UDPATED: First 2 Clips From JJ Abrams Super 8 | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

UDPATED: First 2 Clips From JJ Abrams Super 8 May 16, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Super 8 , trackback

Paramount has just released the first full clip from Star Trek director JJ Abrams new movie  Super 8. Take a trip back to the late 70s to watch the train crash that starts the mystery at the heart of the movie. Oh yes, and there are lots of lens flares. [UPDATE: 2nd clip added] 

 

UPDATED: Classic Spielberg + Lens Flares + The Cars = 1st clips from Super 8

Helped along by the The Cars and their 1978 hit "Bye Bye Love," this clip (via Moviefone) from JJ Abrams’ Super 8 really shows off how this film is an homage to the Steven Spielberg films of that era. 

UPDATE: second clip picks up where the first left off.

Super 8 comes out June 10th. And after that, JJ Abrams promises he will turn his attention to that Star Trek sequel everyone is talking about.

Related:

 

 

Comments

1. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

Cool! Can’t wait to see this. Looks like yet another J.J Abrams classic!

And I wonder if there will be some sort of cross-promotion with the Super 8 motel chain?

2. CmdrR - May 16, 2011

Could be good. Very Goonies-esque. Could use a good Devil In The Dark monster movie this summer, before the real brain death begins.

3. Drij - May 16, 2011

huh a pickup derails a train? lame. JJ needs to stop with the Lens Flares…

4. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - May 16, 2011

Can’t wait to see this. Looks to be great.
Seen Thor last night. great Movie as well.

5. davidfuchs - May 16, 2011

EXECUTOR: YOU REQUIRE MORE LENS FLARES!

If other nerds get the above, you just get it :P

6. Ensign RedShirt - May 16, 2011

I’ll be curious to see how this ends up being an homage, because the shooting and cutting style are nothing like 70’s Spielberg.

7. Bhek - May 16, 2011

J J Drunk need to stop pretending to be a Director

8. trekker 5 - May 16, 2011

I so can not wait for this! I don’t think JJ will let me down,(on this movie or on Trek 12!)

9. Tim - May 16, 2011

I agree with post 3. As soon as I saw that style you lost me.

10. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@7. Bhek Drunk need to stop pretending to know how to write a sentence.

11. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

For all you self-appointed “train crash experts,” here are two examples of pickup trucks derailing trains:

http://www.scnews.com/news/2010-02-02/Front_Page/Driverless_truck_strikes_derails_train.html

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/07/17/amtrak-train-collides-with-truck-derails/

12. dmduncan - May 16, 2011

Gotta say, clip looks amazing. I like the youthful Spielbergian feel, and yes, I like the lens flares just fine. That’s part of JJs style, and it’s nothing to complain about as far as I’m concerned.

Really looking forward to this one.

13. James Cude - May 16, 2011

Hmm- I was a bit more into this from the previous trailer. This clip is a weird edit that doesn’t do any favors to the movie. And yes- JJ no offense but lens flares do not ‘direction’ make.

14. Daoud - May 16, 2011

Wow, what is it with all the jj-o-pathy tonight?

15. Steven - May 16, 2011

It’s sad when you read the constant postings of people who want JJ Abrams to lose the lens flares, such as #3

That’s like saying to: “Picasso – less mangled images of people.” or “Mozart, less musical notes.” Or Ansel Adams – “That’s good – but how about shooting the photo in color this time….”

We have to allow creative people the freedom of expression. Abrams is not a filmmaker waiter, waiting to take your orders on how a film or TV project is produced and should look: it’s not a democratic endeavor. It’s his image imprinted upon each work. To tell him or any creative person to alter their vision is rude. It’s basically telling someone how to exist and live. Imagine someone doing the same to you.

16. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

I see a bunch of J.J haters here. They also go by the initials J.J, but unlike J.J Abrams, their initials don’t stand for Jefferey Jacob but instead represent “Jealous Jerk(s)”!

17. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@16

Jumping Jehoshaphat,

I completely agree with you!

It is a full moon tonight and the JJ haters are out in force!

18. dmduncan - May 16, 2011

The trailer makes me feel like I missed this really cool movie that came out sometime between Star Wars and Close Encounters, and now I’m getting a chance to see it!

19. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@18. Do not see the resemblance to Donner’s “Superman,” so I assume you are referring to “Capricorn One”?

20. dmduncan - May 16, 2011

@19: No. Not a real movie, but a movie I missed from that era with the same flavor.

