"Chaos Cinema"

  On 8/14/2012 at 8:05 PM, Roksen Creek said:

Lol, I didn't say you were pedantic. I meant a pedantic argument could be used to say that all films cheat perception because of the frames.

by that order of ideas all real life cheats perception because of continuous analog time and our own bitrate...

Well the reality we perceive is an illusion, yes. We rely on our senses to interpret the world in their own way.

But now you are being very pedantic

i agree whit everything you said in this thread!

  On 8/14/2012 at 7:50 PM, Roksen Creek said:

OK, so I've just had a chance to watch both videos in full.

 

To be honest, as soon as I read the OP I knew what to expect. This is something I've noticed since the 90s, mainly because of watching a lot of martial arts films in my younger days. I used to be obsessed with them.

It was clear that at some point in the nineties there was a significant shift from showing the action on screen in a clear unobstructive way to a more hectic, chaotic approach. At the time I was wondering whether the filmakers were trying to convey, through editing and camera movement, the force and power of the martial arts rather than let the martial arts do the talking itself.

I took this to mean that the martial artists were just not as good as they used to be, they were older and needed help from the filmakers.

 

But then I noticed that this type filmaking was becoming prevalent also in other action films. To the point that I don't think I ever enjoyed any action scene since the 90s. It's nauseating, and I lose interest.

I recommend for people to watch the first video again, and at the point where the narrator mentions how modern action films can only be followed because of the soundtrack, to mute the sound. You'll be all over the place. Then keep it muted for the next example (an older movie) and you will be able to follow everything with no problem.

 

So why has this become prevalent in all action films? The narrator brings up some good points. But there is one obvious one that has been missed, and it is a similar reason to the martial arts one.

The skill on screen, whether it be fight scenes, car chases, whatever, is significantly lower than it used to be. Films are helped a lot more these days by CGI, digital compositing etc. If the action was displayed on screen as clearly as it used to be it would look unrealistic and unimpressive, and the CG more noticeable. The quick editing and camera movement masks this (I guess this is what MJ was talking about when saying cheating perception).

Stunt men aren't as important anymore, real objects/models are replaced by CG components. There's just a lot less effort being put into the set-pieces when filmed than what is put in post production.

I mean I'm not just blaming the CG, it's also the fact that filmakers are just not putting enough effort into the action sequences are masking it with this "chaos" cinema approach. They are cutting corners for sure and have to a certain degree forgotten the art-form of action cinema.

you just reiterate the generalizations from the article...or maybe you're all just too worried about the fate of mainstream cinema in general, i dunno.

did cameron get lazy with the cgi on avatar ? did lubezki suddenly switch to shaky erratic camera style given the huge artistic influence of michael bay ? i really don't understand the high expectations from mainstream, it's supposed to please everyone - kids like loud, fast and exploding and now it's easier to achieve so there you have it..how is this an actual issue for average watmm movie fan ? who actually gives a fuck about the movies he used as an example ? domino ? expendables ? really ?

the age factor is important too i think, hollywood action films are very ~12-17 y/o area, with age it's obvious you'll be more critical of them and not just because of editing/camera techniques.

  On 8/14/2012 at 7:02 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

lol avatar has far bigger problems than the action scenes...which btw, aren't that bad.

 

 

everyone except maybe chen, compson, and Overlook missed the point of that essay entirely.

Eugene makes good points and if anyting indie films will be more capable and prevalent as technology gets better and more affordable. So there is no reason to really worry, Hollywood just produces a lot of shit because they are worried about how much longer they are gonna be able to milk the cow, so to speak. I think Cameron is using the Avatar films as a way to push the technology where it needs to be so that one day theoretically one person could make a full length movie in their basement.

  On 8/14/2012 at 8:41 PM, eugene said:

i really don't understand the high expectations from mainstream, it's supposed to please everyone - kids like loud, fast and exploding and now it's easier to achieve so there you have it..how is this an actual issue for average watmm movie fan ? who actually gives a fuck about the movies he used as an example ? domino ? expendables ? really ?

do you guys really don't see how this affects society??? specially kids?

people get numb!

fuck me it's the same thing if you were not worried about what music kids listen nowadays, i know, it's just art afterall, fuck art, fuck artsy people and intellectuality, but damn, like kids say, music is their way of living, if it wasn't for music, they would die, music is my boyfriend, etc...

