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

[DontFeedPhil]

Ok...
Since StarTrek was a sucess and it appears that StarTrek 2 is about set to go ahead I thought Id start a poll about the Next movie...
My question is about "shaky-Cam" and its use in action scenes. Would you want to see more "Shaky-Cam" or less? Ive included a 3rd option for those who think the amount of shakycam was ok...

 

[Yeoman Randi]

DEATH TO THE SHAKY CAM!

 

[SalvorHardin]

The way the first one was filmed is just fine by me.

I had no trouble following what was going on and besides 2-3 occasions of extreme lens flares I didn't have any problems with that aspect either.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

Yeah I thought about including Lens Flares in this poll but decided it would make its own nice little poll...

 

[MvRojo]

I didn't notice it that much, but there were a couple moments where it stood out. When that's the case, they should do a little less.

 

[M'Sharak]

Not really seeing a poll option which fits. I think shaky-cam is too often overdone and I usually find stuff shot with excessive shaky to be difficult to watch, but I wasn't bothered by the level of shaky used in Star Trek. As long as they don't exceed that level for the next one, I should be okay with it.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

I had a problem with the shaky cam and also the very tight shots especially during fight scenes. I hope they let up on both.

 

[caisson2delta]

The camera shake didn't seem that noticeable to me and didn't have any issues following the action. I will have to agree on the lenses flares. I think they were over used and should be limited in the next film.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

The camera shake didn't seem that noticeable to me and didn't have any issues following the action. I will have to agree on the lenses flares. I think they were over used and should be limited in the next film.

OH GOD YES. The lens flares. Less of those as well. I don't think that will be an issue this time though, as JJ himself has admitted they went way overboard with those!

 

[davejames]

To be honest I didn't even notice the shakey cam. It's been around for so long I barely even notice it anymore.

It's just the "modern directing style" to me now.

 

[davejames]

The camera shake didn't seem that noticeable to me and didn't have any issues following the action. I will have to agree on the lenses flares. I think they were over used and should be limited in the next film.

OH GOD YES. The lens flares. Less of those as well. I don't think that will be an issue this time though, as JJ himself has admitted they went way overboard with those!

He probably would have toned it down for the sequel anyway. The flares were mainly used to introduce us to this brighter, more optimistic world, and to differentiate it with the previous Star Trek style.

 

[ITL]

Excessive camera movement is always something that makes my eyes squeak - and while the shaky-cam wasn't too bad in the movie, there were times when the spinny-cam (in one of the Kelvin bridge scenes, for example) was too much. Fast-cut editing also tends to annoy me - it can get to the point where a scene is cut slightly too fast for you to keep up with.

But then again my addled brain is very sensitive to visual movement and doesn't like too much of it. So me getting annoyed with (to my mind) excessive movement/cutting says more about me than the direction and camerawork, really.

Oh - and the lens-flares can feck right off. Begone!

ITL, freaky brain boy.

 

[JuanBolio]

Less - where there are awesome visuals onscreen, I don't want to have to have a freeze-frame to properly appreciate them.

 

[M'Sharak]

...there were times when the spinny-cam (in one of the Kelvin bridge scenes, for example) was too much.

You mean the really rapid panning, like in the "You will answer me" scene (the one where you see Kirk and Scotty being herded onto the bridge by Cupcake, and then the camera swings around about 120 degrees in half a second to where Spock is standing)? That spinny cam?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Shake it like a polaroid picture.

 

[ITL]

...there were times when the spinny-cam (in one of the Kelvin bridge scenes, for example) was too much.

You mean the really rapid panning, like in the "You will answer me" scene (the one where you see Kirk and Scotty being herded onto the bridge by Cupcake, and then the camera swings around about 120 degrees in half a second to where Spock is standing)? That spinny cam?

Basically, yes. But that one wasn't too bad.

The one that bugged me the most was a Kelvin bridge shot during the first assault by the Narada - the camera did a really quick rotating spinny-pan that twisted my visual cortex right up, so it did.

 

[Cyrus]

The shaky cam stuff wasn't as bad as BSG or some other movies (e.g. The Bourne Supremacy), but less is always better. The directors really need to pick and choose the right moment for shaky cam (the opening sequence of DS9 pilot was a great use of it).

 

[Gojira]

I didn't mind it too much but a little less wouldn't hurt. What I would love to see is a massive reduction of lens flares!

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I found the handheld shaky cam and the lens flares were very effective at providing a sense of energy.

They should be kept, but perhaps toned down a bit.

 

[M'Sharak]

...there were times when the spinny-cam (in one of the Kelvin bridge scenes, for example) was too much.

You mean the really rapid panning, like in the "You will answer me" scene (the one where you see Kirk and Scotty being herded onto the bridge by Cupcake, and then the camera swings around about 120 degrees in half a second to where Spock is standing)? That spinny cam?

Basically, yes. But that one wasn't too bad.

The one that bugged me the most was a Kelvin bridge shot during the first assault by the Narada - the camera did a really quick rotating spinny-pan that twisted my visual cortex right up, so it did.

I don't have a clear recollection of that one, so my cortex may already have been twisted in that direction. I'll have to look for it again when the DVD comes out.