Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-24-2017, 02:41 PM
Crafter_Man Crafter_Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,358
I donít like watching new movies.

I've been watching a lot of movies made in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s over the past year. Mainly westerns, but also quite a few thrillers and a comedy here and there.

I now find modern flicks are almost unbearable to watch:

- The jerky camera movement annoys the hell out of me. In a given scene the camera view will change at least once a second.

- Loud and very compressed music blaring in my ears the entire time. There's no such thing as just two people talking; even during simple dialog scenes there's synthesized music and occasionally some background noise. Why??

- CGI, even when it's not needed. And most CGI looks so fake that it takes me away from the movie.

- Over-saturated colors.

- Too much use of audio effects.
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-24-2017, 02:53 PM
Roderick Femm Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 5,518
I agree. Technical "marvels," loud music/noises and quick cutting, instead of good writing, appeal to lazy viewers, and so lazy viewers is what they get. It's a vicious circle.

Last night I watched a 90-minute Swedish TV mystery that had none of that stuff, and I was riveted. Character interplay between a dozen people, the occasional flashback (only to remind us of something we've already seen, that suddenly became relevant), no explosions or car chases or robots. I guess it helped that it was set in the 50's so that people were used to interacting with each other instead of with devices.

But what do I know? I'm 67 and no-one's target audience. For the OP, there are a few films that don't do those things, but you have to hunt for them, and they may not be readily available in theaters unless you live in a major metropolitan area.
  #3  
Old 06-24-2017, 02:56 PM
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 16,885
Pretty much agree with all of this. Plus, the story, if there is one at all, it usually fucking stupid.

I don't like comic books or any of their characters, vampires or zombies. Pretty much excludes me.
  #4  
Old 06-24-2017, 02:58 PM
ThelmaLou ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,853
Ditto to all of you (including the age-- I'm 68). I prefer movies with actual, you know: plots, characters, a story line, good cinematography without falling back on special effects. I also do not like gratuitous manipulation of my emotions via shocking and graphic violence, particularly against children and animals. When I feel like my chains are being intentionally yanked by someone who doesn't know how to do it otherwise, I bail immediately. The handheld camera also makes me nuts--thank you for starting that, Woody Allen.

Hey, Rod-- what was the 90-min Swedish story you watched? Sounds like it's right up my street.

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 06-24-2017 at 02:58 PM.
  #5  
Old 06-24-2017, 04:28 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Right up through the 1990s, I used to love going to the movies. Now I go to one maybe every other year. The last ones I saw were The Hateful Eight, Fury, and The Imitation Game.

Most of today's movies are absolute crap churned out by people who don't give a rat's ass about quality. As long as there are idiots willing to pay for such tripe, the trend will continue.
  #6  
Old 06-24-2017, 04:31 PM
RikWriter RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,324
Huh. Couldn't agree less. I find the editing and cinematic techniques of older films distracting in their primitiveness.
  #7  
Old 06-24-2017, 04:57 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by RikWriter View Post
Huh. Couldn't agree less. I find the editing and cinematic techniques of older films distracting in their primitiveness.
Yeah, they actually require the viewer to have a more than two-second attention span.
  #8  
Old 06-24-2017, 05:04 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 19,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by RikWriter View Post
Huh. Couldn't agree less. I find the editing and cinematic techniques of older films distracting in their primitiveness.
? Even if we agree that there have been objective "advances" in recent filmmaking methods over the more "primitive" ones available to earlier generations, I don't see how the mere existence of the earlier methods would distract you.

Do you also find it "distracting" to look at, say, early black-and-white photos because they don't use color film? Or to look at prehistoric cave paintings because their pigments were cruder and less varied than modern paints?
  #9  
Old 06-24-2017, 05:14 PM
panache45 panache45 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 39,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by RikWriter View Post
Huh. Couldn't agree less. I find the editing and cinematic techniques of older films distracting in their primitiveness.
Can you look at REALITY? Does the lack of editing and cinematic techniques distract you?
  #10  
Old 06-24-2017, 06:00 PM
ThisIsTheEnd ThisIsTheEnd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 239
CGI used in place of say, rear projection is fine.

CGI for explosions and the like, I don't really know why they can't do it better but they usually don't. Something to do with persistence of vision and frame rates I think. Objects aren't on the screen long enough for you to register them.

As for stories, with a few exceptions, I don't really care that much, most stories are boring and the same; I'm much more into big scenery-chewing acting and lush photography.

