Stop all this shaky cam crap already!
By wolveren
@wolveren (1586)
Cebu, Philippines
May 30, 2012 1:29am CST
Okay this is a rant. Which is way long overdue. I am sick and tired of these people who have the shaky cam syndrome in making movies. While it worked fine when it all started (Blair witch was it?), it is a joke to me nowadays. I don't get dizzy watching shaky cam, found footage or whatever they want to call that crap filming style. But to me we are supposed to watch movies to relax and be entertained or distracted for an hour or so. A lot of people get dizzy watching that filming style. Why in the world would they want to discomfort people with this technique? Do they want us to get epileptic or something? I don't see the true and greatest directors and producers using this technique in their movies at all. Do you see James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or Roland Emmerich ever use this style. Hell No!!! Because it is ridiculous and absurd. They want people to enjoy and enjoy real quality in their films. True film artists want the people to see the fine art in their movies, to see the finesse in every nuance in the acting blending seamlessly with surrounding picture be it an action film or a drama or suspense mix. How can they expect people to see the fine details in film making and acting when they're overdoing the shaking cam thing. But in fairness, there are those who used the shaky cam to a minimum and combining some effects to justify it's use. The movie Chronicles is one exception. It is a found footage of how some teens got super powers and documenting what they discovered with a plain old video cam. Thus, explains the shaky cam usage. Okay, I went for that one because I was expecting some special effects and I was pleased. You see, editing and creating special effects with a shaky film is not that easy. It takes great care, timing, precision to make it all look realistic. So this particular film got me interested and I rate it a 9 out of 10 for the SFX effort. The story is somewhat cliche to me but leaves me thinking long enough to dwell on it for a while. But now for those who have absolutely no talent in film making? Get another job. Stop all this shaky cam crap already. Do you like shaky cam movies? 
2 people like this
4 responses
@Bionicman (3958)
• Czech Republic
30 May 12
Yeah, it's getting old and it's really gimmicky. But I actually liked all shaky cam movies I've seen. Project Blair Witch started it all. Millions thought it was actually a real footage. Then Cloverfield put you in the middle of the city that's getting destroyed by a giant monster and it kinda felt like you're really there. Rec was another horror that started as a documentary about firefighters and ended up a zombie movie and yet it still looked realistic which made it scarier. Paranormal Activity combined Handheld with a static cameras to create semi-believable hunted house footage and it worked fine.
I also liked Chronicle but it was the first shaky cam film where it felt really forced and it would be much better without it. First, it wasn't a "found footage" of kids documenting their powers. He left the camera on Tibet and I really doubt anyone ever found it. The whole movie combined the views from many cameras including gas station, helicopter and even levitating stolen iphones. And it was very annoying and restricting. Andrew had to have camera with him all the time, then they had to think of some clever way to continue the movie while he's not there and it felt really forced. Then near the end they suddenly ditched it for a few scenes that were film in normal way for no reason. So I think Chronicle would be a better movie if it wasn't filmed in this way but I think shaky cams in general can make films feel more realistic.
@Bionicman (3958)
• Czech Republic
30 May 12
Outdo Godzilla in what way? The monster is so iconic that it's impossible to beat. But as a film? Godzilla movies are just terrible (but still fun to watch) so there's nothing to outdo there.
It's not a found footage film, it's just a way it was filmed.
He left the camera in Tibet because Andrew said earlier that he would love to fly there. But if they ever decide they will make a sequel, I sure hope it wouldn't be film in this way again.
@Bionicman (3958)
• Czech Republic
6 Jun 12
I knew you're talking about that one. It was awesome when I saw it as a kid in theater for the first time but I re-watched it recently and it was pretty bad.
@wolveren (1586)
• Cebu, Philippines
5 Jun 12
Yeah there is no way cloverfield could beat godzilla. Not on this planet I guess. I didn't mean the japanese godzilla series. I meant the american made godzilla. 1998. With Mathew Broderick in it. Directed by Roland Emmerich. Now that was truly epic. As a matter of fact their coming up with a new godzilla for 2014. I hope it's a good as the 1998 one. For once I wish a real godzilla would just step on them shaky cam directors. 
@ANTIQUELADY (36440)
• United States
30 May 12
HI FRIEND, Don't know a thing about them. I just wanted to say hi.
@wolveren (1586)
• Cebu, Philippines
30 May 12
Hiya antiquelady! Nice of you to drop by my rant. Haven't heard from you for some time. It's good that you don't watch shaky cam movies. Good for you. Stay away from them. My old mother got dizzy watching some of them on saturday night movies. I turned the tv off as it may do more harm to her than good. I'd like to shake the life out of them wanna be film makers. 
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
30 May 12
Stupid shaky cams!
This is a trick done by low-budget studios and directors that don't want to fork over the money for modern equipment.
Notice that the "shaky cam" thing is really big now that we have HDTV! It costs more money for lighting, makeup, cameras, editing, etc, if you want to present a flawless 1080p picture. So how do you get around this? You use some crap storyline about how the movie was done with a handheld. Or, another "favorite" of mine, they make movies with story lines from the past so they can skirt the need for great digital quality.
It is depressing.
I paid a lot of money for my LG HDTV! I paid a lot of money for my HD Samsung monitor and GTX graphics card! Now half of the crap produced uses tricks and gimmicks so they can save time and money instead of giving us true quality.
Another pet peeve of mine is the sudden BANG in scary movies!
Look, writers and directors, here's a tip: If you can't introduce a suspenseful plot on its own, it doesn't get better when you have a random door slamming or a girl screaming.
So I'm watching a "scary" movie and just chillaxin' in my bed, sippin' on some soda. Suddenly a wild mute scene appears! Girl walking slow, breathing heavy, no other sound. Oh, it goes on for 2 minutes. Then....BANG!!! They try to jolt you, not with a plot twist or something clever in the story, but with an unexpected loud noise.
Cheap movie tricks are not appreciated.
Another pet peeve of mine: Bucky Larson! Worst movie ever. 
This is a trick done by low-budget studios and directors that don't want to fork over the money for modern equipment.
Notice that the "shaky cam" thing is really big now that we have HDTV! It costs more money for lighting, makeup, cameras, editing, etc, if you want to present a flawless 1080p picture. So how do you get around this? You use some crap storyline about how the movie was done with a handheld. Or, another "favorite" of mine, they make movies with story lines from the past so they can skirt the need for great digital quality.
It is depressing.
I paid a lot of money for my LG HDTV! I paid a lot of money for my HD Samsung monitor and GTX graphics card! Now half of the crap produced uses tricks and gimmicks so they can save time and money instead of giving us true quality.
Another pet peeve of mine is the sudden BANG in scary movies!
Look, writers and directors, here's a tip: If you can't introduce a suspenseful plot on its own, it doesn't get better when you have a random door slamming or a girl screaming.
So I'm watching a "scary" movie and just chillaxin' in my bed, sippin' on some soda. Suddenly a wild mute scene appears! Girl walking slow, breathing heavy, no other sound. Oh, it goes on for 2 minutes. Then....BANG!!! They try to jolt you, not with a plot twist or something clever in the story, but with an unexpected loud noise.
Cheap movie tricks are not appreciated.
Another pet peeve of mine: Bucky Larson! Worst movie ever. @wolveren (1586)
• Cebu, Philippines
30 May 12
Yeah I bought an HDTV too, and it was a bummer to all I spent on technology shattered by some shaky cam syndrome. We're all very lucky to have youtube around so we can see the trailers first before watching the movies or buying the dvd. When I saw the project x trailer I closed it. There was no need for me to find out more, the trailer itself gave away it's stupidity. With cloverfield I was almost duped into watching as they kept the trailer at a level to make it look exciting. The cloverfield was marketing badly as it gave me the impression it was going to be like godzilla. Lucky for me I didn't spend a dime to see it. A friend brought his dvd and we all laughed our a$$es off watching a real monstrous disaster. Bucky Larson was a whack job of a movie.
We're all very lucky to have youtube around so we can see the trailers first before watching the movies or buying the dvd. When I saw the project x trailer I closed it. There was no need for me to find out more, the trailer itself gave away it's stupidity. With cloverfield I was almost duped into watching as they kept the trailer at a level to make it look exciting. The cloverfield was marketing badly as it gave me the impression it was going to be like godzilla. Lucky for me I didn't spend a dime to see it. A friend brought his dvd and we all laughed our a$$es off watching a real monstrous disaster. Bucky Larson was a whack job of a movie. 
@arunr175 (1678)
• India
30 May 12
As you have said there is one exception Chronicle, the rest of the shaky camera films are absurd.
I saw Project X, it was taken in the same style and it was boring.
There is no need for this kind of a film, normal camera work is just enough ...
@wolveren (1586)
• Cebu, Philippines
30 May 12
Actually Spielberg did use a little of the shaky cam thing if I remember it right in Super 8. But only because kids were playing around for their film project. But he did the right thing just using it when it was required. He didn't over do it and was not used for the entirety of the film. Now that's what I call a real genius film maker. Others can just dream forever and they will never be like a Spielberg.
1 person likes this
