[HN Gopher] Why does everything on Netflix look like that?
___________________________________________________________________
Why does everything on Netflix look like that?
Author : cpeterso
Score : 139 points
Date : 2022-08-22 16:46 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| I wish there were more, you know, _images_ of what they claim.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| And the one image demostrates the _opposite_ of what they
| claim.
|
| I think this is just clickbait... find something popular, trash
| it, and use the backlash to drive ad revenue.
|
| Then again, it is vice.com, so yeah, that's probably a given.
| edgyquant wrote:
| How is this trashing anything?
| [deleted]
| Apocryphon wrote:
| I dunno, that screenshot does look rather conventional and
| cheap. It looks like a still from Doctor Who or something.
| malfist wrote:
| But is it what the post claims? Dark, overly saturated, lit
| with neon colors, caked on makeup and puckered seams in the
| costumes? I don't see any of that in their sole "example"
|
| It doesn't help that their example has, like, 10 pixels.
| Guess the pixel factory ran out when they got their
| screenshot.
| the_af wrote:
| > _I think this is just clickbait... find something popular,
| trash it,_
|
| They don't trash it. This is what they actually say about the
| _overall_ quality of The Sandman:
|
| > _Against all odds, Netflix's adaptation of The Sandman is a
| very good show._
|
| "A very good show".
|
| They then go on to claim there's a general "look" of
| cheapness to Netflix shows which means one can usually tell
| something was produced by Netflix. They describe some general
| characteristics, and they don't do the best job at actually
| displaying examples of said characteristics. Though I do know
| what they mean, having watched a few episodes of the show
| (which I like).
| coffee_beqn wrote:
| I have no clue about what these professional cameras or
| industry names for shots mean so I guess this article is not
| for me.
|
| I guess that would take effort though while a rant can be typed
| out in an hour
| wpietri wrote:
| Every article has an intended audience. When I have a
| complaint like this, I just assume that the audience was
| somebody else. Mostly I just move on, but sometimes I'll take
| the time to do enough research that I understand.
|
| As an occasional writer, I think that's great. I like writing
| 101-level pieces from time to time, but I'd go mad if I
| couldn't write for a more specific audience. E.g. I really
| like commenting here because I can just trust that people,
| say, know what git is and the constellation of common
| opinions about it. Not only would explaining all that "take
| effort", but for people familiar, it comes across as boring
| filler.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| There are plenty of ads though
| lmaocat wrote:
| You don't use adblock?
| irrational wrote:
| I didn't see a single ad. I even went back to check.
| firefoxd wrote:
| For Netflix, I know what he means, but the article has a hard
| time describing it. It's kinda like you know what a tiktok video
| looks like, even when the logo is absent.
|
| But here is a better phenomenon. Star wars tv series are all shot
| in a circular room. Everything is arranged in a virtual circle
| even when they are outdoors. When you see it, you can't unsee it.
|
| Ps: having a hard time finding images from the shows. But here is
| the set.
|
| [1] https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/forging-new-paths-
| fo...
|
| [2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPsq5kPzE
| bityard wrote:
| If you think this is annoying (whatever it is, the article didn't
| make a lot of sense to me), then DON'T look up one of the many
| articles on the preponderance of "orange and blue" as the
| standard color palette for virtually all Hollywood movies made in
| the last decade and going forward. Once you see it, you will
| start seeing it everywhere.
| [deleted]
| mouzogu wrote:
| this is what happens when you're making "content", as martin
| scorsese described it.
|
| it's like every new show they make feels like the final season of
| a show that lost it's spark many seasons ago - just made out of
| obligation to a contract. conveyor belt tv.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Serious question - why does this place still tolerate Vice?
|
| They attacked Stallman on utterly blatantly false pretenses,
| egregiously misquoting him. Their page is a GPDR violation. And
| if they've managed any quality journalism in the past ten years
| or so, I haven't seen it.
| CitizenKane wrote:
| I can't help but feel like article kind of beats around the bush
| with the answer, i.e. that there are tradeoffs between artistic
| freedom and streaming performance/compression. I'm guessing
| Netflix did their best to find cameras that worked well with the
| compression and streaming infrastructure that Netflix has.
| There's probably no perfect answer, and I can understand why
| they'd want to specific hardware for their productions.
|
| It's kind of fascinating that it's ended up forming a certain
| style, but I wouldn't be surprised to see engineering concerns
| start to permeate other streaming services in terms of style.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Cinematography by committee.
| silisili wrote:
| 'Extremely saturated', immediately below an image from The
| Sandman that is very clearly neutral at best, perhaps even
| undersaturated....
| rhino369 wrote:
| The author must have meant extremely under-saturated. I've only
| watched 2 episodes, but it was pretty colorless. I assumed it
| was an artistic choice.
| ssizn wrote:
| "a Hallmark movie by it's bright, fluffy, pastel look"
|
| Argh... editor... where's the bloody editor!!!
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Netflix has too much low quality content.
|
| Occasionally, there's something good. When that happens, I
| subscribe, watch the content, then unsubscribe again.
|
| There might be a lot of hidden jewels in there but they're hard
| to find because they're buried under a mountain of unwatchable
| stuff.
| oriolid wrote:
| I think it's better to think the subscription as renting a show
| or two, rather than something that's supposed to keep running.
| wyager wrote:
| It's funny to me that Netflix has such strict standards for
| cameras, but their content delivery is usually such low quality.
| Maybe my friends with netflix just aren't paying enough to get
| decent-looking video?
|
| One example that I remember is a horror movie where a bogey comes
| out of a dark doorway. I was totally distracted from the scene by
| the _atrocious_ brightness levels. I won 't even call it
| "banding", because that implies a sort of geometric layout to the
| levels - this was more like "blocking". It was even worse than I
| would normally expect from dark bt.709 content. I assume the
| issue was something like their compression eliminated any natural
| dithering that would make dark zones look OK in SDR content.
|
| Hopefully their compression strategy does a better job with dark
| content using bt.2100 transfers.
| causi wrote:
| The fake-ass Depth of Field effects are what drive me nuts. Some
| series have the top and bottom thirds of the screen blurred to
| hell with a sharp dividing line for no discernable reason.
| Melatonic wrote:
| That might just be a tilt shift lens
| rozenmd wrote:
| I think they've done well to make audiences oblivious to the
| dozens of independent teams shooting for them, making things
| "Look Netflix".
|
| There's an incredibly detailed set of guidelines that helps them
| achieve this: https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-
| us/categories/3...
