Difference of old movies and new

[lococardinal]

I'm curious as to what differences people see between the old movies and new. You'd have to draw the time line yourself though. I tend to draw it around the early to mid 70's. Others I realize would draw it 20 or 30 years earlier. I see a tremendous difference between the old and new. There may of always been trendiness but it's escalated to extreme proportions. Instead of what controversial movie will come out it's what comic book hero or TV show remake will come out. The major stars seemed to conveniently receive roles where they get to use a silly Irish accent, or play red eyed vampires. Whenever someone has been working out in the gymn alot there seems to be a role where they can conveniently display their bodies. Rock musicians and wrestlers can take crash acting classes and star in big production movies whereas actors who've studied for years and majored in the dramatic arts in college end up as drama teachers. In the old movies there were actors who played toughies like Bogart, but they were human and didn't always win fights unlike alot of movies today where some actors or actresses will often be portrayed as almost super-human in supposedly realistic movies. To find good movies that are newer nowadays it seems I have to look for foreign and independant movies. So little with the movies today seem very little to do with acting talent. If Hollywood was really about talent instead of the next big thing don't you think Tony Curtis would still be in the movies?

[brackenhe]

You're point about Tony Curtis--I think he ruined himself by the substance abuse in the 70's and 80's. Now he just seems like a charicature (sp) of himself. I do agree about everything else you said. Stars today seems to value the $$$ instead of the art. JMO

[KeithFromKC]

Well, I will also agree that many of my favorite films of the past 20 years or so have been produced by Foreign or Independent studios. It just seems that Hollywood's major concern is profit. It probably has always been about that, but the turning point between old and new for me was probably the release of 'JAWS' in 1975. That was the start of the summer blockbuster as we know it today. Nowadays, studios build their whole year around one or two 'big' films.

 

It just seems, to me anyway, that the major Hollywood studios make these kind of schlocky films their priority. Essentially films that they believe will appeal to every mainstream (key word) sensibility. Big-budget action films, animated films meant to bring in the whole family, anything with Will Smith in it, remakes, comic book fare, etc. Most of which are alright in their own way, but they don't really cut too deep. At least not usually.

 

As far as acting goes, there are some talented people working today, but for every talented actor or actress, it seems there are five actors/actresses, whose lack of talent is painfully obvious. You end up wondering who actually pays to see the likes of Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher, the Wayans brothers, Tara Reid, Keanu Reeves, Brittany Murphy, or anyone else of their ilk, at the movies. If I've offended anyone here, I apologize. It's just an opinion. Despite what Hollywood believes, there are some of us left who value acting talent over mere 'star power.' To have both is rare these days.

 

Sorry for being so long-winded, but this is an interesting thread (thanks lococardinal!) and I would love to read everyone else's opinion on this topic. I guess the major difference between old movies and new to me would be how much is at risk financially in producing a film these days. Even independent films cost alot of money to make. Perhaps studios are more afraid to take risks. Also, it seems, as lococardinal mentions, the fact that anyone (rappers, pop stars, reality show has-beens, wrestlers, etc.) are allowed to star in major studio films. The future of major studio films does not look too bright.......at least artistically.

[evh55]

I heartily agree with you keith. It seems like almost all the movies made today are geared to the 16-24 year old demographic. And if a movie comes out and doesn't make 80 million in the first weekend it is considered a flop. When I see who is considered a 'star' these days all I can do is shake my head and go back to watching TCM.

[venerados]

To paraphrase what Frank Zappa said about the music industry:

 

It used to be run by businessmen who didn't know anything about the product and knew they didn't know anything, and left the creative side to the artists. Now it's run by people who claim to know what the public wants, and make sure everything fits into that narrow stream.

[deeanddaisy666]

venerados, absolutely right.

 

Just as Clear Channel has taken over the radio world, and Rupert Murdoch has taken over televised news, so the likes of Rainbow Media, Time Warner, and Hearst are taking over the airwaves.

 

Thanks to all the questionable practices at the FCC, which is allowing this to happen, we in America will soon be subjected to the same homogenized pap, from coast to coast, with Canada and Mexico only a short acquisition away.

