The "Problem" with Modern Movies

[NARMAK]

I'm sure like me a lot of you in this section have been fortunate enough to probably have been watching movies for a couple of decades or more with releases for the majority of those being from maybe the 80s to present and noticed there's been a change which maybe seemed a bit more subtle but you can't quite put your finger on exactly what it was. Movies just didn't "look" the same.

I came across a post i think maybe on Reddit recently and it was comparing the aesthetic look and asking "Why do movies look worse?" and then i also came across one comparing Alien and how the clothing department deliberately had the clothing look "worn in" and feel much more grounded into the world the movie took place in. Somebody showed off another example somewhere of Avatar the live action Netflix show and how everything in the clothing looked brand new when these are poorer people or individuals who would have had and used the clothing for quite a while, but they looked immaculate without anything frayed or bumpy in texture for multiple washes.

So not only do we see a much bigger rise in the "clean cut" brand new look of maybe many shows or movies these days, but because the cameras being used are largely digital, there's no longer film grain present either to "grime" the aesthetic of a movie either and help that "messy" lived in aesthetic alongside the clothing or at least mitigate it.

So do you guys agree and think there's been a wholesale change to where even the make up of characters isn't always considered to help them look "worn in" to the world they're supposed to inhabit? Watching Alien: Romulus i commented that the actors didn't look like they belonged to the dark grimy mining colony they have the movie take place around. The actors are all fresh faced without a hint of grime like they got access to Korean glass skin routines.

I know movies are getting incredibly bloated in budget, yet it seems more than ever there's a huge missing attention to details by costumers, make up artists and even CGI artists exacerbated by the digital sheen of a glossy looking aesthetic they shoot most modern movies on.

Thoughts.

[stvn1974]

Funny that you mention Alien because none of the actors in that film would have been cast in it today. None of them look like they just stepped off a runway and you can tell them apart, plus the male actors were at the age that they would need to shave.

[BluBonnet]

I don't worry about it - just pay attention to story and character development, primarily.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I don't worry about it - just pay attention to story and character development, primarily.

I try to as well, but the subconscious of my mind after watching so many movies since i was little just picks up on it being "off" if that makes sense. Kinda like the "Uncanny Valley" if you will and whilst acting can compensate to a degree, i think aesthetic is strongly linked into you "buying" what you see on screen.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

I try to as well, but the subconscious of my mind after watching so many movies since i was little just picks up on it being "off" if that makes sense. Kinda like the "Uncanny Valley" if you will and whilst acting can compensate to a degree, i think aesthetic is strongly linked into you "buying" what you see on screen.

I get that, I'm just saying my subconscious doesn't really work that same way.

With a good story, I won't mind any of the physical details... with a bad story, or an unconvincing one, it wouldn't matter if all the "details" were absolutely perfect, I'm still not going to be fully into it.

[mwynn]

Have you noticed this in smaller budget movies or movies made away from Hollywood?

[Moviefan2k4]

There are many different reasons why movies today have become so problematic, but I think the biggest one is simple: corporate greed. The folks who make these pictures want the highest and quickest return for their investment, but they also want to contribute the least financial risk. That kind of thinking goes against Basic Business 101 ("you have to spend money to make money").

Related to this is another form of risk, namely the creative one. A lot of people in Hollywood don't want to face the uncertainty of failure when dealing with an unknown story, so they take the easy way out and adapt, re-imagine, or sequelize everything. Not every film using that approach makes a ton of cash, but its still a safer bet than the alternative in their collective minds. That's the main reason why brands like Star Trek, Star Wars, James Bond, DC Comics, and the MCU all remain so popular.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

[Show spoiler]I'm sure like me a lot of you in this section have been fortunate enough to probably have been watching movies for a couple of decades or more with releases for the majority of those being from maybe the 80s to present and noticed there's been a change which maybe seemed a bit more subtle but you can't quite put your finger on exactly what it was. Movies just didn't "look" the same.

I came across a post i think maybe on Reddit recently and it was comparing the aesthetic look and asking "Why do movies look worse?" and then i also came across one comparing Alien and how the clothing department deliberately had the clothing look "worn in" and feel much more grounded into the world the movie took place in. Somebody showed off another example somewhere of Avatar the live action Netflix show and how everything in the clothing looked brand new when these are poorer people or individuals who would have had and used the clothing for quite a while, but they looked immaculate without anything frayed or bumpy in texture for multiple washes.

So not only do we see a much bigger rise in the "clean cut" brand new look of maybe many shows or movies these days, but because the cameras being used are largely digital, there's no longer film grain present either to "grime" the aesthetic of a movie either and help that "messy" lived in aesthetic alongside the clothing or at least mitigate it.

So do you guys agree and think there's been a wholesale change to where even the make up of characters isn't always considered to help them look "worn in" to the world they're supposed to inhabit? Watching Alien: Romulus i commented that the actors didn't look like they belonged to the dark grimy mining colony they have the movie take place around. The actors are all fresh faced without a hint of grime like they got access to Korean glass skin routines.

I know movies are getting incredibly bloated in budget, yet it seems more than ever there's a huge missing attention to details by costumers, make up artists and even CGI artists exacerbated by the digital sheen of a glossy looking aesthetic they shoot most modern movies on.

Thoughts.

I agree with all of this. I miss film and practical special effects most of all...

[GaragePoet]

movies really got ruined irrevocably as soon as they added sound

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

movies really got ruined irrevocably as soon as they added sound

Yes, all of our problems would be instantly solved if they just went back to making silents.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I agree with all of this. I miss film and practical special effects most of all...

Some movies still use practical effects, but they're rarely exclusive anymore. Far more common is the combination of them with CGI, like George Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels. For example, the exterior palace of Theed in The Phantom Menace was an oversized miniature, combined with a digital background. Some elements for the Battle of Geonosis in Attack of the Clones were done similarly, and finally with the volcanic planet Mustafar in Revenge of the Sith. So contrary to popular belief, not everything is "cooked up on a computer" yet. Some things still look best (and end up being cheaper for the studio) when done in-camera. But the wisest filmmakers know how to grasp the best of both worlds, and make those methods serve their stories the way they want.

[SpacemanDoug]

yea this is why I stopped caring about new releases for the most part for several years

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

movies really got ruined irrevocably as soon as they added sound

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Yes, all of our problems would be instantly solved if they just went back to making silents.

[NARMAK]

For me, i don't know if it's a lack of budget or more just a bit of laziness and lack of attention to detail sometimes. I mean specifically Alien: Romulus being a prime example of a well budgeted movie but in comparison to even Alien, you can see a big disconnect in the execution on screen from the visuals alone. Some of that has to do with casting, but then there's the costumes, makeup and i think topped off with the clean sheen of a digital camera with no film grain any longer to give if a further "rough" look post production.

I think LOTR original trilogy and the farcical looking visuals of the Amazon show despite having an incredibly bigger and bloated budget was another huge example of how there doesn't seem to be enough care in pre-production to make costumes look "lived in" for the world. The clothes look too dry cleaned and off the production line at times.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

yea this is why I stopped caring about new releases for the most part for several years

The last new release I saw in theaters was Avengers: Endgame, and it was okay...but there were just too damn many characters and not a good enough story to showcase them all. There were some good moments though, like Tony undoing Thanos' snap with the Infinity Stones, some of the epic battle scenes, and Steve giving the shield of Captain America to Sam Wilson. I read that when Chris Evans' mother saw that scene, she cried because his aged appearance reminded her so much of her late husband. I think its also cool he got to use the Stones to be with Peggy again; it was a great nod to their first story.

[GaragePoet]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

[Show spoiler]

[wonderer99]

I genuinely believe that the primary goal of movies used to be to make a good film and the studio, the directors and every department strived for what worked for the movie. It was all in service of the movie. I just don't think that happens anymore.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

I genuinely believe that the primary goal of movies used to be to make a good film and the studio, the directors and every department strived for what worked for the movie. It was all in service of the movie. I just don't think that happens anymore.

When you get greedy and only surround yourself with "yes-minded" people, your ego goes straight to your head and wrecks everything.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

When you get greedy and only surround yourself with "yes-minded" people, your ego goes straight to your head and wrecks everything.

Unfortunately there's always been an ego the top level executives have had and its got significantly worse than before because of the pay disparity and ability to treat everybody but the top tier talent like trash and disposable.

Hollywood has always been a grimy place with a shiny veneer but funnily enough the movies look too polished too now

[mojo_navigator]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

movies really got ruined irrevocably as soon as they added sound

Yeah, this is it.

Cinema has always been driven by technology, more so than other arts, and the OP's complaint is no different to what previous generations decried.

For example up until the mid-‘70s, bizarre as this sounds, many hard core cineastes dismissed colour cinema entirely on account of its associations with commercial culture and hyper realism. Colour cinema was not considered to be “real” cinema.

In static photography that prejudice continued longer, right up to the mid-80s

As the other commenter stated, just focus on the plot, character and dialogue. Because the aesthetics of all this are going to continue to change radically