For those who complain about lens flare.
- Thread starter GalacticWierdo
- Start date
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
They didn't have to be added in post, because he had them added "in camera" by having people off camera shine flashlights into the lenses. It would be one thing if the flares came from legitimate light sources (the sun, a light fixture, etc)...bad cinematography, but somewhat ok. But washing out half of shot after shot after shot with the damn things is just stupid. Poor cinematography does not a "stylistic choice" make. That way lies Michael Bey.
I think it's pretty damn complicated to convert a film to 3D when there's lots of lens flares obscuring the content.
The cinematography was good, and the flares were a fine choice.
Oh, and it's spelled B-a-y.
If Abrams makes all the same sorts of choices he made with the first film, he's quite likely to satisfy almost all the audience and make the studio very happy...and a few folks won't like it and will complain endlessly on the Internet. There's no reason anyone should care about that.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM[/yt]
I'll be in my bunk.
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
Legion, filmmakers are taught to AVOID lens flares in film school because they disrupt and distort the filmed image. There is no two ways about it: they are bad filmmaking.
JJs using them ()and shakey-cam and swoopy-cam and all those other overused cliches of the "found footage" or "documentary" so-called style of photography is nothing more than a gimmick to make a film "look fresh" by deliberately doing things wrong and passing it off as artistic choice.
But of course in your world anyone who disagrees one jot or tittle with the almighty JJ is a "Trekkie", and to be disregarded.
Well guess what: Trek will never regain it's dominance as a media franchise based on Joe Sixpack going to a overly glitzy but intellectually shallow movie every 3-4 years. To get Trek back on TV, and making movies every other year, and all the things that made the franchise Paramount's "bread and butter" maker for nearly 2 decades they are going to NEED the fanbase.
And to get the fanbase they are going to have to do better all across the board, esp on the technical side.
JJs using them ()and shakey-cam and swoopy-cam and all those other overused cliches of the "found footage" or "documentary" so-called style of photography is nothing more than a gimmick to make a film "look fresh" by deliberately doing things wrong and passing it off as artistic choice.
But of course in your world anyone who disagrees one jot or tittle with the almighty JJ is a "Trekkie", and to be disregarded.
Well guess what: Trek will never regain it's dominance as a media franchise based on Joe Sixpack going to a overly glitzy but intellectually shallow movie every 3-4 years. To get Trek back on TV, and making movies every other year, and all the things that made the franchise Paramount's "bread and butter" maker for nearly 2 decades they are going to NEED the fanbase.
And to get the fanbase they are going to have to do better all across the board, esp on the technical side.
I'd bet that the only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board. And the people who frequent this board are the last people Abrams, Paramount, CBS, Moonves, or whoever the future holder of the Star Trek franchise keys need to consult in order to create hit movies and TV shows.
You complain that Abrams' technique is bad film-making. Well, despite that opinion he's still a hugely successful filmmaker. Where's your hugely successful film?
You complain that Abrams' technique is bad film-making. Well, despite that opinion he's still a hugely successful filmmaker. Where's your hugely successful film?
The film did fine though, better than most Trek has in years. The things you are complaining about are personal choices, that's all.
I happen to really like JJ's film and I appreciate him for making an awesome movie and reviving the franchise. The man knows how to make a movie. Star Trek 09 and the last 2 Mission Impossibles are proof of that.
But that doesn't change the fact that the lens flare are too frequent and seem shoved in the film for some cheesy effect. The sets, the cgi, the shots are all beautiful. Why add things to distract from a film?
The lens flares are no different than Michael Bay (Transformers trilogy, bad boys 1 and 2 and Pearl Harbor) throwing in over the top explosions sequences every time something is happening in his movies. Like we get it man, you think violence is cool and you want to shove it up in the audience's face. Or Zack Snyder (Suckerpunch, Watchmen, and 300) putting in multiple scenes with the action slowed down. You get to the point where you're like "oh wow Snyder is doing another slow-mo scene, what a rare occurrence". Snyder is directing the new Superman movie, and I can guarantee you he's going to have a scene in it where Superman flies superfast in super slow-mo.
To me these things come off as really obnoxious. I'm fine with them used sparingly, but Abrams, along with Bay and Snyder's habits/gimmicks in film making have been called out by fans and critics and parodied in other media. The 2010 Dr. Who Christmas Carol episode parodied Abrams' film style, complete with lens flares in the first 2 minutes of the episode.
The flares might (IMO) have been a bit overdone in certain interior scenes, but it was never a big deal for me. I thought it was pretty effective in the Vulcan spacedrop scene, but that's just me.
Noting too, that every film-maker (and other alleged creative persons) has their own little quirks. Granted, there are a number where these tendencies seem to be grotesquely overdone. Mr Bay and his gratuitous explosions come immediately to mind; and there are others that go w-a-y overboard on gore as another example. Mr Abrams and his lens flares - well, it could be a lot worse.
Noting too, that every film-maker (and other alleged creative persons) has their own little quirks. Granted, there are a number where these tendencies seem to be grotesquely overdone. Mr Bay and his gratuitous explosions come immediately to mind; and there are others that go w-a-y overboard on gore as another example. Mr Abrams and his lens flares - well, it could be a lot worse.
I took no notice of the flares until I read some comments concerning them and re-watched the flick with those words in mind. Now my Trek 2009 viewing experience is:
Just kidding.
I love the movie and do not attribute Mr. Abrams' use of light (even at his flare-happiest) to any sort of artistic failing or deception. There is not a single relevant expression made or action preformed by any character that is obscured by the use of a lens flare. Despite all the flashlights and mirrors, everything pertinent to the story is there for the open-minded viewer.
This is my only problem on the subject. Overuse of flares makes discerning the depth of a particular set somewhat hard to gauge and can adversely effect one's sense of immersion. I feel for any Trek fan unable to enjoy the film for this reason and hope that the next outing finds a pleasant middle ground between the vision of its director and pleasure of its fans.
Just kidding. I love the movie and do not attribute Mr. Abrams' use of light (even at his flare-happiest) to any sort of artistic failing or deception. There is not a single relevant expression made or action preformed by any character that is obscured by the use of a lens flare. Despite all the flashlights and mirrors, everything pertinent to the story is there for the open-minded viewer.
This is my only problem on the subject. Overuse of flares makes discerning the depth of a particular set somewhat hard to gauge and can adversely effect one's sense of immersion. I feel for any Trek fan unable to enjoy the film for this reason and hope that the next outing finds a pleasant middle ground between the vision of its director and pleasure of its fans.
There you go.If anyone saw the DVD extras, they know how much JJ loves the lens flares. They'll be a part of Star Trek for as long as he directs.
"Nice flare!"
these are great
Most of the fanbase is on board. The complainers are a tiny fraction of Star Trek fans, but they make so much noise and talk so incessantly to one another that they think they're a movement.
Most of the fanbase is on board. The complainers are a tiny fraction of Star Trek fans, but they make so much noise and talk so incessantly to one another that they think they're a movement.
WE WILL CRUSH YOU!!!!!
Most of the fanbase is on board. The complainers are a tiny fraction of Star Trek fans, but they make so much noise and talk so incessantly to one another that they think they're a movement.
WE WILL CRUSH YOU!!!!!
Depends - how many Galaxy class fans you got on your side?
Ah, well. There are always people who can only be happy when they are UNhappy about something.
Similar threads
