Wow, great thoughts, guys. Kholi -- you didn't derail at all. I posted this in the "Filmmaking Misc" section for a reason -- we should be talking about specific production aspects of these kinds of films.
Before I make some responses, I think I should clarify what I originally meant, by distinguishing between "gimmick" and "legitimate". I am perfectly capable of enjoying a movie that is nothing more than
awesome visuals ("Immortals"), or has nothing to offer other than action-sequences of sheer spectacle ("Episode I").
But if we're to discuss an ideal movie, I'm a bit of a story-Nazi. Story, story, story. EVERYTHING must serve the story. I know I'm not exactly going out on a limb there, most of us feel that way, no?
Anyway, in my opinion, Found-Footage movies have not been using this technique for the purpose of better serving the story. The way I see it, they've all been a clever way to tell a bigger story, that would normally require a bigger budget.
There's no way you could tell the story in "Paranormal Activity" on a budget of $15K, without using that method. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there's no way you could tell "Cloverfield" on their budget of $30mil., without using that method. In these, and every other instance, the Found-Footage method is a creative budgetary workaround, but it comes at the cost of detriment to the Story! In both of these examples, the filmmakers were rather genius in finding ways to work through the limitations of the method, but the point I make is that I don't think Story was their first consideration, in choosing this method.
my favorite films tend to be Fantasy, Supernatural Horror, Sci-fi or some combination of those. Those films tend to work by creating new worlds, not just documenting the one we live in.
I'm right there with you! That's one of the reasons I so liked this movie. It's pretty fantastical. My comments on authenticity were directed at the characters -- these are dudes you went to high school with, and you can empathize with them, and in my opinion, the filmmakers used the Found-Footage method towards this end.
A friend-of-a-friend worked on the effects for 'Cloverfield'. He once explained to me (back in the days when I had little idea of how SFX were done) about how every single frame of the movie had to be manually tracked before any effects could be added. You can imagine that the cost for this kind of process would be astronomical.
Costly, yes. Astronomical, no. "Cloverfield" was Abram's first relatively big-budget production. Surely, I can't imagine he had the clout he has now. I don't think there's any question that the format of "Cloverfield" was chosen for budgetary purposes. With a lot of creativity, they told a rather thrilling blockbuster that shows
very little of the actual monster. Compared to a bigger-budget movie like "Godzilla", there are relatively very few FX shots in "Cloverfield", and that was made possible because, narratively, it made sense within their construct.
So, in "Cloverfield", the Found-Footage style didn't make the story better -- it only made it possible for a young producer to make a giant monster movie.
Ponty301 -- I know I'm nitpicking semantics, but actually, I think it's important to distinguish between a genre and a style of filmmaking. The geniuses at Pixar have correctly claimed that an animated movie is NOT a genre. It is a style of filmmaking. A method. Not a genre. I think the same is true of Found Footage. You can tell any story, in any genre. This is just another method.
Silent House looks pretty promising, actually
I sort of got the idea it's a hybrid of "found footage" and regular film.
I'll definitely have to watch that one. But I don't think there's anything "regular" about it. The entire thing is told in one continuous shot! It's Found-Footage to the Extreme! By the way, I think you'd be happy with the audio in "Chronicle"; it's a pretty slick Hollywood production.
Just watching the trailer for Chronicle, first blush I said "cool", then started seeing a lot of silly flaws that break the convention/gimmick's own rules. It's totally a gimmick, but a good way to get away with a quick hit/money grab.
Not even gonna lie, I wrote one in about 7 days end of last year and I'm probably gonna shoot it out this year at some point. It's definitely cheaper to do it this way versus traditional.
As to your own project -- awesome! I think there's a lot of mileage to get out of this format. A lot of people think it's a trend that will die; I actually think it will stay around. Regardless, right now is ripe-pickin!
Regarding your comments on "Chronicle", to be fair, you can't really judge it by the trailer. They really didn't break any rules of logic at all. Well, there was
one small instance --
There is a scene in which there is background source music. A couple of cuts were made, but the source music stayed continuous. Throughout the rest of the movie, if there was a cut, the source music (and other noises) changed appropriately. To be honest, though, I actually think the filmmakers made the correct decision in breaking the rules in this particular way -- the scene needed an emotional continuity, and I seriously doubt any non-filmmakers noticed the break in "reality".
Otherwise, actually all camera placement (and movements) make perfect sense, within the context of the narrative. They definitely followed the "rule" of every-shot-came-from-a-camcorder. They're definitely doing something different from all of the previous Found-Footage entries, but their break from convention still makes sense. I think you'd enjoy it, actually.
By contrast -- everybody and their momma loved "District 9". I also enjoyed it, but that movie broke the shit out of the method (faux-documentary/found-footage -- basically the same thing). There were SO MANY scenes in which we saw stuff happening in places in which there wouldn't be any cameras (like inside the aliens' house). Oh, well. Didn't stop that movie from being awesome. Anyway, "Chronicle" did not break the rules the way "District 9" did.
I guess the main point of this thread is I intend to ask -- How do we use this method of filmmaking to tell an awesome story? Not just because we want to save money, but because we think this method will better serve the story?
