Star Trek XI Teaser

Max Gene said:
Sad, that the one preview was worth more than the entire movie. And I had wanted to like it...
Click to expand...
Cloverfield made my girlfriend carsick 1/4 of the way through and she ran to the bathroom and threw up. So even though we left the theater early, I was very pleased to see the trailer. The moment it showed the Bad Robot logo and then the welder's face, I just knew in my heart what I was looking at. It was a very good teaser. I got a tad emotional watching it.
 
I really hope that there is no shakycam in Star Trek XI. You have no idea how much I hope that there is no shakycam in Star Trek XI.
 
His girlfriend is a car?

Does that mean when you show up at your girlfriend's house she says "My mother, the car"?

(God, that was weak)
 
Ugh, it's release date has been pushed back to 8th May, 2009. :(

Variety said:
Paramount is pushing back the release of J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" from Dec. 25 to May 8, 2009, saying the pic's gross potential is greater as a summer tentpole.
Click to expand...
You would think they could have sorted this out before they released the teaser. Anyway, I suppose it gives them more time to polish up the effects.
 
BrynS said:
Ugh, it's release date has been pushed back to 8th May, 2009. :(


You would think they could have sorted this out before they released the teaser. Anyway, I suppose it gives them more time to polish up the effects.
Click to expand...

They actually shuffled their whole lineup around... and supposedly the reason is that they figure star trek will be able to make more money as a summer movie.
 
Vinman said:
I really hope that there is no shakycam in Star Trek XI. You have no idea how much I hope that there is no shakycam in Star Trek XI.
Click to expand...

shakycam should be banned
I'm not seeing cloverfield out of protest to that "style"
professional movies should not look worse than amature ones
 
Yeah, but even though Cloverfield is supposed to be like an "amateur" movie, it's still a terrible experience to watch. Any major studio movie that excessively shakes the camera around on purpose to convey "amateurism" or "excitement" (REALLY pointing my finger at the Jason Bourne series (and to a lesser extent Transformers), both of which would have been great EXCEPT for the crummy "action cinematography") is just infuriating. We (the public) and the studios pay way too much money for films that try and manufacture a feeling of excitement in a scene by attaching the camera to a martini shaker during the filming of action sequences, thereby making them virtually unwatchable.
 
Spertallica said:
Yeah, but even though Cloverfield is supposed to be like an "amateur" movie, it's still a terrible experience to watch. Any major studio movie that excessively shakes the camera around on purpose to convey "amateurism" or "excitement" (REALLY pointing my finger at the Jason Bourne series (and to a lesser extent Transformers), both of which would have been great EXCEPT for the crummy "action cinematography") is just infuriating. We (the public) and the studios pay way too much money for films that try and manufacture a feeling of excitement in a scene by attaching the camera to a martini shaker during the filming of action sequences, thereby making them virtually unwatchable.
Click to expand...

Right on. Imagine Star Trek II with the kind of shakycam that lazy directors use nowadays. Sure, the camera shakes when Enterprise or Reliant took a hit, but it wasn't shaking when Khan was crawling around to get to the genesis device. Ricardo Montalban quoting Captain Ahab? Boring! Shake that camera, make it DYNAMIC!
 
t.c.cgi said:
No, as in old-as-dirt Spock. There's going to be two Spocks (the other is the young-whippersnapper Spock, who is illogical and rash, and a terrible womanizer).
Click to expand...

Those must have been the days when he was obsessed with finding Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and stuff.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
That's stupid - the entire conceit of the film is that it's supposed to be amateur movie.
Click to expand...

but you can give the feeling of seeing it through the characters eyes without needing to make it hard to focus on what's going on
I've heard of some people actually getting motion sickness from watching it
 
privfan said:
but you can give the feeling of seeing it through the characters eyes without needing to make it hard to focus on what's going on
I've heard of some people actually getting motion sickness from watching it
Click to expand...

I didn't explain myself very well. It's not that I'm defending the 'shakycam' -- I have exactly the same problems with it as everyone else. It's the broader idea that you can judge a film *before you've seen it* based on the technique it uses that's stupid. Cloverfield may be the worst movie in the universe, but it's just plain ignorant to decide that without actually going to see it.
 
thing is, I was looking forward to seeing it until I found out it used so much shakey cam
I'll wait and rent it for $3 instead of paying 10 at the theater
 
What's up with Karl Urban being the doctor? he looks like a pretty tought guy....I saw him in the Doom movie looked pretty tough....but I thought he looked pretty nuts in LOTR, then again what about Chronicles of Riddick. he was pretty in there too? It's odd he would be cast as Doctor McCoy, but hey ya gotta make your 2,000,000 :D somehow I guess ....I swear he looks exactly like my brother tho!! I'll find a picture sometime n post it up even tho it would be pretty silly but I'm sure you guys would be like "Hey What's Karl Urban doing at the CIC?" Talking about Celebrities I wonder if any ever browse the CIC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top