This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
(Feel free to ignore this thread. It's probably just a Monday rant but I feel the need to spout my opinion so here it is.)
Climbing movies are getting worse and worse and they're really beginning to suck.
Watching the "Eye of the Tiger" movie currently featured on the front of UKC really highlights this problem. Is it really necessary to chop between camera angles and zoom levels every second of the film? Fair enough, doing it in time to the music is nice but it completely destroys the sense of the route or sequence. The end result feels like a queue of unrelated, random excerpts that all happen to come from the same route. I don't care that modern technology has furnished you with 16 drones, enabling you to film that many camera angles at once; I don't care that you've got the skills or mac-book apps to edit them together; I want to watch climbing, on rock, and I am not a five year old with a two-second attention span.
I can't help but feel that this problem is entirely due to the use of drones. In the past, when you had one or two blokes hanging in harnesses, you simply couldn't film that many angles. Sure, more money could bring along more guys, more friends could hold cameras, but there were limits.
The other problem I see in modern climbing movies is the rampant use of zoomed-in shots that I find intensely boring. If I want to watch people doing hard moves, up close, I'll go visit the local gym. When I am watching a movie of someone's great red-point or first ascent, I want to see the movement, not the moves. I want to see where they're coming from and going to and how they go about it - an individual crimp, heel-hook or slap onto the crux sloper is entirely irrelevant.
I remember when Chris Sharma was the bee's knees - he probably still is, hell, I don't know any more - but his very dynamic and gymnastic style would never be highlighted with today's fashion of close-up shots because you simply wouldn't get the feeling of scale that you get when you can see an entire move - or even sequence of moves - completed without panning or zooming the camera.
Finally, there is something that the "Eye of the Tiger" movie does get right - there are no scenes of shoe-lace tying, boulding-mat carrying, chalking up or driving about in cars. Excellent! Full marks there.
Sorry for the rant. Please, tell me where to find good climbing movies that actually show climbing. Tell me that I'm wrong. Tell me that I'm right. Tell me that things weren't so good in the good old days and that I'm wearing nostalgia goggles.
Climbing movies are getting worse and worse and they're really beginning to suck.
Watching the "Eye of the Tiger" movie currently featured on the front of UKC really highlights this problem. Is it really necessary to chop between camera angles and zoom levels every second of the film? Fair enough, doing it in time to the music is nice but it completely destroys the sense of the route or sequence. The end result feels like a queue of unrelated, random excerpts that all happen to come from the same route. I don't care that modern technology has furnished you with 16 drones, enabling you to film that many camera angles at once; I don't care that you've got the skills or mac-book apps to edit them together; I want to watch climbing, on rock, and I am not a five year old with a two-second attention span.
I can't help but feel that this problem is entirely due to the use of drones. In the past, when you had one or two blokes hanging in harnesses, you simply couldn't film that many angles. Sure, more money could bring along more guys, more friends could hold cameras, but there were limits.
The other problem I see in modern climbing movies is the rampant use of zoomed-in shots that I find intensely boring. If I want to watch people doing hard moves, up close, I'll go visit the local gym. When I am watching a movie of someone's great red-point or first ascent, I want to see the movement, not the moves. I want to see where they're coming from and going to and how they go about it - an individual crimp, heel-hook or slap onto the crux sloper is entirely irrelevant.
I remember when Chris Sharma was the bee's knees - he probably still is, hell, I don't know any more - but his very dynamic and gymnastic style would never be highlighted with today's fashion of close-up shots because you simply wouldn't get the feeling of scale that you get when you can see an entire move - or even sequence of moves - completed without panning or zooming the camera.
Finally, there is something that the "Eye of the Tiger" movie does get right - there are no scenes of shoe-lace tying, boulding-mat carrying, chalking up or driving about in cars. Excellent! Full marks there.
Sorry for the rant. Please, tell me where to find good climbing movies that actually show climbing. Tell me that I'm wrong. Tell me that I'm right. Tell me that things weren't so good in the good old days and that I'm wearing nostalgia goggles.
28
5
In reply to Xharlie:
Personally I thought that video featured the route really well. The shifting angles and lengths of clip keep the video dynamic, and we got to see all the interesting moves. It made me want to climb the route, which was surely the purpose of the video!
Personally I thought that video featured the route really well. The shifting angles and lengths of clip keep the video dynamic, and we got to see all the interesting moves. It made me want to climb the route, which was surely the purpose of the video!
