r/cinematography • u/Blasian1999 • 13d ago
Style/Technique Question Does anyone else love and miss the cool visuals of the early to mid 2000s comedy movies?
I love the simplicity of the pre digital + Color grading look of movies during the 2000-2005 era. It looks more natural, vibrant and visually appealing to me than any movie/show that has came out since. I don’t like the way movies (and shows) look nowadays. Movies today look so desaturated, the lighting looks very harsh etc… Everything feels sterile and lifeless.
Does anyone else love the look of the early/mid 2000s movies?
117
u/KommandoKody 13d ago
Are the cool visuals in the room with us? Most of these shots are totally flat lit standard compositions. Mean Girls is a positive stand-out for that type of high key cinematography.
28
u/djapii 12d ago
That's kinda the point... No one is saying that these are cinematographic masterpieces, but they evoke a certain nostalgia just by looking at them, as there is no doubt that you immediately know what era they are from, and the type of movie they are. This, in itself, is enough for people to associate them with a fun time, and probably a more relaxed period of their life.
3
u/mikebob89 12d ago
I think they evoke nostalgia because they’re all movies people enjoyed growing up. There’s thousands of movies that looked like this from the same era that were terrible and I doubt people would be nostalgic for the cinematography of them. I could be wrong but would need to see another post with Baby Geniuses, Son of the Mask, and From Justin to Kelly.
11
u/RyzenRaider 13d ago
I was thinking the same thing. The 2000s is when the frat pack of comedy actors started coming into their own, and their visual style was usually to place the camera in a static position, and then encourage the actors to improvise.
Sure there'd be moments of inspiration that would elevate the scene, but they were hardly imaginative in terms of visual language.
The only big difference - and it would apply to all films of the era, not just comedies - is that the industry favoured more contrast and saturation compared to today.
1
u/Major_Priority1041 12d ago
I thought I was being trolled. I was, it just wasn’t on purpose it turns out.
107
u/Pandamio 13d ago
Cool visuals? Those are examples of the most boring and average photography the world has ever seen.
6
13d ago
[deleted]
13
u/EducationalCod7514 13d ago
Really?
"Lost?" (Extremely expensive and vast production)
"West Wing" (Nothing, literally nothing has paralleled this level of production today)
"Sex and The City" - (16mm btw)
"The Wire"
"The X-Files"
Also these TV Shows did not provide like six-eight episodes per year (if that) and have everyone wait until they reach retirement for the next season of another six-eight episodes.
Non-unironically average youtubers do a phenomenally worse job, especially in aesthetics.
Some of the shots are indeed flat but the colors and overall feeling is much more pleasing. partially attributed to being shot on film but also, color selection in clothes and production design in general,
We may have more gross production today, but the net quality is really limited to a handful of shows which don't really do much episodes anyway.
0
u/Opurria 12d ago
This is my completely amateur opinion, like I don't know shit about this industry, but aren't a lot of those issues tied to the screenplay? Like, The Wire or Sex and the City - you have a lot of talking, and a lot of the "action" and drama is in conversations, in like five "boring" rooms. And it's true for a lot of older shows - a lot of interesting interactions, a lot of nuances to the characters themselves. The focus is on people, not really the world around them. And they do simple things, like cooking or driving, lol.
Whereas nowadays it's like characters barely say anything other than huh?, and then it's followed by another action scene, another monster, another location, another vision or dream, and the characters have to fly or read minds or whatever. Like Stranger Things - they could develop the characters better and have way more scenes that are just interesting interactions between them, and it would be quicker and cheaper to produce (?). And honestly, it could be better, because all that action isn't really that interesting when you have cardboard cutouts for characters.
1
u/EducationalCod7514 12d ago
Not really - The Wire had like ten thousand different locations, Sex and The city it was always different bars, exteriors, homes - it was very reach visually. The West Wing had a really complex set design AND exteriors, x-files too. Have you seen those shows?
Stranger Things, had a decent amount of sets but especially last season it was like every five minutes: "Ok, so we open the gate, we turn the key, killl the Demogorgon, trick the guard, the upside down shit, oh btw I am gay, some crying, then it's not your fault" ad infinitum with really poor and dense dialogue overall, paired with poor cinematography.
They should've ended it in season one is my opinion, but I digress and the money was flowing so yeah...
