I just watched The Rock today. The car chase sequence almost only uses zoom lenses it seems. It is extremely annoying to fel so confined by the frame. Also I am currently watching The Bourne Supremacy, and almost 80% of shots so far uses +70mm focal lenghts it feels like. You know something is wrong when the original widescreen image feels like it is panned & scanned to a 4:3 image, and then re-cropped to 2:35.

Last edited by TechNoir (2013-02-14 21:14:51)

Transformers! Transformers 2! And Transformers 3!

Shaky cam's ok if used appropriately, like a scene that takes place during an earthquake. Fast editing/quick cuts can get tiresome if the scene isn't at its core exciting (which is unfortunately when it's most used). However, I can't be entirely against it, as fast editing did essentially save Star Wars. Sure, it's not fast now but back then...

There's a section of the Empire of Dreams documentary that discusses the editing, with a couple of quick scenes demonstrating what an earlier cut would have looked at. I also believe Rinzler's Making of Star Wars also discusses it.

Both are awful because both tend to be unmotivated and just there because the filmmaker doesn't know what else to do.

If motivated, they can work. DARK CITY, for example, is an extremely fast-cutting film, with an average shot length (according to IMDB) of less than 2 seconds. Yet it's not a film you would think of as a fast-cutting film, because the speed of the cuts isn't meant to disorient you and try to hide the fact that the filmmaker doesn't know what he's doing, but are actually designed to be in service to the story.

And while I don't like shakycam pretty much categorically, well done handheld shooting (e.g. CHILDREN OF MEN) is an aesthetic I absolutely adore. The difference between shakycam and handheld is that shakycam is characterized by the operator deliberately trying to jar and shake the camera, whereas good handheld is characterized by the operator trying his damndest not to.

That Bourne Ultimatum scene is the definition of claustrophobia. I almost get paniced watching it because I feel like I am in a small box at all times. And that scene could probably work if they used wide lenses, because you would have alot more geography visible to orient yourself. Still the cutting pace is just ridiculous. When it is so hard to follow on a 20 inch display, I cannot see anyone in a movie theater having a chance to catch anything.

As mentioned, do a search and try and find Deleted Magic online (if he ever did the other two films, I'd love to know). As for specifics, in the x-wing battle originally there was no ticking clock. The Death Star is not within firing range of the base. After the first two runs fail, Luke and friends make a run... which fails. Luke's ship is hit as they come around for another run, with R2 trying to fix it. It's as they enter the trench again that Biggs says "They're coming in much faster this time." Biggs is killed, and Luke tells Wedge to just go, as he's not doing any good back there. He doesn't leave until after his ship is hit, though. Ben does not tell Luke "the force will be with you, always", or "use the Force, Luke." Also, in the final version they inserted more shots of Tarkin, as the only time you see him originally was when he says he won't evacuate.

To be honest I never thought about it in Gladiator. The style works for me, I don't recall having problems with what was happening where. Though I seem to recall generous use of short shutter times which at times I really think leads to staccato strobing instead of smooth motion, which can interfere with how I perceive the images and hurts the intake of information.

When I see Doug Liman's original Bourne Identity, it's so much more coherent visually than Greengrass's wobbly chop-suey sequels.

The action scenes in Quantum of Solace are just a depressing ruin, particularly given the amount of effort everyone must have put in to make exciting things happen in front of the cameras, only to have confusing things happen in front of the audience.

I'm so pleased that there are still directors who know how to shoot action with long, steady shots, such as Brad Bird in MI: Ghost Protocol, and that know how to maintain coherence as they cut between moving camera shots, such as JJ Abrams in Star Trek.

I'll tell you what really annoys me: frivolous twitchiness of the camera when the scene is just talking heads. I've seen a reporter doing a piece to camera in a news item, and the shot is full of changes of framing, short snap zooms and faffing with focus. "Sod off and create music videos on your own time!" I want to yell at the camera operator.

Last edited by fcw (2013-02-17 13:50:51)

The Aliens bluray got the teal treatment... really sad.

Make it stop!

The Star Wars DVDs and Blu-Rays are an egregious example of this.
http://savestarwars.com/specialeditionfail.html

Almost every scene has a weird color cast. It's almost like the film tinting process that was used in the 1920s and 30s. Perhaps that was George's intention - another throwback to old adventure serials... but it looks more like sloppy color timing to me.

I don't mind it just because all of Cameron's movies pretty much look that way, so if he wants to grade it in that direction to make it consistent, more power to him, it'd be different if he was doing that just to be trendy. Also, grading aside, it's visually a phenomenal blu-ray transfer, crazy detailed without losing the film grain. It looks amazing.

Last edited by bullet3 (2013-02-19 22:26:49)