Hans Van Harken (3:49:02 AM): i'm news posting this
ZekeySpaceLizard(3:49:25 AM): !

peoples brains lately work like a 3 part addition problem

this+this+this=good

i also noticed it in watching "Hancock" and i see why people don't seem to mind this excessively shaky cam lately After seeing somethign like hancock i know why it's so important to hold a shot and frame a shot right, because each shot of any movie needs to tell the viewer something, and if the director isn't clearly displaying what's going on he/she is telling me that he/she doesn't have a clear idea what to tell.

Within this massive super power fight i just pick up on:

-kick
-punch
-launch
-fly punch.

i only pick up on those things but i don't see HOW he kicks him, HOW he punches him, HOW everything is happening. i literall tried just zoning out in the theatre. there were many times, even outside of action sequences where i was just giving up and loosing my breath from the exhaustion, because of keeping my eyes in focus on these mammoth shaky close ups. So i felt experimental and just let the light flow through my eyeballs and i could actually pick up on things more. even though it was just a BUNCH of colors and blurrs telling me "kick punch kick kick fly" in a way, just zoning out and not analyzing made it easier to watch.

i'm mainly talking about the action sequences of course, although the normal sequences were just about as tiresome for me. i concluded with the fact that most people don't watch movies, they see movies.

watch: look at or observe attentively.

see: perceive with eyes.

i think there is a CAMERA MAN STRIKE or something but they just wont tell us and they're highering any average joe to pick up a camera. Seriously, i mean, what's with the constant close ups, handheld close ups that aren't even framed correctly. Close ups are used for moments of intense emotion that a director wants the actor to transmit his/her feeling directly into the souls of the audience. I don't think that 99.72% of the time during "Hancock" Hancock was experiencing some kind of extreme intense emotion at that moment relating to what's going on with his surroundings that we really needed to feel ourselves.

also, i adore handheld, but i think the nickname for it "shaky cam" gave directors the inspiration to actually intentionally shake the camera to make it obvious something is handheld. the only reason one does handheld is to have the freedom to move within the actors and place the audience almost like another character in there in the movie. but that doesn't mean you should avoid keeping the camera steady and setting clear focus points and stuff.

I've heard somewhere someone pointing out that "handheld gives movies a more realistic look because the camera acts like a human eye" I've thought about that and i actually think that a handheld (like the abusively unsteady ones lately) actually makes it more obvious that the presence of a camera man is there between the actors. simply because the fact that someone is constantly focusing, and stepping around the actors, and zooming in on unimportant things to what's going on... basically looking for you, makes it more obvious that you're looking through a camera.

I think people are mislead by the "realism" factor that a handheld camera brings, it's not because it's like a human eye, it's because documentaries mainly are shot handheld because of production values or because they might be pissing someone off by filming them so they have to run. and because documentaries are about printing truth and facts onto film, when you see a fiction shot in the same way, it gives the illusion of a documentary.

in a way, the viewers are wrapping their lips around these film maker's ass while they take a dump into their mouths, and wash down the taste with popcorn and soda. maybe twislers, too.

anyways, that's my pointless rant. I mean no offenses... yada yada :D

oh and, hancock wasn't a terrible movie. i thought it touched some interesting subjects, but the way it was filmed just didn't allow me to enjoy it. and i think at this point, it's not even a matter of taste, it's just filmed very bad. and of course, in the end this is only my opinion :)

-HVH

p.s. ZekeySpaceLizard(3:44:02 AM): hancock - charlize theron = decent