21. Rusty0918 - May 16, 2011

#15

You’re right. The only reason why I’ve had this whole “lens flare” crud rubbed in was because of all those hard-hitting nitpickers.

I don’t care if he puts in lens flares, just not too many of them.

22. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@20. DM, you did not get my joke. Both those movies came out in 1978, i.e. in between Star Wars (77) and Close Encounters (79). :-))

23. shakirahiebert - May 17, 2011

for more movie trailers please check http://www.wally.tv/videos
there you can not only watch newest movie trailers like Kungfu Panda2 and x-man but also many hilarious viral videos.

24. trekker 5 - May 17, 2011

#16 & #17 thats for sure!

25. anon - May 17, 2011

Thor made me think Kenneth Branagh would be a pretty good director for a Star Trek film, since it balanced action and dialogue very well . . .

26. naysaynever - May 17, 2011

here’s my two pence..jj abrams is a good director, and super 8 is going to be good fun, and thats a fact, who cares what the nitpickers say, i know i’ll enjoy it :)

27. captain_neill - May 17, 2011

Despite not being JJ Abrams’ biggest fan I can honestly say that I really do think this looks to be a really cool movie and I think it will be a good.

The concept looks interesting.

I did notice a few lens flares floating about in the trailer. LOL.

28. Paul B. - May 17, 2011

Seriously, the lens flares are a MAJOR issue. Many of us were taught to use cameras in such a way as to avoid flares; it’s not movie science, it’s just basic camera technique.

Flares take away from the experience because they remind the viewer that they are watching through a lens. Yes, we all KNOW we’re watching a movie, but when the camera draws attention to itself, it draws attention away from the story and characters.

I’ve never had a conversation where someone get completely washed out of my vision by a flare, yet that happens frequently in Star Trek ’09. It’s an added bit on unreality that ruins the ability to suspend disbelief.

It’s not nitpicking: Lens flares = reminder of camera’s presence = takes you out of the experience.

If Abrams would drop the lens flares, most of us wouldn’t have anything to complain about in his directing style.

29. captain_neill - May 17, 2011

Please don’t take the lens flares comment as another bitchy comment, I was only saying it as a joke.

30. That One Guy - May 17, 2011

A Spielberg/Abrams film?

Hmm…. you have my attention.

31. captain_neill - May 17, 2011

28

Interesting point about the lens flares, another point that I find about lens flares that I am commenting on as a film student and director is that a lens flare can sometimes ruin a good shot.

There was a scene of Spock in the new movie that I felt was a great shot and I felt a lens flare washing over his face did ruin it a little.

While the shakey camera in documnetary style is not my prefered shooting style I still like it in places. I do think that handheld cameras work great in scenes to invoke tension in an intense moment or in a fight sequence..

I say this as a film maker, not as a ranter so please don’t say anything in that regard.

32. Jeyl - May 17, 2011

A pickup truck that can barely stay on the ground derails a freight train that weighs TONS. The Blue Thunder, the limo with James Caan and Doc Brown’s time traveling Deloreon couldn’t derail a train!

33. Blake Powers - May 17, 2011

# 12 agreed

34. Simon - May 17, 2011

#28 – The fact I’m sitting in a movie theater with a bunch of strangers remind me I’m watching a movie projected through a lens.

Do you complain about “sound in space”?

“Close Encounters” had lens flares. So did “Saving Private Ryan”. I don’t remember people calling Spielberg out on those.

It’s a style. Period. And Abrams’ been more successful than anyone here. He doesn’t see it as broken, and if it ain’t broke: don’t fix it.

35. Iva - May 17, 2011

Lens flares wouldn’t have been such a mess if they didn’t try to eat actors faces all the time, and succeed.

36. cdp - May 17, 2011

I love JJs style and the lens flares don’t bother me at all as long as they are not overdone. I believe JJ Abrams himself admitted at one time that he might have overdone the lens flares a little bit in Star Trek so I think he learned from is mistake and will be a little bite more careful about it in the next Star Trek movie.

37. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2011

Here’s what J.J Abrams should do. He should start releasing two versions of his movies on dvd/Blu Ray. One with lens flares and one without. On the blu ray, you should be able to toggle the lens flares on or off. I guess for the dvd you’d need an extra disc for the lens flareless version of whatever J.J movie you’re watching.

At least you’d shut up half the haters……maybe….hopefully….I don’t know……I tried……sigh………oh well……….

32.
….

