Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Too many camera angles in movies now, can't watch them anymore.

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

  • Too many camera angles in movies now, can't watch them anymore.

    Taken was on the telly the other night (I think it was Taken 2). I couldn't finish watching it. Not because it was really cheesy and impossibly outrageous but because they were showing 1-second scenes from 30 different camera angles. There was a car chase at one point where they end up driving in to the American embassy at the end of the chase. Chase lasted maybe 3 or 4 minutes (I wasn't counting). Every second of this scene was shows from at least 2, but as many as 6 camera angles. They literally switched between 6 camera angles in less than a second, over and over again. It started to make me dizzy. At one point they showed 2 solid seconds of the same angle (just the camera following the car) and I almost shat myself. That must have been the longest continuous camera angle in the entire film.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SeJJWtAR4Q Here's part of the chase. In one minute there is over 100 camera angles shown, which is more than one per second. At certain points they show 10 different angles in less than a second. It's so fucking distracting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9yKRm9R44 Compare it to this, which has only around 30 camera angles in the same amount of time. Which do you enjoy watching most? The one where a nice long camera angle gives you time to absorb what's going on before switching to the next camera angle, or the one that switches camera angles every 0.45 seconds.

  • #2
    that terminator scene is much slower, also there will be technological limits that stopped them doing it back then, but then you look at what is probably two of the best and most technical car chases done and there is still plenty of cutting about with the camera.




    the camera snapping around actually helps massively to allow them to do cuts to pull off better stunts and have more natural restart point for when someone inevitably fucks up. also in the likes of taken it gives a greater sense of speed and urgency as just watching a car drive fast looks a hell of a lot slower than it is actually going. it's like if you ever watched top gear quite a few laps on their track looked quite slow, but if you were in the car you would shit yourself, the sad fact is cars just don't look fast on film so without creative camera work it just looks like a bunch of people are out for a drive.

    Comment


    • #3


      Comment


      • #4
        JackRabbit I've never actually seen blues brothers is it worth a watch? still say the Bullit and Italian Job chase is better, but I did know blues brothers held the record for smashed cars.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Belimawr View Post
          JackRabbit I've never actually seen blues brothers is it worth a watch? still say the Bullit and Italian Job chase is better, but I did know blues brothers held the record for smashed cars.
          Well I love it, but I believe it is an acquired taste.
          Avoid the utterly dire sequel though.

          Comment


          • #6
            been watching a lot of older movies recently (been nothing good that is new for a while) so just looking for stuff to watch really. what's it actually about?

            Comment


            • #7
              During their run on Saturday Night Live, Dan Ackroyd and John Belushi created the characters as an ongoing skit.
              And then they made a movie out of it.
              They play a couple of cheap hoodlums who sing in a blues band tasked with saving an orphanage from having their mortgage foreclosed on.
              Whilst its not the greatest of comedy films, it has more than its fair share of moments (the orphanage, their turn in a country and western bar and the Illinois Nazi's), loads of cameos (Carrie Fisher, James Brown, Frank Oz etc etc).
              In fairness, it's been a while since I watched it (got it on video! No video player!) and it's probably aged badly. That said, I didn't watch it until the mid 90's so its not like I watched it at the height of its relevance (struggling as I would have been with walking and talking)


              It's probably very much a case of style over substance.
              Last edited by JackRabbit; 03-07-15, 22:19.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Belimawr View Post
                that terminator scene is much slower, also there will be technological limits that stopped them doing it back then, but then you look at what is probably two of the best and most technical car chases done and there is still plenty of cutting about with the camera.




                the camera snapping around actually helps massively to allow them to do cuts to pull off better stunts and have more natural restart point for when someone inevitably fucks up. also in the likes of taken it gives a greater sense of speed and urgency as just watching a car drive fast looks a hell of a lot slower than it is actually going. it's like if you ever watched top gear quite a few laps on their track looked quite slow, but if you were in the car you would shit yourself, the sad fact is cars just don't look fast on film so without creative camera work it just looks like a bunch of people are out for a drive.
                I counted 23 camera angles in the first minute of the first video and I was able to enjoy it because each cut was long enough for me to process what was going on.

