|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Star Trek Into Darkness
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-10-2013 08:51 PM
I've just watched the second movie of the Star Trek semi-reboot. The presentation itself was pretty much flawless for what you might expect from a standard 2K 3D presentation. Even the RealD XL setup was doing its job right, there was almost no ghosting visible and the picture was sharp and bright.
J.J. Abrams take on Star Trek might not be every Trekkie's favorite, but I think it is still a huge improvement to where the original movie series headed.
This movie recycles many aspect from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, in some ways it could almost be called a remake of the original.
Like many recent sci-fi action movies, it layers a lot of rather unbelievable action scenes on top of each other. If you're all to easily distracted by that, you might consider watching another movie. Still, I enjoyed watching it as it was exciting until the end. I even liked the almost slapstick-alike humor, which consisted mainly of references to the old series and movies.
The production of this movie might deserve a special note:
I don't know what the deal was and who smoked what exactly, but the movie was shot on a mix of 35mm, digital and IMAX cameras. Although I was watching the digital 3D/scope version, it was still quite visible: You have large amounts of grain in one shot, a little grain in another and no visible grain in yet another shot. No matter what the original lenses were, all shots have one thing in common: massive amounts of "anamorphic" lens flares... in 3D. Together with a huge amount of glare, this has been elevated into some kind of new art form in this movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 05-11-2013 07:21 PM
I agree on the lens flare thing. Personally, I like lens flares, I think they're pretty cool, but in space they're cool; on the bridge of the Enterprise they're less cool; and in your face 3D-style is mega uncool! Abrams seriously needs to reign these things in, especially for 3D. Anyhow......
Star Trek: Into Darkness is directed by J.J. Abrams but you could be forgiven for thinking it was Michael Bay such is it's flagrant exuberance, melodrama and general style-over-substance schtick.
The film begins with a preposterous opener whereby the Enterprise crew are tasked with concealing their starship from a primitive indigenous population so as not to taint their destiny with objects of the future. And yet their formal mission is to save this civilisation from an entirely natural catastrophic disaster. It seems Starfleet is happy for fledgling civilisations to have a future as long as it is one of the bureaucrats choosing. That this is also the position of Mr Spock, the penultimate logician, betrays the lack of overall intelligence in the script.
The script proves it's ineptitude time and again with it's laughably hammy dialogue and signposting of events and narrative devices which will clearly play a critical part in the climax of the film. The symbolism employed throughout is similarly brick subtle - the good white Enterprise versus the evil black Enterprise, for instance.
The script is also slavishly (and unabashedly) moulded by the desire to create tension and drama. For example, the Enterprise's transporter's propensity for success seems to be determined by the dramatic tension that success (or failure) creates. On more than one occasion the transporter can't be used because it would break the tension of an action sequence and yet within minutes it is used specifically to increase the tension of the very same scenario. The reasons which govern the ability of the transporter to be used in any given moment seems mighty fickle.
Sure, such things are necessary parts of script structure and they would play just fine if only their implementation were not so bleeding obvious. The films connections to Wrath of Khan from the original franchise are entirely appropriate in this regard. (Yes, I know my dislike for that fan favourite puts me at odds with Trekkers.)
The action sequences themselves, however, are expertly handled and provide plenty of seat-of-your-pants style thrills so the film deserves worthy marks for those. And the new cast of the Enterprise are a likeable bunch if you can get over the idea of a starship crewed by adolescent minds. Overall, though, Star Trek: Into Darkness (where does that title fit in anyway?) is a major disappointment. With his previous Trek film, Abrams showed that he was capable of producing a solidly satisfying Trek adventure; a shame then that this film is entirely shadowed by its predecessor.
5 out of 10
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-27-2013 12:17 PM
Cinema: Santikos Palladium AVX, Richmond, TX (Houston suburb)
Screen: #3
Format: Barco 4K digital projection, 7.1 LPCM surround
Presentation Problems: Dialog channel badly setup or damaged.
Rating: 2.5 stars out of 4
This Star Trek installment has its entertaining moments, but is seriously flawed just like the previous movie. I won't give away much other than saying the movie-makers made some bad choices in how they chose to reuse material from the Star Trek movies of the 1980's. I rolled my eyes at a couple key scenes near the end. One scene of Captain Kirk hanging from some steel beams trying to kick a power source back into alignment was unintentionally funny. It really looked stupid.
The movie was fairly good until it got to the British actor's big character reveal. Then it got predictable and pretty silly. I think people who aren't all that familiar with the Trek movie storylines would enjoy this movie quite a bit more.
I absolutely hate the end title sequences on these new Star Trek movies. The planetary scenes are so garish and Las Vegas-like that they should have been painted onto velvet. And the rapidly changing camera moves around the CGI planets make them seem very small -like maybe the size of ping pong balls or something. Definitely not planets. Whoever is designing these sequences needs to lay off the crystal meth.
We watched this movie in a newly opened Santikos complex on the Western outskirts of Houston. The theater's six largest screens (more than 80') are equipped with Dolby Atmos. Unfortunately the Friday we visited Star Trek: Into Darkness had been moved onto smaller screens. Epic (mixed in Dolby Atmos), Hangover III (non-Atmos) and Fast & Furious 6 (non-Atmos) took over the big houses.
We watched the movie in 4K/2D in house #3. That screen was reasonably large, but sort of flat ratio, kind of curved and stretched wall to wall & floor to ceiling to mimic the IMAX Digital look. No masking. The movie was letterboxed across it. Projection was bright and sharp. But the picture would have looked better on a properly designed common height screen with masking and curtains. Note: Warren Theaters' IMAX Digital screens have curtains.
The big presentation problem: audio. It would have been pretty good if not for a badly set up or damaged center channel. The audio from the left, right, surrounds and sub-bass channels all were properly loud and dynamic. The sub-bass channel had some really good slam to it (like when the Enterprise would go to warp). If anything the rest of the channels were kind of bright (little too much treble). We had a hard time hearing the dialog. The problem was immediately present in the movie trailer pack. It didn't get any better during the movie. The dialog we were hearing seemed like it was coming out of the right channel mostly, and at a low level. Sometimes it would come more out of the left. Never from center and never at a proper volume.
I'm hoping Warren Theaters will pony up some dough for Dolby Atmos installations at their theaters. With the Moore Warren 14 getting so much news coverage from the recent EF-5 tornado strike, and the role it played being a triage center for victims, it would kind of make sense for Dolby to maybe call Warren and see what it can do for helping the theater get back to its proper form and maybe do some upgrades.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Mike, was just about to link to the same thing but didn't know how! Thanks ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic