5 Annoying Trends That Make Every Movie Look the Same

Two best lines on color correction ever:

1.)Hell, if you've got a Mac and a thousand bucks, you can get a color-correction program and give your home movie of a toddler farting on a cat an otherworldly green tint.

2.)But where the Coen Brothers were creating a unique and distinct look, other directors have realized these colors are a no-cost way to create atmosphere without, you know, having to write a good script or hire competent actors.
 
This is cool, and i dont think its annoying but helps to CC your own film to make it look like new stuff, of course if you do it right,without mbullet presets or something.
 
It's funny, true and a bit sad all at once. The industry innovates, then oversaturates, making the innovation so common that it loses nearly all of its impact until it becomes a parody of itself.

But, there is something hardwired into our brains about how color affects us. Hollywood has never been subtle, but it does know how to make money.
 
I think his points are kinda true but what is the point? What do they prove?

That there are conventions in art? Ok.

There are some stylistic conventions, which he does bring light of, but there are valid reasons for doing this. It would be a very specific and unique type of movie to demand a post-apocalyptic los angeles in vivid 'joel schumacher-Batman' colored world. Earthy mono-chromatic schemes visually supports a desolate world. 8/10 times, it's probably the right choice.

Out of the 10,000 hollywood movies available to watch out in the world, I'm sure you can find enough examples to make just about any point.
 
I think the point is more about WHY Hollywood makes (or enforces) its choices. The impression I get from the article (which I agree with), is that these choices are often made because they are trendy and popular. Not necessarily because anyone sits down and decides it actually serves the narrative.

"Ooooh, our movie is a lot like movie x, and it looked like it had a bleach bypass process, so we should do that to".
 
Jim Brennan said:
I think the point is more about WHY Hollywood makes (or enforces) its choices. The impression I get from the article (which I agree with), is that these choices are often made because they are trendy and popular. Not necessarily because anyone sits down and decides it actually serves the narrative.

"Ooooh, our movie is a lot like movie x, and it looked like it had a bleach bypass process, so we should do that to".
Click to expand...

True, but to a certain point I think they are used because they work for any specific intent. Post apocalyptic desaturation? Sure, makes sense.

I kinda get what they are saying, but to a certain point it's like, "Annoying trends that make every sports car the same. 1. Lower-ride stiffer suspension... 2. Turbo-charged 3. Lightweight body... 4. etc...*" Maybe they share these characteristics because hey, that's the best way to get from here to there.

*Not a perfect example, but you catch my drift.
 
William_Robinette said:
True, but to a certain point I think they are used because they work for any specific intent. Post apocalyptic desaturation? Sure, makes sense.

I kinda get what they are saying, but to a certain point it's like, "Annoying trends that make every sports car the same. 1. Lower-ride stiffer suspension... 2. Turbo-charged 3. Lightweight body... 4. etc...*" Maybe they share these characteristics because hey, that's the best way to get from here to there.

*Not a perfect example, but you catch my drift.
Click to expand...

This was exactly what I was going to post. Virtually all businesses copy other successful business ventures... no matter the product.

I sometimes feel like the civilized world is distilling down into Gattaca-World... I come across very few things that have any soul.

("disney eyes" should have made the list... for animated movies)
 
MattinSTL said:
("disney eyes" should have made the list... for animated movies)[/I]
Click to expand...

And for Disney actresses--

anne_hathaway2_400.jpg
 
William_Robinette said:
True, but to a certain point I think they are used because they work for any specific intent. Post apocalyptic desaturation? Sure, makes sense.

I kinda get what they are saying, but to a certain point it's like, "Annoying trends that make every sports car the same. 1. Lower-ride stiffer suspension... 2. Turbo-charged 3. Lightweight body... 4. etc...*" Maybe they share these characteristics because hey, that's the best way to get from here to there.

*Not a perfect example, but you catch my drift.
Click to expand...

i do, but I disagree. A performance car needs those things to be an effective performance car. A post-apocalyptic film doesn't need to be de-saturated to work. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because we base our expectations on what has come before, and the machine feeds those expectations by continuing the cycle. That is, until someone does it differently, and that works, so the cycle starts again with something different.

There are things that make films work, and those have been well documented. Everything that happens within those maxims is a stylistic choice, not a necessity. Style, when used effectively, serves the narrative. It is a tool.

I'm not against these choices per se, I just think that every choice needs to be examined individually and chosen intentionally. Doing it a certain way because it works is not the same thing as doing it because that's how it is usually done.
 
Jim Brennan said:
A post-apocalyptic film doesn't need to be de-saturated to work.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Just look at The Road Warrior.

Best post-apocalyptic film (and one of the best action films) ever.

Now close your eyes and visualise a modern remake in the hands of either Len Wiseman or Paul WS Anderson.
Most likely starring Jason Statham.
 
I agree with the article. Numbers 2, 4+5 annoy me regularly just like pop music annoys me: same drumsounds worldwide, hardly any real musicians playing, all sequenced artificial plastic sampled sounds and all songs sound the same! But the good thing is: I see the color and know I dont have to watch, I listen 2 seconds and know I dont have to listen, and I simply DONT! I dont consume this stuff just like I dont eat processed food and drink processed drinks.
 
I agree with a lot of the points the article makes, as nearly all of those techniques are pretty much abused by Hollywood these days. The thing is, they are all just different tools or techniques, and when used properly they can be really effective. I do take offense to them calling out films that either innovated these techniques or were using these methods before the over saturation point. I half expected them to rag on T2 or Jurassic Park for introducing CGI. As for some of the their objections...

Think of the color grading in The Matrix. It was actually used as a storytelling tool to differentiate the various realities. Blue for the real world, and green for the matrix. Actually, it goes deeper than that. The construct is a blank white space (possibly a reference to THX-1138). The machine world is red and black. Then in the sequels, there is the energy/spiritual world of the machines (the realm that Neo sees when he is blinded), that is orange and almost made up of aura-like imagery. Then there is the code of the matrix itself, also green but in a monochromatic way, green code text over black.

For horror films looking blue, The Ring was not only the first of the Japanese-American horror remakes, but not a lot of horror movies were drenched in such a look of storm drenched despair at that time. The cold blue look of The Ring worked partly because it was set in Seattle during nearly constant rain and overcast weather.

Shaky-cam worked marvelously in films like Saving Private Ryan and Children of Men. Although, compared to the shaky-cam style used in Transformers, the technique used in Saving Private Ryan and Children of Men was one that still allowed the audience to actually see what the hell was going on. District 9 is unique because the film actually starts out looking like a news or documentary program, then slowly transitioned into a more cinematic style. Most of the found footage/faux doc films or films that use a hand held style don't do something as bold as District 9 did in starting one way and transitioning to something else in terms of cinematic filming technique/style.

As for blood and dirt on the lens, I don't really see this one being used a ton. It certainly fit in Saving Private Ryan and District 9. I wonder if it is something that is sort of a reaction to video games and first-person-shooters? Spielberg has said he likes to play video games, and by the time he made Saving Private Ryan, he would have most likely played at least a few FPS games. Same with Neill Blomkamp. He was a fan of Halo before being offered the director's chair by Peter Jackson. I get the feeling we will be seeing video game aesthetics being merged with some films (especially for action and sci-fi films) in the new decade ahead of us. For example: will someone attempt to make an action film entirely in first-person? Basically, it would be a FPS film. Now that we have 3D, who knows.

Jawa Ex Machina said:
Absolutely. Just look at The Road Warrior.

Best post-apocalyptic film (and one of the best action films) ever.
Click to expand...

Yep. And Terminator and T2 both had some of the best post apocalyptic scenes too. Sure they were blue-tinted, but then again, all of those scenes were at night, and were more based on a memory (Reese's) so they could work as being more stylized. Mad Max and Terminator films are the only ones that really went to the full extremes in depicting their post apocalyptic worlds.
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
Mad Max and Terminator films are the only ones that really went to the full extremes in depicting their post apocalyptic worlds.
Click to expand...
The Matrix is another one.

I remember around the millennium, there were reports of the Wachowskis trying to buy the Terminator rights because they wanted to make T3 after the first Matrix.
I've always wondered if they planned to merge the two series at that point but since they were unable to make T3 just went ahead and created their own backstory for the Matrix sequels instead.
 
When the proper technique is used properly, I don't care. It's when it's used improperly that I hate it. I don't care if it's been done before, because IMO art is about building on the past, not ignoring it.

The article is right in that techniques can be over-used, but I don't agree that they shouldn't be used just because they've been improperly used by no talent money makers. The documentary style has it's purpose, same as slow-mo and heavy CC... nothing will change that. I even think that 3D has it's place and may eventually become common place, if it doesn't die out first...

I mean District 9 came out when "documentary cam" in fiction was getting 'tiresome' and 'overused.' IMO it made use of this technique perfectly fine.

The argument could even be made that "shaky" cam is just a way of shooting rather than a technique now, just like "static" cam or "smooth" cam. I think it's an inevitable reality that comes with building upon other works that have followed. The "documentary" shooting style is just becoming a part of film making IMO.
 
Yep. It's not about what you do as much as why you do it. Do what works, but make sure that you are choosing the tools that fits the job, not just the one left over from the last job.

I don't think anyone is implying these things should be abandoned or ignored (at least I'm not), just that they shouldn't be used with out the same kind of thought you would give to any other part of the process.
 
Jim Brennan said:
I don't think anyone is implying these things should be abandoned or ignored (at least I'm not), just that they shouldn't be used with out the same kind of thought you would give to any other part of the process.
Click to expand...

No I don't think anyone here is really implying that, but the article seems to hint at it without saying it outright. It seems as if the writer is saying "Hollywood/filmmakers don't use these techniques because they're overused." At least that's the impression that I got.
 
The problem is even if you come up with the next big thing, the next big way of doing something, the next trend...
You still have to sell it.

First to a producer, then to a distributor, then to Average Joe.

The reason Star Wars was made by FOX is that every other studio turned it down.


Let's face it. People go see generic, derivative crap because they know what it is. Distributors demand it because they can sell it. Studios produce it because they can distribute it.

SAW 5 made 56 million dollars on a 10 million dollar budget.
THERE WILL BE BLOOD made 40 million dollars on a 25 million budget.


How many here have ever played a guitar at a party? You play the songs everybody know, not your personal favorites.
 
Most of the major blockbusters today lack any overall depth and I'm getting really sick of the remakes. Hollywood just making money re-selling franchises. Good business for them. I think a focus on aesthetics is secondary to the actual content - I'll watch blue and orange films @ 240Hz in fake 3D all day as long as they have some substance.

Now we gonna revive dead actors via CGI...fun.
 
And I think it is pertinent to add that none of this is new. The specific choices are recent, but the idea of making what is most easily marketable is what Hollywood has always been about. Heck, it's what the film industry was about before it left New Jersey. There have always been those who stretched the medium, but they are rare. And when the medium expands with something novel, then everyone jumps on that novelty until it is commonplace.

I'm not judging, just observing. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with Hollywood. It operates under the same principles it always has, and it always will. 95% of it is crap. That was just as true in 1931, 1951, 1981 or 2011. They throw together a product that they bet people will spend money on. They take the curves a little slowly, and don't always adapt to the audience behind the visionaries. But they latch on to anything that they think will sell tickets. That's how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top