"I'M DIRECTING!"

what kind of faggot reddit shit is this thread

>sjWheedon movies in general
The issue with whedon is that he shoots everything like it's a tv show, no matter the subject. He's always got this flat, sitcom lighting and he doesn't know how to do a fight scene that doesn't include a bunch of tracking shots going from person to person.

The entirety of Magnolia

>tfw someone pointed out the "use lots of fast cuts to hide the actors not knowing how to fight" trick and now I notice it everywhere

everything alejandro gonzalez inarritu has ever done

The 360 degree camera pam circling the protag

what the fuck is wrong with making me some tacos, user?

Really only needs to be done well, if done well it puts the audience in the middle of the shit with no cutaways to break the tension like with Children of Men. The opening of Spectre didn't need it though.

Directors still thinking slow mo enhances the action 20 years after The Matrix need to fucking kill themselves.

It was kind of Sam Raimi's thing early on but then it got really shitty really fast in other films.

The second Dusk til Dawn did a lot of that and I thought it was retarded even back when I was 11 or something.

Fight scene editing is always weird to me. You either get some one-shot wuxia, alfonso cuaran shit that becomes more about the actors and the choreography, or you have shakycam and cuts every second because they're trying to either hide the fact that the actors can't fight, or they're trying too hard to make it feel "real".

>"discussing movies?! On my Cred Forums!!!?"

>if done well it puts the audience in the middle of the shit with no cutaways to break the tension like with Children of Men
The first time I saw that ending one shot scene, I didn't even realize it had been a single take until I was about half way through it. And that was only because it got to a lull in the action.

The 3rd Mummy movie did this shit and actually made Jet Li look like he couldn't fight.

I think some of the worst "feel real" examples have been in the Danial Craig bond flicks.

Bond...he's a living cartoon. He gives a bad guy a swift punch and down they go, or they resist and he's gotta use his wits... It's not fucking hard.

for TV shows, it would be:

>episode ends in a "shocking" moment

>plays credits silently

They've definitely been making an effort to make them somewhat more like the Fleming novels, making it more covert spy action than laser tables and crazy tech shit.

Then again one of the more recent movies starts with him fighting on top of a train.

>Created by Dick Wolf

I was exactly the same. That's the feel you get when it's done well.

Like I know it's standard to hate on Gravity here but I didn't even realise they did the single take gimmick in that film.

Same as in Irreversible and some other foreign film called "Kidnapped". Didn't even notice while watching it.

>"based on a true story" episode that's just a thinly veiled hit piece against a random celebrity

obvious answer: when they say the same of the movie.

bonus point if the title doesn't mean what you'd think it means.

I don't know how to explain but all modern day low budget horror movies have the same fucking look

It's all crisp and perfect looking. Maybe it's really digital idk? They always have the same cinematography. I can see how some people would say it looks good compared to some older movies but it's super generic and boring. It always pisses me off

Pretty much every 90s director. Tarantino, Andersons, Fincher, David O Russel, their films amount to very little except show off directing.

Modern directors, there is really not much showing off. Even the flashy directors are extremely conservative filmmakers. That is because auteur cinema is out of date, and they simply wouldn't get hired if they tried to get flashy.

It's also why all those show-off directors I mentioned are in a crisis. Hollywood is losing interest in their outdated brand of art and they know they can't stand a chance to superhero movies.

Definitely.
Another good example is the one in True Detective season 1. It's a little more noticeable because of the blocking of the scene, it ratchets up the tension like you wouldn't believe.
youtube.com/watch?v=s_HuFuKiq8U&feature=youtu.be

Do you think this is good or bad? Not being able to get work because you don't do things exactly like everyone else that plays it safe seems like a bad thing to me.

>it's paul greengrass movie not directed by paul greengrass

>thread about OTT directing
>everyone just talks about cinematography

You guys are knobs.

I hate it when the scene has excessive dramatised movement during dialogue, like a conversation in a kitchen and the wife is moving all over the place cooking. Yeah real people move and talk but they also stand/sit still and have eye contact occasionally. Stop trying to dress up your shitty boring scene with busywork in the hope the audience is so distracted they ignore your crappy script.

