For those who complain about lens flare.

[Ian Keldon]

Yes, and it's happened more than a little to people who like the 2009 Abrams Star Trek movie (no small portion of it coming from those same poor, beleaguered Trek Prime fans whom you mentioned last.) That sort of thing cuts both ways, as you can no doubt imagine, and I'm saying that I would prefer not to see any of it happening in this forum. Quite simply, it's unnecessary, and I think it's counterproductive.

Criticism of shows and movies is fine—that's part of what we do here and on other internet boards—but let's avoid taking swipes at any particular fan groups, especially when said groups may be represented by registered members of this BBS. Most of us here are fans of several different incarnations of Trek—not just TOS, not just TNG, not just JJ-verse Trek—and fans of other franchises besides. Whatever there is to talk about can be discussed quite thoroughly with absolutely no need for getting personal over any of it.

I absolutely agree. I've never called anyone anything derrogatory for liking JJTrek. I like JJTrek for what it is. I'll watch JJTrek, if that's all I can get for new Trek. But it's not Trek Prime, either stylistically or content-wise, and in many ways I consider it severely flawed and I have no compunctions saying so.

I reserve my "ire" (if you want to call it that) for the so-called "fans" who get in my face and act dismissive of and make derrogatory comments about myself and/or any fan who doesn't grab ankle with a smile when JJ Abrams says "bend over".

I'm sick and tired of being told by fandoms I'm a part of that I'm unimportant and not welcome any longer as a fan if I don't unquestioningly lap up anything and everything that is currently done by the franchise, an attitude I see on display here by several posters.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sure, you could say that the eye "flares" when looking at intensely bright objects, but not like this:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0wxd6jRm22_ed_5T3nK8jYAPzR-3vRDh4bOvO4Hmyr9oHOwsvYQ

Or this:
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/19768_f260.jpg

And most certainly not this:
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-crew-and-lens-flares.jpg

[Hotlinked images converted to links. - M']

Its not called lens flare because of the eye. It comes from the camera.

And the last one is fake. In fact it looks like something I did a while back as a joke.

The Prime universe lasted 40 years, but TOS lasted 3, there was a moderately successful series of movies, and then TNG - ENT lasted 18. It wasn't some epic unbroken streak of pure win, nor the work of one team.

Not saying it was, but everything TOS-ENT has more in common with each other than any or all of it does with JJTrek, both in terms of production AND content.

Nice opinion, can't say I agree with it though. I see a lot of TOS in the film. Filtered through 40 years of cultural perception and in a few cases an improvement on TOS.

 

[Sokath]

Sure, you could say that the eye "flares" when looking at intensely bright objects, but not like this:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0wxd6jRm22_ed_5T3nK8jYAPzR-3vRDh4bOvO4Hmyr9oHOwsvYQ

Or this:
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/19768_f260.jpg

And most certainly not this:
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-crew-and-lens-flares.jpg

[Hotlinked images converted to links. - M']

Its not called lens flare because of the eye. It comes from the camera.

And the last one is fake. In fact it looks like something I did a while back as a joke.

The Prime universe lasted 40 years, but TOS lasted 3, there was a moderately successful series of movies, and then TNG - ENT lasted 18. It wasn't some epic unbroken streak of pure win, nor the work of one team.

Not saying it was, but everything TOS-ENT has more in common with each other than any or all of it does with JJTrek, both in terms of production AND content.

Nice opinion, can't say I agree with it though. I see a lot of TOS in the film. Filtered through 40 years of cultural perception and in a few cases an improvement on TOS.

Oh, I wasn't implying it was because of the eye. It was actually because of a post on the first page that said that it looked fine because of how intense lights look to the human eye - however, the human eye isn't the same as an anamorphic lens.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

As I understand it, it was an intentional aesthetic choice - to fill the movie with something that couldn't be naturally replicated with digital cameras - something gritty, analog, and dynamic.

That doctored picture makes me sad, BTW. Stock Photoshop lens flares are way harder on the eyes than the ones in ST09.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Nice opinion, can't say I agree with it though. I see a lot of TOS in the film. Filtered through 40 years of cultural perception and in a few cases an improvement on TOS.

