Full disclosure I haven't watched to, or listened to this video. I just saw that the premise is "2000s movies looked good" and that's enough for me.

I consider myself a bit of a film guy. I was born in the early 90s, so I should have nostalgia for the 2000s films, right?

Well I mostly watched what we had recorded VHS tapes growing up, Neverending Story, Star Wars trilogy, Indiana Jones trilogy, etc.

So like any kid I'd watch and rewatch those movies. So around the time where I'm starting to use my head and observe, entering in my early teens and going to theaters I can tell that movies are different to the classics I'd watch and rewatch on tape, or older movies I'd see on cable.

CGI looked ugly to me, film looked more artificial.

I've always been able to tell CGI and it always pulled me out of the film. It's just too contrast-y with real footage that I don't know how people can be immersed by CGI effects.

Even stop motion effects are real physical objects being captured with the same cameras that capture the rest of the movie. My brain can accept a bad stop motion effect better than a good CGI effect easier because the stop motion effect is a physical object.

CGI it feels like a PS3 game just entered into the frame. I don't know how it's not immersion breaking for others.

Anyways I've always maintained the same opinion I had 20 years ago. The early 2000s were awful for movies (and haven't gotten any better, only worse) and awful for music (rock died in the early 2000s, everything started trending towards stuff like Coldplay and Justin Timberlake whereas 90s had Alice in Chains as a major band on the radio), but the early 2000s were great for video games.

That third opinion, the video game one is one I feel even moreso now in hindsight. I merely enjoyed video games not realizing how great they were in the early 2000s, whereas I could detect the real dropoff with film and music in the early 2000s.

To me, the 90s was the last good decade for film, not just in things like acting and scripts, and overall feel, but also how movies looked. I really don't think 2000s movies have that filmic look I love about 90s and earlier films. King Kong 2005 looks artificial and like people are doing all this post process color grading, and that was the standard. This color grade crap was a plague on film.

So to see 2000s films being praised for their visual style is pretty bad, and it's like yeah, if you judge anything from right now, it will look good, because modern movies are past the rubicon of even being considered films anymore. But that shouldn't be the standard. It'd be like praising Maroon 5, that pile of garbage, because they're not Cardi B.

That's what happens when your measurement is the modern day.

If you consider 2026 then yeah 2000s movies are masterpieces of visual intention.

If you consider every other decade the 2000s was a giant dive off the cliff visually.

The Warriors from 1979 has more visual interest than all the 2000s films put together, and it was mostly down to good looking film stock and good lighting decisions.

Full disclosure I haven't watched to, or listened to this video. I just saw that the premise is "2000s movies looked good" and that's enough for me.

I consider myself a bit of a film guy. I was born in the early 90s, so I should have nostalgia for the 2000s films, right?

Well I mostly watched what we had recorded VHS tapes growing up, Neverending Story, Star Wars, Indiana Jones trilogy, etc.

So like any kid I'd watch and rewatch those movies. So around the time where I'm starting to use my head and observe, entering in my early teens and going to theaters I can tell that movies are different to the classics I'd watch and rewatch on tape, or older movies I'd see on cable.

CGI looked ugly to me, film looked more artificial.

I've always been able to tell CGI and it always pulled me out of the film. It's just too contrast-y with real footage that I don't know how people can be immersed by CGI effects.

Even stop motion effects are real physical objects being captured with the same cameras that capture the rest of the movie. My brain can accept a bad stop motion effect better than a good CGI effect easier because the stop motion effect is a physical object.

CGI it feels like a PS3 game just entered into the frame. I don't know how it's not immersion breaking for others.

Anyways I've always maintained the same opinion I had 20 years ago. The early 2000s were awful for movies (and haven't gotten any better, only worse) and awful for music (rock died in the early 2000s, everything started trending towards stuff like Coldplay and Justin Timberlake whereas 90s had Alice in Chains as a major band on the radio), but the early 2000s were great for video games.

That third opinion, the video game one is one I feel even moreso now in hindsight. I merely enjoyed video games not realizing how great they were in the early 2000s, whereas I could detect the real dropoff with film and music in the early 2000s.

To me, the 90s was the last good decade for film, not just in things like acting and scripts, and overall feel, but also how movies looked. I really don't think 2000s movies have that filmic look I love about 90s and earlier films. King Kong 2005 looks artificial and like people are doing all this post process color grading, and that was the standard. This color grade crap was a plague on film.

So to see 2000s films being praised for their visual style is pretty bad, and it's like yeah, if you judge anything from right now, it will look good, because modern movies are past the rubicon of even being considered films anymore. But that shouldn't be the standard. It'd be like praising Maroon 5, that pile of garbage, because they're not Cardi B.

That's what happens when your measurement is the modern day.

If you consider 2026 then yeah 2000s movies are masterpieces of visual intention.

If you consider every other decade the 2000s was a giant dive off the cliff visually.

The Warriors from 1979 has more visual interest than all the 2000s films put together, and it was mostly down to good looking film stock and good lighting decisions.

Full disclosure I haven't watched to, or listened to this video. I just saw that the premise is "2000s movies looked good" and that's enough for me.

I consider myself a bit of a film guy. I was born in the early 90s, so I should have nostalgia for the 2000s films?

Well I mostly watched what we had recorded VHS tapes growing up, Neverending Story, Star Wars, Indiana Jones trilogy, etc.

So like any kid I'd watch and rewatch those movies. So around the time where I'm starting to use my head, entering in my early teens and going to theaters I can tell that movies are different to the classics I'd watch and rewatch on tape, or older movies I'd see on cable.

CGI looked ugly to me, film looked more artificial.

I've always been able to tell CGI and it always pulled me out of the film. It's just too contrasty with real footage that I don't know how people can be immersed by CGI effects.

Even stop motion effects are real physical objects being captured with the same cameras that capture the rest of the movie. My brain can accept a bad stop motion effect better than a good CGI effect easier because the stop motion effect is a physical object.

CGI it feels like a PS3 game just entered into the frame. I don't know how it's immersion breaking.

Anyways I've always maintained the same opinion I had 20 years ago. The early 2000s were awful for movies (and haven't gotten any better, only worse) and awful for music (rock died in the early 2000s, everything started trending towards stuff like Coldplay and Justin Timberlake whereas 90s had Alice in Chains as a major band on the radio), but the early 2000s were great for video games.

That third opinion, the video game one is one I feel even moreso now in hindsight. I merely enjoyed video games not realizing how great they were in the early 2000s, whereas I could detect the real dropoff with film and music in the early 2000s.

To me, the 90s was the last good decade for film, not just in things like acting and scripts, and overall feel, but also how movies looked. I really don't think 2000s movies have that filmic look I love about 90s and earlier films. King Kong 2005 looks artificial and like people are doing all this post process color grading, and that was the standard. This color grade crap was a plague on film.

So to see 2000s films being praised for their visual style is pretty bad, and it's like yeah, if you judge anything from right now, it will look good, because modern movies are past the rubicon of even being considered films anymore. But that shouldn't be the standard. It'd be like praising Maroon 5, that pile of garbage, because they're not Cardi B.

That's what happens when your measurement is the modern day.

If you consider 2026 then yeah 2000s movies are masterpieces of visual intention.

If you consider every other decade the 2000s was a giant dive off the cliff visually.

The Warriors from 1979 has more visual interest than all the 2000s films put together, and it was mostly down to good looking film stock and good lighting decisions.