|
Fuckman posted:This seems like a weird tactic, employed solely by fanboys when it is convenient. Nerds are prejudiced against films when they have women directors or casts and aren't directed at white heterosexual cismales. But wait! They're also prejudiced against films when it looks like the white hetero cismale director goes to Gold's gym twice a month Kurzon hunnie I hope you're taking notes this is how you do it
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Fuckman posted:This seems like a weird tactic, employed solely by fanboys when it is convenient. Nerds are prejudiced against films when they have women directors or casts and aren't directed at white heterosexual cismales. But wait! They're also prejudiced against films when it looks like the white hetero cismale director goes to Gold's gym twice a month Are you arguing against yourself, here? You're the one that's attacking the director.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
This is a forum where someone unironically told me that you aren't supposed to feel emotion in films because it's just made up, so I'm not surprised their idea of good film making is like the proverbial blind man describing an elephant while only holding its tail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:This is a forum where someone unironically told me that you aren't supposed to feel emotion in films because it's just made up, so I'm not surprised their idea of good film making is like the proverbial blind man describing an elephant while only holding its tail. it's also a forum where you and loving tezzor hang out so yeah this place really is the dregs
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:This is a forum where someone unironically told me that you aren't supposed to feel emotion in films because it's just made up, so I'm not surprised their idea of good film making is like the proverbial blind man describing an elephant while only holding its tail. Who told u that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Who told u that? That gem came from BravestOfTheLamps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:As it happens, David Ayers best film (End of Watch) has absolute poo poo cinematography but is good by virtue of its excellent characterization. Is that irony? How is the cinematography poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:How is the cinematography poo poo? uhhhhhhh it was directed by a guy who then went on to direct filthy DC movies. Please try and keep up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
You're saying you think End Of Watch is a beautifully shot film? Seriously? Is this some thing where you like it so you think it must be good in every aspect or something? If you're going to be obtuse about giving cinematography primacy over everything, you could at least pretend like you can judge cinematography well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
the whole incredulous rhetorical questions act is getting pretty old too FYI
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:You're saying you think End Of Watch is a beautifully shot film? He did not say that. If your curious as to what he actually said, you could try reading his post. It's two above your own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:That gem came from BravestOfTheLamps. O they post a lil too rowdy 4 my taste, but u post like...way too rowdy for my taste so tone it down maybe if u want other ppl to tone it down too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:16
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:You're saying you think End Of Watch is a beautifully shot film? Seriously? Is this some thing where you like it so you think it must be good in every aspect or something? If you're going to be obtuse about giving cinematography primacy over everything, you could at least pretend like you can judge cinematography well. It's a discussion forum, buddy, you don't get to do drive-by posts calling a movie ugly without backing yourself up.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
It's a found footage film. Like a good proportion of the shots are literally composed like 'this is where the camera would be in the police car' 'this is where the camera would be if this guy was carrying it'. It's a format that almost explicitly rejects many considerations of good cinematography. Which is fine, because it doesn't need well composed shots to be a good film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:20
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:It's a found footage film. Like a good proportion of the shots are literally composed like 'this is where the camera would be in the police car' 'this is where the camera would be if this guy was carrying it'. It's a format that almost explicitly rejects many considerations of good cinematography. Of traditional cinematography, maybe, but found footage follows its own rules and has its own standards of good imagecrafting. merely being found footage is not enough to call something Bad.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Of traditional cinematography, maybe, but found footage follows its own rules and has its own standards of good imagecrafting. merely being found footage is not enough to call something Bad. I kinda feel like this doesn't even disagree with what I said. Sure, I'll agree it has good cinematography for a format that rejects consideration of traditional good cinematography in favor of other considerations. Which is not the same thing as saying it has good cinematography.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:28
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Sure, I'll agree it has good cinematography . . . Which is not the same thing as saying it has good cinematography. ??????
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:I kinda feel like this doesn't even disagree with what I said. Sure, I'll agree it has good cinematography for a format that rejects consideration of traditional good cinematography in favor of other considerations. Which is not the same thing as saying it has good cinematography. There is not only one right way to do things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There is not only one right way to do things. How much money have you made from defending DCU films, on a scale of $0-$0
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Found footage movies aren't just point and shoot. They're still composed and employ traditional elements of 2D composition. They don't necessarily drop those for the sake of realism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:I kinda feel like this doesn't even disagree with what I said. Sure, I'll agree it has good cinematography for a format that rejects consideration of traditional good cinematography in favor of other considerations. Which is not the same thing as saying it has good cinematography. There are found footage films with absolutely garbage cinematography and there are some with great cinematography within the self imposed limitations. The choice of camera sources, positioning and cuts involves just as much careful decision making as a 'traditional film'. The cinematography itself is meant to convey a different mood through being found footage, same with the sometimes jarring editing style that can go with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
In addition, End of Watch isn't purely found footage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
I actually like the really high shutter-speed that so much of End of Watch is shot in, it's really unsettling. Ditto the high exposure that frequently 'bleaches out' a lot of texture while emphasizing the uncanny, streamlined, industrial smoothness of metallic or gaudy surfaces (vehicles, weapons, bling in particular). Like, none of it is what I'd call 'picturesque' or anything, but it's not precisely like the movie is trying to portray characters who are in a sublimating mindset. Something I noticed only once lazorexplosion had his tantrum was how often the camera isn't just using an extreme wide lens, and canted to a disorienting angle, but it's also frequently aligned with a character's arms, emphasizing both the power and weakness to what is literally 'the arm of the law.' Intercut with the more 'objective' shots of dashcams and body-mounted cameras, you get a really great sense of just how fragile these overt displays of power are, of how they can be compromised at any moment by one blind-spot, by one flare in the eye, by one moment's slip up or hesitation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUi034n5XY     I think what lazorexplosion is doing here is making the classic mistake of confusing motivated cinematography with bad cinematography, as if the point of all of this 'Bad Avengers Shot of the Day' stuff is to enforce this totalitarian aesthetic. It's not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
End of Watch has a really effective, sun-bleached 'LA' look to it. The cinematography is good, it's just that Los Angeles is an ugly city.
Mechafunkzilla fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Fuckman posted:How much money have you made from defending DCU films, on a scale of $0-$0 I actually get money every time you rereg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Fuckman posted:I want you all to visit the obscure website Youtube.com and search for Zack Snyder until you've seen enough of the man speaking and describing his creative decisions and the reasons behind them to disabuse yourself of the notion that he is a misunderstood genius and start becoming impressed at the apparent fact that he dresses himself without a team of nurses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkklBeLfZxo&t=341s Seems a lot smarter than most people on the subject to me. Even if I don't agree with some of his creative decisions, he's clearly not some dullard stumbling through the dark with material he doesn't have any understanding of. Look at how many nerds continue to parrot that Snyder "missed the point" of Watchmen, because they have no grasp of how to read a scene or distinguish satire. It's really funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Equilibrium posted:some dullard stumbling through the dark with material he doesn't have any understanding of. pretty apt description of Man of Steel actually
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Fuckman posted:Three characters meet in the woods. Thor is angry that his very dangerous brother has escaped and mere mortals who don't know what they are dealing with refuse to hand him to the gods' justice. Tony Stark is irreverent, literally, which further angers Thor, who we know to be a pompous, violent hothead. Stark is arrogant and possessive and dismissive, he sees Thor as an annoyance and an interloper keeping him from his goal. Thor sees Stark as a deluded fool. Thor attacks and Stark rises to the challenge, to prove the tech he built is above so-called magic. From afar, Loki watches with glee. They fight and Thor inadvertently gives Stark a brief advantage, which sets the tone - Thor is clearly more powerful, but Stark's cleverness keeps them evenly matched. Steve Rogers arrives to play peacemaker, but misjudged how much Thor - an unknown to him at this point- is amped for a fight. Thor blindly attacks Rogers in a rage, causing a wave of destruction. The characters stand up, the climax passed. Rogers asks "Are we done here," and indeed, we are. But the cinematography is lame, and that's the important thing, say guys who defend the Star Wars prequels. To be more accurate, Batman "hates" Superman because he looks at Superman and sees this weird hosed-up alien that everyone's treating like a god. Superman's opinion is more like "dude stop there's more important poo poo going on." The Martha thing kind of works for me because it humanizes Superman in Batman's eyes- it reveals to Batman that Superman isn't just the blue spandex and cape, there's also a regular, ordinary farm boy named Clark hiding under there who's just as terrified of the deification he's receiving as Batman is. It's a little clunky, but I can totally see where they were going with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
It's not even that. In fact, Batman acknowledges - as he winds up to murder Superman - that he's sure Superman had a mommy and daddy just like Batman did, and that mommy and daddy told Superman that Superman'd be special, etc, but tough poo poo it's time to die. What snaps Batman out of it is the accusation that BATMAN'S letting people kill BATMAN'S OWN mom - which he is, figuratively speaking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:pretty apt description of Man of Steel actually this is a pretty good hot-take on a 3 year old film that's better than the more recent zack snyder film that is actually being discussed???
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:this is a pretty good hot-take on a 3 year old film that's better than the more recent zack snyder film that is actually being discussed??? his post had a man of steel interview in it also im sorry you actually liked that movie 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:his post had a man of steel interview in it I can't speak for ungulateman, but I personally don't find liking things to be too terrible a burden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:It's a found footage film. Like a good proportion of the shots are literally composed like 'this is where the camera would be in the police car' 'this is where the camera would be if this guy was carrying it'. Well now you're getting confused, because that's every shot in every movie. The camera will be placed as if it's a character's POV, or as if it's a God's-eye perspective. It'll be placed as if you're eavesdropping, and so-on. It's not 'random pretty pictures'. The specific shot we're talking about, in Dawn, is intercut with diegetic TV interview footage - but the camera does an impossible gliding motion. This footage is extradiegetic, someone's subjective interpretation of events. And then, at the end of the montage, it's revealed whose perspective it is:  The scene is Clark Kent looking at Superman from the outside, recalling the events, empathizing with the people who were awed and frightened by him. Look at the eyelines - where the man is pointing in the first shot. When Clark looks back on the event, his perspective is much closer to the ground than it 'objectively' was. He feels bad for that woman. This confuses Tezzor because, in both shots, Superman remains mostly still, and does not narrate what's happening to the audience. The information is conveyed almost purely through the motion of the camera and some editing. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's not even that. In fact, Batman acknowledges - as he winds up to murder Superman - that he's sure Superman had a mommy and daddy just like Batman did, and that mommy and daddy told Superman that Superman'd be special, etc, but tough poo poo it's time to die. Well, yeah, on the surface he's aware that that was a thing beforehand, but it doesn't truly sink in until he sees Superman in a moment of weakness- one which connects back to the original perceived moment of weakness that Bruce became Batman over. Batman initially sees the farm boy reporter as the mask and the demigod as the underlying thing, when in reality Superman's the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Fuckman posted:Huh. It seems as if audiences and critics are less interested in what pretty frozen images you can screenshot for internet forums, and more interested in characterization, interaction and dialogue, ie the things humans react to in a story. There must be something wrong with them quote:The problem is when you try to apply that image to a moving picture. We get an image of a Superman who looks like a weird, distant, alien rear end in a top hat, who is floating there watching these people scramble for safety, perhaps moments away from their home collapsing from the floodwaters and plunging them into the current, while they reach out to him for help and he stays there, unmoving. It creates a great image!! It creates a character who feels like an emotionless sadist drinking in their supplication. For real though, I don't think characterization through images is inherently superior to characterization through dialogue, there's time and place for both, but it does strike me that a lot of complaints about BvS and other Snyder's films having lacking characterization or confusing character motivations boil down to the fact of people not picking up on a lot of visual cues rather than anything based in reality. One image worth a thousand words, etc. Equilibrium posted:This is why Cinematography is important. Look at the feelings it evokes, the meltdowns it provokes. The Avengers concept art vs final images on the previous pages showed me I could have actually found the film interesting if it was shot like that, as, once again, the first image with Iron Man/Thor/Captain America in the forest tells you about their character and conflict more than anything from the finished film. As it is, although I enjoyed the first few Marvels I watched, now I can't even be bothered to watch most of the newer ones as they all blend together. Am probably going to watch the new Thor as I'm curious to see if Waititi can bring anything new plus I like the casting, and I'll watch GotG2 as I want to see Stallone and Kurt Russell in a superhero film, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Perhaps a hamster posted:Pretty much every BvS shot with characters in it has more characterization than an entire scene of Marvel banter. The most CineD post of all time
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Fuckman posted:I want you all to visit the obscure website Youtube.com and search for Zack Snyder until you've seen enough of the man speaking and describing his creative decisions and the reasons behind them to disabuse yourself of the notion that he is a misunderstood genius and start becoming impressed at the apparent fact that he dresses himself without a team of nurses.  Coming from the guy who has spent over $60 on an Internet forum to melt down about people liking Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:The most CineD post of all time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOzD4Sfgag
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's not even that. In fact, Batman acknowledges - as he winds up to murder Superman - that he's sure Superman had a mommy and daddy just like Batman did, and that mommy and daddy told Superman that Superman'd be special, etc, but tough poo poo it's time to die. Maybe it's just me, but I one of the ways sort of taking the whole thing as Batman sees everyone as a potential Batman in the making with the right environment and resources. Bruce was probably a little boy with parents who told him he was going to grow up to be special, who grew up with power and privilege, etc. If one bad day was enough to turn someone like a one-percenter Bruce Wayne into something like Batman, what would a similar bad day turn something on the power scale of Superman into in response when/if it eventually happens? In part, him choosing to save Martha is him trying to keep Superman from becoming him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Well, yeah, on the surface he's aware that that was a thing beforehand, but it doesn't truly sink in until he sees Superman in a moment of weakness- one which connects back to the original perceived moment of weakness that Bruce became Batman over. Batman initially sees the farm boy reporter as the mask and the demigod as the underlying thing, when in reality Superman's the other way around. I bet Batman would have loved That Monologue from Kill Bill 2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:51
|
|
