Will the new Picard series have lens flares? What do you think or wish? Trek movies and 'Discovery' use lens flares. Unfortunately. I hate that. I just watched Discovery episode 8 of season 2. They just went overboard with lens flares. These flashes take you away from the story, sometimes I start to wait for the next one and that's not what watching television is about. I'm not that fond of 'Disco' and sometimes feels that "okay, no more 'Disco', this is annoying".
I honestly cannot understand the lens flare hatred. It’s not like it hasn’t been around since the invention of photography.
Yeah, but it wasn't usually cultivated as a fake artifact of filmmaking the way it is now. It's gone from a by-product of pointing a camera at a light source to something to intentionally splash across actors faces for no real reason other than it supposedly looks cool. (Or some think it subconsciously tells you that what you're watching is more realistic, like the fake dust on the lens they add during effects sequences.)
It’s a tool in the filmmaker’s toolbox. I can understand a lower or higher degree of tolerance for its use (quantity and quality) but it’s not inherently bad. I guess I have a high tolerance for it as it’s never been bothersome to me.
Not a big fan of lens flares. Like anything I can ignore it unless it gets to be too much. Star Trek (2009)....way too much. STID was much better in that regard. They were there but I didn't find it distracting. With Star Trek (2009) it was lens flares galore. It really started getting distracting. I started thinking, why the hell are there so many flashes, I can't even see what's going on in half the scenes. I remember a time when flares were considered a mistake. But then I prefer stable steadicams and smooth filming. Not to say shaky cameras don't have a place. But say in a seen where it's a dialogue scene I have a hard time understanding why you want the camera shaking and have lens flares for something like that. Not a huge fan of that either. I find it ruins some great effects shots. Like Star Trek (2009) there were some great space effects shots that I thought were ruined by 'space dust'. I understand that less than lens flares. In space shots, ok, I can see a few flares here and there as they pan near a star. But why would there be space dust? It made no sense. Like I said, STID was much better in that regard. Abrams was more judicious about flares and dust. That's all I really ask. It doesn't need to be every shot.
Of course, each person thinks differently about it, just like every other production decision. I agree that lens flares are not inherently bad. But just because something is not inherently bad doesn't mean isn't sometimes bad.
Really? Tell that to Alice Eve. During Carol Marcus' plea to her dad to destroy her with the Enterprise, you almost can't see her because of the flare!
I thought it was much better than Star Trek (2009) in that regard. I'm not saying they weren't there...just that Star Trek (2009) seemed to have them in 90% of the movie. STID maybe had it down to 50% (I honestly don't know the true breakdown, but it didn't seem nearly as prevalent)
Lens flare. We'll still have to hear about this for at least 10 years after they actually stop using it. New Star Trek series in 2035... "They'll have lens flare!" No they won't. "Yes they will!" It'll never be lived down. "Lens flare!"