Virogen

Into Darkness Omega Sector Reviews and Ratings

Favorite Overall Trek Series/Movie   201 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your overall favorite Star Trek series?

    • Star Trek: Enterprise
      16
    • Star Trek: The Original Series
      49
    • Star Trek: The Animated Series
      0
    • Star Trek: The Next Generation
      55
    • Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
      48
    • Star Trek: Voyager
      33
  2. 2. What is your overall favorite Star Trek movie?

    • Star Trek - I: The Motion Picture
      10
    • Star Trek - II: The Wrath of Khan
      40
    • Star Trek - III: The Search for Spock
      6
    • Star Trek - IV: The Voyage Home
      22
    • Star Trek - V: The Final Frontier
      4
    • Star Trek - VI: The Undiscovered Country
      28
    • Star Trek - VII: Generations
      11
    • Star Trek - VIII: First Contact
      64
    • Star Trek - IX: Insurrection
      6
    • Star Trek - X: Nemesis
      10

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

185 posts in this topic

It's not a fair comparison though; the films are a product of their time, with budgets and technology a lot better for the recent films than existed 20 years ago.

If ST:VI was made today, it would probably be a more cinematic experience (probably to its detriment IMO), while if STID had been made 20 years ago, it would probably have looked more like today's TV.

I'm not comparing them per se; but I was responding to Sherlock's post wherein he was comparing the two for directorial style (Nick Meyers vs JJ Abrams; ironically, Meyers attended Abrams' bar mitzvah many years ago...).

And I agree that a straight comparison of their relative styles is not fair. 22 years ago, TUC blew me away when I saw it in theatres; but today? As Zef'No says; there are adverts that are more visually impressive.

But the point I was trying to make wasn't about special effects; it was about direction. A different matter really. The argument that the new ST films look like television is (IMO) absolutely without merit. I've not yet seen a television show (not even the 2003 Battlestar Galactica; one of my favorite shows) that compares to the sheer production value, scope and raw spectacle of Abrams' ST movies.

While I agree with Sherlock that the script for the STID is WAY below par (and deserves ALL the criticisms heaped upon it), I would argue that the film is marvelously directed. There was certainly a lot less shaky cams and lens flares this time around too (for those who were bothered by them in the last movie; I was not. As a BSG fan, I'm used to shaky cams :P ).

The latest ST movie has many flaws; poor direction was not one of them, IMO...

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with shaky cams is that I like to focus on who's talking in a scene. I'd like to be able to focus on what's actually happening, and it doesn't help when it looks like an earthquake is taking place on set. If it's a technique to lessen the suspension of disbelief, to make it more "real," then yeah, they succeeded, because it takes me right out of the movie and makes me remember, "Oh, that's right, I'm watching a movie, in a theater, and all I see in front of me is a sequence of celluloid frames flashing at a quickened pace in a sequence." Sucks me right out of the atmosphere of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with shaky cams is that I like to focus on who's talking in a scene. I'd like to be able to focus on what's actually happening, and it doesn't help when it looks like an earthquake is taking place on set. If it's a technique to lessen the suspension of disbelief, to make it more "real," then yeah, they succeeded, because it takes me right out of the movie and makes me remember, "Oh, that's right, I'm watching a movie, in a theater, and all I see in front of me is a sequence of celluloid frames flashing at a quickened pace in a sequence." Sucks me right out of the atmosphere of the film.

Like any moviemaking technique, it can be overdone (like lens flare).

But occasionally, to set a mood of unease or tension, few things work quite as well as a little (un)steadicam. ;)

I found this gif online, and I imagined it being said to the audience on behalf of the crappy STID screenplay.... :P

tumblr_mn2qnwvmqF1som2vvo1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this gif online, and I imagined it being said to the audience on behalf of the crappy STID screenplay.... :P

tumblr_mn2qnwvmqF1som2vvo1_500.gif

Haha! Very fitting...

I do wonder if STID would have been met with the same amount of disappointment if it hadn't taken so long to make. Maybe the shorter amount of time and people would've been more understanding of its mediocrity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this gif online, and I imagined it being said to the audience on behalf of the crappy STID screenplay.... :P

tumblr_mn2qnwvmqF1som2vvo1_500.gif

Haha! Very fitting...

