For those who complain about lens flare.

[Patrickivan]

Overused is right. I recentally caught part of Trek XI on TV, Kirk's barfight against "Cupcake" and his gang. There's a lens flare practically ten seconds. You have to do specific work indeed to include a lens flare every ten seconds in a scene set in a darkened bar at night.

I will say, Abrams Lens Flare were brilliantly parodied in the Doctor Who 2010 Christmas special.

Ya- the problem with lens flare is that it does realistically imply that a camera is recording the events in the story, like a reporter being there catching the action. Otherwise, those lens flares wouldn't be there... So it's actually a dumb technique to include them purposely unless the intent is to suggest a third party, in-story, observer capturing the events in question.

I will say, Abrams Lens Flare were brilliantly parodied in the Doctor Who 2010 Christmas special.

Don't think I've seen that yet - got a link?

Here, have a look at this ...

I stripped out the audio and slowed the sequence down slightly.

Sweet... I can't wait to see this!

Don't think I've seen that yet - got a link?

Here, have a look at this ...

I stripped out the audio and slowed the sequence down slightly.

Heh, okay - I see what you mean. Got a nod to goosenecks and barcode readers in, besides. (And Pond's looking all right. )

Pond is always looking all right!

If anyone saw the DVD extras, they know how much JJ loves the lens flares. They'll be a part of Star Trek for as long as he directs.

"Nice flare!"

There you go.

Rick Moranis!

"Okay, like, good day, eh? I'm Bob and this is my brother Doug... Welcome to the Great White North, Eh?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZCI39NWZ5g

 

[Therin of Andor]

Am I the only one who loved the lens flares? I thought they added to the movie. I hardly ever even consciously noticed them. I don't get why people hate them so much

I'm with you. Barely noticed them, esp. not during the first screening. They seemingly added a unique difference and urgency to the cinematography.

 

[G2309]

bit of a change from the really darkly shot movies. It must have been a challenge to transfer a bright 60s style lighting into a modern film.

 

[Maurice]

The idea that lens flares are "mistakes" went out a long time ago. Cinema verite and documentary shooting styles made it acceptable to allow such "flaws" in the photography for stylistic reasons. The people who complain about lens flare now would have bitched about "flashed" film back in the 70s. The only "mistake" is if it's there unintentionally or inconsistently.

 

[Aragorn]

The idea that lens flares are "mistakes" went out a long time ago. Cinema verite and documentary shooting styles made it acceptable to allow such "flaws" in the photography for stylistic reasons. The people who complain about lens flare now would have bitched about "flashed" film back in the 70s. The only "mistake" is if it's there unintentionally or inconsistently.

Don't you understand though? There's only one proper way to correctly portray Star Trek and there's only one proper way to film it, and the only person in the world who knows of these proper ways is the singular anonymous fan that has nothing to do with Star Trek!

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I personally thought the lens flares were an interesting touch to the cinematography.

 

[Patrickivan]

The idea that lens flares are "mistakes" went out a long time ago. Cinema verite and documentary shooting styles made it acceptable to allow such "flaws" in the photography for stylistic reasons. The people who complain about lens flare now would have bitched about "flashed" film back in the 70s. The only "mistake" is if it's there unintentionally or inconsistently.

Don't you understand though? There's only one proper way to correctly portray Star Trek and there's only one proper way to film it, and the only person in the world who knows of these proper ways is the singular anonymous fan that has nothing to do with Star Trek!

Or the ones that say it should be done with flares.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would hardly have even noticed the lensflares if I hadn't heard all the complaining.

 

[Sindatur]

I would hardly have even noticed the lensflares if I hadn't heard all the complaining.

I wonder why it's so much worse for some us? I had no problem with it in the darker scenes (barely noticed it in the bar. In Engineering it wasn't so bad, but, came close to bothering me), but, on the bridge, amongst all that stark white, it blinded me, and literally made me see white spots before my eyes.

 

[M'Sharak]

The idea that lens flares are "mistakes" went out a long time ago. Cinema verite and documentary shooting styles made it acceptable to allow such "flaws" in the photography for stylistic reasons. The people who complain about lens flare now would have bitched about "flashed" film back in the 70s. The only "mistake" is if it's there unintentionally or inconsistently.

Don't you understand though? There's only one proper way to correctly portray Star Trek and there's only one proper way to film it, and the only person in the world who knows of these proper ways is the singular anonymous fan that has nothing to do with Star Trek!

Or the ones that say it should be done with flares.

Only I really can't recall seeing anyone say that it should be done with flares, or that filming it in any other way than with copious lens flares throughout would have been offensive and wrong.

On the other hand, I have seen the reverse.

I've seen people adamantly refuse to acknowledge that use of flares might constitute a valid artistic choice for a filmmaker. I've seen people state with assurance that the presence of lens flares in the 2009 Star Trek is concrete proof of the incompetence of J.J. Abrams as a director and filmmaker and that he should on that basis never be put in charge of a Star Trek project or anything else ever again. I have seen people state in complete seriousness that there is a way that Star Trek should look and that they're quite certain lens flare isn't part of that.

(No, those aren't exaggerations. Those things have all been said—on this board and in this forum—on more than one or two occasions.)

 

[newtontomato539]

I just watched Lost in Space remake, The Thing remake, The Thing prequel, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Babylon 5, BSG reboot and the Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country now with lensflare.

In Sony 3D.

Lensflare! All! The! Way!

Trekker since 1972

 

[beamMe]

Legion, filmmakers are taught to AVOID lens flares in film school because they disrupt and distort the filmed image. There is no two ways about it: they are bad filmmaking.

JJs using them ()and shakey-cam and swoopy-cam and all those other overused cliches of the "found footage" or "documentary" so-called style of photography is nothing more than a gimmick to make a film "look fresh" by deliberately doing things wrong and passing it off as artistic choice.

Who is passing it off as an artistic choice?
It IS a deliberate artistic choice.

If filmmakers would go by the book - as you seem to suggest - films would have stopped being visually interesting a long time ago - not unlike a large chunk of Trek before the reboot.

 

[The Castellan]

Legion, filmmakers are taught to AVOID lens flares in film school because they disrupt and distort the filmed image. There is no two ways about it: they are bad filmmaking.

JJs using them ()and shakey-cam and swoopy-cam and all those other overused cliches of the "found footage" or "documentary" so-called style of photography is nothing more than a gimmick to make a film "look fresh" by deliberately doing things wrong and passing it off as artistic choice.

Who is passing it off as an artistic choice?
It IS a deliberate artistic choice.

If filmmakers would go by the book - as you seem to suggest - films would have stopped being visually interesting a long time ago - not unlike a large chunk of Trek before the reboot.

And when was that?

 

[Patrickivan]

Don't you understand though? There's only one proper way to correctly portray Star Trek and there's only one proper way to film it, and the only person in the world who knows of these proper ways is the singular anonymous fan that has nothing to do with Star Trek!

Or the ones that say it should be done with flares.

Only I really can't recall seeing anyone say that it should be done with flares, or that filming it in any other way than with copious lens flares throughout would have been offensive and wrong.

On the other hand, I have seen the reverse.

I've seen people adamantly refuse to acknowledge that use of flares might constitute a valid artistic choice for a filmmaker. I've seen people state with assurance that the presence of lens flares in the 2009 Star Trek is concrete proof of the incompetence of J.J. Abrams as a director and filmmaker and that he should on that basis never be put in charge of a Star Trek project or anything else ever again. I have seen people state in complete seriousness that there is a way that Star Trek should look and that they're quite certain lens flare isn't part of that.

(No, those aren't exaggerations. Those things have all been said—on this board and in this forum—on more than one or two occasions.)

It's an opinion one way or the other. And we see it over and over again where anyone who says anything even remotely perceived as being negative against new trek just get reamed here... So people have their backs up against the wall and get defensive and offensive from the get-go. What do you really expect? And not everyone who is against lens flare goes any more ape shit over it then people who are for it- so your argument just doesn't fly.

On the other hand, I have seen the reverse.

And that alone is an incredibly biased statement that just proves my point. Because of course everyone has seen that. Just like we've seen defenders of lens flares be just as adamant. Defending it as being more real.

But hey, it is 0540... And when I wake up, my opinion may completely change. Hell, I didn't mind the lens flare when the miner looked up at Sybok in STV. But then again, I didn't mind STV so much (Again- it is 0540- so I may change my mind when I become lucid)... Heh

 

[beamMe]

Legion, filmmakers are taught to AVOID lens flares in film school because they disrupt and distort the filmed image. There is no two ways about it: they are bad filmmaking.

JJs using them ()and shakey-cam and swoopy-cam and all those other overused cliches of the "found footage" or "documentary" so-called style of photography is nothing more than a gimmick to make a film "look fresh" by deliberately doing things wrong and passing it off as artistic choice.

Who is passing it off as an artistic choice?
It IS a deliberate artistic choice.

If filmmakers would go by the book - as you seem to suggest - films would have stopped being visually interesting a long time ago - not unlike a large chunk of Trek before the reboot.

And when was that?

What do you mean?

 

[horatio83]

On the one hand lens flares make especially CGI shots more lively and realistic, on the other hand it looks like a cheap gimmick that might very well get filed one day under 'film fashion' instead of 'film history'.

 

[Hythlodeus]

On the one hand lens flares make especially CGI shots more lively and realistic, on the other hand it looks like a cheap gimmick that might very well get filed one day under 'film fashion' instead of 'film history'.

you might confuse lens flares with 3D

 

[horatio83]

Nope.

 

[backstept]

I bet everyone who hates lens flare also hates Mass Effect :P

 

[22 Stars]

I think lens flare is to the 2010's what 'Shaky Cam' was to the 00's... people will get used to it. And old people will complain and then die off.