J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

"...The flares weren't just happening from on-camera light sources, they were happening off camera, and that was really the key to it. I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening. There was always a sense of something, and also there is a really cool organic layer thats a quality of it. They were all done live, they weren't added later. There are something about those flares, especially in a movie that can potentially be very sterile and CG and overly controlled. There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens. It became an art because different lenses required angles, and different proximity to the lens. Sometimes, when we were outside we'd use mirrors. Certain sizes were too big... literally, it was ridiculous. It was like another actor in the scene...."

There's a brief Youtube video included demonstrating the camera effects.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

Sylar is in the Star Trek now

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

Another waaaay overdone film/editing effect and he even admits it. To me it's just another style like the overly shaky, zooming in and out, panning or tilted camera effect that's so popular on TV series like "24" "CSI" an so many others. Frankly, I find it amateurish, trendy and annoying.

I like the forum quote in the link provided that says: "It's like candy to a kid, Someone has to tell them no."

That's a good way of putting it. If someone higher up doesn't come along and moderate "ridiculous" use of effects they end up staying, which I think detracts from a movie. What could have been used tastefully two or three times during the whole film is instead used 5 times in one scene. How do these things even make it to the big screen?

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

It looks like they're about to cut to the next scene of the infomercial.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

Although 'ridiculous' or overdone, I do think it's a valid way of introducing a 'live' effect to the scene.

A worse effect, I think, is the use of people walking back and forth in front of the lens, completely blocking your view of the actors for long intervals.

In any case, it's another use of flashlights which is the point of my post.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

Using flashlights for in-camera effects and lens-flares is not new. There's a shot in "Independence Day" of Air Force One with a nice lens flare that had all CGI people scratching heads how it was done; they couldn't figure it out since it wasn't CGI at all (it was a pure physical model, in front of a poster background of clouds, with the FX guy shining a flashlight at the right moment into the camera).

However, seeing this clip brings my opinion of JJ Abrams (which was low to begin with) down another notch -- because he doesn't really understand it. Even if it is off-camera, there needs to be a light source causing the flare. And it needs to be moving. But there is nothing that SHOULD be there, never mind his ridiculous idea of "the future being bright". In parts of the scene, the light source needs to be in between the actors and the camera, with the camera very close to the actors (or, since the camera is 'virtual', not part of the reality the characters experience, the light source has to be in between the characters), and the light source in some instances SHOULD be appearing on screen. What the FSM is this light source, inside the reality of the movie? Microscopic drones? Ghosts? And why do we only hint at them? Why don't we see anything like it on screen, only just out of frame?

To be frank, I LIKE lens flares. Used correctly, they can improve the 'reality' of a scene, which is quite helpful for a science fiction movie with a fake reality. Modern high quality lenses with a lot less lens flare often produce a 'sterile' look, a fake, lifeless, flat image, IMO.

And there's something incredibly satisfying when you see the light causing the flare in another camera perspective, because the filmmakers were smart to use practical lighting, lights within the set and the 'fake' reality to also light the scene. The best example I can think of right now is "Firefly", though I'm a little reluctant to mention it, since I don't want to cause another Abrams vs. Whedon discussion...

But Abrams overdid it, which has the exact opposite effect of what I think he wanted to achieve.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

erlon said:

Sylar is in the Star Trek now

Click to expand...

Does he still think he is Nathan Petrelli?

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

He thinks he's Spock.

Some things never change...

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/M...nBnXkFtZTcwMjY4ODk5MQ@@._V1._SX600_SY251_.jpg

Should be interesting to see if they do any clock jokes.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

After seeing this film, I'll say that the lens flares were simple garbage. I found them incredibly annoying. I didn't like a lot of the visual style and design of the film. Some sequences were great, but I don't want to go into detail here and possibly spoil something.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

What were these people thinking? Now when I go see this movie those lens flares are going to drive me nuts. Maybe they want the movie to look like we are watching while on drugs that would cause us to see flashes that shouldn't be there.

Watching that scene confused me. It was like "Are they outside on a really sunny day with people wandering around with faceted crystal goblets?"

It was a very strange and unnatural effect. Now I see why the movie has 5 stars, they are actually in the movie flashing all about.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

I actually really liked the movie....i got sucked in....
I did notice the amount of lens flaring but it didnt bother me, i was more focused on Sylar as Spock...half expected him to cut the foreheads off people....:tinfoil:

but i really did like the movie....only gripe being the number of unlikley things happening

1. Kirk showing up at the recruitment thing the very next day, just like that.
2. Spock being showed up as "emotionally compromised" that easily.

I dont know how it relates to Star Trek as a whole as im probably the furthest thing away from a trekkie.

I liked the way they used (however fantastical) black holes though...

and ive watched Firefly, really liked it, and wish they continued, if only to know what the Shepard's relationship with the Alliance was.

Crenshaw

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

I just saw it and it's actually a good movie. If you're a trekkie you'll notice many references to the original series, and if you're a "serious" trekkie, you'll also notice the technical errors when comparing it to the original series and the established 43 years of the trek universe. My friends who saw it will me couldn't help but comment when Vasquez Rocks appeared.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

I just watched the film yesterday, and I agree with those saying there were too many lens flares. I think they were also way too strong. It seemed like every five seconds, the screen went mostly white... just to look cool. :shakehead

As for the film itself, I thought it was all right. I genuinely laughed a few times at parts intended to be funny, which is a plus.

"...to seek out new life and new ZOMGLENSFLARES..."

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

TigerhawkT3 said:

I just watched the film yesterday, and I agree with those saying there were too many lens flares. I think they were also way too strong. It seemed like every five seconds, the screen went mostly white... just to look cool. :shakehead

Click to expand...

Yes the lens flare was a wee bit to much to say the least.

Crenshaw said:

i was more focused on Sylar as Spock...half expected him to cut the foreheads off people....:tinfoil:

but i really did like the movie....only gripe being the number of unlikley things happening

1. Kirk showing up at the recruitment thing the very next day, just like that.
2. Spock being showed up as "emotionally compromised" that easily.

Click to expand...

Yes I was half expecting Spock to turn into Sylar at one point with Kirk.

Well was he not told he should show up at that time the next day or perhaps hours later after meeting with the Captain late night. The young one was well young so perhaps with experience... hmm.. Spock and Uhura...


The movie has done well according to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2585&p=.htm

Star Trek commanded a stellar estimated $72.5 million on approximately 7,400 screens at 3,849 sites over the weekend (plus an estimated $4 million from Thursday night previews).

Click to expand...

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

I liked the movie and ignored the flares. I was too busy pointing out all the uber geek throwback bits to Wendy.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

There were lens flares? :nana:

I focused more on the story and less on the CGI. Unlike some other mega franchise that you could condense 6 movies into 2 good ones this had a good story. IMO.

And awesome graphics but CGI alone is just a demo of what a effects company can do.

At least they didn't do slo-mo Matrix like phaser blasts.

Overall I liked the film. :thumbsup:

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

I enjoyed the film very much. I think JJ did a good job. I too focused on the characters and story. Yes, certain liberties were taken with existing materials, but that's ok to me. In return, I get to see the best Trek characters ever, brought back. Apparently, a sequel to this prequel is already being discussed.

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

Thank you for the good news!

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

I found this link on reddit.com -

"I made old star trek look like new star trek!"

It's a youtube video (1 min, 2 sec):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

Re: J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous" (made w/ flashlights)

I enjoyed this one more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpKBNqmSZo&feature=related