There are people who believe cinema evolved as a visual medium

>There are people who believe cinema evolved as a visual medium

Bottom looks better.

Timeless classic vs waste of time

it doesn't

it doesn't

how high are you?

Could they not be assed to shoot this shit outside of a green screen? Millions of dollars get used to churn out movies that look like plastic straight out of a mold and it's fucking disgusting

It has, snyder is just a worthless hack.

Even the acting is better in the top one

Needs more lens flare

Disgusting. Would never take any opinion you have into consideration.

The invention of sound and the creation of talkies changed cinema forever from pure visual experience to also dialogue, and a lot of the pure visual filmmaking was lost. By no means is JL good, it's an abomination and the death knell of my interest in the DCEU, but Superman has not had a really good movie. They've either been camp at best or shit until Man of Steel.

is bottom cgi?

Mainstream cinema died because directors find it easier to second-guess themselves, and Hollywood finds it easier to fuck with directors' shit, if there's no waiting time for processing, so 35mm is now a niche choice rather than simply the medium. Blame that. Video makes it all too easy to do everything with green screens, where the need to transfer to 35mm made all such shots more time-consuming.

>tfw can't tell which one looks better

Honestly whenever someone says a movie has good or bad cinematography I can never understand what they mean.

You need to watch the serials. Humble as their means were, they were made in the golden age of Hollywood, and they're good pop art, whereas the rest are as you say, not good.

>until Man of Steel.

Including Man of Steel, I hope you mean.

Fuck pain and gain was kino as fuck

Man of Steel is one of the only good superhero movies of the 21st century
The best superman movie
And the best DCEU movie

Usually I take it to mean they just like the visual look of the scene or shot.

FPBP

Everything looks fale now even a guy standing in some grass. I guess when you make everything look fake the cgi doesn't look so out of place

How would DW Griffith have handled a superman movie?

Cinematography describes the way its shot. The camera shot (how much of what is visible), how the actors are positioned, the lighting etc. Here the cinematography of the first picture seems better, the actors are framed very nicely, we have a pretty looking shot of the background etc, while the second one places too much emphasis on the actor and that combined with the ambient lighting and in conjunction with that the lack of lighting on the actor itself makes it look fake

No