Am I the only person that likes 'lens-flare'?

[Ptrope]

As an amateur photographer consciously aware of what conditions are necessary for lens flare to actually occur, I found it annoying and childish.

My feelings, too; it felt to me more like someone who didn't know what they were doing, not to mention that it washed out so much of the onscreen detail. For me, it doesn't improve the action or the emotion to wash out the frame, especially with the frenetic camera movements. It's like Will Farrell was the cinematographer - "Okay, I need to have all the lights pointing at me and then I'm gonna crouch and run around a lot and point the camera at you all, mmkay? Good! Is anybody hungry? God, I love my job!" Why should the future look like an acid trip from the '60s, esp. when they keep telling us, "It's not the '60s any more and this isn't your father's Star Trek." Well, yeah, if he was stoned, it is.

 

[TheGodBen]

I normally don't mind a bit of lens-flare and rarely notice it, but it felt far too excessive in this film. During the most important scene of the movie, Kirk and Spock's conflict on the bridge, I counted at least three times when the lens-flare took over the majority of the screen.

I have glasses for distance but I don't use them all the time, I mainly have them for driving, so I'm not used to wearing them. I wore them in the theatre because I knew I would be a fair distance from the screen, and when the screen would go all bright it caused a glare on my glasses and it began to give me a slight headache. So yes, this movie actually did cause me physical pain.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I'm wondering if I'm the only person who didn't like them. Used sparingly, it can add some realism, but this film was exploding with them. I will concede though, not distractingly so, it blended well with the overall visual style of the movie. That's where my critique would be aimed. I didn't really care that everything was out of focus, blurred and surrounded in a strange glow that made me feel as if the whole thing was filmed in the Nexus; Which actually would explain a lot. The Enterprise bridge in particular, bathed in that blue pink light, reminded me of the last fifteen minutes of the Abyss. Again this is simply my response to a question put forth, overall, I enjoyed the film, it certainly had style, it just wouldn't have been my first artistic choice to make everything everyone worked so hard on, so hard to see. Honestly though, I'm more dissapointed that I couldn't make it through this with out saying hard on.

 

[Sector 7]

I can understand that some would have a physical problem with the lens flares. I, too, have that problem. It just never bothered me to my surprise.
The clips online had lens flares that bothered me, but I think that was the difference in translation to computer (not sure of the right term for that).

 

[Amaris]

no issues at all. I love it. it looks fresh and all sparkly!

Ditto.

Oh, and avatar win!


J.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Ok, maybe I'm not the only person.

 

[apenpaap]

the first five minutes I loved them. After that, I hate them. Same goes for the shaking camera. Still, this movie has much larger issues. (And yet, I like it...)

 

[DarthAkuma]

I like lens flare!

It's exciting!

 

[Trekker4747]

Lens flares can work if done right and done well.

They were done too much in this movie. Far too much.

The TV series "Firefly" they were used very well.

But there were times in this movie where I wanted to put a lens-hood over the theater's projector.

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

I liked it a lot. Made me really feel like I was there... sorta.
By that I mean, you know how movies in the 70's did everything practically when it came to visual effects, they had lens flare. Then in the 80's to now, there is never any lens flare, just super detailed models. The lens flare makes me feel like there really is a working phaser, Enterprise, etc.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

They seemed in line with using "Sabotage" during the car sequence.

 

[Prons]

I did not notice lens flare in this movie.

 

[EnsignRicky]

The thing that gets me is the incredible amount of work the FX guys had to do, just to look like the didn't do any work. Imagine how time consuming it is to match all of your effects to an endless series of herky jerky film clips that don't last more than five seconds a piece. It also cant be too gratifying to have all your painstakingly detailed creations, props and injokes lost in an oversaturated fog. Again, not a horrible viewing experience, but I would definately like to see someone bring a more traditional style to the sequel. I'm not too familiar with JJ, but if this is the extent of his range, I say bye bye.

 

[indranee]

no issues at all. I love it. it looks fresh and all sparkly!

Ditto.

Oh, and avatar win!


J.

all credit to the Squigster.

oh, and I have another one that urbandk made that I might unleash a little later on...

 

[anothertrekfan]

I never really noticed them. Maybe I liked it.

 

[Nardpuncher]

It's one of those things where I didn't mind them at all, but I can understand completely how someone could be turned off by them.

Like them or not, I'd say it's a fact that there were a lot of them!

 

[DontFeedPhil]

I agree with everyone that they were used waayy too much...I mean c'mon

 

[James Bond]

I never noticed them until I saw people in here whining.

Regardless, I don't mind them. In a way, they help to make it seem a little more "real."

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

I noticed it for about the first 30 seconds. After that, no problem.

 

[HighteeHeller]

I didn't notice them the first time until i read about them here. The second viewing i started to notice, though by the end of the film i had completely forgotten about them altogether. On the third viewing they started to bother me a bit because by then i had noticed just how over used they were. Didnt lessen the enjoyment of the movie one bit. Can't wait to see it again.

I've never ever noticed a lens flare in anything before this.