1
In reply to Xharlie:
A similar thing happened with mainstream film and the development of CGI which gave film makers the ability to place a camera pretty much anywhere in a scene ( remember what happened when The Matrix introduced 'bullet-time'. Suddenly it was being used everywhere ).
Good filmmakers still stuck to the conventional 'language' of cinematography, though. Look at something like Toy Story. Despite the film being completely computer generated, most of the shots are still the same ones you would get if it had been a live-action film, because that's what the audience is used to.
The same will happen with drone photography. Once the novelty wears off, film makers will develop the experience to use it as just one more tool in the toolbox.
> I can't help but feel that this problem is entirely due to the use of drones. In the past, when you had one or two blokes hanging in harnesses, you simply couldn't film that many angles. Sure, more money could bring along more guys, more friends could hold cameras, but there were limits.
A similar thing happened with mainstream film and the development of CGI which gave film makers the ability to place a camera pretty much anywhere in a scene ( remember what happened when The Matrix introduced 'bullet-time'. Suddenly it was being used everywhere ).
Good filmmakers still stuck to the conventional 'language' of cinematography, though. Look at something like Toy Story. Despite the film being completely computer generated, most of the shots are still the same ones you would get if it had been a live-action film, because that's what the audience is used to.
The same will happen with drone photography. Once the novelty wears off, film makers will develop the experience to use it as just one more tool in the toolbox.
2
1
In reply to MischaHY:
I completely agree that the video showed all the moves but what it lost was the way they fitted together into a sequence. Now, I'll admit that it is entirely possible that I simply lack the skill as a viewer to connect the chopped up angles and conceptualise the sequence and that other viewers, you, for instance, can do that and still get the sense of a connected sequence from this sort of camera work.
I know that I am completely incapable of following movies that cast whole hoardes of characters and require me to remember them. I am also incapable of following movies where all the characters look and dress alike. My wife, however, is quite capable of remembering over twenty characters and distinguishing them by the infinitesimal differences in appearance that I can't even see when they're stood next to each other - she has a skill that I don't posess. The nett result is that she enjoys watching movies and I don't - it's too much like hard work, for me, and that's even when the diabolical American diction is good enough to comprehend the spoken parts.
I used to enjoy climbing flicks but I am not enjoying the newer ones.
I completely agree that the video showed all the moves but what it lost was the way they fitted together into a sequence. Now, I'll admit that it is entirely possible that I simply lack the skill as a viewer to connect the chopped up angles and conceptualise the sequence and that other viewers, you, for instance, can do that and still get the sense of a connected sequence from this sort of camera work.
I know that I am completely incapable of following movies that cast whole hoardes of characters and require me to remember them. I am also incapable of following movies where all the characters look and dress alike. My wife, however, is quite capable of remembering over twenty characters and distinguishing them by the infinitesimal differences in appearance that I can't even see when they're stood next to each other - she has a skill that I don't posess. The nett result is that she enjoys watching movies and I don't - it's too much like hard work, for me, and that's even when the diabolical American diction is good enough to comprehend the spoken parts.
I used to enjoy climbing flicks but I am not enjoying the newer ones.
1
In reply to Xharlie:
I really liked the footage on the Ondra movie when it zoomed into the holds, gives you a better overall idea of what 9b climbing is like.
> an individual crimp, heel-hook or slap onto the crux sloper is entirely irrelevant.
I really liked the footage on the Ondra movie when it zoomed into the holds, gives you a better overall idea of what 9b climbing is like.
5
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
The thing is, those movies created a context around the problem grip. The actual hold that they zoomed in to is only interesting because of the moves before it, to get into the right position, or the move off it.
The thing is, those movies created a context around the problem grip. The actual hold that they zoomed in to is only interesting because of the moves before it, to get into the right position, or the move off it.
1
In reply to Xharlie:
I was interested to see how small the pinches were on a 50 degree overhang (or whatever angle it was). Movement's interesting, but I find the route interesting in itself.
> The actual hold that they zoomed in to is only interesting because of the moves before it
I was interested to see how small the pinches were on a 50 degree overhang (or whatever angle it was). Movement's interesting, but I find the route interesting in itself.
Mixed on the Eye of the Tiger video. Stunning looking rock etc and I did like most of the camera angles. My problem isn't so much with the different angles but just how frequently it flicks between them. Even going for 3 or 4 moves before switching would be an improvement IMHO.
