For those who feel nuGalactica failed...

[jollyreaper]

Far as I'm concerned shakycam is more than useless in fiction. Yes, the cameraperson is not in a position to keep the camera on the action all the time. I don't give a flying fuck? I don't want to see what some moron with a camera manages to tape, I want to see what's actually going on out-of-universe observer style.

I'd have to check my cinema history but I think Private Ryan kicked off the current craze. Some handheld stuff works for a gritty, visceral feel. But it's a cheap way to convey that urgency, same way jump scares in horror movies are cheap.

Given that CGI and modern tech has given the filmmaker unlimited options, I almost think it might be nice to exercise a little more restraint so that when there's a call to go balls to the wall, it'll be more notable. I particularly enjoy in anime where they replicate practical shots from live-action movies, in particular I'm thinking of the landing gear retracting shot in Top Gun (camera mounted on real, live airplane) to the same shot in Cowboy Bebop (camera mounted to wait, what?)

The funny thing is that shakycam and hyper-kinetic cinematography is usually a way to mask poor production values, the same way that you can use a heavy sauce to cover a bad cut of meat. But if you have the money, why use the shortcuts? It's like putting ketchup on prime rib. Quantum of Solace was even worse than the Bourne movies in that regard, probably the shakiest camera work I've ever seen.

There's a real art to filming an energetic action scene where the flow of action remains comprehensible to the viewer.

Given how everything old is new again, I imagine that we'll eventually come back around to directors doing long takes and carefully planned action scenes, then the lesser talents will take it too far and turn everything up to 11 to stand out and we'll get 20 minute takes of cars not going anywhere.

[JLTucker]

I was mostly venting on my general hatred for shakycam rather than actually commenting on its use in nBSG (which I gave up on somewhere during s2).

Believe it or not, shaky cam can be used thematically. You can look no further than Public Enemies to see that the shaking becomes more substantial when the character Billie is on screen. It's particularly worse when she's in shambles, symbolizing her waning mental stability in given situations. I can recall none of that in BSG, however. I think they obviously employed that technique to match the gritty tone of the show.

[Stark]

Its a technique that tells you something very strong about what you're watching and it worked well with the 'gritty' look of the show overall.

I just think they gradually moved the slider a bit far into 'WOBBLE AT ALL TIMES'.

[jollyreaper]

It was fine in the miniseries, but watching Exodus when it couldn't hold the camera straight on two people standing still in a tent without zooming in on random objects and being dropped on the floor was a bit silly.

But I think the story issues are more interesting than the directing decisions, overall.

Not the biggest problem with the show but a sign of the times. These days, two characters can't have a bowl of cereal in the morning without the camera bobbing and weaving like the operator just got out of a drunken fistfight.

[Gandalf]

"Set up the shaky cam."
"Sir, The audience are used to it."
"MAKE IT EVEN SHAKIER!"

I think the worst offender was Resurrection Ship, wherein a piece of debris actually hits the camera and makes it spin.

[Stark]

Without having seen it, I would disagree. That kind of tactile physical presence in the fiction is a great thing to go for (if it works). I guess if it then floated around the room while the scene happened without actually pointing at anything it'd be bad, though.

[Gandalf]

Without having seen it, I would disagree. That kind of tactile physical presence in the fiction is a great thing to go for (if it works). I guess if it then floated around the room while the scene happened without actually pointing at anything it'd be bad, though.

It works fantastically if the camera is actually in the scene, like Cloverfield (if that film wasn't everything wrong with everything).

But as the "omniscient watcher", it's just strange to have it interact like that.

[Stark]

In shots that follow people, having (say) the camera duck to go through a low door or whatever is a great way to set the tone of a shot - this isn't a movie we're watching; we are in the scene. We are following this man and feel what he feels.

And then there's zooming in and out on one-eyed guy's fingers at random. :V

[Batman]

I can't speak for anybody else of course but as far as I'm concerned...shakycam gets on my nerves. Out-of-universe observer?
It's your movie. You can do it any way you see fit. And I can decide to not watch it in theatres if I don't like it.

[Stark]

What if the whole point is that you're not an out-of-universe observer and that the tone of the fiction requires that you identify with the spaces people occupy? Isn't rejecting something out of hand because it does something you declare 'bad' just a bit immature?

I'm not going to say anything about cinema verite because it probably doesn't mean what I think it means, but there are movies that would lose impact if they were shot traditionally. Do you just not watch things like that?

[JLTucker]

And really, everyone gets up in arms about the rejecting tech part of the finale. But I couldn't stand the damn flashbacks. So Adama's a dyed-in-the-wool military man who's word is his bond. Starbuck and Adama are cheating scumbags. This is not need stuff, we know it already. And who the hell cares that Roslin almost banged one her students? I mean, NUA or Tucker or someone? What did that add to the story? Please?

Well, my first thought are the following line from Adama in the miniseries: "You know, when we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question, why? Why are we as a people worth saving? We still commit murder because of greed, spite, jealousy. And we still visit all of our sins upon our children. We refuse to accept the responsibility for anything that we've done."

I think that adequately describes most of the characters in the show. We find out they were scum even before the attacks, so they haven't changed much at all. Are they worth saving?

[Stark]

Holy shit, maybe we DO need a 'like post' button.

[Batman]

Out-of-universe observer doesn't mean I can't identify with the people in the story. and I'm sorry, I'm an out-of-universe-observer by definition?
What with Batman (or some random nutjob pretending to be Batman on the internet if you don't believe I'm the real deal) curiously failing to be mentioned in the nBSG narrative?

This is so going to backfire if someone did mention Batman in nBSG.

