Penfold Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The shaky cam problem is one of those things that people think they're smart for commenting on, even if it's not there.In all seriousness, the only recent movie that has had a problem with that was Transformers, and in that film it made sense because there were giant fucking robots blowing up shit everywhere. You don't really get a chance to stand perfectly still and watch something when a car is throwing another car at a building. Personally, I think it's a legitimate comment, since it can detract from the enjoyment of the film, and is the lazy director's out for action scenes ("I don't know how to film action, so I'll just move the camera around a bunch to 'get the audience involved!'"). To be honest, I don't see it being somehow ok in Transfromers just because it had giant robots fighting. Camera movement or placement doesn't inherently have anything to do with whether the characters are standing still or moving around a lot. Like I said, with Dark Knight, the fact that they used shaky cam wasn't a dealbreaker since it had much more going for it, and that it wasn't used to as awful an effect as in Transformers. It's just that if the action was better shot, the movie as a whole would be that much better. A little more nitpicky, I also think that in addition to better camera use, several of the action sequences could have used a little different lighting effects and sharper contrast to make it even more dynamic - as I recall the lighting often got pretty mottled and didn't end up adding value to the sequence outside of basic atmosphere. As it stands, the action was mediocre for the most part when it easily could have been really cool. Offtopic, but for Watchmen I'm not too worried about the technical side since I think Snyder has proven himself in that regard - it's the complexity of the story, etc that I'm more worried about. And Ozymandias looks wrong. I'm cautiously optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeCrusher Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I noticed every bit of the action in the dark knight, and had no problem with the cam. Its pretty easy to see whats going on in the fight scenes. But transformers wise, all the decepiticons in the last fight kinda blended together. So I was like, WTF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cottus and Gyes Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 In regards to the shaky camera: I personally believe that the camera is not a character in the story, it does not need to abide by the laws of physics. It is a window into the world the directors are creating. When a director attempts to personify the camera and does not acknowledge its presence, it detracts from the overall experience. I personally can tolerate a few shaky camera shots in a direct shot movie. Tolerate mind you. I've seen "Cloverfield". I am okay with the whole shaky camera effect, it felt in place... it was a character. I've seen "Transformers". Completely dissatisfied with the shaky camera shots. It not only detracted from the action, it detracted from the art that went into CG renderings and the art of filming. It is a cheap way to film a sequence you're not to sure to show, as another has stated. I would love to have this "fad" be buried along with the 70s "drug trips". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleck Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 But transformers wise, all the decepiticons in the last fight kinda blended together. So I was like, WTF. That's probably because all the Decepticons looked pretty much the same. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say they all were the same, since Bay seemed to think that none of the Decepticons needed any personality at all. "I don't know how to film action, so I'll just move the camera around a bunch to 'get the audience involved!'" ten years from now, every film director has ever action scene in slow motion from a fixed camera angle people on the internet are like 'wtf this is unrealistic it's too slow directors don't kno what they're doing' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadofsky Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Yeah, I know the movie is probably still in theaters, but does anybody know when it will be out on DVD? I'm dyin to buy it and sit it proudly next to my set of other crummy dvds.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuketheXjesse Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Yeah, I know the movie is probably still in theaters, but does anybody know when it will be out on DVD? I'm dyin to buy it and sit it proudly next to my set of other crummy dvds.... Sad thing is that the movie market is so chock full of predictable horror movies that there's few movies worth actually having. The Dark Knight is one of the few Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeCrusher Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Itll still be in theaters, IMAX at least till Eagle Eye comes out in a couple weeks. Then hang around in the dollar theaters, then dvd time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuriousFure Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 So i know he already was the main villian in SpiderMan but... What do you think of Willem Dafoe as The Riddler. He'd do a way better role than Johnny Depp (IMO) and he's a good enough actor to pull it off and not seem like Osborn from Spiderman 1 or 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.