DVD Talk
My Sympathies To This Generation Of Moviegoers [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : My Sympathies To This Generation Of Moviegoers


Paul_SD
06-03-12, 07:43 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the magic of DI (digital intermediaries) and the limitless capabilities inherent in computer color grading.
This awesome technological advance has now given filmmakers extraordinary control of the visual palate of their films, as was never possible before.
Visionaries the world over like Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay, and Peter Berg (along with dozens and dozens of others) can now present their personal visions in a way that simply was not possible before.

Here it is, in all it's glory- You know it, you love it, and you have no fucking choice but to accept it- the magic of Teal & Orange color grading

http://i45.tinypic.com/9a5ta8.jpg

TGM
06-03-12, 08:05 AM
meh, get over it.

Eddie W
06-03-12, 09:22 AM
I've begun to hate this with such a passion that I just completely avoid any movies that indulge in this trend. Not only is T&O butt ugly, but the film makers who do this also seem to desaturate everything so you're left with a visually dull, uninteresting picture. It seems like romantic comedies are the only types of movies left that have more than two colors.

It's weird that we're in 2012 and we're effectively watching black & white movies.

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 09:24 AM
meh, get over it.

eh, wish I could. Unfortunately, working in the visual arts, I find this aesthetic to be
1) completely artificial and unnatural looking
2) insufferably monotonous
Yes, this look is as grating to me as my endless, grouchy ranting is to many of you.

But if it were just confined to newer films I probably could avoid it. Unfortunately this look is being imposed more and more on what were once natural looking catalog titles. Ridley Scott has taken just about all of his best early films and imposed this look on them. Gone are the range of browns and reds and pure blues and violets. Blues, yellows, and neutral greys and whites now have a sickly green tinge

http://i46.tinypic.com/2qmhi75.jpg

The Bus
06-03-12, 09:24 AM
I change the tint setting on my television so I get green and pink.

Hokeyboy
06-03-12, 09:33 AM
Doesnt bother me in the slightest... :shrug:

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 09:35 AM
here's some more examples of how ubiquitous this is-
from the (relatively) subtle

http://i49.tinypic.com/e5ldat.jpg

to the loud and proud

http://i49.tinypic.com/sfb6rr.jpg

period horror, adventure, crime dramedy...doesn't really matter- they're all a visual symphony of the same couple of notes- over and over and over.

auto
06-03-12, 10:03 AM
Doesn't bother me

Charlie Goose
06-03-12, 10:10 AM
Never noticed before, now I can't UNSEE it! You've ruined my life!

Nick Danger
06-03-12, 10:11 AM
I've gotten used to it. Then, when I watched a Bollywood DVD last week, I was blown away by the full palette. It was so bright and colorful!

Mrs Danger points out that the reason movies are made with desaturated colors and a drastically limited palette is that it's easier for the CGI department to match up the effects. If they were made full-color, it would be hard work to keep the effects from being obvious.

It's not the first time a technical department controlled the color of movies. Part of the contract with Technicolor was that the company had approval of the color choice. The person who made the approvals was Natalie Kalmus, the wife of one the owners, and she liked pastels. Isn't that dainty? So Technicolor movies used bland, muted colors.

trespoochies
06-03-12, 10:14 AM
With this kind of thread title, I thought it would be about the countless mindless remakes plagueing our theaters for the past few years. But color palette changes like this are far from an issue to the point there should be any "sympathies to this generation of moviegoers".

PopcornTreeCt
06-03-12, 11:30 AM
I miss technicolor.

Drexl
06-03-12, 11:38 AM
I don't like it, but I can't criticize it too much if it's what the filmmakers want. It's like criticizing the choice of aspect ratio.

Hokeyboy
06-03-12, 11:56 AM
Small potatoes.

The Infidel
06-03-12, 11:58 AM
One screenshot you forgot:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/The_Infidel/nemo-682_517230a.jpg

Mike86
06-03-12, 12:05 PM
Doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's something I wouldn't even pay much attention to unless it's pointed out and even then I don't care. :shrug:

Hokeyboy
06-03-12, 12:25 PM
Doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's something I wouldn't even pay much attention to unless it's pointed out and even then I don't care. :shrug:
At this point I think people are looking for reasons to complain. ;)

Ash Ketchum
06-03-12, 12:29 PM
I'd rather watch black-and-white movies anyway. There are still tons I haven't seen--enough to last me through my retirement. I love old color, too, esp. Technicolor movies made from the 1930s to the 1950s.

The fact that so many movies today are shot digitally and not on film is a factor in my increasing avoidance of trips to the movies. They don't look right to me and Paul_SD has demonstrated one reason why.

RichC2
06-03-12, 12:30 PM
Do we have to get a new one of these threads every few years? "Lets bring attention to the orange and teal color grading because it's so horrible that we have to make sure other people notice it!"

Oh wait, I notice it and don't care. I will say it makes more things look like a Michael Bay / Tony Scott production.

bluetoast
06-03-12, 12:34 PM
This awesome technological advance has now given filmmakers extraordinary control of the visual palate of their films, as was never possible before.
Visionaries the world over like Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay, and Peter Berg (along with dozens and dozens of others) can now present their personal visions in a way that simply was not possible before.[/IMG]

Except that Nolan has said that he doesn't do DIs, he still employs photochemical color timing. So it's not necessarily about the technique, but rather the general trends of today.

http://www.slashfilm.com/christopher-nolan-film-digital/

RichC2
06-03-12, 12:36 PM
Yeah... Teal/Orange predates the overuse of DIs and is also affected by film stock type. It's like a flashback to AVSForum with all the bitching about quality at 500% magnification.

GoldenJCJ
06-03-12, 12:40 PM
With the exception of Michael Bay films, which I assume is his trademark, the orange and teal never really bothers me. Most of the time I don't even notice it.

Strevlac
06-03-12, 12:45 PM
Apathy at it's finest.

Thus, more teal & orange. Wonderful.

RichC2
06-03-12, 12:47 PM
Apathy at it's finest.

Thus, more teal & orange. Wonderful.

Yeah, I change my last comment. I support teal & orange, looks great.

Draven
06-03-12, 12:50 PM
If you show a blue sky...the contrasting color is orange. So it makes sense you'll see that palette. And skin tones are on the orange side too...so the contrasting color is blue.

This doesn't bother me in the slightest because it makes complete sense why they do it. If you walk two human beings into a room, the easiest way to make them pop is to drop in a bluish background. Or send them outside, and they are going to pop against the blue sky.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrangeBlueContrast

I think a bigger complaint is that everything that happens at night is lit blue. Like...in every movie. Have you ever been in a dark room that was filled with blue light, as if from nowhere? The moon's light is white, streetlamps are usually white or orange, car and city lights tend to be on the white side...but I can't think of anything that generates a strong blue light at night. Yet...look at every movie.

TheMovieman
06-03-12, 12:51 PM
Just to piss of a small number of users, I completely support T&A... err... T&O.

PatD
06-03-12, 12:52 PM
In a way I agree with you. I hate when directors alter their back catalog of movies. However, between the main complaint in this thread and things like this:

http://images1.cliqueclack.com/flicks/files/2011/09/han-jabba-new-hope.jpg

^^ This stuff bugs me a hundred times more than fiddling with the color palette.

Solid Snake
06-03-12, 01:06 PM
I'd rather watch black-and-white movies anyway. There are still tons I haven't seen--enough to last me through my retirement. I love old color, too, esp. Technicolor movies made from the 1930s to the 1950s.

The fact that so many movies today are shot digitally and not on film is a factor in my increasing avoidance of trips to the movies. They don't look right to me and Paul_SD has demonstrated one reason why.

There is no such thing as a right way for a movie to look "right" aside from personal preference. I don't mind films being filmed in the digital manner if manipulated well for it's look and of course it's own flaws (Fincher is one of the best w/ digital)

I still need to watch a lot more of those old Technicolor films from the 30s and 40s btw.

DonnachaOne
06-03-12, 01:19 PM
I've become very bored with the whinging about "Teal & Orange" in the last few years, not to mention how everyone presents their diatribe like they're the first person to notice.

You can come up with a ton of examples because there's a ton of films. It's that simple.

Has the use of Digital Intermediates led to artistic abuses? Most definitely. Does digital often fail to capture the true warmth of flesh tones? In my opinion, yes. But your claim that ubiquitous T&O is a symptom of digital color grading is rubbish. You cite The Dark Knight Rises several times, even though Christopher Nolan has emphatically never used a DI. One could even logically assume that, since Batman Begins had such a distinct coffee-colored palette and The Dark Knight so often a cool steel-and-blue look, The Dark Knight Rises would logically echo those styles.

Appreciate that filmmakers have, and always will, have personal styles that echo each other. If you don't like it, that's fine. You have a wealth of options.

JGaitan82
06-03-12, 01:26 PM
My issue with movies of the modern day is the endless reboots. I mean why remake Total Recall? Why reboot Spiderman? I am also tired of shakey cameras too. It worked well in Saving Private Ryan and in The Blair Witch Project. Like director Antoine Fuqua said in his Training Day Commentary "Shakey hand held camera work does not mean gritty".

Why So Blu?
06-03-12, 01:36 PM
I've only just heard about the whole T&O thing and one rarely notices unless that's what you're looking for. If you watch all of those flicks in motion as opposed to screen grabs you won't be able to tell 99% of the time. Granted, if you work in the DI industry or in a profession where you see shit like this on a daily basis then you will notice it.

DonnachaOne
06-03-12, 01:39 PM
why remake Total Recall?
$

Why reboot Spiderman?
$

Brand recognition means it's easier to sell.

I have less issues with remakes, reboots and new adaptations. Stories can be told in millions of ways, and good filmmakers can make great art from well-mined sources. If every movie was original, we wouldn't have adaptations of Total Recall or Spider-man to begin with. The Maltese Falcon we all love wasn't the first version. 1939's The Wizard of Oz wasn't the first, second, or even third attempt. But that's another conversation for another thread.

Troy Stiffler
06-03-12, 01:56 PM
Teal and orange does not bother me.

But speaking of modern audiences. The people who purchase tickets. I'm still waiting on the release of "Ass: The Movie". Followed by it's Oscar sweep.

Supermallet
06-03-12, 04:17 PM
If T&O is really so ubiquitous, my question is: Why? What is it about teal and orange that makes it so attractive to filmmakers throughout Hollywood? Why not another color palette? I can't imagine that the vast majority of filmmakers just landed on teal and orange by accident and without consulting any other directors.

Why So Blu?
06-03-12, 04:41 PM
I used to bang a girl named Teal.

Ash Ketchum
06-03-12, 04:58 PM
There is no such thing as a right way for a movie to look "right" aside from personal preference. I don't mind films being filmed in the digital manner if manipulated well for it's look and of course it's own flaws (Fincher is one of the best w/ digital)

I still need to watch a lot more of those old Technicolor films from the 30s and 40s btw.

You're right, of course. Something shot well that uses the strengths of the chosen format (film, digital, whaterver) is going to look good and look right. I can cite TRANSFORMERS 3 in 3-D IMAX as an example. (Was that on film or digital? It was real IMAX at Sony's Lincoln Square theater in Manhattan.) COLLATERAL is an example of digital filmmaking where I thought the format was well-suited to the material, although I don't know if it was projected digitally or not. Was 2004 too soon for digital projection? I can't remember.

If I can rephrase my original point, it would be that I feel more comfortable watching movies shot and projected on film. I like seeing scratches, 'cause then I know it's a film. I confess I've seen plenty of films projected digitally that look just fine, but something always throws me off a little. Maybe it's a chemical thing. My body reacts more strongly in the presence of a chemical medium instead of a digital medium. If that makes any sense... :confused:

PopcornTreeCt
06-03-12, 05:01 PM
Someone needs to record a parody of Wiz Khalifa's "Black and Yellow" and change it to "Teal and Orange" with a bunch of movie clips. Somebody get working on that.

The Antipodean
06-03-12, 05:05 PM
Never noticed this before and while it's a bit monotonous really can't get that worked up. Find the trend of incomprehensible quick-cut action scenes far more annoying myself.

Solid Snake
06-03-12, 05:12 PM
You're right, of course. Something shot well that uses the strengths of the chosen format (film, digital, whaterver) is going to look good and look right. I can cite TRANSFORMERS 3 in 3-D IMAX as an example. (Was that on film or digital? It was real IMAX at Sony's Lincoln Square theater in Manhattan.) COLLATERAL is an example of digital filmmaking where I thought the format was well-suited to the material, although I don't know if it was projected digitally or not. Was 2004 too soon for digital projection? I can't remember.

If I can rephrase my original point, it would be that I feel more comfortable watching movies shot and projected on film. I like seeing scratches, 'cause then I know it's a film. I confess I've seen plenty of films projected digitally that look just fine, but something always throws me off a little. Maybe it's a chemical thing. My body reacts more strongly in the presence of a chemical medium instead of a digital medium. If that makes any sense... :confused:

I think 2004 may have a bit too early for Digital Projection. Did that start around 2008?

Yeah, Collateral is gorgeous w/ its look from the medium. Those cold shots look amazing.

I think for myself that it sticks out more is depending on the subject matter. Off the top of my head Public Enemies looked weird to me w/ the digital. At some points it looked well suited but...not overall.

@Ash: Finally got to getting some of those books you listed for me a while back, they were cheap..so it's good for me at this time in my life. Easy Riders, Raging Bulls is very engrossing of a read.

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 05:31 PM
If T&O is really so ubiquitous, my question is: Why? What is it about teal and orange that makes it so attractive to filmmakers throughout Hollywood? Why not another color palette? I can't imagine that the vast majority of filmmakers just landed on teal and orange by accident and without consulting any other directors.

Draven hit on it earlier. 99% of movies are about people. And skin tones generally fall within an orange spectrum. The direct complimentary colors of these fall within a blue inching into green spectrum.

http://i50.tinypic.com/10yov8z.jpg

and yes, part of this is so that figures will 'pop' against the background.
And frankly I find that obnoxious and insulting.
Here's another way to think of it- Does anyone here like seeing edge enhancement on transfers? Part of the reason it is there is to make the image 'pop'- especially on smaller, less resolved displays. In essence, the video has been dumbed down so that the image will make more of an impact, especially in lesser circumstances (i.e. a smaller, lower res display).
To me, this is the same principle, except the vehicle here is color.

For people that can't see it, or aren't bothered by it, I say you are very fortunate. Sadly, this hits me like a ton of bricks. It passed the point of parody some time ago and now it just makes me sick and sad for the state of films today. I was serious when I said I felt bad for today's generation growing up with film after film sharing this singular, monotonous aesthetic- because I remember what films generally looked like for most of my life- and it was beautiful
here are three random films from the 60's, 70's and 80's

http://i48.tinypic.com/2a8qe1l.jpg

and here's one more example of why I despise this look.
On the left is a frame from Chinatown as it would naturally look.
On the right is an approximation of how the same shot would likely look today if it were intended to be 'modern'.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2iviuyw.jpg

Again, if you can't see much of a difference between the two- you're very lucky. Because it sure seems like the vast majority of films I see these days look much closer to the right than the left.
In other words, affected artificiality rules the day.

Draven
06-03-12, 06:42 PM
and here's one more example of why I despise this look.
On the left is a frame from Chinatown as it would naturally look.
On the right is an approximation of how the same shot would likely look today if it were intended to be 'modern'.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2iviuyw.jpg

Again, if you can't see much of a difference between the two- you're very lucky. Because it sure seems like the vast majority of films I see these days look much closer to the right than the left.
In other words, affected artificiality rules the day.

See...in that example, the left version looks a LOT more "teal and orange" than the right. The image on the right looks almost Matrix-y green hued.

And that's because you've got an orange colored person against a blue colored sky.

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 07:19 PM
That's a quirk and dirty example for illustrative purposes. I'll leave it to others to judge if I'm way off base there based on the other examples I've given.
In general, while you're correct that the unmolested cap better shows blue and orange- the blues in older films leaned to the red/violet end-
When people talk about teal these days, it's blues that are pushing more towards yellow/green. Often now the highlights are pulled this way too (look at the example of the three different films on the right in the bottom row below).

here's another example that you can compare and contrast.
each row across contains 3 different films in each example (except for two shots from the newly graded Thelma & Louise that are side by side).
I didn't spend any time cherry picking any of these. I pretty much grabbed a bunch of examples from the appropriate eras and this is what you get.
Try not to get hung up on shading (darks and lights) which may make it appear there's more variety than there is. Instead look at the spectrum of hues (colors) between the two. Look at the variety (or lack thereof) of Blues, yellows, oranges, greens, and reds.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2qurjol.jpg

Pizza
06-03-12, 07:21 PM
I like it when it's used right. It's like loving and/or hating black & white movies. I happen to love black & white and find it to be powerful. A lot people refuse watch a black & white movie. I remember the parents of a girl I once dated hating Young Frankenstein and finding it cheap because it was B&W. They couldn't or didn't want to connect the dots to why it was shot that way.
For most, it's not a T&O or B&W world but the movies are not reality or meant to be. It's about capturing the right emotion and flavor in telling a viewpoint.

RichC2
06-03-12, 07:22 PM
That last set is like dull to the point of drab versus slightly overzealous.

Solid Snake
06-03-12, 07:24 PM
talking about T and O. I really loved Drive's use of it. I'm sure it was on purpose too cuz it looks so goddamn gorgeous.

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 07:39 PM
That last set is like dull to the point of drab versus slightly overzealous.

Which calls to mind how often people would reject a proper calibration of their displays in favor of a hyper saturated/ artificially sweetened look.
Correct would often look drab in comparison to how much content they see that is constantly being pushed and pulled into cartoonish extremes.
You see it often enough and I suppose it becomes the new 'natural'. Which I guess explains why only a few of us are bothered by this.

Dean Kousoulas
06-03-12, 07:52 PM
Even after this thread, I still don't notice anything.

Mike86
06-03-12, 08:19 PM
I can notice it a bit more when it's pointed out but it still doesn't bother me. I wouldn't even think of it while watching a film. Staring at screen grabs that point it out is a bit different to me than seeing it in action while watching a film. As long as it doesn't distract during the film I don't have a problem with it. It seems like bitching just for the sake of doing so to me.

Lt Ripley
06-03-12, 08:30 PM
It doesn't bother me on new films. On older films that I have seen countless times and then a remaster comes out and it looks like shit, it bothers me. Cameron should be kicked in the jaw for what he did to Aliens.

Draven
06-03-12, 08:41 PM
In general, while you're correct that the unmolested cap better shows blue and orange- the blues in older films leaned to the red/violet end-
When people talk about teal these days, it's blues that are pushing more towards yellow/green. [/IMG]

No, this is the standard "teal and orange" screencap - nothing yellow or green here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Q2z1M3wzz-Q/S52uOsMvbpI/AAAAAAAAAIo/Ip_GiIn7jcY/s400/trans_two5.jpg

Now I'm not even sure what you are saying. You want movies to be more drab? A lot of movies use teal and orange for contrast, especially bright and colorful movies. But plenty of them don't too, especially if the setting doesn't call for it.

So...what's the problem again? No movies should use a perfectly logical type of color treatment?

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 09:34 PM
and right below from where you got that cap is this one

http://i50.tinypic.com/sgptok.jpg

This certainly seems to lean a little more green to me and the flesh tones less orange-y than in the Bay example. I'm using the phrase 'teal and orange' as short hand to mean a very constricted and unnatural/artificial looking spectrum with a preponderance of tones in the green/blue range.

So...what's the problem again? No movies should use a perfectly logical type of color treatment?

That's the point. It's not logical
As that particular blogger goes on to write-

In fact, nothing ever has looked like that because it's physically impossible. You see, in order to get flesh tones to look that warm and orangey, the entire image would look warm and orangey - like golden hour, just before sunset. And in order to get teals to look that blue and tealey, the entire image would look cold and blue - like at night. Never in real-life shall the two meet - at least not in this exaggerated way:

He's referring to Hot Tub Time Machine there, which is as blatant an example of T&O as Bay's Transformer films. Of the caps I posted earlier, Safe House falls into this same, way over the top level as well- but everything I've posted from the modern era shows a preponderance towards the same cliched set of hues. Movies today, generally speaking, look cartoonish- and it has nothing whatsoever to do with CG.

I purposefully stayed away from posting Michael Bay examples because that's the easy way to go- and then people try to dismiss it because, after all "it's just how Michael Bay rolls". My point was this aesthetic of a constricted, cartoon simplified spectrum, goes beyond him and affects/infects quite a lot of other films from many different genres.
It's no longer just a sci-fi/fantasy film here and there that is using it to suggest a skewed reality. It shows up in comedies, dramas, rom coms, period films.

It is the visual height of banality in modern films.

Draven
06-03-12, 09:53 PM
So go back to my earlier example of "blue light at night" - is that not as "unnatural and artificial?"

Movies are not real at their core. In order to enjoy a film you have to constantly suspend your disbelief - that fall would kill a person, no one answers the phone like that, no one speaks in such perfectly delivered back and forth, etc. Why are you giving your "sympathies" toward this particularly trend? Why is this being singled out?

I shoot video for a living and have spent the last 15 years looking at the world through a viewfinder. And this teal and orange thing doesn't even phase me, I think because I'm used to things not looking like reality.

Supermallet
06-03-12, 10:19 PM
Up until this color scheme, movies have never shown us anything that would be physically impossible.

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 10:33 PM
I think a bigger complaint is that everything that happens at night is lit blue. Like...in every movie. Have you ever been in a dark room that was filled with blue light, as if from nowhere? The moon's light is white, streetlamps are usually white or orange, car and city lights tend to be on the white side...but I can't think of anything that generates a strong blue light at night. Yet...look at every movie.

If the criticism is - this is overused these days- I wouldn't disagree with you. Hyper-stylization in general is over used.

Paul_SD
06-03-12, 10:43 PM
Up until this color scheme, movies have never shown us anything that would be physically impossible.

The point wasn't that it was impossible so much as it is
1) unnatural and therefore a stylistic conceit
2) this same conceit is used so often that it is no longer special or unique
3) and is now used with no sense of taste, proportion or melody.

Apparently going by the responses in this thread, people's visual response palates have been so numbed and desensitized by the overuse of this, that a broad natural range of hues looks "drab" and cap after cap of the same three or four hues only looks 'slightly stylized'.

If people can't see a big difference between the older films capped in post 40 and the T&O (or matrix-y green if you prefer) shots sprinkled around then I don't know what to say.

I gave it my best shot.

GuessWho
06-03-12, 10:53 PM
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/118/673913-cloud_city_large.jpghttp://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content08/cloud-city.jpg

Draven
06-03-12, 11:55 PM
The point wasn't that it was impossible so much as it is
1) unnatural and therefore a stylistic conceit
2) this same conceit is used so often that it is no longer special or unique
3) and is now used with no sense of taste, proportion or melody.

Apparently going by the responses in this thread, people's visual response palates have been so numbed and desensitized by the overuse of this, that a broad natural range of hues looks "drab" and cap after cap of the same three or four hues only looks 'slightly stylized'.

If people can't see a big difference between the older films capped in post 40 and the T&O (or matrix-y green if you prefer) shots sprinkled around then I don't know what to say.

I gave it my best shot.

I don't think it's that we "can't see the difference"...it's that the shots have been chosen specifically to prove some kind of point, when an equal number of shots could have been posted that disproved that point.

No one is going to get upset that some movies use a particular color scheme. Plenty use other schemes, old and new. I bet if you really looked, you could find "teal and orange" in older films too.

In fact, you yourself did just that with your example above.

Ky-Fi
06-03-12, 11:56 PM
The point wasn't that it was impossible so much as it is
1) unnatural and therefore a stylistic conceit
2) this same conceit is used so often that it is no longer special or unique
3) and is now used with no sense of taste, proportion or melody.

Apparently going by the responses in this thread, people's visual response palates have been so numbed and desensitized by the overuse of this, that a broad natural range of hues looks "drab" and cap after cap of the same three or four hues only looks 'slightly stylized'.

If people can't see a big difference between the older films capped in post 40 and the T&O (or matrix-y green if you prefer) shots sprinkled around then I don't know what to say.

I gave it my best shot.

I appreciate your posts on this. I didn't know any of the technical stuff, but I watch mostly older films and have commented to friends numerous times as to how much more drab the colors seem to be in modern films.

Give me this any day of the week:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews38/blu-ray%20the%20searchers/800%20b2.jpg

NIMH Rat
06-04-12, 12:06 AM
The point here is a good one and those who argue against it haven't really proven that such a trend doesn't exist....only that it doesn't bother them, it's the nature of movies, etc.

I think it contributes to a serious point about Hollywood that on one level could have always been the case but that in the past 10-15 years is unavoidable and irrefutable....which is that Hollywood movies tend to look alike, no matter what the studio, what the genre, and with technology evolving the way it is, the budget doesn't matter either.

Assessing a film on technical merits of cinematography is a joke today. The shittiest film can look as good as a masterpiece. Sometimes shitty even looks "better." Like, look at the difference between SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and HANNIBAL RISING. The latter film is gorgeous to look at, perfectly composed and lit, with all the color values we associate with "high quality Hollywood." SILENCE OF THE LAMBS looks low-rent next to HANNIBAL RISING. And the movie's a piece of shit.

One Hollywood movie looks as good as another these days. Which is another way of saying, nobody really cares about how a movie looks.....as long as it looks "Hollywoody" and justifies the price of an HDTV. (Which hardly anyone knows how to calibrate.)

Draven
06-04-12, 01:43 AM
I just don't understand this at all. So now movies look too good? Gorgeous to look at, perfectly composed and lit...and that's a bad thing?

I'm sure older movies were striving for those same things but were limited by technology and equipment. But now apparently those movies are looked at through the veil of nostalgia and seem somehow more "real" than the slicker productions of today.

I truly believe this is a lack of awareness about films that aren't the best the genre has to offer. The best movies of today will endure just as the best movies of the past have endured. There were shitty trends before and there will be shitty trends again. Just look at 3D. That's a tech that was basically discarded...and now it's back again. I think that's doing far more damage to the industry than "teal and orange" could ever hope too.

So yeah, great...lots of movies use teal and orange. Lots of movies don't. So....what does that prove exactly?

PopcornTreeCt
06-04-12, 01:49 AM
My bigger pet peeve today is the emphasis on eye color. They make blue eyes pop off the screen. It's almost always a vanity thing and not really anything to do with story or character.

PhantomStranger
06-04-12, 01:52 AM
I've heard about industry research that 16-and-under moviegoers prefer Teal and Orange color timing for whatever reason. Anything else to them seems dated now. There are movie executives that firmly believe this affects the box office take, so they keep doing it.

Why So Blu?
06-04-12, 02:56 AM
I've heard about industry research that 16-and-under moviegoers prefer Teal and Orange color timing for whatever reason. Anything else to them seems dated now. There are movie executives that firmly believe this affects the box office take, so they keep doing it.

hmmm, good point. They're using the psychology of color - kind of how the color red makes people hungry, which is why restaurants use it A LOT.

Navinabob
06-04-12, 05:05 AM
Don't worry, once The Hobbit comes out there will be a new trend that everyone will bitch about. I'm not crazy about the teal & orange trend myself, but outside of a few shitty movies, I have not noticed it much.

Tarantino
06-04-12, 06:45 AM
Waaaaaaaaah

Giantrobo
06-04-12, 07:55 AM
"First World" problems fo reelz yo.

Hokeyboy
06-04-12, 08:40 AM
It's not that we don't "see the problem"; just that it doesn't bother us.

FWIW the vast majority of films I watch are pre-1974...

Lastdaysofrain
06-04-12, 02:53 PM
There is sort of bleached out look that movie have had for the last ten years that does bug me, it makes things seem "less cinematic" or something to my eye

Mabuse
06-04-12, 03:03 PM
I think 2004 may have a bit too early for Digital Projection. Did that start around 2008?



The first digitally projected film I saw was Toy Story 2. What year was that? 1999?

Paul SD, please clarify for me. Blade Runner and Chinatown have not been re-colored or tweeked right? You're doing the tweeking yourself for the sake of an example right?

Also, obviously the look is over used on new movies, but what old movies have been revised and had their colors fucked with? Someone mentioned Aliens, is that true?

Solid Snake
06-04-12, 03:32 PM
I know The Matrix got the green hue in there to be in line w/ Reloaded and Revolutions.

RichC2
06-04-12, 03:34 PM
My hometown got its first Digital Projector in April 2002, just prior to Spider-man's release. And it had been around for quite some time at that point.

brayzie
06-04-12, 04:17 PM
Yeah, what happened to Aliens?

After googling it, it seem that the Aliens Quadrilogy set, Cameron tweaked the coloring that's noticeable when they arive on LV-whatever, so it ends up looking more teal and orange, than blue and deeper reds and browns.

Eddie W
06-04-12, 04:33 PM
Yeah, what happened to Aliens?

After googling it, it seem that the Aliens Quadrilogy set, Cameron tweaked the coloring that's noticeable when they arive on LV-whatever, so it ends up looking more teal and orange, than blue and deeper reds and browns.

It looks atrocious. It's one of my favorite movies, but I had to turn it off halfway in because the new two tone color scheme was so distracting and off-putting. Almost every single thing is either blue or bright orange now.

Mabuse
06-04-12, 05:12 PM
I recomend you guys check out Lars Von Trier's The Element of Crime. Made in 1984. All orange with a little teal. LVT was so ahead of his time.

brayzie
06-04-12, 05:18 PM
It looks atrocious. It's one of my favorite movies, but I had to turn it off halfway in because the new two tone color scheme was so distracting and off-putting. Almost every single thing is either blue or bright orange now.

That's funny because ALIENS already has lots of blue in it. I've always preferred it's color palette to that of the other Alien films. But that's weird that Cameron enhanced it even more. I have the Special Edition DVD, so I guess I have more reason not to upgrade to the Quadrilogy version (although I hate the SE scene of LV-426 prior to Ripley's arrival).

dhmac
06-04-12, 10:32 PM
This thread has a misleading title. When I think of a thread titled "My Sympathies To This Generation Of Moviegoers", I think about too much sequel-itis and too many remakes, the overuse of shaky-cam, all the lousy scripts and poor character development, too much CGI, ginsu-style editing, too many untalented actors getting lead roles, etc., etc.

...but not about color palette.

inri222
06-04-12, 10:43 PM
This thread has a misleading title. When I think of a thread titled "My Sympathies To This Generation Of Moviegoers", I think about too much sequel-itis and too many remakes, the overuse of shaky-cam, all the lousy scripts and poor character development, too much CGI, ginsu-style editing, too many untalented actors getting lead roles, etc., etc.

...but not about color palette.

This to me is the root of all the evil.

PhantomStranger
06-05-12, 01:01 AM
Hollywood figured out long ago that intelligent scripts with careful character development aren't the best at making money, which is why Hollywood basically abandoned them to independent makers and the rare prestige picture only made for awards season. Studios only care about profits at the end of the day and nothing more.

Why So Blu?
06-05-12, 01:05 AM
Hollywood figured out long ago that intelligent scripts with careful character development aren't the best at making money, which is why Hollywood basically abandoned them to independent makers and the rare prestige picture only made for awards season. Studios only care about profits at the end of the day and nothing more.

That's why they call it Show Business not Show Art. It's all about the $$$$

Jon2
06-05-12, 01:50 AM
I've gotten used to it. Then, when I watched a Bollywood DVD last week, I was blown away by the full palette. It was so bright and colorful!

Mrs Danger points out that the reason movies are made with desaturated colors and a drastically limited palette is that it's easier for the CGI department to match up the effects. If they were made full-color, it would be hard work to keep the effects from being obvious.

As someone who has had a long and deep interest in EFX work, I'll go out on a limb and disagree with the Mrs and say that it is "shaky cam" footage, not muted color palettes, that makes it easier for CGI integration. "Shaky cam" covers multitude of sins in the EFX arena. Who can notice that effects don't match when you can't see WTF is going on?

It's not the first time a technical department controlled the color of movies. Part of the contract with Technicolor was that the company had approval of the color choice. The person who made the approvals was Natalie Kalmus, the wife of one the owners, and she liked pastels. Isn't that dainty? So Technicolor movies used bland, muted colors.

Except in the case of Technicolor it wasn't a "technical department" within a studio, but a totally separate company who wielded their color technology patents with an iron fist and dictated to every studio that shot a movie with their film and camera technology.

As for Techicolor movies using bland, muted colors, I can only presume you're being a bit facetious here. When I think of Technicolor films, I think of movies like the Adventures of Robin Hood, a movie with such a broad and colorful palette it makes most modern films like home movies.

Dull is the color descriptive word that comes to mind that is most consistent with movies of the past half century.

FRwL
06-05-12, 02:07 AM
Hollywood figured out long ago that intelligent scripts with careful character development aren't the best at making money, which is why Hollywood basically abandoned them to independent makers and the rare prestige picture only made for awards season. Studios only care about profits at the end of the day and nothing more.

That is true no matter how much we might want to look at it through rosey glasses.

Draven
06-05-12, 07:40 AM
Studios only care about profits at the end of the day and nothing more.

You do know that movies are a business, right? I should hope they care about profits.

Gobear
06-05-12, 07:47 AM
This is why you pity the new generation of filmgoers? I'd start with the lack of real butter on the popcorn and the death of the drive-in.

RocShemp
06-05-12, 09:21 AM
I think a bigger complaint is that everything that happens at night is lit blue. Like...in every movie. Have you ever been in a dark room that was filled with blue light, as if from nowhere? The moon's light is white, streetlamps are usually white or orange, car and city lights tend to be on the white side...but I can't think of anything that generates a strong blue light at night. Yet...look at every movie.

That's actually a pet peeve of mine. That's why I loved the nightime sequences in Batman Begins (though The Dark Knight sadly indulges in blue nighttime lighting during a few moments), Dark City (where the blue lighting was left exclusively to the Strangers' lair), and during the begining of Tron Legacy (even though they balanced that with the cliche of computer monitors bright enough to serve as a tanning booth :lol:)

RocShemp
06-05-12, 09:42 AM
You're right, of course. Something shot well that uses the strengths of the chosen format (film, digital, whaterver) is going to look good and look right. I can cite TRANSFORMERS 3 in 3-D IMAX as an example. (Was that on film or digital? It was real IMAX at Sony's Lincoln Square theater in Manhattan.)

TF3 was mostly film. The only parts that were digital were the wingsuit sequence and brief snippets of the Chicago finale.

Ash Ketchum
06-05-12, 11:20 AM
TF3 was mostly film. The only parts that were digital were the wingsuit sequence and brief snippets of the Chicago finale.

Yeah, but I don't know if the 3-D IMAX projection I saw was on film or digital.

Matthew Chmiel
06-05-12, 12:16 PM
Yeah, but I don't know if the 3-D IMAX projection I saw was on film or digital.
Lincoln Square has a 15/70 setup, so you saw a 70mm IMAX print.

What Roc was getting at is that a majority of Transformers 3 was shot on film rather than in digital 3D.

RocShemp
06-05-12, 01:10 PM
Lincoln Square has a 15/70 setup, so you saw a 70mm IMAX print.

What Roc was getting at is that a majority of Transformers 3 was shot on film rather than in digital 3D.

Yeah, I misunderstood Ash Ketchum's question. I thought he was asking about how the the feature was shot. I didn't realize he was asking about the presentation he watched.

DonnachaOne
06-05-12, 01:36 PM
TF3 was mostly film. The only parts that were digital were the wingsuit sequence and brief snippets of the Chicago finale.

While you are correct that Transformers: Dark of the Moon was shot using both digital and film (as I recently covered in a shot-in3D/post-conversion post in the Prometheus thread), your details are inaccurate.

TF3 was mostly shot in digital stereoscopic 3D rigs, using the Alexa and Sony f35. Michael Bay likes his Michael bay shots though, so panoramic images of the cityscape, as well as extreme close-ups, sandstormy bits and slo-mo shots, none of which look as appealing with the drawbacks of current digital tech, were shot on 35mm and converted to 3D. Also, Bay loves his Bay editing, and the snapping back in forth in 3D depths might cause the viewer to have a Scanners attack, so, as is common with shot-in-3D flicks, one eye's footage was sometimes excised and the other eye's image post-converted to allow for smoother matching (not to mention how a lot of kinetic camerawork can often wobble one eye's footage capture, disorienting the 3D effect). All in all, about 70-75% of what's on screen in Transformers: Dark of the Moon is digital, the other parts film, and a little under half of the film was post-converted.

Matthew Chmiel
06-05-12, 03:10 PM
TF3 was mostly shot in digital stereoscopic 3D rigs, using the Alexa and Sony f35. Michael Bay likes his Michael bay shots though, so panoramic images of the cityscape, as well as extreme close-ups, sandstormy bits and slo-mo shots, none of which look as appealing with the drawbacks of current digital tech, were shot on 35mm and converted to 3D. Also, Bay loves his Bay editing, and the snapping back in forth in 3D depths might cause the viewer to have a Scanners attack, so, as is common with shot-in-3D flicks, one eye's footage was sometimes excised and the other eye's image post-converted to allow for smoother matching (not to mention how a lot of kinetic camerawork can often wobble one eye's footage capture, disorienting the 3D effect). All in all, about 70-75% of what's on screen in Transformers: Dark of the Moon is digital, the other parts film, and a little under half of the film was post-converted.
TL;DR: Transformers: Dark of the Moon had shit 3D.

JGaitan82
06-05-12, 03:18 PM
This is why you pity the new generation of filmgoers? I'd start with the lack of real butter on the popcorn and the death of the drive-in.

Best post of this this topic!

Paul_SD
06-05-12, 04:40 PM
This is why you pity the new generation of filmgoers? I'd start with the lack of real butter on the popcorn and the death of the drive-in.

I've been to drive-ins as a kid with parents, and then later as a teen/young adult with girls and friends- and I've never really got the appeal of the experience. It was kind of cool as a kid, but then almost any new experience is.
If the point is to be somewhere to fool around with your girlfriend, the movie is either irrelevant or a distraction (or else your date is). If it's to joke, laugh and get rowdy with a group of friends, well, that seems to be what today's average multiplex theater is for.
The last local drive-in here closed up and was tore down about 5 years ago. It was sad to see it go because it had been a geographic landmark my whole life and it was fun to drive by it at night and catch images of three different films playing. But I stopped having any interest in actually going to it 20 years earlier.

And for the 40+ years of movie-going, I don't think I've ever experienced real butter on popcorn.

DonnachaOne
06-05-12, 05:41 PM
Transformers: Dark of the Moon had shit 3D.

No. I wasn't a fan of the film, but I thought it at least looked terrific, and the 3D was well-done.

Matthew Chmiel
06-05-12, 06:04 PM
I've been to drive-ins as a kid with parents, and then later as a teen/young adult with girls and friends- and I've never really got the appeal of the experience. It was kind of cool as a kid, but then almost any new experience is.
If the point is to be somewhere to fool around with your girlfriend, the movie is either irrelevant or a distraction (or else your date is). If it's to joke, laugh and get rowdy with a group of friends, well, that seems to be what today's average multiplex theater is for.
The last local drive-in here closed up and was tore down about 5 years ago. It was sad to see it go because it had been a geographic landmark my whole life and it was fun to drive by it at night and catch images of three different films playing. But I stopped having any interest in actually going to it 20 years earlier.

And for the 40+ years of movie-going, I don't think I've ever experienced real butter on popcorn.
1. I've seen real butter being used at Century and Galaxy multiplexes.

2. The drive-in is fantastic if you care more about the experience around you rather than the film itself. Getting extremely intoxicated with friends and seeing such <s>gems</s> pieces of shit like Next, The Ruins, 1408 and others were a complete blast. Having se... uh, we'll just move on. Regardless, the drive-in lead to some of the best moments during my high school and college years. Most people in the generation after myself will not get to have that same experience.

No. I wasn't a fan of the film, but I thought it at least looked terrific, and the 3D was well-done.
Agree to disagree. I thought the 3D was non-immersive, constantly flat and had absolutely no depth of field.

Hokeyboy
06-05-12, 07:43 PM
Sex at the Drive-In is awesome, if you're using real butter.

stroszeck
06-05-12, 08:13 PM
Honestly agree with the OP about the whole teal thing. Noticed it a few years back and every movie incorporates it today. Hollywood fell in love with it and has been using it on every type of movie. Makes them look like Terminator 2 in my opinion, the first time I really saw that "effect" in a movie before. (And yes I understand that was the work of careful cinematography and lots of colored lenses etc)

DonnachaOne
06-06-12, 01:01 AM
Agree to disagree. I thought the 3D was non-immersive, constantly flat and had absolutely no depth of field.That's fair. Did you see it in RealD, IMAX digital, or IMAX 15/70? I've always preferred the IMAX digital's 3D - two projectors are brighter than one, and the bigger screen is helpful for the immersion. RealD on a Sony, however, is tantamount to sitting with shades on to me. I don't feel the Sonys are ever powerful enough to light up the silver screens the way 3D needs.

dhmac
06-16-12, 11:28 AM
I just checked out the short-lived TV series "Fear Itself" on NetFlix streaming by watching the first episode there titled "Eater"

Wow, it was almost entirely green and orange! Just watching it instantly made me think of this thread.

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/oo33/dhmacg/fear-itself.jpg

I still think there are far worst things with current movies (listed in my previous post) but if they all started looking like this TV episode does, I would start complaining about it too!

Strevlac
06-16-12, 11:37 AM
Yeah, but I don't know if the 3-D IMAX projection I saw was on film or digital.

Wow. Really? I saw Mission Impossible 4 in Imax and it was obviously digital...it felt like watching a huge HDTV, pixels and all. I was extremely dissapointed in the experience. Why shoot with real Imax cameras when all you are going to do is project it with some crappy resolution digital projector? The size of the screen is sorta moot then.

Eddie W
06-18-12, 02:31 PM
Ugh, I just Redbox'd "Gone" last night & the entire movie is the typical washed out, sickly green tinted mess except where it's orange. The next time I accidentally rent a movie with this color scheme, I'm just going to turn the color off my TV & watch in black & white. I guess if I want colors, I'm stuck with reality TV shows.

This whole teal & orange epidemic reminds of the loudness wars in music. It's like the entertainment industry goes way out of their way to make their product as unappealing as possible.

Paul_SD
06-18-12, 03:16 PM
apologies for not catching this when it was originally asked.

Paul SD, please clarify for me. Blade Runner and Chinatown have not been re-colored or tweeked right? You're doing the tweeking yourself for the sake of an example right?


I manipulated the Chinatown example on the right. The 'natural looking' cap on screen left is taken from the recent Bd release. The Bd generally looks great (i.e. natural) as far as color goes.

The Blade Runner example on the bottom is taken straight off the Bd. The cap above it is much closer to how it would have looked theatrically and is taken from the original DVD release.

Drexl
06-18-12, 03:30 PM
Ugh, I just Redbox'd "Gone" last night & the entire movie is the typical washed out, sickly green tinted mess except where it's orange. The next time I accidentally rent a movie with this color scheme, I'm just going to turn the color off my TV & watch in black & white. I guess if I want colors, I'm stuck with reality TV shows.

This whole teal & orange epidemic reminds of the loudness wars in music. It's like the entertainment industry goes way out of their way to make their product as unappealing as possible.

Don't forget the video games with drab color palettes and overcooked HDR lighting that makes them look like they're shot with a diffusion filter. Sports games tend to not have these as they're going for a realistic, natural look. Whereas many other games are doing it for the style.

Michael Corvin
06-18-12, 03:43 PM
I think a bigger complaint is that everything that happens at night is lit blue. Like...in every movie. Have you ever been in a dark room that was filled with blue light, as if from nowhere? The moon's light is white, streetlamps are usually white or orange, car and city lights tend to be on the white side...but I can't think of anything that generates a strong blue light at night. Yet...look at every movie.

Say what you will about the movie itself, but the night time color palette in The Crow: City of Angels has always impressed me. Lot's of yellows & oranges at night. Not something you ever see in movies. I haven't seen the movie in years, but that's something that has always stuck with me.

hmmm, good point. They're using the psychology of color - kind of how the color red makes people hungry, which is why restaurants use it A LOT.

I know the psychology of color at play with red in restaurants, but it's not the sole reason for going with red. It also comes down to signage. The absolute best color to go with on an illuminated sign is red. It makes sense that an interior color scheme would match the logo on the building.