Film Why do old films work, where their modern day equivalent wouldn't?

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,248
Location
Manchester
Not talking about practical over CGI here.

Just watching Police Academy, and it's great entertainment, but I'm imagining the same scenes with modern cameras, sound, and actors, and I just can't imagine it working. I think I'd be turning it off pretty quickly. Is it pure old fashioned charm? This came out before I was born, so it isn't nostalgia here for me.

Would a new film, done with old cameras, lighting, mics, and processing do the trick?
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,002
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
The audience is less demanding 20 years ago. The more good movies you see over the year desensitized you.

I remember jaw dropped watching the first transformer. The cgi and all that but now no matter what cool stuff they come out it i dont feel wowed.

In the past movies are a luxury for many of us. I've had betamax and probably watched frw collections i bought with good money hundreds of times. Now movies are dimes a dozens on the internet.
 

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,248
Location
Manchester
The audience is less demanding 20 years ago. The more good movies you see over the year desensitized you.

I remember jaw dropped watching the first transformer. The cgi and all that but now no matter what cool stuff they come out it i dont feel wowed.

In the past movies are a luxury for many of us. I've had betamax and probably watched frw collections i bought with good money hundreds of times. Now movies are dimes a dozens on the internet.
I mean more like old movies that you watch now and really enjoy, but if they were made now with perfect lighting/cameras/sound, despite having the same scenes and lines it wouldn't be as good for some reason. I'm imagining Police Academy, but filmed and presented like Community (although that's not a film, but the lighting and picture quality is almost too good). Community is great, PA is great, but PA presented to the same standard as Community wouldn't be very good, I don't reckon. And I can't think why.
 

Deery

Dreary
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
18,590
I watched the Joker though it was shit if that helps
 

Deery

Dreary
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
18,590
Godfather stands the test of time, such a good movie better than 99% of the shite put out nowadays
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,327
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
Might historical filtering play a role? Policy Academy is a classic in its genre. How much films of that quality (in that particular genre) do you know? Of course not every random film coming out will be as good - but they won't be remembered either, unlike Police Academy.
 

Deery

Dreary
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
18,590
Unpopular opinion but Marvel movies are shit too..
 

Deery

Dreary
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
18,590
May I add 3 billboard’s is one of the best movies I’ve watched in a long time
 

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,248
Location
Manchester
Might historical filtering play a role? Policy Academy is a classic in its genre. How much films of that quality (in that particular genre) do you know? Of course not every random film coming out will be as good - but they won't be remembered either, unlike Police Academy.
I'm thinking Naked Gun. I know what you're saying, but I don't think these could be as good if recreated now either.
 

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,248
Location
Manchester
Nostalgia? That may play a part I think
Already mentioned that :D

It's a good shout, but I'm not old enough to feel nostalgia about these. I wasn't even born! They just have a charm that I don't think could be recreated, unless perhaps made in exactly the same way. Which I find weird, and difficult to define what that way is.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,327
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
I'm thinking Naked Gun. I know what you're saying, but I don't think these could be as good if recreated now either.
Airplane! is another one. Maybe some National Lampoon film? (Although they're mostly awful IMO.) Would you include stuff like Ace Ventura or American Pie in this category?

I can't believe they wouldn't be able to make those now; it's not like film makers have become 'too advanced' or something. Maybe it's just not in fashion now? The 'cheap laughs' genre (not meant condescendingly) doesn't seem to be used a lot, or not that I notice.
 

Olly Gunnar Solskjær

Marxist bacon-hating kebab-dodging Tinder rascal
Scout
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
36,895
Location
dreams can't be buy
This is something I've thought about loooads of times and is one of the main reasons I prefer films from the 70s to 90s, but have never really been able to form the thoughts of my feelings properly.

The only way I can ever think about it is that modern films look too "clean" or cold compared to older ones which I find "warmer". It's like they want to make them look more artificially grittier and sterile or something.
Even films from the 80s or 90s that have been released in 1080p or above and are really detailed and crisp still have certain aesthetics.

I imagine it's to do with being shot and edited on film rather than everything done digitally, plus the modern methods of colour correcting etc.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,327
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
This is something I've thought about loooads of times and is one of the main reasons I prefer films from the 70s to 90s, but have never really been able to form the thoughts of my feelings properly.

The only way I can ever think about it is that modern films look too "clean" or cold compared to older ones which I find "warmer". It's like they want to make them look more artificially grittier and sterile or something.
Even films from the 80s or 90s that have been released in 1080p or above and are really detailed and crisp still have certain aesthetics.

I imagine it's to do with being shot and edited on film rather than everything done digitally, plus the modern methods of colour correcting etc.
I suppose it's all down to taste, but I can kinda get that. Personally, I love films from the late 40s and 50s for the sense of humour, pacing, and the general cinematography. But I also like modern films that play in the period and adopt the style (like Curtiz from 2018).
 

tentan

Poor man's poster.
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
4,503
It’s just camera equipment and technology isn’t it? Obviously they won’t be using 80s/90s equipment and technology to film and edit movies anymore. So therefore that’s why films look different today.

