Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Turtletrekker, Oct 1, 2013.
Oh for fucks sake. First they apologize for the underwear and now the lighting?!
Next thing it will be the destruction of Vulcan!
"They" didn't apologize for anything...JJ merely admitted that he went too far in a couple of shots with the lens flares.
But the subject of this thread tells me otherwise Tosk and I must keep on topic.
That poor dude at ILM having to remove the lens flares...
But they would have to do that anyways, wouldn't they? With the 3D conversion. Lens flares are deadly for 3D. They would have needed to remove them, convert the shot to 3D and add the lens flares back in 3D as well.
Probably because of and after somebody involved with the SW franchise told him to lay off on them. He did go overboard on them. It wouldn't surprise me if someone told him there will be NO lens flares in SW VII.
Now he needs to apologize for [insert continuity issue/stylistic choice/underwear scene/ship size/redesign/general Trekkie sacrilege here]!!!
I want him to apologize for Prime Spock dyeing his hair in STID. That's just not right.
It turns out he didn't! It must have been the lighting or something they altered in post-production. Take a look at grey-haired Nimoy filming the scene here:
I want him to apologize for 9/11... surely it must be his fault.
So Nimoy had to keep Spock tied with Kirk. Kirk has now died in two movies, so Spock has died in TWOK and now has dyed in STiD!
As great as it is that he's finally apologized, isn't it rather late? He's already well known around as the "lens flare guy" and parodies of Star Trek now include insane amounts of lens flare because of the Abrams movies, and IDW's comics even draw lens flares into the frames.
Years later, when people look back on the Abrams series all they're going to wonder is "what the hell was up with all that idiotic lens flare?"
I had no problem with Lens Flares in STiD. It was ST'09, where I was blinded by scenes on the bridge (Though, lens flares in the rest of the movie, that weren't against that stark white background didn't bother me in ST'09)
On the subject of lens flares (shaky cam, etc), this video I like (probably almost everyone aredy see it, but) is a perfect comment.
I really had no problem with the lens flares but, I think this late apology is just a backhanded way to infuriate those petty and mean spirited Trekkies out there that hate his movies just because. It's probably starting to be amusing to Abrams and co. as they count their money and plan the next film lol
While he did actually say "I apologize", the point is that he is able to recognize and be aware of his own weaknesses and excess as a film-maker. Such self-awareness can only be good for his future projects.
As one of those "petty" and "mean spirited" people who refuse to pretend bad filmmaking is good filmmaking, I am pleased to report that Abrams has failed to infuriate me. I actually find the "admitting you're an addict is the first step toward recovery" comment quite funny.
It does make me wonder, though, if Abrams has now birthed a new generation of rabid fandom who will see future movies by other directors and complain: "Where's the trademark lens flare that made the old movies great? This just doesn't feel like Trek to me."
The lens flares and shaky cam will definitely dating these films the most. The last decade in film and TV consists of truly bad cinematography, hiding behind the term "stylistic device". Shaky cam, over and underexposure, extreme noise, zooming, bad framing of shots. Not something to be proud of.
Decades went into the development of camera stabalization and lens flare reduction techniques. And todays DPs just say "fuck it" and make ugly images intentionally. I hate it.
I couldn't care less about the lens flares. In fact, I never noticed them at all until someone else pointed them out to me, and I still don't care. The fact that something like this has turned into such a massive debate is mind-boggling to me, its such a stupid thing to be arguing about.
Separate names with a comma.