Quote:
Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
James Cameron's best work is hard to top in terms of action.
But these days, in attempts to create more instant "exhiliration", many directors and editors are using horrible MTV style flash and gimmickry to leave the viewer stunned, but zombie-like in appreciation. I don't know what we just witnessed, but I'm sure it looked good!
Fight sequences for example: a series of tiny quickfire edits (was that a foot? look there goes a fist! ooo see that!?) soundtracked with the most crisp bone-crunching FX they could come up with are supposed to satisfy us.
And they do, obviously, because more and more films are being made this way - box office receipts ensure it.
Big action scenes now resemble computer games because of digital technology. I haven't had the pleasure of Transporter 2, but a glimpse of the trailer reveals so much hokey CGI at work it now seems anything is possible.
The world ends when anything is possible.
|
you're completely right ... this is why i tried to avoid fight scenes unless they were actually 'action scenes' not just a series of quick edits and sound effects that could make my overweight aged mother look like a black belt on film.
sadly enough .. Luc Besson is championing this ..
they said his Femme Nikita was 'the death of french film'
looks like he's trying to kill the action film in general.
Transporter 2 ... not for one second was i convinced that anyone in the film could fight - or was fighting.
The cameraman and the editor were the only ones truely duking it out.
which again - is why i really like the fight in grosse point blank ... and as mentioned above - the brawl in They Live ... both were shot at a distance .. not these tight manipulative shots.