2 ms·

Thanks for this detailed comment. I don't have your expertise but I have noticed that there is some inverse correlation between "unique visual spectacle" and go

Thanks for this detailed comment. I don't have your expertise but I have noticed that there is some inverse correlation between "unique visual spectacle" and good storytelling. E.g. Avatar II, which was visually quite striking but left me feeling like I watched a SIGGRAPH demo... with all that budget, they definitely could have afforded better writing, so I suspect there's some weird interaction between the graphic spectacle niche of film and the desirability of narrative quality for the film to perform well

mrandish 2y ago
There's definitely a correlation between higher spectacle and poorer storytelling and less artful visuals. I was discussing this recently specifically in the context of less 'cinematic' cinematography in VFX-heavy super hero films and arrived at three primary conclusions: * There are specific reasons for this correlation driven by the additional on-set shooting requirements placed on the cinematographer, lighting director and camera team to support VFX. This takes time and focus away from artfully lighting and lensing the live action elements and producers don't always budget sufficient time for both. When something has to give, it isn't going to be shooting the VFX plates. * There are specific aesthetic reasons driving this. On a film with 2000 VFX elements that will later be layered into almost every live action scene, the cinematographer and lighting director are understandably reluctant to light or lens expressively beautiful shots because matching those shots can be more challenging for the VFX teams. It's easier (and faster) for everyone if the cinematographer lights and lenses with a more flat look. I recently saw an interview with the cinematographer on the Marvel series Loki (Season 2) and he said that he talked extensively with the VFX director specifically about this issue and the VFX director was unique in telling him, "Nope, shoot it how you really want to and we'll match you." Obviously, this was enabled in-part by the Marvel-level budget and talent. But it's interesting that it's rare enough to be notable. * Ultimately, there's good evidence that VFX-heavy films don't have to look "flat HDR boring". We have counter-examples like "The Batman" (2022) proving a VFX-soaked super hero movie with beautifully expressive lighting and principle photography is possible. It's just hard, requires more time and money and you need highly skilled people. The thread is here and includes links to several good videos with example clips: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560111

mrandish 2y ago

There's definitely a correlation between higher spectacle and poorer storytelling and less artful visuals. I was discussing this recently specifically in the context of less 'cinematic' cinematography in VFX-heavy super hero films and arrived at three primary conclusions: * There are specific reasons for this correlation driven by the additional on-set shooting requirements placed on the cinematographer, lighting director and camera team to support VFX. This takes time and focus away from artfully lighting and lensing the live action elements and producers don't always budget sufficient time for both. When something has to give, it isn't going to be shooting the VFX plates. * There are specific aesthetic reasons driving this. On a film with 2000 VFX elements that will later be layered into almost every live action scene, the cinematographer and lighting director are understandably reluctant to light or lens expressively beautiful shots because matching those shots can be more challenging for the VFX teams. It's easier (and faster) for everyone if the cinematographer lights and lenses with a more flat look. I recently saw an interview with the cinematographer on the Marvel series Loki (Season 2) and he said that he talked extensively with the VFX director specifically about this issue and the VFX director was unique in telling him, "Nope, shoot it how you really want to and we'll match you." Obviously, this was enabled in-part by the Marvel-level budget and talent. But it's interesting that it's rare enough to be notable. * Ultimately, there's good evidence that VFX-heavy films don't have to look "flat HDR boring". We have counter-examples like "The Batman" (2022) proving a VFX-soaked super hero movie with beautifully expressive lighting and principle photography is possible. It's just hard, requires more time and money and you need highly skilled people. The thread is here and includes links to several good videos with example clips: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560111