Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






Jose Oquendo posted:

Star Trek: TMP was released 11 years after 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not sure how that's 'on the heels.' TMP was really more of a response to Star Wars. The original plan was a new TV show to air on a new network run by Paramount (sound familiar). There were scripts (some of these were used in TNG), new characters were cast, etc. It was basically a done deal. Then Star Wars came out and made 1000 bajillion dollars so Paramount turned it into a feature film instead. Overall, the movie is sort of a mix of Star Trek, Star Wars, and 2001.

TMP was commissioned by the studios as a response to Star Wars but the director and writers were aiming for 2001. The movie's a bit trapped between worlds as a result.

Regardless, of the movies it's the one that very much most benefits from watching on a large screen in a dark room with the bass turned up. It's a pity that the Director's Cut doesn't exist in HD, because watching it in anything less than the best definition possible is completely pointless. If they ever released trek movies in 4K this is the one I'd get.

Also, for anyone who hasn't seen it, the best version of the film is a 22 minute cut someone made to the Tron Legacy soundtrack. It's actually spectacularly good.

https://vimeo.com/217336882

MikeJF fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Aug 4, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






Detective No. 27 posted:

Star Trek Beyond
I saw it in theaters and thought it was decent, but not really trying. If it were an episode of the show, it would be a middling one. It didn't really feel ambitious in anyway. Probably executive meddled with. I've got the bluray sitting here behind me. I'll probably watch it this weekend if I got nothing else do to.

I honestly disagree there - it's clear that it was rushed and there's a few plot points that should've been better expanded and explained in another few script passes, but it genuinely tries to bring the feel of old Trek into the new Trek and I think it's one of the better movies, by far the best of the Kelvins. It's got wonder, exploration, the crew actually acting like a crew, and a surprising number of deep trek lore cuts.

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






feedmyleg posted:

So how exactly did TMP go so vastly over budget? I mean, watching it you see the dollars on screen when it comes to effects, and when it comes to Trumbull's work Wikipedia gets pretty detailed. But what work exactly had Abel and Associates pitched for, why couldn't they complete it, and why did the film change so much in production to require so many new shots to deliver?

One of the biggest reasons it's so over budget is that they folded all of the Star Trek Phase 2 development work and pre-TMP attempts at films into the reported budget as part of Hollywood accounting. But with regards to the visual effects crisis, have you read the Memory Alpha writeup?. It more detailed on RA&A than Wiki, IIRC.

MikeJF fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 4, 2020

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






Timby posted:

To make matters worse, the selected effects firm, Associates & Ferren (which had been hand-picked by Winter and Bennett after ILM and Bennett didn't really get along on The Voyage Home; the story that they didn't have the capacity to do the work has been pretty thoroughly debunked), upon taking delivery of the Enterprise and Bird of Prey models from ILm, promptly lost their poo poo. Why? Because they had a motion-control track that was only half as long as needed in order to actually shoot the models.

Wasn't the Enterprise model being too big for most of ILM's techniques half the reason for the trouble with ILM, too? It severely restricted what they could do.

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003






Payndz posted:

The Cinefex article about ST3 opens with the main ILM guy on the film (Ken Ralston, I think) talking about how much he hated the Enterprise and what a pleasure it was to blow it up, even if only by proxy (the main shooting model was unharmed). ILM disliked the model intensely because it was much bigger than they would have made it, had to be rewired to work with their systems, was initially too shiny to use with their bluescreens (so had to be repainted or dulled down) and - they thought - only looked good from a limited number of angles.

Yeah. Also, if I recall correctly, another huge pain was that at the time most of ILM's effects moved the model, or the camera and the model both, during rolls or rotating pans. But the combination of the size and the way that the 'self-illuminating floodlights' on the Connie refit worked (being shone on the model and just looking like they were lit from lights on the model itself) meant that the whole thing had to stay completely still and they could only move the camera, which meant they had to change a whole load of their processes as well as having a lot of restrictions on the shots they could do.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply