Why do pre 2010 movies look so much better and 'movie like' than the slop we're getting nowadays?

>>213770308 (OP)
they were shot on film
current movies are shot on digital

>>213770308 (OP)
film and filters/everyone wanting to be Fincher

>>213770308 (OP)

>>213770308 (OP)
Shot on film, properly color graded, actually used sets, props and locations and not fucking CGI for everything.

>>213770696
This plus
SD hid a lot of the flaws of SFX

>>213770696
>actually used sets, props and locations and not fucking CGI for everything.
this
CGI only attracts jeets and inspires more slops

>>213770308 (OP)
They weren't afraid of color.

>>213770308 (OP)
1. The movie only features a total of six minutes of CGI
2. There were real puppets for the CG artists to pull reference from
3. Most of the CG is shown in dark moody lighting that hides the imperfections. The Brachiosaurus actually looks like shit because it's the one effect shown close up in broad daylight
4. The movie is so good you forgive the less that stellar CG

>>213770941
This. Every fucking movie is like this gray slush constantly. I get it can be good at times, but they over use it to the point they all just blur together.

>>213770941
False Dichotomy. Superman 2025.

This movie is bad because it doesn't have a main character.

>>213771149
>Superman 2025
Lol. Nice joke, anon. Now let's be serious.

a bunch of plebs are going to respond saying it's the change from film to digital but it's really not the camera. It's the fact, digital enables them to be lazy as fuck with lighting. modern movies don't put any effort into proper lighting.

>>213770308 (OP)
The move from film to digital was the worst thing that ever happened to movies.

>>213770308 (OP)
>shot on film
>practical effects
>lighting (an absurd amount of work went into this)
>actual locations instead of green screen

But also less known things like
>blocking
>editing
>composition
were all really important

>>213771216
Yep. When i look for something to watch i use imdb's Advanced Search feature and limit it to 1999 and earlier.

>>213771204
Lowering the barrier to entry is the worst thing that can happen to any artform.
When any prick with an iPhone can now make a movie, we end up with an ocean of slop.

It happened with electronic music too - now any idiot with a laptop can make "bangers" but nearly all of it is absolute garbage.

>>213770308 (OP)
talent, white chad nerds

>>213771216
It's not just digital, it's retarded flat lighting so they can do everything in post. Digital can be kino and aesthetically pleasing when done right

>>213770635
badass

>>213771204
I'd say it's both. Actual film adds that grain quality to it that just looks, well, like how movies should; but the lack of proper lighting is major.

I swear they just go into editing software and fuck with the contrast instead of hiring proper cinematographers.

>>213770696
>Shot on film
This is related but not in the way most people and probably you think. The constraints, pipeline and workflow of shooting on film is what often creates the "film look" but what's actually receiving the light through the lens ultimately doesn't matter much so long as you're under those constraints and using that kind of pipeline and workflow. There is a plethora of dogshit shot on film that looks abysmal and some stuff shot on digital of all kinds that tons of people would insist was shot on film if you just put a thick grain filter over it.

Go watch the trailer for the latest PTA film and look me in the eyes and tell me it's the use of filmstock that gives the look everyone pines for these days.

>>213770308 (OP)
Soul
>>213770635
Soulless

>>213770635
Kino

>>213771216
>The move from film to digital was the worst thing that ever happened to movies.
No. It was the rise of streaming services like YouTube and Netflix. People stopped going to the cinema, and buying physical media like DVDs, because of streaming services.

>>213770308 (OP)
Shot on film.

>>213770635
holy sovl

>>213770308 (OP)
>>213770635
>>213772193
>pretty soon the technology to have films look like this won't exist anymore just like technicolor
worst fuckin timeline bros...

>>213770308 (OP)
Thanks Obama!

>>213772221
>>213772747
>>213773085

>>213770635
I miss him like you wouldn't believe.

>>213773115
Why not? Change in camera tech?

>>213773165
jeets love the cgi sludge look

>>213773165
Jeets love puppets

>>213773003
Streaming services are only a problem for the business of film. The shift to digital was infintely worse for the craft of film.

>>213770308 (OP)
no indians were involved in making them

>>213772301
It's really bad in modern TV shows.
You get shows like Shogun that look like a first year student edited it. All the post processing lighting and fake depth of field effects make it look like a playstation cutscene. It's outrageously bad.

Not to mention it was all shot in vancouver on a green screen... instead of in Japan on location.

>>213770308 (OP)
they had really harsh overhead studio lights that made the actors sweaty. It made emotional moments feel more intense and let you see more than what you would in real life

Contemporary movies shot on film never seem to look it, at least to my layman eyes. Anyone have insight?

>>213770361
>>213770696
yeah
by the time you learn not to make errors working with film (which is expensive, not like digital which is free) you learn a lot of other stuff too and grow as a person
no wonder the slop avalanche: even if the script is good, the director has infinity takes (of which he will probably choose the most "low risk one), the director of photography doesn't bother because it can be fixed in post-production, the color grader has some presets/LUTs from the internet to solve the case quickly and can be back to smoking weed and sucking dicks etc

>>213773649
soul got sucked out of them in post-production
also nobody gives a shit anymore

>>213770308 (OP)
Real talent behind and in front of the camera.

>>213773649
No one knows how to light scenes anymore

>>213770308 (OP)

>>213774235
Is ok people they were good years of beating up the camera crane

most pre 2010s movies did not look good either
you're comparing a highlight reel to current slop

>>213774349
They all looked good, even if they were bad movies. There was a base level of professionalism.

>>213774460
Is called I didn't used my phone camera for all the close ups and fixed it in post

You, you know is you

It sounds ultra schizo but I almost believe there's a conspiracy to use media to condition people to forget what the sun and a sunny day look like. Both modern film and video games completely lack the ability to depict a sunny day. Everything looks like it's supposed to be 5pm on an overcast afternoon or something.

>>213774786
also nights with pitch black skies and harsh lighting... I mean I understand it looks like that to the camera if you are a tiktoker but otherwise it's a major step back from 1980-2010 movies where they were able to make nights look like how the human eye sees them
>>213770308 (OP)
>Why do pre 2010 movies look so much better and 'movie like' than the slop we're getting nowadays?
their market is either people who'd watch anything in cinema because it makes them feel human or people who watch movies on their smartphones

>>213770308 (OP)
They had courage to make a good movie and didn't think about money so much.

Just like how gsmes adopted the piss filter in the late 2000s, movies adopted the ash filter since the 2010s

>>213776127
both piss and ash filters are cool, if used appropriately (look at the sad state of O Brother Where Art Thou bluray which got rid of the piss filter... after being the first movie digitally edited in order to make the piss filter work)

>>213771149
Faded and desaturated. Looks nothing like reality. Like all films after 2010

>>213770635
peak

>>213774349
>most pre 2010s movies did not look good either
You're fucking retarded. A mid budget movie from the 90s looks better than the highest quality movie put out today. Film+the talent and craft needed to make film look good is better than the digital "just fix it in post" garbage.

Old ILM artists vs korean 3d studios or whatever. It’s not even digital vs film.

>>213776408
everybody was expecting the M to get lost in translation but in reality the L got lost in translation

>>213770812
Looks like a toy lol

>>213776107
you're an idiot if you actually believe that

>>213770308 (OP)
Obviously cause they were filmed in real locations not CG greenscreened.

>>213774209
How did this happen?