That'd be the writing and there's nothing wrong with that. Is the direction of "The Matrix" pretentious because they say "The Matrix" a bunch of times?
You do realize that the way writing works is usually the other way around, where the title is taken from a line in the text, right?

lensflare
infinitly whirling camera around the characters

long takes are good, actors have to work for once, and you don't get epilepsy from the 50cuts/second cuts.

whats dutch angles?

wow, I gotta watch The One again now.

kino

What the fuck is a long tracking shot and why do you guys hate it so much?

Im assuming its where everything is done in one shot I don't see how this is bad

>whats dutch angles?
why are even on a film board you fucking pleb

>That is because auteur cinema is out of date
>implying

That's why modern day movies are boring. I wan to be impressed with the directors film making knowledge I want to see style and something I havent seen before

>whats dutch angles?
Angles that are purposefully off kilter. They're mostly used to create a sense of confusion, and you see them a lot in drug montages, but most of the time they get talked about is when they get massively overused like in Battlefield earth.

See They're not inherently good or bad, but they're very noticeable, which tends to take the audience out of the experience if they're not done right.
They get a lot of shit because a lot of the time they are done wrong and are more about the director showing off than they are about actually enhancing the film. Plus they're easy to spot so you get a lot of idiots missing the point and claiming that they're killing cinema and all that shit.

Shit, not Battlefield Earth. Battle: Los Angeles rather

You mean like the look of It Follows? I know exactly what you mean.

No, I'm pretty sure you are thinking of Battlefield Earth. That Scientology shill movie with John Travolta.

I personally like the trunk shots from Tarantula. I wish he would think of ideas that we're equally as cool, but it reminds me that I'm watching his movie, which I'm fine with.

I think the Hateful 8 even had one in some capacity. Only possible exceptions I can think of are Kill Bill Vol. 2 and Jacki Brown...but I could be wrong.

Yes, you want to see that, the user posting on the television and film board, someone who is very interested in the media. People who go to film festivals might enjoy it, but movie-goers don't like that kind of thing. They like what's familiar and puts them right in their comfort zone where nothing is new or challenging. Laugh tracks, music to set the mood, all this stuff is a guiding line for the audience to easily recognize when to respond how and the movie can slowly and surely take you through a very easy emotional journey that we all recognize and enjoy.

>it's a Paul Greengrass movie DIRECTED by Paul Greengrass

Fuck I loved that movie.

Only wannabe Matrix movie that was worth a damn.

Vince Gilligan.

He fills his episodes with arty shots of just about everything in a room from clocks to sinks.

I agree with slow motion, but not in that example. The ending of pirates 3 was the only good part of the entire movie, bad slow motion is BvS beginning.

It's worse when they end it in a supposedly epic scene with a shitty indie rock song on the background. Breaking Bad did this a lot.

>"IM DIRECTING": The Movie

>pleb and proud
>wants all movies to look the same
>probably is an avid capeshit watcher

unless you're going all out john woo style

>no cuts
>that pan to the helicopter and back

Damn they must be masters of timing

the worst shot was in felina when the house beam was meant to symbolize the division between walt and skyler

I hate how true this is. I fucking hate plebs and normies so damn much

/thread

>Only possible exceptions I can think of are Kill Bill Vol. 2 and Jacki Brown...but I could be wrong.

There's one in Jackie Brown where Sam Jackson makes Chris Tucker get in the trunk of the car.

>Dutch angles

Came here to post this.

worst offenders starter pack

>godard
>inarritu
>aronofsky
>paul thomas anderson
>wes anderson
>mendes
>cuaron
>russell
>tarantino
>abrams

Slowmotion only really works when you're dealing with capeshit or martial arts. Then you can showcase a fighter's reflexes in the fights by slowing a shot down to show the split-second changes in stance and grips etc, and then speed it up again to show the outcome. It looks better than hiding it all behind a shakycam or making them do pirouettes to display who's more skilled, as well.

Too bad it's pretty much never employed like that, but rather just used to show two people fighting regularly really slow, or people flying in front of explosions. And the slow-motion is always too extreme.

you mean the Bay shot? only acceptable when Bay does it.

Those shots where the camera revolves quickly around the character while they look amazed/terrified/constipated at some indistinct point in the distance.

Bonus points when all the spinning shows is empty sky.

