Old movies look better.They just do.
>>220707026Can we make this too dark to see somehow? Add some googas into the foreground or something?
>>220707026Nice try. This is AI.
They still look good, you just have to look in the right places.
>>220707175Can’t see shit
>>220707175Epic bad luck
>>220707483Saw 7 is low key one of the most based and redpilled movies of all time.
>>220707026I agree, Technology kind of changed cinema, not always for the better.
>>220707483>john kramer dressed like fred durst>hoffman acting like the t-800 the whole movie>pink blood>linkin park getting murdered in a trap>dr gordon turning up out of nowherefunny schlock movie
>>220707715You're forgetting Gibson's crazy lady speech.
>>220707026I once camped there and somewhere near that spot during the night I had a nice wank beneath the stars
>>220707175it's so fucking over isn't it
>>220707175I've noticed a lot of movies doing this one-color-at-a-time filter
yeah much darkness these daysneeds more white, less black
>>220707175Looks like fucking assLike literal feces smeared on the screen
>>220707175lol
>>220707026Imagine the red tape involved with that many extras on location in a film in 2026
>>220707175bruh
>>220707026I have the bookshould I read it?PS I haven't watched the movie
>>220707710it's technology x cost cutting x corpo think. all netflix movies must use the same lens etc
Drive was the last movie filmed in LA before they changed their street lights to LEDs, which is why it still has a distinct, classic visual style compared to so much of what has come after.
>>220710712That's why hardly any movies are shot in California anymore. The niggas who made One Battle After Another and Mando & Grogu even bragged about the movies being shot in California because it is such an ordeal to do so in recent years.
the one exception to the rule is if they use day-for-night. it never works. it just looks like a daytime shot, but slightly dim>>220710712with how much they cut corners, they still find a way to spend $300 million
>>220707026Biggest difference to now is the color grading and depth of field. Only the subject would be in focus now and it would have some gay orange/yellow color filter to say "look its a hot desert."
>>220707175Pic unrelated
>>220707175>blue>orange>blue orange>orange>blue>orange blue>orange blue>orange blue>blue>orange blue>blue>orange>blue orange>blue orange>bluepseud
>>220707026In the old days, directors expended a lot of time and effort to get the perfect shots, so they want to show it off. Modern directors just green screen it and hide imperfections by color grading and making the scenes dark.
>>220707026Needs a yellow filter and more cgi camels
>>220707175kek
>>220707026that movie was so fucking annoying to watch, hated the main protagonnist from start to finish.the desert crossing was kino though
>>220712258Imagine being filtered this hard.
>>220712291I'm not into movies so I was like "oh hey it's a classic let's watch it for culture". it was a good reminder of why I don't like movies or show
>>220712337then why are you posting on the movies and show board?
>>220712405honestly I don't know
>>220707026Yes. They really do. Shot on film. None of that modern post color grading garbage.
>>220707175lmao
>>220707026
>>220710765Why would you acquire a book and then not read it?
>>220713811DIE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE REEEEE
Lighting and cinematography techniques never recovered from the switch to digital.
>>220713811the jon favreau school of photography
>>220707026Many such cases
>>220713866If that's true then why is something like Gilmore Girls earlier seasons shot on film effortlessly mogged visually by The Revenant shot digitally?
ts called deep focus. Google it.
>>220714122>jon favreauI feel sorry for that nigga.
For as long as I live to the core of my very soul I will always be of the opinion that BR2049 looks like shit. It has the same fake overly digital look that everything has nowadays. Its fucking dogshit.
>>220707175this might be the dumbest Saw movie (not counting Jigsaw) which is saying a lot
>>220715442i dont
>>220707026That's not saudi arabia.
>>220707026you need to create a new medium so something of value can be made before the queer nepo-babies get hold of it.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pov0MKuyJfg&ra=m
>>220715521Do you think Dune Part 3 ACTUALLY looks better than the first two movies since it was shot on film rather than digital though? Guess what; it still goes through the same post-production pipeline with heavy digital grading and CGI implementation, et cetera, and so it may as well have been entirely digital.
>>220713811reminds me of Fallout New Vegas
>>220707026>every old movie is lawrence of arabiaanother braindead /tv/ take
>>220715643>since it was shot on filmSauce?
>>220715819Old movies had sovl and didn't just stick with an orange or teal filter over the whole image for every scene.
>>220715990What movie?
>>220713811oh damn it must be so hot a little more yellow and they'd be in mexico
>>220716016Paris, Texas
>>220707175looks like diarrhea theres more talent and passion in twitter gay furry gooner art than this
>>220707026I know I'm gonna take some flak for this but one thing that CGI definitely does better (at least when someone like James Cameron or George Lucas is doing it) is that it more consistently maintains the illusion of the background even in 4K. Matte paintings are painfully easy to spot in HD.
>>220715420Damn. Imagine how much better this movie would look if it was shot in film
>>220716094what video game is this?
>>220707026True.
>>220716094Matte paintings are 100% soul and even a shitty one conveys far more aesthetic energy than any cgi background ever could.In your example for instance all you can really parse out of the background is that it's some nondescript "busy" slop. There is functionally "nothing" there.If it was a matte painting you would appreciate the artistry of it, even if you don't think it's "accurate", but with cgi backgrounds like this all you get is some muddy slop that your brain doesn't even process as "real" on any level. It's anti-soul.
>>220716157>muh soul muh anti soulnta but you need to kill yourself at your earliest convenience
>>220716094Matte paintings are only noticeable if you're looking for them, otherwise the subject matter is extremely effective in drawing focus from it and making it completely unnoticeable. It's all about composition and where you draw the viewer to look.
we have lost the technology
>>220716195Kino. What movie?
>>220716201The Comfort of Strangers
Cinema will never look like this again. EVER.
>>220707058Just color correct it to add a blue filter, reduce the saturation and brightness, and blur half of the things in the background.
>>220716117Video games didn't look anywhere near this good in 2005. Ragdolls effects were just barely taking off then. Pic related was considered a gold standard for graphics back then.>>220716157I'm not saying that matte painting isn't good, but the medium itself simply has inherent limitations that make the illusion much easier to spot with higher quality footage.
>>220716279> the medium itself simply has inherent limitations that make the illusion much easier to spot with higher quality footage.And yet people sitting front row in a cinema looking at screen the size of a barn still never noticed it.
>>220713866so true
>>220716235studios would rather hire 500 jeets to do shitty cgi than build real sets
>>220707175>blurry backgrounds>blacks are actually greys>orange-cyan color gradingInto the trash it goes
was that landscape once underwater or lush green
>>220707026Yes, technicolor was in vogue so movies wanted to show off their vibrant colors more.
>>220707175>if we turn down the brightness of every scene 70% and up the contrast that makes us artists! >CANT SEE SHIT CAPTAIN
>>220715420You think it's effortless to make digital look like this?
>>220713811Looks like a bespoke straight to streaming adaptation of a mature sci-fi series with a tastefully directed slow-burn story.
>>220707026this is boring to audiences today because they think its just like looking at a picture
>>220716306>>220713866Disagree, there is nothing that film can do that digital cannot. The decline in visaul quality is due to deliberate choices and film makers genuinely not knowing what looks good. The reason so many 70s-90s movies look good is because they combined the best aspects of classical cinema, such as strong, deliberate lighting, realistic camera positioning, theatrical acting, with color stock film, since the people who taught them made the classical films. Modern producers aren't trying to replicate the look of 50s high key, carefuly shot imagery like in picrel, they are trying to replicate instagram.They are also spoiled for choice, since with drones, tiny gopro sized cameras, etc they can create whatever shot they want, but it ends up looking like a vidya cutscene, made worse by retarded color grading, depth of field and lens choice.
>>220707175>>220707026>went from black and white to colors to just black
Watch some of the Walt Disney live action movies from 1965+They are so technicolorful and optimisticAlso watch Song of the South (1946)It's a Disney movie so you can probably find it on the Disney+ Streaming app I'll bet!
>>220716574>Also watch Song of the South (1946)Does that even exist in HD? It really sounds like they've tried to scrub that thing from history.
>>220716603Someone dug up a reel and amateurly scanned it the same way as was done with Star Wars OT
>>220716618Very based, it probably looks better than it would have with an official release in that case too.
>>220716537>there is nothing that film can do that digital cannotThis statement is inherently false. Analog is by definition unlimited in its variations. Digital is by definition limited to its max resolution which is a set number. There is such a thing as lost tech. Just do some research into the King of the Hill remake-revival. They were asked if they could make the new version look like the old version and they said they literally could not because the tech was lost.
>>220716630The tech isn't lost, that's just a meme. The reality is that it's just too expensive to justify doing it that way now.
dude color saturation lol
>>220707026Older everything is better, OP. Everything.
>>220716659Looks gorgeous
>>220707175responding to an amazing troll post.
>>220716639The tech to do it cheaply is lost then. Got it.
Things went to shit the moment computers became a part of creating. All it did was create shortcuts that made creators lazier.
they sure do
>>220716698The sad reality of many tools. They're created with good intentions and to fill in the parts that couldn't be done, but then lazy retards get hold and use it for everything to save costs. Budget will always win.
what happened to all the talented people in hollywood?
>>220716843They aged out and didn't pass on their knowledge.
>>220716235Imagine how bad this would look if Villenueve shot it.
>>220716843replaced by the cheapest possible option
>>220715849Apparently it's primarily shot on 65mm film, but the Arakis desert scenes were shot on IMAX digital for whatever reason. The DoP is different for the third movie so that's probably why they're shooting mostly on film.
>>220707026hnnng haptic kino
>>220717002they really are just in a ouroboros death spiral now hunhthe more the movies suck, the more money they losethe less money they make, the less they're able to make the movies not suck
>>220716111>Imagine how much better this movie would look if it was shot in filmThe Revenant was shot only with sunlight and firelight for illumination, so you'd see jackshit in the twilight and night scenes shooting on film.
>>220716473Yes, they didn't even bother using artificial lighting since they were shooting on digital. Basically just a nigga with a camcorder.
>>220717046I remember watching a blu-ray rip of some old euro vampire creature movie where they forgot to apply the nighttime color filter that the original presentation supposedly had, since they filmed in daytime and then post-produced it as a nighttime vampire scene
>>220717095What movie? Sounds like it would be pretty funny to see. I was also watching some pretty new TV show (can't recall what but it was a slop show like NCIS or something) and they forgot to color grade one single scene and it appeared in the final episode in completely ungraded LOG form.
>>220715420doesn't look particularly good. looks like standard post-2010 big budget film. Michael Mann digital would "mog" stuff.
>>220717121>What movie?I don't remember the name/several names it hadBut it's one of the early Paul Naschy Spanish ones that begins at a carnival with a ferris wheelThere might've been a mummy too or a werewolf I forget
>>220717200I think that's the first of his werewolf movies, but I could be wrong.
>>220716843Look up the end credits of furiosa and the names of the VFX team. Should tell you everything you need to know about the state of modern hollywood.
Just watched this absolute kino.What are some other great adventure films like it?
>>220718047the filter by year range and genre and throw a dartOr if you want something a little bit more contemporary which even features a playboy playmate sidepiece then try The Further Adventures of Tennessee Buck starring David Keith
>>220718047good film
>>220716234I liked this movie overall but didnt like how you could tell the last part wasn't filmed in Japan.
>>220716235>Cinema will never look like this again. EVER.Even back in the 70s niggas like George Romero got away with paying zombie extras $1 (one dollar) and giving them a donut and then working them like slaves for 16 hours. You can't get away with that shit anymore.
>>220707175(you)
Why is this a thing? Like I get retarded artsy visions, but I don’t understand why it has become so widespread. Why not capture the world in all of its colors?
>>220718047kino
Was watching Ivanhoe the other day and was struck by just how colorful it was compared to anything that depicts the medieval period these days. Compare it to The Last Duel or something where everyone is covered in shit and the entire movie is tinted blue for no reason.Then you have movies like Ben Hur and Cleopatra that were made almost specifically just for the studios to flex their set and costume design. We're never getting that again.
>>220716630>Analog is by definition unlimited in its variations.That's cope. There's a reason movies shot on film will still use digital for certain shots and/or scenes. For instance pic related is from Red Rocket (2021) which was mostly shot on 16mm and yet they deliberately chose to shoot the night scenes on a digital camera, and it is virtually seamless from the rest of the film.
why don't they produce more of those old cameras
>>220718566>why don't they produce more of those old camerasthey lost the technology
>>220717140>doesn't look particularly good. looks like standard post-2010 big budget film.
why does hollywood hate nice lighting?
>>220717085didnt they went +180 days over-schedule because they had to wait for very specific light conditions?
>>220719050Nice feet
>>220718603wow, the shitcademy gave him an award for bog standard Inarrituslop. Very impressive, like how all the other academy award winners are amazing talents. Very convincing bro. It certainly is exceptional looking. j/k, get some taste, pleb.
>>220718416what's this? Google search says Goldeneye but I doubt it.
>>220719594Thief right?
>>220707175lol'd. Good post. Have a (You).
>>220719050
I wish movies will look like this again one day
>>220719541mimic
>>220707175>>220715990>>220716195>>220716234>>220716235>>220716683>>220716731>movies will never look like this ever againI hate the fucking faggots responsible for this shit like you wouldn't believe, L.A. should be razed to the ground
>>220712405This is blue /b/
>>220721725
>>220719050thicc
>>220707175Fucking 22 years after Saw and still no one is doing it like the C.
>>220707175>pretentious shots>"good"Netflix was a fucking mistake
there should honestly be a distinction made at this point, films should be called films, slop shot digitally should be called digitals or something like that
>>220707026yeah no shit. Film looks better than digitalThey used to actually light shit nice due to film needing lightpractical sets and effects look better than CGI. even wes anderson's shitty minis look better than cgi
>>220707026You never see blue skies like that in new movies. The grading either gives off a greenish tint to it or the other option is it looks grayish, almost overcast
>>220719676yes
WTF is the camera ALWAYS out of focus on backgrounds? it's driving me fucking insane. I miss old movies so fucking much, bros
>>220722799it's all shallow focus blur slop, I simply can't watch any of that anymore
I don't know but PTA movies look really good
>>220715442Got to be delusional if anyone was interested in seeing more of Grogu.
>>220722230But enough about Lawrence of Arabia.
>>220707026Please don't tell me you think that bland (composite) shot from Downlowrance of Arabia is impressive.
>>220713799Shut the fuck up, Kurosawa pleb.
>>220715399Lowest form of filmmaking. This is 90% location scouting.
>>220707175notice how the focal point in 80% of these shots is exactly in the middle, like a phonenow you do, and you'll notice it in everything else that comes out nowadays too
>>220724285>location scoutingAnother thing that doesn't happen any more because everything is shot in front of a greenscreen.
>>220724309You're almost inhuman levels of stupid.
>>220711070it's not just that. digital just looks different. digital records info differently so the transitions between tones are sharper and less natural and digishit has crazy high dynamic range and low light so they don't light anything and everything looks flat. Film also has better colors and vibrancy due to that roll off effect. Like with film each color is a separate layer, with digital they have pixel arrays that are either on or off
>>220724323do not redeem the CGI diksit.
>>220724323>>220724309>>220724285>>220715399Lawrence of Arabia is also in glorious 70mm which is an incredible amount of detail even compared to modern digital movie cameras
Digital is superior to film, and new movies mog old ones. Nuff said.
The only people that keep pushing the old good, new bad meme are midwit uncs. Please shut the fuck up, you people know nothing.
>>220722799>>220722850>>220711070>>220715441there's a thing called aperture or f/stop or in film they use T/stop but it's basically the same thing. old lenses, for the most part, fucking SUCK DICK when shot wide open. when you shoot something wide open there is a shallow depth of field without much in focus and it takes in a lot of light. most lenses usually aren't sharp and have weird artifacts and other problems wide open and it's even worse for older lenses. There are some really nice lenses from the 70s that look like dogshit flip phone cameras when shot wide open but look amazing closed down a bit. Back when they shot film, with the exception of things like barry lyondon or whatever they lit the shit out of the film and then shot with a very closed aperture which kept a lot of stuff in focus and made the image sharper. consumer cameras used to not be able to do shallow depth of field, you used to need a nice professional camera so shallow depth of field became shorthand for>I'm an artist with an expensive setup so modern films shoot wide open because new lenses can handle it and because they don't light anything and because>Look, I am an artesistit's why iphones have that blur the background with AI filter.
>>220724407>>220724443this is bait
>there are no good cinematographers alive tod-
>>220724523No. There is a disgusting degree of mundanity marring most older film. It's unworthy of the medium. No matter how much garbage gets made, the good movies today are better than those of the past.
>>220724592>>220724554>the good movies todaythere hasn't been a good movie made in at least a decade
>>220724592The only people that viciously hang on to the limits of muh practical filmmaking are midwits, carnally inclined and threatened by abstraction.>>220724610You're not a real person. Shut the fuck up, LARPoid.
>>220707026yeah basically cinema died around 2000 with digital cameras, you can see that difference between TPM and attack of the clones which basically started that shit
>>220724651name 10 good movies released in the last 10 years, retardo
>>220723236One Battle is probably his best looking movie after Phantom Thread
>>220715420this flick looked like total shitthe gay ass wide angle lens aesthetic was terrible and honestly nothing you posted is interesting to look at unless you're a fuckoing retardoh yeah and the fucking script and story sucked and leo can't act
>>220724688I'm not spoonfeeding you, LARPoid. You can starve for all I care.
>>220724810oh look he's copemaxing and deflecting like a bitch right on cue
>>220724826Just following the good old not feeding the troll standard.
>>220715420the revenant was so bad>only good scene was fictional and didn't happen irl>>220724810lol so you can't because every movie made since 2015 has been bad
>>220707175congrats
>>220724928Could easily. But I'd rather deprive you of nourishment. LARPers don't get person treatment.
>>220716279That game looks like real life tho
>>220707583>YOU, YOUR GIRLFRIEND, AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE ALL RACISTS>NOW DIE IN THIS TRAP
>>220718603that Oscar will end up in some dude's ass.100%
>>2207246882026 - N/A2025 - Reflection in a Dead Diamond2024 - Afternoons of Solitude2023 - Magazine Dreams2022 - Moon Garden 2021 - The North Water2020 - Dinner in America2019 - Monos 2018 - An Elephant Sitting Still2017 - Good Time2016 - A Bride for Rip Van Winkle
>>220716692>The tech to do it cheaply is lost then. Got it.The "tech" is legions of sweatshop Koreans doing the inbetween animation that can no longer be hired at a cheap enough price which is why almost all modern animation looks like shit with minimal fluid motion
>>220721503I want to put peepee in her butt
>>220725068Don't feed the trolls, anon.
>>220724506Blurry backgrounds are an artistic choice that people have been using since day 1 of the invention of photography.You're right it's controlled by aperture, but the whole "they lit everything so strong back in the day they had to stop it down so the backgrounds were sharp" is bullshit.Here you go, prime example right here. She's got a shit ton of light on her yet the background is blurry. >>220718481It was probably shot with a medium or tele lens to put emphasis on her. The blurry background is a stylistic choice to create background separation and focus your eye on the subject.It's photography 101 and not a new thing. It's been a thing since the birth of it.One reason you may notice it more is because modern camera tech is so advanced you can basically shot your camera in almost any lighting conditions (with nd filters) and use basically any aperture setting you like, so you can get a shallow depth of field even in daylight.You have more choice than ever to shoot things the way you like and using good lenses that that open up a lot are great, so people who have them tend to abuse the depth of field instead of using it when necessary.Every movie you've ever seen has used depth of field. It's part of photography/videography. I literally cannot take a photo without taking the aperture settings into account somehow.Focal length will also chance the depth of field too or more have a large effect on how it's perceived. A wide angle lens will look less blurry while medium to tele focal lengths will have a lot more subject separation.
>>220724943This video is so stupid it's hilarious and I love it. Saved
>>220725068Actually I just realized North Water wouldn't count as it was a miniseries. So in that case it would be either The Worst Person in the World, Drive My Car or The Last Duel
>>220707175This isn't teal and orange, it's green and yellow which most modern productions use instead. I fucking hate the greenish yellowy tint everybody use these days. It's a fucking assault on my eyes. Blue/orange is at least a natural contrast to skin tones.
they do when you cherry pick
>>220724862No, you're not you fucking retard. Youre replying, which is what "feeding the troll" means, giving it attention. It has nothing to do with spoonfeeding, thats an entirely different thing. God damn you tourists are so fucking stupid and insufferable, please do us all a favor and suck start the nearest firearm.
>>220725252As I said: Incapable of abstraction.
>>220725068is Magazine Dreams actually good? I haven't seen it yet but I like most of this list (haven't seen Moon Garden either)
>>220724956nah, you can't>>220725068>Reflection in a Dead Diamondfrench film. I can already tell you it's assforeign films are always bad> Afternoons of Solitudespanish, see above, yurop has never made a good movie since yuropoors are third worlders with no culture>Magazine Dreamsblack male lead. lmao, this sounds like ass. you must be yuropean and therefore gay and in love with black men>Moon Gardennever heard of it> The North Watera. not a filmb. >bbc and cbclmao, there is no way that isn't filled with fags and blacks>Dinner in Americanever heard of it>Monosfilms in spanish which means it's shitty. only subhumans read subtitles>An Elephant Sitting Stillchinese, lmao> Good Timenever heard of it>A Bride for Rip Van Winkleforeign film, no thanks
>>220725298In a just world, these would be final words.
>>220725298https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2447740/heres a film for you
>>220716692there is no >tech to do it cheaplycompanies jumped to digishit because it's cheaper than film and cels and stuff. they could never do the old stuff cheap unless it was really shitty quality like 16 mm or something>>220721503do they show her naked?>>220725151they didn't have to stop it down because they over lit it. they had to over light it because the lenses they were using in the 60s and 70s and earlier were dogshit wide open. you can go buy old lenses. it's not uncommon for them to start at f/3.5 and be totally dogshit unusable until like f/5.6-f/8
>>220725152enjoy, anon. heres one more
>>220725151>>220718481>>220725358>Here you go, prime example right here. She's got a shit ton of light on her yet the background is blurry. that's probably not even opened up. she's just physically close to the camera. you can get shallow DoF from focal length or if something is physically close to the camera. macro shots are shot at like f/22 or higher and have a shallow dof because it's close to the camera it's why you will see people saying they can get a shallow dof with a certain lens and then they post a pic of a dog or a statue that was taken way close than a you would take a photo of a person
>>220713811AY DIOS MIO
>>220725351is that film your auto biography?>>220725342it isn't my fault yurop has no culture and yurop can't make good movies and only subhumans read subtitles and films with black male leads are ass
>>220725288Yes. it's essentially /fit/:the movieIf you liked Pain & Gain you'll probably like this too>>220725298Based on your post I think you'll probably like Dinner in America
>>220713811>>220707026>>220707175
>>220724285This is such a weird opinion that I'm pretty sure you're shitposting
>>220725358>do they show her naked?yes anon. Prime Helen Mirren. I don't remember the movie name.
>>220707026on location with film always beats digital slop
>>220724741Too bad Phantom Thread sucks
>>220726274It's so physically limited, it will always lose to perfectly executed digital with CGI.
>>220707175i cant see shit
even old movies that were considered low-budget slop in their time look better than anything shot on digital
>>220727129is that chibireviews' brother on the right?
>>220716235What is the most recent movie that used this many extras? Lord of the Rings?
>>220713811BRAVO VINCE!
>>220725937Just watched the 4k and this scene really looked great
every single movie nowadays has two camera setups>character is in the middle of the screen with nothing important on either side so you can clip it for tiktok easier>closeup of a character talking, always in the exact 1/3 of the screen because a youtube essay said thats cinematic, we'll be taking our oscar now
>>220713811Lawrence of Mexico
>>220716306How sickening. Top is filled with warmth. Vibrant hues emanating from the cottage with top back lighting to extenuate the background. Then bottom looks like a tiktok video made in their backyard during covid. No lighting and cheap, out of the wrapper wardrobe.
It's not just digital vs. film. Inland Empire was shot on a damn 2000s camcorder, and say what you will about the movie, it has some really attractive shots in it. Everything in photography eventually comes down to lighting and framing.
>>220716094Yeah, on a rewatch of older star trek shows it's so obvious when the sets are just painted backdrops.
>>220727428What is this?
>>220707175jajajajaja
>>220713811the martian 2015
>>220724307>You're telling me a filmmaker positions the focus of the scene in the middle of the frame? AAAAAH I'M GOING INSAAANE
>>220718387>paying zombie extras $1 (one dollar) and giving them a donut and then working them like slaves for 16 hours>You can't get away with that shit anymore....and they shouldn't. Actors deserve fair compensation for their labor.
>>220728020They deserve whatever they agree to
>>220727404Dunkirk, almost 10 years ago, and before that red cliff, almost 20 years ago
>>220707175
>>220718387>You can't get away with that shit anymore.Make a casting call for [famous IP] extra, no compensation, and you'll get thousands lining up outside.
>>220707026Dim the lights, I can still see everything.
>>220719078>>220717085I believe Leo said that they had to shoot the movie through 4 or 5 winters. They returned to shooting locations and expected for them to look a certain way based on the typical temperature and weather at that time of year yet things wildly fluctuated each winter. Apparently that tipped Leo off about the whole climate change thing and why he started giving speeches and producing documentaries about it. So the circumstances under The Revenant was made were atypical, I'm surprised the production companies didn't pull the rug halfway through it. On top of that Lubezki is one of the best cinematographers in the industry. If anybody he can make the most out of the "nigga with a camcorder" concept.