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Related, perhaps https://www.vox.com/culture/22840526/colors-
| movies-tv-gray-d...
|
| Normalized colors across multiple filming seshes.
| Animats wrote:
| A/B testing? They have so much data about the behavior of
| watchers that they can optimize, which will lock them into a
| look.
| Thaxll wrote:
| What I noticed on Netflix is a lot of show have that blur in some
| shot, the focus part is clean but all the rest is blury /
| distorted.
| deckard1 wrote:
| Couldn't find the point of this article, like others have
| claimed. But I did find it interesting they messed with the
| aspect ratio in The Sandman. I watched the trailer and it's
| incredibly obvious. A weird creative choice if you ask me. It
| would annoy me so much to watch that. Reminds me of my dad. Going
| to his house and seeing his nice large 16:9 TV showing stretched
| 4:3 content. And me being too polite to tell him that he's being
| uncivilized.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Haven't watched Sandman yet but Westworld does something
| similar to that where they use the aspect ratio to denote
| different eras or real vs virtual.
| jononomo wrote:
| This article does not include images to demonstrate the point,
| which means the article is not worth reading.
| carabiner wrote:
| That's why you watch HBO instead.
| andix wrote:
| Whats so bad about Netflix 4K?
|
| Yes, it's compressed. And yes, it loses some information and
| quality. But the picture quality is still good. Superior to most
| other sources. (Yes, Blue-ray will be better, but I really don't
| want to jiggle disks).
|
| I don't think that 1080p with the same bitrate would look any
| better.
| oriolid wrote:
| I noticed that 1080p version of The Sandman streamed at average
| 3 mbit/s. I would expect that kind of numbers from Youtube, not
| supposed high-quality stream. The picture is still sharp and
| doesn't have obvious compression artifacts so there must be
| something else in play.
| entropie wrote:
| Its not only netflix. Its just 4k cameras (RED and friends, I
| guess?) - not sure what brands actually exist.
|
| I watched my first movies in the 90s and it took a while to adapt
| to the new looks but I actually love it. Its so detailed and
| still many elements from classical movies are adapted (if you
| read about them, you never forget and begin to actually see them
| used. Hitchcocks dolly zoom as prominent example.)
|
| At least I am visually pleased and on my PC I actually start edge
| to watch 4k netflix, besides sometimes it just freezes my windows
| PC and just make them reboot).
| the_af wrote:
| I'm liking The Sandman so far, being a fan of the source material
| like many others watching it I guess, but this critique is spot
| on.
|
| I skimmed the article to see if it mentioned the "Hallmark look",
| and was not disappointed to see it did. One can instantly
| recognize the bright, bland, inoffensive and boring look of any
| Hallmark production, and quickly zap out of it. TFA also mentions
| Syfy, which is also instantly recognizable as "cheap CGI".
| parkingrift wrote:
| I tried to read this article, but I have absolutely no idea what
| they're talking about. Why aren't there any example images? I
| have never noticed this supposed phenomenon, and I was curious
| enough to try and read the article, but the article does not even
| make an attempt to showcase this "issue." Am I missing something
| so obvious that the author didn't even feel compelled to slightly
| elaborate on what that "something" is?
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Yes, this was clearly written by a film geek for film geeks. I
| had to google "dutch angle" for example. It just means you tilt
| the camera a little. But I'll see if I notice any of those
| things the next time I watch something.
| whatatita wrote:
| I really got the sense that this was written by and for film
| geeks. That said, as a minor film geek, I enjoyed the piece
| and agree with their message.
|
| I think the example image at the top of the article does a
| perfectly fine job of showing the "something" they're
| refering to, but it's only going to help those few who have
| already noticed that something, and haven't put their finger
| on what it actualy is. For readers who haven't noticed the
| effect, a few comparison images wouldn't hurt.
| syntheweave wrote:
| It's a repurposing of a Twitter discourse from months ago
| where that particular image from The Sandman was called out
| and compared to the source material, and a few threads
| emerged discussing how it ended up that way.
|
| I don't have links unfortunately.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I know what a Dutch angle is, but still came away thinking
| they might just need to adjust their TV settings, or sit
| further away from it.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Its not about Dutch Angles at all - this article just sucks.
| Trust me - I am a film nerd. I own a camera on the Netflix
| approved list.
|
| There is absolutely no reason shooting in 4K HDR on the
| approved cameras and then going through Netflix compression
| would result in any of the things they are talking about at the
| start (moody lighting, etc etc). This is just a stylistic
| choice when shot / lit / edited. In fact shooting on one of
| Netflix approved cameras and shooting in something like 4K HDR
| ProRess or DNxHD gives you a ton MORE flexiblity to colour
| correct your footage for a completely different look after the
| fact. If they wanted to they could re-edit The Sandman right
| now and make the whole thing an insanely colourful show.
| Goodluck doing that shooting in compressed H264.
|
| TLDR: Netflix just likes greenlighting a lot of angsty content
| and that kind of content gets lit, shot, and colour corrected
| like this (current day). Its just the current style at the
| time. It also looks really impressive if you do have a 4K HDR
| TV and maximizes the higher dynamic range.
| icedchai wrote:
| I do, but I can't describe it well, other than "something
| stylistically similar about the colors, angles, and motion".
| You'll get a feel for the "something" with their self-produced
| shows. With the films they acquire/purchase, you won't see it,
| even if they're labeled as produced by Netflix.
| Supermancho wrote:
| This feels like a viral article to get people to watch The
| Sandman (again). It is literally unbelievable for someone to
| be so visually detail oriented to ignore how poorly the rest
| of the production is. Visual style was the least of the
| problems...following being relatively obscure, as comic book
| readership has been crashing over and over since the 80s.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Does Netflix offer a non-HDCP streaming format? Taking a
| screenshot may be somewhat difficult.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Works fine in Firefox on Linux; I just tried with The
| Sandman. That's Netflix limited to 720p because it prevents
| piracy1 of course, but that's fine for a screenshot.
|
| 1: No, it doesn't.
| tobbob wrote:
| I couldn't even get past the legal work to read the article.
| severak_cz wrote:
| a) they assume everybody has Netflix
|
| b) there are some copyright law problems with screenshots
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Z) Not every piece of content needs to be accessible to every
| person that might stumble across it.
|
| If you don't already have a feeling for what this "Netflix
| look" is, maybe the article just isn't written for you?
| tambourine_man wrote:
| But making an effort to increase accessibility is valid,
| right?
|
| There's a limit, of course, you expect the reader to be
| alphabetized, have watched a couple of Netflix movies, etc.
| but this one may have gone a bit too far on the reader's
| assumptions.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yes, not having a reference image for people to compare
| what you are directly talking about in today's multimedia
| world is just really being lazy. Like, supadupauberlazy.
| There's really not an excuse for it.
| ProAm wrote:
| The article is clearly not for you. I understood what he
| was talking about from the first paragraph and do not
| have netflix.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I didn't even read the article, so there's that. Still
| not an excuse for being lazy.
|
| Also, I have a background in camera department, post
| production color grading, etc, so I'm assuming I am the
| target audience. I also knew what the "netflix look"
| looked like in my head just from the title. You kind of
| have to be in the industry to properly know what "look"
| means. Like when everyone talks about that "Cooke look",
| you just know what they mean.
| ProAm wrote:
| > I didn't even read the article, so there's that. Still
| not an excuse for being lazy.
|
| Lol, the irony in that sentence did make me chuckle. I
| mean if you have a background in film (production,
| etc...) and didn't read the article Im not sure why you
| commented in the first place? HN was always a place for
| good discussion, usually about the posted article and (to
| me which doesnt really matter) the article was very
| clear. But in the same breathe every article is never
| meant for every person so maybe its just that.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Because I've read articles like this multiple times.
| These things pop up from time to time, just like common
| articles/themes pop up here on HN.
|
| From the discussions on how Ozark is blue, the battle
| scene in GoT (yes, it's HBO) was too dark, the action
| movie with one of the Chrises was orange, etc. It's all
| just a giving of an opinion on someone else's art. Why in
| the world did Van Gogh make Starry Night blue? Why is
| there a wedge shape in DaVinci's Last Supper. It's a
| level of bloviating.
| ProAm wrote:
| Which is a fair assumption but makes for poor discussion
| on a site that tries to have meaningful discussion. We're
| not reddit.
| [deleted]
| dylan604 wrote:
| B) No, this would clearly fall under fair use to use a screen
| grab to use as a visual aid in the written article.
| jussion_zoonist wrote:
| I think that bypassing DRM would violate DMCA even if it is
| for fair use.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Oh lawdy! Netflix has promoted these programs. There are
| all sorts of content floating around on the interwebs
| released by the producers for the specific purpose of
| letting people see the content. Even the Netflix
| interface will show you something that will demonstrate
| the discussion. Hell, there's probably trailers for
| content on YouTube.
| lostgame wrote:
| The other day I found a bloody _CSS framework_ of all things
| for a specific retro style or the like trending on the front
| page of HN - whose GitHub failed to include images anywhere, or
| even an easy to access example link.
|
| I just cannot understand people's aversion to including images
| in instances where the core point of the article or project is
| visual technology.
|
| It does not take long to take a screenshot or two of either
| what you're discussing, as in the case of this article, or what
| your project is capable of, as in the case of that CSS
| framework.
|
| 'A picture is worth a thousand words' has never rung truer in
| situations regarding visual technology.
| dixie_land wrote:
| Probably easier on desktop, but on the device I actually
| consume Netflix, it's not as straight forward:
|
| - Apple TV: not sure how - iOS: blocks screenshots (you get a
| black frame)
| ziml77 wrote:
| You get the same thing on desktop. A couple months ago I
| wanted to share a clip of a show that was very relevant to
| a conversation and just ended up with black where the video
| was. Had to use Firefox to be able to capture it since that
| doesn't support the same DRM as Chrome-based browsers and
| Safari (the lack of that DRM support is also why the
| services limit what quality is streamed to Firefox
| clients).
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| It does take significantly longer than just writing a few
| sentences. I loathe having to gather screenshots when
| creating documentation, despite not minding the other aspects
| of documentation much.
|
| Not disagreeing with you, but just answering the implied
| question of...
|
| > I just cannot understand people...
| lostgame wrote:
| On a Mac, it's as quick as hitting CMD+Shift+4 and I get a
| PNG on my desktop.
|
| If I'm creating a CSS framework anyway, I've gotta test it.
| It literally takes 2 seconds - literally - to hit
| CMD+Shift+4 (I don't know the Windows equivalent) - and
| when I publish to GitHub and write my readme, it takes
| another handful of seconds to add that image into the
| article.
|
| Since that GitHub page is about a CSS framework, people are
| much more likely to download, use, fork or contribute to it
| - if you've spent this less than ten seconds to help your
| potential users out.
|
| There's lots and lots of utilities and articles for which
| you wouldn't need to use screenshots as examples - command
| line utilities, certain frameworks, etc - but this article
| is an example of the opposite.
|
| The reason I can't understand people who would do that -
| especially in the example of said CSS framework - is if
| you've spent all this time working on something like that,
| and you're choosing to share it with people - why not
| undergo that ~10-15 second long process for their sake?
| zapzupnz wrote:
| Windows equivalent: Win-Shift-S
| wkrsz wrote:
| Web page bandwidth quota exhausted by adware and JS plugins.
| No more left for an image.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Not really an issue for a project hosted on GitHub.
| Veuxdo wrote:
| I'm always baffled whenever a GitHub repo trends on here. I
| would have guessed a list of files and a Readme would be the
| last thing that would trend.
| lostgame wrote:
| GitHub projects trend on HN because a GitHub page is
| certainly not 'just' a ReadMe and a list of files, any more
| than a programming book is a just pile of paper and ink.
|
| GitHub is one of the most valuable troves of information we
| have on the entire Internet, certainly - and represents
| countless hours of work from millions of people all over
| the world, openly contributing and sharing _knowledge_ and
| _tools_ with others, without the interest of profit.
|
| I don't think there are many other websites in the world
| that align with HN's values more than GitHub. It's almost
| invaluable to humanity.
| [deleted]
| crazygringo wrote:
| This article makes no sense.
|
| For some reason this has been some kind of meme going around in
| the last 2 to 4 weeks, that Netflix shows all look the same
| because of a limited camera list. And somehow it's turned into a
| full article now.
|
| But it makes no sense because different shows on Netflix are all
| made by different studios with totally different senses of taste,
| Netflix doesn't impose any aesthetic, and modern digital cameras
| don't generate an aesthetic at all. They mostly simply impose
| limitations around resolution and noise that limit or expand what
| you can do with dark shots. Everything around aesthetic is
| cinematography and color grading which has essentially zero to do
| with your camera.
|
| At most, we can say that Netflix chooses to buy a lot of
| middlebrow drama shows, and middlebrow drama shows today share a
| similar aesthetic, in the same way that soap operas from the 80's
| share a similar aesthetic, or gritty HBO crime miniseries share a
| similar aesthetic, or network cop shows share a similar
| aesthetic. Directors and cinematographers figure out what works
| most effectively for a genre and copy what works.
|
| None of that has anything to do with Netflix imposing anything or
| any list of approved cameras, or minimum resolution or HDR or
| anything else technical.
| koprulusector wrote:
| Toward the end of the article the author moves on to
| "compression" of 4K HDR media as another factor affecting the
| aesthetics. I find this just as baffling as what you've pointed
| out.
| Melatonic wrote:
| This is exactly it. In fact the Netflix approved camera list is
| designed specifically to have cameras that shoot in formats
| that allow a ton MORE creative range later on. This is just
| creative teams choosing to make shows that look like this.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > For some reason this has been some kind of meme going around
| in the last 2 to 4 weeks, that Netflix shows all look the same
| because of a limited camera list. And somehow it's turned into
| a full article now.
|
| Agree with you. The actual list of approved cameras [0] has
| dozens of cameras from six different manufacturers and there
| are get outs - especially for non-fiction content - should you
| have to use a non-approved camera.
|
| [0] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/360...
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| >modern digital cameras don't generate an aesthetic at all
|
| For whatever reason, Netflix Originals seem to love having a
| super strong blur over the foregrounds and backgrounds. My
| understanding is that this is due to the 1974 Hawk anamorphic
| lenses they tend to use, although maybe it's a post-production
| effect? When the characters are on the edge of the frame,
| sometimes they'll be a blurry mess while a random object in the
| middle of the room looks super sharp.
|
| I've always assumed it's cheap way to look "cinematic", like
| portrait mode on an iPhone. Or maybe it's a way to cover up
| flaws in sets.
|
| Either way, in shows like The Witcher and Sabrina I find it
| incredibly distracting.
| fleddr wrote:
| Lol, "cheap way". Blur is simply the out of focus plane.
| Typically, the larger the area out of focus and the more
| smooth this "blur" is, the more expensive the lens being
| used. Meaning, it has a very large aperture.
|
| Doesn't mean you have to like the result, but it doesn't
| really correlate to cheap, quite the opposite. That said, I
| don't think a lens will make much of a different on a total
| production budget.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| This is on point. There is a whole variety of visual
| styles/genres that are in fashion and most producers are risk
| averse by nature. It is also nothing new - it's _the_
| innovation that _is_ Hollywood.
|
| That being said, the article isn't off either. I have
| personally worked on a show that was going to Netflix and their
| oversight really was very involved. They impose constraints and
| keep an eye on everything constantly. Down to daily footage
| being uploaded into their system and an invisible
| bureaucratic/technocratic remote production team breathing down
| everybody's neck. As you can imagine, this isn't exactly the
| sort of atmosphere in which a team feels creative or wants to
| improvise. At the same time everyone also gets compensated well
| and work goes smoothly, so it becomes this sort of timid
| affair.
|
| I suspect their prestige productions are probably a different
| story.
| bhauer wrote:
| > _At most, we can say that Netflix chooses to buy a lot of
| middlebrow drama shows, and middlebrow drama shows today share
| a similar aesthetic_
|
| Exactly. The article did concede that there are other examples
| of the phenomenon, such as Hallmark. I would argue that Amazon
| has their own style as well.
|
| As the article points out, video compression causes several
| aspects of the resulting appearance such as exaggerated edges,
| but that is shared across all streaming services.
|
| It's not a Netflix-exclusive phenomenon.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I found a year old article making a similarl argument:
|
| https://theconversation.com/films-made-for-netflix-look-more...
|
| It reminded me of the work that the cinematographer on Knives
| Out did to kill the silly idea that "digital cameras" couldn't
| do "film look".:
|
| https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...
| tengbretson wrote:
| Is there an article hiding somewhere in that rat's nest of
| advertisements?
| ramesh31 wrote:
| It's the final death of cinema as an art form outside the avant
| garde. The visual equivalent of clickbait blogspam.
| edgyquant wrote:
| We'll then cinema wasn't much of a sustainable art form then
| since it didn't even make it a century.
|
| The lessons learned and art created during that time will
| remain and enrich the "video" or whatever you want to call the
| replacement for cinema.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| > The lessons learned and art created during that time will
| remain and enrich the "video" or whatever you want to call
| the replacement for cinema.
|
| It wont, though. That's the thing. It's the same thing that
| happened to classical animation. A hundred years of technique
| and mastery passed down from generation to generation, now
| completely lost.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Does it not live on in all ways that matter in anime? I'm
| not attached to a production format or a label. The future
| will not be short of cartoons nor will it be short of films
| that move people. Sure they may be now alongside a massive
| scale of what you don't like but that's the beauty of the
| information web.
| kachurovskiy wrote:
| It makes me sad that there's so much focus on image and VFX on
| Netflix while having a below average story in most cases. There
| are movies that consist of a person talking on the phone in a
| room that are more enjoyable than Netflix's feature film of the
| week like Day Shift.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| I actually rather enjoyed Locke, and it's exactly that -- one
| man talking on the phone while driving his car at night for 90
| minutes.
|
| The Queen's Gambit however, as visually compelling as it was,
| couldn't hold my attention. Too many tropes.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Everything on CBS looks the same, too.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| at least it isn't all blue-orange with gimmicky made-for-3D shots
| KevinGlass wrote:
| I was exited for Sandman. It had the potential to be very good,
| good actors, good budget, decently long timeline, etc.
| Unfortunately it got "Netflix'd" and suffers for it. It's kind of
| bland and boring. Visually it's not very interesting and the
| music is alright but could have been lifted from something else
| entirely. Listen here [1]
|
| The best comparison I can think of is the BBC's Johnathan Strange
| and Mr Norrell. Similarly fantastic source material, the show had
| a lower budget but is far more interesting to watch and that
| comes down to set design, cinematography, editing choice, etc.
|
| It's like the Sandman production crew picked the safest possible
| choice at every opportunity.
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2gCRK-f1pM
| RajT88 wrote:
| Yes, Sandman could have looked much better. But it was still
| enjoyable.
|
| I didn't find the production values as distracting as Tom
| Sturridge's eternal, "Blue Steel" face.*
|
| *My wife insists it's actually "El Tigre".
| the_af wrote:
| I'm finding The Sandman enjoyable for what it is, so far (3
| episodes into it).
|
| Nothing to rave about, and it suffers from some dodgy
| production issues, but then again the comics (er, "graphic
| novels") didn't really have amazing artwork anyway! It was
| all about the novel (for its time) and adult story by Neil
| Gaiman.
|
| I don't find Sturridge's emotionless face distracting,
| because the Sandman is pretty inscrutable anyway. What I do
| find distracting is his _youth_ ; it doesn't really convey
| the agelessness of the character, I would have expected
| either someone a bit older, or one of those real-life people
| you can never tell their age.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Yeah, I read they avoided offers for a live action for
| years but I'm not sure why it's sacrosanct. Maybe it came
| in "early" qua graphic novels (versus comic books).
| RajT88 wrote:
| I think this was the article I read about it a couple
| weeks back:
|
| https://variety.com/2022/tv/features/the-sandman-
| premiere-pr...
|
| Basically - lots of proposed adaptations with stupid
| plots, bad directing, etc.
|
| Ahhh, no it was this article:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20220803-the-sandman-
| how...
|
| In "An evening with Kevin Smith" (which you can buy, or
| find on Youtube), he details how around the same time Jon
| Peters was trying to persuade him to make "Superman
| Returns" which featured a "Giant Mechanical Spider". Neil
| Gaiman also got this pitch for a Sandman plot. Eventually
| the giant spider ended up in "Wild Wild West" with Will
| Smith. We all know how that went.
| the_af wrote:
| Do watch the Kevin Smith clip. It's hilarious. The line
| "...because in Hollywood, you fail upwards" will forever
| stay with me.
| the_af wrote:
| > _I 'm not sure why it's sacrosanct_
|
| Well, it's a pretty good fantasy comic for adults. It's
| not the only one, nor the first, but it's pretty good.
| And fans tend to be zealous of those. For many of us, it
| holds a special place in our comics-reading education,
| and so we would not wish to see it demeaned but yet
| another low quality adaptation that completely misses the
| point or dumbs everything down.
|
| Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be the case with this
| adaptation of The Sandman :)
|
| edit: this is what Gaiman has to say about The Sandman's
| cultural significance:
|
| _" And after 30 years, "Sandman," at this point, is
| probably the single best-selling series of graphic novels
| ever published in the U.S."_
| lostgame wrote:
| The strange, weirdly dramatic style...I'm trying to put my
| finger on it and having a tough time - the tone in general
| bothered me.
|
| But nothing bothered me more than the actor himself. The way he
| spoke, his ridiculously teen angst emo attitude...his hair
| alone.
|
| I just could absolutely not take him or the show seriously
| whatsoever, because - even though I'd never seen it - I could
| literally not get the picture of Edward the vampire from
| Twilight out of my mind almost any time he was on screen.
|
| There were several times I laughed out loud during periods
| which were supposed to be dead serious moments - and most of
| those times were simply due to the hilarious emo attitude of
| the show's lead.
|
| Was it intentional? He plays off like a character from a Young
| Adult novel, not from a legendary Graphic Novel author. The
| lead was just cringe incarnate.
| Slaminerag wrote:
| That's true to the comics. If anything, they toned down the
| hair. His sister tells him "You are utterly the stupidest,
| most self-centered, appallingest excuse for an
| anthropomorphic personification in this or any other plane!"
| fleddr wrote:
| In an increasing amount of shows, I won't mention the
| specific ones as to not stir the pot, I dislike the main
| character so much that I hope something bad happens to them
| (in the show, to be clear).
|
| Preachy, melodramatic, immature, one idiotic decision after
| the other.
| shafoshaf wrote:
| >>> Johnathan Strange and Mr Norrell I had forgotten about that
| show. It was really great! Just 2 cents.
|
| Sandman definitely has a feel that will date it. I am enjoying
| it (having the Sandman go to hell is a great plot mechanism)
| but I don't know about the re-watchability. I don't think this
| is limited to Netflix, I feel like there is definitive 2020's
| mise en scene, which I don't think Truffaut or Godard would
| approve of.
| bergenty wrote:
| I don't know how to say it but it feels like it has no
| gravitas. Like the original lord of the rings had gravitas,
| battlefield galactic a has gravitas, the wire has gravitas.
| What's making this so... bland? It's not just the writing I
| presume, I don't know.
| Errancer wrote:
| I actually had a reverse experience. I expected it to be
| butchered and unwatchable but it turned out really nice. Much
| different from the comic but this made be think that Sandman is
| not an usual piece of text but a kind of mythology and it
| suites it to be retold differently. So yea, it was "Netflix'd"
| but I think its a feature and not a bug. Each storyteller tells
| the story in their way and this is very in-line with the core
| idea of Sandman. Besides I am genuinely happy to see people
| watching it after so many years of being a fan.
| the_af wrote:
| My experience as well!
|
| I guess the Sandman TV show benefited from Neil Gaiman's
| watching over it. He claims he blocked many a bad Sandman
| adaptation from being produced, and this one -- with its
| inevitable changes -- has his approval and oversight. I think
| it shows.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| I haven't read the original material, but I really enjoyed
| the show as well. Though I think I enjoyed American Gods S1
| and then lost interest somewhere around S2 or S3, so I'm
| raising my expectations too much just yet
| Slaminerag wrote:
| I found many of the changes to be an improvement. The early
| comics really hooked into the DC mythos, and while that was
| cool as a comics nerd to see how all that fit together, it
| would be unwieldy in a standalone series. I particularly like
| the changes they made for Dee/Dr. Destiny.
| serverlessmom wrote:
| This is the first decent criticism I've actually seen about the
| show. Netflix scraping for every penny is definitely hurting
| production value
| fezfight wrote:
| I feel very similar about Disney Plus. The shows are all very
| safe and bland. Even the hyped ones, at the end, I kind of
| feel like I just watched the adult version of Airbud, you
| know?
| hedora wrote:
| Yeah; it took about 5 minutes for me to go from initial
| sign up, to realizing the Miramax catalog is completely
| missing from Disney+, to deciding to cancel it ASAP.
|
| The Mandalorian was OK, I guess, but meh. Also, they're
| censoring the back catalog in offensive ways (Daryl
| Hannah's disturbing case of carpet butt comes to mind.)
|
| Anyway, I'd pay for access to the back catalog they bought
| monopoly rights to. Since it's not for sale, my money is
| going elsewhere.
|
| (Edit: had the wrong actress...)
| Joeri wrote:
| Miramax is owned by paramount, not disney, so if those
| movies are anywhere they would be on paramount+.
| irrational wrote:
| Who is the audience for this piece?
|
| >Most annoying to me, everything is also shot in an extremely
| conventional way, using the most conventional set ups to indicate
| mystery or intrigue as possible--to indicate that something weird
| is going on the framing always has a dutch angle, for example--or
| more often just having everyone shot in a medium close up.
|
| I have zero idea what the "conventional way" or the "most
| conventional set ups" are. Likewise, who know what a "dutch
| angle" even is?
|
| I have to assume this was written for an audience of film
| students or people in the industry, because nobody else knows
| about this kind of stuff or cares.
| PaulWaldman wrote:
| Branding. Netflix is simply more interested in furthering their
| brand and associated content than the artistic value of their
| content.
|
| This isn't really any different than traditional movie producers
| or record labels developing cohesive content.
| dontknowwhyihn wrote:
| IMO, where Netflix productions really fall short of their
| Hollywood counterparts is sound design.
| motoboi wrote:
| Dont know why people talk about Netflix vs "Hollywood
| counterparts" because those are the same fricking people.
|
| Except that hollywood have only hollywood people and netflix
| have hollywood people AND the rest of the world producing for
| it.
| dralley wrote:
| Netflix and HBO live in different universes when it comes to
| production quality. HBO / Warner can get a far better result
| from far less money.
|
| Just compare S1 of Game of Thrones against S1 of The Witcher
| produced 10 years later.
| notatoad wrote:
| The show under discussion here (Sandman) is a Warner
| production.
| derekjobst wrote:
| I've always thought the Apple TV + shows exhibit the most uniform
| "look" of any of the streaming services. Ted Lasso is probably
| the most pronounced example with vibrant colors, bright/uniform
| lighting, and a consistent "clean" look. I guess it makes a lot
| of sense given Apple's design aesthetic. Has anyone else noticed
| this?
| mandmandam wrote:
| Severance was distinctive and gorgeous, while maintaining a
| very consistent and unique look.
|
| Foundation was gorgeous too, in a completely different way;
| again very self consistent.
|
| 'See' was fun, lush, and again, totally different.
|
| None of these were like Ted Lasso.
|
| I wouldn't have guessed any of these were on the same network,
| either for sound, look or plot. That's all I've really watched
| there though.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| imo I think there is something indescribable that links some
| of those shows to some degree. Gorgeous, expensive, high-
| production values and a "mature" form of color-grading,
| perhaps? Or maybe that just means they look distinctly better
| than Netflix shows.
| zingplex wrote:
| At least to my eyes there is a huge difference visually between
| Ted Lasso and Slow Horses.
| exmadscientist wrote:
| The cameras are a total red herring. Any competent DP can get any
| looks they want (short of maybe 70mm IMAX) with any of those
| cameras.
|
| The issue lies elsewhere.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| For me the biggest issue in modern movies and tv isn't the
| "Netflix aesthetic", but the overwhelming prevalence of what I
| think of as the perpetual golden hour.
|
| It used to be that by virtue of the golden hour being necessarily
| a very short slice of time in which physical sets could make use
| of that especially dramatic lighting it was only used it some
| scenes. Now it feels like every outdoor scene in every film is
| shot with that lighting because it's all just CGI and they can
| make the light look however they want. The result is a massively
| distracting (to me) effect of the lighting looking over-
| engineered, I guess I'd call it? It seems like every single scene
| is either a night scene or shot at 6pm on a sunny summer day.
| It's more off-putting than badly done cgi.
| fezfight wrote:
| It is strange. I guess it's the same as pop music and
| pachelbels canon. Most people love it. So we are stuck with it.
| [deleted]
| croisillon wrote:
| Have you seen Top Gun?
| isx726552 wrote:
| Yeah seriously, the "perpetual golden hour" phenomenon goes
| way back. Bruckheimer 80s blockbusters were big on this. Even
| in the 1970s, shooting large portions of a full movie during
| "magic hour" was staring to become a trend, see for example
| 1978's Days of Heaven[0]:
|
| > Much of the film would be shot during magic hour...
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Heaven#Principal_ph
| oto...
| trwhite wrote:
| While we're listing our Netflix gripes - Why is it so hard to
| watch the credits? Often there's a good song playing and no
| simple way to avoid it skipping to some other programme, while
| the emotional resonance of what I've just watched sits with me.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| Yeah, I hate the forced "auto-play" and forced "next episode"
| functions immensely. Let me watch the credits and enjoy the
| music without kicking me out of my show! At least on HBO Max
| you can press the "up" arrow key and it'll let the credits
| roll.
| plonk wrote:
| You can disable the auto-skip in your account settings.
| layer8 wrote:
| You can turn off the auto-skipping, but you have to go to the
| desktop website to find that setting.
| pwthornton wrote:
| It's not always CGI. They are using LED lighting panels to
| create the exact lighting conditions they want. Some movies and
| shows are using giant overhead panels to create hyper-focused
| idealized conditions.
|
| A lot of times, it is overdone, but in a movie like Knives Out
| it helped with the indoor scenes.
| spear wrote:
| Knives Out wasn't a Netflix production, was it? I believe
| Netflix only acquired the rights to the planned sequels after
| the first movie's release.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I think GP was using Knives Out as an example of this
| effect done well in general, not specifically using it as
| an example of the Netflix case.
| Arkadin wrote:
| Spend a month in Alaska in August. That should recalibrate your
| perception of magic hour sufficiently to allow you to enjoy
| modern movies.
| MikePlacid wrote:
| > For me the biggest issue in modern movies and tv isn't the
| "Netflix aesthetic"
|
| For me the biggest issue is not the contents but the Netflix
| player behavior. You press a Stop button to take a better look
| at some nice girl's uhm... face and the frame is covered up for
| some seconds with "Netflix" and movie title. It can be ok if
| you pressed Stop to brew some more tea - but when you hit Play
| the same titles block not just a still frame, but some seconds
| of a movie! It's so annoying it's bordering on deliberate
| cruelty.
| stinos wrote:
| Worst offenders in the UI for me are the autoplay (why can I
| not browse in silence ?) and the amount of steps needed to
| get rid of something so it doesn't turn up in 'continue
| watching' anymore. But yes frame-by-frame would be neat to
| have, though realistically: none of the major video platforms
| really have that right?
| rocketbop wrote:
| You can thankfully turn off Autoplay. I agree, it's
| horrendous UI.
| somat wrote:
| Youtube does, at least the desktop web player does. "," and
| "." to go frame by frame
|
| Another one I use all the time is "J" and "L" to seek by 10
| seconds.
| MikePlacid wrote:
| > frame-by-frame would be neat to have, though
| realistically: none of the major video platforms really
| have that right?
|
| Except the one named "Torrents" - all others that I tried
| do not care much about my preferences, yes.
| achairapart wrote:
| That's not entirely related to Netflix, but there is an analogy
| with when video and filmakers started using photographic prime
| lens for their videos some fifteen years ago (or so), there was
| this constant and fast pull focus in every scene that almost
| made you sick with nausea...
| collegeburner wrote:
| even worse is how they assume everybody watches on a great HDR
| display in a dark room and make scenes really dark accordingly,
| so I can't see a damn thing.
| fleddr wrote:
| Yep. I have the large iPad, albeit a somewhat older one.
| Weather permitting, I enjoy using it in the garden.
|
| I can watch almost anything just fine: regular TV, sports,
| the like. Netflix? Nope, not even on max brightness. And this
| in the shadow.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Or it could be a movie like The Revenant where the one scene
| took so long to shoot that they could only shoot during golden
| hour to keep the look the same throughout the multiple weeks of
| shooting that scene. Lots of stories about crew members getting
| frostbite and other tales of woe on shooting that flick.
| dthul wrote:
| Haha, not to take anything away from the article but I found it
| funny that it starts with saying that the colors are "extremely
| saturated", but the image they chose for the article looks
| actually somewhat de-saturated to me (or if not de-saturated, at
| least not unnaturally saturated).
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Yeah, that image is definitely not "extremely saturated", as
| can be verified by saving it, opening it up in GIMP or
| Photoshop, and turning up the saturation.
|
| Edit: later she complains about "muddy colors", which in my
| interpretation of "muddy", would mean the opposite of
| "extremely saturated".
| jandrese wrote:
| I also thought it was interesting that the article complained
| about the actors being slathered in makeup, when that's all TV.
| You can only tell because Netflix shoots in 4k and you can
| actually see it for a change. But the same thing is true when
| you see network TV shows in 4k. It's the makeup department
| using their standard HD techniques because that's what most
| people have, but it doesn't look so good in 4k.
| LanceH wrote:
| All of tv has makeup, sure. Sandman it looks like stage
| makeup -- like the makeup is meant to be seen, not merely
| enhancement.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| Exactly akin to how actors in early movies had such dramatic
| makeup because that was the standard for stage actors (in
| order to allow the makeup to be visible from the audience).
| susodapop wrote:
| I first heard about network styles listening to Vince Gilligan
| and Peter Gould on the _Better Call Saul Insider_ podcast. Many
| studios have them.
|
| A unified style streamlines production at the cost of artistry. A
| typical television episode has just a few days to film. So the
| more creative a crew becomes in their framing, lighting, audio
| recording etc. the less time they have to move through the shot
| list. It takes a talented (and expensive) crew to make this magic
| happen within 5-10 days.
|
| It's to the credit of Sony and AMC that they gave Marshall Adams
| et. al. the flexibility to make a masterpiece out of _Better Call
| Saul_. But it was expensive and risky. Not every script justifies
| that risk and expense. Without a style guide to fall back on I
| think we would see fewer series overall.
| turnsout wrote:
| I reject the premise that all Netflix shows have the same look.
| Just a theory, but it's possible the author is viewing HDR shows
| on a non-HDR TV/display, leading to a similar look as the HDR is
| tone mapped to SDR. Consistent tonemapping could also explain why
| they feel the content is dark or over-saturated.
|
| But honestly, the other reality is that cinematography is an art,
| and there are trends in art. Right now, cinematographers are
| embracing the shadows--maybe because they're finally able to. For
| most of film history, cinematographers had to avoid deep shadows
| due to technical limitations (including film latitude, VHS, DVD
| and lack of color consistency on TVs).
| Melatonic wrote:
| Yea thats possible. ALthough if you are actually incorrectly
| mapping HDR to SDR it REALLY looks like crap.
| turnsout wrote:
| Yeah, if they're doing it well (which I think they are, based
| on viewing Netflix on a laptop) it shouldn't look bad, but I
| could see how using the same tone & gamut mapping might make
| highlights and bright colors look similar across shows.
|
| But if they're not doing it well... We watch Apple TV+ shows
| on the Apple TV app on a MacBook Air, and it looks
| objectively too dark compared to our TV (OLED). I think the
| TV app is Catalyst, or at least shares a lot of code with
| iOS, and those devices have some HDR headroom. My theory is
| that app is just assuming the display is HDR, leading to
| ultra-dark SDR representation. It's kind of crazy,
| considering they own the whole stack, from silicon to the
| streaming service.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| To be fair, 2 of the 3 available tiers of Netflix don't include
| HDR; if they are delivering a color palate for HDR to all of
| those tiers, it's no wonder it looks bad.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Very possible. I really like the Netflix produced stuff because
| nearly all of it is in Dolby Vision
|
| When my old TV died I switched to a new OLED one that has Dolby
| Vision / HDR. The colors on that are much better and the
| calibration is built-in so the manufacturer can't fuck it up
| with over saturation and too much brightness like most TV
| brands do. It also adjusts to the amount of ambient light via a
| sensor, so it's great to watch both with sunlight in the room
| and at night.
| dxbydt wrote:
| There's definitely a Netflix aesthetic - if you watch a lot of
| Netflix you'll see it. Especially in Indian/Bollywood circles,
| "Netflix movie" is a pejorative. It means its shot in a certain
| high-res way, favoring aerial shots & cutaways, with a certain
| unnatural ( unnatural to the Indian mileau/culture) point of
| view, which is not reflected in the Indian society on average. A
| certain casualness about foul language, obscenity, adultery
| etc... all of which certainly has its place if the content is
| some gangster flick or deals with the seamier side of life. But
| even if the show is about say the education sector (eg. Kota
| Factory on Netflix ) - they manage to make it very Netflixy. I
| don't know how else to describe it. Lots of drone shots. Frequent
| focus on the abnormalities of the place. Its certainly more
| dramatic. But its mining for drama that isn't naturally present
| in the subject matter. I like parts of it but it becomes too much
| to take after a point. I have to consciously turn it off and walk
| away, shaking my head. They make a hash of it.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Sounds like Netflix learned the wrong lessons from the success
| of Sacred Games (at least season 1) and tried to apply that
| show's gritty luridness to every other Indian production.
| waynecochran wrote:
| Back in the day, you could always tell ABC, CBS, and NBC shows
| apart by their lighting and coloring. Watch Rosanne and Happy
| Days (ABC) and compare with old Magnum PI and 60 minutes (CBS)
| and Cosby Show or Cheers (NBC).
| sjs382 wrote:
| I've always thought so, too! Cool to see it discussed here
| because I'm not sure I've ever talked to anyone about it other
| than my wife.
|
| She finds it strange that I can tell what service or channel a
| show is on and we've joked that its a Letterman-esque "stupid
| human trick" that I can do it. I can even tell the difference
| between football games on NBC, CBS and FOX without seeing the
| score bug.
| raydev wrote:
| Yes! This was especially obvious to me as a kid watching all
| the popular 90s sitcoms with my mom every evening.
|
| ABC shows (oddly with the exception of Roseanne, now that you
| mention, that set really balanced it out) always had a bright,
| almost washed out look, eg Ellen, Boy Meets World, Drew Carey
| Show. NBC shows always looked more cozy and lived-in regardless
| of story location, eg Just Shoot Me, Friends, Seinfeld.
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| "Extremely saturated" as in extremely de-saturated and then
| highlighted? Looks just awful. Even worse in 4K. That incorrect
| shallow focus range that does not exist outside N is also a pain.
|
| The screenshot in the article pretty much sums it up. Looks
| terrible.
| 3327 wrote:
| ACV001 wrote:
| this is ad.
| DennisP wrote:
| In part, they blame compression of 4K HDR images. So how do
| things look on the 4K Netflix plan, with fast internet and a 4K
| TV?
| f1refly wrote:
| The same, why would netflix allocate more bandwidth which would
| cost them money? I know people with gigabit and obscenely huge
| 4k displays and netflix looks just as bad there as it looks at
| my parents place with a 16MBit broadband connection. In fact,
| it looks a bit better there because their 1080p screen doesn't
| have as much contrast and is much smaller so the bad quality is
| concealed.
| DennisP wrote:
| If you get the $9.99/mo plan and just hook it to a 4k display
| with gigabit, then no I wouldn't expect improvement. I'm
| asking how it looks if you pay Netflix twice as much for the
| "Premium Ultra HD (4K)" plan. I certainly would expect them
| to allocate more bandwidth if you're paying them double to
| get the stream they say is higher quality.
| dekhn wrote:
| I have a different problem: I hate everything shot in Canada as a
| stand-in for american cities. Everything looks wrong: the streets
| are clean, there's almost no cars, and everybody is well-dressed.
| Even the people who are dressed up to look homeless look well-
| dressed.
|
| I can really annoy my wife by shouting out where something was
| filmed -- "that's obviously toronto!" and "that's obviously
| british columbia" but you could easily train an ML to do the same
| thing.
| browningstreet wrote:
| Was watching "Pieces of Her" last night (it's terrible) and
| there was a rendezvous at Pier 29 in SF, which was obviously
| not shot in SF. Distractingly so. The worst example I can think
| of lately.
| dekhn wrote:
| The only thing worse than something set in SF but not shot
| there is something shot there, but non-contiguously. See the
| Bullet car chase scene for an example. How did he get from
| the Marina to the airport so fast?
| Macha wrote:
| There's an infamous (in ireland) bollywood fight sequence
| which takes place on dublin's luas teams but cut to cut
| jumps from one line to the other to places there aren't
| even tram lines
| browningstreet wrote:
| I've lived half my life in SF or LA. Movies set in LA are
| even more maddening than movies set in SF, because movies
| set in LA seem to aggressively make non-contiguous
| geography a hallmark of their LA scenes. And if you see an
| LA-set movie at Graumann's Chinese theater, the crowd will
| be particularly vociferous about these blatant errors.
| dekhn wrote:
| Is Blade Runner included in that or does having flying
| cars and the Bradbury Building sort of accepted?
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| I used to laugh about the Canada effect on Stargate SG-1. It's
| a well-written show about traveling to other planets in the
| galaxy, but almost every planet looks like a forest in British
| Columbia because that's where it was shot.
| dekhn wrote:
| Ah, yeah, SG-1 is a good example. The 100 is another (post-
| apocalyptic earth). And Battlestar Galatica.
|
| In retrospect I realized I grew up with a few major styles,
| including "shot in a back lot in LA" (Back to the Future),
| "shot on a ranch outside LA" (Little House on the Prairie),
| "movie set in city actually shot in city by director who
| loved the city" (the Conversation), and "shot at Elmstree"
| (Star Wars interiors).
|
| Ultimately I want to watch a movie where I can't tell what
| forest it was shot it, especially if it's off-planet.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I'm watching through SG-1 for the first time right now and as
| someone who grew up in BC I am actually delighted by this.
|
| It's very fun for me seeing little easter eggs about my home
| region. And one huge one: They called a planet "Kelowna",
| which is just the name of a city near Vancouver. But who
| would know that unless you live nearby?
| glonq wrote:
| I remember watching it and saying "hey, that's the same
| forest in North Van where my friends and I go mountain biking
| after school"
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| I annoyed my friends at an Avengers premiere by pointing out
| all the iconic Cleveland buildings in the New York scenes after
| the movie.
| rhino369 wrote:
| Vancouver can pass for most US cities. Just not LA. The empty
| streets and well dressed extra is just because everything was
| purposely removed from area for the shot and nothing natural
| remains. So shooting in Chicago or Albuquerque has the same
| result.
| Macha wrote:
| The rest of the world used to get this with California as stand
| in for everywhere
| wildrhythms wrote:
| Yup! Occasionally you can spot a palm tree in the not-so-far
| distance from the Scranton, Pennsylvania's Dunder Mifflin
| branch. :)
| allenu wrote:
| I notice that as well. Being from Canada originally, I also
| immediately spot the Canadian accents, even if they are trying
| to suppress them or do a generic American accent.
|
| I was re-watching the first season of The X-Files and every
| episode I was trying to pick out where in the Vancouver the
| scene was shot. I was laughing when I immediately noticed they
| were in White Rock, BC, which was supposed to be a small town
| in Connecticut.
|
| All this is more passable to me, though, than the general trend
| of having characters so well put together in movies. Their
| hair, makeup and costume is so clearly done by experts, and
| they are all attractive. I wish characters looked more like
| regular people in movies and less like models.
| floren wrote:
| > I was re-watching the first season of The X-Files and every
| episode I was trying to pick out where in the Vancouver the
| scene was shot. I was laughing when I immediately noticed
| they were in White Rock, BC, which was supposed to be a small
| town in Connecticut.
|
| In the episode "E.B.E.", Mulder & Scully go to Mattawa,
| Washington. As someone who grew up near Mattawa, I can assure
| you it looks nothing at all like British Columbia! Pull up
| the episode, then check out Google Street View near Mattawa
| for a good time.
|
| (also, they would never get that close to a Hanford building,
| there are miles and miles of open sagebrush between the fence
| and any facilities...)
| glonq wrote:
| Please keep shooting here, we really appreciate the jobs and
| the money.
|
| -Vancouver
| alistairSH wrote:
| Yeah, this drives me crazy. As a DC local, the worst for me are
| subway scenes that are supposed to be inside Metro/WMATA
| stations. Underground DC Metro stations have a distinctive
| architectural style.[1] They also regularly get the look of DC
| suburbs wrong. "This character lives in Falls Church" but is
| shown in a neighborhood that could only exist in Great Falls or
| maybe McLean.
|
| 1 - https://ggwash.org/images/posts/201410-012227.jpg
| thrill wrote:
| Why does everything on Vice read like that?
| umeshunni wrote:
| CTR and CPM, mostly.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I've been complaining for a while that Netflix shows look like
| video games. While my partner counters that it's just the TV we
| have.
|
| > "One of the weird things that happens when you have a very high
| resolution image, in general, when you shrink the amount of
| information the edges get sharper."
|
| I guess this means I'm onto something. I thought at first that
| this was just because NF series might have been going for a video
| game aesthetic (Witcher, Stranger Things), but even Peaky
| Blinders does it now. It's not just look either, shows also
| feature that excessive camera shake while in vehicles (Call of
| Duty), the over the shoulder fly behind common in games like
| Gears of War, and that very generic close up shot games use
| during dialogs to ensure they can use the ultra-hi-poly models at
| high frame rates.
| nichochar wrote:
| How is there only one picture in this article discussing visual
| features?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-22 23:01 UTC)