I also think there are a lot of close ups because the filmmakers are generally less subtle with their shot choices. For dialogue they punch in one every single frame because supposedly every line of dialogue is important. It's a way of forcing focus and in my opinion a detriment to the intelligence of the audience. Telling a story with intentional coverage and mise en scene is become a lost art.
@lucascastro2732
Жыл бұрын
I have just finished watching the 4th season of Stranger Things with my girlfriend, and this excess of close-ups to more didactic effects was something that caught my eye. I wouldn't say, however, that it's because filmmakers doubt their spectators' intelligence, but more because the whole narrative structure of the series seems to depend on this didactic realization, as to keep viewers constantly engaged, but without making too much of an effort to effectively pay attention, which, to a series as long as Stranger Things, would be exhausting. (Another element to this is that they often play flashbacks of events that happened even at a distance of two or three scenes; in the beginning, I felt a little offended, as if the series were assuming that I wasn't paying attention; as it progressed, however, I found myself being each time more inclined not to spend that much energy in paying attention. Which sucks, really, because then, the experience becomes disposable instead of memorable.) This seems to be an effect of Netflix's on-demand streaming model of service, which, similarly to KZitem, requires users to spend time in the platform consuming their products. Hence, the whole "binge-watching" culture and the making of pieces of media (mainly series, nowadays, which are the most profitable) that value more attention retention and less memorability...
@jnnx
Жыл бұрын
@@lucascastro2732 We get it Lucas, you have a girlfriend…
@lucascastro2732
Жыл бұрын
@@jnnx yes 😊
@aristotle_4532
Жыл бұрын
Very few actors of the previous generations were actually capable of good closeups. They were theatrically trained and very few learned the close up technique. Even amateur photography did not involve closeups. There is less need for closeups today, but more actors can do it.
@doncorleone9297
Жыл бұрын
I agree, although it’s a combination of a lot of things. Like you said, and also said by Mr. Lucas here, it’s a matter of (un)subtlety on the part of filmmaker’s, and also the attention span. Also, nowadays because the nature of entertainment has become very derivative, to hammer home the emotions to the viewers, to hard sell it, they need to shoot a lot more close ups. I remember watching avengers Endgame, and it opened with a massive close up shot of Downey, it was strange. And throughout the movie, in most character moments, there were massive close ups. They need to do so because it’s a huge ensemble cast, a complex screenplay moving across numerous characters, and also a largely shallow emotional depth. This is how most modern day movies are, so to ensure that the emotional impact is felt, lots of close ups are taken. Another reason is also the fact that actors today do not emote as effectively, and acting style has shifted towards subtlety to the extent that any actor is a good actor provided the character is written well. The same actor can’t contribute much in terms of acting when the writing is not good. To compensate for and capture these ‘subtle nuances’ close ups become essential.
@truefilm6991
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent as always! There is very likely another factor to consider: back in the days of (mostly) 35mm film, it was easy to mess up the focus with a close up. Many older movies have focus issues in close ups, revealed through new 4K or higher res scans. 1) the actor/actress missed their mark by an inch or less, 2) it looked sharp through the viewfinder. Now we have a hi res monitor and many tools to nail focus. Sergio Leone westerns for example have a lot of close ups, because they were shot on 35mm 2-perf Techniscope, which has a deeper depth-of-field than 4-perf - and most were shot in bright sunlight at a high T-stop or f/stop (=deeper depth-of-field), perhaps f/16 or f/22.
