|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 26, 2020 12:50:55 GMT
"The things that they're doing now have nothing to do with what we were doing making movies in the '70s, '80s and '90s. The first thing that drives me crazy is the way they look. Because they're shooting digitally they're just lit terribly. I can't stand the darkness, the bounced light. They all look the same. I believe in beauty in cinema. Susan and I were looking at Gone With the Wind the other day and you're just struck at how beautiful the whole movie is. The sets, how Vivien Leigh is lit, it's just extraordinary. If you look at the stuff that's streaming all the time, it's all muck. Visual storytelling has gone out the window."
"The whole system is changing. You used to go out and make a movie. Our generation, we wanted to take over the studios. Which we did. I think what's so interesting about the generation I came up with, they got very rich, extremely rich, working within the studio system. Now, we're into this endless streaming. Everything has 10 parts and six seasons. It's sort of moved back to the old studio system where the producers and the writers are the king. The directors, who knows who directs one of these things from another?" "Then you have the whole Marvel universe, which is digital action stuff, all computer generated. When I made "Mission to Mars" and spent a year working on these shots with three or four digital houses -- one was working on the ship, one was working on the smoke, one was working on the dust -- I would storyboard a shot and it would keep coming back to me for a year as they added things. The shots are hopelessly expensive. You say: "What am I doing?" That's when I went to Europe and said I can't make movies like this anymore."
movieweb.com/brian-de-palma-modern-filmmaking/?fbclid=IwAR1vl-7XVFVBSQKa_XhwOQfJz8zNYJJ431j83q8LTbEKGWLIc03UWUlhp9g
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Mar 26, 2020 12:55:10 GMT
Finally! I've been complaining about this crap for years! This is NOT cinema!  |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 26, 2020 13:36:59 GMT
Well he is not wrong.
But i would not say that every modern movie look the same, but far to many of them do.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 26, 2020 14:24:04 GMT
I have mixed feelings about shooting digital, but he’s excluding that once his generation “took over” they lost control again when they kept making flop after flop. Someone just sounds bitter that he didn’t get the same traction as Spielberg or Cameron.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 26, 2020 16:42:05 GMT
I have mixed feelings about shooting digital, but he’s excluding that once his generation “took over” they lost control again when they kept making flop after flop. Someone just sounds bitter that he didn’t get the same traction as Spielberg or Cameron. My favorite part is where he starts complaining about streaming series. This is a new golden age of television, consumers have never had so many great entertainment options. Yeah, the entertainment industry has really gone down the tubes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2020 17:14:05 GMT
I just watched Sisters the other night. I liked it. Sisters is awesome. I love Phantom of the Paradise and Carrie too.
It's not just that I disagree with him here (because I do), the observations he makes take a backseat to the tone that comes with it. I sense the tone of resenting change, feeling replaced and unrecognized (or outdated) genius, and I think it's dangerously easy to disregard it all now as 'art by capitalism'. It was that then and it is now; nobody makes movies for free. I'm sympathetic to his tone but I don't agree with him at all. Sorry. Visual storytelling has gone out the window. Spare me. 
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Mar 26, 2020 18:33:32 GMT
Can't argue with that...except I would add the 1940s, '50s, and '60s to his time span.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Mar 26, 2020 19:07:22 GMT
For me, movies got REAL shitty 40 years ago... The 1930-70s is where its at. And not just "the classics" or commercial blockbusters in the US, but movies from all over the world, with no to little popularity as well.
|
|
Farside
Sophomore
@alienwerewolf
Posts: 890
Likes: 232
 
|
Post by Farside on Mar 26, 2020 19:37:05 GMT
So maybe somebody should make an experimental film using the old filmmaking styles. To show all these new generation filmmakers how it's done.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Mar 26, 2020 19:54:56 GMT
For me, movies got REAL shitty 40 years ago... The 1930-70s is where its at. And not just "the classics" or commercial blockbusters in the US, but movies from all over the world, with no to little popularity as well. Movies became shitty to me in the late 90s because of bad CGI, crappy digital toy cameras, and Hollywood catering to Communist China.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 26, 2020 20:05:39 GMT
I do generally prefer older movies to newer movies, but i have to disagree with people who say that good movies are not being or been made in the last 20-30 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Mar 26, 2020 20:05:44 GMT
Cinematography really got bad.
Everything became orange and dark.
I don't think it is the fault of digital--ZODIAC was digital and in some scenes it looked like a 1960s-70s movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Mar 26, 2020 20:08:36 GMT
I agree with certain points you've quoted. Brian De Palma painstakingly scouted locations looking for rock, dust and sediment to match up with Mars when making 'Mission To Mars' (2000). Sam Raimi took about 15 years to get 'Spider-Man' (2002) made, waiting for technology to catch up with his artistic vision, and boy does that film look greater today. Wes Craven never got the money to make his film of 'Dr. Strange' and look what they eventually turned out.
Turning films into tv serials means you need "yes" men and that's exactly what the conveyor belt now has. Even people at Marvel Studios admit this. Every product needs to be a cohesive follow-on from the next and that's what they look for. Make superdollars or else.
Compare Steven Spielberg's 'Jurassic Park' adventures to Clive Trevorrow's (who?) messy toilet filler.
Growing up we watched action films from across the decades by Richard Fleischer and Don Seigel, Sam Peckinpah and John Frankenheimer, Walter Hill and John Flynn, James Cameron and John McTiernan, Paul Verhoeven and John Dahl ... who makes muscular art movies like those guys now?
I'm not saying there's nothing good around now, but I do believe Brian De Palma makes some strong points that every film fan would do well to contemplate. Same as Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and the others. They learnt form masters that came before them. Who taught Trevorrow? McG?
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 26, 2020 20:12:21 GMT
One thing DePalma forgot to add is the fact that today virtually everything getting on the screen is a reboot/remake of something else, often something that was made only a few years ago. While it's possible to mount a cogent argument that Hollywood has seldom been a flaming hotbed of originality in the first place, it can't be argued that the recycling trend has got waaaayyy out of hand over the last few years. Couple lack of original content with crappy cinematography and over-reliance on CGI/digital, you've got a surefire recipe for a lot of creative disaster.
|
|
Honolulu
Sophomore
@jrvarsityrules
Posts: 389
Likes: 93
|
Post by Honolulu on Mar 26, 2020 20:34:32 GMT
I relate to his frustration. Other than that, the only thing I noticed was that the generation who came after the first The Matrix was released, seemed like tgey had less of an imagination than the generation before them. You can even notice it from the selection of toys and music. Even the video game industry has lost some imagination
|
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Mar 26, 2020 20:36:50 GMT
He's generalizing. Not everybody is making garbage that looks the same. The Lighthouse is a good recent example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Mar 26, 2020 20:42:45 GMT
People forget there's a whole world of independent and international cinema out there, if you look beyond Marvel etc. that can stand shoulder to shoulder with the best of the classics. In many cases they rely on the affordability and logistical freedoms of digital.
I revert once again to my man Lav Diaz
You own the brush now, you own the gun, unlike before, where it was all owned by the studio. Now it is all yours. It is so free now. I can finish one whole film inside this room . . . We do not depend on film studios and capitalists anymore. This is liberation cinema now . . . Digital is liberation theology. Now we can have our own media. The Internet is so free, the camera is so free. The issue is not anymore that you cannot shoot. You have a South East independent cinema now. We have been deprived for a long time, we have been neglected, we have been dismissed by the Western media. That was because of production logistics. We did not have money, we did not have cameras, all those things. Now, these questions have been answered. We are on equal terms now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Mar 26, 2020 20:44:42 GMT
I think the writing is the biggest problem. I also don't see any actors who you actually believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Mar 26, 2020 20:45:43 GMT
People forget there's a whole world of independent and international cinema out there, if you look beyond Marvel etc. that can stand shoulder to shoulder with the best of the classics. In many cases they rely on the affordability and logistical freedoms of digital. I revert once again to my man Lav Diaz You own the brush now, you own the gun, unlike before, where it was all owned by the studio. Now it is all yours. It is so free now. I can finish one whole film inside this room . . . We do not depend on film studios and capitalists anymore. This is liberation cinema now . . . Digital is liberation theology. Now we can have our own media. The Internet is so free, the camera is so free. The issue is not anymore that you cannot shoot. You have a South East independent cinema now. We have been deprived for a long time, we have been neglected, we have been dismissed by the Western media. That was because of production logistics. We did not have money, we did not have cameras, all those things. Now, these questions have been answered. We are on equal terms now.
There was also a great independent film scene back in Brian De Palma's day which allowed him to make low budget movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Mar 26, 2020 20:49:35 GMT
Digital photography can definitely look flat and ugly. But some cinematographers like Roger Deakins can still work wonders with it
|
|
