JJ Abrams Talks Star Trek Post Production June 2, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
One of JJ Abrams objectives for the new Star Trek movie, was to make it feel as ‘real’ as possible. This manifested itself in many ways, and in a new interview with Post Magazine, the director talks about shooting the movie on film, his post production process, and of course…lens flares. See below for excerpts.
JJ Talks Post
Abrams on why he shot on film and not digitally:
I knew this movie would have a great deal of computer generated visual effects in it and I knew that’s the reason Star Wars films have been shot with a great deal of blue- or greenscreen and digitally, and I was nervous about that. I wanted this film to feel distinct from those. I didn’t want to have a given about how many effects would be created. I didn’t want there to be this artiface to the movie, even though it’s called Star Trek, even though it’s a fantasy future sci-fi. I wanted it to feel as sort of tangible and gritty and real as possible.
As [DP] Dan Mindle said, he wanted it to have guts. And so for me the approach to the movie was, I wanted wherever we could to be practical and to be analog, because there was going to be a whole bunch of virtual and digital, so wherever we could add the realism by literally making it real I thought would help the aesthetics. So we built sets and found locations as much as possible and dressed them or extended sets.
JJ on Star Trek’s ubiquitous lens flares:
We added them on the set, not post, because I wanted to give the film that sense of unpredictability. There’s something about lens flares — beyond the aesthetic of ‘the future’s so bright you can’t contain it in the frame.’ I wanted that beautiful interaction between light and glass that you can’t control, to add to the tangible analog human imperfect quality that’s increasingly hard to find in these kind of films.
JJ on the post production process:
I love it, and the ability to look at the material and make the best version of the movie based on that as opposed to trying to make the best version of what was in the script is magical and exciting. It can be frustrating when the shortcomings of my directing require us to be acrobatic in the edit, but the answers are wildly satisfying, when you figure out what to cut and how to bridge sequences, or what shots to use from scenes that have nothing to do with what you intended. That’s miraculous to me.
Much more from JJ Abrams on post production at postmagazine.com
JJ on the set with his actors
Loading ...
Comments»
The mans got flare…
Sweet!
You can see Chris Pine`s butt crack… LOL
The movie definitely looked cool, no question. And little to no obvious “green screen” footage, which kept it nice and grounded, despite it’s sci-fi nature. One of the main things I disliked about the Prequels was the whole “video game” feel, which Star Trek didn’t really suffer from. It suffered from plot, but hey, it looked good anyway.
3
I Dont see but crack. I see lower back but not but crack. Did you zoom in and look :)
I think this movie needs more……..COW BELL!!!
Why are you people even looking?!
JJ did not lie when he said he was not a fan of Star Trek, nor does he lie when he says that he went for “guts” in this film. He succeeded in violating the most important virtues Roddenberry tried to portray in Trek and eliminating “brains” from character’s virtues.
With this film’s spectacular SFX glorification of violence, ignorant cariciture of logic, and that it will represent ST to a new generation, I watched with tears at JJ’s success. May his fabulous wealth from working on this movie prove of some benefit.
I suppose he does have a flair for lens flares.
I didn’t mind them at all.
I love that he used film, and those wacky “sets” that have fallen out of vogue. The CGI was for the most part seamless, the shot when we zoom out of the viewscreen, loop round the bridge then see the Big E upside down just felt so *real*.
The fact we’d been on the bridge moments before just sold it.
I really liked the look on this, and I didn’t think I would. I even liked the lens flares, the iBridge the Enterprise manouvering and the shuttlebay. Engineering still leaves me perplexed but I’ll live.
But yeah (swinging back towards topic) I thought for a relatively new director, he made some bold decisions and he was, for the most part, spot on. Lens flares may date this a little, we’ll see if he gets aped or not, but it was pretty solid stuff directorially.
The man has flair and can do a keyboard solo like no bodies business! I love this movie. I look at this movie like the first X-Men movie. This movie is a good introduction for people who are not fans of Star Trek. Since the characters have been reintroduced they can not focus on the story. So here is to hoping that for the sequel we get something close quality to X2: X-Men United and The Dark Knight.
They added the lens flares. Reminds me of the Original Andromeda Strain. In the movie they spent millions adding potholes to the road leading to the Wildfire complex.
#8 – no he didn’t
go back and watch some TOS
That was a rather informative interview.
I mostly like the part (in the extended article) regarding the ambient “ping” noise’s. I always thought they were very important to establish that perfect Trek feel and I’m always amazed how little of it you can hear in the old films. I remember saying to my friend, before the film came out, “Those sounds better be the first thing we hear.” It’s just the perfect way of announcing: This is Star Trek.
When the first TOS box set came out i’d fall asleep listing to the bridge sounds, since they wisely added them to the menu screens.
Good call Mr. Burt.
Truly, i know it seems like a small thing, but my appreciation of the new film may have taken a large plunge if the bridge ambient noise weren’t so prevalent.
Did i mention I’m CRAZY about sounds?
Maybe he went to far with the “analogue” approach (ie.engineering setpiece and a lens flare or two too far) but a brave worthy approach to ultra high budget film making, and it (mostly) works incredibly, enjoyably, well…
JJ, you hit a home run with this movie! Please direct the next one!!!!
He mentions there were some good effects in the prison sequence.
Again I’m putting my vote in for an extended DVD cut of the film to include Baby Spock, Rura Penthe and whatever other scraps they have laying around.
I love the style of this movie. I love the new look of the Bridge. (And I’m an original fan of the Original Series, who loves the Original Bridge. This one looks so shiny and functional, though!) I love that they went to such lengths to both update the look, make it feel real, and yet add those beloved touches like familiar sounds – all while taking the story to a place budget never let it go before. This is the Star Trek I’ve always wanted to see.
I can’t wait for the sequel, and I too hope JJ directs!
18
sure a lot of us want to see those. But Id like to know what effects the writters strike ( or lack there of) had on the editing process. It’s not the cut scenes being restored that i want to se. But rather the writters strike ver I want to see. ie shoot only whats scripted, edit and release. what the film have been if we got it the way it was scripted.
Yeah and it’s open season for the hatters again.. wow 8.. was the church shut and that’s why your here posting?
Despite my feelings about the guy I cannot deny he made a great film.
Its not my all time favourite Trek movie but it is a fantastic movie. I guess the thing I have to do is to stop comparing it to the past Treks and treat it on its own merits and treat it as a separate entity, a new canon universe.
I loved Chris Pine but still prefer William Shatner as Kirk, I love Quinto but adore Nimoy as Spock. That does not mean I dont like the new actors, they are great but its hard to beat what you grew up loving.
I am not going to stop loving the past 5 series and movies
JJ Abrams objective to make it feel as ‘real’ as possible: fail
Abrams on why he shot on film and not digitally: fail
JJ on Star Trek’s ubiquitous lens flares: fail
Thought the lens flares and shaky cam stuff possibly would have a negative effect on the film before seeing it. It worked very well IMO.
23… you mamaging to make a post any one is the slightest bit interested in : fail
Wow what a fantastic critic you are.. a guy like JJ and the crew do all the creative stuff.. and your talents run to summing it up in one word.. what a star you are..
There seems to be an empathsis on making things too real these days. There is an escapism element in shows to get you away from the real world.
However I did feel the science in this film was more hkey than in previous Trek.
I did feel that this Trek had stronger Character moments than plot. Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country had stronger stories
I meant to say hokey in number 26
Im yust back from my second time i saw the film.
the film is now in it’s 4th weak in a Land called Slovenija and the Theater was half Full. That’s great for a sci-fi movie like Star trek.
And sorry for my bad Eanglish ;)
JJ’s idea on the lens flares just didn’t work. Honestly they were distracting the first time I watched the movie. DON”T DO IT AGAIN!
17: I agree. Mr. Abrams THANK YOU!
28.. Welcome.. and your English is great my friend.. glad you enjoyed the film..
19
i dissagree
update the look?
looks like you (and others) have a differant view of “update the look”
to me its more like a complete redsign. sure they kept the command chair – helm – elevaotr – viewscreen relationship. but glass plates, podium stations even the xtra staions in front of helm have no place there. lighted floor plates under the capt chair? WTF
this is not the star trek ive wanted to see.
that extra door (out to the rest of the ship on that deck) enh wrong.
mayb. maybe put it on the front port of the viewscreen. puting the bridge on what looked like deck 3?
this is not the star trek ive wanted to see.
Gritty??
The only time the movie was gritty and real was during the Kelvin sequence. After which “grit” was replaced with “satire” for the rest of the movie.
I still loved the movie, but how exactly was reviving TOS cheesyness supposed to make the movie more “real”? It had completely the opposite effect and made for a fun fantasy space adventure instead of our “real future”.
I sure hope J.J. takes Lucas’ advice once again and kills off Jar Jar binks in the next Trek movie. (By JarJar, I mean the childish, movie-ruining atmosphere!)
I loved the lens flares. They made it seem more real. I think they might become a signature of JJ.
Ben Burtt is a great sound designer; glad he made it into the production…
…but not surprising, after the fact, to learn that he was an after though…
I saw NO satire in the new film.
Are you sure you’re using the correct word?
” a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn”
Gulliver’s Travels or A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift being the ultimate example.
We all know that that every feature film is the directors vision, he or she do what they feel is artistic and/or pleasing to their eyes. For the most part the film is shot beautifully and the scope is tremendous. However, I do not feel that the lens flares and moving camera is needed in this film. It would have been a lot better to see it with out those effects that some people copy now to make a film seem realistic. But this is just my opinion and not meant to degrade the film for what it is, another Star Trek film that we all have been waiting for since 2002. It does need to stand on it own and not be compered to what TOS started since we cannot go back with the same actors being young again (that would be real sci fi) to start over. This film, hopefully, will start a new chapter or course in the world of Star Trek that we all can enjoy for another 40+ years.
33 – Re: Gritty?? FULL AGREEMENT
JJ, Great Movie.
However
Please hold the lens flares on the sequel.
the lense flares werent as bad as i thought theyd be. but id still prefer to go with out.
As to their reason or a real look . it sounds too much like old dated films of over 30 odd yrs ago. use of natural light, poorly lit scenes and camers pointed directly into the sun or light source. dated is right. :)
i do like the real look of firefly, BSG use of hand held camers and yes light sources. much better then the ‘real’ look JJ gave us.
Gotta love them lens flares, more for part deux please
(seriously)
37
this looks more like standing on its own. on its own outside the previous trek canon. and thats what irks me. and any future production will also ignore it only to use it as a ref or some kind of sodomised homage (sp).
sure the court involved in this movie had no plans for such. and wish well for the franchise and the next team. But more likely is that the next team (from the direction of paramount or who ever has the rights) will continue to make another star trek (2009) like this one and want to continue with the sucsess they have.
sure we could continue another 40 years. another movie or two. find a charactor people react to and build tv show off of. Enterprise or not. I just dont want it to be a new canon/timeline/alt universe.
As someone not technically minded. Can someone tell me what the difference is between shooting on film and shooting digitally? Thanks :)
re: lense flares
I’ve seen it 4 times. IMHO they don’t detract at all. In fact, just the opposite. I think it gave the scenes a more realistic view, like I was there or watching a live news feed. Or watching a documentary film. And some of you guys act like they were used constantly, they weren’t. The effect was chosen for specific scenes, which really worked. Again, IMHO.
43
stand in front of a screen door.
sure your eyes might have a better picture. BUT the tech has progressed beyond human sight. larger spectrum of colors etc
@ #8
I am as stuck to the cannon as they come, but even I realize that J.J. hasn’t screwed up Roddenberry’s vision. Now, if you want late 60’s and early 70’s social commentaries in a movie made in 2008/9, I am sorry but you are asking for a lot. There was a time and place for those commentaries….the 60’s and 70’s. Times have changed and the message has changed.
In the middle of an economic down turn, yeah, people want to see things blow up and random violence on screen…basically because they know someone they want to attack and the film is a release for them. STAR TREK has been and STILL IS a release for people, be it in a massive message to the audience, or a way for them to keep from losing their minds.
No, Burnt, J.J. hasn’t destroyed Star Trek….he has just given the audience what they wanted and needed, a release from reality and a STAR TREK film which was unlikely to be made after (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Nemesis.
44
Damn. 4 times
I’m more of a 1 time person myself.
46 i dont know about 8
but i would like the social commentaries of 2000’s
no. the message is optimism and that hasnt changed. the commentary is of an issue and the issues today can be told. The TOS had their ‘dirty stinking half white’ now we have a black president.. what topic should Star Trek comment on now? PTSD? maybe obortion docotrs? male on male physical intimacy?
the message is optimism.
the comentary is on a topic
the topic is today.
I recall JJ saying that there were on-the-set changes he would have liked to have made to the script to tweak it and make it better but couldn’t because of the writer’s strike.
Does anyone know what those changes were?
49
right
thats what i was asking in regards to a dvd release including the cut footage.
but IIRC the strike ended a couple days beore the end of principle phtotography and b4 the end of 2nd unit. so its a good question.
did he gat a chance then to make some changes.