If they were to use old equipment to film a movie now I’m sure it would have that ‘feel’ to it.

I’m not sure why film makers don’t go back and use old equipment anymore. I think it would still work. Remember the black and white film The Artist back in 2011? That was a good film and won several oscars while using old techniques and equipment.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,206
Godfather stands the test of time, such a good movie better than 99% of the shite put out nowadays
Well that's because Marlon Brando and Al Pacino are a bit better at the acting thing than Shia LeBouef and Rebel Wilson.

Some films stand up due to nostalgia, some are just better than anything out now. It's easier than ever to hide a shit script and cast behind special effects.
 

Raees

Pythagoras in Boots
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,464
When you watch an older film you’re in most cases watching it with the historical context in mind so the way you perceive it is different thus you’ll be more forgiving in terms of graphics or out of date humour.

That is not to say every old film gets positive ratings because of that aspect but those that stand the test of time will have elements which would appear shoddy by today’s production/cultural standards but are overlooked because of that historical context.
 

Igor Drefljak

Definitely Russian
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
7,136
Location
The Wastelands
A lot is nostalgia but I also think people accepted films back then for what they were.
I love older films, especially comedies.
Growing up, the likes of American Pie were funny, but as I get older I realise they were pretty shit really.
They just don't compare to well thought out comedy like Trading Places and such.

As for action, again, you took it for what it was back then. Commando for example is a good watch, but imagine having one guy take on an Army now? Oh yeah we had that. John Wick 3 and it was shit
 

Revaulx

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
6,031
Location
Saddleworth
This thread makes me feel ancient.

A film only qualifies as old if it’s in black and white.

The Naked Gun series only came out recently. Didn’t it?
 

christy87

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
7,118
Location
Chelsea manager soccermanager
Supports
Dipping tea in toast
Any of the good bill Murray films from the 80s just couldn’t be made today as studios want more money than ever, which would mean toning it down to let children watch
 

Gambit

Desperately wants to be a Muppet
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,996
While there is the visual and audio aesthetic to it all, there's also personalities and zeitgeist that comes into effect. Not just on screen but also behind it. Writers, Directors but for me what is incredibly different is producers and studio execs.

60's to 80's in films there was more experimentation and risk taking in not knowing what film will be a blockbuster, so they had to throw a lot of it up into the air. Now it all feels like its gone back to the studio system of the 30's to 50's where every movie has to be a blockbuster, done to a formula to max out profit.

Instead of the established silver screen studio star and film genre (Musical, RomCom etc) its the established studio intellectual property, the established filming style, the established cameras, the established post production process, the established marketing plan. For me the areas truly affected are in comedy films, adult drama and action movies.

But we are instead in a golden age of TV and documentary whet most of that creativity and risk taking is taking place.
 

Sparky Rhiwabon

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
16,946
I also rewatched Police Academy recently and enjoyed it. I was surprised by the amount of non-PC jokes in it that I don’t even remember noticing when I watched it originally, but now they sort of grate, and you think “imagine the outcry if they included them in a film nowadays“
 

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,659
Location
C-137
The audience is less demanding 20 years ago. The more good movies you see over the year desensitized you.

I remember jaw dropped watching the first transformer. The cgi and all that but now no matter what cool stuff they come out it i dont feel wowed.

In the past movies are a luxury for many of us. I've had betamax and probably watched frw collections i bought with good money hundreds of times. Now movies are dimes a dozens on the internet.
Films like the first transformers are weird ones. '300' too. They are movies that do something different that blockbuster films hadn't really done before (or at not super popular ones.

In the case of Transformers it's super quick-cut action sequences all the time on super testosterone action sequences. An action sequence is good. An action sequence with explosions is better. An action sequence with explosions and super hot people is really good. An action sequence with explosions and super hot people with 10 quick cuts when 1 would do is a Michael Bay movie. It makes for a very intense movie. It's the exact opposite of a Jackie Chan movie which tends to have one cut - no explosions - and the action is just fighting sequences.

Of course, Bad Boys was the same or similar but Bad Boys is an 18 certificate. Transformers is a kids movie.

Michael Bay movies are fun when you dont see them all the time. Now there are 3 or 4 clones each year. It's not a spectacle, it's expected.

Zach Snyder films have a similar trajectory. 300 and Watchmen are beautiful but polarising films. By the way check out their metacritic scores: '300'; critic score 52/100, user score 7.2/10. Watchmen; critic score 56/100, user score 8.1/10. Also Dawn of the Dead; critic 59/100, user score 8.6/10. But we're all bored of Zach Snyder films and their copies. Their overly-cinematic grey-dark colour styles are overdone and we're all a bit bored of them.

