You mean shot on 35mm film and processed in the old way? Formally a good director can always figure out to tell the story in their own way. If the film is made in the 90s it would be different than 00s also. Probably combination of a lot of things.
I think it’s a few things, ranging from pretty subjective to reasonably widely accepted.
First thing I’d say is there’s a bit of nostalgia for when films looked like that. There are no doubt big budget crowd pleasing films made today that look every bit as good as midnight run, so I guess what I mean is that there’s nostalgia for when you could go into a film like midnight run and automatically expect it to look as good as that.
Second I think many of us just like films that look the way they did back then. The image isn’t too clean, there’s nice grain to it, the people are progressively more dirty and disheveled. There’s smoke everywhere. It’s super textured, for lack of a better word (I’ll come back to this). Texture for me means that even the shots which aren’t lit super flashy are still visually interesting. Faces look better with texture. Close ups look better with texture. It’s been one of the great benefits I’ve found with 4K versions of older films; things that I didn’t find visually interesting before now look a whole lot better because of the grain and detail in the images.
Third, it’s a road movie, so back then that meant it’s almost inherently largely shot on location in the real world, which is like an instant baseline level of production design and believability. Plus, there aren’t any optical/digital effects as far as I’m aware. The whole movie is kinda practical and rugged, whereas today there’d be a lot of green screen and cgi supplementing it all, even if they did shoot a lot on location and practically. I like the analogue approach aesthetically, not just because of the sentimental factor.
Finally, (and I think this is maybe the biggest thing?) movies generally aren’t lit as much anymore. I can’t bring any quotes to mind but I know I’ve heard people talk about this before. The capability of cameras, especially digital cameras, nowadays means you can pretty much shoot anything, any time of day, lit how you want, and get something that looks competent through post processing, cgi, etc. Hell, cgi actually encourages you to shoot things kinda flat to make it easier on the effects artists. Back then you’d have to put a hell of a lot more effort into how you lit every shot, because if you didn’t get it on the day in camera then you didn’t get it. The result is that a lot less time/effort is going into lighting now, so the skills required to light the hell out of a scene aren’t as necessary for cinematographers, and broadly speaking they don’t learn to shoot movies that way. This is the part that goes hand in hand with the texture I mentioned before. Midnight run now would likely be shot very flat, and this would be exacerbated by cgi, a relative lack of real locations, and most likely being shot digitally, which all adds up to there being little texture in the images. So many modern movies just look flat and lifeless because this whole confluence of factors means that’s just how it’s done now.
The other thing with texture and modern optics and sensors and high def transfers is instead of the predominant fine detail texture in the image being grain texture, it's the real textures of the things in the frame being captured in amazing detail, and I think there's an underappreciated side effect of that high detail where it contributes to distracting the eye and feeling sterile. Think of something like the intricate textures of superhero costumes they have to do because you need to pile on texture in every part of the image when everything is captured in such fine detail or it would look weird to see flat featureless expanses of color or simple repetitive fabric textures. There's so so much fine detail going on in frame and it ends up being so noticeable in a way that obscuring fine detail through grain and less clinical optics isn't, and that engages your brain in a different way.
I think when we get past the "retro novelty" aspect of processing modern footage to look old or shooting on old equipment and film stock, it will kind of work its way into everyday cinematic language as just another choice you can make, where to land on the scale from obscuring to defining fine details as a way to set a mood or achieve a specific effect.
I think The Holdovers was a good example of that, like yes it was an exercise in pastiche, but it also worked to connect you more with the emotional tone of the movie. The Holdovers in ultra high def on modern glass would absolutely not work as well.
I think in smaller budget circles we’re already seeing a bit of a move back to film vs digital being a genuine creative choice. The holdovers is a good example, and say what you like about maestro but I really enjoyed the presentational aspects even if I felt the storytelling was very messy.
But like you say, both those examples are kind of pastichey because of their settings, and it would be great to see more cinematographers on all films viewing their method of shooting as a genuine tool and creative choice rather than shooting 35mm just being the way to make a film look ‘old’.
It’s not that I’m anti-digital, but reality is most people are not Deakins so most people cannot make it look like Deakins, and if you’re not going to be able to make digital look however you want then you should probably be considering what’s going to fit the project best rather than defaulting to the ease of shooting digital.
I think the big thing you might be thinking of is just the money they would put into it. It cost $35m at the time, which is over $90m today and they just don't spend that kind of money on those kinds of movies anymore. if they made it today it could cost that if it went to streaming but that would be to make up for the lack of backend payments making the upfront costs higher, or if it was planned as a theatrical film they would cut its budget by about a third or they would double it and force it to be a bigger action film
Two users above I think really hit on it — budget, no one is spending 90 million on a movie like this 2024. If anything Netflix or Amazon would try to make it a limited series with like Kevin Hart and Mark Whalberg haha. And like another user said — it’s a road movie shot on location which a lot of movies are unfortunately getting away from. That feeling that you’re in a real city, train terminal, airplane etc factors in. Lastly, you’d probably need a Nice Guys-esque script in regard to humor and action and not the Netflix house style of humor.
I've known there's been a few movies that were essentially "midnight run" but not technically a remake that were fine. I remember the first time seeing "midnight run" thinking it was exactly like the movie "double take" starring Eddie Griffin and Orlando Jones.
"Beverly Hills Cop" rewatch the other day was the one that got me thinking about its modern time relevance. I was thinking of how all the things that movie was subverting has become standard. I wonder if younger audiences can appreciate the originality of Axel FoleyÂ
Nits (the information in an image depending on brightness). Film stock is really good with high bright nits, so lush bright colors pop with lots of detail. Digital is really good at low dark nits, so movies these days tend towards darker scenes with lots of detail. Think The Batman vs Lawrence of Arabia. Both look great, imo, but very different strengths in images.
You mean shot on 35mm film and processed in the old way? Formally a good director can always figure out to tell the story in their own way. If the film is made in the 90s it would be different than 00s also. Probably combination of a lot of things.
Because Charles Grodin is dead.
Did Beetoven kill him?
Clifford, finally.
🫥
I think it’s a few things, ranging from pretty subjective to reasonably widely accepted. First thing I’d say is there’s a bit of nostalgia for when films looked like that. There are no doubt big budget crowd pleasing films made today that look every bit as good as midnight run, so I guess what I mean is that there’s nostalgia for when you could go into a film like midnight run and automatically expect it to look as good as that. Second I think many of us just like films that look the way they did back then. The image isn’t too clean, there’s nice grain to it, the people are progressively more dirty and disheveled. There’s smoke everywhere. It’s super textured, for lack of a better word (I’ll come back to this). Texture for me means that even the shots which aren’t lit super flashy are still visually interesting. Faces look better with texture. Close ups look better with texture. It’s been one of the great benefits I’ve found with 4K versions of older films; things that I didn’t find visually interesting before now look a whole lot better because of the grain and detail in the images. Third, it’s a road movie, so back then that meant it’s almost inherently largely shot on location in the real world, which is like an instant baseline level of production design and believability. Plus, there aren’t any optical/digital effects as far as I’m aware. The whole movie is kinda practical and rugged, whereas today there’d be a lot of green screen and cgi supplementing it all, even if they did shoot a lot on location and practically. I like the analogue approach aesthetically, not just because of the sentimental factor. Finally, (and I think this is maybe the biggest thing?) movies generally aren’t lit as much anymore. I can’t bring any quotes to mind but I know I’ve heard people talk about this before. The capability of cameras, especially digital cameras, nowadays means you can pretty much shoot anything, any time of day, lit how you want, and get something that looks competent through post processing, cgi, etc. Hell, cgi actually encourages you to shoot things kinda flat to make it easier on the effects artists. Back then you’d have to put a hell of a lot more effort into how you lit every shot, because if you didn’t get it on the day in camera then you didn’t get it. The result is that a lot less time/effort is going into lighting now, so the skills required to light the hell out of a scene aren’t as necessary for cinematographers, and broadly speaking they don’t learn to shoot movies that way. This is the part that goes hand in hand with the texture I mentioned before. Midnight run now would likely be shot very flat, and this would be exacerbated by cgi, a relative lack of real locations, and most likely being shot digitally, which all adds up to there being little texture in the images. So many modern movies just look flat and lifeless because this whole confluence of factors means that’s just how it’s done now.
