And looks objectively terrible compared to basically ANY major motion picture released this year (perhaps just short of the great film but terribly-lit “Rob Peace”).
I was flabbergasted that such horrifically flat lighting and incredibly dismal/uninspired camera work didn’t trigger any reshoots (particularly with the $150 million budget they had and, as a consequence, the equipment they had at their disposal.)
And looks objectively terrible compared to basically ANY major motion picture released this year (perhaps just short of the great film but terribly-lit “Rob Peace”).
I was flabbergasted that such horrifically flat lighting and incredibly dismal/uninspired camera work didn’t trigger any reshoots (particularly with the $150 million budget they had and, as a consequence, the equipment they had at their disposal.)
people didnt seem to mind
They could have shot it on a potato and most people wouldn’t have noticed.
I’m probably not most people since I do this professionally.
fair enough, im not saying it doesnt look like shit, just that people who like wicked ate it right up. I didnt see it because I am straight
Maybe your theater didn’t illuminate it correctly? I saw it twice, both IMAX and non-IMAX and it looked incredible both times
I used to be a projectionist.
The projector was fine.
There are articles with the cinematographer about how they deliberately made everything grey.