@@FlowersInHisHair I think the reason they were there was to show of tech they thought was better in there heads. I also think Tarkin definitely didn't need to be there for his scenes. All they did was make a film icon look like weird plastic.
@@stephencunniffe823 Lucas Film apparently did consider having Tarkin on the hologram thingie as an alternate option, but looked at the CGI and thought "Yeah, this is great! Totally realistic!" as opposed to anyone pointing out the obvious fact that Tarkin looked like a videogame character who wandered onto the wrong set
It is a shame that these WhatCulture videos (almost?) never include sound from the films they are covering. It is doubly weird when the video is discussing a particular sound (the Wilhelm scream) and never plays it during the video.
That's what I came in here to say. Leave it to a RUclips video discussing an "iconic" sound effect, but then *never give you the sound effect.* Amazing.
LENS FLARES! Damn... I remember when Doug Trumbull fought to include the effect for "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" because they added to the idea of the UFO's actually being there with the actors... the only time the effect actually worked for me. Most other uses make me want to involuntarily squint.
The Third Man uses a lot of Dutch angles. So much that when they finished making it, the crew gave the director, Carol Reed, a spirit level so he could get his camera level for his next film.
Yeah, but its a good film. Battlefield Earth was not. When people left The Third Man they were not going "Those camera angles sucked", they were going "Damn, that zither song is stuck in my head". Hell even with Battlefield Earth the Dutch Angles became something tangible to rag on as having the part of your brain that holds your memories of the film removed was not an option.
300's speed ramp was exceptional (if you understand the camera techniques used in making it), drone footage in The Gray Man was one of the first in use, the Wilhelm's Scream is a classic, stage craft is new and has a bright future. C'mon, kind of a hit and miss with this entrance... You can't judge a film maker by the tools he/she uses. How about innovating WhatCulture?
If JJ Abrams and Michael Bay made a movie together, it would be battling Starship Transformers and no scene would have anything fewer than 50 Starships in it.
6:00 How dare people who paid good money to see your movie want to be able to hear what is going on and understand the story..... don't they respect your artistic vision?
The biggest issue with lens flares in movies usually is their lack of plausibility, meaning they appear to come out of nowhere in scenes with little visible light sources and their shape, color and structure not being based on a physical correlation of a camera's technical specs and how it would actually capture light. That's why flares (and by extension glares and glows) added artificially often simply look out of place and annoying. On that HFR thing: I think the biggest issue with this are the challenges in post production. You just have a ton of much more data to deal with and just like the race to higher resolutions this exponentially increases the risk of even minor glitches and imperfections standing out more.
Hardcore Henry is a 2015 sci-fi flick that took the first person view to the absolute limit and even seems to poke fun at itself for doing so. The entire film is shot through the viewpoint of the protagonist on his bloody character arc of redemption, revenge and self-discovery after an amnesic episode. It's used to bring the viewer right into the main character's violent and frenetic quest for knowledge while the method obscures details in a scene which would otherwise be visible, so you're almost constantly wanting the character to "look over there" or "pay attention to this" and if used well, then the whole thing works well so long as you're "in sync" with the character's desires. It's almost like an FPS video game "cut scene" that you can't control.
I don't think the problem with Gemini man was the frame rate. The much larger problem was that the movie didn't make a lot of sense, and the young Will Smith character had a lot of uncanny valley going on. I didn't really find the drone use in The Gray Man excessive. It was obvious, sure, but it did kind of give you a sweeping lay of the land. And I think 300 made *better* use of speed ramping than The Matrix. The Matrix uses it for a "isn't this cool?" effect, whereas 300 uses it for dramatic violent sequences. As far as Tenet goes, the problem wasn't "adventurous sound design". The problem was you couldn't hear half of what characters said. It's fine to obscure dialogue where ambiguity serves the story, or when you want to keep things hidden from the audience, but Tenet does it for no perceptible reason. It's just Nolan's "artistic" statement.
When every other shot in 300 has a speed ramp, that's excessive. It was numbing after a while. The Matrix's use was definitely cool while also being pioneering. It even fit thematically with what they were trying to convey with the story of the film: that the world and its impressions on the senses was an artificial construct.
@@haysoos123 Totally. _Matrix_ did it to (not only show-off the cool visuals but also to) give an artificial feel to scenes that took place in an artificial space within the story. One's perception of time is under one's control, to a degree, within the Matrix. _300_ did it purely to show-off the cool visuals. Within the story, it makes no sense at all. And it was beyond excessive.
I have a bit of a tradition. Whenever I recognise a Dutch angle or Wilhelm scream, I have to say, "Dutch angle/Wilhelm." Similiar to how I spot Hitchcock's cameos. I call it "The Hi, Hitch" game.
There seems to be a complete divide about the Wilhelm Scream -- some love it, others hate it, and believe it or not some do not even notice it as a cliche.
I can't say that I agree with the FPV drone shots. I don't think they're dead yet; they can be useful when utilized correctly a la Ambulance, and in The Gray Man, there were certain set pieces where a boom camera just wouldn't fit, like the hospital establishing shot.
I didn't like the examples of the FPV shots done well, let alone the footage of _Gray Man._ Hell, it was irritating in the opening sequence of _Die Hard 3_ because that straight-down view between the tall buildings is just never an angle you view something at - unless you have a glass-bottom helicopter or you fancy hang gliding. Which you don't. All the flips and swaying motion does nothing to improve a bad action sequence and a good action sequence doesn't need it.
The only good use of this I can think of is when the scene is heard from the character's point. Saving Privet Ryan, for example, Normandy. But as I type this, would ear ringing suit this list?
Agree. Nolan saying people were too conservative regarding sound was just a way to hide poor craftsmanship behind ‘you’re not sophisticated enough to appreciate my genius’ douchebaggery.
Glad you added Thor at the end. I seen a trailer for it a few months ago and thought it just looked wrong. Wasn't sure what it was, and thought it was the over the top vibrant colours and cgi. Now I know why. I would add two more techniques from the same tv show to the list. NCIS vaseline lens for a lot of Gibb's scenes and what I call deja vu. That is used mainly in the office scenes where you see the same people walking around in the back ground, again, again and again. Once you notice it, it becomes a game to see how many times you can spot it with your partner or family. Red shirt, blue dress, suit bloke etc etc
Nothing has ruined StageCraft, it's just shown some weaknesses and directors going forward will be more aware of the limitations when planning films. Just like any tool, it isn't universally applicable, so film makers have to learn where it works and where it doesn't, and this one has only just started being used so it's very much a work in progress.
Oddly, there was an HGTV show (of all places) that I use to watch, somewhere in the mid 2000's I think, that used both shaky cam and Dutch angles for who knows why, ruining those techniques for me way before the movies did. They're a visually unnecessary and irritating feature that jumps out right away to me and makes me rage quit if you will.
I HATED the lens flare in those Star Trek movies. The cams were pretty shaky too. So many of the cool special effects shots whip by so quickly you can't even really see them, and all the cool interiors on the Enterprise are all hidden by the damn lens flare!
They whipped by those shots so quickly, Brad, so that you wouldn't see that the sets were just some pine 2X4s and plywood sheets nailed together and spray painted with Krylon! Lens flare and fast passes hide a lot.
Gemini Man was SO bad, I think judgement of any technical aspect should be suspended until we see it actually ruin a film. I think this was the case of a film ruining, well… everything. It was awful.
I was disappointed by it. I had high hopes that it would at least explore an interesting premise. They didn't even do enough research to understand what a clone was, though. They kept acting like Smith's character got photocopied.
I can dismiss the technical aspect immediately: blurring implies speed. When there is not blurring, objects appear to move slowly and less dynamically. Comic books without blurring and speed lines look awful. Same goes for film and sports on TV.
I was right there with you on most of these critiques, but I found myself watching Grey Man going "holy shit that's a creative camera shot, ok that's done with a drone". There are a couple of simply brilliant compositions with that tech. And yeah, a few over the top ones that didn't really vibe. But the drone shots were one of my big takeaways from the cinematography as "damn, we're going somewhere with this". I remember I commented to friends "You used to have to pay to hire a helicopter, a pilot, a camera person, clear the airspace, have a bunch of film running for only a few minutes, and orchestrate it all at a high cost to get a big aerial shot back in the day" Now you can do it with an FPV drone digitally. There were a couple of brilliant memorable shots using the FPV drones that really made me feel we've just started to scratch the surface of this new form of cinematography. So that's my only critique of this video, Grey Man didn't ruin the cinematic trick, we've only just begun when it comes to FPV drone cinematography. It's so new.
Totally agree - it was the best out of them. I remember talking to a friend who had seen and liked it and remarking about the use of the character Kahn and them saying "Benedict Cumberbatch was in the original series too?" Shared universe - the early days🙄.
@@jules-yi8rn Entertaining Yes, as a Star Trek Film No. One word - Khanteleportation - their version of Apparate/Disapparate in the Potterverse. Too lazy to grapple with science? let's do magic instead. Nerd enuf for u? Basically ended trek premise of boldly going in a starship ... to explore new worlds. Travel light years with khanteleportation with pinpoint accuracy.
some shot work and some didn't. I am not sure if it was who work on it or the way it was film. At times it look fine and then you get the uncanny valley
Movies of old did shoot at 24 frames per second, but most of the film projectors had shutters that showed the same frame image three times. The main job of the shutter was to block the projection of the frame as the next frame was advanced. There were projectors that did just show the frame in one take, before blocking the image so the next image could be advanced, but they are known for a throbbing flicker. The image would being seen compared to the image being block would show the image three times longer then the blackness of the blocked image. Something like: _1-1-1-X 2-2-2-X 3-3-3-X_ A three panel shutter, would show the same image three times, and also block the image 3 times. This would even out the flicker, so instead of long image followed by a short blip of darkness, both the image and darkness had a roughly equal amount of time. Something like: _1-X-1-X-1-X 2-X-2-X-2-X 3-X-3-X-3-X _ This would cause less chance of the eye or brain of seeing a flicker, and what flicker was seen would be smoother and less intrusive. *But that means, for a movie filmed at 24 frames a second, the audience would be seeing 72 images a second.* Movie film was a series of images. The projector would move a frame between the lens and the light source, and hold the frame there, projecting the frame onto the screen. It would then move the film another frame. What the shutter did was hide the movement process of the film, else one would see the image literally swipe to the next frame, which would be basically 24 swiped blurs a second. The reason you can hide the movement process and not just see a strobing of image and black is that the eye retains the image for a few fractions of a second, so the brain registers the image during the black moments.
Shaky cam came from Saving Private Ryan particularly the Omaha beach sequence to give a disorienting sense to the battle. Mark Kermode commented at the time that it was great, but that he feared it get over used by others going forward.
the Wilhelm scream pulls me out of anything I'm watching. no matter how much I'm into a moment in a movie, the Wilhelm will completely ruin not just the moment. it can ruin an entire movie with this, proving it's just a movie. that's the last thing you want to experience when watching one
Sound, this is my big complaint. I have heard many complain that they can't hear or understand the dialogue in many shows due to all the other noises and often the muffled or garbled dialogue. If the point is to hear what the actors are saying, then we really need to hear them.
Tom Missouri _I have heard many complain that they can't hear or understand the dialogue in many shows due to all the other noises and often the muffled or garbled dialogue..._ *Yup! Hate to use the CAPTIONS feature on my Screen, but I don't want to miss important dialog.* *It's an obvious problem- why do the sound editors and Directors disregard this?*
Desaturated colors, with so many examples (300, Superman vs Batman, Twilight, even the Riverdale TV show) that to describe it as an overworked cliché is an act of generosity.
Even Paul Greengrass eventually went overboard with shaky cam. The fifth Jason Bourne movie, which is just called Jason Bourne, is unwatchable due to the shaky cam. He went way too far with it. The story sucks too, but it's positively nauseating and confusing to watch.
Imagine working on the Enterprise with all that light flare going on. If you weren't developing epilepsy in the first week then you'd be suffering from endless migraine headaches.
How dare the inflexible audience resist the adventurous sound mix. The cheek of them actually wanting to hear what the actors are saying rather than appreciating the amplified rumble of the background noise.
The High Frame Rate one upsets me because it means it’ll never be the norm. I’m really sensitive to motion stutter or judder (I forget which it is), seeing objects skip across the screen or a slow panning shot where the entire scene skips across the screen really annoys me and it’s all I can see on modern TVs. High frame rate sorts that and is sooooo much better IMO.
Modern TVs usually have image-smoothing set by default. This applies the effect of HFR on images with lower frame rates to make them look more like video or live television. Turn that off and your problem should go away. One of the biggest problems with HFR, though, is how the increased detail shows the flaws in filmmaking. CGI works with HFR but live action doesn't.
@@MrBazBake I know all about the image smoothing stuff. I’ve played about with it for many hours trying to sort it. Turning it off fully only makes the issue far worse. I’d rather have the ‘soap opera’ effect than that stutter. But even then it doesn’t fully sort it. Used the 24fps videos on YT and all sorts but it never fully fixed it. Hate it so much. Gone as far as returning and exchanging TVs but they’re all bad.
Never try the "Lens Flare drinking game" while watching the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies - or you'll be clinically dead before you get halfway through the movie...
I'm glad that high frame rate novelty got scrapped. It's like that 4K shit. It sticks out like dogs balls and is very distracting. And that shakey cam is a pain in the arse with action or fight scenes when you're trying to see whats going on but the camera is just flailing about. Every director who thought that was a good idea needs a kick in the head. Also I thought Michael Bay killed lens flare before Abrams did. They're both notorious for it.
Why do you guys REFUSE to use any sound at all in your videos from the movies you're discussing? No brief clips, no cut-away sound bites from other movies to enforce a point or make a funny joke, and not even a sound bite of the actual sound you're talking about (the Wilhelm scream) for reference. It's not a legal/copyright issue, surely, because plenty of other channels do it without issue... why do you limit yourselves in such a way?
Geometric doesn't match the context you attempted to use it for. Possibly due to poor translation. I believe that what you meant was "Do to exponential growth " etc. Thank you for the upload.
This video taught me a lot about the names and effects produced by various shots. Thank you! I’ll be able to use these in me year 9 video production classes.
How can you talk about the Wilhelm scream without actually playing a clip of it? When you talked about all of the video effects you had tons of examples of each one. But then for the Wilhelm effect you didn't actually play a clip of what you're talking about. And yes, I know a lot of folks already know what it sounds like but not everyone does.
You are spot on. I had to go to RUclips to play it to find out what the author of the video was even talking about. It is somewhat ironic that people either hate it, love it or are completely unaware of it.
For the points involving sounds (poor sound mixing in Tenet and the Wilhelm scream), it would help if the video included examples, rather than solely a description. Just a sample of the Wilhelm scream certainly wouldn't get anyone in any copyright trouble.
The term "shakycam" was not invented for or as a result of, the Bourne movies. Instead, it was popularized way back in the 1980's as it was frequently used not in movies, but in music videos.
For me, 300 destroyed shooting outdoor scenes on a sound stage. I never believed any of those locations. I couldn't believe critics were PRASISING it for doing that. I thought it was the fakest looking big budget movie I'd ever seen.
Lens flares are (almost) always incredibly annoying and serve no purpose other than to obstruct the viewer's vision. Back in the day, they were a part of filming because of actual physical phenomena and hardware limitations. Nowadays, you see lens flares everywhere, even in video games. For anyone who thinks lens flares look good, ask yourself this -- in real life, how many times have you desired or sought to have your vision obstructed by blinding light(s)?
There is one that didn't used any speed ramping. A film trick done in 300. That film that didn't need any speed ramping, is Wanted. It has some slow motion, like the bullet curve. By the way, the bullet curve can also be considered a part of bullet timing. Wanted uses bullet timing, a trick done by The Matrix. The Matrix won an Oscar for best special effects in 1999.
Wanted has bullet time effects. Since this wasn't in the comic book storyline at all. The comic book stort on the other hand, felt more like Suicide Squad.
None of the sins listed here are anywhere nearly as egregious as what is generously referred to as "impressionistic sound design." Rendering critical dialog inaudible in favor of background noises like mood music and environmental sounds is irritating, distracting, and actively prevents the viewer from knowing what is supposed to be going on. Add in the ridiculously popular quieting of everything to the edge of audibility to deliver important dialog, followed immediately by dramatic music or emotionally charged sound effects delivered at deafening levels, and I just turned the thing off to look for a movie with competent sound editors. Unfortunately, this one seems to be here to stay. After all, if anyone can stand to be around it, it's not ARTE, is it?
Sam Raimi invented "Shaky Cam" while shooting "The Evil Dead." The story goes that he was trying to invent a zero-budget alternative to Steadicam. He bolted the camera to the middle of a wooden plank, and two camera operators grabbed one end each and ran with it between them.
Where Shaky Cam was overused to me was everything past Winter Soldier in the MCU. The shifted starting with Civil War and none of the fights were as good after.
I never understood why they didn't use communication holograms in rogue one. It allows you to justify why they look digital.
Because Tarkin and Leia were supposed to actually be there.
It looked fine to me. I don't go to movies just to rip them apart. I go to eat popcorn, relax, and enjoy the adventure.
@@FlowersInHisHair I think the reason they were there was to show of tech they thought was better in there heads. I also think Tarkin definitely didn't need to be there for his scenes. All they did was make a film icon look like weird plastic.
@@jimroscovius good for you.
@@stephencunniffe823 Lucas Film apparently did consider having Tarkin on the hologram thingie as an alternate option, but looked at the CGI and thought "Yeah, this is great! Totally realistic!" as opposed to anyone pointing out the obvious fact that Tarkin looked like a videogame character who wandered onto the wrong set
You leave that Wilhelm scream alone!!!!! it's iconic and should always be used at least once in every film where a scream is needed.
No. It's become distracting and takes me out of a movie
👍🏾
Couldn't agree more 👍👏
The Wilhelmina scream is obnoxious and overused. It should never ever be used again. Fucking ever.
Lucas film has already said they will be retiring their use of the Wilhelm scream for future films.
It is a shame that these WhatCulture videos (almost?) never include sound from the films they are covering. It is doubly weird when the video is discussing a particular sound (the Wilhelm scream) and never plays it during the video.
That's what I came in here to say. Leave it to a RUclips video discussing an "iconic" sound effect, but then *never give you the sound effect.* Amazing.
@@davidswearingen4411 Unfortunately it's most likely due to copyright issues. Though I doubt the Wilhelm scream has any copyright attached it.
Yeah, it was ridiculous that they didn't actually include any of that sound.
@@dmingledorff Since when are sound effects copyright protected?
Doubly bad.
You misspelled bad.
LENS FLARES! Damn... I remember when Doug Trumbull fought to include the effect for "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" because they added to the idea of the UFO's actually being there with the actors... the only time the effect actually worked for me. Most other uses make me want to involuntarily squint.
Trumbull was a magician of a vfx artist, so I’d trust him with any effect.
The Third Man uses a lot of Dutch angles. So much that when they finished making it, the crew gave the director, Carol Reed, a spirit level so he could get his camera level for his next film.
Yeah, but its a good film. Battlefield Earth was not. When people left The Third Man they were not going "Those camera angles sucked", they were going "Damn, that zither song is stuck in my head". Hell even with Battlefield Earth the Dutch Angles became something tangible to rag on as having the part of your brain that holds your memories of the film removed was not an option.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
300's speed ramp was exceptional (if you understand the camera techniques used in making it), drone footage in The Gray Man was one of the first in use, the Wilhelm's Scream is a classic, stage craft is new and has a bright future. C'mon, kind of a hit and miss with this entrance... You can't judge a film maker by the tools he/she uses. How about innovating WhatCulture?
agreed. and maybe it bothered other people but I love the 2008 Trek lens flares. I still rewatch that movie.
Imagine if JJ Abrams and Michael Bay made a movie together there be so many lens flares and explosions you probably have to wear sunglasses
Not sunglasses. Safety goggles!
Ray Charles & Stevie Wonder would be complaining
If JJ Abrams and Michael Bay made a movie together, it would be battling Starship Transformers and no scene would have anything fewer than 50 Starships in it.
What about adding Zac Snyder so those lens flares can slow mo across the screen.
Drop Wes Anderson in there and watch the lens flares have perfect symmetry, and be wearing brown flare pants
6:00 How dare people who paid good money to see your movie want to be able to hear what is going on and understand the story..... don't they respect your artistic vision?
An ironic use of the Wilhelm scream can be incredibly entertaining, even a non-ironic use can be funny, it will always be iconic
Chris Nolan...I meant to do that...yeah yeah that’s the ticket
300 ruined speed ramping, in that no one will ever do it better 🤷♂️
The biggest issue with lens flares in movies usually is their lack of plausibility, meaning they appear to come out of nowhere in scenes with little visible light sources and their shape, color and structure not being based on a physical correlation of a camera's technical specs and how it would actually capture light. That's why flares (and by extension glares and glows) added artificially often simply look out of place and annoying. On that HFR thing: I think the biggest issue with this are the challenges in post production. You just have a ton of much more data to deal with and just like the race to higher resolutions this exponentially increases the risk of even minor glitches and imperfections standing out more.
Ahahahaha loser
Agreed. Why would there be blinding lights on the control deck of a spacecraft?
I've also noticed the same in modern video games where it makes no sense. The other weird thing is waterdrops sticking to the virtual camera.
The lens flare makes no sense in a movie unless the scene being shown is from that of a camera in which it was shot.
Why don't they just show the camera man filming the scene and even throw in the mike boom if they really want to distract you from the believability.
Jar Jar Abrams ruined way more than just lens flares.
Doomcock calls him "The Cinematic Antichrist"
If you're talking about the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy, that wasn't his fault. He did the best he could under the circumstances.
You’re right. One movie he made was the worst Star Wars movie. And that’s about it.
Hardcore Henry is a 2015 sci-fi flick that took the first person view to the absolute limit and even seems to poke fun at itself for doing so. The entire film is shot through the viewpoint of the protagonist on his bloody character arc of redemption, revenge and self-discovery after an amnesic episode. It's used to bring the viewer right into the main character's violent and frenetic quest for knowledge while the method obscures details in a scene which would otherwise be visible, so you're almost constantly wanting the character to "look over there" or "pay attention to this" and if used well, then the whole thing works well so long as you're "in sync" with the character's desires. It's almost like an FPS video game "cut scene" that you can't control.
I don't think the problem with Gemini man was the frame rate. The much larger problem was that the movie didn't make a lot of sense, and the young Will Smith character had a lot of uncanny valley going on.
I didn't really find the drone use in The Gray Man excessive. It was obvious, sure, but it did kind of give you a sweeping lay of the land.
And I think 300 made *better* use of speed ramping than The Matrix. The Matrix uses it for a "isn't this cool?" effect, whereas 300 uses it for dramatic violent sequences.
As far as Tenet goes, the problem wasn't "adventurous sound design". The problem was you couldn't hear half of what characters said. It's fine to obscure dialogue where ambiguity serves the story, or when you want to keep things hidden from the audience, but Tenet does it for no perceptible reason. It's just Nolan's "artistic" statement.
Hard agree with everything you said. I found myself shaking my head at multiple points during this video.
When every other shot in 300 has a speed ramp, that's excessive. It was numbing after a while. The Matrix's use was definitely cool while also being pioneering. It even fit thematically with what they were trying to convey with the story of the film: that the world and its impressions on the senses was an artificial construct.
@@haysoos123 Totally. _Matrix_ did it to (not only show-off the cool visuals but also to) give an artificial feel to scenes that took place in an artificial space within the story. One's perception of time is under one's control, to a degree, within the Matrix. _300_ did it purely to show-off the cool visuals. Within the story, it makes no sense at all. And it was beyond excessive.
I have a bit of a tradition. Whenever I recognise a Dutch angle or Wilhelm scream, I have to say, "Dutch angle/Wilhelm." Similiar to how I spot Hitchcock's cameos. I call it "The Hi, Hitch" game.
Similarly I can't see a dolly zoom without saying it aloud. They always take me out of the film even when done well.
I reflexively go "Wilhelm! Nooo!" Every time there's a Wilhelm scream, due to an ex boyfriend of mine who always did it.
I do something similar but its more of a "oh HOOO" because I'm apparently a frat boy when there's a screen in front of me.
There seems to be a complete divide about the Wilhelm Scream -- some love it, others hate it, and believe it or not some do not even notice it as a cliche.
I can't say that I agree with the FPV drone shots. I don't think they're dead yet; they can be useful when utilized correctly a la Ambulance, and in The Gray Man, there were certain set pieces where a boom camera just wouldn't fit, like the hospital establishing shot.
Definitely agree, but the zoomie-fpv-cam is played out.
@@Olkv3D Oh yeah definitely. Sometimes the moves that they do with cameras are borderline nauseating.
That hospital shot was beautiful.
I didn't like the examples of the FPV shots done well, let alone the footage of _Gray Man._ Hell, it was irritating in the opening sequence of _Die Hard 3_ because that straight-down view between the tall buildings is just never an angle you view something at - unless you have a glass-bottom helicopter or you fancy hang gliding. Which you don't. All the flips and swaying motion does nothing to improve a bad action sequence and a good action sequence doesn't need it.
Nah 300 was the cherry on top of the sundae of speed ramping but that’s where it started melting
We all knew JJ Abrams' lens flares was going to be on this list somewhere!
Drowning out dialog with overdone sound effects and a bombastic score isn't being innovative, it's just dumb.
The only good use of this I can think of is when the scene is heard from the character's point. Saving Privet Ryan, for example, Normandy. But as I type this, would ear ringing suit this list?
Agree. Nolan saying people were too conservative regarding sound was just a way to hide poor craftsmanship behind ‘you’re not sophisticated enough to appreciate my genius’ douchebaggery.
There’s another special effect that should be on this list: intergalactic robot testicles. Once was more than enough, Bay. 🙃😅
It was Abrams wife who told him to “cut it out” with the lens flares yo 😂😂😂
Smart lady. (But not so smart to have avoided marrying him in the first place.)
The original Twilight Zone series often used the Dutch angle and it was perfect!
Also, the villain's hideouts in the original Batman series. 👍
Glad you added Thor at the end.
I seen a trailer for it a few months ago and thought it just looked wrong.
Wasn't sure what it was, and thought it was the over the top vibrant colours and cgi.
Now I know why.
I would add two more techniques from the same tv show to the list.
NCIS vaseline lens for a lot of Gibb's scenes and what I call deja vu.
That is used mainly in the office scenes where you see the same people walking around in the back ground, again, again and again.
Once you notice it, it becomes a game to see how many times you can spot it with your partner or family.
Red shirt, blue dress, suit bloke etc etc
Best fight scene IMO: Church scene in Kingsman
Nothing has ruined StageCraft, it's just shown some weaknesses and directors going forward will be more aware of the limitations when planning films. Just like any tool, it isn't universally applicable, so film makers have to learn where it works and where it doesn't, and this one has only just started being used so it's very much a work in progress.
Yes, we're very "conservative" about our ability to hear the goddamned dialog. Somebody get this man a gold star!
PARDON!?!
@@NonFatMead I think he’s talking about Christopher Nolan
Oddly, there was an HGTV show (of all places) that I use to watch, somewhere in the mid 2000's I think, that used both shaky cam and Dutch angles for who knows why, ruining those techniques for me way before the movies did. They're a visually unnecessary and irritating feature that jumps out right away to me and makes me rage quit if you will.
HGTV? What's that?
@@saschamayer4050 Home & Garden Television (HGTV).
I HATED the lens flare in those Star Trek movies. The cams were pretty shaky too. So many of the cool special effects shots whip by so quickly you can't even really see them, and all the cool interiors on the Enterprise are all hidden by the damn lens flare!
They whipped by those shots so quickly, Brad, so that you wouldn't see that the sets were just some pine 2X4s and plywood sheets nailed together and spray painted with Krylon! Lens flare and fast passes hide a lot.
@@justaskin8523 I too was furious when I found out they didn't actually build the starship and fly through space to other worlds. The audacity.
Battlefield Earth, lol. It's the tree falling in the woods. Can a movie ruin something if nobody saw it?
The Wilhelm scream is iconic, no matter what movie it's in. ❤
Exactly. If you don’t like the Wilhelmina scream, then you don’t like movies.
Gemini Man was SO bad, I think judgement of any technical aspect should be suspended until we see it actually ruin a film. I think this was the case of a film ruining, well… everything.
It was awful.
I was disappointed by it. I had high hopes that it would at least explore an interesting premise. They didn't even do enough research to understand what a clone was, though. They kept acting like Smith's character got photocopied.
I can dismiss the technical aspect immediately: blurring implies speed. When there is not blurring, objects appear to move slowly and less dynamically. Comic books without blurring and speed lines look awful. Same goes for film and sports on TV.
I’ve watched Tenet 7 times and still don’t know what’s it’s about.
I was right there with you on most of these critiques, but I found myself watching Grey Man going "holy shit that's a creative camera shot, ok that's done with a drone". There are a couple of simply brilliant compositions with that tech. And yeah, a few over the top ones that didn't really vibe. But the drone shots were one of my big takeaways from the cinematography as "damn, we're going somewhere with this". I remember I commented to friends "You used to have to pay to hire a helicopter, a pilot, a camera person, clear the airspace, have a bunch of film running for only a few minutes, and orchestrate it all at a high cost to get a big aerial shot back in the day" Now you can do it with an FPV drone digitally.
There were a couple of brilliant memorable shots using the FPV drones that really made me feel we've just started to scratch the surface of this new form of cinematography. So that's my only critique of this video, Grey Man didn't ruin the cinematic trick, we've only just begun when it comes to FPV drone cinematography. It's so new.
I love a Wilhelm Scream. You have to have one in a film.
But shaky-cam is one of the worst things to happen to cinematography.
I would say that the absolute least of Battlefield Earth's sins was overuse of Dutch Angles.
lnto Darkness wasn't the best Star Trek film, but it was still an entertaining piece of cinema.
I love it and I make no apology.
Fight me, nerds.
Totally agree - it was the best out of them. I remember talking to a friend who had seen and liked it and remarking about the use of the character Kahn and them saying "Benedict Cumberbatch was in the original series too?"
Shared universe - the early days🙄.
@@jules-yi8rn Entertaining Yes, as a Star Trek Film No. One word - Khanteleportation - their version of Apparate/Disapparate in the Potterverse. Too lazy to grapple with science? let's do magic instead. Nerd enuf for u? Basically ended trek premise of boldly going in a starship ... to explore new worlds. Travel light years with khanteleportation with pinpoint accuracy.
To this day I think Tarkin was impressive
some shot work and some didn't. I am not sure if it was who work on it or the way it was film. At times it look fine and then you get the uncanny valley
1:06 And so the term "Shakey Cam" was BOURNE*
I have no idea what "Wilhelm scream" means. This didn't give a sound clip of one or even a good description.
Movies of old did shoot at 24 frames per second, but most of the film projectors had shutters that showed the same frame image three times.
The main job of the shutter was to block the projection of the frame as the next frame was advanced.
There were projectors that did just show the frame in one take, before blocking the image so the next image could be advanced, but they are known for a throbbing flicker. The image would being seen compared to the image being block would show the image three times longer then the blackness of the blocked image. Something like:
_1-1-1-X 2-2-2-X 3-3-3-X_
A three panel shutter, would show the same image three times, and also block the image 3 times. This would even out the flicker, so instead of long image followed by a short blip of darkness, both the image and darkness had a roughly equal amount of time. Something like:
_1-X-1-X-1-X 2-X-2-X-2-X 3-X-3-X-3-X _
This would cause less chance of the eye or brain of seeing a flicker, and what flicker was seen would be smoother and less intrusive.
*But that means, for a movie filmed at 24 frames a second, the audience would be seeing 72 images a second.*
Movie film was a series of images. The projector would move a frame between the lens and the light source, and hold the frame there, projecting the frame onto the screen. It would then move the film another frame. What the shutter did was hide the movement process of the film, else one would see the image literally swipe to the next frame, which would be basically 24 swiped blurs a second. The reason you can hide the movement process and not just see a strobing of image and black is that the eye retains the image for a few fractions of a second, so the brain registers the image during the black moments.
What about first person view in movies? It was done in short bursts over time but Hardcore Henry took that to a whole new level
The wilhelm scream is less of a joke and more of a quick easy and basically free scream that can be thrown in last minute
Honestly Stage Craft was the LEAST of Thor: Love and Thunder problems, what a mess that was.
Why wouldn't you play the scream??
I genuinely believe TENET didn't understand its own concept that's why it was so loud.
Shaky cam came from Saving Private Ryan particularly the Omaha beach sequence to give a disorienting sense to the battle. Mark Kermode commented at the time that it was great, but that he feared it get over used by others going forward.
the Wilhelm scream pulls me out of anything I'm watching.
no matter how much I'm into a moment in a movie, the Wilhelm will completely ruin not just the moment.
it can ruin an entire movie with this, proving it's just a movie.
that's the last thing you want to experience when watching one
Sound, this is my big complaint. I have heard many complain that they can't hear or understand the dialogue in many shows due to all the other noises and often the muffled or garbled dialogue. If the point is to hear what the actors are saying, then we really need to hear them.
Tom Missouri _I have heard many complain that they can't hear or understand the dialogue in many shows due to all the other noises and often the muffled or garbled dialogue..._
*Yup! Hate to use the CAPTIONS feature on my Screen, but I don't want to miss important dialog.*
*It's an obvious problem- why do the sound editors and Directors disregard this?*
calling a warrior of the galadhrim a rohan solider hurts to hear
Desaturated colors, with so many examples (300, Superman vs Batman, Twilight, even the Riverdale TV show) that to describe it as an overworked cliché is an act of generosity.
I understand why people throw in the Wilhelm screen, but it is enough to pull me out of any sequence.
Shaky cam was never awesome in my opinion.
Those drone shots in Ambulance where my least favorite part of the movie.
Even Paul Greengrass eventually went overboard with shaky cam. The fifth Jason Bourne movie, which is just called Jason Bourne, is unwatchable due to the shaky cam. He went way too far with it. The story sucks too, but it's positively nauseating and confusing to watch.
Imagine working on the Enterprise with all that light flare going on. If you weren't developing epilepsy in the first week then you'd be suffering from endless migraine headaches.
The lens flares in the Star Trek films are my favorite thing in cinema. That entire aesthetic is so iconic. Haters gonna hate.
I think it was Hill Street Blues that introduced shaky cam well before Bourne.
NYPD Blue, possibly?
@@EvilGav yes, that's the one. TY.
The most EGREGIOUS use of CG body double EVER is absolutely
the Rock=A.K.A. Dwayne Johnson in ...
The Scorpion King 😨 👀 🧠 🤯 💔 🤦🏻♂️
Spot on. Shaky cam is killing the action movie. And as for ‘I’ve got a drone and I’m gonna use it’ don’t get me started…
I don't care what you made think about zack Snyder , but his speed ramping in 300 , was epic
Amazing video Ellie Littlechild from what culture of movies effects that ruined movie films, fantastic job.
How dare the inflexible audience resist the adventurous sound mix. The cheek of them actually wanting to hear what the actors are saying rather than appreciating the amplified rumble of the background noise.
Poor Jar Jar Abrams
6:00 great big suprise?!! We like to be able to hear the dialog in the movie.
What is wrong with people?
I didn't even know thor 4 used that digital screen 😐
JJ Abrams did not stop lens flares before his wife commented it...
I HATE those lens flares
Audiences are "conservative" because they want to hear the dialogue??? Tf?
The High Frame Rate one upsets me because it means it’ll never be the norm. I’m really sensitive to motion stutter or judder (I forget which it is), seeing objects skip across the screen or a slow panning shot where the entire scene skips across the screen really annoys me and it’s all I can see on modern TVs. High frame rate sorts that and is sooooo much better IMO.
Modern TVs usually have image-smoothing set by default. This applies the effect of HFR on images with lower frame rates to make them look more like video or live television. Turn that off and your problem should go away. One of the biggest problems with HFR, though, is how the increased detail shows the flaws in filmmaking. CGI works with HFR but live action doesn't.
@@MrBazBake I know all about the image smoothing stuff. I’ve played about with it for many hours trying to sort it. Turning it off fully only makes the issue far worse. I’d rather have the ‘soap opera’ effect than that stutter. But even then it doesn’t fully sort it. Used the 24fps videos on YT and all sorts but it never fully fixed it. Hate it so much. Gone as far as returning and exchanging TVs but they’re all bad.
I have mild epilepsy and sh t like that can almost cause me to blackout.
Never try the "Lens Flare drinking game" while watching the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies - or you'll be clinically dead before you get halfway through the movie...
I'm glad that high frame rate novelty got scrapped. It's like that 4K shit. It sticks out like dogs balls and is very distracting.
And that shakey cam is a pain in the arse with action or fight scenes when you're trying to see whats going on but the camera is just flailing about. Every director who thought that was a good idea needs a kick in the head.
Also I thought Michael Bay killed lens flare before Abrams did. They're both notorious for it.
Shaky cam was around long before the Bourne films. ABC’s NYPD Blues in the late 80s/early 90s was famous for its use of shaky cam.
...Or I'm having a Mandela Effect moment, or this video already posted before.
Why do you guys REFUSE to use any sound at all in your videos from the movies you're discussing? No brief clips, no cut-away sound bites from other movies to enforce a point or make a funny joke, and not even a sound bite of the actual sound you're talking about (the Wilhelm scream) for reference. It's not a legal/copyright issue, surely, because plenty of other channels do it without issue... why do you limit yourselves in such a way?
Digital doubles was overused in Tron 2
The first Thor movie was shot in Dutch Angle
Geometric doesn't match the context you attempted to use it for. Possibly due to poor translation. I believe that what you meant was
"Do to exponential growth " etc. Thank you for the upload.
This video taught me a lot about the names and effects produced by various shots. Thank you! I’ll be able to use these in me year 9 video production classes.
How can you talk about the Wilhelm scream without actually playing a clip of it? When you talked about all of the video effects you had tons of examples of each one. But then for the Wilhelm effect you didn't actually play a clip of what you're talking about. And yes, I know a lot of folks already know what it sounds like but not everyone does.
You are spot on. I had to go to RUclips to play it to find out what the author of the video was even talking about. It is somewhat ironic that people either hate it, love it or are completely unaware of it.
For the points involving sounds (poor sound mixing in Tenet and the Wilhelm scream), it would help if the video included examples, rather than solely a description. Just a sample of the Wilhelm scream certainly wouldn't get anyone in any copyright trouble.
The term "shakycam" was not invented for or as a result of, the Bourne movies. Instead, it was popularized way back in the 1980's as it was frequently used not in movies, but in music videos.
Battlefield Earth ruined the Dutch angle 3:20 called it
On one hand, I agree, on the other hand, hardly anyone saw it so does it really matter?
While I’d agree on everything else, Rogue One is good enough that Tarkin and Leia can be forgiven. As a whole, it’s a hill-to-die-on movie.
For me, 300 destroyed shooting outdoor scenes on a sound stage. I never believed any of those locations. I couldn't believe critics were PRASISING it for doing that. I thought it was the fakest looking big budget movie I'd ever seen.
Lens flares are (almost) always incredibly annoying and serve no purpose other than to obstruct the viewer's vision. Back in the day, they were a part of filming because of actual physical phenomena and hardware limitations. Nowadays, you see lens flares everywhere, even in video games. For anyone who thinks lens flares look good, ask yourself this -- in real life, how many times have you desired or sought to have your vision obstructed by blinding light(s)?
I drive REALLY fast into the sun, so...
The Wilhelm scream is actually called "man having his leg bitten off by an alligator #10"
Thor had a ton of tilt camara scenes
The problem with the drone shots is the camera tilt. Get rid of that, and I think it would be fine.
Gemini Man may not be a great film, but the hfr 3D was an incredible visual experience
*Shakey Cam was began, popularized and brought into the forefront by NYPD Blue, the TV show.
Shakycam was hardly invented by the Bourne movies. It was around way before that, starting mostly in 90s cop TV shows like NYPD Blue.
Right off the bat you’re wrong. In the 90s The Rock used, abused, and ruined shaky cam.
There is one that didn't used any speed ramping. A film trick done in 300. That film that didn't need any speed ramping, is Wanted. It has some slow motion, like the bullet curve. By the way, the bullet curve can also be considered a part of bullet timing. Wanted uses bullet timing, a trick done by The Matrix. The Matrix won an Oscar for best special effects in 1999.
Wanted has bullet time effects. Since this wasn't in the comic book storyline at all. The comic book stort on the other hand, felt more like Suicide Squad.
Dutch Angles do happen in movies and tv. But it works much more better in comics and manga.
I was not a fan of Tenet. It was the first time I felt a Christopher Nolan movie was incomplete.
None of the sins listed here are anywhere nearly as egregious as what is generously referred to as "impressionistic sound design." Rendering critical dialog inaudible in favor of background noises like mood music and environmental sounds is irritating, distracting, and actively prevents the viewer from knowing what is supposed to be going on. Add in the ridiculously popular quieting of everything to the edge of audibility to deliver important dialog, followed immediately by dramatic music or emotionally charged sound effects delivered at deafening levels, and I just turned the thing off to look for a movie with competent sound editors. Unfortunately, this one seems to be here to stay. After all, if anyone can stand to be around it, it's not ARTE, is it?
You forgot the first person view, that was borned and died with Hardcore Henry.
Was not Blair Witch made before your first example of shaky cam?
Sam Raimi invented "Shaky Cam" while shooting "The Evil Dead."
The story goes that he was trying to invent a zero-budget alternative to Steadicam. He bolted the camera to the middle of a wooden plank, and two camera operators grabbed one end each and ran with it between them.
I'm disappointed you didn't play the audio for the Wilhelmina scream. Made me search for it in other videos.
Where Shaky Cam was overused to me was everything past Winter Soldier in the MCU. The shifted starting with Civil War and none of the fights were as good after.