I think we must divide up the types of shaky cams. The found footage shaky cam and regular shaky cam found in movies to make them look grittier like saving private ryan, bourne series, etc. Personally, I'm fine with both, not distracting to me. Found footage shaky cam is a given since it's supposed to made like amateur hour footage. I'm typically fine with that as it's expected and if done well, gives the movie quite the atmosphere (REC/Quarantine, VHS, Grave Encounters). For regular shaky cam stuff, it's up in the air. If the movie is done well, then it's fine. But for some movies, you can't even see what's going on, and it ends up making the movie horrible.
I never noticed it in the Bourne films, but then again I am a big fan of them. Speaking of which: The Bourne Legacy: Was a good film, but did not feel as much Bourne as the three with Jason in. Matt Damon is better than the new guy too. TED: Was quite funny although sometimes silly. The Flash Gordon references were hilarious.
Remember that The Bourne Legacy isn't even about Jason Bourne. The original author of the story isn't even the same. It's just side story to the events that happen in the original trilogy. You just get to see the events happen from another perspective.
I thought there was a thread for this upcoming Superman reboot already, but couldn't find it. I'll just drop it in here for the moment. Not a big fan of Zack Snyder, but this trailer is really well done...
It looks good. Hopefully it's better than Superman Goes to the Hospital. It looks like you have the corrupt prohibition agent from Boardwalk Empire playing General Zod, which is a very nice bit of casting. That guy plays an excellent villain, and I've always thought he was the best part of that show. I also like how they're going in a grittier, darker direction similar to the Chris Nolan Batman movies. I always thought the Christopher Reeve movies were way too cheesy and cartoonish.
The trailer alone is better than that last Superman film. This actually looks good, especially for a Superman.
Fire and Ice It's the most ambiguously gay animation I've ever seen and that's even with this as a main character.
The Words It had some good actors in it, but it was way too slow and dull. I think you probably could make a good drama about the consequences of plagiarizing someone else's work, but this isn't it.
I saw Killer Joe recently. Has some particularly brutal scenes, especially towards the end. Speaking of which, the ending itself was definitely a wtf moment. And not in a good way unfortunately. Anticlimax. Overall it was okay I guess.
I'm going to see the hobbit tomorrow night. Strange that its been around 10 years since the first LOTR film came out. Also Toy Story is 17 years old, we are all old.
Saw the Hobbit last night in 3D and HFR. Unexpectedly chucklesome and I didn't really feel like there had been too much padding. 8/10 purely because I'm waiting for the spiders! The high frame rate definitely got to me in the beginning, the first few scenes looked liked they'd been sped up but I got used to it after that. It did lose that film like quality but it definitely helped when it came to quick camera movements and it produced the most comfortable 3D experience I've had so far. I will be going to see it later in 2D and standard 24fps, just to compare.
Interesting...the general critical reaction to the frame rate change has been so negative, but if it helps with action sequences and 3D, then I can see why they're trying it out for films like this.
The motion blur and 3D strobing is definitely reduced compared to 24fps and camera movements were smooth, though I believe that had something to do with them using computer aided rigs for camera movements. It would probably work better for a pure CG film, the CG elements tended to really stick out for some reason. I don't know what it is about 48fps that causes this. I found this video comparison online. It's mostly some guy's foot kicking a basketball but one is 24fpd and one is 48fps. http://www.mediafire.com/?bpg35wg93vusryu
To me, the 48 fps version gives the impression that it isn't running at the same speed the entire time...like it's running normally, then briefly speeds up or slows down here and there. There is kind of an odd quality to it, but if you repeatedly watch each clip, they don't end up seeming THAT different.
Everything looked sped up to me at first but I got used to it after about 20 minutes. I guess it's because there's less motion blur than I'm used to seeing in a film.
Saw the Hobbit in 2D 24fps. Back to what we're used to; but the juddering and blur was awful. I think I'm a convert to 48fps.
I just saw John Carter. This movie was really poorly marketed. I remember the trailers actually started to piss me off and gave a poor overall view of the movie. Watching it now, it was decent to even good. Hardly worthy of being the biggest flop in film history.
I may have not been a bad movie, but the biggest flop came due to the amount of movie Disney clearly lost probably due to what you mentioned.. bad marketing.
The hobbit was as expected. Good. I was especially a fan of Gollum's face, at times it was uncanny. Worth a look if you liked LOTR, my bum is sore though.