Poll: First Person Movie

[CuddlyCombine]

The antithesis sums it up pretty well (see two posts above me). I don't think the premise shows any redeeming qualities. Think about what you're doing; you're essentially taking a first-person game and making it into a movie. In doing so, you're eliminating all the good things about semi-omniscient storytelling in movies, while also eschewing the control element of a video game. You basically get rid of the two selling points in one fell swoop. It would be like you put the audience on a rollercoaster which doesn't move.

Here, test your hypothesis; go and watch someone play Halo on XBOX Live for two hours. If you stay awake for that long, you are a champion.

 

[TheEvilDuck]

That would be really interesting. Someone should definitely try it.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

This would only work if they made a Half-Life 2 movie. In that case, first person would work. But otherwise no.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Actually, for a real first person film, watch Fight Club. It doesn't use subjective camera (at all if I recall correctly) but everything is limited to scenes that the Narrator (the main character has no name) was present. Also, through the voice over narration, a technique frown on in some circles, we get a deeper peek inside his head than in a usual film and the writing style helps make the voiceover work better than it normally would.

Upon reflection, the terms first person, third person really don't apply to film since those are literary terms. So, subjective camera and objective camera is what we should be saying.

 

[Trivun]

Cloverfield did it in a way and it worked really well, despite the whole 'motion sickness = people leaving the cinema early' thing. I think it could definitely work, although an entire movie with this concept would be a bit too much, only a few films, like the aforementioned Cloverfield, could reasonably pull it off. However, from what I recall plenty of short films, ten minute videos and the like, do sometimes use this technique and make it work really well. Equally, it works well for parts of films as well (the standard example is the combat scene in Doom, of course, although I'll admit freely here that I haven't personally seen that film). It's pretty much a double edged sword, great if it works but if it doesn't it could be a major downfall for a movie.

I don't know, I'm involved in a film-making society at university but we haven't had a meeting for about three weeks almost due to exams. If we do end up having another meeting before the end of the semester (which we should do since we're in the middle of a project now), I'll ask the others then. Most of the old committee who are staying on next year study film-making anyway so I can see what their opinions are on it and let you guys know what they think.

 

[JoeyTribbiani]

You mean like cloverfield?
I loved that movie so I'm saying yes.

I've been meaning to see that film, just never got round to it. It looks quite good. But some people say it's terrible. If it's for the same reasons as why people hated I Am Legend, they are wrong. There was nothing wrong with having lots special effects at the end of that movie. That movie is awesome.

Anyway yeah, first person film sounds good.

 

[wolfy098]

it would be difficult in my opinion
so no

however if someone wants to prove me wrong i'm happily persuaded

 

[sneak_copter]

*insert sparta joke and reference here*

To the OP: Never, ever give me a chance to go off-topic.

 

[ace_of_something]

You mean like cloverfield?
I loved that movie so I'm saying yes.

You beat me! Grr...
I haven't seen cloverfield, but I was going to mention it.

I was going to say 'You mean like Blair Witch Project?' than I saw all the posts about cloverfield and realized that I am old because I thought of a 13 year old movie first.

I do not support first person movies as they have a tendancy to make me very very ill. Unless they use a steady cam. Which would be more like a FPS than a free handed camera anyway.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I don't know, I'm involved in a film-making society at university but we haven't had a meeting for about three weeks almost due to exams. If we do end up having another meeting before the end of the semester (which we should do since we're in the middle of a project now), I'll ask the others then. Most of the old committee who are staying on next year study film-making anyway so I can see what their opinions are on it and let you guys know what they think.

Please do as I would be interested in learning their opinions. It would also be interesting to see I have accurately predicted their opinions:

I suspect that a decent portion will think subjective camera used to the majority of a film could be interesting. Numerous reasons would be given, but I believe rough 30% of those of this opinion with say that this technique is 'more immersive' or some similar reason while the rest would be interested in such things merely because it would be different. I had already argued against the first reasoning above, but the second reasoning is a little harder to argue against. The idea there is to experiment, see what works, see what doesn't and then try to figure out why. I can appreciate that kind of thinking.