@GeeFunk84
2 жыл бұрын
When I saw the title, my very first thought was for the same reason music nowadays is mixed to have virtually zero dynamics: everybody listens to music via their earbuds, usually on the go, which means lots of added noise. Also, it is the same reason why many films are lit the way they are: everything looks like a sitcom, britghly lit all around, so you can watch it on your phone in the sunshine. (On the other end of the spectrum though, some directors and DPs looooove the dynamics of digital cameras and make the most of it: watch the Obi-Wan Kenobi series, half the meaningful ation is in dimly lit areas, can't see a single thing with my shutters up during daytime)
@jas_bataille
Жыл бұрын
Not sure what you mean about the whole "everything is brightly lit". I watched a movie a day for a year straight during the pandemic, and my personal conclusion is that the vast majority of movies those days have such lack of contrast and saturation, I had to check that my night screen mode wasn't engaged when I watched Red Rocket two days ago, which was shot on 16mm color film. Maybe I'm just watching a lot more dark movies than comedies/romantic stuff (and that's partly true), but I feel the exact opposite. Our friend here also made a video about that as well. I hate and cannot stand to shoot in LOG for that very reason. But hey, that's quite subjective... I just feel like we haven't watched the same movies is all xD
@GeeFunk84
Жыл бұрын
@@jas_bataille By 'brightly lit' I mean flat, no contrast. Background and foreground lit the same way. But I went on explaning that some people just like filming movies and series reeeeeeeeaaally underexposed.
@David-mg1yj
Жыл бұрын
Even with modern devices, I still view "Close ups" as television shots. "Big wides" as Cinematic. With the exception of Sergio Leone and Terrence Fisher, very few of the greats (Wells, Hitchcock, Wilder, Spielberg, Wyler, Wise, Kubrick, Hawkes, Polanski, Lean, etc. ever shot big nasty close ups. Unless it was of an object of genuine importance. Very rarely faces.
@kataichanda
2 жыл бұрын
Remember when our parents would get angry when we sat too close to the TV? Imagine what they will say when you tell them we now put TV's (VR headsets) right on top of our noses.
@-grey
Жыл бұрын
I like wides and context shots. I think they feel more cinematic and immersive. Somewhere between 18 and 35mm lenses with slightly closer mids is ideal. There's a lot of latitude for framing up layers in composition.
@AnnoyingMoose
Жыл бұрын
I saw Star Trek: Generations with a group of friends. By the time the last person showed up to the theatre the only place that there were 5 seats together was the front row. I will always remember the girl sitting next to me exclaiming "Data has pores!".
@AbyxGaming
2 жыл бұрын
Missed your videos these couple of months, welcome back!
@adjutantreflex9406
Жыл бұрын
Great video, as always. But I feel like there are other factors, not mentioned, that contribute the prevalence of close ups we see today. I consider one of those to be the stylistic influence. James Cameron, Peter Jackson, even Edgar Wright were all using an above-average amount and iconic use of closeups around the turn of the century, well before videos on phones, and for them it was always about cinema and certainly not a mobile experience. These filmmakers are also some of the most influential filmmakers on our generation, so couldn't it be possible that we see more closeups because it is a stylistic influence? I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons as well, particularly the options closeups open up in the editing process...just some thoughts.
@EDDY69
Жыл бұрын
Yeah this video really missed the mark except for the imax framing stuff. Cinematographers are not adding more close ups due to phone screens. I think some DP’s or filmmakers might be quite upset by that thought. (Insert David Lynch phone rant) DP’s certainly take framing into careful consideration. Filling the frame is also important, but the choice for a closeup is usually determined by the scene itself, the dialogue and blocking play a huge part and they were never mentioned in this video essay. I’d agree with you that it’s a stylistic choice brought on by creative influence, thanks for sharing that. I definitely noticed the above average closeup shots in Peter Jackson’s films upon rewatch. And yes some of its for a practical reason that you decipher emotion easily in a wide shot. But the timing of a closeup is very important and also left out of this video. There’s a difference between watching films and discussing them and actually making films, I’m involved with the latter.
@AlexanderBennettVideo
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for articulating the 1.4x rule so well. I can finally explain why I’m moving my friends couches without their permission. Interesting thesis as well, I’m not sure filmmakers make films with the lowest common denominator of phone watchers in mind. But the overuse of closeups does annoy me. I think it’s from an over reliance on coverage shooting in dialogue scenes or perhaps became its own aesthetic out of the rise of indie films way back. Just another theory
@potatoface4698
Жыл бұрын
I've filmed features, documentaries, and I'm a full-time producer. i realized 6+ years ago that the overwhelming majority of people would watch movies on their phones, and that's influenced my filming to make it easier to see important details.