RE: the cuting room floor.
would those changes be a violation of the strike should it have lasted longer?
Well, the “realness” of using the brewery for engineering kind of got in the way of suspending one’s disbelief.
He should rethink that one next time.
51
i dont recall hearing about the brewery during producion. Not till after I saw the film. is that wahat that was? :)
So when I saw the film I knew it was a real location and not a set. I just didnt know where its from. And whatever it was I was looking at. I didnt like it.
I can understand even like the industrial look in my trek. if done right. Just not the one I saw.
Starships can be big. sure. But I didnt like all the open space between machines and componants. Thinking more of a naval ship/sub, I’d prefer these things to be placed closer together.
#8 — But what did you think about the lens flares?
#49 — would love to know that as well. REALLY hoping for a “making of” book, or LOTS of DVD features :) Or both :)
@8: Oy vey, the melodrama!
I love Quinto’s expression in that photo. Actors playing Vulcans out of character, but in costume just look funny. :)
Good ony you, JJ, for sticking with practical sets as much as possible. I love me some well-done CGI (and I love trying my hand at it myself :) ), but there’s just this tangibility about physical sets that comes accross on the big screen.
I appreciate what they were trying to do, with the re-dressing of real-life locations as sets, and I thought it worked about 80% of the time. The Enterprise shipyard, the shuttlebays, the Delta Vega outpost all looked great, but I hope Engineering gets something of a revamp in the next movie, more in layout than in scope, though. Keep it huge, but less all over the place.
Lens flares? Meh, no big deal either way. I’d much rather have a movie full of lens flares and optimism than one about a dystopia made according to Dogma 95 guidelines.
I think his next movie will be all lens flares and then he will tell us we should love it because he thinks he is a great film maker. I have not liked any of his work.
Got to agree with a few of the other comments; everything grew on me that I thought I wouldn’t like, except for Engineering. I just don’t get it.
I can’t believe you people are STILL grumbling about stuff you can’t change. Are you still upset about the C- in English Composition that Miss Krabappel gave you in the 3rd grade? Really, people, MOVE ON.
Yes, this film was full of action — what else would you expect to see in a movie about a military force dealing with a deadly threat? What selective memory we have — EVERY Star Trek movie — barring The Motionless Picture — had an action component to it, AND something to think about as well.
What does this movie have to think about? How about the idea of destin, choice, and free will?
Nero was someone who used his free will irresponsibly. When you think about it, Kirk, a charismatic leader and fighter, might have ended drifting down the same path, projecting hate outwards, indulging in selfish pettiness, blaming everyone but himself for his own problems. Nero could have used the opportunity to warn the Romulans of 2258 of the tragedy in their future, but he chose his single-minded path of revenge against Vulcan / Spock instead.
Now, the supposed canonical destinies of our crew are no longer set. This is dramatic. This is good. Who wants to watch a mere recitation of “facts” (considering it’s all made up) when now we have to CARE about what happens?
As for the article — it was fascinating. ;) As a part-time dabbler in soundtracks and scoring I love finding out what makes a movie tick — more like this please.
I think the reviews are dead on for Spock. I think Quinto’s portrayal lacks the gravitas and depth of emotion that Nimoy’s presentation had. I am hopeful that that is a limitation of the script, story and Quinto can rise to the occassion of filling in the rest of Nimoy’s shoes in a followup.
Speaking of “cow-belle” could Will Farrell pull off Mudd? Part of me cringes at the thought, but a larger part would love to see that.
So far I’m getting “Lens flares = Realistic”.
Conclusion: Ditch the lens flares.
Gritty is a way of saying imperfect and spontaneous. I see the lens flares as a reference to documentary filmmaking, where the cameraman is following the action as it happens. Ironically, CarlG, lens flares are kind of an imitation of what might occur in a Dogma 95 movie.
It’s also a bit like emerging from the darkness after 2hrs in a movie theater, when your eyes haven’t adjusted to the light yet. In that sense, the lens flares expressed the newness of everything–the ship, the crew, even the audience itself.
The metaphor for the future ‘being so bright’ is a bit strained, but that’s really his discretion as a director.
Just like the use of film and miniatures, the lens flares and speed of the movie are the polar opposite of the cold, plodding, digital, computer generated and overly ‘mastered’ mise en scene of the Star Wars prequels.
Star Trek is so much bigger than any one director, so it really doesn’t matter if JJ directs or not. He certainly deserves a second and third shot if he wants it, based on the success of this movie, but with KO on the job, a new director will only expand our ideas of what Trek is.
8. BurntSynapse – June 2, 2009
JJ did not lie when he said he was not a fan of Star Trek, nor does he lie when he says that he went for “guts” in this film. He succeeded in violating the most important virtues Roddenberry tried to portray in Trek and eliminating “brains” from character’s virtues.
With this film’s spectacular SFX glorification of violence, ignorant cariciture of logic, and that it will represent ST to a new generation, I watched with tears at JJ’s success. May his fabulous wealth from working on this movie prove of some benefit
…Ya know I’ve been reading these sorts of ridiculous posts from fans like you, that would never be satisfied, and I can’t get over just really how flawed your logic is.
You mentioned “ignorant cariciture of logic” if you are in any way insinuating that with past Trek it was always logical then surly you jest.
Veger, Whales, The Genesis planet, wip-lashing around the Sun? It’s Science Fiction and with it should come some sort of ability to have Suspension of disbelief. If Red Matter and Black Holes bothered you then perhaps you should seek another genre. I love Trek however it’s logic has always had holes in it.
As for “eliminating “brains” from character’s virtues” Give me a break. Of what virtue eliminations do you speak? Give me one specific instance in the film where this took place and I’ll give you an instance in an episode from TOS to refute it. Rubbish.
And on the “spectacular SFX glorification of violence”…perhaps it would have been better had they used physical models? I guess then you had a problem with Wrath Of Kahn? This movie was somewhat similar to WOK in that it had a bad guy that was pissed off at someone from the Enterprise and found a way to exact his revenge.
This whole thing of some small sect of canon freaks bashing this film is beyond absurd. And to add to it, you guys are supposed to be, or regarded as intelligent. If so you then you should realize that all of this was spawned from a television show, which at the end of the day has to make money to survive. No one was doing this for free and they themselves did not even realize at the time what they were creating. You should also realize that for it to continue to survive it has to continue to make money. For it to continue to make money it needed a broader fan base. To create more of a mass appeal and lure in a wider demographic it needed to have some things changed. The rub was to be able to make the change yet respect what it once was, and to me they hit the nail on the head. There were so many things in the movie that gave respect that I was actually surprised! Everything from using original screen used Sound Effects Bridge & Transporter Sounds, button pushing sounds, the music…I don’t know about you but the brass stabs when the Kelvin was first shown against the Nerada were very reminiscent of when the Enterprise first encounters the Fesarius in the The Corbomite Maneuver (Episode #3)
Being a musician I also heard several other musical elements used, how bout those three notes when Pike is piloting the Shuttle out to drop the 3 off above the drill and go on to the Nearda. But, you were probably to busy hating the movie to even notice all these nuances that to me made it feel very familiar.
At the end of the day it does not matter what I say, and I’ll likely have a few people pissed at me or find some way to diminish me or try to make me sound insignificant but here’s where you loose and it becomes period, end of the sentence.
It is a simple math equation. For it to live on they needed to find a way to make a new Star Trek film, have it be familiar yet at the same time be fresh and draw in a new wider fan base, make it cool, something it never really quite was and make it fun for young and old. The numbers are in and they did just that, even more so than they probably anticipated. It currently holds a 95% (one of the highest rated films) on Rotten tomatoes, that means pretty much that for every 100 people that saw the film 95 liked it, leaving you to be one of those 5 people bitching using words like canon and virtue and Roddenberry’s vision. It has also assured us that Star trek is back and more is yet to come.
There was no way this franchise was going to survive unless someone new came in and took a fresh approach like this, to bridge the gap between fans and non fans, and to me he did it….and this comes from a fan who has watched it since he was 4 years old in 1969. I can name episodes and know obscure trivia and details that many hard-core fans might not. I have a $2000.00 TOS Enterprise sitting in front of me signed by every surviving member of TOS cast. I have every Star Trek Prop that Master Replicas has made, every Art Asylum Enterprise, Phaser & Communicator, all three seasons of TOS on DVD, every movie….I even bought single episodes issued from other Trek series that had something to do with TOS…TNG’s Relics, DS9’s Trials & Tribbilations, Enterprise’s In a Mirror Darkly, etc. Hell, I even came up with a TOS Bluetooth Communicator that works! So when it comes to Trek, I reach–
My point is that I loved Trek for 40 years and this movie worked for me. Sure, as much as I would have like to have seen things like MY NCC-1701 on the big screen I must concede that it probably would not have worked in the way the new ship did visually, at least and not have helped to captured a wider demographic. Putting MY ship on the screen would have only served to have made it more of MY, or older guy Trek and not what it has hopefully become now, our Trek. Everyone’s, from cool people to nerds JJ Abrams has for the first time in Trek History actually succeeded in making the Star Trek franchise cool whilst, to me at least, keeping at the heart and core of what came before.
Illogical, you’re being trolled.
63 I agree with you, but I also appreciate those who don’t — this comments section could be awfully dull if it was simply a unified chorus of approval.
What I said in my own review for the Georgia Straight was that this was Trek the way I remember it, not the way it was. And the way I remember it is filtered through nostalgia and layers of additional (non-canon) material, i.e. the novels. Diane Duane’s Kirk is a military genius, and we get a whiff of that feeling from Pine Kirk. In TOS, he really wasn’t that astute at reading situations — he just went from scrap to scrap.
As for Roddenberry’s vision, let us also remember that this is the guy who put (awful) lyrics to the ST theme just to scoop 50% of Alex Courage’s score royalties. There is a word for that, and it isn’t “visionary.” As a writer, he had one idea, which is that you have to meet God and God is actually a spaceman, an alien, or a cosmic child of some kind. (Which makes ST5 the truest adherent to the Roddenberry vision.)
I’m not saying that NewTrek is perfect by any means. There are flaws galore. In the main, however, it isn’t because JJ decided to put in a bunch of lens flares or that the movie has — gasp! — violence! The problems with the movie are inherent to $150M tentpole franchise flicks, which is that you can only get them every three years. With a series, you can expect (for budgetary reasons, if nothing else) lots of quiet moments where the characters can really interact. In a feature, servicing 7 continuing characters is a hassle and we are, I think, lucky to get as many character beats out of the show as we did.
#63
You go boy! You said a mouthful and expressed everything I feel about this “reboot”. My first memory is watching “Wink of an Eye” with my older brother in 1969 when I was 3 and I have made Trek a huge part of my life ever since.
The fact that JJ made a movie that I was able to take my 12 & 8 year oldd to and have them be enveloped by this world that has been so important through my life is more than I could have ever dreamed possible.
Now they are begging me to stay up to watch TOS episodes and they dragged me to buy movies 1-6 on Blu Ray so they could see more.
Thank you JJ, Bob, Alex, Damon, Bryan etc. for making Trek feel (to quote Kirk at the end of TWOK) “young again” for me and for my personal “next generation”.
#46: “I am as stuck to the cannon as they come…”
I hope that’s not true or you’ll go flying with the cannonball when they fire it off… (grin)
uh, try inserting ‘canon,’ pretty please.
I’ve seen it four times also… but a friend of mine has single-handedly saved the franchise… he’s now seen it 44 times (gulp)!
#63
Thanks for saving me the typing. I’d also like to add that if The Supreme Court tried to emulate the 1960s allegories in ST09, then the movie would be just about as topical as a Rocky and Bullwinkle Cartoon and all of the Cold War comment therein.
Bullsh!t!! No Little Kid could possibly sit through TOS these days. Not even the Remastered Version, (if they can, more power to ‘em) but they can sit through this Piece of Crap Movie and buy the waffles too I’ll bet, and that’s what’s wrong with it. I hate the way everything is being marketed for kids these days anyone remember when Good Movies had Balls and were not PG13?
#63: “At the end of the day it does not matter what I say, and I’ll likely have a few people pissed at me or find some way to diminish me or try to make me sound insignificant…”
Pissed at you? Hell no.
I agree with you completely. No film is perfect, but damn, this one sure was fun and I hope it re-energized the fan base as much as it did me!
#70- yes my kids do sit through TOS and love it. And they have not bought the waffles or any merchandise (I however am the proud owner of a Burger King Nimoy Spock glass).
I guess I am lucky that they are into the characters (my 8 year old daughter is a big McCoy fan, both Kelley and Urban.)
Maybe I broke them in a few years ago by watching all 4 years of The Wild Wild West with them and acclimating them to 60s era television.
Or maybe they appreciate the characters and the stories as well as the action. I don’t think any child is immune to good character and story, I’m sorry if yours are.
Just a few drama queens out tonight, I see.
