If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   "This is how stupid it was," J.J. Abrams said. "But I think admitting you're an addict is the first step towards recovery"   (theverge.com) divider line 49
    More: Obvious, J.J. Abrams, lens flares, Industrial Light & Magic, recovery, Episode VII  
•       •       •

5835 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Oct 2013 at 9:05 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-01 08:46:23 AM
I for one enjoy movies that force me to squint a lot.
 
2013-10-01 09:08:07 AM
Disney/Lucas staged an intervention.
 
2013-10-01 09:11:35 AM
Well, maybe more people will shut up about lens flares now.
 
2013-10-01 09:15:40 AM
You know, I barely noticed the lens flares until the internet got all butthurt over it.

/they really aren't that bad
//people always have to find something to biatch about
 
2013-10-01 09:16:29 AM

jonny_q: Disney/Lucas staged an intervention.


Cause if there's anyone who knows bad cinematography...
 
2013-10-01 09:16:34 AM
Interestingly enough, I thought Into Darkness had far less than his usual movies. TFA makes it sound like he had ILM remove some to bring it down to his normal levels, but I saw far less distracting lens flare than usual. Maybe things will change for the better, and for more than a movie or two.
 
2013-10-01 09:19:13 AM

Esroc: You know, I barely noticed the lens flares until the internet got all butthurt over it.

/they really aren't that bad
//people always have to find something to biatch about


I noticed it before I heard about it on the first ST.   Their excuse for using it is that it's a technique to make a movie more immersive.

Here's a hint: if your attempts to immerse me in your movie distract me from it, you're doing it wrong.
 
2013-10-01 09:20:51 AM

Esroc: You know, I barely noticed the lens flares until the internet got all butthurt over it.


Even in Into Darkness?

// there wasn't any darkness, because every goddamn scene had a flare or 5 in it!
// didn't really mind it in Trek The First
 
2013-10-01 09:22:07 AM

AntonChigger: Well, maybe more people will shut up about lens flares now.


Star ____ fans not complaining? Are you high?
 
2013-10-01 09:24:37 AM

Esroc: You know, I barely noticed the lens flares until the internet got all butthurt over it.

/they really aren't that bad
//people always have to find something to biatch about


I noticed. I didn't really care though.  It's amusing to see people on the internet act as if a lens flare raped their wife and killed their dog though. On balance I think they were a good thing. Otherwise we wouldn't get to witness nerd fury over trivial bullshiat.*

*Just kidding.  Of course we would.
 
2013-10-01 09:27:04 AM
I liked the flares, made the new Trek visually distinct. Never understood the complaints, but to each their own. And good on a director for recognizing his (percieved) faults; I don't agree with the criticism, but I'm glad there are a few out there trying to be better filmmakers.
 
Slu
2013-10-01 09:30:34 AM
You know what else is stupid?  The Verge basically copying an entire article from Crave Online.
 
2013-10-01 09:40:13 AM
He says that after every film. He promises that he's learned his lesson and that the next one will be better.  And then the next one is covered in lens flare, too.
 
2013-10-01 09:42:40 AM
Lens flare is the least of J J Abrams' offenses.
 
2013-10-01 09:50:15 AM

AntonChigger: Well, maybe more people will shut up about lens flares now.


Pffff...yeah, right.  This is Fark, isn't it?
 
2013-10-01 09:57:41 AM
It didn't stand out to me in the first movie, just seemed to be a part of the visual makeup of the movie.  Then I starting hearing all the biatching and moaning about it and now it sticks out like a sore thumb.
 
2013-10-01 10:09:29 AM

ikanreed: Esroc: You know, I barely noticed the lens flares until the internet got all butthurt over it.

/they really aren't that bad
//people always have to find something to biatch about

I noticed it before I heard about it on the first ST.   Their excuse for using it is that it's a technique to make a movie more immersive.

Here's a hint: if your attempts to immerse me in your movie distract me from it, you're doing it wrong.


I'm still not sure how something designed to remind me that there is a camera between me and the action is supposed to increase immersion.
 
2013-10-01 10:17:12 AM

Mikey1969: Interestingly enough, I thought Into Darkness had far less than his usual movies. TFA makes it sound like he had ILM remove some to bring it down to his normal levels, but I saw far less distracting lens flare than usual. Maybe things will change for the better, and for more than a movie or two.


Well, a lot of good directors will do this, so this is probably a step in the right direction for him.  It's nice to have several opinions of how the movie looks, so your own biases can be somewhat filtered out... while still keeping enough of your trademark in to make it obvious it's your movie.
 
2013-10-01 10:26:12 AM
I thought he was talking about those three writers he keeps hiring.
 
2013-10-01 10:32:36 AM
On TOS they worked on a bridge that was filled with stupid dinging noises that any sane human would shut off after two seconds. Now they work on a bridge with screens and lights so bright you need to wear welding goggles.
 
