tv Does the MTV generation demand too much from filmmakers?

H

harmonica44

I'm thinking of how to storyboard scenes I want to and well, I try to think how modern movies do. To make the most professional impression of course. But then I realize that modern movies overdo everything. They have too many shots in a scene, and a lot of times, half the shots are not necessary. Some movies I saw this year they would cut to angles that bared no change in emotion, and almost felt like they did it just because they could.

Other movies will cut to a reaction shot, if they want to the audience to see a certain reaction, but we would have gotten a reaction, in the previous shot. No need to cut from a close up reaction from one angle, to see a close up reaction from another angle, when you still get the reaction just by viewing the first one clearly. That's just one example.

When I am trying to plan my camera movements I also don't have as many as modern movies. A lot of movies move the camera even when it does nothing for the emotion of the story. They do it just because they can it seems.

I want to learn to direct a professional movie, but storyboarding is tough cause I'm not sure if I should meet modern standards. I want to storyboard for emotion, but most modern movies have about 3 times the camera movement that is needed, and 5 times the cutting that is needed. So does the MTV generation demand it, or do filmmakers just think they do?
 
It depends.

You're more likely to see massive technocrane moves and constant handheld and dolly moves in an action film than say a period drama. Your period drama may have some slow dolly moves, but it's more likely going to be a lot of still camera stuff, or perhaps steadicam.

You (and/or your DP) should look at camera movement as a way to help the story along. Don't think in terms of 'we need to put this in because otherwise the audience will get bored' if your story isn't good enough, they'll get bored anyway.

As well, when you edit, you're usually editing to a certain pace, rather than just for story - long shots and slow cuts in a fast-paced scene quite often just doesn't work. Similarly, a slow-paced scene can play out in anything from 1 to 3 shots if you want it to - cutting every 3 seconds isn't going to work in a slow paced film.

I'd be interested to know specific examples of movies you think did things 'for no reason'.
 
I'd say, do what you want to do... what feels right.

Nothing is set in stone. People have always been trying out new stuff and combinations, and many of those, have led to the modern way of cutting movies.
 
The Dark Knight for example. Even in that movie I felt the camera moved a little too much. Even in simple scenes when the emotion was not too heavy. Like when the three characters are having dinner it spins around the table, where a still master shot of all of them, would have sufficed, and perhaps would have even been more correct for the emotion. Now moving shots like this are not bad at all, but it happens so often that they loose their meaning.

I saw Compliance this week, and in that one they had the camera move from side to side a lot, even in scenes where the emotion did not call for it, it felt. I think at one point in order to establish a scene they slid the camera sideways from a wall, going into the room where a character was talking on the phone. Why not just have the shot begin with him talking on the phone. If it's a mystery character being revealed, then sure, but they do this quite often, as well as other movies.

Safe House is an example of frantic editing. They would cut to the front of a guy's face, then the side, then the opposite diagonal, all within a few second of him talking on the phone, and the emotion was not heavy at that point.

The Bourne Ultimatum also had frantic editing. During the fight scenes, they felt they had to cut to a new angle every single move Bourne did. He brings is arm back, cut to a different angle, brings it forward, cut. This has it's place to but they do pretty much every move, to every half of a move.

For my storyboards I have way less, because I can't think of emotional purposes to serve them as these movies. I was watching Ben Hur the other day, and I realize how that movie is shot like a play. The actors face the camera in a wide shot, as if they are facing an audience, but it's staged and done convincingly. No need to cut to another close up of a reaction shot, the reaction shot is already there, and we can see it. Now sometimes cutting to a reaction shot is good, but sometimes this way feels more natural of a shot maybe, but not used often in modern films.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
So does the MTV generation demand it, or do filmmakers just think they do?
Click to expand...
shooting-guns.gif
It's not just us generation X-ers, but also you spaztic gen Y-ers, as well.

big-machine-gun.gif
Anyone that thinks that they must do a dozen things at the same time or else they feel unproductive (gen X) or not-maximally-entertained (gen Y) and has to have laws made to not text and drive while listening to the radio and fumbling with their red-bull is the reason action films (like those you cite and the one you're working on) have almost no cuts that last over one second.

crazy-shooting.gif
Oh, no. We can't have just a shot of Protagonist et al getting out of the bad-@ss-mobile to go kick alien butt.
They have to be arriving at warp speed, stopping on a dime.
But a simple static background to foreground shot won't do.
A pan shot won't do, either. What is this? The 70's? Ha!
No. You gotta have a flying crane shot, preferably with dutch angles.
Then you gotta exposé each of their "I'm serious" faces as they all cock their unchambered weapons. (At leat, I hope they're unchambered, otherwise it'd be kinda stupid to pump out a perfectly good round onto the deck. But that's another pet peeve of mine. I digress.)

tommy-submachine-gun.gif
Action movies gotta be... actiony. Ju'no?
Also notice that if the characters or set isn't moving then the camera is, a la Michael Bay.
Sometimes you can get a perfecta of BOTH the characters AND the camera turning a whole 180°!

Crack heads. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I 100% agree! More is sometimes just more, not better. I enjoy the studied shot of someone's face conveying real emotion.

I want to move hearts, not move the camera around for the sake of it.

But hey, I'm ancient! I was in the same year / school as Tom Hooper when he was a kid!
 
Meh, I like camera movement and fast cuts and I'm not ashamed of that at all haha. Look at your Dark Knight example. I think the subtle movement during dinner scenes added a lot to it and kept your attention where it's supposed to be, and many times fast cuts create a sense of momentum and thrill and take an already sweet action scene and make it even bigger.

But yeah, do what you want. Tarantino opted for long master shots during dinner scenes in Inglorious Basterds and they were some of the best in the movie. It fit the dialogue and situation though, just like the opposite camera movement did in TDK.

As far as indie movies, I think you should do anything you can to make your movie look bigger and more expensive. Camera movement helps do that, any bum can lock a camera on a tripod and hit the red button. Several angles in a scene adds to perceived production value too.
 
I'd say make the movie the way you want, don't try and guess what the audience will want. I know that's idealistic, but if you don't like what you're making...is it really worth doing??

I grew up with MTV in the 80's... so who are you referring to?? :lol:
 
I say at first the filmmakers were just trying out something new and then the MTV generation (my generation) just demanded it. They got so use to it and use to having everything done so fast like sending a text message that if their aren't any quick cuts that they just want pay attention. They need something to happen, even if nothing is, just to keep their attention. I don't agree with it but that's just how my generation is, I feel.
 
Yeah. It's difficult to storyboard for that much movement, when I don't feel it's emotionally called for. I have to change my way of thinking and instead of saying to myself why should I move the camera in this shot, I should be thinking how should I move the camera. And as to why I am cutting, instead of editing for emotion, I will have make a cut every few seconds, just because.

On my budgets though, I don't have enough say as to how long I should have a location for. A lot of location owners will only let me have it for six hours a day, on average, even if they are being payed for it.

So that only leaves times for a few shots, then move on. I will be cutting constantly back and forth only between a few shots, like maybe 3-4 shots, on most average dialogue scenes. Will cutting back and forth between that many shots only, become repetitive?

There is one dialogue scene in a script of mine I am going to do for example, that I have storyboarded only 2 shots for. Just two. It's all that's needed. There are two people talking and I only need a shot on each of them. The camera moves as one gets up and walks over a bit, but it's still the same shot. So will that much cutting between two shots get repetitive to the audience?

As far as camera movement goes, what about this scene? If you fast forward 0:06:04 in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdmAVKXELnc&feature=related

There there is no camera movement in that whole scene, accept for when the guys walks in. Is this enough to keep today's attention held?
 
Last edited:
I think that you can get too bogged down in worrying about whether you're going to be able to make a movie that is going to be successful only due to how quick the editing is. There are all sorts of different people in the world who want different things from the films they watch - some want the fast paced films and others want to be able to see and take in properly the images.

Make your focus more about how can I tell this story in a way that makes sense and grabs people and pulls them in and if you don't get the people who like fast paced editing then so be it, you will still have people that enjoy your film the way it is.

Look at the different styles that many directors have. Look at the ones who truly stand out like Terry Gilliam, Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, John Carpenter, Stanley Kubrick - you watch one of their films and then another and you will see a pattern emerge in their work that informs their unique styles.

So the bottom line is don't worry too much about what others are doing and cultivate a way of your own will that make others worry about what you're doing.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
If that means they are never successful oh well, so be it.
Click to expand...

If a movie's good enough to be successful, the way it's edited isn't going to be the deciding factor as to whether it makes millions or hundreds. Unless, of course, the editing is horrible, in which case I doubt it would've been picked up by a distributor anyway.

Check out Like Crazy - where's the frenetic, fast-paced cuts in that?
 
jax_rox said:
If a movie's good enough to be successful, the way it's edited isn't going to be the deciding factor as to whether it makes millions or hundreds. Unless, of course, the editing is horrible, in which case I doubt it would've been picked up by a distributor anyway.

Check out Like Crazy - where's the frenetic, fast-paced cuts in that?
Click to expand...

I just mean what I'm doing isn't "in fashion" at the moment as far as the commercial market. I'm doing a throwback type style that's out of the mainstream of what's being produced right now.
 
The Notebook and Like Crazy are in a different genre than Bourne and Transformers. Action by nature is supposed to be visually stimulating, you need to see and feel the action. Romantic dramas are all about the emotions and path and growth of the character.

Stallone doesn't typically grow emotionally while mowing down fields of bad guys with automatic weapons that never need to reload, but he sure does look cool doing it.
 
True but in Bourne and Transformers, the camera is moving even in scenes where there are no action. I kind of feel that is often unnecessary and overdone, since it does not always give into the emotion of the scene all the time, yet they do it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top