@the_black_douglas9041
2 жыл бұрын
Bloody brilliant as always, Suresh! As this was rolling through I was that guy shouting at my phone screen yelling YES!! I’ve been a video editor in broadcast tv for 33 years and if every producer, journalist, reporter thought as carefully and deeply about the “how will viewers feel when they see this?” question, taking into account the other vital question, “how will viewers actually view this?, then my job would be a whole lot easier. I might use this video as a teaching aid!
@aliensoup2420
Жыл бұрын
I generally attribute it to bad directing. I just watched a recent movie in which a casual group conversation around a table was covered in closeups - cut, cut, cut, cut... . Very annoying and disorienting. A better director would have covered it with a few select wide/medium shots, with a possible cut to closeup for emphasis if necessary. I equate today's newer directors with self-absorbed teenagers - everything is an hysterical drama - so they emphasize everything.
@hornshoeij
Жыл бұрын
That’s why the opening shot of Reservoir Dogs is so great. That’s how you shoot a scene with a lot of people without getting disoriented.
@gavinphx
2 жыл бұрын
Your channel is brilliant. Great work.
@JasmineJ-SuDirector
Жыл бұрын
Great Video Essay!! Love you prospective on this and I feel is very important. I love how this is different approach to cinema. Thank you for sharing!!
@scottslotterbeck3796
Жыл бұрын
Good points. Thanks.
@Crowka274
Жыл бұрын
lovely content!
@KristopherSatchell
Жыл бұрын
I really enjoyed this video, keep it up.
@AFK-47x
Жыл бұрын
Thank you. I learned something useful.
@philipbrettmoore1997
Жыл бұрын
A recent study tested people's comprehension of material when reading on a smartphone versus on a regular paper or a book. What they found is that comprehension on smartphones was much poorer, much worse than when it was read on actual paper. The breathing pattern changed on the smartphone (no double inhales) which what thought to be due to the smaller size of the device vs the paper (not the electronic screen itself). It would be interesting to know how this connects to a person's experience watching a movie on an iPhone vs a 55-inch or even 50-foot theater screen.
@DyenamicFilms
Жыл бұрын
Shooting wide on TV shows helped Spielberg get noticed as a director.
@IAMJOELBURRIS
Жыл бұрын
such an excellent insight!
@storywala88
2 жыл бұрын
Very interesting. Close ups are very important to set up the mood and emotions, and focus on the crucial details.
@vivektyagi6848
Жыл бұрын
Awesome tip.
@patrickwebb1987
Жыл бұрын
Nice discussion, mate. I really do agree with you about the optimal viewing experience and how to shoot for that. However, you can, of course, shoot deliberately for your intended media output; like IMAX. I appreciate your work!
@AnibalTrejoVisuals
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for all the insights! Now I know how to defend my position against my friends :D. There’s one more reason I think… it’s cheaper to shoot extreme close ups :D
@ebinrock
Жыл бұрын
Exactly, b/c then you don't have to have expensive set pieces, or even CGI!
@riffbaama
Жыл бұрын
Best of the best!