  On 8/14/2012 at 8:47 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 8:41 PM, eugene said:

i really don't understand the high expectations from mainstream, it's supposed to please everyone - kids like loud, fast and exploding and now it's easier to achieve so there you have it..how is this an actual issue for average watmm movie fan ? who actually gives a fuck about the movies he used as an example ? domino ? expendables ? really ?

kids like being raped if you inure it to them...

 

do you guys really don't see how this affects society??? specially kids?

 

people get numb!

What's wrong with Pixar?

marriage

love

girl/boy

dreams

parents

lol im sorry m jackson

i am fo reeeeal

... just relax, make your own art

art, pffffffffffffff....

  On 8/14/2012 at 8:41 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 7:50 PM, Roksen Creek said:

OK, so I've just had a chance to watch both videos in full.

 

To be honest, as soon as I read the OP I knew what to expect. This is something I've noticed since the 90s, mainly because of watching a lot of martial arts films in my younger days. I used to be obsessed with them.

It was clear that at some point in the nineties there was a significant shift from showing the action on screen in a clear unobstructive way to a more hectic, chaotic approach. At the time I was wondering whether the filmakers were trying to convey, through editing and camera movement, the force and power of the martial arts rather than let the martial arts do the talking itself.

I took this to mean that the martial artists were just not as good as they used to be, they were older and needed help from the filmakers.

 

But then I noticed that this type filmaking was becoming prevalent also in other action films. To the point that I don't think I ever enjoyed any action scene since the 90s. It's nauseating, and I lose interest.

I recommend for people to watch the first video again, and at the point where the narrator mentions how modern action films can only be followed because of the soundtrack, to mute the sound. You'll be all over the place. Then keep it muted for the next example (an older movie) and you will be able to follow everything with no problem.

 

So why has this become prevalent in all action films? The narrator brings up some good points. But there is one obvious one that has been missed, and it is a similar reason to the martial arts one.

The skill on screen, whether it be fight scenes, car chases, whatever, is significantly lower than it used to be. Films are helped a lot more these days by CGI, digital compositing etc. If the action was displayed on screen as clearly as it used to be it would look unrealistic and unimpressive, and the CG more noticeable. The quick editing and camera movement masks this (I guess this is what MJ was talking about when saying cheating perception).

Stunt men aren't as important anymore, real objects/models are replaced by CG components. There's just a lot less effort being put into the set-pieces when filmed than what is put in post production.

I mean I'm not just blaming the CG, it's also the fact that filmakers are just not putting enough effort into the action sequences are masking it with this "chaos" cinema approach. They are cutting corners for sure and have to a certain degree forgotten the art-form of action cinema.

 

you just reiterate the generalizations from the article...or maybe you're all just too worried about the fate of mainstream cinema in general, i dunno.

 

did cameron get lazy with the cgi on avatar ? did lubezki suddenly switch to shaky erratic camera style given the huge artistic influence of michael bay ? i really don't understand the high expectations from mainstream, it's supposed to please everyone - kids like loud, fast and exploding and now it's easier to achieve so there you have it..how is this an actual issue for average watmm movie fan ? who actually gives a fuck about the movies he used as an example ? domino ? expendables ? really ?

 

the age factor is important too i think, hollywood action films are very ~12-17 y/o area, with age it's obvious you'll be more critical of them and not just because of editing/camera techniques.

My generalisations are just based upon the films I've seen. And I'm not saying it's happening to all films, just more prevalent in action films, in my experience.

Certainly Cameron has not been lazy with CGI. That's the point, more work is going into CGI rather than on-set and into the art of editing.

You're right that I don't really like these types of films anymore anyway (but I did in the nineties when there was a shift) but that's not what the discussion is about.

The discussion is whether there has been a change in how action films are filmed and edited. Whether you like the genre or not is irrelevant.

I think a big part of it is simply "we'll fix it in post" attitude because of CGI... while it is a nice ability to have later when you realize the footage has a few mistakes... the main problem with it is there is a lack of universal or uniform understanding of what the CGI is gonna be like later in production. So the actors are less involved, the director, and eventually the 200 CGI artists slop together what they can given the shots they have. While when shooting with real sets/props the director knows that this is the most important part of the production because they have less options in post. Cameron's tech puts the importance back where it needs to be and makes that process feel special again as opposed to green walls.

same goes with music, shitty recordings fixed later with production tech

and photography...niques...

