ridley scott. stop hurting my eyes

i just tried to watch the movie robin hood of him. but i just couldent. the actual movie was decent but i just couldent watch it physiclly. i dont know what the hell they thought and they decided to cut every thing into many many frames and change the camera every second. my eyes just burned.

in the battle scenes you cant figure out what the hell going on because every 2 seconds the camera view changing. or camera spining/shaking, or they change scene like really every couple of seconds. so you cant see even one full move. for exemple in sword fighting you have like 100 close ups of the swords and the hands and you just cant see anything.

he did it with gladiator and kingdom heaven too but no in that rate. not when its actually hurt the movie itself. and here its was just a dissaster

That's modern film making for you.

Originally Posted by cpdwane

That's modern film making for you.

no thats not the term for ''modern film'' i sew many ''modern films'' without that crap.

Originally Posted by frank_garrett

no thats not the term for ''modern film'' i sew many ''modern films'' without that crap.

Really? I'd have said it's pretty typical of most recent films actually, although you may be right in saying it wasn't in the earlier Ridley Scott films as much, but remember, they were made a fair few years back. I think this kind of filmaking you described has been picked up from recent thrillers like the Bourne films, where it's commonplace. It worked fine in Robin Hood for me, and I think it's here to stay now, so there's no escaping it from now on I guess.

Originally Posted by frank_garrett

no thats not the term for ''modern film'' i sew many ''modern films'' without that crap.

I agree. In action movies like the matrix and crouching tiger, hidden dragon we can see clearly the fighting scenes. I prefer that kind of movie to be honest. I dont like spinning/shaking scenes.

shaky camera and quick cuts are a common feature of most modern film, especially action movies.

the dark knight dident had quick cuts. iron man dident had them. braveheat dident had them. many war films i mean the most of them dident had them band of brothers,save private rayne,the paficifc. dident had them. and so on and so on

i love movies that i can see whats going on in them. the all thing not cut here and cut there. i think in this movie he really reaced a new level of quick cuts never seen before

Saving Private Ryan started the affair with the Omaha Beach scene, where Tom Hanks is running up the beach and the camera is running after him. After that, people started mimicking that style and building on it.

Originally Posted by frank_garrett

i just tried to watch the movie robin hood of him. but i just couldent. the actual movie was decent but i just couldent watch it physiclly. i dont know what the hell they thought and they decided to cut every thing into many many frames and change the camera every second. my eyes just burned.

in the battle scenes you cant figure out what the hell going on because every 2 seconds the camera view changing. or camera spining/shaking, or they change scene like really every couple of seconds. so you cant see even one full move. for exemple in sword fighting you have like 100 close ups of the swords and the hands and you just cant see anything.

he did it with gladiator and kingdom heaven too but no in that rate. not when its actually hurt the movie itself. and here its was just a dissaster

Completely agree with you there, it's one of my main arguments against many of the action oriented movies of the last years. With the Bourne trilogy as an all time low for me.

I agree, keeping track of the people is very hard.

It's on purpose, to illustrate the chaos of fighting and warfare.
And remember most moviewatchers aren't as interested in the actual mechanics and details of fights as you'd think, they're content with seeing a jumbled mass.

Originally Posted by Manco

It's on purpose, to illustrate the chaos of fighting and warfare.
And remember most moviewatchers aren't as interested in the actual mechanics and details of fights as you'd think, they're content with seeing a jumbled mass.

well if thats the porpuse then its fail.

braveheart bearly used cuts in battle scenes when it looked much more realistic. they did it the right way. when someone crash someone else with a sword/axe. you see the whole move and not hand-axe-close up body.

Originally Posted by Orko

I thought the movie was pretty good, better then I have expected. Although the final battle scene sucked ass.

well i agree the movie was good like i said thats the only reason i hated it.

I like it.

That screws your eyesight? Try watching the Supernatural intros in the dark!

But yes, frequent camera changes are annoying.

I thought the movie was pretty good, better then I have expected. Although the final battle scene sucked ass.

If you think Ridley Scott has had bad cinematography lately, check out Tony Scott movies like Man on Fire and Domino. It's probably the worst cinematography I've seen in film. Wizard of Oz with its painted sets has more production value.

Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker

If you think Ridley Scott has had bad cinematography lately, check out Tony Scott movies like Man on Fire and Domino. It's probably the worst cinematography I've seen in film. Wizard of Oz with its painted sets has more production value.

omg dont remind me domino

this movie todally burend my eyes and brain. that has to be the most paintfull movie ever made. if you want to torture someone just tie him and show him this movie non stop.

Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker

If you think Ridley Scott has had bad cinematography lately, check out Tony Scott movies like Man on Fire and Domino. It's probably the worst cinematography I've seen in film. Wizard of Oz with its painted sets has more production value.

What exactly is wrong with Man on Fire?

Originally Posted by motiv-8

What exactly is wrong with Man on Fire?

The only real problem I have with Man on Fire is that it takes an hour before anything starts happening.

Originally Posted by GreyFox

The only real problem I have with Man on Fire is that it takes an hour before anything starts happening.

Being a film that is primarily character-driven, it requires time to actually build characters. And it does a fine job.

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Oh, please. Stop being such a pansy. "Waaah, the cameras cut too quick. Waaah, my eyes can't follow what's going on." Suck it up.

What? You're attacking people for noting that a medium of entertainment which relies mostly upon the ability of the eyes to properly perceive what is going on is making that too difficult with cinematography?

What is this I don't even