Abrams on why Star Trek was shot on film and not video

[Scotness]

"Director JJ Abrams wanted to avoid 'that digital phony look' by shooting Star Trek on film."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/bestof ... _edit2.flv

- if that link doesn't work - look for the clip on the right hand side on the main page:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/

Scot

[alex-rus]

It's great that he still prefers film even for projects like that.

Film is still the leader in the most kinds of movie production and I hope it will be for a long time.

[Andersens Tears]

"Director JJ Abrams wanted to avoid 'that digital phony look' by shooting Star Trek on film."

http:-) Scot

I wonder if he also managed to avoid that oh so 'digital phoney look' that some people call CGI - give me a well lit model any day - bloody CGI can look as phoney as men in rubber suits sometimes - but then this being Star Trek, I guess you can't win either way!?!

Anybody else think CGI is a turn off? I can't really be arsed to pay to watch a film a computer made based around a bunch of planks and a blue screen!

Haven't we seen enough cars roll in slowmo over somebody’s head? Has this ever looked realistic? Would you stop and look at a car somersaulting over your head? I much preferred the simpler olden days of movie making when an obviously 'old' car was used for the stunt and somersaulted in the air because A) It was a real stunt and B) some bozo had left a heap of dirt and a wooden plank leading up it without thinking a car chase would be coming this way!

[Angus]

Careful use of *good* CGI can enhance a film. You can do things you realistically could never do with models or stunt performers.

But I am a believer that if it can be shot in real life or if a model can be constructed...then shoot something solid and real.

[Jmaxwell0003]

I don't know about you guys, but the latest wolverine films CG was terrible. His claws look so freakin fake it's aweful.

[super8man]

Anyone catch the last episode of LOST last night? HORRID CGI of that ginormous sub leaving the island. Seriously. They would have been better not showing it leave...sad sad sad.

[Andersens Tears]

There is a word 'Verisimilitude' and although I'm doing it here I don't think CGI can be mentioned in the same sentence, unless of course it's a negative comment.

There is something about the way light hits 'real' solid objects that somehow still absent from even the best CGI.

I guess I'm old fashioned, but prehistoric CGI had a certain, dare I say it 'filmic beauty'. Would you laugh at me if I mentioned..'Tron'?

Don't get me wrong, CGI is a useful tool - but I think its best when it is used in moderation and in the background to enhance the scene and not the bloody reason for the film in the first place. I mean a CGI main character? Albright, alright it's been 10 years since The Phantom Menace - but it still hurts!

[alex-rus]

Anyone catch the last episode of LOST last night? HORRID CGI of that ginormous sub leaving the island. Seriously. They would have been better not showing it leave...sad sad sad.

Yup, I'm a big LOST fan and I noticed that thing. The same was when the freighter was destroyed in the final of Season 4 if you remember. Actually these tricks looks like bad PC-game graphics.

[super8man]

No film can hold a torch to TRON. Simply the best graphics. Why? Because of the story!!

I missed the tanker scene (though I did see it). I give a grain of salt for scenes like that...but ANYONE should be ashamed at that sub scene...it may as well have been a MS Powerpoint animation....

[Jim Carlile]

"Director JJ Abrams wanted to avoid 'that digital phony look' by shooting Star Trek on film."

http:-) Scot

I wonder if he also managed to avoid that oh so 'digital phoney look' that some people call CGI - give me a well lit model any day - bloody CGI can look as phoney as men in rubber suits sometimes - but then this being Star Trek, I guess you can't win either way!?!

Anybody else think CGI is a turn off? I can't really be arsed to pay to watch a film a computer made based around a bunch of planks and a blue screen!

Nothing compares to optical effects. The last big production that used them was 2010, and they look great.

The worst thing about CGI is that it allows idiots to do any dumb idea they can think of right off the top of their heads.

About this Star Trek movie-- these younger actors-- they completely lack the gravitas and 'adulthood' of the original cast. There's no way that Kirk was running around like a low-class frat boy top gunner.

But that's the bane of the age: actors and directors whose conception of people is stuck somewhere in the middle of a really bad junior high school in an even worse neighborhood. It's made commercial TV and movies just unbearable these days.

Just compare 25-year old actors from 40 or 50 or 60 years ago, to now.

[MovieStuff]

The worst thing about CGI is that it allows idiots to do any dumb idea they can think of right off the top of their heads.

I could not agree more. As an ex-stop motion animator from waaaay back, I have to say that the CGI effects in the original Jurassic Park movie were the best that I have seen and that CGI, as an artistic craft, has only gone down hill since. I attribute this to the fact that JP was originally supposed to employ traditional stop motion but when the decision was made to use CGI in mid pre-production, they had to figure out a way to let experienced stop motion animators interface with the computer.

