Why don't movies incorporate the beauty of nature anymore?

i don't watch capeshit. what recent movies, lets say in the past 20 years fit into what i am talking about? and how old is the director?

LOTR and The Hobbit.

Have you seen The Revenant?

Attached: Revenant_Screenshot_0242.jpg (1920x804, 317K)

LOTR is one of the last ones i saw that actually had it

>LOTR
fair enough
>The Hobbit
computer programs made in some studio in kikewood aren't nature

yeah, but it just didn't have that feel desu, they were trying to make it look harsh and everything is grey.

filters and color grading ruined cinema more than cgi

>americans hate nature
>despite the fact that Americans are surrounded by more nature than any western europoor country
Interesting

That planet earth show was in a couple of days ago.. I caught myself watching a couple of episodes. They really do have some kino shots. Also the picture clarity is nuts

Attached: new-zealand.jpg (960x590, 64K)

The Revenant. Don't know how old Inarritu is. Too lazy to look it up.

Please go be a pleb someplace else.

Attached: images[1].jpg (720x1080, 92K)

the revenant takes place in nature sure, but it doesn't really show it to be beautiful in my opinion.

just watch any terrence malick film

literally any of them

The Hobbit had a lot of the same. Granted less spectacular since a lot of the really nice stuff was already shown in LOTR.

Good thing they had plenty of location shoots then. I'm not gonna say it's a good movie, but they did have some splendid nature shots.

Attached: Beorn.jpg (1280x720, 257K)

To be fair having a movie about the harshness of nature make the nature feel comfortable and beautiful would have been a bit counterproductive.

That said it still had some really amazing looking nature shots.

This. Gonna be honest OP; It's pretty obvious you only watch the latest shit blockbusters. No shit if you only watch superhero movies, you're only gonna see 2 actors on a set or on green screens. It's cheaper for studios to make the CGI spectacles, that the fat idiots who watch that shit want, in a studio than use practical effects and locations.

Related question. Why is autumn the best season?

>To be fair having a movie about the harshness of nature make the nature feel comfortable and beautiful would have been a bit counterproductive.
i agree, but it still isnt really what i had in mind when i made the post.

Cause orange is prettier than green.

>hey bro go watch the latest "horror" movie
Fucking cringe. No thanks.

>It's pretty obvious you only watch the latest shit blockbusters
no i don't watch those. midsommar is still new i haven't seen it, besides one recent movie doesn't disprove my point.

>more agreeable weather
>prettier colors
>everything about the season screams cozy
Also my own headcanon is that humans are almost naturally predisposed to fall, since historically it always meant harvesting season.

yeah it's nice, even city shots can look really cool if done during autumn. my point is that directors don't seem to make the effort anymore to get those kinds of shots.

Apocalypto
The Embrace of the Serpent
Tree of Life

Attached: apocalypto-movie-screencaps.com-5042.jpg (1920x1038, 670K)

None of these movies are recent.

How about Malick's movies, then?

You said in the past 20 years you faggot. And The Embrace of the Serpent came out 3 years ago.

Pic related in BR2049

Attached: Blade.Runner.2049.2017.1080p.BluRay.x264-SPARKS.mkv_snapshot_01.16.09_.jpg (1920x800, 434K)

2 of those directors are old

OP here, that wasnt me

he is old, old people still incorporate it, Miyazaki for example

What now? The film has to be shot in the heart of the Amazon, released in the last 6 months and the director has to be 12 years old?

Into the Wild

Attached: into_the_wild.png (1024x428, 521K)

>autumn is by far my favorite season
>tfw when I live in the absolute fucking worst part of the US to enjoy it
Maybe someday ill escape this hell hole

Attached: 1533963964946.jpg (653x490, 32K)

my point is that younger filmmakers don't really incorporate it as much as older ones did/do. also i am talking about making a conscious aesthetic choice of incorporating nature, that doesn't necessarily mean that a movie set in the jungle accomplishes that. i'll also add that this thread is "recommend me movies with trees". if you don't understand what i am talking about then i don't know what else to say. do you love nature?

