All hand-held in Bourne Ultimatum?

Mark Bournes · August 18th, 2007, 09:09 AM

LOL...Thanks I couldn't remember NYPD Blue. BTW, you're close it's not my mom yelling at me to get off the computer, it's my other mom (wife).

All 3 movies are good and I like the fact that they tried something diffrerent with the 3rd one. It gives us all something to talk about.

Noa Put · August 18th, 2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juni Zhao

so I wonder: is it really a new trend to shoot action movies?

I think it is, I've seen more action packed movies which look like they have been shot with small handycams. As long as it doesn"t start to get annoying (Like with NYPD Blue or 24) I can live with it.

John McManimie · August 18th, 2007, 02:15 PM

It is all subjective; I personally find the camera work on 24 to be masterful and unmatched by any other show on television. I'm not a fan of the way the camera work was performed on Bourne movies two and three (I still love the movies, though) but I think that 24 is excellent.

Justin Tomchuk · August 18th, 2007, 06:53 PM

I think it's a very cheap way to shoot action films. I guess the shaky camera style is to make it look intense... but in my mind it looks like trash. I would preffer to actually see whats going on instead of a blur of hands and feet and cell phone clacking. Yeah yeah, let filmmakers explore other means of presenting ideas, but shaky camera technique isn't exactly new. Just look at the hundreds of cheap action films over the past decade, chances are 70% will use this 'shaky camera' technique during an action sequence.

This is why films like 'House of the Flying Daggers', '300', 'Kill Bill V1 & 2' and 'the Matrix' are so sucessful. They actually show what is going on, smoothly and precisely. Even in slow motion, so you can see that the action taking place is actually happening, not a blur of random stuff.

I totally dislike this 'new age' filmmaking technique and will avoid at all costs in my own films.

That said, I still enjoyed the film. Even if it was confusing, and if I remember, much much more fast paced than the first one.

Joe Busch · August 18th, 2007, 07:03 PM

I'd rather see more 300 style action.. slow motion is better then a mass blurr of fast cuts... sometimes it makes sense, other times it's annoying... I haven't seen ultimatum yet though, so I'll find out soon enough...

Mark Kenfield · August 25th, 2007, 06:59 AM

I'm interested to see how Ultimatum turned out. I quite enjoyed the first film, but after seeing the second one (Supremacy?) I walked out of the theatre with a headache and without actually knowing how the film ended - it's the only time I can think of that watching a movie has actually affected me physically (and I was only 18 at the time so I don't think age has anything to do with it!).

I read in a review that they've toned down the shakiness a bit for Ultimatum, I certainly hope so, because I'm not sitting through a movie that gives me headache again.

Mike Teutsch · August 25th, 2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Kenfield

I'm interested to see how Ultimatum turned out. I quite enjoyed the first film, but after seeing the second one (Supremacy?) I walked out of the theatre with a headache and without actually knowing how the film ended - it's the only time I can think of that watching a movie has actually affected me physically (and I was only 18 at the time so I don't think age has anything to do with it!).

I read in a review that they've toned down the shakiness a bit for Ultimatum, I certainly hope so, because I'm not sitting through a movie that gives me headache again.

OOOH, take your seasick and headache medicine before you go see it. It's worse! Saw some people.walk out.

Mike

Jacques Mersereau · August 25th, 2007, 11:10 AM

Believe it or not, that "shakey footage" was shot by a very
experienced steadicam operator. John Stewart had Matt Damon
on his show and Matt referred to their steadicam operator's work
being panned by the critics.

Like most things in the movies, it is harder than it looks.

Mike Teutsch · August 25th, 2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

Believe it or not, that "shakey footage" was shot by a very
experienced steadicam operator. John Stewart had Matt Damon
on his show and Matt referred to their steadicam operator's work
being panned by the critics.

Like most things in the movies, it is harder than it looks.

I Never said that it was not what they intended, I'm sure it was. But, way overdone and if it was steadicam it must really be hard to shake it up that much. I guess you could just violate all the steadicam laws and just grab the camera.

M

Mark Kenfield · August 26th, 2007, 03:06 AM

I just don't understand why they take it so over the top in the Bourne films. Children of Men was shot entirely hand-held/steadicam and that worked brilliantly, you felt part of the action but were never made dizzy by it.

Aron Yert · August 27th, 2007, 03:48 PM

From a younger perspective (age 24) I really enjoy the Bourne movies, but the aforementioned quick edits/shaky cam made this last installment very hard to watch. Someone mentioned the fight scene between Bourne and Desh - the camera was no further than six inches from the actors the whole time so I could never tell what was going on outside of sounds of punching, kicking, breaking glass, and grunting.

Also, the editor seemed to be trying to outdo Michael Bay in record cuts per scene average.

This was by far the hardest movie on the eyes I've ever seen. And that's including Big Momma's House.

But of course, that is for an entirely different reason.

Aron Yert · August 27th, 2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Kenfield

I just don't understand why they take it so over the top in the Bourne films. Children of Men was shot entirely hand-held/steadicam and that worked brilliantly, you felt part of the action but were never made dizzy by it.

I guess that's what I'm really trying to say - I don't mind the technique except in cases like this when it serves only to draw attention to itself.

Audience members should be leaving the theater talking about the movie's story or its characters, not "MY EYES! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!"

Victor Kellar · August 28th, 2007, 05:15 PM

I coined the phrased "mechnique" for "mechanical techniuqe" ... when something is done cause it was done before. I first used it for music videos where it seemed every shot was black and white and in the rain no matter what the song was about.

Sam Peckinpah mastered the use of slo mo in action scenes to give us an extra moment to absorb what that violence actually just did to someone ... then it got ridiculous. Every movie had slo mo fight scenes even when they made no sense. Even Sam reverted to mechnique in movies like Osterman Weekend.

Same is true of quick cuts, hand held etc. Loved the first Bourne movie and enjoyed the second (mostly cause I thought Damon's performance was outstanding) and haven't checked out the new one. I like 24's look as well but man, there is mechnique of that all over the place ... there was some cop show about a special unit chasing down federal warrants that was so jerky and sloppily cut I never had an idea what the story was ... seemed to be 45 minutes of ECUs of rolling eyes, pumping legs and fists slamming into faces

When I see really tight shots in a fight sequence, makes me think some actor isn't up to the choreography ... so they shoot the stunt person in close up. David Carridine's fight scenes are shot like that (or from about a mile away) cause the man can't fight. Tony Jaa is usually framed wide so we can see what the man can do.

Don't worry, when the Bourne style becomes mechnique, someone will come up with something new. Just as Bourne and Ronin were the answer to schlocky Bond films, someone will shake the box and come up with something new

James Harring · August 28th, 2007, 06:26 PM

I understnad the concept - shaky to give an "edge" -- nothing is stable and the super closeup's of fists and feet and cars wrecking, but it left me wanting a little wider shot periodically as you lacked an appreciation for the space they were occupying and perhaps the reactions of others drawn into the scene, such as spectators. It was sometimes like standing too close to a painting.

Overall the best of the series though, great storyline.

Stu Holmes · August 28th, 2007, 09:49 PM

Someonw I know said more or less the same thing aobut Bourne Ultimatum -overboard witrh shaky cam "docu" style. This is just a report i have got from a film enthusiast. And that is the important thing - he is a guy-off-the-street but witrh an avid interest in film etc.

So my conclusion (without yet, i admit having seen the Bourne.Ultimatam) is that the high amount of cam shake does apparently annoy some people.

August 18th, 2007, 09:09 AM	#16
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	LOL...Thanks I couldn't remember NYPD Blue. BTW, you're close it's not my mom yelling at me to get off the computer, it's my other mom (wife). All 3 movies are good and I like the fact that they tried something diffrerent with the 3rd one. It gives us all something to talk about. __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

August 18th, 2007, 06:53 PM	#19
Justin Tomchuk Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Montreal Posts: 164	I think it's a very cheap way to shoot action films. I guess the shaky camera style is to make it look intense... but in my mind it looks like trash. I would preffer to actually see whats going on instead of a blur of hands and feet and cell phone clacking. Yeah yeah, let filmmakers explore other means of presenting ideas, but shaky camera technique isn't exactly new. Just look at the hundreds of cheap action films over the past decade, chances are 70% will use this 'shaky camera' technique during an action sequence. This is why films like 'House of the Flying Daggers', '300', 'Kill Bill V1 & 2' and 'the Matrix' are so sucessful. They actually show what is going on, smoothly and precisely. Even in slow motion, so you can see that the action taking place is actually happening, not a blur of random stuff. I totally dislike this 'new age' filmmaking technique and will avoid at all costs in my own films. That said, I still enjoyed the film. Even if it was confusing, and if I remember, much much more fast paced than the first one. Last edited by Boyd Ostroff; August 25th, 2007 at 02:37 PM. Reason: language

August 25th, 2007, 11:10 AM	#23
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	Believe it or not, that "shakey footage" was shot by a very experienced steadicam operator. John Stewart had Matt Damon on his show and Matt referred to their steadicam operator's work being panned by the critics. Like most things in the movies, it is harder than it looks. __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

August 28th, 2007, 06:26 PM	#29
James Harring Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 210	Bourne camerawork I understnad the concept - shaky to give an "edge" -- nothing is stable and the super closeup's of fists and feet and cars wrecking, but it left me wanting a little wider shot periodically as you lacked an appreciation for the space they were occupying and perhaps the reactions of others drawn into the scene, such as spectators. It was sometimes like standing too close to a painting. Overall the best of the series though, great storyline.

August 18th, 2007, 02:15 PM	#18
John McManimie Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 314	It is all subjective; I personally find the camera work on 24 to be masterful and unmatched by any other show on television. I'm not a fan of the way the camera work was performed on Bourne movies two and three (I still love the movies, though) but I think that 24 is excellent.

August 18th, 2007, 07:03 PM	#20
Joe Busch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 398	I'd rather see more 300 style action.. slow motion is better then a mass blurr of fast cuts... sometimes it makes sense, other times it's annoying... I haven't seen ultimatum yet though, so I'll find out soon enough...

August 25th, 2007, 06:59 AM	#21
Mark Kenfield Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 470	I'm interested to see how Ultimatum turned out. I quite enjoyed the first film, but after seeing the second one (Supremacy?) I walked out of the theatre with a headache and without actually knowing how the film ended - it's the only time I can think of that watching a movie has actually affected me physically (and I was only 18 at the time so I don't think age has anything to do with it!). I read in a review that they've toned down the shakiness a bit for Ultimatum, I certainly hope so, because I'm not sitting through a movie that gives me headache again.

August 26th, 2007, 03:06 AM	#25
Mark Kenfield Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 470	I just don't understand why they take it so over the top in the Bourne films. Children of Men was shot entirely hand-held/steadicam and that worked brilliantly, you felt part of the action but were never made dizzy by it.

August 27th, 2007, 03:48 PM	#26
Aron Yert Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 39	From a younger perspective (age 24) I really enjoy the Bourne movies, but the aforementioned quick edits/shaky cam made this last installment very hard to watch. Someone mentioned the fight scene between Bourne and Desh - the camera was no further than six inches from the actors the whole time so I could never tell what was going on outside of sounds of punching, kicking, breaking glass, and grunting. Also, the editor seemed to be trying to outdo Michael Bay in record cuts per scene average. This was by far the hardest movie on the eyes I've ever seen. And that's including Big Momma's House. But of course, that is for an entirely different reason.

August 28th, 2007, 05:15 PM	#28
Victor Kellar Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Ontario Canada Posts: 239	I coined the phrased "mechnique" for "mechanical techniuqe" ... when something is done cause it was done before. I first used it for music videos where it seemed every shot was black and white and in the rain no matter what the song was about. Sam Peckinpah mastered the use of slo mo in action scenes to give us an extra moment to absorb what that violence actually just did to someone ... then it got ridiculous. Every movie had slo mo fight scenes even when they made no sense. Even Sam reverted to mechnique in movies like Osterman Weekend. Same is true of quick cuts, hand held etc. Loved the first Bourne movie and enjoyed the second (mostly cause I thought Damon's performance was outstanding) and haven't checked out the new one. I like 24's look as well but man, there is mechnique of that all over the place ... there was some cop show about a special unit chasing down federal warrants that was so jerky and sloppily cut I never had an idea what the story was ... seemed to be 45 minutes of ECUs of rolling eyes, pumping legs and fists slamming into faces When I see really tight shots in a fight sequence, makes me think some actor isn't up to the choreography ... so they shoot the stunt person in close up. David Carridine's fight scenes are shot like that (or from about a mile away) cause the man can't fight. Tony Jaa is usually framed wide so we can see what the man can do. Don't worry, when the Bourne style becomes mechnique, someone will come up with something new. Just as Bourne and Ronin were the answer to schlocky Bond films, someone will shake the box and come up with something new

August 28th, 2007, 09:49 PM	#30
Stu Holmes Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 844	Someonw I know said more or less the same thing aobut Bourne Ultimatum -overboard witrh shaky cam "docu" style. This is just a report i have got from a film enthusiast. And that is the important thing - he is a guy-off-the-street but witrh an avid interest in film etc. So my conclusion (without yet, i admit having seen the Bourne.Ultimatam) is that the high amount of cam shake does apparently annoy some people.