Who gives a fuck about cinematography?

Is "it was shot well" "it has good cinematography" the biggest line of bullshit told or what?

When people say they liked a movie because it had "Good cinematography" they're basically saying "it had no good characters, no good story, no good plot, nothing of substance, BUT THE CAMERA WAS PLACED WELL"

Seriously, who gives a shit? Obviously it matters to a degree - you want things to look nice and appealing, not like some shitty home video. This is the grammar of film.

But if it's not forming a sentence with substance, who cares? How can you honestly enjoy a movie just because the camera was placed well? I seriously don't get it. I swear to fuck if you filmed a turd on the floor for 60 minutes with pretentious angles and shots people would still appreciate the cinematography

Fucking why. It boosts what's there, nothing more. If what's there is bunk, the film is bunk. Good camera placement doesn't save it. As I said, it's the grammar of film - I can construct a perfect sentence but if it isn't saying anything of interest, who gives a fuck? Why are there people who are like "I really love how well the sentence is structured."

I really like how this post was structured

>"it had no good characters, no good story, no good plot, nothing of substance, BUT THE CAMERA WAS PLACED WELL
No one has ever said this

Actual good cinematography helps tell the story and is more than "looking pretty." In a similar way, changes in syntax and diction does have an effect on a reader even if the grammar is correct in all cases and basic meaning is the same.

Neon Demon is celebrated here because it looks good, but it's a poorly acted and written movie.

>why do people care about visuals in a visual medium

From an old Marvel 'how to draw' comic, gives a good lesson in cinematography- compare the same scene, but how it comes across from left and right is vastly different.

Basically a good use of it can splice scenes apart and give different interpretations of reality, which while doesn't make up for a bad scene, can certainly enhance a good one to newfound heights.

cinematography is about far more than camera placement, and saying a movie has good cinematography isn't implying that it has a bad story or characters except in your addled brain.

However, a movie can be beautiful and atmospheric without being strong in other areas, and still enjoyable because of that. I can appreciate a painting without complaining that there isn't enough character development or plot

People like different things for different reasons. Get over it faggot

>camera was placed well
What a deep understanding of cinematography. Truly inspires a great debate.

tl;dr

Saying good cinematography is a pleb opinion. No on ever backs it up for why they think it's good. Instead they pick high def screencaps from google images and say, "wow this film looks really stunning".

The script is poor, but the story is good, because it's mostly told visually. You can make a movie with a great story with zero spoken lines.

yes, no one who has ever praised cinematography has ever backed it up in the history of film discussion

What is satirical reductionism

something you actually dont know

>No on ever backs it up for why they think it's good
Trying to quantify visual art is a typical STEM mistake. A good composition just looks good. There are certain rules to it, but if you don't break those rules a bit, it won't be good. That's why art schools don't just have you sit around reading books. It's not just something you learn by reading a book, it's something that you need to intuitively understand, that's why artists practice so much, that's the only way to train your intuition.

>Jack: Wendy I feel like I'm supporting the whole world on my shoulders and it's overpowering me I can't control it Wendy

Cinematography is essential to a good story. You can't tell something with just static camera work and boring shots.
The shots and their editing does more to a story than the acting.

You need good grammar to make a good sentence - but nobody compliments a sentence on it's good grammar.

The similar applies here. I get that you NEED it and it's necessary, and that it can be good, bad, and in between

Where I take issues is when people only say "This movie is good because it had good cinematography", which I see all the fucking time. It alone can not make a movie good or bad, at least in my opinion

And frankly deciding a movie is good or bad based on the camera placement is pretty autistic, desu. It's literally about wanting things to line up.

stop with the grammar analogy, is even more stupid than food analogies

Well your opinion is shit. Movies are just paintings that move. Saying you don't care what the painting looks like is just idiotic.

It's more like the frame. I care about the substance of the painting, the quality of the painting, what it is depicting, it's message, more than I care about the frame.

Well I actually like a lot of movies just for their cinematography. Its just my opinion obv, but for me visuals are very important since I see cinema more as a visual medium but still this is my opinion

>no good characters, no good story, no good plot
Characters, story, plot, writing, etc is irrelevant in cinema though

Most anons on this board know literally nothing about cinematography so I can see how you would come to this conclusion.
However, for those of us that are into that stuff (film student fag here), cinematography is the most fascinating part of a film.

You're the reason JJ Abrams is successful

go fuck yourself

take my example. The scene would not have the same connotations as Kubrick intended if it was a W/S foot he side, or an OTS. The camera placement places the audience inside of Jack's head and the emotions he is feeling without stating what they are.

Take Star Wars, a L/S going into a 2 M/S against a green screen, talking about their feelings to each other.

And the infamous "no it's because i'm so in love with you" scene, literally just Shot reverse shot M/S of them talking about what they feel for each other, while they stand about 10ft apart. We don't feel this love they talk about because they are visibly detached from each other in the shots and editing.

You've never heard someone say they like some writers prose? It's the same thing. Yes if the content is shit no amount of craft can save you but good prose/cinematography can elevate the mundane to the interesting and the interesting to the riveting.

OP is salty because he only watches shitty movies

actually you are the reason for that very same thing, senpai

No, I'm salty because I waste my time on shithole movies with no substance that some autist here recommended because he liked how the camera was positioned

If you want a story, read a book moron

>nothing of substance, BUT THE CAMERA WAS PLACED WELL
t. Philistine

>his movies suck because the characters are awful (he creates and manages them poorly), the stories are bad, plots are awful, and the writing is laughable
>literally all he does is competent grunt work, the cinematography

>this is my fault

lol ok bud

But I like stories as told in movies?

this

isnt he successful because of lost, a show entirely focused on character and plot

>a typical STEM mistake
thank you for this, good post.

>with no substance
Good cinematography IS the substance though
It's what is conveyed to the audience through the actual visuals, what emotions are invoked in the viewer

well his movies are all built solely on characters and known stories and settings, wile his cinematography is boring and uninspired hollywood blockbuster cgi fest so lol, ok bud

Where you put and what you do with a camera DIRECTLY influences how you feel as well as subconsciously gives you subtext to a scene. It is incredibly important for giving a film life. It's not meant to stick out, but add to the story.

>what it is depicting, it's message
YOU STUPID FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. You care about WHAT is being shown. What any sane person cares about is HOW it's being shown. Great painters aren't great because they chose really cool themes for their paintings and it's all super photorealistic. They're great because they paint in a great way. Honestly, if you're too much a STEM autist to get it, just don't bother with art, it's not for you. Go calculate something, go earn money and buy a yacht, that's what people like you do before they kill themselves. Don't even bother with movies.

...

some people are plebs anons, and they'll never stop being plebs

no use trying to help them. just roll your eyes and continue on like always.

>What any sane person cares about is HOW it's being shown.
Lol no. Most people care more about characters, story, plot, writing, acting, even the fucking sets, and about 50 other things before they care about the minutia of camera control

It's just your autism, sorry.

How do you like a film just for it's cinematography? The cinematography works in conjunction with the characters and story. The whole point is to visually connect the themes, story, characters.

Notice how Kane moves into the foreground in this shot. It's important because for once, he's taking control of his life. I can't say I liked the cinematography without relating it to the characters.

Unless you're trying to say you just like pretty pictures, then fuck off. Go back to your cinegrids cause you don't get cinema.

Cinematography matters

Every story is "a character has to achieve a goal"

Literally the only thing that fucking matters about a film is how it's presented.

>B-BUH MUH EBIN SCI-FI ELEMENTS
>BUT LE EPIC PART WHEN GUY DIED!!!!
>D-DAT ENDING!!!!

yeah, sometimes I just don't know why I bother

>characters, story, plot, writing, acting, even the fucking sets
you do realize that these are all things enhanced, if not fully realized, through cinematography?

the methodology and technique behind the use of the camera is what's used to show us these other things

a film with good characters, story, plot, writing, acting, and set design all told or shown to us through non-visual means is a shit film.

what you're asking for is a stage production that you can watch in your living room

>you do realize that these are all things enhanced,

I sure hope I do, considering I said it in my fucking OP

>The cinematography works in conjunction with the characters and story
or it could work in conjunction with non-personified themes

sometimes the "pretty pictures" can outclass the characters and story, and can make it an enjoyable experience regardless of weaknesses in the plot

beauty doesn't need to justify itself

No, that's what idiots say
The Neon Demon was very well written and had tons of substance

Why would you need to relate to the characters to appreciate the techniques of cinematography that you've mentioned? Sure it helps, but regular human empathy should be enough.

wow you are probably a bit too intelligent for cinema, imo. I really cannot understand what you are saying, you are just too abstract for my simple mind, I think. I actually liked citizen kane, it's a nice movie, even if it's not my cup of tea. I prefer simpler stories, and I love some nice photography here and there

Its literally the only reason this place defends snyder shit

Why am I watching a movie instead of reading a book: The thread

>A movie that looks bad is not a turnoff
I bet you get triggered everytime someone mocks Civil War.

...

THEY'RE FUCKING JOKING YOU AUTISTIC PEICE OF SHIT

Do you think people are legitimately asking why Ki Adi Mundi's hologram as sitting in a chair too?

...

>THEY'RE FUCKING JOKING
No, don't be delusional.

...

...

False dichotomy: the post

Good cinematography plays into good characterization you fucking pleb.

...

hey man, if I don't like pretty pictures how can I watch kinos? Pls explain

>You need good grammar to make a good sentence

The literary analogy to cinematography would be prose style, not "grammar". And yes, prose style is what separates literary art from clunky pulp/genre fiction. Likewise, cinematography is what separates cinematic art from pleb movies.

Underrated

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Good photography is beautiful and moving and difficult to capture. Two of my favorite shot movies, The Graduate & The Good The Bad The Ugly, are well shot and HOLY SHIT have enjoyable stories with relatable characters you care about.

On the other hand, movies like The New World (2006) can be well shot, but still total bullshit and unenjoyable.

Plebian faggot. Cinematography is part of the stories presentation.

You didn't even need the walltext, you cunt. Just the clickbaity subject would give you free replies

What a stupid fucking post.

I'd say 60% are baiting for (you)s. 20% don't know any better and the last 20% are actually delusional zack snyder apologists. Same way for the people defending Marvel.

>disregards rest of post
you are dumb

You didn't read mine, why would I read yours?

>total bullshit and unenjoyable
>The New World

because I did read yours and never once did you communicate the idea that cinematography is the mode through which EVERYTHING in film is delivered, and thus it's one of the objectively most important aspects of cinema

this thread is over. you've had your questions answered and over explained and you've rightfully been called the dull boring idiot you are

Cinematography has a lot to do with how a movie feels. The atmosphere and visual storytelling that comes from it can turn a mediocre script into a good movie.
If you watch a movie and feel immersed, the cinematographer did their job and you have to be an idiot to toss that aside and say "yeah cinematography blah blah who cares"

>Why does music need good musicians instead of just good lyrics
>Why do books need good prose instead of just a good story