I remember the 1960s Star Trek and Doctor Who had bad special effects, but had the story and acting that made up for it. The story made it real; now we have special effects with AI and supercomputers, but how good is the story? Writers and actors make the difference.
They are not banned but they often don't work well because few commenters sit and watch for 30 mins or so of video before commenting. A text summary can work better.
I love the thread about Barry Lyndon. I’ve seen it for the first time recently and it is clear there is no talent, or rather no money, to create something so earnest and opinionated. The problem isn’t film, isn’t digital, isn’t the ironic dialogue of modern blockbuster, isn’t lack of art sense, it’s all of the above. It is clear that film, and any other creation today, is soulless, aims at the common denominator, there is no strong opinion, no auteurship. You see that in blockbuster film, blockbuster game design, blockbuster art even. In software.
Call me old and grumpy but there is a real sense that this data- and money-driven approach is the lowest, most sterile point for artistry and creativity. ‘Art for art’s sake’ is the antithesis of the relentless pursuit of revenue and efficiency. You do not have art when you need not to offend anyone but sell the most units. When art is just another product out of the industrial line.
If one is shooting film, then they have to make visual choices during the shoot. Shooting with high range digital cameras and grading it later allows for delaying the decision.
The problem (IMO) is that more stakeholders then get involved in deciding what the look of the film should be. Good looking films make bold visual choices, and bold decisions rarely come from a committee.
I have the opposite reaction in many cases. When we switched to 4k Blu-ray, I found it difficult to get immersed in many movies because they mostly looked like I was watching the shooting of a movie. Everything looked like a newsroom. Increases in fidelity don't make things more real, they uncover bad acting. My preference was to watch 720p24 movies on a plasma TV (or theatres back in those days)--I wasn't looking for a VR-like experience, rather a visual book reading. Another really weird one was The Hobbit at 48fps.
Expectations change, now 1080p24 seems better--but I suspect this has a lot to do with compression. Even with 4k a typical level of compression on streaming platforms takes away the texture and feeling of a scene.
For me it's mostly the characters and the narratives that feel "less real" than they used to. Something about seeing the same actor, in the same role and doing the same things, but 30 years older doesn't really sell the realism. Similarly, a new actor in an old role doesn't really either. We've lost a lot of novelty, real life is much more spontaneous whereas movies are increasingly contrived.
15 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 42.8 ms ] threadBut I was young - and young people are visual but not aware of subtlety.
I also thought the original batman was an action show. Decades later I watched it as an adult and it was a comedy, and hilarious.
You get Chris Pratt in to play "Chris Pratt in this situation".
60's Trek was cheesy, but at least they tried.
Call me old and grumpy but there is a real sense that this data- and money-driven approach is the lowest, most sterile point for artistry and creativity. ‘Art for art’s sake’ is the antithesis of the relentless pursuit of revenue and efficiency. You do not have art when you need not to offend anyone but sell the most units. When art is just another product out of the industrial line.
The problem (IMO) is that more stakeholders then get involved in deciding what the look of the film should be. Good looking films make bold visual choices, and bold decisions rarely come from a committee.
Expectations change, now 1080p24 seems better--but I suspect this has a lot to do with compression. Even with 4k a typical level of compression on streaming platforms takes away the texture and feeling of a scene.
Visionary directors like the cohen brothers, spielberg, scorsese, and the writers of that era have just given way to blandness it seems.
10,20 years ago you had the Matrix and Forrest Gump.
Today you have, for example, Jay Kelly and Die My Dear. Well produced soap operas. These movies are literally just...a run of the mill story.
And Im not cherry picking.
Vanishingly small number of movies today seem to have a unique vision or be compelling..at least to me.
They even managed to turn Star Wars from a space opera into a space soap opera.