Gu3ree
Sidekick
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,365
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 73
Man of Steel had many flaws. Not that I disliked Man of Steel entirely, but that whole hand-held thing was another takeoff from Nolan's Batman trilogy, but from what I saw, Nolan's films were not entirely hand held, for specific and IMPORTANT scenes or action sequences, they were NOT hand-held, other scenes were. I think some hand-held shots are okay, but for me, it just did not work in Man of Steel. I think some of it worked in Nolan's trilogy, however I thought it was done terribly in Man of Steel.
Man of Steel is one of the worst hand-held shooted film I have ever seen. I would like to see what the eff is going on when Jor-El is fighting Zod. It's just shaky, shaky, shaky and it makes me frustrated and think why is that necessary?
Firstly, hand-held usually is a poor and cheap way to do a film. You want to make a beautiful film, use a more formal and traditional approach. Keep the camera still.
Let me re-phrase that, hand-held isn't all bad, but "SHAKY CAM" is awful.
One of Man of Steel's major flaws for me, along with how dark themed and too much action that it had.
Man of Steel failed to keep the camera stayed in one position and balance it. Now there are a certain number of scenes that are not hand-held in MOS, and I think those shots in particular were beautiful shots, such as the shot of Superman walking down the arctic. Perry, Lombard, Jenny walking down the pile of destruction.
Or Superman floating away from his father in space. It looks great in 3D and it's not hand-held. Or that shot of Superman with his fist down the snowy ground about to take off. That's beautiful. Why can't they just keep the shots like that? Another shot that was not hand held was Lois walking towards to the scout ship.
I did not think that hand-held was relevant nor suited this story. I know they want to keep it as realistic as possible, but I don't think hand-held was necessary. It made me conscious that we were watching a movie, rather than feeling as if we were in the movie, especially the beginning on Krypton at the council. Everything is seemingly perfect for the film, the design, costumes, visual effects, background and color, everything looks great for what should be an epic film...the problem is the hand-held shots. And another thing is we are on another planet I found hard to believe due to the shaky camera. Could I contemplate anymore for why the camera simply could not just stay still.
Most of the action sequences were not hand held. What was the point if the camera stayed still in the sky, when you have Superman or Zod flying when the rest of the film is shot hand held?
Snyder said in an interview that the reason the camera is shaky when Superman flies on screen is because the camera is constantly struggling to stay in position with Superman because he flies so fast. Superman's arms and half of his head is cut off from screen, why does it have to be that way? In addition, Cavill moves around the camera to act like he's flying, it feels unrealistic. When Reeve flew, I actually believed it. part of that had to do with the way it was filmed. I could actually see Superman flying and believe he was flying. Like WOW!
I mean when Superman and Zod are fighting in the Metropolis skyline in MOS, the camera seems to have no problem catching up with them, so why in other shots, does the camera struggle to stay in position with Superman? That's another reason why this hand-held approach was not necessary. Come on.
Or how about that shot of Superman rescuing Lois from the phantom drive? It's an amazing shot. The camera is not really shaking. You can see Superman flying and carrying Lois. The rest of the film should have just been shot in this style, a more formal approach.
So why did everything else have to be hand held? It was very documentary style. I felt like there were several camera men documenting the Smallville disaster. It really felt like someone was walking in front of Superman and all the other characters filming it. Like Superman could just smile at you or look at you in the camera.
My point is, the shots I described that were not "shaky" looked beauitful and should have been shot like this through-out the entire movie. Those few shots suited the epic film. That hero shot of Superman in the center looking at Zod down his knees as he gives the speech, and the rest of the Superman vs. Zod fight. It would seem awkward to keep most of this fighting sequence hand-held and shaky. The epicness called of a formal approach to keep the camera still. A formal approach would be so much better.
I hope Batman vs. Superman won't be filmed hand-held, or at least not entirely shaky. Post your thoughts.
P.S. like the scene where Clark arrives back at the Kent farm, and we have that scene with Martha Kent talking to each other...notice how shaky the camera is...it would be so much better if....
Man of Steel is one of the worst hand-held shooted film I have ever seen. I would like to see what the eff is going on when Jor-El is fighting Zod. It's just shaky, shaky, shaky and it makes me frustrated and think why is that necessary?
Firstly, hand-held usually is a poor and cheap way to do a film. You want to make a beautiful film, use a more formal and traditional approach. Keep the camera still.
Let me re-phrase that, hand-held isn't all bad, but "SHAKY CAM" is awful.
One of Man of Steel's major flaws for me, along with how dark themed and too much action that it had.
Man of Steel failed to keep the camera stayed in one position and balance it. Now there are a certain number of scenes that are not hand-held in MOS, and I think those shots in particular were beautiful shots, such as the shot of Superman walking down the arctic. Perry, Lombard, Jenny walking down the pile of destruction.
Or Superman floating away from his father in space. It looks great in 3D and it's not hand-held. Or that shot of Superman with his fist down the snowy ground about to take off. That's beautiful. Why can't they just keep the shots like that? Another shot that was not hand held was Lois walking towards to the scout ship.
I did not think that hand-held was relevant nor suited this story. I know they want to keep it as realistic as possible, but I don't think hand-held was necessary. It made me conscious that we were watching a movie, rather than feeling as if we were in the movie, especially the beginning on Krypton at the council. Everything is seemingly perfect for the film, the design, costumes, visual effects, background and color, everything looks great for what should be an epic film...the problem is the hand-held shots. And another thing is we are on another planet I found hard to believe due to the shaky camera. Could I contemplate anymore for why the camera simply could not just stay still.
Most of the action sequences were not hand held. What was the point if the camera stayed still in the sky, when you have Superman or Zod flying when the rest of the film is shot hand held?
Snyder said in an interview that the reason the camera is shaky when Superman flies on screen is because the camera is constantly struggling to stay in position with Superman because he flies so fast. Superman's arms and half of his head is cut off from screen, why does it have to be that way? In addition, Cavill moves around the camera to act like he's flying, it feels unrealistic. When Reeve flew, I actually believed it. part of that had to do with the way it was filmed. I could actually see Superman flying and believe he was flying. Like WOW!
I mean when Superman and Zod are fighting in the Metropolis skyline in MOS, the camera seems to have no problem catching up with them, so why in other shots, does the camera struggle to stay in position with Superman? That's another reason why this hand-held approach was not necessary. Come on.
Or how about that shot of Superman rescuing Lois from the phantom drive? It's an amazing shot. The camera is not really shaking. You can see Superman flying and carrying Lois. The rest of the film should have just been shot in this style, a more formal approach.
So why did everything else have to be hand held? It was very documentary style. I felt like there were several camera men documenting the Smallville disaster. It really felt like someone was walking in front of Superman and all the other characters filming it. Like Superman could just smile at you or look at you in the camera.
My point is, the shots I described that were not "shaky" looked beauitful and should have been shot like this through-out the entire movie. Those few shots suited the epic film. That hero shot of Superman in the center looking at Zod down his knees as he gives the speech, and the rest of the Superman vs. Zod fight. It would seem awkward to keep most of this fighting sequence hand-held and shaky. The epicness called of a formal approach to keep the camera still. A formal approach would be so much better.
I hope Batman vs. Superman won't be filmed hand-held, or at least not entirely shaky. Post your thoughts.
P.S. like the scene where Clark arrives back at the Kent farm, and we have that scene with Martha Kent talking to each other...notice how shaky the camera is...it would be so much better if....
