Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Movies then vs. movies now


GreatMoviesFan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I went to see Hugo last weekend and there are a lot of opionions about it and they all differ...and when people talk about the silent film part of the movie, that's when everybody really takes sides. One person I spoke to says that silent movies are not ANY better than today's movies, that if they're dumb today they were just as dumbed down in the 1920s, just in a different way. I don't believe this, yes I'm aware some movies were not too good and fell on their faces, but for the most part they were good and there IS a reason movies 90 years old are still very popular and a lot of the new ones quickly die out. I asked for references, what were the silent era's equivalences to today's movies like The House Bunny, Hot Rod, Everything Must Go, Napoleon Dynamite, etc., and no answer, just more insistence that their films were the Transformers of today. To me that sounds like a hollow argument, what is today's Metropolis or Steamboat Bill Jr., The Kid, The General, Phantom of the Opera, Nosferatu, The Bat, the Cat and the Canary, the Poor Little Rich Girl, etc?

 

Even the 1925, widely bashed Larry Semon Wizard of Oz movie, I LOVE that movie, and no matter how bad people think it is, I still say it is FAR more entertaining than ANY movie that comes out today, AND, as I pointed out, a large difference where the humor is involved, in the silent era it was largely clean humor that everybody can enjoy, whereas today it's toilet humor and sex jokes. But still they refuse to admit that this all makes for poorer movies today saying it's all the same and today's movies are just as good and the ones from 1920s are just as bad as the ones today. What's everyone else think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, and where are today's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It's a Wonderful Life, It Happened One Night, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, and hundreds of others made before 1950? What about the recent re-make of "The Women"? It only received publicity before it was released, and as soon as it was released, it died and was quickly forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FredCDobbs, I can't reply straight to your comment because these RSS things on the side get in the way of the full message and the reply option. But I agree, I hadn't thought of that, I must use that if the argument persists but you are right, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington my God I LOVE that movie, and today it's no secret ALL politicians are crooked, everybody who goes INTO politics is crooked, where's Jefferson Smith? Where is Longfellow Deeds? (forget about that Adam Sandler remake), where is John Doe? Or Elwood P. Dowd? Or Grandpa Vanderhof? Or any of them? These were the heroes of the big screen. Frank Capra got letters for many years from people who were inspired to go into politics after seeing Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, you will NEVER hear that today. And It Happened One Night, YES! I've said it before, this is the ORIGINAL Runaway Bride. THESE movies had something to offer, THEY HAD A STORY! It wasn't just to make money, they had a plot, it wasn't optional like today where they just shoot a bunch of random crap and put it all together to make a killing opening weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple answer here is that the demographics of the average moviegoer today is quite a bit younger than it was back in the days before home video systems allowed a more adult audience to stay home and watch films which have been somewhat recent in their release dates. And of course, this would especially be the case if you're talking about 1950s and earlier, and before the medium of television started this whole trend toward adults staying home.

 

The "kids" today pay Hollywood's bills for them, and Hollywood in return supplies the "kids" out there with endless hours of less-than-demanding fare that the "kids" find entertaining. You know, the kind of stuff where heads explode and the heroes can jump off a 10 story building, do a nice little body roll, get up, brush themselves off, and continue to chase the bad guy(s). THAT kind of stuff.

 

 

(...oh, and btw, yeah, there STILL are some very good movies released every year, but they're seldom the boxoffice blockbusters...unless of course they're nominated for Best Picture by the Academy, and then THOSE good films usually make some good mone, also)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of mainstream movies are ALWAYS going to reflect what the filmmakers think are the cultural biases of their intended audience, modified by the formal code requirements of their era.

 

And each era had / has its own templates: The gratuitous violence mixed with the totally incongruous "happy endings" of many of the later silents and much of the pre-code fare; the proliferation of noble priests, virginal teenagers, and timid hagiographical biopics through most of the Breen code era; the return to gratuitous violence in the late 60's and 70's, with the added measure of shameless generational pandering and the appeal to the conspiracy mentality; and now most of the above with all the dubious high tech and digital gimmickry to go along with it.

