Shaky-cam in space / Visual effects shots

I loved Into Darkness, thought it was fantastic. I only have extremely minor nitpicks about the film, one in particular though is probably quite superficial in the grand scheme of things but it has to do with the visual effects shots...

The film is spectacular to look at but am I the only one who is fed up with Abrams/ILM's shaky cam in space? It's hard remembering any truly beautiful shots of the ship because the camera couldn't stop shaking and also the fact that the shots were so short in length. They seem to have a problem with showing off the ship for longer than a few seconds. This is especially obvious in the final twenty minutes.

Even the climax of the clouds shot towards the end of the film lasted barely a few seconds. It wasn't much better in the last film but at least there there was the long sequences above Titan, or the reveal of the Enterprise etc.

I appreciate Abrams likes to keep the pacing fast and energetic, but it just seems a waste to create such a beautiful world and then hardly give your eyes time to take it in.

Be good to hear some thoughts?

 

I have to agree about the lack of beauty shots of the ship. It was lacking in the 2009 movie, and its more or less just as lacking in Into Darkness. Remember the days of TOS and TNG where we saw plenty of beauty shots of the Enterprise? Boy do I miss those...

 

The live-action footage is shaky and quickly-cut, why should the FX shots be any different?

 

I loved the part were the Enterprise was pulling away from spacedock and the scene on the bridge, the way it was shot, continued to give that feeling that the ship was veering to the right.

As for the shaky-cam and quick zoom-ins when the Klingons were in pursuit of the shuttle, it just made me think of BSG.

 

No beauty shots? What about the ship rising out of the ocean, flying towards the volcano, the drawing morphing into the ship, the title card sequence, the starbase shots? Some of them are a little short, but there were definitely some nice beauty shots, and this time they had the ship completely in frame lol.

 

Mostly I was just impressed that the natives could draw such an accurate top-view of the Enterprise without ever seeing it from above.

 

They barely showed it rising from the ocean! A few seconds from the trailer, and then it flying towards the volcano (for a couple of seconds).

 

I did however like the part in the beginning where they showed the Enterprise zooming by the sky on Nibiru!

 

It wasn't so much the shaky cam that got to me so much as it was the odd swaying the camera did, particularly during the scenes in the brig and most notably in the big Khan reveal. I know Abrams is into fancy artsy camera stuff, but that just looked like it was filmed by someone having trouble keeping the camera still.

 

Haven't seen it a second time yet, but the rise out of the ocean gave us a nice view. I know what you mean, there are much longer shots on ships in the non JJ-verse. Perhaps they cut down on it for time constraints, shame.

 

Shaky cams are used to give a "realistic" or "documentary" feel to a movie. While it's well done in the two more recent Trek movies, I find it doesn't quite work in space opera, which is just completely different from realistic documentaries.

In Attack of the Clones, they used those techniques during the battle on Geonosis and I found it a bit jarring because Star Wars' visuals have always been elegant and crisp.

 

Which begs the question why they aren't confident enough with their compositions to hold on them for more than a couple seconds? It's not like we can turn the channel.

 

It didn't though really, they showed the shot from the trailer, and that's about it. I'd have thought they could have had a field day, visually, for that scene!

 

Yeah, that always annoys me about Abrams' films. Everything seems too close. I'd like to see the camera backed away so you can appreciate the scale and scope of everything.

 

Scale really isn't an issue... I mean, Enterprise juxtaposed with Vengeance is a pretty damn incredible scale reference. Enterprise is big, Vengeance is super-duper big.



@thread honestly this is just a matter of keeping a consistent style. It would be incredibly goofy to go from interior's where you have hand held and free flowing camera work to - "LOCKED VISUAL FX SHOT! SEE AUDIENCE! WE'RE SHOWING YOU THE EFFECTS!"

 

Both the live shots and the special effects shots looked like they were filmed by a cameraman with Parkinson's who had the camera in a paint shaker, which he tied a rope to and was swinging around his head! It doesn't make it feel exciting, it just looks like amateurish photography.

During the fight scene with the Klingons, I couldn't tell who was doing what. This technique ruined the 2nd & 3rd Bourne movies for me.

In Star Trek: The Motionless Picture they went to the other extreme, which has been widely criticized. Can't we find a happy medium?

Having said all that, I enjoyed the film. I look forward to the next movie set to start the 5 year mission. It would be nice to have some drama come from something other than another villain.

 

Perfectly still camera shots during tense or action scenes is very dated and has that IMO 'straight-to-video/TV' quality about it. The TNG era Trek movies were guilty of this when other movies around that time moved on.

 

This.

 

Oh, gosh, does that mean we're stuck with this "hand-held" style forever ?