Flunklesnarkin_sl
shitlord
- 922
- 3
Nah it didn't bother me, although JJ Abrams did go just a tad overboard with it in Star Trek. He admits it himself. I watched Die Hard shortly after reading this thread and there is all sorts of natural lens flare in that film, I was like OH NOES JJ ABRAMS STRIKES AGAINUhh, maybe I'm late to the lens flare party - but am I the only person in the world that didn't notice/wasn't horribly distracted by it in Star Trek? Is it because of the 15 minutes I spend every day staring into the sun?
This. I never noticed it until people started mentioning it, now its all up in my face any time I see any scene from the movie.I passed over it on my first watch simply because I was enjoying the movie so much, but it really is ALL over the place. It's something once someone mentions you end not being able to avoid seeing. I seriously doubt more than like a half of a second passes through the entire movie without some type of flare effect. And honestly that isn't even an exaggeration.
Why wasn't there any prequel footage in that?Imagine the lens flares.
Did you see the first 9 minutes of the new star trek? Holy jizz tastic that movie looks fucking awesome. Its pretty in a way that few movies achieve, it has a feel of realness and urgency to it, and scenes look to the extreme without quite crossing over that cusp to absurd. Also, it looks like they went away from the lens flare. There were a few, but JJ abrams seemed to agree with the critics. Instead of lens flares, they appear to have slightly over saturated lights on the enterprise, so it still has the same sort of crisp and just flat out 'good guys' artistic feel to it in the original movie, without becoming obnoxious in what I saw.haha, yeah, it certainly does seem that way.
I didn't notice the lens flare on Star Trek in the theater, I was in awe of how awesome the movie was. When I saw it on bluray, i noticed it because people complain about it so much. But I still didn't care.