I’ve seen the movie four times so far. I grew up on TOS when it first aired. I think this new film more than does it justice, and leaves all but a couple of the Trek movies in the dust.
Ahoy!
@62: Ack, my cinematic ignorance is showing! :D
What I find interesting is the having-and-eating-of-cake that goes on in the apologism for the film’s weaker elements.
(A) If a fan complains about something being too new, too radical, the apologists immediately point out that this is for a new generation and a new market and such-and-such-a-change is critical to making it relevant to a modern audience, as if, without the iBridge, the film would have failed utterly and made $12M before being yanked from the last screen it was on.
(B) But if a fan complains about some other issue … an issue of drama or logic or character … the same apologiests immediately point out that some prior Trek productions have had comparable flaws and that therefore it’s wrong to complain about them, as if the flaws of prior Trek films are somehow enshrined and forever excusable when repeated.
What I mean is … if they’re fixing stuff, shouldn’t they be fixing the DUMB stuff and leaving the GOOD stuff? It often seems like they’ve done the opposite: not merely “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” but deliberately extracting the baby, retaining the bathwater, and drizzling in a few drops from the corporate toilet. I think it’s fair to judge a movie – any movie – on its own merits.
And the usual disclaimer: I LIKED the movie. Saw it twice. Liked it just fine. But it’s got flaws, people. Serious flaws (and yes, response (B) people, I am aware that prior Trek films also had serious flaws … that doesn’t _excuse_ new ones).
75. S. John Ross
Criticism of the film is of course perfectly valid and fine. What grows tiresome and remains silly is the strum und drang and wailing and gnashing of teeth about it. The only reason I ever point out the flaws of the older Trek which I love dearly is to point out to the doomsayers that the mistakes they see in this film aren’t the end of the freaking world. Back and forth intelligent discussion is wonderful. I love the film and will be the first to admit it had flaws. But in the end it’s a big deal and so what. That’s nothing new. And the next one will have flaws too. Hopefully less flaws and they will do some things I want to see out of the next one. But as long as they make it well that is all I can really ask in the end.
That gritty, “real” aesthetic Abrams was going for just didn’t work for me at all — the shaky cam, the lens flares, the redressed industrial sets — I thought it detracted from the movie significantly.
Fortunately, the pace of the movie was so brisk that the effect of this stuff was minimized somewhat. Unfortunately, it made a $150,000,000 movie feel to me like it was a $100,000,000 movie. Using a brewery as the engineering set –sheesh, how lame is that.
And there’s nothing original about the approach; it didn’t make the film seem “distinct” at all. Gritty realism has been around in sci-fi movies since at least 1979, when “Alien” came out. And the fake documentary camera shaking has been used just about everywhere since the early 90s. Spielberg did it justice in “Saving Private Ryan” back in 1998, but it sure didn’t work well here (except in the orbital drop scene; that was great).
Abrams did a terrific job with casting this movie, and as producer he pulled together a fine creative team, and he should certainly get plenty of credit for that stellar box office. But he needs to stay out of the director’s chair in the next Star Trek film. Paramount, let someone else try, please.
Lens flares and shaky-cam don’t make things look more realistic and “like we’re actually there”… the human body is set up in such a fashion that those things don’t happen to us. Our eye sockets and necks provide shock absorption that lets our eyes focus on something without having the movement of our bodies show in the image we see. “Flares” occur when light is refracted and reflected between the lenses of a camera… our eyes don’t see those either.
It made it look like it was shot on a camera and we were watching the recording of it. Now, as stated before, if he meant to make it look like a live news feed or something, then that’s understandable. But i still found them distracting and they got irritating for me very fast. IMHO.
Just to add, so i don’t get jumped on, I enjoyed the movie. It was decent in it’s own right, just not my cup of tea as far as Trek goes.
#66 “The fact that JJ made a movie that I was able to take my 12 & 8 year oldd to and have them be enveloped by this world that has been so important through my life is more than I could have ever dreamed possible.
Now they are begging me to stay up to watch TOS episodes and they dragged me to buy movies 1-6 on Blu Ray so they could see more.”
…That’s awesome, and ya know it was another important element that I wanted for the new Trek to have, to be able to impart on children the same feelings and inspiration I got when I was a kid with Star Trek, which is the great thing about it.
When we were young I think we all watched it for different reasons then we do now. When I was a kid I loved the space stories and ships, Aliens & Phasers, Communicators ya know, all the gadgets. When I grew up I found that it was actually quite an intellectual show and found all of the other elements that slipped through when I was to young to “get it.” Allegories and morality tales all wrapped up with neat space ships, cool gizmos and interestingly diverse people from all walks, and worlds.
I don’t have kids but it must have been an awesome experience to share with them that thrill and excitement for something we all shared so many years ago, to be able to walk out of the theatre with them asking you questions about something that, before the movie, was something they might have thought to be dated and old fashioned. Now, I believe it has made Star Trek relevant and I have been reading quite a few stories of kids with a new found interest in TOS, probably remastered though:^)
We all have to remember that change is not always easy, as we are seeing with the current events in the world around us, but sometimes necessary. When I was a kid my video games were Pong and the Atari 2600 (which I still have) and I thought they were great fun at the time, but it’s all relative. I go to my brothers house and my teenaged nephews are playing video games that look ridiculously real, whilst talking to guys thousands of miles away on headsets in real time! Really, how could any one possibly have thought that our Star Trek could have ever been appealing to them? And yet how could it have survived without them?
Dare I say that if JJ Abrams was an archer, he pretty much it the Bulls-eye in dealing with all of these challenges and yet still making it work to 95% of the folks that have seen it thus far.
Yeah man, Abrams obviously has the depth of understanding to give a movie that edge it needed. The Star Wars prequels lacked that. Thank you JJ! I agree that this Star Trek lacks the philosophical depth of the deeper episodes of TOS, but that’s not what Paramount wanted. People seem to forget that TOS had it’s share of action-based/ pointless episodes too. Paramount wanted a movie that would attract a ton of people, be fun and most importantly… revive Star Trek. Goal met. Now that we’ve had our fun origin story, hopefully next outing we get into deeper plot lines. That said, I LOVE this new STAR TREK movie!!
@33
Luckily the man who has made the most successful Star Trek movie ever now has you to turn to for advice.
My favorite part of the article:
So, the movie doesn’t sound like Star Trek, so you bring in the guy who did Star Wars!?! LMAO That is absolutely classic!
If your Star Trek movie doesn’t sound like Star Trek, How about bringing in the guys who did Star Trek!? Too much.
He made a great film but the guy is so over rated, his shows are nothing original
@43 – When you shoot on film, you have a tangible piece of product (the film itself) that can be digitized and manipulated, yet you still retain the “original” film. If something goes haywire in post, you can still go back to the original. Plus, film (IMO) has more color saturation, responds better to differences in light and dark, and has more of a cinematic “feel”.
Digital cinematography is shot with a camera that resembles a TV camera in many respects, especially in regards to the electronics. However, the “film” is now a digital tape cassette (about the size of an old BetaMax cassette – but now it’s called HDCam SR). You can still capture it into a digital post production system and manipulate it, and you still have the “original” if something goes wonky. However, tape doesn’t stay as good on the shelf as film does (approx. 20 years as opposed to 100, if properly stored), and digital doesn’t give the same “warmth” (color saturation) or “latitude” (differences between light and dark).
The similarities are that you can use the same lenses on both cameras, both of them set up approximately the same, and both are about the same size. A digital camera is quieter than a film camera (although the new generation of Panaflex film cameras are quite silent). However, to illustrate the direction things are going, Panavision (a leader in cinema film cameras) also offers the “Genesis,” an HDCam SR digital film camera (which I think Lucas used on the SW prequels) which, IMO, looks pretty darn good (shoots at full 4K resolution, has visual characteristics very close to film). That’s the way things are headed, I think. One day, film (and tape) will be dead, and we’ll be shooting direct to a hard drive (as does the new RED One camera). That will simplify the post-production process, and possibly allow directors to post concurrently with production, leading to shortened production schedules…but as a director, you’ve really got to be on top of your game, because you’re shooting out of sequence anyway, and piecing your film together like a jigsaw puzzle. Take one wrong turn in post, and your whole thing comes crashing down.
And I didn’t mind the lens flares. And Ben Burtt is not just a Star Wars sound designer – he’s designed the sound mix for many films, and he knows what works. Trust me, on this one he did his homework.
I heartily agree with both #8 & #75.
J.J. did an incredible job amping up the realistic visuals. The opening scene on the Kelvin was the most dramatic and realistic-seeming (both visually and dramatically) of any starship combat sequence throughout the entire franchise. And it truly served the story JJ,K+O were telling. That said, using a brewery and dated manufacturing plant to portray the innards of the Big-E was a serious error in judgement.
The lens flares and shacky camera may date the movie stylistically, but I thought they worked well and I long for more “guts” and realism in Star Trek. Ben Burt’s sound mix was incredible, the bridge “pings” were pure Trek and really helped set the stage. Giannchino’s score was okay, I was hoping for much more, and felt let down, but it’s wasn’t a disaster,
I’ve seen the movie three times in the theater so far, and enjoy it as a great summer movie experience that appeals to kids and non-trek fans, but it has serious flaws as a “Star Trek” movie, in many categories: characterization & motivation, scientific-plausibility, throwing in scrambled up trek-canon in an attempt to demonstrate their trek-knowledge. Overall, it sets the premise for them to rebuild Trek. That was a tall order, and I think they mostly succeeded, but hopefully they’ll be free of some of the crazy/clumsy timeline contortions in the next film and can truly concentrate on crafting a solid story that withstands credulity.
#60 Will Farrell as Mudd is an interesting thought. It has potential and I can imagine it actually being good, but it’ll never happen…
#63: AMEN!
I loved the movie- and I am about as ‘old-school’ as one can get. I decided to give Abrams the benefit of the doubt- even after the rough start- and was glad I did.
I cannot wait for the DVD because there are little things in it that need to be slow-mo’d, freeze framed and looped for me to get the total nuance, but a lot of what I saw on the screen either played ‘true’ or was a logical extropolation of 40+ years of insight.
The sound, in particular was incredible. I really hope they will get an Academy Award for it- because it made the movie for me. Ben Burtt is a genius- and that opening ‘ping’ nailed it. Yes, the flares were a bit excessive, and the shaky-cam was a bit annoying (darn it- I want to -see- stuff, quit moving the darn camera, dude!), but it felt ‘real’. For the first time, it seemed to me that we really could have a ‘Trek’ in our own future- it wasn’t some shiny, unreachable thing- it was a slightly grubby, lived-in universe that still held artifacts of our own- but with Vulcans and tribbles!
I am looking forward to the next movie.
69. So what you’re saying is, there are no political or military conflicts in the world right now upon which the writers could have commented.
Or is it than SF can no longer be allegorical because it’s no longer the ’60’s?
Either way, you’re an idiot.
58. BaronByng – June 2, 2009
” — EVERY Star Trek movie — barring The Motionless Picture — had an action component to it, AND something to think about as well.”
Grrrrrrrr. It’s not a motionless picture at all. It’s a beautiful film…despite some flaws. The characters find their way back to each other at the end of the motion picture, much like the latest film…except TMP did it with a bit more thoughtfulness and maturity. If the imagination, maturity and thoughtfulness of TMP could be combined with the vitality and vigor of the latest Trek…now that would be an amazing Trek.
#89: I think that the Director’s Cut of ST:TMP finally revealed the movie that Robert Wise wanted to screen. He begged Paramount for two extra weeks to finish the effects and editing, and they wouldn’t give it to him. Happily, he’s gotten to go back and give us the movie he wanted to release, and it is much better for that editing.
#88—”Either way, you’re an idiot.”
The moment you do that—you surrender all credibility in your position.
Why don’t you take that garbage somewhere else?
#89 and #90—-I love TMP. It’s one of my favorite of the original films to rewatch. I can understand why some general moviegoers would not care much for it, but (IMO) TMP may as well be ‘Raiders Of The Lost Ark’ compared to something like 2001:ASO!
#90 & 92-
Don’t get me wrong, I do think TMP has it’s merits, but what are the huge differences between the theatrical version and the “Directors Cut”?
I have been watching the Directors Cut for years on DVD and recently got the blu-ray set which contains the original cut (which looks extraordinary I must say!).
Besides removing the moons from Vulcan I really do not see the difference! I’ve tried to find what makes it a better movie but I can’t.
Could either of you give me insight as to the differences between the two that make the DC so much better?
I just don’t see it and I really want to.
There’s room for all types of movies and scifi in Star Trek, including ponderous, slow movies like TMP, which I love.
The real issue is that we’ve been overfed on stagey, contained dramas that can be shot on a budget [sometimes that's outstanding: TWOK, The Enterprise Incident, etc.] and have exactly one entry in the big canvas/shot on location/adventure movie category.
I just hope they avoid making a revenge picture for a while and turn to colonial-style warfare [w Klingons, Tholians, etc] over new lives and new civilizations.
