The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
haleynahman.substack.com
The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
1–10 of 479 posts
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#2I decided not to watch their Sandman adaptation despite generally positive reviews because the unmistakable and garing Netflix aesthetic of the trailers soured me on the prospect. It's like they ruined a graphic novel with an AI style transfer to "in the style of Netlix".
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#3Don’t watch Netflix movies. Watch actual lower budget/indie movies like Red Rocket that still look and feel like movies..
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#4It's hinted at here, but film produces a much better overall look than digital. It is just that digital is way cheaper and easier to work with.
There is certainly more versatility in what you can create in post production with digital but the base look of what is captured is more beautiful on film, and this is the same with photographs. Look at high quality old images captured on film, they blow most digital images out of the water. Much higher dynamic range and depth of colors and contrast.
This is why Tarantino, Nolan, and P.T. Anderson still only use film. I think this is most glaring with the mid to low budget range of films that can't make up some of the ground with production techniques and post. Old 80's and 90's mid range films on film look so much better especially in night scenes.
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#5Don’t watch Netflix movies. Watch actual lower budget/indie movies like Red Rocket that still look and feel like movies..
I think this is true for the people writing articles about "The Visual Blandness of Netflix" - which makes me wonder who they're actually writing to, beside the echo chamber. A24 is great for this crowd. But, they're already aware of it...
The majority of people watch TV and movies to be mindlessly entertained, not to be enlightened by some high-form of art. Netflix and Disney+ is just fine for this crowd.
You're not going to write an article and convince anyone their movie watching habits are wrong.
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#6I decided not to watch their Sandman adaptation despite generally positive reviews because the unmistakable and garing Netflix aesthetic of the trailers soured me on the prospect. It's like they ruined a graphic novel with an AI style transfer to "in the style of Netlix".
At least generative AI can set the temperature to vary between bland and crazy. Netflix is stuck on T=0
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#7I decided not to watch their Sandman adaptation despite generally positive reviews because the unmistakable and garing Netflix aesthetic of the trailers soured me on the prospect. It's like they ruined a graphic novel with an AI style transfer to "in the style of Netlix".
It looked pretty good and it was a great adaptation. It also didn't really look that much like their other shows (many of which are indeed extremely mediocre) and it sounds like you just have some anti-netflix bias.
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#8Don’t watch Netflix movies. Watch actual lower budget/indie movies like Red Rocket that still look and feel like movies..
I think this is true for the people writing articles about "The Visual Blandness of Netflix" - which makes me wonder who they're actually writing to, beside the echo chamber. A24 is great for this crowd. But, they're already aware of it... The majority of people watch TV and movies to be mindlessly entertained, not to be enlightened by some high-form of art. Netflix and Disney+ is just fine for this crowd. You're not…
[deleted]
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#9It's hinted at here, but film produces a much better overall look than digital. It is just that digital is way cheaper and easier to work with. There is certainly more versatility in what you can create in post production with digital but the base look of what is captured is more beautiful on film, and this is the same with photographs. Look at high quality old images captured on film, they blow most digital images o…
I'm highly skeptical of the technical claims you're making here.
Quality photography paper has about 10 stops of dynamic range (which is why the zone system for composition and printing goes up to X). While the negatives themselves may have slightly more dynamic range, there's also the clarkvision page[1] indicating they, in fact, have less dynamic range. This makes sense: you have less area to work with, and need to get something done with bigger grains because of light and time constraints.
You may well think it looks better, but more information it captures not. More noise, yes. Bleeding artifacts you like, sure. More information, no.
Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
#10I decided not to watch their Sandman adaptation despite generally positive reviews because the unmistakable and garing Netflix aesthetic of the trailers soured me on the prospect. It's like they ruined a graphic novel with an AI style transfer to "in the style of Netlix".
There are a lot of reasons to not like an adaptation. I've watched Sandman, and I completely disagree with you. They did a great job. Even to the extent of doing certain scenes I didn't enjoy, but still thoroughly liked and respected. It was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise sea of "greatest common denominator appeal". Avatar, God of War, they all suffer from this.