安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
David Bordwell (who's an awesome film theorist) coined it as 'intensified continuity'. Basically he means that shots have shorter duration, and capture less visual information (ie. they're 'closer'; more closeups and inserts as opposed to wides) than they used to.
I'm not much of a fan either. I really like to be able to look around a frame and take it all in.
Another thing that sometimes happens is the use of shaky-cam--deliberately shaking the camera for disorienting effect. This is most famously used in the Bourne movies, but it has been copied by many other films, which often use it to disguise bad fight choreography/the use of stuntmen in place of actors. Shaky cam is meant to get across a you-are-there feeling, but unless the director really knows what he's doing, you end up with a confusing mess punctuated by loud thumps.
And then there's the Hobbit in particular--most of the battles are entirely CGI, and have no regard for actual physics, so it's hard to tell what's going on, because there is no internal logic to it.
Thanks for the answers!
Daenerys Targaryen has yet to arrive at king's landing.
so many things have happened and she did so many side quests it is no longer funny.
winter is coming but i guess she will arrive next decade at her current pace.
(is it me or the tv series has a dragging storyline?)
If you´ve read the books, you know, why the TV-Show is different. The characters in the series have different ages, also there are many things left unexplained.
Don´t understand me wrong, GoT is awesome, but if you´ve read the books you realize, that those are two different worlds.
Yes, the film industry used to have longer, deeper scenes that focused more on the actors. Who doesn't want that? You don't. Do you want to take a 20% pay cut at your job to service only the best customers? No? Then shut up. Neither does the movie industry. As such, it's not about to exclude children with no attention span or any other audience it can possibly grasp. Doe this make ****y movies? Yes, it does. Star Wars prequels - just ** crammed on-screen, most relevant juxtaposition. Go ahead and get your hankies out to bemoan the death of art. There will be an intermission for that, just like the old days.
So, if that's the first money, what's the second? There really is no second, and I'm M. Night Shamalalalala....lyin' because there is a second, and third, and fourth and so on money. What a twist! Not only does the movie industry want to appeal to more viewers, so do their investors, for whom time is money. The greatest movie in the world is worth precisely nothing until it starts to be worth something, otherwise you're just wasting money that could be invested elsewhere. So they don't invest unless the blockbuster has something to show, which means it needs to get out fast and make investors, not moviegoers, happy. Moviegoers will basically pay for a trailer. Investors will pay for a trailer that will atrract moviegoeers.
And then there's more money. The editing required, and the cost of shooting a modern day flick is through the roof. It costs more to hire CG animators now than it did to film on-scene, but let's be honest, you could film at one of the seven wonders of the world and it's still not a gigantic spaceship. It's old, and while old people like that, there are more new people, people who have never seen or who want to see the cutting edge of graphics tech. They will pay just for that junk. Surely, this should be sounding familiar to gamers by now, right? So many of us want gameplay, but to the investors, there are plenty more who just want graphics or the next clone. So are Evil Alliances born.
*INTERMISSION*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eclAC0JQJYk
YEAH! DUAH, DHA DHA DAH DAH DAH DAH! Did you like that music? Do you like any music that's been made since, oh, the classical era? Do you like any video game music? Then you killed art, you phillistines. Or did you? Survey says no, you made better music, and classical never went anywhere. It was just music made for people at the time, and now it happily fulfills that role for people who were born then or just have old, beautiful souls.
The rest of you escape nothing! You've reduced music, the timeless, illuminating, pure language of shared human thought to a few mere repeated stanzas. Says something kind of scary about us, right? Or does it? It really doesn't because we now have fifty bazillion kinds of music tailored for everyone. That most people gravitate to certain types means nothing, any more than it does that militaries use beats to march to. If anything, we should be glad at how much we are alike.
But that's not really in our nature, is it? Such precious snowflakes are we! Oh, and how we hurt when our form is not marveled at! Such cruelty and impersonal coldness from a thing that is holding a snowflake. We're snowflakes alright, precious and cold to anything that doesn't speak to us. Hence the constant ridicule of art being "for the masses." It's always been for the masses! That's what makes it good. I have no doubt that Pablo Picasso poured his soul and his terrible painting ability into Guernica, but what the ♥♥♥♥ was that painting even about? He even told us, and it doesn't look like a town or a war to me. If anyone failed to capture war it was him. At least soldiers on the battlefield sometimes feel like they're in some Greco-Roman crap, all glorious and with more penises than you'd like. Yet that's a classic because it was rare, it made people who appreciated it into precious snowflakes, none of whom ever saw a battlefield.
Luckily, you get the best of both worlds. For every piece of churned out cookie-cutter crap in the cinema, you've got a hundred other options to choose from. It's not the death of art, it's not that movies are ruined forever, it's not even that the clips are too fast or that the storytelling isn't what it used to be. It's exactly what it used to be, just condensed. Find me a movie with an orginal plot, just one, and describe it. I will find you where it has been done before.
You've got internet, you've got many more movies now than you ever had, hailing from all nations of the world, you've got everything you ever wanted in humanity's desire to express itself, from Picasso to Pewdiepie. All the knowledge and art humanity ever had is at your fingertips. All the drama, all the amazing things the most amazing species this planet has ever seen has ever done, stories that would put the efforts of some hack writer to shame, and you're going to whine about what? That movies aren't the ones you liked? They're not like you wanted? Pull out the hankie again, it's the tear-jerking conclusion. "No, John, you are teh aliens. And then John was a ahlien."
You have your reasons now, go forth, and consider the context. Nothing to get upset over.
I do understand your points.
Got to rethink about that. The problem I see is, that whenever I´m waiting for a new movie, I´m having expectations. And most movies are quite good, but it seems like I´m missing parts of it.
I don´t know, maybe we are talking away from each other, but I do think that most new movies can´t satisfy me. And there aren´t many movies I´m able to find at all, with a good cutting and a good overall quality.
Cutting trailers in a fast pace is something I expect, because they want to get much information into a short time phase. This way you are curious about the film and consider watching it.
But why do they have to make many scenes in such a fast way? Wouldn´t it be better, if the whole audience realises what happened in a scene? Why do the directors even hire performance directors and people to create choreographies in scenes, if they are drowning in the fast paced cutting?
I hope that I´m able to say what I want, English isn´t my native language...
You did well. I understand that new movies don't satisfy you, but that's to be expected. You've go so much more to choose from. No reason to lament film. Besides, it will come around to deliver a new version of "classic" eventually if you're patient.
As for the whole audience realizing what happens in a scene.....you'd think so but it is not so. Again, it's about the investors, it's about money. I hope you didn't miss the part about that not mattering, with so much else to choose from.
Well, I didn´t missed the part, but I can´t follow you...
Could you explain this again? I wasn´t able to figure out what you wanted to say with that, to be honest.