Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

#33427
They did their due diligence, they got people from the earlier series to say good things about it this week, and that is probably all they felt they needed to do.

I'll be interested in seeing when tech articles on the show actually begin to appear. My guess is that you'll get superficial ones in that CBS magazine WATCH!, and probably stuff in UK mags that always seem to get around domestic PR issues, but I wonder if there won't be anything else like AmCin coverage till well into next year. My experience of CBS on this is that they are in absolutely no rush to even deliver interviews or confirm that a story is even a 'go' -- and that's after 18 weeks of emails and phone calls. It's a much more extreme version of the way Paramount used to treat press requests that were anything smaller than ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT or TV GUIDE in the 90s.
#33430
Spoiler: show
Discovery was utter garbage no wonder CBS have an embargo on reviews all day today!

Spoiler: show
How on earth these episodes cost $6-8M each is mind boggling considering the low quality VFX & re-used designs (most lifted 1:1 from the Kelvin trek films as well!!).

Spoiler: show
:omg: :roll: :eek2: it makes SyFy channel look high brow & high quality by comparison :lol:
#33431
I got the start time wrong somehow, so when I came in she was about to do her spacewalk, so I guess I missed 15-20min. It's not OnDemand through regular cable so I guess that first part will stay missed.

Saw nothing in the rest of part 1 that would cause me to rethink passing on CBS ALL ACCESS. Hated the lens flares and the dialog and most of the performances.
Supposedly they spent 3mil just on the Klingon ship set! Inconceivable!!!!!
#33433
ShaneP wrote:So this show went back to the JJ Kelvin lens flares and overall design?

I thought this was a remaining of that re-imagining?

How can this be the Kelvin-verse if the Klingons look like….THAT?
Don't over think it Shane :wink: CBS were hoping the people who want to pay long enough to fund a Season 2 (Netflix are only funding season1) do not notice its lifting a LOT of stuff from the Kelvin films and I mean a LOT of stuff some of it is almost 1:1 cut n paste!

Good job CBS & Paramount have the same parent company otherwise the lawyers would get even richer on the inevitable court time!!

Those Klingons look atrocious to me as well such cheap looking makeup where on earth (or in klingon space even!!) did that $6-8M per episode budget go is as an even bigger mystery than how on earth this series ever got beyond a pilot episode :eek: its actually coming across as SyFy Channel material right now which is going to sink the franchise even further to many how could the bar be set so low all those producers have to eat I guess...... :roll:
#33435
ShaneP wrote:So this show went back to the JJ Kelvin lens flares and overall design?

I thought this was a remaining of that re-imagining?

How can this be the Kelvin-verse if the Klingons look like….THAT?


They keep insisting this is the prime universe, and I guess the lensflareitis is being excused as what the 'modern' look is for SF now.
#33436
Kmart wrote:Would be interested in finding out how Nicholas Meyer went from sole teleplay credit for episode 2 to no writing credit on the episode at all. Would HAVE to be more interesting than watching part 1 was, for me anyway.
He probably removed his name from it & has recently been downplaying his involvement as he is supposed to be developing his own Trek project. Meyer contributed to some great movie Trek's but he also has a very selective memory shall we say politely about certain behind the scenes aspects !
#33437
Kmart wrote:
ShaneP wrote:So this show went back to the JJ Kelvin lens flares and overall design?

I thought this was a remaining of that re-imagining?

How can this be the Kelvin-verse if the Klingons look like….THAT?


They keep insisting this is the prime universe, and I guess the lensflareitis is being excused as what the 'modern' look is for SF now.


I'm on record here as not minding them for JJ's films but if that is what modern SF looks like now, count me out. We need variety. I do prefer a return to clean look anyway after JJ's three Treks(I count Beyond because even though it has less of those things it still roughly follows those aesthetics).

So it is the Prime Universe…..hmmm…okaaay then. I still don't know why people insist on remaking things and gutting so much of what made them appealing to begin with(no, I'm not saying the Klingon looks, which varied widely, was the reason Trek was popular).
Why make it in the Prime Universe and then creatively veer off?

I don't get it. It says something for me that my favorite Trek of recent years is a movie that underperformed and fan films that are the center of controversy.
#33438
Shoot, my fave trekfilm of the last 30 years (the only one I genuinely liked besides BEYOND) was TFF, and it SERIOUSLY underperformed.

As far as the live-action look goes ...I really miss hard light, and shadows that fall off to real blacks instead of murk. I miss hard Rembrandt lighting so much. I really don't think you always need to see detail in shadows, the black gives it snap and mystery and commands my eye to the lit part of the frame.

I don't know wherethehell to look on THE ORVILLE, and don't have anywhere I WANT to rest my eye on DISCOVERY. Here endeth the rant.
#33440
You realize by sharing that opinion you're in the smallest subset of subsets?

I think there's a video/digital-like need to look not like film that has been in vogue for awhile, and it manifests even with shot-on-film efforts, because the stocks show so much in the shadows. That, coupled with the way DI impacts the image, has done a lot to lessen the impact of the way most films look. I still love many films that carry this different look - CHILDREN OF MEN is awesome -- but there's something about what I guess I think of as Kodachrome looking movies that I have missed in the last quarter-century (and there were plenty of times when that went away earlier, like the shot-in-smoke 80s, which is probably why I remember LADYHAWKE so fondly ... so-so flick, but the color and contrast in the snow scenes was magnificent.)

I think some TV shows are striking back against the overcutting, letting scenes play out w/o the need to get busy editorially -- TWIN PEAKS certainly did some of this, but other great recent shows are going this route too. But nearly all movies seem overcut to me.

Then again, I remember when I first saw TUC I thought it was cut too fast ... now THAT is hard to believe looking back at it (and that was around the time I saw JFK and loved it and thought it was the best-cut movie this side of ALL THAT JAZZ (probably still do maintain that latter op.)
#33442
Hmm….haven't watched JFK in years. Might have to give it a rematch again soon. Platoon is one of my favorite films an Stone is a helluva talent guy. I just remember Costner's goofy accent in the film not the cuts. Actually, his Kennedy one was even worse in that Cuban Missile crisis film I can't recall the name of right now(the film itself was good).

Interesting comments about DI and blacks in digital versus film. I've heard that complaint for a long time, over a decade, about the digitals lack of deep blacks.
#33449
13 DAYS was the picture, there was a sequence when a US aircraft gets shot down that was done with a miniature out of doors. I remember doing an interview with somebody responsible for the shot (probably Ian O'Connor, for a couple years he was THE innovative pyro guy, even on shows he wasn't credited for like STARSHIP TROOPERS), but I don't think there was ever a published story.

I'll put Costner's ROBIN HOOD accent up against all these other accents as the platinum-plus standard for godawful accents. I did manage to fall asleep on the movie a couple times in the theater, but i remember that SOUND being what woke me up (might have been bad air in that particular theater -- I fell asleep on THE ROCKETEER there too.)
#33450
Kmart wrote:13 DAYS was the picture, there was a sequence when a US aircraft gets shot down that was done with a miniature out of doors. I remember doing an interview with somebody responsible for the shot (probably Ian O'Connor, for a couple years he was THE innovative pyro guy, even on shows he wasn't credited for like STARSHIP TROOPERS), but I don't think there was ever a published story.

I'll put Costner's ROBIN HOOD accent up against all these other accents as the platinum-plus standard for godawful accents. I did manage to fall asleep on the movie a couple times in the theater, but i remember that SOUND being what woke me up (might have been bad air in that particular theater -- I fell asleep on THE ROCKETEER there too.)


Yes, that was the name of the movie. I forgot about Costner's Prince of Thieves accent.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8