Disappointing Trends in Movies

[Hijinks]

I'm not one to be severly disappointed in a movie, however there is one trend in today's filmmaking that I really don't like. It's the trend of directors having the camera jerk around during a battle scene so that you feel like you're "in the middle" of the fight.

I'm sure some of you out there really like it, but I personally actually get motion sickness from the camera jerking around like that. The first film I noticed it in was Saving Private Ryan, which is also the only film I've ever walked out on in a theater; I was just physically sick to my stomach from the jerky camera movement. I've noticed it happening more and more in films, though, and I really don't like it.

It was even present in the Lord of the Rings films, although to a lesser degree than Ryan. I remember it happening first during the fight in Moria, and I remember saying "Oh no!" once I realized it, because I was afraid of getting sick again.

I also remember seeing a preview for War of the Worlds that had brief, very quick flashes of the herky-jerky action and I totally couldn't follow it; I had no idea what was going on. Thankfully, the actual movie wasn't as bad as the preview.

I go to movies to be entertained; I don't really think the Fellowship of the Ring happened and I don't need to feel like I'm there. I wish directors didn't feel the need to make it more "real."

What are your movie pet peeves?

 

[Elemental]

I hear you on the jerky camera. It was really bad in Resident Evil: Nemesis. During the final one-on-one battle between the heroine and the Nemesis, I honestly couldn't tell who was hitting who.


My own pet hates--

Any fantasy film that has enemies who wear heavy armour....which is utterly useless in stopping any blow from the good guys. As I was watching the LotR trilogy, I was seriously starting to wonder why the evil powers didn't just send the orcs into battle naked rather than invest so much time and effort into making armour--at least then they might have a chance of dodging an attack.

A female character who is established early on as being a kickass fighter, but becomes inexpicably useless when it's time for them to get abducted / killed / stand back and let the menfolk handle things.

Almost all romantic comedies that feature any of the following--a precocious kid who's wiser than the adults, the message that women just need to find a sugar daddy rather than invest anything in self-improvement, ditziness being presented as a positive character trait, or the message that stalking people is fine so long as you're destined to be together.

 

[Andre]

Thirded on jerky camera views. I didn't like it in Three Kings, nor in War of the Worlds, nor in a few TV shows/movies I've seen. I didn't really notice it in LoTR, but I had other problems with those movies.

Another pet peeve: Playing the music so loud, I can't hear the dialogue. I can't count the number of DVD's I play where I have to constantly adjust the sound so I can hear what the actors are saying. Soundtracks are supposed to enhance the experience, not overwhelm it.

 

[Aeson]

Any movie with kids in it that seem wiser than the adults is annoying. In some movies I think they should have gone with "children should be seen and not heard".

 

[Warrior Poet]

What are your movie pet peeves?

-Volume that's too loud. Yes, certain moments in a film should be loud, and those are o.k., but the entire film doesn't need to be 100 dB. I take ear plugs to Metallica concerts to prevent tinnitis. Maybe I should start taking them to the movies.

-People who talk during the film. I'm with Shepherd Book on this one.

-Showing all the funny clips in the preview hoping to get butts in seats only to find that there's nothing else funny in the comedy film. Thanks, I saw the preview, could've skipped the $10 for the movie that's not funny the way the clips were.

-Just about anything where the names Michael Bay or Joel Schumacher appear in the credits.

-"In a world . . . " This just makes me tired now.

-Obligatory nu-metal chord burst intro for the explosion/action sequence/underwater catastrophe bubble burst/frenzied kiss in a preview or actual film.

-My own "too-high" expectations. I really, really need to lower them, if I'm going to enjoy the movies. Don't know if this is just "getting older" disease, or what.

I go to movies to be entertained . . . I wish directors didn't feel the need to make it more "real."

Fair enough. I like the realism, when it works for the film. I go to some movies to be entertained. I go to others because I'm hoping to see something realistic, or something about a subject I am interested in, and in those cases, I think the versimilitude helps, such as in the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan and the whole of Blackhawk Down, in which case I think the camera work helps me realize the craziness (crazier than I could ever imagine, and still nowhere near crazy as it really was) of the situation. I might get enterainment, or something to think about, or a historical period to investigate further, or a particular artistic expression out of those films, too, but part of what I like is the realism. In the case of those kinds of films, I think the camera work serves the film. I'm sorry you had to leave Ryan due to illness and that it detracted your experience of the (first 20 minutes of) film (the story that followed definitely deviated from the "realism," for sure).

I think it's just a particular stylistic trend in certain kinds of film expression at the moment. It probably won't last forever, as other trends come along to replace it, and it will eventually come back, as the trend becomes nostalgic, or filmmakers get tired of the new trends. I would guess there are many movies out there that don't use that technique. Heck, maybe you could start the revolution and lobby for, or make, films that don't rely on that technique to tell a story!

Warrior Poet

 

[billd91]

The grainy, jerky and blurred style of filming in Saving Pvt Ryan was done partly to mimic the impressions given by the photos of Robert Capa. As the story goes, he landed with initial waves on Omaha Beach for D-Day and took about 100 pictures. They were grainy and blury and brillaintly evocative. He rode back out after that initial wave to get the photos developed. Unfortunately, only 11 survived a botched development job by an excited technician who rushed a little too much.
But damn if Spielberg didn't capture that look and feel in the opening fight of SPR!

 

[Warrior Poet]

The grainy, jerky and blurred style of filming in Saving Pvt Ryan was done partly to mimic the impressions given by the photos of Robert Capa. But damn if Spielberg didn't capture that look and feel in the opening fight of SPR!

Yeah, it was a helluva job, and props to the cinematographers. The washed out colors, heck, even the weather cooperated (overcast in the morning, but not enough to prevent the landings) for the filming. Problems with some of the writing/story of the 2nd part of the film notwithstanding, that opening sequence is some of the best fictionalized filmmaking I've seen of the Normandy D-Day beachhead landings.

Even more honors to Capa. To have survived the initial landing, much less get the photographs, is truly an awesome historical moment. I can't even imagine.

Warrior Poet

 

[Mad Hatter]

Clapping in a movie. I hate it with the burning passion of 1000 fiery suns. Clapping is worse than talking because at least when people talk they are generally whispering. However, clapping completely overwhelms dialogue and when one monkey starts they all start.

 

[sniffles]

I agree about the jerky motion editing. I didn't like it in "Gladiator" (the first film I recall seeing it in) and I don't like it anywhere else. I want to be able to see what's happening! It seems like a cheat to avoid having to really show something.

The loud music issue is another good one. The music should enhance, not overpower. And on the topic of music, why does every movie have to have a pop music song in the soundtrack?

I also dislike the trend (although that's really been a trend throughout the history of filmmaking) of casting big-box-office stars in roles they are completely unsuited for. I really don't go to see a film just to see the star, and I doubt that most other people do either. If it looks like something we'd enjoy we'll go to see it no matter who's in it. Look how popular the original Star Wars became with unknowns in the roles; or look at "Batman Begins" - how many average viewers (not ENworld members ) knew who Christian Bale was?

Movie trailers that show all the best scenes are also an extreme annoyance to me. Of course, they save me money since I don't need to see the movie.

And can't the people who prepare the trailers find some other pieces of music besides that ESPosthumous piece, or 'O Fortuna' from Carmina Burana, or stealing the theme from another movie??

 

[Abraxas]

Oooooh movie peeves - a favorite subject of my friends and me....

Let me jump on the I hate the jerky camera bandwagon - its invading Television now (check out the scene in BSG where starbuck and whatshisface are sitting talking in her old aprtment, the camera wanders all over the place) - but not in all cases, in some movies I don't even notice, in others, like The Bourne Supremacy, it made me ill.

People being blown back several feet/through things/over things/etc when shot.

Waif-like heroines who are supercombatants beyond all reason in a fight.

The general trend of all male characters being complete and utter boobs while wise and caring women save them from themselves.

Blatant political agendas tucked away in movies that have nothing to do with the story/characters/setting.