Comments on: The Oner http://miahz.com/log/2007/11/18/the-oner/ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:05:08 +0000 By: Jeremiah http://miahz.com/log/2007/11/18/the-oner/#comment-18420 Jeremiah Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:12:51 +0000 http://miahz.com/log/2007/11/18/the-oner/#comment-18420 I guess that's true---i haven't seen the entire movie yet, but you're right, several parts of this scene felt lazy and lacked the impact of many good fight scenes. But yeah---the impressive part is that it was shot all in one uncut take with a single camera. There was no editing or special effects. In contrast, typical high-action scenes have cuts averaging probably every 2-3 seconds. They only had about 4 minutes to work with because that's how long short reels of film are (short reels are usually used for hand-held or steadicam shots because they're lighter). Think of everything that had to happen <em>perfectly</em> to pull off the full 4-minute scene: <ul> <li>The actor, stuntmen, and extras obviously had to hit all their cues</li> <li>The many individual fights had to be succesfully and safely executed, including various set pieces and props that are moved, broken, thrown, etc.</li> <li>The steadicam operator not only had to carry the full steadicam rig up 8 flights of stairs, but also had to hit all his cues, <strong>and</strong> keep the shots composed as intended, <strong>and</strong> not trip on the stairs <strong>or</strong> bump into the set or people</li> <li>The set and lighting had to be "safe" so that you don't see any behind-the-scenes stuff as the camera moves and pans throughout the scene, and so the camera man didn't create shadows in the shot</li> <li>There was probably an audio guy that had to follow the camera with a mic and not get in the way of the camera or actors</li> </ul> Now picture all the outtakes from any Jackie Chan movie. I guess that’s true—i haven’t seen the entire movie yet, but you’re right, several parts of this scene felt lazy and lacked the impact of many good fight scenes.

But yeah—the impressive part is that it was shot all in one uncut take with a single camera. There was no editing or special effects. In contrast, typical high-action scenes have cuts averaging probably every 2-3 seconds. They only had about 4 minutes to work with because that’s how long short reels of film are (short reels are usually used for hand-held or steadicam shots because they’re lighter).

Think of everything that had to happen perfectly to pull off the full 4-minute scene:

  • The actor, stuntmen, and extras obviously had to hit all their cues
  • The many individual fights had to be succesfully and safely executed, including various set pieces and props that are moved, broken, thrown, etc.
  • The steadicam operator not only had to carry the full steadicam rig up 8 flights of stairs, but also had to hit all his cues, and keep the shots composed as intended, and not trip on the stairs or bump into the set or people
  • The set and lighting had to be “safe” so that you don’t see any behind-the-scenes stuff as the camera moves and pans throughout the scene, and so the camera man didn’t create shadows in the shot
  • There was probably an audio guy that had to follow the camera with a mic and not get in the way of the camera or actors

Now picture all the outtakes from any Jackie Chan movie.

]]> By: Ninabeena http://miahz.com/log/2007/11/18/the-oner/#comment-18414 Ninabeena Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:14:40 +0000 http://miahz.com/log/2007/11/18/the-oner/#comment-18414 so the impressive thing is suppose to be how it was shot in one continuous motion right? the actual fighting and choreography was not very exciting or impressive to me I wonder how long it takes to choreograph some of the more fancy stuff we see (in more takes obviously) so the impressive thing is suppose to be how it was shot in one continuous motion right?
the actual fighting and choreography was not very exciting or impressive to me I wonder how long it takes to choreograph some of the more fancy stuff we see (in more takes obviously)

]]>