Films today aren't better, but we expect a relentless experience. I doubt "trading places" or "airplane" could be made today.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
Not talking about practical over CGI here.

Just watching Police Academy, and it's great entertainment, but I'm imagining the same scenes with modern cameras, sound, and actors, and I just can't imagine it working. I think I'd be turning it off pretty quickly. Is it pure old fashioned charm? This came out before I was born, so it isn't nostalgia here for me.

Would a new film, done with old cameras, lighting, mics, and processing do the trick?
I think it's more that style of comedy just doesn't really exist right now.

Back then slapstick comedy / silly humour was the thing, but you rarely get that anymore. The last type of movies like that though (scary movie) was fairly well received.

I think if Leslie Nielson was in his prime in this age it would still be good and fun to watch.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,619
This is something I've thought about loooads of times and is one of the main reasons I prefer films from the 70s to 90s, but have never really been able to form the thoughts of my feelings properly.

The only way I can ever think about it is that modern films look too "clean" or cold compared to older ones which I find "warmer". It's like they want to make them look more artificially grittier and sterile or something.
Even films from the 80s or 90s that have been released in 1080p or above and are really detailed and crisp still have certain aesthetics.

I imagine it's to do with being shot and edited on film rather than everything done digitally, plus the modern methods of colour correcting etc.
This. It's the aesthetics.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
Well that's because Marlon Brando and Al Pacino are a bit better at the acting thing than Shia LeBouef and Rebel Wilson.

Some films stand up due to nostalgia, some are just better than anything out now. It's easier than ever to hide a shit script and cast behind special effects.
Poor example. Shia’s a cook but he’s a phenomenal actor.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,002
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Films like the first transformers are weird ones. '300' too. They are movies that do something different that blockbuster films hadn't really done before (or at not super popular ones.

In the case of Transformers it's super quick-cut action sequences all the time on super testosterone action sequences. An action sequence is good. An action sequence with explosions is better. An action sequence with explosions and super hot people is really good. An action sequence with explosions and super hot people with 10 quick cuts when 1 would do is a Michael Bay movie. It makes for a very intense movie. It's the exact opposite of a Jackie Chan movie which tends to have one cut - no explosions - and the action is just fighting sequences.

Of course, Bad Boys was the same or similar but Bad Boys is an 18 certificate. Transformers is a kids movie.

Michael Bay movies are fun when you dont see them all the time. Now there are 3 or 4 clones each year. It's not a spectacle, it's expected.

Zach Snyder films have a similar trajectory. 300 and Watchmen are beautiful but polarising films. By the way check out their metacritic scores: '300'; critic score 52/100, user score 7.2/10. Watchmen; critic score 56/100, user score 8.1/10. Also Dawn of the Dead; critic 59/100, user score 8.6/10. But we're all bored of Zach Snyder films and their copies. Their overly-cinematic grey-dark colour styles are overdone and we're all a bit bored of them.

Films today aren't better, but we expect a relentless experience. I doubt "trading places" or "airplane" could be made today.
About the transformer, I'm talking about the CGI of their transformation, and that's about the only thing that wows me.

The movie is actually pretty trash.

300 just felt fresh, a simple story well made, wasn't a behemoth in film making, just fun popcorn I'd watch every once in a while

But yeah, I agree I don't think the current movies are bad, they're just too much too many to similar we've getting numbed by it. Cinema used to be a big thing in our past, we see new movies like once every 1 month, and some sticks with our memories. Just like music, today's music are just money grab carbon copy of the same old formulae with a different skin.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
While there is the visual and audio aesthetic to it all, there's also personalities and zeitgeist that comes into effect. Not just on screen but also behind it. Writers, Directors but for me what is incredibly different is producers and studio execs.

60's to 80's in films there was more experimentation and risk taking in not knowing what film will be a blockbuster, so they had to throw a lot of it up into the air. Now it all feels like its gone back to the studio system of the 30's to 50's where every movie has to be a blockbuster, done to a formula to max out profit.

Instead of the established silver screen studio star and film genre (Musical, RomCom etc) its the established studio intellectual property, the established filming style, the established cameras, the established post production process, the established marketing plan. For me the areas truly affected are in comedy films, adult drama and action movies.

But we are instead in a golden age of TV and documentary whet most of that creativity and risk taking is taking place.
I’d say this is the best answer yet.

Plus test screening. I don’t think they were a big deal a long time ago but everything made nowadays is tweaked within an inch of its life due to feedback from test screenings. Which inevitably dilute or distort the original vision.
 

Gambit

Desperately wants to be a Muppet
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,996
I’d say this is the best answer yet.

