I actually can put up with lens flares - I hate shaky camera stuff more because it makes me sick (literally motion sick if it goes on long enough).
The biggest disappointment of this excellent movie
- Thread starter TheInsideMan
- Start date
Not enough lens flares.
I was disgusted - no, outraged, that I paid good money, earned with blood, sweat and tears - to see a movie which was seriously lacking the holy flares of the lens.
WHAT WAS JJ THINKING????
JJ? Buddy? Next time, MORE LENS FLARES!!!!
GIVE ME THE FLARES, I GIVE YOU MY MONEY FOR TREK 12.
My biggest complaint about the movie is that the IMAX theaters showing it dropped it so they could air Night at the Museum II instead. Give me a BREAK. We're talking about what will likely be the biggest film of the year!
Oh, come on! Everyone knows those are orbs. They're probably the spirits of Gene, Majel, DeForest and Jimmy Doohan making cameos in the film. All great orbs like to have their moments to shine.
Supreme Admiral
Captain
I never complain on this excellent movie. Saw some of lens flares. It's not too big deal out of it.
The pink ones die in the movie.
Doddammit, SPOILERS! SPOILERS!
I didn't see one one single lens flare, and I've seen the movie seventy three times. There might have been one coming off of R2-D2's dome but honestly, the whole movie was way too dark to tell.
I don't know if you're joking or not, but engineering and the communications center were quite literally filmed at a brewery; the Anheuser-Busch brewery in Van Nuys, California to be precise (also featured in the miniseries 'V').
http://blog.darendoc.com/?p=548
Those are neuronal-coded messages aimed at reviewers, who think they are writing reviews themselves but are really just typing up what was downloaded to their brains via "lens flares."
Not enough lense flares, nah, there was more than enough, they needed to be more intense. needed to able to fry a burger and some 'marshmellons' in the back row.
Although, i could tell the Trek fans from average movie goers when they piled into the theatre, as they came in with Ray Bans, Sun Block 500 and deck chairs
LOL.
Ive seen it twice and to be honest, i didnt even notice them, maybe once or twice when i found myself looking for them.
Oh dear, the biggest Trek movie in years and i was looking for lense flares rather than insignificant props, sound effects and character references.
Although, i could tell the Trek fans from average movie goers when they piled into the theatre, as they came in with Ray Bans, Sun Block 500 and deck chairs
LOL.
Ive seen it twice and to be honest, i didnt even notice them, maybe once or twice when i found myself looking for them.
Oh dear, the biggest Trek movie in years and i was looking for lense flares rather than insignificant props, sound effects and character references. Ditto. The shakey camera ruined the movie for me. I don't know what the director was thinking or why he thought that type of cinematography was a good idea for a summer popcorn flic.
I guess lens flares aren't visible through rose colored lenses.
I didn't notice much shaky camera, but I didn't think it was inappropriate for this movie. Then again, I loved Cloverfield and think it is by far the best monster movie I've ever seen, and it is characterized by shaky camera throughout. Usually that kind of thing makes a movie look amateur as well as giving me a headache. But some stories lend themselves to that style. It can make a scene feel more realistic.
Oh dear, the biggest Trek movie in years and i was looking for lense flares rather than insignificant props, sound effects and character references.
Now that's funny! Second viewing i started to look for them and promptly forgot, though i did notice the ref to Archer's dog. Third time around i really noticed the lense flares and actually managed to see the tribble. Oh and i paid special attention to all the original sounds too. PINGGGGG.
Cant wait to see what i pick up on the fourth viewing.
Not enough lens flares.
I was disgusted - no, outraged, that I paid good money, earned with blood, sweat and tears - to see a movie which was seriously lacking the holy flares of the lens.
WHAT WAS JJ THINKING????
JJ? Buddy? Next time, MORE LENS FLARES!!!!
GIVE ME THE FLARES, I GIVE YOU MY MONEY FOR TREK 12.
I thought the lens flares were kind of cool.
The one and only issue I have with this film is that William Shatner was not involved. His particaption would have made the film 100% complete.
Maybe next time.
Oh dear, the biggest Trek movie in years and i was looking for lense flares rather than insignificant props, sound effects and character references.
Now that's funny! Second viewing i started to look for them and promptly forgot, though i did notice the ref to Archer's dog. Third time around i really noticed the lense flares and actually managed to see the tribble. Oh and i paid special attention to all the original sounds too. PINGGGGG.
Cant wait to see what i pick up on the fourth viewing.
LOL, it was funny, although i did stop noticing the flares at one point and just got engrossed in the movie.
I just started to sub conciously notice sounds and references here and there after a while at the same time as watching the movie.
The sound effects were glorious, especially since the first thing we here in the entire movie is the viewer pings on the Kelivin *Fangasm*. All of the effects were there from viewer pings, button sounds, hail sounds, communicator pips, pho-torp triggers, intra ship hail, the ward charge, tricorder scans, even the damn transporter energize control and shimmering beaming sounds were there.
then the point of the post would be? hmmm...
Humour.
Similar threads
