# Movies that don't age well that should have **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 10, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718 "2013-01-10T04:04:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/41 "2013-01-11T02:28:54Z")
**Kelly’s Heroes**. A family favorite that I watched alot as a teenager but hadn’t seen in 25 years or so. What the hell is Donald Sutherland, WW2 tank driver, doing there as a kooky 60’s hippie stereotype? It completely took me out - the entire character seemed to stroll in from **Festival Express** while everyone else was filming a WW2 movie. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_A.Robrin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sam_a.robrin/32/14497_2.png) [@Sam\_A.Robrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_A.Robrin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/42 "2013-01-11T02:33:59Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > _The Pirates of Penzance_ Gilbert and Sullivan’s timeless work, amazing performance by Kevin Kline and a wonderfully “stagy” set and decor. So what hurts it? The producers cheaped out and had an all synthesizer score, instead of hiring an orchestra. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and makes what should be timeless firmly nailed to the 80s. Of course, the protagonist of that one didn’t age very well, himself… ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/43 "2013-01-11T03:52:26Z")
Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid with Redford and Newman didn’t hold up well. Which is odd because it is a period Western. But the hairstyles and even the acting seems to date it. It looks like a typical 60’s movie. Much like the Graduate. Same deal. Hairstyles and acting dates it. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/44 "2013-01-11T03:54:24Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > E.T. was released in 1982 and as a six year old child I absolutely loved that movie. When it came out on video just six short years later I found the movie to be absolutely unwatchable. Does that mean ET, which you thought would be a timeless classic when you were six, aged badly in six years, and at twelve you then realized how dated it was? Or does it just mean that your tastes changed between six and twelve? And have you watched ET since? If you did, would/do you share the opinion of your twelve year old self? Sometimes kid friendly movies don’t appeal to the “sophisticated” tastes of “mature” kids who hate “baby stuff”. And then they get a bit older and don’t have a psychological need to dismiss little kid stuff and can enjoy it again. I haven’t seen ET in decades, so I have no idea whether it holds up or not. It was hailed as a classic at the time, but you hardly ever hear about it nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/45 "2013-01-11T04:00:47Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid with Redford and Newman didn’t hold up well. Which is odd because it is a period Western. But the hairstyles and even the acting seems to date it. It looks like a typical 60’s movie. Much like the Graduate. Same deal. Hairstyles and acting dates it. Yes, but “The Graduate” is set in the 60s, so the 60s hair and costuming are totally appropriate. A period piece is supposed to evoke the time of the setting, not the time the movie was made. And you can tell whether a movie set in ancient Rome is in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. And in 30 years you’ll be able to spot a movie made in the 10s because of it’s telltale ridiculous fashions and attitudes. “The Graduate” really hasn’t aged well, but did anyone expect it to be timeless? The point of the thread isn’t about movies that haven’t aged well, but movies that seemed timeless at the time, that you could expect to age well, but that didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/46 "2013-01-11T04:24:18Z")
> [@Infovore](#): > > This is probably sacrilege, but…“Young Frankenstein.” > > My friends _raved_ about this movie, telling me that it was hilarious, one of the funniest movies ever made, and that I would love it. I thought it would be a slam-dunk because I also love Gene Wilder. > > They showed it at the local theater on Halloween. We went. I fell asleep through parts of it. Talk about sloooooow! And the jokes were kind of stupid. Maybe they were fresh and new when the movie came out, but now they just seem…bad. > > I mentioned this to a couple of the friends who’d recommended it and one had to admit, “Yeah, it’s kind of slow nowadays. I guess it didn’t age well.” > [@chacoguy](#): > > There’s no way you could show _Blazing Saddles_ in a theater now. I find a lot of Mel Brooks films are like that. The slow pacing. The obvious puns and goofy humor. ---
**Author:** ![Runs\_With\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/278dde/32.png) [@Runs\_With\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Runs_With_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/47 "2013-01-11T05:14:28Z")
_Falling Down_. I think at the time it was billed as a “Yeah! Stick it to the man!” movie. Holy shit. Watch it now. Michael Douglas’ character comes off as a fucking self-entitled, immature, psychopathic brat. “I want bweakfast!” I want him to blow his own brains out. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/48 "2013-01-11T06:18:54Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Does that mean ET, which you thought would be a timeless classic when you were six, aged badly in six years, and at twelve you then realized how dated it was? I didn’t think it terms of timeless classics back then, and, truthfully, I don’t typically think in those terms today. Nor do I think that aging badly necessarily means a movie was dated. It’s just that even at the ripe old age of 12 I was shocked by how boring E.T. was when just a few years earlier I absolutely loved it along with the rest of America. > [@](#): > > Or does it just mean that your tastes changed between six and twelve? And have you watched ET since? If you did, would/do you share the opinion of your twelve year old self? Essentially this thread is all about individual tastes. It isn’t so much whether or not a movie ages well as it is how our tastes change over the years. > [@](#): > > Sometimes kid friendly movies don’t appeal to the “sophisticated” tastes of “mature” kids who hate “baby stuff”. And then they get a bit older and don’t have a psychological need to dismiss little kid stuff and can enjoy it again. I wasn’t that kind of kid. There were things I certainly outgrew but at that age I was still watching cartoons (the good violent syndicated ones not that crap on network TV on Saturday). > [@](#): > > I haven’t seen ET in decades, so I have no idea whether it holds up or not. It was hailed as a classic at the time, but you hardly ever hear about it nowadays. I saw it again when I was 14 or 15 and a group of my friends wanted to watch it. Still boring. If someone I knew now just had to watch it I’d watch it with them but it’s not something I’d choose. But it’s been a while since anyone I knew wanted to see it. It’s odd for a movie that was just so damned big in 1982. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/49 "2013-01-11T06:21:52Z")
> [@Runs\_With\_Scissors](#): > > _Falling Down_. > > I think at the time it was billed as a “Yeah! Stick it to the man!” movie. > > Holy shit. Watch it now. Michael Douglas’ character comes off as a fucking self-entitled, immature, psychopathic brat. > > “I want bweakfast!” > > I want him to blow his own brains out. _Falling Down_ came up in the “movies that weren’t as advertised” from a few years back. You’re right, it was billed as a “stick it to the man” movie but Douglas’ character was mostly unsympathetic and mentally ill. I believe that was completely intentional on the part of the filmmakers. ---
**Author:** ![Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/face_intentionally_left_blank/32/288_2.png) [@Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/50 "2013-01-11T07:01:26Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I tried to rewatch “The Dark Crystal” with my kids. I remember seeing it as a young teenager and thinking it was pretty good. It created a whole world of puppet creatures that was unlike anything else. Now, obviously the puppets and such can’t compare with the CGI creatures nowadays. But the old school puppeteering has a better chance to age well than standard special effects that were good for the time but totally outdated now. > > But on rewatching, the plot is just terrible, the sound is terrible, the dialog is terrible. It’s a standard chosen one plot that’s been done to death. The puppet character designs are pretty good, but they spend their time going “Aaaaaah! Hmmmmmm! Eeehhh? Oooh!” The world-building and set design and character design that seemed so innovative back in the 80s didn’t hold up at all. Really disappointing. > > And again, this was not because puppeteering and physical sets can’t compare with modern CGIfests. The use of practical effects can often look better than crappy CGI. Look at puppet Yoda from “Empire”, and how he looks better, more real, more physical, than the CGI Yoda from the prequels. And this was Henson’s workshop at the height of their powers. Compare “The Dark Crystal” which doesn’t hold up at all with “The Muppet Movie” which is still amazing 30 years later. I still do a Chamberlain imitation on occasion. Of course, no one gets it but me, so I might as well be talking to the voices in my head. That’s OK. Some jokes I do just for myself. MMMMmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMmmmMMMMMMM! ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/51 "2013-01-11T19:04:28Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > _Falling Down_ came up in the “movies that weren’t as advertised” from a few years back. You’re right, it was billed as a “stick it to the man” movie but Douglas’ character was mostly unsympathetic and mentally ill. I believe that was completely intentional on the part of the filmmakers. The opening sequence was brilliant in both concept and technical execution. The rest of the movie was a letdown as you slowly discovered MD’s character was not an oppressed individual but a nutcase. ---
**Author:** ![Smid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/838e76/32.png) [@Smid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smid)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/52 "2013-01-11T19:07:47Z")
Best avoid Highlander, but there’s no real reason to say why it should have aged well… It didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/53 "2013-01-12T08:16:48Z")
