Current Events > it's messed up that movies used to look so good and now they don't

(+) Yeah! (+)

Eye of the beholder I suppose, but Dune 2 is one of the most gorgeous movies I've ever seen.

idk what's supposed to be so great looking about that random 1950s western

Because no CGI.

voldothegr8 posted...

Eye of the beholder I suppose, but Dune 2 is one of the most gorgeous movies I've ever seen.

dune 2 does the same thing a lot of modern stuff does and that's medium closeups with shallow focus when people are talking. this is demonic and not maximizing the potential of what you can put in the frame, especially in a sci fi movie with otherworldly sets/costumes. bit of a waste. it's an acceptable blockbuster overall tho.

Choco posted...

idk what's supposed to be so great looking about that random 1950s western

did you notice the cool shadows? or the rich colors? how the camera captures the enormity and terror of the new frontier?

Maybe it was the Technicolor.

Are you sure thats not one of those older films remastered in HD or something? Its kinda trippy when they do that, seeing an old film that looks like it was filmed in the past 5 years.

I find that films from the mid-2000s have more noticeable mixed quality

Anything looks good with a talented director and cinematographer regardless of what era it's filmed in, let's cut the bullshit here.

Zithers posted...

did you notice the cool shadows? or the rich colors? how the camera captures the enormity and terror of the new frontier?

no

Jagr_68 posted...

Anything looks good with a talented director and cinematographer regardless of what era it's filmed in, let's cut the bullshit here.

Yeah, I really enjoy it when films have that level of art put into them.

Choco posted...

no

Methinks you just don't have an eye for cinematography.

This may come as a shock to you but screenshots aren't movies.

CSCA33 posted...

Are you sure thats not one of those older films remastered in HD or something? Its kinda trippy when they do that, seeing an old film that looks like it was filmed in the past 5 years.

I find that films from the mid-2000s have more noticeable mixed quality

there's a french bluray from 2011 that this guy might have taken this from. most of the rips im seeing are taken from tv or streaming services tho.

i'm not sure why whether it was remastered or not would matter tho. it isn't like these movies looked bad(?) on original release. their prints shown in theaters would have been as pristine as the dune 2 or oppenheimer prints going around recently, just they would have damaged after hundreds of showings or just aging. which is the purpose of film restoration and HD remastering... to get them to look how they originally did.

superman_2000 posted...

Methinks you just don't have an eye for cinematography.

ok

Jagr_68 posted...

Anything looks good with a talented director and cinematographer regardless of what era it's filmed in, let's cut the bullshit here.

are you suggesting talent has gotten worse? has anyone here even HEARD of hugo fregonese? apparently an argentine expat. also this was apparently val lewton's last production before he passed at the young age of 46 :o

radiance is releasing this cool looking japanese movie on blu soon. it has 350 views on letterboxd. might be a hidden masterpiece, bros.

https://twitter.com/FilmsRadiance/status/1769804756866695280

Zithers posted...

are you suggesting talent has gotten worse?

Imo acting talent has gotten better (compared to the 50s and earlier anyway) but directing talent has gotten worse. The fact that celebrities have been buying their way into cameos just screams that money is the top priority and actually putting effort into a film is an afterthought. That's to say nothing of executive meddling. Harvey Scissorhands would have had a stroke if you gave him a 4 hour Gone With the Wind.

Zithers posted...

are you suggesting talent has gotten worse? has anyone here even HEARD of hugo fregonese? apparently an argentine expat. also this was apparently val lewton's last production before he passed at the young age of 46 :o

There's a shitload of talented visionaries with art and film education but you will find hardly any of them in high profile productions due to no networking connections within. They're all in the A24, NEON, Blumhouse (to some degree), etc. realm of production studios where the philosophy is high talent/concepts + low cost = huge gains & notoriety.

Yup, its all computer stuff. Why comedies, among other reasons, are still the best.

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Yup, its all computer stuff. Why comedies, among other reasons, are still the best.

i can't even remember the last great studio comedy... game night?

I figured this topic would be about CGI or the like, >.<

Movies are for lazies that don't wanna think with vidja

Zithers posted...

i can't even remember the last great studio comedy... game night?

Hangover series was pretty good I thought.

Zithers posted...

dune 2 does the same thing a lot of modern stuff does and that's medium closeups with shallow focus when people are talking. this is demonic and not maximizing the potential of what you can put in the frame, especially in a sci fi movie with otherworldly sets/costumes. bit of a waste. it's an acceptable blockbuster overall tho.

it's actually wild if you watch the trailers for both movies b2b. apache drums trailer - zero medium closeups. dune 2 trailer - a billion medium closeups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c180sPXxaFQ&ab_channel=lasbugas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Qp5pL3ovA&ab_channel=WarnerBros.Pictures

why, sheriff willoughby?

primetime bump

https://twitter.com/oldhllywoods/status/1769467282420388143

cinema

Without trying to be offensive: its always nostalgia goggles combined with limited horizons and survivor bias. You dont know about the massive amounts of shite from the past and you dont know about the good stuff from nowadays.

