The main subject of most films are people, and the the main people represented in film are Caucasian with skin tones that are generally pink-yellowish, and can easily be pushed to orange. Bluish-green (teal) is the compliment of these (exaggerated) skin tones and it makes these 'pop' more. Basically the filmmakers are dumbing down the visuals to a "Pop-WOW!" aesthetic. Apparently peoples brains have become so distracted from multi-tasking duties, that , like babies, they constantly need need something simply and shiny jangled in front of their faces to keep piquing their attention- hence the degradation of the visual palates to a nearly either/or proposition. You don't have to process much information to pick out the orange people in a sea of teal-ish tones making up everything else. I've been meaning to start a threat here to keep track of which catalog titles have been dumbed down by the studios like this, but since you started this one, mind if I post an 'infamy list' here? Some range from subtle but unfortunate (Alien) to wildly over the top ridiculous ( The Sweet Hereafter) I'd kick it off with Alien Aliens River Of No Return Wild River The Sweet Hereafter I've noticed Fox is a major proponent of defacing catalog with these revisionist tones, but they aren't the only ones.tele1962 said:Just been reading on another forum an interesting debate regarding the teal tint that some are saying is visable on quite a few modern movies. Anyone any thoughts on this and the reasoning behind it?
I have never seen a sky in a movie that is a sky in real life.Simon Lewis said:
Prior to the late 90's early Aughts, with the introduction of digital color grading, it was impossible to time a scene so that the faces were warmer while at the same time the backgrounds , or specific objects in the background, were timed cooler. This is all one of the wonderful perversions of computing power. And it's being compounded by a lowest common denominator mentality because so many people see this week in and week out at the theater and have now come to think this artificially sweetened look is how movies are supposed to look and anything more subdued and natural is 'boring'.bryan4999 said:
Perversions? It's an expansion of the palette available to artists. Some artists without taste will surely use it poorly, but that doesn't make the tool a perversion- it's just a tool.Paul_Scott said:
Exactly.Doctorossi said:
Never so why even bring up something that's all but impossible?Mark Oates said:
I think you'll find that was a joke...TravisR said:
Yes, it was so my aplogies to Mark Oates for my dumbness.John Hodson said:
That being said, people immediately jump to hyperbole on the internet so I guess that's made me read everything as a 'serious' post whatever the intent.
I'd hardly call giving everything a cyan wash an expansion of the colour palette (or dialing down the colour for that matter). When I was a colour grader (timer) at a film lab, we couldn't do anything about the contrast or change just the one colour, but to my eyes the pictures at the cinema looked 100% better than they do now, I don't know what's gone wrong. But I don't care too much about modern films, & the cyan even suits some of them, as long as they don't start doing it with their catalogue releases.Doctorossi said:
