|
AnimeIsTrash posted:LANA DANGER ZONE😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
DoombatINC posted:jesus christ the last season of archer I was aware of was season five, have they been doing shadow plays on a cave wall and calling them seasons and just not telling anyone, what the gently caress lol yeah looking it up i peaced out on 5 as well. if you'd asked me what season it'd be on now i'd have said 9 or 10 if they didn't skip any years turns out a bunch of 8-episode seasons on FXX don't really make a cultural splash
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
i still dont get the point of FXX seemed stupid
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Xaris posted:i still dont get the point of FXX they stuck niche shows with diehard fans on it so people would self-segregate there and sign up. i guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
but that's what you don't want, you want them to accidentally start watching other shows and not siloing them
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Xaris posted:but that's what you don't want, you want them to accidentally start watching other shows and not siloing them only if they're relying on ad money and not subscription money
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Xaris posted:but that's what you don't want, you want them to accidentally start watching other shows and not siloing them but then where are you going to put da movies??
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
always sunny bumped for the weekly re-airing of Bad Boys
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
The first 3 seasons of archer averaged 3.5-4 million debut viewers for FX. Season 12 averaged 350,000, an approximate 90% dropofd
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:didnt read stfu schizo guy it's actually not from Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Don Dellilo rules
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
indigi posted:drat that's cozy as gently caress which movie, death to smoochy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:which movie, death to smoochy? yeah that's what he was talking about
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:which movie, death to smoochy? yeah
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
    I never saw this movie and it's hard to find higher-quality images from it online. They would have shot on 35mm but so was everything before 2002 and really basically everything before 2008 or so. Looks like they used wider lenses, maybe at a deeper stop, which keeps more of the background in focus for a similar shot size. And that deeper focus along with the very stage-y lighting makes it feel more theatrical than 'cinematic'. There's nothing wrong about these per se but they also lit everything fairly bright so it feels more like a stage. The production design, costume, makeup, performances etc also feel very 'theatrical' so there's nothing cuing you about 'cinematic'. The main thing that stands out to me is the lighting in a lot of shots has the key 'over' by a stop or three. Like people are lit too brightly. Look at Katherine Keener's arm in the first image of this post - why is it so bright on her arm? Why is Norton's neck brighter than his face? The lighting is just splashing around everywhere - it's not focusing our attention and it's not motivated by the environment. The funniest thing is there is a "internet movie firearms database" which has some really good screen grabs.     So there's a lot of scenes where the light is just slamming into our characters. The light isn't motivated by something in the room with them and its placement isn't far enough away to feel like sunlight or something. The light hitting the actor is too bright to be any of the lights we see in the background and it seems to only hit the actor. It's also 'hard' light so you can feel exactly where the light is placed, you can sense its a light about 10 feet away pointed right at the actor and brighter than anything else. And the top down, hard backlight always tells your brain "we are on a stage". Then there's this scene which is really even and soft   And keener is lit 'broad side', meaning the light and camera are both placed on the same side of her nose. And that can look really good but usually if something is off about the lighting, if the lighting is balanced, its this. You never regret putting a light 'short side' i.e. on the other side of the actor's nose from the camera. Looking at stills the movie seems to not follow this rule all the time.  like why is he lit like this, and why only him? Antonymous has issued a correction as of 19:51 on Aug 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with lighting like that but you have to be more precise. Casino is the most insanly lit movie but it always motivates it by showing you the environment has lights that could be doing this and by always lighting only where it wants you to look. It's focusing your attention.  Here it shows you the lighting  
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Naked Lunch does a lot of the things I said didn't work for death to smoochy really well Broadside lighting .jpg) Bright lighting on the face .jpg) Deep focus on a very obvious set .jpg) you just gotta motivate it and balance it, and it has to match the emotion of the scene, what it looks like to the character
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:And the top down, hard backlight always tells your brain "we are on a stage". You clearly know more about this than I do lol, but could it be that they were going for this intentionally since it's a movie about performers and it just didn't quite work out right? Good post btw! Antonymous posted:I never saw this movie and it's hard to find higher-quality images from it online. I still recommend it. Whatever you can say about DeVito's attempts at direction, he always ends up making something that has that same sleaze and cynicism of Frank Reynolds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
yeah it's definitely intentional. but it triggers that 'made for TV' feeling oh also TV was usually shot brighter than cinema, with less contrast in the lighting, I guess because the viewing environment is less controlled, a living room could be bright during the day, a tube TV has trouble reproducing shadow detail. They don't want you to turn the channel because it looks murky. So when you see a bright, flatly lit movie you think 'this looks like a made for tv movie'. you've been trained that way Antonymous has issued a correction as of 20:06 on Aug 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:yeah it's definitely intentional. but it triggers that 'made for TV' feeling interesting, that explains soap lighting. why do they use fuzzy lenses though? edit i know they use super fuzzy ones for dream sequences and poo poo but it seems the baseline is off too
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:yeah it's definitely intentional. but it triggers that 'made for TV' feeling jesus christ this explains a lot watched a couple movies recently Conan , 2011 version. takes 30 minutes to deliver the goods (momoa) but i always enjoy ron perlman. way less than the sum of its parts - the action was much more fun than i expected, everything else much worse The Straight Story - turns out i'd never seen David Lynch's best movie. everything was standout across the board - performances, setting, on and on and on insane nostalgia for me too since that part of the country in that era was a big part of my formative years , and my grandpa was nearly identical to the lead character in age, demeanor etc. only thing is the hosed up the combine scenes!! god damnit!! mastershakeman has issued a correction as of 20:26 on Aug 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
fuzzy lenses are cheaper and prior to hd you were likely throwing most of that extra definition away anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
DoombatINC posted:jesus christ the last season of archer I was aware of was season five, have they been doing shadow plays on a cave wall and calling them seasons and just not telling anyone, what the gently caress tbf their later seasons are just season 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
also similar to brightness American TV got more and more saturated over the decades before hd because TV manufacturers thought a hot image was more eye-catching in the showroom and there was no standard to adhere to
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
thanks a lot, these posts are really informative
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:yeah it's definitely intentional. but it triggers that 'made for TV' feeling Funny you say this - Devito's first major directing gig was a made for TV movie called "The Ratings Game" lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
josh04 posted:also similar to brightness American TV got more and more saturated over the decades before hd because TV manufacturers thought a hot image was more eye-catching in the showroom and there was no standard to adhere to early 90s fashion didn't help. friends and blossom were loud as hell
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
josh04 posted:fuzzy lenses are cheaper and prior to hd you were likely throwing most of that extra definition away anyway every lens performs pretty good past F2.8 or so. I don't know any cinema lens that's not 4k+ sharp at f4.0, even at f2.8. (Of course cinema uses T4.0 which is never quite a 4.0 which I can explain if you wanna know about optics) Now everyone wants soft lenses. Arri made the master primes, which were something like $32,000 per lens at launch, extremely sharp even at T1.3, very little blooming too. Just in time for digital where sharp lenses feel kinda boring. I think they're really popular lenses for TV commercials now, less so for movies. The lovely vintage fast lenses from the 70s and 80s went up like 10x in value over about 10 years because they 'take the edge' off digital. I remember looking wishfully at a set for I think like $6,500 when I started DP work and its worth $85,000 now. for 5 old rear end lenses. should have ponied up edit: I don't think any movie was shooting with fuzzy lenses for budget reasons unless it's like Texas Chainsaw Massacre level of low budget. You had to pay more for panavision to get their awesome anamorphics but there was never anything as bad as the cheap photography lenses can be, that I know of anyway. When zooms were popular they were also pretty bad optically. now zooms look about as good as prime lenses but they're still less popular. Antonymous has issued a correction as of 22:24 on Aug 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
jamie foxx with a near flawless trump impression https://twitter.com/Complex/status/1562891456532344834
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:jamie foxx with a near flawless trump impression as a 90s Kid who watched In Living Color every week, I understand that this shouldn't be surprising, but I was still surprised by how good it is
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:every lens performs pretty good past F2.8 or so. I don't know any cinema lens that's not 4k+ sharp at f4.0, even at f2.8. (Of course cinema uses T4.0 which is never quite a 4.0 which I can explain if you wanna know about optics) i was talking about teevee, video cameras generally have much smaller sensors than 35mm film and often had non-interchangable lenses and maybe even external focal length adapters. i did forget to mention beam splitters for 3ccd, which add a gentle fuzz all of their own and still see use. probably the original question was about something entirely different though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
video ccd sensors are significantly smaller than a 35mm film frame which leads to a hard limit on how tight your depth of field can be, also, which combined with how TV went for the light as hot as possible and stop down approach meant that TV had a lot of deep focus shots as a rule. that’s part of why when video on dslrs became viable you suddenly had every low budget movie sporting completely blurred out backgrounds in every shot, because a full frame dSLR actually has a bigger sensor area than vertically spooled 35mm film and suddenly you could have extremely shallow focus for very little money.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Farm Frenzy posted:https://twitter.com/sillygoofyz/status/1561403653960990724?t=CEQs1rdgLmWeFxMiEHovzg&s=19 lmaoo nooo That mother fucker is a light weight. That article is garbage. But there is still some thread of connection because the actress still listened to that music. Feast your loving Pop Culture poisoned eyes on this article about alternating stairs. https://hjauquet.medium.com/witches-stairs-do-they-exist-24f28e3da9d0 This article lays bare just how worthless a majority of articles are. And should make re-think all your superhero hate. For all the hate superhero poo poo gets, it's not superhero poo poo people hate. It's the endless loving pounding noise of remembering pop culture. It was more acceptable in the past, when it was a bunch of random loving movies, instead of the job we call the current consolidated superhero / marvel thing. You were allowed to forget movies existed, and when people referenced them it was a jaunty little dance though memory lane. But now it's all: Superhero-Superhero-Superhero. Instead of Rambo-LittleMermaid-Matrix-LadyCoca. mazzi Chart Czar has issued a correction as of 00:18 on Aug 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
mazzi Chart Czar posted:it's not superhero poo poo people hate wrong
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
i still keep up on archer, its still fine and funny and whatnot. its just at this point adam reed has been clearly phoning it in/delegating to other writers for some time and all the characters are well-established to the point where the show is basically animated comfort food. pam's horny, cheryl/carol is a psycho, cyril is competent yet ultimately a born chump, archer has some existential hangup arc for a given season, etc. just another bit of content that comes and goes through the ether.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Every Reed show is essentially the same thing. Which is why you all should watch Frisky Dingo instead of archer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:jamie foxx with a near flawless trump impression Goddamn, he might be better than that one dude who'd do the videos in his car
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
i stopped watching archer after the drug dealer season, which felt like an extended riff on how stupid comedies get when they stay on tv for too long. it blows my mind that theyre still doing it
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:Every Reed show is essentially the same thing. Which is why you all should watch Frisky Dingo instead of archer. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Goddamn, he might be better than that one dude who'd do the videos in his car Picturing someone reporting a new movie project where they are gonna use a heavily deepfaked Jamie Foxx to play Trump with absolutely zero context and watching the world collectively go what the gently caress????
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 02:34
|
|
