[ SECRET POST #2692 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2692 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #385.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[skippydelicious]

Everyone is an asshole in some way, so that accusation has little sting to it (I think people who insist I give up going to movies so they can enjoy Abrams style are assholes for example). His style of film making has made several movies I'd otherwise have enjoyed unwatchable to me, so that is why I hope it ends soon and his career dips. I know it is dreadful wanting to be able to enjoy movies instead of sitting through lens flare, shitty characterizations, speed cuts, and continuity problems.

[(Anonymous)]

Really? Filming styles ruins a movie for you? Bad characterization, yes, though I don't agree that he isn't good at characterization or that bad characterization or continuity issues are somehow a "style of film" that other people copy from him. Lens flares and speed cuts ruin a movie for you, though?

[(Anonymous)]

Pretend for a moment that one is hypersensitive to movement, noise and light... yes, shaky camera, super fast film cutting and lots of lens flares are enough to give me in particular a headache and other people I know it makes them downright sick to their stomach.

plus now that I know the more cuts there are in a movie, the more special effects there are or even more a chance the actors aren't in the same room... sort of ruins it for me.

Give me Firefly with it's continuous film shots. Hard as hell to pull off, but man they make me feel better. I want to be able to see and appreciate things.

[(Anonymous)]

"Pretend for a moment that one is hypersensitive to movement, noise and light... yes, shaky camera, super fast film cutting and lots of lens flares are enough to give me in particular a headache and other people I know it makes them downright sick to their stomach."

THIS

There are films I have to avoid because I *know* they'll make me sick because of all this you mentioned.

[(Anonymous)]

Those are all valid reasons not to go to movies that use those styles. However, that does not make the styles inherently bad. Nor does it mean that just because some people can have issues with those styles that no one should use them ever. Some people enjoy them.

[(Anonymous)]

And some people don't.

I don't see anyone in this thread putting an inherent value on the filming techniques - except you, of course. That said, they don't owe it to you or anyone else to pretend to like a thing that they dislike. Nor are they obligated to keep quiet about vehemently disliking it.

So they don't like your favorite camera techniques. And they don't like the work of the director synonymous with them. So what? Get over it and move on. Not everyone going to like what you like.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

But people who would prefer to avoid watching those styles are not assholes for doing so. They are merely aware of their sensitivity.

I also hold no blame for people who wish movies they might have wanted to see were not made in those styles.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course filming styles can ruin a movie

what

how is that even in question

How would the visual style of an inherently visual medium NOT impact your enjoyment of it

[(Anonymous)]

Right? Remember how everyone and their hamsters (rightfully) critisized the shaky cam in the the first Hunger Game movie... the second one didn't have that and everyone was relieved. (Just the most known example I could think of)

[(Anonymous)]

Cloverfield. Oh God, Cloverfield. People were actually getting motion sickness and leaving the theatre because of that one.

[(Anonymous)]

I still think its stupid. No film style or technique is inherently bad or good. Now they can all be used badly or well, but I don't think shaky cam is inherently bad. It may be hard to get right, but it is possible to do shaky cam well.

[(Anonymous)]

They didn't say that the technique was inherently good or bad. They said that the technique ruined a movie and cited physically sick people as their illustration. Both points - that filming techniques can ruin a movie and the example provided - were in support of the thesis that "filming styles can ruin a movie (because movies are an inherently visual medium.)"

Again, you're the only person attributing "good" or "bad" to a technique. And, again, no one is obligated to like any given filming technique, they aren't obligated to keep quiet to avoid offending you, and they aren't obligated to agree with your opinions.