BvS Please don't do hand-held/shaky cam shots for BvS

Some should be the hand held camera. Some should not. I also think they should have some in 16:9 ratio like in TDKR.

I doubt Snyder is going to shoot select scenes in IMAX for BvS, but that would be pretty cool. If that happens, then the home video releases (both DVD and Blu-ray) should reflect as such -- rather than 2.35:1 only on DVD and then 2.35:1/1.78:1 on Blu.
 
The only time the hand-held cam thing really bothered me was the scene where young Clark and Pa Kent talk about the bus accident. But that was only when I saw it in 3D, so maybe that made it worse. It didn't bother me at all when I watched it again on Blu-Ray.
 
I really fancied the handheld camera in MOS. The whole look of the film was beautiful, IMO.

But naturally the filmmaker should want to create a different look for the sequel, so hopefully we're treated to a different but similarly engaging style.
 
I didn't notice "shakey cam" until I saw MOS in a non digital theatre. Really, I think this may be a case of bad calibration in the older model projectors. In a digital theatre and at home on Blu Ray I just never saw the supposed shakey cam.
 
The more I watch it on Blu-Ray, the less I see of it sans the dialogue scenes.
 
The only times that I felt the shaky cam trick came off looking bad was during:

1. The Opening Establishing Shot of Jor-el talking to the Council on Krypton. That shot right there should have been done on a rig of some sort.

2. The wide shot of Jonathan Kent walking to the truck where Clark was sitting at. The shakiness was at its worst here as I was more distracted by it than being immersed by the actual scene.
 
The only times that I felt the shaky cam trick came off looking bad was during:

1. The Opening Establishing Shot of Jor-el talking to the Council on Krypton. That shot right there should have been done on a rig of some sort.

2. The wide shot of Jonathan Kent walking to the truck where Clark was sitting at. The shakiness was at its worst here as I was more distracted by it than being immersed by the actual scene.

Do you find that to be true when watching at home now, lee? Next time you do watch it really concentrate on how blurred or shaky the images really are and let us know. I really think that many people's shaky complaints have more to do with older projectors in theatres where frankly, the staff just doesn't care. And that's not just about MOS.

I enjoy going to the theatre, having the theatre experience. But there have been times when I saw a film with great action on the big screen, but it was too shaky and I was with others that didn't like "shaky cam". Later I would catch the same film being broadcast, or on disc and the erratic and blurry movement that annoyed me in theatre was just gone. Having seen MOS many, many times at home on Blu, I am very convinced this is also what's going on.
 
Do you find that to be true when watching at home now, lee? Next time you do watch it really concentrate on how blurred or shaky the images really are and let us know. I really think that many people's shaky complaints have more to do with older projectors in theatres where frankly, the staff just doesn't care. And that's not just about MOS.

I enjoy going to the theatre, having the theatre experience. But there have been times when I saw a film with great action on the big screen, but it was too shaky and I was with others that didn't like "shaky cam". Later I would catch the same film being broadcast, or on disc and the erratic and blurry movement that annoyed me in theatre was just gone. Having seen MOS many, many times at home on Blu, I am very convinced this is also what's going on.

Unfortunately, I have seen it many times on Blu-ray format and it still bothers me, in regards to the scenes (shots) that I mentioned above.lol Though I think in my case, it's more of a personal preference since I'm majoring in film as well so I have my own personal qualms about certain stylistic choices that other people may not have.lol
 
Unfortunately, I have seen it many times on Blu-ray format and it still bothers me, in regards to the scenes (shots) that I mentioned above.lol Though I think in my case, it's more of a personal preference since I'm majoring in film as well so I have my own personal qualms about certain stylistic choices that other people may not have.lol

Fair enough. I'll cop to noticing it still in both scenes that you mentioned even on disc. But it's so fleeting and minor a detail, that it really boggles my mind that it's such a big complaint. Then again, my initial viewing of the film was in a digital showing, so my first impression was one of a crystal clear movie.
 
Fair enough. I'll cop to noticing it still in both scenes that you mentioned even on disc. But it's so fleeting and minor a detail, that it really boggles my mind that it's such a big complaint. Then again, my initial viewing of the film was in a digital showing, so my first impression was one of a crystal clear movie.

Well, it's not so much of a big complaint but really my only quip when it came to the steady cam thing.

If I had to really complain about something regarding visuals, it would just be the color filters and CGI Street background for when Clark and Zod were exchanging punches in Metropolis.lol
 
It's fine in doses. Some of you might be overly sensitive.

It creates a sense of realism. Pick up some Terrence Malick films.

The handheld shots of young Clark running through the fields on the Kent farm and doing the iconic Superman pose with his makeshift cape are legendary imo.
 
The handheld shots of young Clark running through the fields on the Kent farm and doing the iconic Superman pose with his makeshift cape are legendary imo.

True, and it's kind of funny as well since Snyder reportedly said that the whole sequence just came about when he was just doing some tests with the camera.
 
You know, there was a really good movie going on while you were focusing on the cinematography.
 
It's fine in doses. Some of you might be overly sensitive.

It creates a sense of realism. Pick up some Terrence Malick films.

The handheld shots of young Clark running through the fields on the Kent farm and doing the iconic Superman pose with his makeshift cape are legendary imo.

Yeah, I remember when the teaser came out, those shots instantly made me think of Terrance Malick. I believe Snyder said in an interview that Malick is one of his influences.
 
Like most after the council scene, the shaky cam no longer bothered me. I did notice after countless viewings that the zoom-in zoom-out trick was used alot in the heavy CGI bits of the film. Which was kind of a neat way to keep the CGI from being too noticeable.
 
The only times that I felt the shaky cam trick came off looking bad was during:

1. The Opening Establishing Shot of Jor-el talking to the Council on Krypton. That shot right there should have been done on a rig of some sort.

2. The wide shot of Jonathan Kent walking to the truck where Clark was sitting at. The shakiness was at its worst here as I was more distracted by it than being immersed by the actual scene.

I couldn't agree more. I forgot to mention the scene with Jonathan Kent and young Clark. That scene was particurly annoying for the way it was shot and how it managed to be alarmingly unstable.
 
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....
???

[Yt]N7QLFFK5aIA[/MEDIA]

That was a great scene. Do you realize that some of the best scenes in some great films u sed the shaky cam technique? This is the Omaha beach scene from "Saving Private Ryan":

[YT]_cytrCXTHno[/YT]

So was some fight scenes in the Bourne films:

[Yt]uLt7lXDCHQ0[/MEDIA]

The technique gives a sense of realism when used in certain scenes since thats the way it really is in real time. If you didnt realize that I guess you should have looked in to it before you posted.
 
The only time it was a problem with me was on Krypton at the Council meeting thing
 
In retrospect, I do not recall the shaky-cam, which attests to it not being bad. Hell, if it was as bad as some have painted, it would rival Cloverfield. Anyway, I imagine we will have a nice ratio of tripod and handheld shots for the film.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"