MovieChat Forums > Blair Witch (2016) Discussion > No excuse for shaky cams

No excuse for shaky cams

posted 8 years ago by Geosci
22 replies | jump to latest

Documentary filmmakers should learn how to hold a camera. War correspondents shoot steadier footage, even when they're running from gunfire or explosions. Check it out. Professionalism. Moreover free services like YouTube correct for oscillation. Footage "recovered" as evidence in a missing person investigation would be processed on software with the same feature. Hell, any modern off-the-shelf program offers it, and many of them do this automatically. Why? So people can see what the eff is actually happening!



[–] zachengel-93444 8 years ago

I mean sure, war correspondents can record steadily but also they know for the most part what they're getting in to, plus they've probably had much more experience. These are college students (at least Lisa is, the documentary is for her film project) and plus, no offense to anyone, being hunted down by an invisible, untouchable creature hellbent on killing you seems more scary to me than getting shot at (Not that getting shot at isn't scary, it is of course). So in the end, you're comparing experienced, prepared war correspondents to a group of inexperienced, college-age kids who don't know what they're getting themselves into.

[–] Geosci 8 years ago

My assertion remains the same. "Documentary filmmakers should learn how to hold a camera." This skill may have come in handy to Lisa, a FILM STUDENT. Even a simple label on the camera might suffice: Point Lens Toward Action.

And what of the processing software? Correcting for unsteadiness is usually the first step in analyzing footage recovered during any investigation. It was always mine.



[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

What investigation? These aren't found and analyzed tapes.

Though this does pose the question of who edited out all the other stuff that made it clear it was Lisa holding Lane's camera. Does the Blair Witch have an editing station?

[–] Geosci 8 years ago

The conceit in found footage or mockumentary films is typically that video of missing persons is discovered, edited, analyzed, determined to be inconclusive by investigating authorities, and released to the public. Most of them feature a disclaimer indicating same. It is a "hallmark of the genre" as they say. Ergo we, the moviegoer, are watching an edit. If the footage were raw then it would be dozens of hours long (or more), not to mention out of sequence due to the variety of cameras involved. Every movie is the same. Read up on how much film is shot versus how much film is used in the final product. Watch a 42 minute long documentary on DC and tell us if you think the documentarians shot only 42 minutes of film while making it.



[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Yes. No *beep* Read up on Watsonian v Doylist perspective instead of attempting to lecture on the obvious.

They go into the woods because of a tape found by Lane and posted. There is no investigation from that point other than from James who sees it and thinks it's Heather. We see later that same tape *should* have contained closeups of Lisa and Lane should have recognized her when he met her. So from the point that tape was made at the end, to the point it's found before the film begins, a bunch of crap must have been edited out, barring some lame contrivance that only that portion of the tape is viewable.

[–] Geosci 8 years ago

Lol, based upon what I've read on this board, the structure of your typical mockumentary isn't obvious to many viewers. The genre has established that what we (the audience) view in cinemas is footage recovered at the scene of a disappearance. "Found footage" is a term that implies discovery. These are simply initial conditions. Moreover this series establishes the same conceit in the first film.



[–] zachengel-93444 8 years ago

Not true. Many horror films classified as Found Footage dont actually involve the footage being found. As Above, So Below and The Pyramid are two examples. But yes, in this case you'd be right, this is found footage, but also considering the other powers the witch has it doesn't seem far fetched that she can alter footage if she wants to. Cause electronic disturbances that mess up/alter footage to the point where Lisa couldn't be seen. Normal ghosts in horror movies are known for causing such disturbances, so why can't a being as powerful as the Blair Witch do so?

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Wasn't any editing in the first one. Moreover, why would she? A possible explanation is Lane was working for her all along.

[–] zachengel-93444 8 years ago

That would make sense, it would explain that whole editing thing and also why he knew so much about the Witch.

[–] Geosci 8 years ago

Donahue, Leonard, and Williams filmed 19 hours of footage. The movie is 81 minutes long. Myrick and Sanchez edited it but promoted the story that the victims' families paid to have their footage edited by a private entity and the results were distributed through Artisan Entertainment. All films are like that, from fiction to documentary to mockumentary. The final product is a fraction of the actual length of footage. Again, watch an hour long docu on the Discovery Channel and tell us if you think the cameramen recorded only an hour of footage to produce it.



[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

*rubs temples* I'm not talking about the footage from the headsets and DV cams. I'm talking about Lane's camera, the one they take special care to state is different from the others. Lane's camera is internal to the story and a plot point because it's what drives them to go there.

For *us* to see it, that means it recorded fine. Yet when they find the tape at the beginning, Lane claims only the part we see on James' monitor was visible. It's a discrepancy. Someone must have screwed with the tape *internally* to the story for the story to kick off.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Geosci 8 years ago

Ha! Maybe footage that's NOT found shouldn't be classified as FOUND footage. Or I just don't understand English and "found" also means "not found" depending on the context. Sort of like "flammable" and "inflammable." By that rationale we could film a "western" in Antarctica and a "blaxploitation" picture starring Stephen Tobolowsky as Shaft. Even paint yachts racing and call it a "still life," lol.



[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Let's be real, though; most of the time "found footage" movies don't work like they're supposed to. The original did it well. Most of the stuff in the genre now just uses it as a way to cheaply make things, use crappy lighting, jump scares and frenetic camera shaking.

[–] Geosci 8 years ago

I agree with all your points. This is more of a general complaint about the structure and quality of found footage / mockumentary. The first film got it right. My arguments are simply that 1. documentary filmmakers should be able to operate a camera steadily and 2. recovered video should be edited to correct for oscillation. If we are to accept FF as a valid genre and suspend disbelief, entertaining the notion that the video is genuine, the two points above would be realities. A number of other FF movies were successfully shot using fixed cameras and steady handheld camerawork: Incident at Loch Ness, Paranormal Activity, REC, Lake Mungo, The Last Exorcism, Trollhunter, Grave Encounters, Apollo 18, The Bay, Devil's Pass, The Frankenstein Theory, and Europa Report (to name a few whose documentarians actually know how to operate their equipment). Blair Witch is a mess in comparison. I don't think it's too much to ask that the audience see what the hell is going on.



[–] Rob_Brown78 8 years ago

I would watch the SH!T out of a Stephen Tobolowsky "Shaft" movie.

Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mgreen9715 8 years ago

They're found footage movies, they don't need to be artsy fartsy like your pretentious personality requires.

[–] Geosci 8 years ago

There's nothing pretentious about wanting to view a film that shows, well, the action ... as opposed to footage recorded during a cameraman's epileptic seizures.



[–] ecartman12-466-390990 8 years ago

I have never watched The Blair Witch Project until just recently and I decided to compile my super honest thoughts into a review.

I Finally Watched THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GUi-zTUQkU

Your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree please tell me why.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

[–] mgreen9715 8 years ago

It's a found footage movie.

They're running from an evil witch/entity but you want them to take quality shots for you?

Derp.

[–] Lokisgodhi 8 years ago

The perfect excuse for shaky cams. It evidently pisses off whiny little bìtçhes no end. They then come and whine about it here on IMDB. That way we can all enjoy their displeasure and laugh at them.