First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Animes That Murder Small Children
71060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/15/14 , edited 3/15/14

HauAreWe wrote:


Insomnist wrote:

I'm not sure I've ever thought of the camera as a character. I think of it as the director's eyes.


That's interesting.. Perhaps I'm strange then.

I've never been able to consider a camera as the director's eyes. There are too many factors that are outside of their control and too many hands in the representation of the camera. The camera is like a puppet or a 3D animated character. You can only do certain things with the camera and must work within its boundaries once everything has been laid.

In live action, the camera must be accommodated for just as much as any actor. You must set up the scene, the special effects, and every character with the camera in mind. It's just like how you would set up the roles of the actors in a scene. What do you want the role of the camera to be? What does the camera want to see? It's very important. In 3D CG animation, the camera's position and movement is just as important as any other character. It's a big part of the experience.

Not to say that the camera is one character. You can have different camera personalities.

Psycho is a good example. The camera that accompanies the owner of the Bates Motel has been twisted by the environment it has developed in. It stalks people, it looks at the twisted nature of the hotel owner, it has been influenced by his desires. In fact, I believe that it practically calls the main character out to the Motel in the same way that an apparition may beckon its victims.

However, there is a second camera that accompanies the male protagonists at times. This camera is looking for clues. It's been influenced by the sense of duty and responsibility of its compatriots and it wishes to witness the crimes of the killer as a means of nailing down its suspect.

Cameras can't really help a protagonist, much like a sidekick to a detective, and they can't communicate, but they help establish a scene.

Maybe my view on this is strange though. Based on interviews, etc, several highly influential directors consider the camera to be an omnipotent avatar of the viewer while other influential artists consider it as a tool to show off the world they have envisioned for their script and story.

The more you describe it the more I wonder if we're thinking in tandem, but with different ways of expressing our thoughts (with some subtle differences). For example, what you attribute to the camera as a sort of neutral anthropomorph, which is its own being moving around within the film, I've just come to identify that as the director. So the way the camera behaves during a scene, in my way of thinking, is due to how the director is consciously portraying it for the audience.

So back to Pan's Labyrinth, when you were angry at the camera's morbid fascination with gore, I was thinking "Why is the director putting me in this position, and 'behaving' with the camera in this way? What is he trying to convey here?"

I don't consciously think that way often when watching movies, but it's how I process the information.
22408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / CR Forums
Offline
Posted 3/15/14
I'm more a fan of writing than I am of Directing, so the whole "The Camra is a Character/The Directors Eyes' bit goes a little over my head.
I believe the whole thing is up to the Director however, there are plenty of instances where someone goes out of their way to get that Camera into the shot they want it, only with the regard of what he's seeing. There are others that focus on using the camera as the Viewers Eyes and give you impressive shot like the brutal one you've mentioned.

In other mediums, the Camera doesn't always exist., altho it still can. It's sometimes the omniscient viewer or a specific character's eyes and thoughts. I prefer looking at things from the characters point of view anyhow, as a movie doesn't have the interaction I'd like for the Camera to represent itself as a character.

That said, do Teenagers count as Children? My Sister and I always joke about Bleach and the whole "Ichigo is a 14 Year old boy, WHY IS HE FIGHTING DEMON-GHOST-ZOMBIE-MEXICANS ON SCHOOL NIGHTS? Like, all his friends are 14ish too, don't give me that 'he looks older' crap, dude is having 600+ Old villains challenging him to fights to the death, something ain't right about that.


Insomnist wrote:


Felstalker wrote:

On the other hand, I just spend a spent a few hours previous to that playing Dark Souls 2, in which I was brutally killed time and again by the most punishing bosses I've fought in a long while(Company of Champions first playthrough or ur filthy casual), and the whole "sitting on them laughing" feeling is what I Dark Souls 2 is designed around

This is totally tangential to the discussion, but while we're here:

THIS HAD BETTER HAVE A QUALITY PC PORT.


Dark Souls had quite the good Port, didn't it......did it? I think it was good.

More to the point, the design of the game is amazing! They painted Dark Souls with the Demon's Souls paint, giving the game a lonely "After the end" feel. Dark Souls was an adventure, while Demon's Souls a nightmare, I always jumped at the shadows. Dark Souls 2 is giving me that fear of something strange, with the wide veriety of bosses, monsters, and mechanics like the new Lighting/Torch function, the game is amazing! New grounds I say, new grounds!

