Caught "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" movie on Friday night at the Cinema De Luxe (great name) on there big ass DLP screen. I think one of the reasons I have been seeing so many more movies lately is because the screens haven gotten so much better. Anyhow, I won't go into how bad this movie is, because it doesn't matter, you know your going to see it. But I do have to rag on the editing in this film.
I have always found to many quick cuts in a row hard to watch, and when you combine that with a moving camera, various hand held close ups and giant robots causing massive destruction it will give you headache. But I was wondering why do they do it. I know that editing software has revolutionized the way editors work and it allows them to make a lot more edits, but it does so at the expense, I think, of the images themselves.
Your eye barley has a moment to focus on one image before the entire but it cuts to a completely new or opposing shot. Certainly there was a time when you didn't need 400 cuts in action sequence to make it work, so why do directors do it. I think it is, in part, because there is there strange notion by filmmakers (and probably studios types) who feel that if the image is not constantly jumping all over the place, then it's less exciting. And that younger audiences like this style of editing, but who came up with this idiotic notion. Because no one I have ever spoken with (young or old) thinks an action movie works is better this way.
I'm not saying not to cut, because certainly that builds tension and can build excitement in the audience, but so does the story, and if the story isn't doing it's job then no amount of edits will change that. Another example of this is in the new James Bond movie "Quantum Of Solace" (terrible title) which I also saw this weekend. The director who is known for his dramatic work, does a good job with everything but the action sequences which are barley watchable. It's like he/they are trying to create all the action through editing, and thus you can't see what's happening 90% of the time.
Anyhow, it's just something that I thought about a lot while I watch these films. And I guess that's the worst part. The editing took me out of the story. And in my opinion that is very bad.
I have always found to many quick cuts in a row hard to watch, and when you combine that with a moving camera, various hand held close ups and giant robots causing massive destruction it will give you headache. But I was wondering why do they do it. I know that editing software has revolutionized the way editors work and it allows them to make a lot more edits, but it does so at the expense, I think, of the images themselves.
Your eye barley has a moment to focus on one image before the entire but it cuts to a completely new or opposing shot. Certainly there was a time when you didn't need 400 cuts in action sequence to make it work, so why do directors do it. I think it is, in part, because there is there strange notion by filmmakers (and probably studios types) who feel that if the image is not constantly jumping all over the place, then it's less exciting. And that younger audiences like this style of editing, but who came up with this idiotic notion. Because no one I have ever spoken with (young or old) thinks an action movie works is better this way.
I'm not saying not to cut, because certainly that builds tension and can build excitement in the audience, but so does the story, and if the story isn't doing it's job then no amount of edits will change that. Another example of this is in the new James Bond movie "Quantum Of Solace" (terrible title) which I also saw this weekend. The director who is known for his dramatic work, does a good job with everything but the action sequences which are barley watchable. It's like he/they are trying to create all the action through editing, and thus you can't see what's happening 90% of the time.
Anyhow, it's just something that I thought about a lot while I watch these films. And I guess that's the worst part. The editing took me out of the story. And in my opinion that is very bad.
Comments