[ 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

[(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.