[Stark]

Its a sideline, but I think its pretty sad that you view art through such a narrow apeture. It might be a good example of audience expectations, though - just as the audience might expect clear and exciting answers to the mysteries presented, they might also expect these things to be presented in a certain way.

[Flagg]

I know I didn't watch nBSG for Moore even though I'm a huge DS9 fan. I was watching a show he was doing on HBO called 'Carnivale' (I watched it because it looked interesting, I didn't know he was doing it until after a few episodes) and actually left after the first season to do nBSG, which kinda blew me away since the original was terrible. However about a week before the series proper was set to premier here it had been getting rave reviews from the UK where it had aired first so I caught the miniseries and loved it.

But see, when they would talk about Earth and all that shit it interested me, but not as much as the conflicting characters and day to day struggles did. I mean I loved Exodus and all that, but the thing that blew me away wasn't the spaceships and pewpews (I enjoyed it, but it was icing on the cake for me), it's when Saul Tigh walked down the hangar deck having sacrificed everything he cared about to save the human race from extinction and everyone is shouting for Adama.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

And really, everyone gets up in arms about the rejecting tech part of the finale. But I couldn't stand the damn flashbacks. So Adama's a dyed-in-the-wool military man who's word is his bond. Starbuck and Adama are cheating scumbags. This is not need stuff, we know it already. And who the hell cares that Roslin almost banged one her students? I mean, NUA or Tucker or someone? What did that add to the story? Please?

Well, my first thought are the following line from Adama in the miniseries: "You know, when we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question, why? Why are we as a people worth saving? We still commit murder because of greed, spite, jealousy. And we still visit all of our sins upon our children. We refuse to accept the responsibility for anything that we've done."

I think that adequately describes most of the characters in the show. We find out they were scum even before the attacks, so they haven't changed much at all. Are they worth saving?

On the other hand, maybe it's supposed to answer that question by showing all of their basic humanity. They all deal with mundane, grinding, banal issues - Roslin's romantic issues, Adama's superiors and dead-end career, Lee's... Pigeon... But they all reach a kind of grace at the end in those last shots, of Adam looking up at the stars, Roslin serene in the fountain, and Lee letting go. That is worth saving.

[JLTucker]

On the other hand, maybe it's supposed to answer that question by showing all of their basic humanity. They all deal with mundane, grinding, banal issues - Roslin's romantic issues, Adama's superiors and dead-end career, Lee's... Pigeon... But they all reach a kind of grace at the end in those last shots, of Adam looking up at the stars, Roslin serene in the fountain, and Lee letting go. That is worth saving.

That works too and it mirrors what we see in present day with the characters. Roslin is serene when she dies. Lee lets go when Kara disappears. Adama gives his last stand as an Admiral.

[JLTucker]

Without having seen it, I would disagree. That kind of tactile physical presence in the fiction is a great thing to go for (if it works). I guess if it then floated around the room while the scene happened without actually pointing at anything it'd be bad, though.

It works fantastically if the camera is actually in the scene, like Cloverfield (if that film wasn't everything wrong with everything).

But as the "omniscient watcher", it's just strange to have it interact like that.

Do you recall where in the episode this happens? I want to get a clip of it.

[Gandalf]

Do you recall where in the episode this happens? I want to get a clip of it.

Are you referring to the spinning camera thing I mentioned?

It turned out that the clip was from the Miniseries' destruction of Armistice Station. My bad.

[Flagg]

The camera didn't really bug me once I got used to it. I can see how it could be annoying if you don't watch shows that have that camera style regularly.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I don't think I've ever really gotten annoyed by shakey-cam; certainly, I can't remember an example where I found it distracting unless somebody pointed it out to me, whereas quick-cut editing is much more likely to take me out of a scene.

I suspect it's just a matter of taste.

[Grumman]

I almost prefer it when there are no real answers and you have to extrapolate shit for yourself. That's why I liked Starbucks ending so much. Meanwhile I thought the Final Five info-dump was kind of lame.

I think the ideal is that there is a real answer, even if it's not spelled out as such. A good mystery is like the blind man's elephant: the audience might not know enough to see the full picture, but it's there, and there's the opportunity to have an eureka moment and realise how all the pieces fit together.

[Flagg]

I'd rather have no answer than a lameass answer, frankly.

[jollyreaper]

I'd rather have no answer than a lameass answer, frankly.

What's funny is I can be on both aides of that. With zombies I don't want a scientific explanation because there is none and it would sound stupid. If they aren't living people with the rage virus then just admit there's no explanation and let the scientists have a twilight zone freak out.

How a man became a bug in the Metamorphosis is not important while it does have bearing in the Fly.

I think it's the tease that really irks in this case. With Kafka, he never promises answers. With a mystery, a payoff is implied. If someone presents a riddle you have an expectation that the answer will make you cry out "of course, how brilliant!" If the sphinx asks you "how is man like an apple?" and the answer is "he isn't" then that might work as a joke but is a poor riddle.

This is part of the reason why I hate deus ex machina. When characters get into a real fix, I'll try to think of how I'd get out of it. I'm delighted when the writer presents a solution with the tools at hand that I did not even consider but is obviously brilliant. A deus ex machina says "yeah, I stumped myself on that one, too."

[JLTucker]

How a man became a bug in the Metamorphosis is not important while it does have bearing in the Fly.

Exactly. How Gregor became a bug is irrelevant. All that matters is how the tale shows that xenophobia begets isolation and ultimately discrimination. I feel that way about "33." I think it's irrelevant how the Cylons track because what's important is what happens to those on Galactica while protecting everyone. In this case, the bug is the Cylon tracking every 33 minutes and the isolation and discrimination is the toll taken on the fleet.