Personally, I feel like context is very important. Wicked is a story that is meant to revise certain notions we associate with America’s first fairytale. In a sense, this story is asking us to take off our emerald-tinted glasses. Wicked is already very grand as is; having a (slightly) more grounded look feels very adequate for a cinematic version of the story.
Sorry but this is a reach. The world we live in is vibrant and varied and Wicked presented a slop of lens flares and backlit sets. There’s just no excuse
The film is VERY colorful, that's not the issue. Fans need to stop pretending it doesnt have a major lighting issue though, so many times throughout the film, it wasnt as noticable in the cinema until i finally watched it at home and saw what everyone was talking about, good examples are during the dancing through life sequences and during Arianas big dance number during popular, and during Defying gravity when they have the light behind elphaba in the sky, major overexposure.. and this is from someone that LOVED the movie.. the lighting was terrible in some scenes and that is it's only flaw. 9.5/10, taking .5 for obvious lighting issues
Glad to see more people talking about the cinematography. I think Wicked is extremely modern in a good way, and the stereoscopic conversion added so much to the look of the film for me. Jon Chu got his start directing in native 3D after all! His sense of depth is really incredible and it still shows in his converted films (GI Joe 2 even got significantly delayed for the stereo conversion).
I cannot believe they saw the dancing through life footage and didn’t immediately correct the lighting. The whole thing is a big oof. I understand that these choices were intentional, but If you try something and it doesn’t work out you should accept it and try something different
I have no experience/knowledge whatsoever (except being british), but from listening to the commentary about how cold it was in england while they were filming, part of me wonders if the overexposure (and consequent 'desaturation') came from trying to make the sky look brighter/less grey - especially in scenes like 4:05
A lot of the day scenes looked washed/boring. But they nailed most of the dark indoors and night scenes. Dancing Through Life scene looks horrible. I cannot believe that Mamma Mia looked more colorful with half of the budget.
Yeah, when they were shooting in direct sunlight, they got some of the lens flaring issues I talked about. And the way the lighting was structured in the dancing through life scene made it so that they were almost exclusively shooting into a bright light.
It was not ugly. The problem that I have is just with the storytelling. I didn't like that they are stretching out a three hour musical into two three hour movies. We only needed one movie. They adapted the Sound of Music into a single three hour movie. They had to make changes because what works on stage doesn't always translate to the big screen and it was one of the greatest movies ever made. I took my mom to see a professional big budget stage production and as good as it was I still preferred the movie. This story only needs one film.
I really don't like this trend of "expensive movies/TV shows should be swamped in glare, shot with the shallowest depth of field possible (not so much of an issue here in the wides), and with heavily raised blacks" look. All the Marvel films have it these days, way too many TV shows. They've dropped that look for the latest season of Doctor Who, and while that show might be a bit uneven it looks markedly better for not feeling like it's shot through a perpetual polaroid filter. I get that the Michael Bay era of hyper-contrast might have gone out of vogue, but I feel like there's got to be a middle ground of allowing more films to have contrast. Some of the best looking content out there I feel is the one that bucks the trend of what people have decided looks 'kino'. Narcos is a few years old now, but I recall finding that show using natural feeling levels of colour and contrast and a deeper focus really appealing (making me feel like I'm actually in the humid green hills of Columbia) back when shows were more and more feeling more like one continuous dream sequence with how they shoot them. Though maybe when this is out of fashion once again I'll end up being nostalgic for it then.
Personally, I feel like context is very important. Wicked is a story that is meant to revise certain notions we associate with America’s first fairytale. In a sense, this story is asking us to take off our emerald-tinted glasses. Wicked is already very grand as is; having a (slightly) more grounded look feels very adequate for a cinematic version of the story.
Yeah, good insight! I definitely think thats what they were going for.
@ side note: this video was entertaining af 🔥
@j.p.o.s 🙏 Thanks!
Sorry but this is a reach. The world we live in is vibrant and varied and Wicked presented a slop of lens flares and backlit sets. There’s just no excuse
@ ok.
The film is VERY colorful, that's not the issue. Fans need to stop pretending it doesnt have a major lighting issue though, so many times throughout the film, it wasnt as noticable in the cinema until i finally watched it at home and saw what everyone was talking about, good examples are during the dancing through life sequences and during Arianas big dance number during popular, and during Defying gravity when they have the light behind elphaba in the sky, major overexposure.. and this is from someone that LOVED the movie.. the lighting was terrible in some scenes and that is it's only flaw. 9.5/10, taking .5 for obvious lighting issues
"Monkey. Gorgeous." Hell yeah
Glad to see more people talking about the cinematography. I think Wicked is extremely modern in a good way, and the stereoscopic conversion added so much to the look of the film for me. Jon Chu got his start directing in native 3D after all! His sense of depth is really incredible and it still shows in his converted films (GI Joe 2 even got significantly delayed for the stereo conversion).
I actually love these so much!!!
So great to see appreciation for tiny moments most people wouldn’t even think about
I cannot believe they saw the dancing through life footage and didn’t immediately correct the lighting. The whole thing is a big oof. I understand that these choices were intentional, but If you try something and it doesn’t work out you should accept it and try something different
I still don't agree though. The scene "works" so well that it's most peoples' standout scene. It's lit from the outdoors.
The colors do look washed out in general. The lack of contrast makes my eyes tired pretty instantly
This is a great video I’m shocked it doesn’t have tons of views
I'm saying
HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO GET IT IN DAVINCI? I also bought it and I have no clue!!
I have no experience/knowledge whatsoever (except being british), but from listening to the commentary about how cold it was in england while they were filming, part of me wonders if the overexposure (and consequent 'desaturation') came from trying to make the sky look brighter/less grey - especially in scenes like 4:05
Interesting!! It’s possible
A lot of the day scenes looked washed/boring. But they nailed most of the dark indoors and night scenes. Dancing Through Life scene looks horrible.
I cannot believe that Mamma Mia looked more colorful with half of the budget.
Yeah, when they were shooting in direct sunlight, they got some of the lens flaring issues I talked about. And the way the lighting was structured in the dancing through life scene made it so that they were almost exclusively shooting into a bright light.
What does the budget have to do with colour lmao???
Don't say this a lot, but I was here before your channel blows up.
🙏🙏🙏🙏
It was not ugly. The problem that I have is just with the storytelling. I didn't like that they are stretching out a three hour musical into two three hour movies. We only needed one movie. They adapted the Sound of Music into a single three hour movie. They had to make changes because what works on stage doesn't always translate to the big screen and it was one of the greatest movies ever made. I took my mom to see a professional big budget stage production and as good as it was I still preferred the movie. This story only needs one film.
lol the BTS photos look better
What’s next?
An MCU movie ?
I really don't like this trend of "expensive movies/TV shows should be swamped in glare, shot with the shallowest depth of field possible (not so much of an issue here in the wides), and with heavily raised blacks" look. All the Marvel films have it these days, way too many TV shows. They've dropped that look for the latest season of Doctor Who, and while that show might be a bit uneven it looks markedly better for not feeling like it's shot through a perpetual polaroid filter. I get that the Michael Bay era of hyper-contrast might have gone out of vogue, but I feel like there's got to be a middle ground of allowing more films to have contrast. Some of the best looking content out there I feel is the one that bucks the trend of what people have decided looks 'kino'. Narcos is a few years old now, but I recall finding that show using natural feeling levels of colour and contrast and a deeper focus really appealing (making me feel like I'm actually in the humid green hills of Columbia) back when shows were more and more feeling more like one continuous dream sequence with how they shoot them. Though maybe when this is out of fashion once again I'll end up being nostalgic for it then.
There are several ugly frames in this film. Whole sequences in fact 😅
then u woke up LMFAOOO
@ here comes the delusion