Is digital the reason why modern films lack visual appeal?

Is digital the reason why modern films lack visual appeal?

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nah but im sure it plays a part

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One in a litany of other reasons, fren

      What are the other reasons?
      Jews?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Homogenous digital cam packages, gay goose chase of lenses over any correctives available to actually emulate archaic visual styles, horrid color correction dogma from absolutely braindead colorists, lack of ingenuity, lack of necessity in planned production design (do it in post homosexuals can die painfully), laziness in full from the top down. All on a bullet train to dreck. Most of these choices are baked into the system in place. It’s a multi level problem of stagnancy in creativity (usually at odds with the money holding, creatively bankrupt gays at aforementioned top).

        Why have standards or quality control at any level when you make money in spite of it all with such memorable products as Jurassic World 8?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Arri Alexa is digital but has a film-like look. What makes the difference are pixels that are organized logarithmically rather than linerly to give it a grain structure like in a film with high dynamic range, low saturation and contrast. You want properly graded log footage. There are templates that cameras are using (LUTs) with just the right color grading.
          Bad DPs shoot too dark but that's a really big topic.

          Who do you work for?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          One of many reasons. Starting in the 80s the industry changed massively because that was when home video started to become ubiquitous. So there was a massive shift in technology happening in the early 80s. In fact as far back as '75 Sony already had the prototype for the commercial digital camera as we know it now. Other changes that happened in the 60s were original research at Stanford and MIT into business office and supply chain optimizations essentially what we know today to be corporate culture. The 80s saw a glut of MBA yuppie scumbags entering Hollywood for the first time in it's history, until then Hollywood executives were mostly from the inner circle of the original founders of the studios. Even until the 70s people like Richard Zanuck (David zanuck's son) ran the studios. The likes of gale Ann Hurd (MBA Stanford) entered Hollywood and directors like James Cameron became privy to the growing field of market research and foreign markets opening up. I would say 70s was the peak of literature influenced movies having an outsized influence on the movie culture. I mean literature of merit. If the poverty row studios wanted to make cheap movies with sex and violence they used to adapt the likes of Edgar Allan Poe's stories. People like James Cameron due to their sheer blind obsession with technology brought digital film equipment tech kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Little did people like him know that they were creating a dystopian beast not a utopia. This is only half the story of course.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >James Cameron
            I always knew he was an enemy of cinema, despite Cinemaphile's claims.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              James Cameron is an unfortunate occurrence for the stability of the film medium because he's the kind of artist who will employ any popular medium to sell his art convey his stories. If movies did not exist in an alternate universe James Cameron would probably have become a comic book artist and become popular for painting sci-fi scenes. For him cinema just happened to be the influential medium growing up when he saw movies like 2001 ASO or Jason and the argonauts or wait until dark. He just needs a canvas, any canvas doesn't matter to him if it's cinemascope or IMAX 3d.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >James Cameron was an enemy of cinema
              Say what you will about how Alien was better than Alien$, those outfits, props, characters, and sets were iconic and countless other sci-fis have ripped them off shamelessly.
              And the first two Terminator movies are worth whatever harm he's done, alone.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          despot is that you

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ironically Bullet Train looks pretty nice.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Jews, particularly israeli nepotism, women diversity hires, etc people who don't really like art, but want the money and fame and are given it without proving their worth.

        Also the fact that there's very few actual auteurs. Most decisions are done by israelites and women in committee to appeal to the lowest common dominator, which usually means explosions and CGI fights so the Chinese, Indians, illiterate American blacks, etc can all understand it. Studios give money to original hacks like JJ Abrams, not only because he is israeli, but because he just tries to make shit that worked in the past, and studios are extremely risk adverse (when it doesn't fit their DEI agenda)

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One in a litany of other reasons, fren

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Digital cameras and dull colour grading

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Digital cameras and dull colour grading
      This, it looks both fake and lifeless, like a poor attempt at a video game. Nothing about it connects with the mind as real. Think about it like this, a lot of films in the 70s and 80s had that grainy imperfect look and so the mind registered it as real, despite perhaps an equal infidelity to reality. Modern stuff, our mind perceives that it's all digital and lacking in depth, and the hazy murky color grading makes it even more false. No matter how much effort they put into it, we've stopped being as immersed.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    color and contast is LE BAD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nice AI movie.. I wish I could see it