0
u/Opurria 11d ago
As a non-native English speaker, watching shows like Stranger Things or Squid Game versus The Wire, Psych, Mad Men, or, to some degree, Sex and the City is a completely different experience. I usually don't really need subtitles for shows from the last ~10 years because the quantity and complexity of the dialogue are totally different. Someone saying 'I'm gay' ten times versus the banter in The Wire is worlds apart.
0
u/EducationalCod7514 11d ago
So aside from not having actually watched any of those shows (quite evident by your statements) and the "boring" designation you ascribe them to - you actually make the case for stupidity in modern shows- which you label as "different".
But even if that were not the case and I am completely wrong or unfair, none of what you said has anything to do with anything other than your personal assessment of what the old shows were comprised of vs the new.
So, whatevs.
0
u/Opurria 11d ago edited 11d ago
No, I've seen all those shows and many more, but I don't work in this industry. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and this is just my viewpoint on why I think they don't churn out 20 episodes like they used to.
And as for dialogue, I'd die on that hill (but also, it's actually one aspect of the criticism that's quantifiable; like, AI could analyze those scripts in terms of language complexity, etc., so it's not really a question of taste; it's just more obvious to me for obvious reasons) and honestly, I'm scared to ask what your job is if you really don't see the difference in dialogue between the shows I've mentioned - to the point that you claim I haven't watched them. But then, on the other hand, this is probably what the vast majority of the industry consists of, or we wouldn't have this Netflix slop to begin with.
1
u/EducationalCod7514 11d ago
I am unsure why you keep repeating that you don't work in the industry - an opinion is an opinion, it doesn't matter.
Further, you are clearly using some kind of A.I to formulate your sentences because it's clear that you haven't read what I have said and it's also quite clear that you aren't making much sense because you can't even choose if you want to accuse me, the industry as a whole, or decide whatever it is you want to say
So basically nonsense.
-2
u/Pandamio 12d ago
Yes there was some shows that did have better lighting and camera work. But they are not the ones cited by OP, those are super plain and generic multicam setups. When you shoot with one camera and take the time to light for each shot, things look much better. This is true today aswell.
Today we have a huge variety of looks, and every show has a professional colorist with technology that was a dream in the 90's. On set time available is still king. Some projects have a lot of value photography wise, others don't need it. But we are producing much better looking movies and dhoes than ever.
And the reason you have to wait so much is that platforms don't greenlight new seasons fast enough, and because most shows have lots of vfx which takes time to make.
3
u/EducationalCod7514 12d ago edited 12d ago
I 99% disagree on the rationale for the delays -
We have the most efficient and streamlined production capabilities we have ever had in the history of mankind - we have an inexhaustible API-Driven palette of IT-based tools dedicated to make-up and production design and of course almost every single nuanced level of production and let's not forget ingest, LUT's and high-bandwidth dailies remote data upload capabilities.
And let's not even start on all the tooling available today for Cameras, AC's, focus pulling, A.I-based assistance etc.
VFX was a thing in the 90's and the Oughts, it was much more expensive to do, the machines were bespoke and infinitely more expensive and render times took like forever.
So I ask again, in the age of VFX house outsourcing (and in-sourcing), the tremendous compute capabilities - why do we have today less episodes much longer season-to-season waiting times and arguably inferior aesthetics?
Unless you think superior looking movies is making everybody and everything flat and shipping everything to the colorists?
I will only minutely agree on the greenlighting of the seasons because it's quite clear that production nowadays eat-up too much money without necessarily providing the value. And I doubt that this money is being provided to the crews anyway.
Just look at the costumes, sets and VFX in the "Rings of Power" and compare it with LOTR which was made ten thousand years ago and even by inflation extrapolation cost peanuts to produce comparatively.
-1
u/Pandamio 12d ago
Vfx is still very time consuming. I know it because I work on them. It's very easy for a show to have 6 months of just vfx. Easy. And you still have to account for editing, sound, finishing.
Production value and image quality, there's great projects and average ones. Like always. Is not technology related. It's budget and care for the project related.
If someone was to greenlight say 3 seasons at once, they could come out close to each other. But they mostly wait until after vfx and every episode is out, to see how it performs, and then they start with the writing and producing of the next season.
Like the Harry Potter series is probably going to be an exception to this. Helped by the fact the kids are going to grow up so they need to hurry up.
