Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 14, 2013 - 12:19 AM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Off to see it this afternoon...any advice? Is the 3D worth it? I'm a fan of 3D but can't stand it when it's just used as a gimmick and ends up being a crushing disappointment (Iron Man 3, I'm looking at you).

Good 3D (for me): Captain America, Avengers, Green Lantern, Avatar, Amazing Spider-Man, Jurassic Park, Life of Pi, Tangled, Clash of the Titans, Jackass 3D, Prometheus, Dredd

Bad 3D (for me): Thor, Iron Man 3, Saw VII, Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter, Sanctum, Wrath of the Titans, Three Musketeers

So - is Star Trek Into Darkness worth it?

I should just clarify - I'm not judging the quality of the films in the lists above, just my opinion of the 3D.

 
 
 Posted:   May 14, 2013 - 4:35 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

Hi Greg

We saw it on Sunday in 2D (on the recommendation of one Mark Kermode) and we thoroughly enjoyed it. We booked on Sunday morning and were the first people who wanted to see it in 2D so could choose the best seats, and I estimate that the 200 or so seat screen was a quarter full, so a quiet audience.

As for the film itself, there were a handful of moments clearly shot (in 2D) with conversion to 3D in mind, but losing the effect didn't mar the film at all for me. In fact, I suspect the visuals may have lost some of the impact seen in pointyvision.

Obviously, I haven't seen it in 3D to compare, but the 2D was fantastic.

TG

 
 Posted:   May 14, 2013 - 4:53 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

My answer remains the same as in the Iron Man 3D thread: http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=95971&forumID=7&archive=0

Little interest in 3D, no interest in post-converted 3D. 2D it will be.

 
 Posted:   May 14, 2013 - 4:57 AM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

But, for me - who does have an interest in 3D (even post-converted films can have good 3D - see my list above) - just wondering what other people's thoughts as to the quality are smile

No matter though - have booked for 3D - will report back!

 
 
 Posted:   May 14, 2013 - 5:05 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

But, for me - who does have an interest in 3D (even post-converted films can have good 3D - see my list above) - just wondering what other people's thoughts as to the quality are smile

No matter though - have booked for 3D - will report back!



Well, if you're going to ignore both me and Mr Kermode, who on earth COULD put you off the
3D presentation? big grin

To be fair, I'm not completely against 3D, and we've seen a lot of films in that particular mode. The ones for which I think it worked best are Avatar (which would have been unwatchable if not for the then novelty of the extra dimension) and Tintin.

Most recent experience is The Hobbit, which looks so much better in 2D bluray than it did in HFR 3D.

TG

 
 Posted:   May 14, 2013 - 11:24 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

I enjoyed Into Darkness in 3D....it does get a little muddled on occasion, but plenty to see (and the wife laughed her socks off when I flinched on one occasion)...it would certainly go in my "Good 3D" list above.

 
 Posted:   May 15, 2013 - 6:04 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

STID (which sounds like a case of the clap) is one of the best post-conversion 3D movies I've seen. The 3D actually remains prominant throughout the film and is used very effectively and, sometimes, for a bit of fun (especially when spears are being thrown at the start of the movie).

There are a few bits where the 3D is annoying - Abrahms seems to like breaking the frame with just in-shot characters and his trademark lens flares don't really work well in 3D - but honestly I thought the use of 3D was overall fabulous. And thankfully, despite the "Darkness" of the title, the film is actually really well lit which very much helps the stereo effect.

As for the movie - it was an undemanding bit of fun for a couple of hours, not very well written (Kurtzman & Orci, so no suprise there), some great acting (Pine, Quinto and Cumberbatch), some terrible acting (Alice Eve - albeit terrible acting with nice breasts), fabulous FX and even a decent score too. But for me it still isnt Star Trek. Abrahms should be well suited for doing the next Star Wars movie because Into Darkness looks like one.

 
 Posted:   May 15, 2013 - 7:58 AM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

STID (which sounds like a case of the clap) is one of the best post-conversion 3D movies I've seen. The 3D actually remains prominant throughout the film and is used very effectively and, sometimes, for a bit of fun (especially when spears are being thrown at the start of the movie).

There are a few bits where the 3D is annoying - Abrahms seems to like breaking the frame with just in-shot characters and his trademark lens flares don't really work well in 3D - but honestly I thought the use of 3D was overall fabulous. And thankfully, despite the "Darkness" of the title, the film is actually really well lit which very much helps the stereo effect.

As for the movie - it was an undemanding bit of fun for a couple of hours, not very well written (Kurtzman & Orci, so no suprise there), some great acting (Pine, Quinto and Cumberbatch), some terrible acting (Alice Eve - albeit terrible acting with nice breasts), fabulous FX and even a decent score too. But for me it still isnt Star Trek. Abrahms should be well suited for doing the next Star Wars movie because Into Darkness looks like one.