I don't go for any of the comic book/zombie/vampire/fantasy shit either, but modern photography (let's say last 50 years) has it all over the older stuff, in spades. If some of those older films had been in color, it might be a different, uh, story. Color requires a lot more attention to art direction and lighting.
  #11  
Old 06-24-2017, 06:07 PM
Roderick Femm Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 5,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Hey, Rod-- what was the 90-min Swedish story you watched? Sounds like it's right up my street.
It's called Crimes of Passion and I get it through MHz Choice. Based on novels by Maria Lang and starring a very fetching Ola Rapace. Unfortunately there are only 6 episodes available. MHz has some other series that I will be checking out.
  #12  
Old 06-24-2017, 06:08 PM
madsircool madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsTheEnd View Post
CGI used in place of say, rear projection is fine.

CGI for explosions and the like, I don't really know why they can't do it better but they usually don't. Something to do with persistence of vision and frame rates I think. Objects aren't on the screen long enough for you to register them.

As for stories, with a few exceptions, I don't really care that much, most stories are boring and the same; I'm much more into big scenery-chewing acting and lush photography.

I don't go for any of the comic book/zombie/vampire/fantasy shit either, but modern photography (let's say last 50 years) has it all over the older stuff, in spades. If some of those older films had been in color, it might be a different, uh, story. Color requires a lot more attention to art direction and lighting.
I would disagree with the lighting comment. It takes great skill to get the lighting and shadows correct in b&w.
  #13  
Old 06-24-2017, 06:20 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsTheEnd View Post
If some of those older films had been in color, it might be a different, uh, story. Color requires a lot more attention to art direction and lighting.
I've seen a colorized version of Casablanca that was actually quite well done. However, it couldn't hold a candle to the original B&W version, especially when viewed in a real cinema (and not on TV or in a multiplex).* The range of blacks, whites, and greys is simply stunning, and the images seem to shimmer before your eyes.

This is why they called it "The Silver Screen."

*I saw it with friends at the Oktyabrskoe Cinema in Moscow, the largest movie theater in the world. The screen there is (or at least was, back in 1990) enormous!
  #14  
Old 06-24-2017, 06:24 PM
Patx2 Patx2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,681
I agree with this, especially with the loud music. Sometimes it doesn't seem like it's in the background at all. I find some tv shows to be the same way. The music completely drowns out any dialogue that's going on.
  #15  
Old 06-24-2017, 07:01 PM
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8,186
I love old films. I even love silent films. My all-time favorite film is from 1942 (To Be or Not to Be), and my second favorite is from 1927 (Metropolis). The newest film on my DVR is from 1967, and most of the film are from the 30s and 40s. Even when I was a kid, I liked old movies. When the paper came with the new TV schedule, I'd get it and go through all the movies looking for anything from the 1930s or 1940s, and circle it. It was before VCRs, so if it was on at night, I'd set the alarm, and sneak into the living room and watch it. I usually fell asleep, but I'd catch enough of it. If it was on during school, and starred someone I really liked, or had four stars, I might try to work up a fake cold. I actually went to the doctor and submitted to a throat culture just to watch Gaslight. Totally worth it.

When I was 11, my grandfather bought me a 13-inch B&W TV for my room, which was so cool to me, I could barely contain myself. It made my covert nighttime movie watching easier.

I like movies in general, and recently had a good time at Wonder Woman, but I still love a film that people obviously cared about making. And there are some great performances that are unmatched-- you can't use CGI to make something as funny as Irene Dunne in The Awful Truth (1937).
  #16  
Old 06-24-2017, 07:32 PM
RikWriter RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,324
Not going to argue with you about my personal tastes, just stating them. Take it, leave it, whatever.
  #17  
Old 06-24-2017, 07:42 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by RikWriter View Post
Not going to argue with you about my personal tastes, just stating them. Take it, leave it, whatever.
Now who's being a Grumpy Gus?
  #18  
Old 06-24-2017, 07:46 PM
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
Now who's being a Grumpy Gus?
Somebody make tea.
  #19  
Old 06-24-2017, 07:49 PM
snfaulkner snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 4,668
90% of everything is crap. Comparing a good movie to 9 bad ones will make it very easy to over generalize.
  #20  
Old 06-24-2017, 08:00 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
90% of everything is crap.
Yes, but some crappy things are crappier than others.

F'rinstance, Plan Nine from Outer Space is great crap! Junk like the reboot of Star Trek is just plain crap.
  #21  
Old 06-24-2017, 08:13 PM
John DiFool John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 17,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
Over-saturated colors.
Huh. I would have thought the main complaint there would have been where they are under-saturated.
  #22  
Old 06-24-2017, 08:15 PM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,581
One of the things that always gets me when I watch silent movies is how incredibly talented, in a physical sense, the actors were. Sure, the movies have the (sometimes) long explanations written out, but still, it takes a lot of sheer talent to get the point across in a fitting way.

