CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Why do American films look so different from the rest?

Why do American films look so different from the rest?

Started by Olivia Evans8 · · 👁 6 views · 68 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Olivia Evans8David Price5bluebison8wearytinker8Anthony Smith3redowl90wanderingridgeplacidrangerhiddensailor14Samuel Smith5copperrider20frozenbadger32Nicole JamesKate Torresvelvetdrifter86wiredranger30Jessica Nguyen85Daniel Moore35vividorca5Thomas Patelnortherncrane4Susan Sullivan2ironmarlin1coastalorca11 …
Ronald Barnes47 Ronald Barnes47 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jun 2008
#61 ·
I recently sat through a documentary detailing the production of Apocalypse Now. It’s fascinating to consider they were shooting with such antiquated camera equipment back in 1975, especially given the sheer scale and intensity of that particular masterpiece. However, when we talk about the aesthetic, it isn't merely a question of the lens or the sensor quality; it's more about what happens after the cameras stop rolling. You see, many films struggle to achieve a sense of true visual grit because their post-production budgets are practically non-existent, leaving them looking strangely artificial.
American films operate on an entirely different level because of the massive investment poured into post-production, which serves as the actual backbone of the cinematic experience.
Anthony Smith3 Anthony Smith3 Regular
511 messages
joined May 2009
#62 ·
Thomas Patel said:Yeah, I did say that all American movies are mindless and that every single European film is brilliant—and then, being my usual self, I went ahead and doubled down on that in the very next post. 🙄

The only thing I never actually claimed was that American movies consist solely of those 20 blockbusters released annually. ☕

To keep things simple—and maybe save us all some time—my general take is just that European films tend to be better than American ones.
I know you guys feel the exact opposite, though. Fair enough! ☕

Nowhere to be found, but it’s pretty obvious those are the only ones you've actually watched, especially since most American films are mindless garbage... actually, you didn't even say "most," you just said American films.

To quote you...

Thomas Patel said:You hit the nail on the head...
American movies are simple and easy for everyone to wrap their heads around.
Meanwhile, European film is more intellectual and leaves a deeper impression—sometimes you actually need to watch the same thing a few times just to fully grasp everything it's trying to say.

You only used the term "most" later in your post... but I’m guessing that "most" just refers to those massive Blockbusters made for the general public.☕
I'd have a totally different perspective if people actually realized how much great stuff American cinema puts out. It’s not all just massive Blockbusters dominating the theaters; there are tons of solid indie films that sneak in through the back door that most people don't even know exist.
rustywalker42 rustywalker42 Active Member
244 messages
joined Oct 2012
#63 ·
Ronald Barnes47 said:I recently sat through a documentary detailing the production of Apocalypse Now. It’s fascinating to consider they were shooting with such antiquated camera equipment back in 1975, especially given the sheer scale and intensity of that particular masterpiece. However, when we talk about the aesthetic, it isn't merely a question of the lens or the sensor quality; it's more about what happens after the cameras stop rolling. You see, many films struggle to achieve a sense of true visual grit because their post-production budgets are practically non-existent, leaving them looking strangely artificial.
American films operate on an entirely different level because of the massive investment poured into post-production, which serves as the actual backbone of the cinematic experience.

Give me a break, people. Stop talking nonsense. It wasn't shot on some ancient, prehistoric camera. The camera they used was actually introduced back in 1972. So, if you think that's "old," then we really don't have anything left to talk about.

Check this out: http://cinematechnic.com/resources/arri_35bl.html

This is basically the whole science of cinema right there. Like I told you guys, once you grasp the basics, you start seeing exactly why a movie looks the way it does. Take Apocalypse Now, for example:

Check out the technical specs on this one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/technical

Here’s some more info on that movie:

Check this out: http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_apocalypse_redux/

The whole point of this story is pretty damn banal. Most people talking about "look" just think about whether it's on tape or digital. They don't even touch on filming techniques. I guess you actually have to know what you're talking about to grasp the real issue, right?

Here’s some technical stuff on filming techniques—though, honestly, this mostly applies to the big formats like 65mm and 70mm:

Check this out: http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/200...70mm/index.htm

And finally, we need to actually define which of our films—or series, since not everything we produce ends up on the big screen—we're even talking about here.
Lawrence Kern6 Lawrence Kern6 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Feb 2007
#64 ·
bluebison8 said:I view it much like professional soccer. Anyone with genuine talent heads straight for that arena, and by the time they arrive, they’ve mastered the craft down to the finest detail. It’s exactly like the big leagues—anyone worth their salt eventually makes the jump.
Just like in soccer, an exceptional talent is born every once in a while—someone like Luke—but they are nothing compared to the sheer volume of talent found abroad. It’s the same story in cinema. A handful of great actors and directors might emerge from the United States, but they don't even begin to represent the massive pool of elite talent actually living there.


I'm not gonna follow this thread much longer because I honestly don't have the time, but I just had to chime in on this absolute sacred cow nonsense, though I'm hoping someone else already did.

American films tend to lean toward spectacle and making a buck, whereas European quality... I mean, it's honestly embarrassing that anyone would talk about European cinema this way.
Check these out before you say anything else.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095250/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102426/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228786/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118799/
Don't take these as some definitive list of European masterpieces; I'm just throwing them out there off the top of my head.
northerncrane4 northerncrane4 Regular
384 messages
joined Aug 2005
#65 ·
But you're missing the point entirely. This thread is specifically about the visual differences between European and American cinema—not which one is "better" or why. Stick to this topic. 🙂
Henry Barnes3 Henry Barnes3 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jul 2008
#66 ·
Olivia Evans8 said:Whenever I’m watching an American film, I can’t help but wonder why they just feel so... different from our local movies. The colors, the way things move, the whole vibe... it's just distinct. What's the secret sauce there? Is it some special camera filter? Or maybe all that heavy lifting done in post-production?

Even European films have that specific aesthetic, almost like I'm looking through a pane of glass 🤷

Look, it's basically the tech—everything is just more advanced over there, and we rarely actually apply those techniques here.🤷
wiredranger30 wiredranger30 Member
33 messages
joined Dec 2006
#67 ·
redowl90 said:Nowhere yet, until I made this post:

Most American movies—regardless of genre—outclass most European (or any other) films by lightyears when it comes to quality and all the metrics used to judge them.

Europeans will never be able to produce films like The Matrix or die hard 4. They are too preoccupied with being pretentious and self-indulgent, making movies solely for the sake of "art." They make those types of films meant for various festivals that indie crowds love to obsess over. But a movie isn't JUST art—it's much more than that. Americans get that, Europeans don't, while Asians seem to sit somewhere in the middle.

That's it. From A to Z. Z. Amen. My only caveat regarding the concept of Europe is that I would pull the English out of that group entirely. I'd make a distinction: English-language films versus "European" films. Including the English in that "European" category feels wrong to me—they deserve better status than that.
Dennis Carter Dennis Carter Member
12 messages
joined Aug 2014
#68 ·
redowl90 said:Nowhere yet, until I made this post:

Most American movies—regardless of genre—outclass most European (or any other) films by lightyears when it comes to quality and all the metrics used to judge them.

Europeans will never be able to produce films like The Matrix or die hard 4. They are too preoccupied with being pretentious and self-indulgent, making movies solely for the sake of "art." They make those types of films meant for various festivals that indie crowds love to obsess over. But a movie isn't JUST art—it's much more than that. Americans get that, Europeans don't, while Asians seem to sit somewhere in the middle.

😂 I mean, any random guy could probably whip up a movie like Die Hard 4 if they just had enough cash on hand. Honestly, putting The Matrix and Die Hard 4 in the same sentence feels like it should actually be illegal.

Then again, maybe Hollywood could never pull off something like Amélie, for instance. To me, Amélie is basically living proof that films from Europe can actually look even better than those coming out of the States.
I guess the visual look of a movie really just comes down to whatever style the director decides to go with. If someone tried to shoot Hidden (which I think someone already brought up) using the same vibe, it would probably be a total disaster; a digital camera seems like the only logical choice given the actual subject matter and the story being told.
Besides, there are probably a million European films out there that have much better cinematography and visual flair (and everything else, really) than most big-budget Hollywood productions:
Pan's Labyrinth, A Very Long Engagement, Malèna, ...
Anthony Smith3 Anthony Smith3 Regular
511 messages
joined May 2009
#69 ·
Dennis Carter said:😂 I mean, any random guy could probably whip up a movie like Die Hard 4 if they just had enough cash on hand. Honestly, putting The Matrix and Die Hard 4 in the same sentence feels like it should actually be illegal.

Then again, maybe Hollywood could never pull off something like Amélie, for instance. To me, Amélie is basically living proof that films from Europe can actually look even better than those coming out of the States.
I guess the visual look of a movie really just comes down to whatever style the director decides to go with. If someone tried to shoot Hidden (which I think someone already brought up) using the same vibe, it would probably be a total disaster; a digital camera seems like the only logical choice given the actual subject matter and the story being told.
Besides, there are probably a million European films out there that have much better cinematography and visual flair (and everything else, really) than most big-budget Hollywood productions:
Pan's Labyrinth, A Very Long Engagement, Malèna, ...

Neither side is actually right if we're being real here...

Europe knows how to deliver a spectacle or an action flick when they want to... for example...

"Brotherhood of the Wolf," the "Taxi" series, "Empire of the Wolves," "The Crimson Rivers," "Wasabi," "Léon," "Nikita," "District 13," "Switchblade Romance," "The Transporter" series, "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," "The Fifth Element," "Doorman," the "Pusher" trilogy, "In China They Eat Dogs 1 & 2," "The City of Lost Children," "The Devil's Backbone," "The Day of the Beast," "800 Bullets," etc.

Believe it or not, these are all international films (mostly French) and you can mostly categorize them as action, spectacles, or sci-fi (with some horror thrown in). They mainly wow you visually... which is exactly what Hollywood does best...

On the flip side, Hollywood—or American film in general—has proven it's more than capable of making smaller, less spectacular movies that lean heavily on the script and acting... stuff like Amélie, Malèna, and things along those lines...

like...

"The Kite Runner," "Big Fish," "Lonesome Jim," "Little Children," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Coffee and Cigarettes," "Holy Smoke," "Kids," "Ken Park," "Elephant"... etc.

Basically, you get my point.

Both sides make similar types of movies, and both sides make good movies... the only difference is the sheer volume.👍

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads