The fact that Simon Pegg is playing scotty pretty much says they are marketing this film to non star trek fans. i don't think James Doohan and immediately see Simon Pegg playing Scotty.
Who the fuck is Simon Pegg anyways? and what does he have to do with Star Trek. James Doohan Scotty was a loved character on an old tv series i grew up with.
This other guy is from some crap horror comedy and is the new Jar Jar Binks in Trek 2009.
I'm sure all the kiddies Love Pegg but i could not give a fuck about the guy as he had not been in a single movie i have watched and enjoyed. Wow he is some actor who is hip to the teen or twenty somethings crowd whatever not my generation, i could not give a fuck about it.
I am a fan of Alias and Lost but i don't think Abrams is the guy for this movie. and Ryan Church's enterprise is an Obomination. The dialogue is cringeworthy just Like these dudes work on transformers and is too much like episodes 1-3. Also the cgi is way too over the top and just looks wrong to me. I like the old ILM stuff all this computer stuff is wonky and rather silly and expensive looking. Looks like a cartoon.
Read Abrams Script for Superman and then tell me he is the right guy to be doing star trek.
That shit was like a hundred times worse than Superman Returns.
When i think of movie Star Trek. I think of Proberts Enterprise. I think of Douglas Trumbell and John Dykstras work, and the later work of Ken Ralston at ILM.
I don't think of the guys who worked on the prequels and would not know design if it bit them on the ass. They design movies like videogames.
Cgi lacks realism and Believablility. It is still in its infancy and does not yet even approximate reality. CBS digitals enterprise Lacks the weight and scale the original physical model had. The model was far more detailed. Models look more real because they are a physical reality and the naked eye knows the difference. Cgi is 1's and 0's in a computer.
Just like if you took a picture of a real object like the whitehouse for instance it looks more real because it is real. Unlike an image faked in a computer.
Yes movies are a fictional Universe of fictional characters and places and objects that don't really exist. But traditional efects at this point still look more real. Maybe within the next ten years digital chracters will look more lifelike, digital objects and similated reality and enviroments. Right now they have hit a ceiling on what they are able to do.
I have seen 3-D animated movies and the art is still not there yet.
It really comes down to what you prefer. I prefer hand drawn animation as an art over computer animation. I am still a fan of computer animation and cgi to a lesser extent than the traditional way of doing things. A compromise of the 2 is the best at this point. Eventually they will no longer need to go shoot anywhere and no longer need actors except for performance or voice over as 100% of a movie could be made on a computer. They would only need to capture an actors likeness digitally, and get elements photographicaly that they then would manipulate in the computer.
They tried shooting digital background Plates for Indiana Jones IV for instance instead of Going on Location to shoot it with the actors and it looked awfully fake.
Why do miniatures Bluescreen, glass mattes, and hand built models look less fake than green screen and live action composite i don't know. Someone just feels wrong when i was watching the movie. You could see and tell the artists manipulation pulling you out of the movie. The real art is to not show the work to call attention to itself and augment the story. It is almost as if you could personify the special effect it is jumping up and down and yelling "Look at me! Look at Me! I'm A Special Effect!". At what point in the history of making movies did the movie become a showcase for Special effects, and the story and characters were forgotten.
Movies are like a competition between the effects houses to see who will get the Academy Award, and how they can one up each other. Just Like each Star Wars film had to outdo the last in terms of Special effects. There is a danger in the focus being shifted to the effects and the story being forgotten. Yes the artists deserve recognition but their job is to make the story work not to draw attention to themselves.
It would be like a magician getting on stage and showing the audience how all the sleight of hand was done. and so the magic dies. The audience has to be made to believe it is real in the context of the movie and its story for 2 hours or the art is ruined.
The Prequels did not lack stunning Effects what they lacked was subtlety in terms of using the effects to further the story. But it is not the digital Artists fault that the scripts were technically brillliant but lacked a good story.
A good movie always depends on starting with a good screenplay. Then you get a good director and good actors to follow. Good actors cannot salvage a terrible script and an incompetant director who is poor at dealing with actors and getting a performance.