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's the awful color grading.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How do directors not hang themselves in shame?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Usually directors don't have a say in this. I'd say it's some kind of conspiracy, but I'm not sure what the goal is.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Every production is this muted grey/green colour now, it's insane, like the first thing i notice but nobody seems to care

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Bad directing. Unintentionally looks like he cut the red samurai.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >clearly walks towards the woman, away from the red samurai
                You are very, very stupid.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I care

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's a time and a place for gray/green monotone, and it's when you want a scene to look soulless and depressing. It was used to great effect in Helms Deep in LotR, but they contrasted it with the lush color of forests, the Shire, Eisengard, etc.

            https://i.imgur.com/jVgNEJL.jpeg

            Is digital the reason why modern films lack visual appeal?

            The reason is, in a word, laziness.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            People actually started to notice, especially after the egregious use of it in Napoleon.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Humiliation ritual

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Probably contracts with streaming services and display manufacturers. Netflix pretty much demands that all series and films shot for them look equally shit.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Usually directors don't have a say in this
          lol do you not know what a director is or something?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ridley Scott is notoriously shameless

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      scott has gone senile

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Who stole all the colors?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Modern film makers prefer the dull minimalist look.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2049 had some cool areas and imagery. This image is disingenuous as hell

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not disingenuous. Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best movies shot on digital but compared to the original you can see clear as day the different approaches to filmmaking craft that digital inaugurated compared to film. The original Blade Runner still looks superior, it's full of detail and life in every single frame while 2049 is liminal and drab. No sense of beauty or grandeur.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gorgeous film, it's a shame it's so FRICKING BORING.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        there was some good shit in the Blade Runner sequel but goddamn is it ugly to look at

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I rewatched some scenes from 2049 recently and I noticed I didn't like the aesthetics as much as I remembered I did.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        making movies is an art form, when you replace the artists with diversity and inclusion, you're no longer making art or something people want to watch

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        For BR2047 it made sense because society was even more degraded from the last film to the point that there was basically nothing left in most places.
        BR 1 was set in a degeneration world, but there still was some color out there. BR2047 was beyond that, where even the shopping centers looked like sterile hells.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        villa is a hack thoughbeit

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Criterion BD over did it with filters.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Death is too good for these scum

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Once I start making real money I'm gonna buy a scanner and reels of my favorite movies and do the transfers personally

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You mean Kadokawa Blu-Ray.
        There's no Criterion Blu-Ray of Ran, only DVD.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why do they do it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        top is oversaturated crap, it looks like a DVD master. BUT it still looks better than the bottom, which looks like it's covered in fog.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        top looks like absolute fricking dogshit what in the absolute frick do you mean with this post? bottom is absolutely better in every way

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just piss all over it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Criterion did it a lot, at least from the movies they distributed that I watched so far. I started to doubt if it was really coming from the directors as they said because of how similar the filter looked with multiple movies made by different directors from different countries.
        >Thief
        >Repo Man
        >Memories of Murder
        >Ran

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not criterion, Lionsgate. As someone with the original Blu-ray, it is over saturated. However
        >HDR
        That's the fricking problem. Sick of morons fricking up a 4k disc because of HDR.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Sick of morons fricking up a 4k disc because of HDR.
          What's the issue? Film stock has more dynamic range than SDR, and HDR uses linear gamma, which is more faithful to how film works than the moronic gamma curves that SDR is forced to use in order to compensate.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      TW Shogun 3 looking good

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is possible for digital to look good, but you need people who know what the frick they're doing and care.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is possible for digital to look good, but you need people who know what the frick they're doing and care.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's a time and a place for gray/green monotone, and it's when you want a scene to look soulless and depressing. It was used to great effect in Helms Deep in LotR, but they contrasted it with the lush color of forests, the Shire, Eisengard, etc.

        [...]
        The reason is, in a word, laziness.

