Seriously...why?

[Patrickivan]

Didn't really notice the lens flares until people started bitching about it here. Not a big deal. At. All.

This whole site is about discussing one thing or another afterall...

Why does it have to be a big deal to talk about something?

So what is worthy of discussion in the Star Trek fantasy universe that's here to purely entertain us? I'm not asking to be a prick about it. I'm genuinly curious what you consider to be discussion worthy.

Let's have it. Enlighten me.

 

[doubleohfive]

I doubt that was the intent behind number6's post. I know it wasn't the intent behind mine.

All I meant was that there are far better things to discuss than minutiae like lens flares and why they annoy us. At most, "that was annoying" is really all the subject warrants.

Now, if you want to get into the critical thinking element of it, from the standpoint of storytelling, or film-making technique, that's another story. But mostly people just chime in with "ZOMG I HATE THE LENZ FLARES!!!!"

That kind of thing gets old, real fast.

 

[Greg Cox]

But mostly people just chime in with "ZOMG I HATE THE LENZ FLARES!!!!"

That kind of thing gets old, real fast.

Or at least after two years . . . .

 

[doubleohfive]

^

 

[Hythlodeus]

I loved the lense flares. They gave the movie a very specific feeling and mood. And I agree that it added to the 'constructed realism' of the movie. Especially the lense flares in space and on the bridge. Also, I think, the lense flares were their take on the weird lightning on the TOS bridge

 

[M'Sharak]

In the months before the movie came out, there was a certain amount of discussion here about the lens flares, based upon what we'd been seeing in the trailers and TV spots. A couple of examples of flare in those were pretty pronounced, and there was concern that too many of these would be distracting.

I can recall noticing one or two flares in the establishing shot of the Kelvin exterior and one or two more in the seconds where Capt. Robau enters the bridge and takes charge... and then the story was on and I forgot to pay much attention to flares after that. That was my experience, anyway: lens flare pretty much failed to be the distraction people were worried it would be.

Your mileage (and what bugs or doesn't bug your eyeballs) may vary.

 

[T'Girl]

None of us are really in any position to say "Hey STOP DOING THAT IT" as we aren't the ones making the films.

Those who are bothered by the flares are in a better position than the ones who made the films to commit. Why? Because they are the consumers of the product, and therefor the perfect critics of said product.

Remember ... the customer is always right.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ Maybe it is because I have worked in customer service that I have always snickered about the invalidity of that "rule". Remember- in 1969, the vast majority of potential consumers of the "Star Trek" product overwhelmingly rejected it!

 

[Broccoli]

Abrams had a fever. And the only prescription was more lens flare.

 

[Arpy]

^

Some thoughts:

I think that for that that Trek movie the flares were inspired. They're interactive. I remember moving in my chair trying to get a better look at the "bright" new future unfolding before me.

To begin with, they added a distance between the viewer and the film that was very effective. This was a neo-nostalgia-fest after all, right down to the archaic microphones in the courtroom scene. The distance they created gave the past an irreproachability...you couldn't get comfortable enough to judge its archaism.

Plus, they made the (now old) future "shine" for contemporary audiences. Hence also the glitzy iBridge (no disrespect to the excellent iPhone) and young smart-ass Kirk.

They also gave the movie a larger than life majesty that our feeble unheroic mere 21st century eyes couldn't fully behold.

They wouldn't have worked with a more intimate tale where the point is to draw you in emotionally, or one that was more "realistc" where you're supposed to feel like you're actually in space with the ship.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I vastly prefer lens flares to the weird double-focus lenses in TMP:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=341&page=5

Check out any of those images with Kirk's face. Now that makes my eyes hurt.

So that's what's making the picture look so strange. Thanks for clearing this up!

I always wondered why some parts of the background were blurry and others were not. I always assumed that there was something there that they didn't want us to see, so they blurred it away.

 

[Amaris]

The lens flares never bothered me for a moment. I also liked the lens schmutz Abrams and Co. had in a number of scenes in the film. It made things feel much more visually tactile and realistic.

 

[doubleohfive]

None of us are really in any position to say "Hey STOP DOING THAT IT" as we aren't the ones making the films.

Those who are bothered by the flares are in a better position than the ones who made the films to commit. Why? Because they are the consumers of the product, and therefor the perfect critics of said product.

Remember ... the customer is always right.

"The customer is usually a moron and an asshole."
--Larry David, "The Ida Funkhouser Roadside Memorial"



I understand that its the audience that is reacting to the lens flares. And if you re-read my post beyond the bit you quoted, you will see that I acknowledge that. I also simply said that while we can discuss these things, focusing so much on the nitty gritty itty bitty details like this tends to be, largely, a waste of energy.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

And the lens flares shall rule the Earth!

