Argh!!! Why are so many CGI action sequences shown in low light?!

[Steelmaker]

I mentioned this in the Hulk thread but I wanted to start a new one to gauge people's opinions. I am noticing that more and more action sequences in films are being shot at night time. Is there a reason behind this or is it just all coincidence? Is it to hide CGI and make it seem more believable?

Not only that, what is it with the film maker's obsession with jerky cameras and quick, seizure-inducing scene switches? It makes it SOOO hard to follow the action sometimes. Spiderman 3, Transformers, Cloverfield, Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk are just a few of the films I can think of that are guilty on both accounts. It makes it extremely hard to following the action.

[Marine Mike]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I mentioned this in the Hulk thread but I wanted to start a new one to gauge people's opinions. I am noticing that more and more action sequences in films are being shot at night time. Is there a reason behind this or is it just all coincidence? Is it to hide CGI and make it seem more believable?

Not only that, what is it with the film maker's obsession with jerky cameras and quick, seizure-inducing scene switches? It makes it SOOO hard to follow the action sometimes. Spiderman 3, Transformers, Cloverfield, Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk are just a few of the films I can think of that are guilty on both accounts. It makes it extremely hard to following the action.

There was an action scene during the day time in The Incredible Hulk on college campus that was very action packed with CGI.

[cj-kent]

The point of all the motion is to simulate a camera actually being on the scene as if the scene were really happening. I realize, of course, that you know that and I sympathize with your nausea. I must admit that it does sometimes make it difficult to follow. However, it doesn't detract for me.

Night shots are helpful to hide flaws in CGI, but they also create suspense and tension. In all of the movies you've mentioned there are also considerable daytime scenes that involve a lot of CGI, so I wouldn't say that film-makers are hiding in the night so-to-speak.

[Mouse]

I would say all these problems you are having with films is due to several reasons. The CGI most definately looks better under dark conditions. But the jerky action sequences and constant view changes could also be due to the actors not being able to shoot the whole scene in one solid take. Not everyone is Jackie Chan.

[SBrooks1]

Iron Man flew around in the sky with the military jets during the day. Scorponok attacked the army guys in the daytime. The entire final fight in Transformers happened during the day.

[SS316SRV]

Night adds a little bit of darkness to the scene. Literally, it makes it seem more dangerous and less hopefull. The hero doesn't die when the sun is up. Usually the rising sun is the sign of hope and rebirth. That is why it is at night. The shakey camera is to make it seem more like you are there. It is easier to associate with the character's confusion and point of view when that is happening. There are stylistic reasons for it.

[bajor27]

I don't have a comment on the CGI aspect, but I think we have Bourne to thank for the jerky cameras.

Another movie that suffers from the jerky camera syndrome is Sahara. The fight scenes in that were incredible hard to follow in my opinion - it's actually part of the reason I didn't like the film that much.

[SS316SRV]

Sometimes the action is not meant to be clearly seen. Think of Batman Begins. The reason the hand cam was used in the fight scenes was to make it that much harder to see what Batman was doing. It made him even more mysterious.

[Mouse]

It makes me mad when they are either A) Too close to the actors or B) The camera is too shaky to see what is going on. The whole point of watching a movie is to actually SEE what is going on. I think the people making films need to stop trying to be so Artsy or Stylistic and just make a good movie that people can watch.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by Mouse

It makes me mad when they are either A) Too close to the actors or B) The camera is too shaky to see what is going on. The whole point of watching a movie is to actually SEE what is going on. I think the people making films need to stop trying to be so Artsy or Stylistic and just make a good movie that people can watch.

I bet you think that the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was lame because we never saw Leatherface actually chainsaw anybody. The Blair Witch Project was lame (I didn't like the movie) because it looked like a bunch of kids went into the woods and made the movie with a camcorder. Sometimes the idea is to not see what is happening and let you imagine (scary!!!) what is happening. The hand camera in the Bourne movies was supposed to reflect the general sense that there was nothing steady about Jason Bourne.

[jadedeath]

Because for the scene in the Hulk, noone would be attracted to the nudie bar in the backround if they showed it during the day.

Logan

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

I bet you think that the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was lame because we never saw Leatherface actually chainsaw anybody. The Blair Witch Project was lame (I didn't like the movie) because it looked like a bunch of kids went into the woods and made the movie with a camcorder. Sometimes the idea is to not see what is happening and let you imagine (scary!!!) what is happening. The hand camera in the Bourne movies was supposed to reflect the general sense that there was nothing steady about Jason Bourne.

I never watched the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre... but I have driven past the place where they filmed part of it in Tehuacana(sp?), Texas. My father lives about 10 minutes from the old building. Anyway, leaving things up to peoples imagination no longer works for my generation. So many other movies have started showing the monsters/bad guys and all the gory/bloody parts that not seeing it is just a big let down. Now I'm not saying every movie should be showing peoples heads getting ripped off or anything just that my generation has come to expect to see the action not an elbow here or a foot there and everything is so blurry you can't tell who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. That's just poor film making.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by bajor27

I don't have a comment on the CGI aspect, but I think we have Bourne to thank for the jerky cameras.

Another movie that suffers from the jerky camera syndrome is Sahara. The fight scenes in that were incredible hard to follow in my opinion - it's actually part of the reason I didn't like the film that much.

Thats not the shakey camera, its poor editing.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I never watched the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre... but I have driven past the place where they filmed part of it in Tehuacana(sp?), Texas. My father lives about 10 minutes from the old building. Anyway, leaving things up to peoples imagination no longer works for my generation. So many other movies have started showing the monsters/bad guys and all the gory/bloody parts that not seeing it is just a big let down. Now I'm not saying every movie should be showing peoples heads getting ripped off or anything just that my generation has come to expect to see the action not an elbow here or a foot there and everything is so blurry you can't tell who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. That's just poor film making.

I bet yours and my generations are not far off, I'm 24. This is a personal choice. I don't wonder what needs to be changed in order to make a scene/movie work. I try to interpret what the director did and see if I enjoyed it. The Bourne Trilogy would not have worked out if it was a steady cam. Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have been just a shlock slasher flick if they would have shown Leatherface butchering the bodies.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I never watched the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre... but I have driven past the place where they filmed part of it in Tehuacana(sp?), Texas. My father lives about 10 minutes from the old building. Anyway, leaving things up to peoples imagination no longer works for my generation. So many other movies have started showing the monsters/bad guys and all the gory/bloody parts that not seeing it is just a big let down. Now I'm not saying every movie should be showing peoples heads getting ripped off or anything just that my generation has come to expect to see the action not an elbow here or a foot there and everything is so blurry you can't tell who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. That's just poor film making.

This is why your generation is not in charge of the film industry yet.

You'll grow into it.

[ThePhantomOak]

CGI almost always looks like shit.

It should only be used when it absolutly must. Big action movies have become nothing but CGI. I would LOVE to see a movie that has a majority of action using practical effects.

CGI always looks a computer game to me.

[Blu Titan]

The first CGI scene in the Hulk war really dark, but the last scene against Abomination was "incredibly" detailed. A great job!

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by bajor27

I don't have a comment on the CGI aspect, but I think we have Bourne to thank for the jerky cameras.

No, I think you need to go back a little further to Michael Bay's The Rock in 1996, specifically the car chase in San Francisco.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

I bet yours and my generations are not far off, I'm 24. This is a personal choice. I don't wonder what needs to be changed in order to make a scene/movie work. I try to interpret what the director did and see if I enjoyed it. The Bourne Trilogy would not have worked out if it was a steady cam. Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have been just a shlock slasher flick if they would have shown Leatherface butchering the bodies.

Oddly enough I am also 24. haha I don't care to try an interpret what directors do and "try" to enjoy it... I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the movie without having to worry about any extra. If a movie is supposed to be a slasher flick and they don't show any of the slashing... what was the point of calling it a slasher flick? The same is true for Action movies. If you are making an Action movie then SHOW the Action... that's all I ask.

Originally Posted by J6P

This is why your generation is not in charge of the film industry yet.

You'll grow into it.

Oh yeah... it'll be a LONG time before my generation becomes studio execs and producers. I'm not worried about my generation being "in charge" of anything tho... the people currently running things tend to go a decent job. It's just these few instances where they want to be "artsy" or whatever that really just hurts the movie more than helps it.

As for growing into it... I doubt it. I'm very stubborn and set in my ways.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by bferr1

No, I think you need to go back a little further to Michael Bay's The Rock in 1996, specifically the car chase in San Francisco.

Actually, you have to go back a lot farther than that, back to the cinéma vérité movement of the mid-20th century.

Post-WWII, when cameras became small enough and quiet enough to be portable, filmmakers wanted to give audiences a feeling of heightened realism not possible before. The camera was no longer locked off and stationary but in the scene, putting the viewer in the position of living the reality of what they were being shown. It was used to pound home the immediacy and connection that only a 'handheld' can achieve. It puts you in the action like a documentary, but within a feature.

It is still used for the same effect today.