Star Trek XII?

I wear glasses and don't get "lens flares" at all IRL.

Lens flares saved Star Trek.

It's true. The Trek franchise was dead before lens flares. The last two movies were box office bombs, and even the three before that were holding on to life by a thread.

Then JJ Abrams makes a film with lots and lots of lens flares, and it makes box office GOLD! Star Trek is saved!

Lens flares were a "problem" that took a lot of effort to fix, but now some people think that use of lens flare has artistic merit, and you don't like it.

Black and white (i.e. lack of color) was also a problem that a lot of people spent a lot of effort to fix, but no one complains when a filmmaker uses black and white photography for artistic effect.

Just because something was a "problem" that took effort to fix doesn't mean it's useless in a visual storytelling medium.

And, just because YOU don't like it, it doesn't mean other people should have to hate it too.

Still, fuck Abrams and his "lens flares are super cool" bullshit. He might like them, but that doesn't mean they're universally a positive thing.

The difference is that black and white photography actually does have some artistic merit because it can help set a mood, but just throwing in lens flares in every frame doesn't. And the other difference would be that black and white photography wasn't really a problem to begin with, someone just developed a way to add color. Lens flares, on the other hand, were seen as a problem because they tended to limit how scenes could be shot or could ruin scenes that were filmed.

I'd agree more if it wasn't taken to such a degree, just like shaky cam.

Of course not, I already said that hipsters like it.

I can think of several things that are typically "undesirable" in filmmaking that nonetheless can be used to artistic effect:

1. Inconsistancy of film grain/stock/color temperature. Look at the movie Traffic, where the scenes in the U.S. are cooler and sharper, and the scenes in Mexico warmer and grainier. Oliver Stone frequently uses different stocks--even different media!--to differentiate scenes, particularly in JFK and Natural Born Killers.

2. Jump cuts. In many movies, a jump cut can suggest repeative actions. A good example is in the movie Elizabeth, where the queen practices a speech in front of a mirror and the jump cuts show that she's trying many different deliveries.

3. Inferior visual effects (deliberate). Take a look at Pulp Fiction: despite the ability of filmmakers to make much more convincing studio-shot driving scenes, Tarantino deliberately employs rear projection (Travolta in his car, Willis in the cab). Why? To get the feeling of earlier film-noir.

This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more. For every rule there is in filmmaking, there's a creative way to break it.

EVERYTHING that can be seen or heard is capable of being used to some effect. Okay, so lens flares aren't your thing. Fine. But they change the image in some aesthetic way and thus change the way the viewer perceives the image.

Like all style choices, it's not appropriate for all situations. But in a largely CG world like Star Trek, I think it works.

This thread is awesome and it sincerely fills my heart with joy, reading all the geeks bust a nut over stupid trivial details.

God bless J.J. Abrams. I hope the next Trek movie is just one giant lens flare.

I hope it is too, because then it truly will be devoid of any content.

Cole Sear: I see losers.
Malcolm Crowe: In your dreams?
[Cole shakes his head no]
Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake?
[Cole nods]
Cole Sear: Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're losers.
Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?
Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere.

.

I hope so too because I look forward to the nuTrek fanboys' lame attempts at telling the "geeks" just how cool and hip it is and that we are just nitpicking to actually expect/want a coherent story more than just a string of action scenes.

ftfy

As fate would have it, my first viewing was a 4:20 show.
Besides the poorly edited childhood sequences that established nothing other than don't call Spock's mama a 'ho, I thought it was coherent enough.

Lens flares! Is there anything they can't make better?

Nobody will have to tell you anything because, given your complete contempt for nuTrek, you will not see the movie and will have no reason to participate in the threads. Right?

If only...

Yeah, heaven forbid there be any discussion on a forum about a movie that we don't agree with.

You call this "discussion"?

I don't have "complete contempt" for nuTrek at all. I have mentioned several times that I thought the production was generally top-notch and the casting was pretty much perfect. However, I won't play your "Kobayashi Maru" scenario. If I don't see the movie, you will say I have no right to criticize it. I'm entirely comfortable in my assessment of the movie and I will lay dollars to doughnuts that JJ Trek will not be held in high regard several years from now. It has already begun.

Ugh..... why isn't it summer 2013 yet? I wanna see Star Trek XII!

If you don't see the movie, I won't say anything to you at all about it. Cause, you know, you wouldn't be in the thread. Right?

I may or may not see it in the theatre if it is more of the same. Too bad if you don't like reading valid criticism though.

Yeah, because it is. Like it or not, criticizing a movie is still discussion about that movie.

Never quite got that attitude either, especially since it makes certain people exactly like the "NERD!" they tend to accuse critics of being. After all, there are certainly some people here who can actually have a discussion about the flaws of the movie they like instead of resorting to, "if you don't like it just STFU and GTFO."

Too bad if you end up spending money a movie you fully expect to suck.

That's what the internet is for.

Valid criticism isn't the issue though, fanboi whining is.

A cut-out and keep guide:

I have spotted a plot hole, this disappoints me and I make unhappy face - valid criticism

They've named a planet/moon in a manner I find personally offensive, and thus this movie is just awful - fanboi whining

Engineering looks shit. I hope they fix that in the next film - valid criticism

Lens flares and tigers, oh my! Lens flares and tigers, oh my! - fanboi whining

You call it valid criticism. I see it as you being an ornery crank. Which one of us is correct?

Somone in this thread reported one of my posts.

Which actually speaks volumes about the attitude of some of these fanboys.

And the important thing to keep in mind is that this tidbit cuts both ways.

Him.

Fine. If they fix the plot holes, they can keep the lens flares and I'll be happy.

The thing is, I see Abrams as being far, far more likely to cut back on the lens flares and build a decent engineering set than to fix plot holes.

So I have to take the improvements that we can realistically get.