And yet it was still a thousand times better than the edgy piece of shit comic it was based on.

Modern horrors all look like some short made by a youtube channel with 150k subs.

This scene is pure kino, what the fuck are you complaining about? It's not like the whole fucking show was in pretentious continuous shot. You're mad because a director did his job? An example of "look at me, I'm directing" would be something like The Raid 2 or Only God Forgives where every scene tries to be a Rennaisance painting. Form over substance.

I posted it as an example of a well done tracking shot you dumb nigger. Read the thread before you run your mouth

God, how I hate stupid faggots like you who couldn't just appretiate a movie. Cred Forums is full of this kind of scum. Just look at this thread.

>LOOK AT ME MOM I'M KINO'ING

Literally anything Snyder.

He's the type of person that thinks badass is an actual adjective and then he'll throw in student film level biblical references to seem deep.

Its like if Michael Bay suddenly pretended he was smart.

>Only God Forgives
I actually like that movie. It felt eerily similar to Drive, another favorite of mine.

>Thread called I'M DIRECTING
>only argue about camera work

Google what does a director do please

yeah bro just turn off your brain dudes

John Woo used slow mo as part of his bullet ballet stuff. As opposed to one single shot he used it on and off for entire sequences.

It's shit when it's just one random shot in an action scene.

everything Inarritu has done

>tfw I learned what Dutch angle means from gelbooru tags

>Durr let's go kill people because the fabric tells us
that shit was so stupid.

This.

all the 00's playstation 2 action movies

I love pic related and Joseph Kahn but it's the definition of I'M DIRECTING

just take a look at this

youtube.com/watch?v=mxoVMuWkluA

youtube.com/watch?v=vBCeFJ66oRM

Give examples other than cinematography then.

Whedon in general

He has such a bland style yet seems to shoot everything as if it's epic

Not that user, but the line deliveries, blocking of characters, character (dis)orientation and the acting in general in the prequels scream "I'M DIRECTING" from Lucas.

Also you can see a bit of that in ROTJ too.

>I don't understand the point of directing so I'll laugh at anything that deviates from half-assed stock shots
Good for you, idiot.

That's a self-aware style of I'M DIRECTING though.

I definitely agree, all his stuff looks like a tv show.
His weird flat lighting contrasted with his tryhard ensemble spanning long shots in the Avengers movies he directed were fucking terrible.
He got better with the lighting in Ultron, but he always seemed to return to the same shit.

It's because Age of Ultron had a different cinematographer, not that Whedon himself learned more about lighting set and composition inbetween those two movies.

Yeah that makes sense.

Jesus christ, that's fucking horrendous.

Opinions on this long take?
youtu.be/vV1Vzn6xwqQ

>bad slow motion is BvS beginning
neck yourself

Holy shit.

You fucking made my week user, This is the best thing I've ever seen.

Shaky cam is legitimately the worst kind of shooting techniques, takes me out of the movie completely.

It's a good thing that it's only used a lot by hack YA adaptation directors I suppose.

It's pretty good, clearly going for a more voyeuristic/naturalistic feel, and it helps that the choreography is relatively grounded. If he was flipping around everywhere it would have been a little ridiculous.
It was skirting the line of ripping off Oldboy though, especially with everyone rolling around in pain on the floor.

I feel like you're conflating effective directing with needlessly flashy directing, they're not the same thing.

name a more kino scene than this

literally cant

Based Jackie said it.
youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ

NO TECHNIQUE IN PARTICULAR, BUT RATHER GENERAL STYLE; EXEMPLUM GRATIA: DAVID FINCHER —TO ME, HE IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL POSEUR DIRECTOR.

>helicopter shots like in the end of tfa
>slow down, speed up shot of an action
>shaky cam screams dude visceral lmao but you cant see shit so why are you filming

It's like a video game cutscene.

I hate how video game cinematics always have the camera spastically flying all over the place. Yeah you have 100% free control of the camera in 3D animations but show some fucking restraint, that shit only gets underage kids hard.

Why do you post under different tripcodes Rei? Does autism cause a multiple personality disorder?

