[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: images.jpg (19 KB, 596x335)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
I truly that think if David Fincher shot Zodiac on film, it would be the greatest film of the 21st century. Instead, it's digital, that fucking dumbass. The greatest opening scene ever. The killer scenes are legitimately creepy, all of them. And there is no reason why this movie couldn't be shot on film. Why did he do this?
>>
>>216031463
at the time digital was more novel because you could shoot in really low light situations that are way more difficult to accommodate on film, the scene in that car being a good example. i think the early trend of digital didn’t look very good, michael mann was very bad at it, but Zodiac is good despite its strange digital feel.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.