Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 18:02:35 GMT
When I was younger, films such as Braveheart, Titanic, Dances with Wolves, heck... Even Robin Hood: Prince of Theives (wasn't very good) but looked great.
They had a cinematic scope, a look, a feel. You can see the clips and it looks epic.
Now compare the way it looks to the Ben-Hur remake, or Hurcules, or even this new Robin Hood movie. What was that King Arthur crap a while back!?
Why do modern Blockbusters look so fake/cheap/ corny? I have no desire to see "Robin Hood" and I love that character. I own The BBC Robin Hood series on Blu-ray, the movies, the books, and shouldn't I be the ideal audience for this film?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 10, 2018 18:26:35 GMT
It sounds like you are talking about the cinematography. I think King Arthur (2004) started this overly dark and gritty style of cinematography for epic movies and I agree that it is awful.
I'm assuming that the filmmakers think it makes the movies more bad-ass and brutal in tone, but instead it makes them feel generic.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 10, 2018 19:07:07 GMT
A lot of modern blockbusters are shot on sets with predominant CGI than real, practical sets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 10, 2018 19:14:37 GMT
Cinematography.
The tendency to more video-like presentation.
I think Gladiator did it first. That weird desaturated look--blue skies looked muted.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 10, 2018 19:19:15 GMT
It sounds like you are talking about the cinematography. I think King Arthur (2004) started this overly dark and gritty style of cinematography for epic movies and I agree that it is awful. I'm assuming that the filmmakers think it makes the movies more bad-ass and brutal in tone, but instead it makes them feel generic. I wholeheartedly agree. Hate that movie!!! It’s between that and the availability of cgi that makes movies look big without actually pulling it off. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 10, 2018 19:21:07 GMT
Nostalgia would certainly play a factor. A lot of people hate the "digital" look of newer films as opposed to traditional film.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 10, 2018 19:23:59 GMT
A lot of modern blockbusters are shot on sets with predominant CGI than real, practical sets. I think that is a big part of it too. I think it's a combination of the overuse of cgi and the cinematography. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 10, 2018 19:25:50 GMT
A lot of modern blockbusters are shot on sets with predominant CGI than real, practical sets. I think that is a big part of it too. I think it's a combination of the overuse of cgi and the cinematography. Just look at Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton. I think that movie is 95% green screen. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 10, 2018 19:31:16 GMT
Cinematography. The tendency to more video-like presentation. I think Gladiator did it first. That weird desaturated look--blue skies looked muted. Gladiator looks great imo, but I get what you are saying. I think with Gladiator Ridley Scott blends everything very well and the final product doesn't look or feel generic or cheap. I think Ridley Scott is the best cgi sky man in the business. One of the few Ridley Scott movies I do think looks ugly is Robin Hood (2010). Funny considering that the OP is using a Robin Hood movie to make his point. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 10, 2018 19:32:57 GMT
I think that is a big part of it too. I think it's a combination of the overuse of cgi and the cinematography. I think that movie is 95% green screen. Sheesh. That is an extreme example. Not only does that movie use 95% cgi, but it does it very poorly. King Kong (2005) and Avatar are 95% cgi and I think those movies still feel epic and look great. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 10, 2018 19:34:46 GMT
Just look at Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton. I think that movie is 95% green screen. Sheesh. That is an extreme example. Not only does that movie use 95% cgi, but it does it very poorly. King Kong and Avatar are 95% cgi and I think those movies still feel epic and look great. I think those two movies have more ambition behind them which is partly why they feel epic and look great. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 10, 2018 19:37:44 GMT
That is an extreme example. Not only does that movie use 95% cgi, but it does it very poorly. King Kong and Avatar are 95% cgi and I think those movies still feel epic and look great. I think those two movies have more ambition behind them which is partly why they feel epic and look great.That is another good point. Many of the blockbusters that the OP is referring too are pure paycheck jobs and often by directors who lack experience with heavy cgi and/or they just aren't very talented filmmakers. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 10, 2018 19:40:32 GMT
Gladiator looks great imo, but I get what you are saying. I think with Gladiator Ridley Scott blends everything very well and the final product doesn't look or feel generic or cheap. I think Ridley Scott is the best cgi sky man in the business. One of the few Ridley Scott movies I do think looks ugly is Robin Hood (2010). Funny considering that the OP is using a Robin Hood movie to make his point. There's some bad CGI in Gladiator. Watch the fly over of the coliseum and you see miniature people disappearing into the ground. That motion blur-free action stuff is nauseating too.
Compare it to Spartacus or Fall of the Roman Empire-the difference in cinematography is obvious--however, compared to today, I can assume Gladiator is Lawrence of Arabia in terms of camera skill.
Even low budget movies started to lose a film look around 1990 and became more like tv shot stuff (which is strange since prior to 1970 a lot of movies had very brightly-lit sets which looked artificial even though they shot on film).
