# Advice on Star Trek



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I will not be putting any spoilers in. However I do advise seeing it in 2D. The 3D was post production, and has an issue. Especially on the bridge, where there are lots of lights and flares, you'll see rays of light that look like they are from one you see behind a character, but rays from that light show in front of their shoulder. In one scene in particular, the central speaking characters face is practically obscured by light. I don't know how much better 2D would be but do think it would be an improvement.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Thanks for letting us know. Post production 3D is very frustrating. Sometimes it's good, sometimes its really bad. There seems to be only one company that can do it right and they did Jurassic Park 3D and Titanic 3D both of which are very good.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

This is an interesting site

http://realorfake3d.com/

What surprises me is that The Great Gatsby isn't post production.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

IMAX. Native IMAX footage. That is all.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

David Ortiz said:


> IMAX. Native IMAX footage. That is all.


While I agree with you for the most part, sometimes native IMAX footage can be difficult on the eyes. Just really depends on the movie. Luckily most of them are under 45 minutes.

I really liked how the the 3D was done in The Amazing Spiderman. The cameras were the same distance apart as your eyes making the 3D very easy to watch over the 2 hours and very natural looking. Very little "in your face" stuff.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'll see it in 2D non-IMAX. The thing about IMAX is it destroys the cinematographer's work. It's really cool to see the content on such a large screen but the job of the cinematographer is to make sure that you are looking in the right place all the time.

I regret seeing Transformers 2 in IMAX for that reason. I regret seeing it at all, to be honest... but that's another story.

I am looking forward to this movie of course; a bad day watching a Trek movie is better than most good days. I'm sure that it will have highs and lows and some parts won't hold up to the 20-30 viewings I will probably give it in the next few years, but that's ok. Mostly I hope it's good, immersive fun that gives you just a little to think about when you walk out the door.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I just wish the sound system in the regular theaters was as good.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

Most all theaters are completly DIGITAL now.... Wont ever be as good as it was in my opinion!!!!! (I dislike digital media with a passion)


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Theaters really won't have a choice. Fox already said that they were going to cease distributing movies on film, it would be digital only. Even our local drive in converted. If they want to stay in business and show new movies, they had to do it eventually.

I think though to have a good presentation on film, you need a good projectionist. Those are becoming rare.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

To have a good presentation on film you have to eliminate all of film's risks - breaks, scratching and everything that goes along with physical analog media.


----------



## Bronxiniowa (Apr 14, 2013)

Saw it this weekend on Des Moines' only remaining large-screen theater with enhanced Dolby sound. (2D) The sound can be a little over-the-top, as well as some of the action sequences. But I will say, as a long-time Trek fan, having seen the debut in 1966, I wasn't expecting to like the film, and I did. At least it resembled the _Star Trek_ concept enough that I wasn't shaking my head in dismay. Big plus: Zachary Quinto makes a very believable youthful Spock trying to figure out who he is in the vacuum of a destroyed culture.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Saw it this weekend. Best movie of the year for me, but it's only May. 

Oh sure, it could have been better. It could have been more original. But it was a Trek movie and I think that if you buy the basic conceits of pretty much every Trek movie, such as no large organization could actually operate like that, science doesn't work like that, and basically there has never been a day as eventful as the one shown in the movie... then it's cool. 

My only complaint is I wish it were longer. I felt like I had movie ADD... I never had enough time to really parse the events of the film. Just the events of the first 20 minutes could actually fill a movie.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I have some petty problems with the reboots (like it should take longer than a couple of minutes to go from Earth to Vulcan) but they really don't distract from my enjoyment.

What DOES distract is all the lens flares that make me feel like the whole movie was shot through a gigantic refractive window pane.

I'd love to see an option on a future Blu-Ray to *eliminate* 95% of the lens flares.


----------



## Bronxiniowa (Apr 14, 2013)

Read that the lens flares resulted from the 3-D added in post-production. Apparently, the entire film was first shot in IMAX, then 3D was added later. Saw it in 2D and didn't notice anything untoward.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

J.J. Abrams and some of the cast talking about filming in IMAX. http://www.imax.com/community/blog/behind-the-frame-an-imax-look-into-star-trek-into-darkness/


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Bronxiniowa said:


> Read that the lens flares resulted from the 3-D added in post-production. Apparently, the entire film was first shot in IMAX, then 3D was added later. Saw it in 2D and didn't notice anything untoward.


Probably was, at least them being pushed to the foreground. The lens flares themselves are intentional, and even he admits he overuses them.


----------