Why do I bring this up? BECAUSE THE GAME IS BUGGY AS HELL. Receiving the game "as is" to PC would make a horrible port I say, PC users wouldn't stand for it!

The A.I is so intelligent, you'll go made from all their tactic's. But sometimes, they'll bug out in the most obvious(and usually hilarious) of ways. I'm talking glitches and animation problems. Some of the weapons are unusable because of spotty hit detection, especially the larger weapons, while connection issues are rampant.

Just, lets hope they take their time instead of releasing a bad PC Port.
71060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/15/14 , edited 3/15/14

Felstalker wrote:

Dark Souls had quite the good Port, didn't it......did it? I think it was good.

It's widely renowned as one of the worst PC ports in all of gaming history from what I've read.

I'm sure there's at least something out there that was worse, but it was pretty damn bad for AAA. I can't speak from personal experience since I haven't played it but I was looking into buying it and the laundry-list of things you had to do to make it playable (after you bought a game controller, since playing with the keyboard was impossible) was nuts.

This IS the internet, so it might've been overblown a little, but...

So I looked down the road, saw Dark Souls II coming, and went "Fuck it, I'll wait for that one."


Felstalker wrote:

Just, lets hope they take their time instead of releasing a bad PC Port.

Very much agreed. I'll wait years if I have to, although I'd rather not.

If it bombs I'll work around to getting an Xbox360 just so I can play Dark Souls on it.
2037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 3/15/14 , edited 3/15/14

Insomnist wrote:
So back to Pan's Labyrinth, when you were angry at the camera's morbid fascination with gore, I was thinking "Why is the director putting me in this position, and 'behaving' with the camera in this way? What is he trying to convey here?"

I don't consciously think that way often when watching movies, but it's how I process the information.


Yes. I believe that the camera is an anthropomorphic actor.

A script-writer makes a script, but the actor will change and twist the lines much to the director and editor's excitement or dismay. The camera works the same way.

The director's approach must often change if the camera doesn't accommodate their views. If a camera angle looks poor to an editor/director, is in a bad spot, or conveys the wrong mood, a scene may have to have cuts made or scenes re-shot. If an editor feels that a camera doesn't give the impact that the director was hoping for, they may have to split its performance up so that the viewer doesn't notice it as much as they otherwise would (if the scene was important.)

Some cameras are devoid of personality. In an animation for instance, a camera may sit on a flat plain and witness everything in a boring 2D view, neither participating nor showing interest in the scene. In these cases, even if the characters are shining in personality and the action impressive, the viewer will be disappointed by the poor performance of the camera. If the director is focusing on what they see within the scene while ignoring the camera, the viewer is going to feel that the scene lacks energy and will get bored (because the camera is constantly reminding us that it's bored.)

In Saki for instance, the camera may exhibit excitement and spins around then zooms back to witness big special effects. As a result, the viewer is excited by its acting and feel like the scene has been brought to life (because the scene is a living thing.) If they had the exact same scene, but the camera simply move a little bit, the scene would lack energy since it is now relying solely on the performance of the characters and special effects while the camera stops bothering.

The camera, after all, is our companion in the world of film. If the camera is excited and having fun around a bad-ass villain, then the camera is either naive or zany and that helps paint the whole scene in a different color. If the camera is still while the villain is acting zany and weird, then the camera is just as effective as a secondary character staring at the villain with a bored expression.

EDIT: I'm going to stop here though. This has nothing to do with the OP.
71060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/15/14 , edited 3/15/14

HauAreWe wrote:

EDIT: I'm going to stop here though. This has nothing to do with the OP.

I just think the director has much more control over the camera than you're giving him credit for, despite the very real difficulties in live-action film, especially in an extremely carefully choreographed scene like the one discussed in Pan's Labyrinth. It's the director's responsibility to be aware of how cameras work, and create scenes which work given those inhibitions. It isn't the camera's job to make the best of a badly constructed scene, because that should never happen.

Basically the movie is built around the camera, the camera isn't inserted into the movie.

But in any case, yes. We should probably stop.
2037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 3/15/14

Insomnist wrote:
It isn't the camera's job to make the best of a badly constructed scene, because that should never happen


/Bleach
49355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M/F - Michigan
Offline
Posted 3/15/14
Anime can't kill children, it's just 1's and 0's on a harddrive in Japan... and paper laying on a desk. o3o
13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/15/14

HauAreWe wrote:Yes. I believe that the camera is an anthropomorphic actor.

A script-writer makes a script, but the actor will change and twist the lines much to the director and editor's excitement or dismay. The camera works the same way.

The director's approach must often change if the camera doesn't accommodate their views. If a camera angle looks poor to an editor/director, is in a bad spot, or conveys the wrong mood, a scene may have to have cuts made or scenes re-shot. If an editor feels that a camera doesn't give the impact that the director was hoping for, they may have to split its performance up so that the viewer doesn't notice it as much as they otherwise would (if the scene was important.)

Some cameras are devoid of personality. In an animation for instance, a camera may sit on a flat plain and witness everything in a boring 2D view, neither participating nor showing interest in the scene. In these cases, even if the characters are shining in personality and the action impressive, the viewer will be disappointed by the poor performance of the camera. If the director is focusing on what they see within the scene while ignoring the camera, the viewer is going to feel that the scene lacks energy and will get bored (because the camera is constantly reminding us that it's bored.)

In Saki for instance, the camera may exhibit excitement and spins around then zooms back to witness big special effects. As a result, the viewer is excited by its acting and feel like the scene has been brought to life (because the scene is a living thing.) If they had the exact same scene, but the camera simply move a little bit, the scene would lack energy since it is now relying solely on the performance of the characters and special effects while the camera stops bothering.

The camera, after all, is our companion in the world of film. If the camera is excited and having fun around a bad-ass villain, then the camera is either naive or zany and that helps paint the whole scene in a different color. If the camera is still while the villain is acting zany and weird, then the camera is just as effective as a secondary character staring at the villain with a bored expression.

EDIT: I'm going to stop here though. This has nothing to do with the OP.


I must say, this is a very interesting conversation and I would personally enjoy if you kept it going :P

Anyways, I would like to briefly speak about the impact of camera movement:

Cameras can behave in a variety of ways, especially in animation. They have next to no limits and this can be used to evoke many different feelings. You speak about how a moving, frantic camera can compliment a fight scene and make it more exciting while a more static, uninvolved camera could make you feel bored as if the camera is uninterested.

I don't disagree with this but I do think that the camera "character" is much more nuanced than you are making it out to be.

When I think about a fight scene with the camera still and panned out, I can think of a few stylistic reasons why this would be done. While the fight scene up close with the zipping around camera sets the fight scene as exciting and maybe important, the static camera gives the fight scene a different feel. It could show that despite the fighting, the world is very still and tranquil or possibly decaying. This essentially would say to the viewer, not "you should be hyped about this fight scene" but "what is the cause/purpose of all of this fighting".

The camera can step back and frame an exciting scene in a peaceful way, establishing the scope of the fighting.

I cant think of any specific examples as I usually don't think of this consciously while watching shows, but I imagine in shows such as Casshern Sins that this type of fight scene could work. In that world, a static camera would help say "there really is no point to all of this, just look at the world around you".

Actually, maybe in the Matrix (the third one) where Neo is fighting all the agent smiths and the camera pulls back and just watches to give you some sense of the scope of the battle and the impossible odds....thats a bit different though as The Matrix is purely an action flick and it zooms right back in a second later

I feel like I am having a bit of trouble expressing my point as this isn't really something I think about too often...
Sogno- 
45762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/15/14

uncletim wrote:

murdering kids in anime is fine as long you don't flash their panties because that would be Loli fan service





essex1 wrote:


domvina wrote:

One of the things I dislike about Western TV shows and movies is that if there are kids in the scene and if there is danger no matter what happens the kids miraculously survive. In fact if the group splits up almost always the group that did not get the kids meets a gruesome death just to show how bad things are.


For Walking dead fans, anyone that remembers season 2, "SOPHIAA!!!!"


NO

that is NOT okay
2037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 3/15/14

sundin13 wrote:

You speak about how a moving, frantic camera can compliment a fight scene and make it more exciting while a more static, uninvolved camera could make you feel bored as if the camera is uninterested.

When I think about a fight scene with the camera still and panned out, I can think of a few stylistic reasons why this would be done. While the fight scene up close with the zipping around camera sets the fight scene as exciting and maybe important, the static camera gives the fight scene a different feel. It could show that despite the fighting, the world is very still and tranquil or possibly decaying.


