This is why the Ghostbusters 2016 will probably suck. Group photo aesthetics.
Allow me to first elaborate on what that is.
A group photo is supposed to show everyone with in the simplest way possible. Just line them up, let them face the same direction and take the pic. Simple.
Group photo aesthetics is not about getting the best POV of many, it has ONE SINGLE POV.
So if the film has lots of group photo aesthetics, then it's probably bad.
>>71830295
I am dying to know what type of music the band is playing at the concert. What is it?
>>71830317
Something about grrlpower
>>71830328
misogynist detected
>>71830328
>Something about grrlpower
A sure investment since 1998.
Also, check this one out too:
>>71830132
Group photo aesthetics.
>>71830317
>stacks of marshal amps
must be a real band...
the beegees you must be dancing.
>>71830328
The band members look male so I doubt it.
I hope it is hard rock. I doubt it would be this heavy tho:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xjiCh88q4kA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG83qBuQ_A8
>>71830295
honestly I don't understand what you're saying and how it makes the op's pic bad. Though I do think the op's pic isn't good
>>71830317
CANT WAKE UP
>>71830528
Group photo aesthetics is simply lazy.
That is a phenomenon I've first observed in porn mags back in the 90's. In a lot of pics, everyone is angled so that there's ONE POV. Just move a couple of steps to either side and you miss the action. Of course, this was not filmed porn, but photographed. And everyone that could stared into the camera.
Of course, there's always one POV that is the best. But if there's only one that works, do try to hide it.
I'll guess that I'll have to d/l the film and spot all the cases of group photo aesthetics.
>>71830528
Maybe OP is saying, the more a team is shown of by unnecessary amounts of poses and scenes and etc. rather than just giving them one simple nice shot for people to take in; it then begins to feel forced that you have to like them, rather than naturally liking them on your own...I dunno, I should sleep
>>71830607
>"We'd like to thank the Ghostbusters for coming out tonight".
>>71830722
now you're confusing me even more, what does that have to do with aesthetics
>>71830609
why in hell are you talking about pov porn, meaning first person view where the camera is a a subjective point of view for a character in the action, with the op's pic where the camera is an objective point of view outside of the action. Sorry if I'm being retarded
>>71830830
>why in hell are you talking about pov porn
Not at all. I am talking about the camera's POV. Not the POV of a character.
And for the OP pic, true there's plenty of other POVs that would show them all off. But this is just contrived.
>>71830609
Stop making a fool of yourself by trying to sound intelligent which is making no sense
>>71830830
>aesthetics
P.S. Is how you show something etc.
>>71830880
>fagnon is stumped over someone else thought something that fagnon didn't think in the first place
>>71830295
>Marshall
>Marshall
>Marshall
>Marshall
