Shaky Cam - Your Thoughts? (Forked Thread: The new Star Trek movie is...)

[WhatGravitas]

Forked from: The new Star Trek movie is...

That twit Abrams love of the shakey-cam was also detrimental to the movie (I chuckle when I see that thread/Onion headline about the movie being "watchable". Heh... hardly, with that craphole cam!)

This stood out to me. Nowadys, shaky cams are actually pretty common in film and television - but what do people think of it?

I'll comment on my personal view a bit later, when some responses trickle in.

Cheers, LT.

 

[EricNoah]

I'm agnostic (and non-voting) for now. I would like to hear the theory of what shaky cam brings to the experience (what is it supposed to achieve)? Same deal with lens flare. What do these tools help communicate or imply, etc.

 

[Rykion]

I voted it can sometimes ruin a movie for me, but it has to be very excessive to do so. I would probably have hated The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield on the big screen. In other movies it annoys me when it is used to cover the lack of decent fight choreography.

Recently, I often don't even notice it unless it seems overused. I really didn't notice the shaky cam in the new Star Trek movie.

 

[RangerWickett]

I did not notice shakey-cam at all during Star Trek, which I suppose means it was used well for my taste. On the other hand, frenetic cuts and shaking really turned me off to the fight scenes in Nolan's two Batman films. No other egregious examples jump out to me right now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think it has its place. I prefer a mix, I think.

I love large "beauty shots" where you see a scene from far and can make out what is happening everywhere.
But to "feel" the action, the shaky cam works well, in my opinion.

I think they did this mix pretty well in BSG. But then, I probably can't talk rational about that, since I love BSG.

 

[Mallus]

My response to shaky-cam usually ranges from 'like' to 'do not mind'. It has its place.

The technique is meant to suggest the film is really a documentary. It's actually happening and the camera operator is experiencing the violent action occurring in the scene; getting jostled about, often unable to focus on the proper spot.

It heightens the sense of realism (unless, of course, it makes you sick). It's the opposite of stately crane shots which glide over and above the action like the POV of a graceful, somewhat curious god.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I am not a big fan of shaky cam in general even if the motion doesn't bother me in and of itself. The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield worked for me because the entire film was designed to be a first person camcorder perspective. Unless a particular shot is supposed to be first person camcorder I would prefer not to see shaky cam in a movie.

 

[Arnwyn]

Obviously, since it was my quote, my vote is "Can sometimes ruin a film for me" (but heavy emphasis on the 'sometimes' - it can be effective if done well, as I do understand the intent to make you feel the action).

Unfortunately, in the past couple of years it has been very poorly done in a surprising number of movies - I chalk it up to lazy cinematography or general incompetence.

In ST, for example, I'd put it at the level of "annoying" - not tremendously bad or anything like that, but definitely noticeable and definitely annoying, for my taste. A little goes a long way, I'd suggest.

 

[Fast Learner]

I chose not caring either way, but only because it was the middle answer. Sometimes it's irritating, but like someone posted above, I didn't notice it at all in the new Star Trek movie, so apparently they used it exactly the amount that I like.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It really defined BSG, and really helped set the tone for the series. There were only a few times where it got too showy.

As far as the best known shaky cam work (i.e. the two new Batman films), it was a good idea but was sometimes over the top and made things hard to follow. I still can't figure out exactly what happened to Bruce's parents.

Verisimilitude is critical to successful fiction. The Lord of the Rings books are often referred to as reading 'like a history textbook', but that is part of what gives them their impact-you feel like you're reading history.

Similarly, the shaky-cam gives the feel of a documentary. The apparently inferior and less clear technique can actually be an asset.