Name Change posted:

You are the one who claimed you couldn't understand why this is commonly considered a Star Wars ripoff:

"A Star Wars movie was my original concept for it.”

Every Star Wars movie, Inglorious Basterds, Pan's Labyrinth. Why didn't you know about these movies? Are you stupid?

josh04 posted:

I don't think I said he was the only director doing this sort of thing? The point stands, the current trendy moan is that modern cinema (and Netflix productions specifically) is too bound to crisp, clean digital shooting and lacks the more intimate flaws and stylisation of older movies. Even in those examples, there's two shots that look good and one where Sam is approaching from the edge of the frame and out of focus - but when we go back to the shot she's moved into the focal plane with Jimmy.

Blood Boils posted:

8 movies across 5 decades isn't exactly what I would call an abundance lol

Also these are all obvious and popular choices, I had hoped you had a more impressive selection: mediocre:

Roth posted:

Snyder is very popular

Nodoze posted:

A lot of people enjoy spectacle with zero substance

Mega Comrade posted:

In that example their hands are in the focus, their faces are not...

Nodoze posted:

A lot of people enjoy spectacle with zero substance

Nodoze posted:

A lot of people enjoy spectacle with zero substance

Jimbot posted:

I believe so, yes. Link

It comes down to personal preference of the look but it's also something that requires a little more effort on our part, as viewers. It's easy to just go "Zack Snyder likes his dumb lenses" or "it's done to capture the look of the 70's and 80's sci-fi/fantasy/film" but it should be "why is it framed this way and what is the focus on the shot?" Contrary to popular belief, Snyder or any filmmaker puts thought behind each shot and the information they convey. Giving these folks a little benefit of the doubt and accept they know what they're doing is something I think we lost in this age of reactionary youtube videos that are genuinely incurious and rush to judgement or, at least, are very pretentious.

So because these lenses have that aberration effect framing becomes even more important. Why are the hands in focus and the faces are not. Jimmy is a robot with no facial features but Sam is a real person that can emote but what would that contrast be? We can obviously see that he is a faceless robot and she a blooded human. But if we focus on the hands we can tell a story. He fiddles with the towel, which isn't a lot to go on but it draws our attention to them and to his chest, which is in focus and the details inscribed on them. She's not talking but is making a flower laurel - it sets up a pay-off at the end of their conversation. His story is about the death of the princess Issa and how with her death their honor, compassion, kindness and hope died with her. At the end she puts the laurel upon his head tells him she believes all those things live within him, places her hand upon his cheek and it lights up with a warm color. She showed him those very things he thought were all but lost.

It's also worth noting that the lens isn't used in the tight shots. When they move in to focus on their faces during their conversation aberration effect is absent.

It's fair to say that if you're not engaged or interested in the works that you simply don't want to do that - no piece of art deserves your time if you don't want to give it. That said I firmly believe that, in the case of movies, you get more out of them the more you put in them. It's a lot of fun dissecting a scene or sequence and look at the filmmaking, discerning the hows and whys of it all.

This is one of my favorite videos on Man of Steel and all it does is talk about the filmmaking in one scene in that entire movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2RpU3FL1w8

And it's only 7 minutes and 30 seconds long.

Majkol posted:

But enough about Marvel movies.

Nah. That's silly. Every movie has some substance, sometimes that substance is drain-hair.

josh04 posted:

sarlacc pit, both of you

grobbo posted:

Brain Bug Cut, please. Brain Bug Cut.

Communist Thoughts posted:

It's gonna be funny when the final cut is released and it doesn't contain any additional characterisation or things that were missing but it contains an extra hour of griffons or sweaty pecs I dunno I haven't seen this one yet.

Like I remember the snyder cut discourse where everyone was talking about how the snyder cut would add in some Lois and Martha characterisation in their cut scene.

And it did and was quite a good scene then it ends with martha transforming into green goblin and winking at the camera, making it even worse than the boiiiiing whedon original in terms of female characterisation, in a way no one could have predicted.

I want the rebel moon equivalent of that

Squinty posted:

IMO this doesn't quite work because the lighting and framing scream to me that the focal point should be 100% on the girl's face, but instead it's just slightly out of focus in favor of her hands, her skirt, the rock she's sitting on, the robot's chest, and some random blades of grass. It's just slightly offputting for the composition to draw so much attention to something that's not in focus.

Name Change posted:

Well at least Zack got to obvious, popular is another story

Blood Boils posted:

Well it did contain more & better characterization than Whedon's (who as awful as it was was also characterization - it still counts even if we wish it didn't!). Snydercut scene characterizes 3 characters: Lois, Martha, then after the reveal, Manhunter and Martha by her absence.

Lois & Martha aren't close enough to turn to each other, both physically (Kansas vs Metropolis) and emotionally (they've met maybe twice, once being Clark's funeral). The scene communicates how their grief is isolating them both. Manhunter as Swanwick has a long relationship of mutual respect with Lois, and since he's a shapeshifter he wouldn't consider trickery as an illegitimate way to help a friend in genuine need. His alienness and humanity are simultaneously emphasized.

It sits awkwardly in the story for sure, but it's not really all that weird for a cbm

Blood Boils posted:

I have no opinion on lenses/focus debate but that's a funny username + post combo :p

Ok but that wasn't the point of contention - you implied there was a plethora of these antifa fantasy movies, but could only name a few well-known titles spread over a time period older than me. Bit of a letdown

Name Change posted:

I met deliberately lovely, obtuse, and snobby posting about blockbusters (of all things) with the same. An explicitly antifascist fantasy movie comes out just about every month. You may as well ask about Seven Samurai adaptations.

Name Change posted:

I met deliberately lovely, obtuse, and snobby posting about blockbusters (of all things) with the same. An explicitly antifascist fantasy movie comes out just about every month. You may as well ask about Seven Samurai adaptations.

Blood Boils posted:

I would genuinely love some rec's! The most recent coming to mind is 2018's Robin Hood, I'm drawing a blank otherwise

kalel posted:

I haven't seen the movie yet but it's a masterpiece. I know because it says "zack snyder" on it

Alhazred posted:

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio.

Blood Boils posted:

I'm iffy on del Toro but on the other hand I do enjoy that old weird fairy tale. Thanks!

Blood Boils posted:

Well, I couldn't resist the "worst of all time" appeals, so I watched it: honestly, not bad at all. While obviously cut to the bone and pathetically sanitized, it's still pretty solid for the genre. As has been said, the comparisons to Star Wars are a little off

Blood Boils posted:

I'm iffy on del Toro

well why not posted:

It’s a pretty meaningless point to make 40+ years after Star Wars redefined sci-fi.

Like, what sci-fi action doesn’t have either a direct Star Wars influence?

This really borrowed more from Star Wars’ own influence - namely: stealing from Kurosawa and Westerns. The structure is pretty much just Seven Samurai, copied even closer than Rogue One’s take on it.

Alhazred posted:

It's not entirely wrong either. After all, they go to a scummy bar and recruits a smuggler. It's also worth noting that Star Wars itself is heavily inspired by european sci-fi comics.

Mordiceius posted:

Mordiceius posted:

Pirate Jet posted:

Here’s the terrible secret about Del Toro: remove Pan’s Labyrinth from his filmography and he’s suddenly really mediocre.