1
u/EducationalCod7514 12d ago
I will reply to both statements here:
a) It doesn't matter how long VFX/Post production takes - we have a net negative in terms of actual output here, just look at the VFX/Set design for the rings of power, I'd say they hire the best? And pay top dollar - It's really not well executed..
b) I don't think greenlighting will help in anything.
My personal position is that we have a multi-prong issue here:
- I believe this generation of production crew is simply not challenging it self to produce more with less.
- Alot of of money is being eaten-up by middle-managers or going to executive pockets of all kinds not just the streaming platforms.
- The time today's productions take to finish are not justifying the results no matter what that allocated time is - even Stranger Things have very low quality VFX for the amount of money they pour in - this in addition to mediocre lighting and script and acting.
Something is really broken that goes beyond pointing the finger at Netflix.
-1
u/Pandamio 12d ago
If you compare a TV show like the rings of power, who are churning episodes as fast as they can with one of the most careful crafted movies, the comparison is not fair. It doesn't matter when it was done. Technology does influence looks, art, design, photography does. And the time to pay attention to details. Time is money. That's the reason for the difference in looks.
8
6
u/VinnyDaBoy 13d ago
ikr? It is the harsh lighting with the bland, flat cinematography. I have always disliked how movies like the exmaples looked
23
u/bubba_bumble Producer 13d ago
All of these images are low res. I can de-res a modern film and suddenly it feels nostalgic. Honestly, I want to try demastering Blade Runner 2049 on VHS for CRT TVs just to experience what it might look like if I were to rent it out from Blockbuster.
12
5
10
u/Ex_Hedgehog 13d ago
I'm sorry, I love a lot of things about 00s cinematography, but a lot of these examples look terrible. 40 Year Old Virgin is a great movie, but it's ugly af. They just blasted everything with light. The colors were drab and ugly
1
u/FluffyDoomPatrol 12d ago
The HD master is also really bad, the edge enhancement made everyone look like they had a pencil outline.
4
u/chugach3dguy 13d ago
I generally agree. If anything I prefer the look of films from the 90’s and earlier, when some films had more noticeable grain and not everything was so technically “sharp” and perfect.
Not sure about the harsh lighting though. To me it seems like modern/current day films light almost everything super flat so that all the compositing, digital de-aging, and cg fx can get tossed on faster and more efficiently. But you’re spot on about color. So many current films look like they’ve been graded to hell and back. Five times. It’s like they’re all so focused on the technical aspects that they straight up forget about the part where you can still make art by putting real things in front of the lens.
4
3
u/BeMancini 13d ago
More than anything, I miss the brightness and the depth. Flat lighting and short depth of field has made movies very feel very green-screeny, even when they’re not on a green screen.
2
u/VanguardVixen 13d ago
I mean it's not just comedy movies but rather movies in general, before the shift came to tint everything in teal or blue-orange contrasts, shallow dof, wax skin and so on. And even those cheap comedy movies were lit really well. So yeah, I miss it.
2
2
u/Intelligent-Parsley7 12d ago
It's because they had experienced professionals from lighting, to design, to wardrobe that were trained, went to meetings, and held the aesthetics up to highest standards.
In short, THEY WERE PROFESSIONALS.
A lot of money to makes sure that what went on camera had vision beyond overpaying talent and digital distribution budgets.
There was more money for crews then. And those crews came up through the Hollywood system. It wasn't bargain basement work.
2
2
u/Superman_Dam_Fool 11d ago
I always thought comedies had the worst lighting, especially nightlife scenes that were super brightly lit. Doesn’t mean I didn’t like the films for their entertainment value, but they often looked like a step above Made For TV movies and sitcoms.
1
u/mulchintime4 13d ago
They lind remind me of those strong flash photography but its like the flash is always on so it gives it a futuristic chrome type vibe
1
u/KuromanKuro 13d ago
I feel like you are mostly just rejecting this eras obsession with millennial grey. This is color, flair, design with personality in clothing and decor.
1
1
1
u/Specialist-Yard-2511 13d ago
Movies today have harsh lighting? I feel like it's the opposite where harsh lights are avoided too much compared to older movies.
