sneedtic

>>216036422
>left: real person
>right: narcissist
she's trying too hard to not look in the camera

File: 13852201938.png (2.7 MB, 1984x1265)

2.7 MB PNG

>>216036422
>old good
>new bad

>>216036422
buy an ad

File: 1.png (1.81 MB, 2757x1544)

1.81 MB PNG

A pretentious video essayist stretching out a few simple concepts into 30 minutes of quoting """film scholars""" trying incredibly hard to sound profound.
Look at this fucking quote. It means absolutely nothing. Film does not belong in universities as something to be taught or theorized about, it only results in fart sniffing.
You just make films and you are either good at it or you are not. That's it. Professors contribute nothing, they are even below online critics.

File: Screenshot_20251117_00095(...).jpg (393 KB, 1916x970)

393 KB JPG

>haptic vs optic

>>216037461
2011 looks the best

File: L O L.png (313 KB, 428x671)

313 KB PNG

>this is who kvetches about modern movies
Consider me shocked.

>>216036422
He seems like the kind of midwit humorless closet-gay who doesn't watch action or comedy movies because they're "too shallow."

This guy sounds like he thinks he's way smarter than he actually is, what an annoying faggot voice.

Gotta be an IQ problem that people can't into movies if they don't feel "real". Learn to abstract, you dumb toddlers.

>>216037514
>>216037563
>>216037593
>>216037606
optic posters

>>216037422
you copypasted this post from the previous thread. was it really worth it?

buy an ad faggot

buy a faggot ad

I want to suck Roy Scheider’s dick from the back

>>216037563
>>216037593
>>216037606
>dude looks better than 99% of /tv/
>makes basic argument, illustrates them on undisputed Hollywood classics
>/tv/ retards go into ad hominem mode after 5 seconds of the videos
Seek therapy, he mostly shits on Marvel

I was expecting a technical explanation and left with metaphysical “how the mind perceives things” slop.
fucking faggot.

>>216037630
Yeah, guess that comes with not being a retard.
>>216037676
>dude looks better than 99% of /tv/
Speak for yourself, estroboy.

File: 1999vs2012.jpg (641 KB, 3264x2808)

641 KB JPG

grim

>painting bad because it don't feel real

>>216037630
kek

>>216037514
He looks like the average /tv/ poster but thinner and better groomed?

>>216037632
Why did you make the same thread again?

All that video argues for is that the masses are cognitively disabled and need to be immersed by force. It makes no argument (so far) that movies have actually gotten worse.

>>216037514
His suggestion isn't better writing. It's shooting at f/8.0 which has no impact on writing quality

>>216037422
boy wait til you find out what all your favorite philosophers had to say about beauty and aesthetics

>>216037343
Yes?

>old is better because it feels better

wow great argument fagtron you definitely needed half an hour for that

>>216037739
anon...
they're next to a fire on the top image
while bottom is a night scene

>>216037966
nothing of value

>>216037632
yeah it was worth it because i read it

>>216037982
>>216037804
opticscels not sending their best

I noticed this while watching Delo Toros Frankenstien, everything today feels too digital even if theyre using real effects

>>216036422
Left looks better but the video doesn't explain why. Calling it haptic doesn't do anything.
What is a (future) filmmaker supposed to learn from this? Film analog? You can't. Film sceneries and increase contrast? Ok, great.

>>216037966
philosophy is dogshit

>>216038187
>the video doesn't explain why

He does, the sweat, grime, and details in the scene make it feel more real than the other movie even though they are generally portraying the same thing

He fails to make a proper argument. It sounds complicated, but it's really surface level human experience slop. It ends up apologizing sensualism. It's the gooner over the visionary. In reality, the issue isn't being "optical" rather than "haptical", it's that the "optical" is harder to do and often enough lacks the amount of compositional meaning that would justify its use.

>>216038187
just be yourself

>>216038304
why is it better? cos he said so?

>>216037514
omg it's some guy

>>216037514
>90s hairline
>vyvanse stare
>non threatening male feminist beard

yep it's video essay time

File: hqdefault.jpg (8 KB, 480x360)

8 KB JPG

>>216038572
>welcome to my 18 hour essay on Episode 3 of The War Next Door, from 2000

we had this exact thread yesterday

>>216038313
>It ends up apologizing sensualism. It's the gooner over the visionary.
Develop.

>>216038313
>He fails to make a proper argument.
He actually does, if you watch the video. But he gets a little lost at the end.

>>216038572
please show me a threatening manly male beard

>>216037422
>It means absolutely nothing.
That you failed to understand that quote says more about your intelligence then anything else.

File: Hollywood_Hulk_Hogan__sca(...).jpg (68 KB, 800x533)

68 KB JPG

>>216039392

File: A1YEoSjYr3L._AC_UF894,100(...).jpg (153 KB, 797x1000)

153 KB JPG

>>216039408

>it's because of shitty lighting and the background being out of focus, it has nothing to do with digital vs film
>spends the next 10 minutes talking about how film is more sovlfvl because it has electronics moving through reality
what an unbearable faggot.

>>216039649
>it has electronics moving through reality
What's your point, do you mean the animatronics like in Jurassic Park? Those are tangible, actual objects.

>>216037983
He's probably talking about the costumes

>>216039735
well the top is still shit: it has a miguided aesthetic as it has a muh grimdark hypperrealism, while the bottom version is much more readable and most importantly, accurate to the OG comic book