My turn: In this episode, Keyboard Cat becomes a 23rd century film critic and must dodge deadly Romulan lens flares and Vulcan interrogation techniques on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise! Gratuitously excessive audio-visual excitement overkill galore!
UPDATE: Cameron sends this: "J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous":
I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, "Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many." But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame. 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. [...]
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....
We had two cameras, so sometimes we had two different spotlight operators. When there was atmosphere ["smoke"] in the room, you had to be really careful because you could see the beams. So it was this ridiculous, added level of pain in the ass, but I love... [looking at] the final cut, [the flares] to me, were a fun additional touch that I think, while overdone, in some places, it feels like the future is that bright.
I long ago vowed never to watch this film (yes, I'm one of the fans the Onion is parodying) and now I am even more comfortable with my decision. Just 30 seconds of that makes me want to vomit. There's no way I could sit through an entire film that looks like this.
Love the cat though.
Play em off Keyboard Cat. Play em off! Come on, quit stalling, play em! YESSS YESS!!! HE PLAYED THEM OFFF!
Actually, your title makes me think that Keyboard Cat playing off Duck Dodgers would be funny.
I tip my hat, sir. The firework was an especially nice touch.
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades...
I find it interesting...I think that there are too few movie reviewers out there. Over the years, I've watched some commentaries on DVDs that have stayed with me, such as the comment that (I think) Lawrence Kasdan made about the gun fight between Kevin Kline and Brian Dennehy at the end of Silverado...how the church in shot behind Kevin Kline's character, Paden, showed that he represented civilization and order; while behind Dennehy's character Cobb there was nothing...just wasteland, showing he represented...I think he said something about the lack of civilization, or whatever.
Anyway, the gist of that comment has stayed with me in that it highlighted that the elements of a shot should never be an accident. Comments that you and Roger have made - for example, focussing on Bahrani's use of a sticker in the back window of a vehicle - have reinforced that.
And yet, despite all of that, I find myself almost unconscious to the nuances of how an image is constructed. Perhaps it is because these days individual shots are rarely more than a few seconds long. I don't seem to recall seeing any long master shots in many recent movies (like I see so many...); it all seems to be about fast cutting, and the more frenetic the action is the faster the cutting (such as the fight scenes in Star Trek or Batman Begins).
I give Star Trek 3 out of 5, and my reasons for not rating it higher have solely to do with the characterizations and to some extent plot. I remember being mildly annoyed at various points by the lens flare, but not more than that. And I think that many "reviewers" are, like me, unconscious of how the image is an integral part of the story the movie is telling.
In my case, I think it has to do with the fact that first and foremost I'm a reader. To me the words tell the story. I'm more focussed on dialogue and exposition than image. And I wonder if the proliferation of internet reviewers aren't similarly handicapped - after all, behind every writer is an insatiable reader.
Anyways, thank you, Jim for doing your best to educate and guide me in understanding movies better. I realize that this process of education might not be your primary purpose (and if it is, certainly not aimed at one person! :) ), but that's what I draw from it, however imperfectly.
JMW: I know what you mean. I wasn't really bothered by the lens flares until Jim et al. pointed it out; my problems with the movie were primarily about characterization and plot, as well as some issues with the very premise itself (of doing an alternate universe reboot via time travel). A friend of mine immediately pointed out the lens flares, and I said I didn't think it was a big deal; watching these clips have made me realized how much I'd overlooked. I love movies, but at times my visual sense is a bit lacking, perhaps?
I love seeing all those iMovie effects. I've been tempted to use them before, but have somehow managed to restrain myself.
I can't fault JJ Abrams for having some sort of artistic vision here and sticking to it, even if I thought the lens flares were so overused and ridiculous that it distracted the hell out of me. Few mainstream directors have any sort of vision these days, beyond lighting and production design, so it's nice to hear he's aware of his inability to restrain an otherwise overworked effect.
I just wish he realized it might be overused in pre-production.
I also liked his use of broad exterior shots, of ships far off in the distance against a great expanse of blackness. But Abrams' insistence on close-ups, unnecessary dolly moves, and quick, odd cuts, both exterior and interior, really confused my ability to watch his film.
Modern, young, hip directors need to relearn film grammar. Being raised on MTV has not been healthy for these young bucks. Many are completely unable to communicate the basic geography of a sequence or sustain genuine suspense. And trying to mimic (and utterly fail) to capture the style of Greengrass' Bourne sequels has stymied quite a few action sequences in the last few years.
Of course, as long as we continue to buy tickets and the associated DVDs, these folks will have no reason to do anything different.
"I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening."
The only thing spectacular here is how oblivious Abrams is in this comment. How can he not realize that's practically a working definition of the word "distracting"?
