The DrawingBoard

by **Doh** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:35 am

This makes the movie look VERY watchable, and Kirk less of a pretty boy. I like it!

by **jakob westman** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:11 am

Phew,
that's awesome!!

/ Jakob

by **Vinny K. Krotchy** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:17 pm

WTF?!?!?

I hate Star Trek... but that trailer looks amazing! :shock:

by **Gorgonzola** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:04 am

So some people in Austin got duped into seeing the new film. They were promised a restored 35mm Wrath of Khan screening, then when they got there, Leonard Nimoy came out and presented the new film...

So here's a link to a review of one of those lucky souls that saw it!

http://www.cybermonkeydeathsquad.com/movies/StarTrek/

by **daniel cox** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:33 am

Was privileged to be apart of the premiere in Sydney on Wednesday night, and all i can say is..WOW! this movie delivers on so many levels. I've gotta say that I'm not not a huge JJ fan ('Lost' lost me at the second episode, and MiIII was mince meat) but this film...

Look forward to reading some other board member reviews when the film gets released (which is still over a month away). Yikes!

by **Atomicpanda** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:28 am

The really big question is, is the new Kirk and Spock a hotter couple than the original two?

by **Captain Genius** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:18 am

wee...

let the slash begin

by **Atomicpanda** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:40 am

If I'm not whining about something I'm probably not being serious.

by **Toonimator** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:13 pm

daniel cox wrote:I've gotta say that I'm not not a huge JJ fan ('Lost' lost me at the second episode, and MiIII was mince meat) but this film...

GAH! 'Lost' is not JJ Abrams. He was involved in the beginning, that's it.

by **bangalore_monkey** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:14 am

Toonimator wrote:
daniel cox wrote:I've gotta say that I'm not not a huge JJ fan ('Lost' lost me at the second episode, and MiIII was mince meat) but this film...

GAH! 'Lost' is not JJ Abrams. He was involved in the beginning, that's it.

well, he said that he only got through a couple of episodes, that sounds like the beginning. plus i agree that MI 3 was awful. still excited to see this, even more so now

by **J0ey Lee** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:36 am

Who knows how the movie will turn out, but that is one incredible movie trailer.

by **Atomicpanda** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:14 am

Ok, my only serious comment so far, looks like about 87% of the movie will be covered in lens flares, some scenes completely washed out by them. I think that's overdoing it a bit.
http://www.scificool.com/another-star-t ... rs-dammit/ for example. They're also all over the current trailer up on the Star Trek movie site (Startrekmovie.com).

I think I'll be annoyed by that. Lens flares can be pretty awesome. My favorites being in the Indiana Jones films. Near the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wnOUH2jk8 as they ride past lights there's some nice flares. But, in both cases, it wasn't the entire film covered in them.

I still think it's a great looking film and I can't wait to go see it. I just think they're pushing the outer limit of acceptable use of lens flares.

by **HellboyOne** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:27 am

Atomicpanda wrote:
I still think it's a great looking film and I can't wait to go see it. I just think they're pushing the outer limit of acceptable use of lens flares.

Well...the whole bridge is covered in lightbulbs so it must have been a choice to have natural lens flares for these bridge scenes. I don't think any of them are added in post.

by **Atomicpanda** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:41 am

HellboyOne wrote:
Atomicpanda wrote:
I still think it's a great looking film and I can't wait to go see it. I just think they're pushing the outer limit of acceptable use of lens flares.

Well...the whole bridge is covered in lightbulbs so it must have been a choice to have natural lens flares for these bridge scenes. I don't think any of them are added in post.

I dunno. The space battles are covered in them too. So, I have to wonder if the CG was done to match the live action or if the live action was... enhanced to match the CG. Or both. Heck, even the logos and text have flares. It's like the early days of Photoshop in movie form.

But, like I said, they're just pushing it but I'm not sure that, for me, they've passed the point of too much. Still looks pretty bad ass.

by **jharker** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:52 pm

2 clips; http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/07/star-trek-clip-1-shot-of-love/

Abrams seems to have a hard on for college aged people partying it up. 'cause whenever I see anything made by him there's a scene with a bunch of 20-somethings at a bar or a party.

I figured since it's star trek it'd be harder to put a scene like that in, but what's the first clip I see of the film... :roll:

Guy even manages to turn Star trek into Felicity. So that's one director's trademark that can be checked off the list.

But if there's a scene where the Enterprise crew has an emotional group hug in slow motion with say piano music by Michael Giachinno in the background, I'm walking out of the theatre.

The DrawingBoard

Star Trek

Who is online