More or Less "Shaky Cam" in Next Movie???

[SilentP]

Still, I'm really over the shaky cam thing now. It was original and cool at one point, but I'd like to see a return to actual wide shots and steady shots in all movies, not just Trek.

While it may be a case of shaky cam having been overdone in recent films, I wouldn't want to see it dissappear completely, I'd like it to stick around as one technique available when film making, not just a fad that will never be seen at all again, even in shots where it would be the best to use.

 

[M'Sharak]

Still, I'm really over the shaky cam thing now. It was original and cool at one point, but I'd like to see a return to actual wide shots and steady shots in all movies, not just Trek.

While it may be a case of shaky cam having been overdone in recent films, I wouldn't want to see it dissappear completely, I'd like it to stick around as one technique available when film making, not just a fad that will never be seen at all again, even in shots where it would be the best to use.

Shaky-cam isn't really all that recent a thing. I may be misremembering this, but I think the term "shaky-cam" may have been coined by Jim Jarmusch back in the 80s, and the idea of the camera not staying focused dead-center on the subject goes back to the French New Wave (La Nouvelle Vague) of the 50s and 60s, and beyond that to cinéma vérité as far back as the 1920s. It got more aggressive with stuff like Blair Witch, nuBSG and Cloverfield, maybe, but it's not something which just came up recently; it's been going in and out of style for decades.

 

[ITL]

^ True, that.

I don't mind a bit of non-standard arty camarawork now and then. but so much modern stuff is so....unsubtle. Directors ask actors to give a "bigger" or "smaller" performance depending on what's required - I'd like to see some "smaller" performances from the camera operators and those in the editing booth, generally.

 

[MaximRecoil]

It got more aggressive with stuff like Blair Witch, nuBSG and Cloverfield, maybe, but it's not something which just came up recently; it's been going in and out of style for decades.

It's never been so pervasive before; not even close. Until somewhat recently it was only ever a fringe thing; and as such, it was never "in style".

Blair Witch and Cloverfield are a different breed of cat IMO, since the camera man for both of them is an actual character in the movie; the idea being that what you are watching is simply recovered footage from a guy with a camcorder. In that case, the "shaky cam" isn't supposed to be a "stylistic device", but rather the unavoidable effect of someone frantically running around holding a camcorder. It still sucks IMO, since watching home movies sucks by default (due in no small part to the incompetent camera work), but at least there is a reason for it that makes sense.

The first ordinary movie I remember watching that really overdid the whole shaky cam/inappropriate use of closeups/quick cuts was "Batman Begins" (2005), particularly in the fight scenes. I'm not saying there were not others before it, but it was the first one that left me with a negative opinion of the movie simply because of the camera work.

 

[shapeshifter]

Isn't shaky-cam in TOS Canon?

The shaky-cam in this Trek didn't start to bother me until my latter viewings of it so therefore I have to believe that, as a story telling tool, it was an effective part of this particular ride (up to the point I started to become overtly aware of it.)

However, now that I have become aware of it, all future viewings here at home may become tainted by it. It could become a reason I never want to watch it again so to improve the chances of long term enjoyment of future film's I think less shaky-cam may be a better choice.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Oh, they did use shaky cam?

Whew, I thought it was me.

 

[M'Sharak]

^ True, that.

I don't mind a bit of non-standard arty camarawork now and then. but so much modern stuff is so....unsubtle. Directors ask actors to give a "bigger" or "smaller" performance depending on what's required - I'd like to see some "smaller" performances from the camera operators and those in the editing booth, generally.

Yeah, it can be overdone, and too easily.

Even the less-frenetic stuff has that problem with "how far is going too far?" There was a series of TV commercials some years ago for insurance or something, and they used to irritate me with the way the camera would leisurely drift away from the actor's face and come to rest randomly on their elbow or a button on their shirt front or the potted plant on the table. It's an effect and a creative choice, and if one isn't careful it's something which can obscure the thing to which you want the audience paying attention.