  On 8/14/2012 at 9:56 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

same goes with music, shitty recordings fixed later with production techniques...

Yep... and the internet I think hurts production as well because people don't let stuff sit on the shelf anymore before they decide its complete or before they have someone to share it with. I get the impression people will work on a track one night, then post the rough version of it the next morning to get "feedback" ... but through this process they are selling themselves short of building something to completion...they relish in the praise too early and the track loses its ability to transform into something else because some of the excitement is gone.

things are not precious anymore, one of the facts leading to this might be the recording medium, i mean, you would think about a photograph for bout 10 minutes before you took them because film is much more expensive than digital means...

Yeah definitely... these new digital tools are fantastic, but I think we are in the beginning stages of a kind of retro throwback to processes. Just because you can take infinite photos, doesn't mean you should. There is just this hyper active sense of racing to the top that no one is taking a breather to smell the flowers anymore. IDM kind of went through that phase up until Drukqs.... there was this feeling of progression where it was a race to see who could reach the top of the mountain first and then after that, everyone kind of was mystified on which direction they should go to next. With video production its all these After Effects plug-ins or presets that people trend towards because its the latest and greatest new thing... but without any real sense of applying this new tech with purpose.

  On 8/14/2012 at 9:26 PM, Roksen Creek said:

The discussion is whether there has been a change in how action films are filmed and edited. Whether you like the genre or not is irrelevant.

but this discussion pretty much ends when you deconstruct the concept of "action films" into particular directors' works and see how much variance there is and how closely hacks correlate with shitty camerawork/editing. imo, what you perceive as lowered standards is just the high exposure of michael bay turds and their clones, not some actual force that makes decent directors shoot/edit like bay.

  On 8/14/2012 at 10:38 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 9:26 PM, Roksen Creek said:

The discussion is whether there has been a change in how action films are filmed and edited. Whether you like the genre or not is irrelevant.

but this discussion pretty much ends when you deconstruct the concept of "action films" into particular directors' works and see how much variance there is and how closely hacks correlate with shitty camerawork/editing. imo, what you perceive as lowered standards is just the high exposure of michael bay turds and their clones, not some actual force that makes decent directors shoot/edit like bay.

lol at this being a "force".

  On 8/14/2012 at 10:38 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 9:26 PM, Roksen Creek said:

The discussion is whether there has been a change in how action films are filmed and edited. Whether you like the genre or not is irrelevant.

but this discussion pretty much ends when you deconstruct the concept of "action films" into particular directors' works and see how much variance there is and how closely hacks correlate with shitty camerawork/editing. imo, what you perceive as lowered standards is just the high exposure of michael bay turds and their clones, not some actual force that makes decent directors shoot/edit like bay.

Im just saying it is more prevalent thats all. Whether bay is to blame for it or not I dont know, but it doesn't make the point less valid.

There were silly action films in the 80s too but I dont remember them using this method.

  On 8/14/2012 at 10:53 PM, Roksen Creek said:

There were silly action films in the 80s too but I dont remember them using this method.

it's mainly because of the artists attitude towards it's own work, these transformers and avatars and battleships are made with the same attitude skrillex does his music...

btw, i don't know why, i don't think there's a single day since February that i don't think about the matter of this thread...

  On 8/14/2012 at 11:10 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

btw, i don't know why, i don't think there's a single day since February that i don't think about the matter of this thread...

no u

  On 8/14/2012 at 11:04 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 10:53 PM, Roksen Creek said:

There were silly action films in the 80s too but I dont remember them using this method.

yes, but assumed, they were not trying to be what they couldn't... right? at least it's my impression...

 

it's mainly because of the artists attitude towards it's own work, these transformers and avatars and battleships are made with the same attitude skrillex does his music...

Avatar while poorly written is way beyond any hollywood blockbuster of recent in terms of tech and ambition. And there's no way you make the most expensive film ever and not play to cliches... his goal is money, yes, but that money will be spent on future projects that continue to push the tech forward, so visionary filmmakers can produce CG films that are actually good... it's an ongoing process and I appreciate what he is doing.

IE someone like Kubrick in this new era...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTMYQ-mOFSw&feature=player_embedded#!

note: im not claiming Cameron is the new Kubrick, but that Cameron's tech will enable someone to reach the heights of Kubrick using digital special effects.