|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 11, 2018 0:35:25 GMT
It seems the OP is pretty much talking about cinematography (like movieman said) but the thing is... there ain't too many movies that really stand out in the visual dept if you ask me especially while being a quality movie on top of the solid visuals. because there are a fair amount of movies that are good visually but not all movies that are good visually are just good movies straight up.
like you can still find movies in recent memory that have solid visuals and are good movies and the same goes for decades ago etc.
plus, the movies you listed (the ones you dissed)... I have a feeling it's more that those movies just ain't any good straight up regardless of the visuals. because some movies, even if they lack a little visual flair, even if they did have the solid all around visuals still won't click overall.
plus, some people seem to think film is much better than digital... but personally, I think modern digital (say over the last decade or so) is easily good enough as it's not so-so like say roughly the early-to-mid 2000's were. or look at it this way... Skyfall (2012) was the first James Bond movie to be shot entirely on digital and that movie's visuals are easily above most movies (it's within my Top 21 movies in general to). or look at it this way... if someone like Roger Deakins (who's tied to Skyfall (2012) etc) uses digital, it's quality had to be up to a certain standard otherwise he would not use it. but I heard digital is cheaper and easier to use than film which just about guarantees digital is here to stay and it's not like digital is so-so like it used to be. so basically... I think those die hard film lover types simply don't want to change mainly because it's the "old days" more than there being a legitimate reason to stay with film over digital (who knows, maybe there are certain things where film is technically better etc etc (I don't know the details) but in terms of overall image we see on screen film/digital are pretty much the same nowadays).
p.s. but like I always say... there simply ain't that many movies that stand out in general regardless of solid visuals or not as, at least for me personally, there is only 189 movies (i.e. all movies I scored a 7/10 or higher) out of the 2,225+ total movies I have seen that stand out from the pack. even being a little generous and counting my 6-6.5/10 range movies that total still only another 45 movies which puts that 189 total up to 234 movies which is about 10%-ish tops of all movies I have seen. hell, even looking at a basic Thumbs Up vs Thumbs Down... I only like about 25% TOPS of everything I have seen which is like 1 out of every 4 movies I see because the vast majority of movies have no re-watch value and that's what ultimately makes or breaks movies in the long term for me is whether I want to re-watch it from time-to-time or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 11, 2018 0:42:30 GMT
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. Well it's an odd thing. I dont like the script, the basic story I am not crazy about, but can I rewatch it? Yes.
So it must succeed on other elements. Maybe its a spectacle thing.
On the other hand there are movies I would say are very well made and yet I may have no desire to rewatch them.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 11, 2018 6:55:43 GMT
Primemovermithrax PejorativeI see. so basically you do like it enough on some level even though it could be better for you. I do think it's definitely THE movie/role Russell Crowe is always going to be known for with the masses. that's got to count for something. I would agree with that. like you can tell some movies are well made and professional etc but that does not automatically mean ill like them enough to re-watch. but some subjects just ain't as interesting as others and even if you do get a subject matter that has potential to be good, it still might not be all that good of a movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Nov 11, 2018 7:29:41 GMT
Probably because there is a lack of talent in Hollywood these days, and a lack of desire to make good quality movies and instead rush them out for quick $. And for some movies, like the MCU ones for example a lot of the budget probably goes to the greedy suits and actors, leaving not much actual budget left to make the movie look good, which would explain why all those movies look really cheap and fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Nov 11, 2018 10:56:34 GMT
I think blockbuster is the wrong word. I wouldn’t consider Ben Hir or the new King Arthur a blockbuster. I don’t think they did particularly well either critically or financially.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 11, 2018 11:27:47 GMT
"Cheap" is a point of view. Depending on age and taste.
Cinematography approaches naturally change with time.
Mood lightning and lens filtering always was a thing. Since "O Brother where art thou" we also have relentless color grading, especially teal & orange spectrum.
Since the 70s, but especially sind Jurassic Park in 90s we have CGI frame composition and CGI characters and backgrounds instead of miniatures, matte paintings and models.
Since Episode II we have digital camera filming.
Not to forget the cardinal sins of changing hair styles, make up and changing editing.