Foppe posted...

Because no CGI.

Bingo.

Zwijn posted...

Without trying to be offensive: its always nostalgia goggles combined with limited horizons and survivor bias. You dont know about the massive amounts of shite from the past and you dont know about the good stuff from nowadays.

the movie in the OP was part of the back end of a double feature and has less than 1,500 views on letterboxd (interstellar for example has over 3,000,000). this isn't survivorship bias lmfao this is a random quota quickie western that looks better than any movie to come out in 2023.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Bingo.

there are plenty of dramas and whatnot being made without cgi and they look bad as well fwiw

Foppe posted...

Because no CGI.

Yup

Zithers posted...

the movie in the OP was part of the back end of a double feature and has less than 1,500 views on letterboxd

It also doesn't look particularly special. A movie like The Batman has quite a few wonderfully composed shots that annihilate the ones you've shown up there.

Zithers posted...

the movie in the OP was part of the back end of a double feature and has less than 1,500 views on letterboxd (interstellar for example has over 3,000,000). this isn't survivorship bias lmfao this is a random quota quickie western that looks better than any movie to come out in 2023.

I will bet a fat ass cheeseburger you have never heard of Onyx the fortuitous.

Watch any of theses:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls564569703/

This is a weird gimmick.

ablegator posted...

This is a weird gimmick.

He's the kind of guy who loses it over basic set lighting and wide camera angles in old movies, but won't respect modern movies which do the same things but better.

Movies shot on film that haven't been run through a thousand digital filters and had layers of CGI added look better?

I guess we'll never solve this mystery....

Zwijn posted...

I will bet a fat ass cheeseburger you have never heard of Onyx the fortuitous.

looks like one of those soyface 80s/90s nostalgia fan movies. going to have to pass on learning more about it.

knightmarexx posted...

Watch any of theses:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls564569703/

flower moon, asteroid city, and the dahl shorts all looked good... past lives and oppenheimer were not well directed which is a huge waste of film. oh well.

Euripides posted...

Movies shot on film that haven't been run through a thousand digital filters and had layers of CGI added look better?

I guess we'll never solve this mystery....

its crazy bro. i can't believe it.

ablegator posted...

This is a weird gimmick.

thinking older movies looked better is not a gimmick. i think.

Zithers posted...

looks like one of those soyface 80s/90s nostalgia fan movies. going to have to pass on learning more about it.

flower moon, asteroid city, and the dahl shorts all looked good... past lives and oppenheimer were not well directed which is a huge waste of film. oh well.

its crazy bro. i can't believe it.

thinking older movies looked better is not a gimmick. i think.

*gets recommended a fully practical effect labor of love*
*NOOO its soy for no reason*

You dont like movies, you just use old movies as a reason to say the past was better. Oh well, miss out I guess.

I think most newer movies look fine.

Zwijn posted...

*gets recommended a fully practical effect labor of love*
*NOOO its soy for no reason*

You dont like movies, you just use old movies as a reason to say the past was better. Oh well, miss out I guess.

yeah. yeah im sure the fan movie had a lot of thought and care put into visual storytelling and is worth watching. i could just go re-watch re-animator or whatever instead.

and no i do like movies, which is why it is disappointing they don't look as good now.

I do tend to find the cinematography of past movies to be more appealing, but for me it might just be because I haven't seen a ton of them.

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

I do tend to find the cinematography of past movies to be more appealing, but for me it might just be because I haven't seen a ton of them.

That's a thing, too.

You don't see screen fades or freeze frames anymore. You're lucky if you even see dolly shots.

Somewhere people got this notion that certain arbitrary things are immersive and certain other arbitrary things are not. Like, having cuts at all. If freeze frames "remind the viewer they're watching a movie" why the bleep doesn't having your perspective change radically instantly every 1-5 seconds?

This, of course, all hinges from the beginning on the idea that immersion is always the goal, which is also psychotic.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

That's a thing, too.

You don't see screen fades or freeze frames anymore. You're lucky if you even see dolly shots.

Somewhere people got this notion that certain arbitrary things are immersive and certain other arbitrary things are not. Like, having cuts at all. If freeze frames "remind the viewer they're watching a movie" why the bleep doesn't having your perspective change radically instantly every 1-5 seconds?

This, of course, all hinges from the beginning on the idea that immersion is always the goal, which is also psychotic.

Couldn't agree more.

Recent stand out movies IMO:

Dunes (parts one and two)
Avatar: Way of Water
Top Gun: Maverick

These recent releases look amazing.

They made actual physical sets vs. green screen.

Sets costs alot to make. Then again CGI supposedly does too but is somehiw cheaper? Idk.

Bleuets posted...

Recent stand out movies IMO:

Dunes (parts one and two)
Avatar: Way of Water
Top Gun: Maverick

These recent releases look amazing.

the love scenes in top gun maverick were identical to viagra commercials bro