The rest of the group will take a negative view of using subjective camera throughout a film's running time. Most of these people used to be in the 'more immersive' opinion described above but had since looked into it, either by watching films that attempt this or by trying to make their own subjective camera films and found that they technique does not provide the results they thought. Some of these people might be embittered by this realization and might actually provoke fights with the other group.

The rest recognize camera perspective for the gimmick it is and will say that when used properly and sparingly, it can be effective, but when used too much, it is not as effective, listing reasons I have already given, possibly several better reasons as well.

It will be interesting to see how much the group's actual opinions diverge from my prediction.

 

[_Cake_]

Yeah when I watched Doom I felt the whole movie should have been first person.

 

[FrankDux]

I think is a bad idea. I didn't enjoy the part in Doom at all. It felt gimmicky and the way it was shot didn't even look like first person. Plus, Cloverfield was kind of like first person, except the "person" was the camera. That pretty much left everyone with no idea what was going on.

 

[Anarchemitis]

First person would be my preferred method of visual conveyance if Half Life was ever made into a movie.
Cloverfield actually would not have caused any motion sickness in theatres if they simply put a 4=pixel dot in the middle of the screen as a visual point of reference.

 

[RedVelvet]

I hope I made my position clear. If not, I can answer any questions as best I can.

Crystal clear. But, let's say we make a movie regarding Call of Duty 4. You see the movie through the eyes of a sergeant. During the action scenes of course. During "cutscene" moviescenes, we'll be seeing it in third person. But, when seeing it through the person's eyes, the movie falls on to the shoulders of the supporting characters. The quick chats, their character, their personality, their stories, their relationship to you and your relationship to them. If it's well done and with respect, then I think it has the potential of being something truly great.

 

[Deacon Cole]

But, let's say we make a movie regarding Call of Duty 4. You see the movie through the eyes of a sergeant. During the action scenes of course. During "cutscene" moviescenes, we'll be seeing it in third person. But, when seeing it through the person's eyes, the movie falls on to the shoulders of the supporting characters. The quick chats, their character, their personality, their stories, their relationship to you and your relationship to them. If it's well done and with respect, then I think it has the potential of being something truly great.

I don't know about that. In most of your description of a hypothetical film, the camera angle hardly mattered. "If it's well done and with respect, then I think it has the potential of being something truly great." So what would be gained by the use of subjective camera besides impressing fans of the game since the movie looks more like the game as a result?

 

[Bluebacon]

What, like in Peep Show? Because that would work well.

 

[Biek]

When I think of a first person movie I cant help thinking of Peep Show. That worked pretty well, I think a movie like that would work out as long as they have monologues.

 

[theultimateend]

We've probably all seen the first person sequence in Doom. Would you be interested in seeing a movie based on a first person shooter where the accent lies in First Person action sequences and third person story scenes? Like in Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.
Of course, I know that this can only work in the hands of competent people and that the chance of this actually turning out good is slim to nothing, but still ... if Hell's Highway can do it, certainly a movie can do it.
And, to be honest, that FP sequence in Doom was the only redeeming factor ...

Edit 1: Movies like Cloverfield were POV movies from the Camera's point of view and not the person's

So I take it I'm the only person that assumes that the main character is the camera man?

Because with my warped perspective every movie I've seen has been first person. Sometimes the dude can even fly apparently.

 

[Dark assassin for hire]

i once wrote a first person comic, it was hard to write kind of except turned out amazing.
first person movie would be hard but pretty cool... just don't see it in theaters.

 

[RedVelvet]

But, let's say we make a movie regarding Call of Duty 4. You see the movie through the eyes of a sergeant. During the action scenes of course. During "cutscene" moviescenes, we'll be seeing it in third person. But, when seeing it through the person's eyes, the movie falls on to the shoulders of the supporting characters. The quick chats, their character, their personality, their stories, their relationship to you and your relationship to them. If it's well done and with respect, then I think it has the potential of being something truly great.

I don't know about that. In most of your description of a hypothetical film, the camera angle hardly mattered. "If it's well done and with respect, then I think it has the potential of being something truly great." So what would be gained by the use of subjective camera besides impressing fans of the game since the movie looks more like the game as a result?

That would be impressing movie go-ers in general though. Since it's something they haven't seen much or at all. It's great fanservice but it's also bringing something new to the table.