        >The reason is, in a word, laziness.
        Laziness and incompetence. Digital isn't bad. Digital lets people who are bad at filmmaking make movies when they wouldn't have been let within 100 feet of expensive film.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >OMG modern movies are sooooo drab and colorless
    >meanwhile older movies:

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You really don't know what you're saying.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      keep ozu's name out your frickin' mouth

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even bw films had better imagery

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excellent bait

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Watch older movie in black and white
      >It's so good that my brain can basically transplant color onto the images

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    Lots of garbage looking movies were shot on film.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Photoplay died when they brought in the talkies.

    t. Greatest generation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is objectively correct. We will never get montage kino like Napoleon ever again.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    anyone else got motivated by this sad affair of film to try to get into filmmaking themselves?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I wanted badly to become a filmmaker. I still have more knowledge that most film school kids do on the technical and production aspects of film. But what's the point if your family is not willing to bet on you and if you can't outdo the likes of James Cameron and Stanley Kubrick. Filmmaking is dystopian landscape right now. You need atleast 200k lying around to make a really good short film say 10-15 minutes to outdo what James Cameron did with his 30k budget in 1975 and what Stanley Kubrick did with 40k budget in 1952 on his debut film. Quality doesn't come cheap and filmmaking requires experimentation. People who make no budget movies on their phone never get anywhere in life. You have to have skin in the game.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You need atleast 200k lying around to make a really good short film
        cope

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah you never wanted it hard enough.

          If that budget was good enough for the likes of JC and SK then it's good enough for me. Some nobodies on 4chinz would probably know even less about making films. Cope more about how you can make everything for free and still become a millionaire.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The only one coping here is you.

            >pic related, budget 7k

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Shane Carrot, a nobody who probably works a regular 8-5 job now
              > James Cameron makes big budget movies because he knew early on that money does in fact buy quality and time. Re: the concepts and production values of Xenogenesis
              > Stanley Kubrick made big budget films all his life and will be remembered forever because he got his family to invest about 35k on his debut feature which was released to theaters in NYC and got him noticed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The only reasons Carruth doesn't have a career anymore are because he told Fincher to frick off and he beat up that woman (allegedly)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They screwed Carruth so hard. I know Primer is great but he made upstream color with just 50k, what a legend

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Look man, I can name you a 100 filmmakers right from the days of DW Griffith to Howard hawks to John Ford to Stanley Kubrick to James Cameron - a direct line stretching back 100 years - all of whom artisitc films for wide audiences but also learned early on that no one likes small films where everyone sits and talks and nothing happens. And I can probably name you a 100 filmmakers that only a small population admires from Erich von Stroheim, fritz Lang, murnau dreyer, Ozu, soderberg, godard and on and on all of whom I admire. I'm sure you've heard of a small director named Rainer Werner Fassbinder? Great influence on many Hollywood directors in the 70s and 80s. Small budget, small scope humanistic stories that no one wants to watch. Even David fincher made a few studio films but he's as good as a nobody now. What I'm trying to say is that as admirable as it is to make small films on your talent alone, in the real world the most venerated filmmakers have always worked on big scope and canvases. Nothing wrong with making a small indie film here and there but film lends itself well to big scope like period dramas Chimes at midnight comes to mind or war films or sci-fi. Why waste the medium on people sitting around talking? The audience first and foremost wants a thrill ride into the unknown in a dark cinema hall.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah if you want to be the next Cameron then quit while you're ahead. Seems that you're more interested in the money and fame rather than filmmaking itself anyway.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >TIL people should only get into filmmaking to be poor and struggling.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >implying Fassbender and Godard were poor and struggling
                kek

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fassbinder died with a working class person. Please read his biography. His films never could secure proper funding and production would be repeatedly postponed during which periods he would go back to being a junkie and write more stuff that would remain unmade.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Goadrd was born into an extremely wealthy swiss family either his mother or father's side of the family were prominent bank owners. A trust fund that big would motivate me to jump into the abyss for sure.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Baskin Roberts new wave

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "We barged into cinema like cavemen into the Versailles of Louis the Fifteenth"
                - Jean luc Godard.
                What trust fund does to a wealthy aristocrat.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                k

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What's your excuse for not looking for a budget for your short or whatever the traditional way then? Cameron literally begged a group of dentists for the money to make Xenogenesis.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                First of all I'm not american born. So my currency wouldn't go that far. But my grandparents were financially very poor and only parents managed to have a stable white collar type of life. I feared I would be known to future family members as that black sheep who gambled away stability just when things were going good for the family.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you don’t even believe in your movie and even in your dreams of being funded you’re planning to fail