                I counted 16 camera angles in the first minute of the second video and was able to enjoy it for the same reason.

                100 camera angles in 1 minute is too fucking much. It's more than one per second. It's like watching a fight scene in Bourne Identity and then watching a fight scene in a Jackie Chan film. Bourne Identity actually makes me feel nauseous because the camera changes so much, so often. Jackie Chan does it and it's awesome, just one long cut, maybe 2 or 3 different angles.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Quiet you. This thread is now about the Blues Brothers.
                  NATCH.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah I think I prefer the 'slower' style as well. But that's just what it is: a style. Modern technology and viewer comprehension (and some might also say viewer attention span) make it far more feasible to have quicker cuts and more camera set ups than in the past. Taken 2 (not seen it, only the clip linked above} apparently takes this to what are perhaps absurd levels. But there's certainly room in cinema to have a range of styles of faster and slower cuts, and variety always wins.

                    For some relief from yer Bournes and yer Takens:



                    And I've linked to this video a couple of times already, but let's make it the hat trick. It refers to fight scenes and comedy, but much is equally applicable chases too.



                    -----

                    And yes, Blues Brothers is glorious. I wouldn't say the film as a whole has aged badly (I mean it's definitely old, but most of the jokes still hit home despite its age), but there are a few cringe worthy moments. Love of the music certainly helps.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      the thing is in a fight scene a single camera can be used to great effect as you get the speed of the people moving about so it works, great example is this, done in one continuous shot meaning even the camera man had to move around the action at times to make it work, so really the level of ability that went into making it was immense and due to it being a fight scene you have all the action happening in close range.




                      a car chase on the other hand if you look at the likes of the police chases on TV they look tame and quite often slow, this is because due to the way cars look they just always look way slower than they are, hell drifting was invented entirely around that premise, it's probably the slowest way you can drive round the track but for pure spectacle it looks way better as you end up with the smoke and screeching.

                      the fact is stuff like the films from the 70's-90's would have utilised way more cameras if at the time they didn't cost a small fortune and they weren't massive bulky things, so really 23 cuts in a minute by the time you factor in technology advances since 1969 (well probably 67/68 when it was filmed) moving up to 100 cuts in a minute is probably about right.

                      the fact is look at both of those chases I posted when the camera follows the cars they look like they are just having a nice leisurely drive around the city, so really without the cuts you would basically remove the need for car chases as they would just be boring filler.

                      as for fight scenes the main reason for a lot of cuts is so they can fetch in the actor when they swing round to the face, it's why if you watch the last fast an furious there was way more emphasis on Statham than the Rock as Stathem did the fight scenes while the Rock used a double, it's the same reason Jackie Chan doesn't need to cut about as much as he does all his own stunts as well, so really if your problem with fight scenes is the cuts you should just boycott the crappy actors who need stunt men.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Belimawr View Post
                        the thing is in a fight scene a single camera can be used to great effect as you get the speed of the people moving about so it works, great example is this, done in one continuous shot meaning even the camera man had to move around the action at times to make it work, so really the level of ability that went into making it was immense and due to it being a fight scene you have all the action happening in close range.
                        Which looks entirely ripped off from the the video linked just above

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Burglar View Post

                          Which looks entirely ripped off from the the video linked just above

                          it probably where they got the inspiration for it, but it's still a show that if you go at it from a purely technical standpoint where you don't need to swap in and out stunt people you can do those types of shot, it only really worked as with that mask the stuntman and the actor only needed to look close on the bottom of the face. basically there is only 2 ways you can do these type of shots, either all the actors need to do their own stunts or you need something like the mask in daredevil to obscure the face enough that you can entirely substitute the actor with the stuntman.

                          but it still doesn't change the fact that a fight and a car chase are two very different animals.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X