3 ms·

You’re cherry picking. If you look at the average film shot in the 70s, they were terribly lit and shot. The same thing happened then - we started having widely

You’re cherry picking. If you look at the average film shot in the 70s, they were terribly lit and shot. The same thing happened then - we started having widely available cheap color film stock, and the result was a flood of poorly lit and framed films. Lots of those people got way better tho. Hopefully the same will happen now.

GenerocUsername 4y ago
No one said every film was perfect. But that this was an example of a very well done, non-digital film
pavlov 4y ago
I’m not talking about the 1970s. Gattaca was made in 1997 and was a major production with a famous foreign cinematographer at the helm.
- kranke155 4y ago
  I was responding to your sentiment about how digital ruined Hollywood or whatever. It really didn’t. It just made it easier to produce things. That’s happened a few times before in film history, and the result was always an explosion in poorly lit, poorly shot films, and then slowly a filtering out that results in the next decade or two when the good people who started then become masters. You have this in the 1960s when the French New Wave starts using the recently invented 16mm and portable film cameras to make their films, and they make a bunch of movies which don’t look that good (for my money ‘Breathless’ has some terribly lit shots). The same thing happens in the 1970s when cheap color film stock arrives and you have an explosion of films in general, giving birth to exploitation and drive in films, many of which are again, terribly lit and sometimes poorly shot (‘Rolling Thunder’, a lot of Sam Peckinpah) The digital revolution didn’t “ruin things” it just made it easier. And whenever that happens you often get a glut of poorly made films, and then the best people who work on those films get better, and then the films they make in the next decade or two are astonishing and amazing. Just saying this isn’t new. It’s a phase.

GenerocUsername 4y ago

No one said every film was perfect. But that this was an example of a very well done, non-digital film

pavlov 4y ago

I’m not talking about the 1970s. Gattaca was made in 1997 and was a major production with a famous foreign cinematographer at the helm.

kranke155 4y ago
I was responding to your sentiment about how digital ruined Hollywood or whatever. It really didn’t. It just made it easier to produce things. That’s happened a few times before in film history, and the result was always an explosion in poorly lit, poorly shot films, and then slowly a filtering out that results in the next decade or two when the good people who started then become masters. You have this in the 1960s when the French New Wave starts using the recently invented 16mm and portable film cameras to make their films, and they make a bunch of movies which don’t look that good (for my money ‘Breathless’ has some terribly lit shots). The same thing happens in the 1970s when cheap color film stock arrives and you have an explosion of films in general, giving birth to exploitation and drive in films, many of which are again, terribly lit and sometimes poorly shot (‘Rolling Thunder’, a lot of Sam Peckinpah) The digital revolution didn’t “ruin things” it just made it easier. And whenever that happens you often get a glut of poorly made films, and then the best people who work on those films get better, and then the films they make in the next decade or two are astonishing and amazing. Just saying this isn’t new. It’s a phase.