RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,891
Posts: 5,476,600
Members: 25,050
Currently online: 509
Newest member: aloraptor

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 11 2013, 04:37 PM   #91
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: concept art and set photos!

The lens-flares never bothered me the way it seems to have bothered some folks here.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 05:06 PM   #92
gerbil
Captain
 
Location: USA
Re: concept art and set photos!

Belz... wrote: View Post
gerbil wrote: View Post
I really like the lens flare look? I also like things like CG shots where you see bits of "dust on the lens" and so forth.

It adds another dimension for me.
Yeah. Although, of course, since we're supposed to be omniscient observers, I don't see why they have to treat the camera like there's a real film crew filming the Enterprise. Don't mind it, I just don't think it's more realistic than not, in this particular case.
Well, for the CG shots it's more realistic because no lens is perfect. There will always be some distortion or dust.

And, if you were standing on the bridge of the Enterprise, just looking around, you'd still see lens flares in your eyes depending how close the light source is.

It's supposed ground you in reality and I think it works pretty well.
__________________
"Life should be revered simply for the fact that we need to be thankful that we are currently able to consciously appreciate what we are going through right now. ... This moment that we're having right now is highly significant." -Maynard James Keenan
gerbil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 09:29 PM   #93
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: concept art and set photos!

gerbil wrote: View Post
Well, for the CG shots it's more realistic because no lens is perfect. There will always be some distortion or dust.
Yes, yes, but only if someone's filming it. As I said, since we are omniscient observers, it doesn't fully work for me.

And, if you were standing on the bridge of the Enterprise, just looking around, you'd still see lens flares in your eyes depending how close the light source is.
No, eyes don't work like cameras.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 01:43 AM   #94
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: concept art and set photos!

beamMe wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
So let's just concede that this is an element of JJ's filmmaking that is generally reviled
Sorry, but the rantings of a select few fanbois do not amount to "generally".
It's photographically corrupt.

To use lens flares on occasion for effect can be a superb creative choice (I'd say the first DIE HARD is an example of going almost to the brink of too far with them, but they are well-orchestrated, run out for key moments); to overuse them, and do so arbitrarily, is just bad photography.

There are industry folk who have cottoned onto this with a vengeance, but even when somebody like Edgar Wright gets excited by this (was very disappointed in him on this one thing), he still limited his (over)use on SCOTT PILGRIM to just the scenes that were shot in the wider format. Seth Rogen's new movie is apparently lens flare city too, which is the only reason I can think of not to see it, because EVERYbody who worked on it thinks it is funny as hell.

I just hope this plays itself out as a trend faster than some of the other visual disasters of the last 15 years, like the destruction of real-life color (in favor of some nearly monochromatic rendering) that seems almost required at this point. The ET & FLASHDANCE shoot-in-smoke thing went on for the better part of a decade, but at least it wasn't omnipresent.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 04:40 PM   #95
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: concept art and set photos!

trevanian wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
So let's just concede that this is an element of JJ's filmmaking that is generally reviled
Sorry, but the rantings of a select few fanbois do not amount to "generally".
It's photographically corrupt.

snip
I can't bring myself to care.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 10:19 PM   #96
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: concept art and set photos!

trevanian wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
So let's just concede that this is an element of JJ's filmmaking that is generally reviled
Sorry, but the rantings of a select few fanbois do not amount to "generally".
It's photographically corrupt.

To use lens flares on occasion for effect can be a superb creative choice (I'd say the first DIE HARD is an example of going almost to the brink of too far with them, but they are well-orchestrated, run out for key moments); to overuse them, and do so arbitrarily, is just bad photography.
And you, with your illustrious and respected career directing major motion pictures, would be the one to know, right?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 12:38 AM   #97
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: concept art and set photos!

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post

Sorry, but the rantings of a select few fanbois do not amount to "generally".
It's photographically corrupt.

To use lens flares on occasion for effect can be a superb creative choice (I'd say the first DIE HARD is an example of going almost to the brink of too far with them, but they are well-orchestrated, run out for key moments); to overuse them, and do so arbitrarily, is just bad photography.
And you, with your illustrious and respected career directing major motion pictures, would be the one to know, right?
No major motion pictures directed that I'm aware of, but I think trevanian may be given credit for knowing what he's talking about, yes.