2013-10-01 10:45:33 AM
Well shiat, who cares if he learned and fessed up to his mistake and will change going forward. We don't like that kind of thinking around here. He was for it before he was against it and that's all that really matters. Frak him and THE NEXT STAR WARS BETTER BE WORSE THAN THE PHANTOM MENACE BECAUSE DISNEYLENSFLAREderp
 
2013-10-01 10:51:38 AM
This little video says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STZfXF1f66M
 
2013-10-01 10:53:24 AM

AntonChigger: Well, maybe more people will shut up about lens flares now.


But will JJ hire a NON-drunk cameraman this time?
 
2013-10-01 10:57:09 AM

Oakenshield: Well shiat, who cares if he learned and fessed up to his mistake and will change going forward. We don't like that kind of thinking around here. He was for it before he was against it and that's all that really matters. Frak him and THE NEXT STAR WARS BETTER BE WORSE THAN THE PHANTOM MENACE BECAUSE DISNEYLENSFLAREderp


If the next SW film is worse than The Phantom Menace, then I will swear off all things Star Wars for the rest of my life.
 
2013-10-01 11:05:07 AM

Mugato: I thought he was talking about those three writers he keeps hiring.


This. The lens flare I don't mind that much, but every time I think about the new Trek movies I notice another gaping plot hole.

Abrams is a competent director. Not great, not terrible. But the writers he works with are godawful. Into Darkness, in retrospect, felt more like people playing a Wrath of Khan themed adventure module for an RPG than an actual story in its own right; the characters are all recognizable, even if some are played in a hammy fashion, and the story kind of fits, but there's so much artifice you can practically see the holes in the fourth wall.
 
2013-10-01 11:11:36 AM

Oakenshield: Well shiat, who cares if he learned and fessed up to his mistake and will change going forward. We don't like that kind of thinking around here. He was for it before he was against it and that's all that really matters. Frak him and THE NEXT STAR WARS BETTER BE WORSE THAN THE PHANTOM MENACE BECAUSE DISNEYLENSFLAREderp


Speak for yourself.
 
2013-10-01 11:11:36 AM
Orci and Kurtzman are the problem. Lens flares are just an irritant.
 
2013-10-01 11:31:25 AM
I (mostly) don't notice the lens flares or care about them.  But STID had one that was really stupidly distracting...as Carol Marcus is pleading with her father I could barely see her through the lens flare.  There was no artistic point in shining a light in my eyes while she gets her big scene.

/at least her underwear scene was easy to see
 
2013-10-01 11:33:22 AM
Seriously, man to man? I hope JJ Abrams gets Rigellian Fever and his bloated dead body get consumed by Tribbles.
 
2013-10-01 11:40:25 AM
Well, good for him admitting his mistakes and trying to improve at his profession.  That's more than can be said of George Lucas...
 
2013-10-01 11:43:56 AM
I didn't mind the lens flares in the Star Trek remake.

When he had them in Super 8. In a cave. In the dark. Then, he crossed the line.
 
2013-10-01 12:04:12 PM
In New Trek 1, I noticed them and they generally didn't bother me. Least offensive part of the movie, imo. I thought that was the style he was shooting for, and it worked (for me)
To the fan-bois whining about Star Wars VII (I consider myself more of a loyal fan), I don't think he could deviate too much from the 'style' that Lucas has already established. Heck they could get Kevin Smith to direct for the low amount of camera movement in the first 6.
If they start making spin-off movies that aren't numbered, I would be fine with 'directorial style.'

The numbered Episodes need to be consistent.
 
2013-10-01 12:11:59 PM
So what is preventing him from producing a "Director's Rehab Cut" of each of these films minus the lens flare?

The lens flare is just a digital artifact right? How hard would it be to rerender each frame with the lens flare effect a noop?
 
2013-10-01 12:20:29 PM

RoyBatty: So what is preventing him from producing a "Director's Rehab Cut" of each of these films minus the lens flare?

The lens flare is just a digital artifact right? How hard would it be to rerender each frame with the lens flare effect a noop?


No. Most were generated on-set, in-camera. Look at the bridge set. There are towers of glass all around the place just to add moar flares.
Some article after ST1 came out with JJ talking about having people stand around with lights blasting into the camera just to add more.

Any digital ones could easily be taken out, since every effect is its own layer (like Photoshop), but that would mean re-compositing those shots. And, depending on how contracts are written, Paramount could be on the hook to re-paying actors.
 
2013-10-01 12:27:46 PM

Esroc: You know, I barely noticed the lens flares until the internet got all butthurt over it.

/they really aren't that bad
//people always have to find something to biatch about


I always noticed the gratuitous amounts of broken glass, but I'm with you on the lens flare.
 
2013-10-01 12:41:57 PM

Witty_Retort: Heck they could get Kevin Smith to direct for the low amount of camera movement in the first 6.


Star Wars had a low amount of camera movement? Maybe by some of today's standards of Michael J Fox holding a loquacious spider monkey holding the camera but there were a lot of tracking shots and the first use of the computer controlled camera. Hardly Kevin Smith's style of setting up the camera on a stack of phone books, hitting record and going out for a smoke.
 
