Well modern camera equipment can almost see in the dark so what do you even need lighting for?

i just gotta real quick make sure that youre joking. you are joking, right?

I’m not joking. Do you understand the ISO value system as it relates to film?

im not arguing that you cant film in the dark without special lighting (obviously you can), im saying you shouldnt. im arguing with the second half of your statement. the lighting in the first picture is very purposeful and enhances the horror of the film. they didnt get into the editing room and go “oh darn, we forgot to shine a light on the guy hiding in the shadows!” jaws was made scarier because you could rarely see the shark, so your brain invented the scariest possibility. you can just… see the whole man in the second picture. having a flat shot where the lighting doesnt even draw in the viewers eye to anything (much less obscure something thats supposed to give the movie tension and anticipation) looks fucking boring and adds nothing

thats what we need lighting for

One of these is much more visually appealing than the other

Lighting in film, and especially horror is so *so* important to the tension in the scene, it’s a significant part of visual storytelling, and the cinematographer/DOP (director of photography) should’ve picked up on that.

It’s particularly embarrassing in comparison to the original material, as with digital/modern technology, you can literally see how the shot looks while you’re shooting.

This should’ve also been sorted in comp and fixed well before distribution.

As already pointed out, the lighting values have no depth to them, thus creating a very flat scene (this is one of the first design principles we are taught in design for animation/film- if I had handed in a lighting shot or concept anything like this, I would’ve failed the module).

If you take the shots and put them into greyscale, you can see this a lot clearer.

In the original Halloween shot, we can see a high range of value (how bright or dark something is)- the lighting is brightest on Jamie Lee Curtis, the viewer’s eye is drawn to her first- we can see her emotions clearly and gain sympathy for her character. Then we are drawn into the darkest value, creating dread, and this is fulfilled and heightened with the contrasting (and next highest) value of Michael’s mask.

In the modern shot, all the values are within a similar range (mid-greys), and there is no proper depth in value- making the tension within the shot fall flat (not ideal for horror).

In fact, the highest value in this shot is the fire in the background- which is where the eye is drawn to first. The background. Not the action. So instead of feeling empathy or dread, we are focusing on the wrong details.

And yes, while it could be said from a film analysis POV that the flatness of the shot ‘puts the characters on the same fighting ground/level of power in the shot,’ I’m not going to give them the benefit.

To top it off, the use of colour in the modern shot highlights the errors in lighting. Whilst sharing the blue/orange colour scheme of the original shot, everything is blue except the one area of contrast, the orange fire. So once again, we are drawn to none of the action and instead the background.

With a very small edit in compositing and lighting to match the original Halloween, the feeling (and focus) of the shot is completely changed. The shot has higher contrast and range of values- the focus is on Curtis, while Michael feels more foreboding in the darkness. The contrast puts the characters on opposite sides- good vs evil, telling a narrative in contrast to the unedited shot.

These effects could’ve easily been achieved by adding a key light on Curtis and rim lighting on Michael in production, and if necessary, editing value depth in comp to enhance the raw footage.

TLDR: Digital filmmakers still need to know traditional film and design theory- just because you have good actors, cameras and composition, does not mean you can forgo basic film craft. The aim of cinematography is to enhance the narrative, not restrict it.

MOST 👏PEOPLE 👏ARE 👏 NOT 👏 WATCHING 👏 MOVIES 👏ON 👏4K TVS. 👏

one of my fave examples of this is Alien

watching it on vhs the actual architecture of the ship means you’re squinting because the alien could be anywhere [the same is true of aliens the first movement from the resin is apparent on bluray etc but on VHS the pic quality was so bad in comparison you don’t see it until it moves - it’s an earned scare]

is that the alien - no it’s a chain, is that the alien, no it’s the cat it goes on and you turn yourself into a wreck because the pic is bad enough that you convince yourself you’re seeing it where it’s not there

and it’s entirely deliberate

but now, the same films on bluray/streaming whatever that ambiguity is lost because you can clearly see the differences

you can see the zippers on movie monsters

you can see the cgi where the zippers were digitally removed

but compare it to films where the effects happen in the light - like American Werewolf in London or The Thing - those movies aged like fine wine because they were using light - not darkness

and having recently seen the Flash - a film where it was hard to see a lot because of bad use of darkness ….. they really need to fix something there, it’s a nightmare now

but someone else could.

that’s the whole point of frodo—there is nothing special about him, he’s a hobbit, he’s short and likes stories, smokes pipeweed and makes mischief, he’s a young man like other young men, except for the singularly important fact that he is the one who volunteers. there is this terrible thing that must be done, the magnitude of which no one fully understands and can never understand before it is done, but frodo says me and frodo says I will.

(when boromir is thinking of how he can use the ring to defend gondor, when aragorn is thinking of how it brought down proud isildur, when elrond is holding council and gandalf is thinking of how twisted he would become, if he ever dared—)

but then there’s frodo, who desires nothing except what he has already left behind him, and says, I will take the Ring.

it is an offer made out of absolute innocence, utter sincerity. It is made without knowing what it will make of him—and frodo loses everything to the ring, he loses peace and himself and the shire, he loses the ability to be in the world. It’s cruel, the ring is cruel, it searches out every weakness you have and feeds on it, drinks you dry and fills you with its poison instead, the ring is so cruel.

and frodo picks it up willingly. for no other reason except that it has to be done.

(the ring warps boromir into a hopeless grasping dead thing, the power of the palantir turns denethor into an old man, jealous and suspicious, it bends even saruman, once the proudest of the istari, into a mechanised warlord, sitting in his fortress and bent over his perverse creations—all the best of intentions, laid waste)

but there’s a reason gollum exists in the narrative, which is to show—well, to show what frodo might have been. because even as frodo grows mistrustful and wearied, as the burden of this ring grows heavier and heavier, he is never gollum. he is gentle to gollum. he is afraid—god frodo is so afraid for 2/3 of these books he is so tired and afraid, but he keeps moving, he walks though it would pull him into the ground, because he asked for this, he said he would.

someone else could have carried the ring to mordor, I suppose. the idea of a martyr is not dependent on the particular flesh and blood person dying for some greater purpose. but such a thing has to be chosen, lifted onto your shoulders for the right reason, the truest reasons, and followed into the dark, though it would see you burnt through and bled out.

I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way.

y'know say what you want about tumblr (and I have), but this is still probably the simplest and most powerful distillation of the heart of the Lord of the Rings I’ve ever read. I think back to it all the time

Pick a bottle any bottle lol

I recently read an article about a therapy group for depressed people who had all attempted suicide at some point. The breakthrough question for them was, “If your goal was to be just as miserable as possible, what would you do?” Most of them listed things like not getting enough sleep, or isolating themselves from everyone… the list goes on, but the point is, they listed things they already do. But now they saw those “coping mechanisms” for what they really were: things that were actively making their condition worse.

I read that article at 2:00 AM, asked myself, am I TRYING to be miserable tomorrow? And it was easier than usual to put my phone down and fall asleep. Even my intrusive “lying down” thoughts about meaninglessness and existential dread were easier to suppress when I framed them as things I’d think about to purposefully make myself feel as awful as possible.

Fuck that is helpful

if you feel bad for no reason, that’s scary and frustrating. if you MAKE yourself feel bad, it’s okay, because you’re in control. except if you’re in control, maybe you should try to make yourself feel good, even if that’s scarier because it might not work.

scary and good is, actually, better for you long term than predictably bad.

Thinking about Catra’s future role in the kingdom of Brightmoon