Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Next Star Trek film: May 17, 2013, and in 3-D

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Next Star Trek film: May 17, 2013, and in 3-D (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Next Star Trek film: May 17, 2013, and in 3-D

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-02-2011 05:27 PM

I am a little surprised that a Star Trek movie will be in 3-D. But, at least sci-fi seems to lend itself to the format. How's everyone feel about this?

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-02-2011 06:23 PM

As a person who enjoy 3-D movies if they are shot that way with an image quality like HUGO & AVATAR, it is great news. If the movie was photographed in 2-D and converted to 3-D, I will see it in 2-D.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 12-02-2011 06:28 PM

I don't care how it was photographed, I will only see it in 2D.

And if they do that fucking camera flare thing in every scene again I'm gonna boycott the damn movie.

| IP: Logged

Sean Weitzel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall)
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-02-2011 07:03 PM

Tony stole my thought.. 3D LENS FLARES!!!

Here is an article about Star Trek from June 2009 American Cinematographer. They love lens flares. They were intentionally shining flashlights at the camera to get the lens flares.

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/June2009/StarTrek/page1.php

From page two:

quote:
If the built-in lighting wasn’t providing the desired flare, the crew aimed Xenon flashlights at the lenses as the cameras rolled. “Our A- and B-camera operators, Colin Anderson and Phil Carr-Forster, would tell us if we needed to go a little farther in or out of the frame, or up or down, to get the ultimate flare,” recalls Prampin. “It was funny to watch — Dan and I were running around, ducking, jumping and hiding behind things just so we wouldn’t be seen by the cameras. The flashlights were so bright that there are probably several instances where Dan’s actually in the movie, but you can’t really tell!”

| IP: Logged

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-05-2011 07:48 PM

If it's in 3D, I woun't be going to see it. It will just be a collection of goofy 3D effects.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-05-2011 08:06 PM

I doubt that, actually. 3-D is maturing and the quality is improving. The gimmick factor is fading.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 12-29-2011 10:36 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
The gimmick factor is fading.

Agreed.

Star Wars I and most important, Titanic in 3D will bring back some interest.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-02-2012 03:23 AM

Mike: I agree.

Tom: Star Wars will be gimmicky, but sincerely hope Titanic is done well. The Lion King proved it could be done.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-02-2012 03:44 AM

Yes, and just imagine how great the new 7.1 remix of Titanic will be where they spread out the dialogue evenly across all of the screen speakers and re-EQ so it sounds like a bad home surround system!!!

Hey, it worked for Lion King.

| IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 01-02-2012 03:56 AM

It may well depend on how much of a premium they slap on admission.

The 3D fad is fading, and I doubt that Titanic in 3 dimensions will do stellar box office - maybe 3 weeks or so.

The new Star Trek may tank as well considering the release date is over 15 months away and that the rate of 3D B.O percentages is dropping rapidly.

Hope I'm wrong though.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-02-2012 12:15 PM

I think 3D is settling in at about 40 to 60% of the grosses, depending on the film. It's been fairly steady there for a while. "Lion King" did very well in 3-D -- in fact we had one family who came to one of our 2-D showings of it and decided not to stay when they found out it was 2-D. (Which was dumb, I thought...."Lion King" on the big screen is great no matter how many Ds are involved.)

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-02-2012 08:29 PM

Not sure why Titanic needs to be 3D. Can't fathom what it would gain as an "experience".

I don't think Star Trek "2" will fail. Maybe it will fail in 3D, but seriously, who cares? But as a movie I hope it will be good and succeed. Once 3D gets around that whole needing glasses to see it thing, then I think it will be time to become a permanent addition. What's next, requiring customers to put on a special jacket with motors in it to "feel" the bass?

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 01-02-2012 08:56 PM

since it's not a post convert 3D feature - sure... why not, I'm game to see it!

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 01-02-2012 09:04 PM

Has anyone seen how good the new Titanic trailers look? I have only seen a flat one on film and online but it sure looks great!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-02-2012 09:09 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Not sure why Titanic needs to be 3D.

One guess: to give Kate Winslet's chesticles some 3D volume.
[Razz]

Getting back to the original topic, if J.J. Abrams is shooting the next Star Trek installment in native 3D won't that present a problem for his fondness of the 35mm anamorphic visual style, particularly all those intentional lens flares? He calmed down a little with the anamorphic flares in Super 8, but still the look was more flare induced than any Spielberg movie made in the 1970's.

I assume Abrams will be using one of the leading 3D digital video camera rigs for this sequel. To the best of my knowledge all of those systems are built only with spherical lenses in mind. Those lenses don't yield the anamorphic look (football shaped bokeh, strong horizontal lens flares, odd telephoto style flattening of perspective). Further, the best spherical lenses have more coatings applied to reduce or eliminate lens flare.

Maybe they'll just add some flares in post production.
[evil]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.