 

Yet whatever biases shape the context, great movies are always going to be made, and great movies are always going to be in a minority. There are probably more truly first rate movies being made today than ever before, but in order to see them all you have to be operating on a 168-hour day with no time allowed for sleep, since they come from all over the world, and they don't all show in the U.S. Whereas with the best movies of past generations, you need only to be a little patient and they'll eventually plop in your lap via TCM, even the silent and foreign ones. There's nothing that we can do about the moronic blockbuster movies of today beyond simply ignoring them, because like it or not, the major studios have zero interest in appealing to the sort of film buffs you find watching TCM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me regardless of the time period, I want a movie that is well produced and have a good story. A movie being in B&W, color, mono or stereo has no bearing.

 

The drawbacks for me concerning any old movie would be the use of rear projection, shooting outdoor scenes on soundstage and bad matte paintings.

 

Regarding modern movies, I don't like the constant remakes, stupid plots, over use of CGI i.e. Harry Potter that is a CGI nightmare (I'm not including animation like "Tangled") and producers not having an imagination, always retelling that same old stuff.

 

One nice recent movie had a proper balance, "Cowboys and Aliens". It used a unique story and had that "Wild Wild West" feel to it which looked like it was told with a 19th century point of view, somewhat like the stories of Jules Verne. Had the old style of film making and is 3D proof.

 

The made for televison movies on the Sci-fy channel has to the worst modern turkeys ever produced. The old 1950's B sci-fi films are "Oscar winning" material by comparision. Yes its THAT bad.

 

Modern animated movies are still very good, I know the old cell animated are a thing of the past. Just seen "Gnomeo and Juliet" and was very funny. "Love to Sing-a" (1936) and "Little Lulu" classics has been added recently to my animated collection.

 

People keep mentioning "Hugo", I've only seen the commercials. Is that mechanical man, Tinman from the "Wizard of Oz" before he got his coverings. Thinking about C3PO on "Star Wars - Episode I. :^0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely.

 

Stinkeroos are stinkeroos.Thanks to TCM, I've seen some black and white stinkeroos, and you should know that for the most part, I won't watch TCM now, since they mostly show movies made since 1960.

 

I am biased in favor of black and white movies, but by and large, when Pat O'Brien comes on the screen, I turn off the movie. When females haven't an ounce of brains and spend the entire movie (b/w, color, makes no difference) looking to get married, to ANY man, I turn off the movie. When the morons in charge throw horses off a cliff, simply because they could, I turn off the movie. When the dialogue is insipid or Charlie Chaplin or Laurel and Hardy are on the screen or the actors think they're on stage and are playing to the last row, I turn off the movie.

 

So.

 

To answer your question. There are outstanding movies made in the 21st century, but for the most part, they stink, to quote The Critic, a very good cartoon if you haven't seen it. I will give any b/w movie a chance, but if a movie is bad, it doesn't matter if it's color or b/w or silent, it's bad. If it's good, ditto.

 

I just happen to think most b/w (not silent) movies made in the 1930s and 1940s are better than most movies made since 1960. My bias, my opinion, so there you go.

 

So, how was Hugo? Mel Brooks did it before Marty did, I hope he knows that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*"I asked for references, what were the silent era's equivalences to today's movies like The House Bunny, Hot Rod, Everything Must Go, Napoleon Dynamite, etc., and no answer, just more insistence that their films were the Transformers of today."* - GreatMoviesFan

 

It is important to take into consideration that the vast majority of silent films are "lost". That status is lamentable for a good number of titles ( *London After Midnight* / *Greed* ) but I would bet that most (but not all!) of the lost films of the silent era were immensely forgettable. The Keystone Kops, Mack Sennet's Bathing Beauties and Tom Mix Westerns are far from examples of great filmmaking. Though extremely popular in their time, they are as inane and un-nuanced as any of the popular films released today. In 2011 they would be of interest only as artifacts of an industry that still hadn't fully matured.

 

*"To me that sounds like a hollow argument, what is today's Metropolis or Steamboat Bill Jr., The Kid, The General, Phantom of the Opera, Nosferatu, The Bat, the Cat and the Canary, the Poor Little Rich Girl, etc?"*

 

In most years, it would be difficult to compile a list of contemporary films that would appeal to Classic Film watchers. But 2011 (and the not-so-recent past) is full of titles worthy of their interest.

 

The LATimes recent list of the films likely to receive a Best Picture nomination for 2011 include -

*The Artist*

*The Descendants*

*Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close*

*The Help*

*Hugo*

*War Horse*

*Midnight In Paris*

*The Tree Of Life*

*Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy*

*Moneyball*

 

That's a hefty list of intelligent "grown-up" movies in current release in theaters or on DVD which should entertain and engage TCM watchers. And only *The Descendants* and *Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy* are rated R.

 

There are many enjoyable contemporary films that have antecedents in the past glories you listed. Such as -

*Metropolis* - District 9

*Steamboat Bill, Jr.* / Any Keaton film - WALL-E

*The Kid* - The Pursuit Of Happyness

*The Phantom Of The Opera* / *Cat And The Canary* - Super 8

 

Like Captain Blood? Check out *Master And Commander*.

Like Mr. Deeds Goes To Town? Find *Slumdog Millionaire*

Like The Wizard Of Oz? Watch *Up*.

Like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington? Try *Milk*.

 

There are adults making films for other adults.

 

Don't misunderstand. The contemporary films I've mentioned are the exception rather than the rule in today's marketplace. But I also believe that the truly great films of the past were also "uncommon" in their day. The "Golden Age" released just as many mediocre films as are released today. Maybe even more. Poverty Row didn't exist to make lasting art. Neither did the Ritz Brothers.

 

What is different is today's producers have invested a lot of money in elevating material better suited to a "Saturday Matinee" into marquee-level entertainment. And that shouldn't be surprising when kids are going to the movies more often than their parents.

 

If one wants better product in their local multi-plex, you've got to support the filmmakers that are producing such films. It is good that you supported *Hugo*. Hopefully you will also support some of the other good films in theaters this month. It appears to me that there is a mini-renaissance of "The Golden Age" going on right now.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's absolutely true that the majority of films in the 1920s, in any past era, were as much "junk" as what we have today. This is a simple fact of everything under the sun, a law of nature; movies, books, tv shows, music, painting, sculpting, etc. etc.

 

They may not have had a "House Bunny" - that particular type of film - back in the 1920s, but they did have terrible things like Beyond the Rocks (a lot of Valentino films, actually) or Where East is East or The Boob (and actually I'd much rather watch The House Bunny any day over any of those films again.) Trite romance and the stupidest kind of orientalism aren't any better than "toilet humor and sex jokes".

 

All I can say is you really need to watch more movies - these cheap generalizations about American cinema today already make little sense to me but to hear them while knowing about everything that is happening around the world? Makes no sense. There are an enormous amount of movies made in the last 30-40 years that can throw down with absolutely anything made in the first seventy years of the cinema. One could just as easily ask what in the silent era (any era) can match The Wind Will Carry Us or The Puppet Master or A Brighter Summer Day? But I don't have to - I already know that these are in communion with The Dying Swan, Coeur Fidele, Tabu, The Only Son, How Green Was My Valley, The River, Adelheid.

 

There is no "then" and "now", there's only cinema, and what makes good cinema has changed very, very little in the last 100 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=joefilmone wrote:}{quote}In the old studio days there was a better sense of basic storytelling- technically the movies are now better- interestlingly Spielberg shot "War Horse" is real celluloid instead of going digital- perhaps he wanted capture that old lusch studio glow.

"Technologically" the movies have improved (changes in film stock, computers, machinery) - "technically" we haven't done much new since the silent era.

 

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Right...because Spielberg understands the difference between celluloid and high-tech video. This is something that I feel James Cameron does not fully grasp...and it's a simple concept, really.

Except James Cameron isn't the exclusive definition of digital video. The digital photography of Jia Zhangke's films The World and Still Life trump practically anything made on film in the last twenty years.

 

Not just a beautiful panoramic landscape - http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews52/the_world_blu-ray_/large/large_the_world_blu-ray_6x.jpg

 

It's not the media used, it's what you do with that media - most people do absolutely nothing with either.

 

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}One of the biggest problems I have with current movie-making is the way the films are lit. I know this may seem like a minor quibble to some people, but it is a major deal for me.

Watch more movies - there are countless films that have atmosphere, texture, ambiance, whatever, up the wazoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It's absolutely true that the majority of films in the 1920s, in any past era, were as much "junk" as what we have today.

 

While I agree with you there...I do not agree with-

 

> Trite romance and the stupidest kind of orientalism aren't any better than "toilet humor and sex jokes"

 

I think this is the biggest reason I don't see many newer movies these days. I can sit through a silly Astaire/Rodgers pap and still be entertained while angry after sitting through some nasty "dating" film.

 

Today's films turn me off for several reasons; dizzying cgi effects & dark lighting, poor writing & editing but mainly the language & violence. For some odd reason, my family does not find the f word, vomiting or objectifying body parts funny. I'm also turned off at the idea of using cheesy Jurassic rock on soundtracks rather than real music made for the film.

 

The last film we saw together (Water For Elephants) the entire plot just thudded with an unnecessary sex scene, the discomfort in the theater was palpable. While I wanted to like Harry Potter, it was too dark to see the special effects and the charactors had zero personality.

 

Since classic film is our "hobby", 14 y/o TikiKid is exposed to old films while I'm exposed to new ones. This is good because she won't "get" From Here To Eternity while I won't "get" Coraline, while we both enjoy some like Legally Blonde and Singin' In The Rain. We respect each others vastly different opinion.

 

I was very surprised to hear her observation that almost every cartoon & newer movie "cheats" (her words) by putting in iconic images from old films like "Top Of The World, Ma!" and the villian fighting off planes from the top of a building like King Kong.

"Why can't they make up their OWN jokes?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have it right. It's all about the demographics. In the 20s and 30s, the majority of filmgoers were adults. Films were made by adults for an adult audience. There were films aimed at kids, the the vast majority of the studio product was for adults.

 

Today, the majority of films seem to be aimed at kids and teens and 20-somethings.

 

Some of today's filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen still make films for adults. And there are still some good films made (released around award season), but the majority are fueled by comic books, fantasy, cartoons and special effects.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is you really need to watch more movies - these cheap generalizations about American cinema today already make little sense to me but to hear them while knowing about everything that is happening around the world? Makes no sense. There are an enormous amount of movies made in the last 30-40 years that can throw down with absolutely anything made in the first seventy years of the cinema. One could just as easily ask what in the silent era (any era) can match The Wind Will Carry Us or The Puppet Master or A Brighter Summer Day? But I don't have to - I already know that these are in communion with The Dying Swan, Coeur Fidele, Tabu, The Only Son, How Green Was My Valley, The River, Adelheid.

 

There is no "then" and "now", there's only cinema, and what makes good cinema has changed very, very little in the last 100 years .

 

Very well put, Jonas. Way too many of our opinions about movies, sports, politics, etc.---you name it---are based on the flimsiest sort of knowledge and barely disguised personal preferences that have nothing to do with any objective merit. And as someone who recoils from both sappy Andy Hardy movies and raunchy modern fare, I certainly don't exclude myself from that criticism.

 

But with the exception of the few thousand people in the world who've taken it upon themselves to acquaint themselves with the best films from all countries and all periods in history, all we've really got to say about movies is "this is what I like". Which is fine, as long as we don't try to pretend that what we're saying represents anything more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never saw a old movie (especially silent movie) that I didn't like. I've seen many, many, many movies today that I didn't like at all. I think movies focus too much on special effects and what they don't realize is that CGI dates very quickly and can become laughable within just a few years. People just assume that silent movies are dated and badly acted. I just say that those who think silent movies are badly acted obviously have never seen Robert Harron act or Conrad Veidt. Sure I do like some actors today but some are just so bad! Maybe our movies today should be getting the bad acting reputation instead of the silent movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movies are no more dated than art or literature. The viewer must accept the film as a product of its time.

 

Yes the clothes and hair and cars and houses look dated but they are merely time capsules, and I find it endlessly fascinating to see them. Old films often give us a look at what our cities and countryside looked like also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I can't reply to the right post because of the POPULAR FORUMS on the side of the screen, but I do have to agree with this quote "I never saw a old movie (especially silent movie) that I didn't like. I've seen many, many, many movies today that I didn't like at all. I think movies focus too much on special effects and what they don't realize is that CGI dates very quickly and can become laughable within just a few years. People just assume that silent movies are dated and badly acted. I just say that those who think silent movies are badly acted obviously have never seen Robert Harron act or Conrad Veidt. Sure I do like some actors today but some are just so bad! Maybe our movies today should be getting the bad acting reputation instead of the silent movies."

 

I do have to agree with this so much, now I have seen a few old movies that were stinkers, tried too hard to push a moral, but even they are better than what's being made today. The dialogue alone can tell us that, it's been said before that movies heavily rely on crude humor, sex jokes, babies throwing up on somebody and **** jokes to get cheap laughs and those are most of what they try for in movies today. In the old movies there wasn't any of that and guess what? Those old movies are still entertaining and their humor is still funny 90 years later. 90 years from NOW, I seriously doubt most people are going to remember the comedies coming out today.

 

In fact, it's one thing when you go onto the Internet Movie Database and look up old movies that people don't remember and their message boards are completely empty, that's understandable, but when you look up movies that have come out in the last 10 years and THEIR message boards are completely empty too or they haven't had a response for months or even years...that doesn't say much about how good the film is, does it? I can do without the lame acting, the humorless dialogue, the tacky CGI effects, I can do without it all, but try telling the boys in Hollywood that. That is the problem with movies, they base success off of how much money the film makes but if they offered refunds for people who hated the films, how successful would they be then? But the response would be a more honest one and maybe they would figure out what NOT to make again.

 

Effects and how hard people are willing to work can often tell just how great a movie is. Let's consider, if they remade The Towering Inferno, this was a great movie, but if they remade it today you KNOW they would NOT build 80 sets with the sole intent of burning them down, they would probably NOT be dumping 70,000 gallons of water on the actors, the REAL actors and not stunt people, and they would NOT be setting their own actors OR stunt people on fire either. They took chances and it was dangerous work but it all paid off and made a great movie that is still effective because it IS real, it's a believable storyline and they made it with REAL fires that destroyed the sets, it wasn't all computer animated and so badly done that you could tell it's CGI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Good point. No doubt that's why the films since 1960 have been garbage.

 

You obviously do not care for post 1960 films. Would that be a fair statement? So, based on your comment, you believe that most if not every film made before 1960 was good?

 

Because if that were the case then you would be saying that EVERY film made before 1960 was far better than anything made after 1960.

 

Now, taking into context the fact that The Hays Code was abolished in 1968, many films had already started to show nudity and include foul language in them even before the Hays Code officially went away in 1968. Having said this, many films from the early 1960's included nudity, violence and foul language.

 

My questions for you are these......

 

What do you think would have happened in 1934 had the Hays Code NOT gone into affect? Do you think that the morals of the time would have won out, or do you think eventually someone or some entity (such as the United States Government) would have stepped forward and made changes to the films? Or maybe the rights of the movie studios would have been allowed to flourish?

 

I think that the Pre-Code Hollywood era would have survived and continued to flourish. Of course, we will never know. That's what so fun about looking back and wondering "what if".

 

But getting back to your original statement *why the films since 1960 have been garbage.*

 

We have had these conversations before in other forums and threads. And this discussion is fine. But please do me a favor...... don't label every film made after 1960 as garbage.

 

As drednm wrote....

 

> Some of today's filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen still make films for adults. And there are still some good films made (released around award season), but the majority are fueled by comic books, fantasy, cartoons and special effects.

 

That last part where he writes about the decline of films because of comic books, fantasy, cartoon, and special effects is just just plain wrong. If you do the research, you will find that many of the greatest films and serials for that matter from before 1960 were films rooted in comics, fantasy, and had great special effects.

 

Drednm can't just generalize that the majority of today's films are of these categories. Sure, there are plenty of films made today that are garbage. I do not disagree. But the same can be said of films made from every time period. Current films are not much different.

 

I could list at least ten films from each year post 1960 that could be labeled as good to excellent. And most of these films do not have CGI effects or were rooted in comics, fantasy, and had great special effects.

 

We could probably add to his characteristics the following reasons not to like much of what came after 1960: extreme violence, sexual situations, nudity, foul language and extreme gore.

 

So I have compiled a list of ten films from one year of each decade following 1960. I selected certain years, and I know that other years may have had more interesting and or controversial films but the year I select is not as important as to show that there were fine films made each year after 1960. Did some have violence? Yes. Did some of sex/nudity in them? Yes. Are some of the films based on fantasy and or other ideas? Yes. Were their swearing in some of these films? You betcha!

 

1962

 

Cape Fear

How the West Was Won

Lawrence of Arabia

Lonely Are the Brave

The Longest Day

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

The Manchurian Candidate

The Music Man

Ride the High Country

To Kill a Mockingbird

 

1975

 

Bite the Bullet

The Day of the Locust

Jaws

The Man Who Would Be King

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Nashville

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

The Sunshine Boys

Three Days of the Condor

The Wind and the Lion

 

1981

 

Chariots of Fire

Das Boot

Eye of the Needle

The French Lieutenant's Woman

Mephisto

Modern Romance

My Dinner with Andre

On Golden Pond

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Reds

 

1993

 

Dave

Farewell My Concubine

In the Line of Fire

In the Name of the Father

The Joy Luck Club

Much Ado About Nothing

Philadelphia

The Remains of the Day

Schindler's List

Shadowlands

 

2003

 

American Splendor

Big Fish

House of Sand and Fog

Lost in Translation

Love Actually

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Open Range

Seabiscuit

Something's Gotta Give

The Station Agent

 

You can say that many films made after 1960 are garbage.

 

I concede that.

 

But saying that *the films since 1960 have been garbage*, is inaccurate. That would indicate to me that every film made since 1960 is garbage. That is your opinion but not a fact.

 

Now I can say based on what you seemed to be saying that you just do not like films made after 1960. And that is fine. I don't like silent or foreign films that much. So we can state what we do and don't like. Each of us have certain likes and dislikes. You seem to be agreeing with drednm that because many films of today include the characteristics he mentioned that that alone would be a good reason not to like or to say that films made after 1960 ARE garbage.

 

But by looking at the above 50 films I listed, one could easily say that most of these films are above average films. In many cases they are really great films. I would bet that 3/4 of all the films made after 1960 were below average or not very well made films. But not all films.

 

Do they have characteristics that would make them unwatchable for you based on what might be your criteria? Or what drednm wrote?

 

Maybe. But maybe not all. Maybe in all the films made after 1960 there could be half of the films that would fall into drednm's criteria. The same could be said of pre-1960 films. Not in the way that your post-1960 films criteria would indicate, but that pre-1960 films, possibly would contain an equal amount of below average films.

 

My final thought is this.....

 

JonasEB nailed it when he wrote that..........

 

*It's absolutely true that the majority of films in the 1920s, in any past era, were as much "junk" as what we have today. This is a simple fact of everything under the sun, a law of nature; movies, books, tv shows, music, painting, sculpting, etc. etc.*

 

*They may not have had a "House Bunny" - that particular type of film - back in the 1920s, but they did have terrible things like Beyond the Rocks (a lot of Valentino films, actually) or Where East is East or The Boob (and actually I'd much rather watch The House Bunny any day over any of those films again.) Trite romance and the stupidest kind of orientalism aren't any better than "toilet humor and sex jokes".*

 

*All I can say is you really need to watch more movies - these cheap generalizations about American cinema today already make little sense to me but to hear them while knowing about everything that is happening around the world? Makes no sense. There are an enormous amount of movies made in the last 30-40 years that can throw down with absolutely anything made in the first seventy years of the cinema. One could just as easily ask what in the silent era (any era) can match The Wind Will Carry Us or The Puppet Master or A Brighter Summer Day? But I don't have to - I already know that these are in communion with The Dying Swan, Coeur Fidele, Tabu, The Only Son, How Green Was My Valley, The River, Adelheid.*

 

*There is no "then" and "now", there's only cinema, and what makes good cinema has changed very, very little in the last 100 years.*

 

Edited by: fxreyman on Dec 27, 2011 2:23 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely have a lack of interest in post-1980 films. It is more because I am interested in film history and social history than any other reason, and you only bring to bear the historical aspect when you watch an older film.. When I watch a recent film, nothing other than the film itself comes into play, and that it boring to me. It is not because I consider recent films to be "garbage".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I definitely have a lack of interest in post-1980 films. It is more because I am interested in film history and social history than any other reason, and you only bring to bear the historical aspect when you watch an older film.

 

I am not sure I follow you. Are you saying that because you are interested in film and social history, the only films to show those two aspects are pre-1980 films?

 

Or are you saying that a post 1980 film does not have an historical meaning to you simply due to the time the film was made?

 

> When I watch a recent film, nothing other than the film itself comes into play, and that it boring to me. It is not because I consider recent films to be "garbage".

 

So again, do you believe that many post 1980 films are not worth your time, either due to the lack of a story, or because you think most post-1980 films are boring.

 

So a film like The King's Speech for instance is boring because you can only see the film. You do not get engaged with the film because the film lacks heart? Or what exactly?

 

As far as me calling you out on the garbage comment, that was not aimed at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

drednm wrote:

<< Movies are no more dated than art or literature. The viewer must accept the film as a product of its time.

 

Yes the clothes and hair and cars and houses look dated but they are merely time capsules, and I find it endlessly fascinating to see them. Old films often give us a look at what our cities and countryside looked like also. >>

 

That post hit the nail right on the head, that is mostly how I feel. There is an old phrase that best suits this thread *The Generation Gap.*

 

It would be interesting to know the taste of music posters has that don't like movies made before a certain time frame (i.e. before 1960's -80's, etc.). For myself, I hate *rap* (if I had a choice, I rather listen to the music of anceint Rome).

 

Regarding music and movies, I love when I find an oldie, I've never heard or seen before but don't have my ears shut or eyes closed to anything new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh, a three way (argument) rising...

 

fxreyman:

>We have had these conversations before in other forums and threads. And this discussion is fine. But please do me a favor...... don't label every film made after 1960 as garbage.

 

You're right. There's always a "good" film around. But "great" films are few & far between. Maybe it was always that way except for 1939.

 

But when I look at your very thoughtful lists of what you consider good to excellent, I notice the closer we get to 2011, the fewer "excellent". Your 2003 choices, although likeable, not ONE of those is a well rounded _great_ film. And I realize that is only my opinion.

 

dredmn:

>And there are still some good films made (released around award season), but the majority are fueled by comic books, fantasy, cartoons and special effects.

 

fxreyman:

>That last part where he writes about the decline of films because of comic books, fantasy, cartoon, and special effects is just just plain wrong.

 

He's not saying BECAUSE of that, he's just noting that's a factor.

 

For me, the best movies are those with the best STORY. The base. Although I didn't care for The DiVinci Code, it was a popular book made into a popular movie. Same with Harry Potter, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, etc. I'm only sorry the production values & bad acting sunk those.

 

It seems to me lacking "source" material is a huge factor in the decline of newer films.

Woody Allen is an anomaly in that he writes his own stories to become the movie. I wish there were more like that. Billy Wilder & Frank Capra (to a lesser degree) come to mind in the classic era.

 

But because the demographics are gearing towards younger set (esp boys) comics, cartoons, retro TV shows, gore all with special effects have become typical "source" material. Not exclusively, but typical.

Oh, and then there's Jane Austen & Alcott classics (and classic films) for "the girls". How polarizing!

 

Was that any different than the tons of Andy Hardy, Tarzan serials, Dead End Kids stuff we deem classic?

Only in numbers.

The "kids" films of the past were low budget KIDS films for the most part. The odd big budget "kid's" movies like Thief of Bagdad, Wizard of Oz were not what the studio was banking on like today. The "adult" films were the prestigious ones and money makers.

 

Now, kid's films are the focus and adult films are fewer & farther between. I work in a Mall right next to the theater & it's full of kids. I've noticed adults wait until a movie comes to the second run theaters.

 

And sometimes the movie is so loud, thumping music & explosions, I have to leave work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...