Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TopBilled

Why do some classic movie fans bash newer films?

Recommended Posts

Here's an article that an associate emailed to me.  Not my idea of what a movie should be like in the future.

Can a computer write a script? Machine learning goes Hollywood

https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-machine-learning-hollywood-20190411-story.html

Just some high points from the article:

Voice synthesis

Can a computer write a script? Machine learning goes Hollywood
 
A commercial written by artificial intelligence
 
Using computers to write scripts for TV shows and movies.  Beyond word processing.
 
Using unethically harvested data analytics from social media and credit card purchases to create a demographic picture of what people really want.  This in turn could be used to produce a rough draft of the demographics and aesthetics of a picture.
** Hint: If they are sincere and honest about this, it likely won't go anywhere because they most likely won't approve of the answers they get, and will go with general think-tank  copy instead.
 
Using adaptive speech synthesis to do overdubbing, instead of the original actor.
 
Using computers to proportion scripted male-to-female dialog.
 
Movies that follow along with this will likely just be more synthetic and boring than what we have now, as it would be informed by stored engineered processes, rather than being informed by natural human interaction and associated limitations/idiosyncracies. Unless, of course, they hack the results after the fact.  For some of the finer points read the article:
https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-machine-learning-hollywood-20190411-story.html
 
Hint: Machines are REALLY bad at understanding comedic elements, such as sarcasm, which humans innately understand. Facebook and Google for example are completely unable to understand the context of memes for the sake of censorship.  There has been talk about them just banning memes altogether.  Using a computer to "spontaneously" generate that human element for commercial purposes, no matter what kind of funding it receives, would be even more difficult.  Perhaps impossible.  The sad part is there will still be people who fill those seats and fund their stupid.
 
 
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Can a computer write a script? Machine learning goes Hollywood

 
"AI" is the New Bitcoin - The press loves to talk about it, investors want to get in on it, and no one knows what the flippin' heck it IS, or how anyone is attempting to make money off of it.
 
("Self-driving cars" used to be the new Bitcoin--"Maybe Uber will be all self-driving someday!"--but that idea crashed.  In more ways than one.)
 
Quote

A commercial written by artificial intelligence

Using computers to write scripts for TV shows and movies.  Beyond word processing.

Watch this commercial, and watch Roland Emmerich's 2012 (2009), and tell me which one looks like it was generated by feeding old movie scenes into a computerized sequential plot algorithm, untouched by human brains.

Quote

Using adaptive speech synthesis to do overdubbing, instead of the original actor.

Attempts to use tone-adaptive computer speech synthesis for pop singing have been rather successful in Japan as of late:  ☺️

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

Yikes. Looks like I accidentally unleashed a firestorm. Sorry about all of that. :( not my intention.

Don't apologize. PLEASE!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, EricJ said:

Attempts to use tone-adaptive computer speech synthesis for pop singing have been rather successful in Japan as of late:  ☺️

 

I don't even know where to begin with that.  Here is something different that their parents liked:
The band Asia in 1983, in Japan.  It turns out this was soon after their singer was fired.  This is Greg Lake, of Emerson Lake and Palmer filling in on short notice for them.  A similar vocal range, but not yet comfortable with the material.  Check out the wall of keyboards, MIDI had only been finalized as a standard that year, so separate keyboards for everything.

 

 

16 hours ago, EricJ said:
("Self-driving cars" used to be the new Bitcoin--"Maybe Uber will be all self-driving someday!"--but that idea crashed.  In more ways than one.)
 

Watch this commercial, and watch Roland Emmerich's 2012 (2009), and tell me which one looks like it was generated by feeding old movie scenes into a computerized sequential plot algorithm, untouched by human brains.

 

Yup.

16 hours ago, EricJ said:
 
"AI" is the New Bitcoin - The press loves to talk about it, investors want to get in on it, and no one knows what the flippin' heck it IS, or how anyone is attempting to make money off of it.
 

 

Ditto with the parrots parroting the word "binary", which used to be a word with actual meaning before the think-tanks got their mitts on it.  Hey, have they discovered the word "unary" yet?  Wake me when they get around to it.  Or the "555 timer", aka "monostable multivibrator", aka "one shot".  Sounds kinda dirty.  http://moviecollectoroh.com/pics_to_hotlink_on_TCM/forum-twisted.gif

 

Here this might help.

