MovieChat Forums > The Wall (2016) Discussion > Fast cuts? What were you thinking?

Fast cuts? What were you thinking?

posted 7 years ago by kennyjohn-99230
4 replies | jump to latest

You know, I may have been interested, engaged, and able to root for contestants with proper perspective.

They drop the ball, we watch and hope for the best. It bounces right, good news - headed in the right direction. Ball comming to next bumper, **CUT** new perspective! [What happened, which way is it heading, did it go the best path??], **CUT** new camera angle! The ball moved 3 rows since we last saw it from audience perspective: FRUSTRATING! **CUT** now we watch the ball from above -WHO CARES? No one watches from above!

I am watching to have fun, not this frustration. Without a top to bottom, beginning to end uninterrupted view there is no suspense, no ability to root for the contestants - There IS NO CONTINUITY!!

Whoever decided to fast cut perspectives to different angles absolutely ruined the show. I will not be watching.

[–] bing-57 7 years ago

> I am watching to have fun, not this frustration. Without a top to bottom, beginning to end uninterrupted view there is no suspense, no ability to root for the contestants - There IS NO CONTINUITY!!

Continuity does matter much in this game. After watching Pl!nko for many, many years, I know that what happens in the top 2/3 of the board is completely irrelevant to where the chip/ball is going to land. Most often, one or two crazy bounces at the end send the chip/ball flying far away from where you thought it would land.

So, you don't really need to see what happens in the top half of the board in this game either.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] kennyjohn-99230 7 years ago

Umm, yes I do. Reminds me of the TV show that covers 1/4 mile races. Same thing: race starts, you watch to see who is gaining on whom, camera jumps to new angles. Show me the event from a single perspective, hopefully that of an audience member watching it unfold. Without that it is a waste of time for me.

Please note my choice of words, I own it, I'm telling you what's right for me. You were probably rushed and didn't realize you were telling me what I need. Maybe you were telling us why it doesn't matter to you. If so, fine but do own it.

Virtually every game show out there is appealing at some level because audience members feel as though their hopes and wishes can somehow influence the outcome. Whether that is conscious or sub conscious that's a big part of spectators excitement. With the flash cut camera work they might as well run the ball in the background and post the results. We don't get to see it progress, we don't get to witness the "what ifs" - will it go this way or that way? . . .

If you get as much enjoyment out of the result as the journey, OK that works for you, not me.

[–] Imatwork 7 years ago

Umm, yes I do. Reminds me of the TV show that covers 1/4 mile races. Same thing: race starts, you watch to see who is gaining on whom, camera jumps to new angles. Show me the event from a single perspective, hopefully that of an audience member watching it unfold. Without that it is a waste of time for me.

Do you watch any other type of TV shows or movies? How do you handle it when they are always cutting to the person talking? Do you freak out because you can't see the reaction of the other person...or can't see exactly they are talking about?

[–] kennyjohn-99230 7 years ago

Great question, it is directors like Oliver Megaton (Taken 2 &3) or Paul Greengrass (Bourne Ultimatum) vs. Directors like Stanley Kubrick or Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves). The first 2 are fast cut proponents, the later2 are slow cut / develop the scene directors. As you can tell I prefer Kubrick or Costner.

Yes there are benefits to both approaches, Hitchcock used fast cuts perfectly in Psycho's shower scene, no denying that. My complaint is when it is used to cover bad acting, the inability to fight, or low budgets & shoddy scenes.

Thanks for asking. Maybe I'll get lucky, reviewers will see this discussion, and begin to comment on new films' shakey camera levels and average scene length (fast cuts = shorter scene length) in their reviews. You and I might like different things, that's OK. When I wrote the previous post, I was trying to explain why I miss the audience perspective from beginning to end of the ball's travel.