What are you rambling on about now?

38. John from Cincinnati - May 17, 2011

That’s not the full trailer!

The full trailer was in front of Thor when I saw it last weekend. It had much much much much much much much much much more and the movie looks great!

39. Bobby - May 17, 2011

#38 – More … lens flares?

;)

40. P Technobabble - May 17, 2011

It’s to be expected, I suppose, that any successful director is gonna be criticized by others, especially others who are not successful directors. Even Kubrick, considered by many to be one of the greatest directors of all time, was criticized… but I’m not sure how many of those critics were amongst the list of “greatest directors of all time.”

Personally, I have no issue with the lens flares. And I agree, they are a part of Abrams’ style. I would guess Abrams has his own reasons for them, and feels they are right for his own work.

Does anyone think moviegoers, in general, won’t go to one of his movies because of lens flares? I doubt that.

I think it’s ok to get off his back about lens flares now…

41. Phil - May 17, 2011

15. Steven – May 16, 2011

Well said…

42. cristo - May 17, 2011

Just need to say that the finale of Smallville sucked donkey b@ll5. It was so bad that it made TATV look like a true valentine to the fans.

Super 8 looks great. Did anybody catch the trek reference at :18?

Peace

43. sean - May 17, 2011

A train won’t always derail from an obstacle in the tracks, but it certainly can. Doesn’t matter if it’s a pickup or a Gremlin. Whether it would derail in such spectacular style is probably up for debate.

44. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

@32 “A pickup truck that can barely stay on the ground derails a freight train that weighs TONS. The Blue Thunder, the limo with James Caan and Doc Brown’s time traveling Deloreon couldn’t derail a train!”

Hey Einstein, did you even bother to read my earlier post on this? Since you apparently are limited in what you can absorb, I’ll repeat it again for you here:

>>>> For all you self-appointed “train crash experts,” here are two examples of pickup trucks derailing trains:

http://www.scnews.com/news/2010-02-02/Front_Page/Driverless_truck_strikes_derails_train.html

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/07/17/amtrak-train-collides-with-truck-derails/

SO THERE!!! Now please go back to your “Talifan” camp in the mountains and try to come up with something less moronic that fits in with your “I had JJ” worldview.

45. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

@29 “Please don’t take the lens flares comment as another bitchy comment, I was only saying it as a joke.”

@31 “I say this as a film maker, not as a ranter so please don’t say anything in that regard.”

Captain Nell, let me be blunt. You have this really annoying habbit of having these long posts where you infer in clever way these things you don’t like about Trek 09, and then you provide at the end of your posts “DISCLAIMERS” like the two statements above. Dude, the use of these disclaimers are not fooling anyone.

I would actually prefer if you were more direct and blunt with your views rather than trying to dance around things, get in clever inferences within you long-winded discourse, and then provide your trademark disclaimer at the end.

Sorry, but I am not going to let you have it both ways. :-)

46. captain_neill - May 17, 2011

MJ

One thing, I found your comment about George Takei very distasteful, so you can be a bit nast y yourself.

I am just going to say I like the Abrams movie and leave it at that.

47. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

@46. Very good — thanks for being direct. You are correct, I did go a bit overboard on Takei.

See how being direct is so easy!

48. gingerly - May 17, 2011

Looks good, but I gotta say:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i106/thephantommilk/parteh/flarejj2.gif

No, but seriously, it’s old school in the good way. :)

49. JMAN - May 17, 2011

I just don’t get why everyone gets so upset about the lens flare. In both this clip and in ST 09, I barely even noticed it until everyone had a fit.

50. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

@49. Yea, the irritating thing about all these anti-lens flare people, is that now when I watch Abrams’ productions the back of my mind is now watching for the lens flare, which reduces the enjoyment of the show. Before all the hoopla, I didn’t really notice the flares much — they seemed organic. Now, thanks to these detractors, I can’t hep but noticing them.

51. Rusty0918 - May 17, 2011

#49, #50

Yeah, you raise some good points here. I never really noticed them myself until all those insane fits.

Some are OK. Too much though, that wouldn’t be a good thing.

Besides, also that truck might have had something in it that caused the train do do what it did. Ever think of that?!

52. Pierre - May 17, 2011

Prominent lens flares detract from the movie, are unnecessary and last but not least strong and repeated flares may induce photosensitive epileptic seizures for some people.

53. Vultan - May 17, 2011

Style or not, it’s just a tad bit annoying trying to watch a simple dialogue scene with a disco ball at the edges of the screen.

Travolta, is that you?

54. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

@52. Like I said, in Trek 09, to me they were organic and barely noticeable UNTIL the detractors starting making a federal case out of it. So they weren’t prominent to me.

55. Dee - lvs moon' surface - May 17, 2011

#25 – anon … Yes?… so … why he could not convince me that Thor was in Asgard depressed missing “the mortal Natalie Portman”? … the guy knows Shakespeare, right?… so… why that didn’t work?

Chris Hemsworth was born to be Thor… great!

And JJ Abrams use “lens flares” if you want … but start working on Trek 2, soon! … please!

:-) :-)

56. gingerly - May 17, 2011

I like the flares, too. But it’s easy to not make fun of them. :)

Lens flares are to JJ as slo-mo swirly cam ballet is to Michael Bay… or the bare feet of women are to Tarantino…or brunettes dyed strawberry blonde are to Tim Burton.

;)

57. Vultan - May 17, 2011

#54

The federal case of Blinky McTrekfan V. Abram’s Lens Flares is supposed to go before the Supreme Court later this year. I eagerly await their decision.

It should be a real EYE-opener. [rimshot]

;)

58. Vultan - May 17, 2011

Correction: Abrams’

59. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

@54. Actually don’t you remember the Supreme Court’s ruling on Lens Flares back in 1964? In the majority opinion, judge Potter Stewart tried to explain lens flares, by saying, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of film techniques I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it !”

60. Vultan - May 17, 2011

#59

Ah, but you may recall the Moe Howard ruling of 1938, stating that any film demonstrating blatant harm to the eyes or eye sockets should be followed with an immediate cartoon sound effect.

It could be argued that Abrams is in violation of this rule, having disregarded the aforementioned sound effects and, from the frequent use of high-definition lens flares, caused several cases of blindness, uncontrollable blinking, and hypnotic inducement to “go to the lobby and have ourselves a snack.”

The man must be stopped.

61. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2011

The pro-lens flares/anti-lens flares debate is the new pro-abortion/anti-abortion arguement. In fact, there’s going to a million protests by close-minded “fans” declaring the J.J Abrams films to be UNCANON and in violation of the Trek Holy Book. (The Star Trek Encyclopedia)

The Talifan Trek fundamentalists versus the true fans who embrace new ideas. It’s already gotten ugly!

62. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2011

60.
….

“The man must be stopped.”

No, the man must be commended for trying new things.

63. Vultan - May 17, 2011

#62

Geez, lighten up. I was joking—as in SATIRE.

But it’s okay. I won’t say anything about national anthems. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say no more….

64. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2011

63.
….

Sorry about that! I thought you were railing against J.J Abrams.

65. Drij - May 17, 2011

Lens Flares or not, I wouldn’t pay to see this movie.

66. Vultan - May 17, 2011

#64

Well, the lens flares do bug me, but I can still watch an Abrams movie… and will probably go see Super 8. I like that Spielberg is involved and that it’s a throwback to his films from the late 70s and early 80s. The hyper-kinetic pace in these clips has me a bit worried, however, which would be nothing like an early Spielberg film. Hopefully, they’ve just been edited down (like normal trailers) for the ADD crowd.

67. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2011

66.
….

Unfortunately, major blockbusters have to be fast paced to keep people from texting or talking to their friends during the movie.

It’s an unfortunate truth since “Moon”, a slow moving, thoughtful movie, couldn’t make nearly as much money as the big budget blockbusters.
“Moon” is a really great movie, a nod to “2001: A Space Odyssey”. If you haven’t seen it, you should.

68. Vultan - May 17, 2011

#67

Oh, I have. A couple of times. Good movie!

I’ve still yet to see Jones’ new movie, Source Code. Heard it got some great reviews.

69. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2011

68.
….

“Source Code” was great too! Highly intelligent and highly recommended!

By the way, Duncan Jones is actually Zowie Bowie, son of legendary rocker David Bowie!

70. Vultan - May 17, 2011

#69

Okay, now I’ve got to check my local theater to see if it’s still playing. Sounds too good to wait for video.

As for Jones, seems like I did read that somewhere about his dad being Bowie, who happens to be married to Iman—who played the shapeshifter from TUC!

So there’s your Trek connection. :)

71. captain_neill - May 17, 2011

67
I do hate the mentality that everything has to have fast cuts and pace to get an audience these days. I also hate it when kids talk during a movie.

