Star Trek 2 - Page 3

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.

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.

+1

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.

Good question...



They may not know the correct term, but they CAN see it.

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.

I couldn't DISAGREE more....ALL 23 of them post at AVS.

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.

Bwhahaha!

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.

This made me LOL so hard I almost pissed myself.

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.

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.

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

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.

Agreed. I like Abrams, but I've yet to be truly impressed by his feature films.

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.

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.

Sssswwwweeeeeeett!

Robocop is always welcome in my house.

That was what I said right before Robocop 2.

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

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.

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.

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...

ok but I just want to know if the villain is gonna be Khan.