Shakey cam in movies/TV

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone else think that film-makers are really overusing this device? You know, where the camera shakes around like its a cheap documentary filmed with a handheld.

It's supposed to make you feel "in the movie" or whatever, and it works well when it's rarely used. But now every film/TV series does it, and sabotages what could be great shots to make them look amateur. I think future generations are going to find a lot of today's movies unwatchable because of it.

The only thing it makes me feel is the desire to stop watching.

I read that a lot of people who watched "Cloverfield" had motion sickness afterward. One woman came out and threw up halfway through. One guy was still sick the next day.

I hated the AT&T fear mongering ads with the camera all over the place. I have to look away any time the "fake shaky cam" starts up. They overdo it. I can watch documentaries or "Cops" because they try to keep the camera as still as possible.

Shaky cam is for amateurs and rookies.

I don't really like the camera to move much at all. Occasional panning and zooming is okay.

Sometimes I like over-the-top zoom shots, though.

i prefer handheld camera and steadicam because it feels more organic.

The thing with Cloverfield was that it was supposed to be a shaky recording by an amateur. But it does make me feel sick

with all the technology on BSG, you'd think that the space shots would be a little more coherent...

same here, the steadicam is one of the greatest advancements in filmmaking technology in decades.

handheld shots only work when they are not used for intense action sequences with lots of camera movement. the films Traffic and Syriana greatly benefit from this, they both get that documentary feel as a result of the handheld and mildly shaky camera.

i loved all the bourne movies, bu i do feel that handheld camera shots greatly detract from films like this and cloverfield because the majority of the films are loaded with fast paced action sequences and it is hard for even the most experienced camera person to keep the camera steady without a steadicam rig.

Yeah I heard that about Cloverfield.

Though I thought the shakey camera was effective in the Blair Witch Project to make the movie really creepy, because it was like a home video. That movie scared the s**t out of me and everyone says it's not scary. And when we were on vacation we saw a house in the woods JUST like the blair witch house.. I almost fainted.

When its in a war movie like Saving Private Ryan or in an action movie like Bourne Ultimatum its raw. When its in something like Blair Witch or Cloverfield, I think it goes to show just how much they're needing to dial up all the tension that isn't there - its a camera not a can of spray paint.

Shaking camera shots make me feel dizzy, nauseous-I get sensation of motion-sickness easily. Wish they'd (movies/tv) just cut it out, and only use it sparsely-not as the default style. Sure, I'm in favor of seeking to portray versimilitude (whatever that's called)-but this excessive (camera shot) motion is counterproductive-it's "so real" that I can't stand to watch.

Employees at my work have had to clean up an insane amount of barf in "Cloverfield" as well as given out refunds due to sickness.

That seems to be a popular thing in action movies these days too. I really hate it, as you can barely tell whats going on. I remember watching Bad Boys 2 on TV and I thought it would be a fairly decent action movie, but shoot outs had all that handheld/shakey effect that ruined the movie for me. The only time I tolerated it was in the new Rambo movie that came out not too long ago.

I like movies like this.. but only seen one.

There's a huge difference between the quality of handheld and steadicam shots. For example, some of the steadicam shots in the LOTR battles are indistinguishable from the shots using a tripod/dolly except for the freedom of movement.

I voted against them because as a general rule handheld and POV shots are my two most hated techniques in film-making. However, I know that they've been used to great effect (see the above example), but the only good examples I'm aware of are where the camera's not picked for it's visual effect (ie, stylistic reasons in Blaire Witch Project or Cloverfield), but for it's freedom of movement - The Shining was one of the first films to use steadicam and the maze sequence would have been impossible to do as it appears on screen without it.

It's interesting that it makes people motion sick though. I have really bad motion sickness but it's never made me ill. I'm intending to drag my boyfriend to see Cloverfield at some point so I can complain about the bad camera work, so that'll be an interesting trial.

i really don't like too much movement with cameras in movies, hence my hatred of the shakey camera. First of all it looks REALLY crap and secondly it makes my feel slightly sick.