In this video we talk bout the visual look of sequels and why modern movies look different. Check out Artlist - bit.ly/movielu... Our Movie LUTs & LR Profiles - movieluts.com
The AI voices in the sponsor ad all sounded more natural than the AI voice being used as the main narrator. Maybe you should actually use the product you’re advertising.
Digital cameras capture a higher dynamic range and dps/colorists seem to be more concerned with preserving that than having any drama in the image. There seems to be a fear of real contrast. When you combine that with lighting trends leaning more naturalistic things end up looking flat and dull.
Modern cameras have all the latitude needed to create any desired look they want, including full simulation of just about any film stock, but it seems like most modern cinematographers these days are preferring less dramatic contrast. Aesthetic tastes do change over time and they're cyclical. Just look at the era of film noir compared to much of the mainstream films released in the later 60s and 70s. Films like Jaws had pretty flat lighting through most of it, especially during the day and in interiors.
One of the most insightful things I heard was from Erik Messerschmidt (it was on a Q&A for Ferrari, he's done a lot of work with Fincher). He said to effectively light a set for a digital camera you could get away with just using a candle, but lighting it like that will make a big difference in how the image ends up looking, so he generally still wants a scene to be lit like how it was done for analog. I think it's also worth checking out Steve Yedlin's analysis on why film looks like film and how to emulate it, I think he succeeded really well with Knives Out.
We are in a time with the best technology and advances for filmmaking, lighting tools exist, color grading software exist, the best cameras and digital formats exist, it's quite sad that most of the films we have lack a proposal artistic
This was incredibly noticeable in the Mean Girls remake. The 2024 version it all looked so drab and flat whereas the 2004 version where the colors were much brighter and popped off the screen.
3:10 I completely disagree tbh. David Fincher's digital movies are obviously great looking, but they are undeniably digital. Zodiac specifically is one of the smoothest, glossiest movies of its time.
Natural film contrast vs the higher dynamic range of digital......and a lack of courage to add contrast to the 'detailed but flat' in the fear of losing that resolution, even when the look/mood is more important.
@@movieluts Easy: Digital color grading. Please people read ORANGE AND TEAL - HOLLYWOOD PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS. I can't believe my eyes anymore. Actors look like wax puppets due to filters and are look like oranges with faces. How does nobody complain about this? The skin tones look ridiculous! But I guess a generation that is desensitized due to fake and cheap looking Insta filters just won't complain. I mean people nowadays like to listen to music on their phone speakers and seem to have no problem with that. I am not even that generation that paid so much attention to their hi-fi systems. My dad's generation did. People need to sharpen their ears and eyes again. It can't be that this trend goes unchallenged.
They are looking at the scopes too much rather than what looks good. If you look at the film the highlights are blown out in the shadows are crushed. Who cares it looks amazing and dramatic.
One of the most insightful things I heard was from Erik Messerschmidt (it was on a Q&A for Ferrari, he's done a lot of work with Fincher). He said to effectively light a set for a digital camera you could get away with just using a candle, but lighting it like that will make a big difference in how the image ends up looking, so he generally still wants a scene to be lit like how it was done for analog. I think it's also worth checking out Steve Yedlin's analysis on why film looks like film and how to emulate it, I think he succeeded really well with Knives Out.
I've already heard from a cinematographer who worked for Netflix original productions that they ask that the image not have too much contrast because of HDR and better viewing on mobile
This is all great but it's not just about the photography. It's also the screenwriting, dialogue, and acting. Look at Alien vs Prometheus, or Top Gun vs TG: Maverick. The flow of dialogue has changed. Naturalistic acting has been replaced by more staged and rigid performances. The characters in Alien looked and felt like blue collar workers. In Prometheus, Charlize Theron performed like a tragic Shakespearean figure. Also, everyman and everywoman actors have been phased out in favor of a talent pool of mostly very photogenic performers. Look at the cast of Twister vs Twisters. This all has a very strong influence on the look and feel of a movie, moreso than DI in my opinion. There are plenty of great movies shot on digital that have an old school feel. One great example is Thirteen Lives.
Prometheus is good. It’s more polished because in original Alien it was just some workers. In Prometheus weyland is actually with them so of course it’d be more sleek.
I hate “orange & teal” look! It’s not “visually appealing”, but shitty and annoying. It has very limited set of colors, black color is not neutral but dark-blue. In some cases it looks like duotone image. Sure it can be used as artistic technique in some exotic cases, but using it because it’s trendy...
@@Bruno_fyi I like limited use of A.i. - I use bing image creator to make abstract art, not the glossy plastic looking stuff. But, I dislike A.i. voices, considering Humans have far more nuance and personality when doing voice overs.
The #1 reason they look different is the rise of digital filters. They're a bit of a crutch. If they're having a hard time tying the CGI plates to the live-action comp plates, they just crank up the filter. It also tends to crush black levels and squeeze a lot of the color out of the shot.
I think this "camera as a data collection device" perspective is what drives David Fincher (not the first category of directors). Because "analog" things (what we used to call just "things") have their unique qualities and these qualities take part in each step of the process. When viewing from a data/digital perspective, these qualities become noises, imperfections, "effects". As a director, you used to have to decide which part of the visual (and audio) are important while these qualities exist, for better or worse. Now when you can eliminate nearly all of these and "add them back in the post", you just eliminate a source of reality. In other words, the David Fincher perspective is more like an animator's perspective.
When you're engaged in a well-crafted story, people don't have time to nit-pick. Just like people don't often complain about bad Sfx in movies from the past.
@@NelsonStJames Agree that story is the most important but great if you can also maintain peak quality as it's still a visual medium for storytelling. For your sfx point, 20 years ago sfx also looks better, for example LOTR vs The Hobbit, Terminator 2 vs Dark Fate, Jurassic Park vs Jurassic World, The Matrix vs Matrix Resurrections, Independence Day vs Resurgence, U571 vs Greyhound, Twister vs Twisters, The Thing 1982 vs The Thing 2011, The Abyss vs Underwater, Raiders of the Lost Ark vs Dial of Destiny, Road Warrior vs Furiosa, Underworld vs Underworld: Blood Wars, Dante's Peak vs San Andreas.
Film has great color and built in contrast. Many of today's films are in a de facto competition for highlight retention and shadow detail, thereby lowering contrast and flattening the image. You can raise contrast and color in digital, but it's still 1's and 0's. Anyone who grew up watching films shot on film can see the difference (I'll admit that difference is narrowing though). How you light on film and choose different stocks will vary these elements a bit, but there's a natural tonality (from bright to dark) and color rendition that is inherent to film (as well as mechanical shutter application in movement), which (pre-digital intermediate) was mostly baked in at the time of photography (the original Gladiator is a great example, lensed by John Mathieson). Sure, there was bleach bypass and slight temperature variations you could do in the lab, but what you shot was mostly what you got. The lighting was a key element in how the final image looked, in addition to lens aperture and focal length choices. Built into film was a great tonal curve that brought beautiful contrast (the curve from light to dark) and authentic colors that were rich and vivid. I don't care what anyone says (even the digital vs. film Steve Yedlin test), digital still cannot match film aesthetically. As far as the other elements (story, composition, editing, etc.) these remain a common fixture and an argument can be made about the quality level of those skill sets in contemporary films versus those in the past. But for visual quality alone, there is something unique about film that digital simply does not match in it's current state. This is why most of the greats (Tarantino, Spielberg, Anderson, Nolan, etc.) still shoot it, because they have a keen eye that sees the difference. Those who don't do so because the advantages of digital (ease of use, immediate dailies, security in image acquisition, etc.) offset the visual quality differences to them personally. This is a key reason stated by Deakins for why he chooses digital. However, remember that Tarantino, Spielberg and others are directors who are in charge and can decide what they are going to shoot on. Deakins as a cinematographer is a hired crew member. Sure, there are times he can apply leverage to shoot on film, but for most productions these days, he's going to be expected to shoot on digital or have to pass on a number of projects along the way. In many ways, he's force to adapt. If PT Anderson or Nolan want to shoot film, they can every time out.
Lol fair point. I think it actually doesn't matter though. What made the TNG era work so well was how much the action was fueled by a combination of imagination and suspense. Listening to the bridge crew communicate to each other about what weapons were being used and how the shields performed activated our imagination. We were going off suspense instead of visual spectacle. And it simply worked. They could have done all that with a moody and colorful look, and it still would have worked. Some of the best moments in Star Trek took place in dimly lit quarters where two characters just talked to each other like something out of The Godfather.
Same but luckily we've recently had Oppenheimer, Twisters, Challengers, The Bikeriders, The Fabelmans, Cuckoo, Anora, Nosferatu and Strange Darling to give us that level of cinematic quality again and avoid the disposable, actors-doing-cosplay look of digital.
@@vinagredelmal7717 I think it's the other way around 10 years ago, a lot of movies were shot on film before digital took over for good in 2015 Even blockbusters like TASM2 and the first Avengers were shot on film
Also the info on the video is wrong, saying vfx is bad is a wrong statement. Hell all the moves have some level of cgi or vfx. IT get's bad when its rushed and people notice it... Look at Fincher films they too have vfx but in some cases its so good that people dont know its there. Stop shaming vfx compared to practical... We use practical mostly for reference and a lot of touch ups are done in there using vfx...
Instead of film, they use cheap looking digital. Also, CGI galore, OTT color grading with the teal and yellow, and even teal and yellow set dressing and costumes. Most movies today look boring and bland, and don't look cinematic anymore. Boring lighting too.
Lost me at Glay-diator. Stopped watching. If you can't say the name of the movie right, I don't trust a single word you say afterwards. Especially an easy title/word like Gladiator.
“To evoke the feel of Ancient Sparta ….” (colour grade of “300” movie) - yeah - well - were any of us around 2, 300 years, approx., years ago to know what the “feel” of Ancient Sparta would look like 😅 ???