> [@Infovore](#): > > This is probably sacrilege, but…“Young Frankenstein.” I would agree with this. I haven’t been able to make it through a single-sitting viewing for as long as I can remember. Slow… Painfully slow. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/54 "2013-01-12T13:30:14Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Essentially this thread is all about individual tastes. It isn’t so much whether or not a movie ages well as it is how our tastes change over the years. I don’t really think so. Sure, whether something holds up is about taste, but a lot of these movies don’t hold up not because our tastes have changed as we’ve gotten older, but because the tastes of the movie-going public have changed. Okay, maybe not a lot in the thread, but that does seem to be what the OP had intended, at least. As it is, I could bring up the live-action Babes in Toyland starring a young Drew Barrymore. I never thought I would ever hate that movie, but I do now–it’s way too slow even to watch for nostalgia’s sake. ---
**Author:** ![Sin\_Serially](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Sin\_Serially](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sin_Serially)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/55 "2013-01-13T04:46:28Z")
No mention of Monty Python movies? Ok, sorry, I’ll cut down a tree with a herring. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/56 "2013-01-13T06:46:05Z")
> [@gallows\_fodder](#): > > I watched **Sneakers** again last night – a cute heist film starring Robert Redford, Sydney Poitier, Dan Ackroyd, River Phoenix, Mary McDonnell, Ben Kingsley, and David Straithairn. Oh and James Earl Jones in a cameo, and character actors Stephen Tobolowsky and Donal Logue in small roles. Sounds like a recipe for magic, right? I saw it when it first came out in the early 1990s and thought it was adorable. > > Unfortunately, the success of all the suspenseful moments was highly dependent on what was cutting edge technology in 1992. Since the technology is really outdated to 2013 eyes (holy shit, that movie is 20 years old, I’m so old), none of the suspense is there. A kid watching this today would shrug and say she could do all this on her iphone in 20 minutes, and would probably be right. Not only that, but all the “zoom…ENHANCE” moments (and comparable things) are super staid cliches now. I watched _Sneakers_ recently for the first time in many years and had basically the opposite reaction. I felt it had held up pretty well in large part because it’s basically a heist movie and the actual technology isn’t that important. It’s the only hacker movie I’m familiar with that seems remotely realistic in its depiction of the hackers themselves, and the tech stuff didn’t strike me as obviously wrong/stupid the way it often does in other movies. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/57 "2013-01-13T08:56:38Z")
_Pulp Fiction_ is still one of the greatest movies ever, but these days it does come across as a relic of the '90s. (A five-dollar milkshake? What a bargain!) ---
**Author:** ![Chef\_Troy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85f322/32.png) [@Chef\_Troy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chef_Troy)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/58 "2013-01-13T18:07:46Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I watched _Sneakers_ recently for the first time in many years and had basically the opposite reaction. I felt it had held up pretty well in large part because it’s basically a heist movie and the actual technology isn’t that important. It’s the only hacker movie I’m familiar with that seems remotely realistic in its depiction of the hackers themselves, and the tech stuff didn’t strike me as obviously wrong/stupid the way it often does in other movies. Yeah, one of my favorite moments is when Redford is confronted with an electronic door lock when he was expecting one with a keyhole lock he could pick. He gets advice from his tech crew on what to do, listens through his earpiece for a moment, shrugs… and kicks it open. No dated tech there! ---
**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:** [January 13, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/59 "2013-01-13T18:51:40Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > _Pulp Fiction_ is still one of the greatest movies ever, but these days it does come across as a relic of the '90s. (A five-dollar milkshake? What a bargain!) 😕 How much do milkshakes cost where you live? ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718/60 "2013-01-13T19:18:00Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid with Redford and Newman didn’t hold up well. Which is odd because it is a period Western. But the hairstyles and even the acting seems to date it. It looks like a typical 60’s movie. Much like the Graduate. Same deal. Hairstyles and acting dates it. The “Raindrops” sequence seemed like a holdover from movies from the early sixties. Doesn’t ruin the movie, but definitely takes it out of its time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-dont-age-well-that-should-have/646718.md?page=4)