# Great movies that have not stood the test of time **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 7, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936 "2010-09-07T16:21:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/21 "2010-09-07T20:01:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > _Easy Rider_ seems dated and fatuous now except for Nicholson’s performance. Similarly, _Five Easy Pieces_ is almost incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/22 "2010-09-07T20:21:34Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > What are some movies that were great when they were released, but now just look ridiculous? > > The inspiration for this thread was last night when I was watching _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_. There were lots of little things that made me slap my forehead. The special effects looked cheesy. The costumes looked really dated. But by far the worst was that the villan, a man of advanced genetic engineering, the galaxy’s most advanced human, was wearing a freakin’ mullet. Don’t forget that Kirk defeats Khan by realizing that as a man of the 20th (21st?) Century, Khan is not really used to thinking in three dimensions, doesn’t realize the Enterprise can get above or below him – yet, Kirk still hasn’t outgrown the thinking that all starships in a vicinity have to be in the same relative plane-of-orientation, as if they were submarines. See [Space Is An Ocean.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsAnOcean) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/23 "2010-09-07T20:23:44Z")
I dunno if it was ever considered a **great** movie, but [_Billy Jack_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Jack) once was shown in real walk-in theaters, and if you rent it you’ll wonder how that could have happened. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/24 "2010-09-07T20:26:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I dunno if it was ever considered a great movie, but Billy Jack once was shown in real walk-in theaters, and if you rent it you’ll wonder how that could have happened. Heck, I wonder that about **The Green Slime** , which I saw in a real movie theater. For that matter, I’m amazed that anyone paid money to see **The Story of Mankind** ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/25 "2010-09-07T20:31:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t forget that Kirk defeats Khan by realizing that as a man of the 20th (21st?) Century, Khan is not really used to thinking in three dimensions, doesn’t realize the Enterprise can get above or below him – yet, Kirk still hasn’t outgrown the thinking that all starships in a vicinity have to be in the same relative plane-of-orientation, as if they were submarines. See [Space Is An Ocean.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsAnOcean) I’ve thought about that before. I can’t think of any space battle I’ve seen in a movie where combatting ships meet each other upside down or sideways. Some bank, roll, or spin, sure. But there is a direction in space that is clearly “up.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/26 "2010-09-07T20:39:45Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > Don’t forget that Kirk defeats Khan by realizing that as a man of the 20th (21st?) Century, Khan is not really used to thinking in three dimensions, doesn’t realize the Enterprise can get above or below him – yet, Kirk still hasn’t outgrown the thinking that all starships in a vicinity have to be in the same relative plane-of-orientation, as if they were submarines. See [Space Is An Ocean.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsAnOcean) > > I’ve thought about that before. I can’t think of any space battle I’ve seen in a movie where combatting ships meet each other upside down or sideways. Some bank, roll, or spin, sure. But there is a direction in space that is clearly “up.” Even in _Babylon 5_ – where they at least had to sense to come up with the Starfury – obviously the result of some bright fellow asking, “Hey, it’s in free-fall and hard-vac, so why do we need a fighter shaped like an airplane, where the pilot has to sit down?” ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/27 "2010-09-07T20:40:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@tdn](#): > > > > What are some movies that were great when they were released, but now just look ridiculous? > > > > The inspiration for this thread was last night when I was watching _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_. There were lots of little things that made me slap my forehead. The special effects looked cheesy. The costumes looked really dated. But by far the worst was that the villan, a man of advanced genetic engineering, the galaxy’s most advanced human, was wearing a freakin’ mullet. > > Don’t forget that Kirk defeats Khan by realizing that as a man of the 20th (21st?) Century… In this vein, I suppose one could also fanwank the mullet. If I recall my Star Trek chronology correctly, I think the Eugenics Wars (of which Khan is a veteran) take place in the 1990s, which would have been at the tail-end of the mullet era. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/28 "2010-09-07T20:40:57Z")
_Gentleman’s Agreement_’s story is well out of date today. It’s not utterly incomprehensible if you watch it, since it’s easy to understand how a social structure that casually excludes certain members can exist. There’s no real lack of that today. But the movie seems specifically tailored to anti-Semitism as it was in the US then. It’s more of an interesting artifact than a timeless tale. As an aside, I noticed this in the Wikipedia entry for _Imitation of Life_: > [@](#): > > The actress playing “Jessie” as a baby changed her name from “Baby Jane” to “Juanita Quigley” during production of the film. So _that’s_ what happened to her. ---
**Author:** ![Pyper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pyper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/29 "2010-09-07T20:45:38Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > Don’t forget that Kirk defeats Khan by realizing that as a man of the 20th (21st?) Century, Khan is not really used to thinking in three dimensions, doesn’t realize the Enterprise can get above or below him – yet, Kirk still hasn’t outgrown the thinking that all starships in a vicinity have to be in the same relative plane-of-orientation, as if they were submarines. See [Space Is An Ocean.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsAnOcean) > > I’ve thought about that before. I can’t think of any space battle I’ve seen in a movie where combatting ships meet each other upside down or sideways. Some bank, roll, or spin, sure. But there is a direction in space that is clearly “up.” Not a movie, but the new Battlestar Galactica had space battles in all dimensions. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/30 "2010-09-07T20:53:36Z")
The aforementioned _2001_ is remarkable in that it at least attempted to depict space travel realistically. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/31 "2010-09-07T21:33:52Z")
I hear _Breakfast at Tiffany’s_ is a good move, even a great one. I wouldn’t know as I always switch to something else when Mickey Rooney comes up. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/32 "2010-09-07T22:02:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Not a movie, but the new Battlestar Galactica had space battles in all dimensions. Heck, long before that E.E. “Doc” Smith’s Lensman novels had three-dimensional battle formations, like the “Cone of Attack”, treating space as the non-planar medium it is. Visual SF, as usual, is simply decades behind. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/33 "2010-09-07T22:36:14Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > I like “The Graduate,” but it’s one that I don’t think has aged well. I watched The Gradudate about five years ago, but it felt to me like it must have been dated when it was released. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/34 "2010-09-07T22:56:49Z")
> [@panamajack](#): > > _Gentleman’s Agreement_’s story is well out of date today. It’s not utterly incomprehensible if you watch it, since it’s easy to understand how a social structure that casually excludes certain members can exist. There’s no real lack of that today. But the movie seems specifically tailored to anti-Semitism as it was in the US then. It’s more of an interesting artifact than a timeless tale. I thought it was :rolleyes: hokey, embarassingly trite and soft-pedaled the reall effects of anti-Semitic bigotry. I guess it should be remembered as ground-breaking for even bringing up the subject. Any pre-WWII era Hitchcock movie does not for me stand the test of time, chief example being _The Thirty-Nine Steps_. Still a compelling novel, but a creaky and dull movie. Lots of silent films look wretched now. A couple nights ago I saw the tail end of _The Pagan_ with Ramon Navarro, and it’s difficult to imagine the audience in those days doing anything but laughing during the climactic fight scenes. The very best ones, though are still a gas (like Buster Keaton’s _The General_). ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/35 "2010-09-07T23:03:08Z")
I can never hear of The Graduate without bringing up Roger Ebert’s astonishingly accurate 30th Anniversary [review](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970328/REVIEWS/703280304/1023). In short, Mrs. Robinson is the only real person in the entire thing. ---
**Author:** ![Fried\_Dough\_Ho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Fried\_Dough\_Ho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fried_Dough_Ho)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/36 "2010-09-07T23:36:23Z")
Ironically I watched a movie over the weekend that made me think about starting a similar thread, \*That Touch of Mink \*with Cary Grant and Doris Day. The pretext of the film is that a 58-year old Cary Grant only wants to have an affair with the 40-year old Doris Day (still feigning virginity). For 1962, it might have been a slightly relative story with 20-year olds in the part, but so hard to believe from these two stars. For 2010, it is beyond a joke. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/37 "2010-09-07T23:55:03Z")
It would make a good porno. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/38 "2010-09-07T23:59:16Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > the galaxy’s most advanced human, was wearing a freakin’ mullet. It’s spelled K-H-A-N, but pronounced “MacGyver”. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/39 "2010-09-08T00:06:24Z")
> [@mack](#): > > > [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > > > _2001: A Space Odyssey_, the future as we saw it in 1968, looked utterly dated by 1971 because the fricking phone company changed its logo! So here’s this advanced society, using phones from the '40s! > > > > Of course the closer we got to the actual 2001, the more dated it looked in other aspects as well. > > I think 2001 aged remarkably well, with the exception of the goofy furniture on the space station and maybe some of the fashions that couldn’t quite shake 1968. It’s amazing to me how it still holds up. I’ll also say _2001_ holds up, and the “dating” isn’t relevant. I mean, it’s obviously not _our_ year 2001. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936/40 "2010-09-08T02:52:38Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Any pre-WWII era Hitchcock movie does not for me stand the test of time, chief example being _The Thirty-Nine Steps_. Still a compelling novel, but a creaky and dull movie. I strenuously disagree with that. It’s still very compelling with great setpieces, and a terrific ending. There was a BBC remake recently that wasn’t half as good (though, admittedly, the stage play is much better than either ). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-movies-that-have-not-stood-the-test-of-time/552936.md?page=3)