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Such is life. Not everyone is born on third base which deludes them into thinking they hit a triple.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fricking hell, take out a loan then. Jesus christ stop whinging and blaming everything on other people.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Strange. I don't see a single sentence in any of my replies where I blame any single person ever. Hmmm.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If anything I literally blame myself and my fears for not taking the leap of faith which is evident from my reply. But then again, not much reading comprehension can be expected from low IQ slackjawed homosexuals like you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          go look at what is considered a successfully low budget movie.
          even the blair witch project cost a million dollars adjusted for inflation

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            his post and the one he replied to both said short film
            of course you'd need more for a feature

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The vast majority of successful first time filmmakers aren't doing their debut shorts with goddamn 200k budgets, lmao. Get real. Take a look at some of the shorts winning at major festivals nowadays.
        Hell, Nolan made is first FEATURE with 6k in 1998.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah you never wanted it hard enough.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no man is an island. You needed some filmmaking friends to keep you realistic. you needed some way to change social circles.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          100%. But what most of us people don't know is people like James Cameron and Stanley Kubrick were born somewhat gifted and in their early lives they showed enough capabilities. Read about their early lives in their biography books. I was afraid I wasn't born gifted enough. I always did well academically and got into a normal 9-5 job, but they showed real gift when they were kids. That was probably by biggest fear. Plus you gotta be born a bit well off so that you have a cushion to fall back on even if you fail.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            scales of production are crazy when you compare film to music. before daws, you really needed to book out a studio and/or own expensive equipment to do it yourself. nowadays a lot of music is done 'in the box' and recording studios are a bygone of the industry, only older artists and for 'show' projects do you ever see classic studios. the same cannot be said for filmmaking. yeah you can make a movie all by yourself. but other than the time, money, equipment, you need to be a master of multiple things, which is impossible in filmmaking. in music, if they have the technical ability, can do it all by themselves. there's more hit records made by a one man band/engineer than there are films made by one person. and your last point is the nail on the coffin, anything in arts requires you to be at least somewhat well off in order to have the time to properly devote to it. rags to riches are the minorities in the arts, the success stories are usually from the middle class and up.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Orson Welles said it best " A writer needs a pen, an artist"
              Also " filmmaking is like writing with a pen that weighs 2 tons" or something to that effect.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Goddamn copy-paste. The quote is
                "A writer needs a pen, an artist needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            unfortunately modern neuroscience says the brain can keep developing. You're back on the hook anon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        potion seller made a feature film with a big name actress. flopped but he still made it. no more excuses.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        if you can't make a good movie for less than 25k you're not meant to be a filmmaker

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You sound like you're not interested in Film. You just want to be rich and famous.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Arri Alexa is digital but has a film-like look. What makes the difference are pixels that are organized logarithmically rather than linerly to give it a grain structure like in a film with high dynamic range, low saturation and contrast. You want properly graded log footage. There are templates that cameras are using (LUTs) with just the right color grading.
    Bad DPs shoot too dark but that's a really big topic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      uuuuh how about that in english, doc?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How did it come to be the standard for so many productions to adopt such poor practices? Is it in training the flawed thinking presents itself or is it a more arch “blind leading the blind” thing?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Some set ups let you watch how the footage will look like in real time I hope everyone will be using it to see if something is too fricking dark to see.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Art is determined by its materials. Technically its possible for someone to create the Mona Lisa with a computer but no one's going to do so, or learn how to do so, because there's not actually the painting materials to lead to it. Despite the fact that one may easily say great art is always necessary, it, as a creative act, ceases to be necessary when so departed from its essential materials. It's the same with film. Sure, technically, you can say you could make a digital film that looks just as good as High and Low, but no one's going to do it, and even if they do it, it will only be fraudulent and aping a style rather than an authentic creation.

