I just got some Pizza Rolls in the mail...

[Russell]

Not the best argument in favour of lens flare to be honest sine it isn't really its presence per se that people object to but its inexplicable overuse. A flare from a light source can be a very cool effect providing there is a explicable origin for said flare (a door opening into a darkened room for example). In Abams case he tends to slap it all over even in scenes featurinig soft and diffused lighting as is the case with the interior of the enterprise, which makes it look like sloppy work by the DP.

So given that, try again.

Okay... Lens flare.The argument of overuse is rather silly to me because it has
no bearing on the characters, story or overall quality of the film as a work of
science fiction. I guess if I were to make an argument for the Lens Flare, it would
be that Lens flare is supposedly proven to stimulate ones optic nerve, triggering
constant stimulation of the pre-frontal cortex. Yes, a theory, perhaps not a sound
one, but one that I like, and one that I am sticking with.

Also, it doesn't bother me at all. It never did! It's not like JJ has gotten in front of
the camera and is brandishing Jar Jar binks in front of me. Outer space in film
whether you like it or not is going to be glamorized. With few exceptions
in the history of film and TV, it always has been! What's wrong with that? I don't see
a problem.

[Rainbow Dash]

No, Star Trek 2009 was a fucking masterpiece. I have literally annihilated planets over
arguments on that movie. Please do NOT get me started because for every complaint there is,
I have a carefully constructed counter-argument.

Ok, why did they have to change the timeline? 
You have 20 seconds, and GO!

But they didn't, they created an alternate universe, something that's been established in Star Trek for a long time.

[Russell]

But they didn't, they created an alternate universe, something that's been established in Star Trek for a long time.

See when he said that I thought he meant the alternate timeline, I didn't know he meant
that they literally CHANGED the original timeline we all know. Even in the movie, Uhura
says "An alternate reality".

[Watchman]

So I guess I'm the only one who can't stand to listen to this guy's voice for more than a few seconds?! Jesus, I'd rather listen to Ben Stein read the tax code.

You know the voice is a character & not the guy's real voice, right? I remember the first time I tried to watch a Red Letter Media review I was like "I don't want to listen to this guy's voice for an hour". It became much funnier for me after I read up on the "Plinkett mythos" & found out what the whole deal was after his epic dissection of Revenge of the Sith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Plinkett#Mr._Plinkett_character

Though, I thought the whole world was too kind to Star Trek (2009).  
And when is Spielberg going to stop mentoring JJ Abrams & Michael Bay and be a Filmmaker again?

No, Star Trek 2009 was a fucking masterpiece. I have literally annihilated planets over
arguments on that movie. Please do NOT get me started because for every complaint there is,
I have a carefully constructed counter-argument.

*Shrugs* I thought it was overpraised. That's as passionate & detailed as I'll get. I don't care enough about this movie to get worked up over it. I think it's kind of funny that I inadvertently kicked up such a ruckus, though. One "meh" goes a long way.

Spielberg, directing again??? I don't think so, Spielberg is getting too old to direct movies anymore!

There's no retirement age for directors. Look at Clint Eastwood, Robert Altman, John Huston. The only true retirement is death.

I'm not very fond of doing this BTW, sooner or later a mod is going to notice
and ban me from the forum.... AGAIN.

Chill out, man, everything's cool. Dial down the passion a bit & don't take things so personally. You like a movie that I think is wildly overpraised. End of story. Can you live with that?

[Rainbow Dash]

But they didn't, they created an alternate universe, something that's been established in Star Trek for a long time.

See when he said that I thought he meant the alternate timeline, I didn't know he meant
that they literally CHANGED the original timeline we all know. Even in the movie, Uhura
says "An alternate reality".

Well, Star Trek has also established that there's more than just that one alternate universe.

[Tripe]

 Nope you still didn't address my point. The cortextual based information explains why explcable lens flair works as an effect.  Look the thing I explained in my post isn't something that most people realze, they just find the inexplicable flares bothersome. And sayng "I don't care about that" isn't really any sort of argument.

That's ok but it does rather show that your claim to be able to defend every element was a bit gradiose really

[Russell]

Well, Star Trek has also established that there's more than just that one alternate universe.

True, like hundreds if I recall....

Chill out, man, everything's cool. Dial down the passion a bit & don't take things so personally. You like a movie that I think is wildly overpraised. End of story. Can you live with that?

I was only referring to having to go on and on about one subject over and over by responding
to everybody's complaints. It could look like I was trolling or inviting a flame war.

Nope you still didn't address my point. The cortextual based information explains why explcable lens flair works as an effect.  Look the thing I explained in my post isn't something that most people realze, they just find the inexplicable flares bothersome. And sayng "I don't care about that" isn't really any sort of argument.
That's ok but it does rather show that your claim to be able to defend every element was a bit gradiose really

Oh lord... Look, the thing is I just don't see it! I mean the way I look at it is that it's some sort
of wild overanalysis. And I thought I did answer it. It's a way of glamorizing outer space to the
common man who is not used to exploring it... in my opinion. nothing wrong with that! I've always
been in favor of the "if you've got it, flaunt it" argument, and even then I agree something like that
shouldn't be overused  Perhaps I should restate, I have an answer for every fairly REASONABLE
complaint. Complaining about the lens flare IMHO is not reasonable. Use of lens flare is a purely ARTISTIC
decision.

[bta]

But they didn't, they created an alternate universe, something that's been established in Star Trek for a long time.

See when he said that I thought he meant the alternate timeline, I didn't know he meant
that they literally CHANGED the original timeline we all know. Even in the movie, Uhura
says "An alternate reality".

Well, Star Trek has also established that there's more than just that one alternate universe.

So the answer is, "Because they can."?

[Tripe]

A production be it on stage or on screen is made up of every element not just the narrative and peformance ones, and that's always been the case. So it's perfectly reasonable to criticize and analyse the technical elements of any given production.

An element being an artistic choice doesn't immunise it from criticism either. Elements either help the production or they don't.  For many people the extent of the lens flare was a hinderance to their appreciation of the production.

It's OK that you aren't able to answwer the criticism (despite it being a fairly common complaint) but to say "oh that's just nothing and it's unreasonable to complain about it" is intellectually dishonest and a rather weak response given that you claimed to be able to argue against every criticism

No biggie really.

[Watchman]

Regarding lens flare:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/YO53KpIbaNs" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/YO53KpIbaNs</a>

[Russell]

It's OK that you aren't able to answwer the criticism (despite it being a fairly common complaint) but to say "oh that's just nothing and it's unreasonable to complain about it" is intellectually dishonest and a rather weak response given that you claimed to be able to argue against every criticism

I answered your question twice in addition to what I said! Go back and look!

Regarding lens flare:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/YO53KpIbaNs" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/YO53KpIbaNs</a>

It looks out of place and stupid in Star Trek VI, but you hardly notice
it in Star Trek. Well, maybe that's a bit unfair, It looks more...
natural, in my opinion.

By the way Mods I am so sorry for going a little too far with this discussion here
that has nothing to do with the title of the thread. It's gone too far, I've gone too
far in a few places.

[Tripe]

Nope neither of them addressed the actual point. Like I said it's ok that you're not up to it, it's just that your initial claim was a bit silly.

So if you could do me the favour of stating that your claim to be able to refute any criticism was silly then we can just knock this on the head.

[Russell]

Nope neither of them addressed the actual point. Like I said it's ok that you're not up to it, it's just that you initial claim was a bit silly.
So if you could do me the favour of stating that your claim to be able to refute any criticism was silly then we can just knock this on the head.

No, it was not silly. Lens Flare is a movie technique that glamorizes the cold dark of
outer space and the Enterprise, and in my opinion was necessary to the frenetic
amount of action going on.

[bta]

I think the lens flare was a physical manifestation of the timeline changes or it could be just the norm in this alternate universe....also swans don't have penises in this alternate universe.

[Russell]

I think the lens flare was a physical manifestation of the timeline changes or it could be just the norm in this alternate universe....also swans don't have penises in this alternate universe.

Then how do Swans exist? Is it like a Jurassic Park thing where their DNA merged with African
frogs and they randomly change sex in the absence of males?