In Shawn’s review of Star Trek (which he didn’t like because he’s wrong), he created a visual joke for just how many lens flares were in the film. While I agree that the flares were over used from time to time, it actually worked for me in the movie on a whole. Besides, Shawn’s version is bullshit because he used the standard PS lens flares. I submit my version:
My version, while ridiculous, still looks Abrams ridiculous. Although this whole thing made me think about what Abrams himself thinks about the flares now that he’s sat with the film for a while. Turns out even he felt he went overboard in places. But, more interestingly, he says all the flares were created with practicals and not added in CG (except, obviously, for space and digital shots). That actually makes me feel better about the effect in the longrun. Abrams:
They were all done live, they weren’t added later. There is something about those flares, especially in a movie that can potentially be very sterile and CG and overly controlled. There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. 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 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.
In general, I agree with him and think it added to the unique visual look of the film. Even if there were moments when it was a little too intense. Also, Shawn is wrong.
