I’d settle for muted colors if things were lit at all at this point. So many movies feel like they filmed in an abandoned warehouse at midnight with all the lights turned off.
A movie video essayist I watch did a good video I share with non cinema folks about the lack of colors in marvel movies.
It’s mad to see a ten year old Patrick Willems essay, then hear him say at the end that it’s a departure for his channel. I’ve only ever known him for his essays.
New Star Trek manages to look dark even with tons of lights for the lensflares. Because nothing says „space“ and „modern“ like working in a dim, depressing space while simultaneously getting blinded by half a dozen lights strategically placed at eye height.
Oh don’t get me started on lensflares or motion blur. So many people think we need to keep them in order to know we’re watching a movie because “that’s how it’s always been”. I don’t get why limited technology of the past should be the standard. Should we go back to black and white only again? Why do we have sound? Never used to. You had an organist to tell you you’re in a movie.
I always think about old school star wars for space. There is not a single doubt in my mind they’re in space during those fighter battles, but I can see everything without getting blinded or having to strain.
Motion blur is necessary for movies. They don’t run at 60fps, they run at 24fps. They would feel stuttery if they didn’t have motion blur. That’s why even computer animated movies have fake motion blur added to them.
Except they could run at 60+ fps. I watched The Hobbit in High Frame Rate and it was glorious. It didn’t take off because too many people complained of it not looking like a movie. The exact same complaints they had when movies switched to HD. Only this time the complaints sunk it for the most part instead of studios taking the time to adjust to new production methods. We get like one HFR movie a year now.
It’s more because there was no blur covering everything so you definitely saw some of the tricks they used. Saw it was just costumes and stuff.
It wasn’t major or like in your face in my opinion but it was there, and people couldn’t accept a transition time as studios figured out how to make stuff look good at the higher frame rate. Better or different makeup or add more oomph to costumes or whatever.
If you go and look at old forum comments about movies like, I want to say The Prestige (2006), some of the first ones to hit Blu-ray, they said similar stuff. The higher pixel counts revealed when rocks were fake and sets and stuff.
The issue is the fake CGI motion blur. It’s overdone. It’s not at all natural the way real motion blur on a film camera is.
I blame the digital workflows where everything is shot in RAW at high shutter speed and then digitally motion blurred and colour graded all to crap. Watch old movies that were shot on film and they look a million times better than the brown haze we got with Dune.
But then what happens to movies not done at the higher fps? You have to compensate somehow for the older films or the hardware that doesn’t accept it. I know AI does a really shitty job about compensating for higher fps movies brought down and lower brought up.
You don’t have to do anything. Those movies can still be played by high frame rate equipment but at their original frame rate and nothing stops those processes from working to make lower fps movies.
Avatar: Fire and Ash was actually a mixed frame rate movie, shot in 48fps but some scenes done in 24 fps. You can just hold frames for twice as long or half as long as needed.
Oh don’t get me started on lensflares or motion blur. So many people think we need to keep them in order to know we’re watching a movie because “that’s how it’s always been”.
Motion blur only started cropping up in action movies in the 90s to hide bad choreography and lens flare is just something a few directors started doing in the 2000s. Tons of well lit and colorful movies have existed since movies started to be filmed in color and there are plenty without either of those two things.
Anyone who thinks that is ‘how it has always been’ is extrapolating it from a few directors and their blockbuster movies.
The new Spider-Man was mostly CG-ed Glasgow but they actually went to some lengths to light it properly. It’s literally night and day compared to the last 10 years.
Oh yeah, the new Spider-Man was beautiful. That’s definitely a good modern example showing you can be moody and depressed without just being black darkness
Every time Wes Anderson comes up I feel like a fake movie buff. I’ve never seen one of his films. I hear about them. Watch a movie video essayist talk about them. See the trailers and things for them. But never seen one.
Maybe I should just take a day and marathon his stuff
Grand Budapest Hotel is my favorite use of the tropes/style that he is known for. Royal Tenenbaums is the movie that really put him on the map, in my opinion (although I might be biased because that came out right when I was looking to expand my understand of what film could be).
And Moonrise Kingdom is personally my favorite of his films. I think it could be worth watching those 3, and then deciding if you want to go further.
Watch The Royal Tenenbaumbs and Bottle Rocket. Wes Anderson can be a little overrated and honestly a little one note stylistically, but those are my favorites
Thanks for the video link, that was great and explained it well. The part at the end showing the ones done well makes me crave that.
This is just a beginning theory, but I wonder if it has something to do with color blindness or something? They may be getting test audiences that are accidentally more skewed towards it, since men are more likely to have it for some reason.
I doubt it’s color blindness. As others have mentioned this lack of color seems to be a more US based phenomenon. I think it’s the logical result of the obsession with “gritty and real” that took off with things like “Bourne Identity” in 2002. The laziest and cheapest way to convey that “dark and drab” vibe is by just sucking all the colours out. Movies started getting to mimic Bourne and others like it because they were popular (and yes, like always Hollywood did zero actual investigation into why they’re popular and just tried to copy surface level). That just kept spreading and now we’re stuck with it
I dunno if 1999 is “way before”. That’s only three years. I wasn’t trying to nail the very first movie that started the trend, just an early example. Bourne specifically I know influenced the next few James Bond movies and they toned down the saturation directly because of Bourne, and it kept spreading.
Yeah, it’s a discussion for real. It’s okay to stand out now and then and do the less color if there’s a reason. It seems like they lost the plot on the color portion.
Colorblindness is part of the reason for Christopher Nolan’s visual style avoiding red and green. He’s colorblind so he chooses to avoid colors he’d need outside help with, and likes making visuals that look good even with red/green colorblindness.
And of course, he’s basically up there as one of the most bankable big budget directors there is, so he probably has an outsize influence even on other directors who aren’t colorblind.
That’s interesting, I bet that’s part of it. He must treat it like black and white. I read an interview that he stays under-budget and before the deadline so he doesn’t have to have executives telling him what to do. Maybe these directors have to listen to the producers, who from what I’ve seen, really only care about the bean counting. His movies are still beautiful because he has the authority and he cares.
I’d settle for muted colors if things were lit at all at this point. So many movies feel like they filmed in an abandoned warehouse at midnight with all the lights turned off.
A movie video essayist I watch did a good video I share with non cinema folks about the lack of colors in marvel movies.
You might enjoy it: Why do Marvel movies look kind of ugly?
It’s mad to see a ten year old Patrick Willems essay, then hear him say at the end that it’s a departure for his channel. I’ve only ever known him for his essays.
Yeah but back then it really was unusual for him. It was all “what if x was done by y” and such. He’s come a long way since then.
New Star Trek manages to look dark even with tons of lights for the lensflares. Because nothing says „space“ and „modern“ like working in a dim, depressing space while simultaneously getting blinded by half a dozen lights strategically placed at eye height.
Oh don’t get me started on lensflares or motion blur. So many people think we need to keep them in order to know we’re watching a movie because “that’s how it’s always been”. I don’t get why limited technology of the past should be the standard. Should we go back to black and white only again? Why do we have sound? Never used to. You had an organist to tell you you’re in a movie.
I always think about old school star wars for space. There is not a single doubt in my mind they’re in space during those fighter battles, but I can see everything without getting blinded or having to strain.
Motion blur is necessary for movies. They don’t run at 60fps, they run at 24fps. They would feel stuttery if they didn’t have motion blur. That’s why even computer animated movies have fake motion blur added to them.
Except they could run at 60+ fps. I watched The Hobbit in High Frame Rate and it was glorious. It didn’t take off because too many people complained of it not looking like a movie. The exact same complaints they had when movies switched to HD. Only this time the complaints sunk it for the most part instead of studios taking the time to adjust to new production methods. We get like one HFR movie a year now.
Wasn’t the problem that you got more information in the same time so that the footage had to be sped up and that looked silly ?
It’s more because there was no blur covering everything so you definitely saw some of the tricks they used. Saw it was just costumes and stuff.
It wasn’t major or like in your face in my opinion but it was there, and people couldn’t accept a transition time as studios figured out how to make stuff look good at the higher frame rate. Better or different makeup or add more oomph to costumes or whatever.
If you go and look at old forum comments about movies like, I want to say The Prestige (2006), some of the first ones to hit Blu-ray, they said similar stuff. The higher pixel counts revealed when rocks were fake and sets and stuff.
The issue is the fake CGI motion blur. It’s overdone. It’s not at all natural the way real motion blur on a film camera is.
I blame the digital workflows where everything is shot in RAW at high shutter speed and then digitally motion blurred and colour graded all to crap. Watch old movies that were shot on film and they look a million times better than the brown haze we got with Dune.
I think they’re talking about overdone motion blur. You wouldn’t notice it if it wasn’t overdone.
