|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 14, 2013 - 1:19 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 15, 2013 - 7:04 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 - 8:58 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As with IRON MAN 3 - I saw it in 2D, and I didn't feel I was missing anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 20, 2013 - 7:41 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|