# Thrice d**ned shaky cam



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

The movie Battle:L.A. was a good movie but that shaky cam fad has..got..to..go.  It was distracting.  Here is an article from Bighollywood.com that talks about the fad.  It's short.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2011/03/14/does-anyone-like-that-shaky-cam/


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 14, 2011)

I do have to agree, Billi :nods:.  The only unsteady cam film I've ever really liked was Charlie Mopic.  That was because it was supposed to be a handheld camera in the era before steadycam technology and so it worked wonderfully as a story telling device of a cameraman following a squad in the Vietnam war.  Even there is wasn't overdone (that I recall ... I really must watch that film again, it was very good).


----------



## Nomad (Mar 15, 2011)

Agreed, really don't like it.


----------



## zDom (Mar 15, 2011)

Shaky cam is crap.

It has ruined more movies for me than I care to count.

I want to punch the guy who invented it and every filmmaker who has used it since then.

And then punch them again with a camera placed firmly on a tripod and panned back far enough so I can watch the video over and over again and see his head snap back at the impact of my fist.

Damn it a fourth and fifth time.


----------



## Phenix_Rider (Mar 15, 2011)

Y'all are just getting old LOL.  It's supposed to immerse you in the action and help the suspension of disbelief.  It works in war movies.  Do you really want everything to stay perfectly still and composed in frame when a grenade goes off behind you or a missile hits a car down the street or the hero runs the gauntlet?

At any rate, shaky cam is far less irritating than the 3D fad.


----------



## zDom (Mar 15, 2011)

Phenix_Rider said:


> Y'all are just getting old LOL.  It's supposed to immerse you in the action and help the suspension of disbelief.



I know what it is SUPPOSED to do. What it actually DOES is make it so the audience is unable to see fight sequences.







Phenix_Rider said:


> It works in war movies.  Do you really want everything to stay perfectly still and composed in frame when a grenade goes off behind you or a missile hits a car down the street or the hero runs the gauntlet?



In moderation, maybe. And just maybe. It has been overdone so much over the last five years or so that you can't tell what is even happening in action scenes. What is the point of watching an action movie if you can't SEE the action?

Some jackass did too much coke and thought "if a little camera shake is good, MORE must be BETTER!!" (snoooooooort....shakeshakeshakeshakeshakeshakeshakeshakeshakeshakeshakeshake)



Phenix_Rider said:


> At any rate, shaky cam is far less irritating than the 3D fad.



Um, no. 3D is always optional. Shaky cam is ruining movies and there is no "unshaken" versions out there to watch if that is my preference  which it IS.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 15, 2011)

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/battle-los-angeles-review


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 15, 2011)

I seem to recall that it was innovative and interesting when I saw Saving Private Ryan. Then it seemed like everybody was doing it.


----------



## billc (Mar 15, 2011)

Once is unique and interesting, when everyone is doing it, it is boring and in the case of shaky cam, annoying. Going back to real camera work is being "retro."  Let's go back to retro, and relive the old days.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2011)

Phenix_Rider said:


> Do you really want everything to stay perfectly still and composed in frame when a grenade goes off behind you or a missile hits a car down the street or the hero runs the gauntlet?


Yes! I want a godlike view. Shaky cam doesn't add realism, unless you run through life in a constant gran mal seizure.
Bill, your count is off. Way more than thrice damned


----------



## zDom (Mar 17, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I seem to recall that it was innovative and interesting when I saw Saving Private Ryan. Then it seemed like everybody was doing it.



It was well done in that movie: it did give a "first person in the midst of a chaotic cluster**** landing" feel.

And you could still make out who was doing what in the action.

The first shaky-cam (+ too darky cam!) film I recall seeing that really left me upset that I couldn't see the action is Batman. Then I remember the James Bond movie shaking the camera so much during the opening car chase scene I was turning to my brothers going, "WTF just happened? I couldn't see jack****!"


----------



## billc (Mar 17, 2011)

Here is another thing that drives me nuts, extreme, extreme close ups, of both regular scenes but especially fight scenes. I want to actually see what is going on, without getting sea sick or thinking that I am watching the movie through a cardboard, paper towel roll.


----------

