MovieChat Forums > 1917 (2020) Discussion > are long takes even impressive anymore?

are long takes even impressive anymore?

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
22 replies | jump to latest

Ever since Birdman, Hollywood's had a raging hard-on for them. Resulting in at least 20 or so movies released in the past couple years that's had at least one really showoffy one (The Revenant, La La Land, Spectre etc).

Personally, I'm bored of them at this point. It's no longer impressive when everybody else is doing it, and even less so when everybody knows how they're done (hidden cuts, anyone?). This long take trend, reminds me of the 90's lesbian kissing trend. Remember when every other movie/show ever tried to shock us with it back then?

Discuss...

[–] illnagas (457) 4 years ago

I think it was much harder in film days. You had one chance to get everything right. With digital they just pass the buck to the editor

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

They are impressive and pretty rare. Finding 3 examples isnt really making a case for their popularity.

Also it is far, far superior than the trend of having all action scenes be lots of cuts and shaky cam to hide directors incompetence.

[–] pepetoony (1538) 4 years ago

J-Lo did it first in the intro to The Wedding Planner.

[–] liscarkat (16552) 4 years ago

They were impressive when they were real, like when Hitchcock did it in "Rope" in the 1940s. But now they're fake, done by computer. So no, they're not impressive anymore.

[–] moviechatterer (13341) 3 years ago

an impressive technical feat yeah , but adds next to nothing to the film imho
therefore a waste of effort

[–] moviechatterer (13341) 3 years ago

I just had a little rant about this very thing in another thread, so ill paste ithere too:
---------------------------

I dont get why they bother with this "Continous shot no cuts" thing
"Children of men" apparently did the same thing, at least in one battle scene

People will probably claim "oooh , it makes it seem like you're really there.."
well no it doesent , theres a whole lot of other stuff more importsant than a "continious shot" to ensure "immersion"
Most people will not even notice a "continous shot" i certainly didnt watching 1917 last night.

If two people are talkning and the film cuts from one of them face to the other - so what?
I dont care ifthe actors sat down and had lunch between those two lines of dialogue - thats what editings for.

something not available in the theatre - you know, proper theatre , not a cinema

I bet when some directors bragging abouit his continous shot all done in one take,
theatre actors be like:
"Big wup, we do that every night,the whole play, we have to"