Science Fiction and Fantasy Community Forums

Full Version: Has quality of film making gone down?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I've noticed that a lot of movies have this cheap look to them, almost like whole project was completed in a week, and was filmed with 100.000$ budget. When I compare movies from 1990s with todays movies... everything just feels and looks worse, they don't have "it", and we the audience are beind handled like we're dullards. Is it effect of digital cameras? You can shoot as much you want so everyone including actors & directors take it easy?

Or maybe i'm just getting older.
I read that when the Technicolor process came out, just the many technical aspects of processing all the film and sound inputs into the prints for a feature film (The MGM The Wonderful Wizard of Oz being one of the 1st) was a massive very exacting undertaking, and required exceedingly bright stage lighting (which accelerated the cliched trend of actors affecting sunglasses all the time, to soothe their peepers that had been assaulted by those lights with every 'take'!). Sorta like trying to do the original Star Wars' sfx without the computer tech Lucas pioneered.

It would follow that a film-making process that difficult and expensive would long be reserved for a feature movie intended to draw big audiences for years. The big efforts to get everything just right was long reserved for the highest high-end features, not the "B movies", with the perfectionism applied to every aspect of the product such as the script, direction, editing, sound, and so on!

Once television and videotape came along and got to be standard in the 1960's-'70's, I noticed a tendency for a certain sort of claustrophobic 'feel' for screenplays of that period originally intended for video rather than film projected on the 'big screen'. The advance of tech has put more and more well-done convincing effects within reach of low-budget production houses and even hobbyists, but I think much still depends on the skill and artistic vision of the principal people creating it, including actors, director, camera and sound recording techs, the various technical postproduction people, and so on.

It could be that the 'tech' making "desktop moviemaking", if you will, cheap and accessible might have eroded some of the motivation for old-time perfectionism (and for the moneybags to pay for perfectionism!) The phenomena of more and more high-budget movies "bombing" or at least failing to pay for the production costs at the box office, probably makes investors wary of huge up-front outlays for high-end cinematic quality.
I think there is a definite shift in visual quality. I noticed this difference while watching Aquaman in the cinema. It didn't look right to me. Unfortunately, after noticing that oddness, I couldn't go back and watch other movies in the cinema. They all seem to look "normal" on television to me.

Maybe "normal" isn't the right word. But it's more difficult for me to notice an offness to recent cinematic films. Now, when I watched The Phantom Menace again earlier this year (and it's my favorite Star Wars movie), I did notice how the CGI effects sometimes stand out due to subtle lighting differences. Even so, the Coruscant sequences are sometimes stunning because they were able to convey both depth and the passing of time with their complex lighting schemes.

It may be that studios are taking some shortcuts compared to how Lucas did things with TPM, even though they have superior technology. But that's just speculation.