What's the most dishonest film?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
What's the most dishonest film?
What's the most dishonest film?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Whats the difference between both pics? Is it something to do with the windows or whatever? Im not really sure what the problem Im looking at is...
Literally everything is wrong in the painting
The painting creates a greater sense of scale by manipulating the perspective
not just the perspective, look at the windows. it adds substantial height to the walls all the way to the end of the corridor.
The photo creates a dimished sense of scale by manipulating the perspective
The painting creates a greater sense of scale by manipulating the perspective and the photo creates a dimished sense of scale by manipulating the perspective
The OP creates a philistine sense of scale by manipulating the perspective
Lot of theories out there…. Really the painter stood on the floor and the photographer stood on the balcony opposite the staircase. Simple perspective
How come the painter didn't also stand on the balcony so everyone can see how it compares to the photo?
Well you see in those days only royalty were allowed on the balcony, so the painter didn’t have the opportunity to get a real comparison
Balcony was reserved for throwing POC off of, this is why us whites deserve replacement.
PEOPLE TOO SMALL
PAINTER IS A homosexual
PEOPLE ARENT THAT SMALL
noooo you can't take artistic liberties to construct a beautiful work of art!!!
the Black person sneed Black person feeds
Maybe people were smaller back then?
You would be surprised at how art blind the average population is, to the point they simply cannot comprehend shit like perspective and lighting.
Ignore these actually blind morons, look at the stairs, the artist includes the flat part of the bannister but not the flat segment of the stairs
theres nothing wrong with the art. morons here are surprised that putting the POV at a high point that the area beneath seems small. the painting is accurate from a persons perspective who is standing there. with maybe miniscule enlargement to convey the experience of standing there for the first time as a manlet in an enormous fricking building.
any WW2 film made by Americans
This frick transphobes
so you're gonna post this in EVERY thread huh?
its a bot
Nazibros, how will we ever recover?
Easy, it's just propoganda, same with all the talk about every top member of the Nazi party being into BDSM, it's all just israeli lies meant to demoralise
Wolf of Wall Street
I didn't even notice
Schindler's List
Anything from Nolan
The perspective creates a greater sense of manipulation by scaling the painting
I remember seeing SF city hall's dome in View to a Kill and being like what the frick because it looked huge but irl it's not
gladiator, that shit was ridiculous. statues that were built by giants, the colosseum is like 40 fricking stories. romans didn't have powered tools, they built impressive structures but come on.
ridley is a HACK frick that guy.
just for comparison this is the ACTUAL Pantheon today, built around the same time as a colosseum. a colossal structure by ancient world standards, but as you can see it is hardly impossible to imagine this being built without the benefit of electrical technology.
it's so amazing
how did they do it lads
>how did they do it lads
with old ancient aliens tech
lots of human and animal muscle, cranes, pulleys, maths. and chutzpah.
civil engineers actually earned their pay in those days.
Now lets see Paul Africa's architecture.
Ridleymind
So rather than complain about all the historical inaccuracies you complain that the colosseum is too big in the movie despite the fact the colosseum was and still is 48meters high?
Kingdom of Heaven
that movie also sucked, not least because of Orlando's hammy acting. a whole movie set in the holy land and you barely see any priests. nobody seems to go to mass. for ridley the atheist, the ancient world was as secular as the modern one.
fricking HACK. frick ridley scott. most dishonest filmmaker there ever was. you guys saw The Last Duel. he's so dishonest he can't even trust the audience to arrive at a conclusion. he takes his desired conclusion and rams it down your fricking throat.
>nobody seems to go to mass. for ridley the atheist, the ancient world was as secular as the modern one.
He cheats by seemingly making Saladin a religious skeptic and shrewd leader.
you think that's bad, try his exodus movie
dishonest is when you want to hurt the audience by misleading their perceptions.
The Doors by Oliver Stone
Dishonest? What’s dishonest about different angles?
people were all manlets back then, napoleon was average height
There are zero honest films. Every single film or work of art manipulates reality in some way, that’s the entire point of art.
You guys wanna talk about dishonest?
"The Optical Illusions That Make the Parthenon Perfect - Greece Is" https://www.greece-is.com/the-optical-illusions-that-make-the-parthenon-perfect/
TL;dr the fact is, the columns were never straight, they were purposely designed to be angled because the Greek architect was so fricking genius, that he understood that at a distance the pillars would look angled from a distance. So they engineered the pantheon so even people standing at a distance will see it improperly straight. It's 200 IQ nonsense.
>Because the Parthenon had few straight lines and right angles, its designers and builders had to hand-craft each individual piece, among a total of over 70,000 architectural members, so as to fit them into their own specific place within the temple’s structure. Differences amounting to as little as a few millimeters often distinguish these members.
Yes, for centuries and centuries mathematics was generally ignored and unknown in building.
It’s actually us that are the deviants for using it and now some idiots think that it’s amazing people could build without it despite it being very recently added to architecture and building.
mad lads
Architects from Africa can do the same.... bigot
Looks pretty big to me.
Pity about that ugly ass carpet.
I think the painting looks fine now that I see the perspective of it vs the real thing.
Basically every WW2 movie except the greatest story never told
Schindler's list
I take the OP's sentiment to be implying that the painting is a misrepresentation of the real building on which it appears to be modeled. If this was the intent, then I reject the he implication, because the painting is clearly a fair representation of the structure itself, and which must have been walked by well-dressed people in the past (even if some specific pseudo-historical episode which didn't actually happen is the subject of the painting)