Star Trek 2009: Pieces of flare! (Rescued, restored)

Abrams' explanation was that he "wanted to suggest something exciting was happening just off-screen." Why? Because there's nothing exciting on-screen? If something exciting is happening off-screen, shouldn't he show it? It strikes me as another attempt, like queasy-cam or Michael Bay's three-cuts-a-second to create the illusion of excitement whether the story earns it or not. Why not just focus on telling a story that is legitimately exciting? Star Trek II, to pick an example that comes readily to mind in this context, created excitement "despite" using long cuts, a steady camera and clear images.

Jim,

I very much enjoyed the new STAR TREK film but must admit that your comments on lens flares made them extra-noticeable the second time around. While I still wasn't overly bothered by them, I was amused to see, while watching the short "making of" featurette on the DVD, J.J. Abrams and company expounding at length about how much they loved lens flares. There was even a short montage of Abrams saying "nice flare!" while filming. Thought you'd get a kick out of it.

Realistically speaking, lens flares are nonsensical in any film that isn't a documentary.

Back when I was in college, say 20 years ago, we enjoyed mocking our fellow freshman newbies who would use "$5 words" to elevate themselves amongst their peers and my favorite $5 word was pedantic. Not a common word by any means and the beauty of it is that it aptly describes the very mindset that brings it in to use.

JJ Abrams' use of lens flares in Star Trek is visually pedantic. He isn't doing it because it has any real meaning or value beyond showing off the fact that he's seen films with lens flare by better, more creative film makers than himself, and he wants to emulate that. I'm guessing JJ Abrams doesn't really understand the point of lens flare. He just thinks it looks cool, like the posters for this film that feature the Enterprise catapulting itself from some milky abyss of light rays. Why? Who cares. It looks cool.

We are well into the age of "Looks Cool" film making. God help us all.

Lens flares are a stylistic trademark, whether they're a result of using good ol' anamorphic lenses, or merely adding them for effect, or BOTH, and he's just commenting on why he wanted them. It's no different than using specific sources for lighting or certain flourishes for art direction, so I don't get what the big deal is. Star Trek is a techno space opera, and the flares contribute to the film's slick, futuristic flash. It's no different than The Two Andersons, (Paul Thomas & Wes), shooting all of their films with the Panavision (anamorphic) process because they like the way it looks. I like the way it looks too.

And when he said it was meant to look like there was something happening O.S., he meant it was to add to the overall feeling and effect of the events on-screen, not to detract or distract from what was happening, for the very same reason films have musical scores, or actors like Johnny Depp take their characters and run with it. The way people were going on about it, I was expecting a fireworks display when I saw Star Trek, but I didn't even think there was that many lens flares to tell you the truth.

As others have mentioned, the bright lighting and lens flares adds to the style of the film. It's not a drab, naturalistic look at future space travel or gritty realist warfare in space--it's a fantasy set in a glittering future world.

Poking fun, I think, is perfectly acceptable, just as one could poke fun at the quirks seen in a film by Quentin Tarantino or the Coen Brothers. But disdain seems to smack of superiority. If it's not your style, fine, but I don't think the lens flares themselves (since they were intentional and not inadvertent) are signs of poor quality film making.

The lens flare in this film is ridicluous. It's only syltisic in limited use, in this film it was a crutch. Pretty much everything in this film is done to excess, it's the epitome of an overproduced film that was severly under written. Nero is a lame villian, the eradication of the Vulcan race is too over the top to have the dramatic impact, far too many idiotic camera angles, and last the film just feels it was just took place on a blue screen. STAR TREK is one for the overrated pile.

My wife and I actually were laughing at all the flare in the movie, it's really funny. I mean, there was a huge flare in the scene at the end in the academy where the students are all gathered to see kirk get a medal! Wow, it was sloppy, irritating, and completely funny at the same time! Play him off celestial kitty...

although I found the lens flares more noticeable now that I heard the comments, I also liked them. Even during the films 'directors comments' he talks about how sometimes there were just too many lens flares, I still liked the idea. I am sure in the next one you will see the same thing, only to a lesser degree.

I enjoyed the new film (though not as much as some of the previous ones) but I have to say the space scenes are really hard to watch. You can hardly see what's going on half the time so what's the point of showing it at all?

Well thanks for the laugh. That cat. I thought the movie was pretty damn overrated. Also felt sorry for Spock, really. After years of heroism his home world is destroyed and history erased. Time travel is impossible.

I don't feel sorry for Spock at all. He needs to learn a little bit about something called punctuality. Also: I agree about the script being poorly written and I think it's fitting that a little punk twirp is the only person fit to listen to the Beastie Boys. Flare on

I had to laugh when I watched 'Fringe' for the first time as it has 'artificial' lens flares all over the place. Clearly a dry run for 'Star Trek'.

I hated the film, but I had to admire the balls they showed in that opening scene with the Beastie Boys. It was basically Abrams and co saying 'You know all that stuff that your dad thinks is cool, well we're gonna throw them off a cliff, because our ADD, idiotic Star Trek is way cooler'.

The Flair doesn't bother me. It is the director's attempt to add a signature style and for me it worked. Some people seem to personally offended by it. Star Trek is a sharp looking movie, I bought the Blu Ray.