AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Is it just me or are recent movies looking worst?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it just me or are recent movies looking worst?

post #1 of 30
10/3/10 at 4:06pm
Thread Starter 
I'm really starting noticing how ugly a lot of movies today are looking when I watch something that is made roughly pre 2004/2005. Basically it looks like they are really making everything darker and raising the contrast to give it this slick look with heavy shadows. As if to make everything pops out on your screen like the movie is in vivid mode. There is also a bit of a warm filter over a ton of movies giving it this orange look. While color filters are nothing new, it seems like everything today uses it.


For example the new fast and the furious has a ton of this going on. I'll compare the original made in 2001 compared to the new one. Even the original had a warm filter going on but it didn't have that vivid look which looses all the detail and looks silly.





2009


2001

------------------------------------------------------------
2009


2001

------------------------------------------------------------
2009


2001
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 30
10/3/10 at 4:07pm
seems like the mohicans jumped on a bandwagon
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 30
10/3/10 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Heres an example of a 90's movie without the warm filter/vivid look vs something today



2009







1995



Reply
Reply
post #4 of 30
10/3/10 at 4:14pm
It's a stylistic thing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Ridley Scott's starting to overkill it, though.. his brightly-lit scenes are on the verge of being too dark, which makes the dark scenes almost unwatchable.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 30
10/3/10 at 4:25pm
Thread Starter 
But stylistic reasons generally have an actual purpose behind it.

Like it makes sense that Lord of the Rings has different filters going on when showing different areas of Middle Earth. It helps tell the story. Just like it makes sense for Traffic to have different filters for Washington DC, So Cal, and Mexico and it makes sense for the Matrix to use different filters(Even those movies^^ didn't have massive shadows throughout the movie). Now every movie is using this same look for the sake of using it, like a new industry standard.

I'm not saying everything looks bad and is overusing it but its certainly becoming the norm.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 30
10/3/10 at 4:48pm
I'd like to first point out that it is super-rude to inline link a bunch of images that suck bandwidth directly from another website's servers like you have done (unless you got permission, then nevermind). Like my granpappy always said, rehost 'em if you're gonna post 'em.

With that out of the way, this blog post is an interesting read on the modern look of "teal and orange":
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/20...ease-stop.html

Some supplementary discussion of that blog article here:
http://www.metafilter.com/90233/The-...e-of-Hollywood

I'm not really offended by the look and I think it's been used appropriately and effectively in some films, but it does get tiresome to see it *everywhere*.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 30
10/3/10 at 5:12pm
You're looking at the difference between the old school photochemical print releases versus the super duper clean DIs.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 30
10/3/10 at 7:33pm
Orange & teal. Once you notice it, you won't be able to keep your eyes from rolling.

Here's a brief touch on the subject... be sure to check the links posted.
http://www.gointothestory.com/2010/0...-and-blue.html
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/20...ease-stop.html
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 30
10/3/10 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Orange & teal. Once you notice it, you won't be able to keep your eyes from rolling.

I was gonna say... movies have had this odd orange tint to them for almost this entire past decade. Lot's of orange and yellow and I'm not talking about stuff being filmed during magic hour either.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 30
10/3/10 at 7:42pm
Because teal/green/blue DARK tones are the colors OF SERIOUS "DEEP" FILMS and every filmmaker out there thinks their movie is so god damn important and special. Hence the heavy use of it. I think those tones only work, when it suits the movies' subject matter, Even though I feel Ridley Scott films have always had a somber feel to them. But it becomes pointless and banal when say, a standard comedy (which are normally bright and upbeat in nature) apply the same look. Or I always thought it was because the studios realized early consumer practical LCD screens were never good with displaying decent contrast/brightness levels. So they crush they blacks in advance and brighten the whites, because earlier films with balanced cinematography levels look like **** on anything else besides a decent display/monitor (like my Sun GDM-5510 21 inch CRT) =D
this is all theory of course!
I dunno, i understand the punchier look though, i have always been partial to DVD imports that mastered the films using their own telecine process, and made the films look decades older then they were, as if you were watching it in a old beat up theater. Case in point, EuroVideo's first release of The Shawshank Redemption: http://www.caps-a-holic.com/vergleic...ergleichID=303 . You bet your ass the movie would closely follow that look of the 3rd sample in those comparisons, IF the movie was released for the first time today. All desaturated and brightness/black levels blown to hell. Look at Spider-Man 1 THEN 2, even though they used different cinematographers. God, does "Surrogates" look awful
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 30
10/4/10 at 5:07am
I hate movies that are too dark to see a lot of scenes well. I also dont like screwing too much with the color, but i do kinda like enhanced colors (like the shots you see on tv on CSI-MIAMI).

Also, i like sharpness, and dont like the traditional "movie" look of a little softness and/or grain. I like them to look sharp and crisp, particularly at home on a BD. I dont have my tv in torch mode, but i wound never put it in movie mode either.

I enjoy heavy contrast in a picture, and i do have the contrast fairly high on tv, but while i like the colors deep and a little overdone, i dont like them becoming too orange. On the Fast and Furious samples above, i do like the older skin tones better, but for things other than skintone, the new one is really good to me. I will give up a little detail to have a great looking vibrant picture with awesome colors. Just dont go too dark that i cant see whats happening.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 30
10/4/10 at 5:50am
This is a trend I really do not like. When a film has a reason for F'd up contrast, ok. Fin. otherwise, just give us a detailed picture.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 30
10/4/10 at 11:38am
I really dislike the use of digital color timing in general. I can spot it instantly. The colors don't look anything like photochemical colors. I find the "DI" look very artificial and ugly.

Far too many movies today are digitally oversaturating the colors to give the picture more "pop." The Losers is a really egregious example of this. It looks gaudy and hideous.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 30
10/4/10 at 1:48pm
I've noticed most movie TV-trailers looking dull and ugly lately. I hate that "look".
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 30
10/4/10 at 10:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I really dislike the use of digital color timing in general. I can spot it instantly. The colors don't look anything like photochemical colors. I find the "DI" look very artificial and ugly.

Far too many movies today are digitally oversaturating the colors to give the picture more "pop." The Losers is a really egregious example of this. It looks gaudy and hideous.



I was just watching Jimmy Fallon and they had the actor from some movie coming out called "Life as we know it". They showed a trailer and the entire thing was orange with this ridiculous looking hazy dream looking filter on it. Looked like that terrible filter they had going on burning Indiana Jones and the King of the Crystal Skull. Awful

Reply
Reply
post #16 of 30
10/6/10 at 7:24am
I saw the LAWKI trailer on CBS last night, and it's actually one of the better looking clips I've seen in a long time.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 30
10/6/10 at 9:19am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

I saw the LAWKI trailer on CBS last night, and it's actually one of the better looking clips I've seen in a long time.

So you like the orange and dream filter?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 30
10/6/10 at 10:06am
The clip I saw was bright and clear, not orange and hazy. BTW, I recently saw The Kingdom (Jamie Foxx) for the first time and while a great movie, it has a terrible visual-style. Maybe that "dirty-digital" look is intentional, but it's awful looking (IMO).
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 30
10/7/10 at 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by synchg View Post

Because teal/green/blue DARK tones are the colors OF SERIOUS "DEEP" FILMS and every filmmaker out there thinks their movie is so god damn important and special. Hence the heavy use of it. I think those tones only work, when it suits the movies' subject matter, Even though I feel Ridley Scott films have always had a somber feel to them. But it becomes pointless and banal when say, a standard comedy (which are normally bright and upbeat in nature) apply the same look. Or I always thought it was because the studios realized early consumer practical LCD screens were never good with displaying decent contrast/brightness levels. So they crush they blacks in advance and brighten the whites, because earlier films with balanced cinematography levels look like **** on anything else besides a decent display/monitor (like my Sun GDM-5510 21 inch CRT) =D
this is all theory of course!
I dunno, i understand the punchier look though, i have always been partial to DVD imports that mastered the films using their own telecine process, and made the films look decades older then they were, as if you were watching it in a old beat up theater. Case in point, EuroVideo's first release of The Shawshank Redemption: http://www.caps-a-holic.com/vergleic...ergleichID=303 . You bet your ass the movie would closely follow that look of the 3rd sample in those comparisons, IF the movie was released for the first time today. All desaturated and brightness/black levels blown to hell. Look at Spider-Man 1 THEN 2, even though they used different cinematographers. God, does "Surrogates" look awful

Good thread, but I think this one hit it on the nail. It goes to show there's still some that aren't brainwashed on what good picture quality should look like.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 30
10/8/10 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

The clip I saw was bright and clear, not orange and hazy. BTW, I recently saw The Kingdom (Jamie Foxx) for the first time and while a great movie, it has a terrible visual-style. Maybe that "dirty-digital" look is intentional, but it's awful looking (IMO).

I thought it fit the mood\\style of the film very well, and looked great personally. But the problem is too many films try to create the mood\\style with the color grading itself, rather than molding it to fit the mood\\style theyve already created. Therein lies the problem. I have no issue with Orange & Teal, or post-apocalyptic Dust & Gray... if it fits the film. Trying to force those filters on your film like a bad square-peg-round-hole metaphor is when you lose my respect or interest.

Michael Bay has (surprise) taken this to the extreme with the Transformers series. They are the orange and tealiest films around, imo.. it was so bad in the second one that the normally gorgeous Isabel Lucas looked like a trashy, self-centered cheerleader reject.

versus
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 30
10/9/10 at 9:52am
I always thought Michael Bay has all his actors and especially actresses tan specifically for his movies. I saw 2012 last night and it looks like everyones faces are burning up.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 30
10/9/10 at 12:18pm
For a long time now, I've said that color timing has reached a level of pretentiousness that I find off putting.

It's like those really snooty high-end restaurants where they try and build a little skyscraper out of your food.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 30
10/9/10 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

The clip I saw was bright and clear, not orange and hazy. BTW, I recently saw The Kingdom (Jamie Foxx) for the first time and while a great movie, it has a terrible visual-style. Maybe that "dirty-digital" look is intentional, but it's awful looking (IMO).

I thought that film looked fantastic on blu-ray.

The style was perfect, and the transfer I remember being pretty exceptional, but it was quite a while ago.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 30
10/19/10 at 2:18pm
Ugh, because a movie like "Old Dogs" definitely deserves a serious moody tone. It's a comedy FFS, even though a un-funny one at that.
Unfiltered shots, followed by final filtered cut. Not exact same frames.
And for the record, I have never finished watching this movie. Unfiltered shots taken from bloopers.









Reply
Reply
post #25 of 30
10/26/10 at 2:23am
In the year 2010, there are many movies, which were going good and will be going good..Like -Twilight Eclipse, Paranormal activity 2 etc...
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 30
10/29/10 at 10:41am
I'm saddened to report that James Cameron has given in to the "teal and orange" fad. He's completely recolored the Aliens Blu-ray into those colors. It's hideous.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 30
11/1/10 at 12:48am
You guys will get a kick out of this page:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18664...look-same.html
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 30
11/1/10 at 5:21am
Great but disturbing stuff Mike.When I got my new 8500 screen last January I was so sick of the greenish tint on many films I actually thought it was the nature of the 8500 and took out most of the green which screwed up my color palate and not until I got it professionally calibrated did I see the way the colors were suppose to look.Sure enough they look exactly like the article described.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 30
11/1/10 at 2:56pm
Yeah, it's becoming a bit too much. Certain films pull the color filters off well (The Matrix, Payback) because you can sort of understand the reason for it. With those movies, I liked the color filtering that went on. But now, it's like every "gritty" movie wants to use a blue-ish tint (I guess that is supposed to make it feel more "real" or something?) and every comedy and popcorn flick wants to go with the "teal and orange" filter. I just don't get it. Why can't people look like people? Do they need to be so saturated in orange?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 30
11/1/10 at 5:42pm
Good example of how great a film can look if its left alone to its own natural color palate is The girl Who Played With fire.Except for two short flashback scenes tinted green the film is best looking Ive seen on my new 8500 set.So used to those tints that you forget how beautiful natural colors are.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Is it just me or are recent movies looking worst?