And if they introduce us to a new life or new civilization based on a humanoid race, I will fling poo like the nastiest of trolls.
#93—Quite frankly, it has been years since I have seen the theatrical version, but I seem to recall the major differences being the visual depiction of the V’Ger cloud, pretty much all of the scenery on Vulcan, and a trimming down on some of the stare-time on the bridge (which helps the pacing tremendously). I think the scene after Spock’s meld with V’Ger is extended (the tear scene), but I’m not sure…as I said, I haven’t watched the theatrical version since the DE became available.
I watched the movie 3 times. The first time I had to sit in the orchestra section and look straight up to see the screen. I can’t remember the last time I was that excited to see a movie. I wish the criticism would just stop. Let this creative team give us this generation of Star Trek and be grateful its happening in our lifetime.
33. What advice re: ‘killing Jar Jar?’ Lucas may’ve imparted some suggestions to J.J., but I doubt he had much to say re: that since AotC and RotS were still rife with Jar-Jar-isms, bogging them down.
Speaking of that bumblin’ CGI gungan…
There were some other posts not directly related to 33’s within the past month where select detractors of Trek ‘09 kept mentioning how they felt that Deep Roy’s character was akin to Jar-Jar’s. C’mon now…
Unilke Jar-Jar:
1) Deep Roy’s character was used sparingly.
2) He didn’t prattle on endlessly throughout the film in a high-pitched voice
3) He didn’t compromise the protaganist’s actions by fumbling and bumbling throughout the film
4) He didn’t sit in for Admiral Komack [sic] or on the Academy Council to rule in favor of say, Kirk’s expulsion or whatever [unlike Senator Jar Jar contributing to Sidious-Palpy's empowerment in AotC]
5) He wasn’t given a Captaincy or Admiral’s rank at the end of the film
Plus, imagine if young Kirk’s pickup lines were akin to Anakin’s! Yikes.
“Uhura? You ever been to Iowa? The rice…it gets into everything….. I’ve a burning sensation in my heart for you and I cannot control it….It burns with the fury of 8 Hobus supernovas! Know of any flowery fields with waterfalls that we can prance around in?!”
Or…
Deep Roy’s character on the Nerada: Oopsie daisies Mista Nero, didsa meesa dosa that?!
*Vulcan implodes*
I am a fan of th’ Star Wars films and spinoff merch. btw. =)
I also enjoy Trek quite a lot, in most of its forms.
Rah rah rah, more Uhura, more boots. Come on.
#99 Trek does not give audiences as much of what they want as Star Wars does based on the empirical evidence provided by the ultimate voting tool: the box office.
SW Ep.III made $928M at the box office adjusted for inflation. Ep.II made $773, Ep.I $1.2 Billion, Ep.IV $2.7B, Ep.V $1.3B, Ep.VI $1.1B.
Until Star Trek gets closer to the $1 Billion mark, it simply does not give audiences enough of what they want, while even the worst of Star Wars, gives them what they want. Trek is likely to gross about $400M worldwide. That’s barely half of the worst Star Wars movie.
So who is to say that introducing elements of Star Wars into Trek is a bad thing if it increases its appeal to audiences? JJ Abrams has made the most successful Trek product in 30 years. How can anyone criticize anything he has done? Only in his hands is there a future for Trek, based on the box office grosses – the ultimate litmus test of what audiences want. If the “Batman Begins” reboot model holds true for Trek, the sequel could actually rival Star Wars fro the first time ever.
#101—”…even the worst of Star Wars, gives them what they want.”
Yep.
Most of the criticism of the prequels comes from disappointed fans of the original films who mistakenly though that they were going to recapture the feelings of awe in the late 70’s-early 80’s they had as children. I was one of them. But about 20 minutes into TPM—I realized how foolish I had been. And as the years have gone by I came to realize that much of the original trilogy wasn’t all that much better in quality, to be perfectly honest.
I just had an inflated recollection of those movies.
I dutifully paid to see each of them, but there was no morew novelty left in SW for me. But as phoned-in as they (the prequels) were, kids still flocked to see those movies again and again, as the box-office figures you provide suggest. SW is a children’s story–and IMO, always was. Kid’s movies are just going to make money—even when they are of medicore quality. In effect, kid’s movies *are* what the public craves, and that craving is never completely satisfied.
Having three of them myself (working on a 4th), I have the holes in my wallet to prove it!
21 -
I’m sorry. Where exactly does it say that only “lovers” of everything on Star Trek XI may post on this site?
Perhaps you should keep on drinking the cool-aid while letting people “speak” their minds, pro and con.
Arm and fire photon torpedoes. ( I know it’s coming )
@ #’s 58, 63, 66, and others -
Well said guys!! Saved me a lot of typing!!
@#60 – The use of Farrell/Mudd/Star Trek Sequel in the same sentence earns you extra time in the Agonizer Booth! Remember Superman III?
Also, I guess I didn’t see the same movie as those of you griping about character development in the new movie. I think they did a fantastic job in a 2 hour movie which was easily half action scenes. The central question of destiny, freedom to choose your destiny, and the consequences of your choice, was well played out. It really was the theme of the whole movie and the character development. Kirk, Spock, and Nero all dealt with this. Not a bad lesson, and one I think Mr Roddenberry himself would approve of……. Those of you too busy nitpicking might have missed that. Sorry for you.
The scenes in the movie that nailed it for me were George Kirk sacrificing his life, the Kirk/Pike bar scene, the Spock/Sarek scene in the transporter room, and the Spock/Spock Prime scene at the end. All father/father figure – son – destiny choices. Scenes that are very well done in a 2 hour summer popcorn blockbuster flick! Only a talented director and talented writing team could have pulled that off. Kudos to Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman!!
Okay, I saw this movie on the Thursday before opening night. I liked it as far as it goes, the effects were cool and I did not really mind the lens flares. The story itself was not that great but oh well. Character motivations were off but I suppose that was intended by the writers. The big criticism I have would be regarding the science in the movie, which was really silly. The black hole acts like a portal through time and allows ships to pass through it, yet that same type of black hole can consume a planet in 2 and a half minutes. I really hope that the writers consult a science advisor to look at their ideas about space phenomenon before going to print. Those scenes had me cringing when they were revealed as black holes. The alien life we saw was a nice added touch although I wish that we could see more of it and in a better context than a large snow crab running at someone. The story was a bit too convenient implausible in some parts. The filmmakers wanted gritty to mean realistic but why were the Romulans speaking english during sequences with no humans present? If I recall months ago, Clifton Colins Jr. who plays one of nero’s henchmen was interviewed and he had mentioned that he had to learn to speak Romulan and yet none of it was heard. These are details that provide realism, hence the grittiness that makes details stand out. The movie was a fun romp and the first viewing goes over most viewers radar but after a couple more viewings, you start to see these impurities. Hopefully the next film will employ a better storyline that does not revolve around a madman or madwoman hell bent on revenge. Maybe, a three part story that is told in sections… meaning it ends on a cliffhanger or remains unresolved until a new development. Here is hoping and it is wonderful that Trek is back in a big way.