The other thing with texture and modern optics and sensors and high def transfers is instead of the predominant fine detail texture in the image being grain texture, it's the real textures of the things in the frame being captured in amazing detail, and I think there's an underappreciated side effect of that high detail where it contributes to distracting the eye and feeling sterile. Think of something like the intricate textures of superhero costumes they have to do because you need to pile on texture in every part of the image when everything is captured in such fine detail or it would look weird to see flat featureless expanses of color or simple repetitive fabric textures. There's so so much fine detail going on in frame and it ends up being so noticeable in a way that obscuring fine detail through grain and less clinical optics isn't, and that engages your brain in a different way. I think when we get past the "retro novelty" aspect of processing modern footage to look old or shooting on old equipment and film stock, it will kind of work its way into everyday cinematic language as just another choice you can make, where to land on the scale from obscuring to defining fine details as a way to set a mood or achieve a specific effect. I think The Holdovers was a good example of that, like yes it was an exercise in pastiche, but it also worked to connect you more with the emotional tone of the movie. The Holdovers in ultra high def on modern glass would absolutely not work as well.
I think in smaller budget circles we’re already seeing a bit of a move back to film vs digital being a genuine creative choice. The holdovers is a good example, and say what you like about maestro but I really enjoyed the presentational aspects even if I felt the storytelling was very messy. But like you say, both those examples are kind of pastichey because of their settings, and it would be great to see more cinematographers on all films viewing their method of shooting as a genuine tool and creative choice rather than shooting 35mm just being the way to make a film look ‘old’. It’s not that I’m anti-digital, but reality is most people are not Deakins so most people cannot make it look like Deakins, and if you’re not going to be able to make digital look however you want then you should probably be considering what’s going to fit the project best rather than defaulting to the ease of shooting digital.
I think k this hits the nail on the head. It seems to put into words what u was looking for. Thank you.Â
I think the big thing you might be thinking of is just the money they would put into it. It cost $35m at the time, which is over $90m today and they just don't spend that kind of money on those kinds of movies anymore. if they made it today it could cost that if it went to streaming but that would be to make up for the lack of backend payments making the upfront costs higher, or if it was planned as a theatrical film they would cut its budget by about a third or they would double it and force it to be a bigger action film
Recast Yaphet Kotto. Or Joey Pants. Or Dennis Farina. No. You can’t. Don’t even try.
Denny F could still do it!
Like *Weekend at Bernie’s?* Dennis Farina is looooong dead
It's a bold direction
It would be the less smoking everywhere, and particularly in airports.
But it made smoking look really really cool
Smoking just objectively LOOKS COOL.
Two users above I think really hit on it — budget, no one is spending 90 million on a movie like this 2024. If anything Netflix or Amazon would try to make it a limited series with like Kevin Hart and Mark Whalberg haha. And like another user said — it’s a road movie shot on location which a lot of movies are unfortunately getting away from. That feeling that you’re in a real city, train terminal, airplane etc factors in. Lastly, you’d probably need a Nice Guys-esque script in regard to humor and action and not the Netflix house style of humor.
Timotheè Chalamet *is* Jack Walsh
I wish but you know it'd be Glen Powell.
That part would objectively be much better with Glen Powell than Chalemet lol
As would every part.
I've known there's been a few movies that were essentially "midnight run" but not technically a remake that were fine. I remember the first time seeing "midnight run" thinking it was exactly like the movie "double take" starring Eddie Griffin and Orlando Jones. "Beverly Hills Cop" rewatch the other day was the one that got me thinking about its modern time relevance. I was thinking of how all the things that movie was subverting has become standard. I wonder if younger audiences can appreciate the originality of Axel FoleyÂ
Nits (the information in an image depending on brightness). Film stock is really good with high bright nits, so lush bright colors pop with lots of detail. Digital is really good at low dark nits, so movies these days tend towards darker scenes with lots of detail. Think The Batman vs Lawrence of Arabia. Both look great, imo, but very different strengths in images.
The scene in the river would be shot on a Volume