Seriously...why?

[Mr_Homn]

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/bridge/05.jpg

http://www.chelness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/me-at-oxygen-bar1.jpg

[Images posted inline should be hosted on web space belonging to you. Converting these to links. - M']

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I don't see it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Are oxygen bars still trendy?

 

[MasuPu'a]

Are oxygen bars still trendy?

In certain areas. There's a lot of hookah bars in my area.

 

[Amaris]

That's what I think. Apple stores rock!

They do!

Ya- I never quite got the comparison. Then again, I've never been in an Apple Store, despite loving them.

If I were to sum up the bridge, it was too bright and busy... The lights directed in odd locations (though TOS was odd with silly colours), odd clear control vertical display... It was just too messy for me. I get what they were going for, but it was just too much.

It didn't hurt the story, though the Enterprise has always been a character herself, so it actually is important (to me) that she be well thought out in her recent incarnation. Unfortunately, she hasn't. It would have been like making Kirk a midget woman who acted more like Picard (though I like Picard), and at the same time slapping on a CGI face of a young shatner on the actor...

No biggy though. As long as the movies are entertaining in the end...

See? That's okay. I can understand why some feel the bridge was too bright and busy. For me, that was my impression from the production stills, but when I finally saw the movie, I didn't notice it at all. That said, your criticism is constructive, which is a light year beyond silly non-comparitive comparisons.

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/bridge/05.jpg

http://www.chelness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/me-at-oxygen-bar1.jpg

[Images posted inline should be hosted on web space belonging to you. Converting these to links. - M']

Sorry, it's not there. There is not nearly enough similarity to consider the STXI bridge like an oxygen bar. It would be like saying a car and truck look alike because they both have headlights.

 

[UFO]

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/bridge/05.jpg

http://www.chelness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/me-at-oxygen-bar1.jpg
...

Sorry, it's not there. There is not nearly enough similarity to consider the STXI bridge like an oxygen bar. It would be like saying a car and truck look alike because they both have headlights.

Huh? Those two images are only a lens flare away from identical! I'm just surprised people aren't suing each other all over the place.

 

[Amaris]

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/bridge/05.jpg

http://www.chelness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/me-at-oxygen-bar1.jpg
...

Sorry, it's not there. There is not nearly enough similarity to consider the STXI bridge like an oxygen bar. It would be like saying a car and truck look alike because they both have headlights.

Huh? Those two images are only a lens flare away from identical! I'm just surprised people are suing each other all over the place.

Nope, sorry, you are mistaken.

 

[Mr_Homn]

it's funny how this video isn't even an exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

 

[Amaris]

it's funny how this video isn't even an exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

The video is an exaggeration. I've seen the movie, more than 100 times. This video is an exaggeration of the lens flare effects from the movie. It's also applying them in a way that is counter-intuitive to the framing shots, which make it incongruous to the scenes in which it is employed. So no, it's not funny, it's just really sad.

 

[number6]

it's funny how this video isn't even an exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

The video is an exaggeration. I've seen the movie, more than 100 times. This video is an exaggeration of the lens flare effects from the movie. It's also applying them in a way that is counter-intuitive to the framing shots, which make it incongruous to the scenes in which it is employed. So no, it's not funny, it's just really sad.

This.

 

[Mr_Homn]

it's funny how this video isn't even an exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

The video is an exaggeration. I've seen the movie, more than 100 times. This video is an exaggeration of the lens flare effects from the movie. It's also applying them in a way that is counter-intuitive to the framing shots, which make it incongruous to the scenes in which it is employed. So no, it's not funny, it's just really sad.

I don't think it was really sad. It probably didn't take very long at all to make, and I found it funny.

Having over 50,000 posts on a star trek internet forum, however, is a bit sad.

 

[Tom Servo]

it's funny how this video isn't even an exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

The video is an exaggeration. I've seen the movie, more than 100 times. This video is an exaggeration of the lens flare effects from the movie. It's also applying them in a way that is counter-intuitive to the framing shots, which make it incongruous to the scenes in which it is employed. So no, it's not funny, it's just really sad.

I don't think it was really sad. It probably didn't take very long at all to make, and I found it funny.

Having over 50,000 posts on a star trek internet forum, however, is a bit sad.

Yep, being a jerk for no apparent reason is always awesome! I bet you feel real kewl! LOLZ!

No, I don't think I that the video is sad, but it wasn't funny. I love how lens flares and shakey cam is what Abrams detractors use as his primary trade marks, despite the fact that neither are true, at all. I mean yes the lens flares were a bit overdone yes, but I liked them. They added a unique look to the film, and helped blend the CG and live action, and when JJ did put them in, I felt that they were artistically placed and helped block in the framing of the shot, something that the person in that video obviously doesn't get.

