Scene from 1947... looks better than everything released 2025.
>>218332880why do people act surprised when they discover old movies still look good? it's genuinely baffling>wow this came out in the 1950s? it looks so good! wtf?????
>>218332898They barely had food to eat back then let alone know how to use technology. It's understandable to be surprised.
>>218332903>let alone know how to use technology.Quite the contrary. Modern directors have actually lost the skill of staging and blocking actors that used to be seen in most old Hollywood movies.
>>218332934saaaar, go back to your brown AI thread.
>>218332934>OH MY BASEDYYYYIENCE!!!!!! IS THAT A HECKIN MATTE P-ACK
>>218332903bait
>>218332898to be fair, these are outliers, actual movies and not boring studioslop, which also existed next to films like this. its not as bad as it is today, where you have to shift through heaps of garbage to get the good ones, but it was similar.
>>218332880you know why? simply because they filmed outsidetoday they just sit in a room full of LED panels
>>218334289This scene is in a studio thoughbeit
>>218332880Literally everything is worse today than it was back then, OP.
>>218334317even black pussy?
>>218332898It's not being surprised it looses good that bothers me, it's being surprised it's well written. Certain young people think storytelling is an objective science that was only perfected in the last two decades.
>>218334299damnwhat happened
>>218332898These are the same people who say things like this "this has aged well" or "this has aged badly" aka retards who whose entire point of reference is current year garbage and have no appreciation for the past
>>218332880Very peculiar movie this, not sure what it's supposed to be about
>>218334289This dumb nigger thinks they really built a hospital set on a cliff in Himalayas to shoot a movie.
>>218334372It's about sexually repressed nuns lusting after a sexy male explorer, there's nothing else to getIt's an "erotic film" without any actual erotica
I think the main problem is that Hollywood used to hire people from outside of Hollywood. You need a composer? This guy has been making music for a circus for 40 years. You need a set decorator? This guy has been a carpenter since he was 19 and an interior designer since he was 26. You need a make-up artist? This guy from the mall has been working at the Macy's hair saloon since it first opened. You need someone to make your movie look good? This scout master loves cameras and has been judging photography competitions since before he graduated High-School.But now everything everything knows has been learned from someone else, which was learned from someone else, which was learned from those original hires instead of learning how to do these things from real world experience. The result? A departure from real life that feels so fake it's annoying to look at.
>>218332898I think a lot of it is because of early digital. If all of your "old stuff" is VCRs, DVDs, and 460p YouTube videos then it's understandable why you would think something from 1950 would be unwatchable.
>>218334394Is this why they were so aggressive and irrational? I thought that it was a supernatural film about old spirits slowly possessing the occupants of that place.
>>218332898They think it's like vidya, they expected Atari graphics
1926
>>218332880If this was filmed today it would look blurry and the lighting would be off because it would have been recorded in front of a green screen with background lighting made in unreal engine
>>218332880This is shit. You can easily tell it’s CGI
>>218334345name them you fucking liar. nobody thinks this
>>218332880The background is an obvious painting. Just saying.
>>218334662>If this was filmed todayThe nuns would have tattoos and piercings.
>>218332880AI slop
>>218332898Those aren't people.
>>218332898I think, to the contrary, OP is just lamenting about how far we've fallen.
>>218334289
I'm still waiting for the porn parody
>>218334985Sure something similar has to exist by now.
>>218334985Aren't they remakingshittifying it? Will happen after that.
A movie that recently surprised me was Rain (1932). I watch a lot of precodes and though I love them the photography usually isn't what we might call masterful. Rain has some beautiful camerawork though. Plus you get to see Joan Crawford in clown whore makeup. I recommend.
I can fix her
>>218334856better than the alternative
>>218335060So fucking hot
>>218334995Yeah mostly Italian films from the 90s, produced by Luca Damiano or Mario Salieri. English-speakers seem too scared of christian outrage to make any, but I guess Italians are so blase about the Vatican no one cares over there
>>218334568..."Handjob"?
>>218334336Especially black pussy.
>>218335224Well, if you're offering...
the good old days when a movie didn't need to be color graded up the ass to look good
>>218334770yeah plenty of movies did this, and it looks better than low grade, blurry dog shit CGI backgrounds.
>>218332898I thought the world was actually black and white but it was just the cameras
>>218332898He's not surprised that the fidelity is good. He's surprised that the composition, framing, blocking and camera moves makes everything made in the last couple years look downright amateurish. All without the crutch of full cg replacements.
>>218334372>>218334394The mountain is the "jungle" of Conrad, like Apocalypse Now or Aguirre. Individual minds and belief systems can't hold up against the weight of history, so places with a more ancient history make you into ancient man. It's a very conservative art form that serves as apologetics for both primitivism and european supremacy. Absolute kino.
>>218334770wait wtf you mean star wars wasnt actually filmed in space either
>>218334770Ye olde green screen
>>218332898zoomers didn't grow up watching TV with their parents on a CRT, they've only seen old movies in washed out colors on HD screens.
>>218334985>>218335060wtf was her problem?
>>218332880Yeah, but they didn't employ a town of Indians to make these shots so who's really winning?
>>218336594she's cockmad
Black Narcissus is mostly visual spectacleI Know Where I'm Going has a better story
>>218336594She wanted to be a slut but the other nuns were shaming her.
>>218335060Nothing to fix
>>218332880Posting one of the best looking movies ever made doesn't really substantiate the point you're trying to make here.>>218332898They're trying to claim modern movies look shit, actually. It's really pathetic and unworthy of the medium. May birds of prey pluck out their eyes.
>>218332898zoomers are finally old enough to put down their youtube nannies and realize there's something beyond mr beast and yidsney
>>218336701>is mostly visual spectacleThis is what movies are supposed to beIf you want a story, read a book like an adult
>>218334770no wayAI didn't exist back thenhow did they generate that image?
>>218337774Owned! That's what you're supposed to do on this platform, pwn other people. Being right is for other media, that's why I lose and you win.
>>218337744You're a vulgar cretin. Your intellectual mediocrity and emotional immaturity disgust me.
>looks better than everything released 2025
>>218332880Filming landscapes doesn’t count as good cinematography.
>>218338026Looks kino but the average italian film of the 70s mogs it to oblivion
>>218338087Nope. The average Italian film from the 70s absolutely doesn't mog it to oblivion. I slopped this together in 2 minutes, including taking the screenshots. It's very clearly inspired by Bava and compatriots, but does deliver a much higher density of great visuals.
>>218338071go fuck yourself, Quentin
>>218336701for me it's
>>218332880>Black NarcissusI prefer Pink Narcissus
>>218337805yeah, but you didn't say i was wrong
>>218338655You are wrong. You completely misunderstand the point of the thread: It's not about zoomers finding out old movies (depending on available master) not looking bad, it's about OP, who probably isn't a zoomer btw, dishonestly doing a "new thing bad." Also, I literally grew up watching old Westerns and Technicolor shit at my grandparents, so you can fuck right off with your cartoonish image of zoomers.
>>218334770beats the fuck out of green screens
>>218338809Except it doesn't. It works for static shit, and at most you can cut some holes into it to get some motion going, but it has nowhere near the utility green screen has. Sorry, nostalgiapleb.
>>218332880The goat represents temptation
>>218338026sorry but that still doesn't look as good as a 3-strip technicolor film, does look kino though
>>218338026What is this ?
>>218338962reflection in a dead diamond
>>218338026>>218338969seems intredasting ngl
>>218332880no shit, 2025 was a terrible year for movies in general. the late 40's meanwhile was a golden age for film
>>218337805 imagine typing this out, leaning back in your chair, and thinking you delivered some 18th century duel invitation this is /tv/, not oxford union. if you’re gonna sperg out at least be funny about it.
>>218332880Gorgeous. Good goat-acting, too.
>thread could've been about cool older movies>immediately turns into ironic zoomer shitpostingI'm so tired of this place
>>218332898Zoomers have this weird mindset that everything that came before them is liquid shit that would cause them to die from boredom if they attempted to engage with it.
>>218338026>more shit from the hacks who made The Strange Color of Your Body's TearsFuck off retard.
>>218337699>They're trying to claim modern movies look shit, actually.>trying>claim>actually
>off colors>color bleeding and chromatic abheration>obviously standing beside a shitty painting Terrible bait
we literally lost the technology and ability to make movies look this. No one knows how. It's not just shooting on film vs digital
>>218341361dude this movie sucks dick. its even weaker then the second Conan movie
Why can't we have movies today with colorful sets like this. Its like they purposely are avoiding beautiful for grim grey and blue
>trying out mpv after being a vlclet for years>swear the aspect ratio between a full window and fullscreen is slightly different>screenshots look identical and OSD reports the same resolution>but I can visibly SEE it use up different proportions of vertical and horizontal space, and see people's faces get squished/stretched>not sure which is correct
>>218341673The "humans" in charge of the film industry hate beauty and want to erase the concept from your mind
>>218332880I'm glad you appreciate it, OP. Powell and Pressburger have made some of the very finest films of all-time.
>>218341673>Why can't we have movies today with colorful sets like this. Its like they purposely are avoiding beautiful for grim grey and blue
bump
>>218334770And yet in context it suspends my disbelief more effectively than any CG slop ever will
>>218341775I didn't like how this one look. It felt fake and plasticky. Like almost everything korean
they don't make 'em like they used to
>>218333039>grandpas and grandmas shit their britches and trousers when the train almost ran them over
>>218344791sometime in mid 2006 they flipped a switch and everything turned grey
>>218333039@grok L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat but the train hits an Indian guy
>>218345397meanwhile a totally unremarkable bog standard 70s film
>>218332880>My_wife_got_sick_of_it.mp4
>>218332880Flopped>>218338026Flopped>>218341361Flopped>>218341673Flopped>>218344791Flopped>>218345397Flopped>>218345661FloppedHas it occurred to you that the viewing public hates kino?
>>218345661>Sorcerer>totally unremarkable bog standard 70s film
>>218334770It wasn't obvious to me at all. I actually thought "that place looks amazing"
>>218336561I can tell you're a child because I used to watch VHS and Laserdisc on a CRT and they absolutely did not look more vibrant than movies on an LCD from like 2008, let alone the screens we have now. Stop trying so hard.
>>218345397I agree but you chose the most intentionally bleak movie for 2006
>>218338853>Except it doesn't. It works for static shitIt's literally a static shot being used as an example your own handwaving is obvious
>>218334856BluRay was a mistake
>>218342280Are you taking the screenshots through MPV or using print screen? MPC sometimes displays things correctly but when I use it to take a screenshot it will be distorted, usually with dvds but sometimes with .mkv.
>>218335062You forgot to make everything blue
>>218332898That's not what OP meant thoughOP didn't say "Wow, this movie STILL looks good after 80 years!" OP said "Wow, this movie filmed 80 years ago looks better than ANYTHING RELEASED the last year!"
>>218333039SACREBLEU Un train va nous aplatir!!!
>>218342799Because they want to convince you that the old times were terrible and that you are living in the best time period.
>>218345976i troll u
>>218346990
>>218347026thx, and I'm not a zoomer btw.
>>218334724Are you retarded? Zoomer constantly go on about how they're amazed a movie from the 80s is good. They ain't talking about the visuals because when it's just regular drama then the visuals may as well be the same as today
>>218334985>>218335080Japs dont give a fuck
>>218332934I say this whenever I watch old movies.
>>218336594they were in india
>>218350425Nobody asked them to go there, they were part of an invading force.
>>218350466why are ypipo like this
>>218350487Not all white people, only the imperialists.
>>218345397>>218345661The movie industry has forgotten how to do colour.
>>218332880Thank OP, picked up.
>>218350655jeets ruined cinematography
>>218334770Kino
>>218350000>gyaru nunnow that's just silly
>>218332880that goat is dead now :(
>>218336701ey, you have a magnet for the bluray of this? I can only find ass dvd rips
>>218334770when you hear about paintings being used as backdrops in old movies you think “there’s no way that works”, but they usually look amazing
>>218334836>>218335433It's crazy that this faggot doesn't get that.>meeh hekin zommerinooo
>>218350861Looks like the top few torrents on tpb are blu-ray though?
>>218351236but that's where I looked
>>218351256I see a 6gb and a 2gb are the top 2.
>>218341673we're running low on colour due to climate change
movies aren't dead!