 

[Patrickivan]

In the months before the movie came out, there was a certain amount of discussion here about the lens flares, based upon what we'd been seeing in the trailers and TV spots. A couple of examples of flare in those were pretty pronounced, and there was concern that too many of these would be distracting.

I can recall noticing one or two flares in the establishing shot of the Kelvin exterior and one or two more in the seconds where Capt. Robau enters the bridge and takes charge... and then the story was on and I forgot to pay much attention to flares after that. That was my experience, anyway: lens flare pretty much failed to be the distraction people were worried it would be.

Your mileage (and what bugs or doesn't bug your eyeballs) may vary.

It's really widely varied I think. Here, we have a forum that allows us to talk about little things like that. The general public (and I'm just using people I know as an example) were both irratated by it and weren't. But they're just not as vocal because they're not as fanish as we are. In other words, they just don't come to sites like this to yay or nay things.

^ Maybe it is because I have worked in customer service that I have always snickered about the invalidity of that "rule". Remember- in 1969, the vast majority of potential consumers of the "Star Trek" product overwhelmingly rejected it!

And then the fans spoke again and we had another 20 years of movies and series...

^

Some thoughts:

I think that for that that Trek movie the flares were inspired. They're interactive. I remember moving in my chair trying to get a better look at the "bright" new future unfolding before me.

To begin with, they added a distance between the viewer and the film that was very effective. This was a neo-nostalgia-fest after all, right down to the archaic microphones in the courtroom scene. The distance they created gave the past an irreproachability...you couldn't get comfortable enough to judge its archaism.

Plus, they made the (now old) future "shine" for contemporary audiences. Hence also the glitzy iBridge (no disrespect to the excellent iPhone) and young smart-ass Kirk.

They also gave the movie a larger than life majesty that our feeble unheroic mere 21st century eyes couldn't fully behold.

They wouldn't have worked with a more intimate tale where the point is to draw you in emotionally, or one that was more "realistc" where you're supposed to feel like you're actually in space with the ship.

I get the intent behind it. However a compelling story line, decent filming, and great special effects would have been equal to adding a gimmick. And I'm not saying gimmick to be a douche.

And it was a fun story. I've got the DVD and seen the movie at least 10 times already. I'll pick apart the crap I don't like, yet it doesn't stop me from still enjoying the movie.

I vastly prefer lens flares to the weird double-focus lenses in TMP:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=341&page=5

Check out any of those images with Kirk's face. Now that makes my eyes hurt.

So that's what's making the picture look so strange. Thanks for clearing this up!

I always wondered why some parts of the background were blurry and others were not. I always assumed that there was something there that they didn't want us to see, so they blurred it away.

I hated that too- it happened all the time in movies.

None of us are really in any position to say "Hey STOP DOING THAT IT" as we aren't the ones making the films.

Those who are bothered by the flares are in a better position than the ones who made the films to commit. Why? Because they are the consumers of the product, and therefor the perfect critics of said product.

Remember ... the customer is always right.

"The customer is usually a moron and an asshole."
--Larry David, "The Ida Funkhouser Roadside Memorial"



I understand that its the audience that is reacting to the lens flares. And if you re-read my post beyond the bit you quoted, you will see that I acknowledge that. I also simply said that while we can discuss these things, focusing so much on the nitty gritty itty bitty details like this tends to be, largely, a waste of energy.

How is it any more a waste of energy then commenting on someone wasting energy? It's really a hypocritical point of view to bitch about bitching.

And the lens flares shall rule the Earth!

Okay- We have sun glasses for that. But if Shakey cams rule too, stop the Earth, I'm getting off. Because otherwise, I'll

 

[Squiggy]

Lens Flare = FLOP

 

[jgalley]

lol..it's hilarious the things the haters come up with to complain about this movie.

face it. FANS killed Trek by not supporting it. Claim it's the writers faults all you want. Fans killed it.

Now those sames fans aren't happy on the Trek they get. When the fact is this is the ONLY trek we WILL get. If nuTrek fails, then trek is dead...at least until CBS sells the rights. if they ever do.

so why don't we grow up and stop coming up with idiotic reasons to complain about the new universe.

FANS are why they rebooted.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Remember ... the customer is always right.

The "customer" has spoken; the film was a huge success.

 

[Joker]

face it. FANS killed Trek by not supporting it.

Trek's doing fine without them.

 

[Ryan8bit]

face it. FANS killed Trek by not supporting it. Claim it's the writers faults all you want. Fans killed it.

I don't understand this line of thinking. If all fans must slavishly devote themselves to a franchise, then the people running the franchise don't have to work very hard to maintain it, therefore resulting in less quality for everyone else. This is partially what happened.

Remember ... the customer is always right.

The "customer" has spoken; the film was a huge success.

Yeah, honestly I don't think we'd be seeing anybody asking for their money back because there were too many lens flares (or at least if we did, they'd be mocked).

I didn't really mind the flares, but in Super 8 they were a little bit much.