Any fucktard camera movement

>Long takes
Only if it feels out of place; Alfonso Cuaron and Tarkovsky for instance fucking rule at them. So does John Woo

that's as cool as it gets

There's nothing inherently wrong with flashy techniques or a filmmaker being a bit ostentatious, considering film is an audiovisual medium where style is substance. Only thing that matters in the end is, is it used properly and for good reasons within the context of the narrative, themes, tone, etc.?

When Wachowskis use slow motion in Matrix, it's not just because it looks cool, there's a logic to time slowing down to show off Neo's newly aquired skills and situational awareness. When Snyder does it in Watchmen, he think it looks cool, but he misses the point of the source material, it just ends up looking vulgar and gratuitous.

Same with the pseudo-documentary shaky handheld/quick editing aesthetic of Greengrass, he does it well to reflect the chaotic and unpredictable nature of Bourne and give its action a sense of immediacy and realism, but when Bond tries to copy that style it doesn't work because that's not suited to the character and its pulpy, apolitical roots.

The Revenant. Holy fucking shit.
It sort of worked in Birdman since it works with the subject of the movie, but in The Revenant is was just obnoxious LOOK AT THESE CRAZY CAMERA STUNTS WE'RE PULLING WHOAH.
Impressive no doubt, but gratuitous and done for its own sake rather than to the film's benefit.

What was it called, Face Study? When you just look at a character's face for 2 minutes for an I'm acting + I'm directing double combo? That shit always annoyed me.

Also, Tarantino in the beginning of Hateful 8 with the 3 MINUTE LONG scene of some cross in the snow with ominous music, as well as weird as fuck snow-and-wagon montages with stupidly out of place modern music. I get it Quentin, you filmed it in 70mm, we all get it. Fucking calm down.

That shit was crazy. I was sure they used it to mask a cut, if they're not bullshitting and that really is part of the same take then god damn.

Having style isn't necessarily try-hard

This user summed it up pretty well. Does the technique serve the story/the character/the theme/the tone? If not, it's unnecessary.

This

Peckinpah

kek

Totally agree with all of that. Only thing is that the Revenant retroactively made me dislike Birdman because all my defences of its thematically appropriate pretentiousness were proved wrong by seeing how sincerely pretentious Innaritu is through the Revenant

>godard
what?

itt people who don't know what a director actually does. move along.

Those fucking cross-shaped rubbles in the background made me laugh more than any Marvel quips in the theater

Deliberately inappropriate music choice(ie upbeat music with a violent scene)

>slow down
>speed up
>slow down
>speed up
over and fucking over again. It's in every movie he makes.

/thread

what you mean the church scene in kingsman isn't the pinnacle of movie making? I quite like the film but that sequence was just too much.

Comic book was a satire of edgy comic books, the movie missed the point so much it's hilarious

I haven't seen Kingsman. I was thinking Kubrick or Tarantino, since they're the quintessential tryhard directors deluxe starter pack, but a lot of hacks try to emulate them to be edgy.

Whenever Fincher brings attention to the camera (cgi shots entering small spaces etc)

t. Cinemasins

>that gay as fuck scene in pirates 3
Assuming you're talking about the villain's ship being shot apart (I don't remember there being any other slow motion scenes, but could be wrong), that is literally the only good bit in that shitfest.

What an embarrassing thread.

for you

This this this.

It doesn't even look good. It's just ugly and too much in your face. The same with Spectre's opening scene.

Long takes are good when they're barely noticeable yet by the time they end you are really impressed

t. every thread made in the last 4 years except a few

In fact it's almost exactly like the train scene from that Final Fantasy XIII intro.

It worked really well in Evil Dead but then you have romantic comedies doing it and you're thinking "what does this add to the film"?

i tried explaining how cringeworthy that shot was to my friends, but instead i got laughed at for not turning my BRAIN OFF BRO xD

lol wtf. Casual movie goers couldn't care less about camera angles. And all the 90s directors named in the earlier post are definitely not in crisis. Normies love their films. Gone Girl, Silver Linings Playbook, Django and Grand Budapest all did very well.

Similar to whacky camera angles, but is much worse, is whacky frame angles. Any time I watch something and the camera is diagonal I immediately turn it off

The idea behind "Sucker Punch" is to be a "videogame cutscene" homage.

