tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post2594586298322126089..comments2024-01-30T20:01:01.316+00:00Comments on Science Fiction & Fantasy: TV – Battlestar Galactica (Miniseries, 2003)Anthony G Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798830903236765181noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-83593926627764715012015-07-04T00:46:58.496+01:002015-07-04T00:46:58.496+01:00You know, back in the 1960s and 1970s that was one...You know, back in the 1960s and 1970s that was one of my first clues as to whether I was watching an American or British movie. At least on this side of the pond, the British style was very noticeable; you'd flip channels until you saw something zoomed in showing someone's face from the upper lip to the bridge of the nose, and it was almost certain to be something made in Britain. It was a running joke, some places.<br /><br />It seemed to be used more on stuff from the 1950s and early '60s, and almost entirely absent from the TV shows we got - The Avengers, Danger Man, or UFO. Those tended to have wider shots and more static camera work than American shows, but since a lot of video gives me motion sickness, I thoroughly approved.<br /><br />Irritating music on American shows depended almost entirely on BLARING HORNS cranked up slightly past the threshold of pain; at least the Brits added some drums or strings on occasion for variety, and didn't crank it up so freakin' loud.dlwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06912456339359889684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-62088705654901838672015-06-28T19:20:59.508+01:002015-06-28T19:20:59.508+01:00You are right - I didn't notice it!
What I do...You are right - I didn't notice it!<br /><br />What I do notice is the infuriating tendency in documentaries to jerk the camera around all over the place, focusing on people's hands, or nostrils or something, all accompanied by intensely irritating music. However, that's off topic...<br />Anthony G Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798830903236765181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-57030609051378804772015-06-28T17:53:23.453+01:002015-06-28T17:53:23.453+01:00People kept trying to get me to watch that. I man...People kept trying to get me to watch that. I managed about ten minutes of one episode, mostly spent looking somewhere else, trying not to throw up. The camera wobbled, weaved, bounced, jerk-zoomed, and twitched like it was taped to a basketball being dribbled by someone with cerebral palsy.<br /><br />Most television within the last 10 years is nearly as bad, and most movies within the last 5. Maybe someday someone will code a "software Steadicam" I can pipe .avi files through; until then, a great deal of modern video is a closed door to me.<br /><br />I know why they do it - motion attracts the eye, and they figure it'll keep their viewers from pressing the channel selector on the remote for a little bit. Heck, they've probably paid for studies telling them how much camera jiggle will pay off in so many extra viewer seconds. But all this seems to have ramped up gradually, and modern viewers are so used to it they don't even notice. And having watched people operating the remote control, pressing the button seems to be a reflex unconnected with whether they're actually watching anything. Well, they're not actually "watching" anyway, not in the sense of following a story and expecting it to make coherent sense; they're so used to skipping around they don't *expect* whatever they're watching to make sense.dlwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06912456339359889684noreply@blogger.com