TopBilled

Why do some classic movie fans bash newer films?

315 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

True, but not with the high percentage of revenue coming from overseas that they have today. Did you know in the early sound days they had to phonetically sound out the foreign language versions of the films? Poor Buster Keaton had to make the MGM films that he disliked so much in English, Spanish, AND French! I think it led to him becoming such a severe alcoholic.

Not sure why we're comparing today's revenues with revenues from the 1930s without adjusting for inflation. The point is that international exhibition has always been a large chunk of Hollywood's business. Otherwise they wouldn't have made early sound films in multiple languages, or they wouldn't go to the trouble of dubbing or subtitling American films and TV programs in foreign languages for the markets abroad.

Also, it seems like you are latching on to a form of xenophobia as a reason to explain your dislike for current Hollywood films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Not sure why we're comparing today's revenues with revenues from the 1930s without adjusting for inflation. The point is that international exhibition has always been a large chunk of Hollywood's business. Otherwise they wouldn't have made early sound films in multiple languages, or they wouldn't go to the trouble of dubbing or subtitling American films and TV programs in foreign languages for the markets abroad.

Also, it seems like you are latching on to a form of xenophobia as a reason to explain your dislike for current Hollywood films. 

I've never been called the X word before! Not had our morning coffee yet TB? :) Also, you will note I was talking percentage of revenue from outside of the US, not total dollars. That would make no sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

I've never been called the X word before! Not had our morning coffee yet TB? :) Also, you will note I was talking percentage of revenue from outside of the US, not total dollars. That would make no sense!

Sorry...but I did feel you were practicing a form of xenophobia. Why should it matter to you if "our" films are marketed to "others." Other cultures influence our films, and our films influence other cultures. That's the reciprocal part of the business. Hollywood product is one of the biggest exports from the U.S. That's something to be proud of, if you ask me.

Also it seems like you are discriminating against newer films because of their age. Not sure if it's the age of the film or the younger generation talent involved...seems like both. 

If you don't like newer films because you don't find them entertaining or thoughtful, then I can get on board with that. Even if you're making a broad generalization. But if you are finding outside reasons to hate something, dressing up "phobias" or discriminations as reasons not to watch these films, I cannot get on board with that.

I don't see the value in applying false "concerns" as reasons not to watch or support a film, regardless of when it was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, calvinnme said:

True, but not with the high percentage of revenue coming from overseas that they have today. Did you know in the early sound days they had to phonetically sound out the foreign language versions of the films? Poor Buster Keaton had to make the MGM films that he disliked so much in English, Spanish, AND French! I think it led to him becoming such a severe alcoholic.

Those films he did with MGM have to be some of the worst not only of his career but of the film industry in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with the comic book films you don't have to worry about translating a lot of intricate dialogue, it's all a pretty much films with universally understood visual storytelling with minimal amounts of dialogue type of Cash Machine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what its worth, I do think now, by 2019, it seems like it should be about time to fold 70s films into the classic fold, and cast doubts aside. Many were groundbreaking films still beloved to this day, and in terms of filmmaking technique, most still had the pacing of classic-era films, still had many of their credits at the beginning, and were mostly character driven. Also, all of them are at least 40 years ago now, with the early 70s films near their golden anniversary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

For what its worth, I do think now, by 2019, it seems like it should be about time to fold 70s films into the classic fold, and cast doubts aside. Many were groundbreaking films still beloved to this day, and in terms of filmmaking technique, most still had the pacing of classic-era films, still had many of their credits at the beginning, and were mostly character driven. Also, all of them are at least 40 years ago now, with the early 70s films near their golden anniversary.

What do you mean by 'classic fold'?  

If you mean what films a 'classic' network like TCM shows,   TCM has never defined 'classic' by how-old. 

Of course TCM could show more films from the 70s (as well as 80s, etc...),  but then that would be less films from decades prior to the 70s.     This is a classic problem as time marches on.      

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

What do you mean by 'classic fold'?  

If you mean what films a 'classic' network like TCM shows,   TCM has never defined 'classic' by how-old. 

Of course TCM could show more films from the 70s (as well as 80s, etc...),  but then that would be less films from decades prior to the 70s.     This is a classic problem as time marches on.      

 

By that I mean a general reluctance up to this point to include them with the older classics. I've noticed many trying to claim them as still modern films that aren't authentic or true classics, and i feel that is wrong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite TCM films are the older, maybe even oldest ones. By no means would it make sense to throw a respectable movie made after 1970 under the bus.

I may be repeating myself, but I want a TCM JUST LIKE Starz. That way the newer movies have a place separate from the older ones. Like Starz, a place for live TV, on cable and satellite, and a streaming service.

As for "fold" James, it is a kitchen term. Yeah, a silly attempt to be cute, but I do believe fold sort of means to mix them in slowly/gently.

https://www.d.umn.edu/~alphanu/cookery/glossary_cooking.htm

Do not "beat" those newer movies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

By that I mean a general reluctance up to this point to include them with the older classics. I've noticed many trying to claim them as still modern films that aren't authentic or true classics, and i feel that is wrong.

The chief reason behind not including 70's+ films into traditional "classic film" categorization is due to content. 70's movies have naughty words, boobies and fake blood. The "Classic Film" label tells viewers that they are likely going to avoid any of those offending items, which is what a great many movie watchers want. Not me, of course, but enough of them.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The chief reason behind not including 70's+ films into traditional "classic film" categorization is due to content. 70's movies have naughty words, boobies and fake blood. The "Classic Film" label tells viewers that they are likely going to avoid any of those offending items, which is what a great many movie watchers want. Not me, of course, but enough of them.

I don't really agree with this comment. 

I think the chief reason is generational. TCM borrowed its business model from the old AMC (like Walmart stole its business from the K-Mart and Martha Stewart stole her business model from Betty Crocker). 

When AMC was in its heyday, it was selling "classic" film in the 80s and 90s to a retired generation that had been young in the 30s-50s, when these films were made. They wanted to see films that reflected their generation and popular culture.

TCM glommed on to that successful formula. But because TCM has lasted longer, it's had to adjust what it defines as classic. A large percentage of the old AMC's target audience has died (my grandparents among them). So for TCM to stay relevant it cannot just sell films from that generation, it has to also sell films from later generations to today's audience which is now younger. 

They could easily show films with adult themes during the daytime hours with an acceptable content warning/disclaimer. And not every film made after 1970 was produced for an adult audience. Some are "G" or "PG" rated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always fun to see the comments for a studio era film on YT. Someone will say They don't

make them like that anymore. Then another person will pipe up with That's when men were

men. And then Back then they had real stars not like the dopes they have today. And finally

The country was better then, today's it's a PC hell on earth. Happens just about every time

I watch a studio era flick on YT. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2019 at 9:23 PM, Sgt_Markoff said:

"Say, d'ye know the difference between last year's Miss America winner and a kangaroo?"

Oh, silly--Miss America had her pouch removed with her pre-pageant tummy tuck... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I don't really agree with this comment. 

Okay. My apologies for commenting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

I think with the comic book films you don't have to worry about translating a lot of intricate dialogue, it's all a pretty much films with universally understood visual storytelling with minimal amounts of dialogue type of Cash Machine.  

So true. I think that is where the international appeal comes from. Anybody can follow the storyline by watching and dialogue is not that necessary. Case in point. Once my husband was viewing "Pacific Rim". He had his headphones on with one ear listening to the dialogue and the other ear listening to me.  I was watching the muted film and parodying what I thought was being said. After about fifteen minutes he stopped the film and said "To not be hearing a thing that is being said you are remarkably spot on."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Okay. My apologies for commenting. 

You can comment. And others can agree or disagree. Not sure why you seem to be getting snarky. You've spent a lot of time on this message board and know that when you put something "out there" it is going to be dissected and discussed. It happens to all of us. Nothing in my reply to you was disrespectful.

I still think your earlier comment failed to take various factors into account. You can't look at TCM's business model and programming without observing the connection it has to specific generations and culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

It always fun to see the comments for a studio era film on YT. Someone will say They don't

make them like that anymore. 

Some will say "thank goodness they don't make 'em like that anymore."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TopBilled said:

I still think your earlier comment failed to take various factors into account.

Okay. My apologies for commenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LawrenceA said:

Okay. My apologies for commenting.

Do you want me to apologize for commenting too? I don't think I should, so I won't.

Moving on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

You can comment. And others can agree or disagree. Not sure why you seem to be getting snarky

He's only treating you the way you treat everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fedya said:

He's only treating you the way you treat everybody else.

Why are you speaking for him? I treat everyone the same, just like you do.

Not going to get caught in some side "issues" that will upend the discussion.

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TopBilled said:

Do you want me to apologize for commenting too? I don't think I should, so I won't.

Moving on...

I commented. You said that my comment was disagreeable, or at least to you personally, and not properly thought out, or specifically "failed to take various factors into account". I agreed with you, twice, and apologized for making a thoughtless comment, twice. 

I don't believe that I asked you for anything, including an apology, but if I did, I apologize. Good luck on your move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LawrenceA said:

I commented. You said that my comment was disagreeable, or at least to you personally, and not properly thought out, or specifically "failed to take various factors into account". I agreed with you, twice, and apologized for making a thoughtless comment, twice. 

I don't believe that I asked you for anything, including an apology, but if I did, I apologize. Good luck on your move.

I said I didn't agree with your previous comment in the thread. You certainly can't expect me to agree with everything you post? I don't expect you to agree with everything I post.

Larry, chances are I will disagree (and agree) with other things you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an either-or...I watch new films as well as old, but I admit, not as many, and even those of the last couple of years I enjoyed--I have no desire to re-watch.  There are lots of reasons...but I suppose it all boils down to personal interest.  I don't think the writing is as sharp now (I'm thinking comedy); they often take themselves too seriously (old B picture makers knew they were making B's--now there are multi million dollar ventures that aren't as entertaining...but they won't admit it was schlock when they started); remakes...hard to think of a remake that is better than the original, but sadly, new audiences may only see that one...can you imagine seeing the godawful remakes of The Women or The Out of Towners and thinking you'd actually seen those great films?  Then there's the comic book films...all the blockbuster output aimed at teenage boys..never been one, not interested..all the effort goes into cgi, not scripts or performances.  If a film can entertain or interest me, regardless of it's budget or release year, I'm watching...otherwise, click (what a wonderful age we live in, eh?).  As far as watching old films to remember one's past...I wasn't born when most of the films I count as my favorites were made..the date means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I said I didn't agree with your previous comment in the thread. You certainly can't expect me to agree with everything you post? I don't expect you to agree with everything I post.

Larry, chances are I will disagree (and agree) with other things you post.

I thought I apologized for this already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us