KEVIN DUNN

This.

gone girl is such trash at least the other 3 are watchable

Please don't compare me to those degenerates.

Checked, but not really. Visionary director, Zack Snyder had this in mind:
>How can I make a film that can have action sequences in it that aren't limited by the physical realities that normal people are limited by, but still have the story make sense so it's not, and I don't mean to be mean, like a bullshit thing like Ultraviolet or something like that.

Really makes you think, huh?

>That fucking shot where they zoom into the scope

He's such a shit director.

jesus christ what dumb thread. a new low for Cred Forums. just watch lifetime original movies.

Good direction and cinematography I always thought.

When does he get his red suit in that show anyway? I stopped watching at this ep

The shot from Magnolia.

>Long take

There's a lot of hidden cuts there m8

>How can I make a film that can have action sequences in it that aren't limited by the physical realities that normal people are limited by,
Well for one, you're making a movie for real people who understand the limitations of reality and how physics are suppose to apply, and once you begin to break those rules constantly, it starts to piss people off and causes the audience to not care anymore.

Especially when the characters of the movie get kicked by a giant samurai robot and go flying 50 feet and just come out none the worst for wear.

How am I, the movie going public, suppose to care about characters who can't get hurt?

It's like a film student found his way on the set of a 200 million dollar movie.

this is the only right answer to the thread so far

i own this movie and it's fucking great

fucking cool motorcycles, fucking tons of hot babes, several comfy moments like in the desert, etc

anyone who's debating watching this, please do, it's just a great time

This really depends. If it's used to tell the story and at the same time look cool, it's a fantastic effect. Look at sherlock holmes for example, or snatch.

I also think it works extremely well to add weight to something suspenseful, or when the story states that something is truly iminent.

this, or when soundtrack try to force too much emotion

hate this show. So fucking pretentious

>cancer trip
>cancer pic
>cancer post
>cancer opinion
>all in caps
kys

For example.

What's biblical about your webm?

He didn't say it's in that particular webm. The sophomore biblical references are all over his DC films.

obvious bait

>Pepsi vs Mt. Dew

Whoever wins, we lose.

no

Final ep of Season 1

Nope. 2 or 3 scenes at best.

Yeah but in Bad Boys 2 it doesn't circle the protags, it circles the whole shootout.

youtube.com/watch?v=9o5znwfBcx0

Also he literally wrote in EVERY Snyder's movie.

What's so bad about dutch angles?

and Paul Greengrass

holy shit i'm actually mad from watching that

UGH

this

wow, maybe you should stop watching movies at all

this has literally no sense to exist

nothing if used well, they just watched that scientology movie and said "wow that is so bad, you are right Nostalgiacritic, this film is pretentious and dutch angle is pretentious too"

No he didn't.
It's in the cinematography, in the story, in the dialogue, it's everywhere.
>2 or 3 scenes at best
Don't be retarded.

Lex Luthor's entire character revolves around biblical references.

this is unironically great. The guys who made this are probably 100% self aware

I didn't think Birdman was that good, but the long shot of him getting locked outside in his underwear, and having to fastwalk through Times Square was genius and incredibly well done

that one was really interesting. Hated that movie, loved that scene

>shot of a huge alien ship
>BWUUUUUUUUUUM!

>No he didn't.
>>slow down
>>speed up
>>slow down
>>speed up
>over and fucking over again. It's in every movie he makes.

>It's in the cinematography, in the story, in the dialogue, it's everywhere.
or 3 scenes at best
>Don't be retarded.
You will not bring real examples instead of insults are you?

>Lex Luthor's entire character revolves around biblical references.
Nope. God vs Man theme is Greek mythology nor has anything with Judo-Christian where it is me and my god vs you and your gods.
Or you was distracted by Christian-theme painting in Lex's mansion?

Snyder cult is mad.

>projecting this hard

Not all of us learned about dutch angles from some youtube-faggot, son.