Plus test screening. I don’t think they were a big deal a long time ago but everything made nowadays is tweaked within an inch of its life due to feedback from test screenings. Which inevitably dilute or distort the original vision.
Test screening did occur but as you say nowhere near the level it's done now. We have accountants and marketers in charge now. Frank Zappas take on the music industry in the 80's feels prescient.


Where as now instead of the Hippy turned exec we have data processing and algorithms.

Financiers are also unwilling to take as many risks nowadays. Film finance that's risky is nearlyimpossible now. Guaranteed returns are wanted. So while the technological barrier to the process of making films has plummeted ( I literally personally own every required to make a film, including the knowledge and experience), the cost of making a film is still expensive and the distribution channels are still closed off. Yes there is youtube but for that to work financially you need to making lots of content fast and often. The making of a short film videos and going through the equipment used is more popular on youtube than the actual short film they make in viewing figures.

I digress, but film, like all art reflects the spirit of the time.
 
Last edited:

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
110,908
Location
Manchester
I watched the Joker though it was shit if that helps
Godfather stands the test of time, such a good movie better than 99% of the shite put out nowadays
Unpopular opinion but Marvel movies are shit too..
May I add 3 billboard’s is one of the best movies I’ve watched in a long time
I’m not sure what you think the thread is about but I do know it’s not whatever you think it is.
 

Deery

Dreary
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
18,590
I’m not sure what you think the thread is about but I do know it’s not whatever you think it is.
Was just making a comparison between new and old films, I think both can be good, all depends on the film.
 

groovyalbert

it's a mute point
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
9,608
Location
London
It works both ways. Some films age really badly.

The Exorcist is a good example of this. Whilst I really like the film for what it did for the horror genre/it's impact at the time, it doesn't stand the test of time like some horror films. The Haunting, The Shining and Don't Look Now all hit as hard for me as I assume they did for audiences of the time.

Also context is important. Films are just always better in the cinema than at home, regardless of your setup.
 

Vidyoyo

The bad "V"
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
21,283
Location
Not into locations = will not dwell
I find it's a lot easier to take your time with those older movies and while they are often fast-paced, they aren't relentless like a lot of newer ones.

I remember watching one of the newest star wars films and thinking, feck me, this is just cut cut cut cut cut. About 2-3 seconds between shots. It was jarring.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
23,379
Location
The Zone
Have to disagree with the majority in here. It's nostalgia and a case of watch more movies.

Todays days films are just as good as the ones from the past era. Maybe they don't hit mainstream audiences as much as the past but let's forgot films like Blade Runner and John Carpenter The Thing(Two films with a unique look and sound)bombed in cinema's when they were first released.

Michael Mann proved digital can be just as good with Miami Vice and Collateral, Sean Baker filmed Tangerine on a "iphone", Cuarón was able to bring the long take back due to technological advances in Children Of Men. And soundtracks are the same. Under The Skin is up there with greatest of all time, the Safdie brothers have produced amazing result working with Oneohtrix Point Never and Drive basically invented a sub genre of music.

The difference with older films is time. As the years go on they grow a reputation and the way we view them changes. I'm sure in a decade time people will be asking why we don't make films like Blade Runner 2049 anymore, completely forgetting it was a film that almost no one saw.
 

esmufc07

Brad
Scout
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
49,858
Location
Lake Jonathan Creek
Have to disagree with the majority in here. It's nostalgia and a case of watch more movies.

Todays days films are just as good as the ones from the past era. Maybe they don't hit mainstream audiences as much as the past but let's forgot films like Blade Runner and John Carpenter The Thing(Two films with a unique look and sound)bombed in cinema's when they were first released.

Michael Mann proved digital can be just as good with Miami Vice and Collateral, Sean Baker filmed Tangerine on a "iphone", Cuarón was able to bring the long take back due to technological advances in Children Of Men. And soundtracks are the same. Under The Skin is up there with greatest of all time, the Safdie brothers have produced amazing result working with Oneohtrix Point Never and Drive basically invented a sub genre of music.

The difference with older films is time. As the years go on they grow a reputation and the way we view them changes. I'm sure in a decade time people will be asking why we don't make films like Blade Runner 2049 anymore, completely forgetting it was a film that almost no one saw.
The thing! Not watched that for a long long time, will revisit it this week.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,619
Never bought the nostalgia argument. When a movie is good, it's good.
 

George Owen

LEAVE THE SFW THREAD ALONE!!1!
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
15,805
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
People were much better at their craft than today. That's the difference. Better actors, better screenwriters, better composers, better photography, better ideas, etc.

Just like music today. It's a joke compared to the music of last century.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,619
People were much better at their craft than today. That's the difference. Better actors, better screenwriters, better composers, better photography, better ideas, etc.

Just like music today. It's a joke compared to the music of last century.
I don't think it's this necessarily. If anything, I think the audience should be blamed for their taste.

These talented industry people make what earns them the most money.