View Single Post
Old June 13 2013, 04:29 AM   #100
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: concept art and set photos!

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
At no time did I imply that I have to trick myself into ignoring the lens flares. I merely said that since I was engrossed in the events of the film, they didn't distract me from it or take me out of the story in any way.
This is a guy who's about to do Star Wars. This is not "My Dinner with Andre". The film had a lot of money spent on it and it is absolutely screaming for people to be engrossed in the look of it. Especially now with the 3D.

For someone to say that they are so engrossed in the story and the drama that the look is inconsequential is, well, let's just say it's not how I think most people view that film. It generally polarizes people into either loving the look or hating the look.
mos, what is the purpose of your repeated misrepresentations of what Locutus has said?

His first remark concerning lens flares:
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
I think the overuse of lens flares detracts from the visual appearance of the bridge.
Funnily enough, when I was paying attention to the dialogue and events of the movie, the lens flares barely even registered with me. Besides, they're far less prominent in STiD than they were in the previous film. They're an occasionally amusing --if overused-- joke about Abrams Trek, not any real detriment to the film, IMO.
Next, your comment:
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
when I was paying attention, [...] not any real detriment to the film, IMO.
I think you're in the minority on that opinion. I don't think anyone actively LIKES the lens flares (besides the CG artists on a few Trek fan productions that seem to feel obligated to jump on the bandwagon). Even the way you're wording it above comes across as if you merely trick your mind into ignoring them. In other words, they ARE a visual distraction. So let's just concede that this is an element of JJ's filmmaking that is generally reviled and which, despite negative audience feedback, he just doubled-down and continued, as a testament to his Lucas-like Han-shoots-first stubbornness.
And his reply:
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
when [...] IMO.
Even the way you're wording it above comes across as if you merely trick your mind into ignoring them.
That's a completely misleading interpretation of my comment to favor your own preferences, which unfortunately seems to be something of a theme with you. Speak for yourself all you like, but don't reinterpret what I'm saying to suit your own ends, please.

At no time did I imply that I have to trick myself into ignoring the lens flares. I merely said that since I was engrossed in the events of the film, they didn't distract me from it or take me out of the story in any way. If I had gone into the film with a negative attitude instead of a critically neutral, anticipatory one and was looking for flaws to rip apart, I would no doubt have been able to convince myself that they were a horrible distraction. Funny how the mind works that way.

In other words, they ARE a visual distraction.
No. That's the opposite of what I said.

So let's just concede that this is an element of JJ's filmmaking that is generally reviled and which, despite negative audience feedback, he just doubled-down and continued, as a testament to his Lucas-like Han-shoots-first stubbornness.
I will concede no such thing, and doubling-down implies that he used the lens flare effect even more, when I said he seemed to use it far less in this film versus the last. Regardless, filmmakers should not have to compromise their work based on the inconsistent whims of the audience. And that includes George Lucas, my dislike for the Greedo scene notwithstanding.

Plus, your comparison of a aesthetically motivated camera trick that has no bearing on the plot of the film and has been included in it from the start to a major alteration in the established behavior of a chief character and events of a film after said film had already been hugely popular for twenty years is completely ridiculous.
And your misrepresentation continues:
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
I said he seemed to use it far less in this film versus the last.
How would you know if you were too engrossed in the story to notice them? Were you keeping count?

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Regardless, filmmakers should not have to compromise their work based on the inconsistent whims of the audience.
Stubborn auteurs can either lead to masterpieces like 2001 that were underappreciated at first or verifiable train-wrecks like Heaven's Gate. JJ ain't no Kubrick.

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Plus, your comparison of a aesthetically motivated camera trick that has no bearing on the plot of the film and has been included in it from the start to a major alteration in the established behavior of a chief character and events of a film after said film had already been hugely popular for twenty years is completely ridiculous.
This thread is about the art of the picture, and the cinematography (i.e. lens flares) is a valid topic. You're the one stressing the other facets.
Is he really? (Leaving aside for a moment that the thread was originally about concept art and not cinematography,) as can easily be seen above, Locutus' comments proceed organically from throwback's initial remark concerning what he felt to be "overuse of lens flares". The participant stressing "other facets" appears to be none other than yourself. Locutus has patiently addressed each "other facet" and each overinflated contention which you've seen fit to introduce, yet still you continue in attempting to misrepresent what he's said.

To what end?

mos6507 wrote: View Post
People do have a right to dislike a picture based solely on its look, even if it has other redeeming qualities.
Of course you may dislike it - for any reason you choose, or for no reason at all. But simple dislike is not the claim you've been making.

So, again: exactly what is it that you're about here, mos? I ask for the simple reason that it doesn't look very much like honest discussion.
__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote