Why do modern movies look like they're shot on iPhone™?
>>216043515watch it bud. norm mcdonald is a national treasure. And I am not even american
>>216043515proles are too dumb to notice anything so hollywood says fuck it, we don't need to put in that much effort
>>216043655>I am not even americanneither was he numbnuts
>>216043655good, because norm was canadian
lighting, framing, depth of field
>>216043515>muh shallow focus>muh muted colors make it big boy movie
>>216043515Almost 1/3 of the Superman image is taken over by a blurry bald head. Modern cinematographers are beyond retarded and completely tasteless.
>>216043655BEG PARDON HES CANADIAN!!!1
>>216043515>Dirty Work is dogshitYou should hang yourself at the earliest convenience. Make sure it takes a long time and that you suffer greatly for the entire duration.
>>216043825You don't have to pretend to like it just because you like Norm, man
movies before the 2010s had>sovl
>>216043515Dishonest post.
>>216043515Because they are designed to be watched on iPhones. Notice the camera is only focused in on the main character in modern movies, and everything behind them is blurred. This also leads to lazy set design and locations not feeling "lived in." Because why bother when it's all going to be blurred anyway.Another issue is bland perfect lighting instead of natural looking lighting. This is to make it easier to add green screen backgrounds and other post op work (which is also usually done terribly).
>>216043515film vs digital
>>216043856I don't even need to like it or Norm to know that it is one of the last few well written comedies. We will never see its like ever again.
>>216043515oversaturation, digital "film", greenscreen, reliance on post cgi work, 9000 light sources eliminates shadows and realism
>>216043515it's the netflixization of cinema
>>216043925>oversaturationOther way around man
Lighting sucks now it’s like a giant soulless LED panel
>>216043515Modern cinematographers don't care about lighting, framing, contrast, colors, or locations. Not to mention how blurry they make everything now.
>>216043856Dirty Work is kino precisely because it doesn't try to be anything it's not. Also is funny.
Dirty Work>we can all agree this is the funniest scene in the movie?https://youtu.be/oD-1eCD7lkE?si=k-oGdfPAL7LHkVQn
>>216043914There's something deeper going on. Doesn't explain why every movie shot on film nowadays also looks like shit. Despite shooting on film, Eggers' The Northman and Nosferatu had pretty much all the issues modern digital movies have.
>>216043981>Kurosawa started making films in B&W and ended up making the most colorful films ever>Ridley Scott started making colorful films and ended up doing films that might as well be monochrome
Fuck you, OP, you dumb hack.
>>216043673>>216043676>>216043776Same shit.
>>216044028>Posts an iPhone™wallpaper
>made the same thread again>asking the same retarded question>still has no taste or conscience You suck, OP.
>>216044028Awful framing.>none of the bright lights outside give any backlight for the charactersNice green screen, Sanjay.
>>216044103>SanjayDie, you little shit. Where I once had compassion for pathetic losers like you, I now only have contempt. Your suffering brings me joy.
>>216044168>my heckin superman screenshot makes you sufferLeast delusional saar.
>>216044021Most of them don't look like shit, or at least not any worse than the average movie 20 years ago looked. It's a matter of preference, and you're stuck with your shitty nostalgia goggles.
>>216044028For real? This is your big counter example? Looks like ass.
>>216044255No, actually. Your existence is suffering, and I applaud that fact. No one deserves it more than a contemptible chud.
>>216044028every shot in this movie is trash
>>216044021Because movies are digitized after they're shot anyway. It's why Wolf of Wall Street doesn't have any of the tactile grit of any of Scorsese's earlier films, despite still being shot on film.
>>216044343You really started fuming after I insulted your precious capeshit, huh.
>>216044343Kek shut the fuck up you disgusting jeet
>>216044370Are you implying modern color grading is the main issue?Digital scanning by itself won't ruin an image, otherwise no classic film could look good on a digital screen.
>>216044028lol. lmao
My jaw was genuinely on the floor for all of superman the lighting and cinematography was so unbelievably bad it had me in shock
There are actually a few things going on here. The first is the idea of flatter less saturated images in modern cinema is propagated by youtubers. Youtubers have to do a couple things 1. Never be flat and unsaturated themselves (because it looks bad on a phone and they can't sell their lighting and colorgrading courses AND it is how they learned in the first place) and 2. to have something that is counter-narrative or counter the system to get views, and also if one person is talking about it in their niche, they have to talk about it, too. Also, they all say the same thing about it, romanticize the greats, blame greenscreen. They will never say what the true reasons are, they can't. The reasons many big budget big market films are flat and undersaturated is because 1. They are made for a global market and this is the decidedly American Neutral Look where the lack of style appeals to the most audiences without offending their tastes. 2. It is the brutalist architecture meme of cinema. It isn't just the stories, the LGBTQ, the browning, that are meant to degrade and offend American audiences, it is the aesthetics themselves that the (((studios))) use to fully integrate their means of degeneration. 3. and some of the youtubers touch on this one without going far enough - the DEIing of the industry. The youtubers will say something like nepotism or unexperienced people, but it's simply browns. 4. Neutrality across platforms. The flatter and less saturated, the more similar it will look on your phone, computer, TV, whatever.Many films still look great but these certain films in particular look this way for the reasons above.
