Shakycam

fjon

Does anyone know how I can tell if a film is going to be shot in "shakycam" before I go to see it? Don't suppose there is any site that lists films like this?
After wasting 20e on a ticket and popcorn only to manage the first 30 mins of the film I thought there must be some way of knowing in advance.
Unfortunately this method seems to be becoming more common (especially Paul Greengrass, who ruined my night tonight :mad:)

Anyone else suffer with this?

Duggy747

While Shaky Cam doesn't bother me in terms of nausea or anything I do find it overused and lazy in terms of film-making. It really can only apply to certain types of films, and very sparcely might I add.

It's the easiest way to define a "gritty" and "realistic" film, like it's a documentary.

Trailers are your best bet to find out, or if the shaky cam is really bad you'll read about it in reviews.

Clash Of The Titans apparently suffers from this greatly in terms of watching it in 3D. Clearly the film-makers weren't intent on making it 3D in the 1st place.

Thanks, Avatar! :mad: I like my cameras to be stabilised!

Giselle

I sympathise OP, I feel your pain.

Even Cloverfield gave me seasickness.:(

Klingon Hamlet

Duggy747 wrote: »

Clash Of The Titans apparently suffers from this greatly in terms of watching it in 3D. Clearly the film-makers weren't intent on making it 3D in the 1st place.

Thanks, Avatar! :mad: I like my cameras to be stabilised!

It was 3D-fied after Avatar made loadsa money.

Dublindude69

I felt sick watching the trailer to Green Zone, not a single shot in that trailer was steady. I avoided it like the plague.

Skinfull

I felt sick after watching GreenZone too but it wasnt because of the shaky cam.

fjon

Yeah, Green Zone was the film that prompted me to start this thread. It looks like I didn't really miss too much.
I don't generally like watching trailers beforehand, but I guess it would help.
There are certain films I know won't be shot in this way - I think it's only thrillers/ action films that use this.

slowlydownwards

Thanks for the post. Thought I was the only one suffering this "modern feature" in film making. Lazy and overused. I just don't know whether I hate it more in car chase scenes or fight/run scenes. :mad::mad::mad:

indough

slowlydownwards wrote: »

Thanks for the post. Thought I was the only one suffering this "modern feature" in film making. Lazy and overused. I just don't know whether I hate it more in car chase scenes or fight/run scenes. :mad::mad::mad:

its not really that modern of a technique

edit: also its done for stylistic reasons, not out of laziness

slowlydownwards

S'ppose it's not, but sure as heck it's so much more noticeable when everything else is done in super clear HD.

slowlydownwards

indough wrote: »

also its done for stylistic reasons

OHHH PUHLEASE

indough

slowlydownwards wrote: »

OHHH PUHLEASE

you dont think paul greengrass just decided during the middle of shooting a multi million dollar budgeted film that he just couldnt be bothered using anything but a handheld cam do you? ha

personally i have never had any problem with it, doesnt make me feel nauseous at all

builttospill

slowlydownwards wrote: »

Thanks for the post. Thought I was the only one suffering this "modern feature" in film making. Lazy and overused. I just don't know whether I hate it more in car chase scenes or fight/run scenes. :mad::mad::mad:

Such utter nonsense. I work in film and my preferred technique is the hand-held naturalistic style. It's simple really-It makes everything seem a lot more realistic and realism is something I go for in film. I understand that it isn't to everyone's taste and that's fine but I just had to pull you up on the rest of the inaccuracies you posted.

When I watch films these days I just see a film set with actors interacting. The majority of the time I don't see past this unless the film is brilliant. However, if a film is shot in a hand held fashion I automatically begin to believe it as it feels like a documentary of sorts.

As indough pointed out this is not a modern technique and can I just add that in many ways shooting a film with hand held techniques can be a lot more difficult to shoot if you want to do it properly which a director like Paul Greengrass, it's pretty safe to say, does.

If you don't like it don't go to see the film. Simple. Before i go watch a film I always read up about it so I know exactly what to expect.

What you just stated is a bit like saying that Picasso was lazy for not painting in an impressionist style.

I feel a bit dirty for replying here to be honest.

MickShamrock

indough wrote: »

personally i have never had any problem with it, doesnt make me feel nauseous at all

+1. I thought this thread was going to about people pirating movies in cinemas using cameras! Never heard the term "shakycam" before. :rolleyes:

slowlydownwards

builttospill wrote: »

...

Have you just compared Paul Greengrass to Picasso???? :eek::eek::eek: Or else your analogies are completely inadequate and out of place.

It all just boils down to this: I want to see what's going on. If something is shot in first person perspective, then a bit of shakey-shakey is fine... However, most of the action in the movies puts us as spectators (third person). Thus, there is no need for exaggeration of this sort.

