What does bad cinematography look like ?

what does bad cinematography look like ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=m5t9iCnX_JY
youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ
youtube.com/watch?v=wGaJ5I04D7w
youtube.com/watch?v=AtFWFlntLZY
youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6B3uXXllI
youtu.be/_rt4EmeBnGM
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>capes and masks that's when you know everything is shit
>based on a comic or cartoon

But Burton Batman, The Shadow, and Watchmen all have superb kinometogrophy

Not this, this scene is one of the best shot of all time.

Jason Bourne

youtube.com/watch?v=m5t9iCnX_JY

notice it cuts every half a second

>good cinematography
Miami Vice

>bad cinematography
your favourite movie

The biggest red flags for a hack fraud cinematographer are

>fast cuts
>shaky camera
>incomprehensible fast scenes
>color filters
>inappropriate use of light (trying to make everything look dark and edgy by upping contrast)
>forced "epic" shots in a film that doesn't have any other ones
>tasteless obvious "imagery"

This

First three are obvious ones, but these next ones are some good points. More common than I realized.

>color filters
>inappropriate use of light (trying to make everything look dark and edgy by upping contrast)
>forced "epic" shots in a film that doesn't have any other ones
>tasteless obvious "imagery"

>Watchmen

The film's quality is derived from the source material, not the direction.

Speaking of which, have a classic!
youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ
I wish this were recreated with a fixed camera, just to drive home the awkward. That and remove the music.

"Headache inducing" is overused but this literally is.

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen

watch any marvel movie

>even though most of the cinematography isn't even from the pages

The Happening

Shittily shot action scenes where you can barely make out what the fuck is even happening.

%90 of action movies have those scenes, and a lot of them.

Wow, you're a dumb cunt.

>those 90 degree rotations of the camera

Sometimes you have to say 'thanks for making that shitty movie'

When Steven Soderbergh started shooting his own films.

Watch some Zack Snyder movies

Mr Robot

I have suspicion not a single person on Sup Forums knows what is meant by cinematography. Oh dear.

>bad cinematography
Allow me to explain.

Unmotivated lighting (the lighting isn't true to the scene and the objects in it).
Obvious lighting (the lighting doesn't blend into the picture and is obviously manufactured).
Inconsistent lighting (changes from shot to shot).
Depthless lighting (in other words flat, the lighting doesn't create dimension in the scene distinguishing the foreground from the background...)
Inappropriate lighting (doesn't fit tone or mood)
Bad exposure, either under (can't see shit captain) or overexposed (everything is too damn white, nigga).
Bad white/color balance (them niggers look like olives and shit).
Obnoxious or poor grading (usually used to hide faults in the lighting)
Poor focus (back focus, front focus, basically the principal object isn't in focus).
Poor framing (see rule of thirds, golden ratio, blah blah blah)
You could possibly also throw in "poor camerawork" in there too, but after seeing the positive reception that films like Hardcore Henry have received, you begin to rethink that one.

If you want good examples of bad cinematography watch student flicks on youtube. Most (like 99%) hollywood level productions have competent cinematography, though many of today's comedies look like they were lit for TV.

FYI, imagery, or the objects that are photographed, is not cinematography. Cinematography is all about the photographing, not WHAT is photographed.

Battlefield Earth

...

Who are some well-known but overrated cinematographers?

>>tasteless obvious "imagery"

Buzzword. Could be anything you don't like.

>Hardcore Henry

is unwatchable i made it maybe 10 minutes before it pained me too much to watch it

Out of curiosity, why do "live audience"-type sitcoms have such depthless lighting? 'Cuz of the whole multiple camera setup crap? All the more reason to ditch a laugh track.

>overrated
Tarantino
I not memeing, I acually like his work quite a lot, but he's way fucking overrated. Guy's alright but he's no Kubrick.

Daytime Soap Operas are a classic example of horrible cinematography.

The entire movie Elektra

Those are just stylistic choices, they have nothing to do with cinematography being good or bad.

good thing he's not a cinematographer

Ugh
That was all fucking awfu
Thank god for Netflix

Ultraviolet

>i red it as director somehow instead of director of photography
Gotta go to sleep, i'm fucking tired

...

The fuck is going on?

what the hell? what is the scene at :08 all about ?

I felt so dumb after watching that movie.

I lost track of what was happening so early on.

Wrong
He filmed death proof bitch

it's the flat lightening in every scene. there are no visible shadows, and everything is at the same brightness no matter the time of day, or different environment.

welcome, fellow industry kinnoisseur

oh shit, so much this.
it's not awful, but clearly shows, that Whedon spent a lifetime doing television shows.

>that cgi
>that nigress singing
holy fuck, how do you give some shitter milions and he makes this shit

literally watch most movies ever made. Especially newer ones.

...

bump

>ITT people think that directing is cinematography

these are both primarily examples of bad editing.

Watch Linkaras movie. Or at least the first twenty minutes.

I don't understand how someone with allegedlya lot of experience and watches a shit load of movies can utterly fail on every level to make a film look appealing

This is pretty good, but where does cinematography end and lighting begin?

Framing.

Cinematographers don't make cuts, editors do. They also don't control the pace of the scene. Directors are responsible for wanting "epic" shots.

Shaky camera is a legitimate stylistic choice sometimes.

I would say Kubrick is no Kubrick. He's also overrated.

Yes, but less so.
Kubrick is hailed at the be all end all of cinema when he's just one of the greats.
Tarantino is hailed as a great director when he's just a specialist that can only do a single style.

is she supposed to be some robot or something?

The cuts are actually better than a lot of modern action flicks, but the cinematograpy is atrocious.
And so are the coregraphies, Jesus that's Gorn level of stiff fighting.

>Tarantino is hailed as a great director when he's just a specialist that can only do a single style.

I don't think that precludes a director from being a great director though, not that I'm saying Tarantino is one of the GOAT. Ozu pretty much made the same film over and over again, but I reckon he's one of the greats.

You're right, if he had really that much mastery of his style he could be a great director, being formulaic isn't necessarily bad. But his cinematography isn't really that good, I love Tarantino's scripts and his films are visually nice, but they are just not great.

I think it's sad that the guy basically skipped film school because with a better understanding of theory and his practical knowledge he'd really be great.
Imagine Tarantino's style combined with the cinematography of, say, Nolan. That I'd pay to watch.

Its two movies made into one.

Name a movie where it has made the scene better!

I first realised how much I hated shaky camera in the LOTR 3 scene in osgilliath as the men had to fight back a bunch of orcs. I could net tell fuck all what was happening and my eyes hurt. That was like 10 years ago.
youtube.com/watch?v=wGaJ5I04D7w

i first realised I liked shaky shots when I watched it on a music video. The video would of otherwise been boring because nothing but singing was going on, and so the mild shakiness of the camera added a new aspect to the video and made it A LOT more entertaining.
youtube.com/watch?v=AtFWFlntLZY

Yeah I have to agree with you 100% The cuts are excellent and I found that a lot more entertaining that 90% of modern fight scenes.

another movie that had great fight scenes was Warrior. About the MMA brothers
youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6B3uXXllI

Star Trek Nemesis has some of the worst that I can think of

>That scene where they are on the Mars-like Planet and they just lower the contrast and add a yellow filter

nah

>This
>Not Horrible

youtu.be/_rt4EmeBnGM

Looks like a fucking spaghetti western flashback.

The star wars prequels are good examples of bad cinematography. Flat and lifeless. Most of the examples here are about bad editing.

I don't know what shitty Westerns you have been watching, but the Sky is supposed to be fucking Blue not BRIGHT YELLOW.

hah, spot on!

Holy christ you weren't exaggerating.

>hat shitty Westerns you have been watching
You have no idea user. No idea.

Is this a joking you have no idea or are you saying I really do have no idea?

this movie was a money laundering scheme

But that was genuine hacks that were making a movie cause their youtube video was 'successful'

It's a "i've suffocated through the worst depths of exploitation westerns and kept at least part of my sanity" one.

Why do that to yourself?

Why not just stick with the Dollar's Trilogy? Do you hate yourself?

Isn't Bourne series' quick cuts in action sign of really bad cinematography?

I feel like you can learn as much from watching bad movies as watching good ones.
That plus shit movies are good fun if you watch them long after their release, for free, drunk, and with good friends.

Marvel movies

No, it was a unique idea.

Bourne is like Call of Duty 4. It was fucking awesome for what it was, and really innovative, but everyone tried to copy it, including itself, and it caused an over saturation of bad clones for years to come.

In a few years prepare to see the rip-offs of Alfonso Cuarón everywhere.

>ITT people think that directing is cinematography
>This is pretty good, but where does cinematography end and lighting begin?
>Cinematographers don't make cuts, editors do. They also don't control the pace of the scene.

It's all interconnected.

>I don't know what shitty Westerns you have been watching, but the Sky is supposed to be fucking Blue not BRIGHT YELLOW.

It doesn't happen on Earth.

It's the same kind of fascination that makes me love to watch every single hacker movie out of sheer curiosity about how they will fuck up the tech and plausibility of the intrigue.

Shit like The Net or fucking Netforce, Hackers being the master of that genre.

Cinematography is framing tracking lens selection camera work. That's it

>It doesn't happen on Earth

No planet, anywhere in the universe, changes saturation user. The sky can be Yellow, Blue, Purple, Black, it doesn't matter. The saturation, when combined with the Yellow is garbage. Why someone would defend fucking Star Trek Nemesis is beyond me tho.

I think he claimed that sky is supposed to be fucking blue.

>Why someone would defend fucking Star Trek Nemesis is beyond me tho.

Even when it's shitty movie, blue sky isn't why it's shitty movie. Bad action scenes that seem to be out of place in Star Trek might be bigger reason for that. It isn't as retarded as Jar Jar Treks, but Nemesis is still bad.

What the fuck?

Sooooo, it was the first that did it? Didn't know that. Yes I agree it has generated many bad copies and I can see the good in originality (if that's true), but I would still prefer a long sequence shot than this. For example, in that Bourne movie with Renner that scene where he climbs up a house was p good. Distant and sequence shot felt a lot better in every way.

>fast cuts
The editor does this
>shaky camera
OK
>incomprehensible fast scenes
The editor does this
>inappropriate use of light
OK
>forced "epic" shots
Are you talking about wide shots? Because those are usually pretty necessary in any film.
>tasteless obvious "imagery"
The director does this

Bad cinematography happens when you have to borrow light from your neighbours to shoot a movie.

who smear this video with vaseline?

But the editor needs all these cuts and angles to edit the movie. It is predeciced that there'll be fast cuts in the result movie and it probably isn't the editor's choice.

If Sup Forums were around in 2004 they would call this kino

>Who are some well-known but overrated cinematographers?
>Tarantino
>I not memeing

Again, this is bad editing, not bad cinematography.

Post your face when a plebeian retard thinks "this scene had good cinematography but this scene from the same movie had bad cinematography"

Post your face when plebs think a movie can have two different cinematographies

Post your face when Sup Forums is full of fucking retards

nostalgia critic sketches are a prime example.

>literally just turn the camera on and let it roll
>no sense of framing
>no focus depth
>sometimes when the camera from one room to the next you can see the image temperature change drastically as the camera self-adjusts to the new light conditions, meaning they probably have it on default factory settings and haven't bothered tinkering with it

>people mistake cinematography for editing the thread

Bad cinematography is shit like bad positioning things/people in scenes, bad lightning and shooting uninteresting things really.