Movie gripe (long rant)

I'm pretty sure that this has been covered here before but I hate shaky-cam!

I just finished watching Quarantine and it used the same film-verite camera work that was used in Cloverfield, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Start Trek, etc all the way back to to the Blair Witch movie.

I'd much rather watch bullet time than see another "edgy and realistic" movie "filmed" with a handycam. Extra demerits if night vision is also used at any time.

Not that I'd ever watch anything like it , but I understand that porn filmed with a handheld is less jarring than major motion pictures shot with handhelds. If the porn directors can film a steady shot while "performing", why the hell can't Hollywood folks film an action scene without inducing nausea, vertigo and/or seizures in the watcher?

People are scared and things are happening, I got it. You don't have to hire Michael J. Fox as a cameraman to get the point across.

Their are some directors in Hollywood (and some idiot movie fans?) that believe a "hand held" camera makes the film look more like it's reality. Think how COPS would look with a steady cam....would you begin to think it was staged?

My gripe is with CGI, actors no longer have to act, they just do close ups now, are there any really skilled actors any more?

As a car chase connoisseur, I hear you loud and clear. The last two Bourne movies were shaky-cam disasters. CGI films like the remake of Gone In 60 Seconds are just pure garbage. Give me pure, clear action with cleverly mounted cameras. One of the best car chases from a camera use standpoint was Mad Max. The film is a B movie, but the camera angles and mounting for the car chase sequences are brilliant (aside from the use of undercranking here and there, which does drive me nuts). It's all special effects, remote control cars, massively stupid explosions (and I like stuff that blows up) making every action movie into a saturday morning cartoon.

rmarkc wrote: why the hell can't Hollywood folks film an action scene without inducing nausea, vertigo and/or seizures in the watcher?

So, you're saying that watching a scene where people were uncomfortable and disoriented caused you to become uncomfortable and disoriented? That sounds like effective filmmaking to me.

The way I see it, any camera technique is just another tool in the bag that you can go to to get a certain job done. Some directors overuse the tool, but, then, some us us probably use Vise-Grips for more stuff than we should as well. Like most tools it can be used for good or evil, or relied upon when you're just fresh out of ideas and need to get something shot.

aussiesmg wrote: My gripe is with CGI, actors no longer have to act, they just do close ups now, are there any really skilled actors any more?

Actually I couldn't disagree more. CGI actually places a huge burden on the abilities of an actor since much of their performance needs to be done without the benefit of any environmental stimulus. If you're shooting a battle scene and there's broken concrete, gunfire and explosions all around you, it's pretty easy to get into character. If you're on a soundstage with huge green walls dodging tennis balls on sticks, brother, your skills better be sufficient to convey the message.

It's basically like saying "Now that carburetors are gone, you don't need to tune cars anymore." Well, sure you do, you just use a laptop with an OBD connection instead of a screwdriver and a stethoscope. The mission is still the same, but the skill set has changed.

I think what you'll see, though, is a general move away from traditional Meisner/Stanislavsky-type "method" acting to a more reactive, improv-based skillset.

jg

I still disagree with this as more often than not the actor is not in the scene either, just a computer image.

Aussie actor and car guy Eric Bana said he was filmed for about 60 minutes in the Hulk remake, not 60 minutes of the film but 60 minutes total

And look at how well that turned out

Shakycam might be a tool, but it's not a terribly effective one in my opinion. It's the latest cool trick and probably quite hard to combine with CG but more often than not it's just a lazy way to try to inject some excitement into a scene.

Cops is a reality TV show. Because of this, there are limitations on how it can be filmed and it suffers because of it. A movie doesn't have to be subjected to the same, so it's possible for the director to plan ahead and put together a compelling series of shots instead. It can be far more effective.

JG Pasterjak wrote: So, you're saying that watching a scene where people were uncomfortable and disoriented caused you to become uncomfortable and disoriented? That sounds like effective filmmaking to me. The way I see it, any camera technique is just another tool in the bag that you can go to to get a certain job done. Some directors overuse the tool, but, then, some us us probably use Vise-Grips for more stuff than we should as well. Like most tools it can be used for good or evil, or relied upon when you're just fresh out of ideas and need to get something shot.

And nitroglycerin is an effective treatment for some heart problems. I wouldn't want to be hooked up to an IV of the stuff.

Quarantine was shot entirely from the POV of a handheld camera. That stretches "suspension of disbelief" past the breaking point. If there were a person in real life that would try and film every second of their time trapped in a building with murderous, zombie-like victims, I wouldn't want to identify with them. The POV stuff should have stopped when the reporter and cameraman became part of the film's population and only picked up again when they tried to "document" the situation.

The POV shot can be really effective in short scenes. Say some characters find a camera at the scene of a disaster and watch the footage. The scene in Serenity when they watch the video log that explains the genesis of the reavers. Those are effective uses but Quarantine and Cloverfield over do it.

I recently saw Gamer. It uses 3rd person shaky-cam and it distracts from the narrative. Granted, the movie is a tarted up Running Man but there is a story there and it is very hard to follow the story because of the constant scene shifting.

Slick camera tricks should be used to advance the story or highlight crucial scenes. When they are overused to this degree, it detracts from the experience. It doesn't enhance it.

Imagine watching a WW2 sub drama shot entirely in "periscope vision" or an assassination film filmed through a scope. Silly, huh? But that is what Hollywood is doing when they force us to watch an entire movie filmed with a handycam.

I'd like to dump Lens Flare back into the garbage can. I can't watch Start Trek (love the name) because I want to shoot the director each time it happens.

I agree its overused - a little is good, a little more is too much. I skipped dinner before going to see Blair Witch. By the time it was over I was too nauseated to eat, I could barely keep a drink down. Of course, about 10 minutes into that film, I was rooting for the Blair Witch.

I just watched transporter 3. He clearly kicks out the window and slides into the drivers seat, and in the VERY NEXT SHOT (not even 10 seconds later) he is driving with the drivers window up.

random. but this seemed like a good point to add in.

I only like to watch movies where the camera is strapped to a paint shaker. I also want heavy-metal or rap blasted over all the dialog except cool tag lines. Fight scenes should be dark and extra-extra shaky. Montages of explosions can be filmed using a steady shot as long as they cut them together really fast.

I think audiences have shown that as long as there are fighting robots blowing things up, they'll sit through pretty much anything.

Tim Baxter wrote: there are fighting robots blowing things up

Fighting robots blowing things up? Where?!

belive it or not.. a LOT of Law and Order was shot handheld. They did it to make the shots "breathe" and come to life.

Personally, that was how handheld should be done.. subtly. I do not want to watch an entire move with the camera mounted to a bowl of jello

Last night I got hooked into watching a lot of youtube. (Disgusting stuff, it started with a spider bite. That is all I will say.)

I think that, if they could find the right videos, someone could edit together a movie with better camera work than Quarantine.

I can't believe how much I hate that movie. It's not that I would have used the time wasted curing cancer. I don't have a better screenplay and I couldn't make a better movie. I didn't really pay for it because it was streamed on Netflix.

I think I hate it because I wanted it to be a better movie. The damed POV ruined it. They had a clichéd but good script, good actors, good effects and a properly creepy setting. It could have been a good genre movie.

rmarkc wrote: You don't have to hire Michael J. Fox as a cameraman to get the point across.

That right there is why I need a computer with a spit proof key board.

First thing I do when I buy transformers 2, watch the Optimus Prime fight/death sceen on the first slo-mo setting

neon4891 wrote: First thing I do when I buy transformers 2, watch the Optimus Prime fight/death sceen on the first slo-mo setting

Half the movie was in slo-motion already. Any scene with Megan Fox (all the important scenes in the movie) in it anyways.

I am sick of CGI too. It has its place in Sci-Fi type films and some small parts in other films where you really cant afford to create what needs to happen. But I hate when CGI blows up cars and sends them flying for blocks. Watch The Road Warrior, or the Blues Brothers; thats how you wreck a car.

i was bored a couple of days ago and decided i need a good laugh, so i put it "DRIVEN" (i had to buy it just for the laugh factor), talk about terrible CGI...

Car chase movies suck now, sorry.

The stunts in movies like the original Gone In 60 Seconds, Smokey and The Bandit, The Junkman, Bullitt etc are the best because there is actually some crazy bastard DRIVING that car.

The wierd looking CGI mustang jump in the remake of gone was terrible.

Shawn