Movie fads

The thread about split-screen reminded me of this:

I think I’ve spotted the new fad effect/technique that will take the place of the Matrix-style freeze-and-pan camera move (good riddance).

It’s the shaky sudden-zoom move, where the camera is fixed on a scene (usually a CGI scene), then suddenly zooms in on one element, weaving around before it gets to its target, presumably to simulate a handheld camera. I first noticed in Attack of the Clones, and then saw it again in Firefly and a couple of other places I’ve forgotten. It’s all the rage! It sucks.

(Although to be fair, it was somewhat apropos in Episode II because he was going for old-style war footage. But it stood out since nowhere else in the movie did they use a shaky camera.)

So let’s see if we can start a time-line on these things, techniques or gimmicks that got picked up by EVERYONE and got old much too quickly:

shaky sudden-zoom
Matrix freeze-and-pan
CG Shockwave from explosions
Seven and Fight Club distressed film and vibrating credits
Morphing
Artificial lens flare
Realistic (read: unintelligible) audio*
Split Screen
Color
Sound
*In particular, see All The President’s Men. Dialogue-heavy scenes conducted underneath the flight path of jumbo jets. Innovative!

Going far enough back:
3-D
Cinerama

Though sound and color seem to have caught on. :slight_smile:

Grundy, I’d noticed that effect in Firefly, but had assumed it meant that the CGI company was the some one from Babylon 5, which used a similar filming technique frequently…but a little checking online hasn’t revealed any actual Firefly/Babylon connection. So that leaves me with…nothing. Humbug.

Well, I DO have another movie fad to contribute…the “Saving Private Ryan/Gladiator Combat Photography,” where they (usually) use a handheld camera, but mess around with the film speed to eliminate any “motion blur” on playback.

And there’s the proto-Matrix freeze-frame shot, which would usually focus on an entire room, rather than one or two characters, and usually a non-combat situation. Merlin and Wing Commander used shots like this.

…And then there’s the woefully inappropriate music in early sound movies, before they got the hang of writing soundtracks, it seems. Island of Lost Souls for example. Which seemed to either use NO music at all, or some generic blaring brass band. But I’m not sure that one really counts.

I’m going to make the broad assertion that everything in movies is, to one extent or another, a “fad.”

The basic dichotomy in Hollywood, and the film industry in general, is that the square peg of an art form is being crammed into the round hole of business. In business, you analyze the market, identify demands with inadequate supply, and attempt to make a profit by addressing that demand. You can engineer products for safety and/or reliability, and balance the profit margin by making a reasonable compromise.

You can’t really do this with movies. Nobody really knows what makes one movie more successful than another. Nobody expected Big Fat Greek Wedding to march toward $150 million. And nobody expected Congo to barely limp to break-even. One one side you have the Blair Witches and Mementos; on the other you have Ali and K-19.

To make up for this, the MBAs who filtered from the parent conglomerate into the studio system have attempted to apply their business-school training to the industry. They try to calculate what a particular movie star might be worth. They try to evaluate audience interest in certain genre elements. They stake their careers on what is essentially a barely-informed gamble.

The Sixth Sense made an unbelievable amount of money,” they say, “so audiences must really want twist endings.” Hence the flood of gotchas currently polluting the cinematic landscape. And by the same reasoning, “Even Harrison Ford couldn’t draw people to K-19, which means people don’t want to see submarine movies, so let’s not even bother to advertise Below” (a new horror/suspense thriller from the director of Pitch Black that happens to also be set in a submarine).

In other words, nothing succeeds like success. Turnover in movie-studio executive suites is ridiculously high, so the suits protect their jobs by not taking any chances at all. Everything is copied from something else successful; if you try something original and it doesn’t work, all you have to justify your decision is your own instinct, whereas if you can point to a precedent for your decision, you might be able to keep your job.

It’s the nature of the beast. When something really takes off, everybody runs to clone it. It’s always been that way, and until there’s an unprecedented upheaval in the general entertainment landscape, in which what we think of as “movies” is replaced by something unforeseen and radically different, it’ll always be the case.

Not trying to rain on anybody’s parade here, but I thought some context would be useful.

Well, I can give some background on two of those:

•** Sound**. There have been “talkies” of one kind or another since the late 1890s. The earliest ones synchronized records with film, and had all kinds of synchronization and projection problems. Sound-on-film was invented by the early 1920s, and we still have a good number of sound shorts from that period. By 1926, sound was being used for background music—then The Jazz Singer (only a part-talkie, 1927) was the first financially successful feature-length film with sound (it was not “the first talkie,” by a long shot). 1928–30 was a very interesting period, as studios converted in stages to sound.

Color was also used in very early films—Pathé, in France, hand-colored most of their releases. Early vesions of Technicolor-like processes were in use by 1922, and I’ve seen some gorgeous color films (or sequences within films) in late silents. I think 3-strip color was being used occasionally by 1934, and by the 1940s was becoming more and more run-of-the-mill. It wasn’t till the late 1950s, though, that the vast majority of films were in color.

BTW: The technique in SPR and Gladiator is achieved by simply removing every third frame of film.