Pro-tip: nobody gives a fuck about some shit movie using dutch angles.

look at me I'm directing: the director

youtube.com/watch?v=I8z7-DIa1As

black and white, longshots, dutch angles,handheld camera, naturalistic light, improvisation, non-genre movies, authorial films. Fuck you movies are shit, give me television shows and capeshit all day every day until I day sad, fat and alone

entire movie in dutch angle is not worse than entire movie in long shot

kek you rekt me good sir. Still nothing bad about them, its just a way to frame

fine until her feet leave the ground. Who the fuck jumps into gun fire?

kickstarter for Bike Fighter when?

my dad loves this movie and this scene in particular

>when Bond tries to copy that style it doesn't work because that's not suited to the character and its pulpy, apolitical roots

But the Bond franchise was always stealing techniques and themes from whatever they could find. Heck, they even made a Star Wars movie.

But both are pulp I wouldn't say Moonraker was a Star Wars copy at all it remained true to original Bond style
I can't remember any deviation
If you think just because he went to space and shot lasers makes it Star Wars I'd have to disagree

He's talking about stealing tropes, not copying story.

You really think Moonraker had zero to do with the popularity of Star Wars?

I swear to god Hunger Games' operator was Michael J. Fox who was filming with one hand and collecting donations to Parkinson research with other one.

No he said techniques and themes and if you read the post he was replying to we were talking and films using techniques from other films without knowing what makes them work in the original
I was contending that's not the case with Moonraker

i cant read

I agree with the long take but only if it's improperly done. Something like Tarkovsky or Tarr do it right but something like that one scene in Children of Men or that whole intro snow scene in Avengers 2 is way too try hard. Birdman was perhaps the worst in this regard.

that overrated shit true detective long take

>But the Bond franchise was always stealing techniques and themes from whatever they could find. Heck, they even made a Star Wars movie.
Absolutely but they stole settings, genres, etc. and threw the Bond character into them. By the Brosnan era the franchise was tired because it hadn't evolved much in tone (Dalton movies were more serious but shot without gimmicks), and the Craig era was supposed to be a gritty reboot, applying all the visual codes embraced by post9-11 spy fiction like Bourne or 24 (surveillance cameras and screens everywhere to either avoid or follow, sense of urgency due to paranoia and unpredictable threats, no glamor in set design). The thing about the Bond franchise is it doesn't endure because of the films themselves - everybody seems to be shitting on the Moore and Brosnan era - but because of the character: always elegant, always in control, seductive, cracking joke... This translates well to a classicist approach to filmmaking, like in Dr; No, Connery is iconized sitting at a casino table and casually lighting a cigarette, without any camera movement, but the set design is remarkably elegant. The filmmaking is equal to the character: a bit mysterious, controlled and seductive.

youtube.com/watch?v=0xDj3NRYTU8

But the handheld/quick cut chaotic approach is in stark contrast with the character of Bond itself. So you'll get a chaotic chase scene where you cannot tell what's happening, but at the end you still get Bond cracking a one-liner and adjusting his tie to stay elegant. It's tonally retarded and it doesn't work. Casino Royale is a film where he literally sits at a table and plays cards for half the movie, he's not a fugitive on the run or urgently trying to stop terrorists. The character loses a lot of charm too.

Meanwhile if you took away those aesthetics from Bourne, you would lose a lot of thematic meaning and visceral excitement.

youtube.com/watch?v=dDf8yGU2kxU

Nah, I'd crooked shots don't scream immature, edgy, and nihilistic to you then you have shit taste

youtube.com/watch?v=MXcLybhbChQ
this scene was the most kino thing to come out of pirates 3, you nigger

I see what you mean but I don't consider Craig Bond to be Bond anymore

How the fuck has no one mentioned Refn yet? Especially his last two movies. This guy is fucking nuts...

When the story behind the film is talked about more than the movie itself.

"It took 12 years to make!"
"Leonardo and the crew suffered so hard filming this, just look at how cold it was! And wow, he literally ate some organ. Method acting!"

Using the same actors over and over in your movies.
>Look ma, I have no style and my movies have no meaningful theme or even sense but I use the same actors so that means I'm an original auteur!

Boyhood actually is talked more about it's substance than the 12 years meme. It's only here and other RLM circle jerks where you retards spam that as if it meant something

I bet you're thinking of Wes Anderson but you're wrong

Every single scene (except pilot) from Sopranos with a dutch angle is goat

This guy is directing movies with production budgets of 1/4 billion dollars.

Just think about that for a second.