All i have to say is three things that must be in place for the next film….1. Abrams (he MUST direct), the DP Dan Mindle and production designer Scott Chambliss…his version of the bridge is amazing…even though in the other films the bridges changed….they should keep Chambliss to recreate the bridge because as we know most sets are destroyed after production.
#98: “Uhura? You ever been to Iowa?”
Which, by the way, really should be a legitimate question …
#82: I think your point presumes an awful lot about the definition of “success.” But the Alex P. Keaton school of filmmaking would agree, anyway (and I’m pretty sure that’s JJ Abrams’ alma mater …)
Well let’s see, not only has it made money but gave a lot of people a fun time and put Star Trek back on the map. What other success are you looking for?
#80- I also still have my Atari 2600 (VCS). It still works after 30 years and my sons XBOX 360 has had to be fixed many times (3 red rings of death!)
We watch the remastered episodes and I thank God for them. They are much easier for them to believe in in this age of CGI.
We watched “Devil in the Dark” tonight and my son asked if that’s where the idea for “Aliens” came from i.e. the mother alien protecting her future generation.
Again, this movie has created an interest in all that is TOS with my children. If it is accomplishing the same with other younger audiences, then both this new Trek and the original will truly “Live long and prosper”.
#109: If you really have to ask (I’m assuming you’re being serious and not just engaging in gentle mockery of the APK types), then I don’t think any resulting dialogue would be productive.
#111—” If you really have to ask…, then I don’t think any resulting dialogue would be productive.”
That seems rather convenient. I was looking forward to that answer too.
Hey, this is JJ’s vision, so if he wants lens flares, that’s what the man gets. It obviously wasn’t annoying enough to keep audiences away from the film. I loved the lens flares. To me, they added a natural beauty to the film, and yes – a sense of realism. This film certainly stands apart when it comes to realism and just overall beautiful filmwork. If we’re lucky enough to see another Trek film directed by Abrams, I hope he continues to use lens flares if it helps to present his vision.
Paramount needed to revive this franchise. They needed to keep the fans, but they also desperately needed to appeal to a larger audience. It’s clear JJ Abrams succeeded.
I do agree with those who feel the story wasn’t exactly stellar, though it was better than some other Trek films. I think seeing these characters again in a new light, plus including Leonard Nimoy, and the stunning beauty of this film bumps it up at least to top 5 of Trek movies for most fans… possibly top 3. What do you think?
#101 – I wasn’t saying that NuTrek couldn’t stand to get a kick in th’ pants courtesy of SW elements; I was primarily going after the naysayers who were saying that Deep Roy’s character was 1:1 Jar Jar Binks which I disagreed with.
Oh and also whatever #33 was trying to imply re: Lucas supposedly telling Abrams to ‘kill the Jar Jar-isms’ of NuTrek, which I found to be quite ridiculous. The Flanneled One would probably be more inclined to just tell Abrams to have fun with it and to not get bogged down by fan criticisms if anything. =)
#112: “That seems rather convenient.”
I feel the opposite about it. But when you offer no substance, that doesn’t give me a lot of room to offer any in return.
“I was looking forward to that answer too.”
Likewise.
#113 “this is JJ’s vision, so if he wants lens flares, that’s what the man gets. It obviously wasn’t annoying enough to keep audiences away from the film. ”
You know, they weren’t annoying enough to keep people away, because people expected they’d be just fine. I was sure the camera flares wouldn’t really bug me. But they did. The nature of film requires that you can never tell you hated it until you’ve already paid for it. So stop using money as meter for this thing or as, dare I even say it, a defense for the visual clutter.
I went to see the movie a second time to find answers to all the glaring plot holes and inconsistencies that didn’t seem to get solved the first time with all that shit in my eyes. So yes, JJ stole more than one viewing from me. And mostly because of how distracting and unpleasant the lens flares and reflections throughout the picture were. Lens flares don’t keep people away, and in my case at least, they demanded subsequent viewings at the back of the theater. I hated the lens flares with a vengeance. Yes, vengeance is back! But my money can be taken as a measure of how dreadfully difficult it was to appreciate the movie on my first viewing BECAUSE of the garbage cinematography.
Yeah, laugh it up, Mr. Orci. You robbed me. If JJ only wants to haul in money, that’s his prerogative. If all this production team cares about is money, fine. And even though I pay for a tickets to see the next Star Trek in the future, it DOES NOT mean I approved. I decide if I approved after I spent my money.
I enjoyed the movie within reason, don’t get me wrong. It just wasn’t the intellectual, philosophical or curious Star Trek kind of fun I watch Star Trek for.
Are those black Moon Boots on the set? I didn’t notice those in my 4 viewings of the film! I’ll have to look for them this time!
#116—”You robbed me. ”
And yet that seems contradictory to this…
“I enjoyed the movie within reason, don’t get me wrong. ”
As opposed to what? Enjoying it beyond reason?
“So stop using money as meter for this thing…”
That wouldn’t be very smart. The film’s financial gains should absolutely be “a meter” with which to guage its success—-it just shouldn’t be the only one (and it isn’t). Audience responses in the theater, fan polls, critical praise, the decision to extend its IMAX run—- all are indicators in addition to the favorable domestic box-office intake as to the film’s success. It isn’t any one of those individual factors, but all of them as a whole which make the success of ST09 undeniable in any reasonable sense of measure.
It isn’t perfect by any means (nor has any Star Trek feature film been), but it doesn’t have to be in order to be deemed successful.
re: lens flares
As for me, I didn’t even noticed them when watching the movie for the first time, as I was to focused on following the plot, but after seeing it for the second time, there’s one scene where I wish JJ would have kept them back: when Kirk and Scotty beam up to the bridge from the ice planet, and Spock confronts them both. The flares on Spocks and Kirk’s faces quite bothered me, as the scene was so intense, I wanted to see both their face expressions fully, and those flares just got in the way.
Otherwise, the flares being during action scenes etc, I think I quite approve, and I wouldn’t mind seeing them in ST XII, if JJ keeps them off people’s faces.