There's only a tiny handful of actors like that today--Dick van Dyke, who has admitted that Laurel and Hardy were tremendously influential for him; Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller have some of that. That's about it.
  #23  
Old 06-24-2017, 08:31 PM
snfaulkner snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
Yes, but some crappy things are crappier than others.

F'rinstance, Plan Nine from Outer Space is great crap! Junk like the reboot of Star Trek is just plain crap.
Funny aside about plan 9. During the summer they show movies at the Hollywood forever cemetary at night. One night it was plan 9. About 30min into into it this small girl in front of us turns to her mom and says. "Mommy, this movie us terrible!"

Mommy:"I know sweetheart. That's why we're here"

Kid:"why did you do the to us?"

Mommy: "just be quiet and watch it!"
  #24  
Old 06-24-2017, 08:35 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Mommy:"I know sweetheart. That's why we're here"

Kid:"why did you do the to us?"

Mommy: "just be quiet and watch it!"
I think I'm in love!
  #25  
Old 06-24-2017, 09:55 PM
ZonexandScout ZonexandScout is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 516
Shaky cameras are my biggest gripe. I absolutely hate that technique. It is apparently supposed to simulate "real vision," but any idiot knows that the human eye is extremely good at eliminating that effect. Just focus on something and shake your head to see. Humans have evolved with that (excellent) ability.

I know that the cinematographer is actually trying to simulate a handheld camera, but what's the point in doing that if it's supposed to be a POV shot that doesn't involve a camera? It is stupid, irritating, and an effect that, much like the "Dutch angle," is used by people who don't understand why other film-makers use it or when it would be actually be appropriate. I hate it.

Did I say that I hate it?
  #26  
Old 06-24-2017, 10:35 PM
burpo the wonder mutt burpo the wonder mutt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 18,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonexandScout View Post
<snip> Did I say that I hate it?
I'll do you one (slightly) better*: for a while, they were using this "technique" where the camera can't quite stay on the subject of the shot. "Wall-E" used it--it was like the camera couldn't find him and then couldn't keep him in the shot. The first "Star Trek" re-boot used it, too; when Thor Kirk was taking his ship on the suicide run into the baddie's big, stupid looking vessel, the doomed ship wouldn't stay in the frame. The worst part? They went out of their way to digitally create bad camera-work! Haven't noticed it in a while, maybe they're done with it?



*So to speak.
  #27  
Old 06-24-2017, 10:41 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by burpo the wonder mutt View Post
I'll do you one (slightly) better*: for a while, they were using this "technique" where the camera can't quite stay on the subject of the shot. "Wall-E" used it--it was like the camera couldn't find him and then couldn't keep him in the shot. The first "Star Trek" re-boot used it, too; when Thor Kirk was taking his ship on the suicide run into the baddie's big, stupid looking vessel, the doomed ship wouldn't stay in the frame.
I noticed the same thing in the episodes of Boston Legal I watched. Shatner et al. floated around camera shots like the mouths of characters in Clutch Cargo cartoons.
  #28  
Old 06-24-2017, 10:46 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonexandScout View Post
It is stupid, irritating, and an effect that, much like the "Dutch angle," is used by people who don't understand why other film-makers use it or when it would be actually be appropriate.
Is that where the camera keeps changing focus from the actor nearer to it to the actor farther from it and then back again, without anything moving? Gives me a headache!
  #29  
Old 06-24-2017, 10:52 PM
burpo the wonder mutt burpo the wonder mutt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 18,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
Is that where the camera keeps changing focus from the actor nearer to it to the actor farther from it and then back again, without anything moving? Gives me a headache!
Oh, no, that's called a rack focus. Dutch angle; think TV Batman tilted sets.

Last edited by burpo the wonder mutt; 06-24-2017 at 10:52 PM.
  #30  
Old 06-24-2017, 11:57 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by burpo the wonder mutt View Post
Oh, no, that's called a rack focus. Dutch angle; think TV Batman tilted sets.
Holy cinematography! Why didn't I think of that?!?
  #31  
Old 06-25-2017, 07:09 AM
ZonexandScout ZonexandScout is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
Holy cinematography! Why didn't I think of that?!?
Yes, many directors, including Orson Welles, used Dutch angles effectively to convey a sense of unease. The shots are disconcerting to the viewer and originated, I believe, in German expressionist movies. More recent film-makers think, "I want to make an impression on the audience and show that I watched classic movies. Let's make this a Dutch angle!"

To a certain extent, I believe that shaky camera shots are intended to simulate viewing the action through a cell phone as one records. Why that would be relevant in so many scenes is totally baffling.
  #32  
Old 06-25-2017, 07:12 AM
ZonexandScout ZonexandScout is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 516
Oh, yes, I also hate most CGI. To trot out a tired and over-used observation, Jurassic Park did GCI right. It was subtle and believable. The creatures and objects generally obeyed the laws of physics. The CGI complemented live-action and in-camera FX. Newer movies, especially superhero movies, just totally crap all over this approach. I have to blame video games for the general acceptance of such inferior work.
  #33  
Old 06-25-2017, 07:30 AM
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonexandScout View Post
To a certain extent, I believe that shaky camera shots are intended to simulate viewing the action through a cell phone as one records. Why that would be relevant in so many scenes is totally baffling.
The Blair Witch Project used "shaky cam" effectively, because it was supposed to look like found footage that had been deliberately under-edited, to give the viewer the feeling of what exactly the camera person saw when they were filming. One thing that was effective about the BWP was how increasingly shaky the footage gets as the film goes on. It's supposed to be made by film students, who are almost professional in the beginning, and as they become more and more unhinged, and filming breaks down (yet they keep filming, in an attempt to fool themselves into thinking that everything is still OK). It's effective not because it's shaky, but because of what it represents.

After the BWP was a surprise hit, "found footage" films became all the rage, and they were shaky just to communicate "Hey! found footage!" It didn't work. Imitation rarely does, but people do it anyway.

Last edited by RivkahChaya; 06-25-2017 at 07:31 AM.
  #34  
Old 06-25-2017, 07:36 AM
ThisIsTheEnd ThisIsTheEnd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 239
Shaky cam is to imitate that your position is not fixed, and that's exactly what is is.

Drift is to imitate a real time POV if you were in the room with the characters. You wouldn't just stare at the person who was speaking, and if there were other people in the room, your eyes wouldn't be framing a two-shot. Your eyes would drift around the room. They don't take it that far, but that's the intention behind it.
  #35  
Old 06-25-2017, 08:18 AM
ZonexandScout ZonexandScout is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsTheEnd View Post
Shaky cam is to imitate that your position is not fixed, and that's exactly what is is.

Drift is to imitate a real time POV if you were in the room with the characters. You wouldn't just stare at the person who was speaking, and if there were other people in the room, your eyes wouldn't be framing a two-shot. Your eyes would drift around the room. They don't take it that far, but that's the intention behind it.
Agree. Drift is something else entirely. The typical misuse of shaky cam is at a conference table, where the POV of one of the participants keeps shifting fractionally, as if he/she was holding a camera in his/her hands. What's the point? That is absolutely NOT what a real person sitting there would see. Our ability to fix our vision on an object is marvelous, even when our head is in motion.

Now, keeping our eyes fixed on a moving object is something else altogether. ("Keeping our eyes fixed on a moving object is something else.")

Last edited by ZonexandScout; 06-25-2017 at 08:19 AM.
  #36  
Old 06-25-2017, 08:24 AM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 15,623
"Mainstream" movies have generally gotten really crappy. I have little interest lately in most movies in the top box office. (Things get better in the late fall when the award contenders start rolling out.)

But I watch a lot of new movies thanks to streaming. Little indie or British movies. Few of which ever appeared on any box office list.

There is the occasional shaky cam indie.

While they all have the standard loud music/sound effects issue, that's just how it's done now. Even older movies digitized now have the same problem.

The supposed "solution" is to adjust your TV in a magic way. But A: All of us fixing their problem is stupid. They should fix it from the start. And B. None of my TVs have a setting that remotely fixes this.
  #37  
Old 06-25-2017, 08:46 AM
ThelmaLou ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonexandScout View Post
...
To a certain extent, I believe that shaky camera shots are intended to simulate viewing the action through a cell phone as one records. Why that would be relevant in so many scenes is totally baffling.
Shaky cam has been around a lot longer than cell/smart phones.

I agree that it often makes no sense.

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 06-25-2017 at 08:47 AM.
  #38  
Old 06-25-2017, 09:16 AM
GuanoLad GuanoLad is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 23,210
There's certainly a lot about modern movies I don't like. They do tend to be loud and frenetic, with no sense of timing. They do need to breathe sometimes.

