• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Filming techniques/methods that still baffle you because they are still used

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boss Doggie

Boss Doggie

all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Lens flare. Why is there a point to do lens flare? Lots of cameras prevent flaring, and seems to be more than a cliche than anything at all. It doesn't add to the movie.

Shaky cam. Again, technology today prevents most shakiness and allows focus, but what's the point? Immersion is useless if you have a hard time watching your movie... and who the hell watches movies for immersion?

CGI is not "bad" to fit in this list. Because honestly, those two are tools as opposed to the ones mentioned. Hell, they're used in your favorite film and you didn't even spot it! Dunno about 3D, but I don't think it's as bad too.
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
Shaky cam. People will look back at movies from this era and wonder what the hell directors were thinking. Lotr, batman begins are two particularly bad offenders in otherwise good movies, but it's all over.
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
You can't list shaky cam because Saving Private Ryan - which spearheaded the technique before every lesser filmmaker tried to ape and fuck it up, exists.
 
C

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Strafer said:
Slow motion.
Click to expand...
Are you actually baffled by this, or do you just not enjoy it? Because there are lots of good reasons to use slow motion. I don't want it everywhere, but in lots of cases it makes action scenes easier to see and appreciate the detail of. Even cheap slo-mo (like in the TV series Spartacus) can enhance the experience.
 
B

Buckethead

Banned
Overuse of Dutch angles.

Also; inconsistency of faux-documentary style.

Doing it right: Blair Witch.
Doing it wrong: Everyone else.
 
M

Maklershed

Member
I personally don't think there's any one filming technique/method that's outdated. It all depends on the context and how well its done. But the one thing that is outdated in movies is the 'wilhelm scream'. And even that I'm not sure if its so much a factor of being outdated as it is over used.
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
Ookami-kun said:
You can still be a good film but practice horrendous stuff.
Click to expand...

The shaky cam in SPR is expertly done. It isn't about making things out of focus. There is still a very conscious effort made to framing the action clearly despite the camera being much looser. The problem with shaky cam came as everybody else failed to understand this and sought to create chaos within the frame with no thought as to how to organize and direct that violent jerking into something comprehensible and accessible.
 
F

fabricated backlash

Member
Ookami-kun said:
Lens flare. Why is there a point to do lens flare? Lots of cameras prevent flaring, and seems to be more than a cliche than anything at all. It doesn't add to the movie.

Shaky cam. Again, technology today prevents most shakiness and allows focus, but what's the point? Immersion is useless if you have a hard time watching your movie... and who the hell watches movies for immersion?

CGI is not "bad" to fit in this list. Because honestly, those two are tools as opposed to the ones mentioned. Hell, they're used in your favorite film and you didn't even spot it! Dunno about 3D, but I don't think it's as bad too.
Click to expand...


So basically we are to list creative choices that we disagree with? Because honestly, everything you listed are legitimate tools a director has at it's disposal to express a vision or to tell a visual narrative.
I get the feeling that you think that technology actually is more important than creative choices. Do you honestly think that a movie would become better just by virtue of eliminating artifacts that were born out of technical realities and creative exploitation of such problems.
Let me guess you're one of those people who thinks that the digital filters on modern TVs are actually improving the pictures.
 
B

BeeDog

Member
I dislike when movies employ gradual zoom-ins on faces during character monologues. I feel it's a cheap trick to force the viewer to feel a certain way in that scene.
 
K

Kinyou

Member
The funny part about JJ Abrams and Lensflare is that he actually has people with flashlights on the set who do nothing but trying to shine into the cameras.

jjnzkhy.jpg


Strafer said:
Slow motion.
Click to expand...

I thought it's pretty cool in Sherlock Holmes for example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltFyEcoGnbQ

The Hurt Locker made good use of the super slow motion as well
 
J

jett

D-Member
Ridley Scott's "patented" low-framerate slow motion. It looks like fucking garbage. Please stop, man.
 
E

Ezduo

Banned
Ookami-kun said:
Shaky cam. Again, technology today prevents most shakiness and allows focus, but what's the point? Immersion is useless if you have a hard time watching your movie... and who the hell watches movies for immersion?
Click to expand...
Isn't that like half the point of watching a movie? Why people spend thousands of dollars on fancy surround sound systems and gigantic televisions?
 
J

jett

D-Member
Scullibundo said:
Danny Boyle knows how to do it well.
Click to expand...

Yeah? I can barely stand slow-motion, but this the worst. It's super distracting. You forgot to use high-speed cameras for those shots, deal with it goddamnit. Scott's way is terrible, it's just random snippets all over regular-ass shots. It's very MTV-like and unrefined to be honest.

Boyle hasn't really made me notice it in his movies so it may just be Scott's implementation.
 
A

Adam Scott Aukerman

Member
Ookami-kun said:
Lens flare. Why is there a point to do lens flare? Lots of cameras prevent flaring, and seems to be more than a cliche than anything at all. It doesn't add to the movie.
Click to expand...

If by that, you mean narratively, then no, of course it doesn't. But then very few visual things in films do, but that doesn't mean that they're redundant.
 
J

jett

D-Member
teruterubozu said:
The over-reliance on BLUE HUES to create a sleek sci-fi effect.
Click to expand...

That's truly the "look" of this generation's filmmaking. Not just sci-fi movies, it's every genre. Some movies are even getting retrofitted with it when they are remastered for blu-ray(Alien and Blade Runner). It looks fine in those two, but seriously what's up with this trend.
 
D

droppedbear

Neo Member
Shaky Cam- was used the worst in my opinion in the Bourne movies were I was struggling to actually watch the movie it was that terrible
 
B

Blutonium

Member
jett said:
Ridley Scott's "patented" low-framerate slow motion. It looks like fucking garbage. Please stop, man.
Click to expand...

I came in here to post low-framerate slow motion. Slow motion can really make a scene more dramatic, because you see things that are normally to fast to spot, or it builds up an action to make it have more impact. If you can't see what is happening because of the low framerate, what's the point of including it?

On top of that, it looks like creamy shit.
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
jett said:
That's truly the "look" of this generation's filmmaking. Not just sci-fi movies, it's every genre. Some movies are even getting retrofitted with it when they are remastered for blu-ray(Alien and Blade Runner). It looks fine in those two, but seriously what's up with this trend.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess it's almost every movie, but definitely sci-fi, thrillers, horror, etc.
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is super guilty of this awful trend.
 
R

Randdalf

Member
Shaky cam in anything but the Bourne movies, which do it rather well. Quantum of Solace was ruined even further by its terribly shaky cam.
 
B

BeeDog

Member
Randdalf said:
Shaky cam in anything but the Bourne movies, which do it rather well. Quantum of Solace was ruined even further by its terribly shaky cam.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd say the Bourne movies are the worst offenders of the shaky-cam usage, especially during its action scenes. You can't see shit; it's like the directors don't trust their own action choreography.
 
Boss Doggie

Boss Doggie

all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Oh god yes, I hate predefined hues for genres. SCI FI SHOULD BE BLUE and AFTER THE END IS BROWN are bullshit.

Ezduo said:
Isn't that like half the point of watching a movie? Why people spend thousands of dollars on fancy surround sound systems and gigantic televisions?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about more on "being part of the movie as the main character" thing. I honestly think it doesn't work because you're watching characters rather than being part of the scene.

rogue_pigeon said:
If by that, you mean narratively, then no, of course it doesn't. But then very few visual things in films do, but that doesn't mean that they're redundant.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see them work well in live action. Only time they're good at are animated shows and even then most just parody them.
 
M

Mr_Zombie

Member
Shaky cam and quick cuts during fight scenes. Yes, it is more dynamic, but what's the point if you can't even tell what the hell is going on.
 
S

Suairyu

Banned
They're all tools. They can be employed well or abused to all hell and back.

As with all crafts, the cream of the crop who know how to use the tools well are outnumbered by the idiots who don't.

Digital colour grading is one. With how easy it allows you to do creative colour timing as opposed to the old analogue methods, you get a lot of colour-biased films these days that look awful. As others have pointed out, blue is the in vogue colour scheme for the past decade for whatever reason.

See: the blu ray of Fellowship Of The Ring EE which shifted everything towards green. Peter Jackson thought it looked great which leads me to seriously question his artistic taste.

Ookami-kun said:
... and who the hell watches movies for immersion?
Click to expand...
Do you even understand what immersion is?

The way half the motherfuckers on this board talk about it you'd think it is a relatively new concept invented for videogames or something.

Ookami-kun said:
I still find it hilarious that people use them despite the technology already available to prevent those from happening though.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Seriously. They choose to use them because - artistically - that is the look they are going for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

So uhhh there's been no good Spiderman film since 2004 huh?
2
71
4K
Dark Star replied
  • Locked
I'm genuinely tired of The Critical Drinker and other channels of the same ilk, and I think they're only making things worse for an average moviegoer
2 3
148
13K
Faust replied
Tarantino went downhill since Django Unchained
Opinion 2 3
102
5K
BadBurger replied
Avatar 2: Way of the Water is a Technical Marvel
33
2K
sankt-Antonio replied
Potentially absurd take: the original Medal of Honor created a more immersive illusion of realism than many of the current-day war shooters.
2 3
103
6K
SpearHea.:D replied
Top Bottom