ITT: techniques that recent film 101 students assume are bad when they are not

ITT: techniques that recent film 101 students assume are bad when they are not

>jump scares
>jump cuts in action sequences
>short oners

>zooming into a shocked face from a character in a Dutch angle

>nerds shit they pants with jump scares so they classify it as a bad thing

Pussies.

hi Sam Raimi, but that shit sucks desu

>LENS FLARE

>why can't they just make the atmosphere scare you XD

Because it doesn't work that way. I hate people who think like that.

are you retarded? do you not understand the point of why your pic is bad? it isn't even a really a traditional "jump cut"

you shouldn't cut from one angle to another very similar angle because to the audience it will just like the subject "jumped" from one part of the frame to another rather than looking like two seperate shots

Jump scares suck.

then why do critics/academic jerk themselves over Breathless if its so "bad"?

but regardless, if there is a good narrative/character reason to break a rule, then break it? e.g., crossing the line to create a sense of disorientation and disrupt the space

>t. watched an every frame a painting video once

jump scares are always bad. it's the cheapest way to get a reaction and its effect is over a few seconds after it happens

ozu crossed the line all the time
but to be fair, the way he shot, there wasn't really a "line" to begin with

i make music videos and various edits for giant (and very shit) bands.

editing is something that just comes to you in time. film school plebs try and abide by all these rules but eventually it becomes just like driving a manual car, you don't even notice you're using the clutch after a while.

if you're a bad editor and making lots of shitty cuts that work, you'll probably never be a good one. no matter how many rules you learn. you just need an eye for motion.

my only rule is that motion is almost always more important than placement when it comes to creating a fluid scene.

Sup Forums is inherently contrarian. Normies are catching on to the overuse of jump scares so it's time for us to pretend they're effective

There's no better way to do horror unless you're a fairy who gets scared by "tension".

How can a theme move you like a threat can? Riddle me that, batfat.

>Normies are catching on to the overuse of jump scares so it's time for us to pretend they're effective

Or maybe they have always been effective in producing fear, and you're just pretending they aren't. Does the word projection sound familiar to you?

>ITT: OP is a recent film 101 student, and wants to be as contrarian as possible

ftfy OP.

You have to understand the rules before you can break them.

Maybe to someone who's emotions are easily manipulated but generally speaking, shock does not equate to fear

>Maybe to someone who's emotions are easily manipulated but generally speaking,

Yikes, no true Scotsman fallacy. I've consumed so much media that nothing moves me, but a jump scare does. So that theory is out the fucking window.

>shock does not equate to fear

It doesn't lead to fear of the next shock? Which is an enormous part of what horror is? Huh.

ebin meme

it doesn't change that fact that cutting like I described looks like ass and will seem like an editing or projection error to the audience so outside of fake home-movie footage putting it in your movie is at best inadvisable similar to other basic continuity errors

...

>"tension"
Martyrs was great though.

True.
Get the fuck out, pleb. Sam Raimi is a God tier director.

And why should horror movies only induce fear/tension and not scare?

how is it that scaring is not fear either

also OP's example in Breathless has a much different background of moving scenery between the two shots and the contrast between Seberg looking in her compact vs not to help it seem like an actual cut. in a more conventional location than a moving car it wouldn't work as a cut

the whole point of why this is bad is because it fails as a cut because it looks like a fucky jarring shift in the location of the subject in the frame instead of a shift between two shots

Godard was a mistake.

you realize you're just reiterating the film 101 lesson that the OP is making fun of right