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/albums/tmp2/tmphd2514.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd2307.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd2495.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd2517.jpg

Dual element diopter lens.

 

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?

 

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.)

 

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.

 

The dual-focus diopter lens was popular among certain film directors, including Wise, during the 1970s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_focus#Split-focus_diopter

Wise's diopter is no different that JJ's lens flares. Both involve a director using a somewhat popular lens technology in several of their movies, ultimately dating them but the director is primarily concerned with interesting compositions at the time.

 

No kidding? Wise made HINDENBURG, which is why I used that as a specific example, and put its use in context with respect to lighting (the part of my post you snipped out above.)

 

^^^

You seemed to be disagreeing with my parallel between lens flares and the diopter technique. If you weren't, great.

 

Which is appreciated, to be sure.

But you're attempting to analyze in the voice of expert opinion what are -- BY DEFINITION -- stylistic choices. It's like going to see Django Unchained and complaining that the Birth of a Nation scene isn't blocked properly and the lighting choices are inconsistent with the tempo of the dialog. Hence my point about directing: making movies is an art form, not a technical pursuit. Very good directors can get away with doing things wrong -- intentionally -- if they can make it work. That's one of the things about the use of shaky-cam during intense battle scenes. One of the earliest uses of that technique was when Spielberg did it in Saving Private Ryan; it worked pretty well at the time. One of the worst uses of that technique was almost every single scene in "The Bourne Supremacy" and also parts of Transformers, where the shaky cam gets so extreme that you can't tell who's fighting who until one of them hits the floor (and the car chase in Bourne Supremacy looks like home video shot on a camera phone glued to the back of somebody's wrist).

Style trumps technicality any day. As long as you don't forget your glaucoma medication (like my mother did the first time she saw it) the lens flare effect works pretty well.

 

I think you're just re-illustrating my point when you mention RYAN and then BOURNE. There's a world of dif between them in terms of how the technique is used, same for me when DIE HARD and TheAbrams are compared. (to cut off the smartass who is going to post 'so you are comparing DIE HARD TO SAVING PRIVATE RYAN,' followed by the emoticon of the hour, no, I am comparing the use of a technique in each of these and how well said technique was employed.)

My view is not at all original or out-of-the-box: you have to learn the rules in order to break them, or know when to try. Yet I don't even see basic cinematic grammar observed much anymore in movies, because it is almost like they are made in sentence fragments and run-ons (and yeah, I know this analogy breaks down because language doesn't allow for a direct linkage between written word and pics, which is why one of the latter is worth ... ) I think this is to the detriment of the storytelling, although I guess it is a way to throw up more of a screen against picking holes in the story for many.

I'm not suggesting that movies would benefit from being recut to look like 5 DAYS ONE SUMMER, Zinneman's last film, which probably runs 45 minutes before you even get a closeup and actually creaks along so slowly that you could get arthritis just watching it. And there are plenty of filmmakers who do actually make films without the distractions, which is how I would characterize the usually unmotivated and dramatically distracting lens flares, along with those who can't hold on a master shot for more than 2 seconds for fear their weak sense of composition will bore the audience.

The 'cut before it gets boring' mindset seems understandable from panicky editors turned directors (I'm looking RIGHT AT YOU stu baird, you don't deserve upper case letters as a director), but it seems very odd from people who actually are supposed to be able to set up a shot that is aesthetically satisfactory and tells the story.

 

Maybe you will if you both agree that it's a matter of opinion and that there's nothing objective or technical about it.

 

There isn't, of course.

 

Like Hell!

Though if you're happy seeing through a glass darkly, you need better eyes.

 

Do you always dismiss every subjective, deliberate artistic choice a director makes simply because it doesn't fit into the painting-by-the-numbers pattern you'd seem to prefer?

 

So you don't think it's a matter of opinion, then ?

I have no clue what you're saying, here.

 

I could be wrong, but I think it's his witty way of looking down on the current 3D-tech.

 

Nice way to kill a thread...



Anybody seen any other behind-the-scenes stuff lately?

 

Love it.