Jet Graphics

AMEN! I have to close my eyes, ffwd, or turn my head, because it is not worth the effort to try and follow "action" scenes that are unwatchable. It makes no sense to expend talent and money to record a jittery action sequence... might as well just cut in a "blur", with appropriate sound effects. IMHO - the decline in audience is due, in part, to the disregard for the audience's enjoyment. Entertainment that becomes irritation, ceases to be entertaining. People might not articulate their dismay, but their departure speaks volumes. When there's no audience, there's no "Show Business".

"Telling a story" is fine. Driving away the audience is counter productive. They will find other entertainment. Though inflation hides the true bottom line, audience numbers are dropping for movies and TV. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a reaction to visual irritation.

The Bourne Ultimatum was a visual disaster, and I did not finish viewing it. Come to think of it, I didn't finish viewing Mission Impossible III. After reflection, I do tend to gravitate more to the older movies, where image stability is the rule, not the exception. Maybe producers should label their products with SHAKE scores: I = no shake, no jump cuts II = some III = moderate IV = roller coaster ride V = river rapids, inverted 6 G aerobatics, barf bag

Agreed. Good point. Instead of a boycott, I think folks should demand their money back. That would make a stronger signal. The hierarchy running the "business" do not really listen to the audience - they listen to the money. A slew of complaints from theater owners would do more to influence change, because "box office receipts" are all they fixate upon.

Hand held camera work is not annoying. It's the visual cacophony that is presented to the audience as "Artistic". In contrast, I was watching "Sharpe's Peril" on Masterpiece Theater, and noticed that in action sequences, the image quality was far superior, absent jump cuts and shaky cam. Frankly, it was far more entertaining, despite the lack of gymnastics in the stunt work. Based on the current crop of movies, the "shake, rattle, and roll" school of disruptive story telling is dominant, fashionable, though tasteless as it may be. I hope that the printed word never becomes victim to "shaky cam" - but with Kindle and iPad, that may change...

Perhaps pristine imagery would be boring to you. Not to me. I have to fast forward or close my eyes during "shaky cam" sequences - so I do MISS the point. There is no feeling, except disgust and annoyance. Ditto, for attention deficit disorder editing. Frankly, I would have greatly enjoyed the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan, if the imagery was steady, focused, and clear. Personal, subjective opinion flag on: I think that the trend toward miserable imagery is not unlike the Emperor's New Clothes. The proponents keep telling each other how wonderful it is - but in truth - it is not. I suspect that an audience's reaction to a clear action sequence versus a jerky, blurry, swooping, quick cut sequence would tend toward the former and not the latter. Can you imagine the urgency, danger, insecurity of the opening sequence of Star Wars IV, done in jerky mode? I doubt if that would "Wow" the audience. --------- Was watching old Rock performers, from TV archives of the 1970s, and noted that the camera operators took time to let the audience perceive the musicianship, instead of endless movement, swoops, and jump cuts. It's probably why I can't stand to watch the "Amateur" performers of current TV. It's the camera work, not the artists.

In this age of outstanding image quality, HDTV, and the wonders of CGI, I am at a loss to understand why cinematographers / cameramen / directors degrade the image with hand held shaky cam. In just about every fight scene, all that stunt work, clever choreography, and lighting, is reduced to a blurry, nauseating, and thoroughly annoying experience. It is not entertaining, and I have ceased watching innumerable TV shows, movies, and other video productions because of it. Please, please, please, tell those who think that the audience enjoys it that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. At best, they tolerate it. At worst, they despise it. I was recently watching "Enter the Dragon", and was grateful that Bruce Lee's outstanding direction, choreography, and lighting wasn't spoiled by shaky cam. I know of no one who walked out of a movie, thrilled by shaky cam, or could describe with any detail, a dramatic sequence that an integral part of the story marred by it. Why bother to hire talent, when one could just shake the camera and blur the image in post production? I pray that the second decade of the 21st century will be a transformation and restoration of the visual artistry lost to the visual equivalent of a "laugh track".