do you think major movies look too good now?

[william howell]

water cooler discussion today led me to this question...

Is there too much visual information being thrown at viewers now?

I, for one, LOVE high resolution cameras... and high frame rates... but... i document scientific research.. the higher res, the better...

but... a few of my work colleagues made convincing cases that today's movies seem to look "too good" to their eyes not leaving much to their imaginations....

keep in mind... these people don't use cameras like we do... they don't edit footage like we do... all they care about is the entertainment value of the films... they are the target audience... it's hard for me to discount their opinions... since.. they are regular viewers...

I do realize that opinions are just that... opinions... but... it got me thinking... and it is a relevant question to ponder and discuss, if you've got some free time.

 

[Elsie N]

Certainly a different take on things. Full disclosure... I haven't gone to a movie theater to watch a movie in decades.

But reading and seeing movie trailers etc., I get the impression everyone is (or at least were) shooting narrow depth of field which actually provided less information. Or at least concentrated the information available to a certain depth of field.

Maybe the more popular movies (action movies) are filling the screen with detailed robotic images including the nuts and bolts of putting one together and that is what they mean by too much information? Or maybe a scene just has too much going on in it?

But as an interested party, I would like to know more about why your friends think this way.

(One of my own particular quirks is to watch a TV commercial from a background pov... that is, I purposely avoid the main message and look at what is going on behind the center of attention.)

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the technical quality of the average movie is getting so polished, slick, sharp, and grainless that it risks becoming a bit soulless unless we have more variety offered. On the other hand, I think the art of composition has become less polished, cruder, due to the need to get more coverage and create more cuts -- why create a dramatic composition or an elaborately staged shot if it's all going to be chopped up?

I also think that sound mixes are more complex and have more depth than ever, and yet I'd rather listen to the mono mix of an old Sergio Leone or Kurosawa movie. At some point, what's the point of mixing over 100 tracks down to five or six if you have no creative concept behind the sound design? I wish David Lynch was still making features with decent budgets, if only to listen to them.

 

[Mike Quill]

I think Lynch's best sound design work spanned from Fire Walk With Me through Mulholland Dr.

I think the technical quality of the average movie is getting so polished, slick, sharp, and grainless that it risks becoming a bit soulless unless we have more variety offered. On the other hand, I think the art of composition has become less polished, cruder, due to the need to get more coverage and create more cuts -- why create a dramatic composition or an elaborately staged shot if it's all going to be chopped up?

I also think that sound mixes are more complex and have more depth than ever, and yet I'd rather listen to the mono mix of an old Sergio Leone or Kurosawa movie. At some point, what's the point of mixing over 100 tracks down to five or six if you have no creative concept behind the sound design? I wish David Lynch was still making features with decent budgets, if only to listen to them.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Dolby surround sound ......CGI .....power windows ......do they really tell the story better...or just become visual & audio candy to wallpaper over jaded story lines ?

Sergio Leonie films stand the test of time without any of the above ...can you truthfully say that about the "Avengers", "Pacific Rim" etc 40 years in the future ?

 

[David Ellison]

I've been thinking this for a while now, although I adore the picture quality of the epic I think the slightly grainier nature of the red one was a better feature film camera.
I saw a trailer for a horror film lately about a man who grows up to combat the monster that lived under his bed as a child and I thought how polished and noise free the
image was, no dirt on anything, it was like the quality you get on the cover of vogue but in horror form and as a result it felt unscary and utterly unfamiiiar to me.

I think these days what's now getting lost in film in the art of 'texture'. If you watch say Bladerunner, it's like you can feel the dirt and the griminess of everything as though
you could put you hand into the image and feel the wetness of Rutger Hauer's hair or the flawlessness of Sean Young's face.
I feel like if you could put your hand into the modern world of movies everything would feel glossy and slick, like touching an animated movie. The sense of touch will pull
us into the film as though it is an environment we can inhabit but with movies looking far too glossy those environments feel unreal on a fundamental level and so we cannot
inhabit them. I'm not sure what the cure for this is but I think it's mainly down to production design.
Dredd was a great example, not an amazing movie shot but even though on the HD phantom I totally felt the texture of the film, even District 9 felt real. I suppose it's down
to most modern movies not wanting to get dirty and even when they do it's a music video / vogue kind of dirt, a clean dirt if you will, either that or they just bleach bypass
it's nuts off.
Look at the new evil dead, it really felt like a music video to me. Almost cartoonish in it's gore when it needed a truckload of grit.
I know I'm focusing on horror here but I think they are the best example of what should be a down and dirty movie still looking too pretty.

 

[Terry Delahunt]

I think the technical quality of the average movie is getting so polished, slick, sharp, and grainless that it risks becoming a bit soulless unless we have more variety offered. On the other hand, I think the art of composition has become less polished, cruder, due to the need to get more coverage and create more cuts -- why create a dramatic composition or an elaborately staged shot if it's all going to be chopped up?

I also think that sound mixes are more complex and have more depth than ever, and yet I'd rather listen to the mono mix of an old Sergio Leone or Kurosawa movie. At some point, what's the point of mixing over 100 tracks down to five or six if you have no creative concept behind the sound design? I wish David Lynch was still making features with decent budgets, if only to listen to them.

"Soulless" I've been feeling the same way. There is a magic in raw imperfect simplicity, focused on character and story.

 

[António Fagundes]

This is just another wave, soon enough there will be films and filmmakers that will start to rebel against this polished, ultra def look. But I don't think the answer is in doing what previous generations have done, i.e: grain, dirt, etc... look at Beasts of the Southern Wild, it's a departure of everything clean and sharp, but it didn't feel in any way new.

We still have to wait for the new film makers that will be able to rebel against the ultra clean look/sound, but using the same tools as everyone else, and not going back to the same old grainy, hand held look. That's not new, that's old news.

We are all waiting for something fresh, new. And what is happening right now is not in any way shape or form, the ultimate cinematic look. This is just a temporary form, I'm sure the next generation of film makers will be bale to truly master all the innovation and give us something truly personal and unique. Because at the moment, every film looks like a close relative to the other... its like we are in the fast food era of film making. All the same....

But there are exciting times ahead....

 

[Ted Parkes]

I think the technical quality of the average movie is getting so polished, slick, sharp, and grainless that it risks becoming a bit soulless unless we have more variety offered. On the other hand, I think the art of composition has become less polished, cruder, due to the need to get more coverage and create more cuts -- why create a dramatic composition or an elaborately staged shot if it's all going to be chopped up?

David I couldn't agree more. Long takes, multi cameras you can't have good composition for every angle. Reminds me of a story Doug Hart told me a few years back ( Gordon Willis's assistant. ) If during a long take when the actors were moving around the set .. at any time Gordon didn't like the lighting of composition he would stick his hand in front of the lens. To make sure they couldn't use that footage.
You could never get away with that now.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think the technical quality of the average movie is getting so polished, slick, sharp, and grainless that it risks becoming a bit soulless unless we have more variety offered. On the other hand, I think the art of composition has become less polished, cruder, due to the need to get more coverage and create more cuts -- why create a dramatic composition or an elaborately staged shot if it's all going to be chopped up?

I am no expert editor but to me rapid cutting, like power windows or depth of field is like any other tool or technique in the toolbox. When used in a way that supports and reveals the narrative it is valid and useful but when a tool calls attention to itself it is a hindrance. For example fast cuts are perfectly at home in an action sequence but even there they should be used with temperance, as even the Terminator has a point of view. When point of view is muddied or lost, I feel the larger piece loses some of that "soul".

 

[David Kuhn]

Honestly I didn't really notice the 'polish' until I started lurking here after I ordered my Epic... reading about the work that goes into creating that look made me more aware of what I was seeing when I watched a film. Personally, I'm a techie gear hound so I LOVE the look of films today... but there's no doubt that the uniformly high quality of 'Hollywood' films (I realize that many are made in other locations these days) creates a weird sense of uniformity in big films. It really jumps out at me when I watch a film from a different area (Bollywood for instance). There's a lot more variety in the cinematography coming out of India, which in a way is because the films aren't really up to the same extremely high level that we're used to... but at the same time it makes things interesting. I kindof think of it as the difference between watching college sports or the pro's. Professional sports are at a different level performance wise... but I actually prefer watching college sports... more chance for the big play, more mistakes made that lead to interesting outcomes.

 

[Tony Harris]

We are the old school and we need film to stay grounded to what we are use too. Now we have two different looks Film and digital but I'm glad that something came along to put an end to the crappy 16mm looks because it was a cheap version to 35mm. I feel the film makers would make a 16mm film camera shoot 35mm film this game would be wide open! I own S16mm film cameras and a Epic now so I can go back into time and produce from both sides but the cost to transfer film to digital so you can do post on your computer was killing us. What really stopped us was the price to own a 35mm film camera because if you owned one you would still be shooting 35mm I think. RED gave us a even playing field to produce great looking digital films that could stand up to film. Now all of this CGI and FX stuff for the new GEN is killing us. The bottom line is take what you have and create, when we start to compare things we loose focus on our craft. I can do far more with the digital world than I could with film but I love both.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Story telling means to me, to lead the audience to the parts that are important.
If too much detail is given in secondary elements, the information contrast might suffer.
There must be a difference between important and supportive information.
We watch a movie on many levels of our information acquisition, and one of the key duties of Cinematography is to manage that in the first place.
To just be out of sync with the needed information for the story-telling is a weak point. To find the right amount is certainly a high skill.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Honestly I didn't really notice the 'polish' until I started lurking here after I ordered my Epic... reading about the work that goes into creating that look made me more aware of what I was seeing when I watched a film. Personally, I'm a techie gear hound so I LOVE the look of films today... but there's no doubt that the uniformly high quality of 'Hollywood' films (I realize that many are made in other locations these days) creates a weird sense of uniformity in big films. It really jumps out at me when I watch a film from a different area (Bollywood for instance). There's a lot more variety in the cinematography coming out of India, which in a way is because the films aren't really up to the same extremely high level that we're used to... but at the same time it makes things interesting. I kindof think of it as the difference between watching college sports or the pro's. Professional sports are at a different level performance wise... but I actually prefer watching college sports... more chance for the big play, more mistakes made that lead to interesting outcomes.

That is an interesting viewpoint and very good analogy David. I might argue that much of what you appreciate about Bollywood is that their pictures are not as aesthetically homogenous as Hollywood's.

I don't know you personally but might that be a fair observation, generally speaking?

 

[Bill Anderson]

Show what you want to show, not what a camera dictates. If there is too much "visual info" then that is the fault of the creator. If there is too much of anything: it's the fault of the creator.
The reason current cameras/tech exist is in part due to a certain dissatisfaction with a status quo. Imagine having nothing but grainy film stock to work with - we'd soon tire of having to fill in the blanks, and of having to use our "imaginations", we'd pray for someone to show us what is not within ourselves.

I wish "David Lynch was still making features with decent budgets" too, for (as we all know) it is David Lynch that is missing from the mix, nothing else.

 

[Robert Hart]

I must confess I have been a bit disappointed in some of the more recent effects-laden fare. In some ways the latest Superman ( Man Of Steel ) seemed to be the most faithful to the backstory and culture as I remember it.

I was not much of a fan of Superman to begin with. Then they went and engineered that smashfest through the city a la Terminator 2 robot fight in the gaming building, not necessarily because they should but because they could - and wanted to it seems.

Presently, I am in the throes of co-writing a draft of "I Belong To The Shadows" a WW2/coldwar drama. We find when workshopping and live-writing via Skype screenshare, that we are compelled to think about whether something is going to be "got" by the audience after it has been dumbed-down by too many technologically complex movies which overload the senses.

In other words, one wonders if it is worth the bother of composing a richly complex and layered story. Viewers may just skim over because their senses have been serially overworked and deconditioned to "tune out" the story. Will they simply zomblify and wait for the colour-flashes, arse-kick sequences and the bang-bangs.

The screen stories are now in competition with the tech. I think there is a risk that directors will more seek refuge in the tech than getting the best out of their actors dramatically. They may hire the bankables, not necessarily the right ones for the roles and turn them loose to cope as best they can.

Clint Eastwood, - if he directs a film in ten years from a nursing home via video-phone, I think he will likely still give us something more enduringly pleasing.

What would I know though? I'm just a wrinkly living in the past and not all that bright.

My sense is, get the image and sound in at their best fidelity and massage down creatively if needed. Salt can be put in the stew but cannot be taken out again.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, most of this is a creative issue, not a technical issue. I don't have a problem with having access to high-resolution, low-noise, high-sensitivity cameras that create beautiful images! Half of the "roughness" of older movies was deliberate and half was due to the limitations of the technology. It's the visual sameness that is pervading mainstream Hollywood movies that is getting a bit boring... once we've all achieved a high level of technical quality, it's time to find something interesting to do with it.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I remember going to see The Social Network primarily to see how the RED looked. About 5 minutes in I forgot all about my reason for being there and was wrapped up in the story. To me, that was the best compliment I could give to the filmmakers. I was not thinking about the process, only the characters and the story. If the audience is thinking about how the technical aspects of the movie while viewing it, then either audiences have been shown a bit too much behind the magic curtain (behind the scenes videos) or the filmmakers didn't do their jobs well.

Now, when I put on my technical hat and think about where we are at in terms of visual quality, I do see some challenges. With higher resolution and detail clarity we run some risks. At times the cameras are seeing too much. This can be difficult when it comes to skin, wardrobe, and set design. On the current feature I'm on, I've heard the discussions about age lines on the A-list actress in the movie. The DP has been addressing it through filtering and I think doing a very good job but this will continue to be a challenge as these cameras continue to see more. Costumes might look fake, set design flaws will become very obvious and there will need to be advancements in those crafts to counter the effects of extremely high detail clarity. Also, fix it in post may becoming too much of the norm and especially with a VFX industry that is in shambles right now.

I love films that have texture and feel alive, like the characters are living and breathing on the screen. When that is absent it really doesn't matter if it's film, digital video, or whatever. My enjoyment of the movie is lost. When cinematographers go too far in trying to showcase their ability to get the "cool shots" and it calls atttention to itself my enjoyment of the movie suffers. Same with editing. It should never make me aware that this is just a movie (unless that is the intent for some reason). To me movies work best when I am completely immersed into the world of the characters and only at the end when the credits come up do I suddenly realize I am sitting in a movie theater watching a flat screen with images projected on them.

 

[Emanuel A.]

I think the technical quality of the average movie is getting so polished, slick, sharp, and grainless that it risks becoming a bit soulless unless we have more variety offered. On the other hand, I think the art of composition has become less polished, cruder, due to the need to get more coverage and create more cuts -- why create a dramatic composition or an elaborately staged shot if it's all going to be chopped up?

I also think that sound mixes are more complex and have more depth than ever, and yet I'd rather listen to the mono mix of an old Sergio Leone or Kurosawa movie. At some point, what's the point of mixing over 100 tracks down to five or six if you have no creative concept behind the sound design? I wish David Lynch was still making features with decent budgets, if only to listen to them.

More words for what? David, Mr Mullen said everything in just six lines, which makes these boards a worthy reading and a pleasure to enjoy any time


And here's another one:

Yes, most of this is a creative issue, not a technical issue. I don't have a problem with having access to high-resolution, low-noise, high-sensitivity cameras that create beautiful images! Half of the "roughness" of older movies was deliberate and half was due to the limitations of the technology. It's the visual sameness that is pervading mainstream Hollywood movies that is getting a bit boring... once we've all achieved a high level of technical quality, it's time to find something interesting to do with it.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Sergio Leonie films stand the test of time without any of the above ...can you truthfully say that about the "Avengers", "Pacific Rim" etc 40 years in the future ?

;-)