Him, Tarantula, couple of other hacks which I can't remember because theri flicks are so bland

>It's supposed to be shit

I think "out of place" is hugely subjective. Personally I couldn't stand the long takes in Children of Men or The Revenant. They felt extremely show-off, he made the tension of the scenes hinge too much on anticipating the cut or wondering how the camera would move and less the emotion on screen.

It was put in there as a possible cut if they needed one, but they claim they didn't

Different directors senpai. Cuaron is a good example of Lubezki cinematography, Innaritu is a cheap and useless copy of it. Children of men is the one that gets everything right, whereas say I'd say the beginning battle of the Revenant fits your description of its show-off artificiality

I was using two different examples, and I think they're very similar. The "war" scenes at the beginning of the Revenant and the two in Children of Men all function the same way. Shit goes way off the rails in 5 seconds, then the camera spends the whole time spinning around all the mayhem and carnage. To me it seems very flat. If you used the same scene without the long take and just launched into a mess of kill shots and explosions it would criticized as gratuitous violence. Some people seem to think the long take adds artistry to that but I think it makes that stuff worse.

They're totally impressive technical feats and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy them, but I don't think its the be-all of cinema to just time a steadicam to move past an explosion.

Massive amounts of headroom, essentially doing the Rule of Thirds vertically for every shot.

Ida was the absolute worst at this. Essential things were getting cropped out of the bottom of the shot for no reason at all

Snyder is a fucking hack

pure SHITE

Every time I see those 2-shots-per-second fight scenes, I always imagine an overweight old bearded guy with long hair and a baseball cap furiously butchering a film reel with an axe while screaming "I'M EDITING!!!" at the top of his lungs.

>t. dumb person who doesn't know he's dumb

It's art. It's entirely subjective. The only science involved is whether the audience receives something the way the director intended e.g. propaganda.

Please explain how ur narrative of a movie is objectively better than literally infinite other viewpoints.

lmaoing at ur life retard stay in afterschool

Slow motion worked pretty well in Inception

>It's art. It's entirely subjective
The things plebs say

Wow great video, I had no idea Jackie was his own director, this dude just keeps getting more awesome

that scene in all the Michael Bay movies where the camera spins around the main character

Literally every episode of Breaking Bad.

I was gonna say that but I honestly don't think it looks that bad, plus it's like his signature thing

Have you ever seen that done right? Just curious

same, after we got out I started criticizing the move and they were all like
"It did what it was suppose to user, why do you care so much?"

>thinking badass is an actual adjective and then throwing in student film level biblical references to seem deep.

So basically the same thing every single comic book writer has been doing for the past 20-odd years?

He's perfect for capeshit.

Come on why do you have to be so fucking serious, maybe there's no reason to do it but can't you at least enjoy the fact that at least someone is doing something in their work because they want to enjoy what they do. Fuck whenever I see this I get so happy for Bay being Bay making this and have fun with it.

Is like with this user I didn't agree so much with this thread but I saw a dude going 1.000 km/h and fight on a bike, based Jackie being based and a lot of bullets from Bay. Stop letting the world offend your sensibility and enjoy the kernel of gold you find in the shit.

>long takes are good, actors have to work for once, and you don't get epilepsy from the 50cuts/second cuts.
30 seconds or so is fine. But directors who have big 10+ minute set piece one-takes are just showing off.

Children of Men did it really well though

What's so bad about it?

I've heard a lot of bitching about it but I've yet to hear what, exactly, is wrong with an aerial shot.

Any Baz Luhrman scene where he just throws a bunch of annoying shit at you in sensory overload, particularly where that includes close-ups of gurning, or cartoon sound effects. I get that it's usually consistent with what the film is trying to convey, but there are far less obnoxious ways of doing that.

Off the top of my head, examples include stuff surrounding the Capulets party from Romeo + Juliet and early scenes from Moulin Rouge.

Framing every other shot so that there's a ton of negative space. Pretty much just the director screaming "Guys, guys, look! I'm not centralizing my shots and doing something different! Acknowledge me as having a signature style!".

Long take tracking shots.

A lot of the problems of bad directing tend to not be visible or be misattributed or even arguable. For instance, bad direction might make an actor look awkward or sound off in a take, but that often gets blamed on the actors.