I do wonder if STID would have been met with the same amount of disappointment if it hadn't taken so long to make. Maybe the shorter amount of time and people would've been more understanding of its mediocrity?

I don't know, but that's certainly possible.

I might be a bit more charitable if the script was farted out in three months or so, but the fact that Orci/Kurtzman agonized for a YEAR just to decide whether or not to make Khan the villain? That tells me that decision (an unwise one, IMO) seemingly took valuable time that could've been spent thinking up an ORIGINAL character.

But instead, we waited four long years for a substandard script, a rehashed villain and lots of loudness, excesses and sheer volume that tried to smooth over numerous holes in the screenplay.

My biggest issue with STID was the script.

It just falls apart with even an absolute minimum of critical thinking...

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as does anything else those 2 dumb@$$es write. look at the last 2 transformers movies. Star Trek VI was rushed and made in a year, and was a great solid nicely wrapped trek film. ART THRIVES ON RESTRICTIONS. I personally wish all of bad robot would go to hell. Damon Lindenof did a sh!++y job on prometheus. And JJ Abrams is so full of himself. He directs like a television director. You cant capture the enviromental feel of a scene with him hell you dont need sets with him. you never get to see the damn sets they are all over the place blurred out, flared out, tilted out and shaken out...and god forbid the camera stay in one position more than 2 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And JJ Abrams is so full of himself. He directs like a television director.

As I've said before; I just don't see this.

Yes, he shakes the camera, yes he uses lens flares. But so do more than half of the action movies I see in cinemas these days.

That's NOT television directing; if anything, it's Moviemaking 101 these days. I just saw "Pacific Rim" last month; it also looked like that...

I think you got that part kind of reversed. Television direction is usually more stately; with less camera movement, etc. Ala ST-TNG, or even "Homeland" or "Dexter."

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most films, pre 2000s, were shot in the more traditional sense. Basic cinematography has the blocking of a typical soap opera or other television show: Static wide shots, tracking shots on a dolly-cam, shot-reverse shot, over-the-shoulder, and close-ups. That's why I really adore films with unique cinematography, the kinds of films that win Academy Awards for it. They go out of the boundaries of standard shooting techniques to give the film a truly breathtaking and unique look. Directors like Kubrick, Peter Jackson, even Sam Raimi, have their own style that makes every sequence pop because of their own styles and their directors of photography who really know the craft. Steadycam (which should be renamed shaky cam; whoever came up with the name for it should be lobotomized), lens flares, and other disorienting styles of cinematography, while unique, are quickly wearing out their welcome. It's a horrible fad that I hope goes away forever -- the sooner the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most films, pre 2000s, were shot in the more traditional sense. Basic cinematography has the blocking of a typical soap opera or other television show: Static wide shots, tracking shots on a dolly-cam, shot-reverse shot, over-the-shoulder, and close-ups. That's why I really adore films with unique cinematography, the kinds of films that win Academy Awards for it. They go out of the boundaries of standard shooting techniques to give the film a truly breathtaking and unique look. Directors like Kubrick, Peter Jackson, even Sam Raimi, have their own style that makes every sequence pop because of their own styles and their directors of photography who really know the craft. Steadycam (which should be renamed shaky cam; whoever came up with the name for it should be lobotomized), lens flares, and other disorienting styles of cinematography, while unique, are quickly wearing out their welcome. It's a horrible fad that I hope goes away forever -- the sooner the better.

I remember a lot of pre-2000s movies that were shaky-cam (the "Die Hard" movies, "Speed," etc.) and lens flared ("Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind", "Blade Runner"), but I agree that some of these techniques (and that's all they are; techniques) are being overused. But I wouldn't argue that they aren't theatrical; they are very much theatrical. Sam Raimi is also a pioneer in hand held cinematography; watch is early "Evil Dead" movies; his 'evil cam' was basically a guy wielding a camera on the end of a stick while on his belly (this was pre-Steadicam, actually).

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lensflares aint bad if they are warranted. Sun, floodlight, high beam flashlights etc. Its when there is flares when there are NO lights. Flares for lights that isnt there. Or LED indicators flaring out the camera. Its general assumption that if a light can flare out a camera its harmful to look at. The Enterprise crew will all be taking Rednax 5 and wearing visors before the 5 year mission is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sam Raimi is also a pioneer in hand held cinematography; watch is early "Evil Dead" movies; his 'evil cam' was basically a guy wielding a camera on the end of a stick while on his belly (this was pre-Steadicam, actually).

