Beetlejuice

[SRV1981]

So, I’m an amateur with zero training, but I saw the sequel and it was abysmal. Michael Keaton kept it alive for the duration but man the writing and PC culture behind it was bad. 
 

anyway, I’m watching the original and I’m BLOWN AWAY. The rich pastel colors, the detail combined with soft images etc, make the original so much more appealing than the sequel visually! Cinematic and filmic are real terms worth using daily. I can’t think of any digital image that rivals what I am seeing from the original Eastman film stock of Beetlejuice. 
 

id love to Get this pastel softness with deep colors and image on my log footage (iPhone and dlogm)

[maxJ4380]

Did you watch the sequel at the cinema or at home ?  I haven't seen either of them and i'm unlikely to watch either of them as well.  I'm  a noob, no training either. Personally, i go to the movies to be entertained, if i start to question the story or the science behind it, the movie is failing to do its job and i don't enjoy it nearly as much. 

For those that work in the industry i can understand how one might take issue with the lighting or any number of other factors that are involved. Perhaps in my ignorance its easier (for me at least to suspend belief) if i was a professional i guess i'd be more inclined to have a stronger opinion. 

i did enjoy the latest axel f sequel at the movies.  I'd call it nostalgic in some ways, i don't think it brought any new to the series. However i liked the fact that they brought back all the old cast, or most of them anyway. Most sequels have the original cast all dead or gone (probably for financial reasons) But it was good to see all the old gang together, more sequels should do that.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, maxJ4380 said:

Most sequels have the original cast all dead or gone

*SPOILER ALERT BELOW*
 

Or they bring them back from the dead like in The Fall Guy movie (which technically is not a sequel as it was a series) with Lee Majors having a cameo role as an old lady pretending to be a security guard.

There was also some other old rubber sex doll security guard who I guess was the ‘hot chick sidekick’ from the series in the 80’s but has since been remodeled too many times with synthetic materials.

Otherwise I hate sequels long after the fact other than one exception, Bladerunner 2049.

Which coincidently, was also Ryan Gosling.

[SRV1981]

10 hours ago, maxJ4380 said:

Did you watch the sequel at the cinema or at home ?  I haven't seen either of them and i'm unlikely to watch either of them as well.  I'm  a noob, no training either. Personally, i go to the movies to be entertained, if i start to question the story or the science behind it, the movie is failing to do its job and i don't enjoy it nearly as much. 

For those that work in the industry i can understand how one might take issue with the lighting or any number of other factors that are involved. Perhaps in my ignorance its easier (for me at least to suspend belief) if i was a professional i guess i'd be more inclined to have a stronger opinion. 

i did enjoy the latest axel f sequel at the movies.  I'd call it nostalgic in some ways, i don't think it brought any new to the series. However i liked the fact that they brought back all the old cast, or most of them anyway. Most sequels have the original cast all dead or gone (probably for financial reasons) But it was good to see all the old gang together, more sequels should do that.

The sequel sucked. Plot armor galore. I saw it in the theaters. That said this thread is about the beauty of film from the 1980s/90s. And now I truly get what cinematic means again. 

[maxJ4380]

23 hours ago, MrSMW said:

*SPOILER ALERT BELOW*
 

Or they bring them back from the dead like in The Fall Guy movie (which technically is not a sequel as it was a series) with Lee Majors having a cameo role as an old lady pretending to be a security guard.

There was also some other old rubber sex doll security guard who I guess was the ‘hot chick sidekick’ from the series in the 80’s but has since been remodeled too many times with synthetic materials.

Otherwise I hate sequels long after the fact other than one exception, Bladerunner 2049.

Which coincidently, was also Ryan Gosling.

I have not seen the fall guy yet and cant remember the lee majors series, i guess i must of watched some of it but nothing sunk in, it seems lol.  Bladerunner 2 was pretty good and i  did enjoy it as well. I guess in some ways sequels have alot of expectations to live up too and sadly its not always achieved imho.   

15 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

The sequel sucked. Plot armor galore. I saw it in the theaters. That said this thread is about the beauty of film from the 1980s/90s. And now I truly get what cinematic means again. 

The cinema where i go has some sort of odd silvery / shiny screen, occasionally i can see the shininess of it behind the movie which ruins it momentarily (for me anyway) other than that i do like seeing movies on a big screen. Maybe its the nostalgia of a night out, as that doesn't happen much anymore or more likely the popcorn. I guess its a sign of progress the screen, whatever it is but it is annoying when i notice it and it take me out of the moment. 

Thers alot of threads on here about the cinema look in a digital world and how to best emulate it. If i'm honest most of it goes right over my head. As an example, reading back through the old threads there was the og blackmagic camera which was quite filmic if my understanding is correct. Then the p4k which seemed a bit ordinary in most peoples opinions, the 6k seems more popular and theres a new physis or something. No idea how that stands compared to the others yet or how filmic it is. But their all digital, they can look abit like film but they won't ever be film. I'll probably alienate someone on here for saying that... Not that i'm a fan boy but it was a pretty big thread.

I love my digital camera, i can take a million photos and only keep one . They look great on my computer screen, i have never printed one, nor am i likely to. I could do the same with film but not cheaply. My point being film is film it's a totally different medium to digital, but i can understand why we want to emulate it. I think in some ways we are all a bit caught up on the "filmic / cinematic look". Most of us lived through that age, its understandably we want to go back there with "cheaper Equipment" or perhaps the "most life like equipment". Manufactures certainly have a vested interest in providing such a thing 🙂

As an outsider looking in and somewhat casual about it all, i cant help but wonder if we aren't chasing our tails at times for a cinematic look 🙃

   

[Clark Nikolai]

On 9/30/2024 at 11:59 PM, maxJ4380 said:

I think in some ways we are all a bit caught up on the "filmic / cinematic look". Most of us lived through that age, its understandably we want to go back there with "cheaper Equipment" or perhaps the "most life like equipment".

I lived through that age when only film was considered good and video was considered something for the lesser ones to play with until they can get good enough to shoot on film. It's funny that video won in the end.

For me, I watch YouTube videos of enthusiasts, (mostly young people), excited to shoot on film. It's funny to me because I never want to touch it again. It's so picky. You have to do so many steps or you won't get an image. You won't really know until it comes back from the lab which problem you'll have either. The process distracts from the creativity in some ways. (It might be all these things are a "challenge" and that's the appeal.)

Having said that, I understand why the look it has is now some sort of standard to compare other types of looks to. I saw an interview with the director of Roma. He said something like that it was a modern 4K black and white digital grain-free look, not a film look. If you listen to some YouTubers talk about what is cinematic, it would not fit their definition but watching it you see that of course it's cinematic.