And Abrams films generally have more crane and dolley camera moves, used in a sweeping fashion then anything that could be considered "shakey cam". His camera moves are actually quite Spielbergian in a way, especially if you look at some of SS's earlier work. Thats not to say that JJ has made anything on the level of Close Encounters or, Jaws, tho he does make excellent movies, but the similarities are there.

 

[M'Sharak]

it's funny how this video isn't even an exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

The video is an exaggeration. I've seen the movie, more than 100 times. This video is an exaggeration of the lens flare effects from the movie. It's also applying them in a way that is counter-intuitive to the framing shots, which make it incongruous to the scenes in which it is employed. So no, it's not funny, it's just really sad.

I don't think it was really sad. It probably didn't take very long at all to make, and I found it funny.

If you found it funny, then that's fine. It's been posted here before a few times already, though. I'm not sure why J. felt compelled to respond to it this time around, but he did manage to keep his comments confined to the vid and to criticism thereof.

Your last bit here, however:

Having over 50,000 posts on a star trek internet forum, however, is a bit sad.

is what's known as a personal dig. Please try in the future to avoid making those.

 

[Mr_Homn]

The video is an exaggeration. I've seen the movie, more than 100 times. This video is an exaggeration of the lens flare effects from the movie. It's also applying them in a way that is counter-intuitive to the framing shots, which make it incongruous to the scenes in which it is employed. So no, it's not funny, it's just really sad.

I don't think it was really sad. It probably didn't take very long at all to make, and I found it funny.

If you found it funny, then that's fine. It's been posted here before a few times already, though. I'm not sure why J. felt compelled to respond to it this time around, but he did manage to keep his comments confined to the vid and to criticism thereof.

Your last bit here, however:

Having over 50,000 posts on a star trek internet forum, however, is a bit sad.

is what's known as a personal dig. Please try in the future to avoid making those.

The person who made the video is a person too, and he happens to be a friend of mine. I guess the irony of someone with over fifty thousand posts on a sci fi internet forum calling my friend or his minute long video "really sad" was a little much for me to resist. I apologize for my lack of self control. It wont happen again. I wont let myself be baited in the future.

 

[Amaris]

Yep, being a jerk for no apparent reason is always awesome! I bet you feel real kewl! LOLZ!

No, I don't think I that the video is sad, but it wasn't funny. I love how lens flares and shakey cam is what Abrams detractors use as his primary trade marks, despite the fact that neither are true, at all. I mean yes the lens flares were a bit overdone yes, but I liked them. They added a unique look to the film, and helped blend the CG and live action, and when JJ did put them in, I felt that they were artistically placed and helped block in the framing of the shot, something that the person in that video obviously doesn't get.

And Abrams films generally have more crane and dolley camera moves, used in a sweeping fashion then anything that could be considered "shakey cam". His camera moves are actually quite Spielbergian in a way, especially if you look at some of SS's earlier work. Thats not to say that JJ has made anything on the level of Close Encounters or, Jaws, tho he does make excellent movies, but the similarities are there.

Exactly. While the use of the lens flares and shaky came can be debated as good or bad, there is certainly an artistic purpose to JJ's methods.

If you found it funny, then that's fine. It's been posted here before a few times already, though. I'm not sure why J. felt compelled to respond to it this time around, but he did manage to keep his comments confined to the vid and to criticism thereof.

I had never seen it before, or don't recall having seen it before. I'm an occasional visitor to the Trek XI forum, and just hang around threads that grab my interest at the moment. Just to add, I had no idea his friend had made it. If I had, I'd have likely been a little softer in my comments, as I intended no ill will either way, just saying what I thought when I saw it.

The person who made the video is a person too, and he happens to be a friend of mine. I guess the irony of someone with over fifty thousand posts on a sci fi internet forum calling my friend or his minute long video "really sad" was a little much for me to resist. I apologize for my lack of self control. It wont happen again. I wont let myself be baited in the future.

Just to reiterate, I did not know your friend made the video. Also, 50,000 posts on this board doesn't even put me in the top 10. In addition, I have been here almost 9 years. One can accrue a large number of posts in that time. This is just a movie to me (though a beloved one), and I don't try to purposefully hurt people over a simple disagreement about a movie (though I have been known to lose my temper when I'm having a really bad day). I did not attack your friend, neither did I attack you. If you feel I tried to personally dig at you or your friend, then I apologize for that misconception.

 

[MasuPu'a]

I thought the video was funny. I'm not sure how it could be deemed as 'sad'. It's just a parody about the overuse of lens flare. I've seen worse jokes made on the internet. Parodies generally exaggerate certain traits/features...that's what makes them funny. Similar to how many people exaggerate Shatner's trademark...pause...speak...pause...speak some more...deliver when doing an impression of him. Pointing out that a parody video exaggerates what it is making fun of, is generally pointing out the obvious.

And for the record, I liked the new Trek film. I found the overuse of lens flare to be distracting and unnecessary, but I still liked the film overall. I'm hoping the next Trek movie will have less. From an artistic point of view; less is more. When you have a very fast paced movie with detailed, and fairly well-done action sequence that already involve a lot of bright 'light action' (phaser blasts, the contrast between the darkness of space and the well-lit Enterprise, transporter effects, etc), the extra lens-flare ended up cluttering up the shots and could be rather jarring at times. I found it distracting when I'm focusing on what the characters are saying in a rather tense scene and suddenly bright lens flare cuts across someone's face like someone is flicking on their highbeams in the theater. It distracts from the scene rather then adding to it.

 

[Amaris]

I thought the video was funny. I'm not sure how it could be deemed as 'sad'. It's just a parody about the overuse of lens flare. I've seen worse jokes made on the internet. Parodies generally exaggerate certain traits/features...that's what makes them funny. Similar to how many people exaggerate Shatner's trademark...pause...speak...pause...speak some more...deliver when doing an impression of him. Pointing out that a parody video exaggerates what it is making fun of, is generally pointing out the obvious.

And for the record, I liked the new Trek film. I found the overuse of lens flare to be distracting and unnecessary, but I still liked the film overall. I'm hoping the next Trek movie will have less. From an artistic point of view; less is more. When you have a very fast paced movie with detailed, and fairly well-done action sequence that already involve a lot of bright 'light action' (phaser blasts, the contrast between the darkness of space and the well-lit Enterprise, transporter effects, etc), the extra lens-flare ended up cluttering up the shots and could be rather jarring at times. I found it distracting when I'm focusing on what the characters are saying in a rather tense scene and suddenly bright lens flare cuts across someone's face like someone is flicking on their highbeams in the theater. It distracts from the scene rather then adding to it.

Well, to each their own on that one. That's just how I found it for various reasons. I'm not really concerned about it.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Just to reiterate, I did not know your friend made the video. Also, 50,000 posts on this board doesn't even put me in the top 10. In addition, I have been here almost 9 years. One can accrue a large number of posts in that time. This is just a movie to me (though a beloved one), and I don't try to purposefully hurt people over a simple disagreement about a movie (though I have been known to lose my temper when I'm having a really bad day). I did not attack your friend, neither did I attack you. If you feel I tried to personally dig at you or your friend, then I apologize for that misconception.

I do apologize for calling your post count "sad". You're right, you can accrue a lot of posts in that time. Although, if I continued posting at my current pace, after 9 years I would have amassed roughly 950 posts, so I still can't quite wrap my head around 55,000.

However, I did fail to consider that many people who post here may have various kinds of physical disabilities and might not be able to leave their home, so if that's the case for you, I truly beg your forgiveness, and apologize if I offended anyone else who may be in such a situation. Please have a nice night.

 

[Mr Silver]

However, I did fail to consider that many people who post here may have various kinds of physical disabilities and might not be able to leave their home, so if that's the case for you, I truly beg your forgiveness, and apologize if I offended anyone else who may be in such a situation. Please have a nice night.

That's low...

You are suggesting that because he has a high post count that he may have a physical disability? Real class...

 

[Mr_Homn]

However, I did fail to consider that many people who post here may have various kinds of physical disabilities and might not be able to leave their home, so if that's the case for you, I truly beg your forgiveness, and apologize if I offended anyone else who may be in such a situation. Please have a nice night.

That's low...

You are suggesting that because he has a high post count that he may have a physical disability? Real class...

Oh, please. I was simply remembering that not everyone who uses this forum is as lucky as I am, and immediately felt very bad for my prior comments. It was obviously not solely directed at J.Allen, as I clearly apologized to anyone else who may be in that situation, in addition to my initial apology to him for calling his post count "a bit sad".

You are aware that there are people who use this forum that have physical disabilities, right? There are many, and there's a good chance that some will read this thread. Please have some perspective.

J. Allen seems very intelligent from his posts, and I am sure he realizes that no malice was intended and doesn't need or want you to start a petty argument on his behalf. If not, then I will apologize to him for the misconception.