Belz said he wanted them to invent their own stuff. Let me give an example from TOS. As a compromise on the budget, they invented the transporter. The film makers are working from what was established before. What we are seeing on the screen is their interpretation of what was established before.
concept art and set photos!
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I think you're in the minority on that opinion. I don't think anyone actively LIKES the lens flares (besides the CG artists on a few Trek fan productions that seem to feel obligated to jump on the bandwagon). Even the way you're wording it above comes across as if you merely trick your mind into ignoring them. In other words, they ARE a visual distraction. So let's just concede that this is an element of JJ's filmmaking that is generally reviled and which, despite negative audience feedback, he just doubled-down and continued, as a testament to his Lucas-like Han-shoots-first stubbornness.
Which is odd. I didn't actually notice there were a large number of them until people kept pointing it out. I was just there for the ride, mind you, not out to nitpick the movie into oblivion. That said, they don't bother me now that I notice them, either.
As someone who works in the film industry, and knows professional filmmakers, I can tell you there are a fair amount who DO like the lens flare look. It's now even somewhat used as a term to some effect. Someone can say just Abrams it up a bit, and we know exactly what it means. Yes there are those who think they can be over the top, but there are others who like it just fine.
Love the lens flares!
Yeah. Although, of course, since we're supposed to be omniscient observers, I don't see why they have to treat the camera like there's a real film crew filming the Enterprise. Don't mind it, I just don't think it's more realistic than not, in this particular case.
That's a completely misleading interpretation of my comment to favor your own preferences, which unfortunately seems to be something of a theme with you. Speak for yourself all you like, but don't reinterpret what I'm saying to suit your own ends, please.
At no time did I imply that I have to trick myself into ignoring the lens flares. I merely said that since I was engrossed in the events of the film, they didn't distract me from it or take me out of the story in any way. If I had gone into the film with a negative attitude instead of a critically neutral, anticipatory one and was looking for flaws to rip apart, I would no doubt have been able to convince myself that they were a horrible distraction. Funny how the mind works that way.
No. That's the opposite of what I said.
I will concede no such thing, and doubling-down implies that he used the lens flare effect even more, when I said he seemed to use it far less in this film versus the last. Regardless, filmmakers should not have to compromise their work based on the inconsistent whims of the audience. And that includes George Lucas, my dislike for the Greedo scene notwithstanding.
Plus, your comparison of a aesthetically motivated camera trick that has no bearing on the plot of the film and has been included in it from the start to a major alteration in the established behavior of a chief character and events of a film after said film had already been hugely popular for twenty years is completely ridiculous.
Sorry, but the rantings of a select few fanbois do not amount to "generally".
Well, for the CG shots it's more realistic because no lens is perfect. There will always be some distortion or dust.
And, if you were standing on the bridge of the Enterprise, just looking around, you'd still see lens flares in your eyes depending how close the light source is.
It's supposed ground you in reality and I think it works pretty well.
Yes, yes, but only if someone's filming it. As I said, since we are omniscient observers, it doesn't fully work for me.
No, eyes don't work like cameras.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
It's photographically corrupt.
To use lens flares on occasion for effect can be a superb creative choice (I'd say the first DIE HARD is an example of going almost to the brink of too far with them, but they are well-orchestrated, run out for key moments); to overuse them, and do so arbitrarily, is just bad photography.
There are industry folk who have cottoned onto this with a vengeance, but even when somebody like Edgar Wright gets excited by this (was very disappointed in him on this one thing), he still limited his (over)use on SCOTT PILGRIM to just the scenes that were shot in the wider format. Seth Rogen's new movie is apparently lens flare city too, which is the only reason I can think of not to see it, because EVERYbody who worked on it thinks it is funny as hell.
I just hope this plays itself out as a trend faster than some of the other visual disasters of the last 15 years, like the destruction of real-life color (in favor of some nearly monochromatic rendering) that seems almost required at this point. The ET & FLASHDANCE shoot-in-smoke thing went on for the better part of a decade, but at least it wasn't omnipresent.
I can't bring myself to care.
And you, with your illustrious and respected career directing major motion pictures, would be the one to know, right?
No major motion pictures directed that I'm aware of, but I think trevanian may be given credit for knowing what he's talking about, yes.
However, he is not the topic here, so let's return to it now, please.
How does that work ?
This is a guy who's about to do Star Wars. This is not "My Dinner with Andre". The film had a lot of money spent on it and it is absolutely screaming for people to be engrossed in the look of it. Especially now with the 3D.
For someone to say that they are so engrossed in the story and the drama that the look is inconsequential is, well, let's just say it's not how I think most people view that film. It generally polarizes people into either loving the look or hating the look.
How would you know if you were too engrossed in the story to notice them? Were you keeping count?
Stubborn auteurs can either lead to masterpieces like 2001 that were underappreciated at first or verifiable train-wrecks like Heaven's Gate. JJ ain't no Kubrick.
This thread is about the art of the picture, and the cinematography (i.e. lens flares) is a valid topic. You're the one stressing the other facets.
People do have a right to dislike a picture based solely on its look, even if it has other redeeming qualities.
mos, what is the purpose of your repeated misrepresentations of what Locutus has said?
His first remark concerning lens flares:
Next, your comment:
And his reply:
And your misrepresentation continues:
Is he really? (Leaving aside for a moment that the thread was originally about concept art and not cinematography,) as can easily be seen above, Locutus' comments proceed organically from throwback's initial remark concerning what he felt to be "overuse of lens flares". The participant stressing "other facets" appears to be none other than yourself. Locutus has patiently addressed each "other facet" and each overinflated contention which you've seen fit to introduce, yet still you continue in attempting to misrepresent what he's said.
To what end?
Of course you may dislike it - for any reason you choose, or for no reason at all. But simple dislike is not the claim you've been making.
So, again: exactly what is it that you're about here, mos? I ask for the simple reason that it doesn't look very much like honest discussion.