TL;DR - respect your audience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to.....

WHY DO SOME CLASSIC MOVIE FANS BASH NEWER FILMS?

I think we have to differentiate and define "new films" we are now 60 years removed from the end of the studio era, and 100+ from the rudimentary beginnings of film. 

I'd define new films as probably the last 10 to 15 years looking back from from today. 

I see the bashing usually of two very different entities, the first is of the usually benign contented, simple plotted. comic/superhero based blockbuster. These are quite akin to Classic Hollywood's Flash Gordon serials, I don't see much difference in the two besides budgets.

The second bashing is of all films after the demise of the MPPC where anything goes. This is usually from the mid sixties to  the seventies. After that we had the gradual rise of the original blockbusters with occasional edgy, off the wall, anything goes independant productions.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my hometown, this incident occurred on a cross-town bus once. The bus held a variety of commuters that morning: whether middle-aged, teenagers, twenty-somethings, thirty-somethings. All different races and ethnicities. All different economic classes and varied walks-of-life. Blue-collar, college students, rich folk, poor folk.

Two teenagers had a boombox (or some kind of radio with speakers not headphones) and when the bus was slowed by traffic on the long ride, they were flipping through stations looking for and kinda annoying everyone by constantly changing the station. Picking this music or that, giving it a few seconds of their attention, and then moving on because they clearly didn't know much about what they encountered on the dial. They knew their favorite music best, and that was about all they knew.

Anyway so they land on some Van Halen, and this makes a few of the other riders happy. They switch to some motown, and this brings a smile to a few other riders. And on and on and on. Classical next. At each style, the dopey teens consider it for a moment and then give out with a "naaah" or "noooo" or "noooo way, find something else". Nothing pleases them.

But, everyone else puts up with it because there's nothing else to do. Finally they stumble over a classic Beatles song, I forget which one it was. Maybe one of the fundamentals like "Here Comes the Sun" which has a melody practically everybody in the world enjoys. Anyway these two stooges, even this doesn't register on them, they're still looking for something fast-beat, something which sounds familiar to them. They give the Beatles a 'pass', they give it a sneer, they wrinkle their nose.

There's no real punchline to this story; nothing actually happened on the bus. No one got in a fistfight; no one 'had words' with anyone else. No one got a comeuppance. The only reason I know about this incident at all, was that there was a music reviewer or columnist (or some-kind-of-writer) on the bus and he wrote this anecdote up and printed it in a college newspaper or something and that's how it came to everyone's attention.

In the write-up, the author pointed out how various musical styles always please some people. A few people in any modern crowd are bound to be fans of Van Halen; a few others are bound to be fans of Michael Jackson.

Taste is subjective; (this was the point of the article). Yes, taste is subjective ...but, perfection is absolute. The two teenagers revealed their lack of astuteness specifically when they dismissed the Beatles along with everything else they panned that morning. See, regardless of whether you like the Beatles, it is without question that they are one of the greatest bands of all-time. Beethoven is another, Johnny Cash another. Certain artists are simply "world-beaters"; juggernauts; and slighting them reflects on you, rather than them. If you think the Beatles are something down at the same level as AC/DC or Van Halen, you know nothing about music; and you can't hide behind "taste".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Uncle Charles, never call him Charlie, was born in 1909. Still going strong when On Golden Pond was released. He liked the movie but not the language. I was not put off by that, but Georgia Rule is a different story. It was all over the news how Jane Fonda used the F word. Maybe as big a deal as Julie Andrews showing her breasts in SOB. Now it wasn't that big a deal.

I did not like Georgia Rule at all. Still very much enjoy On Golden Pond, and pretty much anything with Julie Andrews in it.

I guess many modern movies use themes that match the times. Just look at how different TV is today, even stuff that shows before 10 PM. I like older films as they strip away, no pun intended, things I prefer not seeing on my television, including the nightly news.

Share this post


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

Getting back to.....

WHY DO SOME CLASSIC MOVIE FANS BASH NEWER FILMS?