I see a lot of thematic similarities, and the basic structure and character dynamics are close, if not 100% identical.

It's those similarities that get me past the flaws I see in the "package" that presents them.

Oh, I wasn't implying it was because of the eye. It was actually because of a post on the first page that said that it looked fine because of how intense lights look to the human eye - however, the human eye isn't the same as an anamorphic lens.

Under certain very specific atmospheric and environmental conditions, the human eye CAN "flare" intense lights in that manner. I've had it happen once in my life, and never had a repeat of it.

As I understand it, it was an intentional aesthetic choice - to fill the movie with something that couldn't be naturally replicated with digital cameras - something gritty, analog, and dynamic.

Had they settled for naturally occurring flares from existing sources, that might be an acceptable defense. But they induced flares deliberately by shining flashlights into the camera lenses.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As I understand it, it was an intentional aesthetic choice - to fill the movie with something that couldn't be naturally replicated with digital cameras - something gritty, analog, and dynamic.

Whatever the rationale, the technique worked well for the movie; it also helped to tie together the live action and the opticals a great deal more believably than in the older, more budget-limited Trek movies.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nice opinion, can't say I agree with it though. I see a lot of TOS in the film. Filtered through 40 years of cultural perception and in a few cases an improvement on TOS.

I see a lot of thematic similarities, and the basic structure and character dynamics are close, if not 100% identical.

It's those similarities that get me past the flaws I see in the "package" that presents them.

I for one see a bigger disconnect between TOS and TMP than between TOS and STXI. The characters are barely recognizable as the same people. With TNG there is even a bigger disconnect with TOS.

 

[M'Sharak]

Sure, you could say that the eye "flares" when looking at intensely bright objects, but not like this:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0wxd6jRm22_ed_5T3nK8jYAPzR-3vRDh4bOvO4Hmyr9oHOwsvYQ

Or this:
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/19768_f260.jpg

And most certainly not this:
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-crew-and-lens-flares.jpg

[Hotlinked images converted to links. - M']

Sokath, please sure that images posted inline are hosted on webspace belonging to you. If, as was the case with these, you link to images resident on web space belonging to others, you are leeching their bandwidth, which is not in accordance with TrekBBS policy concerning posting of images.

Nice opinion, can't say I agree with it though. I see a lot of TOS in the film. Filtered through 40 years of cultural perception and in a few cases an improvement on TOS.

I see a lot of thematic similarities, and the basic structure and character dynamics are close, if not 100% identical.

It's those similarities that get me past the flaws I see in the "package" that presents them.

Oh, I wasn't implying it was because of the eye. It was actually because of a post on the first page that said that it looked fine because of how intense lights look to the human eye - however, the human eye isn't the same as an anamorphic lens.

Under certain very specific atmospheric and environmental conditions, the human eye CAN "flare" intense lights in that manner. I've had it happen once in my life, and never had a repeat of it.

As I understand it, it was an intentional aesthetic choice - to fill the movie with something that couldn't be naturally replicated with digital cameras - something gritty, analog, and dynamic.

Had they settled for naturally occurring flares from existing sources, that might be an acceptable defense. But they induced flares deliberately by shining flashlights into the camera lenses.

Ian, when you respond to several posts in quick succession, please be sure to make use of the Multi-Quote feature:

By first clicking this button on each post to which you intend to reply, you select them so that they will all be included a single post. I will fix these three for you.

 

[Psion]

I'd bet that the only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board. And the people who frequent this board are the last people Abrams, Paramount, CBS, Moonves, or whoever the future holder of the Star Trek franchise keys need to consult in order to create hit movies and TV shows.

You mean like the interviewer and interviewee in this article? "I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, "Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many." But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame." [dramatic sigh] Haters.

And the folks who manage the Uncyclopedia obviously hang out here, too ... because they're using Trek 2009 as an example of bad lens flares. "Note how the individual flares distract from each other." And did you read the bit about washing out Quinto's performance with lens flares? Sheez! I wonder which of us posted that!

Then there's this guy. I like the idea that JJ puts forth that the future really is that bright. But then he turned around and overused flares again in Super 8 ... a movie set in the futuristic era of 1979.

Here a photographer makes a passing reference to the overuse of lens flares in Trek 2009.

The folks over at FARK bicker a lot like us, so maybe you're right.

So which of you haters wants to step forward and own up to the above examples? Dukhat's got a point that the only people who complain about this stuff are on this board, so it's gotta be one of you.

To be fair, lens flare is an interesting technique that can do a good job of marrying CGI with real-life footage. If the two pieces look like they're shot with similar technology, it heightens the realism of the special effects. It's just, in the case of Trek 2009, the technique kind of got away from the director.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The Prime universe lasted 40 years, but TOS lasted 3, there was a moderately successful series of movies, and then TNG - ENT lasted 18. It wasn't some epic unbroken streak of pure win, nor the work of one team.

Not saying it was, but everything TOS-ENT has more in common with each other than any or all of it does with JJTrek, both in terms of production AND content.

How so? IMO it was an "action episode" with a gigantic budget and modern cinematography, and had more in common with The Original Series than any movie except STV.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I for one see a bigger disconnect between TOS and TMP than between TOS and STXI. The characters are barely recognizable as the same people. With TNG there is even a bigger disconnect with TOS.

Exactly so. TOS is fun, adventurous and extravagant; later versions of Trek so clearly yearn to Be Important that the franchise was eventually dragged down by its own pretensions.

Abrams and his people looked at the original version of Star Trek and saw what was there that really excited people, to a far greater degree than the far smaller hard core fan movement that tends to laud the design of the furniture.

 

[Ian Keldon]

I for one see a bigger disconnect between TOS and TMP than between TOS and STXI. The characters are barely recognizable as the same people.

Without opening a discussion that really deserves it's own thread in the other movie forum, I will simply point out that the initial OOC-ness of Kirk and Spock (McCoy is basically McCoy throughout the whole picture) is entirely deliberate. It's part of the plot. Neither is "where they are supposed to be" .

Kirk is flying a desk, and Spock is off on Vulcan trying to cut parts of his very soul out with a proverbial knife. They are both therefore not responding as the people we know them to be, as they are out of balance and overcompensating (Spock with kolinahr, Kirk with his obsession with getting Enterprise back).

By the end of the film, Spock has had his encounter with pure logic and found it to be lacking, and Kirk has rediscovered his sense of purpose (and regained Enterprise). The final scene on the Bridge is pure, classic TOS in terms of the way the characters are written AND in terms of the performances, which is exactly the way it should be. They're "home", and together again, and "all is right with the world" as the saying goes.

It's a subtle but powerful bit of film-making on the part of Bob Wise that gets overlooked too much I think.

With TNG there is even a bigger disconnect with TOS.

There is "disconnect" in the sense that the Federation has changed (not always for the better, as it turns out), but it's still the same universe at heart. The various incarnations of the show "fit" as elements of one extended history.

The disconnect between Trek Prime and JJTrek is simply jarring, esp after the break between timelines. Part of the problem, frankly, is the attempt on the part of JJs team to "have their cake and eat it too" by linking the two universes via the device of the Narada and Spock Prime.

Doing so raises issues of internal consistency. Why doesn't Spock Prime try to fix the timeline? We know from various other time-travel eps that it's his duty as a (retired) Starfleet officer to do so. Why was Scotty experimenting on a living thing with an untested transporter formula? That doesn't sound like the Scotty we know from the Prime universe.

Frankly, I would have received JJTrek with fewer reservations had they simply said "reboot" and been done with it. But they felt they needed the cache of Trek Prime to draw the existing fan, so they came up with the bridge they came up with, which IMO did more harm than good.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Scotty killed a dog in "The Enemy Within", with an untested transporter formula.

And, does Spock have the right to erase the past 25 years of everyone's lives? They have as much right to exist as their original counterparts (who are result of countless temporal incursions themselves). He's not Janeway!

 

[SD70ACe]

Didn't Abrams admit in a later interview that he went overboard with the flares?

They shouldn't have been in the movie at all. Lens flares are an optical defect, and you're not supposed to be viewing the movie through a camera; you're supposed to actually "be" there. Defects like flares take you "out" of the film.

