Seriously...why?

[Patrickivan]

^ YA RLY

I've long since recognized that this board is populated (in large part though not everyone) by people who actively go out of their way to find things to not like. Oh well.

That's hardly unique to this board, though, nor is it to Star trek fandom generally or to the internet-at-large. Once there were more than two humans on the planet, it pretty much became impossible for one of them to do anything without the possibility of someone else coming along and saying "Uh-uh, I don't like it."

Sure, but I really think that most people on this site have a pretty positive opionion on Star Trek. But it's funny that someone is negative if they don't like a certain point on something, as opposed to just wanting to discuss how something could be improved.

After all, without opposing points of view, nothing would ever change. We'd all be sheep eating what we're fed.

It's just a discussion. We're just talking here. It's not a big deal if someone doesn't agree. And it's not bitching because someone wants to discuss a point of view that's been discussed before or is considered negative just because it's not in agreement with someone else. Not everyone follows every thread here like religion 24/7...

The biggest issue on Trek BBS is the new movie section. That's were most of the arguments come from. Very few people can say anything here that's considered negative about this film without being jumped on.

And that's why I was impressed with how civil this thread on it was... But then someone started looking for trouble.

We almost made it! A civil discussion on deferring points of views on an aspect of the new movie! Baby steps, eh?

 

[doubleohfive]

Who is looking for trouble?

I hardly think this thread has devolved from being a civil discussion.

It'd be one thing if we were talking about a major plot point - say Batman killing a thug by shoving bomb down his pants, pushing him down into a manhole and then grinning like an idiot, something that kind of flies in the face of everything Batman stands for, yet he does it in Batman Returns. We could be passionately debating the storytelling decision to make it a gag for a laugh or the outright insult to the long history of Batman's character and the lack of respect Tim Burton and his writers showed by including such a scene.

But we're talking about lens flares.

Two years later we're still (still!) talking about lens flares.

 

[Sean Aaron]

But we're talking about lens flares.

Two years later we're still (still!) talking about lens flares.

Because lens flares fly in the face about what Trek is all about!

 

[JarodRussell]

number6, doubleohfive, et al. You realize you don't have to open this thread, do you? These threads usually appear again and again because new people join this board and add their thoughts. Which is why we always get the I hate Star Wars prequel threads again and again, too. If you don't like it, just don't waste your time with it. Why bother? The truth is that you guys actually like to moan about the lens flare and brewery threads JUST AS MUCH AS the others like to moan about the lens flares and breweries.

 

[number6]

You could also just look at porn on the internet and avoid the BBS yourself.

 

[doubleohfive]

number6, doubleohfive, et al. You realize you don't have to open this thread, do you? These threads usually appear again and again because new people join this board and add their thoughts. Which is why we always get the I hate Star Wars prequel threads again and again, too. If you don't like it, just don't waste your time with it. Why bother? The truth is that you guys actually like to moan about the lens flare and brewery threads JUST AS MUCH AS the others like to moan about the lens flares and breweries.

Holy shit, the sky must be on fire because I'm about to agree with you.

The fact is that yeah, I don't have to read this thread and truthfully, I gave up on it a while ago. I did however feel the need to clarify my larger point (which I probably didn't do very well initially), which can be whittled down to it's basic truth:

Fact: JJ Abrams likes using lens flares in his films. No amount of pissing and moaning from a fringe sector of the fanbase is going to stop him from using them.

 

[MacLeod]

Whilst I did notice the lens flare, they never really bothered me or the lack of a steady cam in parts.

Whilst it can be argued that they shouldn't be there, as the human eye isn't affected by such things. The fact that they did occur esp in older films, can mean the lack of them is sometimes inteperated by our brain as it looking fake (well more fake). True more modern films don't suffer from them as much. Perhaps the lens flare bothers a certain age group more than others.

 

[number6]

Certain things only bother certain Star Trek fans. Haters gotta hate and feel that their opinions are the only ones. I've been a Star Trek fan for 40 years. It has nothing to do with age, just an elevated feeling of self importance and a need to complain because no one at Paramount asked for their "input." Some people fear change while some embrace it. I don't have a problem with lens flares. Plenty of films have used it. Some people just like the sound of their own voice. I am amused by their hyperbolic rants.

