Like the original Star Wars trilogy, Indiana Jones, etc.
35mm is the standard for films. I wonder what all of the classic films would look like if 70mm was the standard.
I get its prohibitively expensive which is why it's rare for a film to do it.
It's just fun to imagine if 70mm was the standard used by basically every film.
The only reason not to film digital is if you enjoy grain, which is objectively an imperfection.
People might say that 23.976 fps is objectively an imperfection, but those that have seen 60 fps film footage knows it utterly destroys that movie magic feel. It turns movies into gaudy soap opera effect garbage even though 60 fps is closer to what our eyes can see.
Likewise when I see a movie shot on certain film stocks like what Logan's run was shot on, it's beautiful and has an intangible quality to it that I've never experienced with digital movies. I think digital is completely charmless. If I were a movie star in the modern age, I'd never really feel like a movie star because of the way modern movies look. Even modern movies that are shot on film have an almost digital look to them because the film stocks don't have interesting characteristics and the characteristics they do have are probably destroyed in the post process so it looks like every other modern movie.
I don't want a grainy film noise ridden picture, but being shot on film which has film grain doesn't necessarily mean the film is grainy looking. Many movies shot on film are pristine.
Take the difference between Goodfellas and Casino. Both shot on film, but Goodfellas is grainy and Casino is pristine.
But both look far better than modern movies because there's charm and style in how the picture looks that modern movies lack.
4k super high quality TVs make movies absolutely unwatchable for me. I want that 24 fps rubbish. It just feels...I dunno, too sterile or something. Maybe it's just some low level psychology thing with just enough frames missing that our imagination is filling in enough of the gaps that it provides a more fulfilling experience similar to how reading the book is always better than watching the movie adaptation. Whatever it is, the super high quality 60 fps video experience just drains my desire to watch a film. I don't understand why, but it ruins it for me.
I wonder if the lower framerate somehow makes it a little easier to keep track of what's going on (visually) throughout scenes. Especially during rather action packed and chaotic scenes.
It's also a little difficult to gauge honestly, since most modern films, filmed on digital, have generally adopted a lot of Abrams-style techniques that make things extra jarring. The reboot of Total Recall comes to mind. The whole bloody thing seemed like an endless chase scene.
Not that it was that bad of a movie, but in the end I didn't feel like anything happened throughout it that I could give a single fuck about.