Does anyone else absolutely HATE new movies
- Thread starter rebbons
- Start date
There are thousands upon thousands of terrible films made during your highlighted time period. Noone's seen most of them 'cos the audience that did get to see them is now mostly dead, and it's primarily only the great classics that get replayed & reissued now.
Only the winners are remembered; who's got time to remember every single loser?
Very rose-tinted glasses you have on there. There always has been, and always will be, many many terrible films.
.
There are good old films. There are good new films. There are downright horrible old films. There are downright horrible new films.
It's very closed minded to look down on movies purely based upon what time they were made it.
It's very closed minded to look down on movies purely based upon what time they were made it.
This seems to pretty much sum it up perfectly I think. In 80 years, people will likely be saying the same about the films out now compared with the in-brain-3D-virtual-reality offerings at that time. Although, perhaps an in-brain-3D-virtual-reality film would be fun even if it was bad... IDK, we'll have to wait and see I guess.
CraigL
Depends on the quality of boobie jiggle physics and the lens flare generators.
Get those two nailed and you're onto a winner.
I think that the acting and the craft displayed in modern cinema is more realistic than what is seen in most old movies.
Here's where we differ: I loooooooove most movies, old and new. I like a movie that starts of with a bang or has something fantastic as the subject.
I'm one of those people who like the rollercoaster to movie comparison. But, I also appreciate slow build movies like PROMETHEUS and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, or even an oldie like TO EACH HIS OWN or Hitchcock's THE 39 STEPS, etc. One of my top 5 movies is THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951).I actually grew up watching reruns of 30's, 40's, 50's horror films, like FRANKENSTEIN, KING KONG, THE WOLFMAN. I was okay with DRACULA, but I find the Lugosi movie pretty boring.
On the flipside, I don't like A.D.D. filmmakers who edit their movie like it was a commercial and can't keep the camera still. (I'm looking at you, Paul Greengrass!)
I like a lot of newer movies when it comes to the writing. Is it me or a lot of movies, especially adventure and thrillers, just more epic compared to older ones? Dramas as well. Movies are more bold than they were before too, depending on where you look, but this goes both ways. Comedies are getting are getting worse though.
However I do not like the way a lot of newer movies are shot and edited compared to old. Everything just seems so generically done now. So I like new most new movies when it comes to writing, but most old movies, when it comes to shooting and editing.
However I do not like the way a lot of newer movies are shot and edited compared to old. Everything just seems so generically done now. So I like new most new movies when it comes to writing, but most old movies, when it comes to shooting and editing.
sometimes a little shakey cam can be really cool.
it's like autotune, mostly annoying but when it works it really works.
unfortunately there is no shakey cam in anything old.. basically just the last decade or so. but i prefer old movies in the sense that they're more like low budget indie flicks of today.. not a lot of fancy CGI or special effects, just story.
it's like autotune, mostly annoying but when it works it really works.
unfortunately there is no shakey cam in anything old.. basically just the last decade or so. but i prefer old movies in the sense that they're more like low budget indie flicks of today.. not a lot of fancy CGI or special effects, just story.
Most movies, historically, have always been bad. The ones today are no exception. Humans tend to remember the hits and ignore the misses.
1. I don't know. That doesn't sound like such a bad thing. I think maybe people want that. Thrilling suspense, that is.
2. There's definitely something to this. Not that I'm against action flicks. I love action flicks. I love action-adventure flicks even more. But yeah, the formulaic-must-follow-the-BS2 stuff is getting stale.
Then again, someone posted this (goodinaroom.com, article by Stephanie Palmer) elsewhere, and it presents an interesting rebuttal to that Slate article. I'm pretty sure someone made a thread for that Slate article somewhere here. And maybe someone posted this too. Anyway, this is pretty interesting. In particular, I like Stephanie Palmer's idea that a film is really a small business. Wow. That puts the enterprise of making a film in an interesting light, doesn't it? A film is a small business venture. And sometimes maybe not so small.
3. I think that is simply false. Of course I don't mean that in a combative way. We're just having a conversation here. We don't have to agree on everything, or anything, for that matter. And of course, if you feel that there should be no sex in films generally, then I suppose it is true for you. I don't know how old you are. I'm not assuming anything either way. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that you're younger. If you were older, like I am, getting a bit long in the tooth over here, then you might have a better perspective on how, comparatively speaking, there is little sex in current movies. Was a time, the early nineties, say, in which it seemed that every film, R-rated films, anyway, had to have the obligatory simulated sex scene. That did become tiresome, tell the truth. Now, R-rated films themselves are few and far between. Hollywood has become quite chaste, actually. Obviously, there are exceptions...some recent raunchy comedies in particular. But even in those, how much is sex or actually portrayed sex, and how much of them are really innuendo, language, and adult (or raunchy) themes?
And let's not forget that Hollywood's "golden oldies" were actually censored. That is to say, those films were created under or within a regime of censorship. The Motion Picture Production Code and The Catholic Legion of Decency determined what films and what content could be produced by Hollywood. I don't know how it was for the UK or for the Australian film industries and markets. But if you want me to mourn for, or lament the loss of the bad old days of such, or, more outright censorship, forget about it. Would I like to turn the clock back to pre-sexual revolution, pre-counter culture, or for that matter, pre-Civil Rights Movement II times? Hell no. Needless to say, there have been and are those who are working for just that. I am not among them. In fact, contrary to all the complaining about such content that seems to carry on and on, the rules have been tightening again in my lifetime. Actually, there's little nudity. Sex, simulated or otherwise, is almost absent in mainstream films. (Obviously, I'm not talking about the stellar premium cable content being made, such as Game of Thrones. This discussion is about the box office, right?) And the strict constraints on language are an absurdity. Violence is something else. Bloody, more realistic violence is much curbed. Bloodless, cartoony violence has a green light.
4. I'm sure I disagree with this. I believe the science and technology of cinematography have made great advances. And I like them.
**********
One thing that might be missing is that clever, witty banter some of those old films had. Watching them, you sometimes get the feeling their audiences were better read, more erudite, even, than we are today. Could that be? Nah. I'm sure their characters were far more chic, far more cosmopolitan than most of the audiences of the day. But the fantasy they presented does have its charm. =)
2. There's definitely something to this. Not that I'm against action flicks. I love action flicks. I love action-adventure flicks even more. But yeah, the formulaic-must-follow-the-BS2 stuff is getting stale.
Then again, someone posted this (goodinaroom.com, article by Stephanie Palmer) elsewhere, and it presents an interesting rebuttal to that Slate article. I'm pretty sure someone made a thread for that Slate article somewhere here. And maybe someone posted this too. Anyway, this is pretty interesting. In particular, I like Stephanie Palmer's idea that a film is really a small business. Wow. That puts the enterprise of making a film in an interesting light, doesn't it? A film is a small business venture. And sometimes maybe not so small.
3. I think that is simply false. Of course I don't mean that in a combative way. We're just having a conversation here. We don't have to agree on everything, or anything, for that matter. And of course, if you feel that there should be no sex in films generally, then I suppose it is true for you. I don't know how old you are. I'm not assuming anything either way. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that you're younger. If you were older, like I am, getting a bit long in the tooth over here, then you might have a better perspective on how, comparatively speaking, there is little sex in current movies. Was a time, the early nineties, say, in which it seemed that every film, R-rated films, anyway, had to have the obligatory simulated sex scene. That did become tiresome, tell the truth. Now, R-rated films themselves are few and far between. Hollywood has become quite chaste, actually. Obviously, there are exceptions...some recent raunchy comedies in particular. But even in those, how much is sex or actually portrayed sex, and how much of them are really innuendo, language, and adult (or raunchy) themes?
And let's not forget that Hollywood's "golden oldies" were actually censored. That is to say, those films were created under or within a regime of censorship. The Motion Picture Production Code and The Catholic Legion of Decency determined what films and what content could be produced by Hollywood. I don't know how it was for the UK or for the Australian film industries and markets. But if you want me to mourn for, or lament the loss of the bad old days of such, or, more outright censorship, forget about it. Would I like to turn the clock back to pre-sexual revolution, pre-counter culture, or for that matter, pre-Civil Rights Movement II times? Hell no. Needless to say, there have been and are those who are working for just that. I am not among them. In fact, contrary to all the complaining about such content that seems to carry on and on, the rules have been tightening again in my lifetime. Actually, there's little nudity. Sex, simulated or otherwise, is almost absent in mainstream films. (Obviously, I'm not talking about the stellar premium cable content being made, such as Game of Thrones. This discussion is about the box office, right?) And the strict constraints on language are an absurdity. Violence is something else. Bloody, more realistic violence is much curbed. Bloodless, cartoony violence has a green light.
4. I'm sure I disagree with this. I believe the science and technology of cinematography have made great advances. And I like them.
**********
One thing that might be missing is that clever, witty banter some of those old films had. Watching them, you sometimes get the feeling their audiences were better read, more erudite, even, than we are today. Could that be? Nah. I'm sure their characters were far more chic, far more cosmopolitan than most of the audiences of the day. But the fantasy they presented does have its charm. =)
Last edited:
reading something like the count of monte cristo, i think holy hell people today and dumb as a sack of bricks. i think the difference was that the upper class people who were educated probably all had private tutors and moved at their own pace..
meanwhile as a kid i moved around state to state, and seemed to keep repeating the same stupid material over and over. when i moved from ca to md it felt like i was dropped back two grades. i can only imagine how much smarter i would be if i had a private tutor.. or hell even if i dropped out of HS and got my GED so i could start college earlier. what a waste of time HS was
meanwhile as a kid i moved around state to state, and seemed to keep repeating the same stupid material over and over. when i moved from ca to md it felt like i was dropped back two grades. i can only imagine how much smarter i would be if i had a private tutor.. or hell even if i dropped out of HS and got my GED so i could start college earlier. what a waste of time HS was