Jump to content


Photo

Will "Shaky-Cam" make a return?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15676 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:09 AM

Does anyone think that the shaky camera style of QOS, along with the choppy editing, will make a return in Skyfall? It was a trend which started in Casino Royale and then reached ridiculous proportions in QOS and was criticised in some quarters.

Even though some have hinted that mistakes were made in the last film, do you think that this style of film-making is now part of the Bond movies, as much as it is with other films? Can we expect the same style of camera work and editing?

I’d be interested to read all of your thoughts, including fans of QOS. By the way, I enjoyed QOS, I am just not a fan of the editing style.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

#2 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:19 AM

Only if Paul Greengrass suddenly becomes the director. :-P

#3 TQB

TQB

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 80 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:01 AM

I don't think the shakicam was in CR at all- it was a lot of smooth steady cam.

But no I don't think it'll return- probably why they hired the same edit from CR back. It was one of the biggest complaints of QOS

#4 Leon

Leon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1574 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:46 AM

I doubt it also, it would be completely counterproductive to the classic style they seem to be going for. If I were them I'd be leaning towards a more old-school elegance to the camerawork/cinematography. Mendes and Deakins have more of this in their blood anyway.

#5 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:43 AM

I agree with Leon, thats what Im hoping for myself

#6 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3492 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:13 AM

I always supposed it was more of a passing fad than some kind of evolution in Bond films. What I feel was 'next step' was the serious tone and powerful style rather than the ultra fast editing and for some confusing shaky-cam. That could become pretty fast a trite standard element without meaning and use. I don't see it coming back any time soon.

#7 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2961 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:26 AM

That is one aspect I hated in Quantum. I don't think that's what Mendes and Deakins are going for.

Just a smooth feel to the film (filming and editing wise) I think its a good thing that Baird is back in the cutting room, rather than bring back Pearson and Chesse.

Wasn't it Marc Forster who brought in his own crew rather than stick to the basic crew they had from CR for QOS? I might be wrong.

Anyways glad Stuart Baird is back from CR.

#8 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13674 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:43 AM

I rather liked it, but I strongly suspect they won't do it again.

#9 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1723 posts
  • Location:"Special Envoy" to my local district council, Nottinghamshire, England

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:27 AM

One can only hope it does not make a comeback in Skyfall. I'm with DaveBond21 regarding QoS - I enjoyed the film overall but found the emphasis on "shaky-cam" editing made for confusing action scenes (It took me more than one viewing to make sense of some of the Palio chase scenes early in the film, but then I am an "old fogie" - two weeks into membership of the SAGA generation now! :-) )

#10 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2234 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:11 PM

I think they are aware of the criticism towards QOS when it comes to the editing. Why else bring back Stuart Baird?

I am not at all against a more "dynamic" camera and editing. It can be very effective in some situations. See the train sequence in FRWL, the many fight scenes in OHMSS, or the PTS in QOS. But they over-did it in QOS. It was just bad editing and camera work.

Re: Stuart Baird. I still hope that they will give him a chance to direct a Bondfilm… ‘Executive Decision’ and ‘U.S. Marshals’ shows what a good, old-fashioned, action director he is. He can build up some tension. Could become a Peter Hunt/John Glen for this era.

#11 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9335 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:19 PM

The only time I really had a problem with it was during the QUANTUM OF SOLACE Lake Garda chase, but I'd be surprised if Mendes and Deakins handled their action sequences in the same way.

#12 BourneAgainBond

BourneAgainBond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 180 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:24 PM

I think they are aware of the criticism towards QOS when it comes to the editing. Why else bring back Stuart Baird?

I am not at all against a more "dynamic" camera and editing. It can be very effective in some situations. See the train sequence in FRWL, the many fight scenes in OHMSS, or the PTS in QOS. But they over-did it in QOS. It was just bad editing and camera work.

Re: Stuart Baird. I still hope that they will give him a chance to direct a Bondfilm… ‘Executive Decision’ and ‘U.S. Marshals’ shows what a good, old-fashioned, action director he is. He can build up some tension. Could become a Peter Hunt/John Glen for this era.


Executive Decision is one of those movies that if i see it on tv, i can't change the channel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i didn't mind QOS and i'm sure a lot of you would disagree with me on this but i would have liked CR to have been as short as QOS.
i just felt it dragged on and what was with the guy with the eye patch?
bond was very lucky he just so happened to pick up a nail gun which normally would have had a safety on it, to keep it from firing like a gun. people rarely remove the safety on them, its simply to dangerous and i think you can be fined for it. it also appeared to be a gas nail gun since i wasn't attached to a compressor, which means it would most likely have a safety.

anyway sorry about the rant

i've tried to watch some of sammys films recently and i don't think its his style.

Edited by BourneAgainBond, 14 February 2012 - 12:27 PM.


#13 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4397 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:32 PM

I don't think the shakicam was in CR at all- it was a lot of smooth steady cam.