>>216043515That's not a still from Dirty Work though. I could do the same thing and make Superman look better.
>>216044498>That's not a still from Dirty Work though.Prove it.
I hate chuds so much, it's insane. The worst thing they've pulled recently might be their attempt to turn being white into a quality depending on personal taste. You people can't leave this world soon enough.
>216044553Rajeesh having an existential breakdown because people are being mean to his favorite capeshit lmao
>>216043515I wish I was jewish
>>216044553How does it feel to know the entire world is going to agree to collectively genocide you streetshitting shit eating retards down to the last 9 armed pajeetlet before 2030?
>>216044624Is this supposed to look good?
>>216043703>>216043901This is the second thread I've seen in the last couple days where people comment on a comparison between older and newer cinematography saying it's due to shallow depth of field but the old pic is a perfect example of shallow depth of field. What gives? You can clearly see in the Norm pic that both the foreground and background are out of focus
>>216044343poo in loo
>>216044660>purely cgi screenshot >good cinematography rajeesh, it’s time to stop posting
>>216044625It has actually agreed on genociding whites, and if you were our elect representative, I'd join them.
>>216044028Lmao
>>216044343Hi James you loser pedo
>>216043515optic v kinetic or whatever
>>216044687*elected
>>216044624needs more bloom
>>216043515One was set up and shot photographically, the other was shot in Raw/Log to be adjusted later, far removed from when it was shot and by people that weren't there (so what it looked like on-set doesn't really matter).
>>216043515They are no longer movies. They are slop produced for the bottomless streaming trough.
Chuds don't understand art.Chuds don't understand composition. Chuds don't even understand what being white means, and try to turn it into a status based on holding an opinion.Chuds are disgusting philistines that only exist providing justification for the discrimination of young white males.I hate chuds.
a random itallian low budget 80s horror movie screenshot
>>216044878Looks like literal shit.
>>216044899turn your monitor on
>>216043515
>>216044923It looks absolutely rancid.
>>216044928More dishonest garbage.
>>216043515why do you complain about everything
>>216044876You’re brown.
>>216044928
>>216044899here's another one
>>216045007absolute trash for letterboxd female potheads
>>216044988I'm not, but I will do nothing to protect you from them.
>>216045032It looks like old people died there.
>>216045051The peak of cinema... Tarkovsky could never...
>>216045046>ViscontiBringing out the big guns over fucking Annihilation? Wow.>>216045105>TarkovskyAh yes, the standard.
>>216045121here a cheap horror movie
>>216045051I hadn't noticed that, despite them being in a mostly dark place flying around various light points, it still looks completely bland
>>216045046how do I make these pics?
>>216044027working with black and white requires a lot of knowledge on colours to understand what contrasts and what pops well in black and white. this is an interesting video for a different cinematic era, but still very interesting.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2G_GaXpLiI
>>216043673>proud canadian>living in california for 30 yearscan't be too proudthat said, RIP norm
>>216045051Christ, this looks terrible.
>>216044028>people hugging in a dark room with a 2007 mac screensaver in the background greenscreencool i guess?
>>216043515supes got no blacks, just blues
>>216045161>Bava
>>216043515>Why do modern movies look like they're shot on iPhone™?Based thread
>>216043515They don't use physical film and they don't use color studio lighting. Pretty much everything stems from that, and any sort of additive descriptors are just symptoms of those two problems, like contrast and color-grading.
>>216045254
>>216045051
>>216044028kek it does look like a default smartphone background
>>216045309>Belgian>old buildings>>216045359>Italian >silhouettes
>>216043515They are shot to accommodate the the vfx
>>216044878Watching this tonight. Thanks, bro. Italian Horror is a niche genre I am yet to explore. I bet there is some interesting stuff.
>>216045413a fellow bong, garlanddo better
>>216045359which flick
>>216045460>Pressburger & Powell, Cardiff
>>216045466Giornata nera per l'ariete
>>216043515>muh film stockArgument of retards. Mann's Collateral and Miami Vice look phenomenal on digital. PTA's One Battle After Another looked like ass on film stock.It's the colour grading and lenses. Everything is toned to be one colour. Even if the movie is "colourful" it's not that it has a lot of colour in one shot, it just has scenes that are toned differently, but by themselves are of uniform colour palette. A lot of lenses used also make the image look way too flat, and while sometimes the flatness can be used as an advantageous tool, it's only when you're making some kind of clinical drama, Haneke or something, but when you're making some big movie that's meant to be a spectacle and dazzling the flatness clashes with everything else. Shallow focus is also an issue, it's not that it puts things out of focus, it's that the things out of focus are very distorted, particularly light, it becomes like fog. In theory in some instances this also can be used to positive effect, but on practice it never is like that.Going back to PTA's One Battle After Another. The whole movie is in this odd mud-tone colour wise, it's brown, sometimes greenish, it's unpleasant, it's also very flat and feels very claustrophobic despite being shot on VistaVision which ideally should be utilized to shoot big grand scenes, but PTA does nothing with it. The movie cost 150 fucking million but the scale is ridiculously small. On the contrary, I saw Lanthimos' Bugonia which was also shot on VistaVision (but in a different aspect ratio) and that was great, the colours are lush, the general colour tone (a kind of beige colour Lanthimos likes) is achieved through lighting, not through colour grading in post. It's not shallow at all, and despite being small scale Lanthimos achieves more depth and even grandness than PTA did in his supposed "3 hour Punchonian epic".
>>216045337Point is color vs OP's dishonest image.
>>216045317kek
>>216045529Good post.
>>216045502thank.
>>216043515I call it the netflix effect because they seem to have started this particular aesthetic.
>>216045176
>>216044663>What gives?New youtube video essay came out, NPCs got a software update
28 Years Later actually WAS filmed on iPhone Pros. It was a continuation of Days Later being filmed on a shitty early digital camera. The iPhone has some weird setting that made the grass look a bit too vivid.
>>216044028Retarded post of the day.Congrats.
>>216044168Benchod. Listen to ME. I am your superior and you are my junior. You address me as "respected anon sirs", you are SUDRA and i am the bloody BRAHMIN. Know your PLACE bloody basterd bich!!
>>216045051Every time i see a new clip from this movie i am utterly flabbergasted. Like peeling back the layers to reveal deeper thicker layers of cringe. I genuinely dread the idea of watching the movie because I'm afraid all Gunn's giga-cringe will burn into my brain.
>>216044663>You can clearly see in the Norm pic that both the foreground and background are out of focusWhat a pedantic fuck.Norm is in focus. A child can understand that the left image is more appealing than the right. The only real argument is that the images are cherrypicked and unrepresentative.
>>216045628Gunn's Superman has several issues visually.First, the colour grading, it's the same thing he did with the Suicide Squad remake where all the colours are muted and tinted to some kind lf dusty faintly yellowish colour. There are occasional scenes with colour in them, but then the flatness of the image comes into play as well as focus distortion. The lighting is also odd, a lot of scenes are overlit in a very fake looking way. Also in picrelated the light from the window is so bright it basically looks almost like a uniform white colour and ruins any feeling of actually being present in some building. We aren't seeing the blue sky outside, we can't really discern any clouds.The CGI was also utter ass. The movement in the action scenes was either way too fucking smooth or straight up jittery, like it's lagging and hasn't finished rendering. It's not some fucking stylistic choice, it's just jeet CGI artists being fucking hacks.
shitty low res screenshot of a cheesy skinemax movie has better cinemotography than 90% of modern movies.
>>216046070>The lighting is also odd, a lot of scenes are overlit in a very fake looking way. Also in picrelated the light from the window is so bright it basically looks almost like a uniform white colour and ruins any feeling of actually being present in some building. We aren't seeing the blue sky outside, we can't really discern any clouds.It's capeshit. Who cares?
>>216046400Maybe it's shocking, but you can make an action movie for kids based on a comic book that also doesn't look like fucking ass. Tim Burton Batman movies looked amazing visually (and I say this as someone with an opinion that they're kinda overrated, especially the second one where Burton indulges way too much in following the villains, and Penguin while acted incredibly well by Devito spirals into too much silliness by the end).
>>216043515Because gen xyza can't make kino anymore Best looking kinos of this year was dispatch of all things lol
>>216043925>, 9000 light sourcesThisWhy does everything have to look like a stage overlit soap opera I haven't even been to the flicks in 3 years since avaturd 2
>>216046441It's based on comic panels, not photos.
Gunn's Superman was a 2 hour humiliation ritual for the character.