However, he is not the topic here, so let's return to it now, please.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 01:59 AM   #98
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: concept art and set photos!

trevanian wrote: View Post
It's photographically corrupt.
How does that work ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 03:10 AM   #99
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: concept art and set photos!

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.

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.

People do have a right to dislike a picture based solely on its look, even if it has other redeeming qualities.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
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.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 03:08 PM   #101
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: concept art and set photos!

Because Trek films have never used a stylistically dated lens/filming choice before.

Oh, right...

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tmphd2514.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tmphd2307.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tmphd2495.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tmphd2517.jpg

Dual element diopter lens.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 09:35 PM   #102
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: concept art and set photos!

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post

Sorry, but the rantings of a select few fanbois do not amount to "generally".
It's photographically corrupt.

To use lens flares on occasion for effect can be a superb creative choice (I'd say the first DIE HARD is an example of going almost to the brink of too far with them, but they are well-orchestrated, run out for key moments); to overuse them, and do so arbitrarily, is just bad photography.
And you, with your illustrious and respected career directing major motion pictures, would be the one to know, right?
I have a pair of eyes, an appreciation of what has gone before, knowledge on the subject, and have been hands-on with equipment -- and might possibly even possess a modicum of taste.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 09:42 PM   #103
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: concept art and set photos!

trevanian wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post

It's photographically corrupt.

To use lens flares on occasion for effect can be a superb creative choice (I'd say the first DIE HARD is an example of going almost to the brink of too far with them, but they are well-orchestrated, run out for key moments); to overuse them, and do so arbitrarily, is just bad photography.
And you, with your illustrious and respected career directing major motion pictures, would be the one to know, right?
I have a pair of eyes, an appreciation of what has gone before, knowledge on the subject, and have been hands-on with equipment -- and might possibly even possess a modicum of taste.
Same for me -- in all respects -- and I disagree.

Now what?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 09:47 PM   #104
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: concept art and set photos!

SonicRanger wrote: View Post
That is an example of an inept use of an effect best reserved for still photography that has only rarely really worked well in films.

It isn't a matter of being stylistically dated, just that it looks bad, both then (ogod SO bad in the theater you wanted to check your contact lenses) & now. TMP's use of soft or bounce lights didn't help, either.

A lot (but by no means all) of the shots in HINDENBURG that rely on it work because there are hard edges and sharply defined lighting that create a good 'seam' for the split. But you've still got the eye-blink/weirdness/huh? effect of two objects in focus and area between them not being in focus, which makes it look like a matte shot or like somebody sneezed on the lens. It's fine for psycho/alien POVs or dream sequences, but really undercuts visual credibility, thus distracting from the storytelling.

Look at older ILM shows where they have a view out the window of an airplane past the pilot, and you'll probably see stuff that also doesn't have the right carry and fall-off focus wise, because the pilot will be sharp, but the instrument panel and window frame will be soft ... yet the matted-in background will be razor sharp. This was even a problem on more recent pics, I think THE SIXTH DAY was another where you saw this kind of thing, because the DP didn't listen to the VFX supe on set and didn't light the copter cockpit in a way that would carry focus up to the window frame.

If you want 'stylistically dated' then maybe you should look at Coppola's DRACULA, which used hand-cranked cameras at times (and to pretty good effect.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 09:57 PM   #105
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: concept art and set photos!

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And you, with your illustrious and respected career directing major motion pictures, would be the one to know, right?
I have a pair of eyes, an appreciation of what has gone before, knowledge on the subject, and have been hands-on with equipment -- and might possibly even possess a modicum of taste.
Same for me -- in all respects -- and I disagree.

Now what?
Nothing, we're talking at cross purposes (big surprise there) and neither is going to convince the other.

But note that I am not using the wholly indefensible 'you with your...' line of irrelevancy that is trotted out so regularly across this BBS as if it is the last trump to end discussion or discredit dissenting views.

To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single director of major motion pictures to participate in argument threads on trekbbs in its history, so anybody invoking that is essentially trolling (or is it spamming this week? never really understand that stuff here), because they are asking a question that everybody already knows the answer to and isn't contributing any new info or opinion, making the post valueless.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.