You would have thought there would be some resistance from the theaters. They’re always pushing for turnaround time - how many showings of a movie can they pack into an evening? When you’re charging a flat ticket price per movie, there’s a 200% advantage between showing four 85-minute movies and two 240-minute movies.
The studios were already pushing up against this with the average run time of movies increasing (in 1930, the average run time was just 90 minutes; in 1950, it was 105 minutes; in 1970, 112 minutes; in 2015, 130 minutes). End credit sequences that run for five minutes or more adds to the problem.
You still have a lawn ? Our is all brown from the drought ! I am from 69 year ago and I love black white movies a lot better . I feel the actors had to carry the movie and didn’t have all the special effects to pull the movie off.
I hate it when a classic b/w movie been spoiled by being colorize !
An example of this which I’ve remembered since I first posted:
There’s a scene near the end of Bullitt (1968), in the police station. Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) and the other cops are gathered around a telecopier (essentially, a fax machine – very novel technology for that time), watching it print out. The scene lasts the better part of a minute – as the printer works, there’s no dialogue, just tense looks, and the sound of the machine. I can’t picture this scene lasting more than a few moments today.
Heck, I’m from fifty years ago. I like movies from before my time and those being made now.
Looking forward to next week’s release of Ben-Hur. I read the book. Saw the silent movie version, and the 1950 version with Charlton Heston. It’s going to be interesting seeing what parts of the plot from the book are included/excluded, or what’s totally invented. I expect more CGI effects of course.
With all due respect to you 60+ dopers, I think you’re way underestimating the effect of gradual familiarisation in getting you used to the very different styles of movie-making that’s used today as opposed to the 60’s.
Just off the top of my head - fast pace, incredibly quick cutting from scene to scene, “shaky cam”, casual use of flashbacks with very little prompting or framing, and worst of all, people talking over the top of each other all the time - I think audiences from the 60’s would find all that deeply unsettling and confusing, and hate it. There’s a language of film, and we all speak it, but there’s been a lot of linguistic drift in the last 50 years. And lets not even talk about 1916!
Just think of how much angst there was over Hi Res film in the Hobbit … and that was a really trivial change. But the internet went crazy over that, people were calling it ‘unwatchable’ - try showing the Blair Witch Project to someone who’s last experience of film was Casablanca or Rear Window.
This is what came to mind for me. We’ve been trained to see the modern movie style. But that just means the people transported to the future would have to watch a lot of movies to catch up to us.
The people of that age would be upset by the vulgarity of modern movies–ranging from the vulgar language, urinating in the bathroom, the sex (sex in that era was inferred, not shown).
Just the other day I was thinking about how cool it would be to show someone from before motion pictures existed Jurassic Park (not world; the original) on a nice home theater system today. Figure what, 50" HDTV with a soundbar and subwoofer? They’d lose their minds.
Jurassic Park is a particularly good example because its moments of discovery are paced slowly, like back in the day. (Not as mind-numbingly tedious as, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey, but not full of obnoxious jump cuts and shaky cam.)
EDIT: Actually, maybe not the best example. The pacing is good, but the inevitable “What’s DNA? What’s a computer?” would probably be too distracting.
This reminds me of all those people back in early 2010 (while Avatar ws making a gazillion dollars) arguing on this very board how 3D was the new color; all movies would move to 3D just like all movies went to color. You don’t see many people making that argument anymore, and similarly, I don’t see any intrinsic value to putting a movie into a VR setting. (Videogames, sure, definitely. But a static story? No point.)
When watching old movies we have some knowledge of the past that helps us understand them. People from the past would have no knowledge of the future. There are changes in societal attitudes that would be incomprehensible to someone from 1916.
Take Eye in the Sky, for example. I’d think someone from 100 years ago would find it completely unbelievable that two major world powers would worry about killing two noncombatants in a war. Or consider The Forty Year Old Virgin - the attitudes about women, relationships and sexuality are so different from how people thought in 1916 that I’d think someone from that era would be both appalled and confused.
There are lots of artistic developments in movie-making styles that I do not like at all, and there are lots that I like very much. And there are some I’ve gotten used to without really noticing they were happening.
I would say people from different eras could get used to modern movies as easily as most of us have, but it would take time and maybe some careful cherry-picking of specific films to ease the transition. If all they knew was “Birth of a Nation” and then instantly saw “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeaquel” it would be too jarring. On the other hand going from Ben Hur to Star Wars The Force Awakens would be a lot easier to deal with.
I think few people from 1966 or 1916 would be comfortable with the gratuitous violence and especially the seemingly consequence-free taking of human life. James Bond’s 00 license was a big big deal, because it suggested that the good guys sanctioned assassination, and that normal structures of law could be suspended. Now Modern Bond films don’t roll titles without at least a dozen baddies dying.
In fact because both goodies and baddies kill each other in large nos, and often innocents as well, they have to introduce a range of other plot elements (or appeal to audience prejudice) to justify us taking the right side. Olden-day movie buffs would probably find the moral ambivalence unsettling as entertainment.
Well, Alejandro Jodorowsky was already making films, 50 years ago, so…at least one person back then wouldn’t be swooning from the vapors from all the shocking content and special effects. 'Probably think you were holding back, actually.
Ted V. Mikels and Irwin Allen were around then, too. So, at least another couple of people you probably could have gotten interested in Sharknado without too much trouble.
Actually, go back only 48 years, and there’s seemingly a healthy audience for quite a bit of contemporary tougher cinematic fair that I can think of—explained to no small degree, I’m sure, by the fact that this is when the the MPAA Ratings System officially went into effect. But in any case, for all the societal and cultural drives behind it, I don’t think that those moviegoers just sprang en masse into existence fully formed during Tet.
…and, hell, 100 years ago? First movie with a nude scene by a major star. “A long time ago” has this odd way of catching up with the present.
I get the impression that even non-comic book drama films use CGI and other special effects, even if they don’t make it obvious.
And I have a DVD version of Citizen Kane with a commentary track by Roger Ebert. He mentions at one point about the large number of special effects in the movie. They’re just not the sort of special effects a modern audience is used to.
As a couple of examples, at the end of North by Northwest, as I remember, Cary Grant invites Eva Marie Saint to join him in the upper berth in the train compartment. The next and final shot is an overhead one of the train entering a tunnel. Also, in The African Queen, Bogart’s character and Katharine Hepburn’s missionary character aren’t getting along, but they apparently get over their issues, as in the morning, she is puttering about the boat with a big smile on her face.
In both cases, sex is inferred (or is it implied?).
I suspect you’re right. Makes me think of the “feelies” from Brave New World. Jacking directly into the brain’s visual cortex or pleasure center would be compelling.
Many people, yes, but there’s been an audience for sex and violence since Ur and Babylon. A lot of moviegoers from the past would be unable to believe their good luck when presented with the better R- and X-rated fare from 2016.
