The damn lens flares!

[pookha]

the odd part in the imax the flares were not that noticable. it came across more like a natural shift of light as you move about a space that has different sets of lights.

like if someone in front of you moves you see a light source that flashes that was previously blocked.

in the scotty, kirk and spock clip they were really bad but just didnt notice when i saw it tonight.

 

[Myasishchev]

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! MY EYES - MY EYES!!!!!!!!!



I can see the headline now:

Len's flares causes nostril-flaring - and in some cases, blindness - among some Trek followers... see a doctor if flaring persists, or cease and desist watching Star Trek XI - as some may find it disagreeable to their constitutions...

[wink, wink!]

I don't think I ever had the instinct to shield my eyes during a movie before.

 

[Myasishchev]

it feels like the future is that bright.

He does know that 'The future is Bright" is a figure of speech... right?

And it refers to a nuclear holocaust.

 

[prophet]

Well, having seen all of the movies, I think that the lens flares added a touch of realism and depth to the bridge scenes. It is a bit of artistic license on the person in the production who thought it would be a good idea. But it was meant to make the bridge seem bright, and I liked it as opposed to the darker bridges of the more recent movies.

 

[Agent Richard07]

This thread made me conscious of the whole lens flare thing. I didn't notice any in M:I3, but they were there every few seconds in Star Trek and I loved 'em. As mentioned, they add flair and a stylish brightness to the movie.

 

[Desleane]

And I thought the movie is too dim anyway, even with brightness and flares

 

[Neopeius]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of all the lens flares either. This is a quote from Cinematographer Dan Mindel in the new issue of Wired:

"We felt that they gave us a very realistic feel to an otherwise static scene. We have this motif working throughout the movie and if you're looking for it, you'll see it. It adds a lot of kineticism."

This just seems like crappy work to me. And the line about "if you're looking for it..." makes me laugh. If you don't notice them everywhere, you're blind.

The aural equivalent is if during that scene, a car alarm went off every two seconds. You can call it verisimilitude. It just seems cheap to me.

 

[cultcross]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of all the lens flares either. This is a quote from Cinematographer Dan Mindel in the new issue of Wired:

"We felt that they gave us a very realistic feel to an otherwise static scene. We have this motif working throughout the movie and if you're looking for it, you'll see it. It adds a lot of kineticism."

This just seems like crappy work to me. And the line about "if you're looking for it..." makes me laugh. If you don't notice them everywhere, you're blind.

The aural equivalent is if during that scene, a car alarm went off every two seconds. You can call it verisimilitude. It just seems cheap to me.

Your analogy would work, if there was an actual reason for the car alarm to go off every two seconds - such as someone broke into a car on a two second interval. Then the alarms would be part of the portrayal. The lens flares are part of the camerawork, which is designed to be in motion - very few static shots, not much dolly work, lots of moving cameras and multiple angels - the light changes make sense. A dynamically filmed movie like that with eerily static lighting with no discernable source would jsut feel bizarre. And to be honest, I watched the whole thing without noticing a 'lens flare' once - the only place I've heard them mentioned is here.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

Yes. The lens flares were used beyond the point of irritation. It was just stupid after awhile.

 

[MvRojo]

Yes. The lens flares were used beyond the point of irritation. It was just stupid after awhile.

Agreed. I hope this is a change they make for the (hopefully) sequel.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Except for 2 or 3 occasions on the bridge where they overwhelmed the screen, they didn't bother me at all.

 

[lawman]

I don't understand the folks saying "it won't bother you on a big screen." I saw it on an IMAX screen, and the lens flares were very noticeable. I don't necessarily object to the technique in moderation, but here it was very much overused.

I wasn't a big fan of the cinematography in general, really. Way too hyperkinetic, most of the time; and the few relatively static shots tended to utilize super-close-ups. I really don't need to see actors' pores.

All in all, though, the cinematography is the least of my problems with the film. The writing, now, that's another story...

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I didn't even see the lens flares, except for a single scene on the bridge where they were very obtrusive.

 

[rtc61]

The lens flares didn't ruin the movie for me, but I agree they're dang annoying. Reminds me of when I escort news crews into a sterile production area at my employer and they have to shoot stuff through windows -- you get odd glares, reflections, and feel taken out of the scene.

 

[Starbreaker]

Lens Flare + IMAX = headache. I loved it though.

 

[StarTrek1701]

After my ninth viewing of the movie, I stand by my call. The movie has too much damn lens flares!!

Found this online:

LOL!

 

[M'Sharak]

Looks like more ontd_startrek fun, now with lens flares.

Srsly.