>>4391485
Yorgos Lanthimos is a really great film director and has very obviously a great aesthetic sense as well
on top of that he's shooting in a film set, with amazing light, scenery, clothing, actors/actresses
it's no surprise these would turn out good
I'm not taking away his merit, I loved the shots, but like... were you surprised?
it's kinda like finding out an elite soccer player would absolutely fucking destroy you in a 100m sprint
it's not exactly their work but it's strictly adjacent, of course they'll be good at it
just as it is obvious that Yorgos' photos on set will be good

>>4391494
it's not fair. a director can be good photographer but a photographer can't be a good director. not fucking fair at all!

>>4391496
>a director can be good photographer but a photographer can't be a good director.
git gud

>>4391497
you're not a smart ass. you won't be able to handle a feature

>>4391498
>wat
I simply have no will to be a director
I'm just saying a photographer *can* be a good director
if you want to but can't that's >skill issue, not some onthological condition that determines that photographers are incapable of being good movie directors
>it's not fair! whaaa!
kek git gud

>>4391500
can you ask Yorgos Lanthimos to give me job on his set?

>>4391501
Sure, okay.

>>4391497
>a director can be good photographer
Not really, only the ones who are visually good

>>4391494
>has very obviously a great aesthetic sense as well
desu this the main thing he has going for him. I enjoyed poor things from an aesthetic perspective as it was undeniably visually interesting and used its set design to reinforce its message; but on the flip side the story itself was tired (naïve girl finds out the world sucks, but this time she's Frankenstein's monster!) and really reveled in itself for how status quo affirming it was. it couldn't decide if sex positivity was something empowering or exploitative, it decisively came out against helping the poor unless you personally know them, and it couldn't even condemn Godwin for his unethical human experimentation. it was fun to watch and better than marvel 3 the remarveling slop but every time I think back on it I really wonder wtf yorgos wanted me to understand beyond "life is strange."

Directors are just spray n' praying at 24 fps
No surprise they occasionally get good shots
Monkeys writing Shakespeare

>>4391486
decent
>>4391487
decent
>>4391488
bad
>>4391489
bad
>>4391490
decent
>>4391491
dogshit
>>4391492
dogshit
>>4391493
nice

rest are all boring crap

>>4391612
everyone get a load of this plotcel who can't enjoy a movie when she can't boil it down to the most reductive social/moral prescriptions
i bet for filmmakers, the people who think about movies but in a dumb way are even worse than the people who watch without thinking at all

Disparate pretentious nonsense

Photography is dead for the same reason ALL art is dead. It’s an insular circlejerk similar to 4channers sharing and building upon memes while trying hard not to come off as an outsider or newcomer (unless they are hella schizo) - and there’s a lot of schizophrenia of course. The elevation of mental illness in the arts was a huge mistake but noveltyfags gonna novelty.

>>4391686
honestly if the punishment for art criticism and reviews were death we’d see a massive improvement

also see: the state of fine dining
>would you like some deconstructed tomato soup with your breadless bread plate, sir?
tastemakers and their midwit followers did this

>>4391612
I didn't watch Poor Things, but I watched The Lobster, Dogtooth and The Killing of a Sacred Deer
you'll see that an aesthetic sense is not "the main thing he has going for him" (also as if it wasn't enough for a good photographer – maybe not a great one, but for sure enough for a very good one)]
>>4391669
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ok nophoto

>>4391494
>really great film director
LOL

Some good shots honestly; cool to see some of the background of a film production.