 

[M'Sharak]

Again, let's notch it down a bit - make it more about lens flares or other things relating to the movie(s) and less about any particular group of fans and what they may or may not be like.

If everyone thought the same way we'd have nothing much to talk about here, so make an effort to allow some room. Refrain from being antagonistic toward anyone who expresses an opinion which differs from yours* and likewise refrain from being over-defensive when anyone is critical of an opinion you've* expressed.



* General "you" in both cases

 

[MasuPu'a]

The overuse of the lens flare was bothersome, the shaky camera annoyed me more. Along with the whole 'crazy camera angles during danger scenes.' Special effects are supposed to augment the film, not drown it. The overuse of the lens flare reminds me of stories that go overboard on overblown, flowery descriptions. Purple prose, where the writer uses ten adjectives to describe the hero's eye color. Adjectives are necessary, good for a good description, but too many simply bog the story down with unnecessary and redundant details.

It's the same with the lens flare. Sure it looks cool...the first hundred times. Overuse of the lens flare takes away the impact it's supposed to have in the first place. From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, the overuse of the lens flare combined with the continuously shaky camera and 'crazy angles' made the film too busy. There was already a lot of action we were supposed to focus on, action that can stand for itself without being smothered with lens flare.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

face it. FANS killed Trek by not supporting it.

Trek's doing fine without them.

It wouldn't be if I hadn't liked it.

Be glad I did, y'all. Say thankya.

 

[Mr_Homn]

It was put in to make general audiences think "OOH SHINY, I LIKE".... and it worked.

 

[Amaris]

It was put in to make general audiences think "OOH SHINY, I LIKE".... and it worked.

No, it was put in to add more to the overall feel of realism in the movie. "OOH SHINY, I LIKE" doesn't apply to lens flares. No one sees a camera flash and goes "hell yeah, give me more of that!". It was used to create more of a practical cinematography feel.

 

[number6]

For the most part it seems that the people who actively don't like the flares are already predisposed to do so for one of a number of reasons. The "Oooh Shiny" type of comments only serve to demean the people who had no problem with the film or its cinematic techniques.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

In all honesty, I would not even have given the flares a second thought, had it not been for the fuss kicked up here, in this forum.

But that goes for a hell of a lot of things, so there ya go.

 

[Agenda]

Having seen XI a few times, I've learned that if you are intent on looking for the camera flares, they'll practically ruin the movie for you. But if you forget about them and just watch the show, they're not that noticeable. This may be hard to believe, but I honestly did not consciously notice them the first time I saw it in the theatre.

All that being said, they should go easy on the flares next time.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Abrams himself has said multiple times in both video and printed interviews that he used too much lens flare in Star Trek, and he even said his overuse of it was "ridiculous." He also said that he used it for aesthetic reasons, because he liked the way it looked. Nothing mentioned about added realism.

At least that means he most likely will not overuse it in the next Star Trek, like he did in the last one.

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-1DqrgGZiM&feature=player_embedded#at=418

The video is about Super 8, but he talks about why he uses lens flare in his movies in general, including star trek. He says it is "literally an aesthetic thing that [he] likes, and [he's] absolutely guilty of overusing it and realize it can be insanely distracting"

He goes on to say he had "a little bit more of an excuse of using it in star trek", but he clearly knows he uses it too much based on what he just said in the video, as well as the other printed article where he called his overuse of it in Star Trek "ridiculous", not once, but twice..

When the director of the film himself says things like this, I don't think it's fair to say that people who criticize it are just whining and moaning over nothing. Of course that's what most people who love a movie say whenever there is valid criticism, so it is not surprising.

 

[doubleohfive]

Abrams himself has said multiple times in both video and printed interviews that he used too much lens flare in Star Trek, and he even said his overuse of it was "ridiculous."

At least that means he most likely will not overuse it in the next Star Trek, like he did in the last one.

That's news to me. Care to cite a source (or perhaps "multiple" sources) for this?

 

[Mr_Homn]

Abrams himself has said multiple times in both video and printed interviews that he used too much lens flare in Star Trek, and he even said his overuse of it was "ridiculous."

At least that means he most likely will not overuse it in the next Star Trek, like he did in the last one.

That's news to me. Care to cite a source (or perhaps "multiple" sources) for this?

Yes, sorry, I just edited my post.

Edit (response to post after this one) - No problem.

 

[doubleohfive]

Cool, thanks.