It's lazy: Mr. Greengras, take a small chunk out of the millions you made and hire half decent stunt crew and action choreographers. They will give you a chance to record stunning action / fight / chase scenes where we will actually be able to see what's going on, instead of the constant blur that just leaves us guessing.

Let's admit it... none of us goes to see his movies to gain deeper understanding of life... they are not art house, nor any sort of art movies... it's just action movies... that we watch for fun, ffs.

As for your movie making efforts... if you're already spilling beans on what you do for living, then might as well give us your real name so we'll make sure to avoid seeing your work.

builttospill

slowlydownwards wrote: »

Have you just compared Paul Greengrass to Picasso???? :eek::eek::eek: Or else your analogies are completely inadequate and out of place.

It all just boils down to this: I want to see what's going on. If something is shot in first person perspective, then a bit of shakey-shakey is fine... However, most of the action in the movies puts us as spectators (third person). Thus, there is no need for exaggeration of this sort.

It's lazy: Mr. Greengras, take a small chunk out of the millions you made and hire half decent stunt crew and action choreographers. They will give you a chance to record stunning action / fight / chase scenes where we will actually be able to see what's going on, instead of the constant blur that just leaves us guessing.

Let's admit it... none of us goes to see his movies to gain deeper understanding of life... they are not art house, nor any sort of art movies... it's just action movies... that we watch for fun, ffs.

As for your movie making efforts... if you're already spilling beans on what you do for living, then might as well give us your real name so we'll make sure to avoid seeing your work.

Yeah I thought it was doing myself a disservice by replying. Now I'm sure of it. Look, just say you don't like the hand-held style. That's fine, I understand, it's not to everyone's taste. However, everything else you said is completely wrong and a few people have told you exactly why. Instead of taking this on board you come back with the same nonsense.

You ask me was I comparing Picasso to Greengrass? Yawn...Tell me where I said that? I was making a simple analogy to ask you if an artist should be called lazy for not adhering to the industry standard? In fact doing this would spell the end for diverse arts and creative gain for the artist.

All you did in your post was insult me without backing up any of your argument with facts. Why? Why do you do this? I am wrong on occasion and if someone pulls me up on it I will hold my hand up to the fact. You have just regurgitated the same nonsense that a few people called you on.

I mean this is hilarious:

"Mr. Greengras, take a small chunk out of the millions you made and hire half decent stunt crew and action choreographers. They will give you a chance to record stunning action / fight / chase scenes where we will actually be able to see what's going on, instead of the constant blur that just leaves us guessing."

-I'll be using this joke in the pub later on for the lulz. Thank you very much.

I'm afraid though that ultimately I am the loser for replying here. I think I have said all there is to say on the matter and I have things to do. No doubt you will come back with more insults without any substance. Kill yourself soflty there and in future watch out for the "shakycam." :pac:

slowlydownwards

builttospill wrote: »

...

Come down off your pedestal, primadonna. I meant you no insult... unless, it's you Neil Jordan I'm replying to.

Hand held style does not equal shakycam. Let me re-phrase it here: It's the blur-out that I dislike. Going to see action flicks in cinema carries only one intent on my part: Te be entertained by well executed fast scenes. And it's so much better when they are not blurred out. That's all.

When in the pub later you may consider something to calm your nerves a bit, as you seem a bit freaked out.

Dublindude69

Thankfully Green Zone was a big bomb in cinemas so I think the shaky trailer put everyone off.

Duggy747

I think Green Zone did fail more cuz of it was just crap but the shakycam had a big part to play in it.

As for the Picasso reference, at least his paintings don't constantly move and go in & out of focus as you try to understand what the hell is happening in front of you :pac:

Transformers is another example of bad shakycam when you couldn't make out what was what to the other thing in that yoke!

Some drama shows on TV go too far to the point where you begin to wonder if the camera man has a severe case of Parkinsons!

indough

slowlydownwards wrote: »

Hand held style does not equal shakycam.

it does though, not having a go or anything but they are one and the same thing

~Rebel~

indough wrote: »

it does though, not having a go or anything but they are one and the same thing

Dont think there's much point arguing the terms, as the terms are not whats up for debate, and the style of camera use has been very well explained such that the term matters little in this case.

As you said previously, hand held cam style can be used very effectively to add realism to a film and can draw in the viewer very well. It helps to draw the viewers focus and heightens the viewers attention as the subtle movements make it feel like something is always going on.

