Test with fun how much you know about Art4.01 / 5.00 12,119 Views
Challenge hordes of ninjas in this epic action adventure game.4.14 / 5.00 43,842 Views
Help strange creatures to bring the eye to a mysterious customer.3.73 / 5.00 14,876 Views
At 10/25/12 02:14 AM, Darthdenim wrote: I'm tired of people complaining about headaches from watching shakycam movies. A shakycam movie never gave me a headache in my life.
And since they've never given you a headache, no one else should complain about it? Sound logic there.
Shaky cam's never given me a headache either but there are other reasons to dislike it. Mainly because it's bloody obnoxious when it's overused.
"Anything could happen in the next half hour!"
"For the love of God, don't stop pretending you're a dragon!"
At 10/25/12 02:25 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I found a film those kinds of people might be able to enjoy.
I have the limited edition version of that film classic, mine has a extra scene where andy warhol MOVES the camera. It was the scariest thing I have ever seen in a movie, thank you Andy Warhol.
There is a time and a place for such chaotic camera movement, most of which isn't present when it is used.
As a general rule of thumb using a camera which is meant to make the audience feel more like they are involved is only good in media where the audience is ACTUALLY involved. Which is videogames and not movies. Certain videogames can do it well if the chaotic movement of the camera is done well in such a way that the player feels more involved. But when the audience simply sit down to watch something for a few hours throwing in a blurry shaking camera isn't going to make anyone feel any more involved with the shit film.
It doesn't give me a headache, but often I do find it quite distracting. I get that they want me to become more involved in the film and that they want to give a more realistic portrayal of the film's events, but it's a bit annoying if I can barely get a good view of what's going on.
I could understand it being done atmospherically for perhaps an earthquake scene or if it's done to emphasis a character's lack of coordination but it's usually done whenever and wherever the fuck just to try and make the situation seem intense rather than it's appropriate context of being disorienting.
Even jump-scares have their place.
They just annoy me. I'm sure they can make people a bit dizzy which is sometimes accompanied a headache but there is no way it is more than mildly discomforting for a moment.
"Even though you hate gays, believe in god, and dislike my posts, I still think you're cool"-FurryFox
"TarahlovesJBKscawk"-Tarah, "Those pants are just adorable"-Gagsy
At 10/25/12 05:54 AM, Ryan wrote:
'The Empire State Building as itself'
Having said that, Chelsea Girls is one of my favourite films but if someone didn't like cameras jolting around randomly they'd probably throw up while watching it.
At 10/25/12 06:48 AM, NewShape wrote: There is a reason why the pioneers of cinema didn't do it.
No offense to those geniuses as they were the pioneers, but they did some seriously fucking boring things.
ok you have a good point but uhm woudlnt this be mroe of a relevant discussion in 2009