The "VCR Generation" of filmmakers was the term used

>>83314924
Considering all those directors are shit I expect even less from the youtube generation.

>>83314924
There is no "Youtube Generation" of fimmakers since you can barely call them filmmakers. The majority of "filmmakers" today are more concerned with gear and obsessing over it than they are with creating films. It's funny how easy it has become to shoot and produce, as well distribute, films (with the advent of low-cost DSLRs and internet platforms like kickstarter, vimeo and youtube), yet nothing of any real value has come out of this so called "digital revolution".

>>83315328
Yep. All the directors listed in OP have made how many great movies? I count exactly one: Pulp Fiction. That's it.

>>83315661
i don't know about films etc, but i make music and have done since before computer DAWs and it is the same in music.

barrier to access is low but the bar of (true) quality is the same as it ever was.

i agree that there is a fetishisation of gear for both film, photography and music, but this is a result of society and its manipulation by Cultural Marxism.

people are chasing shekels from advertising and so no one takes risks, no one wants to make a dud project because their ego is so fragile, so they take part in bullshit which gets likes and praise on social media.

there is also a glut of people with the skills because access to information is easier. how did you shoot a movie in the early 90's? with great difficulty. how do you do it now? learn on youtube.

perhaps the greatest movie maker on our generation is stuck shooting the videos for Anna Akina, or whatever that broad is called, because he has to make rent.

>>83314924
i like how they threw in mediocre kike eli roths name in there

>>83314924
>Youtube Generation
i sure hope not

File: 1492007976151.jpg (62KB, 398x323px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 398x323px

>>83315816
> how did you shoot a movie in the early 90's? with great difficulty. how do you do it now? learn on youtube.

I can expand on this:
while it is indeed true that you can learn basic filmmaking techniques along with examples off of youtube (cinematic lighting, blocking, pre-production, set design, etc) most people simply parrot what they see without trying to understand the art of cinema.

why do you block a scene a certain way? why use one focal length as opposed to another, i.e. why use a 80mm here instead of a 35? why frame the scene this way? why the wide shot, medium shot, close-up in various parts of a scene?

most people have no clue as to what they're doing and have no idea how to accomplish their vision even if said vision is great. they just type that shit on youtube "how to make ur film look leik david fincher!!!" and try and copy what they see shot by shot without any real understanding of the motivations behind every creative decision in a scene.

in the old days, this technological barrier served as a deterent to lower, pleb-tier wanna-be directors in that you needed either connections or a lot of money to get access to the gear and resources to make a movie, and in the process of acquiring these you had to go through some steps in the food-chain (so to speak) and kinda learn how the process works and get people to work with you.
nowadays you just buy a $500 canon, shoot some blown up, shallow dof scenes with your 50mm and call it a day.
make your facebook page as a director and that's it.

it's good that technology offers the tools to more people now and it's easier to get into it, but it also brings a lot of garbage along with it.

>>83315661
Filmmaking become more accessible has just facilitated it becoming a hobby, the pool of raw talent hasn't really increase. This means that if the technology wasn't there, these people would work they way into filmmaking through will power and passion. Those people exists and are out there, but they are just drowned by the noise of people casually making light saber fights or gun fights.

>>83315816
Holy reddit spacing batman.
>>83317067
Much better put.

>>83314924
>the youtube gen
we're doomed

>>83315816
>Cultural Marxism
Stopped reading there

lots and lots of gloomy filter for city shots and yellow filter for mexico is in our future


heavy on the style, light on the substance, and all shit will be based around heavy handed, contrived leftist ideals