or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek 2 - Page 3

post #61 of 682
Thread Starter 
While we can agree to disagree, please do me a favor and watch this:

post #62 of 682
OK.
I admit he gave a very entertaining lecture.

I just learned one of the 3 things NOT to do: don't hurt Tom's nose.
post #63 of 682
Every interview I've ever seen of him it's like he sucked down a double espresso just before the camera started rolling.

As for the lens flare thing, I don't really care who the filmmaker is, I find it distracting and ruins the suspension of disbelief if it's overused. I realize Abrams likes the effect, but he's not the only one watching the films he makes (it is how he made his money and how he can keep making the films.) And I realize most of his audience don't vocalize whether they are annoyed by it or not. I just wish he subscribed to the "less is more" theory.
post #64 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulpa View Post

i just wish he subscribed to the "less is more" theory.

+1
post #65 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

And I realize most of his audience don't vocalize whether they are annoyed by it or not. I just wish he subscribed to the "less is more" theory.

I wonder how many in the audience realize its intentional rather than an accident. I also suspect the majority of movie goers don't know what lens flare is. After all, this is AVS Forum where only one person out of a million could encounter a problem with their new plasma and it would start an avalanche of replies that would take paranoia to a level never encountered before.
post #66 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

I wonder how many in the audience realize its intentional rather than an accident.

Good question...


Quote:


I also suspect the majority of movie goers don't know what lens flare is.

They may not know the correct term, but they CAN see it.
post #67 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

I also suspect the majority of movie goers don’t know what lens flare is.

I once went to a movie starring an actress who was, at the time of the film's release, quite far along in a pregancy. When that actress showed up on screen for the first time (without a baby bump), the woman seated behind loudly exclaimed, "What?! I thought she was pregnant!!!"

It did not even remotely occur to her that the movie had been shot months-to-years earlier. She was completely mystified as to why this actress didn't look 8 months pregnant on screen, when she'd just seen the woman on the cover of People magazine with a huge baby belly.

Obviously, the majority of moviegoers don't know what a lens flare is. The majority of them have no concept whatsoever of how movies are made or what filmic techniques are.

Of the 50 million+ people worldwide who bought tickets to see Abrams' Star Trek movie in the theater, I would conservatively estimate that a grand total of 23 of them have ever complained about lens flares. (To be clear: That's 23 people, not 23 million.) 18 of them post on this forum.
post #68 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


Of the 50 million+ people worldwide who bought tickets to see Abrams' Star Trek movie in the theater, I would conservatively estimate that a grand total of 23 of them have ever complained about lens flares. (To be clear: That's 23 people, not 23 million.) 18 of them post on this forum.

I couldn't DISAGREE more....ALL 23 of them post at AVS.
post #69 of 682
Of all the offline people I talk to movies about, not one of them has mentioned the diabolical flaring of the lens. It doesn't bother me. Some shots I actually like it in. Especially in Star Trek.
post #70 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

I wonder how many in the audience realize its intentional rather than an accident. I also suspect the majority of movie goers don't know what lens flare is. After all, this is AVS Forum where only one person out of a million could encounter a problem with their new plasma and it would start an avalanche of replies that would take paranoia to a level never encountered before.

Bwhahaha!




post #71 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

Of all the offline people I talk to movies about, not one of them has mentioned the diabolical flaring of the lens. It doesn't bother me. Some shots I actually like it in. Especially in Star Trek.

I thought it was kind of cool in Star Trek too. But Super 8 was just crazy stupid. It got to be a joke for my wife, who is normally not in to stuff like that. She is more in to the movie content than the AV.
post #72 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

I thought it was kind of cool in Star Trek too. But Super 8 was just crazy stupid. It got to be a joke for my wife, who is normally not in to stuff like that. She is more in to the movie content than the AV.

There ya go....

Captain America was almost ruined by Joe Johnston trying to follow this stupid gimmick started by Abrams.
post #73 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Bwhahaha!





This made me LOL so hard I almost pissed myself.
post #74 of 682
I think that Star Trek was J.J. Abrams masterpiece, so I have been anxiously awaiting the sequel. I hope its decent and not the disappointment most sequels seem to be. Abrams use of lens flare has never bothered me because it often creates beautiful effects. I confess, though, that even I think he usually overuses it. I was particularly aware of this shortcoming when I watched the Super 8 BD.
post #75 of 682
The villain in Star Trek was kind of lame. He has no grit. No gravity. No power. It's an underwritten character and over multiple viewings, I have grown less and less fond of the film.
post #76 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

There ya go....

Captain America was almost ruined by Joe Johnston trying to follow this stupid gimmick started by Abrams.

I must not be bothered by it. I didn't even realize there was any in CA.
post #77 of 682
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I must not be bothered by it. I didn't even realize there was any in CA.

Same. Just another example of individual perception and sensitivities. Reminds me of the ShakyCam debate.
post #78 of 682
I like the use of the lens flares in the first film. To me, it was just part of the cinematography that gave it a unique look. I never noticed it in a negative way.

Not being a trekkie in any way fashion or form, I thoroughly enjoyed the Abrams' film and I'm so very excited for the sequel. I hope the villain in this film will provide an even greater conflict. The first film was more about the crew coming together than the villain. That's my take.
post #79 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

The villain in Star Trek was kind of lame. He has no grit. No gravity. No power. It's an underwritten character and over multiple viewings, I have grown less and less fond of the film.

Agreed. I like Abrams, but I've yet to be truly impressed by his feature films.
post #80 of 682
I like most of Abrams works. But he needs to tone down his lens flare fascination. With that said, I'm looking forward to Star Trek 2.
post #81 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I must not be bothered by it. I didn't even realize there was any in CA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Same. Just another example of individual perception and sensitivities. Reminds me of the ShakyCam debate.

It was most deliberate....and very noticable during low-light sequences of the guys running around with their guns with the blue LEDS (apparent Power-On lights).
Incredibly annoying....served no purpose...exceedingly stupid.
post #82 of 682
Thread Starter 
post #83 of 682
Sssswwwweeeeeeett!

Robocop is always welcome in my house.
post #84 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Sssswwwweeeeeeett!

Robocop is always welcome in my house.

That was what I said right before Robocop 2.
post #85 of 682
Ill admit the villain in Star Trek was eh but overall the film was still enjoyable. Maybe they were saving up for a BIGGER badder villain in #2! I kind of thought it would've been good to stop at this film though. Bring it back to the beginnings kind of ending you know
post #86 of 682
Kahn is rumored to be the villion in ST 2

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/an-up...trek-2-rumors/
post #87 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Kahn is rumored to be the villion in ST 2

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/an-up...trek-2-rumors/

I hope not, why not just create something new.
post #88 of 682
Of course it's Khan. Del Toro has the Khan look. Paramount wants Khan. The fans all think this film will be Khan. The villain is Khan.

I just hope that they don't kill him off. Set it up so that in twenty years, we can have another WRATH of KHAN.
post #89 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

It was most deliberate....and very noticable during low-light sequences of the guys running around with their guns with the blue LEDS (apparent Power-On lights).
Incredibly annoying....served no purpose...exceedingly stupid.

Watched CA for the 2nd time with some friends Saturday night. Liked the lens flare in CA. There was a fair amount of them but they made sense to me here. Where as in Super 8...
post #90 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Of course it's Khan. Del Toro has the Khan look. Paramount wants Khan. The fans all think this film will be Khan. The villain is Khan.

ok but I just want to know if the villain is gonna be Khan.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home