Have you noticed that modern cinema has become dull? Here's what might be the reason

Meryl Streep in "The Devil Wears Prada" (2006) and "The Devil Wears Prada 2" (2026). Photo: stills from trailers

"The Devil Wears Prada 2," the TV series "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and "And Just Like That," the series prequel to "Legally Blonde" — all these major films, and not only them, received many comments on social media regarding their colors. While the first "The Devil Wears Prada," the original "Harry Potter," and "Legally Blonde" were bright and appealing, their "successors" display a cold and almost gray picture.

To explain what's happening with color in cinema, director Andrei Kashperski recalls a meme from film sets. When filmmakers encounter issues, they usually say they'll fix this or that thing during editing or post-production, especially since modern technologies truly allow almost anything to be corrected.

Павялічыць

Andrei Kashperski

It seems, however, that filmmakers are offloading many changes to post-production even without much necessity:

"It's often easier to shoot everything on a green screen (chromakey — NN) in very soft and fill light, without nuances, without shadows. And then to draw in the filter, color, and atmosphere.

When it comes to popular and big films, shooting this way is safer and cheaper. So they make the lighting on set universal and flat, so it can be reworked later. And when cinema turns into such an assembly line, it's easier not to invent complex shots, not to take risks, but to make everything neutral."

Павялічыць

Daniel Radcliffe in "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (2001) and Dominic McLaughlin in the eponymous series (due out December 2026). Photo: stills from trailers

All films are shot in log format, says Andrei. That format provides no color, and during shooting, you can see a gray picture in the video editor. Only in post-production will it become colorful.

But there are still directors who fight for color and think about it even before shooting, although it's more difficult. For example, Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan — Kashperski calls them apostles of film. Or Paul Thomas Anderson, who directed "Battle for Battle" — a film that won an Oscar this year. There are also cinematographers who don't 'dial up' their shots on the computer but immediately make the shot rough and excellent.

Part of the reason is also the switch from film to digital cameras, because film didn't offer such possibilities in editing. Although, Andrei says, you can shoot on film in different ways.

So why are cold and gloomy colors often chosen during that editing process? Andrei says that, in his opinion, it's about money:

"Unusual solutions are always risks. Today, cinema is made for streaming, for phones and algorithms; the picture needs to work equally well on a phone on the subway and on a cheap TV. That's why studios are afraid of shadows, complex lighting, and saturated colors.

In the 1990s, any average film was approached as if it were a Steven Spielberg movie. But now, very often, they just make content."

Or perhaps filmmakers have simply become lazy? Andrei agrees that this is also a factor:

"Laziness on set also plays a big role. Today, it's very difficult and time-consuming to do something unusual on set, to invent complex lighting or something else, to deliberately 'dirty' the shot: for example, to put a red chair in the frame or make the walls wooden. This is long, complex, and risky, because producers or the studio might not approve it."

Kashperski, however, believes that we won't have to endure the grayness in cinema for much longer. Audiences, he says, are waiting for something real, and studios will be forced to listen to this.

• 8
• 1
• 3
• 1
• 1
• 2
• 2
• 0