I thought this was quite an interesting video on how moves have changed the way they shoot action scenes. It bears on how one might think about writing them.
I remember my early efforts to write an aerial dogfight caused people (who you ask? ;-)) to cry head hopping, when in my nvho I was trying to create exactly the effect of being in the action and it being somewhat confused.
I would summarize the video as observing that action scenes used to be "omniscient" (wide angle/see everything), Bourne started as third limited with some omniscient thrown in and got crazier and now we are at head hopping/confusing for modern action movies trying to imitate Bourne, and worse- we are using cuts to create effects rather than speed things up or emphasize.
All this is quite counter to Lee Child (and Tom Clancy et al?), who "write the slow parts fast and the fast parts slow".
One thing I am musing on is the way Bourne doesn't use music. Action scenes gets sound effects only. I think that might suggest starker/clearer writing, or perhaps a increased emphasis in describing the sounds of a scene.
I remember my early efforts to write an aerial dogfight caused people (who you ask? ;-)) to cry head hopping, when in my nvho I was trying to create exactly the effect of being in the action and it being somewhat confused.
I would summarize the video as observing that action scenes used to be "omniscient" (wide angle/see everything), Bourne started as third limited with some omniscient thrown in and got crazier and now we are at head hopping/confusing for modern action movies trying to imitate Bourne, and worse- we are using cuts to create effects rather than speed things up or emphasize.
All this is quite counter to Lee Child (and Tom Clancy et al?), who "write the slow parts fast and the fast parts slow".
One thing I am musing on is the way Bourne doesn't use music. Action scenes gets sound effects only. I think that might suggest starker/clearer writing, or perhaps a increased emphasis in describing the sounds of a scene.
