Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does anybody besides me find bobblehead cameras annoying?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does anybody besides me find bobblehead cameras annoying?

    This trend started with the Blair Witch Project. Using a hand held camera and joggling it around to simulate real motion. With Blair Witch at least there was an excuse, since the film was a mockumentary. But the trend caught on and action movies have developed a nasty habit of shaking their cameras as violently as possible during action sequences.

    The Bourne movies are the worst offenders. This is one reason I don't like the films. They look like they might have good action, but the camera shakes so much you can't tell what's going on. Behind Enemy Lines 2 also took this extreme. And I've seen other action films follow this model.

    Honestly I don't like it. I like being able to see the action without having to fight motion sickness. And what does it accomplish? It's not simulating the adrenaline rush of combat. All times I've had an adrenaline rush, time slowed down and my vision didn't bobble all over the place.

    All the effect does is make you wonder if Hollywood employs hyperactive chihuahuas with attention defecit disorder as their cameramen.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

  • #2
    It's all part of the MTV generation of filming: 5-7 sec shots jumping from one place to another. Very annoying and really detracted from the last Bourne movie, IMO.
    If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

    Comment


    • #3
      An effect is like everything in life, if done well ok, if done poorly, then it's just a poorly done effect.

      I wopnder if part of it is merely pandering to the simple truth that too much of society has become go go go, rush rush rush.

      I mean, look at the scathing they give to any films where the action is NOT rush rushed and something always happening. They get trashed as booooooring.

      I see it all around me. Games where it has to be glitzy 3dness or its deemed old and boring. Movies with too much CGI where CGI wasn't really required.
      People unable to wait 5 frigging shipping days, gotta pay twice the shipping so they can get it in 3 damn it.

      People have lost the ability to settle for slow and sedate.

      I found the opening of Cloverfield annoying until AFTER I had seen the whole movie whereupon it made a bit more sense. Yes that film was difficult to 'view', but it was the effect that made the show not just another friggin monster movie.
      Life is change. Built models for decades.
      Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
      I didn't for a long time either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
        This trend started with the Blair Witch Project. Using a hand held camera and joggling it around to simulate real motion. With Blair Witch at least there was an excuse, since the film was a mockumentary. But the trend caught on and action movies have developed a nasty habit of shaking their cameras as violently as possible during action sequences.

        The Bourne movies are the worst offenders. This is one reason I don't like the films. They look like they might have good action, but the camera shakes so much you can't tell what's going on. Behind Enemy Lines 2 also took this extreme. And I've seen other action films follow this model.

        Honestly I don't like it. I like being able to see the action without having to fight motion sickness. And what does it accomplish? It's not simulating the adrenaline rush of combat. All times I've had an adrenaline rush, time slowed down and my vision didn't bobble all over the place.

        All the effect does is make you wonder if Hollywood employs hyperactive chihuahuas with attention defecit disorder as their cameramen.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Beyond annoying. As you say, distracting.

          The MTV Generation created the demand for rapid-fire editing and pacing, and the elimination of plot and character development and acting in favor of constant special effects.

          I prefer the classic films, myself. The new ones rarely measure up.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            People have lost the ability to settle for slow and sedate.
            And no blood, no sex, no guns, no car crashes.

            Do you think Hitchcock would be popular today?
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
              And no blood, no sex, no guns, no car crashes.

              Do you think Hitchcock would be popular today?
              Hitchcock likely wouldn't be able to understand.

              Blood, well as long as it's realistic. But I don't even like the so called 'good' gore/zombie/slayer films.

              Sex in film belongs in porn.

              Guns, well you can't film a gun fight without them obviously. Pity most film guns don't shoot like the real ones.

              Car crashes would be neater if they at least looked a little less obviously faked.

              Some stunts in film get to be like a tired joke. Even great jokes can't be told over and over. So bad jokes even less so.
              Life is change. Built models for decades.
              Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
              I didn't for a long time either.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                And no blood, no sex, no guns, no car crashes.

                Do you think Hitchcock would be popular today?
                Depends on what Grace Kelly is wearing...



                If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                  And no blood, no sex, no guns, no car crashes.

                  Do you think Hitchcock would be popular today?
                  Truthfully, no. The audience has changed enormously, and the genre with it. The slower-paced, thought provoking films are not often main stream anymore, and it's rare to see a film without any special effects.

                  Grace Kelly...an exceptional class act.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Truthfully, no. The audience has changed enormously, and the genre with it. The slower-paced, thought provoking films are not often main stream anymore, and it's rare to see a film without any special effects.

                    Grace Kelly...an exceptional class act.
                    Grace is my all-time favorite.

                    Speaking of no special effects; Rear Window, my favorite Hitchcock, has only one set and a very active backdrop.
                    If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      An outstanding film.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X