I’ve been trying to understand something that’s been bothering me visually, and I’m curious how others here see it.
I just watched the new trailer for The Odyssey, which is shot on 70mm film with a top-tier cinematographer, and yet, it still has that flat, modern feel that, to me, lacks the richness and texture of older films. I compare it to something from the '80s and '90s, and back then, even simple close-ups felt more alive, more dimensional, more present.
I used to think it was film vs digital, but that clearly isn’t it anymore. So, I started breaking it down, and I think the difference comes from a combination of choices rather than the medium itself.
Modern workflows tend to preserve information everywhere. Highlights are protected, shadows are lifted. Older films often allowed highlights (especially on skin) to slightly clip and shadows to fall off completely. That loss of information actually creates stronger contrast and perceived texture.
Lighting philosophy feels different. Older images feel sculpted, light creates shape and falloff. Modern lighting often feels more even or naturalistic, which reduces that sense of depth.
Color is handled differently at a granular level. In older films, skin tones carry subtle variations. Modern grading often smooths and unifies color, which removes that micro-variation and makes the image feel flatter.
Highlight behavior on skin is a big one. In older films, highlights break more abruptly, creating a sense of shine and texture. Today, highlight roll-off is smoother and more controlled, which is technically better, but visually less alive.
Lenses and image character. Older glass introduced imperfections like halation, softness, lower contrast. Modern lenses are extremely clean and sharp, which can feel clinical unless intentionally countered.
Post-production philosophy. It feels like older films committed to a look early (lighting, exposure, stock), while modern workflows capture a neutral image (often in log) and decide later. That flexibility might actually be part of what’s flattening things.
So even when something is shot on film today, it still goes through a modern pipeline by being scanned, graded, optimized, and ends up with that same protected look.
The best way I can describe it is:
Older films seem willing to lose information to gain structure, while modern films tend to preserve everything, even if it reduces depth.
Curious how others here think about this.
Is this mainly a grading philosophy? Lighting? Lens choice? Or just a broader shift in visual language?