I remember seeing The Lovely Bones and the teens behind e would NOT shut up, it was one fo the few times I actually yelled SHUT UP to people at the cinema.

I also agree with you about Source Code, that was a great film with a great concept. Did you like the Quantum Leap injoke by having Scott Bakula doing the voice of his dad?

72. Basement Blogger - May 18, 2011

@ 68 Vultan
71 Captain Neill

Vultan, Source Code may still be playing. And it it’s not, go see it on pay per view ASAP. Intlelligent science fiction. And very emotional. I applaud the studios for making this movie. Get this, your Star Trek 2009 knowledgge will help you. It’s also about quantum mechanics and parallel universes. Yeah, there is an inside joke where Scott Bakula voices Jake Gyllenhaal’s dad. Get it? Quantum Leap. Vera Farmiga is wonderful.

73. Basement Blogger - May 18, 2011

@ 71

Summer tentpole movies are aimed at teenagers. That’s because the studios can depend on them to fill the multiplexes. (NPR link below.) That’s why you have movies with the fast cuts for a ADD crowd. I like Star Trek 2009 but the pacing was for teenagers. Pacing to me is a bigger issue than the quick cuts. For example, in Trek 09 after the powerful opening, the movie goes to Kirk driving a car over a cliff, all to the hard rock of the Beasite Boys. The film would have breathed if it put the Vulcan scenes there. Then later move to Kirk showing off his driving skills.

The one exception to tentpole movies being for teenagers is Chris Nolan. See Dark Knight. Inception.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646

74. Basement Blogger - May 18, 2011

I know we joke about lens flares. But let me take them seriously. The add a dose of realism into the movie. The imperfection gives you the impression that this is actually happening and that light is giving a flare as you are there watching the events. It’s also another imperfection that gives a warmth to the film.

That being said, if doen in excess, it’s annoying. If the flare is in the middle of the picture, you just want to scream at the director. Worse than lense flares is the use of excessive use of the handheld camera. Yeah, I get the documentary feel they convery. But scripted movies are not documentaries. Second, they give me motion sickness. There is absolutely no need to use them during a fast fight scene. Bourne Supremency was wrecked because of excessive use of the handheld camera.

Now if Star Trek 2012 is released in 3D and the director knows it’s going to be released in 3D, there’s going to be very little use of the handheld camera. That’s because the 3D effects with handheld cameras makes everybody motion sick.

75. Ralph F - May 18, 2011

re/#67; Agreed re/”Moon”. Really loved it — not as ambitious as “2OO1″ in scope, but it had the vibe and it was a great film to watch. I had hoped it would usher in a few more like it. (FWIW, I felt the same way about “Sky Captain”; uneven though it was, I loved the old style serial feel of it.)

Some of the Season One “Space: 1999″ eps have that 2OO1 sort of feeling; caught one or two about a year ago on some UHF type channel. Done right — maybe partway between the “clean look” of Moon and a darker re-imagining (BSG?), a “Space: 2O99″ revamp could do quite well.

76. Dr. Image - May 18, 2011

That hatch blowing off- right outta LOST.

#67 Yes. Moon is a modern classic. Highly recommended.

Looking back, NOW, in retrospect, I think JJ overdid the lens flares.
When you have bridge lights aiming OUT and right at the actors faces, that’s a little much. Not to mention when ILM has to REPLICATE the flares in all the fx.
Yeah. Cut ‘em back.

77. Trek Nerd Central - May 18, 2011

If there’s anything I enjoy more than the put-Shatner-in/leave-Shatner-out argument, it’s the lens-flare argument.

What the heck is the big deal? It was JJ’s look for “Star Trek.” Some directors go for washed-out colors or crazy hyper-editing or super-zoom zit-crater close-ups. Or wobbly-cam. Which makes me feel like throwing up.

Hey, at least he lens flares don’t make me sick to my stomach! (I think I just opened a whole new line of debate, here. . . )

78. Trek Nerd Central - May 18, 2011

Oh, and I meant to say: Yes, Red Dead Ryan, captain_neill and Basement Blogger are dead-on regarding “Source Code.”

Smart, entertaining, wicked-good movie. See it.

79. Polly - May 18, 2011

Looks awsome. Definitely a must see, though I wish the clips would explain the story a but more

80. Polly - May 18, 2011

bit*
dang typos.

81. gingerly - May 20, 2011

@80

Haha, at least you didn’t accidentally a word, like I often do. :)

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.