- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are older movies truly better?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:50 am to House_of Cards
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:50 am to House_of Cards
Greatness is better judged over time, in my opinion, so that gives older movies or whatever we are ranking an advantage of sorts. While there have been good movies in the last 10-15 years, what sticks out as truly great? The 90's ranks up there with the great decades of all time, many consider 1994 (20 years ago now I realize) as one of the greatest years in movie history.
And maybe the great creative forces of this era are in other mediums, I do think we are in the golden era for TV drama.
And maybe the great creative forces of this era are in other mediums, I do think we are in the golden era for TV drama.
1
Posted on 12/28/14 at 11:23 am to Patrick_Bateman
female acting was much better in the older days. The dames could look good AND act.
And the actors who can act can't make it to the big screen. I saw better acting in Spartacus then I've seen in most big screen movies today.
And the actors who can act can't make it to the big screen. I saw better acting in Spartacus then I've seen in most big screen movies today.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 11:25 am
Posted on 12/28/14 at 11:38 am to lsufan9193969700
quote:
but I also blame the explosion of CGI, 3D, 360, slow mo, and countless other "pretty" visuals have taken focus away from actual story telling.
telling stories in conjunction with visual development has been part of film since literally it's inception
Posted on 12/28/14 at 11:40 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
That goes to my point about separating wheat from chaff - there are still good movies made today; they're just buried beneath a mountain of trash.
logical fallacy (i forget which one). there was plenty of trash in the past, but it's forgotten. we remember recent trash b/c (1) we lived through it and (2) it's recent in our minds. we forget the trash of the past b/c neither 1 nor 2 apply. hell we don't even know about the vast majority of the trash of the past b/c it's lost in time and you can't even get it easily
Posted on 12/28/14 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nah. Much more movies are made today than in the past. That means much more trash to sift through.
logical fallacy
Posted on 12/28/14 at 11:57 am to Patrick_Bateman
per capita there is going to be more good movies, though
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
There were plenty of bad movies in the past. Tons of sequels, remakes, reboots, etc as well. Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Godzilla and other monsters had many different versions. Even The Wizard of Oz we all remember isn't the first movie version of it.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:44 pm to Patrick_Bateman
quote:This I would agree with.
Acting in older movies (pre-70s or so) is extremely overrated.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:45 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
And maybe the great creative forces of this era are in other mediums, I do think we are in the golden era for TV drama.
I think this may have something to do with it also. With the advent of channels like HBO, AMC, etc. producing original programming in different forms like series or mini series, a lot of the talent gravitates there. Heck, two of my favorite productions of all time - Lonesome Dove and Band of Brothers were never theatrical movies to my knowledge.
Now with outlets like Netflix getting in on the action, this trend may even intensify.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:53 pm to House_of Cards
Probably due to a few factors. For an older movie to be remembered it has to be one of the best from the era that it's from. It is naturally going to be better than the majority of contemporary movies that are forgettable. Most old movies were forgettable too, and they have been forgotten. You will have a larger number of older movies because you are drawing from a larger period of time.
There is also a nostalgia factor. Some people will need a movie to prove itself by remaining in people's memories for a certain period of time for proof of quality. I think that's part true and part nostalgia just increasing perceived quality and value.
Any actual difference in quality between time periods is much harder to pinpoint in my opinion. There are probably aspects that are more so simply different between periods than simply better.
There is also a nostalgia factor. Some people will need a movie to prove itself by remaining in people's memories for a certain period of time for proof of quality. I think that's part true and part nostalgia just increasing perceived quality and value.
Any actual difference in quality between time periods is much harder to pinpoint in my opinion. There are probably aspects that are more so simply different between periods than simply better.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:59 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
There were plenty of bad movies in the past. Tons of sequels, remakes, reboots, etc as well. Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Godzilla and other monsters had many different versions. Even The Wizard of Oz we all remember isn't the first movie version of it.
The Christopher Lee horror movies are almost unwatchable.
How many actresses today have the talent of a Judy Garland? Hell, even if they did we wouldn't know because the studios would stifle it.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 4:24 pm to House_of Cards
As a couple of others of said, one reason it that one measure of a movie is whether it stands the test of time. IMO, a movie released in the last couple of years is hard to place into a larger historical context.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 4:39 pm to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
There Will Be Blood
Not quite on the same level as The Godfather, but in the same neighborhood.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 4:44 pm to Patrick_Bateman
quote:I sort of agree
Acting in older movies (pre-70s or so) is extremely overrated.