Yes - the lens flares annoyed me just a little in 3D (I have nothing against them being there at all, but in 3D they are just a little distracting). Good thoughts - I tend to agree smile

 
 
 Posted:   May 18, 2013 - 12:58 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)


Mike and Greg - you can both bugger off because I want to see it in 3D as well, now, to compare for myself. So thanks for that. Grrrr...

 
 Posted:   May 18, 2013 - 1:34 AM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

**Buggering off.....**

 
 Posted:   May 18, 2013 - 3:39 AM   
 By:   Hercule Platini   (Member)

As with IRON MAN 3 - I saw it in 2D, and I didn't feel I was missing anything.

 
 
 Posted:   May 18, 2013 - 4:44 AM   
 By:   cinemel1   (Member)

Liked it in IMAX 3D. Outer space scenes were especially effective. Only criticism: a bit too loud! Aspect ratio changed throughout film. Was some of it actually filmed with IMAX cameras?

 
 Posted:   May 18, 2013 - 4:48 AM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

I saw the 3D yesterday and many of the "altitude" shots left me uneasy. Like jumping or hanging from high ledges etc. I thought the interior of the Enterprise still looked too clunky and resembled a brewery/water treatment plant. The film overall was enjoyable, just recycled.

 
 Posted:   May 18, 2013 - 3:04 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

As with IRON MAN 3 - I saw it in 2D, and I didn't feel I was missing anything.

Same here. I don't know if I could stand 3D lens flares wink

 
 
 Posted:   May 18, 2013 - 10:34 PM   
 By:   Morricone   (Member)

Saw it in IMAX 3-D and was impressed. I am usually of the mind that it is unnessary but Abrams seems to have put some thought into it's use. Recommended.

 
 Posted:   May 19, 2013 - 5:10 AM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

it's been stated elsewhere a lot, but if they're going to have characters like Chekov and Scotty and Sulu, one might think of casting actors who actually resemble the originals.. Chekov is almost like a SNL spoof.

 
 Posted:   May 19, 2013 - 5:15 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

it's been stated elsewhere a lot, but if they're going to have characters like Chekov and Scotty and Sulu, one might think of casting actors who actually resemble the originals.. Chekov is almost like a SNL spoof.

I don't necessarily agree that the actors have to resemble their TV counter-parts but what I do object to is when the characters are reduced to comedic versions of thise in the old series. Yes, Chekov was always there for light relief (or at least as much as could be extracted from a terrible actor like the awful Walther Koenig) but he wasn't a complete characature. Likewise with Scotty. But in the movies they are portrayed as idiots and that really, really grinds my gears.

 
 Posted:   May 19, 2013 - 5:23 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

I saw the 3D yesterday and many of the "altitude" shots left me uneasy. Like jumping or hanging from high ledges etc. I thought the interior of the Enterprise still looked too clunky and resembled a brewery/water treatment plant. The film overall was enjoyable, just recycled.

I thought overall the sets were a vast improvement over the '09 film, all except for the engine room, which looks like it is supposed to take place in another ship rather than the Enterprise. Leaving aside my absolute hatred of making the engine room look like the Enterprise uses Budweiser instead of Dilitium crystals, there is also the small point that the architecture of that area is totally at odds with the white, rounded look for the rest of the Enterprise interiors.

I can embrace the idea of the engine room being a much larger and more functional area than portrayed in previous incarnations but rewlly how hard would it have been just to green-screen in a futuristing background rather than using a brewery or wheverer the hell the scenes were shot? Something along the lines of the Krell lab in Forbidden Planet - absolutely huge and pulsing with raw energy.

 
 
 Posted:   May 20, 2013 - 6:41 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I saw the 3D yesterday and many of the "altitude" shots left me uneasy. Like jumping or hanging from high ledges etc. I thought the interior of the Enterprise still looked too clunky and resembled a brewery/water treatment plant. The film overall was enjoyable, just recycled.

I thought overall the sets were a vast improvement over the '09 film, all except for the engine room, which looks like it is supposed to take place in another ship rather than the Enterprise. Leaving aside my absolute hatred of making the engine room look like the Enterprise uses Budweiser instead of Dilitium crystals, there is also the small point that the architecture of that area is totally at odds with the white, rounded look for the rest of the Enterprise interiors.

I can embrace the idea of the engine room being a much larger and more functional area than portrayed in previous incarnations but rewlly how hard would it have been just to green-screen in a futuristing background rather than using a brewery or wheverer the hell the scenes were shot? Something along the lines of the Krell lab in Forbidden Planet - absolutely huge and pulsing with raw energy.


I agree again, the production design of engineering is just, well, it is really more location shooting than design. Considering the money they had for these films, location shooting for these interiors was a huge mistake. I really do not get it. It is the biggest flaw of both films.

As for the 3D, I found the pop-out of character bodies in dialog scenes to be really annoying and pointless. It is okay for pop-outs of character bodies, or space battles, flying obects etc in action scenes, I really do not need 3D dialogue scenes, it bounces me out of the picture. The scene in Admiral Marcus' office is particularly annoying when it is 3d.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.