3
In reply to Xharlie:
I see where you are coming from with this video. It feels fairly soulless. Too many cuts for my liking and too similar angles. I find some films like this try to be too glossy and just end up being dull. Maybe it's more of a problem with productions linked with gear manufacturers. Personally I like films that feel honest, without pretentiousness, and make me want to go climbing. Sometimes it can be really simple productions that achieve this.
I see where you are coming from with this video. It feels fairly soulless. Too many cuts for my liking and too similar angles. I find some films like this try to be too glossy and just end up being dull. Maybe it's more of a problem with productions linked with gear manufacturers. Personally I like films that feel honest, without pretentiousness, and make me want to go climbing. Sometimes it can be really simple productions that achieve this.
3
In reply to Xharlie:
Did Sharma explode when he took a fall, in addition to the constant change of camera angles? If so, it might have been directed by Michael Bay? That would be the sign of a mature market for climbing videos.
I expect a climbing film directed by Christopher Nolan or the Coen brothers to be quite entertaining.
Did Sharma explode when he took a fall, in addition to the constant change of camera angles? If so, it might have been directed by Michael Bay? That would be the sign of a mature market for climbing videos.
I expect a climbing film directed by Christopher Nolan or the Coen brothers to be quite entertaining.
2
In reply to Xharlie:
I know what you mean, I don't like music on climbing films, I prefer to hear the grunts, groans and screams of terror, it makes it more exciting. Well for me anyway.
I know what you mean, I don't like music on climbing films, I prefer to hear the grunts, groans and screams of terror, it makes it more exciting. Well for me anyway.
2
In reply to Xharlie:
The Eye of the Tiger video was difficult to watch due to the constant flicking between shots. It didn't help that there was no fade in the transition either.
The Eye of the Tiger video was difficult to watch due to the constant flicking between shots. It didn't help that there was no fade in the transition either.
1
In reply to Xharlie:
I agree to an extent. The video did give you a good sense of the excellence of that particular route though.
I dislike all the chopping and changing of angles too. I often think there must be some principle in film making that a cut should never last more than a few seconds. One of my favourite videos was of Ondra doing the second ascent of Fight or Flight. There was no music, no change of angle, just the whole ascent filmed from top to bottom. It gave you a much better sense of what the route was all about.
The other thing I find with a lot of climbing videos is that there is no story behind them and you can end up watching something and wondering what the point was. A bit of narration, or even some text, and a context to what is going on would make a big difference.
I suppose the poor quality is down to the fact that the equipment to make a video is accessible to almost anyone these days, so they can film something without learning anything first about how to make a film.
Shoe lace tying has definitely become a cliche now. Sometimes the drive to a crag can give a wider context for those who don't know an area though.
I agree to an extent. The video did give you a good sense of the excellence of that particular route though.
I dislike all the chopping and changing of angles too. I often think there must be some principle in film making that a cut should never last more than a few seconds. One of my favourite videos was of Ondra doing the second ascent of Fight or Flight. There was no music, no change of angle, just the whole ascent filmed from top to bottom. It gave you a much better sense of what the route was all about.
The other thing I find with a lot of climbing videos is that there is no story behind them and you can end up watching something and wondering what the point was. A bit of narration, or even some text, and a context to what is going on would make a big difference.
I suppose the poor quality is down to the fact that the equipment to make a video is accessible to almost anyone these days, so they can film something without learning anything first about how to make a film.
> Finally, there is something that the "Eye of the Tiger" movie does get right - there are no scenes of shoe-lace tying, boulding-mat carrying, chalking up or driving about in cars.
Shoe lace tying has definitely become a cliche now. Sometimes the drive to a crag can give a wider context for those who don't know an area though.
4
In reply to Xharlie:
I also have great issue with the music in all the climbing vids, it's always some crappy accoustic singer with a guitar, garbling some chilled out crap over some climber pulling epics moves, busting veins out if his head. I'm not suggesting some drum and base or speed metal but the whole 'scene' really puts me off. Also all the 'psyched, pumped' and all those other climbing lingo words really get on my tits. I want to pull somebody's arms off right now!
I also have great issue with the music in all the climbing vids, it's always some crappy accoustic singer with a guitar, garbling some chilled out crap over some climber pulling epics moves, busting veins out if his head. I'm not suggesting some drum and base or speed metal but the whole 'scene' really puts me off. Also all the 'psyched, pumped' and all those other climbing lingo words really get on my tits. I want to pull somebody's arms off right now!