No, I’m taking about higher frame rate which makes motion blur completely outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates
But then what happens to movies not done at the higher fps? You have to compensate somehow for the older films or the hardware that doesn’t accept it. I know AI does a really shitty job about compensating for higher fps movies brought down and lower brought up.
You don’t have to do anything. Those movies can still be played by high frame rate equipment but at their original frame rate and nothing stops those processes from working to make lower fps movies.
Avatar: Fire and Ash was actually a mixed frame rate movie, shot in 48fps but some scenes done in 24 fps. You can just hold frames for twice as long or half as long as needed.
Motion blur only started cropping up in action movies in the 90s to hide bad choreography and lens flare is just something a few directors started doing in the 2000s. Tons of well lit and colorful movies have existed since movies started to be filmed in color and there are plenty without either of those two things.
Anyone who thinks that is ‘how it has always been’ is extrapolating it from a few directors and their blockbuster movies.
confidently incorrect there, buddy
Watch Gone With the Wind and suffer the consequences of being disappointed by the lighting in almost every modern movie.
Or a lot of the Hitchcock movies. They portray so much with how they play with light.
The new Spider-Man was mostly CG-ed Glasgow but they actually went to some lengths to light it properly. It’s literally night and day compared to the last 10 years.
Oh yeah, the new Spider-Man was beautiful. That’s definitely a good modern example showing you can be moody and depressed without just being black darkness
Cool. Patrick is the reason I finally subscribed to Nebula for his Star Wars Christmas Special, and I’ve stuck around ever since.
So you’d say you drank the Christmas milk? One of us, one of us!
I wish Wes Anderson would make movies with real plots because his use of colors is incredible every time.
Every time Wes Anderson comes up I feel like a fake movie buff. I’ve never seen one of his films. I hear about them. Watch a movie video essayist talk about them. See the trailers and things for them. But never seen one.
Maybe I should just take a day and marathon his stuff
Grand Budapest Hotel is my favorite use of the tropes/style that he is known for. Royal Tenenbaums is the movie that really put him on the map, in my opinion (although I might be biased because that came out right when I was looking to expand my understand of what film could be).
And Moonrise Kingdom is personally my favorite of his films. I think it could be worth watching those 3, and then deciding if you want to go further.
Watch The Royal Tenenbaumbs and Bottle Rocket. Wes Anderson can be a little overrated and honestly a little one note stylistically, but those are my favorites
Edit: oh and Life Aquatic is kinda iconic
Thanks for the video link, that was great and explained it well. The part at the end showing the ones done well makes me crave that.
This is just a beginning theory, but I wonder if it has something to do with color blindness or something? They may be getting test audiences that are accidentally more skewed towards it, since men are more likely to have it for some reason.
I doubt it’s color blindness. As others have mentioned this lack of color seems to be a more US based phenomenon. I think it’s the logical result of the obsession with “gritty and real” that took off with things like “Bourne Identity” in 2002. The laziest and cheapest way to convey that “dark and drab” vibe is by just sucking all the colours out. Movies started getting to mimic Bourne and others like it because they were popular (and yes, like always Hollywood did zero actual investigation into why they’re popular and just tried to copy surface level). That just kept spreading and now we’re stuck with it
The dark muted limited-colors thing started way before 2002
Here’s a random example, the matrix from 1999
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/r_aina/43070750/172261/172261_original.png
I dunno if 1999 is “way before”. That’s only three years. I wasn’t trying to nail the very first movie that started the trend, just an early example. Bourne specifically I know influenced the next few James Bond movies and they toned down the saturation directly because of Bourne, and it kept spreading.
Yeah, it’s a discussion for real. It’s okay to stand out now and then and do the less color if there’s a reason. It seems like they lost the plot on the color portion.
Colorblindness is part of the reason for Christopher Nolan’s visual style avoiding red and green. He’s colorblind so he chooses to avoid colors he’d need outside help with, and likes making visuals that look good even with red/green colorblindness.
And of course, he’s basically up there as one of the most bankable big budget directors there is, so he probably has an outsize influence even on other directors who aren’t colorblind.
That’s interesting, I bet that’s part of it. He must treat it like black and white. I read an interview that he stays under-budget and before the deadline so he doesn’t have to have executives telling him what to do. Maybe these directors have to listen to the producers, who from what I’ve seen, really only care about the bean counting. His movies are still beautiful because he has the authority and he cares.