Didn't he initially deny overdoing it? Either way, well done for recognising an issue. Hopefully it means he'll address it.

J.J. Abrams apologises for over-using lens flare

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/j-j-abram ... lens-flare

Probably some film student who wanted to demonstrate his or her knowledge of film terminology, thus elevating themselves to an assumed level of critical superiority, which gave them the kind of smug, knowing smile that indicates a festering sour grape, fizzing in the pit of their own ambition. It’s become a sort of communal stick to have a crack at JJ with, mostly by people who didn’t know what the f--k lens flare was, until someone started sneering the term all over their blog. It demonstrates JJ’s supreme talent as a film maker that the main means of knocking him is to magnify a throw away artistic choice, into some sort of hilarious failing. Lens flare is essentially an anomaly caused by light hitting the lens and creating refracted shapes. Because it draws attention to the fact that we are looking at a filmed event, it actually creates a subliminal sense of documentary realism and makes the moment more vital and immediate. In the same way Spielberg spattered his shots with bloody seawater in Saving Private Ryan, JJ suggests that the moment we are in is so real and alive, there just isn’t time to frame out all the light and activity. The irony is by acknowledging the film’s artifice, you are enhancing the reality of the moment. It’s clever and I love it. On set we call it ‘best in show’ and our amazing director of photography, Dan Mindel has a special technique to achieve it. To the detractors, I offer a polite f--k you and suggest you find a new stick to beat us with, if being a huge, boring neggyballs is necessary for your personal happiness.

STAR WARS EPISODE IMAX??

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/64347

Is Peter Jackson ever goingto get round to remaking the Dam Busters?