The solution was an ingenious thingy called a "D.I.D" or direct input device. It was essentially an animation armature that had digital positioning encoders so the stopmotion artist could move it into position and see, in real time on a monitor, a wireframe version of the puppet being animated. This was really the best of both CGI and stop motion because it allowed the manipulation of the puppet to take place in the physical world where gravity, balance and weight - guided by the intuition and eye of the artist - was combined with the most irreplaceable element -"serendipity". This gave a sense of solidity to the animated creatures that I simply have not seen since.

Once DIDs were abandoned in favor of mouse and keyboard actuations, the dynamics of CGI animated creatures totally changed because you now had kids doing the work that knew a lot about computers but didn't know squat about the physical world, since the most active thing they ever did was move their thumbs around on a PlayStation.

But, also, when the original Jurassic Park was created, the effort and processing time for a single CGI shot was numbingly slow, often requiring days to render out a single effect shot. This meant that, much like with physical effects or stop motion, many final decisions had to be made at the artists' level in the studio which the producer and director had to live with because a re-do would be too expensive and time consuming to stay on schedule. This gave the artists and craftsmen a level of autonomy close to that of the main actors, who would listen to the desire of the director and interpret that into a performance. The director has input but he is limited in how much he can control the nuances that make up the performance of that actor or actress. But faster computers and easier CGI programs eventually allowed directors, producers and even bean-counters to saunter into the effects department and make capricious changes in the morning and expect to see those changes after lunch.

As a result, the work on a single scene or character might be spread across a dozen or more CGI artists working overlapping shifts around the clock. This creates an assembly line atmosphere where the group goal of meeting the deadline becomes more important than retaining the vision of any single artist. Most importantly, this assembly line mentality means that every effects artist is suddenly replaceable, even in mid production. You would never do that with one of the lead actors.

Such cheap, push-button, bean-counter effects eventually lower the bar, in terms of audience expectations, and lead to shots like the horrid sub in "Lost". Or you end up with a flurry of CGI effects shots that seem to have zero meaning in the fabric of the story because the story, itself, has taken a back seat to the idea of quantity over quality.

....-- these younger actors-- they completely lack the gravitas and 'adulthood' of the original cast. .......

Just compare 25-year old actors from 40 or 50 or 60 years ago, to now.

Again, this is sooooo right on. Look at Montgomery Cliff at age 25 and you see a 40 year old man, in terms of maturity. I look at cast of the new Star Trek film and I see a bunch of punks. I'm sure the film will be fun and, I suppose, entertainment is really all you can ask of a movie when you get right down to it. But the latest Indiana Jones film was such a contrast in so many bad ways. CGI effects instead of physical effects, a really shallow script, and Shia LeBeouf is no Harrison Ford. In fact, a CGI Harrison Ford would have more depth than LeBeouf and his contemporaries.

Roger

[Andersens Tears]

But the latest Indiana Jones film was such a contrast in so many bad ways. CGI effects instead of physical effects, a really shallow script, and Shia LeBeouf is no Harrison Ford. In fact, a CGI Harrison Ford would have more depth than LeBeouf and his contemporaries.
Roger

Agreed. I think Harrison came off better than Brucey in Die Hard 4.0 - wasn't that just the Brucester and a blue screen all the way through? Oh and the obligatory car somersaulting over his head in slow montion .....

[MovieStuff]

Agreed. I think Harrison came off better than Brucey in Die Hard 4.0 - wasn't that just the Brucester and a blue screen all the way through? Oh and the obligatory car somersaulting over his head in slow montion .....

You know, Die Hard 4.0 didn't impress me when I first saw it but, after a second viewing, I'm liking it more and more. I really like the villain and the chemistry was good between the characters. The funky CGI didn't really bother me so much in the last Die Hard as it did in Indie, though. I think that, because Die Hard takes place in a modern setting, anything goes. It is hardly a "deep" movie so superficial effects are hardly the weak link in the chain for that kind of fare. But the Indie movies take place in a different time period and you sort of expect them to employ old style matte paintings and optical effects. CGI seemed as out of place in Indie as it did in Jackson's Kong remake. Like shooting a western on 60i video with lots of zooms. Yuk.

Roger

[Andersens Tears]

whoops - sorry - double post!

[Andersens Tears]

But the Indie movies take place in a different time period and you sort of expect them to employ old style matte paintings and optical effects. CGI seemed as out of place in Indie as it did in Jackson's Kong remake. Like shooting a western on 60i video with lots of zooms. Yuk.

Roger

I hear you Roger.

I wasn't generous enough to give Die Hard 4000 another shot. When you compare it with the optical effects and stuntwork in the first Die Hard you feel cheated - like asking for a Coke and getting a Diet Coke - it don't taste the same and it leaves a strange artificial taste in your mouth.

I somewhat agree with you on Idny tho - I remember thinking when I saw the latest film at the cinema - man, if they made 'Raiders' today - one of the most iconic scenes in motion picture history - Indy being chased by a giant stone ball -would be done with CGI no doubts about it! Where is the skill, art and craftmanship in that?