Does it look cheap? With some films it does, then and now.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 11, 2018 12:07:18 GMT
Could be the cinematography and visuals that blandify it. I’ll admit, there are some recent movies I do love but look a tad bland in style (or “cheap” as you put it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 11, 2018 18:58:45 GMT
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. I disagree. Re-watchability has to do with how the movie makes the viewer feel. Many people don't re-watch depressing movies even if they're well-made. Many people re-watch movies with surprise endings 1 time (to make sure if the twist adds up) but not more than that. for some movies, like the MCU ones for example a lot of the budget probably goes to the greedy suits and actors, leaving not much actual budget left to make the movie look good, which would explain why all those movies look really cheap and fake. I’ll admit, there are some recent movies I do love but look a tad bland in style (or “cheap” as you put it). Such as? |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 11, 2018 19:30:17 GMT
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. I disagree. Re-watchability has to do with how the movie makes the viewer feel. Many people don't re-watch depressing movies even if they're well-made. Many people re-watch movies with surprise endings 1 time (to make sure if the twist adds up) but not more than that. for some movies, like the MCU ones for example a lot of the budget probably goes to the greedy suits and actors, leaving not much actual budget left to make the movie look good, which would explain why all those movies look really cheap and fake. I’ll admit, there are some recent movies I do love but look a tad bland in style (or “cheap” as you put it). Such as? The Avengers Avengers: Infinty War Star Wars: The Force Awakens Just to name a couple. |
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Nov 11, 2018 19:44:25 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. Just look at Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton. I think that movie is 95% green screen. Sheesh. But that's a fantasy film. CGI works a lot better in something like that. A reality based film with a lot of CGI looks fake and so the belief in the 'reality' of the film is broken. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 19:53:01 GMT
Just look at Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton. I think that movie is 95% green screen. Sheesh. But that's a fantasy film. CGI works a lot better in something like that. A reality based film with a lot of CGI looks fake and so the belief in the 'reality' of the film is broken. That's why I loved Hacksaw Ridge and American Sniper much better than half the war movies that come out today. 300 was okay because it was more like Greek Mythology based on a Graphic Novel. Where Hollywood messed up is thinking ALL war epics need to be like 300 to be successful. I hate how they all look hyper stylized and fake. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 15, 2018 12:57:47 GMT
VitsExactly, so we basically agree. like I always say... movies are ultimately about ones overall interest in them which generally comes back to some sort of feeling/emotional response it gives the viewer as the more positive that effect the higher the score and the further it gets away from that the lower the rating. rating any other way makes no sense if you ask me as it's attempting to judge technical aspects but I would assume the typical viewer judges movies largely based on feeling/emotional response as it makes the most sense overall since that's at the core of what makes movies work or not when is all said and done. like in a very basic sense movies are summed up into one of two categories in my mind... -5/10 or less = Thumbs Down (won't re-watch (with rare exception)) -6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (will re-watch) so when I see a movie for the first time... I can pretty much tell whether I want to see it again or not and then I rate it accordingly. like any movie ill re-watch here and there cannot score lower than a 6/10 and any movie I won't re-watch here and there cannot score above a 5/10. also, say I see a movie for the first time and it's worth re-watching and then I see it again and it falls off ill simply adjust my score of it accordingly. also, I generally don't like movies that rely on too much on twists or jump scares etc as those tend to only work okay enough once but if a movie is not re-watchable it's ultimately forgettable in the long term as the true gems are those movies people re-watch here and there as the years pass. because even if a movie is well made etc but just does not click with the viewer... that movie ultimately fails if you ask me. because in the end it does not really matter how technically well made a movie is if that movie does not stick with the viewer as the years pass etc as good movies are like good songs, you want to listen to them here and there as the years pass. basically comes back to my general re-watch stuff as that's one thing I feel pretty strongly about when it comes to movies and in this regard only around 10%-ish (tops) of everything I have seen stands out from the pack and only about 1 out of 4 movies (or about 25%) I have seen over the long run (at the most) are worth re-watching. so given that basic percentage info there... it looks like I dislike a lot of movies but I will say most movies I have seen were okay enough not to have wasted my time but are ultimately forgettable so I include them in the Thumbs Down category.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 15, 2018 14:44:22 GMT
Older epics were shot on film, typically shot on location (and some sets specifically interior shots), and used practical effects rather than CGI (or a minimal use of CGI). Modern films are mostly CGI and look it, especially after the passage of time when the effects start looking dated compared to the newest generation of CGI. Also, filmakers have been heavily de-saturating color which lends to a washed out look. Don't get me started on teal/orange push.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Nov 15, 2018 15:46:19 GMT
I think Game of Thrones looks great. I know it is a show, but it can be done if the right people and time are behind it. Prometheus, even if the movie was not very good, looked amazing. I just think it is the Director.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 15, 2018 16:00:17 GMT
but it can be done if the right people and time are behind it. This. Then again, Scott did Body of Lies and Robin Hood and those movies looked like trash. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 15, 2018 16:16:10 GMT
I blame George Lucas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Nov 17, 2018 1:52:08 GMT
for some movies, like the MCU ones for example a lot of the budget probably goes to the greedy suits and actors, leaving not much actual budget left to make the movie look good, which would explain why all those movies look really cheap and fake. Why are you sending me a video of some opinionated nerd? |
|