NOBODY really cares about a movies visual style anymore. They don't care while shooting and they care even less during post. They just color change the same flat "LOG" image they get from shooting, cropping it to this god awful modern "TV Show" Aspect Ratio that is 2,20:1 or something like and makes absolutely no sense... and they just browse through their NLE grading presets and stick with that. Everything looks boring, flat and sterile. They don't even bother properly lighting a scene. It's crazy... In the early 2000s and 2010s, when they still shot a lot on film, which has incredible dynamic range and doesn't suffer from digital "clipping" in the highlights, they used to colorgrade everything in a way to make things look cold and digital and boosting the contrast or just making everything look like going through a Bleached Bypass treatment. For "Terminator Salvation"they even actually treated the ACTUAL filmstock and didn't do it digitally. Nowdays with digital Cinecamera sensors having a pretty good dynamic range too, they seem to do everything to keep all that and avoiding contrasts at all costs. Everything looks the same... this new age of flatness it just as boring as the constant over-use of "Teal and Orange".
We should have never moved to 4K. Because now because there is so much detail there is given, no attempt is made to make anything pop, as older movies were made to be seen on CRT tvs, where if any detail needed to pop, you had to be intentional with it. Now its just all there and drab, and I hate it.
Movies have always been shot in 4k (native 4k) since the 1950s and celluloid also has higher resolution than digital (equivalent to 8k). That's why older movies like Alien, Vertigo, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, The Emerald Forest, Unforgiven, 2001, The Thin Red Line, Horseman on the Roof, Blade Runner, Empire Strikes Back, A Walk in the Clouds, The Hunger, T2, Cliffhanger, Seven, Paris Texas, The Thing, Amelie, Legends of the Fall, Titanic, Blade, Malena, Raiders of the Lost Ark are still the best looking, most timeless looking movies of all time. That's why Nolan, PTA, Eggers, Guadagnino, Tarantino, Shyamalan, Spielberg, JT Mollner and Jeff Nichols still choose to shoot with celluloid today, even though it adds more expense and more shoot days to the schedule.
@@thetalentof that is simply not true. 35mm has no resolution. moreover all the prints shown in theaters were were copies of a copy, and the quality was not as pristine as the 4K remasters we see today. more over these 4K remasters often show things that were never meant to be seen and often have revisionist color grades or aggressive detail scrubbing DNR or replaced sound mixes. resolution itself is so overrated, its everything else that matters
@@stephenmeshotto Film is native 4k and can be scanned to the equivalent of 8k if being compared to digital. Shooting on 70mm as Nolan often does is considered to be equivalent to 18k digital resolution.
I think you should just outright state that you use AI voice if can't/ don't want to use your real voice. The content is interesting and the video is well edited
Right? Cherry picking to invent and explain trends that aren't really there. It was a bizarre watch really. Lots of regurgitation of internet mob opinions and a few original ones that make no sense. Completely lost me when he started to put the blame on VFX. Even the name of the channel made me thing it was going to be a great find. What a letdown.
Film looks like the real world, can be enhanced to have a dream like feel; digital looks like you’re watching something on your iPhone. Waxy, sterile and videoy.
Cold, lifeless, devoid of personality AI writing and voiceover. Unfortunate. UA-camrs can do better but they choose the quick and easy path. Thumbs down on this one.
I don´t think, that digital is the problem. Yes, 35mm makes film look like film, but it´s expensive and giving only rich people the opportunity to try this artform doesn´t produce better cinema. Digital gave many young, poor people the instrument, to express themselves. And they create better, more nuanced stuff, than modern cinema. I think, the problem nowadays lies in the constant sequalization of movies from the past, the smartphonification of watching films on way to small screens and the lack of creativity. But what do I know? I am not a AI, writing the script for this kind of videos, I am just a mere human, inferior to the supremecy of the all-knowing maschines....
I'm sure people will find all sorts of bad things to say about the new Gladiator but the sun thing is just stupid as it isn't being soften, the sun is just in a different angle.
So, it was a good topic, but there's a lot of issues and misinformation particularly the entire section on lighting. The second half is filled with so many half truths and falsehoods there's way to much wrong to refute it all.
This video is excellent. I love this topic. As a kid i always thought to myself “why do movies and tv look so different if they are both made with cameras” 🎥
Easy: Digital color grading. Please people read ORANGE AND TEAL - HOLLYWOOD PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS. I can't believe my eyes anymore. Actors look like wax puppets due to filters and are look like oranges with faces. How does nobody complain about this? The skin tones look ridiculous! But I guess a generation that is desensitized due to fake and cheap looking Insta filters just won't complain. I mean people nowadays like to listen to music on their phone speakers and seem to have no problem with that. I am not even that generation that paid so much attention to their hi-fi systems. My dad's generation did. People need to sharpen their ears and eyes again. It can't be that this trend goes unchallenged.
I'm sorry but I'm so sick of Tarantino thinking he's some savant because he clings to "film only" -- meanwhile, his films are streaming on various DIGITAL outlets. Why doesn't he rail against that? There are far better filmmakers using film better than he is. Look at his Hateful Eight... "Glorious 70mm!!!" -- then 90% of the film takes place indoors in a house with overhead light that looks like a UFO is above them. He's so up his own a$$, ripping off obscure films then repurposing them as his own 'snap zoom' techniques or the various spaghetti westerns he rips off. And, film aside... the man can't tell a story. He doesn't know how to end a film without, "UH... everyone just acts out of character, shoots everyone, the end." It's childish. He has some great dialogue but that was like the late 90s era of filmmaking, you have to be able to TELL A STORY... whether it's shot on 70mm or an iPhone. I'd much rather watch anything Fincher's made than what QT puts out. A great use of film is La La Land, the colors pop, the art direction is amazing.
No it was not a good fit for Mad Max. It's so red the skin tones look completely unnatural. It just looks fake. The old Mad Max movies look so much better.
And yes please dont forget another most important thing. Every god damn video we see, we keep seeing videos day in and out nowadays, it's being cinematic. UA-cam shorts, documentary, marriage, kids anything and everything is being made into "Cinematic" To hell with this trend. So our mind has now forgotten the correlation of movies vs normal video which we used to have....pre 2000 where it was a crystal clear distinction between a cinema and normal video. Today, we have ultra uber overload of videos and most being "cinematic" has made the charm of cinema less and less. A interview being conducted is cinematic, a bday invitation, pre wedding, you name it, its all freaking cinematic, well close enough. The value of the term cinematic has been down the drains. So it serves no purpose for the filmmakers to crave and achieve that or give it much importance. I hate this "cinematic" trend and culture. Cinema was supposed to be a cinema where i want to pay and watch something that's created for that purpose. Not a god damn interview and DIY project video THAT'S turning out to be cinematic as well.
I hate the modern look. The color grading is atrocious, everyone wants to tell everything with color. Like with Dark Waters "everything is teal because of the connection to sickness, you know? The contaminated water?". Yeah no shit Sherlock, the movie is literally called Dark Waters and is about a company contaminating the water, which we see right at the start of the fucking movie. Of course another problem is stock but still, movie makers either don't learn color and light anymore or they have unlearned it like Ridley Scott. His Napoleon movie was not just from a narrative standpoint bad his cinematography was also bad in terms of look. And that's true for so, so many others. I can't count how many hospitals and prisons look green in movies, how many night scenes are strikingly blue, how often I see a harsh blue-orange contrast. It looks incredbly stupid and basically robs the media from it's color. It's not artistic, it's more pretentious. "I am such a great artist, I make my whole picture blue, because it's winter, you know? And blue is a cool color!". Or "everything is yellow, because.. we are in Mexico and the sun is shining a lot and it's warm!". It's not just sequels, it's everywhere. Movie makers think color grading is what makes them artists and the result is really awful looking movies and series and ads and so on.
Glay-diator
The Batmun
boo-urns...?!?
Hmm, I like it. I'll allow it, dumb A.I. voice man.
Beat me to it.
Glaydiator Too
The AI voices in the sponsor ad all sounded more natural than the AI voice being used as the main narrator. Maybe you should actually use the product you’re advertising.
Can't even pronounce Gladiator correctly
@@vegasgamedude4379I'm just glayde they tried
or skip ai
Digital cameras capture a higher dynamic range and dps/colorists seem to be more concerned with preserving that than having any drama in the image. There seems to be a fear of real contrast. When you combine that with lighting trends leaning more naturalistic things end up looking flat and dull.
Its either too naturalistic/bright or too dark/cinematic
Modern cameras have all the latitude needed to create any desired look they want, including full simulation of just about any film stock, but it seems like most modern cinematographers these days are preferring less dramatic contrast. Aesthetic tastes do change over time and they're cyclical. Just look at the era of film noir compared to much of the mainstream films released in the later 60s and 70s. Films like Jaws had pretty flat lighting through most of it, especially during the day and in interiors.
One of the most insightful things I heard was from Erik Messerschmidt (it was on a Q&A for Ferrari, he's done a lot of work with Fincher).
He said to effectively light a set for a digital camera you could get away with just using a candle, but lighting it like that will make a big difference in how the image ends up looking, so he generally still wants a scene to be lit like how it was done for analog.
I think it's also worth checking out Steve Yedlin's analysis on why film looks like film and how to emulate it, I think he succeeded really well with Knives Out.
They don't get black and white levels right.
@@tronamI’ve yet to see a film with post added film grain that feels natural. The grain always feels artificial. Because it is
We are in a time with the best technology and advances for filmmaking, lighting tools exist, color grading software exist, the best cameras and digital formats exist, it's quite sad that most of the films we have lack a proposal artistic
This was incredibly noticeable in the Mean Girls remake. The 2024 version it all looked so drab and flat whereas the 2004 version where the colors were much brighter and popped off the screen.
Natural daylight and well lit scenes in films is now too much to ask apparently
3:10 I completely disagree tbh. David Fincher's digital movies are obviously great looking, but they are undeniably digital. Zodiac specifically is one of the smoothest, glossiest movies of its time.
Yep
Which is a good thing it works for his style
yep, digital can never reproduce anything similar to film. And you either get it or you don't.
@@timoteitodor2868watch Glass Onion
@@timoteitodor2868 Have you seen Knives Out? That film was shot on digital but looks like it was shot on film.
This is just a conclusive narrative supporting the initial premise. AKA utter nonsense picking only images that support your conclusion.
pls use a real human voice and not AI
(still a solid vid though)
Natural film contrast vs the higher dynamic range of digital......and a lack of courage to add contrast to the 'detailed but flat' in the fear of losing that resolution, even when the look/mood is more important.
5:25 the way i jumped ☠
Can’t blame you. Me too when I watched it for the first time, and I’ve edited it ☠️
@@movieluts Easy: Digital color grading. Please people read ORANGE AND TEAL - HOLLYWOOD PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS. I can't believe my eyes anymore. Actors look like wax puppets due to filters and are look like oranges with faces. How does nobody complain about this? The skin tones look ridiculous! But I guess a generation that is desensitized due to fake and cheap looking Insta filters just won't complain. I mean people nowadays like to listen to music on their phone speakers and seem to have no problem with that. I am not even that generation that paid so much attention to their hi-fi systems. My dad's generation did. People need to sharpen their ears and eyes again. It can't be that this trend goes unchallenged.
They are looking at the scopes too much rather than what looks good. If you look at the film the highlights are blown out in the shadows are crushed. Who cares it looks amazing and dramatic.
One of the most insightful things I heard was from Erik Messerschmidt (it was on a Q&A for Ferrari, he's done a lot of work with Fincher).
He said to effectively light a set for a digital camera you could get away with just using a candle, but lighting it like that will make a big difference in how the image ends up looking, so he generally still wants a scene to be lit like how it was done for analog.
I think it's also worth checking out Steve Yedlin's analysis on why film looks like film and how to emulate it, I think he succeeded really well with Knives Out.
I've already heard from a cinematographer who worked for Netflix original productions that they ask that the image not have too much contrast because of HDR and better viewing on mobile
The knock on the door got me!! 😭 great video man ✅
I miss specular highlights and film grain. To me it's a textural thing like a painting technique.
This is all great but it's not just about the photography. It's also the screenwriting, dialogue, and acting. Look at Alien vs Prometheus, or Top Gun vs TG: Maverick. The flow of dialogue has changed. Naturalistic acting has been replaced by more staged and rigid performances. The characters in Alien looked and felt like blue collar workers. In Prometheus, Charlize Theron performed like a tragic Shakespearean figure. Also, everyman and everywoman actors have been phased out in favor of a talent pool of mostly very photogenic performers. Look at the cast of Twister vs Twisters. This all has a very strong influence on the look and feel of a movie, moreso than DI in my opinion. There are plenty of great movies shot on digital that have an old school feel. One great example is Thirteen Lives.
Prometheus is good.
It’s more polished because in original Alien it was just some workers. In Prometheus weyland is actually with them so of course it’d be more sleek.
THAT PART!
“Glade-iator” 😬
Is Ridley Scott doing a new ‘Blade Runner’ x ‘Gladiator’ mash up film?!
I was hoping it would be Gladiator with Glaives. Glaiviator... :)
Why not use your real voice? The more you do, the better you and your videos sound. It's sad because you're writing, and information is great.
IS the writing great? “The best visually looking film of the year?”
This was 100% entirely written by AI.
The writing was as generic as it comes tbh. I clicked for the premise as well, but the video lost me quickly because of both writing and narration.
@@IrnBruNYC the writing is bland and devoid of personality.
9:39 This. This is what I missed from the Jurassic World films. They relied to much on CG and had minimal less impactful animatronic dinosaurs
I hate “orange & teal” look! It’s not “visually appealing”, but shitty and annoying. It has very limited set of colors, black color is not neutral but dark-blue. In some cases it looks like duotone image. Sure it can be used as artistic technique in some exotic cases, but using it because it’s trendy...
Is this an A.i. voice? 🤨
Yes... It's a shame because the content is good.
@@Bruno_fyi I like limited use of A.i. - I use bing image creator to make abstract art, not the glossy plastic looking stuff. But, I dislike A.i. voices, considering Humans have far more nuance and personality when doing voice overs.
how can you tell?
@@BrokeWeekends Some words are off, and the tempo does not vary.
@@BrokeWeekends I can tell because I have heard humans speak and the narration bears little resemblance.
They look different because the image on the right isn’t a still from the movie. It’s a production photo from the set.
The #1 reason they look different is the rise of digital filters. They're a bit of a crutch. If they're having a hard time tying the CGI plates to the live-action comp plates, they just crank up the filter. It also tends to crush black levels and squeeze a lot of the color out of the shot.
That 0:40 second mark looks 100% like a video game cinematic
I think this "camera as a data collection device" perspective is what drives David Fincher (not the first category of directors). Because "analog" things (what we used to call just "things") have their unique qualities and these qualities take part in each step of the process. When viewing from a data/digital perspective, these qualities become noises, imperfections, "effects".
As a director, you used to have to decide which part of the visual (and audio) are important while these qualities exist, for better or worse. Now when you can eliminate nearly all of these and "add them back in the post", you just eliminate a source of reality.
In other words, the David Fincher perspective is more like an animator's perspective.
Many are saying orange and teal is overused and lazy.
When the narration can’t pronounce the subject of the video, you know to close the video.
I don't know how the new movie will turn up but this agenda against the use of top notch technology in movies is 'moranity'.
All Quiet in the Western Front, Blade Runner 2049 and 1917 were shot digitally but no one complain about them. Why?
Compare them visually to Blade Runner and The Thin Red Line and you'll see why.
When you're engaged in a well-crafted story, people don't have time to nit-pick. Just like people don't often complain about bad Sfx in movies from the past.
@@NelsonStJames Agree that story is the most important but great if you can also maintain peak quality as it's still a visual medium for storytelling. For your sfx point, 20 years ago sfx also looks better, for example LOTR vs The Hobbit, Terminator 2 vs Dark Fate, Jurassic Park vs Jurassic World, The Matrix vs Matrix Resurrections, Independence Day vs Resurgence, U571 vs Greyhound, Twister vs Twisters, The Thing 1982 vs The Thing 2011, The Abyss vs Underwater, Raiders of the Lost Ark vs Dial of Destiny, Road Warrior vs Furiosa, Underworld vs Underworld: Blood Wars, Dante's Peak vs San Andreas.
Film has great color and built in contrast. Many of today's films are in a de facto competition for highlight retention and shadow detail, thereby lowering contrast and flattening the image. You can raise contrast and color in digital, but it's still 1's and 0's. Anyone who grew up watching films shot on film can see the difference (I'll admit that difference is narrowing though). How you light on film and choose different stocks will vary these elements a bit, but there's a natural tonality (from bright to dark) and color rendition that is inherent to film (as well as mechanical shutter application in movement), which (pre-digital intermediate) was mostly baked in at the time of photography (the original Gladiator is a great example, lensed by John Mathieson). Sure, there was bleach bypass and slight temperature variations you could do in the lab, but what you shot was mostly what you got. The lighting was a key element in how the final image looked, in addition to lens aperture and focal length choices. Built into film was a great tonal curve that brought beautiful contrast (the curve from light to dark) and authentic colors that were rich and vivid. I don't care what anyone says (even the digital vs. film Steve Yedlin test), digital still cannot match film aesthetically. As far as the other elements (story, composition, editing, etc.) these remain a common fixture and an argument can be made about the quality level of those skill sets in contemporary films versus those in the past. But for visual quality alone, there is something unique about film that digital simply does not match in it's current state. This is why most of the greats (Tarantino, Spielberg, Anderson, Nolan, etc.) still shoot it, because they have a keen eye that sees the difference. Those who don't do so because the advantages of digital (ease of use, immediate dailies, security in image acquisition, etc.) offset the visual quality differences to them personally. This is a key reason stated by Deakins for why he chooses digital. However, remember that Tarantino, Spielberg and others are directors who are in charge and can decide what they are going to shoot on. Deakins as a cinematographer is a hired crew member. Sure, there are times he can apply leverage to shoot on film, but for most productions these days, he's going to be expected to shoot on digital or have to pass on a number of projects along the way. In many ways, he's force to adapt. If PT Anderson or Nolan want to shoot film, they can every time out.
Film making is getting worse looking. It's all looks the same
The thought of directors and cinematographers changing how they make films to fit phone sized screens is just depressing.
Love the "magic" in @14:26 when color grading interchanges.
gen z has never seen the sun
Ironically Star Trek had bright, soft and flat lighting in TNG but now DIS/PIC have this black, HDR, blur, mush look 😞
Lol fair point. I think it actually doesn't matter though. What made the TNG era work so well was how much the action was fueled by a combination of imagination and suspense. Listening to the bridge crew communicate to each other about what weapons were being used and how the shields performed activated our imagination. We were going off suspense instead of visual spectacle. And it simply worked. They could have done all that with a moody and colorful look, and it still would have worked. Some of the best moments in Star Trek took place in dimly lit quarters where two characters just talked to each other like something out of The Godfather.
The digital has a haze or cast over it without cood contrast or color.
That might be the most botched version of the word gladiator
2000 Gladiator is sick
Do not reward this so generated crap with views. If the content creator can’t be arsed to put in the time, neither should you.
I miss the time movies were shot on film
Same but luckily we've recently had Oppenheimer, Twisters, Challengers, The Bikeriders, The Fabelmans, Cuckoo, Anora, Nosferatu and Strange Darling to give us that level of cinematic quality again and avoid the disposable, actors-doing-cosplay look of digital.
It's not the type of cameras used, it's the lazy "talent" behind those cameras that don't want to at least try to make their movies visually appealing
Me too, but it seems to me that there are more movies shot on film now than 10 years ago.
@@vinagredelmal7717 I think it's the other way around
10 years ago, a lot of movies were shot on film before digital took over for good in 2015
Even blockbusters like TASM2 and the first Avengers were shot on film
Digital. Lack of humanity. It’s why all Marvel films look bland. Fun, but bland. Digital lacks warmth without a good grader
Also the info on the video is wrong, saying vfx is bad is a wrong statement. Hell all the moves have some level of cgi or vfx. IT get's bad when its rushed and people notice it... Look at Fincher films they too have vfx but in some cases its so good that people dont know its there. Stop shaming vfx compared to practical... We use practical mostly for reference and a lot of touch ups are done in there using vfx...
I would like to know how cinematic video games are able to achieve a similar effect. I've been using videos like these to get this done in my games.
Bro literally zoomed out of an 18k resolution imax shot of Oppenheimer! 😂
Im sick of all new movies looking dark and grey.
Film is superior.
Instead of film, they use cheap looking digital. Also, CGI galore, OTT color grading with the teal and yellow, and even teal and yellow set dressing and costumes. Most movies today look boring and bland, and don't look cinematic anymore. Boring lighting too.
I like how the AI voiceover pronounces "Batman" like it's someone’s last name. Hi, I’m Patrick Batman.
Lost me at Glay-diator. Stopped watching. If you can't say the name of the movie right, I don't trust a single word you say afterwards. Especially an easy title/word like Gladiator.
It's an AI voice lol
@@CommanderSammer therefore it should know better
@@CommanderSammeran AI voice that does not allow you to tell the AI voice how to correctly pronounce a word is a useless AI voice.
“To evoke the feel of Ancient Sparta ….” (colour grade of “300” movie) - yeah - well - were any of us around 2, 300 years, approx., years ago to know what the “feel” of Ancient Sparta would look like 😅 ???
NOBODY really cares about a movies visual style anymore. They don't care while shooting and they care even less during post. They just color change the same flat "LOG" image they get from shooting, cropping it to this god awful modern "TV Show" Aspect Ratio that is 2,20:1 or something like and makes absolutely no sense... and they just browse through their NLE grading presets and stick with that. Everything looks boring, flat and sterile. They don't even bother properly lighting a scene. It's crazy... In the early 2000s and 2010s, when they still shot a lot on film, which has incredible dynamic range and doesn't suffer from digital "clipping" in the highlights, they used to colorgrade everything in a way to make things look cold and digital and boosting the contrast or just making everything look like going through a Bleached Bypass treatment. For "Terminator Salvation"they even actually treated the ACTUAL filmstock and didn't do it digitally. Nowdays with digital Cinecamera sensors having a pretty good dynamic range too, they seem to do everything to keep all that and avoiding contrasts at all costs. Everything looks the same... this new age of flatness it just as boring as the constant over-use of "Teal and Orange".
Agree! Good summary!
Coming to screens near you: GLAYDIATOR!
crazy to have that ai ad in the middle of this lmao
Most grading looks horrible
We should have never moved to 4K. Because now because there is so much detail there is given, no attempt is made to make anything pop, as older movies were made to be seen on CRT tvs, where if any detail needed to pop, you had to be intentional with it. Now its just all there and drab, and I hate it.
Movies have always been shot in 4k (native 4k) since the 1950s and celluloid also has higher resolution than digital (equivalent to 8k). That's why older movies like Alien, Vertigo, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, The Emerald Forest, Unforgiven, 2001, The Thin Red Line, Horseman on the Roof, Blade Runner, Empire Strikes Back, A Walk in the Clouds, The Hunger, T2, Cliffhanger, Seven, Paris Texas, The Thing, Amelie, Legends of the Fall, Titanic, Blade, Malena, Raiders of the Lost Ark are still the best looking, most timeless looking movies of all time. That's why Nolan, PTA, Eggers, Guadagnino, Tarantino, Shyamalan, Spielberg, JT Mollner and Jeff Nichols still choose to shoot with celluloid today, even though it adds more expense and more shoot days to the schedule.
@@thetalentof that is simply not true. 35mm has no resolution. moreover all the prints shown in theaters were were copies of a copy, and the quality was not as pristine as the 4K remasters we see today. more over these 4K remasters often show things that were never meant to be seen and often have revisionist color grades or aggressive detail scrubbing DNR or replaced sound mixes. resolution itself is so overrated, its everything else that matters
@@stephenmeshotto Film is native 4k and can be scanned to the equivalent of 8k if being compared to digital. Shooting on 70mm as Nolan often does is considered to be equivalent to 18k digital resolution.
Recently the tray-ler fer Glay-dee-ay-tor Two was pooosted.
AI narrators take me to Uncanny Valley
I think you should just outright state that you use AI voice if can't/ don't want to use your real voice.
The content is interesting and the video is well edited
MF Doom was a gladiator? daayummm
GLAD-e-ater not glade-e-ater
It's a computer talking; give it a break.
Glay-diator gives me ear-cancer
Complete disagree with movies for streaming simplifying their background set design for the sake of small screens. Where are your sources for this?
Right? Cherry picking to invent and explain trends that aren't really there. It was a bizarre watch really. Lots of regurgitation of internet mob opinions and a few original ones that make no sense. Completely lost me when he started to put the blame on VFX. Even the name of the channel made me thing it was going to be a great find. What a letdown.
Film looks like the real world, can be enhanced to have a dream like feel; digital looks like you’re watching something on your iPhone. Waxy, sterile and videoy.
Cold, lifeless, devoid of personality AI writing and voiceover. Unfortunate. UA-camrs can do better but they choose the quick and easy path. Thumbs down on this one.
I don´t think, that digital is the problem. Yes, 35mm makes film look like film, but it´s expensive and giving only rich people the opportunity to try this artform doesn´t produce better cinema. Digital gave many young, poor people the instrument, to express themselves. And they create better, more nuanced stuff, than modern cinema. I think, the problem nowadays lies in the constant sequalization of movies from the past, the smartphonification of watching films on way to small screens and the lack of creativity. But what do I know? I am not a AI, writing the script for this kind of videos, I am just a mere human, inferior to the supremecy of the all-knowing maschines....
so there is reason why modern movies look so awfull, and not only cgi and bad scripts.
I'm sure people will find all sorts of bad things to say about the new Gladiator but the sun thing is just stupid as it isn't being soften, the sun is just in a different angle.
My brother in Christ, Glay-Diator? Where you from?
This whole video was made using his AI voice :O hence the Gl-A-diator. :O :l
Why wouldn't an AI know how to say Gladiator?
Thought it was pronounced gladiator, must have been saying it wrong for over 20 years. Glayd nobody corrected me!
Exactly. Even the look of this new movie is atrocious by comparison. And in the original Gladiator, Rome looked like metallic s***.
i just found this channel. just subbed. great content! thank you!
You went very close to the CGI = bad discourse that I see through the internet these days. :P
So, it was a good topic, but there's a lot of issues and misinformation particularly the entire section on lighting. The second half is filled with so many half truths and falsehoods there's way to much wrong to refute it all.
What’s glaydeeator?
This video is excellent. I love this topic. As a kid i always thought to myself “why do movies and tv look so different if they are both made with cameras” 🎥
Easy: Digital color grading. Please people read ORANGE AND TEAL - HOLLYWOOD PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS. I can't believe my eyes anymore. Actors look like wax puppets due to filters and are look like oranges with faces. How does nobody complain about this? The skin tones look ridiculous! But I guess a generation that is desensitized due to fake and cheap looking Insta filters just won't complain. I mean people nowadays like to listen to music on their phone speakers and seem to have no problem with that. I am not even that generation that paid so much attention to their hi-fi systems. My dad's generation did. People need to sharpen their ears and eyes again. It can't be that this trend goes unchallenged.
"Glade"-ee-a-tor? What in the AI?
Ai voice over. HARD PASS... can't wait to see Glade- EEE- Ator :(
digital is the way~
I'm sorry but I'm so sick of Tarantino thinking he's some savant because he clings to "film only" -- meanwhile, his films are streaming on various DIGITAL outlets. Why doesn't he rail against that? There are far better filmmakers using film better than he is. Look at his Hateful Eight... "Glorious 70mm!!!" -- then 90% of the film takes place indoors in a house with overhead light that looks like a UFO is above them. He's so up his own a$$, ripping off obscure films then repurposing them as his own 'snap zoom' techniques or the various spaghetti westerns he rips off. And, film aside... the man can't tell a story. He doesn't know how to end a film without, "UH... everyone just acts out of character, shoots everyone, the end." It's childish. He has some great dialogue but that was like the late 90s era of filmmaking, you have to be able to TELL A STORY... whether it's shot on 70mm or an iPhone. I'd much rather watch anything Fincher's made than what QT puts out.
A great use of film is La La Land, the colors pop, the art direction is amazing.
Look at the difference in the original dumb and dumber and the sequel. This has been going on for years.
You're either using an A.I. voice, or you're intentionally trying to trick people into thinking you're using an A.I. voice.
You lost me at "Glade"-iator
Orange and Teal is absolute cancer. Actor look like orange wax puppets. How are people not complaining about it?
Save 15 minutes - Cheap Digital they still can't improve upon.
No it was not a good fit for Mad Max. It's so red the skin tones look completely unnatural. It just looks fake. The old Mad Max movies look so much better.
Great Video! Excited about the gladiator movie
Id be glad if he didnt say glade...
7:01 please tell me what movie that is
1917
@@filippopecorari thanks man
2 decades
And yes please dont forget another most important thing. Every god damn video we see, we keep seeing videos day in and out nowadays, it's being cinematic. UA-cam shorts, documentary, marriage, kids anything and everything is being made into "Cinematic" To hell with this trend.
So our mind has now forgotten the correlation of movies vs normal video which we used to have....pre 2000 where it was a crystal clear distinction between a cinema and normal video.
Today, we have ultra uber overload of videos and most being "cinematic" has made the charm of cinema less and less. A interview being conducted is cinematic, a bday invitation, pre wedding, you name it, its all freaking cinematic, well close enough. The value of the term cinematic has been down the drains. So it serves no purpose for the filmmakers to crave and achieve that or give it much importance. I hate this "cinematic" trend and culture. Cinema was supposed to be a cinema where i want to pay and watch something that's created for that purpose.
Not a god damn interview and DIY project video THAT'S turning out to be cinematic as well.
Cue cinematic music 😆
13:06 whatmoviee is this ? someone please !
John Wick 4
Is this an AI voice or is Glay-diator just ridiculous
I hate the modern look. The color grading is atrocious, everyone wants to tell everything with color. Like with Dark Waters "everything is teal because of the connection to sickness, you know? The contaminated water?". Yeah no shit Sherlock, the movie is literally called Dark Waters and is about a company contaminating the water, which we see right at the start of the fucking movie. Of course another problem is stock but still, movie makers either don't learn color and light anymore or they have unlearned it like Ridley Scott. His Napoleon movie was not just from a narrative standpoint bad his cinematography was also bad in terms of look. And that's true for so, so many others. I can't count how many hospitals and prisons look green in movies, how many night scenes are strikingly blue, how often I see a harsh blue-orange contrast. It looks incredbly stupid and basically robs the media from it's color. It's not artistic, it's more pretentious. "I am such a great artist, I make my whole picture blue, because it's winter, you know? And blue is a cool color!". Or "everything is yellow, because.. we are in Mexico and the sun is shining a lot and it's warm!".
It's not just sequels, it's everywhere. Movie makers think color grading is what makes them artists and the result is really awful looking movies and series and ads and so on.
What am I watching, is this made by AI?
Glaydeator, nice try AI
Ugh I can’t handle the AI narration.
Bring back old school..content creation spells ...sucks