>i'll also add that this thread is "recommend me movies with trees"
IS NOT*

What does count as a "young filmmaker" to you? Barely any director is of any worth until his late 30s.

Attached: Lost.River.2014.1080p.BDRemux.mkv_snapshot_00.21.30_0.jpg (1920x800, 1.19M)

You meant to say late April

>tfw used to live right next to a large beech forest
Man that thing was sexy in autumn.

Granted I still live in the countryside surrounded by trees, but that forest was something else.

Attached: 6470586439_11461583a7_b.jpg (1024x684, 1.27M)

>rare spring cuck
Literally how?

30 to 40 i guess. but being young didn't stop older directors from incorporating nature well into their work. you can go back to the first half of cinema history and even the sets were designed to have a good natural aesthetic. i think more modern directors don't have an eye for it.

You only watch capeshit, there's no other explanation.

Attached: El Abrazo De La Serpiente.2015.BDRemux.1080p.mkv_snapshot_01.42.01_.jpg (1920x800, 738K)

i haven't seen any of the capeshit. are you really trying to tell me there is just as much of what i am talking about today, as there was even 30 years ago? come on, don't bullshit me.
>inb4 you dig up some obscure foreign film

because jews, nonwhites and cosmopolitans hate nature

i had not considered this

You're thinking of past films like they all happened in a single year and comparing it to a single current moment. Tell me a few of those nature films you like and then tell me when they were released.

Attached: A Ghost Story 2017.mkv_snapshot_01.32.04_.jpg (960x738, 210K)

>You're thinking of past films like they all happened in a single year and comparing it to a single current moment. Tell me a few of those nature films you like and then tell me when they were released.
i'm not really seeing your point but okay. a lot of Hitchcock films, westerns, even 80s horror movies. some directors today even try to mimic those 80s horror movies, such as It Follows, or even stranger things tries to copy that aesthetic. what exactly are they copying? i think that they are unknowingly copying that nature aesthetic that older directors naturally had an eye for.

Whats the prettiest area in the states?

>a lot of Hitchcock films, westerns, even 80s horror movies
There, you just mentioned a wide span of nearly 40 years as a singular point in time. That's my point, that you're comparing just a few recent years with multiple different past decades.
Also almost none of those Hitchcock films or westerns of 80s horror were made by directors that were not atleast in their 40s or 50s

Attached: Sleep_has_her_house.mp4_snapshot_00.17.36_.jpg (1920x1460, 1.64M)

depends on what you like really, there are a lot of different kinds of places. i like prairies, ones with hills.

CG and green screens mean it's easier to be lazy than to go find some beautiful nature.

i never said anything about a singular point in time, you said that to try and make a point, which i still don't agree with. and i'm talking about just a few recent years, it's more of a change over the past 20 or so years. i am talking about trends. but i guess we'll see if directors getting older will suddenly make them change their style. i'm still not convinced that you even what i'm talking about though.

this actually makes sense, they might just be lazy to location scout

Monument Valley, the Sierra mountains, Sequoia National Park. All of Washington state, Alaska, and Hawaii. There are so many beautiful landscapes outside the stereotypical corporate urban jungles.

>it's more of a change over the past 20 or so years
There were plenty of nature oriented and location based film in the past 20 years

Attached: lotr1-screencaps.-5048.jpg (1920x800, 258K)

Stop arguing with that retard.

nope. you just don't get it

fuck you

Because conservatards flip out and claim its climate change propaganda.

I get it just fine.

Attached: The Straight Story_screencap_.png (1280x544, 483K)

Minorities don't grow on trees.

Forget about nature goy, you don't need it just consume more stuff to feel good

and yet you think we are still at that level? nah man, maybe your standards are just lower than mine.

At what level?
If you think fucking Hitchcock who shot almost everything in fake Hollywood studios is the best example of "nature" in film you're beyond saving. You could've atleast mentioned some good examples of films like Baraka or almost any film from Tarkovsky while you were trying to make your point, but you're a hopeless pleb casual who came here to search for confirmation bias cirlejerking so this entire conversation is pointless.

I think this is the 15th film from the past decade or two that I posted with true on location beautiful nature settings, but even if I posted 50 more it would merely bounce of your puny brain so why bother. Stay pleb.

Attached: jessejames011.jpg (1920x800, 100K)

I like how you just ignore every movie listed in this thread and continue to bitch.

posting some examples means nothing when i am talking about trends. i already said that LOTR was a great one, and that some of the others were made by older directors. Hitchcock had some great stuff, and i said before that even SETS had a good nature aesthetic. i am talking about how things are framed to make nature look beautiful, directors making a conscious choice to go out of their way to do it. it is not the same as a movie taking place in a fucking field. your argument of "but look, this movie has nature, checkmate" proves that you don't understand what the hell i am talking about, so fuck off and don't reply to me again.

You think there was not a conscious choice to shoot that shot in that exact outdoor location under that exact timeframe outside in the late golden hour? You think half of the film that is completely out in the nature was just a random improvisational thing where the entire cast and crew just winged it and shot whatever? This shot was just beautiful out of pure happenstance? And the same for all the other films posted ITT am i rite?

You name two directors and use this as proof that their aesthetic was the "trend" in their own era. Some movies are indoors. Some movies are outdoors. Some moves show man's relation with technology. Some movies show man's relation with nature. Stop pretending like you actually watch movies.

>You name two directors
cause i'm gonna sit here and list directors for you, pfft
>Stop pretending like you actually watch movies.
kek ok

you're hopeless man. i really don't know why you are arguing this, do you even into nature? with the exception of LOTR, non of those movies impress me, i feel nothing with those shots. which is why i said maybe you have lower standards than me.

you misspelled "winter" there bud

worst opinion
it's still beautiful, but fuck winter

>when i am talking about trends
Which trend? Where was there a "let's shoot films about the beauty of nature" trend or movement? If anything that would be the Planet Earth series.
You mention Hitchock and not a single Hitchcock film is about the beauty of nature with him shooting mostly on Hollywood sets. You mention westerns and yet the vast majority of westerns portray their setting as harsh and not hospitable.
And to top it all of you start a thread with a tumblr pic. Really makes my noggin jog

I am 100% sure that I could've posted a screencap from a 1950s hitchcock flick or an 80s horror flick pretending like it's new and you would still blindly say nah it's not like the old ones am i rite

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs had some great outdoor locations. Really beautiful too.

you are especially thick arent you
yeah you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing. let me guess, you are still in HS and haven't been camping once in your lives?

I am 28 years old. Went on more tops of mountains than you ever slept in your kiddie backyard camps.

More and more of films are being made in post-production and natural environments are often far more complex and dense in information than man made structures. Not to mention that the world outside of human endeavors is becoming an increasingly alien concept to an ever-more domesticated and urbanized audience. To put it bluntly, it's much much cheaper to make your movie play out in a cityscape, airport etc than in say a forest, and it's more in tune with your audience's expectations than ever as those are the kinds of environments they are familiar with.

Attached: 1473096934084.png (116x125, 13K)

yeah i'm sure

Attached: 1560202842515.jpg (448x547, 99K)

>Not to mention that the world outside of human endeavors is becoming an increasingly alien concept to an ever-more domesticated and urbanized audience.
this is kinda scary desu

Autumn is for autistic man babbies that prefer the cold, because they’re too insecure to wear short sleeved clothing.

Stop watching capeshit

The digital photography in that was butt ugly

I wanted to agree, but you've done a pretty terrible job of defending your points in this thread.
Really, I think it has always been this way and isn't new at all. The majority of directors don't have an eye for capturing nature or a desire to explore its beauty on film, many of the most beautiful nature shots in movies are only done in passing, where the focus is on something else entirely

Attached: 1494741606558.jpg (1920x1080, 493K)

very original

Very gay

>many of the most beautiful nature shots in movies are only done in passing, where the focus is on something else entirely
i agree with this, but i disagree that it isnt done on purpose. miyaaki makes cartoons, those backgrounds are made that way for a reason, there is no excuse of it being in passing, and yet they are still in the background and made to be aesthetic.