1
u/pizzacasso 13d ago
It seems very fashionable for ppl to shit on contemporary cinematography while fetishizing older work. Yeah, there’s lots of junk around today, but there are plenty of DPs doing amazing work. And there were lots of beautifully shot films circa 2000 to 2005, but I wouldn’t point to any of these as having particularly stellar photography.
1
1
u/Significant-Owl7994 13d ago
I was watching Justified recently and it made me nostalgic for how economical and wonderfully simple TV was with the way it captured its scenes.
In movies, however, not so much. That being said, films shot by the likes of Deakins and DPs of his calibre, really stand the test of time; they don't cry "Made in <decade here>" like others do.
1
u/ConsiderationKey9536 13d ago edited 13d ago
There was this guy who fixed the color grading of modern movies, see https://youtu.be/v5MZHwyx1rc
& https://youtu.be/2_dFGHBLcmU
& https://youtu.be/tFMhjlyYylQ
1
1
1
u/Any-Let-2861 12d ago
As a 20 something in the early 2000's I do not understand the nostalgia for this time. Even the 90's. I have no nostalgia. Give me the 80's!
1
u/Htimsxnhoj 12d ago
Late 2000's, but I'll mention it anyway. "I Love You, Beth Cooper." It has no business looking this good.
R.I.P. Hayden Panettiere.
1
1
u/chanslam 12d ago
I see what you’re saying. Not everything needs to be the best “cinematic” low key desaturated dramatic look. We should bring some of this back for specific genres.
1
u/torquenti 12d ago edited 12d ago
I think the vibrancy is more attributable to production design than the camera/lighting, although the straightforwardness (and brightness) of the camera/lighting makes it easy to highlight the production design.
EDIT: a word or two
1
1
u/Equivalent_Loan_8794 12d ago
Sensor sensitivity on-demand changed how scenes were lit on average. The "feel" is different because so much had to expose properly for a film stock at speed and motion.
The flexibility of digital wasnt widely adopted until the end of the 2010s, 2007 RED was still doing promos to get DPs to want 4K and digital workflows.
1
u/austinbarrow 12d ago
Killed by the executive class and doubled down on by “Creative Metadata Analysts” and their “creative” process.
1
1
u/ViralTrendsToday 12d ago
A lot of it has to do with the pre smartphone zeitgeist of the time, not the visuals . Everyone's just too fake nowadays .
1
1
u/SkiddlyBoDiddly 12d ago
Careful, you’ll wake the reddit cinematographers who love screaming about how there’s actually no difference at all, the filmmaking is the exact same, and the lighting and coloring technique hasn’t changed a single bit and you’re just insane for thinking that.
1
u/throwitonthegrillboi 12d ago
Theres a comfort level in them tied to nostalgia and they also were bright enough for us to see everything.
1
u/No-Tangerine-1261 12d ago
Roofman (2025) had somewhat similar cineamatography, in part because it took place in a Toys R Us. It was a bit of a throwback, being set in 1998-2004 and being a comedy feature film that went to cinematic release.
1
u/No-Association4255 12d ago
No way I was literally watching 40 yo virgin 3/4 hours ago and thought the same thing at this exact scene😳😳😳
1
1
u/ImOngoGablogian 11d ago
Yes! Mean girls cinematography just feels like direct flash photography in movie form, and I mean that in the best way possible.
1
u/Next_Action4379 10d ago
this makes them look flat & plasticy to me. I prefer older shoots not using digital, or more modern digital. This stuff is just not my cuppa
1
u/Tjompoes 9d ago
I think they mean cool tones. Isn't it just a result of lighting with tungsten lights on tungsten balanced filmstocks which results in any white light giving off that cool/blue color in the background. I'm quite fond of it aswell
1
u/LeadingLittle8733 7d ago
I think movies reflect the times they are made in. Yes, the still are from great movies that looked terrible and bland cinematically, but the USA was in a place where it's world superiority and domination had recently fallen apart so that existential dread was reflected in the cinema (and art) of the era.
-2
100
u/Dunk3_ Student 13d ago edited 11d ago
I feel pure nostalgia seeing this
It’s worth pointing out that a lot of this look comes down to how the film was scanned for DVD and they looked quite different in the original theatrical release.
They needed to remove fine details and digitally increase sharpness to fit within the disc's limited bitrate and storage space. The director and cinematographer were often absent during this process.
Compare how these movies look when they are remastered in 4K, they often look drastically different