What people are talking about here however, is the use of a shaky cam not to add realism (in the sense mentioned above), but to add a sense of frenzy, which I presume is to try to convey the same emotional sense the characters are going though at the time. Unfortunately, while it can work sometimes, it often does detract from the actual spectacle itself. Who cares what the character is feeling if you cant see a bloody thing? While generally anything which brings a viewer in on more levels is good, in this instance when not done in a more subtle fashion, it brings one in on one smaller level, while letting slip the visual grip it could have had which, for most of the cinema going public, is a more important factor.

indough

~Rebel~ wrote: »

What people are talking about here however, is the use of a shaky cam not to add realism (in the sense mentioned above), but to add a sense of frenzy, which I presume is to try to convey the same emotional sense the characters are going though at the time.

if the realistic emotion of the situation is one of frenzy then using the handheld cam to create a sense of frenzy is using it for realism

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Unfortunately, while it can work sometimes, it often does detract from the actual spectacle itself. Who cares what the character is feeling if you cant see a bloody thing? While generally anything which brings a viewer in on more levels is good, in this instance when not done in a more subtle fashion, it brings one in on one smaller level, while letting slip the visual grip it could have had which, for most of the cinema going public, is a more important factor.

i dont actually know anybody outside the internet who has a problem with this style of filming, people just tend to exaggerate this type of thing (and everything in general really) when in internet forums etc

to blame the failure of a film on the use of handheld cam is silly though, its just a poor film

either way i only inputted the facts of the matter, im not here to try and tell people why they should like or appreciate xyz, thats up to the individual

BlitzKrieg

Dublindude69 wrote: »

Thankfully Green Zone was a big bomb in cinemas so I think the shaky trailer put everyone off.

thats a shame cause its actually quite a good film (though brenden gleeson is underused in it)

~Rebel~

indough wrote: »

if the realistic emotion of the situation is one of frenzy then using the handheld cam to create a sense of frenzy is using it for realism

Which is Exactly why I said "in the sense mentioned above". Yes it adds emotion, but on a completely different way. As I thought I had clearly explained above (but obviously not, apparently), One instance simply brings the viewer in by keeping the screen visually flowing, not distracting by any means, just not static. This is COMPLETELY different from the second instance, where the realism is not added by keeping the viewer interested with a little movement, it actually distracts from the action and instead tries to have the viewer as disoriented as the characters themselves. Surely one can understand that disorienting the mainstream viewing public is possibly best done with some moderation? And a lot of the time it is, but this thread is talking about the times that it is not.

i dont actually know anybody outside the internet who has a problem with this style of filming, people just tend to exaggerate this type of thing (and everything in general really) when in internet forums etc

to blame the failure of a film on the use of handheld cam is silly though, its just a poor film

either way i only inputted the facts of the matter, im not here to try and tell people why they should like or appreciate xyz, thats up to the individual

Really? I certainly have heard many many conversations about it in real life. Usually just after movies with excessive shakeyness during action scenes. I dunno, maybe talk to more people or something?

Incidentally, its not something that bothers me overly personally, but I can very much see where it is overused often to the detriment of what might have been done. I understand why it is used, but just a but of sensibility and moderation could lead to a happy medium of the viewer being able to take in everything that is happening as well as getting the sense of frenzy. [REC] for instance is an excellent example of this style implemented well.

indough

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Which is Exactly why I said "in the sense mentioned above".

realism means representing things as they actually are, there are no 'senses' of it, its either representing things accurately or it isnt

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Really? Can't say i've come across (or looked for) a whole lot on this topic on forums I frequent, but i certainly have heard many many conversations about it in real life. Usually just after movies with excessive shakeyness during action scenes. I dunno, maybe talk to more people or something?

or maybe the people you talk to just need to pay more attention when watching films? i have never had a problem following whats happening on the screen so i dont see why anyone else should

~Rebel~

indough wrote: »

realism means representing things as they actually are, there are no 'senses' of it, its either representing things accurately or it isnt

Ok. So, in the process of making a film, you see no difference from the use of something in a situation whereby the viewers perspective is in no way diminished, compared its use in a very different context where it very much diminishes the viewers perspective? Fair enough.

or maybe the people you talk to just need to pay more attention when watching films? i have never had a problem following whats happening on the screen so i dont see why anyone else should

Obviously I have spoken to many people who didn't mind it either. the point is that there obviously are a lot of people who would prefer it was not done this way. Congrats on your cognitive skills, but again, just because its possible to follow the on screen interactions does not mean it was done in the best way. Obviously if it had been done in the best way, this thread, and many post cinema conversations between friends and couples throughout the world would not have taken place.

Duggy747

Ok this has turned into a "I'm right, You're wrong" thread.

People have a reason for certain styles of film-making, people don't mind shakycam others find it nausiating.

Same can be applied to other types of camera techniques like Micheal Bay's spinning camera around the actor as they pick themselves off the ground in slow motion in an oversaturated orange hue™ or even the Stanley Kubrick-esque long one-shot sequences.

You like it, you like it. You don't, you don't.

/thread!

mikhail

I don't have a problem with handhelds being used for a certain feel. That can work well. It's become something of a lazy shorthand though, and when it's done badly it looks less like a guy with a handheld and more like an epileptic monkey shaking the camera up and down to see if there's any food in it. That sort of thing ruins my immersion in a film.