Cinegrids

File: 2.png (4MB, 1786x1242px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1786x1242px

>>84986699

File: 3.png (4MB, 1858x1285px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1858x1285px

>>84986742

File: 4.png (3MB, 1728x1194px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1728x1194px

>>84986781

>>84986779
Snyder's composition is extremely bland desu

File: 5.png (4MB, 1944x1344px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1944x1344px

>>84986820

>>84986827
I disagree whole heartedly, I find it very engaging.

File: 6.png (3MB, 1728x1196px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1728x1196px

>>84986872

File: 7.1.png (4MB, 1944x1349px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1944x1349px

>>84986910

File: 7.2.png (3MB, 1728x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1728x1200px

>>84986953

>>84986827
explain how, in detail, using actual reasoning and logic. Like explain how some of the key compositions are bland in a way that has actual support statements behind it and not just your "opinion."

>>84986929
who tf would take the time to make this piece of shit

File: Beyond the Black Rainbow.jpg (3MB, 2593x2253px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2593x2253px

>>84986779
>>84986816
>>84986929
Are you joking with this CGI shitshow? Blue-tinted scenes rendered on some server farm are not cinematography, they're glorified video games.

>>84987022
There are a few nice shots, but this isnt anything special. The Lego Movie looked nicer.

>>84987040
a guy literally posted an animated movie
>>84987022

get over yourself grandpa

>>84987040
>Are you joking with this CGI shitshow
>Blue-tinted scenes
>proceeds to post a cinegrid full of red and blue tinted shots and cgi

you arent the smartest guy, are you anon?

>>84986779
Snyder's movies are boring even as cinegrids.

File: 6 alt.png (3MB, 1728x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1728x1200px

>>84986910

>>84987138
>proceeds to post a cinegrid full of red and blue tinted shots and cgi
No, it was practical effects largely.

>>84987149
>t. brainlet

>>84987186
buddy, that space shot, the 1983, the background of the hallway with the woman on the cieling, the metal face, the red face, and that clump of dust are all CGI. So is the white background in the car.
Good job being an absolute pleb.

File: 7.1 alt.png (4MB, 1973x1368px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1973x1368px

>>84986953

>>84987186
How does that make it not tinted? Are you retarded?

>>84987250
No, you're absolutely wrong, idiot. Most of the effects are practical, as per the director.

>>84987551
im sure most of the effects are, but specifically the ones i pointed out in your cinegrid arent

>>84987003
I find there's very little depth to a lot of his shots, and when there is it's a very simple background-foreground contrast, with the frame generally being flat and sparse apart from the two contrasting subjects.

>>84988049
You clearly haven't seen the film, and are spewing nonsense:
>space shot
Probably.
>the background of the hallway with the woman on the cieling
Wrong. It's an overhead shot of a shaft, and it's a matte painting.
>the metal face
Wrong. It's liquid, and shot in very high contrast, giving the look. Inspired by a well known film shot entirely like that.
>red face
Enhanced by CGI, maybe, but it looks to be a wax miniature melting.
>that clump of dust
Wrong. It's literally cigarette ash on a black surface, no CG whatsoever.
>the white background in the car
It could be, but it could also just as easily be shot in contrast.

Has anyone got a Lawrence of Arabia, or A Serious Man cinegrid.

>>84988600
>it's a matte painting.

it definitely isnt


> but it looks to be a wax miniature melting.
not to me, it looks like cgi


> it could also just as easily be shot in contrast.
No, you can tell it was green screened. If it was shot with just high contrast his skin would reflect that.

File: BvSVisualForeshadowing.jpg (2MB, 4000x2604px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2604px

>>84988293
Thank you for answering but I disagree.

In this grid>>84986779 There is a lot of depth. From the top right corner of Bruce holding the girl, to Superman being contrasted against the crowd on the second row, far right. I'll agree that the show with Clark on the mountain (third row) is flat, but Lex standing over the city and Bruce standing in the door way to the burnt down Wayne Mansion (both right next to the mountain shot) again both have dept.


Even the shot of inside the kryptonian ship (also third row, second from the left) has depth to it.


Pic related isnt particularly well made, but it does highlight two of my favorite shots that are repeated from MoS, into BvS. The one where Superman is coming down from the sky (first at the military base, then at the senate building) which has a lot of depth and contrasts Superman with multiple subjects. And Superman walking towards the camera (alone in the senate building, but followed by an entourage in the military base). While that shot doesnt work as well as a frame, in motion i think it displays well.

>>84989425
>this shot has depth
>it has depth because it has depth
>the dept has depth has dept
>pay denbts
Good job.

>>84989535
well its not like you explained how any specific shots dont have depth. At least I actually pointed to examples. Actually engage with what I had to say instead of being a memeing shit.

>>84989581
I'm not the same person, genius.

>>84989594
Then why do you even give a shit. Also how does that invalidate

>Actually engage with what I had to say instead of being a memeing shit.

>>84989594
>hurr durr you should have just known I was a different anon!!!!


I can't believe retards like you actually exist. Also why didn't you rag on the other guy for not giving examples when his complaint was there was no depth? Is it because you have a big anti-snyder boner?

>>84989608
>Then why do you even give a shit
Because I'm pointing out your retardation?

>>84989629
Because he has literally no arguments.

this is as robotic as you could ask for composition wise, and the movie was unfiltered garbage narrative wise, so why do so many tvpedos care about it so much? is it all that internalized marvel hatred?

>>84989581
Some shots do have depth, it's just that they're still flat and uninteresting due to their simplicity. See: Supes pulling the ship, and the shot of him silhouetted by the sun as examples. There's just very little to them other than the foreground and background subjects themselves. Snyder is still leaps and bounds more visually interesting than any other capeshit director though.

>>84989734
One anon said there was no depth. So I pointed to shots that very obviously point out depth. And then I even provided an explanation for why one shot has depth. I can provide explanations for others if you want.


Superman being contrased against the crowd shows depth by using the arms of everyone around him as a line that draws our eye to the descripency in height (and metaphorically, the stature in which they see him) between Superman and the rest of the people. This uses multiple subjects to achieve the effect.


Do you want more? Also how was what I said any less of an argument than the guy who just said "there is no depth" without providing examples.

>>84989857
But I didnt mention those shots for a reason. Try engaging with the shots I actually DID mention like here
>>84989883

I think the crowd shot and the shot of Lex looking over the ocean, and the shots of Superman coming down from the sky (when in motion) fufil your criteria. I could probably think of more, like in the warehouse scene that has lots of different movie parts to it, and uses all axis of the room quite well.