There was a good deal of handheld camera in CASINO ROYALE, especially for moments like the camera following Bond, poisoned, as he throws up in the sink; the fight with Fisher in the toilet; and some of the action in Miami. The difference is that the pace of Stuart Baird's (who's working on SKYFALL) editing is much more fluid, and the sequence of angles make more spatial sense.

#14 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3492 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:31 PM


I don't think the shakicam was in CR at all- it was a lot of smooth steady cam.


There was a good deal of handheld camera in CASINO ROYALE, especially for moments like the camera following Bond, poisoned, as he throws up in the sink; the fight with Fisher in the toilet; and some of the action in Miami. The difference is that the pace of Stuart Baird's (who's working on SKYFALL) editing is much more fluid, and the sequence of angles make more spatial sense.


Indeed. The question is, is it a good idea to make part of the audience want to throw up? Translate confusion into visual impact is all good and fine. But it can at times turn into seasickness in part of QOS and I doubt that was the point. And I say this as somebody who isn't bothered by fast editing and shaky-cam at all. Also I'm sure I could get behind the mechanics of the boat stunt if I just put my DVD player into frame-by-frame mode long enough. I'm just too lazy to.

So chances are the editing will resemble CR rather than QOS.

#15 mttvolcano

mttvolcano

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 395 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:29 PM

As long as it's not as bad as the Bourne films, especially the last one. You can't even tell how they are fighting in some of the scenes.

#16 TQB

TQB

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 80 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:46 PM

The only time I really had a problem with it was during the QUANTUM OF SOLACE Lake Garda chase, but I'd be surprised if Mendes and Deakins handled their action sequences in the same way.


One of the reasons that was so sloppy was because Craig wasn't at the Lake for the shoot- all his stuff was done at pinewoods in the Aston and merged together. Hopefully the Shanghai scenes aren't like that in Skyfall.

#17 MarcAngeDraco

MarcAngeDraco

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3308 posts
  • Location:Oxford, Michigan

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:47 PM

Also I'm sure I could get behind the mechanics of the boat stunt if I just put my DVD player into frame-by-frame mode long enough.


I wouldn't be too sure about that...

It seems to defy all of my attempts.

#18 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:43 PM

As long as it's not as bad as the Bourne films, especially the last one. You can't even tell how they are fighting in some of the scenes.

Dead on, mttvolcano. While watching The Bourne Supremacy (full screen), it was complete havoc. With over a third of the film chopped off, It's almost unwatchable. Brings forth the urgency for all dvds/blue rays to be released in letterbox. A great deal of my friends tease me to no end, over my obsession w/the black bars but, quite honestly, there's no other way to watch a movie.

#19 mttvolcano

mttvolcano

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 395 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:25 PM


As long as it's not as bad as the Bourne films, especially the last one. You can't even tell how they are fighting in some of the scenes.

Dead on, mttvolcano. While watching The Bourne Supremacy (full screen), it was complete havoc. With over a third of the film chopped off, It's almost unwatchable. Brings forth the urgency for all dvds/blue rays to be released in letterbox. A great deal of my friends tease me to no end, over my obsession w/the black bars but, quite honestly, there's no other way to watch a movie.

It's almost like the blair witch project films, though with people holding numerous cameras angled at every which way. Then the editors decided to randomly splice the different angles together.
Sorry for hear aout the full screen version on your television.

#20 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15676 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:38 AM

Interesting points from all. Thanks for your contribution.

I hope you are right and everything looks like CR - that's what I am hoping for.

-

#21 archer1949

archer1949

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 163 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:10 AM

I'm more concerned by the fact that it will be shot in digital. That's fine for low budget slasher flicks or special effects laden sci fi, but I don't want a Bond movie to look like that. Anybody see Michael Mann's Public Enemies? That glossy, artificial slickness that hung over every frame was really distracting. It should have looked like The Godfather. Instead it looked like a TV movie. I fear Skyfall will have a similar look.

Digital is fine for You Tube. But FILMS should be shot on FILM.

#22 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:14 AM

I fear Skyfall will have a similar look.

I think your fears are a little misplaced - a lot of people were (and still are) very excited at the prospect of Roger Deakins taking on the role of cinematographer.

#23 archer1949

archer1949

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 163 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 05:02 AM


I fear Skyfall will have a similar look.

I think your fears are a little misplaced - a lot of people were (and still are) very excited at the prospect of Roger Deakins taking on the role of cinematographer.


I fear Skyfall will have a similar look.

I think your fears are a little misplaced - a lot of people were (and still are) very excited at the prospect of Roger Deakins taking on the role of cinematographer.




Yeah, Deakins is an amazing photographer. But we are still talking about DIGITAL photography!

Deakins has always worked in film. Is it even technically possible for anyone to recreate a filmic look on digital equipment? Can he give Skyfall the same look he gave to The Assassination of Jesse James or True Grit with the same stuff they made Cloverfield and Saw movies with?

I can tell instantly if a movie has been shot on film or digital. Digital is FAR, FAR inferior, in my opinion. I don't think even Deakins can overcome that technical limitation.

Can anyone name me ONE movie that was shot on digital that didn't look either like a video game or a cheap straight to DVD crapfest?