I think we have to differentiate and define "new films" we are now 60 years removed from the end of the studio era, and 100+ from the rudimentary beginnings of film. 

I'd define new films as probably the last 10 to 15 years looking back from from today. 

I see the bashing usually of two very different entities, the first is of the usually benign contented, simple plotted. comic/superhero based blockbuster. These are quite akin to Classic Hollywood's Flash Gordon serials, I don't see much difference in the two besides budgets.

The second bashing is of all films after the demise of the MPPC where anything goes. This is usually from the mid sixties to  the seventies. After that we had the gradual rise of the original blockbusters with occasional edgy, off the wall, anything goes independant productions.  

Recently I went through thousands of film titles from 1930 upward. I've only gotten as far as 1988. 

I did this to increase my knowledge of films by decade. I found a lot of hidden gems in the 70s, films I'd definitely be interested in watching (or in some cases, watching again). There seemed to be a lot of creativity occurring the 70s, even the late 70s, after JAWS and ROCKY when the industry was becoming more focused on blockbusters. 

The weakest years, so far, seem to be 1981 to 1986. There are a lot of clunkers from those years. A lot of uninspired junk that makes you wonder what was going on at the studios for such things to get the green-light. 

There's another renaissance in the late 80s and 90s, especially when all those wonderful independent films come along. But that early to mid portion of the 80s seems dire and if that's what we had now, people would be right to complain. But the current period seems to have creativity, even with all those big budget adventure films that are now produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The early through mid 80's, say 1980-1987, was one of the best periods ever for horror, fantasy, and science fiction films. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some genres flourished in the early 80s. But other genres seemed to sink to new lows.

File under "what were they thinking?" or "it must have seemed good on paper"--

HEARTBEEPS (1981) Andy Kaufman's flop.

NOBODY'S PERFEKT (1981) I guess they thought Gabe Kaplan should be a movie star. He didn't become one.

TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT (1981) It made money but is it remembered today? The hit song is what most people remember. The movie seems pretty ludicrous.

WOLFEN (1981) A crime horror flick that failed. And it had a good cast too.

BUTTERFLY (1982) Orson Welles and Pia Zadora. Seriously?

GREASE 2 (1982) Dismal sequel.

HONKYTONK MAN (1982) One of Eastwood's few flops during this part of his career.

MOTHER LODE (1982) Forgettable Chuck Heston film. He and his family produced it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Recently I went through thousands of film titles from 1930 upward. I've only gotten as far as 1988. 

I did this to increase my knowledge of films by decade. I found a lot of hidden gems in the 70s, films I'd definitely be interested in watching (or in some cases, watching again). There seemed to be a lot of creativity occurring the 70s, even the late 70s, after JAWS and ROCKY when the industry was becoming more focused on blockbusters. 

The weakest years, so far, seem to be 1981 to 1986. There are a lot of clunkers from those years. A lot of uninspired junk that makes you wonder what was going on at the studios for such things to get the green-light. 

There's another renaissance in the late 80s and 90s, especially when all those wonderful independent films come along. But that early to mid portion of the 80s seems dire and if that's what we had now, people would be right to complain. But the current period seems to have creativity, even with all those big budget adventure films that are now produced.

There were some Neo Noir gems in from 1981 - 1987 but the output really jumped in the 90s

Body Heat (1981), Thief (1981), SyFy Noir Blade Runner (1982), Period Noir Hammett (1982), Vice Squad (1982), Blood Simple (1984), Paris, Texas (1984), Tightrope (1984), To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), Black Comedy Noir After Hours (1985), Blue Velvet (1986), Supernatural Noir Angel Heart (1987).  
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those have gained a cult following (WolfenHeartbeeps, and I've heard some people actually like Grease 2) and Honkytonk Man is now well regarded critically.

There are terrible movies from every year, as well as those that flop commercially but are well-liked or even loved later. 

Of course the enjoyment one finds in any movie is subjective. There was a cliche back when IMDb had comment sections for each movie that every one of them had someone calling that particular movie the "best movie ever!" right next to another one calling it the "worst movie ever!"

