Does Anyone Get Turned Off By The "Look" Of New Movies?

[Timothy Hunter]

I think I'm going to have trouble articulating myself because I know very little about cinematography and because of that I can't accurately describe why I find movies from the 2010s and onwards to be so visually offputting. Most of them look too crisp and desaturated.

It might be an issue of film vs digital, but I somewhat doubt it because there are movies from the 2010s that are shot on film that are as aesthetically bland.

Color correcting and higher definition of recent movies could also be a factor.

[WebLurker]

I think it's always a case-by-case basis.

[Castle]

I think I'm going to have trouble articulating myself because I know very little about cinematography and because of that I can't accurately describe why I find movies from the 2010s and onwards to be so visually offputting. Most of them look too crisp and desaturated.

It might be an issue of film vs digital, but I somewhat doubt it because there are movies from the 2010s that are shot on film that are as aesthetically bland.

Color correcting and higher definition of recent movies could also be a factor.

Do you also notice that in the 2010s it was very easy for movies to start making over a billion? your question and the financial gains of many these movies are linked.

the reality is that these movies look crisp and desaturated because they are mass manufactured by various studios, many of these movies have no artistic cred. they stick to a formula from studios to appeal to the masses and they get the money in return. the other term they call it in films among the inner circles of film makers are processed movies.

if you notice, when you watch the smaller movies that cost less, especially during Awards season, those movies are more visually pleasing and makes you appreciate the art of cinema more even if you know nothing about it. However you just can just tell, this is a well done film.

I will never get over how a film like Arrival cost only 47 million dollars in budget but it is a far more beautiful shot film than many of the blockbuster films of the last 10 years that cost more than 200 million.

[thwhtGuardian]

Do you also notice that in the 2010s it was very easy for movies to start making over a billion? your question and the financial gains of many these movies are linked.

the reality is that these movies look crisp and desaturated because they are mass manufactured by various studios, many of these movies have no artistic cred. they stick to a formula from studios to appeal to the masses and they get the money in return. the other term they call it in films among the inner circles of film makers are processed movies.

if you notice, when you watch the smaller movies that cost less, especially during Awards season, those movies are more visually pleasing and makes you appreciate the art of cinema more even if you not nothing about it. However you just can just tell, this is a well done film.

I will never get over how a film like Arrival cost only 47 million dollars in budget but it is a far more beautiful shot film than many of the blockbuster films of the last 10 years that cost more than 200 million.

This has already been disproved multiple times you've posted it, why try to claim otherwise? There are only 47 movies to ever make more than a billion dollars, so it's not some common occurrence that can be poo-pooed.

[Username taken]

As someone that grew up in the pre-digital era, i much prefer the look of movies today over yester years.

But in general, it depends on who’s making the movies.

[CSTowle]

I don't like the jump-cut thing that's popular now in movies (part of the reason I'm not a fan of many Youtube videos/creators, though it's amplified 1000x on Youtube for absolutely no discernible reason). I also, for some reason and believe I must be in the minority on this one, can't make the leap to accepting CGI as part of whatever reality I'm looking at. To me it looks like the old Roger Rabbit live action interacting with cartoons. Interesting, but I'm not being transported to the realm they're trying to get me to. For me it's like watching a cartoon with live action actors inside, so explosions/epic and elaborate settings/even fight scenes with characters like Thanos have almost no emotional impact on me. Or, about the same as I'd have if Bugs Bunny were drawn more realistically and decided to duke it out with Chris Pratt. There are exceptions, but few and far between.

[Kirby101]

Name some of the films whose looks you don't like. Maybe also name some recent movies you do like.

[Kirby101]

the reality is that these movies look crisp and desaturated because they are mass manufactured by various studios,

desaturated means taking away saturation, i.e. making them less colorful, you know, like the Snyder films. The MCU movies, which you are obviously referring to, are a little oversaturated to turn up the color. Well some of them, like GOTG. Others, like the Captain America movies have a more subdued palate.

[Castle]

This has already been disproved multiple times you've posted it, why try to claim otherwise? There are only 47 movies to ever make more than a billion dollars, so it's not some common occurrence that can be poo-pooed.

47 is a lot. from 1998 to 2010, I doubt there were up to 10 films to gross over a billion. from what I can remember there was Titanic, Lord of the rings 3, pirates of the Caribbean 2, the dark knight and maybe 1 or 2 others but cant remember if it was up to 10 films that had passed a billion.


The billion dollar mark got a lot easier, but the film quality sharply did reduce, many of the films that were and are now grossing a billion don't have the same artistic film quality of Lord of the rings 3 or Titanic.

[thwhtGuardian]

47 is a lot. from 1998 to 2010, I doubt there were up to 10 films to gross over a billion. from what I can remember there was Titanic, Lord of the rings 3, pirates if the carribean 2, the dark knight and maybe 1 or 2 others but cant remember if it was up to 10 films that had passed a billion.


The billion dollar mark got a lot easier, but the film quality sharply did reduced, many of the films that were and are now grossing of a billion don't have the same artistic film quality of Lord of the rings 3 or Titanic.

...it's not a lot, and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. It's an objective fact and it's incredibly silly and just plain embarrassing to try and claim otherwise...especially for someone like yourself who continually claims to be a big film aficionado. But hey, maybe you're just bad at math and haven't really stopped to think about what you're actually saying so let me break it down for you:
Between 2010 to 2020 there were anywhere between 500 to 800 feature films that saw a theatrical release a year. I don't feel like tabulating the actual total, so let's just go with the minimum of 500 films a year which makes for 5000 films released during that decade...which means only .94% of those films made over a Billion dollars.

So tell me again how common it is for films to make that much?

You may feel like the quality isn't the same...but that's no where near an objective fact, and that billion dollar movies are so common that they are mass produced commodities is a flat out lie...and more than that is such an absurdly easily disprovable lie that I really can't think of a reason for why you'd even try to put it forward. How about trying a little intellectual honesty here and just for once admit that you were mistaken?

[Timothy Hunter]

Name some of the films whose looks you don't like. Maybe also name some recent movies you do like.

Disliked

Captain America Civil War
Little Women
Black Panther
Inception
It
The Farewell
The Place Beyond the Pines
The Kindergarten Teacher
You Were Never Really Here
We Need to Talk About Kevin
Inside Llewyn Davis

I disagree with Castle, I don't think the issue is big budget vs. small budget as many smaller, independent films have that dry, desaturated look to them. The more and more I think about it, my distate for the aesthetics of modern movies relates to color correcting, because I had the exact same problem with many older Asian and Scandinavian films because of their barren color pallet which seems more common place now in American films.

Liked

Uncut Gems
La La Land
Good Time
Blade Runner 2049
Mad Max Fury Road
Gravity
Nightcrawler

With the exception of Good Time and Nightcrawler I saw all the movies above in the liked category in the theaters. Also, I would note, that many of these movies, such as Good Time, Nightcrawler, Blade Runner 2049, Gravity, and La La Land either take place predominantly at night or in a dark environment.

[Castle]

...it's not a lot, and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. It's an objective fact and it's incredibly silly and just plain embarrassing to try and claim otherwise...especially for someone like yourself who continually claims to be a big film aficionado. But hey, maybe you're just bad at math and haven't really stopped to think about what you're actually saying so let me break it down for you:
Between 2010 to 2020 there were anywhere between 500 to 800 feature films that saw a theatrical release a year. I don't feel like tabulating the actual total, so let's just go with the minimum of 500 films a year which makes for 5000 films released during that decade...which means only .94% of those films made over a Billion dollars.

So tell me again how common it is for films to make that much?

You may feel like the quality isn't the same...but that's no where near an objective fact, and that billion dollar movies are so common that they are mass produced commodities is a flat out lie...and more than that is such an absurdly easily disprovable lie that I really can't think of a reason for why you'd even try to put it forward. How about trying a little intellectual honesty here and just for once admit that you were mistaken?

47 is a lot in a sea of 500-800 films that don't have budgets in the billions of 100s of millions or are not part of a block buster franchise of Marvel, Fast and Furious, DC, Star Wars, Transformers.

Also you may want to think again about quality, not all billion dollars films are equal in that. it is laughable to think every billion dollar film followed the same film process as lord of the rings or titanic or even Avatar.

Many of these billion dollar films unlike Avatar abused the film process in the early 2010s, since once Avatar became successful, many studios tried to trick people with 3D films. the only difference is Avatar's 3D film making quality was factually better because Cameron shot the movie in 3D.

The early billion films of the 2010s were just converting 2d films to 3d films, and maybe that was getting them pass the billion dollar gross, the quality of those 3d convert films were terrible, even James Cameron called them out, so yes. it is objectively true many of these billion dollar films don't have the same quality of some films like Avatar.

And I will not even bother talking about how many ground breaking film techniques lord of the rings broke that finally earned it that billion dollar gross in 2003, a journey that begun with The Fellowship Rings that grossed over 800 million, The Two Towers that grossed over 900 million and finally Return of the King grossing a billion. that was a series that built to it, mostly driven by the quality of the films.

[Tofali]

47 is a lot in a sea of 500-800 films that don't have budgets in the billions of 100s of millions.

How can it be a lot when you consider the estimation is annually?

[Cyke]

I think I'm going to have trouble articulating myself because I know very little about cinematography and because of that I can't accurately describe why I find movies from the 2010s and onwards to be so visually offputting. Most of them look too crisp and desaturated.

It might be an issue of film vs digital, but I somewhat doubt it because there are movies from the 2010s that are shot on film that are as aesthetically bland.

Color correcting and higher definition of recent movies could also be a factor.

I'm wondering if your issue is less about definition and more about motion smoothing/auto motion. I can't stand to watch Avengers with motion smoothing since it makes this big superhero epic look like it a TV sitcom filmed in front of a live studio audience, a la Golden Girls.

And Avengers is only the tip of the iceberg -- it's just the most popular movie I can think of that suffers terribly under motion smoothing. But if it's that setting then there isn't really much that modern filmmakers can do about it for now other than to tell companies not to use or have that setting.

[luprki]

Do you also notice that in the 2010s it was very easy for movies to start making over a billion? your question and the financial gains of many these movies are linked.

the reality is that these movies look crisp and desaturated because they are mass manufactured by various studios, many of these movies have no artistic cred. they stick to a formula from studios to appeal to the masses and they get the money in return. the other term they call it in films among the inner circles of film makers are processed movies.

if you notice, when you watch the smaller movies that cost less, especially during Awards season, those movies are more visually pleasing and makes you appreciate the art of cinema more even if you know nothing about it. However you just can just tell, this is a well done film.

I will never get over how a film like Arrival cost only 47 million dollars in budget but it is a far more beautiful shot film than many of the blockbuster films of the last 10 years that cost more than 200 million.

Yep, it seems like the lower budget movies are better looking, probably because they are not full of CGI. The MCU and the DCEU has the worst visuals, because they is just too much CGI.