Demea wrote:
You forgot to mention the grotesque overuse of the lens flare.
OMG yes, this! Drove me INSANE.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Danger Zone!
Danger Zone!Follow
You forgot to mention the grotesque overuse of the lens flare.
OMG yes, this! Drove me INSANE.
Demea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For me, it was the gaping plot holes, moronic and lacking villain motivation, horrible use of the "shake cam" and fast cuts, ridiculous and inconsistent sets, along with god knows what else, which made it just a **** poor film.
Just like Michael Bay movies.
You forgot to mention the grotesque overuse of the lens flare.
Honestly? The constant shaking and vomitous action scenes were so annoying that I didn't even get to the point of noticing the lens flare. I've read about them, but at the time I was more like "Crap! What am I supposed to be looking at? Oh. Another scene. Close up. No. Far away. Nope. Explosions. Wait. There's someone's face and some dialog. Would you please f'ing hold the damn camera steady on something for more than half a second!!!". It was already so distracting and obnoxious that lens flare just kinda got lost in the battle for trying to figure out what the hell I was looking at.
But yeah: Lens flare goes into the "god knows what else" in the list of just horrible things about that film.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I don't know what it is about J.J. Abrams & his love of lens flares, but it's god damn annoying.
Super 8 was a pretty good movie, but the lens flares were ridiculous.
The Escapist said it best.
Super 8 was a pretty good movie, but the lens flares were ridiculous.
The Escapist said it best.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
How about Greengrass's nausea-inducing Bourne Supremacy? I have a rather strong constitution yet some of the scenes gave me headaches.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Debalic wrote:
How about Greengrass's nausea-inducing Bourne Supremacy? I have a rather strong constitution yet some of the scenes gave me headaches.
Yup, that might be one of the best examples. Shaky-cam fight scenes abound.
Demea wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I thought the new Star Trek was extremely well done, actually. I was dubious when going into it, but thoroughly enjoyed movie and am quite excited for the next one...
The biggest issue I have with the flick revolves around time-traveling Future Spock, which:
a) Allows them to ret-con out the entirety of the history of the franchise and the characters that came before the movie.
b) Doesn't make logical sense, since traveling backwards in time and changing the course of history would lead to an alternate future which would preclude the need to travel backwards in time, and therefore negate New Future Spock from ever doing it. Furthermore, by altering the past, Future Spock would cease to exist in the "past," which precludes the awkward meeting between Future Spock and New Spock.
Other than that, J.J. Abrams is less than stellar writer/director, similar in many ways to Michael Bay, and should probably stick to TV rather than movies.
First, the time travel part. There are no holes in it, where that is concerned. It's a standard example of branching time theory. They say it outright in the movie--this is a case of either branching time theory or standard parallel universe theory. They don't "change" time at all. Meaning that the universe that Spock and Nero were from is still continuing its course without them. Their act of time travel either:
1. Created a new time dimension causing the timeline to split where they arrived, so that they are completely separate from the original universe from then on. (branching time)
2. Traveled to a parallel universe that is such that it's timeline was the same until they arrived and altered it. (parallel universe theory).
As for the "retcons." For one, it can't be a retcon if they make it firmly clear that this is an alternate storyline. The "universe" that star trek took place in is not the same one as the movie (minus the few scenes that take place in the universe before time travel took place).
Also, I thought their nods to the original were both pretty good, actually. Old Spock's comments about his father, for instance. His lines from the original. The tribbles in the cage on the planet Kirk is stranded on. Etc.
And only one character was removed from the movie's history--George Kirk dies rather than lives. That's pretty much it. I'll grant that they shouldn't have made Kirk seem like an only child, but this is the only character who is removed from the plot by the time travel.
Realistically, also, the movie would have been way worse if they were just doing a remake or something of one of the movies. For one, most of the movies sucked. Not all, but most.
More importantly, it cuts down the number of options for the writers a TON, because they need to be sure everything lines up properly for the extended history of the series.
