Camera too close to the action in movies

[Talon]

For the last few years I've noticed a trend in action movies that irritates me to no end: having the camera too close to the action.

It was like that in the first Transformers movie, and doubtless the second. James Bond: Quantum of Solace, the Star Trek movie and Terminator 4 were like that. Hell even the Terminator TV series was like that.

Which Hollywood moron thought this was a good idea? All it does is make the action scenes impossible to follow, not to mention risk giving me a headache.

James Cameron, please come back from the deep sea and show these amateurs a thing or twelve about directing good action movies, please?

[Boozy]

Gladiator was like that. Everyone raved about it, but the cinematography was too jarring for me. I had trouble following the fight scenes.

[BroomJockey]

Actually, I believe you have the Bourne Identity to thank for this trend. It pre-dates all your examples, and is the first movie I remember people complaining about the shaky camera-work, and I know I had trouble following who was doing what during the fights.

I don't think the trend will end any time soon, though. It's actually easier for them to do close-in work for action scenes, because they don't have to deal with everything in the background and it's easier to fake certain things so that the actual actor can do it rather than a stunt person.

[AdminAssistant]

I know in King Arthur they put cameras on horses and in shields so they could get better action shots.

James Cameron? psshhht. Maybe John McTiernan (Die Hard, Hunt for Red October) or Richard Donner (Lethal Weapon, 16 Blocks).

[DrFaroohk]

And while we're at it, get the guys who direct live music performances. Vocalist is screeching his nuts off. Pan to the crowd! Extreme guitar solo. ZOOM IN ON THE BASSIST!!!!! Thunderin' bass line. Do extremo random camera effects on the keyboardist. Except there is no keyboardist, so the camera is just pointing at this dark, uninhabited part of the stage while the band is doing cool stuff just a few feet away.

[Talon]

Actually, I believe you have the Bourne Identity to thank for this trend. It pre-dates all your examples, and is the first movie I remember people complaining about the shaky camera-work, and I know I had trouble following who was doing what during the fights.

I've never watched any of the Bourne movies. After knowing that little detail, I know I never will bother. My brother watched one of them, and complained that Bourne keeps getting thrown around, suffering impacts that should immobilize him, but he gets up and keeps running without a hitch. Ah, more bad action movie cliches.

I don't think the trend will end any time soon, though. It's actually easier for them to do close-in work for action scenes, because they don't have to deal with everything in the background and it's easier to fake certain things so that the actual actor can do it rather than a stunt person.

*facepalm*

Let me repeat that:

*facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm*

Tell me again why I bother with the Great Stinking Sea of Mediocrity that action movies have become?

[BroomJockey]

Tell me again why I bother with the Great Stinking Sea of Mediocrity that action movies have become?

Same reason I do, probably. Stuff blows up.

[DesignFox]

I can't stand that either. It makes me nauseous! I loved the Bourne Identity, and I wanted to sit and watch the others in the series with my sweetie, but I was too sick and headachy...we had to watch something else afterward.

When I saw Saving Private Ryan in the theaters, I had a really tough time, not because of all the gore, but the damn camera work!

Ugh. It drives me crazy! I also can't play most modern video games for the same reason.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Maybe it's all the skitzo First Person Shooters and fast paced airsoft matches but action movies have never been too difficult for me to follow.

In fact, the only time in recent memory that I couldn't see who was who in an action scene was Star Wars episode 3 at the end. I mean, two nearly identically dressed guys in a star wars movie fighting with lightsabres of the same color? That's difficult.

Borne was frantic, but that's kinda the point.

I kinda like the way action movies are going. Less talking (not what I'm here for) more shooting and exploding. I want five minutes of exposition followed by the perfect 90 minute blood spilling, car exploding, gun shooting action scene of all time.

I have yet to see this movie, even though Shoot Em Up did it's best...

A good firefight sequence should be hellishly frantic, makes it visceral.

[AdminAssistant]

I want five minutes of exposition followed by the perfect 90 minute blood spilling, car exploding, gun shooting action scene of all time.

I have yet to see this movie, even though Shoot Em Up did it's best...

Personally, I prefer the 80's model of the action movie (notice I mentioned the directors of Die Hard and Lethal Weapon). Good stories, good dialogue, good acting...AND amazing fight sequences and special effects. If it's just things blowing up without some reason for it...meh. Actually, I think the differences between Die Hard and Live Free or Die Hard perfectly outline the decline of the action/adventure genre. Ditto Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Legend of the Crystal Skull.

There were two redeeming features of Shoot 'Em Up: 1) the fact that Clive Owen can make even the absolute WORST dialogue somewhat palatable. And that movie has some terrible dialogue. 2) Clive Owen's naked butt.