tv Does the MTV generation demand too much from filmmakers?

Well in a lot of 80s and 90s action thrillers, they don't move the camera in dialogue scenes. If you watch First Blood or Die Hard for example, pretty much all the dialogue shots are still, but the camera moves in the action scenes. So a lot of movies did do that, prior to 2002 or around there.
 
Last edited:
Are you a creationist and believe the universe is static?

Things change.

Give today's audience what they want today, and if you're bold, what they'll want tomorrow.

Car manufacturers fiddle-f#ck around with grilles and headlights every year just to sell THIS year's model.
Why?
For aerodynamics?
Economics in supplies?
Pfft. Sh!t, no.
The economics in stupid consumers demanding change just for change's sake.
Dumb@sses.

Change in cars.
Change in fashions.
Change in politicians.
Change in public education, or tax matrices, or health coverage.

Planned obsolescence. Ever heard of it?
What's the point of building a cell phone that will last ten years when the technology operating it is obsolete six months before it's even available for retail sale? Pfft.


Some things change. Some things don't.
You've been on this message board for too long not to understand this about filmmaking, studio or indie.
I'm surprised you're trying to fit ten, twenty, thirty year old models onto current trends.
Start modeling off of films less than two or three years old, especially for your action film.
http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=hitman.htm&sort=date&order=DESC&p=.htm
Stay current.
Get ahead of the curve.

Good luck.
 
Focus on your story first. The best steadicam move in the world isn't going to make your story better.

I think you should focus on the why. Why the hell would you move a camera if there is no reason to? If you can't come up with a reason other than 'because other films do it', then you shouldn't be doing it.

As well, if you're not making an action film, why do you need it to be paced like an action film?

Storyboards in general also don't contain every single part of the camera move. They generally have a start frame and an arrow, and sometimes an end frame, and a description that says 'dolly out'.

Don't do things simply because 'well that's what Hollywood does'. Make your film, not Hollywood's. When Hollywood employs you to make their films, and you have four semi-trailers worth of equipment, then you can say 'I want to spin around him four times and then run with him as he makes his way down the street' and you can have it happen. For now, don't worry about it. Story points can often be stronger simply because the camera is locked off, rather than dollying all over the place.
 
Okay thanks. Here's some examples of modern camera moves in movies I don't get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw&feature=related

At 2:05 we see the camera move across Q, when I am not sure I see any reason for the emotion calling for it, unless I missed it.

Or at 0:52 in this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw&feature=related

He wants revenge, yet I am not sure how sliding the camera and turning it around his face, helps us see that more than his words exactly.

At 2:09 there is another sliding and panning shot, which I am not sure did anything emotionally really either.
 
H44, I honestly think they feel like "Hey, since we've got all this time and equipment, might as well use it."
 
Yeah, but why? I guess I feel a tripod makes you feel like you're in the movie, and the rig on a shoulder looks more like what it is, a camera rested on a shoulder.
 
A tripod ALL the time looks bad. The camera needs to move at least once in a scene, even if just a pan. But I agree... unnecessary movements are kind of annoying.
 
You posted up a Skyfall trailer. How can you possibly get an understanding of why the moves are there without actually seeing the movie itself..?

I also disagree completely that the camera needs to move 'at least once in a scene'. It really depends on the scene, the story, the mood etc.
This is real Cinematography. Making choices about camera and lighting dictated by the story, rather than because 'it looks cool' or because you think putting things on a tripod is 'boring'. Well if the shot is making the movie boring, then what does that say about your script..?

And I can tell you, with budgets being pressed the way they are, and the amount of extra time it takes to set up a dolly/steadicam/jib/technocrane etc. it is not simply a matter of 'hey we have time and equipment' because A: You only have time if it's scheduled in, and B: You only have the equipment if you've ordered ot. This goes to the pre-planning. When you read a script, you break it down and decide what equipment you need to bring this Director's vision to life. If that means you need a jib and a steadicam w/ operator for Scene 121, then you put that to the Producer and you have your little argument about need vs cost and eventually you get what you want and that gets scheduled in. For scene 67, you might only need a tripod, but you might need 200 lights. Not to mention, schedule-wise, it's often cheaper to rent a second body that goes straight onto the steadicam as soon as the operator rocks up, so that as soon as you finish your other shots, the steadicam is good to go, rather than using the one body and spending anywhere from 20 minutes to over an hour stripping the camera, setting it up on the steadicam and balancing it.