2013-10-01 01:07:30 PM

Mugato: Witty_Retort: Heck they could get Kevin Smith to direct for the low amount of camera movement in the first 6.

Star Wars had a low amount of camera movement? Maybe by some of today's standards of Michael J Fox holding a loquacious spider monkey holding the camera but there were a lot of tracking shots and the first use of the computer controlled camera. Hardly Kevin Smith's style of setting up the camera on a stack of phone books, hitting record and going out for a smoke.


The special effects shots (Opening  capture, Trench run, etc.) had lots of camera movement, but the practical shots didn't have a too much. A few pans every once in a while. I may be misremembering and will set myself a task to watch the OT this weekend.
I hate shaky-cam. Lazy fight scenes at their worst.
Clerks 2 had some pretty good crane shots during the dance number and I liked the circling shot during their argument.
 
2013-10-01 02:54:00 PM

Witty_Retort: RoyBatty: So what is preventing him from producing a "Director's Rehab Cut" of each of these films minus the lens flare?

The lens flare is just a digital artifact right? How hard would it be to rerender each frame with the lens flare effect a noop?

No. Most were generated on-set, in-camera. Look at the bridge set. There are towers of glass all around the place just to add moar flares.
Some article after ST1 came out with JJ talking about having people stand around with lights blasting into the camera just to add more.

Any digital ones could easily be taken out, since every effect is its own layer (like Photoshop), but that would mean re-compositing those shots. And, depending on how contracts are written, Paramount could be on the hook to re-paying actors.


Interesting, thank you.
 
2013-10-01 03:02:02 PM
I honestly think he laid it on thick because he has contempt for Trekkies.  The new Star Wars flims won't have any farking lens flare.
 
2013-10-01 03:09:53 PM

Tax Boy: I didn't mind the lens flares in the Star Trek remake.

When he had them in Super 8. In a cave. In the dark. Then, he crossed the line.


LOL. Yeah good point.

Loved the Star Trek Films, didnt care about the flares. Flame on Trekkies, but both those movies get repeat play on my home theater.

/I mean they put a tribble in it LOL! How can you hate it??
 
2013-10-01 04:52:46 PM
bittelmethis.com

/ I know, wrong kind of flare.
 
2013-10-01 05:16:28 PM
You know, you'd think if he was going through removing flares... He'd have pulled out the one that decapitated uhura during a serious bridge moment. That was the point I just couldn't stand the flares anymore for ID.
 
2013-10-01 09:12:17 PM
Abrams' biggest challenge with Star Wars will be this:  there should be no "trademark style" from the director.  The original films were shot "generic", and the director's style didn't get in the way of the look of the films.  That's not to say they weren't shot very well, because they were (especially "Empire"), but the camera was more of an observer than an active participant, and the sets, costumes and actions were left to speak for themselves.

So I don't care about lens flares and have always thought fans protested a bit too much.  But they don't belong in Star Wars.  Neither do swooping camera angles, rapid pans, or anything else that would reveal a director's trademark touch.  That's not easy to do, and I don't even know if Abrams will attempt it, but if he wants an authentic feel, then he should.
 
2013-10-01 09:23:30 PM
Well, good, I guess.

Especially in the case of star wars.  Lens flares are about giving things a clean, simplified streamlined look, like what the 1980s thought the future would look like basically (so I can understand why he thought it was appropriate to Star Trek, that being a series about how bright and shiny and techy humanity's future was).  Star Wars draws mostly on western tropes and aesthetics, or at least the good SW movies did.  The aesthetic is all about wear, grit, and stuff that's  used.  The SW civilizations are  ancient.
 
2013-10-01 09:49:17 PM

Russ1642: On TOS they worked on a bridge that was filled with stupid dinging noises that any sane human would shut off after two seconds. Now they work on a bridge with screens and lights so bright you need to wear welding goggles.


Not to mention strange light sources that only illuminate the middle third of your face.
 
2013-10-01 09:51:29 PM

haydenarrrrgh: Russ1642: On TOS they worked on a bridge that was filled with stupid dinging noises that any sane human would shut off after two seconds. Now they work on a bridge with screens and lights so bright you need to wear welding goggles.

Not to mention strange light sources that only illuminate the middle third of your face.


Like this:
 
2013-10-01 09:58:58 PM

Shrugging Atlas: It didn't stand out to me in the first movie, just seemed to be a part of the visual makeup of the movie.  Then I starting hearing all the biatching and moaning about it and now it sticks out like a sore thumb.


By the way,  have you noticed bad kerning yet?
http://xkcd.com/1015/

(I'm sorry)
 
2013-10-02 08:28:19 AM
I don't think the lens flare stood out in "Into Darkness" as much as Alice Eve's headlights did. Fan service at its worst. I think that was much more gratuitous than Kim Cattrall's shower scene in Star Trek VI.


/Also the nonsensical plot kind and rampant cribbing kind of dulled down anything sharp about that movie.
 
2013-10-02 08:32:02 AM
Dammit, always preview!  Well, apologies for bad grammar on Fark involve eye bleach, right?

www.topnews.in
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report