imo it's dumb that this whole "100 year old films in 4K 60fps plus sound" trend took off, when just last year Ang Lee was using similar tech to actually create something new with the 60 and 120fps (and some 3D screenings) versions of Gemini Man.

Why cant these other people put their efforts into creating original ideas too?

yeah, use it for new things. the whole appeal of old movies is BECAUSE they're old. the look, the sound, the vibe.. everything. altering that totally kills it.

goddamnit mr. yeezy @ThuggerBaby you voted for enema of the state which is 1999

I see it as a totally different thing than art. For films this is bad, but just “enhancing” footage of the past is interesting as like a window into history.

the only exception is The Maltese Falcon. i want a restored version where Bogart smokes a buncha dudes like the poster promised.

Same with video/digital filmmaking tbh. People spending millions of dollars per year in order to create and shoot with digital cameras that are being used specifically to replicate/perfect (and replace) the aesthetic of shooting on film.

There's still a huge debate going on in hollywood about "film vs digital" exclusively in the terms of "which one achieves the look of film". You've also got the dumbassery of guys like Sean Baker who wont stfu about "I wish this director wouldn't have used digital here, it's only good for shooting low light."

When it'd be way more interesting if everyome just said "fuck if" and leaned into the aesthetics that are specific to shooting on digital — in contrast to film. When there can be directors like Godard and Michael Mann who champion the strengths of digital filmmaking and make stuff that looks completely different from each other, while neither of them give a f*** about their work "looking as good as film"...it should be a sign that this is a path worth exploring.

I want see a concerted effort to go through film history, from every country, and replace all cigarettes with juuls

This is from a debate between Godard and Pauline Kael in 1981:

Even back then, publicity people like Kael who regurgitate popular technical concerns about good film stock, aren't able to explain their argument against a Frenchie who basically just says "And...?" over and over lol

can't say i disagree with him

lol

40 years later Hollywood is still in crisis about whether digital cameras can replicate the look of film

Back in 1981 dude immediately said "of course it can", like he's already bored with that argument

a classic

it's honestly not a topic i've ever cared enough to get emotional about. i've never watched a movie and thought "THIS WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER IN DIGITAL". different movies have different looks, what else is there to say.

"Now I will like to nominate for the ice bucket challenge Vladimir Putin"

Well here's the thing with that, champ. That's short for champion.

Of course not. It's dumb thing to get bothered about. The vast majority of people cant tell the difference, and will never be able to unless a literal film print is being screened in a theater. But since DCI has been the standard projection method in all corporate theaters for years, outside of specialty film print screenings (typically for the films of the small handful of big name directors who advocate for film), the whole debate is essentially already over.

Especially this century, where acclaimed releases started popping up left and right that were either shot with film or made to look like it, and then got digitized in post-production to tweak the colors/lighting/balance levels to their heart's content, in order to get a final product that could never organically come from shooting with film stock.

Lmaoooooo i never saw this

i remember in the old ktt film sxn talking about how much i loved the movie heat and some guy started asking me about the rise of digital and film qualities and s***, i was just like "dude what the f*** are you talking about?"

Smh

And i dont have anything against film either. It's not like im looking at that circle of directors who insist on using film and think "just let it die you f***ing geezers!" They should be trying to preserve the film format.

It's the corporate industry side of things that are forcing the total transition to digital, and in turn creating this whole "us vs them" mentality between the two formats — as well as the many filmmakers shooting on digital but trying to imitate film, just because they cant afford the outrageous prices of film stock. (Hence why the only directors who can actually negotiate their demands to use film are the household name, multi-millionaire hollywood legends.)

and then soderbergh comes along and shoots a movie on a f***ing iphone

the whole debate is really bizarre

such a great album

depends on the s***scenes though. For example, the scenes in Noe's Love (I actually like him after checking out Irreversible and Enter the Void) have some sort of narrative weight to them because you can sense the relationships and there are other hints for the story but they are waaaaaay too long. They totally kill the pacing.

totally agree otherwise tho. That's puritanical nonsense. However, eroticism can often work better with showing less.

idk y’all I’m usually down to see some t*** even if it doesn’t do much to move the plot forward