 

[Franklin]

As someone who became a fan of TOS despite its sometimes cheesey, budget-restricted production values (spray bottles as medical devices?! a guy in a lizard suit who can't even move his mouth?! bridge chairs that look like they came from a cafe or bowling alley?! velour?!), I just don't see the need to critically review the use of lens flare in ST09. It's like complaining about the quality of the champagne after being on a beer budget all one's life.

The characters were fine by me. I don't think any character behaved outside of the parameters of the personalities set by TOS or the TOS movies.

As far as Spock Prime being obligated to "correct" the timeline goes, this has been discussed and discussed. There was nothing to correct. This is a new universe. The Prime one never changed. It goes on in the late 24th century with a destroyed Romulus and a missing and presumed dead Spock Prime. Picard is probably sitting somewhere sipping a cup of Earl Grey tea (hot). Riker and Troi are taking a bath together on the Titan. Life goes on for them as if nothing happened. Because nothing changed.

 

[Dukhat]

So which of you haters wants to step forward and own up to the above examples? Dukhat's got a point that the only people who complain about this stuff are on this board, so it's gotta be one of you.

Thanks for those links, Psion. Maybe I should revise my statement to read: "I'd bet only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board, and other Star Trek-related websites where the opinions of those internet geeks really don't mean shit in the bigger picture." Is that better?

 

[Ian Keldon]

Scotty killed a dog in "The Enemy Within", with an untested transporter formula.

That was an attempt to recombine the two after the transporter accident, and was vital under the circumstances. The "fix" had to be tested.

JJ Scotty was doing it "just to prove a point". It demonstrated callous disregard for life.

And, does Spock have the right to erase the past 25 years of everyone's lives? They have as much right to exist as their original counterparts (who are result of countless temporal incursions themselves). He's not Janeway!

Starfleet officers have a duty to attempt to repair altered timelines when they encounter them. That is both implied and stated by the Temporal Prime Directive.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_Prime_Directive

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Maybe I should revise my statement to read: "I'd bet only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board, and other Star Trek-related websites where the opinions of those internet geeks really don't mean shit in the bigger picture." Is that better?

That works, too.

I suppose that the lens flare might have "taken me out of the picture" if:

• I'd never seen a movie before; or
• I somehow confused movies with reality.
  
  

 

[F. King Daniel]

In going back 25 years, Spock Prime would essentially be killing the James Kirk born at the start of the movie, and everyone else born into a life somehow altered after Nero's incursion. In exactly the same way that Janeway killed the Miral Paris born and raised in the Delta Quadrant in "Endgame".

How exactly does Spock have the right to do that? A Starfleet regulation which Janeway heard in "Future's End" from a 29th century time cop (who caused the very disaster he saught to avoid, btw) and then adopted herself? When that Spock is a result of countless similar temporal incursions himself (one of which, in "Yesteryear", he did himself!)?

I guess you're right about Scotty - but I'm sure he thought it'd work.

 

[Franklin]

Scotty killed a dog in "The Enemy Within", with an untested transporter formula.

That was an attempt to recombine the two after the transporter accident, and was vital under the circumstances. The "fix" had to be tested.

JJ Scotty was doing it "just to prove a point". It demonstrated callous disregard for life.

And, does Spock have the right to erase the past 25 years of everyone's lives? They have as much right to exist as their original counterparts (who are result of countless temporal incursions themselves). He's not Janeway!

Starfleet officers have a duty to attempt to repair altered timelines when they encounter them. That is both implied and stated by the Temporal Prime Directive.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_Prime_Directive

We never knew Mr. Scott at that age. Maybe he was more cocky when he was younger. After all, sooner or later, something alive would have to go through the transporter. The Admiral's dog may have been a rash choice, but there you go.
When NASA sent dogs and monkeys into space for what they were almost certain would be a one-way trip, was that showing disregard for life?

As far as repairing the timeline goes, as has been said and said, there is nothing to repair. This is a new timeline. The prime timeline was unaffected. Spock Prime is in another universe, not an altered version of his. Is that different than how Trek handled time travel and timelines before? Mostly, yes. Is it legitimate? Why not? This is science fiction, and what happened is certainly plausible.