my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » "REC" and the shaky-cam syndrome... (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "REC" and the shaky-cam syndrome... Thomas Pitt Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: May 2007 posted 04-09-2008 03:24 PM                     I've heard about a new movie coming out soon called "REC", involving a TV crew following a group of firefighters - who get more than they bargained for! From what I've seen of the trailers, most of it seems to be shot from the TV crew's point of view... and that means shaky-cam effects. I couldn't cope with Cloverfield, and while I'd like to see "REC", I don't know whether I'd last the entire movie! Is the movie out in the US yet? If so, is the shaky-cam as bad as Cloverfield? This is the brief synopsis from the cinema's website: What appears to be a routine emergency call quickly turns to hell as a news team are trapped inside a building with no means of escape as things go from bad to horribly worse. The only thing that matters is trying to escape while capturing everything on camera. A team of local TV reporters are following a squad of firemen on night duty. The footage is completely live and their task is to make a show on the life of these professionals who work tirelessly while we are sleeping. The first job of the night is to rescue an old lady who is trapped inside her apartment but the routine rescue soon takes a sinister turn. Something evil is spreading throughout the building, out of control. Trapped inside, the firemen and the TV crew have to confront an unknown and lethal horror. Now, the only thing that matters is hiding, surviving and trying desperately to escape. They must keep on recording. No matter what happens. Until the very last moment.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 04-09-2008 04:56 PM                        They should edit these movies in Final Cut Pro 6. It gets rid of the shaky cam in most scenarios.  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 04-21-2008 07:41 PM                     Having just watched it, i'd say the shakey-cam is on a par with Cloverfield. Apart from that it's worth watching. Did you have that much trouble watching Cloverfield? I used to have travel sickness as a child, but I've never had any trouble watching movies.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-21-2008 08:15 PM                     Big screens and low-resolution makes it worse.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 04-22-2008 02:16 PM                    Anyone see the trailer for that piece of called Quarantine. That and that other called Poughkeepsie Tapes are waiting to happen.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 04-22-2008 06:46 PM                       These are the product of filmmakers who grew up watching MTV and the like. They just don't understand rapid camera moves and fast cutting do not translate to the big screen. Or the importance of keeping audience eye movement to a minimum.  |  IP: Logged Frank Bruno Film Handler Posts: 50 From: houston, tx Registered: Aug 2003 posted 04-23-2008 04:18 PM                     I'm sure Daryl will be thrilled to know Quarantine is going to be a remake of {REC,} from a John Erik Dowdle, who also will bring us... the Poughkeepsie Tapes (which I guess is benched until after Quarantine has come & gone...?) Already has Cloverfield-y internet viral games going. Starting to think I might want to track {Rec} down.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-24-2008 08:11 PM                     Actually if Cloverfield had been shot in typical greased smooth "Hollywood Style" it would have been far less effective. I thought the shakey cam actually added to the film considerably... but its the only film that I've seen so far that I feel was enhanced by it.  |  IP: Logged Blake Zaugg Film Handler Posts: 57 From: Lafayette, LA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 04-27-2008 11:15 PM                     Has anyone heard if the sequel to Cloverfield is going to be done in the same style? I read last week the same director has signed one for the next one.  |  IP: Logged Michael Moore Expert Film Handler Posts: 188 From: Dover, DE / USA Registered: Jun 2006 posted 05-05-2008 11:34 AM                        I call it "Clovershit". I can't watch that stuff, makes me sick. I can't stand over the top crap like this. Ever since "Blare Witch Project" people have been trying to capture the "magic" and it never comes. And I really did not like Blari Witch I wish these film makers would stop it already. At least Blari Witch was "almost" novel, but now with reality TV these kinds of films are almost cliché Mike  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-05-2008 03:10 PM                     There are several sequences in "Man In The Chair" that are fast cuts during rapid motion. Used sparingly, they are very effective at showing passing of time. Hand held was terrible before "Steady-Cam" and it still is without it! KEN  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 05-09-2008 09:49 AM                       You're absolutely right, Kenneth. Cloverfield was a total loss because of the intentional shaking. If one understands editing concepts, how people watch movies, and the language of film; you will realize there are a plethora of reasons not to do this - some of which I already touched on. The movie could've been made more interesting and enjoyable with a simple fluid camera mount. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-09-2008 10:18 AM                        I have no problem with handheld camera work when it is used sparingly and when the camera operator is at least making an attempt to hold the camera steady and is using a relatively short lens to minimize the effect of camera movement. Handheld shots can look surprisingly good when used like this and are often necessary for some types of films, especially documentaries. Handheld shots can create excitement and/or generate a sense of urgency in a way that a fixed camera cannot. The real issue that I have is with intentionally shakey shots and also with films where the majority of shots are handheld. Tripods and dollies exist for a reason, though most of the documentary video makers who are shooting with small handycam-type cameras seem not to have learned this yet. Never mind that it is actually easier to shoot good handheld footage with a heavy camera than with a light one. The steadicam has its uses, but I think that it tends to call attention to itself more often than not. Most steadicam shots would probably work better if shot some other way (handheld, dolly, tripod, etc.).  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 05-09-2008 05:54 PM                     Sorry Tim I think you missed the entire point of what Cloverfield was trying to do (like Mark already said). It was supposed to look as if It was shot by an amateur using a low quality home video camera. If it was shot as you put it "on a fluid camera mount" i.e. a tripod then the whole intention of the film would be lost. Anyway we had a version of Cloverfield shot in typical hollywood style back in 1998. It was called 'Godzilla' and as far as I remember everyone hated it.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 05-10-2008 08:13 AM                       Oh, I understand the narrative was subjective, Michael. The filmmakers, however, didn't understand that you can't DO those kinds of moves on the big screen. It just doesn't work. My eyes fatigued and came to a rest somewhere near the center of the screen, which translates into tuning out the picture. Those kinds of movements have to be scaled back for theatrical subjects. Which gets back to what I said earlier - it's MTV borne (small screen). The story could've been told in exactly the same way, only done in a manner that Scott mentioned. That stuff's fine for TV, but there's propagation to consider when you work in theatrical dimensions. And it's not old guy/young guy... it's physics.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.