The literal mindedness feels like a cousin of the lettboxd-ification of viewing movies. The supposed need for Joe Moviegoer to assign a rating to something, rank it, etc.

Oh wow I must have missed it then

Umm I am also racking my brain and would like to know lol

Fair enough, I appreciate your thoughts on it since I know from your writing you actually give a shit about these types of visual aspects of movies. Anyway suppose I can appreciate it as a stylistic choice even if it's not my preference.

Robert Daniels called it out in his review, but idk why you go through with film shooting on location to produce something that imo looks like it could have been done with artificial backgrounds. I really want to love it the way everyone else seems to but just struggled with it visually.

I tried bringing this up to you in another thread, but I saw it in non imax PLF and thought a lot of the outdoor scenes looked like they were done in the volume, star wars/marvel style. Maybe just a product of shallow depth of field? Maybe it looks better on a film print? Maybe I'm the issue?