Anything before about 1950, outside of a few of the top actors (Bogart, Grant, Jimmy Stewart, etc) the acting is terrible. My dad will every now and then make me watch something pre-WWII, and about 95% of the time the acting is painfully terrible.
By the mid-50's this isn't true anymore. Alot of it is in the early days actors and actresses were play acting in front of cameras. They hadn't figured quite out yet that there is a big difference in film acting and stage acting. And I think before the late 40's the dialogue in a lot of movies was pretty terrible.
But pre-70's? That's not true at all. Try like pre-WWII.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 5:52 pm to danman6336
I think what a lot of people think of as "bad acting" in earlier movies is a matter of style and approach to acting rather than talent. Up until the mid forties or so, film acting was more formal and/or structured in a way that hadn't quite resolved the transition from live theater to film. Then method acting and/or its related theory gained prominence. Plus actors began to minimalize reaction, speech, etc, for the camera. Also, audiences in the thirties expected something other than realism from actors.
But there were great actors in the earlier days of film. Grant, Tracy, Bogart, Lombard, Hepburn, Davis, Olivier, et al, were pretty fricking good.
But there were great actors in the earlier days of film. Grant, Tracy, Bogart, Lombard, Hepburn, Davis, Olivier, et al, were pretty fricking good.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 5:56 pm to danman6336
I agree with most of the points brought up in this thread: time for critical consensus to coalesce around older films, the bulk of old releases already forgotten or out of print, the changes in acting standards, and so on. Older films have a huge advantage in an all-time poll. It's not that quality has declined, it's that it's harder for new movies to make the polls primarily because we don't agree which movies from this movie ARE great yet.
One of the other huge factors now is wider and wider distribution. Hollywood has lost some of its stranglehold on the movie industry and there's plenty of great movies being made from all corners of the globe. This was always true, but now those movies are easier to see and there are more corners than ever (see how Iran's film industry has exploded). Because of this, and the money to made from franchises, Hollywood is making less and less quality "adult" films.
One of the other huge factors now is wider and wider distribution. Hollywood has lost some of its stranglehold on the movie industry and there's plenty of great movies being made from all corners of the globe. This was always true, but now those movies are easier to see and there are more corners than ever (see how Iran's film industry has exploded). Because of this, and the money to made from franchises, Hollywood is making less and less quality "adult" films.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 6:21 pm to Baloo
I do think dialogue in general was far superior in older films- mainly because a lot of them came from plays and screenwriters tended to be playwrights. It is no surprise that everyone remembers how awesome The Empire Strikes Back is because a lot of it was written by an old school screenwriter who had worked on Bogey and Bacall films.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 7:53 pm to SoGaFan
There are a ton of bad older movies. Mostly because there were a ton of older movies (good or bad) getting churned out every year. Much more so then modern Hollywood makes and more along the line of what Bollywood in India produces. So you get a mountain of poo, and some real gems on top.
Now we get... a foothill of poo and a few gems on top. Modern movies with special effects laden budgets aren't any worse then their older counterparts, go back and watch some of the science fiction/horror movies from back in the day.
There are a lot of great older movies. There are some great newer movies that in twenty years times will be great old movies while our kids debate whether their modern movies are any good.
We'll be sitting back and bitching that they don't make movies like Apollo 13 anymore and complaining that none of the new actors are worth a darn compared to the ones we watched back in the day.
Now we get... a foothill of poo and a few gems on top. Modern movies with special effects laden budgets aren't any worse then their older counterparts, go back and watch some of the science fiction/horror movies from back in the day.
There are a lot of great older movies. There are some great newer movies that in twenty years times will be great old movies while our kids debate whether their modern movies are any good.
We'll be sitting back and bitching that they don't make movies like Apollo 13 anymore and complaining that none of the new actors are worth a darn compared to the ones we watched back in the day.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:07 pm to House_of Cards
Newer movies are generally better. Old people are nostalgic, that's all.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:19 pm to biglego
quote:
Newer movies are generally better. Old people are nostalgic, that's all.
A more vacuous statement is hard to imagine.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News