I do wear glasses on a regular basis, and while I do get some glare it never takes up almost the entirety of my vision. Then again, I've never been on the bridge of the Enterprise, maybe it's just that bright.
Am I the only person that likes 'lens-flare'?
- Thread starter BorgPhil
- Start date
I am reminded of COPS television show. It made it seem more like a live action documentary-- as if the ships cameras were recording what happened, as it happened.
Here, here!! I agree!!I was fine with the lens flare, but I was appalled at the lack of male nudity in the film.
More naked guys!
yes. This should've been a poll lol
EDIT: errr... this was in response to the thread question, not the above post
Aw, c'mon- you know you agree with us!
I saw it for the first and only time in IMAX today (3rd viewing overall). And the lens flares annoyed the hell out of me.
I didn't notice the lens flares.
I noticed the lens flare when the film first started, only because I was looking for it, but I quickly forgot about them and took no notice of them as the movie progressed...
...along those same lines, was their a lot of (or any) "shaky-cam"? If there was, I didn't notice.
...along those same lines, was their a lot of (or any) "shaky-cam"? If there was, I didn't notice.
Oh. THIS is new!
number6
Vice Admiral
How many people think this film is a collossal failure because of lens flares and shaky cam?
Really?? Did something like this actually ruin the whole experience for you??
Considering that lots of films use this style, what movies DO you like?
I never noticed the lens flares in Star Trek until someone started endlessly kvetching
about it here.
Really?? Did something like this actually ruin the whole experience for you??
Considering that lots of films use this style, what movies DO you like?
I never noticed the lens flares in Star Trek until someone started endlessly kvetching
about it here.
I'm in clear agreement with this. Way overdone and way too hard to actually see the handicraft presumably employed.
Sigh...isn't the point that we don't notice the fx and it seems natural? That's what I liked about the Enterprise in this film. It looked organic and not like a model/fx creation.
If all you notice is the fx, it makes suspension of disbelief harder.
I didn't really notice them at my first viewing, save for a big one on the Kelvin that's supposed to be the light coming from the sun/star in the viewscreen. That one made me squint hard 
And that time too:
For the longest time, English not being my first language, I didn't understand what were those lens flares lots of people were complaining about here
I can't say that I like them since I don't really notice them, but at least they don't lessen my enjoyment of the movie.
And that time too:
For the longest time, English not being my first language, I didn't understand what were those lens flares lots of people were complaining about here
I can't say that I like them since I don't really notice them, but at least they don't lessen my enjoyment of the movie.
I don't see how anyone can call THIS:
acceptable cinematically.
It's the cinematic equivalent of having your thumb over part of the lens and still thinking it's good enough for an AP lead photo.
Visually, it's a potentially very interesting movie. Cool props, costumes, sets, and spacecraft -- and some good looking actors and actresses. But I'd like to actually be able to *see* them. It's hard to pull detail out of that miasma of light.
acceptable cinematically.
It's the cinematic equivalent of having your thumb over part of the lens and still thinking it's good enough for an AP lead photo.
Visually, it's a potentially very interesting movie. Cool props, costumes, sets, and spacecraft -- and some good looking actors and actresses. But I'd like to actually be able to *see* them. It's hard to pull detail out of that miasma of light.
QFTI don't see how anyone can call THIS:
acceptable cinematically.
It's the cinematic equivalent of having your thumb over part of the lens and still thinking it's good enough for an AP lead photo.
Visually, it's a potentially very interesting movie. Cool props, costumes, sets, and spacecraft -- and some good looking actors and actresses. But I'd like to actually be able to *see* them. It's hard to pull detail out of that miasma of light.
There was a decent amount fo shakey-cam, and I did notice that, particularly when they did it during close-ups. I don't think it will be as noticeable on a smaller screen though.
I don't like lens flare. But it's been on the increase for a while now. They even put it in video games! So maybe I've just gotten used to it. Paul Greengrass/Peter Berg/Cloverfield/Blair Witch Project extreme shaky cam, on the other hand, I'll never get used to. They make NYPD Blue look like tripod central.
number6
Vice Admiral
QFTI don't see how anyone can call THIS:
acceptable cinematically.
It's the cinematic equivalent of having your thumb over part of the lens and still thinking it's good enough for an AP lead photo.
Visually, it's a potentially very interesting movie. Cool props, costumes, sets, and spacecraft -- and some good looking actors and actresses. But I'd like to actually be able to *see* them. It's hard to pull detail out of that miasma of light.
It's to easy to post a screen grab and blow it all out of reasonable context. The proof is up above. In context, it lends a verisimilitude. It is a cinematic style. Such lens flares occur in 1964's A Hard Day's Night. I've never heard a single complaint about that to date. This is just another in the long list of petty excuses to bash this film.
The difference there is they were using 50 year-old optics (likely uncoated) and nobody was shining a flashlight towards the lens.
That shot of Nero makes it especially apparent they were using an oval-shaped anamorphic lens.
number6
Vice Admiral
Similar threads