@RivuSouravBanerjeeVideoEditor
Жыл бұрын
excellent topic … i’m proud that we hv a channel on youtube from India .. which is so good. I’m also a creator on youtube & a professional remote video editor .. and always wanted to get in touch with u. love frm Kolkata
@doncorleone9297
Жыл бұрын
I agree, although it’s a combination of a lot of things. It’s a matter of (un)subtlety on the part of filmmaker’s, and also the attention span. Also, nowadays because the nature of entertainment has become very derivative, to hammer home the emotions to the viewers, to hard sell it, they need to shoot a lot more close ups. I remember watching avengers Endgame, and it opened with a massive close up shot of Downey, it was strange. And throughout the movie, in most character moments, there were massive close ups. They need to do so because it’s a huge ensemble cast, a complex screenplay moving across numerous characters, and also a largely shallow emotional depth. This is how most modern day movies are, so to ensure that the emotional impact is felt, lots of close ups are taken. Another reason is also the fact that actors today do not emote as effectively, and acting style has shifted towards subtlety to the extent that any actor is a good actor provided the character is written well. The same actor can’t contribute much in terms of acting when the writing is not good. To compensate for and capture these ‘subtle nuances’ close ups become essential
@KEP1983
Жыл бұрын
I'd have to test this out to really know. Sit at your average medium-length spot in the movie theater. Then hold your phone/ipad/etc at the distance you usually watch it. Compare which appears larger from your vantage point. Painters have been doing this for centuries. It's a technique called "sight size." You can paint the Andes Mountains or a portrait on a canvas the size of a wall or the size of a typical paper. The difference between the two paintings is the distance from which both are painted and viewed. If you're viewing a large canvas from a distance, it will have the same appearance as a small painting from a few feet away. The same applies to screens. A 100 foot screen from 300 feet away will appear smaller than an iphone from two feet away, for instance.
@michaelyakiwchuk43
Жыл бұрын
The correct theatre seat is the fourth row from the screen. Change my mind.
@thewirv
Жыл бұрын
I get closer for more emotional scenes because I want the audience to be more intimate with the characters
@bradbell4022
2 жыл бұрын
In a resolution independent world, we should be able to create cropped versions for small screens. (Seems like a resolution independent world to me as I still deliver in HD but shoot from 2.5k to 6k. Create versions from 2.4:1 at one extreme to Vertical 16:9 at the other). Plus, having crossed the HD threshold for resolution, we can upscale and mix and match sizes without worry
@theballisticboy
2 жыл бұрын
Should we crop or reframe the Mona Lisa without worry to better fit our screens or should artist and studios encourage people to go to the art gallery and see it as it was intended? I choose the latter.
@user-yc8zp2wj8j
Жыл бұрын
From the preview I thought it has something to do with CGI: close ups are simpler than frames with many objects in focus.
@Jasonbean211
Жыл бұрын
This video inspired me a lot! I never think about this aspect for film making. May I know where could I find more information about that table at 1:48 ? I would like to understand more about the math behind. Thanks!!!
@skagarwal5968
Жыл бұрын
Shot size ,shot duration,shot angle, etc all depends upon what story you want to convey.So just shoot what the story demands and forget about how is this shot, movie is going to view .thanks
@norwegianblue2017
Жыл бұрын
Because most movies today are designed for short attention spans with rapid cuts of closeups. Very rare to see a movie that knows how to compose a scene and really lets you take it in, in the way a movie like Barry Lyndon does.
@geraldricoguevara3340
Жыл бұрын
Barry Lyndon is in my books a masterpiece film of the first kind... however, we should not forget that critics commenting on the film's pace, that it was too slow 😀...and that brings me to the first paragraph of your comment. Those critics are usually these sort of people. Barry Lyndon sucks you in...the movie is the muse to every other period film shot after it. It Standards are still too high even with our technology and knowledge today. Sad.
@ytubeanon
2 жыл бұрын
ooh, imagine a video media format container that senses the screen size and adapts all its virtual cameras inside the movie to retain a proper ratio for closeups, medium and long shots... although, you'd probably need terabytes of storage to store a movie that's compatible with IMAX, which would be impractical for a phone's storage, but what if the video was stored on a home computer and streamed to your phone...
@billypowermax2264
2 жыл бұрын
Close ups work real well when you have an actor that can carry a shot just with intense expression of emotion. Not all actors can pull it off well. Colin Farrell has been one of the best at it, in the last 20 years
@vb8428
Жыл бұрын
Ferral?😂😂😂😂😂 Especially in which films?
