If the camera's perspective is in distress, like onboard a ship where there is gravity and movement to contend with, shaky-cam makes sense. If the perspective is free-floating in space, it's just stupid and distracting.
Shaky-cam in space / Visual effects shots
- Thread starter Kpnuts
- Start date
Mostly I was just impressed that the natives could draw such an accurate top-view of the Enterprise without ever seeing it from above.
If you watch that scene more closely, you can see the engineering hull overlap the saucer, indicating that they drew the underside of the ship.
That really depends on the specific context. If the intention is to keep a pace form shot to shot, then no. You want to maintain the same style of motion, otherwise it will pull the audience out of the moment.
However, if the intention is to juxtapose the environments, then you would do that. Which happens in both XI and ID during the atmospheric jumps. The style of camera work, and the use of sound both change dramatically from one shot, to the shot taking us into the next scene. It's a dangerous game to play, because if you mess it up, you can pull the audience right out of the movie and annoy them.
It is. And I hope that whoever will direct the next Trek movie will get rid of those stupid shaky cams. They completely ruin the style and are distracting as hell. I don't want to watch a movie going forward frame by frame on my TV to be able to see what's actually going on.
And I do miss the beauty fly-by shots.
The entire point was realism, to make it seem like you're there. Thankfully it was much better in this than 09. As for the speed of it in space shots, one can say that in this incarnation of Trek the special effects aren't center stage anymore.
But it's not. And I don't think it's going anywhere. It's the style presented by these films, and I'm sure that while the director of III will have his own style, he'll also respect what has come before.
I don't think shaky-cam adds realism, really, unless it's in documentary style like District 9. First, we're supposed to be observers, not participants in the story (like in a videogame, for instance), and second, shaky-cam simulates an actual camera... so who's filming on the ship ?
I don't really mind the technique, mind you, but in the case of Star Trek I just think it's a bit out of place. My personal opinion, of course.
I don't really mind the technique, mind you, but in the case of Star Trek I just think it's a bit out of place. My personal opinion, of course.
I would probably prefer smoother FX shots but I realise they'd stick out like a sore thumb in JJ's movies.
Though if he wants to give us a DVD extra where we get the action scenes done retro TOS style (though without The Enterprise listing around at odd angles!) that'd be sweeeeet
I think my favourite FX in the whole movie was the warp drive sequence. Felt like TNG warp and TOS Movie warp combined.
Would love to see a lot more of that
Though if he wants to give us a DVD extra where we get the action scenes done retro TOS style (though without The Enterprise listing around at odd angles!) that'd be sweeeeet
I think my favourite FX in the whole movie was the warp drive sequence. Felt like TNG warp and TOS Movie warp combined.
Would love to see a lot more of that
The purpose of the photography is to show what is going on.
Shaking the camera so badly that you can't tell what is on the screen doesn't make me feel like I'm in the scene. It takes me right OUT of the scene because I can't tell what the hell is going on! And it's the reason I had movies like District 9 and a few others. It's not "edgy" film making. It's just annoying. It has ruined a lot of movies for me.
I went to see a horror movie that was in the "lost footage" vein that did not have one long shot. EVERY SINGLE SHOT was a blurry close up filmed by someone jumping up and down. It could have been a pretty good film, but I actually had to leave the auditorium for 10 minutes because I was getting motion sickeness. The story was good, but it was ruined by subpar "edgy" photography. What a waste.
What just happened in that scene? Well, there was a loud noise and people started yelling, but then everything on the screen just went blurry and shaky, so who the hell knows what actually happened. Whatever it was, I guess they didn't want us to see it.
I don't disrespect those who love it, but I sure don't understand it. I don't understand the appeal of not being able to see what's going on.
Shaking the camera so badly that you can't tell what is on the screen doesn't make me feel like I'm in the scene. It takes me right OUT of the scene because I can't tell what the hell is going on! And it's the reason I had movies like District 9 and a few others. It's not "edgy" film making. It's just annoying. It has ruined a lot of movies for me.
I went to see a horror movie that was in the "lost footage" vein that did not have one long shot. EVERY SINGLE SHOT was a blurry close up filmed by someone jumping up and down. It could have been a pretty good film, but I actually had to leave the auditorium for 10 minutes because I was getting motion sickeness. The story was good, but it was ruined by subpar "edgy" photography. What a waste.
What just happened in that scene? Well, there was a loud noise and people started yelling, but then everything on the screen just went blurry and shaky, so who the hell knows what actually happened. Whatever it was, I guess they didn't want us to see it.
I don't disrespect those who love it, but I sure don't understand it. I don't understand the appeal of not being able to see what's going on.
I'm not a fan of a lot of the Enterprise shots in the JJ films, whilst some are truly excellent - the Saturn rising, and the 'veering to the left space dock' sequence that someone mentioned earlier, and a couple of others, I've felt that some of the key moments have been spoiled by being too short or odd camera angles.
The warp chase in STID - brilliant scene with truly amazing sound effects, spoiled by being over before you had chance to even soak it up properly, would have been much better if the Enterprise tried to increase speed or fire back.
All the space confrontation scenes in STID suffer from this - the first appearance if the Vengeance, I've watched it over and over and I can barely figure out what's going on, then we get this distant 'head to head' shot, no happy medium. Same goes for when the ship attacks for the second time - the scenes are way too quick and again, I cannot make out what is going on, I found it to be one of my biggest gripes with the movie (which I do like by the way).
This is why I enjoy the battles in TWOK and Nemesis much more
The warp chase in STID - brilliant scene with truly amazing sound effects, spoiled by being over before you had chance to even soak it up properly, would have been much better if the Enterprise tried to increase speed or fire back.
All the space confrontation scenes in STID suffer from this - the first appearance if the Vengeance, I've watched it over and over and I can barely figure out what's going on, then we get this distant 'head to head' shot, no happy medium. Same goes for when the ship attacks for the second time - the scenes are way too quick and again, I cannot make out what is going on, I found it to be one of my biggest gripes with the movie (which I do like by the way).
This is why I enjoy the battles in TWOK and Nemesis much more
And that 'head to head shot' looked so cartoonish that it almost felt like a parody!
You could argue the point that a shaky experiance is what you would expect in a battle.
Similar threads
