The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I believe that you all should understand the term cinematographie, being films gurus and all that but my discussion is between the new age computer generated graphics compaired to the the old age truly brilliant cinematography.
ANowadays, most films be it epics, fantasy, thrillers, horrors etc all have the fancy computer generated graphics. Its all fine and beautifuls but film makers tend to over use this technique in their production of film. The Matrix for example, stunning as it was when it came out, it soon became tedious and repetitive. Classic, beautiful masterpieces can become really boring after it's originality has been exhausted.
Like Bonnie and Clyde 1967 (I think), when this controversial masterpiece came out, Arthur Penn's work was simple and beautiful. The simple tint of the film, the stunning photographic style and of couse the simple and effective cinematography. Soon after all of this was copied to an extent that it seems cliche. For example, the slow motion death of Bonnie and Clyde. Watching the movie again I still feel the fascination that I experienced the first time I watched it but it for something like the Matrix I don't recall the experience. This is because I feel that the director has not thought clearly about the cinematography, instead he/she will probably tell the technician 'ahh, spin the camera arounfd the girl when she kicks.'
Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone feels the same as I do? Critism, corredtion and agreements welcome.
ANowadays, most films be it epics, fantasy, thrillers, horrors etc all have the fancy computer generated graphics. Its all fine and beautifuls but film makers tend to over use this technique in their production of film. The Matrix for example, stunning as it was when it came out, it soon became tedious and repetitive. Classic, beautiful masterpieces can become really boring after it's originality has been exhausted.
Like Bonnie and Clyde 1967 (I think), when this controversial masterpiece came out, Arthur Penn's work was simple and beautiful. The simple tint of the film, the stunning photographic style and of couse the simple and effective cinematography. Soon after all of this was copied to an extent that it seems cliche. For example, the slow motion death of Bonnie and Clyde. Watching the movie again I still feel the fascination that I experienced the first time I watched it but it for something like the Matrix I don't recall the experience. This is because I feel that the director has not thought clearly about the cinematography, instead he/she will probably tell the technician 'ahh, spin the camera arounfd the girl when she kicks.'
Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone feels the same as I do? Critism, corredtion and agreements welcome.
I understand what you mean. But I think that you don't have so create something totally original. For example, Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Very simple, very effective. Obviously computers were used to edit out the cables but generally the film was based on pure cinematograpgy, great storyline etc.
Well, I guess that the that in show business, business is the greater word so, ah damn, I don't kow what to think, maybe they should just computerise everything. The world is run but materialism now and no more true spirit and imagination.
Well, I guess that the that in show business, business is the greater word so, ah damn, I don't kow what to think, maybe they should just computerise everything. The world is run but materialism now and no more true spirit and imagination.
yeah, i know what you mean, but its like the same with video games, now-a-days people say that all they developers concentrate on is the grphics, and in a way they do, but if a develpoer did produce a game which revolves solely around gampleay and has merde graphics, then it would recieve no acclaim or the every vital '£$£$£$'. I mean look at the biggest grossing films : The Matrix, and M:I2 for a few examples, they were hardly 'classic' films but the films made a representative of the times.
Directors are continually attempting to imitate, and with success to a varying degree, but then the occassional director comes along every 10 or so years and changes the face of films for ever, for the 90's i would have to say Tarantino, and we have yet to see anyone for the 00's or what ever its called. But sure enough one will come along.
Then again all we have to do it watch some of the greats,
Raging Bull, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Pulp fiction
to name but a few, and sit back in our chairs and remember that even if there are no more original ideas out there, at least we have the ones before us preserved for eternity.
'(.)'
Directors are continually attempting to imitate, and with success to a varying degree, but then the occassional director comes along every 10 or so years and changes the face of films for ever, for the 90's i would have to say Tarantino, and we have yet to see anyone for the 00's or what ever its called. But sure enough one will come along.
Then again all we have to do it watch some of the greats,
Raging Bull, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Pulp fiction
to name but a few, and sit back in our chairs and remember that even if there are no more original ideas out there, at least we have the ones before us preserved for eternity.
'(.)'
I believe that you all should understand the term cinematographie, being films gurus and all that but my discussion is between the new age computer generated graphics compaired to the the old age truly brilliant cinematography.
ANowadays, most films be it epics, fantasy, thrillers, horrors etc all have the fancy computer generated graphics. Its all fine and beautifuls but film makers tend to over use this technique in their production of film. The Matrix for example, stunning as it was when it came out, it soon became tedious and repetitive. Classic, beautiful masterpieces can become really boring after it's originality has been exhausted.
Like Bonnie and Clyde 1967 (I think), when this controversial masterpiece came out, Arthur Penn's work was simple and beautiful. The simple tint of the film, the stunning photographic style and of couse the simple and effective cinematography. Soon after all of this was copied to an extent that it seems cliche. For example, the slow motion death of Bonnie and Clyde. Watching the movie again I still feel the fascination that I experienced the first time I watched it but it for something like the Matrix I don't recall the experience. This is because I feel that the director has not thought clearly about the cinematography, instead he/she will probably tell the technician 'ahh, spin the camera arounfd the girl when she kicks.'
Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone feels the same as I do? Critism, corredtion and agreements welcome.
ANowadays, most films be it epics, fantasy, thrillers, horrors etc all have the fancy computer generated graphics. Its all fine and beautifuls but film makers tend to over use this technique in their production of film. The Matrix for example, stunning as it was when it came out, it soon became tedious and repetitive. Classic, beautiful masterpieces can become really boring after it's originality has been exhausted.
Like Bonnie and Clyde 1967 (I think), when this controversial masterpiece came out, Arthur Penn's work was simple and beautiful. The simple tint of the film, the stunning photographic style and of couse the simple and effective cinematography. Soon after all of this was copied to an extent that it seems cliche. For example, the slow motion death of Bonnie and Clyde. Watching the movie again I still feel the fascination that I experienced the first time I watched it but it for something like the Matrix I don't recall the experience. This is because I feel that the director has not thought clearly about the cinematography, instead he/she will probably tell the technician 'ahh, spin the camera arounfd the girl when she kicks.'
Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone feels the same as I do? Critism, corredtion and agreements welcome.