Cinematography is direction, but it's also camerawork and editing too.

Camera abuse in a work not deliberately trying to go for the documentary or live-footage style. I'm talking shit like dirt or liquid getting on the lens intentionally. I didn't mind it in Saving Private Ryan for instance because it was deliberately trying to look like a wartime documentary, but I hate it when movies not going for that aesthetic suddenly use it just in one scene because it's "visceral" or some shit.

maybe it's serves the narrative you dumb autist kys

It's done well in a lot of comedies.

>So when an actor over delivers on an emotional moment a lot of people will mock them by going, "I'M ACTING!"

This is also an example of "I'M DIRECTING!" considering the director is supposed to whip the actor into shape if they're not acting good.

>all capeshit is bad meme
fuck off

yes, using this frame composition regardless of the context of the scene serves the narrative.

this fucking shit

wtf

youtube.com/watch?v=GR589pyshxI

these people are supposed to be walking btw

The graphic novels commonly understood to comprise the very best in the medium don't exactly fare well when compared to real literature such as novels and plays.

its the only time i really enjoyed a helicopter shot and i hardly liked ep7

agreed. It works in Train Spotting and the intro to Bojack Horseman tho.

He's such an awful director

I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. What am I missing?

It's done in Seven Samurai and Stray Dog.

>I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. What am I missing?
see
>these people are supposed to be walking btw

The actors' body position and motion doesn't match their apparent motion. It looks like they're standing on one of those conveyor belt walkways in an airport inexplicably laid out outside for some reason.

In the spinny ones, the actors' bodies are basically spinning in place while the actor stands still. In the moving ones, an actor is standing still and apparently floating over the ground.

Either way, it looks unnatural and stands out once you notice it.

tl;dr: instead of standing them on a dolly for some reason, if you want actors to move in a show, just tell them to walk.

watch house of the devil

>THA DEVIL IS NOT WELCOME HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR

seriously?

the prequels are some of the least flashy, laziest examples of directing you'll ever see in a big budget movie.

>laziest
pleb

I love this IF it's done right, when the song and the scene match like a glove. It can set a song in a new light or twist the context of the lyrics.

It sucks when the song is super popular already or so completely obvious that it's beating you over the head as you listen. Then it's obnoxious.

Kubrick could get away with it in A Clockwork Orange, but I'm mostly tired of people imitating that "gruesome violence set to he classical orchestral music" thing.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

It looks cool. It's meant to be noticed too.

It doesn't look cool, it looks like they just started floating or spinning in place for no reason.

Let's agree to disagree.

Torque is so fucking good

>implying two people can have a different impression of an aesthetic medium
Kill yourself.

:^)

This. Inarritu is possibly the biggest hack working right now.

What's wrong with the shot?

You know what this reminds me of? Those shots where the character has a camera attached to them with an arm so anytime they turn the camera turns too. It's disorienting as fuck, I'm not sure how to explain it other than that. Maybe sometimes that's the point and I wouldn't say it's always bad but I can't think of any time off the top of my head that it was done well.

Dream sequences always make me roll my eyes.

>inside man
>25th hour
>do the right thing
>malcolm x
He's got a lot of dumbass personal opinions, and a big mouth. But he's a fine director.

maybe you just dont like films anymore, maybe you actually never liked anything

>I can't think of any time off the top of my head that it was done well.
youtu.be/2wVOX2RWSDI

Close-ups.

Wide angle lense.

Breaking the fourth wall.

This isn't what I'm talking about. There's an arm attached to the actor and the camera is on the end of the arm and pointed back at the character, so you see them and behind them.

Like this, but there are different types of this even.

youtube.com/watch?v=RST8rKXRIj4

too bad for him

First done by Frankenheimer in Seconds, then by Scorsese in Mean Streets. I think it worked in both of those cases, but yeah, usually it adds little. Aronofsky trying to make out he invented it and calling it 'the Snorricam' was a classic of superstar director bullshit.

I've watched this show twice, and didn't notice either time until just now

this

I'm with you on Stray Dog fucking Peckinpah was the shit, I can't remember how this apply to Seven Samurai but I love that movie

Fukken saved

I thought this was gonna be more like Based Jackie talking about the craft... I'm dissapointed... I really like Clockers tho