Most importantly? This system let them construct a situation that allowed Kirk to (without reprimand) avoid all of the boring confab talk that the original had. No one wants to watch some old guys debate what to do about nero for half an hour. That was fine for the TV show, but not for an action movie. The only way to do that was to introduce a villain such that he was threatening enough that Kirk could avoid having to deal with the bureaucracy. And the only way to do THAT was to introduce a new timeline, because such an enemy wouldn't have fit into the existing one well.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 10:53am by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
To pull my thread back for a second (you can argue about Star Trek in a minute, dorks), I was reading an article about FX and their development of shows like Archer, Always Sunny, Wilfred, Louis, etc.
In a nutshell, it goes "We're going to pay you shit (by TV standards) but let you pretty much do whatever in the fuck you want. If it becomes a hit, we'll renegotiate from there..."
In a nutshell, it goes "We're going to pay you shit (by TV standards) but let you pretty much do whatever in the fuck you want. If it becomes a hit, we'll renegotiate from there..."
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
Actually learning about filmmaking and camera work, lens flare has always been a mistake that could cost you your job. It was the sign of an amateur and not an effect serious filmmakers wanted. But all the trends that have become "style" in the past decade strike me as just a way for people to excuse their mistakes. (lens flare, shakey-cam, poorly framed shots, whip pans)
xantav wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
Actually learning about filmmaking and camera work, lens flare has always been a mistake that could cost you your job. It was the sign of an amateur and not an effect serious filmmakers wanted. But all the trends that have become "style" in the past decade strike me as just a way for people to excuse their mistakes. (lens flare, shakey-cam, poorly framed shots, whip pans)
Right, but if it's being used deliberately for effect, it's a bit different, isn't it? At that point, it just becomes a stylistic choice. I mean, you could definitely still take issue with it, but it's inclusion wasn't an oversight.
Jophiel wrote:
Archer's back tomorrow 
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants!
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Jophiel wrote:
In a nutshell, it goes "We're going to pay you shit (by TV standards) but let you pretty much do whatever in the fuck you want. If it becomes a hit, we'll renegotiate from there..."
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I just sent the hubby off on a big jetplane, so I'm stocking up on stuff to watch. Apparently I can watch two (2) episodes of Archer on DishOnline. So, that's something.
I thought the first reject off Survivor Island last night was a good pick. She seemed like a hair-flipping douche.
I thought the first reject off Survivor Island last night was a good pick. She seemed like a hair-flipping douche.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Turns out Archer was preceded by a new episode of Sunny in Philly. This is one of my son's favorite shows. So we had tv bonding hour together last night.
Archer was good for some laughs.
Archer was good for some laughs.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I'd check out the first two seasons. Good times.
Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.
Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I'd check out the first two seasons. Good times.
Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.
Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.
Yeah. I liked the dead hooker left in the hallway (cuz it's what she would have wanted).
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Eske Esquire wrote:
xantav wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.
Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
Actually learning about filmmaking and camera work, lens flare has always been a mistake that could cost you your job. It was the sign of an amateur and not an effect serious filmmakers wanted. But all the trends that have become "style" in the past decade strike me as just a way for people to excuse their mistakes. (lens flare, shakey-cam, poorly framed shots, whip pans)
Right, but if it's being used deliberately for effect, it's a bit different, isn't it? At that point, it just becomes a stylistic choice. I mean, you could definitely still take issue with it, but it's inclusion wasn't an oversight.
Some of the scenes that show lens flare HAVE to have had it added in digitally. It's not a mistake that it's there, it was a specific style choice. And I think it worked extremely well.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Jophiel wrote:
I'd check out the first two seasons. Good times.
Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.
Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.
Haven't seen the episode yet, but Fat Mac looks hilarious.
I loved his explanation for it. It was something like "Well in every other sitcom, the characters inexplicably get better looking as the show goes on. I figured, we're always in a bar and we don't take care of ourselves, so we should get fat."
Apparently he tried to get everyone in on it. Not surprisingly, they weren't keen on the idea.
It had it's good lines. Neither episode was a showcase of its best but I season openers usually aren't. I think the reason for the three-episode run of Archer is just to bridge from Season Two's ending into a more "normal" Season Three in January.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Pretty good episode of Archer, but I couldn't help but hearing Brock Samson in every line that other guy said. And does anybody else think he is really Archer's father?
Recent Visitors: 225
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (225)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Danger Zone!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC