Film Style Opinions

Hello, all. I know I haven't contributed much to the site (mainly due to work and school interfering with my free time), but I hope you all don't hold it against me too much. lol

Anyways, for those of you who don't know me, I'm a writer at heart and am working towards a degree in screenwriting, making scripts for TV shows and movies. There's one idea I'm playing around with, and I am seriously considering writing it for the handycam style of filming (i.e.: Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, Quarantine, Paranormal Activity, etc.).

I know there are a lot of opinions about handycam filming that are both good and bad, so consider this a poll of sorts: what do you think about it? Do you like it, do you hate it? What do you or don't you like about the style? What could we, as filmmakers, do to improve on it?

As for the film I have planned, it'll be more freestyle filming like Cloverfield rather than the fixed, smooth shots like Paranormal Activity, based heavily in the horror genre.

I hate watching those movies- not because of screenwriting, but because they make me motion sick. (Well, also, many of them are just not very good). I understand that it can save a lot on filming, but those movies tend to be improv anyway- not a lot of writing aside from a summary overview.

When they lean toward the horror genre, I find it to be a cheap way to try to build suspense- and it usually comes off flat. Not to say it couldn't work, it just usually doesn't. Even the "first" movie done this way (Blair Witch) I thought was dull and the suspense was almost overdone to the point of cheese.

Horror movies work when you care about the people who are dying (slasher movies on the other hand, it doesn't matter). Usually in handycam style movies, there isn't a lot of character development- so you just don't care what happens to the people. Many times I find myself wishing they would just die already and drop the damn camera so I won't lose my lunch.

An accurate assessment, I think. Lots of people seem to experience motion sickness during films like that, but I've never had a ny problems of the sort. I will admit that films of this type do generally lack in character development, and that's something I'm aiming to change. I want to create a story of depth. Cloverfield was about a guy trying to rescue his girlfriend during a giant monster attack, but we really didn't get a chance to know either of them. And I don't want to focus too much on suspense and cheap thrills for the horror, but rather make it a suspenseful mystery with some horror thrown in towards the end.

I think the camera is just a means to show the audience your work. I don't think the style of filming matters much as long as the rest of the elements of the filming come together cohesively. I personally don't like that style, because I prefer to see everything clearly, and from a more objective standpoint. I have no desire to see the events through the eyes(camera) of one of the characters. I don't mind a brief instance where you see what what of the character sees, however.

Basically, do whatever you have the passion to do. If you have a really good idea for this style of filming, go for it. Just do what you think is most interesting for the screenplay you are writing.

I pretty much have to agree entirely with Utopia, though it does sound like she's watched more of those styles of movies than I have (see also: motion sickness). The genres those sorts of movies are filmed in often are outside what I tend to view unless I hear really good reviews of the movies (which, frankly, for the other reasons stated, I rarely hear).

I find that the ones I have seen have a sort of hollowness to them. The handycam becomes a gimmick rather than a medium (perhaps because there aren't as many successful films shot this way yet, so there aren't as many examples of something "working" versus "not working"...?). The story is often limited because of the camera and it can become painfully unnatural to have the story told via the method they use to explain it.

Going back to the motion sickness bit - there are some tv programs I can't watch anymore either because they do that gimmicky "unsteady cam" thing where it drifts and wobbles. It's a trend I find terribly annoying and I think it's going to give the production a very 'dated' look. Like how you can tell songs from a certain period of the 80s by the random synthesizers thrown in because it's the "thing".


EDIT:

I'm not saying there's no way to do it and do it 'right', mind. Just saying what I think of what I've seen. :x

I like some handycam/found footage stuff. One thing that I don't like about it is too much jittery camera/distortion; it is one of my pet peeves with the Marble Hornets series on Youtube (also how long they wait between posting videos but that's a whole different problem). In some of the later entries the main character spends a lot of time running around forests or in the dark and it's not always clear what's going on. So I guess that is the thing I don't like about the style: when the jittery camera becomes a game of Where's Waldo with ghosts, I lose interest. Marble Hornets also involves a lot of characters and doesn't really make an effort to show all of their personalities, so I forget who is who and care less about most of them.
There is another Youtube found footage series called Louise Paxton that I think is well done, it's presented as a woman's video blog but starts to develop into a ghost story. Unlike the MH people Louise is a more distinct character, and for the most part the only character, so perhaps it is easier to work with less actors for found footage? You get to know them more and it's probably easier to get everyone screen time with a smaller cast. People who love Paranormal Activity usually tell me that having 2 unknown actors gave the film a sense of realism/something to let them suspend their disbelief.

I hope that helped. I'm not a film major, but I enjoy movies and thinking about plot and style stuff.