I was watching "Minority Report" last night, and it just occurred to me that Abrams' idea of the future being somehow brighter than the film can capture is the same idea Spielberg had. Only Spielberg had the sense to use skip bleach printing rather than lens flares to get that idea across. While I found the technique in Spielberg's film annoyingly overdone at points (especially when characters' faces were obscured), at least post-production processing doesn't draw attention to the film equipment, which is all Abrams is accomplishing by shining his flashlight into the camera.
"I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening."
The only thing spectacular here is how oblivious Abrams is in this comment. How can he not realize that's practically a working definition of the word "distracting"?
I was watching "Minority Report" last night, and it just occurred to me that Abrams' idea of the future being somehow brighter than the film can capture is the same idea Spielberg had. Only Spielberg had the sense to use skip bleach printing rather than lens flares to get that idea across. While I found the technique in Spielberg's film annoyingly overdone at points (especially when characters' faces were obscured), at least post-production processing doesn't draw attention to the film equipment, which is all Abrams is accomplishing by shining his flashlight into the camera.
Joel: I hated the Bourne sequels. They're shot and edited in such a craftless way, completely ignoring the core rules, that oftentimes I thought that one character being shot from dozens of angles was actually several characters being shot from a single angle each, and I believed for about half of the second movie that Jason Bourne had murdered his girlfriend for no reason. I'll admit Greengrass had a vision, but so did Charles Manson.
It's not the fast cutting that gets to me, in fact, I love fast cutting, I love movies that play like a shot of cocaine, but the lack of craft kills me. Greengrass needs to attend a community college film course. When a director respects the core rules of composition and editing, when they have at least a basic understanding of blocking, they can get away with any crazy thing they want. Sam Raimi and Scorsese probably do it best. They can flip the camera upside down and make it do a barrel roll for no reason at all, and it still comes across as coherent and logical.
Tom on May 17, 2009 1:33 PM wrote: "I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening."
Yeah...I've seen that comment of Abrams' a few times in the past several days, and something just hit me. If this "thing" off camera is so spectacular, why isn't in frame? Why would Abrams focus on [html really needs a sarcasm tag] the boring characters and their dialogue and the rest of the story, instead of this amazing thing that's going on just to the side? [/sarcasm]
I'm actually fine with the lens flares: I think they add a nice stylistic touch. I even enjoy the skewed framing and camera angles. What I dislike is the incoherent editing, which is both too rapid and too disconnected to make sense of. It really comes through in action sequences, where you can't tell what the heck is going on other than "it's an action sequence".
That, and the writing kind of sucked. But it was mostly enjoyable, as far as popcorn entertainment goes.
Brad: I agree with you completely. When Kirk and Spock beamed aboard the Romulan ship and that particular action sequence started, I told myself, "I'm not even going to try to follow this one. I'm just going to sit back and wait till it's over." It was a logical, and correct, decision, that resulted in absolutely no emotional involvement.
How clever to make the audience view the movie from Spock's perspective. I'm sure that was the filmakers' intent.
I hated the lens flares. They practically ruined the movie for me because I kept thinking about them. In other words, I was DISTRACTED by them. And I was particularly annoyed when Abrams's bright lights actually obscured actors' faces. Talk about style over content. As for his excuse about "something spectacular happening just off screen," WTF? Does that mean that not all of the budget actually ended up ON the screen? What the hell do I care about something happening OFF screen? What a pretentious remark. I don't think that was the same strategy Spielberg used when he made "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." What would you say to that idea if you were an investor? I know what I say to it as a consumer of movies: Hogwash. Either show me or leave it out altogether. Please don't shine lights in my face and tell me you're doing something REALLY cool someplace else.
I hated the Star Trek movie, anyway. The more I think about it, the more it rubs me wrong. I did like the cast, I thought they not only resembled Shatner, Nimoy, etc., but also captured the essence of the characters. But what a busy, uncomfortably photographed movie.
This topic has got me in the mood to pay special attention to distracting, unnecessary directorial flourishes that do nothing to tell the story or deepen my understanding of the characters. There are several such in "Doubt," which I caught this weekend. The first time the light bulb went out over Meryl Streep's desk (not only off-camera but in the top of the frame), distracting the characters from the issue at hand, I thought, "My God, that's cheesy. Please stop!" Then it happened again. Then we have Streep constantly fussing about the windows being left open (for symbolic but wholly distracting reasons), not to mention the wind blowing, offscreen thunder, etc. JUST TELL THE STORY. Enough with the director sticking his nose in. If I want allegory, I'll read it into the events on the screen, please stop beating me about the neck and shoulders with it!
great article. very good read.
keyboard cat is really starting to blow up. im loving the videos. play him off keyboard cat.