@billypowermax2264
Жыл бұрын
@@vb8428 SWAT and Alexander the Great and Tiger Land
@vb8428
Жыл бұрын
@@billypowermax2264 He was really feral in those films huh?
@Tore_Lund
2 жыл бұрын
I produce web video for customers and this is often the subject when they review my edit: "Why do I use extreme closeups, It looks like an art film, "I don't look good that close"?. Then I need to explain that most are going to watch their video on a phone or windowed in a feed, most even without sound, and there can be no emotion conveyed or interest peaked if all you see is matchstick people doing stuff. Same thing with printed media: A big face on the front page and you sell more copies, it is as simple as that. What having a big face smashed in your own face does, is confront you with the emotion of the actor and feel it yourself. You cross the social comfort barrier and as a reflex, you physically feel what the actor supposedly feels at that instant, there is no escape, it is a biological mechanism.
@djrt8179
Жыл бұрын
I'm sorry but I highly doubt any major motion picture developer not at Disney has thought about iPhone screens when directing their movie. Many directors today still hate streaming platforms, but they're just going to develop movies for mobile devices? I just don't see it at all. I don't know the reason, maybe it's an easier shot to get now then 20+ years ago with modern technology.
@dots560
Жыл бұрын
Enlightening video. Tried downloading the blueprint but the submit button is unresponsive.
@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701
Жыл бұрын
The numerous Character Close Ups in Star Trek Picard Season 2 annoyed the F*ck out of me... Those damn wrinkles around the eyes. Now I know at least why they did that, thanks
@TMBTM
Жыл бұрын
In some John Wayne's westerns you could wait for 20 minutes before having a close up of his face, even if he was the star. It was all about the landscapes and the compositions of the shots. It worked great in theaters... and way less on old tv screens (4:3 letterboxed or not). I found those movies boring when I was kids and I did not really understand why, maybe they were already a bit dated, sure, but I guess a huge part was that I simply could not see the actors, well... acting! That's why I like to watch some old movies at home today. The original format is usualy respected, the quality is spot on and the size of the TV makes me rediscover some old gems.
@readingbetweentheframes
Жыл бұрын
This video was invaluable. Thank you so much for this. It truly helps as a director to keep this in mind when storyboarding and making the shot list for the film.
@Bladeclaw00100
Жыл бұрын
Like home theater replaces cinema theater. We may have VR movies replacing IMAX experiences. Eventually VR may be the optimal viewing device. But it still has a long way to go.
@ZigUncut
Жыл бұрын
And yet on TV there are less close-ups.
@dzulk9
Жыл бұрын
This reminds me of early CSI series era. There was indeed a lot of face closeup shots! Most Miami episodes must have Horatio closeup!!!!
@enjoyyoursleep1
Жыл бұрын
Close ups are a money saver, if I may be overly cynical for a moment.
@lionel.mukendi
Жыл бұрын
This was dope, man. Keep up with the great content!
@ebinrock
Жыл бұрын
That's what I was taught in my TV production studies in college (back in the tube days) - "Television is a medium of closeups" ("medium" here almost sounding like a contradictory pun).
@JimElford
Жыл бұрын
People watch on their phones. Also stars want to be seen more than ever as competition with other stars in other mediums (TikTok/insta) is at an all time high.
@theOladayo0
Жыл бұрын
@mattlaw1350
2 жыл бұрын
At what point will we get movies edited with changes ( and narrative) that will be based on which device you are watching? Someone watches a movie in theater and then at home and getting a totally different story. I can imagine different reviews based on how the person saw the movie.
@ebinrock
Жыл бұрын
At some point I guess, you'll have to set up 2 (or more) cameras on each tripod or other support rig, Tommy Wiseau style - one camera to get a mid-shot, another to get a closeup, or someone will need to invent vector-based scalable video (so you can shoot everything wide and choose your focal length in post).
@lukelim5094
Жыл бұрын
To show off the camera spec of course! Don't you love the bokeh of 85mm T1.5 cinema lens? Yum. No no do 135mm instead haha. As a working DOP haha that is how our brain works when ever clients or director requests close up. It about flexing the lens and camera specs lol So i guess we need to apologize? Lol
@megaultradamn
2 жыл бұрын
My guess: Expensive Actors?
@XplusX12345678
Жыл бұрын
After kurasawa and Morricone made waves with their films there were close ups all over the place in the 60s and 70s. Morricone is the king of close ups
@matman000000
Жыл бұрын
Morricone was the composer, Leone was the director
@XplusX12345678
Жыл бұрын
@@matman000000 ah shoot, I made mistake.
@krishnayalla676
Жыл бұрын
budget and time? It seems like for cost effectiveness and speed that closeups work on both those fronts.
@mgwarner1
Жыл бұрын
I noticed they did a bunch of close ups while action scenes were going on. I think it’s to save money on streaming shows. This is not going to last.
@TinLeadHammer
2 жыл бұрын
You should use angle, not linear size and distance. With 300+ PPI of modern smartphones there is no downside to watch a theatrical movie on a phone as long as the angle of view is the same.
@GerardEscuer
2 жыл бұрын
Exact same experience 🤣 Common, I have an excellent setup at home, projector and good sound, and doesn't compare at all to the experience to go to the cinema. You need to go to the movies more often.
@danielhuang2488
2 жыл бұрын
who the freak puts phones 2 feet away when watching stuff? especially narrative stuff? that thing is 5 inches away from my face. I make the actors face the same size no matter the size of the screen I'm watching it on.
@MrStronglime
2 жыл бұрын
"who the freak" watches a film on a phone I ask. A laptop screen or a tablet, I get, but a phone is just too damn tiny.
@danielhuang2488
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrStronglime I actually don't. I watch yt on my phone and that's what I'm referring to when I say I put the phone in my face when I watch stuff.
@tremarquise4675
Жыл бұрын
Shooting wide shots takes a lot of money out of your budget 😂😂
@96CAMJ
Жыл бұрын
The sad part is the measures are in inches and for a european that's half path to not fully understand the accuracy of the sizes he mention.
@rayrobinson6719
2 жыл бұрын
I took it as it being more cinematic but that's just me.
@JoaoSilva22222
Жыл бұрын
Wolfcrow is by far the best school out here...other channels comment on movie techniques, but he has a much more logical and practical approach for the aspiring filmmakers.
@webinatic216
2 жыл бұрын
Close up shots are cheap imo. Overused 90% of the time.
@AnandaGarden
2 жыл бұрын
Wonderfully interesting and engaging as always. Renowned advertising magnate David Ogilvy urged clients not to use enlarged closeups of the human face, as they are repellent to the viewer. How does that apply on various film screens? Not sure, but I have noticed the "repellent" part. Perhaps cured with quarter-shots? Uh-oh, not another fad! - like the fortunately fading "unprocessed LOG look," and the equally abhorrent "handheld camera look" which is meant to induce excitement but fails to invoke anything but nausea and questions about how recently the camera person emerged from detox.
@GlennDavey
2 жыл бұрын
This is why Once Upon a Time in the West has a grotesque aesthetic in the opening scenes. "Nothing" is happening, but the viewer is having an emotional reaction in real time, due to the extreme facial close-ups.
@AnandaGarden
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, now I'm seeing closeups everywhere during my daily evening dose of thriller video, including some very effective and not at all off-putting scenes in "The Accountant" (great Ben Affleck action flick).
@ebinrock
Жыл бұрын
Call me old, but I have NO idea why the "youngins" are looking at MOVIES on small screens. When we Gen-X'ers envisioned the future, we thought for sure that people would be watching movies in the home on screens that would fill a whole wall (8, 10, or 12 feet diagonal, something like that). I get the convenience of the mobile phone for viewing content, maybe during a long flight or something, but normally I'll watch short KZitem videos, etc. on my phone. But for movies, I still want the big movie experience.
@GiveMeAnOKUsername
Жыл бұрын
Like being a web designer.
@atlanteum
Жыл бұрын
Because there are so few actual directors walking the halls of the DGA these days. Close-ups are quick, cheap and lazy. As Orson Welles once admonished an actor - "If you can't do better than than, I'll have to go in for a close up!" Close-Ups obviously have their place in the language of film, but without a visual strategy for the whole [just look at ANYTHING from the Golden Age of Wilder, Hitchcock, Hawks, Ford... too many to list], they offer little more than repeatedly saying "um" in a sentence because you have nothing better to say. Close ups are for newscasters and interviews. Want to see brilliant direction on a not-great-film? Watch Spielberg's 1941 - an unbelievable tour-de-force of "where to put the camera." Follow that up with Michael Curtiz' direction in Casablanca. God, those guys knew what the hell they were doing.
@TheGeoDaddy
2 жыл бұрын
That’s a REALLY interesting question… without watching, my guess is that it’s CHEAPER and FASTER to churn out shots when you have less screen space to fill up with well lit composition! And ACTORS remain the reason we watch TV, Movies, smartphones and MOST work is now watched (for better or worse) for the REALLY SMALL screen.
@James-nv1wf
Жыл бұрын
My Director shoots CUs because it's cheaper - less production design and usually lavs are garbage.
@MikeOzmun
Жыл бұрын
There's an Xbox game where I can play as Ray Liotta??
@alacazaba
2 жыл бұрын
US - while Bryan Singer was never very good at dynamic framing nor did he have a great appreciation for deep performances (he picked good takes based upon how the actor's expression read on the monitor), maybe this is from how he understood media - one also has to think how he edited at the time - on small screens, either steenbeck or monitor.
@lowlowseesee
Жыл бұрын
lol @ anyone who watches film on their phone lololol. you might as well listen to all your music through a clock radio speaker while you are at it
@MachoMaster
Жыл бұрын
It's a pity you didn't manage to convert to the universally understandable SI units. Downvote.
@Lionclaw
Жыл бұрын
I would argue the kind of people watching movies and tv shows regularly on a phone or tablet are also the kind of people who don’t pay attention and don’t care about the subtlety of facial expressions as relates to character anyway, so why shoot your project differently for them? F em.
@Valkonnen
Жыл бұрын
Because most of the filmmakers , making movies today, would have been thrown out of film school for not knowing how to frame shots and why. These people refuse to watch and learn the art of film from watching the classics and they grow up making movies that are like video games.
@BrianMcInnis87
2 жыл бұрын
6:19 Answer: Don't.
@impmoviechannel3052
Жыл бұрын
Videos on telephones are too small to see an epic. KZitem has trained us to accept nothing but a talking head with jump cuts.
@markcastellanet9672
Жыл бұрын
I don't think there are more close ups. Look at movies like 12 angry men, you can practically count their nose hairs.
@bobbyr
Жыл бұрын
So personally I don't like the trend of to many close ups. I watched the last James Bond movie and pretty much every shot is a medium or close up shot. Makes the movie look like a TV show, not an epic action film. Tighter shots are cheaper since you don't need to worry as much about the background, lighting, extras etc. Close ups are ment to convay information at certain moments, if it is just used as a way to show of the actors it is pretty pointless imo. Story, and character should come first not "looking good". In a normal conversation we don't go up to someone's face every five seconds do we?
@darrenmercoles1201
Жыл бұрын
great points, remember 2016ish watching some prime time tv shows on break at work in the evening , almost all the person talking in a room or something went close up and its fine once in a while but not the whole show
@filmicowls129
Жыл бұрын
Nee okke ippozhum indo
@3ngan498
Жыл бұрын
Who would care about the phone users??? What the hell
@SOLIDSNAKE.
Жыл бұрын
Because no creativity anymore
@damoderndance
2 жыл бұрын
Pictures of people talking.
@aliensoup2420
Жыл бұрын
Thats why I never go to a theater to watch a social-drama - $15 to watch oversized talking heads for 2 hours.
Пікірлер: 117