Thread 214076031

Why can't modern movies look this good?

>>214076031 (OP)
Now post the MCU spider-man flicks

>>214076031 (OP)
These movies aged like milk

Tobey Maquire and Kirsten Dunst are both shitty actors and their 'characters' were bland and boring. The plot is non existing.
The action is also meh.

>>214076031 (OP)
One hypothesis is that the VFX team wants flat lighting for flexibility. I hate it so much.

they're all shot in green screen warehouses and use digital cameras, they also don't play with the composite very much

I don't care how "good" it looks, nothing can mask the ugliness of these movies' hateful message.

>>214076031 (OP)
The latest MI movie looks good. Too bad the movie itself was wank.

>>214076055
Aww, gonna cry?

>>214076074
India.

>>214076055
they aged like wine considering there has been zero spidey kino that has come close to competing with the OG Raimi shit

>>214076159
kek

Dr Strange 2 looks the same because it's Raimi and you hate it.

Film was better

>>214078744
This really activates my almonds because I am the same way about Evil Dead and Drag Me to Hell. I love the Evil Dead trilogy, but at the same time I think Drag Me to Hell is kind of shit. It just doesn't land the same and it feels like Great Value Evil Dead to me.

>>214078744
Doctor Strange 2 was extremely rushed and it was not written by Raimi at all iirc. He jumped on the toilet after the shit was already leaving the asshole.

>>214076055
You need to leave.

>>214076031 (OP)
Made by actual filmmakers, not soulless corporate Yes-men "directing" movies written by AI.

>>214076295
>>214077274
>>214080106
>defending capeshit

and yes, they are better than other spiderman movies, but still shit

>>214076055
CGI wise sure. Acting and directorially, they shit all over the modern films (as does almost everything post 2004 or so).

>>214080203
pre*

>>214078757
It's hardly just the fact that it was shot on film, that removes all the responsibility from the people involved with these new dogshit movies.

It had talent and passion behind it. People that knew how to shoot, how to light, how to frame. You could make a new spider-man and have it look good if you hired people that knew what they were doing and allowed the production to spend time on it instead of everything being a fucking green screen. But of course that won't happen because the whole pipeline of movie making is fucked

>>214080186
no, actually. They're iconic for a reason.

>>214080583
That looks worse than some car insurance commercial.

>>214078744
They didn't give Raimi any real control over the movie.

They don't make kinos like they used to.

spiderman looks like shit now

>>214081189
Based Sony forcing scenes like this into the movie. Raimi wanted more musical montages and scenes of Peter crying.

>>214081018
iconic among virgins, maybe.

>>214081070
>>214080059
The whole movie is Raimi's style. You've just reached the age where you're becoming a cynical fuck. This video isn't even all the references.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtD_OiY3Kx4&pp=ygUTRHIgc3RyYW5nZSAyICByYWltaQ%3D%3D

I would do anything to receive a lapdance from Zendaya MJ, I wear nothing but the spiderman mask and my briefs. And she grinds on my tent. I want the briefs wet with precum. And then for her to pull it out through the slit and wrap her thong strap around the head and grind up and down making the foreskin retract and pull forward with her thong. Yeah. Id do anything for that.

Good lighting is lost technology.
It's one of the main determining factors whether something looks good or shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glC7jacXZRE

>>214081061
>That looks worse than some car insurance commercial.
I genuinely don't know what's worse, looking like an insurance commercial or looking worse than one. Because Beetlejuice 2 looked like a commercial and I think I hated it more for that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VaqrdWX1ZI
Raimi's Spider-Man always seemed too DULL and power rangers adjacent, and it's burdened with a total lack of romance (critics are right, his whole trilogy is cuckery) but the fact that it's on film means it will have a long shelf life.

>Imagine “Superman” with a Clark Kent more charismatic than the Man of Steel, and you’ll understand how “Spider-Man” goes wrong. Tobey Maguire is pitch-perfect as the socially retarded Peter Parker, but when he becomes Spider-Man, the film turns to action sequences that zip along like perfunctory cartoons. Not even during Spidey’s first experimental outings do we feel that flesh and blood are contending with gravity.
>The other super-being in the movie is the Green Goblin, who surfs the skies in jet-shoes. He, too, looks like a drawing being moved quickly around a frame, instead of like a character who has mastered a daring form of locomotion. He’s handicapped, too, by his face, which looks like a high-tech action figure with a mouth that doesn’t move. I understand why it’s immobile (we’re looking at a mask), but I’m not persuaded; the movie could simply ordain that the Green Goblin’s exterior shell has a face that’s mobile, and the character would become more interesting.
>I have one question about the Peter Parker character: Does the movie go too far with his extreme social paralysis? Peter tells Mary Jane he just wants to be friends. “Only a friend?” she repeats. “That’s all I have to give,” he says. How so? Impotent? Spidey-sense has skewed his sexual instincts? Afraid his hands will get stuck?

>>214081220
Roger Ebert thought the CG was bad in 2002.

because of the volume and arri alexa

>>214076031 (OP)
>close-up
>close-up
>close-up
>close-up
>close-up
>super close-up
>close-up

Why is every movie made after 1970 like this? I know the answer is pan n scan.

>>214081220
I literally don't remember this scene.

>>214081985
Some of the sets were sort of flat.

>>214081985
>>214081773
It's almost comical sometimes how praised certain films are for filming the actor's heads. Of course there is 'dramatic' lighting improvement and it looks better on film, but is this a great example of cinematography?

>>214082453
I'd argue it's not using the best examples of its cinematography because it's just stamping a wal-mart portrait shot over a mostly flat background (one of which in the top left actually makes use of the longest axis principle but in an artificial way).

>>214078744
I did like some aspects of it, zombie Strange is the peak of the character even if the movie as a whole wasn't written by Raimi

>>214082453
>reddit

>>214082694
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-9GRbDI3Ss
>the wink
yeah I'm thinking kino

>>214082962
when did capeshit get so awful? Iron man movies werent like this

>>214082694
As much as I like Raimi, the cinematography and stylistics are the only things about this flick that are his. And the original plans with Derrickson sounded like a better movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXdyrw9Wpa8