let's face it, rebooting a franchise to attract a younger audience who will feel "cool" for being trekkies when in the face of it they are actually not. It is also, in my opinion, very sloppy and I found it to be a constant mess through and through. This movie is all flash, no substance. It is superficial sci-fi. And lens flares." And here I thought I was the only one who found First Contact to be an overblown, overrated movie. Frakes really got it right with Insurrection, which is much more in line with what Star Trek is about in terms of character and ideas; much of First Contact is exactly as Ebert described: Not a wit of character development and a plot wraught with brainless choices (Lily and the Borg Queen being the worst offenders) and contrived set-pieces. I also thought James Cromwell was poorly cast in the role of Cochrane. The Goldsmiths' score is the film's one saving grace. It seems odd that the former review came from the same Ebert who seemed to at least marginally enjoy the new Trek film; he gave it **1/2 out of ****, so he must've thought at least fairly well of it.
|
|
|
Post by Christian K on May 27, 2009 9:43:44 GMT -8
Finally saw Star Trek, together with Jon and Yavar. Liked it well enough: **** out of ***** for both film and score. So there!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 27, 2009 13:56:20 GMT -8
"This new film is about action, effects, half-assed revenge plots that reason themselves into existence (there is no development of events or characters that leads them to their conclusion: things just are for the sake of being) and, let's face it, rebooting a franchise to attract a younger audience who will feel "cool" for being trekkies when in the face of it they are actually not. It is also, in my opinion, very sloppy and I found it to be a constant mess through and through. This movie is all flash, no substance. It is superficial sci-fi. And lens flares." And here I thought I was the only one who found First Contact to be an overblown, overrated movie. Frakes really got it right with Insurrection, which is much more in line with what Star Trek is about in terms of character and ideas; much of First Contact is exactly as Ebert described: Not a wit of character development and a plot wraught with brainless choices (Lily and the Borg Queen being the worst offenders) and contrived set-pieces. I also thought James Cromwell was poorly cast in the role of Cochrane. The Goldsmiths' score is the film's one saving grace. It seems odd that the former review came from the same Ebert who seemed to at least marginally enjoy the new Trek film; he gave it **1/2 out of ****, so he must've thought at least fairly well of it. I think the paragraph of Hooks that you just quoted was Hook's take on the new film, not Ebert's on First Contact. I think Ebert liked First Contact.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on May 27, 2009 15:08:58 GMT -8
Of course I did, which is why, to my surprise, the opening sequence affected me emotionally in ways that promised what was about to come was about to redeem my ridiculous expectations of the film. In any case, I make it my mission to pursue watching whatever film I despise before having laid eyes on it because one of the most wonderful experiences in cinema I've had is those cases where the film proves my bieases wrong and, sometimes, becomes one of my favorites. Wait, what? Let me get this straight... you make snap judgments about an upcoming film solely based on the quality of the trailer, and then intentionally go and see the films you think will be awful in the hope that you'll be proved wrong? That makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on May 27, 2009 15:34:48 GMT -8
Wait, what? Let me get this straight... you make snap judgments about an upcoming film solely based on the quality of the trailer, and then intentionally go and see the films you think will be awful in the hope that you'll be proved wrong? That makes absolutely no sense. Ok, that's a gross exaggeration. But even if it were true, there are things you just have to. Example: 2girls1cup. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Why? ;D When hype and ridiculous amounts of reviews and discussion (which sometimes turn out to be ridiculous themselves, like the people on IMDB who have dreamt James Cameron's Avatar) surround something that interests me but is vaguely concerning me, also, with that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that something's wrong with it, it is a delightful surprise to encounter the real thing or, at least, my experience with it, which is as real as it gets, and to be trusted with liking that experience. Why doesn't it make any sense? Doesn't make any less sense than watching a film by a director you've never heard of with actors you've never seen about a story that is too vague when described to you. So, I went to see Star Trek because "I like most of the films, whoa, this one looks awful, but it's being promoted to death even by its hardcore legions, ok, let's have a look, and oh-my-god-it's-unbearable". What shall be the next question about our innate human interests? Why do I like Star Trek? I can say with confidence that it's not because I really want to see who will, in the end, whether it be Kirk or Spock, bang Uhura, I can tell you that much.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on May 27, 2009 20:28:02 GMT -8
So Kuhni and I just had a 10 minute discussion about your post and we STILL don't get what you're trying to say! Let's just leave it with this:
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on May 27, 2009 20:38:02 GMT -8
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on May 27, 2009 21:57:33 GMT -8
So Kuhni and I just had a 10 minute discussion about your post and we STILL don't get what you're trying to say! What's not to get? - Hook sees trailer and/or reads hype about upcoming film
- Hook deems said trailer/hype to make upcoming film look like it will suck
- In a desire to look beyond mundane hype and get to the actual movie, Hook goes to see film even though he is still assuming it will suck all-the-while hoping against hope that it might actually turn out to be good
- If the movie sucks, Hook was right all along and the film has met his expectations leaving him little disappointment since he assumed it would suck in the first place
- If the movie is good, Hook is pleasantly surprised and ends up with a happy and exciting experience
I think it's actually a pretty brilliant approach to summer blockbuster-watching since, statistically speaking, most summer blockbusters do indeed suck. [glow=red,2,300]*lens flare*[/glow]
-Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 28, 2009 9:42:51 GMT -8
Very good explanation, Brendan. I'm just surprised it was necessary.
*LENS FLARE*
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on May 28, 2009 15:25:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on May 28, 2009 15:33:46 GMT -8
Close. But not enough dutch tilts and long dolly shots.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Christian K on May 28, 2009 15:46:23 GMT -8
Very good explanation, Brendan. I'm just surprised it was necessary. Apparently so. But with the patented Brendan Simple Speak™ it now seems to make more sense. I guess Jon and I were simply dumbfounded that Hook had approached the film in this way.
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on May 28, 2009 16:10:26 GMT -8
[glow=red,2,300]*lens flare*[/glow]
This really isn't ever going to get old for me. ;D Question, though: Do you find it more annoying that there are just so many lens flares, or is it because Abrams is "borrowing" the induced-1970's western stylistics from Firefly? Personally, I found it more annoying watching the faux-handheld-camera starship shots and thinking, "If Joss Whedon were dead, he'd be spinning." PS: [glow=red,2,300]*lens flare*[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Smith on May 29, 2009 17:29:55 GMT -8
This movie killed the Trek that I knew.
Star Trek isn't meant to be mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jun 15, 2009 18:27:36 GMT -8
From the American Cinematographer magazine, on making the Enterprise look sexy and my favorite subject:
____________
In updating Starfleet's flagship, Chanbliss abandoned the Kelvin's pulp influences in favor of "designers who were interested in futurism and future technology, such as Eero Saarinen. I got some line drawings of the original exterior of the Enterprise, which was all right angles and flat discs, and started applying the curvature of Saarinen's architecture to the main structural elements. It was an elegant approach that allowed the ship to be itself and get kind of sexy in the process." To carry that sex appeal through starship's interior, Mindel tried to lend the sets "the feeling of a brand-new car, when it's all sparkly. I sometimes used Tiffen Black Pro-Mists to give them a bit more sparkle, and I was very keen to have reflections on the set from glass, shiny objects and surfaces. It just feels so full of life when you get that.
[words]
Much of the lighting built into the interior was designed to cause lens flares, which serve as a visual motif throughout the picture. "The Enterprise has lights set in frame that basically point down the lens of the camera in every direction," says Mindel. "Wherever you look, you get a flare. It goes against everything one learns as a camera technician, which is to shield the lens from any extraneous light and stop it from flaring. We'll either get slaughtered by our peers or be really admired for it!" Abrams adds, "The flares often weren't made by a light source in the frame, and to me, that implies there's something extraordinary happening just off camera. It makes me feel like I'm not watching the average moment. And I love the idea of a motif that is so inherently analog and imperfect in its unpredictability; it serves as counterpoint to the sterile, controlled look that so many visual-effects films seem to have."
If the built-in lighting wasn't providing the desired flare, the crew aimed Xenon flashlights at the lenses as the cameras rolled. "Our A- and B- camera operator, Colin Anderson and Phil Carr-Forster, would tell us if we needed to go a little farther in or out of the frame, or up or down, to get the ultimate flare," recalls Prampin. "It was funny to watch -- Dan and I were running around, ducking, jumping and hiding behind things just so we wouldn't be seen by the cameras. The flashlights were so bright that there are probably several instances where Dan's actually in the movie, but you can't really tell!"
_____________
Ok, see, that's my whole thing against this and most of what Abrams does. A "neat idea" turns into a staple of a, what, $200 million project? "Don't flesh out any of the characters or the storyline for that matter, just make it look sassy!". And just reading about how they created the flares is like watching a team of surgeons giggle about the lobotomy they have just performed. Abrams says the flare gimmick suggests there's something extraordinary happening off-camera. Yes, which is why he suggests during the entire film that something way better is happening some place else than what is actually being shot, right? See, to me, it's ok to make that implication if there's a reveal at some point and you understand it's only a visual cue, an optical trick not to be overused in a straightforward dramatic film. It's like the scene where we're introduced to the Ferrari in Ferris Bueller's Day Off to "Oh Yeah". That's ok. But imagine if the whole film was temped to that same track. It'd be a nightmare!
And what is this counterpoint to other visual-effects films he talks about? He means eye candy that's actually tastefully done? Hell, take an extreme example: Speed Racer. Obnoxious film? Totally. Stylish? You bet. Eye candy is supposed to be consistent and appealing. If you add in several flavors of turd in the mix we're going to be put off by it.
|
|