- 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
Are older movies truly better?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:30 am
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:30 am
As review the ATF list of 100 greatest movies, there is one movie post 2000 on there and just a handful post 1980. What do you think about that-are older movies truly superior or do we give them a hand up due to rosy retrospection?
22
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:31 am to House_of Cards
somtimes better acting, also more unique stories. look at movies made now , and back then. They dont make movies like Planet 51, Bridge on the river kwoi,or seven samurai anymore.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:32 am to House_of Cards
Originality beats pretty lights and explosions 9.9/10 times.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:50 am to House_of Cards
Some movies just hold up well.
Cool Hand Luke
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
12 Angry Men
It's A Wonderful Life
Alien
To Kill A Mockingbird
Etc.
I will agree with what others have said about originality... and sometimes it's just refreshing to watch classics.
Cool Hand Luke
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
12 Angry Men
It's A Wonderful Life
Alien
To Kill A Mockingbird
Etc.
I will agree with what others have said about originality... and sometimes it's just refreshing to watch classics.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 1:03 am
Posted on 12/28/14 at 6:39 am to House_of Cards
One factor might be that the longer time frame = more years to choose from = more "greatest" movies. Another might be that they probably had a lot less sequels, prequels and re-makes in the past than they do today. And I'd say movies in those three catagories are somewhat less likely to be among the "greatest" movies.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:01 am to House_of Cards
quote:No. Often, they have the advantage of originality, but that's about it.
Are older movies truly better?
There are great movies from every decade (except maybe the '80s
), but most of the "Best of All Time" lists are unfairly biased against modern movies. The best movies of today can match up against the best movies of any era. A lot of people are just too hip/nostalgic/biased to admit that. The problem is, there's a shite ton more garbage made today than in any other era, so sometimes it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:04 am to House_of Cards
Yes
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:14 am to House_of Cards
Look at how many of them are based on good books. Directors today don't follow the books. Too much ego involved. They would rather go off on a tagent and look like a genius when often they don't.
Example: The Firm. Good ending in the book. Chase all over the Gulf Coast. Yet the movie totally ignores it and gives us a stupid ending that pleased no one.
Or Troy. Hell, HOMER, one of the greatest writers of all time gave you the script. You just had to follow it. Instead the directors come up with their own version that sucked balls and was boring as hell. Whole point of Illiad was tragedy. Tragedy of pride, tragedy of death of Achilles, tragedy of flaunting the gods. All of it disappeared and the movie sucked.
An even more modern example. Silence of the Lambs. The attraction of of the movie was the chemistry between Hannibal and Clarise. We move to the sequels. The stories are all about the blood, violence, and gore when the first movie didn't really focus on those things. Guess what? No one watches the sequels twenty years later.
Oh really. So what movie in the last 15 years could match up with the Godfather I and II?
Ah yes, Lawrence Olivier was overrated. So was Spencer Tracey. Who plays a better tough guy? Stallone or Lee Marvin? Let me guess, you'll probably say MM and Hugh Grant probably play romantic comedies better than Cary Grant. And we haven't even gotten around to Charleton Heston or Paul Newman.
Example: The Firm. Good ending in the book. Chase all over the Gulf Coast. Yet the movie totally ignores it and gives us a stupid ending that pleased no one.
Or Troy. Hell, HOMER, one of the greatest writers of all time gave you the script. You just had to follow it. Instead the directors come up with their own version that sucked balls and was boring as hell. Whole point of Illiad was tragedy. Tragedy of pride, tragedy of death of Achilles, tragedy of flaunting the gods. All of it disappeared and the movie sucked.
An even more modern example. Silence of the Lambs. The attraction of of the movie was the chemistry between Hannibal and Clarise. We move to the sequels. The stories are all about the blood, violence, and gore when the first movie didn't really focus on those things. Guess what? No one watches the sequels twenty years later.
quote:
The best movies of today can match up against the best movies of any era. A lot of people are just too hip/nostalgic/biased to admit that
Oh really. So what movie in the last 15 years could match up with the Godfather I and II?
quote:
Acting in older movies (pre-70s or so) is extremely overrated.
Ah yes, Lawrence Olivier was overrated. So was Spencer Tracey. Who plays a better tough guy? Stallone or Lee Marvin? Let me guess, you'll probably say MM and Hugh Grant probably play romantic comedies better than Cary Grant. And we haven't even gotten around to Charleton Heston or Paul Newman.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 10:20 am
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:17 am to House_of Cards
I would agree that film making has taken a nose dive in the last 15 years or so. Originality does have much to do with it,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.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:20 am to House_of Cards
I believe the writing was vastly superior to what we have today.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:48 am to House_of Cards
I think originality is the key. The newer movies on the list - Raiders, Shawshank, Dances with Wolves, LofR, Gump, Silence of the Lambs - were very original stories (though most were based off novels).
The older ones are better in the sense that many had not seen their like before. Tougher to make those original stories these days.
The older ones are better in the sense that many had not seen their like before. Tougher to make those original stories these days.
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.
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 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 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 9:48 pm to House_of Cards
quote:
Are older movies truly better?
Debating the different film decades is always fun but personally I would just encourage people not to limit yourself to specific time periods in which there are movies you will watch and movies you won't watch.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:29 pm to House_of Cards
Nostalgia Goggles
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:19 am to House_of Cards
Several reasons:
1. Political Correctness often stifles creativity
2. We only remember the good old movies. The average and mediocre are not remembered.
3. Nostalgia plays a big part.
4. There were more original movies back then. I doubt many critics would be willing to put a "remake" as on a top 100 list.
5. Modern technology allows for some great cinematic tools, but it can breed over-reliance on it. Older movies had to be very creative to get around their technological limitations.
1. Political Correctness often stifles creativity
2. We only remember the good old movies. The average and mediocre are not remembered.
3. Nostalgia plays a big part.
4. There were more original movies back then. I doubt many critics would be willing to put a "remake" as on a top 100 list.
5. Modern technology allows for some great cinematic tools, but it can breed over-reliance on it. Older movies had to be very creative to get around their technological limitations.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:53 am to House_of Cards
I find some of the acting in older movies to be a bit cringeworthy and unrealistic
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:57 am to House_of Cards
quote:
As review the ATF list of 100 greatest movies, there is one movie post 2000
On one had I dont think the list has been updated. On the other hand...does anyone think that Lord of the Rings is the best movie of the last 20 years?
I think it has more to do with a combination of nostalgia and the fact that a movie today is one of like 2000 released that year and 50 years ago it was one of like 9.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News