Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:18 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts 

What's worse?
Shaky cam 8%  8%  [ 2 ]
Quick cuts 42%  42%  [ 11 ]
Shaky cam due to my motion sickness 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Both 35%  35%  [ 9 ]
Neither 15%  15%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 26

Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts 
Author Message
Post Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
So most modern action movies have now utilized the much-maligned and the even more much-mocked shaky cam and quick editing making them mostly incomprehensible unless you're Paul Greengrass apparently.

So what do you think is worse?


Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:34 am
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
I'm going with quick cuts, I was watching Behind Enemy Lines II and I saw that most of the time the movie went with the shaky cams but they held the shot for a few seconds. It was a much pleasing experience that if they just cut the movie into millisecond chunks(to be fair they did that a few times at the end).


Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:38 am
Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pm
Posts: 1537
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
I don't like quick cuts. I can live with the shaky cam, but hold the scene longer than 1.5 seconds per cut.


Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:07 am
Profile YIM
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
Honestly I sometimes have a tough time telling the difference between the 2 techniques, but i'll go with shaky cam, as it can actually be effective in certain films, though i'll admit that it can be downright nauseating in films like Cloverfield and Blair Witch, quick cuts just come across as unnecessary most of the time, especially in the Bourne sequels, note to Greengrass-having a gazillion quick cuts during a fight scene does NOT make it exciting, it just looks lame not to mention disorienting.


Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:15 am
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
What's worse?

I'd have to agree with quick cuts. As was said above, as long as the shaky cam does not include the quick cuts, it can be very effective. Take a look at Children of Men or Saving Private Ryan.

Although, I read that the average shot length in Dark City was less than 2 seconds. Just about every 2 seconds there was a cut and that was an incredible movie.


Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:38 pm
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
When people complain about shaky cam or quick cuts, most of them are complaining about something else entirely without realizing it. Neither shaky cam nor quick cuts fully represent the problem, but both are indicators of it.

It's not the quickness that makes the quick cut hard to take. It's the fact that the cuts interrupt actions, rather than binding actions together. It's not the shakiness that makes shaky cam hard to take. It's that it's arbitrarily shaky--and often far too close to the subject--during shots that need to illustrate the geography of the room so that the audience can make sense of what's transpiring, and during shots in which a different style of camera movement (or none at all) would be just as or much more effective.

The greater issue at work is the overall sloppy and incoherent aesthetic that overwhelms modern filmmaking, especially in action movies. As much as I loved The Dark Knight and felt that it delivered on the promise of Batman Begins in nearly every way, one massive flaw that it shares with its predecessor is that Nolan has no confidence when it comes to shooting action. Rather than giving the audience a sense of space and continuity, and rather than set up each shot with a photographic eye, he centers the subjects in the composition (such as it is), gets really close to them, and moves the camera all over the damn place. The only way you have any idea of what you're looking at is by waiting to the end to see who's still standing, whose car is still on all four wheels, which hospitals haven't blown up, and so on.

One of the simple pleasures of Inglourious Basterds was seeing the work of a director who remembers how to compose a good shot and who savors the details of the environment. By comparison, Greengrass with his Queasicam is a rank amateur.


Last edited by Ken on Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:01 pm
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
ram1312 wrote:
What's worse?

I'd have to agree with quick cuts. As was said above, as long as the shaky cam does not include the quick cuts, it can be very effective. Take a look at Children of Men or Saving Private Ryan.

Although, I read that the average shot length in Dark City was less than 2 seconds. Just about every 2 seconds there was a cut and that was an incredible movie.


But in Dark City, there was all those rapid-cut memories that brought the ASL down.


Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:02 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 974
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
I'd have to say both. Suspense is brought through shot position, sympathetic characters and good storytelling. While both shaky cams and quick cuts can work, they have to be used effectively (such as in Cloverfield, The Descent, District 9). But unless the prerequisties are in place, it will only irritate the viewer because they don't care enough about the story to pay attention enough, and unless they're involved, these techniques are going to make the expirience worse (Transformers for example).

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:31 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
i acutlaly thought Transformers used the shaky cam techinique well as it gave the the film a roller-coaster feelng, which i can understnad people hating, but it certainly, Locverfield on the other hand, I got nauseous just watching the trailer in a theater, and since i'd laready suffered enough sitting through Blair Witch, I had no desire whatsoever to sit through another shaky-cam mockumentary.


Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:45 pm
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
ram1312 wrote:
What's worse?

I'd have to agree with quick cuts. As was said above, as long as the shaky cam does not include the quick cuts, it can be very effective. Take a look at Children of Men or Saving Private Ryan.

Although, I read that the average shot length in Dark City was less than 2 seconds. Just about every 2 seconds there was a cut and that was an incredible movie.



Children of Men is exactly the movie that came to mind for me as well. I'm not sure that film would have been the same without the shaky cam. That being said, though, Bourne Ultimatum almost had me hugging the porcelein queen for all it's disorienting shakiness. I'm gonna vote for both.


Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:43 pm
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
Oh boy, I'd forgotten about the Bourne fights...

I voted for both as well, based on two movies:
Cloverfield
Quantum of Solace


Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:01 am
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
Moovy1 wrote:
ram1312 wrote:
What's worse?

I'd have to agree with quick cuts. As was said above, as long as the shaky cam does not include the quick cuts, it can be very effective. Take a look at Children of Men or Saving Private Ryan.

Although, I read that the average shot length in Dark City was less than 2 seconds. Just about every 2 seconds there was a cut and that was an incredible movie.



Children of Men is exactly the movie that came to mind for me as well. I'm not sure that film would have been the same without the shaky cam. That being said, though, Bourne Ultimatum almost had me hugging the porcelein queen for all it's disorienting shakiness. I'm gonna vote for both.


Yup, Children of Men is the gold standard for shaky cam usage. I seem to be one of the few around here who didn't love the movie, but I'll admit the shaky cam does work well in that film. I'll second the notion of The Bourne Ultimatum using both techniques ad nauseam (terrible pun). I think it's an excellent movie for what it is, but the action scenes are a little too hard to follow sometimes.

Shaky cam and quick cuts work best when they aren't used for close ups or in tight quarters. Medium to long shots, or establishing shots can effectively use shaky cam - which I think is how COM used the technique. I'll nominate the end of Requiem for a Dream as an example of quick cuts working well. Quick cuts can also work quite well as transitions like in Shaun of the Dead. However, when the techniques are combined, the result is usually awful. It seems directors think that it's somehow more arty to employee these techniques to give a sense of confusion or realness. I think we all understand that fights in real life begin and end in a flash for those involved, and remembering exactly what happened is often difficult. In that way, it works, but as a movie watcher, it's simply annoying as shit. I watch a movie so I can see what happens, not so I can deliberately be confused as to what's going on and have it passed off as artiness. I appreciate the notion, I just don't like the end result.

I'll vote for both, because I usually only hate them when they are used together. Apart from each other, they can both work.


Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:09 am
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
I hate both, almost as much as I hate waking up with a bag of potato chips and a half eaten ham sandwich laying on my bed next to me with my last memory being taking that 'mystery shot' at the bar the previous night, but I digress.

Movies like Cloverfield and Blair Witch didn't really bother me because when the whole movie is shot from the 1st person view, it adds alot to the film, but when the shaky cam is used from a 3rd person perspective it becomes really distracting to me. Due to the disorienting shaky cam fight sequences, the Bourne films I just couldn't watch.

The quick cuts irk me the most in epic films. I remember getting pumped at the opening battle in Gladiator until it actually started and the cuts were all under a second long.

In recap, shaky cam and quick cuts bad, losing 3 - 14 hours of your life worse.....


Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:24 pm
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
I'm more or less tolerant of (read: indifferent to) both. Enough movies don't bother with either so it's been difficult to tire of.


Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 pm
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
Ugh, I didn't read that question properly and voted for "neither" by mistake.. but jump cuts are the ones that bother me. Shaky cam never bothers me (and actually, I LOVE hand-held camera work), but jump cuts can make a film look really ugly when they're overused or just used wrong.


Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:16 am
Post Re: Poll #18: Shaky cam vs. Quick cuts
The Shining Wizard wrote:
Ugh, I didn't read that question properly and voted for "neither" by mistake.. but jump cuts are the ones that bother me. Shaky cam never bothers me (and actually, I LOVE hand-held camera work), but jump cuts can make a film look really ugly when they're overused or just used wrong.


Same thing happened to me. The difference is that I chose not to advertise my failure in reading comprehension. Oh, wait...


Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:22 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr