Why did they apply this blur filter over most of the scenes?
Keep in mind there is no motion in this scene, or camera panning, it is just permanently blurry.
But the next scene goes to her face and it is perfectly crisp.
What is going on? It looks like a 1980s VHS movie at times.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's a trick to make CGI look less out of place. Now, there is an artistic reason for using a filter like that IE it makes the scene look more dream like and fantastical, but for Rebel Moon it's mostly being used to make the audience forget that a good deal of what's in frame isn't "real."
No, its just Snyder picked up a bad habbit with shooting every shot with super shallow depth of field. It started with his reshoots of ZSJL with the Joker scene and then he shot Army of the Dead movie with nearly all blury horseshit too.
>movies are just now catching up to visual techniques used in PS3 games in the '00s.
Looks more like he was imitating video games.
hack snyder discovered anamorphic lenses
Also did they steal the plot of a bug's life?
I am insulted and angry that this movie exists
If a bug's life stole ANH's plot then yes
But my foremost thought during RM was that this is just Eragon in space
a.k.a. ANH except shit and written by a 9 year old
>Also did they steal the plot of a bug's life?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMagnificentSevenSamurai
It's Seven Samurai.
Which is also The Magnificent Seven, A Bug's Life, the Three Amigos, that one episode of Mandalorian, and a shit tonne of other things.
>and a shit tonne of other things
Among those half of the capeshit movies out there.
It's one of the lamest and most cliched things to draw inspiration from. Just leave Kurosawa alone already god damnit.
>anon discovers depth of field
More like Snyder discovered DOF. His last movie was shot wide open with vintage f/0.95 lenses. The area that's in sharp focus is razor thin.
This. We wannabes used to do it when the DSLR revolution happened and we thought that shallow DOF = cinema.
It's not a filter, it's the lens itself. They literally built custom anamorphic lenses for the film because Snyder has become obsessed with blur. The lenses have tons of visual flaws that Snyder finds to be stylish, as well as the ability open the aperture up to T1.5 for an extremely shallow depth of field.
>T1.5
T1.4, like the picture shows. I misremembered.
i thought he bought some cheap shitty lenses off ebay
That was for Army of the Dead
oh. well if he had the lenses custom made he's even more moronic than i thought because it looks just as bad if not worse.
It's depth of field
The focal depth of the lens he uses means that only a small part of the shot is in focus, in this case the characters. A good part of it is because of how much CGI is going on he's using it to blend it more naturally into the scene. It's not a new technique but it's fallen out of practice with everything being shot "tv style" where everything's flat with same-y lighting and everything's in focus or the focal difference is minor.
>and everything's in focus
Hardly. T2.8 is easily the most commonly used aperture in film and TV today, and it's fricking awful. No one is doing proper deep focus cinematography anymore.
If you look at modern shooting, particularly for other capeshit and space opera films like Star Wars, the MCU, etc, the shallow focus is extremely limited in its use to basically Snyder and a fistful of ultra stylized scenes. I'm not talking about the pre-90s sharp focus, but I'm talking about how everything is "flat" because everythings' level of focus and even visual priority is the same within the shot. It's a combination of bad technique and lack of visual imagination on the part of the directors (and the HUGE interference by producers) and I just remembered a good chunk of it was started with the movie WWZ where they decided to start shooting everything with large depth of field and then manipulating it in post to artificially blend backgrounds
I kinda despise it
To give another specific example
Notice how the only "short focus" shots are basically the accidental profile shot with black panther and the ant-man shot
Everything else is pretty much "everything has the same level of blur"
We're never gonna get like the craziness like the dioptic focus or the deep focus that say De Palma used to excellent effect anymore
>We're never gonna get like the craziness like the dioptic focus or the deep focus that say De Palma used to excellent effect anymore
It's a shame.
Kurosawa's use of deep focus is still the peak of cinematography as far as I'm concerned. Beautiful and practical at the same time. In Ran for example, nearly every shot is entirely in focus. Kurosawa knew how to use framing, movement, light and color to guide the eye, so there was no need to rely on DoF blur.
This guy carried Snyder's career hard.
I like bokeh quite a lot so I can't fully advocate for super deep focus in every shot but I think there was a general paradigm shift in terms of filmmaking towards the end of the 80s where it becomes much easier to film a movie with shallower focus since you don't have to arrange the scene as much as if you have every object fully visible
That being said I do sorta dig the way Army of the Dead and Rebel Moon look but they're not quite as clean as the other movies he did with Fong and Wagner
But this is largely the first two major productions that he's done on his own in terms of the visuals and RM looked way better than Army so I suspect as he starts "getting" the tech and using it more specifically and carefully he'll turn out to be quite good
I personally dislike bokeh so fair enough. Pretty much any major artifacts created by the lens are ugly to me. Bokeh, lens flares, chromatic aberration, barrel and pin cushion distortion, vignetting, don't like any of it. My visual ideal is that the beauty comes from the subject and how it's presented (lighting, framing), rather than from what tool is being used to shoot.
>Annette
Based Carax chad.
>Pretty much any major artifacts created by the lens are ugly to me
Pleb take but I'll allow it.
The problem is that the amount of different types of lens artifacts is ultimately so small, that they quickly become extremely boring. Seen them all a billion times, all used the same way again and again.
I dig the artificiality of cinema myself and seeing how distorting reality through both the in-camera and the camera-itself techniques and effects can result in emotional heightening
Apocalypse Now is beautiful, but if by some magic there was a version of the film without the lens flares, I'd take it.
I love a sense of artificiality, but it depends on how it's expressed. Kwaidan is one of my all time favorites, and the entire film is highly theatrical in its production design and acting. In many scenes they just painted colorful skies on studio walls for example.
But one of the very few things I don't like about the film is that they used some very distorting lenses in a couple of ultra wide angle shots (can't find pics of them online right now).
I've seen Kwaidan and I think I know what you're talking about, is it in the hair ghost or the winter ghost story
The latter uses the painted skies, if that's what you're referring to. But all of the shorts in Kwaidan have very artificial sets in some ways
But TV cinematography nowadays means only having the characters in focus unless it's a big wide shot
Because he attempts to replicate Anti Aliasing on everything like its a fricking video game to hide all the flaws
Every movie shot anamorphic would look just as good if not better just as cropped spherical. There is no reason to shoot anamorphic that doesn't involve "muh lens flares" or "muh painterly look".
Should Snyder be shackled to Larry Fong again?
Yes. I didn't enjoy the movie at all or Snyder in general but it looked great.
Love BvS, can't stand the stuff he shot himself for Justice League (Leto crap), Army of the Dead made my eyes bleed, but I like how Rebel Moon looks. That being said, I wouldn't mind bringing Fong back or Fabian Wagner.
BvS and Watchmen are his best looking movies, and I think Fong did Watchmen too, so yes.
Correct. Fong did 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch and BvS.
I think Man of Steel looks good too, but yeah, Snyder and Fong should get back together.
Snydervand Fong are like Wong Kar Wai and Christopher Doyle, most of their best work was done together.
that was kino
many fireworks in my theatre
Snyder is probably the one film maker I would say insists upon himself.
This shot is only in the movie to be screenshotted and put in cinegrids. Peak dishonest filmmaking
He even pauses it at the specific point he wants you to save
I don't think there's been a more masturbatory director alive.
It's not vhs blurbwhatev the frick that means
It's a depth of field to hide the cgi/greensreens so it looks more seamless and fitting
Do you think Rebel Moon will finally prove that Zack Snyder is a total hack?
Why? So far it's great. Once the extended cuts of both movies are out it's probably gonna stand as the greatest space opera of the decade. Beats Villeneuve's inept attempt to adapt Dune by miles.
Zack Snyder is fricking around with vintage lenses on Red cameras. He did the same thing in that zombie movie.
A quick google on who directed this should give you a clue
Because Snyder is a hack and rather than commit to auterism and shoot on actual film, he’d rather just put a sepia toned film grain filter instead.
Holy shit this money is generic garbage.
>le evil nazis
>le evil over the top bad guys
>le rebel alliance
Turned it off in 30 minutes
My favorite part is the scene where they enter the cantina and they introduce the only openly gay character in the movie who is portrayed as a disgusting pigfaced rapist who is then embarrassingly beaten by a tiny woman who's probably less than a third of his body mass.
And this whole thing is presented as some clever feminist subversion of expectations.
What I really liked was reddit reaction to this scene
At first they were pretty mad that soldier would want to rape a cute farmer girl because.... rape bad ? Idk
Then they were celebratring the fact that a man almost got raped and called it equality, at this point rape as a plot device was perfectly ok contrary to the farmer girl
But then a Scholar came in the thread and he noted that while indeed it was cool some guy got almost raped in a film and it was a march in progress it was done by an homosexual man and that it was a bad portreyal of homosexual men
So I think to be reddit approved a movie has got to have no SA (as they call it) targeting women but at least one on a men (for equality) but the perpetrator need to be specifically addressed as a straight white male (well they didn't say white but you know they wouldn't have liked if the assaulter was a Black)
This is the kind of people that review bomb Snyder movies kek
seek Jesus
It's not a filter, it's the stupid fricking camera lens that Snyder likes to use lately. For such an experienced director is incredibly technically incompetent.
Because Snyder hates how the picture looks with digital cameras so he compromises by making shit out of focus and blurry as hell, which I guess is kinda unique.
just finished
it was kino
of course it would be better if targeted at moids instead of foids, but oh well
it's an absolute garbage film