› ›

Denis Villeneuve Announced as Bond 26 Director

1…67891012»

Comments

  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,219
    Univex wrote: »
    I take it you guys mean Hollywood run of the mill films and are forgetting italian neorealism, the french nouveau vague, the epics of David Lean, Kubrick’s entire filmography, Ingmar Bergman, Hitchcock, … and all that was true cinema for a long time. But if we do mean 20 years ago, well, there was this post Matrix mania of colour filters that ruined most chances for films to be pretty. And the word “gritty” has been plaguing the last two decades. On that regard, I do agree. Maybe we’re on a renaissance of cinematic beauty.

    There are many Kubrick wannabes. Perhaps it's the film schools' fault
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,589
    I think it's just more accessible and 'easier' to create those 'pretty' images nowadays. Telling a story visually and doing it well takes a slightly different mindset. If anything that's what a good film school tells their students, and often those young budding cinematographers/directors have had a few years of snapping and editing images on their phones and posting them on social media (not a bad thing incidentally, as I said it's just a case of being more accessible, but like any craft it's an ongoing process).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 14 Posts: 18,520
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    I'm not convinced, I'm sure I could find equivalents of all these parallels in many other films, if I were to spend the time looking.

    My impression is that they are familiar types of shot, that have been used on numerous occasions before across the decades, in the Thriller / Suspence / Espionage / Crime Fiction genres.

    There are also trends that make films from one era look similar.

    I once mentioned that 20 years ago, "no one" cared about cinematography in films. It was very arty.

    Now movies have to look pretty. Even if it's Mad Max ;)

    That's actually true. Even the blandest Netflix thriller now looks good and is filmed in Prague or Italy or something.

    I actually have the opposite impression. So many run-of-the-mill movies, even B or C grade, looked way better than the majority of contemporary films. I think digital filmmaking has led to a lot of sloppiness on the production side of things because there’s no longer a need to properly light things, things can just be “fixed in post”, you can just shoot a bunch of lazy coverage rather than being intentional, framing stuff with iPhones in mind, etc. So much Netflix stuff just has drab digital sheen to it.
    At the same time television budgets have gone way up, so you do get big location shooting in otherwise crappy stuff, but it’s a trade off.

    Yeah I think it's hard to say that Marvel films look good, whereas Jaws and Raiders and Lawrence of Arabia etc. all looked amazing. I think it just varies really, a certain amount have always looked good and a certain amount haven't. I think they've always tried to shoot things so they look nice, it is their job after all. But some are better than others, and styles come and go, and obviously cinematographers learn from what came before.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,934
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I take it you guys mean Hollywood run of the mill films and are forgetting italian neorealism, the french nouveau vague, the epics of David Lean, Kubrick’s entire filmography, Ingmar Bergman, Hitchcock, … and all that was true cinema for a long time. But if we do mean 20 years ago, well, there was this post Matrix mania of colour filters that ruined most chances for films to be pretty. And the word “gritty” has been plaguing the last two decades. On that regard, I do agree. Maybe we’re on a renaissance of cinematic beauty.

    There are many Kubrick wannabes. Perhaps it's the film schools' fault

    Hey, if you have to imitate, imitating the great is the way to go ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.