Hm.. An involved camera is very much interested in a fight scene (it wants the best view of everything.) An uninvolved character is uninterested in the fight its-self and may feel it is a very small part of a whole.

I can see this happening. Much like, if you live in a household where two people are constantly in very verbal arguments, you may hardly bat an eye at it and may just find yourself focused on something else.

Like you may just look at the room as a whole and only focus if an easily broken object is picked up or nearly knocked over (since breaking things is taboo.) The camera's views during such a scene are usually conveyed to the viewer. If someone in the scene is important or dear, the camera will be concerned about them and move closer to see if they're alright if someone is hit (it may ever switched to a better viewing point.) If it didn't, you as a viewer will feel detached from the scene.

Your companion during this story, the camera, doesn't care if you someone you care about is hit. As such, you won't harbor as much interest in them. People are the flocking type after all and peer pressure easily trumps your instincts.

Whether the camera sees a bigger picture, futility, or just isn't into the scene is very dependent on the scene its-self of course.

Ah, another thing. If a camera is close to someone (unfortunately, it's near most characters in anime to save on expenses), it shows that the camera feels comfortable around that person. This comfort is also portrayed to the viewer.
5739 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/15/14 , edited 3/15/14
It happens. It's probably seen as a bigger deal within TV shows and movies than anime because generally, people take it less seriously if it's animated. Or maybe anime watchers are just too desensitized.
22723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United States
Offline
Posted 3/15/14
Genocyber depicts kids that die a horrible death
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXZ2bTigdGY
71060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/15/14 , edited 3/15/14

HauAreWe wrote:

<snip>

I almost feel like we could start up a new thread about cinematography, but if we're continuing here:

I only have one gripe, which is that it feels like you've consolidated a certain list of concrete concepts for how cameras are used in film such that when the camera does X, it means Y. But I think that in reality, the camera is going to behave how the director wants it to behave. The director has an idea in his head, which as been storyboarded and possibly wholly created using inexpensive CGI before shooting, and what we see is the the translation of his vision to your screen.

In effect you're relying on universal conventions to interpret what's on screen, but what the director has in mind could be completely unconventional, or even subversive. I don't think interpreting the psychology of the camera (which is a fascinating concept and I'm incredibly glad it's come up here so I can pay fuller attention to it in the future) can be done except through the context of the piece in which it appears. A close camera could intimate safety, but also danger.

In effect the psychology of the camera is the psychology of the director, and no two directors are alike so no two cameras will be either. Instead of thinking "This is a camera childishly entertained by gore" I was thinking "Look at this appalling act; look closely. Now look at the man. Now look at what he does next. Now look at the people around him. Now look at their reactions. Their reactions are the key. How do you interpret the character behind this event?"

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong entirely, and I think you're kind of brilliant for even bringing something like this up because it's an awesome thing to think about, but I think you'd be wrong to think of all cameras in the same way.

It's the kind of thing where as soon as you think up a rule, someone else will think up how to break it.

Edit: Um, I'd also like to add that I'd be the first to admit I haven't got any special clue what I'm talking about. But from the discussion I've just been putting the thoughts and assumptions I've formed from watching film up til now into words.


sundin13 wrote:

When I think about a fight scene with the camera still and panned out, I can think of a few stylistic reasons why this would be done. While the fight scene up close with the zipping around camera sets the fight scene as exciting and maybe important, the static camera gives the fight scene a different feel. It could show that despite the fighting, the world is very still and tranquil or possibly decaying. This essentially would say to the viewer, not "you should be hyped about this fight scene" but "what is the cause/purpose of all of this fighting".

The camera can step back and frame an exciting scene in a peaceful way, establishing the scope of the fighting.

I cant think of any specific examples as I usually don't think of this consciously while watching shows, but I imagine in shows such as Casshern Sins that this type of fight scene could work. In that world, a static camera would help say "there really is no point to all of this, just look at the world around you".

I'm keen to watch Casshern Sins again after this discussion because I remember their fight cinematography (and just the cinematography in general) being pretty engaging with viewpoint placement and the like.
3540 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / CA
Offline
Posted 3/15/14
Elfen Lied
7208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 3/15/14
HUNTER X HUNTER
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.