Putting in a random dolly track 'just because we have it' is not going to make your 1st AD happy, though I've done it the past - always with good story purpose though never because it's just there.
 
jax_rox said:
I also disagree completely that the camera needs to move 'at least once in a scene'. It really depends on the scene, the story, the mood etc.
This is real Cinematography. Making choices about camera and lighting dictated by the story, rather than because 'it looks cool' or because you think putting things on a tripod is 'boring'. Well if the shot is making the movie boring, then what does that say about your script..?.
Click to expand...

It tells me that the entire film is then about people who NEVER MOVE.

Unless it's a puppet show... the camera should be moving along with the actors, at least a little bit.
 
I agree the camera should move like when characters are walking, or when someone has something important to say, and the type of movement emotionally reflects that. Or during action scenes. It's just I don't get why a lot of modern movies will move it, when nothing big is happening at all. Martin Scorsese said on an interview that camera movement has gotten the point where there is no meaning anymore. But then he goes and does a few moves in The Departed, which I thought did not emotionally enhance it in some parts.

In the Dark Knight, the camera also moves in Lau's first scene, in Bruce Wayne's board room. They could have kept that as a still shot and emotionally it still would have been the same. Same with the scene where you first see Batman's new bat cave. It slides to the side, when nothing emotional has happened yet and a still shot would have done the same.
 
So the original question: Does the MTV generation demand too much from filmmakers?

Unfortunately, the question is irrelevant. You either give the audience what they expect/demand/want and get paid.... or don't.
 
I guess so, but at the same it's hard to know what the audience wants and it's hard to force yourself to do camera moves and multiple cuts when you are not sure why they are needed, other than to satisfy an audience. If you think to yourself 'I should cut hear cause 3 full seconds have gone by and the audience is going to expect another cut', that kind of thinking can cause you to loose track of what's important in your movie.

I love this action scene personally, but do you think the modern audience of today can handle an action scene like this, or is there not enough camera movement and cuts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfLZbxc4cGE
 
Last edited:
Can modern audience handle a scene like this? It's really hard to say, on its own, no. Attached with a really good story, sure maybe. Though that scene looks rather boring to me, but it could be taken out of context and have more depth to it if I saw the whole story.

It's a matter of numbers and target audience though. Would you be happy being the best at what you do only being able to make films with a budget of $100k because your style only appeals to such a small niche that you need to keep your costs so low to be able to make a profit or break even? Does that make sense?

The money in film making is in the mass market. The key demographic is the under 25 male domain. Not that there isn't money elsewhere, but that's the chased demographic.

What I'm saying is just my opinion, and I'm not saying that I'm right. There are as many different styles out there for as many different tastes out there.

Anyway, take a look at Transformers 2. It's a movie that I personally hate, but from a $200mil budget, it took $836mil worldwide. Glitzy special effects, spiraling, jaded camera work, lots and lots of action, more mistakes and plot holes than you can count, but it still sold lots of movie tickets and got another sequel.

Glitzy special effects, lots of action and a fun adventure sells.

It's about perspective and feel. If you can get the right feel for a movie with 2 cuts, then do 2 cuts. If you need 8 to achieve the effect, then you need to do 8. It's as simple as that. To be successful, you need to get it out of your head of what you want to do and get in your head of what experience do I want to deliver to the audience and what is the best way to deliver that experience. It's not as clear as how many cuts per minute.

Take for instance the Goodfellas Steadycam shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJEEVtqXdK8 A single 3 minute shot. While this is going to extreme, and there are others where shots in other movies that are even longer.

The last thing to pay attention to is the most important commodity in the world. Time. Don't waste their time. Most people want to be entertained when they see a movie. If you bore them, don't expect to build a loyal fan base.
 
I saw some of it, and wanted to see the rest. I saw the one awesome fight in the hallway. My friends didn't like it though, and one review on the internet said, that it would have been better if it were directed like a Bourne film. Makes me wonder if this is the reason the movie was not as well liked by audiences it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top