The damn lens flares!

[StarTrek1701]

Every scene from this movie seems to have two different lens flares! I mean what the fuck? I am scared now that this great movie (deduced from the clips I have seen, not final judgment) will be ruined for me at least from the blinding lens flares it seems to have. Would it have been so hard to not have lens flares at every scene? Some flares are there for over a second! I know Abrams likes some gimmicks but come on! Why put those unnecessary flares? The scene between Kirk, Spock and Scotty on the bridge is specially hard to watch. I'd had to close my eyes rapidly quite a few times and that's from watching it on a monitor. I shudder to think how it would be in the movie theater!

 

[Sector 7]

Someone has said it is a problem that will not be as obvious on the big screen. I know urbandk and Sky have seen the premier... maybe they can answer this question.
I have been curious about this as well. It is odd that none of the reviewers have mentioned it so far.

 

[npsf3000]

Whats wrong with lens flare?

 

[davejames]

I'm sure it's the kind of thing you get used to after the first 5 minutes.

Just like the jittery, documentary-style camera work you see in a lot of other movies (and TV shows) nowadays.

 

[indranee]

I didn't even notice it in the movie. maybe once or twice, that's all.

 

[Sector 7]

Whats wrong with lens flare?

I'm sure it's the kind of thing you get used to after the first 5 minutes.

Just like the jittery, documentary-style camera work you see in a lot of other movies (and TV shows) nowadays.

It's something I've never enjoyed. Quarantine was a decent movie, within its genre, but the shaky-cam thing makes it near impossible for me to watch again.

 

[StarTrek1701]

I didn't even notice it in the movie. maybe once or twice, that's all.

You've seen the movie?

 

[indranee]

yep.

 

[Star Treks]

Maybe I'm just weird, but I really don't mind them. I like the look. It does look "hip" to me. If they really bother you, you have to treat them the same way you'd treat eye floaters: just try not to think about them too much and eventually they won't bug you after a while, at least, certainly not as much as if you obsess about it!

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I think it's funny that even the credits and release date in the trailer has lens flare. Isn't abundant lens flare seen as kind of a cheesy technique these days?

 

[Borgminister]

"these days"?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I don't quite get why that's amusing, help me out here.

 

[Kpnuts]

I think Borgminister meant, they were always cheesy. Photoshop lens flares that serve no purpose are a big no no.

As for the ones in Star Trek, I don't mind them at all. Although I question the need for them literally every ten seconds, particularly shots where... there's no actual light source!! wtf?

 

[urbandk]

I didn't notice the flares either. I guess I wasn't looking for them.

 

[Cky]

I saw Mission Impossible 3 a few weeks back, it would have been an OK movie if Tom Cruise wouldn't have been in it (I swear he's only been a good actor in Tropic Thunder), and that film has a lot of lense flares and I've got to admit, I hardly noticed it, and when I did I thought it was used in a great position.

I think if you dwell on something like this, you're looking to not like the film, which is purely idiotic for someone to do (no offence). I mean, if you're going to dwell on things like that why don't you rant about the uniforms being a slightly different colour?

 

[Nardpuncher]

I saw Mission Impossible 3 a few weeks back, it would have been an OK movie if Tom Cruise wouldn't have been in it (I swear he's only been a good actor in Tropic Thunder), and that film has a lot of lense flares and I've got to admit, I hardly noticed it, and when I did I thought it was used in a great position.

I think if you dwell on something like this, you're looking to not like the film, which is purely idiotic for someone to do (no offence). I mean, if you're going to dwell on things like that why don't you rant about the uniforms being a slightly different colour?

Hey...it doesn't mean he's a hater...his avatar is from the movie and he said he's very excited about it so don't do that thing where we think if someone complains about something that they are against the new movie.

I will thank you for not reverting to that hackneyed thing of replying to something like this with the straw man's " OMFG THEY RAPED ME WITH THE CANNON!!!!!!!11"

 

[saddestmoon]

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! MY EYES - MY EYES!!!!!!!!!



I can see the headline now:

Len's flares causes nostril-flaring - and in some cases, blindness - among some Trek followers... see a doctor if flaring persists, or cease and desist watching Star Trek XI - as some may find it disagreeable to their constitutions...

[wink, wink!]

 

[Cky]

He does seem to be complaining about the lense flare .

My point however, was that another JJ directed film (Mission Impossible 3) had a lot of lense flare in the same style it's been used (as far as I can see from the trailers). And Mission Impossible 3 I actually enjoyed (except for Tom Cruise) and didn't notice the amount of lense flare throughout the film unless I actively looked for it.

On another note, the writers of Mission Impossible 3 wrote the new Star Trek movie, and as theres no Tom Cruise, I don't see the problem!

 

[Bad Atom]

From all the clips that have been released so far, it does seem a bit distracting. I bet it's not as noticeable on the big screen, so I'm not too worried about it. Man, people here get worked up about stuff...

 

[Tralah]

Huh, I never heard of the term lens flares until I read it here, and I was so engrossed in the trailer and clips that I saw (before I swore off watching anymore today) that they didn't register. If they manage to distract me during this movie I've been looking forward to so long, I'm blaming everyone here! Fortunately, it looks like it won't be an issue though according to the ones who have seen it.