And as you say, different movie eras are better for different genres, as the public taste for them waxes and wanes. 

Share this post


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

There were some Neo Noir gems in from 1981 - 1987 but the output really jumped in the 90s

Body Heat (1981), Thief (1981), SyFy Noir Blade Runner (1982), Period Noir Hammett (1982), Vice Squad (1982), Blood Simple (1984), Paris, Texas (1984), Tightrope (1984), To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), Black Comedy Noir After Hours (1985), Blue Velvet (1986), Supernatural Noir Angel Heart (1987).  

Yes, I guess it goes back to genres. But I think a lot of the comedies and dramas declined in quality. I grew up in the 80s, and movies I liked then, I look at them now and think wow, some of that was embarrassing, total junk. Of course, with any era, we can over-generalize and find counter examples. 

But we also can cite evidence, in terms of the new stars and directors that were coming up...the amount of money that was being wasted by studios without any real enhancement or improvement in quality...as well as the sort of stuff that was being done on stage that didn't adapt well to films...books that were adapted into films, stories that seem trivial in hindsight and much more material that hasn't stood the test of time.

It's all interesting, though, from a socio-cultural perspective and as part of motion picture history and trends that were occurring. But it doesn't mean a lot of it was great.

Share this post


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

And as you say, different movie eras are better for different genres, as the public taste for them waxes and wanes.

Ya got that right pilgrim, the 80's s*u*c*k*e*d for Westerns. The last good old Golden Age style Western was The Long Riders and Tom Horn in 1980. The Grey Fox in 1982 and not much else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Ya got that right pilgrim, the 80's s*u*c*k*e*d for Westerns. The last good old Golden Age style Western was The Long Riders and Tom Horn in 1980. The Grey Fox in 1982 and not much else.

Pale Rider was decent if derivative, I thought. Silverado and Young Guns both felt like people playing dress-up but I enjoyed them to a certain degree, or at least moments in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pale Rider felt too Peace, Love, Dove, like a little hippy placer mining commune on the prairie. Same gripe with Dances With Wolves, and others you could almost label everything post 1982 as Neo Westerns. 

Share this post


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

Yes, I guess it goes back to genres. But I think a lot of the comedies and dramas declined in quality. I grew up in the 80s, and movies I liked then, I look at them now and think wow, some of that was embarrassing, total junk. Of course, with any era, we can over-generalize and find counter examples. 

But we also can cite evidence, in terms of the new stars and directors that were coming up...the amount of money that was being wasted by studios without any real enhancement or improvement in quality...as well as the sort of stuff that was being done on stage that didn't adapt well to films...books that were adapted into films, stories that seem trivial in hindsight and much more material that hasn't stood the test of time.

It's all interesting, though, from a socio-cultural perspective and as part of motion picture history and trends that were occurring. But it doesn't mean a lot of it was great.

I happen to like a lot of films from the 80s.... but sometimes many of those films went under the radar  either then and/or now (and some even in spite of award nominations). Moreso than any other decade in the 20th century, many of the most interesting films were shortchanged.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I happen to like a lot of films from the 80s.... but sometimes many of those films went under the radar  either then and/or now (and some even in spite of award nominations). Moreso than any other decade in the 20th century, many of the most interesting films were shortchanged.

Care to share a few examples..?

Share this post


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

Care to share a few examples..?

Sure. Many had some degree or praise, but not many are brought up much today, even the ones up for Oscars

1980: Inside Moves, Tell Me a Riddle, Hide in Plain Sight, My Bodyguard

1981: Pennies from Heaven (although its well known in film circles), Prince of the City (ditto), One from the Heart, Eye of the Needle, The Chosen, Gregory's Girl, Only When I Laugh, SOB, Ragtime

1982: Cannery Row, Shoot the Moon, Hammett

1983: Max Dugan Returns, Educating Rita, Cross Creek, Without a Trace, Something Wicked This Way Comes

1984: The Stone Boy, Mrs. Soffel, Country, Choose Me, Garbo Talks, and even A Soldier's story is a bit overlooked. Also liked Swing Shift, lumps and all.

1985: most this year seem to pretty established save the lovely Turtle Diary, but Jagged Edge might not be as well known anymore, Ladyhawke (despite something truly grating) was surprisingly emotional and poignant, The Journey of natty Gann was prime Disney,  and Dreamchild, Plenty, Wetherby, and Marie had their moments. And Vagabond would be good to look at now since its director Agnes Varda just passed.

1986: Round Midnight, The morning After (a bit sloppy, but Jane Fonda and Jeff Bridges are on the top of their games here performance wise), True Stories, Heartburn, that's life

1987: Wish You Were Here, The Whales of August, Street Smart, Black Widow, Dead of Winter, Cry Freedom, 84 Charing Cross Road

1988: Madame Sousatzka, Zelly and Me, Camille Claudel, Moon Over Parador, A World apart, Stormy Monday, Things Change, Another Woman, A Cry in the Dark

1989: Miss Firecracker, In Country, Shirley Valentine, Music Box, Immediate Family, The Tall Guy, A Dry White Season, Enemies a Love Story, New york Stories

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I happen to like a lot of films from the 80s.... but sometimes many of those films went under the radar  either then and/or now (and some even in spite of award nominations)

Thanks for listing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of your list

1981: Pennies from Heaven, One from the Heart own then on disk, seen Eye of the Needle, SOB, Ragtime

1982: Like Cannery Row, have Hammett DVD

1983: seen Something Wicked This Way Comes

1984: seen none

1985: seen none

1986: seen Round Midnight

1987: like Black Widow haven't seen the others

1988:  seen A Cry in the Dark

1989:  seen New York Stories

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen these, although I have several* in my stack of stuff to watch:

  • Tell Me a Riddle 
  • Hide in Plain Sight*
  • Prince of the City*
  • One from the Heart*
  • The Chosen
  • Gregory's Girl
  • Hammett
  • Without a Trace
  • Choose Me
  • Garbo Talks
  • Dreamchild
  • Wetherby
  • True Stories*
  • Wish You Were Here
  • 84 Charing Cross Road*
  • Madame Sousatzka 
  • Zelly and Me
  • A World apart 
  • Stormy Monday* 
  • Things Change

Share this post


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

I haven't seen these, although I have several* in my stack of stuff to watch:

  • Tell Me a Riddle 
  • Hide in Plain Sight*
  • Prince of the City*
  • One from the Heart*
  • The Chosen
  • Gregory's Girl
  • Hammett
  • Without a Trace
  • Choose Me
  • Garbo Talks
  • Dreamchild
  • Wetherby
  • True Stories*
  • Wish You Were Here
  • 84 Charing Cross Road*
  • Madame Sousatzka 
  • Zelly and Me
  • A World apart 
  • Stormy Monday* 
  • Things Change

I think you'd particularly like Prince of the City and Stormy Monday. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Taste is subjective; (this was the point of the article). Yes, taste is subjective ...but, perfection is absolute. The two teenagers revealed their lack of astuteness specifically when they dismissed the Beatles along with everything else they panned that morning. See, regardless of whether you like the Beatles, it is without question that they are one of the greatest bands of all-time. Beethoven is another, Johnny Cash another. Certain artists are simply "world-beaters"; juggernauts; and slighting them reflects on you, rather than them. If you think the Beatles are something down at the same level as AC/DC or Van Halen, you know nothing about music; and you can't hide behind "taste".

If somebody says they generally dislike rock except for the Beatles, or that they generally dislike country except for Johnny Cash, etc, because such artists are world's greatest, bar none, it says to me that they are a faker with no taste of their own. Obviously whoever wrote that article is a big Beatles fan, but imposing your own taste onto the world, regardless of any huge numbers backing you up, is, IMO, pretty silly. It's just conceding to the populous. There are so many different kinds of music in the world, so many kinds to "know something" about, so many kinds to ignore, that the massive chart-toppers take precedent only in the popular media empire. Anyone who gives credo to a particular artist because of such numbers knows a lot about numbers, but doesn't necessarily care anything about music, IMO.

I've never bought that whole "50,000,000 Elvis Presley fans can't all be wrong" thing. Such a fan base is an original wrong, made possible only by massive advertising.

  • Like 1

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

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...