But generally I enjoy most modern movies just fine, at least in the genres I have always liked. And if I don't get what I want from movies (comedy especially seems to be going in a terrible direction), there is plenty of TV that does it well, and they do take their time where they can.

I also don't mind CGI, as I am an aficionado of it as a hobby. A VFX nerd, if you will. Yeah some of it is badly done, but that's true of every aspect of movies - you notice when it's bad, don't notice when it's good. You have to make allowances, and over time things will improve.
  #39  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:13 AM
burpo the wonder mutt burpo the wonder mutt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 18,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
Holy cinematography! Why didn't I think of that?!?
While we're (sort of) on the subject, what is this camera technique called?

Last edited by burpo the wonder mutt; 06-25-2017 at 10:18 AM.
  #40  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:26 AM
salinqmind salinqmind is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Liverpool NY USA
Posts: 9,389
I guess I'm out of the movie demographic now. Everything is Spiderman, Batman, Superman, or some other comic book. Starring I-dunno-who-these-people-are.
  #41  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:33 AM
MoonMoon MoonMoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 821
Hoo boy, the old is strong in this thread.
  #42  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:50 AM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
I'm so emotionally dead that I require explosions, overwrought melodrama, and bone rattling orchestral scores to spark the barest glimmer of human feeling in my cold husk of a body. Audiences are wracked by alienation in a post-industrial society and gaze upon the screen like a cow waiting for the thud of the bolt gun. Ah, sweet relief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonMoon View Post
Hoo boy, the old is strong in this thread.
The nice thing about old movies is you can take a nap and not miss anything. Oh, and the casual misogyny.

Actually, whenever I watch old movies that are three or more hours long I dread the experience, but they're usually well paced and skip right along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by burpo the wonder mutt View Post
While we're (sort of) on the subject, what is this camera technique called?
Dolly zoom.
  #43  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:54 AM
hogarth hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,534
Weird -- I'm more used to hearing obtrusive, unnecessary music in older movies compared to recent movies. Especially in comedies or romances, say.
  #44  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:55 AM
Richard John Marcej Richard John Marcej is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by salinqmind View Post
I guess I'm out of the movie demographic now. Everything is Spiderman, Batman, Superman, or some other comic book. Starring I-dunno-who-these-people-are.
I have to comment here.
No offense , Everything is Not Spider-man, Batman, Superman or some other comic book.
Seriously, I can't believe you actually believe that.
According to Box Office Mojo Hollywood released 729 films in 2016.
That's 729. Of those how many were "comic book" films? Maybe 10? 12?

I'm so tired of hearing people say that all the movies that are released are special effect comic book films. There are so many different types of films released every year. Something for everybody.

I'm 56.
I LOVE movies.
Movies from all decades.
I can sit and watch a movie from the 30's and than watch one that came out last year and enjoy them both. It doesn't matter to me. Strong script, strong acting, strong directing. It doesn't matter when it was made, if it has all that then it's worth watching.

Last edited by Richard John Marcej; 06-25-2017 at 10:55 AM.
  #45  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:19 AM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard John Marcej View Post
I'm so tired of hearing people say that all the movies that are released are special effect comic book films. There are so many different types of films released every year. Something for everybody.
True, but how culturally relevant are they? Take a gander at 2016's top grossing movies.

That list made me realize there's such a movie as Ice Age 5: Collision Course, which grossed $400 million with a 15% RT. Lovely.
  #46  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:22 AM
madsircool madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonMoon View Post
Hoo boy, the old is strong in this thread.
Newer isnt always better.
  #47  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:35 AM
madsircool madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmallow View Post



The nice thing about old movies is you can take a nap and not miss anything. Oh, and the casual misogyny.




Their misogyny was so lame. If only they had that Straight Outta Compton group to mentor them.
  #48  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:37 AM
Wolf333 Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Newer isnt always better.


Neither is older.
  #49  
Old 06-25-2017, 12:35 PM
RikWriter RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Newer isnt always better.
And things weren't always better in the old days. Most of the time, they were much worse.
  #50  
Old 06-25-2017, 12:40 PM
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,109
Older movies are slower and have the disadvantage that they are the cliches that the newer movies (and esp the great newer tv shows) are riffing on. So watching old movies seems regressive sometimes.

I was a film student and have seen boatloads of classic and art movies. These days they need to be in the top percentile classically or artistically for me to take the time. There's not many left that I missed.

And yes the movies are basically being made for kids these days. Anecdotally there are many kinds of flicks, but we can see how the culture is by looking out at it. The economic model for filmed dramas has shifted. I don't think there's any looking back.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017