Shaky Cam

[Miss Chicken]

does it annoy you or make you feel sick?

i don't mind it. I barely noticed it in The Hunger Games, it didn't annoy me in Cloverfield and all the screaming annoyed me far more in the Blair Witch movie.

 

[Random_Spock]

It does both to me. Can't stand the stuff.

The only way I can even tolerate it is when shows or movies use it sparingly. If they use it too often (such is the case now with CSI: Miami) then I don't even bother to watch it.

Saw it used in the last Harry Potter movie and it didn't drive me too buggy... but as for general use, it's somewhat annoying.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I can usually tolerate it but it annoys me. Down with the shaky cam.

 

[auntiehill]

Sometimes it bothers me, other times it doesn't. I actually felt seasick from all the shaking in Cloverfield and was a little dizzy after Blair Witch.

Too many times, it's just a gimmick and not really necessary for the picture. In Blair Witch, it was necessary, as it was the character filming what happened. But in many TV shows and movies, it's the director doing too much--"over-directing"--and the gimmick actually gets in the way of the story-telling. The way in which the story is told should SERVE the story, not distract from it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Blair Witch made me seasick which spoiled the effect. Hard to be scared when you feel like barfing.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I usually don't even notice it. It's there, but it doesn't register consciously.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Does it literally make me physically ill? No.

But I am fed up with the whole "documentary style" film-making movement. Shaky cam, frenetic jump-cut editing, lens flares, all of it needs to go. Movies should not look like the 6 o-clock News.

 

[FalTorPan]

I've generally disliked shaky cam since I first noticed it while watching NYPD Blue. Its use doesn't make me feel like I'm in the action, because I know at every level that I'm observing the action.

 

[Brikar99]

It doesn't bother me for the most part, depending on how well it's done. As with many things, it works on a case by case situation.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

It depends on the film. It didn't bother me so much in say, the Bourne films. However, when I saw Hunger Games this weekend, I was begging them to hold the god damn camera steady.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I don't mind shaky cam and I actually think it works to pretty good effect in a lot of cases. What I hate is how so much fighting (especially hand-to-hand or car chases) are now horrible bastardizations of extreme close-ups, shaky cam, and rapid cuts. If they're going to go to all the trouble to put a really cool fight scene in a movie, they should at least try to put it in a format that the average user can watch it and see all the cool things they're doing.

 

[Agent Richard07]

Quick cuts can make fight scenes look faster and more frenetic than they actually are. They can also help put the viewer in the same confused frame of mind as those in the fight, or they can hide lackluster choreography.

 

[captcalhoun]

what bothers me more is stupid and unnecessary zoom ins or outs that some directors seem to use. it irks the hell out of me.

 

[TheSeeker]

The only movie it kind of annoyed in me was in the second Bourne movie.

 

[Beagleman]

I don't really mind it. As has been said before, it works on a case to case basis.

 

[J.T.B.]

It can be very effective if it follows naturally from the context. When it doesn't work for me is when it's obvious that the director is consciously trying to make the viewer notice the camera movement.

Hill Street Blues was the first US prime-time show to use handheld cameras extensively, but they only used it for the opening roll call segment. After the credits everything was set up shots. It was incredibly effective to draw you in, like the characters were real people starting work in the morning, but it wasn't distracting in the more plot-driven parts of the show. I think that was a pretty smart way to go.



Justin

 

[Davros]

I barely even notice it.

 

[trekkiebaggio]

I don't mind shaky cam and I actually think it works to pretty good effect in a lot of cases. What I hate is how so much fighting (especially hand-to-hand or car chases) are now horrible bastardizations of extreme close-ups, shaky cam, and rapid cuts. If they're going to go to all the trouble to put a really cool fight scene in a movie, they should at least try to put it in a format that the average user can watch it and see all the cool things they're doing.

This. I don't mind the technique, it doesn't make me feel ill or anything. But I really don't like it when there's a cool fight scene and you can't make anything out.

 

[Owain Taggart]

If it's done well, it tends to blend in and feel natural. But if it's not done well, it often tends to be exaggerated where people will definitely notice it more which can be a distraction. The one real effective use of it I felt was in Master & Commander during the sword fighting scene. It was hard to follow, yes, but I think that was part of the point, as a way to draw in the viewer into feeling how frenetic it would really have been and not knowing where everyone is.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

It can be OK if done skilfully and feels appropriate to the subject matter, but to be honest, I wouldn't be shedding many tears if the whole shaky cam deal largely "went away". I genuinely had to pull over into the hard shoulder of the motorway for a few minutes following a viewing of Cloverfield at a local multiplex, but to be fair, no other shaky cam movie has caused sickness for me.