How does Se7en look so modern? This movie came out in 1995 and looks like it could've come out this year, like 4k quality. Silence of the Lambs came out 4 years earlier and has an early 80s quality to it, while this movie looks 20-30 years ahead of it's time.
>How does Se7en look so modern? This movie came out in 1995 and looks like it could've come out this year
Is it that bad?
Could be that the look was popular and it started a trend
Aesthetically it was both influential and just happened to line up with modern looks.
As for the quality, film is naturally about 7-9K, it's home releases that have to downgrade to whatever current media and TVs can handle. If the film is well stored and scanned properly, quite old films can be released in 4K and the only limit is how well the actual set and costume design holds up at that detail.
I can't be the only one who thinks alot of old black and white movies look ridiculously high quality.
There is a period right before color came out that the black and white will actually be higher quality than most color because the film only had to do one thing rather than 3 and thus had better density
Film looks good, who fricking knew?
The power of having a good director
Because Fincher directed it and continued to use that style all the way up to The Killer that just came out.
It lacks the CGI necessary to be modern. But it is very good quality.
It was Fincher's first feature (try saying that when you're drunk) and it was absolutely exploding with creativity. Quality lasts.
That's Alien 3, senpai.
OK, it's the first feature he actually had control of.
Fox studios and Sigourney Weaver fricked up Alien 3 beyond redemption.
They did screw it up but you can still tell it’s a Fincher movie. It looks like one.
>Khondji used Panavision Primo lenses, which offered a sharp image with good contrast, and Kodak film stocks that could capture the "gritty" interiors and deep blacks for night-time exteriors.[53]
Watch apocalypse now and compare it to i claudius
sup my fellow kids
I feel the oppossite but It may be preferential on my part. Watching Se7evn feels like a 90's movie in its aesthetic qualities and writing, a movie that had so many copycats that I think it hurt it's longevity but it still looks like a great film. Silence of the Lambs while also still looking great has a timeless quality to its writing and and look. Everything about it still hold more weight for me. Both films still hold up but SotL could still murder a modern audience.
Many television shows and movies, like True Detective, copied the tone and look of Se7en. Whether it’s the lighting or filters. He has no bad movies. It’s kind of industrial mixed with classic Hollywood (like Lynch).
I can’t watch Se7en anymore because it’s too intense, and I know the pay off. The real star of the movie is Morgan Freeman. If they had toned this movie down I’d probably watch it on a loop, cause it’s so kino. I wish Morgan Freeman made more detective movies.
>I can’t watch Se7en anymore because it’s too intense
What?
Like many said he use a style that was copied after. But many movies from the same year look different, tons of 80's movies had the 70's aesthetic/pace and look much older than they should. The original Clash of the Titans came out in 1981, a few months before Blade Runner and 3 years after Alien.
>because it’s too intense
I get this. It's pretty fricking nasty and full-on.
I found it hard to watch parts of Reservoir Dogs for the same reason. But I still think both films are great.
NTA, but RD has only that one scene that's rough. Se7en really relished in going above and beyond in disturbing and grossing out the viewer, and though you'd think it would get a visceral reaction out of you or make you feel disgusted (which you partially do), aesthetically it was really mesmerizing to watch in a very morbid way that made such content easier to stomach.
RD has many unsettling scenes.
>Mr Orange writhing in agony in the back of the car
>Mr Orange bleeding to death in general
>Mr Blonde torturing the cop
>Joe Cabot shooting the cop to shit
>Mr White bellowing like a wounded animal
>even Mr Pink miming what Mr Blonde did to the black girl
Of course, most of it is down to the great acting. It's some powerful shit.
I watch Zodiac on a loop
That film is T E N S E.
I remember rewatching this and 12 monkeys not long ago and while they both came out around the same time, 12 monkeys looked terrible. It aged like shit
>12 monkeys looked terrible. It aged like shit
NO
It looked like a made for tv movie recorded on vhs. Not saying it wasn’t a good movie back then.
It is grimy and not as polished as Fincher's work from the 90s, but it doesn't look like shit and I don't think it aged bad at all visually.
12 Monkeys doesn't look like shit, its an intentional gritty aesthetic
Because Fincher showed his directorial prowess from the beginning and he was always a man who was in touch with the cinematic trends whenever he made a new film.
There's a lot of movies like that from back then. Fincher, Brad Silberling, Gore Verbinski, Spike Jones, Amblin & Dreamworks all had that 'look'
There was a big changeover in film stocks and lenses in the mid-90s. Stuff from 1997 can look radically different to stuff from 1992 to the point where they feel like two different eras. Everything started to get less grainy and higher resolution. The cinematographer of Fincher's next movie after Seven, The Game, talks about this on the audio commentary.
Grain is where it's at, but there's no one preaching the good word
Why did films from the early 80s look so different (and better) from those in the early 90's. Everything seemed drab, kinda downcast. The 70's were colorful and the 80's had that deep, rich, Spielbergian feel. The the early 90s hit and it seema kioe everything is made in canada
They were shot on actual film. Increasingly in the 1990s, films were shot on video. And now they're all digital. It's been a steady but constant decline.
Plus Fincher was an early proponent of digital. His stuff still looks good, but obviously he only works with top tier cinematographers.
Yeah that's film. When practical effects, lighting, and on scene location gave a film its unique grit.
Now everything is recorded digitally, the stuff that was only supposed to be used for National Geographic and documentaries.
Film stocks became better in regards to light sensitivity, but a lot of them were really shit aesthetically. So, most people became lazy lighting stuff if it was all well-exposed which exacerbated an already dull stock.
noirish styles age well
because digital
>people who still use film
Cameras and film changed. It's not complex. The stuff was already around and used before but the mid 90s is where became common and more affordable
Why don't they just switch back to film instead of troony digital?
You can't stream film.
It just needs to be scanned and digitized
More expensive than shitty digital/CGI.
Why film on location when you can just green screen your whole movie and morons keep paying to watch it.
It's not just film it's good lighting. It really doesn't matter that much what camera is used it's all about what in front of the lens.
Darius Khondji is a genius that is why. He knew the combination of lenses, film stock, lighting, and lowering the exposure of the film to get that rich contrast and get a 3D pop most stuff in the 90s didn’t have. Yeah, there were other great looking films out there during that time, but Fincher and Khondji really brought everything together in a way that took advantage of most advancements in film at the time.