3
In reply to Xharlie:
Well, you're obviously not of the mtv generation. Two second attention spans is where its at with videos, music, climbing and a whole lot more.
I agree wholeheartedly. So much so, that I rarely watch any of that stuff now, unless there is a lot of positive ranting posted about it.
> . Is it really necessary to chop between camera angles and zoom levels every second of the film? Fair enough, doing it in time to the music is nice but it completely destroys the sense of the route or sequence. The end result feels like a queue of unrelated, random excerpts that all happen to come from the same route..... I am not a five year old with a two-second attention span.
Well, you're obviously not of the mtv generation. Two second attention spans is where its at with videos, music, climbing and a whole lot more.
I agree wholeheartedly. So much so, that I rarely watch any of that stuff now, unless there is a lot of positive ranting posted about it.
1
1
In reply to stp:
I think you might enjoy this video I came across at the weekend. I'd not heard of the climbers or the climb before but really enjoyed it.
'Benedictus' at Cannon Cliff in New Hampshire, FA Tom Callaghan:
vimeo.com/139647125
Edit: it's quite slow to start but stick with it.
> The other thing I find with a lot of climbing videos is that there is no story behind them and you can end up watching something and wondering what the point was. A bit of narration, or even some text, and a context to what is going on would make a big difference.
I think you might enjoy this video I came across at the weekend. I'd not heard of the climbers or the climb before but really enjoyed it.
'Benedictus' at Cannon Cliff in New Hampshire, FA Tom Callaghan:
vimeo.com/139647125
Edit: it's quite slow to start but stick with it.
Post edited at 21:27
2
In reply to Xharlie:
I think the modern ones try and be too arty, or go OTT with the drama. I like the old fashioned ones, they feel more down to earth and honest, this is probably my favorite
youtube.com/watch?v=Z3mbSvUyVPM&
I think the modern ones try and be too arty, or go OTT with the drama. I like the old fashioned ones, they feel more down to earth and honest, this is probably my favorite
youtube.com/watch?v=Z3mbSvUyVPM&
1
In reply to Xharlie:
I agree. It's a fantastic looking route, and previously I would have struggled to imagine that I could possibly not like seeing footage of Frau Saurwein, but the lurching cuts every couple of seconds made it unwatchable.
I agree. It's a fantastic looking route, and previously I would have struggled to imagine that I could possibly not like seeing footage of Frau Saurwein, but the lurching cuts every couple of seconds made it unwatchable.
3
In reply to Xharlie:
youtube.com/watch?v=o6I6O9u7UGo&
I really like this one. You feel like you get to know quite a bit about the route and more importantly its significance to the climber.
youtube.com/watch?v=o6I6O9u7UGo&
I really like this one. You feel like you get to know quite a bit about the route and more importantly its significance to the climber.
In reply to Fraser:
Really cool documentary. Even though I don't know the climbers, I've never heard of that cliff, and by modern standards it wasn't so hard their passion shines through makes it really interesting, something I think most keen climbers could relate to. Thanks.
Really cool documentary. Even though I don't know the climbers, I've never heard of that cliff, and by modern standards it wasn't so hard their passion shines through makes it really interesting, something I think most keen climbers could relate to. Thanks.
In reply to stp:
Glad you enjoyed it too. I knew nothing about the area or climber either but found it very watchable. It helped that all the contributors were quite articulate, compared to the ubiquitous, "yeah, it was awesome - I was, like, so stoked to send it'.
Glad you enjoyed it too. I knew nothing about the area or climber either but found it very watchable. It helped that all the contributors were quite articulate, compared to the ubiquitous, "yeah, it was awesome - I was, like, so stoked to send it'.
1
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
Also all the 'psyched, pumped' and all those other climbing lingo words really get on my tits. I want to pull somebody's arms off right now!
Oh don't get me started on that, when I go to the climbing works I haven't got an effing clue what anyone's withering on about. "Is it gonna go " F##k off ya c##t
Also all the 'psyched, pumped' and all those other climbing lingo words really get on my tits. I want to pull somebody's arms off right now!
Oh don't get me started on that, when I go to the climbing works I haven't got an effing clue what anyone's withering on about. "Is it gonna go " F##k off ya c##t
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...