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 10, 2018 19:48:48 GMT
because it represents a move to "mature and dark storytelling" which doesn't always equate to apt.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 10, 2018 19:55:09 GMT
Gladiator looks great imo, but I get what you are saying. I think with Gladiator Ridley Scott blends everything very well and the final product doesn't look or feel generic or cheap. I think Ridley Scott is the best cgi sky man in the business. One of the few Ridley Scott movies I do think looks ugly is Robin Hood (2010). Funny considering that the OP is using a Robin Hood movie to make his point. There's some bad CGI in Gladiator. Watch the fly over of the coliseum and you see miniature people disappearing into the ground. That motion blur-free action stuff is nauseating too.
Compare it to Spartacus or Fall of the Roman Empire-the difference in cinematography is obvious--however, compared to today, I can assume Gladiator is Lawrence of Arabia in terms of camera skill.
Even low budget movies started to lose a film look around 1990 and became more like tv shot stuff (which is strange since prior to 1970 a lot of movies had very brightly-lit sets which looked artificial even though they shot on film).
People disappearing into the ground I have never noticed, but I believe you. You are talking more about the cgi itself than the look of the movie though. I adore the feel and look of Gladiator, even more so than Spartacus. It's just a matter of taste. I will say that Spartacus technically has better cinematography, but there is just something very captivating about every aspect of Gladiator for me. I think in the case of Gladiator it adds this strange dreamlike feel to the movie and this is a feel that Ridley Scott achieves with many of his movies, as well as it adding a more bad-ass and brutal feel that I am very fond of. Scott just has a better visual eye and is a far better filmmaker than most blockbuster directors imo. I think you raise another good point. There is a lot of skill when it comes to the camerawork in Gladiator compared to most other epic movies that have come after. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 10, 2018 19:56:37 GMT
People disappearing into the ground I have never noticed, but I believe you. You are talking more about the cgi itself than the look of the movie though. I adore the feel and look of Gladiator, even more so than Spartacus. It's just a matter of taste. I will say that Spartacus technically has better cinematography, but there is just something very captivating about every aspect of Gladiator for me. I think in the case of Gladiator it adds this strange dreamlike feel to the movie and this is a feel that Ridley Scott achieves with many of his movies, as well as it adding a more bad-ass and brutal feel that I am very fond of. Scott just has a better visual eye and is a far better filmmaker than most blockbuster directors imo. I think you raise another good point. There is a lot of skill when it comes to the camerawork in Gladiator compared to most other epic movies that have come after. I have the Gladiator dvd and although I don't particularly like the movie, it IS rewatchable.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 10, 2018 20:02:00 GMT
People disappearing into the ground I have never noticed, but I believe you. You are talking more about the cgi itself than the look of the movie though. I adore the feel and look of Gladiator, even more so than Spartacus. It's just a matter of taste. I will say that Spartacus technically has better cinematography, but there is just something very captivating about every aspect of Gladiator for me. I think in the case of Gladiator it adds this strange dreamlike feel to the movie and this is a feel that Ridley Scott achieves with many of his movies, as well as it adding a more bad-ass and brutal feel that I am very fond of. Scott just has a better visual eye and is a far better filmmaker than most blockbuster directors imo. I think you raise another good point. There is a lot of skill when it comes to the camerawork in Gladiator compared to most other epic movies that have come after. I have the Gladiator dvd and although I don't particularly like the movie, it IS rewatchable.
Gladiator is one of my 100 favorite movies. It is pretty much the definition of my taste in every way. In fact, my love of Ridley Scott started with Gladiator. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 10, 2018 21:48:53 GMT
because it represents a move to "mature and dark storytelling" which doesn't always equate to apt. That's the ironic thing. Those movies aren't mature or even that dark. They're just a slog to sit through like King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 10, 2018 23:32:11 GMT
A lot of modern blockbusters are too slick and processed and lack the grit of earlier films.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 11, 2018 0:01:00 GMT
Primemovermithrax Pejorative That makes no sense. because if something is re-watchable, then it's obviously good at the least (i.e. you do like the movie at the very least). it's movies that are not re-watchable that are average/forgettable (i.e. Thumbs Down) at best. because like I always say movies are ultimately broke down into two categories which are those you will re-watch and those you don't... -6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (will re-watch) -5/10 or less = Thumbs Down (won't re-watch(with rare exception)) because if I re-watch a movie from time-to-time it cannot score below a 6/10 (a mild Thumbs Up) and if I won't re-watch a movie it cannot score above a 5/10. p.s. for the record... based on my most recent viewing of Gladiator (2000) which was late Dec 2015 I gave it a 8/10 which dropped from a 9/10. but basically... Braveheart (1995)(10/10)/Gladiator (2000)(8/10) are the cream-of-the-crop of those types of movies as nothing else is even close. I think Gladiator has more visual flair than Braveheart but Braveheart has more all around emotional punch/feeling if you ask me. my most recent viewing of Braveheart was also Dec 2015. my guess is ill be re-watching both again within the next year tops as it will be interesting to see what happens with Gladiator for me to see if it drops off further or stays the same etc. but currently Braveheart is within my Top 8 movies and Gladiator is within my Top 52 movies.
|
|