        Ezra Pound goes into this idea in his Cantos when he distinguishes between sculpture made constructively from a mold, such as materials like bronze require, and sculpture made in the moment of the creative act of carving, such as is possible for marble. He takes it too far by rejecting bronze but it is interesting.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Explain and elaborate?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sort of. Mostly it is a secondary effect of post processing being so easy in the digital domain. A lot of sloppiness is allowed on the front end (camera placement, camera choice, lighting etc) that can be 'made up for' in post.
    A similar thing happened with music recording when multitrack recording became popular. It changes the aesthetic when you go from expertly placed mics recording an entire ensemble playing together in one take to every one playing and being recorded separate. It allows you to do some wild stuff but that doesn't mean it is good. Dark Side of the Moon wouldn't have been possible as it is if it was recorded at Sun in the 50s. Some will like these changes, some won't.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One of many reasons. Starting in the 80s the industry changed massively because that was when home video started to become ubiquitous. So there was a massive shift in technology happening in the early 80s. In fact as far back as '75 Sony already had the prototype for the commercial digital camera as we know it now. Other changes that happened in the 60s were original research at Stanford and MIT into business office and supply chain optimizations essentially what we know today to be corporate culture. The 80s saw a glut of MBA yuppie scumbags entering Hollywood for the first time in it's history, until then Hollywood executives were mostly from the inner circle of the original founders of the studios. Even until the 70s people like Richard Zanuck (David zanuck's son) ran the studios. The likes of gale Ann Hurd (MBA Stanford) entered Hollywood and directors like James Cameron became privy to the growing field of market research and foreign markets opening up. I would say 70s was the peak of literature influenced movies having an outsized influence on the movie culture. I mean literature of merit. If the poverty row studios wanted to make cheap movies with sex and violence they used to adapt the likes of Edgar Allan Poe's stories. People like James Cameron due to their sheer blind obsession with technology brought digital film equipment tech kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Little did people like him know that they were creating a dystopian beast not a utopia. This is only half the story of course.

      Technology cannot keep changing too much or the artists will never be able to establish a standard. Progressing is good but progressing just for the sake of progressing is what is got Hollywood in this mess. There should be a balance.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you're right and wrong. the compare/contrast isn't about mono/stereo recordings vs multitrack, it's about analog tape vs digital/daw. what you said though about 'how' something is shot (lighting, cinematography, direction, set design, acting, etc.) is absolutely on the money. shooting digitally is 100% perfectly great when done correctly. the only major difference between shooting analog vid to digital is the resolution captured at. if everything else sucks in pre- and during production, post won't be able to save it. same goes for audio. if the recording engineer didn't mic properly and didn't get a good recording, mixing won't be able to do much to fix it. although in music nowadays everything is sample replaced and/or played/sequenced for midi to use on XYZ vsts, effects, etc. so recorded performances nowadays are highly processed. even great live musicians today, their studio recordings are usually computerized crap.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No its laziness, and the belief that colour isn't "serious". They need to "set the tone" by making everything gray and ugly, despite that older directors were able to easily make films serious and impactful without making them drab and hideous.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kagemusha was better than Ran.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Agreed, its super underrated.
        Ran is still great though.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shut your fricking mouth.
        Kagemusha is 10/10, but Ran is still better.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nah

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Incorrect.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I find it difficult to believe that modern materials preclude the creation of great films, if that's what you're saying.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why did Hidetora have his castle in the middle of an ash wasteland in what looks like Mordor

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He lead the Fire Realm

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      he made a few compromises to become sole dictator

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You could at least have used a better example of Asian movie if we're going that route. Ran is too up it's own ass to be anything other than a pseud trap.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've tried to watch this shit about ten times and always stop after a few minutes because it's so fricking grey.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shadow is a beautiful looking movie

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    Simple as

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    has anyone here seen the Boxer's Omen

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One of them, yes. But it's mostly about the fact that the people being hired are untalented/mediocre.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most directors are hacks and have extremely shit ideas but back before CGI let them fully realise their awful concepts they were forced by technology to be more subtle and artistic. Prime example is George Lucas, who envisioned the original trilogy to be what the prequels were but technology limited him and as a result something good got accidentally made.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    digital is too clean, and the lenses are too clear.
    film and old lenses were themselves a filter.
    digital captures everything too perfectly, and movies lose the film appeal.
    same reason 120hz makes movies look like soap operas

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >digital is too clean
      By default yeah, but it's very easy to soften if a filmmaker wants to.

