why do they make movies so dark

You can't see shit in movies anymore.  The darkness is retarded.  It's not even real darkness.  They add the darkness in later as a special effect, and not only that, they don't use black darkness, they use blue darkness.  Fuck man, the dark isn't blue.

Give examples plz. The last modern movie I saw was NCFOM and it was fine and clearly visible.

You're retardedness is unreal, just take 1 second to think why they use a blue-filter!

Isn't this a problem for films shot digitally and not on traditional celluloid?

I think what OP means is that too many movies are filmed in "3D" but the current 3D video technology causes darkening in the video. Screen-blinks and lens-flare do very little to compensate for this. There are more expensive alternatives out there but customers don't like paying more than 8 dollars to watch a film where screaming babies and psychotic gunmen are rarely found.

>>1

Digital will be inferior in resolution for quite a while.
I read a story where a guy found a group shot of soldiers in Vietnam, and took the negative and enlarged it and was able to read the dog tag.
Ever scale a digital picture larger? Doesn't look good. Yet, that is what happens from the projector to the screen.
And I'm sure every digital frame isn't saved in a lossless format like .bmp or .png, but something lossy with at least a degree of artifacting.
I like digital. But as Tarantino says, putting in a blu-ray and projecting it on a huge screen just isn't going to look that great.
Maybe in a decade or two, it can compete with film on resolution and be indistinguishable.

The B/W era is dead because it's too difficult to make a profit off of something so cheaply made.
The brightest films are in flat black and white.
Film makers have to relearn
how to make good movies.
Resolution vs color depth.
Is the trade off.
>>6

>>3
Well if it is to filter out the blue, they failed miserably.

>>6
Digital will be inferior in resolution for quite a while.
This is true, when they transfer a digital picture to 35mm film for safe long-term archival storage, in the process it loses some of its quality in the transfer simply because digital is not quite at the depth to where film is at. I've read somewhere years back where the best consumer high-definition blu-ray releases show a picture transferred from 35mm film only at best 1/6th the total quality depth of the film. I don't know about 2K or 4K industrial digital captures, but they're certainly not 100%.

I think the industry is trying to go too prematurely into going full digital, and another thing is the cost factor of archiving and preservation as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?pagewanted=all
The problem became public, but just barely, last month, when the science and technology council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released the results of a yearlong study of digital archiving in the movie business. Titled “The Digital Dilemma,” the council’s report surfaced just as Hollywood’s writers began their walkout. Busy walking, or dodging, the picket lines, industry types largely missed the report’s startling bottom line: To store a digital master record of a movie costs about $12,514 a year, versus the $1,059 it costs to keep a conventional film master.Much worse, to keep the enormous swarm of data produced when a picture is “born digital” — that is, produced using all-electronic processes, rather than relying wholly or partially on film — pushes the cost of preservation to $208,569 a year, vastly higher than the $486 it costs to toss the equivalent camera negatives, audio recordings, on-set photographs and annotated scripts of an all-film production into the cold-storage vault.

Going digital at the showing theaters is fine, but the films themselves should still continue to be produced on 35 or 70mm film until digital can achieve at or beyond the quality of traditional film. Though, on the bright side, most movies made today probably aren't worth saving far into the future. Seriously, is anybody going to be watching a Hilary Duff movie 25 or 50 years from now?

>>9


Are you saying Hilary Duff isn't a Sex symbol of our generation.
All those clum babies wasted. . .

>>10
You wanked to Hilary Duff? Clearly you have low standards.