|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
I'm no film expert, but it seems to me worth mentioning the quite recent development in sport broadcasting, where they frequently break the 180 degree rule, but always with a caption saying something like "reverse angle". I don't recall ever seeing this until maybe a couple of years ago. Tannin 08:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
maybe a list of films where the rule is broken would be nice ... I can't think of any film right now though. Also, what if it's a scene where the camera slowly moves around the dialogue actors in a full 360° circle? (clem 20:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC))
This statement needs to be qualified or explained better before it can be put back into the article: "(Notice that it is forbidden in fictional film to place the camera on the axis)." NeoThe1 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to imply that the camera shouldn't be placed where the actor may unintentionally spike the footage, especially in continuity editing, but nothing is forbidden in practice.—Nahum Reduta
-Maybe mention the largest violation of this rule in mainstream film, when Neo opposes Agent Smith in the subway after a bullet-time sequence. The camera swiches 180 a few times in a row to show both guns are empty. used to great effect, and would add to the article by showing that this rule is not set in stone, and has been used in film. Forcemasteryoda 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The car chase example doesn't seem to be a 180° problem, but rather that of motion vectors, in that the car leaving the right side of the screen is traveling "rightwards", and should therefore appear from the left side in order to maintain the vector. —Nahum Reduta 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Problems caused and solutions
It seems this section is either poorly labeled or filled with content that is not what the section title refers to. First being that "Problems caused" infers that the 180 degree rule causes problems, when the content of the section is about how it solves problems.
Secondly, the first line "The 180 degree rule enables the audience to visually connect with unseen movement happening around and behind the immediate subject and is important in the narration of battle scenes." seems to be a description of a benefit from the rule, and not a problem. If it were to state how changing the camera angle to the opposite side of a fixed situation breaks an audience's ability to visually connect with a scene (by disorienting their connection to who is where, relative to themselves as the audience), then the situation is being described as a problem.
The section then states "Avoiding crossing the line is a problem that those learning filmcraft will need to struggle with." This may still leave a reader in question of how crossing the line is a problem, or why it is a problem.
An idea might by to rename the section (An example: "Problems the rule solves and how it solves them"), and to rephrase some lines to follow more directly what is stated in the section title. Serrinatta (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions a possible solution to a problem with a car chase, but no problem with a car chase appears in the article. Indeed, nothing about a car chase appears anywhere else in the article. Was this text copied from another source? Is it left over from an earlier version of the article? As it stands, it makes no sense. —DavidConrad (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)