      1/2

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2/2

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2/2

        How'd you do that exactly?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just added halation and grain in Resolve. Halation when added properly is going to soften the entire image, as it makes all of the light spread and blend together a bit, as it does on film. Literally took two minutes. Could just as well make the effects even stronger if you wanted to.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What percentage of halation and grain?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You don't adjust a single percentage. There's a whole bunch of sliders to control the size, shape, softness, strength, etc. of the grain. Same goes for halation. I suggest doing your own experiments with the sliders until you land on a look you're happy with for a specific project. I can do a basic soft look quickly because I've done it bunch of times before, but I rarely do it the exact same way. Each project will demand different fine adjustments. Another thing to do is to directly compare what you're doing to a Blu-Ray copy of a classic film that has a texture you want to approximate.

              1/2

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                2/2

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >digital captures everything too perfectly
      And yet they look less realistic than ever.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Switching from film to digital was a disaster.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not just digital cameras but also digital intermediate (which even 35mm films are put through) and LED lights. And of course Hollywood's old guard retiring/dying and not being replaced by new talent.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's less to do with technology and more to do with effort. When creators put in maximum effort, it doesn't matter it's on film or digital, whether the effects are practical or computer generated, or any of that; the effort comes through on the screen.

    The issue with technology is just that it's made making low-effort movies easier.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Film outside, film without a ton of cgi shit, avoid greenscreen and filters, let the imperfections exist. People will feel like they're watching reality a bit more.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Besides the greenscreen we mostly stick by those rules. It does still feel too perfect however, and we are only shooting on a Sony A7sIII

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        See:

        2/2

        &

        Just added halation and grain in Resolve. Halation when added properly is going to soften the entire image, as it makes all of the light spread and blend together a bit, as it does on film. Literally took two minutes. Could just as well make the effects even stronger if you wanted to.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even practical effect-heavy projects like Fury Road looked, though real, very fake. And it didn't matter. I don't think you can blame the tech; fault lies in the hands of its users.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, you just watch shitty movies

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ran built a castle from actual blueprint, IIRC. The Nolan of his time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Nolan of his time.
      Don't say someone is "the x of their time" when the x came out way later.
      Don't ever say that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lol these nolangays never fail to entertain with their quips and pearls of wisdom.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably it is directors moving the camera too much.
    Some do, but a lot of modern directors don't focus on creating that one good setting where they plant their camera and let it just run.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pls watch.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bing AI makes fricking better looking movies than digital shit today

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >movies

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Movie screenshot at least

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not. It's just a picture with no relation to movies.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Modern big-note movies need to have one of these moments every 5 minutes or will lose the paying audiences that allow for budgets that allow for big-note sequences like this every 5 minutes (or they did b4 Blackrock just gave them free money for any old moronic shit). So they lose impact and their contextual staging becomes diluted.

    ie: ONE important building burning down is more impactful than 100 unimportant buildings burning down. See the end of The Avengers vs ID4 zapping The White House.

    In RAN it's the end point of a 3 hour remake of King Lear (one of Shakespeare's worst*) and people are ready to burn the theater down, so they're psychologically tuned in to seeing shit get wrecked.

    *and don't @ me, the bizarre "relative portions of love" meme that causes all the problems is literally an insane response to the question asked: her daft old dad just wanted to know that his beloved daughters who he was giving up to marriage still loved him - RAN doesn't really explore the folly of her poor choice to get technical about emotional attachments when a silly note of emotional reassurance was needed - she will be a terrible mother** (it's a son in RAN, which means he'll be a poor statesman)

    **again, don't @ me, I understand the intellectual and conceptual ideas in play, but that scene is so bizarre if feels like a super-autist like Movie Bob wrote it, or it's a satirical response to some contemporary event of the day (or a critique of a previous work that he's satirizing, like someone took a shot at his depiction of love so he write a mocking version of "Love as a Quantifiable Commodity" then had a gigantic war break out because of it, in true farcical/tragedy style)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In RAN it's the end point of a 3 hour remake of King Lear
      Well, the midpoint. There's still a ton of film left after that scene.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All the budget goes into marketing.
    Directors of Photography don't actually practice still frame photography in their spare time.
    Sets are now tiny or shots are very tight so they don't have to edit out stuff in post.
    Everything is sent through filters on final cut pro or premiere to smooth shit out.
    Directors or some moron on production wants terrible "realistic" dark lighting so digital barely picks up detail.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The computer/software you need to edit: $3k
    Equipment rentals: $10k-15k
    Non Union Labor: $20-30k
    Actors: $20-100k
    that’s just to make it and sit on your desktop

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fricks up your movie

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *