That's exactly what I was going to say. At least get rid of the lens flare on the bridge!
More or Less "Shaky Cam" in Next Movie???
- Thread starter DontFeedPhil
- Start date
That's exactly what I was going to say. At least get rid of the lens flare on the bridge!
I LOVED the camera movement - it fit the style of this story very well. I liked most of the editing - thought it brilliant and couldn't believe it was cut by two editors - two women in fact. There were only a couple pleaces where I thought they coulda allowed a another half a beat. Thought the editors did an outstanding job, considering how much the film changed between script and final edit.
The shakey-cam - again - suited the story telling and the immediacy Abrams wanted to convey. I was absolutely A-OK with most of it.
Lens flares - worked great once. Once is enuff. Move on. Cut 'em way down.
EDIT: I didn't vote cuz there wasn't an option I'd voted for - more or less the same. But it all depends on the story really, and we don't have that yet.
DontFeedPhil
Fleet Captain
Its been a while since I actually saw the movie but I remember the scene where Kirk and Spock beam over to the Narada at the end and have the phaser fight. When the action starts its so quick and edited so fast. Its hard to see whats going on. I guess now that I think of it you could include "shaky-cam" along with "Super_Fast_Editing" with cheap gimmicks that alot of modern movies use to cover up the fact that a costume...ship or even fight moves might not look so good if you can actually see whats going on...
I personally would rather be able to see whats going on even if its not as nice looking as my brain told me it was...
I personally would rather be able to see whats going on even if its not as nice looking as my brain told me it was...
I had no problem with the way this movie was filmed, however, out of respect of those who don't like it, I think that a reduction that is replaced with different styles (possible some bigger shots) would be nice.
That said, i have only seen it once and am still waiting for dvd.
That said, i have only seen it once and am still waiting for dvd.
+1 What they said!
I was never a fan of the bright make-up lights on the bridge. In combination with the lens flares, once is unique... more would not be pleasant.
I also love the movie (as anyone can attest!), but no more lens flares! I agree that subtlety will make me a much happier moviegoer.
I also love the movie (as anyone can attest!), but no more lens flares! I agree that subtlety will make me a much happier moviegoer.
I don't think I really payed that much attetion to it as I was too involved in watching the film! I get so caught up in watching the movie, that I don't even pay attetion to things like that. The only thing I noticed a lot was the lens flare through the film.
Apart from the spinny camera on the Kelvin bridge, I didn't really notice the shaky-cam at all, but then again, I think I've tried to adapt my vision to compensate for such rapid movement 
The fast editing for the phaser fight on the Narada made sense, gave it decent energy.
However, I would like some more 'beauty' shots of some scenes and the like though, some of the visuals were to awesome just to only give us a few moments of watching them.
We won't have such a problem with lens flares in the next film in any case, since JJ agreed that he over did them, but unfortunately, they were actually there in the filmed scenes, not added in editing, so couldn't get rid of them (IIRC that is, swear I saw it somewhere here).
The fast editing for the phaser fight on the Narada made sense, gave it decent energy.However, I would like some more 'beauty' shots of some scenes and the like though, some of the visuals were to awesome just to only give us a few moments of watching them.
We won't have such a problem with lens flares in the next film in any case, since JJ agreed that he over did them, but unfortunately, they were actually there in the filmed scenes, not added in editing, so couldn't get rid of them (IIRC that is, swear I saw it somewhere here).
I hate the "shaky cam" trend in movies. It pulls me out of the movie, because human vision is nothing like that. I think that the only good camera work is transparent camera work. In other words, I like to forget there is a guy holding a camera and watch the movie as though I am a real life observer of the events.
No one sees the world though "shaky vision" regardless of what is going on. Even if you are running or jumping up and down, your view of the world is stable (or if panning, the pan is smooth) because of the ability of the human eyes to track a specific point or area despite body motion. The only way humans ever see the world through "shaky vision" is if they are doing rapid and random eye movement; which no one makes a habit of doing.
Anything that blatantly reminds me that there is a camera man is a bad thing; whether it is weird angles, filters, distorted lenses, or (especially) "shaky cam".
Additionally, a shaky view of the world is not pleasant. For one thing, you can not clearly see what is going on, and secondly, it can induce motion sickness. Why would a director want to create an unpleasant view of movie?
To the people who say it adds "energy" or whatever; if your eyes started randomly/involuntarily twitching so that your vision was now "shaky vision", would you consider that an "upgrade" which makes the world around you seem more energetic, or would you go to the eye doctor to see if it could be fixed? How about if your TV or PC monitor developed a jittery picture (it's been known to happen)? Would you want that fixed or would you consider it to be a "feature"?
The funny thing about this movie is, there was even "shaky cam" going on during non-action scenes; like when Pike and Kirk are sitting at the table talking after Kirk's bar fight. What was that all about?
My brother's two-year-old son is an expert at that type of camera work. You should see some of the home videos he's made while toddling around the house or the yard holding my brother's camcorder. Evidently he's a prodigy.
No one sees the world though "shaky vision" regardless of what is going on. Even if you are running or jumping up and down, your view of the world is stable (or if panning, the pan is smooth) because of the ability of the human eyes to track a specific point or area despite body motion. The only way humans ever see the world through "shaky vision" is if they are doing rapid and random eye movement; which no one makes a habit of doing.
Anything that blatantly reminds me that there is a camera man is a bad thing; whether it is weird angles, filters, distorted lenses, or (especially) "shaky cam".
Additionally, a shaky view of the world is not pleasant. For one thing, you can not clearly see what is going on, and secondly, it can induce motion sickness. Why would a director want to create an unpleasant view of movie?
To the people who say it adds "energy" or whatever; if your eyes started randomly/involuntarily twitching so that your vision was now "shaky vision", would you consider that an "upgrade" which makes the world around you seem more energetic, or would you go to the eye doctor to see if it could be fixed? How about if your TV or PC monitor developed a jittery picture (it's been known to happen)? Would you want that fixed or would you consider it to be a "feature"?
The funny thing about this movie is, there was even "shaky cam" going on during non-action scenes; like when Pike and Kirk are sitting at the table talking after Kirk's bar fight. What was that all about?
My brother's two-year-old son is an expert at that type of camera work. You should see some of the home videos he's made while toddling around the house or the yard holding my brother's camcorder. Evidently he's a prodigy.
DontFeedPhil
Fleet Captain
Here to hoping that they tone this shit down in the next movie. That and most every other thing mentioned in this thread...
The camera was not steady during that scene; and I have no idea why you didn't notice it.There was shaky cam then?How come I'm not noticing it?....
Maybe what is why what? Are you saying that the eye's ability to track is why you didn't notice the "shaky cam"? That doesn't make sense. I'll give examples to illustrate the difference:Maybe that's why
Look at an object in the room and shake your head back and forth as fast as you can. The object still appears to be stable, because your eyes are tracking it. Now have someone pick up the object and shake it. Now the object appears to be shaking. "Shaky cam" is analogous to the latter, but instead of an object shaking, the whole field of view into the movie is shaking. The never happens in real life to our entire field of view, except maybe in a strong earthquake.
Last edited:
The camera was not steady during that scene; and I have no idea why you didn't notice it.There was shaky cam then?
Maybe what is why what? Are you saying that the eye's ability to track is why you didn't notice the "shaky cam"? That doesn't make sense. I'll give examples to illustrate the difference:Maybe that's why
Look at an object in the room and shake your head back and forth as fast as you can. The object still appears to be stable, because your eyes are tracking it. Now have someone pick up the object and shake it. Now the object appears to be shaking. "Shaky cam" is analogous to the latter, but instead of an object shaking, the whole field of view into the movie is shaking. The never happens in real life to our entire field of view, except maybe in a strong earthquake.
Honestly, I don't know why I either don't mentally register the shaky cam, or perhaps notice the shaky cam but it doesn't bother me (more likely the former, since I didn't even remember the shaky cam you say is in that scene).
My only guess could be that I treat the whole screen as an object to focus on, rather than treat it as a field of view, but I'm not a biologist, so I doubt that's an actual argument. *shrug*
Hello!
This may be a little off topic, but I have to ask: Is there going to be an STXII? Has anything been made public about this?
This may be a little off topic, but I have to ask: Is there going to be an STXII? Has anything been made public about this?
Plecostomus
Commodore
More of both. I expect to be totally nausiated from the shake and to leave with a jaw ache from the bass and eye problems from the flare.
Otherwise I can't enjoy the movie.
Otherwise I can't enjoy the movie.
You're right: it is off-topic.
However, a script has been requested by Paramount and the writers (Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof) are supposed to have until December to complete it. Allowing for possible revisions requests, script approval and the studio's greenlight, early work on the next movie could begin in the early part of next year.
Meanwhile, back to shaky-cam.
Less would work for me. However, I will say that unlike some films, it wasn't overdone, and the camera actually held steady when it was supposed to for the most part. 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.
Similar threads
