Why don't we see more movies shot in a single take? It really

>>79518597
Honestly, I want more movies like this too.
Is there a list somewhere anon?

>>79518597

true detective was done in 1 take.

Because its fucking hard to do, maybe?

>>79518794

not really hard, more like expensive.

because it means that it was heavily rehearsed to get it right, if they just improvised 1 take then dayum nigger shieeet.

>>79518926
>not really hard
yeah okay mhm

>>79518621
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_shot_(film)

Doesn't look like there is anything else good besides Victoria. Excited for the one with Woody coming out this year though.

>>79518597
Jeez, the advertising for this is really pushing the fact that it's done in one shot as if its only good quality.

>"Fly away 'Birdman' - there's a new one-shot wonder in town. EXHILARATING!"

What does this actually bring to the table
I'd rather watch a good movie shot normally than a mediocre movie sold on a gimmick

>>79518926
It is hard bitch. Besides rehearsal, these arent really one take, but a bunch masterfully blended. That takes planning and work too.
And the fact you can't cut from a general take into a detail, close up, etc, makes for narrative issues that'll probably give whoever's writing the camera storyboards (abd the writers that know you can't show certain things without using em) a headache

>>79519062
First of all it is a good movie. The story is very captivating and the pacing is great. The one take thing just makes it even better, it brings a certain authentic feel to it, something that is very essential to a movie.

>>79518597
Every time I see this I think it's Claire Redfield from RE: Code Veronica, then I realize it isn't, and then I stop giving a shit.

Because it's a 60 year old dumb gimmick
>12 Y E A R S