MovieChat Forums > First Man (2018) Discussion > PAN BACK! PAN BACK! WTF!!

PAN BACK! PAN BACK! WTF!!

posted 6 years ago by tricksoftrade (82)
18 replies | jump to latest

Watching this was like going to a movie with a pair of binoculars glued on my eyes. All these close-ups of facial reactions...Chinese food...the squak box...the control buttons ,I wanted to yell out 'I getting sea sick!'

The director won a award for 'La-La Land' so I suppose he was given free reign in directing this movie. Any competent movie executive could have looked at the dailies and told him that the style is all wrong for the targeted demographic. But who are they? The did not win a Oscar...

While the studio saved money in the short run (close ups are cheaper/faster) in the box office it finished a distant 3rd opening week.

[–] TandyMan (11120) 6 years ago

I read a film essay that said closeups are supposed to carry more emotional weight. Supposed to make the film a more intimate experience. I thought that was a bunch of nonsense.

[–] johnmiller (3944) 6 years ago

This will probably play better on home viewing. But, yes, as a theater experience, it is a lot to handle.

I think that the POV shots worked very well, if you kept the numbers of them within reason. But, doing that for a majority of the movie was quite a lot to take in.

I also thought that, missing things like not seeing the LEM land from outside was going too far with viewing everything from Armstrong's point of view.

[–] fooman (301) 6 years ago

Just seen it on the small screen and yes made me sea sick. I agree like watching it through binoculars in rough seas. Normally you get a break from camera shakes in the quiet parts, but in First Man the camera was still zoomed in and waving around in funeral scenes! Nearly had to stop watching this otherwise enjoyable film, but managed to get through by focusing on the corner of the telly.

Rather than a clear picture of the action I find it just hard to work out wtf is going off. Perhaps filmmakers misunderstand this confusion with an emotional response? Well unless they are aiming for anger.

I’m going start a crowdfunding campaign to supply Hollywood with steadycams and wide angle lenses to hopefully eliminate the scourge of tight shaky close ups. Either that or I’ll edit some classic film, like Laurence of Arabia or something, giving it tight shaky shots so it can be seen how bad it is.

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

I'm in!

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Saw Dunkirk at our local Imax and also nearly vomited. The 'shaky cam' isn't as bad as, say, the Bourne movies, but it was enough that, in my eighth row seat, I suddenly got ill.

Once I moved to the very back of the theatre I was fine.

I never saw the 2nd and 3rd Bourne movies for the same reason -- the 'shaky cam' from the first movie made me too ill to consider going to see the next movies. (Although The Bourne Legacy with Jeremy Renner was fine...)

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

And who do you think the targeted demographic is?

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

Senior citizens, the over 50 crowd, people interested in history (who tend to be older males).

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

This wasn't a movie about the space program, it was a movie about a troubled man who happened to be an astronaut.

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

Well, either the directing style or the story,it will go down as a mistake because it bombed at the box office. Word of mouth (instead of smartphones) goes big in the over 50 crowd. I viewed this movie in its second week in the theaters, I knew it was a bad sign when I was the only one in the theater.

The director was born in 1985. The style he used is just not appealing to older generations used to a steady cam.

One can usually ascertain what target demographic the movie is trying to appeal to looking for by how they spend the advertising budget. I will place a bet that a hefty portion of it was on media that attracts older eyes.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 6 years ago

You seem to know so much. One wonders why you'd say "PAN BACK" rather than zoom out.

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

I might not know the correct lingo, but I do know that the current fad of zooming in super close is extremely annoying.

But it seems to be more common now. I tried to watch one of those CSI tv shows that the director was doing the same thing, tight closeups with a shaky obviously hand-held cam. I lased 5 minutes.

Maybe it is the effect of prolonged smartphone use among the populace? Where everybody uses them to 'film' every event in their lives....people have become accustomed to this style and therefore less annoyed.

[–] MoviesSuck (964) 6 years ago

Features rarely shoot with zoom lenses, so it seems that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about either. “Dolly back” would have made more sense if you were trying to insult the man.

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mayaTitan (37) 5 years ago

I agree. This movie's theme had potential. A nice, feel-good movie could be done. Rarely does the shaky cam work. Yet it's being overused and abused. Plus when they zoom in it makes me feel sick. And this is on a 24" screen. I think I would throw up in a theater.

[–] Roguemail (1614) 5 years ago

The 'camera movement making me sick' is a pile of horseshit.

It's always exaggerated for effect.

I dont always like it myself, but quite frankly if you feel I'll watching such things then you have a medical condition.

[–] fooman (301) 5 years ago

It's a common condition called motion sickness. Lots of people feel the effect to a varying degree.

[–] samoanjoes (57071) 5 years ago

Yeah, this was the biggest reason why I hated this film. It was frustrating to look at. It was too confined. Oddly enough in the moon landing scenes where they are confined, the camera seemed pulled back.

[–] liscarkat (18605) 5 years ago

I didn't get sick, but during the Gemini flight when they were tumbling end-over-end FOREVER I got bored. It was just too much, and went on and on after the idea was thoroughly conveyed. Maybe it went on that long or longer in real life, but this is a movie and things need to be done economically, not exhaustingly.