# Movies that haven't stood the test of time. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 4, 2008, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649 "2008-12-04T10:27:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/181 "2008-12-09T15:19:34Z")
> [@jali](#): > > **Ghostbusters**. > **Gremlins**. > **Flashdance**. Sigh. > > I saw all three of these at theaters. I couldn’t stand to watch even 15 minutes of any of these today. Huh. I mentioned in the Ghostbusters video game thread in the Game Room how I thought **Ghostbusters** has held up very well. Granted, the soundtrack is very, very 80s (except the theme, _that_ is timeless), but beyond that there’s nothing else that dates the movie terribly. All technology used in both films is fictional and not obviously obsoleted by modern tech (who’s to say prototype proton packs wouldn’t need to be backpacks even now?), and the special effects are pretty good; CG wouldn’t be all that much better. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/182 "2008-12-09T15:27:14Z")
> [@greatshakes](#): > > The old one is full of laughable cliches, and the dialogue is one running cliche. The monster is only kind of scary-if everybody got together, they could have beaten it, and there was no suspense buildup. Carpenter’s version was ten jillion times better. I’m going to disagree with this. I think the original _Thing_ has fantastic dialog, is paced really well, and has some wonderful scenes. I don’t dislike the Carpenter version, but I think the original is superior in nearly every way. ---
**Author:** ![Ronald\_C.Semone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@Ronald\_C.Semone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_C.Semone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/183 "2008-12-09T15:47:16Z")
> [@shy\_guy](#): > > I’m going to disagree with this. I think the original _Thing_ has fantastic dialog, is paced really well, and has some wonderful scenes. I don’t dislike the Carpenter version, but I think the original is superior in nearly every way. I agree. As trite as scenes like this have become, the scene where the scientist is working at this bench unaware of the melting block of ice behind him is still scary. ---
**Author:** ![Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellis_Aponte_Jr)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/184 "2008-12-09T15:52:38Z")
How about **Rain Man**. In 1988 it came across as a fascinating character study of a very singular person, whereas now it’s just “oh, right, he’s one of those guys.” Saw **Midnight Cowboy** recently & despite some memorable moments & a decent amount of old-time New York flavor struck me as sour, overly-contrived, and lacking in humor (with exceptions like “I’m walking here!”). ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/185 "2008-12-09T17:06:44Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > So, a movie that is set in the future (of when it’s made) doesn’t stand the test of time when that future turns out to not come true? Wow, pretty stiff criteria. (And by the way, you don’t even have to get as convoluted as saying that “the New York that contained the WTC didn’t get turned into a huge prison”; the movie clearly says that it’s set in 1997, when the WTC in the real world was still standing, and New York was still a city.) > > By that logic, **Citizen Kane** started right out as a bad movie, because we know for a fact that no such person as Charles Foster Kane ever lived. I’m not really trying to be snarky but, jeez, they call it “fiction” for a reason. What’s the difference between a movie that’s set in a future that doesn’t turn out to come true, and a movie that portrays characters that never lived? > > And in closing, does that mean that if **Escape from New York** is re-released with an opening crawl that proclaims it to take place in an alternate universe where the crime levels in the US **did** skyrocket in the early 90’s, it would go back to being a good movie? Movies (or any fiction) set in the future can age poorly if the assumptions they are based on change. While technical assumptions, like in **2001** , or structural assumptions, like in **EFNY** (catastrophic events, political changes, etc.), can be accepted, what really date a movie are social assumptions. Best example I know is not a movie but a short story called Cold Equations. I read it for a high school class in 1991. The plot turns on the assumption that you can coldly kill a man if the situation requires it (in this case a stowaway on an emergency ship due to fuel limitations), but if it is a woman, everything changes. My whole class was dumbfounded by this underlying cultural assumption about gender roles. Interstellar travel in faster than light vehicles was easier to except than antiquated attitudes in a future setting. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/186 "2008-12-09T17:28:20Z")
> [@TommyTutone](#): > > All of you make me weep, but this one hurts the most. **Suspicion** required some suspension of disbelief, but it was not, at least to me, huge. The movie suffered from Grant’s presence (because they had to change the ending from the one in the book), but if I pretend the ending was Hitchcock’s original one, it would have been perfect. I can’t speak for anybody else, but it wasn’t solely the suspension of disbelief issue for me. I don’t like the way Hitchcock films look. I don’t like most of the decisions he makes as a director. The acting is never subtle or clever in a Hitchcock film–and he had actors who could be subtle! Then he throws in some psychological mumbo-jumbo (like in **Spellbound** , though the dream was great), which I know was perfectly fine at the time, but really doesn’t help with the timeless quality. And I really wanted to like **Suspicion**. Cary Grant being all hot and charming with a slightly sinister edge? I eat that up with a spoon! > [@](#): > > And to say his other films do not hold up? I suppose if you look at them occurring in today’s world, but I’d say, with the exception of the distractingly bad special effects of **The Birds** , they have done very well. **The Lady Vanishes** is an outstanding mystery, soiled only by an attempt to remake the film with Eliot Gould, Angela Lansbury, and Candice Bergen decades later. **Notorious** is one of my favorite films by him, and other than the drunk driving scene which would not fly at all today, is a nail biter that has stood up well. I haven’t seen **The Lady Vanishes** , but I’ve watched the other two several times, and each time, I’m struck with “What’s the point of this?!” I mean, at various points in **The Birds** , I wanted Tippi Hedron to be murdered. Were we supposed to cheer for her demise? Because she was just about as stupid as a character could be. Speaking of “What’s the point of this?” I never know what to think of **Vertigo**. I really hate Jimmy Stewart’s character, and yet, I never get the sense that we’re supposed to despise him. > [@](#): > > **Rope** , not a great film, although a tehnical showpiece, still ages well, as does **Strangers on a Train**. **Lifeboat, Jamaica Inn, Sabotage, The 39 Steps** , when fortunate enough to catch them on TCM, I find it impossible to turn away from. I imagine you will not like **North by Northwest** , the infamous plane scene may ring hollow to you how it concludes, or the incident at Mt Rushmore too hokey, but it is still classic suspense, much like **Rear Window**. I had a whole list of Hitchcock films that I wanted to see (not just the ones with Mr. Grant), but to me, the movies are like exercises in tedium (I don’t remember hating **Rear Window** but I don’t remember making it through to the end, either). I know that it’s just me. I never see anybody else volunteer that they can’t stand the guy. There’s just something about his films that rubs me the wrong way. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/187 "2008-12-09T19:54:38Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > So, a movie that is set in the future (of when it’s made) doesn’t stand the test of time when that future turns out to not come true? Wow, pretty stiff criteria. (And by the way, you don’t even have to get as convoluted as saying that “the New York that contained the WTC didn’t get turned into a huge prison”; the movie clearly says that it’s set in 1997, when the WTC in the real world was still standing, and New York was still a city.) > > By that logic, **Citizen Kane** started right out as a bad movie, because we know for a fact that no such person as Charles Foster Kane ever lived. I’m not really trying to be snarky but, jeez, they call it “fiction” for a reason. What’s the difference between a movie that’s set in a future that doesn’t turn out to come true, and a movie that portrays characters that never lived? > > And in closing, does that mean that if **Escape from New York** is re-released with an opening crawl that proclaims it to take place in an alternate universe where the crime levels in the US **did** skyrocket in the early 90’s, it would go back to being a good movie? You’re making out like I said it was a bad movie or something, which I didn’t. It just didn’t, in my view, stand the test of time for the reasons I gave. Obviously you disagree but I’m not clear why you seem to be taking my comment so personally. Did you write it or something? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/188 "2008-12-09T21:22:28Z")
Oscar and Golden Globe-Nominated [Bye Bye Birdie](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056891/) has got to top this list somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/189 "2008-12-09T22:00:39Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Not that I wanted them to get killed, but it _did_ end the movie, which was a relief. I think we have a classic sig here… ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/190 "2008-12-09T22:33:44Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > You’re making out like I said it was a bad movie or something, which I didn’t. It just didn’t, in my view, stand the test of time for the reasons I gave. Obviously you disagree but I’m not clear why you seem to be taking my comment so personally. Did you write it or something? 😕 I wasn’t taking anything personally, I just don’t understand your rationale for saying it doesn’t stand the test of time. It’s set in a future time that, for various reasons, we now know doesn’t match with the way reality actually progressed. So what? Why does that equate with “doesn’t stand the test of time?” Are you using a narrow definition of “test of time” to mean “accurately predicts the future”? If so, that just seems like an odd and not very useful definition of that term, especially as applied to this thread. If not, then I really just don’t understand your conclusion. As **Strassia** said, if “Escape from New York” had featured some social or cultural meme that was obviously a product of the time the movie was made, and now was either completely gone or had drastically transformed, I’d agree that that means the movie failed the test of time. But what you pointed out as signaling that failure were a physical change to New York City that the movie failed to predict, and a predicted rise in the crime rate that failed to come true. I just don’t see how either one of those is at all relevant to whether or not the movie holds up on current viewing. You always have to apply the old “Willing suspension of disbelief”. To enjoy “Escape from New York”, you have to do that for the idea that the island of Manhattan will be walled off and turned into a giant prison, which is wildly far-fetched. If you can’t do that, then you probably won’t like the movie, if you can, you probably will. What I can’t understand is how applying that suspension somehow gets more difficult because we now know that the crime rate really didn’t rise; that’s such a minor point, compared to the idea of turning Manhattan into a prison in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![BurnMeUp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@BurnMeUp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BurnMeUp)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/191 "2008-12-10T20:42:39Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Oh, but how can you discount the utterly dopey lines that just make you giggle like you’re high. > > “Things are different now.” That one is my favorite. Or how about … > > “What you said was wrong.” > Gads, I love that movie. Don’t forget the father telling them “quick run before they catch you” and then screaming “AVENGE ME” at the top of his lungs. ---
**Author:** ![jali](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jali)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/192 "2008-12-10T20:56:11Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Huh. I mentioned in the Ghostbusters video game thread in the Game Room how I thought **Ghostbusters** has held up very well. Granted, the soundtrack is very, very 80s (except the theme, _that_ is timeless), but beyond that there’s nothing else that dates the movie terribly. All technology used in both films is fictional and not obviously obsoleted by modern tech (who’s to say prototype proton packs wouldn’t need to be backpacks even now?), and the special effects are pretty good; CG wouldn’t be all that much better. To me, “the test of time” is about re-watchability, not technology. I just can’t watch that movie again. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649/193 "2008-12-10T21:38:53Z")
The House On Haunted Hill, starring Vincent Price. I saw it when it first came out and it scared the crap out of me. I saw it again about 20 years later and had to wonder how or why I was scared by something so incredibly cheezy. I saw it again about 3 years ago and it’s gotten even worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-havent-stood-the-test-of-time/475649.md?page=9)