That's common knowledge, I know almost everything about the Evil Dead series. :P

But, yeah, I get your meaning. The thing is that the 'evil cam' was used in such a way because it was meant to represent something otherworldly running through the woods. It's like when the camera operators for Return of the Jedi walked through the redwood forest to capture the footage, then ran it in the reels backwards, and at 100 fps faster, to create that lightning-fast velocity that the speeder bikes were flying at. The cinematography and photography in those movies all served their purpose. Shaky cam, in an otherwise non-shaky situation, serves nothing. Unless the ship is actually under attack, the camera shouldn't shake. Unless there's an earthquake, the camera shouldn't shake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaky cam, in an otherwise non-shaky situation, serves nothing. Unless the ship is actually under attack, the camera shouldn't shake. Unless there's an earthquake, the camera shouldn't shake.

Unless you're trying to keep a feeling of heightened tension all the time; as I think was the intent on the new Star Trek movies (and the 2003 BSG series as well). I agree that it can be overdone (like ANY technique), but I kind of like it ever now and then to keep the audience 'on edge.' To its credit, STID has less 'shakycam' than its predecessor....

Stately camera moves have their place as well. I too am a HUGE Kubrick fan ("2001: A Space Odyssey" is my favorite movie of all time), but for today's mayfly-attention spanned audiences? I'm afraid the glacial pacing and deeper introspection of yesteryear's movies just won't do (sadly).

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaky cam, in an otherwise non-shaky situation, serves nothing. Unless the ship is actually under attack, the camera shouldn't shake. Unless there's an earthquake, the camera shouldn't shake.

Unless you're trying to keep a feeling of heightened tension all the time; as I think was the intent on the new Star Trek movies (and the 2003 BSG series as well). I agree that it can be overdone (like ANY technique), but I kind of like it ever now and then to keep the audience 'on edge.' To its credit, STID has less 'shakycam' than its predecessor....

Stately camera moves have their place as well. I too am a HUGE Kubrick fan ("2001: A Space Odyssey" is my favorite movie of all time), but for today's mayfly-attention spanned audiences? I'm afraid the glacial pacing and deeper introspection of yesteryear's movies just won't do (sadly).

That or the guys you hired have bad nerves, and then no amount of steadying will keep it from shaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaky cam, in an otherwise non-shaky situation, serves nothing. Unless the ship is actually under attack, the camera shouldn't shake. Unless there's an earthquake, the camera shouldn't shake.

Unless you're trying to keep a feeling of heightened tension all the time; as I think was the intent on the new Star Trek movies (and the 2003 BSG series as well). I agree that it can be overdone (like ANY technique), but I kind of like it ever now and then to keep the audience 'on edge.' To its credit, STID has less 'shakycam' than its predecessor....

Stately camera moves have their place as well. I too am a HUGE Kubrick fan ("2001: A Space Odyssey" is my favorite movie of all time), but for today's mayfly-attention spanned audiences? I'm afraid the glacial pacing and deeper introspection of yesteryear's movies just won't do (sadly).

That or the guys you hired have bad nerves, and then no amount of steadying will keep it from shaking.

I saw a behind-the-scenes video on making ST09 and during the skydiving sequence there were moments when JJ Abrams himself was actually pounding the sides of the film magazines of the camera (yes, he used film; not HD video) to get the required look. The skydiving effect in closeup was achieved by having Cho and Pine stand on reflective mylar (which reflected the blue sky above) and gave the illusion they were flying in midair. Personally? I thought it was a brilliant technique; and without the shakicam it would've just looked like two guys standing on reflective mylar. Sometimes shaking can also be used to 'hide the seams' of filmmaking as well as create haute tension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shakycam for that entire sequence is logical. They're skydiving, and they're landing on a platform that's firing a death ray. Of course it's gonna shake. But in any other situation, especially those that aren't action-y, the shakycam is unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shakycam for that entire sequence is logical. They're skydiving, and they're landing on a platform that's firing a death ray. Of course it's gonna shake. But in any other situation, especially those that aren't action-y, the shakycam is unnecessary.

And yes, I agree it was overdone in ST09; at least it was addressed in STID (although it was a worse movie IMO... sadly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually its a better movie director wise. A worse movie written wise, as those two dweebs ripoffed and tore plotholes a mile wide into the story. I am still not a fan of anything or anyone at bad robot. Its a collection of bad tv show and bad tv makers. The producers, directors, and writers all SUCK. The end result of Lost should be proof enough of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually its a better movie director wise. A worse movie written wise, as those two dweebs ripoffed and tore plotholes a mile wide into the story.

On this, we totally agree. The direction in STID was less 'show off-y' than ST09 (less use of lens flare and other gimmicks), but the script was just a mess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i should correct myself. The writers are choke artists. Into darkness was a pretty good story 2/3 into the film. Then it went all to hell. Same thing happened to lost....and revenge of the fallen....and dark of the moon...and fringe(sad cause i really loved that show).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i should correct myself. The writers are choke artists. Into darkness was a pretty good story 2/3 into the film. Then it went all to hell. Same thing happened to lost....and revenge of the fallen....and dark of the moon...and fringe(sad cause i really loved that show).

Never got into any Bad Robot TV (maybe for the best, eh?).

As for the Orci/Kurtzman movies? I saw the first Transformers (completely hated it), and Cow poop & Anuses--er, I mean, Cowboys & Aliens. That one was an absolute waste of precious life force. I hated it both as a western AND as a scifi movie (two genres I'm normally good with)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the scene with Carol Marcus in her underwear, I'm not at all surprised Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote this.

Also, should Alice Eve had been Dr Dehner?

Edited by adamclark83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the scene with Carol Marcus in her underwear, I'm not at all surprised Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote this.

Also, should Alice Eve had been Dr Dehner?

Agreed.

I thought she looked a lot more like Sally Kellerman than she did the late Bibi Besch.

And I think it was the 3rd partner in crime (Damon Lindelof) who actually apologized publicly for the scene (too bad his apology only stopped there... :laugh: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I was swearing Harrison was Gary Mitchell, because I was convinced that Alice Eve was Dr. Dehner...The exact same freakin hair style...and she was actually in starfleet, unlike Carol Marcus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Benedict was Gary Mitchell and Alice was Dr Dehner, I might've seen this movie. They would've looked like those characters.

About that underwear scene, look at Rachel Nichols and Zoe in the previous movie and Megan Fox in the first two Transformers movies. It's like Roberto and Alex are deliberately aiming at the teen male audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Benedict was Gary Mitchell and Alice was Dr Dehner, I might've seen this movie. They would've looked like those characters.

About that underwear scene, look at Rachel Nichols and Zoe in the previous movie and Megan Fox in the first two Transformers movies. It's like Roberto and Alex are deliberately aiming at the teen male audience.

Arguably the underwear scenes in ST09 were a bit more in context; it was in a dorm room, and EVERYBODY was in their undies (Kirk, Uhura & Gaila, the Orion girl). I think it was an attempt to show what a shallow womanizer Kirk was in his academy days (at least in the alternate timeline; in the prime universe, Gary Mitchell described him as 'a stack of books with legs'; Kirk even told Bones in "Shore Leave" that he was 'positively grim'). So, I give the ST09 scene a bit of a pass (also it was trying to show that they were all just randy kids).

But in ST09 she (Alice Eve's "Carol Marcus") goes to the inside of a shuttle to change; and Kirk is just standing there. And there is NO REASON for her to be changing clothes there! The shuttle is docked inside the Enterprise at the moment (doesn't she have guest quarters, for chrissakes?) and Kirk doesn't even come along on the trip! It was brief yes, but totally gratuitous. Seriously, it reminded me of Baywatch.

And yes, I agree that Cumberbatch would've been far more effective as Gary Mitchell (and not just in looks; calling him Khan brings up involuntary comparisons with Montalban; fair or not), but I wouldn't have liked just a straight "Where No Man..." remake either. I'd have expected a bit more for my $13 ticket price (in IMAX 3D) than a 2 hr rehash of an episode I saw when I first saw when I was 7 (instead I got a rehash of a movie I first saw when I was 15). Besides, the new IDW comic series (which are canon, according to schlockmeister Roberto Orci) already covered the "Where No Man..." story in issue one.

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites