That was hilarious! I'm glad I read the title of this thread. I ignored it a few times after noticing Titanic and Michael Bay out the corner or my eye and thought it was another X film VS Transformers thread.

 

Not nearly to the extent that Abrams used in Star Trek. Bay uses lens flares, yes, but so do a lot of other directors. Heck, Jurassic Park and Silence of the Lamb use (non-anamorphic) lens flares. And they're never as distracting. Abrams' flares could block out 3/4 of the screen for upwards of 3 seconds. Bay's flares pop up very briefly to highlight some visual cue and disappear just as quickly (take the Cybertron battle in DotM for example).

 

They just earned another subscriber.

 

dafuq i just watch

 

Re: JJ Abrams use of lens flares - I actually loved them in Star Trek. Granted, he may have went a tad overboard, but overall I loved the textured aesthetic they added to a lot of scenes.

 

Agreed, I enjoyed them, but I can understand where some of the hate comes from. Plus, for me, I never noticed them when I saw it in theatres. Or when I watched it at home. It was only after reading countless lens-flare-related comments that I suddenly realized it. What has been seen...

 

Haha, and it probably didn't help his case much when they included an entire segment in the special features of the DVD dedicated to him talking about lens flares, counting how many times he said "needs more flares", and showing him always shining flashlights into the lenses to get that effect. It's actually thanks to that segment that I even knew what what was going on with that particular effect since, like you, I never really noticed them while watching the movie.

 

  Yeah, I remember watching that. Those poor stage-hands and assistants just flashing flashlights into the camera like it was some rave. And at least he/the production crew acknowledges it; not taking themselves too seriously.  

 

That was so insanely amazing.  

 

I wonder what would happen is the included M. Night Samalayan.

 

The 'audience' would suddenly wake up, safe and sound in their own beds. They'd look around frantically and then realize...

...it was all a dream.

 

lololol

Michael Bay...

 

Well there would of course be "a tweeeest". As per his ridiculous track record, we'd probably find out the ship (and the world as we know it) are all inside a bottle with super-sized aliens watching. And for good measure, right side up is actually upside down.

 

I like how they mentioned George Lucas because he's always messing with the Star Wars films,

 

I would see Star Wars: Titanic.

 

This completely captures the point I try to make to people... Of all the movies to remaster in 3D, why the hell Titanic?! It's not a movie meant to be viewed in 3D, and it's just a shameless attempt to milk some money, and it worked... Now if it had been remastered like this, then I would see it.

 

In other news, water is wet. James Cameron may be my favourite director of all time, but he's still a whore   Like Lucas before him, he'll milk that cow 'till it cries for mercy.

Mind you I'd pay hard currency to see Aliens or Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day (Double Feature FTW) remastered in 3D......

 

  If this was a real film, i'd definitely sit through the 3 hours again

 

This. Asking why JAMES CAMERON is RE-RELEASING TITANIC in 3D? The answer is in the question itself.   As one of the most prominent pro-3D filmmakers of all time - and as someone who loves money - why wouldn't he take his second-most financially successful film and use his fancy new 3D tech on it to make some extra cash?

 

After reading this thread, I want to see Terminator 3D now.