5 Annoying Trends That Make Every Movie Look the Same
Hollywood: the dream factory, the place where joy is made and everybody craps rainbows and cocaine. But underneath the glitz is a bunch of working stiffs who are either just trying to get the job done, or hacks who get their original ideas by ripping off other hacks.
That's why these days...

Have You Ever Noticed:
There's some unwritten rule that horror movies should be blue:

The Ring

Saw

The Nightmare on Elm Street reboot.
Meanwhile, apocalyptic movies are gray and washed out:

Then there are more subtle ones, for instance movies set in the desert tend to be yellow. And we don't mean when they're out in the sun and sand, either. Even when indoors it'll often look like it was filmed through a jar of urine:

Smokin' Aces (Las Vegas)

The Hills Have Eyes (rural Nevada)
Movies where reality is off-kilter will be green:

Fight Club

The Matrix films, aka The Greenest Movies Ever Made
Honestly, half the time you can guess the genre of the film based on one still from the trailer.
What's Going On?
It's called digital color correction. Back in the day, if you wanted your movie to have an artistic, stylish color palette, you had to go through the pain in the ass process of using filters on your lights and camera, or get the footage exposed just the right way. It was expensive, it was difficult and it was limited to people who really knew what they were doing. So if someone took the trouble, it meant they had a good reason, dammit.
Now? If you're a Hollywood director, with a few clicks of the mouse you can immediately look stylish and artsy by making the audience feel like they're watching your movie through a pair of novelty sunglasses. 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.
The Coen brothers didn't invent it, but Oh Brother, Where Art Thou was the first movie to heavily use digital color correction, to the point that every frame was digitally colored to give it that old-timey sepia tone.

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. These colors are a visual shorthand for various emotions and ideas (yellows seem hotter, blue makes a scene seem lit by spooky moonlight, washed-out grays are depressing). In other words: It's just laziness.
And while we're on color...

Have You Ever Noticed:
Just like an early 90s parachute pants designer, movies lately have decided the only two colors they need are teal and orange. As some very sharp-eyed bloggers have pointed out, it's usually unnaturally orange-tinted skin tones against blue skies:


Or against dimly-lit rooms with the bluish tint:



As others have noted, you don't even need to look beyond the posters:

What's Going On?
Not everybody wants to get fancy with that their digital coloring. But everybody wants to get lazy.
This is a color wheel:

You've almost certainly seen one before. Open up your image editing program, it'll have a version of it. It has all of the colors based on how close they are to each other in hue. Now the goal, if you're trying to shoot a nice-looking scene, is to get a good contrast with the colors. Since most movies are about humans, you simply find the closest thing to a human's skin tone on the wheel (somewhere on the upper right) and then make everything else the opposite, most contrasting color (that is, the color on the opposite side of the wheel, or lower left). Teal and orange.
From the beginning of color film, movies have been trying to set up shots to take advantage of this color combination whenever possible. But here in the era of easy digital color correction, they've taken this so far that you get that ridiculous two-color system, where every room is bathed in blue and every human looks like he has a bad spray-on douche-tan.
To be fair, it's not necessarily laziness per se. Your average colorist has to grade about two hours of movie, frame by frame sometimes, in the space of a couple of weeks. It doesn't take that many glances at the deadline bearing down on the calendar before you throw up your hands and say, "Fuck it. Everybody likes teal and orange!"


Have You Ever Noticed:
Modern action movies can't just show you the hero landing the final blow. Oh, no. They just have to sloooow it down and make really, really sure you understand that, yes, that is a punch to the face.
In Troy, we have to slow down Brad Pitt's flying dagger attack while he's in mid-air, as if he can stop time like the freaking Prince of Persia:

In Watchmen, we have to bring the action to a virtual dead stop when a fist meets flesh (or anything else significant happens in the fight), to freeze the moment in time to make absolutely extra sure that the audience saw it.

Or there's the 300 method, where the action slows waaaaay down right as the hero is about to do something badass...

...and then SPEED IT UP REALLY FAST WHEN HE STRIKES THE BLOW!

WHAP!
The new Sherlock Holmes movie actually turns this into a plot device, slowing down fight scenes to simulate how lightning-fast Holmes thinks on his feet.
What's Going On?
The film suddenly slowing down is done by a process called "ramping." Instead of film being shot at the normal 24 frames-per-second, it'll be shot at 48, or 72, or 96. The more frames per second, the slower the action.
Now, we've had slow motion since the beginning of film (if you wanted a slower shot back then, you just cranked the handle on the camera faster) but today's digital cameras just make what was already a simple process even easier. So where before you would have an entire shot in slow-motion, aka the bad guy slowly falling to the ground...

...now they can't get through one shot without building slow and fast motion into the same action. The hero draws back the sword at 96 frames-per-second, and drives it into the bad guy's eye at 24. They'll do it 10 times in the course of one action scene, as if it's suddenly boring to watch a couple of guys doing kung fu at normal kung fu speed.
We can lay the blame on two movies: The Matrix obviously played a part with bullet time (which proved you could move the camera around AND have slo-mo at the same time), and 300, which at normal speed is roughly 15 minutes long. Once again, a technique progresses from "innovative" to "standard procedure" to "OK, please stop doing that."








1 Annoying Trend That Makes Every Cracked Article Look the Same
ReplyCracked is an awesome website with hilarious writers and Christina H. Their fanbase is huge. Why are they so favorable? Well guys, stop your vibrators, they have a formula and I'll tell it to you.
Nowadays every Cracked article is...
#1. a list
-
ReplyI think that Mission Impossible 2 holds the blame for kicking off the slow motion thing. Now it's starting to emerge in video games like Batman: Arkham City and Assassin's Creed Revelations, which is kind of pathetic, being that one plays a video game for the fast paced action.
ReplyI'm having trouble following this logic: How does more frames-per-second equal slower action? The same amount of action is still happening in the same space of time regardless of the frames per second, and even if we assume that one frame stands for one fixed moment in the sequence, more frames per second should mean faster action, not slower. Or am I just missing something?
ReplyBecause more frames pick up every piece of movement which when played back at a slow speed allows for slower action to unfold not looking jerky, the way slowing down a scene filmed at normal speed would. Filming in normal frames per second wont pick up every piece of movement and therefore when slowed down creates a disjointed movement where there isn't any inbetween range of movement because the footage hasn't been captured. The movement looks normal with normal playback, but slowed down you may only see the beginning and end of a movement clearly with a lot blurring or missing parts of the movement, because normal camera speed won't pick up every part of the movement.
Think about it in terms of cartooning, there are movements drawn and framed in between the main frames, that when added allow a cartoon to look more life like when all the frames are shot together.
Think about a cartoon movement drawn in only 8 frames and a movement of 20 frames. You're going to see a lot more of the natural full range of smooth movement in 20 frames than in eight frames, because more range of the movement has been drawn clearly.
The human eye can't perceive differences over 30 fps. Modern digital cameras shoot at 30 for normal scenes, at least 60 for 3d.
0. Nothing very original is being written any more.
ReplyI think that ramping is WAY over used in action flicks... we get it, you're hitting the guy. Awesome. Things like the bullet in The Matrix and Sherlock's thought process are the ONLY good reasons to use it.
ReplyI can't wait for Titanic 3D.
ReplyI blame the shaky camera/documentary fad on the Blair Witch Project. That's when it really took off.
ReplyThat was meant to be a documentary. He's bashing movies that are set as fictional, yet throw in random camera mistakes and documentary elements.
That disappointing feeling when you realise you've already read the article...):
ReplyI think it's mainly because directors and producers don't try something new... They go with norms, and teach those norms methodically to their students, not encouraging them to change their habits once in a while...
ReplyThese are all relatively newer fads so they are changing. They will be different in ten years as well. Look at the past, movies always come in waves. We've already had the vampire craze twice. We are just getting crappier results this time.
And Thats why I'm pulling back on watching movies This year.
ReplyWell, the whole teal and orange thing doesn't really work if the actor is black. But then again, in Hollywood that's not really a problem...
ReplyHah! A few of these I had noticed but hadn't really thought about. Pretty interesting and funny. But as a side note, when you mention District 9 (I was NOT a fan of this movie, honestly, but hey. I know that's blasphemy or something, but sorry, didn't like it), but wasn't the whole point that the movie started by being from the POV of a camera guy filming a reporter? (It's been a while since I've seen it, but that's what I remember). It started as a newsreel, so in some scenes, it would make sense for blood to hit the camera, if there was supposed to be an actual camera there. But then again, the whole movie WASN'T from the POV of a camera guy, sooooo that kind of makes my point a bit moot. I dunno.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesYour right that movie did suck.
I think YourMomsGyno kinda missed the point.
They used the documentary to explain the backstory and progress of events. It's also supposed to feel real as if you're viewing the event unfold. I liked the movie but you can have your opinion to.
Oh, people didn't like the lens flair in Star Trek. I did kinda like it. But then, its a sci-fi movie and I give sci-fi movies a lot of credit cause its space and shit.
ReplyThe 1985 film "Ran", directed by Akira Kurosawa, uses slow motion to depict the battle scenes.
ReplyAkira Kurosawa was also a master of sequential story telling and cinematography, if he used a technique it was for the visual narrative, not cinematic wanking off or laziness.
He also staged his cameras hundreds of feet away, using telescoping lenses to create a natural stage atmosphere for his actors, so they weren't aware of where a camera would be shooting the entire time, so they focused on their performance.
Can anyone explain this colour thing to me? haha when I look at those pics in the first section im not seeing a colour. The fight club one certainly dosent look green to me, what am I doing wrong?
ReplyAlso I couldnt love that ramping effect from 300 anymore, I could watch it all day! Went to Immortals, and yeh the story was inaccurate and frail but visually its really incredible to watch (especially the Gods V Titans scene- ramping heaven aha)
Look at the shadows in fight club they have a dark green tint rather than black.
David Fincher didn't go so overboard with the color correction as some others have.
I didn't really think any of these were annoying. Then again, I don't go to a movie and look for reasons to b***h, I just enjoy the movie.
ReplyTo be fair, the list about things directors rely on a little too much.
The lens flare thing has been annoying me for a while. Not so much from the sun, but you know that as soon as some character picks up a flashlight, they'll have to swoop it past the camera, so it completely whites out the screen. If you're in a movie theatre, you'll go blind for a few seconds.
ReplyShaky cam is irritating, and caused me to stop watching Breaking Bad (which I really enjoyed as a series, but literally felt motion sickness setting in during season 3).
And I do hope, at some point, that Hollywood realizes that not every single movie needs to be shown in 3D.
Not bothered to look through past one 'more comments' click to see if anyone else said anything...for some reason it bugs me the little sitation you gave to the blogger on #4...I mean..the whole section was taken from their blog, pictures n all (sub 2) with just a little bit of tweaking of order..also the end of #5 (the section about 'O brother where art thou')
ReplyJust felt it needed to be pointed out..even if you 'technically' credited them.
Using color to enhance the mood of a scene is not laziness; It's the opposite of laziness. Laziness would be to light everything enough to expose and say "Ready to shoot." Whether the story or acting sucks is another matter.
ReplyI agree...if it's done correctly to the context of the story. I know professional colorists have their specialized skill, but for some of these movies, the effect is glaring it looks like someone just crapped out some convoluted AviSynth scripts.