Why is shaky cam used so much when nobody likes it?

Tools    





Shaky cam is a way to make action fight scenes easier to make since it makes poorly fit middle aged actors appear super agile and strong. So it saves up on doubles and choreography.



But when you watch 24, the camera is handheld but it's not shaky. You can still clearly tell what is going on and the choreography is very good. Kiefer Sutherland is middle aged and he can still do what Liam Neeson does. So is the shaky cam, really necessary for that?



You can't win an argument just by being right!
But when you watch 24, the camera is handheld but it's not shaky. You can still clearly tell what is going on and the choreography is very good. Kiefer Sutherland is middle aged and he can still do what Liam Neeson does. So is the shaky cam, really necessary for that?
See Guapo's response above. Very wise, also very funny but totally on point!



Yes I read it but Kiefer is middle aged and he can still do it, so why can't other middle aged actors?



Tank/Freeter, I tank so you don't have to.
It depends on the movie. Children of Men used it beautifully. The Bourne series uses it creatively, and in District 9 it makes the action that much more appealing.

Abrams ruined it with Cloverfield, but lets not pretend Braveheart wasn't the GOAT.
__________________
For if a man plays the fool, then it's only fools he'll persuade. But appear to be the devil, and all man will submit"



gasgasgagasgsa



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I think people liked it at first because it was immersive and put you in the scene (war films) when done right of course, but it has gotten out of control and is used to 'hide' bad fight choreography or edits. Which then become disorienting and bad filmmaking.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



When it comes to action movies, shaky cam has really brought a lot of them down. But I feel that it's being used on action stars that don't need it. For example, the first two Transporter movies, did not have shaky cam, and Jason Statham did a good job in them, but the third one, Olivier Megaton is shaking the camera all over the place. Did Statham really go out of shape in three years since the second one, that they had to do that?

Or with Taken for example, Liam Neeson did a good job in the first one, which had good action scenes, with no shaky cam, but then on the second one, Megaton took over again, with even more shaky cam than Transporter 3.



Automatic validation of shaky cam here:



But yeah, it's kind of annoying. Usually I only like it when it's simulated in animation because that at least needs effort and it looks cool and stylish.



A system of cells interlinked

Abrams ruined it with Cloverfield, but lets not pretend Braveheart wasn't the GOAT.
Abrams neither shot, nor directed Cloverfield.
__________________
"Thereís absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



Tank/Freeter, I tank so you don't have to.
Abrams neither shot, nor directed Cloverfield.
He produced it....and as John Peters has shown us throughout cinema...producers tend to put their "stank" on it.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
He produced it....and as John Peters has shown us throughout cinema...producers tend to put their "stank" on it.
Sure, but I always feel like people undercut the director when another director is a producer. Matt Reeves is an excellent director and Cloverfield feels more in line with his films than Abrams. Although, from a mystery / marketing standpoint....100% that feels like an Abrams film.

Then we get into questions like; can we call A Nightmare Before Christmas a Tim Burton film, or Empire Strikes Back a George Lucas film? They both had massive involvement in how the films were made, but we all know Lucas is a horrible director and Burton wasn't even on set for Nightmare.