The whole 'found footage' thing has been an annoying trend that I really wish would go away, because it's annoying. I have epilepsy, too, and have to worry about being triggered by that kind of thing.

It's a technique that directors have used to make the audience feel like they're part of the action. I do agree that it's rather annoying, though, especially when you're paying to watch a movie comfortably but end up feeling sick and queasy at the end.

I'd rather have camera-shaking instead of loud and obnoxious people at the theater though. Any day of the week.

I don't think it's an immersion technique so much as a fad and the result of declining standards. There's a strong distinction in the suspension of disbelief that you get when you're watching a really good story, versus one that's not so good.
I like to use video games as an example.
If you look at the recent Aliens: COlonial Marines, it's not *too* removed from reality, beyond the aliens themselves being fantastical and crazy. Yet, with the weak story, I found myself nitpicking every little nuance and character detail and plot point.
Now, compare that to, say, Bioshock Infinite. Absolutely ridiculous game, full of crazy post-civil-war steampunk nonsense, a city floating in the sky, crazy game mechanics, gatling-gun-wielding automatons cast in the likeness of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.
Yet, the story was more fun and engaging, so it took a solid five hours of gameplay for me to realize that the main character shouldn't in any way be able to leap a good 80 or 90 feet from a short run-up to be able to grab an overhead steel rail.

They *might* be doing it to try to immerse the audience, but it's my opinion that they wouldn't have to, if they'd just focus on telling a better story. :D

It gives is "flare" and "an exciting new edge!"....buhhh

It's called a shakeycam. Movies like 'Cloverfield' think they're being 'clever' and 'realistic' by using it. It's a film device that rarely ever works. Usually, instead of making a film more immersive, it just annoys.

It's just like lens flares. They only make me feel less immersed into the scene then part of it. That is because human eyes do not see "J.J. Abrams" lens flares. Our eyes see glare and refraction but we do not see the 'inifinite star' flares because that only happens in lenses with multiple elements a.k.a. a zoom camera lens which our human eyes do not have.

Now if we consider the Enterprise have nice screens to see the outer space is okay, but having almost all screen lensflared because it is a "fucking must" is unforgivable. Even Hubble telescope managed to filter the raw solar flares even out in Two-thousand-and-fucking-ten, and it did not need to be as much of a science-fiction to make it happen. It is already there.

The same reason they keep doing anything else... because people keep buying the finished product.

I remember one movie in particular did the complete opposite... Castaway. The island parts had no movement in the shots; completely still angles. This was really a great effect even if most did not consciously register why they did it.

Back in my days they used still-shots.
Pepperidge farm remembers!

Yeah... it's a disgusting trend.. it's supposed to feel more "authentic" because it looks like "home-movie authentic".. subliminally making people think it's more believable and less manufactured (like movies and tv are by nature)... but at its very heart, it is an annoying contrivance and fake to the core... ;P

Use a Tripod on big budget movies and TV !

It's a tool in the cinematic tool box that someone used effectively, then every fucker with a camera decided to throw out their tripod. Suddenly every bang and boom makes the camera man have a seizure and the movies are weakened because that shake didn't need to be there.

When I do video for news I typically hand hold my SLR and make it as steady as possible, it's more practical in my line of work to do it that way. But doing interviews, I use a tripod unless it just isn't possible.

Man of Steel was the worst I'd seen in a long time, especially during the intro scenes.

Not only that, but US Rt. 30/56 was closed down for about two weeks for filming, which had the effect of making my ride to work twice as long and consume twice as much fuel. Not to mention, the town immediately south of my home now wastes a solid week every year with some ridiculous Superman celebration which makes it nigh impossible to get to my second job.

And all for some overpowered, ill-conceived marysue superhero's umpteenth series reboot.

i could understand that it was meant to breathe life into the character by using more current tech, but i personally didn't care much for it. i felt it was weak, i felt the portrayal of superman himself was severely underwhelming, and aside from him getting his ass handed to him 6 ways from sunday, he really didn't do much other than break a machine, a ship, and kill zod, which was done so fucking poorly, you can't tell me he couldn't have fucking jumped or something.

yeah I got issues with it.

És csak most tűnt fel? Sajnos már 2005-2007 óta ez a divat. Mint sok másért, ezért is Michael Bay-t tartom felelősnek, ő honosította meg... annyira biztos jó hogy a CGI-t nem kell úgy kidolgozni, úgyse látsz semmit 2 másodpercnél tovább fókuszban.

Nem, csak most érett meg évek hosszas távlatában mérve az hogy kiömlesszem, és jogosan igen-is verhessem az asztalt.
Michael Bay féle filmek: Robbanás... Robbanás! Még több Robbanást! Muaaahahahaaaa. Ja és ne felejtsétek el rázni a kamerát amilyen gyérül fizettük a CGI-osokat a részleteikért tekintve. Nehogy meglássák...

Amiben nem rázzák esztelenül a kamerát legalább, és gyönyörűek is benne a részletek, eltekintve a fizikai és fiziológiai hülyeségeitől: Gravitáció.

Na én meg azt a filmet nem néztem meg, a trailer annyira nem fogott meg - olyan katasztrófafilmnek tűnik, ami az űrben játszódik, márpedig az ilyeneket nem szerettem soha.

Kifelejtetted az alpári Amerikai Pite szintű vicceket, meg a fókuszt a tehetségtelen színésznők idomaira (Megan Fox meg a másik senki aki 1 Transformers film után el is tűnt a süllyesztőben). Ez is Bay stílusa... a 2. Transformers film azért a legrosszabb eddig, mert a forgatókönyvírósztrájk idején készült, és Bay bevallottan megírta a maradék sztorit - olyan is lett.

Bár én eddig a legrosszabb kamerarángatást a Battle: Los Angelesben láttam. Nem mintha jól néznének ki a roncstelepről szökött idegen űrhajóik, de ott akkor is ugrál a kamera ha két karakter egy irodában beszélget. :D

de ott akkor is ugrál a kamera ha két karakter egy irodában beszélget.

Ezért mondtam úgy, hogy epilepsziás-kamerarázás.
Ezzel egyet tudok veled érteni a Battle Los Angelest illetően, mert ott akkoris rázzák, kidobva a bevált tripodos stabil pozíciót biztosító módszert, mert gondolják fú ez mekkroa buli, micsoda trendi. [Puzsér]NEM.[/Puzsér]