#24 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 19 February 2012 - 05:14 AM

Can anyone name me ONE movie that was shot on digital that didn't look either like a video game or a cheap straight to DVD crapfest?

I couldn't name one film that was shot in digital. I can't tell the difference between digital and traditional film.

#25 TQB

TQB

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 80 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 19 February 2012 - 06:51 AM

Can anyone name me ONE movie that was shot on digital that didn't look either like a video game or a cheap straight to DVD crapfest?


Apocalypto, Zodiac, Slumdog Millionaire, The Book of Eli, The Social Network, Pirates of the Caribbean, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, In Time, Bourne Ultimatum.

Many movies are shot digitally now, and they will be more and more. I highly highly doubt you can actually tell a difference now and days between a movie shot on film and one shot digitally. Movies that are shot on film are digitized to a computer anyways so that all the editing, color correcting, digigrading, and rest of post production can be finished. Digital Cameras simply cut out the processing of film and costs associated. The same lenses are used.

Some people argue that movies shot on film look softer because of the shutter flash between frames causes a slight blur. But movies are put back onto film for theatrical release so that shutter will be back on the image no matter what, even if something is shot completely digitally (if you can even see it).

The only real difference between film and digital is that film can be blown up to very big sizes without losing resolution. Digital films usually shoot between 2k and 5k which is standard cinema resolution. I'm sure there will be a digital imax camera soon.

But as i said before, even with the fact that film can be blown up- it is pixelated as soon as post production begins on a movie which completely eradicates the ability to be blown up to almost any size.

You should check out the lists of films shot digitally. The whole "video game or cheap straight to dvd" look is usually a conscience desired decision by the filmmakers/

#26 sirdavid

sirdavid

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:14 PM

I do hope not. QoS was totally ruined by Marc's choice of editor. I really loved the editing in a few scenes, such as the opera, but the editing in the action scenes made me want to throw up. Far worse than Gladiator or the Bourne movies imho.

I'd love to see a version of QoS with the action scenes re-cut. I think it would vastly improve the film. However, I guess it would have to be re-scored etc, and just wouldn't make any commercial sense. :-(

Edited by sirdavid, 19 February 2012 - 08:14 PM.


#27 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2961 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 21 February 2012 - 07:07 AM



I fear Skyfall will have a similar look.

I think your fears are a little misplaced - a lot of people were (and still are) very excited at the prospect of Roger Deakins taking on the role of cinematographer.


I fear Skyfall will have a similar look.

I think your fears are a little misplaced - a lot of people were (and still are) very excited at the prospect of Roger Deakins taking on the role of cinematographer.




Yeah, Deakins is an amazing photographer. But we are still talking about DIGITAL photography!

Deakins has always worked in film. Is it even technically possible for anyone to recreate a filmic look on digital equipment? Can he give Skyfall the same look he gave to The Assassination of Jesse James or True Grit with the same stuff they made Cloverfield and Saw movies with?

I can tell instantly if a movie has been shot on film or digital. Digital is FAR, FAR inferior, in my opinion. I don't think even Deakins can overcome that technical limitation.

Can anyone name me ONE movie that was shot on digital that didn't look either like a video game or a cheap straight to DVD crapfest?


Collateral, and yes that is the first film to be shot in HD Digital with the Viper FilmStream HD Camera by Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron and directed by Michael Mann.

I Like digital, most of you don't see that it's cheaper to shoot in Digital and much more efficient and easy than traditional 35MM film. It's a preference by Michael Mann, as well as Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor. Not only is it easy and simple to know this about Digital, but I've asked Michael Mann myself a little over a year ago when he was in Los Angeles for the 25th anniversary of Manhunter. Digital is the way to go. He went on to state that now 35MM Film has become somewhat more easier to use, but digital is better. You look at his film Collateral and it's almost ALL natural lighting, since Digital doesn't really require tons of lighting on set.

I didn't have a problem with Public Enemies being shot like that, I loved it, It gave the film a certain and real look about it, almost a documentary style, same with Collateral. That's just me, several of my pals agree with me in our Film Class, same with the teacher of the class.

I'm somewhat behind on this whole thing, when was it known that Skyfall would be in Digital? Figured it was 35MM they would go for. If it is indeed digital, then I'm looking forward to it even more.

#28 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2234 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:08 PM

You can't fool the eye so easily. My bet is that they will mess up the cinematography this time.

#29 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2961 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:38 PM

Whether or not the film is shot Digitally, doesn't matter. It's the Cinematographer and Director's choice to do it. Is it really that big of a deal?
We don't know how this film will turn up to be until the final product is released in October/November.

Edited by x007AceOfSpades, 22 February 2012 - 03:32 AM.


#30 Shrublands

Shrublands

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3300 posts
  • Location:Conveniently Near the NATO Base

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:59 PM

You can't fool the eye so easily. My bet is that they will mess up the cinematography this time.



Oh yes, with one of the greatest ever cinematographers behind the camera, that’s just bound to be a mess. Give me a break.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users