Sure, I'm not judging you. I love old cheap movies. Some new cheap movies, too.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.
I like the grimy look of older exploitation films. The dark and foggy look of older noir films.
I can agree CGI has made directors…complacent? Lazy? Sure.
I disagree that cgi is a sign of laziness. There is, of course, shit cgi. And practical effects undoubtedly age much much much better. But the skill and craft it takes to make cgi which looks convincing (for the time the film is released, ofc) takes a ton of effort. Regardless of how much cgi technology has improved over the years doesn't change how a film from 20 years ago which had great cgi for its time gave the best output it could've given with the limitations it was working with. That takes effort.
I disagree that cgi is a sign of laziness. There is, of course, shit cgi. And practical effects undoubtedly age much much much better. But the skill and craft it takes to make cgi which looks convincing (for the time the film is released, ofc) takes a ton of effort. Regardless of how much cgi technology has improved over the years doesn't change how a film from 20 years ago which had great cgi for its time gave the best output it could've given with the limitations it was working with. That takes effort.
The people creating the CGI are usually not the same people deciding to use it. So it could be a sign of laziness even while an incredible amount of effort is put into it.
The people creating the CGI are usually not the same people deciding to use it. So it could be a sign of laziness even while an incredible amount of effort is put into it.
The people who decide to use cgi though are also responsible for hiring the people who make cgi and firing them if they feel they're not putting enough effort into it. So, if you're willfully hiring untalented people, then yes, but if you hire talented people who deliver, then no.
In short, I think it depends on the context. Neither cgi nor practical effects are lazy on principle but what a film does with this and what the output is is what determines laziness. Jaws 4's practical effects are lazy. The Thing's practical effects are definitely not lazy. Birdemic's cgi is lazy. Avatar 2 isn't lazy.
First of all, the overwhelming majority of directors working in the industry today are nothing more than hired hands. That's it. They answer to the studio or whomever is financing the movie; also, how much time and money is spent on things like (among others) CGI usually depends on decisions that are outside of the directors' hands; they usually don't get to say what the budget is for VFX, or how much time is going to be given to the various VFX departments. Most of the time, studios try to get by with spending as little as possible on that department, and many times they are also hellbent on making a release date that was decided years in advance - and the VFX crews better hurry up, even if it means working around the clock sometimes.
So unless you're a George Lucas, a Spielberg or a James Cameron, chances are you're stuck with whatever the studio or the producers have already decided when it comes to things like the VFX budget and deadlines. And if you don't think the budget for certain departments is reasonable, tough luck. You can either complete the assignment you've been hired for, or you can resign before tensions with the studio force you out anyway.
Lastly, movies like The Force Awakens or Avatar 2 have demonstrated that, so long as the eye candy is there, audiences worldwide won't much mind the near complete lack of a single original idea. Those movies can recycle the old story beats most of us know by heart and rely on nothing more than old tropes - and audiences will buy it. But then again, those movies probably cost 4 or 5 times the average, especially once you factor in the marketing and advertising.
And, conversely, there are movies like The Creator that have reasonably good VFX on despite a comparatively low budget, that absolutely nobody was interested in watching in the cinema.
William Goldman and H.L. Mencken were both right. Nobody knows anything, but also, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people (or, in this case, moviegoers around the world).
I think an important distinction to make is the difference between movies that look pretty, and movies that look interesting. At its core, it's the difference between movies as entertainment and movies as art.
I get what Mr. Minio is saying, and I agree that many movies seem a lot more visually stale, especially the middle of the budget range movies (50-100 million), or just about anything cranked out by Disney these days.
I think it has more to do with studios than directors. Movie studios don't want to spend time or money on movies that aren't going to earn them a billion dollars. They just want to get them done cheap and fast, even when they're attempting to win awards. It's extremely cinical.
Great directors of the past took time and risks, even in small movies, or where you didn't expect to see them, like in action movies like Point Blank (1967). Do you think any future revenge/action movies will have an ending so visually stunning and emotionally rewarding?
The Third Man is another great example. At its core, it's a simple crime/mystery story. But the creators transformed it into so much more, almost entirely due to the way they filmed it.
or just about anything cranked out by Disney these days.
Avatar 2 is a Disney movie.
The Creator is a Disney movie.
Poor Things is a Disney movie.
Rogue One is a Disney movie.
I think just being part of the product being financed and/or distributed by a major corporation does not necessarily mean there hasn't been a lot of hard-working professionals putting in a lot of hours to make a movie that looks pretty darn amazing.
Umm, maybe if your definition of nicer is "prettier in a generic way". Avatar 2 looks too polished and fake in that Windows screensaver kinda way. Birdemic looks like Hitchcock's Birds by the way of a 90s FMV game. Neither is visually beautiful, but I think Birdemic looks more interesting and therefore "nicer".
First of all, the overwhelming majority of directors working in the industry today are nothing more than hired hands.
So was the majority of directors at Nikkatsu, Toho, Shochiku, RKO, Warner Bros, Paramount, etc. in the past. Some studios gave directors more freedom (Shochiku) while others didn't (Nikkatsu), but all required films that would earn money within a reasonable timeframe.
So unless you're a George Lucas, a Spielberg or a James Cameron, chances are you're stuck with whatever the studio or the producers have already decided
Not that Lucas, Spielberg, or Cameron know a thing about real visual beauty. Coppola or Gosha would be a much better pick.
When you look at, say, the early films of Seijun Suzuki, you see a touch of an artist. He would make so many films for Nikkatsu, 40 in total, not all of them great, but all had at least something good about them. And the best ones were nothing short of excellent with many amazing ideas. He was nothing more than a hired hand. He was forced by the studio to do many things, and any refusal meant he could lose his job. And he eventually did. But he understood:
Blocking:
Color:
Fun:
The advantages of film sets (He deconstructs the film's own world):
He influenced other directors. This screams Winding Refn:
etc.
We don't have directors like this anymore. The filmmaking process has changed. There are no directors who make 3+ films a year anymore. There is no Wyler who can't sleep, thinking about new ways a character can mount a horse. There is no Suzuki, employing Nikkatsian kind of Shochiku Ozu's visuals within the realm of a B-film helmed by teenage star Koji Wada. There's nobody to train the new potential Kobayashi.
Right, from Shochiku, you have Kinoshita. His films' beauty might not be of the highest artistic decorum like that of mid-late Godard, but it's palpable, always exceptionally well-composed. He was a director who worked with intuition. No storyboards, he planned the camera movements and framing when already on the set.
You have to ask yourself a question:
Who can pull out a shot like this in modern cinema?
Or like this:
No more than 3 people, if that.
Anyway, hard work means nothing. If I were to move a tonne of sand from one place to another and use my hands to do it, that'd be hard work that took many days. But if I used a wheelbarrow, it'd be much faster. The result would be the same. That's just the manual job of it, which is not wholly analogous to making art, but portrays that hard work means nothing. You have to work smart. In art, it's not about how hard people work, it's about the final result.
Great directors of the past took time and risks, even in small movies, or where you didn't expect to see them, like in action movies like Point Blank (1967). Do you think any future revenge/action movies will have an ending so visually stunning and emotionally rewarding?
The Third Man is another great example. At its core, it's a simple crime/mystery story. But the creators transformed it into so much more, almost entirely due to the way they filmed it.
This is exactly what I'm saying. You're given a job and you excel at it, turning craftsmanship into art. Most directors nowadays don't even try to make their films anything more than an 8-hour day job.
Yorgos Lanthimos is keeping visual cinema alive. His films has such a distinct identity to them, with a careful precision that also also draws you into the story and the strange world he creates. I can see many others taking cues from him in the future.
Same thing with Ari Aster. You know you're going in for quite an experience when you watch an Aster film.
I need to watch more of his films I hated Dogtooth and liked The Lobster - I can't say either looks particularly beautiful, though. I can't bring myself to watch The Favourite but I saw some clips from it and it looks like a Kubrick film wannabe directed by Sofia Coppola on crack. Ugliness trying to pass off as art while trying to be the new Barry Lyndon, Kubrick epigonism, etc. Still, this is how I feel merely from watching a few clips from it. Sometimes watching the whole film makes a difference, so I'm not writing him off as a hack yet.
Okay, I'll give you Rogue One. That was a fantastic movie that looked great.
Your visual standards must be really low if you think Rogue One looks great. I mean, I really like this movie, but come on! It looks merely competent. But yeah, if you compare it to something like Avengers, it indeed looks great.
Some studios gave directors more freedom [...] but all required films that would earn money within a reasonable timeframe.
"Required" how? A lot of movies from those decades lost money at the box-office. A studio doesn't have to make a profit on every movie it releases in order to stay in business - it just has to make sure that the movies that make money make up for those which didn't.
Not that Lucas, Spielberg, or Cameron know a thing about real visual beauty.
And you think that's the point I was making? Because it definitely isn't. I brought them up as examples of some of the few directors who would have a substantial say in terms of budget, deadlines, etc. I never said anything about whether or not I think their movies look great or not great.
But obviously, you're not contesting the point I made - that the overwhelming majority of directors today has absolutely no say on things like the VFX budget, or how much you try to rush VFX artists to meet a release date.
Reply to Topic
