Comments on: JJ Abrams Guest-Edited WIRED Mag Preview – w/ Star Trek Mini-comic

By: "vader killed your father" "no luke obi-wan killed your father"

"vader killed your father" "no luke obi-wan killed your father" — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:54:40 +0000

> “No, Luke. *I* am your father” is just one example of something that shouldn’t
> have been spoiled before seeing TESB to experience it in full, wouldn’t you agree?

I’m old enough to have seen TESB when it came out, in a theater, and I can tell you we just assumed Vader was lying. It wasn’t even really a controversy. The real surprise was three years later when the next film came out and we were all wrong.

By: Wired: Paul Pope y Warren Ellis (ACTUALIZADA) « Comicopia

Wired: Paul Pope y Warren Ellis (ACTUALIZADA) « Comicopia — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:56:39 +0000

[...] próximo número de mayo de la edición americana de la revista Wired presenta un especial Star Trek editado por J. J. Abrams, director de su próxima y esperada entrega cinematográfica When Worlds [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:47:42 +0000

RE: 160
Panavision is the name of the camera rental/manufacturer, not the process. Panavision makes both anamorphic and spherical lenses, both branded “Panavision.” While the anamorphic process uses more of the 35mm negative than a traditional 1.85 aspect spherical negative, super35 uses MORE actual negative than even anamorphic (Super35 includes the area of a negative reserved for the optical soundtrack, but anamorphic still protects this area). BUT…it’s all about intent. Many theaters do not have anamorphic projection lenses so they must project an UNSQUEEZED print struck from the anamorphic interpositive. This is an optical process that can introduce grain into the final projection. Anamorphic lenses also create horizontal streak-y lens-flares, which some find objectionable. Anamorphic lenses also tend to be slower (maximum apature/f-stop/t-stop) and heavier (more glass to carry around). The ST:VI cinematographer wanted a faster-paced, hand-held vibe for the production and so chose the smaller, faster spherical lenses for that production. Now…super35 uses about all the negative you could possibly use on a 35mm negative, but to make normal prints also involves a similar optical process as anamorphic with the same trade offs. Which is better? Often it is just a matter of taste. James Cameron is an early believer in super35. He had special viewfinders made for the cameras called “common top-line” to improve the framing of a shot. All his wide-screen “anamorphic” release prints of his movies were all made from spherical negatives.

The current state of digital technologies likely makes all of this quite moot, however. Films released into “digital theaters” are likely projecting really good HD. Nowhere near film res. Yet, most people might not notice. Shame. Years ago I saw a test print of a feature film struck from the original negative printed on a normal speed (versus high speed) contact printer. OW. What a difference. Audiences in a theater see prints that are 3 generations removed from the original negative. Each generation adds contrast and grain and a loss of clarity and resolution. It really was a sight to behold. A bit like a nacho cheese Dorito fresh off the production line (another story…).

By: screaming satellite

screaming satellite — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:12:44 +0000

The UK may issue of Wired has no Trek article?? (and it dosnt look like the June issue will either as there was no mention of Trek on the ‘coming next issue’ page)

Anyone know what the deal is in the UK or will we have to get the US version from eBay?

By: Star Trek’s Snow Planet Monster and Panoramic Photos of the Enterprise | Fused Film

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:37:31 +0000

[...] friends at TrekMovie and FirstShowing have reminded us that “hitting shelves this week is the newest issue of [...]

By: sean

sean — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:48:47 +0000

#143

The point, Middleman, is that you can play the ‘what if’ game ’till your blue in the face, but it won’t change anything. TNG blew its chance on the big screen, period. It blew it, and it blew it hard.

And again, I’m not like Closet (even though I respect his view). I was a MASSIVE TNG fan. I think they ruled the Trek school from 1990-1993. Seasons 3 & 4 are some of the best Trek, ever. But even the best TNG movie (First Contact) was still sloppy, ruined a perfectly good villain and tried to make Picard into Rambo and Data into the Terminator.

If I were a studio exec, I would not touch a TNG movie property with a ten foot pole. And to ask them to put up money on a completely new setting with characters no one has ever heard of? Not going to happen. TOS was the safest bet.

By: thorsten

thorsten — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:05:00 +0000

@169…

haha, thanks kmart!
;))

By: The J.J. Abrams' Edited Issue of Wired is Out This Week! « FirstShowing.net

The J.J. Abrams' Edited Issue of Wired is Out This Week! « FirstShowing.net — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:08:42 +0000

[...] 20, 2009Source: TrekMovieby Alex [...]

By: The J.J. Abrams' Edited Issue of Wired is Out This Week! « FirstShowing.net

The J.J. Abrams' Edited Issue of Wired is Out This Week! « FirstShowing.net — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:08:42 +0000

[...] 20, 2009Source: TrekMovieby Alex [...]

By: The J.J. Abrams' Edited Issue of Wired is Out This Week! « FirstShowing.net

The J.J. Abrams' Edited Issue of Wired is Out This Week! « FirstShowing.net — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:08:42 +0000

[...] 20, 2009Source: TrekMovieby Alex [...]