Nothing in any film mentioned ITT is not done on purpose. How do you think films are made?

So close yet so far. Autumn sucks because that's when everything fucking dies and the weather turns to shit. Late summer is when it's at.

I think OP is mad most movies aren't nature documentaries

Attached: 698238715.jpg (1440x1080, 168K)

i was responding to a comment, did you not read it?

not at all, but i will agree with a different user that i didnt do a good job explaining what i am talking about, i think i just assumed people would get it, i was wrong.

I didn't say they weren't done on purpose. I just said they're not the focus.
In Miyazaki's work, it often IS the focus, actually. They are gorgeous pieces of work. The art and atmosphere far exceed the stories themselves

not the focus of the narrative though, but yes, there is great emphasis placed on the nature. that is what inspired this thread. i was thinking about this the other day, how you can tell that there is a love for nature there, and that there is a deliberate execution to make it look awesome and atmospheric. which is something that doesnt seem to be done by younger filmmakers.

>everyone else is a retard but me and doesn't "get it"

you are textbook dunning kruger

kys

Attached: 1513187898706.png (525x360, 125K)

Yeah, I agree, except that, again, I don't think it's that much of a generational thing at all and applies to the vast majority of filmmakers.

>admitting that i suck at explaining and was wrong to make assumptions
yeah i'll kill myself for that

It's more like you thought you had a point but got BTFO.

okay, so you think it just comes down to the individual then? maybe you're right. i think upbringing has something to do with it, and the environment they live in. i was painting young directors with a broad brush, i'll admit that.

watch more film

i still think i have a point, and i have not been btfoed.

Yeah, I do think that's the case. I think rather few people, filmmakers or not, really "look" at nature and dwell on the beauty of it in all its little details, it's just mundane to them, a background. They need something spectacular like a bright sunset or massive canyons to draw their eye. Maybe that's why anons in this thread don't seem to know what the fuck you're trying to say.

I love this new "the left doesn't care about nature" meme. Just a few years ago you were calling them treehuggers.

those are some great points, thanks user.

Genuinely connecting with nature and the lessons it imparts are antithetical to liberalism.

>I love this new "the left doesn't care about nature" meme. Just a few years ago you were calling them treehuggers.
you're making a lot of assumptions

They don't. The largest funding source in all of conservation comes from hunting, fishing, and the firearm industry. All things the left want gone.

Good thread, I think editing also has a lot to do with this. We might get an establishing shot but the shot isn't allowed to breathe. When you edit a scene with too many cuts you don't get any atmosphere.
It's not only a problem with nature shots, very few movies convey a sense of space to the viewer. Shane Black's The Nice Guys is the high standard (of more recent movies) on how to make your locale feel alive IMO.

Agreed. Good points. Editing completely determines many aspects of what the finished film *feels* like.
I think David Lynch is one of the best examples of a director who has a magical way with space and atmosphere in film. His editing is also incredible.

very good points. i didnt consider editing at first, but that you point it out it's really obvious. camera work goes hand in hand with this, any sort of shaky cam, or the wrong lens will completely ruin any sense of space

>Why don't movies incorporate the beauty of nature anymore?
every new year the permit laws are getting more and more strict

it's really just better to just film a movie in a studio and greenscreen everything

>every new year the permit laws are getting more and more strict
why is this?

It's also funny how there are no animals in scifi movies

it does seem rare now that you mention it

wtf

Attached: 1562320843002.gif (200x293, 1.75M)

This.

Attached: Knight.of.Cups.2015.Bluray.1080p.DTS-HD.x264-Grym.mkv_snapshot_00.45.31_[2017.11.20_01.04.32].png (1920x1080, 2.01M)

I don't watch any movie by random kid hack director, I only watch old movies.

The latest Godzilla flick had tons of beautiful nature. Director is 44

based