>watch older film
>it seems to immediately have that "film" quality to it
>it's immersive, the colors feel profound, the scenes feel poetic
>watch new film
>most of them look like they could be a TV show or a commercial
>can hardly feel immersed anymore
Why is this? Is it just because of the switch to digital?
Remember when movies didn't need to be color graded up the ass to look good?
No. Godard is still doing some groundbreaking stuff in digital format, for instance. The real issue is the creative and cultural wasteland that both the mainstream and indie film circuits have become.
I also liked the mic quality that they had back then, even if it was objectively worse than what we have now.
I like that you posted a Blood Simple photo, user.
Fantastic film, and one Yea Forums seems to have not seen.
It's pretty good. This scene is kino of the highest regard.
Because modern filmmakers rely on CGI, digital, and an abundance of fake computer generated lighting. Kino films of the past relied on excellent cinematography, top notch lighting techniques, writing, and directors who know what they're doing and aren't corporate controlled shills.
this. based OP, now I need to watch Blood Simple again
No it's not because of digital. Everything you've ever seen since the mid fucking 80s has been digitized.
What you're describing is look and feel, aka, what a director brings to the screen. If that's getting worse to you can guess why.
Godard is trying to show the Disney directors how to get shit done 2bh senpai
Everything is worse now because the people are worse.
>If that's getting worse to you can guess why.
I literally can't
I do agree with the point that a lot of this has to do with the director's ability, but on some level, I also feel like the super crisp, clean images we get today take something away from that movie feeling. Not all of them, but generally.
Theatres are in a death spiral and the average Joe only sees 3-4 a year there. In a day and age where a single flop can shut your doors forever, distributers are affected first and foremost and simply will not take a risk. This is also why you'll see better films on shit like Netflix than in any theater now. This is also why everybody and their brother want that connected universe dosh. If user is only going to see three movies that year, better to get them to see Infinity War pt1 so they'll all want to see part 2.
/endrant
The older generation failed to pass on their knowledge and/or the newer generation failed to learn from them.
Everything is true except the part where you implied that Netflix is releasing good content.
it's actually because there has been a 7.5% decrease in nitrogen levels of the air since 1991 causing vividity to drastically increase, what you were enjoying was a constant subtle blur
Shut up, boomer
Time to market.
CGI is fast and cheap. Filming on location, building sets, setting up proper lighting, etc. all takes way too much time.
Netflix is the new direct-to-video and not just the stuff they produce. They also act as distributer.
>watch even older film
>actors almost shine and seem like untouchable gods
>Scenes feel mysterious and otherworldly
>editing and pacing are just perfect
Films have only gotten worse since peaking in the late 30s/ early 40s tbqh senpai
You're telling me.
Griffith's Intolerance was the peak of cinema as an artform t b h
digital and loss of true craftmen
movies today are made by a bunch of useless faggots
You just need to stop watching blockbusters.
>don't worry about setting up lights bro, just film the scene
>and one Yea Forums seems to have not seen
Maybe the tourists, this movie is featured in plenty of Yea Forums charts.
I've never seen it discussed except when I make a thread on it, which dies after 3 posts.
One of the worst films I've ever seen. Terminator is amazing in how every film makes the last one look like a masterpiece. How will they made the next one even worse? I'm curious
OP here, also never heard anyone talking about it in general, not even when discussing the Coens. Seems pretty underrated.
You don't even have an opinion of your own.
Apparently they're killing John Connor, and the resistance will be led instead by a woman.
of fucking course they are
I watched Mary Poppins Returns yesterday and the special effects looks worse than the 1964 original. The contrast between the actors and the animated background/characters during the painting sequences in both films, was much more noticeable in Mary Poppins Returns because it was recorded with a digital camera rather than on film like the original, which seemed to blend together much nicer like pic related. That entire animated sequence looked worse in the new film, took me right out of it.
not our fault that literal jews and useless actors/actresses want so much money. THEY need to feel the crunch, not us. In current year, Spending $15 on a ticket, plus $10-15 on food/drink for one person for a 2 hour experience, just isn't worth it. Not even factoring in the cost of driving there and back. For the "family of 4" scenario its more like $100 then. And what teenager wants to spend $50 on a "movie date?" Teenagers, even roastie teenagers, realize thats a fucking dumb thing to do when you could spend that $50 in something far more fun and productive. And for what? To see literal globohomo propaganda and be told white people are horrible by rich jews and niggers? Movies are worse and worse every year, and that's not a trend that will be reversing. Hell, just torrent the movie, it'll be up at Blu-Ray quality within a day. This isn't the stone age.
Is it worth a watch at all?
Digitized is not the same as digital, they look better because it was shot on film.
>no argument
I like the Coens but Buster Scruggs was just cynical schlock
Buster Scruggs is a lesser effort from the Coen Brothers, but let's not be too contrarian, mate.
Calling it schlock is ludicrous.
You think so? I always felt the issue deals more with big studios farming small time indie directors and obliging them w/ a big franchises as the power dynamics have shifted all towards the producers. Hollywood movies have become more of a science then a artform.
Makes sense. You can't out-logic a supercomputer so having an irrational cunt to lead humanity could just be crazy enough to work.
>>it's immersive, the colors feel profound, the scenes feel poetic
cringe
It's why most millenials hate working with boomers
This movie was boring as fuck. Only part that was remotely interesting was the end.
I think color grading destroyed cinema. Color grading itself is a whole ondustry and career now.
T. Hollywood underling
I already did
It's probably one of their best films, incredible to think that this was their debut. Thank you Sam Raimi.
Yea Forums is fucking worthless for not appreciating the golden age of cinema. There's so much there.
We had a 1940s thread a few weeks ago that hit bump limit. Lurk moar, especially late at night
Yeah, it's good. The first one is much better and I give whoever made the decision credit for making it a straight up sequel to the 1964 film and including the two children, now adults in the film. I was expecting a hard remake. As far as musicals go, the songs are tolerable.
F me the one week I'm not wasting away my life on this board
dis
I haven't seen the new one, but going by Mary's dress, she looks like she travelled 30 years back into the past.
To be fair, your example of an "older film" is one of the best outputs of the greatest living director pair. There's plenty of commercial-tier trash from every era, but the best films are the one's that are remembered and preserved. It's survivorship bias.
i don't know i haven't watched anything but youtube/documentaries for years.
i feel like every modern film/show just tries to advertise and sell me some particular lifestyle instead of just being a genuine story someone tries to tell me.
This true to a certain extent, but at the same time mainstream Hollywood films have absolutely declined in quality. I can watch any random old movie on TCM that no one even remembers, and still have a better time than with the latest flick that has a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes
McDormand was such a qt 3.14
Yea Forums's appreciation of classic cinema is nothing more than posting images of actresses they consider hot.
It's embarassing.
Is it just me or did she look really MILFy in Almost Famous? I wanted her to be my mom and dominate me
There's a lot of that but I've had plenty of great discussions on this board. It's not a common occurrence mind you but it happens often enough to keep me coming back. Well that and waifus
There's a chart somewhere proving this, but Hollywood has been taking less and less risks since the 80s. That means less original IPs, more reboots, more sequels, and more general mediocrity.
FILM vs DIGITAL is the original SOUL VS SOULLESS
Capeshit incels who need to have sex have ruined film.
New movies look so shitty now. I hate it. Even if there is a skilled DOP at it like Memekins the films still look bland because of digishit. I HATE DIGITAL SO MUCH and it breaks my heart that almost no one seems to care. But even if a new movie is recorded on film the set designs and storytelling just doesnt feel the same anymore. Like compare the recent star wars movies with the old ones. Or any new action movie to a classic like Die Hard or Predator or Terminator 2. Why can't no one get even close to theses masterpieces? The last movie I was genuinely impressed by was Fury Road. There are still good arthouse movies but I miss a well made blockbuster movie like Jurassic Park.
I was watching Terminator 2. And I couldn't get over the depth of Linda Hamiltons character. So fucked up from the first terminator events and then all that info being locked in her head. The Lore was off the chains bruh and it made her a better character than anything I have seen lately
Recommend me some 30's/40's films to watch
The Thin Man
White Heat
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Captain Blood
The Philadelphia Story
The Big Sleep
Dodge City
Red River
Gone With the Wind
Scarface
Only Angels Have Wings
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Objective, Burma!
The Leopard Man
Black Narcissus
Seen it. It's one of their worst movies 2bh.
>Watch older movie
>Foot steps are really pronounced and almost asmr
Thanks, this should keep me busy for a while
Quality film (the one used by big movies in the past) produced great results. And then you had experienced cinematographers who went through years of apprenticeships and being assistant work before becoming DOPs.
I don't know if any of you has worked or has any knowledge of the top-tier digital cameras used today (Red, Alexa, etc.) but this shit could be mastered in an afternoon. It creates the illusion that it's easy work that could be done by anyone. Then add some pleb directors and cinematographers who keep saying "we'll fix it in post" you get shit bland or tacky visuals.
quick rundown? where can I read more about that?