 

TCM manages to hang on with individual programming in a lobotomized cookie cutter world. I don't know how they do it (although if what I've been reading about their 'new and improved' graphics is an indication of Things To Come), but I do hope they keep it up.

 

With the exception of Pay Television, there is not one other station on regular 'Family Cable' that is decent, intelligent, and distinctive. Not...........one.

[grsshrp]

First to stony a big AMEN. Show BUSINESS. I am a 54 year old woman who grew up on a variety of old movies. My parents, god rest 'em loved the movies and we saw westerns, musicals, comedies, and ugh...Biblical Epics.

 

Then came the '60's and the especially the movies of the '70's. They had some weight...gravitas...

 

I am not in the golden demographic that writers and producers target. I hate that THEY think WE don't think...or have some disposable income for a good film.

 

Few actors today will bring me to a theater. Pacino...not lately...DeNiro..another meet the Fockers?...Michael Douglas...is he turning into Joan Rivers...

Who will get me into a theater

Peter O'Toole

Maggie Smith (maybe)

James Garner

Robert Duvall (especially if he Tangos)

Gene Hackman...without Raymond

Russell Crowe...I don't know why..maybe he is a throw back

Gene Rowlands in a GOOD MOVIE...I saw so many Cassevettes movies...god he was good.

What happened to Harold Pinter?

 

I just saw Varian's War on cable...nice little period movie...it's worth a look.

 

Now I am teetering on the edge of a angry tirade...just give me some...intelligent writing...a 'well constructed sentence' spoken by someone who was alive when John Lennon was....

 

Fini

 

pardon..too tired to spell check

[grsshrp]

Sorry, I had a few more thoughts and a cup of coffee and I put on my glasses so I can see what I am typing...now..

 

Movies seem to formulaic today. If Scary Movie worked..lets do Scary Movie 2, 3, 4 etc.

 

Next, the studios must, MUST make the money on the opening weekend. That is the make or break time.

 

Occasionally there will be a movie that is MADE to cross age and gender demographics, but not very many.

 

There is no studio system that nurtured the stars or the directors or their movies. Can't afford it. We all know this. So, that is why it takes an exceptional movie to get me into a theater.

 

I also hate how certain networks butcher the classics. I understand it must fit within a time frame, but I have seen great movies sliced and diced and I want to write and say what my father always said.."If you can't do it right, then don't do it at all'. Granted not really psychologically healthy, but sometimes applicable.

 

Maybe I have turned into my father. Who never went to the movies after John Wayne died???

 

Can't believe I am still ranting, I do apologize, but I don't think they care if they make a truly good movie...they want to make a PROFITABLE movie and then if it turns out to be good...great...

 

So did Jaws really change everything. You might be right. Is it a classic? or a cult favorite?

 

Lastly, just want to say how much I enjoy these boards, thank you everyone.

[gwtwbooklover]

Oh, I need to be in bed but here I am. Are you guys forgetting that there are always rooten apples in the bunch? This is true in the olden days of hollywood and today-be honest. Let's don't forget Dances with Wolves or The 6th Sense. Surely there has been some goodies Jaws for instance that was moviemaking though it ushered in some unwanted residuals it was moviemaking on the grand scale. It had a plot,good effects and actors who put there body and soul to those roles. I agrree that sequels suck except the Star Wars ones and the 2nd Rocky. They should have stopped the Rockys after that. I think the studios falling helped the movies-they were so rigid. The move to independence in the late 60s was refreshing, the moves to actotrs being directors was a big step. I think it is wrong to dismiss the currents as trash and forget about the clunkers old Hollywood made over and over again except the gems were more numerous to be sure. Clint Eastwood is still directing. Which leads to his recent The Unforgiven what a movie-loved it. The Cedar House Rules was a fantastic movie.Although I didn't see it I heard Seabuscuit was a good remake-how about that. Philidelphia there's a movie and old Hollywood wouldn't have touched it with a 10 foot camera. This subject reminds me of a friend of mine who once told me "I don't watch old movies if it is in black and white I don't even bother" Don't shut new Hollywood out there's a great movie I know out there all the ideas aren't gone just hang in there all the old movies weren't great. Just thought of Shindler's List by that Jaws director Syeven Speilberg-what a movie indeed.

[deeanddaisy666]

Well, gwtwbooklover, I'm afraid I'm of the opposite opinion, I believe in the past couple of decades that there have been a few 'golden' apples in a 'rotten' bunch. Unfortunately, I can't go to a movie during the day until I retire, and I won't go NEAR a movie theater on the weekend, so I can't speak for recent movies. But they, for the MOST part, look like a barrel of crap. I just have to go to Crankycritic.com to find that I'm not far off the mark in my opinion.

 

HAH! grsshrp, I'm a 54 year old woman too. I guess we both grew up in THE heyday of television, and for my part, I was weaned on the glory of movies on the Late Late Show and the Million Dollar Movies. The classics, the black and whites.

 

I agree, wholeheartedly, re the English language. Do you REMEMBER grammar and a well constructed sentence? Not a mumbled, expletive filled, um, like, you know filled so-called sentence uttered by the moronic likes of Jennifer Lopez in a 'movie' such as 'The Cell'? Unimaginable in the days of the studio system. I wonder if foreign movies are as moronic in their dialogue?

 

Yes, again, it is ALL about the money. Money, money, money. The movie MUST make a boat load of money, in its first weekend out, and then it's a forgotten item. Off to video, where...be still my heart...they add more scenes of drek and make MORE money. Quickly, name two or three movies that came out last month! Last week? See my point?

 

OUR demographic? Forget it. BRAVO would rather program the 'brilliance' of 'Queer Eye' and A&E would rather program, over and over and over, the sensationalistic crap hosted by Bill Kurtis, who must either own 50% of Hearst or have pictures of William Randolph with a donkey.

 

I too have turned into my father. I'm a cranky curmudgeon who dislikes so many of the 'necessary' evils of the media industry.

 

Apologize? Not at all. You know how to write, you write well, and you're at a site where we are free to voice our opinion on the magic that is film. Yes, this site is wonderful.

[kelseykelskels]

well heres my opinion and I realize there are a billion others but I do admit that there are times when I go to the movie theatre and I actually see a really good movie that can actually make me laugh or cry..etc. But it seems to me that i could find a movie a billion times better always just by staying home and watching TCM. My sister and my friends will some times laugh because they think that most old movies are overdramatic and unrealalistic but to me they were real and they had actors that were actually acting because they loved to actnot just for the fame and money and it showed in their movies.

-kelsey

[venerados]

I hear that word "unrealistic" a lot from people who disregard older movies. It really has more to do with what they're conditioned to accept as a movie reality. If you look at scenes from a contemporary movie, a 1930's movie, and from life you'd get three very different things.

[ayresorchids]

This is a fascinating discussion. Let me sort of free-associate about it a bit:

 

Most of the films I most love and treasure were made between 1920 and 1960. But in many ways, I think film production is higher in quality now than ever--in an A-film drama today (and in many indies) there is more elaborate care taken with period costumes and sets, the acting and writing are more subtle, and the absence of censorship makes them more credible.

 

I don't see many adventure movies, or the ones that are aimed squarely at teens (though I did like "Mean Girls"), and I never have become inured to the level of violence in modern war films or gangster stories. (I did see "Saving Private Ryan"--I figured if those young men could give their lives for me, the least I could do was watch a dramatization of them doing it. I sobbed after the opening segment, but I made it through. What a film.)

 

Some of the movies I've seen in the last few years were just breathtaking in their quiet way: "The Hours" comes to mind.

 

The funny thing is, I have the least patience with many films made between roughly 1963 and 1976. There was a trendy, brittle directorial style in place at that time that I find extremely distracting. This is sacrilege, I know, but I even dislike "The Graduate."

 

I was very pleased to discover that I liked "Chicago," as I am a fan of musicals most of all, and feared it wouldn't work. I had never seen musical numbers incorporated into the plot in quite that way, and I thought it took things to a whole new level. It was hard for me to watch the chopped-up dancing, though, Astaire devotee that I am.

 

I think it's important to remember that most of the older films we see are The Best Ones. There were plenty of duds (and though not publicized in the mainstream, there was plenty of trash and porn) in the old days, too. It's complicated for me, because I can watch even poorly made stuff from the '30s and '40s--I'm that fascinated by the popular cultural history of that time.

 

--The rambler

[deeanddaisy666]

Well, I'll accept that the films I love, those of the 1930s and 1940s, weren't 'realistic' (and I don't really WANT realism in my movies), but I don't see much 'reality' in today's films either.

 

As I've said, I don't go to movies, but in the promos for today's films, I haven't seen any which feature an overweight or less than attractive person, have I?

 

If Jennifer Lopez is an example of the intelligence of the average woman and Brad Pitt is an example of the countenance of the average man, then I am living in a parallel version of realism.

[bggalaxy]

The biggest difference I see is that old movies are - well - old and new movies are - well - new. kidding. There are definate differences between the way films are being made now as to thoughs 80+ years ago and in between. Technology, changing times, and the instant visuals of world around us has had an impact on movie making.

For me, all these changes in film, whether it be techincal, attitude, or realism does not matter to me. All that matters is how I feel after seeing the film no matter the era.

For every year over the past 80 plus years I have favorites, seen not so classics, and "great" films of those times I don't like.

Movies for me, no matter the era, are movies that take me away for 2 hours.

I realize that this thread was probably looking for a different direction then I went - so sorry in advance.

[bggalaxy]

oops, sorry for the spelling - I forgot to spell check.

[KeithFromKC]

Stoney, you mention realism in current film, which I am quite a fan of. I just wanted to say that this is where Foreign and Independent film come in extremely handy. In both, you actually will see 'average' looking people. Even hideously unattractive people. You will see them in realistic situations, in realistic settings. I personally find it to be a refreshing change from the 'reality' portrayed in many current Hollywood films.

 

I mention this, because in many of the current Hollywood films, even the ugly duckling characters (i.e. Anne Hathaway in 'The Princess Diaries') are stunning. Despite Hollywood's distorted view of realism, I don't want to completely admonish them. I still see my share of the current Hollywood crop, and will even admit to liking some of what I see. Even films I'm ashamed I actually like. I guess we all have our own guilty pleasures (maybe that's another topic for discussion!).

 

I also think Ayresorchids makes a good point of mentioning that many of the classic films we see on TCM are the better films of their time. There are so many average to mediocre films that we will probably never see on TCM. So, then and now, the quality of Hollywood films has always been a mixed bag. Although I'd like to see improvements, I'm not ready to give up on Hollywood just yet.

 

Great topic though, and the posts on this thread have all been informative and enlightening. I hope TCM realizes what tremendous fans they have here.......

[deeanddaisy666]

keith, you're right, of course. I used to be a big fan of foreign and art house films. I'll get back to them, some day....

 

But you're right, just as foreign television uses 'average' actors to good effect, so too foreign film doesn't use only anatomically perfect men and women.

 

And I wouldn't want the entertainment business to stop, I just get weary of the media's constant hype of certain no-talented bums. There are many wonderful 'average looking' actors making a living today, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman and John C. Reilly are but three.

 

Yup, the fan base here is tremendous.

[kelseykelskels]

hey stoneyburk i agree with you on one of those things i dont really want all movies to be realistic i mean movies are somthing that you can use to escape from reality.

 

I also do agree that movies now days have some very realalistic sets and different point of veiws etc. that are very cool but all the same there is still something about classic old movies that make me feel so much more emotion than most movies do now days.

 

the most recent movie i really liked was the notebook, i am also a big fan of the movie chicago its a WONDERFUL musical and they dont really make those these days.

[edgedrv]

Let's face it, how many movies released today are worth seeing more than once. Pictures like ALL ABOUT EVE, AFRICAN QUEEN, CASABLANCA, THE GODFATHER, ANNIE HALL, SINGIN IN THE RAIN, THE BAND WAGON can be enjoyed over and over again. I can go into these films and watch small segments of these classics which I definitely can't do with today's films. I can't think of one film released this year that I would want to add to my DVD collection. I might want to rent, but never to buy!

[gwtwbooklover]

Doing tons of laundry and between loads here I go. The restrictions old Hollywood faced by censors-this is gone. However it has let in alot of garbage but I have heard of the censors wanting to change a film to punish a wrong doer though the Director didn't want to film this but without the change no release of film. Vincette Minnelli talks about this with Madame Bovary in his book I remember it Well and it is mentioned throughout early Hollywood History. Also the length of movie making or the adding footage on DVDs is a grat improvement. I was outraged when I read of the butcher job done on A Star is Born of course this was reportedly done by one of the Warner Brothers but I don't think he could do this today. Or atleast something would be preserved. Cukor said of Star (of its length-the human mind and the human a## could not sit thru such a long movie) wrong as Titanic showed and other long movies. I think one has today a chance to say this is mine all of it and not woorry about the film being recycled for its nitrate. Which leads to advancement of film to preserve it and to restore it which couldn't have happened without modern techniques and "modern moviemaking". So when they preserve(heaven forbid-Howard the Duck) they will turn their attention to GWTW or My Fair Lady as they have. I know I am jumping to so many subjects sorry but guys have you forgotten those animated gems? Like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? or The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast or The first Lion King it would make Walt proud to see these movies. Granted it will be unlikely to be another 1939 when all those movies in all one year came out that are still marveled at today like Stagecoach,GWTW or The Wizard of OZ just to name a few but I hope great movies are still on the way.

[heydudesupnstuff]

Hi, I'm new here, well at least to the forums. I agree with most of you but there ARE some good 'new age' movies out there. I'm going to list a few that i know some of you would probably like between the years 90-04.

 

Mulholland Drive(2001, Director David Lynch)

The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy(01-03, Director Peter Jackson

Adaptation.(2002, Director Spike Jonze)

Usual Suspects, The(1995, Director Bryan Singer)

Pulp Fiction(1995, Director Quentin Tarantino)

Reservoir Dogs(1992, Director Quentin Tarantino)

 

I know what some of you are thinking, i LOVE classic movies every single one of them. The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, Citizen Kane, Jaws, ect...but there are some new movies to consider into watching and loving, here are a few. Enjoy

 

P.S if i can think of anymore i will post more, give me some feedback after watching some of these.

 

[KeithFromKC]

HEYDUDESUPNSTUFF,

 

I agree that there are some great movies these days as well. As far as your list is concerned, I've seen every film that you've listed, and THE USUAL SUSPECTS is the only one that I was really knocked out by. I liked both Tarantino movies, as well as KILL BILL 1 & 2, but find him a bit overrated. He's entertaining, but his films can lack depth upon repeat viewings. I like David Lynch, but hated MULHOLLAND DRIVE. It was a structural mess to me. ADAPTATION was merely OK to me, and I only survived the first LORD OF THE RINGS film, having fallen asleep twice during a screening.

 

Again, it all boils down to personal taste. As much as I love films from ALL eras, I have little patience for most films in the SCI-FI/FANTASY genre. I'm not real crazy about Westerns or Musicals either. But there are exceptions. Someone recommended WEST SIDE STORY to me on this board, which I finally saw, and thought was fantastic. Two other recent musicals I enjoyed, were CHICAGO, and MOULIN ROUGE. We all have our likes and dislikes. I personally have zero patience for the LORD of THE RINGS trilogy. It doesn't mean that they are bad films. I just don't want to sit through them.

 

I could throw out a list of my favorite films of the past 15 years, but that would be redundent. Mainly because some people here would probably find fault with some of my picks, and they would have every reason to. We all have different tastes. That's obvious. But I find it hard to find fault in a film, simply because of the year it was made. I agree that there are major differences between films made now and films made back in Hollywood's Golden years. I'm just happy to sample a bit of everything.

[KeithFromKC]

How rude of me... Welcome aboard, Heydude! Glad to have you with us.

[heydudesupnstuff]

Thanks, Honestly i liked Mulholland Drive more then any other David Lynch movie i have seen. Includeing Blue Velvet, I forgot to list A movie,

 

Requiem For A Dream(2000, Director Darren Aronofsky)

 

Thanks for the welcome though, i've always loved turner classic movies, they are the only channel that plays good movies in my opinion :>, well good bye for now i'll post again when someone replies