What director is that supposed to represent? JJ flares are horizontal, sometimes have multiple occurrences in a single frame, and often are accompanied by a briefly blown out image in case the viewer doesn’t notice the insane distraction.
The JJ lens flare then made it into DISCO although I think they toned it down a bit for SNW. I checked out of SFA after 3 episodes so I don’t know if they continued to be flare happy there.
For better and worse, Discovery took a lot of cues from the Abrams films, being more action focused, with flashier effects and cinematography, for example.
It got toned down as time went on, but there were parts here and there in Discovery where you can tell they were trying to replicate the films.
Yeah, the Disco premiere was very action-oriented, very JJ coded. I was like, ok, they’re trying to draw in viewers with a flashy beginning, but hopefully they’ll start being a proper Star Trek show soon. Oh, well. Happily, some people liked the show, but it wasn’t my cup of tea.
Wouldn’t that exact point lend itself to the idea that spelling out obscure acronyms would be beneficial for people passingly curious to the conversation? Or is this some s-tier wagyu elite topic gatekeeping that must separate itself? I don’t think that’s very Federation of you, bud.
Not everything needs to be explained every time it’s said. Language would be ridiculous if we had to define every word every time it’s used. Its pretty easy to search “Star Trek Disco” for example and learn what it means if you don’t understand it.
He’s always the wrong choice for anything that calls for the bare minimum planning and substance, but that’s what they keep giving him. He has good instincts for cinematography but shouldn’t be trusted with anything that requires an actual plot.
Eh, he’s done some decent work he just isn’t always the right fit for the properties he’s given.
Sorry I can’t read your comment. The 20 lens flares he put on screen still have me blinded
Edit: to be clear. I don’t think his movies are bad per say. They’re just painfully mediocre.
What director is that supposed to represent? JJ flares are horizontal, sometimes have multiple occurrences in a single frame, and often are accompanied by a briefly blown out image in case the viewer doesn’t notice the insane distraction.
Michael Bay
JJ, when the lens flared.
SeductiveTortoise, his fists clenched.
Why did Jonathan Frakes direct a comment about JJ Abrams?
The JJ lens flare then made it into DISCO although I think they toned it down a bit for SNW. I checked out of SFA after 3 episodes so I don’t know if they continued to be flare happy there.
For better and worse, Discovery took a lot of cues from the Abrams films, being more action focused, with flashier effects and cinematography, for example.
It got toned down as time went on, but there were parts here and there in Discovery where you can tell they were trying to replicate the films.
Yeah, the Disco premiere was very action-oriented, very JJ coded. I was like, ok, they’re trying to draw in viewers with a flashy beginning, but hopefully they’ll start being a proper Star Trek show soon. Oh, well. Happily, some people liked the show, but it wasn’t my cup of tea.
DISCO? SNW? SFA? I guess with concerted effort I can use context clues to figure it out but like, how often are you typing these things?
We’re in a Star Trek community. I think most people are going to understand those without an issue.
Most /= all but thanks for sharing
Not all people speak English. What’s your point?
Wouldn’t that exact point lend itself to the idea that spelling out obscure acronyms would be beneficial for people passingly curious to the conversation? Or is this some s-tier wagyu elite topic gatekeeping that must separate itself? I don’t think that’s very Federation of you, bud.
Not everything needs to be explained every time it’s said. Language would be ridiculous if we had to define every word every time it’s used. Its pretty easy to search “Star Trek Disco” for example and learn what it means if you don’t understand it.
*per se
He’s always the wrong choice for anything that calls for the bare minimum planning and substance, but that’s what they keep giving him. He has good instincts for cinematography but shouldn’t be trusted with anything that requires an actual plot.
Now I kinda want to see him make an Avatar movie.
(Blue skinned aliens, not ATLA. Although his ATLA would probably be better than what we got.)
He would probably announce a trilogy, spend the first movie setting up some mystery in Pandora’s core and then would never follow up.
spoiler
And somehow Quaritch would return, but Cameron has that covered already.
You can be a hack and still do great work, look at Ridley Scott.
Relatable
As long as you don’t let him anywhere near the plot.
what is this decent work you speak of? did he make a never published short or something?
I thought Super 8 was pretty good.