I love the thread about Barry Lyndon. I’ve seen it for the first time recently and it is clear there is no talent, or rather no money, to create something so earnest and opinionated. The problem isn’t film, isn’t digital, isn’t the ironic dialogue of modern blockbuster, isn’t lack of art sense, it’s all of the above. It is clear that film, and any other creation today, is soulless, aims at the common denominator, there is no strong opinion, no auteurship. You see that in blockbuster film, blockbuster game design, blockbuster art even. In software.
Call me old and grumpy but there is a real sense that this data- and money-driven approach is the lowest, most sterile point for artistry and creativity. ‘Art for art’s sake’ is the antithesis of the relentless pursuit of revenue and efficiency. You do not have art when you need not to offend anyone but sell the most units. When art is just another product out of the industrial line.
I think that is the wrong lesson to take away from the video. As the video emphasizes, DoF is a tool that can be used to achieve an intended effect in story telling.
Main thrust of the video is that these days these tools are predominantly being used for convenience of post-production and cost cutting at the expense of immersion and story telling.
I remember the 1960s Star Trek and Doctor Who had bad special effects, but had the story and acting that made up for it. The story made it real; now we have special effects with AI and supercomputers, but how good is the story? Writers and actors make the difference.
Please refrain from calling someone sharing thoughts that we may or may not find interesting as "vomitting". If you don't like it click away or formulate sensible criticism that others can follow.
I for example thought the films from my youth were fake as heck for the most part and liked movies that came out one or two decades prior. Meaning my own criticism I had as a 16 year old certainly didn't have anything to do with "the magic of my youth", but with the actual choices made during the production of films.
I love the thread about Barry Lyndon. I’ve seen it for the first time recently and it is clear there is no talent, or rather no money, to create something so earnest and opinionated. The problem isn’t film, isn’t digital, isn’t the ironic dialogue of modern blockbuster, isn’t lack of art sense, it’s all of the above. It is clear that film, and any other creation today, is soulless, aims at the common denominator, there is no strong opinion, no auteurship. You see that in blockbuster film, blockbuster game design, blockbuster art even. In software.
Call me old and grumpy but there is a real sense that this data- and money-driven approach is the lowest, most sterile point for artistry and creativity. ‘Art for art’s sake’ is the antithesis of the relentless pursuit of revenue and efficiency. You do not have art when you need not to offend anyone but sell the most units. When art is just another product out of the industrial line.
It's about the new trend of shallow DoF in new movies vs old ones.
I think that is the wrong lesson to take away from the video. As the video emphasizes, DoF is a tool that can be used to achieve an intended effect in story telling.
Main thrust of the video is that these days these tools are predominantly being used for convenience of post-production and cost cutting at the expense of immersion and story telling.
Why link a reddit post linking a YouTube video? Are YouTube links banned on HN?
I would guess it would be so that you can read the comments.
mirror: https://youtu.be/tvwPKBXEOKE
I remember the 1960s Star Trek and Doctor Who had bad special effects, but had the story and acting that made up for it. The story made it real; now we have special effects with AI and supercomputers, but how good is the story? Writers and actors make the difference.
Hollywood acting is basically nonexistent these days.
You get Chris Pratt in to play "Chris Pratt in this situation".
60's Trek was cheesy, but at least they tried.
I thought star trek had good effects, but doctor who was just terrible.
But I was young - and young people are visual but not aware of subtlety.
I also thought the original batman was an action show. Decades later I watched it as an adult and it was a comedy, and hilarious.
When you become old and lose the magic of youth, please refrain from vomiting it on the rest of us.
Please refrain from calling someone sharing thoughts that we may or may not find interesting as "vomitting". If you don't like it click away or formulate sensible criticism that others can follow.
I for example thought the films from my youth were fake as heck for the most part and liked movies that came out one or two decades prior. Meaning my own criticism I had as a 16 year old certainly didn't have anything to do with "the magic of my youth", but with the actual choices made during the production of films.