Why did old movies have such bad cinematography...

Why did old movies have such bad cinematography? I catch old movies from the 60s on TV that are seen as classics like Mackenna's Gold but the cinematography is just so forgettable. The Shining is the only old movie I've seen with some good cinematography. What are some other old movies with good cinematography?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Code_Hollywood
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>The Shining
>1980
>old
And I doubt you know what "good" cinematography is, you spewing imbecile.

It was a different time.

winter light

The Night of the Hunter has better cinematography than every movie made since. And that's a lot of time.

>good cinematography means colorful symmetrical shots

basically the 60 and 70 were a period of deconstruction(for good or bad) from more defined stiles like .
deconstruction tends to create forgetable garbage by the ton.

>he thinks 38 years isnt long enough for a movie to be old
time for bed grandpa

Not in the context of film history, you millennial sack of shit.

1980 was nearly 40 years ago. You weren't even alive back then. By what metric is that not old?

I dunno. Wild guess is directors are still learning the ropes on what makes good cinematography and since foreign films are not easily translated, the ideas bounce of much slower.

ayy they the worst

What does good cinematography mean to you? Explain.

anything from the 80s is old get over it

no one else finds crazy how now with an average drone and a gopro you can make panoramics takes that twenty years ago were only for professionals and 50 years ago were epic impressive feats.

Seventh Seal, 1957, and from an accessible director. You can post a film from every year since the inception of moving images and there will be at least one worthwhile, if not influential, shot. If you think otherwise, the simply fact is you need to watch more film, and obviously pre-digital. Watch Citizen Kane and realize how familiar it feels - that's because everything film pioneered back then is reused ad nauseam now.

t. bullshit vague generalisation

What's crazy is modern movies don't use drones yet (other than some rare instances), and you get hella epic shots in like amateur YouTube videos from some girls vlog that look like absolute dogshit in hollywood movies because they CGI them with a virtual camera for some reason.

>Dudes what if I made a porn movie and pretended it was art.

Leni Reifenstahl's Nazi Documentaries have great cinematography despite being shot on a handheld camera. A handheld camera!

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

Irrelevant, it's a completely arbitrary metric. For the most part, age is just a number when it comes to art, more useful for categorization than it is for determining artistic merit. Not that you would know anything about that, would you.

Wings, 1927. How does it feel to be a spewing pleb, OP?

haha, it's getting painfully obvious in a lot of (middle budget) TV shows though.

My country (norway) has a public channel, like BBC. that acquired drones a year or two again and now EVERY single tv show they produce themself, from historic thrillers, to teenage dramas will include some bird eyes views or 'epic skyline' shots. It's so painfully obvious by now.

I've also noticed this in a lot of low/medium budget american shows.

I didn't know they still made b8 this good

Holy shit, is Brendan Fraser immortal?

oh fuck not this guy again

Watch more film.

Apocalypse Now, 1979

Barry Lyndon, 1975

>1979
>coppola
Might as well say "Blade Runner 2049, 2017".

This is only a plebian's opinion on account of their not having seen many films.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, 1966

OP is retarded but before the new french new wave film making and cinematography were believed to have very strict rules laid down that you couldn't break.
There was still experimentation of course, but not as much as after the new wave. Additionally, in the late late 70's and early 80's film budgets began to explode as films were seen as a lucrative business, which allowed for more complex shots, and for directors to have more leeway to experiment.

Not him, but it certainly isn't collages of still frames and pretty pictures. Judging cinematography without considering its fluid nature makes for a bad opinion.

this
>look at these pretty pictures that prove man of steel is a good movie
meanwhile they look like shit in motion most of the time

t. just watched an EFAP video

>EFAP existing invalidates beginner level film history
meme

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 1920

Happy now?

Fucking brainlet pleb
Movies before the 80s (which isn't even old) with good cinematography off the top of my head:
>Bridge on the River Kwai
>Lawrence of Arabia
>Eyes Without A Face
>Stalker
>Le Samourai
>Metropolis
>El Topo
>Spirit of the Beehive
>Picnic at Hanging Rock
>The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
>Repulsion
>Wild Strawberries
This is all entry level. I miss 2012 Sup Forums when people actually were here to develop taste and not just shitpost

But BR2049 is from 2049...

Alien came out in 1979 and had good cinematography was was pretty revolutionary, even for today's standards, the facehugger, close up is one of the most realistic looking alien creature put on film The way it wraps its tail around his neck looks really good. It's such a subtle shot and looks fucking great.

Also 1980 isn't old. What's your definition of old?

2001

Anything up to 1990 is old.

Remember that really old movie, Empire Strikes Back?
>tfw Civil War had a better homage to ESB than TLJ did

The Prisoner. Made for television. British television. In the 60s.

Theatrical lighting background, somewhat relevant.

For a period in the 40's and 50s, directors often thought for an actor's voice to be heard their face needed to be lit. Bland area lighting was favored. This kills the composition.

There is a lot of crossovers between theatrical and film design--we all steal eachother's ideas.

Also, on the tech side: light levels had to be at an acceptable minimum for the camera to properly capture the image. Shadows, "odd" angles, etc that fucked with light levels were not tolerated by the equipment.

Eventually camera tech evolved and cinematography standards with it.

>directors often thought for an actor's voice to be heard their face needed to be lit.
Why

Citizen Kane
2001: A Space Odyssey
Apocalypse Now

Good fucking question.

I attribute it to leaded gasoline.

Anything Hitchcock did is great

Even this looks good.

...

...

Midnight Cowboy's one of the most kino flicks ever made. The cinematography completely captures NYC. Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are up there too.

...

No one has ever heard of Mackenna's Gold, and The Shining is not an old movie. You don't know what you're talking about.

Wings isn't a great movie, but the cinematography is amazing.

jeez i agree so much with this it hurts

I like the distortion of the tiles at the curve part of the wall.

>ctrl f
>no Suspiria
Sup Forums you have failed me.

Hitchcock and Serling had good cinematography,.

>deep coridor shot with extreme color is good cinematography
Instead of appreciating cinematography, you appreciate it punching your throat. It's like the people on Sup Forums who listen to free jazz and not jazz, you don't get it but it makes sure you know it's there.

I don't see any cinematography here, just still images. What's your point?

>he hasn't heard of Mackenna's Gold

Then go watch the movies instead of asking stupid questions, cunt

>posts still images as examples of good cinematography
>others post more still images depicting good cinematography
>"i don't see any cinematography here, just still images
kek

kek
I heard they referenced ESB in that. What was the actual quote?

Jesus, I don't think a single shot has sold me on a movie as much as this one did for Wings.

>still images
>cinematography
pick one, you drooling fucking retard. alternatively, stop using words you don't understand.

b8 thread?

>you weren't even alive back

haha old people gross haha that guys old, get off the internet grapnda haha

Hi bait

I don't blame them. The sad thing is I will see YouTube videos about women's make up that contain drone footage and steadicam, shot on 2K resolution.

It's ridiculous.

cinematography is largely lighting, lens and filter selection and post production techniques.

You can judge a ton of it from a still image.

It's easy to tell good cinemtography from bad with still images.

it's like someone posting a picture of a house and arguing "that's not a house, that's a picture."
kys

I can't believe this thread even exists on this board. May a plague obliterate Reddit and remove it from existance. As for you kid, for real just watch more movies.

Don't reply, just sage and move on.

This movie won the first Oscar.

Believe it or not, the thing I posted was literally the actual quote.

The context is Ant-Man goes giant and Spider-Man has an idea to take him down which he got from ESB. So he wraps his web around Ant-Man's legs like a tow cable.

is the second couple a lesbian one? it can't be, can it? having this kind of degeneracy in 20s movies?

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

>the thing I posted was literally the actual quote
Jesus fucking Christ. I want to say I don't believe you but the sad thing is I kind of do.

Well it's pretty funny in the movie because War Machine is just completely taken aback by Peter describing ESB as a "really old movie" and says "Jesus, Tony, how old is this kid?" to which Iron Man exasperatedly replies "I don't know, I didn't carbon date him."

>it's pretty funny in the movie

Reminder that Star Trek V is kino.

Beautiful bait

Hey. Buddy. I'm the one who watched it here.

Ahhh. That was easy to get Sup Forums to recommend me a bunch of old movies with good cinematography.

Still images aren't a good judgement of good cinematography. Cinematography is how the camera is used to capture the feeling and tone of a scene. So still images don't really fucking work as it is out of context of the movie.

You can say a shot looks nice or pretty. But that doesn't mean it's good cinematography. Beautiful shots like that in Blade Runner 2049 wouldn't make sense in a movie like 'Kids'. A movie that is meant to make you feel disgusted.

Pic related is a great use of cinematography from the movie 'Kids'. But from the shot alone you wouldn't get that idea because it's out of context from the movie which is meant to make you feel uncomfortable. It also brings up another problem with threads like this because cinematography also refers to how the camera moves. Which once again, you don't get from a still-fucking-image.

This

>believing that pre code hollywood was pure
hahahaha you're about to get a history lesson son, this is fuckin nothing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Code_Hollywood

I'm not sure what OP defines as old films. But I think it is safe to say that the '50s and '60s were very innovative for color and camera movement. See pic related.

Also, check out Seven Samurai. The composition of many shots in that film are truly incredible.

The Night of the Hunter is topkino.

Look at all those pretty colors. Is this why you autists love the film so much?

the 20s were known as the mad years for a reson user... It is the Weimar republic vibe everywhere. One century later we will have just a repeated episode of the show, it seems

the conformist

nice bait dumbass but now we actually have a good cinematography thread so here's my contribution from Excalibur 1981

...